Barack Obama: Administrator. A History of Today.

American conservatives are extremely concerned about the recent turn of events in this country. During the few months Barack Obama has been in the White House, our new dictator — the power to sign executive orders, that is diktats, have turned American presidents into dictators — has launched an aggressive program to get control over private corporations that is equivalent to a nationalization. If fascism is by definition the corporations controlling the state, and communism is the state controlling the corporations, it is evident that he is turning this country into a communist dictatorship
.
But American liberals are no less concerned about the turn of events. Not only Obama's foreign policy seems to be a seamless continuation of Bush's fascist one, but he has surrounded himself with a coterie of agents of the most reactionary segment of the American oligarchy: Wall Street bankers and members of the Council on Foreign Relations. No wonder most of the warmongering neocons (I call them neocommies, because they are actually communists of the Trotskyite faction) are very pleased with him.

Consequently, most people on both sides of the political spectrum are confused. In just a few weeks is has become evident that teleprompter-reading Obama, like Bush, is a puppet. But, of whom? Of the left or of the right? Is his masters' goal to changing America into a communist totalitarian dictatorship or into fascist totalitarian dictatorship?

Well, probably both.

Most of the confusion arises from the wrong idea most people have about fascism and communism. The most prevalent one is that, placing democracy at the center of the political spectrum, visualized as a long horizontal line, we have democracy at the center, communism at the extreme left and fascism at the extreme right. That explains why most people see fascism as an ideology of the right and communism as an ideology of the left. But both visions are wrong.

In reality, the political spectrum is more closer to a circle than a line and, if we visualize it that way, we will see that both extremes, communism and fascism, are very close to each other. The reason for this is because both of them are actually different form of socialism.

Benito Mussolini, the Italian Fascist dictator, always saw himself as a man of the left, working to defend the working class and opposed to capitalism and free markets. The same applies to Juan Domingo Peron, the Argentinean fascist dictator. Even the Nazis saw themselves as leftists. Don't forget that the Nazi party was an offshoot of the German Workers Party, a leftist organization. (For an exhaustive analysis proving that fascism has always been a political movement of the left, see Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning.)

Some Nazi leaders were aware of the similarities between Fascism and Communism, and used them on their behalf. In his speech “Heil Moskau!” of 21 November 1927, (Der Angriff. Aufsatze aus der Kampfzeit, Munich: Zentralverlag der NSDAP., 1935), pp. 236-238), Joseph Goebbels urged Germans to leave the Communist Party and join the Nazis. The Nazi Propaganda Minister and psy-op guru knew very well that is was not difficult to turn a Communist into a Fascist. As he predicted, many Communists left their party and joined the Nazis.

On the other hand, contrary to the most extended belief, Communism is actually the creation of the most reactionary right — a false flag operation concocted by the international bankers and oil magnates to better exploit the workers.

Moses Mordecai Marx Levy, a.k.a. Karl Marx, published his Communist Manifesto in 1848. But the Manifesto borrowed so heavily from Clinton Roosevelt's book, The Science of Government Founded on Natural Law, published in 1841, which he found at the Reading Room of the British Museum, that it was close to a plagiarism — author Emanuel M. Josephson even called Roosevelt's book “Roosevelt's Communist Manifesto”.

Both Roosevelt's Science and Marx's Manifesto agree on the prerequisites for the implementation of the new communist society:

1. Abolition of private property
2. Heavy progressive income tax
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance
4. Confiscation of property of all emigrants and rebels
5. Creation of a Central Bank
6. Government control of Communications & Transportation
7. Government ownership of factories and agriculture
8. Government control of labor
9. Corporate farms, regional planning
10. Government control of education
11. Abolition of religion
12. Abolition of the family as basic social unit

Marx's Communist Manifesto had been commissioned by the Communist League in London. The League, formerly known as the League of the Just (or the League of Just Men), was an offshoot of the Parisian Outlaws League (which evolved from the Jacobin movement). The League was made up of rich and powerful men from different countries that had conspired to create much of the turmoil that engulfed Europe in 1848 — very similar to the turmoil we have experiencing these days.

It seems, however, that it was not by chance that Marx found Roosevelt's book. In 1849, both Clinton Roosevelt and Horace Greeley, owner of the New York Tribune, the country's first national newspaper, provided funds for the Communist League in London to pay for the publication of Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto. Moreover, Greeley put Marx on his newspapers' payroll. (Some people believe that both Clinton Roosevelt's Science and Karl Marx's Manifesto were plagiarizes of yet an earlier eighteenth century collection of writings by Adam Weishaupt, and that Roosevelt simply picked up the torch and passed it on to Marx, but that's another story.)

The fact that Communism is actually the creation of international bankers explains why the Rockefellers have always been in love with Castro and every other communist and fascist dictator in the world, as well as why Obama is pushing America in the way of communo-fascism with the support of Wall Street bankers.

But only brainwashed Americans who still see the present situation as a political battle between conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats have a reason to be surprised, because there is nothing to be surprised about. Obama is just the logical conclusion of a process that began a long time ago, in the early 1900s, whose goal was turning the American Republic, and eventually the world, into a communo-fascist totalitarian dictatorship under the control of a few international bankers — a totalitarian dictatorship very similar to the one Fidel Castro has successfully tested in Cuba for over half a century on behalf of the Wall Street conspirators. This new global dictatorship is what the conspirators call the New World Order.

If some Americans are concerned because Obama is going the communist way, it is because they have been brainwashed in the public schools to believe they live in a Democracy under a capitalist economic system. The reality, however, is quite different. Actually, the United States of America has been a communist country since 1913, when “Colonel” Edward Mandell House instructed his puppet Woodrow Wilson to create the Federal Reserve System and the Internal Revenue System (originally named the Bureau of Internal Revenue), ideas taken from Marx's Manifesto.

Edward Mandell House was an enigmatic character and a secret agent of the Wall Street bankers and oil magnates. In 1911 he wrote a book, Philip Dru: Administrator. A Story of Tomorrow, which was published under a pseudonym in 1912. The book was actually a political manifesto thinly disguised as a novel.

In House's book, Dru, his fictitious hero, masterminds a rebellion to seize control of the government and makes himself a dictator — though he calls his position “administrator”. Once in power, he abolishes protective tariffs, sets up a system for social security, imposes a graduated income tax, and develops a banking system that presages the Federal Reserve. Finally, he unites the Great Powers of the world in a league for collective security similar to the League of Nations and the UN.

Dru's goal was the implementation of “Socialism as dreamed by Karl Marx,” but with a “spiritual element” — very similar to what in recent times has been called “communism with a human face” and also “friendly fascism”.

Is Barack Obama a modern Philip Dru? Everything indicates that he is, and it seems that I am not the only one who suspects it.

In an address to the United States Senate, Washington DC in three parts, June 29, June 30 and July 1, 1992, “On the Threshold of the New World Order: The Wilsonian Vision and American Foreign Policy in the 1990's and Beyond,” then Senator Joseph R. Biden said,

When the peace conference convened at Versailles in 1919, Woodrow Wilson presented, to a world desperately eager to hear it, America's second vision of a new order. The first American vision–the Founders' vision–had concerned the establishment of a just new order within nations through institutions of democracy. The second American vision — Wilson's vision — concerned the establishment of a just new order among nations through institutions of cooperation.
. . .
Modern-day conservatives who are instinctively frightened by the Wilsonian vision have propounded a mythical image of Woodrow Wilson as a dangerously naive idealist. Idealist he was. But there was no naivete in the Wilsonian vision. As history soon proved the danger lay in a failure to implement what Wilson proposed.
. . .
How is it, then, that the United States failed so conspicuously and so fatefully to join the League of Nations that Woodrow Wilson himself had designed and advanced as the ultimate protection against future cynicism and future cataclysm?
. . .
With that turn of history, the League of Nations was doomed and a new world was born, but not a new world order.
. . .
Now, as the century nears it close, the near-universal repudiation of the totalitarian idea has removed the last great obstacle to the Wilsonian vision.

What Mr. Biden does not mention, however, was that Wilson had no ideas of his own. All of them had been implanted in his brain by his controller, Col. House. Wilson himself admitted it when he said, “Mr. House is my second personality. He is my independent self. His thoughts and mine are one.” (President Woodrow Wilson quoted by Charles Seymour, The Intimate Papers of Colonel House, Houghton Mifflin, vol. I, pp. 114-115.)

In his book The Strangest Friendship in History: Woodrow Wilson and Colonel House, author George Sylvester Viereck added,

For seven long years, Colonel House was Woodrow Wilson's other self. For six long years he shared with him everything but the title of Chief Magistracy of the Republic. For six years, two rooms were at his disposal in the north wing of the White House. It was House who made the slate for the Cabinet, formulated the first policies of the Administration, and practically directed the foreign affairs of the United States.

House's role as the president's controller worked so well that the CFR conspirators officialized it with the creation of the National Security Council in 1947. Since then, every time an American president had to make a decision, there were several NSC advisors telling him what to do.

Some people on the left see globalization as an attempt to extend corporate monopoly control over the entire globe, over every national economy, over every local economy, over every life. But that's not the whole truth. Actually globalization is just a tool for the implementation on a global scale of a process of destruction of industrial civilization, resulting in a sort of neo-feudalism, with only two social classes: The hyper rich and the hyper poor.

Strangely, this world without sovereign nations, where the hyper poor are forced to live just above subsistence (sustainable) levels, is not too different from the aberration Fidel Castro has implemented in Cuba. Paradoxically, most “progressive” Americans are known for their admiration of Castro's policies, which are nothing but a testing ground for the Capitalist conspiracy they claim to oppose.

Some liberals see Imperialism as an expansionist form of Capitalism, though they usually make the distinction that they are not talking about mom and pop stores competing among each other, but about the big financial institutions and the transnational corporations. Like Lenin, they see Imperialism as a superior phase of capitalism. According to them, you cannot talk about Imperialism without talking about Capitalism.

But they are dead wrong.

Actually, contrary to these beliefs, you can talk about Imperialism without talking about Capitalism, because actually Imperialism, the product of monopolistic Capitalism, is not Capitalism at all, but another form of Socialism — a system that liberal progressives love so much. In fact, most of the evils attributed to Capitalism are not of its own, but the result of socialist, anticapitalist features surreptitiously infiltrated inside Capitalism by the monopolist globalists.

Once one discovers that the person who said, “Competition is a sin,” was not Karl Marx or Vladimir I. Lenin, but John D. Rockefeller, it becomes evident that monopolistic capitalism is nothing but Socialism in disguise. And you don't have to believe my words. A long time ago, somebody expressed it with a keen sense of humor,

 
A 1911 St. Louis Post-Dispatch with a cartoon by Robert Minor

On a speech on July 2, 2008 at Colorado Springs, Obama apparently bypassed his teleprompter and spoke his mind:

We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded.

In his campaign document entitled “The Blueprint for Change: Barack Obama's Plan For America,” “Service”, the section expanding the idea of a civilian national security force runs a close second to “Education” in complexity.

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to realize that “a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the US military, will also be as well armed as the US military. Therefore, the only reason for creating such paramilitary force would be to militarily oppose the US military in case it refuses to obey Obama's orders.

It is interesting to remember that Hitler used the SA as a paramilitary force to consolidate his power in Germany. Once he felt secure, he created the SS to get rid of the SA. In the same fashion, Castro, an admirer of Hitler, used his Rebel Army to overthrow Batista and then created the Popular Militia (similar to Obama's idea), to get rid of most of the Rebel Army, who was becoming edgy with his thrust to totalitarianism.

Some people on the left of the political spectrum, particularly the ones who see all the bad things happening in America as the result of a conspiracy of the Republicans and the Right — which they equate with evil — were rightly calling the attention to the growing parallel between George W. Bush and the Nazi leader. Doctored photos of president Bush dressed in Nazi military dress, and sporting a Hitler-like moustache, were proliferating on the Web.

By the way, they were not too far off the truth. The parallel between the two characters seemed to grow by the day, particularly in the last days of the Bush regime.

But, as I mentioned above, fascism is not a phenomenon of the right, but of the left. Further proof of it is that Obama's civilian national security force is too close for comfort to the SA troops that helped Hitler come to power in Germany.

History repeats itself.

But, because history has this tendency to repeat itself, and aware of some of the personal qualities of the new Puppet-in-Chief, I would not be surprised if, like Hitler, once he gets full power with the support of his well-armed civilian national security force, Obama becomes another Frankenstein monster and turns himself against his masters.

Let's wait and see.

As the Chinese proverb says, “May you live in interesting times.”

———————

Servando Gonzalez is a Cuban-born American writer. He received his training as a historian at the University of Havana, and has written books, essays, articles, and multimedia on Cuban and Latin American history, intelligence and espionage, semiotics and political satire.

Servando is the author of Historia hertica de la revolucin fidelista; Fidel Castro para herejes y otros invertebrados, Observando, The Secret Fidel Castro: Deconstructing the Symbol, The Nuclear Deception: Nikita Khrushchev and the Cuban Missile Crisis, and La madre de todas las conspiraciones: una novela de ideas subversivas. He is currently working on his second novel, Juegos mentales: una novela de guerra psicolgica, which deals with the Bogotazo riots and the true origins of the CIA.

His articles have been published in many magazines, newspapers, and Web sites in the U.S. and abroad. As a multimedia developer, Servando authored many computer programs, among them: Hypertext for Beginners, Popol Vuh: An Interactive Text/Graphics Adventure, The Riddle of the Swastika: A Study in Symbolism, and How to Create Your Own Personal Intelligence Agency. His documentary film, Treason in America: The Council on Foreign Relations, the first program of the TruhLies series, appeared in mid 2008. The next program, Partners in Treason: The CFR-CIA-Castro Connection will appear in early 2009.

Servando's web site is at [link edited for length]


Leave a Reply