|
Americans WAKE UP! |
|
This Site is dedicated to exposing the truth that the Liberal Media wants to HIDE from all Americans. |
|
EXPOSED BY — Gee Arce |
|
I didn’t become interested in politics until I was in my mid-thirties and I’m not proud of that fact. As a matter of fact, I’m ashamed. The reason I became interested is that in 1970 I went to work for the Canal Zone Government in the U.S. controlled Panama Canal Zone. U.S. Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, came to Panama on Feb. 7, 1974 and signed an “eight point” agreement with Panama Foreign Minister Juan Tack as a prelude to giving away the Panama Canal in spite of the fact that more than 90% of Americans were against it. President Richard Nixon abdicated Aug. 9, 1974 and Gerald Ford was elevated to the presidency. Mr. Ford is the only president in U.S. history never elected to either position in the Executive Branch (President or V.P.) He was appointed to the V.P. spot when V.P. Spiro Agnew resigned in October, 1973. I had left the Canal Zone in 1973 to work with the Marines and Navy Corpsmen in Camp Pendleton, California for two years while they were processing Vietnamese refugees. In October, 1975 while I was waiting orders to return to the Canal Zone several corpsmen friends of mine and I were watching the second Ford/Carter debate in San Francisco on Oct 6, 1975. A couple of the guys were from Georgia and cheered loudly as Carter said unequivocally: ." I would never give up complete control or practical control of the Panama Canal Zone, but I would continue to negotiate with the Panamanians. …I would be willing to continue to raise the payment for shipment of goods through the Panama Canal Zone. I might even be willing to reduce to some degree our military emplacements in the Panama Canal Zane, but I would not relinquish practical control of the Panama Canal Zane any time in the foreseeable future.” Mr. Ford lost that debate. The biased Press said it was because he misspoke about the Communists in eastern Europe. That could be true, but because the Panama Canal controversy was raging in the USA, I believe that was the major issue. The people were overwhelmingly against giving up the Canal and the Ford administration, on Feb. 7, 1974, had agreed to turn it over to Panama. Carter saying he would never give up control of the Canal gave his campaign the winning impetus. He lied! The first thing he did when he took office was to appoint Sol Linowitz (CFR), as co-conspirator.. uh.., I meant co-negotiator of the Panama Canal Treaty to help 82 year old negotiator, Ellsworth Bunker. Actually, Linowitz became the de facto chief negotiator because of Bunker’s advanced age. The scuttlebutt in the Canal Zone was that Bunker relaxed daily by the pool with a Pina Colada while Linowitz gave away the Canal. Mr. Linowitz was given a six month appointment thus circumventing Senate “advise and consent” confirmation which would have been in doubt since he had a conflict of interest; he was on the board of Marine Midland Bank who reportedly Panama owed about $10 million dollars. A nice incentive for Panamanian control of the Canal. In the end Mr. Linowitz remained on the negotiating team past the six month term to insure the treaty went through both countries’ ratification processes. Anyhow, the point is that the presidency changed hands from Republican Gerald Ford to Democrat Jimmy Carter but nothing changed where the Panama Canal was concerned. In spite of the fact that Carter had stated: “I would not relinquish practical control of the Panama Canal Zane any time in the foreseeable future.” , he did! The duplicity of this piqued my interest so I started researching history and politics. My first read was the book below: You can read it on-line @: http://www.lust-for-life.org/Lust-For-Life/NoneDareCallItConspiracy/none-dare.html#chapter1 Or GOOGLE it @ [none dare call it conspiracy by gary allen lust for life] Case sensitive = all low case letters and Click on the top selection: “Full text of: NONE DARE CALL IT CONSPIRACY By Gary Allen & Larry Abraham NONE DARE CALL IT CONSPIRACY By Gary Allen & Larry Abraham Published in Paperback by CONCORD PRESS in 1972 The Introduction: “The story you are about to read is true. The names have not been changed to protect the guilty. …Eventually it will be necessary for the people and organizations named in this book to try to blunt its effect by attacking it or the author. They have a tremendous vested interest in keeping you from discovering what they are doing. And they have the big guns of the mass media at their disposal to fire the barrages at ‘None Dare Call It Conspiracy’. …” Written by Congressman John G. Schmitz (R, Ca)
Chapter 1: Don’t Confuse Me With Facts “Most of us have had the experience, either as parents or youngsters, of trying to discover the "hidden picture' within another picture in a children's magazine. Usually you are shown a landscape with trees, bushes, flowers and other bits of nature. The caption reads something like this: "Concealed somewhere in this picture is a donkey pulling a cart with a boy in it. Can you find them?" Try as you might, usually you could not find the hidden picture until you turned to a page farther back in the magazine which would reveal how cleverly the artist had hidden it from us. If we study the landscape we realize that the whole picture was painted in such a way as to conceal the real picture within, and once we see the "real picture," it stands out like the proverbial painful digit. We believe the picture painters of the mass media are artfully creating landscapes for us which deliberately hide the real picture. In this book we will show you how to discover the "hidden picture" in the landscapes presented to us daily through newspapers, radio and. television. Once you can see through the camouflage, you will see the donkey, the cart and the boy who have been there all along. Millions of Americans are concerned and frustrated over mishappenings in our nation. They feel that something is wrong, drastically wrong, but because of the picture painters they can't quite put their fingers on it. Maybe you are one of those persons. Something is bugging you, but you aren't sure what. We keep electing new Presidents who seemingly promise faithfully to halt the world-wide Communist advance, put the blocks to extravagant government spending, douse the tea of inflation, put the economy on an even keel, reverse the trend which is turning the country mto a moral sewer, and toss the criminals into the hoosegow where they belong. Yet despite high hopes and glittering campaign promise these problems continue to worsen no matter who is in office. Each new administration, whether it be Republican or Democrat continues the same basic policies of the previous administration which it had so thoroughly denounced during the election campaign. It is considered poor form to mention this, but it is true nonetheless. Is there a plausible reason to explain why this happens? We are not supposed to think so. We are supposed to think it is all accidental and coincidental and that therefore there is nothing we can do about it. FDR once said "In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." He was in a good position to know. We believe that many of the major world events that are shaping our destinies occur because somebody or somebodies have planned them that way. If we were merely dealing with the law of avenges, half of the events affecting our nation's well-being should be good for America. If we were dealing with mere incompetence, our leaders should occasionally make a mistake in our favor. We shall attempt to prove 'bat we are not really dealing with coincidence or stupidity, but with planning and brilliance. This small book deals with that planning and brilliance and how it has shaped the foreign and domestic policies of the last six administrations. We hope it will explain matters which have up to now seemed inexplicable; that it will bring into sharp focus images which have been obscured by the landscape painters of the mass media. Those who believe that major world events result from planning are laughed at for believing in the "conspiracy theory of history." Of course, no one in this modern day and age readily believes in the conspiracy theory of history — except those who Those who believe that major world events result from planning are laughed at for believing in the "conspiracy theory of history." Of course, no one in this modern day and age really believes in the conspiracy theory of history — except those who have taken the time to study the subject. When you think about it, there are really only two theories of history. Either things happen by accident neither planned nor caused by anybody, or they happen because they are planned and somebody causes them to happen. In reality, it is the accidental theory of history preached in the unhallowed Halls of Ivy which should be ridiculed. Otherwise, why does every recent administration make the same mistakes as the previous ones? Why do they repeat the errors of the past which produce inflation, depressions and war? Why does our State Department "stumble" from one Communist-aiding "blunder" to another? If you believe it is all an accident or the result of mysterious and unexplainable tides of history, you will be regarded as an "intellectual" who understands that we live in a complex world. If you believe that something like 32,496 consecutive coincidences over the past forty years stretches the law of averages a bit, you are a kook! …the Professor [Carroll Quigley] describes as "nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole." In other words, this power mad clique wants to control and rule the world. Even more frightening, they want total control over all individual actions. … It holds almost complete sway in international business, in financial circles, in the field of mass communications; press, cinema, radio and TV.” “…Unfortunately, for many people social status comes before intellectual honesty. Although they would never admit it social position is more important to many people than is the survival of freedom in America…. People have an infinite capacity for rationalization when it comes to refusing to face the threat to America's survival. Deep down these people are afraid they may be laughed at if they take a stand, or may be denied an invitation to some social climber's cocktail party. Instead of getting mad at the insiders, these people actually get angry at these who are trying to save the country by exposing the conspirators. We feel there are a sufficient number of (Americans) who are not mesmerized by the television set, who put God, family and country above social status, who will band together to expose and destroy the conspiracy of the insiders. “…The Insiders know that … the business and professional community will not take a stand to save the private enterprise system, [so] the socialism through which they intend to control the world will be inevitable.”
Chapter 2: SOCIALISM — ROYAL ROAD TO POWER FOR THE SUPER-RICH “Everyone knows that Adolph Hitler existed. …we know that a man named Vladimir Lenin also existed….Is it not theoretically possible that a billionaire could be sitting, not in a garret, but in a penthouse, in Manhattan, London or Paris and dream the same dream as Lenin and Hitler? …Julius Caesar, a wealthy aristocrat, did. And such a man might form an alliance or association with other like-minded men, might he not? Caesar did. These men would be superbly educated, command immense social prestige and be able to pool astonishing amounts of money to carry out their purposes. It is difficult for the average individual to fathom such perverted lust for power. …He wants to mind his own business and enjoy life. Since he has no lust for power, it is difficult for him to imagine that there are others who have … others who march to a far different drum. But we must realize that there have been Hitlers and Lenins and Stalins and Caesars and Alexander the Greats throughout history. Why should we assume there are no such men today with perverted lusts for power? And if these men happen to be billionaires is it not possible that they would use men like Hitler and Lenin as pawns to seize power for themselves? We are going to present evidence that what you call "Communism" is not run from Moscow or Peking, but is an arm of a bigger conspiracy run from New York, London and Paris. The men at the apex of this movement are not Communists in the traditional sense of that term. They feel no loyalty to Moscow of Peking. They are loyal only to themselves and their undertaking. And these men certainly do not believe in the clap-trap pseudo-philosophy of Communism. They have no intention of dividing their wealth. Socialism is a philosophy which conspirators exploit, but in which only the naive believe. Just how finance capitalism is used as the anvil and Communism as the hammer to conquer the world will be explained in this book.”
Chapter 3: THE MONEY MANIPULATORS Many college history professors tell their charges that the books they will be using in the class are "objective." … Not only is a historian's ability to write an "objective" history limited by the sheer volume of happenings, but by the fact that many of the most important happenings never appear in the papers or even in somebody's memoirs. The decisions reached by the "Big Boys" in the smoke-filled rooms are not reported even in the New York Times which ostensibly reports all the news that is fit to print. ("All the news that fits" is a more accurate description. … In order to understand the conspiracy it is necessary to have some rudimentary knowledge of banking and, particularly, of international bankers. While it would be an over-simplification to ascribe the entire conspiracy to international bankers, they nevertheless have played a key role. Think of the conspiracy as a hand with one finger labeled "international banking," others "foundations," "the anti-religion movement" "Fabian Socialism," and "Communism." Send Feedback to GeeArce@wakeupusaonline.com |
|
...I would never give up complete control...of the Panama Canal Zone... |
|
LINKS to previous articles |