General of the Army Douglas MacArthur, Reminiscences, 1964, Harper Row, recounting a moment his father, then-Brevet Colonel and later Lieutenant General Arthur MacArthur, had during the War Between the States.

In the early 1950s, I was listening to a sermon. It was about the war then on in Korea. I leaned over to the individual sitting by and asked, 'Will we always be fighting with somebody? Do people always have to be fighting?' I was told to be quiet.

A few years later, at the same church, a pitch was being made for funds. I happened to have my Monopoly money with me. All of it. It all went into the plate, and I thought to myself, 'Now they won't have to ask for money again.' The minister told the story years later and described it as the largest contribution the church ever received. It was more than $25K.

Clergy pitching for money
is debasing, demeaning.
They should work a regular job.

In the middle 1950s, the phenomenon of thermonuclear holocaust got into my awareness. We were doing under-the-desk drills at school and shelters were going up (really, down) seemingly everywhere. Destruction appeared to be imminent and immanent, both.

This evening, during dinner, the horror of it caught me. I rushed screaming up to my room and climbed under the bed. I shrieked hysterically for minutes -- it seemed like hours -- before the natural parents took it seriously and came to do something. I was yelling, over and over, 'They're all going to die! All the people are going to die! It won't stop! No one will help!!!'

It was a pure and transparent panic.

For the first of two times during 21 years of proximity, the natural father bent down to comfort. He said that it would not happen, that all the people would not be killed. I remember thinking that he didn't know what he was talking about and that he was just speaking to comfort me. What stopped my shrieking was his holding me. That comforted. His words were useless. He was as ignorant as the rest.

Early in 1969, with snow still on the ground and brisk air biting at the ear lobe, I received a call to address a convention of the Service Bureau for Women's Organizations, which operated from Hartford, Connecticut. I do not remember the title of my remarks. They would have been made in my capacity as a graduating senior at the Union Theological Seminary, New York City, as well as an operating futurist. Futurist was a designation of the day that has slipped from usage. It meant someone who was peering into the future, a seer.

My remarks were to be grist for two commentators, one the chief educator at the Ford Foundation, and the other a professor of something from somewhere. A TV broadcaster had a crew beneath the dais. They taped my remarks as well as portions of the question and answer session that followed.

The Service Bureau for Women's Organizations was a venerable institution. Its leader was a woman of rank who, by excellence of character, was every bit worthy of her station. Her charges took themselves for capables.

The Lady inquired whether I knew Bill Coffin (William Sloan). Bill was Chaplain to Yale University. He was in dutch with segments of that community for his deprecation of Harvard's latest temper tantrum, the war in Viet Nam.

The war in Korea was one of Harvard's earlier temper tantrums.

Her concern was motherly. She felt that his career might be crushed by individuals accusing him of treason and wondered if he could last as Chaplain and whether I could assist him to that end. She hoped I could assuage her fear for Coffin and Yale's welfare.

I told the Lady that Coffin was not a personal acquaintance but that I sympathized with his non-support of the war and was sure the end would bring him out all right. She was relieved, to an extent, by my words. I also mentioned that, from the point of view of folks at the Union Theological Seminary, where I was enrolled, Coffin's opposition to the war was tardy.

The Lady spoke of Coffin with the same tone Mountbatten employed in remarking that, for him, world affairs were family affairs. She warmly approved my remarks to the convention and caused them to be published by the Bureau.

Somehow, the members of the audience gathered that I was a friend and warmed to me. Their questions were inquisitive. The crew kept their camera rolling.

The decisive moment arrived with this question: 'What do you think of the women's movement?'

It was a poser. There was no women's movement then. At least, not one that the schools and media recognized. The foundation literature was just then circulating outside its seminal context. Nixon was taking office. Pat was in. Women were a mob of ...

thankfully, the epithetical adjectives
are actionable under today's standards,
as they were not then.

Of course, there was a women's movement then. An enormous and positive and exceedingly necessary one.

Yesterday, a woman's voice declared that the women's movement started twenty years ago. One hundred and twenty would be a more accurate number.

At this question, then, I recognized that a word of encouragement was both expected and required. I said that I did not have much to say on the subject except that ... i t ' s c o m i n g !

The room erupted with applause. TV floods played across the audience and I stood mute for a time while the cheering rolled on. It was the high-point of the conference. Their leader told me afterwards that that moment gave the women heart.

There are many facets of the election of 1992/5753. I would like to remark about some of them. I do not claim to have the top facet, from which all others are visible.

One facet is a decision to disallow male chauvinism.

Another facet is a decision to propagate the country through those who opposed the Viet Nam war and those who supported those who opposed it.

Another facet is a decision to disallow lese-majeste as the operating principle of the government of the United States. 1

An observer remarked that Truman lost his temper, Acheson lost his war, MacArthur lost his job and Stalin didn't even lose a wink of sleep.

Not a generation later, Rusk lost his temper, Bundy lost his war, Johnson lost his job and Ho Chi Minh didn't even lose a single objective.

Baker used to quip about Federal officials being retired back to Harvard.

Early in this century, a President of Harvard University, echoing Voltaire and Marx and anticipating Ted Turner, asserted that, soon, religion would be a relic and in its place would stand pure, objective Science that will solve every problem known to man.

Human engineering will eclipse religion.

There were two wings of the communist movement. One, in Russia, was the nasty wing. This was the Bolsheviks. The other, in England, was the pleasant wing. This was the Fabians. To distinguish themselves from nasty communists, pleasant ones took the tag of socialists or democratic socialists (social democrats).

The difference between these two wings of the communist movement is the difference between black magic and white. There is no difference. Both are tricksters.

Fabians foregathered at Cambridge University, largely, but not exclusively. Their number included Shaw, Keynes, Russell and some Huxleys. Most were homosexuals. Before, during and after World War Two, they entered British intelligence services. They wrote the Charter for UNESCO. Their squalid homosexual squabbles produced the British spy scandals of the 50s and 60s. They were the ones who told Lin Piao that he could conduct a peninsular campaign because MacArthur would not be allowed to destroy his bases north of the Yalu River.

MacArthur defeated the Red Army anyhow,
right on the Korean peninsula, on Red Army terms.
This is why he was dismissed.

Long before World War Two began, Fabians trans-shipped their agenda to the United States through wealthy families such as the Fields of Chicago and, to some extent, the Rockefellers of New York. They took up residence in person or in spirit at another Cambridge, namely, Harvard University, and at the New School for Social Research in New York City.

Nasty and pleasant communists share the foundational communist view: everything belongs to the state, which is the government, or in other words, themselves. This includes human beings. Communism is a convenient umbrella for social, psychological, genetic and other kinds of human engineering because it assigns everything to the property list of the government, which (who) is accorded plenary authority concerning its (their) property.

Since so many of them were homosexuals, another agenda of Fabians was unhindered access to boys. This is universal priority for homosexuals. Fabians claimed that adults are production facilities the offspring of which belongs to them (the government). They were after the boys.

Through James and Dewey, this and related Fabian priorities were made the base of public education in the United States. The central plank is that children belong to the government and parents are production facilities the government employs to make the children into physical specimens capable of performing what the government deems important to its (their) interest.

This attitude was focused at Harvard University since the turn of this century. When Roosevelt assumed the Presidency, he brought the Fabian agenda to Washington from Harvard and gave it the force of Federal policy. There it has remained and propagated, with periodic mitigations, until the election of 1992/5753.

In the realm of geopolitics, Harvard's lust for human engineering took an especially costly form. It was invented by Kennan and carried the name, Doctrine of Containment. The gist was that nasty communists would be kept at bay, contained behind a wall of our choosing and manufacture.

'Our,' of course, means pleasant communists, Fabians, but it was used in public statements to mean 'the people of the United States.'

Kennan's Doctrine was an in-family (communist) strategy for keeping the embarrassing relatives (Bolsheviks) out of the parlor. The Doctrine was represented to the public as a strategy of anti-communism. But it was not that. Had there been a strategy of anti-communism, Stalin would not have left Yalta victor, maybe not even alive.

Interestingly, not even by the 1960s, their heyday, did Fabians feel strong enough to go public with their identity and agenda. They still do not.

The terms police action and agrarian reformers were used by Acheson to describe his war in Korea and the Red Chinese Army, respectively. Rusk, who ran Acheson's Far Eastern desk, applied the same terms to his war in Viet Nam and to the Vietnamese Army, respectively, when he ran the State Department.

Rusk had other euphemisms. For example: the demilitarized zone, which was the 38th parallel in Korea and the DMZ in Viet Nam. These were shaded areas on the Prime Minister's map at Foggy Bottom. The agrarian reformers -- skilled, heavily-armed, aggressive regular North Korean, Chinese and Vietnamese Army corps -- were supposed to stay quietly and respectfully behind -- north of -- these areas.

The euphemisms revealed the sympathy and intent of their creators. You just had to know how to read them. Not many did. McCarthy and Cohen did not fathom them. Cohen was himself a homosexual sybarite who, personally, frolicked with the same Fabians he persecuted in public.

However, these euphemisms succinctly expressed Kennan's Doctrine of Containment. They made perfect sense in that context, which was the Fabian (pleasant communist) agenda.

War occurs with an enemy one is, psychologically, prepared to destroy. A police action is with a family member you want to live with but whom you feel is being a nuisance. The Red Russian, Chinese, North Korean and Vietnamese Armies were friends of the American government, of the State Department, which was communist, but pleasantly so.

MacArthur's staff would remark, 'Which side is Washington on, anyhow?' They did not realize that Washington was on the side of the Red Army. Folks at the State Department were using the American Army to slap the Red Army's wrist -- and no more. Acheson wanted MacArthur only to slap hard enough to make the boors behave themselves. He wanted the nasty dolts to back up behind the 38th Parallel -- that obvious wall on the map in the Prime Minister's Office at Foggy Bottom.

MacArthur's only error was taking Korea for a war to be won, against communist tyrants. He was late in realizing that the same communist tyrants who were in his front were also in his rear and that they were using him as a go-between in a family quarrel.

Truman had no idea what was going on.

MacArthur cannot reasonably be faulted for failing to appreciate the perfidy of his superiors in Washington. The United States Army has never had a more subordinate officer than Douglas MacArthur. Nothing in his training or reasonably held assumptions could be expected to have prepared him for the treason in the midst of which he had to operate. As he said, his thought was for the vain effusion of blood, Asian as well as American.

MacArthur destroyed the Red North Korean and Chinese Armies, on their own terms, at a place and time of their own choosing. He defeated an enemy he only was supposed -- without being told -- to hold at bay. He rose above the stratagems that swirled around Acheson's State Department, the Cambridges' Fabians and the British Crown's commercial interests. It was a display of military prowess such as the world has not seen since the days of the Pandavas.

Nothing in Western history compares with MacArthur's accomplishments, civil as well as military. They are in a class by themselves, of a scope not heretofore known to be possible. For sheer brilliance and heart-stopping magnificence, they are uniquely the Paradigm of Mastery.

The MacArthur wing of the United States Army restored that organization from the disgrace it incurred from the Marshall generals' handling of Rusk's war in Viet Nam. It prepared the Army for victory in Kuwait. In Iraq, the Army was denied victory by civilian application of a recension of Kennan's Doctrine of Containment.

Still, Schwartzkopf's and Powell's operations were classic MacArthur, which is classic military doctrine:

Hold the front and envelop the flanks.
Hit them where they aren't.

Or, as Patton said,
'Hold 'em by the nose and kick 'em in the pants.'

Peace is the condition of life, not its goal. In war, therefore, 'there is no substitute for victory.' MacArthur said that. Victory is the condition in which no one can or wants to shoot at you. War is trial by fire in the Court of Heaven. Its objective is settling the matter under dispute by obtaining total defeat of one of the combatants.

In war, there is no such thing as a draw. An officer cannot ask troops to risk their lives for a draw. If they do, the troops will mutiny. Combat personnel care only for victory, which is when no one can or wants to shoot at them.

Kennan's Doctrine of Containment was a policy of incessant conflict with nasty relatives. It was a recipe for the worst sort of domestic violence. It asserted that, since they are family, we will not destroy the Bolsheviks, but, since they are uncouth, we will keep them out of the parlor. As domestic policy it would have been ill-advised. As international policy it was crack-brained, enormous and treasonous.

Kennan asked for what is impossible: appeasement of an aggressor. This illustrates the incapacity of Brahmins as governors. That for 45 years his Doctrine should be the principle of American international policy is a tribute to the puissance of stupidity and cowardice at Harvard University and the chancellery of the United States' government. It is, also, palpable evidence of treason.

Its achievement is bankrupture of Western civilization. The Bolsheviks finally fell of their own weight, but they could have been taken out in 1944 and 1945 -- at what savings in life, property and universal welfare?

McCarthy was right about communists in federal and academic office. However, he insufficiently discriminated who they were. They were Communists, but Fabians, not Bolsheviks. McCarthy did not understand the situation because he was driven by Cardinals bearing unannounced, un-American agendas, including anti-Semitism and anti-Protestantism.

Brahmins -- clergy, doctors and teachers -- do not belong on a field of battle as combatants and should not be planning for wars. Government is the responsibility of rulers -- lawyers, judges, soldiers, police and politicians. Clergy and academicians have no place and no responsibility in government except as spiritual preceptors and healers to governing families.

When diplomats fail -- Kennan's Doctrine of Containment -- others pay for their incapacity in blood. Diplomats, usually, do not bear the cost of their own foolhardiness and wicked stratagems. Soldiers and civilians do.

Diplomats are not qualified to plan wars or to direct hostile operations. Kennan aimed at doing both things to protect some embarrassing relatives. Millions of innocent persons paid with their blood for Kennan's a-dharmic (improper) activity.

Ellsberg revealed the stupidity, the enormity of it all, but he made soldiers take the blame that belonged to Kennan and Harvard. He was a Harvard man.

Arguably, it was the greatest enormity suffered by the planet during the last 5000 years, compliments of Harvard University's team of human engineers, with George Frost Kennan.

Inside this travesty is a homosexual trait, male chauvinism, seconded by a pretense of tyrants, lese-majeste. The two are related. Tyrants and homosexuals are usually the same individuals.

Male chauvinism is the assertion that women are outrageous, ridiculous creatures that exist to do the bidding of males. Lese-majeste is the assertion that an office holder, because of the office held, may deem any topics unfit for examination. To examine a topic deemed unfit in this way would open the examiner to prosecution for treason. Today, lese-majeste is called political correctness.

The United States was founded on a disavowal of these twin assertions, male chauvinism and lese-majeste.

Some Anglicans preen themselves with the thought that the Founding Fathers of our country were Anglicans. Many were -- they were Low Church Anglicans, incidentally -- but the Fathers composed our enabling documents in their capacity as Masons, not in their capacity as Anglicans. Masonic, not Anglican, iconography greets a bearer of our unit of communication. Our Constitutional proscriptions of tyranny are attributable to Masonic, not Anglican, principles.

Anglican clergy are persistent bearers of these assertions, male chauvinism and lese-majeste. The laity learns the attitude from the clergy, who employ it to pick private pockets in lieu of their preference, which is owning feudal fiefs.

The enabling documents of our country were written to exclude clergy -- and in particular, Anglican clergy -- from access to the public purse. Even so, an enormous concession is given in the form of a tax exemption on religious property and revenue.

The election of 1992/5753 contained a decision by the people of this country to reaffirm their heritage by disallowing the assertions of male chauvinism and lese-majeste, which are homosexual traits.

The collapse of communism was also the collapse of Harvard. It could have been done 45 years earlier, at Prague (Patton) and on the Trans-Siberian Railway (MacArthur). Atomic weaponry was not required. Victory in Europe in 1944 or 1945 would have precluded war in Korea and Viet Nam. It would have mooted the National Security State, the Cold War and 45 years of weapons madness masquerading as Science.

The horror of Kennan's Doctrine of Containment was conclusively demonstrated in the act of letting Saddam Hussein go free. This convinced the people that their leaders do not have their interests at heart and that they should try a new group of leaders.

The election of 1992/5753 contained another decision by the people of this country. It was to move the nation forward through the genetic lines of those who opposed the Viet Nam war and those who supported those who opposed it. The people determined that those who support the Viet Nam war and those who denounce those who opposed it are not loyal citizens of the United States and should not be allowed to chart the nation's course. The people disallowed the assertion of lese-majeste.

The people decided that, with respect to the Vietnam War, the following people were right to say and do as they did:

those who went against their will,

those who said, 'Hell no! I won't go!,'

those who fought in or supported and then opposed the war

and those who fought in or supported the war but honored those who opposed it.

It is a eugenic decision the people have made. They have indicated the values they will allow to chart the course of their motherland.

They have resolved upon democratic values, as evidenced by opposition to or tolerance of opposition to the Viet Nam war.

The people have rejected monarchical values. These values were asserted by Bush when he declared that questions about his gallantries are inappropriate and offensive in the Oval Office. His meaning was that a sitting President, a Monarch, may not be questioned about matters he deems inappropriate for examination and may prosecute an offending questioner for violating this principle. The actual estate of the President, or, Monarch, he asserted is not important. Only the propaganda is, the public relations, the psychological warfare image that he or she wants to wield.

The citizens of this country affirmed their heritage in the election of 1992/5753. They composed a watershed of our nation's destiny. We do not accept the assertions of male chauvinism and lese-majeste. We do not accept the claims of tyrants. We reject the manner of homosexuality.

Many women are under the impression that homosexual males -- yakshas in Vedic parlance -- are safe company for them since they are not interested in their bodies. This is a misunderstanding which produces serious miscalculations.

Homosexuals are not neutral. They have agendas, goals, priorities and tactics, just as human beings do. They do not have the same agendas human beings have, but they have agendas and they organize to accomplish them.

Homosexuals fear and despise women and are continuously engaged in activities meant to demean women and men and to deprive them of happiness. A woman who is not aware of this cannot be a woman for long. Homosexuals will make her a laughingstock, according to their goal. For evidence, consult a fashion magazine. The abuse of women is conducted by homosexuals, not by men.

Adwaitha Hermitage
November 7, 1992

Footnote

1- Lese-majeste is the doctrine that a public servant is the public, the nation, the state itself and is above laws that regulate the conduct of ordinary citizens ... and can be criticized only on pain of treason. Return