FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Interesting Ron Paul Update
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 20, 21, 22
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Hugh Manatee

Joined: 26 Jun 2007
Posts: 77
Location: In Context

PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 1:10 am    Post subject: Steve Kangas Reply with quote

dilbert_g, thanks for mentioning the late Steve Kangas.

He did an amazing job on his website of debunking the economic voo-doo the GOP peddles.

I also recommend an article of his called 'The Origins of the Overclass to people who need a primer on where we are in fascism and how we got here.

He died of a gunshot to the head in the building where CIA-Nazi Richard Melon Scaife has offices. This caused a ripple around the internet and the WPost responded with minimizing nonsense. A disinfo story about kangaroos and guns in military simulation software was sent around the internet in an effort to skew search engines away from the Kangas vs Scaife story.

Steve's friends pitched in to pay to keep his website pages up. Kangas Lives. Read him.

(The Origins of the Overclass)

What shall we watch tonight?
Propaganda, social engineering, role modeling, conditioning, adrenalin markers, or desensitization?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 846

PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

dilbert_g wrote:
The point, taken at raw simplicity, seemed to be that instead of having a govt manage everything, control everything, including handouts or "Social Credit", instead govt would manage and regulate banking and would make fairly sure every family would receive "dividend" or "royalty" checks every month, rather than welfare checks or no-longer-feasible paychecks.[/b]

I'm not sure how the bit about "having a govt manage everything" came up in this context. But the shift appears to be from:

dilbert_g wrote:
To establish the economic foundation for the reorganization of economic life in the interests of the working people, we advocate the transformation of all privately owned industrial, manufacturing and information technology corporations valued at $10 billion or more—companies that, taken together, control the decisive share of the US economy—into publicly owned enterprises, with full compensation for small shareholders and the terms of compensation for large shareholders to be publicly negotiated. The SEP also proposes the nationalization of the healthcare and pharmaceutical giants, as well as all large banking and insurance institutions. In addition, the SEP advocates the nationalization of the railroads, airlines, telecommunications and power utilities, and the placement of all critical natural resources under public ownership and control.

Now the claim is that it should be sufficient to restrict oneself to just banking regulations which pay out royalty checks from the presumed profits which are somehow showing up in the regulated banks. No, that concept leaves far too much room available to the real ruling class. Such games have on occasion been encouraged when it was seen as necessary to placate people, but they're not likely to get by today. If we can't even transform corporations valued at $10+ billion into publicly-owned enterprises then I wouldn't encourage too many other illusions about what just some banking regulations are going to accomplish. They might help to stabilize an economy after a bubble burst like in 1987, but I wouldn't overstate the degree to which a fundamental change will be brought about just by this.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 12:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I conceded your last point. The resistance to regulation and really socializing the economy (for the real good of everyone) is strong.

[edit] The main BOGEYMAN is that Socialism, whether Stalinist, Trotskyite, or Leninist, wants to control and micromanage ALL PROPERTY, all activity, all thought. That and the concept that ownership and control of SELF is intimately linked to ownership and control of what PROPERTY one owns. Collective property is shared, but it seems MUST therefore be administered by administrators.

(I think there must be some relevance to this point, which must continually be addressed, that centrally-planned collectivist systems -- which do not inherently suffer from any more "inefficiency" than corporate capitalist anarchic systems, which also involve central-planned by corporate managers -- rely on forms of centralized administration and administrators. Any LARGE and COMPLEX systems typically need large and complex systems of administration, whether public or private. A lot of the bogeyman stuff is simply against largeness and administration and bureaucracy, but it's a BAD JOKE to imply that corporations are devoid of bureaucracies and politics attributed to governments, though there must be at least some relevance to the argument that corporations tend to streamline where possible, whereas governments tend to build up layers of bureaucracy as much as the system permits. The counterpoint is that libertarians WANT to retain most of the functions of government, especially policing, but just want to have them administered by private for-profit enterprises.)

That's the vision that has been pounded into everyone's heads (at a cost of billions from business and citizens). I agree with YOU, my reading of WSWS is that The Socialist Party does NOT want to control and micromanage EVERYTHING, as the commo-phobes allege, but I can see that even this would be little different from (collective) "free market" corporatism, even IF Socialists did want that much micromanagement power, and they clearly say they don't. Micromanagement of people's lives is NOT part of their plan for winning converts or for a more just system.

However, I see the worrisome point (of Kelso) that under Socialism, both politics AND big economics are centrally-controlled. This is the argument that many Libertarians and Conservatives use incorrectly or fallaciously to describe the current USA system as "Socialist". It's a BLURRED WURD. (I think that Kelso and Kurland are sincere in their desire for economic and social justice.)

Many people think that handing over corporations DIRECTLY to govt control would make things worse than they are now --- but I believe they misinterpret what Socialism really means, some accidentally and some intentionally. However, I too can see the implicit danger in "socializing" TOO much POWER, in other words, whatever model of Socialism they/you were to promote, it would have to have strong safeguards for decentralization and public good vs. power "pooling" into large puddles just begging to be exploited and hijacked. ANY system must guard against that drift, and the US system did not, and The People did not guard against that result. Even the best "system" can be hijacked, just like the best security system can be cracked.

(Authoritarianism and exploitation and corruption can be compared to a computer worm-virus. The criminally-minded find cracks and holes in the architecture to break in.)

Chavez -- who libertarian Antiwar.com describes as NOT socialist but nationalist and for his own country -- seems to have built in a LOT of checks and balances into his own so-called totalitarian socialist system. Evidence by the fact that his enemies were able to TRY to use the system he created to remove him by referendum. Yet the Venezuelan Constitution allows the leadership to have barely-sufficient controls to utilize the economy to benefit everyone.

A Ron Paul Libertarian on You Tube was promoting books by Boortz and Stossel, using a lot of sneering and sarcasm about people just needing a nanny state to take care of them.

Here was a previous (unrelated) posting I saved by a libertarian on Free Republic, which as many know is far right even extremist conservative/libertarian forum. (It was more sane when Clinton was President than after 2000, now it's more sycophantic.) Many of the conservatives think libertarianism is "conservatives without morals", super-permissive. I would say libertarians are "conservatives who don't apply moral authoritarianism". Anyhow, you don't have to agree with this guy completely to see that he makes some valid points, and makes them as counterpoints within a conservative/libertarian paradigm, i.e. inside his own fishbowl, so bravo to him:

While Stossel makes a number of valid points, unfortunately, he hasn't gotten the entire picture yet. It is important to remember that corporations are based on greed. The ideal situation for a corporation is to have a slave-labor workforce feeding the rest of the citizens into the soylent-green machine. Believe me, if offered the opportunity to sell your mother down the river for a profit - legally, it would take a New York minute for some corporation to step up to the plate. History is replete with examples of exactly that.

There are a few important distinctions to make that always seem to be missed. The foremost is that while man is born with unalienable rights that may not be regulated in the absence of injury to others, corporations are entirely different. A corporation is a grant of limited personal liability for the officers and stockholders of the corporation granted at the pleasure of the people who allowed its charter in the first place. A corporation has no inherent rights - period. In a situation where the Constitution is adhered to, Mr. General Motors is free to do business without regulation at the risk of his home and other personal assets if he wrongs someone. On the other hand, the General Motors Corporation is subject to exactly the amount of regulation that the public determines is appropriate. What level of regulation is appropriate and at what eventual cost to the customers is an entirely separate issue. The problem occurs when people latch on to the sentiment expressed by Mr. Stossel and argue that there should be no regulation of corporations or that somehow the corporation has "rights" when in fact it only has those authorities that the people who allowed its creation deem appropriate.

The biggest problem is that people want their cake and to eat it too. They have allowed a situation to develop where the line between a man with unalienable rights and a corporation with enumerated authority has become blurred. Mr. Stossel talks about all "a whole new spiderweb of little rules for us to obey." We asked for this through our own laziness, ignorance, and greed.

A man with unalienable rights to do as he pleases absent injury to others bears a heavy responsibility not to injure others. Collectively, we don't want that responsibility. We would rather conduct business with limited personal liability, i.e., as a corporation. Presto-chango, government steps in to regulate our business and then we complain. What's worse is that through our own laziness, ignorance, and greed we have forgotten that government can't regulate us as "natural persons" when we aren't acting in a corporate capacity. Government regulatory agencies presume to have authority over individual citizens when in the overwhelming number of situations, they may only regulate corporations or other "artificial persons" and we don't know any better. When you wonder what business it is of the Federal Government to regulate what type of toilet you install in your house, it is the result of administrative law, our failure as a people to understand its nature and to whom it may apply, and this scheme is the undoing of our government.

Here's how this sorry situation came about:

The technique used is the same everywhere - whether it’s the state or the Feral government. Let’s use a state government for the example and let’s use Taxxachusetts since they’ve been at it the longest. The state legislature creates some form of agency, bureau, commission, department, etc., etc., and has the Governor appoint some stooge to be the head of it. The stooge at the head of said agency is vested with the powers and authorities of each of the three branches of government that the people created, and then operates under the presumption that the people are subject to a fourth branch of government that the government itself created with no authority from the people.

A good analogy would be if the legislature of Taxxachusetts decided to create the "Taxxachusetts Department of Oppression." They then create the position of "King" who shall be the head of the TDO. They then vest the King with legislative authority to create regulations, executive authority to enforce the regulations, and adjudicative authority to make determinations of violations of the King's regulations. Of course, the King himself is rarely going to deign to hear any particular case so he has a bunch of flunkies in the King's courts deal with that. Any court hearing a violation of the King's law is by default acting on behalf of the King because they are dealing with subject matter related to the King's law.

So then the questions are:

Did the people of the Great State of Taxxachusetts create the office of the "Taxxachusetts Department of Oppression" by and through their state constitution?

Did the people of the Great State of Taxxachusetts create the position of "King?"

Since the people of the Great State of Taxxachusetts specifically provided that there shall be three distinct branches of government, can the people be subject to a government office and titular head of that office that exercise the powers and authorities of all three branches of government that was created by government itself?

Is it possible for the people to delegate authority to politicians the authority to do an end run around the constitution by combining the powers and authorities of each of the distinctly different branches of government under one office and King and then expect the people to be subject to that office?

What is the point of having a constitution that creates the offices of Governor, Secretary of State, Treasurer, County Sheriff, etc., the courts and type of law they shall deal with, and a legislature, if the legislature can create a new office of government that can do whatever it wants as if it were King?

If the people define what type of courts they have and what law those courts deal with, can they be subject to the King's courts?

This is what’s known as the Fourth Branch of Government Scam or ADMINISTRATIVE LAW.

It's a beautiful scam when you think about it. All you have to do is locate in the law where they pulled it off. It's pretty easy to do once you're familiar with the organization of the law books and the law in most states is easier to deal with than Taxxachusetts since they have been extremely careful to obscure the technique.

The biggest problem that we as Americans face is that these questions never occur to most Americans thanks to the public skool system. If Americans don't wake up to this scam soon, it's going to be too late for the King's taste for power is insatiable and when power becomes vested in a fourth branch of government, ANYTHING GOES.

That’s why you see more and more that politics (and therefore, the law) is the Theater of the Absurd. ANYTHING GOES. When all power is vested in ONE, unaccountable, non-constitutional fourth branch of government, there are NO LIMITS. There are no limits because it is PRIVATE LAW, i.e, it is law that is private to government.

Think about what I just said and ponder the question of how much law on the books is ADMINISTRATIVE LAW?

The only time you can be subject to the authority of an entity of government that YOU didn’t create BY AND THROUGH YOUR STATE/FEDERAL CONSTITUTION is when

a. you are engaged in an activity under contract to the government entity in question or,

b. have some other clearly defined, voluntarily assumed nexus with that entity that would bring you under its jurisdiction or,

c. are engaged in an activity that is outside the realm of the common law pursuit of Life, Liberty, and Happiness and are acting in the capacity of a corporation or other artificial "person" and,

d. where the regulations at hand specifically define the "persons," and things that are subject to the regulations.

How many of these BOGUS rules and regulations are emitted by politicians with no authority to issue them over you, administered by agencies with no authority to administer them over you, and adjudicated by courts that have no authority to adjudicate over you?

A very good question to ask is where did the "money" come from to pay those legions of regulators? The seemingly simple answer is that It came out of a printing press. Because we use a paper-based fiat currency backed by nothing rather than lawful specie (gold or silver coin), government has access to unlimited amounts of currency and therefore there is a complete disconnect between what government does and the people's ability to control it through their purse strings. Government can spend billions to build a road that starts nowhere and goes nowhere because the cost is hidden through the silent mechanism (tax) of inflation that won't be paid until the politician is long out of office. Similarly, the legions of bureaucratic regulatory toadies come into existence.

The sorry state of affairs of micromanagement of people's lives by government regulators isn't going to end until we as a people understand who we are, who "artificial persons" are, and to whom government regulations may actually apply. It also won't stop until we begin to accept personal responsibility for our actions instead of palming it off on the state by forming a corporation to run a sidewalk lemonade stand.

17 Posted on 06/29/2001 07:43:19 PDT by agitator

One of the strongest counterpoints (from an anti-libertarian anti-work socialist-libertarian) is that MOST people are FAR more regulated by the management at WORK on a daily basis, than they are by government regulators or cops. Now, your "PRIVATE" "Libertarian" dictatorial EMPLOYER can test you and fire you for the content of your bloodstream OR other personal activities --- recreational or political or social/lifestyle --- that you engage in in your non-work hours. (I can understand employers wanting to be secure against the pitfalls of employing heavy drug addicts, because while I sympathize with addicts (being recovered myself), I know some heavy practicing drug addicts including professionals, and they are unpredictable and troublemakers and just bizarre and disturbing to be around, even on a casual basis. They are like a whirlwind, bringing havoc into the lives of everyone around them. But many employers presume the right to sanction or fire employees who are NOT drug addicts, and may be casual users or abusers of something stronger than beer. OR, people who engage in political action with which they or the government disagrees, i.e. New McCarthyism.) It's like you're an EMPLOYEE first and foremost, 24x7, not a human being. And the current govt supports that situation.

I mean to the extent that widespread employment still exists, as that is quickly going by the wayside too.
Back to top

Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 846

PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 9:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dilbert_g wrote:
my reading of WSWS is that The Socialist Party

A small technicality, the party which I endorsed calls itself the "Socialist Equality Party." There actually is a "Socialist Party" which goes back through the 20th century, and they sold out to the Democrats a long time ago. That makes the distinction of names signifiant.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

PostPosted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 2:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here's a story on some Patriotic Pro-Liberty Americans.

I'm posting this because it has MULTIPLE HITS on MULTIPLE TOPICS tied together.

Who were the bankers who caused or exacerbated the Depression? Jews?
What is the SMOM, Knights of Malta? Some ancient secret society?
What the heck do they mean by LIBERTY?

John Jakob Raskob (1879-1950)

By Richard Sanders, Editor, Press for Conversion!

Raskob helped form the American Liberty League and gave it at least $20,000. He also $5,000 to one of its fascist front groups, the Southern Committee to Uphold the Constitution.

Raskob’s rise through the ranks of the du Pont weapons/chemical industry began in 1900, when Pierre du Pont hired him as a bookkeeper for some steel and railway businesses. Raskob was Pierre’s private secretary, then his assistant (1902); assistant treasurer (1911) and treasurer on the Executive Committee (1914).

By 1915, du Pont was beginning to absorb GM. With 3,000 shares, Pierre was GM’s largest minority stockholder. He became GM’s chair and put Raskob on the board. They wanted all GM cars to use paint, varnish, lacquer and artificial leather from du Pont. In 1918, Raskob was GM’s vice president and chaired its Finance Committee. The next year, Pierre put family friends onto GM’s board: Nobel, their European gunpowder ally and J.P. Morgan. By 1920, with financial trickery and $35 million from Morgan, du Pont’s empire owned GM.

In the 1920s, Raskob worked with William Stayton, Pierre and Irénée du Pont, and other millionaires to build the Association Against the Prohibition Amendment (AAPA). One of their allies, Al Smith, was the Democrat’s presidential candidate in 1928. Raskob took over Smith’s campaign and moved him to the far right. That year, Raskob became the Democratic Party’s national chair and coerced the party to endorse Repeal. Although Raskob gave $110,000 to Smith’s election, and Pierre gave $50,000, Wall Street’s elite mostly favoured J.P.Morgan’s Republican, Herbert Hoover, a mining millionaire. For his campaign in Florida, Hoover received $25,000 from Alfred du Pont, a KKK-allied racist who called Blacks, “coons.” When Hoover won Florida, Alfred said “I’ve just licked Pierre and Raskob and I’m reeking with gore.”

In 1927, Raskob cofounded the U.S. association of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, a secretive Catholic order, based in Rome, with supposed origins in medieval crusaders who ruled Malta and Rhodes. Considered by some a sovereign state, it has diplomatic relations with 49 countries, its own passports and stamps. U.S. members included John Farrell (U.S. Steel), Joseph Kennedy (JFK’s father), New York’s Cardinal Francis Spellman, and CIA directors William Casey, William Colby and John McCone.

By 1928, Raskob, the so-called “Wizard of Wall Street,” informed the largely du Pont-controlled press that GM’s value would skyrocket. This falsely boosted the stock by almost $50 million, to $3.3 billion, the highest yet reached by any U.S. industrial stock. A few weeks later, its fall caused a panic, the bull market collapsed and Raskob resigned as du Pont treasurer.

During the Roaring Twenties, insider trading was not yet illegal. Some brokerages, including J.P. Morgan and Kuhn Loeb, sold shares to “preferred” clients, at below current prices. This swindle took money from small investors and made the rich richer. Raskob was on J.P. Morgan’s “preferred list.” In 1929, he used this system to unfairly profit on Standard Brands and United Corp. stocks.

On the “preferred lists” were:

"fellow bankers, prominent industrialists, powerful city politicians, national Committeemen of the Republican and Democratic Parties, and rulers of foreign countries. [They] were notified of the coming crash, and sold all but...gilt-edged stocks, General Motors, Dupont, etc….

All the big bankers rode through the depression ‘with flying colors.’ The people who suffered were workers and farmers who invested...money in get-rich stocks, after Pres. Calvin Coolidge, and Treasury Secretary, Andrew Mellon, persuaded them to." (Golden Isles, July 24, 2003).

Raskob also persuaded ordinary Americans to trust Wall Street. Just before the 1929 Crash, the New York Times quoted him: “Prudent investors are now buying stocks in huge quantities and will profit handsomely when this hysteria is over.” That year, his famous article “Everybody Ought to be Rich” (Ladies Home Journal), said investments of $15 a month, would yield $80,000 in 20 years.

Meanwhile, his millionaire friends were busily selling stocks to get out before the Crash.

Raskob promoted the 40-hour, five-day work week. In “What Next in America” (North American Review, Nov. 1929), he justified this policy not from “sentimentality” for workers, but as a “good business” move:

"to give workers additional time…to function as consumers of what they produce. We have got production geared up to such speed… that we are faced with...[the] problem of getting the goods...consumed. Every manufacturer, every capitalist concerned with financing industry, knows this…. If…we add a full Saturday holiday…there will be an immediate and tremendous increase in …consumption of automobiles, tires, gasoline, oil and roads."

Raskob’s plan succeeded. Workers did spend more, thus funneling their savings back to the industrialists. And, not a moment to soon; the Crash and Depression soon stopped their spending.

Raskob and Pierre Du Pont also cheated on their taxes. Their scam was to buy, sell and then buy back millions in stocks from each other.

Leaving the post of Democratic national chairman in 1932, Raskob then helped form the American Liberty League and gave it at least $20,000. He also $5,000 to its fascist Southern Committee to Uphold the Constitution.

Creating the Raskob Foundation for Catholic Activities in 1945 (now boasting assets of $150 million), he retired from du Pont two years later.

In 1904, Edward Francis Hutton, a New York financier, began what was to become a conglomerate of companies owned by the E.F. Hutton Group. Hutton is known to have donated at least $20,000 to the American Liberty League and $500 to the Crusaders.

In the early 1980s, E.F. Hutton ran TV ads that confidently stated: “When E.F. Hutton talks, people listen.” However, in 1985 his company collapsed in a fraud scandal. E.F. Hutton & Co., one of America’s largest brokerage companies, was caught laundering $25.4 million for an Italian organized-crime syndicate that smuggled some 750 kilos of heroin (worth about $1.6 billion) into the U.S.

Company president Scott Pierce pleaded guilty to 2,000 counts of fraud. Although the company did pay some fines and repaid its victims, Pierce never went to jail. He was, after all, then-vice-president George Bush Sr.’s brother-in-law (i.e., Barbara Bush’s brother).


"The Crusader White Shirts, known as the American Fascists, is a military auxiliary of the Crusaders for Economic Liberty [CFEL]…. It embraces the Fascist idea of personal leadership, unity, force, drama and nationalism."

With a toothbrush mustache that resembled Hitler's, George Christians…. once issued orders…to seize control of the Government: "The first- objective should be to take control of the local government in the following manner: March in military formation to and surround the government buildings. Then, by sheer numbers and a patriotic appeal, force the officials to accept and act under the direction of an economic adviser appointed by the President of the CFEL."
Source: John Roy Carlson, Under Cover: My Four Years in the Nazi Underworld of America, pp. 149-150.

The American Liberty League…subsidize[d] such affiliated organizations as the openly Fascist and anti-Semitic Sentinels of the Republic and the Crusaders, who were urged by their leader, George W. Christians, to consider lynching Roosevelt. One night when the President was scheduled to arrive in Chattanooga, Christians threatened to cut off the city's electric power and warned grimly, "Lots of things can happen in the dark!" This protege of the American Liberty League was kept under surveillance by the Secret Service.

There's much more here to show the big picture of this huge longstanding fascist network -- and it's nature. There's a 'peak oil' book that refers to "the Long Emergency". I think that this globalized fascism could easily be called "the Long Emergency".
Back to top
Don Smith

Joined: 02 Feb 2007
Posts: 248
Location: Erehwon

PostPosted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 3:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

1000 Americans

By George Seldes

Time's reportage on the House of Morgan for twenty years has been neither accurate history nor straightforward journalism. It has been propaganda, whitewash for the House of Morgan, one of its owners throughout all the years of its existence.

It would not be incorrect to say that Time -- and Life, Fortune, The March of Time, and each and every Luce production -- works for the Morgan Empire every day in the year. It is in every way part of the same free enterprise system, and although not controlled by a Morgan agent sitting at a desk in its office, it has a community of interest with the rest of the "$30,210,000,000 worth of United States railroads, utilities, industries, banks" which are under the Morgan-First National influence (as Time itself reported February 26, 1940). Both are parts of a system which they watch, nurture and expand, and which they speak for.

The illustrations of open propaganda and apologetics, dictated or not dictated by Mr. Lamont, "the foreign ambassadot of the House of Morgan," are many, but they merely highlight the relationship.

As, for instance; the "Wall Street Plot to Seize the Government."

The documentary evidence, which is referred to elsewhere, was pretty well suppressed by the newspapers, but the predecessor of the Dies Committee -- the McCormack-Dickstein Committee -- eventually confirmed the most sensational charges, concluded that there had been a plot and that certain American Legion leaders and well-known men of Wall Street, one closely connected with the House of Morgan, had indeed planned the first American fascist dictatorship.

At the mention of the magic name "Morgan" the Luce publications mobilized in defense. Everything from distortion to the usual "light touch" of the famous "bright young men" of the Luce employ, the usual sneers and the usual adjectival barrage by men well trained in semantics, came into play to protect the most sacred cow worshiped in America, the Big Money for which J. P. Morgan was first high priest.

For example (Time's first and second page story, December 3, 1934):

(There follows a bright little imaginary story of General Smedley Butler mobilizing 500,000 men, capturing Washington, the United States becoming a fascist state.)

"Such was the nightmarish page of future United States history pictured last week in Manhattan by General Butler himself to the special House Committee investigating Un-American Activities.
"No military officer of the United States since the late tempestuous George Custer has succeeded in publicly floundering in so much hot water as Smedley Darlington Butler. . .
[There follows a history of episodes in Butler's life, told as if they were all planned for publicity.]
"General Butler's sensational tongue had not been heard in the nation's Press for more than a week when he cornered a reporter for the Philadelphia Record and the New York Post, poured into his ears the lurid tale that he had been offered leadership of a Fascist Putsch scheduled for next year.
"Thanking their stars for having such sure-fire publicity dropped in their laps, Representatives McCormack and Dickstein began calling witnesses to expose the 'plot.' But there did not seem to be any plotters....
"Mr. Morgan, just off a boat from Europe, had nothing to say but Partner Lamont did: 'Perfect moonshine! Too utterably ridiculous to comment upon!!"

Any reader comparing the testimony and the Committee report on this event; given in the appendix of this book, must conclude that the Time report consists of distortion and propaganda.

The case of the House of Morgan and World War I and the handling of the conspiracy uncovered by General Butler, and their treatment by Time, and other Luce publications, are but two of scores of instances illustrating the community of interest which exists between the banking house and the Luce press. The amount of stock all the men of Wall Street own in the Luce publications may be only a small percentage, but it pays a dividend, which cannot be measured in dollars only.

The Luce press, like the entire big magazines press, angles the news -- and therefore angles public opinion in America for the community of big business interests of which it is an important journalistic part.

America refused to listen to the few newspaper correspondents and the still fewer experts, such as Professor Robert Brady ("The Spirit and Structure of German Fascism"), who before the Second World War tried to warn the nation that reaction and Fascism were the real dangers because there was money in them, and because there was big money back of them.

During and after the war the cartel investigators, Thurman Arnold, Wendell Berge, a score of leading liberal Senators, writers of a dozen books on the subject, and finally Mr. 0. John Rogge, who really got to the roots of Naziism, united in stating the common finding: that Fascism in all countries is a form of government originated by great industrial empires and cartels, subsidized, placed in power and kept in power for the benefit of the few-and against the general welfare of the many.

This is an established truth. The logical conclusions from the facts of history, therefore, would be that the little crackpot Fascism of the American demagogues is not a danger unless the big money takes it over. Therefore, the first of the several attempts of big American money to put over Fascism in our country is worth recounting, since the episode itself was thrown down rather than played up by the newspapers.

General Smedley D. Butler testified under oath before the McCormack-Dickstein Committee, the first of the Un-American Committees, that he had been offered the leadership of a Fascist coup d'etat in America not once but forty-two times. Of these the only important one was that backed by leaders of the American Liberty League, Wall Street bankers and brokers, and the ruling clique of the American Legion.

Despite the effort of all the newspapers (except the three or four which had had a scoop) to destroy the effect of the testimony, and despite newsweekly Time's trying to tell the public it was just a joke, the Committee eventually issued its report confirming General Butler's charge that there had been a Fascist plot to seize Washington. (See Appendix 21.)

Most newspapers again suppressed or buried or belittled the official verdict. The McCormack-Dickstein Committee itself suppressed all those paragraphs of its report which named names, especially those of Morgan bankers, and that of the Liberty League, the equivalent of several of the super-patriotic but secretly corporation-directed organizations which supported Fascism in other lands.

The Committee suppressed the name of John W. Davis, attorney for the House of Morgan. It suppressed the testimony of witnesses that the arming of no less than 500,000 men for General Butler to lead had been discussed, and that it was planned to obtain rifles and bullets from Remington Arms "On credit through the duPonts" ... "one of the duPonts is on the board of directors of the American Liberty League and they own a controlling interest in the Remington Arms Co.

The Committee suppressed the testimony of General Butler in which the agent plotting the Fascist coup promised him that a new organization would be announced in two or three weeks, and, stated Butler, "in about two weeks the American Liberty League appeared, which was just about what he described it to me."

The reader is urged to turn to the appendix for the most important parts of the documentary evidence, especially the parts which the Un-American Committee suppressed-because this Un-American Committee, like its successors, the Dies Cornmittee, the Wood-Rankin Committee and the Thomas-Rankin Committee, have all been un-American, inasmuch as they have refused to take any action against Fascism and have, in fact, given Fascists the use of their organization as a forum to spread their ideas.

All these un-American Committees have the support of the major portion of the press. In the case of the Liberty League-Legion-Wall Street conspiracy to overthrow the United States Government, there was one of the most reprehensible conspiracies of silence in the long (and disgraceful) history of American journalism. The sensational value of the news - the main test in our country - can be judged even by the layman from the headlines and opening paragraphs which appeared in the Stern papers (Philadelphia Record, New York Post, and two Camden papers) at the time:

by Paul Comly French
(Copyright [Nov. 20] 1934)

Major General Smedley D. Butler revealed today he has been asked by a group of wealthy New York brokers to lead a Fascist movement to set up a dictatorship in the United States.

General Butler, ranking major general of the Marine Corps up to his retirement three years ago, told his story today at a secret session of the Congressional Committee on un-American Activities.

Before he appeared before the committee, General Butler gave the (correspondent) a detailed account of the offer made to him.

"Of course I told the leaders of this Fascist movement that I wasn't interested in Fascism or in any other Ism," Butler said with characteristic vigor, "and that I wouldn't consider any such proposition.

"The whole affair smacked of treason to me."

He said he was approached by Gerald G. MacGuire, who is connected with the firm of Grayson M.-P. Murphy & Co., 52 Broadway, and asked to organize 500,000 veterans into a Fascist army.

"Shortly after MacGuire first came to see me," General Butler continued, "he arranged for Robert Sterling Clark, a New York broker, to come to my home at Newtown Square, Pa., to see me."

Clark, who maintains offices at 11 Wall Street, is reported to be worth more than $50,000,000.

General Butler outlined the details of the plan. He said MacGuire assured him "they have $3,000,000 'on the line' to start the organization. .

"The upshot of his proposition was that I was to head a soldier organization . . . in Washington (to) take over the functions of government.... MacGuire explained to me that they had two other candidates for the position of 'man on the white horse.' He said that if I did not accept, an offer would be made to General Douglas MacArthur, chief of staff of the United States Army, whose term of office expires November 22, and that the third choice would be Hanford MacNider, former commander of the American Legion. So far as I know, neither General MacArthur nor MacNider has been approached. Their names were merely mentioned as 'alternates.'

If the Un-American Committee wanted to get the whole truth, Butler testified, it should call Banker Murphy (Morgan banker, and treasurer of the Liberty League) Alfred E. Smith (of the Liberty League), General MacArthur, Legion Commander MacNider, and Giannini banker Frank N. Belgrano, and William Doyle, former Department Commander of the Legion in Massachusetts and one of the "Royal Family" or "king makers" of that organization. Apparently the Committee did not want to get the truth."

There was only one means by which General Butler could reach the public with the warning of what the Wall Street men, Liberty Leaguers and American Legion chiefs were planning. The General took to the air [i.e., to radio]. He said:

Do you think it could be hard to buy the American Legion for un-American activities? You know, the average veteran thinks the Legion is a patriotic organization to perpetuate the memories of the last war, an organization to promote peace, to take care of the wounded and to keep green the graves of those who gave their lives.

But is the American Legion that? No sir, not while it is controlled by the bankers. For years the bankers, by buying big club houses for various posts, by financing its beginning, and otherwise, have tried to make a strikebreaking organization of the Legion. The groups-the so-called Royal Family of the Legion-which have picked its officers for years, aren't interested in patriotism, in peace, in wounded veterans, in those who gave their lives. ... No, they are interested only in using the veterans, through their officers.

Why, even now, the commander of the American Legion is a banker-a banker who must have known what MacGuire's money was going to be used for. His name was mentioned in the testimony. Why didn't they call Belgrano and ask him why he contributed?

On another occasion General Butler concluded his exposé with the remark that: "I've never known one leader of the American Legion who has never sold them out." (New York Times, December 9, 1933.)

Smedley Butler was a great man. He was a Quaker. He had a conscience. He did his duty as a soldier in the Marines. He also wrote some years later:

"I spent 33 years (in the Marines) and during that period I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism.... I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-12. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested."

And Fascist ideas, in 1934, "smacked of treason" to this grim and fighting Quaker.

A little more than a decade later the Liberty League was revived under another patriotic name-American Action. But in the years between, scores, perhaps hundreds of large and small organizations, all of them devoted to special interests while pretending to function for the general good, tried to enlist a popular following-they already had the financial support of the old Liberty Leaguers. A few of the most important are worth noting.

Appendix 21: The Fascist Plot Officially Confirmed

Union Calender No. 44
74th Congress House of Representatives Report
1st Session No. 153
Investigation of Nazi And Other Propaganda

February 15, 1935 - Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. McCormack, from the committee appointed to investigate Nazi and other propaganda, submitted the following:

(Pursuant to House Resolution No. 198, 73d Congress)

There have been isolated cases of activity by organizations which seemed to be guided by the fascist principle, which the committee investigated and found that they had made no progress. .
In the last few weeks of the committee's official life it received evidence showing that certain persons had made an attempt to establish a fascist organization in this country.
No evidence was presented and this committee had none to show a connection between this effort and any fascist activity of any European country.
There is no question that these attempts were discussed, were planned, and might have been placed in execution when and if the financial backers deemed it expedient.

This committee received evidence from Maj. Gen. Smedley D. Butler (retired), twice decorated by the Congress of the United States. He testified before the committee as to conversations with one Gerald C. MacGuire in which the latter is alleged to have suggested the formation of a fascist army under the leadership of General Butler (p. 8-114 D.C. 6 II).
MacGuire denied these allegations under oath, but your committee was able to verify all the pertinent statements made by General Butler, with the exception of the direct statement suggesting the creation of the organization. This, however, was corroborated in the correspondence of MacGuire with his principal, Robert Sterling Clark, of New York City, while MacGuire was abroad studying the various forms of veterans' organizations of Fascist character (p. 111 D.C. 6 II).
The following is an excerpt from one of MacGuire's letters:

"I had a very interesting talk last evening with a man who is quite well up on affairs here and he seems to be of the opinion that the Croix de Feu will be very patriotic during this crisis and will take the cuts or be the moving spirit in the veterans to accept the cuts. Therefore they will, in all probability, be in opposition to the Socialists and functionaries. The general spirit among the functionaries seems to be that the correct way to regain recovery is to spend more money and increase wages, rather than to put more people out of work and cut salaries.
The Croix de Feu is getting a great number of new recruits, and I recently attended a meeting of this organization and was quite impressed with the type of men belonging. These fellows are interested only in the salvation of France, and I feel sure that the country could not be in better hands because they are not politicians, they are a cross-section of the best people of the country from all walks of life, people who gave their "all" between 1914 and 1918 that France might be saved, and I feel sure that if a crucial test ever comes to the Republic that these men will be the bulwark upon which France will be served.
There may be more uprisings, there may be more difficulties, but as is evidenced right now when the emergency arises and party difficulties are forgotten as far as France is concerned, and all become united in the one desire and purpose to keep this country as it is, the most democratic, and the country of the greatest freedom on the European Continent." (p.III D.C. 6 II).

This committee asserts that any efforts based on lies as suggested in the foregoing and leading off to the extreme right, are just as bad as efforts which would lead to the extreme left.
Armed forces for the purpose of establishing a dictatorship by means of Fascism or a dictatorship through the instrumentality of the proletariat, or a dictatorship predicated in part on racial and religious hatreds, have no place in this country.

Source: George Seldes, 1000 Americans, 1947.

"A bayonet is a tool with a worker on both ends."- V.I.Lenin
Patriotism is a manifestation of the Stockholm Syndrome.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 204

PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 2:10 am    Post subject: Re: Interesting Ron Paul Update Reply with quote

navari wrote:
I know that there are some on the forum who see Paul as just another part
of presidential campaign psy-op, and I must say that while I hate to admit
it I am reluctantly confident that these forum members' opinions are
probably accurate. Perhaps he is here just to serve the libertarian
mindshare....and he'll get dumped in order to create more dashed hopes.
But whatever the angle, I really like listening to this guy. He gets me
jazzed-up Smile

What what what what what what what what what.

Does Navari work for psy-ops?
How could he be so stupid to have had his identity revealed?
If it happens to me, so be it. But I never white-washed election fraud,
or astroturfed on the internet, or wrote prolifically and did an audio with some DisinfoTainment webmaster. If my name was revealed, the response would be who? It's not like a relative of mine ran for mayor of Los Angeles.

it is so fucking funny how spooky mcnumbnut got exposed.
Hey, maybe navari wrote about election fraud somewhere on this website.
That would be an interesting read.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
and i

Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 302

PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

interesting "Paulo" that you use the name of a famous Brazilian educator/theorist to help hide your own identity...

and just in case anyone's curious... PM me and I'll tell you my real name and what I do. here's my blog: http://truthaddictsanon.blogspot.com

Can't be beat, won't be beat, etc.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Laurence Fishburne Junior

Joined: 23 Oct 2007
Posts: 417
Location: Belfast

PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 4:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ron Paul backs the official story on 9 11.... So what is there to talk about?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 20, 21, 22
Page 22 of 22

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.