Showing posts with label JFK. Show all posts
Showing posts with label JFK. Show all posts

Tuesday, 25 April 2017

Knower's Arc



Clerics are Scholars

Gnostics are Knowers





21. Letter From Chairman Khrushchev to President Kennedy

Moscow, September 29, 1961.

Dear Mr. President, At present I am on the shore of the Black Sea. When they write in the press that Khrushchev is resting on the Black Sea it may be said that this is correct and at the same time incorrect. This is indeed a wonderful place. As a former Naval officer you would surely appreciate the merits of these surroundings, the beauty of the sea and the grandeur of the Caucasian mountains. Under this bright southern sun it is even somehow hard to believe that there still exist problems in the world which, due to lack of solutions, cast a sinister shadow on peaceful life, on the future of millions of people.

But as you will fully understand, I cannot at this time permit myself any relaxation. I am working, and here I work more fruitfully because my attention is not diverted to routine matters of which I have plenty, probably like you yourself do. Here I can concentrate on the main things.

I have given much thought of late to the development of international events since our meeting in Vienna, and I have decided to approach you with this letter. The whole world hopefully expected that our meeting and a frank exchange of views would have a soothing effect, would turn relations between our countries into the correct channel and [Page 26]promote the adoption of decisions which could give the peoples confidence that at last peace on earth will be secured. To my regret—and, I believe, to yours—this did not happen.

I listened with great interest to the account which our journalists Adjubei and Kharlamov gave of the meeting they had with you in Washington. They gave me many interesting details and I questioned them most thoroughly. You prepossessed them by your informality, modesty and frankness which are not to be found very often in men who occupy such a high position.

My thoughts have more than once returned to our meetings in Vienna. I remember you emphasized that you did not want to proceed towards war and favoured living in peace with our country while competing in the peaceful domain. And though subsequent events did not proceed in the way that could be desired, I thought it might be useful in a purely informal and personal way to approach you and share some of my ideas. If you do not agree with me you can consider that this letter did not exist while naturally I, for my part, will not use this correspondence in my public statements. After all only in confidential correspondence can you say what you think without a backward glance at the press, at the journalists.

As you see, I started out by describing the delights of the Black Sea coast, but then I nevertheless turned to politics. But that cannot be helped. They say that you sometimes cast politics out through the door but it climbs back through the window, particularly when the windows are open.

I have given careful thought to what you told our journalists in your personal talk with them and to the difficulties to which you referred. Of course, I fully understand that the questions which have now matured and require solution are not of the kind that easily lend themselves to solution. But they have a vitally important significance for our countries and for all the countries of the world. And therefore we cannot escape them. We cannot shift the burden of solving those questions onto the shoulders of others. And who else but the leaders of the two most influential and mighty States—the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.—can the nations expect to work out solutions which could form the basis for the consolidation of peace. After your meeting with Adjubei and Kharlamov I was about to write you a letter right then and, I admit, even drafted one. However, your television address in July, unfortunately, made it impossible for me to send that letter. After that speech which, putting it bluntly, [Page 27]was belligerent in its nature, my letter would not have been understood by you since it completely differed in spirit, content and tone from what you said. After that we not only made speeches and exchanged statements but, unfortunately, also proceeded to an exchange of actions which will not, and indeed cannot, yield any moral satisfaction either to you as President of the United States or to me as Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the U.S.S.R. Evidently both one side and the other are compelled to undertake their actions under the pressure of the various factors and conditions which exist and which—unless we exert a restraining influence—will propel the development of events in a direction in which you and I, and the more so the peoples of all countries, would not like them to be propelled. It would be most of all unwise from the standpoint of peace to enter into such a vicious circle when some would be responding with counter-measures to the measures of others, and vice versa. The whole world could bog down in such measures and counter-measures.

Lately I have had not a few meetings with eminent statesmen and political leaders of Western countries. I have talked with Mr. Fanfani, the Prime Minister of Italy. I shall not describe that talk of which I suppose he, as a representative of a State allied with you, had informed you. Recently I had a conversation with the former Prime Minister of France Mr. Paul Reynaud. He raised a number of questions to which I frankly replied. After Paul Reynaud I received Mr. Spaak, the Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister of Belgium, who for a number of years was the Secretary General of NATO. I listened to him with attention and tried to reply to his questions as exhaustively as possible, to expound our position and explain how we consider it best to solve those questions. I must say that in my opinion understanding can be reached on those questions which were touched upon in my talk with Mr. Spaak. To this end it is only necessary that both sides should display equal interest in settling the problems at issue on a mutually acceptable basis.

The statesmen of many countries are presently displaying great concern for the destinies of peace, they are seriously troubled by the tense situation that has taken shape and they sincerely fear that some rash actions might bring the world to disaster and to the unleashing of nuclear war. These feelings are dear to me and I understand them because, like many Soviet people, I spent the war years at the front and lived through all the horrors of war. I am against war. The Soviet Government is against war. The peoples of the Soviet Union are against war. I say this to you because I believe that you—a direct participant in the battles of the last war—take the same position.


I should like in this connection to dwell upon some of the basic problems which now preoccupy the whole world since the future of mankind depends on their solution. It can be said that in the disarmament question which is the major question of our time there have now appeared certain gleams. I would like to see those gleams in the fact that we have reached agreement on submitting to the United Nations General Assembly a “Statement of Principles” as a joint proposal of the U.S.S.R. and the U.S. so that in subsequent negotiations a treaty on general and complete disarmament can be elaborated on its basis. Certainly it must not be forgotten that so far this is an agreement in regard to the principles of disarmament. This is as yet far from the achievement of the actual agreement on general and complete disarmament, and the more so this is not the practical start of such disarmament. But it is precisely the conclusion of such an agreement and its implementation within the shortest possible time that all the nations are expecting of us. For them and for all of us that would mean great joy.

It is important to note that even understanding on the principles of disarmament which we have succeeded in reaching after protracted and intense effort and only after you came to the White House, is a good thing too. Naturally such understanding is not an end in itself. It must, so to say, be the harbinger, the first successful step on the road to general and complete disarmament. That is what we would like to hope.

If, Mr. President, you are striving towards that noble goal—and I believe that is the case—if agreement of the United States on the principles of disarmament is not merely a diplomatic or tactical manoeuvre, you will find complete understanding on our part and we shall stint no effort in order to find a common language and reach the required agreement together with you.

The Soviet Union, as you are well aware, has always advocated the prompt implementation of general and complete disarmament. The solution of that question would, in our profound conviction, radically promote the settlement of other major international problems as well. Our position in that respect is still unchanged.

But you will agree with me, Mr. President, that the present international situation and its tension can hardly be assessed as a simple arithmetical sum total of unsolved issues. After all, the series of measures and counter-measures aimed at strengthening the armaments of both sides which have already been put into effect by our Governments in connection with the aggravation of the German question cannot be disregarded. I do not want here to engage in an argument as to who is right or wrong in [Page 29]this matter. Let us leave this aside for the time being. The main thing is that events are unfortunately continuing to develop in the same unfavourable direction. Instead of confidence we are turning to an even greater aggravation. Far from bringing the possibility of agreement between us on disarmament closer, we are, on the contrary, worsening the situation still further. That is another important reason why the Soviet Union is now attaching such exclusive significance to the German question. We cannot escape the fact that there has been a second world war and that the problems we have inherited from the last war—first and foremost the conclusion of a German peace treaty—require their solution.

History will not be reversed and West Berlin will not be moved to the other side of the Elbe. In that war the peoples of our two countries fought shoulder to shoulder. But if we fought together, we should indeed keep the peace together.

If you were to come to the Soviet Union now—and this incidentally is something I am hoping for—you would surely convince yourself that not a single Soviet citizen will ever reconcile himself to the peace, which was won at such great cost, being under constant threat. But that will be the case until the countries that participated in the war recognize and formalize the results of the war in a German peace treaty. Yes, that is what our people are demanding, and they are right. That is demanded by the Poles, that is demanded by the people of Czechoslovakia, that is demanded by other nations as well. They are right too. The position of the Soviet Union is shared by many. The impression is formed that understanding of the need to conclude a German peace treaty is growing in the world. I have already told you, Mr. President, that in striving for the conclusion of a German peace treaty we do not want somehow to prejudice the interests of the United States and their bloc allies. Neither are we interested in exacerbating the situation in connection with the conclusion of a German peace treaty. What need have we of such exacerbation? It is in the Western countries that they create all sorts of fears and allege that the socialist States intend well-nigh to swallow up West Berlin. You may believe my word, the word of the Soviet Government that neither we nor our allies need West Berlin.

I do not doubt that, given good will and desire, the Governments of our countries could find a common language in the question of a German peace treaty too. Naturally in the solution of that question it is necessary to proceed from the obvious fact, which even a blind man cannot fail to see, that there exist two sovereign German States.

I was gratified to familiarize myself with the statement which, according to press reports, was made by your representative in Berlin Mr. Clay on the need to recognize that there now actually exist two Germanies. It is impossible not to appreciate such a reasonable and sober pronouncement.[Page 30]I recall Senator Mansfield made some statements in the same spirit. All this warrants the hope that evidently the process has started of a quest for a solution of the German question on the basis of a realistic appraisal of the obtaining situation, a solution in which the Soviet Union and the United States of America must, above all, play their part. Naturally this solution must be such as not to inflict any harm to the prestige of one side or the other.

If we fail to agree on the conclusion of one peace treaty for both German States we also have at our disposal such a course as the drafting of two treaties which would be similar in content—one for the German Democratic Republic and the other for the Federal Republic of Germany. In that case the States that were parties to the anti-Hitler coalition would have the opportunity of signing one or two peace treaties depending on their choice. Such an approach would allow of circumventing the difficulties that appear owing to the fact that not all the possible participants in a peace settlement are ready to recognize both existing German States legally and establish diplomatic relations with them.

In any event the contracting parties could assume moral obligations to assist in the unification into one entity of both German States if the Germans so desire. It goes without saying that such obligations would find reflection in the peace treaty itself. As for the achievement of agreement on the unification of Germany, that is the concern of the Governments of the two German States. I believe such a solution would be reasonable and understandable for everyone. It would be understood by the German people as well.

In signing a German peace treaty the States that participated in the war will have to unconditionally recognize the presently constituted frontiers of the German Democratic Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany. Under the peace treaty those frontiers would be legally formalized, I stress legally, because defacto they already exist and cannot be changed without a war.

We cannot turn our back on the facts and fail to see that until the existing borders of Germany are finally formalized the sluice-gates which release the West German revanchist desires remain open. The followers of Hitler and his policy who, unfortunately, still exist in no small numbers in the Federal Republic of Germany are dreaming of the long-awaited day when, exploiting the lack of a post-war settlement, they will succeed in bringing about a collision between the U.S.S.R., the U.S. and the other former opponents of Hitlerite Germany. Why then should we leave any ground for the activities of those forces which are fraught with the threat of a world conflict? I would think that the legal formalization of the State borders which have taken shape after World War Two equally meets the interests of both the U.S.S.R. and the United States. Thus the [Page 31]borders that have taken shape and presently exist between the two German States would be formalized as well.

There remains the question of West Berlin which must also be solved when a German peace treaty is concluded. From whatever side we approach the matter, we probably will not be able to find a better solution than the transformation of West Berlin into a free city. And we shall proceed towards that goal. If, to our regret, the Western Powers will not wish to participate in a German peace settlement and the Soviet Union, together with the other countries that will be prepared to do so, has to sign a treaty with the German Democratic Republic we shall nonetheless provide a free city status for West Berlin.

Your statements, Mr. President, as well as the statements of other representatives of Western Powers not infrequently show signs of concern as to whether freedom for the population of West Berlin will be preserved, whether it will be able to live under the social and political system of its own choosing, whether West Berlin will be safeguarded against interference and outside pressure. I must say we see no difficulties in creating such conditions, the more so since the assurance of the freedom and complete independence of West Berlin is also our desire, is also our concern. I declare this on behalf of the Soviet Government, and on behalf of the socialist countries allied with us which are interested in the solution of the German question. I wish to emphasize in particular that the German Democratic Republic and the Head of that State Walter Ulbricht are of the same opinion. I say this with full knowledge and in all responsibility.

Voices can also be heard contending that it is not enough to codify in a German peace treaty the guarantees of the freedom and independence of West Berlin since—so it is said—there is no certainty that those guarantees will be honored. The statesmen and political leaders of the Western Powers with whom I have had occasion to meet, sometimes plainly expressed the wish that such guarantees should not only be given under a peace treaty but should also be specially reinforced by the Soviet Union.

Frankly speaking it is hard to understand what such apprehensions are based on. I am convinced that the guarantees established under a peace treaty will be honored and observed by all the States which will have signed the treaty. Furthermore the Soviet Union as a party to the German peace treaty will feel itself responsible for the fulfillment of all the clauses of that treaty, including the guarantees in respect to West Berlin.

But if it is the common desire that responsibility for the observance of the status of West Berlin should be entrusted to the Soviet Union we shall be ready to assume such a responsibility. I and my colleagues in the Government have not infrequently given thought to the way in which the role of the Soviet Union in guarantees for West Berlin could be implemented in practice. If we were simply to make a statement that the Soviet Union will in some special way guarantee the immunity of West Berlin, you will agree that this could prejudice the sovereign rights of the German Democratic Republic and the other countries parties to the peace treaty. In order to prevent that, in order not to prejudice the prestige of any State—whether your ally or ours—I believe the question should be solved in the way we have already proposed, namely that token contingents of troops of the United States, the United Kingdom, France and the Soviet Union, the four great Powers which participated in the war against Hitlerite Germany, should be left in West Berlin. In my view that is the sole possibility. Naturally such a system should be introduced not for all time but for a specific period. Evidently an appropriate status for the deployment of the troops of the four Powers in West Berlin would then have to be devised which would be subject to the approval of the other countries signatories of the peace treaty.

Given every desire, we could find no other solution which to any greater degree would strengthen confidence in the reliability of guarantees for West Berlin. If you have any ideas of your own on this score we are ready to consider them.

Of course, such alternatives are also conceivable as the deployment in West Berlin of troops from neutral countries or United Nations troops. I have repeatedly expressed and now reaffirm our agreement to such a solution. We also agree to the establishment of the United Nations Headquarters in West Berlin which would in that case become an international city.

It goes without saying that the occupation regime in West Berlin must be eliminated. Under the allied agreements occupation is a temporary measure and, indeed, never in history has there been a case of occupation becoming a permanent institution. But sixteen years have already elapsed since the surrender of Germany. For how long then is the occupation regime to be preserved?

A more stable status should be created for West Berlin than existed under the occupation. If the occupation regime has lived out its time and has become a source of strife among States it means the time has come to discard it. It has completely exhausted itself, has become a burden in relationships among nations and does not meet the interests of the population of West Berlin itself. The transformation of West Berlin into a free city will create a far more durable basis for its independent existence than the regime of occupation. Furthermore the grounds for collisions among States which are generated by the preservation of the occupation regime will disappear.

Of course, no one can be satisfied with half-measures which superficially would seem to erase from the surface differences among States while in effect they would be preserving them under cover and driving them in deeper. What use would there be if we barely covered up this delayed action landmine with earth and waited for it to explode. Indeed, no, the countries which are interested in consolidating peace must render that landmine completely harmless and tear it out of the heart of Europe.

The representatives of the United States sometimes declare that the American side is not advancing its concrete proposals on the German question because the Soviet Union allegedly is not striving for agreed solutions and wants to do everything by itself regardless of what other States may say. It is hard for me to judge how far such ideas really tell on the actions of the United States Government, but they are based on a profoundly mistaken assessment of the position of the Soviet Union. The United States Government can easily verify that, if it wishes to introduce its own constructive proposals at the negotiations on a peaceful settlement with Germany incorporating the question of West Berlin.

I am closely following the meetings of our Minister of Foreign Affairs Andrei A. Gromyko with the Secretary of State of the United States Mr.Dean Rusk. I do not know how you will react to this idea, but it seems to me that it would be useful to broaden contacts between our Governments on the German question. If the United States Government, like the Soviet Government, is searching for understanding and is ready to devise conditions for peace with Germany which would be acceptable for both sides and would not affect the interests or the prestige of any State I believe it could be arranged that you and I would appoint appropriate representatives for private meetings and talks. Those representatives would elaborate for us the contours of an agreement which we could discuss before coming to a peace conference where a decision on the question of a peace treaty with Germany will be taken.

Your wish, Mr. President, that perhaps our Ambassadors in Belgrade should be entrusted with an informal exchange of views, was communicated to me. In fact such meetings have already started. Unfortunately, however, I see from the dispatches of our Ambassador that they are spending too much time in, figuratively speaking, sniffing each other. If this goes on the business will not move forward, whereas it should be tackled with more energy.

I never met Mr. Kennan but, so far as I can judge by the press, he is, to my mind, a man with whom preparatory work could be done, and we would accordingly authorize our Ambassador. But evidently in that case our Ambassadors would have to be given firm instructions to start talks on concrete questions without needless procrastination and not merely [Page 34]indulge in tea-drinking, not walk round and about mooing at each other when they should talk on the substance.

The following alternative is also possible. You, let us say, could send someone in your confidence to Moscow under some plausible pretext and the necessary contacts could be established there. This method might possibly even expedite the solution of the questions. However, let the final choice be up to you. You might perhaps prefer to charge Mr. Thompson, your Ambassador in Moscow, with that mission. Personally I have had a number of conversations with him and he gives the impression of being a man who can represent you in dealing with the problems that face us. But naturally it is not for me to give you advise in such matters. Please excuse me for intruding in the sphere of questions which are entirely within your own personal competence.

The non-aligned countries addressed messages to you, Mr. President, and to myself. They suggested that we meet to discuss outstanding problems. You gave a positive reply to that appeal. We too reacted favourably to the initiative of the neutrals.

I believe a meeting between us could be useful and, given the desire of both sides, could culminate in the adoption of positive decisions. Naturally such a meeting would have to be well prepared through diplomatic or other confidential channels. And when preliminary understanding is reached, you and I could meet at any place in order to develop and formalize the results of such an understanding. This would undoubtedly be met with great satisfaction by all nations. They would see in that step an important contribution to the settlement of existing differences, to the consolidation of peace. The positive results of such a meeting would generate confidence that all issues can be solved peacefully by negotiation.

We are proposing that a German peace treaty be signed not only to eliminate the vestiges of World War Two, but also to clear the way for the elimination of the state of “cold war” which can at any moment bring our countries to the brink of a military collision. We want to clear the way for the strengthening of friendly relations with you and with all the countries of the world which espouse peaceful coexistence.

You, yourself, understand that we are a rich country, our expanse is boundless, our economy is on the upgrade, our culture and science are in their efflorescence. Acquaint yourself with the Program of our Party which determines our economic development for twenty years to come. This is indeed a grand and thrilling Program. What need have we of war? What need have we of acquisitions? And yet it is said that we want to seize West Berlin! It is ridiculous even to think of that. What would that give us? What would that change in the ratio of forces in the world arena? It gives nothing to anyone.

I often think how necessary it is for men who are vested with trust and great power to be inspired with the understanding of what seems to be an obvious truism, which is that we live on one planet and it is not in man’s power—at least in the foreseeable future—to change that. In a certain sense there is an analogy here—I like this comparison—with Noah’s Ark where both the “clean” and the “unclean” found sanctuary. But regardless of who lists himself with the “clean” and who is considered to be “unclean,” they are all equally interested in one thing and that is that the Ark should successfully continue its cruise. And we have no other alternative: either we should live in peace and cooperation so that the Ark maintains its buoyancy, or else it sinks. Therefore we must display concern for all of mankind, not to mention our own advantages, and find every possibility leading to peaceful solutions of problems.

When I was already closing this letter I was given the text of your address before the United Nations General Assembly. It has long since become my habit, when reading statements by responsible statesmen, in the first instance to search for and find—even a grain at a time—ideas and propositions which could be useful for the building up of peaceful cooperation among States. Almost involuntarily you sift away all the accretions, all that has been said in a fit of temper, under the influence of unduly inflamed passions. If everything is replied to in the same vein such battles of words would have to be entered into that the voice of reason would be drowned out and the shoots of all that is good and hope-giving in relations among States would be nipped in the bud.

Of course, if one were to attune himself to an aggravation of relations between our countries, your speech before the Assembly could easily be evaluated as a challenge to an embittered dispute in the “cold war” spirit and no one could reproach us as being partial. That speech contains no few points in which homage is plainly felt to those who oppose the normalization of the international situation and seek to whip up a military psychosis by spreading all sorts of fables about the intentions of the Soviet Government and ascribing to it what does not even exist. Hence, evidently, the crude sallies tinted with ideological intolerance which are made against the social and public foundations of socialist society and which look to me, if the consolidation of peace is seriously contemplated, like a square peg in a round hole.

If you are fighting for the preservation of capitalism and consider it to be a more just society, we have our own opinion on that score. You [Page 36]speak of communism with disrespect, but I could reply in kind with regard to capitalism. But can we change each other’s mind in questions affecting our outlooks? No, to carry ideological differences into relations among States is tantamount to an out-of-hand renunciation of hopes of living in peace and friendship with each other and we should certainly not take that road.

We can argue, we can disagree with one another but weapons must not be brought into play. I recall our conversation in Vienna about peaceful coexistence. I trust you will remember it and agree now, as you agreed then, that the question of the choice of a social system is for the people of each country to decide. Each one of us submits to his own principles, his own system but this should not lead to a collision between our countries. Let us allow history to judge the advantages of this or that social system.

A few words on Laos.

In your statement at the United Nations, Mr. President, you devoted attention to the situation in Laos and voiced certain alarm. I believe that in Vienna you and I worked out a fair basis for the solution of that question. The Soviet Government is doing all that depends on it in order to put into effect the understanding reached to the effect that Laos should become a truly neutral independent State. In your speech at the United Nations, speaking of Laos, you referred to the example of Cambodia and Burma. As we have repeatedly stated, we agree that Laos should take the same road.

As I understand it, you, like ourselves, the Soviet Union and our allies, agree that Prince Souvanna Phouma should become the Prime Minister of the Government of Laos. But obviously there are some difficulties in the question of the composition of the Government. As is known, it was proposed to the Laotians that they include in the Government eight followers of Souvanna Phouma, four representatives of Pathet-Lao and four representatives of Boun Oum. I was informed that the United States did not object to that. Now, however, information is coming in that the American Government seems to insist that of the eight posts given to the Souvanna Phouma group, three or four should be filled by the representatives of Vientiane.

In this connection I should like to make several remarks, and I am asking you to understand me correctly. You and I are being pushed towards engaging in the selection of the personal membership of the Laotian Government. This cannot fail to cause surprise. We would simply confuse the matter if we were to attempt to suggest to the Laotians the names of those persons who should be brought into the Government on behalf of these or those political groups. The Soviet Government is not properly familiar with Laotian public figures and, what is most important, it does not deem it possible to interfere in questions which are exclusively [Page 37]within the competence of the Laotians themselves. Let the three princes decide the question.

Souvanna Phouma has won a certain position in the country as a man of liberal leanings who advocates a policy of neutrality for Laos. His desire to form a stable and viable Government is natural and fully justified. Souvanna Phouma will be justified in fearing the strengthening of both the Pathet-Lao and the Boun Oum groups if they start claiming seats on the Government for their representatives at the cost of the seats provided for the group he himself leads. In our opinion, understanding should be displayed towards the desire of Souvanna Phouma to have a reliable support in the Government in order to effectively govern the country and pursue the policy of neutrality.

If we could reach an understanding with you on this question on the basis of the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of Laos Souvanna Phouma could, without doubt, quickly form a Government. Naturally, in that case you and I could, by using our influence on the corresponding quarters in Laos, give Souvanna Phouma the necessary assistance.

I note with gratification that you and I are of the same opinion as to the need for the withdrawal of foreign troops from the territory of Laos. This is an essential condition in order to provide Laos with the possibility of consolidating itself as an independent State pursuing a policy of neutrality.

The Soviet representatives in Geneva have been given instructions in the spirit of the ideas described above. I hope your representatives will have the same kind of instructions. This would promote the prompt conclusion of the work of the Geneva Conference and the normalization of the situation in Laos.

I am now working on the preparation of two reports which I shall deliver at the Congress of our Communist Party: a progress report and a report on the Program of the Party. Naturally, in those reports I cannot pass over such questions as disarmament and the German question. These are the major questions of the day because on their solution depends the course which relations between our countries take in their development, and consequently the course world events take: that is whether they will develop towards the consolidation of peace and cooperation among States or whether they will proceed in a different direction, a dangerous one for mankind. We want to find the solutions of both these questions, we want to clear the road for an improvement of relations between our countries, for the assurance of peaceful coexistence and peace on earth.

Please convey my best wishes to your wife. I wish you and your entire family good health.


I should like to believe that by joint effort we shall succeed in surmounting the existing difficulties and in making our contribution to the solution of the international problems which preoccupy the nations. And then together with you we shall be able to celebrate the successes achieved in the strengthening of peace, and this is something that the peoples of our countries, as well as all men on earth, are awaiting impatiently.

Accept my respects,

N. Khrushchev

Wednesday, 23 March 2016

The Obama Doctrine : "Don't Do Stupid Shit".


"Who exactly is in the stupid-shit caucus? 
Who is pro–stupid shit?"

"The truth is, actually, Putin, in all of our meetings, is scrupulously polite, very frank. Our meetings are very businesslike. He never keeps me waiting two hours like he does a bunch of these other folks...

He’s constantly interested in being seen as our peer and as working with us, because he’s not completely stupid. He understands that Russia’s overall position in the world is significantly diminished."
Obama’s theory here is simple :
Ukraine is a core Russian interest but not an American one, so Russia will always be able to maintain escalatory dominance there.





Over the past year, John Kerry has visited the White House regularly to ask Obama to violate Syria’s sovereignty. On several occasions, Kerry has asked Obama to launch missiles at specific regime targets, under cover of night, to “send a message” to the regime. The goal, Kerry has said, is not to overthrow Assad but to encourage him, and Iran and Russia, to negotiate peace….Obama has steadfastly resisted Kerry’s requests, and seems to have grown impatient with his lobbying. In recent National Security Council meetings, Obama’s strategy was occasionally referred to as the “Tom Sawyer approach.” Obama’s view was that if Putin wanted to expend his regime’s resources by painting the fence in Syria, the U.S. should let him. By late winter, though, when it appeared that Russia was making advances in its campaign to solidify Assad’s rule, the White House began discussing ways to deepen support for the rebels, though the president’s ambivalence about more-extensive engagement remained.
Obama would say privately that the first task of an American president in the post-Bush international arena was “Don’t do stupid shit.” Obama’s reticence frustrated [Samantha] Power and others on his national-security team who had a preference for action. Hillary Clinton, when she was Obama’s secretary of state, argued for an early and assertive response to Assad’s violence. In 2014, after she left office, Clinton told me that “the failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad … left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled.” When The Atlantic published this statement, and also published Clinton’s assessment that “great nations need organizing principles, and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle,” Obama became “rip-shit angry,” according to one of his senior advisers. The president did not understand how “Don’t do stupid shit” could be considered a controversial slogan. Ben Rhodes recalls that “the questions we were asking in the White House were ‘Who exactly is in the stupid-shit caucus? Who is pro–stupid shit?’?” The Iraq invasion, Obama believed, should have taught Democratic interventionists like Clinton, who had voted for its authorization, the dangers of doing stupid shit. (Clinton quickly apologized to Obama for her comments, and a Clinton spokesman announced that the two would “hug it out” on Martha’s Vineyard when they crossed paths there later.).
‘Friday, August 30, 2013[:] ….While the Pentagon and the White House’s national-security apparatuses were still moving toward war (John Kerry told me he was expecting a strike the day after his speech), the president had come to believe that he was walking into a trap—one laid both by allies and by adversaries, and by conventional expectations of what an American president is supposed to do. In Situation Room meetings that followed the attack on Ghouta, only the White House chief of staff, Denis McDonough, cautioned explicitly about the perils of intervention. John Kerry argued vociferously for action.”
[Samantha] Power sometimes argued with Obama in front of other National Security Council officials, to the point where he could no longer conceal his frustration. “Samantha, enough, I’ve already read your book,” he once snapped. …Biden, who ordinarily shared Obama’s worries about American overreach, argued passionately that “big nations don’t bluff.”
[Cameron of the UK and Saudi Ambassador Jubeir demanded an attack. But Germany’s Merkel was opposed and refused to take part. When the British House of Commons also refused to go along, Obama paused.]
Obama also shared with McDonough a long-standing resentment: He was tired of watching Washington unthinkingly drift toward war in Muslim countries. Four years earlier, the president believed, the Pentagon had “jammed” him on a troop surge for Afghanistan. Now, on Syria, he was beginning to feel jammed again.
The prime minister of France, Manuel Valls, told me that his government was already worried about the consequences of earlier inaction in Syria when word came of the stand-down. “By not intervening early, we have created a monster,” Valls told me. “We were absolutely certain that the U.S. administration would say yes. Working with the Americans, we had already seen the targets. It was a great surprise. If we had bombed as was planned, I think things would be different today.” The crown prince of Abu Dhabi, Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan, who was already upset with Obama for “abandoning” Hosni Mubarak, the former president of Egypt, fumed to American visitors that the U.S. was led by an “untrustworthy” president. The king of Jordan, Abdullah II—already dismayed by what he saw as Obama’s illogical desire to distance the U.S. from its traditional Sunni Arab allies and create a new alliance with Iran, Assad’s Shia sponsor—complained privately, “I think I believe in American power more than Obama does.” The Saudis, too, were infuriated. They had never trusted Obama—he had, long before he became president, referred to them as a “so-called ally” of the U.S. “Iran is the new great power of the Middle East, and the U.S. is the old,” Jubeir, the Saudi ambassador in Washington, told his superiors in Riyadh.
Amid the confusion, a deus ex machina appeared in the form of the Russian president, Vladimir Putin. At the G20 summit in St. Petersburg, which was held the week after the Syria reversal, Obama pulled Putin aside, he recalled to me, and told the Russian president “that if he forced Assad to get rid of the chemical weapons, that that would eliminate the need for us taking a military strike.” Within weeks, Kerry, working with his Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, would engineer the removal of most of Syria’s chemical-weapons arsenal—a program whose existence Assad until then had refused to even acknowledge.
This was the moment the president believes he finally broke with what he calls, derisively, the “Washington playbook.” I have come to believe that, in Obama’s mind, August 30, 2013, was his liberation day, the day he defied not only the foreign-policy establishment and its cruise-missile playbook, but also the demands of America’s frustrating, high-maintenance allies in the Middle East—countries, he complains privately to friends and advisers, that seek to exploit American “muscle” for their own narrow and sectarian ends. By 2013, Obama’s resentments were well developed. He resented military leaders who believed they could fix any problem if the commander in chief would simply give them what they wanted, and he resented the foreign-policy think-tank complex. A widely held sentiment inside the White House is that many of the most prominent foreign-policy think tanks in Washington are doing the bidding of their Arab and pro-Israel funders. I’ve heard one administration official refer to Massachusetts Avenue, the home of many of these think tanks, as “Arab-occupied territory.” [Leon Panetta was another hawk.]
He described a relationship with Putin that doesn’t quite conform to common perceptions. I had been under the impression that Obama viewed Putin as nasty, brutish, and short. But, Obama told me, Putin is not particularly nasty. “The truth is, actually, Putin, in all of our meetings, is scrupulously polite, very frank. Our meetings are very businesslike. He never keeps me waiting two hours like he does a bunch of these other folks.” Obama said that Putin believes his relationship with the U.S. is more important than Americans tend to think. “He’s constantly interested in being seen as our peer and as working with us, because he’s not completely stupid. He understands that Russia’s overall position in the world is significantly diminished. 
Obama’s theory here is simple: Ukraine is a core Russian interest but not an American one, so Russia will always be able to maintain escalatory dominance there.
Right after Obama’s reversal, Hillary Clinton said privately, “If you say you’re going to strike, you have to strike. There’s no choice.”
Here is Prince Turki’s attempted defense of the Kingdom:
‘A top Saudi Arabian intelligence chief said on Monday that President Barack Obama failed to appreciate all that the kingdom has done to stabilize the Middle East, fight terrorism and support American priorities, hitting back after the president called Middle Eastern governments “free riders” on US initiatives. “You accuse us of fomenting sectarian strife in Syria, Yemen and Iraq,” Turki al-Faisal, a Saudi prince and former ambassador to the United States and Britain, wrote in an open letter published Monday in the English-language Arab News. “You add insult to injury by telling us to share our world with Iran, a country that you describe as a supporter of terrorism.” Al-Faisal’s letter was a response to comments Obama made in a much-discussed interview with The Atlantic magazine in which Obama referred to the Saudis and other allies as “free riders” who push the United States to act but contribute little themselves. Obama has long been cooler toward the Saudis and other Arab allies than his predecessor, but his willingness to forcefully criticize them stunned many in Washington’s foreign policy establishment.’

Monday, 20 July 2015

BotWatch Special - The MH17 VicSims










Arthur Goldberg and the Six Day War


Arthur J. Goldberg, another of the resolution's drafters, concurred that Resolution 242 does not dictate the extent of the withdrawal, and added that this matter should be negotiated between the parties:

"Does Resolution 242 as unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council require the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from all of the territories occupied by Israel during the 1967 war? 

The answer is NO

In the resolution, the words the and all are omitted. Resolution 242 calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the 1967 conflict, without specifying the extent of the withdrawal. The resolution, therefore, neither commands nor prohibits total withdrawal.

If the resolution is ambiguous, and purposely so, on this crucial issue, how is the withdrawal issue to be settled? 

By direct negotiations between the concerned parties. Resolution 242 calls for agreement between them to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement. Agreement and acceptance necessarily require negotiations."

He is one of the concerned parties.

Tarpley :
"It is clear that the B'nai B'rith is an abject tool of British intelligence, run and directed to serve the interests of British imperial policy, and not the interests of Jews, nor even of B'nai B'rith members. The one peculiarity of B'nai B'rith in comparison to the other organizations launched by Palmerston and his three stooges, is that B'nai B'rith will be used for a wider variety of tasks in various countries and epochs. Therefore, the B'nai B'rith will be more permanent in its continuous organization than its Mazzinian counterparts, among which it stands out as the most specialized.
At the end of this century, one of the tasks assigned to the B'nai B'rith will be to direct, with the help of other Mazzinian agents, the dismemberment and partition of the Ottoman Empire. This is the state the British will call "the sick man of Europe." Historically, the Ottoman Empire offers surprising tolerance to its ethnic minorities. In order to blow up the empire, that will have to be changed into brutal racial oppression on the Mazzini model."





"An irony that made the circumstance all the more agonising for me personally, was that [Associate Justice] Abe Fortas had never wanted to sit on the Supreme Court in the first place.

The events leading to his appointment began on the afternoon of July 16 1965, when Ambassador John Kenneth Galbraith and his wife visited me in the Oval Office. During our conversation Galbraith said that he believed Arthur Goldberg, then an Associate Justice on the Court would step down from his position to take a job that woul be more challenging to him. Galbraith speculated that he might accept an appointment either as secretary of Health, Education and Welfare (a position soon to be vacated by Tony Celebrezze) or as Ambassador of the United Nations, to replace Adlai Stevenson, who had died three days earlier. Frankly, I was surprised. I was aware that Goldberg, an activist, became restless on the bench from time to time, and I knew that as Secretary of Labour under President Kennedy he had yearned for more freedom and activity. But I could not imagine him giving up his seat on the Supreme Court.

Three days later, on July 19, Justice Goldberg flew to Illinois with me to attend Ambassador Stevenson's funeral. I mentioned that I had heard reports that he mighty ten down from the Court and therefore might be available for another assignment. He told me that these reports had substance.

I said that I would like to see him in the Cabinet as Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, because that was a department which required imagination and leadership at the top. He replied that the job sounded fascinating but that he had become increasingly interested in foreign affairs.

That was the extent of our conversation that day. I asked Justice Goldberg to "think about it some more" and said that we would discuss it late. The next day, he called Jack Valenti and told him that the job he would accept was the UN ambassadorship, if I offered it to him. I appointed him to the United Nations and I felt that he was an excellent choice. He was a skilled arbiter and a fair-minded man, and he had experience in both domestic and foreign affairs, qualities that I believed would make him an outstanding representative of our nation in that crucial international organisation.

Subsequently, I nominated Abe Fortas to fill the vacant seat on the Court."



Adlai E. Stevenson, United States Ambassador to the United Nations, has been named to receive the America’s Democratic Legacy award, given annually by the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, it was announced today by Henry Edward Schultz, the League’s national chairman.
The ADL award, a silver medallion, has been given each year since 1948 to individuals and institutions for “distinguished contributions to the enrichment of America’s democratic heritage.” 
Previous winners include former Presidents Eisenhower and Truman, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Herbert Lehman, among others. Last year, the award was presented to Harvard, Notre Dame and Brandeis Universities.
LONDON (Oct. 22)
The triennial convention of the B’nai B’rith here, held in connection with the international observance of the 120th anniversary of the fraternal order, today adopted a resolution expressing the hope that the Soviet Government would extend to Russian Jews equality of treatment and freedom to practice their religion.

Messages from retiring Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, Labor Party leader Harold Wilson, Adlai Stevenson, head of the United States delegation to the United Nations and other dignitaries were read at a banquet held here last night to mark the anniversary.

Philip M. Klutznick, former international president of B’nai B’rith and former United States Ambassador to the UN, was the guest of honor at the banquet. He said that “the promised land envisaged by B’nai B’rith is the concept of a meaningful Jewish life perpetuated despite new challenges.”

Jack Morrison, Grand President of the British B’nai B’rith, presented Mr. Klutznick with a check for $1,000 for the Eleanor Roosevelt Memorial Fund of which the latter is chairman.

NEW YORK (Jan. 14)

President Kennedy today hailed the B’nai B’rith Anti-Defamation League "as a spokesman for equality and justice, and as a guardian of democratic rights" which is "making important contributions" to America’s democratic legacy.

The President made his statement in a message to Henry Edward Schultz, national chairman of the League, in connection with the presentation of the organization’s annual "America’s Democratic Legacy Award" to Adlai E. Stevenson, chairman of the United States delegation to the United Nations. The award was given today at a luncheon culminating the ADL’s 49th annual meeting, at the Plaza Hotel here.

In accepting the award, Mr. Stevenson stressed that the United States "has already proved beyond any possible doubt, for ourselves and all the world, that there is no barrier of race or worship or culture which the unflinching practice of democratic brotherhood cannot cross." Among the speakers today was Philip M. Klutznick, honorary president of B’nai B’rith, and United States Ambassador to the United Nations, where he represents the delegation headed by Mr. Stevenson on the UN Economic and Social Council.

America's 'Young America' movement:
Slaveholders and the B'nai B'rith

by Anton Chaitkin

Chorus: Ten years from now, in 1860, Lord Palmerston's quest for world empire will enter its most critical phase: the American Civil War, provoked by Young America and other pro-British networks. A French army will be in Mexico, propping up Maximilian. Britain will ready the fleet and send troops to Canada. The only support for Lincoln's beleaguered Union will come from the Russian Empire of Czar Alexander II, with two Russian fleets being sent to American ports in 1863 with orders from the czar to join Lincoln in fighting Britain and France should general war break out. Mazzini, Urquhart, and their assets will pull out all the stops to isolate Russia and blow up eastern Europe.
In the midst of these preparations, we have the emergence of Young Israel—B'nai B'rith—as an ideal British weapon against both the United States and Russia, and also against other nations. Lord Palmerston's interest in Zionism was stimulated during the Middle East crisis of 1840, when France backed a rebellious satrap of the Ottoman sultan. The British found that while the French were the official protectors of the Roman Catholics in the Turkish Empire, and the Russians the patrons of the Orthodox, the British had no group of Anglicans or Puritans to sponsor. The British turned their attention to Armenians and Jews. Palmerston ordered British diplomats to take Jewish communities under their protection, since Britain was "the natural guardian of the Jews." This gave the British a foot in the door in the Middle East, and also in Russia, including Russian Poland, where 50% of world Jewry then resided. At this time, Palmerston's son-in-law, the Earl of Shaftesbury, wrote that "it may be safely asserted that [the Jews] contemplate a restoration to the soil of Palestine." Shaftesbury was talking through his hat: He admitted that many Jews "will prefer a seat in the House of Commons in England to a seat under their vines and fig trees in Palestine." But the British resolve to settle Jews in Palestine was clear.
The founder of Zionism in its modern, British-sponsored form is not Theodor Herzl, but a certain Moses Hess. Hess converted Friedrich Engels to communism, and wrote parts of Marx's German Ideology. In 1861, Hess will write Rome and Jerusalem, which attacks Moses Mendelssohn for the idea that Judaism is a religion and a culture. For Hess, Judaism is a race in Mazzini's blood-and-soil sense, and therefore must have a homeland. Yet another of Palmerston's theme parks will open its doors.

In the B'nai B'rith's official, authorized history, it says: "B'nai B'rith's relationship to the Civil War presents something of a mystery." They say that the arrest of the B'nai B'rith's leader in Washington as a Confederate spymaster was unfair. They say that no one can account for why the group was not pro-Union, whereas most Jews were pro-Union, and B'nai B'rith's lodges were almost all located in the North. Indeed, Jewish soldiers in the Union Army were intensely proud, mostly German-speaking immigrant, anti-slavery Republicans.

To solve the mystery, we go back 20 years before the start of the American Civil War.
British Foreign Minister Palmerston launched Zionism in 1840. He wrote that the Jews desired to return to Palestine (Abba Eban points out that the Jews knew nothing about this); and a month later, the British landed troops in Palestine for the first time.
B'nai B'rith was started officially in 1843 by some obscure Freemasons in New York, as a secret society "like Freemasonry" for Jews. B'nai B'rith was to shape and lead a particular political faction, with a particular agenda, within the Jewish community.
The agenda for this project came out in a famous speech given two years later at South Carolina College. The speaker was Edwin DeLeon, from a Jewish family in South Carolina that was already notorious for its involvement in the slave trade and in Scottish Rite Freemasonry. DeLeon was later a leader of the Confederate Secret Service.
DeLeon praised his teacher at the school, Thomas Cooper, an English atheist and Lord Shelburne's adventurer, who had first proposed that the South secede from the Union. DeLeon hailed Cooper as a tender-hearted religious heretic and "an earnest ... disciple of the school of Bentham and Malthus."
DeLeon said, "There is a 'Young Germany,' a 'Young France,' and a 'Young England'—and why not a 'Young America'?" He told the students: Any great civil convulsion comes from a source that is unexpected and obscure. In the French Revolution, the priests and nobles were only the flax with which the flame was kindled. But those who first applied the spark were the filthy, obscure savants of the Englightenment. DeLeon reminded the students that the actors in that drama were only its creatures, not its creators.
He then proposed revolutionary military action as the idea for his Young America, to spread what he called "freedom"—by force.
The "Young America" idea first bore its bitter fruit when U.S. President James Polk ordered American troops to invade Mexico. Young Congressman Abraham Lincoln exposed the President as a fraud; he denounced the Mexican war as a slaveowners' conspiracy that would wreck our country. Lincoln was driven out of politics until 12 years later.
This British project matured in the mid-1850s, and its active focus shifted to the West. There were two important partners out there: Isaac M. Wise, a B'nai B'rith Midwest leader based in Cincinnati; and Killian H. Van Rensselaer, a British military operative and Scottish Rite Mason northern leader, also based in Cincinnati. Between 1854 and 1860, they spread a pro-slavery, secessionist-terrorist group along the route extending down the Mississippi valley to Louisiana and Texas: the Knights of the Golden Circle. Wise's B'nai B'rith organization spread southward along the identical route. Their plan was to spread slavery into Latin America and the U.S. West, and break up the U.S.A. into several small countries.
In Louisiana, U.S. Sen. Judah Benjamin and Scottish Rite Southern Mason leader Albert Pike worked together on this terrorist secession project. There is a bust of Albert Pike in New Orleans, celebrating his work in that pre-war southern base for the Scottish Rite, the Knights, and B'nai B'rith. Judah Benjamin's relative (his uncle's brother Manny) had earlier written the masonic order creating the Northern Scottish Rite organization, in which Wise and Van Rensselaer were now leaders.

A trail of treason

To start the Civil War, this pre-organized anti-Union terrorist force would strike for secession in the South. Those who stayed in the North during the War would be known as "Copperheads," with headquarters in Ohio.
Before the war, Isaac Wise had two B'nai B'rith local leaders in Cleveland: Simon Wolf and Benjamin F. Peixotto. Wolf and Peixotto also worked as political agents for Democratic Party boss August Belmont, the U.S. representative of the Rothschild banks—chief moneybags of the British crown, and British puppets. Banker Belmont paid for the Knights of the Golden Circle and Young America projects, which he helped plan while he was U.S. ambassador to the Netherlands.
Benjamin Peixotto was editor of the Cleveland Plain Dealer, a violently pro-Copperhead paper which furious citizens forced to shut down during the war. Wolf and Peixotto ran a Hebrew amateur acting group, which included their non-Hebrew friend John Wilkes Booth.
The war started in 1861. Simon Wolf went to Washington as the B'nai B'rith representative in the national capital, joining Albert Pike's Southern Scottish Rite and Judah Benjamin's Confederate Secret Service operations. Wolf was almost immediately arrested by U.S. Army Counterintelligence director Lafayette Baker, who worked directly for President Abraham Lincoln and for Lincoln's Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton. The B'nai B'rith was understood to be a Confederate intelligence front. B'nai B'rith's official history says that the "cruel" and "ruthless" Colonel Baker had Simon Wolf arrested "solely because he was a member of B'nai B'rith." At the time, they say, Wolf was "defending several Southern Jews arrested in Washington and charged with being Confederate spies."
Meanwhile in Cincinnati, Isaac Wise's cohort Julius Ochs got in trouble when his wife, Bertha, was arrested for smuggling drugs to the Confederate Army in her son's baby carriage. Later, Julius and Bertha's son, the white supremacist Adolph Ochs, married Isaac Wise's daughter, and then bought the New York Times. Their daughter married Arthur Sulzberger.
The U.S. Navy won an 1862 Mississippi River battle, and the U.S. Army took Memphis, Tennessee. Isaac Wise's Memphis B'nai B'rith agent, the British-born Abraham E. Frankland, was arrested, and admitted being a Confederate spymaster. Julius Ochs sent him supplies in jail the same day, and Frankland was released on a $20,000 bond. We'll hear more of this degenerate Frankland shortly.
The next year, B'nai B'rith leader Isaac Wise was nominated at an Ohio Convention to run for state senator on the radical anti-Union Copperhead election ticket. Wise's running mate for Ohio governor was Clement Vallandigham, then in exile in Canada, whom President Lincoln had banished from the country as America's leading traitor.
The B'nai B'rith leader's candidacy caused a crisis and a newspaper scandal. The Cincinnati Jewish community was overwhelmingly pro-Union. His own synagogue issued a formal demand for him to withdraw; Wise was forced off the ticket.

The conspiracy to kill Lincoln

At the close of the war, on April 14, 1865, John Wilkes Booth shot President Abraham Lincoln while another man simultaneously attacked Secretary of State William Seward. Lincoln died the next day.
Here are some basic facts of the murder. Some months before he shot Lincoln, John Wilkes Booth deposited funds in the Montreal, Canada bank regularly used by the operatives of Confederate Secret Service head Judah Benjamin. John Surrat, a regular Judah Benjamin agent, confessed to plotting with Booth to abduct Lincoln, and admitted to using that Montreal bank for Benjamin's funds.
In the museum which they keep at the assassination site at Ford's Theatre, the National Parks Service displays a decoding sheet, found by police in John Wilkes Booth's trunk. Displayed alongside it is a matching coding device which was found in the office of Judah Benjamin.
At the time John Wilkes Booth shot Lincoln, Booth's old acquaintance Benjamin Peixotto was international president of the B'nai B'rith. Only hours before going to Ford's Theatre to shoot the President, Booth met with his old friend B'nai B'rith Washington chief Simon Wolf, for a confidential discussion over some drinks. Simon Wolf later claimed that at this meeting, Booth told him about a woman who had turned down Booth's marriage proposal. That evening, Booth murdered Abraham Lincoln, and Wolf attributed the killing to Booth's anguish over his broken heart. (So, the "lone assassin" story of John Hinckley and Jody Foster is an old story.) Simon Wolf was later a prime founder of the Anti-Defamation League.

Albert Pike's Ku Klux Klan

After the war, the Ku Klux Klan was started up in Tennessee to stop newly freed blacks from voting. With their occult-satanic rituals and costumes, the KKK burned and tortured blacks and pro-U.S.A. whites. The Klan's national headquarters was in Memphis, where KKK leaders Albert Pike and Nathan B. Forrest lived and attended lodge together.
Memphis B'nai B'rith leader Abraham Frankland was an intimate friend of Albert Pike. Frankland had been in the Pike-Benjamin spy apparatus, and wrote a blistering attack on the U.S. attempt to reconstruct the South under equal rights. Frankland now stayed on to aid Pike in his postwar task.
A notebook of Frankland's Kabbalistic Researches is kept in the American Jewish Archives, Cincinnati. It is a compendium of espionage ciphers, black magic symbols, masonic ritual, and pagan religion. In his preface, Frankland acknowledges aid to his religious research by Albert Gallatin Mackey, grand secretary of the Scottish Rite, "and the Book Lohar on the Sephiroth, kindly loaned to me by Gen'l Albert Pike."
KKK boss Pike was simultaneously working on his own satanic masterpiece, Morals and Dogma, published in 1871.
On page 38 of Kabbalistic Researches, Frankland lists assorted gods passed down by tradition from ancient times, including "Four of the thirteen great Gods of Assyria," plus the god "Bel." Mackey writes that Frankland's god Bel is a form of Baal, and was worshipped by the Babylonians as their chief deity. This is, of course, the false god which the Old Testament Jewish prophets fought to expunge from Israel. Mackey says that since 1871 the Royal Arch Masonic system has combined Bel with "Jah" for Jehova and "On" for the Egyptian sun god, into "JahBelOn," as an "explanation" of God. The Hebrew menorah blasphemously used in the Royal Arch Masonic ritual is displayed in the Alexandria, Virginia masonic temple.
Other pages of Frankland's notebook contain "Cypher" and "Private Cypher," "Philosophical and Hermetic Alphabet," "Cypher of the Rose Cross," and "Ten Cabalistic Spheres."
In his Morals and Dogma, KKK boss Albert Pike celebrates the collaboration between these two Memphis masonic chiefs, Pike and Frankland, at the height of the bloodiest assassination wave in U.S. history. Pike says, "One is filled with admiration, on penetrating into the Sanctuary of the Kabalah, at seeing a doctrine so logical, so simple, and at the same time so absolute ... a philosophy summed up by counting on one's fingers.... Ten ciphers and twenty-two letters, a triangle, a square, and a circle—these are all the elements of the Kabalah."
So, upon the triumph of their KKK, Albert Pike appointed Abraham Frankland the head of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry for the state of Tennessee, and an emeritus member of the Supreme Council. Simultaneously, Isaac Wise appointed Abraham Frankland the president of the B'nai B'rith district for Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, and Arkansas.
At the beginning of this century, Isaac Wise's grandson Adolph Ochs, the owner of the New York Times, wrote a series of editorials attacking black voting rights in those southern states. This vicious editorial campaign helped swing the North behind the new anti-black Jim Crow laws which were then being written, which finally reversed rights gained by Union blood during the civil war. The Ochs-Sulzberger family, a great power in the B'nai B'rith, has remained in control of the New York Times ever since.

Afterword

Chorus: Sometimes persons who have been used by British intelligence manage to assert their own humanity and rebel. Take the example of Simón Bolívar, the liberator of several countries in Ibero-America. After a lifetime of cooperation with Bentham and his agents, Bolívar realized his mistake and repudiated his former associate. This took the form, first of all, of an 1828 decree banning in Colombia all secret societies and fraternities, described as groups "disrupting public tranquility and the established order."

At about the same time, Bolívar issued another proclamation outlawing the teaching of Bentham in the university. Bolívar attacked Bentham and his school as "opposed to religion, to morality, and to the tranquility of the people," and as a contributing cause in conspiracies and disorders in Bogotá. Bolivar concluded that youth was being "given a deadly poison through those authors, which destroyed their religion and morals."
To replace Bentham, Bolívar mandated study of Latin, morals and natural law, constitutional law, and the foundations of the Roman Catholic faith.

Palmerston launches Young Turks



to permanently control Middle East

by Joseph Brewda

Chorus: It is clear that the B'nai B'rith is an abject tool of British intelligence, run and directed to serve the interests of British imperial policy, and not the interests of Jews, nor even of B'nai B'rith members. The one peculiarity of B'nai B'rith in comparison to the other organizations launched by Palmerston and his three stooges, is that B'nai B'rith will be used for a wider variety of tasks in various countries and epochs. Therefore, the B'nai B'rith will be more permanent in its continuous organization than its Mazzinian counterparts, among which it stands out as the most specialized.
At the end of this century, one of the tasks assigned to the B'nai B'rith will be to direct, with the help of other Mazzinian agents, the dismemberment and partition of the Ottoman Empire. This is the state the British will call "the sick man of Europe." Historically, the Ottoman Empire offers surprising tolerance to its ethnic minorities. In order to blow up the empire, that will have to be changed into brutal racial oppression on the Mazzini model.
In 1862, during the time of the American Civil War, Mazzini will call on all his agents anywhere near Russia to foment revolt as a way of causing trouble for Alexander II. A bit later, with the help of Young Poland, Mazzini will start a Young Ottoman movement out of an Adam Smith translation project in Paris. In 1876, the Young Ottomans will briefly seize power in Constantinople. They will end a debt moratorium, pay off the British, declare free trade, and bring in Anglo-French bankers. They will be quickly overthrown; but the same network will soon make a comeback as the Young Turks, whose rule will finally destroy the Ottoman Empire.

In 1908, the Committee for Union and Progress, better known as the Young Turks, carried out a military coup, overthrew the sultan, and took power in the Ottoman Turkish empire. Once in power, they carried out a racist campaign of suppressing all non-Turkish minorities. Within four years, their anti-minority campaigns provoked the Balkan wars of 1912-13, among Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria, and Serbia. By 1914, these wars had triggered World War I, with Turkey becoming an ally of Germany.
Within seven years of coming into power, the Young Turks destroyed the Ottoman Empire. British intelligence had manipulated every nationalist group in the Empire, both the Young Turks, and their opponents.
When the Young Turks took power, the Ottoman Empire still included Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Palestine, and the Arabian Peninsula. The empire still included much of the Balkans: half of Greece, half of Bulgaria, half of Serbia, and all of Albania. Its land area was much bigger than present-day Turkey.
Although most of the population of the Ottoman empire were Turks, there were also large numbers of Slavs, Greeks, Arabs, Armenians, and Kurds. The Ottoman empire was a multi-ethnic empire, as were the nearby Austrian and Russian empires.
The Young Turks came to power waving the banner of democracy, but they soon picked up the banner of pan-Turkism. The idea was to form a state that included all the Turkic peoples of Asia. Since half of these people lived in Russia, this policy meant a collision with Russia.
But pan-Turkism was not created by the Young Turks or even in Turkey. It was first called for in the 1860s by a Hungarian Zionist named Arminius Vambery, who had become an adviser to the sultan, but who secretly worked for Lord Palmerston and the British Foreign Office. Vambery later tried to broker a deal between the Zionist leader Theodor Herzl and the sultan, over the creation of Israel.
The Young Turks also raised the banner of a pan-Islamic state. The idea was to bring all the Muslim peoples of the world into one empire, whether or not they were Turkish. This was another goal that meant conflict with Russia.
This idea was also not created by the Young Turks or in Turkey. It was first called for in the 1870s by an English nobleman named Wilfred Blunt, whose family had created the Bank of England. Blunt was a top British intelligence official who advocated using Islam to destroy Russia. Blunt's family later patronized the British KGB spy "Kim" Philby.
While the Young Turks were pushing the pan-Turkic and pan-Islamic movements, the British were also boosting all the anti-Turkish independence movements within the empire. They were supporting Arab nationalism, led by Lawrence of Arabia. They were supporting Serbian nationalism, led by the British agent Seton-Watson; Albanian nationalism, led by Lady Dunham; and Bulgarian nationalism, led by Noel Buxton. All of these peoples wanted to break free from the Ottoman Empire; but they also claimed the land of their neighbors.
For example, the British supported the idea of carving a "Greater Armenia" out of Turkey, Iran, and Russia. This "Greater Armenia" had no possibility of existing. None of the Great Powers, including Britain, really wanted it. The Kurds, who lived in the same area, didn't want it. But the British told the Armenians they supported their plans.
At the same time, the British were also telling the Kurds they supported the idea of "Greater Kurdistan." As the map shows, the proposed territories of "Greater Kurdistan" and "Greater Armenia" were almost identical.
In 1915, during World War I, the Kurds killed about 1 million Armenians. The Young Turks, who had been put in power by the British, used the Kurds (who thought they had the support of the British) to slaughter the Armenians (who also thought they had the support of the British). The British then used this genocide as a justification for trying to eliminate Turkey.
In fact, the next year, the British and French got together to plan the division of the Ottoman Empire between themselves. According to the plan, which only partially worked, Turkey itself would be reduced to a tiny area on the Black Sea. The rest of the empire would go to Britain and France.

B'nai B'rith and the Young Turks

But who were these "Young Turks," who so efficiently destroyed the empire?
The founder of the Young Turks was an Italian B'nai B'rith official named Emmanuel Carasso. Carasso set up the Young Turk secret society in the 1890s in Salonika, then part of Turkey, and now part of Greece. Carasso was also the grand master of an Italian masonic lodge there, called "Macedonia Resurrected." The lodge was the headquarters of the Young Turks, and all the top Young Turk leadership were members.
The Italian masonic lodges in the Ottoman Empire had been set up by a follower of Giuseppe Mazzini named Emmanuel Veneziano, who was also a leader of B'nai B'rith's European affiliate, the Universal Israelite Alliance.
During the Young Turk regime, Carasso continued to play a leading role. He met with the sultan, to tell him that he was overthrown. He was in charge of putting the sultan under house arrest. He ran the Young Turk intelligence network in the Balkans. And he was in charge of all food supplies in the empire during World War I.
Another important area was the press. While in power, the Young Turks ran several newspapers, including The Young Turk, whose editor was none other than the Russian Zionist leader Vladimir Jabotinsky. Jabotinsky had been educated as a young man in Italy. He later described Mazzini's ideas as the basis for the Zionist movement.
Jabotinsky arrived in Turkey shortly after the Young Turks seized power, to take over the paper. The paper was owned by a member of the Turkish cabinet, but it was funded by the Russian Zionist federation, and managed by B'nai B'rith. The editorial policy of the paper was overseen by a Dutch Zionist named Jacob Kann, who was the personal banker of the king and queen of the Netherlands.
Jabotinsky later created the most anti-Arab of all the Zionist organizations, the Irgun. His followers in Israel today are the ones most violently opposed to the Peres-Arafat peace accords.
Another associate of Carasso was Alexander Helphand, better known as Parvus, the financier of the 1905 and 1917 Russian revolutions. Shortly after 1905, Parvus moved to Turkey, where he became the economics editor of another Young Turk newspaper called The Turkish Homeland. Parvus became a business partner of Carasso in the grain trade, and an arms supplier to the Turkish army during the Balkan wars. He later returned to Europe, to arrange the secret train that took Lenin back to Russia, in 1917.
Of course, there were also some Turks who helped lead the Young Turk movement. For example, Talaat Pasha. Talaat was the interior minister and dictator of the regime during World War I. He had been a member of Carasso's Italian masonic lodge in Salonika. One year prior to the 1908 coup, Talaat became the grand master of the Scottish Rite Masons in the Ottoman Empire. If you go to the Scottish Rite headquarters in Washington, D.C., you can find that most of the Young Turk leaders were officials in the Scottish Rite.
But who founded the Scottish Rite in Turkey? One of the founders was the grand master of the Scottish Rite in France, Adolph Cremieux, who also happened to be the head of the B'nai B'rith's European affiliate. Cremieux had been a leader of Mazzini's Young France, and helped put the British stooge Napoleon III into power.

The British controller: Aubrey Herbert

You can find the story of the Young Turks in the B'nai B'rith and Scottish Rite archives, but you cannot find it in history books. The best public account is found in the novel Greenmantle, whose hero is a British spy who led the Young Turks. Carasso appears in the novel under the name Carusso. The author, John Buchan, who was a British intelligence official in World War I, later identified the novel's hero as Aubrey Herbert.
In real life, Herbert was from one of the most powerful noble families in England. The family held no fewer than four earldoms. His repeated contact with Carasso and other Young Turk leaders is a matter of public record. Herbert's grandfather had been a patron of Mazzini and died leading revolutionary mobs in Italy in 1848. His father was in charge of British Masonry in the 1880s and 1890s. His uncle was the British ambassador to the United States. During World War I, Herbert was the top British spymaster in the Middle East. Lawrence of Arabia later identified Herbert as having been, at one time, the head of the Young Turks.
The U.S. State Department also played a role in the conspiracy. From 1890 through World War I, there were three U.S. ambassadors to Turkey: Oscar Straus, Abraham Elkin, and Henry Morgenthau. All three were friends of Simon Wolf. And all three were officials of B'nai B'rith.