Bringing History Into Accord With the Facts in the Tradition of Dr Harry Elmer Barnes 



A Journal of Nationalist Thought & History 


May/June 2004 ❖ Volume X ❖ Number 3 


Table of Contents 


ADOLF HITLER AT NUREMBERG 

Waffen SS Gen. Leon Degrelle 
This is not an article about the so-called “trial” of Nazi 
war criminals in 1945-6, but rather a triumphal piece 
about the ability of Adolf Hitler to mobilize an entire 
country. His rallies at Nuremberg inspired the 
German people and are still greatly admired by politi¬ 
cians and public speakers today ... 

HITLER DECLARES WAR 

A Speech by Adolf Hitler 
There is no question that Hitler’s speech on this occa¬ 
sion summarized his thinking about foreign affairs 
and the German role in the world. The lying hypocrisy 
of the Allied powers is exposed in this speech, which in 
many ways is an expose of their thinking. Here is 
Hitler’s declaration of war against the United States 
in its original style so that you can see what the much- 
misinterpreted Hitler actually said were his reasons 
for going to war with a nation he knew would supply 
a gargantuan test for his over-taxed military. . . . 

WAR & NEUTRALITY 

A Speech by Charles Lindbergh 
The ideology of most of the American Founding Fathers 
is echoed in this fine speech by one of America’s great 
patriots. The case against continued American aggres¬ 
sion against Japan and Germany is laid out.... 

THE CAMBRIDGE APOSTLES 

Robert Logan 

How few realize the penetration of Marxists into the 
British secret service during the 1930s, and more pre¬ 
cisely, in 1932. This is their sordid tale of social and 
sexual perversion. Little do most know, this group of 
miscreants was responsible for much of the strife the 
world finds herself in today. . . . 

JOSEF MENGELE: A NEW LOOK 

Michael Murphy 
It is very rare to hear a Revisionist take on the so- 
called “Angel of Death,” Josef Mengele. The problem 
with the Allied propaganda machine was that the 
Allies were doing the same sort of medical experimen¬ 
tation, which, unsurprisingly, did not surface at the 
Nuremberg hearings where Mengele was tried. ... 

RHODES & HIS SCHOLARSHIPS 

Michael Collins Piper 
The Rhodes scholarship is not merely a prestigious 
reward for excellence in scholarship, but is agenda 
driven. The agenda is the reuniting of England with 
the United States. Here’s the proof. . . . 


AVARICE OF THE ROCKEFELLERS 

Stephen J. Martin 

John D. Rockefeller wanted one thing in the late 
1870s: complete control over all oil refining in 
America. His techniques employed to achieve this goal 
were less than moral. One of our most popular writers 
speaks out and exposes the Rockefeller family for 
what they were, and are. . . . 

THE FED & ‘THE GOLDEN RULE’ 

Tom Rose 

One might not completely agree with his conclusions, 
but one is forced to acknowledge this first rate defense 
of the gold standard and the dissolution of the Federal 
Reserve. Since World War I, the Federal Reserve has 
helped to finance any and all wars waged by the 
American ruining class. . . . 

THE USS LIBERTY SAGA, PART 1 

Romeo Stana 

This article, dealing with the early events leading to 
the slaughter of 34 American sailors and Marines by 
the Israelis, is already set to become the standard of 
scholarship about this under-reported massacre... . 

THE USS LIBERTY SAGA, PART 2 

Romeo Stana 

Because of its length and complexity, we have divided 
up this essay into two parts. This second part of the 
USS Liberty saga deals with the testimony of Liberty 
survivors and Israel’s denials of deliberate attack. 
Their tales of suffering and bureaucratic stonewalling will 
shock those who still believe the attack was a “mistake.”... 

JOHN ADAMS TAKES OFFICE 

A Speech by John Adams 
Here, reprinted as primary source material, is the 
position of the Federalists in the young years of the 
republic. He deals with the growth of government 
power, the power of the states and the rightness of the 
Constitution against the attacks of the anti-Feder- 
alists. This is extremely important American history. 
One wonders why it is rarely read. . . . 

WHO WAS ANTONIO GRAMSCI? 

Joseph Crosson 

Antonio Gramsci is one of the world’s famous commu¬ 
nist agitators. Few of our modern perversions are 
innocent of his hands yet people still admire him. This 
is a brief, but effective, summary of his thought and 
development, more specifically against the anti-com¬ 
munist Church of Rome which stood in the way of “bol- 
shevization” of the western world. . . . 
















Features: 

Personal from the Editor: 2 
Editorial— “The Passion”: 3 
The Degrelle Memoirs: 4 
Nationalist History & Theory: 20 
History You May Have Missed: 41 
Letters to the Editor: 69 
Profile— Antonio Gramsci: 74 





















































PERSONAL FROM THE EDITOR 



our reaction to the last (March/April 2004) issue was 
extremely good, and many readers offered congratulations 
on our having dared to say that the historical record on 
Adolf Hitler—like many important matters of history— 
needs to be brought into accord with the facts. 

Every war America has fought since the British invasion of 1812 
has been directed by the elite and their press; in no case has war 
served the interests of the people who have to fight it or pay for it 
since then but in every case the war has made the government 
stronger, the bankers and armament manufacturers richer and the 
politicians worse. Correcting the record on Hitler and Germany is a 
daring task worthy of THE BARNES REVIEW and its readers. We feel 
it’s about time scholars looked at Hitler as a human being, not some 
sort of personification of Lucifer. 

We note with embarrassment that the article “Understanding 
the Past,” pages 18-20, was unmentioned in the Table of Contents. 
However, 4-page reprints are available of the article. See page 23 of 
this issue for more on this great piece. 

Finally, after long last, we are publishing one of the most under¬ 
read documents of all time: Hitler’s declaration of war against the 
United States. In it, Hitler deals with the lies, hypocrisy and pontifi- 
cation of the FDR administration. 

Leon Degrelle, one of our favorites here, has crafted another mas¬ 
terpiece, but one on a very little-known topic, that is, the mobilization 
of the masses. The Nuremberg rallies were just that. They were held 
to take the Weimar rabble and turn it into a disciplined fighting force. 
This was the apogee of mobilization and it, for better choice of words, 
transformed a country, an economy and a nation. 

In our Nationalist History section, we are running a third speech 
of that great patriot and orator, Charles Lindbergh. We’ve printed 
several of his speeches in the past, but these three form a seamless 
web of thought on the most important event of the 20th century— 
World War II. 

You will also meet a particularly vile set of creatures, the com¬ 
munist admiring set of homosexuals known as the Cambridge 
Apostles. These spies for the USSR in the 1930s formed their secret 
clique to report to their masters, the KGB. 

For the very first time, a first rate writer, Michael Murphy, has 
written a defense of a man oddly left out of Revisionist scholarship, 
Dr. Joseph Mengele, who suffered precisely for doing the same thing 
the Allies were doing. The Western condemnation of Mengele is an 
exercise of arrogance to the highest degree. 

Speaking of arrogance and pontification, our good friend Stephen 
Martin gives us a very effective expose of the ruthless business prac¬ 
tices of the Rockefellers at the end of the 1800s. 

Don’t forget, write us to express your own opinions, questions or 
denunciations. Send your letters to Editor, TBR, RO. Box 15877, 
Washington, D.C. 20003 or email your electronic letters to barnesre- 
view7@aol.com. Also remember to see the ad on the inside back cover 
about our exciting TBR writing competition. Three winners will get their 
stories published in TBR and receive great prizes as well. It’s something 
we want all our subscribers to consider. 


❖ 


THE BARNES REVIEW 


Publisher: W. A. CARTO 
Editor: M. RAPHAEL JOHNSON, Ph.D. 

Editorial Assistant: John Tiffany 
Art & Production Director: PAUL Angel 


Rick Adams 

Providence, Rhode Island 

Christopher Bollyn 

Berlin, Germany 

Robert Clarkson, J.D. 

Anderson, South Carolina 

Trevor J. Constable 

San Diego, California 

Harry Cooper 

Hernando, Florida 

Dale Crowley Jr. 

Washington, D.C. 

Sam G. Dickson, J.D. 

Atlanta, Georgia 


Contributing Editors: 

Verne E. Fuerst, Ph.D. 

Farmington, Connecticut 

Juergen Graf 

Basel, Switzerland 

Russell J. Granata 

Palos Verdes, California 

A.B. Kopanski, Ph.D. 

Klang Lama, Malaysia 

Richard Landwehr 

Brookings, Oregon 

Eustace Mullins 

Staunton, Virginia 

Michael Collins Piper 

Washington, D.C. 


Harrell Rhome, Ph.D. 

Corpus Christi, Texas 

Vince Ryan 

Washington, D.C. 

Hans Schmidt 

Pensacola, Florida 

Edgar Steele 

Sandpoint, Idaho 

James P. Tucker Jr. 

Washington, D.C. 

Tom Valentine 

Naples, Florida 

Udo Walendy 

Vlotho, Germany 


The Barnes Review (ISSN 1078-4799) is published bimonthly by TBR Co., 645 
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100, Washington, D.C. 20003. Periodical rate postage 
paid at Washington, D.C. For credit card orders including subscriptions, call 
1-877-773-9077 toll free to use Visa or MasterCard. Other inquiries cannot be han¬ 
dled through the toll free number. For changes of address, subscription questions, 
status of order and bulk distribution inquiries, please call 909-587-6936. All editori¬ 
al (only) inquiries please call 202-547-5586. All rights reserved except that copies or 
reprints may be made without permission so long as proper credit and contact infor¬ 
mation are given for TBR and no changes are made. All manuscripts submitted must 
be typewritten and doublespaced. No responsibility can be assumed for unreturned 
manuscripts. Change of address: Send your old, incorrect mailing label and your new, 
correct address neatly printed or typed 30 days before you move to assure delivery. 
Advertising: MEDIA PLACEMENT SERVICE, Mrs. Sharon Ellsworth, 
301-729-2700 or fax 301-729-2712. TBR Website: www.barnesreview.org. Email 
addresses—Business Office: tbrca@unidial.com Editorial Office/The Editor: 
barnesreview7 @aol. com. 

POSTMASTER: Send address changes to The Barnes Review, 

RO. Box 15877, Washington, D.C. 20003. 

TBR SUBSCRIPTION RATES & PRICES 


(ALL ISSUES MAILED IN CLOSED ENVELOPE) 


U.S.A. 

Periodical Rate: 1 year, $46 2 years, $78 

First Class: 1 year, $70 2 years, $124 


Foreign Countries: All payments must be in U.S. dollars. 
Regular Surface: 1 year, $58 2 years, $102 


Foreign Airmail: 

1 year 

2 years 

Canada and Mexico 

$72 

$130 

Western Hemisphere 

$80 

$144 

Europe 

$88 

$161 

Asia and Africa 

$95 

$176 

Pacific Rim 

$96 

$178 

Quantity Prices: 

1-3 

$10 each 

(Current issue U.S.A.): 

4-7 

$9 each 


8-19 

$8 each 


20 and more 

$7 each 


Bound Volumes: (Most in stock) $99 per year for years 1996-2003 (Vols. II-IX) 
Library Style Binder: $25 each; year & volume indicated. 


2 


MAY/JUNE 2004 































EDITORIAL 


H as there been enough said on Mel Gibson’s movie 
The Passion of the Christ ? There certainly has 
been enough hot air from the successors of the 
Pharisees to make the environmentalists’ gloom 
and doom scenarios come true. Let us begin by saying that 
whether this movie offends Jewish people or not is irrelevant. 
It is the substance of the film that is of the utmost importance. 

Christianity is not something 
studied; it is a radical change of life¬ 
style. It is a rejection of hedonism 
and is about the calming of the pas¬ 
sions that ultimately lead to sin. Therefore, one cannot write on 
it objectively. This is the problem: if one thinks that the church 
has it right, much in one’s life will change, and some of those 
changes might be painful. If one rejects the teachings of the 
church, then anything goes, everything is random, and there¬ 
fore, life could be full of the puerile pleasures post-modern 
America is now infamous for. 

This is the reason that Christianity cannot be 
debated; it must either dominate or be suppressed 
by one means or another. 

The great point of The Passion, the point of the 
church, something known by Christians for 2,000 
years, is that the cross represents the sufferings of 
the ascetic life. Christ’s agonizing death, as well as 
his fasting and rejection of material goods are 
examples for the Christian life. In other words, in 
accepting Christ’s cross, one accepts a transforma¬ 
tion most people would rather avoid. 

It is only in this context that one can study 
Christianity, and it is also within this context that 
one can see The Passion. This is not algebra or 
chemistry; this is little else than a challenge to 
change oneself, with, as is well known, severe pun¬ 
ishment if one refuses. 

Many said the movie was too “gory,” too cen¬ 
tered upon the physical sufferings of Christ to the 
point of exaggeration. This particular criticism is hard to 
understand, given that Christ was brutally tortured by Roman 
troops. The “gore” was simply an attempt to make the tortures 
of Christ authentic. 

In this era, the Jews seem to be making an even more seri¬ 
ous mistake then they made 2,000 years ago. Now, in their 
usual penchant for “winning friends and influencing people,” 
Jews, led by Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League 
(ADL), have lined up to condemn the film and, therefore, those 
who have loved the film. Now, the Jews of the New Testament 
are not the same group of people that live in Israel today. These 
latter are largely descended from Turkic Khazars immigrating 
from Russia and Poland. Nevertheless, the problem remains. 
The movie is a hit. When your editor came out of the theater, 
there were few dry eyes. This movie was emotionally potent 


and has captured the hearts, already, of millions who likely 
only have rarely thought of the passion in such terms. No 
doubt, thousands of conversions will come out of this. 

In other words, the ADL lost. 

When a series of Jews put out The Temptation of Christ, 
only Christian publications protested. This sort of obnoxious 
condemnation the ADL specializes in was nowhere to be found 

in Lew Wasserman’s perverse movie. 

The movie itself was complex. 
Never before had Lucifer been 
shown as present during the passion 
and subsequent crucifixion. The passion refers to the fact that 
Christ, as both human and divine, took upon him the sins of the 
entire world, past, present and future. By uniting them to him¬ 
self, he destroyed them, and, in the bargain, destroyed death, 
making sure that all human souls live forever, either in heav¬ 
en or hell. 


It is clear however, that the Jewish high priest Caiphas was 
everywhere, monitoring the events along with his retinue. He 
clearly approved the action, and he argued the “prosecution’s” 
case before Pontius Pilate, a man in a terrible position. Pilate 
was an obscure local governor at the fringes of the empire. He 
clearly did not have the troops to put down a riot, and was 
threatened by a Jewish leadership that wanted to report him 
to Caesar. Their claim that “they had no king but Caesar” was 
a bold and outright lie, for they resented the occupation of the 
goyim as did the remainder of the people in the area. Pilate was 
portrayed as a sympathetic character, a man with little choice 
and even less influence. 

Mel Gibson gave us not merely a powerful movie, but also 
gave us a choice, either belief or unbelief, Christ or idolatry, the 
physical world or heaven. ❖ 


The Passion of the Christ 



THE BARNES REVIEW 


3 
















Held annually in September from the early 1920s until 1938, the Nazis’ Reichs- 
parteitage CNuremberg Party Day”) rallies or congresses were designed to show 
Germany and the world a German state in lockstep with its leader and his ideology. 
(The rallies were actually multi-day events.) Here, flags and soldiers greet Adolf Hitler 
as he enters the rally. The rallies offer political scientists perhaps the clearest single 
4 M AY / JUNE 2004 example of the organization of the Nazi regime. 


i 



ARCHIVE PHOTOS 


THE DEGRELLE SERIES 



By SS Gen. Leon Degrelle 


In the National Socialist Mind 


The National Socialist Congress had become an annual session of a giant 

parliament composed of a million and a half representatives of the people, coming from 
the most varied regions. Politically, it was the most “colossal” (as the Germans say) 
expression of democracy that had ever been organized anywhere in the world. Such an 
event had never before been seen, and nothing like it would ever afterward be seen again. 
The Nuremberg Congress was a unique phenomenon in the political history of Europe. 



very year in the month of September Nuremberg 
became the mecca of National Socialism. In 1921 
it was only a handful of militants following a vir¬ 
tually unknown Adolf Hitler who met there. In 
1933 they came in a crowd of 400,000. In 1937 
they were a million and a half. From every point 
of view, these gatherings were astounding. 

Just to transport these million and a half deputies of the 
nation, a fantastic amount of railroad equipment had to be 
mobilized: 4,000 special trains, tens of thousands of railroad 
cars lined up like ants on dozens of kilometers of track. Then 
that immense host of people had to be received, to be given 
directions and to be fed. 

All the hotels of Nuremberg together could hardly shelter 
a hundredth part of the participants. And so entire towns of 
thousands of tents were erected to shelter these crowds that 
were equivalent in number to a hundred divisions of 
infantry. 

They would need not just a roof, but also hundreds of 
mobile kitchens, sanitary facilities, first aid stations and 
information booths, and thousands of Red Cross nurses. And 
all that provided with mathematical precision. Every one of 
these human ants had to be able to find his tent, his cot and 
his food by knowing exactly at every minute where he had to 
go, how he was to get there and for what purpose. 

Arriving from the most faraway villages of the Reich, 
often knowing nothing of the town of Nuremberg, the million 
and a half participants couldn’t turn around without know¬ 
ing the exact geographic point and the exact hour where and 
when, for example, a youth would find the Grand Army of 



Youth, a woman her 
women’s organizations, 
the militant his SA col¬ 
umn, or the worker his 
professional organiza¬ 
tion or his section of the Labor Front. 

Only German discipline, the German genius for organiza¬ 
tion, could keep this gigantic conglomeration of human 
beings from becoming entangled in impossible disorder. Year 
after year there would be more participants attending. And 
year after year the arrival, the stay, the departure of this fan¬ 
tastic migration would be more flawless. 

Moving two or three army corps took a Gen. Gamelin two 
or three weeks of shilly-shallying. Here, in just a few hours, 
the equivalent of the whole French peacetime army was got 
under way. A formidable lesson for future military opera¬ 
tions. 

The proof was given and repeated each year that it was 
perfectly possible to transport a million and a half soldiers in 
a matter of hours without the slightest hitch; that the rail¬ 
roads were capable of moving the entire German army from 
one end of the country to the other on schedule to within a 
quarter of an hour. Where else had a maneuver like that ever 
been organized and performed with such mathematical suc¬ 
cess? 

On the return, just as on the arrival, the hundreds of divi¬ 
sions of civilians were lodged and fed. Their participation 
was orchestrated. We can look at photos of the period, study 
each sequence of the admirable film Triumph of the Will pro¬ 
duced by Leni Riefenstahl in 1934: each human formation is 


THE BARNES REVIEW 5 
















perfectly aligned, each avenue is clear, like a stream. Not 
even a stray dog in the empty space. Not a single lamp that 
isn’t burning. 

The ceremonies unfolded with more majesty than at Saint 
Peter’s in Rome. 

Hitler comes forward, absolutely alone, on a paved avenue 
more than a hundred yards wide, amid 30,000 flags like 
flames, between a million and half men and women holding 
their breath. 

Writes French historian Benoist-Mechin: 

Nothing has been omitted to obtain the desired effect, a parade 
of a hundred thousand SA, pounding the pavements of the town for 
five hours, a forest of standards in which the blood-red emblems 
and the eagles of the party dominate, deafening fanfares, salvos of 
artillery, torchlight tattoos uncoiling their serpent of fire between 
the illuminated facades of the medieval town, batteries of search¬ 
lights aimed skyward, weaving a vault of light above the 
Luitpoldshain amphitheater: everything contributes to create an 
impression of ordered power from which the most skeptical visitors 
return astounded. It is impossible to resist 
this swirl of colors and songs and light whose 
intensity no report, no film will ever repro¬ 
duce. For nearly a week the crowd has been 
swimming, rolling in a tidal wave of emotion. 

This Frenchman is not the only one 
to describe that emotion. Many others 
have done it. And the agreement of 
these foreign witnesses is eloquent. 

What struck them the most were the 
preoccupation with, the concern for, the 
unalterable rites, and the almost reli¬ 
gious aspect of the succession of the cer¬ 
emonies. 

F or Hitler, who entered Nuremberg to the ringing of all 
the bells of the town, the basis of all faith was dogma. 
And dogma by nature is immutable and eternal. Truth 
can never change its face. To touch it up would be to 
detract from the mystery, to bring it in question. Everything 
in the history of National Socialism would be marked not 
only by the concern for greatness but by the supreme 
immutability of the gestures which sanctify the ideal, the 
conviction, the bond, the gift. 

Every detail had been fixed forever. The speaker’s plat¬ 
form, atop 30 granite steps, rose up like a warship. It stood 
out against a background of bright light. It was crowned with 
oak leaves surrounding a hooked cross worked with gold. The 
stadium, where a million and a half faithful supporters 
breathlessly waited, was as vast as a metropolis. The grand¬ 
stands themselves could hold 150,000 guests. 

During the course of the week, the covered auditorium 
harbored by turns the youth, the women, the country people, 
and the factory workers, the SS and the SA. Hitler spoke 
before them 15 to 20 times during those days. 

The stadium itself was gigantic, surrounded by columns 
three times as tall as those of the Acropolis. The columns 
were surmounted by eagles of granite and joined together by 


tens of thousands of flaming banners with swastikas turning 
in their solar disks. Streams of blue vapor rose from tall 
basins. 

Hitler had even invented an entirely new form of archi¬ 
tecture that was made not of stone but of light. He’d had hun¬ 
dreds of air defense beacons installed on the four sides of the 
giant site. Their beams of light rose up very high and very 
straight in the night like the pillars of an unreal cathedral. 
It was quite a fabulous imaginary construction, worthy of 
Zeus, master of light and of the night of the heavens. Then, 
like a prophet, Hitler came forward. 

Here is how Robert Brasillach, the most inspired French 
poet of the century, describes Hitler upon his podium: 

Here’s the man now standing upon the rostrum. Then the flags 
unfurl. No singing, no rolling of the drums. A most extraordinary 
silence reigns when, from the edge of the stadium, before each of 
the spaces separating the brown shirt groups, the first ranks of 
standard-bearers emerge. The only light is that of the cathedral, 

blue and unreal, above which one sees butter¬ 
flies spiraling: airplanes perhaps or simply 
dust. But a spotlight beam has alighted on 
the flags, emphasizing the red mass of them 
and following them as they advance. 

Are they advancing? One wishes rather to 
say that they flow. That they flow like the flow 
of crimson lava, irresistibly, in an enormous 
gliding rush, to fill the gaps prepared in 
advance in the brown granite. Their majestic 
advance lasts nearly 20 minutes. And it is 
only when they are close to us that we hear 
the muffled sound of their tread. Up to the 
minute when they come to a halt at the feet of 
the standing chancellor, silence has prevailed. 

A supernatural and unearthly silence, like 
the silence for astronomers of something seen on another planet. 
Beneath the blue-streaked vault reaching to the clouds, the broad 
red streams of lava are now grown still. I do not believe I have ever 
in my life seen a more prodigious spectacle. 

That prodigious spectacle was not born of chance, but 
from the mind of an organizer and an artist of genius. 

Each day had its special program devoted to a quite dis¬ 
tinct sector of the public. Another Frenchman, the historian 
Andre Brissaud, who is aggressive and often unjust when he 
speaks of Hitler, has also described one of these ceremonies 
which he calls [a] “Hitler service”: 

Under the blazing sun 52,000 young men of the Labor Service 
present their shovels in a virile offertory. Then, when they resume 
their at-ease position, one of their leaders, facing them at the foot 
of the tribune, snaps: 

“Where do you come from, comrade?” 

A voice from that host of brown shirts responds: 

“From Thueringen.” 

“Where do you come from, comrade?” 

“From Hessen.” 

“Where do you come from, comrade?” 

“From Schlesien.” 

Then come the traditional questions: 

“Are you ready to bring fertility to German soil?” 

Fifty-two thousand young men respond with a single voice: 

“We are ready.” 


Hitler comes forward, 
absolutely alone, on a paved 
avenue more than 100 yards 
wide, amid 30,000flags like 
flames, between a million 
and a half men and women 
holding their breath. 


6 


MAY/JUNE 2004 






The annual rallies staged in Nuremberg were the most potent of Nazi ceremonies. Because of the importance of the rallies to the Nazi 
movement, the historical documentation surrounding Hitler’s Nuremberg speeches is far more complete than that of his other speeches. Thus, 
the rallies provide scholars with an excellent vantage point for studying the Third Reich as a political system. Here, Hitler shakes hands with 
Hermann Goering, Hitler’s designated successor, at one of the rallies at Nuremberg. 


“Are you ready to make every sacrifice for the Reich? 

“We are ready” 

This singular and impressive spoken chorus lasts nearly 20 
minutes. 

Afterward the 52,000 men in brown, with much fervor and 
gravity, sing their song of militants and other things as well. 

The drum rolls. 

Silence is established. They meditate. They evoke the dead, the 
soul of the party and of the nation as one. 

Finally the Fuehrer speaks, bringing the collective emotion to 
a white heat. Transported by passion, his nostrils quivering, his 
eyes flashing, Hitler is the Nazi faith. The violence, the fierce ener¬ 
gy, the triumph of the will. His voice, broadcast by loudspeakers, 
takes on a superhuman dimension. A hypnotic phenomenon takes 
place—gigantic, stupefying. 

Another day it was the ceremonial of the cult of the “flag 
of the blood” (. Blutfahne ), the standard that was soaked with 
the blood of Hitler’s companions on November 11, 1923, the 


day after the Munich putsch, when the Bavarian police killed 
seven of the National Socialists around the young Fuehrer. 
The new flags received the consecration of the “flag of the 
martyrs” at the foot of the monument commemorating them. 

The German author Joaquim Fest, a notorious anti-Nazi, 
has described this ceremony: 

Finally, starting from the “Luitpoldshain” accompanied by two 
disciples keeping their proper distance, Hitler marched to the mon¬ 
ument, taking the wide ribbon of concrete (now called the “Avenue 
of the Fuehrer”) between several hundred thousand men of the SA 
and the SS lined up in stately array. While the flags were lowered, 

Hitler was motionless, deeply immersed in his thoughts, like a 
heraldic figure. 

Citing an official account, Fest adds: 

The beams of 150 gigantic searchlights pierced the overcast 
sky of a gray-black night. High in the air, on the surface of the 


THE BARNES REVIEW 


7 










clouds, the shafts of light came together to form the figure of a 
square.... The image is gripping.... Stirred by a light wind, the 
flags framing the stands tremble slightly in the sparkling light. 

The main speaker’s platform comes into view in a blaze of light. 

... To the right and to the left, flames shoot out of immense cups 
supported by pillars. From the opposite stands, on command, a 
flood of more than 30,000 flags pours toward the center, the tips of 
the staffs and the fringes of silver glittering in the illumination of 
the searchlights. 

As always, Hitler was the first victim of this production made 
of light, of crowds, of symmetry and of “life’s tragic awareness.” It 
was precisely in these orations made before the “first militants” 
and after the minute of silence observed in honor of the dead that 
Hitler frequently found his speech marked by a sort of exaltation 
and rapture: on these occasions and in a few extraordinary words, 
he has celebrated a sort of mystic communion before the spotlights 
sweep down on the center of the stage, and the flags, the uniforms 
and the musical instruments come ablaze in flashes of red, silver 
and gold. 

A newspaper, the Niederelbischen Tageblatt , has pre¬ 
served some of these invocations. [Note: this para¬ 
graph is lined out in the original French text. We put 
it back in because we find the unguided leap to the 
following paragraphs confusing without it—Ed.] Hitler 
exclaimed: 


I have always had the feeling that for as 
long as the gift of life is granted a man, he 
must retain his nostalgia for those with 
whom he has fashioned his life. What would 
my life be without you? That you have found 
me and believe in me has given your life a 
new significance and imposed new duties on 
you. And that I have found you, that alone has 
made my life and my struggle possible. 

And this: 


How could we not feel in this hour the mir¬ 
acle that has brought us together? You heard 
a man’s voice in the past, and it struck your 
heart, it awakened you, and you have followed that voice. You have 
followed it for years without even having seen the man who had 
that voice. You have only heard a voice, and you have followed it. 

The tone of the speeches had messianic echoes. Hitler 
added: 

We all meet here again, and the miracle of this meeting fills our 
souls. Not every one of you can see me, and I cannot see each of you, 
but I feel you and you feel me. Is it not faith in our people that has 
made big men of us from small, rich from poor; and that, discour¬ 
aged and faltering though we were, has made brave and valiant 
men of us? 

At the end of a week it was time for the parting of this mil¬ 
lion and a half men and women who had renewed their vows 
as if they had been Crusaders, or members of a religious 
order. 

Once again it is the French poet Robert Brasillach who 

evokes this hour of departure: 

Deutschland Ueber Alles is sung and the Horst Wessel Lied 
soaring with the spirit of comrades killed by the Red Front and by 


Hauled out of the wreckage 
of 1918, Germany at year’s 
end in 1937 had a greater 
solidarity than ever before in 
her history. The first stage 
of the Hitler revolution 
was now completed. 


the reactionaries—and the song of the soldiers of the war: 

“I had a comrade, 

“A better one I’ll never have....” 

Then still other songs, composed for the congress, which har¬ 
monize easily with the fresh night, the gravity of the hour, the 
many beautiful and melancholy voices, and with all the musical 
enchantment without which Germany can conceive nothing, nei¬ 
ther religion nor fatherland, nor war, nor politics, nor sacrifice. 

Brissaud adds: “Then there is the interminable torchlight 
tattoo through the streets of Nuremberg. Groups of the SA, 
of the Hitler Youth, or of the SS march tirelessly by, lighted 
only by the gleam of their torches.” 

Like everyone else, some of the most prominent persons of 
distinction from abroad were seized by the popular wave. 

The entire diplomatic corps was invited by Hitler and put 
up in the Nuremberg station itself in two sumptuous special 
trains provided with club cars, dining cars, sleeping cars, 
bathrooms and even hairdressing salons. 

The French ambassador, Frangois-Poncet, even spoke to 
the Congress of 1937. He would sum up his feelings almost 
with dread: 

During those eight days, Nuremberg was a town given over 
completely to joy, an enchanted town, almost a town that escaped 

from reality. That atmosphere, combined with 
the beauty of the spectacles and the magnifi¬ 
cent hospitality, greatly impressed the for¬ 
eigners. It created an impression very difficult 
to resist. When they went back home, they 
were captivated and won over. 


The ambassador/interpreter Paul 
Schmidt, commissioned to escort the 
rich and famous, has described the sen¬ 
sation: 


On the day when Hitler made his grand 
triumphal promenade at Nuremberg, I hap¬ 
pened to be in a open car with the most impor¬ 
tant French and English guests, only a few meters behind the dic¬ 
tator’s car.... We could thus observe him from very close up and 
also especially the crowds cheering him from both sides of the road. 

The procession, triumphal in the true sense of the word, took 
more than an hour to make its way through the old town. The 
impression produced by these masses of people cheering Hitler as 
though in ecstasy was extraordinarily powerful. Once again I noted 
with what an expression of devotion, with what biblical trust, the 
people gazed on Hitler, seeming to be under a magic spell. The 
thousands and thousands of spectators all along the route were as 
though seized by a collective rapture at the sight of him. They held 
out their arms and saluted him with rousing shouts. Moving along 
for an hour in the middle of this frenzied outburst was a real phys¬ 
ical ordeal, which left us exhausted at the end of the trip. All power 
of moral resistance seemed paralyzed; we almost had the feeling of 
having to restrain ourselves to keep from joining in with the gen¬ 
eral ecstasy.... I could see that the English and the French often 
had tears in their eyes from the effects of the inner emotions 
caused by all they were seeing and hearing. Even journalists as 
blase as Jules Sauerwein of Le Matin and Ward Price of The Daily 
Mail, who were in my car, were literally groggy when we arrived at 
the end of the route. 


8 


MAY/JUNE 2004 





The American journalist Richard Helms, 
special envoy of the United Press, who 
managed to get to the Nuremberg palace, 
where Hitler was receiving his guests at the 
end of the festivities, would make this droll 
comment: “When I got there myself, I was 
suffering from megalomania. I decided that 
I must be nine feet tall even though the 
cheers had not been addressed to me.” 

Benoist-Mechin concluded: 


When all is said and done, what we saw at Nur¬ 
emberg was no longer the party; it was the entire 
German nation offering itself the spectacle of its 
own rediscovered power.... What was forged here 
was a mystique powerful enough to triumph over 
individual feelings and cast them in the crucible of 
a single faith. 



At the end of four years of stubborn 
struggle, Hitler had thus transformed his 
people. 

He had made a unity of them, hard as 
steel. 

Even the army would be welded to that 
unity henceforth: the Wehrmacht spent 
eight days at Nuremberg fraternizing with 
the people, parading jointly with them with 
their new tanks, their new cannon and 
above all with their new spirit. 

Hauled out of the wreckage of 1918, 

Germany at year’s end in 1937 had a 
greater solidarity than ever before in her history. The first 
stage of the Hitler revolution was now completed. 

From the Nuremberg stadium Hitler gazed down at his 
vibrant people. He had completed their political unification: 
no longer were there either states or parties locked in petty 
rivalry; their social unification: the classes, formerly rivals, 
now formed just one team; their military unification: there 
was now just one armed force, built for all, open to all. Still 
to be achieved was the racial and geographical unification. 

Beyond the border to the southeast stood 10 million 
Germans of Austria and the Sudetens, already conquered 
politically, and waiting impatiently for their church bells to 
sound the German hour. 

Hitler, creator of the Greater Reich, was moving toward 
them in the full assurance of their unanimity, his eyes fixed 
on the destiny to be subdued. ❖ 


General Leon Degrelle was an individual of exceptional intel¬ 
lect and physical courage, dedicated to western culture. He fought not 
only for belgium but for the survival of Christian Europe, preventing 
the continent from being inundated by Stalin’s savage hordes. What 
Degrelle has to say, as an eyewitness to some of the key events in the 
history of the 20th century, is vastly important within the historical 
and factual context of his time and has great relevance to the contin¬ 
uing struggle today for the survival of civilization as we know it. 


ARCHIVE PHOTOS 


Elite troops enter the Nuremberg Party Day rally. Each day 

of the rally showcased a different part of the party and state, be 
it the army, German Labor Front or League of German Girls. 
Adolf Hitler spoke many times during the Nuremberg rallies, 
and on each occasion he addressed a different audience. In addi¬ 
tion to hammering on general themes, Hitler’s comments per¬ 
tained specifically to the activities and interests of his audience. 
Examining Hitler’s speeches during the Nuremberg rallies offers 
the historian an opportunity to investigate over one brief period 
of time the various aspects of Hitler’s ideology, as it operated 
within the organizational hierarchy of the Nazi state. Hitler 
made extensive use of a new invention—the loudspeaker — erect¬ 
ed all across Germany, from about 1936 on during the rallies. As 
a rule, Hitler’s speeches were announced well in advance, and 
repeatedly. When the day came, citizens would hear the speech 
over a hookup of all stations in the Third Reich, out of loud¬ 
speakers in the streets, loudspeakers in the factories, in restau¬ 
rants—in all places where people might gather. People all over 
Germany could also listen in on an inexpensive, mass-marketed 
and very popular radio, called the Volksempfanger, or People’s 
Set.” This radio was crucial in Hitler’s quest for effective propa¬ 
ganda because of its affordability. The 0 People’s Set” was the 
cheapest radio in the world at the time, costing only 76 marks 
(around $9) compared to a normal 150 marks for other radios. 


THE BARNES REVIEW 


9 














Hitler’s Declaration of War 
Against the United States 

Hitler announced to the Reichstag the declaration of war against the united states on December 

11,1941, as recorded by the Monitoring Service of the British Broadcasting Corporation. Interestingly, Hitler’s posi¬ 
tion on the war with America has had few individuals interested in analyzing it. But rather than merely analyze, here is 
the text itself, clearly showing the duplicity of the American oligarchy in leading the world into war. Here is real histo¬ 
ry—ignored by the mainstream—that provides necessary insight. 


10 


MAY/JUNE 2004 




An EVGntflll Dny —On December 11, 1941, FDR gave this message 
to Congress: “On the morning of Dec. 11 the government of Germany, 
pursuing its course of world conquest, declared war against the 
United States. The long known and the long expected has thus taken 
place. The forces endeavoring to enslave the entire world now are 
moving toward this hemisphere. Never before has there been a 
greater challenge to life, liberty and civilization. Delay invites great 
danger. Rapid and united effort by all of the peoples of the world 
who are determined to remain free will ensure a world victory of the 
forces of justice and of righteousness over the forces of savagery and 
of barbarism. Italy also has declared war against the United States. 
I therefore request the Congress to recognize a state of war between 
the United States and Germany, and between the United States and 
Italy.” Later that same day, Congress passed resolutions declaring 
war against Germany and Italy. The one against Germany passed 
the Senate 88-0 and was passed unanimously in the House. The dec¬ 
laration against Italy was passed 90-0 in the Senate and 399-1 in 
the House, with 30 abstentions. At left, FDR, wearing a black arm- 
band, signs the declaration of war against Germany. At right, Adolf 
Hitler arrives at Nuremberg to the cheers of thousands. 


D eputies, men of the German Reichstag! A 

year of events of historical significance is 
drawing to an end. A year of the greatest 
decisions lies ahead. In these serious times, 
I speak to you, deputies of the German 
Reichstag, as to the representatives of the 
German nation. Beyond and above that, the 
whole German people should take note of 
this glance into the past, as well as of the coming decisions 
the present and future impose upon us. 

After the renewed refusal of my peace offer in January 
1940 by the then British prime minister and the clique that 
supported or else dominated him, it became clear that this 
war—against all reasons of common sense and necessity— 
must be fought to its end. You know me, my old party com¬ 
panions; you know I have always been an enemy of half 
measures or weak decisions. 

If the Providence has so willed that the German people 
cannot be spared this fight, then I can only be grateful that 
it entrusted me with the leadership in this historic struggle 
which, for the next 500 or 1,000 years, will be described as 
decisive, not only for the history of Germany, but for the 
whole of Europe and indeed the whole world. 

The German people and their soldiers are working and 
fighting today, not only for the present, but also for the com¬ 
ing, nay the most distant, generations. A historical revision 
on a unique scale has been imposed on us by the Creator. 

Shortly after the end of the campaign in Norway, the 
German Command was forced, first of all, to ensure the mil¬ 
itary security of the conquered areas. Since then the defens¬ 
es of the conquered countries have changed considerably. 
From Kirkenes to the Spanish frontier there is a belt of great 
bases and fortifications; many airfields have been built, 
naval bases and protections for submarines, which are prac¬ 
tically invulnerable from sea or air. 

More than 1,500 new batteries have been planned and 



constructed. A network of roads and railways was construct¬ 
ed so that today communications from the Spanish frontier 
to Petsano are independent of the sea. These installations in 
no wise fall behind those of the Western Wall, and work con¬ 
tinues incessantly on strengthening them. I am irrevocably 
determined to make the European front unassailable by any 
enemy. 

This defensive work was supplemented by offensive war¬ 
fare. German surface and underwater naval forces carried on 
their constant war of attrition against the British Merchant 
Navy and the ships in its service. The German air force sup¬ 
ported these attacks by reconnaissance, by damaging enemy 
shipping, by numerous retaliatory raids which have given 
the English a better idea of the so-charming war caused by 
their present prime minister. 

In the middle of last year Germany was supported above 
all by Italy. For many months a great part of British power 
weighed on the shoulders of Italy. Only because of their 
tremendous superiority in heavy tanks could the English 
create a temporary crisis in North Africa. On March 24 a 
small community of German and Italian units under 
Rommel’s command began the counterattack. 

The German Afrika Corps performed outstanding 
achievements though they were completely unaccustomed to 
the climate of this theatre of war. Just as once in Spain, now 
in North Africa, Germans and Italians have taken up arms 
against the same enemy. 

While in these bold measures the North African front was 
again secured by the sacrifice of German and Italian soldiers, 


THE BARNES REVIEW 


11 










the shadow of a terrible danger threatening Europe gathered 
overhead. Only in obedience to bitter necessity did I decide in 
my heart in 1939, to make the attempt, at least, to create the 
prerequisites for a lasting peace in Europe by eliminating 
the causes of German-Russian tension. 

This was psychologically difficult owing to the general 
worldview of the German people, and above all, of the party, 
toward Bolshevism. It was not difficult from a purely mate¬ 
rial point of view—because Germany was only intent on her 
economic interests in all the territories which England 
declared to be threatened by us and which she attacked with 
her promises of aid—for you will allow me to remind you that 
England, throughout the spring and late summer of 1939, 
offered its aid to numerous nations, declaring that it was our 
intention to invade those countries and thus deprive them of 
their liberty. 

The German Reich and its government were therefore 
able to affirm, with a clear conscience, that these accusations 
were false and had no bearing whatsoever on reality. Add to 
this the military realization that in case of war, which British 
diplomacy was to force on the German 
people, a two-front war would ensue 
and call for very great sacrifice. 

When, on top of all this, the Baltic 
states and Romania showed themselves 
prone to accept the British pacts of 
assistance and thus let it be seen that 
they, too, believed in such a threat, it 
was not only the right of the Reich gov¬ 
ernment to fix the limits of German 
interests, but its duty. 

he countries in question, and 
above all, the Reich government, could not but realize 
that the only factor that could be a buttress against 
the East was Germany. The moment they severed 
their connection with the German Reich, and entrusted their 
fate to the aid of that power which, in its proverbial selfish¬ 
ness, has never rendered aid, but always requested it, they 
were lost. 

Yet the fate of these countries roused the sympathy of the 
German people. The powerful struggle of the Finns forced on 
us a feeling mixed with bitterness and admiration. 
Admiration because we have a heart sensitive to sacrifice 
and heroism, being a nation of soldiers ourselves; bitterness, 
because with our eyes fixed on the menacing enemy in the 
West, and on the danger in the East, we were not in a posi¬ 
tion to render military assistance. 

At a time when Germany had only a few divisions in the 
provinces bordering on Russia it would have been evident to 
a blind man that a concentration of power of singular and 
world historic dimensions was taking place, and that not in 
order to defend something which was threatened, but mere¬ 
ly in order to attack an object it did not seem possible to 
defend. The lightning conclusion of the Western campaign, 
however, robbed the Moscow overlords of their hope of an 
early flagging of German power. 


In the summer of 1941 they thought the time was ripe. A 
new Mongolian storm was now to sweep Europe. At the same 
time, however, Mr. Churchill spoke on the English aspect of 
the struggle with Germany. He saw fit, in a cowardly man¬ 
ner, to deny that in the secret session of 1940 in the House of 
Commons that he pointed out that the entry of Russians into 
the war, which was to come in 1941 at the very latest, was the 
most important factor that would make a successful conclu¬ 
sion of the war possible. 

This was also to enable England to take the offensive. In 
the spring of that year, Europe was to feel the full extent of 
the might of a world power which seemed to dispose of inex¬ 
haustible human material and resources. Dark clouds began 
to gather on the European sky. For, my deputies, what is 
Europe? There is no fitting geographical definition of our con¬ 
tinent, but only a national and cultural one. 

The Urals form not only the frontier of our continent, but 
the eternal line which divides the Eastern and Western con¬ 
ceptions of life. There was a time when Europe was that 
Greek Island into which Nordic tribes had penetrated in 

order to light a torch for the first time 
which from then onwards began slowly, 
but surely to brighten the world of 
man. 

When these Greeks repulsed the 
invasion of the Persian conquerors they 
did not only defend their homeland, 
which was Greece, but that idea which 
we call Europe today. And then Europe 
traveled from Hellas to Rome. With the 
Greek spirit and Greek culture, the 
Roman way of thinking and Roman 
statesmanship were joined. 

An empire was created which, to this day has not been 
equaled in its significance and creative power, let alone out¬ 
done. When, however, the Roman legions were defending 
Rome against the African onslaught of Carthage and at last 
gained a victory, again it was not Rome they were fighting 
for, but the Europe of that time, which consisted of the 
Greek-Roman world. 

The next incursion against this homestead of European 
culture was carried out from the distant East. A terrible 
stream of barbarous, uncultured hordes sallied forth from 
the interior of Asia deep into the heart of the European con¬ 
tinent, burning, looting, murdering—a true scourge of the 
Lord. In the Battle of the Catalonian Fields, the West was 
formed. On the ruins of Rome the West was built, and its 
defense was a task, not only of the Romans, but also above all 
of the Teutons. 

In centuries to come the West, enlightened by Greek cul¬ 
ture, built the Roman Empire and then expanded by the col¬ 
onization of the Teutons was able to call itself Europe. 
Whether it was the German emperor who was repelling the 
attacks from the East on the Field of Lech or whether Africa 
was being pushed back from Spain in long fighting, it was 
also a struggle of Europe, coming into being, against a sur¬ 
rounding world alien in its very essence. 


“A new Mongolian storm 
was now to sweep Europe. 
At the same time, however, 
Mr. Churchill spoke on 
the English aspect of the 
struggle with Germany. ” 



12 


MAY/JUNE 2004 







Once Rome had been given its due for the creative defense 
of this continent, Teutons took over the defense and the pro¬ 
tection of a family of nations which might still differentiate 
and differ in their political structure and objective, but which 
nevertheless represented a cultural unity with blood ties. 
And it was from this Europe that a spiritual and cultural 
abundance went out, of which everyone must be aware who 
is willing to seek truth instead of denying it. 

Thus it was not England who brought culture to the con¬ 
tinent, but the offspring of Teutonic nationhood on the conti¬ 
nent who went as Anglo-Saxons and Normans to that island 
made possible a development in a way surely unique. In just 
the same way, it was not America who discovered Europe, but 
the other way around. 

Deputies and men of the German Reichstag, I had to 
make this survey, for the fight which, in the first months of 
this year, gradually began to become clear, and of which the 
German Reich is this time called to be the leader, also far 
exceeds the interests of our nation and country. 

Just as the Greeks once faced the Persians in war, and the 
Romans faced the Mongolians, the Spanish heroes defended 
not only Spain, but also the whole of Europe against Africa, 
just so Germany is fighting today, not for herself, but for the 
entire continent. 

When, on the 6th of April of this year, the German and 
Italian armies took up their positions for the fight against 
Yugoslavia and Greece, it was the introduction of the great 
struggle in which we are still involved. The revolt in 
Belgrade which led to the overthrow of the former Regent 
and his Government was decisive for the further course of 
events in this part of Europe, for England was also a party to 
this putsch. 

But the chef role was played by Soviet Russia. What I 
refused to Mr. Molotov on his visit to Berlin, Stalin now 
thought he could achieve by a revolutionary movement, even 
against our will. Without consideration for the agreements 
which had been concluded, the intentions of the Bolsheviks 
in power grew still wider. The pact of friendship with the new 
revolutionary regime illuminated the closeness of the threat¬ 
ening danger like lightning. 

The feats achieved by the German Armed Forces were 
given worthy recognition in the German Reichstag on the 
4th of May. But what I was then unfortunately unable to 
express was the realization that we were progressing at 
tremendous speed toward a fight with a state which was not 
yet intervening because it was not yet fully prepared, and 
because it was impossible to use the aerodromes and landing 
grounds at that time of year on account of the melting snow. 

My deputies, when in 1940 I realized from communica¬ 
tions in the English House of Commons and the observation 
of the Russian troop movements on our frontiers that there 
was the possibility of danger arising in the east of the Reich, 
I immediately gave orders to set up numerous new armored 
motorized infantry divisions. 

The conditions for this were available from the point of 
view both of materiel and personnel. I will give you, my 
deputies, and indeed the whole German people, only one 


assurance: the more the democracies speak about arma¬ 
ments, as is easily understandable, the more National So¬ 
cialist Germany works. 

I sought no war. On the contrary, I did everything to avoid 
it. But I would have been forgetful of my duty and 
responsibility if, in spite of realizing the inevitability of a 
fight by force of arms, I had failed to draw the only pos¬ 
sible conclusions. In view of the mortal danger from Soviet 
Russia, not only to the German Reich, but also to all Europe, 
I decided, if possible a few days before the outbreak of this 
moral struggle, to give the signal to attack myself. 

Today, we have overwhelming and authentic proof that 
Russia intended to attack; we are also quite clear about the 
date on which the attack was to take place. In view of the 
great danger, the proportions of which we realize perhaps 
only today to the fullest extent, I can only thank God that He 
enlightened me at the proper time and that He gave me the 
strength to do what had to be done! 

Had the German Reich not faced the enemy with her sol¬ 
diers and arms, a flood would have swept over Europe, which 
once and for all would have finished the ridiculous British 
idea of maintaining the European balance of power in all its 
senselessness and stupid tradition. 

Had Slovaks, Hungarians and Romanians not taken over 
part of the protection of this European world, the Bolshevik 
hordes would have swept like Attila’s Huns over the 
Danubian countries, and at the cost of the Ionic Sea, Tartars 
and Mongols would have enforced today the revision of the 
Montreux Agreement. 

Had Italy, Spain and Croatia not sent their divisions, the 
establishment of a European defense front would have been 
impossible, from which emanated the idea of the New 
Europe as propaganda to all other nations. 

Sensing and realizing this, the volunteers have come from 
Northern and Western Europe, Norwegians, Danes, Dutch¬ 
men, Flemings, Belgians, even Frenchmen—volunteers who 
gave the struggle of the United Powers of the Axis the char¬ 
acter of a European crusade—in the truest sense of the word. 

The attack began on the 22nd of June; with irresistible 
daring the frontier fortifications which were destined to 
secure the Russian advance against us were broken through 
and on the 23rd Grodno fell. On the 24th Vilna and Kovno 
were taken after Brest-Litovsk had been occupied. On the 
26th Duenaburg was in our hands, and on July 10, the first 
two great pincer battles of Bialystok and Minsk were con¬ 
cluded; 324,000 prisoners, 3,332 tanks and 1,809 guns fell to 
us.... 

All this had to be fought for by my staking health and life, 
and by effort of which those at home can hardly have an idea. 
Marching for an endless distance, tormented by heat and 
thirst, often held up by the mud of bottomless roads which 
would drive them almost to despair, exposed, from the Black 
Sea to the Arctic Sea, to the inhospitability of a climate 
which from the blazing heat of the July and August days, 
dropped to the wintry storms of November and December, 
tortured by insects, suffering from dirt and vermin, freezing 


THE BARNES REVIEW 


13 





in the snow and ice, they have fought—the Germans and the 
Finns, Italians, Slovaks, Hungarians and Romanians, the 
Croats, the volunteers from the North and West European 
countries, all in all the soldiers of the Eastern Front. 

The beginning of winter only will now check this move¬ 
ment; at the beginning of summer it will again no longer be 
possible to stop the movement. On this day I do not want to 
mention any individual section of the armed forces, I do not 
want to praise any particular command; they have all made 
a supreme effort. And yet, understanding and justice compel 
me to state one thing again and again; amongst our German 
soldiers the heaviest burden is borne today, as in the past, by 
our matchless German infantry. 

And now permit me to define my attitude to that other 
world, which has its representative in that man, who while 
our soldiers are fighting in snow and ice, very tactfully likes 
to make his chats from the fireside, the man who is the main 
culprit of this war. 


W hen in 1939 the conditions of 
our national interest in the 
then Polish state became 
more and more intolerable, I 
tried at first to eliminate those intoler¬ 
able conditions by way of a peaceful set¬ 
tlement. For some time it seemed as 
though the Polish government itself 
had seriously considered agreeing to a 
sensible settlement. 

I may add that in German proposals 
nothing was demanded that had not been German property 
in former times. On the contrary, we renounced very much of 
what, before the World War, had been German property. You 
will recall the dramatic development of that time, in which 
the sufferings of German nationals increased continuously. 
You, my deputies, are in the best position to gauge the extent 
of the blood sacrifice, if you compare it to the casualties of the 
present war. 

The problems which had to be overcome were of no terri¬ 
torial significance. Mainly they concerned Danzig and the 
union with the Reich of the torn-off province, East Prussia. 
More difficult were the cruel persecutions the Germans were 
exposed to, in Poland particularly. The other minorities, inci¬ 
dentally, had to suffer a fate hardly less bitter. 

I may recall these proposals today: Proposal for the set¬ 
tlement of the problem of the Danzig Corridor and of the 
question of the German-Polish minorities. The situation 
between the German Reich and Poland has become so 
strained that any further incident may lead to a clash 
between the armed forces assembled on both sides. Any 
peaceful settlement must be so arranged that the events 
mainly responsible for the existing situation cannot occur 
again—a situation which has caused a state of tension, not 
only in Eastern Europe, but also in other regions. 

The same goes for the proposals for safeguarding the 
minorities. This is the offer of an agreement such as could not 
have been made in a more loyal and magnanimous form by 


The reports are documents 
from which it may be seen 
with a terrifying clearness 
to what extent one man 
alone and the forces driving 
him are responsible for 
World War II. 


any government other than the National Socialist govern¬ 
ment of the German Reich. 

The Polish Government at that period refused even as 
much as to consider this proposal. The question then arises: 
how could such an unimportant State dare simply to refuse 
an offer of this nature and furthermore, not only indulge in 
further atrocities to its German inhabitants who had given 
that country the whole of its culture, but even order mobi¬ 
lization? 

Perusal of documents of the Foreign Office in Warsaw has 
given us later some surprising explanations. There was one 
who, with devilish lack of conscience, used all his influence to 
further the warlike intentions of Poland and to eliminate all 
possibilities of understanding. 

The reports which the then Polish ambassador in Wash¬ 
ington, Count Potocki, sent to his government are documents 
from which it may be seen with a terrifying clearness to what 

an extent one man alone and the forces 
driving him are responsible for World 
War II. 

The question next arises: how could 
this man fall into such fanatical enmity 
toward a country which in the whole of 
its history has never done the least 
harm either to America or to him per¬ 
sonally? 

So far as Germany’s attitude toward 
America is concerned, I have to state: 

One: Germany is perhaps the only 
great nation which has never had a col¬ 
ony either in North or South America, or otherwise displayed 
there was any political activity, unless mention be made of 
the emigration of many millions of Germans and of their 
work, which, however, has only been to the benefit of the 
North American continent and of the U.S.A. 

Two: In the whole history of the coming into being and of 
the existence of the U.S.A. the German Reich has never 
adopted a political unfriendly, let alone a hostile attitude, 
but, on the contrary with the blood of many of its sons, it 
helped to defend the U.S.A. 

The German Reich never took part in any war against the 
U.S.A. It itself had war imposed on it by the U.S.A. in 1917, 
and then for reasons which have been thoroughly revealed 
by an investigation committee set up by President Roosevelt 
himself. There are no other differences between the Germans 
and the American people, either territorial or political, which 
could possibly touch the interests let alone the existence of 
the U.S.A. 

There was always a difference of constitution, but that 
cannot be a reason for hostilities so long as the one state does 
not try to interfere with the other. America is a republic, a 
democracy, and today is a republic under strong authorita¬ 
tive leadership. The ocean lies between the two states. The 
divergences between capitalist America and Bolshevik 
Russia, if such conceptions had any truth in them, would be 
much greater than between America led by a president and 
Germany led by a fuehrer. 


14 


MAY/JUNE 2004 







Declarations of War vs. Undeclared War 


B ased on its history and the trends of warfare, is 
the declaration of war a concept slated for the 
historical dustbin? Since 1798, the United States 
has involved its military forces in over 200 con¬ 
flicts. Yet a formal declaration of war 
was issued on only five occasions: the 
War of 1812, the Mexican War, the 
Spanish-American War and World 
War I and World War II. 

The concept of the declaration of 
war has been a part of the American 
system of government since the 
Constitution was adopted in 1787. Its 
justification revolves around the 
requirement to manifest, via the leg¬ 
islative process, the backing of the 
American people regarding any 
involvement of U.S. combat forces. 

With such reasonable justification, 
one would expect to see the Congress 
approve a declaration of war in every 
application of U.S. military force. 

The five declared wars, while dif¬ 
ferent in terms of their causes and 
effects, have all been “popular” wars that enjoyed the sup¬ 
port of the people and were preceded by a strong incident 
that rallied the public desire for armed intervention. In 
many cases the incident was artificially manufactured, or 
was made to seem like more than it was. Pearl Harbor 
was a classic case: FDR not only knew the attack was 


coming, he had needled the Japanese into making it. Then 
he failed to warn the U.S. military commanders on the 
scene, in order to maximize the number of Americans 
killed, to magnify the seriousness of the incident and 

stampede the American people into 
war. 

When the U.S. attacked Yugo¬ 
slavia in 1999, it inaugurated war 
against another sovereign state that 
had not attacked or threatened Amer¬ 
ica or an American ally. The presi¬ 
dent, and the president alone, made 
the decision. Is the constitutional 
requirement that only Congress shall 
declare war obsolete? The adminis¬ 
tration’s bungling in Kosovo illustrat¬ 
ed just why the Framers intended 
that the decision to go to war should 
be vested in the Congress. 

Since Korea, presidential war¬ 
making has become a constant. Ron¬ 
ald Reagan invaded Grenada in 1983; 
George H.W. Bush attacked Panama 
in 1989. Neither bothered to consult 
Congress. George W. Bush planned to attack Iraq irre¬ 
spective of Congress, explaining that “I don’t think I need 
it,” when asked if congressional approval was necessary. 
Why not? “Many attorneys,” he said, had “so advised me.” 
He apparently did not bother to read the Constitution or 
doesn’t care. ❖ 



Above, an American poster from the War of 
1812 states: “We owe allegiance to no crown.” 


But it is a fact that the two conflicts between Germany 
and the U.S.A. were inspired by the same force and caused by 
two men in the U.S.A.—Wilson and Roosevelt. 

History has already passed its verdict on Wilson; his name 
stands for one of the basest breaches of the given word, a 
mistake that led to despair not only among the so-called van¬ 
quished, but among the victors. This breach of his word alone 
made possible the dictate of Versailles. We know today that a 
group of interested financiers stood behind Wilson and made 
use of this paralytic professor because they hoped for 
increased business. The German people have had to pay for 
having believed this man with the collapse of their political 
and economic existence. 

But why is there now another president of the U.S. A. who 
regards it as his only task to intensify anti-German feeling 
to the pitch of war? National Socialism came to power in 
Germany in the same years as Roosevelt was elected presi¬ 
dent. I understand only too well that a worldwide distance 
separates Roosevelt’s ideas and my ideas. 

Roosevelt comes from a rich family and belongs to the 
class whose path is smoothed in the democracy. I am the 
child of a small, poor family and had to fight my way by work 


and industry. 

When the Great War [World War I] came, Roosevelt occu¬ 
pied a position where he got to know only its pleasant conse¬ 
quences enjoyed by those who do business while others 
bleed. I was only one of those who carry out orders, as an 
ordinary soldier, and naturally returned from the war just as 
poor as I was in autumn of 1914.1 shared the fate of millions, 
and Franklin Roosevelt only the fate of the so-called upper 
ten thousand. 

A fter the war Roosevelt tried his hand at financial 
speculation; he made profits out of the inflation, out 
of the misery of others, while I, together with many 
hundreds of thousands more, lay in hospitals. When 
Roosevelt finally stepped on the political stage with all the 
advantages of his class, I was unknown and fought for the 
resurrection of my people. 

When Roosevelt took his place at the head of the U.S.A., 
he was the candidate of a capitalistic party, which made use 
of him; when I became chancellor of the German Reich, I was 
fuehrer of the popular movement I had created. The powers 
behind Roosevelt were those powers I had fought at home. 


THE BARNES REVIEW 


15 

















His Brain Trust was composed of people such as we had 
fought against in Germany as parasites and removed from 
public life. 

Yet there is something in common between us. Roosevelt 
took over a state in a very poor economic condition, and I took 
over a Reich faced with complete ruin, also thanks to democ¬ 
racy. In the U.S.A. there were 13 million unemployed, and in 
Germany 7 million part-time workers. The finances of both 
states were in a bad way, and ordinary economic life could 
hardly be maintained. A development then started in the 
U.S.A. and in the German Reich that will make it easy for 
posterity to pass a verdict on the correctness of the theories. 

While an unprecedented revival of economic life, culture 
and art took place in Germany under National Socialistic 
leadership within the space of a few years, President 
Roosevelt did not succeed in bringing about even the slight¬ 
est improvements in his own country. And yet this work must 
have been much easier in the U.S.A., where there lived 
scarcely 15 people on a square kilometer, as against 140 in 
Germany. 

If such a country does not succeed in assuring economic 
prosperity, this must be a result either of the bad faith of its 
leaders in power, or of a total inefficiency on the part of the 
leading men. In scarcely five years, economic problems had 
been solved in Germany and unemployment had been over¬ 
come. During the same period, President Roosevelt had 
increased the state debt of his country to an enormous 
extent, had decreased the value of the dollar and had 
brought about a further disintegration of economic life, with¬ 
out diminishing the unemployment figures. 

A ll this is not surprising if one bears in mind that the 
men he had called to support him, or rather, the men 
who had called him, belonged to the Jewish element, 
whose interests are all for disintegration and never 
for order. While speculation was being fought in National 
Socialist Germany, it thrived astoundingly under the 
Roosevelt regime. 

Roosevelt’s New Deal legislation was all wrong; it was 
actually the biggest failure ever experienced by one man. 
There can be no doubt that a continuation of this economic 
policy would have undone this President in peace time, in 
spite of all his dialectical skill. 

In a European state he would have come eventually before 
a state court on a charge of deliberate waste of the national 
wealth; and he would have scarcely escaped at the hands of a 
civil court, on a charge of criminal business methods. 

This fact was realized and fully appreciated also by many 
Americans including some of high standing. A threatening 
opposition was gathering over the head of this man. He 
guessed that the only salvation for him lay in diverting pub¬ 
lic attention from home to foreign policy. It is interesting to 
study in this connection the reports of the Polish envoy in 
Washington, Potocki. He repeatedly points out that Roose¬ 
velt was fully aware of the danger threatening the card cas¬ 
tle of his economic system with collapse, and that he was 
therefore urgently in need of a diversion in foreign policy. 


He was strengthened in this resolve by the Jews around 
him. Their Old Testament thirst for revenge thought to see 
in the U.S.A. an instrument for preparing a second “Purim” 
for the European nations, which were becoming increasingly 
anti-Semitic. The full diabolical meanness of Jewry rallied 
round this man, and he stretched out his hands. 

Thus began the increasing efforts of the American presi¬ 
dent to create conflicts, to do everything to prevent conflicts 
from being peacefully solved. For years this man harbored 
one desire—that a conflict should break out somewhere in 
the world. The most convenient place would be in Europe, 
where American economy could be committed to the cause of 
one of the belligerents in such a way that a political inter¬ 
connection of interests would arise calculated slowly to bring 
America nearer such a conflict. This would thereby divert 
public interest from bankrupt economic policy at home 
toward a foreign problem. 

His attitude to the German Reich in this spirit was par¬ 
ticularly sharp. In 1937, Roosevelt made a number of speech¬ 
es, including a particularly hostile one pronounced in 
Chicago on October 5, 1937. Systematically he began to in¬ 
cite American public opinion against Germany. He threat¬ 
ened to establish a kind of quarantine against the so-called 
authoritarian states. 

While making those increasingly spiteful and inflamma¬ 
tory speeches, President Roosevelt summoned the American 
ambassadors to Washington to report to him. This event fol¬ 
lowed some further declarations of an insulting character; 
and ever since, the two countries have been connected with 
each other only through charges d’affaires 

From November 1938 onward, his systematic efforts were 
directed toward sabotaging any possibility of a settlement in 
Europe. In public, he was hypocritically pretending to be for 
peace; but at the same time he was threatening any country 
ready to pursue a policy of peaceful understanding with the 
freezing of assets, with economic reprisals, with demands for 
the repayment of loans etc. Staggering information to this 
effort can be derived from the reports of Polish ambassadors 
in Washington, London, Paris and Brussels. 

In January, 1939, this man began to strengthen his cam¬ 
paign of incitement and threatened to take all possible con¬ 
gressional measures against the authoritarian states, with 
the exception of war, while alleging that other countries were 
trying to interfere in American affairs and insisting on the 
maintenance of the Monroe Doctrine, he himself began from 
March 1939 onward, to meddle in European affairs, which 
were no concern at all of the president of the U.S.A., since he 
does not understand those problems, and even if he did 
understand them and the historic background behind them, 
he would have just as little right to worry about the central 
European area as the German Reich has to judge conditions 
in a U.S. state and to take an attitude toward them. 

But Mr. Roosevelt went even farther. In contradiction to 
all the tenets of international law, he declared that he would 
not recognize certain governments which did not suit him, 
would not accept readjustments, would maintain legations of 
states dissolved long before or actually set them up as legal 


16 


MAY/JUNE 2004 





governments. He even went so far as to conclude agreements 
with such envoys and thus to acquire a right simply to occu¬ 
py foreign territories. 

On April 5, 1939, came Roosevelt’s famous appeal to 
myself and the Duce. It was a clumsy combination of geo¬ 
graphical and political ignorance and of the arrogance of the 
millionaire circles around him. It asked us to give undertak¬ 
ings to conclude non-aggression pacts indiscriminately with 
any country including mostly countries which were not even 
free, since Mr. Roosevelt’s allies had annexed them or 
changed them into protectorates. 

Y ou will remember, my deputies, that I then gave a 
polite and clear reply to this meddling gentleman. 
For some months at least, this stopped the flow of elo¬ 
quence from this honest warmonger. But his place 
was taken by his honorable spouse. She declined to live with 
her sons in a world such as the one we have worked out. And 
quite right, for this is a world of labor and not of cheating and 
trafficking. 

After a little rest, the husband of that woman came back 
on the scene and on November 4,1939, engineered the rever¬ 
sion of the Neutrality Law so as to suspend the ban on the 
export of arms, in favor of a one-sided delivery of arms to 
Germany’s opponents. He then begins, somewhat as in Asia 
and in China, but the roundabout way of an economic infil¬ 
tration to establish a community of interest destined to 
become operative sooner or later. 

In the same month, he recognizes, as a so-called govern¬ 
ment in exile, a gang of Polish emigrants, whose only politi¬ 
cal foundation was of a few million gold coins taken with 
them from Warsaw. On April 9 he goes on and he orders the 
blocking of Norwegian and Danish assets under the lying 
pretext of placing them beyond the German reach, although 
he knows perfectly well that the Danish government in its 
financial administration is not in any way being interfered 
with, let alone controlled by, Germany. 

His true mentality then comes clearly to light in a 
telegram of June 15 to the French prime minister, Reynaud. 
He advises him that the American government will double 
its help to France, provided that France continues the war 
against Germany. So as to give still greater expression to 
this, his wish for a continuation of the war, he issues a dec¬ 
laration that the American government will not recognize 
the results of the conquest of territories—i.e., the restoration 
to Germany of lands which had been stolen from her. 

I do not need to assure you, members of the Reichstag that 
it is a matter of complete indifference to every German gov¬ 
ernment whether the president of the U.S.A. recognizes the 
frontiers of Europe or no, and that this indifference will like¬ 
wise continue, in the future. I merely quote this to illustrate 
the methodical incitement which has come from this man 
who speaks hypocritically of peace, but always urges to war. 

But now he is seized with fear that if peace is brought 
about in Europe, his squandering of billions of money on 
armaments will be looked upon as plain fraud, since nobody 
will attack America—and he then himself must provoke this 


Germany Breaks Diplomatic 
Relations with America 

Germany delivered a note to the U.S. gov¬ 
ernment on her declaration of war. Here are the 
circumstances, as released to the press by the 
Department of State, December 11, 1941. 

T he German charge d’affaires , Dr. Hans Thomsen, 
and the first secretary of the German Embassy, Mr. 
von Strempel, called at the State Department at 8 
a.m. on December 11, 1941. The secretary, other¬ 
wise engaged, directed that they be received by the chief of the 
European Division of the State Department, Mr. Ray 
Atherton. Mr. Atherton received the German representatives 
at 9:30 a.m. 

The German representatives handed to Mr. Atherton a 
copy of a note that was also being delivered the same morning 
to the American charge d’affaires in Berlin. Dr. Thomsen said 
that Germany considers herself in a state of war with the 
United States. He asked that the appropriate measures be 
taken for the departure of himself, the members of the 
German Embassy and his staff in this country. He reminded 
Mr. Atherton that the German government had previously 
expressed its willingness to grant the same treatment to 
American press correspondents in Germany as that accorded 
the American official staff on a reciprocal basis and added that 
he assumed that the departure of other American citizens 
from Germany would be permitted on the same basis of 
German citizens desiring to leave this country. He referred to 
the exchange of civilians that had been arranged at the time 
Great Britain and Germany broke off diplomatic relations. 

The German charge d’affaires then stated that the Swiss 
government would take over German interests in this country 
and that Dr. Bruggmann had already received appropriate 
instructions from his government. 

He then handed Mr. Atherton a note from the German gov¬ 
ernment. Mr. Atherton stated that in accepting this note from 
the German charge d’affaires he was merely formalizing the 
realization of the threat and purposes of the German govern¬ 
ment and the Nazi regime toward this hemisphere and our 
free American civilization that the government and people of 
this country had faced since the outbreak of the war in 1939. 

Mr. Atherton then said that this government would 
arrange for the delivery of Dr. Thomsen’s passports and that 
he assumed that we would very shortly be in communication 
with the Swiss Minister. He added that Dr. Thomsen must 
realize, however, that the physical difficulties of the situation 
would demand a certain amount of time in working out this 
reciprocal arrangement for the departure of the missions of 
the two countries. The German representatives then took 
their leave. ❖ 


THE BARNES REVIEW 


17 




attack upon his country. 

On July 17,1940, the American president orders that the 
blocking of French assets with a view, as he puts it, to plac¬ 
ing them beyond German reach, but really in order to trans¬ 
fer the French gold from Casablanca to America with the 
assistance of an American cruiser. 

In July 1940 he tries by enlisting American citizens in the 
British air force and by training British airmen in the U.S.A. 
to pave ever better the way to war. 

In August, 1940, a military program is jointly drawn up 
between the U.S.A. and Canada. To make the establishment 
of a Canadian-U.S. Defense Committee plausible—plausible 
at least to the biggest fools—he invents from time to time 
crises, by means of which he pretends that America is being 
threatened with aggression. 

This he wished to impress upon the 
American people by suddenly returning 
on April 3 to Washington with all speed 
on account of the alleged danger of the 
situation. In September 1940 he drew 
still nearer to the war. He turned over 
to the British fleet 50 destroyers of the 
American Navy, in return for which, to 
be sure, he takes over several British 
bases in North and South America. 

He thus receives powers to lend or 
lease support to countries, the defense 
of which may appear to him as vital in 
America’s interests. Then he takes yet a 
further step. As far back as December 9, 

1939, American cruisers in the security zone handed over the 
German ship Columbus to the British ships. In the circum¬ 
stances she had to be sunk. 

O n the same day, U.S. forces cooperated to prevent the 
attempted escape of the German steamer Arauca. 
And on January 27, 1940, the U.S. cruiser [named, 
but indistinct] in contravention of International Law 
advised enemy naval forces of the movements of the German 
steamers, Arauca , La Plata and Mangoni. 

On June 27, 1940, he ordered, in complete contravention 
of international law, a restriction of the freedom of movement 
of foreign ships in U.S. harbors. 

In November 1940 he ordered the German ships Reugeu , 
Niedervald and Rhein to be followed by American ships until 
these steamers were compelled to scuttle themselves so as 
not to fall into enemy hands. 

Meanwhile, in March, all German ships were requisi¬ 
tioned by the American authorities. In the course of this, 
German nationals were treated in a most inhuman manner 
and, in contravention of international law, certain places of 
residence were assigned them, traveling restrictions imposed 
upon them, and so on. 

Two German officers, who had escaped from Canadian 
captivity, were—again contrary to the dictates of interna¬ 
tional law—handcuffed and handed over to the Canadian 
authorities. 


On March 24 the same president who stands against 
every aggression, acclaimed Simovitch [leader of the 
Yugoslav coup] and his companions who [gained their posi¬ 
tions], by aggression and by removing the lawful government 
of the country. Roosevelt some months before sent Col. 
Donovan, a completely unworthy creature, to the Balkans, to 
Sofia and Belgrade, to engineer a rising against Germany 
and Italy. 

In April he promised help to Yugoslavia and Greece under 
the Lend-Lease Act. At the end of April, this man recognized 
the Yugoslav and Greek emigre governments, and once more 
against international law, blocked Yugoslav and Greek 
assets. 

From the middle of April onward, American watch over 
the western Atlantic by U.S.A. patrols was extended, and 

reports were made to the British. 

On April 26 Roosevelt transferred to 
the British 20 motor-torpedo-boats; and 
at the same time, British warships 
were being repaired in U.S. ports. 

On May 5 the illegal arming and 
repairing of Norwegian ships for Eng¬ 
land took place. 

On June 4 American troop trans¬ 
ports arrived in Greenland to build air¬ 
dromes. 

On June 9 came the first British 
report that, on Roosevelt’s orders, a U.S. 
warship had attacked a German U-boat 
with depth charges near Greenland. 

On June 4 German assets in the U.S.A. were illegally 
blocked. 

On June 7 Roosevelt demanded under mendacious pre¬ 
texts, that German consuls should be withdrawn and 
German consulates closed. He also demanded the closing of 
the German Press Agency, Trans-ocean, the German 
Information Library and the German Reichsbank Central 
Office. 

On July 6 and 7 Iceland, which is within the German 
fighting zone, was occupied by American forces on the orders 
of Roosevelt. He intended, first of all, to force Germany to 
make war and to make the German U-boat warfare as inef¬ 
fective as it was in 1915-16. At the same time he promised 
American help to the Soviet Union. 

On June 10 the Navy minister, Knox, suddenly announced 
an American order to shoot at Axis warships. 

On September 4 the U.S. destroyer Greer , obeying orders, 
operated with British aircraft against German U-boats in 
the Atlantic. Five days later, a German U-boat noticed the 
U.S. destroyer acting as escort in a British convoy. 

On September 11 Roosevelt finally made a speech in which 
he confirmed and repeated his order to fire on all Axis ships. 

On September 29 U.S. escort-vessels attacked a German 
U-boat with depth-charges east of Greenland. 

On October 7 the U.S. destroyer Kearney , acting as an 
escort vessel for Britain, again attacked a German U-boat 
with depth-charges. 


Not only because we are the 
ally of Japan, but also because 
Germany and Italy have 
enough insight and strength to 
comprehend that, in these 
historic times, the existence or 
non-existence of the nations is 
being decided, perhaps forever. 


18 


MAY/JUNE 2004 







Finally, on November 6, U.S. forces illegally seized the 
German steamer Odenwald and took it to an American port, 
where the crew was taken prisoner. 

I will pass over the insulting attacks made by this so- 
called president against me. That he calls me a gangster is 
uninteresting. After all, this expression was not coined in 
Europe but in America, no doubt because such gangsters are 
lacking here. Apart from this, I cannot be insulted by 
Roosevelt for I consider him mad, just as Wilson was. 

I do not need to mention what this man has done for years 
in the same way against Japan. First he incites war, then fal¬ 
sifies the causes, then odiously wraps himself in a cloak of 
Christian hypocrisy and slowly but surely leads mankind to 
war, not without calling upon God to witness the honesty of 
his attack—in the approved manner of an old Freemason. 

I think you have all found it a relief that now, at last, one 
state has been the first to take the step of protest against his 
historically unique and shameless ill-treatment of truth, and 
of right—which protest this man has desired and about which 
he cannot complain. The fact that the Japanese government, 
which has been negotiating for years with this man, has at 
last become tired of being mocked by him, in such an unwor¬ 
thy way, fills us all, the German people, and I think, all other 
decent people in the world, with deep satisfaction. 

e have seen what the Jews have done to Soviet 
Russia. We have made the acquaintance of the 
Jewish paradise on earth. Millions of German sol¬ 
diers have been able to see this country where the 
international Jews have destroyed people and property. The 
president of the U.S.A. ought finally to understand—I say 
this only because of his limited intellect— that we know that 
the aim of this struggle is to destroy one state after another. 

But the present German Reich has nothing more in com¬ 
mon with the old Germany. And we, for our part, will now do 
what this provocateur has been trying to do so much for 
years. Not only because we are the ally of Japan, but also 
because Germany and Italy have enough insight and 
strength to comprehend that, in these historic times, the 
existence or non-existence of the nations is being decided, 
perhaps forever. 

We clearly see the intention of the rest of the world toward 
us. They reduced democratic Germany to hunger. They would 
exterminate our social institutions of today. When Churchill 
and Roosevelt state that they want to build up a new social 
order, later on, it is like a hairdresser with a bald head rec¬ 
ommending a hair-restorer. These men, who live in the most 
socially backward states, have misery and distress enough in 
their own countries to occupy themselves with the distribu¬ 
tion of foodstuffs. 

In the whole history of the German nation, of nearly 2,000 
years, it has never been so united as today, and, thanks to 
National Socialism, it will remain united in the future. 
Probably it has never seen so clearly, and rarely been so con¬ 
scious of its honor. I have therefore arranged for his pass¬ 
ports to be handed to the American charge d’affairs today, 
and the following ... [drowned in applause]. 



As a consequence of the further extension of President 
Roosevelt’s policy, which is aimed at unrestricted world dom¬ 
ination and dictatorship, the U.S.A., together with England, 
has not hesitated to use any means to dispute the rights of 
the German, Italian and Japanese nations to the basis of 
their natural existence. 

The governments of the U.S. A. and of England have there¬ 
fore resisted, not only now but also for all time, every just 
understanding meant to bring about a better new order in 
the world. Since the beginning of the war the American pres¬ 
ident, Roosevelt, has been guilty of a series of the worst 
crimes against international law; illegal seizure of ships and 
other property of German and Italian nationals were coupled 
with the threat to, and looting of, those who were deprived of 
their liberty by being interned. 

Roosevelt’s ever-increasing attacks finally went so far that 
he ordered the American Navy to attack everywhere ships 
under the German and Italian flags, and to sink them—this 
in gross violation of international law. American ministers 
boasted of having destroyed German submarines in this 
criminal way. German and Italian merchant ships were 
attacked by American cruisers, captured and their crews 
imprisoned. 

With no attempt at an official denial there has now been 
revealed in America President Roosevelt’s plan by which, at 
the latest in 1943, Germany and Italy were to be attacked in 
Europe by military means. In this way the sincere efforts of 
Germany and Italy to prevent an extension of the war and to 
maintain relations with the U.S.A. in spite of the unbearable 
provocations which have been carried on for years by 
President Roosevelt, have been frustrated. 

Germany and Italy have been finally compelled, in view of 
this, and in loyalty to the tripartite pact, to carry on the 
struggle against the U.S.A. and England jointly and side by 
side with Japan for the defense and thus for the mainte¬ 
nance of the liberty and independence of their nations and 
empires. 

The three powers have therefore concluded the following 
agreement, which was signed in Berlin today: 


In their unshakable determination not to lay down arms until 
the joint war against the U.S.A. and England reaches a successful 
conclusion, the German, Italian, and Japanese governments have 
agreed on the following points: 

Article I. Germany, Italy and Japan will wage the common war 
forced upon them by the U.S.A. and England with all the means of 
power at their disposal, to a victorious conclusion. 

Article II. Germany, Italy and Japan undertake not to conclude 
an armistice or peace with the U.S.A., or with England without 
complete mutual understanding. 

Article III. Germany, Italy and Japan will continue the closest 
cooperation even after the victorious conclusion of the war in order 
to bring about a just new order in the sense of the Tri-Partite Pact 
concluded by them on September 27,1940. 

Article IV. This Agreement comes into force immediately after 
signature and remains in force as long as the tripartite pact of 
September 27, 1940. The signatory powers will confer in time 
before this period ends about the future form of the cooperation 
provided for in Article III of this agreement. ♦♦♦ 


THE BARNES REVIEW 


19 





NATIONALIST HISTORY & THEORY 



In modern American discourse, how rare it is indeed to 
hear the word “neutrality” uttered. That is the major issue 
here, dealt with by the famed aviator and American patriot, 
Charles Lindbergh. What is particularly interesting is the 
measured tone of his arguments. Straight from Washington’s 
Farewell Address, the common sense, straightforward and 
powerful indictment against FDR’s warmongering could not 
be more relevant today, to an America in deadly thrall to 
politicians, bankers and greedy capitalists who profit from 
wars and rumors of wars. 

By COL. CHARLES A. LINDBERGH 



THE FIGHT AGAINST FOREIGN 
WAR HAS JUST BEGUN! 

TMf VOTI ON NlirTRAUTY ftCVtSlON WAi 
TH< Cl0343T ON ANY WAft LEGISLATION YET 

Thorn Is still tin* to koop out — 
IF yon do yoor port, by Joining 

AMERICA FIRST 



T onight, I speak again to the people of 

this country who are opposed to the 
United States entering the war 
which is now going on in Europe. We 
are faced with the need of deciding 
on a policy of American neutrality 
The future of our nation and of our civilization 
rests upon the wisdom and foresight we use. Much 
as peace is to be desired, we should realize 
that behind a successful policy of neutral¬ 
ity must stand a policy of war. It is 
essential to define clearly those prin¬ 
ciples and circumstances for which a 
nation will fight. Let us give no one 
the impression that America’s love 
for peace means that she is afraid of 
war, or that we are not fully capable 
and willing to defend all that is vital 
to us. National life and influence de¬ 
pend upon national strength, both in char¬ 
acter and in arms. A neutrality built on 
pacifism alone will eventually fail. 

Before we can intelligently enact regula¬ 
tions for the control of our armaments, our 
credit, and our ships, we must draw a sharp 


dividing line between neutrality and war; there must be 
no gradual encroachment on the defenses of our 
nation. Up to this line we may adjust our affairs to 
gain the advantages of peace, but beyond it must lie 
* all the armed might of America, coiled in readiness to 
> spring if once this bond is cut. Let us make clear to all 
countries where this line lies. It must be both within 
our intent and our capabilities. There must be no ques¬ 
tion of trading or bluff in this hemisphere. Let us 
give no promises we cannot keep; make no 
meaningless assurances to an Ethiopia, a 
Czechoslovakia or a Poland. The policy 
we decide upon should be as clear-cut 
as our shorelines, and as easily defend¬ 
ed as our continent. 

This western hemisphere is our 
domain. It is our right to trade freely 
within it. From Alaska to Labrador, 
from the Hawaiian Islands to Bermuda, 
from Canada to South America, we must 
allow no invading army to set foot. These are 
the outposts of the United States. They form the 
essential outline of our geographical defense. 
We must be ready to wage war with all the 
resources of our nation if they are ever seri- 


20 


MAY/JUNE 2004 














Facing page, this advertisement from the America First Committee (AFC) urges Amer¬ 
icans to join the fight against intervention in the European war. Above, both Nazi Germany 
and the USSR were portrayed as brutal, aggressive “gorillas” until the United States did 
an about face in regard to the Soviet Union and became her staunch ally. Upper right, this 
poster portrayed the skeptical view that the non-aggression pact between Hitler and Stalin 
was an odd “marriage” from the joining. Right, this pro-war propaganda poster viewed 
Uncle Sam on a block of ice inscribed with the words “Patience With Germany,” implying 
that the time would come when America’s “patience” with the upsurging National Socialist 
nation would inevitably melt away, making intervention a necessity. 




ously threatened. Their defense is the mission of our army, 
our navy, and our air corps the minimum requirement of our 
military strength. Around these places should lie our line 
between neutrality and war. Let there be no compromise 
about our right to defend or trade within this area. If it is 
challenged by any nation, the answer must be war. Our poli¬ 
cy of neutrality should have this as its foundation. 

We must protect our sister American nations from foreign 
invasion, both for their welfare and our own. But, in turn, 
they have a duty to us. They should not place us in the posi¬ 
tion of having to defend them in America while they engage 
in wars abroad. Can we rightfully permit any country in 
America to give bases to foreign warships, or to send its army 
abroad to fight while it remains secure in our protection at 
home? We desire the utmost friendship with the people of 
Canada. If their country is ever attacked, our Navy will be 
defending their seas, our soldiers will fight on their battle¬ 


fields, our fliers will die in their skies. But have they the 
right to draw this hemisphere into a European war simply 
because they prefer the crown of England to American inde¬ 
pendence? 

S ooner or later we must demand the freedom of this 
continent and its surrounding islands from the dic¬ 
tates of European power. American history clearly 
indicates this need. As long as European powers main¬ 
tain their influence in our hemisphere, we are likely to find 
ourselves involved in their troubles. And they will lose no 
opportunity to involve us. 

Our Congress is now assembled to decide upon the best 
policy for this country to maintain during the war which is 
going on in Europe. The legislation under discussion involves 
three major issues—the embargo of arms, the restriction of 
shipping, and the allowance of credit. The action we take in 


THE BARNES REVIEW 


21 























































regard to these issues will be an important indication to our¬ 
selves, and to the nations of Europe, whether or not we are 
likely to enter the conflict eventually as we did in the last 
war. The entire world is watching us. The action we take in 
America may either stop or precipitate this war. 

Let us take up these issues, one at a time, and examine 
them. First, the embargo of arms: It is argued that the repeal 
of this embargo would assist democracy in Europe, that it 
would let us make a profit for ourselves from the sale of 
munitions abroad, and, at the same time, help to build up our 
own arms industry. 

I do not believe that repealing the arms embargo would 
assist democracy in Europe—because I do not believe this is 
a war for democracy. This is a war over the balance of power 
in Europe; a war brought about by the desire for strength on 
the part of Germany and the fear of strength on the part of 
England and France. The munitions the armies obtain, the 
longer the war goes on, and the more dev¬ 
astated Europe becomes, the less hope 
there is for democracy. That is a lesson we 
should have learned from participation in 
the last war. If democratic principles had 
been applied in Europe after that war, if 
the “democracies” of Europe had been will¬ 
ing to make some sacrifice to help democ¬ 
racy in Europe while it was fighting for its 
life, if England and France had offered a 
hand to the struggling republic of 
Germany, there would be no war today. 

If we repeal the arms embargo with the 
idea of assisting one of the warring sides to 
overcome the other, then why mislead our¬ 
selves by talk of neutrality? Those who 
advance this argument should admit open¬ 
ly that repeal is a step toward war. The 
next step would be the extension of credit, 
and the next step would be the sending of 
American troops. 

T o those who argue that we could make a profit and 
build up our own industry by selling munitions 
abroad, I reply that we in America have not yet 
reached a point where we wish to capitalize on the 
destruction and death of war. I do not believe that the mate¬ 
rial welfare of this country need, or that our spiritual welfare 
could withstand, such a policy. If our industry depends upon 
a commerce of arms for its strength, then our industrial sys¬ 
tem should be changed. 

It is impossible for me to understand how America can 
contribute civilization and humanity by sending offensive 
instruments of destruction to European battlefields. This 
would not only implicate us in the war, but it would make us 
partly responsible for its devastation. The fallacy of helping 
to defend a political ideology, even though it be somewhat 
similar to our own, was clearly demonstrated to us in the last 
war. Through our help that war was won, but neither the 
democracy nor the justice for which we fought grew in the 


peace that followed our victory. 

Our bond with Europe is a bond of race and not of politi¬ 
cal ideology. We had to fight a European army to establish 
democracy in this country. It is the European race we must 
preserve; political progress will follow. Racial strength is 
vital—politics, a luxury. If the white race is ever seriously 
threatened, it may then be time for us to take our part in its 
protection, to fight side by side with the English, French, and 
Germans, but not with one against the other for our mutual 
destruction. 

L et us not dissipate our strength, or help Europe to 
dissipate hers, in these wars of politics and posses¬ 
sion. For the benefit of western civilization, we 
should continue our embargo on offensive arma¬ 
ments. As far as purely defensive arms are concerned, I, for 
one, am in favor of supplying European countries with as 

much as we can spare of the material that 
falls within this category. There are techni¬ 
cians who will argue that offensive and 
defensive arms cannot be separated com¬ 
pletely. That is true, but it is no more diffi¬ 
cult to make a list of defensive weapons 
than it is to separate munitions of war from 
semi-manufactured articles, and we are 
faced with that problem today. No one says 
that we should sell opium because it is dif¬ 
ficult to make a list of narcotics. I would as 
soon see our country traffic in opium as in 
bombs. There are certain borderline cases, 
but there are plenty of clear-cut examples: 
for instance, the bombing plane and the 
anti-aircraft cannon. I do not want to see 
American bombers dropping bombs that 
will kill and mutilate European children, 
even if they are not flown by American 
pilots. But I am perfectly willing to see 
American anti-aircraft guns shooting 
American shells at invading bombers over any European 
country. And I believe that most of you who are listening 
tonight will agree with me. 

The second major issue for which we must create a policy 
concerns the restrictions to be placed on our shipping. Naval 
blockades have long been accepted as an element of warfare. 
They began on the surface of the sea, followed the submarine 
beneath it, and now reach up into the sky with aircraft. The 
laws and customs that were developed during the surface era 
were not satisfactory to the submarine. Now, aircraft bring 
up new and unknown factors for consideration. It is simple 
enough for a battleship to identify the merchantman she cap¬ 
tures. It is a more difficult problem for a submarine if that 
merchantman may carry cannon; it is safer to fire a torpedo 
than to come up and ask. For bombing planes flying at high 
altitudes and through conditions of poor visibility, identifica¬ 
tion of a surface vessel will be more difficult still. 

In modern naval blockades and warfare, torpedoes will be 
fired and bombs dropped on probabilities rather than on cer- 



UJORDS RflD mUSIC 

4,sarr Quinn hill 


Lindbergh’s views on U.S. neutrality were 
not unique. This sheet music was created 
for the non-interventionists in 1940 by a 
now-forgotten American artist. 


22 


MAY/JUNE 2004 













tainties of identification. The only safe 
course for neutral shipping at this time 
is to stay away from the warring coun¬ 
tries and dangerous waters of Europe. 

The third issue to be decided relates 
to the extension of credit. Here again 
we may draw from our experience in 
the last war. After that war was over, we 
found ourselves in the position of hav¬ 
ing financed a large portion of 
European countries. And when the time 
came to pay us back, these countries 
simply refused to do so. They not only 
refused to pay the wartime loans we 
made, but they refused to pay back 
what we loaned them after the war was over. As is so fre¬ 
quently the case, we found that loaning money eventually 
created animosity instead of gratitude. European countries 
felt insulted when we asked to be repaid. They called us 
“Uncle Shylock.” They were horror struck at the idea of turn¬ 
ing over to us any of their islands in America to compensate 
for their debts, or for our help in winning their war. They 
seized all the German colonies and carved up Europe to suit 
their fancy. These were the “fruits of war.” They took our 
money and they took our soldiers. But there was not the offer 
of one Caribbean island in return for the debts they “could 
not afford to pay.” 

The extension of credit to a belligerent country is a long 
step toward war, and it would leave us close to the edge. If 
American industry loans money to a belligerent country, 
many interests will feel that it is more important for that 
country to win than for our own to avoid the war. It is unfor¬ 


tunate but true that there are interests 
in America who would rather lose 
American lives than their own dollars. 
We should give them no opportunity. 

I believe that we should adopt as our 
program of American neutrality—as 
our contribution to western civiliza¬ 
tion—the following policy: 

1. An embargo on offensive weapons 
and munitions; 

2. The unrestricted sale of purely 
defensive armaments; 

3. The prohibition of American ship¬ 
ping from the belligerent countries of 
Europe and their danger zones; 

4. The refusal of credit to belligerent nations or their 
agents. 

Whether or not this program is adopted depends upon the 
support of those of us who believe in it. The United States of 
America is a democracy. The policy of our country is still con¬ 
trolled by our people. It is time for us to take action. There 
has never been a greater test for the democratic principle of 
government. ❖ 

Charles Augustus Lindbergh (1902-1974) was a 
household name throughout the years leading to World War II. 
Therefore, lending his name to the pro-neutrality cause 
throughout the 1930s and early 1940s brought the America 
First movement a great deal of respect. He charged that pro- 
Jewish and British groups were leading America into war, and 
he paid for it with his reputation and political career. 


The United States of America 
is a democracy. The policy of 
our country is still controlled 
by our people. It is time for us 
to take action. There has never 
been a greater test for the 
democratic principle 
of government. 


Understanding the Past 

■r ■> i ■! i ^ -l*t niijmp.;../ rnrf>.A... tfHbJcri 


Why was the JDL so scared 
of this man they burned 
his operation to the ground? 

Understanding the Past 

A Classic 1979 Speech by TBR Publisher Willis A. Carto 




■ it- ■ >*-m 







“The high purpose of this con¬ 
vention—indeed the high pur¬ 
pose of the Institute for His¬ 
torical Review—is to promote 
a better understanding of the 
past among Americans of all 
political viewpoints, and I sub¬ 
mit to you that nothing could 
be more important than that 
for those who are genuinely 
concerned with improving the 
state of mankind and the state 
of the world today” 


—Willis A. Carto 


T his important transcript contains the introductory remarks made at the opening of the First 
International Revisionist Conference, held in Los Angeles and sponsored by the Institute for 
Historical Review (IHR) on August 31, 1979. Because of the success the Cartos were having 

publishing authentic Revisionist history at the IHR, efforts were subsequently made to silence the IHR. The residence of Willis and 
Elisabeth Carto was picketed and vandalized. After two bungled arson attempts were made on the IHR’s offices, the JDL finally succeeded in 
burning it to the ground. What were they so scared of? 

Hear Carto in his own words describe the mission of the IHR as it was in 1979 and what was so radical about this new message of truth. 
This four-page reprint entitled “Understanding the Past” (1-100 copies for 500 each; more than 100 copies are just 250 each postpaid) is 
now available from TBR, P.O. Box 15877, Washington, D.C. 20003. You may also call 1-877-773-9077 toll free and charge your copies to Visa or 
MasterCard. To understand the present, you must understand the past. Find out why in this special offprint. Minimum $10 Credit Card order. 


THE BARNES REVIEW 


23 























The 

Cambridge 

Aposdes: 

The Soviet Union ’s Pipeline 
to Britain’s Worst-Kept Secrets 


Of Christianity’s Twelve Disciples, 

only one was Judas; the other 11 were 
saints. By contrast, in the 1930s the 
Cambridge Society of Apostles had at least 
five traitors and no known saints. The 
British establishment and especially its sci¬ 
entific community was totally oblivious to 
the vast communist infiltration. Comintern 
illegals had free rein to recruit agents and 
steal British scientific discoveries. 


By ROBERT K. LOGAN 


T he Society of Apostles was estab¬ 
lished at Cambridge (King’s and 
Trinity colleges) in 1820 as an 
exclusive club for the intellectual 
elite of Britain. Those selected for 
the society were enjoined to bring a skeptical 
eye to all orthodoxies and to explore the “cut¬ 
ting edge” of contemporary thought. They like 
the ancient Greeks, believed themselves to be in 
pursuit of beauty, truth and knowledge. 
Ironically, this bold band of Apostles, after hav¬ 
ing abandoned the traditions, beliefs and values 
of their families and nation, became agents for 
the most fraudulent, ugly and bloody orthodoxy 
in the 20th century, that of communism. 

In the 1930s Trotskyites, many of whom 
were Jewish, were dominant in the Comintern, 
concerned with propagating the gospel of com¬ 
munism outside the Soviet Union. Stalin’s 
removal of Trotskyites only began in earnest 
after 1937, and by 1943 he eliminated the 
Comintern. After World War II, Stalin began 
gradually removing Jews entirely from the gov¬ 
ernment. But in the period under discussion— 
before the purges—Trotskyites were very active 
throughout the world, and especially in Cam¬ 
bridge in recruiting agents and stealing what¬ 
ever might prove useful to the Soviet Union. 

The Marxist, more accurately communist, 
Apostles captured the Cambridge Society in 
1932. Among its members at the time were 
future spies Anthony Blunt (art historian and 
surveyor of the queen’s pictures), and Leo Long 
(who would work at Bletchley Park—the gov- 



24 


MAY/JUNE 2004 


» 





























ernment codes and ciphers school. The other, better-known 
members of the Cambridge ring—Harold (“Kim”) Philby, 
Guy Burgess, Donald Maclean, John Cairncross and Victor 
Rothschild—were invited to become Apostles after 1932 by 
Blunt, who acted as a scout for potentially useful agents. 
Blunt himself had been recruited by one Samuel Cahan, the 
first Soviet illegal involved in the recruitment of young 
Cambridge men destined for high government positions. 
Anatoli Gorski and later Yuri Modin would follow Deutsch as 
controllers. 

Arnold Deutsch, an Austrian Trotskyite, was the Soviet 
illegal planted in England to seduce vulnerable young men 
into service for the Soviet Union. Deutsch was a disciple of 
Wilhelm Reich, a communist psychologist and sexologist who 
also worked for the Comintern, and who founded the “sex- 
pol” (sexual politics) movement that advocated birth control 
and sexual license as another form of “liberation” for the 
masses. Reich integrated Freudianism and Marxism to the 
extent that he was referred to as “the prophet of the better 
orgasm.” Deutsch shared Reich’s view that political and sex- 

Infiltrated... 


ual repression were two sides of the same coin and led the re¬ 
pressed to fascism. 1 

Cultural Bolshevism was actively seducing young and old 
alike down the primrose path. 

To be sure, a degree of sexual repression (some would say 
discipline or restraint) was prevalent in the homoerotic 
atmosphere of the English public schools and colleges. 
Absent female students or other opportunities at Cambridge, 
some of the more energetic young men with normal instincts 
found recreation by traveling to London on their favorite 
express train, which they dubbed the “Flying Fornicator.” 

Of course Cambridge in the 1930s already had a good 
many communists on its faculty, home-grown as well as 
Jewish emigres. In discussions concerning Christianity, the 
view was taken that Christ was really a champion of Jewish 
independence against Roman rule, and that he was crucified 
by the Romans as a political rebel and not by the Jews as a 
religious heretic. Foreign students studying at Cambridge at 
the time were also lured into communism, notably the 
Canadian Herbert Norman and the American Michael 
Straight. 




Under the very nose of a giant painting of Sir Winston 

Churchill, some of the most destructive spies in history 
conspired. At center is one of the so-called “Cambridge 
Apostles ,” Donald Maclean (1915-1983), Foreign Office 
secretary, Paris, Washington, Cairo, London. Maclean 
was a prodigious worker and an alcoholic. After a drunk¬ 
en episode in Cairo, Maclean was sent home to London to 
“recover” from his “nervous condition.” After a few 
months of medical leave, he was given the prestigious 
position of chief of the American Desk of the Foreign 
Office. Maclean was an insecure diplomat. His fellow 
spies Burgess and Philby went to some lengths to mask 
their true political allegiance by becoming pro-Nazi. 
When war came in 1939, Maclean and Philby (then in 
France) returned to England. Maclean, particularly dur¬ 
ing his tenure with the British Embassy in Washington 
(1944-1948), was Stalin's main source of information 
about communications between Churchill and Roosevelt, 
and then Churchill and Truman. He reported on the 
atom bomb’s development and progress, particularly the 
amount of uranium available to the U.S. He was the 
British representative on the American-British- 
Canadian council on the sharing of atomic secrets. This 
knowledge enabled the Soviets to predict the number of 
bombs that could be built by the U.S. Maclean’s reports 
helped the Soviets not only to build the atom bomb, but 
how to estimate their nuclear arsenal’s relative strength 
against that of America. After the war Maclean’s contin¬ 
ual monitoring of secret messages between Truman and 
Churchill allowed Stalin to know how the U.S. and UK 
proposed to occupy Germany and carve up the borders of 
Eastern European countries. Along with Maclean, Philby 
let Stalin know America would not use atomic weapons 
in the Korean War, nor would MacArthur be allowed to 
carry the war beyond the Yalu River. 


A postle economist John Maynard Keynes said 
of the society: “We repudiated entirely cus¬ 
tomary morals, conventions, and traditional 
. wisdom.... We recognized no moral obliga¬ 
tion on us, no inner sanction to conform or obey. 
Another famed Apostle, novelist E.M. Forster, said that 
if an Apostle was forced to choose between betraying 
his friend and betraying his country, he “hoped he 
would betray his country.” In fact, most of the Apostles 
did protect each other, with the exception of Blunt, who 
in the end betrayed both his country and his fellow 
Apostles. 2 

The sexual preferences of the “Magnificent Five” are 
well known: Cairncross and Rothschild were normal 
heterosexuals; Philby was a heterosexual practicing 
serial monogamy; Maclean was a very troubled bisexu¬ 
al; Blunt and Burgess were arrogant and flagrant 
homosexuals. The homosexual members lived the life 
of what they called “the Higher Sodomy.” So outra¬ 
geous was the behavior of Burgess that Winston 
Churchill is alleged to have said (in reference to Tom 
Driberg, a member of Parliament and friend of 
Burgess, but also aimed at Burgess): “He has the un - 
enviable reputation of being the only man in this 
House who has brought buggery into disrepute.” 

One of the best descriptions of Cambridge students 
at play appeared in the pages of Evelyn Waugh’s 
Brideshead Revisited and in the TV series based on the 
book. In a word, their lives, with the exception of 
Cairncross and Rothschild, were dissolute. 

It is interesting to note with respect to the 
Trotskyite influence that Cairncross’ first wife was 
Gabriella Oppenheim, a Jewish emigre from 
Germany; and Philby’s first wife was Litzi Friedman, a 
well-known Austrian communist; Rothschild’s first 


THE BARNES REVIEW 


25 


ARCHIVE PHOTOS 






wife was a gentile who converted to Judaism sometime 
before Victor decided to divorce her. 

The lives of Philby, Burgess, Maclean and Blunt were so 
dissolute (alcoholism), perverse (sexual disorders) and outra¬ 
geous that they have received the most attention in the press 
and media. Their claim that they had ideological differences 
with the capitalist system and had therefore chosen commu¬ 
nism as a better hope for the future can be dismissed out of 
hand. It recalls a story told of the cardinal of Boston, who, 
when approached by a young priest who requested permis¬ 
sion to leave the priesthood because he had irreconcilable 
theological differences with church teachings, said: “My son, 
neither you nor I is intelligent enough to have theological dif¬ 
ferences. What is the problem, my son? 

Is it the bottle or a woman?” 

Of course one ought not believe that 
the infamous Cambridge spy ring con¬ 
sisted of just five men. It is simply that 
these five (Kim Philby, Guy Burgess, 

Donald Maclean, Anthony Blunt, and 
either John Cairncross or Victor Roths¬ 
child) received the most notoriety. So¬ 
viet intelligence referred to the traitor¬ 
ous group as the “Magnificent Five” for 
the wealth of information they be¬ 
trayed. 

The NKVD/KGB/GRU probably had 
several hundred agents in Britain in 
the 1930s and ’40s furthering the cause of world commu¬ 
nism, but not all of them in critical governmental positions 
as were the Apostles. Strong arguments have been put forth 
to indict both Cairncross and Rothschild as the possible “fifth 
man.” The numerical sequence means nothing; they might be 
the fifth and sixth out of an unknown number. 

F or the longest time the identity of the fifth member 
of the Cambridge spy ring remained a mystery (pre¬ 
sumably there must have been several candidates). 
It was decided by the British establishment that the 
“fifth” traitor was John Cairncross, although Victor Roths¬ 
child was suspected by many. It is precisely these two gifted, 
normal men who are of greater interest and for whom more 
plausible explanations for their behavior are available. 

The Australian writer, Roland Perry, has provided the 
strongest indictment against Rothschild. 3 Rothschild was a 
polymath with interests in the sciences; most of the other 
Apostles majored in the humanities. Victor was a personal 
friend of Guy Burgess, who also acted as financial adviser to 
Victor’s mother, for which he received a generous monthly 
retainer. Rothschild let Burgess use a house on Bentinck 
Street, which he shared with Blunt, for living and enter¬ 
taining. It soon became the scene for drunken homosexual 
orgies and other debaucheries. Regular guests included 
Philby and Maclean, but also Guy Liddell of MI5, Desmond 
Vesey of MI6, and a bevy of British communist scientists. 
Being a Rothschild, Victor could operate with impunity 


between the Kremlin and the House of Lords. His special 
place in the establishment with unsurpassed connections 
allowed him unrestricted access to every major governmen¬ 
tal institution. Rothschild was a regular visitor to British 
intelligence offices, wining and dining the directors (Guy 
Liddell, Roger Hollis, Dick White, Maurice Oldfield, Peter 
Wright). He could also influence the budgetary monies allot¬ 
ted to the intelligence agencies, and often did so to the 
advantage of the agencies. When the war broke out, Liddell 
put Rothschild in charge of MI5 security. 

Later, Rothschild prevailed upon his friend, the physicist 
James Chadwick, to appoint him special liaison with 
American scientists working on the atom bomb. In no time, 

he became a friend of Adm. Lewis 
Strauss, chairman of the AEC. 
Rothschild continued to argue for shar¬ 
ing advances in nuclear weaponry with 
Russia; he also worked with Chaim 
Weizmann to set up a special nuclear 
physics department in Rehovoth for the 
purpose of developing an Israeli bomb. 

Rothschild, according to Perry, was 
more loyal to his Jewish heritage than 
anything English. For example, when 
the British tried to thwart the birth of 
Israel, which threatened to upset its 
power base in the Near East, Rothschild 
intrigued against British interests. His 
contacts within British intelligence were useful in helping the 
Jewish Haganah , the precursor to Mossad, to keep aware of 
British plans. Interviewed in Moscow by the writer, Phillip 
Knightley, Philby expressed his opinion that when Rothschild 
left MI5 in 1947 he copied all the file cards listing Soviet 
agents in Europe and elsewhere and passed them on to the 
Mossad. 

Perry concludes that it was Rothschild, not Cairncross, 
who stole all major UK/U.S. weapons developments in World 
War II, including biological warfare, the atom bomb and 
radar. 

Pressed to resolve the question of Rothschild’s guilt or 
innocence, Margaret Thatcher eventually made a terse, but 
unconvincing, statement in the House of Commons, saying, “I 
am advised that we have no evidence that he [Rothschild] 
was ever a Soviet spy.” 

John Cairncross, on the other hand, had been recruited 
into the communist party while at Cambridge by James 
Klugmann, a British communist at the school, and by Arnold 
Deutsch. He was never an Apostle insider nor was his fami¬ 
ly as closely connected with the British establishment as 
were those of Philby, Burgess, Maclean and Rothschild. 
Many believe he was declared the “Fifth Man” by the British 
government simply to shift blame away from Rothschild, a 
man much closer to the core of the British establishment. 

A gifted translator of French and German, John 
Cairncross was indeed a Soviet spy and did what he could, 
within his own restricted circles, to aid the Soviet Union. 


Rothschild continued to 
argue for sharing advances 
in nuclear weaponry with 
Russia; he also worked with 
Weizmann to set up a 
nuclear physics department 
for the purpose of developing 
an Israeli nuclear bomb. 


26 


MAY/JUNE 2004 





Meet the Cambridge Aposdes ... 



This left-wing set, the sons of rich men, got drunk 

at posh clubs almost every night while toasting the lower 
classes and vowing that communism was the only salva¬ 
tion for the oppressed of the earth. In reality, none of these 
then-young men ever had anything to do with the working 
class. Clockwise from upper left: Anthony Blunt (1907-83) 
was the most aristocratic of the notorious Cambridge spy 
ring for Moscow. Blunt worked in the MI5 security service. 
He sat on the Joint Intelligence Committee, had access to 
reports from the Secret Intelligence Service as well as MI5 
and was on the distribution list for u Ultra” material, which 
detailed the results of the German codes broken by the 
British. Blunt passed the material to the KGB. Guy 
Burgess (1911-63) proved to be one of Soviet Russia’s most 
effective spies at the beginning of the Cold War. He had con¬ 
siderable help in achieving his treasonable ends from oth¬ 
ers sharing his offbeat lifestyle. John Cairncross (born 
1913) entered Cambridge in the early 1930s and was 
almost immediately converted to communism by Blunt 
and Burgess. During World War II, he worked at the gov¬ 
ernment Code and Cipher School at Bletchley, England. 
All important codes and ciphers used by the Allies were 
copied by him and then fed to the Soviets. While at MI6, he 
decoded German messages and then drove to London, 
going straight to the Soviet Embassy to make the delivery. 
Following the war, he continued to funnel information to 
several Soviet contacts. Few British traitors and moles 
have earned such national revulsion as did “Kim”Philby 
(1912-88). Arrogant and cynical, he reveled in outwitting 
the British intelligence agencies for which he worked. 
Other Apostles included Alan Nunn May, Leo Long, Don¬ 
ald Maclean, Victor Rothschild and John Maynard 
Keynes. Right, the first Soviet atomic bomb blast (August 
29, 1949), made possible by these traitors. 



> 

33 

I 

i> 

CO 

CO 


THE BARNES REVIEW 


27 































Before arriving at Bletchley to translate German Enigma 
(ULTRA) intercepts, Cairncross worked in the Foreign Office, 
the Treasury, and the SIS and as secretary to Lord Hankey, 
a guiding force in the creation of the British secret service 
and chairman of the British Scientific Consultative Commit¬ 
tee. It must be assumed that he passed on to his Soviet con¬ 
troller everything he could, for which he received a small 
stipend commensurate with his lesser station in life. 

C airncross took greatest pride in having aided Soviet 
forces in the Battle of Kursk (1943) by providing 
them with Enigma information on the disposition 
of German forces, especially of the Luftwaffe. While 
the British officially provided KGB with some Enigma infor¬ 
mation, the Soviet Union surmised cor¬ 
rectly that there was much more to be 
had. Enter John Cairncross and Leo 
Long, both of whom helped fill in the 
gaps. 

In his autobiography, published 
posthumously, Cairncross described his 
contribution to the Russian victory at 
Kursk: 4 

Judging from what has been written 
about the Battle of Kursk, my contribution 
materially assisted the air strikes, which pre¬ 
ceded the main offensive. . . . The Russians 
were convinced that, in its German version, the ULTRA I supplied 
was genuine, giving the full details of German units and locations, 
thus permitting the Russians to pinpoint their target and to take 
the enemy by surprise. ... We now know that I was not the only 
source with access to ULTRA. The KGB received English-language 
versions, or sanitized ULTRA summaries, from Leo Long, as an 
MI 14 analyst, but, as he worked only on the Wehrmacht’s order of 
battle his information was limited mainly to land forces. In addi¬ 
tion, as I had suspected at the time, the official channel for the 
British government had been sending selected ULTRA summaries 
in English to the Soviet military intelligence service (GRU) almost 
from the start of the German invasion. 

Rarely mentioned in the context of the traitorous activi¬ 
ties of the Apostles were the idealistically motivated but 
naive policies of the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge. 
Believing that advances in science should be shared with the 
whole world, the laboratory, under the direction of the 


renowned physicist Sir Ernest Rutherford, welcomed schol¬ 
ars from all countries to work at Cambridge. Among the first 
group of nuclear physicists to arrive at Cambridge in 1921 
were Abram Joffe, Peter Kapitsa, and Lev Landau from the 
Soviet Union. Kapitsa rapidly became a favorite of Ruther¬ 
ford and stayed at Cavendish for 13 years, during which time 
he established the Kapitsa Club where Western scientists 
would meet to discuss new discoveries in their fields. When, 
in 1934, Stalin told him to return to the USSR and establish 
the Soviet Union’s own facilities, Rutherford graciously per¬ 
mitted Kapitsa to take with him the lab and instruments he 
had used while at Cambridge. 5 

But close contacts and exchanges between Cavendish and 
the Soviet’s counterpart facilities continued right through 

World War II. For example, information 
concerning the development of radar in 
the UK and the cyclotrons being con¬ 
structed at Cambridge and Liverpool all 
reached the USSR. When Otto Hahn 
successfully performed nuclear fission 
on the uranium atom in his Berlin labo¬ 
ratory, he gave his results to his former 
Jewish assistant Lise Meitner, who 
relayed them to Niels Bohr in Copen¬ 
hagen, who, in turn, informed other 
Western scientists. Communist agents 
in Sweden relayed Meitner’s informa¬ 
tion to Moscow where Abram Joffe, who had also worked with 
Hahn could interpret his formulas. 

Members of the communist-infiltrated Tots and Quots, a 
weekly London dining-club of radical scientists and econo¬ 
mists (Solly Zuckerman, Hyman Levy, Jack Haldane etc), 
also provided the USSR with confidential information. 

In contrast to the British educational system, the 
National Socialist Party in Germany in the 1930s was in the 
process of revolutionizing German education by opening the 
doors of higher education to youths from of all classes of soci¬ 
ety, providing they met the standards. The Adolf Hitler 
schools and the national political educational centers were 
established to produce new elite to fill posts in all spheres of 
German life. Emphasis in these schools would be placed on 
character-building and physical fitness rather than intellec¬ 
tuality. Hitler did not want the school system turning out 


In contrast to the British edu¬ 
cational system, the National 
Socialist Party was in the 
process of revolutionizing 
education by opening the 
doors of higher education to 
youths from of all classes. 


Was the Former King of England Working for the Nazis? 

Hidden Agenda: How the Duke of Windsor Betrayed the Allies 

By Martin Allen. The Nazi sympathies of Edward VIII (duke of Windsor and abdicated king of England) have long been dis¬ 
cussed cursorily but, until now, few would have suspected that some of his wartime activities would have brought treason 
charges under English law had they been exposed. Discusses Edward’s intelligence gathering activities and the suspicious rela¬ 
tionship he had with Charles Eugene Bedaux, a Frenchman suspected of spying for Germany in World War I. The duke of 
Windsor wasn’t the only leader in Europe who knew what tragedy an English alliance with the communists would bring for 
Europe. Now you’ll see why the duke of Windsor thought Adolf Hitler was better for England and Europe than Josef Stalin. 
#381, 312 pages, hardback, $22. See ordering coupon on page 80 or call 1-877-773-9077 to charge to Visa or MC. 


HIDDEN 

AGENDA 

Mow the Duke of Windsor 
Ik-1rayed the Allies 



MARTIN AI.I.EN 


28 


MAY/JUNE 2004 














highly educated and intelligent criminals or traitors. Hitler 
said: “A man of small intellectual attainment, but physically 
healthy, of good and stable character, able to exercise his will¬ 
power and ready to make responsible decisions is a more 
valuable member of and asset to the national community 
than a highly educated weakling.” 6 

The American university system was initially modeled on 
the 19th-century German model, but today the Germans are 
adapting some of our graduate school specializations to 
German needs. American colleges do copy the Cambridge 
system to the extent of having fraternities or sororities 
(clubs) for select young men and women. 

Yale’s Skull and Bones or Harvard’s 
Porcellian Club emphasize social rather 
than intellectual matters more than their 
British model. However, acquaintances and 
connections (now called networking) made 
in these clubs do help in developing a 
career. 

Epilogue 

Not a one of the Cambridge spy ring was 
ever indicted, convicted, jailed or executed 
in Britain. Philby, Burgess and Maclean 
were permitted to flee to and live out their 
lives in Russia. (Some wags would say that 
was punishment enough.) Incidentally, 
while in Russia Maclean applied for and 
obtained his pension for his service in the 
British government. Cairncross took up 
residence in the south of France, where he 
embellished his reputation as a French 
scholar. Leo Long finally confessed from 
retirement but was not judged worthy of punishment. 
Following Lord Keynes, Victor Rothschild entered the House 
of Lords and became the head of the Central Policy Review 
Staff of the Cabinet Office. Blunt alone suffered most terribly 
for his treason. His knighthood was revoked. 

There were of course mitigating circumstances why these 
young gentlemen were not indicted, brought to trial, convict¬ 
ed and punished. First, more names of individuals in high 
office were bound to be exposed causing even more scandal; 
second, high treason in England, which calls for the death 
penalty, can only be charged in cases of directly aiding an 
enemy. During World War II the Soviet Union was an ally 
and “friend” of the UK and United States; third, owing to the 
sorry conditions during the prewar Depression, Britain’s 
irrational fear of Germany and the glowing picture painted 
by the media of Bolshevik Russia, the capitalist system was 
considered to be the enemy; and lastly, to have been a 
Marxist or a homosexual in those days was not a disqualifi¬ 
cation for high office. To have been born a potential member 
of the ruling class, to have the right connections and striped 
tie, eliminated the need for a security clearance. 

The treason of the Cambridge ring simply reflected the 
arrogance of privileged upper-class Englishmen intoxicated 
from childhood with the heady belief they were immune, to 


do as they damned well pleased. Regrettably, it must be said 
that in U.S. intelligence agencies today, the men occupying 
some of the top, most critical positions, chiefly in coun¬ 
terintelligence, also are usually not as thoroughly vetted as 
those in lower positions. Aldrich Ames, formally CIA coun¬ 
terintelligence head, and John Hanssen, recently FBI coun¬ 
terintelligence head, are two recent examples. Apparently, 
they were exempted from routine polygraph checks. Indeed, 
who even appointed such men, apparently without any spe¬ 
cial educational qualifications, to such responsible positions? 

These same protective privileges, however, were not 

enjoyed by gentlemen who opposed Chur¬ 
chill’s warmongering and who sought to 
avoid the war by maintaining cordial ties 
with Germany. Some very distinguished 
members of the British Establishment 
(e.g., Adm. Sir Barry E. Domville, Capt. 
Archibald Maule Ramsay, an MP and high¬ 
ly decorated World War I veteran, and oth¬ 
ers) were thrown in Brixton Prison for the 
best part of the war for their pro-German 
views. The American diplomat Tyler Kent 
was permitted by the U.S. government to 
be incarcerated in a British jail for reveal¬ 
ing the content of correspondence between 
Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt 
pertaining to America’s entry into the war. 

Moreover, it is now generally believed 
that Edward VIII, better known as the 
duke of Windsor, king of Great Britain, was 
compelled in 1936 to abdicate the throne 
for his pro-German views, rather than “for 
the woman he loved.” 

It is said that today the Apostles are no longer predomi¬ 
nantly Marxist, homosexual, traitorous or subversive. The 
1930s model of Apostles, once referred to as an egregious 
secret society of self-perpetuating, self-admiring narcissi, is 
said to exist no longer. Among other reforms, women are now 
accepted in the Apostolic Society. The reformers are certain 
that these young ladies and gentlemen will take their place 
in English society as proper ladies and lords of the realm. ❖ 

ENDNOTES: 

1 Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin, The Sword and the Shield, 
Basic Books, New York, 1999, 56-57. 

2 Norman Polmar and Thomas B. Allen, The Encyclopedia of Espionage, 
Gramercy Books, New York, 1997, 98. 

3 Roland Perry, The Fifth Man, Sidgwick & Jackson, London, 1994. 

4 John Cairncross, The Enigma Spy: The Story of the Man Who Changed 
the Course of World War II, Century, London, 1997, 105-107. 

6 Andrew Sinclair, The Red and the Blue: Cambridge, Treason and 
Intelligence, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, Toronto, 1986. 

6 H.W. Koch. Hitler Youth, Ballantine Books Inc., 1972, 9,108-133. 


ROBERT K Logan is a library technician and part-time writer. 
An avid cross-country skier and snowmobiler, Mr. Logan resides in 
Saskatchewan. 



VICTOR ROTHSCHILD 

One of the “Magnificent Five” 
of the Cambridge Apostles. 


THE BARNES REVIEW 


29 











THE ETHICS & PRACTICE OF MODERN SCIENCE & MEDICINE 


Michael Murphy deals with a man few Revisionists have dealt with 
before , Dr Josef Mengele. Interestingly , Mengele \s career is a rather large blank 
spot on the otherwise excellent record of Revisionist scholarship. The BARNES 
REVIEW is called on to fill this gap. Keep in mind that the Allied experiments 
Murphy details are rather gruesome , far worse than anything the Nazis were 
ever accused of doing; so be forewarned. 


By MICHAEL MURPHY 


osef Mengele was bom in 1911, 
studied philosophy in Munich and 
medicine in Frankfurt-am-Main. In 
1934 he joined the German Nation¬ 
al Socialist Party (NSDAP) and 
went to on to be associated with the 
Institute for Genetics and Racial Hygiene. 
During World War II as a doctor he served with 
the Waffen-SS as a sanitation officer in France 
in 1940 and the Soviet Union in 1941. In 1943 
he was transferred to the Auschwitz concen¬ 
tration camp as its chief doctor. 

As part of the Holocaust propaganda much 
noise is made about human medical experi¬ 
ments carried out at Auschwitz, the principal 
criminal being Dr. Mengele. The experiments, 
carried out by qualified medical personnel, 
were largely concerned with problems of low 
temperature immersion and low pressure, 
associated with concerns over German pilots 
being downed in the North Sea. The results 
from this pioneering work are still used today. 
Other medical work was concerned with genet¬ 
ic questions posed by twins, which occupy med¬ 
ical minds today. 

In 1998 the only surviving doctor to have 
practiced medicine at Auschwitz said he had 


no regrets and defended his work as “impor¬ 
tant for science.” Asked in an interview with 
the Jewish-owned magazine Dev Spiegel if he 
was burdened with a guilty conscience, 87- 
year-old Hans Muench, who headed the 
Waffen-SS Institute of Hygiene, said: “For hav¬ 
ing been there? In retrospect, no. Naturally.” 
Dr. Muench also praised his superior, Dr. 
Mengele, as “the nicest companion—I can only 
say good things about him,” adding he was glad 
to have a kindred spirit “in the intellectual 
desert that was Auschwitz.” After being acquit¬ 
ted at the 1947 trial for war crimes, Dr. 
Muench said he felt lucky to have been able to 
conduct pioneering experiments “previously 
only possible on rabbits. It was work that was 
important for science.” 

One is reminded that the British and Amer¬ 
icans were conducting more abhorrent medical 
experiments, but on their own people, includ¬ 
ing gas and chemical warfare testing, which for 
many resulted in extreme physical pain and 
death. They continued on a large scale after 
the war and ironically during the Nuremberg 
Trials when their accusing fingers were being 
pointed at the Germans. But British and 
American hypocrisy continues to this day, as 
they engage in biological and genetic experi¬ 
ments, and by the late 1990s human cloning 



30 


MAY/JUNE 2004 







was becoming possible—so much for Hitler’s alleged desire to 
create a genetically superior “master race.” For instance in 
America in 1998 a scientist proposed performing on unborn 
babies, experiments which raised the prospect of “designer 
babies” by exchanging or adding genes that determine physical 
appearance. 

After the war Dr. Mengele was employed by the British for 
several years, and like so many other top Nazis recruited by the 
Allies immediately after the war, he was never put on trial for 
war crimes. So much for the Allied sense of justice. But many 
other Nazis saw that they would never receive a fair trial at the 
hands of the Allies and escaped to South America, where Dr. 
Mengele went to live. 

However, it was not long before Hollywood got to work mak¬ 
ing money on the doctor’s past and for the purposes of Holocaust 
propaganda, demonizing Auschwitz’s “Angel of Death” as part of 
some mythic factory of mass genocide. He became a popular tar- 
i get for such Hollywood films as The Boys from Brazil (1978), 
Angel of Death (1986), and other such fantasies. Meanwhile self- 
appointed “Nazi hunter” Simon Wiesenthal made his career try¬ 
ing to track the doctor down and bring him to trial. However, Dr. 
Mengele eluded capture and died in Brazil in 1979. Thus the 
Jewish authorities were highly disappointed that this celebrity 
Nazi, whom their media network had puffed up, had slipped 
through their fingers. 

M engele has been put on trial for his alleged crimes 
against humanity, albeit it is in a film of imaginary 
history entitled After the Truth (Germany, 1999). But 
despite its title, the truth rarely appears. Instead we 
are treated to the old Hollywood and Allied cliches and lies, 
including having Dr. Mengele admit that he selected 300,000 
inmates to be gassed, hardly the job of a chief doctor, a task that 
would have taken him a whole year if he would not have done 
anything else; one made all the harder as there were not any 
homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz, either structurally or on 
the camp’s plans. He is also made to confess that the camp’s cre¬ 
matoria belched smoke, which they did not. And then whole 
rafts of gruesome human experiments are attributed to him, in 
order to justify the title of the “Angel of Death.” 

At the end of the film Dr. Mengele prophesied that the West 
would be doing things that he was being condemned for. A 
charge that’s correct, when today Western science and medicine 
has developed genetic engineering claiming to benefit human 
beings, including the prospect of designer babies and human 
cloning all in the name of improving the human race. The trou¬ 
ble with the Germans, and specifically the Nazis, was that they 
were more than half a century ahead of the West. The film con¬ 
cludes that Dr. Mengele is us. 

The film omits much. For instance it forgets to tell us that 
Mengele, like many Nazi officials, was recruited by the British 
despite being classified as a “war criminal” when at the end of 
World War II our ally, the Soviet Union, suddenly became the 
new enemy. Canada had the opportunity of arresting Dr. 
Mengele, but before doing so they contacted British authorities, 
who promptly declined the offer and with good reason. He would 
have had to stand trial and a grave risk of his revealing embar- 


THE BARNES REVIEW 


31 





rassing details on British collaboration, Britain’s hypocrisy, and 
secret Cold War operations. Britain did exactly the same with 
Philby, Maclean and Burgess [Part of the Cambridge Soviet spy 
ring. See the “Cambridge Apostles” article in this issue of TBR.— 
Ed.], when it cooperated with the Mossad to have them spirited 
into the Soviet Union, and avoid an embarrassing and revealing 
trial, as well as save the hide of Sir Anthony Blunt, who was 
closely related to the royal family. 

L et us now look at some of the charges brought against Dr. 
Mengele. For instance, while Mengele was the chief doc¬ 
tor at Auschwitz, the unique low pressure/temperature 
experiments carried out at the camp and at Dachau to 
help German pilots lost in the North Sea, 
are still used today by the Allies despite of 
their alleged tainted origin, with numerous 
scientific publications since 1945 having 
used Nazi research. In fact it was the Nazis 
that launched America’s outer space pro¬ 
gram the whole of which inherited similar 
tainted data. 

It is little wonder at the Nuremberg Tri¬ 
als, which more resembled the Soviet show 
trials and form the basis of so many perpet¬ 
uated World War II and Holocaust myths, 
that the standard rules of evidence were 
suspended and tu quoque defense (“you did 
the same thing”) was not allowed. 

Eugenics & Racial Hygiene 

Today’s biological and genetic engineer¬ 
ing carried out in the Allied countries are 
merely an extension of what the German 
scientists and doctors were discussing and 
implementing during the Third Reich. 

Much has been made by the public, 
media, and historians in Allied countries 
about Nazi Germany’s social cleansing programs designed to 
improve the quality of its society and raise the standard of civi¬ 
lization. And yet such eugenics programs had been in place in 
many English-speaking countries long before the Nazis came to 
power, and when they did their racial and gender philosophy and 
policies often stemmed from the eugenic laws and theories of ear¬ 
lier pioneers in England’s Galton and Pearson, and America’s 
Crompton, Grant, Laughlin, Stoddard et al. 

By the 1920s America was sliding into racial disharmony, its 
large Negro population as well as immigration from the third 
world confusing a situation further compounded with the bur¬ 
den of increasing numbers of low class mental retards. The 
Americans began addressing this problem by adopting the sci¬ 
ence of racial hygiene (eugenics) as initially devised by 
Englishman Sir Francis Galton. However, at the same time the 
Jews, who were on the rise, but considered by experts as “racial¬ 
ly inferior,” were against any eugenics program, including the 
Jewish-run Hollywood entertainment industry, who promoted 
their self-interest under the guise of cosmopolitanism. 

When the Nazis announced their sterilization program initi¬ 


ated by the 1933 Act for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased 
Offspring as part of its eugenics program, there was much 
adverse noise from liberals and the Western democracies, yet 
these nations secretly practiced the same measures. By 1931, 
even before the Nazis came to power, eugenic sterilization laws 
had been enacted by 27 states in America. By the late 1930s the 
Americans were complaining that, “the Germans are beating us 
at our own game.” By 1935 sterilization laws had been passed in 
Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, and Sweden where approxi¬ 
mately 60,000 Swedes were sterilized between 1935 and 1976. 
Austria, Belgium, Czechoslovakia and Finland also carried out 
sterilization programs. 

In America over 70,000 were sterilized, and in Virginia 

between 1927 and 1972 8,300 mentally 
retarded children were sterilized by the 
State to prevent them from producing sim¬ 
ilar defective offspring. A similar steriliza¬ 
tion program was carried out on mentally 
retarded children in Alberta, Canada, 
under laws from 1928 to 1972. Again, the 
Allies proved themselves to be hypocrites 
by pointing the accusing finger at the 
Nazis and lecturing them about ethics. 

After sterilization of America’s mentally 
handicapped children had stopped, leftists 
took up their “civil rights.” While nature 
culls out idiots and racial defectives, the 
interfering leftists, living in an artificial 
city society, maintain that such defectives 
should have the right to freely breed and 
the rest of us to carry their burden—this 
same burden carrying is part of the com¬ 
munist creed. These same leftists, who 
work against the racial integrity of white 
people, claim that eugenics is right-wing 
social engineering. But “multi-racialism,” 
race-mixing and “multi-culturalism” dog¬ 
mas promoted by liberals and socialists are left-wing social engi¬ 
neering. These same forces, without substantiation, charge that 
Nazi Germany’s sterilization program led to the Holocaust. As 
shown, other countries adopted the same programs. 

Euthanasia 

In the 1930s the democracies also loudly condemned Ger¬ 
many’s euthanasia policy and its program to prevent hereditary 
diseases, legalized by a decree signed by Hitler in October 1939. 
But the euthanasia program for mental defectives was soon sus¬ 
pended due to public pressure. The film About the Truth has Dr. 
Mengele admit that he engaged in euthanasia at Auschwitz 
because of prevailing conditions, and that medical practice and 
circumstances were different then than they are now. But are we 
any more enlightened? I suspect not, quite the reverse as social 
standards across the board are in decline. Hardly a murmur was 
heard when Switzerland sanctioned euthanasia in the 1960s. In 
liberal Holland it has been practiced since the 1980s, and in 
1993 the Dutch parliament approved it. Australia’s Northern 
Territory government passed a euthanasia bill in 1995, and in 



DR. JOSEF MENGELE 

A bust of Mengele by Christine Borland. 


32 


MAY/JUNE 2004 













It was not only Germans such as Dr. Joseph Mengele (above, perform¬ 
ing a post-mortem and inset, above left) who conducted horrendous experiments. 

America’s own government has blood on its hands. The March 1, 1954 hydrogen 
bomb test—code named Bravo—on Bikini Atoll exploded with far greater power than scientists predicted, killing one person and injuring dozens 
more. It contaminated a passing Japanese fishing boat and showered nearby villagers with radioactive ash. The bomb was 1,000 times more pow¬ 
erful than the one dropped on Hiroshima. Those affected still suffer from radiation exposure, and Bikini Atoll islanders are exiled as a result of 
the test. Above right, a U.S. Atomic Energy Commission doctor checks a Rongelap islander several weeks after exposure to high-level radioactive 
fallout from the Bravo H-bomb test at Bikini Atoll, some 160 miles downwind from Rongelap. Government officials in Majuro are planning to seek 
details from U.S. representatives meeting in Honolulu about biological and chemical weapons testing done in the 1960s at Enewetak and possi¬ 
bly other islands, believed to have been responsible for a lethal influenza outbreak in 1968. 


2002 euthanasia became legal in Belgium. 

Allied Medical Experiments 

The Allies, as part of their propaganda, having condemned 
the Nazis for their alleged barbarity, continued to engage in 
cruel and barbaric secret medical experiments after the 
Nuremberg Trials, which have resulted in tens of thousands of 
deaths. 

In December 1993 the West was horrified to learn via the 
media that during the Cold War the U.S. government had con¬ 
ducted experiments affecting about 1 million Americans. For 
instance, from 1946 through the 1950s its Atomic Energy 
Commission secretly conducted radiation experiments on hospi¬ 
tal patients, soldiers, prisoners, and others. Nearly 100 babies 
were injected with radioactive iodine, retarded children were fed 
with radioactive milk and meals laced with radioactive iron 
from 1946 to 1956, and hundreds of pregnant women were given 
radioactive pills. Most of these barbarous experiments were 
done without the victim’s knowledge or consent. In a 1950 mem¬ 
orandum Dr. Joseph Hamilton, a senior atomic energy official, 
said that these medical experiments had “a little touch of 
Buchenwald” (the Nazi work camp) about them, but he was 
ignored. 

From 1932 to 1972 the U.S. Public Health Service conducted 
an experiment in which Negroes infected with syphilis were not 
treated or even aware of the disease. American soldiers and 
South Sea islanders were used as “human guinea pigs” in radi¬ 
ation experiments, again they were not told of the dangers or 
given protective clothing. In June 1994 it was revealed that dur¬ 
ing the 1950s and 1960s chemicals were dropped on several 
American cities to test biological warfare. Even more secret and 


lethal were the radiation experiments on humans conducted by 
the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency over a 14-year period. The 
Americans used their own untermenschen, the Negroes. The 
Pentagon ran experiments on altered mind states in the early 
1970s in which prison inmates were injected with LSD and 
other such drugs without consent. 

The Australian, British and New Zealand governments ran 
similar experiments. Britain had the oldest and longest involve¬ 
ment in chemical warfare, and whilst the British public were 
deploring Nazi human experiments and its officials were pon¬ 
tificating at Nuremberg, Britain was secretly doing the same 
thing, but on its own citizens. Britain also ran its own gas cham¬ 
bers. In the film The Secrets ofPorton Down (1994), Harry Hogg 
described the horrifying scene when he and others were placed 
in such a gas chamber during World War II, and used like guinea 
pigs to test the effects of toxic gas. He was one of thousands. 
Young U.S. conscripts were also used in human experiments in 
gas chambers testing mustard gas. Australians were also sub¬ 
jected to the same tests. 

The British having only just finished condemning the Nazis 
at the Nuremberg Trials, were back secretly conducting human 
medical experiments and killing their own countrymen. As the 
war was ending the British eagerly scoured the Nazi concentra¬ 
tion camps hoping to find information about the lethal effects of 
Zyklon-B (cyanide gas used as an insecticide equivalent to the 
Allies’ DDT, but allegedly used by the Nazis in mass homicidal 
killings), but could not find any such scientific data on this appli¬ 
cation. Investigations then turned to seek out German research 
on nerve gas. The British found German nerve gas-making 
equipment and relocated it to their own new production center 
in Cornwall. The Nazi scientists involved were never put on 


THE BARNES REVIEW 


33 


AFP PHOTO/ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION 




















trial, their story still lies buried under deep British official secre¬ 
cy, but it is thought they were induced to work for the Western 
Allies. Gerry Ashton related how in 1951, he was used in a nerve 
gas experiment, and was temporarily blinded by it. However, 
Ronald Maddison, aged 20, who thought he was to spend a stint 
in a holiday camp—Porton Down, was not so lucky; he died as a 
result of such an experiment as did 25 British ex-servicemen. 
Others suffered severe poisoning. At no time before or after 
these human experiments were the victims told of what was to 
be done to them or what the lethal agents were. Military per¬ 
sonnel were threatened with imprisonment if they did not par¬ 
ticipate. Victims received no compensation, were denied the 
truth, abandoned, were not allowed to tell their wives or doctors, 
and threatened with the Official Secrets Act. Three German 
germ warfare specialists, who worked to develop the Nazis 
chemical and biological capability—the most advanced at the 
time—were secretly taken to Britain just after the war to work 
alongside Porton scientists. Up to 1959, 7,000 Britons were test¬ 
ed at Porton Down. 

In Britain, pregnant women were injected with radioactive 
material, experiments which continued until the mid-1970s. 
Between 1950 and 1960, unborn children were exposed to radi¬ 
ation, and in a 1969 experiment Britain used Asian women who 
were fed radioactive food, unknowingly. In 1998 it was reported 
that Fijian human “guinea pigs” sued Britain over its radiation 
experiments at Christmas Island. In 2001, Britain admitted 


that Australians were sent into a nuclear blast area and delib¬ 
erately exposed to radiation without protective clothing, but 
denied they were used as human guinea pigs. In 2001 it was 
revealed that in the mid-1950s several physically and mentally 
disabled Britons were flown to south Australia to be used as 
guinea pigs during British atomic tests. They were never seen 
again. 

A ll this British handiwork was by those who claimed at 
the Nuremberg Trial to be the guardians of democracy, 
representatives of civilization, gentlemen, and decent 
people. In Australia hundreds of orphaned babies and 
state wards were subjected to medical experiments testing anti¬ 
bodies from 1945 to the 1970s in Melbourne, where between 
1959 and the mid-1970s human experiments were conducted on 
160 tall girls who were administered a sex hormone (since found 
to cause ovarian cancer) to see if they would grow shorter. This 
sounds like a Nazi racial experiment, which would have been 
roundly condemned. 

The Soviets likewise conducted medical experiments on its 
people. Having seen what was done to Hiroshima and not to be 
outdone by America’s possession of powerful atomic weapons, 
the Soviets embarked on its own program with Lavrentii Beria, 
secret police chief, put in charge. In the 1953 hydrogen bomb test 
at Semipalatinsk, participants had no protection. Even by 1969 
they only wore singlets and, according to one radiation techni- 


Go Inside the ‘Chambers’ to See What Science Says About ‘The Holocaust’ 


Concentration Camp Majdanek. A Historical and Technical 
Study (Juergen Graf, Carlo Mattogno): Amazingly, little scientific 
investigation has been directed toward the concentration camp 
Lublin-Majdanek in central Poland, even though establishment 
Holocaust sources claimed that about a million Jews were mur¬ 
dered there. The only information available from public libraries is 
thoroughly discredited Polish communist propaganda. This glaring 
research gap has finally been filled. After exhaustive research of 
primary sources and a thorough exploration of the physical remain¬ 
ders of the former concentration camp, the authors created a mon¬ 
umental study which expertly dissects and repudiates the myth of 
homicidal gas chambers at Majdanek. Item #380, 326 pages, 
softcover, $25. 

Concentration Camp Stutthof and its Function in National 
Socialist Jewish Policy (Juergen Graf, Carlo Mattogno): Although 
there exists some Polish literature on Stutthof, it must be treated 
with caution, because it is heavily influenced by Soviet propagan¬ 
da. According to this literature, Stutthof became a “makeshift” 
extermination camp for “the Final Solution” in 1944. The authors 
have examined this view of Stutthof, paying particular attention to 
mass transports to and from the camp. Not only do the authors 
prove that the camp did not serve as an extermination camp, the 
room claimed to have been used as a homicidal gas chamber was 
never anything but a debusing facility. Item #379, 122 pages, 
softcover, $15. 

Treblinka: Extermination Camp or Transit Camp?(Juergen 
Graf, Carlo Mattogno): In the first part of this book, the official 
image portrait of Treblinka is subjected to a thorough critique 


regarding its historical genesis, inner logic, and technical feasibili¬ 
ty. The result of this analysis is essentially that the historical version 
of Treblinka is untenable. In the second part of this book, the 
authors determine the real function of the camp with the help of wit¬ 
ness statements, documents, and forensic findings. Through their 
analysis, they conclude that Treblinka was a transit camp, through 
which Jews from Warsaw and other areas were led on their way 
either to occupied Soviet territories or to the Majdanek camp and 
other labor camps. Item #389, 365 pages, softcover, $25. 

The Rudolf Report: Expert Report on Chemical and Technical 
Aspects of the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz In the years after 
its first publication, the so-called Leuchter Report about the alleged 
gas chambers of Auschwitz and Majdanek has been subject to 
massive, and partly justified, criticism. In 1993, Germar Rudolf, a 
researcher from the prestigious German Max-Planck-lnstitute, pub¬ 
lished a forensic study about the alleged gas chambers of 
Auschwitz which clarifies the deficiencies and discrepancies of The 
Leuchter Report The Rudolf Report is the first English edition of 
this sensational scientific work. It analyzes all existing evidence on 
the Auschwitz gas chambers and exposes the fallacies of the 
accepted history of the camp. Item #378, 455 pages, softcov¬ 
er, $30. 


TBR subscribers take 10% off list prices! To order send pay¬ 
ment to TBR BOOK CLUB, RO. Box 15877, Washington, D.C. 20003 
using the order form on page 80 of this issue. Add S&H: $3 per book 
inside the U.S; $6 per book outside the U.S. You may call TBR toll free 
a t 


34 


MAY/JUNE 2004 









cian, “basically human beings didn’t matter.” Soviet leader 
Khrushchev (the “Butcher of the Ukraine”) was told that people 
would die from the tests. He said, “So what?” Over the space of 
four decades 500 nuclear devices were tested at this site, a 
never-ending experiment on the 1,200,000 people of Semi- 
palatinsk many of whom produced grossly deformed monsters 
caused by genetic damage. In 1954, during a Hiroshima-size 
atomic bomb atmospheric test near Moscow, farmers were not 
notified and over 45,000 Soviet troops were sent into the area 
immediately after the explosion, without any protective clothing 
or any concept about radiation poisoning. Most later died of the 
effects and, by 1993, only 1,000 had survived. We are reminded 
what little regard the communists had for the Russian people 
when, between 1917 and 1989, the Bolshevik Soviet dictatorship 
carried out one of the world’s biggest genocides, 
murdering more than 65 million Russians, 
some estimate. 

These experiments and “research” directly 
violated the Nuremberg Code established by 
the all-American panel of jurists who, in the 
years after World War II, had sentenced Nazi 
doctors for “crimes against humanity” in their 
medical experiments. Part of the code stipulates 
that a patient must give their “informed con¬ 
sent” before any experimentation may begin. 

I t will be noted that the Allies used “racial 
inferiors,” idiots, prisoners and children for 
its experiments, the same types the Allies 
condemned the Nazis for allegedly using. 

Various Allied government agencies defended 
their actions by citing national security, even if 
it meant conducting experiments on unsuspect¬ 
ing citizens. In other words, the ends justified the means. But 
had not the Nazis put belligerent nationals in concentration 
camps to preserve Germany’s national security, and not to have 
followed orders during wartime would have been treason? In 
America (according to a 1947 Atomic Energy Commission 
memo) the many Cold War-era human experiments were not 
kept secret for national security reasons but because they knew 
they could generate bad publicity and lawsuits. Hypocrisy is 
transparent indeed. 

The Allies and Holocaust propagandists have often raised the 
specter of Nazi medical experiments involving genetics as part 
of their eugenics program or allied to its war effort. Yet for 50 
years these same countries have been at the forefront of genetic 
engineering having already produced the test tube baby and 
cloned animals. According to some, genetics is going to be the sci¬ 
ence of the 21st century, while for others genetic engineering is 
against nature—work that could bear poison fruit. Western gov¬ 
ernments assisted apartheid South African scientists engaging 
in a secret chemical and biological program. This included mak¬ 
ing poisons for government agents to eliminate black communist 
agitators and terrorists, and researching a bacteria to kill only 
Negroes. In the 1980’s they gave helpful information to set up 
the program, and swapped sensitive military information with 
South Africa, its scientists having contact with army officers 


from Britain, Canada and the United States, the same countries 
that have rammed down its citizens’ throats the dogmas of 
human rights, minority rights and racial tolerance; then went 
on to abandon their civilizing white cousins in Rhodesia and 
South Africa. 

The British Medical Association said, on launching its report 
Biotechnology Weapons and Humanity (January, 21 1999), that 
rapid advances in genetics could produce biological weapons 
designed to kill specific racial groups within a decade, by exploit¬ 
ing any cellular differences. No doubt, the Americans could kill 
Arabs but not Jews, for instance. 

A critic who might suggest that this is an anti-Semitic 
remark might look to Israel’s development of its biological war¬ 
fare arsenal. London’s Sunday Times (November 16, 1998) 

reported that “unidentified Israeli military and 
Western intelligence sources” were creating “a 
genetically modified bacterium or virus that 
only attacks people who carry specific genes.” 
The virus is designed to “identify genes unique 
to Arabs in order to target them with a biologi¬ 
cal weapon that would leave Jews unharmed.” 
Thus it’s the Israelis who are practicing anti- 
Semitism—the Arabs being Semitic peoples. Is 
this behavior—deliberately exterminating one 
people and sparing another—exactly what the 
Nazis were supposed to have advocated? 

Conclusion 

It is clearly demonstrated that if the gov¬ 
ernments of the Allied countries of Britain, 
America and other countries have repeatedly 
lied to their citizens about domestic matters, 
what chance do people have for the truth when 
these governments talk about the Nazis or World War II? 

As we have seen in this brief expose of the Allies’ indisputable 
atrocities, they committed acts far worst than anything attrib¬ 
uted to the Nazis. Dr. Mengele has merely become a convenient 
scapegoat, and pointing the accusing finger at him has been 
demonstrated as gross hypocrisy. 

No group can claim a monopoly on suffering during World 
War II. The entire war was a “holocaust” for almost all the peo¬ 
ple involved. If there must be talk and accusations of atrocities, 
let us hear the whole story, including Allied atrocities, their lies, 
attempted cover-ups and hypocrisy. ❖ 

BIBLIOGRAPHY: 

Caplan, Arthur L., When Medicine Went Mad, Humana Press, Totowa, N.J., 
1992. 

Lagnado, Lucette, Children of Flames, William Morrow, San Francisco, 1991. 

Lifton, Robert Jay, The Nazi Doctors, Basic Books, New York City, 1986. 

Muller-Hill, Benno, Murderous Science, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 
England, 1988. 

Shelley, Lore, Ed., Criminal Experiments on Human Beings in Auschwitz, 
Mellen Research, Lewiston, NY, 1991. 


MICHAEL Murphy is an Australian Revisionist. 



JOSEF MENGELE 

A young Josef Mengele. 


THE BARNES REVIEW 


35 













The Rhodes 
Scholarships 
& the Drive for 
World Empire 


“I am now led to devote my life to the reunion of 
the British empire. ” So wrote Benedict Arnold, 
on October 7, 1780, in London, only 18 months 
after George Washington took the oath of office as 
the first president of the United States. There are 
a few Americans today who would like to do 
what Arnold dreamed of accomplishing. Some of 
them are known as Rhodes scholars. Here’s their 
remarkable story. 


By MICHAEL COLLINS PIPER 



en. Wesley Clark, once a widely touted aspirant 
for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomina¬ 
tion, wants to follow his fellow Arkansan and 
Rhodes scholar, Bill Clinton, into the White 
House. While Clark proudly touts his own 
Russian Jewish ancestry—claiming descent 
from a long line of rabbis—he is not as forthright about 
describing precisely what a Rhodes scholar is, nor is he like¬ 
ly to be. 

The truth is that Rhodes scholars are chosen and trained 
for the specific purpose of working to dissolve America’s 
national sovereignty, toward the ultimate goal of re-uniting 
the United States with the British empire. Here’s the full 
story—from some well-established sources. 


Cecil Rhodes (statue, left) connived his way to wealth 

in a lawless frontier culture, then used that fortune to fund a pri¬ 
vate invasion of East Africa. He bought newspapers to control pub¬ 
lic opinion. He brokered secret deals, issued bribes and used gangs 
of mercenaries to butcher his opponents, seizing close to 1 million 
square miles of territory from its inhabitants. Although he did this 
in the name of the British Empire, he was regarded with some sus¬ 
picion in his home country, and when it suited him to work against 
Britain’s imperial interests, he did so without scruple. 



















As historian Eustace Mullins notes in his monumental 
study, The World Order , Cecil Rhodes—whose wealth funded 
the scholarships—was an international operator fronting in 
the African diamond fields for the Rothschild family banking 
interests of Europe. This, in itself, lends immediate suspicion 
to any scholarship established by such a person. It goes much 
deeper, however. 

W riting in his study of The Tax Exempt Founda¬ 
tions , author William H. Mcllhany II, provides a 
summary of the events leading to the establish¬ 
ment of the Rhodes scholarships: 

In 1891, South African diamond magnate Cecil Rhodes was 
serving the first of six consecutive years as prime minister of the 
Cape Colony. By that year he had also been introduced to many 
other men of wealth and influence from Oxford and Cambridge. 

They, like Rhodes, had been idealistically attracted to favor impe¬ 
rialistic expansion of “the English ruling class tradition” as well as 
domestic “social reform” as both had been stirringly preached by 
John Ruskin. 

Rhodes’s group of acquaintances, introduced to him by Fabian 
socialist William T. Stead, a journalist, included Alfred (later Lord) 

Milner; Arthur (Lord) Balfour; and Reginald Baliol Brett (Lord 
Esher). On February 5, 1891, they formed a secret society to pro¬ 
mote further expansion of British control over the world, particu¬ 
larly aiming a future merger of Great Britain and the United 
States into a regional government body. 

This goal was put forth by their public organization, the Round 
Table Groups, organized and led by Milner after Rhodes’s death in 
1902. In spite of Milner’s public declarations of fidelity to the inter¬ 
ests of the British empire, much controversy has arisen from the 
fact that Milner’s agents were instrumental both in provoking hos¬ 
tilities with Germany in 1904 through the Jameson Raid in South 
Africa and in assisting with the financing of the 1917 Bolshevik 
takeover of Russia. 

In his so-called “Confession of Faith,” Rhodes himself 
wrote of his dreams: 

I contend that every acre added to our territory means, in the 
future, birth to many more of the English race who otherwise 
would not be brought into existence. Added to this, absorption of 
the greater portion of the world under our rule, simply means the 
end of all wars.... 

I look into history and read the story of the Jesuits. I see what 
they were able to do in a bad cause and I might say under bad lead¬ 
ers. In the present day I become a member of the Masonic order. 

I see the wealth and power they possess, the influence they 
hold and I think over their ceremonies and I wonder that a large 
body of men can devote themselves to what at times appears the 
most ridiculous and absurd rites without an object and without an 
end. [sic.] 

The idea gliding and dancing before our eyes like a willow—a 
wish at last frames itself into a plan. 

Why should we not join a secret society—with but one object 
the furtherance of the British empire, for the bringing of the whole 
uncivilized world under British rule, for the recovery of the United 
States, for the making of the Anglo-Saxon race but one empire? 

As long ago as July 14,1951, The Chicago Tribune (then— 
but no longer—a populist and nationalist voice—and one of 
the few in the major media) exposed the Rhodes scholar¬ 
ships. This was perhaps the first time that the truth about 


the scholarships was published in a major publication since 
American recruits were being drafted to attend Oxford under 
the scholarships since 1904. 

The title of the first Tribune article, by William Fulton, 
told the story: “Rhodes’ goal: Return U.S. to British empire; 
Scholars work to that end.” The article reads, in pertinent 
part: 

Cecil John Rhodes, the empire builder, held a lifelong burning 
ambition to bring about “the ultimate recovery of the United States 
of America as an integral part of the British empire.” Today many 
American Rhodes scholars are working assiduously to make the 
dream of their imperial patron come true. 

These American Rhodes scholars have been going to Oxford 
University for education and introduction in the British way of 
thinking since 1904. The Rhodes diamond and mining fortune foots 
the bills. Each year 32 campus leaders are carefully selected for 
schooling abroad. Only two world wars temporarily halted the 
annual crop. 

Rhodes cherished schemes for a world power federation domi¬ 
nated by Anglo-Saxons. His American scholars returning from 
England are the leaders in the drive to sink Uncle Sam deeper in 
the morass of the affairs of other countries. 

By way of example, it was Sen. J. William Fulbright (D-Ark.) 
who as a young congressman itching with newly acquired Oxford 
ideas introduced the resolution proposing the creation of “interna¬ 
tional machinery”: and the participation of the United States. That 
was in 1943. The United Nations, the “police action” in Korea with 
78,000 American casualties and other events have followed. 

(A fervent internationalist, Fulbright, it will be remem¬ 
bered, was a mentor of his fellow Arkansan, Bill Clinton, 
himself a future Rhodes scholar.) The Tribune's, account of 
Rhodes’s perfidy continues: 

Rhodes told intimates it might take a century for his “great 
dream” to be fulfilled. To an extent the decision reached by the 
American Revolution has been reversed already, in the opinion of 
historical observers. 

Politically, it is pointed out, the United States has surrendered 
some sovereignty to a supra-body, the United Nations, in which the 
British foreign office wields tremendous influence. Militarily, 
Americans are fighting for foreign interests as they did in the 
French and Indian wars. Economically, the country is pouring out 
its wealth in the form of foreign “aid” just as it did before the 
Boston tea party. 

How are Rhodes’s American proteges throwing their weight 
around? 

More than a third of the living American scholars are in the 
educational field, mostly at Harvard and other eastern institu¬ 
tions. In their teaching and writing they pass along the views they 
soaked up from the Oxford dons. 

But in recent years the scholars have infiltrated the govern¬ 
ment in increasing numbers. They hold key positions, particularly 
in the vital foreign policymaking State Department. 

Rhodes scholars also command posts in the United Nations 
and economic cooperation administration. The returning savants 
are active in the field of opinion molding with a large sprinkling 
among the eastern internationalist press, magazines and radio. 

Rhodes, the man who set this vast propaganda project in 
motion was born in an English parsonage in 1853. Delicate health 
as a youth led him to Africa and the diamond fields of Kimberly 
where the sparklers laid the basis of his fortune. He returned to 
Oxford to resume his schooling. 

Even as a student, Rhodes had a sense of destiny, of shaping 
history to suit his own tastes, and he outlined his views in a docu- 


THE BARNES REVIEW 


37 






Rhodes Scholars: The Ties to Power 


M any people have heard about the “prestigious” 

Rhodes scholarships that are deemed as virtually 
the pinnacle, perhaps the greatest academic honor 
that can be bestowed. Anyone named to the Rhodes 
cadre is deemed “up and coming” and, of course, considerably 
intelligent. And indeed those who do receive this honor do 
invariably rise quickly in the ranks of the American elite. For 
that is precisely the purpose of the scholarships: to train a 
select circle of American natives who are loyal to the princi¬ 
ples that guided Cecil Rhodes (and his sponsors, the 
Rothschild family) in their worldview. Some more notable 
Rhodes scholars (now household names) include (shown 
above, left to right), former President Bill Clinton, former 
NATO Supreme Commander and national office seeker, 
General Wesley Clark, former Sen. Bill Bradley (D-N.J.). for¬ 


mer Clinton aide-turned-television commentator George 
Stephanopolous, and Senate Foreign Relations Committee 
Chairman Richard Lugar (R-Ind.). 

As the accompanying article demonstrates, the history of 
the Rhodes scholarships is rife with intrigue of the grandest 
order, a veritable “conspiracy” in the classic sense. However, 
the American media is careful—when discussing the scholar¬ 
ships—not to mention what they are really all about: re-unit¬ 
ing Britain’s “lost colonies” (the United States) with the dear 
old “Mother Country.” While geopolitical realities and inter¬ 
national events of passing years obviously have a direct 
impact on the ultimate goal—forcing adaptation and changes 
of focus on the part of those working to achieve this result— 
the theme remains the same. American sovereignty is not 
part of that scheme. 


ment called “Confession of Faith” at about the time he prepared his 
first will in 1877. He wrote: 

“The extension of British rule throughout the world, the per¬ 
fecting of a system of emigration from the United Kingdom and of 
colonization by British subjects of all lands wherein the means of 
livelihood are attainable by energy, labor and enterprise, and espe¬ 
cially the occupation by British settlers of the entire continent of 
Africa, the Holy Land, the valley of Euphrates, the islands of 
Cyprus and Candia, the whole of South America, the islands of the 
Pacific not heretofore possessed by Great Britain, the whole of the 
Malay archipelago, the seaboard of China and Japan, the ultimate 
recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the 
British empire, the consolidation of the whole empire, the inaugu¬ 
ration of a system of colonial representation in the imperial par¬ 
liament which may tend to weld together the disjointed members 
of the empire, and finally the foundation of so great a power as to 
hereafter renders wars impossible and promote the best interest of 
humanity.” 

Rhodes penned seven wills, the originals of which repose 
today in Rhodes House at Oxford. The first five contemplat¬ 
ed the creation of a worldwide secret society to promote the 
British empire. 

The sixth will, dated 1893, made the first provisions for 
scholarships. They were to be for “young colonists” in the fur¬ 
therance of empire unity. American scholarships appeared in 
the final will, prepared in 1899 and made public in 1902 fol¬ 
lowing Rhodes’s death. 

Rhodes earmarked two scholarships for each American 


state and territory. At the time there were 45 states and five 
territories, which would have meant 100 American scholar¬ 
ships and only 60 for the whole of the British empire. 

“When Rhodes assigned his scholarships,” wrote Mrs. 
Sarah Gertrude Millin, in her biography of Rhodes, “he 
believed there were still only the original 13 states in the 
union of America.” 

Rhodes scholars indignantly deny this and claim it was 
only an oversight on the part of their patron. They say it was 
an oversight also that Rhodes made scholarship allocations 
to Quebec and Ontario, but left out the other provinces of 
Canada. Trustees of the estate have rectified matters by 
awarding 32 scholarships annually in the United States 
instead of 100 and bringing in other Canadian provinces. 

he Tribune points out there is no question but that the 
Rhodes scholarships are political—not educational— 
in nature. The Tribune quoted Sir Francis Wylie, first 
of the Oxford trustees of the Rhodes estate: “This is 
not an educational endowment as ordinarily understood. Its 
purpose is not to give anybody an education he could not oth¬ 
erwise afford; nor to promote learning; but to encourage in 
the rising generation of English-speaking people a particular 
outlook on the problems of the world—to give them, in fact, 
a political bias. 

“This idea of using scholarships as instruments of a ‘polit¬ 
ical’ purpose had come to Rhodes ... and had taken shape in 



38 


MAY/JUNE 2004 




















the will of 1893,” declared Wylie. 

Thus, as the Tribune notes, “it is confirmed that the prime 
purpose of establishing the scholarships was to further the 
dream revealed in the ‘Confession of Faith.’ That embraced 
‘the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an 
integral part of the British empire.’ ” 

It is not a coincidence that Bill Clinton’s other mentor in 
Washington, at Georgetown University—prior to his days at 
Oxford as a Rhodes scholar—was none other than the late 
Professor Carroll Quigley. It was Quigley, whom Clinton 
quoted with admiration in his acceptance speech at the 
Democratic presidential nominating convention, who 
authored the infamous tome Tragedy & Hope in which he, 
Quigley, praised the drive for global government as being 
orchestrated by the international elite. 

Quigley’s famous study contains these even more famous, 
oft-quoted comments about the Rhodes conspiracy: 

There does exist and has existed for a generation, an interna¬ 
tional Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the 
way the Radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this 
network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has 
no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other 
groups, and frequently does so. 

I know of the operations of this network because I was permit¬ 
ted for two years, in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and 
secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and 
have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instru¬ 
ments. 

I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its 
policies notably to its belief that England was an Atlantic rather 
than a European Power and must be allied, or even federated, with 
the United States and must remain isolated from Europe, but in 
general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain 
unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to 
be known.... 

The power and influence of this Rhodes-Milner group in 
British imperial affairs and in foreign policy since 1889, although 
not widely recognized, can hardly be exaggerated. 

uigley’s lesser-known work, the posthumously pub¬ 
lished and very hard-to-find study, The Anglo- 

American Establishment , interestingly enough, was 

a glowing history of the one-world movement under 
the auspices of the Rhodes Trust and the scholars who have 
come under its wing. In the preface to The Anglo-American 
Establishment , Quigley wrote: 

The Rhodes scholarships, established by the terms of Cecil 
Rhodes’s seventh will, are known to everyone. What is not so wide¬ 
ly known is that Rhodes’s five previous wills left his fortune to form 
a secret society, which was to devote itself to the preservation and 
expansion of the British empire. And what does not seem to be 
known to anyone is that this secret society was created by Rhodes 
and his principal trustee, Lord Milner, and continues to exist to 
this day. 

To be sure, this secret society is not a childish thing like the Ku 
Klux Klan, and it does not have any secret robes, secret handclasps 
or secret passwords. It does not need any of these, since its mem¬ 
bers know each other intimately. It probably has no oaths of secre¬ 
cy nor any formal procedure of initiation. It does, however, exist 
and holds secret meetings, over which the senior member present 
presides.” 



Hie Rhodes Colossus 

By 1891, Cecil Rhodes had amalgamated the De Beers 

mines under his control, giving him dominion over 90 per¬ 
cent of the world’s diamond output. He had also secured two 
other important positions; prime minister of the British 
Cape Colony and president of the British South Africa 
Company, an organization formed to pursue expansionist 
adventures for which sponsoring governments did not have 
the stomach or the cash. The result of his endeavors pro¬ 
duced new British annexations: Nyasaland (now Malawi), 
Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia) and Southern Rhodesia 
(now Zimbabwe). In 1896, Rhodes’s name was linked with 
the Jameson Raid—a disastrous (and illegal) attempt to 
annex Transvaal territory held by the Boers, and a principal 
cause of the South African War of1899-1902. Above, a depic¬ 
tion of Rhodes straddles all of Africa. Never before in histo¬ 
ry had one man controlled u the Dark Continent” the way 
Rhodes was able to. 


THE BARNES REVIEW 


39 

















Quigley was quick to assert, 
however, that: “I have been told 
that the story I relate here 
would be better left untold, since 
it would provide ammunition for 
the enemies of what I admire. I 
do not share this view The last 
thing I should wish is that any¬ 
thing I write could be used by 
the Anglophobes and isolation¬ 
ists. ... But I feel that the truth 
has a right to be told, and, once 
told, can be an injury to no men 
of good will.” 

A ccording to Quigley the 
disingenuous character 
of the Round Table ap - 
peared in three ways: 

(1) it pretended to be a study 
group when it was really an 
organization of propaganda and 
influence aimed at influencing 
public policy; (2) it pretended to 
represent diverse opinions when 
as a matter of fact it insisted on 
unanimity (at least in the 
London group) and eliminated diverse points of view very 
quickly; (3) it pretended to be a cooperative organization on 
an inter-Dominion basis when in fact everything of real sig¬ 
nificance was controlled from London. 

A fourth, and in some ways a more significant example 
was that it pretended to be a single autonomous agency 
when in fact it was a multiple, ubiquitous entity whose influ¬ 
ence was exercised through many agencies including profes¬ 
sorships, periodicals and other organizations such as Chat¬ 
ham House, the Institute of Pacific Relations, or the Council 
on Foreign Relations. 

Quigley, incidentally, notes that the New York-based 


Council on Foreign Relations is 
an offshoot of a secret society 
linked to the Rhodes Trust and 
formed under its auspices, the 
Royal Institute of International 
Affairs. 

The purpose of these inter¬ 
national affiliates, such as the 
CFR, was to spread the inter¬ 
nationalist aims first put forth 
by Rhodes. As one Round Table 
official wrote in 1910: “Our task 
must be to find people there 
who will absorb these doctrines 
and preach them to our people.” 

The question now before the 
American people is whether 
Gen. Wesley Clark and other 
Rhodes scholars have indeed 
absorbed these doctrines and 
whether they will preach them 
to the American people. One 
might conclude: “By their fruits 
ye shall know them.” ❖ 

SOURCES: 

For more on the background of this 
article, the author recommends the works of Carroll Quigley referenced in 
the advertisement at the bottom of the page. 

Michael Collins Piper is a frequent contributor to The 
BARNES Review and the author of Final Judgment: The Missing 
Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy , called the definitive 
work ever on the JFK murder. Order the new Sixth Edition of 
this book from FIRST AMENDMENT BOOKS by calling toll free 1- 
888-699-6397 and charging to Visa or MasterCard. One copy is 
$25 (softcover, 683 pages, indexed, #1124). No S&H. 





Cecil Rhodes envisioned a world in which British settlers would 
occupy Africa, the Middle East, South America, the Pacific and 
Malay islands, China and Japan, before restoring America to colo¬ 
nial rule and founding an imperial world government. 


Timely, Suppressed Books by Carroll Quigley 

Tragedy and Hope , by Carroll Quigley—This famous history of the world in our time, first pub¬ 
lished in 1966, immediately became an object of suppression. The author, a history professor, 
exposes the secret world of government. The Council on Foreign Relations tried to stop publi¬ 
cation. Now reprinted in a handsome edition. President Bill Clinton was very familiar with the 
works of Carroll Quigley. #37, hardback, 1,348 pgs., $40. 

The Anglo-American Establishment , by Carroll Quigley—This is the author’s little-known 
book that explores in-depth how this conspiratorial nexus works, its personalities, aims and 
organizations such as the CFR, that are only touched upon in his much better-known and mas¬ 
sive work, Tragedy and Hope. Indexed. Deluxe edition. #199, softcover, 354 pgs., $13.95. 

TBR SUBSCRIBERS TAKE 10% OFF. Send payment (plus S&H) to P.O. Box 15877, Washington, 
D.C. 20003 or call 1-877-773-9077 toll free and charge to Visa or MasterCard. See ordering coupon on 
page 80 of this issue for the best rate on shipping & handling charges. 



40 


MAY/JUNE 2004 









ORY YOU MAY HAVE 


MISSED 


According to the July, 2003 London 
Telegraph, German students traveling to London 
are attacked by Britishers for the mere fact of 
being German. It seems that the German people 
are still stigmatized in England. The British 
ambassador to Germany Sir Peter Torry stated, 
“We need to know where these prejudices come 
from.” According to British statistics, five reports 
of hate-motivated assaults of German children 
were reported last year. The British ambassador 
stated that it is because of the “preoccupation” 

with the Third Reich in school history courses. 

© © © 

Winston Churchill, though one of the biggest 
humbugs in history, got it right once in a while. 
When he said that “truth is such as precious com¬ 
modity that it must be accompanied by a body¬ 
guard of lies,” he knew what he was talking about. 
© © © 

It seems some interesting quotations are 
coming out of Harry S Truman’s diary. A recent 
find of some diary entries at the Truman library 
in Independence has, among other things, this 
quote: 

The Jews, I find, are very, very selfish. They 
care not how many Estonians, Latvians, Finns, 
Poles, Yugoslavs or Greeks get murdered or mis¬ 
treated as Displaced Persons as long as the 
Jews get special treatment. Yet, when they have 
come to power, physical, financial or political, 
neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them 
for cruelty or mistreatment of the underdog. 

© © © 

According to a new online book by Lenni 

Brenner, Zionism in the Age of the Dictators, the 
Zionist party was the only really functioning 



Sam, Not George, First? 

Who was the first president of the 

United States? According to the Norwich, 
Connecticut Historical Society, it was not 
George Washington, but the president of 
the Continental Congress under which the 
Articles of Confederation were ratified, 
Samuel Huntington of Winsted, Connec¬ 
ticut. There is a letter from France written 
during the Congress that refers to Hunt¬ 
ington as president, that is, president of 
the Congress. The campaign of this small 
historical society is trying to get Hunting- 
ton recognized as America’s first president. 


Cold, Not Salt, Killed Settlers? 

Researchers in Jamestown, Virginia have 
unearthed a 17th-century settlement. Agricul¬ 
tural tools, wells (dating as far back as 1617) 
and many other items have been found that 
may have belonged to settlers Richard and 
Elizabeth Pierce. The Pierces may have been 
slaughtered, with 250 others, by local Indians. 
The most important find, however, is that the 
wells drilled in this settlement show no signs of 
excessive salt in the water. This eliminates an 
important theory about the disappearance of 
the Jamestown settlers. The theory was that 
excessive salt nearly wiped out the settlement 
during the winter of 1609-10. The discovery 
might point to disease and freezing cold as the 
main culprits. 

The caption on the engraving reproduced at right says: 
“C. Smith taketh the King of Pamarakee Prisoner, 
1608 ” It refers to Capt. Smith of Jamestown. 



party during the Third Reich. Only two flags 
could be flown during Hitler’s tenure, the swasti¬ 
ka and the blue-and-white Zionist flag. They also 
freely published their own newspaper. They 
received special treatment from the Nazis be¬ 
cause they had the common goal of relocating the 

Jews to Palestine. 

© © © 

An interesting item appeared in the July 14, 
2003, issue of Newsweek. One Shlomo Afanasev, 
formerly of Uzbekistan, decided to move and set¬ 
tle in Germany. His main reason for this was the 
impossible situation for Jews in Israel. He is quot¬ 
ed as saying, “The political and economic situa¬ 
tion in Israel is terrible. Here [in Germany], life is 
so much better.” Germany has now surpassed 
Israel in destinations for immigrating Russian 
Jews, nearly 20,000 immigrated last year. 
Further, Germany offers, according to the 
Newsweek writer Stefan Thiel, immediate citizen¬ 
ship and immediate access to government bene¬ 
fits. Interestingly, many Jews who immigrated 
are not considered Jews. This is because, under 
Soviet law, Jewishness passed from father to son, 
while Jewish custom says it derives from the 
mother. Therefore, many Jews are not Jews 
according to the rabbis. However, “democratic” 

Germany does not make any distinction. 

© © © 

According to the Associated Press, human 
remains have been found dated to nearly 30,000 
years ago in Siberia, close to what now is Alaska. 
Humans lived deep in the Siberian tundra zone 
during the last ice age. Researchers have found 
stone tools, weapons made of ivory and animal 
bones that show marks of being eaten. Because of 
its proximity to the Bering Strait, some 
researchers believe that the New World might 
have been populated even earlier than had been 
thought from people living in Siberia. There is, 
however, only a tenuous connection between 
these people and the Clovis (Mongoloid) people. 

Therefore, analysis is continuing. 

© © © 

It has been argued, with much merit, that 
King Edward IV of England was illegitimate. His 
father was a French archer named Blaybourne. If 
this is the case, than the entire royal line of 
England from that time forward is also illegiti¬ 
mate. So then who, today, is the real king? Well, it 
turns out to be some guy living in rural Australia 
named Michael Abney-Hastings, a livestock man¬ 
ager in New South Wales, living about 400 miles 
south of Sydney. He was aware of having some 
royal blood in him, but he never dreamed that, 
when one works out the genealogy from Edward 
down, it lands on Hastings today. Hastings is, 
however, not knocking on Queen Elizabeth II’s 
door quite yet. 


THE BARNES REVIEW 


41 
























EXPANSION „f Empire &* 


An Analysis of John D. Rockefeller Sr.’s 
Rapacious Business Practices 


Having taken control of all of the Cleveland refineries in 1872, John D. Rockefeller 
Sr. proceeded with the process of taking control of nearly the entire refining capacity of the 
nation in the mid-1870s. While Cleveland was the most important refining area for the kerosene 
used to “light the lamps of the world,” Rockefeller’s domination of the city was far from conclu¬ 
sive, as that place was not the only center of the refining trade. Other important refinery clusters 
were located in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, New York-New Jersey, and in the “oil regions” 
of north-central and northwestern Pennsylvania. Rockefeller’s methods in monopolizing these 
other centers coalesced around striking secret consolidation agreements with the largest refiners 
in each city, and then repeating the methods—through his new surrogates—which had proven 
so successful in Cleveland. Soon, the “Cleveland Massacre of 1872” was played out repeatedly in 
these other cities. 


By STEPHEN J. MARTIN 


T here were/are three main elements to control of 

the oil business—the drilling for, and pumping of 
crude; the transportation of crude to the refiner¬ 
ies (and of refined oil to the end user); and the 
refining process itself. John D. Rockefeller ini¬ 
tially sought to control only the refining capacity 
of the nation. Once accomplished, the plan was then to 
squeeze out all independent refiners and, simultaneously, to 
bring the producers of crude to his mercy by gradually grab¬ 
bing full control of the transportation of their product. 

The nefarious means employed by this “great Christian 
philanthropist” to accomplish these objectives is the major 
focus of this paper. The automobile (and massive employment 
of oil as a motive force in a multiplicity of environments) was 
still a distant dream by the time Rockefeller had accom¬ 
plished his objective of a monopoly in the oil trade, as it then 
existed, by the end of the 1880s. The reader must thoroughly 
understand the immensity of the power and influence wield¬ 
ed by the oil industry even at this very early stage, in order to 
thoroughly appreciate the all-pervasive power politics of the 
oil barons as displayed in current geopolitical events. 
Rockefeller held the giant railroads at his mercy, thoroughly 
influenced the political process in Pennsylvania and Ohio and 


even scoffed at early attempts by Congress (e.g. the Interstate 
Commerce Commission and the Sherman antitrust legisla¬ 
tion) to rein in his burgeoning power. 

With a personal wealth counted at those times “only” in 
the hundreds of millions—and with the commensurate polit¬ 
ical power thus wielded—it is left to the reader to imagine the 
extent of such power in successive generations. As this wealth 
grew by many orders of magnitude following important inno¬ 
vations in heating, transportation, lubrication etc, so too did 
the political power of the Standard Oil combination. As illu¬ 
mination (by way of mineral—instead of whale—oil lamps) 
was nearly the sole early function of the oil trade, one must 
examine the extent of the political power employed at that 
time, with that comparatively miniscule market, and then 
extrapolate this knowledge forward in order to reach an 
understanding of the sad truth of the political situation in the 
nation and the globe today. 

The power of the modern oil industry in influencing the 
politics of the world is a direct result of a progressive parallel 
increase in the uses and consumption of oil. If the Rockefeller 
family fortune has multiplied several times since the 1870s 
and 1880s, so too then, might it be reasonable to assume, has 
their political power. 

So we return to the field of battle as it existed after the 
exposure of the “South Improvement Company” (SIC) scheme 


42 


MAY/JUNE 2004 











John Davison Rockefeller began as a humble oil business bookkeeper in Cleveland, and in just seven years, using cunning, deceit¬ 
ful tactics, rose to control a tenth of the entire U.S. oil industry. (Upper left, in the prime of life.) How he managed to persuade the railroads 
to give him rebates and keep the deals secret is still not clear. Rockefeller saw that a little knowledge could be decisive in the business world, 
so he combined a good supply of information on his competitors with a total wall of silence he himself presented to the outside world. He set 
up his own private intelligence service. “No comment,” was all that journalists came to expect from his offices. Old film of Rockefeller shows 
him moving in a curiously stiff and wooden fashion. He had a favorite maxim: “Don’t let good fellowship get the least hold of you.” Jerome 
Greene called him “the most unemotional man I have ever known.” Rockefeller enjoyed an almost interminable life: he died in 1937, at the 
age of 97. Lower left: “Senior” as he was called, at an advanced age. Right, dispensing Christmas presents to some unidentified children. 


and the consolidation of the Cleveland-area refineries. The 
independent oil producers of Titusville and Oil City had 
learned a great deal from the excitement created by the hor¬ 
rendously un-Christian character of the SIC. They realized 
that Rockefeller’s intent was to control, gradually, all of the 
refineries, so as to dictate the price of their crude. So in 
October 1872 they came together to form the “Petroleum 
Producers Agency,” the goal of which was a boycott of the 
Standard Oil Company refineries of Cleveland until such 
time as that company could be convinced to “play fair” with 
rates paid for their crude. 1 Through Rockefeller trickery, 
bribery and clever tactics, the independent coalition was 
gradually worn down. Rockefeller could afford to wait longer 


for the crude than the suppliers could wait while their rigs sat 
silent and their oil sat accruing storage charges. This was 
only the first of many attempts by the independents at collu¬ 
sion for the sake of survival. But, as always, the Standard Oil 
Company had a waiting remedy, and often resorted to the 
same behavior repeatedly in spite of the legal system. 

The court decision in the SIC case had, of course, outlawed 
the unfair practice of the secret rebate and the thoroughly 
unconscionable “drawback” scheme, which had given the 
Standard Oil Company a certain amount of money for each 
barrel shipped by a competitor. But, as Henry Demarest 
Lloyd so clearly points out in his 1893 masterpiece on the 
Rockefeller anaconda: 


THE BARNES REVIEW 


43 


GENERAL PHOTOGRAPHIC AGENCY/GETTY IMAGES 

































There has never been any break in the plans revealed, 

“partly born” and “partly buried” in 1872. From then until now, 
in 1893, every fact that has come to surface has shown them 
in full career. If they were buried [by the court decision, disal¬ 
lowing the SIC—Ed.] it was as a seed is—for a larger crop of 
the same thing. ... In exact reproduction of the plan of 1872, 
the railroads, in October 1874, advanced rates to the general 
ruin, but to the pool of lines owned by their old friends of the 
South Improvement Company [the Standard Oil group of 
covertly owned refiners—Ed.] they paid back a large rebate. 

That those who had such a railroad, Lord Bountiful, to fill 
their pockets should grow rich was a matter of course. 2 

And so the field of independent refiners continually 
shrank, as the Standard Oil Company—shrugging their 
shoulders at the law—gobbled up competitor after competitor. 
The secret rebate continued, and so did the drawback. 
Apparently, breaking the law was justified in the tortured 
ethical system of Rockefeller; the Sunday school teacher 
turned robber baron on Monday morn¬ 
ing. Together, these secret weapons, in 
the era before the oil pipeline, were fatal 
to competition. Those who were not 
forced into bankruptcy were forced 
eventually to “go to Rockefeller.” The 
means employed were this: 

In absorbing competitors, Rockefeller 
was equally secretive and asked them to 
continue operating under their original 
names and not divulge their Standard 
ownership. They were instructed to retain 
their original stationery, keep secret 
accounts and not allude on paper to their 
Cleveland connection. 3 

Often, a struggling independent would receive a visit from 
the largest company in their refining district with an offer to 
buy them out so as to “keep you out of the grasp of Standard,” 
only to find later that the company with which they then con¬ 
cluded a buyout agreement had itself already secretly become 
part of the anaconda. This process was repeated over and over 
again throughout the various refining centers, until by the 
end of the 1870s, Rockefeller controlled 95 percent of the 
nation’s refining capacity and stood poised to turn his atten¬ 
tion to the second phase of his plan for total domination—the 
transportation of crude and refined oil. 

When the first pipes were laid, they were often short, grav¬ 
ity-fed lines constructed primarily to move oil within the oil- 
producing regions to gathering points for storage or for ship¬ 
ment by rail. Standard Oil Co. and others built pipelines later 
to move oil intermediate distance for a variety of purposes. 
Many of the producers of Pennsylvania were beginning to 
look to the advent of the pipeline as their salvation from the 
Rockefeller stranglehold on the railways. But it was not until 
a German-born engineer named Herman Haupt met up with 
a trio of enterprising independent producers and suggested 
that oil might be pumped up hill, that the melodramatic story 
of the Tidewater Pipeline began to come to life. It had never 
been attempted before, but Haupt convinced these independ¬ 


ent-minded men (each a bitter foe of Standard) that oil could 
indeed be made to flow uphill, over the Alleghenies from the 
derricks of western Pennsylvania to the few remaining inde¬ 
pendent refineries on the Atlantic seaboard. 

By 1878, Standard had succeeded in putting together a for¬ 
midable combination of small pipeline companies and extend¬ 
ed their own lines so that it became obvious that they would 
soon control all of the nation’s minor pipeline networks 
(under the name of Standard’s “United Pipe Line” division) 
just as they had control of the rate policies of the railroads, 
and a majority of the nation’s refining capacity. When the 
Tidewater project was put forward by the independent pro¬ 
ducers, it seemed like the best hope of averting total 
Rockefeller domination over the means of transporting oil. 
Standard immediately set about putting every obstacle in the 
path of success (and in this case scientific progress.) A “free 
pipeline bill” was soon proposed in the Pennsylvania legisla¬ 
ture to permit pipeline construction the 
same right of passage that the railroads 
had already achieved under “eminent 
domain” philosophies for 40 years past. 
Standard and the Pennsylvania Rail¬ 
road used their political power to 
squelch the bill. 4 

Standard’s United Pipe Lines had 
reached a memorandum of understanding 
with the major railroads to make them the 
sole pipeline owners. This scheme was, in 
essence, the old SIC plan taken from rail to 
pipe: Now the United Pipe Lines proposed 
to the railroads a through rate from the 
wells to the seaboard as low as they currently made from the 
receiving points on the railway.... The railroads were to agree 
not to receive oil from buyers except at as high a rate as the 
pipes charged, and to allow no pipeline outside the alliance 
through rate from the wells. The memorandum said squarely 
that the intent and purpose of this was to make the United 
pipes the sole feeder of the railroads. . . . The railroad men 
seemed not to have objected to the purpose... . 5 

But a trio of oil region independents by the names of 
Benson, McKelvy and Hopkins were at this very time team¬ 
ing up with Haupt to rain on Rockefeller’s parade. Initially, 
the Tidewater planners had conceived of a line reaching all 
the way from the oilfields to Baltimore, but J.N. Camden (a 
U.S. senator who was in the pocket of Standard) bought him¬ 
self, and his Standard Oil compatriots, a guarantee in the 
Maryland legislature that no other pipeline charter would be 
given in that state. So Tidewater determined upon a shorter 
route that would connect with the non-Rockefeller aligned 
Reading Railroad 110 miles to the east at Williamsport, 
Penn. 6 Herman Haupt and his associates put together a near¬ 
ly fully contiguous series of right of ways from Bradford, 
Penn, to Williamsport, but the Rockefeller gang snickered at 
the prospect of the audacious upstarts pumping oil up 2,000 
feet over the crest of the Alleghenies. Rockefeller himself was 
quoted as saying, “They are quite likely to have some disap¬ 
pointments yet, before consummating all of their plans in 


And so the field of 
independent refiners continu¬ 
ally shrank, as the Standard 
Oil Company—shrugging 
their shoulders at the law — 
gobbled up competitor after 
competitor. 


44 


MAY/JUNE 2004 







that direction.” 7 He then personally directed all 
efforts at making his statement accurate: 

He sent his underlings to tank manufacturers, warn¬ 
ing them not to deal with the Tidewater, and deluged 
tank-car manufacturers with orders that kept them busy, 
depriving the pipeline of rolling stock needed to transport 
construction materials. 

Refiners who used Tidewater were lured away with 
concessionary rates on Standard Oil pipelines, and 
Rockefeller swiftly bought up any remaining independent 
refineries that might be prospective Tidewater customers. 
Standard Oil also embarked on a real estate spree of mon¬ 
umental proportions, buying up strips of land that ran 
from the northern to the southern border of Pennsylvania 
to block the Tidewater’s advance.... Standard Oil placed 
stories in local papers, warning farmers who sold to 
Tidewater that their crops would be spoiled by pipeline 
leaks. And Standard Oil conspired with the railroads to 
withhold permission from any pipeline wishing to cross 
their tracks. . . . When Standard bought an entire valley 
at one point, the unstoppable Tidewater changed course 
and climbed up over the surrounding hills. 8 

For once, all of Rockefeller’s chicanery was to no 
avail—at least temporarily On May 28, 1879, 
“Byron D. Benson stepped up to a throbbing 45- 
horse-power Holly engine, and with a hand that his 
small son distinctly saw tremble, turned a valve. . . 
. Knots of excited men began walking eastward 
along the glistening surface pipes of a new line . . . 
by 10 o’clock on the morning of May 29 it reached 
Olmstead, where new engines thrust the oil on over 
wooded mountains toward Williamsport, across the 
Allegheny range!” 9 



ockefeller’s throttlehold on the transporta¬ 
tion of crude looked like it had been loos¬ 
ened forever. But the Tidewater Pipeline—as it 
turned out—proved to be the last time that the 
Rockefeller family domination of the oil trade of the world 
was ever seriously challenged—and this was 125 years ago. 
John D. Rockefeller cloistered himself away with his associ¬ 
ates to devise the plan that would eventually lead to the 
destruction of this new line as an effective means for keeping 
the independent producers in the game. 

Nothing shows more clearly the ruthless nature of the 
Rockefeller enterprise than the attacks that were now 
launched against this independent pipeline. The methods uti¬ 
lized, while strictly speaking within the limits of the law, dis¬ 
play Rockefeller’s disdain for America’s founding principles— 
especially the concept of free enterprise. On June 5, 1879, a 
meeting was held at Saratoga, New York between the 
Standard Oil Company and representatives of the major oil¬ 
carrying railroads. The meeting was called by Rockefeller 
specifically to determine how to destroy the Tidewater Pipe 
Line Company as an independent concern. The rates for car¬ 
rying a barrel of oil over the railroads to the seaboard were 
dropped from $1.15 to 15 cents (with the Standard companies 
paying just 10 cents). This pricing was at such a cutthroat 


ARCHIVE PHOTOS 

During the 1920s, Americans became giddy about money and 

inclined to worship those who had a lot of it. Rockefeller happily 
elaborated his own myth, portraying himself as a lovable coot dis¬ 
pensing shiny dimes and edifying sermonettes. The handing out of 
dimes (which, being silver, were actually worth something in those 
days) could explain to some extent why people seemed to follow the 
tycoon around, as in the picture above, in which he strolls with an 
unidentified businessman at left. After Standard Oil hired its first 
publicist, a jolly, cigar-smoking editor of The New York Herald 
named Joseph I.C. Clarke, articles began to appear with titles like 
“The Human Side of John D. Rockefeller.” Before long, Clarke was 
lining up reporters for breezy, lighthearted interviews with 
Rockefeller, featuring a game of golf with the mogul, who obliging¬ 
ly delivered pithy observations on topical subjects. When the courts 
eventually joined muckrakers and progressives in attacking 
Standard Oil, Rockefeller knew how to slip across a state line to 
duck a subpoena or how to vanish behind the walls of his 3,000- 
acre estate. On the occasions when he was forced to take the stand 
in court, he would deliver an unforgettable performance of forget¬ 
fulness, dithering so abstractedly that he could hardly recall his 
own name. 



THE BARNES REVIEW 


45 





level that it nearly bankrupted the railroads concerned. The 
customers of Tidewater in the Philadelphia market were 
charged, meanwhile, 15 cents per barrel to have their oil 
transshipped one mile from the terminus of the pipeline to 
their refineries. These independent refineries—the supplying 
of which was the sole purpose of the Tidewater construction 
project—then sold out to Standard one at a time. 10 

Tidewater responded by building their own refinery. 
Rockefeller next went after the officers and stockholders of 
Tidewater. He was able to turn one group of investors to his 
side, and this group forced their way into the offices of the 
company—after the date for a stock¬ 
holders meeting had been changed with¬ 
out notice to the loyal faction. They 
begged the court to put Tidewater into 
receivership. 

The courts disallowed this action, so 
Standard began to spread rumors of 
Tidewater’s financial instability in the 
bond and equity markets—undercutting 
thoroughly the company’s ability to 
raise badly needed capital. Standard, it 
is strongly suspected, even resorted to 
direct sabotage. Inexplicably, for a peri¬ 
od of several weeks, the pipeline was only pumping a third of 
its normal capacity. The mystery was solved when an engi¬ 
neer discovered that a block of wood had been driven into the 
line. 12 

This type of pressure from the Standard Oil Company was 
constant and sustained during the first year of Tidewater’s 
operation. With few customers left to serve, their credit 
destroyed, every move done under the threat of bogus law¬ 
suits, and even direct sabotage, the choice left open became 
like that faced by so many independent refineries of the 
past—amalgamate or starve. Tidewater eventually chose the 
former. In 1882, Byron Benson, having nowhere else to turn, 
decided to accept Rockefeller’s offer of a loan of $2 million to 
enable the line to complete its run to the sea. A group of solid¬ 


ly anti-Rockefeller stockholders objected vehemently—prefer¬ 
ring even destruction to surrender. This group of sharehold¬ 
ers was disgusted by Benson’s loan to the point of selling their 
shares. The waiting buyers were, of course, Rockefeller 
stooges. 11 

U sing these new surrogates, Rockefeller was able to 
offer Benson a plan the following year that would 
enable the United Pipe Line Company and 
Tidewater to split the entire business of shipping oil 
from the oilfields of Pennsylvania to the sea between them. 

Tidewater was guaranteed the right to 
carry 11.5 percent of the region’s oil in 
perpetuity, with United carrying 88.5 
percent. Tidewater was left nominally 
independent—but her usefulness as a 
deliverer from Rockefeller tyranny was 
completely ruined. 12 

There was one more belated attempt 
at forming an independent concern (to 
handle all of the three facets of the oil 
trade), which was briefly successful for 
a while in the 1890s. The producers 
raised capital to form a company known 
as the Pure Oil Company, which pooled producers, built their 
own refineries and even laid two independent pipelines—one 
for crude and one for refined oil from the oil region refiner¬ 
ies—to the sea. But Rockefeller’s successful program of co¬ 
opting the competition when it could not be bought outright 
was put to good use once again. Never again would there be 
competition in any meaningful sense in the nation’s oil trade. 

So, long before the turn of the 20th century—and the 
swarm of coming inventions that made the nasty-smelling 
fluid hundreds of times more important to the industrial rev¬ 
olution than the kerosene lantern alone—the Standard Oil 
Company stood in perfect position to reap all of the benefits 
of such advances. It is beyond the scope of this paper to exam¬ 
ine the extent to which Standard found it necessary to bribe 


[S]o Standard Oil 
began to spread rumors of 
Tidewaters financial instabili¬ 
ty in the bond and equity mar¬ 
kets—undercutting thoroughly 
the company s ability to raise 
badly needed capital. 


Greek Fire, Poison Arrows 
& Scorpion Bombs: 

Biological & Chemical Warfare in the Ancient World 

F rom Hercules to Hannibal, myth to history, battle elephants to bubonic plague, Greek 
fire to napalm, here it is—carefully documented, expansive in scope and told with irony 
and outrage—the sorry story of man’s genius for turning just about anything in nature 
into a weapon of mass destruction. But Nature has her genius too, for making such 
weapons recoil on their inventors’ heads as surely as vials of pox. Adrienne Mayor has given 
us a timely, frightening and necessary book . . . Greek Fire is an amazing read. 

Greek Fire: Hardback, 319 pages, beautiful dust jacket, item #382, $28 minus 10% for TBR subscribers. 
Order from TBR BOOK CLUB, RO. Box 15877, Washington, D.C. 20003 using the ordering coupon on 
page 80. S&H charges apply: $3 inside the U.S.; $6 per book outside the U.S. Call our toll free ordering 
line at 1-877-773-9077 to charge to Visa or MasterCard. 



// roisoil Arrows < 

^ Scorpion 1 Sombs 


I tiudp hniiinil Wnrl'iiiv 
in tfurAm-iriil WpHH ^ T 

Amii'imf' Mai Vi u 




IwHAf 


46 MAY/JUNE 2004 

















politicians, control the political process and expend major 
efforts at whitewashing its own image in the public eye (a 
process that continues unabated down to the present day). It 
is also beyond the scope of this paper to examine the major 
new oil discoveries in Indiana, Texas and overseas that 
Standard quickly moved to monopolize as well. No room for 
an expose of the false disbanding of the Standard Oil 
Company into the “Seven Sisters” oil companies in 1911, or 
Standard’s control of the process leading up to the establish¬ 
ment of the corrupt Federal Reserve System, which put the 
control of the nation’s wealth firmly in their hands. No time 
for the maneuverings that brought on the great wars of the 
20th century or the establishment (through the Council on 
Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission) of the 
dynasty’s thoroughgoing control of the nation’s foreign policy. 
All of these topics will need to be addressed in the future. 

Far from being a monopoly merely of the world’s oil busi¬ 
ness, the heirs of the dynasty—and their like-minded cohorts 
in Europe—have now established a monopoly of thought. 
“Political correctness,” “multiculturalism,” “celebrating diver¬ 
sity,” “think globally”—these are all slogans made up by their 
globalist minions in their tax-free trust-supported think 
tanks—all in the name of squelching dissent and amalgamat¬ 
ing public opinion as thoroughly as they once amalgamated 
the nation’s oil business. All of these subjects remain fertile 
ground for future articles in these pages. All that awaits now 
is the final amalgamation—the golden ring of the dynasty’s 
long-laid plans: world government. I will leave it up to the 
astute readers of these pages to determine how close they are 
to reaching that final objective at this present day. ❖ 

BIBLIOGRAPHY: 

Chernow, Ron, Titan: The Life of John D. Rockefeller, Sr: New York, 
Random House, 1998. 

Lloyd, Henry DeMarest, Wealth Against Commonwealth : ed. Thomas C. 
Cochran, Engle woods Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc. 1963. (originally pub., 
1893) 

Nevins, Allan, Study in Power: John D. Rockefeller, Industrialist and 
Philanthropist , 2 vols., New York & London: Charles Scribners’s Sons, 1953. 

Tarbell, Ida, The History of the Standard Oil Company , New York: W.W. 
Norton & Co., 1966. (Originally published in two vols. by the MacMillan Co. 
of New York in 1904.) 

ENDNOTES: 

1 Tarbell, 50. 

2 Lloyd, 30-31. 

8 Chernow, 161. 

4 Nevins, 298. 

5 Tarbell, op. cit., 59. 

6 Chernow, op. cit., 207. 

7 Nevins, op. cit., 208. 

8 Ibid. 

9 Nevins, op. cit., 345. 

10 Lloyd, op. cit., 46. 

Ibid., 48. 

12 Chernow, op. cit., 215. 

Stephen J. Martin is a political activist and pianist and is a 
native of Pennsylvania who now resides in Maine. Steve is a former 
teacher with a deep interest in politics and is an expert on the his¬ 
tory of the northeastern borderlands and Atlantic Canada. 



Curse of the Rockefellers? 

John D. Rockefeller Sr. (right) walks with his sort John D. 
Rockefeller Jr. Junior, like many of the Rockefellers, seems to 
have been under a curse: he died in an institution in Tucson, 
Arizona and was hastily cremated. (John D. Rockefeller III died 
in a mysterious accident on a New York Parkway near his 
home. Nelson Rockefeller, named after his maternal grandfa¬ 
ther, Rhode Island Sen. Nelson W. Aldrich, died in the arms of 
a TV journalist. It was later revealed that he had also been in 
the arms of another TV journalist at the same time; the death 
was hushed up for many hours. It is believed he ran afoul of his 
Colombian drug connection, the disagreement hardly being 
trivial; it involved several billion dollars in drug profits. 
Winthrop Rockefeller died an alcoholic in the arms of his black 
boyfriend.) The old description of the Rockefellers as men ob¬ 
sessed by greed (a category in which they have plenty of com¬ 
pany) obscures the fact that from the day the Rothschilds began 
to finance “Senior’s” march toward oil monopoly in the United 
States from their coffers at the National City Bank of 
Cleveland, Rockefeller was never an independent power, nor 
does any department of the Rockefeller syndicate operate as an 
independent power. The Rockefeller syndicate, like the Cosa 
Nostra, operates under clearly defined spheres of influence. No 
department of the syndicate strikes out on its own or formulates 
an independent policy, no matter what may be its justification. 
The family has somewhat autonomous power in the regions 
that have been assigned to it by the international directors, but 
this always implies that the family remains under total control 
and answerable for everything that occurs in its territory. 


THE BARNES REVIEW 


47 










The Sinister Role of the 



.. . and the Golden Rule 


For many years non-conformist economists and scholars have been investi¬ 
gating America’s central bank, the Federal Reserve, which was conceived in deception 
and secret collusion. It came into being as a result of the financial panic of 1907, which 
some historians believe might have been purposely engineered. Then there was a fake 
“duck hunting” trip in 1910 on Jekyll Island staged by high-placed New York City bankers 
and leading politicians of Washington. Many have also reviewed some pertinent history 
of the (first) and (second) banks of the United States, such as The Chalcedon Report. And 
those who read such reports today discover that foreign international banking interests 
had gained substantial stock ownership in these earlier central banks, thus enabling them 
to exert secret pressures to influence political and economic policy in our country. 


By TOM ROSE 


OUR OBJECTIVE IN THIS ISSUE is to further evaluate 
Federal Reserve activities, ask some very pertinent ques¬ 
tions, and then to give some clear-cut answers: 

1. Has the Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) been helpful or 
detrimental to the economic prosperity and freedom of the 
American people? (Note: The Constitution of these United 
States gives Congress no power to charter a central bank.) 

2. Is it possible, and would it be beneficial, to do away with 
the Federal Reserve? 

3. Is it practical to reinstate a bona fide gold-coin stan¬ 
dard? How could this be accomplished, and would doing so 
benefit the ordinary working man? 


The FRB—Helpful or Hurtful? 

There is little doubt that, when we view the overall pic¬ 
ture, freedom-loving people will judge the influence of the 
Federal Reserve to have been detrimental to both the eco¬ 
nomic and political welfare of the American people. I state 
this in spite of the long-continued propaganda program 
through which the government and news media have 
worked to mold the minds of the public to view the Federal 
Reserve in a favorable light. 

As I mentioned in a previous article, three revolutionary 
political actions (the 16th and 17th amendments and the 
Federal Reserve Act) practically guaranteed the future 
growth of a monolithic political bureaucracy in Washington, 
D.C., and the eventual undermining of the American repub- 


48 MAY/JUNE 2004 







lie—in short, the growth of political tyranny. During the first 
decade of the 1900s the average American went about his or 
her personal and economic life blissfully almost unaware of 
the existence of the federal government, and that is the way 
our Founding Fathers planned it to be. But, today we are 
painfully aware of oppressive taxation, massive federal 
deficit spending, undeclared wars and unending streams of 
federal edicts, rules and regulations that constantly emanate 
from the 80-plus federal control agencies, from the White 
House, and/or from the U.S. Supreme Court. This is not how 
our Founding Fathers planned our republic to function. 

The Federal Reserve began operating in 1914, just in time 


to be used as a money-creating machine to involve our coun¬ 
try in a European war in which we had no legitimate inter¬ 
est. Our involvement started by selling war materials for 
cash to the European combatants, but mostly to the Allies 
because Great Britain dominated the seas. When the Allies’ 
funds gave out, American industries and their unionized 
workers exerted political pressure on Congress to pass a bill 
allowing credit sales, which the Federal Reserve assisted 
through its credit-creating ability. Behind-the-scenes forces 
then colluded to draw America into World War I. (See the text 
of the Balfour Declaration, 1 1917, through which Britain 
promised Zionists a national home in Palestine as a reward 
for bringing America into the war on the Allied side, even 
though Britain had previously promised freedom to the 
Palestinian Arabs in order to gain their military support 
in World War I. This was the starting point of the 
Israeli/Arab unrest in the Mideast today. Also see: 
Benjamin H. Freedman, “Benjamin Freedman 
Speaks,” Free Speech , June 1995. 2 ) 

Ever since World War I, the Federal Reserve 
has served as an open-ended money-creating 
machine to help finance America’s involve¬ 
ment in every subsequent foreign war, mil¬ 
itary action, and internal meddling in 
other countries’ domestic affairs: World 
War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam 
War, NATO’s murderous attack on the 
Yugoslavian population, the U.S. 
invasion of Somalia, our first attack 
against Iraq (“Desert Storm”) and 
over 10 years of subsequent terrorist 
bombing of Iraqi citizens. Now we 
have the recent move of the current 
presidential administration to again 
attack Iraq. The Federal Reserve has also 
helped, through its ability to monetize debt, to 
help finance more than 50 years of so-called “for¬ 
eign and military aid” payments and subsidies to for¬ 
eign countries. This foreign aid amounts to multiple 
billions of dollars every year, and these dollars—which 
are wrested from American citizens through a combina¬ 
tion of tax levies and fiat-created money supplied by the 
Federal Reserve—are used as “bait” to induce foreign 
political tyrants to follow policies that meet the approval of 
whatever political clique happens to be in control of the 
White House and Congress. 

The Fed has also come to serve as an international “lender 
of last resort,” at American taxpayers’ expense, to any for¬ 
eign country whose poor management of finances and 
economic policy leads it to call for help: Mexico, 
Brazil, Venezuela, Russia, Thailand, Malaysia, 
Japan etc. A recent report states that the Federal 
Reserve (with its fiat money-creating ability) has 
purchased (i.e., monetized) over the last 12 months 
almost $70 billion of our national debt. Thus, with 
the Fed’s help, the federal government in one year 
has added some $460 billion to the total federal debt, 



THE BARNES REVIEW 


49 

























































































which now stands at over $7.12 trillion. 3 

Wherever American dollars are so lavishly spread 
through “foreign aid” and Federal Reserve bailouts, Amer¬ 
ican troops and military bases soon follow. The United States 
of America now has a military presence in 140 countries: We 
have major foreign bases in 36 countries, 260,000 military 
personnel stationed overseas, and another 50,000 afloat with 
major U.S. carrier groups. In total, we have more than 800 
large and small military bases overseas. 4 

he record of history shows where we are headed: 
When the ancient Roman republic deviated from 
the republican principles that made it a great 
nation, at first it expanded as a 
worldwide power but then degenerated 
into a corrupt imperialist nation that 
exerted tyrannical hegemony over much of 
the then-known world. England also devi¬ 
ated from its republican principles and 
likewise degenerated into a corrupt world¬ 
wide imperial power; it became “Great 
Britain.” Our American republic is now fol¬ 
lowing the same route toward degenerate 
imperialism that Rome and England took. 

The common denominator for all three 
nations is the disfranchisement of the com¬ 
mon man through unlimited taxing power 
coupled with the ability of rulers to impose 
fiat money on citizens. In the case of 
England and the United States, the impo¬ 
sition of fiat money was facilitated by the 
money-creating ability of their central 
banks. 

My point in mentioning the above is to 
emphasize how the very existence of the 
Federal Reserve has been used to get our country involved, 
not only in costly foreign wars, but also dangerously involved 
in the internal affairs of the majority of countries in the 
world. The very existence of a central bank serves as a sinis¬ 
ter tool for political and financial leaders to draw citizens 
into what seems to be an easy way of financing wars and for¬ 
eign intrigues through readily supplied credit, rather than 
facing the painful need to immediately raise taxes. This is 
exactly how the Federal Reserve Bank has been used by 
political and financial leaders in America. In short, the 
Federal Reserve has served insidiously as a tool to help 
transform America from the independent, free-trade repub¬ 
lic envisioned by George Washington and our other Founding 
Fathers into what it is now—an international military and 
financial empire which more knowledgeable people (indeed, 
even former President George H.W. Bush) now refer to as the 
“New World Order.” 

American imperialism has produced a dire financial situ¬ 
ation about which most Americans are not aware—inflation¬ 
ary bubbles. The speculative inflationary bubble created by 
the Federal Reserve during the 1990s caused our domestic 
stock market boom, just as the speculative bubble it created 


in the late 1920s did, and with the same delayed deflationary 
result. Many Americans who temporarily felt enriched while 
the stock market soared felt the pain of plummeting stock 
prices. But this time around, Americans are not alone. Many 
foreigners also hold U.S. government bonds and securities of 
American companies. As security prices and bonds fall 
because of the weakening dollar in the international market, 
foreign holders of these bonds and equities will be strongly 
motivated to sell their U.S. holdings and invest their funds in 
bonds and equities denominated in foreign currencies that 
are rising relative to the dollar, or they will invest in gold. 

As I write, the euro, which is partially backed by gold, is 
strengthening relative to the dollar. The Swiss franc is also 

strengthening. And over the last year, gold 
has risen from $256 an ounce to over $350. 
People who worry about the declining value 
of the dollar—as the Fed turns to new 
waves of monetary creation in a vain 
attempt to stave off the inescapable defla¬ 
tionary pressures that always follow infla¬ 
tionary central bank polices—will increas¬ 
ingly turn to “safe havens” denominated in 
stronger foreign currencies or gold. 

The resulting free-market changes in 
relative prices are what cause central 
bankers all over the world to fear and de¬ 
test the discipline that a gold-based money 
system imposes on them. This explains 
why governments all over the world impose 
fiat money on their citizens so they will not 
have the legal right to exchange govern¬ 
ment-issued money for gold. 

ut some governments are begin¬ 
ning to change policies. For 
instance, China, which has a fiat 
currency, recently allowed 
Chinese citizens to purchase gold in the free market. And 
some Arab nations are now in the process of instituting a 
gold-based monetary unit, the dinar, which is to be used in 
settling international payments among Arab nations. Who 
knows? These changes could bring pressure on the United 
States to return to a gold-based dollar. This would be good 
news because—as I have long taught my students in eco¬ 
nomics and money and banking courses—“Power is where 
the gold is.” If the civil rulers have a monopoly on gold (as 
existed in the United States of America from 1933 [FDR] 
until 1973), then power rests in the hands of civil rulers. But 
when gold is widely held by the people, then power rests in 
the hands of the public, and they are then able to limit the 
power wielded by civil rulers. 

But one thing is still missing in our country; it is this: 
American citizens still do not have the power to overrule the 
grandiose spending plans of rulers based on fiat money; that 
is, they still do not have the legal right to “cash out” of their 
total dollar holdings whenever they wish. The only thing 
they can do is to buy something from someone else who is 




PAUL VOLCKER 

Liberal capitalist and former Fed chairman. 



50 


MAY/JUNE 2004 













still willing to hold the fiat dollars created by the Federal 
Reserve. This applies no discipline on civil rulers. What is 
still needed, then, is to denominate the dollar legally in gold 
and thereby restore to American citizens the crucially impor¬ 
tant right to force the Treasury and the banks to “cough up” 
gold in exchange for Federal Reserve notes upon demand. 
This would allow citizens to stop using “play money” and 
escape to the safe haven of gold. Remember the maxim, 
“Power is where the gold is.” And then ask yourself, “Is it bet¬ 
ter for such power to rest in the hands of widely dispersed 
citizens all over the country? Or is it better to continue as we 
do today, where the official ownership of gold rests in the 
hands of the central government? And, before you answer, 
remember that the Federal Reserve Bank has, in 90 years of 
operation, never been audited. 

Somehow American citizens must be rescued from the 
open-ended taxing and spending powers that our political 
rulers are able to wield against us, thus undermining our 
God-given freedom and self-responsibility. What better way 
to do this than by returning to the principles of limited gov¬ 
ernment as expressed in the Articles of Confederation? Let 
us impose a firm limit on taxation that will keep voracious 
government bureaucracies “lean and hungry” the way pro¬ 
tective watchdogs should be. Why not renew the very work¬ 
able system of “requisitions” that Patrick Henry so loved 
about the articles? That is, let us once again set up the states 
as a protective barrier between the people and the central 
government. 

Then, let us also eliminate the Federal Reserve and 
return to a sound money system. In short, let us return to a 
gold-coin monetary system and to a banking system that is 
not based on fractional reserves. Basically, we need a bank¬ 
ing system based on 100-percent reserves, like the savings 
and loan associations and savings banks were before they 
were brought into the Federal Reserve System. 

A Historical Example of Central Bank Collusion: 1924-1929 

After World War I, England attempted to return to a gold 
standard, but in doing so the monetary authority pegged the 
pound at the prewar price, which did not reflect the wartime 
monetary inflation, and the higher price levels that followed. 
The result was that British citizens started using pounds to 
purchase American bonds to receive higher interest. This 
generated a flow of gold from Britain to the United States. 
So, in 1924 Montagu Norman, president of the Bank of 
England, invited Benjamin Strong, president of the Federal 
Reserve Bank of New York, who at that time served as head 
of the Federal Reserve System, to visit him in London. 
Strong was a protege of J.P Morgan and, going back to the 
mid-1800s, the House of Morgan has had longtime ties to the 
Rothschild international banking interests in England. 

When Strong arrived in London, Norman explained the 
unwanted loss of gold and asked Strong to follow a “loose” 
monetary policy to make interest rates fall in America. 
Strong agreed and is reputed to have quipped, “We will give 
a ‘coup de whiskey’ to the stock market.” This collusive meet¬ 
ing of central bankers was the beginning of the deliberately 



The Federal Reserve System was conceived in 1910 by a group 

of notorious robber barons at a then-secret meeting at J.P. Morgan’s 
estate. (Morgan is shown above.) The Rothschilds are connected to 
the Bank of England, and the London banking houses, which ulti¬ 
mately control the Federal Reserve banks through their holdings of 
bank stock and their subsidiary firms in New York. The two princi¬ 
pal Rothschild representatives in New York, J.P. Morgan Co. and 
Kuhn, Loeb & Co. were the firms which set up the Jekyll Island 
Conference at which the Federal Reserve Act was drafted, who 
directed the subsequent successful campaign to have the plan enact¬ 
ed into law by Congress, and who purchased the controlling 
amounts of stock in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in 1914. 


induced stock market bubble of 1924, which ended on “Black 
Thursday,” in October 1929. The stage for the stock market 
crash was finally set when the Federal Reserve Board sud¬ 
denly raised the “discount rate” by a massive 20 percent 
(from 5 percent to 6 percent) in August, 1929. The FRB 
raised the discount rate because board members had become 
alarmed at the intense speculative fever their planned mon¬ 
etary inflation had generated. Note: While central bankers 
can pump new, unearned money into the economy, they can¬ 
not control where it will be spent. Much of the new money 
ends up in the stock market and in real estate during infla¬ 
tionary bubbles. 

Many textbooks blame the speculative fever of the 
Roaring ’20s on the obsessive greediness of the business com¬ 
munity, thus artfully diverting rightful blame from the 
Federal Reserve Board for purposely engineering an infla- 


THE BARNES REVIEW 


51 










tionary monetary policy that could only lead to a harmful 
deflationary crash when a proximate cause was triggered to 
set the crash in motion. It was the planned inflationary mon¬ 
etary boom of 1924-1929 that set up the house of cards so it 
was ready to tumble, but it was the massive 20 percent 
increase in the discount rate that actually triggered the 
crash of 1929. It is important to remember that all of these 
adverse effects were the result of international monetary col¬ 
lusion between the FRB and a foreign central bank, the 
Bank of England. 

C ol. Curtis B. Dali, author of FDR, My Exploited 
Father-in-Law, claimed that the stock market crash 
of 1929 was planned by a hidden coalition of foreign 
and domestic interests to create an artificial crisis 
designed to profit foreign interests who 
directed their domestic partners here 
in America. Dali, being a stockbroker 
with high-level political connections 
and having close ties with many of the 
movers and shakers of the time, was 
very much in tune with hidden forces 
behind the scenes. When the crash was 
induced, the Federal Reserve Board 
then followed a perverse monetary pol¬ 
icy by further restricting the money 
supply. This made the deflationary 
phase of the business cycle even worse. 

Fed officials belatedly admitted that this was a mistaken 
monetary policy from which they learned a lesson. Non-skep¬ 
tics readily accept the explanation that practical men of the 
world with many years of financial experience could honest¬ 
ly make such basic mistakes. But think about it, even neo¬ 
phytes who get entry jobs as runners at the stock exchanges 
quickly learn that cuts in the discount rate spur stock prices 
upward and that increases serve to push them downward. 
Are we to believe that the highly experienced financiers who 
run the Federal Reserve knew less in 1929 about the effect of 
interest rates than neophytes? Skeptics tend to believe that 
the effects of such choices in monetary policy and interest 
levels can be readily predicted, so take your choice. 

Here is what Dali wrote: 

Two elements were quite noticeable in the Depression. One 
was the hopeful constructive forces, the other representing the 
forces of destruction—destruction for profit, may I say. 

After confidence was duly shaken, on October 24, 1929, the 
destruction had to be made deeper, so that the insiders could ulti¬ 
mately reap a substantial harvest before the signal was given for 
the beginning of operation “reacquisition.” 

Of course, it would be most important for us to learn who 
called the “play” of October 24,1929. Probably the actual date was 
accidental, though the month was evidently selected for the sud¬ 
den withdrawal of the normal supply of credit. My guess is that 
“the signal” came from abroad. Obviously, much informed selling 
and short selling of stocks came before the actual crash itself, as 
well as after it, on rallies. The feeling around the Street, in suc¬ 
ceeding months, was that there were, in particular, three large 


short-sellers of stock, allegedly, Tom Bragg, Ben Smith and Joe 
Kennedy. 

If the all-powerful European-American money-power group 
decided that the time was ripe for them to tear down the price 
structure of stocks hither and yon, for a real worthwhile profit, a 
real “shearing,” as it were, and to eliminate President Herbert 
Hoover in so doing, they would not dare to pick a Rothschild, a 
Sasoon, a Warburg, a Sieff, a Morgan, a Montefiore, a Schiff or a 
Whitney to wield “the clippers.” That not-so-delicate task, on the 
downside, must be handled by others, by a front detached, but 
nevertheless quite reliable. Therefore, what better front could be 
provided for their extensive stock operations on the short side 
than whistle up some “acceptable,” aggressive Irishmen to be 
aided by others in leading the shearing of the public? 5 

The most accurate statement that can be made about the 
Federal Reserve is that, since its birth in 1913, economic 
boom/bust cycles have been even more numerous and much 

more severe than before. What better 
reason can we find for terminating this 
ultra-expensive and economically dele¬ 
terious tool of centralized monetary 
control? 

An Update to 1985-1987 

Now let us turn to the fall of 1985, 
when the “Group of Five” (U.S.A., 
Britain, France, West Germany and 
Japan) met in Japan and announced 
that they would engage in “internation¬ 
al monetary cooperation” with the objective of lowering inter¬ 
est rates in the United States. I took the Wall Street Journal 
clipping that carried the announcement and explained it to 
my students. I said: 

Look what our monetary authorities are doing. Under the 
guise of “international monetary cooperation” they are recreating 
the exact scenario that Benjamin Strong did in 1924 when he 
agreed with Montagu Norman, head of the Bank of England, to fol¬ 
low a “loose” monetary policy in the United States to help Britain 
stay on the gold reserve standard. This is the beginning of a stock 
market boom that will probably end the same way the one ended 
in 1929. Back then it took about five years for the boom to end in 
a crash. Who can say how long this one will last? My guess is that 
the boom-bust will occur in a shorter time span because of the 
speedier communications we now have in this computer age. (See 
my “Two Crashes: 1929-1987, and another one coming?”) 

Two years later (August, 1987), the Federal Reserve Board 
once again raised the discount rate by a whopping 20 percent, 
from five-percent to six-percent. I was also teaching a course 
in Investments that year, so I explained how changes in the 
discount rate affects prices in the stock market. Then I said, 
“This is the beginning of a bear market.” About 10 days later, 
on October 19, 1987, the Dow Jones Industrial Average 
dropped an unprecedented 528 points. (There is usually a 
delay between announcements of cuts in discount rates and 
the following price action in the market place.) Since the 1987 
crash, the Federal Reserve Board has quietly been pumping 
new money into the market whenever stock prices slump, 
while publicly presenting itself as following a non-inflation- 
ary monetary policy. It was this constant FRB creation of new 


When the crash was induced, 
the Federal Reserve Board fol¬ 
lowed a perverse monetary 
policy by further restricting 
the money supply. This made 
the deflationary phase of the 
business cycle even worse. 


52 


MAY/JUNE 2004 





fiat money to sustain the stock market 
that created the speculative bubble of 
the 1990s and the subsequent bear 
market we are now experiencing. 

Gold-Coin Standard 

It is not absolutely necessary to do 
away with the Federal Reserve in 
order to return to a gold-coin standard 
that guarantees citizens the right to 
convert paper money into gold coins 
upon demand. But it is certainly pru¬ 
dent to eliminate the FRB when set¬ 
ting up a gold standard. Why? Be¬ 
cause the Federal Reserve, like all 
central banks, has a natural antipa¬ 
thy to being subjected to the financial 
discipline that a gold-coin standard 
imposes on bureaucratic money con¬ 
trollers. It simply runs against their 
nature of wanting to be in control of 
the people rather than being con¬ 
trolled by the people. Remember the 
maxim, “Power is where the gold is.” It 
is not at all incorrect to state that the 
Federal Reserve and central banks in 
other countries cooperated (con¬ 
spired?) in undermining the gold stan¬ 
dard with intent to impose fiat money 
standards on the people. 

There are certainly many banks in 
our country that can stand in the gap 
to fulfill, in the competitive free mar¬ 
ket, and at lower costs, the current 
functions of the Federal Reserve. I, for 
one, would place much more confi¬ 
dence in a truly competitive private 
banking system than in a govern¬ 
ment-created central bank monopoly. 

Harmful monopolistic control of the 
monetary system is absent in a free- 
banking system with no central bank. 

In addition, the prohibition of frac¬ 
tional-reserve banking puts borrowers 
on the same footing as savers. How? It 
prevents borrowers from obtaining 
newly created, unearned money from 
bankers. Thus, borrowers are not able 
to obtain unearned money to spend in 
competition with the earned money 
that savers must rely on. This, then, 
would be truly honest banking with 
truly honest money. 

In short, in a money and banking system without a cen¬ 
tral bank—and on a gold-coin standard, along with silver 
being used for subsidiary coins—all banks would simply 
operate as “warehousing institutions to hold people’s savings 


PLEASE POST IN A CONSPICUOUS PLACE 


UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER OF 

THE PRESIDENT 

issued April 5, 1 933 

all persons are required to deliver 

ON OR BEFORE MAY 1, 1933 

all GOLD COIN, GOLD BULLION, AND 
GOLD CERTIFICATES now owned by them to 
a Federal Reserve Bank, branch or agency, or to 
any member bank of the Federal Reserve System. 

Executive Order 


FORBIDDING THE HOARDING F GOLD COINS, GOLD BULLION 
AND GOLD CERTIFICATES. 

By virtue of the authority vested in me by Section 5(b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as 
amended by Section 2 of the Act of March 9, 1933, entitled “An Act to provide relief in the 
existing national emergency in banking, and for other purposes”, in which amendatory Act 
of Congress declared that a serious emergency exists, I Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of 
the United States of America, do declare that said national emergency still continues to 
exist and pursuant to said section do hereby prohibit the hoarding of gold coin, gold bul¬ 
lion, and gold certificates within the continental United States by individuals, partnerships, 
associations and corporations and hereby prescribe the following regulation for carrying 
out the purposes of this order: 

Section 1. For the purposes of this regulation, the term “hoarding” means the with¬ 
drawal of and withholding of gold coin, gold bullion or gold certificates for the recognized 
and customary channels of trade. The term “person” means any individual, partnership or 
association or corporation. 

Section 2. All persons are hereby required to deliver on or before May 1, 1933, to a 
Federal reserve bank or a branch or agency thereof or to any member bank of the Federal 
reserve System all gold coin, gold bullion and gold certificates now owned by them or com¬ 
ing into their ownership on or before April 28, 1933 except the following: 

(a) Such amount of gold as may be required for legitimate and customary use in indus¬ 
try, profession or art within a reasonable time, including gold prior to refining and stocks 
of gold in reasonable amounts for the usual trade requirements of owners mining and 
refining such gold. 

(b) Gold coins and gold certificates in an amount not exceeding in the aggregate 
$100.00 belonging to any one person.; and gold coins having a recognized social value to 
collectors of rare and unusual coins. 

(c) Gold coin or bullion earmarked or held in trust for a recognized foreign central 
bank or the Bank for International Settlements. 

(d) Gold coin and bullion licensed for other property transactions (not involving hoard¬ 
ing) including gold coin and bullion imported for reexport or held pending action on 
applications for export licenses. 

Section 3. Until otherwise ordered any person becoming the owner of any gold coin, 
gold bullion, or gold certificates after April 28, 1933, shall, within three days after receipt 
thereof, deliver the same in the manner prescribed in Section 2; unless such gold coin, gold 
bullion or gold certificates are held for any of the purposes specified in paragraph (d) of 
Section 2 and the person holding it is, with respect to such gold coin or bullion, a licensee 
or applicant for license pending action thereon. 


Section 4. Upon receipt of gold coin, gold bullion, or gold certificates delivered to it in 
accordance with Sections 2 or 3, the Federal reserve bank or member bank will pay there¬ 
for an equivalent amount of any other form of coin or currency coined or issued under the 
laws of the United States. 

Section 5. Member banks shall deliver all gold coin, gold bullion and gold certificates 
owned or received by them (other than as exempted under the provisions of Section 2) to 
the Federal reserve banks of their respective districts and receive credit or payment therefor. 

Section 6. The Secretary of the Treasury, out of the sum made available to the President 
by Section 501 of the Act of March 9, 1933, will in all proper cases pay the reasonable costs 
of transportation of gold coin, gold bullion or gold certificates delivered to a member bank 
or Federal reserve bank in accordance with Sections 2, 3, or 5 hereof, including the cost of 
insurance, protection, and such other incidental costs as may be necessary, upon produc¬ 
tion of satisfactory evidence of such costs. Voucher forms for this purpose may be procured 
from Federal reserve banks. 

Section 7. In cases where the delivery of gold coin, gold bullion or gold certificates by the 
owners thereof within the time set forth above will involve extraordinary hardship or diffi¬ 
culty, the Secretary of the Treasury may, in his discretion, extend the time within which such 
delivery must be made. Applications for such extensions must be made in writing under 
oath, addressed to the Secretary of the Treasury and filed with a Federal reserve bank. Each 
application must state the date to which the extension is desired, the amount and location 
of the gold coin, gold bullion and gold certificates in respect of such application i made and 
the facts showing extension to be necessary to avoid unnecessary hardship or difficulty. 

Section 8. The Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized and empowered to issue 
such further regulations as he may deem necessary to carry out the purposes of this order 
and to issue licenses thereunder, through such officers or agencies as he may designate, 
including licenses permitting the Federal reserve banks and member banks of the Federal 
Reserve System, in return for an equivalent amount of other coin, currency or credit, to 
deliver, earmark or hold in trust gold coin and bullion to or for persons showing the need 
for the same for any of the purposed specified in paragraphs (a), (c) and (d) of Section 2 
of these regulations. 

Section 9. Whoever willfully violates any provision of this Executive Order or of these 
regulations or of any rule, regulation or license issues thereunder may be fines not more 
than $10,000, or, if a natural person, may be imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or 
both; and any officer, director or agent of any corporation, who knowingly participates in 
any such violation may be punished by a like fine, imprisonment or both. 

This order and these regulation may be modified or revoked at any time. 

FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT 

The White House 

April 5, 1933 


For Further Information Consult Your Local Bank 


“GOLD CERTIFICATE” 
seal on the face of a 
not to confuse GOLD 
in gold but which are 


GOLD CERTIFICATES may be identified by the words 
appearing thereon. The serial number and the Treasury 
GOLD CERTIFICATE are printed in YELLOW. Be careful 
CERTIFICATES with other issues which a re redeemable 
not GOLD CERTIFICATES. Federal reserve Notes and United States Notes are 
“redeemable in gold” but a re n o t “GOLD C E RT IFICATES” and 
are n o t required to be surrendered. 

Special attention is directed to the exceptions allowed under 

Section 2 of the Executive Order 

CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 
$10,000 fine or 10 years imprisonment, or both, as 
provided in Section 9 of the order 


Secretary of the Treasury. 


Besides being robbery, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s gold confiscation 

scheme simply did not work. The price of gold was increased from $20.67 to $35 per ounce, a 69 
percent increase, but the domestic price level increased only 7 percent between 1933 and 1934, 
and over the rest of the decade it hardly increased at all. Devaluation provoked retaliation by 
other countries, strangling international trade and throwing the economy further into depres¬ 
sion. Above, a copy of FDR’s infamous gold theft order. 


and checking deposits (similar to savings and loan compa¬ 
nies and savings banks which do not have the legal power to 
create money when extending loans.) Such a system would 
be truly non-inflationary and, in the absence of a central 
bank, would faithfully protect the purchasing power of the 


THE BARNES REVIEW 


53 
















dollar. Remember that, under the regime of the Federal 
Reserve, we have seen the purchasing value of the 1940 dol¬ 
lar drop to less than four cents—a loss of 96 percent. 

How to Return to a Gold-Coin Standard 

Returning to a gold-coin standard is a very simple process. 
We have two historical precedents: Our first return to a gold- 
coin standard was efficiently accomplished after President 
Jackson vetoed the recharter bill for the Second Bank of the 
United States in the 1830s. A return to gold-based money 
was repeated when we re-instituted the gold standard in 
1879. Both times results were salutary, with a subsequent 
inflow of gold from overseas and increased in¬ 
vestment and expanding economic activity 
domestically. 

One way of returning to a gold-coin stan¬ 
dard would be to choose a general price level 
from some date in the past, and then adjust 
current prices so debtors and creditors main¬ 
tain the same relative position before and 
after the current price change. For instance, if 
prices today were 25 times higher than on the 
date chosen in the past, current prices would 
be divided by 25, and the gold-content of the 
dollar would be adjusted accordingly. People’s 
savings and incomes would be lower in dollar 
amounts, but so would their liabilities and the 
prices they paid for goods and services in the 
marketplace. This is a statistical process that 
can be done quite easily. Doing this would 
wring out the artificial price stimulation that 
decades of monetary inflation have generated. 

An alternative method would be to work with the current 
general price level (and the monetary inflation that produced 
it), but only after letting the price of gold float freely for some 
months without the manipulation of gold prices that the 
Federal Reserve and other central banks throughout the 
world have been engaging in for some decades. This would 
allow the price of gold to seek its true free-market price by 
recognizing the hidden forces of monetary inflation and 
manipulation that the monetary authorities have been effec¬ 
tively hiding from the public through doctored-up consumer 
price indexes. Then the gold content of newly minted coins 
could be determined relative to the honest market price of 
gold. 

All that is needed to make a change is to set a date to close 
down and liquidate the FRB some months in advance. 
Various private banks would jump at the opportunity to pro¬ 
vide competitive services to those now offered by the FRB; 
and competition would bring with it unforeseen cost-saving 
innovations. Remember, the Second Bank of the United 
States was closed down in the 1830s, and the results were 
very good. Should we expect less today? 

I have always warned my students that they cannot safe¬ 
ly put their trust in civil rulers because rulers lie, for politi¬ 
cal and other reasons. Especially, civil rulers cannot be trust¬ 
ed when it comes to money, for history has proven them to be 


inveterate debauchers of the people’s currency. The impor¬ 
tant thing is to make the change in order to relieve American 
citizens from the present unconstitutional tyranny of having 
their monetary unit centrally controlled and steadily 
debauched at the will of a bureaucratic financial/political oli¬ 
garchy that does not have the best interest of the common 
people at heart. 

The great, great benefit of a true gold-coin standard is 
that it puts effective control of money back into the hands of 
widely dispersed individuals—exactly where it belongs—and 
out of the hands of centralized controllers who in the past, 
and up to the present day, have inflicted much harm on our 

economic and political freedom. With a gold- 
coin standard, individual citizens would once 
again have the legal right and the financial 
ability, as individuals acting unilaterally, to 
overrule the grandiose deficit-spending plans 
of civil rulers (See my God, Gold, and Civil 
Government , Chapter 6, entitled “All About 
Gold,” 101-125). The 20th century was a cen¬ 
tury of constant wars and covert machinations 
by hidden powers (Eph. 6:12) leading to 
domestic and international political tyranny. 
With a gold-coin standard, the 21st century 
would promise to be a century of widespread 
peace and prosperity for the people because 
their savings, the monetary value of their 
hard-earned wealth, and the purchasing 
power of the dollar would all be protected from 
being plundered by out-of-control politicians 
and their hired bureaucrats. 

Could there be a greater joy in this sinful 
world than for our monetary system to be founded on a true 
gold-coin standard? ❖ 

©2004 By Tom Rose 

BIBLIOGRAPHY: 

Cook, Peter, ed., ABCs of America’s Money System, Monetary Science 
Publishing, Wickliffe, Ohio, 1979. 

Lindbergh, Charles A., Lindbergh on the Federal Reserve, Monetary 
Science Publishing, Wickliffe, Ohio, 1923. 

ENDNOTES: 

!“The Avalon Project at Yale Law School,” www.yale.edu/lawweb/aval- 
on/mideast/balfour.htm. 

2www.natvan.com/free-speech/fs956b.html. 

^News & Views, USAGOLD, January/February 2003, 4. 

4www.the-privateer.com. 

5Dali, Curtis B., FDR, My Exploited Father-in-Law (Tulsa: Christian 
Crusade Publications, 1967), 118-19. 


Tom Rose is a retired professor of economics, Grove City Col¬ 
lege, Pennsylvania and a member of the National Reform Asso¬ 
ciation Board of Directors. He is the author of seven books and 
hundreds of articles dealing with economic and political issues. 
Rose’s latest book is Reclaiming the American Dream by Recon¬ 
structing the American Republic, which can be found online at 
www.amazon.com. 



FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT 

Ordered the confiscation 
of private stores of gold. 


54 


MAY/JUNE 2004 















Stabbed in the Back: 

The Saga of the USS Liberty 

PARTI 


The following (two-part) article is inspired by and dedicated to the incessant effort of a 
group of individuals, some historians, some journalists and many others who were participants in a 
tragic event, all trying to bring to light the hellish truth lived by some of them, the truth that the U.S. 
government and other parties want to be kept away from the word. The story presented here is one 
of ever-increasing controversy in the recent history of the United States, and it is, indeed, very little 
known. And you will see why. 


By Romeo Stana 


I t turns out that Israel’s unprovoked and murderous 
attack on the USS Liberty was watched by a U.S. sub¬ 
marine and a U.S. surveillance plane. For different 
reasons—most often some special interests—many 
events get very little publicity, and, as a result, they 
remain largely unknown outside a small group of 
insiders. 

Fortunately, recently, largely due to the Internet, the task of 
the history manipulators has become increasingly difficult: one 
can get access to various opinions (obviously labeled by the “offi¬ 
cial” historians as “non-conformist” or, even worse, “Revisionist”) 
presenting facts and arguing versions in contradiction with the 
ones a la mode. 

I do not believe in blind faith. History is not a dogma. Any 
argument must be heard irrespective of the fact that trying to 
find the truth may bode ill for some group or another. 

It happened in the month of June, some 36 years ago. I 
remember it, watching recently on the History Channel a 
rebroadcast of a documentary produced two years ago by CBS 
News. The movie was shown on TV in spite of the opposition of 
Israel’s embassy and the strident protests of various pro-Israel 
groups culminating with that of the Committee for Accuracy in 
Middle East Reporting in America, a powerful Israeli arm in 
Washington that accused the individuals depicted in the movie 
and CBS News of producing a “propaganda-laden bogus history,” 
deliberately distorted and anti-Semitic. And all this because the 
documentary presents the point of view of participants in that 
tragedy and not the watered-down version embraced by the U.S. 
and Israeli governments and given for public consumption (and 


even that in small portions). The truth can be hurtful. 

Blitzkrieg 

June 5,1967 

“The spirit of Israeli heroes accompanies us to battle. . . . 
From Joshua Bin-Nun [to] King David, the Maccabees and the 
fighters of 1948 and 1956, we shall draw the strength and 
courage to strike the Egyptians who threaten our safety, our 
independence and our future. Fly, soar at the enemy, destroy him 
and scatter him throughout the desert so that Israel may live, 
secure in its land, for generations.” 1 

With those words of encouragement from Maj. Gen. Motti 
Hod, commander-in-chief of the Israeli Air Force (IAF), what 
would be known as the Six Day War commenced. 

7:10 a.m.— The air attack against Egypt starts. 

7:50 a.m.— Operation “Red Sheet” is launched. Gen. Tal’s 
Ugadah (an expanded division, for special operations) crosses 
the Egyptian border in two places: Nahal Oz and Khan (Yumis). 

12:30 p.m.— Jordan is attacked. IAF launches an air raid on 
airports in Mafraq and Amman, followed by another one at 1:10 
pm. 

2:24 p.m.— The 161st battalion of the Jerusalem brigade, 
under Lt. Col. Asher Dreifin, attacks the West Bank, Palestine. 

USS Liberty is south of Sicily heading east at 17 knots, 
almost the maximum speed, toward her destination.... 

June 6,1967 

2:10 p.m.— The 66th battalion, under Maj. Yosef“Yossi” Yoffe, 
attacks East Jerusalem. The occupation of the Sinai Peninsula 
continues. 

USS Liberty continues her inexorable journey in the eastern 
Mediterranean, toward Port Said. 


THE BARNES REVIEW 


55 








June 7,1967 

9:45 a.m. —The final assault against East Jerusalem begins. 
In a short time it is occupied. 

The only Israeli enemy relatively unscathed is Syria; she can 
launch an attack using the Golan Heights as a spearhead, so 
Israel is poised to attack her. This has to be done quickly because 
both the United States and the Soviet Union exert pressure in 
the UN for the signing of a cease-fire on June 9. 

The attack on Syria is planned for the fateful day of June 8 
at 11:30 a.m. 

USS Liberty is less than 10 hours away from the conflict 
zone. 

June 8,1967 

9:00 a.m.—The attack on Syria is postponed: Israel will 
invade Syria at 11:30 a.m., June 9. 

The Road to Perdition 

May 1967 

USS Liberty is sailing at a snail’s pace of four knots back and 
forth, north-south, off the west coast of Africa, eavesdropping on 
the bloody war in the Congo. 

Of the famous Liberty ship class, the USS Liberty saw action 
in World War II as a transport in Pacific. During the Korean War 
she crossed the Pacific Ocean 18 times as a transport and sup¬ 
port vessel. Rusty and tired, Liberty was mothballed in 1958, 
only to be brought back into action during the Cold War: in 1964, 
repaired and refitted, she returns as USS Liberty GTR-5 (auxil¬ 
iary General Technological Research vessel). She is 455 feet long 
and has a displacement of 10,400 tons, with two masts. The only 
weapons on deck are four .50-caliber machineguns, two at stern 
and two at bow, able to fire less than two miles away. The “GTR- 
5” designation is painted in 10-foot white letters on both sides at 
the bow, and the name Liberty on both sides at the stern. She is 
flying a standard American flag, five feet by eight feet. 

The declared scope of her activity was “scientific research,” a 
nice euphemism for electronic espionage, SIGINT (SIGnal 
INTelligence). Formally, in the Mediterranean, Liberty belongs 
to the Sixth Fleet, but practically she is under direct orders of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) under the National Security 
Agency (NSA), an organization so secret that the insiders used 
to joke about it as No Such Agency. For this reason USS Liberty , 
code named Rockstar , was a phantom ship: only a handful of 
people outside the NSA knew her location and destination. Of 
the 294 crewmembers, several dozen were from the Naval 
Security Group and were working under the deck, in quarters 
that were off limits for anybody else, including the Navy skipper, 
Cmdr. William L. McGonagle. 

If, as stated, her armament was not much, Liberty' s electron¬ 
ic equipment was top notch. The deck was full with over 45 
antennae of all types. At the stern, on a elevated platform, it had 
an 18-foot dish antenna, the moon-bounce dish with which 
Liberty could communicate directly, using a signal bounced off 
the lunar surface, with NSA HQ in Fort Meade, Maryland. This 
forest of antennae gave Liberty a unique silhouette, making her 
unmistakable for any other ship. In Adm. Thomas Moorer’s 
words: “I have spent a large part of my life flying over the oceans 
and identifying ships, and this ship was perhaps the easiest ship 


to identify of any that was listed in the U.S. Navy. Equipped with 
antennae from bow to stern, pointing in every direction, it 
reminded one of a large, vigorous lobster and had a look’ that 
made it extremely easy to recognize... .” 2 

On May 23,1967, Liberty is at anchor in Abidjan, the capital 
of Ivory Coast in West Africa. At 8:20 p.m. the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff (JCS) send a flash message to the Liberty : “Make immedi¬ 
ate preparations to get under way. When ready for sea ASAP 
depart port Abidjan and proceed best possible speed to Rota, 
Spain to load technical support material and supplies. When 
ready for sea proceed to operating area off Port Said. Specific 
orders will follow.” 3 

Initially, the “operating area” was well over 100 miles from 
the Israel-Egypt border. But on May 30 new orders from JCS 
established the “operating area” in the eastern Mediterranean 
and ordered Liberty to patrol back-and-forth at only 13 miles off 
the Gaza Strip, Palestine. 

Steaming at full speed, Liberty reaches Rota on the first of 
June. She was readied quickly, and the next day she rushed 
toward her date with destiny. Liberty sailed at 17 knots through 
the Strait of Gibraltar. From here she pushed east, paralleling 
the North African coastline no closer than 13 miles from the 
shore. 

On June 5 Liberty is south of Sicily when Israel attacks 
Egypt. For the Liberty crew the news is hardly a surprise, only 
an extra reason for concern. McGonagle sends a message to Vice 
Admiral William I. Martin, the commander of the Sixth Fleet 
(COMSIXTHFLT) in the Mediterranean (as mentioned, theoret¬ 
ically Liberty was under the command of the fleet), asking for a 
destroyer as an escort. The answer arrives the next day, June 6, 
uncharacteristically fast, one might say: ‘Liberty is a clearly 
marked U.S. ship in international waters, not a participant in 
the conflict and not a reasonable subject for attack by any 
nation.” 4 In the unlikely event of an inadvertent attack, he 
promised, jet fighters from the Sixth Fleet carrier force could be 
overhead in less than 10 minutes. Besides, he concluded, every 
commanding officer had authority to withdraw from danger. 
Request for escort denied. 5 

June 7 is a sunny and clear day with a calm sea under a light 
breeze. Liberty is less than 10 hours from her destination, rush¬ 
ing east. The few vessels in sight were running in the opposite 
direction. A hilarious moment was when the crew heard a radio 
commentator quoting an official assuring the mass media that 
“no American ship is within 300 miles of the fighting.” 6 

Capt. McGonagle, concerned about the proximity to the con¬ 
flict, considers the possibility of exercising his prerogatives to 
move the ship out of danger. He asks the opinion of the chief of 
the electronic interceptions, Lt. Cmdr. Dave Lewis, who tells him 
that the interceptions in the UHF band (ultrahigh frequency, 
the one mostly used by the combatants) has to be done in line- 
of-sight mode. If the ship moves over the horizon line the mis¬ 
sion will be compromised 80 percent. McGonagle considered the 
matter for several minutes. “OK,” he said. “We’ll go all the way 
in.” 7 

JCS, on the other hand, decides it is too dangerous to place 
the vessel so close to the conflict zone. Three messages are sent 
by JCS and COMSIXTHFLT repositioning Liberty , first at over 


56 


MAY/JUNE 2004 







Clockwise from upper left: (A) The USS Liberty at dock, Portsmouth 
Naval Station, October, 1966. (B) The strewn wreckage in Liberty's engine 
room made it near impossible for crewmen to move about, let alone keep the 
engines running. (C) Almost all of Liberty's surviving crewmembers 
required medical attention of some type or another—134 were wounded; 57 
died from the attack. (D) The huge hole from an Israeli torpedo is displayed. 
It was amazing Liberty did not sink—a testament to the bravery and sheer 
willpower of her crew. (E) The holes in the bridge area made from 50 mm 
Israeli cannon fire can clearly be seen. The Israeli brass wanted Liberty's 
bridge officers dead. In the end, napalm, torpedoes and cannon fire failed 
to send the lightly armed Liberty to the bottom of the sea. 


THE BARNES REVIEW 


57 






























































20 miles and then at over 100 miles from the shore (at 11:30 
p.m. on June 7,1:10 a.m. and 9:17 a.m. on June 8). All three are 
misrouted and will not reach Liberty . 8 The messages will reach 
her on June 9, one day too late. 

In the night of June 7 the radar on Liberty detects overhead 
a reconnaissance jet plane with radar and probably infrared 
cameras on board, circling the ship several times. 

Thursday, June 8,1967 

5:55 a.m.— Clear sky, a constant eight knots wind. Liberty is 
passing the town of El Arish in the Sinai Desert. At 4,000 feet 
above, it is overflown by an IAF reconnaissance plane. From it, 
Comm. Uri Meretz, a naval observer, reports to Stella Maris , the 
Naval Control Center in Haifa: “What we could see were the let¬ 
ters written on that ship, and we gave 
these letters to ground control.” The let¬ 
ters were “GTR-5,” Liberty's identifica¬ 
tion code. 9 

At naval headquarters the location of 
the ship is marked with a red peg, mean¬ 
ing “unidentified,” on the control board. 

Research in Jane’s Fighting Ships 
reveals the ship’s identity as “the elec¬ 
tromagnetic audio-surveillance ship of 
the United States, the Liberty .” The 
marker was changed to green for “neu¬ 
tral.” 10 

During the morning, Liberty was “vis¬ 
ited” at about 30-minute intervals. Once 
an IAF Nor atlas Nord 2501 “flying box¬ 
car” circles the ship and heads for Sinai. 

“It had a big star of David on it, and it 
was flying just a little bit above our 
mast,” recalled crew member Larry 
Weaver. “They had seen the ship’s markings 
and the American flag. There’s no question 
about it.” 11 

8:50 a.m.— Liberty reaches Point Alpha 
(the easternmost point of her patrol), makes 
a sharp turn west toward Port Said and takes a course parallel¬ 
ing the coast at 13 miles off it (the territorial waters are 12 miles 
for Egypt and 6 miles for Israel) and slows down to five knots. 
Shortly after that a jet plane flew a semicircle over her and 
headed for Gaza. As the plane passed, the third officer checked 
the flag making sure that it was flying clear. 12 

9:30 a.m.— Liberty is off El Arish. The minaret is visible with 
the naked eye. Unbeknownst to its crew, Liberty was witnessing 
a horrifying crime. Near the minaret, Israeli soldiers were 
involved in a bestial slaughter. 13 

10:00 a.m.— Two Mirage III fighters, without identifying 
marks, circled the ship close enough for the rockets on their 
pylons to be counted and to see the pilots in the cockpits. They 
were heard by the technicians on the Liberty reporting to their 
headquarters that the ship was flying the U.S. flag. 14 

10:30 a.m.— The “flying boxcar” returned, circled the ship 
and made a masthead height pass over the ship. It was so low 
the camera ports were visible. McGonagle remarked: “It’s good 
they’re checking us out this carefully. This way there won’t be 


any mistakes.” 15 

The flag was checked numerous times. The wind was averag¬ 
ing over five knots, more than enough to keep it flying. 

The “flying boxcar” returned periodically, at 11:00 a.m., 11:30 
a.m., 12:15 p.m. and 12:45 p.m. 

11:00 a.m.— In Haifa, at Stella Maris Naval HQ, Capt. 
Avraham Lunz’s shift ends. In accordance with the procedures 
[Emphasis mine.—RS.], he removes the green marker identify¬ 
ing Liberty as neutral from the map because it was five hours old 
and no longer accurate [Emphasis mine.—RS.]. 16 

And we are to believe this. In wartime a senior officer picks 
up his “toys” and leaves without telling anything to his replace¬ 
ment. 

11:24 a.m.— USS Liberty is again 
right off El Arish, heading east at the 
same snail’s pace of five knots. An explo¬ 
sion takes place in El Arish of unclear 
causes. The blast is heard on board the 
Liberty , which soon reaches Point Alpha, 
and makes a 238-degree turn heading 
toward Port Said. 

An army commander sent a dispatch 
to the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) 
General Staff Headquarters in Tel Aviv 
reporting a naval bombardment on El 
Arish. The General Staff sent a note to 
the naval headquarters: “The coast is 
being shelled and you—the navy—have 
done nothing.” 17 

12:05 p.m.— Luntz’s replacement in 
the operations room, Capt. Izzy Rahov 
(the one who wasn’t informed about the 
“red” and then “green” markers) didn’t 
hesitate any longer. He dispatched three tor¬ 
pedo boats of the 914th squadron, code named 
Pagoda, to find the culprit and destroy it. 18 
The torpedo boats left at full speed from 
Ashdod, some 50 miles from Liberty. 

1:41 p.m.— On board T-204, the flagship of the formation, 
Ensign Aharon Yifrah, the combat officer, tells his skipper, 
Cmdr. Moshe Oren, he sighted an unidentified ship, northeast of 
El Arish, 22 miles away [this is extremely interesting, consider¬ 
ing that, at the reduced height of the torpedo boat, due to the 
Earth’s curvature, his type of radar could only “reach” 15-18 
miles, RS] speeding toward Egypt at 30 knots. [Liberty’s maxi¬ 
mum speed was 18 knots.—RS.] Under this condition, the tor¬ 
pedo boats could not intercept the running vessel before it 
reached Egypt, and Rahov asked the Israeli Air Force (IAF) for 
help. Miraj III fighters were diverted north from the Suez Canal 
zone. They found a ship “gray with two guns [sic] in the forecas¬ 
tle, a mast and a funnel.” 19 

1:58 p.m.— The planes received the order to attack [the ship]. 

The Assassination 

On board Liberty there is normal activity. Many crewmem¬ 
bers finished their shifts and were sunbathing on deck. 

The fighter planes struck without any warning. The ship is 



CMDR. BILL McGONAGLE 

Wounded, he remained at his station 
and continued to command his found¬ 
ering ship for more than 1 7 hours. 


58 


MAY/JUNE 2004 
















sprayed with rockets and 30 mm armor-piercing gun shells, 
which turn the deck and the hull into Swiss cheese. The second 
plane destroyed practically all the ship’s antennae. On deck, Lt. 
Painter observed that the planes had “absolutely no markings,” 
so their identity was unknown. 20 This is a war crime and not the 
only one perpetrated by Israel against the Liberty. 

Blood, dead, wounded (including McGonagle) all over. The 
deck is engulfed in flames. This frenzied carnage is joined in by 
slower Super-Mistere fighters returning from the Mitla Pass car¬ 
rying 1,000-lb. bombs and canisters with napalm. The burning 
jellied gasoline sticks to the skin like a stamp to an envelope, 
and it trickles down below deck through the holes punctured by 
the armor-piercing projectiles, transforming the ship’s belly into 
a crematorium. 

Above, the Israeli pilots have a field day: “Great! Wonderful! 
She’s burning, she’s burning!” exults one of them. 21 Partial tran¬ 
scripts of the discussions between pilots, 
recently declassified, show that they did¬ 
n’t bother to try to identify the target 
(they didn’t have to, knowing too well who 
they are attacking) but tried their best to 
send the ship, with all her crew, to the bot¬ 
tom of the Mediterranean before the 
arrival of the torpedo boats so they would¬ 
n’t have to share the “glory” with the 
Israeli navy. “It would be a mitzvah (bless¬ 
ing) if we can get a flight with iron 
bombs,” the flight leader radioed to the 
headquarters. “Otherwise, the navy’s 
going to get here, and they’re going to do the shooting,” 22 he con¬ 
tinued, sorry that he could not apply the coup de grace. 

Radio operators James Halman and Joseph Ward improvised 
an antenna and tried to signal their desperate situation. Five of 
the six frequencies used by Liberty were jammed by the Israeli 
planes. Besides this being clear proof of malice— IAF knew 
exactly that the ship was Liberty (in the six hours in which they 
had Liberty under surveillance they have learned almost all the 
frequencies)—the jamming of the distress frequency of a ship 
burning and in danger of sinking is another war crime. 

Eventually they find an unjammed frequency (because it was 
not used before), and at 2:09 p.m., Liberty transmitted in clear a 
voice message: “Any station, this is Rockstar [Liberty’s voice call 
sign]. We are under attack by unidentified jet aircraft and 
require immediate assistance.” 23 

The carrier Saratoga , operating near Crete, acknowledged 
the message and promised help. The carrier America intercept¬ 
ed the transmission too, launched four Phantom F-4 jets and 
promised: “Help is on the way.” 24 

A flash message is sent to the Pentagon, State Department 
and White House: “USS Liberty reports under attack by uniden¬ 
tified jet aircraft. Have launched strike aircraft to defend 
ship.” 25 The answer came back very quickly and from the mouth 
of the secretary of defense, Robert McNamara, no less.: “Tell 
Sixth Fleet to get those aircraft back immediately, and give me 
a status report.” 26 

There were speculations that the planes from USS America 
were armed with nuclear bombs and, not knowing who the 


attacker was (possibly the Soviets), McNamara didn’t wanted to 
risk a nuclear conflict with the Soviet Union. 

Adm. David L. McDonald, chief of naval operations, recalled 
the planes from a mission that would have saved 25 from death 
and scores from being wounded. 

At 2:25 p.m. after exhausting their ordnance (and most like¬ 
ly intercepting the exchange of messages about “help being on 
the way”) the jets leave the carnage regretting only that they 
could not sink the Liberty. 

They left behind nine dead and dozens of wounded. 

Unknown to USS Liberty and to the Israeli pilots rejoicing 
after the hecatomb they inflicted, high above them, there were 
witnesses to the crime. 

For all these years NS A has kept the secret that during the 
attack one of its planes was 18,000 feet overhead and was lis¬ 
tening to what was happening below. The secret NS A documents 

cannot be obtained through the Freedom 
of Information Act. Only Congress and 
the White House have access to them, 
and neither is in a hurry to ask for them. 

Two hours before the attack a radio 
intercept plane, EC-121, took off from 
Athens toward the eastern Mediter¬ 
ranean to patrol back and forth between 
Crete and El Arish. A couple of hours 
later a Hebrew linguist on board brings 
to the chief officer Marvin Nowiki’s atten¬ 
tion that he “got really odd activity on 
UHF. They mentioned an American flag.” 
Nowiki tuned his receiver on the proper frequency. “Sure as the 
devil,” said Nowiki, “Israeli aircraft were completing an attack 
on some object.” 27 

On Liberty the survivors were fighting frantically to tend to 
the wounded and put out the fires. Realizing that the Israeli 
planes destroyed the flag, McGonagle ordered the signalman to 
hoist the only one left, a huge holiday ensign flag measuring 13 
feet by seven feet. 

The relative peace does not last long. Pagoda is almost in 
position to fulfill its mission. The three 62-ton torpedo boats are 
closing in on Liberty , at 40 knots, in an attack formation. Each 
had a crew of 15 and is armed with a 40 mm cannon, four 20 mm 
cannons and two torpedoes. 

As I said, USS Liberty , with her forest of antennae pointing 
in all directions, was practically unmistakable, being, in Adm. 
Thomas H. Moorer’s words, “the ugliest ship in all [the] Navy.” 
Nevertheless, after consulting the Jane’s Fighting Ship manual, 
the divisional commander and the commander of a second tor¬ 
pedo boat, came, independently, to the conclusion that the ship 
in front of them was an Egyptian transport— El Kasir. 

And we are to believe this too. El Kasir has a quarter of 
Liberty’s displacement, it’s about half her length, with no anten¬ 
nae or other distinctive signs on deck. Not to mention that 
Israeli intelligence (which, after the war, bragged that it knew 
all about everything moving, or not, in Egypt) most assuredly 
knew (and informed the navy of) the positions of the Egyptian 
ships, including the fact that El Kasir was rusting at a dock in 
Alexandria, not being seaworthy. 


Realizing that the Israeli planes 
destroyed the ship s American 
flag, McGonagle ordered the sig¬ 
nalman to hoist the only one 
left, a huge holiday ensign flag 
measuring 13 feet by seven feet. 


THE BARNES REVIEW 


59 






And what about the 30 knots speed, at which, allegedly, the 
ship was running? Where the Israeli officers such idiots as to 
believe that El Kasir (with a maximum speed of 14 knots) could 
possibly run at 30? It is either El Kasir or 30 knots, tertium non 
datur. 

Somebody on the Liberty’s deck opened fire toward the torpe¬ 
do boats but is stopped immediately by McGonagle. Once in 
position, the torpedo boats open fire with the cannons using 
piercing shells to cause damage inside the ship. 

Above, in the EC-121, Nowiki is again told of activity below 
and that the American flag was mentioned again. Listening 
together, they realize that it is another Israeli attack from a 
naval platform, and the American flag is mentioned several 
times. 

“Stand by for torpedo attack, starboard side,” announced 
McGonagle. The Israelis were ready for 
the coup de grace. At 2:37 p.m. the torpe¬ 
do boat 203 launched the first torpedo. 

Four more followed. Had all of them hit, 

Liberty would have been “history.” Only 
one struck, but with devastating effects. 

Many crew members are killed instantly, 
many other drowned in the flooded com¬ 
partments beneath the deck. 

USS Liberty transmits desperate 
“help” messages, rebroadcast by USS 
Saratoga : “Gunboats are approaching 
now,” followed by, “Hit by torpedo star¬ 
board side. Listing badly. Need assistance immediately.” 28 

After that—silence. 

The torpedo boats are circling the wounded ship, without 
power or rudder, listing nine degrees to starboard, at leisure. 
They are strafing everything in sight: people, life rafts in their 
racks, the fire hoses. 

3:15 p.m. —McGonagle announced: “Prepare to abandon 
ship.” The life rafts on deck are all destroyed, burned or punc¬ 
tured. The crew put into the water the last three intact rubber 
rafts tied together. “I watched with horror as the floating life 
rafts were riddled with holes,” said Lt. Lloyd Painter, in charge 
of evacuation. “No survivors were planned for this day.” 29 What 
does one more war crime matter? Two boats are machine- 
gunned, the third one is picked up by one of the torpedo boats. It 
is hard to pretend you don’t know who you are attacking when 
having on board a life raft with the USS Liberty markings. The 
torpedo boats leave the scene. 

Two Hornet helicopters, full with armed soldiers, show up, 
circle the ship, come in for a closer look and then depart. 

At last, at 3:45 p.m., the Sixth Fleet launched the second 
flight in defense of Liberty. 

Israel realizes that it is about to be caught with its hand in 
the cookie jar and tries desperately to do damage control. The 
U.S. naval attache in Tel Aviv is urgently summoned and is told 
that an unidentified ship [Emphasis mine.—RS.], possibly 
belonging to the U.S. Navy, was attacked—by mistake. 

At 4:14 the U.S. Embassy conveys Israel’s apologies to all 
interested parties. 

At 4:32 the torpedo boats returned to Liberty and, signaling 


in English, asked if any help is needed. If this is not beyond 
chutzpah I don’t know what else could be. McGonagle signals, 
short and profane, what they can do with their “help.” 

At the express order of Lyndon Johnson, Vice Adm. William I. 
Martin recalls ALL [Emphasis mine.—RS.] planes. Not even one 
is left to check the ship’s status. 

Liberty , like a wounded animal, with 32 of the crewmembers 
killed (two more will die later) and two-thirds wounded, with the 
executive officer killed and the skipper seriously wounded, is 
heading slowly north in the night. 

June 9,1967 

Sunrise. At 420 miles ESE of Soudha Gulf, Crete, USS 
Liberty meets up with the U.S. destroyers Davis and Massey. 

Epilogue to Part I 

On June 8, 1967, Israel committed, in 
cold blood, a calculated act of war against 
the United States of America and lived to 
brag about it. Our “ally” killed 34 and 
wounded 171 American men. Those are 
facts. They cannot be challenged. By a 
miracle the Jewish mini-state did not suc¬ 
ceed in sending Liberty with all her hands 
to the bottom of the Mediterranean—get¬ 
ting rid of all witnesses—although she 
tried her best to do so. 

Why did she do it? We will discuss this 
in Part II. There we will also see the fol¬ 
low-up of this tragic act where the U.S. plays a sinister role. 

How many of you knew about this event in American histo¬ 
ry? And the ones who never heard of it, ask yourselves: why did¬ 
n’t we hear? Qui prodest this veil of silence and secrecy sur¬ 
rounding even today the truth about USS Libertyl How come 
Hollywood didn’t make a movie with this goldmine subject 
(regardless of the way you spin it)? 

Fortunately, as I said in the beginning, there are enough of 
those who will not let this subject die, the way 34 of their fami¬ 
ly died, the family of USS Liberty. ❖ 

ENDNOTES: 

1 Michael B. Oren, Six Days of War, Oxford, University Press, 2002,170. 

2 American Free Press, June 23, 2003, B-2. 

3 James Bamford, Body of Secrets, First Anchor Books, 2002,188. 

4 James M. Ennes, Jr., Assault on Liberty, Reintree Press, 2002, 38. 

8 Ibid., 39. 

8 Ibid., 41. 

^ Ibid., 44-45. 

8 The Barnes Review, Vol. I, No. 1, October 1994,17. 

9 The Guardian, Aug. 8, 2001 (Internet). 

19 Michael B. Oren, The “USS Liberty”: Case Closed, Azure, 2000 (Internet). 

44 The Guardian, August 8, 2001 (Internet). 

12,13,14,15 the Barnes Review, No. 1., October 1944,18. 

18 Michael B. Oren, The “USS Liberty”: Case Closed, Azure, 2000 (Internet). 

17 18,19 Ibid 

29 James Bamford, Body of Secrets, First Anchor Books, 2002,188. 

21 Ibid., 211. 

22 Ibid., 214. 

23 Ibid., 211. 

24 James M. Ennes, Jr., Assault on Liberty, Reintree Press, 2002, 38. 

25,26 ibid., 78. 

27 James Bamford, Body of Secrets, First Anchor Books, 2002, 213. 

28 James M. Ennes, Jr., Assault on Liberty, Reintree Press, 2002, 92. 

29 James Bamford, Body of Secrets, First Anchor Books, 2002, 219. 


The life rafts on deck were all 
destroyed or punctured. The 
crew put into the water the 
last three intact rubber rafts. 
“I watched with horror as the 
floating life rafts were riddled 
with holes. ...” 


60 


MAY/JUNE 2004 





The Knife Twists: 

The Saga of the USS Liberty 


PART II 


This is the second part of the Romeo Stana expose on the USS Liberty. We publish this 
as two separate sections so as to make it easier on the reader, as well as to preserve the natural 
division at this point. TBR thinks that this piece will become the new Revisionist standard on the bru¬ 
tal, unprovoked and censored attack on the USS Liberty and its implications. 


By Romeo Stana 


n June 8,1967, the fourth day of the Six Day War, 
air and naval forces of the Israeli army attacked, 
in international waters in the eastern Mediter¬ 
ranean, the American radio interception ship 
USS Liberty , which was practically unarmed, 
killing 34 crew members and wounding another 
171 of them. 

Those are uncontestable facts. And, indeed, they are not con¬ 
tested by any participant in this conflict: the Liberty survivors, 
the Israeli government or the U.S. government. 

Unfortunately, these are the only things the three partici¬ 
pants agree upon. 

The cardinal point, around which the whole problem is 
revolving, is disarmingly simple: was this attack a tragic mis¬ 
take due to an erroneous identification of Liberty or a deliberate 
attack upon a ship that was known to belong to the Navy of the 
United States, a neutral country in this conflict and, arguably, 
the “most allied” of Israel’s allies? 

The Israeli government insisted that it was an error caused 
primarily by the United States itself, sent condolences to the 
families of the victims, paid them and the U.S. government repa¬ 
rations (we will see under what conditions) and desires that the 
“incident” be closed and forgotten. 

The U.S. government accepts the Israeli version, conducts for 
the public eye a selective and biased inquiry whose watered 
down conclusion is presented as the official U.S. position and 
does everything for the “incident” to be closed and forgotten: 


intimidates the witnesses before, during and after the Naval 
court of inquiry, classifies all important documents as “top 
secret” putting them away from indiscreet eyes and refuses with 
obstinacy to clarify some aspects. 

The USS Liberty survivors do not believe the Israeli version 
and do not accept the position of the U.S. government. They are 
convinced the attack was deliberate, executed in cold blood, with 
ferocity and with the firm determination to sink an American 
vessel in international waters. They are convinced, also, that the 
American government has tried, by all means, to cover up the 
facts, and they are fighting for the “incident” not to be closed or 
forgotten. 

It seems to me that Israel and her knee-jerk supporters are 
bending backward to hide the truth, and that endeavor not 
being easy, they came up with different versions of the “inci¬ 
dent,” varying in time and form from author to author. 

It seems to me, considering the pro-Israel-at-any-cost lobby 
(less strong in ’67 than today, but strong nevertheless) that the 
U.S. government tries to muffle the affair, grabbing, as a blind 
man onto his cane, on the court of inquiry conclusion and taking 
a no comment, case closed attitude. 

But it is beyond my understanding what possible reason 
could motivate the Liberty survivors to lie, in corpore and coher¬ 
ently (with the notable exception of McGonagle, easily under¬ 
standable and in the end repudiated) as claimed by Israel and 
her cohorts. 

I am entirely on the survivors’ side in the struggle against 
this conspiracy of the coalition abhorrent to nature between the 
aggressor and the governments in Washington, strongly influ- 



THE BARNES REVIEW 


61 








enced by the aggressor’s acolytes. A conspiracy unbelievably 
begun already during the attack, between the criminal intention 
of Israel to sink the American ship and the criminal indifference 
of the American administration toward the lives of its young 
sailors on that ship, deliberately abandoned without defense in 
front of the Jewish mini-state’s fury 

Abandoned 

June 8,1967 

2:09 p.m. —“Any station, this is Rockstar. We are under 
attack by unidentified jet aircraft and require immediate assis¬ 
tance.” 1 

Four hundred miles away (30 minutes flight time), off Crete, 
the Sixth Fleet deployed its Carrier Group 60, comprised of 
cruiser Little Rock , the group’s flagship, eight destroyers and 
carriers America and Saratoga, having, together, over 160 
planes. On board Little Rock were Vice Adm. William I. Martin, 
the commander of the Sixth Fleet and his helper, Rear Adm. 
Lawrence Geis. 

The radio operators on Saratoga intercept the message but it 
is jammed. “Rockstar, this is Schematic 
[Saratoga’s code name—RS],” said the 
Saratoga operator. “Say again. You are 
garbled.” 2 Eventually, Saratoga received 
the message, confirmed it and promised 
assistance. Saratoga’s captain, Joe Tully, 
turned the bow into the wind, relayed the 
Liberty’s message to Vice Adm. Martin 
and informed him that “I am sending help 
at once unless otherwise instructed.” 

Martin signaled that he approves the 
mission and that he’ll order America to 
launch help too. 3 

2:24 p.m. —Twelve fighter-bomber jets and four tankers (for 
in-flight refueling) took off from Saratoga. 

A minute or so later, with the planes still in sight, Tully 
received an order from Geis to recall the planes. Although puz¬ 
zled by Geis’s decision to cancel the order of Martin—his supe¬ 
rior officer—Tully couldn’t do anything and recalled the planes. 
Martin (or Geis?) sends a message for both carriers to launch 
another rescue flight after 90 minutes. 4 

3:45 p.m. —Both carriers launched planes. Again, several 
minutes later Geis sent a message ordering the planes recalled. 
The planes returned to the carriers. 5 

4:00 p.m.— Liberty’s crew is asking, desperately, for help: 
“Flash, flash, flash!” yells Joe Ward, radioman on the ship, fran¬ 
tically into the microphone. “I pass in the blind [meaning he did 
not know who was picking up the transmission]. We are under 
attack by aircraft and high-speed surface craft. I say again, 
flash, flash, flash!” 6 His agonized cry falls on deaf American 
ears. 

Paradoxically, those desperate messages sent “in the blind,” 
obviously intercepted by the Israelis, who knew that help was 
sent but didn’t know (and it was hard to imagine) about the 
recalls, contributed to Israel’s decision not to try to finalize the 
crime with a new attack and to recognize, willy-nilly, their dirty 
deed. 


As you can see, the Sixth Fleet had all the possibilities to 
defend Liberty and tries to do that twice (if the second launch 
couldn’t do much—the torpedo-boats attack ended at 3:15 p.m., 
the first one would have been over the Liberty in time to stop 
their massacre). Both attempts were killed in their infancy. 

By who? Why? 

Ennes’s hypothesis was that the planes of the first flight were 
armed with nuclear weapons (it will be proven later that this 
was not the case) and that Secretary of Defense Robert 
McNamara recalled them being afraid that the attacker might 
be the Soviet Union and not willing to risk a nuclear confronta¬ 
tion with it (we will see that both McNamara and president 
Johnson knew from the very beginning that the attacker was 
Israel). 

The second flight was recalled because Israel admitted that 
it attacked the ship “by mistake.” 7 

The truth was quite different. And much more disgusting. 

On June 9 USS Liberty rendezvoused with the Sixth Fleet, 
and the badly wounded are transported in the hospitals on the 
carriers. Between them, the highest in rank was Lt. Cmdr. David 

Lewis, the NS A group chief. Rear Adm. 
Geis paid him a visit and told him what 
happened. 

The first rescue flight was recalled by 
direct orders, via radio, from McNamara, 
who ordered the postponement of a new 
launch by 90 minutes. When this was 
launched, Geis informed McNamara, 
who, immediately, ordered again its can¬ 
cellation. 

Any officer who has doubts about the 
sanity of an order has the prerogative to 
ask that the order be confirmed by a high¬ 
er-ranking officer than the one who gave it first, and Geis did 
that. As he was questioning an order coming from the secretary 
of defense, the only one higher in rank was . . . the president. 
President Johnson came and personally gave, over the radio, the 
order to recall the plane because “we are not to embarrass an 
ally.” 8 The second flight was recalled. 

It seems that Johnson’s choice of words was much more cyn¬ 
ical: “I don’t give a damn if every man drowns and the ship 
sinks. I don’t want to embarrass our allies.” 9 After telling the 
story, Rear Adm. Geis asked Lewis to keep it secret until his 
death. It was a promise Lewis kept. 10 

Nota bene : I wish you to pay attention to the chronology, the 
“timing” of the events, because it is, as we will see, in conflict 
with the official version. 

At 8:38 a.m., several minutes after the first flight was 
recalled, McNamara called Johnson at the White House. 11 And 
we are to believe that the secretary of defense of the United 
States didn’t tell the president of the United States that a ship 
of the U.S. Navy was attacked in international waters (an act 
equivalent to a declaration of war). And if he did tell (as it was 
his duty), why is Johnson keeping mum, playing naive until he’s 
officially announced? I want to mention the fact that even today, 
after numerous requests and probes, the executive branch refus¬ 
es to discuss the recalling of the rescue flights. 


A minute or so later, with the 
planes still in sight, Tully 
received an order from his 
superior ofpcer — Geis—to 
recall the planes. Tully could- 
n’t do anything and recalled 
the planes. 


62 


MAY/JUNE 2004 








ADVERTISEMENT 


I think it is the time to take a look at what is stated in the 
official documents.... 

Between Washington & Tel Aviv 

A CRITIC [Extreme priority.—RS.] sent by either America or 
Saratoga arrives at the NSA Command Center at 9:00 a.m. on 
June 8, announcing that Liberty was torpedoed in the Mediter¬ 
ranean at approximate 32N, 33E. At 9:11 a.m. the Pentagon (i.e., 
McNamara) received a call about the attack from the European 
Command Headquarters. 12 

Only at 9:49 a.m., Walt Rostow, national security advisor, 
called Johnson and informed him about the attack. The presi¬ 
dent looked very concerned. In the opinion of George Christian, 
Johnson’s press secretary: “His first thought was that the 
Russians had done it; said something like ‘if they did it we’re in 
a war.’ ” 13 

After he “found out” about the attack, Johnson minded his 
business as usual, not looking too preoccupied by the perspective 
of a conflict with the Soviet Union. 

At 4:00 p.m., in Tel Aviv, the U.S. naval attache, Cmdr. E.C. 
Castle, is summoned to the External Relations Office of the 
Israeli army to be informed that Israeli air and naval forces 
attacked USS Liberty by mistake. Right away a question pops in 
ones mind: the attack ended at 3:15 p.m. because, by the Israeli 
declarations, the torpedo boats realized, at last, that they are 
attacking a U.S. ship. Why then, did it take Israeli authorities 
almost an hour before telling this to Castle? The most probable 
explanation is the disagreement between Moshe Dayan, the 
defense minister and some of his generals and admirals about 
continuing or not the attack. 

At 4:14 p.m. Castle sent a FLASH message, which arrived in 
Washington at 10:45 a.m. At 11 a.m. Rostow informed Johnson 
that the attacker was Israel. After “finding” this “news,” Johnson 
had a meeting in the Situation Room with his advisers (between 
them Dean Rusk, secretary of state, McNamara, Clark Clifford, 
chief of the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, McGeorge 
Bundy, special adviser) about the attack. 

The accounts of the participants vary. Rusk and Clifford say 
that at first the participants speculated for a while about who 
might be the aggressor until, during the meeting [emphasis 
mine, RS], came the information that Israel did it. 14 

“Finding this out,” Johnson was relieved: “Thank God it was¬ 
n’t the Russians.” 15 

Why did Johnson “forget” to inform his advisers that Israel 
was the culprit and why is he playing the “pleasant surprise” 
charade? And, speaking of that, how come Johnson and McNa - 
mara were sure that it was, indeed, Israel (see Johnson com¬ 
ments about “embarrassing an ally” when he recalled the 
planes)? 

In the evening of June 7, the U.S. military attache in Tel Aviv 
sent a secret message informing the CIA that Israel intends to 
sink Liberty if she comes close to the coast (Marshall Carter, a 
CIA representative, testified about this message before a 
Congressional Commission investigating the attack). This infor¬ 
mation triggered the frantic NSA and JCS activity to reposition 
Liberty. As we know, the order to move at more than 100 miles 
from shore didn’t reach USS Liberty. 



Why Civilizations 
Self-Destruct 

T his thought-provoking book 
might explain some of the para¬ 
doxes of modern Western soci¬ 
eties, such as that of an increas¬ 
ing burden of tax being paid by a diminish¬ 
ing number of productive people, for less 
apparent benefit. 

Those who can, do. Those who cannot, 
become employees of the state and local 
governments. They become an ever-increasing burden on the 
diminishing number of productive people. They tend to vote 
for parties of high taxation in order to provide themselves with 
employment and inflation-proof pensions. The “mob” votes 
for its bread and circuses. 

Inevitably this situation will lead to the collapse of society as 
we know it. As the ancient Greeks observed, democracy 
inevitably degenerates into tyranny. 

In this, his latest and most significant book, Dr. Elmer 
Pendell examines the most crucial demographic phenomenon 
of our age—the accelerating decline of our institutions and our 
way of life caused by the higher reproduction rates of those 
who should reproduce least. Perhaps Pendell’s most important 
contribution to modern thought—a contribution which comes 
through strongly in this volume—is his linkage of the inherited 
social drives of individuals to the almost universal tolerance 
extended to socially intolerable birthrate differences. 

You may order Why Civilizations Self-Destruct (softcover, 
175 pages, item #388, $16 minus 10% for TBR subscribers) 
from TBR BOOK CLUB, P.O. Box 15877, Washington, D.C. 
20003 using the coupon on page 80 inside this issue. Add $3 
per book inside the United States; $6 per book outside the 
United States. Call 1-877-773-9077 toll free to charge. 



THE BARNES REVIEW 


63 



















Obviously Johnson and McNamara knew about the message 
and about the repositioning order, so, in the morning of June 8, 
when they heard that Liberty was attacked, they didn’t have too 
many doubts that Israel was the perpetrator. 

McNamara recalled the first flight and postponed for 90 min¬ 
utes the second to gain some time to discuss with Johnson what 
to do. 

Those 90 minutes weren’t calm in Tel Aviv either. A CIA 
report describes a hot confrontation between Moshe Dayan, the 
secretary of defense, and some of the military leaders, as to con¬ 
tinue or to stop the attack: “(deleted) [The informers.—RS.] . . . 
commented on the sinking of the U.S. communications ship, 
Liberty. They said that Dayan had personally ordered the attack 
on the ship and that one of his generals violently opposed this 
action and said: ‘This is pure murder.’ One of the Israeli admi¬ 
rals who was present also disapproved the action, and it was he 
who ordered it stopped and not Dayan. Believe that the attack 
against the U.S. vessel is not incidental to any political ambi¬ 
tions Dayan may have.” 16 

During the day letters of apology arrived at the White House 
from the culprits: Prime Minister Levi Eshkol, Foreign Minister 
Abba Eban and from the Israeli Ambassador Abraham Harman 
(after he was dressed down on the matter by Dean Rusk, who 
never believed that the attack was unintentional). 

Press secretary George Christian held a news conference at 
4:35 p.m. at the White House, which didn’t stir much interest, 
resulting in only several questions. 

At the surface things seemed to wind down that tumultuous 
June 8, 1967. Underground though, the machinations toward 
control and manipulations had begun. Don’t forget one thing: 
Johnson planned to seek presidential nomination next year, and 
he badly needed the pro-Israel votes. 

Inquiries, Commissions, Reports 

If one listens to Liberty survivors, for all practical purposes, a 
serious investigation of the attack never took place (and, a sin¬ 
gular exception, until today there never was a congressional 
hearing, despite the numerous calls for it from politicians to say 
nothing about from the Liberty survivors). 

In some Israel apologists’ opinions, like A. Jay Cristol’s, 17 who 
insists that Israel was without reproach and the attack was 
rather Liberty' s fault, there were too many inquiries and 
reports. 

At 2:50 p.m., on June 9, Lt. Col. Michael Bloch of the Israeli 
Defense Forces (IDF) summoned Cmdr. Castle at the Foreign 
Ministry and dictated the so-called “Bloch Report” which, in a 
typical example of chutzpah, put the blame practically on the 
USS Liberty : 

• The ship’s presence in a war zone is contrary to the inter¬ 
national usage. 

• The region was not commonly used for navigation. 

• Egypt declared the zone closed to neutrals. 

• Liberty resembled the Egyptian ship El-Quiseir. 

• Israel received reports of a naval bombardment ofElArish, 
where Liberty was spotted [Liberty, without any cannons, could¬ 
n’t do that, and the Israelis knew it.—RS.] 

• Liberty didn’t fly a flag when found. [That’s incorrect.—RS.] 


• Liberty was heading at great speed toward Egypt. [Liber¬ 
ty’s maximum speed was a mere 18 knots, and Bloch knew this. 
—RS.] 

Next day, June 10, Israel issued a formal apology, with “sin¬ 
cere expression of deep regret for the tragic accident” and prom¬ 
ised that Israel was “prepared to make amends for the tragic 
loss of life and material damage.” 18 

Also on June 10, Adm. John S. McCain Jr., commander-in- 
chief of the U.S. naval forces, Europe (CINCUSNAVEUR), 
ordered Rear Adm. Isaac Kidd to convene a naval court of 
inquiry composed by Kidd and two Navy captains. The court 
arrived on Liberty on June 11 and started unofficial discussions 
with the crewmembers. Phil Tourney, one of the survivors 
remembers that Kidd “took his stars off and said ‘talk to me like 
I’m not an admiral.’ We told him what happened and how we 
felt. Then he put his stars back on and said ‘If you ever breathe 
a word of this, you go to the penitentiary, or worse.’ ” The sur¬ 
vivors were threatened with court-martial in no uncertain terms 
if they ever spoke of the attack again. 19 On June 14, 1967, 
Liberty reached Malta and the official inquiry started, lasting 
till June 16. The naval court dwelt only with the ship’s perform¬ 
ance during the attack, didn’t refer to the reason Liberty was 
there, didn’t consider why Israel attacked and didn’t touch the 
subject of Sixth Fleet plane recalls. The witnesses were practi¬ 
cally forced to answer along the line imposed by Washington, 
and any attempts to stray from this line were not taken into con¬ 
sideration. The court returned to London and, on June 18, Adm. 
McCain approved its findings. Between June 18 and June 28, 
the Department of State worked diligently to condense the 707 
pages of depositions in a 28-page summary, a summary that was 
supposed to be the official position of the administration con¬ 
cerning the attack on Liberty. 

The original 707 pages were classified “top secret” and on 
June 28 the summary is made public, exculpating Israel of a 
deliberate attack and declaring the attack a mistake. This posi¬ 
tion, not shared by the vast portion of the administration, by 
many congressmen, by practically all intelligence agencies, by 
all of the survivors, obviously, will not change to this day, witness 
statements notwithstanding, in spite of new evidence. 

During the naval court session, Israel ordered its own court 
of inquiry, headed by Col. Ram Ron, ex-military attache in Wash¬ 
ington. Its conclusions, handed to Castle on June 18, reiterated 
the Bloch Report’s accusations with one notable difference: 
Israel admits that Liberty flew a “small flag.” 

Several secret reports are presented between June and 
November 1967. The first one was made by Clark Clifford, 
Johnson’s consultant, at the president’s request. Johnson told 
Clifford to base his report on information gathered by the naval 
court of inquiry rather than conducting his own investigation. 
Obviously Clifford studied all the documents (it took him a 
month to prepare the report) not only the summary. What con¬ 
clusion did he reach? This is a mystery; his report was not 
declassified until now. I can’t stop myself from assuming that if 
it had sustained the official position it wouldn’t be kept as 
secret. In fact, quite the opposite would have happened. 

Meanwhile, Israel began an inquiry led by military judge 
Sgan-Aluf Yerushalmi. Its purpose was not to establish if the 


64 


MAY/JUNE 2004 




attack was deliberate or accidental (the presumption that it was 
an accident wasn’t questioned but accepted as a fact) but to find 
any guilt—or lack of it—in the ranks of Israeli navy personnel. 

The report was finished on “the 13th day of Tamuz, 5727 
(July 21, 1967) and, indeed, great surprise, its result was that 
“my conclusion is that in all the circumstances of the case, the 
conduct of any one of the naval officers concerned in this inci¬ 
dent cannot be considered unreasonable, to an extent which jus¬ 
tified committal (sic) for trial.” 20 

I don’t plan to get into the details of this report, which is dif¬ 
ficult to read, confusing and deliberately vague. I only wish to 
comment on a rather strange fact described in paragraphs 6 and 
7 of the report. The torpedo-boats spotted Liberty at 1:41 p.m. “A 
few minutes later, the division commander reported that the tar¬ 
get, now 17 miles from him, was moving at a speed of 28 knots, 
and since he could not overtake it before reaching Egypt, he 
requested the dispatch of aircraft toward it....” 

As a result of the request of the Navy HQ through its repre¬ 
sentatives with the Air Force, aircraft were dispatched to the 
target.” 21 

If you remember, the aerial attack 
started at 2:00 p.m. Liberty is spotted by 
the torpedo-boats’ radar at 1:41 p.m. 

(“spotted” at a distance at which their 
radar couldn’t possibly reach, but this is 
another mystery). “A few minutes later” 
the commander asked for aerial support. 

How many minutes later? Let’s say four. 

This allows only a maximum of 15 min¬ 
utes in which: Navy Headquarters, Stella 
Maris, in Haifa, after receiving the 
request, calls Lt. Cmdr. Pinchasy, naval 
liaison officer at Air Force General Headquarters, Kirya, in Tel 
Aviv, and tells him about the torpedo-boats’ request. Pinchasy 
calls Maj. Gen. Mordechai “Moti” Hod, commander in chief of the 
air force asking for an air attack. Hod refuses. Pinchasy calls 
back Stella Maris with Hod’s refusal and is told to insist. 
Pinchasy walks up a floor to Hod and repeats his request. Hod, 
finally, accepts and orders Col. Shmuel Kislev, chief air con¬ 
troller, to solve the problem. Kislev finds an air patrol and dis¬ 
patches it to attack Liberty. 22 The planes find Liberty and 
attack. And all this in a maximum of 15 minutes. 

I beg pardon, but I don’t buy it. The Liberty attack was a com¬ 
bined action of the air force and the navy, perfectly coordinated. 
The jets were heading toward Liberty long before being “solicit¬ 
ed” by the torpedo boats, which “discovered” the target. The fact 
that the attack was a combined action of two services of the 
Israeli armed forces implies the conclusion that it was ordered 
by somebody very high in Israeli hierarchy and excludes the 
“tragic accident” version. 

The last report is done for Dean Rusk, the secretary of state, 
and for Eugen Rostow, sub-secretary for political affairs, by Carl 
Salan, legal advisor for the Department of State. Salan com¬ 
pared the Yerushalmi Report with the findings of the naval 
court of inquiry and found a lot of discrepancies. Rostow received 
the Salan Report on September 21, 1967, and it is classified 
immediately “top secret.” Despite the fact that the report demol¬ 


ished Israeli inventions, it wasn’t used by the U.S. government 
to contest Israel’s version of the attack. For Rostow, a great 
admirer of Israel, the Jewish mini-state’s prestige was more 
important than the truth. 

Adding Insult to Injury 

The USS Liberty survivors had to endure—besides the indig¬ 
nity of the official position of the United States—scores of 
insults and persecution from authorities and groups and organ¬ 
izations for whom Israel is more important than the fate of some 
young American heroes. 

They were accused of all kinds of ulterior motives in their 
quest to present the truth of this crime, from material gain to 
anti-Semitism. 

Immediately after the naval court of inquiry they were relo¬ 
cated all over the world and were forbidden, under threats, to 
tell their opinion. 

The dead were buried, scattered in Arlington Cemetery. The 
unidentified remains of three of them were buried in a common 

grave; and on the headstone was 
engraved: “Died in the Eastern Mediter¬ 
ranean” as if, in Adm. Thomas Moorer’s 
words, “they died of pneumonia, not 
killed.” Under pressure from the Liberty 
survivors, in 1982, the inscription was 
changed to “Killed USS Liberty .” 23 

Not only were the assassins of the 
young Americans on Liberty exonerat¬ 
ed—none was even admonished—but 
adding insult to injury, Israel decided to 
honor her “heroes”: the wheel and the bell 
of torpedo boat 203, the one that launched 
the deadly torpedo which struck Liberty, are displayed in the 
naval museum. 

In 1968 McGonagle received the Congressional Medal of 
Honor for heroism in saving the ship and bringing her to safety. 
Because this decoration, the highest national honor, is rarely 
awarded, it is almost always presented by the president in an 
imposing ceremony at the White House. McGonagle’s was hand¬ 
ed to him by the secretary of the Navy in an improvised gather¬ 
ing at the Washington Navy Yard. And this only after the admin¬ 
istration contacted Israel’s ambassador and got the assurance 
that this was “approved” by the Jewish mini-state. 

Immediately after the attack, Israel announced her readiness 
to make financial reparations for loss of life and material dam¬ 
ages. 

In 1968 Israel paid $100,000 to each family of the killed ones. 
On April 28, 1969, almost two years after the attack, the gov¬ 
ernment of Israel paid about $20,000 to each of the wounded 
survivors, but that only after they had to hire lawyers who took 
a substantial cut of the sum. 24 

The U.S. government asked for a meager $7.6 million for the 
destruction of the ship (after it spent $20 million to transform 
her and another $10 million for the electronic equipment). For 
13 years Israel stubbornly refused to pay, under the pretext that 
Liberty had no business being there, in international waters. In 
1980 the interest alone climbed to $10 million. In 1980, Ennes, 


The USS Liberty survivors 
had to endure scores of 
insults and persecution from 
authorities and groups for 
whom Israel is more impor¬ 
tant than the fate of some 
young American heroes. 


THE BARNES REVIEW 


65 






being in Washington to promote his book, Assault on the Liberty , 
got in touch with members of Congress. Sen. Adlai Stevenson 
(D-Ill.) announced that he’d start auditing the USS Liberty case. 
All of a sudden Israel accepted to pay $6 million if the U.S. gov¬ 
ernment forfeits the interest. Jimmy Carter, with one leg out of 
the White House already, accepted the deal, under an agreement 
by which the United States consented “not to address the issue 
or motive or reopen the case FOR ANY REASON [emphasis 
mine, RS].” 25 The auditing promised by the senator never took 
place. 

Revelations 

Despite obstinate efforts from Israel 
and American administrations in portray¬ 
ing the attack as a tragic mistake, new 
facts punching holes in the lie surfaced. 

In 1991, the well-known columnists 
Rowland Evans and Robert Novak pub¬ 
lished an article following an interview 
with Dwight Porter, the U.S. ambassador 
in Lebanon in 1967. He told them that 
during the attack the American embassy 
in Beirut intercepted an exchange of mes¬ 
sages between an Israeli pilot and Kirya , 
the air force headquarters in Tel Aviv. The 
pilot reported before the attack: “It’s an 
American ship.” The Tel Aviv answer was: 

“Attack.” Again the pilot reported that the 
ship was American, and again Tel Aviv 
gave the order to attack. 26 

For the headquarters personnel the 
fact that the ship was American was no 
surprise. The message, if you remember, 
was intercepted also by the radio intercept 
plane EC-121, 18,000 feet above Liberty. 

Fifteen years after the incident, Amon 
Even-Tov, the lead pilot of the attack, contacted USS Liberty 
survivors and former congressman Paul N. McCloskey and told 
them that “he immediately recognized the Liberty as an 
American vessel and radioed that information to his headquar¬ 
ters, but was told to ignore the American flag and continue his 
attack. He refused to do so and returned to base, where he was 
arrested.” 27 

Between June 7 and 9, 1991, a reunion of the Liberty 
Veterans Association took place in Washington. Present was 
Seth Mintz, who, in June 8,1967, as a major in the Israeli army, 
was in the war room in Ashdod during the attack on Liberty. In 
a videotaped interview in front of 12 Liberty veterans he 

declared: “There was no confusion_they knew.... pilots in the 

Mirage attack were saying that it was an American ship. You 
could read the numbers on the side of the ship. It was no big 
secret.... There are a lot of things about this business you don’t 
realize.... A lot of Israelis, two in particular, spent 18 years at 
hard labor because they refused to attack the ship.” 28 

Another thing which could prove that the attack was deliber¬ 
ate and took place the way it is described by the survivors is the 
presence of a “witness”: some crewmembers of the USS 


Lumberjack SS 522 declared that their submarine was very 
close to Liberty during the attack. Apparently, as commented by 
the investigator Tito Howard in a broadcast aired August 2, 
2003, in Washington on radio station WFAX, Lumberjack’s mis¬ 
sion was to “tend”—accompany and monitor—the Liberty. 29 
Lumberjack was equipped to photograph—and it did so— 
through the periscope, the photographs being classified “top 
secret.” If unclassified, as asked by the Liberty survivors, they 
surely could puncture the conspiracy between Israel and the 
U.S. government. 

Why? 

The answer to this question, ladies and 
gentleman, requires a crystal ball. Even if 
one is convinced—as I am—that the 
attack was deliberate and ordered at the 
highest levels of Israeli government, it still 
is not easy to comprehend such an action 
of a state at war, with plenty of enemies 
and very few allies, against the best one by 
far. There are several scenarios to explain 
why Israel bit the hand feeding her. 

The oldest, and most circulated—men¬ 
tioned in Part I—is that Israel, preparing 
to attack the Golan Heights, didn’t want 
the United States to find out about the 
attack before it became a fait accompli , 
knowing that Johnson administration 
vehemently opposed such a move and fear¬ 
ing an American ultimatum forcing an 
armistice with Syria. 

A much more sinister reason is pre¬ 
sented by the investigative writer James 
Bamford in Body of Secrets in which the 
author presents, as declared by the subti¬ 
tle, “Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National 

Security Agency.” 

June 8,1967,9:30 a.m .—Liberty is off the Sinai coast, at 13 
miles from the town of El Arish. The visibility is excellent; the 
minaret can be seen with naked eyes; and through binoculars 
one can see buildings and people. Three days after Israel start¬ 
ed the war, the multitude of Egyptian prisoners of war starts to 
be a logistical problem for the Israeli invading forces in Sinai: no 
places to hold them, not enough troops to guard them and no 
vehicles to move them to prison camps. Enterprising, the kindly 
hearted Israeli soldiers found a different solution. They gath¬ 
ered together near the minaret in El Arish some 60 Egyptian 
prisoners, hands tied behind their backs, and gunned them 
down with machine guns “until the pale desert sand turned red.” 
Then they forced other prisoners to dig a mass grave, in which 
they buried the dead. 30 

Israeli historian and journalist Gabby Bron wrote in Yediot 
Ahronot that he saw about 150 Egyptian prisoners sitting 
together on the ground with their hands behind their necks. 
“The Egyptian prisoners of war were ordered to dig pits, and 
then army police shot them to death. I witnessed the executions 
with my own eyes on the morning of June 8, in the airport area 



LYNDON JOHNSON 

Denied help for Liberty and her valiant crew. 


66 


MAY/JUNE 2004 











of El Arish.” 31 

An Israeli military historian, Aryeh Yitzhaki, who, after the 
war, worked for the army’s history department, said that he and 
other officers gathered testimonies from scores of Israeli soldiers 
who said that they killed Egyptian prisoners. Yitzhaki said that 
Israeli troops killed, in cold blood, more than 1,000 POWs in 
Sinai, some 400 of them in El Arish. 32 About this practice, 
Yitzhaki said: “The whole army leadership, including Defense 
Minister Moshe Dayan and Chief of Staff Yitzak Rabin and the 
generals, knew about this thing.” 33 

It is quite possible that Israel feared that Liberty discovered 
those massacres, if not visually then by intercepting the Israeli 
radio messages about them, and didn’t want it to be known what 
methods are employed by Israel. 

There are also some ideologists who advance the idea that 
the attack was indeed deliberate but well deserved by Liberty, 
who was there with the mission to spy on Israel (the fact that 
she didn’t have on board any Hebrew lin¬ 
guist notwithstanding) for Egypt. “All of 
our sources agree that, if the Liberty had 
continued to support the Arabs, there 
would have been a longer conflict involv¬ 
ing greater Jewish casualties instead of a 
quick Israeli victory.” 34 “It came down to a 
choice between 25,000 of their own 
[Israeli, RS] dead or attacking one 
American ship.” 35 “A plan to put the ship 
out of commission with A MINIMUM 
LOSS OF LIFE WAS REQUESTED 
[emphasis mine, RS].” 36 Mind boggling. 

Another possibility is that Israel 
tried—as she did in many other occasions—to fix the blame on 
Egypt in the hope of tricking the United States into entering the 
conflict on Israel’s side. This explains the ferocity of the attack 
and the determination to send Liberty , with every man aboard, 
to the bottom of the Mediterranean Sea. 

I leave you, ladies and gentlemen, to pick up the Jewish mini¬ 
state’s reason. I only want to bring to your attention that for 
those killed, for those left behind by them, for the wounded and 
their families the reason behind this premeditated crime pales 
when compared with the sheer acts committed by Israel with 
the impunity granted to it by the repugnant power of the pro- 
Israel lobby, increasingly pervading Washington, and the impo¬ 
tence of the executive branch visiting the White House. 

The End? 

There is not a shadow of a doubt that Israel is criminally 
guilty in this attack. But I want to point out that the United 
States, my country, is too, legally culpable. 

In this act, equivalent to a declaration of war, Israel commit¬ 
ted war crimes. Attacking a ship in international waters is, in 
itself, an act of aggression according to the UN Charter. 
According to the Geneva Conventions, the use of unmarked air¬ 
crafts, jamming the international distress frequencies, destroy¬ 
ing life-rafts in water are all war crimes. The Jewish mini-state 
didn’t give a damn. 

But the Liberty survivors asked unnumbered times—and 


they will not tire of asking—the United States to investigate 
those alleged war crimes, fact not only refused but not even 
acknowledged by her successive governments. This continuous 
refusal is a crime. The United States is a signatory of the 
Geneva Conventions. According to those, any signatory member 
is obliged to “seek persons accused of committing or gave orders 
to be committed” violations of the conventions and to do every¬ 
thing possible to bring those persons to justice. 

It is hard to say if history is rather a science or an art. I think 
that what is pushing it toward an exact discipline is the truth’s 
bad habit of trying to pop up. Sometimes it surfaces soon, some¬ 
times after years, tens of years, generations. Sometimes never. 

What will happen with the truth about the Liberty ? Don’t you 
think, ladies and gentlemen, that it is the time for it to be 
known? And don’t you think, ladies and gentlemen, that we can 
help? 

Until then ... God bless the family of USS Liberty . 

Light at the End of the Tunnel 

The following news (not published in 
the Romanian version of this article) 
brings some hope in the quest for the 
truth. 

A report released by the newspaper 
American Free Press on October 22, 2003, 
citing the highest level former military 
and government officials, found that 
Israel “committed acts of murder against 
U.S. servicemen and an act of war against 
the United States” when it deliberately 
[Emphasis mine.—RS.] attacked the 
Liberty on June 8,1967 37 

Every congressman was informed about the impending 
release of the report in the Rayburn House Office Building. Only 
one of them, John Conyers (D-Mich.), sent an aide, Mathew 
Thome. 

An independent commission of inquiry produced on October 
9,2003, an affidavit from Capt. Ward Boston, counsel to the orig¬ 
inal Navy court of inquiry, stating that President Lyndon 
Johnson and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara ordered the 
court to cover up the attack, presenting it as a mistake. 38 

In his sworn testimony Boston says the attack was deliberate 
but the court was ordered to cover it up by the Johnson admin¬ 
istration. 

“For more than 30 years I have remained silent on the topic 
of the USS Liberty” Boston states. “I am a military man, and 
when orders come in from the secretary of defense and the pres¬ 
ident of the United States, I follow them.” 39 

“Our own independent commission of inquiry findings have 
grave implications for our national security and for the 
American people,” said Adm. Thomas Moorer, former chairman 
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “In order to overcome this problem, 
the American people and our elected officers need to overcome 
their fear of the pro-Israel lobby in the United States.” 40 

Hallelujah. ❖ 

Endnotes to this article found on the following page ... 


An independent commis¬ 
sion of inquiry produced 
an affidavit stating that 
LBJ and McNamara 
ordered the court to cover 
up the attack, presenting 
it as a mistake. 


THE BARNES REVIEW 


67 





ENDNOTES: 

1 James M. Ennes Jr., Assault on the Liberty, Reintree Press, 2002, 74. 

2 Ibid., 75. 

3 John E. Borne, The USS Liberty, Reconsideration Press, 1996, 37. 

4 Ibid. 

5 Ibid. 

3 James Bamford, Body of Secrets, Anchor Books, 2002, 224. 

7 Ennes, op. cit., 76,91,98,237. 

3 Borne, op. cit., 38. 

9 American Free Press, June 23,2003, B-3. 

10 Bamford, op. cit., 226. 

11 Borne, op. cit., 39. 

12 Bamford, op. cit., 222. 

13 Borne, op. cit., 44. 

14 Borne, op. cit., 45. 

15 Ibid. 

13 CIA Intelligence Information Cable, 11.6.67, Liberty File, LBJ Library. 

17 A. Jay Cristol, The Liberty Incident, Brassey’s, Inc., 2002. 

13 Borne, op. cit., 48. 

19 The Barnes Review, No. 2., November 1994,17. 

23 William Gerhard, Attack on the USS Liberty, Aegean Park Press, 1980, 61. 

21 Ibid., 53. 

22 Cristol, op. cit. 41-42. 

23 The Barnes Review, No. 2., November 1994, op. cit., 18. 

24 Bamford, op. cit., 228. 


25 Michael B. Oren, The USS Liberty: Case Closed, Azure, 2000 (internet). 

23 R. Evans, R. Novak, “The Liberty Fallout,” The New York Post, Nov. 11,1991, 
19. 

27 American Free Press, June 23,2003, B-4. 

23 Borne, op. cit., 256. 

29 American Free Press, August 18, 2003,11. 

33 Bamford, op. cit., 202. 

31 Ibid. 

32 Ibid. 

33 Ibid., 203. 

34 J. Loftus, M. Aarons, The Secret War Against the Jews, St. Martin’s Griffin, 
2000,273. 

35 Ibid., 275. 

33 Ibid. 

37 American Free Press, op. cit., Nov. 3,2003. 

33 Ibid. 

39 Ibid. 

40 Ibid. 


ROMEO Stana is a Romanian linguist and scholar and the pub¬ 
lisher of FOA1E magazine, a journal of politics, poetry and history 
published in the Romanian language. 


Two Classic Videos on the USS Liberty Massacre 


FIRST 

AMENDMENT 

BOOKS 



Watch to find out how a nuclear 
war in the Middle East was avert¬ 
ed at the last minute after the brutal 
attack on the USS Liberty... 

The USS Liberty: 

Dead in the Water 

O n June 8, 1967, Israel attacked the 
USS Liberty , a U.S. intelligence gath¬ 
ering ship in international waters. As 
TBR readers know, Israel claimed it was a mis¬ 
take. Since the day it happened, survivors of the 
incident claimed it was intentional. They say 
Israel knew the identity of the ship and that the 
U.S. government has colluded in the cover-up. 

But why would Israel attack a ship belonging to 
its closest ally? USS Liberty: Dead in the Water 
reveals the truth behind the seemingly inexpli¬ 
cable incident—and why one filmmaker 
believes nuclear war in the Mideast was avoid¬ 
ed only at the last minute. Approximately 69 
minutes, VHS or DVD (please specify which you prefer), #1095, 
$25. Order from First Amendment Books, 645 Pennsylvania 
Avenue SE, Suite 100, Washington, D.C. 20003 or call 1-888- 
699-NEWS (6397) toll free to charge to Visa or MasterCard. No 
charge for shipping & handling 





Loss of Liberty: 

The Attack on the Liberty 


o you know the most shameful day in American history? It 
was June 8, 1967. On that day America’s banner was trea¬ 
cherously trashed by our “Best Ally.” On that day, 34 
Americans were brutally slaughtered and 172 badly wounded. On that 
day, America’s most sophisticated intelligence-gathering vessel was 
subjected to six hours of relentless assault in international waters, leav¬ 
ing the USS Liberty with 821 rocket and cannon holes, 
thousands of 50-caliber armor-piercing bullets in her hull, 
a tunnel-sized torpedo hole in her side and the residue of 
napalm and blood on the decks. On that day, three life 
rafts were put into the water. Moshe Dayan’s torpedo 
boats swept in, machine-gunning the survivors. Film¬ 
maker Tito Howard presents the result of 30 years of tire¬ 
less investigative work in one shocking video that once 
and for all answers those who say: “It just could not have 
been.” With great resistance from “the powers that be,” 
and stonewalling from the U.S. military, Mr. Howard 
gives you eyewitness accounts, archival film footage, 
background information and “on-the-record” statements 
that detail the unprovoked Israeli attack upon a U.S. 
naval vessel and her crew. $30, 1 hour, color and black and white, 
VHS, Item #1037. Order from First Amendment Books, 645 
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100, Washington, D.C. 20003. Call us 
toll free at 1-888-699-NEWS (6397) and charge to Visa or Master- 
Card. Shipping and handling included in price. 


68 


MAY/JUNE 2004 













LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 



The Luftwaffe 

I’ll make a small contribution, even if con¬ 
tradictory, to the article in your January/Febru¬ 
ary edition entitled “Conquest to Collapse 

I maintain that the German preference for 
dive-bombers was correct. The reason for this is 
the accuracy inherent in the technique. Normal 
level bombing may be fine for leveling cities— 
but that is about all. The speed of the aircraft, 
the direction and strength of the wind, the yaw 
of the aircraft and its exact height all make 
other methods very “hit or miss.” Strategic 
bombing by the Allies and the Germans, when 
they attempted it, was mostly ineffective 
(machine tools are difficult to destroy). It would 
have been expensive in crews, fuel and aircraft 


for the Germans to build large numbers 
of bombers, as did the Allies. 

The best dive-bomber of the war 
was probably the Vengeance built by 
Vultee, and used very successfully in 
Burma by the RAF. 

What the Germans needed during 
the battle of Britain were long-range 
jettisonable auxiliary fuel tanks for 
their fighters. This could have increased 
their loiter time over Britain. It seems 
some such tanks were delivered to the 
Luftwaffe fighter staffers, but they were 
not used. They may have been danger¬ 
ously leaky or possibly the aircraft were 
not plumbed out to be able to use them. 

Later in the war the German need was to 
stop the Allied bomber effort. The real answer 
to this would have been an effective self-homing 
ground to air missile. Germany was close to 
having this weapon, but it was just a “step too 
far” for the existing technology. 

Hitler has wrongly taken the blame for 
delaying the introduction of the German jet 
fighters. In fact he only asked Prof. Messer- 
schmitt if the Me 262 could carry bombs. Not 
only did Messerschmitt say yes, but also actual¬ 
ly had the workshop drawings prepared for the 
project. The real facts of the case was that the 
German jet engines were just not technically 
ready for use, particularly when it came to air 
to air combat, until almost the end of the war. 

Everything The BARNES REVIEW writes 


about is revealing and interesting, But I wish 
you would not say “England,” when you mean 
“Britain.” It is rather like use using the term 
“America,” when we mean “the U.S.A.” England 
is only one part of Britain, and many of our 
leaders have often not been English. 

Keith Thompson 

Hockley, England 


Kurds & Jews Related? 

In your May/June 2003 letters to the editor, 
you quoted the abstract from a paper published 
in the American Journal of Human Genetics. In 
it, the authors say “The investigation of the 
genetic relationship among three Jewish com¬ 
munities revealed that Kurdish and Sephardic 
Jews were indistinguishable from one another, 
whereas both differed slightly, yet significantly, 
from the Ashkenazi Jews.... Jews were found 
to be more closely related to groups in the north 
of the Fertile Crescent (Kurds, Turks and Ar¬ 
menians) than to their Arab neighbors. 

Not surprising that the Ashkenasim are 
close to the Armenians genetically speaking. In 
the Old Testament they are recorded thousands 
of years ago as living near present-day Armenia 
along with the “kingdoms” of Ararat and Ninni 
(Jer. 51:27). They are Japhethites (descendants 
of Japheth) not Semites (descendants of Shem, 
Gen 10:3,1 Chron. 1:6) 

V. McIntyre 
Idaho Springs, Colorado 


Reader Questions Parts of RFK Assassination Article 


You’ve apparently been duped by someone 
claiming to have “been there” in the Ambassador 
Hotel kitchen pantry when a wounded Robert F. 
Kennedy was carried out minutes after his fatal 
shooting. 

This person wrote an article, for 
TBR entitled “I Was There When 
Robert F. Kennedy Died.” (TBR, July/ 

August 2003) He wrote this for you 
anonymously. It’s not difficult to figure 
out why he wanted to be anonymous as 
several things he put into his article 
are questionable. The most glaring 
example is: “The waiter brought ice, 
and I helped get ice to the injured. The ambulance 
attendants finally got to RFK after what seemed 
to me like a long time. Surprisingly, the atten¬ 
dants plopped him in a wheelchair. I couldn’t fig¬ 
ure out why they would put any man with head 
injuries in a wheelchair and roll him out like that. 
As they wheeled him out, his head and arms were 
so limp that it looked like all life was out of him. I 
couldn’t see how he could survive. Later when I 


learned the doctors were still working with him at 
the hospital I was surprised he lived for as long as 
he did.” 

RFK was not “wheeled” out of the kitchen 
pantry in a wheelchair. He was carried out on a 
stretcher. For one thing, film and video¬ 
tape clearly show him being loaded on a 
stretcher into an ambulance parked out¬ 
side the Ambassador Hotel. For another, 
eyewitness account after eyewitness 
account reports he was carried from the 
pantry and through the kitchen to a 
freight elevator on a stretcher. On the 
internet you can find convincing pieces 
of film supporting the fact that Robert F. Kennedy 
was carried from the pantry to the elevator on a 
stretcher and not wheeled in a wheelchair. 

Clearly, this “anonymous” person—despite 
his claim—was not in the pantry witnessing the 
removal of RFK following the senator’s shooting. 
It would appear he sold you a bill of goods. 

Brad Johnson 
Via email 


TBR’s Response 

Don’t get us wrong. We appreciate your 
attention to detail. But let’s not jump to such 
rash conclusions about the author’s integrity. 
First of all, the author—listed as “Anonymous” 
—is—and has been—known on a relatively close 
personal basis to many editors of The BARNES 
Review who have absolutely no doubt about the 
author’s credibility. Secondly, the author is 
rather widely known and quite respected in 
other arenas beyond our purview. Thirdly, there 
is no question “Anonymous” was on the scene 
when RFK was shot and was a member of RFK’s 
entourage. The author reported precisely what 
happened and to this day remembers clearly 
that RFK was placed in a wheelchair prior to the 
time he was placed on a stretcher and then car¬ 
ried into the ambulance. Perhaps the author did¬ 
n’t convey this transition and that’s what caused 
your confusion. While the wheelchair incident 
may not have been captured on film, it hap¬ 
pened. The films you refer to were obviously 
taken after RFK was placed on the stretcher. 

—TBR Editor 



THE BARNES REVIEW 


69 



































His Inaugural Address 

Delivered, March 4, 1797 


Contrast the highly intelligent, patriotic and self¬ 
less words of America’s second president with 
what we have today, and note his warning that 
we preserve our Constitution from its natural 
enemies: sophistry, party, intrigue, corruption 
and foreign influence. 


W hen it was first perceived, in early 

times, that no middle course for 
America remained between unlimited 
submission to a foreign legislature 
and a total independence of its claims, 
men of reflection were less apprehen¬ 
sive of danger from the formidable power of fleets and armies 
they must determine to resist than from those contests and 
dissensions which would certainly arise concerning the 
forms of government to be instituted over the whole and over 
the parts of this extensive country Relying, however, on the 


70 


MAY/JUNE 2004 































Facing page: On November 1,1800, just before the election, 

Adams arrived in the new capital city to take up his residence in the 
White House. On his second evening in its damp, unfinished rooms, he 
wrote his wife, Before I end my letter, I pray heaven to bestow the best 
of blessings on this house and all that shall hereafter inhabit it. May 
none but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof.”Learned and 
thoughtful, John Adams was more remarkable as a political philoso¬ 
pher than as a politician. John Adams has not received his fair share 
of credit and glory in the birth of the United States of America, in light 
of his contribution to the most important event in its history. This was 
mostly because he spent his political career situated precariously 
between two opposing factions represented by some of the most power¬ 


ful men in early American history, the Federalists and Republicans. 
Because of this, he was slighted, criticized, insulted and denied his 
rightful place and credit in American history, simply because he stood 
up for what he thought was right for the people of this nation and the 
precepts and ideals which that nation stood for. On the facing page, at 
top, from left to right, a collection of paintings done of John Adams 
show him in different stages of his life. At lower left on the facing page 
is an etching done of Adams depicting him as he is so well remem¬ 
bered by most Americans: finely dressed in aristocratic fashion, in 
front of a table with books and quill pens. Adams contributed heavily 
to the most important American documents penned by the Founding 
Fathers, of which he was a prominent member. 


purity of their intentions, the justice of their cause, and the 
integrity and intelligence of the people, under an overruling 
Providence which had so signally protected this country from 
the first, the representatives of this nation, then consisting of 
little more than half its present number, not only broke to 
pieces the chains which were forging and the rod of iron that 
was lifted up, but frankly cut asunder the ties which had 
bound them, and launched into an ocean of uncertainty 

The zeal and ardor of the people during the Revolution¬ 
ary War, supplying the place of government, commanded a 
degree of order sufficient at least for the temporary preser¬ 
vation of society The confederation, which was early felt to be 
necessary, was prepared from the models of the Batavian and 
Helvetic confederacies, the only examples that remain with 
any detail and precision in history, and certainly the only 
ones that the people at large had ever considered. But reflect¬ 
ing on the striking difference in so many particulars between 
this country and those where a courier may go from the seat 
of government to the frontier in a single day, it was then cer¬ 
tainly foreseen by some who assisted in Congress at the for¬ 
mation of it that it could not be durable. 

Negligence of its regulations, inattention to its recom¬ 
mendations, if not disobedience to its authority, not only in 
individuals but in States, soon appeared with their melan¬ 
choly consequences—universal languor, jealousies and rival¬ 
ries of States, decline of navigation and commerce, discour¬ 
agement of necessary manufactures, universal fall in the 
value of lands and their produce, contempt of public and pri¬ 
vate faith, loss of consideration and credit with foreign 
nations, and at length in discontents, animosities, combina¬ 
tions, partial conventions and insurrection, threatening 
some great national calamity. 

In this dangerous crisis the people of America were not 
abandoned by their usual good sense, presence of mind, res¬ 
olution, or integrity. Measures were pursued to concert a 
plan to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure 
domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, pro¬ 
mote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty. 
The public disquisitions, discussions and deliberations 
issued in the present happy Constitution of government. 

Employed in the service of my country abroad during the 
whole course of these transactions, I first saw the 
Constitution of the United States in a foreign country. 
Irritated by no literary altercation, animated by no public 


debate, heated by no party animosity, I read it with great sat¬ 
isfaction, as the result of good heads prompted by good 
hearts, as an experiment better adapted to the genius, char¬ 
acter, situation and relations of this nation and country than 
any which had ever been proposed or suggested. In its gen¬ 
eral principles and great outlines it was conformable to such 
a system of government as I had ever most esteemed, and in 
some States, my own native State in particular, had con¬ 
tributed to establish. Claiming a right of suffrage, in common 
with my fellow-citizens, in the adoption or rejection of a con¬ 
stitution which was to rule me and my posterity, as well as 
them and theirs, I did not hesitate to express my approbation 
of it on all occasions, in public and in private. It was not then, 
nor has been since, any objection to it in my mind that the 
executive and Senate were not more permanent. Nor have I 
ever entertained a thought of promoting any alteration in it 
but such as the people themselves, in the course of their 
experience, should see and feel to be necessary or expedient, 
and by their representatives in Congress and the State leg¬ 
islatures, according to the Constitution itself, adopt and 
ordain. 

Returning to the bosom of my country after a painful sep¬ 
aration from it for 10 years, I had the honor to be elected to 
a station under the new order of things, and I have repeat¬ 
edly laid myself under the most serious obligations to sup¬ 
port the Constitution. The operation of it has equaled the 
most sanguine expectations of its friends, and from an habit¬ 
ual attention to it, satisfaction in its administration, and 
delight in its effects upon the peace, order, prosperity, and 
happiness of the nation I have acquired an habitual attach¬ 
ment to it and veneration for it. 

What other form of government, indeed, can so well 
deserve our esteem and love? 

There may be little solidity in an ancient idea that con¬ 
gregations of men into cities and nations are the most pleas¬ 
ing objects in the sight of superior intelligences, but this is 
very certain, that to a benevolent human mind there can be 
no spectacle presented by any nation more pleasing, more 
noble, majestic or august, than an assembly like that which 
has so often been seen in this and the other chamber of 
Congress, of a government in which the executive authority, 
as well as that of all the branches of the legislature, are exer¬ 
cised by citizens selected at regular periods by their neigh¬ 
bors to make and execute laws for the general good. Can any- 


THE BARNES REVIEW 


71 






thing essential, anything more than mere ornament and dec¬ 
oration, be added to this by robes and diamonds? Can 
authority be more amiable and respectable when it descends 
from accidents or institutions established in remote antiqui¬ 
ty than when it springs fresh from the hearts and judgments 
of an honest and enlightened people? For it is the people only 
that are represented. It is their power and majesty that is 
reflected, and only for their good, in every legitimate govern¬ 
ment, under whatever form it may appear. The existence of 
such a government as ours for any length of time is a full 
proof of a general dissemination of knowledge and virtue 
throughout the whole body of the people. And what object or 
consideration more pleasing than this can be presented to 
the human mind? If national pride is ever justifiable or 
excusable it is when it springs, not from power or riches, 
grandeur or glory, but from conviction of national innocence, 
information and benevolence. 

In the midst of these pleasing ideas we should be unfaith¬ 
ful to ourselves if we should ever lose sight of the danger to 
our liberties, if anything partial or 
extraneous should infect the purity of 
our free, fair, virtuous and independent 
elections. If an election is to be deter¬ 
mined by a majority of a single vote, 
and that can be procured by a party 
through artifice or corruption, the gov¬ 
ernment may be the choice of a party 
for its own ends, not of the nation for 
the national good. If that solitary suf¬ 
frage can be obtained by foreign nations 
by flattery or menaces, by fraud or vio¬ 
lence, by terror, intrigue, or venality, the 
government may not be the choice of 
the American people, but of foreign 
nations. It may be foreign nations who 
govern us, and not we, the people, who 
govern ourselves; and candid men will acknowledge that in 
such cases choice would have little advantage to boast of over 
lot or chance. 

Such is the amiable and interesting system of govern¬ 
ment (and such are some of the abuses to which it may be 
exposed) which the people of America have exhibited to the 
admiration and anxiety of the wise and virtuous of all 
nations for eight years under the administration of a citizen 
who, by a long course of great actions, regulated by prudence, 
justice, temperance, and fortitude, conducting a people 
inspired with the same virtues and animated with the same 
ardent patriotism and love of liberty to independence and 
peace, to increasing wealth and unexampled prosperity, has 
merited the gratitude of his fellow-citizens, commanded the 
highest praises of foreign nations and secured immortal 
glory with posterity. 

In that retirement which is his voluntary choice may he 
long live to enjoy the delicious recollection of his services, the 
gratitude of mankind, the happy fruits of them to himself 
and the world, which are daily increasing, and that splendid 
prospect of the future fortunes of this country which is open¬ 


“[Preserving our Constitu¬ 
tion from its natural ene¬ 
mies, the spirit of sophistry, 
the spirit of party, the spirit 
of intrigue, the profligacy of 
corruption and the pestilence 
of foreign influence, which is 
the angel of destruction to 
elective governments . . . 


ing from year to year. His name may be still a rampart, and 
the knowledge that he lives a bulwark, against all open or 
secret enemies of his country’s peace. This example has been 
recommended to the imitation of his successors by both hous¬ 
es of Congress and by the voice of the legislatures and the 
people throughout the nation. 

On this subject it might become me better to be silent or 
to speak with diffidence; but as something may be expected, 
the occasion, I hope, will be admitted as an apology if I ven¬ 
ture to say that if a preference, upon principle, of a free 
republican government, formed upon long and serious reflec¬ 
tion, after a diligent and impartial inquiry after truth; if an 
attachment to the Constitution of the United States, and a 
conscientious determination to support it until it shall be 
altered by the judgments and wishes of the people, expressed 
in the mode prescribed in it; if a respectful attention to the 
constitutions of the individual States and a constant caution 
and delicacy toward the State governments; if an equal and 

impartial regard to the rights, interest, 
honor, and happiness of all the States in 
the union, without preference or regard 
to a northern or southern, an eastern or 
western position, their various political 
opinions on unessential points or their 
personal attachments; if a love of virtu¬ 
ous men of all parties and denomina¬ 
tions; if a love of science and letters and 
a wish to patronize every rational effort 
to encourage schools, colleges, universi¬ 
ties, academies and every institution 
for propagating knowledge, virtue and 
religion among all classes of the people, 
not only for their benign influence on 
the happiness of life in all its stages and 
classes, and of society in all its forms, 
but as the only means of preserving our Constitution from its 
natural enemies, the spirit of sophistry, the spirit of party, the 
spirit of intrigue, the profligacy of corruption and the pesti¬ 
lence of foreign influence, which is the angel of destruction to 
elective governments; if a love of equal laws, of justice and 
humanity in the interior administration; if an inclination to 
improve agriculture, commerce and manufacturers for neces¬ 
sity, convenience and defense; if a spirit of equity and 
humanity toward the aboriginal nations of America, and a 
disposition to meliorate their condition by inclining them to 
be more friendly to us, and our citizens to be more friendly to 
them; if an inflexible determination to maintain peace and 
inviolable faith with all nations, and that system of neutral¬ 
ity and impartiality among the belligerent powers of Europe 
which has been adopted by this government and so solemn¬ 
ly sanctioned by both houses of Congress and applauded by 
the legislatures of the States and the public opinion, until it 
shall be otherwise ordained by Congress; if a personal 
esteem for the French nation, formed in a residence of seven 
years chiefly among them, and a sincere desire to preserve 
the friendship which has been so much for the honor and 


72 


MAY/JUNE 2004 






interest of both nations; if, while the con¬ 
scious honor and integrity of the people 
of America and the internal sentiment of 
their own power and energies must be 
preserved, an earnest endeavor to inves¬ 
tigate every just cause and remove every 
colorable pretense of complaint; if an 
intention to pursue by amicable negotia¬ 
tion a reparation for the injuries that 
have been committed on the commerce 
of our fellow-citizens by whatever na¬ 
tion, and if success cannot be obtained, 
to lay the facts before the legislature, 
that they may consider what further 
measures the honor and interest of the 
government and its constituents de¬ 
mand; if a resolution to do justice as far 
as may depend upon me, at all times and 
to all nations, and maintain peace, 
friendship and benevolence with all the 
world; if an unshaken confidence in the 
honor, spirit and resources of the Amer¬ 
ican people, on which I have so often 
hazarded my all and never been de - 
ceived; if elevated ideas of the high des¬ 
tinies of this country and of my own 
duties toward it, founded on a knowl¬ 
edge of the moral principles and intellec¬ 
tual improvements of the people deeply 
engraved on my mind in early life, and 
not obscured but exalted by experience 
and age; and, with humble reverence, I 
feel it to be my duty to add, if a venera¬ 
tion for the religion of a people who pro¬ 
fess and call themselves Christians, and 
a fixed resolution to consider a decent 
respect for Christianity among the best 
recommendations for the public service, 
can enable me in any degree to comply 
with your wishes, it shall be my strenu¬ 
ous endeavor that this sagacious injunc¬ 
tion of the two houses shall not be with¬ 
out effect. 

With this great example before me, 
with the sense and spirit, the faith and honor, the duty and 
interest, of the same American people pledged to support the 
Constitution of the United States, I entertain no doubt of its 
continuance in all its energy, and my mind is prepared with¬ 
out hesitation to lay myself under the most solemn obliga¬ 
tions to support it to the utmost of my power. 

And may that Being who is supreme over all, the Patron 
of Order, the Fountain of Justice and the Protector in all 
ages of the world of virtuous liberty, continue His blessing 
upon this nation and its government and give it all possible 
success and duration consistent with the ends of His provi¬ 
dence. ❖ 


The Continental Congress held the Virginia Convention in 

May 1776. Richard Henry Lee introduced a resolution for the 
colonies to become free and independent states. The Congress 
appointed a committee to draft the formal declaration of independ¬ 
ence. The committee included (seen here from left to right) Ben 
Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Robert Livingston and 
Roger Sherman (not shown). This committee then chose Jefferson to 
write the first draft. After minor alterations were subsequently made 
by Franklin and Adams, the document was submitted to Congress. 
Two passages in Jefferson’s draft were rejected by the Congress—an 
intemperate reference to the English people and a scathing denunci¬ 
ation of the slave trade. On July 2, Congress declared independence; 
the famous document followed two days later. 


THE BARNES REVIEW 


73 

































PROFILES IN HISTORY 



Antonio Gramsci: 

How the Legacy of an Italian Communist 
Is Wrecking the Catholic Church Today 


By JOSEPH CROSSON 


A ntonio Gramsci is an individual seldom spoken of 

in academic circles. Indeed, some encyclopedias 
have ceased to carry an entry for his name. He is 
one of the little-known, seldom-mentioned but 
incredibly forward-sighted fathers of modern-day 
. communist/socialist theory. The political formula 
Gramsci devised has done much more than classical Leninism/ 
Stalinism to spread Marxism throughout the capitalist West. 
Gramsci’s ideas are also some of the more potent 
enemies of the Christian church. A significant 
part of the issues with which the church has been 
confronted for the past 50 years in its declining 
congregation and a dilution of geopolitical influ¬ 
ence of its clergy in Western governmental affairs 
is due in no small part to adherents of Gramscian 
philosophies. Using the stratagems and ideas 
Gramsci conceptualized, refined and implement¬ 
ed during his efforts to reform political systems in 
pre-World War II Europe, opponents of class sep¬ 
aration and institutionalized religion have plant¬ 
ed the seeds of discord and disharmony which 
have radically altered and forever softened the 
practical power and awe-inspiring influence tra¬ 
ditionally wielded by representatives and agents 
of the church. 

In order to analyze the reasons Gramsci and 
his ideas have helped reshape the role of the 
church in the 21st century, one needs an effective 
understanding of Gramsci and his experiences, which crafted how 
he looked at the people and institutions that defined sociopolitical 
processes of his day. 

Gramsci was born in Italy January 22,1891, in the rural village 
of Ales, Sardinia. The fourth of seven children (he had three broth¬ 
ers and three sisters), his mother, born Giuseppina Marcias, was a 
schoolteacher and his father, Francesco, a rural land tax assessor. In 
the impoverished Sardinian peasant society of those times the 
Gramscis were relatively privileged “signori.” At age 4 he developed 
a curvature of the spine, possibly due to a fall down a flight of stairs 


when a servant dropped him. His hunchback caused him to be 
ostracized and physically attacked by his superstitious playmates, 
who also resented his privileged status as the son of Signore 
Francesco. Gramsci was a strong-willed, bright child with a vivid 
imagination and a naturally sunny disposition. However, when he 
began going to the village school, he soon became a withdrawn, 
solemn, oversensitive loner and stoic. Gramsci was not a happy 
child; largely due to his father’s imprisonment on embezzlement 
charges when was 6, his school years and early adulthood were 
marked by considerable economic hardship. According to John 

Cammett, one of his biographers, “as a boy, he felt 
unloved, alienated, humiliated.” His family and 
friends who knew him as a child remembered him 
as, quiet, reserved and melancholy. 

Later in his early teen years he read socialist, 
liberal and Sardinian nationalist newspapers, 
brought home by his older socialist activist broth¬ 
er, Gennaro. 

Gennaro, seven years his senior, introduced 
Gramsci to socialist ideas and the world of the 
Sardinian working-class struggle. Gennaro was a 
labor militant active in Cagliari, Sardinia’s capi¬ 
tal. When Gramsci was 14, Gennaro bought him 
a subscription to Avanti, the Italian Socialist 
Party’s newspaper. From 1908 to 1911 Gramsci 
attended the Dettori Liceo (high school) in 
Cagliari and roomed with Gennaro. Before his 
20th birthday, Gramsci’s socialist, anti-colonial 
sympathies were clear. In a school essay titled 
“Oppressed and Oppressors” written in October 
1910, Gramsci praised the human race’s “incessant struggle” 
against the tyranny of “one man, one class or even a whole people.” 
This thesis, at such an early age, shows Gramsci’s passion, focus 
and discipline. 

After graduating from the Dettori Liceo in September 1911, 
Gramsci won a scholarship to the University of Turin on the Italian 
mainland. Between 1911 and 1912 Gramsci was a full-time univer¬ 
sity student, excelling in his studies of philology and seriously con¬ 
sidering becoming a university professor of linguistics. In the sum¬ 
mer of 1913 he applied for membership in the FGS, the Socialist 



ANTONIO GRAMSCI 

Subversive influences still felt today. 


74 


MAY/JUNE 2004 














Party youth federation, and was accepted at the end of 1913, join¬ 
ing the Party itself in 1914. For most of 1914 and 1915 he remained 
a part-time student at the University of Turin and still considered 
an academic career but finally in April 1915 sat for his last exam 
and dropped out. He was increasingly impatient and sought to turn 
the radical ideas he had been exposed to at the university into prac¬ 
tical political action. World War I had broken out in August 1914 
and, after a bitter national debate, Italy entered the war on the side 
of Britain and France against Germany and Austria in May 1915. 

Italy was then, as it is now, a country divided between north 
and south. The south was overwhelmingly rural with a large illit¬ 
erate peasantry and the north essentially industrialized with a 
well-organized and politically aware working class. The contrast 
was immense. Turin has been described as the Red capital of Italy 
at the time Gramsci arrived there. It was home to the most 
advanced industry in the country and above all to FIAT, the motor 
manufacturer. By the end of World War 1,30 percent of Turin’s civil¬ 
ian population was industrial workers (10 percent of the total pop¬ 
ulation was in the army). 

The organized workers of Turin had a very combative history. 
For the first 20 years of this century, Turin was to witness countless 
demonstrations and a number of general strikes until finally in 
1919, there began a movement for the occupation of the factories 
and the setting up of factory councils to run them. It was this sort 
of atmosphere that welcomed reformist notions and was to affect 
his thinking for the rest of his life. Gramsci’s earliest activity as a 
member of the FGS, the socialist youth federation, was teaching 
young workers about his intellectual heroes: Marx, Romain Rolland 
(the great Swiss anti-war novelist), Benedetto Croce, Italy’s leading 
liberal philosopher, and Labriola, a Hegelian like Croce and “father 
of Italian Marxism.” Young Gramsci was a very effective teacher, 
with a quiet, unemphatic, inexorable voice. 

I n 1914 and 1915, with the political struggle between pro-war 
nationalists and anti-war socialists heating up, Gramsci also 
began writing anti-war articles for the Turin socialist weekly, 
II grido del Popolo (“The Shout of the People”). In 1916, 
Gramsci, now 25, began writing a regular column called Sotto la 
Mole, for the Turin socialist party paper Avanti. It included both 
theater reviews and political and cultural articles about working 
class struggle. In the spring of 1919, Gramsci, together with Angelo 
Tasca, Umberto Terracini and Togliatti, founded L’Ordine Nuovo: 
Rassegna Settimanale di Cultura Socialista (“The New Order: A 
Weekly Review of Socialist Culture”), which became an influential 
periodical (on a weekly and later on a bimonthly publishing sched¬ 
ule) for the following five years among the radical and revolution¬ 
ary left in Italy. The review gave much attention to political and lit¬ 
erary currents in Europe, the USSR, and the United States. 

The August insurrection and the Bolshevik revolution in Russia 
in October 1917, convinced Gramsci and the left socialists (and the 
Italian capitalists) that revolution in Italy was all but inevitable. 
But knowing what practical steps to take to prepare for revolution¬ 
ary seizure of power by the workers was much more difficult to fig¬ 
ure out. 

For the next three years Gramsci poured himself heart and 
soul (and fragile nervous system) into the task of propagandizing 
for a worker’s seizure of power. Using first II grido and later in 


1919 a new revolutionary paper he helped found called Ordine 
Nuovo (“New Order”), he focused on the political and cultural edu¬ 
cation of workers who he believed would soon be confronted with 
the problem of seizing state power, reorganizing Italian society 
and building a new socialist culture. In little over a year’s time he 
and his Ordine Nuovo co-editors were able to build a mass follow¬ 
ing among Turin auto factory workers for the idea of factory sovi¬ 
ets as the key to a worker’s revolution in Italy. Overcoming popu¬ 
lar consensus, however, is not easy. Ideological hegemony meant 
that the majority of the population accepted what was happening 
in society as “common sense” or as “the only way of running socie¬ 
ty.” There may have been complaints about the way things were 
run, and people looked for improvements or reforms, but the basic 
beliefs and value system underpinning society were seen as either 
neutral or of general applicability in relation to the class structure 
of society. Marxists would have seen people constantly asking for 
a bigger slice of the cake when the real issue was ownership of the 
bakery. Gramsci stated: 

If the relationship between intellectuals and people—nation, 
between the leaders and the led, the rulers and ruled, is provided by 
an organic cohesion in which feeling/passion becomes the under¬ 
standing and thence knowledge (not mechanically, but in a way that 
is alive), then, and only then, is the relationship one of representa¬ 
tion. Only then can there take place an exchange of individual ele¬ 
ments between the rulers and ruled, leaders and led, and can the 
shared life be realized which alone is a social force—with the reac¬ 
tion of the “historic bloc.” 

In the three years between the August 1917 Turin insurrection 
and the 1920 factory occupations, Gramsci was rapidly transformed 
from a radical student intellectual into a mass organizer and 
apprentice revolutionary. Tragically, his personal and political 
growth as a revolutionary was just a step behind events, as was 
that of the revolutionary working-class movement from which he 
was learning. His mass organizing work in Turin through the revo¬ 
lutionary working-class paper Ordine Nuovo , begun in May 1919, 
laid the groundwork for the 1920 factory occupations. But he failed 
to take the step of forming a national organization around that 
magazine to give it a national working-class base. 

T he years 1921 to 1926, years “of iron and fire” as he called 
them, were eventful and productive. They were marked in 
particular by the year and a half he lived in Moscow as an 
Italian delegate to the Communist International (May 
1922-November 1923), his election to the Chamber of Deputies in 
April 1924, and his assumption of the position of general secretary 
of the PCI. His personal life was also filled with significant experi¬ 
ences, the chief one being his meeting with and subsequent mar¬ 
riage to Giulia Schucht (1896-1980), a violinist and member of the 
Russian Communist Party whom he met during his stay in Russia. 

In May 1922, fearing for his safety and concerned about his poor 
health, the party decided to send Gramsci to the Soviet Union. 
Gramsci lived and worked politically in the Soviet Union and 
Vienna until May 1924. On his arrival in Russia he suffered a com¬ 
plete nervous breakdown and spent the next six months in a rest 
home on the outskirts of Moscow. It was here that he met and fell 
in love with his future wife Giulia, the daughter of a prominent 
Russian communist who was a close personal friend of Lenin him- 


THE BARNES REVIEW 


75 





self. Gramsci described his time with Giulia as the one really happy 
time of his life. While in the Soviet Union as an active member of 
the Comintern’s Executive Committee, his analysis of Italian fas¬ 
cism as a new kind of mass counter-revolutionary middle-class 
movement helped orient the international communist movement to 
treat Fascism as a new and serious historical threat to Bolshevism. 

On his return to Italy in may 1924 he was elected to the Italian 
parliament and began the laborious process of winning the party 
membership over to his ideas of a mass revolutionary workers and 
peasants party, as opposed to a narrowly militaristic, top-down, one- 
class, “workerist” conception of the party. Throughout 1924-26 he 
struggled to reorganize the party so that it could wage both broad 
mass popular legal resistance and an armed, clandestine resistance 
to the Fascist dictatorship. 

By 1925 he had won leadership of the party and began trying to 
find ways to expand the party’s mass base into rural southern Italy, 
hoping to lay the political foundation for a peasant insurrection 
when, on November 8,1926, he was arrested at his rented room in 
Rome just as party leaders were making last-minute preparations 
to smuggle him out of Italy. In his room was the uncompleted draft 
of a long article on the “Southern Question,” his analysis of why 
peasant insurrection in the south was the 
key to overthrowing the Fascist dictatorship 
and Italian capitalism. 

O n the evening of November 8, 

1926, Gramsci was arrested in 
Rome and, in accordance with a 
series of “Exceptional Laws” 
enacted by Mussolini and the Fascist-domi¬ 
nated Italian legislature, committed to soli¬ 
tary confinement at the Regina Coeli 
prison. This began a 10-year odyssey, 
marked by almost constant physical pain as 
a result of a prison experience that culmi¬ 
nated, on April 27,1937, in his death from a 
cerebral hemorrhage. 

Gramsci’s intellectual work in prison did not emerge into the 
light of day until several years after World War II, when scattered 
sections of his notebooks began to be published, and some of the 
approximately 500 letters he wrote from prison. By the 1950s, and 
then with increasing frequency and intensity, his prison writings 
attracted interest and critical commentary in a host of countries, 
not only in the West but in the so-called Third World as well. Some 
of his terminology became household words on the left, the most 
important of which, and the most complex, is the term “hegemony” 
as he used it in his writings and applied to the twin task of under¬ 
standing the reasons underlying both the successes and the failures 
of socialism on a global scale, and of elaborating a feasible program 
for the realization of a socialist vision within the actual existing 
conditions that prevailed in the world. Among these conditions were 
the rise and triumph of fascism and the disarray on the left that 
had ensued as a result of that triumph. Also extremely pertinent, 
both theoretically and practically, were such terms and phrases as 
“organic intellectual,” “national popular” and “historical bloc,” 
which, even if not coined by Gramsci, acquired such radically new 
and original implications in his writing as to constitute effectively 


new formulations in the realm of political philosophy. 

Gramsci agreed that the great mass of the world’s population 
was made up of workers—a simple fact. Something that also 
appeared clear to him was that nowhere—especially not in the 
Christian European nations—did the workers of the world perceive 
themselves as separate and apart from the ruling classes by an ide¬ 
ological chasm. If that held true, Marx and Lenin were, therefore, 
wrong in the assumption there could and would be a glorious upris¬ 
ing of the proletariat. Gramsci became convinced that no country 
fulfilled the Lenin/Marx model of a large, featureless structure of 
masses who perceived themselves as different from the superstruc¬ 
ture of society. Therefore, the way to achieve the peak of human 
happiness had to be something other than the armed uprising 
espoused by the Lenin/Marx doctrine. 

O ne of the many theories conceived by Gramsci was the 
“long march through institutions.” What Gramsci knew 
was that most people are so devoted to institutions with 
which they are familiar that they desperately will try to 
save them even when they are teaching and doing the complete 
opposite to what they were taught and did originally. Creatures 

generally gravitate toward the familiar, be it 
physical habits or intellectual ideals. The 
key would then become the process of 
changing what the culture finds familiar. By 
changing the very essence of what thoughts 
and ideals people (the worker masses) find 
to be familiar a movement could then effect 
the changes on the large scale that it could 
not realize through armed revolution. In an 
armed revolution, the natural tendency of 
people would be to gravitate toward the 
familiar, even if it meant preserving and 
protecting a system that subjects them to 
misery. They would know no other way to 
replace the things they despise or would be 
too nervous to jump into the unknown. 

A long march through an institution means the unhappy seg¬ 
ment of society, instead of seizing control through infiltration of a 
small but critical segment of the state apparatus to displace current 
controllers, would choose to seize power from within the system. 
Once power is assumed, existing lines of authority and habits of 
obedience already inherent in legitimate government would be uti¬ 
lized to advance the coupster’s illegitimate aims. Typically, this 
march through an institution would take place from the bottom up. 
Patience is needed to silently weave the seditious ideals and 
philosophies needed to allow a proper anchor to set within the 
masses. Those masses will soon be set to attacking and branding 
the non-duped conservative elements as hopelessly behind the 
times and harmful to the goal of attracting young people to the 
cause or, finally and even worse, a traitor. Opponents of this coup 
should be labeled as isolationists who are misguided and dangerous 
individuals unable to move into the future and accept the wonder¬ 
ful changes the future will bring. 

The long march removes the risks inherent to an armed 
takeover of a government or institution by removing the possibility 
of forcing the rank and file with their natural tendency toward pro- 


It made better sense, in 
Gramsci s mind, to let 
Catholics remain Catholics 
instead of making communists 
of Catholics. It would be 
preferable to mutate the dogma 
of their faith into a secular 
ideology similar to Marxism. 


76 


MAY/JUNE 2004 







tecting and gravitating to the familiar not accepting the new 
regime. What it does, if patience prevails, is almost guarantee suc¬ 
cess because the group targeted for the coup will not only offer lit¬ 
tle to no resistance but will also, quite likely, provide itself as the 
most effective asset for the coup. A law of war is stated simply: 
“Know thine enemy.” An opponent will not fight if he either cannot 
see or does not realize an enemy is before his very eyes. 

Gramsci noted, “Religion must be approached 'not in the con¬ 
fessional sense’ but in the secular sense of a unity of faith between 
a conception of the world and a corresponding norm of conduct.” 
Gramsci proposed setting aside concern for Catholicism as an 
instructor of doctrine or body of belief and concentrating on it as a 
potential vehicle for ideology and politics that could be used in the 
service of Marxist communist order. Use Lenin’s geopolitical struc¬ 
ture not to conquer the halls of the Vatican and Holy See but rather 
use it to conquer the mind of the Catholic population itself. Though 
the church seemed strong on its surface, it had been subjected to a 
fairly constant and sustained barrage of criticism against its teach¬ 
ings and structural integrity. Gramsci needed to alter the Christian 
mind and turn it around completely to an anti-Christian position 
but keep those efforts secret. The best way to do this was to get indi¬ 
viduals, regardless of their station in society, to think of the prob¬ 
lems and issues facing them without reference to the Christian God 
or laws of the Christian God. A bedrock of Marxism—the guiding 
ideal that this paradise is the summit of human existence—is that 
there is nothing beyond the matter of this world. In other words, 
traditional theology would now be treated with no greater or lesser 
emphasis when compared to the other aspects of culture. 

I t made better sense, in Gramsci’s mind, to let Catholics remain 
Catholics instead of making communists of Catholics. It would 
be preferable to mutate the dogma of their faith into a secular 
ideology similar to Marxism. The question merely became 
which opportunity and manner would present itself to start this 
transformation. Fortunately, for Marxist infiltrators, the Catholic 
Church provided the most ideal vehicle for this insertion when Pope 
John XXIII announced the 21st ecumenical council in the history of 
the church, aka the Second Vatican Council. 

The pope’s idea for the council was that the Holy Spirit would 
inspire all who attended with renewed vigor of faith and evangel¬ 
ism around the planet. He felt it important to include the Soviet 
Union (then led by Nikita Khrushchev) in this process and con¬ 
vinced the Soviet Premier to allow two Russian Orthodox priests 
from the USSR to serve as observers. Additionally, the pope grant¬ 
ed, as a result of secret negotiations with Khrushchev, what 
amounted to be a huge concession by agreeing to not issue a con¬ 
demnation of Marxism and the communist state. This was signifi¬ 
cant in that up to that time such condemnations had always been 
included as a given standard in any Vatican or Roman Catholic 
commentary on the world as a whole. 

Changes made by the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II) were 
numerous and caused profound change in the way the Vatican 
approached the faithful and the very manner and language in 
which the Mass itself could be conducted. What the casual observ¬ 
er did not see, however, was the more profound philosophical shift 
in the attitudes and conclusions in other areas of the council. One 
document on religious liberty declared that everyone, rich or poor, 


should be free from any constraint or restriction in religious mat¬ 
ters, including the choice of which religion one chose to follow. To 
some, this was taken to mean an individual did not need to be 
Roman Catholic in order to be spared from doom in hell itself. Still, 
the declaration won a plurality of votes in the council. Accordingly, 
by the closing sessions of Vatican II, some bishops and Vatican per¬ 
sonnel were adopting and imposing new and different meanings on 
ecumenism. An example can be seen in the newly introduced poli¬ 
cies of then-powerful Augustin Cardinal Bea, considered a spear¬ 
head in ecumenical revolution. The cardinal organized gatherings 
that included not only Catholics and Protestants, as would be typi¬ 
cal, but also included Jews and Muslims, eventually Buddhists, 
Shintoists, animists and various other non-Christian or non-reli¬ 
gious groups. This not-so-slight split from the norm would only 
widen over time. 

T he reigning Pope Paul VI gave the farewell address for the 
departing bishops on the council. In that speech, Paul dis¬ 
cussed the new, broad umbrella that secularism within 
the church would be defended and protected against the 
wave of world protest of the adoption of the new policies. The pope 
told the departing clergy that their church opted for man, to serve 
man and to help man build his home here on Earth. According to 
the pontiff, man with his ideas, aims, hopes, fears, difficulties and 
sufferings would now be the centerpiece of the church’s interest. 
The special attention the bishops had decided to place on the plight 
of the poor was now morphed into something labeled “preferential 
option for the poor.” This was then taken in turn to mean a carte 
blanche mandate for deep alliances with socialists and communists, 
including terrorist groups. The Vatican Bank would soon be exposed 
in investment scandal after investment scandal, even being forced 
to disclose its significant stock interests in pharmaceutical compa¬ 
nies that produced birth control medication. Ecumenism was no 
longer a belief and mandate to heal the heresy and rifts that per¬ 
vaded the church. It was now a means not of healing, but of level¬ 
ing differences of all kinds between all Christian believers and non¬ 
believers. Liberation no longer meant a release from sin and 
damnation. It now defined itself as the struggle against oppression 
by big capital interests and the authoritarian colonial powers of the 
West. 

Liberation theology became a new concept within the church to 
such an extent that books written by converted priests, along with 
political and revolutionary literature, flooded the Latin American 
region, where almost 400 million Catholics included the lowest and 
poorest members of society, a population with little or no hope for 
economic betterment for themselves or their children. Liberation 
theology was a perfect exercise in Gramscian principles: launched 
with the corruption of a limited number in high positions, aimed at 
the culture and mentality of the masses, locking the individual and 
the culture in the race toward a single goal—class struggle for 
sociopolitical liberation. Nowhere in all this discussion are the tra¬ 
ditional ecumenical and spiritual foundations on which the church 
was created. 

The 1962 Vatican-Moscow Agreement still seems to be in force. 
This agreement has silenced the church and allowed the errors of 
communism and socialist theory to invade and pervade both it and 
society virtually unchallenged. According to communist Russian 


THE BARNES REVIEW 


77 





Gen. Volkogonov, this understanding ( perestroika ) is what made 
possible the invasion and subversion of traditional Christian theo¬ 
ry. The continuation of this agreement and the absence of any offi¬ 
cial elaboration force one to speculate that some form of coopera¬ 
tion/blackmail may still exist. Vatican and Holy See silence about 
Marxism only serves to guarantee civil and religious liberation in 
Catholic countries across the globe. General Secretary Gorbachev’s 
statements in a 1987 address can estimate a measurement of this 
cooperation: “There must be no let-up in the war against religion 
because as long as religion exists, communism cannot prevail. We 
must intensify the obliteration of all religions.” 

G enerally, toward the end of the 1960s, a sea change in 
church doctrine was rapidly under way. Another signifi¬ 
cant secular question before leaders of industrialized 
countries was that of population control. Contraception 
and abortion could only resolve the problems of overpopulation and 
the rising cost of living. These two questions, up to that date, were 
consistently rejected by dogma and considered mortal sins against 
God. An effort to include these solutions as a basic human right was 
then launched. Eventually, industrialized Western nations success¬ 
fully pushed to legalize these measures on a secular level. 
Traditional principles of education in Catholic schools also took a 
tumble, from elementary to university levels. The refusal of bishops 
to insist on obedience to dogma about divorce, abortion, contracep¬ 
tion and homosexuality became pervasive. At the parish and dioce¬ 
san level, the bottom of church hierarchy, base communities were 
forming with lightning speed. Largely composed of lay Catholics, 
base communities decided how to pray, what priests to accept, what 
bishops, if chosen at all, would have authority, and what sort of 
liturgy would be tolerated. Any relation and reference to Rome and 
its central authority or traditional Catholic theology was quietly 
considered inconsequential or coincidental. Each step and measure 
taken to regionalize and personalize traditional Catholicism and 
Christian belief was another Gramscian step taken in the effort to 
remove religion as an otherworld and spiritual consideration. 

Upon the arrival of Pope John Paul II the notion of this “infec¬ 
tion” was no longer even a secret within the Vatican and Holy See. 
However, the new pope understood what actions and policies had 
initiated this historic change in church presence and influence. He 
was not unaware that Gramscian and Leninist processes were well 
under way in transforming his church, indeed Christianity itself, 
into a marginalized and compartmented aspect of secular consider¬ 
ation. Nevertheless, he did undertake his own efforts to reverse the 
changed policies, call on his bishops to follow his orders within their 
regions and reinstitute their vows of obedience. Despite his best 
efforts, no substantial difference was seen. 

By 1987, pro-Marxist and violence-prone base communities in 
Latin America numbered over 600,000. To better appreciate that 
number, not even 1,000 Roman Catholic dioceses existed in North 
and South America combined at the time. At the time, almost all of 
those exhibited some doubt in their allegiance to Rome and the 
Vatican. Additionally, countries that were stalwarts in their adher¬ 
ence to the Vatican, such as Italy and Spain, were removing road¬ 
blocks to the legalization of divorce and the liberalization of laws 
written with Christian-based restraints, such as those dealing with 


family, sexuality and pornography. Effectively, the church’s ability 
to influence secular laws was under attack in a manner never seen 
before in its 2,000-year history. 

Within what was called Catholicism, the adjective “Roman” was 
frequently dropped. “Modern Catholicism” became the newly 
applied term that was more consistent and compatible with secular 
globalism. A large majority of priests, bishops, laity and religious 
leaders had assumed the traits of the new religious culture. They 
had ceased be Catholics in any manner that would have seemed 
familiar to Pope John XXIII when he undertook Vatican II. This is 
the face of the enemy the church not only faces going into the 21st 
century, but it is also the face of the enemy that Pope John XXIII 
unwittingly fertilized in his honorable but misguided attempt to 
spiritually rejuvenate not just his congregation but the world mass¬ 
es. This takeover was a perfect display of Gramsci’s mandate to 
Marxists everywhere: Exploit each opportunity that presents itself. 
Be rigid in material philosophy. Be clever as you do it. Ally yourself 
with any and every force that presents itself as an opening for 
Marxist insertion and secular beliefs. 

This is plainly evident when observing how Marxists align 
themselves with Christian churches and organizations in coopera¬ 
tive dialogue and mutual humanitarian undertakings. The origi¬ 
nally Christian mind in Western countries was already eroding as 
capitalism persuaded these countries they can and should find con¬ 
tentment in the idea that the meaning of life is life itself. Life is 
rooted in patriotism to one’s nation. It is conducted with a high- 
degree of solidarity amongst a society of all nations. Life needed a 
reverence for all things that surrounded it—plants, animals, the 
water and the air. Milovan Djilas once wrote, “Life is patriotic with¬ 
out being nationalistic, socially responsible without being socialist, 
and respectful of human rights and those of all creatures without 
calling itself Christian.” 

As the pope leads the bruised but still powerful and distinct 
structure of his Roman Catholic Church into the unpredictable and 
volatile new century, he is likely certain the shadow of Gramsci will 
follow suit. Sadly, because of her silence, Gramsci’s strategy of per¬ 
verting the Catholic Church is in full swing. The religion of God is 
being replaced with the religion of man, facilitating the Marxist 
control of the minds of de-Christianized masses. Not since the time 
of Nero has the very fabric of the church itself been in such danger 
of destruction. ❖ 

BIBLIOGRAPHY: 

Martin, Malachi, The Keys of this Blood, Touchstone, 1990. 

Morris, Frank, The On-going Marxist March against the Western Mind, the 
Wander Forum Foundation, 2001. 

Gutierrez, Gustavo, A Theology of Liberation, Orbis Maryknoll, NY, 1973. 

Rosengarten, Frank, An Introduction to Gramsci’s Life and Thought, 
www.marxists.org. 

“Cultural Communism—The Vivisection of America,” American Free Press, 
January 2002. 

Golitsyn, Anatoliy, The Perestroika Deception, Edward Harle Limited; 1998. 

Cantrell, Jimmy, “Gramsci’s Web,” The Texas Mercury, Vol. Ill, No. 3,2003. 

Educated in Catholic school, JOSEPH CROSSON is a populist and 
constitutionalist interested in subversive movements and censored 
history. Joe presently lives in Pennsylvania with his wife and chil¬ 
dren. He invites your comments to this article—his first for TBR. 


78 


MAY/JUNE 2004 




POLITICALLY INCORRECT BOOK SELECTIONS FROM THE TBR BOOK CLUB 


The First Holocaust: 

Jewish Fundraising Campaigns With Holocaust Claims During and After WWI 


M ost people believe that six 
million Jews were extermi¬ 
nated by National Socialist 
Germany during World War 
II in an event now known 
as “The Holocaust.” Jews 
call it the shoah (“ruin” or 
“destruction”). But how long have we 
known about this six million figure? The 
most frequent answer is that the six mil¬ 
lion figure was established after WWI I during the International 
Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. Although it is true that the six 
million figure was declared as fact at this tribunal, it is in truth 
remarkably older. In The First Holocaust, author Don Hedde- 
sheimer shows that the six million figure dates back to a Jewish 
fund raising campaign that started during the FIRST World War 
and reached its peak in the mid-1920s. During those years, 
Jewish groups in the United States spread the propaganda that 
the Jews in Europe were dying by the millions, and that millions 
more would perish soon. 


The New York Times was the main vehicle for these false¬ 
hoods aimed at generating a mountain of cash contributions. 
The Times started describing the plight of the Jews in Europe 
with such words as “extermination,” “holocaust” and “six million.” 

Although this exaggerated Zionist propaganda of “mass 
extermination” began to slow down in the 1930s, it never com¬ 
pletely ceased and received powerful new momentum in the 
1940s resulting in the entry of the six million figure into our his¬ 
tory books. For the victors of World War II, their ruination of 
Europe and the betrayal of her people to the communist butch¬ 
ers of Stalin’s Soviet Union, was much more easily swallowed 
if it could be shown that the Allies had ended the “genocide of 
an entire race of people.” As such, the propaganda masters of 
the victorious nations became willing partners in the propaga¬ 
tion of the extermination myth. 

The First Holocaust (softcover, 141 pages, #386, 
$9.95 minus 10% for TBR subscribers) can be ordered from 
TBR BOOK CLUB. P.O. Box 15877, Washington, D.C. 20003 
using the coupon on page 80 of this issue. Call 1-877-773- 
9077 toll free and charge to Visa or MasterCard. 


tl*n 1 1 hI ilE^hrimiT 


TTiae MrU: 
" 'olocamsfc 



The Roots of Anti-Semitism 


Controversial Treatises by Professor Kevin 
MacDonald Now Back in Print in Softcover 
—a Great Savings Over the Hardback Editions 


FROM THE 

TBRBOOK 
CLUB 


Book HI: A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism 
as a Group Evolutionary Strategy. This copiously 
documented scientific work forms the basis for our 
understanding of Jewish-Gentile relations. Who is 
responsible for the constant tension between Jew 
and Gentile ? #113A, softcover, $38; #113. 

Book #2: Separation and its Discontents: Toward 
an Evolutionary Strategy of Anti-Semitism. The 
author views anti-Semitism as the outcome of isola¬ 
tionist policies of Jewish leaders, hurtful to Jew and 
Gentile alike. #114, softcover, 330 pgs., $28. 





— 

i AMERICA I II 
s . & ISRAEL:! 

S REAL FRIENDS! 
MMM0H VALUES 





Book #3: The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary 
Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth 
Century Intellectual and Political Movements. 
The third and final volume tackles the influence 
Jewish intellectuals have had among Gentiles in the 
social sciences, including anthropology, psycho¬ 
analysis and leftist political ideology. #128, softcov¬ 
er, 379 pgs., $28. 


TBR subscribers get 10% off listed 
prices! To order send payment to TBR, 
RO. Box 15877, Washington, D.C. 
20003 or call our toll free number: 
1-877-773-9077 and charge to Visa or 
MC. Add Domestic S&H: $5 for orders 
up to $50; $10 from $51 to $100; $15 
from $101 and over. Outside the U.S: 
Double above S&H charges. See page 80. 


BODY OF 

SECRETS 

ARATQhllf flf THE ilLI HA-SEC HIT 

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY 



F1&H1HT EBLfl #11 
rHRQuCH THE f'JWkl OF A H.fa C I'HI? If 

JAMES BAMFORD 

lllinillll 1«IRM w 
tvi (pf iiti Mim 


Body of Secrets: 

Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret 
National Security Agency 

The author, James Bamford, an intelligence expert, has 
written this expose on the National Security Agency that 
contains a lengthy and very detailed section on the Israeli 
attack on the USS Liberty that very clearly shows the 
deliberateness of the brutal attack and accuses Israel of 
having a “terrible record” on human rights. In devastat¬ 
ing chapter after chapter, Bamford takes the NSA to task 
for its involvement in some of the biggest intelligence 
scandals in world history. It is rare, if not nearly impossi¬ 
ble, to find such outspoken and detailed commentary in 
any history book under the imprint of a major U.S pub¬ 
lishing house like Doubleday. Bamford did, however, 
work closely with the NSA while creating this book. 
#286, hardback, 720 pages, $29 minus 10% for TBR 
subscribers. See coupon on page 80 to order or call 1-877- 
773-9077 toll free to charge to Visa or MC. 


























TBR subscribers : Remember you get 10% off all book and video purchases. 


TBR Book Club Discount Ordering Form 

P.O. Box 15877, Washington, D.C. 20003 • 1-877-773-9077 


ITEM NO. TITLE OF B00K/VIDE0/BACK ISSUE ETC. QTY PRICE EACH TOTAL $ 





$ 

$ 













































































Extra Copies of The Barnes Review Book Club Catalog 


$ 1.00 



SUB TOTAL 

TBR SUBSCRIBERS DEDUCT 10% DISCOUNT HERE 

Domestic S/H: Via Post Office. $5 for orders up to $50; $10 from $51 to $100; $15 from $101 and over. Via Priority Mail—Double these charges. 

Canada S/H: Add $4 ea. book additional to Domestic rate above, no insurance incl. Or: Insured mail $17 first 3 books, plus $4 for ea. additional book add to Domestic rates. 

Europe S/H: Add $30 first 3 books additional to Domestic S/H above. Then, $5 each additional book, insured-surface. 
Please enter a TBR subscription for me at $46 (Subscriptions outside the U.S. add $10 per year.) 


$ 


□ SUPER BONUS: My order of $50 or more entitles me to buy BARNES REVIEW gift subscriptions for only 
$32 each (Save 38%). I have listed the names and addresses of my gift recipients on a separate piece of paper. 


TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 



PLEASE MAKE ANY ADDRESS CORRECTIONS BELOW. 


Payment and Shipping Information 


PAYMENT OPTION: □ Check □ Money Order □ MasterCard □ Visa 

Credit Card Number Expires-Mo. & Yr. 


To order complete this form, enclose check or 
money order and send to: 

TBR BOOK CLUB, P.O. Box 15877, 
Washington, D.C. 20003 
For fastest service call 1-877-773-9077 
and charge to Visa or MasterCard. 


FIRST AND LAST NAME 

CONTACT PHONE (OPTIONAL) 

MAILING ADDRESS 

CITY 

STATE 

ZIP CODE 

COUNTRY 

SIGNATURE (Credit Card orders only) 


For fastest service, have your Visa or MasterCard ready and call toll free: 1-877-773-9077'. Or remove this 
ordering form and mail to P.O. Box 15877, Washington, D.C. 20003. Want to send a TBR Book Club Catalog to 
friends and family? List names on a separate piece of paper and enclose $1 per catalog please. 


80 


MAY/JUNE 2004 


TBR34