Le non-interventionnisme serait-il antijuif? Le discours de Donald Trump à Washington fait peur aux organisations juives. Alex Jones aura du mal à concilier le discours « America First » de son héros Donald Trump avec son propre discours anti-nazi obsessionnel. En effet, le mouvement américain « America First » fut historiquement un repaire de pro-nazis et d’antijuifs, ces « indésirables » qu’Alex Jones associe systématiquement au « nouvel ordre mondial ». Pour ceux qui croient comme Alex Jones qu’il fallait absolument combattre la menace nazie, des gens comme Charles Lindbergh (leader d’America First) qui s’opposaient à la guerre et défendaient les nazis ne pouvaient être que des agents au service du complot nazi en sol américain.


VIDEO – L’Amérique d’abord, le slogan de politique étrangère de Trump

L’Amérique d’abord: Donald Trump veut une politique étrangère moins interventionniste

Le slogan de politique étrangère de Trump, «l’Amérique d’abord», a un passé pro-nazi Le candidat à la primaire républicaine a utilisé une expression, «America First», qui fait écho à la neutralité des États-Unis vis-à-vis des nazis.  Dans un long discours le 27 avril, le candidat républicain Donald Trump a dévoilé ses objectifs en matière de politique étrangère, et il les a résumés en un slogan simple: «l’Amérique d’abord», ou «America first».  Or dans l’histoire des États-Unis, ces mots ont une histoire chargée de sens. En effet, le slogan est associé au comité America First, créé en 1940 dans le but d’empêcher les États-Unis d’entrer en guerre contre l’Allemagne nazie. Son porte-parole le plus célèbre était l’aviateur Charles Lindbergh, qui a dit beaucoup de bien du Troisième Reich dans les années 1930, et ne voyait pas la légitimité d’entrer en guerre contre le nazisme. Il est ausssi connu pour ses commentaires antisémites et racistes, et de nombreux membres du comité America First partageaient ces points de vue.

«L’Amérique d’abord», la politique étrangère «du XIXe siècle» de Donald Trump Donald Trump a passé son grand oral. Depuis un hôtel de Washington, le leader de la primaire républicaine a dévoilé sa philosophie en matière de politique étrangère. C’est donc « l’Amérique d’abord », un slogan piqué à l’isolationniste Charles Lindbergh, opposé à l’intervention américaine pour combattre le nazisme.  « Ma politique étrangère placera toujours les intérêts des Américains et la sécurité de l’Amérique avant toute autre chose », a déclaré Trump.

VIDEO – ‘America First’: Trump lays out foreign policy vision in Washington speech

VIDEO – Donald Trump Invokes Infamous ‘America First’ Slogan | Rachel Maddow | MSNBC


ADL Urges Donald Trump to Reconsider “America First” in Foreign Policy Approach The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today urged presidential candidate Donald Trump to reconsider his use of the phrase “America First” as a slogan describing his approach to foreign affairs, citing its anti-Semitic use in the months before Pearl Harbor by a group of prominent Americans seeking to keep the nation out of World War II.

Note: Everything is ANTI-SEMITIC TO ADL.

ADL Targets Trump: Saying « America First » is Anti-Semitic « The most noteworthy leader of the ‘America First Committee’ was Charles Lindbergh, » the ADL said in a press release Thursday, « who sympathized with the Nazis and whose rhetoric was characterized by anti-Semitism and offensive stereotypes. »

Trump Urged to Drop ‘America First’ Slogan Due to anti-Semitic Past The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) urged Trump to reconsider the phrase Thursday citing its « anti-Semitic use in the months before Pearl Harbor by a group of prominent Americans seeking to keep the nation out of World War II. »  According to a statement released by the Jewish watchdog, the most leader of the “America First Committee” was Charles Lindbergh, who « sympathized with the Nazis and whose rhetoric was characterized by anti-Semitism and offensive stereotypes, including assertions that Jews posed a threat to the U.S. because of their influence in motion pictures, radio, the press, and the government. »

ADL to Trump: Come up with something other than ‘America First’ Organization reminds Republican front-runner that term is closely associated with WWII-era anti-Semitism, pro-Nazi proclivities.

Non-intervention.com – Trump embraces America First, gives the republic a chance to survive and its foes apoplexy By Michael Scheuer. Trump’s 27 April 2016 speech on foreign policy is not perfect; indeed, parts of it merit strong criticism. But Trump has now said to the American people what no one, save Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul, has been willing to say since 1945. That is, the U.S. government exists for only two reasons: (a) to pursue and defend the republic’s genuine national security interests and to wage war only as a last resort, and then slay without mercy those who dared attack them, and (b) to protect and advance the well-being, jobs, liberties, unity, and prosperity of American citizens. In short, Trump seems to believe — as did the Founders — that if the U.S. national government does not make the furtherance of America’s interests its first and absolute priority, it has, to paraphrase Mr. Jefferson, no possible reason to exist, and its citizens, in turn, have every possible justification, and the unavoidable moral and legal responsibility to themselves and their posterity, to ruthlessly destroy it and replace it with one that can be relied on to always act only on their behalf and in their interests.

At Last, America First! By Patrick J. Buchanan  Whether the establishment likes it or not, and it evidently does not, there is a revolution going on in America.

Fuhrer Donald Trump and His New America First Movement! By Eugene Elander  (…) Case in point — The America First Movement, a loosely organized national political movement of the 1930s and 1940s which grew out of a reaction and rejection of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, his New Deal, and interventionists allegedly led by Communists and British interests who were urging America into the Second World War. America Firstersoften expressed admiration for the Nazi Fuhrer Adolf Hitler and his Third Reich. Aviation hero Charles Lindbergh and industrialist Henry Ford were seen by many as key leaders of the America First Movement, which pretty-much ended with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. At that point, America finally declared war on both Japan and Nazi Germany — and thus Americans decisively rejected this isolationist America First Movement as a denial of our most basic international responsibilities towards our fellow nations, as well as being totally counter to our own self-interest.  Still, it is truly said that what goes around comes around, and Republican presidential candidate Donald J. Trump has now resurrected America First as his new campaign theme and slogan. This latest Trumpeting of a failed slogan, and of a failed movement which otherwise might well have lost World War II for the Free World, demonstrates once again the Trumpster s utter lack of any historic perspective, and his small knowledge of Twentieth Century history. But there is even more that is demonstrated, as America First is a campaign gaffe providing insight about Trump.

Trump doubles down on ‘America First’ foreign policy slogan as he says ‘NATO is obsolete’      Donald Trump continued to flog ‘America First’ as his central foreign-policy frame

TIME | The Long History Behind Donald Trump’s ‘America First’ Foreign Policy In the course of an interview with the New York Times, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump had his foreign policy boiled down to two words: “America First.” In an exchange prompted by the Times‘ David E. Sanger, who was the first to use the phrase in the course of the interview, Trump said that he was “not isolationist” but that he was, in fact, “America First.”  “I like the expression,” the candidate said. “I’m ‘America First.’”  Trump explained that what he meant by the idea was that his administration would prevent other nations from taking advantage of the United States. But whatever he meant, those words come with nearly a century’s worth of political baggage.

Anti-War.com | Nationalism and Its Discontents: The Meaning of Trump  The return of dreaded “isolationism” is cause for celebration

Donald Trump Isn’t the First American Politician to Put ‘America First’  PHOTO: Thousands gather at an America First Committee rally in the Chicago Arena to listen to organizations chairmen, Gen. Robert Wood and Col. Charles Lindbergh give speeches advocating for isolationism and cutting off aid to Britain, April 17, 1941.The LIFE Picture Collection/Getty Images. Donald Trump’s foreign policy speech today was the first time that the Republican presidential front-runner clearly declared his foreign policy priorities, and he summarized them as keeping « America First. »  He isn’t the first person to do so.  « America First » has been the name of at least two political groups in the past century, both of which focused their platforms on non-interventionist foreign policies.  Opposing World War II Intervention  The first iteration came in the 1940s with the America First Committee, which was formed largely in an effort to keep the United States out of World War II.  Historian Arthur Schlesinger told PBS that there were a number of supporters for the party who went on to be prominent politicians, including later President Gerald Ford, later Rep. Jonathan Bingham, and relatives of the Taft family.  The committee’s most famous supporter at the time of its existence was famed pilot Charles Lindbergh, who spoke at their rallies and championed the cause.

BLOOMBERG | Trump’s New Slogan Has Old Baggage From Nazi Era, By Eli Lake Donald Trump has given up on winning historically literate voters. Consider the theme of his major foreign policy speech Wednesday: « America first. »  This slogan is most associated with aviator Charles Lindbergh, who spent a great deal of time in the late 1930s gushing at how wonderful the Third Reich was. Before the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, Lindbergh helped form « America First » committees that campaigned to keep the U.S. from fighting the Axis Powers. Lindbergh rose to become a demagogue and accused President Franklin Roosevelt of colluding with a Jewish lobby and Britain to drag America into World War II.  For years this phrase was toxic. Pat Buchanan has used it from time to time, but « America first » and the idea it represented — American neutrality towards the Nazis — has been largely banished from respectable discourse.  Now Trump is bringing the phrase back to the mainstream. He deploys it at his campaign rallies. And in his major foreign policy speech Wednesday, there it was right at the top. The real-estate magnate promised to « always put the interests of the American people first. » He said: « That will be the foundation of every single decision I will make. ‘America first’ will be the major and overriding theme of our administration. »

Trump’s ‘America First’ has ugly echoes from U.S. history (CNN) « My foreign policy will always put the interests of the American people, and American security, above all else. That will be the foundation of every decision that I will make. America First will be the major and overriding theme of my administration. » It is extremely unfortunate that in his speech Wednesday outlining his foreign policy goals, Donald Trump chose to brand his foreign policy with the noxious slogan « America First, » the name of the isolationist, defeatist, anti-Semitic national organization that urged the United States to appease Adolf Hitler.  Susan Dunn Susan Dunn The America First Committee actually began at Yale University, where Douglas Stuart Jr., the son of a vice president of Quaker Oats, began organizing his fellow students in spring 1940. He and Gerald Ford, the future American president, and Potter Stewart, the future Supreme Court justice, drafted a petition stating, « We demand that Congress refrain from war, even if England is on the verge of defeat. » Trump responds to Hitler comparison Their solution to the international crisis lay in a negotiated peace with Hitler. Other Yale students — including Sargent Shriver, who served in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, and Kingman Brewster, the chairman of the Yale Daily News, future president of Yale and ambassador to the Court of St. James — joined their isolationist crusade.

JEWISH JOURNAL |  Donald Trump: From America First to America’s Worst Donald Trump recently declared himself in favor of “America First.” It is doubtful he knows anything of the historical antecedents of America First—from Charles Lindbergh’s pre-World War II crusade to “keep us out of war” against Hitler by blaming war mongering on the Jews, to Pat Buchanan’s revival of America Firsterism in his 1992 GOP presidential bid and his vicious anti-Israel magazine, The American Conservative, that all our troubles on sinister forces that seek “to conscript American blood to make the world safe for Israel.”  Lindbergh had set the stage by warning—or threatening—that “Jews in this country . . . would be the first to feel its consequences” if they succeeded in “agitating” America into World War II.  Trump is very much in the tradition of American Firster Isolationism.

Trump’s Support for America First Is Not Part of His Bigotry: Pacifist Organization Was Prescient in Some of Its Warnings  In recent statements, Trump has echoed many on the left including Bernie Sanders in suggesting that America should stop policing the world which has been a recipe for cataclysm, stating: “we were the big bully but not smartly led.” Trump went on to claim that Americans have gotten relatively little in return for underwriting the security of many foreign countries except trade deficits, saying that “we won’t be ripped off anymore because we don’t have the money.” When asked about America First, a pacifist organization founded on the eve of World War II, he said, “I like the expression. Not isolationist, but America first.”  Trump’s comments tapped into deep underlying unease with America’s status as an empire garrisoning the globe which carries out covert operations and assassination missions in an estimated 135 countries. Many now sense that the main beneficiaries of the U.S. empire are large corporate interests who have off-shored thousands of manufacturing jobs and saddled the U.S. with extensive debt.

‘America First’ Trump leading GOP to fortress nationalist fringe  “Make America Great Again” means keeping foreigners out, reserving American jobs for the American-born, punishing our more “cunning” trading partners — especially Mexico and China — building walls and withdrawing from foreign alliances and wars.  This brand of American nationalism is not new. Trump’s “America First” slogan is a throwback to the pre-World War II movement against U.S. entry into the war. The America First Committee, whose most famous member was aviator and Adolf Hitler admirer Charles Lindbergh, argued that the United States should build an impregnable defense but stay out of the war in Europe — a position that was, in the late 1930s, highly popular with the American people.

Trump’s new America First slogan was first used by anti-war zealots who claimed the Nazis WEREN’T a danger (…)  * Donald Trump’s foreign policy slogan – which he debuted to the general public today –  was used by non-interventionists before World War II (…) *Trump has used the ‘America First’ slogan in speeches for the past couple of weeks

Trump’s ‘America First’ theme draws criticis Republican front-runner Donald Trump faced criticism Thursday for saying the focus of his administration will be « America First. »  That’s the same name used by a committee that opposed the U.S. entering World War II to fight Nazi Germany. Its most prominent spokesman, aviator Charles Lindbergh, accused the Jewish people of trying to push the country into war, saying « their greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio and our government. » The committee largely disbanded after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.  In his major foreign policy address on Wednesday, a day after he said he was the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, Trump said, « America First » will be the major and overriding theme of my administration. »  Here’s what Trump said about foreign policy  Here’s what Trump said about foreign policy  Republican front-runner Donald Trump addressed the Washington foreign policy establishment.  The Anti-Defamation League, which has been critical of some of Trump’s previous comments, urged Trump to find another theme.

Trump Risks Charles Lindbergh Label with ‘America First’ Foreign Policy Speech

FORWARD | Trump ‘America First’ Slogan Carries Lindbergh Nazi-Friendly Undertones A slogan Donald Trump used in a Wednesday foreign policy speech hearkens back to a phrase used by American aviator Charles Lindbergh, who argued for American neutrality against the Nazis.  The “America First” motto, which Trump employed Wednesday, was also used by Lindbergh to argue against American involvement in World War II, wrote Bloomberg columnist Eli Lake.  Trump said he would “always put the interests of the American people first. That will be the foundation of every single decision I will make. ‘America first’ will be the major and overriding theme of our administration.”  Following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Lindbergh organized “America First” groups that lobbied to keep the U.S. out of the war.  The famous pilot argued for an isolationist foreign policy stance, and accused president Franklin Roosevelt of conspiring with Jewish groups and Britain to promote American involvement in World War II.  Some of Trump’s policy suggestions, such as decreasing defense support to NATO allies, suggest similar isolationist ideals, Lake wrote.

Donald Trump’s ‘America First’ slogan has a toxic past  US history scholar Gary Gerstle tells DW why he is stunned that Donald Trump chose « America First » as his foreign policy motto. He also details why Trump’s effort to make the discredited slogan sound innocent will fail.

Trump’s Support for Israel Marred by Troubling Revival of ‘America First’ Slogan Republican frontrunner’s foreign policy speech will remind American Jews of isolationist movement stained by anti-Semitism that tried to block war with Hitler.

As expected, Trump’s ‘America First’ slogan stirs up the Jewish MSM

Trump’s anti-interventionist foreign policy causes a panic among the warmongers

‘America First’ – The Trump Slogan the Establishment Hates

German Foreign Minister Slams Trump for ‘America First’ Remark  Frank-Walter Steinmeier says he hopes U.S. election campaign ‘does not lack the perception of reality’ after Trump states that if elected, European allies would be left to fend for themselves.

A First: GOP Leaders Like Trump Speech

Trump terrifies (western) world leaders

Neocon Armchair Warhawks Panic Over Trump Foreign Policy

GOP Foreign Policy Experts Warn A Trump Presidency Would ‘Endanger America’

VIDEO – Éric Zemmour : « La communauté internationale n’existe pas et n’existera jamais » Très bon commentaire sur Obama et sa mise au rancart de l’interventionnisme, qui revient ouvertement dans le discours ‘America First’ de Trump.

Trump on foreign policy: Iran deal allowed it to become a ‘great power’ at Israel’s expense

Trump : Obama a abandonné les alliés des Etats-Unis, notamment Israël Le favori des primaires républicaines veut une politique étrangère moins interventionniste

Trump: Obama Made Iran a Great Power at Israel’s Expense  In first foreign policy speech, Republican frontrunner says U.S. under his leadership would get out of ‘nation-building business,’ vows to make U.S. allies bear financial burden for their defense.

Trump vows to put ‘America first,’ criticizes Obama for ‘snubbing’ Israel  In his largely anticipated formal foreign policy speech, the US Republican presidential hopeful laid out a policy putting his country before others and slammed the current administration’s treatment of the Jewish State.

Under Obama, candidate laments, ‘We pick fights with our oldest friends’ Obama ‘snubbed’ Israel, treated Iran with ‘tender love and care,’ Trump charges In speech outlining foreign policy, Republican front-runner hammers home ‘America first,’ says Islamic Republic won’t get nuclear weapons if he’s president.

Lindsey Graham in Israel: Trump’s foreign policy worse than Obama’s

Trump is worse than Obama on Israel and foreign policy, GOP senator says

Trump Vows To Seek Better Relations With Russia If Elected

Donald Trump : «Nous avons fait du Moyen Orient un endroit plus chaotique qu’avant»

Donald Trump précise sa vision de la politique étrangère

Le candidat Donald Trump ne ménage pas ses critiques contre l’Otan

Is Trump Right About NATO? I am « not isolationist, but I am ‘America First,’ » Donald Trump told The New York Times last weekend. « I like the expression. »

Trump: ‘I want to get along with Russia’

Trump to NATO: You’re Fired!

Will Trump Get NATO off Our Backs?

Trump questions need for NATO, outlines non-interventionist foreign policy

‘America First Not Israel’: Detroit billboard urges US to restrict influence of Jewish Lobby

Controversial billboard that reads America first over Israel put up in Detroit

With more chutzpa than experience, Orthodox lawyer advises Trump on Israel

Anti-Trump Forces Routed in New York

Tensions entre Donald Trump et des donateurs juifs

Make Israel Great Again: Dovish Israeli Politicians Take Page Out of Trump Playbook  Nowadays it seems everyone in the Israeli center-left wants to become a tough-talking, BDS-confronting, Haaretz-hating, leftist-basher.

VIDEO – America First: Trump and the New American Fascist Movement




VIDEO – Extrait du discours du célèbre américain Charles Lindbergh du 11 septembre 1941, juste avant les événements de Pearl Harbour.


Écouter la version originale, plus longue:

VIDEO – Charles Lindbergh’s – September 11, 1941 Des Moines Speech

Dans son célèbre discours du 11 septembre 1941 (l’intégrale en format texte, extrait traduit en fr.) contre les fauteurs de guerre (quelques mois à peine avant les événements de Pearl Harbour), Charles Lindbergh, le célèbre patriote américain et leader de l’organisation antiguerre America First Committee, accusait:

1) les Juifs,

2) les Britanniques (Churchill, que l’on sait avoir été dirigé par la clique de financiers juifs The Focus), et  

3) l’administration (juive) de Roosevelt (qui avait pourtant promis « pas de guerre »)

d’avoir trahi et mené le peuple américain à l’abattoir en faisant pression pour que les États-Unis envoyent leur jeunesse se faire tuer dans une guerre en tous points contraire aux intérêts de la nation états-unienne.



Qu’ont en commun les personnalités américaines suivantes?

  • John F. Kennedy (Président des États-Unis)
  • Gerald R. Ford (Président des États-Unis)
  • Kingman Brewster (président de Yale)
  • Amos Pinchot (homme politique républicain)
  • Alice Roosevelt Longworth (fille de Theodor Roosevelt)
  • Kathleen Norris (écrivaine)
  • E.E. Cummings (poète)
  • William Saroyan (écrivain)
  • Gore Vidal (écrivain politique)
  • Frank Lloyd Wright (architecte)
  • Sinclair Lewis (écrivain)
  • Général Robert Wood
  • Général Hugh Johnson
  • Général de la marine Smedley Darlington Butler (auteur de « War is Racket« )



Ils ont tous appuyé l’America First Committee !

D’autres populistes et patriotes importants tels Ezra Pound et Henry Ford ont été associés à l’America First Committee, qui s’opposait vigoureusement (comme le peuple américian lui-même) à l’entrée en guerre des États-Unis au cours de la Seconde Guerre mondiale, une guerre dans laquelle les États-Unis n’avaient rien à faire et tout à perdre.

Charles Lindbergh était certes antijuif et pro-nazi, tout comme son grand ami et allié Henry Ford (ce même Henry Ford qu’Hitler admirait au point d’accrocher un portrait de lui dans son bureau), or le fait est que le mouvement anti-guerre aux États-Unis était motivé surtout par le non-interventionnisme (et non par des idées nazies). Le mouvement antiguerre états-unien étant fortement enraciné dans des organisations patriotiques telles que l’America First Committee, dont Lindbergh était non seulement le fondateur mais sa plus importante tête pensante et l’un de ses plus fervents militant.

Joseph Kennedy, un autre grand ami de Lindbergh, appuya lui aussi l’idée d’ « America First », car il ne voyait pas l’intérêt de mener une guerre contre les nazis en Europe. Il avait remarqué avec justesse, comme le souligne David Irving :« Et l’objet de la haine était bien les Allemands en tant que peuple, non pas « les nazis », comme on aime souvent à le faire croire aujourd’hui. « Les Anglais ne combattent pas Hitler », avait remarqué l’ambassadeur américain, Joe Kennedy, « mais le peuple allemand » (p.189). » (Source: Churchill’s War, in « David Irving et Churchill » de Joseph Coutelier)

À lire:

* Il y a 40 ans disparaissait Charles Lindbergh, aviateur, inventeur, écrivain et… « antisémite »

* DEFEND AMERICA FIRST: A Compilation of Five Anti-War Addresses Delivered on Behalf of the America First Committee

* What Did Ezra Pound Really Say? by Michael Collins Piper

* « Ezra Pound Speaking » Radio Speeches of World War II, by Ezra Pound

* Henry Ford et l’antisémitisme américain, par F. Duprat

Henry Ford and the America First Committee:

Ford’s actions show that he was opposed to the forces of war. He did not do himself any favors by opposing the “destructive Wall Street.” In 1915 Ford chartered the Oscar II, otherwise known as the Ford “Peace Ship,” in the hope of persuading the belligerents of the world war to attend a peace conference. The mission received mostly ridicule. Those aboard, including Ford, were wracked with influenza. Ford continued to fund the “Peace Ship” as it traveled around Europe for two years, and despite the ridicule was widely regarded as a sincere, if naïve, pacifist. Dr. Sutton does not mention Ford’s “Peace Ship” or his peace campaign during World War I. Therefore, when he was an early supporter of the America First Committee,35 founded in 1940 to oppose Roosevelt’s efforts to entangle the USA in a war against Germany, he was too easily dismissed as pro-Nazi, as was America First.36 Very prominent Americans joined from a variety of backgrounds, including General Robert A. Wood, president of Sears Roebuck, and among the most active, aviation hero Charles Lindbergh. Socialist Party leader Norman Thomas was a regular speaker at rallies. Many Congressmen and Senators resisted the Roosevelt war machine. They included pacifists, liberals, Republicans, Democrats, conservatives. Of Henry Ford, George Eggleston, an editor of Reader’s Digest, Scribner’s Commentator, and formerly of Life, and a major figure in America First, recalled that so far from being a “Nazi,” Ford expressed the hope that there would be a “parliament of man,” “a world-wide spirit of brotherhood, and an end to armed conflict.”37 ( The Myth of the Big Business-Nazi Axis, K.R. Bolton)

Lindbergh et Ford appuyaient sans réserve Adolf Hitler et comme ce dernier ils ne voulaient pas la guerre, cependant leur opposition à cette guerre ne venait pas de leurs sympathies nazies hitlériennes, elle s’enracinait plutôt dans la pensée non-interventionniste des Pères fondateurs des États-Unis tels que George Washington, Thomas Jefferson et plus tard Andrew Jackson, qui craignaient l’emmêlement de leur pays dans des conflits à l’étranger et pour des intérêts qui ne sont pas les leurs.

Thomas Jefferson a dit: « La paix, le commerce, une honnête amitié avec toutes les nations, d’étroites alliances avec aucune ».

À propos de l’antijudaïsme de Jefferson, Michael Collins Piper écrit dans The New Babylon (2009):

Although the beloved author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, was a firm advocate for religious liberty in America for Jews and all people, what has been carefully censored from the history books is the absolute fact that Jefferson clearly considered the Jewish religion itself to be quite abominable.  Writing to John Adams on Oct. 13, 1813, the widely read intellectual commented on the Talmud and other Jewish teachings: « What a wretched depravity of sentiment and manners must have prevailed before such corrupt maxims could have obtained credit! It is impossible to collect from these writings a consistent series of moral doctrine. »  Describing himself as « a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, » Jefferson wrote to William Short (on Oct. 31, 1819) that he considered Jesus « the greatest of all the reformers of the depraved religion of his own country, » adding in a subsequent letter to Short (Aug. 4, 1820) that while Christ preached « philanthropy and universal charity and benevolence, » the Jews followed teachings that instilled in them « the most anti-social spirit towards other nations. »  Jefferson wrote that Jesus — as a « reformer of the superstitions of a nation, » was in an « ever dangerous » position by opposing « the priests of the superstition » — the Pharisees — whom he described as « a blood thirsty race … cruel and remorseless as the Being whom they represented as the family God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob, and the local God of Israel. »


George Washington a décrit clairement l’isolationnisme américain, qu’il appelle la doctrine du « non-entanglement » (non-engagement), dans son discours d’adieu du 19 septembre 1796  :

« Notre Grande règle de conduite envers les nations étrangères est d’étendre nos relations commerciales afin de n’avoir avec elles qu’aussi peu de liens politiques qu’il est possible. Autant que nous avons déjà formé des engagements remplissons-les, avec une parfaite bonne foi. Et tenons-nous en là. L’Europe a un ensemble d’intérêts primordiaux, qui avec nous n’ont aucun rapport, ou alors très lointain. Par conséquent elle est engagée dans de fréquentes polémiques, dont les causes sont essentiellement étrangères à nos soucis. Par conséquent donc il est imprudent pour nous de s’impliquer, à cause de liens artificiels, dans les vicissitudes ordinaires de sa politique, ou les combinaisons et les conflits ordinaires de ses amitiés ou de ses inimitiés. […] Pourquoi renoncer aux avantages d’une situation si particulière ? Pourquoi quitter notre propre sol pour se tenir sur une terre étrangère ? Pourquoi, en entrelaçant notre destin avec celui d’une quelconque part de l’Europe, empêtrer notre paix et notre prospérité dans les labeurs des ambitions, rivalités, intérêts, humeurs ou caprices européens ? C’est notre politique véritable d’avancer exempt d’Alliances permanentes avec n’importe quelle partie du Monde étranger – Aussi loin, veux-je dire, que nous sommes maintenant capables de le faire – ne me croyez pas capable de recommander d’être infidèle aux engagements existants, (je soutiens la maxime non moins applicable aux affaires publiques que privées, que l’honnêteté est toujours la meilleur politique) – Je le répète donc, continuez à appliquer ces engagements dans leur sens véritable. Mais à mon avis, il est inutile et serait imprudent de les étendre. »

Certains individus qui propageaient les idées non-interventionnistes au cours de la Seconde Guerre mondiale ont été visés par le gouvernement pour des accusations de sédition. Les intellectuels pro-fascistes, pro-nazis et antijuifs Elizabeth Dilling (une amie de la russe anti-judéo-bolchévique Paquita de Shishmareff, auteure de Waters Flowing Eastwards, disponible en français) et Lawrence Dennis ont été mis sur le banc des accusés.

In July 1942 the Roosevelt administration for the first time deployed its police powers against the right. About six weeks after federal agents captured a team of German saboteurs in the United States, prosecutors indicted for sedition twenty-eight German agents, Bund members, and far-right activists including Elizabeth Dilling of the Mothers Movement, and shirt leaders Gerald Winrod and Joseph Pelley. The indictment named the America First Committee and antiwar mother’s groups but no left-wing opponents of war. The trial began in 1944 under new indictments that dropped the antiwar groups and added the alleged pro-fascist Lawrence Dennis. Prosecutors charged defendants with violating the Smith Act of 1940 by conspiring with Nazi agents to overthrow the US government. The trial dragged on through eight inconclusive months and the deaths of the presiding judge. In 1946 a new judge dismissed all charges, ruling that a new trial would be a “travesty of justice”. Conservatives charged the president with chilling free speech and tarring his political opposition as anti-Semitic and pro-fascist. “The crackpots in the so-called sedition trial,” Sterling Morton wrote to Alf Landon, “were the victims of just what the New Dealers would have liked to subject you, Bob Wood, Lindbergh, myself and others if they hadn’t felt that we had too many friends, too much standing, and too many resources to make it worth while.” (Source: White Protestant Nation, by Alan J Lichtman)

Lors de ce procès pour sédition qui visa également d’autres patriotes américains tels que Elizabeth Dilling et Paquita de Shishmareff (alias L. Fry), des preuves ont été amenées devant le tribunal pour tenter de démontrer que Dennis n’était pas un blanc mais en partie noir et qu’il n’était en fin de compte qu’un « agent nazi opérant aux États-Unis ». Pour convaincre le juge, l’accusation a documenté le fait que les nazis tentaient, à cette époque, d’informer la population noire (afro-américaine) et latino afin de les mettre en garde contre le péril juif.

Selon Dennis, le BN’ai Brith était derrière leur mise en accusation. Voir à ce sujet l’article très complet de Michael Collins Piper intitulé The Great Sedition Trial.

According to Dennis, it was the design of the sedition trial to target not the big-name critics of the Roosevelt war policies, but instead to use the publicity surrounding the trial to frighten the vast numbers of potential grass-roots critics of the intervention in the Eurasian war into silence, essentially showing them that, they, too, could end up in the dock if they were to dare to speak out as the defendants had in opposition to the administration’s policies. (p.4)

“One of the most important Jewish organizations behind the sedition trial was the B’nai B’rith [referring, specifically, to the B’nai B’rith adjunct known as the Anti-Defamation League or ADL].”12 According to Dennis: “Getting the federal government to stage such a trial, like getting America into the war, was a ‘must’ on the agenda of the fighters against isolationism and anti- Semitism (Note 13: Maximilian St. George and Lawrence Dennis, A Trial on Trial. National Civil Rights Committee, p. 68.).(p.7)

Lawrence Dennis misait sur l’importance capitale du non-interventionnisme et appuyait totalement la ligne America First (lire à ce sujet son « appel à la raison » republié plusieurs fois par Michael Collins Piper). Plus de détails sur Lawrence Dennis:

* Mr. Lawrence Dennis Appeals to Reason, by Michael Collins Piper

* Tale of a « Seditionist » – The Lawrence Dennis Story, By Justin Raimondo

* The Subversion of Lawrence Dennis  by Justin Raimondo REVIEW of The Color of Fascism: Lawrence Dennis, Racial Passing, and the Rise of Right-Wing Extremism in the United States, by Gerald Horne, New York University Press, 2007: 227 pp.

Vous avez peut-être entendu parler du « nationalisme international »… Dit autrement: « Nationalistes de tous les pays unissez vous! » C’est la ligne de pensée des auteurs populistes et nationalistes Willis Carto et Michael Collins Piper depuis des décennies. C’est à lire dans l’intro du livre The Judas Goats (sur l’infiltration ennemie dans le camp nationaliste).  Carto a été fortement inspiré par l’ « intellectuel fasciste » Lawrence Dennis (accusé d’être en partie non-blanc lors du procès pour sédition), DeWest Hooker (magnat des médias anti-juif, connecté à des organisations nazies américaines), François Genoud (qui finança l’OLP et des premières organisations révisionnistes), et Francis Parker Yockey (malgré certains désaccords). Hooker et Carto étaient liés d’amitié avec Genoud et Dennis.


VIDEO – ALEX JONES CHANNEL: « America First » Slogan to be Outlawed Alex Jones a effectivement de la misère à concilier son anti-nazisme rabique avec le slogan de Trump « America First ». Il ne peut s’en sortir sans passer très très vite sur le sujet de « ces populistes des années 30-40 qui au nom de l’Amérique d’abord s’opposaient à l’entrée des USA dans la 2e guerre mondiale ». Ça lui permet à peu de frais d’esquiver complètement la question de ses propres contradictions internes concernant le nationalisme et le populisme. Fait saillant de ce petit discours creux d’Alex Jones: selon lui l’un des pires crimes de l’ADL est d’avoir donné des prix à Schwarzenegger, « un nazi notoire ». LOL! Schwarzie danse avec les chabad lubavitch et fait des discours excessivement pro-juifs et pro-Israel, notamment à l’époque où il était gouverneur de Californie. Allez Alex, tu peux faire mieux que ça! Comme la « Dissidonce » il tape sur George Soros en priorité… Ça tombe bien pour Alex car il peut mettre le mal commis par Soros sur le dos de « sa collaboration avec les nazis ». Puis les méchants sont les Communistes, qui seraient ensuite devenus le parti Républicain d’aujourd’hui… Tu n’y es pas tout à fait, Alex, fais encore quelques efforts et tu saisiras ces nuances qui t’échappent encore.

Jim Marrs, un protégé d’Alex Jones, est le principal promoteur de la théorie de la subversion de l’Amérique par les nazis et de l’assassinat de JFK comme « complot nazi ». Évidemment, car ce sont les nazis, selon lui, qui sont aux commandes du « nouvel ordre mondial ». Les petits amis Jim Marrs, Robert Groden (juif) et Alex Jones rejettent catégoriquement la moindre implication des juifs ou d’Israël dans l’assassinat de JFK. Pour eux non seulement c’est une distraction mais c’est de toute façon impossible! Pour Jones, si quelqu’un voit une implication juive dans l’assassinat, c’est forcément parce qu’il dénie le rôle de la CIA, du crime organisé, etc.

Pour Jim Marrs et Alex Jones, Charles Lindbergh n’aura été en somme qu’un vulgaire « pion au service de la subversion des États-Unis par les nazis »! Ils se basent notamment sur The Plot Against America du délirant Philip Roth, qui tente de faire croire à un complot nazi américain impliquant le mouvement anti-guerre de Charles Lindbergh. C’est exactement la même accusation qu’on entend du côté de la propagande juive qui tente de nous convaincre que la Seconde guerre mondiale était une guerre juste et inévitable.


Charles A. Lindbergh



The private wartime journals of the famed aviator Charles A. Lindbergh provide remarkable insights into not only the magnificent brain of this selfless, courageous and unstintingly conscientious American legend but also into the corrupt and unrelenting power politics of the period that propelled the United States into the second world war.

During the years leading up to World War II, Col. Charles Lindbergh broke a lifetime tradition and began keeping de tailed diaries of his day-to-day activities, chronicling his views toward the public issues and personalities of the day, addressing in particular those aspects of U.S. policy relevant to the growing troubles in Europe.

Lindbergh felt so strongly about the necessity of derailing the drive toward war that he felt that it was his duty to step out of his own effective, self-imposed exile from public life and put his reputation forward as a voice of reason in opposition to the ever-burgeoning push for war. With this in mind, Lindbergh felt it vital to keep a diary of that stormy period. He realized, soon enough, that his real views on many issues were being distorted by a hostile, war-mongering media and while he acknowledged that his diary could not cover everything, it would “show the falsity of at least some of the stories told.”

In later years, Lindbergh’s concerns were proven correct. When, at the urging of publisher William Jovanovich, Lindbergh read just one of the more than 20 biographies that had been written about him, Lindbergh did so, later sending Jovanovich a document of 76 typewritten pages listing factual inaccuracies in the book in question, a volume largely based upon newspaper stories as the sources. Ironically, according to Jovanovich, this Lindbergh biography was actually one of the more temperate and evenhanded volumes written, yet it too relied upon the very “falsity” that rightly concerned Lindbergh.

In 1970 Jovanovich prevailed upon Lindbergh to publish extensive excerpts from his journals. The final published volume, covering some 1,000 pages, appeared under the title The Wartime Journals of Charles Lindbergh, covering the period from March 11, 1938, to June 15, 1945, at the time the war was winding down.

Prior to publishing these diaries, Lindbergh wrote his publisher a letter reflecting on the period that he spent “re-rereading” his journals for the first time after so many years and preparing them for publication. According to Lindbergh:

You ask what my conclusions are, rereading my journals and looking back on World War II from the vantage point of a quarter-century in time. We won the war, in a military sense; but, in a broader sense, it seems to me we lost it, for our Western civilization is less respected and secure than it was before.

In order to defeat Germany and Japan, we supported the still greater menaces of Russia and China—which now confront us in a nuclear-weapon era. Poland was not saved. The British empire has broken down with great suffering, bloodshed, and confusion. England is an economy-constricted secondary power. France had to give up her major colonies and turn to a mild dictatorship herself. Much of our Western culture was destroyed. We lost the genetic heredity formed through eons in many million lives. Meanwhile, the Soviets have dropped their iron curtain to screen off Eastern Europe, and an antagonistic Chinese government threatens us in Asia.

More than a generation after the war’s end, our occupying armies still must occupy, and the world has not been made safe for democracy and freedom. On the contrary, our own system of democratic government is being challenged by that greatest of dangers to any government: internal dissatisfaction and unrest.

It is alarmingly possible that World War II marks the beginning of our Western civilization’s breakdown, as it already marks the breakdown of the greatest empire ever built by man. Certainly our civilization’s survival depends on meeting the challenges that tower before us with unprecedented magnitude in almost every field of modern life. Most of these challenges were, at least, intensified through the waging of World War II.

Are we now headed toward a third and still more disastrous war between world nations? Or can we improve human relationships sufficiently to avoid such a holocaust? Since it is inherent in the way of life that issues will continue between men, I believe human relationships can best be improved through clarifying the issues and conditions surrounding them.

I hope my journals relating to World War II will help clarify issues and conditions of the past and thereby contribute to understanding issues and conditions of the present and the future.

Although publication of the diaries stirred up new debate over Lindbergh’s prewar views, the book became a best-seller and was actually a semifinalist for the National Book Award.

Among many others, Lindbergh received a fan letter from former first lady Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, whose late husband, President John F. Kennedy, along with his brother, Joseph P. Kennedy Jr., had been avid supporters of the America First movement, for which Lindbergh was a leading spokesman. In her letter, Mrs. Onassis referred to the Kennedys, saying, “That family—and me—admire you more than anyone,” an interesting nugget of history noted in A. Scott Berg’s 1998 biography, Lindbergh.

Lindbergh’s reflections in the published Wartime Journals provide a fascinating look at Lindbergh’s wide-ranging private life and travels throughout the United States and Europe and his acquaintances and friendships with some of the most prominent figures of the period. However, like most journals and diaries of public figures, the Wartime Journals contain a great deal of personal data and other material that is of interest only to the author (and his family) and to Lindbergh devotees.

However, Lindbergh’s views on a variety of matters such as history, culture, religion, law, and, of course, the subject of U.S. involvement abroad were addressed quite thoroughly throughout the journals and the excerpts that follow are among the most pointed and representative of Lindbergh’s thinking at the time.

Lindbergh emerges as a thoughtful, introspective philosopher, guided by a self-assurance and a sense of humor, and a knowledge that he was veering onto a course that could (and did) impact upon his place in history and on the future of the world.

Of special interest, in historical retrospect, are Lindbergh’s comments on the impact of the news and entertainment media of the time on shaping public opinion, toward both Lindbergh himself and the views that he put forth in the public arena. Lindbergh was very much aware of—and wary of—what might delicately be termed “news management” and found himself quite occupied with the problem as he sought to make his views heard.

What follows are relevant excerpts from Lindbergh’s journals on public affairs and his personal philosophy. The excerpts are arranged in chronological order, from August 27, 1938, up through December 8, 1941—the day following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor—at which time Congress declared war.

The dates of the journal entries appear in parentheses at the end of the selection. The subtitles above each entry are provided by THE BARNES REVIEW as a guide to the subject matter therein.

The Reality of Soviet Russia

This is a strange country. They preach the doctrine of dividing between people according to their need. There is great poverty and at times actual starvation. Yet I have never seen a greater waste of food than at some of the lunches and dinners we have attended. The people who have, in Soviet Russia, do not seem to be greatly concerned about those who have not. I do not believe the idea of division, equality and state ownership will last long.

Given a chance, the social classes will develop, much the same as in the past. The signs are in the parties, the dinners, the women’s dresses, decorations etc. Of course, there is already a great difference in the salaries and privileges of different people. (Saturday, August 27, 1938)

Politicians and Public Affairs

My primary interest lies in the character of a man, and not in whether he is a Republican or a Democrat. I would as soon vote or one as the other. The issues between them are quite superficial at this time. I think, however, that they will begin to clarify and become more fundamental from now on. Whether or not future issues will choose to follow either of these parties remains to be seen. As far as I am concerned personally, I have but little fear of being classed as a Republican for long. I have too little interest in either politics or popularity.

One of the dearest of rights to me is being able to say what I think and act as I wish. I intend to do this, and I know it will cause trouble. As soon as it does, the politicians will disown me quickly enough—and I will be only too willing. I shall have far more interest in my own ideas than in their support. At least I shall hold my self-respect—and possibly that of a number of other people. I have no intention of bending my ideas or my ideals to conform to the platform of either party. One must make certain compromises in life—that is a part of living together with other men—but compromise is justified only when the goal to be gained is of greater importance than what is lost in compromising. (Saturday, October 7, 1939)

Not all of “Lucky Lindy’s” flights were successful. This crash occurred in November 1926. It was the second time Lindbergh’s plane had gone down on the St. Louis-Chicago run in his job as an airmail pilot. Always remaining undaunted, he was dreaming of the Orteig Prize of $25,000 for the first pilot to fly nonstop between New York and Paris.


On Running for President

Among other things, I enjoy too much the ability to do and say what I wish to ever be a successful candidate for president. I prefer intellectual and personal freedom to the honors and accomplishments of political office—even that of president. (Wednesday, October 11, 1939)

The Wrong Kind of Pacifism

I went to see All Quiet on the Western Front—the bloodiest film I can ever remember seeing. I wanted to find out what type of war film was being shown these days. It is a terrible play and enough to turn anyone against war; but I think it is not a very constructive type to place before the people of America today. We do not want a nation that is afraid of war if it should become necessary to enter one. And All Quiet on the Western Front will turn people against war more through fear than through intellect. It will not add to the courage of our country. (Thursday, October 19, 1939)

Henry Ford—American Genius

I talked to [Henry] Ford about the war, the industrial situation in America, about his ideas of decentralization etc. He is a combination of genius and impracticability, with the genius definitely on top. Ford is a great man and a constructive influence in this country. One cannot talk to him without gaining new ideas and receiving much mental stimulation. His greatness is demonstrated by his vision and his success industrially and by his interests and activities in many other fields. (Thursday, December 28, 1939)

Man’s Law vs. Natural Law

Legal terminology always annoys me, but some of it seems essential under the conditions lawyers have let themselves get into. They are so tied by tradition and complication that they have as unique a language as a baby who is just learning to talk and can be understood only by mother and nurse. It is a sort of second childhood for the law, though. Why is it that men with an excellent education—long college training and all that—can’t state their ideas and agreements in good English?

Sometimes I divide things done by man in my mind into two groups: those that must conform to natural laws (such as the design of an airplane); and those that are not bound by any more discipline than comes from the ideas and arguments of man himself.

Of course, all action—even law—comes eventually within the plan of nature. It is only in the thoughts of man that he really passes beyond nature’s bounds.

How interesting and enlightening it is to compare the streamline of an airplane to the awkward, complicated and conflicting chapters of a law book. The success of one is clearly measured by nature, while the value of the other is estimated by partisan men.

How beautiful and simple life really is, and how complicated man tries to make it. He worships God on the one hand; tries to improve upon Him on the other. The fallacy is rarely seen. (Tuesday, April 30, 1940)

The Folly of War

To me, the worst part of this war is the hereditary loss to the countries involved. And the best men are killed first in war. The effect of this is shown in England today. The leaders she might have had were killed in the last war. (Sunday, May 12, 1940)

The Problem With the Newsreels

Everything considered, my personal feeling toward motion-picture operators is not the best. Still, this present situation concerns the welfare of the country and should not be decided on personal feelings. But what advantages and disadvantages are there in speaking for the sound pictures at this time? The advantage is that additional millions of people will be reached. The disadvantages include the fact that only a small portion of my speech would be carried and that I would not be able to control its setting.

The news companies could sandwich my picture and talk between the sack of cities and the mangled bodies of refugees.

Once they have such a film, they can cut it and use it in any way they like. I decided against speaking for the sound films. (Sunday, May 19, 1940)

Ignoring Essentials

I become more and more disturbed about the trends and conditions in this country—the superficiality, the cheapness, the lack of understanding of, or interest in, fundamental problems. National debt increases; we involve ourselves unwisely and unnecessarily in the European situation; and we seem to have no understanding of our own limitations. (Saturday, August 17, 1940)

Controlling Public Debate

[R. Douglas] Stuart says he is having trouble buying radio time for the America First Committee. Some of the radio stations have taken the stand that the committee has to do with a “controversial issue” and therefore comes under the code they have formed against selling time for controversial issues. It is a fine state of affairs if the question of war and peace cannot be debated before the American people because it is a “controversial issue.” (Tuesday, October 1, 1940)

News Management

The newsreels again requested that I read part of my address for them after I had broadcast. In the past I have refused their requests—first, because of the difficulty they have often caused for me; second, and much more important, because of the Jewish influence in the newsreels and the antagonism I know exists toward me. . . . However, this is a critical period, and I think it is worth the chance. (Monday, October 14, 1940)

Personal Privacy vs. Principle

[My wife’s antiwar] address has been played down in the newspapers. There is very little notice of it in any of them. . . . It is strange, our desire in this instance for newspaper attention. For many years we have tried to avoid the attention of the press. For years we refused to speak over the radio, to give statements or interviews, to take part in political meetings. Now, this morning, we are disappointed because Anne’s address last night is not carried in the papers on our breakfast table. How can we justify this attitude, this seeming inconsistency? It is not that we enjoy seeing our names in the paper or having attention drawn to us any more than before. That is as unpleasant as ever, and it adds to our difficulties of life; we cannot go to theaters or restaurants, or walk together on the streets without being stared at, or run after, or annoyed in some other way. As I analyze it, I think our apparent change in attitude is due to the intensity of our feeling about the causes we support.

In the past, the publicity and attention was focused on us, like a brilliant, burning, hardened spotlight. Now, the light is thrown upon an approaching danger—upon war, famine, disease, and revolution.

And our attention is focused upon the problems it illuminates. They are so important that the few diverging rays that still fall upon us we hardly notice. We are no longer the objects upon which the light is thrown; we ourselves are behind and beside it, trying to guide it, that we and others may see the better and act the more intelligently in this crisis. (Wednesday, Decem ber 25, 1940)

‘Christmas’ vs. Christ vs. Christianity

It seems to me that Christmas has deviated as much from the birth of Christ as Christianity has from His teachings. The keynote at the birth of Christ was simplicity. The keynote of Christmas today is luxury. The birth and life of Christ were surrounded with things mystical. Christmas and Christianity today are surrounded with things material. Sometime I would like to have Christmas in our home that conforms to the true spirit and significance of that day 2,000 years ago—a Christmas unadorned by tinsel, uncluttered by gewgaws and ribboned boxes, unstuffed by roast turkey and sweet potatoes; a Christmas pure in its simplicity, akin to the sky and stars, of the mind rather than the body.

It should be almost the reverse of a modern Christmas. One should eat too little rather than too much, see no one rather than everyone; spend it in silence rather than in communication. Christmas should be a day that brings one closer to God and to the philosophy of Christ. (Wednesday, December 25, 1940)

Hunting for Survival

I do not mind shooting a bird to eat occasionally, especially if I am on an expedition of some sort, and I thoroughly enjoy target shooting with rifle or shotgun. But this pleasure in seeing something happy and beautiful fall maimed and fluttering, I do not understand. (Thursday, December 26, 1940)

Cultural Differences

I am beginning to feel the world is divided into two groups of people (how easy it is to divide problems into two for the convenience of your momentary argument): those who are inherently suspicious of everything and those who are not. In my experience it seems that Latin blood (and Asiatic) tends to suspicion, while Nordic blood tends away from it. Personally, I prefer to be with people who are not suspicious about everything in life. And, as a matter of fact, I think the “suspicious” people are wrong more of the time than their opposites. (Tuesday, February 4, 1941)

An Aviator Views the Moon

A huge, blood-red moon rose in the evening. It made me think of Europe and bombed cities. Whenever I see the moon now, I think of the bombing that is going on over there. As the moon rises here, it is high over Europe, and bombs are almost certainly falling on English and German cities. (Friday, April 11, 1941)

Survival of the West

Sometimes I feel like saying: “Well, let’s get into the war if you are so anxious to. Then the responsibility will be yours.” In comparison to the work I am now doing, the fighting would be fun.

But my mind tells me that we better face our problems and let Europe face hers without getting messed up in this war. I have an interest in Western civilization, and I have an interest in my race, or culture, or whatever you want to call it, and I have an interest in the type of world my children are going to live in. That is why I will probably stay on the stump with the pacifists and why I will resign my commission if necessary and never regret my action in doing so. This war is a mistake; we will only bring disaster if we enter it; we will do no good either to Europe or ourselves, and therefore I am going to put everything I have behind staying out.

No one, not even Germany, was more responsible for the conditions which caused this war than England and France. They declared the war without consulting us. If it were possible to help them win, the result would probably be Versailles all over again.

Europe must straighten out her own family affairs. Our interference would simply cause another postponement, as the last war did. Europe faces adjustments that must be made, and only she can work out what they are going to be. (Friday, April 25, 1941)

Who Favors War?

The pressure for war is high and mounting. The people are opposed to it, but the administration seems to have “the bit in its teeth” and hell-bent on its way to war. Most of the Jewish interests in this country are behind war, and they control a huge part of our press and radio and most of our motion pictures. There are also the “intellectuals,” and the “Anglophiles,” and the British agents who are allowed free rein, the international financial interests and many others. (Thursday, May 1, 1941)

A Narrow Escape

We were met at the Minneapolis airport by various members of the local America First Committee and driven to the La Salle Hotel, where I was given the “Nordic Suite.” What a press story that could make. But “Nordic” out here doesn’t mean what it does in the east.

In Minnesota the word “Nordic” has no anti-Semitic taint. And the situation is probably saved because, as I learned soon after arrival, [British diplomat] Lord Halifax and his party stayed in this same suite and left only yesterday. (Saturday, May 10, 1941)

The People vs. the Press

As I go around to these meetings I feel that, without question, if this country is run by [the] people, we will not enter this war. I always feel this way after one of our meetings is over; but I know that tomorrow, or the day after, as I read the misinformation and propaganda in our newspapers, I will begin to wonder whether people can withstand such a barrage indefinitely. And even if they can withstand it, will popular opinion be enough to keep us out of the war? Which is stronger, the money and power and propaganda pushing us into war, or the will of the people to stay out? (Saturday, May 10, 1941)

On Patronizing Children

. . . There is nothing worse than being confronted with a group of children if you have made no plans for their entertainment. I am not one of those politicians who can go out and pat their heads and talk about what fine-looking boys and girls they are. I remember how I felt about such things when I was a child, and I have too much respect for them and for myself to do it. (Monday, June 23, 1941)

At the beginning of America’s rocketry program, physicist Robert H. Goddard stands for a picture, flanked by his two strongest supporters. On the left is Harry Guggenheim and on the right stands Charles Lind bergh, hand in pocket.


A Prejudiced Press

American press accounts of the war are so prejudiced and confused that it is almost impossible to obtain a balanced picture.

Reports from Russia are headlined while those from Germany are played down, although the latter are certainly the most accurate.

Results of Royal Air Force raids over the [European] continent are exaggerated, while results of German raids over England are minimized. The result is that the impression given by our newspapers is far more favorable to the British cause than is warranted by the facts. (Saturday, June 28, 1941)

Media Lies and Misinformation

The newspapers continue to misquote my address and to remove sentences from their context. Sometimes what they carry between quotation marks is completely made up and does not even approximate what I have said, or even what I believe. (Thursday, July 3, 1941)

Frequency vs. Precision

Personally, I prefer to speak less often and with more careful preparation. Most of my friends want me to speak more often and with less careful preparation. (Sunday, July 6, 1941)

On Having his Phone Tapped

Captain Smith (of America First) came at 3:30. He had phoned to say he had an urgent message that he must deliver personally.

The message is that the FBI began tapping our telephone last Saturday and has a constant watch on it. The men in the FBI are, according to Smith, on the whole, friendly; they are simply following out orders. Smith says the America First telephones are also tapped. I told him to tell everyone in America First that there was nothing we wished to hide and that if our phones were tapped we should speak more plainly, rather than less plainly in the future. I told him to tell his friends on the FBI that if there was anything they didn’t understand in my own phone conversations, I would give them additional information. Captain Smith says he is certain the phones are tapped and that the information came from friends of his on the FBI, who are also friendly to me.

Personally, I think it is probable that they are tapped, but I still have some question. It really makes very little difference as far as I am concerned. My main interest lies in knowing whether or not these tactics are being used by the administration. (Monday, July 7, 1941)

Three Groups Promoting War

When I mentioned [in a speech in Des Moines] the three major groups agitating for war—the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration—the entire audience seemed to stand and cheer. At that moment whatever opposition existed was completely drowned out by our support. (Thursday, September 11, 1941)

The Unmentionable Subject

My Des Moines address has caused so much controversy that Gen. [Robert] Wood has decided to hold a meeting of the America First National Committee in Chicago. I must, of course, attend. I felt I had worded my Des Moines address carefully and moderately.

It seems that almost anything can be discussed today in America except the Jewish problem. The very mention of the word “Jew” is a cause for a storm. Personally, I feel that the only hope for a moderate solution lies in an open and frank discussion. (Monday, September 15, 1941)

Private Candor vs. Public Reticence

[America First leader] John Flynn came at 11:00, and we talked the situation over for an hour. Flynn says he does not question the truth of what I said at Des Moines, but feels it was inadvisable to mention the Jewish problem. It is difficult for me to understand Flynn’s attitude. He feels as strongly as I do that the Jews are among the major influences pushing this country toward war. He has said so frequently, and he says so now. He is perfectly willing to talk about it among a small group of people in private.

But apparently he would rather see us get into the war than mention in public what the Jews are doing, no matter how tolerantly and moderately it is done. (Thursday, September 18, 1941)

Lindbergh poses with Richard M. Nixon to promote one of Lindy’s favorite causes: conservation.

Truth Not Important to Press

The opposition paper here [Ft. Wayne, Indiana] is carrying a large advertisement in which statements are attributed to me which I never made. As far as the “war party” is concerned, what I actually say seems to be of little importance. They quote me as saying what they wish or think that I said. They do not bother to refer to my addresses, which are all available; at best, they refer to some garbled newspaper account. The result is that I am often quoted as saying things which I not only never said, but which I never believed. (Friday, October 3, 1941)

Catholic Leaders Oppose the War

We returned to the hotel after the meeting. People kept coming up to the room until 12:30. Father [John] O’Brien [of Notre Dame Univer sity] showed me a telegram he had just received, to the effect that a poll of the Catholic hierarchy showed that ninety percent were opposed to entering the war. (Friday, October 3, 1941)

Popular Opinion vs. War Propaganda

[The] strength and influence [of the America First movement] is growing rapidly, but the power of our opposition is great. The amazing thing is not that we are so close to war but that we have been able to hold the war forces back as long as we have. Their ranks include the American government, the British government, the Jews, and the major portion of the press, radio, and motionpicture facilities of the country. We have on our side the mass of the people, but it is a question of how long the people can withstand the flood of propaganda with which the country is being covered. They have no accurate source of information to which to turn. Also, regardless of the attitude of our people, it is a question as to whether the president will force us into war by actions and incidents which will make it unavoidable. He is in a position where he can force war on us whether we want it or not. (Saturday, October 4, 1941)

On Speaking the Truth

[Former President Herbert] Hoover told me he felt my Des Moines address was a mistake (the mention of the Jews in connection with the war-agitating groups). I told him I felt my statements had been both moderate and true. He replied that when you had been in politics long enough you learned not to say things just because they are true. (But, after all, I am not a politician—and that is one of the reasons why I don’t wish to be one. I would rather say what I believe when I want to say it than to measure every statement I make by its probable popularity.) (Monday, October 6, 1941)

Reporting War News

[Paul] Palmer [an editor with Reader’s Digest] says one of the reasons why the papers give such an erroneous impression about the war is that the editors have discovered that their newsstand circulation drops whenever they headline Axis successes. As a result, they try to find some Allied success to headline, no matter how insignificant it may be. (Wednesday, October 8, 1941)

Pearl Harbor

The radio is announcing that Japan has attacked the Philippines and the Hawaiian Islands and that Pearl Harbor has been bombed. An attack in the Philippines was to be expected, although I did not think it would come quite so soon. But Pearl Harbor! How did the “Japs” get close enough, and where is our Navy? Or is it just a hit-and-run raid of a few planes, exaggerated by radio commentators into a major attack? The Japanese can, of course, raid the Hawaiian Islands, or even the West Coast, with aircraft carriers. But the cost in carriers and planes lost is going to be awfully high unless our Navy is asleep—or in the Atlantic. The question in my mind is, how much of it has been sent to the Atlantic to aid Britain? (Sunday, December 7, 1941)

The Back Door to War

Phoned Gen. [Robert] Wood in Boston. His first words were, “Well, he [President Roosevelt] got us in through the back door.” . . . The president spoke at 12:00. Asked for a declaration of war. Senate passed a declaration of war unanimously. Only “no” in the House. What else was there to do? We have been asking for war for months. If the president had asked for a declaration of war before, I think Congress would have turned him down with a big majority. But now we have been attacked, and attacked in home waters. We have brought it on our own shoulders; but I can see nothing to do under these circumstances except to fight. If I had been in Congress, I certainly would have voted for a declaration of war. (Monday, December 8, 1941)

Photo taken in March 1932 shows the “abduction ladder” outside the Lindbergh home near Hopewell, New Jersey. Although German-American Richard Bruno Hauptmann was executed for kidnapping the Lindbergh baby, many responsible investigators now believe that Hauptmann was actually innocent of the crime and that a German Jew named Isador Fisch was the real culprit. At least one in-depth inquiry by an independent investigator concluded that Lindbergh’s child was not the largely decomposed body found and identified as the victim of the kidnapping and that Lindbergh’s child survived and grew to adulthood. Several persons later claimed to be “the Lindbergh baby,” but Lindbergh himself refused to acknowledge any of them. The controversy continues to this day. There are those who contend that the Lindbergh kidnapping affair and the subsequent frame-up of Hauptmann were designed to generate hatred for German-speaking peoples in the American mindset. In fact, the kidnapping took place at a time when Adolf Hitler was rising in popularity in Germany, and elements in the United States were fervently determined to thwart Hitler using every means possible. Although as in the Kennedy assassination in 1963, there have been numerous rational and likely solutions offered, the full truth will probably never be known to the public at large, although (as in the JFK affair) those who have studied the wide-ranging material available on the Lindbergh kidnapping have reached their own conclusions, major media misinformation notwithstanding.



Col. Charles A Lindbergh, the beloved and

heroic aviator, exemplifies, in many ways,

what populism and nationalism is all about.

Charles A. Lindbergh
America First and Always

According to Gallup and all other public polls, 90 percent of the American people agreed with Charles Lindbergh that the U.S. should not intervene in the European struggle that grew into World War II. Contrived war hysteria, however, brought this nation into the war. History has vindicated Lindbergh. But will we learn the lesson of history?

Charles Augustus Lindbergh, « the last hero, » was a unique unprecedented and since-unmatched embodiment of America’s authentic political heritage, populism.

« Lucky Lindy » was, in fact, the product, heir, and last exemplar of a populist tradition established in 1849, when his grandfather was first elected to the Swedish Parliament, and continued by his father in the U.S. Congress.

The integrity of this tradition, maintained through three generations, is unparalleled in American history. Among them, the Lindberghs forcefully and eloquently articulated every facet of populist philosophy-and all suffered grievously for their courage.

But the apogee of the Lindbergh dynasty, and its populist creed, was reached by the « Lone Eagle » himself, one of the most selfless, perceptive, courageous, dynamic, and personally attractive heroes in the American pantheon.

A true populist paragon, Lindbergh-from his role in the America First movement, through his championing of farmers and other working people over bankers and other privileged interests, to his cherishing of racial differences, integrity, and survival-personified the gracious, personable, and grand ethic inherent in leaders adhering to populism.


« I say to you what my father said a quarter of a century ago, » he told an America First rally in Minneapolis on May 9, 1941, at the height of the struggle to keep the US. out of another European war.

(Lindbergh’s father, Rep. Charles August Lindbergh, was a great populist in his own right, and fought hard against President Woodrow Wilson’s maneuvering to embroil the US. in wars with Mexico and in Europe.)

« The future of American democracy depends on your ability to govern our own country. It rests in the character of our own people in the welfare of our farmers and our workmen.

« What happens in Europe is of little importance compared with what happens in our own land.

« It is far more important to have farms without mortgages, workmen with their own homes, and young people who can afford families, than it is for us to crusade abroad for freedoms that are tottering in our own country. »

War, Lindbergh realized (as far too few Americans then did or now do), is the single most important influence pushing the US. to socialism.

« Life as we know it today would be a thing of the past, » Lindbergh warned, should war agitators succeed in transforming the US. « into a military nation that exceeds Germany in regimentation. »


« Let us look to our own defenses and to our own character, » Lindbergh urged. « If we do not attend to them, nothing can save us. »

Lindbergh’s ‘role in the America First movement, however great an impact it had on his life, and however important to his populist philosophy, formed but one part of each.

The America First Committee only existed for about 18 months, from mid-1940 until it disbanded, in the interest of national unity, after Pearl Harbor.

Nevertheless, during its brief existence, it drew nearly a million Americans (membership jumped from 300,000 to 800,000 after Lindbergh joined in the spring of 1941}–of all political persuasions into the struggle to put America first.Lindbergh valued the diversity of America First, realizing that politics is « a luxury » which cannot be allowed to stand in the way of America’s survival as a sovereign nation.

He perceived, however, that in such coalitions « the brilliant and more theoretical mind of the liberal is apt to collide with the steadier and more practical mind of the conservative. »


Nevertheless, Lindbergh preferred coalition building because, « The conservative can follow up and consolidate the successes of the liberal, while the liberal can fall back on the conservative’s position after his failures.

« Each needs the other for success, and possibly even for survival, » Lindbergh wrote in his diary, perceiving that patriots must unite to preserve America.

Lindbergh, of course, drew a clear distinction between sincere liberals and Marxists, whose dubious « support, » he wrote, he was glad to be rid of when the communists switched from opposing U.S. intervention in the European war to frantically demanding it.

(Communists broke with America First, and pushed for war mobilization and intervention, as soon as German armies invaded the Soviet Union.)

Lindbergh’s role in the struggle to prevent the U.S. from being maneuvered into the European war is the subject of an excellent revisionist history: Charles Lindbergh and the Battle Against American Intervention in World War II, by Wayne S. Cole.

The book, as its title implies, deals only with a few years of the public life of one of the most admired public men of the century. Its objectiveness, further, distinguished it from other more comprehensive biographies of the aviator, in which the biographers’ disdain for Lindbergh’s role in America First is excruciatingly evident.


Lindbergh’s Wartime Journals also provide invaluable insights into his philosophy.

The Journals, incidentally, specifically the final two months of entries-May, June, 1945-are filled with enlightening passages about the orgy of raping and looting indulged in by American and other Allied troops after the German surrender.

Lindbergh wrote he was « disgusted with » American conduct, abuse of German prisoners, the flaunting of foodstuffs in front of starving children, and numerous other offenses, a description of which may prompt Americans to revise their stereotype of themselves as courageous liberators, and of the Germans as « Huns. »

« To destroy and loot is considered entirely proper and the right thing to do as far as the GI is concerned … the word ‘liberate’ is used in an entirely different sense over here (in Germany) than back at home.

 »At home our papers carry articles about how we ‘liberate’ oppressed countries and people. Here, our soldiers use the term’liberate’ to describe the method of obtaining loot … a soldier who rapes a German woman has ‘liberated’ her …

« I feel ashamed of myself, of my people, as I eat and watch those children … what right have we to stuff ourselves while they look on-wellfed men eating, leaving unwanted food on plates, while hungry children look on … regulations prevent giving it (any food) to them …

 »What right have we to damn the Nazi and the Jap while we carry on with such callousness and hatred in our hearts … we in America are supposed to stand for different things.

 » … It was required that a list of the occupants of every building, together with their ages, be posted outside, on the door … the … soldiers, drunk at night, would go from door to door until they found the girl’s names listed of any age they wished to rape … most of the women . . . show in their faces they have gone through hell, » Lindbergh wrote, appalled, while in Germany during those months.

Lindbergh’s sincere compassion, and lack of any bitterness whatsoever, has not been extensively commented on, yet both qualities formed integral parts of his way of life.

These two qualities surface as well in his genuine appreciation of racial differences.


« I think race is an important and valuable quality, » he once wrote.

« Our world would be a much poorer place to live on if its various races did not exist.

 »A man should be proud of his race … I certainly am. I would like to see racial pride encouraged … in my opinion, we should encourage racial differences …  »

Nevertheless, Lindbergh « felt no antipathy toward red, yellow, black, or brown, » believing « that each race must protect its security territorially. »

But, he warned, « for Americans the doctrine of universal equality is a doctrine of death, » and the greatest threat to America is the infiltration of « alien blood. »

Lindbergh respected racial differences without rancor, expressing admiration for East Africa’s Masai tribe and contributing much time, energy, and his own prestige to preserving primitive tribes « discovered » in the Philippines in the early 1970s.

He held a dim view of Black rioting in this country, however: « I will never forget the shock of seeing a riot zone in our nation’s capital . . . block after block with window-shattered and fire-gutted buildings, like a bombed city. I could hardly believe my eyes. »


Lindbergh’s understanding ofthe malignant nature of high finance paralleled that of his father, who had been very active combating « the money trust. »

Lindbergh accused « capitalists » of being first among « the war agitators. » It was « unfortunate but true, » he said, that there are interests in America who would rather lose American lives than their own dollars.

Lindbergh also criticized the attitude of British capitalists during the war: « The British (are) trading as hard as ever, » he wrote in October, 1941, « and were very hesitant about letting Pan American (World Airways) ferry military planes across Africa lest the company take opportunity to try for commercial concession on that route!

« Much as they may need the planes for their fighting forces, the (English) can still take time out to make a good trade. »

Lindbergh’s motivation in keeping his « Wartime Journals » between March, 1938 and June, 1945, was his fervent concern for historical truth, as opposed to the « government by subterfuge » practiced by President Franklin Roosevelt.

It was this same concern for truth that led him to urge Harry Elmer Barnes to author a revisionist history of the true causes of World War II, and an authoritative account of the non-interventionist case before Pearl Harbor; Lindbergh wrote several letters to Henry Ford urging the auto magnate to fund Barnes’ book.

(The late Harry Elmer Barnes, until his death in 1966, was considered the dean of revisionist historians; he was the author of, among other things, History of Western Civilization and An Intellectual and Cultural History of the Western World.)


« Democracy is gone from a nation when its people are no longer informed of the fundamental policies and intentions of their government, » he wrote, in what would have been a speech before an America First rally on December 12, 1941.

« Freedom is a travesty among men who have been forced into war by a president they elected because he promised peace, » he wrote. « Freedom and democracy cannot long exist without a third quality, a quality called integrity. It is a quality whose absence is alarming in our government today.

« Without integrity, freedom and democracy will become only politicians’ nicknames for an American totalitarian state. »

Lindbergh charged again FDR was guilty of conducting « government by subterfuge. »

« Subterfuge marked every step we made ‘short of war’ (FDR’s favorite expression for softening up the public for war mobilization was that each of his moves was a ‘step short of war’), and it now marks every step we are making ‘short of a dictatorial system in America.


« Our nation has been led to war with promises of peace. It is now being led toward dictatorship with promises of democracy. »

Lindbergh had realized war is the most powerful pressure for socialism and regimentation; he underestimated, however, how easily our Constitutional rights and liberties can be undermined by orchestrated war hysteria.

Thus, an American Legion commander (of all people) in Oklahoma City on August 26, 1941-more than three months before Pearl Harbor(!)-could flatly declare « the time for freedom of speech is past » in ‘justifying » for the city council his contention that Lindbergh should be barred from speaking in the city. The council agreed the Constitution was dead, and unanimously voted to rescind permission for Lindbergh to use the municipal auditorium.

One anecdote, however, scarcely conveys the alarmingly rapid decline in Constitutional safeguards throughout 1940 and 1941. In wartime, at least, suppression of Constitutional liberties can be explained away-although rarely justified-by alleged « emergency » conditions. America was not at war until December 8, 1941, but the hair-raising attacks on Lindbergh and other American Firsters by the Roosevelt administration and other war plotters long predated Pearl Harbor (and even FDR’s two-month advance warning of that attack).


Still more ominous than FDR’s collusion with the interventionist media (including the motion picture industry) to disseminate war propaganda was the ugliness his actions elicited in a substantial proportion of the public.

Lindbergh, for example, was threatened with the kidnapping and murder of his surviving children ifhe did not recant his anti-interventionist views.

But Lindy outlived even his most vicious critics, and today has been largely vindicated, although the « court historians » of the Establishment persist in rear-guard action against everyone who has ever put America first.

Lindbergh’s Autobiography of Values amazingly demonstrated still further intellectual growth in a man already remarkable for his engineering and scientific accomplishments.

Not an autobiography in the strictest sense, the work is a rambling, keenly thoughtful appraisal of not only his life, but the course and meaning of not just modern civilization, but primitive life as well. The book also indicates Lindbergh’s final analysis of the true threat posed by monopoly capitalists: the loss of man’s earthy inheritance through wanton exploitation for profit.

Lindbergh became a committed conservationist in the last years of his life, often criticizing the despoiling of the environment. It was during these years he was active in the Private Association for National Minorities, a group dedicated to preserving the threatened minority tribes in the Philippines.

Lindbergh also had the last word; the introduction to his Wartime Journals, although containing pessimistic passages, holds out hope that if Americans understand the issues and conditions of the past, we can triumph in the present and the future.


Although many Americans are aware of the populist views of Charles A. Lindbergh, Jr., the famed aviator, few know that his father, for whom he was named, was a forthright populist himself Lindbergh Sr.’s books, Banking and Currency and the Money Trust (1913), Your Country at War (1917), and The Economic Pinch (1923) exposed the menace of the Federal Reserve System and the threat monopoly capitalism poses to the survival of the United States. Plates of his books were seized and destroyed.

As a Republican congressman from Minnesota from 1907-1917, Lindbergh Sr. fought against the caucus system of secret committees, America’s entry into World War I and most importantly, the money manipulators whom he referred to as the « invisible government. »

Time and time again, the Money Trust conspirators had to revise their plans because of Lindbergh and his associates.

On one occasion, he was offered a bribe of two million dollars and on another occasion, he narrowly escaped an assassination attempt.

Seeing that he could not prevent the « inner circle » from plunging America into war, he stepped down from Congress to run for governor, carrying his cause directly to the people.

His Non-Partisan League supporters were often beaten up and arrested without warrants by howling « patriotic » mobs.

« We must all be foolish and unwise together and fight for our country, » the old patriot would say while speaking on behalf of Liberty Bonds and the Red Cross.

Some government officials publicly called for firing squads to suppress peaceful and non-treasonable (as defined by the Constitution) dissent. Quite in contrast was the Establishment’s attitude toward leftist dissent during the fruitless, but profitable for some, no-win adventures against communist aggression in Korea and Vietnam.The government was comparatively lenient and the national media very understanding of such dissent even when it took the form of bloody violence, sabotage and flag-burning treason.

In the case of American involvement on the side of Zionism in the Mideast, during the war with Iraq, Americans saw how well the media, educational, religious, business and labor, and government establishments can work together to see to it that we all do « our patriotic duty. »

Charles Lindbergh, Sr. died while running for the U.S. Senate on the Farmer-Labor ticket, warning us that the harsh Versailles Treaty left the gap open for another war. In that other war his son would follow in his footsteps fighting American intervention.




Shocking Revelations Emerge in New Book
• Those Angry Days: Roosevelt, Lindbergh and America’s Fight Over World War II, 1939-1941

By Michael Collins Piper

Until a few years ago, most patriots fondly recalled aviator Charles Lindbergh for his leadership of the America First movement that fought to prevent Franklin D. Roosevelt from steering the United States into war against Adolf Hitler’s Germany.

However, in recent times, pernicious Internet agitprop has convinced many patriots that heroes like Lindbergh and his “isolationist” colleagues were actually traitors doing the work of the New World Order.

One broadcaster in particular promotes this nonsense by constantly harping about “the Nazis,” hyping writers who smear Lindbergh and claim Hitler’s heirs are today plotting the “rise of the Fourth Reich.”

Those conned by this garbage fail to see this is really a ploy to keep the image of “the Holocaust” alive, thereby advancing the interests of Israel, which benefits from the Holocaust in multiple ways, without ever mentioning the word “Israel” even once. And that’s propaganda at its most deceptive and calculating.

Even more disturbing is that—as a consequence of this skewed version of history taking a grip on the minds of so many—a remarkable number of today’s patriots have no idea that roughly 90 percent of the American people agreed with Lindbergh: A war against Hitler was a war America should not fight.

The history of that period has been savagely distorted and those who should know don’t have a clue as to what really happened.

Ironically, however, coming out of an elite publishing giant, Random House, is a new book presenting a fascinating look at the efforts by Lindbergh to stop the push to embroil America in that unnecessary war: Those Angry Days: Roosevelt, Lindbergh and America’s Fight Over World War II, 1939-1941.*

The flagrantly pro-British author, Lynne Olson, clearly holds Lindbergh’s traditional American nationalism in contempt, which explains why former secretary of state Madeleine Albright—who famously said the price of 500,000 dead Iraqi children was “worth it”—hails Olson as “our era’s foremost chronicler of World War II politics and diplomacy.”

Still, though soiled by its pro-New World Order slant, this is a book patriots need to read. Many books from establishment sources contain a lot of valuable facts. This is one such volume. Here are just a few of the author’s amazing admissions:

• Solid data proving that the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and its Wall Street backers did not support Hitler, but vehemently opposed him.

• British intelligence set up shop at Rockefeller Center in Manhattan and collaborated with the pro-war Fight for Freedom—mostly “upper class East Coast Protestants”—and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith, the Jewish espionage agency. All worked closely with FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover who was tapping the phones of those who opposed to the drive for war that Lindbergh said was the work of “the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration.”

• The amazing story of how many high-ranking military officers “fiercely opposed” FDR’s efforts to arm Britain. Opposing aid to the British was no less than Gen. George C. Marshall whom the author says is now “regarded as the country’s greatest military figure in WWII.”

•While Americans today believe Britain was always seen as a grand ally, the author reveals that, after World War I, “many Americans came to believe that their country had entered the war not because its own national interests demanded such action, but because it had been tricked by the scheming, duplicitous British.”

• FDR utilized warmongering rhetoric of exactly the type today coming from essentially the same sources, including advocacy of the kind of police-state measures such as the Patriot Act and the concept of “homeland security,” which patriots have become convinced was a “Nazi” invention. Substitute’s today’s Muslim-bashing for German-bashing and it is history repeating itself.

Declaring any criticism of his policies as detrimental to national security, FDR spoke of “clever schemes of foreign agents” on American soil. However, the author admits: “The United States never faced any serious threat of internal subversion before or during the war. But the American people never knew that; in fact, they were told the opposite.”

• And, despite Pearl Harbor, most Americans still didn’t see the need for war against Hitler. The author admits, “the odds are high that Congress and the American people would have pressured the president to turn away from an undeclared war against Germany . . . and focus instead on defeating Japan.” Today, most Americans think Pearl Harbor sparked a nationwide cry of “Defeat the Nazi Beast.” It never happened.


Michael Collins Piper is an author, journalist, lecturer and radio show host. He has spoken in Russia, Malaysia, Iran, Abu Dhabi, Japan, Canada and the U.S. He is the author of Final Judgment, The New Jerusalem, The High Priests of War, Dirty Secrets, My First Days in the White House, The New Babylon, Share the Wealth, The Judas Goats, Target: Traficant and The Golem.
The Book’s Publisher Says

Those Angry Days is the definitive account of the debate over American intervention in World War II—a bitter, sometimes violent clash of personalities and ideas that divided the nation and ultimately determined the fate of the free world.

At the center of this controversy stood the two most famous men in America: President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who championed the interventionist cause, and aviator Charles Lindbergh, who as unofficial leader and spokesman for America’s isolationists emerged as the president’s most formidable adversary. Their contest of wills personified the divisions within the country at large, and author Lynne Olson makes masterly use of their dramatic personal stories to create a poignant and riveting narrative.

While FDR, buffeted by political pressures on all sides, struggled to marshal public support for aid to Winston Churchill’s Britain, Lindbergh saw his heroic reputation besmirched by allegations that he was a Nazi.

Spanning the years 1939 to 1941, Those Angry Days vividly recreates the rancorous internal squabbles that gripped the United States in the period leading up to Pearl Harbor. After Germany vanquished most of Europe, America found itself torn between its traditional isolationism and the need to come to the aid of Britain, the only country still battling Hitler. The conflict over intervention was, as FDR noted, “a dirty fight,” rife with chicanery and intrigue, and Those Angry Days recounts every bruising detail.




Sur ce blog:

This entry was posted in Non classé. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.