Critique of Achtenberg’s Speech on Fair Housing

Critique of Achtenberg’s Speech on Fair Housing

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: This article was submitted in 1994 for the “Southern National Newsletter” of the Southern National Party. It has been slightly edited.]

A speech delivered by Roberta Achtenberg, Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), illustrates how much the United States have deteriorated and how much deterioration will accelerate in the future. This speech illustrates the desperate need for the Southern States to secede and form a free and independent confederation of free and independent Southern States.

Achtenberg delivered this speech at the first (and hopefully the last) National Fair Housing Summit. It was a gathering sponsored by the federal government to discuss the state of fair housing and to decry the lack thereof. “Fair housing” is a euphemism that means that a landlord or homeowner has no right to rent or sell or not to rent or sell his property to whomever he pleases for whatever reason he pleases. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss ways to take away even the few rights and freedoms remaining and to discuss how to finish destroying what remains of Western Civilization in the United States.

She points out, correctly so, that where a person lives is a most important factor in determining the quality of one’s life. Thus, she concludes that all neighborhoods should be thoroughly integrated with the lowest stratum of society. There should be equality in the quality of life. “[T]he right to choose where we live is as important as the right to equal educational and employment opportunity and the right to vote.” Just as the power of the federal government has been used to destroy public education, to weaken the economy, and to corrupt the political process, it will now be used to ruin neighborhoods — or more correctly, ruin neighborhoods at an accelerated rate.

Then, she complains about the government not being more tyrannical in destroying the rights of the people in their use of their property. She praises the “advocates for the disabled, advocates for woman and for families with children, and industry leaders” for leading the fight to destroy these rights. Ah! But, thanks to the Clinton administration, a new day has dawned. The federal government will now become an active partner in the destruction of these rights (as though it has not been an active partner in destroying these rights since before the “civil rights” movement).

Moreover, she and her cohorts will lead the charge to destroy what remains of these rights, for she claims what the government does best is to lead. (Unreconstructed Southerners know differently. They know that what the government does best is to destroy.) She promises severe penalties for homeowners and landlords who do not kowtow before the fair housing overlords. Woe unto him who stands up for his rights.

Furthermore, she promises accelerated growth in the power of the federal government in housing (which really means accelerated growth of the federal government in controlling people). Programs to destroy the rights of homeowners and landlords will be instituted by every means available. The death and utter destruction of these rights are the legacy that she promises that the Clinton administration will leave America.

Also, she advocates affirmative action in housing. Yet she denies that affirmative action will lead to quotas and reverse discrimination. As anyone who has even cursorily looked at other affirmative action programs knows that affirmative action has always led to quotas and reverse discrimination. No matter how much the advocates of such affirmative action programs have denied that quotas and reverse discrimination would not occur, they always have. She fails to explain why affirmative action in housing will not result in the same.

Then, she says that “it’s time for government to act affirmatively to guarantee every American’s right to choose freely where they live.” To guarantee this so-called right means more than denying landlords the right to rent their property to whomever they please and denying homeowners the right to sell their houses to whomever they please. It also means providing people money to buy or rent in neighborhoods that they cannot afford. As a result, the politically powerful will compel the many serfs to support the privileged few. She hints that such a subsidy program is envisioned. Moreover, she equates separation by income with separation by race or ethnicity.

Next, she proceeds to inform her audience that the fair housing laws will be used to end segregated neighborhoods. Neighborhoods are to be integrated in spite of what the people in those neighborhoods think or want. Integration for integration’s sake! (As always, this integration flows only in one direction. White neighborhoods will be forcibly integrated. Black neighborhoods will not.)

Continuing, she informs her audience that integrated housing and neighborhoods are the last great unconquered frontiers for the civil rights movement. She is determined to conquer this frontier and bring it to ruin just as the civil rights movement has ruined all else that it has conquered. Yet, she fails to inform her audience of the results of the fair housing laws if they are as fully and forcibly implemented as she desires. The results are deteriorating neighborhoods, poorer housing, greater racial tension and hatred, ever-higher taxes, the loss of freedom, and a bigger government.

Her agency, HUD, is already attacking the banking industry. Banks are not to place the interest of their stockholders, owners, and depositors first. They are to place the social programs of the federal government first. They are to lend to whomever the federal government tells them to lend to — no matter how risky the loan.

Furthermore, the weight of the federal government is to be used against States and locales to coerce, extort, and bribe them into adopting analogous fair housing laws and enforcement programs. The federal government will make State and local governments coconspirators in the destruction of housing in the United States.

Finally, she comments on affordable housing and bemoans the lack of affordable housing. She claims that “there is [not] enough affordable housing, in enough neighborhoods and communities to enable people to actually make free choices about where they will live.” She does not identify the principal cause of the lack of affordable housing, which is governmental intervention, manipulation, and control of the housing market. On the contrary, she advocates more governmental intervention, manipulation, and control of the housing market. What she fails (or perhaps refuses) to realize is that her agency, HUD, and other agencies of the federal government are the cause of much of the housing problem about which she is carping.

Throughout her speech, she brags about the enforcement activities of her agency. She brags that the enforcement activities of her agency need to be increased and expanded. She brags about how the extent, domain, and coverage of her agency are to be increased and expanded. She brags about how much more intrusive into business and private affairs of all Americans her agency is to become. Never does she mention the constitutionality of what she advocates — probably because everything she advocates is unconstitutional.

The time has come for all good Southerners to free themselves from the despotism and tyranny of the megalomaniacs of HUD. They are only one example, and a small one at that, of the despotic and tyrannical rule of the United States over the Southern States. The time has come for a free and independent confederation of free and independent Southern States.

Copyright © 1995, 2025 by Thomas C. Allen.

More social issues articles.

Bob Dole: Presidential Candidate

Bob Dole: Presidential Candidate

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: This article was submitted in 1996 to the “Southern National Newsletter” of the Southern National Party. It compares Bob Dole with Bill Clinton in the 1996 presidential campaign.]

It looks like Bob Dole is going out of his way to give the election to Bill Clinton, which is probably good for America. Dole as the Republican candidate is the best thing that Clinton has going for him in his reelection bid.

In the character department, Dole wins without a contest. (But then to find someone who could lose to Clinton in the character department would be difficult.) Unfortunately for Dole, character does not seem to carry much weight in American politics. As for policies, little distinguishes Dole from Clinton.

On issues, such as abortion, homosexuals, and immigration, to name a few, where Dole could gain support by distinguishing himself from Clinton, he fails to do so. Instead of comforting the social conservatives, who are the core of Pat Buchanan’s support and a large part of the Republican Party, Dole is ignoring, teasing, confusing, and antagonizing them. He is working hard to lose their support. Still, he is correct in that these people are unlikely to vote for Clinton. However, if he does not court their support, many will support a third-party candidate or stay home. Historically, Dole has been closer to Clinton on most issues than he has been to Buchanan.

During the campaign, Buchanan forced Dole to take a strong pro-life stance. Since Dole has secured the nomination, he has moved away from that position. He has become noticeably accommodative to the abortionists. (When voting on bills directly dealing with abortion, Dole has taken a pro-life stance. When voting on bills dealing indirectly with abortion, such as “family planning” legislation, he has generally backed the abortionist position. He has also supported nominees for the Supreme Court who are pro-abortion.) Little difference between Dole and Clinton exists on the abortion issue.

Moreover, he seems to have joined the enemies of the Second Amendment. For a number of years, he supported the right of people to own guns to defend themselves from a despotic government. In recent years he has joined those who seek to deny the people this right. He was instrumental in the passage of the Brady bill. Furthermore, he supported the crime bill that banned “assault weapons” and prevented the introduction of a bill to repeal this ban. Again little difference between Dole and Clinton exists.

Both Dole and Clinton are internationalists, i.e., favor using U. S. troops to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. Both pushed for the passage of GATT and NAFTA. (These “treaties” have nothing to do with free trade other than giving free trade a bad name. Their purpose is to transfer the control of trade to an international body and strip members of the pacts of their sovereignty.) Both favor most-favored-nation treatment for China, the greatest tyranny on the planet. No real difference exists between Dole and Clinton in foreign policy and foreign trade.

That Dole would abolish affirmative action programs is doubtful. He opposed Republican Reagan’s rescission of Democratic Johnson’s executive order that mandated affirmative action for companies doing business with the federal government. Also, he supported the 1991 “Civil Rights” Act, which is the quota law that now serves as the main federal affirmative action law. That Dole as president would push to abolish affirmative action is incredible. Once more, no real difference exists between Dole and Clinton.

When Clinton first started pushing for socialized health care, Dole was a supporter. He offered compromises that would increase the chances of the program passing the Senate. He only became an opponent of socialized health care when public resistance became widespread. Later, he promoted a bill that would increase federal regulation of private health care by regulating health insurance. This bill moves the country closer to Clinton’s goal to socialize health care. Again Clinton and Dole are the same.

Moreover, Dole has historically supported higher taxes. Newt Gingrich once described him as “the tax collector for the welfare state.” [Some have said that Dole never saw a tax that he did not like.] Tax reduction under Dole is no more likely than tax reduction under Clinton. Both favor heavy taxation.

Furthermore, Dole has been instrumental in getting enacted into law the food stamp program, Martin Luther King’s holiday, American with Disability Act, and other programs that Clinton supports. What difference is there between the two? No significant difference seems to exist in their policies.

In running for the presidency, Dole has followed the advice of Richard Nixon. Nixon advised Dole to run as a conservative to win the nomination and then as a moderate or centralists for the election. If Dole wins the election, America will get what it got with Nixon. The conservatives will get the rhetoric. The liberals will get the action. This would make a Dole administration much like most other post-World War II administration.

One of the great paradoxes of post-World War II American presidential politics is that the greatest growth in the federal government has occurred under Republican presidents. People who would like to see programs advocated by Clinton implemented should support Dole. Those who oppose Clinton’s programs should support Clinton. As shown above, there is not much difference between Dole and Clinton on the issues. However, Dole will be much more successful in implementing Clinton’s programs than Clinton. Clinton will face too much opposition from the Republicans and moderate Democrats in Congress to have much success in getting his programs approved. Moreover, his administration will be too distracted by scandal to do too much damage to the country. On the other hand, the only opposition that Dole would face in getting essentially the same programs approved would be from principled conservative Republicans in Congress of whom there are only a few.

Again the American voter is presented with a choice between the lesser of two evils. The apparent lesser evil, Dole, may be a greater evil because he will be more successful.

Copyright © 1996, 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political issues articles.

Some Comments on Democrats and Republicans

Some Comments on Democrats and Republicans

Thomas Allen

Discussed below are Trump-haters’ attitude toward guns, Democratic hypocrisy, and Republican shills.

Hating Trump and Gun Confiscation
Most ardent Trump-haters are convinced that Trump wants to make himself president for life and become an absolute despotic tyrant. Yet, most of these same people want to disarm American civilians, which means disarming themselves, and give the US government an absolute monopoly of firearms. Once these Trump-haters are disarmed, how do they propose to protect themselves from Trump’s tyranny?

Democratic Hypocrisy
Democrats reached the pinnacle of hypocrisy for impeaching President Trump over his telephone conversation with the Ukranian president. They accused Trump of extorting the Ukranian president into investigating Biden's and his son’s corruption. Biden publicly admitted that he extorted the previous Ukranian president to dismiss the prosecutor general who was investigating his son. Now, according to a treaty that President Clinton made with Ukraine, Trump asked the Ukranian president to give the United States information about Biden’s and his son’s corruption, and the Ukranian president asked Trump to give him information that the United States had about their corruption. Thus, Democrats impeached Trump for what they imagined he may have done while ignoring Biden’s extortion and even defending him when he actually did what they accuse Trump of doing. This is hypocrisy!

Republican Shills
About the accusations against President Trump, Rev. Dr. William Barber, former president of the NAACP’s North Carolina chapter, said, “Republicans are now asking what they should do with Trump. Here’s an idea: What would you have done if it were Obama? Do that.”

For the most part, Republicans did and continue to do what they did when Obama was President. They did and continue to do mostly nothing except an occasional complaint. For the most part, they shilled for Obama.

President Obama committed more impeachable offenses than President Trump has. Republicans had a good deal of evidence to remove Obama from office for not being a US citizen. If he were a US citizen, they had good evidence to remove him from office for fraud.

Obama never produced a birth certificate to prove that he was born in the United States. The one offered the public was a fake. Moreover, Hawaii prevented everyone from obtaining a copy of Obama’s birth certificate that it was supposed to have. Also, he traveled with an Indonesian passport, which means that he was an Indonesian citizen.

Further, he attended college in the United States as a foreign student. If Obama were a US citizen who attended college as a foreign student, then he is guilty of fraud. If he qualified as a foreign student because he was a foreigner, then he was not a US citizen and, therefore, not qualified to be President. In either case, he committed an impeachable offense. Yet, the Republicans did nothing. By doing nothing about the accusations against Trump, they are acting the same way that they did about the accusations against Obama.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Newt Gingrich: a Liberal in Conservative Clothing

Newt Gingrich: a Liberal in Conservative Clothing

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: This article was submitted in 1995 to the “Southern National Newsletter” of the Southern National Party.]

Is Newt Gingrich a liberal in conservative clothing? Being a member of the Council on Foreign Relation (CFR), he has done little to oppose moving toward a one-world fascist state. He supported both NAFTA and GATT. (That GATT would have been passed by the new Congress is doubtful, which is why Clinton, who is also a member of the CFR, pushed to have the lame-duck Congress vote on GATT. Gingrich did not oppose GATT being brought before the lame-duck Congress, many of whose members had been voted out of office. He feared that the new Congress would defeat the “treaty.” He has been successful in keeping the House of Representatives from reconsidering the “treaty.”)

In order to consolidate his control over the Republicans in the House of Representatives, Gingrich came up with the “Contract with America.” Although the Contract contained several needed reforms, its purpose was not to reform the U.S. government, but to control the freshmen Republicans. The freshmen Republicans had been elected by people who wanted real reform and who wanted the illegal power that the U. S. government had usurped returned to the people and their States. While the freshmen Republicans were running on platforms to bring the U. S. government back into its constitutional bounds, the Contract guaranteed that only minor inconsequential changes would be made. It has prevented real reform from occurring. The Contract served to turn the anti-Washington feelings that swept so many incumbents out of office into an endorsement of the old-line establishment Republican Party.

Since Gingrich has been elected Speaker of the House, he has processed to accumulated unprecedented power into the office of the Speaker. Obviously, he does not believe in the dispersal and decentralization of power as do true conservatives. He is rapidly becoming dictator of the House of Representatives, especially of the Republicans in the House. In the name of reform, he is using his power to promote himself and the establishment. Furthermore, he uses his power to promote pseudo reforms and to thwart real reforms. This consolidation of power will enable him to deliver the votes for the establishment when the time comes. The vote will be for more, not less, government and socialism. With this power, Gingrich will be able to prevent real, needed reform from occurring.

Gingrich’s debate with President Clinton illustrates that Gingrich does not oppose liberalism. His arguments and disagreements with the President are over details, not principles or substance. (The primary purpose of the debate was to elevate the standing of the President in the eyes of the public. In achieving this goal, it was somewhat successful.)

Gingrich has also supported giving the President even more power by giving him the line-item veto on budgets and repealing the War Powers Act, which limits the amount of time that the President can commit the armed forces without a Congressional declaration of war.

A good indication of the direction that Gingrich is pulling the House Republican is the reaction of the establishment press. When Gingrich was pushing his Contract, the press perceived this as a move to the right, and Gingrich received much negative treatment. Since then the establishment press has learned how hallow much of the Contract is. Also, since becoming Speaker, Gingrich has made clear that he does not oppose a one-world fascist state, but he plans to deliver the votes in favor of issues that support such a state.

Another indication of Gingrich’s liberalism is his voting record. One conservative index shows Gingrich voting to the left of Bernie Sanders. Sanders is a self-professed socialist representing Vermont. He left the Democratic Party because it was too far to the right. According to this index, Gingrich is more of a socialist than the socialist is.

Gingrich is an establishment conservative. He is part of the establishment that has controlled the United States government most of this century [i.e., the twentieth century]. In spite of any rhetoric to the contrary — and virtually no rhetoric to the contrary has occurred — he supports a one-world fascist state. As the consolidation and concentration of political power into the U. S. government are necessary to achieve the goal of a fascist world state, he cannot be counted on to oppose the consolidation and concentration of political power in Washington — much less reverse the trend.

[Moreover, how Gingrich has treated his wives is reprehensible. He left his first wife while she was in a hospital suffering from cancer for his second wife. {When Deb was in the hospital, a few times a nurse would comment on me being there every day. I replied that I was not Newt Gingrich.} He left his second wife when he later decided to campaign to be President because she was not pretty enough to be the first-lady.]

Copyright © 1995, 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political issues articles.

Trilateral Commission

Trilateral Commission
Thomas Allen

[Editors note: Footnotes in the original are omitted.]

In 1973, David Rockefeller, chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, founded the Trilateral Commission after Zbigniew Brzezinski approached him with the idea. Its purpose is to resolve economic and political issues facing the United States, Western Europe, and Japan and to facilitate their economic and political union. Secular humanism is its guiding philosophy. It serves as a more public venue to distract public attention from the nefarious work of the Council on Foreign Relations.

The Trilateral Commission limits its membership to about 300 and does not allow governmental officials to be members. Its members come from North America, Europe, and Japan. (Almost every major Japanese corporation is represented on the Trilateral Commission.) Most of the French members are also members of the Grand Orient of France.

Its funding comes from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation and nearly 40 major corporations doing significant business with Russia. Brzezinski, an agent of David Rockefeller, wrote the Commission’s charter and became the first director of the Trilateral Commission.

Its ultimate goal is to change the United States and Western Europe sufficiently so that they can be comfortably merged with Russia into the New World Order with a single global state. (The dismantling of the Soviet Union is part of the plan merger.) It seeks to abolish national sovereignty and establish a global taxation system. To achieve this goal, it promoted economic interdependence among the superpowers. It keeps countries in line by creating, or threatening to create, economic and political instability with debt, i.e., it uses debt “to strangle a rebellious nation into submission.” Also, it uses food as a weapon to control countries—thus, the consolidations of all seed production into the hands of a few international corporations and the replacement of open pollinated seed with patentable genetically modified seed. It supports the consolidation and control of all palatable surface and ground waters into the hands of a few. It seeks to establish a new international currency to replace gold and the dollar. According to Holly Sklar, “Economic gain and social control are inseparable goals of trilateralism.”[1] To carry out its program, its members have captured and taken control the government of the United States and other countries.

About the Trilateral Commission, Barry Goldwater writes:

The Trilateral Commission . . . is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interest by seizing control of the political government of the United States. . . . In my view the Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power—political, monetary, intellectual, and ecclesiastical. All this is to be done in the interest of creating a more peaceful, more productive world community. . . . What the Trilateralists truly intend is the creation of a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nation-states involved. They believe the abundant materialism they propose to create will overwhelm existing differences. As managers and creators of the system they will rule the future.[2]

To bring about this unification, the Trilateral Commission has sought to disarm the West, especially to eliminate nuclear weapons, in particular those held by the United States. (Actually, it is not their elimination that the Trilateralists favor so much as transferring their control to the United Nations.) The Trilateral Commission has worked to dismantle the national security apparatuses in the United States and Western Europe.

Another part of its program, is to create a new monetary system where gold is replaced as the international exchange with paper receipts (special drawing rights), which would eventually be replaced by a one-world currency. The Trilateral Commission is close to completing this goal.

It has strengthened the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), so these organizations can more easily absorb bad loans made by international financiers.

The Trilateral Commission is a collusion of multinational corporations and international banks. Only people who want to promote globalism are recruited. It owes allegiance not to any country, but to its members. Its ultimate goal is to increase the wealth and power of its members and ultimately to bring about a New World Order, which its members will control. Needless to say, members of the Trilateral Commission are Illuminists.

Members of the Trilateral Commission controlled the Carter administration. They included Jimmy Carter (President, CFR member), Walter Mondale (Vice President, CFR member), Brzezinski (National Security Advisor, CFR members), Michael Blumenthal (Secretary of the Treasury), Harold Brown (Secretary of Defense, CFR member), Cyrus Vance (Secretary of State, CFR member), Andrew Young (Ambassador to the United Nations), and Richard Gardner (ambassador to Italy, Rhodes scholar, CFR member). Carter appointed more than 20 members of the Trilateral Commission and 70 members of the Council on Foreign Relations. With George H.W. Bush (Vice President), William Brock (Special Trade Representative), Arthur Burns (ambassador to West Germany), Alexander Haig (Secretary of State), William Hewitt (ambassador to Jamaica), Donald Regan (Secretary of the Treasury), Paul Volcker (chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System), and Casper Weinberger (Secretary of Defense), the Trilateral Commission had a strong presence in the Reagan administration.[3] Bush, Burns, Haig, Regan, Weinberger, and Volcker were also members of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Shattering all previous records, George H.W. Bush appointed more than 350 members of the Council on Foreign Relations or Trilateral Commission to high-level positions. They included Richard Cheney (Secretary of Defense, CFR member), Nicholas Brady (Secretary of the Treasury, CFR member), Richard Darman (Director of Office of Management and Budget, CFR member, member of Trilateral Commission), Carla Hill (United States trade representative, member of the Trilateral Commission), Colin Powell (Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, CFR member), Brent Scowcroft (National Security Advisor, member of CFR and Trilateral Commission), Dick Thornburgh (Attorney General, CFR member), and William Webster (CIA Director, CFR member). Bush was a member of both.[4]

The Trilateral Commission was also well represented in the Clinton Administration. Among the Trilateralists were William Clinton (President, Rhodes scholar, CFR member), Bruce Babbitt (Secretary of Interior, CFR member), Stephen W. Bosworth (ambassador to South Korea), Henry Cisneros (Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, CFR member), William Cohen (Secretary of Defense, CFR member), Thomas Foley (ambassador to Japan), Alan Greenspan (chairman of Federal Reserve Board, CFR member), Richard Holbrooke (ambassador to the United Nations, CFR member), Winston Lord, (Assistant Secretary of State, member of CFR and Skull and Bones), Joseph Nye (Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, Rhodes scholar, CFR member), Alice Rivlin (Director of Office of Management and Budget, CFR member), Donna Shalala (Secretary of Health and Human Services, CFR member), and Strobe Talbott (ambassador-at-large, special advisor to the Secretary of State, Rhodes scholar, CFR member).[5]

Endnotes
1. Dennis L. Cuddy, The Globalists: The Power Elite Exposed (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma: Hearthstone Publishing, 2001), p. 138.

2. Dennis L. Cuddy, Now Is the Dawning of the New Age New World Order (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma: Hearthstone Publishing, 2000), pp. 130-131.

3. William P. Hoar, Architect of Conspiracy: An Intriguing History (Belmont, Massachusetts: Western Islands, 1984), p. 319. Gary H. Kah, The Demonic Roots of Globalism (Lafayette, Louisiana: Huntington House Publishers, 1995), p. 51. Jim Marrs, Rule by Secrecy: The Hidden History That Connects the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons, and the Great Pyramids (New York, New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 2000), p. 27-29.

4. Kah, p. 52. John F. McManus, The Insiders (Appleton, Wisconsin: The John Birch Society, 1996), pp. 57-58.

5. McManus, pp. 89- 90, 139-140. Marrs, p. 21.

Copyright © 2010 by Thomas Coley Allen.

[Editor's notes: The list of references in the orginial are omitted.]

 More articles on history. 

China

China
Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: Footnotes in the original are omitted.]

At the conclusion of World War II, Illuminists began building up China as the next world power that the Illuminists planned to use to initiate their third world war. This war would eradicate the Aryan people, or at least reduce them to such insignificance that the postwar mop up could eliminate the few remaining ones.

Some believe that the buildup of China was intended to be a counter balance to the Soviet Union. Illuminists of the West could use China to keep the Soviet Union in line if the Illuminists of the Soviet Union started acting too independently. This was the claim of the Establishment media, which Illuminists control. Even people not controlled by Illuminists thought such was the reason. However, the greatest transfer of wealth and technology to China occurred after the dismantlement of the Soviet Union and during the administration of President William Clinton, a Rhodes scholar and CFR member, and continued by President G.W. Bush, a member of Skull and Bones.

The United States’ war with Japan aided communist advancement in China. Before the war, Japan had not only halted communist expansion in China, but had caused it to retreat.

While Chiang Kai-shek’s army was trying to drive the Japanese from China, the Soviet backed Chinese Communist Party was capturing the territory to Chiang’s rear. By 1943, the Communists had gained controlled of northern China.

After Germany’s defeat, Japan sought peace. However, Harry Dexter White and other Soviet agents of Stalin persuaded Truman to continue the war and to destroy Japan as a power in the Far East. The war continued long enough to drop nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (one of the few centers of Christian missionary work in the Far East) and for the Soviet Union to declare war on Japan. (For its two days of war against Japan, the Soviet Union received the Kurile Islands and South Sakhalin and control of the Manchuria railroad.)

Among the Far Eastern experts whose advise Roosevelt and Truman used to force Communism on China were Lauchlin Currie (confidential administrative assistant to the President, Roosevelt’s personal emissary to Chiang, a CFR member, and a spy for the Soviet Union), Gregory Silvermaster (a Jew, Communist, and Soviet agent), Michael Greenberg (a Jew and Communist), and Alger Hiss (a CFR member, Communist, Soviet agent, and spy).

Following World War II, Marshall aided Mao Tse-tung in bringing the Communists to power in China by stopping the supplies of fuel and munitions to Chiang Kai-shek and the Nationalist Chinese, who had been allies of the United Sates in the war against Japan. At this time Marshall was under Henry L. Stimson, Secretary of War and a member of the Skull and Bones.

Marshall went to China shortly after World War II and told Chiang that if he did not allow the Communists to enter his government, all American aid would cease. Chiang refused to allow the Communists into his government, and Marshall stopped the aid. After Congress directed that aid be sent to Chiang, the Truman administration prevented the aid from reaching him. Thus, the Communists forced the Nationalists to retreat to Twain. By 1949, the Communists held all mainland China.

Meanwhile, Lattimore, a Soviet agent, and other pro-Communist writers were writing books and articles supporting the Chinese Communists and condemning Chiang. Through book reviews, Lattimore and his procommunist colleagues stifled objective and anticommunist books on the Far East. Mainline magazines, such as the Saturday Evening Post and Colliers, glorified Mao and the Chinese Communist as “agrarian reformers.”

Once Mao gained controlled of China, he began in earnest to carry out his reign of terror. During the first five years of communist rule, Mao had 40 million people liquidated.[1] Husbands were separated from wives, and children, from parents. To destroy the individuality of children, the Communists replaced their names with numbers. Using terror and torture, Mao sought to eradicate all Christians and vestiges of Christianity from China.

The next great advancement for Communist China came in 1971. In 1971, President Richard Nixon appointed George H. W. Bush as United States Ambassador to the United Nations. Bush was a member of the Skull and Bones, Council on Foreign Relations, and Trilateral Commission and became the 41st President. Bush allowed the United Nations to expel the Republic of China (Twain) and to give its seat to Communist China. After faithfully fulfilling his duty to his fellow Illuminists, he resigned and became Chairman of the Republican National Committee.

The build up of China began in earnest during the administration of Ronald Reagan. Bechtel Corp., a privately owned firm, was the company that the Illuminists used to spearhead the reconstruction of China. Among Bechtel’s employees were Richard Helms (Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, CFR member), George Shultz (Secretary of State), and Casper Weinberger (Secretary of Defense). Shultz was the president of Bechtel, and Weinberger was the vice-president and general counsel.

With the Clinton administration, the buildup of China accelerated with the transfer of advance military technology to China. The United States special forces trained Chinese special forces in tactics that could be used in an invasion of Taiwan. The United States intensified its campaign to demoralize the Taiwanese and the surrender of Taiwan to China.

Endnote
1. John A. Stormer, None Dare Call It Treason (Florissant, Missouri: Liberty Bell Press, 1964), p. 133.

References
Cuddy, Dennis L. The Globalists: The Power Elite Exposed. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma: Hearthstone Publishing, 2001.

Hoar, William P. Architect of Conspiracy: An Intriguing History. Belmont, Massachusetts: Western Islands, 1984.

Monteith, Stanley. Brotherhood of Darkness. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma: Hearthstone, 2000.

Roberts, Archibald E. The Most Secret Science. Fort Collins, Colorado: Betsy Ross Press, 1984.

Skousen, W. Cleon. The Naked Capitalist: A Review and Commentary on Dr. Carroll Quigley’s Book Tragedy and Hope. Salt Lake City, Utah, 1971.

Still, William T. New World Order: The Ancient Plan of Secret Societies. Lafayette, Louisiana: Huntington House Publishers, 1990.

Stormer, John A. None Dare Call It Treason. Florissant, Missouri: Liberty Bell Press, 1964.

Sutton, Antony C. How the Order Creates War and Revolution. Phoenix, Arizona: Research Publications, Inc., 1984.

Wardner, James W. Unholy Alliances: The Secret Plan and the Secret People Who Are Working to Destroy America. James W. Wardner, 1996.

Webster, Nesta H. World Revolution: The Plot Against Civilization. Editor Anthony Gittens. Seventh edition. Palmdale, California: Omni Publications, 1994.

Copyright © 2010 by Thomas Coley Allen.

 More articles on history.