Deep Politics Forum

Full Version: Treason in America by Antoine Chaitkin
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2

Terry Mauro

From Aaron Burr to Averill Harriman

Tony Chaitkin's Treason in America
Anton Chaitkin is a researcher who mines the depths, and has published some very interesting information - particularly about the Bush family.

However, Chaitkin is also heavily associated with the movement of Lyndon LaRouche.

The pdf file posted by Terry Mauro above essentially claims that the "British-Swiss Secret Service" undermined the American Revolution. The document forms part of the "intellectual" foundation of the contemporary LaRouche movement, which views world events as largely driven by an English Royalist/Imperialist/Banking plot.

Nothing which comes out of the LaRouche movement can be regarded as objective. Every word needs to be examined. Critically, and meticulously.

Much of it can be discarded as distortions and lies.
Jan, do you have any idea why LaRouche adheres to very strange "the Queen done it guv!" attitude?

I have never really understood this apparent nonsense other than as a deflection...
David Guyatt Wrote:Jan, do you have any idea why LaRouche adheres to very strange "the Queen done it guv!" attitude?

I have never really understood this apparent nonsense other than as a deflection...

In the early 90's when I began doing what I call "my research," for want of a better term, I lived in Houston and was bogged down in trying to find out something about a Canadian company called "Cadillac Fairview" which had been involved in commercial construction in Houston in combination with the Texas Eastern Transmission Company, the public company set up by George and Herman Brown of Brown & Root (later Halliburton) to buy up the government's natural gas pipelines built during WWII. I had managed to connect Cadillac Fairview to the Bronfman family and to another public corporation called General Homes, but I had hit a snag.

Somewhat serendipitously I attended a state Democratic Convention and was browsing the vendors' booths when I came upon one manned by LaRouchies who pushed some of their literature off on me. I had always avoided them before, thinking they were just crackpots. I went back to my hotel room and, not having brought anything else to read, started reading their handout newspaper, which--lo and behold--contained an article that talked about the Bronfmans! When I returned home, I immediately subscribed to the newspaper and, not long after, began receiving phone calls trying to sell me more of their product line. That was how I obtained my first copy of Chaitkin and Tarpley's book, the Unauthorized Biography of George H.W. I also read Treason in America and every other book they had in print.

Harley Schlanger was in charge of the Houston group of "organizers," as they called themselves, and I met with him a few times and was even invited to some of their Labor Day meetings in the environs of D.C. in the Arlington area. One of Harley's organizers also made it possible for me to have lunch with Tony Chaitkin to try to share some of my research of the Bronfmans' work in Houston with him. But Tony was very busy all through the weekend and never responded in any significant way to the disjointed data I provided him with.

I also went to a lecture that was given by Webster Tarpley in Houston after that and made the mistake of taking my British-born husband with me. Tarpley was rabidly anti-Brit and made caustically deprecating references to British aristocrats and members of the royal family, which were not explained. Their off-putting attitude toward Brits kept me at a distance from them after that and gave me a good excuse to refuse their entreaties about donating to LaRouche's political runs for president.

In my mind, they never quite nailed down who the "bad guys" were. They did connect bankers in the Bank of England to opium traders--Jardine and Matheson--who, as I recall, succeeded to the British government's interest in the East India Company investments. They also connected associated traders and bankers to the American Astors who moved to England and helped set up the Cliveden Set.

What to this day I have not been able to understand, however, is why their philosophy of guilt by association never translated over into the connection FDR had to both the Astors and the opium trading Delanos. LaRouche worships FDR; yet he seems to ignore the man's entire family background, as well as what his moronic sons did. The conclusion I eventually reached was that there was a foundation set up when Eleanor died that their children have controlled, which is dedicated to extolling the virtues of Franklin and Eleanor. I suspect this foundation may be LaRouche's biggest donor. I have absolutely no proof--other than the biases spewed forth from their writings.

My opinion about what happened historically is that the Brown Brothers bank in New York, after the 1929 crash, was beginning to flounder. They had been managing the fortunes of some of wealthy descendants of opium merchants who were dying off. They needed an infusion of capital and were desperate when they sold out to E.H. Harriman's two sons and their friends from Yale--all members of Skull and Bones. The merger came simultaneously with the change in control of the Equitable Trust from the "liberal" wing of J.P. Morgan to the "conservative" bankers led by David Rockefeller and Chase Manhattan.

One of the Yale friends of the Harrimans was Prescott Bush. Tarpley and Chaitkin paint him and his son as arch villains; nevertheless, they somehow ignore the fact that the same pool of wealth subsidized their heroes Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, as well as their idiot children.
Linda - thank you for that fascinating and most intelligent examination of the flaws & blind spots running through the LaRouchian worldview.

Chaitkin & Tarpley's work is full of interesting nuggets, but the LaRouchian interpretation of those nuggets always needs critical and independent examination.
LaRouche's publications and essays are far too often lacking in citations that show where their evidence was derived from. This always leaves a bad taste in my mouth because there is no need to leave out this important information that allows other researchers to evidence the accuracy of their essays.

Meanwhile Linda, I have answered my own question about the Queen dun it! attitude. It's in that large Synarchy dump I sent you awhile back. According to the LaRouche people the Queen and her Duke-y are the top dogs of the synarchy bunch.

They present absolutely no evidence in support of this statement...

Then we must remember that Queenie and Duke-y were the big bad wolf deacdes ago, long before LaRouche began writing about Synarchy which is, in any event, a rather French manifestation all the way back to its originator Marquis Alexandre Saint-Yves d'Alveydre
David Guyatt Wrote:LaRouche's publications and essays are far too often lacking in citations that show where their evidence was derived from. This always leaves a bad taste in my mouth because there is no need to leave out this important information that allows other researchers to evidence the accuracy of their essays.

Meanwhile Linda, I have answered my own question about the Queen dun it! attitude. It's in that large Synarchy dump I sent you awhile back. According to the LaRouche people the Queen and her Duke-y are the top dogs of the synarchy bunch.

They present absolutely no evidence in support of this statement...

I have to disagree with you here, David. I never read anything that doesn't cite sources, and I have followed up on all of the LaRouche group's work and found their research to be impeccable--from Treason to Dope, Inc. to Unauthorized Bio. They don't have footnotes in their news rags, however, and just repeat the same lines ad nauseum. What they do write in their published books is very documentable. But my beef is what they don't write; what they ignore.

I don't think they ever say that the queen is behind all the intrigue. What they do imply is that the people who manage the queen's wealth operate and have long operated the intelligence operations of the British government. They use the term "British" as a shortcut word that really means "Dutch-Anglo oligarchy" which set up the Bank of England after the Act of Settlement which brought William of Orange to the thrown. They trace this oligarchy back to the Bank of Amsterdam and to the Bank of Venice. Then they follow that back to the philosophical debate between Nicholas of Cusa and his enemies in Venice.
And my favorite is that it's all the fault of the Beatles: the British invasion. Or that the peace movement was being funded and controlled by the Rockerfellers.
Now I do question the Weathermen- and women- their violence was rewarded. That has always reeked of cointelpro pys op.
And yes the man who brought us acid (and Acid DreamsSmile, Thanks Marty)
did so via CIA, but it really backfired.

Then there's the anti semitism.

We do need serious third party candidates but LL was never one I'd support.

Dawn Meredith Wrote:And my favorite is that it's all the fault of the Beatles: the British invasion. Or that the peace movement was being funded and controlled by the Rockerfellers.
Now I do question the Weathermen- and women- their violence was rewarded. That has always reeked of cointelpro pys op.
And yes the man who brought us acid (and Acid DreamsSmile, Thanks Marty)
did so via CIA, but it really backfired.

Then there's the anti semitism.

We do need serious third party candidates but LL was never one I'd support.


LaRouche and Chaitkin aver that it was the Ford Foundation, not Rockefeller, who funded peace movement. This was one thing I did manage to get Tony Chaitkin to explain to me over lunch. He said they learned this from personal experience in the 1960's when LaRouche was teaching at Columbia in New York, while most of his organizers were his economics students. McGeorge Bundy and his brother alternately ran the Ford Foundation, as did Robert McNamara. They poured money from the fascist Ford family into financing "outside agitators," or agents provocateurs, in order to subvert the peace movement. Tony told me they were there on the scene, knew who the agitators were and actually traced where their money came from.

The allegations about anti-Semitism, I think, relate to tracking Meyer Lansky's drug profits. Most of that was written by Jeff Steinberg, one of the main writers of Dope, Inc. Also LaRouchies absolutely despise the Anti-Defamation League, with good reason. Using profits from Meyer Lansky's dope and crime syndicates, the ADL has rewritten history in favor of the State of Israel created in 1948 as a reward to Rothschild banking family which had helped the Royal family and the British government obtain large returns on investments, such as Lonrho, Rio Tinto Zinc and the Anglo-American Corp in Africa, with a little help from Mossad.
Hi Linda,

I was thinking more of LL's essays/article like the one below, rather than their books. Of their books I have only read Dope Inc and indeed it is footnoted throughout and I have dug around some of it myself to establish its veracity.

In the below piece there are numerous statements of fact that are not supported by citations/footnotes.

For example, I would be really very interested if there is any supporting evidence for the following statement when it is generally regarded that St. Yves was the origin of European Synarchy.


Now, who was the Synarchist International? The Synarchist International was a creation of what? It was a creation, essentially, of the British East India Company.


LaRouche may well be correct, but it would be useful to have a clear audit trail to follow.


On the Subject of Strategic Method

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

postato da visionariodellaterzarete | mercoledì, settembre 08, 2004 | commenti


by Lyndon LaRouche Becaue he

has some very interesting history, we will offer it here.

"1763. The British had won a naval war, effectively, a maritime war with the French. The French submitted, in terms of a treaty of 1763, which gave up a lot of the French colonies' areas in North America, to the British.

In the same period, India was taken over by the British East India Company. Not by Britain, but by the British East India Company. A company. And this occurred after the British had staged a war with the Dutch, before, and the Dutch system, the Dutch liberal system, had been assimilated into the liberal system of the British. In other words, they killed liberally—that's why they're called liberals. A liberal lack of conscience.

"So, anyway, the British Empire was established, actually in fact, by virtue of the subjugation of India, by a company, the British East India Company, in the early 18th Century, and this was sealed by the Treaty of 1763. This was a turning point in modern history. It was not the beginning of modern history, but it's a crucial turning point, one of the several crucial turns.

"At that point, the British East India Company, which was then led, politically, by a figure called Lord Shelburne, had a meeting with Adam Smith, who was one of his lackeys he'd picked up.

He had other lackeys, many other lackeys. But Adam Smith was assigned by Shelburne, to go to France, and to develop an economic and other theory, to prevent the North American English-speaking colonies, from developing in ways that might lead to the formation of a republic in North America. That's number one.

Number two. In his work in France, he was supposed to assist in devising a plan for the destruction of France.

"Now, the same thing was true of Gibbon. Gibbon, who was another character who was a protégé of Lord Shelburne. He assigned Gibbon to write this history of the Roman Empire—to find out from study of the Roman Empire, to make a study, his famous three-volume study: Now that the British East India Company had established an empire, how could they keep it? What would prevent them from going the way of the Roman Empire?

And Gibbon said, well, one thing you've got to do, you've got to eliminate Christianity. And they did: the Established Church. The best way to get rid of Christianity, is to form a church. Get people in, you call it Christianity, and you destroy Christianity, because you've created something artificial, to replace something that was real.

"So anyway, this was the kind of process. So, in the process, in this period, Shelburne developed a freemasonic cult in France. It became active in the 1770s, and emerged, and became the key factor in the French Revolution. It was called the Martinists. It was a cult which was built up around Lyon, France. It included people like Cagliostro, and Mesmer, and so forth. And a figure around there, who emerged from it, Joseph de Maistre, who was extremely significant in this process.

"Then you had the French Revolution. The French Revolution was organized in a financial crisis, which had been organized by the British, by a free-trade economic policy. One of the key figures in that had been Jacques Necker, who was an agent of Lord Shelburne personally.

You had Philippe Egalité, who was an agent of Lord Shelburne, personally. Danton and Marat were both British agents, one French, the other Swiss. They had been brought to London, they were educated in London, under Jeremy Bentham.

"They worked for a secret committee of the British Foreign Office, set up under Bentham. The speeches of Danton and Marat, on the street and in the parliament of France, were written in London, under the direction of Bentham, and were read, and delivered in the parliament, and so forth, by Danton and Marat, as agents of British intelligence.

The Jacobins, the whole Jacobin Terror, was created in London, for destroying France. Also, Napoleon was created in London.

"Now, Napoleon, of course, was a Jacobin. He was also a Corsican bandit—that was his antecedents—who became one of the Robespierre brothers. He was a protégé of them. He was a Jacobin, was appointed to a position at Toulons, by this brother. He was then brought into Paris by the same interests, with his so-called whiff of grapeshot operation, later on.

"So, in 1796, Napoleon was recruited to this Martinist cult, indirectly, and was given a model to follow, by de Maistre, which became Napoleon the tyrant, Napoleon the emperor. Napoleon was officially a "Beast-Man."


"All right, so this was horrible. But then, after the war, the Synarchist International was activated. Now, who was the Synarchist International? The Synarchist International was a creation of what? It was a creation, essentially, of the British East India Company.

Which had constituted this freemasonic cult, called the Martinists, as a model cult, to be used politically, to destroy efforts to create republics, which might be considered as rivals or threats to the power of the British, the newly formed empire of the British East India Company.

"So, always, from the beginning, the origin of this was Venice, earlier. What? Venice was an imperial power, an imperial maritime power. But, in the declining years of the empire, of the second empire, the eastern empire, up to about 1000 AD, Venice began to emerge from a vassal status, between 800 AD and 1000 AD, Venice emerged more and more as an independent force.

Its organization was a financier oligarchy, a mercantile financier oligarchy, and it began to get more and more power.

"Now, the power of Venice was located largely in its alliance with a formation of a bunch of gangsters, called the Normans. Now these were the heathen, who were chased out of Saxony, by Charlemagne, and they went north into Jutland, and similar parts of that part of the world.

And they became known as the Normans. They were used as pirates and slaughterers, gangsters, organized crime. And they were used, then, in the first operation, major one, in Normandy, to take over Normandy.

That is, to take part of France, which was chopped up by two groups: the Cluniacs in the South, and the Norman invasion from the north. And this destroyed the France of Charlemagne.

"So they created the state of Normandy as a peace agreement, and this formation settled itself in the area of what is today Belgium and Normandy France. They, then, later on, took over England, and converted the Saxons who were Christians, into non-Christians, or dead Christians, one of the two. And that's the birth of Norman England.

"So the Normans then, as Normans, or as called Plantagenets, or called Anjou, were the major force allied with Venice, as a military force, which, among other things, conducted the crusades. The First Crusade, actually, was the Norman Conquest of England; that was the first crusade. Then you had others which were called crusades. All these were conducted by the Normans, as a fighting force. All were directed by Venice. Venice always made money on it.

"The Fourth Crusade is typical. The Venetians decided to loot everything: When you walk around Venice today, you will find things that they stole during the period of the Fourth Crusade. They just stole things. They're like that. They're like those Las Vegas gangsters' mentality.

"So, this had been the power. So, from the beginning, this kind of evil was always controlled by a certain kind of usurious financier interest, the same ones that created the New Dark Age in the 14th Century.

"The British East India Company was modeled on the Venetians. It was a product of Venice, and modeled on the Venetians. It was trained by the Venetians.

That is, Venetian banks moved north, took Dutch and British names, and they appear in London, or on the coast of the North Sea and Baltic, which is the old Hanseatic area, they appear under names of those countries.

But they are actually members of families which were Venetian families. Sometimes which married into local populations. So you had a system of Venetian banking, that moved in, in this whole area, and took control. This became the Anglo-Dutch liberal system, out of which the Anglo-Dutch liberal system of parliamentary government occurred.

"And Europe has never escaped from the pestilence of Anglo-Dutch liberal parliamentary government. That's why the United States has never had its Constitution overturned, since it was formed. But there's no country in Europe which has maintained a constitution, since that time—except the United States. And the British, of course, avoided that problem because they never had a constitution. They had the opinion of the ruling oligarchy.

"So, the problem has always been bankers, of this type. It is the bankers who control the synarchists. It's the bankers who play the gangs against each other.

The bankers will create two or three competing groups, all violence-prone, and set them to fighting each other, as a way of controlling society.

‘Just as Venezuela is nothing but a synarchist paradise of bankers. You have two major factions: one a left-wing thing around Chavez; a right-wing thing on his opposition. They're both synarchists; they're both controlled by the same set of bankers; and they're going to kill off the left and then bring in the right.

"Just as in France, where they had the so-called "Left" stage the French Revolution (they were really fascists); staged the revolution—and then, brought in Napoleon as the so-called reaction, who went through the clean-up phase of what was really the model for modern fascism.

"The same thing is now happening in Venezuela. The same thing is intended by Spain, today! Spain has never given up, culturally, its imperial idea. It still regards South and Central America as Spanish property—the property of the Spanish monarchy.

And they want it back! If you look at who owns some of the natural resources, and the power systems, of Brazil, Argentina, and so forth, it's by Spanish banks! Including the drug-pushing bank of the Bank of Bilbao, people like that.

So, the Spanish interest, it has an imperial policy—now—toward South and Central America. They want their property back! They want their monarchy back. The policy is called Hispanidad.

"This is what we're dealing with. So, these things go on.

"So, this group of bankers, going back to the end of the First World War, this group of bankers, which formed the Synarchist International, which included firms like Schlumberger, de Neuflize, Mallet, so forth—a whole group of banks—created fascism.

Which is just a branch of synarchism. They created it in Italy, first. It came out of France. It was introduced out of France, on the theory of purgative violence, to Mussolini.

"Who put Mussolini into power? A fellow called Volpi di Misurata. Who was Volpi di Misurata? He was a Venetian; he was also a British agent. When the British established the "Young Turk" movement, which they planted inside Turkey, in the Salonika area, "Volpi di Misurata was one of the key figures operating.

Also, the famous, or the infamous Parvus, was one of the agents involved. Jabotinsky was the writer of a publication called Jeune Turque, which was, again, that's the beginning of the so-called "Zionist fascism"—Jabotinsky there.

"Volpi di Misurata—who was not then called Volpi di Misurata; he was called Misurata later—became a key agent, a key controller for the Venetian banking interests. And it was he, who was the key figure who controlled Mussolini—who created and controlled him, for a group of bankers. The same thing is true in all these cases.

"Now, come to the case of Hitler. Hitler came to power, because of a financial crisis, which came to a head in 1928; that is, Germany, in '28, you had crisis, the fall of the Mueller government, because the country became ungovernable. From that point on, until the fascist dictatorship, you never had a party-elected Chancellor of Germany.

You had ministerial Chancellors: that is, the President of the republic would appoint a Chancellor, and the Chancellor would run the country, because you didn't have a party which could constitute itself as a government, in Germany.

"So, Hitler was being developed by the British—same crowd, and others. Hitler was being developed to become the dictator of Germany. That was the intention. And they put him in. They put him in. They put him in by a series of maneuvers. And, by the summer of 1934, World War II was inevitable.

Nothing existed on this planet, that could have stopped World War II, at that time. Nothing. It was inevitable.

"But, then, the British didn't like it so much. They liked Hitler. The intention of the policy was, to take over Europe, which they almost did at Dunkirk.

Once, having taken over Europe, to destroy the Soviet Union, quickly; and then, to take their allies—the navies of Japan; of the British, which was supposed to go over to the Nazis; of Italy, of Spain, and France—and these allied forces would then attack and destroy the United States. That was their plan.

"That was their plan up until June 1940. What happened? There were American bankers behind this. But what happened? What happened is, led by people like Churchill, they went to Roosevelt, against Hitler—why?

Because they didn't like fascism?

Well, they loved fascism! They were the fascists. They didn't like continental European fascism! It was given to the Europeans to destroy themselves with; it was not given to the Europeans to take over English-speaking countries! So, what you had is, you had the same bankers of New York—including Harriman, and the grandfather of the present President of the United States, Prescott Bush.

And Prescott Bush wrote the check—the drawing—which actually took the bankrupt Nazi Party, made it solvent, and put Hitler on the road to being appointed Chancellor. This was done by the top British bankers, at the same time.

What happened was, you had this incident at Dunkirk: Here you had the British Expeditionary Force, part of the French forces and Belgian forces, are sitting up there on the beaches at Dunkirk.The armored forces of the Wehrmacht were sitting there, ready to take them over.

Hitler stopped the attack!

Why? He stopped the attack, because he believed then, that people like Lord Beaverbrook and Lord Halifax and others, in England, who were Hitler's friends, would induce the British government, under those circumstances—as they did the French government—to make an alliance with Hitler. As you had the Laval government and the Petain government, in France.

"But, it didn't happen. Because Churchill decided that the [affecting a British accent] "British were not going to work under the direction of that Hitler fellow, you know. We made him, yes.

But, he's not going to run us. We're English-speaking people. We are not going to destroy the English-speaking British Empire! And we're going to have these American fellows save our ass, so we can have our British Empah back!"

"That was the policy! You'll see what I'm getting to.

"So, these bastards, who had become patriots of the Anglo-American fight against Hitler, from 1940 on, in 1944, the summer of 1944, after the successful penetration of France by the Allied invasion force in June and July, then went over from being anti-Hitler, to saying, "Now that Hitler's dead, we can become Hitler."

"So, what they did, is they went first at the Democratic Party: They got Henry Wallace knocked out as Vice Presidential nominee, and put in a fascist pig, called Truman. Harry S Truman. The "S" is his middle name. There is no period after "S": What happened is, his mother—a significant character—his mother, when she was signing the birth certificate, wrote out, on the name of the baby, "Harry S"; why'd she write "S"? Because she thought she was going to pick a second name for the child. She couldn't make up her mind, so she just put in the "S," to go on record, and never got around to putting anything after the "S." So, actually, Harry Truman was a perfect S.

Anyway, we had a right turn in the United States, with the fascist pigs of the United States side—Mellon, du Pont, Morgan, and so forth—the ones who had backed Hitler in the first place, who had allied with people like Lord Halifax and Lord Beaverbrook, in this kind of operation, now went back.

Having Hitler out of the way, now we're going to destroy the Soviet Union. We're going to go to war with the Soviet Union.

And, in the process, with the help of that great pacifist, Bertrand Russell, who designed the policy of world government through nuclear terror. It was called "preventive nuclear warfare," the doctrine of Bertrand Russell. This doctrine was the doctrine of the Anglo-American fascist right wing. That's what happened.

Lyndon LaRouche


The Anglo-American Establishment is simply the powerful alliance of the top financial and merchant interests of Britain and the United States.

On the British side political power became concentrated, beginning in the eighteenth century, in a group associated with the first modern multinational corporation, the British East India Company, and in the City of London financial nexus (the "merchant bankers" that included Baring, Lehman, Rothschild and others).

On the American side, political power became concentrated by the early twentieth century in the factions that were associated with industry, commerce, and finance, such as Morgan (banking), Rockefeller (oil), Harriman (railroads), Carnegie (steel), Ford (automobiles), and DuPont (armaments).

The so-called "great rapprochement" that took place between the British and American governments between 1895-1914 brought the Anglo and American factions together in the very simple common desire to dominate the world and to make a lot of money in the process.


Now, let’s take a look at what’s happening right now. Venezuela is the fourth largest producer of oil, and the corporate elites whose political power runs unfettered in the Bush/Cheney oligarchy appear interested in privatizing Venezuela's oil industry.

Furthermore, the establishment might be concerned that Chavez's `barter deals' with 12 Latin American countries and Cuba are effectively cutting the U.S. dollar out of the vital oil transaction currency cycle.

Commodities are being traded among these countries in exchange for Venezuela's oil, thereby reducing reliance on fiat dollars. If these unique oil transactions proliferate, they could create more devaluation pressure on the dollar. Continuing attempts by the CIA to remove Hugo Chavez appear likely.

"Of major importance to the ultimate success of the euro, in terms of the oil pricing, will be if Europe's two major oil producers -- the United Kingdom and Norway join the single currency.

Naturally, the future integration of these two countries into the Euro-zone and Europe will be important considering they are the region's two major oil producers in the North Sea, which is home to the international crude oil benchmark, Brent. This might create a momentum to shift the oil pricing system to euros. . . .

"In the short-term, OPEC MCs, with possibly a few exceptions, are expected to continue to accept payment in dollars. Nevertheless, I believe that OPEC will not discount entirely the possibility of adopting euro pricing and payments in the future.

The Organization, like many other financial houses at present, is also assessing how the euro will settle into its life as a new currency. The critical question for market players is the overall value and stability of the euro, and whether other countries within the Union will adopt the single currency. . . .

Based on this important speech, momentum for OPEC to consider switching to the euro will grow once the E.U. expands in May 2004 to 450 million people with the inclusion of 10 additional member states.

The aggregate GDP will increase from $7 trillion to $9.6 trillion. This enlarged European Union (EU) will be an oil consuming purchasing population 33% larger than the U.S., and over half of OPEC crude oil will be sold to the EU as of mid-2004.

This does not include other potential E.U./euro entrants such as the U.K., Norway, Denmark and Sweden. It should be noted that since late 2002, the euro has been trading at parity or above the dollar, and analysts predict the dollar will continue its downward trending in 2003 relative to the euro.


VATICAN CITY - The bottom part of this card reads: "Your whole power structure is immune to attacks from Peaceful groups."

Now, we come to another important player in modern history - the Vatican: The Vatican owns stock in hundreds of banks all over the world; Banca Nazionale del Lavoro and many others.

The Vatican bought 26.8 million dollars in gold from the U.S. reserves, at a dollar an ounce under market value ($34 an ounce) and sold it back to the Government at market value [$35 an ounce (United Nations World Magazine, Dec.1952)]; The Jesuits own fifty one percent of Bank of America (largest bank in the U.S.)

New York State banking records shows us that in 1962 the Catholic Church owns stocks and bonds in hundreds of corporations. Among others: Baltimore & Ohio R.R., Rock Island, Erie, Sea Board, Missouri Pacific, Pere Marquette, Goodyear Tire & Rubber, Firestone, Fisk, U.S. American Smelting, Commonwealth Edison, Brooklyn Edison, N.Y. Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric, West Penn Power, American Commonwealth Power, Texas Electric, Atlantic City Convention Hall, Louisiana Hotel Company, Squire Building, Lane Bryant, Fox Playhouses, Fox Theater (St. Louis), Denver Joint Stock Land Bank, Savoy Plaza Hotel, National Dairy, Thermoid, Washington Silk, Pillsbury Flour, Yankee Stadium, Watergate, General Motors, General Electric, Shell Oil, Bethlehem Steel, Gulf Oil, IBM, Boeing, Lockheed, Douglas, Curtis Wright, Phillips Oil Co., Creole Petroleum Co.

And all tax-free.

Over the years, I have tried to show a distinction between the Vatican and the Catholic Church. The ‘church’ is made up, basically, of God fearing, devout Catholics, who seek to honor God.

But the Vatican is a business. Oh, yes, it may be religious, but it is none-the -less a business. When the Apostles Peter and John were met by cripple, seeking healing, Peter informed him: "Silver and gold, have I none, but such as I have, I give to you" and he healed the man.

Today, the same cannot be said. The Vatican owns much gold and silver but it seems to have lost the divine power.
Pages: 1 2