Audio Letter
#49
Hello, my friends, this is Dr. Beter. Today is August 27, 1979, and
this is my AUDIO LETTER® No. 49.
As I say these words, the slow, lazy
days of summer 1979 are drawing to a close. Most of us are sorry to
see them go. For many people summer is a time to ignore the outside
world as much as possible. It’s time to relax, to bask in the sun,
to pretend that today will blend into tomorrow without change or
trouble. Television news programs in these later days of August have
been filled with items that reinforce this mood. Even the alleged
President has seemingly found time to lay aside the tedium of doing
his job, and for a week or more we were assured by television
reports that the Carter robotoid family were enjoying a tranquil
steamboat ride down the Mississippi River. To all appearances, this
robotoid President has had nothing to do except jog around the boat
deck, shake hands with well-wishers, and give the same Energy speech
over and over. If he can take life that easy, we think, why
shouldn’t we relax too? But, my friends, at this very moment the
world is in ferment as never before. If you depend on television
news and newspaper headlines as most people do, the world may seem
to be just rolling along just like Old Man River; but if you want to
have some hint of what is really taking place today, you should
listen to the short-wave radio.
Get into the habit of listening to the
BBC World Service, to Radio Moscow World Service, to Radio
Australia, to Radio South Africa, even Radio Canada right next door
to us. It often contains important reports which you will never hear
through our domestic major media. You might even tune in the Voice
of America once in a while—there, too, you may hear things you will
never hear in our domestic news media, and without commercials. But,
my friends, you should listen to these with a certain amount of
charity for they all have their own biases. There is not enough time
in this entire tape even to list all the important areas of ferment
in our world; but for a moment let me just skim the surface for you,
then ask yourself whether the slick major media image of our country
and the world is real or artificial. Not long ago the Boat People
from Vietnam were filling our headlines. Vietnam was expelling large
numbers of its people—most all of them were Chinese, not Vietnamese.
Vietnam has become a client state of Russia, and is preparing for
possible all-out war with China. Of all countries, Vietnam knows the
dangers of internal strife at this time, and so all those who refuse
to cooperate with the present regime are being rounded up and
expelled in one way or another. Vietnam is in a hurry because
already tensions are building again along the border with China.
The Boat People now constitute a refugee problem of staggering
proportions. Hundreds of thousands of people are crammed into
refugee camps. Even so, the recent actions of Vietnam should be
placed in proper perspective. In 35 years of continuous war in
Indochina, the mass expulsion of political undesirables is a new
phenomenon. In the past, the actions of the former Pol Pot regime in
Cambodia, now known as Kampuchea, would have been more typical. When
the Chinese-backed Pol Pot regime took control of Cambodia several
years ago, a reign of terror began. It was alleged that more than a
million Cambodians were murdered by their own government. Most of
them were members of the middle class, regardless of their ethnic
background. In that way the Pol Pot regime broke the back of any
possible resistance. If the present regime in Vietnam were carrying
on according to these traditional methods, there would be no Boat
People—instead, there would be only mass graves throughout Vietnam.
There would be no television pictures of pathetic refugees crammed
into boats, and there would be no controversy over Vietnam’s
actions; because, at most, all we would hear would be a few passing
rumors—then, all would be quiet again.
The shift in Vietnam’s behavior, my friends, is the result of
Russian pressure. Since the end of the Vietnam war, all remaining
Chinese influence in Vietnam has been rooted out. Vietnam is now
purely a Russian client state; and like Russia herself, Vietnam is
getting rid of internal enemies by expelling them. As for the bloody
Pol Pot regime in Cambodia, that was recently overthrown by the
Vietnamese invasion. The ferment in Indo-China is visible elsewhere
too. Recently the United States has started speeding up arms
shipments to Thailand, but the United States Government is now
coming under Russia’s control, so for all intents and purposes,
Thailand’s fate is already sealed. Soon it, too, will enter the
Russian orbit.
Russia’s continuing encirclement of China is moving right along.
Early in 1978, my friends, I alerted you to watch for America’s
doors to start opening wide to Red China. Within a few months the
news was filled with comments that we had decided to play the
so-called “China card.” It was all a panicky attempt by America’s
real rulers to buy time against Russia. During the final months of
1977, Russia had wrestled the military control of space away from
the United States. This had altered completely the East-West balance
of power; but due to the death of the real Leonid Brezhnev on
January 7, 1978, our Rulers thought they had a chance.
They expected the Kremlin to be divided
by infighting to decide Brezhnev’s successor. They thought they
could keep the Kremlin off balance for two to three years. Using
that time, they would rush ahead with secret weapons programs on a
crash basis. And so America tried to play the “China card.” Before
the year of 1978 was out, the Carter Administration announced that
the United States was establishing diplomatic relations with China,
but it was an act of pure desperation. The late four Rockefeller
brothers had badly underestimated the tightly knit band of
Christians who now rule Russia. Since March 1978, Marshal Dmitry
Ustinov has been the top man in the Kremlin. At the proper time he
will step down in favor of a younger man, but for now the Kremlin
power structure is stable and effective. Current events in Asia
demonstrate an important fact. America’s attempt to play the
so-called “China card” was a failure. It’s no longer fashionable
even to speak in those terms. China’s invasion of Vietnam early this
year of 1979 showed up the United States as a paper tiger in Asia.
By contrast, Russia’s profile there is becoming taller and taller.
As I revealed long ago, China was actually playing the “America
card” to get the best deal possible with Russia. Next month, formal
talks will begin in Moscow between China and Russia toward improving
relations between the two.
Six years ago in my book I warned about the forces leading to a vast
new Asian Axis. Today this axis built around Russia, China, and
Japan is coming together, but Russia is making sure there’s no doubt
in anyone’s mind about who will be its leader. Even on the eve of
major talks between Russia and China, Russia does not hesitate to
point fingers at China. For example, look at Afghanistan on Russia’s
southern border which is now a Russian client state. Civil war has
been underway there for nine months. Early this month a four-hour
pitched battle took place right in the capital city of Kabul. Afghan
Radio has charged that trained guerrillas, anti-revolutionaries,
have entered Afghanistan from neighboring Iran and Pakistan; and
Russia charges that some of these intruders were trained in China.
In ways like this, my friends, Russia is putting pressure not only
on China but also on Pakistan and Iran. This is part of Russia’s
preoccupation with bordering states, which I have explained in the
past. Afghanistan and Iran both border on Russia, and Russia wants
secure borders. Pakistan is a land bridge from Afghanistan to the
Arabian Sea. Russia has historically wanted a land corridor in this
area for access to the Indian Ocean. In other ways too, Pakistan is
being given good reason to think over her attitude toward Russia.
Lately Pakistan’s relations with the United States have taken a turn
for the worse. Earlier this month, on August 11, the New
York Times made public some stunning policy planning within the
State Department. Pakistan is very close to creating its own atomic
bomb, but the Times revealed that the United States intends to stop
Pakistan one way or another. One of the options under specific
consideration has brought a stinging protest by Pakistan—and no
wonder. That option is: covert operations. That, my friends, is
exactly the option used by the United States in Guyana last
November. In the case of Pakistan, those operations would involve
sabotage of her atomic installations. Here at home, of course,
sabotage is supposed to be inconceivable.
All across the world, the ferment increasingly has the flavor of
dramatic change. For example, less than a decade ago the United
States supported Pakistan in the war with India; and for five years
now India has had the atomic bomb—but now, the United States
reportedly wants to stop Pakistan from getting it. But things have
changed, my friends. The Rockefellers a decade ago were at the peak
of their power. India was slated for conquest in a plan which later
ousted Indira Gandhi from power. But as I have revealed in recent
tapes, the four Rockefeller brothers are no more. Their old allies
who overthrew them, the atheistic Bolsheviks, have also been stopped
in their tracks.
It is now Russia who controls most all
of the top echelons of the United States Government; and as Pakistan
ponders a changed America, Indira Gandhi is staging a comeback in
India.
In the past year the biggest change of all has gone unannounced in
our daily news. The end of a dynasty has taken place, the
Rockefeller dynasty. It began a year ago last month with the eldest
of the four brothers, John D. III. In AUDIO LETTER No. 36 I revealed
how his death would cause Rockefeller efforts in Africa and Asia to
start unraveling, and today the headless Rockefeller cartel is
losing fast in southern Africa. The initiative is shifting back to
Britain, which has established a special secret relationship with
Russia. As for Asia, I have already pointed out the collapse of
America’s so-called “China card” strategy, notwithstanding the
present visit to China of the robotoid Mondale.
Turning to the Persian Gulf, we keep hearing about United States
plans for a large contingency force. This force, known as the “Quick
Reaction Corps”, would rush to the Gulf to protect our oil lifeline
in time of crisis; but throughout the Gulf region itself, this plan
has raised cries of protest. It’s an offshoot of the plan I made
public a year ago to set up an American first strike against Russia;
but even without knowing that, it’s obvious to everyone that the
force would mean trouble. Kuwait has already served notice in public
that the United States must not deploy these forces in the Gulf. If
we do, Kuwait will destroy her own oil wells.
At this time last year the Shah of Iran was still in power, but the
upheaval in Iran which was tied to the secret American
war plan ended his rule earlier this year. The revolution in Iran
was also designed to break the access by British Petroleum
to Iranian oil. That has left practically the whole pie to the
Rockefeller big oil cartel; but increasingly the Khomeini regime
has turned out to be an awkward puppet for big oil. Now Iran is
becoming destabilized by internal strife among Kurds, Arabs, and
leftist Iranians; and lately there have been huge demonstrations in
Iran favoring the Palestine Liberation Organization.
The Iranian demonstrations have also
been against Israel and the United States, as if the two were one.
Meanwhile Israeli
artillery continues to pound southern Lebanon almost daily, and yet
there’s been an obvious shift in America’s Middle East
policy. Several weeks ago Israeli Foreign Minister Dayan said
publicly that a shift had taken place recently. There were
official denials but now the Andrew Young affair has created a
bombshell for United States policy in the Middle East, and here at
home smoldering tensions between Blacks and Jews have been fanned
into open flames.
And so it goes, my friends. Wherever you look you will see the
ferment of change. One way to look at this is to tell yourself that
all these things are unrelated just as they are presented in the
news. Viewed in that way, world events are impossible to understand
or even remember. That’s the attitude that says: There’s no cause
for human events, they just happen. But, my friends, there is a
cause for everything we see. The sun does not rise every day by
accident—there’s a reason for it; and the world is not stirring with
the winds of change by accident—there’s a reason for it. This month,
as always, I want to focus your attention on the reasons behind
current events. Knowing these, you can better understand the
individual events in the news for yourself. Maybe you can’t always
affect these events directly, but it’s always better to be aware
than to be taken by surprise; and for those who are not aware, there
will be many surprises in these days of radical changes.
My three special topics this month are:
-
Topic #1 - RUSSIA’S
TRANSFORMATION OF AMERICA’S MIDDLE EAST POLICY
-
Topic #2 - THE DOMESTIC
FALLOUT OF THE ANDREW YOUNG AFFAIR
-
Topic #3 - RUSSIA’S
TWO-FRONT WAR AGAINST ROTHSCHILD WORLD POWER.
Topic #1
- One summer night in 1974 I was in the
studios of a New York City radio station. The station was WMCA, the
program was the famous LONG JOHN NEBEL SHOW. For quite some time the
late Long John Nebel had been having me on his program as a guest
once a month for about six hours. But that night I was asked a
question about the Middle East. In my answer I said among other
things that the troubles there began with the Palestinians and the
Israelis, and they will end with the Palestinians and Israelis. Now
many Zionist listeners were shocked to hear these words. For them,
the Palestinians did not exist; and since that night I have never
again been allowed to appear on WMCA or any other New York radio
station. The then owner of WMCA is now the head of the VOICE OF
AMERICA. Can you imagine? It has now been five years since I said
those forbidden words about the Palestinians. Today, as then, the
Zionists here and in Israel bristle with hostility at the very word
“Palestinian”; and for most of those five years, American policy
toward the Palestinians has echoed that of Zionists and of Israel.
Four years ago, in 1975, Israel was secretly guaranteed that this
policy would continue by the late Secretary of State Henry
Kissinger. This policy was never passed on by Congress. As recently
as last March 26, 1979, American policy was still to exclude the
Palestinians. On that day the so-called “Egyptian-Israeli Peace
Treaty” was signed in Washington. It did not amend this 1975 policy
in any way, and so it continued to lock out the Palestinians.
In AUDIO LETTER No. 44 I explained how this secret policy was
intended to lead very quickly not to peace but to war in the Middle
East. That in turn was to lead to an American nuclear first strike
against Russia. The secret American plan, which I made public one
year ago this month in AUDIO LETTER No. 37, was moving fast, but
since that time dramatic changes have been taking place in America’s
foreign policy. This includes our foreign policy in general and our
Middle East policy in particular. The changes began last April 1979
behind the scenes.
At that time the changes were not yet visible to the public, but
that month I reported to my listeners that a secret war of “doubles”
had broken out in Washington. The Intelligence Agencies of Russia,
Britain, and Israel were struggling for control of the United States
Government. Our own CIA was in disarray. The CIA had always been
David Rockefeller’s private detective agency, but by then David
Rockefeller was dead, replaced by a “double.” Rockefeller power in
America had been shattered. In AUDIO LETTER No. 45 I reported that
Russia was gaining the upper hand in the war of “doubles.” The
following month I was able to reveal why they were winning. I also
reported that two supersecret diplomatic shuttles to the Middle East
had taken place. The shuttles involved what appeared to be top
American officials, but it was actually a Russian operation to stop
the Middle East war plan. And that was only the first step in
Russia’s plan to revolutionize United States policy in the Middle
East.
Many of my listeners seem to have ignored the detailed report I gave
on these shuttles in AUDIO LETTER No. 46. For one thing, there was
no hint about these developments in the major media news at that
time; and if anything, the Middle East appeared to be on the back
burner. But I think the significance of the shuttles may have been
overlooked by many people for another reason. AUDIO LETTER No. 46
was the tape in which I first revealed Russia’s secret weapon—that
is, “Organic Robotoids.” These artificial, living, robot-like
creatures are shocking and mind-boggling. Their mere existence is a
hard fact to absorb; so when I described their use in the shuttles
later in the tape, it may have sounded minor by comparison. My
friends, the events of recent days regarding the Middle East are the
direct result of those shuttles! They initiated a radical shift in
America’s Middle East policy because that policy is now being
established by the Kremlin. I would urge you to go back and listen
again to what you heard in AUDIO LETTER No. 46, especially regarding
the Middle East shuttles, then the events of recent days should be
much easier for you to understand.
On June 18, 1979, the SALT II signing took place in Vienna, Austria.
America’s turnabout in favor of SALT II is another aspect of
Russia’s take-over here. I have discussed that in recent tapes; but
on the same day as the SALT II signing, another important meeting
took place in Vienna. The robotoid replacement for Secretary of
State Cyrus Vance met with Austria’s Chancellor, Bruno Kreisky.
Kreisky is a Jew; but like many Jews, he has no sympathy with the
political force known as Zionism. In the recent past, he has made
scalding attacks on the ruling circles in Israel. In public
statements about this, Kreisky has used words such as “paranoid”, “a
police state”, to describe the Israeli government. The tough band of
Christians who now rule Russia agree completely. Like Kreisky, the
Russians have often made public statements blasting Zionism. In
Topic #3 I’ll say more about the controversy over Zionism because
this controversy is now moving onto center stage in a struggle over
the future of all mankind.
In the Kreisky meeting with the Vance robotoid, the diplomatic
status of the Palestinians was discussed. Ten days earlier, United
States Ambassador to Austria, Milton Wolf, had already had a meeting
with the representative of the PLO. Kreisky said he intended to
invite Arafat, the PLO leader, for a formal visit to Vienna. In that
way, Kreisky would be initiating a quasi-official recognition of the
PLO as a political force. On July 8 Arafat arrived in Vienna,
creating headlines in Europe.
Meanwhile, there had already been three
meetings in Austria between United States Ambassador Wolf and a PLO
representative.
On July 31 a Jimmy Carter robotoid began setting the stage for the
Andrew Young affair. In an interview, robotoid Carter
compared the Palestinian problem to the Civil Rights movement in the
United States. For days Israeli leaders were boiling, and their
sympathizers in this country denounced the Carter remarks. On August
5, Israeli Foreign Minister Dayan complained publicly that in the
past two months or so, quote: “There has been a shift in United
States policy.” That shift, my friends, began with the secret
robotoid shuttles, which I revealed three months ago. On August 13,
special Middle East Envoy, Robert Strauss, or rather a Strauss
robotoid, spoke before the American Bar Association in Dallas. He
said the United States is committed to the security of Israel but
also, quote: “the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.” The
same day, the Andrew Young affair began. NEWSWEEK magazine broke the
story that Young, as Ambassador to the United Nations, had met with
the UN observer of the PLO, Zehdi Terzi. The next day the Israeli
government loudly protested Young’s action. The day after that,
August 15, he resigned.
Last month I alerted you to watch for more changing faces in
positions of power here in the United States. The departure of
Andrew Young is part of this “changing of the guard”, but it’s also
much more. For one thing, the Young affair has highlighted the fact
that America’s Middle East policy is changing, and it did so in a
way that cast the Palestinians in a far more favorable light than in
the past. Equally important to Russia, Israel has been lured into
giving itself a black eye. In the past, Israel could always claim
that the PLO was making peace impossible, but now the PLO is
concentrating on a diplomatic drive for a peaceful accommodation
with Israel. Israel’s response has been to try to sabotage this
process. World-wide the reaction has been to start questioning
whether Israel really wants peace. For example, on August 17, the
BBC carried an interview with Antony McDermott of the Financial
Times of London. He was asked his opinion of the Israeli objective
in bringing about the Young resignation. He replied in part, quote:
“I would speculate that if the PLO were through some miracle to come
out and say ‘We accept the existence of Israel’, it would be
extremely embarrassing to Mr. Begin because he’s constantly
comparing them to the Nazis.” Russia had foreseen that Israel would
try to stop the United States policy shift. The Andrew Young affair
has caused Israel to injure herself by these efforts.
World opinion toward Israel is changing; but for Israel, the worst
setback of all may be right here in the United States because the
domestic fallout, my friends, of the Andrew Young affair is not at
all what Israel had in mind.
Topic #2
- When Israel was proclaimed a separate
nation in 1947 by the United Nations, the United States was the
first great power to give it diplomatic recognition. Ever since that
time, there has been a special relationship between the governments
of the two countries. An essential ingredient in maintaining this
relationship has been domestic support within the United States. For
more than three decades American public opinion has been generally
pro-Israel, but the Andrew Young affair is causing Israel to be seen
in a different light by many Americans. For one thing, questions are
now being raised about Israeli Intelligence activity in the United
States. In the past this has never been a public issue, but that is
changing because of the way in which the Young affair broke wide
open.
On August 16, the day after he resigned, Young held a news
conference at the United Nations. In the words of the BBC that
evening, Young blamed Israel for the events which led to his
resignation. That same day, the Atlanta Constitution reported
that Israeli Intelligence agents had spied on Young’s meeting with
PLO representative Terzi. The newspaper said that this enabled
Israel to challenge Young’s original statement that the meeting had
been inadvertent. Israel’s United Nations Ambassador Blum
immediately denied the report; but when Young was asked about it, he
said that he assumed he was being bugged but he did not care. Since
then reports have continued to multiply about Israeli spying in the
Young episode.
Israeli denials have just led to increasingly detailed reports about
the spying, and in the process broader questions are being asked
about Israeli spying here in the United States.
All this is very worrisome to the
government of Israel because they have, my friends, left a trail.
The fact is that the Mossad, Israel’s Intelligence Agency, is very
active in the United States, but this is in violation of a secret
agreement under which the Mossad is forbidden from this activity. In
return, our own CIA is forbidden from the clandestine activities in
Israel. Strangely enough, I can report that the CIA has adhered to
the agreement, but both did work together in the Jonestown, Guyana
tragedy, as I revealed in AUDIO LETTER 40. Israel is fearful of
having Mossad activities here exposed as a cause celebre.
Technically, the hundreds of Mossad agents in the United States
could be rounded up and expelled. If this was done with great
fanfare, the impact on Israel’s image here in America could be
devastating. World opinion would also veer away from Israel, so the
Zionists are doing everything in their power not to have an
investigation. What they want most is for the controversy to just go
away. At the same time, they’re trying to put the best possible face
on Israeli Intelligence. For example, on August 21 an article
appeared in the Washington Star entitled: “Discreet Mossad called
World’s Best.”
The article is built mainly around the
statements not by Israelis but by former American Intelligence
officials. The impression conveyed is that the mighty Mossad easily
could spy on anyone it wants to, but we are also to believe they
just wouldn’t do such a thing as spy on the Young-Terzi meeting. So
far though the questions about Israeli spying in the Young affair
are refusing to go away. On August 23 the Washington Star carried a
story in which an unnamed United States source is quoted as saying:
“The Israelis have staked out the Arabs around the United Nations
with bugs, taps, and surveillances. Young walked right into it.” The
article says considerably more about the Young episode, then it
expands into the subject of Israeli spying here in general. For
example, quote: “According to one source, New York City is the
center of Israeli spying in the United States and has been for
years.” Another quote: “On one occasion United States officials
learned that an Israeli wire tap operation was using a local
synagogue as a cover.”
And a final quote:
“Each year in New York, moreover,
there are numerous cases in which Israeli agents have been
identified posing as FBI agents, complete with seemingly
authentic credentials.”
By any standards, my friends, words like
these in a major American newspaper signal a change from the past.
Controversy over Intelligence activities could become a major
fallout against Israel from the Young affair, but there is another
domestic fallout which is even more important and that is the
rupturing of political and other ties between the Blacks and the
Jews. These tensions are very real, my friends, and have been
building since the mid-sixties; but they have only now burst into
the open for all to see. The catalyst, of course, was the Young
affair. Up until now, practically the only Americans who were aware
of these tensions were the Blacks and Jews themselves, but the
strongest feelings in this rift are felt by the Blacks. They are the
ones who feel they have been wronged, so I think the easiest way to
describe the situation is in the words of Blacks themselves.
On August 16 Young himself blamed Israel for making his resignation
necessary. The same day it was disclosed that United States
Ambassador to Austria, Milton Wolf, had met three times with PLO
representatives; but Wolf, who is Jewish, was not being reprimanded,
much less forced to resign! For Blacks, that news added insult to
injury. It got still worse the next day, August 17. It was announced
that the United States had made a surprise proposal regarding the
Security Council resolution on Palestinian Rights. The United States
had asked Israel to support an American-sponsored resolution to that
effect, but without success. With that news, Andy Young looked like
nothing more than the fall guy for a new American policy. Blacks
wondered:
“Why Andy? Why a Black?”
The same day, Young made comments on the
NBC “Today Show” which were repeated on the BBC World Service. Young
was asked about latent anti-Semitism in the Black community, and
said, quote:
“I think there may be a resentment
of a certain kind of arrogance that was played up, especially in
the New York press; and there was a kind of arrogance of Jewish
power, headlines saying: ‘Jews demand Young’s ouster.’ I think
that’s caused the reaction by the Black community, which is a
natural reaction, but in no way does that constitute
anti-Semitism.”
The following day, August 18, an article
in the New York Daily News illustrated the growing reaction of Black
America. The article was by Black columnist Earl Caldwell. It was
titled:
“Finally Played the Game, and Lost.”
Referring to the day after Young’s
resignation, Caldwell wrote, quote:
“On Thursday, the afternoon was
filled with the fallout. The clamor for his resignation had come
primarily from the Jewish community. That is fact. And now the
backlash that Andrew Young had warned the Israeli Ambassador
about was rising. Downstairs on the steps of the Mission the
Rev. Jesse Jackson was saying that Andrew Young was the fall
guy, and that it was not the Klan that brought the Bakke case,
that it was not the Klan that deals with Southern Africa, and
that it was not the Klan that brought the pressure to fire
Andrew Young; it was our former allies. And the backlash was
building.”
(End of quote from the Earl Caldwell
column.)
The rift between Blacks and Jews is
continuing to grow, my friends. Already a group of Black ministers
of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference has held a meeting
with Palestinians, and they have announced their support for
Palestinian rights. And during the past several days, a series of
very powerful commentaries about the situation were carried over the
American Forces Radio and TV Service. The commentator was James Rowe
of the Mutual Black Network. Unlike most other programs on the
American Forces Radio, the Rowe commentaries are followed by a
disclaimer originating with the Mutual Black Network; but they are
being beamed straight to our troops here and overseas. And, of
course, our Armed Forces of today have a very high proportion of
Blacks, here and abroad. The Rowe commentaries on the Young affair
are instructive for two reasons. For one thing, they illustrate the
growing backlash by many Blacks against Israel, but also Rowe
reminds his listeners of some historical background facts which must
be taken into account. Most Americans, Black or otherwise, do not
remember this background, or at least do not think about it. In his
commentary four days ago, August 23, Rowe began, quote:
“It’s time the United States stopped
placating the Israelis and got down to the serious business of
negotiating Peace in the Middle East. Every time something
offends Israel, the Jewish American population rises up. They
expect Black Americans to support them, despite the refusal of
Jewish groups to support some of our most recent concerns. The
Jewish groups left us when it came to reverse discrimination.
Despite that, what is more important is RIGHT and WRONG. It is
wrong that we support an ethnic group when they are mistaken,
and Israel is mistaken in the treatment of the Palestinians. We
cannot continue to pay for Hitler’s mistakes. Israel cannot be
permitted to perpetrate upon another group of people what the
Germans tried to do to them in World War II. If Israel has a
right to exist, then so does the State of Palestine. The goal
now should be: How do we achieve that?”
Further on, Rowe said:
“The United States Ambassador to
Austria was not asked to resign although he had several meetings
with the PLO representatives. So why did Andrew Young have to
resign? Why did the first black United States Ambassador have to
become the fall guy in a plan to appease Jerusalem and the
Jewish lobby here? It is extremely complicated and much greater
than concerns for oil from the region.”
The next day, August 24, James Rowe had
more to say about the Young resignation, and he included some
history in very concise terms. Here’s an excerpt from his
commentary; quote:
“We cannot let ourselves go on the
defensive every time the Jewish American lobby criticizes Blacks
as anti-Semitic because we don’t agree with them. Anybody that
doesn’t agree with Israel’s hard line stand is considered
anti-Semitic in Jerusalem. If anyone is to be charged with
responsibility for the current crisis in the Middle East, it
should be Great Britain. And if anyone is to be charged with the
protracted conflict in that region of the world, it is to be
Israel. Britain had control over the land that made up Jordan
and Palestine under a League of Nations’ mandate. The British
wanted to end their colonialism there, and permitted Zionists to
move in uncontrolled, and left the Palestinians to the
Jordanians. The Palestinians were left without a home because
London did not follow through on the United Nations’
recommendation of creating two separate states—one for the
Israelis and one for the Palestinians. It appears Israel wants
the Palestinians completely removed from the scene. Now comes
the Andrew Young card. How does the United States support the
human rights of the Palestinians without offending our long-time
and hard-line friends in the Zionist movement? The United States
is faced with supporting the human rights of the
Palestinians—but to the offense of Jews. Perhaps Andy Young was
the test of how offended Israel would be if America decided to
give in to demands from the Palestine Liberation Organization.”
(End of quotation from the Rowe
commentary of August 24.)
My friends, there was nothing accidental
about the Young affair. To those who do not know about Russia’s
secret take-over here in Washington, it all looks like a big
mistake; but in reality Israel’s mighty Mossad has just been
out-foxed by Russia’s KGB. The Russians, through the robotoids in
the White House, control most all the top positions in the United
States Government. They brought about the Young-Terzi meeting of
July 26, and in doing so they knew it would be monitored by Israeli
Intelligence. The Russians succeeded in planning and guiding events
in a way beneficial to Russia.
In AUDIO LETTER 46, I mentioned that Prime Minister Begin of Israel
had been replaced with a robotoid, as had Sadat of Egypt. Wholesale
robotizing is not taking place in those countries. By using their
Begin robotoid, Russia was able to make sure that Israel’s policy
would be to make an issue of Young’s PLO contact. This action has
caused the backlash reactions against Israel which I have already
discussed. It has also enhanced the image of the Palestinians
internationally. In addition, the Young flap provides an excuse for
the United States to back into a more favorable treatment of the
Palestinian cause. But, my friends, there will be other manipulated
events to distract you from the Andrew Young affair, all created by
friends of Israel still in our United States State Department.
The Russian target in the Andrew Young affair appears at first
glance to be all the Jews in both Israel and the United States, but
that is not the case. The true target in these Kremlin maneuvers is
the political force called ZIONISM. Many Jews are not Zionists, and
there are also Zionists who are not Jews; but Zionism masquerades as
a movement that speaks for all Jews. For reasons I will discuss in
Topic #3, the Christ-ones who rule Russia today intend to utterly
break Zionism as a force in the world. A major part of this is to be
the dismantling of Zionist power here in America. To that end, the
Andrew Young affair was engineered to uncork the political pressures
between Jews and Blacks. On the surface, this appears to mean all
Jews; but the commentaries I quoted by James Rowe suggest that
already the focus is narrowing. Black leaders are looking around
carefully; and as they look at the Zionists, they are doing so with
frowns and narrowed eyes.
Topic #3
- It has now been nearly two years since
I first made public the overthrow of the Bolsheviks in Russia; and
as my older listeners know, this is the outcome of six decades of
struggle by a tightly knit band of native Russian Christians. Now
they are out to destroy Bolshevism world-wide. The Kremlin’s
campaign to wipe out Bolshevism is still a secret officially; but as
important as Bolshevism is, the Kremlin rulers regard it as just one
major tentacle of a giant serpent; and if they keep their
anti-Bolshevism secret, they make no bones about their opposition to
what they see as another tentacle. That tentacle is ZIONISM.
The origins of modern-day Zionism trace back to the late 19th
Century, but the first major milestone toward the creation of a
Jewish state happened in 1917. Great Britain was looking for all the
friends she could find in what was then called “The Great
War.” That year the United States was drawn into that war with the
deliberate help of President Woodrow Wilson. But that same year,
Russia was removed from the war against Germany by the Bolshevik
Revolution. So the Allies were still under great pressure; and in
order to enlist the growing power of the Zionist movement on the
side of Britain, the famous Balfour Declaration was announced. Lord
Balfour announced that Britain would look with favor on the creation
of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine. Most
Americans were too preoccupied with news of the war to think long
about the Balfour Declaration in Britain; but soon after the war
ended, a major protest was published against the plans of the
Zionists. On March 5, 1919, readers of the New York Times saw a long
PETITION on page 7 with the headline:
“PROTEST TO PRESIDENT WILSON AGAINST
ZIONIST STATE.”
Nowadays if we saw a headline like that,
most of us would probably pay little attention. We would assume that
it was the work of the Arabs and turn the page; but that 1919
protest was presented and signed exclusively by Jews. And these were
not some small splinter group of malcontents, they were a galaxy of
Jewish stars in American politics, education, law, business,
medicine, journalism, banking, as well as prominent rabbis; people
like Congressman Julius Kahn of California who headed the list;
Henry Morganthau, Sr., ex-Ambassador to Turkey; Simon Wolf, former
consul to Egypt; Max Senior, former president of the National
Conference of Jewish Charities; Professor Morris Jastrow of the
University of Pennsylvania; Adolph Ochs, publisher of the New York
Times; Lessing Rosenthal, Chicago attorney; Dr. Julius Rosenstein,
surgeon at Mount Zion Hospital in San Francisco; L. H. Kampner,
mayor of Galveston, Texas; I. W. Hellman, presidentof the Union
Trust Company in San Francisco; and many others.
The PETITION begins, quote:
“As a future form of government for
Palestine will undoubtedly be considered by the approaching
Peace Conference, we, the undersigned citizens of the United
States, unite in this statement setting forth our objections to
the organization of a Jewish State in Palestine as proposed by
the Zionist societies in this country and Europe.”
The petitioners felt that they were,
quote: “voicing the opinion of the majority of American Jews.” To
back that up, they pointed out, quote:
“The American Zionists represent,
according to the most recent statistics available, only a small
proportion of the Jews living in this country, about 150,000 out
of 3-1/2 million.”
As their source, they cited the 1918
edition of the “American Jewish Yearbook” in Philadelphia.
The PETITION goes on to sound not only a protest but a series of
warnings. The signers did sympathize with the concept of, quote:
“A refuge in Palestine or elsewhere.” They felt that this would be a
good thing purely as a haven for Jews living under oppression; but
they were bitterly opposed to the Zionist demands for, quote:
“Reorganization of the Jews as a
national unit to whom now or in the future territorial
sovereignty in Palestine shall be committed.”
The Jews who published that PETITION
against a Zionist State 60 years ago turned out to be prophets. Like
most prophets, their warnings went unheeded; but for more than three
decades events in the Middle East have been acting out their
warnings in flesh, blood, and tragedy.
I can do no more than highlight a few points from the anti-Zionist
PETITION, which is long and detailed, but history demands that we be
aware of the efforts of the anti-Zionist Jews to turn aside tragedy,
deep tragedy. They pointed out that the Zionists were demanding,
quote:
“A home not merely for Jews living
in countries in which they are oppressed, but for Jews
universally. No Jew, wherever he may live, can consider himself
free from the implications of such a grant.”
From a practical standpoint, my friends,
they pointed out that tiny Palestine could not hold all the Jews
then living in the world. The 6 to 10 million in Russia and Romania
alone would have produced hopeless overcrowding; but beyond that,
they objected to what they termed “political segregation.” They felt
it was both undemocratic and dangerous to Jews themselves the world
over. They worried, quote:
“All Jews repudiate every suspicion
of a double allegiance; but to our minds, it is necessarily
implied in, and cannot by any logic be eliminated from, the
establishment of a sovereign state for the Jews in Palestine.”
They added that, quote:
“As a rule, those who favor such a
restoration advocate it not for themselves but for others. Those
who act thus and yet insist on their patriotic attachment to the
countries of which they are citizens are self-deceived in their
profession of Zionism.”
They were worried that Jews themselves
would be torn internally by pressures for double allegiance, and
they were concerned that this would play into the hands of those who
considered Jews, quote:
“Aliens in every land, incapable of
true patriotism, and prompted only by sinister and self-seeking
motives.”
Quoting Sir George Adam Smith, an
authority of that day on Palestine, they also foresaw the bloodshed
to come, quote:
“It is not true that Palestine is
the national home of the Jewish people and of no other people.
It is not correct to call its non-Jewish inhabitants Arabs, or
to say that they have left no image of their spirit and made no
history except in the great mosque; nor can we evade the fact
that Christian communities have been as long in the possession
of their portion of this land as ever the Jews were.”
The PETITION also says, quote:
“The claims to various sections of
this undefined territory would unquestionably evoke bitter
controversies. To subject the Jews to the possible recurrence of
such bitter and sanguinary conflict, which would be inevitable,
would be a crime.”
Finally, they concluded with the words:
“We do not wish to see Palestine,
either now or at any time in the future, organized as a Jewish
State.”
But, my friends, the Zionists were
successful in thwarting this appeal by prominent American Jews.
Israel became a nation in 1947, and the predicted bloodshed began
immediately. Israeli terrorism by Menachem Begin and others caused
Palestinian blood to run red in the streets. Palestinians became
refugees in their own land, and the borders of Israel began
expanding. Soon there was nothing left of what had been called
Palestine. The Middle East war plan, which the Russians halted in
May 1979, involved the Zionists in alliance with the Bolsheviks. The
Russians are determined to end the threat of nuclear war; and after
30 years of Israeli history, they have concluded the same thing
about Zionism as about Bolshevism. They are convinced that there
will be no peace in the world for Jew, Moslem, or Christian so long
as Zionism exists. So they are now in a two-front war to destroy
both Zionism and Bolshevism.
Long ago Russia’s new rulers discovered
that Zionism and Bolshevism had common origins. These origins
involved the
ROTHSCHILDS, but others are involved also, so they are now following
the trail of Satanic power towards its origins using
their secret weapons—the robotoids. Right now they are striking at
the tentacles of world power, like ZIONISM and BOLSHEVISM; but when
the time is ripe, they are hoping to strike at the very headof world
Satanic power.
Until next month, God willing, this is Dr. Beter. Thank you, and may
God bless each and every one of you.
|