Archive for the ‘Christian – anti’ Category


[John Friend and Carolyn Yeager discuss the recent Greg Johnson vs Andrew Anglindebate” where the “Holocaust” and Revisionism were some of the topics discussed.

John and Carolyn then take Kevin MacDonald and Greggy to the woodshed for their failure to man-up and confront the fraudulent nature of the “holocaust industry” that the jews have placed, like a millstone, around the necks of Whites.

The Revisionists have systematically and conclusively proven that the “Holocaust” is the “hoax of the 20th century“. What stands in the way of this becoming general public knowledge is organized jewry’s stranglehold over our governments and media, etc.

Between this proven hoax and the public’s  lack of awareness stand two prominent members of the White movement, who for reasons explored by Carolyn and John, make excuses for evading this fact, or worst, pretend with word play that it still “happened“.

As Carolyn and John discuss, the fraudulent “Holocaust” is central to organized jewry’s strategy of guilt tripping Whites to prevent them into moving towards White nationalism by linking it negatively to racial awareness, that then leads to “Nazism” and the inevitable “gassing of six million innocent jews“.

As such, it is essential that the White movement comes to grips with exposing the Holohoax for what it is, so that this massive psychological weapon, roadblock, can be neutralized.

Meanwhile the jews continue on with their genocidal plans to destroy the White race — KATANA.]








The Realist Report


Carolyn Yeager


On the Johnson vs Anglin Debate





Click the link below to John’s blog post:


The Realist Report – Carolyn Yeager

Click the link below to listen the audio:




Or for a tidied up version of the audio, from Carolyn:





The realist Report Description


Published on Sep 6, 2017



On this edition of The Realist Report, we’re joined once again by Carolyn Yeager. Carolyn and I focus on the recent debate between Andrew Anglin and Greg Johnson which focused on the importance and relevance of historical revisionism in the overall pro-White struggle. Carolyn and I both agree that revisionism is an essential aspect of the struggle for the White race, as our historical narrative – especially as it pertains to WWII, Adolf Hitler, and the so-called “Holocaust” of “6 million Jews” – has been entirely weaponized against our people. We also address a number of other related issues in this very important podcast.

Below are relevant links for this program:

Subscribe to The Realist Report today, and support independent media!

Did you enjoy this program? Consider donating to The Realist Report to help us continue producing podcasts. Enter your email below and donate $10 now!












Voice over: You are listening to The Realist Report. And now your host, John Friend!


John: All right folks, welcome back to another edition of The Realist Report. This is your host John Friend. The website is The Realist Report dot com, where you can find an extensive archive of these pod casts as well as other radio broadcasts I have participated in, in the past. You can also find all of my blog posts and articles, a contact page, my Twitter feed, which is embedded on the right hand side of the website, and many other useful and important links. I am a regular reporter for American Free Press, America’s last real newspaper, and I also contribute to The Barnes Review, the bi-monthly history magazine affiliated with American Free Press. I encourage everyone listening to subscribe to both publications. Check out American Free Press dot net and The Barnes Review dot org for more details.


OK, with that said, let me introduce my special guest this evening. Carolyn Yeager is back once again to discuss a recent debate between Andrew Anglin and Greg Johnson. Which focuses on the importance and relevance of historical Revisionism in the overall pro-White struggle. A topic Carolyn and I have addressed in the past.


Carolyn, welcome back to the program! How are you this evening?


Carolyn: I’m just fine, John. Glad to be here.


John: Yes, good! I’m glad that you could join me. You wrote an article about this debate between Greg Johnson and Andrew Anglin which is over on Carolyn Yeager dot net. And I will link to it. I hope people go there and check it out. I think you have a lot of very important and good things to say about the debate. And really that’s going to be the main topic for this conversation. I will be honest, I did not listen to the entire debate. I think if you can find it on YouTube and you can also find it on, … There’s like a new alternative to YouTube from what I understand. I think it’s Bitchute, is that correct?


Carolyn: Yes.


John: Yes. You can find it [the debate] in multiple places. You have it linked on a couple of different, …


Carolyn: Yes. I have both of them linked.


John: Yes, over on your site. If you just Google it, you can find it. It’s been all over the place. It is a pretty interesting debate. Certainly worth checking out. Again I didn’t listen to the entire thing. I listened to most of it, and I mean, frankly I’ve basically heard what both Anglin and Johnson have to say about the subject, so it really wasn’t anything, …


[Image] The many faces of Andrew Anglin.


Carolyn: And then Anglin said, afterwards, that it wasn’t supposed to be a debate, but then afterwards they started calling it a debate. But I guess that was important to him, that he didn’t feel like he was in debate. You know, he wasn’t prepared, maybe, to debate anything. You know, but they did have interestingly pretty much opposing views when it came to “Holocaust” and revisionism, which is the part that I found interesting.


John: Right. Now there was a another debate that preceded the Anglin and Johnson debate, and that was between Greg Johnson and Vox Day. And they did a debate, and it was hosted by Terry McCarthy, who also hosted the debate between Anglin and Johnson.


[Image] Vox Day vs Greg Johnson debate.


In the Johnson and Vox Day debate, was a few weeks ago, I want to say, shortly after Charlottesville. And they were kind of addressing similar topics. They were talking about National Socialists and Nazis. How important, or relevant they are, like in the pro-White, Alt-Right movement, or whatever. And I’d listened to that too, again I didn’t listen to the entire thing, but I thought that was kind of interesting. Again, I’ve heard the arguments made by Johnson and Fox Day. So again, it wasn’t really anything, …


Carolyn: I had not before. It was sort of focused on Socialism in that debate, National Socialism and what Socialism meant, how to interpret it and so on.


And I listened to it, because you mentioned it to me. But I didn’t think much of it.




John: Yeah, you know, I really didn’t either. And even the Anglin and Johnson debate, I really wasn’t that impressed with either of them. So I mean, I agreed more with Anglin, but I think I would basically just present the information and present my perspective much differently than even Anglin would. I would explain it much differently and make different points than he would, than he did in this debate. Although I think he did OK. But I think I would have just handled it much differently.


So, I think overall, I would agree with Anglin.


Carolyn: The reason they had that, … According to Anglin, and it is true, was that Anglin complained that Greg Johnson had misrepresented him in the Johnson Vox Day debate. And so he said: “Well, you come on and we’ll talk about that.” And so in a couple places that’s when Johnson asked Andrew:


Well, how did I misrepresent you, Andrew?


And Andrew told him. He was prepared to say that. He had a couple different things that he thought were important. But then I don’t think Anglin had thought he was prepared to debate the “Holocaust” and, or Adolf Hitler, or anything like that. So, that’s why he said what he did, because maybe he would have done a different job, if he had gone there intending to debate that.


John: Okay, I get you.


Carolyn: He said what he thought, you know, I thought he did okay. But you’re right, he didn’t have some things right.


John: Yeah, I think overall he did pretty good.


Carolyn: Yeah.


John: And again I would certainly agree with Anglin over Greg Johnson, for sure, when it comes to this issue. So with that being said, I just want to say really quickly about Greg Johnson, because I think you’re going to be much more critical of him, than I will be.


I’ve been listening to and reading Greg Johnson for a number of years. I have one of his books, and I’m forgetting the title, off the top of my head. “New Right versus Old Right” I think that’s the name of it.


[Image] New Right vs Old Right by Greg Johnson. Click image to enlarge.


Carolyn: Yeah.


John: And I think Greg Johnson is a very, very smart man. He’s very articulate. I think he makes a lot of good arguments. His book I thought was really good, although there are certain sections, that I totally disagreed with. Including the article where he talks about the “Holocaust”. And it was actually the article that was published originally on The Occidental Observer dot net. It was basically the same article he wrote for the website, that was also published in the book.


And that’s an article that I’m sure we’ll bring up and talk about here as we proceed. But the book overall, was very good. I learned a lot from it. I think he makes a very good case for, you know, pro-White interests over all.


Again, I think he’s very articulate, very intelligent. I mean, the man’s a Ph D. He’s obviously, very smart. I just totally disagree with him when it comes to Revisionism and the “Holocaust”.


So, I just want to say that. I think he’s very smart, I think he is an asset to the movement overall. I just disagree with him. Then, of course, there’s also this debate, whether, or not he’s gay. And I don’t know if he is, or not.


Carolyn: John! John! That’s a definite fact! I mean, he didn’t want to talk about it for a long time, tried to avoid it and not talk about it. But he never denied it!


John: Right.


Carolyn: And it was Alex Linder who was trying to get him to deny it. And he didn’t do it. He was always walking around it. So, he’s even prides himself in being able to, you know, swerve around and make his arguments and come out with what he thinks is a winning argument. No matter what. It’s not based really on that he’s got all the facts right, or the facts on his side, but he just thinks he knows how to argue. And he said that. So, I think that there’s no doubt about that. He doesn’t want to say so, but he doesn’t fight it.


John: Right. And, you know, honestly I think you’re probably right, but again it’s not something that I frankly care too much about. It is what it is.


Carolyn: Let me say that I don’t care too much about him. I could leave him alone, but I do care about, as you know, about Revisionism. And I care about World War Two history, and I care about National Socialism. And when I hear him saying the things he does, I can’t, and I don’t think we should, just say, well that’s his opinion, he can have his opinion.


Naturally, he can have his opinion. But, I wouldn’t just let it pass it by and say it doesn’t matter. He’s good on other things. I think it does matter, because, as I’m going to try to point out here, the things that he says about it are totally ridiculous! And wrong! And uneducated!


John: Sure. I agree.


Carolyn: He makes this “great” argument. He makes this argument that just flips around. But, it’s not based on facts, and therefore it shouldn’t be respected, I don’t think.





John: OK. Yeah I sort of agree with you, I mean, pretty much. Before we get into the main topic, let’s actually just address this right off the bat. This issue of Johnson being gay. Because I’ve heard you argue in the article you wrote that his homosexuality seems to influence his thinking in his pro-White stance, and everything. So, how influential is his homosexual sexual identity in all of this? Do you think it has a huge role in his overall perspective?


Carolyn: Yeah, well I’ve said so and, you know, I realized when I was writing this, that I was just being way out there with talking about him actually giving the reasons for his thinking as his homosexuality, over and over, again. I knew I was doing that, and I didn’t actually get criticized for it. You know, to my face. But I thought I would. But then I thought, this just hits me so hard in everything that he says, while I kept to the “Holocaust” Revisionism, for the most part, and somewhat with the Hitler stuff.


It just strikes me so strongly that, that is the reasoning behind it. And this is not brand new, because I’ve said these things before, but I haven’t talked about Greg Johnson for a long time. And I don’t think, in a sense it’s none of my business what Greg Johnson is doing. But when he comes out publicly with this stuff on this topic, I just feel like I got to answer this, and I’ve got to say something.


John: Yes.


Carolyn: And there are some people who appreciate it.


John: No, definitely! I mean, every time I hear him, or Dr Kevin MacDonald, again two individuals I’ve learned a lot from, I respect. I think they’re certainly on our side, overall, but I just totally disagree with this. And I think it is a very important point. In fact, as you know, I often argue when I’m doing pod-casts when I’m writing, that the fake “Holocaust” story is the entire bedrock of this New World Order! This anti-White, White genocide agenda, jewish agenda. This is the heart of it. This is what drives all. It’s the paradigm that really shapes this and advances it. And I mean, I just don’t see how we can avoid it, if we are to confront these problems, and deal with them seriously. I don’t think that we can. And we will get into that as we, …


Carolyn: Yeah, I know you believe that John. But you’re also a very nice person, but also you are committed to the movement. You don’t want to criticize people. And I’m criticized for going out and criticizing people who some people think shouldn’t be criticized, especially Kevin MacDonald. And, you know, a couple weeks before this Johnson Anglin discussion, I wrote something* about Kevin MacDonald, which was longer than this.


[* See Carolyn’s Aug 8, 2017 blog post: “Kevin MacDonald on record saying whether the Holocaust actually happened is ‘not important’“]


[Image] Kevin MacDonald (pic taken at the 2016 NPI conference) and his landmark book on jews, “The Culture of Critique“.


He did a radio program with that, “non jewish” jew, and a girl there asked him about the “Holocaust” and Hitler and stuff. So he answered. And I was so shocked! Just thought his answers are pretty terrible. And I wrote about him about two years ago on the same topic, because a radio program* he did.


[* See Carolyn’s Nov 16, 2015 blog post: “The Heretics’ Hour: Kevin MacDonald’s problem with Holocaust revisionism“]


So these two men, … Now, MacDonald I always respected so much and I would never have, … Well he never talked about it, that I knew of in the past. But he did on these two occasions, because he was asked! And these were both, maybe since he was retired, I don’t know if he was retired the first one, but probably. And I thought, well that’s pretty ignorant! That’s not right. And so I made a noise about it, and I’m good at doing that. [John laughs]


John: Yes, you are.


Carolyn: That’s my role, I guess. So I have those two, that kind of go together in my mind. So when this came up with Greg Johnson, I thought, well I’m going to write something about this, too. Just to be fair! [chuckling]







John: Yeah, and I think it’s totally legitimate to have these discussions and to publicly disagree with other thought leaders, in the Alt-Right, or whatever. I think that’s totally fine. I think that’s healthy, really, what we should be doing, rather than engaging in drama, or gossip, and all this other crap. If we’re going to criticize somebody, …


Carolyn: We’re just ignoring it. Mostly, people don’t want to criticize someone like Kevin MacDonald, even over his views on “Holocaust” revisionism. But, it was a big hit, a lot of conversation about it. A lot of comments, a good thread about it and so on.


John: Right.


Carolyn: Anyway, like you, that is my big thing. And I’ve decided even more, and more, that when it comes down to it, that’s my big thing! And so, I’m going to push it as much as I can. And I don’t have the reach those guys do, but I can certainly say what I think about the misleading things they’re saying about it.


John: Yes, exactly. So, let’s get right into it. What were your overall thoughts on the debate? What points would you make?


Carolyn: Johnson said:


No honest revisionist claims that the “Holocaust” never happened.


And then he says:


Robert Faurisson claims that the “Holocaust” never happened. But only by insisting on a particular definition.


Those are his words. He says:


His argument is too clever by half and cannot be taken seriously.


He kept repeating:


We don’t have to rehabilitate the Third Reich.


And he said:


You can say that we are Nazis, or you can say, ‘No, we’re not Nazis’, or you can say, ‘Nazis are not evil’, but you can’t say, …


I don’t know, whatever.


John: Well, his main argument seemed to be that the pro-White struggle and having a pro-White identity, and just the overall pro-White message is in no way related to what happened during World War Two.


Carolyn: Right. Right.


John: that was his main thing. And theoretically what he’s saying is true! I mean, the fact that White people deserve their own countries, that there’s this very blatant anti-White, agenda that’s being advanced on every single White country. We’re being forced with all this mass immigration, forced multiculturalism, forced integration, all this anti-White propaganda, etc.


This is wrong, and our cause is totally legitimate. And is in no way related to, or tied to World War Two. That’s correct in theory, but that’s not the way it works in the real world, right?






Carolyn: Yeah, and everybody is familiar with that. You know, that is just a bunch of baloney, saying that. That’s fine for us to say, but nobody pays attention to it, as you just said, in the real world. So he kept saying:


Well we can made this wonderful argument, that this is absurd what people are saying.


To say what they call White supremacists, or just White identists, or White activists, are Nazis. That’s just so absurd on it’s face. That’s silly. And that’s not a good argument. First of all we can just ignore that, and just go on and do our thing whatever.


He doesn’t really have an answer to it. His whole answer to all of it, is to ignore it, in what he called in his article he wrote quite a number of years ago, that caused such a stir. He was using that phrase, “To step over it”. So we just “step over” the “Holocaust” and go on our way. And say it doesn’t have anything to do with us.



John: Right. But there’s no way to. I mean, theoretically you could, if you’re talking about it again from a theoretical perspective, …


Carolyn: Andrew Anglin countered that on that show, by saying that if we say we agree with everything Hitler said and did, which he does, you know, basically expects that people are going to do. If we agree with what Hitler did, we can’t then say that we have nothing to do with him. And he says that nobody’s going to fall for that. Nobody’s going to go along with that.


And Greg is saying, well he wouldn’t say that. He didn’t say those words, but that then leads him to trying to dismiss, get us away from Adolf Hitler’s National Socialism, too. Which he disagrees with. And that’s part of what the “New Right” is about, right?


John: Yeah. And from what I remember about the book, his main critique of the “Old Right” is that it was kind of brutal, and violent, and tyrannical. And I think that’s a totally distorted view of National Socialism.


Carolyn: Well it is. See now, that’s where the homosexuality comes in. That absolutely comes in there. He doesn’t like, … He was much more friendly toward Hitler and National Socialism, but he’s moved away from that, because he sees, or decided, or whatever, that this is over quite a number of years, that this is a government that could treat his group badly. And so therefore he rejects anything to do with fascism, you know, what we call fascism, or the Third Reich. He rejects it.


[Image] Heinrich Himmler talks of the problem with homosexuals in society. See: Heinrich Himmler on Homosexuality.


And to me, it’s because he’s afraid of the brutality, he’s afraid of the harshness. He doesn’t think that he could convince them that he’s a good guy and that they should leave him and his friends alone.


John: It’s almost as if he knows that he would be sort of excluded in a National Socialist type state, because he is a homosexual. And that’s kind of what motivates him. And that seems to be kind of the argument you’re making in your article. And I mean, it’s entirely valid. It certainly does seem to be sort of the case.


Carolyn: Well, I think that Greg has been so successful, financially, he takes in a lot of money. From the way I think, and the way you think, I’m pretty sure, as compared to how much money you have ever gotten, he gets a lot of money. I think he gets a lot from the homosexual community. Because, even though he was criticized for being homosexual, he wouldn’t admit to any of it. He published books by blatant homosexuals, like James O’Meara, who has been exposed on the Internet, cross-dressing, and doing a lot of weird things. Pictures and everything. And Jack Donovan, and he’s been very friendly, he was very friendly with him.



And I think he has a lot of writers. Although, I was looking at his site more recently, which I haven’t for a long time, and he’s got a lot of different people writing articles, there. I don’t know who they all are. But he had a lot of writers that I think, just from the sound of them, the way they wrote, what they wrote about, that I suspect they were homosexuals.


Now, your commenter, Tucker, thinks that I see homosexuals everywhere. I do, I guess, I may have a sensitively to them, because when I think that they are, I notice it. So, I just have my opinion, he depends a lot on the homosexual community, at least for money. And they send him a lot of money because he stands up and publishes their work, and so on.






[Image] Some of the homo imagery featured in Counter-Currents in the last 12 months. Click image to enlarge.


And he also, I don’t know so much now, but back when I was making a study of it, I noticed and pointed out that he had constantly photographs, you know, he has a picture with every little post announcement on his site. Way outnumbered photographs of men with a lot of muscles showing, and not wearing very much. Old classic pictures, [chuckling] classic paintings, and sculptures, and so on. He supposedly deals in the classics, but there’s all these men, the kind of pictures that homosexuals would like looking at. Would really love looking at. So the whole thing just all fits together. And when he would say something like, you know, let me find something that he actually said:


It’s foolish for us to attack the enemy at their best defended points, …


We’re now into revisionism.


… Because we can make a case for White identity and White interests that doesn’t depend on whether or not the Nazis got it right, or wrong.


Things like I, …


John: But I think he’s so wrong about that! Because any time you make a pro-White case, it’s inevitably going to be tied into Hitler, the Nazis and the “Holocaust”. I mean, the jews have been so successful with this fake story, it’s totally discredited any form of White identity, and they pathologize it. And it’s instantly tied in with this!


Carolyn: Yeah. And that’s why he wants to distance himself from National Socialism, and Hitler, as much as possible. And he thinks, says, that will work. But then he also said in this podcast:


There are many things I think the National Socialists did wrong. And I do think that their plans for the Slavic east were really genocidal.


Then he said that Plan Ost, which is on the famous Wikipedia page, was a fabrication, as far as he can tell. But he still considers the “Holocaust” a genocide against jews! Now what really gets me, and because we don’t have forever I’m going to jump to it.


In his article on his website that he wrote about the debate, he said some interesting things, and then this Ermin, … What’s his first name? Vince Irmin*, or something, who he published his book. Who wrote a book about Hitler, a kind of a friendly book about Hitler, and Greg’s company published it. He wrote a comment and said he thought Anglin was right.


* Vinson Irmin, “Some Thoughts on Hitler and Other Essays”. Foreword by Kevin MacDonald, edited by Greg Johnson (2012). Click image to enlarge.


He said, Anglin was doing the right thing by, making fun of the “Holocaust” and so on. And Greg wrote a reply to him and he said:


The ‘Holocaust’ is a great big pile of dead jews, not a normative claim* that jewish suffering is more important than non-jewish suffering.”


[* “Normative” statements/claims present an account of how the world should be. The word contains the stem ‘norm’: something that should be lived up to; or that should be pursued.]


Sorry, I left out that this Irmin said that:


The whole meaning of the ‘Holocaust’ is not genocide, but that it’s a claim of jews that their suffering, during World War Two was vastly more significant than any other suffering in history.



Comment exchange between Johnson and Irmin. Click images to enlarge.


A very good point, which you would agree with, I’m sure. That’s really what it’s all about. They are so jealous of anybody else having any claims to having, … Then that will come up when we talk about the Poles, and the Pole’s demands now for reparations, if we get a chance to do that.






So, anyway, Greg answered that:


The “Holocaust” is a great big pile of dead jews, not a normative claim that jewish suffering is more important than non-jews suffering. You can drop that moral absurdity, …


Everything, he wants to call that way.


But there’s still a great big pile of dead jews!


John: But is there really Carolyn?


Carolyn: No!


John: No, there’s not. Exactly!


Carolyn: I mean what is a pile of, … The “Holocaust” has to be more than a pile of dead Jews! There’s piles of dead people of all kinds!


John: Exactly! There’s photos of piles of bodies that are presented to a very gullible traumatized public and were told:


Oh! Hey look how evil the Nazis are! Look at all these dead people that died in these concentration camps!


It’s never explained how these people died, what happened, what was going on at the time, there’s no context. It’s all very emotional and psychological exploitative propaganda, that is designed to instill and reinforce this fake narrative!


Carolyn: Right! And here is where I want to make the point that I made in the wrong place before, that he said that Andrew’s position — in this article he said this — Andrew’s position on the “Holocaust” boils down to:


It never happened. But it should have.


And he says this is completely indefensible. And I ask, what is “it”? Because I’m saying, my point I’m going to make here, is that you need to define what the “Holocaust” is. That’s why saying it’s a big pile of dead jews, doesn’t cut it!


And then Greg writes:


First, to say it never happened is factually indefensible. No honest revisionist claims that the ‘Holocaust’ never happened.


And then he says:


Robert Faurisson, does claim this, but only by insisting on a particular definition. His argument is too clever by half, …


[laughs] The pot calling the kettle black!


… And cannot be taken seriously.


Oh come on!


Even if one grants every serious revisionist argument, what remains is ‘Holocaust’ enough for most people.


Now this is just coming from that 2012, I think it was, long article titled, “Dealing with the “Holocaustthat he published at Occidental Observer. And MacDonald, turns out was totally in agreement with him and ends up coming out later with the very same arguments.


The Occidental Observer article (Jul 20, 2012) by Johnson titled “Dealing with the Holocaust. Click image to enlarge. Note: the comments are not available to be viewed.


You know, the thing is Faurisson* is right. You have to have a definition for what you’re talking about! What is the “Holocaust”? You can’t talk about the “Holocaust” and then everybody talking about has a different idea what it is. And it’s just a big pile of dead jews, according to this very smart Ph. D., John! Who you say is such a smart man.


[* Robert Faurisson is one of Europe’s foremost Holocaust revisionist scholars]


Article (Aug 30, 2017) by Johnson on the “debate” with Andrew Anglin. Click image to enlarge.


John: No. I hear you. [Carolyn laughs] By the way, you’re referring to an article, and I’ve not read this article, I just found it on Counter hyphen Currents dot com. “My Conversation with Andrew Anglin”.


Carolyn: Right, right. I’ve got a link to it here.


John: I’ll link to that in this blog post, so people can go read what he has to say. It looks like it’s kind of his summary or concluding thoughts on his debate with Anglin.


Carolyn: Right.


John: One thing I wanted to ask you is, and Greg Johnson brought this up in the debate, he’s obviously not like an outright National Socialist, you know, he loves Hitler, etc. But, you know, he’s tries to be objective and fair and say:


Oh well, the Nazis weren’t that bad, but they did do some things wrong.


Carolyn, what exactly did Hitler and the Nazis do wrong? I’m trying to figure that out.


Carolyn: See, I don’t agree with that. He mentions that Operation Ost, or whatever it was called, they found some notes about it. There was kind of a plan, but they made all kinds of plans! That different people wrote out plans for the East when they took more control of it, and so on. That doesn’t mean they were ever carried [out], or they were going to be, quite in that way. And so there’s a whole lot made out of that. But then he admits that it’s a fabrication. But he thinks that still, he always says that the Nazis did things wrong. He said it in both the debate and in his article. But he can never really point out to what it is, but he thinks that they did exterminate jews! Now for him, that’s immoral.






He doesn’t say, you know, he’s supposed to be anti-jew, but that’s immoral. Well others, revisionists, say they didn’t exterminate jews and there was never a plan. Now this brings us to the definition of the “Holocaust”, which you’re very aware of, and a lot of people are, but let’s just go over real quick.


As Michael Shermer wrote in 2000, and he’s a jewish “Holocaust” apologist. He says:


When historians talk about the “Holocaust” what they mean, is that about six million jews were killed in an intentional and systematic fashion by the Nazis using a number of different means, including gas chambers.



[Image] Michael Shermer’s book “Denying History” in which he gives a standard definition of what is the “Holocaust“. Click image to enlarge.


And then Michael Berenbaum and Deborah Lipstadt, said the same thing. So have many, many others. And that’s known to be what they insist on! The jews themselves insist on that, for the “Holocaust”. They don’t let’s you change that, take away from the six million, or say that there was no plan, or intention to kill the jews. And Deborah Lipstadt says; “they were intended to kill every jew in Europe“, and things like that, you know. They have no evidence for that.


And that’s why someone like Greg Johnson doesn’t want to bring that up. Because he knows it can be debunked. But, at the same time he wants to say that there was a “Holocaust” and the Nazis are responsible for it, and that’s why we don’t want to be associated with them, or call ourselves Nazis. That is not the reason. That is all.


[Image] Carlo Mattogno’s book “Fail: Denying History” in which he gives Shermer’s book “Denying History” a good thrashing. Click image to enlarge.


John: And that’s what’s so bizarre to me with, how a guy like Greg Johnson, this very smart man, an academic, a Ph. D. Kevin MacDonald the same thing. Richard Spencer as well. He’s kind of always pooh-poohed revisionism. He doesn’t think it’s important and relevant, at least from what I’ve heard from him in the past, in conversations I’ve had with him.


Carolyn: They all do the same thing!


John: Yeah, they all think we can “step over it”. We don’t have to address it. We can ignore it. It’s not relevant, or related to our current, …


Carolyn: And you know, I also think, I don’t want to make a fuss here, but I also think that Richard Spencer is basically homosexual. And I think there’s a problem with, now of course, Kevin isn’t, but I think there’s a problem with having so many homosexuals in the White movement, as leaders. I think there’s a problem with that personally. So, I just thought I’d bring it up, because it comes up.


John: It always does. And to my knowledge Richard Spencer is not a homosexual. That’s all I’ll say about it. I don’t think that he is. From what I understand he is married and he has a child and everything.


Carolyn: You can do that.


John: My point is, … Right, yeah. Anyways, my point is that these guys, these very smart guys, always dismiss Revisionism. They don’t think it’s important. But what’s bizarre to me is that Revisionism itself is very, very well founded, from a scholarly perspective, from an academic perspective. I mean, all of the books that have been written debunking, scientifically debunking, the “Holocaust” in virtually every single regard, every single aspect of the official “Holocaust” narrative is not true. I can confidently say that at this point. None of it is true! It’s all propaganda! It’s all, just this fake narrative!



Carolyn: And these guys avoid that! They don’t talk about it!


John: Exactly!


Carolyn: They don’t talk about it at all, and then they just say:


Well I’m not convinced it didn’t happen.


What kind of thing? They don’t let themselves be convinced. They won’t read anything!


John: And Johnson even argued in the debate that it’s like, “over the heads of most people” and it’s “too difficult to go through all this information”. And it’s like, no! It’s not! I mean, if you just stop and think about it and break it down.


[Image] Holocaust Handbook Series — 1 of 4.  Click image to enlarge.


As you were kind of explaining, the basic tenets of the official “Holocaust” narrative, are; six million jews, it was done in gas chambers, largely, and it was a systematic, coordinated plan, carried out by the Nazis. All three of those assertions are easily proven to be false!


I don’t understand, … It’s clear to me that they are just afraid of this topic! They’re avoiding it, because they think it’s bad PR. I think that’s really what it boils down to.






Carolyn: I used to say that, but now I go further, and I’m pretty convinced that they don’t like Nazism. They don’t like Hitler. And I’ve given my reasons for why Greg doesn’t. But Kevin doesn’t, because he just never has. He likes Americanism. He thinks we need to be American. He doesn’t want to go there.


John: It’s too taboo I think, for MacDonald especially.


Carolyn: Yeah, yeah. I think with Kevin, he personally doesn’t like anything to do with Nazis. It personally turns him off. He doesn’t like uniforms, he doesn’t like the swastika, he doesn’t like any of that. The way they behave. I mean, he really sincerely doesn’t like it, but that means he’s not looking at it, as he supposedly looks at history, in an honest objective manner. He doesn’t want us to get involved with that. And so, that’s why they don’t want to reconstruct, or revisit the “Holocaust”, because if the “Holocaust” didn’t happen then Hitler might be rehabilitated! And that’s the one thing they don’t want. They want Hitler to be the bad guy.


John: Yeah.


Carolyn: You see, some of us don’t want that. So we’re really at odds here!


John: I totally, …


Carolyn: I can’t just ignore that and say:


Oh well, that is okay, I still support you.


Because, to me, what they’re doing is keeping us in this bondage to the jews. And they’re helping the jews! They don’t want to help the jews, but they think they can ignore the “Holocaust” and National Socialism, the Third Reich, and move ahead with White identity. And talking about where the jews are wrong and this won’t hurt anything. But all of them, are much more tolerant of jews as friends and in the movement then what I would be.


Richard Spencer was talking in that video I linked you in that comment I wrote, that he thinks that mixed race people can be in the White movement and if they’re mostly White they can certainly, you know, adjust if they really are for us. That we can just accept all these people.


That’s too lax for me.


John: Yep, I hear you. And by the way, the comments that you’re referring, and you mentioned Tucker who is a commenter on my website, this is from our last pod cast. So if you go back in the archives you find the most recent conversation I had with you, you can find all the comments there and kind of see what we’re talking about.


Carolyn: Yeah.


John: Yeah. I mean, to me it just doesn’t make any sense how these are obviously very smart, educated men, can just dismiss all of this scholarly research done into the “Holocaust”, by guys like Germar Rudolf, for example, who is himself a scientist and a Ph. D. Robert Faurisson and many others, countless others! Check out The Barnes Review dot org for all the most classic “Holocaust” revisionists books. They’re all for sale. They’re all worth purchasing and reading in my view.



[Image] Holocaust Handbook Series — 2 of 4.  Click image to enlarge.


We’ve proven that this story is not true! We’ve proven it scientifically, we proven it from a very scholarly perspective. It’s really, in my view, not up for debate anymore. So it’s just a matter of these guys not taking the time to do the research, or just choosing to ignore this and downplay it! And you can’t! I mean, it’s very clear that you can’t! Try going, …


Carolyn: They don’t want that to be a part of their movement!


John: Right.


Carolyn: So to me, they’re dishonest about it. They won’t argue it. You know, they won’t talk, … They won’t say:


Okay, I think this is wrong and this is why.


They won’t argue those points. They don’t want to get into it. Because they don’t think they have a very good argument, so they just avoid it. And that I think is dishonest, and it’s not fair.






Now I came across something else at Counter-Currents, just yesterday, written by Kevin MacDonald in 2016, September. One year ago posted there, titled “The Alt-Right and the jews”. And most of it was just the usual thing that Kevin talks about with the jewish influence and how it ruling in our societies, and so on. But then he got into a little more specific things, and he said, which others have said:


I think it’s fine that some organizations and some Alt-Right figures do not discuss jewish issues.


Well that’s OK, but then, a few sentences later he said:


I would love it if there could be an Alt-Right mass movement with significant jewish support.


And then he gives some reasons why that’s probably not going to happen and why it might not work out so well. But it shows that’s just a different attitude, that he would like to see Jewish support.


[Image] Kmac’s article, “The Alt-Right and the jews” with a couple of critical comments. Click image to enlarge.


John: It’s incredible! I mean, it’s a naive attitude to think:


Oh, maybe jews will finally be objective, like us, and realize that our message is legitimate, and righteous, and honest!


No! The jews are never going to admit this! At least not in large numbers. There might be a couple individual jews who would maybe support the idea of a White ethnostate or, sort of go along with our perspective. But overall, the jews have made very clear as a collective racial entity, that they are very, very, and blatantly hostile to our interests, and hostile to the future prospects of our race! And, in fact, are doing everything in their power to bring about our destruction! They make this very clear. So to me it’s very naive. I don’t understand it.


Like, just one day, we are going to finally convince the jews that we have a righteous cause?


Carolyn: If they want to have some jews who they think would see it, … And here’s what he said:


That jews would see it in their interest that White societies continue to be healthy, because that’s in the jews interests as they live there.


You know, they don’t want them to deteriorate into all these minorities, factions, and so on then. He’s still talking about jewish interests. So jews are doing it, because it’s best for them, not because it’s in the interest of White people! Not because they identify as White, but only that they want to live in White countries and get along all right for themselves.


So that’s a totally different thing! Yes, it is very naive and it’s very much academic, I guess. You praise these guys, because their Ph D.’s, and then this is an attitude that more academics tend to have. You know, I still respect Kevin MacDonald a great deal. I mean, I’ve always liked him, but I just think that this needs to be said. And I actually hope that more people would look at all this and make comments about it and think about it.


John: Sure.


Carolyn: I think it’s very harmful to what we’re trying to do.


John: I’ll just say publicly, I don’t know if Kevin MacDonald, or Greg Johnson, or Richard Spencer would even listen to this, but if they do and they’re interested in discussing this with me, I’d be more than happy to have them on. I’m sure most people listening [know that] I’m not like this very hostile interviewer. I want to hear them out. I would probably challenge them, obviously.


Carolyn: Well I don’t think they would.


John: I don’t think so.


Carolyn: I sincerely doubt very much, because they don’t want to have to explain themselves. That’s why they do it, the way they do.


John: Well, all I would say is, to a guy like him, Kevin MacDonald, or Greg Johnson, or Spencer, anybody else who kind of goes along with their line of thinking, that we can avoid this issue, “step over it” as Johnson argues, … If you really do think that, that’s fine I guess. I would just say don’t, to use an Alt-Right expression, don’t counter signal revisionists, people that are critically investigating the fake “Holocaust” narrative.




There’s no need to! If you’re not interested in this topic, if you don’t think it’s important, then simply avoid it! But! Don’t accept the mainstream jewish narrative in any way! Just say:


Hey look! It’s got nothing to do with what I’m saying. White people have rights. My pro-White ideas and views have nothing to do with Hitler, or Nazis, or the “Holocaust”. I don’t care about it! That happened seventy, eighty years ago. What I’m talking about is now!


That’s all they have to do!


Carolyn: Right.


John: They don’t have to go along with the fake story, they don’t have to say:


Oh well, Hitler did do some things wrong and jews were persecuted, and murdered.


No! Just avoid it altogether! That to me is the best approach to take, if you are going to go along with Johnson, and MacDonald, and Spencer, and these other guys.


Carolyn: Well right. I said that in that article about MacDonald and his pod-casts, and it would be okay with me, if you just said:


I don’t know anything about it. I haven’t studied it. I don’t like to talk about it, because I, have not studied the issue.


And then that would be it. But instead, he did give some opinions. And then he made a silly comment:


That I’ve never seen anything that convinced me.


Well that’s just a dumb comment!


John: He’s not looking very hard then!


Carolyn: No! [laughing] No!


[Image] Revisionist “Holocaust” books. Click image to enlarge.


John: Because, I mean, Dr MacDonald, I’ll send you multiple books, … I mean, you can find this all out on the Internet! And see, that was another thing I wanted to bring up. Johnson kept arguing that to get our message across to people in a modern context, we don’t need to rehabilitate Hitler, or the Third Reich, or National Socialism, or anything like that.


I would disagree with that! I think that from an objective, truth-seeking perspective, it’s very clear that Hitler was a very righteous and honorable man! He was the greatest political statesman in modern Western history! I think you could say that, argue that very, very convincingly from a very objective, scholarly, perspective.


Carolyn: Yes. But you would have to have all your facts and figures at hand. That is not easy, but, yeah! Sure you could! Of course you could.


John: That’s true. And also I think that he still, …


Carolyn: Johnson says that, not because he knows that, or anything, but he says that, because he doesn’t want it! He doesn’t want it to be rehabilitated! Because he doesn’t want it to return.


John: Yeah.


Carolyn: In that way, that’s exactly what the jews don’t want. The jews don’t want Hitler to be rehabilitated more than they care about the “Holocaust”. The “Holocaust” is very important to them. But they don’t want Hitler to return or anything like that! So they’re in accord with that. And that’s why they want to keep the “Holocaust” in place, so they can say:


Look! He’s responsible for this and we can’t have him. He was a bad guy!


John: Right, exactly, yeah.


Carolyn: I’m sorry to say, they’re not coming from an honest place. They’re not coming from an honest, scholarly place. And in truth, the whole thing is that everybody comes from what they want to happen. It’s all about power! When you come down to it, history is all, who’s in power, and it’s not what’s true. You can find a lot about truth and what’s true and have different opinions. But in the overall, it’s who’s in power and that’s what it’s going to be.


So you have to change the power. And so someone like Andrew Anglin and his way dealing with that, I’m not saying he does it the best, but that way of dealing with it is in the end, it’s necessary. Because we agree, but we could talk with other people until we were blue in the face. And if they don’t want to change the way, their views of modern life are, they’re not going to go with it.






John: Right. Well really, it’s all about who controls the narrative, and the jews have control of the narrative when it comes to pretty much every major issue of importance. All of the issues that really form our paradigms for how we understand the world, how we understand our history. It’s all a jewish narrative. It’s a jewish approved narrative that advances jewish interests and delegitimizes White interests. I mean, that’s what it’s all about. It’s about controlling the narrative. And what is sad to me is that we’ve made so much progress in countering that jewish narrative, that weaponized, jewish narrative. Certainly within the past, since I’ve been involved in this movement, anyways. I mean, think about “Adolf Hitler, The Greatest Story Never Told”.


Carolyn: Right.


John: What a brilliant film! Very professionally done! Very, very powerful! Very, very moving! A great film, and it’s huge on YouTube. I mean, it’s been censored countless times. But I would venture to say that literally millions of people have seen that, and it has profoundly impacted them. It certainly did for me. And there’s many other documentaries, many other books that have been written, many other pod-casts. I mean, you’ve done a lot of work on this. I think you’ve played a huge role in rehabilitating the image of Hitler, and Nazis, and the WWII narrative, in general. And other people have as well.


Carolyn: Thank you.


John: And this work is so important! And we’ve made a lot of progress, we really have!


Carolyn: You’re right! I mean, that’s why we got to keep pushing! We’ve got to keep pushing it! I’m convinced of that now. That if I do anything, I’m going to just keep working on “Holocaust” revisionism, and also what I can do with Hitler. But mostly with this revisionism, because there is so much. I mean, it’s all been figured out, it’s all been debunked. It’s just a matter of getting people to pay attention.


[Image] Holocaust Handbook Series — 3 of 4.  Click image to enlarge.


You know, I was talking to you about my nephew and what I noticed with him, he’s very open-minded, very nonjudgmental, willing to look at things. But he doesn’t care all that much. I can tell. I sent him some things to read and look at, and he did. And then he said:


Well, what about this and that, …


And he wasn’t completely convinced by it. Well, when I came to it I was, like, ready to be convinced. I mean, I wanted to be convinced, I admit that. I wanted it to not be true. Other people wanted it to be, so it was different. But he’s kind of like just, he’s more interested in the Constitution and things like that. So I’m not going to press it, but I did sent him the book, “Debating the Holocaust”, and he said he would read it.

But, you know, you can’t force this down people. It’s not really what they think is most important, so even if he was convinced to some degree, which would at least be nice, it doesn’t mean he would become like me. [laughs]


John: Right. That’s how the vast majority of people are. And that’s why controlling the narrative, controlling how information is presented, whether it’s through the media, whether it’s through our educational establishment, it’s so important. And the jew again, the jews have a total stranglehold over this! At least in the official channels. I think we’re chipping away at that and sort of eroding that. Certainly within the past ten years, or so.


But that’s really what it’s all about. Most people don’t care about World War Two! They don’t care about the “Holocaust”. They don’t care about Hitler.


Carolyn: No.


John: They’re just been taught all these truly false and highly weaponized narratives about this period of our history, and they just accept it. It doesn’t mean much to them, but that’s just what they know, what they’ve been taught. And they don’t really think about it.




So could you imagine, rather than watching Schindler’s List, in seventh grade, when we were in our English class, we’re watching, you know, “Adolf Hitler, The Greatest Story Never Told”. Which is clearly much more objective and scholarly than any of these ridiculous “Holocaust” films.



Carolyn: Right.


John: And people would have a much different perspective, a much different outlook on everything! On life in general.


Carolyn: They would! Absolutely! That’s just absolutely true! So, this is where it’s at. It’s a tough battle, that’s what it is. But I just think, that when it comes to revisionism, if everybody in the White activist movement would get on board with it. And would talk in favor of it, it would make a big difference. I think it would, because lots of people just never mention it, that are influential. I just think it would be good, but obviously it doesn’t look like it’s going to happen.






John: I completely agree with you. and I think that, again, more advice to people that kind of go along with Johnson, and MacDonald , and others. Look at this from strictly a free speech, freedom of expression, freedom of intellectual inquiry, think about it just from that perspective. I mean, we should be able to question the “Holocaust”! We should be able to critically examine it and to entertain other ideas, other perspectives about what really happened. Just that alone, I mean, just from a free speech perspective, …


Carolyn: Well, my nephew, …


John: You don’t have to agree with it, but you should be able to say:


Hey look, I think the “Holocaust” really did happen! but if somebody wants to question it and do research into it, I fully support them in doing that.”


You know what I mean?


Carolyn: Yeah. my nephew did say, … He looked at all these great arguments and he was like, “Yeah, yeah, yeah.


But then when I happened to bring up in passing, the laws against it in Europe, and how you couldn’t talk about it, you go to jail, he said:


That’s one of the more convincing part of it, to me.




John: Well, it is! It totally flies in the face of American traditions, you know, free speech, the First Amendment! It’s totally contrary to all that!


Carolyn: Yeah! Am I breaking up to you?


John: No.


Carolyn: Yours is breaking up to me, but maybe that doesn’t matter.


John: Okay. No. You’ve been crystal clear this entire time.


Carolyn: Okay.


John: Carolyn, I know we’re pretty much at the hour mark and we’re going to wrap up here in just a second. I just wanted to really emphasize the fact that this fake narrative, this fake “Holocaust” narrative, this hysterical, irrational, entirely unfounded, you know, demonization of Hitler and the Nazis. This narrative really is the bedrock of the entire New World Order agenda, the White genocide agenda, which are basically one and the same thing, right? This is so clear, so easy to demonstrate, that this is the case!


There’s a couple articles I just want to highlight and bring up here real quick. One of which was just published over at The Renegade Tribune, and it’s written by a man named, John Wear, who has actually contributed to The Barnes Review in the past, and I think The Barnes Review sells some of his books, if I’m not mistaken.



He wrote an article called “Why the Holocaust Story was Invented” and he lists a number of reasons that kind of explain the purpose of the fake “Holocaust” narrative. What agenda it’s advancing and, of course, the establishment of Israel, and the demonization of Germany, etc., There’s a number of arguments he makes. It’s very, very much worth reading. I don’t know if you caught that. I tweeted it out today.


I will also link it when I post, …


Carolyn: I read something by him, that maybe you sent to me?


John: It’s good, yeah.


Carolyn: I’m trying to remember it.


John: And this article this may be an older article, I’m not sure. I just saw it posted by Kyle Hunt at The Renegade Tribune. so it may be an article that John Wear wrote in the past, and he’s just reposting it. I know he does that often.


But it’s worth reading. it’s very good. I mean, …


Carolyn: Does he kind of hold off in certain areas, he’s not one hundred percent, or is this just in this thing I read? It seems like he was doing that. Maybe to be more acceptable, more convincing, or something? I don’t know. I can’t remember. I actually can’t remember exactly what it was. But would you say he kind of holds back a little bit, or not?


John: From what I can tell it doesn’t seem like that to me.


Carolyn: Okay.


John: I mean, maybe you wouldn’t be as forceful as we are when we talk about these subjects, but no, he seems pretty solid to me.


And this article is very good, it’s worth reading.


And then also, I wrote an article and, you know, I’ve been harping on this issue for a number of years. And this article goes back to April 26th of 2015. And it’s actually on my old blog, my old blogspot website, which amazingly is still up right now. If you go to it, it’s John Friends blog dot blogspot dot com. [johnfriendsblog.blogspot.com]







If you go to it, Google has that warning, you know, this is restricted content, or controversial content, or whatever. You have to click, “I understand and I Will Continue”. So they’re basically kind of censoring it. But anyways, you can still find it. And again I’ll link to this article as well.



And this article is titled, “Top jewish Leader Claims Entire Western World Culpable for the Holocau$t”*. And I just highlighted an article I found in the “Algemeine”, which is a jewish newspaper. Again, people who have followed my site know I highlight jewish newspapers and just what the jews actually say, just to expose their agenda and everything that they’re about. Because again, they openly admit these things and say exactly what they’re up to.


And this article in particular, I was highlighting, some comments that were made by Ron Lauder, who I believe still is the President of the World jewish Congress.


[* http:// johnfriendsblog.blogspot.com/2015/04/top-jewish-leader-claims-entire-western.html]


And this was right around the time of the, …


Carolyn: Whose name did you say?


John: Ron Lauder. Ronald Lauder.


Carolyn: Yeah.


John: Yeah, he’s a big time jew that is been involved in all this stuff for a long time. Anyways, he made a speech, this was at the seventieth anniversary of the liberation of Bergen-Belsen. And he’s basically arguing that literally the entire Western world is essentially responsible for the “Holocaust” happening. Because they didn’t do enough to help the jews!



And it’s just so incredible some of the statements that these jews make! You know, he’s demonizing the United States for, quote, unquote:


Shutting it’s doors to jews that were trying to flee Europe. And no one was doing enough to help the poor jews in Europe, ” etc.,


It’s just, it’s so infuriating seeing what these jews say, and just how brazen they are!


Carolyn: They’ve got such balls, they are almost like, insane! It’s almost like they’re stupid! Because they come out with stuff like. It’s not going to be accepted. And it just reinforces the idea that Jewish deaths are more important than anybody else’s! If the whole world has to stop and be responsible for what happened here, for this huge number they came up with, this six million baloney! But I mean, sometimes they are talking to jews and they don’t think the rest of us are going to be paying any attention.


John: Yeah. That is true, and most people, …


Carolyn: But I can’t see how xxx jews would like that either?


John: And that’s the thing, most people don’t ever sit down and read jewish newspapers and jewish news outlets. Which is why I try to highlight them and say:


Hey! Look these jews are saying this, not me! You can call me an anti-Semite, and a neo-Nazi and everything else, but all I’m doing is quoting jews themselves, OK?


Carolyn: Yeah.

It’s amazing the Jews are so important, that to say that the whole world, even to say all Europe and all Europeans are responsible for what happened to them! And then what? What does he say? What’s supposed to be done about it?


John: Well, unlimited money, unlimited sympathy, unlimited, just acquiescence to this jewish agenda to genocide our race.


Carolyn: Well, I think they want to pass laws against anti-semitism. I think that is what they’re after.


John: Yeah. Exactly.


Carolyn: And there’s nothing worse than that! To say:


Oh yeah, it’s illegal! You’re going to go to jail if you express anything that we consider anti-semitic.


And they’ve got a whole, … They’re working out what anti-semitism is. There’s a whole list of stuff. I mean, it’s all kinds of stuff! It includes criticizing Israel in various ways and so, you know, it just puts them totally, outside of anybody’s control in any way, shape, or form. And they can’t be harmed, nothing can happen to them in any way. So they’re not even responsible for obeying laws, or whatever.


So, they are just showing that they really do want extraordinary privileges.


John: Privilege! They talk about White privilege all the time! It’s really jewish privilege and [for] other minorities that they’ve elevated, and used as weapons against our race!


Yes no doubt! I mean, again it’s very clear if you just read what Jews have to say and listen to what they have to say.


[Image] Holocaust Handbook Series — 4 of 4.  Click image to enlarge.






Carolyn: I think sometimes we’re at war! That’s one thing that Hitler recognized. And people blame him for it, saying he shouldn’t have. This was a war and he couldn’t evade it. You have to go ahead and do it.


And we’re at war with these jews, and we can’t say:


Oh well, let’s hope we can all get along! Let’s hope that some of them will be on our side.


What? Five or six of them? [bursts out laughing]


John: Exactly! Exactly!


Carolyn: It’s just aversion for having to confront things. And of course for war, getting serious, … It’s no fun! It’s terrible! Of course we’d like to evade it! But sometimes you can’t, because you’re just going to be done in by it.


That’s probably one argument for what Hitler finally did about the jews in Germany. He went about it in such a mild way in the beginning! Just helping them out, you know, working with the Zionists that wanted to go somewhere else anyway. I don’t know, you know, … It built up, because of jews from around the world who didn’t want that to happen.


John: Yeah. Yeah again, and that’s what’s so incredible when you really have a good understanding of revisionism and all the research that’s been done to actually demonstrate that the Germans were not interested in killing jews, at all! They were interested in preserving their lives, because they wanted to use their labor in some of these labor camps.


Again, it’s like the total opposite of what we’ve been told. But again, the whole World War narrative is essentially the exact opposite of what we’ve been told!


But I wanted to also highlight one other article that I actually cite in this article that I mentioned. That’s on my blog. You can find you can find what I’m about to read there, and again I’ll link this when I post this program.


[Image] Ian Kagedan. Click image to enlarge.


There was an article written by a man named Ian Kagedan, I think is how you pronounce it. He was the former national director of the B’nai B’rth in Canada, and you wrote a very, very revealing op-ed in The Toronto Star, back in 1991. And the title of it is, get this Carolyn, I’m sure you’ve heard of this, “Memory of the Holocaust Central to New World Order”. That’s literally the title of the article, or of the op-ed.


Central to New World Order“, right? I mean, this is the title of the article. It’s incredible! And he argues here, quote:


The Holocau$t stands as Western civilizations greatest failure! It was a natural outcome of centuries of racism and of anti-Semitism. To deny the Holocau$t is to deny racism’s capacity to undercut our civilization’s basic values and to destroy democracy. Achieving our quest of a New [Jew] World Order depends on our learning the Holocau$t lessons.


And what are the lessons of the “Holocaust”? I mean, again, this proves my point. The fake “Holocaust” narrative is literally the linchpin of the entire New World Order agenda! Which is simply a jewish plot to enslave the world, politically, economically and culturally, destroying all genuine national and racial distinctions in the process.


And the lessons of the “Holocaust”, which, of course, include “tolerance, diversity, anti-racism, multiculturalism”. The lessons of the “Holocaust” are specifically designed to erode, de-legitimizes and ultimately destroy any form of White racial identity, and to justify multiculturalism, and massive non-White immigration into the West. And to end all criticism of jews and the jewish state of Israel, and to equate it with anti-Semitism and hate speech. That’s what this is all about!


Carolyn: Yeah.


John: I mean, how could we avoid this Carolyn?


Carolyn: He makes it very clearly, doesn’t he? That’s a horrible picture! Total enslavement! You’re going to be programmed with this stuff and you’re going to believe it, or you’re on the outs. You’re somebody who’s bad, can’t exist in our societies. So you’d have to go into some bad place, or whatever.


And this is the kind of thing you have to fight! But these people will say:


Oh! That is just that one guy. Nobody will ever fall for all that stuff!


Well look at how much the world has fallen for it, now.




And I guess they can fall for the rest of it, if the media continues to be so controlled. I don’t want to bring this up, as I don’t want to take up any more time, but just to say real quickly, … Then there’s Trump, who is like somebody who’s, you know, standing against that, but he doesn’t have the power to overcome it. We all have to overcome it! We all have to do it. We have to say:


God! We have to stop this!


And that’s why people like, this is what I was going to say, but I couldn’t remember. Just this, that’s what people like MacDonald and Johnson are getting in the way of! They’re actually helping the jews in what they’re doing!


They need to be told this! They need to, … This needs to be pushed in their face, actually! I mean, rather than say:


Oh well, we don’t want to say anything bad about them. We have to support them.


John: Yeah, I completely with you. I would be willing to discuss this with any of them and make my opinions very clear. Not just opinions. Again, how could you, …


Carolyn: You know, I wish we could! John, here’s an idea. Somebody was talking about they’d like to have a debate with, … Mark. Mark Weber! You know Mark Weber, … Johnson got his ideas from Mark Weber, or Mark Weber helped him. Or maybe he didn’t mean to send him in that direction, altogether, but they got it from there. And they think that Mark Weber and David Irving gives them some support.


And MacDonald, I believe too, knows Mark Weber quite well. And they get those ideas from Mark Weber. And yet I just don’t think Mark Weber is so afraid of this, as they are.


Maybe we could get a conversation with Mark Weber? At one time Mark Weber wanted to talk on the phone with me, and discuss all these things. And I wouldn’t do it, because I was so in disagreement with him, and I though he was trying to make me see it his way. But I would talk to him now, but I would rather talk to him in public, on a public debate, a public forum, not necessarily a debate. And ask him some questions. I don’t know he’d be willing to do that, or not. But it just occurs to me that he might be more willing than MacDonald or Johnson would be.


John: Carolyn, I’m going to see if I can make that happen, because I actually know Mark Weber.


Carolyn: Good.


John: I’ll see what I can do on that front. Boy! that would be very, very interesting! [laughing]


Carolyn: Yeah!


John: Well. I’ll see what I can do. And I’ll certainly be in touch. We’re well past the hour now, but that’s okay, let’s go ahead and wrap up.


I just want to conclude by saying, I think from my perspective, which I think I could defend very well, … Objectively speaking, Hitler was in fact the greatest White leader in modern history! That’s very clear to me. I think we do need to rehabilitate his image, and I think we’ve done a good job at doing that, over the course of the past, say ten years, or whatever. Pro-White ideas and perspectives will always! Always! Always be tied to Hitler, to the Nazis, to the “Holocaust”! There’s no reason to avoid it, or to cower in fear about it! We are right! And we have the evidence and the proof to demonstrate that we’re right!


And, this is something we need to tackle head on! And if you don’t want to, if you disagree with me, don’t counter signal it! Just, avoid it! Step over it. Whatever you’ve got to do. But don’t accept this jewish nonsense about gas chambers, and jews were murdered in this and that.


[Image] Holocaust Myth Cartoon. Click image to enlarge.


It’s all bullshit! Everything the jews have to say about the “Holocaust” is utter bullshit! Designed specifically to advance jewish interests, and to delegitimize White racial interests! That is so clear, it’s so obvious, we should not even be debating this at this point.


That’s all I got to say Carolyn. Go ahead.


Carolyn: Well. I agree with you John! Good for you!


John: Thank you. [both laugh]


Well this has been fun, Carolyn. I’ll go ahead and post this up tonight, and I’ll see if I get Mark Weber to talk about this. That would be very interesting.


Carolyn: Good! Okay! Well, it’s been fun for me too! And so, I hope the listeners enjoy it. Thanks John.


John: Okay. Thank you very much! I will talk to you real soon.


Carolyn: Good.


John: All right. Good night.











PDF Notes


PDF: Version 1 — Sep 21, 2017

* Total words = 12,423
* Total images = 35
* Total A4 pages = 94


Click to download a PDF of this post (6.0 MB):





Version History


Version 10: Sep 21, 2017 — Added PDF Version 1 for download.


Version 9: Sep 18, 2017 — Added some more links, and corrected some typos. Removed Transcript Status items. Added 1 image.


Version 8: Sep 17, 2017  — Added 15 images. Updated cover image. Expanded my intro.


Version 7: Sep 16, 2017  — Added 4 images. Proofed 15 more minutes. Total proofed = 80 mins. TRANSCRIPT NOW COMPLETE!


Version 6: Sep 14, 2017  — Added 3 images. Proofed 5 more minutes. Total proofed = 65 mins.


Version 5: Sep 13, 2017  — Added 3 images. Proofed 5 more minutes. Total proofed = 60 mins.


Version 4: Sep 12, 2017  — Proofed 10 more minutes. Total proofed = 55 mins.


Version 3: Sep 11, 2017  — Added 1 image. Proofed 10 more minutes. Total proofed = 45 mins.


Version 2: Sep 10, 2017  — Added 5 images. Proofed 10 more minutes. Total proofed = 35 mins.


Version 1: Sep 9, 2017  — Published post. Total proofed = 25 mins.


Read Full Post »


[This twelve-minute video gives an overview of the statements of various front-men, overwhelmingly jewish, that publicly promote the “unconventional” genocide of Whites. The ongoing genocide is “unconventional” in the sense that it is not being carried out, yet, by outright blood-letting, as in massacres, but instead by stealth, by psychological warfare that has been going on for many generations now. The genocidal program is being carried out by driving White birthrates below replacement levels, through many methods, such as the promotion of selfish individualism, etc,. Organized jewry did major blood-letting through it being the architect of World War I and II, the “Russian Revolution“, and so many other wars.

The psychological warfare inflicted on Whites through long-term jewish control of media, etc., has mentally softened Whites up with feelings of guilt, to the degree that most Whites are willingly surrendering their lands and people to being invaded by the Third World, that given enough time will completely dominate and finally destroy White societies.

The video ends with a psychological call to arms. Whites need to wake the hell up to what is happening to them and identify the enemy, organized jewry. “Yes Virginia, it’s the f*cking jews!“, and do something about it. If we don’t, then we will be destroyed by the “architects” — KATANA.]










YouTube Description

Please comment rate share & subscribe thanks.

This is a video i found while on the interwebs





White Genocide


Explained by Its




Published on April 24, 2017









Rabbi: The Messiah will return only once Edom — Europe, Christianity — will be totally destroyed.


So I ask you: Is it good news that Islam invades Europe? It is excellent news! It means the coming of the Messiah. Excellent news.



Gregor Gysi: There has to be a legal [unbureaucratic] way to get asylum in Europe. Countries like Poland — very Catholic by the way — have to be willing to accept [more] refugees.



Oh, and by the way: Every year more native Germans die than there are born.


That is very fortunate. It’s because the Nazis are not very good at having offspring. This [decline of Germans] is why [we] are so dependent on immigration from foreign countries.


See you at the protest. Goodbye!


Read Full Post »


[In this interview Andrew Hitchcock talks with Monika Schaefer, who went public a year ago telling the world in a YouTube video that she now knows that the “Holocaust” is in fact a fraud being perpetrated on the world for sinister purposes by organized jewry. She discusses her journey of realization, starting with her shocking discovery that 9/11 was an “inside job” carried out by those same people behind the “Holocaust” fraud, and concludes that it is imperative that more people start telling the truth about these events if we are to avoid a future of total tyranny — KATANA.]





Andrew Hitchcock




Monika Schaefer


on “Sorry Mom



Click here for the audio:

Monika Schaefer– Sorry Mom, I Was Wrong About The Holocaust


Click here for: Andrew Carrington Hitchcock webpage for this interview


Click her for Monika’s website:

Free Speech Monika




Published on June 8, 2017



Andrew Hitchcock’s Description


The Andrew Carrington Hitchcock Show (380) Monika Schaefer – Sorry Mom, I Was Wrong About The Holocaust


On today’s show I was joined by Monika Schaefer, to discuss her 6 minute YouTube entitled, “Sorry Mom, I Was Wrong About The Holocaust,” that you can view below.



We also discussed: Monika’s experience in, “Ritual Defamation,”; Joseph Ribakoff’s ADL prizewinning paper on legislating against hate speech in 1988; how Monika has been denied a busking permit due to her political beliefs; how the Jews expect you to be tolerant of their beliefs whilst they are intolerant of differing beliefs; and many other topics.


Special thanks to Alfred Schaefer for putting Monika and I in touch, so we could record this show.





(62 mins)





You are listening to TBR radio, brought to you by The Barnes Review.

Now the Andrew Carrington Hitchcock Show with your host, Andrew Carrington Hitchcock.


Andrew: Hello everybody. I have another new guest on today. I am delighted to have her on. Many of you will be aware of Monika Schaefer, and also that I interviewed her brother, Alfred, on my show recently. She’s got an excellent website. And the website is: freespeechmonika.worldpress.com. That’s, freespeechmonika.worldpress.com. And the “Monika” is spelt with a “k”. And, of course, I’ll be including a link to the website in the post for this show. And also the title of the show is “Sorry Mom, I was Wrong about the Holocaust”, which is a very famous YouTube, an excellently presented YouTube that Monika is well-known for, in our movement. So, without further ado, I’m going to bring Monika up. Monika are you with me?


Monika: Yes! Hello Andrew! Thank you so much for bringing me on to your show. It’s an honor.


Andrew: Well, thank you so much for joining me. And one of the things I like to do, is people that have been oppressed by this, you know, international group of jewish bandits — would be a fair way of describing them — to actually give these people a platform on my show to explain how they have been oppressed, the things that be done to them. Just for basically expressing your thoughts and opinions. No acts of violence or anything like that.


But before we get into that side of things, could you please run through for the listeners, your background, your personal background, in as little, or greater detail as you would like.


Monika: Yes. I was born in Edmonton, Alberta in Canada in 1959. The fourth of five children. My parents came from Germany in 1951 and ‘52 respectively. And we grew up in a very, wonderfully traditional household of rich German traditions.


And we got out camping a lot. We grew up with a very deep appreciation for nature, for the natural world. That was something that we got from our parents. We had a huge vegetable garden even though we grew up in the city, so he could say we were a little bit like urban farmers with our vegetable garden, which fed our family of seven, largely. And, you know, then I went to university, I got a degree. I kind of did normal things like that, and then I became a park warden. And that’s in a national park, some years later. I mean, I had lots of different jobs before that, but I won’t go through that.


But the significant thing I would say for me and my life, was my career as a park warden. I got into the back country. I had a huge back country district for a number of seasons, where I would have three horses. Travel in the wilderness basically and take care of this large district. And, you know, you’d be on your own for long periods of time, and I would say this is one of the real highlights of what I did in my life. You learned a lot of self-sufficiency out there. When things go wrong you basically have to take care of yourself!


Yeah, so that’s kind of, in a nutshell, my background, and I guess I’ll leave it at that for now.


Andrew: Excellent! Well, I think now’s an opportunity, … I mean the title of this show is “Sorry Mom, I was Wrong about the Holocaust”. And so, we can look at the political side, … I wouldn’t really call it political, it’s just your views on historical events, which for some reason is unacceptable in our so-called “tolerant society” today. So it’s tolerant of what these jews want you to be tolerant of, and intolerant of things that they don’t like, obviously.


So I’m going to play your YouTube and now again, I’m going to include this in the post for our show. So I’ll just get this lined up here. I think I have it so, let me just play it now for the listeners.







Sorry Mom - 2112 Monika Shafer playing violin


Hello! I’m Monika Schaefer. I was born and raised in Canada, first generation Canadian citizen of German heritage. My parents both came from Germany. They immigrated to Canada in 1951 and ‘52, respectively.


There was a bit of a disconnect between what I experienced in the home life and what I felt outside the home. I love the rich German traditions and culture that I grew up with and yet, I felt ashamed of my Germanness when I was at school, or outside with my friends. I learned very quickly to hide my heritage.


It started in the first week of school. Day one, I wore my beautiful little dirndl, a traditional German dress and on day two, children were taunting me:


Oh you forgot to take off your apron! Ha ha ha!” as they were running away, or “Heil Hitler! Ha ha!”, again taunting me.


Sorry Mom - 2113 German woman in traditional dressess


[Image] German women wearing dirndl. A dirndl is a type of traditional dress worn in Germany, especially Bavaria; Austria; and the South Tyrol, based on the traditional clothing of Alps peasants.

I didn’t exactly know the meaning of that, but I knew it was not friendly. They were being cruel. That was very clear to me.


I’m reminded, just now, of the plight of the indigenous peoples of North America. They were also made to be ashamed of their culture.


I would like to share with you now a deep regret that I have for something which I would like to apologize to my parents for, but cannot, because they are no longer alive.



Read Full Post »

The Grand Design


of the


20th Century



by Douglas Reed


 The Grand Design Cover NEW

Published: 1977


 Douglas Reed

[Image] Douglas Reed.





Douglas Launcelot Reed (11 March 189526 August 1976) was a British journalist, playwright, novelist and author of a number of books on politics. His book Insanity Fair (1938) was influential in analyzing the state of Europe and the rise of Adolf Hitler before the Second World War. By the time of his death, Reed had fallen victim to an organized campaign of character assassination reserved for those critical of Jewish supremacism; his best known work on the Jewish Question is The Controversy of Zion.


At the age of 13, Reed began working as an office boy, and at 19 a bank clerk. At the outbreak of the First World War he enlisted in the British Army. He transferred to the Royal Flying Corps, gaining a single kill in aerial combat and severely burning his face in a flying accident. (Insanity Fair, 1938) Around 1921 he began working as a telephonist and clerk for The Times. At the age of 30, he became a sub-editor. In 1927 he became assistant correspondent in Berlin, later transferring to Vienna as chief central European correspondent. He went on to report from a variety of major European cities including Warsaw, Moscow, Prague, Athens, Sofia, Bucharest and Budapest.

According to Reed, he resigned from his job by expostulant letter in protest at the appeasement of Hitler after the Munich Agreement of 1938 and the following outbreak of the Second World War, Reed retired to Durban, South Africa. In his Insanity Fair, Reed recounted that he was informed that he had to leave Germany quickly, and there was concern as to his whereabouts in diplomatic circles.

Richard Thurlow confirms that Reed was one of the first scholarly writers to state that Hitler did not persecute the Jews as per post-war propaganda.

In the 1960’s Reed was outspoken in his opposition to the decolonization of Africa, considering the Black Africans to be unable to govern themselves and needing prolonged colonial tutelage. In his “The Battle for Rhodesia” (1966) Reed explicitly compared decolonization to the above-mentioned appeasement of Hitler and outspokenly supported Ian Smith‘s unilateral declaration of independence, arguing that Smith’s Rhodesia had to be defended as “the last bulwark against the Third World War”, like Czechoslovakia had to be defended in 1938.


  • The Burning of the Reichstag (1934)
  • Insanity Fair: A European Cavalcade (Jonathan Cape, 1938)
  • Disgrace Abounding (do., 1939)
  • Fire and Bomb: A comparison between the burning of the Reichstag and the bomb explosion at Munich (do., 1940)
  • Nemesis? The Story of Otto Strasser (do,1940)
  • A Prophet at Home (do., 1941)
  • All Our Tomorrows (do., 1942)
  • Lest We Regret (do., 1943)
  • The Next Horizon;: Or, Yeomans’ Progress, novel (do., 1945)
  • The Siege of Southern Africa (Macmillan, Johannesburg, 1974), ISBN 0-86954-014-9
  • Behind the Scene (Part 2 of Far and Wide) (Dolphin Press, 1975; Noontide Press, 1976, ISBN 0-911038-41-8)
  • The Grand Design of the 20th Century (Dolphin Press, 1977)
  • Galanty Show, novel
  • Reasons of Health, novel
  • Rule of Three, novel
  • Prisoner of Ottawa
  • The Controversy of Zion (Veritas, 1985)

See also



The plan I think is the old one of world dominion in a new form. The money power and the revolutionary power have been set up and given sham but symbolic shapes, (Capitalism or Communism) and sharply defined citadels (America and Russia). Such is the spectacle publicly staged for the masses, but what if similar men with a common aim secretly rule in both camps and propose to achieve their ambition through the clash between those masses? I believe that any diligent student of our times will discover that this is the case.”




The appalling thing … is not the tumult but the design

Lord Acton (Essays on the French Revolution).







Part One — The Century of the Grand Design

Dialogue in Hell

Conspiracy of Silence

Plenty of Money

The Presidential Adviser

The Roosevelt Era

The Presidential “Fixer

The “No-Win” Wars

The World Government

Experiment Enlightened

Progressivism Convergence with Communism

The Watergate Affair

The Money Power


Part Two — The Anglo-Saxon Peoples


Churchill: Man of Paradoxes

This Worldwide Conspiracy

The New Imperialism

The Rhodes Scholarships

Institutes of International Affairs

From Far and Wide

America and Russia

The Plan for Africa

Back to Darkest Africa

The Conspiracy of Truth




The ways in which people try to explain what is happening in the world around them, whether in politics or economics, can be divided roughly into two classes. Or, as some would put it, there are two theories of contemporary history.

The one held by the majority of people hardly deserves to be called a theory, but if that word must be used, then let us call it “The Idiot Theory”. Why “The Idiot Theory”? Because it insists that no one is to blame for the way history unfolds; things just happen. Likewise, the actions and policies of politicians, when they produce results we don’t like, are simply the product of mistaken ideas, misunderstandings, lack of sufficient information. Or, as some Americans would say: “History unfolds as the cookie crumbles” — the precise way in which the proverbial cookie crumbles being beyond all human control.

The late President Roosevelt, possibly in an unguarded moment, made a simple statement of the rival theory when he remarked:

Whatever happens in politics, you may be sure there is someone who wanted it to happen and made it happen”.

He would have had much to answer for if that test had been applied to all that happened while he was President of the United States.

Douglas Reed was foremost among those who declared, with Roosevelt, that when things happen in the world of politics and economics, especially when they continue to happen with marvellous consistency, then they are being made to happen and are meant to happen.

His experience before World War II as the London Times’s Chief Foreign Correspondent in Europe, his familiarity with all the principal actors in the unfolding dramas and tragedies of those years, left him in no doubt that politicians, as a rule, are activated always by motives, and very often by motives which they take the greatest care to conceal.

The real task for the investigator, therefore, is to look for and find the motive.

Like so many before him and after him, Reed had merely rediscovered a piece of ancient wisdom which the Romans summarised in two words pregnant with meaning: Cui Bono? Or, as we would say when trying to unravel some political mystery: Who stands to benefit?

In this little book Douglas Reed presents in a highly compressed form the story which emerges when this simple test of cui bono? is applied to all that has happened in the world since before the beginning of the 20th Century, right up to the present day. It is a simple, well written story which helps us to understand that changes in the world which disturb most ordinary people, leaving them confused and worried about the future, have been deliberately brought about and are part of a conspiratorial jig-saw puzzle which he has described as “The Grand Design”.

Reed rendered a most valuable last service shortly before his death in August 1976 by reducing to some 13,000 words a history of our century which could be expanded into enough books to fill a large library.

Those wishing to emancipate themselves from that sickness of mind and heart engendered by what they are told by the mass media will be greatly helped by this brilliantly written summary which serves as an introduction to the masses of excellent literature available.

Indeed, there is not a page in Reed’s little book which could not be expanded into a large book. In many cases the necessary books are already available. The mention of the American traitor Alger Hiss, for example, reminds us that a long shelf would be needed to accommodate the books which have been written on this subject alone, the best of them being Witness, by Whittaker Chambers, the former Communist, whose evidence it was which sent Hiss to prison for three years.

Can the story of The Grand Design be still further compressed? We can but try! Conspiratorial activity has been going on from time immemorial, conducted by different groups with different ends in view.

Winston Churchill, writing with all the authority of a member of the British Cabinet, made it clear in 1922 that he regarded the Bolshevik Revolution, like the French Revolution over 100 years earlier, as part of what he called “a worldwide conspiracy”.

That, however, is only one half of the story of The Grand Design of which Douglas Reed writes.

The other half can be traced back to Cecil Rhodes, the South African multi-millionaire mining magnate, who had grandiose visions of a world government to be run mainly by people of his own Anglo-Saxon race, with some assistance from their cousins the Germans. This scheme he launched with his millions and it blossomed after his death into the Rhodes Scholarship Trust, the Royal Institute of International Affairs and similar organisations in America, the most important of these being the Council on Foreign Relations.

Cecil Rhodes, we may be sure, would turn in his grave if he could see what has happened to his own secret and semi-secret enterprise, with its huge funds and its highly intellectualised and inflated “idealism” supplied by John Ruskin, high priest of Britain’s so-called Pre-Raphaelite movement in art and literature. Rhodes would find that it has been taken over by that other lot of conspirators (mentioned by Churchill), whose “ideal” of world government is best exemplified by what has happened in the Soviet Union.

So today the conspiracy is like a highjacked airliner. Many of the passengers, still hypnotised by the Rhodes “vision” think they know where they are going, while the high-jackers, with 2,000 years of conspiratorial training and experience behind them, KNOW where they are going — and it is not the destination the passengers have in mind.

It needs only full exposure to thwart and destroy a criminal conspiracy which has many well- intentioned but misguided people in its thrall — and no one has contributed more to the process of exposure than Douglas Reed.



IVOR BENSON February, 1977.




Part One




… We are beginning an era that will make the achievements of the past look like two bits. No limit to our progress can be seen … by 1930 we shall be the richest and greatest Country in the world!

(The Razor’s Edge by Somerset Maughan)



Thus spoke one of Mr. Somerset Maugham’s heroines in the 1920’s and all agreed that he accurately captured the sanguine American mind. Today, fifty years later, the words sound like a joke. The 200th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence has been celebrated and the state of America is woefully different from that prognosis: indeed, George Washington, were he to return, would shrink appalled from the shape he would behold.

Inextricably held in the coils of an international conspiracy of which the last eight Presidents were the prisoners, his republic is becoming, de facto if not de jure, a satellite of the Soviet Union and will not see the year 2000 in anything resembling the shape he bequeathed to it. By “covert and insidious methods” (his phrase) the principles and admonitions of his Farewell Speech have been abandoned, and America, like a pirated ship, has lost all control of course and destination.

The conspiracy against nations has succeeded in hijacking the American inheritance of wealth and energy and diverting it to the purpose of destroying nations and setting up the world dictatorship.

Now that the 20th Century is three parts done, the track of the conspiracy can be charted and its promoters identified. Only the lunatic fringe and the perjured public men still deny that it exists. The initiates have long since made public their plan for a world where nationhood would be a punishable offence, a plan, in fact, for a world concentration camp. The great Plan now overshadows our every day and is the reason why we live in a present without a future.

The conspiracy has gained so much ground in this century that the attempt to bring off the final coup by the time the Christian clock strikes two thousand seems certain to be made. The instrument is ready: the Mafia-like mob in New York called the United Nations: it was created to destroy nations.

The conspiracy is so old that efforts to trace its ultimate source flounder in the sands of time: the fanciful might picture it originating with the devil in council. It has reappeared periodically through the ages and between times seemed to become dormant or defunct: but it was always there.





Five hundred years ago Machiavelli propounded the basic idea of world government: rule without any scruple of justice or humanity. Then the conspiracy hibernated for three centuries until the Bavarian Government in 1785 discovered the documents of Adam Weishaupt’s Illuminati, which showed that it was fully active and as evil as ever. Weishaupt’s disciples gave the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution its satanic character.

Then in the mid-nineteenth century Maurice Joly revived Machiavelli’s ideas in his Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu. In 1897 the most explicit exposition of the methods of the conspiracy appeared in Russia: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

This title was probably chosen for purposes of obfuscation: too many non-Jewish names have appeared, down the centuries until today, in the story of this conspiracy for the Protocols to be considered the product of an exclusively Jewish cabal. The thing is evidently a compendium of earlier manuals of conspiratorial practice, but it is the clearest and most evil of them. To peruse the Protocols is to look into a dark pit filled with writhing, evil shapes: the work induces in most people feelings of nausea, of intimate communion with evil. All evil thought since time began is in these few pages.

By the methods there laid down America was infected when this century began: the disease spread there and then into the surrounding world, like a cancer. So effective are the age-old practices prescribed that the American Republic has been taken over, as it were, by sleight of hand or pickpocketry: the victim has remained unaware of his loss or of his own helot’s plight resulting from it.

The Protocols were translated into European languages in the 1920’s, and the effect was explosive. Their truth, attested by results already visible, was immediately seen.

The Times (then still a trustworthy newspaper) asked:

Which malevolent society made these schemes and is now triumphing over their realisation? … From where does the weird gift of prophecy spring that partly has come true and is partly to be realised? Have we fought these years to destroy the nefarious organization of the German Empire, merely to discover behind it a much more dangerous conspiracy because of its secrecy?

The Times was right: that was exactly the fact of the matter. But when, 25 years later, the outcome of yet another war even more clearly revealed the existence of “a much more dangerous conspiracyThe Times, with all the world’s newspapers, had nothing to say about it. By that time The Times, and all the others, themselves observed that “secrecy” which it thought so dangerous in the 1920’s.





When the Protocols were published “secrecy” (people might have thought) was finished. Far from it: the public debate about the Protocols was immediately quashed by a frantic clamour of “forgery” and “anti-semitism” from all parts of the world.

Following the precepts of the Weishaupt papers and the Protocols, the conspiracy proved that it was able to control the public debate, and from that day no public man has dared mention this, the most important document of our century and the recognisable blueprint of our universal catastrophe.

Secrecy” is no longer necessary when open debate is forbidden, and that has become the case.

A notable authority, Lord Sydenham, took a lonely stand against this conspiracy of silence, to which by the 1940’s all the world submitted. The source of the Protocols, he said, was an irrelevant matter: the vital thing was the vast store of evil knowledge they contained and the results already achieved. As to that, 0. Henry or Damon Runyon might have said, in the American vernacular, “You ain’t seen nuthin’ yet”.

Lord Sydenham died before he could see the much greater spread of the conspiracy and the suppression of all public mention of its manual, (in some countries, by actual official ban: in others, by tacit agreement among politicians, newspaper owners and editors). The content of the Protocols, as Lord Sydenham perceived, was the paramount thing, not the origin. Here some mind or minds knew everything that was to happen in the new century, and how it was all to be brought about. The same mind or minds knew how the Bolshevist revolution was brought about.

Even before that revolution America (all unknown to its people) became the creature and financier of it. The first open sign of this came in 1917, when America entered the First War. President Wilson then welcomed “the wonderful and heartening things” that were happening in Russia (the revolution) and the next day authorized credits amounting to 325,000,000 dollars for the provisional government there.





This was the start of something that has continued ever since. Without American money there would never have been Communism, or the abandonment of hundreds of millions of people behind the Berlin line to a concentration camp lethally enclosed by electrified wire, mines, machine-guns mounted on sentry-towers and searchlights that play all night.

While he was still in Europe Lenin wrote to Angelica Balabanoff, then secretary in Stockholm of the International:

Spend millions, tens of millions if necessary: there is plenty of money at our disposal”.

The flow of American wealth and treasure in every imaginable form went on through the fourteen Rooseveltian years, and those of Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson and Nixon and continues today. It began with a man who until his death remained unknown to the American masses and of whom few Americans since have heard. This man, behind the scene, enabled the conspiracy to reduce the Washingtonian Republic to the plight of hired man of the revolutionary conspiracy.

He is one of the great wreckers of the 20th Century, and in the destructive effect of his scheming the peer of Stalin. His name was Edward Mandell House, and he prefixed it with an unearned military title: “Colonel” House. The unusual middle name, “Mandell”, probably held some allusion recognisable to fellow-conspirators (who often identify themselves to each other by code-names, as the Freemason knows a brother by his handshake).

This obscure Mr. House, long before the conspiracy triumphed in Russia, was its creature in America. He shunned publicity, but engineered the choice of Woodrow Wilson for President in 1912. Mr. Wilson was the first of the marionette presidents who were required by their captors to do what they were told. President Wilson’s welcome to and financial support for the revolution in Russia were acts dictated to him, and so was his introduction of the graduated income tax according to Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto.

The historian owes gratitude to Mr. House (mankind owes him only tribulation) for the revealing picture he left of a conspiracy “managing” the frontal politicians from behind the scene. In 1912 a leftist American publisher issued a “novel” (Philip Dru, Administrator) authorship of which Mr. House disclaimed and then admitted. This described in fictional form a “conspiracy” (the author’s word) which succeeded in electing a puppet-president by means of “deception regarding his real opinions and intentions”.





A character in the book (evidently Mr. House himself) enlists the support of a group of wealthy men in choosing a candidate for the presidency, and invites a potential candidate to dine “in my rooms at the Mandell House”. The candidate (called “Rockland”) is instructed that he must never go against the advice of his sponsors. (Here is seen the start of the regime of “the advisers” who haunted the White House for the next sixty years and dictated the actions of successive presidents).

The best known of these “advisers” was Mr. Bernard Baruch, also recognisable in the tale as one of the stern “sponsors” of the new puppet-president. Mr. Baruch, who came to be popularly acclaimed as “the adviser to six Presidents”, was an obsessed advocate of despotic world government and to his “advice” may be traced the disastrous course of American foreign policy which to thoughtful Americans (as Mr. Gary Allen says):


for the past three decades has been a compounding mystery and concern. Administrations have come and gone like the Ides of March but spring never arrives

But Mr. Baruch went on forever, or nearly, and advised his six pupils to follow the path leading to despotic world government. The mob, led by the kept press, and ignorant of the kind of advice he was giving or of its effect on themselves, lustily applauded the veteran “adviser” through six presidencies.

Philip Dru is enthralling reading for the student of this century’s managed ordeal and of the conspiracy. “Rockland” (the president-select);


once or twice asserted himself and acted upon important matters without having first conferred with the ‘advisers’. For this indiscipline he was bitterly assailed by his sponsors’ newspapers and made no further attempt at independence … He felt that he was utterly helpless in these strong men’s hands, and so, indeed, he was”.

President Wilson presumably read the book and if he was capable of feeling humiliation, must have suffered severely. He pined into senility and at last was pushed out of the White House (or locked away inside it by his second wife, a determined woman who was for some time the de facto President).

Another fascinating glimpse of life behind the conspiratorial scene is given in this “novel”: namely, that “bugging” was already known to the plotters of 1908! Another man in the plot, a Senator, visits one of the big-banker group and tells the whole story of “Rockland’s” nomination and rigged- election campaign. He also describes “Rockland’s” “effort for freedom” and his recall to duty, “squirming under his defeat”. The “exultant conspirators laugh joyously” at this.

Their mirth is short-lived because they find that the conversation has been recorded by an eavesdropping machine concealed in the next room and given to a newspaper, which publishes it.

The attentive reader will note that, sixty years later, President Nixon was brought down by “tapes” recording his conversations, to which his enemies’ ears listened.

I append a footnote of my own to this strange story. Mr. Baruch went on his advisory way from president to president, but no doubt retained a healthy respect for “bugging” devices. This, I fancy, is the reason why he came to be known as “the park-bench statesman”. He could do no wrong and the suggestion of “folksiness” implicit in this description made him even more popular with the idiot mob.

The first puppet-president, Wilson, died, the stomach of America having revolted against his “League to Enforce Peace” (obviously, by war!) and its amended version, the League of Nations, the first trial world-government. The world owed a debt to the America of that period, still with its healthy love of country. Wilson was followed by three Presidents, Harding, Coolidge and Hoover, who were non-Illuminist, as far as one now can tell, and then the Gadarean slide was resumed with the choice and election of Mr. Roosevelt, who hastened from the nomination convention to Mr. House in Massachusetts, from whom, evidently, he received the same instructions about his duty to his “sponsors” as “Rockland” (Wilson) received in Philip Dru.

Mr. House told his biographer in the 1950’s that he “was still very close to the centre of things, although few people suspect it.” He was (for the second time) “close to the movement that nominated a president” (Roosevelt), and this new president gave him a “free hand in advising the then Secretary of State”.

Such was the ominous sponsorship of a most ill-omened presidency.





Now followed the disastrous fourteen Roosevelt years. Briefed (as were “Rockland” and Wilson) by Mr. House, what Mr. Roosevelt was told to do became clear as soon as he entered the White House. He recognised the Soviet Union forthwith and resumed the financing of the Soviet which Wilson began. This continued throughout his fourteen years and parallel with it went infiltration of Soviet agents into the American Administration, at all levels.

Roosevelt, a crippled man, was evidently as putty in the hands of his “sponsors”: when a repentant Communist informed him that a Soviet agent held a high post in the government, he told his informant to “go jump in the lake — but only in much cruder language”. The man he protected was the traitor Hiss, who “managed” the Yalta Conference to abandon half of Europe to the Soviet plague and was a founding father of the United Nations, the second trial world government.

Under Mr. Roosevelt the conspiracy spread its cancerous capillaments ever deeper into the American body politic. Its mastery of the press and all means of public misinformation produced in the American masses that condition of bewildered inertia which the Protocols foresaw as ideal for the consummation of the great Plan. Two decades of this treatment anaesthetized the healthy instinct which led “the rubes on Main Street” to reject the Wilsonian League. Now the men behind the scene worked feverishly to have the world slave state come out of the approaching war against slavery.

Colonel” House died on the eve of the Second War. Mr. Baruch, his collaborator in the selection and disciplining of President Wilson, now became the chief manager of the Washingtonian Republic’s decline. Unlike the secretly scheming House, Mr. Baruch was publicly known and adulated by the lapdog Press as the permanent adviser of presidents and “park-bench statesman”. This name particularly endeared him to the mob, which thought to see in him “the man in the street” who from simple fellow-feeling sat among the common “folks” in Central Park. (I think I might be the only spectator who related his park-benchmanship to the “bugging” episode in Philip Dru, and understood why he took an obvious precaution against being taped).

Mr. Roosevelt, responding mindlessly to the articulated mechanism of the marionette, may yet have realised that he was being used for the aggrandisement of the Communist Empire and the ruination of his own country. This is implicit in “a strange statement” (Mr. Robert Sherwood, a Roosevelt biographer and White House intimate) which Roosevelt made when urged to quote in a wartime speech Mr. Churchill’s encomium:

The United States is now at the highest pinnacle of her power and fame”.


Roosevelt objected, saying:


We may be heading before very long for the pinnacle of our weakness”.

This looks like the open confession of purpose by a man of long servitude to the conspiracy who had come to make its destructive ambition his own. This revelation of truth, as always, went unheard by the public masses, but probably was bruited around with glee by the Communist conspirators who were rife in the Roosevelt Administration.

When Hitler’s attack in 1941 on Russia brought the Soviet Union into the Allied side, Mr. Baruch’s influence became even more powerful, and also his ability to direct the course of the war towards the consummation devoutly desired by him. He was ever insistent, in both wars, that the times demanded “one man” as an administrator, not a board. In the First War he was the “one man”, becoming head of an “Advisory Commission” to the Defence Council, of which an investigating committee of Congress said after that war (in 1919):

It served as the secret government of the United States … it devised the entire system of purchasing war supplies, planned a press censorship, designed a system of press control … and in a word designed practically every war measure which the Congress subsequently enacted, and all this behind closed doors, weeks and even months before the U.S. Congress declared war against Germany … There was not an act of the so-called war legislation afterwards enacted that had not before the actual declaration of war been discussed and settled upon by this Advisory Commission …

The 1914-1918 war ended before Mr. Baruch could show all that he had in store for the American people. In 1935 he stated “had the 1914-1918 war gone on another year our whole population could have emerged in cheap but serviceable uniforms”, shoe-sizes being the only permissible variation.

Mr. Baruch in these words revealed his vision of a future America: a faceless mindless mob allowed only to do allotted labour, provided with identity numbers and bread cards.

Mr. Baruch was not appointed to be the “one man” when the Roosevelt War Production Board was set up, but the man who was appointed was a creature of his, one Harry Hopkins, and even Mr. Baruch could not have disposed of America’s wealth more autocratically than he or more perfectly in accordance with the Plan.




I am not aware that this Mr. Hopkins ever received any particular appointment enabling him to act as an imperial despot. Presumably Mr. Roosevelt, who loved to picture himself as the common man, just said, “Go right ahead, Harry”.

Anyway, this Hopkins was the product of the conspiracy and could only by this qualification have become permanently resident in the White House. Even Mr. Churchill was taken in by this almost illiterate “fixer” who could have boasted (like Mr. House);

No important foreigner has come to America without talking to me … All the Ambassadors have reported to me frequently …

In past times, when the West was toiling upward to some state of civilization, men who came to high places in their countries brought with them some token of experience and qualification. Mr. Hopkins had no such background. Like Dr. Kissinger thirty years later, he was publicly unknown when he began to bestride the narrow world like a Colossus. He had hopped around in the East Side from the claque for Caruso and Geraldine Farrar to a stint with the Red Cross in 1917, returning then to charity appeal work in the slums. Acquaintances depict him:

an ulcerous type, intense, jittering with nerves, a chain-smoker and black coffee drinker”.

This man, says Mr. Sherwood, was “in all respects the inevitable Roosevelt favourite”, (a more damning disparagement of Mr. Roosevelt could hardly be imagined). He was a dying man from 1937 and under Roosevelt in the next eight years became the global replanner and dispenser of billions. The American Congress and people alike were by that time bamboozled by their president and the corrupted press into thinking that all was well, but an occasional voice was heard in Congress asking to know more about the uncontrolled, and unrecorded, transfer of treasure to Moscow. This annoyed the bountiful donor, who dealt with Congress as the conspirators dealt with “Rockland” in Mr. House’s novel.

The United States” (he said, in answer to a proposal that before further aid was given to Soviet Russia full information should be required about their military situation);


the United States is doing things which it would not do for other nations without full information from them. This decision to act without full information was made with some misgiving … but there is no reservation about the policy … it is constantly being brought up by various groups for rediscussion. I propose that no further consideration be given to these requests for rediscussion”.

Thus spoke Mr. Hopkins from East Side, and lo! it was so! (Whereat the conspirators no doubt “laughed joyously”).

The conspiracy had taken firm grip on the American Republic. When the Second War ended with the “peace” conference at Yalta, Stalin saw his own henchmen (including Hiss) on the other side of the table so that the parley ended with the abandonment by the Western allies of half Europe to the Communist conspiracy.

The Yalta Conference, historically considered, marked the end of the Washingtonian Republic and of the British Empire. The process of dissolution began there. Mr. Roosevelt and his “inevitable favourite”, Hopkins, both returned to America to die. These two men did more to destroy the West than any invader could have achieved.





Roosevelt was succeeded by the Vice-President, a Mr. Harry Truman from Missouri, who soon gave proof of following dutifully the Wilson-Roosevelt (and House-Baruch) course. Re-elected in 1948, he declared war on “the Communist aggressor” in Korea in 1950. For a moment the American people thought the debacle of the Second War was to be amended and the Communist invader trounced. Few, if any of them had read Philip Dru, or they would have known that their rulers always practised “deception regarding their real opinions and intentions”.

The American people responded loyally to the call to rescue at least one small country from the Communist plague, and their wartime allies, Britain, Australia, Canada, South Africa and the rest sent troops to join in the crusade.

It was all “deception”. When the successful American commander, MacArthur, wished hotly to pursue a beaten enemy across the Yalu, Mr. Truman sacked the general. Then Korea was partitioned, like Germany and Europe, and the Communists were left in possession of the northern half. This was the first of the “no-win” wars in which American troops were sent to fight against aircraft, artillery and armour supplied during the war by Mr. Hopkins to the Communists.

At this time Hiss had been exposed, the Canadian Government had published the full story of Communist agents and spies infiltrating into its administrative machine, and the story of British traitors was also beginning to become known. “Communism in government”, therefore, was a matter which even the American masses could understand and the cry for a cleaning of the stables was growing to a clamour. At this very juncture Mr. Truman (no doubt recalling Mr. Roosevelt’s “Go jump in the lake”) dismissed the public demand to “clear out the Communists”, as merely “drawing a red herring” across the debate, and the American tragedy (unless it is a comedy) continued.

Mr. Truman was succeeded in 1952 by General Eisenhower, the formerly unknown American army officer who was catapulted over numerous seniors into the supreme command of the Allied invasion of 1944. This general used his command power to reject the British General Montgomery’s plan to shorten the war by striking hard for Berlin after the successful invasion of Normandy. The effect of this obviously politically motivated action was to reserve Berlin, and therewith half Europe, to Communist annexation.





Historically, General Eisenhower must be seen as a conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy. He cannot have ignored the obvious effect of his action. He was indeed one of a growing number of men in high places who supported the aims of the conspiracy through their membership of an invisible-government-type body called the Council on Foreign Relations, which effectively operated as a secret world government organisation inside the American machinery of government (it was formed in 1921 after the failure of the first experiment in world-government, the League of Nations, and with growing strength pursued the ambition all through the inter-war years).

General Eisenhower began his presidency with the now common, almost obligatory obeisance to Mr. Baruch, whose biographer, evidently after consultation with the great Adviser, summarised the recommendations which Mr. Baruch would probably make to the new Administration.

General Eisenhower quickly and dutifully confirmed this prognosis, telling Los Angeles electors, as if to demonstrate his servitude, “I believe if Bernie Baruch were here tonight he would subscribe to every one of them” (he was referring to recommendations which, according to the biographer, “related entirely to preparatory mobilisation for war, controls, global strategy” and the rest of Mr. Baruch’s oft-repeated recipes for a “one man” controller, or dictator).

When the Second War ended Mr. Baruch was 75. His vigour was unabated and his imperial vision boundless. The two atom bombs, exploded in August 1945, prompted him to still greater ambitions. Like some ancient Hebrew prophet, he cried, “I offer you living or dying”. “Hasten”, he cried. “Hasten” (or, as the Broadway barker might have put it, “Hurry, hurry, hurry”). “Hasten, the bomb will not wait while we deliberate.” What was needed, obviously, was “one man”.

Mr. Baruch availed himself of the seeds of human panic sown by the two bombs to proffer himself;

for the most vital undertaking of his life, the devising of a workable plan for the international control of atomic energy, and for achieving its adoption by the Atomic Energy Commission of the United Nations” (his biographer).

President Truman duly appointed Mr. Baruch U.S. representative to the United Nations in March 1946. The “Baruch Plan” was then worked out “on a park bench” (where else?) together with a crony from 1919 Peace Conference days, one Mr. Ferdinand Eberstadt. In those days Messrs. House and Baruch had worked hard to push through a “League to Enforce Peace”, but a few responsible statesmen were still extant then and they talked it out.

Nevertheless, all through the between-war years of 1918-1939 the conspirators worked away at their pet proposal to set up a supernational high command with “teeth” to enforce its dictates, and now Mr. Baruch’s Plan of 1946 went as far as even the most zealous of them could wish.

He presented his Central Park Plan to the U.N. Atomic Energy Commission in June 1946. He began, in Hebrew-prophet vein, by saying: “We (sic) must elect world peace or world destruction.” Atomic energy must be used for peaceful purposes and its warlike use be precluded. To that end, “we” would have to provide for “immediate, swift and sure punishment of those who violate the agreements that are reached by nations”.

So the “League to Enforce Peace” idea was dished up again: merely, the word “penalisation” was substituted for “enforce”, but the same thing was meant: a supernational dictatorship with “teeth”.

Mr. Baruch’s crowning proposal was for a Nuremberg-type court, apparently of permanent nature, to be set up to inflict this “penalisation”. He explained that “individual responsibility and punishment” could be prescribed “on the principles applied at Nuremberg by the Soviets, the United Kingdom, France and the United States”.

Finally, Mr. Baruch proposed the creation of “an Authority” (one man?) to supervise all atomic energy activities potentially dangerous to world security. “Immediate and certain penalties”, continued Mr. Baruch, were to be fixed for illegal possession of an atom bomb or for “wilful interference with the activities of The Authority”.

Even the embattled conspirators in the Western governments and in the United Nations choked slightly on this heady stuff, and despite the compliant Mr. Truman’s announcement that the White House and State Department endorsed The Plan, it was talked out and shelved — to be brought out again after any third war.

Mr. Baruch then resigned and resumed his permanent Advisorship. He died in 1965 having greatly harmed his fellow men and his country. A numerous phalanx of powerful men, ensconced in the Council on Foreign Relations, carried on the House-Baruch world-government conspiracy. No escape from these toils offered the American Republic in the last quarter of this century.





From the start of his presidency, General Eisenhower revealed his continuance of the House-Baruch line. He looked on the Republican Party, which still contained a dwindling number of conservative-minded men, as his enemy, and thought of founding a new party which would offer the electorate “enlightened and progressive ideas” (as propounded by Marx and Lenin). He only abandoned this idea when Senator Robert Taft, the natural Republican leader, died, and when Senator Joseph McCarthy was “censured”. These events left Eisenhower in control of the Republican Party, for its sins.

At that time masses of Americans saw in McCarthy the only man who told the truth about Communist infiltration of government and America’s involvement in the world-government conspiracy.

General Eisenhower, himself tarred with this brush through his abandonment of half Europe to the Communist conspiracy, particularly hated Senator McCarthy. This became known and as at a given signal the kept press opened up a deafening chorus of “witch-hunt” against McCarthy. Any who have kept copies of this Senator’s speeches and pamphlets can check for themselves that he did not make unsubstantiated charges. He had no need to: what had become publicly known about the treachery of Hiss and the group around him was ample enough to support McCarthy’s arraignment of successive presidents.

But the strength of the conspiracy was shown by the way McCarthy, like others before and after him, was politically destroyed. The Senate “censured” McCarthy for “conduct unbecoming a Senator”, and Eisenhower warmly thanked the chairman of the censuring committee, one Watkins, for “doing a splendid job”.

When the Eisenhower presidency ended, in 1960, he had served the conspiracy well through suppressing public discussion of Soviet infiltration and espionage by his attack on McCarthy. His presidential years were rife with Soviet efforts, through a horde of spies in the United States, to gain full knowledge about the atom bomb and its method of production. These efforts succeeded, so that the Communists made their own bomb.

The eight Eisenhower years showed that subservience to the World Revolution continued to be the paramount rule of American governmental policy.

Under this paramount law, American generals if they encountered Communism anywhere in the globe, were forbidden to defeat it: the Soviet arsenals and armouries were kept bulging with armaments paid for with American loans and credits: these were used to kill many thousands of American and allied soldiers: and each successive American president became the patron and protector of Communism within the governmental ranks.





In 1960 Eisenhower was succeeded by John Kennedy, scion of an immensely wealthy Massachusetts family. He was assassinated before his first four-year term ended, but his previous career showed that there would not have been any change, had he lived to complete his term. The reason for his assassination has never become publicly known. His life was cut short before he could show what he could or would do, but all the signs are that he too would have followed the course set by his four predecessors.

A story was put about that he had “stood up to Moscow” by demanding, and obtaining the withdrawal from Cuba of Soviet missiles there, pointed America-ward, which were discovered by aerial photography. If this were true, he would have mortally offended the Revolution, and this would offer a feasible explanation for his murder.

The story was as manna in the desert to the American masses, thirsting for an affirmative answer to Senator Robert Taft’s question, “Do we really mean our Communist policy?

Unhappily, the story was never confirmed and in the context of American policy in this century seems improbable, so that the murder remains mysterious.

Another mysterious event of the short Kennedy presidency was the attack on Cuba by an ill- organised force of Cuban exiles, which ended in such an appalling fiasco that it might have been betrayed beforehand by someone in the State Department or Council on Foreign Relations.

The Vice-President, Mr. Lyndon Johnson, took the dead president’s place and occupied it until 1968 without diverging from the House-Baruch pattern.

American presidents, because of their subservience to the overriding dogma of world government, tended to become shadowy figures and Mr. Johnson was not more sharply focussed than others before him. He may be said to have shown zeal in following the Baruch-House, Wilson-Roosevelt-Truman-Eisenhower-Kennedy line.

About that time the “Insiders” of the Council on Foreign Relations let slip a phrase which indicated what that line was. Allusions to a “convergence with Communism” appeared here and there in the all-powerful, and all-subservient “media”, so that Americans could have gained some idea of what was coming to them.

In 1968 the bewildered mass of Americans thought the end of the long dark tunnel of their frustrated hopes was near, for Mr. Richard Nixon stood and was elected with a thumping majority.

He was the man whose name was connected with an event of 1949 in which Americans of traditional allegiance had seen one bright light during the bewildering years: the exposure and conviction of the traitor Hiss. True, Hiss was only convicted of “perjury” in denying that he was a Communist agent or had abstracted top-secret documents and transmitted them to Moscow: the influence of the conspirators was strong enough to protect him from the graver charge of “treason” and the greater penalty. Still, he had been forced into the light and had been convicted, and Congressman Richard Nixon had done it.

It seemed that deliverance had come, like a cleansing wind. Here, thought the electors, was a man who really “meant his Communist policy”. He had proved it, nineteen years ago, true: but that was not forgotten. It was so rare, in these times of presidential protection for spies and traitors, to find a man who believed as honest folk believed and suited his actions to his beliefs. There had only been one other such, McCarthy, and he had been “smeared” and was dead.

It was one more illusion, Mr. Nixon was no different from the other presidents. He too was made to toe the line. Electioneering, he promised a drastic rooting-out of Communists in government: little, or nothing was done.

Nixon surpassed even previous presidents in deficit-spending on “welfare state” notions. He made the familiar pilgrimage to Moscow and virtually wrote off the Soviet wartime Lend-Lease debt of $9,100,000,000, and offered a further $2,500,000,000 in credit for the purchase of American exports.

Fifty years after Wilson, America was still to be the banker of the Revolution.




Mr. Nixon was accompanied on his Moscow trip by the recently-discovered Dr. Kissinger, born in Germany, who in his rocket-like rise to international power and vast undertakings reminded me of that other “profoundly ominous man”, Harry Hopkins.

His first four presidential years showed that Mr. Nixon was doing all he could, by zeal in following the Roosevelt-Truman-Eisenhower line, to expunge from the memory of the conspirators his achievement in obtaining the conviction of Hiss. It was in vain: all through the twenty years between the “media” had maintained an unremitting tirade against him. He had mortally offended the conspiracy by that and they could not forgive him or let him forget.

The conspirators prepared to “get” him. They followed one of the precepts laid down in the Protocols for gaining control of politicians or agents likely to be useful. It is, to obtain knowledge (or manufacture knowledge) of some shady episode in a man’s past, some scandal which can be used to cow or blackmail him. Every Scotland Yard or FBI detective who has had to do with the tactics of Communist espionage can quote instances where this technique has been used.

Now President Nixon’s turn came to suffer this ordeal by forged evidence and mass intimidation. Had he read Philip Dru, or understood why Mr. Baruch preferred to do business “on a park bench”, he need never have fallen into the trap.

Early in his second term the American Secret Service installed a monitoring system in the White House which in its omniscient knowledge of what went on there probably excelled anything in the world. The sound of a human voice automatically set the tapes working. The President could not stir in the White House without his movements being recorded and followed by buzzers and flashing lights on the monitoring apparatus. Every word the President spoke was recorded, (as he thought for his private benefit).

The reason for this elaborate set-up became clear when the word “Watergate” became part of mob-parlance. The Watergate building contained the Democratic Party’s offices. The burglary was done with the utmost publicity short of placards proclaiming or loudspeakers announcing: “The Democratic offices are being burgled by the President’s order”. After the initial “discovery” one burglar returned to the scene of the crime and was found to carry a notebook with (guess what?) a White House telephone number in it.

The word “Watergate” then spread over the world. I was in various countries at the time and grew to loathe the spectacle of the booboisie telling each other all about “Watergate” as if they had consulted the oracle and now were privy to the most closely guarded secrets of doings and goings-on in high places.

Mr. Nixon, not having read Philip Dru, was taken aback by the sound and fury of the attack on him and at first, probably knowing nothing of the “burglary” but what the press told him, could not take the affair seriously, so that he refused assent when a Senate Committee, investigating the affair, called for tapes of his private conversations (unhappily for him, these were not “private”: they were overheard by those out to “get” the president).

The tapes! They had been spinning endlessly, recording every word of his innumerable conversations. The president thought them privileged, private. But someone had listened to these miles and miles of tapes, someone on the watch for the smallest slip or contradiction. The President appealed against the Senate Committee’s order to produce the tapes and the Supreme Court upheld the Senate Committee’s order. By this time it was obvious to all that the tapes contained something which might be used against the President, and that someone knew what it was. The exact portions of the tapes to be produced were specified. The President, obviously, had been surrounded by spies in his own White House.

The plot thickened to its appointed end. On June 23, 1972 the President’s voice had directed the Central Intelligence Agency to halt the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s enquiry into the “burglary”. On May 22, 1973 the President had made a public statement denying that any use had been made of the Central Intelligence Agency “for domestic political purposes”.

A gasp of horror went through the great country where two presidents had refused to remove the Soviet arch traitor from the State Department (in Mr. Truman’s case the Canadian Prime Minister, no less, had provided the ignored information) and had given him protection to do his worst for the United States: the same country where a third president had used all his influence to have the one consistent anti-Communist censured and made politically outcast.

Now the kept press and radio kept up their clamour that President Nixon was guilty of the heinous crime of “covering up” (the burglary) and of “obstructing the course of justice”. In the White House the cloaked men, the keepers of “the tapes”, gathered round the president and whispered “Resign, resign!

The cumulative strain was too much for Mr. Nixon, who already had twenty-five years of this unrelenting vituperation behind him. His physical collapse was visible in the pictures shown. By the methods described in the Protocols and in Mr. House’s “novel”, he was thrown out of office, the first American President ever to be so humiliated.

The conspiracy won its greatest victory. What American president would dare to step out of line, after this!





The Vice-President, Mr. Gerald Ford, succeeded to the White House. He was an appointed, not an elected vice-president, having been chosen by Mr. Nixon when his original vice-president, Mr. Spiro Agnew, fell by the wayside somewhere along the line.

In the light of preceding events ‘It was difficult to see Mr. Ford doing anything so unorthodox as rebelling against the forces which had proved too strong for all preceding presidents in this century. He, in turn, appointed Mr. Nelson Rockefeller as vice-president, who is on record as saying “When you think of what I had, what else was there to aspire to?” (but the White House). His appointment brought him (as Mr. Gary Allen commented) “within a heartbeat” of the White House.

Mr. Nelson Rockefeller is a member of an enormously wealthy family, or dynasty, whose interests are worldwide and deep-rooted. The “conspirators” of Mr. House’s Story of Tomorrow, (which has proved to be a photographic forecast of all that has happened in and to America in this century) were immensely wealthy men. The massive fortunes accumulated in America by a relatively small group of men in the last hundred years have been put to serve the purpose of the Revolution, and of the world dictatorship designed to come of it.

These great fortunes have usually left behind them great bequests ostensibly to be devoted to noble-sounding purposes, particularly “international peace”. Most of them have in fact served as hidey-holes for agents of the conspiracy: they are exempt from the “graduated income tax” introduced by Woodrow Wilson at his “sponsors’” behest.

The fact is demonstrable that the Communist revolution was from the start financed by money from America and that the great fortunes substantially contribute to the “invisible government” (the Council on Foreign Relations) which for decades now has been steering America towards “convergence with Communism”, and towards the ultimate world super-state. Thus Mr. Nelson Rockefeller’s appearance on the stage at this late (possibly penultimate) stage in the game is of particular interest.

The student of these affairs constantly finds himself confronted by other, less-advanced seekers to truth who snarl at him:

Why would rich men support Communism, eh? Explain that. It doesn’t make sense!

This writer always advises such innocents abroad to accept the incontrovertible fact that the thing is, and to work back from that point to the “Why?” He might take as starting point the testimony of an unassailable authority, Professor Carroll Quigley (Tragedy, And Hope, Macmillan, London, 1966). Professor Quigley, who has the advantage of himself being of the “Insiders” with inside experience of the conspiracy at work, says:

There does exist and has existed for a generation an international … network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical Right believes the Communists act … This network … has no aversion to co-operating with the Communists … and frequently does so.

Another diligent explorer, Mr. Gary Allen (The C.F.R., Conspiracy To Rule The World, American Opinion, Belmont, Mass., 1969) says:

Why would international bankers and financiers be interested in promoting a Socialist World Government? Clearly, socialism is only the bait to obtain the support of the political underworld and to create the structure necessary to maintain dictatorial control. What this small group of financiers and cartel-oriented businessmen are interested in is monopolistic control over the world’s natural resources, trade, transportation and communications … something that despite their great wealth they could not achieve otherwise. Therefore the super-capitalists become super-socialists, realising that only a World Government under their control can give them the power necessary to achieve their goal. Only this could explain why these extremely wealthy men would be willing to support movements which seem to be aimed at their own destruction.






Part Two




I quoted at the start the word of Mr. Maugham’s American heroine about the boundless future of the United States: “… by 1930 we shall be the richest and greatest country in the world … no limit to our progress can be seen …

About the same time (the 1920’s) Mr. Noel Coward was composing a patriotic milestone drama about England, Cavalcade, which met the public yearning for reassurance about the future and made him, as he says, “extremely popular”. As the curtain fell, his heroine, glass in hand, drank;

to the hope that this country of ours, which we love so much will find dignity and greatness and peace again …

The positive expectations of Mr. Maugham’s “Isabel” and the wistful hopes of Mr. Coward’s “Jane” were alike doomed to disappointment.

England, in fact, was caught in the same world-government conspiracy that was destroying America, and its leaders promoted the aims of the conspiracy as effectively as Presidents Wilson and Roosevelt.

The plight of the American Republic, seventy years after the House-Baruch partners “captured” President Wilson and set him to work preparing the One Government Of All The World, was bound to have some effect on the other English-speaking country across the Atlantic, the one where I was born.





Mr. Winston Churchill once during the Second War said that England and America were going to get “somewhat mixed up” and added that he could not stop that process even if he wished: he welcomed it.

He was a man of occasional, strange paradoxes. A patriot of patriots, he never explained that strange statement, which to most Englishmen, and probably to most Americans, was inexplicable and unwelcome. He had no brief for so disputable an assertion. When he made it America was evidently, to any diligent observer, in the grip of a conspiracy which was dragging it towards “convergence with Communism” and the World Slave State. Mr. Churchill’s whole life-story seemed sure to make him shun any involvement with “world government” plans.

Oddly, like all American presidents of this century, he was a devotee of Mr. Bernard Baruch, whose world-government efforts went back to the first World War and the bid at the Versailles Peace Conference to set up a “League to Enforce Peace”; a first attempt to establish world government in the confusion following a world war, which was foiled by the able Secretary of State, Mr. Robert Lansing, who clearly saw the intention to foist war upon the world in the name of peace (Mr. Lansing was soon removed from office, the first of a long series of Americans who paid the price for opposing the conspiracy).

A significant incident in Mr. Churchill’s career was the receipt of a deathbed letter to him from President Roosevelt asking him “to see Bernie Baruch as soon as convenient …” Mr. Churchill answered that:

Bernie is one of my oldest friends and I am telegraphing to say how glad I am he is coming. He is a very wise man.

The two had “long and intimate talks”. During these Mr. Baruch presumably spoke of the atom bomb soon to be exploded (it would never have been dropped without the foreknowledge and approval of the great Adviser) and may have informed Mr. Churchill of his intention to propose the establishment (once the bomb had been exploded) of an authority with monopolistic rights in its use and control, and power to inflict quick and condign punishment on any who offended The Authority.

History does not record what Mr. Churchill thought about this, the greatest Baruch Plan: it would obviously have meant that;

dissolution of the British Empire over which I have not become the King’s first Minister in order to preside”.





The dissolution of that Empire followed before his death. His inner feeling about the world government, which was evidently meant to be set up in its wake, is unclear. In 1920, when the revolution in Russia and its authors were subjects of lively public discussion (this was before an occult censorship effectively stopped all free discussion of such matters) Mr. Churchill wrote an article in the Illustrated Sunday Herald which showed that he perfectly understood the nature and authors of the revolution and the methods of conspiracy. Being asked in 1953 for permission to reprint that article, he had his secretary refuse.

Certainly, Bernie (“a very wise man”) would not have approved of that article, for his favourite notion, the despotic world government with powers of enforcement, was the very child of that revolution. Mr. Churchill must certainly have been aware of the world government conspiracy because in various forms it preoccupied the minds of many leading men during his lifetime and he moved in their company.

In the later decades of the 19th century, when England and the Empire were at the zenith of their might and renown under the great Queen, the world government conspiracy (as the developing fluid of time now reveals) was already eating, cancer-like, at the entrails of the Commonwealth.

The conspirators were no cloak-and-dagger persons of the Cafés des Exilés type. They were public men of renown and great wealth, as in America.





The man whose name first appears in the story on the eastern side of the Atlantic, although his ideas obviously grew out of earlier conspiracies such as that of Weishaupt, was John Ruskin. He was of the type for which the modern vernacular has found the name, Do-Gooder, a tribe of which may be said that the evil they do lives long after them. He was deeply moved, in that period of the industrial revolution, by the contrast between great wealth in Victorian England, and the poverty of the lower orders, and became famous, in his day, for his impassioned championship of “the downtrodden masses”.

Ruskin’s life ended with a mental breakdown, as is sometimes the lot of beings who come to think themselves godlike. Ruskin’s “new imperialism” rested on the theory, which he imparted to his aristocratic students at Oxford, that their privileged lot in life could not be preserved unless the English lower classes were absorbed into it, and it extended to “the non-English masses throughout the world”.

Ruskin’s ideas made a great and fatal impression on the mind and life of Cecil Rhodes, the gold-and-diamond multi-millionaire from Kimberley. Rhodes’s name is commemorated in that of the little country, Rhodesia, which seventy years after his death is waging a lonely struggle against a world of enemies, leagued together in the world-government-conspiracy, on the path of which Rhodesia is a small but obdurate obstacle.

What Rhodes’s ambition was is a question befogged by the different opinions of his biographers, who assert variously that “the government of the world was his simple desire” or that he wanted to “paint the map of Africa red” (i.e. British).

The words of his first will should make the matter clear (but where, in conspiracy, which always deals in “deception regarding real intentions and opinions” is anything ever quite clear?) for he states the ambition of “extending British rule throughout the world … and founding so great a power as to hereafter render wars impossible and promote the interests of humanity”. World-government proponents always proclaim that eternal peace will come of their plans, and simultaneously contend (as Mr. Baruch ever contended) that war must be made on any who question their dominion, so that this verbal flourish need not be taken seriously.

What is clear is that out of Rhodes’s initial moves grew the world-government conspiracy that undermined all good government in England and America in the century that followed Rhodes’s death in 1902.

Rhodes’s wills set up the secret society which was to pursue his ambition through the century to come. The first (the secret society will) took the Society of Jesus as organisational model (Weishaupt similarly used the Jesuitical structure as model for his Illuminati).





Another will endowed the “Rhodes Scholarships” under which young men from the Empire, Germany and America were to be brought to Oxford for specialised training so that;

after thirty years there would be between two and three thousand men in the prime of life scattered all over the world, each one of whom would have impressed on his mind in the most susceptible period of his life the dream of the Founder, each one of whom, moreover, would have been specially, mathematically selected towards the Founder’s purpose …

What, then, was the Founder’s purpose? Was it “simply the government of the world” or “the extension of British rule throughout the world”? Rhodes’s planning took definite shape in 1891 when, with his collaborator and literary apostle, William Stead, he formed his secret society with himself as leader and Stead, Lord Esher and Sir John Milner (later British High Commissioner for South Africa) as members of an executive committee. A “Circle of Initiates” was to be formed with Mr. Balfour, Lord Rothschild, Sir Harry Johnston and other personages prominent on the South African scene. The outer circle (the pattern of circles-within-circles used by Weishaupt and the Communists) was to be an “association of Helpers” (in the Communist vocabulary such “helpers” are known as “friends” or “useful fools”.)

If Rhodes’s dream or purpose was in fact “to extend the British Empire to encompass the world” its dissolution within sixty years of his death in 1902 was this “imperial statesman’s” mocking epitaph. If his “simple desire” (a biographer, Mrs Millin) was “government of the world”, the conspiracy he set in motion was far advanced towards this aim after those sixty years.

He left behind him a “circle” of publicly renowned men who were (privately) devoted to that ambition. Outwardly they appeared to be rocklike pillars of Empire (as their counterparts in America seemed to be steadfast upholders of the Declaration of Independence).

Lord Milner became leader of the Round Table organisation begotten by Rhodes’s secret society of 1891. When I joined The Times in 1921 I became vaguely aware of the existence of a band of brothers known as “Lord Milner’s young men”. I little recked, then, of what they might be at, or could ever imagine that their work, fifty years later, would entwine itself, poison-ivy-like, around my life and lot. One of them, Mr. Geoffrey Dawson, became editor of The Times in my day.

Another initiate was Mr. Philip Kerr who held many offices in British South Africa and became, as Lord Lothian, British Ambassador at Washington. Another was Mr. Lionel Curtis, who took over leadership of the Round Table group when Lord Milner died. Something in the South African air seems to have produced this abundant crop of Round Table schemers at that period.

Some of these gentlemen took the loftiest view of the shape their future world government would assume. Lord Lothian held that “we should strive to build the Kingdom of Heaven on this earth” (and added that the leadership in that task “must fall first and foremost upon the English-speaking peoples”). At that phase in his scheming “Colonel” House across the Atlantic was also talking about rebuilding the world on a basis of the “solidarity of the Anglo-Saxon peoples”.

On both sides of the Atlantic the conspiracy was from the start one of wealthy men: in South Africa, Rhodes, Lord Rothschild (to whom Rhodes at one stage bequeathed his money), Sir Abe Bailey and Alfred Beit: in America, the great money-dynasties of Morgan, Rockefeller, Carnegie and others. One might naively wonder if these great men ever considered the human suffering their ambition would involve, particularly during the Second War, which brought the conspiracy a giant stride nearer its goal. Probably not: great men as a rule are completely cynical about any whom the Juggernaut crushes, provided that the Juggernaut continues towards the destination which they desire.





The great men involved in this often had differing views about the shape of the consummation desired by them. The languid and lisping Mr. Balfour, a typical fin de siecle figure, much in demand by the ladies for their Victorian patball parties, held that the world government should be a Jewish one. Mr. House, across the Atlantic, wrote of establishing “Socialism as dreamed by Karl Marx” as the golden rule of world government.

Before and after the First War the conspiracies of Rhodes and House began to converge. In the antechambers of World War One the schemers were already busy preparing to set up world government on the ruins. The attempt, at that first bid, was foiled by the American people, who spotted the thief in the woodpile, and discarded President Wilson.

The One World conspirators at once regrouped and reorganised their forces for the next bid, through another war. Mr. Lionel Curtis was charged to reshape the Round Table group and established throughout the “English-speaking” lands separate “front organisations” (to use the Communist phraseology) each pursuing the common ambition behind a facade of fine-sounding designations.

In England this became the Royal Institute of International Affairs, which absorbed the membership of the ci-devant Round Table group. In America Mr. House’s dictum about “deception regarding real opinions and intentions” was honoured in the name chosen for the new body which was incorporated in 1921: the Council on Foreign Relations.

In the next fifty years, until today, this became the invisible government of the United States, supplying the government with increasing numbers of its graduates and in fact directing American state policy towards that “convergence with Communism” which is the truth behind the official protestations of undeviating antagonism to Communism.

This CFR has become the protégé of the great banking dynasties and its membership now comprises fourteen hundred leading names in American banking, industry and communications.

This invisible government has provided the men to fill nearly all the top posts in the Administration during the past forty-five years. Hence the course of American foreign policy, which by rights is the domain of the Secretary of State. For many years every Secretary of State has been a CFR man, and when he was not, a CFR appointee was leapfrogged over him. Witness President Roosevelt’s Harry Hopkins in the Second War and Dr. Kissinger today: both these publicly unknown men bestrode the narrow world like a colossus and the groundlings paid the price.

The innocents abroad (and who is not “abroad” in this dark and haunted terrain of international conspiracy?) can always be heard plaintively asking, “Why?”, or alternatively, “How can wealthy men back those who seek to destroy them?

I am not in these great men’s minds but think the answer is contained in some words which I heard the late Lord Birkenhead use, once long ago. This was in the late ‘Twenties, when even to hint that peace might not be eternal was to earn the epithet, “Warmonger”. Lord Birkenhead, a realist said warningly, “There are still glittering prizes to be won” (by making war), and the next morning had the whole coyote-like press pack yelping “Warmonger” at him.

I see no other explanation for these dealers in death (for such their worldwide concentration camp would be) than this dazzling allure of the glittering prize. The One-Worlders aim at monopolistic control of the sources of wealth, of which they now control only “a piece”. Total control cannot be acquired by purchase and payment: only world government offers the ultimate seat of power. In Karl Marx’s paradise this absolute power would obtain: in that utopia the human being would be nothing, a zero.

An authority with long-term inside knowledge of the conspiracy, (Prof. Carrol Quigley, Tragedy & Hope, Macmillan 1966) says:

There has existed for a generation an international network which operates to some extent in the way that the radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may indicate as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to co-operating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so.

In the two decades following its incorporation in Paris in 1921 the CFR went from strength to strength, and prepared, through its stranglehold on American foreign policy, to prepare the way for the next attempt to set up world government after another war. When it came, its agents were able to present the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour (of which warning had been given to and ignored by President Roosevelt) as a dastardly surprise (“a day which will live in infamy”).

While the war went on the CFR was busy, through an Advisory Committee on Post-War Foreign Policy completely staffed by its appointees, laying the basis for the World State designed to come of it. This group designed the United Nations as the keystone of the World Superstate, and at the founding conference at San Francisco in 1945 the man subsequently convicted as a Communist traitor (Alger Hiss), was Secretary General.





When the Second War ended I, and many other British writers, left the suffocating climate of post-war England, where the Socialists waited, like vultures on a bough, for the England where I grew up to breath its last.

I was already, in my little way, a victim of the great conspiracy. Before the Second War I published a book which gave warning of its imminent approach, and because it broke out promptly I was held up as a man of brilliant foresight and insight. My eminence lasted but an instant. When I saw, and wrote, that the war was being fought merely to build up Communism, I was howled down as a Fascist and soon found that I was on every publisher’s black list.

Thus I brought no illusions with me to South Africa where I arrived, like Othello, my occupation gone. For the next thirty years the spate of anonymous letters and newspaper attacks continued, that is, until today. Humble workaday scribe though I was, I found that the world-government conspirators could not, or would not forget me: no sparrow might fall from a roof, I gathered, but that their minions plausibly presented this as a foul, reactionary and counter-revolutionary deed.

Even I was not beneath their notice, I found from this unending vituperation. That was not the worst: I saw that the last chapter of my life, like the twenty years between the two wars, was to be spent in the shadow of another threatening war: and it, like the other two wars, was designed to be one more move towards world government.

After two years in South Africa I paid a visit to America and was there when the abominable Hiss was at last exposed and (reluctantly) convicted. I saw how numerous were his friends and patrons, how powerful they were to protect him and cover up his deeds. I saw that the man who denounced him was pilloried on every hand, reduced to poverty, kept in fear of his life (he soon died: the other still lives). I saw how the Widow Roosevelt, the “Madame de Farge” of the conspiracy, openly placed herself before him and even referred jeeringly, in court, to his accuser as “the defendant”.

I felt in my journalist’s bones that this America could not long survive in the shape hitherto familiar to the world: it was rotting at the core. I learned of things more directly menacing to South Africa, and to me and my young wife and her babes who lived there.

I learned that President Truman, having stepped from the vice-presidential into the presidential shoes on Roosevelt’s death, had grandiose plans for Africa, where he had never been, of which he knew nothing.

I saw the red light at once. Had Mr. Truman inherited the House-Baruch plan from Mr. Roosevelt? If so, life in South Africa was going to be precarious.

Mr. Truman soon showed that he had indeed inherited the fatal “sponsors”. I believe he was never outside America before he became president: he was a typical product of the American political machine, which, as manipulated by the House-Baruch group, produced presidents pre-tailored to a pattern of submissiveness.

Now Mr. Truman, or someone in his name, produced a programme of bountiful undertakings in the world, Point Four of which related to Africa, a place quite unknown to him. Under “Point Four” he proposed to build great roads and railways, ports and airports and the like more. Obviously he had neither the knowledge nor the experience to have hit on such notions unaided. Someone was speaking through him, Charlie McCarthy-like.

Simultaneously, the Communist leader in America (at that time, a Mr. Earl Browder) came out with a programme of gigantic undertakings in Africa which was in its essentials a duplicate of Mr. Truman’s Point Four.

Neither of these benefactors, America and the Soviet Union, had any presence or foothold in Africa. How, then did they propose to get there and do these wonderful things? At this point my blood ran cold, as the saying is: I saw what was coming and returned to Africa with visions of earlier thundercloud days in Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland heavy on my spirit.

I wrote a book about my discoveries in America (Far and Wide). I think it was the last one I was allowed to get published in England and it brought me even more obloquy than the preceding three or four. This book acquired a habit of vanishing from library shelves. Librarians, consulted by me, said they knew this was happening but could not catch the “book-burners”.





The parallelism of American and Soviet policy, under the invisible guiding hand of the CFR, was again shown by this announcement of the two great Plans. The two “World Powers” (with the enfeebled British one trotting behind them like a carriage dog) were united in the resolve to carry out Lenin’s dictum that the expulsion of the colonial powers from their territories was essential to the achievement of the world revolution. The Soviet power avowedly desired this: American presidents continued to preach opposition to Communism and to practise support of it. President Roosevelt protected the Communist traitors in his administration: President Truman sacked the American general who wanted to win the war against Communism in Korea.

The game went on, plain for all to see, but very few perceived its meaning.

Next, President Truman, evidently desiring to show zeal to his sponsors, sent a roving emissary to Africa, a Mr. Mennen “Soapy” Williams, who stumped the continent calling for South Africa to be “brought to its knees”.

Africa (this became obvious) was to be the new area of Communist expansion, aided and financed by America.

Following Mr. Truman’s lead, every aspiring politician and newspaper editor in the world joined in furious attack on the White governments in Southern Africa, and this continues as I write, nearly thirty years later.

This down-with-the-White-man campaign was immensely popular with politicians everywhere, who always rejoice to be able to divert attention from matters at home by pointing a finger at countries far away, and the further the better. Thus, politicos in places as distant from the scene as Australia and New Zealand, the enslaved countries behind the Berlin Wall, and the banana republics of Central America happily stayed in office year after year by this simple method of crying “Fie!” and sternly gazing in the direction of South Africa, thousands of miles away across the oceans.





Africa at that period was a continent of order under the colonial powers, Britain, France, Belgium and Portugal. Unnumbered centuries of infant mortality, lethal diseases, slave raiding and tribal wars had left it a depopulated continent until the white man came, who put a stop to all those things, so that in the 19th century it rapidly became an over-populated continent.

The orderly process, and the rule of law, were all to be changed when the conspiracy took Africa in hand. America and the Soviet Union set out hand in hand to destroy everything that had been gained, and to recreate Darkest Africa. American politicians fell into paroxysms of simulated moral indignation about the colonial powers and their treatment of the Black man (who soon would look back on the colonial era, when a man could call on the law even against his chief and the witch doctor, as the golden age).

In America all the politicians saw in the anti-White man campaign a vote-winning ticket. Macaulay might have said of America at that time, even more truly than of the England of his day, that “We know of no spectacle so ridiculous as the public in one of its periodical fits of morality”. For example, a Mr. Robert Kennedy (younger brother of the late President John Kennedy) came to Africa with his wife and was accorded the hospitality of Natal University for a violent diatribe against the South African Government. I watched this disreputable performance with the eyes of a man who had seen two generations of politicians whipping the mob towards its own destruction.

In America, too, Mrs. Roosevelt, gave much vent (publicly) to her feelings of indignation and compassion about the Black man, and helped (privately) to arrange for supplies of arms to the terrorists in Angola.

What was coming was clear: America, under any president at all, was to help Communism take over Africa.

For a decade this farce continued and then, lo presto and behold, the colonial powers revealed that they too were in the plot. There was no irresistible pressure on them to quit. They received their marching orders from somewhere and just upped and went. One day they were there and the next they were gone, reacting like marionettes to the hidden strings. Belgium went first, then France pulled out of Algeria, and then …

Ah, then! Was Britain to desert and dissolve the Empire, and to abandon alike the White people there and the Black ones who still in some places seen by me kept the picture of the great Queen in their kraals and trading stores?

Yes, even that. The man chosen to read the dictated death sentence was the British Prime Minister of the day, a Mr. Harold Macmillan. He spoke with the turn of voice and phrase which the frontal politicians of my unfortunate country are adept in using to gloss over an act of perfidy.

The wind of change”, Mr. Macmillan told the Cape Town Parliament, was blowing Britain out of Africa. The wind of change! In any anthology of political prevarication this rates a high place. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and no “wind” was blowing the Empire away. It was being broken up by decisions reached long before in secret conclave, and its demolition was done to clear the way for the world-government conspiracy.

Followed, in all the British territories, the pantomime of abdication: flags being lowered, plumed hats and gold-encrusted uniforms worn a last time, a Royal Personage handing over the deeds and so on. The only truth behind this woeful pageant was that the Black man was being handed back to slavery.





In the next ten years the Black man foretasted the future which had been arranged for him. “Independent” Black states emerged on all hands, and in all of them the politician with the most guns shouldered his way to the front and took over, to be thrust aside a little later by another of the same kind who had been supplied with weapons by someone or other. The tale of carnage and chaos will never be told: it followed the same pattern everywhere, and the world was indifferent to it anyway. Darkest Africa was back.

Of the White man’s era only South Africa remained (which immediately broke away from the Empire), and Rhodes’s Rhodesia, which saw that it was to be betrayed and proclaimed Independence on the Washingtonian model on November 11, 1965, and the eastern and western coastal territories of Mozambique and Angola, where the Portuguese had been since before the British Empire or the America Republic were thought of.

The Sixties and Seventies, therefore, were filled with the enraged clamour of the outer world (particularly America and England) against these remaining White-governed territories. In England the Socialists were in office and they had long awaited the moment of imperial demise, like vultures on a bough intent on the victim’s last breath. The Socialist leader, a Mr. Harold Wilson, habitually used the language of George III’s prime minister, Lord North, about the Rhodesians. They were “rebels”, he declared.

After canvassing the feeling of the British army about an attack on Rhodesia, and drawing blank, he announced at Blackpool (to the cheers of terrorists in the balcony) that he would give “unconditional support” in arms to the Communist bands which succeeded to power in the Portuguese territories neighbouring Rhodesia when the beleaguered Portuguese, after thirteen years of siege by the entire world, collapsed in 1973.

I was in Rhodesia, Angola and Mozambique during these years, and although my own part in the imbroglio was but that of one small leaf in a gale, I felt that I was hard done by, after my embittering years in Europe between the wars, in being caught up in yet another chapter of the great conspiracy’s expansionist thrusts.

I returned from Rhodesia, Mozambique and Angola to South Africa to await what yet might come. What came, in 1975, was the proof that Mr. Truman’s “Point Four” of 25 years earlier, was a simple restatement of the parallelism of American and Soviet policy, jointly leading to a Communist takeover in Africa.

Angola gave clear token of that. Soviet arms, originally financed by America, were supplied to one of the contending factions which fought for power when the Portuguese left, and the Soviet called in Cuban troops to ensure the victory of that faction.

The American President at that time was named Ford (the only difference between successive presidents was that of name: in subservience to the overriding world government conspiracy they were all alike) and he was seen, a shadowy figure on the television screen, making sounds of formal disapproval of the Soviet and Cuban incursions into Africa.

The real effect of these sotto voce remonstrances was nil: America led the world in tacitly accepting the deed and the appearance of Black Communist states on the eastern and western shores of Africa.

By this time it was obvious that no American president, with the example of President Nixon’s overthrow ever in his mind, would presume to affront the pupils of the House-Baruch school, embattled in the Council on Foreign Relations. Whichever contestant might win the 1976 presidential election, nothing would change: and that would hold good for any subsequent election.





Thus I awaited my closing years in South Africa. Already, many years before, one of the enormously wealthy “peace” endowments in America (the Carnegie one) had produced a battle plan, complete to the last ballistic detail, for an attack on South Africa by air, sea and land. This open involvement of America in the Communist conspiracy has hung over South Africa ever since it was published in 1965. From my personal eyrie, overlooking the turbulent scene, I saw in it the co-ordination of another holocaust, the essential third stage in the conspiracy to bring about the super-slave-state.

At the age I have reached, for a’that, my personal interest in the great melodrama is only to see to it, if I possibly can, that any tombstone of mine shall have the inscription, “He survived!” My ambitions are modest, and for more than that I do not hope. The conspiracy has progressed so far that it will not, possibly cannot stop now. Too many leading men are enchained to it for that.

While they are in power over us, we shall all continue to be Gadarea-bound, and the new age of darkness is nigh upon us. When that comes we shall all need to start again and work for another renaissance. Many good men and true are preparing now for that, and tomorrow’s day will be theirs.

The perjurers and their kept press will call it the counter-revolution. Its proper name will be The Conspiracy Of Truth.


Know the Truth and the Truth shall make you free

(John 8:32)




PDF of this post. Click to view or download (0.6MB). >> Douglas Reed – The Grand Design of the 20th Century (1977) Ver 2
 The Grand Design Cover NEW


Knowledge is Power in Our Struggle for Racial Survival

(Information that should be shared with as many of our people as possible — do your part to counter Jewish control of the mainstream media — pass it on and spread the word) … Val Koinen


Version History
Version 3: Jun 11, 2017 – Improved formatting.
Version 2: Feb 14, 2015 – Updated cover, improved formatting. Updated PDF of this post.
Version 1: Published Aug 27, 2014

Read Full Post »