Millions of people from around the world are both concerned and frustrated over the political miss-happenings in their nations. They feel that something is wrong, but because of the ‘picture painters of the world’s press’, they can’t quite put their fingers on what it is.

Maybe you are one of those people. Something is bugging you, but you aren’t sure what it is. We keep electing new leaders who seemingly promise faithfully to halt the supposed world-wide advance towards communism, put the blocks on extravagant government spending, douse the fires of inflation, put the economy on an even keel, reverse the trend which is turning the country into a moral sewer, and toss the criminals into prisons where they all belong. Yet despite high hopes and a glittering campaign of promises, these problems continue to worsen no matter who is in office. Each new administration, whether it be Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Labour, continues the same basic policies of the previous administration which it had so thoroughly denounced during the election campaigning. It is considered somewhat bad 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 co-incidental and that therefore there is nothing we can do about it.

I think it’s time now, to finally put these myths to bed. I intend showing the world exactly what the truth really is, why things follow a ‘fixed’ path, why despite all our callings, things go on unchanged, and why we have no control.

Franklin D Roosevelt once said “In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was always planned that way.” You can bet that at the time of this utterance, he was in a good position to know. It is my belief that many of the world events that are shaping our futures occur because somebody or bodies have planned it that way. If we were merely dealing with the law of averages, half of the events affecting our nation’s well being should be good for us. If we were dealing with mere incompetence though, our leaders should surely make a few ‘mistakes’ in our favour once in a while. It is my intention to prove that we are not dealing only with coincidence or stupidity, but with pure planning and brilliance. Here, we will learn how through planning and brilliance, things are being shaped through manipulators working on many levels with the sole objective of a unified cause – A Single World Government through means of Communism.

Those who believe that major world events result from planning are often 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. 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 ivory towers of our learning institutions 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? If you believe it is all an accident, the result of mysterious and inexplicable tides of history, you will undoubtedly become classed an ‘intellectual’ who understands that we live in a complex world. However, if you believe that something like 42,728 consecutive coincidences over the past 50 years stretches the laws of averages a bit, you will undoubtedly become classed as merely a crank. This is why the truth gets blurred and buried by means of a perverted form of Peer pressure. Let’s see where this takes us...

Everyone knows that Adolph Hitler existed. No one disputes that. The terror and destruction that this madman inflicted upon the world are universally recognised. Hitler came from a poor family which had absolutely no social position. He was a high school drop-out and nobody ever accused him of being cultured. Yet this man tried to conquer the world. During his early career, he sat in a cold cellar and poured onto paper his ambitions to rule the world. We know that.

Similarly, we know that a man named Vladimir Iliac Lenin also existed. Like Hitler, Lenin did not spring from a family of social lions. The son of a petty bureaucrat, Lenin who spent most of his adult life in poverty, has been responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of your fellow human beings and the enslavement of nearly a billion more. Like Hitler, Lenin sat up at nights in a dank cellar scheming how he could conquer the world. We know that too.

Is it not theoretically possible then, that a multi-billionaire could be sitting, not in a cellar, but in a penthouse, in Manhattan, London or Paris and dreaming the same dreams as Lenin or Hitler? You must admit, it is theoretically possible. Julius Caesar, a wealthy aristocrat, did. And such a man could form an alliance or association with other like minded men, might he not? Caesar did. These men would all of course be super educated, command immense social prestige and be able to pool astonishing amounts of money to carry out their purposes too. These are the advantages Lenin and Hitler did not have. Imagine then how much more successful our billionaire’s plans would be.

It is difficult for the average individual to fathom such a perverted lust for power. The typical person, of whatever nationality or gender, wants only to enjoy enough success in his/her job, to be able to afford a reasonably high standard of living complete with leisure and travel. He/she wants to provide for his/her family in sickness and in health and to give his/her children a sound education. 99% of the time, his/her ambition stops right there. He/she has no desire to exercise power over others, to conquer other lands or peoples, to be king or Queen. He/she just wants to enjoy life and mind his/her own business. Since he/she has no desire to rule over others, it is difficult for him/her to imagine how any others could possibly think this way. But we must realise that there have been Hitlers and Lenins and Napoleons and Caesars and Alexander the Greats throughout the whole course of human history. Why then should we assume that there are no such men around today with perverted lusts for power? And if these men happen to be billionaires, is it not also possible that they would use men like Hitler and Lenin as pawns to seize power for themselves?

COMMUNISM

Now before we carry on with our argument for our power crazed billionaires, let’s explore the birth of communism. The Communist Manifesto was written by (or for) Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels. Karl Marx was hired by a mysterious group who called themselves the ‘League of Just Men’ to write the Communist Manifesto as a demagogic boob-bait to appeal to the masses. If you go to the British Museum, you can find two cheques for several thousands of pounds made out to Karl Marx, signed by Nathan Rothschild for doing so. In actual fact the Communist Manifesto was in circulation for many years before Marx’ name was widely enough recognised to establish his authorship for this revolutionary hand-book. All Karl Marx really did was update and codify the very same revolutionary plans and principles set down seventy years earlier by Adam Weishaupt, the founder of the Order of the Illuminati in Bavaria. And it is widely acknowledged by serious scholars on this subject that the League of Just Men was simply an extension of the Illuminati (High ranking Freemasonry) which was forced to go underground after it was exposed by a raid in 1786 conducted by Bavarian authorities. Anybody coming out of the Illuminati can tell you that the communist party is run by illuminists, not communists. History will show it. Adrian Pike – head of the Masons at the time, then the head of the illuminati – said that they needed to create a political party that would frighten the world and keep it's countries fighting – and that’s when in 1848, Karl Marx showed up.

Nathan Rothschild was a son of Meyer Rothschild of international banking notoriety. For a long time now, the Rothschilds have been associated with the Illuminati. Some even say they head it. In one foul swoop we have found the missing link between Communism; a tool developed and used by the Illuminati; a cartel of multi-billionaire, like minded people working together in a perverted lust for power.

Even though Communism is deemed to be no longer a threat, it is however important to see why it has been developed, and later on, we will see the reason for its demise. Communism, should have from day one, been called Con-manism. You see Communism is not run from Moscow or Peking, but it is an arm of a much bigger conspiracy run from the top offices of 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 towards Moscow or Peking. They are loyal only to themselves and their undertakings. And these men certainly do not believe 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 now be explained.

WHAT IS COMMUNISM?

If you were to ask the citizens of America, the home of good old Capitalism, whether they were for or against Communism, we would find that a good 90% of the people are strongly anti-Communist. Those found to take an affirmative stand would qualify it by explaining that some places like Africa, Asia or even South America with their tremendous poverty, ignorance and disease could possibly thrive through a Communist dictate. But never in America thank you very much.

No surprises there then, but what if we were to now ask “What is Communism?”

Immediately a whole new situation has developed. Rather than the near unanimity we previously found, we now get a whole diversity of ideas. There are a whole multitude of opinions of what Communism really is all about. Whether you would agree or disagree with any of the definitions given, or as the case may be, you have one of your own, one thing is undeniable. No appreciable segment of the American public can agree on what it is they are so stridently against. Isn’t that frightening? Here we have something that everybody agrees is bad, but there is no agreement on just what it is, that they are all against. Now, in keeping with the fact that everyone appears to have their own definition of Communism, I am going to give you mine, and then I will attempt to qualify that definition.

COMMUNISM IS AN INTERNATIONAL, COSPIRATORIAL DRIVE FOR POWER ON THE PART OF MEN IN HIGH PLACES WILLING TO USE ANY MEANS TO BRING ABOUT THEIR DESIRED AIM OF GLOBAL CONQUEST.

You will notice that I did not mention Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, bourgeois, the proletariat or dialectical materialism. I mentioned nothing about the pseudo-economics or political philosophy of the Communists. These are only the TECHNIQUES of Communism and therefore should not be confused with the Communist conspiracy itself. Notice that I called it an international conspiratorial drive for power. That is because if we cannot grasp the conspiratorial nature of Communism, we just won’t understand it at all. We will be eternally fixated with the local levels of Communism. And that is not where we want to be at, at all.

CONSPIRACY

Now the easiest way to bring down the wrath of the liberal press establishment is simply to use the word conspiracy in relation to Communism. We are not supposed to believe that Communism is a political conspiracy. We can believe anything else that we wish to about it. We can believe that it is brutal, tyrannical, evil or even that it intends to bury us, and we would instantly win the plaudits of the vast majority of the world. But don’t ever, ever use the word conspiracy if you expect applause, for that is when the wrath of all LIBERALDOM will be unleashed against you. We are not disallowed from believing in all types of conspiracy, just modern political conspiracy.

We know that down through the annals of history small groups of men have existed that have conspired to bring the reins of power into their hands. History books are full of their schemes. Even Life magazine believes in conspiracies like that of the Cosa Nostra, where men conspire to make money through crime. You may recall that Life did a series of articles once on the testimony of Joseph Valachi before the McClellan Committee several years ago. There are some interesting aspects of those revelations which are worth noting.

Most of us did not know at the time, that the organisation was called the Cosa Nostra. Until Valachi ‘sang’ we all thought it was named the Mafia. That is how little we knew about this group, despite the fact that it was a century old and had been operating in many different countries with a self-perpetuating clique of leaders. We didn’t even know it’s proper name. Is it not possible then that a political conspiracy just might exist, waiting for its own Joseph Valachi to testify?

We see that everybody, even Life magazine, believes in some form of conspiracy. But, the question is: Which is the more lethal form of conspiracy – criminal or political? And what is the difference between the Cosa Nostra and a Communist, or more properly, an Illuminist? Men like Lucky Luciano who have scratched and clawed to the top of the heap in organised crime must, of necessity, be diabolically brilliant, cunning and absolutely ruthless. But, almost without exception, the men in the hierarchy of organised crime have had no other formal education. They were born into poverty and learned their trade in the back alleys of Naples, New York or even Chicago.

Now suppose somebody with this same amoral grasping personality were born into a patrician family of great wealth and was educated at the best of prep schools, then followed on at Oxford or Eton. In these institutions, he would become familiar with history, economics, psychology, sociology and political science. After graduating from such illustrious institutions of higher learning, are we likely to find him out on the streets peddling tickets to a numbers game, pushing drugs to school kids, or running houses of prostitution? Would he be getting involved in gangland killings? Not at all. For with that sort of an education, this person would easily realise that if one wants real power, the history books say get into government. Become a politician and work for political power, or better still, get some politicians to front for you. That is where the real power and the real money is.

Conspiracy to seize the power of government is as old as government itself. We can study the conspiracies surrounding Alcibrades in Greece or Julius Caesar in ancient Rome, but we are not supposed to think that men today scheme to achieve political power.

Every conspirator has two things in common with every other conspirator. He must be an accomplished liar and a far seeing planner. Whether you are studying Hitler, Alcibrades, Julius Caesar or some of our contemporary conspirators, you will find that their patient planning is overwhelming. Let’s repeat FDR’s statement: “In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.”

In reality, Communism is a tyranny planned by power seekers whose most effective weapon is the big lie. And if one takes all the lies of Communism and boil them down, you will find they distil into two major lies of which all others spring. They are: (1) Communism is inevitable, and (2) Communism is a movement of the downtrodden masses rising up against their exploiting bosses.

SURVEYS

Returning now to our American in the street let’s analyse our first big lie of Communism – that it is inevitable. You will recall that we asked our interviewee if he was for or against Communism and then we asked him to define it. Now we are going to ask him if he thinks Communism is inevitable in America, and in almost every case, the response will go something like this: “Oh well, no. I don’t think so. You know how Americans are. We might be a little slow sometimes in reacting to danger. You remember Pearl Harbour. But the American people would never sit still for Communism.”

Next we ask: “Well then, do you think Socialism is inevitable in America?” The answer in almost every case will again be similar to this: “I’m no Socialist, you understand, but I see what is going on in this country. Yeah, I’d have to admit that Socialism is inevitable.” Then we ask: “Since you say you are no Socialist, but you feel your country is becoming Socialised, why don’t you do something about it?” His reaction will probably run: “Hey, I’m only one person. Besides it’s inevitable. You can’t fight City Hall.” And so it goes in Britain, France, Germany and the rest of the world.

LIES AND EMPTY PROMISES

Don’t you realise that the boys in office are doing everything they can to convince you of that? How effectively can you oppose anything if you feel your efforts will be futile? Giving your opponent the idea that defending himself is futile, is a trick as old as warfare itself. In about 600BC, the Chinese war-lord/philosopher Sun Tsu stated, “Supreme excellence in warfare lies in the destruction of your enemy’s will to resist in advance of perceptible hostilities.” These days we call it Psychological Warfare. In Poker, it is called ‘running a good bluff’. The principle is the same.

How important is the “inevitability of Communism” to the Communists? Or rather more importantly, what do the Communists want you to believe is inevitable, Communism or Socialism? If you study Marx’ Communist Manifesto you will find that in essence Marx said that the proletarian revolution would establish SOCIALIST dictatorship of the proletariat. To achieve this SOCIALIST dictatorship of the proletariat, three things would have to be accomplished: (1) The elimination of all rights to private property; (2) The dissolution of the family unit; and (3) Destruction of what Marx referred to as the “Opiate of the people”, religion. That’s no resources, no reserves and no hope, for the people involved.

Marx then went on to state that when the dictatorship of the proletariat had accomplished these three things throughout the world, and after some carefully undetermined length of time (as you can imagine, he became very vague at this point), the all powerful state would miraculously wither away and state Socialism would give way to Communism. You wouldn’t need any government at all. Everything would be peace, sweetness and light and everybody would live happily ever after. But first, all Communists must work to establish SOCIALISM.

Can’t you just see Karl Marx really believing that an omnipresent state would just wither away? Or can you imagine that Joseph Stalin (or any other man with the cunning and ruthlessness necessary to reach the top of the heap in an all powerful dictatorship) would voluntarily dismantle the power he had built through fear and terror.

Communism would merely be the bait... the excuse to establish the necessary SOCIALIST dictatorship, where the individual would willingly bind himself over to a life of what can only be deemed to be slavery. Since any form of dictatorship is hard to sell in idealistic terms, the idea had to be added that the dictatorship was only to be a temporary necessity that would soon dissolve of its own accord. In order to swallow that whopper, the masses had to be naive, but millions of people around the world have already done so, and let’s face it, how many established dictatorships have you known to naturally dissolve?

SOCIALISM

The drive to establish SOCIALISM, not Communism is at the core of everything the Communists and Illuminists controlling them do. Marx and all of his successors in the Communist movement have ordered their followers to work on building SOCIALISM. If you ever go to hear an official Communist speaker, he never actually mentions Communism. He will speak only of the struggle to complete the Socialisation of an area. If you go to a Communist book store you will find that all their literature pushes the theme of SOCIALISM. It doesn’t call for the establishment of Communism, but SOCIALISM.

Today’s political leaders, are probably not particularly great readers of Marx, but you can rest assured that their advisors are all excellent scholars who knew him particularly well and could bring our leaders quickly up to speed. However they chose not to. It is beyond denying that it is these advisors that have aided the modern day rush into Socialism through their administration. Nearly every big name politician of the last 50 years has come through the ranks of establishments like the Tri-Lateral Council (TLC), the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) or the Bilderburg Conventions (BIL). REGARDLESS of their political stance, they have all been schooled (or brainwashed?) with the same philosophies. Is this why SOCIALISM seems so inevitable?

The chief SOCIALIST gains in the past traditionally come in under a Labour government who by nature, are a predominantly Socialist party. Then, for some unknown reason, whenever the Conservatives recover power, these Socialist gains generally remain on the statute books. Socialism grows more and more socialist, and by the same token, Conservativism grows constantly less and less Conservative.

During the time of the Nixon administration (yes, it goes that far back – even further), Walter Trohan, columnist for the Chicago Tribune and one of America’s outstanding political commentators, accurately noted: “It is a known fact that the policies of the government today, whether Republican or Democrat (Labour & Conservative in English money), are closer to the 1932 platform of the Communist Party than they are to either of their own party platforms in that critical year. More than 100 years ago, in 1848 to be exact, Karl Marx promulgated his program for the Socialised state in the Communist Manifesto ...”

And Mr Trohan too, had been led to believe that the trend was inevitable:

“Conservatives should be realistic enough to recognise that this country is going deeper and deeper into Socialism and will see expansion of federal power, whether Republicans or Democrats are in power. The only comfort they may have is that the pace will be slower under Richard M. Nixon than it might have been under Hubert H. Humphrey...

Conservatives are going to have to recognise that the Nixon Administration will embrace most of the Socialism of the Democratic Administrations, while professing to improve it ...”

You see, the establishment promotes the idea of the inevitability of Communism through its perversion of terms used in describing the political spectrum. Take a look at the following diagram. It should be familiar to you, because it depicts the political spectrum that we have all been led to believe in for a long while. I am 47 years old at the moment, and throughout my whole life, this is the only spectrum I have ever known.

We are told that on the far left of the political spectrum, we will find Communism, which is admittedly dictatorial. But we are also told that equally to be feared is the opposite of the far left, i.e., the far right, which is labelled Fascism. We are constantly told that we should all try to stay in the middle of the road, which is termed democracy, but by which the establishment means Fabian (or creeping) Socialism. (The fact that the “middle of the road” has been gradually creeping over to the left for the past 40-60 years has somehow been conveniently overlooked). Here is an excellent example of the use of false alternatives we are fed on. We are given a choice between Communism (international Socialism) on the left, Fascism (National Socialism) on the right, or middle of the road Fabian Socialism. The whole spectrum is SOCIALIST.

At first glance, it looks and feels right doesn’t it? But wait. This whole spectrum is absurd. Where would you put an anarchist on this spectrum? Where would you put a person who believes in a constitutional republic and the free enterprise system? These two chaps are simply not represented on this spectrum, yet it is used for political definitions by a probable 90% of the world’s people.

There is a more accurate political spectrum out there, although not many people are able to properly define it. SOCIALISM is, by definition, total government. If you have total government it makes little difference whether you call it Fascism, Socialism, Caesarism or Pharoaism. It’s all pretty much the same from the stand point of the people who must live and suffer under it. If total government (by any of its pseudonyms) stands on the far left, then by logic alone the far right should represent anarchy, or no government.

Before we go on, there are two things that immediately spring to mind that need a little further explaining. The first is that our major political parties are no longer spread from left to right across the spectrum. This is because we have just seen that they are all following the same remit, some maybe faster than others, but their policies show that there is not much difference between them. The next problem we have is our old friend Communism. If true Communism in its purest form were ever to materialise beyond the myth that has been created around it, then its natural place on the spectrum would be next to Anarchy with little or no need for government. (Shown here in white lettering). Sadly this form of Communism, seen rarely outside of a Jewish Kibbutz will never be realised and rests here purely for illustration purposes only. In its real life form, Communism must be taken for what it truly is. No more than a tool for entrapment into Socialism (shown here in black lettering). This is where Communism as we know it, belongs. It is however, interesting to note that with Communism theoretically at both ends of this new spectrum, was it perhaps Communism that helped inspire the previous SOCIALIST spectrum that we have all grown up with? Answers to that one on a post card please.

AMERICA CALLING!

The founding fathers of America revolted against the near total government of the English Monarchy. But they knew that having no government at all would soon lead to chaos. So they set up a Constitutional Republic with a very limited government. They knew that men prospered in freedom. Although the free enterprise system is not mentioned specifically in the Constitution, it is the only one which can exist in a Constitutional Republic. All collectivist systems require power in government which the Constitution did not grant. The founding fathers had no intention of allowing government to become an instrument to steal the fruit of one man’s labour and give it to another who had not earned it. The American government was to be one of very limited powers. Thomas Jefferson said: “In questions of power then let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” Jefferson knew that if the government were not enslaved, then the people soon would be.

It was Jefferson’s view that government governs best which governs least. The founding fathers established America with the very least possible amount of government. Although they lived in an age before cars, electric lights and television, they understood human nature and it’s relation to political systems far better than most Americans do today. Times change, technology changes, but principles stand eternal. Primarily, government was to provide for national defence and to establish a court system. But the chains that Jefferson spoke of have long since been broken and America’s political agenda has been moving leftwards towards collectivist total government. Every proposal made by today’s political leaders, seems to bring us closer towards a more centralised government. This is not because Socialism is inevitable. It is no more inevitable than Pharoaism. It is like I stated at the beginning, it’s the result of careful, meticulous planning and patient gradualism.

BUT WHAT IS SOCIALISM?

Well I’m glad you asked. Since all Communists and their Illuminati bosses are waging a constant struggle for socialism, it’s finally time for us to define that term. Socialism is usually defined by a government ownership and/or control over the basic means of production and distribution of goods and services. When analysed this means government control over everything, including people. All controls are “people” controls. If government controls these areas, it can eventually do what Marx set out to do – destroy the right to private property, eliminate the family and wipe out all religion.

Like it or not, we are being Socialised, and everybody seems to know it. If we go back now to our American man in the street that we were interviewing previously, he might say: “You know, the one thing I can’t figure out is why all these very, very wealthy people like the Fords, the Rockefellers and others are so for Socialism? Why is it that the super-rich are all for it? Aren’t they the ones that will have the most to lose? I take a look at my bank account and compare it with Nelson Rockefeller’s and it seems funny that I am against Socialism while he seems staunchly in favour of it, actively promoting it even.” Or is it funny? In reality, there is a vast difference between what the promoters define as Socialism and what it is in actual practice. The idea that Socialism is a share the wealth program is strictly a confidence trick to get the people to surrender their freedom to an all powerful collectivist government. While the insiders tell us we are building a paradise on Earth, we are actually constructing ourselves a penitentiary.

Doesn’t it strike you as strange that some of the individuals pushing hardest for Socialism have their own personal wealth protected in family trusts and tax-free foundations? Men like Rockefeller, Ford and Kennedy (all Illuminists by the way) are for every Socialist program known to man which will increase your own taxes. Yet they pay extremely little, if anything in taxes themselves. An article published by the North American Newspaper Alliance in 1967 tells how the Rockefellers pay practically no income taxes despite their vast wealth. The article revealed that one of the Rockefellers paid the grand sum total of only $685 personal income tax during an extremely profitable year. The Kennedys have their Chicago Merchandise Mart, their mansions, yachts, planes etc., all owned by the myriads of family foundations and trusts. Taxes are for peons! Yet hypocrites like Rockefeller, Ford, and Kennedy pose as great champions of the “downtrodden”. If they were really concerned about the poor, rather than using Socialism as a means of achieving personal political power, they would divest themselves of their own fortunes. There is no law which prevents them from giving away their own fortunes to the poverty stricken. Shouldn’t these men set an example? And practice what they preach? If they advocate sharing the wealth, shouldn’t they start with their own instead of that of the middle class which pays almost all of the country’s tax bills? Why don’t these big boys give away their wealth, retaining only enough to place themselves at the national average? Can’t you just imagine them giving up their mansions, aeroplanes and yachts, moving into a £200,000 house with a £170,000 mortgage like the rest of us?

We are usually told that this clique of super-rich people are all Socialists because they carry a guilt complex over the wealth that they inherited and did not earn. Again they could quite easily resolve these supposedly guilty feelings simply by divesting themselves of their un-earned wealth. Of course all of the world’s wealthy are not to be tarred with the same brush, there are doubtless many wealthy do-gooders who have been given a guilt complex by their college professors, but that doesn’t explain the actions of these insiders like the Rockefellers, the Fords or the Kennedys. Their actions betray them as power seekers.

But these same people and their super-rich confederates are being hypocrites in advocating Socialism. It appears to be a contradiction for the super-rich to work for Socialism and the destruction of free enterprise. In reality though, it is not.

Our problem is that most of us believe that Socialism is what the Socialists want us to believe it is – a share the wealth program. That is the theory. But is that how it works out? Let us now examine the only Socialist countries – as according to the Socialist definition of the word – extant in the world today. These, amazingly, are the Communist countries. The Communists themselves refer to these as Socialist countries, as in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R.) for example. Here in the reality of Socialism you have a tiny oligarchial clique at the top, usually numbering no more than three percent of the total population, controlling the total wealth, total production and the very lives of the other 97%. Certainly even the most naive of observers would have seen that Mr Brezhnev didn’t live like one of the poor peasants out on the great Russian Steppes. But according to Socialist theory, he is supposed to have done just that. Instead he lived a further lie, supposedly brandishing himself with the trappings of the rich, to enable himself to better mix with other world authorities. Do you believe him?

If one understands that Socialism is not a share the wealth program, but is in reality a method to consolidate and control the wealth, then the seeming paradox of super-rich men promoting Socialism becomes no paradox at all. Instead it becomes logical, even the perfect tool of power seeking megalomaniacs. Communism, or more accurately, Socialism, is not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite. The plan of the conspirator Super-banker, Illuminati insiders then is to Socialise a country, not Communise it.

HOW TO SOCIALISE A COUNTRY

Let’s start again with America. The founding fathers of America established a structure of government through its Constitution. The Constitution fractionalised and sub-divided governmental power in every way it possibly could do. The founding fathers believed that every branch of the government, whether at federal, state or local levels, would be jealous of its own powers and would therefore never surrender them to a centralised control. Also, many phases of life, such as charity, education, religion and policing were put totally or almost totally out of the reach of politicians. Under this system you could never have a dictatorship. No individual segment of government could possibly amass enough power to form a dictatorship. In order to have a dictatorship one must have a single hand pulling most of the reins of power. Once you have this, a dictatorship is inevitable. And later, those who control the President indirectly gain control of the whole country.

The English philosopher Thomas Hobbes noted: “Freedom is government divided into small fragments.” Woodrow Wilson, before he became a tool of the insiders, observed: “The history of liberty is a history of the limitation of government power, not the increase of it.” And the English historian Lord Acton commented: “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Even though these men lived well after the formation of the American Constitution, the forefathers, somewhat way ahead of their time, seemed to understand all of these principles only too well.

But what is it that is happening today? Well, as we move ever leftward along the political spectrum towards Socialism, all of the reins of power are becoming more and more centralised at all levels of government. Most of this is done with money. Money is used as bait, and the hook is federal control. The Supreme courts have ruled, and in this case quite logically, that “it is hardly lack of due process for the government to regulate that in which it subsidises.”

Now, if you were part of a clique, and your clique wanted to control the U.S., it would be impossible for you to take over every City Hall, country seat and state house. You would want all power vested at the apex of the executive branch of the federal government; then you would have to control only one man in order to control the whole shooting range. If you wanted to control the nation’s manufacturing base, commerce, finance, transportation and natural resources, you would need only to control the apex, the power pinnacle, of an all Socialist centralised government. Then you would have a monopoly and could squeeze out all of your competition. If you wanted a national monopoly, you must control a world socialist government.

AND THAT’S WHAT THIS WHOLE GAME IS ALL ABOUT!!

Communism was never a movement of the downtrodden masses but was a movement created, manipulated and used by power seeking billionaires in order to gain control over the world... first by establishing Socialist governments in the various nations of the world and then consolidating them all through a “great merger”, into an all powerful world socialist super-state probably under the auspices of the United Nations. Do you find any of this hard to believe? Well let me inform you that the unification of Germany and the consolidation of the EEC are all a part of it. A trail run, so to speak. Notice the need for practice? Is not practice itself indicative of meticulous planning?

GAME OVER?

This day and age, Communism seems very much in demise. So, is there any particular reasoning for this or have we managed to buck the trends that we have been reading about? Surely if you have read the previous, then to ask such a question you have missed the whole point anyway. Yes, Communism is on the wane, but who needs Communism anyway? You see Communism has never been the objective. The real objective here was SOCIALISM. Something we all appear to have bought into anyway. We don’t need Communism. Communism takes the whole thing one step too far, where the dictators fade into oblivion, remember? And what happens when Communism collapses? Is it not true that the great democracies of the world pour in billions of pounds worth of aid in support of such a good cause? Who pays for this aid? We the tax payer have been duped twice, nay three times over, through the miss-guided ideals of Communism. We paid the first time through financial support of the cold war. – Strike one for the Super-banker. We’re sliding further towards Socialism through or efforts to repel Communism. – Strike two. Then we pay hand over fist, to deal out aid to the struggling ex- Communist communities – Strike three.

Happy voting England... Let's see if we can make a difference this time!