3/5 페이지 처음처음 1 2 3 4 5 마지막마지막
Results 5 to 6 of 10

제목: PJ#098, ASCENSION OR NEVER-EVER LAND?

  1. #5
    宇宙生命一家, 無次 Justice Future Society Institute wave's Avatar
    가입일
    2004-07-16
    게시글
    1,180
    힐링에너지
    100

    Default 응답: PJ#098, ASCENSION OR NEVER-EVER LAND?

    PJ 98
    CHAPTER 7

    REC #2 HATONN


    TUE., JUN. 14, 1994 2:56 P.M. YEAR 7, DAY 302

    TUE. JUN. 14, 1994

    WORLD ASCENSION DAY
    I promised, in the prior writing today, to share a writing of prophesy with you. We ran out of space so we will offer it here first.

    The article itself seems to be a portion of a tape by the same title but we have not been supplied with ordering information. As nearly as we can discern the receiving is from someone called "Sanaka" who, it is stated, is the third son of the Kumara who came from Venus to start the White Brotherhood. Among his past lives were Aaron, Elijah and John the Baptist.

    I already see one glaring error in that the White Brotherhood was NOT started by any "Kumara" and, more especially, not from Venus.

    Their receiver appears to be Steven Otero who has been a "student of the Light for many years". In April 1991 he was awakened by Master Serapis and Merlin through Bob Fickes. Steven is available for group and private sessions, and house blessings. Contact him at: 3 Fair Acres Road, Central Nyack, N.Y., 10960. The only other information I have is that the arti­cle shared here was published in a publication called Connecting Link and is from the issue 23.

    I ask that this be published because the request for comments comes from a long-standing friend, Grace B. She does not lightly presume upon our time and has been with us since the early onset of our own work some four to five years ago. I don't have many "comments" and she has actually answered her own questions but it is an interesting article and we are happy to share it.

    WORLD ASCENSION DAY--12:12
    SANAKA
    I come to speak to you of the 12:12. There are those of you who participated in the 8:8 and the 11:11 and now there is the completion--the 12:12. [H: I'm sorry, I don't know what this means so any information would have to come from this per­son in point.] That is coming on the 12th day of December, 1994. Yes, that is World Ascension Day, the time when all the 144,000 will ascend into the 4th dimension. And when those of you of this sacred number ascend then all of your brothers and sisters on this Earth will ascend as well. [H: Well, unless that is the planned "ascension" program of Project BLUE BEAM, I wouldn't hold my etheric breath, but perhaps this party knows more than do I--and certainly since I don't know anything at all about this--it is reasonable that he knows more than do I.]

    I have spoken to you previously, of a secret organization known as the "Illuminati". In truth, those were the former high priests of Atlantis, the initiates of Thoth Hermes. We wish to report to you that this order is transforming. There was a meeting which took place in the etheric plane between my brother Sananda and the souls of this organization. There was a great illuminating light which came directly from the Great Central Sun itself, and these souls became enlightened and real­ized that they, too, were merely players in a game. Your Earth has been a school of learning for many souls from many parts of the Galaxy who come to learn, to experience. Now these souls have truly become illuminated. And as they continue to strive for enlightenment, they will release control of this world and it will be transformed. [H: Now this part is not nearly as far­fetched in possibility as it might at first appear.]

    Merely 60 years ago, the prophesy was made by the great Master St. Germain and recorded by one who is known as God­fre [Ray King]--that all would transform upon this Earth when those who were in control would release. I come to say to you now that this prophesy has reached fruition. You will see that transformation in 1994. [H: This sort of obviates the "free­will" but it would be rather nice if this would be so.]

    As St. Germain spoke through this channel on the 4th of July, 1993 [H: We have to assume this to be Steven Otero because Godfre has been gone from your place for quite a long while.] the key to transforming your economy would be the takeover of the Federal Reserve Banking System and the elimi­nation of the IRS. This has occurred--those forces which con­trol the Federal Reserve Bank have turned its assets over to your government. This action will eliminate your national debt. Soon there will be more announcements of the illegality of your 16th amendment and you, the people, will demand the dissolve­ment and it will be the end of the IRS. And that which has been taken away will be restored to you. The monetary sums which you have paid into your systems will be restored to you.

    This will start the transition in your form of government--for this will lead eventually, with the 12:12 of 1994 and into the year of 1995, a transformation where you no longer will be in a system of federal government but in a system of community.

    Transformation and ascension into the fourth dimension means that there can no longer be conflict upon your world. There will no longer be competitiveness--there will no longer be the system of capitalism--there will be the system of community and communalism. [H: I don't think this will be very popular with the gangsters of the New World Order NOR IN THEIR PLANS! Perhaps there is misperception here as to meaning but the facts are that Earth physical plane is for the very purpose of conflict in one way or another so to expect NO CONFLICT will be unlikely in its definitive meaning as ac­cepted in current translation. The further confusion may well come from some assumed misperception that somehow the removal of "the" 144,000 ascending into the 4th dimen­sion (whatever that means) will take away conflict from Earth 3rd dimensional plane. This is not feasible if you un­derstand the original meaning of "the" 144,000 beings.

    This could, however, mean that the 144,000 having as­cended into the 4th dimension would no longer have conflict in "your (their?) world". The larger problem, however, is HOW does one JUST ASCEND? Ascension itself means be­coming lighter in weight and frequency as to allow for pas­sage through the density of Earth into higher and less-dense atmosphere or space. This means reaching the point and frequency of "at the least" invisibility throng!' dispersement OR the frequency of illumination (light) or faster than a speeding bullet and only slightly slower than the speed of thought! To become one WITH light means you must be able to have a frequency of no less than light itself--at which point in that dimension there is NO CAPABILITY OF CONFLICT BECAUSE THERE IS NO PHYSICAL EX­PRESSION.]

    Much of your federal government will be dismantled. Only the three branches will remain so that you have a group system of laws, of justice and a council of elders who will assist in ad­ministration. But the vast majority of responsibility for your land will be within the local states and local communities, for that is where it should be. Local councils of elders will be es­tablished and they will be built around the sacred number of 12-­6 males and 6 females. They will administrate by your consent and your total awareness of situations. Blessings to you, beloved ones, for by your will, by your decrees and calls, it has come about. So I say to you: meditate daily, fill yourself with Light and you will accelerate.

    This great event on December 12, 1994, has been planned for eons. [H: Oops--there go the short-term plans of any Blue Beam NASA operation. Unless, of course, it was called by some other name.] There are four means of Ascension. Three have been demonstrated on your Earth. [H: Wait a minute--I think I would like to see those demonstrations!] The fourth way, group Ascension, will now be demonstrated on your Earth. On only two other occasions in this Solar System has this form of Ascension been accomplished--on my own world of Venus and on Mars. [H: Now you've gone and done it--it's back to sounding like Project Blue Beam where you just get U.S.S. Eklridged right out into a time warp of time and space--and not into some nice fourth dimensional world of perfection and balanced truth.] And so it will be done upon your Earth as well. [H: Done "UPON"?? The very word "ascension" assumes "off your world"--as used here.. Or, are you going to ascend like a hot air balloon? No, it says:] All will go forth into the Light at once. [H: Then what? It sounds like the old "fluffy cloud" syndrome to me. Is it not impor­tant to know about some interim stop-offs or anything--just up, up and away--OK with you?]

    These events I have spoken about will trigger reactions in those of Earth who have not actively worked for their Ascen­sion. But, there will be an event of such proportion that will convert even the most skeptical. This will take place before the 12:12. This will be the [H: Oh my gosh...!] landing of ASHTAR, the coming of the Pleiadians, the Zeta Reticuli and others under the auspices of Ashtar and with the bless­ing of Lord Sananda. [H: Well surprising as it may be to the bunches of "channels" who tout good old Ashtar as a dashing whiffer-awayer--HE WILL ONLY BE INVOLVED IF THE WORLD IS SET TO TOTALLY DISINTEGRATE AND DISPERSE SOULED ENERGY. ASHTAR IS "A COMMAND"--A COMPUTER CENTER CONNECTION--WHICH COMES INTO PLAY ONLY. IF FINAL EVACUA­TION HAS TO BE ACCOMPLISHED. YES, THERE IS A COMMANDER OF THAT "COMMAND" BUT HIS NAME IS NOT "ASHTAR". ASHTAR is simply used for entity identification. As to Lord Sananda's "blessing"--I travel with this being and I am not aware of any such program plans--but then, I do not advocate "dates" of whisk-away ei­ther, so you will have to check it out for selves. I personally, if I were a human physical manifestation, would not care to take off without more destination plans than just into some light beam. Please note that I am NOT discounting this per­son in any way--I simply am not aware of any such happen­ings and I would think that possibly I would be. There are already many of both Pleiadians and Zeta Reticuli among you.]

    You will be prepared for this event. In the early part of 1994 your federal government will finally admit to the existence of the extra-terrestrial life forms. [H: Well here is a clue as the author refers to early 1994 as "will finally..." which indicates that this paper was received some time prior to 1994.] The secret council known as MJ-12 has been dissolved. [H: MJ-12 dissolved? Hummnn.] Your government will admit to cooper­ating with the Zetas for the last 40 years. [H: Well, they haven't yet done so, no matter how many times they have gotten caught at dirty tricks. I am not sure "cooperation" would be the word of choice at best and most of the coopera­tion or otherwise has been with other galacnalities than dear little Reticuli.]

    This will be a time for the healing of the abductees. [H: Healing of WHAT abductees? Do you mean the ones of on­going interaction with your own governments? Random hi­jacking of people is not a part of ongoing experiencing for the heck of it with aliens who already have the smarts to do the cross-DNA and other replications. Whoever is doing this sort of "stuff" is not now coming from the stars, my friends--THEY ARE LOCKED TO YOUR EARTH RIGHT ALONG WITH YOU IF THEY HAVE INSTIGATED THESE AC­TIVITIES. THESE TYPES OF BEHAVIORS ARE SIM­PLY NOT ACCEPTABLE IN THE COSMOS NETWORK OF LIGHTED BRETHREN. GOD SIMPLY PUTS A LOT OF CONDITIONS ON HIS COSMIC PLAYERS.] It is time for you who have had these experiences to call the Light into you to release all fear; to know that you have participated in the event--that the fear has been a way for you to transmute it from your bodies. You will be healed and recognized for the service you have rendered. [H: Good grief--what service and by whom? Will the next suggestion be to go hop aboard the next available light-beam and go to never-ever land? USE THOSE WONDROUSLY GIFTED MINDS, READERS!]

    [H: You had best pay close attention to this next offering. Why? Because, be prepared in advance. Watch out for anyone named "Thoth", any repeat of the bastardized das­tardly technology that cost you your world at Atlantis and why would ANY alien give you technology that could destroy his own civilizations? You had better start THINKING.]

    When Ashtar and your Pleiadian cousins, the Reticuli and other races land, they will offer you technological assistance--great technology of the fourth dimension. In truth, that technol­ogy is not of the Stars, for it was born of the Earth, in Atlantis. This is the technology of Thoth Hermes and they are coming to return it to you. This will be done PRIOR TO 12:12:94.

    Then, after 12:12:94 into 1995, your higher centers of under­standing will be awakened and you will remember how to use the technology again. [H: Who, the 144,000 or the ones left who were not on the ball enough to get to GO? What, ex­actly is being said here? If you can't figure it out--it is in­tended that way--KNOW IT.] Your culture, your civilization will advance into such as you have only dreamed of before. [H: Let's consider a different word--like "nightmare". You couldn't even hang on to your Constitution--do you REALLY think you will ADVANCE into perfection?] Atlantis and Lemuria will rise again and this time it will be purified, for there will no longer be the ego--the desire to control and manipulate will be gone from your world. [H: Wow--no ego? When? This year? Do you see signs of this transformation? This very young man will be in a complete ego fit attack just because I question some of the information. Earth is not perfection and it IS a place of ego manifestation. Man may well bring his ego self into CONTROL at some time--but it is as much a part of the physical plane 3-dimensional WORLD as you can get. THIS IS THE VERY TESTING OF MANKIND.]

    We say to you at this time, a full 97% of you have chosen Ascension. [H: Say what? 97% of you haven't even been able to choose your own favorite breakfast cereal.] We have spoken before of those who wish to continue with karma. I CRY OUT TO THESE SOULS TO LET GO--TO RECEIVE THE LIGHT OF TRUTH AND JOIN US IN FREEDOM NOW!

    It is time now for the Light workers to begin to focus on this event with all of your Light, might and love. I call on all those who are channels to release NOW all thoughts of Earth changes, Earthquakes, tidal waves, of land masses sinking, of economic disasters and wars. All of this is the illusion of Maya and shall be transformed. [H: But this character just said a minute ago that Atlantis and Lemuria will rise again!?!? Where will all the mass go? Will it just slide and slither away with no quakes--what about the ones on top of the "slide"? This may well be an illusioned dream--but what happens when a dream is ended? YOU WAKE UP and face the facts of your expression IN REASON. If a thing is UNREASONABLE--it probably is NOT DO-ABLE! AND, MOREOVER--WHO IN THE DICKENS IS "MAYA" AND HER SINGULAR DREAM? IT IS YOUR DREAM THAT HAS MERIT--NOT MAYA'S.]

    When you have entered the fourth dimension you will be im­mortal. [H: YOU are already immortal--what does the fourth dimension have to do with that? Oh, bodily immor­tal? Well you lost that in your ascension! Sorry, you can't have it BOTH WAYS!] Your bodies will transform [H: Watch out--here it comes...]--the masses of bone will dissolve into silica. You will be the essence of superfluidity. [H: ?????] But this is only the BEGINNING. In the year 2000 your planet will ascend into the fifth dimension. At that time your planet will be an etheric world, truly a world of Light.

    There has been much talk upon your world about the three waves of Ascension, but this has been misinterpreted as three groups Ascending at different times into the same place. I say to you that the first wave will be a group Ascension from the third to the fourth dimensions--this will be the 12:12:94. [H: How dare this, whoever he is, nerd use the counsel of the three migrations to interject you turkeys onto the aboriginal calendar of evolvement into the great elders and Ancients of their progression. Most of you are primitive in soul learning and to assume to usurp the TRUTH to prattle about groups and lift-offs is unacceptable. You ones cannot seem to learn­-EVER--to respect the truth of oral KNOWING and continue to try to turn the sacred into the mundane, tampered with dark ignorance. Hatonn has passion? I AM PASSION and some of you had better get some of that "passion" for respect, truth and lighted knowledge or you are going to be waving good-bye after the last ship has gone!] The second wave from the fourth to fifth dimension, will be in the year 2000. The third wave will be from the fifth to the sixth dimen­sion. The sixth dimension is the level of the Christ. [H: What a bunch of hogwash garbage!] That is yet to come. We share with you this knowledge for the first time to inspire you. [H: How inspired do you feel?]
    In the year 2000, your world will become etheric; you will no longer have a physical body as you know it now. Those of you of the 144,000 will go forward at that time and, eventually, all of you will go. Your bodies will be pure Light. The Earth will be restored to the Lemurian vibration. [H: Heaven help us, please. That was a sorry vibration if there ever was one--especially when it left for the deep also.] Beginning in the year 2000, although you will have the great technology for five years (1995-2000), it will no longer be needed. You will no longer need machines to create--you will simply create! [H: Maybe we are just not talking about the SAME year 2000?]
    At that time, the great enlightened ones will walk among you again. Sananda will return, not as your king or messiah, but as your teacher. [H: That's ALL he EVER WAS!]
    Blessed ones, I have laid it out for you. Now it is for you to seize the moment and go beyond. Meditate on this daily and prepare yourself for this date: December 12, 1994. [H: I sure do wish I knew what didn't happen on 8:8 and 11:11!] Think about that date, that time, that number and FEEL it flowing through your body. Blessings to you.

    * * *
    Let me give you another idea: "...Catch a falling star and put it in your pocket--save it for a rainy day..." "and what a nice world that will be..."

    Before closing may we hear from the circle of migrations, please:

    Little Crow on "Transition", 1/5/92:

    Ain't none of us going to hell, ain't none of us going to heaven. What we are doing is going into the infinity of our be­ing, the infinity of our creation, which is energy--energy and that's it. Energy has always existed, always shall exist and al­ways has existed and will continue to exist whether we have that realization or not....

    5-19-90:

    In my culture there is no hell, which is a plus. There is no damnation, which is a plus, and there is no salvation--only life. You transist and you live it again and you transist and you live it again and you transist and you live it again and you transist and you live it again, until one day you don't have to transist any­more. [H: Please read that: "ascension"!]

    6-21-91

    ...."So what's the greatest thing you ever did that you think is a self accomplishment?" I said, "Get out of my own way. " ....I died. I got out of my way so I could get on and do what I had to do..."

    WHY DON'T YOU JUST GET OUT OF YOUR OWN WAY AND STOP ACCEPTING ALL THE GARBAGE TOSSED YOUR WAY TO PREVENT YOUR NOTICING THAT YOU ARE NOT DOING YOUR PURPOSEFUL TASK? EVERY BEING HAS A PURPOSE--ARE YOU FULFILL­ING YOURS?

    Thank you, brother Eagle [Little Crow]--you have kept my scribe going when there seemed to be no way to rev the engine. I am honored, Sir, to serve with you and equally humble for the allowance, for I am gifted to be able to see beyond and into the reality of YOUR responsibility and indeed, I am honored. Aho.

    May my brethren come to recognize truth in reality and stop this dabbling in the break-down of illusion.

    Salu.
    CHAPTER 8
    REC #1 HATONN

    WED., JUN. 15, 1994 9:03 A.M. YEAR 7, DAY 303

    WED., JUN. 15, 1994

    BIGGER THAN WHITEWATER
    The question continues to flow in this direction as to the status of "Whitewater", the Clintons and will they survive the political thrust, and what are the details of their activities? Well, read­ers, I have no reason which could be considered valid to spend such time and space REPEATING what other people have found to be valid information--or some invalid information balanced against other and conclusions drawn--validly or invalidly. Being connected with the CIA and political intrigue and players--you can be sure the hidden truth is both WORSE THAN GUESSED and WILL BE UNCOVERED SOMETIME, SOMEWHERE--FOR TRUTH WILL ALWAYS "OUT" SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINE--WHEN THE "BUCK STOPS"!

    Each one who comes with information to reveal is gathered up and brain-drained until it presents quite open hostility by those searching for and willing to use ANY METHOD TO STOP THE SHOW-AND-TELL. Can "WE" overcome? I already have done so--now it is up to you to make that decision.

    There are trigger words, however, which I will not permit asso­ciated with anything from my WORK. They are the words that attract the enemy in great swarms--subversive, insurrection, racketeering, patriot, IRS protestor, etc. "I" certainly have no need to use such terms nor intend any such deeds--even if law­fully permitted in the Constitution.

    As a "paper" the CONTACT must NOT use such advocative terms. We intend to INCITE NOTHING except to hope that you will seek, research, consider personal actions--and find! We serve information that we hope our enemy will find worthy as well as our friends--in this way TRUTH causes the enemy to become the friend. My allowance as a "judge" is to never judge the players--only their acting within the play--BUT I CERTAINLY MUST JUDGE THE PLAY AND DISCERN THE CHARACTERS' INTENT TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY.
    As to Whitewater--it is only a symptom, a happening--even a distractor in the overall. Now, you want me to give you "connections", etc. Well, how can you rule out one connection because it "appears" to be a whole different play? THERE IS ONLY ONE PLAY--everything is connected. To find that Bush, for instance, is connected with Clinton (even two different political parties) may seem remote--BUT, WHEN YOU HAVE CONNECTIONS WITH THE CIA, WHICH BUSH HEADED--IT BECOMES DIFFERENT???

    I suggested you acquire a book a couple of weeks back for an in-depth look into this very specific situation. The discussion is so pertinent that the book has subsequently arrived on this desk. I will again suggest you get it even though it is quite costly com­pared to a journal but cheap at any price for the contents. Is it absolutely correct? No, for no one can have all--but these au­thors have done a very good job on this subject. The book is: COMPROMISED, Clinton, Bush And The CIA, The bigger story behind Whitewater. By Terry Reed & John Cummings: SPI BOOKS/Shapolsky Publishers, Inc., 136 West 22nd St., New York, NY 10011. 212/633-2022--Fax 212/633-2123.
    Is this the most IMPORTANT subject for today's need for information? NO, it most certainly is NOT--but it is a dis­tractor upon which myriads of you are focused--so let us handle it and you can follow up.
    I want to discuss other topics so I will simply give you what is published in the April Executive Intelligence Review. The re­view is written by Edward Spannaus and he captions his review with:

    [QUOTING:]

    THE BOOK THAT COULD TURN,
    WHITEWATERGATE INTO BUSHGATE
    [H: Yes I am quite confident that Ronn J. will have a LOT to say about these operations--but we do not heap and pile our eggs into any one basket--just as we ask you NOT TO DO. I choose to use this review because you will see a fa­miliar name or two which may well SURPRISE you as they are "referenced". There is no way that YOU can know all--especially the ones who play in the global intrigue at every turn of the world. This is WHY you must study all pre­sented at all times--upon less you cannot base reasonable conclusions.]

    From at least 1986 on, allegations were circulating in Arkansas that the state was being used for Contra support oper­ations which involved shipments of guns and drugs, and also in­volved money-laundering operations. During the 1992 presi­dential election campaign, such stories began to a limited amount of national circulation.

    The story was revived on March 25, 1994, when CBS News ran a major feature on allegations that western Arkansas had been a base for Contra support operations involving guns and drugs in the mid-1980s. CBS's story was that Drug Enforce­ment Administration (DEA) informant Barry Seal had set up Rich Mountain Aviation in Mena, Arkansas in 1983, and had used the Mena airport to smuggle guns to the Contras and to bring cocaine into the United States. [H: I want to remind you right here: WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. IS A FAR MORE IM­PORTANT SITE THAN IS MENA, ARKANSAS.] CBS also reported on various unsuccessful efforts to have the matter investigated.

    Unmentioned by CBS was the recent publication of the new book on the Mena operations written by Terry Reed, a pilot who was directly involved in the operation, and by Newsday in­vestigative reporter John Cummings.

    No such hesitancy was shown by the London Sunday Tele­graph two days later. It featured a photo of the jacket cover of the Reed-Cummings book with its title Clinton, Bush and the CIA quite prominent, with a caption reading: "This book could topple the President." The kicker on the article read: "After the troubles of Whitewater, the White House faces even more dam­aging charges that Arkansas' former governor was a CIA stooge." [H: Read that again, please--most of you didn't be­lieve me when I SAID AS MUCH!]

    After reviewing Reed's allegations on Mena, money-laun­dering, Clinton's ties and disputes with the Central Intelligence Agency and so on, author Ambrose Evans-Pritchard wrote: "If the book comes to be accepted as broadly true, President Clin­ton may be walking the plank within months."

    To anyone familiar with the Reed-Cummings story, Evans-­Pritchard's distortions of the book are hilarious. Pritchard as­siduously avoids mention of the central thesis of the book: that Clinton permitted these secret CIA operations to operate in Arkansas at the request of the Reagan-Bush Administration. The truth is that the Reed-Cummings book is far more damaging to George Bush than to Clinton; in fact Reed reports that Bush attempted a "coup" against President Reagan.

    No wonder that CBS--up until the April 20 Wall Street Jour­nal, as we shall see below--has been the only major national media to touch the Mena story. Where are the neo-conserva­tives, who have been so quick to jump on every imagined scan­dal about Clinton? Where are the Republicans in Congress, who have been demanding hearings to bring every detail of the Whitewater affair into the circus atmosphere of a televised in­quisition on Capitol Hill?

    Is it because Terry Reed's story, if seriously investigated, would do what the official Iran-Contra investigations never did: show that the Contra operation was a major source of drug-run­ning into the United States, run under the direct supervision of George Bush? Is it because Reed's story shows that the very least of Lt. Col. Oliver North's offenses was what he was officially charged with: lying to Congress? Is it because Reed's story could destroy George Bush, once and for all?

    TERRY REED'S STORY
    Reed was trained in Air Force Intelligence in the late 1960s, and served on secret projects in Southeast Asia from 1969 through 1975, after which he went into the machine tool manu­facturing business in Oklahoma.

    Around 1980, Reed was asked by the Federal Bureau of In­vestigation to monitor his Hungarian business partners in the machine tool business. Then in early 1982, Reed was handed over to what he was told was the CIA. He was introduced to a "John Cathey", who identified himself as working for the CIA. Cathey first asked Reed to gather information on the company believed to be exporting sensitive technology to the U.S.S.R.

    Then in March 1983, Cathey briefed Reed on something called "Project Donation", which involved private citizens "donating" airplanes and other items to the Contra support oper­ation, by declaring them stolen and then filing insurance claims. Reed says he turned down the offer. When his plane was stolen from its hangar in Joplin, Missouri a few weeks later, Reed says he didn't make the connection. In August 1983, when Reed and his partners decided to move their machine tool company to Lit­tle Rock, Arkansas, "Cathey" again contacted Reed and told him that the CIA had a project in Little Rock, and directed Reed to contact one Barry Seal.

    Reed did so. Seal told him that Arkansas was being turned into a CIA "proprietary". A major legitimate arms manufac­turer had moved to Arkansas to produce weapons for the Con­tras. Other companies were being used to provide the critical parts to convert AR-15s to fully automatic M-16s, which had to be done without federal inspection or end-user certificates.

    When Seal learned that Reed had experience in flying and conducting air drops in Southeast Asia, he brought Reed into a second operation, which involved training Nicaraguan Contra pilots in precision air-drop techniques. Two classes of Contra pilots were "graduated" from the training program, conducted at Nella, in a remote area near Mena in western Arkansas.

    Seal told Reed that he himself was flying weapons from Arkansas to Central America, and was bringing large amounts of cash back. Weapons were shipped into Mena by barge on the river system controlled by the Army Corps of Engineers to Fort Smith, and then into Mena for shipment to Central America. Many of these weapons originated with the Army and the Arkansas National Guard.

    According to Reed, the Arkansas Development Financial Authority (ADFA), which has figured in many recent White­water stories, would issue low-interest loans to other companies involved in secret military and CIA production. Reed says that the CIA was bringing in about $9 million a week (!) into Arkansas. Much of this money was "laundered" through the ADFA, to provide the basis for industrial development bonds is­sued by ADFA.

    MOVING TO MEXICO
    Because of Reed's familiarity with manufacturing processes, he was asked by his old friend William Cooper, who was working for the CIA proprietary Southern Air Transport (SAT), to draw up a business plan to build a machine tool manufactur­ing plant in Mexico, which could be used as an intelligence front and a vehicle for arms shipments worldwide. [H: I asked that "William Cooper" be emphasized here because this article was sent to us by a reader of CONTACT with inquiry as to whether or not this is the "UFO"-focused Cooper. Duplica­tion of names in your world are prevalent but I don't need to respond to that question. Why? Because if you want to find out--it is very easy and then you have documentation. Check to see if there is evidence of anything like this in Cooper's businesses or seeming potential contacts. It is al­ways hard to be specific in questioning with so little input--however, this can easily be established. It is much like ask­ing me what connection Bo Gritz might have in a business circumstance with Khun Sa of Shan. How many of you knew that Khun Sa's country is called "Shan"? Am I mak­ing my point? We simply do not need any more conflict or confrontation with ANY "William Cooper". He has already early, early on threatened George Green and then turned and threatened the Ekkers and referred to them as "slimy little pukes" and he would "get them with every fucking thing the law allowed"! I simply am not going to get into such discussions, please. As a further example of how mis­understandings happen, I would suggest that the name above, "John Cathey", is actually a false identification. Certainly it is not, as asked, Bruce Cathey of Australia.] Reed found that the CIA was particularly interested in his KGB-linked Hungarian business contacts who were already operating in Mexico. To Reed's surprise, when he discussed bringing in a company with East bloc ties, his handlers, including "Cathey", began panting.
    In August 1985, Cathey arranged for Reed to meet a CIA agent named "Max Gomez" in Mexico. Gomez told Reed that he had been hand-picked by the White House to set up an op­eration in Mexico which could be used to transship weapons to the Contras. Gomez admitted he didn't know anything about manufacturing, so he needed Reed's expertise.

    ("Gomez", as Reed later learned, was actually Felix Ro­driguez, a longtime CIA agent who bragged of his close ties to Vice-President George Bush. Rodriguez's boss in the old days in Southeast Asia was the CIA official whom Bush brought in as his national security adviser, Donald Gregg. It was Gregg who brought Rodriguez into the White House/National Security Council apparatus which became known as "The Enterprise".)


    BARRY SEAL'S STORY
    A few months later, Barry Seal told Reed that the "CIA" was getting ready to pull the plug on the Arkansas operation. Seal also told Reed the Agency wanted to expand his Mexico plan to include the actual manufacturing of weapons there for sale to Third World countries.

    Seal took Reed to a meeting in Panama in December 1985 to plan out the Mexico project. Gomez had Reed's Mexico busi­ness plans in his hand, as well as Reed's correspondence with one "Robert Johnson". (Johnson had called Reed a few months earlier, identified himself as a lawyer with Southern Air Trans­port, and said that he would be reviewing Reed's plans for the Mexico operation. Only years later was Reed to learn that "Johnson" was actually William P. Barr, a "former" CIA em­ployee who later became George Bush's attorney general.) [H: Does Gunther Russbacher, Ronn Jackson, etc., KNOW all this? OF COURSE! Isn't it dangerous, then, to be working with them, and them with us? OF COURSE! Are we going to just continue to work with them? OF COURSE! Won't they eventually do us in? OF COURSE NOT! THE MAJOR PROBLEM WITH THE ADVERSARY'S PLAN­NING IS THAT HE/THEY ARE SO FIXED ON THEIR OWN PLANS AND GOALS AS TO ABUSE PEOPLE WHO HAVE SERVED THEM. MOREOVER, THEY ARE NOT PRIVY TO JUST "WHO" IS ON A MISSION "ALREADY"--FOR THE HIGHER-BIG BOYS AND ARE JUST IN TRAINING TO GET TO THE BIG PARTS OF THEIR MISSIONS. IF YOU THINK "GRANDMA" HERE KNEW HER MISSION WHEN SHE TYPED THE FIRST TWO PARAGRAPHS OR THE FIRST TWO DOZEN BOOKS, YOU ARE WRONG. SHE IS STILL WAITING FOR HER PURPOSE--AND, EACH IS WAITING FOR INSTRUC­TIONS TO SEEP THROUGH ABOUT WHAT IN HONKERS "WE ARE DOING". If things seem vague in your own mission--wait, but check talents and training and SEE WHERE YOU MAY SERVE! There is nothing more dedicated to truth than a man coming into vision and com­paring his past with that which needs doing. He already HAS THE PROOF which we are still having to funnel through TO YOU.]

    Another participant in the Panama meeting was "a possible foreign investor" identified as "Pat Weber"--who Reed later learned was Amiram Nir, an Israeli counterterrorism officer who figured prominently in the Iran side of the so-called "Iran-Contra" affair.

    Flying back to Arkansas from Panama, Seal told Reed that he had been blackmailing many people, including, he suggested, the CIA. Seal claimed to have gotten information from the Medellin Cartel that Bush's sons were involved with drugs and were in the dope business. Seal went on to say that he could prove this, that he had "names, dates, places", and even tape recordings and "surveillance videos catchin' the Bush boys red-­handed."

    Seal then explained that the Republicans were trying to "neutralize" some of the Democrats in Arkansas, and particu­larly the Clinton crowd, before they could use the information against Bush. Seal's assignment, he said, was to "dirty up" some people close to Clinton, which he did by delivering drugs to Little Rock bond dealer Dan Lasater; this resulted in drug charges being brought against Lasater and Roger Clinton, the governor's brother. Seal had told Reed that his own dirty oper­ations were part of the plan to shut down the Arkansas secret project, and move part of it to Mexico.

    About two months later, on Feb. 19, 1986, Seal was shot to death in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Reed believes this was be­cause Seal knew too much, and that he had become a liability to Bush and the CIA.

    Shortly after this, according to Reed's story, there was a showdown between Clinton and the White House/NSC/CIA gang. This meeting took place in an ammunition bunker at Camp Robinson near Little Rock, and included Cathey/North, Gomez/Rodriguez, and "the man in charge", Robert Johnson, who ran the meeting as William Casey's personal representa­tive. Johnson's purpose was to extricate Washington from what was becoming a messy situation in Arkansas. There were widespread rumors all over the place about the dirty operations; too much was becoming exposed. Johnson promised to fix any federal investigation, but he informed Clinton that the operations were being pulled out.

    OPERATION 'SCREW WORM'
    As the Arkansas projects were phased out, Reed was put in charge of the Mexican manufacturing project, code-named "Operation Screw Worm", and he moved his family to Guadalajara [Mexico]. Although Reed had a CIA controller on the scene, the individual who seemed to be actually running the operation was Bush's man "Gomez"--Felix Rodriguez.

    The project was much bigger than the Contra operation. The intention was to create a global arms network which would ex­pand its ties with East bloc arms dealers and intelligence agents.

    But on Oct. 5, 1986, the Contra supply operation came in for some unwanted exposure. A C-123 cargo plane being operated by Southern Air Transport was shot down over Nicaragua. Eu­gene Hasenfus, the "kicker" who pushed the cargo out of the plane, was the only survivor; Reed's friend William Cooper, who was flying the C-123, was killed along with two other crew members. (It is not mentioned by Reed, but it is documented through later testimony, that the first notification of the missing plane came to Bush's office from... Felix Rodriguez.)

    After the downing of the SAT flight, Operation Screw Worm in Mexico was temporarily put on hold, but it was soon started up again on an accelerated basis. In early December, at a meeting with Rodriguez and "Pat Weber" (Amiram Nir), Ro­driguez said they had the go-ahead to immediately jump from Phase 1 of the plan (setting up the machine-tool manufacturing plant) to Phase 2 (weapons manufacturing).

    Nir said he could expedite matters in Mexico. "Max and I both have friends in high places in the state of Michoacan," Nir said, and he directed Reed to go to the resort town of Zirahuen for a meeting with the governor of Michoacan, Cuauhtemoc Cardenas. Rodriguez told Reed that Cardenas "is in our pockets and I am personally paying him a lot of Agency money to make this project happen." Reed did meet with Cardenas and explain his requirements, and Cardenas did make things happen.

    AMIRAM NIR'S STORY
    The true identity of "Pat Weber" was disclosed to Reed by his KGB-linked Hungarian business partner, who also told him that it had been from a Soviet KGB agent that Barry Seal had obtained the compromising video of Bush's children's involve­ment with drugs. About this same time, because of the publicity around the "Iran-Contra" hearings, Reed also learned the true identity of Cathey/North and Gomez/Rodriguez.

    These were only a few of the surprises in store. In late Spring 1987, Reed and his partner discovered that unauthorized shipments were being shipped from their plant to the United States. They then found that the shipments in the warehouse in Guadalajara contained large quantities of cocaine. Through his contacts, Reed confirmed that Felix Rodriguez and the CIA were trafficking in drugs, and that the KGB was also well aware of this.

    Then, one day in July 1987, Nir showed up at Reed's ware­house, very frightened, and claimed that the entire CIA opera­tion was out of control.

    Nir told Reed that he believed that Rodriguez was a double agent. Rodriguez was compromised years ago in Southeast Asia. Reed already knew that it was common knowledge that the Communists were trying to lure Americans into the narcotics trade in order to compromise them and convert them into double agents. Nir confirmed this, and said that when the CIA found that Rodriguez had been compromised, they decided to use him as a triple agent. He was investigated, but then released. The reason was that Rodriguez and his supervisors were all traffick­ing in drugs out of the Southeast Asian Golden Triangle. [H: Oh my goodness! Doesn't this open a can of worms in possi­bilities?]

    To Reed's shock, Nir then said that he was convinced that Rodriguez was responsible for the downing of the C-123 with Hasenfus, Reed's friend Cooper, and others on board. Months before that, Rodriguez had boasted that he was also responsible for the killing of Barry Seal. Nir said in fact the C-123 was not shot down. Cooper and Sawyer were dead before it crashed. It was probably blown up after crashing, and after Hasenfus bailed out. Conveniently, the plane had lots of CIA classified docu­ments on board. Hasenfus had "confessed" about his work for the CIA; he was convicted and then released a few months later. What was the purpose? TO SHOW THAT PRESIDENT REAGAN WOULD BREAK THE LAW, AND TO FORCE HIS IMPEACHMENT.

    Why get rid of Reagan? Here's where Nir's story, as retold by Reed, gets really interesting. "We think your country has had a quiet, internal coup," said Nir. The problem, he said, was that Reagan was "hell-bent on destroying Communism". This might seem like a good idea. "But if you look deeper, as we Israelis have, destroying or even crippling the U.S.S.R. is not a good idea. As we know in the Middle East, you need a balance of power. Two rival countries, or even more than two, are much easier to manipulate and control than one. It is not intended for either the U.S. or the U.S.S.R. to dominate com­pletely."

    Reagan is therefore a threat to world peace, Nir continued. The Israelis see it this way, but they think they are being set up. Bush is now in charge of the United States, and he is trying to overthrow Reagan. It's a coup, plain and simple. If Reagan succeeds in destroying the U.S.S.R., Nir went on, the world will be a much less stable place. Instability, such as exists in the Middle East, will spread. Bush understands this. The CIA is aligned with, and agrees with, Bush.

    Along comes a President who is a Hollywood cowboy, de­termined to kick the Communists out of Nicaragua. The CIA and Bush recognize they have to stop this madman. This is why the shoot-down of the C-123 was staged, to prove to the world that Reagan will violate the law and lie to Congress.

    But, something has gone wrong, Nir continued. Reagan has not been impeached. Attorney General Edwin Meese and Sec­retary of State George Shultz have been able to contain the scandal. People close to Reagan are trying to drag the Israelis in, by tying the Contra operation to the Iran operation, calling it "Iran-Contra", which puts the media spotlight on the Middle East and Israel.

    Nir was very worried that the CIA was continuing Operation Screw Worm in Mexico as if nothing had happened. "And we're afraid we'll now be exposed as an accomplice in all of this. That wouldn't appear kosher to the world for Israel to be conspiring with elements of the CIA, KGB, and DFS (Cuban intelligence) to arm the Third World."

    This was Reed's last contact with Nir, who was mysteriously killed in a plane crash in November 1988.

    Soon after, Reed fled to the United States with his family. Once back home, he contacted Oliver North, who told him to lay low and not to come to Washington as Reed wanted to do. In July 1988, he learned he and his wife Janis had been indicted by the federal government on charges of mail fraud. Two days before he was to go to trial, the federal government invoked the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) as a result of subpoenas he had issued for the CIA, FBI, DEA, FAA Intelli­gence Division, etc., as well as Oliver North and other indi­viduals.

    At a hearing on June 1, 1990, the prosecutor outlined areas of classified information which were potentially involved in re­sponding to Reed's subpoenas. This included information from the FBI, FAA Intelligence, DEA, and "information potentially that would be brought out on direct or cross, particularly that of Oliver North, Jack Blum, and Robert Johnson."

    On this basis and after a review of all the evidence, the judge entered a verdict of acquittal for Reed, saying that no reasonable jury would have found him guilty.

    THE BUSH-NORTH COVER-UP
    It is impossible to vouch for the accuracy of everything in Reed's account. But if one applies the test of consistency--that is, if what Reed reports is consistent with known events of that time period--it holds up. Furthermore, Reed's story is consis­tent with a lot of what was going on in the Bush-North-Secord "Enterprise" which is not well known.

    Unlike many journalistic accounts of the "Iran-Contra" affair, Reed does not buy into the myth that Oliver North was the mas­termind of the whole operation. For Reed, North was an opera­tive running certain projects on behalf of others in the CIA and the White House. There is never any suggestion here that North took any of these initiatives on his own.

    The Reed-Cummings account also draws a sharp distinction between Ronald Reagan and George Bush--which is entirely ac­curate. In Amiram Nir's view, as related by Reed, Oliver North probably fell closer to Reagan than to Bush--which may be true on the ideological issue of bringing down the Soviet Union--but in reality, what North did, including his collabora­tion with East bloc arms dealers and with Central American drug runners--puts him in the Bush camp.

    North himself has enjoyed perpetuating the myth that he was in charge of the Iran and the Contra operations, and that he "took a dive" on behalf of his President, Ronald Reagan.

    The myth of Oliver North, the "lone cowboy", was deliber­ately put into circulation by Meese in his Nov. 25, 1986 press conference in an effort to protect President Reagan. It was at this press conference that Meese linked--for the first time--the just-exposed illegal Contra support operations, with the Iran arms-for-hostages scandal. Meese linked the two operations by revealing that money from arms transactions between Israel and Iran had been "diverted" to the Contras. (This is what Amiram Nir had been complaining about to Terry Reed.) "The only per­son in the United States Government that knew precisely about this," Meese declared, was Oliver North. From that point on, the ever-gullible news media jumped pack-rat style onto this newly-coined "Iran-Contra" scandal.

    Meese may have thought he was protecting Ronald Reagan, but the real beneficiary of this "diversion" was George Bush. It was Bush who sat on top of the secret "crisis management" structure within the White House, of which North was merely a staff officer. This structure was continuously built up and ex­panded from 1982 to 1986, so that it ultimately controlled most of the counterterrorism operations and many of the "black" pro­grams within the government.

    And this is where the Reed-Cummings book presents a real dilemma for this crowd. They want to use it to bring down Clinton, as Ambrose Evans-Pritchard declared on March 27; but it is very dangerous ground for the Republicans and neo-cons in the United States to wander around on.

    Therefore, the Wall Street Journal put out the word on April 20: Keep away from the Mena story. In a signed commentary by Edward Jay Epstein, using the CBS broadcast referred to at the beginning of this review as a pretext, Epstein contended that although there may have been illicit activity going on at Mena in the 1980s, Barry Seal was the only one who knew all about it, and he is dead. [H: OH NO, HE IS NOT THE ONLY ONE!] "So why waste resources?" It is no wonder that the Journal wants to bury this one.

    * * *
    No, you will not find "new" news in this book--but it will cor­roborate the information you should have already gotten [in the CONTACT] from Rodney Stich, Russbacher and several others--who go into such side-trips as "Monarch", "Rainbow", Phoenix and Phoenix II, MK-Ultra and on and on goes the listing. You will also come to realize that two of your newfound friends were ALSO VERY GOOD FRIENDS OF BILL CASEY--WHO GOT VERY DEADED OUT OF THIS OPERATION IN DISCUS­SION. WHEN THE BAD GUYS START KILLING THEIR OWN BAD GUYS THE OPERATIVES GET RESTLESS AND I CAN GUARANTEE YOU IT WILL NOT BE GOOD FOR THE ONES WHO ORDERED UP AND CARRIED OUT THOSE MURDERS--SUCH AS CASEY. YOU CAN "HOLD YOUR BREATH" ON THAT ONE!

    As a note to Ronn Jackson as regards his "groups"--I would suggest YOU START SUGGESTING TO ONES LIKE CHRISTOPHER, ET AL., THAT THEY MIGHT WELL CONSIDER DOING SOMETHING GOOD FOR THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT AND WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO WEL­COME THEM ABOARD! GOD ALSO WORKS IN MYSTE­RIOUS WAYS--HIS MISSIONS TO PERFORM!

    Now for you who still think I am a figment--the next picture you will see, bad as it is--is my "intermediary" shuttle craft (See next 2 pages). I care not who believes this and who does not-- for I am not in the "prove-anything" business. Craft are witnessed every day in this location in every form from solid as this picture to "vapor" cloud in a CLEAR sky, as in the second picture. It is about time some of you "intelligence" personages get some of the more intelligent "grand wizards" to smell the toast burning. You are up against the "anti-Christ" and the "anti-Christ" is UP AGAINST ME AND MY FLEET--I AM GOING TO WIN! WHEN YOU CHOOSE UP FINAL "SIDES" I TRUST YOU WILL KEEP THAT IN MIND--SAY, CARL SAGAN, ET AL., AS WELL AS SOME 16 "HOLD-OVERS".

    Have a nice day--please.



  2. #6
    宇宙生命一家, 無次 Justice Future Society Institute wave's Avatar
    가입일
    2004-07-16
    게시글
    1,180
    힐링에너지
    100

    Default 응답: PJ#098, ASCENSION OR NEVER-EVER LAND?

    PJ 98
    CHAPTER 9
    REC #1 HATONN

    FRI., JUN. 17, 1994 11:25 A.M. YEAR 7, DAY 305

    FRI., JUN. 17, 1994

    MORE ON KISSINGER
    And, we'll try to get through the most of this subject as focus, today. Since this man is so important in his shenanigans around your globe as pertains to YOUR NATION OF THE U.S.A., I MUST offer some insights into his thought presentations to fool you and mislead you. He has a "handler" but it is sufficient for you to recognize the personage.

    We have written from this article in FOREIGN AFFAIRS [of CFR] on two prior occasions so we will leave you readers to re­fer back to those [see 6/5/94 #1 or 6/8/94 #1 writing] first two printings. We will call this Henry Kissinger, "Reflections on Containment", FOREIGN AFFAIRS, PART 3.

    I will remind you that this material is DIRECTLY from Henry Kissinger as is presented in his recent book, DIPLOMACY, Si­mon and Schuster, 1994.

    [QUOTING:]

    THE CRITIQUES OF CONTAINMENT
    As containment slowly took shape, the criticism it encoun­tered emerged from three different schools of thought. The first came from the "realists," exemplified by Walter Lippmann, who argued that the containment policy led to psychological and geopolitical overextension while draining American resources. The spokesman for the second school of thought was Winston Churchill, who objected to the postponement of negotiations un­til after positions of strength had been achieved. Finally, there was Henry Wallace, who denied America the moral right to un­dertake the policy of containment in the first place. Postulating a fundamental moral equivalence between both sides, Wallace argued that the Soviet sphere of influence in Central Europe was legitimate and that America's resistance to it only intensified tension. He urged a return to what he viewed as Roosevelt's policy: to end the Cold War by American conciliation.

    As the most eloquent spokesman for the realists, Walter Lippmann rejected Kennan's proposition that Soviet society contained the seeds of its own decay. He considered the theory to be too speculative to serve as the foundation of American policy: containment, argued Lippmann, would draw America into the hinterlands of the Soviet empire's extended periphery, which included, in his view, many countries that were not states in the modern sense to begin with. Military entanglements that far from home could not enhance American security and would weaken American resolve. Containment, according to Lipp­mann, permitted the Soviet Union to choose the points of maxi­mum discomfiture for the United States while retaining the diplomatic, and even the military, initiative. Lippmann stressed the importance of establishing criteria to define areas in which countering Soviet expansion was a vital American interest. Without such criteria, the United States would be forced to or­ganize a "heterogeneous array of satellites, clients, dependents and puppets," which would permit America's newfound allies to exploit containment for their own purposes. The United States would be trapped into propping up nonviable regimes, leaving Washington with the sorry choice between "appeasement and defeat and the loss of face, or ... support[ing] them [U.S. allies] at incalculable cost."

    [H: The most interesting thing to note here is that this man [H.A.K.] was and is a major, major figure WITHIN the cir­cles planning the EXACT thing he denounces above. You see, he simply cannot resist this reverse presentation to show what he has actually accomplished! Who all do you think has already been to North Korea recently to set up this little cute ploy with Carter? Do you REALLY believe the Korean leaders didn't even "know about inspectors", etc., as CNN has told you? Is it possible that Carter's visit has a lot more to do with CHINA than it did with Korea? STAY ALERT!]

    It was indeed a prophetic [H: No, like most "prophecies" it is exactly like it was planned or it would not be mentioned herein.] analysis of what lay ahead for the United States, though the remedy Lippmann proposed was hardly congenial to the uni­versalist American tradition, which was far closer to Kennan's expectation of an apocalyptic outcome. Lippmann asked that American foreign policy be guided by a case-by-case analysis of American interests rather than by general principles presumed to be universally applicable. In his view, American policy should have been aiming less at overthrowing the Communist system than at restoring the balance of power in Europe, which had been destroyed by the war. Containment implied the indefinite division of Europe, whereas America's real interest should be to banish Soviet power from the center of the European continent: [H: Now doesn't this sound good? Well, the facts are that the U.S. and the Soviets--NEVER STOPPED WORKING IN TOTAL JOINT VENTURE WITH ONE ANOTHER. Did Kissinger know as much? Of course, he helped structure it--how do you think he has gotten to be SO BIG in both nations and around the globe? Remember, Kissinger was a KGB agent!]

    For more than a hundred years all Russian governments have sought to expand over Eastern Europe. But only since the Red Army reached the Elbe River have the rulers of Russia been able to realize the ambitions of the Russian empire and the ideological purposes of Communism. A genuine policy would, therefore, have as its paramount objective a settlement which brought about the evacuation of Europe. American power must be available, not to 'contain' the Russians at scattered points, but to hold the whole Russian military machine in check, and to exert a mounting pressure in support of a diplomatic policy which has as its concrete objective a settlement that means with­drawal.

    From among its intellectuals, America was able to draw on the thinking of both Lippmann and Kennan while they were at the height of their powers. Kennan correctly understood Com­munism's underlying weakness; Lippmann accurately foretold the frustrations of an essentially reactive foreign policy based on containment. Kennan called for endurance to permit history to display its inevitable tendencies; Lippmann called for diplomatic initiative to produce a European settlement while America was still preponderant. Kennan had a better intuitive understanding of the mainsprings of American society; Lippmann grasped the impending strain of enduring a seemingly endless stalemate and the ambiguous causes that containment might lead America to support.

    [H: I have recently had to ask that some language and "proposals" for the treatment of politicians be toned down so as to not even remotely represent an idea of insurrection or subversion--a stance to which we HIGHLY OBJECT. My idea might, however, be to cause all politicians to have to sit for some 500 hours in an audience and be required to listen and give accurate accounting to HENRY KISSINGER as he does his typical spell-binding monologue in impassioned manner. This is a man who has absolutely no ability to reach out of his robotic graveltone no matter if he wished to do so. I believe punishment should fit the crime! Further, by "accurate accounting" I mean that every one being disci­plined must give ACCURATE REPORTING ON EXACTLY WHAT IS MEANT WHEN MR. KISSINGER SPEAKS WITH SUCH AUTHORITY ON EVERY SUBJECT AROUND--DO YOU REALLY THINK THIS OLD BIRD GOT SO HOITY-TOITY THROUGH HIS PERSONAL CHARISMA? THIS MAN THROWS TANTRUMS, AND REFUSES TO EVEN JOIN MEETINGS (TO WHICH HE IS ALWAYS LATE) IF SOMEONE, ESPECIALLY A GUEST, SO MUCH AS SITS TEMPORARILY IN HIS CHAIR. "THIS" IS WHAT SETS YOUR NATIONAL IM­AGE AND YOUR FOREIGN INTERCHANGE!]

    THE MOST COMPELLING ALTERNATIVE
    In the end, Lippmann's analysis found a substantial follow­ing, though mainly among the opponents of confrontation with the Soviet Union. And their approbation was based on only one aspect of Lippmann's argument, emphasizing as they did its cri­tique while ignoring its prescriptions. They noted Lippmann's call for more limited objectives but overlooked his rec­ommendation for more aggressive diplomacy. Thus it happened that in the 1940s the most compelling alternative strategy to the doctrine of containment came from none other than Winston Churchill, then leader of the Opposition in the British Parlia­ment.

    Churchill supported containment, but for him it was never an end in itself. Unwilling to wait passively for the collapse of Communism, he sought to shape history rather than rely on it to do his work for him. What he was after was a negotiated set­tlement. His "iron curtain" speech at Fulton, Missouri had merely hinted at negotiations. On October 9, 1948, at Llan­dudno, Wales, Churchill returned to his argument that the West's bargaining position would never be better than it was at that moment. In a much-neglected speech, he said:

    No one in his senses can believe that we have a limit­less period of time before us. We ought to bring matters to a head and make a final settlement. We ought not to go jobbing along improvident, incompetent, waiting for something to turn up, by which I mean waiting for some­thing bad for us to turn up. The Western nations will be far more likely to reach a lasting settlement, without bloodshed, if they formulate their just demands while they have the atomic power and before the Russian Commu­nists have got it too.

    Two years later, Churchill made the same plea in the House of Commons: the democracies were quite strong enough to ne­gotiate, and would only weaken themselves by waiting. De­fending NATO rearmament on November 30, 1950, he warned that arming the West would not by itself change its bargaining position, which, in the end, depended on America's atomic monopoly:

    [W]hile it is right to build up our forces as fast as we can, nothing in this process, in the period I have men­tioned, will deprive Russia of effective superiority in what are now called the conventional arms. All that it will do is give us increasing unity in Europe and magnify the deter­rents against aggression. Therefore I am in favour of ef­forts to reach a settlement with Soviet Russia as soon as a suitable opportunity presents itself, and of making those efforts while the immense and measureless superiority of the United States Atomic bomb organization offsets the Soviet predominance in every other military respect.

    For Churchill, a position of strength was already in place; for American leaders, it had yet to be created. Churchill thought of negotiations as a way of relating power to diplomacy. And though he was never specific, his public statements strongly suggest that he envisioned some kind of diplomatic ultimatum by the Western democracies. American leaders recoiled before employing their atomic monopoly, even as a threat. Churchill wanted to shrink the area of Soviet influence, but was prepared to coexist with Soviet power within reduced limits. The Ameri­can leaders had a nearly visceral dislike of spheres of influence. They wanted to destroy and not to shrink their adversary's sphere. Their preference was to wait for total victory and for the collapse of Communism, however far off, to bring about a Wilsonian solution to the problem of world order.

    The disagreement came down to a difference between the historical experiences of Great Britain and America. Churchill's society was all too familiar with imperfect outcomes; Truman and his advisers came from a tradition in which, once a problem had been recognized, it was usually overcome by the deploy­ment of vast resources. Hence America's preference for final resolutions and its distrust of the sort of compromise that had become a British specialty. The American view prevailed, be­cause America was stronger than Great Britain, and because Churchill, as leader of the British Opposition, was in no position to press his strategy.

    HENRY WALLACE AND THE
    RADICAL TRADITION
    In the end, the most vocal and persistent challenge to Ameri­can% policy came from neither the realist school of Lippmann nor Churchills's balance-of-power thinking, but from a tradition with roots deep within American radical [H:???] thought. Whereas Lippmann and Churchill accepted the Truman Admin­istration's premise that Soviet expansionism represented a seri­ous challenge and only contested strategy for resisting it, the radical critics rejected every aspect of containment. Henry Wallace, vice president during Roosevelt's third term, former secretary of agriculture, and secretary of commerce under Tru­man, was its principal spokesman.

    A product of America's populist tradition, Wallace had an abiding Yankee distrust of Great Britain. Like most American liberals since Jefferson, he insisted that "the same moral princi­ples which governed in private life also should govern in inter­national affairs." In Wallace's view, America had lost its moral compass and was practicing a foreign policy of "Machiavellian principles of deceit, force and distrust," as he told an audience in Madison Square Garden on September 12, 1946. [H: Radi­cal? Do you see that if you had LISTENED--you would be a zillion years up on this bastardized deceit going on through ones just exactly like Henry Kissinger. The statement just made above was when? Sept. 12, 1946--almost half a cen­tury ago.] Since prejudice, hatred and fear were the root causes of international conflict, the United States had no moral right to intervene abroad until it had banished these scourges from its own society. The new radicalism reaffirmed the his­torical vision of America as a beacon of liberty but, in the pro­cess, turned it against itself. Postulating the moral equivalence of American and Soviet actions became a characteristic of the radical critique throughout the Cold War. The very idea of America having international responsibilities was, in Wallace's eyes, an example of the arrogance of power. The British, he argued, were duping the gullible Americans into doing their bidding: "British policy clearly is to provoke distrust between the United States and Russia and thus prepare the groundwork for World War III."

    To Wallace, Truman's presentation of the conflict as one between democracy and dictatorship was pure fiction. In 1945, a time when Soviet postwar repression was becoming increas­ingly obvious and the brutality of collectivization was widely recognized, Wallace declared that "the Russians today have more of the political freedoms than they ever had." He also dis­covered "increasingly the signs of religious toleration" in the U.S.S.R. and claimed that there was a "basic lack of conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union". Wallace thought that Soviet policy was driven less by expansionism than by fear. In his speech at Madison Square Garden in August 1946, Wallace laid down a direct challenge to Truman, which caused the president to demand Wallace's resignation:

    We may not like what Russia does in Eastern Europe. Her type of land reform, industrial expropriation and sup­pression of basic liberties offends the great majority of the people of the United States. But whether we like it or not the Russians will try to socialize their sphere of influence just as we try to democratize our sphere of influence. Russian ideas of social-economic justice are going to gov­ern nearly a third of the world. Our ideas of free enter­prise democracy will govern much of the rest. The two ideas will endeavor to prove which can deliver the most satisfaction to the common man in their respective areas of political dominance.

    In a curious reversal of roles, the self-proclaimed defender of morality in foreign policy accepted a Soviet sphere of influence in Eastern Europe on practical grounds, while the administration he was attacking for cynical power politics rejected the Soviet sphere on moral grounds.

    Wallace's challenge collapsed after the Communist coup in Czechoslovakia, the Berlin blockade and the invasion of South Korea. As a presidential candidate in 1948, he gained only one million votes against more than 24 million for Truman, placing him fourth. Nevertheless, Wallace managed to develop themes that would remain staples of the American radical critique throughout the Cold War and move to center stage during the Vietnam conflict. These emphasized America's moral inade­quacies and those of the friends it was supporting, a basic moral equivalence between America and its Communist challengers; the proposition that America had no obligation to defend any area of the world against largely imaginary threats; and the view that world opinion was a better guide to foreign policy than geopolitical concepts. When aid to Greece and Turkey was first proposed, Wallace urged the Truman Administration to put the issue before the United Nations. if "the Russians exercised their veto, the moral burden would be on them. When we act inde­pendently, the moral burden is on us." Seizing the moral high ground meant more than whether American's geopolitical inter­ests were being safeguarded. [H: I don't know about YOU, but every time these slimy scum-suckers start pontificating about "morals" and "morality" I want to puke! I believe where they cover themselves is that there are BAD morals and GOOD morals--and they do not distinguish that they ONLY ultimately sanction the BAD ONES!]

    Though Wallace's radical critique of American postwar for­eign policy was defeated in the 1940s, its basic tenets reflected a deep strain of American idealism that continued to tug at the na­tion's soul. The same moral convictions that had conferred such energy on America's international commitments also had the potential to be turned inward by disillusionment with the outside world, or with America's own imperfections. In the 1920s, isolationism had caused America to withdraw on the grounds that it was too good for the world; in the Wallace movement and its heirs, it revived itself in the proposition that America should withdraw because it was not good enough for the world.

    THE COMPLEXITY OF CONTAINMENT
    [H: "Containment" is actually totally simplistic--not complex. The "complexity" happens ONLY when such as Kissinger EXPLAINS IT in the double-speak of his trained deceptive presentations. You will see that he somehow ne­glects to tell you that he, along with such as Scowcroft of the Mormon segment, etc., ARE THE ONES WHO SET THE FOREIGN POLICY FOR ALL THESE PAST YEARS IN POINT.]
    One result of the containment policy was that the United States relegated itself to an essentially passive diplomacy during the period of its greatest power. That is why containment was increasingly challenged by yet another constituency, of which John Foster Dulles became the most vocal spokesman. His con­stituents were the conservatives who accepted the premises of containment but questioned the absence of urgency with which it was being pursued. [H: Surely by this time ALL of you read­ers MUST KNOW that ALL of these players are playing the SAME SIDE OF THE GAME--ALWAYS TOGETHER WITH JUST LITTLE APPEARANCES OF DISAGREE­MENTS--BUT ALWAYS AGAINST YOU-THE-PEOPLE IN FAVOR OF THE WORLD ONE WORLD ORDER--AND THAT MEANS: THE FOREIGN INFLUENCE OF THE KHAZARIAN ONE WORLDERS AND BANKSTER THIEVES AND ROBBERS. My own team will come out with something like: "Wasn't Dulles pretty nice and I thought former Secretary of State {George) Shultz was pretty nice...!" NICE? Whatever do you mean by "nice"--you are talking about men who intend to have a One World Government and One World Order--enslaving YOU, run by THEM. There are several FACTIONS--the only question among them is WHO WILL BE BIG DOG!!
    Yes indeed I will negotiate "timing" with them because nego­tiation is not the same thing as COMPROMISE. I will, for instance, SHUT UP COMPLETELY ABOUT RONALD REAGAN'S DASTARDLY DECEIT AND LITERALLY MURDEROUS MISUSE OF POWER--until after the new fiscal year and the Government can possibly bring stability into the currency foundation. "I" have plenty of time. In fact, "I", "we", don't have to talk about it at all--but you see, game players, the information is ALREADY RUNNING AROUND OUT THERE--IT IS JUST THAT THE PEOPLE CAN'T BRING THEMSELVES TO BELIEVE IT AND THE CONTROLLED MEDIA HAS MANAGED TO KEEP IT BURIED.
    It may be a bit like O.J. Simpson's problems--is O.J. as STUPID as he is beginning to appear--OR WAS HE SET­UP? No, I'm not going to get into it--BUT, it may be inter­esting to you nice uninformed readers TO COME TO RE­ALIZE THAT O.J. SIMPSON WAS RECRUITED INTO THE CIA RIGHT OUT OF HIGH-SCHOOL. Gosh, I "hope" he wasn't trying to do anything about the thugs try­ing to destroy the U.S.A. and all the political intrigue re­volving around the political criminals working out of the West Coast and Chicago. It all begins to take on a very dif­ferent flavor, does it not? Well--perhaps "de Shadow" knows.]

    Even if containment did in the end succeed in undermining Soviet society, these critics argued, it would take too long and cost too much. Whatever containment might accomplish, a strategy of liberation would surely accelerate. By the end of Truman's presidency, the containment policy was caught in a crossfire between those who considered it too bellicose (the fol­lowers of Wallace) and those who thought it too passive (the conservative Republicans).

    This controversy accelerated because, as Lippmann had pre­dicted, international crises increasingly moved to peripheral re­gions of the globe, where the moral issues were confused and direct threats to American security were difficult to demonstrate. America found itself drawn into wars in areas not protected by alliances and on behalf of ambiguous causes and inconclusive outcomes. From Korea to Vietnam, these enterprises kept alive the radical critique, which continued to question the moral va­lidity of containment. Thus surfaced a new variant of American exceptionalism. With all of its imperfections, the America of the nineteenth century had thought of itself as the beacon of lib­erty; in the 1960s and 1970s, the torch was said to be flickering and would need to be relit before America could return to its historical role as an inspiration to the cause of freedom. The debate over containment turned into a struggle for the very soul of America. [H: Well, I don't know which faction won--but all this surely has cost America her SOUL.] As early as 1957, even George Kennan had come to reinterpret containment in this light when he wrote: "To my own countrymen who have often asked me where best to apply the hand to counter the So­viet threat, I have accordingly had to reply: to our American failings, to the things we are ashamed of in our own eyes, or that worry us; to the racial problem, to the conditions in our big cities, to the education and environment of our young people, to the growing gap between specialized knowledge and popular understanding. "

    A decade earlier, before he had become disillusioned by what he considered the militarization of his invention, George Kennan would have recognized that no such choice existed. A country that demands moral perfection of itself as a test of its foreign policy will achieve neither perfection nor security. [H: Well, I guess Kissinger is an authority on this matter for sure.] It was a measure of Kennan's achievement that, by 1957, the free world's parapets had been manned, his own views having made a decisive contribution to this effort. The parapets were in fact being manned so effectively that America permitted itself to in­dulge in a hefty dose of self-criticism.

    Containment was an extraordinary theory--at once hard­headed and idealistic, profound in its assessment of Soviet moti­vations, yet curiously abstract in its prescriptions. Thoroughly American in its utopianism, it assumed that the collapse of a to­talitarian adversary could be achieved in an essentially benign way. Although this doctrine was formulated at the height of America's absolute power, it preached America's relative weak­ness. Postulating a grand diplomatic encounter at the moment of its culmination, containment allowed no role for diplomacy until the climactic final scene in which the men in the white hats ac­cepted the conversion of the men in the black hats.

    With all of these qualifications, containment was a doctrine that saw America through more than four decades of construction, struggle and, ultimately, triumph. [H: ????] The victim of its ambiguities turned out to be not the peoples America had set out to defend--on the whole successfully [H: ????]--but the American conscience. Tormenting itself in its traditional quest for moral perfection, America would emerge, after more than a generation of struggle, lacerated by its exertions and controver­sies, yet having achieved almost everything it had set out to do. [H: In God's name, people--if you can't see it, it becomes hopeless to struggle. We might as well simply take our peo­ple and get the hell out! Are you NEVER going to see and hear? May GOD have mercy.]
    [END OF QUOTING FROM THIS ARTICLE]
    Dharma, take this off the computer so others won't be imposi­tioned by the length of our writings today. Thank you. Go, also, and harden up your tum-tum with anti-acids because the next one is worse. It is written by "SIR" Michael Howard who begins his writing: "Henry Kissinger has never written anything less than magna opera, but this 1,000+page blockbuster (DIPLOMACY) must qualify as his maximum opus.... " This ob­server, however, has some rather astute observations.

    CHAPTER 10
    REC #2 HATONN

    FRI., JUN. 17, 1994 1:58 P.M. YEAR 7, DAY 305

    FRI., JUN. 17, 1994
    KISSINGER ACCORDING TO
    "SIR" MICHAEL HOWARD
    The following is a review of Kissinger's book from which we just offered excerpts, DIPLOMACY (Simon & Schuster, 1994, 912 pages, $35.00), as published in Foreign Affairs--May/June 1994.

    This is by SIR MICHAEL HOWARD, recently retired from the Robert A. Lovett Chair of Military and Naval History at Yale University. Before that, he was Regius Professor of Modern History at Oxford University. My goodness! This will be in­teresting to see how this man handles the subject, which is terri­ble, about a book which is totally indecipherable and how one can, finally, make no credible opinion at all. At any rate, how­ever, it is so much better to have this review than to have to read a thousand pages of "Kissinger" (worse than listening to Kissinger for a thousand hours). If, however, you are depend­ing on this review to help you decide the value of the book in point--DON ' T.

    [QUOTING:]

    REVIEW ESSAY
    THE WORLD ACCORDING TO HENRY
    FROM METTERNICH TO ME

    by Michael Howard
    Henry Kissinger has never written anything less than magna opera, but this 1,000-page blockbuster must certainly qualify as his maximum opus. Its title is modestly deceptive. The term "diplomacy" is normally applied to the techniques and tactics employed in the conduct of international relations, and about these Kissinger is well qualified to write. He is dealing here, however, with a great deal more than techniques and tactics. His topic is the grand strategy, indeed the philosophy, of great power relationships, from the days of Richelieu until our own times.

    The proper title of this book would be something like POWER POLITICS, but that is a term that Kissinger seldom al­lows to pass his pen. Instead he refers frequently, and bewilder­ingly, to "geopolitics". He does not use this term as did its Eu­ropean inventors, Rudolph Kjellen, Halford Mackinder and Al­brecht Haushofer, to mean the influence of spatial environment on political imperatives. For Kissinger "geopolitics" is simply a euphemism for power relationships. His use of it is reminiscent of the term "behavioral sciences," which was coined in the United States a generation ago to describe what had hitherto been known as the social sciences, but sounded to suspicious congressmen too much like socialism to qualify for governmen­tal support. In the same way, power politics is a concept (though not a practice) so blatantly un-American that no founda­tion is likely to underwrite its study. [H: Indeed, so you call it "Geopolitics".]

    "Geopolitics", on the other hand, sounds conveniently value-free, though the implementation of some of its theories by Ger­man and Japanese statesmen during the first half of this century proves that it is not necessarily anything of the kind. Kissinger would have done better to have come clean and admitted that his subject was neither diplomacy nor geopolitics, as those terms are generally understood, but the subject that he has spent his life studying and much of it practicing: the politics of power.

    The subtext of his book, however, explains why he could not do so. Americans do not take kindly to the idea of power poli­tics, even when they are most blatantly engaged in it. From Wilson to Clinton, the rhetoric of American foreign policy has been to deny the need for anything so crude and to denounce the very idea as a European perversion. But for Kissinger, steeped as he is in the European history of the nineteenth century, power politics is both natural and necessary. The statesmen he most respects--Richelieu, Metternich, Bismarck, even Stalin [H: PAY ATTENTION!]--were those who recognized this and practiced it most openly. For power politics is not simply Machtpolitik, the accumulation, threat, and if need be use of armed force as an instrument of policy. It is based on the recognition and ac­ceptance of the limits of one's own power.

    Statecraft, from the days of Richelieu to those of Nixon, has consisted in the identification of national interests, the realistic assessment of available resources, and the alignment of both in an appropriate relationship within the context of the interests and resources of rival states. If the resources are sufficient, a state may realistically aspire to hegemony, the destruction or subordi­nation of all rival powers. But if they are not, as for the states of Europe from the seventeenth until the twentieth centuries they were not, the statesman must strive to enhance the power of his own state through explicit or implicit alliances. [H: What you overlook is that KISSINGER DOES! You just don't realize WHICH STATE holds his loyalty. Loyalty is a real misde­fined word I use here--for Kissinger HOLDS NO LOYALTY TO ANY STATE!] In Lord Palmerston's oft-quoted words, there are no permanent friends or permanent enemies; there are only permanent interests.

    Kissinger has said this often, and here he says it again, defini­tively and at considerable length. For him the European prac­tice, particularly as defined by British nineteenth-century statesmen, was not an aberration, but the norm for the conduct of international relations in any era. The American abjuration of power politics in the nineteenth century was a luxury that only their oceanic isolation enabled them to afford. In the twentieth, however, it was a disaster, whether it took the form of isolationism, as it did in the 1920s and 1930s, or ideological crusade, as it did in the 1950s and 1960s. Richard Nixon, claims Kissinger, was the first American president, with the solitary exception of Theodore Roosevelt, to understand power politics and so to guide the United States back into the main­stream of international relations. (It is a claim to statesmanship for Nixon that could be made as convincingly for Louis XIII of France, Francis II of Austria or William I of Prussia, the pa­trons of Richelieu, Metternich and Bismarck, respectively, but let that pass.) But the United States cannot be Europeanized. The policies of its statesmen, however much they may be guided by a perception of the national interest, must always be made acceptable to an ideologically motivated electorate. [H: That is WHY you have to change the attitudes of the electorate!] That is the problem Kissinger faced when in office, and one to which, in the latter part of this volume, he constantly returns.

    [H: Readers, you will have to realize up front here that this poor writer (reviewer) is certainly unaware of the informa­tion you have on HENRY KISSINGER--that Kissinger was an active member of the KGB, is historically a pretender for a throne position in the New World Order and a very dan­gerous puppet. You must understand that these learned professors such as this nice man are totally UNINFORMED AS TO FACTS. He will also not know the REAL relation­ships Kissinger has with such as Brent Scowcroft. This would not be so appropriate an interjection here except for that which is going on as we write, in the Asian sector. These people are recognized for exactly who they are in these oriental areas. You must understand that, for in­stance, it CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO BE KNOWN IN CHINA, KOREA, JAPAN, etc., that Brent Scowcroft is "MORMON". Why? Because in the oriental languages "mormon" is "satan" or "devil" translated from English. No, I am. NOT a bigot--this is FACT. And, the very basis of the New World Order revolves around the emerging Mor­mon "church" and its secret covenants and doctrines. Do the Mormon parishioners realize this? Well, I hope not, for I hate to think that all those nice church-going, tithing citi­zens know what they are doing and do it anyway. The best way to hide deceit is right under your noses. It is the same with Freemasonry--only the ones USING the "Order" KNOW THE TRUTH. The Mormons base their whole rit­ual experience on the ORDER OF FREEMASONRY! I don't care what "they" argue against. Go check it out!]

    1648 AND ALL THAT
    About a third of this book is devoted to European politics be­fore 1941, from the emergence of the states system after the Thirty Years' War in 1648 to its collapse with the triumph of Hitler. Some academics may lament the absence of more rigor­ous analysis, others the narrow focus on political elites and the little consideration given the social and economic transforma­tions that provided the context for their policies, but it is a mag­isterial narrative, well-spiced with Kissingerian insights and ironies. The author is of course at his best on his familiar ground of post-Napoleonic nineteenth-century Europe. [H: The relating to Napoleon is not far-fetched, readers. Kissinger is programmed to be a Napoleon with deceitful and more devi­ous ways of obtaining POWER. He is typical of that which has become recognized as the "Little Jewish Man Syn­drome". He is little, short, ugly, alien and a puppet of higher POWER of the worst kind. He fits every symptom in the "Syndrome". I did not conjure the "syndrome"; it has become a valid psychiatric TERM.] Whatever the philoso­phers may have said in the eighteenth century about the balance of power, the princes of Europe then still fought for aggran­dizement or survival as nakedly as their predecessors. It was not until Metternich that a statesman appeared who had not only internalized the concept but was given the opportunity to create a new international structure that explicitly embodied it. His less perceptive successors allowed it to collapse. Bismarck recreated it, although on a far less stable basis. Again his suc­cessors allowed it to collapse.

    The First World War came about not because of the unstable power balance created by competing alliances (though it is not quite clear whether Kissinger accepts this), but because the German Empire was no longer interested in maintaining a power balance. The Second World War followed because the victori­ous allies were incapable of, or uninterested in, restoring that balance. The withdrawal of the United States, the pariah status of Russia and the dithering of Britain, whose leaders had for­gotten the lessons so sagely taught by their predecessors, left a vacuum that could all too easily be filled by the expansion of German power. When U.S. leaders came to pick up the pieces, their effort was in the belief that the balance of power, far from having prevented those wars, had been their cause. So they set about creating a new world order based on different, and erro­neous, principles.

    WOODROW'S WORLD
    Like Metternich, Woodrow Wilson had the opportunity, or so he believed, to create a new international system based on a co­herent ideology. The ideology, like that of the balance of power, derived from the eighteenth-century philosophers, who assumed an underlying harmony in nature that was distorted and broken only by human error and misperceptions. International conflict was at best the result of what Marx called "false con­sciousness"; at worst of the sinister activities of monarchs, aris­tocrats, or, a little later, "military-industrial complexes", all of whom, as Kant pointed out at the end of the eighteenth century, had a vested interest in war. For the Wilsonians peace was not a precarious condition maintained only by a constant and con­scious balancing of power and interests, but the normal state of mankind, or at least it would be if only the artificial barriers to its maintenance could be swept away.

    In this view American democracy was a microcosm of hu­manity, and nations could and should govern their relations by the same kind of consensus as the Americans did themselves. There should be an international town meeting--the League of Nations--to establish that consensus, and a posse comitatus to enforce it against offenders. As in domestic affairs, the security of one was the security of all. Separate pacts, alliances and military guarantees were as unacceptable on the international plane as they were on the domestic. Peace, in short, was in­divisible. [H: How can one possibly make comment on the "Wilson" era association without even mentioning right up in the front paragraphs the incredible impact of Wilson on the economic destruction of the WORLD--through the damned Federal Reserve System which is nothing more than a foun­dation upon which to build in sure-scavenging of the entire wealth of the WORLD.]

    When in 1919 the Congress of the United States was called upon to ratify the covenant setting up the League of Nations, it understandably recoiled from a universalism that would have committed the country to undifferentiated and global interven­tion. But, having no tradition or understanding of power poli­tics, it relapsed into the opposite extreme of isolationism. [H: Readers, can you see how UNINFORMED this writer truly is and this is a knighted PROFESSOR. If you are a sub­scriber-reader of our paper--YOU ARE INFORMED SO MUCH BEYOND THE "EXPERTS" THAT YOU SHOULD BE ROLLING ON THE FLOOR IN HYSTERICAL LAUGHTER AT THIS POINT! I rarely have an opportu­nity to pat you people on the back for your accomplishments as relative to those ACCEPTED experts honored by robes and stripes. The scholars are only exposed and professored, degreed and hoodwinked by the history presented to them for use. Historically, THEY ARE TOTALLY UNIN­FORMED!] When the power balance in Europe collapsed in 1940, President Roosevelt saw that the necessities of the power balance demanded American intervention to prevent a German victory, but his electorate still did not. [H: Say what???] When the issue was decided for them by the actions of their ad­versaries, the American people went to war, not to restore a balance of power, but to punish the aggressors, enforce their surrender and put their leaders on trial. When peace was even­tually reestablished, a new world order was created under American leadership based on Wilsonian principles, except that this time the United States locked itself into the United Nations and tried to provide it with teeth.

    THE UNRESTRICTED COLD WAR
    When the Soviet Union revealed itself to be, not a loyal part­ner in upholding the American concept of world order, but a potential adversary, such statesmen as George Marshall, Dean Acheson and George Kennan accepted the concept of "containment", which was effectively an update of the tradi­tional balance of power. But in order to gain public support their rhetoric had to be universalist. In fact Stalin, in Kissinger's view, had no serious global ambitions. He was an old-fashioned realpolitiker concerned with the cautious expan­sion of Soviet power, and he expected his adversaries to be playing the same game. He made it clear to the British that he would have no objection to their establishing military bases in Western Europe pari passu with the establishment of Soviet power in the eastern half of the continent. If the Western allies had been similar practitioners of realpolitik, Kissinger suggests, a deal might have been struck immediately after the war along the lines that Churchill himself favored: a Soviet pullout from Germany in exchange for the Finlandization of Eastern Europe. As it was, the American leadership could mobilize the domestic support necessary to achieve even the most limited objective of a power balance in Europe only by proclaiming a crusade, as it did in the Truman Doctrine. The global implications of this cru­sade were to be made suddenly explicit by the purely adventi­tious attack across the 38th parallel by the forces of North Korea in a region in which American statesmen had explicitly and un­derstandably stated that they had no interests to defend.

    The United States now found itself committed to a conflict that was not only global but to all appearances permanent. But it was one, Kissinger points out, to which the American people were temperamentally well suited. They were pledged to the defense, against the forces of an evil empire, of a world that, if left to itself, would be free, harmonious and democratic. Any administration, whether that of Truman or Eisenhower, that adopted anything less than a posture of total and undifferentiated hostility to the Communist world was subjected to the un­remitting attacks of its opponents. Young John Kennedy in par­ticular, after the disastrous Bay of Pigs fiasco, had to show both his domestic and Soviet adversaries that he was prepared to live up to his rhetoric and defend the frontiers of freedom wherever they might be and whatever the cost, and he unwisely chose to do so in Vietnam.

    It would be hard to find--apart from Korea--a region where the United States had fewer interests to defend, but it was there that the Kennedy and Johnson administrations believed that American resolution was being tested and that the decisive battle had to be fought. But Vietnam was a battlefield where Wilsonian ideals were as irrelevant as U.S. military power. Re­alpolitikers like Hans Morgenthau joined hands with pacific isolationists like Noam Chomsky to castigate a policy from which even America's closest allies tried to distance themselves. After five years it was clear that the Vietnam involvement was as much a domestic as a military disaster. In consequence, the American people, without quite knowing what they were doing, elected a president who, much as he admired Woodrow Wilson, shared few of his ideals, and Nixon selected as his adviser Henry Kissinger, who shared none of them.

    Kissinger has already told us in his memoirs [H: Goodness, don't you just love a humble person who writes his memoirs BEFORE the fact instead of as "memoirs" or maybe he has rewritten the definition of that word also.] how he tried to manipulate the balance of power to extricate his country from the Vietnamese morass. [H: B.S.!! This ass was a prime par­ticipant in setting up Vietnam as it turned out to be.] Al­though his success in doing so was, to put it mildly, limited, he nevertheless transformed the international scene. He treated the Russians not as criminals but as adults with legitimate interest of their own. [H: Well of all the things Kissinger did not have a right to do was to treat anyone else as if HE, HIMSELF, KNEW THE DEFINITION OF "ADULT".] He brought the Chinese into play as independent actors in the international sys­tem [H: Yes indeed, he set up the only accepted businesses in China at the time. Good old Kissinger Associates and American Express, not to mention those nice old banks.] and he destroyed the specter of "Arab nationalism" by regaining Egypt as a Western-oriented power. [H: I marvel that nobody hanged this jerk! I only say this because there is no way to subject him to his own lectures as punishment for his atroci­ties against the world population.] This he has already dealt with very fully in the two volumes of his memoirs. Here he summarizes the process succinctly and dispassionately, with re­markably little reference to the part he played. It was hardly his fault that the Nixon era ended in such humiliating disaster, and neither he nor his successors could prevent the Russians from exploiting the American loss of nerve that resulted from Viet­nam, Watergate and the U.S. humiliation in Iran. [H: Oh my goodness, readers, Kissinger was as near to "deep throat" as any living being in the Nixon downfall and disaster set forth. Do you see how one lie piles upon another--out of the mouths of supposedly informed and brilliant expert authorities and they get bigger, deeper and more grossly expounded with each speaker or writer?] But not only did Soviet triumphalism eventually provoke the Reaganite reaction in the United States, but Kissinger suggests, it produced the over-extension of Soviet resources that led directly to economic and ultimately political collapse. In spite of the Wilsonian rhetoric and the mistakes to which it led, suggests Kissinger, the United States had actually been applying a doctrine of containment throughout the Cold War, and ultimately it worked. Whatever the flights of Wilso­nian poetry in presidential addresses, fundamentally the Ameri­cans had been talking the humdrum prose of power politics, and the Soviets always knew it.
    Now, Kissinger believes, we are back in a multipolar world. He had tried to create one in the 1970s, with China, Europe and Japan as potential great powers, together with the Soviet Union and the United States, making possible a Metternichian or Bis­marckian balancing game. Then only China had been willing to play, or rather China produced in Chou En-lai the only states­man who was willing to play; the Europeans were still too dis­united and the Japanese too modest.

    Today Kissinger sees better hope of true multipolarity. American military supremacy, though unchallenged, is of lim­ited value in the modern world. Europe and Japan have drawn level as economic powers, and China is likely to do so during the coming century. Without accepting the "declinist" thesis that some of his more apoplectic Harvard associates have at­tributed to Paul Kennedy, Kissinger sees the need for the United States to learn to function as one power in a complex system that it can neither escape nor dominate. The hopes of yet a third new world order in which the United States will be able to im­pose it pluralist-democratic ideology on a grateful world will go the way of those entertained by Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt. Once again America must define her interests and bring them into balance with her resources. "The fulfillment of American ideals," Kissinger concludes, "will have to be sought in the patient accumulation of partial successes." The Clinton administration, which in spite of its necessary rhetoric wants to involve itself as little as possible with the anarchic world beyond the oceans, can only take comfort from such cautious minimal­ism.

    GOODBYE TO ALL THAT
    But if the universalist philosophy of Wilson has been an ignis fatuus, a flicker of marsh gas only leading deeper into the quagmire, does that of Metternich furnish the United States to­day with more reliable guidance? [H: Do you see what a "professorship" offers one in ability to sidestep crudeness? How many of you realize the "meaning" of ignis fatuus? Doesn't it sound better than "fart"? Does establishing self as an intellectual personage give right to speak above the heads of readers and listeners? That is ALL it does, my good friends. Kissinger, for instance never EARNED a degree in anything--but is a professor "somehow" with honorary de­grees and B.S.--that is not Bachelor of Science. At least we can find humor and understanding in this particular re­viewer.
    I think of Kissinger and his degrees of honor. How many of you watched as Mohammed All (the ex-boxer) was awarded AN HONORARY DOCTORATE OF LAW--DEGREE? This man could barely walk, could not actually talk and the brain damage of his honorable, but battering, career was visibly upon him. Well, I'm glad the Doctorate in "LAW" (as in 'attorney') was bestowed upon him--because somehow this is the way I see ALMOST ALL ATTORNEYS!]
    Power politics (or, as Kissinger insists, geopolitics) certainly provided a necessary framework for statecraft in Europe be­tween its two Thirty Years' Wars, that of the seventeenth cen­tury and that of the twentieth century, but how relevant is that experience likely to be to the world of the twenty-first?

    My own judgment is: not very. We would not be wise to re­gard that limited slice of world history as a universally applica­ble norm and try to project its values onto the far more diverse yet interdependent world of tomorrow. The prescriptions of Richelieu could be as irrelevant as those of Woodrow Wilson, if not more so. During the two centuries between 1650 and 1850 Europe consisted of what political scientists call "perfect states," whose rulers owned no allegiance upward nor, more to the point, downward. They were absolute in their power to conduct foreign, if not domestic, policy. In their largely self-sufficient agrarian economies, transnational interests were minimal. The conduct of foreign policy was in the hands of small elites who, as Kissinger points out, were often interrelated and shared common values; shared more with each other, indeed, than they did with the peoples ruled over by the dynasties they served. For such elites power politics could be conducted as a game of skill. Even if they lost, the consequences were seldom catas­trophic, and certainly not for them.

    This system was badly shaken by the wars of the French Revolution, but not destroyed: it staggered on for another half-century. By 1900, however, it had ceased to work. Political developments within their own countries had destroyed the ca­pacity of the old elites to play nicely balanced games of power politics. Kissinger points out how even within the most auto­cratic of European states, the Russian Empire, the government was running scared of nationalist public opinion. In Germany the Bismarckian system collapsed less because of the lack of diplomatic skill on the part of his successors than because of an increasingly unmanageable Reichstag. As for Britain...

    Kissinger is curiously blind to what was happening in Britain in the nineteenth century, and to its consequence. He quotes with understandable approval the statements by Castlereagh, Palmerston and Disraeli about national interests and the balance of power, while regarding their nemesis, Gladstone, as some­thing of an oddball. But Gladstone was the voice of the future, his adversaries that of the past. He was the true avatar of Woodrow Wilson, and he was not alone. He represented a ris­ing tide of liberal internationalism in British public opinion, which by the twentieth century was to become dominant. Ed­ward Grey, Britain's liberal foreign secretary in 1914, knew all about the balance of power and tried, by his alliances with France and Russia, to preserve it. But his efforts had to be al­most as covert as those of Roosevelt in 1940: the parliamentary majority to which he was responsible abjured the whole concept of a balance of power. When it supported British entry into the war in 1914, the rationale was not to preserve the balance of power but to protect the neutrality of Belgium and vindicate the rule of law. And the war aim of the British Liberals was the creation of a League of Nations, an idea proposed by the British philosopher Jeremy Bentham and powerfully propagated in the United States by emissaries of the British Union for Democratic Control. The idea of the League may have been, in Kissinger's words, "quintessentially American", but it was far more popular in Britain between the wars than in the United States. If British statesmen between wars failed to pursue "the national interest" in the traditional fashion laid down by their nineteenth-century predecessors, it was not simply because they were more clumsy and shortsighted. It was because public opinion made it impos­sible for them to do so.

    I make this point, not out of any British chauvinism, but be­cause it indicates a deep flaw in Kissinger's analysis. The model for the conduct of international relations that he holds up for our admiration had simply ceased to work by the beginning of this century, not because of unskilled statecraft, but because the hermetic system in which it had been effective had ceased to exist. The more democratic societies became, the less possible it was for the system to survive. The Wilsonian illusions that Kissinger regards as uniquely American in fact originated out­side America and have now spread far beyond, and it is ar­guable that the more widely they are spread, the less illusory they become. Further, in a world that is now so inter-depen­dent, it is questionable whether the concept of a purely "national" interest makes sense any longer. Finally--but this takes us into very deep waters--there is now a question mark over the primacy of the state in the international system and its capacity to control those huge economic, social and demo­graphic movements known as transnational flows. Given the prevalence of something like international anarchy, where would a new Metternich begin?

    Kissinger's own sagacious prescription is that of all wise old men: surtout, pas trop de zele. It cannot be said that his book furnishes any profound guidance to those who have to pick their way through the new world disorder, but that was hardly its purpose. It is history, on a splendid and massive scale: a mag­nificent survey, not only of the world in Kissinger's own life­time, but of that ancient regime from which he derived his val­ues and to which he now looks back with such understandable nostalgia.

    * * *
    I do not wish to spoil the impact of such incredibly dull and say-nothing writing. However, I so suggest that if you are going to invest in reading material relevant to Henry Kissinger, you in­vest in the book through Criminal Politics called HENRY KISSINGER, Soviet Agent by Frank Capell. $10.00 plus $1.50 postage and handling. P.O. Box 37432, Cincinnati, OH 45222, or phone: 1-800-543-0486 or 513-621-7100.

    Isn't Criminal Politics the group that won't allow us to print their information? Well, yes--sort of, but THEY DO NOT HAVE A CORNER ON TRUTH--THEY DO, I GUESS, HAVE A CORNER ON HENRY KISSINGER.... What do I think of Criminal Politics? As a magazine or about Lawrence Patterson? As a magazine it is too expensive and covers the same thing the other journals and papers of high-caliber re­sources, such as SPOTLIGHT cover. As for Larry Patterson--SPOTLIGHT recently said about enough on the subject of Lawrence Patterson which I am sure he would rather I not print herein.

    Readers, these are small-time players--bit players in a game so big you cannot absorb it all. Just when you think you can grasp a bit of it you will find it eluding you again and again. When you speak of powerful persons, important figures--you don't even know the real barons of power. How many of you know who Maurice Templesman is? OH? Never heard of him? If Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis hadn't just died you still wouldn't hear of him. This man is without a doubt one of the most shad­owy and sinister figures in your world today. He is a billionaire many times over and you are not going to find him listed in any Who's Who. However, he served as the king-pin in operations involving the Belgium Congo, Rockefeller, deBeers cartel (Harry Oppenheimer), etc., etc., etc.

    No indeed, good readers, I am NOT here to restructure your world or SAVE anything or anyone--I do not even care to de­bate the issues with such as Maurice Templesman and cronies. And where can you find this man, hardly-about-town? New York, predominantly. This is one smart businessman who never tells or shows a thing--he doesn't need to. He will never leave a paper trail to get in his way and you will never find public records of his firm's holdings, transactions, revenues or profits. How is he so smart? Well, it doesn't matter--but YOU could take lessons.

    However, he learned and uses the information to protect his pri­vacy--LEGALLY. He was for years an international secret agent (Oh no, not another one!) and a top level covert operator for the Rockefeller consortium. Well, he was genuinely nice to Mrs. Kennedy Onassis and he had the type of understated ego that would rather "have" than "tell about it". Indeed, a lot of you could take some lessons in management.

    Ah indeed, there are a lot of infamous persons yet for you to meet, eh what Mr. Jackson?

    Salu.

주제글 정보

Users Browsing this Thread

이 주제글은 현재 2명이 열람중입니다. (0명의 회원과 2명의 손님)

이 주제글의 글단추(태그)

글쓰기 규칙

  • 새 글 작성이 불가능함
  • 응답글 작성이 불가능함
  • 파일 첨부가 불가능함
  • 내 글 수정이 불가능함
  •