…by Jonas E. Alexis and Gerard Menuhin
Gerard Menuhin is a British-Swiss journalist, writer, novelist, and film producer. He is the son of Jewish parents, the American violinist and conductor Yehudi Menuhin, who is considered “one of the greatest violinists of the 20th century.” Menuhim’s mother was a ballet dancer and died in 2003 at the age of 90. He graduated from Stanford University and is the author of the new book Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil.
Jonas E. Alexis: Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the Russian Nobel laureate for literature in 1970, was perhaps one of the rarest minds of the twentieth century. He was sent to the Gulag because he reported on the actions of the Red Army after they conquered certain territories.
Solzhenitsyn was tortured and stripped of human dignity. He was a Marxist under the Soviet regime and witnessed firsthand the horrors of socialism, even blaming himself afterward for being part of the regime.
But Solzhenitsyn eventually became an Orthodox Christian. Later, he wrote about his experiences in his famous book The Gulag Archipelago. (Solzhenitsyn’s monumental study Two Hundred Years Together, which was a best-seller in Russia, has yet to be translated into English. The first volume has been translated into French—Deux Siecles Ensembles: Juifs et Russes avant la Revolution—yet as of today publishers in America do not want to touch the manuscript.)
Solzhenitsyn said that the first step of a courageous man is to not take part in a lie. In other words, once our eyes are open to the truth, we should flee from falsehood whenever we find it because, once again, truth will free us from spiritual, intellectual, and political bondage. Solzhenitsyn said:
“And therein we find, neglected by us, the simplest, the most accessible key to our liberation: a personal nonparticipation in lies! Even if all is covered by lies, even if all is under their rule, let us resist in the smallest way: Let their rule hold not through me!”
Everyone who desires to be free will have to seek and find the truth and follow it. In the ideological war, it is also important to expose falsehood, and those who are of the truth will eventually drop the shackles of falsehood. One of the rarest individuals who has been exposing falsehood in our time is Gerard Menuhin, a man of intellectual principles. He certainly reminds me of Solzhenitsyn, and you will see why in a moment.
Gerard Menuhin: Do you favour truth or lies? That’s a simple question. Most people would answer without hesitation: truth. In fact, they’re wrong. In their daily lives, they favour lies. This is because they swallow unquestioningly the disinformation spewed out by the major media, in the hands of five or six Liars. People are comfortable with lies; they don’t want to think for themselves. If they were not so comfortable, so apathetic, the world would not be in the crisis it’s in now.
If people want to change anything, they’ll first have to regain their rationality. The first step to recover a balanced view is to stop believing what you’re told. The truth is available free from many sources. So treat the official news like a game. Instead of saying, for instance, Oh no, not another terrorist attack! Say to yourself, Now I wonder why they’re lying this time. Once you’ve got used to this, you can take the next step: rebel against the lies that cause wars, anarchy and social distress.
In response to the latest alleged Muslim terrorist event in London, Prime Minister May said: “The terrorist chose to strike at the heart of our capital city, where people of all nationalities, religions and cultures come together to celebrate the values of liberty, democracy and freedom of speech.” This might be true — except that we’re not free to practice our political beliefs, that so-called democracy deprives citizens of their rights, and that speech is only free if you watch what you say. So it’s just another lie.
Liars are congenitally inclined to lie. They are born into a system that rewards the Liar. They see nothing wrong with lying to get what they want.
They’ve been lying to us successfully for so long now that they’re ready to move on to the next stage, a critical one: something they call ‘post-truth’. Liars always feel threatened by truth, even when the majority of their victims can’t recognize the difference. To paraphrase Solzhenitsyn: ‘For a Liar nothing is more insulting than the truth’. So, they’re imposing via their media an environment in which they’re truly at home — where facts are displaced by feelings and feelings give way to ’emoticons’.
In a recent panicked frenzy, amazon and Google have revealed how dangerous the truth is to them and how desperate they are to prevent it reaching their readers. Amazon has deleted at least 70 titles and reports are of 10,000 trolls installed by Google to turn information into the kind of harmless pap that doesn’t upset Liars. Luckily, thinking people will not forget the facts. They will remember what happened and what didn’t happen. So, keep it real, folks. The truth will out.
All kinds of dissimilar people share similar if not identical beliefs. Only they don’t all share the same vocabulary or language. In fact, they often quarrel. This only benefits the enemy. There is only one enemy: the Liars. So we should show only one unified front.
A celebrated German statesman and part-time architect of the 1930s and 40s qualified the Second World War as a war between truth and lies. He propounded the popular beliefs: ‘Common benefit before personal benefit’, and ‘To each what they deserve’. He was convinced that truth would eventually be victorious. It is our duty to help him achieve this victory for our own sake.
Architecture provides a useful analogy: we need a dependable structure in our lives. Truth may be compared to a stone tower with a sturdy foundation. Within this structure, honest business may be transacted and dependable promises exchanged. By contrast, lies may be compared to a ramshackle hovel, constantly in need of patching to keep it upright – to make the latest lies plausible. Life should be a sequence of well thought out decisions by which nobody is exploited, not an uninterrupted round of haggling, in order to make money.
Money is just a means of exchange. A convenient means of exchange is needed to avoid, say, exchanging a sack of potatoes for a visit to the dentist. In the past, shells or sticks were used. However, it took the middleman, the fellow who produced nothing useful himself, to figure out how to make the means of exchange more important than the end-product.
These days, in developed countries, manufacturing has taken a back seat to the service industry. Factories still produce goods, but the real money doesn’t come from selling products made in cheap labour countries, but from gambling in the financial markets. Complicated derivatives are invented to play with, but any vehicle for profit will do, even another’s engineered loss. The economies of entire countries are games to bet against. And why not, considering these countries have been forced into debt under the Liars’ system and therefore have long since lost their independence?
Countries have been forced into debt by their own central banks which have to borrow money to keep their economies running. Independent central banks could and should provide the amounts of money needed to buy and sell goods and services within their national borders, and to enable foreign trade when necessary. As such, they could inflate or deflate the money supply to suit any eventuality.
Borrowing money against interest from a private central bank to run a country should not only be considered folly, but a crime against the people. What is the network of central banks which covers all but maybe three remaining countries in which an independent central bank still exists, but a system of inter-dependent control points, from which the economies of single nations are supervised by the Bank of International Settlements, which allegedly pursues global financial stability.
Is money just a means of exchange or does it, in fact, make the world go around, and where does human life enter the equation? How important is human life compared to money? The answer depends on whose life is in question.
High-flown rhetoric about the Rights of Man and His Dignity is trumpeted daily in the media. Simultaneously the holders of these rights are unceasingly being blown to bits in unnecessary wars. We are told that education and health care, to name only two vital elements of any economy, could be improved, if the money were available, but unfortunately, it’s not available and the country already has a massive debt. But debt is no hindrance when ‘defense’ is budgeted; there’s always money for war.
So which is, in fact, more important – the human being, which bombs can reduce to a maimed and bloody bundle in a second, or money, which can be manufactured by machine, or electronically out of thin air?
While the world gradually, inexorably goes to hell, the bought media entertain us with futile discussion. Self-important intellectuals split hairs over names: they invent terminology that is then adopted by other chattering classes. Is a politician a ‘neo-con’ or is he a ‘neo-liberal’? The important questions are very simple: Why won’t the world come to rest? And: Why did our grandfathers, fathers and children have to die in wars that never should have occurred in the first place?
To answer these questions truthfully, you have to accept that no government has ever acted in its citizens’ interest. Otherwise nobody would have had to lay down his life in a cause which didn’t affect him. How does this apply to present-day political parties and their box of tricks called ‘Democracy’?
It’s impossible to judge if currently successful minor political parties were sincere at their inception, in their opposition to the ruling parties. It’s probably fair to say that the founder of the French National Front, Jean-Marie le Pen, was on the right track. But since his daughter expelled him from his own party and disavowed certain convictions of his, we may conclude that she has made the essential compromise with the Liars to ensure herself and the National Front a political future. That compromise applies to the other so-called ‘populist’ parties: the German AfD, the Dutch Party for Freedom, the Austrian FPÖ, Britain’s UKIP, Spain’s Podemos, Greece’s Syriza, Italy’s Five Star Movement, etc.
The condescending epithet ‘populist’ is in itself a curious slight, as it disparages political parties which ostensibly seek to represent the interests of ordinary people and their voters. So now, the media, partnered with the ruling parties, have no shame in coming into the open and telling the electorate just how redundant it is. I say ‘ostensibly’, as these minor parties are as much in thrall to the Liars as are the major parties.
In fact, that’s all that matters for a political party: to ensure itself a political future; in the same way that a shoe company, say, must ensure a market for its products. Political parties produce something called politics, ostensibly for a market called voters, but in fact only for the Liars who control them. For this market, one shoe size is designed to fit all: that size is political correctness.
So, nothing produced by political parties benefits the majority of any constituency or is intended to benefit it. Otherwise basic necessities like a functioning national health service, or reliable public transport, or credible state education, or even clean air and water and soil, would have been achieved long ago. Above everything else, there would be peace, as there is never any justification for war.
As every political party must make the same compromise if it is to have a chance to succeed, we must conclude that political parties and their politicians only work for the Liars. When the complete breakdown of society occurs, politicians and public officials of all kinds will be the only people to keep their places because the Liars can use them to create order out of chaos and form the Liars’ New World Order. In the NWO, all those inessential to the Order will only be permitted to survive as slaves (check out ‘amazombies’, Daily Mail, 5 December 2016).
Therefore, only a people’s movement could reverse the trend towards universal slavery. The goal of a genuine people’s movement would not necessarily be to take power, but maybe to close the economy down by means of an indefinite general strike, until conditions change. As Nick Griffin says: it’s not about taking power, it’s about protecting rights.
Our basic rights are relentlessly being diminished, often in the name of the common good, another lie. Every alleged representative of the people who so industriously works to reduce our freedoms — and by extension to ensure their own survival — falls into one of two categories: dupes or agents. Either they have been fooled into toeing the line, or they are agents of the enemy.
Let me say it again, as we must never forget it: there is only one enemy. Call them what you will, I call them Liars. This epithet was good enough for Jesus over 2,000 years ago (John 8:44), so it’s good enough for me.
All the more or less negative phenomena in our daily lives, directly or indirectly, are a consequence — a willed consequence — of meddling by the Liars.
So face the truth. Accept the truth. Call out the Liars. Save yourself.
 Humphrey Burton, “Lady Menuhin: Gifted dancer who complemented the life of her brilliant husband,” Guardian, February 7, 2003.
 Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Solzhenitsyn Reader (Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, 2006), 558.
 For a historical study on how Capitalism has destroyed lives over the centuries, see E. Michael Jones, Barren Metal: A History of Capitalism as the Conflict Between Labor and Usury (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2014).