Monthly Archives: February, 2010

Albert Edwards: At 500% Net Liabilities To GDP, It Is Too Late To Prevent The Collapse Of The G-7; Greece Is Irrelevant, We Are All Now Insolvent

For Greece, with on and off balance sheet liabilities at over 800%, it’s game over. For the Eurozone, with the same ratio at about 500%, it is also game over. For the US, at 500%+, it is, you guessed it (sorry Joseph Stiglitz), game over, but since we have the printers, it will simply take a little longer. Following up on yesterday’s popular post on prevailing delusions as captured by Albert Edwards’ colleague Dylan Grice, we present Albert’s latest outlook. Please don’t read this if you want to keep believing there is any hope left for the (developed) world.

But first some aeral photography from Dylan Grice, indicating just how far the US government is willing to go to get the population stoked about owning fixed (shouldn’t it be called broken really?) income. With British QE over, and the country still to implement the same criminal annuitizing of 401(k)s that Uncle Sam is contempltating in order to make “Buy Bonds” a “voluntary” option one can’t really decline, maybe letters on modern architecture building blocks is all that would works. As Edwards says: “I’m not sure leaving man-sized building blocks around the City of London is really going to make an awful lot of difference, but I suppose when your public sector deficit is around 13% of GDP, every little bit helps!”

So back to Greece, the Eurozone, and policy response in general, Edwards places the causes (and “solutions”) of the escalating problem precisely where it belongs: at the core of the Keynesian systemic outlook flaw.

A major divergence of views in the market at the moment concerns what governments should be doing with their outsized fiscal deficits. Economists seem to be polarised between those who think governments should be rapidly cutting fiscal deficits to avoid impending insolvency and/or a surge in bond yields, and those who believe this will be totally counterproductive and that deficits should stay very large. Behind this controversy probably lies the key to the economic outlook.

To Edwards, and to ever more hedge fund investors judging by the jump back in Greece Bund spreads which just broke the most recent technical resistance level of 300 bps, Greece is nothing more than Russia and LTCM (or Bear Stearns as the case may be).

The situation in Greece following hard on the heels of similar solvency issues in Dubai feels to me very much like the Russian default and LTCM blow-up in 1998. For the blow-ups that year were a direct follow-on from the Asian crisis a year earlier a different chapter in the same book. There will be more crises to follow Greece, both inside and outside of the eurozone.

The outcome of broken Keynesian policy (by definition) will be ugly, and will destroy the eurozone. We said it some time ago, and SocGen has now also confirmed this bearish perspective.

My own view of developments, for what it is worth, is that any “help” given to Greece merely delays the inevitable break-up of the eurozone. But, for me, the problem is not the size of the government deficit and the solvency or otherwise of the governments in the PIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain – we deliberately exclude Italy).

The problem for the PIGS is that years of inappropriately low interest rates resulted in overheating and rapid inflation, even though interest rates might well have been appropriate for the eurozone as a whole. Rapid inflation has led to overvalued bilateral real exchange rates (they do still notionally exist) for the PIGS and in most cases yawning double-digit current account deficits. With most trade done with other eurozone countries, the root problem for the PIGS is lack of competitiveness within the eurozone – an inevitable consequence of the one size fits all interest rate policy. Even if the PIGS governments could slash their fiscal deficits, as Ireland is attempting, to maintain credibility with the markets in the short term, the lack of competitiveness within the eurozone needs years of relative (and probably given the outlook elsewhere, absolute) deflation. Hence the PIGS public sector deficit will inevitably remain large as a direct consequence of this weak growth outlook.

As noted earlier on Zero Hedge, in Europe the population is a little less brainwashed by the moronic happenings on prime time TV, so while in America the destruction of the economic system, as trillions are transferred to the kleptocracy which knows fully well the end game is nigh, results in some sighs of desperation at best, in Europe the outcome will be somewhat more violent.

In my opinion this will not be tolerated by the electorates in these countries. Unlike Japan or the US, Europe has an unfortunate tendency towards civil unrest when subjected to extreme economic pain. Consigning the PIGS to a prolonged period of deflation is most likely to impose too severe a test on these nations. And the political “consensus” within the PIGS to remain in the eurozone could falter in the face of another of Europe’s unfortunate tendencies -the emergence of small extreme parties to take advantage of any unrest. My own view is that there is little “help” that can be offered by the other eurozone nations other than temporary confidence-giving “sticking plasters” before the ultimate denouement: the break-up of the eurozone.

And in case you were wondering why all European leaders are powerless to provide a bailout proposal that actually has a snowball’s chance in hell of doing something/anything to help Greece, read on. Alternatively, if you want to find out why any plan suggested on Monday will be thoroughly useless and once digested by the market will cause another major crash, read on as well.

The pressure to tighten fiscal policy from current nose-bleed levels of deficits is not just an issue for crisis hit Greece. It is an issue for virtually all economies. It is a particular issue for the US and UK with structural (cyclically adjusted) general government deficits of almost 10% of GDP (according to the OECD)! There is a ferocious debate ongoing between those who believe there needs to be a rapid reduction in these deficits to avoid some combination of insolvency/default/rapid inflation and those who believe that there should be even more fiscal stimulus. The debate is loud and opinions are tending to be polarised.

My own view on this is that obviously we should never have got into this wholly avoidable mess in the first place. But having got here, there really is no way out that does not trigger a major market-moving upheaval. Ultimately economic prosperity over the past decade has been a sham: a totally unsustainable Ponzi scheme built on a mountain of private sector debt.GDP has simply been brought forward from the future and now it’s payback time. The trouble is that, as the private sector debt unwinds, there is no political appetite to allow GDP to decline to its “correct” level as this would involve a depression. So burgeoning public sector deficits and Quantitative Easing are required to maintain the fig-leaf of continued prosperity.

And here is the topic that will dominate over all pundit round table discussions in the next weeks: the entire world is insolvent, although some are more insolvent than others. Greek total net liabilities (on and off balance sheet) to GDP are 800%! EU: at 470%, the US, at over 500%. There is no way out but default.

Edwards’ poignant summation.

I am persuaded by my colleague Dylan Grice’s analysis that, including unfunded liabilities, most governments are already insolvent with debt to GDP ratios closer to 500% of GDP instead of around 100% for most G7 countries . It is too late.

Nor were Dylan and I persuaded by recent comments from Nobel Prize Winner Joseph Stiglitz that it is absurd to suggest that the US and UK governments might default on their debts as they could just print money. Indeed. But a client pointed out to us that Weimar Germany did not default on its debts during its hyper-inflation. How reassuring!

I am persuaded though by Richard Koo’s book about the lessons from Japan’s balance sheet recession. The crux of his analysis is that governments have no option but to stimulate aggressively all the while the private sector is de-leveraging. ANY attempt at fiscal cuts simply results in renewed recession and a further loss of confidence, thus making it even harder and more costly to sustain any subsequent recovery – and hence the budget deficit ends up bigger than before (e.g. see chart below). This is exactly the outcome I expect.

The take home is very, very simple: we can delude ourselves that the game can be won (it can’t), or we can prepare for the imminent collapse when delusion finally fails.

Source: Zero Hedge.com, Feb 12 2010
Submited by: Tyler Durden

Our Owners And How Hard They Work To Farm Us: ALDOUS HUXLEY – THE MIKE WALLACE INTERVIEW

May 18, 1958

WALLACE: This is Aldous Huxley, a man haunted by a vision of hell of earth. A searing social critic, Mr. Huxley, twenty-seven years ago, wrote “Brave New World,” a novel that predicted that some day the entire world would live under a frightful dictatorship. Today Mr. Huxley says that his fictional world of horror is probably just around the corner for all of us. We’ll find out why, in a moment.

Good evening. I’m Mike Wallace. Tonight’s guest, Aldous Huxley, is a man of letters as disturbing as he is distinguished. Born in England, now a resident of California, Mr. Huxley has written some of the most electric novels and social criticism of this century. He’s just finished a series of essays called “Enemies of Freedom,” in which he outlines and defines some of the threats to our freedom in the United States; and Mr. Huxley, right off the bat, let me ask you this: as you see it, who and what are the enemies of freedom here in the United States?

HUXLEY: Well, I don’t think you can say who in the United States, I don’t think there are any sinister persons deliberately trying to rob people of their freedom. But I do think, first of all, that there are a number of impersonal forces which are pushing in the direction of less and less freedom, and I also think that there are a number of technological devices which anybody who wishes to use can use to accelerate this process of going away from freedom, of imposing control.

WALLACE: Well, what are these forces and these devices, Mr. Huxley?

HUXLEY: I should say that there are two main impersonal forces, …the first of them is not exceedingly important in the United States at the present time, though very important in other countries. This is the force which in general terms can be called overpopulation, the mounting pressure of population pressing upon existing resources.

…This, of course, is an extraordinary thing; something is happening which has never happened in the world’s history before. I mean, let’s just take a simple fact that between the time of birth of Christ and the landing of the Mayflower, the population of the earth doubled. It rose from two hundred and fifty million to probably five hundred million. Today, the population of the earth is rising at such a rate that it will double in half a century.

WALLACE: Well, why should overpopulation work to diminish our freedoms?

HUXLEY: Well, in a number of ways. I mean, the…the experts in the field like Harrison Brown, for example, pointed out that in the underdeveloped countries actually the standard of living is at present falling. The people have less to eat and less goods per capita than they had fifty years ago; and as the position of these countries, the economic position, becomes more and more precarious, obviously the central government has to take over more and more responsibility for keeping the ship-of-state on an even keel, and then of course you are likely to get social unrest under such conditions, with again an intervention of the central government. So that, I think that one sees here a pattern which seems to be pushing very strongly towards a totalitarian regime. And unfortunately, as in all these underdeveloped countries the only highly organized political party is the Communist Party, it looks rather as though
they will be the heirs to this unfortunate process that they will step into the power…the position of power.

WALLACE: Well then, ironically enough one of the greatest forces against communism in the world, the Catholic Church, according to your thesis would seem to be pushing us directly into the hands of the communists because they are against birth control.

HUXLEY: Well, I think this strange paradox probably is true. There is …it’s an extraordinary situation actually. I mean, one has to look at it, of course, from the biological point of view: the whole essence of biological life on earth is a question of balance and what we have done is to practice death control in the most intensive manner without balancing this with birth control at the other end. Consequently, the birth rates remain as high as they were and death rates have fallen substantially. (COUGHS)

WALLACE: All right then, so much for the time being for overpopulation. Another force that is diminishing our freedoms?

HUXLEY: Well, another force which I think is very strongly operative in this country is the force of what may be called over-organization. …As technology becomes more and more complicated, it becomes necessary to have more and more elaborate organizations, more hierarchical organizations, and incidentally the advance of technology is being accompanied by an advance in the science of organization. It’s now possible to make organizations on a larger scale than it was ever possible before, and so that you have more and more people living their lives out as subordinates in these hierarchical systems controlled by bureaucracies, either the bureaucracies of big business or the bureaucracies of big government.

WALLACE: Uh-huh, uh-huh. Now the devices that you were talking about. Are there specific devices or …methods of communication which diminish our freedoms in addition to overpopulation and over-organization?

HUXLEY: Well, there are certainly devices which can be used in this way. I mean, let us … take after all, a piece of very recent and very painful history is the propaganda used by Hitler, which was incredibly effective. I mean, what were Hitler’s methods? Hitler used terror on the one kind, brute force on the one hand, but he also used a very efficient form of propaganda which …he was using every modern device at that time. He didn’t have TV, but he had the radio which he used to the fullest extent, and was able to impose his will on an immense mass of people. I mean, the Germans were a highly educated people.

WALLACE: Well, we’re aware of all this, but how do we equate Hitler’s use of propaganda with the way that propaganda, if you will, is used let us say here in the United States. Are you suggesting that there is a parallel?

HUXLEY: Needless to say it is not being used this way now, but …the point is, it seems to me, that there are methods at present available, methods superior in some respects to Hitler’s methods, which could be used in a bad
situation. I mean, what I feel very strongly is that we mustn’t be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology. This has happened again and again in history with technology’s advance and this changes social condition, and suddenly people have found themselves in a situation which they didn’t foresee and doing all sorts of things they really didn’t want to do.

WALLACE: And well, what…what do you mean? We developed our television but we don’t know how to use it correctly, is that the point that you’re making?

HUXLEY: Well, at the present the television, I think, is being used quite harmlessly; it’s being used, I think, I would feel, it’s being used too much to distract everybody all the time. But, I mean, imagine which must be the situation in all communist countries where the television, where it exists, is always saying the same things the whole time; it’s always driving along. It’s not creating a wide front of distraction. It’s creating a one-pointed, …drumming in of a single idea, all the time. It’s obviously an immensely powerful instrument.

WALLACE: Uh-huh. So you’re talking about the potential misuse of the instrument.

HUXLEY: Exactly. We have, of course…all technology is in itself moral and neutral. These are just powers which can either be used well or ill; it is the same thing with atomic energy, we can either use it to blow ourselves up or we can use it as a substitute for the coal and the oil which are running out.

WALLACE: You’ve even written about the use of drugs in this light.

HUXLEY: Well now, this is a very interesting subject. I mean, in this book that you mentioned, this book of mine, “Brave New World,” …I postulated a substance called ‘soma,’ which was a very versatile drug. It would make people feel happy in small doses, it would make them see visions in medium doses, and it would send them to sleep in large doses. Well I don’t think such a drug exists now, nor do I think it will ever exist. But we do have drugs which will do some of these things, and I think it’s quite on the cards that we may have drugs which will profoundly change our mental states without doing us any harm. I mean, this is the pharmacological revolution which is taking place, that we have now powerful mind-changing drugs which physiologically speaking are almost costless. I mean they are not like opium or like coca…cocaine, which do change the state of the mind but leave terrible results physiologically and morally.

WALLACE: Mr. Huxley, in your new essays you state that these various enemies of freedom are pushing us to a real-life “Brave New World,” and you say that it’s awaiting us just around the corner. First of all, can you detail for us, what life in this Brave New World that you would fear so much, or what life might be like?

HUXLEY: Well, to start with, I think this kind of dictatorship of the future, I think will be very unlike the dictatorships which we’ve been familiar with in the immediate past. I mean, take another book prophesying the future, which was a very remarkable book, George Orwell’s “1984.” Well this book was written at the height of the Stalinist regime, and just after the Hitler regime, and there he foresaw a dictatorship using entirely the methods of terror, the methods of physical violence. Now, I think what is going to happen in the future is that dictators will find, as the old saying goes, that you can do everything with bayonets except sit on them! That if you want to preserve your power indefinitely, you have to get the consent of the ruled, and this they will do partly by drugs as
I foresaw in “Brave New World, “partly by these new techniques of propaganda. They will do it by bypassing the
sort of rational side of man and appealing to his subconscious and his deeper emotions, and his physiology even, and so making him actually love his slavery. I mean, I think, this is the danger that actually people may be, in some ways, happy under the new regime, but that they will be happy in situations where they oughtn’t to be happy.

WALLACE: Well, let me ask you this. You’re talking about a world that could take place within the confines of a totalitarian state. Let’s become more immediate, more urgent about it. We believe, anyway, that we live in a democracy here in the United States. Do you believe that this Brave New World that you talk about, …could, let’s say in the next quarter century, the next century, could come here to our shores?

HUXLEY: I think it could. I mean, …that’s why I feel it so extremely important here and now, to start thinking about these problems. Not to let ourselves be taken by surprise by the…the new advances in technology. I mean
the…for example, in the regard to the use of the…of the drugs. We know, there’s enough evidence now for us to be able, on the basis of this evidence and using certain amount of creative imagination, to foresee the kind of uses which could be made by people of bad will with these things and to attempt to forestall this, and in the same way, I think with these other methods of propaganda we can foresee and we can do a good deal to forestall. I mean, after all, the
price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

WALLACE: You write in “Enemies of Freedom,” you write specifically about the United States. You say this, writing about American political campaigns. You say, “All that is needed is money and a candidate who can be coached to look sincere; political principles and plans for specific action have come to lose most of their importance. The personality of the candidate, the way he is projected by the advertising experts, are the things that really matter.”

HUXLEY: Well, this is the…during the last campaign, there was a great deal of this kind of statement by the advertising managers of the campaign parties. This idea that the candidates had to be merchandised as though they
were so-called two-faced and that you had to depend entirely on the personality. I mean, personality is important, but there are certainly people with an extremely amiable personality, particularly on TV, who might not necessarily be very good in political…positions of political trust.

WALLACE: Well, do you feel that men like Eisenhower, Stevenson, Nixon, with knowledge aforethought were trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the American public?

HUXLEY: No, but they were being advised by powerful advertising agencies who were making campaigns of a quite different kind from what had been made before and I think we shall see probably, …all kinds of new devices coming into the picture. I mean, for example, this thing which got a good deal of publicity last autumn, subliminal projection. I mean, as it stands, this thing, I think is of no menace to us at the moment, but I was talking the other day to one of the people who has done most experimental work in the…psychological laboratory with this, was saying precisely this, that it is not at the moment a danger, but once you’ve established the principle that something works, you can be absolutely sure that the technology of it is going to improve steadily. And I mean his view of the subject was that, well, maybe they will use it up to some extent in the 1960 campaign, but they will probably use it a good deal and much more effectively in the 1964 campaign because this is the kind of rate at which technology advances.

WALLACE: And we’ll be persuaded to vote for a candidate that we do not know that we are being persuaded to vote for.

HUXLEY: Exactly. I mean this is the rather alarming picture that you’re being persuaded below the level of choice and reason.

WALLACE: In regard to advertising, which you mentioned just a little ago, in your writing, particularly in “Enemies of Freedom,” you attack Madison Avenue which controls most of our television and radio advertising, newspaper advertising and so forth. Why do you consistently attack the advertising agencies?

HUXLEY: Well, no I…I think that, …advertisement plays a very necessary role, but the danger it seems to me in a democracy is this…I mean what does a democracy depend on? I democracy depends on the individual voter making an intelligent and rational choice for what he regards as his enlightened self-interest, in any given circumstance. But what these people are doing, I mean what both, for their particular purposes for selling goods and the dictatorial propagandists are doing, is to try to bypass the rational side of man and to appeal directly to these unconscious forces below the surface. So that you are, in a way, making nonsense of the whole democratic procedure, which is based on conscious choice on rational ground.

WALLACE: Of course, well, maybe…I…you have just answered this next question because in your essay you write about television commercials, not just political commercials, but television commercials as such and how, as you put it, “Today’s children walk around singing beer commercials and toothpaste commercials.” And then you link this phenomenon in some way with the dangers of a dictatorship. Now, could you spell out the connection or, have…or do you feel you’ve done so sufficiently?

HUXLEY: Well, I mean here again this whole question of children, I think, is a terribly important one because children are quite clearly much more suggestible than the average grown up; and again, suppose that, …that for one reason or another all the propaganda was in the hands of one or very few agencies, you would have an extraordinarily powerful force playing on these children, who after all are going to grow up and be adults quite soon. I do not think that this is not an immediate threat, but it remains a possible threat, and…

WALLACE: You said something to the effect in your essay that the children of Europe used to be called ‘cannon fodder’ and here in the United States they are ‘television and radio fodder.’

HUXLEY: Well, after all, you can read in the trade journals the most lyrical accounts of how necessary it is, to get hold of the children because then they will be loyal brand buyers later on. But I mean, again you just translate this into political terms, the dictator says they all will be ideology buyers when they’re grown up.

WALLACE: We hear so much about brainwashing as used by the communists. Do you see any brainwashing, other than that which we’ve just been talking about, that is used here in the United States, other forms of brainwashing?

HUXLEY: Not in the form that has been used in China and in Russia because this is, essentially, the application of propaganda methods, the most violent kind to individuals. It’s not a shotgun method, like the…the advertising method. It’s a way of getting hold of the person and playing both on his physiology and his psychology until he really breaks down and then you can implant a new idea in his head. I mean the descriptions of the methods are really blood curdling when you read them, and not only methods applied to political prisoners but the methods applied, for example, to the training of the young communist administrators and missionaries. They receive an incredibly tough kind of training which causes maybe twenty-five percent of them to break down or commit suicide, but produces seventy-five percent of completely one-pointed fanatics.

WALLACE: The question, of course, that keeps coming back to my mind is this: obviously politics in themselves are not evil, television is not in itself evil, atomic energy is not evil, and yet you seem to fear that it will be used in an evil way. Why is it that the right people will not, in your estimation, use them? Why is it that the wrong people will use these various devices and for the wrong motives?

HUXLEY: Well, I think one of the reasons is that these are all instruments for obtaining power, and obviously the passion for power is one of the most moving passions that exists in man; and after all, all democracies are based on the proposition that power is very dangerous and that it is extremely important not to let any one man or any one small group have too much power for too long a time. After all, what are the British and American Constitutions except devices for limiting power, and all these new devices are extremely efficient instruments for the imposition of power by small groups over larger masses.

WALLACE: Well, you asked this question yourself in “Enemies of Freedom.” I’ll put your own question back to you. You ask this, “In an age of accelerating overpopulation, of accelerating over-organization, and ever more efficient means of mass communication, how can we preserve the integrity and reassert the value of the human individual?” You put the question, now here’s your chance to answer it Mr. Huxley.

HUXLEY: Well, this is obviously…first of all, it is a question of education. …I think it’s terribly important to insist on individual values, I mean what is a…there is a tendency as a…you probably read a book by White, the organization man, a very interesting, valuable book I think, where he speaks about the new type of group morality, group ethic, which speaks about the group as though the group were somehow more important than the individual. But this seems, as far as I’m concerned, to be in contradiction with what we know about the genetical makeup of human beings, that every human being is unique. And it is, of course, on this genetical basis that the whole idea of the whole idea of the value of freedom is based. And I think it’s extremely important for us to stress this in all our educational life, and I would say it’s also very important to teach people to be on their guard against the sort of verbal booby traps into which they are always being led, to analyze the kind of things that are said to them. Well, I think there is the whole educational side of…and I think there are many more things that one could do to strengthen people, and to make them more aware of what was being done.

WALLACE: You’re a prophet of decentralization?

HUXLEY: Well, the…yes…if it…it’s feasible. It’s one of these tragedies it seems to be. I mean, many people have been talking about the importance of decentralization in order to give back to the voter a sense of direct power. I mean…the voter in an enormous electorate feels quite impotent, and his vote seems to count for nothing which is not true where the electorate is small, and where he is dealing with a…group which he can manage and understand…and if one can, as Jefferson after all suggested, break up the units into smaller and
smaller units and so, get a real, self-governing democracy.

WALLACE: Well, that was all very well in Jefferson’s day, but how can we revamp our economic system and decentralize, and at the same time meet militarily and economically the tough challenge of a country like Soviet Russia?

HUXLEY: Well, I think the answer to that is that there are…it seems to me that you…that production, industrial production is of two kinds. I mean, there are some kinds of industrial production which obviously need the most tremendously high centralization, like the making of automobiles for example. But there are many other kinds where you could decentralize quite easily and probably quite economically, and that you would then have this kind of
decentralized life. After all, you begin to see it now if you travel through the south, this decentralized textile industry which is springing up there.

WALLACE: Mr. Huxley, let me ask you this, quite seriously, is freedom necessary?

HUXLEY: As far as I’m concerned it is.

WALLACE: Why? Is it necessary for a productive society?

HUXLEY: Yes, I should say it is. I mean, a genuinely productive society. I mean I think you could produce plenty of goods without much freedom, but I think the whole sort of creative life of man is ultimately impossible without a considerable measure of individual freedom of…that initiative, creation, all these things which we value, and I think value properly are impossible without a large measure of freedom.

WALLACE: Well, Mr. Huxley, take a look again at the country which is in the stance of our opponent anyway, it would seem, anyway, it would seem to be there. Soviet Russia. It is strong, and getting stronger, economically militarily. At the same time it’s developing its art forms pretty well, …it seems not unnecessarily to squelch the creative urge among its people. And yet it is not a free society.

HUXLEY: It’s not a free society, but here is something very interesting that those members of the society, like the scientists, who are doing the creative work, are given far more freedom than anybody else. I mean, it is a privileged aristocratic society in which provided that they don’t poke their noses into political affairs, these people are given a great deal of prestige, a considerable amount of freedom and a lot of money. I mean, this is a very interesting fact about the new Soviet regime, and I think that what we are going to see is …a people on the whole with very little freedom but with an oligarchy on top enjoying a considerable measure of freedom and a very high
standard of living.

WALLACE: And the people down below, the ‘epsilons’ down below…

HUXLEY: Enjoying very little.

WALLACE: And you think that that kind of situation can long endure?

HUXLEY: I think it can certainly endure much longer than the situation in which everybody is kept out. I mean, they can certainly get their technological and scientific results on such a basis.

WALLACE: Well, the next time that I talk to you then, perhaps we should investigate further the possibility of the establishment of that kind of a society where the drones work for the queen bees up above.

HUXLEY: Well, but yes, but I must say, I still believe in democracy. If we can make the best of the creative activities of the people on top plus those of the people on the bottom, so much the better.

WALLACE: Mr. Huxley, I surely thank you for spending this half hour with us, and I wish you God speed sir.

HUXLEY: Thank you.

WALLACE: Aldous Huxley finds himself these days in a peculiar and disturbing position; a quarter of a century after prophesying an authoritarian state in which people were reduced to ciphers, he can point at Soviet Russia and say “I told you so!” The crucial question, as he sees it now, is whether the so-called Free World is shortly going to give Mr. Huxley the further dubious satisfaction of saying the same thing about us.

Stay tuned for a preview of next week’s interview. Till then, Mike Wallace. Good night.

(Video Link: Mike Wallace interviews Aldous Huxley, May 18, 1958. Posted at University of Texas at Austin.)
http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/multimedia/video/2008/wallace/huxley_aldous.html


(Transcribed by Linda)

Source is The Alan Watt Site: CUTTING THROUGH THE MATRIX.COM

www.alanwattsentientsentinel.eu

Eustace Mullins Says it as it is with some help from his friend Jesse Lee

My Struggle
By Eustace Mullins
May his words live forever in our hearts and minds.

Eustace’s last interview and one of the most revealing

Click To Play

The article is below this:

See http://www.gnosticmedia.podomatic.com for the full interview.
Eustace Mullins died at noon on February 2, 2010 at the home of his manager, Jesse Lee, in Texas. This excerpt is from Eustace’s last interview, and most extensive interview that he gave in the last year of his more than 60-year career.

Conspiracy. It’s a word that causes many people to have all sorts of emotional reactions, whether or not they’ve actually investigated what the conspiracy is about. Some say that only the foolish believe in conspiracies, but many conspiracies are proved. The word conspiracy is defined as:

• a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act
• a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot)
• a group of conspirators banded together to achieve some harmful or illegal purpose

Every day in courts throughout this country, and throughout the world, people are tried and convicted of conspiracies. Our history books are literally filled with page after page of plots, assassinations and conspiracies. Should we believe that our politicians and bankers of today don’t commit such acts? And if they did, is it really true that government is so incompetent that they could never keep a secret? Or is it really that the general masses never actually bother to look into a conspiracy to verify it when they hear about it? If I were to bet, I’d put my money on the later.

What if almost all conspiracies, to one degree or another, where true? What if, like a puzzle, each conspiracy is a single piece of a larger picture, not to be understood clearly until all of the pieces are put together?

Today and next Monday I interview one of the world’s greatest historians. He’s also the man who has all of the pieces to the global conspiracy puzzle – considered the greatest conspiracy theorist alive. But did he create these conspiracy theories? Or did he discover real conspiracies?

In honor of free speech and critical thinking I present you with the most powerful interview I’ve done to date with one of the most controversial – and yet respected – people in the entire world, Eustace Mullins, the last living protégé of Ezra Pound. Eustace joins me for this explosive two part series on the history of the Federal Reserve, WWI, WWII, the Rothschilds, JP Morgan, the New World Order, banking, Zionism, farming, G. Edward Griffin’s The Creature from Jekyll Island, Ron Paul, the gold standard, and the state of world affairs. He’ll be joining me with his only protégé, Jesse Lee, who will help guide our discussion through the many rabbit holes of history, uncovering some of the most startling information many of you have ever heard.

Order The Secrets of the Federal Reserve: http://astore.amazon.com/gnosmedi-20/…

Reminiscences

My life will be judged worthwhile to the extent that it is of use to others. For this reason, I wish to tell of the things which have happened to me in my struggle against the forces of darkness. It is my hope that others will be forewarned of what to expect in this fight. During the past thirty years of this struggle, many of the great patriots who gave me, instinctively, their valuable guidance and inspiration, were themselves, heavily immobilized by the machinations of the international Jewish power. Yet, they always continued their work as much as possible. To the end of their lives, they never swerved from the responsibility which had been laid on them by their knowledge of the truth. Each of the patriots who guided me, among them, Ezra Pound, Col. Eugene Sanctuary, George Sylvester Viereck and Mrs. Lyrl Clark Van Hyning, had been born with natural gifts. Throughout their lives, they used these gifts for the benefit of others. Very few Americans know of the persecution which these patriots endured throughout their lives. Yet, during the years I knew them and worked with them, this persecution was mentioned, if at all, only in passing and without regret. They considered their personal losses unimportant compared to the sufferings of the Gentile people who have been enslaved by the Jews. Similarly, it might seem idle carping for me to mention the murder of my parents by government agents as stroked of the Jews revenge against me for my work, when we consider that sixty-six million Christians have been killed in Russian concentration camps since 1917, murdered by the Jewish Communists who built and operated these camps. These millions lie nameless and unmourned. But they were no less and no more, the victims of the Jews than my parents and many other Americans whose sacrifices have gone unrecorded and unheeded by those who are next on the lists. No one who has been martyred by the Jews should remain unknown. And no one who has been martyred by the Jews will remain unavenged.

I became the object of the Jews hatred by events which moved in a straight line. Successively, I became the protégé of George Stimpson, the most respected journalist in Washington, who founded the National Press, Ezra Pound, the world most famous poet, and H. L. Hunt, the worlds richest man. Of the three, only Ezra Pound fought the Jews openly. And he suffered grievously, spending thirteen years in a hideous urine soaked madhouse in Washington D.C. George Stimpson passed on to me many of the secrets of Washington, including the fact that Felix Frankfurter founded the Harold Ware Cell of Communists and the nature of the Jewish control over J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI. H.L. Hunt fought valiantly to preserve the values of Christian civilization. But was unable to deploy his money effectively in a battle which was outside of his experience.

I visited Ezra Pound in the cell in which he was held as a political prisoner and which he aptly termed ‘the hellhole.’ I met George Sylvester Viereck in New York after he had served six years and lost his health, in a Federal Penitentiary. He had been falsely convicted of not registering properly as a foreign agent. In fact, his attorney had filled out all the required forms, and the case was thrown out of court on two occasions. However, Franklin D. Roosevelt had sworn to get Viereck, and he had the Department of Justice indict him a third time. A newly selected judge refused to allow testimony which would have acquitted Vierect. During the trial, his son, George Sylvester Viereck II, was killed in the U.S. Army landing at Anzio, a disastrous slaughter of American youths presided over by our famed Jew loving General Mark Clark. Roosevelt ordered the Army to withhold announcement of the boy’s death, fearing that it would bring about sympathy for Viereck. As a result, while the trial dragged on, his wife’s letters to their son were returned marked ‘Deceased.’ Frantic with worry, his wife tried to find out what had happened. She suffered a complete nervous breakdown when the boy’s death was finally announced, after many weeks of denial by Army officials. Viereck showed me a letter from Roosevelt, written in 1938, on White House stationery, asking of the German government, Viereck was then the most influential German-American in the United States. He replied to Roosevelt that he could not do this. And Roosevelt vowed to put him in prison. Which he did, hiring an ADL agent to swear that Viereck had offered him money to blow up a bridge. To anyone who knew the mild mannered, professional writer, the testimony was preposterous. Yet, Viereck went to prison for the duration of the war. When I knew him, he was living in a small room, penniless, and supported by the generosity of a nephew.

In 1942, when I joined the United States Army Air Force, I had no thought that thirty-six years later, I would still be engaged in a life-or-death struggle with a tenacious and relentless enemy. I regarded World War II as an unavoidable hiatus in my chosen career as an artist and writer. The war would be over in a couple of years, and I would resume the writing of books which I had already begun. I had no personal desire to ‘slap the Jap,’ or ‘stun the Hun,’ or any of the ‘Tin Pan Alley’ slogans which the Jews had conjured up to herd the Gentile cattle to the slaughter. Like many of my fellow soldiers, I sensed that the enemy was not really overseas, but was more likely entrenched here on the home front. But also like my fellow soldiers, I knew there was little I could do about it. Almost a year later, I read some material which gave me enlightenment.

Although it seems unbelievable now, during the height of World War II, there was more widespread dissemination of patriotic material on the Jewish conspiracy than there is today. Many dedicated patriots turned out small papers which printed the hard facts. They had long since learned how to survive the daily harassment by FBI agents, ADL agents, and hordes of other ‘home front’ guardians. They were frequently denounced by the paid press. And after reading one of these hysterical attacks, I sent Gerald L. K. Smith twenty-five dollars for some material. This was a large sum at that time, as my pay was only fifty dollars a month.

By return mail, I received a large box containing several hundred copies of ‘The Cross and the Flag.’ The first writing I had ever encountered on the Jewish problem. It contained many revelations. I realized at once that this was not the type of material to be quoted in the usual barracks discussions. Several soldiers had commented that there were informers in the barracks. Although I did not then make the connection, there was to be found in almost every barracks, a particularly obnoxious Jew, usually with a Brooklyn accent. It never occurred to me that these Jews were being as obnoxious as possible in order to goad the other soldiers into making an anti-Semitic remark. Nor did it occur to me that these Brooklyn Jews often had college degrees. At that time, everyone with college background was ordered to try out for the Officer Candidate School. I did not realize that these Brooklyn Jews remained with the enlisted men for surreptitious reasons. This type of political supervision of the troops is axiomatic in Communist strategy. It was meticulously observed in the American Armed Forces during World War II. In combat zones, officers and enlisted men who had previously voiced doubts about the wisdom of Roosevelt’s crusade to save Communism, were shot in the back by these same intelligence agents who had followed them into the front lines. While General Eisenhower was cosily tucked away with his British Secret Service ‘Chauffeur’, Kay Summersby, the real decisions were made by his Liaison Officer, Captain Warburg of the Kuhn, Loeb Banking house. In the Soviet Zone, the elimination of those soldiers who were not convinced Communism was so basic a part of their war operations that even during the darkest days of the war, Stalin still refused to slacken one iota the absolute direction of front line strategy by hard-line commissars. Realizing this, Hitler ordered his troops to execute on the spot any commissar captured in the war zone, in order to paralyze the Soviet operations.

The Communist control over the United States Army surfaced during World War II with the selection of General George C. Marshall as Chief of Staff. As Senator Joseph McCarthy later pointed out, Marshall was under Communist Party discipline at all times. This did not interfere with his direction of our war effort, since the goals of the Washington Marxists were the same, the total defeat of the German anti-Communist forces. In the Korean and Vietnam wars, Communists direction of our Armed Forces remained unchanged, even though we were then fighting against ‘Communist’ forces. When General Douglas McArthur tried to oppose this Communist betrayal of our men, he was fired by David Niles, the Jewish Communist who was President Truman’s ‘Aide.’

The Communist recognized that final political control always resided in the military. In Moscow and in Washington, every officer is absolutely responsive to the current ideological line, regardless of any military consideration. This was recently demonstrated when every officer on active duty was ordered to support the giveaway of the Panama Canal, while many retired officers openly opposed it. The most stringent measures are carried out to ensure that no officer is able to form a group to discuss and possibly take action against the high treason of his superiors. When Commander George Lincoln Rockwell surfaced at the Pentagon, there was consternation throughout the high command. At the least sign of any independence or patriotic speech from any officer, the Jewish controlled media immediately raises a hue and cry about ‘Fascism’ and the offender is quickly neutralized.

After receiving the supply of Smith’s magazine, I distributed them in the day rooms to see who would read them. The next day, I toured the day rooms to see if anyone was reading them, and perhaps, to strike up a conversation. Every issue had disappeared. Not once did I see a copy while I remained on the base. Apparently, I had been followed, and the papers picked up as fast as I had left them. During my remaining years of military service, I encountered no one with strong political views. My own opinions were those of any young man of the period, hardly committed to any strong ideology. After the war, I enrolled at Washington and Lee University, intending to study law. After two years, I decided I should go to art school, and enrolled at the Institute of Contemporary Arts in Washington, D.C. The school had the usual mongrel types in its student body and a number of ardent Communists on the staff. But it attracted many of the leading writers as speakers. Like others among the ten million veterans, my main concern was in getting on with my career, and I had little concern with politics.

Over night my lack of concern changed. One of the teachers at the Institute had been visiting Ezra Pound. He suggested I accompany him one afternoon, an offer which rather disturbed me. I thought it unlikely that the man who had edited T. S. Eliot and Ernest Hemingway would be interested in talking to me. But I went along. The moment I entered the gloom of the insane ward, my former complaisance vanished, never to return. I suddenly realized that a great writer had been punished by being confined in a madhouse, solely for his political views. In an instant, Pound filled the ideological gap in my life. Never again would I remain silent in the face of injustice.

Pound apparently considered me a kindred spirit, and offered to give me ‘my own day.’ That is, an afternoon to visit him alone each week. I accepted. And by the time the next week rolled around, he was waiting for me with food, assignments for research, and errands to run. Shortly afterwards, he brought up the Federal Reserve System, which I had never heard of. From that day, my work was cut out for me. His concern for his country had been aptly expressed by Charles Dickens in his American Notes, written a century earlier:

“I do fear that the heaviest blow ever dealt at liberty, will be dealt by this country, in the failure of its example to the earth.”

The loss of liberty in America, which is occurring before our eyes, means the autocracy will be enthroned throughout the world, and that the freedom which was ours at our birth will never be known by future generations. Olga Ivinskaya, a Russian writer, writes of her years in a Soviet prison camp:

“Sanagian (a fellow inmate) had put down the story of her life in her awkward, uneven handwriting. She came from a working class family and her father—long since dead—had taken part in the Revolution in 1917, for this she heaped curses on his memory.”

In the usual hogwash about aristocrats, we never stop to think that it was the working people of Russia, not aristocrats, who were enslaved by the Communist Revolution. Similarly, in this country, it is the Jewish intellectuals, bankers, and industrialists who are in the forefront of the battle to enslave all Americans and take away their freedom forever. Should we allow this, future generations in the concentration camps will begin their days not with prayers, but with curses on our memory.

I soon began to visit Ezra Pound every day, a routine which I kept up for three years. During this time, I was thoroughly grounded in every aspect of the International Communist conspiracy. Pound said to me:

“I am telling you things I didn’t know until I was fifty. You are twenty-five, which means you are getting an extra twenty-five years to do something about it.”

When I went to New York, bankers on Wall Street told me:– “I was here during the crash, but I didn’t know what was going on until I read your book.” I explained that I had had the benefit of Pound’s experience, and his access to much information in Europe which had already been banned in the United States.

To support myself while writing the history of the Federal Reserve System, I obtained a job at the Library of Congress as a stack attendant. This was the same job J. Edgar Hoover had held for several years while he completed his law studies at George Washington University night school. A few weeks later, because I had done advanced photographic studies at the Institute, I was promoted to the Photography Department. In the next several months, I received two more promotions, as I had studied with one of the finest Japanese photographers. During these months, I was able to see Pound only on weekends, and he suggested I send some of my writings to ‘The Social Creditor,’ a small weekly published in England. I sent them some articles, which they printed, sending me enthusiastic comments. On day, while going into the National Press Club for my daily luncheon with George Stimpson, a man was handing out copies of ‘Common Sense’ at the front door. I showed it to Pound, an issue containing the Hermann Goering Testament. He suggested I send them articles, and they printed some excerpts from the Federal Reserve research.

One afternoon, a Jew came to the Library of Congress, asking for me. I was called out of the darkroom to see a Jew who was a caricature out of ‘Der Sturmer.’ He immediately began to cross question me, saying he had been sent from ‘Common Sense,’ and he asked, ‘Who is giving you your material? Where is this information coming from?’ Now wishing to involve Pound, who always faced the possibility of having his daily visitors turned away and being held incommunicado, I explained that I was doing research at the Library of Congress. It was obvious that he didn’t believe me. A gawky small town boy could hardly be privy to the machinations of the worlds most powerful and secretive bankers.

A team of FBI agents was now sent to the Library of Congress to question everyone who had worked with me. Senator Herbert Lehman, of the Lehman Brothers Banking house, and National Chairman of the Anti-Defamation League, had sent a demand to Luther Evans, Librarian of Congress, that I be fired because of an article I had written for the Social Creditor. The demand, written on ADL stationery, had been drawn up by the ADL operator, Edelstein, and signed by Lehman without reading it, as he accepted anything which Edelstein brought to him. The article exposed the fact that one Katz, Marshall Plan Administrator, presided over the most of the Marshall Plan material to Communist countries, instead of sending it to the non-Communist countries for which Congress had designated it. To honor Marshall for his service to the Communist countries and their cause, the plan to continue aid to the Communist countries surreptitiously had been drawn up and named for him. At the end of World War II, Lend Lease Aid to Russia and other Communist countries ended. Dean Acheson, Secretary of State, an unregistered agent for nine Communist countries through his law firm of Covington, Burling, and Acheson, (one of whose partners was Donald Hiss, brother to Alger Hiss) had tried to force a four billion loan to the new Communist regime of Poland. When Patriots in Congress turned this down, the Marshall Plan was formulated. Ostensibly earmarked for Greece, Italy, and other non-Communist countries, most of the Marshall Plan material was either distributed directly to Communist organizers in those countries, who used the aid as the basis for building up the Communist Party, or trans-shipped directly through those countries to Yugoslavia, and on to Poland and Russia. It was Tito’s attempt to keep much of this material, particularly heavy trucks, which caused the break between him and Stalin. However, neither of them dared to publicly argue the point, as it would have exposed the fact that Marshall Plan Aid was going to the Communists.

Although I as yet knew nothing of the ADL order that I be fired, I had had a previous contact with Senator Lehman. Pound had noticed an advertisement in the Washington Post that Lehman would be speaking at Howard University on behalf of ‘home rule,’ a plan to wrest control of the District of Columbia from a group of White businessmen and turn it over to the Negroes. Howard University was the Communist training school for Ralph Bunche and many other Negro Marxists. Through the dogged influence of Eleanor Roosevelt, it was the only college in the United States whose entire budget was provided by the Federal Government. Pound mentioned that Lehman, a typical Jewish degenerate, had a nervous tic, and suggested it would be amusing to see it in action.

When Dave Horton and I arrived at the Howard University auditorium, we found a group of Negroes, eight or ten, the entire audience for the August Senator. Rather put out by the poor attendance, Lehman, a short squat ole clothes dealer type, made a short speech about home rule and opened the floor to questions. Immediately, Horton and I were on our feet. “Would Lehman Brothers consider the District of Columbia a safe investment?”—asked Horton. “Will you support Alger Hiss as the first mayor of Washington?”—I asked. Lehman, a rather stupid Jew, was completely bewildered by our questions. We continued to fire questions at him, as his aides, two young city College Jews, shook their fists at us. The famed Lehman tic now made its appearance. It was not merely a tic of the eye, the entire left side of his face was twitching steadily and violently. The audience of Negroes was glaring at us, muttering, ‘Shame,’ as Lehman’s aides rushed him away.

I LATER LEARNED THAT IN THE FOYER OF THE LEHMAN MANSION IN NEW YORK, A SPLENDID FOURTEENTH CENTURY STATUE OF THE VIRGIN MARY, LOOTED FROM ONE OF THE GREAT CATHEDRALS OF EUROPE, STOOD NEAR THE DOOR. FOR THE TITILLATION OF VISITORS, A CIGARETTE WAS PLACED DANGLING FROM HER MOUTH.

A few days after our Howard University evening, I was handed a letter of dismissal from the Library of Congress. The FBI interrogations had turned up nothing which could be used against me, and had caused considerable angry comment among the employees. The letter stated I was being dismissed because I had written an article for the Social Creditor. I was given the option of making a personal appeal to the Librarian, which I did. In Evans office, he asked me, ‘Did you write this article?’

‘Yes,’ I replied. ‘Can you show me one false statement in it?’

‘I’m not competent to do that.’ said Evans. ‘This is not out of my hands. Your dismissal stands.’

‘But I am not a member of any political group.’ I protested. ‘I’ve never voted in my life. You have many staff members who are activist members of militant racial organizations. You have two staff members who do nothing but go through the stacks writing numbers bets all day. Why am I being singled out?’

Evans, who never once looked at me in the eye, jerked open the bottom drawer of his desk, where I glimpsed a half empty bottle of Country Gentleman bourbon. He looked longingly at it, turned to me, and said, ‘Well, that’s all.’

I later learned from a fellow employee at API, that the actual mechanism of my dismissal was handled through Jacob Blaustein, president of the American Oil Company, and a member of the board of API. Also, serving as president of the American Jewish Committee, whose agent ‘Charles Smith’ ran the day to day operations at Common Cause. He had only to say ‘Fire him,’ and it was done. For some months, Lyrl Clark Van Hyning, publisher of ‘Women’s Voice,’ had been featuring my articles, among them ‘Close the Public Schools’ and ‘Satan vs. Christ.’ The publisher obliterated my name as author on the ‘Satan vs. Christ’ article, and distributed many thousands of reprints through Common Sense. Some of his subscribers had learned of my plight, even tho he refused to tell them about it, and not knowing where to get in touch with me, had sent him checks made out to me. Not one of these was ever forwarded to me. I hitchhiked to Chicago, and got a job writing for a hotel trad paper ‘Institutions Magazine.’ This turned out to be the only job I ever held from which the FBI did not have me fired. After a few months there, I was offered a much better paying job with the Chicago Motor Club, the ‘Middle Western Affiliate’ of the American Automobile Association, and I resigned from ‘Institutions.’ Some years later, forgetting about the Institutions position, I told an audience at my alma mater, Washington and Lee University, that the FBI had fired me from every job I had ever held.

At the Chicago Motor Club, I became editor of Motor News, with a circulation of 250,000. During the next two years, I willingly took on additional duties as editor of the ‘Industrial Editors News Service,’ public relations counselor, and special events organizer. I had been at the club two years and one week with a drawer full of memoranda from my superior, James E. Bulger, praising my work, and thanking me for my new programs, when one sultry August afternoon, two well dressed men strode by Bulger’s secretary, and went into his office and closed the door. His secretary who was a close friend, turned to me and said, ‘I wonder what that’s all about?—– ‘I never saw them before.’ I replied.

The men stayed with Bulger for about an hour, and I could hear them arguing with him, but their voices were kept low. Finally, he buzzed for his secretary. She went in, and came back out immediately, and handed me a folded note. I opened it and read, ‘You are allowed five minutes to get your things and get out of the office.’—– ‘What’s going on?’—she asked me. I saw the tears were streaming down her fact. I showed her the note. ‘I know what’s in it,’ she said, ‘but what’s going on? Mr. Bulger is sick, we’ve got to help him—those men–.’ She turned and ran to the restroom.

I put some personal memoranda into an envelope and left the office. That evening, Bulger’s secretary called me at home. She told me that the two men were FBI agents and that when they demanded I be fired, Bulger flatly refused. This was understandable as I was doing the work of four people. They then threatened him for nearly an hour. He had had five heart attacks in the past several years, and he began to writhe with pain. He begged them to let him call his doctor. ‘Certainly,’ said one of the, ‘as soon as you fire Mullins.’ He then wrote the note. After I left the office, the FBI agents accompanied Bulger to the doctor, and then took him to his home, after warning him not to tell me or to give me my job back.

Being fired from the Chicago Motor Club was the greatest shock of my life. Certainly this was the goal of the FBI harassment. At the age of thirty-five, I had been one of the most active public relations counselors in Chicago, lunching at the best restaurants with the city’s leading executives. Now I was on the street with no prospects. Even so, I supposed that with my contacts, I would be able to get another public relations job. In the next few weeks, I was surprised that after each interview, I heard nothing more about a job. Friends at the Motor Club then told me that because of pressure from the Club’s Jewish members, Bulger was telling everyone who inquired about references that I was a notorious criminal who was wanted in several states. He never put this into writing, giving out the slander on the phone, after instructions from the Jew who was the Club’s legal counsel. Since I was fired from the Chicago Motor Club in August, 1958, I have never again been able to get a professional job.

After several weeks, I realized it as unlikely that I would get any work in Chicago. I began work on a book about Friedrich Nietzsche, and while doing research at the Newberry Library, I found a great deal of material on Ezra Pound’s career. I wrote him suggesting that I do his biography. He immediately replied that he had been waiting for me to do this, and that I was to be his only authorized biographer. I then asked Henry Regnery if he could give me an advance on this book. He replied that he could not (he owned the largest window shade factory in the world, a bank, and other holdings, worth eighty million dollars.) But he suggested that H. L. Hunt needed someone to edit a book. I called Hunt and he agreed to pay me a hundred dollars a week. I said that I couldn’t live on that, in fact, I was living on thirty-five dollars a week—–and he said that I could live in his home. At that time, Hunt’s income was ten million dollars a week, and he had accumulated a fortune of three billion dollars.

I arrived at Hunt’s home in Dallas with one battered suitcase and an old Plymouth, purchased a year before for one hundred dollars, with the entire front end smashed in. We immediately established complete rapport, as he had lived for years out of a suitcase, traveling in the back-country picking up the oil leases which were the basis of his fortune. I resided in their guest room, which had always bee occupied by Senator Joseph McCarthy when he came to Dallas, and Hunt and I settled down to work on the book ‘Alpaca.’ After several months of intensive work, it was completed, and I became restless. By this time, Hunt has installed me in an office next to his own, and whenever someone called him, he would say, ‘Why don’t you check with Mullins on that?’ I realized he was only using me for a buffer, but it was a flattering situation for a penniless writer to be referred to as the confidential assistant of the world’s richest man. However, I remained a penniless writer, and he remained the world’s richest man. I began to realize I should be getting back to work on the Pound biography, and one afternoon, I told him I had to return to Chicago. He was completely surprised, and I saw that he was hurt and disappointed by my decision. Nevertheless, I have always thought of him with affection and admiration, and he seemed well disposed toward me on later occasions when I talked to him in Dallas and in New York.

Although I knew nothing of it at the time, my association with H. L. Hunt had driven the Jews into a furious campaign of ‘harassment’ against my parents. The conspirators were terrified that he might finance my publications or a political organization, although at the time, I had nothing to which he might donate money. I knew that my father had had a serious coronary attack in 1956, but I was not told until years later that the attack had been brought on by a series of vicious interrogations by Army Counter Intelligence Corps agents. My mother later told me they were determined to make him reveal the names of persons financially supporting my travels and writings. Since no one had ever given me a cent, there was nothing he could tell them, but they refused to believe him. Knowing he had Wednesday afternoons off from the store in which he worked, two agents waited for him in his car. They forced him into the car, drove him to the top of a nearby mountain, and interrogated him for several hours, telling him they were going to throw him off the mountain. At one point, he tried to escape from the car. They knocked him unconscious, drove him back to the store, and left him in the parked car. He finally came to, and drove home. The next day, he had a severe coronary attack, from which he never completely recovered.

My parents did not dare tell me these details, out of a desire to protect me, as they knew I would kill someone for these atrocities. Nevertheless, I knew they had been interrogated and I wrote to the Secretary of Defense. I received an answer, admitting that he had been interrogated, and giving the names of the two men who had interrogated him. Some weeks later, I tried to contact these men in Washington. I was told they had been sent on a mission to Guam, and that the plane had crashed with all aboard being killed. The letter with the men’s names has since disappeared from my files.

While I was with H. L. Hunt in Dallas, the FBI began to visit my parents. Their telephone was tapped, and they received harassing telephone calls during the night. The harassment and brutality of this campaign was intended solely to provoke me into some drastic action. I come from mountain people, and we never forget an injury, even if it takes fifty years to wreak our revenge. My temper remained under control only because my parents refused to let me know what was happening to them, and the ADL-FBI provocation failed. Their campaign was intensified, and one evening in 1961, my father, whose heart conditions had steadily gotten worse during this harassment, received a telephone call from a known FBI provocateur, ‘We’ve just sent out a national alert to pick ‘him’ up.’

My father dropped the phone, ‘they finally got Clarence’ he said, as he collapsed. He was taken to the hospital where he died of massive heart failure. More than three years went by before my mother told me what had happened. Of course, there had never been an alert, as I have never been arrested by anyone.

In ‘My Life in Christ,’ I openly accused Lyndon Johnson, who was then President, of murdering my father, although he had only been acting for Herbert Lehman, who then supported his Presidential ambitions. The only response was that during Johnson’s Presidency, every copy of this book that I mailed out—-was destroyed by the Post Office,—until I began insuring each copy.

My Struggle, published in Christian Vanguard, June, July and August 1978

David Duke.com, Aug 29 2007

Jenny McCarthy, Jim Carrey Issue Bold Statement About Vaccine Truth





(NaturalNews) When it comes to vaccines, Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey get it. They see how the pharma industry is engineering a campaign to silence Dr. Andrew Wakefield in order to suppress the publication of startling new evidence linking vaccines to severe neurological damage.

At great risk to their professional careers, Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey have found the courage to dare to tell the truth about vaccines and autism. Despite the vicious attacks by the pro-vaccine zealots who will stop at nothing to destroy anyone who challenges conventional vaccine mythology, McCarthy and Carrey have issued a powerful, inspired statement that reveals the truth behind the Big Pharma smear campaign that is intent on destroying the reputation of Dr. Andrew Wakefield before he can publish the final results of this important new study.

NaturalNews reprints that statement, unedited:

A statement from Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey

Dr. Andrew Wakefield is being discredited to prevent an historic study from being published that for the first time looks at vaccinated versus unvaccinated primates and compares health outcomes, with potentially devastating consequences for vaccine makers and public health officials.

Continue reading →

Will recent successes in fighting internet controls be enough to stave off tyranny?

internet licenseThe focus is back on Internet censorship this week as a pair of articles from Time Magazine and The New York Times came out almost simultaneously advocating for licences to operate web sites. These articles were skillfully skewered by Paul Joseph Watson as lame attempts to shore up a disintegrating establishment media in the face of a blogosphere that is increasingly replacing them. 

The articles follow on calls by Craig Mundie—Microsoft’s chief research and strategy officer—for an Internet licencing system. Introducing the idea, he said “We need a kind of World Health Organization for the Internet.” Evidently unaware of the ongoing investigation into the WHO’s role in manufacturing the H1N1 pandemic hoax to line the pockets of Big Pharma, Mundie added that an international Internet authority should be given the same kind of authority that the WHO has in dealing with a pandemic. “When there is a pandemic, it organizes the quarantine of cases. We are not allowed to organize the systematic quarantine of machines that are compromised.” These calls are worrying because they represent only the latest instance of influential figures proposing increasingly tyrannical controls on free speech on the Internet.

The Obama presidency has seen an increase in hype over cybersecurity threats, with the influential CSIS “think tank” having written white papers proposing cybersecurity as a key issue for the 44th president. As we reported last July, CSIS argued for “minimium standards for securing cyberspace” because “voluntary action is not enough.”

Shortly after Obama took office last year, Senator Jay Rockefeller introduced a Senate bill (S.773) that would give the president the

Continue reading →

Eustace Mullins Passed on Feb 2 2010

Copied from the Gnostic Media site

Eustace Mullins died at noon on February 2, 2010 at the home of Jesse Lee, Eustace’s manager, in Texas. This is the most extensive interview that Eustace gave September 27, 2009 during his more than 55-year career.

Conspiracy. It’s a word that causes many people to have all sorts of emotional reactions, whether or not they’ve actually investigated what the conspiracy is about. Some say that only the foolish believe in conspiracies, but many conspiracies are proved. The word conspiracy is defined as:

• a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act
• a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot)
• a group of conspirators banded together to achieve some harmful or illegal purpose

Every day in courts throughout this country, and throughout the world, people are tried and convicted of conspiracies. Our history books are literally filled with page after page of plots, assassinations and conspiracies. Should we believe that our politicians and bankers of today don’t commit such acts? And if they did, is it really true that government is so incompetent that they could never keep a secret? Or is it really that the general masses never actually bother to look into a conspiracy to verify it when they hear about it? If I were to bet, I’d put my money on the later.

What if almost all conspiracies, to one degree or another, where true? What if, like a puzzle, each conspiracy is a single piece of a larger picture, not to be understood clearly until all of the pieces are put together?

Today and next Monday I interview one of the world’s greatest historians. He’s also the man who has all of the pieces to the global conspiracy puzzle – considered the greatest conspiracy theorist alive. But did he create these conspiracy theories? Or did he discover real conspiracies?

In honor of free speech and critical thinking I present you with the most powerful interview I’ve done to date with one of the most controversial – and yet respected – people in the entire world, Eustace Mullins, the last living protégé of Ezra Pound. Eustace joins me for this explosive two part series on the history of the Federal Reserve, WWI, WWII, the Rothschilds, JP Morgan, the New World Order, banking, Zionism, farming, G. Edward Griffin’s The Creature from Jekyll Island, Ron Paul, the gold standard, and the state of world affairs. He’ll be joining me with his only protégé, Jesse Lee, who will help guide our discussion through the many rabbit holes of history, uncovering some of the most startling information many of you have ever heard.

Order The Secrets of the Federal Reserve: http://astore.amazon.com/gnosmedi-20/detail/0979917654

Turn Off Your Television – BRAINWASHING: How The British Use The Media for Mass Psychological Warfare

The subconcscious is powerful. It is aware of every particle and detail around you. But it doesn’t know the difference between fact or fiction and acts on all information passing through the conscious mind as fact, and responds to it. So what do you think happens when you watch silly, moron, goofy commercials and television programs? They are training your thought processes.

Hey buddy, I’m talking to you. Yes, you, the guy sitting in front of the television. Turn down the sound a bit, so that you can hear what I am saying. Now, try to concentrate on what I am going to say.

I want to talk to you about your favorite pastime. No, it’s not baseball or football, although it does have something to do with your interest in spectator sports. I’m talking about what you were just doing: watching television. Do you have any idea about how much time you spend in front of the television set? According to the latest studies, the average American now spends between five and six hours a day watching television. Let’s put that in perspective: that is more time than you spend doing anything else but sleeping or working, if you are lucky enough to still have a job.

That’s more time than you spend eating, more time than you spend with your wife alone, more time than with the kids. It’s even worse with your children. According to these same studies, young children below school age watch more than

Continue reading →

%d bloggers like this: