Nov. 26, 2014

PJ-15

CHAPTER 17

 

REC #2 HATONN

 

SUNDAY, JUNE 3, 1990 4:02 P.M. YEAR 3 DAY 291

                                                                         

You ask me how things of such magnitude can be kept secret? They can't, it is that it becomes so absurd that the "secrecy" label covers the stupidity which grows and grows until mankind will disbelieve everything. In that confusion of disillusionment, all becomes valueless for the searching continues to turn up the lie--the truth then becomes too incredible to be accepted by the mind al­ready brainwashed to disbelief. Ones cease to even think about how ridiculous a story might in fact, be. Let me give you an example in point which will jog memories in most of you and can be reminded unto the unknowing for it is quite recent in timing.

 

FOR EXAMPLE

 

This story is true and deals with hostage release as part of the U.S.-Iran-Syria arms deal. Whatever the White House may be saying nowadays, money and weapons have been thrown into the balance of these latest rounds of secret negotiations between the United States and Iran (in other words the secret leadership thinks you won't suspect lightning striking twice in the same place) in order to obtain the release of Robert Polhill, former professor at the American University of Beirut, who was kidnapped on Jan. 24, 1987. But seven Americans, three British, two West Germans, four Belgians, two Swiss, one Irishman and one Italian are still being held hostage, not to mention the countless Lebanese and others who have also been kidnapped and whose fate is clearly of no interest to the White House and most other Western governments.

 

Polhill is the first American hostage to be released since Nov. 1986. The last hostage was released as part of Oliver North's infamous "Arms for Iran" operation. Polhill, his colleagues, and others were subsequently kidnapped as the result of the exposure of what became known as the Irangate scandal. In order to politically survive the consequences of the scandal within Iran and prove his "revolutionary" good faith, Iranian President Hashemi-Rafsanjani personally had become involved in hostage-taking and, for example, ordered the kidnapping of Anglican Church mediator, Terry Waite, in Jan. 1987.

 

Polhill's release was part of the most recent stages of American-Iranian negotiations which have been going on with numerous interruptions ever since 1986 this is enough to set the stage.

 

The governments of Pakistan and Algeria were the go-between the United States and Iran. In Iran itself, the Swiss and Japanese embassies were called on to deliver messages. By late Feb., a deal was struck. On the military front, it involved delivery of large shipments of cluster bombs from Pakistan, originally coming from the stores of the U.S.-based International Signal and Control corporation of James Guerin, a maverick businessman whose companies have been used for the last decade by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency in the Middle East and South Africa. Teheran, on its side, sent additional financial support and military deliveries to the Hezbollah in Lebanon.

 

AH, AND THEN THE INFAMOUS FAKE PHONE CALL

 

None of these negotiations were smooth. In mid-March the deals almost went sour when the story of a direct phone call between the White House and Teheran became publicly known. Intelligence sources report that the White House had decided to make it public in order to preempt a scandal, floating the line that the President had talked to an "Impostor". In reality such a phone call had been reportedly agreed to at the last meeting in Pakistan. The plan was that Bush and Rafsanjani would get on the phone as the final con­firmation that the deal was on.

 

The White House initiated the call, and Bush spoke with Mahmound Rafsanjani, the Iranian President's brother, and Foreign Ministry official, Sheikholislamzadeh. The choice of Mahmound Rafsanjani was no coincidence. He had been chosen by his brother to negotiate with the Lebanese Hezbollah. The phone call meant that he could additionally carry a verbal commitment from the U.S. President.

 

Fearing that contents of the call, which was obviously monitored, would be made public by the radicals around Mohtashemi, the White House decided to go public with its own perverted version that Iran had initiated the call and that nothing had come of it.

 

Meanwhile, to cover their own involvement in the affair, too, the Iranian leadership sponsored a wave of articles depicting the ridiculous efforts of Bush to get in touch with Iran at all cost. "Is another Irangate in the making?" the media trumpeted.

 

At the same time, yet another game of manipulation of the public opinion was going on concerning Iraq. Timed with the latest round of negotiations in Pakistan, and the reaching of some kind of agreement, the U.S. news media discovered a great Iraqi military and political threat to the entire region. The game was easy enough: The arrest of a few Iraqis at London's Heathrow Air­port and widely publicized reports that Iraq was about to deploy a nuclear weapon, were sufficient to convince the Iraqi leadership that their country was coming under severe attack.

 

OF COURSE IT GETS WORSE

 

There was actually more to it: American intelligence had provided Baghdad with precise information about an Israeli attack in the making. The information was provided by Washington in full knowledge of the effect it would have on the Iraqi leadership. A few days later, Iraqi President Saddah Hussein fell into the trap and went into a lengthy diatribe against Israel, threatening to annihilate with chemical weapons--just the kind of threat that worldwide media could use to further corner the Iraqi  Tune in tomorrow, same station, same time and hear the explosive conclusion- - - - -.

        

Well, OK, since you are paying attention - - - ‑

 

That Iraq, equipped with chemical weapons, represents a regional danger, is true enough. Iraq's neighbors along the Persian Gulf are nervous enough about that prospect. Yet no one raised the real issues of the whys and hows of such a campaign.

 

How is it that 90% of all of the companies supplying Iraq with deadly weapons are American? Why was it that, while this had gone on for more than four years, it was exposed just now? Why was it that, at the same time that Baghdad was involved in developing such dangerous weapons with American technology, Washington had taken the political decision to become increasingly dependent on Iraqi oil, whose supplies to the U.S. have more than tripled since 1986?

 

And was it a coincidence that just a few days after Polhill's release, Bush sent a personal message to Saddah Hussein underlining his commitment to maintaining good relations between the two countries, just as the day before the U.S. State Department had sent a memorandum to the Iraqi authorities assuring them that Washington was pressuring Israel to the utmost not to at­tack Iraq?

 

By the way, has anyone noted that Polhill, who was fatigued, etc., but in great health when he came back into American hands--and now he has serious cancer? He will also be terminal, dear ones, for he is set up as an ultimate martyr! In this world you may be better off with the enemy if you can figure out who and which it is. I'll assure you of one thing--you are NOT better off with the American government!

 

Denouncing, Iraq was therefore just part of a broader game. It had several purposes: First, it could create a general environment in which, compared to Iraq's potential madness, both the Syrian and Iranian leadership would appear moderate. (Israeli reports about Syria's ability to deploy chemically equipped Scud-B missiles were conveniently ignored.) After all, even if both Syria and Iran possess exactly the same kind of weapon, neither Syrian Presi­dent Hafez al Assad nor Hashemi-Rafsanjani were indulging in the kind of diatribe used by Saddah Hussein. Oh, you read something different in U.S. News and World Report--well, you'll also find that the top people at that publication are listed members of the Trilateral Commission, etc., etc., etc.

 

No less important, it paved the way for the next major U.S. offensive in the Middle East, together with the Soviet Union: the imposition of an Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces-type treaty over the entire region, ef­fective over both Arab and Israeli missiles--except Israel doesn't care for this particular solution. So be it.

 

THE WASHINGTON-DAMASCUS-TEHERAN AXIS

 

A direct result of this campaign has been Washington's ability to throw all caution to the wind in underlining the need for good relations with the terrorist states of Iran and Syria. The environment had been created, and a gesture was just what was needed; the release of Polhill was that gesture. Prior to it, Bush had sent a personal message to Hafez al Assad on the 44th anniversary of Syrian independence, in which Bush praised Assad's "personal efforts to eliminate the danger of international terrorism."

 

Following Polhill's release, Bush's tone became even warmer. This was no surprise to Syria: Since the beginning of the year, it had hosted former Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, former President Jimmy Carter, and U.S. Senate minority leader Robert Dole, keeping them informed of Damascus's role in the secret negotiations. Vance 's visit had been used to test the possibility of direct negotiations between Syria and Israel, on Syria's terms. This could only be welcomed in Washington, which is all too eager to establish a good working relationship with Damascus, if only as an efficient means of control over Israel. Enough already.

 

I do find it even more interesting that the former head of the CIA would complain about intelligence information regarding the China incident and other quarters when he sits in the original stage briefings. I get good information from secret intelligence and I use the same sources he does. Oh well--now do you get my point? You people buy it all and therefore they will continue to sell it to you until you put a stop to the buying!

 

Now let's get back to work. The Network Conspiracy.

 

AMERICAN PARTNERS

 

Ideas and dreams about a promised New World Order proliferated rapidly after the Rhodes plan had been set in motion.

 

With American Rhodes Scholarship students arriving at Oxford University, the operations of the Round Table groups were extended to the U.S., giving rise to a movement for the reunification of Britain and America called "Union Now", which caught the fancy of many powerful and influential Americans, including Andrew Carnegie. For these men, too, the Ruskin gospel gave coherence, moral justification and social significance to lives otherwise concerned only with a sordid scramble for wealth. One of the most prominent hot-gospellers of the Ruskin "ethic" in the United States was Clarence Streit, who worked in the closest cooperation with the Rhodes Trust.

 

At the end of the war of 1914, it became clear that the organization of this system (the Round Table group) had to be greatly extended. Once again the task was entrusted to Lionel Curtis who established in England and each dominion a front organization to the existing Round Table group. This front organization, called the Royal Institute of International Affairs, had as its nu­cleus in each area the existing submerged Round Table group. In New York it was known as the Council on Foreign Relations.

 

The new organizations which largely replaced the Round Table groups had a double purpose. They served as a brain trust or intellectual power-house dedicated to the main purpose of promoting the one-world ideal. Having direct links with the top echelons of business, including the banks, with governments and political parties and with the universities, these bodies also served as informal employment agencies whose task it was to plant suitably indoctrinated Rhodes scholars in positions where they could be expected to exert the maximum of influence in promoting the shared vision of a one-world heaven upon Earth.

 

The Council on Foreign Relations has played so important a part in shaping American policy, both internal and external, that it could once, without exaggeration, be described as America's invisible government. In the 38 years before 1972 every Secretary of State except three had been a member of the CFR. Henry Kissinger, President Richard Nixon's Chief Security Adviser and later Secretary of State, came to the job from the staff of the CFR.

 

Much has been written about the CFR but nearly all of it is described as "underground literature"; that is, writings such as these not to be found in Establishment publications or on the counters of Establishment book distributors. I guess it must be understandable as to why not. They could afford to stand up to a small extent for a Salmon Rushdie and SATANIC VERSES because it was the political thing to do and the confounded book didn't say a thing about hardly anything. But lots takes place in advance of keeping such publications as these Journals off the shelves--distractors, distractors.

 

Although the formal membership in the CFR is composed of close to 1,500 of the most elite names in the worlds of government, labor, business, finance, communications, the foundations and the academy, despite the fact that it has staffed almost every key position in every administration since those of FDR, it is doubtful that one American in a thousand so much as recognizes the Council's name and that is being gracious indeed.

 

As was only to be expected, a large proportion of the CFR nominees placed in key positions in successive American administrations were Rhodes Scholars.

 

In America, whence flowed powerful influences affecting political developments all around the world, the CFR hatched out a number of subsidiary organizations, one of the most important of these being the Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR) which, as its name implies, was concerned mainly with developments in the Far East, including China. There are at least 13 other organizations in which the CFR exerted a preponderant influence, including the American Committee on Africa.

 

It would require a massive volume to record the worldwide ramifications of the network of powerful organizations which has grown out of the yearnings of Ruskin the dreamer and Rhodes the man of action, beginning with the secret society and the Rhodes Scholarship trust and Milner's Round Table groups of "helpers". I won't send forth massive volumes for I get constant complaints that the average 200 pages in these Journals is too much!

 

NETWORK ADDRESS CHANGED

 

It could only be expected that with the shift of the center of gravity of high finance from London to New York and the proliferation of agencies of the Council on Foreign Relations, the real control of the network also moved to America.

 

What has been told so far however, is only less than half, and the less important portion as well, of the story of the Anglo-American network which has exerted so powerful an influence on global politics and is still hell bent on submerging all existing national regimes in a world government.

 

As you must now realize, there had been a radical transformation of the Anglo, a change at the apex of control, a change of ownership-and a most important change of purpose and intention.

 

Changes of this kind belong to a much-neglected field of human knowledge and inquiry--the operations of power in human terms.

 

In your universities you can learn about other forms of power--electric, hydraulic, mechanical, even nuclear--but there is no science which makes it possible for you to determine precisely who makes the real decisions of any given situation; in other words, how and by whom power is exercised. And if there is one place you can be sure you shall never get the knowledge and skill you seek, it is in political science (totally mutually exclusive terms at best) textbooks.

 

Knowledge in this area is a sort of wizardry passed on from father to son and confined to the inner coterie of those who "make things happen". The Eastern Establishment which formed the American end of the Anglo-Ameri­can network was completely dominated by J.P. Morgan and Co. from the 1880s to the 1930s, and it was Anglophile, internationalist, Ivy League, Eastern seaboard high Episcopalian and European-culture-conscious. As late as the 1930s J.P. Morgan and his associates were the most significant figures in policymaking at Harvard, Columbia and to a lesser extent Yale, while the Whitneys were significant at Yale, and the Prudential Insurance Co., through Edward D. Duffield, dominated Princeton.

 

The decline of J.P. Morgan itself from its deeply anonymous status as a partnership founded in 1861 to its transformation into an incorporated public company in 1940 and its final disappearance by absorption into its chief banking subsidiary, the Guaranty Trust Co., in 1959. But the name still is tossed about as if it bore not these other labels.

 

The less obvious implications of this shift were illustrated in a story which passed through Ivy League circles in 1948 in connection with the choice of a new president for Columbia University. This, of all the universities, had been the one closest to J.P. Morgan and Co., and its President, Nicholas Murray Butler, was Morgan's chief spokesman from the ivied halls.

 

He had been chosen under Morgan's influence, but the events of 1930-48 which so weakened Morgan in the economic system also weakened his influence on the board of trustees of Columbia until it became evident that Morgan did not have the votes to elect a successor.

 

A happening of enormous historical importance had occurred: the overthrow of a moneyed power elite which as "high Episcopalian" and others have described it as "WASP" (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant). When the WASPs lost top-dog position in Wall Street, they naturally also lost the power to decide who should head the leading educational institutions like Columbia University.

 

THE WALL STREET CONNECTION

 

Thus one "money and intellect alliance" was subtly replaced by another. And the fact that such an alliance of money and intellect behaves in much the same way regardless of who controls it at the top made the change even more difficult to detect.

 

"Ruthless cynicism" as to methods was as much a characteristic of the network before the change of ownership and control as afterward; Rhodes and Milner, no less than the faceless ones who have controlled the network since then, recognized in Marxist socialism a means of concentrating in their hands control of financial and political power aimed at the setting up of a "New World Order" which they could also control.

 

In the short term there is evidently not much difference between one set of totalitarian power seekers and another, but with the passage of time the results produced can be strikingly different.

 

The highly dramatic but unreported happenings of those days may well have been in mind when it was suggested that people can be divided into three classes: a tiny minority who make things happen, a slightly larger group who watch things happen, and the great majority of mankind who haven't the faintest idea what happened.

 

If you still do not have the detailed story of what happened about the time when Morgan found that he no longer had the power to nominate Columbia University s President, at least there is no secret about the results that have flowed from those occult happenings. The facts are everywhere to be seen in the U.S. and have been set down and well documented. Furthermore, no one can even pretend any longer that the masters of America are the WASPs.

 

No historical research is more dangerous today than that which has to do with efforts to ascertain how, and by whom, power is exercised at the very highest levels. Any historian or writer who ventures into this field of inquiry is quickly made to understand that he does so at his peril and usually his demise.

 

Those who insist on knowing truth and cannot be frightened off are bound to discover that there came into existence inside America's Eastern or Wall Street Establishment two mutually antagonistic power vortices.

 

You can learn a lot from Henry Ford from the 1930s. He had to divide financiers into two classes, those who profited from war and used their influence to bring about war for profit, and the "constructive" financiers. Among the latter group he included the House of Morgan. It was further suggested that instead of the 60 families touted as directing the destinies of the nation, it might well be only 25 persons who handle the nation's finances; if so, the world's real warmakers would be brought into bold relief.

 

The historical picture of those times might appear hard to read because both brands of finance capitalism were playing the same game and were using much the same methods--but it is but little changed--appearance and deceit are the name of the game. Both had instantly recognized in Marxist socialism a useful instrument for the expansion, consolidation and concentration of great financial power and its translation into political power. Both had helped to finance the Bolshevik Revolution and were involved in the financing of successive Soviet five-year plans.

 

Inevitably, too, there was a good deal of overlapping of interests and even cooperation. Indeed, the battle line existed only in the minds of ad hoc segments of the two elites.

 

However, the difference between the two power vortices was important enough to guarantee that Henry Ford would hate the one and love the other--even to love one he had formerly hated, but isn't that the way it usually goes?

 

Let us consider the references at that time to the "anti-Semitism" of Henry Ford and of J.P. Morgan which strongly supports the contention that Ford came out in open support of the House of Morgan when he realized that Morgan represented the last stronghold of opposition to an international cosmopolitan finance which threatened to engulf America's own essentially WASP finance capitalism.

 

Ah bigotry--what happens to anti-Semitism if Jews are not really Semites after all? Who is the real joke on? This is clearly the case with the Zionists and it must profoundly affect both the way that others look at Jews, and the way Jews look at themselves. Well, we will simply have to delay until another Journal an in-depth look at the Zionists. They are of the utmost importance (refer to the Protocols) but we must restrict fragmenting at this time.

 

The New World Order in its original wrappings is still being peddled in the U.S. There is still some mileage in the "English idea" mystique. It still offers to those who can find salvation nowhere else that last "hope", poor dears.

 

NOW FOR THE GERMAN ISSUE

 

As was only to be expected, changes within the American Eastern Es­tablishment were accompanied by corresponding changes in the English power Establishment on the other side of the Atlantic.

 

In the period 1939-40 the inheritors of the Rhodes-Milner apparatus fought their last great battle for control in British politics.

 

Hitherto, the main influence had flowed from its original source westward; from now on the flow was in the reverse direction, and you need have no doubt that strong Eastern Establishment influence had a lot to do with bringing about the split.

 

The British political scenario of the 1930s began with an English Establishment firmly united in opposition to war with Germany, if for slightly differing reasons.

 

A split between the two main groups occurred in 1939-40, with the three-block people like Amery, Lord Halifax and Lord Lothian becoming increasingly anti-German, while the anti-Bolshevik crowd like Chamberlain, Horace Wilson and John Simon tried to adopt a policy based on a declared but unfought war against Germany and an undeclared but fighting war against the Soviet Union.

 

Two radically different "worldviews", two radically different global ambitions, were involved:

 

1. The original "English idea" in which a place was to be found for the Englishman's traditional cousin, the German; and

 

2. An ambition which had taken root in the minds of Wall Street's new, cosmopolitan masters, partly fulfilled with the Bolshevik Revolution, which now most urgently required the destruction of a resurgent Germany.

 

In the smoke and smother of propaganda and controversy then prevailing, few would have been able to get a clear view of the forces and issues involved.

 

You can now see that there were two factors in the unfastening of the cohesion of an English Establishment which had so long dominated British politics and had formed the British end of the Anglo-American network. One of these was disillusionment about Adolf Hitler s actions and aims; Hitler, they felt, had made their situation impossible. The other factor was the in­creasing anti-German pressure from centers of Jewish high finance (Zionists) in Britain.

 

The Rhodes-Milner set, later to be disparagingly labeled the "Cliveden set" (after the name of the mold of Lord and Lady Astor), fought at the political barricades and was decisively defeated. Silenced, too, was the voice of their principal public spokesman, Geoffrey Dawson, editor of the Times.

 

It can be taken for granted that the Cliveden set were the English counterpart of that "high Episcopalian, European culture-conscious Ford-Morgan faction on the other side of the Atlantic', who firmly believed that a strong Germany was needed for the salvation of Europe and the fulfillment of the Rhodes-Ruskin vision of a new world order.

 

USSR--NEW 'MODEL'

 

With the overthrow of those who still adhered to the original "English idea", there would be no one willing or able to prevent the liquidation of the British empire, that empire which was to have been the foundation for the dreamed-of heaven upon Earth.

 

What passed unnoticed and without comment in those days can now be seen more clearly in retrospect: The British empire was replaced by the Soviet Union as model and blueprint for the planned world government.

 

(Note: The remainder of this chapter was lost to a computer "malfunction" and is continued in the following chapter.)

 

GOD IS ALL PATIENT AND ALL LOVE

 

REC/T #3 SANANDA

 

FRIDAY, JUNE 1, 1990 4:20 P.M. YEAR 3 DAY 289

 

I am here. Let us begin please. I Am Sananda and I come in the Light which I Am.

 

You as a people, as a nation (America) are observing the Master Deceiver in full form...always the front which is put on is picture perfect yet beneath the surface lies the dark evil, lurking in wait. You as the American public have become so trusting that you literally allow the elected ones and the lawyers to manipulate and distort the very principles on which the Constitution was founded. Doesn't this concern you? And why do you suppose it is that so much of these Journals are a total surprise to you? If there was not the effort to hide and bury this information, wouldn't you have a better idea of what is in store for you as a people? You ones do not get the news, you do not get the news...rather you get watered down oatmeal, with an occasional human interest story thrown in. Even the ones who you might perceive as being the "good guys" have themselves been caught in the web which is ever present around ones of any potential threat to the Controllers.

 

Do you think all this talk of Conspiracy and Controllers and Puppet Masters is merely a severely paranoid mind ranting? Have you thought that somehow America was exempt from great hardship or manipulation by wealthy ones of evil intent? You have grown complacent and fat, and you sit and wait for another to do that which you must do. For if you do not, it will be lost, and then the wailing will begin in earnest...but too late. Hatonn, my brother, has brought you information by the bushel-full that may all be checked out to your satisfaction. Do you do so? Would you rather throw stones? If you choose not to check out this information as valid or, for that matter, choose not to read of it at all, then how may you arrive at an informed opinion? If the mat­ters do not concern you, for surely they will affect every aspect of your life, why is it that they don't concern you? Are you so addicted to material goods, entertainment, drugs, sex, that matters of great importance pass like the wind before you without so much as a second glance?

 

I come with a host to help...yet I pity thee, thou misguided man...journey back to your source before it is too late, journey back. Regain your value system, for the values before thee, man, are as naught. Why does man not examine himself, his plight? Man may strike for 2 months for a 50 cent raise in pay, but ask him to consider his source of being and there "isn't time". Man is lucky indeed that God is All Patient and All Love, yet I tell thee truly, His patience is at its end and man will feel the effects. Come back unto the Father. Ask for guidance and light and help...it is right in front of you but you must reach out thy hand and take hold of it, for none may do it for another.

 

Think on these things, beloved ones. Blessings pour forth to help bring the children of God home.

 

In the Light of The Father

which I Am

Sananda

http://www.fourwinds10.net/journals/pdf/J015.pdf