The Report that got Allen Dulles Fired

[Matt Cloud]

3 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

What distinction reveals what?  I didn't make any distinction, let alone imply anything other than that [Edit: Barnes] and Bissell and the rest of the OSS and later CIA and Marshall Plan personnel are not America First, whatever pic your friend thinks he found.  And what document are you referring to that you think proves anything.  If you can't write, you can't think -- and vice-versa.

You can't have it both ways.  You can't accuse Dulles & Co of American imperialism AND say they are isolationists.  You're twisting yourself into meaninglessness.

[Paul Brancato]

4 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

You can't have it both ways.  You can't accuse Dulles & Co of American imperialism AND say they are isolationists.  You're twisting yourself into meaninglessness.

Straw man arguments won’t work Matt. 

[Matt Cloud]

3 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Straw man arguments won’t work Matt. 

What IS the argument?  You haven't identified what is at issue.  You claim here, and at another thread, that Bissel and Barnes are America Firsters, in both cases you cite no support -- no documents, not even any intellectual analysis to back the claim up.  Bissel and Barnes are part of "the Georgetown Set," the internationalists that defined that post-war order such as it was, that Joe McCarthy railed against as being soft on communism.  You have made a claim.  It is unorthodox from any historical standpoint.  I have no problem with that in and of itself -- indeed I welcome and offer myself fresh takes on perhaps overlooked or suppressed understandings -- but such claims should be backed-up and supported upon request.  Supported, that is, with something more than an alleged picture from 1940 at Yale which you haven't shared, not even described, but which you say your friend has seen and supports your point.  

 

 

 

[Matt Cloud]

1 minute ago, Matt Cloud said:

What IS the argument?  You haven't identified what is at issue.  You claim here, and at another thread, that Bissel and Barnes are America Firsters, in both cases you cite no support -- no documents, not even any intellectual analysis to back the claim up.  Bissel and Barnes are part of "the Georgetown Set," the internationalists that defined that post-war order such as it was, that Joe McCarthy railed against as being soft on communism.  You have made a claim.  It is unorthodox from any historical standpoint.  I have no problem with that in and of itself -- indeed I welcome and offer myself fresh takes on perhaps overlooked or suppressed understandings -- but such claims should be backed-up and supported upon request.  Supported, that is, with something more than an alleged picture from 1940 at Yale which you haven't shared, not even described, but which you say your friend has seen and supports your point.  

 

 

 

If anything has been "revealed" in your word from this exchange it is the lengths commentators such as you will go to contort history to avoid the unpleasantries of the "internationalists" involvement with authoritarians whether on the Right-Left or the Left-Left.  None of that came from the America Firsters who wanted nothing to do with what they saw as European arguments, rightly or wrongly.  Bissel and Barnes cannot be included in this sector of political thought.  

[Paul Brancato]

Matt - did I misunderstand your original argument? Were you suggesting that the document you put forward suggests that Dulles was not an active participant in the dirty tricks of the time? To me the document simply says he wants to keep his name out of it, not that he disagrees. And what operation are we talking about? The murder of Lumumba? Were you not postulating that your document absolves Dulles of that? 

[Paul Brancato]

And my point about isolationism or non interventionism was that it served as a convenient cover for The Fifth column in America. Bissell, Barnes, Dulles, and so many others, were entirely sympathetic with Germany. Is it such a stretch to say Bissell and Barnes and others were America firsters in the lead up to WW 2, but completely involved in interventions of the American kind later? 
maybe you might consider getting back to Jim’s original post. Maybe you think firing Dulles and Bissell was wrong headed. Is that the case! 

Edited Sunday at 12:30 AM by Paul Brancato

[Matt Cloud]

15 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

You are a complete BS artist.  I don't need to keep with the original topic -- you do.  You're the one that brought up Barnes and Bissell being America Firsters.  I asked whether this was a defensible position.  It is not -- as you have demonstrated.  

Regarding Dulles, Allen Dulles that is, not John Foster -- and there is a difference -- the "document I put forward" was one of several I put forward actually in which Dulles evidently expresses displeasure with the Special Group taking on covert activities outside of the express agreement of the CIA.  That is a reading of the relevant documents put forward previous to me by the National Security Archive of GW University.  You expressed an inability to understand that interpretation.  If you are confused on matters of comprehension you can seek assistance.  Either here, or in your private life.  

Further, I will add, the isolationist/interventionist argument of the pre-war period is a very complex topic, which involved lots of political manipulation by practitioners of deceptive political warfare -- such as Barnes and Bissell would be --  and should in my view be treated cautiously before any quick conclusions as to who was on which side of the debate and what if any ulterior motives may have been at play.  You see such motives as a "fifth column" for right-wing takeover evidently.  Others see it as a "fifth column" for left-wing takeover.  Something perhaps between these two extremes might be most accurate.  But your mere assertion that it is necessarily the one over the other is superficial.  If you'd like to discuss the topic and have a hearing that might encompass other points of view, as well even yes actual historical records, just say the word.  I for one am quite familiar with the topic, including what might be called the smears and pre-McCarthyism of the Left against American conservatism.  Again, however, Wall Streeters like Bissell and Barnes were not that.  Ever.

Here's one point of view, for example, with which I disagree, written by a relative of mine.  It is widely regarded as authoritative, in certain circles at least.

 

Those Angry Days | Author Lynne Olson

 

Lynne Olson

https://lynneolson.com › those-angry-days

 

 

Olson captures in spellbinding detail the key figures in the battle between the Roosevelt administration and the isolationist movement.” —New York Times ...

[Matt Cloud]

50 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

Further, I will add, the isolationist/interventionist argument of the pre-war period is a very complex topic, which involved lots of political manipulation by practitioners of deceptive political warfare -- such as Barnes and Bissell would be --  and should in my view be treated cautiously before any quick conclusions as to who was on which side of the debate and what if any ulterior motives may have been at play.  You see such motives as a "fifth column" for right-wing takeover evidently.  Others see it as a "fifth column" for left-wing takeover.  Something perhaps between these two extremes might be most accurate.  But your mere assertion that it is necessarily the one over the other is superficial.  If you'd like to discuss the topic and have a hearing that might encompass other points of view, as well even yes actual historical records, just say the word.  I for one am quite familiar with the topic, including what might be called the smears and pre-McCarthyism of the Left against American conservatism.  Again, however, Wall Streeters like Bissell and Barnes were not that.  Ever.

Here's one point of view, for example, with which I disagree, written by a relative of mine.  It is widely regarded as authoritative, in certain circles at least.

 

Those Angry Days | Author Lynne Olson

 

Lynne Olson

https://lynneolson.com › those-angry-days

 

 

Olson captures in spellbinding detail the key figures in the battle between the Roosevelt administration and the isolationist movement.” —New York Times ...

And FWIW, Those Angry Days is as anti-isolationist, anti-America First book you can find, replete with all sorts of dismissiveness over concerns of what might called true heartland conservatism (I pay little heed to overwrought and overinflated terms such as America First -- that being part of the psy-op -- along with the Nazi-Bund smear), but you will find no discussion whatever of persons such as Barnes and Bissell as being in any way lumped-in -- and the author lumps-in whomever she can -- with anti-interventionism.  

You don't like the CIA and the OSS before it.  I understand.  (In that regard you share far more than you will admit with the Trump wing of the current Republican Party.)  But you want it both ways again, here as elsewhere: The CIA are liars and crooks and deceivers according to you but you don't analyze that deception in your analysis of what their operations and their purpose was, certainly what it would become.  They're happy to play the bad guy you see because conflict, as I have said before, is what brings change.  Indeed it might be the only thing that does.  If you don't get that, you don't understand the philosophy of the organization and its partners in government (State, DOJ, e.g.). 

And to return to Allan Dulles, and his objecting to the 5412 committee going on all sorts of adventurism, which he thought would give the CIA a black eye, I'll ask again: Is that why he was fired?  Because he wasn't interventionist enough?  Not modern enough, too conservative in other words, for the liberal warriors of the New Frontier (Goodwin, Hilsman, Bundy, Gilpatric, Harriman et al.)?  You will answer no but you do not know the answer to that.  Or you are afraid to consider the possibility?  The documents I have supplied, however, may support that view, that Allen Dulles was, yes, too cautious.  In any event, it is something perhaps to discuss, if only the needed detachment could ever be achieved in these parts.

Edited Sunday at 02:22 AM by Matt Cloud

[Robert Morrow]

This is slightly off topic but highly relevant to Allen Dulles. Clare Boothe Luce was the wife of Henry Luce, the owner of Time and Life Magazine. Life Magazine was a big supporter of the Vietnam War and wanted a hard line with Soviets in foreign policy. Life also covered up the JFK assassination big time.

Clare Boothe Luce had an EXTENDED AFFAIR with Allen Dulles. Not surprising Life magazine played a key role in the posthumous framing of Oswald for the JFK assassination. Clare was married to Henry Luce.

QUOTE

          Clare Boothe Luce, a former ambassador to Italy who was married to the publisher of Time and Life magazines – and who had carried on an extended affair with Allen Dulles – got her LSD from Sidney Cohen, a psychiatrist who had worked at the Edgewood Arsenal.

UNQUOTE

[Stephen Kinzer, Poisoner in Chief: Sidney Gottlieb and the CIA Search for Mind Control, p. 187]

 

 

 

[David McLean]

• Matt, Matt,in the 1930s Tracy Barnes  married the step sister of Richard Aldrich boss of the First National and  Abby wife of John D Rockefeller Jr, both of whom  were raking in vast profits from German reparations / rearmament currency swap and cartel scams.  Read your history more broadly — Of course that cohort opposed American taking sides.

[Jean Ceulemans]

On 6/27/2024 at 6:19 AM, Matthew Koch said:

This is the one to watch💯, This is a very candid doc with participants, what I'm getting at is CIA tried but didn't do much the Dutch and Africans did him 

Yep, the Dutch 😎 I´m fine if we can blame them, as it happens to be, we beat them yesterday

https://dartsnews.com/pdc/shocks-continue-at-2024-world-cup-of-darts-as-netherlands-are-dumped-out-by-belgium

[Paul Brancato]

5 hours ago, Robert Morrow said:

This is slightly off topic but highly relevant to Allen Dulles. Clare Boothe Luce was the wife of Henry Luce, the owner of Time and Life Magazine. Life Magazine was a big supporter of the Vietnam War and wanted a hard line with Soviets in foreign policy. Life also covered up the JFK assassination big time.

Clare Boothe Luce had an EXTENDED AFFAIR with Allen Dulles. Not surprising Life magazine played a key role in the posthumous framing of Oswald for the JFK assassination. Clare was married to Henry Luce.

QUOTE

          Clare Boothe Luce, a former ambassador to Italy who was married to the publisher of Time and Life magazines – and who had carried on an extended affair with Allen Dulles – got her LSD from Sidney Cohen, a psychiatrist who had worked at the Edgewood Arsenal.

UNQUOTE

[Stephen Kinzer, Poisoner in Chief: Sidney Gottlieb and the CIA Search for Mind Control, p. 187]

 

 

 

Didn’t Gary Underhill work in a Luce connected job before his strange death? 

[Matt Cloud]

On 6/30/2024 at 7:27 AM, David McLean said:

• Matt, Matt,in the 1930s Tracy Barnes  married the step sister of Richard Aldrich boss of the First National and  Abby wife of John D Rockefeller Jr, both of whom  were raking in vast profits from German reparations / rearmament currency swap and cartel scams.  Read your history more broadly — Of course that cohort opposed American taking sides.

There are two different and opposing concepts here which are being conflated, and not for the first time, this being central to the historical confusion that has obtained in political understanding of the 20th century.  One concept is isolationism; the other is financial support for pre-war Nazi Germany, as well as support, both pre-war, in-war, and post-war, for the Soviet Union, although that has gone unaddressed here so far.  These two concepts are not the same thing, albeit pre-war propaganda successfully equated the two.  Be that as it may, however, the fact that capitalist internationalists, such as Rockefeller, Harriman, Bush, created the conditions under which World War II could occur in Europe by building-up the German war machine under, yes, first neutrality, does not somehow transform those persons into isolationists.  They were not.  Indeed, if any of the so-called ruling elite or, if you like "fascist ruling class," could be said to want to maintain neutrality in the face of a war that they themselves helped set in motion it was the never-quite-accepted-member of that circle Joe Kennedy.  He didn’t get the memo evidently that described how to create global capital integration by forcing the conditions under which the transformative world war would occur.  For this reason, the internationalists — the persons who funded both Hitler and Stalin and, yes, profited from that — Harriman and Bush, e.g. — hated Joe Kennedy.  He either didn’t understand or didn’t accept the multi-step process involved in creating a new world order.  That could only come about through, first, world destruction, followed by the rebuilding out of the ashes — the Marshall Plan, among other things, which Bissell and Barnes personally implemented.  This is the broad view of history, Don, one un-blinded by partisan loyalties, which does not confuse, conflate and obfuscate the issue or the motivations.  Profiting off the support of Germany, through whatever genealogical connections you may identify, is not isolationist.  If you had said “they were for Hitler before they were against him,” that would be more accurate.  Similarly would be “they were for Stalin before they were against him,” too.  Neither of those statements however align with or support the claim made here that Barnes and Bissell somehow reflect the non-interventionist strand in American political thought.  They did not, and no supporting material has been, or could be, offered in support of this position, here or elsewhere.  

 

Indeed, even if I were to take Paul Brancati’s word that his friend has seen some picture of Barnes and Bissell from 1940 at Yale (of all places (!), THE incubating American institution for globalism, not isolationism), and presume that it depicts them at an America First rally or standing beside some banner proclaiming same or something, I would offer the thought, totally defensible in light of their later careers, that what Paul’s friend has witnessed, nay what he has fallen for, is the very political “dirty tricksterism” that Paul bemoans of these persons, these political antecedents of say a Donald Segretti or Roger Stone.  (This is why I stated Paul does not analyze these persons under the deceptive tendencies he attributes to them.  He sees them at an America First rally and concludes that is it, end of story, that is what they are.)  That is to say, was America First in some real sense a controlled opposition scam, possibly set-up, at least infiltrated certainly, by internationalists in order that that political concept — equating isolationism with Nazism — could be shamed and ruined — as it was.  This is the model after all of 20th century political warfare.  Cf. CRP & The Plumbers and Watergate destroying “The Silent Majority” for a generation; see also Jan. 6.  

 

Nothing narrow whatever about this understanding, Don.  It’s broader than almost anything yet published.  It excludes nothing, as contrasted from your point-of-view which excludes consideration of the possibility of deception as well as the longer-term political strategy achieved by first supporting the Bolshevik Revolution (see A. Sutton), then supporting Germany, to create the inevitable conflict, then opposing it, Germany, once the conflict has been ignited.  In order to have a decisive fight between and within socialism, and to ensure one form wins out as between national socialism and international socialism (the Right-Left and Left-Left I referenced before), you need to make sure both can actually have the fight.  Hence the arms build-up.  The U.S. meanwhile sits out the conflict for as long as possible, in keeping with its population’s overall traditional reluctance to engage in European political ideological conflicts, until as late as possible, and then enters to tip the balance in favor of the Left-Left.  Next up, remove any Stalinistic nationalism that remains, which is to say begin the internationalist revolution of Trotsky, both at home and abroad.  That’s the neocon revolution, the dialectical Hegelian advancement of Progress, circa 1958-2016.  Cf. Moynihan, “Responses to Fukuyama,” The National Interest, Summer 1989.  That’s what happened.  You may not like it.  That’s understandable.  But that is the History and the Philosophy, both.  Narrow it is not.

[Paul Brancato]

America first was not isolationist it was pro German. This is not my fantasy Matt. 

[Matt Cloud]

14 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

America first was not isolationist it was pro German. This is not my fantasy Matt. 

Take it up with Maria Shriver.    

 

Sargent Shriver

Robert Sargent Shriver Jr. (November 9, 1915 – January 18, 2011) was an American diplomat, politician, and activist. As the husband of Eunice Kennedy Shriver, he was part of the Kennedy family. Shriver was the driving force behind the creation of the Peace Corps, and founded the Job Corps, Head Start, VISTA, Upward Bound,^[2] and other programs as the architect of the 1960s War on Poverty.^[3] He was the Democratic Party's nominee for vice president in the 1972 presidential election.

Born in Westminster, Maryland, Shriver attended Yale University, then Yale Law School, graduating in 1941.^[2] An opponent of U.S. entry into World War II, he helped establish the America First Committee but volunteered for the United States Navy before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. During the war, he served in the South Pacific, participating in the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal. After being discharged from the navy, he worked as an assistant editor for Newsweek and met Eunice Kennedy, marrying her in 1953.