So spoke David Ben-Gurion (born David Gruen in Lodz, Poland in 1886), the first prime minister of the new state of Israel. In a revealing article, "Whose Country Is It?" in the January 1998.American Spectator, Tom Bethell puts those stirring words in their proper context. Bethell had just returned from a week in Jerusalem, which may or may not become the first capital city of the World. Bethell writes that when the British controlled Palestine after World War I, Chaim Weizmann and the Zionist collaborated with quotas that prevented most religious or Oriental Jews from immigrating. 1

"Fifty years ago exactly, " Bethell informs us, "the Soviet Union cast its crucial United Nations vote in favor of the new state. " He also quotes Yosef Lapid, an editorial writer for Ma'ariv, a left-wing newspaper, whose column bore the header: "It Just Isn't My Country Anymore. "

This begs the question, just whose country is it - this land once called Palestine? There is a simple answer, but we can feel for the perplexity of this man, Yosef Lapid, as he sees within his country, the steady encroachment of Orthodox and religious Jews, "most of the newer faces from Russia, " Bethell says, "almost a million strong" since the collapse of the Soviet Union. They brought with them "a new faith, which is to say the old faith; the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. "2

BARBARIANS INSIDE THE GATES

Although he doesn't say it, Bethell intertwines several exceptionally close alliances in his article, the United Nations, Bolshevism, the Soviet Union, Zionism, Palestine, the new state (Israel), David Ben-Gurion, Chaim Weizmann....

They are all of a set piece. We will discover in this work just how they interconnect, and how a relatively small band of evil gangster-statesmen contrive unceasingly to erect a world empire under the blue and white banners of the secular humanist governments of the United Nations and the mini-state of Israel.

The cunning tactics and terror techniques of Lenin and Stalin and their Zionist (say Bolshevist) Comrades, headed by such historically significant thugs as "Iron Felix" Dzerzinsky and Leon Trotsky (Lev Bronstein), are today being, implemented with a vengeance right here in our own country - the United States of America - once the citadel of liberty and freedom; now, fast becoming the premier fascist police state. We too may ask the question: just whose country is it?

These latter-day Bolshevists, dedicated conspirators with a fanatical will to power, are seizing the critical levers of government and straining for the ultimate brass ring - a one-world United Nations of absolute despotism.

FLASHBACK 1951

The Korean War was the first large-scale war in American history that began and ended without a declaration of war by the Congress of the United States. It was the first war to be fought under the aegis of the United Nations.

We rushed into Korea with no advance planning, and we stumbled into the ground war in Vietnam with uncertain footing. In neither case did we have any fully thought-out ideas concerning our objectives or the means we would be willing to expend to attain them... There was some excuse for our precipitate action in Korea, but little or none for our somewhat aimless drift into deep involvement in Vietnam. We must not let such situations develop again. 3

J. Lawton Collins stressed this point in his book, War in Peacetime, published in 1969. Known as "Lightning Joe" for his heroic exploits as commander of the VII Corps from D-Day until Germany surrendered, General Collins was Chief of Staff of the US Army from 1950-53. During that time, those brave men doing the actual fighting for the US Army in Korea looked upon Lightning Joe as "The Boss. " This author was a young combat infantry troop commander in Korea, who had served proudly as a soldier in World War II, a latter-day Sir Lancelot on a quest. It was one of his heroes of World War II, General of the Army Omar Bradley, who stated in 1951, "Korea is the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. "

After the Korean debacle, the author began to develop serious doubts about the people who were running our country. He thought then... did we do this... officers such as Generals Ridgway, Collins, Taylor, Williams and Clarke, as well as those of us of lesser rank? But that thought has been tempered by time; we were the soldiers who carried out the orders; we were in effect the architects and executioners of a failed policy.

Today, the doubts persist.

Here, the author makes his key point, for without it, this book in its entirety is meaningless and a mere exercise in polemics. We are in fact at war. We have an enemy, which can and must be defined from a political standpoint, for war and politics have a symbiotic relationship. While such factors as economic domination, religious differences and ideological disjunction may have a bearing in the political arena, they can never of themselves generate the intensity of mutual antipathy between opposing forces to cause a war to break out.

To wage war, one must have a well-defined enemy. That enemy must constitute a threat to our survival as a nation-state with a clearly understood way of life. This condition leads to the defense of a specific territory.

We can also wage offensive war against an enemy. The purpose must be political gain or an increase in political power. The net result may be an increase in land, booty, slaves and women (as defined in the Old Testament), but concomitantly, there must also be an increase in political power. Otherwise, you may emerge from a war victorious, but suffer a net loss in political power; witness France and Britain after both world wars.

And it is to these two world conflagrations we must now look back, in order to grasp the realities of why they were fought and who actually benefited from the ensuing peace.

We must be able to discern the nature of the propaganda that we are constantly being fed in order to convince the unthinking that a particular war is necessary. Always ask the question: necessary for whom, or for what?

We will be incessantly hammered with atrocities and the barbarous behavior of a supposed enemy; and/or appealed to for humanitarian reasons to gain our support in sending our armed forces to some distant shore to protect some defenseless peoples (usually suffering women and children - Bill Clinton and his handlers perfected this emotional appeal), or to wage war against a personal enemy, a madman, or a dictator (George Bush developed this to an art form, slavering in public over his personal animosity toward Saddam Hussein). These emotional reasons of themselves are meaningless, and are usually based on lies and damned lies, which are propagated on a daily basis by a controlled and compliant media. In every instance, ask Cui bono?

Let's not drift from Gen Collins' major point that we are at war.

It is the thesis of this work that those overt wars in which we engaged for whatever reason since the end of World War II have not only been waged unconstitutionally in the truest sense, but that we, the people, as a sovereign nation-state (meaning the United States of America) have suffered a net loss in political power.

And each one was waged in order to divert our time and energies and thoughts away from the true Enemy within and toward a contrived enemy outside our borders.... Cui bono?

That same "nation" with which we have been actively at war, albeit covertly, since 1933. It was best defined by Theodor Herzl, the "father of International Zionism, " in 1902:

I will give you my definition of a nation, and you can add the adjective 'Jewish'. A nation is, in my mind, an historical group of men of a recognizable cohesion held together by a common enemy. That is in my view a nation. Then if you add to that the word 'Jewish' you have what I understand to be the Jewish nation4

The planning for this ideological conflict goes back much further. It makes use of the ancient formula, Knowledge equals Wealth equals Power to further its intent of absolute gain which equates to absolute despotism over all of us... men, women, children, suckling babes, as well as a net gain in land, booty, slaves, sheep, goats and cattle.

A quick overview will reveal that this ideological conflict is purposely embodied in the "constitution" of the United Nations.

LEAGUE TO "ENFORCE" PEACE

The United Nations Charter was purposely designed as an instrument of force. Patterned after the Soviet constitution, it even allowed for a Soviet commander-in-chief of the UN forces. Those who fought in Korea served under that commander. They thought Gen Collins, the chief of staff of the US Army, was "the Boss. " He was not. A Soviet Bolshevik was.
The UN Undersecretary for Political and Security Affairs from 1949 through 1953, Konstantin E. Zinchenko of the USSR occupied that position. He was in fact "the Boss" and orchestrated the defeat of the UN forces in Korea. None of the men fighting in Korea realized that. Not even Gen Collins or Gen MacArthur was aware until after the "peace" negotiations that our politicians - including Presidents Truman and Eisenhower - had sold us out to a twin-headed monster, the Zionist-Bolshevist and the Fabian Socialist, whose heads occasionally snarl and spit at each other, but in fact are joined to the same body.

Bear in mind that it is not "Jewish, " although many of its individual components are in fact Zionist-Bolshevist Jews. Neither is it "Christian, " although an equivalent number purport to be Christians. That two-headed monster is comprised of "Jews who are not Jews" and of "Christians who are not Christian, " for this Bicephalous Monster is in fact Satanic. We will go through the courting, the conception, the gestation and the Caesarian delivery of this illegitimate child of Lucifer... the god of light.... O, yes!

The late Representative Usher L. Burdick of North Dakota knew who was in charge. Burdick operated a big cattle ranch in western Dakota. He delivered a scathing speech on 17 Jan 1957 on the floor of the House in which he said:

The Russians are and will continue to be on the Inside of any Military Action taken by the Security Council of the United Nations. 5

This is still not general knowledge, for the mainstream press has suppressed it over the years; yet, today, the UN Security Council is the prime instrument for global conquest and establishment of the New World Order. And this, of course, is exactly the way the UN founders intended it to be.

Let's look back briefly to a statement by the first Secretary General for the UN, Trygve Lie, who said in his book, Cause for Peace:

Vyshinski was the first to inform me of an understanding which the Big Five had reached in London on the appointment of a Soviet national as Assistant Secretary-General for Political and Security Affairs. 6

Who sold us out to the Soviets? We can cite the litany of our country's traitors, starting with FDR and those who surrounded him, such as Alger Hiss, Harry Hopkins, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., Bernard Baruch, Samuel Rosenmann, Harry Dexter White (Weiss), et al, but it was Edward Stettinius who had agreed in London that the USSR would get that post.

The "Ultimate Dictator" gets his marching orders in Chapter VII of the Charter that says in part under Article 47:

The Military Staff Committee shall be responsible under the Security Council for the strategic direction of any armed forces placed at the disposal of the Security Council.

This is why we went into Korea without Congressional authority. That august body had, in fact, abdicated their constitutional responsibility (Section Eight, Article I: "... Congress shall have power to declare war").

What does this really mean? It means simply that the UN Security Council - not the Congress of the United States - has now the supreme authority to declare war.

The US Congress ratified that charter, which had been authored by known communists and traitors in FDR's cabinet, including Alger Hiss, Leo Pasvolsky and Phillip Jessup. They are gone. Others have taken their place, such as Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Brent Scowcroft, Lawrence Eagleburger, Robert Rubin, and many others who seem to have that same irreverence for the US Constitution and love for the United Nations Charter.

DEFINING THE ENEMY WITHIN

FLASHBACK - February 1991: George Bush's greatest triumph as President was also his greatest failure; that was the fiasco of "Desert Storm. " Some of us who at one time were "insiders" in the true sense of the word disengaged ourselves from a corrupt and failing federal government, not because we were Democrat or Republican or independent, but because we saw the nature of the Enemy within. Some of us retired into serenity, senility and pastoral pursuits, while others tried to sound the alarm, most to little avail, for they were reluctant - for whatever reason - to explicitly define the Enemy.

Why did the United States deliberately set out in 1990 to destroy the viability of the once-sovereign nation of Iraq? We can find an answer in the superb work by George Knupffer, The Struggle for World Power. Knupffer had the foresight to predict a war with Iraq such as Desert Storm. He wrote:

Before leaving the subject of the enemy's foreign policy, we should note that the significance of Israel and of Jerusalem, the intended capital of the world, is very great. Now it may seem that the Soviets are opposed to Zionist conquests and are backing the Arabs. In fact the Communists play their usual role of agent-provocateur, and they give the Arabs enough arms and encouragement to fight without real hope of victory, thereby justifying further Israeli conquests until they have what they have always wanted - the whole area from the Nile to the Euphrates... But should Israel ever be in real danger then both the USA and the USSR would come to its rescue, being always in collusion. The sooner the Arabs understand the facts the better for them. Their only chance of survival is to work on the lines we propose, while abandoning policies which, for over fifty years, have brought nothing but defeats. 7

It is perhaps time that we too understand the facts. It is also time to identify and to know our enemy. It is the purpose of this series of papers to identify that enemy. We know that he is already inside the gates.

Another soldier of an earlier era, Colonel Robert R.McCormick, distinguished himself in the Battle of Cantigny in France in 1918. He came home to Chicago and took over the family newspaper, the Chicago Tribune, and built it up to be the nation's largest-circulation broadsheet. The Barnes Review (Mar-Apr 1998) honored the Colonel in its section "Profiles in History"8

In an address at Notre Dame University in 1941, McCormick recalled his World War I experiences and said that American intervention in Europe would bring about a most unfortunate repetition: "The use of our power to strengthen one side of a quarrel - at our expense. " For 45 of his 75 years, Col McCormick imparted his message of patriotism and nationalism in the Chicago Tribune. He was a brave and fearless messenger.

He was both an American nationalist and an avid Midwestern sectionalist. He saw in the power centers of the East a paradoxical alliance of "international capital and international communism. " Like Colonel McCormick, others view the United Nations, and its international Declaration of Human Rights, as threats to America's sovereignty. As reported in The Barnes Review cited above, McCormick considered the Nuremberg "war criminal" trials to be a lynching rite staged to justify the newly conceived ex post facto crime of "waging aggressive war. " We will address these fraudulent, and indeed criminal, trials in Chapter 7.

DEFINING "ANTI-SEMITISM"

There is an ancient fable that asks the question: Who will bell the cat? It is the intent of this book to bell the cat. By belling the cat, the author will naturally step on a few toes and will probably be accused of being both "anti-Christian" and, "anti- Jewish. " There will be those who, rather than addressing the issues, will hurl the poison spear of "anti-Semitism" at the messenger.

A standard Zionist-Bolshevist modus operandi is to scream anti-Semite at anyone who exposes any of their nefarious plans, and to seek the "sympathy factor" by staging "incidents, " such as desecration of their own cemeteries or torching their own synagogues and blaming it on "neo-Nazis. " They are masters at this kind of deception, dissimulation and propaganda. Because they control 90% of the mainstream media here in the US, as well as in many other countries, they have the added advantage of mass outlets for their deception and outright lies. Two remarkable writers addressed the political potency of the pejorative, "anti-Semite. "

That great American scholar and author of Jewish heritage, Alfred M. Lilienthal, in The Other Side of the Coin, said:

Neither the religious nor the lay leaders of the many Jewish organizations wish to lose this potent weapon. Remove prejudice and lose adherents to the faith... This is the conspiracy of the rabbinate, Jewish nationals and other leaders of organized Jewry to keep the problems of prejudice alive. 9

Ivor Benson, writing in The Zionist Factor, said that we would do well

"never to forget that it is a chauvinist Zionist ambition that is edging mankind toward the brink of another global catastrophe, and that its most potent weapon is the mind-paralyzing lie of anti-Semitism. " 10