the good evening you're listening to the power of the time
i'm william cooper ladies and gentlemen
first right off the bat everything that's uh...
been happening has just really been getting to me.
Bye.
And I mean really getting to me.
You see, I've been fighting this battle for a long, long time.
And my family has suffered terribly because of what I do on behalf of freedom and liberty for all people.
And so we've taken some pretty heavy hits.
And then I see how easily they can still manipulate Those great herds of sheep are out there and it just almost breaks my heart.
In fact, my heart is broken.
And, uh, so, here lately I've been a little rough on some of you when you call.
And, uh, you know, I feel this terrible anger and hurt and, uh, sometimes When you're a human being, like I am, I know a lot of you look at some of us as if we're beyond that.
We're not.
We're just people just like all of you.
And sometimes this just gets to me and, you know, if you're there, I strike out.
And I shouldn't do that, especially this radio audience, and so right now I want to apologize for that, and I'm going to try to rein that in.
You have no idea.
All the things that we've been through, and all the information that we see, that points to just terrible happenings ahead.
And so sometimes I get frustrated.
And I don't mean to be mean-spirited or vicious with the callers to this broadcast.
Sometimes it just happens.
And so, again, I apologize.
I'm going to try to rein that in.
I do not want to take out my frustrations and my anger upon the good people who listen to this broadcast in order that they might become Better informed so that they can help me fight this battle.
It's like being back in Vietnam and instead of shooting the enemy I turn around and shoot one of my own crew members.
I certainly don't want to do that.
No, I'm not saying this because anybody called.
Nobody called and said a word.
It's just that I personally feel bad about my own behavior.
on some of the broadcasts for the last couple of weeks.
And that's what this is all about.
Tonight, you're going to finish up the Psychopolitics and go right into the series on treason documents.
And there's going to be a lot of sites of document numbers and all kinds of things, ladies and gentlemen, so you absolutely must have pen and paper by your side or be prepared to order a studio copy of these tapes.
Because this is the ammunition that you need.
It's the proof.
The absolute proof of what's been happening in this country, who's bringing it about, and how it's been done.
And, you see, we've always trusted the people we sent to Washington, D.C.
We never believed they would be doing the things that they have been doing since before World War II.
But mainly, since World War II, they have intentionally, with malice aforethought, With treason as their goal, set about to destroy this country and create a one world totalitarian socialist government that will eventually lead into world communism.
So pay very, very close attention.
Make sure that you take notes.
Make sure that you write down the names and numbers of these documents and go get them so that you can prove it to yourself and to your neighbors.
Don't rely upon me to be telling you the truth.
That's how we got in this situation.
Remember, listen to everyone, read everything, believe absolutely nothing unless you can prove it in your own research, and that includes everything that comes out of my mouth, too.
Your mother's mouth, your father's mouth, your preacher's mouth, your bishop's mouth, your minister's mouth, your teacher's mouth, especially your teacher's and college professor's mouth.
They're the ones who are dumbing down this country and teaching our children to be good little Marxists.
Slaves of the New World Order.
So, here it comes.
Pay very close attention, please.
Wrong one.
Robert.
The end.
I'm.
I'm.
I'm sorry to make you upset. Welcome to the new world order.
Never in human history has so few taken so much from so many as America's Illuminati
and their warlords of Wall Street and White House.
In just eight years, these pranksters and international government gangsters took it from the greatest predator nation to the largest detonation on Earth.
A new world order.
of every tribe of Americans.
Therefore, slaves are our homes, our farms, our factories.
They've exploited your jobs and surrendered our arms.
They want you.
A new world order.
Hey!
Ah!
A new world order.
Hey!
Ah!
A new world order.
Hey!
Ah!
A new world order.
Hey!
Ah!
A new world order.
Hey!
Ah!
A new world order.
Hey!
Ah!
A new world order.
Hey!
Ah!
A new world order.
Hey!
Ah!
A new world order.
Hey!
Ah!
A new world order.
Hey!
Ah!
A new world order.
Hey!
Ah!
A new world order.
Hey!
Ah!
A new world order.
Hey!
Ah!
A new world order.
Hey!
Ah!
A new world order.
Hey!
Ah!
A new world order.
Hey!
Ah!
A new world order.
Hey!
Ah!
A new world order.
Hey!
Ah!
A new world order.
Hey!
Ah!
A new world order.
Hey!
Ah!
A new world order.
Hey!
Ah!
A new world order.
Hey!
Ah!
A new world order.
Hey!
Ah!
A new world order.
Hey!
Ah!
A new world order.
Hey!
Ah!
A new world order.
Hey!
Ah!
A new world order.
Hey!
Ah!
A new world order.
Hey!
Ah!
A new world order.
Hey!
Ah!
A new world order.
Hey!
Ah!
A new world order.
Hey!
Ah!
A new world order.
Hey!
Ah!
A new world order.
Hey!
Ah!
And that's absolutely true.
Those who have come to that conclusion on their own are thinking right.
The race baiters on both sides, ladies and gentlemen, have done such a skillful job of pitting blacks and whites against each other and blacks against Jews and Jews against everybody and American Indians against the world.
for so very long that it's newsworthy, not to mention gratifying, when they occasionally shoot themselves in the foot, as they have done on many occasions when they have called me a white supremacist.
A white supremacist.
It is absolutely amazing that they don't even do their homework, because as soon as someone comes to investigate for themselves, and they catch a glimpse of my wife, they burst out in laughter.
Because they have really been caught with their pants down on many, in fact, most occasions.
You see, I'm part Native American.
I couldn't be a white supremacist if I wanted to be.
And that's not all, folks.
I'm married to a Chinese woman who is the most beautiful, most wonderful woman in the whole wide world.
bar none. And my children, my two daughters, Pooh and little Allison, are part Native American,
Chinese, English, Scotch, and Irish. As my wife says, they're all mixed up.
Jesse Jackson in the Los Angeles Times called me a white supremacist. An article on the
front page of the New York Times called me a white supremacist.
And it is, you know, it is amazing that so many people read these things and
never bother to check and just believe it until they are so embarrassed to find that they
have been repeating this when they finally meet me and my beautiful wife and my children.
Or they come to a speaking engagement where they hope to see the great white supremacist and boo and hiss and all that kind of stuff and they find out that it's not true.
And that my speeches are not about white supremacy, but about how we can all come together as Americans You see, there is one, there's more than that, but there is one great unifying factor for all people, of all races, all religions, all sources of ethnic origin, and that is freedom.
Freedom, ladies and gentlemen, and that's what this country is all about.
That's what our forefathers were all about.
That's why they founded this great nation.
To escape, ladies and gentlemen, from the religious persecution in the old world.
Now, I'm not the only one that they have done this to, and that they have thoroughly been embarrassed because they have.
They've done it to many other people.
You might recall that in the fall of 1994, the vanguard of the politically correct army descended on Mr. Ray Southwell, one of the leaders in what was then called the Northern Michigan Regional Militia.
Southwell had been attacked by leftist radical Morris Dees.
We call him Dees the Sleaze because he's a child molester.
He's a liar.
He is a very promiscuous person.
He's also a homosexual.
And, uh, his Southern Poverty Law Center has been heavily funded by the Communist Party of the United States of America.
And, uh, Morris Deas claimed that he had met with a white supremacist in Tennessee.
And, uh, he was talking about Ray Southwell.
This is a charge that Southwell vigorously denied and proved to be false.
Nevertheless, the Southern Poverty Law Center and its fellow hate-crime hustlers and groups like the Anti-Defamation League and the Center for Democratic Renewal attempted to paint Ray Southwell as a racist, and from that central canard began a smear campaign against the broader militia movement.
Southwell, ladies and gentlemen, behaves like a very confused racist, indeed.
It seems that he has spent many a weekend as a guest in the home of a black man named Clifford Brookings, who happens to be the founder of the Detroit Constitutional Militia.
Southwell is a registered nurse, and he commutes down from northern Michigan to work in an inner-city Detroit hospital during the week.
Now, this is not the most likely venue for a seething racist, ladies and gentlemen, because most of the patients in this hospital are inner-city blacks.
Brookins, a 48-year-old building contractor, a black man, told Relevance magazine, the source of this information, Ray used to come down and spend the night here since he was being blackballed from his nursing job up north.
When we asked Brookins about the discrepancy in Southwell's earlier media persona, he defended Southwell, stating, No, I know Ray is not racist.
But psychopolitics experts at the Southern Poverty Law Center and their sympathizers in the major communist news network's media used the phony charges against Southwell As a powerful wedge to drive between the budding militia movement and the American public, divide and conquer remains one of the most effective tools to keep the sheeple in their place.
Nevertheless, the media-scorched-truth policy has backfired in yet another instance Brookings told Relevance that he didn't know much about the militia movement until he saw it being excoriated in the press.
That's how I got involved.
When the media started attacking the militia, they said these people don't like what the government is doing.
I said, hey, I wanna be a part of that.
These people are on the right track.
He added, quote, Black people have been saying that for years, and now that certain whites are being targeted by the government, they're finally starting to wake up, end quote.
Thus media lies about militias apparently aided in the creation of what to the anti-hate industry is the equivalent of a cross to a vampire.
Namely, a black urban militia founded on the United States Constitution.
The final stake through the heart of that smear campaign came in the form of the black militia's alliance with what we're supposed to believe is a racist northern militia.
As the current occupant of the White House is fond of saying, That dog won't hunt.
And indeed, that dog won't hunt.
Brooklyn's discontent has grown from what he considers to be a corrupt court system, which refuses even to follow its own laws.
He is optimistic about the prospects for a restoration of constitutional government.
He says, quote, This whole country is going to wake up.
People are at the stage where they're sick and tired of being sick and tired."
Predictably, the media advanced the charge that Robert Starr's Georgia Republic militia was quite racist.
However, J.J.
Johnson, leader of the Ohio militia, who is black, told Relevance, quote, Well, Robert Starr has made a battle flag of the Republic of Georgia that has the colors of all the races of the country to show that all the races are welcome.
There is also a black in his unit, and he happens to be a personal friend of mine."
Still, the psycho-political linkage of militias with racists continues.
The CBS News Magazine's 60 Minutes in a May 20th interview with the author of the racist anti-Semitic novel, The Turner Diaries, repeatedly referred to it as the Militiaman's Bible.
What a mistake that is.
You see, 60 Minutes once again shows its intolerance, not only for Christian sensibilities, but for the facts.
For their information, the Bible of many militiamen who are Christians is the Bible.
The Bible for many militiamen who are Jews is, of course, the Torah.
The Bible for many militiamen who are Native Americans is their verbal history passed down by word of mouth.
for hundreds and thousands of years, and so on, and so forth.
There are even militiamen of Far Eastern heritage who carry the Bhagavad Gita to militia meetings.
Ladies and gentlemen, you see, America is not about any of this crap that they're trying to shove down your throats.
America is about freedom.
And anyone who doesn't understand that is not an American never could be.
Anyone who only wants to hear what they say is not an American.
Anyone who can tolerate only their church is not an American.
Anyone who can tolerate only their race is not an American.
America is about freedom.
Freedom and more freedom.
As much freedom as we can possibly stand and still be responsible for our actions.
The government was created, ladies and gentlemen, for a mutual benefit and protection.
The government was given limited powers.
All of the other powers were granted to the states and to the people.
In fact, all powers not specifically granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states or to the people are vested with the states and to the people.
That's the way this country works.
And built into the Constitution for the United States and the Bill of Rights were certain provisions to protect the Creator-endowed rights which our Founding Fathers believed that all people are born with.
All people.
Even though this is the only nation where they really get to have them and practice them.
But for how much longer, ladies and gentlemen, for many of them are already gone.
Most of you already know that.
Another black American who remains unbowed by the psychopolitics Another black American who remains unbowed by the psychopolitics
of divide and conquer is southeastern Michigan radio commentator Ron Edwards.
In the late eighties, Edwards was the news anchor for WWJ radio.
He recalls being chastised for referring to the Nicaraguan Contras as freedom fighters
during a regular news broadcast.
This was the beginning of a rocky road in the radio markets for the velvet-voiced broadcaster
who wouldn't bend his knee to the major media's political communist news network typecasting
directors.
Moving in and out of various radio markets, Edwards learned that for all their lip-servicing of equality, diversity, and freedom of expression, The not-so-liberal news media holds some frankly racist views of the kind of political ideology black people should be permitted to espouse.
Apparently, any views to the right of Kwesi Mfuni's are strictly verboten.
That means forbidden.
You see, the most oppressive group of people in this country Are the left-wing socialists, ladies and gentlemen, the communists?
If you really want to know the truth, they're the real Nazis.
Nazi means National Socialist German Workers' Party.
How about that?
You didn't know that, did you?
You see, they just throw out Nazi, then they show you a picture of Hitler.
Raving and yelling and screaming.
And then they tell you that Hitler killed all of these people and that Hitler was right-wing.
It's a lie.
It's always been a lie.
And any of you idiots out there who shave your head and call yourselves Nazis, you're not right-wing either.
You don't want freedom.
You're socialists.
That's what it means.
And that's what you're involved in.
And you're stupid.
Haven't got a brain in your head if you want to know the truth.
It is amazing how easy it is to twist people's minds about and just totally screw them up for life with lies that nobody ever bothers to check.
It is, at the same time, hilariously funny And unbelievably tragic, ladies and gentlemen.
We're supposed to be the smartest, most well-educated people in the world.
And yet we've all lost all semblance of even the basest common sense.
Nobody reads anymore, or very few people read anymore.
Ever since the boob tube caught on.
That's the big eye in your living room.
That brainwashes you every day.
If you're into that big eye.
A recent study shows that the average American.
This is the average American, ladies and gentlemen.
The average American watches seven hours of television a day.
Americans don't talk to each other anymore.
They don't talk to their neighbors.
They sit like zombies and absorb the brainwashing crap that flows out of the television set.
If you ever really want to know what's wrong with this country, Just go in your bathroom and look in the mirror.
You'll find the problem staring you right in the face.
That's why I'm the most dangerous radio host in America.
Because I tell you the truth.
You don't like to hear it.
But when you listen to this broadcast, that's all you're ever going to hear.
Don't go away.
I'll be right back, ladies and gentlemen, after this pause.
Thank you.
For their evisceration of the Michigan Chronicle, a black-owned publication which transgressed the racial authority by supporting John Engler for governor.
Remember that Edwards himself is black.
He was promptly informed that his contract would not be renewed.
You really think there's freedom of speech in America, ladies and gentlemen?
There is.
Only if you own your own radio network or radio station.
And that's why we're doing this.
You can, you know.
You can purchase a satellite receiving system, a low power FM transmitter, it's only $129, an antenna, TrueMatch antenna, it's another $36, some patch cords and cable, and you're in business.
Now, now, once you've done that, you have freedom of speech, and that's the only time that you ever have freedom of speech.
It only exists for the owner of the media.
See, all this guy did was call into account the Negro thought police.
Because they attacked the Michigan Chronicle, a black-owned publication who supported John Engler for governor.
And Edwards was promptly informed that his contract would not be renewed.
He said, quote, When I was cut off from WMUZ, it wasn't because I did anything wrong.
It was because when the socialist liberals showed up in great numbers to attack my views I had very little outward support from those who supposedly share my love for freedom.
That's why they called you the silent majority.
You better stop being silent.
You better start screaming from the rooftops.
Your voice had better start being heard.
Edwards laments, quote, The media does not want you to know that there are a number of blacks like myself who have a square root knowledge of what is right with America and what is wrong with America.
They want blacks to only focus on the negatives, even when they say they're being positive."
Thanks to years of subtle Skinnerian operant conditioning, the mere idea of a black man in the pro-Constitution Patriot movement has an air of incongruence to the liberals.
It simply does not compute to these idiots.
In the minds of most uninformed Americans, people like Ron Edwards are the equivalent of political unicorns.
They just do not exist.
But the truth is, they exist all over America.
You see, they throw all this slave nonsense in your face, and all this segregation nonsense in your face, and all of this prejudice nonsense in your face.
Ladies and gentlemen, hundreds of thousands of white Americans died to free the slaves.
Thousands of white Americans existed in the South to form the Underground Railroad to help slaves escape the South to freedom in the North.
It was America who struck down segregation.
It is white Americans all over this country who have battled and fought for the real dream of this country.
Freedom.
You see, you've been lied to for so long, you don't even understand it.
It's amazing.
You see, in reality, Mr. Edwards and so many more not only exist, but in Edwards' case, he is an active contributor to the independent press, writing a column for the Unreported News, a popular bi-weekly news digest from Lansing, Michigan, while his Edwards Notebook radio spots are heard daily on WPON AM 1460 in West Bloomfield, Michigan.
The veteran commentator sums up the broader national situation thusly, quote, I see us all, blacks, whites, whomever, going down in the good ship America with a hole in the bottom because of the government school system.
There has been such a dumbing down that on a talk show once I was accused of aiding and abetting racism because I spoke of lowering taxes.
The same goes for getting rid of government set-asides and the welfare system, because people have been so brainwashed into thinking that it's been a help when it's been a hindrance, the ball and chain that is keeping them from walking freely down the road to success."
End quote.
Edwards is no dummy.
He's an American.
Edwards' strategy for success against the fascio-socialist onslaught A three-pronged approach, properly educating the younger generation, since the philosophy taught today is the one which will guide the nation in the future.
Number two, we must adopt an honest money system and unshackle us from the graduated income tax.
One of the planks of the Communist Manifesto.
The IRS and the Federal Reserve System and its control of the money supply.
Thirdly, we have to make sure that we don't eliminate one more iota of the Second Amendment's protections.
Without that, everything else will fall like dominoes.
We must, by all means, take the United Nations and dropkick it into Europe or some banana republic and eliminate our payments to it.
Finally, The traditional family must make a comeback in this country.
If not, America is finished!
Finished!
Done!
Over with!
Since historically, a nation is only as strong as its families.
End quote.
That, ladies and gentlemen, from a black American.
not an Afro-American, a black American. Recently, joint maneuvers were held in the
southwestern United States involving a combined force of 53,000 United States troops and British
soldiers, sailors and airmen.
The United Kingdom sent 27 ships, 57 aircraft, and more than 15,000 troops in what has been termed the largest British invasion since the War of 1812, when Washington, D.C.
was occupied and burned.
Of course, the Brits come in peace this time, but the maneuvers underscore concerns voiced by me and many other American patriots and militiamen about the gradual occupation of this country by foreign United Nations forces.
As I have revealed in the past, as others have revealed, as Relevance revealed in their article called Creating a Master, We now have a permanent British presence in Fort Lewis, Washington, which accepts the rotation of battalion-strength British forces.
As we revealed, we now have a permanent and expanding German Air Force presence at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico, to add to the preexistent one at Fort Bliss, Texas, that you never even knew about.
We have permanent foreign military bases on American soil for the first time in the history of this country.
But you say, the troops maneuvering on the eastern seaboard are just British.
They're not under the United Nations, right?
Well, technically, it's true.
Still, the maneuver pits the British-American force against a fictional outlaw nation called Corona, which has occupied northern Cartuna, and as USA Today put it, quote, got the United Nations really ticked off, end quote.
That's USA Today, May 9th, 1996.
Notice, ladies and gentlemen, that it's not the United States or Britain that are really ticked off.
It's the United Nations.
As I noted previously, among our military brass, the United Nations is the single overwhelming presence which will increasingly dictate all military actions worldwide.
for further evidence, folks, that this is the United Nations intent.
The previously quoted United Nations publication, Our Global Neighborhood, cites Article 48
of the UN Charter, which states, quote, The action required to carry out the decisions
of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall
be taken by all the members of the United Nations, or by some of them, as the Security
Council shall determine, end quote.
So the armies of any and all nations are at the beck and call of the Security Council
to serve as at its pleasure.
Just in case old Charlie Krauthammer still doesn't get it, the book further stresses
the United Nations' hegemony in the decision-making process.
All right.
Quote, What is essential is that the overall United Nations control be respected, even when a coalition command is set up, and that the Security Council determine whether any specific action should be entrusted So, ladies and gentlemen, even if a coalition command exists, as in Bosnia, the United Nations is still calling the shots.
False reassurances about NATO notwithstanding.
And that concludes our four days with This issue of Relevance Magazine.
It was the issue of May 1996, Volume 2, Number 11, edited by my good friend Phil O'Halloran.
And I'll tell you how to subscribe, if you wish to subscribe.
All you have to do is call this number.
It's 1-800-626-8944.
I get nothing for this.
I'm not selling this magazine.
I'm just telling you because I know that some people will call and want to know.
It's 1-800-626-8944.
1-800-626-8944. The regular subscription is $110.
Once again, 1-800-626-8944.
remember, ladies and gentlemen, as I said years ago, and it's on record, information,
not money, is the power of the nineties.
And I'm going to play a song for you. I'm going to play a song for you. It's called,
I'm going to play a song for you. It's called, I'm going to play a song for you. It's called,
I'm going to play a song for you.
A great deal of credit goes to Mr. Paul Kixman, one of our very best researchers.
And I could probably say, judging by the work that he has done to deliver this information into my hands, probably makes him one of the foremost researchers existing upon the face of this earth.
I have in front of me the documentation that proves, beyond any shadow of doubt, that the situation that we find ourselves in today is the result of a well-thought-out and well-carried-out plan by the three major powers emerging from World War II, and that the United States, England and the Soviet Union were operating in concert to create the Cold War and bring about a new world order.
There is no conjecture.
This is not guesswork.
It is documented.
And for those of you bringing this about who fear that this will get into the hands of the people of the United States of America and of the world, coming out here to get it won't help you.
For as we always do with sensitive documents, we have made 100 copies and placed it into the hands of 100 of our best intelligence operatives around the world.
There is no way that you will stop this information From being carried to the American people and the people of the world.
It is too late for you.
It is what will convict you.
Beginning tonight, I'm going to read every page of this all the way through until it's finished, and it's going to take a long time.
We're in the process of publishing the entire documentation of the treason of almost every single politician who has occupied any office So, folks, make sure you have your pad of paper and your pen or pencil by your side.
You are going to hear information tonight and in the following programs until we have relayed every single piece of this information to the world that is going to leave you gasping for breath.
You will pull down the curtain of denial and you will not want to listen or believe a thing that you're hearing.
And as progressive episodes of the Hour of the Time pass, you will find yourself beginning to realize that we have been betrayed.
That Senator Joseph McCarthy was right Ladies and gentlemen, he just didn't know what to call it.
Don't go away.
I'll be right back.
I'm going to be right back.
Tonight, ladies and gentlemen, part one.
I accuse and I will prove, during this hour, that President Harry Truman, 33rd degree Freemason of the Scottish Rite, Grand Master of the Missouri Lodge of the Southern Jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry is a traitor.
I now accuse all those who we entrusted with the government of the United States of America with treason.
And during the following episodes, I will prove it and document it and give you, the American public and the people of the world, the names and numbers of these documents and of our research.
I here now declare to the United States government and to the world that in view of this evidence I have piled before me, I will no longer support the New World Order.
I will not support the treasonous government of the United States of America, which has subverted the Constitution of the United States of America, as has in fact relegated it to the trash can.
We have the documents to prove that also.
We have the confession of Congress in Congress, in both the House and the Senate, in the Congressional record that the United Nations Charter has superseded the Constitution of the United States of America.
Tonight I read to you verbatim, with nothing edited, nothing left out, and nothing skipped, from a publication entitled Our Foreign Policy.
It is the Department of State Publication 3972.
General Foreign Policy Series 26, released September 1950, Division of Publications, Office of Public Affairs.
The author of this document is Harry Truman.
To my fellow Americans, at a time when the duties of citizenship fall heavily on thousands of young Americans, there is a duty that all of us can and should impose on ourselves.
To be well informed about the problems that face our country, to weigh the facts, to understand the issues, and to form our own opinions and judgments.
This is not an easy undertaking, but it is necessary if we Americans as a people are to exert our full influence for peace and freedom and justice.
The following brief survey of American aims and policies was prepared at my suggestion.
I think it is sometimes useful to sum up and set down as simply and clearly as possible what we are after in our relations with other governments and their peoples.
It is not possible, of course, to tell the whole story of American foreign relations
in these few pages, but if the part of the story that is told here contributes something
to your understanding, if it leads you to other sources of information, and if it helps
you to form sound judgment, then it will have served its purpose.
Our Foreign Policy, Its Roots There is no longer any real distinction between domestic
and foreign affairs.
Actually everything we do, the way we tax and spend our national income, the way we
run our public and private business, the way we settle the differences among ourselves
and with other nations, what we say in our newspapers, over the air and on public platforms,
our attitudes toward each other and toward other peoples, all these things affect not
only our security and well-being at home, but also our influence abroad.
All these things go into the making of the character, the personality, and the reputation of the United States.
Out of all these things grow the foreign policies of the United States.
Policies are an expression of the national interests.
That is the way of saying that our policies reflect what we are and what we want.
During the 175 years since we became a nation, our national interests have changed in some ways, but their general character has remained constant.
Here are some of the values that have persisted all through our history.
We are an independent nation, and we want to keep our independence.
We attach the highest importance to individual freedom, and we mean to keep our freedom.
We are a peaceful people, and we want to get rid of wars and the threat of wars.
We have a comparatively high standard of living.
We want to raise the standard so that everyone in the United States will eventually have a chance to earn a decent and secure living.
We are a friendly people.
We have no traditional enemies, and we want to be on good terms with every other people.
These are the things on which Americans, with all their different points of view, are most likely to agree.
It is the job of the government, as the agent of the people, to promote these national interests.
The federal government, as the agent of the people, continually has hard choices to make.
It is the job of the government, as the agent of all the people, to try to harmonize group and sectional interests on the one hand, with national interests on the other.
There's never been a time in our history when we could go about the business of promoting our national interests free from the threat of destructive forces.
Some of these forces are inside the country.
They stem from groups that oppose the national interests.
Some Americans have a view of life that conflicts with the basic propositions on which our democracy was founded.
Some try to profit at the expense of the freedom or well-being of others.
Some hostile forces have been outside our country.
A great deal more needs to be done.
Succeeding chapters will discuss what has been done and what needs to be done in concrete terms.
The policy of creating situations of strength happens to be the best response to the problem of Soviet expansion, but it is much more than that.
It is part of a broad new policy that grew out of the experience of the American people in the Second World War.
That experience destroyed the last comfortable illusion of geographical security.
It discredited, once and for all, the doctrine of isolationism.
In the light of that experience, Americans made a radical adjustment in their thinking.
They came gradually to realize and to accept the fact that far-off events could affect their safety and well-being.
A crop failure in India, a famine or flood in China, an election in Finland, a murder in Bosnia, all kinds of events and trends, good or bad, might eventually come to roost on the American housetop.
Americans, they knew at last, live and will continue to live in an exposed position.
Having made that radical adjustment in their thinking, the American people began to consider in earnest this problem, how to make their exposed position comfortable and safe for their free society.
To that end, they began to plan and build an international community in which people could live in peace under the protection of law.
The building of such a community is the most ambitious, the most difficult, the most hopeful, and the most exciting enterprise on which the American people have ever embarked.
It is big enough and hard enough to engage all our energies.
If it were not for the threat of aggression, we could concentrate all our energies on that job.
We could say that it was, in fact, the substance of our foreign policy.
But unfortunately, that is not possible.
The Soviet power drive has cut across the course that we and other peace-minded peoples had charted for ourselves as a hurricane cuts across the path of a ship.
It has blown us all miles off our course.
It has been a tragic interruption to our progress, a wasteful diversion of our energies.
Nevertheless, we are plowing ahead, breasting the hurricane as we go, holding on to our main purposes.
What does it mean to build an international community?
It means, first, organizing the members to deal collectively with their problems and to defend themselves collectively against anyone who may threaten the peace and tranquility of the community.
So we took the lead in organizing the United Nations and its various specialized agencies.
It means, second, repairing the damage of war so that members in good standing can play their full part in the life of the community.
To this end, we took the lead in organizing the Marshall Plan and the relief programs which preceded it.
It means, third, bringing the outlaws back into the community as decent working members.
So we undertook the occupation of Germany and Japan and the education of their peoples in the ways of democracy.
It means, fourth, helping the people of the underdeveloped regions of the world to pull their standards of living up to a level that modern science and technology have brought within reach of all people.
So we have embarked on the four-point program of technical cooperation with people who want and can profit by our aid.
It means, fifth, developing a sensible system of trade so that all members of the community can expect that their work will contribute to a healthy and expanding economic life for themselves.
To this end, we have helped to write an international charter of fair trade practices and to create an international trade organization called GATT where the nations can settle their disputes across a conference table.
Through reciprocal trade and tariff agreements, we are gradually opening up the channels of world trade that have been clogged for a generation.
All this is only the bare outline of an international community.
Nobody can predict where the experiment will lead or how long it will take.
It may, in time, lead to the international control of all armament, which is essential.
It may lead, eventually, to a form of world government, which is a possibility that excites the imagination of some adventurous people.
For the immediate future, at least, we must reconcile ourselves to the need to divert a large part of our thought and our resources to the defense of the free world.
We must give our attention to meeting and preventing aggression by creating situations of strength.
As we go about this immediate and urgent job, we find ourselves doing many things that we would have to be doing even if there were no aggressors in the world.
We find ourselves doing many things that contribute to the larger objective of building a community of nations.
That the threat of tyranny is a blessing in disguise.
Far from it.
It is an evil thing, and its evil effects will remain to plague the world long after the threat of Soviet power is passed.
No nation can go through an ordeal of this kind unscathed, but we, at least, can emerge from it self-disciplined and more deeply aware of our national interests in freedom and peace.
In that context, let us consider the method by which we arrive at our foreign policies.
Who makes it?
Many people would like to know how and where foreign policy is made.
Is it made in the White House?
In the State Department?
In the Congress?
In Middletown, Ohio?
Or Iowa?
Or does it, like Topsy, just grow?
The answer to all these questions is yes.
This is not as confusing as it seems.
The Constitution gives the President of the United States full authority for making foreign policies and carrying them out.
As the elected representative of the people, He has the responsibility of translating the will of the people into foreign policy and of promoting the national interest in terms of foreign policies.
The Constitution gives the Senate the job of approving or rejecting treaties and major appointments made by the President.
Both houses of Congress hold the purse strings, which gives them considerable power over foreign policies for which they also are directly responsible to the people.
The Congress may also give the President advice about foreign policies through joint resolutions.
In 1789, President Washington appointed the first Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson,
as his agent and advisor in carrying out foreign policies, and today the Secretary of State
and the Department of State are still the right arm of the President in the conduct
of international relations.
In practice, most of the agencies of the federal government—43 at the last count—are now
concerned in one way or another with foreign relations.
These agencies work together through some 33 joint committees with 142 subcommittees
that study and advise on foreign policy matters.
Secretary Acheson once described the situation in these words, The President lays down what the policy shall be.
In many cases, the Congress lays down what the policy shall be.
The President may propose and the Congress disposes.
But the State Department has the job of foreseeing a problem before it arises.
It gets all the other agencies and the executive branch together to make a proposal.
It gets the President's approval or modification and then takes it up with the Congress through the House and Senate committees.
It moves it forward to some final action in the government.
Therefore, the State Department is a sort of activator in the center of the government.
The State Department, with its 300 missions in 75 countries, is also the eyes and ears of the government.
Reports coming in regularly from the trained observers in these missions help the State Department and other agencies to foresee problems and make plans to meet them.
Where does Middletown, Iowa come into the picture?
Our policies reflect what we are and what we want, but at first glance it might seem almost impossible that a country as large as ours With a population as numerous and as varied as ours, could give a clear-cut, understandable idea of what it is and what it wants.
Most foreigners find it hard to make sense out of what sounds to them like a babble of voices, what looks to them like a scene of headlong confusion in the United States.
As they come to know us, the sound tends to become a voice.
The confusion takes on a certain order.
The American people are better equipped than most other people to form and express their ideas and to arrive at something approximating a national purpose.
That is because our lines of communication are many and strong.
It is also because the atmosphere of the American community, a legacy of the New England town meeting, encourages everyone to have an opinion and to speak his mind freely.
The American people speak their minds daily in a thousand ways.
They communicate directly with their government by letters and telegrams.
They communicate indirectly through the press, the radio, and through the leaders of their churches, clubs, labor unions, and other organizations.
The lines of communication are good, but they could be even better.
In recent years, the government has made a prodigious effort to establish closer relations with the people to develop a two-way traffic of facts and ideas.
Examples of this effort showed up in the preparation of the United Nations and the Marshall Plan.
Here were two major policy decisions in the making of which the people of the government really cooperated with some success.
Both decisions precipitated great national discussions.
Both involved long public hearings before the committees of the Congress to which citizens came and presented their ideas.
Both led to the creation of citizens' committees which studied the problem and reported.
There is no simple prescription for the making of a democratic foreign policy.
Because of the great size and diversity of our country, our policies will always be a blend of many ideas and interests.
The blend will grow richer and stronger as the people and their government become more deeply conscious of their responsibilities toward each other and toward the democratic principles which have made us strong and free.
That's the end of that chapter, folks, and I want to bring a few things to your attention.
I wrote about this in my book and was severely criticized, and everybody is hailing Harry Truman as a hero now.
And you can see... It's important to know and agree on what we are after.
This chapter will explore the needs of American security and take a look at what we are doing to meet them.
We talk about American security, realizing that there is no definition of the word security that would satisfy all nations.
Each people looks out on the world from its own window and therefore calculates the need of its own security from its own point of view.
Like democracy, the word security has been used and misused for many purposes to justify a variety of national policies.
Terrible crimes have been committed in its name.
Hitler annexed Austria and Czechoslovakia and invaded Poland in the name of German security.
Stalin forged a ring of satellite puppets claiming that the Soviet Union needs friendly neighbors to be safe from invasion.
After the experience of two German invasions, France built a Maginot Line and manned it with a large standing army.
Both Hitler and Stalin wanted, in the name of security, to divide the world into two spheres of influence.
Let's draw a line, they said.
On our side of the line, we'll do as we like, and on your side of the line, you can have complete freedom of action.
There are, in fact, some people who still believe that kind of settlement, when Would contribute to American security.
The American idea of security has little or nothing in common with any of these traditional uses of power.
We find it fantastic to think, as Hitler apparently thought, that invasion and conquest can enhance the security of any nation, including the conqueror.
The desire of the Russian people, the victims of Hitler's invasion for friendly neighbors, is not hard to understand.
But the Soviet system of puppet satellites built around a master nation offers little hope of security to anyone, least of all the people who live under that system.
We made a costly escape via Pearl Harbor from our own brand of Maginot Line mentality, the belief that two broad oceans could save us from foreign wars.
Most Americans now know that the modern world offers no complete immunity from accident, disaster, and the mistakes of human beings.
We are aware, also, that security is not the same thing as superior military power or the possession of a super-weapon.
Finally, we have never been interested in the suggestion that a world divided into spheres of influence offers us security.
We find that suggestion impractical, unrealistic, and morally indefensible, and don't go away.
I'll be right back.
It is not an idea that democratic governments and peoples can seriously consider.
Thank you.
The Mayor's suggestion brings home to us the fact that there is a price.
A price.
No decent, freedom-loving people will pay for security or the false promise of it.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, I break here because if you don't understand what's happening here, he's leading you up to a rationalization for the destruction of the sovereignty of the nations of the world, including the United States government, the disarming of our people and our military, and the formation of a one-world government.
So please pay close attention.
I continue.
To understand the American approach to security, we have to consider the problem on two levels.
First, the kind and degree of security we can create now in the kind of world we now inhabit.
And second, the security we must start to build now if we want a safer, more livable world for our children.
As we go along, we will see the relation of every one of our policies to either the short-term or long-term effort to build security.
The short-term problem, in plain and brutal terms, is to survive as a free nation in a pioneer world society.
Our situation today is something like that of the early settler of the West.
In those days, before law and order were established, before families enjoyed the community safeguards that we now take for granted, every settler had to carry arms to protect himself and his family against marauders.
Today, each nation has to arm itself, and the lone nation is often at the mercy of an unscrupulous outlaw.
In self-defense, the orderly and farsighted men among the early settlers joined forces for common protection.
A rough system of law and order developed in which each settler could get on with his job of clearing the land and plowing it, but always with one ear cocked for danger.
So today, the peaceful nations have organized for a degree of security, without giving up their basic individual sovereignty In the present phase of pioneer international society, nations have to live with the danger that an outlaw may precipitate a war by accident or design.
For the past thirty-five years, we Americans have been feeling the effects of that danger in our personal lives.
We have watched international criminals at work.
We have seen peoples pushed around, humiliated, terrorized, undermined, and finally attacked one by one in Europe and Asia.
We have learned some simple rules for survival in a society that permits criminals to defy We learned that there are no longer any foreign wars.
There are no more sidelines for a nation to sit on.
We learned that the only way to avoid being drawn into wars is to prevent war.
We learned further that you cannot prevent war in a pioneer society by agreeing to disarm, since the peaceful nations honor their agreements, and those that are planning aggressions ignore them.
We became convinced that for the present, peaceful nations can best serve themselves and their society by arming well and joining forces for common defense.
These lessons, the product of bitter and costly experience, shaped the new American attitude toward national security.
A conviction that the earth was round set Columbus on his westward adventure.
Our conviction that the peoples of the earth were interdependent sent us on an equally bold adventure.
An adventure in collective security.
We had always been ready to help peaceful nations, but we had never, except in time of war, been willing to team up with them.
Now we are ready and willing to do both, and we are doing both because we know that our national interest demands it.
The Long-Range Problem To transform the pioneer international society of today into an orderly community of free nations, that is our long-range purpose.
The community idea is thousands of years old in the mind of man, but it is just being born in the minds of nations.
To bring an international community into existence may be the work of generations, but we have made a beginning.
Sheer necessity might hurry up the process.
A community has to have both a political and an economic basis.
Even more important, it has to have a moral basis.
Certain fundamental standards of decency and behavior have to be understood and accepted by the majority of its members before you can have a successful community.
The majority must not only uphold those standards, but insist upon their being upheld.
What has been called a consensus of moral judgment is the foundation of law and order and the beginning of real community life.
Five years ago, we helped to create a great testing ground for the community idea, the United Nations.
The United Nations.
The American people took the lead in demanding and creating a United Nations and thereby reversed a traditional attitude.
They had become convinced that all nations were interdependent.
They saw no prospect of future peace and security except through international cooperation.
And I break here, ladies and gentlemen, because everything that Harry Truman is stating in this 1950 State Department document is a total lie.
At the time that he did these things, he was called a traitor, and he is a traitor.
This is treason.
The United States, the American people, did not call for the United Nations.
They did not call for interdependence.
In fact, they were very angry at what Harry Truman did.
It wasn't until the Socialists have recently come into power that Harry Truman has begun to be hailed as a hero.
He's well-versed.
And the socialists double-speak.
He sprinkles throughout this document interdependence, democracy, which is just a code word for socialism, a consensus of moral judgment, standards of decency, double-speak, meaningless promises that have never been and never will be granted to the people of the United States or to the world.
I now continue.
Security was uppermost in the minds of those who wrote the Charter of the United Nations.
To save succeeding generations from the scourge of war was the universal hope of the 51 peoples represented at the San Francisco Conference.
All of them were engaged in a terrible war, and they centered their hopes for peace in the United Nations.
Because the world is not at peace, because the threat of war is still very much with
us, the United Nations is blamed for not doing its job of maintaining the peace and security
of its members.
The five-year record of the United Nations shows that it can discourage aggression, it
can promote peaceful relations, but its power to prevent war and impose peace is still seriously
limited.
And here comes the part, folks, where we're to give up our sovereignty.
I continue.
United Nations has no lawmaking powers.
It has no enforcement powers.
The Charter did not contemplate an international police force, but it did provide that the Security Council should have military forces in the form of national contingents at its disposal.
All United Nations members said the Charter were to contribute contingents by agreement with the Security Council.
Air power was to be ready to go into immediate action against an aggressor on instruction from the Council.
These provisions of the Charter were not carried out because the Soviet Union blocked every attempt To get agreement on the size, composition and location of the forces.
The story of the United Nations' plan for effective control of atomic energy and its rejection by the Soviet bloc will be told in a later section.
Against this background of failure to arm the Security Council and failure to control the most deadly of all weapons, it is not surprising that the United Nations has made no real progress toward regulating other kinds of military weapons and forces known as conventional armaments.
In other words, folks, what you have in your closets.
Continuing, these failures to carry out the provisions of the Charter have handicapped the work of the Security Council and damaged the prestige of the United Nations.
But far more damaging to the United Nations has been the open, repeated violation of the letter and spirit of the Charter by one of its most powerful members, the Soviet Union.
Every nation that signed the Charter promised solemnly to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial Integrity or political independence of any state.
With that pledge ringing in its ears, the United Nations has watched more than 500 million free people lose their political independence through the threat or use of force.
Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, Eastern Germany, and finally Czechoslovakia became puppet police states.
The same Soviet purpose is at work in China.
He fails to tell you, ladies and gentlemen, but the United States was instrumental in allowing the Soviet Union to do those things.
Continuing, the United Nations has helped other nations resist that threat—Iran, Turkey and Greece—and it is witnessing Yugoslavia's struggle to remain alive within the Communist family.
Finally, the United Nations stood by while the Soviet Union shook off its charter obligations and walked out of almost every United Nations meeting because it could not impose its will to seek Communist China.
The United Nations was not built to withstand the attacks of a great power.
In fact, its members knew from the beginning that its peacekeeping machinery could not work successfully unless the great powers made a sincere and responsible effort to cooperate.
Yet the United Nations survived, and in surviving has shown that what power it has lies in the very consensus of moral judgment which is the basis of a community.
It is that mass moral force of world opinion which accounts for every United Nations victory.
The power of world opinion deflected the Soviet threat from Iran in 1946.
It was an important factor in maintaining the independence of Greece.
It played a considerable part in helping Korea, Indonesia, and Israel to establish their national independence.
In all these difficult tests of its strength, the United Nations has been fortified by the full, consistent support of the United States.
It has enjoyed the solid moral backing of American public opinion.
However, American backing has been only one of the plus factors.
On every queer issue, a solid phalanx of public opinion of the whole free world has stood by the United Nations.
The Soviet propaganda engine interprets this as proof that the capitalist world is in league against the communist democracies.
The truth is that the free peoples are against aggression.
They are against the use of threat and terror.
They are against the old power games.
The moral consensus rose to a new level of power with the reaction of the United Nations to the invasion of South Korea in June 1950.
Within 24 hours of the communist attack, the Security Council had called upon the North Koreans to cease hostilities and withdraw their forces.
Within three days, the Security Council had recommended the United Nations members help South Korea repel the attack.
Within two weeks of the Communist attack, forty-seven member nations and twelve non-members
had declared their full support of United Nations action against the aggressor.
In the same period, seven nations came forward with military contingents to make the fighting
force in Korea a United Nations force under a United Nations flag.
Within two months, offers of concrete help had come from thirty nations.
In some cases, these offers represented a hard and courageous choice.
It meant that small nations, living in the shadow of Soviet power, decided to stand up
and be counted for the rule of law.
In the light of all this experience, with all its discouraging and sobering aspects,
the United States continues to put its long-range hopes for a peaceful and secure world order
in the United Nations.
We center our hopes in the United Nations not only because its social and economic bodies are doing valuable pioneer work in international cooperation, not only because its related agencies such as the World Health and the Food and Agricultural Organizations have a tremendous humanitarian job to do, Not only because we are interested in promoting human rights and freedom of information, the United States supports the United Nations for all these reasons and also for practical security reasons.
We realize that our security consists in a combination of many things.
It consists in having superior military and economic power on the side of law and order.
It depends on strong and free allies, and it depends also on the goodwill, the respect, the confidence and the moral support of decent people Everywhere.
We know of no better way of informing world opinion, of arousing and mobilizing it in defense of peace, than through the United Nations.
That is why the United Nations is necessary to our security, just as our support is necessary to its healthy development.
The Problem of the Atom The Charter of the United Nations was signed on June 26, 1945, Hardly six weeks later, something happened that created an urgent need for new patterns of international cooperation, a need that the signers of the Charter did not, and could not, have taken into account.
The atomic bomb exploded on Hiroshima.
The full meaning of that event was not understood at the time, and is still not universally realized.
The bomb was not the first weapon of mass destruction, or the last.
It did not change the basic facts of life in a pioneer international society.
It did not make war either more or less probable, but it made the effects of war more terrible.
Therefore, those who thought deeply and calmly about the meaning of the bomb came to two simple conclusions.
Prevent war and find an effective way to outlaw the bomb and develop atomic energy for peaceful purposes only.
Ever since 1945, American policy has proceeded from these two conclusions.
Actual documents, ladies and gentlemen, indicate That the atomic bomb was used only to make warfare more terrible and then create a cry from the peoples of the world for world government and control.
And that's the real truth of the matter.
Ever since 1945, American policy has proceeded from these two conclusions.
To prevent war was already our major interest and concern.
The use of atomic energy presented us with a new and baffling problem.
Now let's consider the nature of the problem.
The technical details of atomic energy and of the weapons we have developed from its devastating power are very complex indeed, but the principle of the atomic bomb is very simple.
All you have to do to blow a city off the map is to get together enough plutonium, or a rare form of uranium, in one lump.
There is nothing more to it than that, a lump of metal of a certain size.
Anyone can do it if he has a way of getting the stuff, knows how to protect himself against the poisonous radiations, and can delay the explosion until he is ready for it.
The principle of the hydrogen bomb is also simple enough.
Whether it can, in fact, be developed is not yet known.
All you will need is a very high degree of heat, a degree so high that probably only a uranium or plutonium bomb could supply it.
The horror of this situation is that literally anyone with access to the refined materials
could bring about an atomic explosion.
What other course is there but to keep this dangerous stuff away from irresponsible men
and nations?
Within a year after the bomb exploded on Hiroshima, the United States had devised plans and proposals
for doing just that—keeping the dangerous stuff out of irresponsible hands.
The facts are, ladies and gentlemen, that documents prove that the United States furnished
the Soviet Union with the technology to build and detonate their first atomic bomb.
And that is a fact.
He continues, We decided to put domestic control and development of atomic energy under the authority of a civilian commission.
This decision became law on August 1st, 1946, when the President signed the McMahon Bill.
We decided to put the problem of international control of atomic energy squarely up to the United Nations.
Canada, China, France, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union agreed to this plan, and in January 1946, the First General Assembly of the United Nations created a Commission on Atomic Energy with instructions to work out a plan of effective international control.
By June 1946, the United States was ready with preliminary proposals for such a plan.
And Bernard Baruch, the American representative, put them before the Atomic Energy Commission of the United Nations.
The proposals were based on the report of a group appointed by the President early in January to study the problem of atomic control from the point of view of national security and international peace.
The report of this group, known as the Acheson-Lierenthal Committee, came to the following conclusion.
That effective, workable international control was possible.
That international inspection of national atomic activities was not by itself good enough to safeguard the security of individual nations.
That therefore a new kind of international authority had to be created which would itself own all the raw materials and carry on all the dangerous operations in the field of atomic development.
The non-dangerous aspects of development could be in national hands, but these national activities would have to be licensed and inspected by the international authority.
The United States offered to give up its monopoly of atomic weapons and turn over its technical knowledge for an effective international system of this kind.
When such an adequate system of control had been approved and had come into effect step by step, then we proposed the manufacture of atomic bombs would stop.
Existing bombs would be disposed of by agreement, and a worldwide atomic authority would be in possession of all information about the production of atomic energy for both peaceful and military purposes.
These are the main provisions of the United Nations plan which was approved by an overwhelming vote of the General Assembly in 1948.
It is an honest plan aimed at genuine control and promising a high degree of security to all nations.
No other method has yet been found that offers genuine control or security.
This plan has been rejected and fought by the Soviet Union and its satellites.
The Soviet Union stands on its back.
I continue from our earlier broadcast, reading from our Foreign Policy, published by the
Department of State Publication.
It is numbered 3972.
It is the Department of State Publication 3972.
You'll 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're 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 had 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 Cominform 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.
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.
The 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, amid 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 hope of 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 Monetary Fund, and the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration, which began its great work of relief and reconstruction Among the newly liberated peoples even before the war had been won.
The United States, as the only great power physically untouched by war, 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 had 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 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 how to lie 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
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, 44 nations joined in establishing UNRRA, the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration.
UNRRA's 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 communication.
Between 1944 and 1947, the United States financed about 70% of UNRWA's 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 5, 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'll 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 12, 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 America's 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 3, the President approved the Economic Cooperation Act of 1948.
This Act authorized a four-year program of aid to 16 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 rest 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 and 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 could accomplish 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 quoted 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.
And I skipped to page 72.
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 swelt.
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.
We must embark, said Mr. Truman, on a bold new program for making the benefits of our scientific advances and industrial progress available for the improvement and growth of underdeveloped areas.
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 and 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.
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, 50 nations pledged $20 million 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.
And ladies and gentlemen, that does it for tonight.
I hope you've been taking notes.
We will pick up tomorrow night right where we left off and continue right through all of the trees and documents that we have given you years ago.
Years ago, the listening audience of the hour of the time knew about all of this years ago.
Ladies and gentlemen, my heart is broken over what's happened to me and my family, what's happened to this country, what happened to those poor children who were sacrificed for the New World Order so that they could take the guns out of the hands of the American people.
And as I see how easily the vast herds of sheeple are manipulated, please wake up.
Please join the battle.
Join or form a militia.
If you want to keep your freedoms, you're going to have to fight for it.
And that's the truth.
Good night and God bless each and every single one of you.
♪♪♪ ♪♪♪
♪♪♪ Ladies and gentlemen, if you watched Crossfire tonight, you
saw Larry Pratt in action.
He's the head of Gun Owners of America.
If you're a member of the NRA, bail out now.
Join the Gun Owners of America.
Larry Pratt truly fights for the second article in amendment.
and for the rights of all Americans.
The NRA does not.
In fact, if an NRA representative had been the guest on Crossfire tonight, he would have compromised on every issue.
Larry Pratt did not.
He cited the Founding Fathers, he cited the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, and he stuck it right in their face.
God bless you, Larry Pratt, and all true Americans.
God bless you.
I love you.
you Who did it to us?
How is it being done?
Document it and source nowhere else in the world.
Let me hear the last true voice of freedom in the world.
7.1 FM is your community service, non-profit radio station.