January, 2000

Dear Friend of Radio Liberty:

When I was growing up I lived in a far different America from the one we live in today. In those days right was right, wrong was wrong, and God's law was reflected in the laws of our land. In those days men were the sole providers for their families. Women stayed home to raise their children. The major problems in schools were throwing spitballs, running in the halls, and talking in class. In those days we had heros. One of the great heros of that era was the Lone Ranger, a fictional crusader created by the miracle of radio. As a child, the high point of my week was lying in bed listening to the strains of the William Tell Overture, and a voice asking, "Who was that masked man?", followed by the sound of hoofbeats, and the distant cry, "Hi, Ho, Silver - away!"

During the recent riots in Seattle many people raised that same question, but there they asked, "Who were those masked men?"

The Wall Street Journal described the events of the first day of the World Trade Organization (WTO) meeting:

". . . law-enforcement authorities couldn't seem to get it right. They failed to safeguard delegates, who couldn't make their way through the mass of demonstrators to the Paramount Theatre for the opening ceremony . . . . They lodged tear gas and pepper spray at non-violent protesters. They stood by as ski-mask-clad vandals dressed in black smashed store windows." [1]

On December 4, 1999, the People's Weekly World, a communist publication, charged that the masked men were responsible for the vandalism that led to the Seattle riots. Scott Marshall described what happened:

"We don't even know where the guys came from. They were dressed all in black like some kind of crazy ninjas, with their faces covered," one upset young protester named Jill said. "They just gave the police all the excuse they needed to gas us. I saw many of our people trying to stop them from trashing the stores and breaking windows. My girlfriend even knocked one of them down to stop him."

"The provocateurs should not be confused with protestors who used peaceful, civil disobedience to make their points against the destructive and undemocratic practices of the WTO." [2]

Alex Jones, a radio talk-show host from Austin, Texas, told me that Trade Union members captured one of the masked vandals and held him until the police arrived, but the officers refused to arrest him. [3]

Pat Buchanan went to Seattle to monitor the WTO conference. While there, he witnessed the riots. Shortly after the meetings were cancelled he announced that the demonstrations reflected public opposition to the WTO and its policies. [4]

The Spotlight newspaper, an anti-Zionist publication, carried headlines proclaiming, "Americans Win Battle in Seattle," with a sub-headline, "Foiled by Patriot Protests." [5]

On December 6, 1999, The Los Angeles Times reported:

"The regrettable violence and vandalism perpetrated by a handful of those in the streets obscured the real issues the peaceful protesters sought to raise . . . ."

". . . the protesters are astonishingly sophisticated in their understanding of the most important issues facing the world's population. This sophistication has come, almost miraculously, not from academic research or ivory tower contemplation but from street-level experience and democratic discussions across this country." [6]

Was the disruption of the WTO meetings really a victory for the American people as Pat Buchanan, The Spotlight, and The Los Angeles Times claim, or was there another reason for the violent demonstrations?

Who benefited from the violence? The riots didn't just happen by accident; they were carefully planned. Who was responsible for the media event now referred to as "The Battle in Seattle."

Although most people believe that the WTO promotes free trade, nothing could be further from the truth. If governments want free trade, all they have to do is remove their trade barriers and allow products to move from country to country without restriction. The WTO doesn't do that. It establishes an International Tribunal that regulates trade and punishes nations that defy its rules. Instead of promoting free trade, the WTO has created thousands of new laws and rules designed to regulate every aspect of trade and commerce. As Tom DeWeese noted in his January 2000 newsletter:

"The WTO . . . creates the "rules of engagement" for global commerce. It sets up elaborate rules and regulations concerning labor management, environmental policy, international shipping, marketing practices and punishments for those who break the rules. The WTO, combined with the financial power of the World Monetary Fund and the organizing structure of the United Nations, is a major player in the drive for global governance." [7]

To really understand the significance of the violent demonstrations against the WTO, you must first understand the answers to the questions listed below.

(1) Who were the masked men dressed in ninja suits who incited the riots?
(2) What was their intent?
(3) Why didn't the Seattle police arrest them?
(4) When were the Seattle demonstrations planned, and who planned them?
(5) Where did the money come from?

President Thomas Jefferson cautioned us that:

"Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong." [8]

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." [9]

Nowhere are the truths of those warnings more evident than in the current misconception of the cause and result of the recent riots at the WTO meeting.

Most people believe that the WTO was created to promote free trade, and that free trade benefits everyone. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Most People believe that concerned environmental groups and trade unionists went to Seattle to peacefully demonstrate against the WTO. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Most people believe that the demonstrators acted responsibly until the police overreacted, that tear gas victims responded with righteous anger, and that only then did the riots develop. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Most people believe that the conflict ended when the Seattle Police Chief resigned. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Why do most people believe things that aren't true? Because their reality is created by media outlets controlled by a handful of giant corporations, and the men and women who control those corporations have an agenda. To further that agenda, most major media outlets manipulate and distort what the American people see, hear, and read - and ultimately what the American people think.

Let me offer one obvious example. Most people believe that Timothy McVeigh was a "right-wing extremist" because the media tells us that he attended a meeting of the Michigan Militia, owned a copy of The Turner Diaries, took a trip to Waco, and opposed the policies of our government. On the other hand, the media has never told us that Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, attended a meeting of a left-wing group associated with Earth First (an environmental organization that advocates violence), that he picked two of his bombing victims from the pages of a magazine published by Earth First, that he had a copy of Vice President Al Gore's book Earth In The Balance in his cabin when he was arrested, and that he opposed the policies of our government. Why doesn't anyone in the media ever refer to Ted Kaczynski as a "left-wing extremist?" Have you ever heard, read, or seen anyone in the media ever refer to Ted Kaczynski, or anyone else for that matter, as a "left-wing extremist?" How is it possible to have only "right-wing extremists," but never "left-wing extremists?" Could that happen simply by accident, or does the fact that the term "extremist" is applied only to those on the "right" reflect an unseen hand that controls the media, and uses it to mold our reality? [10]

It has been said that:

"What's past is prologue." [11]

and that:

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." [12]

As I watched the demonstrations in Seattle on television, I remembered the violent confrontations I witnessed during the war in Southeast Asia over a quarter of a century ago. In those days we often saw groups of screaming, long-haired protestors confronting helmeted police, clouds of tear gas, struggling demonstrators, and the faces of bleeding police. As I followed the unfolding events in Seattle it was like "deja vu all over again."

The most memorable confrontations of the Viet Nam era took place in Chicago at the National Democrat Party Nominating Convention. Almost a year before that event, J. Edgar Hoover testified before Congress that the communists were planning to disrupt the Democrat National Convention, that his agents had infiltrated their organizations and were monitoring their activities. The riots that followed were almost identical to those we witnessed recently in Seattle. If we hope to understand what happened at the WTO meetings, we must first understand who was behind the riots in Chicago, what was gained from those riots, and why we sent our sons, brothers, and fathers to fight and die in Viet Nam, for "what's past is prologue" to the future. [13]

During the Viet Nam era I read several communist publication regularly. Many months before the National Democrat Convention was to be held, the People's Daily World began urging its readers to go to Chicago to participate in the planned anti-war demonstrations. In those days I mistakenly believed that the communists were responsible for much of what was happening, and that our soldiers had been sent to South Viet Nam to keep the communists from taking over Southeast Asia. Looking back on that era, I shudder as I recall how naive I was. During those years I didn't realize that many of our large tax-exempt foundations were financing domestic communism, [14] and that our Financial Elite were funding the Soviet Union, and thus indirectly financing the North Vietnamese who were killing our men in South Viet Nam. [15] During those days I wasn't aware of Bella Dodd's startling expose` of communism. If you still have a December newsletter, reread the section on Bella Dodd, because it will help you to understand the rest of this story. [16]

In mid-1968, thousands of communists, thousands of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), thousands of Black Panthers, and thousands of members of other anti-war organizations descended on Chicago. The violence that followed was skillfully orchestrated, just as the violence in Seattle was skillfully orchestrated 32 years later. In Chicago, professional organizers with hand-held radios directed waves of demonstrators as they assaulted police lines, just as 32 years later professional organizers with hand-held radios directed the demonstrations in Seattle. [17] In Chicago, the organizers moved their forces from place to place to take advantage of areas of weakness in police lines. Physicians from across America traveled to Chicago to staff a first-aid station where demonstrators were treated for their injuries. The riots brought anarchy to the streets of Chicago. The governor of Illinois was forced to declare a state of emergency, call in the National Guard, and impose a curfew. Exactly the same things happened in Seattle 32 years later. It was like deja vu all over again. [18]

Following the Chicago riots the Justice Department charged seven political activists with responsibility for inciting the violence, a group that came to be known as The Chicago Seven. The major problem was that none of them had been involved in the long-range planning that led to the confrontation, and none of them had provided the funds used to finance the demonstrations. Several of them were convicted and sent to prison. Those on the Left believed that they were held as political prisoners because of their opposition to the Viet Nam War, while most people thought they got just what they deserved. Neither side was right. Looking back on that time, I am now convinced that The Chicago Seven were indicted to conceal the identity of those who were responsible for the violence in 1968, just as today everything possible is being done to conceal the identity of those responsible for the riots in Seattle. [19]

The Chicago riots, and the trial that followed, was used to build public support for the war. Many citizens who had prior doubts about our involvement in Southeast Asia came to believe that the war was somehow justified because angry, repulsive, long-haired protestors were against it. In a similar manner, many people who had no opinion on the WTO before the Seattle riots now support the WTO because of the violent demonstrations against it. Once again, "It's like deja vu all over again." [20]

During the Viet Nam War the SDS had chapters on most college campuses, and had close ties to the communist party. Both groups advocated the violent overthrow of our government. James Simon Kunen attended an SDS strategy meeting, and in his book The Strawberry Statement he wrote about a student who reported on a recent SDS convention.

". . . men from Business International Roundtables . . . tried to buy up a few radicals. Those men are the world's industrialists and they convene to decide how our lives are going to go. They're the left wing of the ruling class. They offered to finance our demonstrations in Chicago. We were also offered ESSO (Rockefeller) money. They want us to make a lot of radical commotion so they can look more in the center as they move more to the left." [21]

Who was behind the Chicago riots? The Financial Elite who covertly control the Council On Foreign Relations, the American extension of the secret society that Cecil John Rhodes founded in 1891. [22] They are behind most of what happens in America. Why would people of great wealth support wanton acts of violence? To mobilize public support for their war in Viet Nam. Have you ever wondered why we sent our sons, brothers, and fathers half-way around the world to fight communism when we had a bastion of communism in Cuba just 90 miles off the Florida Keys at that time? McGeorge Bundy, the chief architect of our Southeast Asia policy, answered that question in an article in Foreign Affairs magazine, January 1967. There he explained that some people thought that we had to choose between pursuing socialism, namely "social progress," in the United States, and continuing the war in South Viet Nam. He responded:

" It is therefore an act of folly for any true liberal to argue that we must choose between Viet Nam and social progress. The truth is the opposite. Americans who believe in the further development of the great new departures in education and health, in the battle for better cities, and most of all in the cause of really equal opportunity - those, in short, who care for social progress - should not strengthen the hands of their opponents by accepting the notion that we must choose between persistence in Viet Nam, and full budgetary support for a strong domestic program of action . . . . Retreat in Viet Nam is not the road forward at home. The real consequence of a pullout in Southeast Asia, for our domestic affairs, would almost surely be heavy reaction." [23]

The war in South Viet Nam was a smoke screen to conceal our drift toward socialism. The Elite realized that once they could get people accustomed to receiving government handouts, they could depend on them voting to continue to receive them. The Elite also knew that throughout history, democratic socialism has always led to tyranny.

As we watched the casualty count rise month after month in South Viet Nam, as we watched flag- draped caskets returned to weeping mothers and wives, the Financial Elite began to implement their plan for:

". . . the further development of the great new departures in education and health, in the battle for better cities, and most of all in the cause of equal opportunity . . .(and) social progress . . . ."

Had we pulled out of Viet Nam, conservatives would have been able to block the "Great Society," but when American soldiers were dying in rice paddies in Southeast Asia, everyone had to rally behind our government. McGeorge Bundy explained the relationship between the war in South Viet Nam, and our move toward socialism, when he wrote:

"The real consequence of a pullout in Southeast Asia . . . would almost surely be heavy reaction" . . . against the socialist programs being implemented."

When I reflect on the power of the Satanic conspiracy we face, I fight off discouragement by praying and remembering some of the inspiring poems of my childhood. One of the most memorable poems dealt with a Christian adventurer who set sail to discover what lay beyond the horizon, and to spread the Gospel to the heathen. He faced unchartered waters, unknown dangers, and the constant threat of mutiny by his crew, yet he continued westward with the belief that with God's help, success lay ahead. Joaquin Miller captured the essence of that great adventure story in his unforgettable poem "Columbus" which is reproduced, in part, below. I pray that we can recapture the spirit that motivated Christopher Columbus, and transmit it to others. Joaquin Miller described the challenge that Columbus faced with these words: [24]

Behind him lay the gray Azores,
Behind the Gates of Hercules;
Before him not the ghost of shores,
Before him only shoreless seas.
The good mate said: "Now must we pray,
For lo! the very stars are gone.
Brave Adm'r'l, speak; what shall I say?"
"Why, say: 'Sail on! sail on! and on!' "

My men grow mutinous day by day;
My men grow ghastly wan and weak."
The stout mate thought of home; a spray
Of salt wave washed his swarthy cheek.
"What shall I say, brave Adm'r'l say,
If we sight naught but seas at dawn?"
"Why you shall say, at break of day:
'Sail on! sail on! and on!' "

They sailed and sailed, as winds might blow,
Until at last the blanched mate said:
"Why, now not even God would know
Should I and all my men fall dead.
These very winds forget their way,
For God from these dread seas is gone.
Now speak, brave Adm'r'l; speak and say"
He said: "Sail on! sail on!, and on!"

Next month I will conclude my story of the Seattle riots and Joaquin Miller's poem. Such poetry once inspired men to acts of heroism, and our job is to rekindle that spirit. We must continue our efforts to reach people with the truth, for if we fail, we assure the destruction of Western civilization. Though sometimes we despair, with God's help we will continue on, and on, and on.

Thank you for your support.

Yours in Christ,

Stanley Monteith, M.D.


1. Rachel Zimmerman, "Police Stumble Despite Months of Preparation," Wall Street Journal, December 2, 1999, p. A8.
2. Scott Marshall, "50,000 March in Seattle Protest," People's Weekly World, December, 4, 1999, p. 4.
3. Alex Jones, Radio Liberty 2-hour Interview on December 21. Available by calling 800-544-8927.
4. Pat Buchanan's remarks heard on radio.
5. James Harrer, "Americans Win Battle in Seattle," The Spotlight, December 20, 1999, p. p. 1.
6. Gary Chapman, Los Angeles Times, December 6, 1999. Quoted in The Spotlight, December 20, 1999, p. 12.
7. Tom DeWeese, The DeWeese Report, Volume 6, Issue 1, January 2000, p. 1. Available by calling 703-925-0881.
8. John Bartlett, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, Little, Brown and Co, Boston, 1980, p. 387.
9. ibid, p. 3897
10. Barry Clausen, Radio Liberty interview, January 13, 1999. Call 800-544-8927.
11. William Shakespeare, "The Tempest," Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, op cit, p. 247.
12. George Santayana, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, op cit, p. 703.
13. I read a copy of J. Edgar Hoover's testimony before Congress many months before the Chicago demonstrations. During the demonstrations I couldn't understand why no one mentioned the part that the communists had played in organizing the riots.
14. Rene Wormser, Foundations: Their Power and Influence, Devin-Adair Company, New York, 1958. Available from Radio Liberty, call 800-544-8927.
15. Antony Sutton, National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union, Arlington House, New Rochelle, NY, 1974. See also: Antony Sutton, The Best Enemy Money Can Buy, and the video The Best Enemies Money Can Buy, both available from Radio Liberty at 800-544-8927.
16. Robert Goldsborough, Radio Liberty interview, December 28, 1999, available from 800-544-8927.
17. For verification of the fact that organizers in Seattle had hand-held radios, I have a copy of the Channel 7 TV footage shot during the riots. It is available to researchers.
18. ibid, see also the Barry Clausen interview, and The DeWeese Report, op cit.
19. Other than The DeWeese Report and my interview with Barry Clausen, almost all of the publications on the Right and the Left have avoided addressing who financed the Seattle riots.
20. Interview with Barry Clausen, op cit.
21. Janes Kunen, The Strawberry Statement, Random House, quoted by Dr. Dennis Cuddy in Secret Records Revealed: The Men, the Money and the Myths Behind the New World Order, Hearthstone Press, 1999, Oklahoma City, OK, p. 111. Available from Radio Liberty.
22. Carroll Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment, Books in Focus, 1981, New York, pp.34-38.
23. McGeorge Bundy, "The End of Either/Or," Foreign Affairs, January, 1967, pp. 220-21.
24. Cincinnatus Hiner Miller aka Joaquin Miller, "Columbus," One Hundred and One Famous Poems, Reilly & Lee, 1958, p. 38.

Return to Radio Liberty home page