Home

The Establishment's official landscape artists have done a marvelous job of painting a picture of Richard Nixon as a conservative.
Unfortunately, this picture is twenty years out of date.
The very liberal Senator Hugh Scott of Pennsylvania boasted to a reporter one day: "(Liberals] get the action and the Conservatives get the rhetoric."
Richard Nixon could not have been elected had he run as a Rockefeller liberal, but he can get away with running his Administration like one simply because the landscape painters fail to call the public's attention to the fact.
However, columnist Stewart Alsop in writing for a sophisticated audience of approving Liberals, reveals the real Nixon.
Alsop claims that if Nixon were judged by his deeds instead of his ancient image, the Liberals' attitude toward him would be aifferent.
If only the Liberals' Pavlovian response to the Nixon name could be eliminated, says Alsop, they would realize how far Left he is.
Therefore Alsop substitutes a hypothetical "President Liberal" for President Nixon:
"… If President Liberal were actually in the White House, it is not at all hard to imagine the reaction to his program.
The right would be assailing President Liberal for bugging out of Vietnam, undermining American defenses, fiscal irresponsibility, and galloping socialism.
The four basic Presidential policy positions listed above would be greeted with hosannas by the liberals…
Instead, the liberals have showered the President with dead cats, while most conservatives have maintained a glum silence, and thus the Administration has been 'little credited' for 'much genuine achievement.'
But there are certain special reasons, which Pat Moynihan omitted to mention, why this is so.

Alsop further explains how having the reputation of being an enemy of the Liberal Democrats helps Nixon pass their program:
"For one thing, there is a sort of unconscious conspiracy between the President and his natural enemies, the liberal Democrats, to conceal the extent to which his basic program, leaving aside frills and rhetoric, is really the liberal Democratic program.
Richard Nixon is the first professional politician and 'real Republican' to be elected President in 40 years — and it is not in the self-interest of the liberals to give credit to such a President for liberal initiatives.
By the same token, it is not in the self-interest of the President to risk his conservative constituency by encouraging the notion that he is not a 'real Republican' after all, but a liberal Democrat at cut rates.
There are plenty of examples of the mutual obfuscation which results from this mutual interest.
The withdrawal of half a million men from Vietnam is quite obviously the greatest retreat in American history.
But the President talks as though it were somehow a glorious advance, certain to guarantee a 'just and lasting peace.'
When the President-like any commander of a retreat-resorts to spoiling actions to protect his dwindling rear guard, the liberals howl that he is 'chasing the will-o'-the-wisp of military victory.'

When the President cuts back real military strength more sharply than in a quarter of a century, the liberals attack him for failing to 'reorder priorities.'
The President, in his rhetoric about a 'strong defense,' plays the same game.
The result, as John Kenneth Galbraith accurately noted recently, is that 'most people and maybe most congressmen think the Administration is indulging the Pentagon even more than the Democrats,' which is the precise opposite of the truth…"
Alsop continued what is probably the most damning column ever written about Richard Nixon by noting the role that the mass media have played in portraying to the public an image that is the reverse of the truth:
"… There is also a human element in this exercise in mutual obfuscation.To the liberals, especially the liberal commentators who dominate the media, Richard Nixon is Dr. Fell ('The reason why I cannot tell, but this I know and know full well, I do not like thee, Dr. Fell.').
This is not surprising. Not too many years ago, Richard M. Nixon was one of the most effective — and least lovable — of the conservative Republican professionals of the McCarthy era."
The columnist, himself a member of the socialist Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), speculated on what the "old Nixon" would have had to say about the "new Nixon":
"… on his past record, it is not at all hard to imagine R. M. Nixon leading the assault on the President for his 'bug-out,' 'fiscal irresponsibility,' 'galloping socialism,' and all the rest of it. So how can one expect Mr. Nixon to defend President Liberal's program with the passionate conviction that a President Robert Kennedy, say, would have brought to the defense of such a program?"

Alsop has revealed the real Nixon and is obviously pleased.
Those who voted for Nixon shouldn't be quite so happy.
If you liked the Richard Nixon who ran for the Presidency, then you cannot, if you are consistent, like the Richard Nixon who is President.
Nixon and his fellow "moderates" have turned the Republican elephant into a donkey in elephant's clothing.
On June 19, 1959, Vice President Nixon gloated:
"In summary, the Republican administration produced the things that the Democrats promised."
It looks as if it's happening again!
A year and a half earlier Nixon had been warbling a different tune:
"If we have nothing to offer other than a pale carbon copy of the New Deal, if our only purpose is to gain and retain power, the Republican Party no longer has any reason to exist, and it ought to go out of business."
The Nixon "Game Plan," as Harvard Professor John Kenneth Galbraith gleefully points out, is SOCIALISM.
The Nixon "Game Plan" is infinitely more clever and dangerous than those of his predecessors because it masquerades as being the opposite of what it is.

Mr. Nixon is aware that most Americans fear "big government."
An August 1968, Gallup Poll showed that 46 per cent of the American public believed that "big government" was the "biggest threat to the country."
Gallup commented:
"Although big government has been a favorite Republican target for many years, rank and file democrats are nearly as critical of growing Federal power as are Republicans."
Recognizing this attitude, Mr. Nixon geared much of his campaign rhetoric to attacking Big Daddy government.
However, the Nixon Administration has taken massive steps to further concentrate authority in the federal "power pinnacle."
While centralizing power at a rate which would have made Hubert Humphrey blush, Mr. Nixon has continued to pay lip service to decentralization.
During the first year of his Administration Mr. Nixon announced his "New Federalism" (the name taken from the title of a book by Nelson Rockefeller).
The first part of the "New Federalism" is the Family Assistance Program (FAP) which would, contrary to his campaign promises, provide a Guaranteed Annual Income.
Based on suggestions from John Gardner of file C.F.R. and Daniel Moynihan, a member of the board of directors of the socialist ADA, the FAP would double the number on welfare and increase tremendously the power of the executive branch of the federal government.
The Leftwing weekly, the New Republic, cheered the proposal as "creeping socialism."
The second major segment of the President's "New Federalism" is revenue sharing with the states, touted as a step in the decentralization of power from the federal government.
Actually, the program does just the opposite.
The money must first go from the states to Washington before it can be shared.
As columnist James J.Kilpatrick remarked:
"… power to control follows the Federal dollar as surely as that famous lamb accompanied little Mary."

As soon as the states and local governments get hooked on the federal funds, the controls will be put on just as they were in education and agriculture.
Every field the government attempts to take over it first subsidizes.
You can't decentralize government by centralizing the tax collections.
Mr. Nixon's "power to the people" slogan really means "power to the President."
House Ways and Means Chairman Wilbur Mills has called the revenue-sharing plan a "trap" that "could become a massive weapon against the independence of state and local government."
The plan, said Mills, "goes in the direction of centralized government."
But, Mr. Nixon is very clever.
In his 1971 State of the Union Message, the talk in which he used the Communist slogan "Power to the People," the President said:
"We in Washington will at last be able to provide government that is truly for the people.
I realize that what I am asking is that not only the Executive branch in Washington, but that even this Congress will have to change by giving up some of its power."
That sounds reasonable doesn't it?
The Executive branch will give up some power and the Congress will give up some power and the people will gain by having these powers returned to them.
Right?
Wrong!
That is nothing but verbal sleight of hand.
Notice the precision of Mr. Nixon's language.
He speaks of the "Executive branch in Washington" giving up some of its power.
Three days later it became obvious why Mr. Nixon added the seemingly redundant "in Washington" when it was announced that the country was being carved up into ten federal districts.
These federal districts would soon, be used to administer the wage and price controls which centralize in the federal government almost total power over the economy.

To many political observers the most shocking development of the past year was the admission by President Richard Nixon to newsman Howard K. Smith that he is "now a Keynesian in economics."
The jolted Smith commented later,
"That's a little like a Christian Crusader saying: 'All things considered, I think Mohammed was right."
Howard K. Smith was well aware that such a statement was tantamount to a declaration by Mr. Nixon that "I am now a Socialist."
John Maynard Keynes, the English economist and Fabian Socialist, bragged that he was promoting the "euthanasia of capitalism."
It is generally believed in England among students of this conspiracy that John Maynard Keynes produced his General Theory of Money and Credit at the behest of certain Insiders of international finance who hired him to concoct a pseudo-scientific justification for government deficit spending-just as the mysterious League of Just Men had hired Karl Marx to write the Communist Manifesto.
The farther a government goes into debt, the more interest is paid to the powerful Insiders who "create" money to buy government bonds by the simple expedient of bookkeeping entries.
Otherwise, you can bet your last farthing that the Insiders of international banking would be violently opposed to inflationary deficits.
In his internationally syndicated column of February 3, 1971, James Reston (C.F.R.) exclaimed:
"The Nixon budget is so complex, so unlike the Nixon of the past, so un-Republican that it defies rational analysis… The Nixon budget is more planned, has more welfare in it, and has a bigger predicted deficit than any other budget of this century."

During 1967, while on the primary trail, Richard Nixon made exorbitant Democrat spending his Number Two campaign issue, just behind the failure of the Democrats to win the Vietnam War.
Mr. Johnson's 1967 Budget was $158.6 billion, "Which at the time seemed astronomical. Mr. Nixon claimed that if that amount were not sliced by $10 billion the country faced financial disaster.
At a time when the Vietnam War was a far bigger financial drain than it is now, Richard Nixon argued that we should be spending around $150 billion.
President Nixon is now spending $230 billion, and bills already introduced in Congress and likely to pass could push the 1972 Fiscal Budget (July 1, 1971 to July 1, 1972) to $250 billion.
The point is that the man who campaigned as Mr. Frugal in 1968 is, in his third year of office,' out-spending by $80 to $100 billion what he said his predecessor should spend. And some experts are predicting that Mr. Nixon could spend as much as $275 billion next year.

This is the same Richard Nixon who in Dallas on October 11, 1968, declared that "America cannot afford four years of Hubert Humphrey in the White House" because he had advocated programs which would have caused "a spending spree that would have bankrupted this nation."
Candidate Nixon flayed the Johnson Administration for failing "to cut deficit spending which is the cause of our present inflation.
" Budget deficits, he said, "lie at the heart of our troubles."
For his own part, he renounced any "massive step- up" in federal spending.
"This is a prescription for further inflation," said Nixon. "I believe it is also a prescription for economic disaster."

While it took LBJ five years to run up a $55 billion deficit, Senator Harry Byrd notes that the accumulated deficit for Mr. Nixon's first three years will reach at least $88 billion.
Congressional experts are now predicting Richard Nixon could well pour on the red ink to a total of $124 billion in this term of office alone.
In order to halt inflation Mr. Nixon has now instituted wage and price controls.
Most Americans, sick of seeing their paychecks shrink in purchasing power each month, have overwhelmingly approved.
But this is because most people are not aware of the real causes of inflation.
And you can be sure that the Establishment's landscape painters will not explain the truth to them.
The truth is that there is a difference between inflation and the wage-price spiral.
When the government runs a deficit, brand new money in the amount of the deficit is put into circulation.
As the new money percolates through the economy it bids up wages and prices.
This is easy to understand if you think of our economy as a giant auction.
Just as at any other auction, if the bidders are suddenly supplied with more money, they will use that money to bid up prices.
Inflation, in reality, is an increase in the supply of money.
It causes the wage-price spiral which is generally mislabeled inflation.
You could not have a wage price spiral if you did not have an increase in the money supply with which to pay it.
This is not just economics, it is physics.
You can't fill a quart bottle with a pint of milk.
To say that the wage-price spiral causes inflation is llke saying wet streets cause rain.
Mr. Nixon, unlike the vast majority of the American public, is aware of the real causes of "inflation." He explained it clearly on January 27, 1970:
"The inflation we have at the start of the Seventies was caused by heavy deficit spending in the Sixties. In the past decade, the Federal Government 'spent more than it took in-$57 billion more. These deficits caused prices to rise 25' percent in a decade."
Business blames "inflation" on the unions, and unions blame "inflation" on business, but only the government can cause "inflation."
Mr. Nixon has fastened wage and price controls on the economy supposedly to solve a problem which Mr. Nixon (and LBJ) created by running huge deficits.
If he sincerely wanted to stop "inflation" he would have put wage and price controls on the government rather than on the rest of us and would have stopped deficit spending.
People are cheering Nixon because he "did something."
This is akin to cheering for a motorist who shoots a pedestrian he has just run over.

Wage and price controls are at the very heart of Socialism.
You can't have a totalitarian government without wage and price controls and you can't have a free country with them.
Why?
You cannot impose slavery upon people who have economic freedom.
As long as people have economic freedom, they will be free.
Wage and price controls are people controls.
In his Phase II speech, Mr. Nixon made it clear that the 90-day wage and price controls are with us in one disguise or another from now on.
They are a major step towards establishing an all-powerful Executive branch of the federal government.
After the Insiders have established the United Socialist States of America (in fact if not in name), the next step is the Great Merger of all nations of the world into a dictatorial world government.
This was the main reason behind the push to bring Red China into the United Nations.
If you want to control the natural resources, transportation, commerce and banking for the whole world, you must put everybody under the same roof.

The Insiders' code word for the world superstate is "new world order," a phrase often used by Richard Nixon.
The Council on Foreign Relations states in its Study No.7: "The U. S. must strive to: A. BUILD A NEW INTERNATIONAL ORDER."
(Capitals in the original) Establishment spokesman James Reston (CFR) declared in his internationally syndicated column for the New York Times of May 21, 1971:
"Nixon would obviously like to preside over the creation of a new world order, and believes he has an opportunity to do so in the last 20 months of his first term."
A world government has always been the object of the Communists.
In 1915, in No.40 of the Russian organ, The Socialist Democrat, Lenin proposed a "United States of the World."
The program of the Communist International of 1936 says that world dictatorship "can be established only by victory of socialism in different countries or groups of countries, after which the Proletariat Republics would unite on federal lines with those already in existence, and this system would expand… at length forming the world union of Soviet Socialist Republics."

One of the most important groups promoting the "world union" is the United World Federalists, whose membership is heavily interlocked with that of the Council on Foreign Relations.
The UWF advocate turning the UN into a full-fledged world government which would include the Communist nations.
Richard Nixon is, of course, far too clever to actually join the UWF, but he has supported their legislative program since his early days in Congress.
In the October 1948 issue of the UWF publication World Government News, on page 14, there appears the following announcement:
"Richard Nixon: Introduced world government resolution (HCR 68) 1947, and ABC (World Government) resolution 1948."
World government has a strong emotional appeal for Americans, based on their universal desire for world peace.
The insiders have the Communists rattling their sabers with one hand and dangling the olive branch with the other.
Naturally everyone gravitates towards the olive branch, not realizing that the olive branch is controlled by another arm of the entity that is rattling the sabers.

In September of 1968, candidates for public office received a letter from the United World Federalists that stated:
"Our organization has been endorsed and commended by all U. S. presidents in the last 20 years and by the current nominees for the presidency. As examples we quote as follows: Richard Nixon: Your organization can perform an important service by continuing to emphasize that world peace can only come thru world law. Our goal is world peace. Our instrument for achieving peace will be law and justice. If we concentrate our energies toward these ends, I am hopeful that real progress can be made.' Hubert Humphrey: 'Every one of us is committed to brotherhood among all nations, but no one pursues these goals with more dignity and dedication than the United World Federalists."
There really was not a dime's worth of difference.
Voters were given the choice between CFR world government advocate Nixon and CFR world government advocate Humphrey.
Only the rhetoric was changed to fool the public.
A world government requires a world supreme court, and Mr. Nixon is on record in favor of a world supreme court.
And a world government must have a world police force to enforce the laws of the World Super state and keep the slaves from rebelling.
The Los Angeles Examiner of October 28, 1950, reported that Congressman Richard Nixon had introduced a "resolution calling for the establishment of a United Nations police force…"
Not surprisingly, the Insiders have their pet planners preparing to administrate their world dictatorship.
Under an immense geodetic dome at Southern Illinois University is a completely detailed map of the world which occupies the space of three football fields.
Operating under grants from the Ford, Carnegie and Rockefeller foundations (all extensively interlocked with the C.F.R.) a battery of scientists including everything from geographers, psychologists and behavioral scientists to natural scientists, biologists, biochemists and agronomists are making plans to control people.
These elite planners conduct exercises in what they call "the world game."
For example: There are too many people in Country A and not enough people in Country B.
How do you move people from Country A to Country B?
We need so many males, so many females, so many of this occupation and so many of that occupation, so many of this age and so many of that age.
How do you get these people from Country A and settle them in Country B in the shortest possible time?
Another example:
We have an uprising in Country C (or as it would now be called, District C) How long does it take to send in "peace" forces to stop the insurgency?

The World Game people run exercises on global control.
If you plan on running the world, you cannot go about it haphazardly.
That is why the Insiders of the Ford, Carnegie and Rockefeller foundations are making these plans.
The real name of the game is 1984.
We will have systematic population reduction, forced sterilization or anything else which the planners deem necessary to establish absolute control in their humanitarian utopia.
But to enforce these plans, you must have an all-powerful world government.
You can't do this if individual nations have sovereignty.
And before you can facilitate the Great Merger, you must first centralize control within each nation, destroy the local police and remove the guns from the hands of the citizenry.
You must replace our once free Constitutional Republic with an all-powerful central government; And that is exactly what is happening today with the Nixon Administration.
Every action of any consequence, despite the smokescreen, has centralized more power in what is rapidly becoming an all-powerful central government.

What we are witnessing is the Communist tactic of pressure from above and pressure from below, described by Communist historian Jan Kozak as the device used by the Reds to capture control of Czecho-Slovakia.
The pressure from above comes from secret, ostensibly respectable Comrades in the government and Establishment, forming, with the radicalized mobs in the streets below, a giant pincer around middle-class society.
The street rioters are pawns, shills, puppets, and dupes for an oligarchy of elitist conspirators working above to turn America's limited government into an unlimited government with total control over our lives and property.
The American middle class is being squeezed to death by a vise.
In the streets we have avowed revolutionary groups such as the Students for a Democratic Society (which was started by the League for Industrial Democracy, a group with strong C.F.R. ties), the Black Panthers, the Yippies, the Young Socialist Alliance.
These groups chant that if we don't "change" America, we will lose it.
"Change" is a word we hear over and over.
By "change" these groups mean Socialism.
Virtually all members of these groups sincerely believe that they are fighting the Establishment.
In reality they are an indispensible ally of the Establishment in fastening Socialism on all of us.
The naive radicals think that under Socialism the "people" will run everything.
Actually, it will be a clique of Insiders in total control, consolidating and controlling all wealth.
That is why these schoolboy Lenins and teenage Trotskys are allowed to roam free and are practically never arrested or prosecuted.
They are protected.
If the Establishment wanted the revolutionaries stopped, how long do you think they would be tolerated?

Instead, we find that most of these radicals are the recipients of largesse from major foundations or are receiving money from the government through the War on Poverty.
The Rothschild-Rockefeller-C.F.R. Insiders at the top "surrender to the demands" for Socialism from the mobs below.
The radicals are doing the work of those whom they hate the most.
Remember Bakunin's charge that Marx' followers had one foot in the bank and the other in the Socialist movement.
Further indications of Establishment financing of the Communist S.D.S. are contained in James Kunen's The Strawberry Statement: Notes On A College Revolutionary .Describing events at the 1968 S.D.S. national convention, Kunen says:
"Also at the convention, men from Business International Roundtables-the meetings sponsored by Business International for their client groups and heads of government-tried to buy up a few radicals. These men are the world's leading industrialists and they convene to decide how our lives are going to go. These are the boys who wrote the Alliance for Progress. They're the left wing of the ruling class. They agreed with us on black control and student control. They want McCarthy in. They see fascism as the threat, see it coming from Wallace. The only way McCarthy could win is if the crazies and young radicals act up and make Gene look more reasonable. They offered to finance our demonstrations in Chicago. We were also offered Esso (Rockefeller) money. They want us to make a lot of radical commotion they can look more in the center as they move to the left."
THAT IS THE STRATEGY. THE LANDSCAPE PAINTERS FOCUS YOUR ATTENTION ON THE KIDS IN THE STREET WHILE THE REAL DANGER IS FROM ABOVE.
As Frank Capell recently observed in The Review Of The News:
"Of course, we know that these radical students are not going to take over the government. What they are going to do is provide the excuse for the government to take over the people, by passing more and more repressive laws to 'keep things under control."
The radicals make a commotion in the streets while the Limousine Liberals at the top in New York and Washington are Socializing us.
WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A DICTATORSHIP OF THE ELITE DISGUISED AS A DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT.

Now the Insiders of the Establishment are moving into a more sophisticated method of applying pressure from below.
John Gardner, a "Republican" and member of the C.F.R., has established a grass roots proletarian organization called Common Cause.
This may become the biggest and most important organization in American history.
Common Cause's goal is to organize welfare recipients, those who have not voted before, and Liberals to lobby for Socialism.
That lobbying will not only be expressed in pressuring Congress to pass Socialist legislafion but will also be expressed as ballot power in elections.
Common Cause is supposedly the epitome of anti-Establishmentarianism, but who is paying the bills?
The elite Insider radicals from above.
The number one bankroller of this group to overthrow the super-rich and re-distribute their wealth among the poor is John D. Rockefeller III.
Other key financiers are Andrew Heiskell (CFR), chairman of the board of Time, Inc., Thomas Watson (CFR), chairman of the board of IBM, John Whitney (CFR) of the Standard Oil fortune, Sol Linowitz (CFR), Chairman of the board of Xerox, and Gardner Cowles (CFR) of Cowles publications.
In any organization, the man who pays the bills is the boss.
The others are his employees.
What better proof could we have that Socialism is not a movement of downtrodden masses but of power hungry elitists?
The poor are merely pawns in the game.
Needless to say, the landscape painters hide Common Cause's financial angels so that only those who understand that the Establishment's game plan is SOCIALISM understand what is going on before their very eyes.

---

---