The End is Power

It was early in the Nixon administration that Senator Hugh Scott bragged that while the Conservatives were getting the words, the Liberals got the action. Two years later, in December 1970, the American Conservative Union's newsletter, Republican Battle Line, lamented: "Well, at mid-point, we think we can say conservatives are no longer even getting the words. Only the knife."

Those who have followed Nixon's career closely were not surprised. Nixon courts the Conservatives when he needs help and the rest of the time treats them like lepers. Yet Nixon still manages to retain his overall image as a Conservative and comes under hard attack from the Left. Stewart Alsop, in a column titled "Nixon to the Left of Himself," discusses this phenomenon:

"In his farewell address at the White House, President Nixon's favorite liberal Democrat, Daniel P. Moynihan, credited the Nixon Administration with 'much genuine achievement.' 'And yet,' he added, more in sorrow than in anger, 'how little the Administration is credited with what it has achieved . . . Depressing, even frightening things are being said [by Liberals] about the Administration. They are not true.'"

Alsop claims that if Nixon were judged by his deeds instead of his ancient image, the Liberals' attitude toward him would be different. If only the Liberals' Pavlovian response to the Nixon name could be eliminated, says Alsop, if they would realize how far Left he is. Therefore Alsop substitutes a hypothetical "President Liberal" for President Nixon

". . . If President Liberal were actually in the White House, it is not at all hard to imagine the reaction to his program. The right would be assailing President Liberal for bugging out of Vietnam, undermining American defenses, fiscal irresponsibility, and galloping socialism. The four basic Presidential policy positions listed above would be greeted with hosannas by the liberals . . .

"Instead, the liberals have showered the President with dead cats, while most conservatives have maintained a glum silence, and thus the Administration has been 'little credited' for 'much genuine achievement.' But there are certain special reasons, which Pat Moynihan omitted to mention, why this is so."

Alsop goes on to explain how it helps Nixon in passing the Liberal Democrats' program to have the reputation of being an enemy of Liberal Democrats:

"For one thing, there is a sort of unconscious conspiracy between the President and his natural enemies, the liberal Democrats, to conceal the extent to which his basic program, leaving aside frills and rhetoric, is really the liberal Democratic program. Richard Nixon is the first professional politician and 'real Republican' to be elected President in 40 years—and it is not in the self-interest of the liberals to give credit to such a President for liberal initiatives. By the same token, it is not in the self-interest of the President to risk his conservative constituency by encouraging the notion that he is not a 'real Republican' after all, but a liberal Democrat at cut rates . ."

There are plenty of examples of the mutual obfuscation which results from this mutual interest. The withdrawal of half a million men from Vietnam is quite obviously the greatest retreat in American history. But the President talks as though it were somehow a glorious advance, certain to guarantee a "just and lasting peace." When the President—like any commander of a retreat—resorts to spoiling actions to protect his dwindling rear guard, the liberals howl that he is "chasing the will-o'-the-wisp of military victory."

". . . When the President cuts back real military strength more sharply than in a quarter of a century, the liberals attack him for failing to 'reorder priorities.' The President, in his rhetoric about a 'strong defense,' plays the same game. The result, as John Kenneth Galbraith accurately noted recently, is that 'most people and maybe most congressmen think the Administration is indulging the Pentagon even more than the Democrats,' which is the precise opposite of the truth . . ."

Alsop continued what is probably the most damnifying column ever written about Richard Nixon by noting the role that the mass media have played in portraying to the public an image that is the reverse of the truth:

". . . There is also a human element in this exercise in mutual obfuscation. To the liberals, especially the liberal commentators who dominate the media, Richard Nixon is Dr. Fell ('The reason why I cannot tell, but this I know and know full well, I do not like thee. Dr. Fell'). This is not surprising. Not too many years ago, Richard M. Nixon was one of the most effective—and least lovable—of the conservative Republican professionals of the McCarthy era.

The columnist, himself a member of the ADA, speculated on what the "old Nixon" would have had to say about the "new Nixon":

". . . on his past record, it is not at all hard to imagine R.M. Nixon leading the assault on the President for his 'bug-out,' 'fiscal irresponsibility,' 'galloping socialism,' and all the rest of it. So how can one expect Mr. Nixon to defend President Liberal's program with the passionate conviction that a President Robert Kennedy, say, would have brought to the defense of such a program?"

Alsop has revealed the real Nixon. He could not be more pleased. Those who voted for Nixon aren't quite so happy or shouldn't be. If you liked the Richard Nixon who ran for the Presidency, then you cannot, if you are consistent, like the Richard Nixon who is President. Nixon and his fellow "moderates" have turned the Republican elephant into a donkey in elephant's clothing. On June 19, 1959, Vice President Nixon gloated: "In summary, the Republican administration produced the things that the Democrats promised." It looks as if it's happening again!

A year and a half earlier Nixon had been warbling a different tune:

"If we have nothing to offer other than a pale carbon copy of the New Deal, if our only purpose is to gain and retain power, the Republican Party no longer has any reason to exist, and it ought to go out of business. "

Alsop is right. According to the "old Nixon," the Republican Party should disband. Norman Thomas said, in effect, that the American people would not knowingly vote for socialism, but under the guise of "Liberalism" they would adopt socialist measures until one day they would be living under a socialist state without knowing how it all came about.

U.S. News & World Report noted: The late Norman Thomas, who ran unsuccessfully for President six times on the Socialist Party ticket, observed in 1964 that the Democrats "have through the years taken over measures once regarded as Socialist, but then so have the Republicans but to a slightly less degree."

If Thomas were alive today, he would applaud the Nixon administration with great glee. The Republicans have been conquered by Fabian-Socialist patient gradualism. First we oppose, next we endure, then we embrace. That is the tragic story of the Republican party. Republican support of Nixon merely lends respectability to his implementation of the Marxist programs described by Alsop. Democrats have long accused Nixon of being tricky. Republicans tended to react to the accusation in a Pavlovian manner, accusing the Democrats of partisan political slander. Actually, though the Democrats have badly misinterpreted Nixon's true ideology, they have understood his character very well. And many Republicans who have worked closely with Nixon in past campaigns know that he is tricky. He is also cunning and clever. He has been an actor and debater since his youth and he knows all the tricks of the trade.

Nixon tries to cover his reputation for deviousness by seeming to go overboard in his speeches to be fair. He also prefaces statements with phrases like "let me make it perfectly clear," "putting it bluntly," "speaking quite frankly," or "to be perfectly candid." What follows is usually anything but clear, blunt, frank or candid. Democrats have accused Nixon with more than a little validity of having been on every side of every issue. Many of them resent his appropriating their pet issues. However, most political analysts dismiss Nixon's incursions into the land of Liberalism as symptomatic of his pragmatism. Now, Nixon claims to be a pragmatist; but in his book, Six Crises, he claimed:

". . . My philosophy has always been: don't lean with the wind. Don't do what is politically expedient. Do what your instinct tells you is right. Public opinion polls are useful if a politician uses them only to learn approximately what the people are thinking, so that he can talk to them more intelligently. The politician who sways with the polls is not worth his pay. And I believe the people will eventually catch up with the man who merely tells them what he thinks they want to hear."

Washington Post political reporter David Broder wrote in a column on April 8, 1969:

"Pragmatism is the operating philosophy of this Administration. The Nixon White House, as one insider remarked, is not 'an intensely ideological environment. Lacking ideology or even a strong set of goals and values, the Administration has a tendency to drift."

Baloney! The alleged "pragmatism" is merely a cover-up for the "genuine achievement" of Liberal aims (socialism) of which Alsop spoke. Most people look at the Nixon administration and see only the confusion produced by the President's alleged pragmatism. Kevin Phillips wrote: ". . . the Nixon administration's mixture of hard rhetoric with contradictory programming and overall lack of vision wins no plaudits."

Nixon is not bungling or stupid, he is brilliant and cunning. And what he is doing is not stupid but brilliant—from the standpoint of the Insiders. Author G. Edward Griffin has said:

"It's always a source of amazement to me when I hear someone criticize our leaders for being confused in the area of foreign policy, or reversing their position, of bungling the job and not having any long-range goals. These men are not bungling the job. They're acting in accordance with a definite, well thought out plan, and they've been executing that plan with brilliant precision. We may or may not like the plan, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking that there isn't any . . .

"The Grand Design has absolutely nothing to do with partisan politics. These men aren't nearly as much Republicans or Democrats as they are world politicians. They've got bigger things to occupy their minds than mere party labels. To them, partisan politics is only a game to amuse the masses who crave the showmanship of big national conventions, the excitement of partisan campaigns, and the satisfaction of casting a vote in the illusion that, somehow, they're really helping to decide the important issues of the day. But, with precious few exceptions, for the past two decades the American voter has had to make his choice between Grand Designer A and Grand Designer B . . ."

And Thomas Jefferson once observed:

"Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematical plan of reducing us to slavery."

Benjamin Disraeli, the British statesman much admired by Nixon, wrote a novel called Coningsby whose chief characters were thinly disguised take-offs on the Rothschilds. Disraeli was a close friend of the Rothschilds and a Rothschild agent. In his book he has a "Rothschild" say:

"So, you see, my dear Coningsby, the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes."

Nixon is now a man who works for the men behind the scenes—the Rothschild-Rockefeller world empire which helped to establish and now controls Communism. David Broder writes in his book on the Republican Party: "For Richard Nixon, the end is power—specifically the incomparable power of the presidency . . ."

Nixon now has power—fantastic power—over the lives of 200 million Americans. He has more power than a good man would want or an evil man should have. Richard Nixon, the man of unbounded and, unfortunately, unprincipled ambition has reached the top of the political heap. And at the same time he has acquired considerable wealth—something else he has always wanted. He has been rewarded well for his services. The only thing left for him now would be to head a world government.

The fact that Nixon is a Republican is all the better for the Insiders. Unfortunately, many Republicans take it as a personal attack on themselves when it is suggested that there is a conspiracy working within their own party. They should not be offended. It is no reflection on the rank and file unless they continue to tolerate it once the conspiracy has been exposed.

It is only natural for a conspiracy to try to control both (or all) political parties. It would not do to have a pro-conspiracy party and an anti-conspiracy party or a pro-socialist party and an anti-socialist party. The "antis" would ruin the game by exposing it. And exposure is the one thing a conspiracy cannot stand. The voters would have "a choice, not an echo." When both parties are infiltrated, pleas for party unity can be made that take the spotlight off the conspirators. As the two parties become more alike, elections center around personalities and means, not goals.

The Insiders believe that Conservatives are trapped within the party. As the late Thomas E. Dewey, a top Insider and possibly the most important man to Richard Nixon's presidential aspirations, once arrogantly expressed it:

"Let them [Conservatives] write letters, let them petition, let them pass resolutions; just as long as they have no place else to go, forget them."

Without a pipeline to the councils of the Insiders, it is impossible to predict just what their exact plans and timing are for the coming years. But one needs no pipeline to tell that they are moving very swiftly toward their final goal—a one-world socialist government that they will control. In order to accomplish this, Nixon is doing everything possible to centralize power in the federal government, so that control of the federal government will mean automatic control over all state and local governments. Then from the federal government sovereignty can be transferred to a world government.

When Franklin D. Roosevelt was Governor of New York, he said: "Now, to bring about government by oligarchy masquerading as democracy, it is fundamentally essential that practically all authority and control be centralized in our National Government." Later, as President, Roosevelt was to go a long way toward bringing about the government by oligarchy which he predicted. What we are going to see is a dictatorship of the elite disguised as a dictatorship of the proletariat.

Much, if not all, of the solidification of power will come between 1972 and 1976. In all probability the Insiders want Nixon to have a second term because they believe there will be far less resistance if the coup de grace is administered to the American Republic by a Republican rather than a Democrat. Because the socialism enacted by previous administrations is really catching up with the American economy, it may be necessary for the Insiders to institute a fourth party on the far left, possibly headed by John Lindsay, in order to divide the Democrat vote and re-elect Richard Nixon. Although Richard Nixon's popularity is down as this is written, he has many weapons with which to create a false euphoria to facilitate his re-election in 1972. A seeming end to the Vietnam war, combined with the semblance of a return to prosperity at home, would be a tough combination to beat.

After re-election in 1972 Nixon would have no political brake on his final drive to socialism, unless enough Constitutional Conservatives who understand the conspiracy can be elected in 1972 to head the Insiders off at the pass. It is apparent that Nixon would like to celebrate the 200th anniversary of the founding of the United States by instituting a United States of the World—a step that would be ballyhooed as the most significant event in world history since the Declaration of Independence. It would be PR'd as bringing permanent peace and prosperity, but in reality, it would be a world dictatorship, bringing with it a 1984-style slavery. As the Insiders' mouthpiece James Reston noted:

". . . He [Nixon] will zig zag [left and right] to avoid the torpedoes and take advantage of the wind, but his destination is to preside over the great festival of freedom in 1976, and to get there from here he must eventually go to the left."