All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 20, 1994 - Bill Cooper
58:55
Treason #2, Truman
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Bye bye.
Be the power of the power.
Light the power of the power.
Be the power of the power.
I'm going to get you.
Thank you.
It is too late.
It's all over.
There is absolutely nothing, nothing that you can do.
That's right.
It's all over.
It's finished.
And I'm talking about the New World Order.
We acknowledge on this radio broadcast for the first time tonight in our earlier broadcast that we are in a state of war with these scum, these treasonous people who we have always believed were acting on our behalf, that we put our trust in and depended upon to preserve the Constitution of the United States of America.
It's all over for them, for I have in front of me almost 400 pages of documents which prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that this is not only a conspiracy, but it's going on and on and on for a long, long, long, long time.
I began reading a document prepared by the State Department on the orders of Harry Truman Introduced by Harry Truman and signed by Harry Truman as the policy of the United States of America, which outlines, even in the Truman administration, a plan to bring about a one-world government by the slow encroachment upon the freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution to the people of the United States of America.
Almost everyone who has served in our government During, before, for a small period of time, and after World War II, have been traitors.
What you see ruling from within the boundaries of the Federal District of Columbia in Washington, D.C., is not the constitutionally legal, instituted government of the United States of America, It is a counterfeit, treasonous organization bent upon the destruction of the Constitution of the United States of America with the aim of creating a one-world totalitarian socialist government under the United Nations.
It has been a carefully carried out plan by the members, the highest members of Mystery Babylon.
The secret societies to bring this country literally to its knees.
It is not conjecture.
I'm not making this up.
It is not fantasy.
I wrote about it in my book.
No one believed it.
We have been, for the last several years, compiling the proof, the documentation, and I now have it in front of me.
And you scum socialist communists Illuminated ones with your black helicopters and your torches will do you no good to come after me, for we have made 100 copies of this information and distributed it to 100 of our most trusted intelligence operatives of the Citizens Agency for Joint Intelligence.
If anything happens to me, the next man in line will stand up and begin disseminating this information just as I am doing tonight.
In the first hour at 6 p.m.
Mountain Standard Time, I read approximately half of the document which convicts Harry Truman, in his own words, of treason.
And I will begin again in just a few moments with the second half of that document and attempt to finish it before the end of this broadcast.
I renounce the counterfeit.
Pony, illegal, unlawful, and unconstitutional government of the United States of America within the district known as the Federal District of Columbia, Washington, D.C.
I renounce it.
I will not support it, not with one penny of my income, not with one ounce of effort from my body or from my family or from my efforts or with words.
I renounce you.
I reject you.
You have declared war upon me.
I accept your declaration of war, and from now on I will do everything in my power, everything that I can, to awaken the sheeple in this country and let them know what has happened.
I am going to go through these documents one by one on every single broadcast until I have read every word to the American people and to the people of the world, and they will stand convicted in their own words, their own legislation.
For these are all legal documents, folks, that you can find also.
In any good legal or law library.
Or in the Library of Congress.
In the Congressional Record.
And I will cite the source of all of these documents and give you their numbers where they are numbered.
And I challenge you, Shaple, to prove me wrong.
Don't go away.
I'll be right back.
I'm going to be right back.
It is numbered 3972.
It is the Department of State Publication 3972.
You will notice, ladies and gentlemen, that they started jamming tonight after I began broadcasting this information.
They will not be able to stop it no matter what they do.
It's all over for them.
They are traitors.
They are engaged in an act of extreme treason that has expanded many, many years.
And they will pay for it.
It's from the General Foreign Policy Series 26, released September 1950.
Division of Publications, Office of Public Affairs.
This was ordered to be written by Harry S. Truman.
And it is signed by him.
Make sure you have pen and paper by your side, ladies and gentlemen, and listen very carefully.
Listen very carefully.
I continue.
What had the program cost in the first three years?
In round figures, the sum total of American aid to Greece and Turkey, both civilian and military, was about 1.8 billion, with a B, dollars.
Somewhat less than 1% of the American national income in the year 1950.
Americans could judge whether the Truman Doctrine had been a good investment in peace and security.
In coming to the aid of Greece and Turkey, the United States had to act quickly and alone to deal with a threat to the peace.
Our action was effective, but we knew that it was not a satisfactory substitute for collective action or the ultimate solution of the problem of threats to the peace.
Even as the Greek-Turkish aid program was getting underway, we continued our search for a better way, a collective way, to meet the kind of situation that had arisen in Greece and Turkey.
The United Nations Charter has suggested one means in the form of regional arrangements for settling local disputes under the general authority of the Security Council.
The American Republics had laid the foundation for such a regional arrangement in 1945 in the Act of Chapultepec.
In the summer of 1947, they embodied it in an Inter-American Treaty of Mutual Assistance known as the Rio Pact.
This pact made history for it set up the first machinery for collective action in case of an attack on an American state from either inside or outside the Western Hemisphere.
And the concept of regional government was born.
Nearly two years were to pass before the nations of the North Atlantic were to agree on a collective defense arrangement of the same general kind.
Meanwhile, Soviet pressure on Western Europe was mounting.
North Atlantic defense.
In September 1947, the Soviet bloc declared that it would fight the Marshall Plan and establish the Common Forum as a sort of general staff to mastermind the situation.
And I'm going to skip to page 58.
In addition, $4 billion was asked.
The Communist forces had shown that they were ready to embark on reckless adventures and military invasion, and there was no telling where they might strike next.
In general, the pattern of military aid is similar to economic aid, as in the European Recovery Program, the United States made a separate agreement with each country receiving aid.
Each agreement reflected the needs of the particular country, what it could do for itself,
and what was necessary in the way of help from the United States.
In every case, we reserved the right to make the final decision.
Following the economic aid pattern, military assistance is based on a coordinated European
plan.
Part of our aid is in the form of finished weapons.
Some of it consists in raw materials, which can be manufactured by the receiving countries.
Our mutual defense assistance program is designed to supply a major missing component for successful
defense of the North Atlantic community.
Moreover, successful defense does not contemplate the liberation of Europe after conquest and occupation by an aggressor.
No one, least of all the European people, would consider that a successful defense.
The collective strength of the North Atlantic community is designed to protect every member of that community from invasion.
We are now engaged in a prodigious cooperative effort to build that kind of defense.
The defense establishment is a major support of the President's foreign policy.
In our democratic system, military power backs up but does not shape our policies.
The responsibility for maintaining adequate military forces is put by law in the hands
of the Secretary of Defense, but in practice it is often the Congress that shapes our defense
by granting or denying the money to pay for it and by limiting its appropriations to certain
specific purposes.
Since the war, our commitments abroad and the troubled state of the world have made
it necessary for us to support the largest defense force and the largest military budget
in our peacetime history.
One of our commitments is to occupy Germany and Japan until satisfactory peace treaties can be made.
Another is to man the bases we would need in time of war and to maintain the lines of communication with our men overseas.
General Bradley explained our approach to the defense problem when he said, Our basic military structure consists of two main elements, the forces in being and the mobilization base, because the United States will not make war of its own volition, a fact as apparent to any aggressor as it is to us.
Our forces in being are maintained at a strength which can prevent disaster in the event we are attacked, and which can strike a retaliatory blow that will be strong enough to slow down the aggressor while we mobilize.
It would be economically foolhardy and politically inconsistent for us to maintain forces in
being sufficient to win a major war.
Our mobilization base must provide the educational training and logistical facilities that will
assure us of a quick expansion of the armed forces in order that we can eventually bring
the full might of this nation in conjunction with allied nations to bear upon the enemy.
In June 1950, not quite four months after General Bradley had spoken these words, Communist
forces invaded South Korea, an act of raw, unprovoked aggression.
Under the authority of the Security Council, American armed forces went into action from their nearest bases in Japan, more than a hundred miles away.
American military forces, in being, prevented the disaster of a quick Communist victory in South Korea.
They were able, in the face of appalling difficulties, to strike a retaliatory blow, and although greatly outnumbered, to slow down the aggressor while we mobilized.
Meanwhile, our mobilization base was providing a quick expansion of our armed forces.
On July 19th, the President proposed an immediate expansion of our military establishment.
In a message to the Congress, he said, quote, The fact that Communist forces have invaded Korea is a warning that there may be similar acts of aggression in other parts of the world.
The Free Nations must be on their guard more than ever before against this kind of sneak attack.
The President's program involved the drafting of new manpower, the calling up of reserves.
It involved doubling the defense budget so that by June 1951, we would be spending at the rate of $30 billion, with a B, dollars a year.
It meant raising at least $5 billion, with a B, dollars more in taxes.
The President asked the Congress for authority to impose a system of allocations and priorities so as to direct the flow of commodities into military production.
Thus, the leading Democratic member of the United Nations showed that it could move rapidly and smoothly into a new situation requiring police action under the United Nations Charter.
For the American people, and particularly for the men in the field of battle, it was a hard and bitter experience.
Once again, we would have to be on the alert for a reckless and ruthless aggressor.
But the National Defense was doing its immediate job of checking the aggressor.
Toward Economic Well-Being, Chapter 3.
The policies of the United States reveal a growing recognition of the worldwide economic forces that affect our peace and security.
In recent years, we have become more conscious and more firmly convinced of the fact that poverty, besides being an evil in itself, has evil consequences for all peace-loving peoples.
Poverty, we have learned, is the breeding ground for totalitarian governments which entrench themselves by police state methods, and police states are apt to be irresponsible and reckless members of the international community.
Boy, what a bunch of BS!
Poverty, with all its evil byproducts, is the problem that two-thirds of the world's people live with today.
Yet the industrial and scientific advances of the past hundred years have put the solution of this problem into the realm of the possible.
It can now be attacked with rational, hopeless success, and we Americans must lead the attack if we are to build a decent and secure life for ourselves.
You see, folks, even back then our government was in control of socialists.
Harry Truman was a 33rd degree Freemason of the Scottish Rite and in fact was the Grand
Master of the Grand Lodge of Missouri of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry of the Southern
Jurisdiction.
The measures the United States government has taken and is taking to stimulate world
production and trade, to help raise standards of living abroad with the aid of technical
skills and capital, and to promote cooperation among nations for these purposes are what
we call our Economic Foreign Policy.
Obviously, that policy has broad political as well as economic goals.
The first United Nations agencies to get underway were aimed primarily at economic cooperation.
The Food and Agricultural Organization, the International Bank, The United States is the only great power physically untouched by war and has had to take the initiative both in and outside the United Nations.
The war expanded and strengthened our capacity to produce.
reconstruction among the newly liberated peoples even before the war had been won.
The United States is the only great power physically untouched by war, and has had to
take the initiative both in and outside the United Nations.
The war expanded and strengthened our capacity to produce.
In spite of wartime dislocations, the American people emerged from their ordeal better housed,
better fed, and clothed.
More healthy and vigorous than they have ever been in their history.
In 1945, a prosperous, strong, and healthy United States looked out on a world in poverty and chaos.
The situation we saw had been aggravated, but not caused by war.
The years between the two world wars were years of depression and bitter economic warfare among nations, including our own.
More bullshit.
The economic depression was caused by the recall of reserves from the banks by the Federal
Reserve in the United States of America and spread to the rest of the world.
Socialists know half a lot better than anybody on the face of this earth, ladies and gentlemen.
In those years, Europe was able to balance its trading accounts only with the help of
its foreign investments, and because the world prices of the raw materials on which its existence
depended were abnormally and unhealthily low.
Already in those years, the systems of empire which had contributed so much to Europe's
wealth and to the flow of world's trade were beginning to shift uneasily on their foundations.
The impoverished people of Asia were already in ferment, and so the problem of the post-war
world of 1945, with its hungry and homeless and jobless millions, was not so much to restore
an old economic order as to create and build a new and better system which would offer
a more decent livelihood and a more secure future to the people of the world.
The design of this new and better international economy has now begun to take shape.
Its outlines can be seen in the foreign economic policies of the United States.
These policies have three broad purposes.
First, to help rebuild the great European workshop on more modern lines.
Second, to help create new workshops, new sources of wealth in the underdeveloped areas of the world.
And third, to open up the channels of world trade so that the fruits of production can be more widely distributed and enjoyed.
They call that a redistribution of wealth, folks, and their so-called foreign policies, the foreign economic policies of the United States, wherever they were implemented, resulted in a communist takeover in every instance.
European Reconstruction.
Eighteen months before the war ended in Europe, plans for reconstruction were already underway.
In November 1943, forty-four nations joined in establishing UNRRA, the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration.
Unriz mission was to go with the Allied armies into liberated areas, help to relieve hunger, curb disease, revive agricultural and industry, and restore transportation power and communications.
Between 1944 and 1947, the United States financed about 70% of Unriz work.
In addition, we furnished direct aid to our European allies through a series of relief programs known as Interim Aid.
By 1947, post-war European aid had already cost the United States $11 billion, and the entire Eastern Bloc had fallen to Communism.
That was my comment, folks.
I continue.
American food and materials had prevented starvation and staved off revolution in Europe, but they had not produced genuine recovery or the prospect of it.
Because our aid had been granted piecemeal, it had made no dent on the jungle of European trade barriers.
It had not gone hand-in-hand with necessary tax, land, and currency reforms.
Each European nation was struggling to recover within its own economic straitjacket.
Moreover, continuous Communist agitation weakened the European governments and discouraged reforms.
The Iron Curtain had cut off supplies of food and markets on which Western Europe had always depended.
The terrible winter of 1946 and 1947, which blanketed Europe with snow and ice, brought the life of the continent almost to a standstill.
As the people struggled against cold, hunger, and darkness, new plans were taking shape in the United States.
On June 5th, 1947, the American Secretary of State, General Marshall, in his famous speech at Harvard, suggested a different approach to the problems of Europe.
He declared an end of stop-gap measures.
He said any assistance that this government may render in the future should provide a cure rather than a mere palatine.
This is the man, ladies and gentlemen, who gave all the captured munitions stores of
the Japanese government to Mao Tse-tung, and with a stroke of a pen, withheld any supplies
of ammunition to Chiang Kai-shek, resulting in the loss of the entire Chinese-Asian continent
to Communism.
I continue.
He urged the European nations to draw up a joint plan for recovery, and he pledged solid
American backing for an all-out effort by the European nations to rise together.
The response was immediate.
On July 12th, 16 European nations gathered around a conference table and began to prepare a cooperative recovery program to submit to the United States.
It became a Western European program only because the Soviet Union had walked out of initial meetings and refused to allow any of her satellites to take part.
The ten months that followed Secretary Marshall's proposal were months of intensive planning on both sides of the Atlantic.
Rarely has an American policy been so carefully studied or so widely debated by the people and the Congress.
The Harriman Committee of Prominent Citizens, headed by the Secretary of Commerce, studied Europe's needs and Americans' ability to meet them.
The Krug Committee of Government Specialists studied the effects of the plan on American resources.
The President's Council of Economic Advisers studied its impact on the United States economy.
The Congress considered all these findings, held extensive public hearings, and made additional
studies of its own.
On April 3rd, the President approved the, quote, Economic Cooperation Act of 1948, unquote.
This Act authorized a four-year program of aid to sixteen European countries, Western
Germany and the Free Territory of Trieste.
It declared that the restoration or maintenance in European countries of principles of individual
liberty, free institutions, and genuine independence rests largely upon the establishment of sound
economic conditions, stable international economic relationships, and the achievement
by the countries of Europe of a healthy economy independent of extraordinary outside assistance.
It called for a European recovery plan.
Based upon a strong production effort, the expansion of foreign trade, the creation and maintenance of internal financial stability, and the development of economic cooperation, including all possible steps to establish and maintain equitable rates of exchange and to bring about the progressive elimination of trade barriers.
The Europeans declared the same purposes in setting up their own joint organization to plan a direct recovery.
The OEEC, or Organization for European Economic Cooperation.
In the first two years of their recovery program, the people of Europe faced many difficulties and achieved what General Marshall called a near miracle of work and production.
Agricultural production came back to the pre-war level.
Industrial production rose to one-fifth above that level.
But statistics tell only part of the story.
Family life, community life returned to something like normal.
The people began to look ahead with new hope and new confidence in their free institutions.
But destruction of their cities and farms was perhaps the least of the problems the Europeans had to face.
There was also the fact of a larger population to support, clothe, feed, and house.
There was the fact of continual strikes and riots, most of them Communist-inspired.
There was the fact that in order to become self-supporting, they had to produce and sell abroad far more than before the war to offset the loss of foreign investments, shipping, and other services.
Most challenging of all, and most difficult for Americans to appreciate, was the problem of abandoning old habits of producing and trading, the problem of shedding the economic straitjackets of commercial and currency restrictions by which each nation had sought to protect itself.
Paul Hoffman, head of the Economic Cooperation Administration, emphasized the need to shape Western Europe into a single market, like that of the United States, in which goods, people, and money could circulate freely.
And you guys thought the EEC was a new idea, didn't you?
I continue.
But only the Europeans themselves had accomplished this declared purpose.
During 1949 and 1950, there was slow but steady progress in the direction of creating a single European market.
This progress reflected the growth of economic stability and confidence in Europe.
Governments were beginning to consider trade concessions and reforms that would have seemed impossible only two years earlier.
The OEEC called on its members to abolish of their own accord as many of their quantitative import restrictions quotas as possible.
The first response was disappointing, but it was hoped that by the end of 1950, at least half of these restrictions would have disappeared.
In September 1949, Great Britain revalued its currency in relation to the dollar, and the other Marshall Plan countries followed suit.
The effect was to cut the prices of European goods in dollar markets and to improve the European export position.
But it was recognized that the logjam of intra-European trade would not be broken until a way had been found to make European currencies freely interchangeable.
A plan for doing this was finally approved in July 1950, and a European Payments Union was established.
The EPU is, in effect, a clearinghouse for inter-country payments and claims arising out of Western European trade and financial transactions.
It was hailed on both sides of the Atlantic as a long step toward European integration.
Paul Hoffman maintains that European recovery has not cost the American taxpayer a nickel.
He bases this statement on the conviction that but for the economic and political revival
of free Europe, the United States would have had to spend many billions more on armament.
In short, American aid has saved Europe not only from economic collapse, but also from
communist domination.
The dollar cost of the recovery program in its first three years was expected to be around
$11.5 billion, with a B dollars.
The return on this investment is in terms of a strong, free Western Europe, physically and psychologically prepared to assume a large share of the burden of its own defense.
The British government had decided to adopt a wait-and-see policy since they were unwilling to commit themselves to what was still a relatively abstract proposal.
An idea as bold and radical as this was bound to run into criticism.
The dread word cartel was raised with its suggestion of monopoly, concentration of power, restricted production, and high prices.
But advocates of the plan pointed out that a cartel can be a benevolent organization if its purposes are to expand production, broaden markets, and bring down prices.
These are the declared purposes of the Schuman Plan.
To see that they are carried out, an international authority would be created to oversee the plan and to report its progress to the United Nations.
The United States government gave the idea warm approval and support, for it saw great promise in the proposal.
The promise was that Germany and her European neighbors might, by merging their major industries, evolve a relationship so close and a community of interest so strong that a war between them would become not only unthinkable, but impossible.
The generous and enlightened French proposal might indeed mark the end of an ancient hostility
and the beginning of a new era in Western Europe.
The Promise of Point Four Man has only begun to scratch the surface of the earth's
wealth.
In great areas of Africa, Asia, and Latin America, millions of people are living in poverty because they have not had a chance to apply modern methods of tilling their soil, mining their minerals, and processing the resources they have at hand.
The burden of poverty, disease, and ignorance in these areas has become a danger to all free democratic people Because it invites all kinds of totalitarian controls, including communism.
For many generations, Americans have gone out to work with the people of the underdeveloped parts of the world, to study their ways of life, and to share American skills and knowledge with them.
American private capital has also gone out, also to finance the development of oil, rubber, tin, bauxite, and many other resources of these areas.
For the past ten years, the United States government has been authorized by Congress
to send technical missions abroad, chiefly to Latin America, and to bring technicians
from the less developed countries to the United States for training.
In his inaugural address of January 1949, President— And I've got to do it just as quickly as I possibly can.
We should make available to peace-loving peoples the benefits of our store of technical knowledge.
In order to help them realize their aspirations for a better life, and in cooperation with other free nations, we should foster capital investment in areas needing redevelopment.
Our aim should be to help the free peoples of the world through their own efforts to produce more food, more clothing, more materials for housing, and more mechanical power to lighten their burdens.
The Point 4 undertaking, as the President conceived it, has two distinct but closely related elements.
One is technical cooperation, which means the use of skills and scientific knowledge to help people raise their standards of living.
The part of the program costs relatively small amounts of money for the salaries of technicians and the equipment they use.
The other element is large-scale development requiring sizable amounts of money in the form of investment capital.
The underdeveloped areas themselves can supply some, but not all, of the necessary capital.
Foreign capital is needed, and it can come from three sources.
The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the Export-Import Bank of the United States, and from private banks and investors.
Because of uncertainties and tensions in the world, and because of conditions in the underdeveloped areas, private investors have not been eager to risk sending their capital abroad in large amounts.
The United States government is trying in various ways to reduce some of the risks.
For example, the State Department is negotiating new treaties with foreign governments, guaranteeing certain kinds of protection to American investors so that they will not be discriminated against, but will receive the same treatment as nationals of the country.
New laws are being considered which would allow the export-import bank to sell an investor certain kinds of insurance, specifically against expropriation, confiscation, and seizure, and against inability to convert local currencies, meaning inability to take profits out of the country.
But even with this kind of protection, it is not likely that large amounts of private investment capital will flow to the underdeveloped areas in the near future.
Fortunately, the work of Technical Cooperation can go forward without delay, and it can, in fact, help to create the kind of world climate, and more particularly, the kinds of local conditions which encourage investment.
Our experience shows that certain basic services like public health, sanitation, literacy, good communications, and good public administration are usually the necessary forerunners of large-scale development projects.
These are among the services that the Technical Cooperation program helps to create or improve.
Congress put its approval on the program in April 1950 and gave the State Department the job of directing the work of technical cooperation.
Many agencies of the government and many private organizations are already carrying on this kind of work.
Under the new program, the work will be broader and more closely coordinated so that it can become, in time, a major national effort.
For the first year's budget, the Congress appropriated 34 That's $34.5 million dollars.
Roughly a third of this budget is pledged to the support of a United Nations
technical cooperation program.
Americans have never claimed a monopoly of technical skills.
Our experts are, in fact, quick to recognize the preeminence of other nations in certain fields.
For example, the Norwegians in the science of fishery, the British in some aspects of tropical medicine, the specialized agencies of the United Nations such as the Food and Agricultural Organization and the World Health Organization are in a position to draw on the skills of many nations as well as their financial support.
At a special meeting of the United Nations in June 1950, fifty nations pledged twenty million dollars for the first year of the United Nations program.
Some of the pledges came from nations on the receiving end of technical aid.
Technical cooperation is not something to which you can apply a set of rules, but certain basic principles can and should guide the work.
One of these is the principle of self-help.
The United States offers its skills only where they are plainly wanted, and only where people have shown that they are ready to help themselves.
When this readiness exists, and it usually involves breaking with old habits and traditions, then technical cooperation brings good and often quick results.
Another guiding principle of this work is to start where people are, to help them solve their own problems in their own way, and not to impose ideas or methods which are alien to their character and their own desires.
Americans have always been interested in dealing with other people as people, not as pawns, in some international game of power politics.
All through the history of our international relations runs the thread of a consistent attitude and purpose to work with others to cooperate but not to dominate.
This is the paramount principle which guides the Point Four Program.
I wonder who out there is going to believe that?
I continue, the character of the program has sometimes been misunderstood.
It has been called a big money program.
A means of scattering dollars around the world.
Obviously, it is not that, but a means of spreading ideas and skills.
It has been called a welfare program.
Obviously, it is that, in the best sense of the word.
Some people have asked, why should we help the people of these underdeveloped areas to raise their standard of living, when we have plenty of Americans who need that kind of help?
The answer, of course, is that we can do both.
And we are, in fact, doing both.
And that is a total lie.
I continue.
Many Point Four projects are patterned on, for example, the work we are doing right here at home in soil conservation, irrigation, and public health.
All such programs, both at home and abroad, enlarge our experience and our knowledge.
The exchange in ideas and skills is a two-way traffic.
Some people have asked, what has Point Four got to do with stopping Communism?
Is this the time to be helping people on the other side of the world to raise better crops and stamp out malaria?
The answer is that this is the very time that most of the people we are working with are less interested in abstract principles of Communism and Democracy than in solving the urgent problems of hunger, disease, and the difficulty of scratching for a bare living.
The Communists offer them quick remedies for all their ills.
We have a chance to prove to them in practical and concrete ways that a free society can promote both human well-being and human dignity.
Next chapter, World Trade and World Peace.
The European Recovery Program has lifted the great European workshop back to its feet and has put millions of highly skilled people back into productive work.
The Point Four Program will, in time, create new centers of production and will help millions of people in Latin America, Africa, and the Middle and Far East to develop their skills and resources.
Both these programs are designed to raise standards of living through production.
But production is never an end in itself.
Goods are useful only if they can be bought, sold, and consumed.
The peace and well-being of the world depends on trade, on a healthy, expanding trade by which wealth can circulate freely to the widest possible extent and create a demand for new wealth.
International trade, therefore, is a second major concern of our economic policy.
As with European recovery, the problem is not to restore an old system, but to develop a new and better one.
The United States has a strong interest in helping to build a healthy international trading system which will act as a preventive to depressions and economic warfare.
During the past 36 years, we have become a great creditor nation.
In that period, the value of our exports has exceeded the value of our imports by about $100 billion.
This is called a favorable balance of trade.
But even by strictly economic standards, it is not favorable at all, since the $100 billion gap has had to be financed by the American people through direct taxation and government loans, interest on which comes from taxes.
But this export surplus has been necessary to our national security, for it reinforced our allies in two world wars and contributed to their recovery in the post-war years.
The problem of today is to develop a sound, balanced system of world trade.
The American Reciprocal Trade Agreements Program has taken us a long step in that direction and pay very close attention now, ladies and gentlemen.
It reversed the high tariff policy of the 1920s and set us firmly on the road toward a more enlightened policy of opening up the channels of world trade.
Under the authority of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act, the United States joined with twenty-two other major trading nations at Geneva in 1947 in the greatest tariff bargaining meeting in history.
The result of that meeting was a General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, GATT.
Was a general agreement on tariffs and trade.
GATT.
And you thought GATT was new.
GATT has been planned, and has been in the workings, and has been an actual fact for many years.
It was GATT that gave the foreign nations the edge in charging us higher tariffs, while we lowered ours.
It has caused the destruction of the industrial base of the United States of America, and is continuing With NAFTA.
The result of that meeting was a General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, GATT, which reduced tariffs rates sharply and affected half the world's imports.
The only tariff rates that were reduced were ours.
The rest of the world raised theirs.
The same bargaining process was repeated at Annecy, France, in 1949, with eleven more countries present.
And this conference led, in turn, to a third round of tariff-cutting negotiations at Torquay, England, in 1950.
Every country got and made concessions, and every concession that was made to one country immediately applied to all those present.
Thus the Free Nations made an unprecedented all-out attack on one of the most serious
obstacles to the flow of trade.
But even more stubborn obstacles remain to be overcome.
Today, anyone who tries to buy or sell across national boundaries can still become entangled
in a jungle of government controls in the form of quotas, customs regulations, and currency
restrictions.
To get rid of this tangle of restrictions will require time and a spirit of give-and-take,
for no nation is willing to discard its economic armor while the rest remain armed.
The ultimate answer to this difficult problem is in the general acceptance of a code of fair trade practices.
Fifty-four nations have agreed on such a code and embodied it in the Charter for an International Trade Organization.
The Charter sets the minimum rules of the game on which all fifty-four nations are now willing to agree.
They are not ideal rules by any means, but they can be improved as the nations get experience in cooperation and gain confidence in each other.
The Charter also provides for an organization within the family of the United Nations, a place where the members can meet and settle their trade problems across a conference table.
There has never been before such a place.
The organization and the Charter offer at least a rational hope that economic warfare can be ended in the not-too-distant future.
The I.T.O.
charter is now before the American Congress for approval.
Other nations are waiting to see whether the United States will live up to its enlightened economic principles.
Those who support the I.T.O.
believe that it will pave the way for closer political as well as economic cooperation among the free nations, and thus contribute to the security of the United States.
This American attitude has an ethical as well as a political background.
For as Secretary Acheson has said, the truth is that just as no man and no government is
wise enough or disinterested enough to direct the thinking and the action of another individual,
so no nation and no people are wise enough and disinterested enough very long to assume
the responsibility for another people or to control another people's opportunities.
Do you understand, ladies and gentlemen, how they say one thing out of one side of their
mouth and then absolutely completely contradict it in the very next paragraph?
These people are consummate liars, consummate deceivers, and consummate manipulators.
They are the best in the world, in fact.
Some Americans have been troubled by the fact that the nations whose independence we have helped to establish and maintain have not all had representative governments or practical democracy as we understand it.
This raises the question of what we mean when we speak of free nations and free peoples.
It is worth clearing up this question, which has caused a good deal of confusion about American policy.
A free country is one that does not have to take orders from a foreign government.
Believing as we do that national independence is a stepping stone to popular government and personal liberty, we set a high value on the independence even of those nations which cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called democracies.
The fact that we help a country to be free of foreign domination does not mean that we support the particular government it happens to have at any particular time.
It means that we want the kind of international community in which each nation is free to manage its own affairs, subject, of course, to its pledges and responsibilities under the United Nations Charter.
Out one side of their mouth they say, a free country is one that does not have to take orders from a foreign government.
And out the other side of their mouth, they say, it means that we want the kind of international community in which each nation is free to manage its own affairs, subject, of course, to its pledges and responsibilities under the United Nations Charter, which is a foreign government.
Within the broad area of the Charter, there's plenty of room for people to experiment and to change their forms of government if they wish.
There's plenty of room for progress toward democracy, which I have told you on many of these broadcasts, is just another word for socialism.
In recent years, the United States has had a chance to prove that it is still the traditional friend of young nations, still the champion of people seeking their independence.
Since the end of the Second World War, more than 500 million people have gained their independence.
Eight new nations have been born.
The United States has assisted at the birth of these nations as far as it could.
It has vigorously supported their membership of the United Nations.
That whole paragraph, ladies and gentlemen, is a complete lie.
During those years, during those years, free nations fell to Communism and no new free nations were created.
Check your history books.
If you can find one that still has the true history.
I continue, in the Philippines, we had our best opportunity to demonstrate that American policy means what it says.
The 20 million citizens of those islands celebrated their independence on July 4, 1946, as a result of a promise we made and kept.
Moreover, we not only welcomed them into the community of nations, but helped them to organize and finance their free society, and they were, in fact, ladies and gentlemen, a puppet of the United States government.
They were not free at all.
To India, Pakistan, Burma and Ceylon, we are giving our strong and friendly support.
The people of Israel have had America's moral and material backing since the beginning of their struggle for nationhood.
Ladies and gentlemen, the truth is, the United States and London created the nation-state
of Israel by forcing European Jews to migrate on ships that very frequently sank right up
from under them.
Americans can take pride in their contribution to the creation of the Republic of Indonesia.
During the long and difficult negotiations between the Indonesian and Netherland governments, American diplomacy played an important and sometimes a decisive part in bringing the parties together and in helping them finally to work out a satisfactory agreement.
I skip to page 94 bottom.
Soviet and Chinese Communists charged the United States with aggression in Formosa and brought the matter before the Security Council.
The United States welcomed a United Nations investigation and, in fact, suggested that a United Nations Commission be sent to Formosa to observe and report the facts.
So that American policy would be clearly understood both at home and abroad, the President summarized our aims and our hopes in a radio talk on September 1, 1950, and I quote, First, we believe in the United Nations.
Notice the first thing that President Truman said, the first thing out of his mouth is, First!
First!
Above everything else!
First, we believe in the United Nations.
When we ratified its charter, we pledged ourselves to seek peace and security through this world organization.
We kept our word when we went to the support of the United Nations in Korea two months ago.
We shall never go back from that pledge.
Second, we believe the Koreans have a right to be free, independent, and united as they want to be under the direction and guidance of the United Nations!
We, with others, will do our part to help them enjoy that ride.
The United States has no other aim in Korea.
Third, we do not want the fighting in Korea to expand into a general war.
It will not spread unless communist imperialism draws other armies and governments into the fight of the aggressors against the United Nations, which isn't even a country.
Or, we hope, in particular, that the people of China will not be misled or forced into fighting against the United Nations and against the American people.
In that paragraph, folks, they have really stated their real meaning.
For the meaning of that sentence is that the United States and the United Nations are one and the same.
I'll read it again, just in case you sheeple missed it.
Four, we hope in particular that the people of China will not be misled or forced into fighting against the United Nations and against the American people.
Only the Communist imperialism which has already started to dismember China could gain from China's involvement in war.
Fifth, we do not want Formosa or any part of Asia for ourselves.
We believe that the future of Formosa, like that of any other territory in dispute, should be settled peacefully.
We believe that it should be settled by international action, and not by the decision of the United States or of any other state alone.
International action, ladies and gentlemen, means the United Nations, which means the United States.
The mission of the Seventh Fleet is to keep Formosa out of the conflict.
Our purpose is peace, not conquest.
Sixth, we believe in freedom for all nations of the Far East.
That is one of the reasons why we are fighting under the United Nations for the freedom of Korea.
We help the Philippines become independent and we have supported the national aspirations to independence of other Asian countries.
Russia has never voluntarily given up any territory it has acquired in the Far East.
It has never given independence to any people who have fallen under its control.
We not only want freedom for the peoples of Asia, but we also want to help them secure for themselves better health, more food, better clothes and homes, and the chance to live their own lives in peace under the United Nations.
The things we want for the people of Asia are the same things we want for the people of the rest of the world.
7.
We do not believe aggressive or preventive war.
Such war is the weapon of dictators, not of free democratic countries like the United States.
We are arming only for defense against aggression.
Even though Communist imperialism does not believe in peace, it can be discouraged from new aggression if we and other free peoples are strong, determined, and united.
Eighth, we want peace and we shall achieve it.
Our men are fighting for peace today in Korea.
We are working for peace constantly in the United Nations and in all the capitals of the world.
Our workers, our farmers, our businessmen, all our vast resources are helping now to create the strength which will make peace secure and get this, folks, the rights of man.
The United Nations Charter pledged all its signers to respect and promote human rights and fundamental freedoms, but it did not define those rights and freedoms.
One of the first tasks of the United Nations, therefore, was to get general agreement among its members on what those words meant.
To be realistic, such an agreement would have to express the honest beliefs and aims of all the nations that put their names to it.
It must, in short, be a common denominator of conviction rather than a pious hope.
The United States worked hard for such an agreement.
American organizations gave it vigorous support, and our American chairman, Mrs. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, guided its progress through the Human Rights Commission.
In 1948, the General Assembly approved and first international Declaration of Human Rights.
The next step is to get the principles affirmed and the Declaration accepted in practice as part of the Constitutions and Law of Nations.
This will become most important to you later when we get into some of the later documents, when you see what this really means.
This is a work of many years, but the Economic and Social Council has already undertaken the drafting of human rights treaties, or covenants.
Covenants, ladies and gentlemen.
Remember when William Clinton, the communist, socialist, Marxist, draft-dodging, lying scum, Who pretends to be the President of the United States of America, but who is really the President of a criminal, counterfeit government which has relegated our Constitution and Bill of Rights to the trash can.
Covenants, I continue, which will bind the nations that signed them to guarantee certain basic rights to their citizens.
Each covenant will have to take into consideration the particular problems of a particular nation.
It's legal system and it's method of dealing with violations.
The drafting of human rights covenants is one of the boldest as well as one of the most difficult projects ever conceived by a group of nations.
In the judgments of history, this quiet and generally unsung work may rank as one of the great revolutionary enterprises of the United Nations.
Now understand what was said there, ladies and gentlemen.
They're drafting a covenant.
It is one of the boldest as well as one of the most difficult projects ever conceived by a group of nations.
Now listen, in the judgment of history, this quiet and generally unsung work may rank as one of the great revolutionary enterprises of the United Nations, and that is in the symbology and the words of the Mysteries.
Another is the outlawing by the United Nations of genocide or mass murder of whole groups of people such as Nazi Germany officially practiced In 1948, the General Assembly unanimously approved a convention pledging its members to treat genocide as a crime and to punish it accordingly.
This treaty is now up for ratification.
Since then, ladies and gentlemen, it has been ratified, and nobody wants to see anybody eliminated.
Nobody wants to see genocide enacted on any people.
But when you read this treaty, you will understand that it suggests Citizens of the United States of America to be arrested by the United Nations and tried in a United Nations court anywhere that they deem that they want to try that citizen just for saying a word that hurts the feelings of someone else of a different group.
If you don't believe that, ladies and gentlemen, in one of these future programs, in the near future, I am going to read that treaty to you and prove it.
It is a method of exerting absolute control.
In other words, thought control, political correctness.
Where do you think all this comes from?
It's been in the works for many, many years.
Our government has been riddled with traitors.
It is treasonous.
Joseph McCarthy was right.
He just didn't know what to call these scum.
When they attacked him, No one came to his aid.
He goes on to say, Our interest in human rights is not confined to the making of treaties and declarations.
We are working for such concrete things as the free gathering of news, the free movements of peoples, and the free exchange of knowledge.
The United Nations, through the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and other specialized agencies, offers many channels for concrete progress along these lines.
There's no need to create a ferment of ideas in the world.
It already exists.
The need, and this the United Nations can meet, is to translate the ideas of freedom and progress into practical, into practical, ladies and gentlemen, terms of better health, better health, better nutrition, better homes and schools, in short, the chance to work for a better life.
This is all translated over the years.
The American nation began life with the Declaration of Independence.
We hold and still hold those truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Today the foreign policy of the United States is a declaration of the interdependence of men and nations, and I will read that declaration to you verbatim in one of the programs to come.
We have over 400 pages of documents to read to you, outlining the beginning, the conduct, the carrying out, and the end result of the treason.
The destruction of the United States of America, wholesale, The ripping apart, the shredding of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and the enslavement of the American people under a one-world, totalitarian, socialist government.
You have criticized me for making this claim over the past several years.
Now I am proving it to you in their own words, in the law, in the documents, in the congressional record, from their own mouths.
Don't miss one single episode of the Hour of the Time.
Good night, and God bless you all.
▲
Export Selection