Wednesday 2 April 2014

British Subversion of the United States : The Militias and Pentecostalism




British Subversion of the United States:

Who is wagging your neighbor's tongue?

The militias and Pentecostalism

by Anton Chaitkin

"The greatest threat from terrorism in the United States comes from people who are associated with a British Church of England-run Pentecostalist movement inside the United States. It is this apparatus which has structured the militias. Now, most people in the militia movement, or associated with it, have no part of the intentions of those who are behind it, particularly that section in the Episcopal Church, or Pat Robertson, who's part of this same movement, who are barking--authentically barking--Pentecostalists, who, with their connections with the military, deeply embedded in the military, including the ... corps of chaplains in the U.S. military, are largely controlled, presently, by outright barking Pentecostalists.... This is the ... main source of the internal threat of the potential for terrorism, and other kinds of treason inside the United States, today."

--Lyndon LaRouche, "EIR Talks," July 30, 1997.

Two years after the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal building, a stream of lies is pouring through British-run media sewers, preparing credulous populists to view terrorism, or even civil war, as inevitable.

The grotesque joke is on the American populists. Their paramilitary militias, and Pentecostal sects, are creations of the very "Godless internationalists" they believe they are resisting. The British Empire high church apparatus seeks to reduce the American mind to that of a clown, a hypnotized "Christian" who babbles or barks like a dog; a "patriot" numbed by anti-government gossip and Armageddonism, so that he sees his own nation as his enemy.

Will these Americans provide cover, and become patsies, for criminal outrages by professional terrorists? In hopes that, instead, they will get out of the game, and turn their righteous anger against their manipulators, we offer this report on how the game is rigged.

This investigation began with a probe into the armed standoff between police and "Republic of Texas" members demanding the secession of Texas, in April 1997. This writer telephoned into the besieged compound and interviewed Richard Otto, alias "White Eagle," who said he was asking members of militias around the country to come to the site, armed for a shootout.

I checked Otto's background, and then shared my findings informally with militia members and others who might have been drawn into the provocation. Otto, it turns out, had been trained and set into motion by an Air Force officer who toured the world practicing New Age pagan rituals, in consultation with senior British intelligence drug-rock-sex gurus such as Gregory Bateson. This unappetizing profile, subsequently spread around by wary militants themselves, helped to discredit and defeat the provocation.

While Otto and his band surrendered on May 3, reports flooded into this news service of continuing, outrageous provocations. Among these was the bizarre case of an anti-government Texas demagogue with important military connections, one Jim Ammerman, whose incitements have been widely circulating among separatists and militia members.

A Pentecostal clergyman and retired Army colonel, Ammerman now controls chaplains currently serving in the U.S. Armed Forces around the world, as well as within prisons, and even in the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He claims supernatural prophetic powers, preaches the imminent end of the world, denounces the U.S. government as illegal, and says the President has deserved execution. During the April siege, Ammerman "mediated" between the Texas separatists and the FBI.

As EIR inquired further into the origins of the Ammerman operation, and how it is protected within the U.S. military, a much broader picture came into view. Described here are:

  • Colonel Ammerman's agent methods;
  • Britain's militia adventures among Ammerman's clients, and the Oklahoma City bombing; +the highest-ranking U.S. general who was captured by Pentecostal mind-benders, and who created Ammerman's anti-government agitation bureau;
  • how British Empire master-race theorists concocted Pentecostalism; their colonial religious experiments among blacks in the United States and Africa;
  • the America-hating, feudalist, high church aristocrats and globalists who pushed through "charismatic renewal"; and
  • the national security danger from this British-owned military, paramilitary, and religious apparatus, including such operatives as Pat Robertson.

Colonel Ammerman: Treason in the Army

A videotape is circulating among the militia networks, entitled "The Imminent Military Takeover of the United States." This is a speech by the Rev. Jim Ammerman to the Prophecy Club of Topeka, Kansas. Ammerman warns that the President, aided by masses of foreign troops already on American soil, will soon put the nation under martial law--if God does not end the world before the current President can act. Ammerman decrees that President Bill Clinton should long ago have been executed, for avoiding the Vietnam draft.

Ammerman, who retired in 1977 as a U.S. Army colonel and chaplain, is described by the Prophecy Club as a former Green Beret and "CIA official" with 26 years in the military, and top-secret security clearance. He is the leader of some 200 chaplains now serving in the U.S. Armed Forces under the banner of his group, the Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches. His chaplains presumably speak in tongues and perform supernatural cures, as does he. He tells his audience that his chaplains provide him with inside information about military activities ordered by what he claims is the illegal dictatorship of the U.S. President.

Ammerman's frantic tapes and faxes have been pushed all over the populist and Pentecostal milieu, and to the members of the Republic of Texas group. Douglas Towne, manager of a ghostly Ammerman-led intelligence group called the Mount Rushmore Foundation, told this reporter that the Ammerman circle had extensive communications with the chief provocateur in the siege, Richard Otto ("White Eagle"). Towne calls Otto "a real soldier ... just like Tim McVeigh [convicted in the Oklahoma City bombing], ... who can't be shaken or broken, confident that he has backing."

In recent weeks, Ammerman has spread the warning, or threat, that some form of terrorist act will soon occur, giving the "illegal" U.S. government the pretext for the imposition of martial law.

Why is our government "illegal"? Ammerman's fellow Prophecy Club speaker, Ralph Epperson, explains that the United States was founded by Luciferians, Illuminati communist-masons, in order to usher in Satan's rule.

Ammerman himself is a furious Anglophile. He warns of foreign soldiers on U.S. bases, especially Germans, whom he calls "enemy troops"; but to him, nothing British is foreign. He reviles the U.S.A. historically. John Kennedy's mafia background got him killed, after he had passed the time during the Bay of Pigs crisis by womanizing; Abraham Lincoln was a dictator, understandably murdered, he claims. Ammerman lies that President Clinton has murdered many people to cover his crimes. He thus creates a climate in which Clinton's murder would be "understandable." Meanwhile, he pretends to strangers that God has told him secrets about their personal problems, and that he has supernatural powers to help those who will suspend their reason.

This purported Christian minister, on whose authority the Pentagon employs a large number of its chaplains throughout the world, is no single bad apple. As we shall see, his chaplaincy is a British intelligence and Anglican Church project, involving a former top-level U.S. Army general with responsibility for counterinsurgency, whose brain was scrambled by Pentecostal operatives.

Ammerman lies, whipping up anti-government activists, maneuvering them into terrorism or what looks suspiciously like terrorism. The British have acted through other channels, in tandem with Ammerman, triangulating propaganda fire against the same audience of potential patsies.

Britain's U.S. militias and Oklahoma City

Just before the April 19, 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, Lord William Rees-Mogg, the London Times's strategist of the Conservative Revolution, issued a false report designed to provoke armed clashes between "citizen militias" and the U.S. government. Rees-Mogg's report was in the March 22, 1995 Strategic Investment newsletter, which is published jointly by himself and James Dale Davidson, the head of the U.S.-based National Taxpayers Union. The Rees-Mogg provocation was very widely circulated, by fax and other means, among populists in the U.S. Western states. It read as follows:

"The slaughter of dozens of women and children in Waco by government stormtroopers under the command of Field Marshal Reno may pale in comparison to what has been planned for late March [elsewhere the date is given as March 25]: a nationwide BATF/FBI assault on private militias as the prelude to a possible declaration of martial law throughout the United States. All leaves have been canceled for BATF/FBI personnel.... Government agent provocateurs are set to plant fully automatic and heavy weapons, like rocket launchers, on the property of militia leaders. Every militia in the country--and there are dozens, many of which are well-armed and well-led by former or even active duty officers--is on a state of Red Alert. Should Reno be stupid enough to actually attack them militarily, there is going to be a lot of blood.

"The establishment media is programmed to immediately thereafter thunderously bellow for nationwide gun confiscation and even martial law."

In a later interview with this reporter, Soldier of Fortune writer James Pate claimed credit for originating the story put out by Lord Rees-Mogg; Pate pretended it was fed to him by a source in the Treasury Department Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF). Colorado-based Soldier of Fortune magazine, a global recruitment channel for mercenaries and assassins, was started up in the 1970s with seed money from British Special Air Services operatives in Africa.

On March 25, 1995, reacting to the Rees-Mogg provocation, about 125 hapless militia activists turned out at Cuero, Texas, to see whether they would be arrested or slaughtered on the predicted date. At the rally, Texas Constitutional Militia attorney Carl Haggard, touted as a national militia spokesman in the Soldier of Fortune April issue then on the newsstands, demanded that the militiamen drop politics, and prepare themselves with straight military training. Haggard is a former corporate attorney for the Anglo-Dutch multi, Shell Oil.

The same day as Lord Rees-Mogg's memo went out, March 22, 1995, a very spooky British agent named Jon Roland faxed and e-mailed this warning to journalists and militias: "We have ... reports of possible plans for atrocities to be committed by agents against innocent persons and blamed on militia activists. The atrocity targets include ... homes and families of ... government agents, judges, and elected officials. This would provide a pretext for labeling militiamen `terrorists.'... Crowded public places, to be bombed and the bombings blamed on militia leaders, with evidence to later be planted on them." Four weeks later, 168 died in the Oklahoma City blast.

Jon Roland, the bizarre "prophet" of the bombing, had earlier been promoted in the British press as a leader of angry Americans. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, the London Sunday Telegraph's Washington correspondent, from a prominent British intelligence family, had begun his reportage on America's anti-government paramilitary groups in a Dec. 4, 1994 article datelined Dallas.

"The Texas Constitutional Militia," or "TCM," wrote Evans-Pritchard, "is growing at phenomenal speed.... `We have penetrated the government's electronic intelligence system and we've turned it against them,' says Jon Roland, a former civil rights and environmental activist who helped set up the TCM. `There are lots of Little Brothers watching Big Brother.'|" The quote refers to George Orwell's novel 1984, in which the dictatorial government, "Big Brother," creates false opposition movements secretly under its control. Orwell's novel is modelled on British Empire practice, as in Kenya, where the British set up ineffective opposition to colonialism as "countergangs" to subvert true independence movements.

The private Texas Constitutional Militia was in fact started by Roland. Militia members say that Roland showed up in south Texas in April 1994, around the first anniversary of the Waco massacre. He advertised for patriots to turn out to a "muster," telling those who showed up that he would put them into business as a private militia. He prescribed the form of organization, such as he had used to start up militias in other states: seven-man, self-contained cells, within county groups, to guard against treachery. And he produced a list of contacts which would keep them in touch with authentic information about the national scene.

The conservatives who joined were a bit puzzled when Roland identified himself as a "secular humanist," which is anathema to Christian conservatives--but perhaps his other credentials were in order.

In an April 27, 1995 interview with this author, Roland spoke expansively about his background. He said that his "good buddy" Ambrose Evans-Pritchard had put him "in touch with intelligence agents around the world." He meets periodically with these Evans-Pritchard intelligence community contacts, Roland said, and they give him "inside information."

Roland said he had been sarcastic when he told the militia members he was a secular humanist, and that he is currently a Zen Buddhist. He explained that he has long been an activist of the "international federalist movement"; he advocates the formation of a "true constitutional world government." An ultra-Malthusian environmentalist, Roland has "worked closely with the leadership of the Friends of the Earth," as well as Greenpeace, inhabitants of Prince Philip's stable of environmentalist groups. Roland claims that even as few as "tens of thousands of people, using modern technology, will eventually destroy the Earth" if they are allowed to exist "scattered all over the landscape." Echoing Prince Philip and the World Wildlife Fund, Roland said that "overpopulation" causes Africans "to kill each other."

Militia founder Roland has been a computer specialist for the U.S. Air Force, as an officer and contractor, since 1967. He says that he received specialized training from the Army's 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, Kentucky/Tennessee, the home of the psychological warfare unit that assaulted Panamanian leader Gen. Manuel Noriega. He has written on "Third Wave" computer strategy themes in the Futurist, organ of the World Future Society. He was long a member of a British intelligence front, the L5 Society, promoting Britain's utopian counterstrategy to the hated John Kennedy's Apollo space program.

Six days after the Oklahoma City bombing, NBC TV's "Dateline" program featured an interview with Roland, portrayed only as an angry militia leader and computer specialist, who warned of a civil war in America.

Speaking later to this author, Roland provided a list of his associates in the militia movement that Roland has worked at organizing throughout the United States. First on the Roland list was Bradley P. Glover, a Kansas paramilitary leader.

During July 1997, Glover and six other persons were arrested on charges of plotting to bomb U.S. military bases, beginning with Fort Hood, Texas. The FBI said that Glover and an associate were arrested on July 4 near Fort Hood, in possession of various weapons, and that others in on the alleged plot were charged with possession of pipe bombs and machine guns. The arrests allegedly resulted from Missouri state police infiltration of paramilitary groups. Glover was featured in the Wichita Eagle on April 30, 1995, as perhaps the pre-eminent Kansas militia leader. He is said to lead about 1,000 armed men in the southern half of the state. In a 1995 interview, Glover told this reporter that he had initiated the militia movement in Kansas in November 1994. Glover said he was a former Naval Intelligence officer, but that any contacts that he might have with intelligence agencies at present are "none of your business."

Glover created a movement "against the globalists." Informed by this reporter about Jon Roland's British and World Federalist affiliation, Glover replied that he would have to decline to state whether he himself favored or did not favor world government.

General Haines and Operation Garden Plot

There is an ironic reality, a dangerous half-truth, in the provocative warnings about martial law and military takeover, issued by the British lords and their U.S. assets.

Interviewed by this reporter on May 22, 1997, Jim Ammerman stated: "There is a network of colonels and above, throughout the military, who would stand by the Constitution and against the President. They know who they are, and they are in close communication with each other. They could control the country if they need to."

The "multi-jurisdictional task force" is a repeated theme in Ammerman's exhortations to the militias. The military is allegedly now combined, under the Federal Emergency Management Agency, with other departments of the Federal government and with local governments. When the President tries to use this overreaching military against the people, Ammerman maintains, the "good" military officers will side with armed citizens against the President.

Curiously, Ammerman's own organization was created at the request of an Army officer, Gen. Ralph E. Haines, Jr., who personally supervised the military policing of the population, against which Ammerman directs his rhetoric.

General Haines had been vice chief of staff of the U.S. Army in 1967-68, when he was in charge of counterinsurgency preparations in the continental United States. He worked with the full resources of the Army under him, including military intelligence capabilities, to plan to cope with black ghetto riots and civil disturbances during the Vietnam War. Haines moved his troops into Detroit and Washington, D.C., as riots hit American cities before and after Martin Luther King's assassination. General Haines went public in an April 11, 1968 press conference, describing his "Operation Garden Plot." He had planned and directed the military arrangements for the takeover of every single American city, and arranged the linkages between the military and Justice Department, local police, and state governments.

The April 14, 1968 New York Times reported that Haines "said that detailed military planning for the summer began in February. The `garden plot' preparations were national, he said, including `every city you can think of.' Many officers who were to be assigned to specific cities in a military mobilization visited them in mufti [civilian clothes] to familiarize themselves with the terrain, the social and economic problems of potential riot areas, and the police with whom they would work if called, the general said."

It was this General Haines who asked Ammerman to create his Full Gospel Chaplaincy. In his book, Supernatural Events in the Life of an Ordinary Man, Ammerman says that at first he resisted the Haines project, but at length acceded to it.

The Defense Department received the petition for acceptance of the Full Gospel Chaplaincy in June 1983. After 13 months of resistance by military traditionalists, expressed by a bitter fight within the board of chaplains, the petition was approved in July 1984. This was at the height of the covert operations run though the military and the National Security Council by then-Vice President George Bush and his London allies, and such of their flunkies as Lt. Col. Oliver North (ret.), an Episcopalian speaker-in-tongues.

Colonel Ammerman, the pretended "anti-New World Order crusader," gave George Bush a thank-you salute. Ammerman's 1991 book, After the Storm, about the religious conversions of U.S. soldiers during the Persian Gulf War, opens with President George Bush's prayer proclamation as a preface.

The Haines-Ammerman project was a component of Britain's Pentecostalist political initiative, set in motion within the United States following World War II. This British initiative was to leap ahead in the United States in the 1960s. Haines would be inducted, dazed, and mind-battered into its service in 1971, while he was commander of the Continental U.S. Army Command. Retiring from the Army in 1973, at age 59, Haines then embarked on a second career, in the netherworld of political and covert operations peopled by active-duty, retired, and reserve officers.

In 1978, Haines led a group of American Episcopalian speakers-in-tongues, to Canterbury, England, for a global meeting of the Anglican Church under Queen Elizabeth's Archbishop Donald Coggan. Haines and others, colonials and Brits alike, launched a world crusade to spread Pentecostalism under Anglican guidance.

An Episcopal colleague of Haines, Gen. Albion Knight, U.S. Army (ret.), in a discussion with this reporter on June 5, 1997, lavishly praised the Haines-Ammerman project. A nuclear weapons and logistics specialist, Knight is now a Conservative Revolution leader in Howard Phillips's Taxpayers Party. He explained the strategy put in gear at the 1978 Canterbury meeting: Get away from stuffy high churchism. Get with the people. This hard-charging Anglicanism is "exploding in the Third World"; Africa is especially targetted. Intimately identified with the British authorities and the Church of England, General Knight manages the Church Information Center, which, he says, "feeds information to around 125 leaders, an intelligence network in the Anglican world."

How the general got zapped

In an interview with this reporter on July 28, 1997, General Haines said he asked Colonel Ammerman to initiate the new chaplaincy organization when he and Ammerman were in Europe in the late 1970s. They had both been speaking at a Heidelberg, Germany, military unit of the Full Gospel Businessmen's Fellowship International--a covert, masonic-like core organization of the British religious initiative created in the early 1950s.

Haines described his own fall into the "spirit-filled" world. At that time, military officers, scientists, and others leaders of America's military-industrial complex were being hunted as prizes. He said his wife was "baptized in the Holy Spirit" around 1967 or 1968, some three or four years before his own induction. This gave her "something to occupy herself with" while Haines was commander of the Army for the Pacific region (1968-70), with responsibility for the logisitics of the Vietnam War.

In 1970, Haines became commander of Continental Army Command, headquartered at Fort Monroe, near Norfolk, Virginia. His wife began working with the Pat Robertson organization as a volunteer. Through his wife, and one of Robertson's close associates, an invitation was issued for Haines to speak at a rally of the Full Gospel Businessmen's Fellowship, at a Buffalo, New York hotel, on July 24, 1971.

He said he went there thinking he would give a moderate Christian speech, such as he had given before to the Kiwanis and Rotary clubs. He showed up July 23, the day before he was to speak, in order to "case the joint." But they had him sit at the head table, next to Harald Bredesen. This Bredesen is one of a small central clique of operatives in the Pentecostal initiative, working under the coordination of British Empire agent David J. du Plessis, whose career will be reviewed below. Bredesen is a professional mind-bender in what is best termed Britain's "occult bureau." He inducted Robertson into the game around 1960; Bredesen and the Full Gospel Businessmen then built up Robertson into a multibillion-dollar political empire.

This is how Haines depicted his capture: "The `businessmen' [in the audience] testified; tears ran down their cheeks. I was getting very uncomfortable. I signalled to my aide, let's get going, let's get out of here. But Harald leaned over to me; he said, Are you charismatic? I thought it over. I answered, I don't think so. What did charismatic mean? I thought of George Patton.

"Harald was the speaker. I thought, when in Rome, shoot Roman candles. People were putting up their hands [in uncontrolled fervor]. I put my hands up a little bit--the discreet Episcopal level. People asked me, `General, what's your problem--why only half mast?'

"After Harald gave his talk, there was renewed praising of the Lord. My hands crept up to fully extended. I felt things happening to me. I felt things beyond my comprehension. It was not elation. I was dazed by it. Everyone crowded around me--they could all see something was happening. People closed in on me--I got out--I went to my room; I wanted to be alone. Harald came and ministered to me for a short time.

"The next day I saw that the speech I was to deliver was pabulum. What would satisfy these people? The people were saying, `The general got zapped last night.' So though I used the core of what I had prepared, I now spoke differently, tailoring it to what had happened. I then thought, I don't know what God wants of me but I'm ready to do what He says."

What happened, when General Haines became possessed "by the Holy Spirit" at that rally? In a recent article in Stephen Strang's Charismamagazine, Bredesen explains "the way demons operate. Unclean spirits come into a medium, violate her personality and speak through her." But rest assured, what Bredesen and his sponsors are doing is different. "The Holy Spirit doesn't want mediums, robots or zombies." Do you want to become God's partner? Bredesen instructs you, "Don't speak words your mind understands. As long as you do, your mind will remain in control.

"Don't listen to yourself. Can you imagine a little child learning to talk? Does he say, `Ma-ma-ma-ma,' and then stop with, `I can't say that. That's not language'? No, he just hugs his daddy's neck and prattles away."Charisma publisher Stephen Strang is a trustee of a U.S.-based core leadership team of mind-benders, incorporated as the Charismatic Bible Ministries, along with Ammerman, Oral Roberts, and others in this British outreach initiative. Strang also publishes New Man magazine, organ of the recently formed Promise Keepers cult. In a recent issue, under the title "Worm Training," a cult guide named Wellington Boone explains the religious problem and how this gang solves it:

"People have not yet learned how to become broken.... We are called to be `worms.'... A worm never protests.... Can you say, for Christ, `I am a worm and am no man'?|... Jesus was crushed like a worm. He was slapped. They spat in His face until it ran down His cheeks.... God doesn't raise anything that is not dead.

"If we allow God ... to work into us the idea of `worm-training,' it would be revolutionary. We would gain a worm's-eye view of what God wants.... When we really meet Jesus and allow ourselves to be crushed ... the impact will rock this world."

The 'mystery' of British-Israel solved

Nowadays, 50,000 men and boys are periodically herded into a stadium to babble incoherently, to weep and laugh hysterically for the Promise Keepers. Or, at a specially rigged church at the Toronto, Canada airport, troubled worshippers come from far way to be miraculously cured; they fall into trances on the floor and bark like dogs, in "worship." Civilized humanity is obliged to ask, how has this come about?

The main figure in the creation of today's Pentecostalism, British agent David J. du Plessis, insisted that this phenomenon has no history whatsoever: It simply happened. Writing in 1956, du Plessis claimed, "It [is] clear that it was no man-made cult of `tongues.' Only the `power' of which Jesus spake, could have caused its miraculous growth and establishment" up to that point, from the beginning of the twentieth century. As the "charismatic renewal," a new Pentecostal movement, was just then being geared up in the 1950s, du Plessis lied that "there has never been a man or a movement than can claim the credit for having planned or propagated this world embracing Pentecostal Revival. It is simply the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit ... to bring the `Full Gospel Message' to the whole world in this generation.... This sudden move towards mass evangelism lately ... cannot be attributed to anything else than the spontaneous move of the Holy Spirit."

We shall give here the first serious historical account of the "planning and propagating." We speak now of the high church principalities and powers who have built this new Tower of Babel, who look down with contempt upon their captive babblers, their low churchers, the herd, the worms.

It is necessary first to bring to light a myth known as British Israelism, which stands behind Pentecostalism. This is an evil piece of historical race gossip, spread into American religion, into the ranks of American populists, poisoning the minds of separatists and Armageddon terrorists.

The British monarchy and its prime ministers and Foreign Office fabricated British Israelism in the nineteenth century, from earlier versions of the story. They claimed that Queen Victoria was descended from the Biblical King David, and was thus a descendant of the Davidic family tree that produced Jesus. They taught that the tribes of Israel wandered into northern Europe; that by this supposed genealogy, the British are the real Chosen People, and the British Empire is thus God's empire.

The modern Jews, by this British account, are not the historical Hebrews of Old Testament Israel, but rather, the British are. But, says the British Israel myth, in a leap of logic, the Jews need to be put into Palestine, to fulfill prophecy, get slaughtered in a war with the Muslims, and bring about the End Times.

To provide fuel for this mythology, the royal family asked the British Grand Lodge of Freemasonry to establish the Palestine Exploration Fund. In the 1870s, they dispatched soldier-archeologists to the Holy Land, to dig up supposed religious relics that might impress the cheap fancies of the beggarly masses.

British Israelism designed its Jewish angle to be worked in many politically useful ways, along a spectrum from Nazi anti-Semitism to radical Zionism. The cynical character of this entire travesty may be seen, in the way the story was changed to suit imperial politics. During the 1870s, Germany broke from allegiance to British free trade doctrines. The London "prophets" then reconfigured ancient history. Suddenly, it wasn't Britain and Germany, collectively the Nordic Aryans, who were the wandering Chosen People, but only Britain. Modern Germans, it had been discovered, are the ancient Assyrians!

In his book Religion and the Racist Right: The Origins of the Christian Identity Movement, author Michael Barkun presents a nagging paradox, which he never solves. He reports that British Israelism originates with the British military, the Anglican Church, the British upper classes, who are fanatical loyalists to the government, the British Empire. Yet, this mother has given birth to the Christian Identity Movement, whose racist paranoia and paramilitary anger are aimed against the government, the United States government. Barkun cannot puzzle out the mystery, how the same historical movement can both support the government, and oppose the government!

The British Empire invents Pentecostalism

According to Pentecostal lore, the movement began when a woman spoke in tongues in the church of Charles Fox Parham in Topeka, Kansas, in 1901. Reverend Parham spread the method until it blossomed in the famous Azusa Street, Los Angeles, revival of 1906; from there, disciples took it around the world.

During the year preceeding the launch-time, Parham had caught fire with British Israelism. He had been indoctrinated into the Empire's mystery cult by emissaries of one Frank Sandford, who ran a cult center called Shiloh, near Durham, Maine. Parham made a pilgrimage and studied under Sandford at Shiloh, after which the two of them went on tour through Canada.

Sandford had made the New England Toryism of his fancy Anglophile family relations into a career, travelling back and forth to England, working to inculcate Americans into the British Empire gospel.

In those days, British Israelism was not shy. Its literature, such as The Anglo-American Alliance in Prophecy, or The Promise to the Fathers, published by Our Race Publishing Co., featured the masonic mummery of a pyramid topped by an all-seeing eyeball. The Egyptian pyramids allegedly contained coded secrets for understanding prophecy. The explicit message of the British Israel propaganda was, Americans should give up their mistaken Revolution, and reunite with their Anglo-Saxon racial brethren in the English fatherland. The movement's masonic Anglomania was proudly displayed. Parham's biography, written by his daughter, includes a photo of a mystery gavel, brought back from Palestine and donated by Parham to his masonic lodge.

With British Israelism as his theory of man's cosmic destiny, Parham began teaching Americans how to die mentally, to speak in tongues, as a religious exercise, allegedly re-creating the descent of the Holy Ghost upon Christ's Apostles during the Jewish feast of Pentecost. He took this show on the road from Topeka, and in Houston, Texas, a black preacher named William J. Seymour, the son of a slave, became part of his audience. The catch was, that Parham, being a crazed racist, would not permit Seymour inside the lecture hall; he had to listen at the window, or in the hallway.

Much is made of Seymour's spreading of the technique to a mostly black congregation on Azusa Street in Los Angeles, and of the fascination and novelty it held for visiting religious adventurers who took "Pentecostalism" out to the world. The movement was widely condemned by Christians as scandalous exploitation, and its historical origins faded into the mist. Frank Sandford spent ten years in jail for manslaughter, after many of his cult members died. Charles Parham's religious vocation was destroyed when he was charged with sodomizing a young male follower in Texas; Parham went on to a new career as a stump speaker for the Ku Klux Klan.

In 1908, British and allied American missionaries, who had observed the success of the experiment among blacks in America, brought Pentecostalism to South Africa. The British Empire had just then completed its conquest of that country in the Boer War against the Dutch-immigrant Afrikaner settlers. The great majority of the population were black Africans, including the rebellious Zulus, whom the British had militarily subdued in 1906. The new British masters shaped a uniquely brutal system of racial separation and slave labor, called apartheid.

The cultists and hypnotists went to work on the Zulus of South Africa. At the new Apostolic Faith Mission church, Zulu worshippers, in trances, would fall into heaps, clustered around the altar. British Empire South African strategist Cecil Rhodes congratulated the Pentecostal mind-benders for pacifying the natives as no military could have done.

Americans had better reflect deeply about what the British have done to Africa. For it was precisely the British Empire's apparatus for colonial conquest in Africa, which fashioned irrational Pentecostalism as one among the weapons used against America's "uppity" spirit of Reason and Progress.

Du Plessis comes to America

We shall now review the career of South African David du Plessis (1905-87), the 1930s head of the imperial cult-master Apostolic Faith Mission denomination, who came to America and supervised the creation of Pentecostalism, and who managed the body-snatchers working on Gen. Ralph Haines.

With his British passport clearing him to reside as an alien in the United States, British subject David du Plessis came north in the late 1940s. By the early 1950s, du Plessis was a consultant to the International Missionary Council, a group formed by the British authorities who had spun off from it the World Council of Churches. Du Plessis strategized on the British rule in Tanganyika, Nyasaland, and Rhodesia with the Missionary Council's chairman, Briton John A. Mackay, who had earlier moved to America to head the Princeton Theological Seminary. Mackay, du Plessis's prime public sponsor, had been for many years a close collaborator of the Anglophile political-religious strategist John Foster Dulles, in Britain and at Princeton.

Simultaneously, du Plessis was employed on two other 1950s projects, in the world of covert intelligence:

+Du Plessis was a paid agent of the Far East Broadcasting Company, a religious cover for the official intelligence agencies operating in Asia (based in the Philippines) and Europe (based in Greece). This arrangement was especially cozy beginning in 1953, when John Foster Dulles became Secretary of State and his brother Allen became Director of Central Intelligence.

+Du Plessis was the master chef cooking up the Full Gospel Businessmen's Fellowship International, with Oral Roberts, Gordon Lindsay, front man Demos Shakarian, and later, Harald Bredesen. The FGBFI has penetrated Central and South America, Asia, and the Middle East as an occult intelligence agency, working in aggressive insurrectionary politics since its 1952-54 founding.

During the 1950s, du Plessis was adopted by the executive apparatus of the World Council of Churches, to ram Pentecostalism down the throats of Christians in America, and to "charismatize" the Catholic Church through agents at the Vatican. This was accomplished through the instrumentality of the Church of England.

The 'high church' gathers its forces

The British spread religious irrationalism to subdue and destroy that dangerous, typically American concept that man is created in God's image, dignified and self-governing. We will see this strategy, unadorned, by briefly inspecting the actions and words of du Plessis's employers.

The World Council of Churches was founded in England in 1937, under the direction of Anglican Church missionary leader J.H. Oldham, based on a plan developed by Lord Lothian and other members of the Round Table group.

World Council co-founder John Mackay (later du Plessis's sponsor) published a book, The Universal Church and the World of Nations, expressing the new World Council's desire for the reordering of global political affairs under a world government. The lead article was written by Lord Lothian, entitled "The Demonic Influence of National Sovereignty"; another article was written by Mackay's crony John Foster Dulles, who represented the Presbyterian Church at the World Council founding. Lothian and Dulles argued that national sovereignty, such as the political and juridical independence of the United States, causes wars.

The Round Table group had been organized by South Africa's British governor, Lord Alfred Milner, to fulfill the strategy of British South Africa leader Cecil Rhodes for a new-style white racialist world empire, in which the annoying independence of the republican United States, in particular, was to be extinguished. The core of the Round Table group was assembled from among the aides to Lord Milner in South Africa. Lord Lothian was the first editor of the Round Table quarterly, and was the chief executive of the Rhodes Trust, administering the Rhodes Scholarships to bring Americans and other "colonial" students to Oxford University.

John Foster Dulles and his brother Allen met the principal Round Table members after World War|I, and were informally inducted. In a letter to Round Table founder Lionel Curtis, Lord Lothian expressed the racial views which the British Round Table shared with the Dulles brothers, in opposition to the viewpoint of American nationalists:

"The real problem is going to arise from the treatment which must be accorded to politically backward peoples.... There is a fundamentally different concept ... between Great Britain and South Africa on the one side and the United States ... on the other.... The inhabitants of Africa and parts of Asia have proved unable to govern themselves ... because they were quite unable to withstand the demoralizing influences [i.e., the desire for modernization] to which they were subjected in some civilised countries, so that the intervention of a European power is necessary in order to protect them from those influences.... The American view ... is quite different."

How they got away with 'charismatic renewal'

In May 1960, an English-born Episcopal priest, Dennis Bennett, told his Van Nuys, California parishioners that he had begun speaking in tongues after baptism in the Holy Spirit. This was the beginning of present-day Pentecostalism. The controversy over Bennett's announcement spread quickly, with coverage in Time and Newsweek magazines. The publicity, interpretation, and proselytizing for the new movement within the American church community and worldwide, was handled personally by David du Plessis.

Both Protestants and Catholics, who had earlier looked upon Pentecostalism as a freak show, or a Satanic influence, placidly accepted what was termed "charismatic renewal," as a respectable, non-threatening addition to Christendom. This succeeded because the British authorities and the World Council of Churches put their stamp of approval on David du Plessis, as the designated--by them--world representative of the new, "improved" Pentecostalism.

Between 1952 and 1954, John Mackay and World Council of Churches General Secretary Willem Adolf Visser 't|Hooft introduced du Plessis to scores of the highest level Protestant and Eastern Orthodox church officials. The World Council executive shopped du Plessis around to the Ivy League U.S. colleges and seminaries, to speak of the religion of the future. Through Cardinal Augustin Bea and Cardinal Jan Willebrands, the World Council got du Plessis invited to the Vatican II council, and set up an official, global, "Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue," which consisted of du Plessis talking to Vatican officials. Vatican officials did so despite the fact that when the World Council of Churches invited du Plessis to take part in its 1954 global meeting, he represented no Pentecostal religious body whatsoever; he was merely a British political agent. (The previously established Pentecostal churches were hostile toward the World Council and the Catholics.)

In England, Anglican Churchmen Michael Harper and other partners of du Plessis cemented the ties of Catholics around the world to the new movement.

Following Bennett's Episcopal Church outbreak of 1960, du Plessis, aided by Bennett, published Trinity newsletter. This was circulated in the United States and England as the spur for the new charismatic movement.Trinity was edited by Jean Stone, a wealthy American Anglican loyalist who mediated between du Plessis and the high-society bankrollers of the Episcopal Church. The organization publishing Trinity was chaired by Harald Bredesen, by then a well-established British intelligence operative.

Du Plessis instructed clergymen and parishioners who were pulled into the babble-boom, to follow the Bennett example, and "stay in your church, do not form a new church denomination." Many charismatics followed the advice of du Plessis, who was publicized as "Mr. Pentecostalism"; so, the regular church denominations were decimated by those who stayed, as well as those who left their fold for wilder, newer sects.

General Haines, who had been "zapped" in 1971, resigned from active duty on Jan. 31, 1973. Two weeks later, Haines, du Plessis, and Bennett were the star speakers at the Dallas founding meeting of the Episcopal Charismatic Fellowship. By that time, Episcopals were the driving force for the spread of Pentecostalism. According to Haines, 20% of Episcopalians were then already speaking in tongues.

Haines says that when he led the American delegation to the 1978 Canterbury Cathedral meeting, launching the Anglicans' worldwide drive for charismatic renewal, he was struck by the spectacle of dancing around the altar led by the representative (white) South African Anglican bishop.

Haines went on to commission Ammerman's Full Gospel Chaplaincy, on whose board Haines sits today, and whose serving chaplains Haines addresses. Public statements promoting armed conflict between citizens and the government, Haines leaves to Colonel Ammerman to make.

The security problem, defined

The danger involved in this British initiative is not a matter of wrong or heretical religious beliefs. At issue is the buildup of a hostile, irrational, foreign-directed network within our military and civilian political life.

The political intelligence group known as the Mount Rushmore Foundation, mentioned above, illustrates the problem. Ammerman is the political adviser and "chaplain" to the group. Manager Douglas Towne says the foundation "studies the Patriot movement," and "participates in it." Towne's longtime political partner, Rushmore Foundation board member Gen. Benton Partin, U.S. Air Force (ret.), is an expert in high-explosive devices, including nuclear weapons. Partin has received extensive news media coverage for his critical analysis of the Oklahoma City bombing; he has made an apparently reasonable case, that it would have been technically impossible for Timothy McVeigh to have done it acting alone.

Less well known is General Partin's sponsorship of an ongoing, catastrophic shooting war in Africa, which lends a more sinister character to his hatred of the United States government. Partin is a founder and board member of the Front Line Fellowship, a group of commando-missionaries taking active part in the war against Sudan and other African states viewed as enemies of the British Crown. The Fellowship members are former "scouts" of the South African Army. Partin describes his partner, Fellowship leader Peter Hammond, as a "former South African army and government officer."

That General Partin's "Christian" organization is at heart merely the British military irregulars, who are generally incinerating Africa to recolonize it, may be judged from the Fellowship's book, Faith Under Fire in Sudan. Chapter Three is a celebration of Charles "Chinese" Gordon, who led British regulars in a war in China against the uprising of a British-organized pseudo-Protestant cult. After 20 million Chinese died in this game, Gordon was sent to try to subdue Sudan as Britain's governor, but he died, defeated at the hands of Sudanese nationalist forces. Chinese Gordon was not a drunken homosexual pederast, Partin's group says, but Britain's Christian model for us to follow into war.

The British have never forgiven Sudan, or the United States, for the American Revolution. To the Ammerman circle, the U.S. government is "communist." General Partin says that even Abraham Lincoln was put into the Presidency by the creators of international communism. Partin has received from London, since the 1940s, the intelligence reports published by Kenneth Hugh de Courcy, geopolitician of the British Israel movement.

Observe the Pat Robertson empire. Robertson writes that his family's aristocratic lineage, linking it to the British Churchill family, gave his mother, Gladys Churchill Robertson, confidence that Pat would succeed. His father, Sen. A. Willis Robertson, was London's and Wall Street's chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.

Originally a playboy, Pat began speaking in tongues, and exchanging prophecies in a circle like ouijah board players, under the guidance of master spook Harald Bredesen. The ghost-written Bredesen autobiography, Yes, Lord, explains that Robertson's mentor was himself trained by the International Christian Leadership group. Bredesen proved himself to the group by speaking in tongues, in ancient Arabic, to an Egyptian heiress. This feat by their trainee was observed and attested to by the president of the Leadership group's British branch, Ernest Williams, who was simultaneously "a member of the directing staff of the British Admiralty," and "a member of the Archbishop of Canterbury's Commission on Evangelism."

International Christian Leadership was designed specifically to capture wealthy or influential leaders of society, into a network controlled by the group's patrons. It was initiated during World War II by Col. Sir Vivian Gabriel, a British Air Commission attache in Washington, and leaders of the Episcopal Church. The Netherlands royal family became the group's prime sponsor and center of world operations in the 1950s. Bredesen wrote that his personal trainer, Abraham Vereide, claimed to have "won [Netherlands] Prince Bernhard for Christ." A strange Christ it must have been, because the former Nazi SS officer Bernhard was just then busy launching the globalist Bilderberg Group's conferences and creating the World Wildlife Fund, with Britain's Prince Philip.

Pat Robertson started off as assistant pastor to Bredesen, the operative of the Anglo-Dutch monarchies' Leadership group. Then, David du Plessis's Full Gospel Businessmen raised the money to expand Robertson's and Bredesen's Virginia-based Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) toward global power status.

In a Feb. 1, 1997 column in Virginia's Richmond Times-Dispatch,Robertson told critics why he had used "Operation Blessing" aircraft to transport supplies for his own personal diamond-mining venture in Zaire, rather than for Christian charity, as expected by CBN viewer-contributors. Robertson claimed that he really went into Zaire at President George Bush's request, to pressure the government to give up all Zaire's mines to foreign owners. Later, when British mining companies paid for the invasion that killed hundreds of thousands of people, Robertson invited the bloody Laurent Kabila to be his guest in America; and, he put Britain's Africa slaughter-coordinator, Baroness Caroline Cox, on his television network.

In this regard, consider U.S. Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.), a member of the international board of referents of Baroness Cox's blood-smeared British intelligence front, Christian Solidarity International (CSI). Wolf has made the Toronto Airport church his own spiritual stopping point, where the participants fall in heaps, jerk about on the floor, and bark.

Lady Cox is the Anglican high priestess of the Pentecostals. An August 1997 Charisma magazine story, headlined "Just Call Her Saint Caroline," explains, "Baroness Caroline Cox--a member of London's House of Lords--is spending lots of her time in war zones these days. She's dodging bullets to help the world's persecuted Christians.... She attends mainline Anglican churches but says she also enjoys `the sort of robust and very expressive forms of worship' found in charismatic fellowships.... Many CSI board members and supporters are from the more evangelical and charismatic end of the church spectrum, she notes."

Finally, consider the Promise Keepers, who train their men to be worms, to be broken, to die mentally. Promise Keepers national spokesman Mark DeMoss is a professional at preparing fanatics for Armageddon warfare. As chief of staff to Jerry Falwell, DeMoss was the administrator of the self-proclaimed "Christian Embassy" in Jerusalem. The embassy serves as a bridge between End Times Christians, lunatic freemasons, and right-wing Israeli Zionists. This is a pivotal component of the Temple Mount initiative to foment a religious war over the holy sites in Jerusalem, to "fulfill Scripture." This covert network is engaged in the most dangerous terrorist provocation, which may yet bring on End Times unless it is handcuffed.

At Fort Bliss, Texas, DeMoss's Promise Keepers were engaged to train the nation's highest-ranking non-commissioned officers. Earlier this year, the United States Army Sergeants Major Academy advertised "training with `Promise Keepers'" as a "spiritual fitness program," on the Army unit's official Internet web site.

It is time for Christians and patriots to clean their house, before Her Majesty's legions blow it up.

The author requests all questions, comments or further intelligence leads be sent to Anton Chaitkin c/o larouche@larouchepub.com.



What happened, when General Haines became possessed "by the Holy Spirit" at that rally? In a recent article in Stephen Strang's Charismamagazine, Bredesen explains "the way demons operate. Unclean spirits come into a medium, violate her personality and speak through her." But rest assured, what Bredesen and his sponsors are doing is different. "The Holy Spirit doesn't want mediums, robots or zombies." Do you want to become God's partner? Bredesen instructs you, "Don't speak words your mind understands. As long as you do, your mind will remain in control.

"Don't listen to yourself. Can you imagine a little child learning to talk? Does he say, `Ma-ma-ma-ma,' and then stop with, `I can't say that. That's not language'? No, he just hugs his daddy's neck and prattles away."Charisma publisher Stephen Strang is a trustee of a U.S.-based core leadership team of mind-benders, incorporated as the Charismatic Bible Ministries, along with Ammerman, Oral Roberts, and others in this British outreach initiative. Strang also publishes New Man magazine, organ of the recently formed Promise Keepers cult. In a recent issue, under the title "Worm Training," a cult guide named Wellington Boone explains the religious problem and how this gang solves it:

"People have not yet learned how to become broken.... We are called to be `worms.'... A worm never protests.... Can you say, for Christ, `I am a worm and am no man'?|... Jesus was crushed like a worm. He was slapped. They spat in His face until it ran down His cheeks.... God doesn't raise anything that is not dead.

"If we allow God ... to work into us the idea of `worm-training,' it would be revolutionary. We would gain a worm's-eye view of what God wants.... When we really meet Jesus and allow ourselves to be crushed ... the impact will rock this world."

The 'mystery' of British-Israel solved

Nowadays, 50,000 men and boys are periodically herded into a stadium to babble incoherently, to weep and laugh hysterically for the Promise Keepers. Or, at a specially rigged church at the Toronto, Canada airport, troubled worshippers come from far way to be miraculously cured; they fall into trances on the floor and bark like dogs, in "worship." Civilized humanity is obliged to ask, how has this come about?

The main figure in the creation of today's Pentecostalism, British agent David J. du Plessis, insisted that this phenomenon has no history whatsoever: It simply happened. Writing in 1956, du Plessis claimed, "It [is] clear that it was no man-made cult of `tongues.' Only the `power' of which Jesus spake, could have caused its miraculous growth and establishment" up to that point, from the beginning of the twentieth century. As the "charismatic renewal," a new Pentecostal movement, was just then being geared up in the 1950s, du Plessis lied that "there has never been a man or a movement than can claim the credit for having planned or propagated this world embracing Pentecostal Revival. It is simply the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit ... to bring the `Full Gospel Message' to the whole world in this generation.... This sudden move towards mass evangelism lately ... cannot be attributed to anything else than the spontaneous move of the Holy Spirit."

We shall give here the first serious historical account of the "planning and propagating." We speak now of the high church principalities and powers who have built this new Tower of Babel, who look down with contempt upon their captive babblers, their low churchers, the herd, the worms.

It is necessary first to bring to light a myth known as British Israelism, which stands behind Pentecostalism. This is an evil piece of historical race gossip, spread into American religion, into the ranks of American populists, poisoning the minds of separatists and Armageddon terrorists.

The British monarchy and its prime ministers and Foreign Office fabricated British Israelism in the nineteenth century, from earlier versions of the story. They claimed that Queen Victoria was descended from the Biblical King David, and was thus a descendant of the Davidic family tree that produced Jesus. They taught that the tribes of Israel wandered into northern Europe; that by this supposed genealogy, the British are the real Chosen People, and the British Empire is thus God's empire.

The modern Jews, by this British account, are not the historical Hebrews of Old Testament Israel, but rather, the British are. But, says the British Israel myth, in a leap of logic, the Jews need to be put into Palestine, to fulfill prophecy, get slaughtered in a war with the Muslims, and bring about the End Times.

To provide fuel for this mythology, the royal family asked the British Grand Lodge of Freemasonry to establish the Palestine Exploration Fund. In the 1870s, they dispatched soldier-archeologists to the Holy Land, to dig up supposed religious relics that might impress the cheap fancies of the beggarly masses.

British Israelism designed its Jewish angle to be worked in many politically useful ways, along a spectrum from Nazi anti-Semitism to radical Zionism. The cynical character of this entire travesty may be seen, in the way the story was changed to suit imperial politics. During the 1870s, Germany broke from allegiance to British free trade doctrines. The London "prophets" then reconfigured ancient history. Suddenly, it wasn't Britain and Germany, collectively the Nordic Aryans, who were the wandering Chosen People, but only Britain. Modern Germans, it had been discovered, are the ancient Assyrians!

In his book Religion and the Racist Right: The Origins of the Christian Identity Movement, author Michael Barkun presents a nagging paradox, which he never solves. He reports that British Israelism originates with the British military, the Anglican Church, the British upper classes, who are fanatical loyalists to the government, the British Empire. Yet, this mother has given birth to the Christian Identity Movement, whose racist paranoia and paramilitary anger are aimed against the government, the United States government. Barkun cannot puzzle out the mystery, how the same historical movement can both support the government, and oppose the government!

The British Empire invents Pentecostalism

According to Pentecostal lore, the movement began when a woman spoke in tongues in the church of Charles Fox Parham in Topeka, Kansas, in 1901. Reverend Parham spread the method until it blossomed in the famous Azusa Street, Los Angeles, revival of 1906; from there, disciples took it around the world.

During the year preceeding the launch-time, Parham had caught fire with British Israelism. He had been indoctrinated into the Empire's mystery cult by emissaries of one Frank Sandford, who ran a cult center called Shiloh, near Durham, Maine. Parham made a pilgrimage and studied under Sandford at Shiloh, after which the two of them went on tour through Canada.

Sandford had made the New England Toryism of his fancy Anglophile family relations into a career, travelling back and forth to England, working to inculcate Americans into the British Empire gospel.

In those days, British Israelism was not shy. Its literature, such as The Anglo-American Alliance in Prophecy, or The Promise to the Fathers, published by Our Race Publishing Co., featured the masonic mummery of a pyramid topped by an all-seeing eyeball. The Egyptian pyramids allegedly contained coded secrets for understanding prophecy. The explicit message of the British Israel propaganda was, Americans should give up their mistaken Revolution, and reunite with their Anglo-Saxon racial brethren in the English fatherland. The movement's masonic Anglomania was proudly displayed. Parham's biography, written by his daughter, includes a photo of a mystery gavel, brought back from Palestine and donated by Parham to his masonic lodge.

With British Israelism as his theory of man's cosmic destiny, Parham began teaching Americans how to die mentally, to speak in tongues, as a religious exercise, allegedly re-creating the descent of the Holy Ghost upon Christ's Apostles during the Jewish feast of Pentecost. He took this show on the road from Topeka, and in Houston, Texas, a black preacher named William J. Seymour, the son of a slave, became part of his audience. The catch was, that Parham, being a crazed racist, would not permit Seymour inside the lecture hall; he had to listen at the window, or in the hallway.

Much is made of Seymour's spreading of the technique to a mostly black congregation on Azusa Street in Los Angeles, and of the fascination and novelty it held for visiting religious adventurers who took "Pentecostalism" out to the world. The movement was widely condemned by Christians as scandalous exploitation, and its historical origins faded into the mist. Frank Sandford spent ten years in jail for manslaughter, after many of his cult members died. Charles Parham's religious vocation was destroyed when he was charged with sodomizing a young male follower in Texas; Parham went on to a new career as a stump speaker for the Ku Klux Klan.

In 1908, British and allied American missionaries, who had observed the success of the experiment among blacks in America, brought Pentecostalism to South Africa. The British Empire had just then completed its conquest of that country in the Boer War against the Dutch-immigrant Afrikaner settlers. The great majority of the population were black Africans, including the rebellious Zulus, whom the British had militarily subdued in 1906. The new British masters shaped a uniquely brutal system of racial separation and slave labor, called apartheid.

The cultists and hypnotists went to work on the Zulus of South Africa. At the new Apostolic Faith Mission church, Zulu worshippers, in trances, would fall into heaps, clustered around the altar. British Empire South African strategist Cecil Rhodes congratulated the Pentecostal mind-benders for pacifying the natives as no military could have done.

Americans had better reflect deeply about what the British have done to Africa. For it was precisely the British Empire's apparatus for colonial conquest in Africa, which fashioned irrational Pentecostalism as one among the weapons used against America's "uppity" spirit of Reason and Progress.

Du Plessis comes to America

We shall now review the career of South African David du Plessis (1905-87), the 1930s head of the imperial cult-master Apostolic Faith Mission denomination, who came to America and supervised the creation of Pentecostalism, and who managed the body-snatchers working on Gen. Ralph Haines.

With his British passport clearing him to reside as an alien in the United States, British subject David du Plessis came north in the late 1940s. By the early 1950s, du Plessis was a consultant to the International Missionary Council, a group formed by the British authorities who had spun off from it the World Council of Churches. Du Plessis strategized on the British rule in Tanganyika, Nyasaland, and Rhodesia with the Missionary Council's chairman, Briton John A. Mackay, who had earlier moved to America to head the Princeton Theological Seminary. Mackay, du Plessis's prime public sponsor, had been for many years a close collaborator of the Anglophile political-religious strategist John Foster Dulles, in Britain and at Princeton.

Simultaneously, du Plessis was employed on two other 1950s projects, in the world of covert intelligence:

+Du Plessis was a paid agent of the Far East Broadcasting Company, a religious cover for the official intelligence agencies operating in Asia (based in the Philippines) and Europe (based in Greece). This arrangement was especially cozy beginning in 1953, when John Foster Dulles became Secretary of State and his brother Allen became Director of Central Intelligence.

+Du Plessis was the master chef cooking up the Full Gospel Businessmen's Fellowship International, with Oral Roberts, Gordon Lindsay, front man Demos Shakarian, and later, Harald Bredesen. The FGBFI has penetrated Central and South America, Asia, and the Middle East as an occult intelligence agency, working in aggressive insurrectionary politics since its 1952-54 founding.

During the 1950s, du Plessis was adopted by the executive apparatus of the World Council of Churches, to ram Pentecostalism down the throats of Christians in America, and to "charismatize" the Catholic Church through agents at the Vatican. This was accomplished through the instrumentality of the Church of England.

The 'high church' gathers its forces

The British spread religious irrationalism to subdue and destroy that dangerous, typically American concept that man is created in God's image, dignified and self-governing. We will see this strategy, unadorned, by briefly inspecting the actions and words of du Plessis's employers.

The World Council of Churches was founded in England in 1937, under the direction of Anglican Church missionary leader J.H. Oldham, based on a plan developed by Lord Lothian and other members of the Round Table group.

World Council co-founder John Mackay (later du Plessis's sponsor) published a book, The Universal Church and the World of Nations, expressing the new World Council's desire for the reordering of global political affairs under a world government. The lead article was written by Lord Lothian, entitled "The Demonic Influence of National Sovereignty"; another article was written by Mackay's crony John Foster Dulles, who represented the Presbyterian Church at the World Council founding. Lothian and Dulles argued that national sovereignty, such as the political and juridical independence of the United States, causes wars.

The Round Table group had been organized by South Africa's British governor, Lord Alfred Milner, to fulfill the strategy of British South Africa leader Cecil Rhodes for a new-style white racialist world empire, in which the annoying independence of the republican United States, in particular, was to be extinguished. The core of the Round Table group was assembled from among the aides to Lord Milner in South Africa. Lord Lothian was the first editor of the Round Table quarterly, and was the chief executive of the Rhodes Trust, administering the Rhodes Scholarships to bring Americans and other "colonial" students to Oxford University.

John Foster Dulles and his brother Allen met the principal Round Table members after World War|I, and were informally inducted. In a letter to Round Table founder Lionel Curtis, Lord Lothian expressed the racial views which the British Round Table shared with the Dulles brothers, in opposition to the viewpoint of American nationalists:

"The real problem is going to arise from the treatment which must be accorded to politically backward peoples.... There is a fundamentally different concept ... between Great Britain and South Africa on the one side and the United States ... on the other.... The inhabitants of Africa and parts of Asia have proved unable to govern themselves ... because they were quite unable to withstand the demoralizing influences [i.e., the desire for modernization] to which they were subjected in some civilised countries, so that the intervention of a European power is necessary in order to protect them from those influences.... The American view ... is quite different."

How they got away with 'charismatic renewal'

In May 1960, an English-born Episcopal priest, Dennis Bennett, told his Van Nuys, California parishioners that he had begun speaking in tongues after baptism in the Holy Spirit. This was the beginning of present-day Pentecostalism. The controversy over Bennett's announcement spread quickly, with coverage in Time and Newsweek magazines. The publicity, interpretation, and proselytizing for the new movement within the American church community and worldwide, was handled personally by David du Plessis.

Both Protestants and Catholics, who had earlier looked upon Pentecostalism as a freak show, or a Satanic influence, placidly accepted what was termed "charismatic renewal," as a respectable, non-threatening addition to Christendom. This succeeded because the British authorities and the World Council of Churches put their stamp of approval on David du Plessis, as the designated--by them--world representative of the new, "improved" Pentecostalism.

Between 1952 and 1954, John Mackay and World Council of Churches General Secretary Willem Adolf Visser 't|Hooft introduced du Plessis to scores of the highest level Protestant and Eastern Orthodox church officials. The World Council executive shopped du Plessis around to the Ivy League U.S. colleges and seminaries, to speak of the religion of the future. Through Cardinal Augustin Bea and Cardinal Jan Willebrands, the World Council got du Plessis invited to the Vatican II council, and set up an official, global, "Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue," which consisted of du Plessis talking to Vatican officials. Vatican officials did so despite the fact that when the World Council of Churches invited du Plessis to take part in its 1954 global meeting, he represented no Pentecostal religious body whatsoever; he was merely a British political agent. (The previously established Pentecostal churches were hostile toward the World Council and the Catholics.)

In England, Anglican Churchmen Michael Harper and other partners of du Plessis cemented the ties of Catholics around the world to the new movement.

Following Bennett's Episcopal Church outbreak of 1960, du Plessis, aided by Bennett, published Trinity newsletter. This was circulated in the United States and England as the spur for the new charismatic movement.Trinity was edited by Jean Stone, a wealthy American Anglican loyalist who mediated between du Plessis and the high-society bankrollers of the Episcopal Church. The organization publishing Trinity was chaired by Harald Bredesen, by then a well-established British intelligence operative.

Du Plessis instructed clergymen and parishioners who were pulled into the babble-boom, to follow the Bennett example, and "stay in your church, do not form a new church denomination." Many charismatics followed the advice of du Plessis, who was publicized as "Mr. Pentecostalism"; so, the regular church denominations were decimated by those who stayed, as well as those who left their fold for wilder, newer sects.

General Haines, who had been "zapped" in 1971, resigned from active duty on Jan. 31, 1973. Two weeks later, Haines, du Plessis, and Bennett were the star speakers at the Dallas founding meeting of the Episcopal Charismatic Fellowship. By that time, Episcopals were the driving force for the spread of Pentecostalism. According to Haines, 20% of Episcopalians were then already speaking in tongues.

Haines says that when he led the American delegation to the 1978 Canterbury Cathedral meeting, launching the Anglicans' worldwide drive for charismatic renewal, he was struck by the spectacle of dancing around the altar led by the representative (white) South African Anglican bishop.

Haines went on to commission Ammerman's Full Gospel Chaplaincy, on whose board Haines sits today, and whose serving chaplains Haines addresses. Public statements promoting armed conflict between citizens and the government, Haines leaves to Colonel Ammerman to make.

The security problem, defined

The danger involved in this British initiative is not a matter of wrong or heretical religious beliefs. At issue is the buildup of a hostile, irrational, foreign-directed network within our military and civilian political life.

The political intelligence group known as the Mount Rushmore Foundation, mentioned above, illustrates the problem. Ammerman is the political adviser and "chaplain" to the group. Manager Douglas Towne says the foundation "studies the Patriot movement," and "participates in it." Towne's longtime political partner, Rushmore Foundation board member Gen. Benton Partin, U.S. Air Force (ret.), is an expert in high-explosive devices, including nuclear weapons. Partin has received extensive news media coverage for his critical analysis of the Oklahoma City bombing; he has made an apparently reasonable case, that it would have been technically impossible for Timothy McVeigh to have done it acting alone.

Less well known is General Partin's sponsorship of an ongoing, catastrophic shooting war in Africa, which lends a more sinister character to his hatred of the United States government. Partin is a founder and board member of the Front Line Fellowship, a group of commando-missionaries taking active part in the war against Sudan and other African states viewed as enemies of the British Crown. The Fellowship members are former "scouts" of the South African Army. Partin describes his partner, Fellowship leader Peter Hammond, as a "former South African army and government officer."

That General Partin's "Christian" organization is at heart merely the British military irregulars, who are generally incinerating Africa to recolonize it, may be judged from the Fellowship's book, Faith Under Fire in Sudan. Chapter Three is a celebration of Charles "Chinese" Gordon, who led British regulars in a war in China against the uprising of a British-organized pseudo-Protestant cult. After 20 million Chinese died in this game, Gordon was sent to try to subdue Sudan as Britain's governor, but he died, defeated at the hands of Sudanese nationalist forces. Chinese Gordon was not a drunken homosexual pederast, Partin's group says, but Britain's Christian model for us to follow into war.

The British have never forgiven Sudan, or the United States, for the American Revolution. To the Ammerman circle, the U.S. government is "communist." General Partin says that even Abraham Lincoln was put into the Presidency by the creators of international communism. Partin has received from London, since the 1940s, the intelligence reports published by Kenneth Hugh de Courcy, geopolitician of the British Israel movement.

Observe the Pat Robertson empire. Robertson writes that his family's aristocratic lineage, linking it to the British Churchill family, gave his mother, Gladys Churchill Robertson, confidence that Pat would succeed. His father, Sen. A. Willis Robertson, was London's and Wall Street's chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.

Originally a playboy, Pat began speaking in tongues, and exchanging prophecies in a circle like ouijah board players, under the guidance of master spook Harald Bredesen. The ghost-written Bredesen autobiography, Yes, Lord, explains that Robertson's mentor was himself trained by the International Christian Leadership group. Bredesen proved himself to the group by speaking in tongues, in ancient Arabic, to an Egyptian heiress. This feat by their trainee was observed and attested to by the president of the Leadership group's British branch, Ernest Williams, who was simultaneously "a member of the directing staff of the British Admiralty," and "a member of the Archbishop of Canterbury's Commission on Evangelism."

International Christian Leadership was designed specifically to capture wealthy or influential leaders of society, into a network controlled by the group's patrons. It was initiated during World War II by Col. Sir Vivian Gabriel, a British Air Commission attache in Washington, and leaders of the Episcopal Church. The Netherlands royal family became the group's prime sponsor and center of world operations in the 1950s. Bredesen wrote that his personal trainer, Abraham Vereide, claimed to have "won [Netherlands] Prince Bernhard for Christ." A strange Christ it must have been, because the former Nazi SS officer Bernhard was just then busy launching the globalist Bilderberg Group's conferences and creating the World Wildlife Fund, with Britain's Prince Philip.

Pat Robertson started off as assistant pastor to Bredesen, the operative of the Anglo-Dutch monarchies' Leadership group. Then, David du Plessis's Full Gospel Businessmen raised the money to expand Robertson's and Bredesen's Virginia-based Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) toward global power status.

In a Feb. 1, 1997 column in Virginia's Richmond Times-Dispatch,Robertson told critics why he had used "Operation Blessing" aircraft to transport supplies for his own personal diamond-mining venture in Zaire, rather than for Christian charity, as expected by CBN viewer-contributors. Robertson claimed that he really went into Zaire at President George Bush's request, to pressure the government to give up all Zaire's mines to foreign owners. Later, when British mining companies paid for the invasion that killed hundreds of thousands of people, Robertson invited the bloody Laurent Kabila to be his guest in America; and, he put Britain's Africa slaughter-coordinator, Baroness Caroline Cox, on his television network.

In this regard, consider U.S. Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.), a member of the international board of referents of Baroness Cox's blood-smeared British intelligence front, Christian Solidarity International (CSI). Wolf has made the Toronto Airport church his own spiritual stopping point, where the participants fall in heaps, jerk about on the floor, and bark.

Lady Cox is the Anglican high priestess of the Pentecostals. An August 1997 Charisma magazine story, headlined "Just Call Her Saint Caroline," explains, "Baroness Caroline Cox--a member of London's House of Lords--is spending lots of her time in war zones these days. She's dodging bullets to help the world's persecuted Christians.... She attends mainline Anglican churches but says she also enjoys `the sort of robust and very expressive forms of worship' found in charismatic fellowships.... Many CSI board members and supporters are from the more evangelical and charismatic end of the church spectrum, she notes."

Finally, consider the Promise Keepers, who train their men to be worms, to be broken, to die mentally. Promise Keepers national spokesman Mark DeMoss is a professional at preparing fanatics for Armageddon warfare. As chief of staff to Jerry Falwell, DeMoss was the administrator of the self-proclaimed "Christian Embassy" in Jerusalem. The embassy serves as a bridge between End Times Christians, lunatic freemasons, and right-wing Israeli Zionists. This is a pivotal component of the Temple Mount initiative to foment a religious war over the holy sites in Jerusalem, to "fulfill Scripture." This covert network is engaged in the most dangerous terrorist provocation, which may yet bring on End Times unless it is handcuffed.

At Fort Bliss, Texas, DeMoss's Promise Keepers were engaged to train the nation's highest-ranking non-commissioned officers. Earlier this year, the United States Army Sergeants Major Academy advertised "training with `Promise Keepers'" as a "spiritual fitness program," on the Army unit's official Internet web site.

It is time for Christians and patriots to clean their house, before Her Majesty's legions blow it up.


Tuesday 1 April 2014

Putin

"It’s a good thing that they at least remember that there exists such a thing as international law -

Better Late Than Never."

           
Vladimir Putin addressed State Duma deputies, Federation Council members, heads of Russian regions and civil society representatives in the Kremlin.

PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA VLADIMIR PUTIN: Federation Council members, State Duma deputies, good afternoon.  Representatives of the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol are here among us, citizens of Russia, residents of Crimea and Sevastopol!

Dear friends, we have gathered here today in connection with an issue that is of vital, historic significance to all of us. A referendum was held in Crimea on March 16 in full compliance with democratic procedures and international norms.

More than 82 percent of the electorate took part in the vote. Over 96 percent of them spoke out in favour of reuniting with Russia. These numbers speak for themselves.

To understand the reason behind such a choice it is enough to know the history of Crimea and what Russia and Crimea have always meant for each other.

Everything in Crimea speaks of our shared history and pride. This is the location of ancient Khersones, where Prince Vladimir was baptised. His spiritual feat of adopting Orthodoxy predetermined the overall basis of the culture, civilisation and human values that unite the peoples of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. The graves of Russian soldiers whose bravery brought Crimea into the Russian empire are also in Crimea. This is also Sevastopol – a legendary city with an outstanding history, a fortress that serves as the birthplace of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. Crimea is Balaklava and Kerch, Malakhov Kurgan and Sapun Ridge. Each one of these places is dear to our hearts, symbolising Russian military glory and outstanding valour.

Crimea is a unique blend of different peoples’ cultures and traditions. This makes it similar to Russia as a whole, where not a single ethnic group has been lost over the centuries. Russians and Ukrainians, Crimean Tatars and people of other ethnic groups have lived side by side in Crimea, retaining their own identity, traditions, languages and faith.

Incidentally, the total population of the Crimean Peninsula today is 2.2 million people, of whom almost 1.5 million are Russians, 350,000 are Ukrainians who predominantly consider Russian their native language, and about 290,000-300,000 are Crimean Tatars, who, as the referendum has shown, also lean towards Russia.

True, there was a time when Crimean Tatars were treated unfairly, just as a number of other peoples in the USSR. There is only one thing I can say here: millions of people of various ethnicities suffered during those repressions, and primarily Russians.

Crimean Tatars returned to their homeland. I believe we should make all the necessary political and legislative decisions to finalise the rehabilitation of Crimean Tatars, restore them in their rights and clear their good name.

We have great respect for people of all the ethnic groups living in Crimea. This is their common home, their motherland, and it would be right – I know the local population supports this – for Crimea to have three equal national languages: Russian, Ukrainian and Tatar.

Colleagues,

In people’s hearts and minds, Crimea has always been an inseparable part of Russia. This firm conviction is based on truth and justice and was passed from generation to generation, over time, under any circumstances, despite all the dramatic changes our country went through during the entire 20th century.

After the revolution, the Bolsheviks, for a number of reasons – may God judge them – added large sections of the historical South of Russia to the Republic of Ukraine. This was done with no consideration for the ethnic make-up of the population, and today these areas form the southeast of Ukraine. Then, in 1954, a decision was made to transfer Crimean Region to Ukraine, along with Sevastopol, despite the fact that it was a federal city. This was the personal initiative of the Communist Party head Nikita Khrushchev. What stood behind this decision of his – a desire to win the support of the Ukrainian political establishment or to atone for the mass repressions of the 1930’s in Ukraine – is for historians to figure out.

What matters now is that this decision was made in clear violation of the constitutional norms that were in place even then. The decision was made behind the scenes. Naturally, in a totalitarian state nobody bothered to ask the citizens of Crimea and Sevastopol. They were faced with the fact. People, of course, wondered why all of a sudden Crimea became part of Ukraine. But on the whole – and we must state this clearly, we all know it – this decision was treated as a formality of sorts because the territory was transferred within the boundaries of a single state. Back then, it was impossible to imagine that Ukraine and Russia may split up and become two separate states. However, this has happened.

Unfortunately, what seemed impossible became a reality. The USSR fell apart. Things developed so swiftly that few people realised how truly dramatic those events and their consequences would be. Many people both in Russia and in Ukraine, as well as in other republics hoped that the Commonwealth of Independent States that was created at the time would become the new common form of statehood. They were told that there would be a single currency, a single economic space, joint armed forces; however, all this remained empty promises, while the big country was gone. It was only when Crimea ended up as part of a different country that Russia realised that it was not simply robbed, it was plundered.

At the same time, we have to admit that by launching the sovereignty parade Russia itself aided in the collapse of the Soviet Union. And as this collapse was legalised, everyone forgot about Crimea and Sevastopol – the main base of the Black Sea Fleet. Millions of people went to bed in one country and awoke in different ones, overnight becoming ethnic minorities in former Union republics, while the Russian nation became one of the biggest, if not the biggest ethnic group in the world to be divided by borders.

Now, many years later, I heard residents of Crimea say that back in 1991 they were handed over like a sack of potatoes. This is hard to disagree with. And what about the Russian state? What about Russia? It humbly accepted the situation. This country was going through such hard times then that realistically it was incapable of protecting its interests. However, the people could not reconcile themselves to this outrageous historical injustice. All these years, citizens and many public figures came back to this issue, saying that Crimea is historically Russian land and Sevastopol is a Russian city. Yes, we all knew this in our hearts and minds, but we had to proceed from the existing reality and build our good-neighbourly relations with independent Ukraine on a new basis. Meanwhile, our relations with Ukraine, with the fraternal Ukrainian people have always been and will remain of foremost importance for us.

Today we can speak about it openly, and I would like to share with you some details of the negotiations that took place in the early 2000s. The then President of Ukraine Mr Kuchma asked me to expedite the process of delimiting the Russian-Ukrainian border. At that time, the process was practically at a standstill.  Russia seemed to have recognised Crimea as part of Ukraine, but there were no negotiations on delimiting the borders. Despite the complexity of the situation, I immediately issued instructions to Russian government agencies to speed up their work to document the borders, so that everyone had a clear understanding that by agreeing to delimit the border we admitted de facto and de jure that Crimea was Ukrainian territory, thereby closing the issue.

We accommodated Ukraine not only regarding Crimea, but also on such a complicated matter as the maritime boundary in the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait. What we proceeded from back then was that good relations with Ukraine matter most for us and they should not fall hostage to deadlock territorial disputes. However, we expected Ukraine to remain our good neighbour, we hoped that Russian citizens and Russian speakers in Ukraine, especially its southeast and Crimea, would live in a friendly, democratic and civilised state that would protect their rights in line with the norms of international law.

However, this is not how the situation developed. Time and time again attempts were made to deprive Russians of their historical memory, even of their language and to subject them to forced assimilation. Moreover, Russians, just as other citizens of Ukraine are suffering from the constant political and state crisis that has been rocking the country for over 20 years.

I understand why Ukrainian people wanted change. They have had enough of the authorities in power during the years of Ukraine’s independence. Presidents, prime ministers and parliamentarians changed, but their attitude to the country and its people remained the same. They milked the country, fought among themselves for power, assets and cash flows and did not care much about the ordinary people. They did not wonder why it was that millions of Ukrainian citizens saw no prospects at home and went to other countries to work as day labourers. I would like to stress this: it was not some Silicon Valley they fled to, but to become day labourers. Last year alone almost 3 million people found such jobs in Russia. According to some sources, in 2013 their earnings in Russia totalled over $20 billion, which is about 12% of Ukraine’s GDP.

I would like to reiterate that I understand those who came out on Maidan with peaceful slogans against corruption, inefficient state management and poverty. The right to peaceful protest, democratic procedures and elections exist for the sole purpose of replacing the authorities that do not satisfy the people. However, those who stood behind the latest events in Ukraine had a different agenda: they were preparing yet another government takeover; they wanted to seize power and would stop short of nothing. They resorted to terror, murder and riots. Nationalists, neo-Nazis, Russophobes and anti-Semites executed this coup. They continue to set the tone in Ukraine to this day.

The new so-called authorities began by introducing a draft law to revise the language policy, which was a direct infringement on the rights of ethnic minorities. However, they were immediately ‘disciplined’ by the foreign sponsors of these so-called politicians. One has to admit that the mentors of these current authorities are smart and know well what such attempts to build a purely Ukrainian state may lead to. The draft law was set aside, but clearly reserved for the future. Hardly any mention is made of this attempt now, probably on the presumption that people have a short memory. Nevertheless, we can all clearly see the intentions of these ideological heirs of Bandera, Hitler’s accomplice during World War II.

It is also obvious that there is no legitimate executive authority in Ukraine now, nobody to talk to. Many government agencies have been taken over by the impostors, but they do not have any control in the country, while they themselves – and I would like to stress this – are often controlled by radicals. In some cases, you need a special permit from the militants on Maidan to meet with certain ministers of the current government. This is not a joke – this is reality.

Those who opposed the coup were immediately threatened with repression. Naturally, the first in line here was Crimea, the Russian-speaking Crimea. In view of this, the residents of Crimea and Sevastopol turned to Russia for help in defending their rights and lives, in preventing the events that were unfolding and are still underway in Kiev, Donetsk, Kharkov and other Ukrainian cities.

Naturally, we could not leave this plea unheeded; we could not abandon Crimea and its residents in distress. This would have been betrayal on our part.

First, we had to help create conditions so that the residents of Crimea for the first time in history were able to peacefully express their free will regarding their own future. However, what do we hear from our colleagues in Western Europe and North America? They say we are violating norms of international law.  Firstly, it’s a good thing that they at least remember that there exists such a thing as international law – better late than never.

Secondly, and most importantly – what exactly are we violating? True, the President of the Russian Federation received permission from the Upper House of Parliament to use the Armed Forces in Ukraine.  However, strictly speaking, nobody has acted on this permission yet.  Russia’s Armed Forces never entered Crimea; they were there already in line with an international agreement.  True, we did enhance our forces there; however – this is something I would like everyone to hear and know – we did not exceed the personnel limit of our Armed Forces in Crimea, which is set at 25,000, because there was no need to do so.

Next. As it declared independence and decided to hold a referendum, the Supreme Council of Crimea referred to the United Nations Charter, which speaks of the right of nations to self-determination. Incidentally, I would like to remind you that when Ukraine seceded from the USSR it did exactly the same thing, almost word for word. Ukraine used this right, yet the residents of Crimea are denied it.  Why is that?

Moreover, the Crimean authorities referred to the well-known Kosovo precedent – a precedent our western colleagues created with their own hands in a very similar situation, when they agreed that the unilateral separation of Kosovo from Serbia, exactly what Crimea is doing now, was legitimate and did not require any permission from the country’s central authorities. Pursuant to Article 2, Chapter 1 of the United Nations Charter, the UN International Court agreed with this approach and made the following comment in its ruling of July 22, 2010, and I quote: “No general prohibition may be inferred from the practice of the Security Council with regard to declarations of independence,” and “General international law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence.” Crystal clear, as they say.

I do not like to resort to quotes, but in this case, I cannot help it. Here is a quote from another official document: the Written Statement of the United States America of April 17, 2009, submitted to the same UN International Court in connection with the hearings on Kosovo. Again, I quote: “Declarations of independence may, and often do, violate domestic legislation. However, this does not make them violations of international law.” End of quote.  They wrote this, disseminated it all over the world, had everyone agree and now they are outraged. Over what? The actions of Crimean people completely fit in with these instructions, as it were. For some reason, things that Kosovo Albanians (and we have full respect for them) were permitted to do, Russians, Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars in Crimea are not allowed. Again, one wonders why.

We keep hearing from the United States and Western Europe that Kosovo is some special case. What makes it so special in the eyes of our colleagues? It turns out that it is the fact that the conflict in Kosovo resulted in so many human casualties.  Is this a legal argument? The ruling of the International Court says nothing about this. This is not even double standards; this is amazing, primitive, blunt cynicism. One should not try so crudely to make everything suit their interests, calling the same thing white today and black tomorrow. According to this logic, we have to make sure every conflict leads to human losses.

I will state clearly - if the Crimean local self-defence units had not taken the situation under control, there could have been casualties as well. Fortunately this did not happen. There was not a single armed confrontation in Crimea and no casualties. Why do you think this was so? The answer is simple: because it is very difficult, practically impossible to fight against the will of the people. Here I would like to thank the Ukrainian military – and this is 22,000 fully armed servicemen. I would like to thank those Ukrainian service members who refrained from bloodshed and did not smear their uniforms in blood.

Other thoughts come to mind in this connection. They keep talking of some Russian intervention in Crimea, some sort of aggression. This is strange to hear. I cannot recall a single case in history of an intervention without a single shot being fired and with no human casualties.

Colleagues,

Like a mirror, the situation in Ukraine reflects what is going on and what has been happening in the world over the past several decades. After the dissolution of bipolarity on the planet, we no longer have stability. Key international institutions are not getting any stronger; on the contrary, in many cases, they are sadly degrading. Our western partners, led by the United States of America, prefer not to be guided by international law in their practical policies, but by the rule of the gun. They have come to believe in their exclusivity and exceptionalism, that they can decide the destinies of the world, that only they can ever be right. They act as they please: here and there, they use force against sovereign states, building coalitions based on the principle “If you are not with us, you are against us.” To make this aggression look legitimate, they force the necessary resolutions from international organisations, and if for some reason this does not work, they simply ignore the UN Security Council and the UN overall.

This happened in Yugoslavia; we remember 1999 very well. It was hard to believe, even seeing it with my own eyes, that at the end of the 20th century, one of Europe’s capitals, Belgrade, was under missile attack for several weeks, and then came the real intervention. Was there a UN Security Council resolution on this matter, allowing for these actions? Nothing of the sort. And then, they hit Afghanistan, Iraq, and frankly violated the UN Security Council resolution on Libya, when instead of imposing the so-called no-fly zone over it they started bombing it too.

There was a whole series of controlled “colour” revolutions. Clearly, the people in those nations, where these events took place, were sick of tyranny and poverty, of their lack of prospects; but these feelings were taken advantage of cynically. Standards were imposed on these nations that did not in any way correspond to their way of life, traditions, or these peoples’ cultures. As a result, instead of democracy and freedom, there was chaos, outbreaks in violence and a series of upheavals. The Arab Spring turned into the Arab Winter.

A similar situation unfolded in Ukraine. In 2004, to push the necessary candidate through at the presidential elections, they thought up some sort of third round that was not stipulated by the law. It was absurd and a mockery of the constitution. And now, they have thrown in an organised and well-equipped army of militants.

We understand what is happening; we understand that these actions were aimed against Ukraine and Russia and against Eurasian integration. And all this while Russia strived to engage in dialogue with our colleagues in the West. We are constantly proposing cooperation on all key issues; we want to strengthen our level of trust and for our relations to be equal, open and fair. But we saw no reciprocal steps.

On the contrary, they have lied to us many times, made decisions behind our backs, placed us before an accomplished fact. This happened with NATO’s expansion to the East, as well as the deployment of military infrastructure at our borders. They kept telling us the same thing: “Well, this does not concern you.” That’s easy to say.

It happened with the deployment of a missile defence system. In spite of all our apprehensions, the project is working and moving forward. It happened with the endless foot-dragging in the talks on visa issues, promises of fair competition and free access to global markets.

Today, we are being threatened with sanctions, but we already experience many limitations, ones that are quite significant for us, our economy and our nation. For example, still during the times of the Cold War, the US and subsequently other nations restricted a large list of technologies and equipment from being sold to the USSR, creating the Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls list. Today, they have formally been eliminated, but only formally; and in reality, many limitations are still in effect.

In short, we have every reason to assume that the infamous policy of containment, led in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries, continues today. They are constantly trying to sweep us into a corner because we have an independent position, because we maintain it and because we call things like they are and do not engage in hypocrisy. But there is a limit to everything. And with Ukraine, our western partners have crossed the line, playing the bear and acting irresponsibly and unprofessionally.

After all, they were fully aware that there are millions of Russians living in Ukraine and in Crimea. They must have really lacked political instinct and common sense not to foresee all the consequences of their actions. Russia found itself in a position it could not retreat from. If you compress the spring all the way to its limit, it will snap back hard. You must always remember this.

Today, it is imperative to end this hysteria, to refute the rhetoric of the cold war and to accept the obvious fact: Russia is an independent, active participant in international affairs; like other countries, it has its own national interests that need to be taken into account and respected.

At the same time, we are grateful to all those who understood our actions in Crimea; we are grateful to the people of China, whose leaders have always considered the situation in Ukraine and Crimea taking into account the full historical and political context, and greatly appreciate India’s reserve and objectivity.

Today, I would like to address the people of the United States of America, the people who, since the foundation of their nation and adoption of the Declaration of Independence, have been proud to hold freedom above all else. Isn’t the desire of Crimea’s residents to freely choose their fate such a value? Please understand us.

I believe that the Europeans, first and foremost, the Germans, will also understand me. Let me remind you that in the course of political consultations on the unification of East and West Germany, at the expert, though very high level, some nations that were then and are now Germany’s allies did not support the idea of unification. Our nation, however, unequivocally supported the sincere, unstoppable desire of the Germans for national unity. I am confident that you have not forgotten this, and I expect that the citizens of Germany will also support the aspiration of the Russians, of historical Russia, to restore unity.

I also want to address the people of Ukraine. I sincerely want you to understand us: we do not want to harm you in any way, or to hurt your national feelings. We have always respected the territorial integrity of the Ukrainian state, incidentally, unlike those who sacrificed Ukraine’s unity for their political ambitions. They flaunt slogans about Ukraine’s greatness, but they are the ones who did everything to divide the nation. Today’s civil standoff is entirely on their conscience. I want you to hear me, my dear friends. Do not believe those who want you to fear Russia, shouting that other regions will follow Crimea. We do not want to divide Ukraine; we do not need that. As for Crimea, it was and remains a Russian, Ukrainian, and Crimean-Tatar land.

I repeat, just as it has been for centuries, it will be a home to all the peoples living there. What it will never be and do is follow in Bandera’s footsteps!

Crimea is our common historical legacy and a very important factor in regional stability. And this strategic territory should be part of a strong and stable sovereignty, which today can only be Russian. Otherwise, dear friends (I am addressing both Ukraine and Russia), you and we – the Russians and the Ukrainians – could lose Crimea completely, and that could happen in the near historical perspective. Please think about it.

Let me note too that we have already heard declarations from Kiev about Ukraine soon joining NATO. What would this have meant for Crimea and Sevastopol in the future? It would have meant that NATO’s navy would be right there in this city of Russia’s military glory, and this would create not an illusory but a perfectly real threat to the whole of southern Russia. These are things that could have become reality were it not for the choice the Crimean people made, and I want to say thank you to them for this.

But let me say too that we are not opposed to cooperation with NATO, for this is certainly not the case. For all the internal processes within the organisation, NATO remains a military alliance, and we are against having a military alliance making itself at home right in our backyard or in our historic territory. I simply cannot imagine that we would travel to Sevastopol to visit NATO sailors. Of course, most of them are wonderful guys, but it would be better to have them come and visit us, be our guests, rather than the other way round.

Let me say quite frankly that it pains our hearts to see what is happening in Ukraine at the moment, see the people’s suffering and their uncertainty about how to get through today and what awaits them tomorrow. Our concerns are understandable because we are not simply close neighbours but, as I have said many times already, we are one people. Kiev is the mother of Russian cities. Ancient Rus is our common source and we cannot live without each other.  

Let me say one other thing too. Millions of Russians and Russian-speaking people live in Ukraine and will continue to do so. Russia will always defend their interests using political, diplomatic and legal means. But it should be above all in Ukraine’s own interest to ensure that these people’s rights and interests are fully protected. This is the guarantee of Ukraine’s state stability and territorial integrity.

We want to be friends with Ukraine and we want Ukraine to be a strong, sovereign and self-sufficient country. Ukraine is one of our biggest partners after all. We have many joint projects and I believe in their success no matter what the current difficulties. Most importantly, we want peace and harmony to reign in Ukraine, and we are ready to work together with other countries to do everything possible to facilitate and support this. But as I said, only Ukraine’s own people can put their own house in order.

Residents of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, the whole of Russia admired your courage, dignity and bravery. It was you who decided Crimea’s future. We were closer than ever over these days, supporting each other. These were sincere feelings of solidarity. It is at historic turning points such as these that a nation demonstrates its maturity and strength of spirit. The Russian people showed this maturity and strength through their united support for their compatriots.

Russia’s foreign policy position on this matter drew its firmness from the will of millions of our people, our national unity and the support of our country’s main political and public forces. I want to thank everyone for this patriotic spirit, everyone without exception. Now, we need to continue and maintain this kind of consolidation so as to resolve the tasks our country faces on its road ahead.   

Obviously, we will encounter external opposition, but this is a decision that we need to make for ourselves. Are we ready to consistently defend our national interests, or will we forever give in, retreat to who knows where? Some Western politicians are already threatening us with not just sanctions but also the prospect of increasingly serious problems on the domestic front. I would like to know what it is they have in mind exactly: action by a fifth column, this disparate bunch of ‘national traitors’, or are they hoping to put us in a worsening social and economic situation so as to provoke public discontent? We consider such statements irresponsible and clearly aggressive in tone, and we will respond to them accordingly. At the same time, we will never seek confrontation with our partners, whether in the East or the West, but on the contrary, will do everything we can to build civilised and good-neighbourly relations as one is supposed to in the modern world. 

Colleagues,

I understand the people of Crimea, who put the question in the clearest possible terms in the referendum: should Crimea be with Ukraine or with Russia? We can be sure in saying that the authorities in Crimea and Sevastopol, the legislative authorities, when they formulated the question, set aside group and political interests and made the people’s fundamental interests alone the cornerstone of their work. The particular historic, population, political and economic circumstances of Crimea would have made any other proposed option - however tempting it could be at the first glance - only temporary and fragile and would have inevitably led to further worsening of the situation there, which would have had disastrous effects on people’s lives. The people of Crimea thus decided to put the question in firm and uncompromising form, with no grey areas. The referendum was fair and transparent, and the people of Crimea clearly and convincingly expressed their will and stated that they want to be with Russia.

Russia will also have to make a difficult decision now, taking into account the various domestic and external considerations. What do people here in Russia think? Here, like in any democratic country, people have different points of view, but I want to make the point that the absolute majority of our people clearly do support what is happening.

The most recent public opinion surveys conducted here in Russia show that 95 percent of people think that Russia should protect the interests of Russians and members of other ethnic groups living in Crimea – 95 percent of our citizens. More than 83 percent think that Russia should do this even if it will complicate our relations with some other countries. A total of 86 percent of our people see Crimea as still being Russian territory and part of our country’s lands. And one particularly important figure, which corresponds exactly with the result in Crimea’s referendum: almost 92 percent of our people support Crimea’s reunification with Russia. 

Thus we see that the overwhelming majority of people in Crimea and the absolute majority of the Russian Federation’s people support the reunification of the Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol with Russia.

Now this is a matter for Russia’s own political decision, and any decision here can be based only on the people’s will, because the people is the ultimate source of all authority.

Members of the Federation Council, deputies of the State Duma, citizens of Russia, residents of Crimea and Sevastopol, today, in accordance with the people’s will, I submit to the Federal Assembly a request to consider a Constitutional Law on the creation of two new constituent entities within the Russian Federation: the Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, and to ratify the treaty on admitting to the Russian Federation Crimea and Sevastopol, which is already ready for signing. I stand assured of your support.


"Mr McCain fought in Vietnam. I think that he has enough blood of peaceful citizens on his hands. It must be impossible for him to live without these disgusting scenes anymore. Mr McCain was captured and they kept him not just in prison, but in a pit for several years, Anyone [in his place] would go nuts."

Response to John McCain's tweet "Dear Vlad, The Arab Spring is coming to a neighbourhood near you."


"Above all, we should acknowledge that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century. 

As for the Russian nation, it became a genuine drama. Tens of millions of our co-citizens and compatriots found themselves outside Russian territory. Moreover, the epidemic of disintegration infected Russia itself.

Individual savings were depreciated, and old ideals destroyed. Many institutions were disbanded or reformed carelessly. 

Terrorist intervention and the Khasavyurt capitulation that followed damaged the country's integrity. 

Oligarchic groups — possessing absolute control over information channels — served exclusively their own corporate interests. 

Mass poverty began to be seen as the norm. 

And all this was happening against the backdrop of a dramatic economic downturn, unstable finances, and the paralysis of the social sphere.

Many thought or seemed to think at the time that our young democracy was not a continuation of Russian statehood, but its ultimate collapse, the prolonged agony of the Soviet system.

But they were mistaken.

That was precisely the period when the significant developments took place in Russia. Our society was generating not only the energy of self-preservation, but also the will for a new and free life."


The Impeachment of President Yeltsin



The charges

Parliamentary Communists, who mounted the impeachment drive, accuse Yeltsin of treason, first-degree murder and plotting to sell Russia out to the West. The five specific counts say he:

  • Instigated the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union

  • Improperly used force against rebellious lawmakers in 1993

  • Launched the botched 1994-96 war in Chechnya

  • Waged genocide against Russians with market reforms that impoverished the country

  • Ruined Russia's military

    The Chechnya charge is the one most likely to attract enough votes for impeachment.