Steven Gaal
-
Posts
4,661 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Steven Gaal
-
-
see post # 13 above
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Police dismantle soup kitchen for London homeless, evict activists (CLICK LINK)In a statement Tuesday afternoon, the group, who call themselves the “Love Activists,” said that the situation facing the homeless in central London has hit crisis point. Services to help the homeless in the area are woefully inadequate, they argued, with all dedicated centers due to remain closed until January 3.
Read more: whatreallyhappened.com http://whatreallyhappened.com/#ixzz3NZJLgQQY -
Important topic imo. TY Douglas. It seems to fit well with a number of articles by John PIlger this year.http://johnpilger.com/
eg http://johnpilger.com/articles/break-the-silence-a-world-war-is-beckoning http://johnpilger.com/articles/the-strangelove-effect-or-how-we-are-hoodwinked-into-accepting-a-new-world-war http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article40537.htm http://johnpilger.com/articles/the-coming-war-between-america-and-china-the-new-documentary-project-from-john-pilger
edit typo
GAAL I TOLD "LIBERAL" PEOPLE AT A PARTY ABOUT THE NEW REPUBLIC MANY YEARS AGO - thought I was nuts !! GAAL
Know Thy Enemy! Dark Genesis and Deep Politics: The New Republicby Craig Lee Merrihue
“What the hell was a partner in the Morgan Bank doing starting a “pinko” journal like The New Republic in the first place?”
Jim Martin
*~*~*~*~*~*~*
The New Republic magazine has once again been trotted out to play the Trojan-Horse role for which it was hired.
Los Angeles Times readers were recently lambasted with yet another shrill diatribe against the Palestinian people from New Republic editor-in-chief Martin Peretz (see “Traveling With Bad Companions; Western supporters of the Palestinian cause are morally blind”, June 23, 2003, Commentary) . Such hysterical obloquy would be simply tiresome were it not for the pernicious effect of such drivel on generations of innocent lives.
Those who support the Palestinian cause against Israel, are, at best, in Peretz’s condescending estimation, “myopic romantic{s}”, but more aptly designated as “deluded folk”, “certified kooks”, or by the almost quaintly anachronistic “fellow travelers.”
Some of these “certified kooks”, are genuinely mystified by such irrational invective coming from the helmsman of the most venerable flagship for thoughtful liberalism.
Deliciously tempting though it may be to pick apart Peretz’s logic or his lack thereof, it is more enlightening to assess by what right the New Republic’ arrogated to itself the moral authority to pontificate through its blow-hard editor-in-chief.
The truth is, there is no such moral authority. The New Republic is the cynical creation of self-serving men whose moral mandates seldom rise above the maxim “he who has the gold makes the rules.”
One of the most complete expositions of this little-told story is found in Professor Carroll Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope: A History of The World In Our Time (Macmillan, 1966). The eminent Dr. Quigley was professor of history at the Foreign Service School of Georgetown University, and had previously taught at Princeton and Harvard---certainly no academic slouch, he.
Quigley was also the favorite professor of little Bill Clinton. In fact, in his first presidential nomination acceptance speech, Clinton went out of his way to thank above all others two gone-but-not-forgotten influences who shaped his self-professed belief in the duty of public service: President John F, Kennedy and Professor Carroll Quigley. Clinton attended Georgetown when his professor’s 1300+page tome was probably required reading. Author Jim Martin conjectures that this is probably where the ambitious little suck-butt learned how power really works in the world.
The short of it is, the New Republic was founded in 1914 with J.P. Morgan Banking Money (specifically by Willard Straight who had married heiress Dorothy Payne Whitney) to manipulate the political left. In Quigley’s analysis on pages 936-956, this infiltration had a threefold purpose:
(1)To keep informed on Left-wing thinking; (2) to provide these liberal groups with a forum which would act as a safety-valve to “blow off steam”; and (3) to have a final veto on their publicity, and possibly on their actions, if they ever went “radical”.
Before launching this Trojan Horse, Cornell graduate Willard Straight had served as Far East expert for the Morgan Banking interests of which he was a partner, living in the region 1902-1910. He also was an assistant to Sir Robert Hard , Director of the Chinese Imperial Customs Service, who was lead man, according to Quigley in the European Imperialist penetration of China.
As her name indicates, Willard Straight’s wife, Dorothy Payne Whitney, was the product of an alliance between two of America’s richest families, with giant interests in New York utilities, Rockefeller’s Standard Oil (now Exxon), and much else. One of her brothers married into the equally aristocratic Vanderbilt dynasty, the other wed the daughter of Secretary of State John Hay, who articulated the so-called “open-door” policy in China.
Quigley sees the New Republic as the best example of the alliance between Wall Street and Left-wing publications. The original purpose of this particular alliance was “to provide an outlet for the progressive left and to quietly guide it in an Anglophile” direction. The author goes on to say that this task was given to a smug young man just out of Harvard, Walter Lippman, who would be the towering figure in American Journalism until his death in 1974. Lippman was one of the few American members of the mysterious Round Table Group (more on this later), which had been a dominant force in British foreign policy since its formation in 1909. Lippman’s bi-weekly columns appeared in hundred’s of papers over six decades. As a link between Wall Street and the Round Table Group, and an editor of New Republic, Lippman in 1918, still in his 20s, was given the opportunity to be the official interpreter of Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points at the Paris Peace Conference following World War I.
Guiding the American Left in an Anglophile direction is a goal that absolutely mystifies most modern Americans, who have lost touch with American democracy’s long history of opposing the philosophy and exploitive designs of the British Empire. After decades of “disneyfication” and tabloid celebrity mongering, few Americans see Monarchy as the bloodline worshipping cult of greed clung to by those who believe they are born to rule over others.
Quigley cites Willard Straight’s official biography by Herbert Croly, the first editor of the New Republic, who wrote in 1924, six years after Willard’s untimely death, that “Straight was in no sense a liberal or progressive, but was, indeed, a typical international banker and that the New Republic was simply a mechanism for advancing certain designs of such international bankers, notably to blunt the isolationism and anti-British sentiments so prevalent among many American progressives, while providing them with a vehicle for expression of their progressive views in literature, art, music, social reform, and even domestic politics…the chief achievement of the New Republic, however in 1914-1918 and again in 1938-1948, was for interventionism in Europe and support for Great Britain.
So the great journal of liberal democracy’s crowning glory was to shed blood on behalf of the Empire the nation had broken away from.
Dorothy Payne Whitney Straight was to support the paper until well in the 1950s. A few years after Willard’s death, she acted upon her true feelings for America’s democratic experiment with a new republic by marrying into British nobility and becoming Lady Elmhirst of Dartington Hall. She took her three young children from America and brought them up English. Once again demonstrating her true devotion to the liberal principles professed by the New Republic, Lady Elmhirst renounced her American citizenship in 1935. Her youngest son, Mike Straight, stood for Parliament, as was his right as a British subject. This situation proved to be no obstacle, however, when he returned to America at age 22 and was immediately appointed to the State Department. Paving the way for her son in America, Dorothy Payne Whitney Straight, transferred her sole ownership of the New Republic to a dummy corporation with her son Mike as president.
From this position, Mike Straight may have, in Quigley’s view, “pulled off the most skillful political coup in twentieth century American politics. “ Quigley is referring to the complete removal from the American scene of the Communist Party and Socialist organizations as the serious forces to contend with they had been for several decades.
Part TwoOnly in America.
Mike Straight, J.P. Morgan Banker and blue-blood aristocrat, deploys that paragon of liberal journalism, The New Republic, to destroy the Left as a serious political power in America. Not surprisingly, the magazine continues today in its role of Trojan Horse with visceral polemics against all who dare challenge the pro-Israel party line.
Straight, although a declared anti-communist, was nonetheless quite cozy with the reds when it suited his purposes. Quigley highlights this collaboration in Straight’s role with the Progressive Party presidential bid of former vice-president Henry A. Wallace in 1948. Ironically, Wallace is denigrated in the opening sentences of Peretz’s diatribe as a gullible “fellow traveler”, although Peretz conveniently neglects to mention Wallace’s sojourn as editor of the New Republic.
Straight gave Wallace a bully pulpit in his magazine, and brought in a number of communists like Lew Frank as campaign insiders. In the meantime, Straight worked feverishly to block the candidacies of any state, local, or congressional level aspirants of Wallace’s new Progressive Party. He also worked behind the scenes with his anti-communist friends in labor, veteran, and liberal groups to prevent an endorsement of Wallace’s presidential bid, citing the presence of communists on the candidate’s staff (which Straight himself had brought in). Quigley states that these efforts resulted in nothing less than the shattering of the left-labor coalition of the 1930s (the Popular Front), driving the leftists out of the unions and the labor movement across the country. All of this years before the witch hunts of Sen. Joseph McCarthy or J. Edgar Hoover. In the meantime, Straight’s family (the Whitney’s on his mother’s side), founders of Pan-Amercian Airlines, profited handsomely when C.V. Whitney was appointed by President Truman, (who one would think grateful for the destruction of the left), to the most powerful Federal civil aviation post, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Aeronautics.
As an interesting aside, while Mike Straight was at Cambridge, he was a member of a secret fraternal society called “The Apostles.” As John Costello writes in The Mask of Treachery, this group was in turn very close to the Anthony Blunt-Guy Burgess-Kim Philby spy ring. The Apostles were allegedly Marxist aristocrats (figure that out!), and included Lord Victor Rothschild of the powerful and Zionist-financing banking family. According to Costello, “Guy Burgess, in fact was being paid 100 pounds sterling a month as an ‘investment advisor’ to Mrs. Charles Rothschild while an active Soviet Spy.”
Oh what a knotted web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!
Straights subterfuge against true progressive politics, perpetrated while the controlling force of The New Republic, played to the development of a Radical Right mythology of liberal plots to undermine the American way of life, and the helped in the branding of left-ism as “un-American.”
However, Quigley says that this radical right fairy tale, “like all fables, does in fact have a modicum of truth.” Quigley then goes on to provide the history, based on his insider access to the group’s papers, of an “anglophile network, which operates, to some extent, the way the radical right believes the Communists act.” The modern form of this malignant misrule had its genesis in the Round Table Groups founded by world pirate Cecil Rhodes (for whom Rhodesia in Africa was named) and the subsequent trustees of his enormous ill-gotten gains. The stated purpose of the group was to federate the English speaking peoples of the world in accord with principles laid down by Cecil Rhodes and William T. Snead. By 1915 there were Round Table groups in seven English speaking countries, with the inventor of “professional and objective journalism", and New Republic icon, Walter Lippman, leading the American contingent. The “chief backbone” of the group was built around “the already existing financial cooperation between the Morgan Bank in New York and a group of international financiers in London led by the Lazard Brothers”, with numerous entities in between.
Known as “Lord Milner’s kindergarten” after the venerable English aristocrat’s demise in 1925, several front groups were established in each of the commonwealth nations, and led by a veritable who’s who of moneyed power: Lord Lothian, Lady Astor, the Dulles brothers, the Harrimans, and Morgan bankers too numerous to mention. Front groups were established in each of the member countries. The British entity is the Royal Institute of International Affairs, widely known by the name of its St .James Square location across the street from the Astors, Chatham House. The American Counterpart is the Council on Foreign Relations, publishers of Foreign Affairs magazine, and the source for nearly every Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense for the last 80 years, as well as most Presidents. The CFR has a small, select, by invitation-only membership, which makes its domination of U.S. foreign policy almost ludicrous, were it not so lethal for so many. Sister organizations include the Trilateral Commission, which consists of major players in America, Europe, and Japan, and the so-called Bilderberger group, largely concerned with Euro-American affairs.
Quigley claims this group has exerted inordinate influence in public debate not only through media ownership, but through what evolved from the J.P Morgan banks handling of academic endowments. In Quigley’s words, “access to publication and recommendations to academic positions in the handful of great American universities…required similar sponsorship.” In this way, a small, though mighty group determined to a large extent “the individuals who published, who had money, who found jobs, were consulted, and who were appointed to government missions.” Furthermore, Quigley points out that “the names of Wall Street luminaries still adorn these Ivy League campuses,” and that “the chief officials of these universities (Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc), were beholden to these financial powers and usually owed their jobs to them.” In summation, the Georgetown professor states, “On this basis…there grew up in the twentieth century a power structure between London and New York which penetrated deeply into university life, the press, and the practice of foreign policy.” It is this same Anglo-American axis threatening peace and justice in the world today.
The American branch of this Anglo-oriented cabal is said to have disseminated its influence primarily through five newspapers: The New York Times, the New York Herald Tribune, Christian Science Monitor, the Washington Post, and the Boston Evening Transcript. In fact, the Christian Science Monitor editor did surreptitious (and anonymous) duty as American correspondent for The Round Table. Lord Lothian, The Round Table’s first editor and secretary of the Rhodes Trust 1925-1939, contributed often to the Monitor. Morgan banking partner Thomas Lamont financially supported or owned outright The Saturday Review of Literature and the New York Post. In fact, Lamont attended the pivotal Paris Peace Conference following World War I, and there befriended his English counterparts who had been organized by Lord Milner’s group.
Lest one think Quigley a wide-eyed, wild-haired radical professor, bear in mind his own stated assessment that the goals of this group were, by and large, “commendable”: to federate the English speaking world, establish peace (think today’s Pax Americana), “help backward, colonial, and (to assist) underdeveloped areas advance toward stability along the lines taught at Oxford and the University of London (especially the London School of Economics and the Schools of African and Oriental Studies).” Quigley furthermore dismisses accusations of fascism against this group as communist propaganda”, and that they were really “quite the contrary.” They were “gracious and cultured gentlemen…who constantly thought in terms of Anglo-American solidarity…and who were convinced that they could gracefully civilize the Boers of South Africa, the Irish, the Arabs, and the Hindus, and who are largely responsible for the partitions of Ireland, Palestine, and India, as well as the federations of South Africa, Central Africa and the West Indies.”
May the Great Spirit deliver us from such gracious and cultured gentlemen. As economist John Kenneth Galbraith said of modern conservatives: (they are) "engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”
Besides, Quigley certainly received his comeuppance and learned with whom he was dealing. Jim Martin cites letters from the early 70s in which the eminent Georgetown Professor writes that the British publisher of Tragedy and Hope , Macmillan, suppressed the book because “they didn’t like its gist. Quigley further wrote that Macmillan was preventing him from assuming copyright to his own book by keeping it technically “in print”, but withholding it from the general public. Martin states that “Quigley photographed each page of the book and sent it to a printer; that’s the only reason it was available at all in America.”
The lessons from The New Republic’s history and the Round Table movement which spawned it for today are legion. Progressives will never see power with justice implemented in this world until they fully comprehend the nature and threat of power in the world today, which seeks self-preservation and expansion at without regard to human cost. Without this comprehension of the beasts’ inclination and reach, global civil rights movements will only be tolerated as long as they do not succeed to a great degree. But long before any tangible success will comes infiltration, manipulation, repression, co-option and annihilation.
The faring of presidential aspirants Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich presents a case in point. Dean is the darling of the New Republic type crowd, and is therefore, this year’s Trojan Horse model, whether or not the former governor of Vermont is conscious of his designated role. The corporate media has been crowing over Dean’s first place finish among all Democratic contenders in the much ballyhooed “online primary” by Moveon.org, in which an astounding 317,000 people participated. Such was the case on the editorial page of the same L.A. Times which provided the soapbox for Martin Peretz’s ravings, but failed in the same article to mention Dennis Kucinich’s second place showing. This is particularly astonishing in view of the corporate media blackout of this sitting congressman who was once the youngest man ever elected mayor of a major city (Cleveland). That is because Kucinich is a genuine progressive with leadership skill, an egotistical dummy corporation, and a genuine threat to the powers that be. Dean, on the other hand, backs a bloated military budget and has deep relationships with the Israeli right wing. Needless to say, many well-intentioned progressives will fruitlessly attempt to jockey toward justice on the back of this Trojan Horse, only to eventually end up (once again) , with splinters in the rear.
The Money Power has absolutely no intention of handing over the reigns to justice and freedom. Nor does it care a twit what mothers and children live and die, or in what squalor. The innocents of Afghanistan and Iraq all had names, as do the subjugated poor everywhere, and were all beloved by someone, somewhere. But the bottom lines to power politics in the world in which we presently have our being are money and murder. If we hope ever to ameliorate that incontrovertible fact in at least some small way, we need to arm ourselves with knowledge of the details of power in the world.
Know thy enemy.
References:
Quigley, Carroll: "Tragedy & Hope-A History of the World in Our Time" (1966)
Martin, Jim: "Quigley, Clinton, Straight & Reich," article, Steamshovel Press, #8, Summer 1993
Bracken, Len: "Quigley Live!," article, Steamshovel Press, #10, 1994
Thomas, Ken, "Conspiracy in the Clinton Era," article, Steamshovel Press #10, 1994
Amidon, Beulah: The Nation and the New Republic, article, Survey Graphic Magazine of Social Interpretation, 1939.
Website for Whitney-Payne-Straight family tree: www.familytreemaker.com/users//a/y/Thomas-C-Payne/GEN6-0018.html
Parmalee, T.A., Herbert Croly, article
International Solidarity Movement (ISM) Media Alert and Call for Action _ LA Times
Craig Lee Merrihue is a writer, Green Party member, and activist residing in Southern California. He can be reached at: CMerrihue@mediamonitors.org. He contributed above article to Media Monitors Network (MMN).
Source: -
SHT dedicated to keeping U.S. dominant - (CLICK LINK)
"The electrical output equivalent from an input of 414 Wh was calculated to be 626 KWh or COP close to 1500 times. Spreading this technology worldwide at this stage will be irresponsible, because it has the potential to crash the world markets." (PESN; December 20, 2014)
++++++++++++++++
My understanding is SHT went to a alternative energy show. They were approached by US military.Many of the USA based SHT scientists are Iranian/Russian and want U. S dominant and not release this technology to the world at this tiime. Spreading this technology worldwide at this stage will be irresponsible, because it has the potential to crash the world markets.")))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))0o0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))letter SHT below[sHT dedicated to keeping US dominant]
Dear Amos,
Thank you for your informative article posted recently on “New Energy Treasure – The Coming Energy Revolution” website. Your assessment of the great potential of our hydrogen reactor technology is accurate but the performance data that you posted does not reflect the latest achievements of Symphony 7A reactor.
The hydrogen reactor generates more than 17kg of hydrogen every hour at 96.7% purity. The process involved in the hydrogen production is more than simple electrolysis. It is a combination of 16 physicochemical processes that work together in unison (hence the “Symphony” naming of the reactor) to convert water into mostly hydrogen. There is a small quantity of Nitrogen (1.3%) and Oxygen (1.9%) on average in the reactor output verified by the TRC Solutions, one of the most reputable gas measurement companies in the world.
The electrical output equivalent from an input of 414 Wh was calculated to be 626 KWh or COP close to 1500 times.
Spreading this technology worldwide at this stage will be irresponsible, because it has the potential to crash the world markets. There will be great irreparable damage done to the current energy structures and systems. It is our duty to bring maximum benefit to USA and to its national security without hurting the world economy. We prefer an evolutionary development and implementation of our technology rather than a revolutionary and drastic change in energy supplies.
This is the most unparalleled cutting edge technology developed in the history of mankind and should be treated as a national treasure. If it is allowed to end up in the hands of the rivals of the USA they will gain superiority in the military industrial capabilities which will be a threat to national security and economy. The US government can leverage this technology to pull itself from under this burdensome debt of 20 trillion dollars in a very short period of time.
Thank you again for following and talking about Solar Hydrogen Trends and its hydrogen reactor technology that will soon make the Age of Hydrogen a reality within our lifetime.
12-19-2014
Solar Hydrogen Trends, Inc.
Hakop Jack Aganyan and Konstantin Balakiryan==============
TO REPEAT above ,Gaal
It is our duty to bring maximum benefit to USA and to its national security
-
WE'RE BAAAACCK !!
FOREVER OCCUPATION ...forever .....
==
There And Back Again For U.S. Military In Iraq
=
-
-
Specter of Debtors’ Prisons Looms Over Americans Who Just Can’t Pay: “You Can’t Squeeze Blood From a Turnip” (CLICK LINK)
=
Thanks in part to the growing trend of private collection agencies – including those who service fines and penalties assessed by government agencies – the inability or failure to pay debts is resulting in arrest warrants, mounting costs and, yes, jail time.
Read more: whatreallyhappened.com http://whatreallyhappened.com/#ixzz3NUXGvTUb -
Self-running QMoGen - EVIVA Demo 3 -- 4.3 kW - (click link)Video shows 5 kW system running self-looped, powering a 4.3 kW load bank of lights, after a battery pack that got it running is removed. (Free Energy Blog; December 28, 2014)
-
see post # 25 above ,read below
The rise of the £300,000 NHS fatcats (CLICK LINK)
The number of NHS managers being paid the equivalent of more than £300,000 a year has doubled in just 12 months, it can be disclosed.
In some cases, cash-strapped health trusts are hiring temporary executives for hundreds of thousands of pounds, an investigation by The Telegraph has found.
Patients’ groups said the “exorbitant” rates could not be justified, and nursing leaders said the sums were a “kick in the teeth” for junior staff who were refused a one per cent pay rise.
Read more: whatreallyhappened.com http://whatreallyhappened.com/#ixzz3NPxuvUKE -
GM soy and maize is toxic to rats – new detailed study (CLICK LINK)
A diet containing GM soy and maize fed to rats for 30, 60, and 90 days caused a wide range of toxic effects, including DNA damage, abnormal sperm, blood changes, and damage to liver, kidney, and testes.
The Egyptian team of researchers concluded (see item 1 below) that "there are health hazards linked to the ingestion of diets containing genetically modified components".
Histopathological examinations of various body tissues were carried out, and marked differences in the tissues of the GM-fed animals were found. The images, with explanations, can be seen in the published study.
Read more: whatreallyhappened.com http://whatreallyhappened.com/#ixzz3NPv78Xsv -
-
As posted twice this thread Ukraine is a prime suspect in the shoot down of the plane AND is part of the independent accident board.
Independent ?????
==================================
Netherlands rejects MH17 relatives' request for UN investigation ...
rt.com/news/212895-mh17-dutch-reject-un/Dec 9, 2014 ... The Netherlands has rejected a demand to allow the UN to replace Dutch experts
at the helm of the Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 investigation.- Families of MH17 victims 'demand UN takes over Dutch investigation'rt.com/news/211943-mh17-relatives-investigation-un/Dec 5, 2014 ... Relatives of MH17 crash victims have addressed the Netherlands requesting the
UN takes over the investigation into the downing of the ... - Angry families of MH17 crash victims seek U.N. investigation | Reuterswww.reuters.com/.../us-ukraine-crisis-mh-idUSKCN0JJ1OK20141205Dec 5, 2014 ... AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - Relatives of MH17 crash victims, angered by what they
see as Dutch mishandling of inquiries into the disaster, want a ... - Flight MH17 Crash Update 2014: Dutch 'Botched' Investigation In ...www.ibtimes.com/flight-mh17-crash-update-2014-dutch-botched-investigation-ukraine-crash-victims-1736419
Dec 5, 2014 ... The families of MH17 victims want the U.N. to take over the investigation, but the
Dutch government says investigators "cannot do anything ...#######################
=======================
########################
Ukraine is desperate for cash (GAAL) SO ? How come they dont let in UN ,cause Im sure it would save it a few bucks ??? Cause they shot it down ??? and want a more independent (PUKE x 9) investigation ??=
Russian news: Desperate Ukraine turns to Russia for Gas and Coal ...
russia-insider.com/en/2014/12/13/1611Dec 13, 2014 ... Desperate Ukraine turns to Russia for Gas and Coal to Survive the Winter.
Ukraine ... Ukraine has not had any more money from the West.- Ukraine's economy enters 2015 desperate for cash - Kyiv Postwww.kyivpost.com/.../ukraines-economy-enters-2015-desperate-for-cash-375596.html?...Dec 18, 2014 ... All things considered, Ukraine's expected 7 percent drop in gross domestic
product this year doesn't seem so bad, especially considering that it ... - Ukraine: Why is the country so desperately in need of cash ...www.telegraph.co.uk/.../ukraine/.../Ukraine-Why-is-the-country-so-desperately-in-need-of-cash.htmlFeb 25, 2014 ... Ukraine's crisis begun with the simple issue of money. And, with the country
appealing for 25 billion euros in aid to avoid bankruptcy, here is a ...
-
-
-
The difference between you and me, Steven, is that I will accept an independent accident board's findings; you won't. Anything that doesn't agree with your own beliefs is immediately dismissed.// BURTON
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DUH ?? !??
As posted twice this thread Ukraine is a prime suspect in the shoot down of the plane AND is part of the independent accident board.Independent ?????
#46 John DolvaJohn DolvaSuper Member
Posted 27 December 2014 - 02:58 AM
? Is this for real ? Does the kiev junta have a right, according to a piece of paper, not only to participate in the investigation when they are a suspect to start with, to veto any conclusions that may be released? Obviously this is in their and their backers interests. Isn't there any room for dissenting opinions or minority reports?
++++++++++++++++++++++++
JOHN DOLVA A SMART MAN FULL OF TRUTH ......... and BURTON .......well........
-
-
It's a predictable reaction by those who swing wildly towards the
"conspiracy theory".establishment theory . When an investigation fails to give you the answer you seek, claim it is "corrupted" or"part of the cover-up".pressured to give a politically correct view.I also note some preemptive actions: the full report has not yet been
releasedrewritten/covered up and yet theCTersestablishment hacks arecondemningloving it.Can anyone say "poisoning the well"?
========
[30] The most censored stories of the year, professional revolutionists and hoverboards https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZXGQGDoesc -
Millions of Britons struggling to feed themselves and facing malnourishment (CLICK LINK)
The use of food banks in the UK has surged in recent years. The Trussell Trust, a charity which runs more than 400 food banks, said it had given three days worth of food, and support, to more than 492,600 people between
Read more: whatreallyhappened.com http://whatreallyhappened.com/#ixzz3NCUMhbAV -
Killer Drones Are a Lethal Extension of American Exceptionalism
=
Sunday, 28 December 2014 00:00 By Marjorie Cohn, Olive Branch Press | Book Excerpt
==
(Image: Olive Branch Press) In this anthology edited by Marjorie Cohn - law professor, Truthout contributor and human rights authority - the clarity of the case against drones used for assassinations is persuasively made. Get this book now, with an introduction by Archbishop Desmond Tutu.The following is Cohn's introduction to Drones and Targeted Killing, entitled "A Frightening New Way of War":
In his 2009 acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize, President Barack Obama declared, "Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war." By the time Obama accepted the award, one year into his presidency, he had ordered more drone strikes than George W. Bush had authorized during his two presidential terms.
The Bush administration detained and tortured suspected terrorists. The Obama administration has chosen to illegally assassinate them, often with the use of drones. The continued indefinite detention of men at Guantánamo belies Obama's pledge two days after his first inauguration to close the prison camp there. However, Obama has added only one detainee to the Guantánamo roster. "This government has decided that instead of detaining members of al-Qaida [at Guantánamo] they are going to kill them," according to John Bellinger, who formulated the Bush administration's drone policy.
On "Terror Tuesdays," Obama and John Brennan, Obama's former counterterrorism adviser, now CIA director, go through the "kill list" to identify which individuals should be assassinated that week. The Obama administration has developed a creative method to count the civilian casualties from these assassinations. All military-age men killed in a drone strike zone are considered to be combatants "unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent." Brennan falsely claimed in 2011 that no civilians had been killed in drone strikes in nearly a year.
Obama orders two different types of drone attacks: personality strikes that target "named, high-value terrorists," and signature strikes that target training camps and "suspicious compounds in areas controlled by militants." In the signature strikes, sometimes called "crowd killings," the Obama administration often doesn't even know who are they killing. "But," write Jo Becker and Scott Shane in the New York Times, "some State Department officials have complained to the White House that the criteria used by the C.I.A. for identifying a terrorist 'signature' were too lax. The joke was that when the C.I.A. sees 'three guys doing jumping jacks,' the agency thinks it is a terrorist training camp, said one senior official. Men loading a truck with fertilizer could be bombmakers — but they might also be farmers, skeptics argued."
Before taking the life of a person off the battlefield, the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution requires the government to arrest a suspect, inform him of the charges against him, and provide him with a fair trial. But like his predecessor, Obama defines virtually the entire world as a battlefield, ostensibly obviating the necessity to provide due process before execution.
. . . . .
The Bush administration took the position that neither the criminal law nor international humanitarian law – which comes from the Hague and Geneva Conventions and governs the conduct of war – protected the targets of the "War on Terror." They existed in a legal "black hole." Obama has apparently adopted the same position, although he has replaced the moniker "War on Terror" with "War on Al Qaeda." But "there is not a distinct entity called Al Qaeda that provides a sound basis for defining and delimiting an authorized use of military force," according to Paul Pillar, former deputy director of the CIA's Counterterrorism Center.
Both administrations have justified their targeted killing policies with reference to the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), which Congress passed a week after 9/11.
. . . . .
This authorization is limited to groups and countries that supported the 9/11 attacks. Congress rejected the Bush administration's request for open-ended military authority "to deter and preempt any future acts of terrorism or aggression against the United States." But deterrence and preemption are exactly what Obama is trying to accomplish by sending robots to kill "suspected militants."
Obama has extended his battlefield beyond Iraq and Afghanistan to Pakistan, Yemen Somalia and Libya, even though the United States is not at war with those countries. U.S. drones fly from allied bases in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Italy, Qatar, the Philippines and the United Arab Emirates. Expanding into West Africa, the United States has built a major drone hub in Djibouti.
Armed drones are operated by "pilots" located thousands of miles from their targets. Before launching its payload, the drone hovers above the area. It emits a buzzing sound that terrorizes communities. "The drones were terrifying," observed New York Times journalist David Rhode, who was captured by the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2008 and later escaped. "From the ground, it is impossible to determine who or what they are tracking as they circle overhead. The buzz of a distant propeller is a constant reminder of imminent death. Drones fire missiles that travel faster than the speed of sound. A drone's victim never hears the missile that kills him."
After the drone drops a bomb on its target, a second strike often bombs people rescuing the wounded from the first strike. And frequently, a third strike targets mourners at funerals for those felled by the prior strikes. This is called a "double tap," although it is more accurately a "triple tap." U.S. drones have killed children, rescuers, and funeral processions "on multiple occasions," according to a report written by Micah Zenko for the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
Obama's administration has killed at least as many people in targeted killings as died on 9/11. But of the estimated 3,000 people killed by drones, "the vast majority were neither al-Qaeda nor Taliban leaders," CFR reported. "Instead, most were low-level, anonymous suspected militants who were predominantly engaged in insurgent or terrorist operations against their governments, rather than in active international terrorist plots."
. . . . .
Drones are Obama's weapon of choice because, unlike piloted fighter aircraft, they don't jeopardize the lives of U.S. pilots. There are claims that the use of drones results in fewer civilian casualties than manned bombers. However, a study based on classified military data, conducted by Larry Lewis from the Center for Naval Analyses and Sarah Holewinski of the Center for Civilians in Conflict, found that the use of drones in Afghanistan has caused 10 times more civilian deaths than manned fighter aircraft.
"In the United States, the dominant narrative about the use of drones in Pakistan is of a surgically precise and effective tool that makes the US safer by enabling 'targeted killing' of terrorists with minimal downsides or collateral impacts. This narrative is false," according to the comprehensive report Living Under Drones issued by Stanford Law School and NYU Law School. Many killed by drones are civilians, or, as the administration says, "bug splat," referring to the "collateral damage" estimate methodology the U.S. military and the CIA employ.
Targeted killing with drones is counterproductive. General Stanley McChrystal, architect of the U.S. counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan, declared that drones are "hated on a visceral level" and contribute to a "perception of American arrogance." Kurt Volker, former U.S. ambassador to NATO, concurs. "Drone strikes . . . do not solve our terrorist problem," he noted. "In fact, drone use may prolong it. Even though there is no immediate retaliation, in the long run the contributions to radicalization through drone use may put more American lives at risk." Mullah Zabara, a southern tribal sheikh from Yemen, told Jeremy Scahill, "The US sees al Qaeda as terrorism, and we consider the drones terrorism. The drones are flying day and night, frightening women and children, disturbing sleeping people. This is terrorism." The CFR reported a "strong correlation" in Yemen between stepped up targeted killings since December 2009 and "heightened anger toward the United States and sympathy with or allegiance to AQAP [Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula]."
Drone strikes breed increased resentment against the United States and lead to the recruitment of more terrorists. "Drones have replaced Guantánamo as the recruiting tool of choice for militants," according to Becker and Shane. They quoted Faisal Shahzad, who, while pleading guilty to trying to detonate a bomb in Times Square, told the judge, "When the drones hit, they don't see children."
. . . . .
The Bush administration's 2002 drone strike in Yemen that killed, among others, U.S. citizen Ahmed Hijazi, also known as Kamal Derwish, was the first publicly confirmed U.S. targeted killing outside a battlefield since President Gerald Ford signed a ban on political assassinations in 1976. "It means the rules of engagement have changed," a former CIA official with knowledge about special operations told the Los Angeles Times after the strike in Yemen. "That would be the first time that they have started doing this kind of thing."
It wouldn't be the last. Scahill writes, "The secret war in Pakistan became largely a drone bombing campaign, described by CIA officers at the US Embassy in Islamabad as 'boys with toys.'" By the end of Obama's first year as president, he "and his new counterterrorism team would begin building the infrastructure for a formalized US assassination program," Scahill added, with "an aggressive embrace of assassination as a centerpiece of US national security policy."
. . . . .
In his 2013 speech to the United Nations (UN) General Assembly, Obama stated, "Some may disagree, but I believe that America is exceptional – in part because we have shown a willingness, through the sacrifice of blood and treasure, to stand up not only for our own narrow self-interest, but for the interests of all." But in addition to the U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, hundreds of thousands of people in those countries have been killed and untold numbers wounded.
. . . . .
American exceptionalism also reared its head after the February 2013 leak of a Department of Justice (DoJ) White Paper that describes circumstances under which the President could order the targeted killing of U.S. citizens. There had been little public concern in the United States about drone strikes killing people in other countries. But when it was revealed that U.S. citizens might be targeted, Americas were outraged.
. . . . .
It is this double standard that motivated Nobel Peace Prize winner Archbishop Desmond Tutu to pen a compelling letter to the editor of the New York Times, in which he asked, "Do the United States and its people really want to tell those of us who live in the rest of the world that our lives are not of the same value as yours?" The Archbishop elaborates on that observation in the Foreword to this collection.
In May 2013, as international criticism targeted Obama's drone policy and the continued indefinite detention at Guantánamo where detainees were starving themselves to death and military guards were violently force-feeding them, the President delivered a speech. He explained that "the United States is at war with al Qaeda, the Taliban, and their associated forces," without defining who those "associated forces" are. Although he defended his use of drones and targeted killing, Obama proclaimed, "America does not take strikes when we have the ability to capture individual terrorists – our preference is always to detain, interrogate and prosecute them."
Obama referred to the killing of Osama bin Laden as exceptional because "capture, although our preference, was remote." Yet it was clear when the U.S. soldiers arrived at bin Laden's compound that the people there were unarmed and bin Laden could have been captured.
. . . . .
The month before Obama gave his speech, McClatchy reported that the administration had been misrepresenting the types of groups and individuals it was targeting with drones in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Citing classified U.S. intelligence reports, the McClatchy piece said that contrary to the administration's claims that it had deployed drones only against known senior leaders of al Qaida and allied groups, it had in fact targeted and killed hundreds of suspected low-level Afghan, Pakistani and "other" militants in scores of strikes in Pakistan. At times, the CIA killed people who only were suspected, associated with, or who probably belonged to militant groups." Micah Zenko, author of the CFR report cited earlier, said that McClatchy's findings indicate the administration is "misleading the public about the scope of who can legitimately be targeted."
. . . . .
In this interdisciplinary collection, human rights and political activists, policy analysts, lawyers and legal scholars, a philosopher, a journalist and a sociologist examine different aspects of the U.S. policy of targeted killing with drones and other methods. These contributors explore legality, morality and geopolitical considerations, and evaluate the impact on relations between the United States and the countries affected by targeted killings.
The book includes the documentation of civilian casualties by the leading non-governmental organization in this area; stories of civilians victimized by the drones; an analysis of the first U.S. targeted killing lawsuit by the lawyer who brought the case, as well as a discussion of the targeted killing cases in Israel by the director of The Public Committee Against Torture (PCATI) which filed one of the lawsuits; the domestic use of drones; and the immorality of drones using Just War principles.
International legal scholar Richard Falk explains in Chapter Two why weaponized drones pose a greater threat than nuclear weapons to international law and world order. He notes that nuclear weapons have not been used since 1945 except for deterrence and coercive diplomacy as the countries of the world have established regimes of constraint on their use through arms control agreements and nonproliferation. Drones, however, are unconstrained by any system of regulation. They will likely remain unregulated as "the logic of dirty wars" continues to drive U.S. national security policy.
In Chapter Three, policy analyst Phyllis Bennis describes assassination as central to U.S. war strategy due to the militarization of our foreign policy. She traces the program of assassination to the post-Vietnam era "Salvador option," in which CIA and Special Forces developed assassination teams and death squads to avoid American casualties. Moving into the modern era, Bennis details how the war strategy shifted from counter-insurgency, with large numbers of U.S. troops, to counter-terrorism and targeted killing, using drones as the preferred weapon.
Chapter Four is an article published by journalist Jane Mayer in The New Yorker in 2009. This article was the first comprehensive exposé about the Obama administration's escalation of drone use for targeted killing. It is also one of the earliest efforts at documenting civilian casualties from the use of drones. Mayer raises the legal, political, and tactical ramifications of drone warfare and asks troubling questions about possible unintended consequences of this new weapon.
In Chapter Five, sociology professor Tom Reifer examines America's embrace of a global assassination program using the Joint Special Operations Command and the CIA, which he calls "a paramilitary arm of the President." He focuses on the effects of drone strikes on persons and targeted communities, as well as the drone pilots themselves.
Political activist Medea Benjamin, in Chapter Six, humanizes the victims of lethal drone strikes, particularly in Pakistan and Yemen. She includes personal stories about some of the victims and their family members. Benjamin describes how the drones, in addition to killing many innocent people, terrorize entire populations and destroy the fabric of local communities.
Chapter Seven is a comprehensive report by Alice K. Ross, of the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, documenting civilian casualties of the drone strikes. She underlines the critical importance of publishing contemporaneous information on all casualties, civilian or militant, in a transparent, incident-by-incident manner - even where the information might be limited due to ongoing hostilities. Without such detail, Ross writes, it is impossible to effectively challenge casualty claims by officials and for victims of drone strikes to claim compensation.
The United States' targeted killing through the use of drones and other methods violates international and U.S. law, human rights attorney Jeanne Mirer explains in Chapter Eight. Extrajudicial killing is not illegal in the context of a legally declared war on a battlefield. However, the United States wrongfully claims that "self-defense" gives it the right to execute anyone in any country, regardless of citizenship and regardless of the existence of a legal war. Mirer analyses how the United States is violating International Human Rights Law and International Humanitarian Law.
In Chapter Nine, Center for Constitutional Rights attorney Pardiss Kebriaei discusses the first legal challenge to the U.S. targeted killing program in Al-Aulaqi v. Obama. That case involved the Obama administration's authorization of the targeted killing of a U.S. citizen in Yemen. She cites the imperative for accountability, including through judicial review, and discusses the obstacles constructed by the Obama administration that have effectively precluded judicial review thus far.
PCATI executive director Ishai Menuchin, in Chapter Ten, contrasts the discourse in Israel about the elimination of terrorists and preemptive action with the Palestinian discourse of "day-to-day acts of Israeli state-terror and repression." He wonders how extrajudicial execution became official Israeli policy since Israel does not have the death penalty. Menuchin examines assassination petitions filed in the Israeli High Court of Justice, including the "Targeted Killing" case, PCATI v. Government of Israel, and he laments Israel's lack of accountability.
In Chapter Eleven, philosopher John Kaag explains how drone warfare poses a serious challenge to Just War tradition and moral theory. He highlights the impact of drone use on the Just War requirements of proportionality and distinction, as well as on the definition of "collateral damage." Kaag notes that the use of drone technology cannot be regulated by merely prudential concerns, but rather will turn on issues of legality and ethicality.
Legal scholar John Quigley analyzes in Chapter Twelve the impact of the policy of using lethal pilotless aircraft on relations between the United States and the countries in which the affected populations are located, in the context of a history of resentment against U.S. interventions and interference. He suggests that the policy redounds to the detriment of the United States by engendering resentment and the use of violence against the United States and its personnel. The chapter suggests that the Obama Administration is aware of these risks but continues its policy in spite of them.
In Chapter Thirteen, ACLU attorney Jay Stanley discusses policy issues surrounding the imminent arrival of domestic drones in U.S. airspace. The main concern is privacy. Stanley asks how the technology is likely to evolve, and how the First Amendment "right to photography" interacts with serious privacy issues implicated by drones. The national discourse about drone deployment has opened up a space for privacy activists and others to create a genuine public discussion of the issue before it is widely deployed.
Finally, in Chapter Fourteen, political activist Tom Hayden places the advent of the Drone Age into a historical context of U.S. military invasions and occupations. He discusses political and strategic considerations that animate the evolution of the military policies of President Obama, who is "in grave danger of leaving a new Imperial Presidency as his legacy." Hayden advocates a transparent set of policies to rein in the use of drones and cyberwarfare, while protecting democracy.
Drones and targeted killing will not solve the problem of terrorism. "If you use the drone and the selected killings, and do nothing else on the other side, then you get rid of individuals. But the root causes are still there," former Somali foreign minister, Ismail Mahmoud 'Buubaa' Hurre, told Scahill. "The root causes are not security. The root causes are political and economic."
A Pentagon study conducted during the Bush administration concluded, "Muslims do not 'hate our freedom,' but rather, they hate our policies." It identified "America, we ignore this admonition at our peril. Until we stop invading countries with Muslim populations, occupying their lands, torturing their people, and killing them with drones, we will never be safe from terrorism."
It is my hope that this volume will provide information that can be marshalled to halt the illegal, immoral, unwise U.S. policy of assassination.
==================================00000000000000000000000===========================
posted in fair use
-
SO ??
Global Research (29/9/14) by Peter Hasienko, MH17: Nations Conspire To Keep Investigations Classified – Leaked Document RevealsREAD MORE: Netherlands rejects MH17 relatives' request for UN investigation
========Dutch not as transparent as u suggest.
This is silly there were 298 people on board and '20 relatives from Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, and the US filed a letter request for “the UN to appoint a special envoy to take over”' it's not clear if the relatives were of 20 different victims. And nowhere in either the RT article or the Reuters one it was based on was there any indication the families doubted the neutrality of the Dutch investigators.
The real nutters come out and think Dutchgovernment loves russia. You see, so far, the MH17 nutters (as Burton calls them) seem to be on the correct side. Lions and Tigers OH MY !!
===========
Putin, the Dutch are no longer smiling - Opinion - Al Jazeera Englishwww.aljazeera.com/.../putin-dutch-are-no-longer-smiling-2014839023200488.html====Aug 3, 2014 ... Living in this country and following Dutch media, one could see the ... crash andspeculated about sanctions against Russia, Rutte refused to ...
-
Russian news: Dutch Companies Demand Compensation for ...russia-insider.com/.../dutch_companies_demand_compensation_losses_over_anti
-
Dutch Professor apologizing for MH17 tragedy media coverage in ...orientalreview.org/.../dutch-professor-apologizing-for-mh17-tragedy-media-coverage-in-the-netherlands/Aug 13, 2014 ... We reject the double standards that are used for Russia and the West. ... in the
Ukraine, to prepare a coup against the legitimate Government in ...
-
-
Alleged Use of False Flag Attacks by Intelligence Agencies
Project: Alleged Use of False Flag Attacks by Intelligence Agencies
Page 1 of 2 (113 events)
previous | 1, 2 | next==========
http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=western_support_for_islamic_militancy_tmln
=
FALSE FLAGS A VERY COMMON EVENT (GAAL)
-
VACCINES DURING PREGNANCY==============================4250 % increase miscarriages and still births==Human and Environmental Toxicology Journal 2012==========Dog pregnancy questions - JREF Forumforums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1530132that there's no problem with humans being vaccinated against rabies during
pregnancy, yet I don't know about dogs themselves. Does anybody ... -
The NSA whistleblowers don't share Gold's paranoid vision.
So you dont still put the newer NSA info with the older Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi info and conclude 911 an intel plot
==
of course you dont !
and u think (well not think really) the whistleblowers have all the CIA datum or the full history of Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi ???????????????????
=
of course u dont !! because u dont _ _ _ _ _ (can yeah guess the next word ??)
-
LOL your last two posts included lots or reasons to not have immediately removed the POTUS.
yes thats right they did !!!
cause the plotters insiders knew no real threat
threats were made as a cover (THREATS WERE A STORY PLOT) * a false flag is a story
and some partcipate without knownig they are in a play == insiders / outsiders
good good = you have almost convinced me u can think !!!
-
I listened to Jim DiEugenio & Len Osanic's take on the situation last night & found it quite interesting here (at the top of the listings):
http://blackopradio.com/archives2014.html
Big Jim believes McAdams should have consulted the Dean of the Ethics department before posting to the blog in question...
What he should have cleared his blog post with the head of a department he never worked for? Why does academic freedom apply to Ward Churchill, Butz and Jihad Jane but not McAdams?
I dont think he should have been suspended. I do think that marriage is a ethics issue and should be discussed. I agree he need not have cleared anything. On JFK he has promoted inaccurate matters.
-
You're so right Gaal, "past is prolog" so much so that all I have to do repost this from a few days ago
Just because something may have happened at one point is not evidence that something vaguely similar may have happened over 150 years later. I've not seen anyone here dispute that the Bush administration may have lied.
And no I never indicated Lincoln had lied. And he never indicated the attacks may have been false flags.
Nor is there any evidence they were false flags. The territory was disputed.
Polk recognized that the Mexican army had not committed any “act of aggression,” so set out to provoke one by sending American troops to the border of Mexico in territory that historians agree was “disputed territory” at the time because of a very dubious claim by the U.S. government. None other than Ulysses S. Grant wrote in his memoirs that, as a young soldier serving under the command of General Zachary Taylor during the 1846-1848 Mexican-American War, he understood that he had been sent there to provoke a fight: (GEE A WAR INCIDENT ALLOWED/ AIDED TO HAPPEN ....humm......hijackers ALLOWED across borders....911)
================
Among the most-aggressive challenges to the legitimacy of Polk’s casus belli was that offered by future president Abraham Lincoln, then a first-term member of the House of Representatives from Illinois. In December 1847 Lincoln introduced eight “Spot Resolutions,” which placed the analysis of Polk’s claim in a carefully delineated historical context that sought to
"obtain a full knowledge of all the facts which go to establish whether the particular spot of soil on which the blood of ourcitizenswas so shed was, or was not,our own soilat that time."(LINCOLN)(or we were the aggressors and we attacked their (Mexican) soil,Gaal) the red Lincolns words above.
=========
So whats Lincons point ?? WE (USA) LIED ABOUT THE FACTS OF WHAT CAUSED INITIATION OF THE MEXICAN AMERICAN WAR..AKA FALSE FLAG)
lie // facts // initiation // war ; means same as false flag
-
More crap we've been over before.
When you put this information (from the post # 19 above)
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
NSA Lied About Knowledge Of 2 9/11 Hijackers In U.S., Didn't Inform The FBIPosted by Jon Gold on Sat, 08/09/2014 - 4:11pm============================
with the info above the ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) line you,Colby, conclude CRAP (really your saying its old crap).
I see intelligence agency collusion and foreknowledge.
AND BTW THE NSA INFO IS NEWER INFORMATION <NOT OLD as you Colby assert.
The Plot To Overthrow FDR
in Political Conspiracies
Posted · Edited by Steven Gaal
FTR #448 The Coup Attempt of 1934
Listen:
MP3 One segment
RealAudio
NB: This stream contains both FTRs #448 and #449 in sequence. Each is a 30 minute broadcast.
In observation of the 70th anniversary of the event, this program recounts the 1934 fascist coup attempt in the United States. Appalled at President Roosevelt’s New Deal, powerful industrialists and financiers grouped around the Morgan industrial and financial interests attempted to recruit World War I veterans into an army of insurrection. The goal of the conspirators was the overthrow of American democracy and the institution of a fascist government. Because they selected Marine Corps general Smedley Buter to lead the coup, the attempt was foiled. Although a critic of Roosevelt, Butler (a two-time winner of the Congressional Medal of Honor) betrayed the coup plotters to the President. Following a badly attenuated Congressional investigation by the McCormack-Dickstein Committee, the matter was laid to rest. It is worth noting that proof of the plot was concrete and well-documented, but none of the plotters was imprisoned, because the conspirators were among the most powerful and prestigious industrial and financial magnates in the country.
Program Highlights Include: The role of General Douglas MacArthur in the conspiratorial process leading up to the coup attempt; MacArthur’s relationship to the House of Morgan; the role of the Du Ponts in the coup preparations; Remington Arms’ agreement to provide weapons to the conspirators; the sympathy of key General Motors executives for the coup attempt; the profound sympathy on the part of the conspirators for Hitler and Mussolini; the critical aid given by the coup plotters’ associated business interests to the Third Reich; the domestic fascist organizations organized and financed by some of the conspirators and the businesses that they ran; the mainstream press’ cover-up of the story and its significance. Note that this program is excerpted from Radio Free America Program #10, recorded on 7/11/1985. For more information on the MacArthur group in the military and its fascist tendencies, see RFA#’s 10–13—available from Spitfire—as well as FTR#’s 426, 427, 428, 446.
1. One of the main elements in the story of the 1934 coup attempt is the pivotal role of a group of powerful industrial and financial interests—many of which were openly supportive of Hitler and doing business with the Third Reich—in organizing the plot. Members of the Du Pont family, executives with General Motors (controlled at the time by the Du Ponts), key figures in the Morgan banking constellation and members of the National Association of Manufacturers attempted to translate their hatred of FDR and his New Deal into action. (Note that the Morgan banking interests financed the Du Ponts’ industrial operations to a considerable extent. The Morgan interests were the primary element in financing the Du Ponts’ establishment and operation of General Motors. Pinning their hopes on Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler—a two-time winner of the Congressional Medal of Honor—the conspirators sought to enlist unemployed and desperate World War I veterans into a fascist army of insurrection, modeled after the French Croix de Feu (“Cross of Fire”.)
(Trading with the Enemy; by Charles Higham; Dell [sC]; Copyright 1983.)
2. Because he had supported the granting of a promised bonus payment to World War I veterans, Butler—a “soldiers’ general”—was the coup plotters’ eventual choice to lead the conspiracy. The plotters preferred General Douglas MacArthur (a son-in-law of Edward Stotesbury, a key Morgan partner), but MacArthur had opposed the bonus and then led the bloody suppression of the “Bonus Army” that assembled in Washington D.C. to demand their promised payment. According to Butler, MacArthur was aware of the plot, and was involved in the planning. (Idem.)
3. Weapons for the actual coup were to have been provided by Remington Arms, also owned by the Du Ponts. The Du Ponts admired Hitler, and both Du Pont Chemicals and General Motors were heavily involved in business enterprises in Germany that contributed to the Third Reich’s war preparations and also helped to finance the Nazi Party. (Idem.)
4. In addition to their enthusiasm for Hitler and Mussolini, many of the plotters and their associates were very active in the establishment, financing and operation of domestic fascist groups. The Du Ponts helped to establish the fascist Liberty League, the brutal Black Legion and the associated Wolverine Republican League to help break labor unions and terrorize workers in their various industries, particularly General Motors. (Idem.)
5. When general Butler exposed the conspiracy and the story broke in the papers, the conspirators dismissed the reports, the McCormack-Dickstein Committee’s report was suppressed for several years and the plotters got off scot-free. No one was ever imprisoned for their role in the treasonous insurrection, despite concrete evidence of their guilt. (Idem.)
6. In addition to their attempted overthrow of the constitutional authority, many members of what author Charles Higham calls “the fraternity” instituted labor policies that were diametrically opposed to President Roosevelt’s economic agenda. (Idem.)
7. Pressure by the conspirators helped to get MacArthur re-appointed as Army Chief of Staff, a highly unusual development. The program presents an interview with former Speaker of the House John McCormack, who co-chaired the congressional committee that investigated the coup. He affirms the accuracy of the charges made by Butler, and the grave danger that the plot posed to the republic.
(The Plot to Seize the White House; by Jules Archer; Hawthorne Books [HC]; Copyright 1973.)
8. MacArthur’s father-in-law (key Morgan partner Edward Stotesbury) helped to finance domestic American fascist groups. (1000 Americans; by George Seldes; Boni & Gaer [HC]; Copyright 1947.)
####################################
Repost: FTR #602 The Plot to Seize the White House — Interview with Jules Archer####################################NB: This stream contains both FTR #602 followed by a FTR #448. Each is a 30 minute broadcast. Originally recorded July 1, 2007
PREFACE, DECEMBER 30, 2008: With an apparent new Great Depression bearing down upon us and a Democratic reform President-elect waiting in the wings, it is vital to remember what transpired during the first Great Depression and Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s first administration. Dominant elements of the American power elite attempted to stage a fascist coup. It is noteworthy that many of these same individuals and institutions supported and financed Hitler and Mussolini. The Bush family was part of the milieu that birthed the coup attempt. The Bush family’s support for the Third Reich continues to be a source of controversy, despite the fact that it is well documented.
(For a brief and interesting historical synopsis of the coup attempt, listen to the BBC Radio programme: The White House Coup.)
Supplementing previous coverage of the U.S. fascist coup attempt of 1934, this broadcast is an emotional professional milestone for Mr. Emory. When first undertaking this field of research, he read investigative reporter, author and anti-fascist Jules Archer’s The Plot to Seize the White House, published in hardcover by Hawthorne books.
After learning that Mr. Archer was alive, well and 90-years young, Mr. Emory was delighted to find out that The Plot to Seize the White House is being republished in paperback by Skyhorse Publishing. This interview commemorates Mr. Archer’s work and celebrates the publishing of the paperback edition of his book.
Program Highlights Include: Discussion of the Liberty League, a consortium of wealthy and powerful industrialists and financiers who were the core of the coup plot; the coup plotters’ enthusiastic support for Hitler and Mussolini; the nomenclature of the members of the coup cabal; an overview of the career of General Smedley Butler, the patriotic hero who betrayed the coup plot; the media’s suppression of accurate reportage on the coup plot; the role of a small number of investigative reporters who brought the coup to light; the suppression of part of the report of the McCormack-Dickstein Committee (formed to investigate the coup).
1. Beginning with analysis of the career of Marine Corps General Smedley Butler, the program highlights Butler’s singular popularity among enlisted men. “A soldier’s general” Butler stood up for the “grunt” and didn’t automatically favor the “Brass” (the officer corps). This quality made him the choice to be “The Man on the White Horse” to lead the coup attempt. Men who served with Butler (such as former Marine Corps Commandant David Shoup) praised Butler in the most extravagant terms. It is worth noting that Butler was a practicing Quaker who came to feel that war, in general, was “a racket.”
2. After noting Butler’s extraordinary career, the discussion sets forth two issues that might be unfamiliar to younger listeners: the “bonus” from World War I and the Gold Standard. Soldiers who enlisted in World War I were promised a cash bonus, which they never received. When the Great Depression struck, many of the veterans organized and mobilized in order to pressure the government to grant them the bonus to which they were entitled. A march by the “Bonus Army” in Washington, D.C. was violently broken up by troops under the command of General Douglas MacArthur, the first choice of the plotters to lead the coup. Franklin Delano Roosevelt removed the U.S. from the Gold Standard, a decision which alienated many of the wealthy. The coup plotters wanted Smedley Butler to make a speech at an American Legion convention in favor of the Gold Standard, the theory being that Butler could present this as desirable to the bonus marchers. Their “bonus” would then be backed by gold.
3. Much of the program highlights points of information set forth in FTR#448 about the coup attempt itself. In particular, this portion of the broadcast centers on the Liberty League, a domestic fascist organization that was the backbone of the coup plot.
(The Plot to Seize the White House; by Jules Archer; Copyright 1973, 2007 by Skyhorse Publishing Inc.; Skyhorse Publishing [sC]; ISBN-13: 978–1-60239–036-2; p. 31.)
4. An important point of information for younger listeners concerns the American Legion. Originally formed as a reactionary organization used by the National Association of Manufacturers to break strikes, the American Legion eventually cast off its reactionary leadership and became the respectable veterans organization that it is to this day. In Butler’s time, the Legion was seen as a possible recruiting ground for soldiers for the coup plot.
5. Jules highlights some of the key figures in this drama including: coup figure Gerald McGuire (a wealthy bond salesman who was selected by the coup plotters as their primary contact with Smedley Butler); Robert S. Clark (another coup plotter who had known Butler when serving in the military in China); Grayson M-P.Murphy (another of the wealthy coup plotters, Murphy was a Morgan partner and had been decorated by Benito Mussolini); Hanford McNider (a wealthy former leader of the American Legion, seen as a possible second choice to Butler to lead the coup.)
6. In addition, Jules Archer sets forth some of the journalists who worked to expose the coup: Philadelphia Record journalist Paul Comly French (assigned to help cover the story as it was being revealed by General Butler); George Seldes (the venerable anti-fascist writer whose work has been accessed by Mr. Emory for decades, Seldes was an early and prolific writer about the coup attempt); John L. Spivak (another early anti-fascist writer who revealed that the report of the McCormack-Dickstein Committee contained key omissions about the coup plot).
7. Sadly, the mainstream media did not give effective coverage to the coup attempt—in fact they helped to cover it up. Jules Archer cites The New York Times and Time as two of the many publications that exercised willful censorship of the coverage of the coup plot. It is also worth noting that American academia has also remained largely oblivious to this pivotal event.