John Simkin
-
Posts
15,705 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by John Simkin
-
-
Although I am only an hour away from London I will be in Canada during most of the Olympics. I will have to watch it on Canadian television.
-
Truly bizarre. Furniture, no less!
It wouldn’t be that odd IF true Bernard Kerik went to prison for kickbacks in the form of renovations to his apartment.
What is not surprising is that they blamed Jews and Homosexuals for not winning the First World War between 1914-17. Hitler was not the first to blame Jews for political problems.
-
This is an article about e-books that I think is worth reading if you are thinking of publishing books on the JFK assassination.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/jan/12/amanda-hocking-self-publishing
-
vol 5 '22-'39, initial general impression: big.
p21 22 and earlier for background : On December 10 Churchill was present at The Old Bailey... Lord A Douglas...then pretty much what's been posted. It did cost him his seat tho earlier. There seems to be a lot of turmoil before and after the events that in some ways are related. Interesting window to this time.
The third man involved in the case was Robert Ross. According to Frank Harris, Ross and Wilde met in a public lavatory in 1886. Both Ross and Douglas, because of their background, were never put on trial. Alfred Taylor, the owner of a male brothel Wilde had used, was not so lucky.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Jwilde.htm
-
John, do you think the five volume ''Winston S. Churchill''(with compendiums) (of which I only have vol V) by Randolph Churchill and Martin Gilbert is a good companion to these posts you have been making about this era?
I am not sure you will find much information on this case in any book on Churchill. I have a couple of books on Asquith and they don't mention it either.
-
In the spring of 1916 Herbert Asquith decided to send Lord Kitchener, his Secretary of State of War, to Russia in an attempt to rally the country in its fight against Germany. On 5th June 1916, Horatio Kitchener was drowned when the HMS Hampshire on which he was traveling to Russia, was struck a mine off the Orkneys. C. P. Scott, the editor of the Manchester Guardian, remarked: "he could not have done better than to have gone down, as he was a great impediment lately".
Horatio Bottomley, the editor of the John Bull magazine, promoted the idea that Kitchener had been murdered as part of some Jewish conspiracy.
In July 1920, Alfred Douglas, the former boyfriend of Oscar Wilde, became the editor of the weekly magazine, Plain English. According to Michael Kettle, the author of Salome's Last Veil : The Libel Case of the Century (1977): "Bosie (Douglas) at this time was obsessed with the story then circulating in Fleet Street that the Jews had somehow engineered the death of Lord Kitchener, who went down in the Hampshire in 1916, when on his way out to Russia; and that Churchill had deliberately circulated a false account of the Battle of Jutland (which took place just before the Hampshire sank), which enabled his friend the Jewish financier Sir Ernest Cassel to make a killing on the New York Stock Exchange and give the Churchills some £40,000 worth of furniture."
Douglas continued his campaign against Winston Churchill and he issued 30,000 copies of a pamphlet entitled "The Murder of Lord Kitchener and the Truth about the Battle of Jutland and the Jews". As a result he was arrested and charged for criminal libel. He was found guilty and was sentenced to six months imprisonment. While in Wormwood Scrubs he wrote "In Excelis", his most famous poem. On his release he dropped his anti-Wilde mania and his campaign against Churchill. The man was obviously mentally ill and had been used by the far-right to blame the Jews for the death of a national hero.
-
Kenneth Scearce's review of John McAdams' new book:
-
Message from Richard:
I am doing some research into the death of an English teacher, Dennis Hill, at AUB in Beirut and how it may be related to the Confession of the Beirut CIA Station head, William Buckley, in 1985.
IRB: Information regarding the death of British subject Dennis Hill and the kidnapping of Amanda:
http://www.ecoi.net/local_link/184927/287760_en.html
Information regarding the death of British subject Dennis Hill and the kidnapping of Amanda(?) in May 1985. [LBN2754]
Although attributed to Hezbollah, Hezbollah denied this and in turn claimed that he was murdered by the CIA at the time.
It is possible that Dennis Hill was investigating Buckley's kidnapping.
Yes, a long time ago, but if you know anything about this please let me know, or if you know who I could contact.
I believe that Gene Wheaton, George Cave (aka Oswald Lewinter) are some of the few remaining ex-CIA people alive who may be able to help with this topic. Does anyone have contacts for them?
As far as I know the confession was "buried" by Iran and Hezbollah after the Reagan administration agreed to supply arms like TOW and HAWK, etc. The confession and Video Tape and Documents in Buckley's briefcase were never published.
I cannot read Farsi or Arabic, so difficult for me to contact Iranian or Lebanese people involved or to further research this topic with them.
I am trying to find out if the confession or detailed information about its contents were ever released or published anywhere or if anyone has a copy.
I have contacted Thomas Sutherland, anotherr hostage at he time who rewrote Buckley's confession for his captors for legibility, but so far no reply.
Also. Buckley's autopsy by Dr. Froede has never been published, but was mentioned in passing in 'The Murder Room, so I have contacted the author, Michael Capuzzo about this..
Some of the information available from author Gordon Thomas in Journey into Madness seems far-fetched and also I have not received a reply from him regarding this.
Any help, information, leads, contacts or advice appreciated greatly.
-
Michael Kettle believes that David Lloyd George tried to set-up one of the plotters, Noel Pemberton Billing with Eileen Villiers-Stuart, the former mistress of a government cabinet minister. However, this backfired when Villers-Stuart became Billing's mistress. You can read more about this at:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWbilling.htm
-
What about Lord Palmerston?
http://www.schillerinstitute.org/conf-iclc/1990s/conf_feb_1994_hgl.html
I hate to sound like an iconoclast (and I am not a LaRouchie like at least some of the
speakers at this conference), but Pam certainly had a greater negative impact on the
world than the Duke of Cumberland (who?).
In terms of domestic policy, Lord Liverpool was far worse than Lord Palmerston.
-
I have just signed a contract with Trine Day Publishers to write my autobiography. In general scope, it will cover my role with William F. Buckley, David Franke, Marvin Liebman and Gov. Charles Edison in founding the modern conservative movement in the 1950’s and early 1960’s; the JFK assassination-Watergate linkage; the crimes of LBJ; key events in subsequent years; and how and when I concluded that the conservative movement had been hijacked by sociopaths and opportunists. Publication date: early 2013.
That looks very interesting. I imagine a lot of this material have not appeared before. For example, on this forum.
-
According to the historian, Michael Kettle, a group of military leaders became involved in a plot to overthrow David Lloyd George, the British prime minister, in 1918. Those involved in the conspiracy included General William Robertson, Chief of Staff and the prime ministers main political adviser, Maurice Hankey, the secretary of the Committee of Imperial Defence (CID), General Frederick Maurice, director of military operations at the War Office and Colonel Charles Repington, the military correspondent of the Morning Post. Kettle argues that: "What Maurice had in mind was a small War Cabinet, dominated by Robertson, assisted by a brilliant British Ludendorff, and with a subservient Prime Minister. It is unclear who Maurice had in mind for this Ludendorff figure; but it is very clear that the intention was to get rid of Lloyd George - and quickly."
General William Robertson disagreed with Lloyd George's proposal to create an executive war board, chaired by Ferdinand Foch, with broad powers over allied reserves. Robertson expressed his opposition to General Herbert Plumer in a letter on 4th February, 1918: "It is impossible to have Chiefs of the General Staffs dealing with operations in all respects except reserves and to have people with no other responsibilities dealing with reserves and nothing else. In fact the decision is unsound, and neither do I see how it is to be worked either legally or constitutionally."
On 11th February, Charles Repington, revealed in the Morning Post details of the coming offensive on the Western Front. Lloyd George later recorded: "The conspirators decided to publish the war plans of the Allies for the coming German offensive. Repington's betrayal might and ought to have decided the war." Repington and his editor, Howell Arthur Gwynne, were fined £100 each, plus costs, for a breach of Defence of the Realm regulations when he disclosed secret information in the newspaper.
General Robertson wrote to Repington suggesting that he had been the one who had leaked him the information: "Like yourself, I did what I thought was best in the general interests of the country. I feel that your sacrifice has been great and that you have a difficult time in front of you. But the great thing is to keep on a straight course". General Frederick Maurice also sent a letter to Repington: "I have the greatest admiration for your courage and determination and am quite clear that you have been the victim of political persecution such as I did not think was possible in England."
Robertson put up a fight in the war cabinet against the proposed executive war board, but when it was clear that Lloyd George was unwilling to back down, he resigned his post. He was now replaced with General Henry Wilson. General Douglas Haig rejected the idea that Robertson should become one of his commanders in France and he was given the eastern command instead.
On 9th April, 1918, Lloyd George, told the House of Commons that despite heavy casualties in 1917, the British Army in France was considerably stronger than it had been on January 1917. He also gave details of the number of British troops in Mesopotamia, Egypt and Palestine. Frederick Maurice, whose job it was to keep accurate statistics of British military strength, knew that Lloyd George had been guilty of misleading Parliament about the number of men in the British Army. Maurice believed that Lloyd George was deliberately holding back men from the Western Front in an attempt to undermine the position of Sir Douglas Haig.
On 6th May, 1918, Frederick Maurice wrote a letter to the press stating that ministerial statements were false. The letter appeared on the following morning in the The Morning Post, The Times, The Daily Chronicle and The Daily News. The letter accused David Lloyd George of giving the House of Commons inaccurate information. The letter created a sensation. Maurice was immediately suspended from duty and supporters of Herbert Henry Asquith called for a debate on the issue.
Maurice's biographer, Trevor Wilson: "Despite containing some errors of detail, the charges contained in Maurice's letter were well founded. Haig had certainly been obliged against his wishes to take over from the French the area of front where his army suffered setback on 21 March. The numbers of infantrymen available to Haig were fewer, not greater, than a year before. And there were several more white divisions stationed in Egypt and Palestine at the time of the German offensive than the government had claimed."
The debate took place on 9th May and the motion put forward amounted to a vote of censure. If the government lost the vote, the prime minister would have been forced to resign. As A.J.P. Taylor has pointed out: "Lloyd George developed an unexpectedly good case. With miraculous sleight of hand, he showed that the figures of manpower which Maurice impuhned, had been supplied from the war office by Maurice's department." Although many MPs suspected that Lloyd George had mislead Parliament, there was no desire to lose his dynamic leadership during this crucial stage of the war. The government won the vote with a clear majority.
Frederick Maurice, by writing the letter, had committed a grave breach of discipline. He was retired from the British Army and was refused a court martial or inquiry where he would have been able to show that David Lloyd George had mislead the House of Commons on both the 9th April and 7th May, 1918.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRgeorge.htm
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWrobertson.htm
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWhankey.htm
-
In my opinion one of the worst Britons was a man called Horatio Bottomley. He was a Liberal Party MP who was forced to resign after being declared bankrupt in 1912 (in fact he should have gone to prison for corruption).
On the outbreak of the First World War, Bottomley told his personal assistant, Henry J. Houston: "Houston, this war is my opportunity. Whatever I have been in the past, and whatever my faults, I am going to draw a line at August 4th, 1914, and start afresh. I shall play the game, cut all my old associates, and wipe out everything pre-1914" Houston later recalled: "At the time I thought he meant it, but but now I know that the flesh, habituated to luxury and self-indulgence, was too weak to give effect to the resolution. For a while he did try to shake off his old associates, but the claws of the past had him grappled in steel, and the effort did not last more than a few weeks."
In September 1914, the first recruiting meetings were held in London. The first meetings were addressed by government ministers. Bottomley told Houston: "These professional politicians don't understand the business. I am going to constitute myself the Unofficial Recruiting Agent to the British Empire. We must have a big meeting." His first meeting at the Albert Hall was so popular that according to Houston, Bottomley "was unable for two hours to get into his own meeting."
Bottomley wrote to Herbert Henry Asquith about the possibility of becoming Director of Recruiting. Asquith replied: "Thank you for your offer but I shall not avail myself of it at the moment. You are doing better work where you are." Asquith, aware of his popularity, encouraged him to do this work in an unofficial capacity. It has been claimed at the time that he was paid between £50 and £100 to address meetings where he encouraged young men to join the armed forces. Henry J. Houston claimed that he spoke at the Empire Theatre, Leicester Square, and delivered a ten minutes' speech each night for a week at a fee of £600. Later, Bottomley "secured a week's engagement, two houses nightly, at the Glasgow Pavilion, where he received a fee of £1,000."
It has been calculated that Bottomley addressed twenty recruiting meetings and 340 "patriotic war lectures". Although he had been highly critical of the government, at the meetings he always stated: "When the country is at war, it is the duty of every patriot to say: My country right or wrong; My government good or bad." He also falsely claimed that he was "not going to take money for sending men out to their death, or profit from his country in its hour of need." Bottomley claimed that he used the meetings to publicise John Bull Magazine and according to Houston, he drew over £22,000 from the journal for his efforts.
At one meeting a man in the audience shouted out: "Isn't it time you went and did your bit, Mr. Bottomley?" Bottomley replied: "Would to God it were my privilege to shoulder a rifle and take my place beside the brave boys in the trenches. But you have only to look at me to see that I am suffering from two complaints. My medical man calls them anno domini and embonpoint. The first means that I was born too soon and the second that my chest measurement has got into the wrong place."
To persuade young men to join the armed forces he gave the impression that the war would be over in a few weeks. In a speech at the Bournemouth Winter Gardens in September, 1915, he argued: "Ladies and gentlemen, I want you to pull yourselves together and keep your peckers up. I want to assure you that within six weeks of to-day we shall have the Huns on the run. We shall drive them out of France, out of Flanders, out of Belgium, across the Rhine, and back into their own territory. There we shall give them a taste of their own medicine. Bear in mind, I speak of that which I know. Tomorrow it will be officially denied, but take it from me that if Bottomley says so, it is so!"
Houston argued in his book, The Real Horatio Bottomley (1923): "He began to accept what were practically music hall engagements disguised as recruiting meetings, and I was very definitely of the opinion that he was drifting in the wrong direction. Nevertheless for some time it went on... Bottomley insisted that a substantial contribution (from the income generated from the meetings) went to his War Charity Fund... Three years later I discovered that the fund did not receive a penny of the money."
In one speech Bottomley argued: "Every hero of the war who has fallen in the field of battle has performed an Act of Greatest Love, so penetrating and intense in its purifying character that I do not hesitate to express my opinion that any and every past sin is automatically wiped out from the record of his life." George Bernard Shaw went to one of Bottomley's meetings and afterwards commented: "It's exactly what I expected: the man gets his popularity by telling people with sufficient bombast just what they think themselves and therefore want to hear."
Bottomley argued in the John Bull Magazine that Ramsay MacDonald and James Keir Hardie, were the leaders of a "pro-German Campaign". On 19th June 1915 the magazine claimed that MacDonald was a traitor and that: "We demand his trial by Court Martial, his condemnation as an aider and abetter of the King's enemies, and that he be taken to the Tower and shot at dawn."
On 4th September, 1915, the magazine published an article which made an attack on his background. "We have remained silent with regard to certain facts which have been in our possession for a long time. First of all, we knew that this man was living under an adopted name - and that he was registered as James MacDonald Ramsay - and that, therefore, he had obtained admission to the House of Commons in false colours, and was probably liable to heavy penalties to have his election declared void. But to have disclosed this state of things would have imposed upon us a very painful and unsavoury duty. We should have been compelled to produce the man's birth certificate. And that would have revealed what today we are justified in revealing - for the reason we will state in a moment... it would have revealed him as the illegitimate son of a Scotch servant girl!"
In his diary, Ramsay MacDonald recorded his reaction to the article. "On the day when the paper with the attack was published, I was travelling from Lossiemouth to London in the company as far as Edinburgh with the Dowager Countess De La Warr, Lady Margaret Sackville and their maid... I saw the maid had John Bull in her hand. Sitting in the train, I took it from her and read the disgusting article. From Aberdeen to Edinburgh, I spent hours of the most terrible mental pain.... Never before did I know that I had been registered under the name of Ramsay, and cannot understand it now. From my earliest years my name has been entered upon lists, like the school register, etc. as MacDonald. My mother must have made a simple blunder or the registrar must have made a clerical error."
MacDonald received many letters of support, including this one: "For your villainy and treason you ought to be shot and I would gladly do my country service by shooting you. I hate you and your vile opinions - as much as Bottomley does. But the assault he made on you last week was the meanest, rottenest lowdown dog's dirty action that ever disgraced journalism."
A.J.P. Taylor claimed that Bottomley made £78,000 from his "recruiting" and "patriotic" meetings. He used this money to pay off his debts and in the 1918 General Election he was returned as the independent MP for Hackney South. Soon afterwards stories began circulating about Bottomley's corrupt activities. This included his highly successful Victory Bond Club that he ran via The John Bull Magazine. This scheme involved buying government Victory Bonds. It was claimed that he had corruptedly obtained over £900,000 in this way.
In March 1922 he was charged with fraud. Tried before Mr Justice Salter at the Old Bailey, Bottomley was found guilty on twenty-three out of twenty-four counts and sentenced to seven years' penal servitude. His legal appeal was rejected and he was expelled from the House of Commons. He was released from Maidstone Prison in July 1927 after serving five years.
-
There is a system in place here, however flawed. The moderators are not the "mean police." We are not the U.S. military, running around the world trying to stop the bad guys before they can be bad. We are for the most part a slow-moving response team, trying to keep the forum from becoming a joke, whilst simultaneously trying to allow open discussion among its members. When forum members respond to a "mean" post with something equally "mean" or worse they pretty much remove the possibility the "mean" guy who started it all will be "punished." That's just the way it is. Those hoping for a more active moderation, where an all-seeing moderator jumps in out of the blue to chastise every "mean" person the moment he says something "mean" are simply on the wrong forum.
I do see some possibility for improvement, however.
Here is Rule iv of the forum.
(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum.
Many if not most of us have repeatedly violated this rule. At times we question the qualifications of those questioning our favorite theories. At other times we question the credibility of those who've previously espoused theories we find silly or just plain wrong. Now, it's incredibly hard for some to have a discussion with someone they disagree with without questioning that person's abilities or credibility. But we have to try.
And so, I have a suggestion. Whenever ANYONE questions the ability of, let's say, a member who is by trade a gardener, to question the medical evidence, or the over-all credibility of, let's say, a member who once claimed Connally shot JFK at close range, the first MEMBER to read the offending post should simply post something like "Bill, your post appears to be in violation of Rule iv. Please correct asap. Biff,(the offended party) please do not respond until he does so..."
If MEMBERS were to do this, IMO, the most frequent violators of Rule iv would soon tire of having to go back and correct their posts, or of having their posts EDITED or made invisible when they failed to do so. It might make for a boring forum. But it would force people to focus on the message and not the messenger.
Pat, that seems a very sensible idea.
I would like to put it on record that I fully support the moderators on this forum. It is a terribly difficult job to do and we are very lucky to have so many excellent moderators who are willing to give up their free time for the common good.
-
5. I have the utmost respect for John Simkin -- but this continual habit of referring to this site as his home for the purpose of behavior control, is quite misleading. This is not his home. It is his place of business. Traffic = money. I don't say that in a pejorative fashion. He has done a fantastic job in building this site, and I wish him continued and growing success. But his home? That's just a play for false sympathy. I would think that the only person on this site who actually resides in his place of business is me. For whatever that's worth.
Greg, this forum only costs me money. All advertising on this forum goes to Andy Walker.
Thanks for straightening me out on that John. But just to be clear, I was taking about the whole site - of which this forum is just one small part. If I am still wrong, please correct me, but I don't want to turn this into a debate about you, or the site. I hope you understand the context in which it was raised at all.
Of course I make money from my Spartacus Educational website. But this forum is not part of my main site. It is an independent forum. The only connection is that I pay for both sites. Nor can I see the connection between this and you and other members abusing each other on this forum.
-
5. I have the utmost respect for John Simkin -- but this continual habit of referring to this site as his home for the purpose of behavior control, is quite misleading. This is not his home. It is his place of business. Traffic = money. I don't say that in a pejorative fashion. He has done a fantastic job in building this site, and I wish him continued and growing success. But his home? That's just a play for false sympathy. I would think that the only person on this site who actually resides in his place of business is me. For whatever that's worth.
Greg, this forum only costs me money. All advertising on this forum goes to Andy Walker.
-
This thread reminds me why I no longer participate in JFK discussions. I enjoy a good relationship with several of the people named in this thread and would describe them as decent human beings, however, when they get involved in a discussion on the JFK assassination, they can become very unpleasant. I am sure they would say somebody else started it, but all I see is the results of the arguments.
When I die I would like it put on my headstone that he “brought out the best in people”. I think in life I have been successful in this objective. However, I have been completely unsuccessful as far as this forum is concerned.
I am very reluctant to put people on moderation but it is clear that some people will need to suffer this penalty. The forum is run on a democratic basis and I will publish the results of our vote on the forum.
-
Thanks for sharing, John. I'm actually much more a student of history than of JFK
or any of the other specific topics here. My library has a JFK section, but it's a small
part of the overall spectrum of modern history that I love to understand. Keep the
tidbits coming. As I tell my friends and coworkers, if it's unimportant information,
I probably know it
I think this information is important because it tells us so much about the period. One of the things that fascinate me about history is just how much things change. This is especially true of attitudes. for example, have you read this thread:
Maud Allan and the Cult of the Clitoris
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18547
It would make a great film.
-
He has called George W Bush the devil and described Barack Obama as a clown.
But Hugo Chávez's customary jabs at his neighbours to the north took an unusual turn this week, when the Venezuelan president suggested that Washington might be behind a wave of cancer among Latin American heads of state.
"Would it be so strange that they've invented the technology to spread cancer and we won't know about it for 50 years?" Chávez pondered, one day after Argentina's president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner announced she had been diagnosed with thyroid cancer and would undergo surgery in January.
Speaking on Wednesday during an end-of-year address to the armed forces, Chávez hinted that a spate of cancer among the region's leaders could be a US plot – although he conceded he had no proof and did not want to make "reckless" accusations.
"I repeat: I am not accusing anyone. I am simply taking advantage of my freedom to reflect and air my opinions faced with some very strange and hard to explain goings-on," he said at the event, broadcast live on state television.
Recent years have seen a series of leftwing Latin America leaders diagnosed with cancer including Brazil's current president, Dilma Rousseff, Paraguay's Fernando Lugo, and the former Brazilian leader Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.
In late June Chávez admitted he was also being treated for cancer, telling Venezuelans that doctors had removed "cancerous cells" from his body.
"I don't know but … it is very odd than we have seen Lugo affected by cancer, Dilma when she was [presidential] candidate, me, going into an election year, not long ago Lula and now Cristina," Chávez said this week.
"It is very hard to explain, even with the law of probabilities, what has been happening to some leaders in Latin America. It's at the very least strange, very strange," the Venezuelan president said, according to government radio Radio Nacional de Venezuela.
Despite his lack of evidence Chávez hinted that other Latin American leaders should watch out – and recalled how US doctors could have infected 2,500 Guatemalans with STDs during the 1940s.
"Evo take care of yourself. Correa, be careful. We just don't know," he said, referring to Bolivia's first indigenous president, Evo Morales, and Rafael Correa, the president of Ecuador.
Chávez said he had received words of warning from Cuba's former leader Fidel Castro, reputedly the target of dozens of failed and often bizarre assassination plots including a fungus-infected diving suit and an exploding cigar.
"Fidel always told me, 'Chávez take care. These people have developed technology. You are very careless. Take care what you eat, what they give you to eat … a little needle and they inject you with I don't know what,'" he said.
While Venezuela's economy remains closely bound to the United States – the South American country exports more than 800,000 barrels of oil there each day – Chávez's colourful attacks on the Washington have been a regular fixture of his presidency.
Apart from the regular insults hurled at its leaders, Chávez has also accused the US of plotting to invade his country and involvement in a 2002 coup attempt that briefly toppled him from power.
In July this year Evo Morales floated a conspiracy theory of his own, suggesting the CIA might deliberately plant drugs on Bolivia's presidential plane in order to discredit his government.
"Do you know what? I think they have to be preparing something," he said. "So much [so] that I'm afraid to go with our airplane to the United States."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/29/hugo-chavez-us-cancer-plot
-
NAZIS BURNED BOOKS AND SILENCED PEOPLE!!!
NOW, ACLU LAWYERS DOUGLAS CADDY AND LINDA MINOR ARE TRYING TO
COMMIT THE SAME ATROCITIES AGAINST ROBERT MERRITT!!!
ACLU INFAMOUS LAWYERS DOUGLAS CADDY AND LINDA MINOR HAVE JOINED TOGETHER IN A CONSPIRACY AND COLLUSION TO DESTROY MY BOOK “WATERGATE
EXPOSED” AND NOW THEY WANT TO SILENCE ME ALL TOGETHER BY GETTING MY MEMBERSHIP ON THE EDUCATION FORUM REVOKED!
There is no truth in this allegation. Douglas Caddy and Linda Minor have never approached me about removing Robert Merritt from the forum.
-
A postcard of Maud Allan produced in 1908.
-
John do you know about what % of the public believed this? Ironic that people believed this in WWI when it wasn't true but little attention seems to have been paid to a secret pro-German group during the next world war.
Here is a photograph that welcomed Noel Pemberton Billing after his victory.
-
The Greene anecdote is also humorous, as if the Germans would attack a small town to
the *west* of London on their way in. Of course, these stories illustrate the fear of Germany
that must have been palpable during that time. Kind of ironic though given how much the
British actually fomented that war :-)
I would love to hear more about these two incidents, however.
Graham Greene was describing the anti-German feeling that existed in the United Kingdom in 1914. Anyone who could speak in German was suspected on being a spy. Greene was not the only one to report dachshund dogs being attacked. James Hayward has argued: “Famously, dachshund dogs (although not apparently Alsatians) were put to sleep or attacked in the streets, a persecution which endured so long that in the years following the war the bloodline had to be replenished with foreign stock.” The reason for the hostility towards dachshunds was that at the beginning of the war they were seen as a symbol of Germany. Political cartoonists commonly used the image of the dog to ridicule Germany. This continued during the Second World War when Hitler’s face was put on the body of a dachshund. This caused a stir when in 1943 the United States government used such a cartoon to advertise war bonds. Hans Morgenthau, the Secretary of the Treasury, was forced to issue an apology where he denied there was no intention of questioning the patriotism of the owners of dachshunds. A full account of these anti-German incidents can be found on my website.
Here is a German cartoon making fun of the British campaign against dachshund dogs.
-
John do you know about what % of the public believed this? Ironic that people believed this in WWI when it wasn't true but little attention seems to have been paid to a secret pro-German group during the next world war.
No public opinion polls were taken at the time. However, historians who have written about the case believe that the public tended to believe the idea of a pro-German conspiracy. As James Hayward , the author of Myths and Legends of the First World War (2002) has pointed out that when Billing was acquitted of all charges: "Hardly ever had a verdict been received in the Central Criminal Court with such unequivocal public approval. The crowd in the gallery sprang to their feet and cheered, as women waved their handkerchiefs and men their hats. On leaving the court in company with Eileen Villiers-Stewart and his wife, Billing received a second thunderous ovation from the crowd outside, where his path was strewn with flowers."
The reason for this is that people got most of their information from newspapers. Lord Northcliffe (the owner of The Times, The Daily Mail and London Evening News), Lord Beaverbrook (The Daily Express), Leo Maxse (the editor of The National Review), Ellis Powell (the editor of the Financial News), Horatio Bottomley (the editor of John Bull) were all believers in the conspiracy.
They had all promoted other stories that were untrue. For example, the cutting off of babies hands in Belguim and France by the German Army, the crucifixon of British and Canadian soldiers, German corpse factories, Angels of Mons, etc. These were all manufactured by the War Propaganda Bureau in London and the British Secret Service based in France. These lies became clear after the war. One newspaper reported:
"A few years ago the story of how the Kaiser was reducing human corpses to fat aroused the citizens of this and other enlightened nations to a fury of hatred. Normally sane men doubled their fists and rushed off to the nearest recruiting sergeant. Now they are being told, in effect, that they were dupes and fools; that their own officers deliberately goaded them to the desired boiling-point, using an infamous lie to arouse them... In the next war, the propaganda must be more subtle and clever than the best the World War produced. These frank admissions of wholesale lying on the part of trusted Governments in the last war will not soon be forgotten."
It has been argued that this is why the Allies played down stories about the concentration camps during the Second World War. It has been claimed that because of what happened in the First World War, no one would have believed the stories.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWcrucified.htm
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWangelsmons.htm
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWcorpse.htm
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWatrocities.htm
JFK Research on Wednesday
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Wikipedia plans to take its English-language site offline on Wednesday as part of protests against proposed anti-piracy laws in the US.
The sites' webmasters are opposed to the Stop Online Piracy Act (Sopa) and Protect Intellectual Property Act (Pipa) being debated by Congress.
Wikipedia's founder, Jimmy Wales, told the BBC: "Proponents of Sopa have characterised the opposition as being people who want to enable piracy or defend piracy.
"But that's not really the point. The point is the bill is so over broad and so badly written that it's going to impact all kinds of things that, you know, don't have anything to do with stopping piracy."
Sopa's supporters in the House of Representatives say the legislation is designed to stop revenue flowing to "rogue websites". It would give content owners and the US government the power to request court orders to shut down sites associated with piracy.
It means that on Wednesday researchers can get Wikipedia-free information on the JFK assassination.