The Unseen Hand - Ralph Epperson

The Greatest Victory

The greatest victory of all in the battle between the Conspiracy and those who love their freedoms was the failure of the Conspiracy to impose total government down on the American people on either May 1, 1976, (the two-hundredth anniversary of the founding of the Illuminati,) or on July 4, 1976, (the two-hundredth anniversary of the founding of the United States.)

The foundations for this revolutionary act were laid down in a plan made public in the February, 1946, issue of the New World News, a publication of the Moral Re-Armament of England.

It has been claimed that what has been called the "Dusseldorf Rules for Revolution" were first discovered in Dusseldorf, Germany, in the headquarters of a revolutionary organization by some Allied soldiers after World War I. However, these claims have never been verified, at least to the satisfaction of many historians.

In any event, these rules laid down an incredible plan to bring about the conditions that would lead to a revolution:

  • Corrupt the young; get them away from religion. Get them interested in sex. Make them superficial; destroy their ruggedness.
  • Get control of all means of publicity, thereby:
    1. Get people's minds off their government by focusing their attention on athletics, sexy books and plays and other trivialities.
    2. Divide the people into hostile groups by constantly harping on controversial matters of no importance.
    3. Destroy the people's faith in their natural leaders by holding the latter up to contempt, ridicule and disgrace.
    4. Always preach true democracy, but seize power as fast and ruthlessly as possible.
    5. By encouraging government extravagance, destroy its credit, produce fear of inflation with rising prices and general discontent.
    6. Incite unnecessary strikes in vital industries, encourage civil disorders and foster a lenient and soft attitude on the part of the government toward such disorders.
  • Cause the registration of all firearms on some pretext, with a view to confiscating them and leaving the population helpless.

The Conspiracy apparently felt that these programs had succeeded in the main and that it was time to move towards their goal of total government.

One of the requirements for the plan to succeed, as envisioned by the planners, was a generation of young people, not only turned off by the establishment, but trained in guerilla warfare and the desire to rebel against the system. The major factor in creating this attitude amongst the young people of America was the Vietnamese War, created and controlled by the Conspiracy to create the conditions required for its plan to succeed: the war was to create first a drug culture in America and, secondly, a young society willing to rebel against the American government.

Jerry Rubin, one of the young rebels created by the establishment and the founder of a group called the Yippies, has written a book entitled Do It!, in which he details his interest and concerns about the rebellious age in which he lived.

He dedicated his book to: "Nancy, Dope, Color TV, and Violent Revolution" and admonished his readers to: "Read this book stoned [high on drugs.]"

Rubin admitted that the Vietnamese war was phony: "The Amerikans [sic] are fighting for nothing you can see, feel, touch or believe in. Their deaths are futile and wasted. 'Why die on Hamburger Hill?' asks the pot-smoking Amerikan [sic] soldier, as he points his gun at the head of the captain who ordered him to take a hill Vietnam is a symbol. The real Viet Kong [sic] are in San Diego."

He realized that the real war was being fought, not in Vietnam, but in the cities and towns of America.

He commented about the real purpose of the drug called marijuana: "Marijuana is the Communist drug."

[Illustration] from The Unseen Hand by Ralph Epperson


He wrote this about the new morality called Situation Ethics: "Yippies say if it's not fun, don't do it We see sex, rock 'n roll and dope as part of a Communist plot to take over Amerika [sic]. The Yippie idea of fun is overthrowing the government. Yippies are Maoists." (supporters of the Chinese Communist Mao Tse Tung).

It is revealing that even though Jerry's book is in opposition to the establishment, it was published by a major publishing company that is part of the establishment: Ballantine Books, by arrangement with Simon & Schuster.

The beginning of the end of the Conspiracy's plans occurred during the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago. Viewers of that event will recall a small group of hippies-yippies turned to the streets, getting arrested for violating Chicago's laws. Jerry Rubin admitted that he was disappointed by the small turnout of these young people: "We once dreamed 500,000 people would come to Czechago [Jerry's spelling of Chicago]. We expected 50,000. Maybe 2,000 to 3,000 freaks. . . made it."

It is very revealing that Mr. Rubin used the figure of 500,000 as the number of protestors he hoped would respond to the call in Chicago. This was the exact number of people needed in two related incidents.

Colonel Edward Mandell House needed a 500,000 man army to enable Philip Dru to take over the Presidency and impose a dictatorship on the American people in his book Philip Dru, Administrator.

And 500,000 was the number of soldiers that Major General Smedley Butler was to command as he imposed a dictatorship on America in 1933.

Apparently those who believe that America should have a dictatorship instead of a Presidency feel it will take 500,000 protestors to convince the American people to accept the change at the top.

It is the theory of some that Chicago was a test to see how many people could be drawn to an event where there were going to be protests and in this case, the young people disappointed the Conspiracy: not enough of them came to Chicago. It is the theory of some that it was here that the Conspiracy started revising its plans.

Rubin admitted that the events at Chicago were planned: "We wanted disruption. We planned it. We were not innocent victims. We worked our plans for a year before we came here. We made our demands so outrageous because we wanted the city to deny us what we were asking. We did all of this with one purpose in mind—to make the city react as if it were a police state."

The use of students for disruptive purposes was not new. The eleventh edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, published in 1911, described one attempt to use the young radicals for particular purposes, in Russia:

"Among the students of the universities and the higher technical schools, Turgenev [a Russian writer] had noticed a new and strikingly original type—young men and women in slovenly attire, who called in question and ridiculed the generally received convictions and respectable conventionalities of social life and who talked of reorganizing society on strictly scientific principles.

"They reversed the traditional order of things in trivial matters of external appearance, the males allowing their hair to grow long and the female adepts cutting it short, and adding sometimes the additional badge of blue spectacles

"Their appearance, manners, and conversation were apt to shock ordinary people, but to this they were profoundly indifferent, for they had raised themselves above the level of so-called public opinion, despised Philistine respectability and rather liked to scandalize people still under the influence of what they considered antiquated prejudices.

"For aesthetic culture, sentimentalism and refinement of every kind they had a profound and undisguised contempt

"Among the antiquated institutions which had to be abolished as obstructions to real progress, were religion, family life, private property and centralized administration.

"Religion was to be replaced by exact sciences, family life by free love, private property by collectivism, and centralized administration by a federation of independent communes."

But even this example was not isolated. Economist Ludwig von Mises, who was in Germany prior to World War I, wrote:

"In the decade preceding the First World War, Germany . . . witnessed the appearance of a phenomenon hitherto unheard of, the youth movement.

"Turbulent gangs of untidy boys and girls roamed the country, making much noise and shirking their school lessons."

In other words, even the outlandish garb of the modem hippie or Jerry Rubin's Yippies was something that was used to cause divisions among populations in earlier times. These radicals, in pre-revolutionary Russia and pre-World War I Germany, were being used by the establishment to condition the people to radical change. Such was the case in 1968, in the United States.

Rubin admitted as much, that he knew the young people were being used. He wrote: "Revolution is profitable. So the capitalists try to sell it." And: "The hip capitalists have some allies within the revolutionary community: longhairs who work as intermediaries between the kids on the street and the millionaire businessmen."

Rubin also knew that there was another group who knew the young people were being used. He identified that group as well: "The hippies see us as politicos and the politicos see us as hippies. Only the right wing sees us for what we are."

One of the groups making up the "revolutionary community" was a group known as the Students for a Democratic Society. It was well known by the establishment that they were Communist in nature. In fact, an article in March 1969 reported: "'Our primary task is to build a Marxist-Leninist revolutionary movement,' declared Michael Klonsky, executive secretary of the Students for a Democratic Society."

The government through the House Internal Security Committee's Report on SDS' plans for America's High Schools, studied the SDS in great detail. The Chairman of the Committee, Congressman Richard Ichord, stated that: "The aims of the SDS were spelled out in an SDS position paper printed in June, 1969: 'The goal is the destruction of US imperialism and the achievement of a classless world: world communism.'"

In 1980, an FBI agent said the group was bent on committing "arsons, bombings, assassinations—with the goal of overthrowing this country's democratic form of government, with the objective of establishing world Communism."

Yet in spite of all of this evidence about the nature of the SDS, they continued to receive money from the establishment they were supposedly out to overthrow. In 1970, a group of Ohio legislators received a briefing on campus upheavals in which they heard: ". . . an Illinois commission report on that state's rioting said that $192,000 in Federal money and $85,000 in Carnegie Foundation funds were paid to [the] Students for a Democratic Society . . . during the fall of 1969."

Another similar report came from a former undercover police intelligence operative who had participated in SDS demonstrations, David Gumaer, who reported that he had: "wondered where the money was coming from for all this activity, and soon discovered it came through radicals via the United Nations, from the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation, United Auto Workers, as well as cigar boxes of American money from the Cuban embassy."

Another student, James Kirk, confirmed Gumaer's report. Kirk, while a student at the University of Chicago, and on behalf of the FBI, became active in the SDS, the W.E.B. DuBois Club, the Black Panthers, and the Communist Party. In 1969, Mr. Kirk broke from the Party and the following year testified before the House and Senate Internal Security Committees. His testimony was as follows:

"Young people . . . have no idea that they are playing into the hands of the Establishment they claim to hate. The radicals think they're fighting the forces of the super-rich, like Rockefeller and Ford, and don't realize that it is precisely such forces which are behind their own revolution, financing it, and using it for their own purposes."

Still another student, James Simon Kunen, in his book entitled The Strawberry Incident, tells about a SDS strategy meeting he attended in which a student was giving a report on an SDS convention that he had recently attended. The student reported that

" . . . men from Business International Roundtables, . . . tried to buy up a few radicals. These 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."

Even the Black Panther leader Eldridge Cleaver started to figure it out, that the wealthy were buying themselves a revolution. In the introduction to Rubin's book Do It!, Mr. Cleaver wrote: "There is a danger to the healthy development of the American Revolution in the fact that often revolutionaries are manipulated by the ruling class to appear to be a bigger threat than they really are."

Jerry Rubin further amplified Mr. Cleaver's thoughts about how the establishment made the revolution appear to be larger than it actually was. In chapter ten of his book, entitled Every Revolutionary Needs a Color TV, Rubin says:

"Walter Cronkite is SDS's best organizer. Uncle Walter brings out the map of the U.S. with circles around the campuses that blew up today. The battle reports. Every kid out there is thinking, 'Wow, I wanna see my campus on that map.' TV is raising generations of kids who want to grow up and become demonstrators. Television proves the domino theory: one campus falls and they all fall. The media does not report 'news,' it creates it.'"

But even though it appeared that the Establishment would not be able to gather an army big enough to disrupt the Bicentennial, the plans continued.

In 1971, an organization was formed that later changed its name to the People's Bicentennial Commission (the PBC.) Jeremy Rifkin became its director.

Later, the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee investigated the PBG They reported: "The New York Times, for example, on May 26, 1975, carried an article by Jeremy Rifkin on the subject of economic freedom. This article was basically a rewrite of the PBC's declaration of economic independence which calls for the elimination of the free-enterprise system or the 'corporate system' as they call it."

Rifkin had made his views known to the public when he wrote the following in a radical newspaper in November, 1971: "A genuine understanding of the revolutionary ideals is what links Thomas Paine, Sam Adams, Benjamin Rush and the American people with Lenin, Mao [Tse Tung], and Che [Guevara], and the struggle of all oppressed people in the world."

A further warning that the nation appeared to be preparing for trouble on July 4, 1976, was given by FBI director Clarence Kelley who reported on November 4, 1975, that: "terrorism will increase in connection with the nation's Bicentennial celebration."

The PBC continued, however, with its plans and issued an eight-page tabloid newspaper calling for 150,000 patriots to join with them in Washington D.C. on July 4, 1976, to "Declare your independence from big business." They advised the reader that the PBC was "planning a birthday party America will never forget."

Other individuals lined up in support of the PBC declaration. The tabloid reported that Rubin "Hurricane" Carter, Jane Fonda, Rev. Jesse Jackson, and Dr. Benjamin Spock, among others, would be speaking at the PBC rally on that day.

The costs of these activities were being met, at least in part, by the establishment once again, as, according to Human Events in its issue of October 11, 1975, the federally funded National Endowment for the Humanities had provided the PBC with nearly $400,000.

But the PBC did not make much of a ripple on July 4, 1976, as it was unable to draw nearly the number of people it would have taken to cause the incident that the establishment wanted.

In addition to the plans to disrupt the Bicentennial, there was a movement inside the United States to call a constitutional convention. One of those urging a re-write of the Constitution was Zbigniew Brzezinski, who wrote the following on page 258 of his book Between Two Ages: "The approaching two-hundredth anniversary of the Declaration could justify the call for a national constitutional convention to re-examine the nation's formal institutional framework. Either 1976 or 1989 could serve as a suitable target date. . . . "

Confirmation that something was planned to happen was supported, in part, by the John Birch Society, which printed the following in the October, 1977, $$Bulletin## to its members: "There came into our hands several months ago, through the kindness of some friend who evidently wanted to remain anonymous, one of [Clarence Douglas] Dillon's thin papers that apparently are quietly issued now and then to members of the echelons below him, who need such information and guidance as a basis of support."

The Birch Society reasoned that whatever Mr. Dillon knew was important enough to be known to those who were trying to expose the Conspiracy. Mr. Dillon, they reasoned, was one of the those who should know the plans of the conspiracy, as he was the head of the international banking firm of Dillon, Read and Company, and Chairman of the Rockefeller Foundation. In addition, Mr. Dillon had served as Secretary of the Treasury, certainly one of the positions in the American government controlled by the Rockefeller interests, for a period of four years in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, as well as being a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Mr. Dillon's letter, according to the Birch Society, revealed two very important facts: "One was that up until about 1970 many of the Insiders (although he did not call them that) had kept on hoping to make 1976 the successful target date for the ceremonial inauguration of their $$new world order##. But, Mr. Dillon then proceeded to point out, by 1970 this schedule had been conceded by the top command to be impracticable. And he went on to lay down the new schedule, already in effect, which would require about fifteen years for completion."

This meant that the Conspiracy was planning for something to occur on or about 1985, fifteen years, give or take a year or two, from the change in their plans in 1970.

The specific date of 1985 seemed to be in accord with the date being given by the Russian Communists. For instance, Soviet Communist Party chief Leonid Breshnev, in 1973, said this about the year 1985:

"We Communists have got to string along with the capitalists for a while. We need their credits, their agriculture, and their technology. But we are going to continue massive military programs and by the middle eighties, we will be in a position to return to a much more aggressive foreign policy designed to gain the upper hand in our relationship with the West."

He was more precise about the choice of years in a speech he made in Prague in 1973 to the Warsaw Pact leaders:

"Trust us, comrades, for by 1985, as a consequence of what we are now achieving with detente, we will have achieved most of our objectives in Western Europe. We will have consolidated our position. We will have improved our economy. And a decisive shift in the correlation of forces will be such that, come 1985, we will be able to exert our will wherever we need to."

Breshnev didn't say just how they were going to exert their will, but one version of what they might attempt came from Senator Barry Goldwater in August, 1971, according to the Los Angeles Herald Examiner, which headlined the article: "Goldwater Warns of Nuclear Blackmail by Russ." The article went on: "Senator Barry Goldwater said Saturday the world balance of power has shifted to the Soviet Union to such an extent that international nuclear blackmail is no longer impossible. 'The only conclusion is that the Soviet Union is out to establish a strategic military superiority so vast that it cannot be challenged and so that any policy the Soviet Union may decide upon can be backed with overwhelming strength.'"

So, according to the scenario just described, it would appear that the Russians, who have been slowly but steadily building the most potent military machine in the world and a nuclear superiority over the forces of the free West, (with the assistance of the United States,) could threaten the United States with a nuclear war. This would force the American government into a position of having to decide whether they wished to go to war or accept some Russian ultimatum.

Other indications that 1985 might be the year for such a confrontation come from a variety of sources.

One is the book entitled The Third World War, August, 1985, by General Sir John Hackett and six of his colleagues, all retired NATO officers. This book was written in 1975, and contains the "dramatized game-plan for the next World War."

The book details how the Soviet Union started the war on November 11, 1984, after "the initial workers' riots in Poland."

The war develops and ultimately the Soviet Union is defeated, less than a month after it started.

There were warnings that the United States has been so strategically depleted to the point where it is in great danger. One such warning came in 1980 from fifty reared admirals and generals who warned that America was "in greater danger today than at any time since Pearl Harbor."

In fact, one individual, Henry Kissinger, is reportedly on record as saying that it probably was too late anyway, and that the United States should get the best deal it could in the struggle against the Soviet Union. In 1976, when Kissinger was Secretary of State, nationally syndicated columnist Ernest Cuneo wrote:

"Unimpeachable sources state that Dr. Henry Kissinger's model has shifted from 19th century Metternich to 20th century Spengler.

"What that means is that Kissinger has abandoned the Balance of Power policy to accept Spengler's position that the West is through and must accept a subordinate role because it is useless to resist the 'wave of the future.'

"The 'wave of the future' of course means Communist ascendancy.

"Kissinger's new position assumes that the American people do not have the courage or the strength to stand up to the Communists if it means war.

"Therefore, Kissinger is attempting to get the best terms possible as a competing world power."

It seems to fit that the American government is being maneuvered into a position of not having the ability nor the means to resist Communist pressures so that, when the Russian government threatens America with nuclear war, the American people will demand that their government accept any solution other than a war. The American president will ask the Russians if there is any option they will accept other than nuclear war. Their response will be that the merging of the two countries into a world government will suffice, and the American people will breathe a sigh of relief when their offer is accepted by the American government.

An additional item would be needed to make the scenario and theory really work.

That would be a president that would not be afraid to stand up to the Russians, even though he knows that he does not have the military means to succeed. He would have to be a Republican who has long stood up against the Communists, one that would have sent military troops into a small island (Grenada) when he believed the nation was about to go Marxist. He couldn't be a member of the Democrat Party which has been consistently against any confrontation with the Communists on a face to face basis.

It appears that the Americans are playing two sides of the same coin: appearing to get tough with the Russians, and then not having the ability to withstand any offense put forward by the Russians.

Another piece of the puzzle that fits is the fact that America is being told that the government does not have the military or nuclear power to compete with the Russians in a military showdown. One evidence of this strategy was revealed in an interview with John Tower, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee that reaffirmed the position of the reared admirals and generals who felt that America was in serious danger because of its reduced military strength. The headline to the article read: "U.S. Faces Nothing Less Than Military Inferiority."

The article was accompanied by graphs showing how dangerously behind the United States was in the numbers of bombers and missiles, warheads, and estimated megatonnage of warheads.

Two articles, about two months apart, revealed that the fear of a third world war concerns the American people, who feel that a nuclear war was possible within the next ten years.

And all of the stories that are in the news about the ineptness of America's military forces (plane crashes because pilots are on drugs; fifty percent of all enlisted men are on drugs, etc.) are slowly convincing the public that, not only does America not have the military and nuclear power, but the military isn't ready to resist any aggressive act as well.

It is not difficult with this scenario, then, to understand why the American hostages in Iran were released shortly after the 1980 election (to unify the American people behind national patriotism) and why the military allowed the hostage rescue attempt to be so badly botched (one weekly newsletter mailed around the United States reported that friendly Arabian leaders are frightened and disillusioned about that bungled mission because they now see the United States as a weak ally.)

Another call to America's patriotism was the 1984 Olympics when, after Russia decided not to compete, America won an unprecedented number of medals. America's response to the medal winners was an unabashedly pro-American display of national patriotism (one flag manufacturer reported that his demand for flags was outpacing the supply). Americans have got to love their country enough not to have it blown apart by a nuclear war with Russia.

Another evidence that this scenario is correct is that President Reagan seems to be tarnish-proof (the press is calling him the "teflon president," nothing seems to stick to him). This is unusual because the conservative right has long stated that it never seems to get a good press, and that everything it does do is wrong in the eyes of the media. It is not too long ago that Americans should have forgotten the commercials and the media treatment of the conservative of the 1960's, Senator Barry Goldwater, when he ran for the presidency in 1964.

In November, 1981, two events occurred that were created to scare America's NATO allies against a nuclear war. One was President Reagan's then Secretary of State Haig's statement that NATO had contingency plans for firing a nuclear weapon for "demonstrative purposes" to demonstrate to the enemy that they were exceeding the limits of toleration in the conventional war. Presumably the bomb would be dropped in Europe, and this tended to frighten the citizens of America's allies.

The second event that served to alarm the NATO countries was the intrusion of a Soviet submarine into Swedish waters. The question of whether or not this submarine carried nuclear weapons was never made completely clear, but if the ship had the weapons aboard, the Swedish military did not know about the sub's presence until it was inside a restricted military zone. This activity tended to further frighten the NATO allies into fearing a nuclear war in Europe. Both activities, occurring so close to each other, were intended to convince the NATO allies that both sides could spring a nuclear attack easily without the Europeans knowing anything about it.

Another major block in the scenario wall was put into place on June 19, 1978, when President Jimmy Carter, by an unconstitutional Executive Order, created an organization known as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). This organization is a civilian agency which has the capacity to administer a totalitarian government in the event of domestic or international crisis.

FEMA has the authority to:

  • Relocate millions of workers, reorganize national industry and banking, and distribute all economic resources and transportation access;
  • Operate every level of government, through personnel currently in place throughout Washington and the rest of the country;
  • Institute total energy rationing; and
  • Order mass evacuation of residents in the perimeter of nuclear power plants.

It is an interesting coincidence that the Three Mile Island incident occurred just one day after FEMA became operational. FEMA arrived on the scene of the nuclear plant accident and according to Fusion magazine: " . . . fostered an atmosphere of panic, and lobbied for mass evacuations that would have given FEMA authority over all other federal, state and local governmental bodies, with the exception of the governor's office."

There is some evidence that the nuclear event that occurred at Three Mile Island was an act of sabotage.

One bit of evidence is the fact that an anti-nuclear power article appeared in 1978 in a radical magazine called Harrisburg which envisioned an accident at the nearby Three Mile Island facility on March 28, 1979, the exact date on which the nuclear accident occurred.

Another is the fact that the investigators who were studying the incident were unable to identify the individual who closed the valves of the backup cooling pumps which would have kept the reactor from overheating.

In any event, the Three Mile nuclear incident was certainly a "nonevent."

The charges that large amounts of radiation were released into the nearby environment were fraudulent.

Dr. Petr Beckmann, the distinguished editor of Access to Energy, and a professor of Electrical Engineering at the University of Colorado, set the matter into perspective:

"The sum total of radioactivity released in the Harrisburg Grand Disaster was 80 millirems (official testimony by HEW Secretary.)

"That is as much additional radiation as a certain person would receive by moving from Pennsylvania into the editorial offices of this newspaper (elevation 7,200 ft. in the ore-rich Rockies) for less than a year.

"What kind of person?

"The kind that stood naked near the plant 24 hours a day for the entire episode."

In an attempt to quiet the furor about the immense danger to life from nuclear plants around the country, Dr. Edward Teller, a scientist who worked on the hydrogen bomb and on the safety of nuclear energy, placed a full-page advertisement in the Wall Street Journal on July 31, 1979. This advertisement carried answers to some of the main questions about Three Mile Island.

Some of those questions and answers were as follows:

Q. "How dangerous is the release of low-level radiation from a nuclear power plant?"

A. "If you sat next to a nuclear power plant for a year, you would be exposed to less radiation than you would receive during a roundtrip flight in a 747 from New York to Los Angeles.

"Let me put it another way. The allowable radiation from a nuclear plant is five mrems (an appropriate unit used to make comparisons) per year. In Dallas, people get about 30 mrems per year from the natural background of buildings, rocks, etc. In Colorado, people get as much as 130 mrems per year from the natural background. Therefore, just by moving from Dallas to Boulder you would receive ten times more radiation per year than the person gets who lives next to a nuclear power plant."

Q. "How much radiation were the people around Three Mile Island exposed to during the accident?"

A. "Let me put it this way. Your blood contains potassium 40, from which you get an internal dose of about 25 mrems of radiation per year. Among the people not working on the reactor, a handful may have gotten as much radiation as 25 mrems."

The timing of the creation of FEMA and the apparently sabotaged nuclear incident is indeed unusual. Is it possible that the Three Mile Island episode was created to test the incredible powers of FEMA?

FEMA's other crisis interventions include the relocation of the Cuban boat refugees in 1980. This episode allowed FEMA to test its ability to relocate thousands of people all over the United States. Is it possible that Cuba allowed the boat people to leave Cuba as a test of FEMA's ability to find new homes for these refugees?

Apparently President Ronald Reagan agreed that FEMA had done an excellent job. When he outlined his $3.4 billion, seven-year program to relocate the U.S. metropolitan population from potentially high risk areas after a nuclear war started, he designated FEMA as the agency to carry out the program.

FEMA has an interesting history behind its creation. The 1979 Executive Order that created it was based on Presidential Review Memorandum 32, prepared by Samuel Huntington. The guiding assumption of PRM-32 was that constitutionally mandated institutions would not be able to deal with the scope of crises foreseen for the 1970's and 1980's.

Three years earlier, Huntington had elaborated this assumption in his position paper for the Trilateral Commission, tided The Crisis of Democracy. Emergencies of the nature of Love Canal, the Cuban boatlift operation, and the Three Mile Island incident would require levels of austerity and social control impossible to achieve through democratic institutions, so Huntington recommended a series of national and supranational "crisis management" forms of government These were put into effect by President Carter in June, 1978, after they were published in the Federal Register.

One more evidence that the American people might permit their government to violate all of their Constitutional Rights because of some real or alleged emergency that was created by the government, occurred on October 16, 1970, in Canada.

This power grab occurred when Canadian Prime Minister Pierre-Elliott Trudeau, using the kidnapping of two officials by the Communist F.L.Q. "invoked the War Measures Act, suspended the Canadian Bill of Rights, and imposed a dictatorship on Canada. Trudeau now had the power of censorship, for instance, and could search without warrant and arrest without trial."

It will be recalled that the Canadian people allowed these violations of their rights almost without a whimper, almost praising Trudeau for taking that action to stop the F.L.Q.

Two other indications that the Conspiracy plans on grabbing all of the power in the United States in 1985 come from two books, one written by Herman Kahn, the founder of the Hudson Institute, and possibly one of the principals in the writing of the Report from Iron Mountain, and the other by Allen Drury.

The book by Herman Kahn is called Things to Come: Thinking About the 70's and the 80's. Mr. Kahn, who calls himself "one of the 10 most famous obscure Americans," attempted to answer these questions by his book (co-authored with B. Bruce Briggs). They have written:

"What are the chances of a nuclear confrontation in the next decade? How will the rising influence of Japan affect the world's balance of economic and political power? Is America's two-party system on the verge of collapse? These are some of the questions Herman Kahn and B. Bruce Briggs answer in this challenging new book, a discussion of what might happen from now until 1985."

Notice that the scenario, even though the book is intended to examine the 70's and 80's (that means the period that should have been reviewed would have been until the end of 1989) the book ends with the year 1985. In fact, the year "1985" appears forty-one times in print, and the term "the decade 1975-1985" appears five times.

Are Mr. Kahn and Mr. Briggs trying to tell the American people something?

The second book is entitled The Hill of Summer, written as a novel by Allen Drury. It is about how: "Soviet leaders might make use of a 'window of opportunity' created by the U.S. disarmers, resulting in increasing Soviet brinkmanship and nuclear blackmail."

Mr. Drury has written about what Senator Goldwater warned the American people about back in 1971: nuclear blackmail by the Russian government

It appears that 1985 is the year.

The author wishes to add a footnote about this last statement. There are several possibilities about the prediction that the planners will make their long-awaited move in 1985.

If the Conspiracy wants to discredit those who have exposed the Conspiracy, there wouldn't be a better way than to have all of the exposers point towards the year 1985. Then, if they wished to further conceal their efforts toward another year, they could postpone their plans for one more year, say, to 1986, so that those exposers would be made to look ridiculous.

The reader's attention is directed to the comment previously referred to by Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book Between Two Ages that discusses a rewriting of the Constitution in either 1976, a date obviously in the past, or in 1989, a date still in the future.

Maybe the date is 1989.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that something is planned for the period between 1985 and 1989.

The only thing for certain is that the Conspiracy wants total government and that the year they expect to achieve their goal is very near.

Those who love their freedoms had best be wary.