June, 1999

Dear Friend of Radio Liberty:

"The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in history." The New York Times: August 10, 1973 [1]

"One of those bomber pilots, wounded unto death, the stump of an arm dangling by his side, gasped at me through the bubbles of blood he spat out 'General, which side are Washington and the United Nations on?' It seared my very soul." General Douglas MacArthur [2]

Today we risk the loss of our freedom because most Americans are poorly informed and do not understand what is really going on in the world. That is nothing new. Since the dawn of civilization, tyrants have used contrived incidents and foreign wars to their advantage. The only difference between then and now is the ease with which the masses can be controlled using the electronic and print media. In Ecclesiastes 1:9, King Solomon warned us that "There is nothing new under the sun," and Thomas Jefferson cautioned us:

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." [3]

"Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong." [4]

Each of us must strive to convince the public that most major media outlets are controlled by a small group of fabulously wealthy men who are intent upon using the power of the United States to force other nations to accept the rule of the United Nations, the government of the coming Antichrist. Those men work largely through the Council on Foreign Relations, the Eastern Establishment, and the Military Industrial Complex. One has only to watch the evening TV news channels to realize that all the commentators focus attention on specific issues while largely ignoring other stories.

Control of the American media by the wealthy Elite is nothing new. In February 1917, Congressman Callaway inserted the following statement in the Congressional Record in an effort to expose the control of our newspapers by J.P. Morgan and his associates. Their intent was to use the print media to disseminate propaganda aimed at forcing the United States into the First World War.

"In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests ... got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press of the United States. These 12 men worked the problem out by selecting 179 newspapers, and then began, by an elimination process, to retain only those necessary for the purpose of controlling the general policy of the daily press throughout the country. They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers. The 25 papers were agreed upon; emissaries were sent to purchase the policy ... of these papers; ... an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information.... This contract is in existence at the present time, and it accounts for the news columns of the daily press of the country being filled with all sorts of preparedness arguments and misrepresentations...." [5]

By the end of World War II, the Rockefellers, and their front organization the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), rivaled the power of J.P. Morgan interests in controlling the major media and publishing outlets in the United States. Charles Austin Beard was America's leading historian during the first half of the twentieth century. Writing in the Saturday Evening Post on October 4, 1947, he warned:

"The Rockefeller Foundation and the Council on Foreign Relations ... intend to prevent ... a repetition of what they call ... "the debunking journalistic campaign following World War I." Translated into precise English, this means that the Foundation and the Council do not want journalists or any other persons to examine too closely and criticize too freely the official propaganda and official statements relative to our basic aims and activities during World War II." [6]

Even in 1947 it was apparent that the Rockefellers and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) had the power to censor the news. It is not simply by chance that since 1953 all but one American Secretary of State, all but one Deputy Secretary of State, all but one Director of the CIA, and every Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board have come from the Rockefeller-controlled Council on Foreign Relations. Indeed 6 of our last 9 Presidents have been CFR members. [7]

In an article published in the Washington Post on October 30, 1993, page A21, entitled Ruling Class Journalists, Richard Harwood revealed that CFR members are:

"... the nearest thing we have to a ruling establishment in the United States.... This is not a retinue of people who "look like America"... but they very definitely look like the people who, for more than half a century, have managed our international affairs and our military-industrial complex.... What is distinctively modern abut the Council these days is the considerable involvement of journalists and other media figures who account for more that 10 percent of the membership."

Richard Harwood then pointed out that most prominent media personalities are members of the CFR and work together to formulate American foreign policy:

"They do not merely analyze and interpret foreign policy - they help make it."

Then quoting from an article in Media Studies Journal he added:

"By focusing on particular crises around the world ... the media are in a better position to pressure government to act." [8]

Let me give you an example of how our attention is currently being focused on a contrived threat. Recently major media outlets have been whipping up concern over the startling revelations of the Cox Committee which reveal that Chinese Communists have:

"stolen design elements of 'every currently deployed thermonuclear warhead' in the U.S. ballistic missile arsenal." [9]

We are told that the Chinese have built and tested the neutron bomb, a weapon designed to kill large concentrations of people, and that most of our satellite and ballistic missile secrets have been stolen which means that the Chinese can now target our cities with their nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles. Then we learn that our most secret technology has been transferred to the Chinese over the last 30 years spanning both Republican and Democrat Administrations. How could that have happened? It doesn't make sense ... unless possibly our reality is being manipulated by those who control the mass media. As I watch the growing concern over transfer of sophisticated military technology to the Chinese, I recall a book I read almost forty years ago entitled From Major Jordan's Diary which told how we had transferred the plans for the atom bomb to the Soviet Union during President Roosevelt's Administration, long before the Rosenbergs stole them. Then I remember how Henry Kissinger, Nelson Rockefeller's protege`, sent the Soviets the technology needed to MIRV their missiles, and it seems like deja`vu all over again. Could it be that our view of the world is once again being manipulated by those who control America's major media outlets? Is there really a threat from Communist China, or is our attention being diverted away from other far more important issues? [10]

To understand the present, you must first understand the past. Let's examine how Chairman Mao and his ruthless henchmen were able to seize control in China. On January 30, 1949, Congressman John Fitzgerald Kennedy delivered a speech in which he discussed the part that our State Department had played in transferring control of China to the Communists:

"Our relationship with China since the end of the Second World War has been a tragic one, and it is of the utmost importance that we search out and spotlight those who must bear the responsibility for our present predicament. It was clearly enunciated on November 26, 1941, that the independence of China and the stability of the National Government was the fundamental object of our Far Eastern policy.... During the postwar period began the great split in the minds of our diplomats over whether to support the Government of Chiang Kai-shek or force Chiang Kai-shek as the price of our assistance to bring Chinese Communists into his government to form a coalition. Our policy in China has reaped the whirlwind. The continued insistence that aid would not be forthcoming unless a coalition government was formed was a crippling blow to the National Government. So concerned were our diplomats and their advisors ... with the imperfections of the diplomatic system in China after twenty years of war, and the tales of corruption in higher places, that they lost sight of our tremendous stake in a non-Communist China. This is the tragic story of China whose freedom we once fought to preserve. What our young men had saved, our diplomats and our President have frittered away." [11]

Why did China go Communist? Because our CFR-controlled State Department insisted that General Chiang Kai-shek form a coalition government with the Communists and bring them into his army. When he refused, our State Department placed an arms embargo on the Nationalist Government which prevented them from obtaining weapons previously purchased, and blocking the shipment of weapons authorized by our Congress; without military supplies, Chiang Kai-shek's army was soon defeated, and the Communists took control of China. The Senate Judiciary Committee documented what happened.

"When the Chinese government did not effect coalition, by the summer of 1946 United States military assistance to China was brought to an end. Not only did the United States stop sending military supplies to the Chinese Government; the shipment of war materials actually purchased by the Chinese also was halted.... The Chinese ... had purchased surplus equipment that remained on Okinawa and other Pacific Islands. Even the shipment of this was banned.... A complete embargo took effect in the summer of 1946. It was maintained at least until May 1947. General Chennault testified that the first shipment arrived in Shanghai in December 1948 ...(and) did not arrive in time to aid the Chinese Nationalists in the field. Admiral Cooke ... testified that the Chinese had a number of divisions equipped with American arms. When the flow of American ammunition was stopped, these divisions lost their fire power and were defeated. Even after the Eightieth Congress appropriated $125,000,000 for aid to the Chinese, shipments were delayed and when the guns finally reached the Chinese general in north China they were without bolts and therefore useless." [12]

American State Department officials could not have delayed the shipment of weapons and sent rifles without bolts in them to Chiang Kai-shek unintentionally. After reading the Senate Judiciary Report it becomes obvious that government officials intentionally brought Communism to China. Why?

In his book Tragedy and Hope:A History of The World In Our Time, Professor Carroll Quigley, President Clinton's mentor, discussed the events that led up to the fall of China. After initially deriding members of the "Radical Right" who believed that China was betrayed to the Communists by subversive agents working at the highest levels of our government, Professor Quigley conceded that:

"This myth, like all fables, does in fact have a modicum of truth. There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960's, to examine its papers and secret records.".... "The two ends of this English-speaking axis have sometimes been called ... the English and American Establishments. There is, however, a considerable degree of truth behind the joke, a truth which reflects a very real power structure. It is this power structure which the Radical Right in the United States has been attacking for years in the belief that they are attacking the Communists." [13]

Few people realize that the leaders of the Council on Foreign Relations have always worked closely with Communist leaders, and that the apparent conflict between our two systems has been contrived in order to create the impression that we face an external threat, whereas in truth none exists. Why have they created that perception? Because without an external threat the American people would never have accepted current levels of taxation, and the Elite needed our money to finance their plan to enslave the world.

The artificial nature of the "struggle" between Communism and Capitalism can be readily seen in the handling of the war in Korea. In his book Reminiscences, General MacArthur revealed that American officials had encouraged the Red Chinese to attack our forces in North Korea by stationing the Seventh Fleet in the Formosan straits to protect the Communists from attack by Chiang Kai-shek's army on Formosa.

"...the order from Washington issued to the Seventh Fleet in June, to neutralize Formosa, which in effect protected the Red China mainland from attack by Chiang Kai-shek's force of half a million men. This released the two great Red Chinese armies assigned to the coastal defense of central China and made them available for transfer elsewhere. They were reported to be moving north toward Manchuria. It was undoubtedly this concept of sanctuary which tipped the scales in Red China's future decisions." [14]
Would the Communists have dared move their coastal armies into Manchuria without a firm assurance that the American Seventh Fleet would continue protecting their coastline? Obviously not! In addition, they must have been certain that the next American President would continue President Truman's no-win Korean policy. How could they have known? Because all American Presidential candidates are selected by the leaders of the Council on Foreign Relations and their associates.

General Lin Piao commanded the Communist armies that attacked our forces in North Korea; according to General MacArthur, Lin Piao had access to information that was withheld from him.

In his book Reminiscences, General MacArthur reproduced a memorandum written by General Lin Piao which explained his decision to attack North Korea:

"I would never have made the attack and risked my men and military reputation if I had not been assured that Washington would restrain General MacArthur from taking adequate retaliatory measures against my lines of supply and communication." [15]

Who told General Lin Piao that "Washington would restrain General MacArthur from taking adequate retaliatory measures"? How could General Lin Piao have been certain that American foreign policy would not change with the election of a new President in 1952? Gen. Lin Pao obviously had powerful friends at the highest levels of our government. Who were they? The same people who control our foreign and domestic policies today, members of the Rockefeller-dominated Council on Foreign Relations.

General MacArthur described the suicide missions that American pilots were ordered to fly to attempt to destroy the bridges that spanned the Yalu River over which the Communists were transporting their men and supplies:

"I asked (General-ed) Stratemeyer to study the conditions under which the bombing of the Yalu bridges was to be permitted. He reported: 'It cannot be done - Washington must have known it cannot be done.' " [16]

General MacArthur then told of his visit to a military hospital where he encountered a young American who had been sent to bomb the bridges that crossed the Yalu river:

"One of those bomber pilots, wounded unto death, the stump of an arm dangling by his side, gasped at me through the bubbles of blood he spat out, 'General, which side are Washington and the United Nations on?' It seared my very soul." [17]

Vietnam was another military exercise where our men were sent to fight - and suffer - and bleed - and die - but not allowed to win. During that war the United States and its Allies extended over $40 billion in loans to the Soviet Union, the major source of the military supplies that were used by the North Vietnamese to kill our men. In truth, we financed the best enemy that money could buy. [18]

American banks and corporations have invested billions of dollars in both Russia and China which has allowed those nations to build up their military forces which in turn has been used to justify the continued financing of our military and intelligence-gathering organizations. The only problem is that our intelligence agencies are spending far more time compiling data on American citizens than on monitoring our enemies. Recently it was revealed that the National Security Agency (NSA) is working closely with the Chinese Communists, monitoring the Chinese people so that there can be no resistance to the continuation of the tyrannical Red regime. [19]

On August 10, 1973, two decades after Chairman Mao had completed the murder of 80 million of his fellow countrymen, David Rockefeller, the long-time Director of the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote an article for the New York Times based on his recent visit to China:

"One is impressed immediately by the sense of national harmony.... There is a very real and pervasive dedication to Chairman Mao and Maoist principles. Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community purpose. General social and economic progress is no less impressive.... The enormous social advances of China have benefitted greatly from the singleness of ideology and purpose. ... The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in history." [20] (emphasis added)

How could anyone justify bringing Communism to China as "a social experiment." How can we explain such indifference to human suffering? Because we are dealing with men who are inherently evil, who have given their allegiance to the Prince of Darkness rather than to the God of the Universe. That is the very essence of our struggle. The Rockefellers, J. P. Morgan interests, and the leaders of the CFR represent the spiritual wickedness in high places we are warned about in Ephesians 6:11-12. As Solomon said, "There is nothing new under the sun." We fight the same forces today; only the names have changed. Our job is to expose the evil that these men represent. If we can bring enough light into the darkness, people will be able to see and recognize the enemy and prepare themselves. In both Ezekiel 3 and 33, we are called to sound the alarm and to warn others. After we have done our best, we must rely upon God for our hope, our protection, and our redemption - remembering always that the battle belongs to the Lord.

What can you do to help? You can make dozens of copies of this newsletter and distribute them to everyone you know; you can encourage others to listen to and support our ministry, and if possible increase your contribution to Radio Liberty. I would like to continue broadcasting in Northern California, but KFAX is not yet providing sufficient support to pay for air time. Even more important, I ask you to pray for the provision and protection of those who labor together at Radio Liberty.

"The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light." Romans 13:12 (KJV)

Thank you for your continuing support for Radio Liberty.

Yours in Christ,

Stanley Monteith, M.D.



REFERENCES 1. Dr. Dennis Cuddy, Secret Records Revealed, Hearthstone Publishing, Ltd., 1999, pp. 117-118.
2. Gen. Douglas MacArthur, Reminiscences, McGraw Hill, 1964, p.369.
3. John Bartlett, Familiar Quotations, Little Brown, 1980, p. 389
4. ibid, p. 387
5. Congressional Record, Sixty Fourth Congress, p. 2947: copies are available from Radio Liberty.
6. Saturday Evening Post, October 4, 1947, p. 172. See also, Harry Elmer Barnes, Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, Caxton Press, 1953, p. 11.
7. The New American, Conspiracy Issue, central pages.
8. Copies of this article are available from Radio Liberty
9. Time magazine, June 7, 1999, p. 46.
10. ibid pp. 47-49. Also, The Best Enemies Money Can Buy, video, available from Radio Liberty
11. Reminiscences, op cit, p. 321
12. Institute of Pacific Relations, Report of the Committee of the Judiciary, 82nd Congress, S. Res 399, page 205.
13. Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World In Our Time, Macmillan Co, 1966, pp. 950 and 956.
14. Reminiscences: op cit, p. 359
15. ibid, p. 375
16. ibid, p. 369.
17. ibid
18. Antony Sutton, National Suicide, Arlington House, New Rochelle, NY, 1974, See also my video with Antony Sutton, The Best Enemies Money Can Buy.
19. The Farah News Hour, American Freedom Network, June 4, 1999.
20. Dr. Dennis Cuddy, op cit, pp.117-118