Audio Letter #49

Hello, my friends, this is Dr. Beter. Today is August 27, 1979, and this is my AUDIO LETTER® No. 49.


As I say these words, the slow, lazy days of summer 1979 are drawing to a close. Most of us are sorry to see them go. For many people summer is a time to ignore the outside world as much as possible. It’s time to relax, to bask in the sun, to pretend that today will blend into tomorrow without change or trouble. Television news programs in these later days of August have been filled with items that reinforce this mood. Even the alleged President has seemingly found time to lay aside the tedium of doing his job, and for a week or more we were assured by television reports that the Carter robotoid family were enjoying a tranquil steamboat ride down the Mississippi River. To all appearances, this robotoid President has had nothing to do except jog around the boat deck, shake hands with well-wishers, and give the same Energy speech over and over. If he can take life that easy, we think, why shouldn’t we relax too? But, my friends, at this very moment the world is in ferment as never before. If you depend on television news and newspaper headlines as most people do, the world may seem to be just rolling along just like Old Man River; but if you want to have some hint of what is really taking place today, you should listen to the short-wave radio.


Get into the habit of listening to the BBC World Service, to Radio Moscow World Service, to Radio Australia, to Radio South Africa, even Radio Canada right next door to us. It often contains important reports which you will never hear through our domestic major media. You might even tune in the Voice of America once in a while—there, too, you may hear things you will never hear in our domestic news media, and without commercials. But, my friends, you should listen to these with a certain amount of charity for they all have their own biases. There is not enough time in this entire tape even to list all the important areas of ferment in our world; but for a moment let me just skim the surface for you, then ask yourself whether the slick major media image of our country and the world is real or artificial. Not long ago the Boat People from Vietnam were filling our headlines. Vietnam was expelling large numbers of its people—most all of them were Chinese, not Vietnamese. Vietnam has become a client state of Russia, and is preparing for possible all-out war with China. Of all countries, Vietnam knows the dangers of internal strife at this time, and so all those who refuse to cooperate with the present regime are being rounded up and expelled in one way or another. Vietnam is in a hurry because already tensions are building again along the border with China.

The Boat People now constitute a refugee problem of staggering proportions. Hundreds of thousands of people are crammed into refugee camps. Even so, the recent actions of Vietnam should be placed in proper perspective. In 35 years of continuous war in Indochina, the mass expulsion of political undesirables is a new phenomenon. In the past, the actions of the former Pol Pot regime in Cambodia, now known as Kampuchea, would have been more typical. When the Chinese-backed Pol Pot regime took control of Cambodia several years ago, a reign of terror began. It was alleged that more than a million Cambodians were murdered by their own government. Most of them were members of the middle class, regardless of their ethnic background. In that way the Pol Pot regime broke the back of any possible resistance. If the present regime in Vietnam were carrying on according to these traditional methods, there would be no Boat People—instead, there would be only mass graves throughout Vietnam. There would be no television pictures of pathetic refugees crammed into boats, and there would be no controversy over Vietnam’s actions; because, at most, all we would hear would be a few passing rumors—then, all would be quiet again.

The shift in Vietnam’s behavior, my friends, is the result of Russian pressure. Since the end of the Vietnam war, all remaining Chinese influence in Vietnam has been rooted out. Vietnam is now purely a Russian client state; and like Russia herself, Vietnam is getting rid of internal enemies by expelling them. As for the bloody Pol Pot regime in Cambodia, that was recently overthrown by the Vietnamese invasion. The ferment in Indo-China is visible elsewhere too. Recently the United States has started speeding up arms shipments to Thailand, but the United States Government is now coming under Russia’s control, so for all intents and purposes, Thailand’s fate is already sealed. Soon it, too, will enter the Russian orbit.
Russia’s continuing encirclement of China is moving right along. Early in 1978, my friends, I alerted you to watch for America’s doors to start opening wide to Red China. Within a few months the news was filled with comments that we had decided to play the so-called “China card.” It was all a panicky attempt by America’s real rulers to buy time against Russia. During the final months of 1977, Russia had wrestled the military control of space away from the United States. This had altered completely the East-West balance of power; but due to the death of the real Leonid Brezhnev on January 7, 1978, our Rulers thought they had a chance.


They expected the Kremlin to be divided by infighting to decide Brezhnev’s successor. They thought they could keep the Kremlin off balance for two to three years. Using that time, they would rush ahead with secret weapons programs on a crash basis. And so America tried to play the “China card.” Before the year of 1978 was out, the Carter Administration announced that the United States was establishing diplomatic relations with China, but it was an act of pure desperation. The late four Rockefeller brothers had badly underestimated the tightly knit band of Christians who now rule Russia. Since March 1978, Marshal Dmitry Ustinov has been the top man in the Kremlin. At the proper time he will step down in favor of a younger man, but for now the Kremlin power structure is stable and effective. Current events in Asia demonstrate an important fact. America’s attempt to play the so-called “China card” was a failure. It’s no longer fashionable even to speak in those terms. China’s invasion of Vietnam early this year of 1979 showed up the United States as a paper tiger in Asia. By contrast, Russia’s profile there is becoming taller and taller. As I revealed long ago, China was actually playing the “America card” to get the best deal possible with Russia. Next month, formal talks will begin in Moscow between China and Russia toward improving relations between the two.

Six years ago in my book I warned about the forces leading to a vast new Asian Axis. Today this axis built around Russia, China, and Japan is coming together, but Russia is making sure there’s no doubt in anyone’s mind about who will be its leader. Even on the eve of major talks between Russia and China, Russia does not hesitate to point fingers at China. For example, look at Afghanistan on Russia’s southern border which is now a Russian client state. Civil war has been underway there for nine months. Early this month a four-hour pitched battle took place right in the capital city of Kabul. Afghan Radio has charged that trained guerrillas, anti-revolutionaries, have entered Afghanistan from neighboring Iran and Pakistan; and Russia charges that some of these intruders were trained in China.

In ways like this, my friends, Russia is putting pressure not only on China but also on Pakistan and Iran. This is part of Russia’s preoccupation with bordering states, which I have explained in the past. Afghanistan and Iran both border on Russia, and Russia wants secure borders. Pakistan is a land bridge from Afghanistan to the Arabian Sea. Russia has historically wanted a land corridor in this area for access to the Indian Ocean. In other ways too, Pakistan is being given good reason to think over her attitude toward Russia.

Lately Pakistan’s relations with the United States have taken a turn for the worse. Earlier this month, on August 11, the New
York Times made public some stunning policy planning within the State Department. Pakistan is very close to creating its own atomic bomb, but the Times revealed that the United States intends to stop Pakistan one way or another. One of the options under specific consideration has brought a stinging protest by Pakistan—and no wonder. That option is: covert operations. That, my friends, is exactly the option used by the United States in Guyana last November. In the case of Pakistan, those operations would involve sabotage of her atomic installations. Here at home, of course, sabotage is supposed to be inconceivable.

All across the world, the ferment increasingly has the flavor of dramatic change. For example, less than a decade ago the United States supported Pakistan in the war with India; and for five years now India has had the atomic bomb—but now, the United States reportedly wants to stop Pakistan from getting it. But things have changed, my friends. The Rockefellers a decade ago were at the peak of their power. India was slated for conquest in a plan which later ousted Indira Gandhi from power. But as I have revealed in recent tapes, the four Rockefeller brothers are no more. Their old allies who overthrew them, the atheistic Bolsheviks, have also been stopped in their tracks.


It is now Russia who controls most all of the top echelons of the United States Government; and as Pakistan ponders a changed America, Indira Gandhi is staging a comeback in India.

In the past year the biggest change of all has gone unannounced in our daily news. The end of a dynasty has taken place, the Rockefeller dynasty. It began a year ago last month with the eldest of the four brothers, John D. III. In AUDIO LETTER No. 36 I revealed how his death would cause Rockefeller efforts in Africa and Asia to start unraveling, and today the headless Rockefeller cartel is losing fast in southern Africa. The initiative is shifting back to Britain, which has established a special secret relationship with Russia. As for Asia, I have already pointed out the collapse of America’s so-called “China card” strategy, notwithstanding the present visit to China of the robotoid Mondale.

Turning to the Persian Gulf, we keep hearing about United States plans for a large contingency force. This force, known as the “Quick Reaction Corps”, would rush to the Gulf to protect our oil lifeline in time of crisis; but throughout the Gulf region itself, this plan has raised cries of protest. It’s an offshoot of the plan I made public a year ago to set up an American first strike against Russia; but even without knowing that, it’s obvious to everyone that the force would mean trouble. Kuwait has already served notice in public that the United States must not deploy these forces in the Gulf. If we do, Kuwait will destroy her own oil wells.

At this time last year the Shah of Iran was still in power, but the upheaval in Iran which was tied to the secret American
war plan ended his rule earlier this year. The revolution in Iran was also designed to break the access by British Petroleum
to Iranian oil. That has left practically the whole pie to the Rockefeller big oil cartel; but increasingly the Khomeini regime
has turned out to be an awkward puppet for big oil. Now Iran is becoming destabilized by internal strife among Kurds, Arabs, and leftist Iranians; and lately there have been huge demonstrations in Iran favoring the Palestine Liberation Organization.


The Iranian demonstrations have also been against Israel and the United States, as if the two were one. Meanwhile Israeli
artillery continues to pound southern Lebanon almost daily, and yet there’s been an obvious shift in America’s Middle East
policy. Several weeks ago Israeli Foreign Minister Dayan said publicly that a shift had taken place recently. There were
official denials but now the Andrew Young affair has created a bombshell for United States policy in the Middle East, and here at home smoldering tensions between Blacks and Jews have been fanned into open flames.

And so it goes, my friends. Wherever you look you will see the ferment of change. One way to look at this is to tell yourself that all these things are unrelated just as they are presented in the news. Viewed in that way, world events are impossible to understand or even remember. That’s the attitude that says: There’s no cause for human events, they just happen. But, my friends, there is a cause for everything we see. The sun does not rise every day by accident—there’s a reason for it; and the world is not stirring with the winds of change by accident—there’s a reason for it. This month, as always, I want to focus your attention on the reasons behind current events. Knowing these, you can better understand the individual events in the news for yourself. Maybe you can’t always affect these events directly, but it’s always better to be aware than to be taken by surprise; and for those who are not aware, there will be many surprises in these days of radical changes.

My three special topics this month are:





Topic #1


- One summer night in 1974 I was in the studios of a New York City radio station. The station was WMCA, the program was the famous LONG JOHN NEBEL SHOW. For quite some time the late Long John Nebel had been having me on his program as a guest once a month for about six hours. But that night I was asked a question about the Middle East. In my answer I said among other things that the troubles there began with the Palestinians and the Israelis, and they will end with the Palestinians and Israelis. Now many Zionist listeners were shocked to hear these words. For them, the Palestinians did not exist; and since that night I have never again been allowed to appear on WMCA or any other New York radio station. The then owner of WMCA is now the head of the VOICE OF AMERICA. Can you imagine? It has now been five years since I said those forbidden words about the Palestinians. Today, as then, the Zionists here and in Israel bristle with hostility at the very word “Palestinian”; and for most of those five years, American policy toward the Palestinians has echoed that of Zionists and of Israel. Four years ago, in 1975, Israel was secretly guaranteed that this policy would continue by the late Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. This policy was never passed on by Congress. As recently as last March 26, 1979, American policy was still to exclude the Palestinians. On that day the so-called “Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty” was signed in Washington. It did not amend this 1975 policy in any way, and so it continued to lock out the Palestinians.

In AUDIO LETTER No. 44 I explained how this secret policy was intended to lead very quickly not to peace but to war in the Middle East. That in turn was to lead to an American nuclear first strike against Russia. The secret American plan, which I made public one year ago this month in AUDIO LETTER No. 37, was moving fast, but since that time dramatic changes have been taking place in America’s foreign policy. This includes our foreign policy in general and our Middle East policy in particular. The changes began last April 1979 behind the scenes.

At that time the changes were not yet visible to the public, but that month I reported to my listeners that a secret war of “doubles” had broken out in Washington. The Intelligence Agencies of Russia, Britain, and Israel were struggling for control of the United States Government. Our own CIA was in disarray. The CIA had always been David Rockefeller’s private detective agency, but by then David Rockefeller was dead, replaced by a “double.” Rockefeller power in America had been shattered. In AUDIO LETTER No. 45 I reported that Russia was gaining the upper hand in the war of “doubles.” The following month I was able to reveal why they were winning. I also reported that two supersecret diplomatic shuttles to the Middle East had taken place. The shuttles involved what appeared to be top American officials, but it was actually a Russian operation to stop the Middle East war plan. And that was only the first step in Russia’s plan to revolutionize United States policy in the Middle East.

Many of my listeners seem to have ignored the detailed report I gave on these shuttles in AUDIO LETTER No. 46. For one thing, there was no hint about these developments in the major media news at that time; and if anything, the Middle East appeared to be on the back burner. But I think the significance of the shuttles may have been overlooked by many people for another reason. AUDIO LETTER No. 46 was the tape in which I first revealed Russia’s secret weapon—that is, “Organic Robotoids.” These artificial, living, robot-like creatures are shocking and mind-boggling. Their mere existence is a hard fact to absorb; so when I described their use in the shuttles later in the tape, it may have sounded minor by comparison. My friends, the events of recent days regarding the Middle East are the direct result of those shuttles! They initiated a radical shift in America’s Middle East policy because that policy is now being established by the Kremlin. I would urge you to go back and listen again to what you heard in AUDIO LETTER No. 46, especially regarding the Middle East shuttles, then the events of recent days should be much easier for you to understand.

On June 18, 1979, the SALT II signing took place in Vienna, Austria. America’s turnabout in favor of SALT II is another aspect of Russia’s take-over here. I have discussed that in recent tapes; but on the same day as the SALT II signing, another important meeting took place in Vienna. The robotoid replacement for Secretary of State Cyrus Vance met with Austria’s Chancellor, Bruno Kreisky. Kreisky is a Jew; but like many Jews, he has no sympathy with the political force known as Zionism. In the recent past, he has made scalding attacks on the ruling circles in Israel. In public statements about this, Kreisky has used words such as “paranoid”, “a police state”, to describe the Israeli government. The tough band of Christians who now rule Russia agree completely. Like Kreisky, the Russians have often made public statements blasting Zionism. In Topic #3 I’ll say more about the controversy over Zionism because this controversy is now moving onto center stage in a struggle over the future of all mankind.

In the Kreisky meeting with the Vance robotoid, the diplomatic status of the Palestinians was discussed. Ten days earlier, United States Ambassador to Austria, Milton Wolf, had already had a meeting with the representative of the PLO. Kreisky said he intended to invite Arafat, the PLO leader, for a formal visit to Vienna. In that way, Kreisky would be initiating a quasi-official recognition of the PLO as a political force. On July 8 Arafat arrived in Vienna, creating headlines in Europe.


Meanwhile, there had already been three meetings in Austria between United States Ambassador Wolf and a PLO representative.

On July 31 a Jimmy Carter robotoid began setting the stage for the Andrew Young affair. In an interview, robotoid Carter
compared the Palestinian problem to the Civil Rights movement in the United States. For days Israeli leaders were boiling, and their sympathizers in this country denounced the Carter remarks. On August 5, Israeli Foreign Minister Dayan complained publicly that in the past two months or so, quote: “There has been a shift in United States policy.” That shift, my friends, began with the secret robotoid shuttles, which I revealed three months ago. On August 13, special Middle East Envoy, Robert Strauss, or rather a Strauss robotoid, spoke before the American Bar Association in Dallas. He said the United States is committed to the security of Israel but also, quote: “the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.” The same day, the Andrew Young affair began. NEWSWEEK magazine broke the story that Young, as Ambassador to the United Nations, had met with the UN observer of the PLO, Zehdi Terzi. The next day the Israeli government loudly protested Young’s action. The day after that, August 15, he resigned.

Last month I alerted you to watch for more changing faces in positions of power here in the United States. The departure of Andrew Young is part of this “changing of the guard”, but it’s also much more. For one thing, the Young affair has highlighted the fact that America’s Middle East policy is changing, and it did so in a way that cast the Palestinians in a far more favorable light than in the past. Equally important to Russia, Israel has been lured into giving itself a black eye. In the past, Israel could always claim that the PLO was making peace impossible, but now the PLO is concentrating on a diplomatic drive for a peaceful accommodation with Israel. Israel’s response has been to try to sabotage this process. World-wide the reaction has been to start questioning whether Israel really wants peace. For example, on August 17, the BBC carried an interview with Antony McDermott of the Financial Times of London. He was asked his opinion of the Israeli objective in bringing about the Young resignation. He replied in part, quote: “I would speculate that if the PLO were through some miracle to come out and say ‘We accept the existence of Israel’, it would be extremely embarrassing to Mr. Begin because he’s constantly comparing them to the Nazis.” Russia had foreseen that Israel would try to stop the United States policy shift. The Andrew Young affair has caused Israel to injure herself by these efforts.

World opinion toward Israel is changing; but for Israel, the worst setback of all may be right here in the United States because the domestic fallout, my friends, of the Andrew Young affair is not at all what Israel had in mind.


Topic #2


- When Israel was proclaimed a separate nation in 1947 by the United Nations, the United States was the first great power to give it diplomatic recognition. Ever since that time, there has been a special relationship between the governments of the two countries. An essential ingredient in maintaining this relationship has been domestic support within the United States. For more than three decades American public opinion has been generally pro-Israel, but the Andrew Young affair is causing Israel to be seen in a different light by many Americans. For one thing, questions are now being raised about Israeli Intelligence activity in the United States. In the past this has never been a public issue, but that is changing because of the way in which the Young affair broke wide open.

On August 16, the day after he resigned, Young held a news conference at the United Nations. In the words of the BBC that
evening, Young blamed Israel for the events which led to his resignation. That same day, the Atlanta Constitution reported
that Israeli Intelligence agents had spied on Young’s meeting with PLO representative Terzi. The newspaper said that this enabled Israel to challenge Young’s original statement that the meeting had been inadvertent. Israel’s United Nations Ambassador Blum immediately denied the report; but when Young was asked about it, he said that he assumed he was being bugged but he did not care. Since then reports have continued to multiply about Israeli spying in the Young episode.
Israeli denials have just led to increasingly detailed reports about the spying, and in the process broader questions are being asked about Israeli spying here in the United States.


All this is very worrisome to the government of Israel because they have, my friends, left a trail. The fact is that the Mossad, Israel’s Intelligence Agency, is very active in the United States, but this is in violation of a secret agreement under which the Mossad is forbidden from this activity. In return, our own CIA is forbidden from the clandestine activities in Israel. Strangely enough, I can report that the CIA has adhered to the agreement, but both did work together in the Jonestown, Guyana tragedy, as I revealed in AUDIO LETTER 40. Israel is fearful of having Mossad activities here exposed as a cause celebre. Technically, the hundreds of Mossad agents in the United States could be rounded up and expelled. If this was done with great fanfare, the impact on Israel’s image here in America could be devastating. World opinion would also veer away from Israel, so the Zionists are doing everything in their power not to have an investigation. What they want most is for the controversy to just go away. At the same time, they’re trying to put the best possible face on Israeli Intelligence. For example, on August 21 an article appeared in the Washington Star entitled: “Discreet Mossad called World’s Best.”


The article is built mainly around the statements not by Israelis but by former American Intelligence officials. The impression conveyed is that the mighty Mossad easily could spy on anyone it wants to, but we are also to believe they just wouldn’t do such a thing as spy on the Young-Terzi meeting. So far though the questions about Israeli spying in the Young affair are refusing to go away. On August 23 the Washington Star carried a story in which an unnamed United States source is quoted as saying: “The Israelis have staked out the Arabs around the United Nations with bugs, taps, and surveillances. Young walked right into it.” The article says considerably more about the Young episode, then it expands into the subject of Israeli spying here in general. For example, quote: “According to one source, New York City is the center of Israeli spying in the United States and has been for years.” Another quote: “On one occasion United States officials learned that an Israeli wire tap operation was using a local synagogue as a cover.”


And a final quote:

“Each year in New York, moreover, there are numerous cases in which Israeli agents have been identified posing as FBI agents, complete with seemingly authentic credentials.”

By any standards, my friends, words like these in a major American newspaper signal a change from the past. Controversy over Intelligence activities could become a major fallout against Israel from the Young affair, but there is another domestic fallout which is even more important and that is the rupturing of political and other ties between the Blacks and the Jews. These tensions are very real, my friends, and have been building since the mid-sixties; but they have only now burst into the open for all to see. The catalyst, of course, was the Young affair. Up until now, practically the only Americans who were aware of these tensions were the Blacks and Jews themselves, but the strongest feelings in this rift are felt by the Blacks. They are the ones who feel they have been wronged, so I think the easiest way to describe the situation is in the words of Blacks themselves.

On August 16 Young himself blamed Israel for making his resignation necessary. The same day it was disclosed that United States Ambassador to Austria, Milton Wolf, had met three times with PLO representatives; but Wolf, who is Jewish, was not being reprimanded, much less forced to resign! For Blacks, that news added insult to injury. It got still worse the next day, August 17. It was announced that the United States had made a surprise proposal regarding the Security Council resolution on Palestinian Rights. The United States had asked Israel to support an American-sponsored resolution to that effect, but without success. With that news, Andy Young looked like nothing more than the fall guy for a new American policy. Blacks wondered:

“Why Andy? Why a Black?”

The same day, Young made comments on the NBC “Today Show” which were repeated on the BBC World Service. Young was asked about latent anti-Semitism in the Black community, and said, quote:

“I think there may be a resentment of a certain kind of arrogance that was played up, especially in the New York press; and there was a kind of arrogance of Jewish power, headlines saying: ‘Jews demand Young’s ouster.’ I think that’s caused the reaction by the Black community, which is a natural reaction, but in no way does that constitute anti-Semitism.”

The following day, August 18, an article in the New York Daily News illustrated the growing reaction of Black America. The article was by Black columnist Earl Caldwell. It was titled:

“Finally Played the Game, and Lost.”

Referring to the day after Young’s resignation, Caldwell wrote, quote:

“On Thursday, the afternoon was filled with the fallout. The clamor for his resignation had come primarily from the Jewish community. That is fact. And now the backlash that Andrew Young had warned the Israeli Ambassador about was rising. Downstairs on the steps of the Mission the Rev. Jesse Jackson was saying that Andrew Young was the fall guy, and that it was not the Klan that brought the Bakke case, that it was not the Klan that deals with Southern Africa, and that it was not the Klan that brought the pressure to fire Andrew Young; it was our former allies. And the backlash was building.”

(End of quote from the Earl Caldwell column.)

The rift between Blacks and Jews is continuing to grow, my friends. Already a group of Black ministers of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference has held a meeting with Palestinians, and they have announced their support for Palestinian rights. And during the past several days, a series of very powerful commentaries about the situation were carried over the American Forces Radio and TV Service. The commentator was James Rowe of the Mutual Black Network. Unlike most other programs on the American Forces Radio, the Rowe commentaries are followed by a disclaimer originating with the Mutual Black Network; but they are being beamed straight to our troops here and overseas. And, of course, our Armed Forces of today have a very high proportion of Blacks, here and abroad. The Rowe commentaries on the Young affair are instructive for two reasons. For one thing, they illustrate the growing backlash by many Blacks against Israel, but also Rowe reminds his listeners of some historical background facts which must be taken into account. Most Americans, Black or otherwise, do not remember this background, or at least do not think about it. In his commentary four days ago, August 23, Rowe began, quote:

“It’s time the United States stopped placating the Israelis and got down to the serious business of negotiating Peace in the Middle East. Every time something offends Israel, the Jewish American population rises up. They expect Black Americans to support them, despite the refusal of Jewish groups to support some of our most recent concerns. The Jewish groups left us when it came to reverse discrimination. Despite that, what is more important is RIGHT and WRONG. It is wrong that we support an ethnic group when they are mistaken, and Israel is mistaken in the treatment of the Palestinians. We cannot continue to pay for Hitler’s mistakes. Israel cannot be permitted to perpetrate upon another group of people what the Germans tried to do to them in World War II. If Israel has a right to exist, then so does the State of Palestine. The goal now should be: How do we achieve that?”

Further on, Rowe said:

“The United States Ambassador to Austria was not asked to resign although he had several meetings with the PLO representatives. So why did Andrew Young have to resign? Why did the first black United States Ambassador have to become the fall guy in a plan to appease Jerusalem and the Jewish lobby here? It is extremely complicated and much greater than concerns for oil from the region.”

The next day, August 24, James Rowe had more to say about the Young resignation, and he included some history in very concise terms. Here’s an excerpt from his commentary; quote:

“We cannot let ourselves go on the defensive every time the Jewish American lobby criticizes Blacks as anti-Semitic because we don’t agree with them. Anybody that doesn’t agree with Israel’s hard line stand is considered anti-Semitic in Jerusalem. If anyone is to be charged with responsibility for the current crisis in the Middle East, it should be Great Britain. And if anyone is to be charged with the protracted conflict in that region of the world, it is to be Israel. Britain had control over the land that made up Jordan and Palestine under a League of Nations’ mandate. The British wanted to end their colonialism there, and permitted Zionists to move in uncontrolled, and left the Palestinians to the Jordanians. The Palestinians were left without a home because London did not follow through on the United Nations’ recommendation of creating two separate states—one for the Israelis and one for the Palestinians. It appears Israel wants the Palestinians completely removed from the scene. Now comes the Andrew Young card. How does the United States support the human rights of the Palestinians without offending our long-time and hard-line friends in the Zionist movement? The United States is faced with supporting the human rights of the Palestinians—but to the offense of Jews. Perhaps Andy Young was the test of how offended Israel would be if America decided to give in to demands from the Palestine Liberation Organization.”

(End of quotation from the Rowe commentary of August 24.)

My friends, there was nothing accidental about the Young affair. To those who do not know about Russia’s secret take-over here in Washington, it all looks like a big mistake; but in reality Israel’s mighty Mossad has just been out-foxed by Russia’s KGB. The Russians, through the robotoids in the White House, control most all the top positions in the United States Government. They brought about the Young-Terzi meeting of July 26, and in doing so they knew it would be monitored by Israeli Intelligence. The Russians succeeded in planning and guiding events in a way beneficial to Russia.

In AUDIO LETTER 46, I mentioned that Prime Minister Begin of Israel had been replaced with a robotoid, as had Sadat of Egypt. Wholesale robotizing is not taking place in those countries. By using their Begin robotoid, Russia was able to make sure that Israel’s policy would be to make an issue of Young’s PLO contact. This action has caused the backlash reactions against Israel which I have already discussed. It has also enhanced the image of the Palestinians internationally. In addition, the Young flap provides an excuse for the United States to back into a more favorable treatment of the Palestinian cause. But, my friends, there will be other manipulated events to distract you from the Andrew Young affair, all created by friends of Israel still in our United States State Department.

The Russian target in the Andrew Young affair appears at first glance to be all the Jews in both Israel and the United States, but that is not the case. The true target in these Kremlin maneuvers is the political force called ZIONISM. Many Jews are not Zionists, and there are also Zionists who are not Jews; but Zionism masquerades as a movement that speaks for all Jews. For reasons I will discuss in Topic #3, the Christ-ones who rule Russia today intend to utterly break Zionism as a force in the world. A major part of this is to be the dismantling of Zionist power here in America. To that end, the Andrew Young affair was engineered to uncork the political pressures between Jews and Blacks. On the surface, this appears to mean all Jews; but the commentaries I quoted by James Rowe suggest that already the focus is narrowing. Black leaders are looking around carefully; and as they look at the Zionists, they are doing so with frowns and narrowed eyes.


Topic #3


- It has now been nearly two years since I first made public the overthrow of the Bolsheviks in Russia; and as my older listeners know, this is the outcome of six decades of struggle by a tightly knit band of native Russian Christians. Now they are out to destroy Bolshevism world-wide. The Kremlin’s campaign to wipe out Bolshevism is still a secret officially; but as important as Bolshevism is, the Kremlin rulers regard it as just one major tentacle of a giant serpent; and if they keep their anti-Bolshevism secret, they make no bones about their opposition to what they see as another tentacle. That tentacle is ZIONISM.

The origins of modern-day Zionism trace back to the late 19th Century, but the first major milestone toward the creation of a
Jewish state happened in 1917. Great Britain was looking for all the friends she could find in what was then called “The Great
War.” That year the United States was drawn into that war with the deliberate help of President Woodrow Wilson. But that same year, Russia was removed from the war against Germany by the Bolshevik Revolution. So the Allies were still under great pressure; and in order to enlist the growing power of the Zionist movement on the side of Britain, the famous Balfour Declaration was announced. Lord Balfour announced that Britain would look with favor on the creation of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine. Most Americans were too preoccupied with news of the war to think long about the Balfour Declaration in Britain; but soon after the war ended, a major protest was published against the plans of the Zionists. On March 5, 1919, readers of the New York Times saw a long PETITION on page 7 with the headline:


Nowadays if we saw a headline like that, most of us would probably pay little attention. We would assume that it was the work of the Arabs and turn the page; but that 1919 protest was presented and signed exclusively by Jews. And these were not some small splinter group of malcontents, they were a galaxy of Jewish stars in American politics, education, law, business, medicine, journalism, banking, as well as prominent rabbis; people like Congressman Julius Kahn of California who headed the list; Henry Morganthau, Sr., ex-Ambassador to Turkey; Simon Wolf, former consul to Egypt; Max Senior, former president of the National Conference of Jewish Charities; Professor Morris Jastrow of the University of Pennsylvania; Adolph Ochs, publisher of the New York Times; Lessing Rosenthal, Chicago attorney; Dr. Julius Rosenstein, surgeon at Mount Zion Hospital in San Francisco; L. H. Kampner, mayor of Galveston, Texas; I. W. Hellman, presidentof the Union Trust Company in San Francisco; and many others.

The PETITION begins, quote:

“As a future form of government for Palestine will undoubtedly be considered by the approaching Peace Conference, we, the undersigned citizens of the United States, unite in this statement setting forth our objections to the organization of a Jewish State in Palestine as proposed by the Zionist societies in this country and Europe.”

The petitioners felt that they were, quote: “voicing the opinion of the majority of American Jews.” To back that up, they pointed out, quote:

“The American Zionists represent, according to the most recent statistics available, only a small proportion of the Jews living in this country, about 150,000 out of 3-1/2 million.”

As their source, they cited the 1918 edition of the “American Jewish Yearbook” in Philadelphia.
The PETITION goes on to sound not only a protest but a series of warnings. The signers did sympathize with the concept of, quote:
“A refuge in Palestine or elsewhere.” They felt that this would be a good thing purely as a haven for Jews living under oppression; but they were bitterly opposed to the Zionist demands for, quote:

“Reorganization of the Jews as a national unit to whom now or in the future territorial sovereignty in Palestine shall be committed.”

The Jews who published that PETITION against a Zionist State 60 years ago turned out to be prophets. Like most prophets, their warnings went unheeded; but for more than three decades events in the Middle East have been acting out their warnings in flesh, blood, and tragedy.

I can do no more than highlight a few points from the anti-Zionist PETITION, which is long and detailed, but history demands that we be aware of the efforts of the anti-Zionist Jews to turn aside tragedy, deep tragedy. They pointed out that the Zionists were demanding, quote:

“A home not merely for Jews living in countries in which they are oppressed, but for Jews universally. No Jew, wherever he may live, can consider himself free from the implications of such a grant.”

From a practical standpoint, my friends, they pointed out that tiny Palestine could not hold all the Jews then living in the world. The 6 to 10 million in Russia and Romania alone would have produced hopeless overcrowding; but beyond that, they objected to what they termed “political segregation.” They felt it was both undemocratic and dangerous to Jews themselves the world over. They worried, quote:

“All Jews repudiate every suspicion of a double allegiance; but to our minds, it is necessarily implied in, and cannot by any logic be eliminated from, the establishment of a sovereign state for the Jews in Palestine.”

They added that, quote:

“As a rule, those who favor such a restoration advocate it not for themselves but for others. Those who act thus and yet insist on their patriotic attachment to the countries of which they are citizens are self-deceived in their profession of Zionism.”

They were worried that Jews themselves would be torn internally by pressures for double allegiance, and they were concerned that this would play into the hands of those who considered Jews, quote:

“Aliens in every land, incapable of true patriotism, and prompted only by sinister and self-seeking motives.”

Quoting Sir George Adam Smith, an authority of that day on Palestine, they also foresaw the bloodshed to come, quote:

“It is not true that Palestine is the national home of the Jewish people and of no other people. It is not correct to call its non-Jewish inhabitants Arabs, or to say that they have left no image of their spirit and made no history except in the great mosque; nor can we evade the fact that Christian communities have been as long in the possession of their portion of this land as ever the Jews were.”

The PETITION also says, quote:

“The claims to various sections of this undefined territory would unquestionably evoke bitter controversies. To subject the Jews to the possible recurrence of such bitter and sanguinary conflict, which would be inevitable, would be a crime.”

Finally, they concluded with the words:

“We do not wish to see Palestine, either now or at any time in the future, organized as a Jewish State.”

But, my friends, the Zionists were successful in thwarting this appeal by prominent American Jews. Israel became a nation in 1947, and the predicted bloodshed began immediately. Israeli terrorism by Menachem Begin and others caused Palestinian blood to run red in the streets. Palestinians became refugees in their own land, and the borders of Israel began expanding. Soon there was nothing left of what had been called Palestine. The Middle East war plan, which the Russians halted in May 1979, involved the Zionists in alliance with the Bolsheviks. The Russians are determined to end the threat of nuclear war; and after 30 years of Israeli history, they have concluded the same thing about Zionism as about Bolshevism. They are convinced that there will be no peace in the world for Jew, Moslem, or Christian so long as Zionism exists. So they are now in a two-front war to destroy both Zionism and Bolshevism.


Long ago Russia’s new rulers discovered that Zionism and Bolshevism had common origins. These origins involved the
ROTHSCHILDS, but others are involved also, so they are now following the trail of Satanic power towards its origins using
their secret weapons—the robotoids. Right now they are striking at the tentacles of world power, like ZIONISM and BOLSHEVISM; but when the time is ripe, they are hoping to strike at the very headof world Satanic power.

Until next month, God willing, this is Dr. Beter. Thank you, and may God bless each and every one of you.