Tragedy and Hope 101 The Illusion of Justice, Freedom, and Democracy Joseph Plummer: CHAPTER 9 Realpolitik Revisited

 

Tragedy and Hope 101 The Illusion of Justice, Freedom, and Democracy Joseph Plummer: CHAPTER 9 Realpolitik Revisited

 

CHAPTER 9 Realpolitik Revisited

Though the philosophy of Realpolitik was briefly covered in chapter 1, and though everything written to this point demonstrates the Network’s devotion to its principles, nothing captures the cold and calculating nature of its adherents like the false-flag operation. Any willingness to engage in these ruthless deceptions provides definitive proof of an abnormal/sociopathic disregard for ethical considerations.

Normal human beings accept the nearly universal maxim that morality determines whether an action is right or wrong. Practitioners of Realpolitik, on the other hand, unapologetically reject this maxim. In their view, right and wrong are measured only in results. If they succeed in securing their objective, what they have done is right. If they fail in securing their objective, what they have done is wrong. They see themselves as realists, and dismiss those who criticize the immorality of their actions as impractical fools.

If forced to do so, the realist might offer a moral justification for their immoral actions,1 but the offer is insincere. Might and manipulation have led them to the apex of power and, as such, they have no incentive to question their approach. They are supremely arrogant. They think and behave differently than you and I; we must be aware of this.

In this final chapter, I hope to remove any doubt about the nature of those we’re up against.

1 As noted in chapter 1, Kissinger and other practitioners of Realpolitik claim that their actions cannot be judged as immoral because they are performed in service of the highest good: preservation of the State. But since “the State” is nothing more than those among them who direct the resources and policy of government, their actions are performed in service of their own power and ambition.

Carr, Kissinger, FDR, and Churchill

Perhaps you’ve heard the joke “If you look up the definition of evil, you’ll see a picture of (enter name here) prominently displayed at the top of the page.” Well, it’s no joke to say, “If you look up the definition of Realpolitik at Wikipedia, you’ll see Henry Kissinger and E. H. Carr listed as two prominent practitioners.”2 Since Carr is unknown to most, let’s begin with him.

E. H. Carr was a highly influential British historian and member of the Network3 who believed it was his role to “work out the basis of a new international order.” As a realist, Carr considered the Soviet Union’s collectivist/totalitarian system of control far superior to the individualism practiced in the West. In fact, he praised Karl Marx “for emphasizing the importance of the collective over the individual.”4

Carr described realism as the acceptance that what exists is right...He argued that in realism there is no moral dimension, and that what is successful is right, and what is unsuccessful is wrong. [As an example, he supported the Bolshevik Revolution based on the grounds of Realpolitik.]5

In his 1942 book Conditions of Peace, Carr argued that it was a flawed economic system that had caused World War II and that the only way of preventing another world war was for the Western powers to fundamentally change the economic basis of their societies by adopting socialism.

In 1945 during a lecture series entitled The Soviet Impact on the Western World...Carr argued that “The trend away from individualism and towards totalitarianism is everywhere unmistakable,” that Marxism was by far the most successful type of totalitarianism...and that only the “blind and incurable ignored these trends”...Carr claimed

2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik
3 The Anglo-American Establishment, page 258 4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._H._Carr
5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik

that Soviet social policies were far more progressive than Western social policies, and argued democracy was more about social equality than political rights.6

Regarding the “more progressive” policies and “social equality” under the Soviet system, Quigley provides some insight:

[For Communism to work in Russia, the Bolsheviks believed that the country needed to be] industrialized at breakneck speed, whatever the waste and hardships...This meant that the goods produced by the peasants must be taken from them...without any economic return, and that the ultimate in authoritarian terror must be used.7

All peasants who resisted were treated with violence; their property was confiscated, they were beaten or sent into exile...many were killed. This process, known as “the liquidation of the kulaks”...affected five million kulak families.8

The ordinary Russian had inadequate food and housing, was subject to extended rationing...and was reduced to living, with his family, in a single room or even, in many cases, to a corner of a single room shared with other families. The privileged rulers and their favorites had the best of everything, including foods and wines, the use of vacation villas in the country...the use of official cars in the city, the right to live in old czarist palaces and mansions.9

As public discontent and social tensions grew...the use of spying, purges, torture, and murder increased out of all proportion...By the middle 1930’s the search for “saboteurs” and for “enemies of the state”...left hardly a family untouched. Hundreds of thousands were killed,

6 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._H._Carr 7 Tragedy and Hope, page 396
8 Tragedy and Hope, page 398
9 Tragedy and Hope, page 401

frequently on completely false charges, while millions were arrested and exiled to Siberia or put into huge slave-labor camps. In these camps, under conditions of semi-starvation and incredible cruelty, millions toiled...Estimates of the number of persons (prior to 1941) vary from as low as two million to as high as twenty million. The majority of these prisoners had done nothing...[they] consisted of relatives, associates, and friends of persons who had been arrested on more serious charges. Many of these charges were completely false, having been trumped up to provide labor in remote areas, scapegoats for administrative breakdowns, and to eliminate possible rivals in the control of the Soviet system.10

Carr not only admired the greater social equality that citizens enjoyed under the Soviet regime, he argued that “China was much better off under the leadership of Mao Zedong...”11 Mao, of course, was the Network’s most successful monster of all. He murdered between eighteen million and thirty-two million human beings during his collectivist Great Leap Forward. (“Coercion, terror, and systematic violence were the very foundation of the Great Leap Forward” and it “motivated one of the most deadly mass killings of human history.”12)

Needless to say, Carr was also an enthusiastic supporter of the Hitler-empowerment project. Germany under Hitler, Russia under the Bolsheviks and Stalin, China under Mao—they all share the one characteristic that underpins the realist’s political philosophy: might makes right.

Side Note: Any political system that subordinates the rights of the individual to some “greater good” like the collective is irresistible to a realist. That’s because it not only empowers the realist, but it

10 Tragedy and Hope, page 402
11 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EH_Carr
12 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_leap_forward

conceals their power grab (and blatant hypocrisy) in the process. Consider the absurdity of the following scheme: by loudly condemning the selfishness of the evil individual, and by praising the selfless virtue of the so-called collective, realists can build a system that (far from being administered by or for the benefit of the collective), transfers nearly absolute power to a handful of the most dishonest, selfish, and evil individuals that realism can produce.

While Carr overlooked the Network-sponsored horrors of Marxism, Nazism, and Maoism, he continued to enthusiastically denounce the injustices of individualism in the Western world. So what exactly was he up to? Carr either suffered from an incurable case of intellectual inconsistency, or he was a very bold practitioner of Realpolitik...or maybe it was a little of both. All that’s certain is if we agree to surrender our individual “political rights” as men like Carr would have us do, the Network will gladly construct “the basis of a new international order” for us to enjoy. Its members will fulfill their long-standing promise of “social equality” for all. Then, we can finally live in a world where everyone is equally powerless to resist their sociopathic conspiracies.

A Pretext for Every Policy

Speaking of sociopathic conspiracies, Operation Gladio demonstrates just how far the Network’s realists were willing to go in order to subvert the democratic process in Europe. By using the threat of Communism (which they nurtured), and terrorist attacks (which they facilitated), these skilled practitioners of Realpolitik successfully manipulated everyone involved: the Gladio operatives, the citizens, the government, and the media. To summarize:

First, the Network recruited a handful of Nazis, terrorists, and

other hardcore criminals13 and told them that, to help fight Communism, they would be armed, paid, and protected as they operated above the law. These Gladio operatives proceeded to commit acts of terrorism against innocent people, which, predictably, drove citizens to “turn to the State” for greater security. Unaware of Gladio, well-meaning government officials and reporters accepted and repeated the lie that Communists were behind the murders. This lie, backed by public fear and outrage, was used to increase the power of the state and crack down on individuals identified as Communists or Communist sympathizers. (Any politician, citizen, or group of individuals who challenged the Network’s agenda could easily be smeared with these labels.)

Each step of the way, the “Communist threat” provided a single pretext for the Network’s brazen global attack on national sovereignty. If this threat didn’t exist, they would have needed to create it.

Unfortunately, this tactic of creating pretexts in the form of an enemy, a crisis, or an attack (or all of the above) remains incredibly effective. The average person is unlikely to suspect, let alone accuse, “their own government” of doing something so vile. Not only because it exceeds the socially acceptable limits of distrust, but because the truth, at first, is psychologically intolerable. But these mental barriers must be overcome. If they aren’t, realists within the Network will continue to employ false flags and similar deceptions. They will continue to do so for the simple reason that these tactics work.

In closing, we’ll expand on this idea of creating pretexts, starting with Henry Kissinger’s take on the matter.

Pawns in the Great Game

The US “elephant” serves no useful purpose to the Network if the traditionally “isolationist” American people can maintain

13 See NATO’s Secret Armies for the Rouges Gallery of characters recruited and employed by the CIA and NATO during Gladio.

control of that elephant. Sadly, Americans have yet to realize that what they want is secondary in importance to what the Network decides they shall have, and this is especially true when it comes to war. Working backward from Vietnam to WWII and then to WWI, this becomes abundantly clear. (In each case the American people were lied to. They were told what they wanted to hear, as policy makers secretly conspired against them.)

Beginning with Vietnam, Kissinger concedes that the pretext for sending fifty-five thousand Americans to their death (the Gulf of Tonkin “attack”) wasn’t based on “a full presentation of the facts.” However, he minimizes the relevance of the deception by saying it really wasn’t “a major factor in America’s commitment to ground combat in Vietnam.” While President Johnson assured the public that he wasn’t seeking a wider war,14 the exact opposite was true. Policy makers had already decided against the wishes of the electorate, and that decision would have led us to all-out war, one way or another.15

Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst and later a harsh critic of the agency, described the escalation to war in Vietnam this way:

During the summer of 1964, President Johnson and the Joint Chiefs of Staff were eager to widen the war in Vietnam. They stepped up sabotage and hit-and-run attacks on the coast of North Vietnam.

Those of us in intelligence, not to mention President Lyndon Johnson, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, and National Security Adviser McGeorge Bundy, all knew full well that the evidence of any armed attack on the evening of Aug. 4, 1964, the so-called “second” Tonkin Gulf incident, was highly dubious. But it fit the president’s purposes, so they lent a hand to facilitate escalation of the war.

In Bamford’s words, the Joint Chiefs of Staff had become “a sewer of deceit,” with Operation Northwoods and

14 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Resolution 15 Diplomacy, pages 658 and 659

other unconscionable escapades to their credit. Then- Undersecretary of State George Ball commented, “There was a feeling that if the destroyer got into some trouble, that this would provide the provocation we needed.”16

Here we have two concepts that should be familiar by now: one, the tactic of blaming a nonexistent attack on an enemy and using it as a pretext, and, two, provoking a real attack and using that as a pretext. Although Kissinger disingenuously pins these tactics of manipulation on the puppets who sign off on them, at least he admits they are real. Defending Johnson’s deceptive pretext for invading Vietnam, Kissinger informs his readers that FDR did the same thing during WWII:

Neither Johnson’s tactics nor his candor was significantly different from Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s when he had edged America toward involvement in the Second World War—for example, Roosevelt’s not altogether candid account of the torpedoing of the destroyer Greer, the pretext for engaging America in a naval war in the Atlantic...Both presidents were prepared to put their country’s military forces in harm’s way and to respond should harm indeed befall them, as was likely. In each case, the ultimate decision to enter the war was based on considerations which went far beyond the immediate incidents.17

Regarding the Greer,18 Roosevelt had made a clash “inevitable” when he ordered US ships to report the position of German submarines to the British Navy.”19 The Greer, on the day it was attacked, had spent hours chasing after and reporting the location of an Axis submarine as the British dropped depth charges

16 http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=12207 17 Diplomacy, page 659
18 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Greer_(DD-145) 19 Diplomacy, 392

from the air. This pursuit continued for nearly three hours and thirty minutes before the sub fired its first torpedo. The Greer then continued its pursuit for another five hours, dropping depth charges of its own, before continuing on its scheduled course.

Roosevelt promptly reported the torpedo attack to the public, but he made no mention of the circumstances that preceded it.20 Instead, he dishonestly presented the incident as an unprovoked “act of piracy” and used it as a pretext for a radical new “shoot-on- sight” policy. This, in Kissinger’s own words, “crossed the line into belligerency.” Under this policy, any Axis submarine, whether it attacked a US ship or not, was to be fired on as if it had attacked.21 Though undeclared and limited, this essentially put America at war against the Axis powers.

But limited warfare was never the goal. The Network intended to drag the United States fully into WWII regardless of the American public’s desire to remain neutral. And while the attack on the Greer moved US policy and opinion in the “right” direction, the devastating attack on Pearl Harbor sealed the deal.

On this topic, Kissinger is a little more cautious about describing FDR’s willingness to put US ships and military personnel “in harm’s way.” For instance, he doesn’t mention the McCollum memo, which recommended “an eight-part course of action for the United States to take” in order to provoke Japan into “committing an overt act of war.”22 However, he does mention a few of the “pressures” (outlined in the McCollum memo) that were placed on Japan prior to the Pearl Harbor attack. Additionally, he hints at the provocation when he says “few understood the nature of the diplomacy that had preceded Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor...It was a measure of the United States’ deep seated isolationism that it had to be bombed at Pearl Harbor before it would enter the war in the Pacific.”23

FDR’s repeated assurances to the American people that the

20 The audio of FDR’s fireside chat about the Greer is available here: http://youtu.be/fUWJX-j1xws 21 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Greer_(DD-145)
22 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCollum_memo
23 Diplomacy, page 393

nation would be kept out of the war were nothing more than dual policy. Kissinger praises FDR’s cunning when he writes:

America’s entry into the war marked the culmination of a great and daring leader’s extraordinary diplomatic enterprise. In less than three years, Roosevelt had taken his staunchly isolationist people into a global war...Roosevelt had achieved his goal patiently and inexorably, educating his people one step at a time about the necessities before them...By initiating hostilities, the Axis powers had solved Roosevelt’s lingering dilemma about how to move the American people into the war.24

Just to be clear, there is some misdirection in Kissinger’s statement. It wasn’t really FDR who maneuvered the “staunchly isolationist” American people into WWII. That credit more appropriately belongs to the Network. FDR, like every president after Woodrow Wilson, served a power much greater than himself. He was little more than the public face of the Network’s global policy.

Having covered the pretexts for Vietnam and WWII, this brings us to the “surprise attack” on the passenger liner Lusitania that served as the pretext for US entry into WWI.

Sink the Lusitania

Recall from chapter 6 that, just prior to WWI, the Network concluded that war is the most effective way to “alter the life of an entire people.” Though the stage for WWI was already set, the staunchly isolationist tendencies of the United States posed a problem. To overcome this problem, the Network set out to gain “control of the State Department” and the “diplomatic machinery” of America. It achieved this by bringing Woodrow Wilson to power in 1913. More accurately, the Network achieved this by

24 Diplomacy, pages 392, 393

bringing Wilson’s advisor, Mandell House, to power. As House’s biographer notes: “It was House who made the slate for the Cabinet, formulated the first policies of the Administration and practically directed the foreign affairs of the United States.”25 (If you do a little research into Mandell House, you’ll soon realize that the word “practically” does not belong in the preceding sentence.)

After all of the right people and instruments were in place (including the Network’s two newly created funding mechanisms26), a secret society known as the Black Hand entered the picture. In June 1914 it ordered the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and, within a month, WWI was underway.27 From that point forward, the final steps were clear: maximize the duration and costs of the war, drag the United States into the conflict by whatever means necessary, and then allow the carefully chosen puppet (Wilson) to sell “his” vision for a New World Order.

The first problem the Network faced was making sure that the war didn’t end too quickly. As early as February 1915, Wilson’s talk of “peace” was threatening to end hostilities. Worse, to encourage a dialogue between the warring nations, President Wilson sent Mandell House to London and instructed House to “bear the President’s...profound hope that the war could be ended quickly.” However, during his trip, House conveyed the exact opposite of the president’s sentiments. In his London meeting with Sir Edward Grey, House assured Grey that he had “no intention of pushing the issue of peace”28 and, in so doing, intentionally undermined any prospect of mediation. Professor Knock informs

25 As quoted in The Creature from Jekyll Island, page 240
26 The Federal Reserve System and the federal income tax
27 “Black Hand trained guerillas and saboteurs and planned political murders.” The Black Hand’s “Executive Committee was led, more or less, by Colonel Dragutin Dimitrijević.” Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hand_(Serbia) “When Dimitrijević heard that Archduke Franz Ferdinand was planning to visit Sarajevo in June 1914, he sent three members of the Young Bosnia group...to assassinate him. At this time, Dimitrijević was Chief of Serbian Military Intelligence.” Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragutin_Dimitrjevic_Apis
28 To End All Wars, pages 45, 46

us that:

In certain critical instances, “Phillip Dru” seemed to overpower [House]. His statement to Grey hardly reflected Wilson’s position. To the contrary, House often expressed unabashedly pro-Allied sentiments...and firmly believed that the basis for future peace lay in an Anglo-American entente. He never accurately informed Wilson about this part of his conversation with Grey; while thus gaining the Foreign Secretary’s trust, he obviously did not serve his own chief very well.29

House might have proven himself to Edward Grey (an imperialist Network insider), but this particular diplomatic maneuver was not sufficient to ensure the continuation of hostilities, let alone ensure that the United States would enter the war. For that, the public would have to be manipulated. Some of them might even have to be “put in harm’s way.” And here is where the British passenger liner Lusitania enters the picture.

There isn’t enough room to tell the full story here, but suffice to say, the case of the Lusitania was a “damn dirty business.”30 Consider the following a short summary. For a more thorough account, I highly recommend that you read chapter 12 of The Creature from Jekyll Island.

Let’s begin with the fact that although the Lusitania was considered a luxury passenger liner, its design specifications were drawn up by the British Admiralty. This enabled the British to easily convert her into a ship of war. In 1913, after adding armor and some other modifications, the British did exactly that. Unbeknownst to her passengers, the ship was then entered into the

29 To End All Wars, page 46
30 Lord Mersey was charged with determining the facts surrounding the sinking of the Lusitania. Under pressure, he issued the report that was expected of him but refused compensation and requested that he no longer be called upon to “administer His Majesty’s Justice.” His final statement on the affair was: “The Lusitania case was a damn dirty business” (as quoted in The Creature from Jekyll Island, page 255).

Admiralty fleet register as an armed auxiliary cruiser. Despite US “neutrality” and the risk to those aboard:

The Lusitania became one of the most important carriers of war materials—including munitions—from the United States to England...On March 8th 1915...the captain of the Lusitania turned in his resignation...he was no longer willing “to carry the responsibility of mixing passengers with munitions.”31

Winston Churchill, unlike the captain of the Lusitania, had absolutely no problem mixing passengers with munitions. In fact the careless mixing of passengers, especially American passengers, with war materials could prove very useful politically. For instance, in the event that Germans attacked a “passenger liner” with men, women, and children aboard—American men, women, and children—the beneficial effect on American public opinion would be swift and unanimous. After a handful of stern government condemnations and a well-orchestrated media campaign, it would be easy to shame the isolationists into silence while moving the United States toward entering the war.

Much like FDR’s policy with the Greer, Churchill’s orders (to load munitions onto passenger ships) made a clash at sea inevitable. But this wasn’t the only way to provoke a politically useful attack. To increase the likelihood of innocent civilian casualties, Churchill ordered British merchant ships to ram German subs if they attempted to stop and search them for contraband. This made it impossible for Germany to observe the long-established Cruiser Rules. (Under the Cruiser Rules, an unarmed merchant vessel would not be sunk until the crew and passengers were safely evacuated from the ship.) With Churchill’s new policy in place, German submarines could no longer come to the surface and were more apt to sink ships without warning. As the following quote from Churchill demonstrates, this was his

31 The Creature from Jekyll Island, pages 247, 248

intention from the start.

The first British countermove, made on my responsibility...was to deter the Germans from surface attack. The submerged U-boat had to rely increasingly on underwater attack and thus ran the greater risk of mistaking neutral for British ships and of drowning neutral crews and thus embroiling Germany with other Great Powers.32

And yet, even these measures proved insufficient to bring about the Lusitania’s demise. It wasn’t until the ship was intentionally sent into hostile waters at reduced speed and with her military escort withdrawn that Churchill, and the Network he served, secured their pretext. Griffin writes:

In the map room of the British Admiralty, Churchill watched the play unfold and coldly called the shots. Small disks marked the places where two ships had been torpedoed the day before. A circle indicated the area within which the U- boat must still be operating. A larger disk represented the Lusitania travelling at nineteen knots directly into the circle...Commander Joseph Kenworthy, who previously had been called upon by Churchill to submit a paper on what would be the political results of an ocean liner being sunk with American passengers aboard...left the room in disgust.

Colonel House was in England at that time and, on the day of the sinking...Sir Edward Grey asked him: “What will America do if the Germans sink an ocean liner with American passengers on board?” As recorded in House’s diaries, he replied: “I told him if this were done, a flame of indignation would sweep America, which would in itself probably carry us into the war.”...King George also brought up the subject and was even more specific about the possible

32 As quoted in The Creature from Jekyll Island, page 249

target. He asked, “Suppose they should sink the Lusitania with American passengers on board...?33

Approximately four hours later, a torpedo sent the Lusitania to the bottom of the ocean. Of its 1,959 passengers, 1,198 lost their lives. Nearly all of the US citizens aboard (128 of 139) were killed.34 Predictably, House immediately seized the opportunity to stoke the “flame of indignation,” while cynically appealing to the moral implications of continued US neutrality.

From England, Colonel House sent a telegram to President Wilson...It became the genesis of thousands of newspaper editorials across the land. He said piously:

“America has come to the parting of the ways, when she must determine whether she stands for civilized or uncivilized warfare. We can no longer remain neutral spectators. Our action in this crisis will determine...how far we may influence a settlement for the lasting good of humanity...our position amongst nations is being assessed by mankind.”

In another telegram two days later, House reveals himself as the master psycho-politician playing on Wilson’s ego like a violinist stroking the strings of a Stradivarius. He wrote:

“If, unhappily, it is necessary to go to war, I hope you will give the world an exhibition of American efficiency that will be a lesson for a century or more. It is generally believed throughout Europe that we are so unprepared...that our entering would make but little difference...In the event of war, we should accelerate the manufacture of munitions to such an extent that we could supply not only ourselves but the Allies, and so quickly that the world would be

33 The Creature from Jekyll Island, page 253 34 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rms_lusitania

astounded.”35
Regarding propaganda efforts overseas, Quigley adds:

The propaganda agencies...made full use of the occasion. The Times of London announced that “four-fifths of her passengers were citizens of the United States”...the British manufactured and distributed a medal which they pretended had been awarded to the submarine crew by the German government; a French paper published a picture of the crowds in Berlin at the outbreak of war in 1914 as a picture of Germans “rejoicing” at the news of the sinking of the Lusitania.36

The end of this story holds no surprises. Less than a year later, in cooperation with House and Sir Edward Grey, President Wilson signed off on a scheme37 that would drag the United States into World War I. The president did this without the knowledge of the United States Senate and, of course, without the knowledge of the American people. He then proceeded to campaign for his reelection under the slogan “He Kept Us out of the War,” patiently waiting until he’d secured his second term before entering World War I in April 1917.

The moment Wilson declared war, vast amounts of money began flowing directly into the Network’s coffers. Adjusted for inflation, the total cost to the United States from 1917 to 1919 would equal more than $500 billion today. This “war to end all wars” not only buried the United States in debt, it increased the

35 The Creature from Jekyll Island, page 257
36 Tragedy and Hope, page 251
37 From The Creature from Jekyll Island, page 242: “The basic terms of the agreement were that the United States government would offer to negotiate a peaceful settlement between Germany and the Allies...If either side refused to accept the proposal, then the United States would come into the war as an ally of the other side. The catch was that the terms of the proposal were carefully drafted so that Germany could not possibly accept them. Thus, to the world, it would look as though Germany was at fault and the United States was humanitarian.”

Network’s financial leverage in direct proportion to that debt.38 But there were additional profits as well. Competing empires were destroyed, the isolationist tendencies of the United States were subverted, and the initial framework for a New World Order took shape. None of this happened by chance; each and every step was carefully planned to yield the desired result. And there you see how a handful of false and designing men can manipulate entire nations and alter the history of the world.

A Century of Deception, Theft, and Violence

We’ve covered an awful lot of ground in the pages of this short book: from the origins of the Network’s secret society to its sovereignty-destruction project and “ultimate recovery of the United States of America” in 191339; from the blatant fraud of its primary funding mechanisms40 to its use of ruthless dictators, dual policies, and false-flag operations. What can be said of these men who’ve achieved so much at the expense of so many? Have they earned the power that they possess? Have we earned the consequences of allowing them to dominate us?

The Network believes that the key to controlling the world lies in the application of “secret political and economic influence” and secret control of “journalistic, educational, and propaganda agencies.”41 Based on their impressive list of global accomplishments, it certainly appears as if they’re right. But what

38 Recall from chapter 6: “As payments on mounting debt create greater and greater shortfalls, and as annual spending continues to increase unabated, larger and more frequent loans become necessary to bridge the gap. This accelerates the rate at which the national debt grows and, before long, even powerful nations will find themselves utterly dependent on a constant flow of newly borrowed funds to cover their expenses.” The Network is always happy to supply those funds with more debt money that they create out of thin air.

39 Referencing the stated goal of the Network’s founder, Cecil Rhodes, as quoted in The Anglo- American Establishment, page 33
40 As covered in chapter 4, the two primary funding mechanisms are the Federal Reserve System and federal income tax, both of which were “sold” to the public via deception in 1913.

41 The Anglo-American Establishment, page 49

happens if their secret “influence” and tactics are exposed for all to see? Could they continue to get away with their crimes? Could they continue to manipulate us into wars, bury us beneath inescapable debt, and con us into surrendering our sovereignty? The answer, by their own estimation, is no. When what they’re doing and how they’re doing it becomes widely known, the foundation on which their success is built crumbles beneath them.

Fortunately, this means that the most important work we can do is also the easiest. To the extent we expose the origin and purpose of their instruments, their tried-and-true tactics of manipulation, and their immoral belief that only might determines what’s right, we destroy the illusion of legitimacy that they depend on. “So long as we are gaining and spreading awareness, they (by default) are losing power.”42 This is where we must begin. This is the first step toward destroying their system. So please,

Reach out to new people regularly and share information that exposes what the Network is and how it operates. When you encounter individuals who either refuse to look at the facts, or who minimize the significance of what’s presented, do not take it personally. If they attack you, do not take it personally. In most cases, they are simply defending their world view...it has nothing to do with you. Simply move on and know that every single person that is exposed to this information, even those who initially resist, could become an ally down the road. The same cannot be said of those who are never exposed to the truth.43

42 http://joeplummer.com/we_have_the_advantage.html 43 Tragedy and Hope 101, chapter 5, Solution #1