The Cold Warriors and the Transformation of American Dissent

The Cold Warriors and the Transformation of American Dissent

@Jargon_0 on twitter

Reading Time: Long

Note: This essay assumes some familiarity on the reader's part with the political leadership of the Jewish nation and its historical role in bringing about the political forms of Rationalism: Liberalism, Democracy, and Communism.


If there is one thing today that Americans need desperately to know, it is this: that there once existed a bloc of men who could accurately recognize their own interests, who organized around those interests and sought to obtain them at the national level, on equal footing with the forces of the establishment. Since the Second World War this has not been true. American dissent, from the postbellum period up until the war, consisted of both leaders and followers who understood at an abstract and systematic level what their interests were and also who was standing in the way, blocking off their path. Just for an example, Americans of every level of education once wrote pamphlets on the shortcomings of bimetallism, which is the idea of a government supporting both silver and gold as the monetary base. Compare this to the postwar period, in which, while it would be a lie to say that no one ever stood up for the American peoples' interests, things are clearly not the same. The prevailing pastimes in America have passed from writing critiques of bimetallism to watching streaming services on infinite play. More often than not, these American political leaders, like Pat Buchanan for example, have had to worm and dissimulate their way into convincing the people to support their own interests. I use these words not to express any contempt for him but merely to point out that the shift in American political consciousness has reached such a low level that the peoples' would-be champions must jump through hoops and disguise themselves as con-men in order to have a chance at reaching their hidden altruistic aims.

There was a pivotal period in American history where the bloc representing the peoples' interests was dissolved and its constituents were integrated into another bloc, a bloc openly hostile to their interests but adopting all the same symbols. Some might say this was during the Sedition Trials, in which anti-war, anti-communist, and anti-bank activists such as Elizabeth Dilling, Lawrence Dennis, and William Pelley were indicted for inciting insubordination in the military. Some might say this was when Louisiana Senator Huey Long was murdered, when Father Coughlin's bishopric silenced him, or even began when the Lindbergh baby disappeared. During this period, in the deeps of the great depression, these leading insubordinates of the Internationalist Oligarchy, the banking families and their communist lackeys, were systematically dismantled. The sentiments animating these leaders, however, did not disappear after their own demise. Of course, how could they? Those sentiments arise from living on Earth and using one's brain, eyes and ears. The knowledge and discontent of and the international clique doesn't simply disappear after its main detractors are silenced, the people and the energies of resistance go on wandering, looking for new leaders in which to invest themselves.

What happened after the war, concerning these fellaheen who constituted the decapitated body of genuine populism in America, is a chapter of history that is woefully obscured and its obscurity continues to damn the American people to a politics of futility up to the current day. This may be changing as we speak, but widespread knowledge of this chapter and its effect on American dissent would help greatly to release the American people from their current false consciousness and free them to pursue their own interests openly, as they did before the war. This paper will be divided into the following parts: Populism in the American Republic, The New Dealers vs America First, The Red Scare, and The Patriot Ideology Industry. Upon completion of this essay, the reader will hopefully have a better perspective on why Far-Right Conservatism in America has been worse than useless, and has, in a cruel twist of irony, helped more than any single other movement in the world to accomplish the very thing it sought to prevent.

I. Populism in the American Republic

As soon as the Civil War ended in 1865, the writing was already on the wall: banks had been enthroned and were already abusing their privileges, and the farming people, who were being dispossessed by these abuses, had no choice but to contradict them or eventually be shuffled into debt-serfdom, into the cities and factories, into desperation and quiet, powerless death. They eventually fell prey to the latter scenario, their struggles were erased and their memories were demonized by a class of race-antagonizing scribblers. For a moment in time, however, they did have a real chance at freeing themselves and the country from the money power. Although America's great Agrarian Class was destroyed in this epoch, it did breathe life into an idea of an American society, one in which labor got the full reward of its product, and men lived freely with their own means of production, on their own property, and the bankers, railroad monopolists, and middlemen, whose predations prevented all of this, would be joyously cast into the Mississippi, never to be heard again. This American Idea would continue on living without them, although it would lose more and more of its agrarian character and it would itself give life to two mutually antagonistic strains of politics: the America Firsters against the banks, and the New Dealers against the bosses. These two strains of populism could not tolerate the others' existence, would clash and find resolution in the tragic and ultimate victory of the latter over the former.

With the wounds of the war still fresh and the South still under occupation by a hostile president, the banks would inaugurate the great American class war of the next four decades in earnest, by their chosen man Ulysses S. Grant. In a little noted historical incident, the Credit-Strengthening Act of 1869 retroactively changed the contracts of a series of bonds that had been sold in 1862 to fund the war effort.[4] The substance of this Credit-Strengthening Act was to change these bonds from being redeemable in Greenbacks, government paper currency, to being redeemable in gold coin. The country, still reeling from the destruction of the war and desperate for reconstruction, would now suffer an exodus of hard currency to European banks, for no reason other than to restore their confidence in American currency. This idea of 'investor confidence' is a recurring theme in economics and economic history and is well-worth further scrutiny, but for now suffice it to say how strange it is that the sanctity of contract, which is usually the most sacrosanct basis of investor confidence, would here be broken but only so that the payoff on their bonds could be increased. Alexander Del Mar, the first director of the U.S. Department of Treasury's Bureau of Statistics, reported on the source for this legislation:

"On the 13th of March, 1868, Baron James Rothschild of Paris wrote to Mr. Belmont a letter which was exhibited by the latter to several gentlemen in New York. This letter had evidently been prepared for the purpose of being shown to leading members of the party, in order to influence their opinion on the bond question It contained a long argument against the then pending proposition to make the Five-Twenties refundable for 5 o-year 4 per cent bonds without changing the original terms of payment, declared this a compulsory measure tinctured with "repudiation" and concluded with warnings of ruin to those who might oppose the payment of the bonds in coin, or who might advocate their liquidation in green-backs."[4]

Mr. Belmont, a Jewish-German associate of James Rothschild and previously named "Schoenberg", had come to America and made his fortune as a financier and was, by this point, tremendously influential in the Tammany Hall political machine and by extension, national politics in general. Acting on behalf of James Rothschild's interests in the New World, his efforts bore fruit in the legislation of 1869 in the retroactive breach and rewriting of the wartime bond contracts. Evidently, Mr. Rothschild considered that the bonds standing as they were would be tantamount to a debt repudiation and therefore unacceptable. Apparently he did not feel that investors such as his himself were to be exposed to any degree of risk in their investments, sanctity of contract be damned.

The pain of this Credit-Strengthening Act, which caused outflows of gold bullion to Europe, was only intensified in the coming years, when the Coinage Act of 1873 was passed. The Coinage Act of 1873 was a bill which made silver coinage not to be legal tender anymore; it demonetized silver.[4] This bit of legislation, which took silver out of the monetary base and effectively halved the money money supply, would come to be known as the Crime of '73. By now, the banks had made their position clear and the people knew it too. These two policies, passed within four years of each other, spelled everything out: the banks would collapse the money supply of the country, making it so that the only money that could be gotten, would be from them, and at the interest rate of their pleasure. The idea that usurers benefit from monetary scarcity was obvious to every man in the country at the time, though this fact is either unknown or lauded by libertarians in the current time. The Crime of '73 cast America into a depression which, although accompanied by tremendous industrial growth, was also accompanied by tremendous unemployment and starvation and did not end until 1896. This depression gave birth to the Great American Class War, which, while indeed tragic, gave voice and light to some of the highest points of human intellect and endeavor thus far recorded in history. This 'Gilded Age' would show just what the American mind and spirit were capable of: that is, to teach oneself the principles of political economy, organize voluntarily into unions and syndicates, organize into great political machines, and gather up the force to huck a spear right up through the slits of the banker's keep. Though they did not succeed in time to save themselves, their efforts bore fruits that bolster our American identity and understanding right up until the present.

As Christopher Lasch notes in his Revolt of the Elites, America transitioned from a society of independent yeomen to an industrialized one of wage-laborers:
In America, where a general sentiment of equality leveled the distinctions of wealth and condition, they lived “on their own lands” and were “independent in their circumstances,” and they had therefore acquired the “habit of forming their own opinions from their own reflections.” It was not altogether clear whether it made any sense, under these conditions—conditions widely regarded as typical as late as the Civil War—to speak of a laboring class at all. The reluctance to use the term (or the willingness to use it only in a comprehensive sense that included most of the population) appears indefensible in retrospect, but for that very reason it is important not to lose sight of the ideal underlying this aversion. Americans were admittedly slow to admit the emergence of a “class of our fellow men doomed to toil through life as mere workmen at wages,” as Orestes Brownson described them in 1840.”[11]

Up until the Civil War, wage labor was always looked at as a temporary condition to be endured until one had saved up enough money for tools and fare to lands where independence was free. Wage labor was always looked at as an unfortunate condition but nonetheless a mere step on the path to an autonomous way of life. Thus, America was a land of farmers, craftsmen, apprentices, entrepreneurs, as well as wage-laborers, as opposed to the current day where wage-labor is the rule and other existences are the exception. This relative economic independence of the American people informed their view of political economy at the time; they were far less concerned with the price of labor than they were with the prices of commodities and money. Why? Because they themselves were players in the great economic game. Many have noted that Socialism never really took off in America even when conditions were most ripe for it and that this was true even long after the people had been divorced from their own means of production. Americans never stopped seeing themselves as a yeomanry. As players they didn't seek to improve the condition of the worker nearly as much as they sought to improve the condition of the market. This meant finding ways to get around or get rid of the parasitic behaviors of market economy, the middlemen, the speculators, the usurers, and the rentiers. These were the royally ensconced leeches that stood between the American yeomanry and the full reward of its labors.

There were many political movements in the postbellum era that were based on political economy, i.e. based on economic ideas and very concrete ways of putting them into practice. There was the Greenback Party, the Knights of Labor, the American Federation of Labor, Henry George's Single Tax Movement, the Populist Party, and all the hangers-on surrounding these. Collectively they sought to nationalize utilities, form labor unions, tax unearned wealth, protect industry, and reform the national currency to one based on labor rather than debt. They didn't all work together and sometimes had conflicting interests. For example, Greenbackers and Single-Taxers stood opposed to the Labor Unions on the Trade issue. The latter supported protectionism and the former did not. "Single Taxer" here refers to the main plank in Henry George's platform, which was to make land value the sole basis of taxation, doing away with all other forms of taxation, including tariffs on imported goods.

Though any one of these is an excellent topic for a book, let alone a sub-section of an essay, the one most of its time and place, most relevant in retrospect for American history, was the Populist Party. Why is this? The Populist Party represents, from our contemporary historical lens, the strain of American politics which was most thoroughly erased. The Populists began as a co-operative society in Texas called the Farmer's Alliance, seeking to free themselves from the middlemen warehousing their produce, selling them sacks of jute (a rough fibrous plant for making rope), and lending them money. As a co-operative society, they succeeded only in freeing themselves of the jute-merchants, but as for the warehousing and credit issues, they quickly realized that the solution would have to be political. This is covered in my review of Lawrence Goodwyn's Democratic Promise, which I recommend as supplement to this essay. Charles Macune, the father of the Farmer's Alliance movement and reluctant holdout on its transition to political movement, soon figured out the course of action they would have to take. He taught himself the principles of political economy and drafted The Omaha Plan, also known as the Sub-Treasury Plan.[7] My review of Goodwyn's Demcratic Promise (link here) covers the concept in greater detail but, for a short overview: the Sub-Treasury Plan would replace the prevailing system in which private banks created the bulk of the money supply, pyramiding credit-monies on top of the metallic monetary base, with a system of sub-treasuries distributed all throughout the country, which were also grain elevators and warehouses would issue money on the basis of the farmers' labor. This ingenious plan would rescue the country from the scheme of privately issued debt-money and save the yeoman farming class from the banks that sought their property. Charles Macune and others led this movement to its crescendo in the 1896 election, when it failed. Tom Watson, a founding father of the Populist movement, was William Jennings Bryan's VP pick, but Bryan lost the election to McKinley.[7] The Populists had made many compromises and expended too much of their energy in the run up to this election and, after their defeat, they died the quiet death of a sharecropper's broken dream. Tom Watson, however, continued to carry on the torch in Georgia as a lawyer and later on as a senator.

Though the Populists had failed in their electoral ambitions, the shift in the nation's consciousness was clear. The Money Question could no longer be ignored and many had come around to seeing it their way. Even Henry George, who had started out believing that all injustice could be traced back to the private capture of land rents, came to support the Omaha Platform. Many other politicians and not just pamphleteers and grassroots organizers, came to see the truth of the matter, both Republican and Democrat. Whether the Populists themselves had effected this shift in national consciousness or they had simply ridden the wave of the shift itself, many people with political clout now saw the truth of the Money Question, if they had the intellect and the moral courage for it.

In Charles Lindbergh Sr.'s 1913 Banking and Currency and the Money Trust, which is possibly the most courageous document ever put forward by an American politician, he defines the problem clearly and proposes a solution in just as sensible fashion. The third section of his book is titled "What Is The Matter With Us?", as if to highlight the absurdity of a nation's leadership which was apparently living in stupefied complicity with the fact that it rented its entire money supply from private banks, despite the obvious and Constitutional obligation of the State to fulfill that role. In 1895, J.P. Morgan bailed out the United States Government, which was in crisis due to a general financial panic beginning in 1893, and, after gaining primary creditor status, was then able to appoint practically every member of the presidential cabinets for the next two decades by hand. The lesser known aspect of this chapter in American economic history is that the Panic of 1893 was in fact engineered by J.P. Morgan and his associates in the financial sector. Congressman Lindbergh of Minnesota reports in his book on the infamous Panic Circular of 1893, excised from normal history books:

In 1893 the large Wall Street banks, and the large affiliating banks in other centers, determined to make some changes in the banking and currency laws, and especially in regard to the purchase of silver by the Government. They began by creating a stringency which we shall refer to later. It resulted in a general business and financial scare to all of the smaller banks and the business interests. It became a real panic which continued with its disastrous results for a period of years. During that period the special interests squeezed many of the small banks and some large ones, and some of these, and many business concerns, were forced into bankruptcy. Time and time again before that the bankers had been able to secure many special favors from Congress. But even with all these to their advantage they had some sleepless nights during that panic. They went through an experience that gave them further suggestions as to what would be required in their interests in the way of legislation.

Immediately they began to form powerful affiliations among themselves in order to further protect themselves against the disadvantages of panics. But instead of seeking safety for themselves and protection for the general public by means of a modification of the methods of the banking business, as a reward for the special favors that had been given to them by Congress, they did not consider for a moment the protection of the public, but sought diligently for a method, by which they could secure the privilege of fleecing the public whenever a panic should be in progress. That is, they would have panics, if they did occur, profitable to the favored bankers and disastrous to the public, and a panic may happen at any time under present conditions. As a matter of fact the bankers may cause a panic whenever the public seeks to enforce its rights.


I call attention to another of their schemes. This bears a somewhat later date, one which I myself remember. I read the "Panic Circular of 1893" at the time of its issue. It was that circular which started me to studying the problems of finance. The circular was issued direct by The American Bankers Association, an organization in which most bankers hold membership. It bears the date March 11th, 1893, and was sent to the trusted national banks in all states.

It read: 41 Quotation "E." "Dear Sir: - The interest of national banks requires immediate financial legislation by Congress. Silver, silver certificates and treasury notes must be retired and national bank notes upon a gold basis made the only money. This will require the authorization of five hundred millions to one thousand millions of new bonds as the basis of circulation. You will at once retire one-third of your circulation and call in one half of your loans. Be careful to make a monetary stringency among your patrons, especially among influential business men. Advocate an extra session of Congress to repeal the purchasing clause of the Sherman law and act with other banks of your city in securing a large petition to Congress for its unconditional repeal, per accompanying form. Use personal influence with your Congressman, and particularly let your wishes be known to your Senators. The future life of national banks, as fixed and safe investments, depends upon immediate action, as there is an increasing sentiment in favor of government legal tender notes and silver coinage."

One would think that after the bankers had fooled us so many times, squeezed, us by suddenly retiring a part of their circulation, made the borrowing public pay half their loans, and brought stringencies among their patrons, that they would have had things fixed "for good and all." But no! They are after us again with another scheme cleverly disguised. This time it is called the Aldrich plan. Let us compare the present scheme with those of the past and note what we find. Wall Streeters organized the National Citizens League of Chicago by means of their secret agents and afterwards that league, through its secret agents, organized Citizens Leagues in practically all of the states. The purpose for which they were designed was that they might serve the same purpose with relation to the present proposed financial legislation that the Panic Circular of 1893 filled with regard to the legislation then desired by the interests.

The circular proposed a "large petition" to be secured through the influence of "influential business men" by forcing a "monetary stringency." This last scheme gets at the Senators and Congressmen in a more persuasive manner than the petitions did. It is also a cunning design by means of which to deceive the people who have become too intelligent to be deceived by the methods formerly practiced."[13]

This extraordinary revelation demonstrates the differences between our current statesmen and those of yester-year. Our ancestors' politicians had the courage to present secret documents circulated between bankers, proving a conspiracy to crash the economy and then wail over the spilt milk until they got their preferred monetary legislation. An American politician of Mr. Lindbergh's caliber has not been seen in America for at least the past 70 years. I say this not purely out of pessimistic enjoyment, but because current-day Americans have a right to know that there once was a time when Americans openly stood for the truth. Mr. Lindbergh spent 10 years as Minnesota's representative in Congress and his offspring would become some of America's most beloved persons.

Aside from telling the truth on this matter, he also clearly laid out the problems and solutions of the privately-created bank-money issue, recognizing that both inflation and deflation were equally disastrous to the people when initiated and managed by a power-hungry clique. His approach to the Money Question, as was the normal populist approach at the time, was not defined by the economic dogmatism on whether inflation or deflation was worse, whether hard money or soft money was moral or not. Rather it was about who was to control the peoples' destiny, a nest of financial schemers or their representatives; where their money was to come from, the double-entry ledgers of internationalist bankers or minted by the government as per the Constitution's stipulation.[45]

Lindbergh was a leader of a strain in American politics, similar to that of the Populists in that it wanted no part in foreign Anglophilic wars and defied the banks, but different in that it represented mostly midwestern Germanic-types, Lutherans, and those kinds of people, rather than Southern Scotch-Irish and Confederate-nostalgic types, those other kinds of people. In the run up to the First World War and America's entry thereto, American conservatism was defined by a schism: either you were an anglophile or you weren't. If you were an anglophile, you stood for the banks and Britain; the two were synonymous and their unified identity was manifest in the powerful foreign policy lobby called the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).[16] If you weren't an anglophile, you stood for farming interests and your sympathies were with Germany or with no one in particular. It is the latter part of this schism, which mostly represented the midwest and the south demographically, which later became the America First movement in the Great Depression.

Not only did Charles Lindbergh Sr. stand up against the passage of the Federal Reserve bill but also against American entry into the war, in his book "Your Country At War". Later, when the US did join in on the British side, the plates to both of his books were seized and destroyed by federal agents, acting under the dubious authority of the Comstock Laws, which policed sexual morality, not politics.[5] As he said, in words which would become uncannily relevant in the coming decades:

"It is impossible according to the big press to be a true American unless you are pro-British. If you are really for America first, last and all time, and solely for America and for the masses primarily, then you are classed as pro-German by the big press which is supported by the speculators."[5]

Indeed this principle is true in the past and true retroactively in the present. For those that stood up to the banks in their ascent over the American Republic, they have no identity in the academic mind of the current, except as anti-semites, bigots, proto-Nazis, and other smear terms. Their crimes were identifying the enemies of the common interest by name and race. Tom Watson's legacy as people's champion has now been overwritten as that of a caricature of a conspiracy-theorizing racist and anti-semite.[30], [25], [15] Two of his most-cited crimes were to note the ownership, either directly or their proxies (the Kuhn-Loebs and Harrimans), of American railroads by the Rothschild family and to note the rush of Big Business-aligned newspapers to demonize the local population of Atlanta, Georgia when they took up arms against a wealthy Jewish factory-owner after he raped and murdered a thirteen year-old girl and tried to pin the crime on a black man. For this, all credit he might have received as a 'Socialist' is undone. Charles Lindbergh Sr. is given the typical treatment for anti-bank populists: in identifying Jewish bankers as the masters of commerce and politics in the U.S., and in fathering Charles Lindbergh who was responsible more than anyone else for getting the U.S. to stay out of the Second World War for as long as it did, he is awarded the unenviable titles of conspiracy theorist and father of the Great American Nazi.[46]

By the time the suspicion of national sympathies would come into play again, in the run-up to the Second World War, a new element would be added to the brew: Communism. The prototypical America First movement of WWI isolationism and the agrarian movement of the Populist Party were spiritually linked, but neither had to contend with the threat of Global Communism. When the American economy crashed in 1929, and stayed crashed, allowing for political radicalism to re-ignite, the constituents of Isolationism and Populism would be forced to confront the third issue: Communism (the first and second being banks and banker internationalism) and, in doing so, undergo a shift in World-Historical Consciousness.

II. The New Dealers vs America First

[ NOTE: This topic is nearly impossible to condense down to the scope we've provided for it in this paper so we will have to make some assumptions on the part of the reader: that he is familiar with the notion that the interests of the Jewish political community lie in supporting the forms of political Rationalism, i.e. Liberalism, Democracy, and Communism, and lie in equal measure in negating the Organic political forms of Fascism, Feudalism, Populism, Localism, and so on; that, concordant with this principle, the early government of the Soviet Union was composed to a large extent of Jews and was friendly to Jewish political interests; that he is familiar with the facts of the relationship between the clique of CFR-associated Anglo-American businessmen, Jewish businessmen, and the Soviet Union, i.e. that the former two are jointly and near-entirely responsible for the industrial build-up of the latter. This is a radical list of assumptions to make on the part of the reader, and the substance of these points will be provided for to some extent in the essay, however, due to the enormity of these topics, they cannot be individually and exhaustively addressed within the current scope and so, as they are important predicates for the behavior of Populist and anti-Communist Americans in the 1930's, they are to some extent assumed here. ]

Although it is no secret that the United States provided massive material support to the Soviet Union in the Lend-Lease program, what is lesser known is that the U.S. built over half of all Soviet industrial capacity, and still lesser known are the businessmen who did this, what their motives were, and why they began the process so far in advance of the Second World War. Lend-Lease officially started in 1941, yet the material transfer of Western production to the East had begun long before that. Averell Harriman, scion of Rockefeller-associated railroad wealth and State Department fixture, reports how Stalin acknowledged the paramount importance of American assistance in building up the Soviet industrial base in a little-acknowledged diplomatic cable from 1944:

"Stalin paid tribute to the assistance rendered by the United States to Soviet industry before and during the war. He said that about two-thirds of all the large industrial enterprises in the Soviet Union had been built with United States help or technical assistance."[21]

The Red Decade, as it was called by Eugene Lyons, a Jewish Trotskyist who turned Neoconservative, was a period in American history when the Eastern Establishment and upper society was generally enchanted by the Soviet Union and their supposed achievements.[47] Though it is hard to imagine, this American aristocratic class supported the Soviet Union on every level: personally, politically, economically, in the newspapers, and so on. Lyons' Red Decade has it that this was the result of Stalinist penetration into the U.S., at a time when so many would be amenable to Communism due to the destruction of the Great Depression. While this thesis is sympathetic, there are reasons to believe that this doesn't explain the phenomenon entirely, which will be covered below. These reasons are: the industrial support for the Soviet Union by American businessmen, the propagandistic support for the Soviet Union in American newspapers, the political support for the Soviet Union in policing the country internally, and the political support for the Soviet Union in developing a foreign policy consensus. This idea and its proponents are now ridiculed in the present day by know-better New Yorker readers, but we shall see historical data for each of these aspects of Soviet-American sympathy.

Antony Sutton's Three Volume series Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development rakes through Soviet industrial records, State department export records, and the records of the specific companies involved in the technological export to the Soviet Union and his findings are a revelation. Ever since its beginning in 1917, the Soviet government received material aid from western businessmen, but Sutton's Western Technology shows in contractual and statistical detail the buildup of the Soviet Union's key industries and the companies and personalities involved. The Du Ponts, Rockefellers, Harrimans, and Hammers, among other families, in their capacities as State Department officials and industrial barons, provided the political, technological and economic support necessary to build up the Soviet Union's production capacities for coke, rubber, cement, alcohol, non-ferrous metals, heavy chemicals, machine tools, trucks, and so on. Sutton, himself a denier of Jewish political involvement in the Soviet Union and victim of the Patriot Ideology, notes with curiosity at the fact that most-to-all of the contracts between the Soviet Union and these western businessmen were broken, and resulted in Soviet seizure of western-built plants, kidnapping of technical experts, and in non-payment. Despite all of this, the businessmen continued to make contracts with the Soviet government, even though there was no indication from past behavior that they would honor their agreements, indicating that they apparently did not mind getting nothing in return for their efforts. Yet more curious is the fact that only Julius and Armand Hammer, Jewish businessmen from the United States -- Armand Hammer would go on to be the President and CEO of Occidental Petroleum -- were allowed to keep and export their profits from their deals with the Soviet government. Other businessmen were not treated with such consideration from the Soviet planners. In fact, their debts to British banks were paid off by the Gosplan and on their way out of the USSR, they were even given a handful of the Tsar's treasures, which they used to start Hammer Galleries back in New York. One wonders why such a sweet deal was given to them alone.[21]

Walter Duranty was a New York Times journalist, who was born in Britain, moved to the Soviet Union and there became a correspondent for the American paper. His writings on the Soviet Union in the early 1930s were some of the foundational documents in building the official worldview of upper-crust Americans, especially considering he and Averell Harriman had a personal correspondence. Harriman floated around various offices and positions in his lifetime, in the Department of Commerce, Department of State, as ambassador to the UK, to the USSR, and so on. In addition he was an early contributor to Soviet Russia's industrialization and was one of the western voices proclaiming that the USSR was "there to stay". As counsel to FDR he never failed to advocate for Soviet interests. Duranty essentially regurgitated Stalinist propaganda back through the New York Times, glossing over and actively denying notions of famine or state terror in the time of the forced collectivization of Soviet agriculture.[48] At this time, Soviet State Terror and the expurgation of bourgeois elements within that country were in full swing. Duranty infamously remarked on this that one "couldn't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs." The New York Times, which has been handed down from the Jewish Ochs family through the Sulzberger family for four generations now, was still a prestigious paper in forming a socially common consensus. Although influence within the newspaper business has been boiled down to a few giants today (Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times), the New York Times was still influential back then also, and so Duranty's reporting on the Soviet Union provided the baseline in the US for respectable opinions on Communism.

Samuel Dickstein, a Lithuanian Jew born in Vilnius, came to New York in the late 1880s and would go on to become a Democrat congressman for New York state. As New York congressman he was part of the Tammany Hall political machine and in 1934 became chair of the House of Un-American Activities Committee, where he and a few other congressmen would root out supposedly subversive political activities. By subversive, of course, this would be from the perspective of a Jew and a Communist advancing the interests of the Jewish political community. In 1999 the release of Soviet archives revealed that Samuel Dickstein was an NKVD agent in his political career and, as such, his 'anti-fascist' activities had more to do with protecting Communism and Jewish interests than with fighting Fascism in America.[49], [50] That is to say, those whom he labeled Fascists in his crusade on Un-American Activities were simply the enemies of the Jewish axis of world politics.

John McCloy, the man who would go on to become Chairman of the CFR, President of the World Bank, and US Ambassador to West Germany, spent his career as a young man in various Wall Street law firms, where he would befriend the Kuhns, Loebs, and Warburgs, prominent Jewish banking families, and through them, the Rockefeller family. He became so well-acquainted with the Rockefellers that he was eventually picked to be the chairman of Chase bank. He was also one of the original members of the OSS. Due to this impeccable pedigree, he's been given the name "Mr. Establishment". In the 1930s, he was given a tipoff by young Rockefeller about the Black Tom Affair in WWI, an incident involving German saboteurs trying to blow up American munitions supplies in 1916. Evidently Rockefeller thought that this would be the best use of his time at the moment, given the terrible economic situation. McCloy dove into this incident, chasing cold cases and building up a dossier of German intelligence operating in America. He became known as the "go to" man for anything involving German infiltration in America and this predictably colored his worldview such that defeating Germany, whether in war or peace, became high on his list of priorities. He began his role in the Black Tom Affair litigation in 1934 and as he gathered more and more data on German intelligence activities in the US, he become a more vocal lobbyist within his elite social circle for the necessity of containing and neutralizing Germany. As the premier Rockefeller-Warburg-Kuhn-Loeb Gentile anti-German, McCloy was chosen as a consultant to the 1940 Roosevelt War Department. As consultant and effective under-secretary to Henry Stimson, he lobbied the president, who himself hardly needed any convincing, on both the necessity of American entry into the war and of the necessity of material superiority over the enemy.[1] With Henry Stimson and Henry Morgenthau, McCloy helped to draft the Lend-Lease bill, writing and re-writing amendments in response to objections from various anti-war senators, using his skill as a lawyer to change the wording of the amendments but not the substance. He was successful in drafting a presentable version of the bill, which then passed at a ratio of 2:1; the USG would now officially be the Arsenal of Democracy.

Though the timeline given above covers quite a broad and as-of-yet unconnected range of events, it nevertheless displays a tendency within the upper-crust of American society, a tendency which is little known to us now but more than well-known to non-Anglophile Americans of that time. That tendency was implicit or explicit support for Soviet Communism; the wealthiest people of American society supported it and this fact was not lost on the terrified middle class Americans. Word had come back from the East, in spite of Mr. Duranty, that horrors beyond imagination were being perpetrated by the Oriental slave-masters. White Russian emigres had escaped to Germany and told their stories[9], many Catholic priests and writers attuned to the atheistic revolution and assembled their tables of Jewish commissars[44], and immigrants like L. Fry, who fled the revolution, spent their time warning people like Henry Ford of the Jewish terror in Russia.[51] She wrote her book "Waters Flowing Eastward" which was published in 1931 and had a global and formative influence on right wing ideologies of all stripes.

Judaism and Communism became synonyms in the minds of right-wing Americans. They heard of the state terror in the Soviet Union, the majority of Jews in the Soviet government[44], -- which fact, for the record, was acknowledged at the time both by Jews, Gentiles and philo-semitic Gentiles like Winston Churchill alike -- they remembered how the Jewish community bragged in the 1920s of how a new paradise was being created in Russia[52], and they saw their president Roosevelt surrounded by Jewish advisors, Bernard Baruch, Herbert Lehman, Henry Morgenthau and Felix Frankfurter. They saw this elite corps supporting the Soviet Union and gradually trying to impose the same thing at home with the New Deal. Although they could not agree on everything, right-wing Americans, or rather Americans of the Organic persuasion rather than the Rationalist persuasion, could agree that they did not support Communism. But outside of that point their similarities were tenuous. Some saw the New Deal, FDR, Judaism and Communism as a combined assault on Capitalism, the basis of Western Civilization. Others saw it as an assault on Christendom, or on Germany. They were united by what they opposed, and this union created by mutual opposition formed the spiritual center of the America First movement: the refusal to fight for Communism.

One can fairly easily see that the schism within America First traced the demarcation of Free Enterprise. On the one side there the traditional Old Right Republicans, whose opposition to Communism and the Jewish political community they considered identical with their support for the Free Enterprise system. On the other side were the Catholics, Lutherans, and Populists, whose opposition to Communism and the Jewish political community was as equally important to them as their opposition to the unfettered market system and banker royalism. In fact to them, these ostensibly disparate things, Communism and Monopoly Capital, were all but appendages of the same political body. These two factions however, the Old Right and the Populist Right, were locked into a Schmittian conflict, in which Jewish power had asserted its interests in direct conflict with theirs; the New Dealers sought a reorganization of American society in the egalitarian Rationalist vision and one could either resist or be subsumed into the plan.

One might think that there would have been ample room for crossover between the Populist Right and the New Dealers, but their priorities contradicted in important ways: the Populist Right sought monetary and banking reform and sovereign control over finance while the New Dealers sought to use the existing institutions of the country as they were to bring about an industrial democracy. In other words, one sought to excise the economy of financial rent-seekers but otherwise let things be and the other sought to socially and economically engineer American society toward a new vision; one wanted to fix the system, the other wanted to be the system. One aspect of this can be seen in the fact that Roosevelt's Secretary of Treasury Henry Morgenthau was, for all his New Dealer credentials, still very much an adherent of monetary orthodoxy. It was Morgenthau who talked Roosevelt into reducing the deficit in 1937, which brought about the recession of the same year.[6] Morgenthau's positions reveal the true nature of the New Deal: labor politics against bosses, but within the constraints of an economy choked by financial interests. This, in contradistinction to the Populist Right who were calling for a sovereign labor-backed currency, in which case the money supply would be measured simply by money supply rather than by budget deficits, and the deficit would cease to be a monetary consideration. In other words, a genuinely populist Treasury Department would have no qualm with bringing the money supply up to its appropriate level. This is of course an over-simplification and there was indeed crossover between these two movements regarding their economic vision for the country, especially as it pertained to the farmers, but their difference in outlook on banking privileges, on man's relationship to God, on Jewish power and on foreign policy made them irreconcilable enemies.

The Populist Right of the 1930s have been all but excised from the modern understanding of American history, which seems to consistently boil down to a dichotomy between Roosevelt and the Economic Royalists. They're excised until recently, now that TV shows about the Lindbergh family and the specter of American Nazism are being produced, their corpses are exhumed to put the defiers of Jewish power on an apologetic back foot. Though it may seem that they were merely conspiracy theorists, as they're now characterized, this is indicative, more than anything else, of the false historical consciousness of Modern Man. That they were serious people and represented a serious threat to the New Dealers is made apparent by the pains which Roosevelt went to in order to crush them.

Roosevelt's war with the Right began in earnest over the Airmail Scandal of 1934, in which the president cancelled all contracts with the private airliners to deliver mail and delegated this task to the Army Air Corps. Lindbergh wrote a letter to the president complaining of the unfairness of this policy to the airline companies and speaking on the importance of the airmail programs patronage to the country's aviation resources. This letter was published in the press as well and Lindbergh's plea made the president look bad. Normally, the people would have been indifferent to big airline companies losing out on some money, but Charles Lindbergh was the country's greatest aviator and a national hero. Not only that, but his baby had been stolen two years prior and was found dead later on in the same year. So Lindbergh had the country's sympathy and admiration. Roosevelt could not stand to be made too look foolish or unpopular and, upon reading the letter, grumbled to his press secretary Stephen Early, "Don't worry about Lindbergh. We will get that fair-haired boy."[5]

Shortly after the letter, New York Republican Hamilton Fish involved himself in the Lindbergh-Roosevelt feud. A definite Old Right Republican, Fish came from an American aristocratic family of New York City and was a congressman for New York for over 20 years, his career ending with the election campaign of 1944. For all his years of service he was a stalwart defender of free enterprise, and outspoken opponent of Jewish political influence, Communism and the New Deal. Furthermore, he chaired a committee investigating Communist infiltration in 1931, during which time he distributed German anti-communist pamphlets which made clear the Jewish nature of the Communist threat, which he would be made to apologize for later in his career.[5], [6] There is no doubt, however, that Fish could see clearly Schmittian nature of the Communism Question, i.e. that the lines were drawn between Jews and their collaborators and non-internationalist Gentiles. Fish requested to have Lindbergh's letter of complaint inserted into the Congressional Record, so as to keep an artifact illustrating Roosevelt's dictatorial impositions on commerce for all posterity, but was opposed by Democratic majority leader Joseph Byrnes. Their disagreement nearly escalated into a fistfight. Though this incident may appear to be of no consequence, it drew a line in the sand and certainly aggravated Roosevelt's pride. He had to be the most popular man in the room and he would contend bitterly with whomever denied him that which he saw as his god-given right. Fish and Lindbergh were now on the Roosevelt blacklist. Lindbergh would leave the country in the following year as the stress of his child's kidnapping and the media circus surrounding it would put too great a strain on his psyche, but he would return in 1939 to lobby to keep America out of the war.

Fish and Lindbergh represented the aristocratic Old Right wing of the New Deal's enemies, but what of their poorer, more ethnic Populist cousins? These evidently were considered just as great a threat and Roosevelt was more disposed to take action against them because the political cost would be lower. He could not openly attack Lindbergh because his popularity was so great that he would only make himself look the villain in doing so. In fact, before the war started, Roosevelt offered to invent a new cabinet and make Lindbergh the Secretary of the Air if he would just stop lobbying against American entry into the war. Against the Populists, however, Roosevelt would have a free hand in acting, as there was little chance the newspapers would cover them with as much defensiveness as they did with America's Favorite Aviator, Charles Lindbergh.

There is perhaps nowhere more perfect to commit a deadly crime than in the swamps of Louisiana, which so happened to be both the geographic heart of the Rockefeller family's oil wealth and the home of bona fide Populist politician Huey "Kingfish" Long. Long somehow managed, in one of the most miraculous feats of politics of all time, to build a political coalition representing the peoples' interests in the state of Louisiana, right in the Rockefeller's backyard. He did this by elevating bribery and deal-sweetening to an art-form and soon built a political machine solely dependent on his charisma for its goodies. As both Senator and Governor of Louisiana, he instituted universal welfare programs, spent on infrastructure, and openly castigated Standard Oil for fixing state politics in its own favor. In doing so he not only drew the ire of the Rockefeller family, but also the ire of the presidential cabinet, as they complained that only half the funds allotted to his governorship were used for infrastructure spending. What they were really complaining about, however, was the fact that he was using federal funds to maintain his own independent political power. Eventually this would come to a head and Roosevelt took action against Huey Long's patronage networks and sent special anti-corruption police down to Louisiana to wreck the Kingfish machine. In 1933, Roosevelt put a ban on patronage networks in Louisiana and awarded more jobs programs to Long's political opponents (John Sullivan, Edward Rightor, and John M. Parker) and criticized his governorship, in an attempt to squeeze him out of the state.[54] He was not only squeezed by the Federal Government but attacked by newspapers organized by the Morgan and Rockefeller business lobbies. Although none of this would completely work, there was a more final solution to the Long problem: Huey Long was assassinated in 1935. The circumstances surrounding his death were murky and he never had the opportunity to speak out on Roosevelt's foreign policy commitments, as he died before they became relevant. We can be confident, however, that whatever causes received the support of the international financiers, they would receive skepticism in equal measure from Huey Long. As if to retroactively nip that hypothetical question in the bud, the writers at National Review make sure our minds are made up in the right direction. Just as the good name of Agrarian People's Champ Tom Watson could not be allowed to survive, so too must Long's be dragged through the mud. Ellen Carmichael of National Review writes in her 2019 article, with the accusations of Implicit Fascism on full display:

"The myth of Long’s assassination is just one in a long line of tales meant to lionize the former governor and U.S. senator, painting over his lengthy track record of corruption and brutality in his pursuit for power. Huey P. Long, historian Arthur Schlesinger explained in a 1986 Ken Burns documentary about the populist politician, was the closest thing to a dictator the U.S. has ever seen.

It’s a mistake to regard Huey Long as an ideological figure, a man committed to a program,” Schlesinger said. “I think Huey Long’s great passion was for power and money, and he stole a lot of money and accumulated a lot of power and destroyed all those who got in the way of these two ambitions."[43]

In 1942, Father Coughlin, a Detroit-based Catholic Priest who did a magazine and radio show called Social Justice, was shut down by Roosevelt. Social Justice railed against the Anglophilic and Jewish banking elite and their Communist servants. Roosevelt could not tolerate such an outspoken opponent. He and his Attorney General Francis Biddle pulled strings first with the Postmaster General to stop all mailing service to and from Father Coughlin. Then he pleaded Henry Morgenthau to try and bust him on tax evasion but Morgenthau was afraid of how it would look if he, a Jew, busted the anti-banker firebrand on phony charges. Finally Roosevelt found a connection to the Archbishop of Coughlin's bishopric, Edward Mooney, whom he persuaded to shut down Coughlin's show. Mooney could use the threat of defrocking to twist his arm into quitting the show and Coughlin eventually succumbed to this pressure.[6] Coughlin was a friend of Father Denis Fahey, with whom he shared similar beliefs on banking, and the secret influence of Britain and Jewry in world affairs. Fahey wrote The Rulers of Russia which was an early and important document in exposing the preponderance of Jewish governorship in the Soviet Union.

Other Populist Right figures such as Elizabeth Dilling, William Pelley and Lawrence Dennis were indicted but ultimately released in the Sedition Trials. George Christians of the Christian White Shirts was indicted of demoralizing the troops and convicted for five years. Poet and radio broadcaster Ezra Pound, once he was captured in Fascist Italy, was imprisoned and then held at a mental hospital until 1958.[55] His crime was giving radio shows for American troops trying to convince them not to fight the war against Germany. All these and others were the casualties and the fizzling out of the anti-bank, anti-war right-wing movement in the United States and with the end of the war came the death of Organic political forms. The America Firsters and the Populist Right were wiped out by the war if not by Pearl Harbor, and National Socialism died with the Third Reich. Moreover, the German critique of Communism, which is that it was but an instrument of Jewish supremacism, also died. while the American critique of Communism, which is that it is a Jewish antithesis of Capitalism, remained. The critique of the banking system, which had been married now by proxy to anti-Semitism or Nazi sympathizing, could no longer be a rallying point for the alienated many and fell into the murk of historical defeat. The German mode of politics which recognized politics as a struggle between races with irreconcilable interests, gave way to the American mode of politics, which saw politics as the struggle between ideologies. The Germans opposed Communism because it was a Rationalistic stricture being imposed on society, and because its true nature, they believed, was that it was a mere pretext for decapitating and then burning down Gentile societies, first killing its spiritual and political leaders and then grinding the remains into meat in the global revolution. The true essence of Communism could be seen in the Massacre of the Katyn Forest, in which all of Poland's officers, which were aristocrats and intellectuals, were slaughtered. Americans, whether cynically or in good faith, opposed Communism because it was the self-purported enemy of the Free Enterprise system; all political reality, apparently, could be reduced to this binary struggle between rule by Commissariat and rule by Financier.This global shift in political consciousness would have disastrous results for the working people of the entire world.

When the war ended, and even long before it ended, there were internal tensions within the American elite over what to do with Soviet Russia. Some tried to form a separate peace with Germany so as not to give Europe over to the Soviets, while some remained committed to Roosevelt's policy of Unconditional Surrender, which guaranteed that the Soviets would come into possession of at least half of Europe.[6], [56] Those that wanted to keep the Soviets out of Europe (and out of Asia as well) became the core of them that would be known as Cold Warriors.
III. The Red Scare

During the Second World War and in the immediate aftermath, a schism emerged in the American elite. Military and industrial elites, as well as normal patriotic Americans, saw something very strange happening in the wake of their victory: communists were infiltrating the highest levels of the American state, and they were getting support from the inside. Not only were they getting support from the inside, but those insiders were the wealthiest people on the planet. The Rockefeller family and their associates, through the tax-exempt foundations and the Institute for Pacific Relations were attempting to facilitate a merger between the United States and the Soviet Union, and Global Communism generally. This meant giving a constant flow of the most sensitive intelligence to Soviet agents, including America's atomic secrets. Communist sympathizers from wealthy Eastern Establishment families and Hollywood actors and producers were all leaking intelligence to the East and protecting each other from the consequences. The character of the patriotic Americans and their protestations, in trying to sound the alarm on this infiltration, took on a frantic character, as the media, of course owned by the very same pro-Communist Eastern Establishment elite, of the country scoffed and rolled their eyes. A core of alienated patriots would emerge from this experience, armed with the knowledge that the country was being destroyed from the inside out but the media was silencing the alarm bells they were setting off, knowing there was only one option: to go underground, form a state within the state and to take independent action, without the peoples' recognition, applause or consent, to save the country from Communism. In reacting as they did to the postwar situation, however, they committed a fundamental error: they made a miscategorization of their enemy. This error, this miscategorization, would have such disastrous consequences that it would bring about the very thing these Cold Warriors sought to prevent. Their inability to articulate what they were seeing correctly, their failure to properly classify the threat, whether it was made in good faith or not, sent them down a path in which their victories and defeats were equally doomed, equally pointless. We shall now bear witness to the tragic struggle of the vigilant postwar American.

During this period from 1945 onto the medium-term future, the Rockefeller family formed both the core of the American mechanisms promoting Communism on the one hand and its reaction in the Cold Warriors. In the promotion of these contradictory goals, the Rockefeller's funded and directed, to some degree or another, the Institute of Pacific Relations, the United Nations, the Rockefeller and Ford foundations, the Council on Foreign Relations, the American Security Council and the Central Intelligence Agency, among other things.

The Institute of Pacific Relations, an influential Rockefeller think-tank seeking to promote political Rationalism in all the countries of the Pacific Ocean (the Soviet Union included), was known to be completely infiltrated with Soviets, American Communists, and representatives of Chinese Communist interests. Owen Lattimore, editor of the IPR journal Pacific Affairs and advisor to the president on the China Question, was revealed to be a Soviet spy. In Elizabeth Bentley's testimony to the Internal Security Hearings she said that her NKVD handler Jacob Golos recommended against working with people from the IPR because it was "red as a rose, and [that] you shouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole."[22] Harry Dexter White, whose real surname was "Weiss" but was changed to avoid being identified as Jewish, was an official in the Morgenthau Treasury Department and influential member of the IPR. White was in fact the person who had drafted the set of ultimatums presented to the Japanese diplomats by Secretary of State Cordell Hull in 1941, which were so unreasonable as to antagonize the Japanese into severing Japanese-American relations, leading directly to Pearl Harbor.[10] This, which did more than anything to bring America into the war, would ruin both the America First movement and the Kuo Min Tang's chances of defeating Communism. Jerome D. Greene, a wealthy banker and board member on the Royal Institute for International Affairs (the British CFR), Council on Foreign Relations, Rockefeller Foundation, and Rockefeller General Education Board, was also the man who wrote the constitution for the Institute of Pacific Relations and was its Chairman for a number of years. The connections between the Soviet Union and the IPR are too many to mention, but let it suffice to say here that the Rockefeller-IPR-Soviet connection was the heart of Anglo-American Communism.[16]

The United Nations was founded after the end of the war and was made possible by the Rockefeller family's donation of real estate for the headquarters. Soon after its founding, it would be used in an attempt to transfer America's atomic secrets to the Soviet Union. Bernard Baruch, fantastically wealthy Jewish banker, war advisor to the president and industry Czar in WWI, was the US' representative to the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission (UNAEC) and he proposed a plan in which the knowledge of atomic weaponry would become property of this transnational commission, to be shared openly between the US and the USSR. Three of the first five members of the AEC were Jewish (David Lilienthal, Lewis Strauss, Robert Bacher). In addition, Robert Oppenheimer, one of the Jewish atomic physicists, was a consultant to these, all of which can be taken to mean that the AEC was directed by a Jewish consensus.[19], [14] Of course, this idea of a Jewish banker giving the Soviet Union America's most powerful and hard-won weapon didn't pass the sniff test and the proposal collapsed, as did the UNAEC several years later. The spirit of the proposal, however, did not stop there: Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, two Jewish Americans were caught handing over America's atomic secrets to the Soviet Union years later, whereupon they were convicted of treason and executed. Throughout the Nuclear Ownership saga one could clearly see Rockefeller designs moving hand in glove with Jewish physicists, who apparently thought that the atom bomb was the exclusive property of the Jewish people, to be used only at their discretion.

As the suspicions of infiltration heated up in the supposed peace years, from feeding intelligence and support to the Chinese communists to giving away the atomic secrets freely, greater attention was given to the Communism Question in the United States, and the eye of scrutiny scanned everywhere, including the precious Rockefeller Tax-Exempt Foundations. These foundations were the vessel of much of the Rockefeller wealth and, depending on who you ask, were founded to be tax havens for the five brothers, to be a vehicle of philanthropy and the promotion of scientific discovery, or to be a vehicle of social engineering and scientific conformity and consolidation. Carroll Reece, Tennessee congressman, opened up a committee in 1953 investigating these foundations because they conspicuously and reliably produced pro-Soviet social research. Renee Wormser, a contemporary Cold Warrior, would write a book called Foundations: Their Influence and Power several years later, condensing the findings of the committee and explaining the foundations' activities. The Reece Committee did indeed find that these Rockefeller funded foundations produced social science research with a distinct bent in favor of internationalism, public education, rationalism, the Soviet Union, socialism, and cultural relativism. Renee Wormser, as a Cold Warrior, focused on the defense of Free Enterprise in his book, believing that to be the main prong of the Rockefeller offensive, and so his book Foundations focuses more on the foundations' pro-internationalism and pro-socialism research findings.[26] There is no doubt from Foundations and the Reece Committee findings that the Tax-Exempt foundations, funding pro-Soviet Social Science was priming the American people for a Soviet-American World State. His critique contains some useful insights, one being that the foundations, as the most well-endowed patrons of social science research in the world, set the tone and pace for the field at large. These foundations formed a consensus of respectability and projected a leader-follower effect on the social science world at large; if one hoped to get a grant, one would point one's scientific attentions in the direction most often favored by these institutions. In this way the Rockefeller family gained something of a monopoly on scientific consensus. The two things keeping Wormser's book from obtaining a complete prescience are obvious in retrospect but would have been impossible for him to see at the time. For one, Wormser did not note that, as the world's wealthiest Capitalists and main patrons of anti-Capitalist thought, they would be able to mold and predict political anti-capitalism with ease. What better way for the first American family of Monopoly Capital to maintain its power than by acquiring a monopoly on leftist politics? For the second, Wormser focused too much on the Committee's findings regarding economics and not enough regarding culture, for which the evidence was ample. With the clarity of hindsight, we can see that the Rockefeller family's army of researchers have transformed our society far more with the propagation of feminist, multicultural and internationalist ideology than with state-socialist ideology. Indeed the cultural transformation effected by the mercenary intellectual class, supposedly Communists or fellow travelers, has perhaps done more than anything else to bring about the total subjugation of Western Man to market forces. With women repurposed essentially as sexless males, with nations repurposed as mere economic zones, and with culture repurposed as an instrument for rectifying the plethora of liberal racial grievances, all of these things repurposed as things with no inherent qualities of their own, western man has nothing standing between him and the all-seeing, all-calculating eye of market forces. Structurally deprived of the institutions of family, locality, particularity and culturality, society takes its faceless form in the homogenized monoculture of global consumerism.

So much for the Rockefeller's involvement in bringing about the merger between the United States and the Soviet Union. Its activities in the IPR, the UN, and the Tax-Exempt Foundations make clear its designs, which were even confessed in David Rockefeller's memoirs:

"For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as "internationalists" and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure -- one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."[18]

The Rockefeller lobby was indeed at the tip of the spear for bringing about the global merger after the war, but it was not the only party. Whittaker Chambers, a disgruntled American writer-editor and covert Communist, came forward in 1948 with a testimony of Communist infiltration in the highest levels of government. It was the Chambers and Bentley hearings which first revealed the subversive activities of the IPR and that Harry White was a Soviet agent.[3] This drama on the national stage included Joe McCarthy, Richard Nixon, who eventually came to develop an accurate picture of the American political situation, and a young Roy Cohn, who would be a founding member of the American Jewish Anti-Communist League (which fact will become important later on).[28]

Carroll Quigley, author of the definitive history of the 20th century, Tragedy and Hope, notes how these patriotic-type Americans (we shall refer to them as a group as Patriots) were right on some things and wrong on others. The Patriots were right in that they were most definitely witnessing a covert operation of Jews and Gentile internationalists to bring about world government by a merger between the United States and the Soviet Union:

"The two ends of this English-speaking axis have sometimes been called, perhaps facetiously, the English and American Establishments. There is, however, a considerable degree of truth behind the joke, a truth which reflects a very real power structure. It is this power structure which the ... Right in the United States has been attacking for years in the belief that they are attacking the Communists. This is particularly true when these attacks are directed, as they so frequently are at "Harvard Socialism," or at "Left-wing newspapers" like The New York Times and the Washington Post, or at foundations and their dependent establishments, such as the Institute of International Education.

These misdirected attacks by the ... Right did much to confuse the American people in the period 1948-1955, and left consequences which were still significant a decade later. By the end of 1953, most of these attacks had run their course. The American people, thoroughly bewildered at widespread charges of twenty years of treason and subversion, had rejected the Democrats and put into the White House the Republican Party's traditional favorite ... Dwight D. Eisenhower. At the time, two events, one public and one secret, were still in process. The public one was the Korean War of 1950-1953; the secret one was the race for the thermonuclear bomb.


The chief aims of this elaborate, semi-secret organization were ... to coordinate the international activities and outlooks of all the English-speaking world into one (which would largely, it is true, be that of the London group); to work to ... help backward, colonial, and underdeveloped areas to advance toward stability, law and order, and prosperity along lines somewhat similar to those taught at Oxford and the University of London (especially the School of Economics and the Schools of African and Oriental Studies).


It was this group of people, whose wealth and influence so exceeded their experience and understanding, who provided much of the framework of influence which the Communist sympathizers and fellow travelers took over in the United States in the 1930's. It must be recognized that the power that these energetic Left-wingers exercised was never their own power or Communist power but was ultimately the power of the international financial coterie, and, once the anger and suspicions of the American people were aroused, as they were by 1950, it was a fairly simple matter to get rid of the Red sympathizers.

Before this could be done, however, a congressional committee, following backward to their source the threads which led from admitted Communists like Whittaker Chambers, through Alger Hiss, and the Carnegie Endowment to Thomas Lamont and the Morgan Bank, fell into the whole complicated network of the interlocking tax-exempt foundations. The Eighty-third Congress in July 1953 set up a Special Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations with Representative B. Carroll Reece, of Tennessee, as chairman. It soon became clear that people of immense wealth would be unhappy if the investigation went too far and that the "most respected" newspapers in the country, closely allied with these men of wealth, would not get excited enough about any revelations to make the publicity worth while, in terms of votes or campaign contributions. An interesting report showing the Left-wing associations of the interlocking nexus of tax-exempt foundations was issued in 1954 rather quietly. Four years later, the Reece committee's general counsel, Rene A. Wormser, wrote a shocked, but not shocking, book on the subject called Foundations: Their Power and Influence."[16]

Quigley purports to be an insider of this secret clique and does so quite plausibly, considering that he has been an Harvard and Princeton Graduate, Consultant to the Department of Defense and U.S. Navy, Georgetown University professor, and personal mentor to POTUS Bill Clinton. He says that they were right in what they had identified an enemy but wrong in how they categorized it. They concluded incorrectly that the Rockefeller foundations, the Jews, and the Harvard Socialists were all committed Communists when in fact they were committed Globalists, the Soviet Union and Chinese Communism merely being the predicates for a more perfect Globalism. The Patriots saw that they were agents of the Soviet Union and Communist China and incorrectly, if understandably, concluded ipso-facto that they were Communists. They were not. Their designs to empower the Soviet Union and bring it up to nuclear parity with the United States was merely a step on the way to bringing about World Government. In other words, Soviet Union qua Soviet Union had no value to them. Quigley's only mistake here is one crucial omission: that at the heart of this elite clique of internationalists, there was another circle within the circle, of Jewish power within Internationalist power, which had interests that it did not share with Gentile Internationalism.

In the 1930s, Americans opposed Communism because it was Jewish. In the 1950s Americans opposed Jews because they were Communists. The corollary of this is that, if they were not Communist, then they were friends. The Cold Warriors inability or perhaps hesitation to identify Jewish power as an enemy force was an error whose gravity would only accumulate. The Cold Warriors, living in the shadow of National Socialism's defeat and thus in the prohibition of a National Socialist worldview, were permitted by their sense of social decency only to identify enemies by whatever ideology they subscribed to, leaving their enemies free to change their ideologies willy-nilly, whenever it suited them. Wormser notes, with a tone of bewilderment, that the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, the main lobby for Jewish interests, ridiculed the congressmen carrying out the investigations of the Reece Committee:

"This Committee has even been attacked by foundations which it has not investigated in any detail. Several such attacks, for example, have been launched by the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, one appearing in its October, 1954, Bulletin , which begins by announcing — before the completion of our investigation, that it has failed. The lengthy article refers to the Committee members and staff as "actors” in a "charade," and refers to the witnesses called by the Committee as "a strange group." It is replete with vituperation and prejudges in vicious manner before the publishing of a report upon which alone any final judgment of this Committee's work could be made. The concluding sentence of the article is: "Its failure as a Congressional investigation is a great victory for the American people,” There can be no possible justification for such an attack by a tax exempt organization in the course of a Congressional investigation."[26]

Going by the Cold Warrior hermeneutic of politics, Wormser had no way of understanding why these Jews would ridicule the investigating congressmen, since they were not Communists. Why would a practicing Jew excoriate an American representative for investigating Gentile Internationalist subversive activities? The postwar American, optimistic, humanistic and universalistic in his worldview, was unfortunately ill-equipped to understand.

The experience of these Patriots in the 1940s and '50s, wherein they tried to shed light on the infiltration but were ignored and ridiculed by the press as paranoiacs and bigots, was for them a revelation. In their perspective, with the media on the side of the Communists, there would be no way to alert mass society to the threat, and no way to let the sunshine of truth in and burn the darkness away. There was no clearing that the sunshine could reach, just thick jungle canopy until the ends of the earth. This revelation caused a hardening of the soul. When one realizes that the powers of secrecy control the flow of information, there's no choice but to fight fire with fire and adopt the ways of secrecy oneself. This is what the Cold Warriors did. They hardened, darkened, and turned to themselves to form a state-within-a-state, that would be loyal to themselves only and ruthlessly dedicated to rooting out Communism at home and abroad. Believing themselves to be undermined constantly and irreversibly by Communism, they wanted to kick off the nuclear apocalypse as quickly as possible, "rip the band-aid off", so to speak, and rebuild from the ashes of victory. If only they knew what their enemy really was (and they were close!), they could have used the tools of surgery rather than eschatology.

This state-within-a-state was manifest in several different groups but this paper will focus mainly on the American Security Council and the John Birch Society.The American Security Council was founded by Robert Wood, president of Sears-Roebuck, with the help of Curtis LeMay, who was an high-ranking officer of the Air Force before it was the Air Force. In those days the Air Force was the Army Air Corps and by the end of the Second World War it operated practically as a separate entity from the US Army, thus the split between the two. LeMay served as commander of the Strategic Air Command, a kind of military division cum think-tank with access to nuclear weapons, and served as the basis of the Cold Warrior policies toward the Soviet Union, among which was the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction. As high-ranking Air Force general and leader of Strategic Air Command from 1948 to 1957, LeMay was as wary of Communist infiltration as any conservative could be and helped to found the American Security Council with General Douglas MacArthur, which was really more of an evolution from an handful of other organizations founded with the help of Texas oil barons Sid Richardson and Clint Murchison, General Albert Wedemeyer, Robert Wood, and Senator Joseph McCarthy. The SAC and ASC had a strong mutual overlap, being that they were made up of Air Force men -- the Air Force leadership was home to the most zealous anti-Communists in the military -- and China hawks. The reason this handful of men was so steadfast in their efforts to pull together their state-within-a-state was that, as military men in the Pacific Theater (Wedemeyer, LeMay, MacArthur) they had seen first-hand the way that Communist infiltration had delivered the Chinese mainland from the Kuomintang right into the hands of the Communists. They thought that the US government was filled with Soviet spies and that President Roosevelt was giving everything away to Stalin, and they were right.

On the civilian side of this clique, Texas oil barons Murchison and Richardson wined and dined a particular social circle of conservative politicians and celebrities at their Hotel Del Charro, which came to be known as the inebriated nucleus of anti-Communist feeling. McCarthy was among the honored guests for a time, though he was eventually asked to leave on account of his consistent and drunken belligerence. Here was where J. Edgar Hoover, Murchison and a young Richard Nixon would discuss what to do about Communism while the movie actor John Wayne jumped off the diving board.

The cluster of prototype groups around these figures gave MacArthur an unsuccessful bid for presidency in 1952. By this time, McCarthy's castigating and interrogating of suspected Communists on TV had made the whole Patriot circle appear too distasteful. By then only the Americans with the stomach for proverbial blood could stand behind men like MacArthur. McCarthy would meet his downfall two years later when, in interrogating Joseph Welch, he was famously met with the response "Have you no sense of decency, sir!"; Welch's retort summarized the feelings of the literati, who felt it a bit tacky to have to prove their loyalty to the United States on television to this Wisconsin drunkard. Though there was still momentum in his campaign of denunciations, he was already a polarizing figure by the 1952 election.

With the failure of the MacArthur presidential bid, the American Security Council ditched electoral politics and became a powerful lobby group within the U.S. Government in favor of any anti-Communist policy, which entailed domestic and economic policy just as much as foreign policy. The ASC would become something of a lightning rod for industrial magnates seeking a way to funnel their fortunes toward anti-Communist causes. It lobbied, supported, and donated uncritically to anti-Communist causes throughout the globe, regardless of how paper-thin the pretexts were. This meant that, if CIA agents in Latin America, representing American business interests, could paint organizing labor unions or organizing peasants as Soviet Communists, they would have carte blanche support from the ASC and affiliated groups in taking action against them. One of the most conspicuous examples of this was the case of Cuba, where both Murchison and Richardson patronized Cuba hawks like Lyndon B. Johnson. A culture of anti-Communism led by American businessmen evolved out of this circle that extended down through the decades until the breakup of the Soviet Union itself. To summarize, the ASC has accurately been labeled by many Old Left types (like Oliver Stone) as the center of the "Military-Industrial Complex".

The civilian component of the American Security Council was the John Birch Society, founded by Robert W. Welch, a businessman who'd made his fortune in the candy industry. Welch named the society after a Christian missionary in China whose location had been supposedly been given up to the enemy by traitors high up in the American state, and who then was martyred for the American cause of anti-Communism in China. The John Birch Society published books, hired lecturers and essentially became a public-facing lobby group for anti-Communism, although it started out as a much more secretive organization. The JBS would become home to a particular strand of anti-Establishment politics, much like the Populists of the previous century, in that it identified the anglophile banking clique as the masters of foreign policy, but diametrically opposite in that they militantly opposed any attempts to legislate any authority over that clique, paradoxically and syllogistically identifying it as Communistic and therefore, by reason of that quality, a tool of the banking clique. In a stupendous feat of circular reasoning, their opposition to the banks gave birth to their ideology which prohibited them from effectively contradicting the banks. This odd and short-circuited reasoning process would come to define JBS and its libertarian offspring, and thus alienate entire generations of working class people from anti-Establishment politics. The next and final section of this paper will look at the JBS among other groups, at its evolution, its patrons, and how its style of politics has changed the political discourse in America for the worse.

IV. The Patriot Ideology Industry

While the Cold Warriors crystallized into a state-within-a-state, many other things were happening in the world. In 1952, eleven Jews were hanged in Prague. This incident would reverberate throughout the global Jewish political community. It initiated an internal shift, away from Stalin and toward the United States as the vector of the political project of Global Rationalism. This would be the well-known sublimation of Trotskyism into Neoconservatism. In addition, the American huckster spirit was alive and well, both in the petit-bourgeois, seeking to sink their hooks onto the craggy rockface of the American class ascent, and in those American fortunes already long-since established. Over time, these forces would unfold and wed with the Cold Warrior shadow-state to bring about the total victory of the pseudo-morphology over the morphology within American Conservatism; the total perversion and inversion of American patriotism, rededicated toward the fulfillment of goals diametrically opposite to those of its originating sprouts. This final victory would sink deep into the American political consciousness and condemn it to a life of pointless battles, battles which, as it regarded the interests of the common American citizen, were lost, no matter who won.

In November of 1952, thirteen Jewish Soviets in the Czech Socialist Republic were indicted and eleven of them were hanged. Not even four months later, Joseph Stalin was dead. Francis Parker Yockey correctly recognized in his article "What is Behind the Hanging of the Eleven Jews in Prague" that the alignment of the global Jewish political community had shifted.[27] Barely even looking at the facts of the matter, he supposed that Stalin would not have hanged them had they not been selling out the Soviet Union's interests. Within four months of his publication of that article Joseph Stalin would have died prematurely, poisoned by a circle of Jewish doctors, leaving the philo-semitic Lavrenty Beria in charge. Beria, while not Jewish, has long been thought to be an accomplice of the Jews in Russia, which accusation makes sense considering he, remorseless jail-master of millions, released the Jewish doctors that had been accused of conspiring to poison Soviet leadership within a month of Stalin's death. He then arrested the Internal Security officers who alerted each other to the threat of the Doctor's Plot.[57] Though Yockey provided little proof in his article, we can see with the clarity of hindsight he was right. Within four months of the hanging of the eleven, Stalin was dead and the Jewish anti-Stalinist ex-Trotskyist leftists-turned-loyal-Anglo-Americans were scribbling before his blood had dried. These Jewish ex-Trotskyists would become known as Neoconservatives, and in truth there had already been some of them writing against the Soviet Union before Stalin's death. But with the accusations of the Doctor's Plot, the designs to deport Jewry to the Jewish Autonomous Oblast in east Siberia, and the hanging of the eleven Jews in Prague, the Jewish love affair with Communism came to a close.

Moreover, they had no doubt recognized by this time that a Stalinist state was incompatible with the Jewish global supremacist vision. Stalinism was structurally similar to National Socialism, almost like an Imperial National Socialism, in that it had created a vast industrial base and closed commercial state, which power granted the state the ability to exist independently of the international economic system. A Stalinist state could provide resources for itself and project power beyond its borders without permission from the international financiers, grain merchants, toolmakers and so on; it was an Autarkic State. Such a State, one that is capable of economic autonomy and therefore political autonomy, would be irreconcilable with the global Jewish vision, in which nothing can grow without their permission.

Back in the United States, simultaneous with Jewish political interests' shift from sympathy to Communism toward the U.S., the Patriot-Ideology-industrial-complex was taking form, and it did so most notably in a handful of organizations: the American Security Council, the John Birch Society, and the American Jewish League Against Communism, although this sphere would extend in the future to include the Council for National Policy (CNP). Robert Welch, the man who founded the John Birch Society, was close friends with Alfred Kohlberg, who was part of the "China lobby" (the group of anti-Communists who lobbied tirelessly for aid to the Kuo Min Tang). Alfred Kohlberg was a founding member of the John Birch Society and also a founding member of the American Jewish League Against Communism (AJLAC).[35] This league was founded by Rabbi Benjamin Schultz as a way of proving that not all Jews were Communists, and he said as much. This is curious, however, in light of the fact that the AJLAC was founded with the financial assistance of Bernard Baruch, the very Jew who tried to facilitate the transfer of atomic technology to the Soviet Union. The early members of the AJLAC reads like a laundry list of Jewish ex-Trotskyists and right-wing infiltrators. Among them were: Roy Cohn, Lawrence Fertig, Alfred Kohlberg, Eugene Lyons, Morrie Ryskind, and Marvin Liebman. Roy Cohn was Joseph McCarthy's aid in the hearings and well-connected to the predominantly Jewish Organized Crime Syndicate via Lewis Rosenstiel, one of the Jewish liquor barons of bootlegging origin -- one little-known fact of the Organized Crime Syndicate in the US is that, ever since the Second World War, it has been a significant source of funding and support for the state of Israel; Meyer Lansky was an Israeli bond salesman and laundered the syndicate's money into Israel to pay for arms via the Swiss Banque de Credit International, which was a hub in the Organized-Crime-Zionist-Arms-dealer network; Maurice Dalitz, Cleveland Liquor Boss and founding father of Las Vegas, was awarded the Torch of Freedom award by the ADL -- Lawrence Fertig was good friends with Ludwig von Mises and is acknowledged by the neoliberal think-tank, the Mises Institute to have been indispensable in its founding. Alfred Kohlberg was a co-founder of JBS and AJLAC, as well as a China Lobby spook. Eugene Lyons was a Russian-Jewish Trotskyist who turned Neocon to write for National Review and help with Radio Free Europe. Morrie Ryskind was a friend of Ayn Rand, William F. Buckley and Ronald Reagan and wrote for the paper The Freeman, which was owned by Alfred Kohlberg. Marvin Liebman was an ex-Irgun terrorist, lobbyist for homosexual rights and Israeli interest groups, American League for a Free Palestine (oddly named for a Zionist organization), United Jewish Appeal, Aguduth Israel and the American Fund for Israel Institutions.[35], [38], [40], [58] Here were a bunch of anti-Communist and Zionist Jews, associating openly and receiving funding from Trotskyists and pro-Communist American Jews. Looking at the AJLAC's member list, one can clearly see how the Jewish pivot away from Stalin toward the US was going to go: free market economics, messianic anti-Communism, and not a peep about the past.

Looking at the early membership of the John Birch Society is a bit more complicated, as it included Robert Welch, Spruille Braden, Harry Bradley, Fred Koch, and Revilo Oliver. This is complicated because Revilo P. Oliver was a genuine, if a bit unhinged, defender of Western civilization against Jewish political interests, but he would eventually leave the group after coming to a head with Welch, and eventually came to believe (accurately) that he had been tricked into supporting a Zionist enterprise.[2] Robert Welch may have been sincere in his views, as Fred Koch may have been if not for the fact that he was one of the American businessmen who built up the Soviet Union's industrial base in the early 1930s.[59] These were some candidates for sincerity but what about Spruille Braden? He was a businessman who served on the Braden Copper Company in Chile, the United Fruit Company (the infamous hub of Imperialism over Latin America), Council on Foreign Relations, Standard Oil (the main Rockefeller concern), and the Averell Harriman Securities Corporation. Once again, it is very curious that one of the early members of the John Birch Society should have been not only what appears to be closely associated with the Rockefeller family, but with Averell Harriman himself, the longtime Soviet ambassador and number-one American advocate for the Soviet Union's interests. How could the John Birch Society be a genuinely anti-Communist organization, when it was partially directed by someone who sat at the material heart of Anglo-American Communism?

Looking at the early membership of the American Security Council, things continue to get even stranger. Among the early members of the ASC were Bernard Baruch, James Jesus Angleton, Jay Lovestone, James Burnham, Nelson Rockefeller, and Averell Harriman. How could the American Security Council have represented a genuine attempt at an anti-Communist project, with Averell Harriman, Nelson Rockefeller and Bernard Baruch, the main American pro-Communists, as members? Furthermore, it is curious that the American Security Council was staffed by Jay Lovestone, James Jesus Angleton and James Burnham, who would respectively go on to be the ADL's man in the CIA's infiltration of the CPUSA, Mossad's man in the CIA and the founder of Neoconservative ideology. What exactly was going on here?

The early "Red Scare" Patriots and the American Security council had never identified the Rockefeller family as the first family of international Communism. They didn't have the informational awareness, they didn't follow the money back from the Whittaker Chambers trial and the Reece Committee findings, and it was only later on that the Rockefellers' designs would become central to the Patriot Ideology. For the time being, Wedemeyer, MacArthur and LeMay must have not detected any conflict of interest with the personnel in their organization. However, one wonders if the original mission of the American Security Council could ever have been genuine anti-Communism, considering that Standard Oil, United Fruit, and U.S. Steel, all Rockefeller and CFR-associated concerns had been supporters from the very beginning. -- Standard Oil was the original source of the Rockefeller's wealth, United Fruit was a rallying point for wealthy internationalists and Imperialism over Latin America's peasantry, U.S. Steel was originally a hub of Morgan industrial interests but as that wealthy House faded throughout the 1930's, its concerns were absorbed into the remaining pole of Anglophile American Wealth, the Rockefellers -- Perhaps there was some originating sincerity, but perhaps this was also a state-within-a-state that was incubated by the Internationalists as controlled opposition from the very start. This thesis grows more attractive as the rest of the 20th century unfolds.

Over the years, the Patriot Ideology would morph into more and more caricatured versions of itself, which has reached its apotheosis in the current day with the red-faced desk-slammer Alex Jones (who, by the way, appears to have fully developed into an open Zionist). Two authors in particular best demonstrate this degeneration: Cleon Skousen with his Naked Communist and Naked Capitalist and G. Edward Griffin with his Creature from Jekyll Island. As we shall soon see, these were either obvious plagiarisms or gross distortions of the original texts, which supplicated the interests that had by now taken control of the John Birch Society and by extension the Patriot Ideology.

As the 1950s faded away into the past, and the Jewish political community had decided to throw its weight behind the US and the only political ideology that could make it suitable for their purposes, Messianic anti-Communism A.K.A. Neoconservatism, the business interests of the country latched their teeth, in conjunction with the ASC and affiliated military-industrial concerns (General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Wackenhut) onto the JBS and similar organizations. With this marriage of Jewish nationalist interests and American military-industrial interests, the Patriot Ideology morphed into even more perverse distortions of its originating impulses.

Cleon Skousen was an FBI agent from 1935 to 1951, after which point he became a professional anti-Communist, traveling around the country with his friend and fellow professional anti-Communist Fred Schwarz, selling books and giving impassioned lectures. Skousen would ride the wave of America's thirst for anti-Communism all the way to an invitation to Council for National Policy in 1981. -- The CNP is a kind of CFR but for sun-belt conservative politics. One of the more notable features of the CNP is that it was the organizational home of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, who were so instrumental in reformulating the devout Protestantism of the Sun-Belt into a worship of Israel and the proliferation of "Judeo-Christian Values"; think of the CNP as Scofield-Reference-Bible Central. It represents the brain-trust behind the Bush-era GOP ideology. -- During his time at the FBI, Skousen was mostly a bureaucrat. He claims to have learned all about Communism in his time at the FBI, and that he was a personal assistant and consultant to J. Edgar Hoover on Communism, yet these are flatly contradicted by the facts.[12], [36], [37] Hoover himself rejected the claim, as well as Skousen's assertion that his work had any proximity to Communism. After his stint at the FBI, he got a job as Chief of Police in Salt Lake City, mostly because the mayor, Bracken Lee, shared similar political beliefs. Skousen would soon be fired from this position, however, and Lee's testimony paints an unflattering picture of his service:

To further explain my position, let me say this, that while Mr. Skousen has written a book and talks against Communism, actually he conducted his office as Chief of Police in exactly the same manner in which the Communists operate their government. The man is also a master of half-truths. In at least three instances I have proved him to be a liar before the City Commissioners and the newspaper reporters. To me, he is a very dangerous man because he preaches one thing, practices another, does not tell the truth, and cannot be relied upon. He also was one of the greatest spenders of public funds of anyone who ever served in any capacity in Salt Lake City government.”[12]

Not only was Skousen fired for unreliability, but he used the secretaries of the Salt Lake City Police staff as de facto employees of his political crusade, using their help to put together his anti-Communist materials. Skousen was once associated with the ASC but as FBI inspector Lee Pennington reports, they decided to drop him from the organization because they believed he had "gone off the deep end". He skated by on his phony FBI anti-Communist credentials until he wrote his major works The Naked Communist and The Naked Capitalist in the late 50's and 60's. The Naked Communist is an unremarkable and superficial reading of Marxism and the ruthless nature of Communism. The Naked Capitalist however is a review of Carroll Quigley's Tragedy and Hope, which had only recently been published. This book did more to popularize Tragedy and Hope than perhaps any other, and did so by cherry-picking the choicest passages from the 1200-page historical tome and presenting them to the audience with a very particular slant. On the basis that he wrote a 150-page review of it, one can assume that Skousen read Tragedy and Hope in its entirety. If that is true, then his work is a complete distortion of that text, as Tragedy and Hope makes clear the incidental nature of Communism to Internationalism. We have quoted such passages in the previous sections, in which Quigley notes with droll amusement the Patriots inability to gain complete understanding of the situation. Skousen must have either skipped over these passages or pretended they don't exist, as Quigley's book is in fact a thorough and irrefutable repudiation of Skousen's entire thesis.[16], [20] Yet Skousen presented it to the public, who of course would never read that weightier text Tragedy and Hope, as if he and Quigley were in agreement and, unfortunately, few have been able to see through the facade or even bothered to look.

Skousen, using Quigley's revelations on the International Bankers, exposes people to a hidden reality and in doing so becomes their master. Once you present such powerful evidence that the prevailing reality is false, you can condition your audience to believe that everything else you say will be true. The revelation of Rockefeller Communism is thus one of the most powerful devices of mind-control of the 20th century. Once you have 'awoken' someone to that reality, they become fanatic and, alienated from the falsity of mainstream society, can easily be led down the paths of your choosing. The Patriot Ideology complex has used this device, this genuine Truth, to engineer a bloc of human material fanatically devoted to their interests, believing themselves to be the last line of defense between innocence and oblivion, but really only advancing an aggressively anti-labor flavor of politics and tragically completing their much-dreaded New World Order by their own hand.

G. Edward Griffin is another JBS fixture, who claims to have been close friends with Robert Welch. His book Creature from Jekyll Island, is a plagiarism of Eustace Mullins' Secrets of the Federal Reserve: The London Connection and has met with enormous commercial success in the United States, especially after receiving conservative talking-head Glenn Beck's endorsement. Secrets was written after Eustace Mullins, a young protege of Ezra Pound, visited him at St. Elizabeth's hospital, whereupon the distressed Pound instructed him to look through the Congressional Archives, looking for specific bits and pieces, and that he must write a book about the Federal Reserve. Mullins did so and his effort resulted in the definitive expose on the Rothschild-Rockefeller-Morgan-Warburg banking complex, its hold on America and how it instituted the Federal Reserve. The lesson from this book was how Americans needed to re-assert their sovereignty by reclaiming the power to issue their own money back from the banks, restoring it to its constitutionally delegated role in the state. Creature, on the other hand, takes all the research from Secrets and inserts its own convoluted free-market logic, indicting a global "Collectivist Conspiracy". The main thrust of Creature is that the Federal Reserve is evil because it will allow for the quantity of money to be greatly increased, that this is an injustice to the people, and that their interests lie in the restoration of a gold standard.[8] This is idiotic for a number reasons, the first of which must appear to us: if the peoples' interests are in the gold standard, then why did the combined Populist and Free Silver movement sweep the country in the 1880s and 1890s, demanding that Gold be dethroned? These people had personal material experience with a gold standard, would Griffin have us believe that they didn't understand their own interests? Their whole gripe in the first place was that the quantity of money was insufficient, leading to exploitative interest rates. Griffin's paper-thin rationalizations for monetary stagnation, that inflation is bad because it hurts savers, gloss over the fact that in order to collect interest on money one must first have money, which is the main problem for most working-class people. Furthermore, as Mullins' book's subtitle is The London Connection, it denotes the connection between the Rockefeller and Rothschild families, the latter of which is a Jewish banking family, the most powerful banking family on earth, the founding family of Israel, and runs the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA), the British sister organization of its American sister, the CFR. What the Rockefellers were to the 20th century, the Rothschilds were to the 19th century. It is curious then that Griffins book glosses over the way the Rothschild family made their wealth. If he included that in his thesis, Griffin would have to contend with the fact of the Rothschild's ascent to monopolistic control of the European bond market occurred under his beloved gold standard, which would spoil the whole project. What's more remarkable is that Griffin notes that Cecil Rhodes, founder of the CFR/RIIA braintrust, had a monopoly on gold and diamonds in South Africa, but then later rejects the critique of the Gold Standard that metals can be controlled by monopolistic holders.[8] For more on Griffin and the Money Question see here: [link]

Skipping into the future a bit, Max Boot wrote his Corrosion of Conservatism in 2018 to express his disillusionment with American conservatism; Corrosion of Conservatism is essentially a Jewish critique of the Patriot Ideology. Boot is a William F. Buckley-style neoconservative, meaning he is an Establishmentarian, and he left the GOP apparently because of its Trumpian proletarian manners. In a section of his book on heartland conservatives, he derisively notes Phylis Schlafly's concern with the Rockefeller Communists in her book An Echo Not a Choice, written in 1964:

"Schlafly was baffled why Republican candidates had lost presidential elections in 1936, 1940, 1944, 1948, and 1960. It could not be that Democrats fielded more attractive candidates or that most Americans did not share her far-right ideology. "It wasn't any accident," she wrote, ominously, of GOP setbacks. "It was planned that way. IN each of their losing presidential years, a small group of secret kingmakers, using hidden persuaders and psychological warfare techniques, manipulated the Republican National Convention to nominate candidates who would sidestep or suppress the key issues." These nefarious "kingmakers" were New York financiers who only pretended to be Republicans but in fact favored "a continuation of the Roosevelt-Harry Dexter White-Averell Harriman-Dean Acheson-Dean Rusk policy of aiding and abetting Red Russia and her satellites." Harry Dexter White was a Soviet agent, whereas Harriman, Acheson, and Rusk were Democratic Cold Warriors determined to contain the Soviet threat, but to Schlafly there was no difference between them."[64]

Boot would likely not have any serious differences with Schlafly on foreign policy matters. The nature of his disapproval here, is of the implicitly anti-semitic notion that politics is controlled from behind the scenes, by "kingmakers" (as he intones with contempt). For Boot, the fact that energetic and vigilant Goyim such as Schlafly are permitted to comment on deep politics and to notice convenient coincidences is the main offense. He would prefer she simply be quiet and support his particular brand of polite Neoconservatism without kicking up too much silt from history's muddy bottom, lest she accidentally kick up something revealing on the dreaded Trotskyist-to-Neoconservative pipeline.

Phylis Schlafly published this book herself. Nothing she said, by the way, in that passage quoted by Boot was wrong in any way. She is correct: Harriman, White, Acheson and Rusk were all representatives of Soviet interests, and they did work on behalf of New York financiers (read: Rockefeller) to bring about a global merger. Her book An Echo Not a Choice was a best-seller and railed against the Eastern Establishment, helping to popularize the contra-Rockefeller brand of politics. She would go on to be a key player of the policy and consensus-makers of the Council for National Policy and a key personality generally within the Patriot Ideology industry. She supported Barry Goldwater for president in 1964, mostly because she thought he was the Rockefeller Communists least preferred candidate. Barry Goldwater was a Jewish Republican candidate, hard on communism, and laissez-faire on economics and on social issues, the perfect representative of the merger between the Patriots and Jewish interests.

Gary Allen, a friend of Phylis Schlafly's, wrote his None Dare Call it Conspiracy in 1972, critiquing the Rockefeller family and their Trilateral Commission's involvement in global politics. Allen was a member of the John Birch Society and supported its ideology in his books. His book would become a staple of the Patriot Ideology as well.

The Trilateral Commission crescendoed with the Carter Administration, in which all 26 personnel of his cabinet were members of the Commission. The reaction against this presidency was intense. Conservatives of all stripes hold a vehement conviction that the Carter Administration was one of the worst in all American history but mostly for superficial reasons, like being pessimistic about the Cold War or telling Americans to wear sweaters instead of turning up the heat (Americans don't wear sweaters!). The Reagan backlash against Trilateralism would cement Zionism, acting through its main vehicle of the Patriot Ideology, as the new elite in American politics. Although Reagan's cabinet didn't have many Jews in particular, it didn't have many Trilateralists either; the Reagan cabinet was the first Neoconservative one. Instead of Eastern aristocrats, it had such unsubtle Patriot warhawks as Cap Weinberger of Bechtel and Alexander Haig as Secretaries of Defense and State. Jeane Kirkpatrick, one of the main figures and founders of Neoconservative ideology, was ambassador to the UN. The Reagan administration pursued its ideology anti-Communist at home and abroad and, in conjunction with Margaret Thatcher, put an end to the era of social democracy in the Anglo-sphere.

But what of the brain trust behind Reaganism? The Council for National Policy was founded in 1981 but was in many ways simply a continuation of the John Birch Society, but with a more public-friendly face. Many of the same donors behind the JBS helped to found the CNP such as Paul Weyrich and Nelson Bunker Hunt. The CNP was the point where Bircher anti-Communism became an ideology that was socially acceptable, if frowned upon by the literati. Among the early CNP members were: Phylis Schlafly, Paul Weyrich, Nelson Hunt, Cleon Skousen, Ed Meese, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Irving Kristol, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Donald Rumsfeld, as well as Col. Oliver North and Steve Bannon (who was representative of Goldman Sachs' interests in Hollywood around this time). The membership of the CNP reads like a who's who of Neoconservatism: anti-Communists, Zionists, and Christian Zionists. With the founding and entrenching of the CNP in the GOP establishment, anti-Communism, Zionism, Neoconservatism and Conservatism all become synonymous. Here was the great merger to form the modern GOP ideology, kicked off with Reagan. Before this point, Conservatism was a diverse array of elements: there were the Old Families (aristocratic types), Mid-Westerners, Catholics, Populists, Southern Rebels, Normal Conservatives each with their own unique set of interests. Now the Rockefeller types had been chased off into the Democratic party, Populists were long gone, Catholic identity was dissolving, and the remaining constituents of Conservatism would simply have to yield to the one-dimensional thinking of the new Neoconservative consensus of messianic anti-Communism (completely amputated from its original context) that had been formed.The fuel of American patriotism, focused on Rockefeller Communism, had propelled a political machine, but, stuck in its intense pre-occupation with its enemies, ultimately had no say in its final destinations: Globalism and Zionism.

These writers, Skousen, Schlafly, Allen, Griffin, so emblematic of the Patriot Ideology, show how Populist history has been used to win a die-hard loyalty among the people and then turned on its head. The Patriot Ideology Industry steals the research of those that sought to escape debt-slavery, use it to "reveal the man behind the curtain" so to speak, win the loyalty of their followers and then set them off like little toy soldiers, uncritically lobbying for an intensified debt-slavery. In the hundred years between 1880 and 1980, the American far-right has passed through four ideological phases: 1) anti-bank; 2) anti-bank, anti-war; 3) anti-bank, anti-war, anti-communist; 4) anti-communist. The common thread binding these is the use of an extremely compelling device: hidden historical Truth, or fragments of it at least. The Patriot Ideology industry, backed by the Military Industrial complex and the Zionists, has cynically manipulated their followers by feeding them bits of truth, which they then take to be the Whole Truth, after which they will follow their Patriot leaders to the end. The direction which the Patriot Ideology sets them off in is that of Messianic anti-Communism, and what is anti-Communism but Liberal Democracy, the Open Society? -- The Open Society which WSJ Columnist and Neoconservative Bret Stephens has noted is really the only political form which allows Jews to excel -- These are all words for the same thing, Neoconservatism, which is, contrary to popular opinion not just a twenty year operation to bring about the Iraq War, but is as old as the death of Stalin himself. If we may take a liberty, the United States is the real "Soviet Union", insofar as the spiritual core of the USSR was that it would be the Jewish golem to spread their influence all over the world. They have used the power of Truth to create a grass-roots political movement which is bitterly opposed to the interests of the working-class. Many, if not most of these people, are working-class themselves. On the flip-side of that coin, they have monopolized historical truth and used it to alienate working-class people from aligning with their own ethnic interests (this is not to say that all working-class people are obligated to be white nationalists, but it is to say that one cannot advocate for one's own interests without being opposed by Jewish interests; Jewish interests, ultimately, are exclusive and have no overlap with the working classes of any other ethnicity). This state of affairs must be exposed and must come to an end.

V. Final Thoughts

I was inspired to write this essay by several conversations with intelligent people. Some of these conversations turn towards figures like Bronze Age Pervert, Alex Jones, or Steve Bannon, who are taken to simply be "Based Right-Wing" guys and if you don't like them, you're either nitpicking over details or you don't get it. The impulse to silence nitpicking and quibbling over ostensibly minor details with figures such as these spreads throughout the right-wing world. I see these intelligent people enjoying BAP or Alex Jones-style content and they say "But look, he's based, he's making fun of the Globalists and the Journalists and the Communists" and I ask myself "What Communists?". There are no Communists, the Soviet Union fell in 1991 and the Chinese Communist Party cannot understand such European abstractions as Communism.

Then I remember an episode in history when the Based Right-Wingers Fought the Communists. They quashed internal dissent, they shut up about their differences for the time being because "Now's not the time for ideology, we know who we are and we know who they are, we'll get to the ideology later" or something like that (this is a paraphrasing of BAP). The Based Right-Wingers joined up with the Business Lobby and the Based Jews to fight the Communists, because the Communists were Jewish. Hopefully the irony is not lost on dear reader; the Cold Warriors were shooting at a caricatured cardboard cut-out of the very figure that was whispering into their ears. Personally I am sympathetic to these historical figures, as they did not and could not have had the perspective to get the bird's eye view of politics which the internet provides us today. To the best of their cognitive ability, they believed they were acting in their peoples' interests and they tried as hard as they could.

Christopher Hitchens let the cat out of the bag and did all the leg-work for us (if we could see it) in 2009 and 2010, when he said in his "Revenge of Karl Marx" article that: "Marx’s later failure, in Capital, [was not] to grasp quite how revolutionary capitalist innovation really was."[63] He then said in a 2010 interview in the New York Times Magazine, that: "I still think like a Marxist in many ways. I think the materialist conception of history is valid. I consider myself a very conservative Marxist."[62] Here, along with his support of the Iraq War, Neoconservative ideology is perfectly on display, without dissimulation: the United States is the real Bolshevik, the real engine of Global Revolution, and its Rationalist sword is Neoliberalism.

Today one can draw a straight historical line, with no deviation whatsoever, from the American Security Council, through the AJLAC, National Review, John Birch Society, to the Council for National Policy (which is primary culprit in converting American Christianity into a Zogbot factory), to the Reagan administration, Global Neoliberalism, Globalization, and the Iraq War.

What is the New World Order of JBS' nightmares, really? The anti-Communists of the Red Decade, the War Years and the Cold War, why did they oppose Communism? Because it represented the total and global domination of an unaccountable elite, with the people powerless to resist or shape their own destinies in any way. An international elite is one that cannot be retaliated against. As you retaliate, they withdraw, bringing their resources with them, and punishing your stupid attempts at retaliation with a material scarcity, and what's more you will be blamed for it.

What is the New World Order? What do we have now? A Global Situation in which an international clique has veto power over the political and economic decision-making of every country on earth. Local, regional, and national identity is eroded with every passing day and the nuclear family may soon be a thing of the past. Yet none of these came from the hands of the Commissars, no one was coerced into this. Nation-states are a second-tier entity in the global hierarchy, with an elite of investors and their spies occupying the top rung. Is this not the very same New World Order they were struggling against the whole time?

In a certain sense, Soviet Communism is much more individualistic than Neoliberal Globalism because at least then the enemy has a face, a body and an identity. When you revolt against a Soviet commissar, burn down a building, or shoot the Chief of the Secret Police, you are fulfilling your interests. Under Neoliberal Globalism, what does one strike out against? A store? A bank? The shareholders' wealth is locked in cyberspace, on servers located somewhere in the Cayman Islands. The only thing that burning down banks and stores would do is put your neighbor out of work and increase the premiums on insurance; the wealth of the elites is protected securely within an intangible abstraction. The Individualism of Neoliberal Globalism is a lie that obscures the reality of collectives and collective interests, but in this situation there is no way to pursue these collective interests as individuals. One can't meaningfully revolt without hitting only the highest of the highest targets, which for all intents and purposes are invisible. Under Communism at least when you revolted you knew you were hurting the body of the enemy. Globalism is a disembodied enemy, whose only organ is a brain. It outsources its body to us, whose functions we must either perform or starve. America's Anti-Communist Neoconservatism is the real Communism.

Though I said I wouldn't bash the reader over the head, and would just ask questions, I still haven't gotten to the point, so that I will humbly pose in questions:

If the Zionization of the American Right can be traced clearly, from the ASC, JBS, CNP down to the present, why do supposed Dissidents laud Alex Jones? Who repeats their every talking point, sells their books and adopts their worldview? If the Rockefellers have not meaningfully been in power since the Carter Administration, why does Alex Jones blame them for 9/11 rather than the Zionists who actually committed it? Why does he say that this time, the Rothschilds are the good guys and they're fighting the "Globalists"?[61]

If the prevailing international power has long since abandoned Communism, and merely made a liberal mess of its corpse, why does Bronze Age Pervert identify the International Left as the Dissident's enemy? Why does he prevaricate on the Iraq War, saying that it was fought for "God knows what" in episode 34 of his podcast?

Some might respond with the charge that I'm nitpicking and that these guys are "mostly right", to which I would respond by asking: why are they mostly right and not simply right? Why do they adopt the symbols of your movement but not its conclusions?

We have seen how one degree of deviation from a path can become a mile of deviation after enough steps. Why then should we drop our vigilance for those who seduce us with the entertaining personas of red-blooded Americans and aristocratic Vitalists if it means losing sight of the larger picture, the substance of our political situation, which is subjugation to Zionists? Or an even simpler question: why do we continue to consume openly Zionist entertainment for our politics?

Consider this passage by Maurice Samuels, a Zionist Jew living in America. He wrote his book You Gentiles in 1924 and had something to say regarding the Gentile's love of fun and games:

"The contention of the majority of your educators, that the moral instinct is trained on the football and baseball field, in boxing, rowing, wrestling and other contests, is a true one, is truer, perhaps, than most of them realize. Your ideal morality is a sporting morality. The intense discipline of the game, the spirit of fair play, the qualities of en- durance, of good humor, of conventionalized seriousness in effort, of loyalty, of struggle without malice or bitterness, of readiness to forget like a sport— all these are brought out in their sheerest and cleanest starkness in well-organized and closely regulated college sports. And on the experiences and lessons which these sports imply your entire spiritual life is inevitably founded.


Our virtues lack the flourish and the charm of the lists: our evils are not mitigated by well-meant and delightful hypocrisies. Murder (except in self-defense) is murder, whether committed in a duel, with all its gentlemanly rules, or in unrestrained rage. When we are set face to face with an opponent, and one must kill the other, we proceed in the most effective way: we can- not understand the idea that rules of con- duct govern murder. We cannot understand a man who, attacking another, insists that the other, in self-defense, shall strike only above the belt. That strange character, the gentleman thief, the gallant and appealing desperado, who recurs with such significant frequency in your fine and popular literature, perhaps points my meaning best.

The idea of a "gentleman thief" is utterly impossible to the Jew: it is only you gentiles, with your idealization of the sporting qualities, who can thus unite in a universally popular hero, immorality and Rittersittlichkeit. It is probable, of course, that the majority of your Robin Hoods and Claude Duvals were nothing but low ruffians, devoid even of chivalry: but their significance is not in what they were, but in what you make of them in worship. The persistence of the types is evident to-day as much as ever, when popular fancy is charmed and youth tempted into emulation by the "Raffles" and "Lupins" of the world of books. At no time have we Jews sympathized with this type. We are insensible to the appeal of "the correct" and the graceful as a substitute for our morality. Knightly or unknightly, courtly or uncourtly, sports- manlike or the opposite in our real life mean nothing. We only ask: Is it right or is it wrong?"

Samuels is perplexed by the levity with which Gentiles approach life. They take their fights and their politics to be sporting matches, as if there are no stakes involved. Compare this with the Jewish people, for whom the stakes are everything and who, as Nietzsche once noted, traded everything for existence. For the Jewish people, politics is not a game or a form of entertainment, a form of catharsis from the stifling quotidian existence, but an urgent and serious task to be carried out with singular commitment to the end result of victory or survival. There is no difference between the two.

After a century of befuddlement, American conservatism is wedded to the very forces which the Old Right and the Populists sought to resist. Their tools, research and efforts were all distorted and used against them, at first by circumstance, and then by design. Fighting Bolshevism, they resisted a symbol, but not the essence of what it symbolized. They did not appreciate the importance of logical precision, of vigilance toward semantic distortions and tricks, and of defining themselves by themselves and not by their enemies. They took a 'close enough' philosophy toward ideology; for them, it was sufficient that they were themselves and that the others were not. Tragically, as a virile warrior caste, they neglected the pen for the sword and, as they were swinging the latter against Nemesis, someone picked up the former from its place of neglect to rewrite the definitions for "Us" and "Them". In changing the Word so did they change the Flesh, and the American Cold Warrior who thought himself to be swinging at Foes found himself waving at Ghosts. We are now such a confused people, that those who were more than happy to pick up our pens as we picked up our swords, can write freely and with joy of their duplicitous victories. Michael Ledeen, neoconservative intellectual, writes in his 2013 exhortation against Islamo-Fascism The War against the Terror Masters:

"Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our own society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity, which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace. Seeing America undo traditional societies, they fear us, for they do not wish to be undone. They cannot feel secure so long as we are there, for our very existence—our existence, not our politics—threatens their legitimacy. They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission."[71]


[1]. Bird, Kai. The Chairman: John J. McCloy, the Making of the American Establishment, 1992. Accessed April 24, 2020.

[2]. Conner, Claire. Wrapped in the Flag: A Personal History of America’s Radical Right. Boston: Beacon Press, 2013. Accessed April 26, 2020.

[3]. DE PONCINS, LEON. STATE SECRETS: A Documentation of the Secret Revolutionary Mainspring Governing Anglo ...-American Politics. Place of publication not identified: RECONQUISTA Press, 2015.

[4]. Del Mar, Alexander, and Del Mar Society. A History of Monetary Crimes. New York: Kasper & Horton, 1852.

[5]. Duffy, James P. Lindbergh vs. Roosevelt: The Rivalry That Divided America. Washington. D.C.: Regnery Publishing, 2010.

[6]. Fleming, Thomas. The New Dealer’s War: Franklin D. Roosevelt and the War within World War II. New York: BasicBooks, 2002.

[7]. Goodwyn, Lawrence. Democratic Promise: The Populist Moment in America. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1976.

[8]. Griffin, G. Edward. The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve. Appleton, Wis.: American Opinion, 1995.

[9]. Kellogg, Michael. The Russian Roots of Nazism: White Émigrés and the Making of National Socialism, 1917-1945. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Accessed April 24, 2020.

[10]. Kubek, Anthony, and Teacher Publishing Company. Communism at Pearl Harbor: How the Communists Helped to Bring on Pearl Harbor and Open up Asia to Communization. Dallas, Tex.: Teacher Pub. Co., 1959.

[11]. Lasch, Christopher, and W. W. Norton & Company. The Revolt of the Elites: And the Betrayal of Democracy. New York; London: W. W. Norton and Company, 1996.

[12]. Lazar, Ernie. “W. Cleon Skousen: The Mythology Surrounding His FBI Career.” Last modified September 13, 2018. Accessed April 24, 2020.

[13]. Lindbergh, Charles A. Banking and Currency and the Money Trust,. Washington, D.C.: National capital Press, Inc., 1913.

[14]. Marschalko, Louis. The World Conquerors: The Real War Criminals. Place of publication not identified: Christian Book Club, 1978.

[15]. Mckay, John. Speaking Ill of the Dead Jerks in Georgia History. Guilford: Globe Pequot Press, 2014.

[16]. Quigley, Carroll. Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time. San Pedro, Calif.: GSG & Associates [u.a.], 2004.

[17]. Reichley, James. The Life of the Parties: A History of American Political Parties. New York; Toronto; New York: Free Press ; Maxwell Macmillan Canada ; Maxwell Macmillan International, 1992.

[18]. Rockefeller, David. Memoirs. New York: Random House Trade Paperbacks, 2011. Accessed April 26, 2020.

[19]. Rosenbloom, Morris V. Peace through Strength Bernard Baruch and a Blueprint for Security. Washington, DC: American Surveys in association with Farrar, Straus and Young, 1953.

[20]. Skousen, Willard Cleon. The Naked Communist. (Second Edition.) [With Plates. Salt Lake City: Ensign Publishing Co., 1958.

[21]. Sutton, Antony C, and Revolution Hoover Institution on War and Peace. Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1930-1945. Stanford [Calif.: Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, Stanford University, 1971.

[22]. United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Institute of Pacific Relations. Hearings before the Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Eighty-Second Congress, First[-Second] Session .. Vol. 2. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1951. Accessed April 26, 2020.

[23]. Kevin Drum. “Before the Storm.” Washington Monthly - Politics, February 24, 2005. Accessed April 24, 2020.

[24]. Watson, Thomas E. “Watson’s Jeffersonian Magazine.” Watson’s Jeffersonian magazine. 21–22 (1907): 182–232.

[25]. Woodward, Vann C. Tom Watson, Agrarian Rebel. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1987.

[26]. Wormser, René A. Foundations: Their Power and Influence. New York, NY: Dauphin Publications, 2014.

[27]. Yockey, Francis Parker. “WHAT IS BEHIND THE HANGING OF THE ELEVEN JEWS IN PRAGUE ?,” December 1952. Accessed April 23, 2020.

[28]. “7. Red Scare.” Ordo Ab Chao. Accessed April 26, 2020. “1199215-000 --- 100-HQ-530 --- Section 1.Pdf,” n.d. Accessed April 26, 2020.

[30]. “A Man of His Time: Tom Watson’s New South Bigotry (Book, 2014) [WorldCat.Org].” Accessed April 23, 2020.

[31]. “About Mises.” Text. Mises Institute. Last modified June 18, 2014. Accessed April 26, 2020.

[32]. “American Security Council.” Spartacus Educational. Accessed April 26, 2020.

[33]. “Charles August Lindbergh (1859-1924), Banking and Currency (1913).” Accessed April 23, 2020.

[34]. “Communism at Pearl Harbor : How the Communists Helped to Bring on Pearl Harbor and Open up Asia to Communization (Book, 1959)” Accessed April 26, 2020.

[35]. “Consensus Historian.” The American Conservative. Paul Gottfried. Accessed April 26, 2020.

[36]. FOIA: FBI Employees: Skousen, W. Cleon-1, n.d. Accessed April 24, 2020.

[37]. FOIA: FBI Employees: Skousen, W. Cleon-5, n.d. Accessed April 24, 2020.

[38]. “In Search of Buckley’s Hypersensitivity to Anti-Semitism.” The Unz Review. Accessed April 26, 2020.

[39]. “The American Security Council: Cold War Joint CIA-FBI-Pentagon Front Involved in Illegal Operations.” Accessed April 26, 2020.

[40]. “The Anti-Defamation League and the FBI.” Accessed April 26, 2020.

[42]. “The FBI and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) - FOIA.” Accessed April 26, 2020.

[43]. “The Truth about Huey Long.” National Review, September 7, 2019. Accessed April 23, 2020.

[44]. Fahey, Denis. The Rulers of Russia and the Russian Farmers. Hawthorne, Calif.: Omni Publications, 1987.

[45]. Cerebellum Corporation (Firm), and Infobase. The United States Constitution. Article I, Section 8. 2018. Accessed April 28, 2020.

[46]. “Opinion: These American Anti-Semites Deserve to Live in Infamy Forever.” Los Angeles Times. Last modified February 25, 2017. Accessed April 28, 2020.

[47]. Lyons, Eugene. The Red Decade: The Stalinist Penetration of America. New Rochelle: Arlington House, 1971.

[48]. Taylor, S. J, and Mazal Holocaust Collection. Stalin’s Apologist: Walter Duranty, the New York Times’s Man in Moscow. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.

[49]. Berlet, Chip, and Matthew N Lyons. Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort. New York: Guilford Publications, 2018. Accessed April 28, 2020.

[50]. Sutton, Antony Cyril. Wall Street and FDR: The True Story of How Franklin D. Roosevelt Colluded with Corporate America. La Vergne: Rudolf Steiner Press, 2014. Accessed April 28, 2020.

[51]. Fry, L. Waters Flowing Eastward. Chatou: British American Press, 1934.

[52]. Jones, E. Michael. The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit: And Its Impact on World History. South Bend, Ind.: Fidelity Press, 2008.

[53]. Wilton, Robert, Mazal Holocaust Collection, and Institute for Historical Review (U.S.). The Last Days of the Romanovs: How Tsar Nicholas II and Russia’s Imperial Family Were Murdered. Newport Beach, Calif.: Institute for Historical Review, 1993.

[54]. Williams, T. Harry. Huey Long. New York: Random House, 1981.

[55]. Stock, Noel. The Life of Ezra Pound. London: Royal National Institute for the Blind, 1974.

[56]. Forrestal, James. Forrestal Diaries. Pickle Partners Publishing, 2015. Accessed April 28, 2020.

[57]. Brent, Jonathan, and Vladimir Naumov. Stalin’s Last Crime: The Plot against the Jewish Doctors, 1948-1953. Place of publication not identified: HarperCollins e-Books, 2014. Accessed April 28, 2020.

[58]. Piper, Michael Collins, Ray Goodwin, Robert L Brock, and American Free Press. Final Judgment: The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy, 2017.

[59]. “Oil of Russia : Www.Oilru.Com : No. 1, 2006 / LEARNING FROM AMERICAN EXPERIENCE.” Accessed April 28, 2020.

[60]. MULLINS, EUSTACE. Secrets of the Federal Reserve -- the London Connection. Place of publication not identified: LULU COM, 2018.

[61]. Alex Jones - “Wealthy Israel Lobby Fighting the Globalists,” n.d. Accessed April 28, 2020.

[62]. Solomon, Deborah. “The Contrarian.” The New York Times, June 2, 2010, sec. Magazine. Accessed April 29, 2020.

[63]. Hitchens, Christopher. “The Revenge of Karl Marx.” The Atlantic. Last modified April 1, 2009. Accessed April 29, 2020.

[64]. Boot, Max. The Corrosion of Conservatism: Why I Left the Right, 2019.

[65]. Schlafly, Phyllis, and Ron Paul. A Choice Not an Echo. Washington: Regnery Publishing, Incorporated, An Eagle Publishing Company, 2014. Accessed April 30, 2020.

[66]. Allen, Gary. None Dare Call It Conspiracy by Gary Allen. Rossmoor, Calif.: Concord Press, 1972.

[67]. “Heritage Foundation: Where Have All the Scholars Gone?” FAIR, February 24, 2014. Accessed April 30, 2020.

[68]. “How Texas Oilmen Clint Murchison and Sid Richardson Ran Del Mar and National Politicians from the Del Charro Hotel in La Jolla. | San Diego Reader.” Accessed May 4, 2020.

[69]. Yu, Maochun. OSS in China: Prelude to Cold War. New York: Naval Institute Press, 2013. Accessed May 4, 2020.

[70]. Theoharis, Athan, and John Stuart Cox. The Boss: J. Edgar Hoover and the Great American Inquisition. London: Virgin, 1993.

[71]. Ledeen, Michael A. The War against the Terror Masters: Why It Happened. Where We Are Now. How We’ll Win. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2013. Accessed May 4, 2020.


  1. "It was the work of the much-maligned Senator Joseph McCarthy on the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which interrogated Whittaker Chambers, Alger Hiss and Elizabeth Bentley..."

    All of them testified before HUAC, but not McCarthy's Senate Subcommittee.

  2. I've thus far only read Part I so I will comment as I go along.

    Pat Buchanan's zenith. It was the reaction to his speech at the convention that I found most revealing. Most white men outdid each other in distancing themselves from its sentiments. White men still had a lot of pull in the workplace back then but all felt the need to let the growing diversity contingent know they were on the side of the angels. This included all age groups, 60s to the X'ers who were then very young. (I'm a Boomer II).
    Maybe 1 out of 5 didn't see a problem with what PB had to say and most of them were the older ones.

    By this time all of the old ethnic white neighborhoods had been killed off or so overrun that you were now atomized in the neighborhood where your fathers had countless blood ties. The workplace had in part taken over those old social bonds so whites went out of their way to play the good neighbor at work...only to be walked all over ever since.

    There's a good novel about the attack on agrarianism by big money from the populist period. It's one that should be resurrected. It's based on actual events. The largest socialist uprising which ever took place happened in TX and OK.

    The Day the Cowboys Quit, Elmer Kelton
    The Aldrich Plan and the use of panics to secure larger market control is a critical subject.This was a constant in Europe from the late Middle Ages up into the present. It is how markets were turned from meeting the needs of a community into exchanges that secured more and more control over supply and thus over prices. No politician is now even willing to broach the subject except to bait for bad thinkers who can then be neutered harmless by being id'ed as anti-Semites. I agree that this is our most critical problem and it is about to be used upon us again as the economy gets...'rebuilt'. A nice euphemism for what they are about to do to us.

    Looking forward to reading the rest.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Enclosed by Modernity; Chafing Against the Litigation-Insurance--Complex

Bircherism and the Subversion of the Money Question