…In fact, the genuine American nationalists, as opposed to the “neo-cons” (who truly are “cons” in every sense of that word), are the modern-day heirs of a traditional American (and, ironically, largely Republican Party-based) philosophy heralded by the late Sen. Arthur Vandenberg (R-Mich.) when he affirmed: “Nationalism—not internationalism—is the indispensable bulwark of American independence….”
“The Judas Goats – The Enemy Within”
by Michael Collins Piper
By Way of an Introduction…
Nationalism: The Wave of the Future— The Prime Target of the Global Forces of Zionism and Internationalism
[*comments by admin]
THE JUDAS GOATS—THE ENEMY WITHIN examines the manner in which internationalist forces have worked to take over and/or destroy legitimate, genuine, traditional nationalist movements in the United States during the 20th century. As such, it seems appropriate to begin our journey into this shadowy netherworld of spies and subversion by first defining precisely what constitutes “nationalism” in the American sense.
Nationalism—in its various incarnations throughout history and all across the globe—has always been and certainly always will be a preeminent factor in dictating the course of mankind’s direction. Nationalism and the counter-force of internationalism together form the axis around which the events of our world today revolve.There is hardly any conflict anywhere on the face of the planet that does not hinge upon the struggle between nationalism and internationalism. So what then is nationalism?
In America alone, the word nationalism means many different things to many different people—including those who consider themselves to be nationalists or rank themselves as part of “the nationalist movement.”
The “nationalist movement” in America has always been quite internally quarrelsome, at times so philosophically disjointed that it almost seems a double misnomer to dare describe the phenomenon as either “nationalist” or as a “movement” at all.
There are many (albeit naïve) classic “rock-ribbed Republicans” who would call themselves nationalists—however inappropriately— revering the “Big Stick” philosophy of Theodore Roosevelt, reveling in the idea that Uncle Sam should make his presence and his considerable military might felt ‘round the globe—America right or wrong. This, to these folks, is “nationalism”—but, of course, it isn’t, although the modern-day “neo-conservatives” who relish the thought of using America to advance the worldwide Zionist agenda have been quite ready to exploit “TR” as almost one of their own.
In marked contrast to these “neo-conservatives,” there are many other Americans—who truly are nationalists in the classic sense of the word—who question the very idea that the United States should act as a world policeman, putting out brush fire wars and advancing some undefined dream of “democracy,” which has now become the rallying cry of the neo-conservative (that is, Zionist-Trotskyite) schemers.
In fact, the genuine American nationalists, as opposed to the “neo-cons” (who truly are “cons” in every sense of that word), are the modern-day heirs of a traditional American (and, ironically, largely Republican Party-based) philosophy heralded by the late Sen. Arthur Vandenberg (R-Mich.) when he affirmed: “Nationalism—not internationalism—is the indispensable bulwark of American independence.”
In his now long-forgotten, but still quite timely, volume, The Trail of a Tradition (G. P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, 1926), Vandenberg sought to define the American nationalist tradition in the context of U.S. engagement with the world at large—from the days of our Founding Fathers through the era of Woodrow Wilson and the attempt to enforce a world regime through the engine of the failed League of Nations.
In the end, of course, Vandenberg himself underwent a remarkable transformation—thanks largely, it appears, to having been blackmailed and otherwise “influenced” by British intelligence operatives—and shift- ed into the internationalist camp—acting as an outspoken advocate of free-wheeling U.S. involvement in global affairs. However, in his early years, Vandenberg was indeed very much a part of what we might rightly call the genuine “nationalist” camp—one that occupied quite a large bit of territory in the land of American political thought.
Another area where self-described “nationalists” seem to part company is on the ever-important issue of trade.There, the conflict between real nationalism and the internationalist, imperial perversion of “nationalism” is critical to the debate. Free trade versus protectionism (as advocated by traditional nationalists) presents a very real dilemma for self- styled “conservatives” within Republican Party ranks, for example, who, on the one hand, consider themselves “nationalists” and say they are for America First, but who—on the altar of free trade—are actually working to sacrifice American sovereignty to multinational trade organizations and global financial conglomerates. So there is a very basic divergence between free trade and national sovereignty.
The fact is that free trade has historical ties not only to British imperialism and global super-capitalism, but also even with the great bugaboo of American conservatives: communism itself. In 1848, Karl Marx, the father of communism, advocated free trade because, he said, “it breaks up old nationalities and carries antagonisms of proletariat [workers] and bourgeoisie [small businessmen] to the uttermost point.” According to Marx,“the free trade system hastens the social revolution.” In short, modern day conservatives who support free trade are actually supporting a central tenet of Marxism. So, are these “conservatives” truly “nationalist” in the classic sense? It seems not. Which brings us to the definition of nationalism . . .
The word “nationalism”—and the general knowledge of the history surrounding the concept of nationalism—raises negative images in the minds of those people—largely educated people, largely politicized people—who bother to think about the subject.
For the average student (at either the high school or college level) who devotes little of his academic energies toward the realms of history or political science—the quite sensible would-be rocket scientist, architect or accountant who has no desire to dabble in political endeavor—the word “nationalism” may even conjure up the absolute, all- encompassing definition of evil as perceived by today’s society and culture and repeated endlessly in the mass media:
NATIONALISM: Adolf Hitler, the Third Reich, German militarism, concentration camps, six million innocent Jews—maybe as many as seven or eight million, possibly eleven million— marched off to the gas chambers, later to be incinerated in gas ovens. And don’t forget Japanese kamikaze fighter pilots—and Tojo, too.
Taken right from the comics or a Hollywood drama, that in essence, sums up the common-place perception—indeed, really, the more or less “official” definition—of what constitutes “nationalism.”
And this is no accident.The writing of both popular and academic history and the authority and power to define what “nationalism” was co-opted and has since been dominated—at least throughout the second half of the 20th century, and in the Anglo-American world, in particular—by persons and institutions distinctly hostile to nationalism in all its varieties and forms.
This is a direct consequence of the growing concentration of media ownership in the hands of an elite few—closely connected families and financial groups—who benefit from internationalist policies. This is no “conspiracy theory,” by any means. Prominent media critic Professor Ben Bagdikian, in his book The Media Monopoly, summarizes the situation well:
The [media] lords of the global village have their own political agenda. All resist economic changes that do not support their own financial interests.Together, they exert a homogenizing power over ideas, culture and commerce that affects populations larger than any in history. Neither Caesar nor Hitler, Franklin Roosevelt nor any Pope, has command- ed as much power to shape the information on which so many people depend to make decisions about everything from whom to vote for to what to eat . . .
Monopolistic power dominates many other industries and most of them enjoy special treatment by the government. But media giants have two enormous advantages: They control the public image of national leaders who, as a result, fear and favor the media magnates’ political agendas; and they control the information and entertainment that help establish the social, political and cultural attitudes of increasingly larger populations . . .
Now, in the wake of this most unfortunate phenomenon—this monopolization of the power to educate and inform—the actual nature and substance of what truly constitutes “nationalism” has been distort- ed.As such, more modern-day efforts to not only understand and define and advance the cause of nationalism have been relegated to what the Masters of the Media loosely call “the fringe.”
During the mid-20th century, the one notable independent effort to define nationalism—at least in the American historical context— came through the work of one Willis A. Carto, the Indiana-born founder of a Washington-based institution known as Liberty Lobby, the publisher of a widely-read national weekly newspaper, The Spotlight.
Although driven into bankruptcy and destroyed in 2001 by a politically-motivated lawsuit that was affirmed by a federal judge, The Spotlight emerged, during its heyday, as perhaps the largest and most effective voice for traditional American nationalism—the very reason that the maverick newspaper was targeted for evisceration.
A survivor of wounds inflicted upon him by the Japanese during brutal combat in the Pacific theater during World War II, Liberty Lobby’s future founder, Carto, returned home and—unlike many veterans who believed the official propaganda—began his own personal journey of investigation, seeking the answers to the “how” and the “why” of American involvement in that genocidal world conflagration.
Ultimately, Carto came to question the necessity of U.S. involvement not only in World War II but in virtually all of the wars of the 20th century. In fact, long before it became politically popular to do so—and certainly unlike many on the traditional “right”—Carto raised questions about the U.S. intervention in Southeast Asia, while conventional “Cold War Liberals” were still pushing for deeper American entanglement in the region, ultimately leading to the Vietnam debacle.
Never considering himself anything but a nationalist, Carto made a conscious effort to draw the lines and distinctions between American “conservatism” of the Republican stripe and traditional nationalism. Rejecting what he considered to be the tired and worn and thoroughly inadequate concepts of “right” and “left,” Carto worked energetically through Liberty Lobby to develop a thriving nationalist movement, specifically focusing on the dangers of internationalism, placing nationalism as central to the overall framework of an American populist philosophy exemplified by Thomas Jefferson and an approach toward foreign relations (in particular) as laid out by George Washington in his Farewell Address.
Carto’s book, Populism vs. Plutocracy:The Universal Struggle, captured the essence of Carto’s nationalist point of view, reflecting on the monumental figures of American populism and their particular contributions to nationalist thought: ranging from statesmen such as Jefferson and Jackson to progressive firebrands as Robert LaFollette and Burton Wheeler to famed radio priest, Father Charles Coughlin, America First Committee spokesman Charles Lindbergh, nationalist Sen. Robert Taft, and such intellectual giants as Lawrence Dennis, undoubtedly the premier American nationalist theoretician of the 20th century.
The views of these men—plus many other giants—taken together comprised a basis for the nationalist philosophy that Carto put forth in every way possible through a wide variety of media at his disposal over some 50 years of active involvement in the American public arena.
Carto insisted that adherence to Washington’s words of wisdom provided not only the means to ensure America’s tranquil relations with its neighbors—near and far—but also a foundation for building a strong nation capable of ensuring its own domestic stability.
Perhaps more than any other American—including Washington himself—Carto utilized the considerable media outreach at his disposal to repeat, time and time again,Washington’s warnings:
So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducements or justifications. It also leads to concessions, to the favorite nation, of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions, by unnecessary parting with what ought to have been retained and by exciting jealousy, ill will and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted or deluded citizens who devote themselves to the favorite nation, facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption or infatuation.
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it.
Excessive partiality for one foreign nation, and excessive dislike for another, cause those whom they acuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other.
Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interest.
The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith:—Here let us stop.
It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world.
In the spirit of Washington, Carto contended that true nationalists —of all nations—believed in developing and strengthening their nation from within, maintaining the integrity of its cultural heritage and historic sovereign borders and placing their own nation’s interests first. Nationalists did not start wars of imperialism, he said, but respected the nationalist instincts of others.
Profiteering internationalist plutocrats, Carto charged, condemned nationalism because it interfered with their goal of profit and their aim to submerge all nations in a “Global Plantation” under their domination. In Carto’s estimation, internationalism was a dream of naive idealists that the eradication of all national and racial borders will usher in world peace in which everyone will live happily ever after— a chimerical dream of poets and religious leaders for millennia.
In actual application, Carto averred, internationalism could only produce mass confusion, tension, anarchy and violence. Plutocrats used internationalism to break down national boundaries and promote multiculturalism, an essential step to complete their conquest of the world and the formal erection of their world super state, the Global Plantation, often called a “New World Order”—by both the nationalists and the internationalists.
Carto put it simply: the concept of a New World Order is no less than the drive for a world government directed by the plutocrats who see it as a way to capture all of the natural resources of the globe and to effectively enslave all of the people under an international bureaucracy chosen and controlled by the financial elite.
In any event, Carto’s influence in shaping the philosophical foundation of the American nationalist movement was (and is) beyond question. In fact, when longtime Republican Party figure Pat Buchanan—the syndicated columnist—began emerging as a serious, high-profile critic—from a nationalist perspective—of the growing internationalist bent within Republican ranks, major media voices throughout the land acknowledged—albeit grudgingly—that it had been Carto and Liberty Lobby that helped pave the way for Buchanan’s ascension.
It was Pat Buchanan—formerly a “mainstream” figure—who began echoing the rhetoric and historical foundation that had been preserved through Carto’s earlier work, and thereby brought at least a Buchanan version of “nationalism” into the American political arena as he made successive bids for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination.As early as June 26, 1995, the progressive weekly, The Nation, began taking note of the new populism and nationalism that was driving the Buchanan campaign. Describing a Buchanan rally in New Hampshire, The Nation pointed out that:
When asked to cite what issue most moves them about Buchanan, a number of [them] referred to the economic nationalism of his crusades against NAFTA and GATT. Buchanan has howled about trade pacts that benefit transnational corporations at the expense of American workers and surrender U.S. sovereignty to a not-to-be-trusted international establishment, thus melding populism of the left and right.
The Nation explored Buchanan’s new emphasis further:
It was in New Hampshire that Buchanan’s economic populism first stirred. When he campaigned in the state in 1992, he encountered people socked by recession.
Buchanan had been propelled into that race by his far- right disgust at President Bush’s decision to sign a civil rights measure and to renege on the read-my-lips declaration [against new taxes]. But while trudging through the Granite State, Buchanan discovered economic dislocation—hard- working Americans hurled out of well-paying jobs.The fault, he concluded, lay with globalization and U.S. trade policies. Since then he has assailed the big banks and corporations that seek these jobs-exporting trade agreements and that finance a slew of lobbyists who guarantee that the trade deals slide through Congress. He is the only Republican contender to acknowledge and address the decline in real wages that has hit middle-income America.
In doing so, Buchanan adds fresh troops to the social conservatives in his “Buchanan Brigades.” Mad at the Japanese? Outraged your child can’t pray in school? Buchanan is out there welding constituencies.
Alone in the GOP, he attacks Washington as both the Establishment that promotes a liberal secular order and the Establishment that pushes the corporatist New World Order. Though also a fierce Catholic foot soldier in service to a conservative social and religious Establishment, Buchanan is the closest thing to a genuine populist in the 1996 race so far.
The political “right” also stood up and took notice of Buchanan’s apparent shift. On November 27, 1995 the “conservative” Weekly Standard—financed by billionaire Rupert Murdoch, and edited by one William Kristol, leader of the self-styled clique of “neo-conservatives” enamored with nothing less than advancing a Zionist-dominated American imperialism—raised its own concerns about Buchanan’s nationalist broadsides against the power elite. The Standard asserted:
In an increasingly conservative America, one political figure defiantly resists the historical tide. This man still denounces big banks and multinational corporations. Still unabashedly puts the interests of the American factory worker ahead of those of the so-called international trading system. Still refuses even to contemplate any cuts in the generosity of big middle-class spending programs like Medicare and Social Security. This man is Patrick J. Buchanan, America’s last leftist . . .
Noting that Buchanan retained his traditional stance on social issues, The Standard then pointed out that:
His campaign speeches stress arresting new themes: the imminent menace of world government, the greed of international banks, the power of tariffs to stop the deterioration in blue-collar wages, the urgency of preserving Medicare in something close to its present form.
This isn’t anything remotely like the conservative Republicanism of the Reagan era.What it sounds very much like instead is the militant, resentful rhetoric roared by populist Democrats from William Jennings Bryan onward. The revulsion contemporary Democrats feel for Buchanan only exposes how far that party has drifted from its own past.
The Standard charged that Buchanan had abandoned the “traditional” stands of conservative Republicans and had begun to shift (or at least attempt to shift) the Republican Party in a nationalist direction:
The important question for traditional conservative Republicans is how far Mr. Buchanan should be permitted to take the party. The success of Buchanan’s 1992 campaign has already begun to redirect the Republican Party to a more restrictive position on immigration and a much hard- er line on affirmative action . . .
Should he be welcomed or not? In 1992, many conservatives suffered excruciating difficulty in deciding . . . This time, though, the choice ought to be easier. Conservatives need to recognize that Buchanan’s politics is . . . something new: a populism formed to seize the political opportunities presented by strident multiculturalism and stagnating wages for less-skilled workers . . .
As things are going, it is likely only a matter of time before Buchanan himself recognizes the rapidly mounting distance between his politics and those of mainstream conservatism. His friend and fellow columnist Sam Francis, whose ideas Mr. Buchanan has increasingly echoed, has already dropped the word “conservative” outright. The danger is not so much that Buchanan will hijack conservatism as that, even after he charges out of it on is way toward some unscouted ideological destination of his own, his statist and populist ideas will seep backward into it . . .
At this juncture, the Murdoch-financed voice for internationalism formally declared war on Buchanan and read him out of the ranks of “conservative” Republicans:
Buchanan has never shied from a fight, and neither should those Republicans who oppose him. Republicans who hold fast to the traditions of postwar conservatism that Buchanan is rejecting—small government and American global leadership—should make clear that they understand as well as Buchanan does the immense difference between his politics and theirs. He has turned his back on the fundamental convictions that have defined American conservatism for 40 years, and conservatives shouldn’t be afraid to say so.After all, to paraphrase Ronald Reagan, it isn’t we who have left Pat Buchanan; it is Pat Buchanan who is leaving us.
In other words, Pat Buchanan, if elected president, would take the Republican Party out of the internationalist camp and that’s the last thing this “conservative” voice wanted to happen.
Ultimately, of course, Buchanan left the Republican Party and opted to run—in 2000—as the candidate of the Reform Party. However, when all was said and done, the Buchanan Movement failed—and failed badly. The American nationalist movement was dealt a harsh electoral blow with Buchanan’s devastatingly poor showing in that election. Nationalists were left holding the bag as Buchanan moved back into the world of big-time media punditry. In the meantime, the nationalist movement—the real nationalist movement—seeks not only rejuvenation, but leadership.
Ironically, the greatest force standing against traditional American nationalism happens to be Zionism. Although Zionism is, in itself, defined as Jewish Nationalism, aimed at the establishment of a Jewish State, which, in fact, ultimately emerged in 1948 with the founding of Israel, the truth is that Zionism is essentially an international movement of vast scope and power with Israel serving as hardly more than its spiritual (albeit geographically specific) capital.
In that regard, in this author’s previous work, The New Jerusalem, we explored the striking reality that, for all intents and purposes, the Zionist movement has essentially adopted the United States—through sheer force of financial and political power—as its primary base of operations, using the American military (generally against the wishes of the military leadership) to enforce a global imperium designed to advance the power of Israel (and the Zionist agenda) on the world stage.
So it is that a relatively small group of intriguers—the so-called “neo-conservatives” (explored in detail in this author’s other previous volume, The High Priests of War)—have come to power in America and have done all in their vast reach to advance the Zionist cause.
As it stands, even many of the harshest critics of Zionism and Israeli misdeeds fail to understand it, but the truth is that he conflict in the Middle East between Israel and the Arab world is but a portion of the overall Zionist agenda which is boundless in scope: it is, you see, no coincidence that Zionist philosophy teaches that Israel—in the sense of the Jewish people—has no boundaries.
It is also no coincidence that the American neo-conservatives are intellectual disciples of hard-line Zionist ideologue, Vladimir Jabotinsky—often called “The Jewish Fascist”—who candidly declared in a 1935 interview: “We want a Jewish Empire.” Although Jabotinsky died in 1940, his ideological heirs carry his torch forward, more force- fully perhaps than Jabotinsky would have ever dreamed possible.
The intrigues by Zionism on American soil have been extraordinarily well-calculated, operating on multiple levels and through multiple mechanisms. In the pages of The Judas Goats—The Enemy Within we will be examining the ugly history of the Zionist drive to infiltrate, undermine, subvert and/or otherwise grab control of the American nationalist movement in order to suppress and thereby destroy it.
But rest assured that Americans are not standing alone in the face of this menace.There are other nationalist movements across the face of the planet that are rising up in opposition to Zionist power—from Moscow to Caracas, from Kiev to Kuala Lumpur: in every place where informed people dare to think freely and to continue to speak out.
Therefore, let us note this: the enemies of nationalism might as well face one basic fact: Like it or not, both here in America and around the globe, nationalism is the wave of the future.
There’s no way to stop it.
Let us now move forward and examine precisely who The Judas Goats are—and have been—and how they truly are America’s Enemy Within. Prepare yourself for a very ugly—though fascinating—story…
An Introduction to Part I
Some basic historical background . . .
An Ugly and Sordid History
The breadth and scope of the intrigues of The Judas Goats—The Enemy Within are ultimately quite staggering. However the initial chapters that follow in this section are designed to provide a primer on the nature of the efforts by these enemies of American nationalism to infiltrate and destroy (or otherwise manipulate and control) their political opposition in America.This historical overview lays the groundwork for understanding much of what follows.
So, although, for example, the FBI’s notorious COINTELPRO infiltration operations were actually officially instituted in the early 1960s, the historical record shows that going back to the years preceding World War II, groups such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith were already manipulating the FBI in a terror campaign against American nationalists.
Therefore, we shall see the name of the ADL pop up again and again, not only in this section, but throughout the pages of this book. And although the FBI (and other federal agencies, such as the CIA) will often appear as what might be described as “villains” in these pages, there are many good folks within those agencies who reject the machinations of The Enemy Within and who have actually sought to dislodge some Zionist troublemakers when given the opportunity.
That said, let’s look at the facts . . .
You may download the book here: