Finding your way through our blog

At the top of the blog, on the upper right corner, there are three colored symbols, one with three horizontal ” lines”, another with a “gear” in its center, and a third with a symbol of a magnifying glass. Please click on the one with “3 line symbol” and then “about” to bring up the Introduction to the Hudson’s’ Blog to get to know us and the general contents of this blog. Clicking on the “gear symbol” will take you to monthly postings which are detailed in the Index below. We also note that simply scrolling down the entries will bring up one after the other entry from the latest to the first and that our most recent entry will always be at the top of the blog until the Index and the” Finding your way. . . ” are moved to the top later.


(A) From the Archives –Research from 2008

We take the following sections from our research concluded in  2008.       . We also note that the original research is some 500 pages that we reduced to a more readable summary and now pick and choose sections from both to post to the  blog.

  • Money Masters                                                                                         February 2017
  • Corruption                                                                                                     September 2016
  • Candidates 2008 (McCain , Hillary and  Obama)                              August 2016
  • Section 4 MEDIA                                                                                         July 2016
  • Section 3      9/11                                                                                        June 2016
  • See also What Did Israel know. .. 12/15
  • Section 2    Iraq and Afghanistan                                                        May 2016
  • Section 1   Lebanon                                                                                    April 2016

(B) Ocean Township Archives

  • This history concerns the scandals that occurred in Ocean            June 2015


(C) Various articles of interest


    • What Did Israel Know in Advance of the 9/11  Attacks?                                                                                                     December 2015
    • Weapons and Hope   Freeman Dyson                                                December 2014 Following reviews, we add out comments  relating to Dyson’s concerns about the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the chances of human survival
  • The Rise of German Imperialism and the Phony   Russian Threat                                                                                                                             December 2014
  • Today Germany’s capitalists appear well on their way to achieving Nazi   goals of economic, political and industrial dominance. . . . The ‘Russian Threat’ justified Nazi Germany’s  conquest and occupation of the Ukraine, the Balkans, Eastern Europe and the Baltic states, with the aid of … local Nazis . .


  • . Is Israel Losing the Battle to Wage War on Iran?                                December 2014
  • This article reviews Israel’s lost of influence with UN . . .
  • Peter Dale Scott Interview: Peter Dale Scott Interview: The American Deep State:
  • Wall Street, Big Oil and the Attack on  US democracy                     December 2014
  • Professor Dale Scott connects the assassination of JFK and the
  • 9/11 disasters  to    our current state of “endless war” with both
  • disasters   like so many other  questionable events  essentially remaining uninvestigated.

(D) Hudson Essays and Reviews

  • Three emails reviewing the election of 2016, Trump’s presidency and its contradictions                                                                                                                March 2017
    • From The Money Masters onto Trump. (first email)
    • This report begins with our Review of The Money Masters to explain how the      moneymen of an international banking  cartel have controlled the course of our  nation. Continuing sections have to do with the 2016 election to help explain that   there was no real choice, with  corruption in the government and media having  determined the outcome. Whether Clinton or Trump they were likely to be puppets of a deep state behind them .  No matter the sides they are  neoliberals in  favor of private interests and  opposed to the general interests of  citizens.  There  was a fly in the ointment in that Trump was opposed by his establishment and that  seemed to have centered on his ambition to  negotiate rather than war with  Putin.    See complete copy of The Money Masters   February 2017
    • Trump Update (second email)
    • Here we see two commentators who had held hope that Trump would   oppose the establishment become deeply disillusioned by the many actions                          the Trump administration was taking
    • President Trump: Nationalist Capitalism, An Alternative to  
  •               Globalization (3rd email)                               
    • Professor Petras sums  up the Trump we saw deliver his joint congressional  speech February 28, explaining clearly what is and has been   obvious.   Trump is a Nationalist Capitalist opposed to globalization.   Commentator Stephen Lendman reading  the   speech interprets Trump ready to increase not challenge the power of Wall Street.



         Mainline History                                                                                                              August 2016

       Review of Oliver Stone’s and Peter Kuznik’s Book:     The Untold History of the US     

       Hudson’s comments on   Stone/Kuznik  Book                                         

       Outline of five part essay on various forms of human consciousness inspired   

  •             I Political Consciousness            
    • II Historical Consciousness            
    • III Psychological Consciousness            
    • IV Artists, Sages, et al, the most conscious of us all            
    • V Concluding thoughts                                                                                  
    •                                                                                                                             September 2013





Three emails reviewing the election of 2016, Trump’s presidency and its contradictions

From The Money Masters onto Trump  (first email)

  • Review of The Money Masters

We note that this video was produced in 1996 by Patrick S. J. Carmack and directed by Bill Still. A member of the bar of the US Supreme Court of the United States, Mr. Carmack, practices corporate law and was a former Administrative Law Judge for the Corporation Commission of the State of Oklahoma. As we understand, The Money Masters has been widely popular so you might be aware of or have read it. We review it especially for those who might be introduced to it. First, its Amazon editorial:

The Money Masters is a 3 1/2 hour non-fiction, historical documentary that traces the origins of the political power structure. The modern political power structure has its roots in the hidden manipulation and accumulation of gold and other forms of money. The development of fractional reserve banking practices in the 17th century brought to a cunning sophistication the secret techniques initially used by goldsmiths fraudulently to accumulate wealth. With the formation of the privately- owned Bank of England in 1694, the yoke of economic slavery to a privately-owned central bank was first forced upon the backs of an entire nation, not removed but only made heavier with the passing of the three centuries to our day. Nation after nation has fallen prey to this cabal of international central bankers. ControlAmerica/dp/B0018IPKCG/ref=sr . . .

For us, the message of the video/transcript means a great deal more as it provides a cogent history, first and briefly, of the England from which we rebelled, and then in greater detail of our nation and its continued struggles with the Bank of England under the control of the Rothschild’s. At the time of our revolution, the Rothschild’s had gained control of not only England but well on their way to controlling most of Europe’s central banks, intending to make and control us, the next and greatest empire. As we regressed, losing the freedom for which we aspired, mainstream media, as might be expected, came more and more under bankers’ control securing their means to retain their magnificent profits to buy whatever and whomever they desired. Consequently, the history in this video/transcript is not familiar to most Americans but it is the history that determined our future and now to determine that of the world.

Reviewing briefly the highlights of the video, we see that it was our participation in WW II , both great and noble, that finally determined the completion of our course from a democracy to imperialism. As explained, at the root of such change was not the American people, whose masses were manipulated and deceived, but the “elite” American and European moneymen and their banks having engaged the country in a series of five bank wars, the first of which began before our Revolution and the last, or 5th, in 1913 which they finally won with the creation of the Federal Reserve whose name, in keeping with their modus operandi, was a euphemism to hide the fact that it was the private national bank the moneymen had long been seeking. It was also, and not coincidentally, in the early years of these wars, that Mayer Amschel Rothschild, the patriarch of the clan that would lead the international banking cartel, made his famous statement “Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes the laws”. To achieve their ambitions here in the states, where they saw their greatest prospects, such bankers and their allies manipulated our masses by manipulating gold, alternately hoarding and floating it to cause periodic economic chaos with only a few among us realizing what was happening and what such actions were meant to achieve. First among those aware were founding fathers

. . . .both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were unalterably opposed to a privately-owned central bank. They had seen the problems caused by the Bank of England. They wanted nothing of it. As Jefferson later put it: “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and the corporations which grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered Page 7

The first of the bank wars was led by Alexander Hamilton, an agent of the Rothschild’s. That attempt eventually failed as would two more and a fourth in 1836 with bankers meeting up with Old Hickory, Andrew Jackson, the new Democratic party’s president. Nearly single handedly, he prevented the private bank’s rechartering for there to be no more bank wars for 77 years. About the bankers he said

You area den of vipers. I intend to rout you out and the Eternal God I will rout you out. Page 15

And rout them out he did in spite of the fact that these bankers had recently disposed of Napoleon paving their way to greater power. While they would lose this fourth attempt, their wealth and influence were becoming unbounded. In the Industrial revolution soon to follow, their vast accumulated monies here, there and everywhere would underpin a great and rapid transformation from the old agrarian world to the new steam powered and electrified modern world with its developing communication systems. The international banking cartel that had divided and conquered peoples in the Napoleon wars, financing both sides of battle, was to make similar arrangements here, dividing our industrial North from our agrarian South. Otto von Bismarck at this time was rising to be Chancellor of Germany skillfully balancing the powers of European nations allowing them to remain at peace for twenty years . Obviously he was a man who knew well these bankers and their motives. About them and our Civil War he said

“It is not to be doubted, I know of absolute certainty . . . “that the division of the United States into two federations of equal power was decided long before the Civil War by the high financial powers of Europe. These bankers were afraid that the United States, if they remained as one block and were to develop as one nation, would attain economic and financial independence, which would upset the capitalist domination of Europe over the world Page 16

During the War, Lincoln had not one but two enemies, the rebels and the bankers. Needing more monies to win, he first refused to pay the bankers’ extreme interest, creating a successful Greenback program for our government to print its own money. But coming to need more, he returned to seeking bankers’ help to come to describe his negotiations with them.

They persist, they have argued me almost blind. I am worse off than St. Paul. He was in a strait between two. I am in a strait between twenty and they are bankers and financiers. Page 18

Growing desperate to win, in 1863 Lincoln allowed the bankers to push through their National Banking Act with all intentions to curb their influence later. After he was assassinated, his Secretary of the Treasury Salmon Chase said

My agency in promoting the passage of the national Banking Act was the greatest financial mistake in my life. It has built up a monopoly which affects every interest in the country. Page 20

With the war ended and Lincoln off the scene, the moneymen had their heyday during the Industrial Revolution. Among their powerful agents in the New York City banks were the Morgan’s , the Rockefeller’s, the Aldrich’s, the Loeb’s, Kuhn’s and Schiff’s. With currency on the gold standard and bankers having enormous hoards, they proceeded to manipulate the economic environment of the US. The masses crying for help, weakened the defenses of our representatives. In 1913, the very first year of the Wilson administration, the Federal Reserve Act was passed. With that battle finally won, such bankers were to run the nation and through it come to run the world. Wilson and his Secretary of State Bryan had naively believed the power of the Reserve would be centered in Washington obviously not aware of how our economic climate was being manipulated. But connected to the great international banks centered in New York City that connected to the powers of London and the Bank of England, the Federal Reserve was and still is run by this international cartel. Not long after, the ever naïve Wilson, in spite of the massive reluctance of the American people and its representatives, dragged the nation into an inevitable First World War, believing even more naively it would be a war to end all wars. Bryan at least had had enough and resigned.

While Wilson and Bryan may have been duped, some notable Americans especially in Congress had seen things clearly. Not able to prevent the consequences, at least at the time, speaking out, they could still be heard. Congressman Lindbergh, the father of the famous aviator said

“This Act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President signs this bill, the invisible government by the Monetary Power will be legalized. The people may not know it immediately, but the day of reckoning is only a few years removed… The worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking bill. . . . . Page 30

Through these early decades, another honest critic was Congressman Louis McFadden, the Chairman of the House Banking and Currency committee from 1920 to 1931. He called the Federal Reserve

“A super state controlled by international bankers and international industrialists acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure.” Page 31

Thomas Edison also understood

“If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good . . . . It is absurd to say that our country can issue $30 million in bonds and not $30 million in currency. Both are promises to pay, but one promise fattens the userers and the other helps the people.” Page 32

Into the 1960’s such people were pointing out such truth that was being more and more concealed behind the façade that was our government. House Banking and Currency Committee chairman, Wright Patman from Texas, put it this way

“In the United States today we have in effect two governments … We have the duly constituted Government … Then we have an independent, uncontrolled and uncoordinated government in the Federal Reserve System, operating the money powers which are reserved to Congress by the Constitution.” Page 31

President Wilson, eventually coming to his senses, came to see the errors of his ways.

We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled governments in the civilized world – no longer a government of free opinion, no longer a government by … a vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.”

Just before dying in 1914, he remarked

“I have unwittingly ruined my government.” Page 32

Wilson in fact did not just ruin his government, he had played a major role in ruining the world. As Carmack further records in The Money Masters, the bankers who had financed both sides of the Napoleonic War and then both sides of the Civil War, came to finance in one way or another every side of every war and revolution to follow. Their means to divide and conquer were coming now not only from dominating currencies but also dominating communications, replacing truth with lies and propaganda, making it ever more difficult to know one from another. Among the most important truths which disappeared was this about the Russian revolution.

Jacob Schiff of Kuhn, Loeb & Company bragged on his deathbed that he had spent $20 million towards the defeat of the Czar. But the truth was that much of that money funded the communist coup d’etat replacing the democratically elected Kerensky regime, which had replaced the Czar months earlier. The bankers were not so much enemies of the Czar, as they were intent on seizing power in Russia, through the Bolsheviks. Three gold shipments in 1920 alone, from Lenin to Kuhn, Loeb & Company and Morgan Guaranty Trust repaid the $20 million to the bankers, and this was just a small down payment. But would some of the richest men in the world financially back communism, the system that was openly vowing to destroy the so-called capitalism that `made them wealthy? Communism, like plutocracy, is a product of capitalism. Researcher Gary Allen explained Communism or more accurately, socialism, is not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite.” Page 33

At the base of such immoral actions, Carmack points out W. Cleon Skousen’s book: The Naked Capitalist to explain.

“Power from any source tends to create an appetite for additional power… It was almost inevitable that the super-rich would one day aspire to control not only their own wealth, but the wealth of the whole world. To achieve this, they were perfectly willing to feed the ambitions of the power-hungry political conspirators who were committed to the overthrow of all existing governments and the establishment of a central world-wide dictatorship.” Page 34

Perhaps the most telling of disappeared realities were the ones about the Nazi’s whose leader came to be media’s and then the world’s most hated tyrant.

To pressure Stalin back into the ranks, as C.G. Rakovsky explained, the bankers financed Hitler, who was an avowed enemy of communism and openly advocated invading the Soviet Union. Anthony C. Sutton and others have documented the money trail from Wall Street to Hitler. . . . Page 35


  • Trump and the world he inherits


Patrick Carmack in The Money Masters, like Ellen Brown and others, sees that an international banking cartel of a few super elite masters operating a private currency system reap untold profits, trapping the masses of us in a web of debt paying them exorbitant interest. This has become their means to accumulate exorbitant wealth and consequently political power. Founded in England the cartel moved its headquarters to the US to proceed to to dominate the nations of the whole world. It was and is they who. . . ruined our president who ruined our country; inhabited . . . a den of vipers; and would come to deprive . . . . people of all property until their . . . children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. Such history dwells beneath a chaotic surface of the bankers’ making and consequently unfamiliar to the masses of Americans even perhaps most of those who write our history. Such bankers and their allies through the centuries created the rich and poor crazy quilt global world of today, reaching its most dangerous precipice. Carmack explains:


It was precisely their international character that gave them unique advantages over national banks and governments, and that was precisely what rulers and national parliaments should have prohibited, but did not. This remains true of international or multi-national banks to this very day, and is the driving force of globalization – the push for one-world government. Page 3

A key question to ask about the validity of this history is how could a few Americans have understood, in decades long gone, if what they said were not true and more so today in what seems to many “end times” have such truth though buried for centuries ring loud and clear. Is it not as artists have tried to express through centuries, like Shakespeare’s witches in Macbeth stirring and chanting around a caldron foretelling what would come: Double, double toil and trouble; Fire burn, and caldron bubble.

Such fate has been our reality in civilizations, moving from war to war, led by the ambition of the Macbeths and their ilk, seeking ever more power to rule the masses to accumulate ever more wealth that should have been shared among all. The aristocrats from whom we rebelled grew out of military conquests to be enabled by the greater wealth their traders discovered roaming the earth’s markets. Now we see today those traders became the financial masters, the new replacing the old aristocracies and oligarchies. Throughout the ages forms change while things stay the same. Accumulated power in the hands of an elite opposes the masses who desire only the simple joy of living and existing. In the centuries that produced our civilizations, some 5000 years that is a mere blip in the history of time, a crazed few kill, main, rape and enslave ever grasping for more making them ever more crazed and grasping. There seems to have been no exceptions. The Aztecs, who the Spanish enslaved, believing they assuaged the gods of nature, sucked blood and organs from their victims in human sacrifices; the Romans perhaps not quite as maddened crucified their slaves to display what might happen to those who resisted; Queen Elizabeth I having no qualms about cutting off heads, especially of her aristocratic rivals, preferred to awe and conquer her masses of bedraggled peasants lining the streets where she rode in a golden chariot attired in ludicrous wigs and gem studded costumes proving her radiance descended directly from the gods. Lethal or not, elites had always to put on a show for the masses. Today it is no different, although masters appear less godlike or threatening in business suits and uniforms sitting behind desks clicking buttons on their computers. Ironically the power they command, developed from simple knives to swords and armor to bombs and drones, are now weapons of mass destruction able to destroy nature totally. Coming to that ultimate command are the few financiers intertwined in governments intertwined in Industrial Military Complexes, intertwined in mainstream media. Sitting on the horizon, this elite apparently waits for the moment to bring their plans to final solution in one world governance that will dominate once and for all the billions of us inhabiting earth. What an amazing feat! What an amazing fate!


  • 2016 Election and the Corporate State

Our election was between two corporatists. Corporations once independent businesses grew into dominating monopolies through the machinations of bankers’ stock markets and Wall Street. As Congressman Lindbergh, the father of the famous aviator said about the establishment of the Federal Reserve, their overseer,

“This Act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President signs this bill, the invisible government by the Monetary Power will be legalized.. . . . The worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking bill. . .

In a short 30 minute video on You Tube, TPP & the New World Order, Paul Craig Roberts, who was the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration and now blogs on the Internet’s alternative media, discusses the Trans Pacific bill, the TPP, that Trump recently dismissed to no doubt revise. Roberts explains TPP has nothing to do with free trade that everyone has been brainwashed to believe. Rather it has to do with corporations becoming immune to laws of sovereign nations propagated to be in control of them. Anything that comes to inhibit corporate profits will be held against nations by the power in the law given to corporate tribunals. Knowing Mr. Roberts is an ardent capitalist, it was especially interesting to hear him say that capitalism has become the most tyrannical system ever created, a political system beyond that of any king or queen able to dismiss all checks and restraints in order to lie about everything– jobs, employments, Russia, China. Six mega corporations control 90% of media making it easy to label events conspiracies to dismiss them with no discussion or facts to interfere. The US government now moves quickly to privatize whatever is left public–education, health, water, military, prisons– all and anything it would seem. No one, Roberts says, should pay attention to anything they hear from government, that he had not heard a word of truth from it in twenty years. We would agree with Mr. Roberts, while adding that from our experience it was the Reagan administration when truthfulness began to continually and drastically diminish to its present state of “nothingness”. Roberts goes on to add that the West no longer exists, that it is a caricature of what it was. Centuries producing the Magna Carta, the Glorious Revolution, the rules of law, all have been swept away after 9/11.

In another article The Re-enserfment of Western Peoples Roberts agrees with former Wall Street economist, Michael Hudson, and we might add Thomas Jefferson, that ownership will be consumed by corporations who will completely eliminate representative government, that the . . . . corporations are buying power cheaply. They bought the entire US House of Representatives for just under $200 million . . . .


  • Why we voted for Trump


With both Trump and Clinton emerging out of or in support of mega corporations, Americans had little choice. Yet the masters’ media, in spite of most voters agreeing both candidates unworthy, made it appear Hillary was the lesser evil, apparently more rational than Trump to save us from the harshest of corporate realities such as privatization of Social Security. In fact and for one thing, Hillary was on the record in favor of privatizing Social Security and in contrast and, in fact, Trump, the once Democrat, had been a long time advocate of the program and that perhaps a minor illustration of another obvious and dominant fact. The surface of reality is not the reality we need to know. Rather, covered with lies and propaganda and omissions, it should only motivate us to dig for the truth under what the masters wish us to know. For many legitimate reasons, Trump’s glaring negatives needed to be examined but so were Hillary’s, given a pass, making him appear not only more crooked but often nearly insane. Media coverage even included predictions that if elected, he would be another Hitler and those voting for him, at the least foolish and unknowing, were primarily from the uneducated underclass or worse the Alt Right crowd, i.e. Neo Nazis nutcases.

Adding to the primary and election scenes, we now have a presidency and appointments, a number of whom are apparently terrible choices. For us, one of the the worse is Betsy DeVos apparently ready to privatize our public school system. Yet the privatization that Trump might carry to extremes began with the governments he replaced. Again what you see is not what you get. Yet another appointment seemingly a terrible choice is his nominee for Secretary of Treasury, Steven Mnuchin, to be mistrusted as a manager of his own huge hedge fund who had worked for Goldman Sachs. At one of his confirmation hearings, he said that to assure the country would not be left with four or five mega banks, he would strongly support community banks now being rapidly gobbled up —that they had the people most knowledgeable to know those companies that needed loans to create small businesses, adding small businesses are at the heart of restoring our economy. From what we know that is not only right but at the heart of what is wrong. Mega banks are supported by those Trump replaced.

In such a corrupted world while we really cannot know just what Trump will do, we can know about those he replaced. Most importantly, The Money Masters reveals the bankers’ cartel as internationalists having planned to dominate the nations of the world that even included in their schemes the financing of the 20th Century’s worst tyrants. Certainly, there is a good and bad side to nationalism, but Trump cannot be seen at least at this point as one who wants to dominate world governments while those allied with Hillary can.

At any rate, as people who voted for Trump, we were like many others, supporters of Bernie until he supported Hillary. Bernie was not an Independent as he proclaimed but a Democrat and that another example of misleading appearances. Still, no doubt about it Trump lied to manipulate deeply resentful voters proving himself a crude egotist and braggart. Yet it was he, not Hillary, who said that the establishment and its media were corrupt. From all we knew that was absolutely true. Among other remarks, some about China that were certainly threatening, he had also said we should not have warred in Iraq, implying we should untangle ourselves from the Middle East. Was he, we asked, apparently more a deal maker than a war maker, while Hillary and her allies, with the record to prove it, clearly warmongers. But rising even above these issues was the Clinton’s destructive record of the 90’s, making us wonder if Americans might have forgotten or never knew it. Partnering with a deep state having taken command of the presidency, as we saw it Hillary, if elected following the command of her allies would take the country to the brink of nuclear holocaust while Trump, the wild card, whom they sought to destroy, might or might not.

While we do not doubt the Clinton’s had begun with some democratic ideals and had some accomplishments, actions in their administration contributed in major ways to the mess we were in. During their administration, they had turned their coats. As we read them, in the early days of their first term, finding their ideals and their ambitions challenged, like the Macbeths of the world, they colluded with rather than resist the masters pulling their strings. At that time, following Reagan and Bush Sr., masters had gathered mostly in the Republican party. With Democrats just barely hanging on, the Clintons consolidated a trend that Thomas Frank, a real Democrat, later explained when he wrote that his working man’s party became a party of elitists and Ralph Nader observed that there was no longer a dime’ worth of difference between them. But while that was certainly bad, it was hardly the worse.

Active in our local community, we discovered the very foundation of our system was under attack, for as presidential power was being transferred to a deep state, local power, the very foundation of that system, was also finding itself transferred to that federal government.    The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act for the first time gave the right of religious groups in certain cases to take decisions of a local volunteer citizen board to a federal court in the hope to have any decisions against them overridden as happened in our community. As experts in this law explained, federal legislators would never have passed this bill if, for one thing, they had read it and, for another, its passage had not been manipulated during the Clinton administration “in the middle of the night” so to speak by an unrecorded voice vote of a Congress on their way out the door on vacation.

During the Clinton administration negatives seemed to grow worse. Clinton’s Secretary of Treasury, Robert Rubin, a shinning star of Wall Street, led the repeal of the Glass- Stegall law which directly led to our 2008 economic debacle for which taxpayers were made to pay the costs of Wall Street criminals left in place to commit even more crimes. But rising above all was a geo political decision, NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia, which directly led to our intensified endless Middle Eastern wars beginning in the Bush Jr. administration after 9/11. Madeleine Albright, Clinton’s Secretary of State, was famous among other things for saying What’s the point of having this superb military that you’re always talking about if we can’t use it? In 1992 with ongoing civil wars in the regions of Yugoslavia, it was arranged for NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization which had been put in place as a defensive organization to protect Europe, to go on the offensive. Following allegations of war crimes against civilians, NATO bombed Bosnia in a regional war to be wrapped up in 1995 in the famous Dayton Treaty Accords conducted by Richard Holbrook. A friend of Albright and once competitor for her position, media presented the feat of the treaty maker, of a war no doubt meant to serve the global interest of the US, nothing less than heroic.

In 1999 NATO, again for “humanitarian reasons”, was charged to bomb in another regional war in Kosovo. In Fools’ Crusade, Diana Johnstone, a reporter never found in mainstream media, explains the hypocrisy about how NATO was being used and how that connected to our future wars.

. . . . .Apparently, many people on the left, who would normally defend peace and justice, were fooled or confused by the claim that the “Kosovo war” was waged for purely humanitarian reasons. The altruistic pretensions of NATO’s Kosovo war served to gain public acceptance of war as the appropriate instrument of policy. This opened the way for the United States, in the wake of 11 September 2001, to attack Afghanistan as the opening phase of a new, long-term “war against terrorism”. The bombing of Yugoslavia marked a turning point in the expansion of U.S. military hegemony. For the first time, a European country was subjected to the type of U.S. intervention usually reserved for Central America. It also marked the end of Germany’s postwar inhibition about foreign military intervention, and saw Germans returning to the scene of Nazi crimes with a clear conscience. For the first time, NATO abandoned its defensive posture and attacked a country that posed no threat to its member states, outside the NATO treaty area, and without seeking UN Security Council authorization. International law was circumvented in the name of an alleged higher moral imperative. A precedent was set. When the United States subsequently arrogated the right to bomb and invade Afghanistan on moral grounds, its NATO allies could only meekly offer to tag along. In a world with no more legal barriers to might proclaiming itself right, there was nothing to stop a U.S. president from using military force to crush every conceivable adversary. . . .

As we now know NATO came to be used also to equip countries such as Poland and Czechoslovakia, bordering on Russia, with small nuclear missiles that in turn saw Russia put such missiles on her borders. In our Blog you will find articles about Dr. Freeman Dyson, an emeritus mathematics professor now over 90 years of age still residing at Princeton’s Advance Institute of Study. Many years ago, he wrote about agreeing with George Kennan, the former influential US diplomat and government advisor, about what was the most likely scenario to begin nuclear war

. . . . Tactical nuclear weapons deployed in forward positions overseas are fundamentally more dangerous to world peace than strategic weapons deployed in silos and in submarines for two reasons. First, tactical weapons are in places where local wars and revolutions may occur with unpredictable consequences. Second, tactical weapons are deployed as strategic weapons with a doctrine which allows United States forces to use them first in case of emergency.. . . . The combination of local political instability with vulnerable weapons and the option of first use is a recipe for disaster. . Freeman Dyson, December 2014


  • A surface of chaos and deceit


As we mentioned above, fear of nuclear war brought us in the end to vote for Trump, seeing Hillary and her new allies filled with as much hubris as the power they wielded in finance, government and media. But also, as Trump trumpeted Nationalism, Hillary and her crowd were trumpeting Internationalism, a global world order using the US their means for a few masters to control the world’s masses and for us at least there could be no worse. To achieve that aim, policies and politics seemed to be put in place to destroy nations especially our nation, one of which was probably immigration overwhelmed in the US by a giant hypocrisy as we Americans were reminded most of us were children of immigrants. Certainly, when immigrants are needed and find jobs, they should be as our ancestors able to earn their way to citizenship and its benefits. But in an age when American jobs and benefits are fleeing elsewhere, something is dreadfully wrong with policies that let hordes of people enter no matter. Why? Part of the answer appears to be politics and the kind of particular voters they may become but that seems the least of problems. While, and especially our nation, should never close its doors to the many and varied reasons people choose to come here, allowing massive practically unconditional immigration comes with a purpose not a history very much connected to the great changes in the world today. Not only here but all over the world it seems citizenries are divided and weakened in sundry ways making it easier for them to dissolve into a new global world order.

The banking journey emanating out of the Bank of England to the US Federal Reserve has never veered off course but grew stronger with changing rulers inheriting a destiny evermore powerful. After World War II, on track, the US, the new and greatest empire, became the world’s dominate power with the greatest nuclear arsenal to police the world to assure we all not be radiated. Also, during this time a third leg was added to the journey with the creation of Israel. An excellent book to read on this subject is Israeli Tom Segev’s One Palestine Complete. Among many things we learn is that the London Rothschild’s of that time played a major role in the creation of the new nation and another that, with their mighty influence pressuring British politicians, Churchill in passing came to say the Jews ran the world, obviously referring to his government’s experience with the Bank of England. But certainly the world was sympathetic to the other Jews, unlike the masters, suffering and needing a place to rest after a horrific holocaust with Israel to be for all Jews no matter where they resided a place with deep cultural and historical attachments. The problem rested on the other hand with the powerful banking cartel, in which the US was critical to its plans, coming to see that American Jewish political power become formidable. In 1963 the influential lobby AIPAC , the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, was established, out of which would grow those we know as Neocons and Neoliberals, many of whom had dual citizenship. They established with others many Washington think tanks, one of which in 1999 was PNAC, Plan for the New American Century whose members included among others two of the coming Bush Jr.’s administration most powerful appointees, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Two years before 9/11, PNAC issued its mission statement describing the need for regime change in the Middle East that included Iran, the region’s other great power. Such regimes were in control of the last and greatest resources of fossil fuel energy on which all governments had come to depend. The plan explained that to initiate regime change America needed a new Pearl Harbor.

As conservatives had come to dominate American politics, so too conservatives would come to dominate Israeli politics especially after Netanyahu and his allies took over. Born in Tel Aviv, Netanyahu’s family had moved to the US between 1956 and 1958 and again between 1963 and 1967. Speaking perfect English, he had graduated from a US high school and later MIT to become a critical link between here and there. As many astute observers have noted, he and his Likud party supported another plan from the 1980’s, the Yinon Plan, outlining a greater Israel. Michel Chossudovsky of Global Research explains

“[The Yinon plan] is an Israeli strategic plan to ensure Israeli regional superiority. It insists and stipulates that Israel must reconfigure its geo-political environment through the balkanization of the surrounding Arab states into smaller and weaker states. middle-east/

As our larger American population is divided so too is our large Jewish American population as well as the Israeli population. Both countries have substantial though ineffectual peace movements and most significantly twisted relationships. Uri Avnery, one of Israel’s peaceniks, in The Real Ruler of Israel: Sheldon Adelson writes about the strange symbiosis. Netanyahu, he says, has come to run the US while Jewish American Sheldon Adelson, the fabulously wealthy casino operator, has come to run Netanyahu.

At any rate, all citizens of the world sensing extreme danger are trapped on a chaotic globe whose surface is covered with propaganda and lies preventing them from understanding and that understanding or consciousness be the way to recovery. That Trump came to use media as perniciously as media was being used should not be a surprise. As mentioned before, there is little truth left in mainstream media turned into a weapon against us. Consequently, we and many others have turned to honest outside writers in alternative media on the Internet. From there we have come to understand, that upon dominating the Middle East region, commanding elites will move to subdue Russia and then China, the two most powerful nations in the way of the West’s world governance. Trump, the wild card, is their fly in the ointment. While he is a full fledged neoliberal ready to further and intensify their domestic agenda, he wants to negotiate with Russia. Articles below, one way or another, explain that Trump, having reigned on the outside not the inside, sees those inside, especially neocons and neoliberals whether Republican or Democrat, making a bloody mess of things in the Middle East having produced a successful alliance among Iran, Russia and China that to “Make America Great Again” must be broken up. Evidently his plan is to try to pull Russia out of that alliance. Thus, all neoliberals running the country, caring not a wit about our welfare, are deeply divided and duking it out. Trump’s enemies intend to “tame” him or “delegitimize his administration” or as soon as possible “impeach” him. We assume if all fails, as Paul Craig Roberts suggested, they might indeed eliminate him. Rising to the top of the witches’ cauldron boiling over in headline news is now our #1 enemy Russia as well as all and any website uncritical of Russia “fake news”. Recently, tuning in to a morning CSpan call-in show, we heard a man seemingly quite intelligent conclude that Trump was a Russian agent meaning to turn the US over to them.

To begin a review of articles, we first recall Professor Cohen who suggested Putin-bashing was insane and Trump’s intention to work with Putin, who Hillary likened to Hitler, would rouse extreme ire in “Cold War Warriors . More recently he adds in New Cold War and Neo-McCarthyism are coming from Liberals, Progressives

“I used to live among liberals and Progressives so it pains me to say that the new Cold War on the American side . . . a little neo-McCarthyism is coming from liberals and Progressives primarily. I mean, the point is that — I can’t remember in my lifetime when a publication like the “New York Times” would refer to the man who has been elected president of the United States as a lackey of the Kremlin. Where have we gone? When a “New York Times” columnist says that Donald Trump is the Kremlin’s poodle and Putin’s puppet. We are libeling our own president. But it may be — I mean, who can be sure that it may be that they are absolutely determined to prevent the kind of cooperation with Russia that will make it safer. I will go one step farther and say maybe to the horror or shock of some of your viewers that Vladimir Putin is potentially America’s most essential, valuable national security partner. And I refer in particular to the war against terrorism and we always omit one thing, the terrorists are in pursuit of nuclear material. If you put those two together . . . nothing could be more dangerous today.”

Dave Lindorf in Democratic Hysteria on Russia reminds us of some recent history that for the most part occurred during the Clinton Administration

As the British newspaper the Guardian, points out, in a way that you will be hard-pressed to find reported honestly in the US corporate media, Putin, during his decade and a half of running Russia, rebuilt the Russian economy, improved the lives of average Russians immensely, and equally importantly, restored a once great nation from the status of global basket case to a major international power again. Not surprisingly, he is now one of the world’s most popular leaders.. . . . . The “harm to tens of millions in the former USSR” and in Russia proper was done not during Putin’s tenure but during the first decade after the collapse of the Soviet Union, between 1989 and 1999. That was when the entire Soviet Union was strip-mined by former Communist apparatchiks who enriched themselves by cutting deals to take over former state assets at fire-sale prices, or for nothing, robbing the Russian people, and the workers in those former state enterprises blind. The US encouraged this process, and Boris Yeltsin, a notorious drunk, oversaw it for two terms as Russia’s president. Vladimir Putin began his rise to power in 1999 when Yeltsin made him prime minister before suddenly resigning the presidency on New Year’s Day 1999. . . . .once the USSR ceased to exist and Russia, a rump country that, while geographically the largest in the world, is less than half the size of the US in population, found itself struggling to restructure it’s centralized state-owned economy into a modern capitalist one, shouldn’t the US have changed it’s “consistent policy” of hostility towards what remained of the old Soviet Union? Instead of actively helping Russia recover, the US urged on President Boris Yeltsin a destructive “economic shock therapy” program of balanced budgets, open borders for imports and investment and, most importantly, a sell-off of state assets . . . . While Russians struggled to survive through a period of rampant inflation, economic collapse and epic corruption, the US, instead of lending a helping hand as it had to the collapsed countries of Europe and after World War II (including our former bitter enemies, Germany and also Japan in Asia,), Washington under the Clinton administration began a program of aggressively and threateningly expanding the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (a Cold War relic of an outdated containment policy which should have, like the Warsaw Pact, been mercifully disbanded), forcing an economically strapped Russia to respond by still spending precious resources on restoring its hollowed out military. . . . . While Obama Defense Secretary Ashton Carter and others in the Washington elite maintain that Russia poses an “existential threat” to the US, presumably because of the number of nuclear missiles it maintains, it’s important to note that Russia has those missiles because the US has a similar number, most of them pointed at Russia–the main difference being that the US has many of its nuclear-tipped missiles located just minutes away from Russia at sites in Eastern Europe, while Russia’s nukes are all on its own territory, thousands of miles and at least a half-hour’s flight away from the US mainland — a difference that means one country, the US, has the ability to launch a first strike and take out the other country’s ability to respond to an attack, while the other has no ability to make such a first-strike threat. This is all by way of getting to a larger point. The hysteria about Russian hacking of the US election — an action which while it might have happened, is by no means proven — is a meaningless diversion, because there is no evidence at all that Russia is an aggressive nation. While the US is moving Abrams battle tanks and nuclear-capable mobile artillery up close to the Russian border in the waning days of the Obama administration, forcing Russia to respond by beefing up its own national border defenses, no one could argue seriously that Russia and its leader Vladimir Putin, have any interest whatsoever in invading any country of Europe, however small and weak. . . . .

James Carden in Neo-McCarthyism and the US Media explains further the crusade to ban Russia policy critics

. . . . a special report published last fall by the online magazine the Interpreter would have us believe that Russian “disinformation” ranks among the gravest threats to the West. The report, titled “The Menace of Unreality: How the Kremlin Weaponizes Information, Culture and Money,” . . . . funded by the exiled Russian oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Cowritten by the journalists Michael Weiss and Peter Pomerantsev, this highly polemical manifesto makes the case for why the United States, and the West generally, must combat what the authors allege to be the Kremlin’s extravagantly designed propaganda campaign. If implemented, the measures they propose would stifle democratic debate in the Western media. . . . . Because of his decade-long imprisonment, Khodorkovsky has attained the stature of a secular saint in some circles. But it should not be forgotten that the oil tycoon made his fortune in a spectacularly corrupt and sometimes violent fashion. Indeed, in 2000, Foreign Affairs described him and his fellow oligarchs as “a dangerous posse of plutocrats” who “threaten Russia’s transition to democracy and free markets” as well as “vital US interests.” According to a recent profile of Khodorkovsky in The New Yorker, staff members of a Riga-based news outlet in which he planned to invest objected. “He’s a toxic investor,” said a person “close to the project.” . . . . .” Khodorkovsky’s agenda—to bring regime change to Russia—is faithfully reflected in the work of IMR, the Interpreter, and the “Menace of Unreality” report. . . . . Insinuations of unpatriotic disloyalty on the part of critics of US policy toward Russia are numerous, but consider a few examples. For much of the past year, Princeton and New York University professor emeritus Stephen F. Cohen, a leading scholar of Soviet and post-Soviet Russia and a Nation contributing editor, has been routinely castigated in The New Republic, the Daily Beast, The Boston Globe, New York, and Slate as “a toady,” “Putin’s best friend,” and a “Putin apologist.” The latest such attack came on May 6, courtesy of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, which published a story claiming, without evidence, that “Cohen is essentially defending the Kremlin’s agenda in the West.” Hurling such barbs at a prominent scholar seems to be an attempt not only to marginalize Cohen, but also to silence other critics—including, and perhaps especially, younger ones. Similarly, in June 2014, the Daily Beast ridiculed a conference attended by Columbia University’s Robert Legvold; Jack Matlock, former ambassador to the Soviet Union during the Reagan administration; and a leader of a Russian opposition party as a gathering of “anti-Semites and ‘truthers’” that amounted to little more than “a pity party for the Kremlin’s die-hard American apologists.” Then, in August, Anders Aslund of the Peterson Institute for International Economics launched a screed against David Johnson, the proprietor and editor of a listserv that aggregates Russia-related articles. “What I find most surprising,” Aslund wrote, “is that you have several items from RT every day, which is to Putin’s rule what Julius Streicher’s Der Stürmer was to Nazi Germany.”

Jack Rasmus in Taming Trump points out that as Obama was elected by those believing he meant as he claimed to establish a progressive liberal populist agenda came to see it a “faux” agenda, so too will those who elected Trump come to see his populace conservative agenda “faux”. Masters behind the scene intend to “tame” him with a constant stream of scandals about his taxes, family, appointments, businesses, laws, etc

Like the Obama regime, the Trump regime will retreat to a neoliberal US elite regime. It will be a ‘Neoliberalism 2.0’. An evolved new form of Neoliberalism based on the continuation of pro-investor, pro-corporate, pro-wealthy elite economic policies—with an overlay of even more repressive social policies involving immigration, law and order, privatizations, cuts in social programs, more police repressions of ethnic communities, environmental retreat, limits on civil liberties, more insecurity and more fear. This is the new form of Neoliberalism, necessary to continue its economic dimensions by intensifying its forms of social repression and control. . . . . We predict Trump will concede to elite neoliberal policies on Trade and Foreign Policy eventually, as he already is about to do with regard to elite policy preferences on taxation and deregulation. If he does not, elite interests are waiting in the wings, gathering the evidence and ammunition to attack Trump more directly if necessary, should he not comply. So long as he plays ball with them, they’ll just hold their ammunition at the ready. They will lock and load, and cock the hammer, taking aim and give a warning. Trump will respond. He will come around to their demands. After all, he has more personally to even lose than did Obama. Faux left is replaced by faux right in American politics.. .

Others looking at the scene see more serious intentions. In U.S. Foreign Policy and the Campaign to Destabilize the Trump Presidency Professor Michel Chossudovsky writes

The ultimate intent of this campaign led by the Neocons and the Clinton Faction is to destabilize the Trump presidency. Prior to the November 8 elections, former Secretary of Defense and CIA Director Leo Panetta had already intimated that Trump is a threat to National Security. According to The Atlantic, Trump is a “Modern Manchurian Candidate” serving the interests of the Kremlin.. . . . They are part of a propaganda campaign on behalf of powerful corporate interests. . . . . . The central objective of this project against Trump is to ensure the continuity of the Neocons’ foreign policy agenda geared towards global warfare and Worldwide economic conquest, which has dominated the US political landscape since September 2001. . . . . “ The preemptive war doctrine also included the preemptive use of nuclear weapons on a “first strike” basis (as a means of “self-defence”) against both nuclear and non-nuclear states. This concept of a preemptive first strike nuclear attack was firmly endorsed by Hillary Clinton in her election campaign. In turn, the “Global War on Terrorism”(GWOT) launched in the wake of 9/11 has come to play a central role in justifying US-NATO military intervention in the Middle East on “humanitarian grounds”. . . . As a member of the establishment, he has his own corporate sponsors and fund raisers. His stated foreign policy agenda including his commitment to revise Washington’s relationship with Moscow does not fully conform with the interests of the defence contractors, which supported Clinton’s candidacy.

On Democracy Now in a discussion What’s Next for U.S.-Russia Relations? Professor Cohen, mentioned above, added this on the expansion of a new McCarthyism

It’s the people who speak out who are being called apologists for Putin, and it’s chilling . . .. . We’re in the most dangerous confrontation with Russia since the Cuban missile crisis. It needs to be discussed. And at the moment, it can’t be discussed because of these charges that everybody is a client of Putin who disagrees with the mainstream opinion. And it’s coming from the Senate. It’s coming from The New York Times. One motive is to keep Trump from going to the White House. Another is to delegitimize him before he gets there. But the main motive—and you can hear it clearly—is Trump has said he wants cooperation with Russia, and the war party . . . . .

A list circulated widely is PropOrNot identifying those who produce “fake news” . Just above every name and website we research is on the list indicating to us at least a kind of desperation as actions become more absurd as critics receive an ever larger audience. Patrick Buchanan wrote in Trump’s Enemies See an Opening about a leaked 35 page dossier

. . . of lurid details of his alleged sexual misconduct in Russia, worked up by a former British spy. A two-page summary of the 35 pages had been added to Trump’s briefing by the CIA and FBI — and then leaked to CNN. This is “something that Nazi Germany would have done,” Trump said. Here, basically, is the story. . . . Some sought to substantiate the allegations. None could. So none of them published the charges. In December, a British diplomat gave the dossier to Sen. John McCain, who personally turned it over to James Comey of the FBI. On Jan. 7, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and his colleagues at the NSA, CIA and FBI decided the new president needed to know about the dossier. They provided him with a two-page synopsis. Once CNN learned Trump had been briefed, the cable news network reported on the unpublished dossier, without going into the lurid details. BuzzFeed released all 35 pages. The story exploded.. . . . The stakes in all of this are becoming huge. Clearly, Trump hopes to work out with Putin the kind of detente that President Nixon achieved with Leonid Brezhnev. This should not be impossible. For, unlike the 1970s, there is no Soviet Empire stretching from Havana to Hanoi, no Warsaw Pact dominating Central Europe, no Communist ideology steering Moscow into constant Cold War conflict with the West. Russia is a great power with great power interests. But she does not seek to restore a global empire or remake the world in her image. U.S.-Russian relations are thus ripe for change. But any such hope is now suddenly impaired. . . . . The sort of investigation for which McCain has been clamoring, and the Beltway drums have now begun to beat, could make it almost impossible for President Trump to work with President Putin. The Washington Post describes the engine it wishes to see built: “The investigators of Russian meddling, whether a Congressional select committee or an independent commission, should have bipartisan balance, full subpoena authority, no time limit and a commitment to make public as much as possible of what they find.” What the Post seeks is a Watergate Committee like the one that investigated the Nixon White House, or a commission like the ones that investigated 9/11 and the JFK assassination. . . . .

Pointing to nightly television arrayed against Trump, David Swanson writes in Does Rachel Maddow Want Russia Bombed?

. . . . .Maddow goes on and on demonizing Russia and Putin. She airs for free and in its entirety a television ad that refers to as fact “Putin’s attacks on our democracy.” Then she credits the ad, which asked no questions, with raising legitimate questions. Then Maddow declares that there will be an investigation into “Russia’s efforts to influence our election on Trump’s behalf,” which assumes as fact all the evidence-free claims and then piles on the claim to know Russia’s motivation. Yet, later Maddow’s theory devolves into just the possibility that some little fragment within all these evidence-free accusations could be true — and it would be over that fragment that a Russian was arrested for treason. Maddow struggles at this point to make the chronology work, since the arrest was in early December. Yet she asserts as simple fact that the treason arrest was in fact a response to U.S. election tampering. Maddow, meanwhile, makes clear that she believes actual evidence of Russian hacking, supplying WikiLeaks, etc., exists somewhere in the U.S. government. Yet people are leaking torture prison plans and embarrassing accounts right out of the White House, and we’re to believe that nobody in any of the sainted 17 “intelligence” agencies would leak evidence if it existed?. . . . . . I asked observant media critic Norman Solomon (with whom I work at what he thought of Maddow’s performance, and he replied: “Maddow’s 25-minute soliloquy was a liberal version of Glenn Beck at the whiteboard. Her plot line was the current Democratic party line — free-associating facts, possible facts, dubious assertions and pure speculation to arrive at conclusions that were based on little more than her zeal to portray Trump as a tool of the Kremlin. Even when sober, Joe McCarthy never did it better. “We might dismiss her performance as just another bit of stagecraft on ‘MSDNC,’ but Maddow is in sync with widespread fear-mongering by pundits and Democratic Party loyalists who think they’re picking some low-hanging fruit to throw at Trump. But what they’re doing is poisonous — and extremely dangerous. Escalate a new Cold War? Push the U.S. government into evermore assertive brinkmanship? Push the world to the precipice of nuclear holocaust and maybe over it? Humanity deserves better than mega-propaganda that could lead to the world blowing up.”

In Regime Change Comes Home Dr. James Petras reaches for the depths about what is happening in our country

Introduction: The norms of US capitalist democracy include the election of presidential candidates through competitive elections, unimpeded by force and violence by the permanent institutions of the state. Voter manipulation has occurred during the recent elections, as in the case of the John F. Kennedy victory in 1960 and the George W. Bush victory over ‘Al’ Gore in 2000. But despite the dubious electoral outcomes in these cases, the ‘defeated’ candidate conceded and sought via legislation, judicial rulings, lobbying and peaceful protests to register their opposition. These norms are no longer operative. During the election process, and in the run-up to the inauguration of US President-Elect Donald Trump, fundamental electoral institutions were challenged and coercive institutions were activated to disqualify the elected president and desperate overt public pronouncements threatened the entire electoral order. . . . .  Regime Change in America . . . . Today the distinction between overseas and domestic norms has been obliterated by the state and quasi-official mass media. The US security apparatus is now active in manipulating the domestic democratic process of electing leaders and transitioning administrations. The decisive shift to ‘regime change’ at home has been a continual process organized, orchestrated and implemented by elected and appointed officials within the Obama regime and by a multiplicity of political action organizations, which cross traditional ideological boundaries. . . . . The outgoing President Obama mobilized the entire leadership of the security state to fabricate ‘dodgy dossiers’ linking Donald Trump to the Russian President Vladimir Putin, insisting that Trump was a stooge or ‘vulnerable to KGB blackmail’. The CIA’s phony documents (arriving via a former British intelligence operative-now free lance ‘security’ contractor) were passed around among the major corporate media who declined to publish the leaked gossip. Months of attempts to get the US media to ‘take the bite’ on the ‘smelly’ dossier were unsuccessful. The semi-senile US Senator John McCain (‘war-hero’ and hysterical Trump opponent) then volunteered to plop the reeking gossip back onto the lap of the CIA Director Brennan and demand the government ‘act on these vital revelations’! . . . . CIA Director John Brennan, architect of numerous ‘regime changes’ overseas had brought his skills home – against the President-elect. For the first time in US history, a CIA director openly charged a President or President-elect with betraying the country and threatened the incoming Chief Executive. He coldly warned Trump to ‘just make sure he understands that the implications and impacts (of Trump’s policies) on the United States could be profound…” Clearly CIA Director Brennan has not only turned the CIA into a sinister, unaccountable power dictating policy to an elected US president, by taking on the tone of a Mafia Capo, he threatens the physical security of the incoming leader.. . . . . Mass propaganda, a ‘red-brown alliance, salacious gossip and accusations of treason (‘Trump, the Stooge of Moscow’) resemble the atmosphere leading to the rise of the Nazi state in Germany. A broad ‘coalition’ has joined hands with a most violent and murderous organization (the CIA) and imperial political leadership, which views overtures to peace to be high treason because it limits their drive for world power and a US dominated global political order.

Steven Lendman sums up some things. We note first that Mr. Lendman has never supported Trump but in fact supported whole heartedly Bernie until Bernie supported Hillary and Lendman turned to Jill Stein. If anything, we would guess he might be liberal and further note he has the honor of being included on the PropOrNot list. In Pro-Hillary Dark Forces Plot Anti-Trump Coup? he writes among other things how much worse is Hillary than the big bad Trump.

. . . Since the deplorable Clinton co-presidency, America has been on a slippery slope toward full-blown tyranny – notably post-the-9/11 mother of all false flags.
It was followed by an array of police state laws, new ones recently enacted, flagrant constitutional violations, media scoundrels silent on an unprecedented abuse of power. McCarthyism is back on steroids. Truth-telling is now considered fake news and/or pro-Russian. We’re perilously close to criminalizing content or advocacy for anything opposing America’s deplorable agenda, its imperial wars, its high crimes against humanity at home and abroad. Perhaps I and others like me are considered Kremlin agents for supporting Putin’s anti-war, anti-imperial, anti-uni-polarity agenda, a leader supporting rule of law principles and mutual cooperation among all nations. It’s polar opposite how America operates, a rogue state like no others earlier, threatening humanity’s survival like never before, a terrifying reality too few people realize. Now there’s a plot afoot to deny Trump his electoral triumph – the Clintons, their supporters and other dark forces behind it. Is their goal to turn America into an illegitimate putschist state like Ukraine, installed by Obama? . . . . . Can any thinking person believe Russia cost Hillary the election? It defies logic. It’s an absurdity on its face, a disgraceful Big Lie and an affront to the sensibility of everyone. Parties trying to reverse November’s electoral result should face sedition or treason charges. Their attempt confirms America’s deplorable state more than ever. The nation was never a democracy from inception. Now it’s a fascist police state, waging permanent war on humanity, exceeding anything before in world history – rule of law principles out-the-window entirely. Radio Network.


  • The protests


One of the most surprising developments for us from the election has been to receive passionate letters from leaders of some of the largest and most important citizen groups pleading for contributions to destroy Trump. We certainly understand their concern which is also our concern, but while intending to do all we can to defeat his neoliberal domestic agenda, we cannot understand the one-sidedness of such appeals from those who should know better not differentiating the most important geo political issues from those domestic. After all we cannot reform a country expired in nuclear conflict. By damming him no matter the complexity of what may be happening to our country, we ask if such organizations suggest it would have been better to have Hillary, the agent of the masters. Doing so comes to make us think what we had not before that these leaders, might not only be Democrats, supported by the likes of Soros and other bankers and corporations but like Hillary turned into their agents especially since they and so many so-called humanitarian groups have not made a difference in our fate grown ever worse. Professor Chossudovsky of Global Research in an audio tape discusses how large citizen and humanitarian groups funded by and dependent upon corporations cannot be expected to serve citizen interest. Rather, if there is any hope, activism must take place at the grass roots level. We note that the audio discussion with Professor Chossudovsky also includes, first, Jack Rasmus discussing his article on taming Trump and, following the professor, Mark Robinowitz,, explaining wars in the Middle East are about energy rather than terrorists and that with energy resources quickly diminishing we are headed for more and greater economic disruption no matter who leads the country.

Further, about Democratic protests, Jon Reynolds as reported in The Black Agenda Report sees things this way

The idea that the Democratic Party is in any way, shape, or form entitled to the moral high ground over the equally horrific opposing party is a beyond ridiculous assertion without any basis in reality. To see crowds of people motivated to action by the loss of their party, protesting an archaic electoral college system that they would have likely accepted the results from had their candidate won, tests the limits of ones ability to empathize with their plight. Kill lists, defense of torture, mass surveillance, US citizens being picked off by drone missiles, the continued buildup of a vast empire — none of it prompted thousands upon thousands of American Democrats to fill cities across the US in a fit of anger because at the time, their chosen political racehorse was in Washington. If Hillary had won, the drone strikes would have continued. The wars would have continued. The spying would continue. Prohibition would continue. Whistleblowers would continue being prosecuted and hunted down. And minorities would continue bearing the brunt of these policies, both in the US and across the world. The difference is that in such a scenario, Democrats, if the last eight years are any indication, would remain silent — as they did under Obama — offering bare minimum concern and vilifying anyone attacking their beloved president as some sort of hater. Cities across the US would remain free of protests, and for another 4-8 years, Democrats would continue doing absolutely nothing to end the same horrifying policies now promoted by a Republican. Trump’s victory, if there is anything good to say about it, will at least breathe much needed life into an antiwar sentiment that has been largely dormant since Bush left office. Issues like drone strikes, torture, military occupations, mass surveillance, and other hot button subjects once protested by Democratic partisans during the Bush era will again — hopefully — be criticized and fought against. Yet the shame about it all is that this time, those unaffiliated with either of the two major parties — those who have been focused on these issues while Democrats have offered pathetic excuses and baseless justifications in defense of them — won’t make the mistake of thinking Democrats will stick around for the fight if they win office again in the next election

In Beyond Anti-Trump Paul Street points out, Democrat or not, concentrating on Trump we miss the real enemies.

Let’s be careful about the phrase “anti-Trump coalition.” . . . . . We need to take on the unelected deep state dictatorships of money, class, race, empire, militarism, sexism, and ecocide – the reigning oppression structures that have ruled under Barack Obama as under previous presidents. . . . . dreary corporate-Democratic presidents like Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Obama are no small part of the explanation for the ever more right-wing Republican presidencies of the long neoliberal era. Their serial populism-manipulating betrayals of the working-class majority in service to the wealthy Few open the door for Republicans to sweep in and take over . . . . We must not let Trump become a great red cape in the hands of the ruling class matadors. We must learn to head for the masters who hold the swords and spears behind the cloak. Resist him we must, but we cannot afford obsession with Trump

Such articles seem to help establish the need for a new party. While grass roots resistance may be an absolute necessity, so too is creative leadership at the top. Still what we can know for sure is that there can be no good in protests if only half of us participate; that only a half shows just how deeply divided a citizenry we are; and for sure so divided we are conquered. With shootings at malls, movie houses and other local scenes turning into regular television fare, our tensions will inevitably rise no matter who or where we are. Perhaps a symbol of the brawling among us that could come, echoing those who command us, was the enraged liberal lady who had to be removed from her seat on a plane for refusing to stop her rant of verbal abuse to her neighbor because he voted for Trump.

Union is beautiful, no matter in Europe, the US, or the everyday small lives most of us lead. It is a matter of equals sharing as disunion a matter of sides pitted against each other with one wanting to dominate the other. Likewise, protests of citizens are beautiful if joined together and ugly when conducted by a half manipulated to defeat Trump. We can only begin to come together if we begin to peer down to the bottom of the well to see beyond Trump, who, as bad as he is, is not the worse of our enemies who try to eliminate him. While we can never understand all that is happening, even those with the deepest perceptions, we should keep in mind other possibilities. Trump in his awkward way could help more of us become more aware of those “others” in their convoluted frenzy to do him in.

With power to convolute and reverse just about all reality, those who have come to control our government keep the masses in the dark and divided in every which way. A current and populist example is the ragingly popular Broadway play, Hamilton, in which Hamilton becomes the founding father of greatest note. As Carmack and others reveal, Hamilton was an agent of the banking cartel intent on putting in place its private US national bank. The play, most likely a product of Wall Street, makes their man not ours a hero. The book on which the play is base was written by Ron Chernow who also wrote the play’s script and is the author of The House of Morgan, a song of praise that is perhaps subtle but nonetheless deeply admiring of those who have come to be seen by others “founding” criminals. On a CSpan program in which Chernow himself is heaped with praise, at one point he remarks that his fondest wish is for the play to become a staple of every high school’s dramatic repertoire.

In contrast, a real national hero is forgotten or denigrated. Andrew Jackson, Old Hickory, was the victor in the War of 1812 Battle of New Orleans and later as president faced down South Carolina’s early secessionists to preserve our federal union. Most importantly he nearly single handedly prevented the rechartering of the 4th private national bank for such a private bank to remain closed for the next 77 years. Now as Mary Stockwell explains he is remembered only for the his part in the Trail of Tears. On another CSpan program reviewing her book, The other Trail of Tears, she says that bringing up the name of Andrew Jackson in her college classes brings only a huge groan of resentment. While not exonerating Jackson, she tries in her book to present the complicated history of the times when our ancestors were coming here in droves demanding more and more land causing more pain and suffering for our natives who were moved in a Trail of Tears out of the South to Oklahoma and there would come to be moved again with the clamor for more land. In fact if Jackson is guilty, so are we whose ancestors settled on Indian lands. Obviously, such complication of history is diminished with headline news burying reality complicated or not to become a way for the few in power to gain more power. During the Revolution, and for years before and after, the English had aroused Native Americans to resistance in wars against us especially those of Tecumseh, one of their most passionate leaders. As Ms. Stockwell explains, promising Indians their own nation in our northwest, the English sought not only to win the revolution but in any event prevent the US from taking Canada. On the rampage Indians bearing grudges scalped and tortured innocent victims as well as military leaders often no more or less than those who tortured and scalped them.

History is not only complicated it is long and deep with connections from one era to another collapsing time for beginnings to intertwine with endings Marshall Eakins, a historian of the Americas in a series of lectures we have recently watched, explains how, in the long centuries before the English reached our shores, Spanish and Portuguese explorers following Columbus exploited the Caribbean islands and the lands of Central and South Americas to enslave native populations to work on their plantations. When those native populations died en masse from infections for which they had no defenses, as would natives in America later, the plantation owners bought black slaves that were becoming a growing commodity. Portuguese’s Brazil would import more black slaves than any other country. Centuries later English plantations in our South were modeled on those before and all such experiences connected to a growing system of capitalism with traders discovering and dominating world markets. Some traders who evolved out of ancient Middle Eastern empires roamed the Mediterranean to eventually connect to the West for the system there, in the West, to settle, grow and dominate.

Ferdinand Braudel, one of the most notable writers to explain the growth of capitalism, among other things, traces its main power centers in the West, from Portugal and Spain, north to the Netherlands, back south to England and eventually New York City. He argues

. . . capitalists have typically been monopolists and not, as is usually assumed, entrepreneurs operating in competitive markets. . . . .. capitalists did not specialize and did not use free markets. . . the state in capitalist countries has served as a guarantor of monopolists rather than a protector of competition, as it is usually portrayed. . . . . capitalists have had power and cunning on their side as they have arrayed themselves against the majority of the population. . . . .


  • The Deep State under the chaotic surface


Is there a “deep state” in our government and what is it? In November 2014 we posted to our blog Peter Dale Scott Interview about his book: The American Deep State: Wall Street, Big Oil and the Attack on U. S. Democracy. Scott before coming to his analysis refers to Dana Priest’s description of her investigations described in her book Top Secret America

. . . Dana Priest . . . said, we now have “two governments: the one its citizens were familiar with, operated more or less in the open: the other a parallel top secret government whose parts had mushroomed in less than a decade into a gigantic, sprawling universe of its own…“ Well, . . . that second level, the deep state level, has been ruling over decades, but it is true that it has mushroomed in the last decade when she was writing. And it is exactly because of 9/11 and the COG (Continutity of Government program) . . . authorized and implemented before the last of the four planes had gone down. They implemented COG, then they proclaimed an emergency three days later, and since then we have been living in this state of emergency, which means that in effect the constitution does not rule the way it used to. Now you asked about deep events. 9/11 (is) a deep event because from the very beginning it was not very clear exactly what happened. Even journalists commented on the confusion and the inaccuracy of reports, it became so bad that congress had to press … it was a fight to get an investigation. This is the largest criminal act that was ever committed in America and the White House tried not to investigate it. There was a crime scene that was dismantled almost immediately; some people would say that was illegal. They said they were looking for corpses, and that is why they carried away all steel. But now scientists are very interested to know what residues were in that steel to see if the buildings were perhaps blown up or not. Most of the steel was shipped out of the country very quickly, and so it is a deep event, and we had the commission to investigate it. The two great events that are deep events are first the Kennedy assassination ’63, then 9/11, there are more – some of them could be very small. . . . . But the ones which had constitutional consequences were the Kennedy assassination – the consequences were pretty invisible in that one but they were real: they changed the role of the CIA and its relationship to the FBI and to local police. . . . . . And in both cases you had commissions to investigate, and they came out with findings which were demonstrably not true. Now that is the real test of a big deep event – when they investigate it and they give you a story, which almost immediately people can start picking holes in and seeing it is not true. So by definition a deep event is one which we are not given the truth about and the biggest ones we are given a story, which may be true in certain respects but in key respects it is not true. . . . . Rushing to war in Afghanistan to find the perpetrator we were told was Osama bin Laden, we would soon engage in a war in Iraq which was suppose to have weapons of mass destruction never to be found. From there we were to move on to Lybia and now Syria having all the while one terrorist attack follow another all of which were truly like 9/11 never investigated just headline news telling us all we needed to know to keep us fearful and in support of the wars. Much more important were the changes after 9/11 . . . .. So by definition a deep event is one which we are not given the truth about and the biggest ones. We are given a story, which may be true in certain respects but in key respects it is not true.

Deep events as Mr. Scott describes which include 9/11 are also called false flags and they defined as . . . covert operations designed to deceive in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by entities, groups, or nations other than those who actually planned and executed them. While we are assured by our government and its media that 9/11 was committed by Middle Eastern terrorists, television under their command, has made Nazi and Hitler the most hated, worse ever tyrants, to often be showing scenes about the burning down of the German Reichstag that most historians believe was committed by Hitler and his allies to blame their enemy the Communists. If true it was a classic “false flag” that consolidated the power of the new German Chancellor. In fact false flag events are the stock and trade of those consolidating political power. Nero is believed to have burned down Rome to blame the Christians as well as build his new palace. The list is endless. In The Biggest Secret In History: False Flag Terror we read statements of our greatest 20th Century tyrants:

“Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death”.
– Adolph Hitler

“Why of course the people don’t want war … But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship … Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
– Hermann Goering, Nazi leader.

“The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened”.
– Josef Stalin

The article explains more

The age-old saying is true: If we don’t learn history, we’re doomed to repeat it.
The single biggest historical secret which people haven’t yet learned is false flag terrorism. There are many documented false flag attacks, where a government carries out a terror attack … and then falsely blames its enemy for political purposes.
False flag terror has changed the course of history over and over again … all over the world. Unless people learn about false flags, governments will carry them out to start more and more disastrous wars. (That’s why we continuously scour documents and sources to look for new admissions of false terror … and post updated lists when we find them.) . . . . . # 31 The U.S. falsely blamed Iraq for playing a role in the 9/11 attacks – as shown by a memo from the defense secretary – as one of the main justifications for launching the Iraq war. Even after the 9/11 Commission admitted that there was no connection, Dick Cheney said that the evidence is “overwhelming” that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein’s regime, that Cheney “probably” had information unavailable to the Commission, and that the media was not ‘doing their homework’ in reporting such ties. Top U.S. government officials now admit that the Iraq war was really launched for oil … not 9/11 or weapons of mass destruction. Despite previous “lone wolf” claims, many U.S. government officials now say that 9/11 was state-sponsored terror; but Iraq was not the state which backed the hijackers. (Many U.S. officials have alleged that 9/11 was a false flag operation by rogue elements of the U.S. government; but such a claim is beyond the scope of this discussion. The key point is that the U.S. falsely blamed it on Iraq, when it knew Iraq had nothing to do with it.). . . . . . #32 Although the FBI now admits that the 2001 anthrax attacks were carried out by one or more U.S. government scientists, a senior FBI official says that the FBI was actually told to blame the Anthrax attacks on Al Qaeda by White House officials (remember what the anthrax letters looked like). Government officials also confirm that the white House tried to link the anthrax to Iraq as a justification for regime change in that country. . . . .

A series of articles by Federico Pieraccini in the Strategic Culture Magazine concluded with Trump’s Delusion: Halting Eurasian Integration and Saving ‘US World Order. Pieraccini sees Trump’s big game strategies hopeful if they lead to the end of a ‘unipolar moment’, impelling the emergence of a multipolar world order. . . with that leading to stability among the great powers reducing the threat of nuclear war. We can only hope.

. . . . Important alliances are being forged without seeking the assent of the United States, and the world model envisioned in the early 1990s – from Bush to Kagan and all the signatories of the PNAC founding statement of principles – is increasingly coming undone. Donald Trump’s victory represents, in all likelihood, the last decisive blow to a series of foreign-policy strategies that in the end undermined the much-prized leadership of the United States. The ceasefire in Syria, reached thanks to an agreement between Turkey and Russia, notably excluded the United States. The military, media, financial and cultural assault successfully prosecuted over decades by Washington finally seems to have met its Waterloo at the hands of the axis represented by Iran, Russia and China. The recent media successes (RT, Press TV and many alternative media), political resistance (Assad is still president of Syria), diplomatic struggles (negotiations in Syria without Washington as an intermediary) and military planning (Liberation of Aleppo from terrorists) are a result of the efforts of Iran, Russia and China. Their success in all these fields of operations are having direct consequences and implications for the internal affairs of countries like the United Kingdom and the United States. The relentless efforts by the majority of Western political representatives for a successful model of globalization has created a parasitic system of turbo capitalism that entails a complete loss of sovereignty by America’s allies. Brexit and Trump have served as an expression of ordinary people’s rejection of these economic and political regimes under which they live.. . . . . Within the American political system, the establishment, spanning from Clinton to Obama, was swept away for their economic and political failures. The mainstream media, spewing an endless stream of propaganda aimed at sustaining the political elite, completely lost their battle to appear credible, reaching unprecedented peaks of partisanship and immorality. Donald Trump has emerged with a new approach to foreign policy affairs, shaped by various political thinkers of the realist mould, such as Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer. First on the to-do list is doing away with all the recent neoconservative and neoliberal policies of foreign intervention . . .and soft-power campaigns in favor of human rights. . . .. The Trump administration intends to end the policy of regime change, interference in the internal affairs of foreign governments, Arab Springs, and color revolutions. . . . The Middle East will accordingly see a decline in violence, increasing the chances of seeing an end to the conflict in Syria. . . . The implicit message is to seek dialogue and cooperation with all nations. Probably what lies behind these overtures is actually an explicit willingness to try to break the cooperation between Russia, Iran and China. The motivations for this action stem from the implications for the United States if a full military, cultural and economic alliance between Beijing, Moscow and Tehran is formed. It would almost ultimately consign the United States to irrelevance on the grand chessboard of international relations. More realistically, Trump aims to shift the focus of the United States from the Atlantic to the Pacific, where the largest US commercial interests will reside in the future; a shift of focus from the Middle East to the South and East China Seas.. . . In summary, Trump intends to accelerate Obama’s Asian pivot, bringing about profound changes to US foreign policy. Smoking the peace pipe with Russia will free up resources (to “build up our military” in naval terms) to be focused in the Pacific. He intends to emphasize the importance of bilateral relations between allies (“free riders” Japan and South Korea) to focus on containing China. . . . . With this in mind, Trump’s choice of a very questionable personality to liaise between Washington and Tel Aviv, combined with the strong rhetoric of Trump against the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the equally harsh responses from Tehran to the threats of the future president, seem to satisfy the roles and rhetoric of all parties involved. No actions, only rhetoric. For Tehran and Tel Aviv it is easier to argue that to sign an agreement. The Iranian nuclear deal will, for this reason, continue to be a major point of tension, but also the guarantor of unlikely military action.. . . . . The global hegemonic project that was supposed to be realized with a Clinton presidency has been stopped. The inevitable military confrontation with Russia, Iran and China has been averted thanks to the preventive actions of these countries together with the defeat of the Democratic candidate. A huge blow has been delivered to the establishment, with its impulse toward globalism and US imperialism. The emergence of a multipolar world order has altered the way nations interact with each other in the field of international relations. Washington is no longer the only referent, and it is this that represents a pivotal transition from a unipolar world dominated by Washington. The mechanisms that regulate the great powers have varied in form and content, leading to an almost unprecedented international situation. The future multipolar world order, historically unstable, will in fact hold the promise of stability thanks to the actions of opposing nations to the American superpower. United they will stabilize the world. The key to a sustainable future world order is the synergy between the newly formed Beijing, Moscow and Tehran axis as an economic, military and cultural counterweight to the US. The union and the alliance of these three nations has created a new super-pole, able to balance effectively the often destructive actions of Washington. Rather than a multipolar world order, we are actually faced with a situation of two superpowers, one of which is based on the integration between dozens of nations on more than two continents. It is a new era that will accompany us over the coming decades. The unipolar world is over – forever!

How the brawl between our elitists will work itself out we cannot know but one thing seems sure. If they eliminate the wild card Trump that deep state government filled with hubris determined to achieve world governance no matter the risks will be back in place. Another article from Strategic Culture reports US Senators Are Even More Neoconservative than Are Trump’s Appointees.

. . . . obsessive hatred of Russia is the standard neoconservative position . . . Each one of these nominees has, in turn, provided responses which indicate that he, too, is far to the right of Trump. The Senators are apparently satisfied with each one of the nominees, on that basis — a neoconservative basis.. . . . These hearings are displaying 100% neoconservative U.S. Senators — no Senator who isn’t a neoconservative. These Senators, of both Parties, in their questioning and comments, are all far to the right of the incoming President, Donald Trump. (Democrats might be to the ‘left’ of Republicans on some domestic matters, but both Parties are neoconservative, which is a far-right foreign-affairs ideology.). . . . although Trump’s appointees might be less neoconservative than the Senators, and less neoconservative than was Trump’s predecessor, Obama — and Trump is far less neoconservative than is Hillary Clinton — Trump still could turn out to be a neoconservative President. This isn’t because the American public are neoconservative (they definitely aren’t), but because the American aristocracy is. The U.S. government represents them — not the American public. neoconservative-than-trump-appointees.html


  • Some Thoughts


For long years the masters who came to control our government have put in place institutions doing away with our civil rights and due process of law for us to be like a police state in the making and waiting. When the time is ripe, as many have written, Marshall Law will be declared. In 2016 the power of Marshall Law in essence was put into the hands of a President Obama

. . . . Executive Order .. . gives an unprecedented level of authority to the President and the federal government to take over all the fundamental parts of our economy – in the name of national security – in times of national emergency. This means all of our water resources, construction services and materials (steel, concrete, etc.), our civil transportation system, food and health resources, our energy supplies including oil and natural gas — even farm equipment — can be taken over by the President and his cabinet secretaries. The Government can also draft U.S. citizens into the military and force U.S. citizens to fulfill “labor requirements” for the purposes of “national defense.” There is not even any Congressional oversight, only briefings are required.
By issuing this as an Executive Order the President puts the federal government above the law, which, in a democracy, is never supposed to happen

We asked previously how could so many of our predecessors know things that have come to be true if they were not true. Now we ask how could an Orwell in his 1984 come to predict what also seems to have come true, noting that truth be in the making long before any Trump arrived on the scene

. . . . the most extreme realization imaginable of a modern-day government with absolute power.. . . . a state in which government monitors and controls every aspect of human life to the extent that even having a disloyal thought is against the law . . .. . . . psychological stimuli designed to overwhelm the mind’s capacity for independent thought. The giant telescreen in every citizen’s room blasts a constant stream of propaganda . . . . channels people’s pent-up frustration and emotion into intense, ferocious displays of hatred against . . . . political enemies. Many of these enemies have been invented . . . . expressly for this purpose.. . . controls every source of information, managing and rewriting the content of all newspapers and histories for its own ends. . . . . employs complicated mechanisms to exert large-scale control on economic production and sources of information. . . . The idea of “doublethink” emerges as an important consequence . . . massive campaign of large-scale psychological manipulation. Simply put, doublethink . . . mind-control techniques break down an individual’s capacity for independent thought. . . possible for that individual to believe anything . . . .

It seems to us that unless you adhere to the notion, that many indeed do, that humanity is born to engage in continuous killing and wars, the “truth” provided in the pages of The Money Masters and other such writings explain that evil derives from domination defeating its antidote, freedom, meant for people to recover their independence and with it their sanity and creativity. That domination has nothing to do with race or religion rather with accumulation of political and social power of those grown sickly and greedy for whatever psychological reasons to distort their minds to seek power that distorts more their minds to seek more power. With horns hidden, are they not the devils always walking among us whispering over our shoulders in our ears, as Goethe for one imaged Mephistocles in his Faust? Today they invade our homes with their media. In the The Money Masters, we see how the accumulation of monies and the domination of markets have led to the development of ultimate powers. It may be curious that the ultimate tentacles of domination are wrapped around what might seem such mundane powers of products, markets and exchange but those products and markets and exchange have been as much about human existence as the air we breath. Evolving to make tools, we came to make products and markets for exchange, a creative process to expand our experiences, pleasures and common wealth meant to be everlasting and progressive. Peoples becoming individuals always need to share in communities. We are social animals as animals have always been. But that natural process seemed fated to be diverted by military conquest in devastating wars, turning life for centuries from joy to heartache, to pain and to destruction and death worst than any natural disaster. Wise people among us seemed always to have known nature, fate and consciousness are inexorably intertwined in the mystery we call life, that human societies need union to balance its forces like the Ying’s and the Yang’s, the he’s and she’s, of ancient Asian philosophy. Imbalance produces devils. Still, with us all being one, the way out of our dilemma is not recrimination and retribution but consciousness coming to understand ourselves in all our manifestations for in the end we are all one no matter the road we have taken with all, no matter, needing to be folded back into the creative whole.

During the thousands of years of civilization, while progress seems apparent in many ways, more apparent is the wicked movement along a line of ever larger and more horrific wars, having now produced an undisputable pattern to reveal we are headed toward nuclear annihilation in a third world war. What a paradox! Through those millions of years of evolution, call it God or whatever you may think its original source and even if there is none, humans singularly among the multitudes of living species have been endowed with creative minds meant to grow conscious. Seemingly miraculous, infants are born with brains filled with billions of neurons making trillions of connections immediately ready to have their future experiences mold creatively. In contrast, now for those thousands of years, their experiences have been overwhelmingly, when not about slavery, about competition, wars and earthly destruction to diminish or distort sacred minds retreating to survive. Those awake to resist, if not embittered, come to see and feel for the suffering of the millions, now so vividly seen in the trials and tribulations of Middle Eastern refugees “rejected and despiseth” unable to find a place of rest after their homes and lives have been savaged by wars initiated, not by the Russians as now seems propagated but, by a “deep state” of a few elites centered in the US. In such a global dominated world as ours, we should come to realize there can no longer be safe havens for any human. With the beauty of natural life turned ugly and cruel in the extreme, with our communities and fellowships disappeared along with our nations, all peoples and most importantly we in the US, stand unnaturally divided, to be more a collection of autonomous atoms destined united only in passing.

Americans must become conscious of those really responsible for turning our democratic dream virulently anti human. We may never know why along our mysterious way we were diverted just as we may never know why we exist. We live in the now and that is about evolving and changing, knowing perhaps only that we do not appear as we did and will not in the future, if we continue to exist, as we are. In America we now have a President Trump needing all of us to keep in mind that which our enemies know well, our presidents have been the thread connected to our system of government connected to our dream and its defeat or survival. It is our enemy who delivered us their enemy Trump that without doubt an unstable and mercurial, “Jekyll and Hyde” of two sides. If he did not deserve to be elected president more so Hillary did not, set up by those who now attempt to destroy him. Ruled by headline news it is hard to know reality, but for sure all of us sense, as Gorbachev recently said, the world prepares for war. To stop the madness we must dig down to know who really dwells at the bottom.




Trump Update  (Second email)
Two articles below indicate that so far the conduct of Trump and his administration leaves little hope that he might ever clean out the swamp. Rather it appears that he like presidents before him, that we note especially those following JFK, has his strings pulled from behind. Of course Trump is still a wild card and we are still early in his administration so no one can say for sure how all will turn out, but certainly events have taken a dark turn. Two former commentators, Stephen Lendman and Paul Craig Roberts, having had hope he could make a difference, have already despaired.

Trump: America’s Latest Warrior President, Surrenders to Wall Street and War Profiteers
Clarity Press/Steven Lendman
In short order, America’s 45th president surrendered to Wall Street and war-profiteers, gorging at the public trough – at the expense of humanity at home and abroad. The hoped for antidote to Hillary appears no different when on policymaking – both subservient to moneyed interests at the expense of popular ones, both warriors, not peacemakers, both intolerant of challenges to America’s hegemonic aims, both hostile to all sovereign independent states, a deplorable situation, a dangerous one risking possible nuclear war. Hillary’s defeat didn’t dodge a nuclear bullet. It gave Trump the trigger, perhaps as willing to squeeze it to prove his machismo. Both aspirants appear near two sides of the same coin, much alike on issues mattering most. It’s a tough judgment this soon into Trump’s tenure. Things sometimes change, though rarely, except for the worst, not better.

•    Trump calling NATO “obsolete” on the stump proved deceptive hyperbole. He fully supports the alliance, according to Vice President Pence, Defense Secretary Mattis, for sure hawkish National Security Advisor McMaster, and UK Prime Minister Theresa May.
• Trump’s South China Sea saber-rattling risks confrontation with Beijing. Other administration figures speaking for him, demanding Russia end Kiev’s war on Donbass and relinquish its Crimea territory, is a prescription for no change in hostile US policy toward Moscow.
• Threats made against Iran, North Korea and Venezuela risk more trouble, thinly veiled ones for regime change. All this going on in a few short weeks into Trump’s tenure is breathtaking and disturbing for a White House aspirant promising a different way.
There’s more. Additional US combat troops may be sent to Afghanistan to continue America’s longest war – instead of ending what never should have been waged in the first place. . . . .
Trump directing “mad dog” Mattis to develop a preliminary plan on how to defeat ISIS appears more about designing a way to use these foot soldiers more effectively – continuing America’s war OF terror on humanity, not waging peace instead. His campaign hoopla about draining the swamp was deceptive hyperbole. His agenda continues serving privileged interests at the expense of most others. US imperial madness remains unchanged – world peace and stability as threatened as ever.


Is The Trump Administration Already Over?
Paul Craig Roberts
Hopes for the Trump administration are not burning brightly. Trump’s military chief, Gen. Mattis, is turning out to be true to his “mad dog” nickname. He has just declared that Iran “is the single biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world.”
He has declared Russia to be the number one threat to the US.   He has threatened intervention in China’s territorial affairs.  I was wrong. I thought Gen. Mattis was a reasonable choice as he rejects the efficacy of torture, and, according to Trump, convinced Trump that “torture doesn’t work.” Apparently Mattis cannot reach beyond this realization to higher geo-political realizations. Trump needs to fire Mattis who has placed the Pentagon in the way of normal relations with Russia. There is no evidence in the behavior of Iran, Russia, and China to support Gen.Mattis’ views. His definition of threat is the neoconservative one—a country capable of resisting US hegemony. . . . . If truth can be spoken, there are only two countries in the world with hegemonic aspirations—Israel and the US—and they are the sources of terrorism. Israel terrorizes Palestinians and has done so for about 70 years. The US terrorizes the rest of the world. All known Muslim terrorists are creations of the US government. Al Qaeda was created by the Carter administration in order to confront the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan with jihadism. ISIS was created by the Obama/Hillary regime in order to overthrow Gaddafi in Libya and then was sent by the Obama/Hillary regime to overthrow Assad in Syria, as Trump’s national security advisor, Gen. Flynn, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency revealed on TV. The Ukrainian neo-nazis assaulting the republics of Donetsk and Luhansk were also unleashed by the Obama/Hillary overthrow of the democratically elected government of Ukraine. All terror is associated with Washington and Israel. . . . Iran, and Syria rescued by the Russians, are the only states in the Muslim world that are not US puppet states and mere vassals that are nothing in themselves, no independent foreign policy, no independent economic policy. Only Iran and Syria have independent policies. . . . . Iran is the most inopportune of targets for Trump if he wishes to restore normal, non-threatening relations with Russia. Yet his mad dog Pentagon chief recklessly makes threatening statements alleging Iran to be a “terrorist state.” Do we see Israel’s hand at work in the threats against Iran? Iran and Syria are the only countries in the Middle East that are not American puppet states. Syria’s army has been hardened by combat, which is what Syria’s army needs in order to stand up to US-backed Israel. Both Syria and Iran are in the way of Israel’s Zionist policy of Greater Israel—from the Nile to the Euphrates. For the Zionists, Palestine and Southern Lebanon are merely the beginning. Israel has successfully used the corrupt British and now the corrupt Americans to reestablish themselves on lands from which God evicted them. This doesn’t speak well of the intelligence and morality of the British and US governments. But what does? . . . . For twenty-four years—eight years of the criminal Clinton regime, eight years of the criminal Bush regime, eight years of the criminal Obama regime—the world has heard threats from Washington that have resulted in the death and destruction of millions of peoples and entire countries. The Trump administration needs to present a different Washington to the world.


  • Comments: The Presidency

Previously, we saw Jack Rasmus in his article Taming Trump feeling assured Trump would be tamed by the neoliberal/neocon deep state running our government as well as Dr. Petras in another article feel assured he would be unable to accomplish his objectives while Paul Craig Roberts even suggested that he might be done in trying. As we look back to the JFK assassination and the record of presidents following him, it might seem there never should have been any hope because a deep state had been incrementally but assuredly taking over the presidency and with it the nation. As to our presidents following World War II, President Eisenhower, a seasoned veteran, was the best, notably leaving office warning us to beware of our growing military industrial complex. Following him, JFK would be aborted, paying the cost of learning on the job no doubt who were our real enemies. After he was assassinated, Johnson was found crouching in a corner of the plane, a suitable symbol for his immediate caving in to the masters to war in Vietnam that JFK had apparently planned to resist. Nixon following Johnson came into office fraught with paranoia. With the wily and crafty Henry Kissinger at his side, as some have come to believe, he was calculatingly destroyed by Watergate. Certainly no hero to the masses of Americans, he might have been to the masters as unreliable as a Trump. Then, while Ford took over after Nixon resigned seemingly an obviously good man, he was also obviously shallow and unlike his predecessor would have been compliant and manageable. Reaction to Watergate hoisted Carter into the presidency where he might have had a chance to make a difference, but in office he seemed at best another Wilson, unequipped and unprepared or even possibly unknowing, to handle the existing deep corruption. At his side was another wily foreigner, Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former Polish nobleman his national security adviser. Carter stayed in line with the masters coming up with a Middle East Doctrine to threaten the gulf states; befriending Iran’s Shah who had lost to a truly democratically elected president, Mosaddegh, that the CIA had overthrown; and even putting in place the neoliberals’ first deregulation legislation. Reagan, with the masters behind him and an Iranian hostage crisis, easily dismissed Carter.

An interlude here is some personal notes. At the New Jersey Statehouse, working with other citizen activists on legislative days for several years, I, Barbara, saw Reagan’s election a turning point. Hollywood, a well documented and long reported source of corruption, had put one of their own front and center. Adding to the money that had been bringing us our candidates now would be celebrity and from there no turning back. Reagan, a familiar and warm presence, charmed his audience making it seem he was the hero walking straight out of his old movies, when in fact and although once a Democrat he had long been a paid Republican conservative operator working in television as spokesman for General Electric. Saving his Hollywood career from oblivion, he moved on to become governor of California and then president. In Washington he and Nancy had the roles of their lifetime playing president and first lady to the hilt. Obviously, under such a false face corruption would inevitably deepen. As I had learned at the statehouse, the real action that was left basically unexamined, hid behind a proliferation of minor issues. It was a raging battle between energy and environmental proponents. With Reagan’s election and before it Republican Governor Cahill’s defeat in his Republican primary by conservative Charles Sandman, the efforts I had shared with citizen activists for several years, many of which had been successful, were destined to be eradicated. I ended my statehouse journey.

In the early 70’s while Watergate was going on, as I had experienced, Republican Governor Cahill and his environmental chief Richard Sullivan had championed environmental issues in an effort to clean up much of the state’s degraded rivers and landscapes. But in spite of all his good work, he was easily eliminated by headline news destroying his credibility in a state in which political news was essentially nonexistent. Issues, not parties, mattered. Democrat Byrne followed Cahill and wary of his fate managed to stay in office twisting and turning along the way. It seemed to me at least that never again could there be a full frontal attack, actually something I had realized at the statehouse and for such reason was coming home sending out information generally not available to a list of statewide activists many of whom were in my community.
In the end, we came to feel sorry for Reagan who very well might have had the onset of his disease in office where his lifelong unreality deepened perhaps most dramatically. In spite of all, he did seem to keep some allegiance to his roots saving Social Security from being privatized. More so in the bigger picture of things he had had made a great though ultimately failing effort to come to terms with Gorbachev to begin to dismantle nuclear armament. As I noted in our blog about these meetings during Russia’s Perestroika, Reagan finally decided not to give in to Gorbachev’s demand to give up his star wars project in spite of moderate advisors urging him to cooperate that included among others his wife Nancy and Secretary of State George Schultz. Instead the president, sincere about his effort, took the advice of his strong hard line advisors that included the still active neocon Richard Perle among others. Gorbachev had wisely summed up Reagan’s Star War Program as the beginning of the weaponizing of space.
Onto the wars with Bush Sr. and the first in the Gulf states who was and probably still is a notable ally of Saudi Arabia. Still, it was the next three presidencies that came to seal the deal for neocon/neoliberalism to become the nation’s new bible: the Clintons turned their coats finding hope for anything else nonexistent; Bush the junior, the limited, irresponsible spoiled brat and first child of his parents put Cheney and Rumsfeld and their neocon/neoliberals allies in powerful positions for them, not he, to take care of matters; and then Obama, the mulatto, a presidency no less than the others arranged by the bosses and by virtue of his combined race suggested to the masses we were indeed still a democracy. Now in thinking about Trump, we wonder if he was ever to come to really challenge in any serious way the “deep state” so firmly in place that would no doubt not hesitate to eliminate him if they had to. Trump is no JFK who was n fact dying of Addison disease living a reckless existence to make his challenge perhaps a less threatening personal consequence. Trump on the other hand, as one commentator noted, has too much to loose, living so large in his so unreal environment. But we would argue the presidency no longer matters. The road ahead is the same with or without him It is we who must come to make the difference keeping hope that we will find some form of safe leadership emerging not as a hero or autocrat but as perhaps a group or team whose creative leadership would somehow or other be shared so that if one falls another can take his or her place. Trump is in a real sense old hat, painting himself a hero to make America great again that no longer has resonance in our brave new world.


  • Comments: The Press


One thing stands out for sure, for whatever reason we can only guess, is that their media has been “out to get him”, and “piling on” has perhaps unnerved Trump and that be quite dangerous for us all. But who knows? We can’t be sure mostly because it would seem the mercurial Trump himself can’t be sure. But while in fact it is almost impossible to know exactly what is happening and why it is happening, it is possible to see clearly how “media” is his and our fierce opponent. For instance, in a February Press Conference Trump expressed his belief that it was dangerous for the Press to harp constantly and negatively on Russian relationships, having no basis in fact for their claims, and that by so doing they were preventing any chance that he come to negotiate with Putin, adding that since both were the world’s most powerful nuclear states, negotiation not confrontation was needed to prevent nuclear holocaust. He also spoke to the fact that leaking information was dangerous as it interfered with any president’s ability to conduct the nation’s business. This of course struck a nerve with us for it was part of the reason we had voted for him and something well expressed by people like Professor Stephen Cohen writing that Putin- bashing in these times was essentially crazy. Needless to say, headline reports of this conference were mostly about other issues discussed at the conference although we did find Newsmax reporting Trump saying

“All of those things that you’ve mentioned are very recent because probably Putin assumes that he’s not going to be able to make a deal with me because it’s politically not popular for me to make a deal,” Trump said, adding that it’s important that both nations, as nuclear powers, maintain positive relations. “I don’t know that we’re going to make a deal,” the president said. “I want to do the right thing for the American people, and to be honest, secondarily, I want to do the right thing for the world.” “Don’t forget, we’re a very powerful nuclear country, and so are they. There’s no upside. I have been briefed. And I can tell you, one thing about a briefing that we’re allowed to say because anybody that ever read the most basic book can say it, nuclear holocaust would be like no other. They’re a very powerful nuclear country, and so are we.”

In our relatively shallow review of headline reports of this conference, it seemed in general and as usual Trump was ridiculed and denigrated using loaded words like “ranting on. At the end of a Politco article one can see reporters and this website putting ahead their issues of concern that at least from our point of view is a clear dereliction of duty to simply report clearly and straightly what was said, saving their interpretations for editorials or the like.

. . . .“Maybe I’m not going to be able to do a deal with Russia, but at least I tried,” Trump said. That tangent did not satisfy reporters who wanted a clear response to the New York Times report. A few minutes later, one tried again: “I was just hoping that we could get a yes or no answer on one of these questions involving Russia,” she said. “Can you say whether you are aware that anyone who advised your campaign had contacts with Russia during the course of the election?” . . . .

Just as the Press is against Trump, it is against us. It is the means by which the powerful elite controls our nation. As we have suggested many times, to know why we are in this mess is to understand this wayward role of communications as much as to understand financing and the military industrial complex. That is not to say that Trump is not bad but that in the scheme of things the deep state and their media are the real enemy and presidents their tools. However, one seemingly good outcome of this latest battle is that Trump, perhaps not for all the right reasons, has aroused the citizenry out of its lethargy. It would seem that it is now for the rest of us to see behind Trump or any other puppet president if that is what Trump is to be in the end. There are enough issues to arouse most of us to take a stand against him and his administration’s positions making sure we do not get trapped brawling with each other with such chaos giving our phony government reason to use force against us. An example of such possibility was the Berkeley riots that seemed staged for TV to make part of the public appear unreasonable and out of control. Interestingly former Clinton Secretary of Labor and Berkeley professor of public policy, Robert Reich, told CNN he has heard rumors that “right-wingers” instigated violence at the university

“Those people were not Berkeley students. They were outsiders, agitators, I’ve never seen them before,” he said. “There’s rumors that they were right wingers. “They were a part of a kind of group that was organized and ready to create the kind of tumult and danger you saw that forced the police to cancel the event. So Donald Trump, when he says Berkeley doesn’t respect free speech rights, that’s a complete distortion of the truth.”

Robert Reich is an honorable man often with keen insights but here we would argue he is true to his democratic inclinations. The black clad violent perpetrators might have been right wingers or just as well left wingers but we think probably acting out another false flag for the deep state that surely has within as many democrats as republicans. But knowing how things may be set up against our activism, we need to be wary to make sure we attack issues not people and especially not each other no matter which side we take. What really matters is our health, safety and democracy, issues that should in time become reasons to unite especially as we organize in our communities that will in the end become major trouble spots for all kinds of negative reasons. While clearly it appears the odds are against us, it remains possible and some might say probable that we could retrieve our Congress which is in fact the only and certainly most difficult democratic tools in our system of government. Presenting our representatives with our positions on issues in reasonable terms, as many are doing now, if they do not turn to serve us then we should turn immediately to work to vote them out of office keeping in mind that we will have to be wary of voting machines and other tactics to make that a battle as much as anything else. But, in the end, we are the masses that the masters go to so much trouble to control and if we learn to unite, to be souls rather than colors or races or creeds, working together there is no force that can defeat us. We have not been successful before perhaps because we have never been so utterly and lethally challenged. It is now or never as it never has been before.

Another thing to realize is that our struggle goes round the world. It is the same there as here. In France: Another Ghastly Presidential Election Campaign; the Deep State Rises to the Surface, Diane Johnstone, an American journalist reporting from France for many long years, write about the coming French election, noting that deep state and corporate media in control of the ”narrative” has popped up in France in the same form as displayed in the US.

The amazing adoption in France of the American anti-Russian campaign is indicative of a titanic struggle for control of the narrative – the version of international reality consumed by the masses of people who have no means to undertake their own investigations. Control of the narrative is the critical core of what Washington describes as its “soft power”. The hard power can wage wars and overthrow governments. The soft power explains to bystanders why that was the right thing to do. The United States can get away with literally everything so long as it can tell the story to its own advantage, without the risk of being credibly contradicted. Concerning sensitive points in the world, whether Iraq, or Libya, or Ukraine, control of the narrative is basically exercised by the partnership between intelligence agencies and the media. Intelligence services write the story, and the mass corporate media tell it. Together, the anonymous sources of the “deep state” and the mass corporate media have become accustomed to controlling the narrative told to the public. They don’t want to give that power up. And they certainly don’t want to see it challenged by outsiders – notably by Russian media that tell a different story. That is one reason for the extraordinary campaign going on to denounce Russian and other alternative media as sources of “false news”, in order to discredit rival sources. The very existence of the Russian international television news channel RT aroused immediate hostility: how dare the Russians intrude on our version of reality! How dare they have their own point of view! Hillary Clinton warned against RT when she was Secretary of State and her successor John Kerry denounced it as a “propaganda bullhorn”. What we say is truth, what they say can only be propaganda.. . . . In some ways, the French election is an extension of the American one, where the deep state lost its preferred candidate, but not its power. The same forces are at work here, backing Macron as the French Hillary, but ready to stigmatize any opponent as a tool of Moscow. What has been happening over the past months has confirmed the existence of a Deep State that is not only national but trans-Atlantic, aspiring to be global. The anti-Russian campaign is a revelation. It reveals to many people that there really is a Deep State, a trans-Atlantic orchestra that plays the same tune without any visible conductor. The term “Deep State” is suddenly popping up even in mainstream discourse, as a reality than cannot be denied, even if it is hard to define precisely. Instead of the Military Industrial Complex, we should perhaps call it the Military Industrial Media Intelligence Complex, or MIMIC. Its power is enormous, but acknowledging that it exists is the first step toward working to free ourselves from its grip.


  • Last Words from the professionals


The Stakes for Trump and All of Us
Paul Craig Roberts
We need to understand, and so does President Trump, that the hoax “war on terror” was used to transform intelligence agencies, such as the NSA and CIA, and criminal investigative agencies, such as the FBI, into Gestapo secret police agencies. Trump is now threatened by these agencies, because he rejects the neoconservative’s agenda of US world hegemony that supports the gigantic military/security annual budget. Our secret police agencies are busy at work planting “intelligence” among the presstitute media that Trump is compromised by “Russian connections” and is a security threat to the United States. The plan is to make a case in the media, as was done against President Nixon, and to force Trump from office. To openly take on a newly elected president is an act of extraordinary audacity that implies enormous confidence, or else desperation, on the part of the police state agencies.. . . . The “evidence” provided by CNN and the CIA is a “report” by the New York Times that, with little doubt, was planted in the NYT by the CIA. This is so obvious that it is clear that CNN and the CIA regard the American people as so gullible as to be completely stupid.

Glenn Greenwald explains to Amy Goodman that the CIA is after Trump, because Trump’s announced policy of reducing the dangerous tensions with Russia conflicts with the military/security complex’s need for a major enemy.

“The deep state, although there’s no precise or scientific definition, generally refers to the agencies in Washington that are permanent power factions. They stay and exercise power even as presidents who are elected come and go. They typically exercise their power in secret, in the dark, and so they’re barely subject to democratic accountability, if they’re subject to it at all. It’s agencies like the CIA, the NSA and the other intelligence agencies, that are essentially designed to disseminate disinformation and deceit and propaganda, and have a long history of doing not only that, but also have a long history of the world’s worst war crimes, atrocities and death squads. This is who not just people like Bill Kristol, but lots of Democrats are placing their faith in, are trying to empower, are cheering for as they exert power separate and apart from—in fact, in opposition to—the political officials to whom they’re supposed to be subordinate.
. . . . .this is not just about Russia. You go all the way back to the campaign, and what you saw was that leading members of the intelligence community, including Mike Morell, who was the acting CIA chief under President Obama, and Michael Hayden, who ran both the CIA and the NSA under George W. Bush, were very outspoken supporters of Hillary Clinton. In fact, Michael Morell went to The New York Times, and Michael Hayden went to The Washington Post, during the campaign to praise Hillary Clinton and to say that Donald Trump had become a recruit of Russia. The CIA and the intelligence community were vehemently in support of Clinton and vehemently opposed to Trump, from the beginning. And the reason was, was because they liked Hillary Clinton’s policies better than they liked Donald Trump’s. One of the main priorities of the CIA for the last five years has been a proxy war in Syria, designed to achieve regime change with the Assad regime. Hillary Clinton was not only for that, she was critical of Obama for not allowing it to go further, and wanted to impose a no-fly zone in Syria and confront the Russians. Donald Trump took exactly the opposite view. . . . . “Now, I happen to think that the Trump presidency is extremely dangerous. You just listed off in your news—in your newscast that led the show, many reasons. They want to dismantle the environment. They want to eliminate the safety net. They want to empower billionaires. They want to enact bigoted policies against Muslims and immigrants and so many others. And it is important to resist them. And there are lots of really great ways to resist them, such as getting courts to restrain them, citizen activism and, most important of all, having the Democratic Party engage in self-critique to ask itself how it can be a more effective political force in the United States after it has collapsed on all levels. That isn’t what this resistance is now doing. What they’re doing instead is trying to take maybe the only faction worse than Donald Trump, which is the deep state, the CIA, with its histories of atrocities, and say they ought to almost engage in like a soft coup, where they take the elected president and prevent him from enacting his policies. And I think it is extremely dangerous to do that. Even if you’re somebody who believes that both the CIA and the deep state, on the one hand, and the Trump presidency, on the other, are extremely dangerous, as I do, there’s a huge difference between the two, which is that Trump was democratically elected and is subject to democratic controls, as these courts just demonstrated and as the media is showing, as citizens are proving. But on the other hand, the CIA was elected by nobody. They’re barely subject to democratic controls at all. And so, to urge that the CIA and the intelligence community empower itself to undermine the elected branches of government is insanity. That is a prescription for destroying democracy overnight in the name of saving it. And yet that’s what so many, not just neocons, but the neocons’ allies in the Democratic Party, are now urging and cheering. And it’s incredibly warped and dangerous to watch them do that. http/

The United States is now in the extraordinary situation that the liberal/progressive/left is allied with the deep state against democracy. The liberal/progressive/left are lobbying for the impeachment of a president who has committed no impeachable offense. The neoconservatives have stated their preference for a deep state coup against democracy. The media obliges with a constant barrage of lies, innuendos and disinformation. The insouciant American public sits there sucking its thumb. What can Trump do? He can clean out the intelligence agencies and terminate their license granted by Bush and Obama to conduct unconstitutional activities. He can use anti-trust to breakup the media conglomerates that Clinton allowed to form. If Bush and Obama can on their own authority subject US citizens to indefinite detention without due process and if Obama can murder suspect US citizens without due process of law, Trump can use anti-trust law to break up the media conglomerates that speak with one voice against him. At this point Trump has no alternative but to fight. He can take down the secret police agencies and the presstitute media conglomerates, or they will take him down. Dismissing Flynn was the worse thing to do. He should have kept Flynn and fired the “leakers” who are actively using disinformation against him. The NSA would have to know who the leakers are. Trump should clean out the corrupt NSA management and install officials who will identify the leakers. Then Trump should prosecute the leakers to the full extent of the law.No president can survive secret police agencies determined to destroy him. If Trump’s advisers don’t know this, Trump desperately needs new advisers.




President Trump: Nationalist Capitalism, An Alternative to Globalization? (3rd email)
Professor James Petras 

During his inaugural speech, President Trump clearly and forcefully outlined the strategic political-economic policies he will pursue over the next four years. Anti-Trump journalist, editorialists, academics and experts, who appear in the Financial Times, New York Times, Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal have repeatedly distorted and lied about the President’s program as well as his critique of existing and past policies

We will begin by seriously discussing President Trump’s critique of the contemporary political economy and proceed to elaborate on his alternatives and its weaknesses.

  • President Trump’s Critique of the Ruling Class

President Trump targeted importers who bring in cheap products from overseas manufacturers for the American market undermining US producers and workers. His economic strategy of prioritizing US industries is an implicit critique of the shift from productive capital to financial and speculative capital under the previous four administrations. His inaugural address attacking the elites who abandon the ‘rust belt’ for Wall Street is matched by his promise to the working class: “Hear these words! You will never be ignored again.” Trump’s own words portray the ruling class ‘as pigs at the trough’ (Financial Times, 1/23/2017, p. 11)

  • Trump’s Political-Economic Critique

President Trump emphasizes market negotiations with overseas partners and adversaries. He has repeatedly criticized the mass media and politicians’ mindless promotion of free markets and aggressive militarism as undermining the nation’s capacity to negotiate profitable deals.

President Trump’s immigration policy is closely related to his strategic ‘America First’ labor policy. Massive inflows of immigrant labor have been used to undermine US workers’ wages, labor rights and stable employment. This was first documented in the meat packing industry, followed by textile, poultry and construction industries. Trump’s proposal is to limit immigration to allow US workers to shift the balance of power between capital and labor and strengthen the power of organized labor to negotiate wages, conditions and benefits. Trump’s critique of mass immigration is based on the fact that skilled American workers have been available for employment in the same sectors if wages were raised and work conditions were improved to permit dignified, stable living standards for their families.

  • President Trump’s Political Critique

Trump points to trade agreements, which have led to huge deficits, and concludes that US negotiators have been failures. He argues that previous US presidents have signed multi-lateral agreements, to secure military alliances and bases, at the expense of negotiating job-creating economic pacts. His presidency promises to change the equation: He wants to tear up or renegotiate unfavorable economic treaties while reducing US overseas military commitments and demands NATO allies shoulder more of their own defense budgets. Immediately upon taking office Trump canceled the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and convoked a meeting with Canada and Mexico to renegotiate NAFTA.

Trump’s agenda has featured plans for hundred-billion dollar infrastructure projects, including building controversial oil and gas pipelines from Canada to the US Gulf. It is clear that these pipelines violate existing treaties with indigenous people and threaten ecological mayhem. However, by prioritizing the use of American-made construction material and insisting on hiring only US workers, his controversial policies will form the basis for developing well-paid American jobs.

The emphasis on investment and jobs in the US is a complete break with the previous Administration, where President Obama focused on waging multiple wars in the Middle East , increasing public debt and the trade deficit.

Trump’s inaugural address issued a stern promise: “The American carnage stops right now and stops right here!” This resonated with a huge sector of the working class and was spoken before an assemblage of the very architects of four decades of job-destroying globalization. ‘Carnage’ carried a double meaning: Widespread carnage resulted from Obama and other administrations’ destruction of domestic jobs resulting in decay and bankruptcy of rural, small town and urban communities. This domestic carnage was the other side of the coin of their policies of conducting endless overseas wars spreading carnage to three continents.

The last fifteen years of political leadership spread domestic carnage by allowing the epidemic of drug addiction (mostly related to uncontrolled synthetic opiate prescriptions) to kill hundreds of thousands of mostly young American’s and destroy the lives of millions. Trump promised to finally address this ‘carnage’ of wasted lives. Unfortunately, he did not hold ‘Big Pharma’ and the medical community responsible for its role in spreading drug addiction into the deepest corners of the economically devastated rural America . Trump criticized previous elected officials for authorizing huge military subsidies to ‘allies’ while making it clear that his critique did not include US military procurement policies and would not contradict his promise to ‘reinforce old alliances’ (NATO).

  • Truth and Lies: Garbage Journalists and Arm Chair Militarists

The respectable garbage journalists of the Financial Times claim that Trump wants to ‘destroy world trade’. In fact, Trumps has repeatedly stated his intention to increase international trade. What Trump proposes is to increase US world trade from the inside, rather than from overseas. He seeks to re-negotiate the terms of multilateral and bilateral trade agreements to secure greater reciprocity with trading partners. Under Obama, the US was more aggressive in imposing trade tariffs that any other country in the OECD.
Garbage journalists label Trump as a ‘protectionist’, confusing his policies to re-industrialize the economy with autarky ( a policy of establishing a self-sufficient and independent national economy). Trump will promote exports and imports, retain an open economy, while increasing the role of the US as a producer and exporter. The US will become more selective in its imports. Trump will favor the growth of manufacturing exporters and increase imports of primary commodities and advanced technology while reducing the import of automobiles, steel and household consumer products.

Trump’s opposition to ‘globalization’ has been conflated by the garbage journalists of the Washington Post as a dire threat to the ‘the post-Second World War economic order’. In fact, vast changes have already rendered the old order obsolete and attempts to retain it have led to crises, wars and more decay. Trump has recognized the obsolete nature of the old economic order and stated that change is necessary.

  • The Obsolete Old Order and the Dubious New Economy

At the end of the Second World War, most of Western Europe and Japan resorted to highly restrictive ‘protectionist’ industrial and monetary policies to rebuild their economies. Only after a period of prolonged recovery did Germany and Japan carefully and selectively liberalize their economic policies.
In recent decades, Russia was drastically transformed from a powerful collectivist economy to a capitalist vassal-gangster oligarchy and more recently to a reconstituted mixed economy and strong central state. China has been transformed from a collectivist economy, isolated from world trade, into the world’s second most powerful economy, displacing the US as Asia and Latin America ’s largest trading partner.
Once controlling 50% of world trade, the US share is now less than 20%. This decline is partly due to the dismantling of its industrial economy when its manufacturers moved their factories abroad.

Despite the transformation of the world order, recent US presidents have failed to recognize the need to re-organize the American political economy. Instead of recognizing, adapting and accepting shifts in power and market relations, they sought to intensify previous patterns of dominance through war, military intervention and bloody destructive ‘regime changes’ – thus devastating, rather than creating markets for US goods. Instead of recognizing China’s immense economic power and seek to re-negotiate trade and co-operative agreements, they have stupidly excluded China from regional and international trade pacts, to the extent of crudely bullying their junior Asian trade partners, and launching a policy of military encirclement and provocation in the South China Seas. While Trump recognized these changes and the need to renegotiate economic ties, his cabinet appointees seek to extend Obama’s militarist policies of confrontation.

Under the previous administrations, Washington ignored Russia ’s resurrection, recovery and growth as a regional and world power. When reality finally took root, previous US administrations increased their meddling among the Soviet Union’s former allies and set up military bases and war exercises on Russia ’s borders. Instead of deepening trade and investment with Russia , Washington spent billions on sanctions and military spending – especially fomenting the violent putchist regime in Ukraine . Obama’s policies promoting the violent seizure of power in Ukraine, Syria and Libya were motivated by his desire to overthrow governments friendly to Russia – devastating those countries and ultimately strengthening Russia’s will to consolidate and defend its borders and to form new strategic alliances.
Early in his campaign, Trump recognized the new world realities and proposed to change the substance, symbols, rhetoric and relations with adversaries and allies – adding up to a New Economy.

First and foremost, Trump looked at the disastrous wars in the Middle East and recognized the limits of US military power: The US could not engage in multiple, open-ended wars of conquest and occupation in the Middle East, North Africa and Asia without paying major domestic costs.

Secondly, Trump recognized that Russia was not a strategic military threat to the United States . Furthermore, the Russian government under Vladimir Putin was willing to cooperate with the US to defeat a mutual enemy – ISIS and its terrorist networks. Russia was also keen to re-open its markets to the US investors, who were also anxious to return after years of the Obama-Clinton-Kerry imposed sanctions. Trump, the realist, proposes to end sanctions and restore favorable market relations.

Thirdly, it is clear to Trump that the US wars in the Middle East imposed enormous costs with minimal benefits for the US economy. He wants to increase market relations with the regional economic and military powers, like Turkey , Israel and the Gulf monarchies. Trump is not interested in Palestine , Yemen , Syria or the Kurds – which do not offer much investment and trade opportunities. He ignores the enormous regional economic and military power of Iran , Nevertheless Trump has proposed to re-negotiate the recent six-nation agreement with Iran in order to improve the US side of the bargain. His hostile campaign rhetoric against Tehran may have been designed to placate Israel and its powerful domestic ‘Israel-Firsters’ fifth column. This certainly came into conflict with his ‘America First’ pronouncements. It remains to be seen whether Donald Trump will retain a ‘show’ of submission to the Zionist project of an expansionist Israel while proceeding to include Iran as a part of his regional market agenda.

The Garbage Journalists claim that Trump has adopted a new bellicose stance toward China and threatens to launch a ‘protectionist agenda’, which will ultimately push the trans-Pacific countries closer to Beijing . On the contrary, Trump appears intent on renegotiating and increasing trade via bilateral agreements. Trump will most probably maintain, but not expand, Obama’s military encirclement of China ’s maritime boundaries which threaten its vital shipping routes. Nevertheless, unlike Obama, Trump will re-negotiate economic and trade relations with Beijing – viewing China as a major economic power and not a developing nation intent on protecting its ‘infant industries’. Trump’s realism reflect the new economic order: China is a mature, highly competitive, world economic power, which has been out-competing the US , in part by retaining its own state subsidies and incentives from its earlier economic phase. This has led to significant imbalances. Trump, the realist, recognizes that China offers great opportunities for trade and investment if the US can secure reciprocal agreements, which lead to a more favorable balance of trade.

Trump does not want to launch a ‘trade war’ with China , but he needs to restore the US as a major ‘exporter’ nation in order to implement his domestic economic agenda. The negotiations with the Chinese will be very difficult because the US importer-elite are against the Trump agenda and side with the Beijing ’s formidable export-oriented ruling class. Moreover, because Wall Street’s banking elite is pleading with Beijing to enter China ’s financial markets, the financial sector is an unwilling and unstable ally to Trump’s pro-industrial policies.

  • Conclusion

Trump is not a ‘protectionist’, nor is he opposed to ‘free-trade’. These charges by the garbage journalists are baseless. Trump does not oppose US economic imperialist policies abroad. However, Trump is a market realist who recognizes that military conquest is costly and, in the contemporary world context, a losing economic proposition for the US . He recognizes that the US must turn from a predominant finance and import economy to a manufacturing and export economy.

Trump views Russia as a potential economic partner and military ally in ending the wars in Syria , Iraq , Afghanistan and Ukraine , and especially in defeating the terrorist threat of ISIS . He sees China as a powerful economic competitor, which has been taking advantage of outmoded trade privileges and wants to re-negotiate trade pacts in line with the current balance of economic power.

Trump is a capitalist-nationalist, a market-imperialist and political realist, who is willing to trample on women’s rights, climate change legislation, indigenous treaties and immigrant rights. His cabinet appointments and his Republican colleagues in Congress are motivated by a militarist ideology closer to the Obama-Clinton doctrine than to Trumps new ‘America First’ agenda. He has surrounded his Cabinet with military imperialists, territorial expansionists and delusional fanatics.

Who will win out in the short or long term remains to be seen. What is clear is that the liberals, Democratic Party hacks and advocates of Little Mussolini black shirted street thugs will be on the side of the imperialists and will find plenty of allies among and around the Trump regime.

President Trump’s speech can be heard here:


  • More Comment

Stephen Lendman in the article below sees Trump’s proposals benefitting Wall Street and militarism more than the nation’s needs for jobs, infrastructure health and safety. But as others, and especially Democrats point out, no matter what he may proposed, it needs to turn into real and passable legislation. There is the rub! Such legislation might be good as it helps address the wrongs Dr. Petras points out above and bad as it creates a more powerful Wall Street and Imperialism that Mr. Lendman sees in the article below to serve the establishment Trump so vehemently appeared to oppose. However, we would argue that Trump or worse, under the preceding conditions, was an inevitability. He inherited not created his opportunity and as we have noted many times, we must look underneath him to see the real enemy and then to ourselves to help resolve our dilemma. Consequently, we would argue that whether or not Trump becomes a tyrant depends now on us as much as him. He is no Hitler rather an American salesman or flim flam man and as such a part of the American experience since its inception. In other words it could be worse and with a Trump perhaps it is better. We simply don’t know at this point but we should not be taking any chances. If he remains the wild card who knows how he will flop around and then if he can survive in a more positive form. We need faith to do our jobs and as Glenn Greenwald suggested we have enough ways to attack issues rather than personalities to keep him and us from tumbling over and down. It is up to us as much as him. It is up to us as much to him. Here’s Lendman’s take on his speech that surely showed him in his best form, the American pitchman, as well as the threat he also seems to be.


Trump Before Congress
Stephen Lendman 3/1/17


His Tuesday address was long on making America safe for Wall Street, war profiteers and other corporate predators, short on what’s most needed to serve all Americans equitably and promote world peace. He focused on increased military spending at a time major cuts are needed, combating terrorism without explaining ISIS and likeminded groups are US creations, used as imperial foot soldiers. He called for repealing and replacing Obamacare, omitting what he and GOP lawmakers want is something worse, maybe devastating for the nation’s most vulnerable.
“We will soon begin the construction of a great wall along our southern border,” he said. He lied claiming it’ll deter illicit drugs and crime. He covered his notion of immigration reform, falsely claiming “it will save countless dollars, raise workers’ wages, and help struggling families, including immigrant families, enter the middle class.” Middle America has been disappearing for years. Neoliberal harshness since the 1990s wrecked it. Nothing in prospect suggests resurrection. He wants America more militarized than ever, intending greater funding for police – to protect the nation’s privileged class from beneficial social change. Changes he’ll propose in America’s tax code are unrelated to letting “our companies…compete and thrive anywhere and with anyone.” He lied claiming otherwise. Corporate tax cuts don’t create jobs. Economic growth does. GW Bush and Obama gave business trillions of dollars in tax breaks. Their balance sheets and bottom line performance benefitted. Enormous amounts of corporate wealth went to tax havens, were used for stock buybacks, along with higher executive pay and bonuses, nothing helping workers, nothing creating jobs. Job reductions accompanied foreign investments. Offshoring was rewarded. Rotten part-time jobs replaced good full-time ones. Corporate America and high-net worth households never had things better. Unprecedented wealth amounts shifted from ordinary people to them. The great wealth transfer heist continues, America thirdworldized in the process, nothing being done to change things. Trump’s economic plan may make conditions worse with Goldman Sachs in charge of administration policy. His address said nothing about Russia, little about foreign policy. America remains the world’s leading pariah state on his watch, its leading bully, waging endless wars of aggression. He lied claiming the “United States respects the right of all nations to chart their own path.” Humanity profoundly disagrees. Candidate Trump called NATO “obsolete.” Before Congress he expressed strong support for “an alliance forged through the bonds of two World Wars that dethroned fascism, and a Cold War that defeated communism.”
NATO is a killing machine, used for offense, not defense. World peace, stability and security are impossible as long as the alliance exists. Saying he “want(s) harmony and stability, not war and conflict,” imperial wars rage on his watch in multiple theaters – nothing said about ending US aggression against nations threatening no one, nothing about the grand deception of America’s war on terrorism. His address was long on hyperbole and bluster, short on a compelling need for a new direction.


The Money Masters


In 1995 Patrick S. J. Carmack co-produced a two-volume video The Money Masters: How International Bankers Gained Control of America. Mr. Carmack, a member of the bar of the US Supreme Court of the United States, a BBA, JD, has practiced corporate law and was a former Administrative Law Judge for the Corporation Commission of the State of Oklahoma. His video

. . . . in addition to giving a history of Rothchild banking establishment argues among other things that private central banks owned and controlled American large media and other outlets. The Money Masters discusses the topics of money (as it relates to central banking and fractional reserve banking), debt, and taxes, and purports to describe the development of those subjects from their origin in the “dark ages”. The film claims that what it calls the “safe and easy guaranteed huge profit made by printing money” is currently being used in the United States to benefit a few wealthy individuals. It argues that this situation should be remedied, so that this alleged profit benefits the public good, as, according to the film, has been the case during four periods in the history of the United States.

At the beginning of the excerpts of the video the commentator asks the listener “What is going on in America today?” explaining that property ownership, a general feature of our society before the Civil War and largely until the Great Depression, has been replaced by debt and dependence on wages or salaries

Why are we over our heads in debt? Why can’t the politicians bring debt under control? Why are so many people – often both parents now – working at low-paying, deadend jobs and still making do with less? What’s the future of the American economy and way of life? Why does the government tell us inflation is low, when the buying power of our paychecks is declining at an alarming rate? Only a generation ago, bread was a quarter and you could get a new car for $1,995!

Unlike W. H. Brands in The Money Men who sees the Federal Reserve a quasi private and public venture responsible for our great prosperity, Carmack sees the Federal Reserve the last and most lethal private US bank relating American history to show some of our most valiant presidents rejecting and dismantling US national banks for the reasons he explains. As to our monetary system,

. . . . . we have one of the worst, , , ever devised – a central bank that operates independently of our government, which, with other private banks, creates all of our money with a parallel amount of interest-bearing debt. That’s why we can never get out of debt. And that’s why a deep depression is a certainty, for most of our citizens, whether caused suddenly in a severe economic crash, or gradually through continued relentless inflation. The Fed is creating it to enrich its private stockholder. . .

In times of prosperity, Americans might be unwilling to accept a history which destroys so many of our myths. But sitting as we do on top of a financial world that seems ready to crumble beneath us, such history begins to explain how we came to be atop such a dangerous precipice. At the beginning of 2008, our Federal Reserve prints money to deflate our currency in order to bail out financial institutions who created mortgage vehicles that turned out bogus and therefore worthless infecting banks throughout the world. While financial transactions often operate quietly behind the scenes to keep their overall power over the economy hidden, in this latest phase concerning mortgages, Wall Street collides with Main Street. Americans are losing their homes in groves and although the system may be bad, it is the one on which we all depend. At its heart are our banks which are freezing up, unable or too afraid to lend money. When the Federal Reserve retreats that many analysts predict they will be forced to do, institutions that are interconnected and intertwined will tumble one after another. The Feds efforts to save the system have helped to bring on more inflation and devalue the dollar. More and more mortgages will be unpaid as the prices of homes decline with their equity. Can we find the roots to such problems?

The extensive American history in the transcripts of The Money Masters helps us come to understand some of this as well as other global issues that have led to the exporting of jobs, declining standards of living, and importing of millions of immigrants. It is a story about them vs. us; a story about an aristocracy of capital living in the midst of a nation wanting to be a democracy. The main story begins, as previously reviewed, with international banking promoted by Rothschild’s’ agent Alexander Hamilton and coming to include others such as the Morgan’s and the Rockefeller’s

First, Part Seven of the The Money Masters video presents additional information on the origins and influence of the Rothschilds

The Rise of the Rothschilds

. . . . . Meyer Rothschild soon learned that loan money to governments and kings was more profitable than loaning to private individuals. Not only were the loans bigger, but they were secured by the nation’s taxes. . . . .

The Rothschilds broke into dealings with European royalty in Wilhelmshohe, the palace of the wealthiest man in Germany – in fact, tbe wealthiest monarch in all of Europe – Prince William of Hesse-Cassel.

At first, the Rothschilds were only helping William speculate in precious coins. But when Napoleon chased Prince William into exile, William sent £550,000 (a gigantic sum at that time, equivalent to many millions of current U.S. dollars) to Nathan Rothschild in London with instructions from him to buy Consola – British government bonds also called government stock. But Rothschild used the money for his own purposes. With Napoleon on the loose, the opportunities for highly profitable wartime investments were nearly limitless.

William returned to Wllhelmshohe, sometime prior to the Battle of Waterloo in 1815. He summoned the Rothschilds and demanded his money back. The Rothschilds returned William’s money, with the 8% interest the British Consols would have paid him had the investment actually been made. But the Rothschilds kept all the vast wartime profits they had made using Wilhelm’ s money—a shady practice in any century.

Partly by such practices, Nathan Rothschild was able to later brag that in the seventeen years he had been in England, he had increased his original £20,000 stake given to him by his father by 2,500 times (=£50,000,000), a truly vast sum at that time, comparable to billions of current U.S. dollars in purchasing power.

As early as 1817, the director of the Prussian Treasury, on a visit to London, wrote that Nathan Rothschild had:   “… incredible influence upon all financial affairs here in London. It is widely stated … that he entirely regulates the rate of exchange in the City. His power as a banker is enormous. “

Austrian Prince Metternich’s secretary wrote of the Rothschilds as early as 1818 that:
“…they are the richest people in Europe”.

By cooperating within the family, using fractional reserve banking techniques (it could lend out money it didn’t have, then charge interest on it), the Rothschilds’ banks soon grew unbelievably wealthy. By the mid-1800s, they dominated all European banking, and were certainly the wealthiest family in the world. A large part of the profligate nobility of Europe became deeply indebted to them.

In virtue of their presence in five nations as bankers, they were effectively autonomous – an entity independent from the nations in which they operated. If one nation’s policies were displeasing to them or their interests, they could simply do no further lending there, or lend to those nations or groups opposed to such policies. Only they knew where their gold and other reserves were located, thus shielding them from government seizure, penalty, pressure or taxation, as well as effectively making any national investigation or audit meaningless. Only they knew the extent (or paucity) of their fractional reserves, scattered in five nations – a tremendous advantage over purely national banks engaging in fractional reserve banking too.

It was precisely their international character that gave them unique advantages over national banks and governments, and that was precisely what rulers and national parliaments should have prohibited, but did not. This remains true of international or multi-national banks to this very day, and is the driving force of globalization – the push for one-world government.
The Rothschilds provided huge loans to establish monopolies in various industries, thereby guaranteeing the borrowers’ ability to repay the loans by raising prices without fear of price competition, while increasing the Rothschild’s economic and political power.

They financed Cecil Rhodes, making it possible for him to establish a monopoly over the gold fields of South Africa and the deBeers over diamonds. In America, they financed the monopolization of railroads.
The National City Bank of Cleveland, which was identified in Congressional hearings as one of three Rothschild banks in the United States, provided John D. Rockefeller with the money to begin his monopolization of the oil refinery business, resulting in Standard Oil.

Jacob Schiff, who had been born in the Rothschild “Green Shield” house in Frankfort and who was then the principal Rothschild agent in the U.S., advised Rockefeller and developed the infamous rebate deal Rockefeller secretly demanded from railroads shipping competitors’ oil.

These same railroads were already monopolized by Rothschild control through agents and allies J.P. Morgan and Kuhn, Loeb & Company (Schiff was on the Board) which together controlled 95% of all U.S. railroad mileage.   By 1850, James Rothschild, the heir of the French branch of the family, was said to be worth 600 million French francs – 150 million more than all the other bankers in France put together.

James had been established in Paris in 1812 with a capital of $200,000 by Mayer Amschel. At the time of his death in 1868, 56 years later, his annual income was $40,000,000. No fortune in America at that time equaled even one year’s income of James. Referring to James Rothschild, the poet Heinrich Heine said:   “Money is the god of our times, and Rothschild is his prophet.” James built his fabulous mansion, called Femeres, 19 miles northeast of Paris. Wilhelm I, on first seeing it exclainned, “Kings couldn’t afford this. It could only belong to a Rothschild.”

Another 19 century French commentator put it this way;   “There is but one power in Europe and that is Rothschild.”
There is no evidence that their predominant standing in European or world finance has changed, to the contrary, as their wealth has increased they have simply increased their “passion for anonymity”. Their vast holdings rarely bear their name.
Author Frederic Morton wrote of them that they had “conquered the world more thoroughly, more cunningly, and much more lastingly than all the Caesars before


American History

The Revolution
By the mid-1700s, the British Empire was approaching its height of power around the world. Britain had fought four wars in Europe since the creation of its privately- owned central bank, the Bank of England. The cost had had been high. To finance these wars, the British Parliament, rather than issuing its own debt-free currency, had borrowed heavily from the Bank. ]

By the mid-1700s, the government’s debt was £140,000,000 – a staggering sum for those days. Consequently, the British government embarked on a program of trying to raise revenues from its American colonies in order to make the interest payments to the Bank.

But in America, it was a different story. The scourge of a privately-owned central bank had not yet landed in America, though the Bank of England exerted its baneful influence over the American colonies after 1694.
Four years earlier, in 1690 the Massachusetts Bay colony printed its own paper money – the first in America. This was followed in 1703 by South Carolina and then by other colonies. In the mid-1700s, pre-Revolutionary America was still relatively poor. There was a severe shortage of precious metal coins to trade for goods, so the early colonists were increasingly forced to experiment with printing their own home-grown paper money. Some of these experiments were successful. Tobacco was used as money in some colonies with success.

In 1720 every colonial Royal Governor was instructed to curtail the issue of colonial money. This was largely unsuccessful. In 1742 the British Resumption Act required that taxes and other debts be paid in gold. This caused a depression in the colonies – property was seized on foreclosure by the rich for one-tenth its value.

Benjamin Franklin was a big supporter of the colonies printing their own money. In 1757, Franklin was sent to London to fight for colonial paper money. He ended up staying for the next 18 years – nearly until the start of the American Revolution. During this period, ignoring Parliament, more American colonies began to issue their own money. Called Colonial Scrip, the endeavor was successful, with notable exceptions. It provided a reliable medium of exchange, and it also helped to provide a feeling of unity between the colonies. Remember, most Colonial Scrip was just paper money – debt-free money – printed in the public interest and not really backed by gold or silver coin. In other words, it was a fiat currency.

Officials of the Bank of England asked Franklin how he would account for the new-found prosperity of the colonies. Without hesitation he replied:   “That is simple. In the colonies we issue our own money. It is called Colonial Scrip. We issue it in proper proportion to the demands of trade and industry to make the products pass easily from the producers to the consumers…  In this manner, creating for ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay to no one.”
This was just common sense to Franklin, but you can imagine the impact it had at the Bank of England. America had learned the secret of money and that genie had to be returned to its bottle as soon as possible.

1st American Central Bank War (1764-1776)
As a result, Parliament hurriedly passed the Currency Act of 1764. This prohibited colonial officials from issuing their own money and ordered them to pay all future taxes in gold or silver coins. In other words, it forced the colonies on a gold and silver standard. This initiated the first intense phase of the first “Bank War” in America, which ended in defeat for the Money Changers beginning with the Declaration of Independence, and concluded by the subsequent peace Treaty of Paris 1783.

For those who believe that a gold standard is the answer for America’s current monetary problems, look what happened to America afar the Currency Act of 1764 was passed. Writing in his autobiography, Franklin said:  “In one year, the conditions were so reversed that the era of prosperity ended, and a depression set in, to such an extent that the streets of the Colonies were filled with unemployed.”

Franklin claims that this was even the basic cause for the American Revolution. As Franklin put it in his autobiography:   “The Colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the Colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction.”

In 1774, Parliament passed the Stamp Act which required that a stamp be placed on ever instrument of commerce indicating payment of tax in gold, which threatened the colonial paper money again. Less than two weeks later, the Massachusetts Committee of Safety passed a resolution directing the issuance of more colonial currency and honoring the currency of other colonies.

On June 10 and June 22, 1775, the “Congress of the Colonies” resolved to issue million in paper money based on the credit and faith of the “United Colonies”. This flew in the face of the Bank of England and Parliament. It constituted an act of defiance, a refusal to accept a monetary system unjust to the people of the colonies.

“Thus the bills of credit [ie. paper money] which historians with ignorance or prejudice have belittled as instruments of reckless financial policy, were really the standards of the Revolution. They were more than this: they were the Revolution itself.” – Alexander Del Mar, historian

NOTE Alexander del Mar, also Alex Delmar (1836–1926), was an American political economist, historian, numismatist and author. He was the first director of the Bureau of Statistics at the U.S. Treasury Department from 1866–69

By the time the first shots were fired in Concord and Lexington, Massachusetts on April 19, 1775, the colonies had been drained of gold and silver coin by British taxation. As result, the Continental government had no choice but to print its own paper money to finance the war.

At the start of the Revolution, the U.S. (colonial) money supply stood at $12 million. By the end of the war, it was nearly $500 million. This was partly a result of massive British counterfeiting. As a result, the currency was virtually worthless. Shoes sold for $5,000 a pair.
George Washington lamented, “A wagon load of money will scarcely purchase wagon of provisions.”

Earlier, Colonial scrip had worked because just enough was issued to facilitate trade and counterfeiting was minimal. Today, those who support a gold-backed currency point to this period during the Revolution to demonstrate the evils of a fiat currency. But remember, the currency had worked so well twenty years earlier during times of peace that England had Parliament outlaw it, and during the war the British deliberately sought to undermine it by counterfeiting it in England and shipping it “by the bale” to the colonies.

2nd American Central Bank War (1781-1785)
Towards the end of the Revolution, the Continental Congress, meeting at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, grew desperate for money. In 1781, they allowed Robert Morris, their Financial Superintendent, to open a privately-owned central bank in hopes that would help. Incidentally, Morris was a wealthy man who had grown wealthier during the Revolution by trading in war materials.

Called the Bank of North America, the new bank was closely modeled after the Bank of England. It was allowed to practice (or rather, it was not prohibited from) fractional reserve banking – that is, it could lend out money it didn’t have, then charge interest on it. If you or I were to do that, we would be charged with fraud, a felony. Few understood this practice at the time, which was, of course, concealed from the public and politicians as much as possible. Further, the bank was given a monopoly on issuing bank notes, acceptable in payment of taxes.

The Bank’s charter called for private investors to put up $400,000 worth of initial capital. But when Morris was unable to raise the money, he brazenly used his political influence to have gold deposited in the bank which had been loaned to America by France. He then loaned this money to himself and his friends to reinvest in shares of the bank. The second American Bank War was on.

Soon, the dangers became clear. The value of American currency continued to plummet, so, four years later, in 1785, the Bank’s charter was not renewed, effectively ending the threat of the Bank’s power. Thus the second American Bank War quickly ended in defeat for the Money Changers.

The leader of the successful effort to kill the Bank, a patriot named William Findley, of Pennsylvania, explained the problem this way:   “This institution, having no principle but that of avarice, will never be varied in its object … to engross all the wealth, power and influence of the state.”

Plutocracy, once established, will corrupt the legislature so that laws will be made in its favor, and the administration of justice, to favor the rich.   The men behind the Bank of North America – Alexander Hamilton, Robert Morris and the Bank’s President, Thomas Willing – did not give up.   Only six years later, Hamilton – then Secretary of the Treasury – and his mentor, Morris, rammed a new privately-owned central bank through the new Congress.   Called the First Bank of the United States, Thomas Willing again served as the Bank’s President. The players were the same, only the name of the Bank was changed.

The Constitutional Convention
In 1787, colonial leaders assembled in Philadelphia to replace the ailing Articles of Confederation. As we saw earlier, both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were unalterably opposed to a privately-owned central bank. They had seen the problems caused by the Bank of England. They wanted nothing of it. As Jefferson later put it:   “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and the corporations which grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

During the debate over the future monetary system, another one of the founding fathers, Governor Morris, headed the committee that wrote the final draft of the Constitution. Morris knew the motivations of the bankers well.
Along with his old boss, Robert Morris, Governor Morris and Alexander Hamilton were the ones who had presented the original plan for the Bank of North America to the Continental Congress in the last year of the Revolution.  In a letter he wrote to James Madison on July 2, 1787, Governor Morris revealed what was really going on:   “The rich will strive to establish their dominion and enslave the rest. They always did. They always will. … They will have the same effect here as elsewhere, if we do not, by [the power of] government, keep them in their proper spheres.”
Despite the defection of Governor Morris from the ranks of the Bank, Hamilton, Robert Morris, Thomas Willing, and their European backers were not about to give up.

NOTE:  Robert Morris and Governor Morris were two different founding fathers, and as explained here, while both had been allied with Hamilton Governor came to defect from that alliance

They convinced the bulk of the delegates to the Constitution Convention not to give Congress the power to issue paper money. Most of the delegates were still reeling from the wild inflation of the paper currency during the Revolution. They had forgotten how well Colonial Scrip had worked before the War. But the Bank of England had not. The Money Changers could not stand to have America printing her own money again.

Many believed the Tenth Amendment, which reserved powers to the States which were not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, made the issuance of paper money by the federal government unconstituonal, since the power to issue paper money was not specifically delegated to the federal government in the Constitution. The Constitution is silent on this point. However, the Constitution specifically forbade the individual States to “emit bills of credit” (paper money).

Most of the framers intended the Constitution’s silence to keep the new federal government from having the power to authorize money creation. Indeed, the journal of Convention for August 16 reads as follows:   “It was moved and seconded to strike out words ‘and emit bills of credit,’ and the motion. . ..passed in the affirmative.”
But Hamilton and his banker friends saw this silence as an opportunity of keeping the government out of paper money creation which they hoped to monopolize privately. So both bankers and anti-banking delegates, for opposing motives, supported leaving any federal government authority for paper money creation out of the Constitution, by a four to one margin. This ambiguity left the door open for the Money Changers, just as they had planned.

Of course, paper money was not itself the main problem, fractional reserve lending was the greater problem since it multiplied any inflation caused by excessive paper currency issuance by several times. But this was not understood by many, whereas the evils of excessive paper currency issuance were.

In their belief that prohibiting paper currency was a good end the framers were well advised. Prohibiting all paper currency would have severely limited the fractional reserve banking then practiced, since the use of checks was minimal and would, arguably, have been prohibited as well. But bank loans, created as book entries, were not addressed, and so were not prohibited.
As it happened, the federal and state governments were widely regarded as prohibited from paper money creation, whereas private banks were not – it being argued that this power, by not being specifically prohibited, was reserved to the people (including legal persons, such as incorporated banks).
The contrary argument was that bank corporations were instruments or agencies of the states which incorporated them and so were prohibited from “emitting bills of credit” as were the states themselves. This argument was ignored by the bankers, who proceeded to issue paper bank notes based on fractional reserves, and it lost all force once the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that even the federal government could charter a bank (the 1st BUS) which could issue paper money.

In the end, only the states were prohibited from issuing paper money, not the federal government, and neither private banks nor even municipalities were prohibited from issuing paper money (as happened in 400 cities during the Great Depression).

Another error not often understood concerns the authority given the federal government “to coin money” and “to regulate the value thereof.” Regulating the value of money (that is to say its purchasing power, or value relative to other things) has nothing to do with quality or content (e.g. so many grains of gold or copper, etc,), but has to do with its quantity – the supply of money. It is quantity that determines its value, and never has Congress legislated any total quantity of money in the U.S.

Legislating a total money supply (including currency, checks and all bank deposits) would, in fact, regulate the value (purchasing power) of each dollar. Legislating the rate of growth of the money supply would then determine its future value. Congress has never done either, though it clearly has the constitutional authority to do so. It has left this function to the Fed and the 10,000+ banks which create our money supply.

3rd American Central Bank War (1791- 1811)
In 1790, less than three years after the Constitution had been signed, the Money Changers struck again. The newly-appointed first Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, proposed a bill to the Congress calling for a new privately-owned central bank. Coincidentally, that was the very year that Meyer Rothschild made his pronouncement from his flagship bank in Frankfort:
“Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes its laws.”

Alexander Hamilton was a tool of the international bankers. He wanted to create another private central bank, the Bank of the United States, and did so. He convinced Washington to sign the bill over Washington’s reservations and over Jefferson’s and Madison’s opposition.

To win over Washington, Hamilton developed the “implied powers” argument used so often since to eviscerate the Constitution. Jefferson correctly predicted the dire consequences of opening such a Pandora’s box which would allow judges to “imply” whatever they wished. . . . .

“Never was a great historic event followed by a more feeble sequel. A nation arises to claim for itself liberty and sovereignty. It gains both of these by immense sacrifice of blood and treasure. Then, when victory is gained and secure, it hands the nation’s credit – that is to say a national treasure – over to private individuals, to do as they please with.” – Alexander Del Mar, historian

The first Bank of the United States was headquartered in Philadelphia. The Bank was even given authority to print currency and make loans, based on fractional reserves, even though 80% of its stock would be held by private investors. The other 20% would be purchased by the U.S. Government, but the reason was not to give the government a piece of the action, it was to provide the initial capital for the other 80% owners.

As with the old bank of North America and the Bank of England before that, the stockholders never paid the full amount for their shares. The U.S. government put up their initial $2,000,000 in cash, then the Bank through the old magic of fractional reserve lending, made loans to its charter investors so they could come up with the remaining $8,000,000 in capital needed for this risk-free investment.

Like the Bank of England, the name of the Bank of the United States was deliberately chosen to hide the fact that it was privately controlled. And like the Bank of England, the names of the investors in the Bank were never revealed.

“Under the surface, the Rothschilds long had a powerful influence in dictating American financial laws. The law records show that they were the power in the old Bank of the United States” – Myers, History of the Great American Fortunes.

The Bank was promoted to Congress as a way to bring stability to the banking system and to eliminate inflation. So what happened? Over the first five years, the U.S. government borrowed $8.2 million from the Bank of the United States. In that period, prices rose by 72%.

Jefferson, as the new Secretary of State, watched the borrowing with sadness and frustration, unable to stop it.    “I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution – taking from the federal government the power of borrowing.”
President Adams denounced the issuance of private bank notes as a fraud upon the public. He was supported in this view by all conservative opinion of his time. Why continue to farm out to private banks, for nothing, a prerogative of government?

Millions of Americans feel the same way today. They watch in helpless frustration as the Federal government borrows the American taxpayer into oblivion; borrowing from private banks and the rich the money the government has the authority and duty to issue itself, without debt. So, although it was called the First Bank of the U.S., it was not the first attempt at a privately-owned central bank in this country. As with the first two, the Bank of England and the Bank of North America, the government put up the cash to get this private bank going, then the bankers loaned that money to each other to buy the remaining stock in the bank.

It was a scam, plain and simple. And they wouldn’t be able to get away with it for long, but first we have to travel back to Europe to see how a single man was able to manipulate the entire British economy by obtaining the first news of Napoleon’s final defeat.

Napoleon’s Rise to Power
Here in Paris, the Bank of France was organized in 1800 just like the Bank of England. But Napoleon decided France had to break free of debt and he never trusted the Bank of France, even when he put some of his own relatives on the governing Board. He declared that when a government is dependent upon bankers for money, the bankers, not the leaders of the government are in control:   “The hand that gives is above the hand that takes. Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency: their sole object is gain.He clearly saw the dangers, but did not see the proper safeguards or solution. Back in America, unexpected help was about to arrive.

In 1800, Thomas Jefferson narrowly defeated John Adams to become the third President of the United States. By 1803, Jefferson and Napoleon had struck a deal. The U.S. would give Napoleon $3,000,000 in gold in exchange for a huge chunk of territory west of the Mississippi River – the Louisiana Purchase.

With that three million dollars, Napoleon quickly forged an army and set off across Europe, conquering everything in his path. But England and the Bank of England quickly rose to oppose him. They financed every nation in his path, reaping the enormous profits of war. Prussia, Austria, and finally Russia all went heavily into debt in a futile attempt to stop Napoleon.

Four years later, with the main French Army in Russia, 30-year-old Nathan Rothschild – the head of the London office of the Rothschild family – personally took charge a bold plan to smuggle a much-needed shipment of gold right through France to finance an attack by the Duke of Wellington from Spain. Nathan later bragged at a dinner party in London that it was the best business he ever done. He made money on each step the shipment. Little did he know that would do much better business in the near future.
Wellington’s attacks from the south, and other defeats, eventually forced Napoleon to abdicate, and Louis XVIII was crowned King. Napoleon was exiled to Elba, a tiny island off the coast of Italy, supposedly exiled from France forever. While Napoleon was in Elba, temporarily defeated by England with the financial help of the Rothschilds – America was trying to break free of its central bank as well.

Death of the First Bank–War of 1812

In 1811, a bill was put before Congress to renew the charter of the Bank of the United States. The debate grew very heated and the legislature of both Pennsylvania and Virginia passed resolutions asking Congress to kill the Bank.   The press corps of the day attacked the Bank openly, calling it “a great swindle”, a “vulture”, a “viper”, and a “cobra”. Oh, to have an independent press once again in America.
A Congressman named P.B. Porter attacked the bank from the floor of Congress, prophetically warned that if the bank’s charter were renewed, Congress,   “will have planted in the bosom of this Constitution a viper, which one day or another will sting the liberties of this country to the heart.”
Prospects didn’t look good for the Bank. Some writers have claimed that Nathan Rothschild warned that the United States would find itself involved in a most disastrous war if the Bank’s charter were not renewed.
But it wasn’t enough. When the smoke had cleared, the renewal bill was defeated by a single vote in the House and was deadlocked in the Senate. By now, America’s fourth President, James Madison, was in the White House. Remember, Madison was a staunch opponent of the Bank. His Vice President, George Clinton, broke a tie in the Senate and sent the Bank, the second privately-owned central bank based in America, into oblivion. Thus, the third American Bank War, lasting twenty years, ended in defeat for the Money Changers.

Within 5 months, as Rothschild was said to have predicated, England attacked the U.S. and the War of 1812 was on. But the British were still busy fighting Napoleon, and so the war of 1812 vended in a draw in 1814.  It is interesting to note that during this war, the Treasury printed some government paper money, not bearing interest, to fund the war effort. This was not repeated until the Civil War.

Though the Money Changers were temporarily down, they were far from out. It would take them only another two years to bring a fourth private central bank back – bigger and stronger than before.


. . . . . This episode aptly demonstrates the cunning of the Rothschild family in gaining control of the British stock market after Waterloo.
In 1815, a year after the end of the War of 1812 in America, Napoleon escaped his exile and returned to Paris. French troops were sent out to capture him, but such was his charisma that the soldiers rallied around their old leader and hailed him as their Emperor once again. Napoleon returned to Paris a hero. King Louis fled into exile and Napoleon again ascended to the French throne – this time without a shot being fired.

In March of 1815 Napoleon equipped an army which Britain’s Duke of Wellington defeated less than 90 days later at Waterloo. He borrowed 5 million pounds to rearm from the Ouvard banking house in Paris. Nevertheless, from about this point on, it was not unusual for privately-controlled central banks to finance both sides in a war.

Why would a central bank finance opposing sides in a war? Because war is the biggest debt-generator of them all. A nation will borrow any amount for victory. The ultimate looser is loaned just enough to hold out the vain hope of victory, and the ultimate winner is given enough to win. Besides, such loans are usually conditioned upon the guarantee that the victor will honor the debts of the vanquished. Only the bankers cannot lose. . . . .

4th American Central Bank War (1816- 1836)

Meanwhile, back in Washington, in 1816, just one year after Waterloo and Rothschilds’ alleged takeover of the Bank of England, the American Congress passed a bill permitting yet another privately-owned central bank – the fourth American Bank War had begun.

This bank was called the Second Bank of the United States. The new Bank’s charter was a copy of the previous Bank’s. The U.S. government would own 20% of the shares. Of course, the Federal share was paid by the Treasury up front, into the Bank’s coffers. Then, through the magic of fractional reserve lending, it was transformed into loans to private investors who then bought the remaining 80% of the shares. Sound familiar by now?

Just as before, the primary stockholders remained secret. But it is known that, at the largest single block of shares- about one-third of the total- was held by foreigners. As one observer put it:
“It is certainly no exaggeration to say that the Second Bank of the United States was rooted as deeply in Britain as it was in America.”

So by 1816, some authors claim the Rothschilds and their allies, some by now related by marriage, had taken control over the Bank of England and backed the new privately-owned central bank in America as well. With Napoleon’s defeat about the same time, they began to dominate the Bank of France as well.
Andrew Jackson
After about a decade of monetary manipulations on the part of the Second Bank of the U.S., the American people, once again, had had just about enough. Opponents of the Bank nominated a famous senator from Tennessee, Andrew Jackson, the hero of the Battle of New Orleans, to run for president. His home he named “The Hermitage”. No one gave Jackson a chance initially. The Bank had long-ago learned how the political process could be controlled with money.

To the surprise and dismay of the Money Changers, Jackson was swept into office in 1828. Jackson was determined to kill the Bank at the first opportunity, and wasted no time to trying to do so. But the Bank’s 20 year charter didn’t come up for renewal until 1836, the last year of his second term – if he could survive that long. During his first term, Jackson contented himself with rooting out the Bank’s many minions from government service. He fired 2,000 of the 11,000 employees of the federal government.
In 1832, with his re-election approaching, the Bank struck an early blow, hoping Jackson would not want to stir up controversy. It asked Congress to pass a bank charter renewal bill four years early. Congress complied, and sent it to the President for signing. But Jackson weighed in with both feet. “Old Hickory,” never a coward, vetoed the bill. His veto message is one of the great American documents. It clearly lays out the responsibility of the American government towards its citizens – rich and poor.

   “It is not our own citizens only who are to receive the bounty of our Government. More than eight millions of the stock of this bank are held by foreigners… It is easy to conceive that great evils to our country and its institutions might flow from such a concentration of power in the hands of a few irresponsible to the people.  Is there no danger to our liberty and independence in a bank that in its nature has so little to bind it to our country? Controlling our currency, receiving our public moneys, and holding thousands of our citizens in dependence… would be more formidable and dangerous than a military power of the enemy…It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes… If [government] would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favor alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing.  In the act before me there seems to be a wide and unnecessary departure from these just principles. Many of our rich men have not been content with equal protection and equal benefits, but have besought us to make them richer by act of Congress…  If we can not at once, in justice to interests vested under improvident legislation, make our Government what it ought to be, we can at least take a stand against all new grants of monopolies and exclusive privileges, against any prostitution of our Government to the advancement of the few at the expense of the many, and in favor of compromise and gradual reform in our code of laws and system of political economy. . . . .
Jackson also declared:  “If Congress has the right to issue paper money, it was given them to be used by themselves, and not to be delegated to individuals or corporations.”
Later that year, in July 1832, Congress was unable to override Jackson’s veto. Now Jackson had to stand for re-election. . . . .

The National Republican Party ran Senator Henry Clay against Jackson. Despite the fact that the Bank poured in over $3,000,000 into Clay’s campaign, an enormous sum at that time, Jackson was re-elected by a landslide in November of 1832.

Despite his presidential victory, Jackson knew the battle was only beginning: “The hydra of corruption is only scotched, not dead,” said the newly-elected President. . . . . But the Bank was not through fighting yet. .. . . . In a rare, public display of arrogance, Biddle (the Bank’s President) threatened to cause a national economic depression if the Bank were not rechartered. He declared war:

What a stunning revelation! Here was the pure truth, revealed with shocking clarity. Biddle intended to use the money contraction power given to the Bank to cause a massive depression until America gave in. Unfortunately, this has happened time and time again throughout U.S. history, though without the blunder of Biddle’s arrogant admission, and may be about to happen again in our time. . . . .

Nicholas Biddle made good on his threat. The Bank sharply contracted the money supply by calling in old loans and refusing to extend new ones. A financial panic ensued, followed by a deep economic depression. Predictably, Biddle blamed Jackson for the crash, saying that it was caused by the withdrawal of federal funds from the Bank. Unfortunately, his plan worked well. Wages and prices sagged. Unemployment soared along with business bankruptcies. The nation quickly went into an uproar. . . . 
  Six months after he had withdrawn funds from the bank, Jackson was officially censured by a resolution which passed the Senate by a vote of 26 to 20. It was the first time a President had ever been censured by Congress. Jackson lashed out at the Bank.   “You are a den of vipers. I intend to rout you out and by the Eternal God I will rout you out.” . . . .

Then something close to a miracle occurred. The Governor of Pennsylvania, where the 2nd BUS was headquartered, came out supporting the President and strongly criticized the Bank. On top of that, Biddle had been caught boasting in public about the Bank’s plan to crash the economy. Suddenly the tide shifted. In April of 1834, the House of Representatives voted 134 to 82 against re-chartering the Bank.

On January 8, 1835, eleven years after taking office, Jackson paid off the final installment on the national debt which had been necessitated by allowing the banks to issue currency to buy government bonds, rather than simply issuing Treasury notes without such debt. He was the only President ever to pay off the national debt.

A few weeks later, on January 30, 1835, an assassin by the name of Richard Lawrence tried to shoot President Jackson. Both pistols misfired. Lawrence was later found not guilty by reason of insanity. After his release, he bragged to friends that powerful people in Europe had put him up to the task and promised to protect him if he were caught.

The following year, when its charter ran out, the Second Bank of the United States ceased functioning as the nation’s central bank. Biddle was later arrested and charged with fraud. He was tried and acquitted, but died shortly thereafter while still tied up in civil suits. The Second Bank of the US went belly up. The fourth American Bank War had ended in the fourth defeat for the Money Changers.

After his second term as President, Jackson retired to The Hermitage outside Nashville.. . . Jackson also warned future generations of Americans:   “The bold effort the present bank had made to control the government… the distress it had wantonly produced … are but premonitions of the fate that awaits the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it.”

Abe Lincoln and the Civil War

. . . . .One month after the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln, the first shots of the American Civil War were fired at Fort Sumter, South Carolina on April 12, 1861. The fifth and final American Bank War was beginning.   Certainly slavery was a cause for the Civil War, but not the primary cause. Lincoln knew that the economy of the South depended upon slavery and so (before the Civil War) he had no intention of eliminating it. Lincoln had put it this way in his inaugural address only one month earlier:    “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it now exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

Even after the first shots were fired at Fort Sumter, Lincoln continued to insist that the Civil War was not about the issue of slavery:   “My paramount objective is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it.”

So what was the Civil War all about? There were many factors at play. Northern industrialists had used protective tariffs to prevent their southern states from buying cheaper European goods. Europe retaliated by stopping cotton imports from the South. The Southern states were in a financial bind. They were forced to pay more for most of the necessities of life while their income from cotton exports plummeted. The South grew increasingly angry.
But there were other factors at work. The Money Changers were still stung by America’s withdrawal from their control 25 years earlier. Since then, America’s wildcat economy, despite the presence of fractional reserve banking with its attendant booms and busts, had made the nation rich – a bad example for the rest the world.

The central bankers now saw an opportunity to use the North/South divisions to split the rich new nation – to divide and conquer by war. Was this just some sort of wild conspiracy theory? Well, let’s look at what a well placed observer of the scene had to say at time.

This was Otto von Bismarck, Chancellor of Germany, the man who united the German states in 1871. A few years later, in 1876, he is quoted as saying:   “It is not to be doubted, I know of absolute certainty,” Bismarck declared, “that the division of the United States into two federations of equal power was decided long before the Civil War by the high financial powers of Europe. These bankers were afraid that the United States, if they remained as one block and were to develop as one nation, would attain economic and financial independence, which would upset the capitalist domination of Europe over the world.”

Within months after the first shots were fired at Fort Sumter, the central bankers loaned Napoleon III of France (the nephew of the Waterloo Napoleon) 210 million francs to seize Mexico and station troops along the southern border of the U.S., taking advantage of the Civil War to violate the Monroe Doctrine and return Mexico to colonial rule.

We add another note about The Monroe Doctrine: It . . . was a U.S. policy of opposing European colonialism in the Americas beginning in 1823. It stated that further efforts by European nations to take control of any independent state in North or South America would be viewed as “the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States.”[1] At the same time, the doctrine noted that the U.S. would recognize and not interfere with existing European colonies nor meddle in the internal concerns of European countries. The Doctrine was issued in 1823 at a time when nearly all Latin American colonies of Spain and Portugal had achieved or were at the point of gaining independence from the Portuguese and Spanish Empires. President James Monroe first stated the doctrine during his seventh annual State of the Union Address to Congress. The term “Monroe Doctrine” itself was coined in 1850 By the end of the 19th century, Monroe’s declaration was seen as a defining moment in the foreign policy of the United States and one of its longest-standing tenets. It would be invoked by many U.S. statesmen and several U.S. presidents, including Ulysses S. Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and many others . . . .

No matter what the outcome of the Civil War, it was hoped that a war-weakened America, heavily indebted to the Money Changers, would open up Central and South America once again to European colonization and domination – the very thing America’s Monroe Doctrine had forbade in 1823.

At the same time, Great Britain moved 11,000 troops into Canada and positioned them along America’s northern border. The British fleet went on war alert should their quick intervention be called for.

Lincoln knew he was in a bind. He agonized over the fate of the Union. There was a lot more to it than just differences between the North and the South. That’s why his emphasis was always on “Union” and not merely the defeat of the South. But Lincoln needed money to win.

In 1861, Lincoln and his Secretary of the Treasury, Salmon P. Chase, went to New York to apply for the necessary war loans. The Money Changers, anxious to maximize their war profits, only offered loans at 24-36% interest. Lincoln said thanks, but no thanks, and returned to Washington. He sent for an old friend, Colonel Dick Taylor of Chicago, and put him onto the problem of financing the War. At one particular meeting, Lincoln asked Taylor how else to finance the war. Taylor put it this way:   “Why, Lincoln, that is easy; just get Congress to pass a bill authorizing the printing of full legal tender treasury notes… pay your soldiers with them and go ahead and win your war with them also.”
When Lincoln asked if the people of the United States would accept the notes, Taylor said:   “The people or anyone else will not have any choice in the matter, if you make them full legal tender. They will have the full sanction of the government and be just as good as any money … the stamp of full legal tender by the Government is the thing that makes money good any time, and this will always be as good as any other money inside the borders of our country. “

So that’s exactly what Lincoln did. From 1862 to 1865, with Congressional authorization, he printed up $432,000,000 of the new bills.   In order to distinguish them from private bank notes in circulation, he had them printed with green ink on the back side. That’s why the notes were called “Greenbacks.” With this new money, Lincoln paid the troops, and bought their supplies. During the course of the war, nearly all of the 450 million dollars of Greenbacks authorized by Congress were printed at no interest to the federal government.

By now Lincoln realized who was really pulling the strings and what was at stake for the American people. Lincoln understood the matter better than even Jackson apparently had. This is how he explained his monetary views:   “The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers… The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is the Government’s greatest creative opportunity… By the adoption of these principles, the long-felt want for a uniform medium will be satisfied. The taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. The financing of all public enterprises and the conduct of the Treasury will become matters of practical administration. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity.”
. . . . .Keep in mind, by this time the European monarchs were already chained to their private central banks, hence the bankers’ concern to preserve their captive monarchs. Within four days of the passage of the law which allowed Greenbacks to be issued, bankers met in convention in Washington to discuss the situation. It was agreed that Greenbacks would surely be their ruin. Something had to be done. They devised a scheme gradually to undermine the value of the Greenbacks.

Seemingly unimportant limitations on the use of Greenbacks (printed on the green back), insisted on by the bankers, forbidding their use to pay import duties and interest on the public debt, were utilized by the banks to slap a surcharge on Greenbacks of up to 185%. This undermined the confidence of the people in Greenbacks and necessitated further concessions to the bankers to obtain more, discounted as the Greenbacks now were.

This scheme was effective – so effective that the next year, 1863, with Federal and Confederate troops beginning to mass for the decisive battle of the Civil War, and the Treasury in need of further Congressional authority at that time to issue more Greenbacks, Lincoln gave in to the pressure, which he described:   “They persist, they have argued me almost blind – I am worse off than St. Paul. He was in a strait between two. I am in a strait between twenty and they are bankers and financiers.”

Lincoln allowed the bankers to push through the National Banking Act of 1863 in exchange for their support for the urgently needed additional Greenbacks.   This act created “National Banks” (hence the N.A. still in use after National banks’ names) and gave them a virtual tax-free status. The new banks also got the exclusive power to create the new form of money – National Bank Notes. Though Greenbacks continued to circulate, their quantity was limited and no more were authorized after the war.

On June 13, 1863, according to Judge Rutherford’s book, “Vindication” this letter was sent from the Rothschilds’ London office, which does, in fact, accurately assess the National Banking Act of 1863:
“Rothschild Brothers, Bankers, London, June 25th, 1863
Messrs Ikleheimer, Morton and Vandergould, No 3 Wall St., New York, US.A.

Dear Sirs:
A Mr. John Sherman has written us from a town in Ohio, U.S.A., as to the profits that may be made in the National Bankng business under a recent act of your Congress, a copy of which act accompanied his letter. Apparently this act has been drawn upon the plan formulated here last summer by the British Bankers Association and by that Association recommended to our American friends as one that if enacted into law, would prove highly profitable to the banking fraternity throughout the world.

Mr. Sherman declares that there has never been such an opportunity for capitalists to accumulate money, as that presented by this act, and that the old plan of State Banks is so unpopular, that the new scheme will, by contrast, be most favorably regarded, notwithstanding the fact that it gives the National Banks an almost absolute control of the National finance.
‘The few who can understand the system,’ he says, ‘will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent of its favors that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantages that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests.’

Please advise fully as to this matter and also state whether or not you will be of assistance to us, if we conclude to establish a National Bank in the City of New York. If you are acquainted with Mr. Sherman (he appears to have introduced the Banking Act) we will be glad to know something of him. If we avail ourselves of the information he furnished, we will, of course, make due compensation.

Awaiting your reply, we are
Your respectful servants, Rothschild Brothers”

From this point on, the U.S. money supply would be created in parallel with an equivalent quantity of debt by bankers buying U.S. government bonds, which they used as reserves for National Bank Notes, the nation’s new form of money, instead of by direct debt-free issue by the government, as were Lincoln’s Greenbacks. The banks got interest from the government on the bonds and from borrowers of their Bank Notes – thus almost doubling their interest income. As historian John Kenneth Galbraith explained:   “In numerous years following the war, the Federal government ran a heavy surplus. It could not [however] pay off its debt, retire its securities, because to do so meant there would be no bonds to back the national bank notes. To pay off the debt was to destroy the money supply.”

Predictably, the new National Banks quickly applied pressure to Congress to have state bank notes taxed out of existence. Congress complied. Thus the fifth American Bank War progressed in small stages in favor of the Money Changers, culminating in passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and the National Bank Act of 1935. . . . 
  . . .. .Victorious in the Civil War, had he lived, as his statements quoted above and following make – abundantly clear, Lincoln would surely have killed the National Banks’ money monopoly extracted from him during the war. On November 21, 1864, he wrote a friend

“The money power preys upon the nation in times of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to trem- } ble for the safety of my country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the republic is destroyed.”

Shortly before Lincoln was assassinated, his former Secretary of the Treasury, Salrnon P. Chase, bemoaned his role in helping secure the passage of the National Banking Act only one year earlier:   “My agency in promoting the passage of the National Banking Act was the greatest financial mistake in my life. It has built up a monopoly which affects every interest in the country.”

Return of the Gold Standard

. . . . .”Right after the Civil War there was considerable talk about reviving Lincoln’s brief experiment with the Constitutional monetary system. Had not the European money-trust intervened, it would have no doubt become an established institution.”

. . . . .On April 12, 1866, nearly one year to the day of Lincoln’s assassination, Congress went to work at the bidding of the European central-banking interests. It passed the Contraction Act, authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to begin to retire the Greenbacks in circulation and to contract the money supply.

Authors Theodore R. Thoren and Richard F. Warner explained the results of the money contraction in their book on the subject, The Truth in Money Book:   “The hard times which occurred after the Civil War could have been avoided if the Greenback legislation had continued as President Lincoln had intended. Instead, there were a series of ‘money panics’ – what we call ‘recessions’ – which put pressure on Congress to enact legislation to place the banking system under centralized control. Eventually the Federal Reserve Act was passed on December 23, 1913.”

In other words, the Money Changers wanted two things: 1) the re-institution of a privately-owned central bank under their exclusive control, and, 2) an American currency issued by them and backed by their gold. . . . . .
. . . . .Today, bank-funded economists try to sell the idea that recessions and depressions are a natural part of something they call the “business cycle.” One economist actually tried to explain business cycles with reference to sun spots! The truth is, our money supply is completely manipulated now, just as it was after the Civil War, just as it was by Nicholas Biddle and the 2nd BUS (during Jackson’s Adm.).. . . .
How did money become so scarce? Simple – bank loans were called in and no new ones were given. In addition, Greenbacks were retired by the millions and silver coins were melted down.

On March 13, 1868, James Rothschild wrote to his U.S. agent, Belmont, “warning ruin to those who might oppose the payment of U.S. Bonds in coin, or who might advocate their liquidation in greenbacks.” Another scheme was afoot.

On March 18, 1869, Congress, at these bankers’ bidding, passed the Credit Strengthening Act which provided that U.S. bonds purchased during the Civil War with greenbacks the bankers had discounted on receipt to as little as $.35 on the dollar, would be repaid, in gold at full value. By this means the Treasury paid the bankers some $500 million more than they had paid for the bonds, plus the interest due. A colossal sum, equivalent to well over 5 billion dollars today, was thus transferred from the Treasury to the Money Changers. Thereafter, their power over the U.S., thus mightily augmented, continually increased.

In 1872, a man named Ernest Seyd was given £100,000 (about $5,000,000 then) by the Bank of England and sent to America to bribe the necessary Congressmen to get silver “demonetized to further reduce the money supply.” He was told that if this was not sufficient, to draw an additional £100,000, “or as much more as was necessary.” The next year, Congress passed the Coinage Act of 1873 and the minting of silver dollars abruptly stopped.

In fact, Rep. Samuel Hooper, who introduced the bill in the House, acknowledged that Mr. Seyd actually drafted the legislation. But it gets worse than that. In 1874, Seyd himself admitted who was behind the scheme:   “I went to America in the winter of 1872-73, authorized to secure, if I could, the passage of a bill demonetizing silver. It was in the interest of those I represented – the governors of the Bank of England – to have it done.”

The international bankers accomplished the same demonetization of silver in Germany (1871-73); the Latin Monetary Union (France, Italy, Be1gium, Switzerland) in 1873-74; the Scandinavian Union (Denmark, Norway and Sweden) in 1875-76; and the Netherlands in 1875-76. Within five short years, the gold standard was thus imposed worldwide, with China being the only significant holdout.. . . .

On February 28, 1878, Congress passed the Sherman Law allowing the minting of a limited number of silver dollars, ending a 5-year hiatus. This did not end gold-backing of the currency, however. Nor did it completely free silver. Previous to 1873, anyone who brought silver to the U.S. mint could have it struck into silver dollars free of charge. No longer. But at least some silver money began to flow back into the economy again. Under political pressure, the bankers loosened up on loans for awhile and the post-Civil War depression was finally ended.

Three years later, the American people elected Republican James Garfield President. Garfield understood how the economy was being manipulated. As a Congressman, he had been chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and was a member of the Banking and Currency Committee. After his inauguration, he slammed the Money Changers publicly in 1881:   “Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce… and when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate.”

Garfield understood. Within a few weeks of making this statement, on July 2 of 1881, President Garfield was assassinated.

Free Silver

. . . . By 1896, the issue of more silver money had become the central issue in the Presidential campaign. William Jennings Bryan, a Senator from Nebraska ran for President as a Democrat on the “Free Silver” issue. His father had been an ardent Greenbacker. At the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, he made an emotional speech which won him the nomination entitled, “Crown of Thorns and Cross of Gold.” Though Bryan was only 36 years old at the time, this speech is widely regarded as the most famous oration ever made before a political convention. In the dramatic conclusion. Bryan said:   “We will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of old.”

The bankers lavishly supported the Republican candidate, William McKinley, who favored the gold standard. The resulting contest was among the most fiercely contested Presidential races in American history.

Bryan made over 600 speeches in 27 states. Bryan stood with the Greenbackers:  “The right to coin and issue money is a function of Government. It is a part of sovereignty and cannot, with safety, be delegated to private individuals.”
The McKinley campaign got manufacturers and industrialists to inform their employees that if Bryan were elected, all factories and plants would close and there would be no work. The ruse succeeded. McKinley beat Bryan by a small margin.

Some authors believe, and the course of history supports them, that under the bankers’ President, McKinley, before the summer of 1897, the United States entered into a secret agreement (no papers of any sort were signed) that the U.S. would support England in its inevitable conflict with Germany – the product of Bismarck’s nation building.

This was, de facto, an agreement surrendering American independence into a worldwide alliance (France being a minor partner) to dominate the world, presided over by the Money Changers who dominated the Bank of England from the City, in London, and through it, the British government.

Almost immediately, in 1898, the Spanish-American War was begun. Later, the U.S. was dragged into two World Wars (and other minor ones) to secure the worldwide imperialistic designs of the Money Changers. The 1897 Agreement made the U.S. a principal in the British Empire, which has been succeeded by the international financial empire of the Money Changers, defended and expanded by U.S., and more recently, by U.S.-led U.N. armed forces.
Bryan ran for president again in 1900 and in 1908, but fell short each time. But the threat his presence presented to the National Bankers afforded the Republican alternatives, Roosevelt and Taft, a grating measure of independence from the bankers (Roosevelt mildly opposed their monopolies and Taft was unenthusiastic about their proposed central bank legislation), who therefore shifted support to Wilson in 1912.

During the 1912 Democratic Convention, Bryan was a powerful figure who stepped aside to help Woodrow Wilson win the nomination. When Wilson became President he appointed Bryan as Secretary of State. But Bryan soon became disenchanted with the Wilson administration.

Bryan served only two years . . . before resigning in 1915 over the highly-suspicious sinking of the Lusitania, the event which was used to drive America into World War I.

Although William Jennings Bryan never gained the Presidency, his efforts delayed the Money Changers for seventeen years from attaining their next goal – a new, privately-owned central bank for America. But like Wilson, Bryan was deceived as to the true import of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Both initially supported it. Both later publicly repented over their support of it. Bryan later wrote:   “That is the one thing in my public career that I regret – my work to secure the enactment of the Federal Reserve Law.”

J.P. Morgan and the Crash of 1907/Rockefeller

Now it was time for the Money Changers to get back a new, private central bank for America, the fifth private central bank to control and manipulate America’s money supply.

A major final panic would be necessary to focus the nation’s attention on the supposed need for a central bank. The thin rationale offered was that only a central bank can prevent widespread bank failures and stabilize the currency. The critically important feature of who would own and control it was an issue carefully avoided.

Before the Civil War, the Rothschilds had previously used, as principal agents in the U.S., J.L and S.I Joseph & Company. Later George Peabody, an American bond salesman, traveled to London before the Civil War and developed a relationship with Nathan Rothschild, which became a highly profitable one for Peabody. His business expanding, he took on an American partner, Junius Morgan, father of J.P.

In 1857 Junius was the recipient of a £800,000 loan from the Bank of England at a time of financial crisis when many other firms were denied such loans. Junius Morgan became the Union’s financial agent in Britain, often closely associated with the Rothschilds.

In the post-Civil War period the connection between Morgan and the Rothschilds was certainly well known in financial circles. As one writer noted:  “Morgan’s activities in 1895-1896 in selling U.S. gold bonds in Europe were based on his alliance with the House of Rothschild.”
After his father’s death, J.P. Morgan took on a British partner, Edward Grenfell, a long-time director of the Bank of England. There is speculation the Morgans became the Rothschilds’ principal agents in the U.S., eventually to be eclipsed by the Rockefellers.

Early in this century, in U.S. finance, the press and in politics, all lines of power converged on the financial houses of J.P. Morgan (J.P. Morgan Company; Bankers Trust Company; First National Bank of New York, Guaranty Trust), the Rockefellers (National City Bank of New York; Chase National Bank; Chemical Bank); Kuhn, Loeb & Company (a representative of the Rothschild banks; National City Bank of New York) and the Warburg’s (Manhattan Corp. bank).

Morgan was clearly the most powerful banker in America, and like his father, worked as an agent for the Rothschild family, but also for his own interests. He helped finance the monopolization of various industries, consolidated big steel holdings into a monopoly by buying Andrew Carnegie’s steel companies, and owned numerous industrial companies and banks.

Interestingly, though reputedly America’s richest banker, upon J.P.’s death, his estate contained $68 million dollars, only 19% of J.P. Morgan company. The bulk of the securities most people thought he owned, were in fact owned by others. When J.P. Morgan, Jr. (Jack) died in 1943 his estate was valued at only $16 million. By contrast, when Alphonse Rothschild died in 1905 his estate contained $60 million in U.S. securities alone.

John D. Rockefeller and his brother William used their enormous profits from the Standard Oil monopoly to dominate the National City Bank, merged in 1955 with Morgan’s and Kuhn, Loeb & Company’s First National Bank of New York, which resulted in Citibank (Citicorp).

Similarly, John D. bought control of Chase National Bank, and merged it with Warburg’s Manhattan bank, resulting in the Rockefeller-dominated Chase Manhattan bank, recently merged with the Rockefeller-controlled Chemical Bank.

The combination of the Rockefeller-controlled Chase-Manhattan/Citicorp banks gives them majority control over the New York Fed (52%), which completely dominates the Federal Reserve System. But the New York Fed was controlled by Rockefeller long before any majority ownership was reached.

By these mergers, the Rockefellers gradually replaced the Morgans, Schiffs and Warburgs as the principal Rothschild allies in the U.S. . . . . .
The relationship between the Rothschilds and Rockefellers was initially one of debtor/creditor, as the Rothschild’s provided the seed money for J.D. Rockefeller to monopolize the U.S. oil refinery business . . . . .   Subsequently, the relationship entered into measured competition here (local wars between subordinates sometimes resulting) and cooperation there, but like the competition between the other banks, this too has resolved into a power sharing arrangement.

The centers of power are not easy to identify and remain to a large extent hidden through carefully concealed and interlocking directorships, off-shore accounts, nominee holdings, private foundations, trusts and the rest. But the top international bankers are vested with the last word in economic and political power.

Most commentators are of the opinion that the Rothschilds are definitely the dominant partner; citing for example, the 1950’s appointrnent of J. Richardson Dilworth, partner of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. (a satellite of the Rothschild family) who left to take control of the Rockefeller family purse strings, where he managed the investments of Rockefeller descendants in as many as 200 private foundations.

However, the operative relationship described by Georgetown historian Carroll Quigley is “feudalistic”, that is, analogous to the relationships between a feudal king and the aristocracy consisting of dukes, earls, barons, etc., all mutually supportive, while safeguarding their own turf and “independence”, expanding it when permitted without violating the fundamental hierarchical relationships – violations can result in wars.

Lesser members of this “feudalistic” international banking plutocracy include or have included, the Sassoon’s (in India and the Far East); Lazard Freres France; Mendelsohn (Netherlands); Israel Moses Seif (Italy); Kuhn, Loeb (U.S.); Goldman Sachs (U.S.) Lehman Bros. (U.S.); Schroeders (Germany) ; Hambros (Scandinavia), the Bethmanns, Ladenburgs, Erlangers, Sterns, Seligmans, Schiffs, Speyers, Abs, Mirabauds, Mallets, Faulds, and many others. The ruling clique in most nations now, excepting a portion ofthe Muslim world and a few so called “rogue” states, are equivalent to local barons, subservient to the higher banking dukes, earls, etc.

This generally reaches right down to the city level, where the dominant local bankers are usually the petty aristocracy, affiliated through banking and commercial relationships with their banking “barons” and so on.
As Georgetown historian Professor Carroll Quigley has noted, if it were possible to detail the asset portfolios of the banking plutocrats one would find the title-deeds of practically all the buildings, industries, farms, transport systems and mineral resources of the world. Accounting for this, Quigley wrote:   “Their secret is that they have annexed from governments, monarchies, and republics the power to create the world’s money on debt-terms requiring tribute both in principal and interest.”

. . . .To return to 1902: President Theodore Roosevelt allegedly went after Morgan and his friends by using the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to try to break up their industrial monopolies. Actually, Roosevelt did very little to interfere in the growing monopolization of American industry by the bankers and their surrogates.

For example, Roosevelt supposedly broke up the Standard Oil monopoly. But it wasn’t really broken up at all. It was merely divided into seven corporations, all still controlled by the Rockefellers, who had been originally financed by the Rothschild-controlled National City Bank of Cleveland. The public was aware of this thanks to political cartoonists like Thomas Nast who referred to the bankers as the “Money Trust.”

By 1907, the year after Teddy Roosevelt’s re-election, Morgan decided it was time to try for a central bank again. Using their combined financial muscle, Morgan and his friends were able to crash the stock market.   Thousands of small banks were vastly overextended. Some of Morgan’s principal competitors went under. Some had reserves of less than one percent (1%), thanks to the fractional reserve banking technique.

Within days, runs on banks were commonplace across the nation. Now Morgan stepped into the public arena and offered to prop up the faltering American economy by supporting failing banks with money he generously offered to create out of nothing.

It was an outrageous proposal, worse than even fractional reserve banking, but, in a panic, Congress let him do it. Morgan manufactured $200 million worth of this completely reserveless, private money – and bought things with it, paid for services with it, and sent some of it to his branch banks to lend out at interest.

His plan worked. Soon, the public regained confidence in money in general and quit hoarding their currency. But in the interim, many small banks failed and banking power was further consolidated into the hands of a few large banks. By 1908 the arranged panic was over and Morgan was hailed as a hero by the president of Princeton University, a naive man by the name of Woodrow Wilson, who naively wrote:   “All this trouble could be averted if we appointed a committee of six or seven public-spirited men like J.P. Morgan to handle the affairs of our country.”

Economic textbooks would later explain that the creation of the Federal Reserve System was the direct result of the panic of 1907, quote: “with its alarming epidemic of bank failures: the country was fed up once and for all with the anarchy of unstable private banking.”

But Minnesota Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr., the father of the famous aviator, “Lucky Lindy,” later explained that the Panic of 1907 was really just a scam:   “The Money Trust caused the 1907 panic… those not favorable to the Money Trust could be squeezed out of business and the people frightened into demanding changes in the banking and currency laws which the Money Trust would frame.”

Since the passage of the National Banking Act of 1863, the National Banks that Act established as a cartel had been able to coordinate a series of booms and busts. The purpose was not only to fleece the American public of their property, but later to claim that the decentralized banking system was basically so unstable that it had to be further consolidated and control centralized into a central bank once again, as it had been before Jackson ended it.

The supremely critical economic issue of private vs. state ownership and control was carefully skirted, as was the fractional reserve banking fraud causing the booms and busts.

After the crash, Teddy Roosevelt, in response to the Panic of 1907, signed into law a bill creating something called the National Monetary Commission. The Commission was to study the banking problem and make recommendations to Congress. Of course, the Commission was packed with Morgan’s friends and cronies.

The Chairman was a man named Senator Nelson Aldrich from Rhode Island. Aldrich represented the Newport, Rhode Island homes of America’s richest banking families and was an investment associate of J.P. Morgan, with extensive bank holdings. His daughter married John D. Rockefeller, Jr., and together they had five sons: John, Nelson (who would become the Vice-President in 1974), Laurence, Winthrop, and David (the head of the Council on Foreign Relations and former Chairman of Chase Manhattan bank).
As soon as the National Monetary Commission was set up, Senator Aldrich immediately embarked on a two-year tour of Europe, where he consulted at length with the private central bankers in England, France and Germany. The total cost of his trip to the taxpayers was $300,000 – a huge sum in those days.

Shortly after his return, on the evening of November 22, 1910, seven of the wealthiest and most powerful men in America boarded Senator Aldnch’s private rail car and in the strictest secrecy journeyed to Jekyll Island, off the coast of Georgia.

With Aldrich and three Morgan representatives was Paul Warburg. Warburg had been given a $500,000 per year salary to lobby for passage of a privately-owned central bank in America by the investment firm, Kuhn, Loeb & Company. Warburg’s partner in this firm was a man named Jacob Schiff, the grandson of the man who shared the Green Shield house with the Rothschild family in Frankfort.

Schiff, as, we’ll later find out, was in the process of spending $20 million to finance the overthrow of the Czar of Russia. These three European banking families, the Rothschilds, the Warburgs, and the Schiffs were interconnected by marriage down through the years, just as were their American banking counterparts, the Morgans, Rockefellers and Aldrichs.

Secrecy was so tight that all seven primary participants were cautioned to use only first names to prevent servants from learning their identities. Years later one participant, Frank Vanderlip, president of Rockefeller’s National City Bank of New York and a representative of the Kuhn, Loeb & Company interests confirmed the Jekyll Island trip in the February 9, 1935 edition of the Saturday Evening Post:   “I was as secretive – indeed, as furtive – as any conspirator… Discovery, we knew, simply must not happen, or else all our time and effort would be wasted. If it were to be exposed that our particular group had got together and written a banking bill, that bill would have no chance whatever of passage by Congress.”

The participants came together to figure out how to solve their major problem – how to bring back a privately-owned central bank – but there were other problems that needed to be addressed as well. First of all, the market share of the big national banks was shrinking fast.

In the first ten years of the century, the number of U.S. banks had more than doubled to over 20,000. By 1913, only 29% of all banks were National Banks and they held only 57% of all deposits. As Senator Aldrich later admitted in a magazine article:  “Before passage of this Act, the New York bankers could only dominate the reserves of New York. Now, we are able to dominate the bank reserves of the entire county.”

Therefore, something had to be done to bring these new banks under their control. As John D. Rockefeller put it: “Competition is a sin.” Actually, moralists agree that monopoly abuse is a sin. But why quibble when there’s money to be made.

Secondly, the nation’s economy was so strong that corporations were starting to finance their expansion out of profits instead of taking out huge loans from large banks. In the first 10 years of the new century, 70% of corporate funding came from profits. In other words, American industry was becoming independent of the Money Changers, and that trend had to be stopped.

All the participants knew that these problems could be hammered out into a workable solution, but perhaps their biggest problem was a public relations problem – the name of the new central bank. That discussion took place in one of the many conference rooms in the sprawling hotel now known as the Jekyll Island Club.

Aldrich believed that the word “bank” should not even appear in the name. Warburg wanted to call the legislation the National Reserve Bill or the Federal Reserve Bill. The idea here was to give the impression that the purpose of the new central bank was to stop bank runs, but also to conceal its monopoly character. However, it was Aldrich, the egotistical politician, who insisted it be called the Aldrich Bill.

After nine days at Jekyll Island, the group dispersed. The new central bank (with twelve branches, ultimately) would be very similar to the old Bank of the United States. It would eventually be given a monopoly over the national currency and create that money out of nothing. . . . .

Once the participants left Jekyll Island, the public relations blitz was on. The big New York banks pooled an “educational” fund of five million dollars to finance professors at respected universities to endorse the new bank. Woodrow Wilson at Princeton was one of the first to jump on the bandwagon.
But the bankers’ subterfuge didn’t work. The Aldrich Bill was quickly identified as a banker’s bill – a bill to benefit only what had become known as the “Money Trust.” As Congressman Lindbergh put it during the Congressional debate:   “The Aldrich Plan is the Wall Street Plan. It means another panic, if necessary, to intimidate the people. Aldrich, paid by the government to represent the people, proposes a plan for the trusts instead.”
Seeing they didn’t have the votes to win in Congress, the Republican leadership never brought the Aldrich Bill to a vote. President Taft would not back the Aldrich bill. The bankers quietly decided to move to track two, the Democratic alternative.   They began financing Woodrow Wilson as the Democratic nominee. He was considered far more tractable than Bryan. As historian James Perloff put it, Wall Street financier Bernard Baruch was put in charge of Wilson’s education:
To increase Wilson’s chances of defeating the popular Taft, they funded the unwitting Teddy Roosevelt in order to split the Republican vote – a tactic often used since to insure getting their man in. The campaigning Roosevelt said:   “Issue of currency should be lodged with the government and be protected from domination by Wall Street… We are opposed to the Aldrich Bill because its provisions would place our currency and credit system in private hands.”
This was certainly correct, and it helped draw votes from Taft and got Wilson elected.

Fed Act of 1913

During the Presidential campaign, the Democrats were careful to pretend to oppose the Aldrich Bill. As Rep. Louis McFadden, himself a Democrat as well as chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee, explained it 20 years after the fact:    “The Aldrich bill was condemned in the platform … when Woodrow Wilson was nominated… The men who ruled the Democraic party promised the people that if they were returned to power there would be no central bank established here while they held the reins of government. Thirteen months later that promise was broken, and the Wilson administration, under the tutelage of those sinister Wall Street figures who stood behind Colonel House, established here in our free country the worm-eaten monarchical institution of the ‘king’s bank’ to control us from the top downward, and to shackle us from the cradle to the grave.”

Once Wilson was elected, Warburg, Baruch and company advanced a “new” plan, which Warburg named the Federal Reserve System. The Democratic leadership hailed the new bill, called the Glass-Owen Bill, as something radically different from the Aldrich Bill. But in fact, the bill was virtually identical in every important detail.

In fact, so vehement were the Democratic denials of similarity to the Aldrich Bill that Paul Warburg – the father of both bills – had to step in privately to reassure his paid fiends in Congress that the two bills were virtually identical:  “Brushing aside the external differences affecting the ‘shells,’ we find the ‘kernels ‘ of the two systems very closely resembling and related to one another.”

But that admission was of private consumption only. Publicly, the Money Trust trotted out Senator Aldrich and Frank Vanderlip, the president of the Morgan/Rockefeller dominated National City Bank of New York and one of the Jekyll Island seven, to offer token opposition to the new Federal Reserve System.

Years later, however, Vanderlip admitted in the Saturday Evening Post that the two measures were virtually identical:
  Saturday Evening Post,
February 9, 1935, p. 25,
“From Farmboy to Financier    Although the Aldrich Federal Reserve Plan was defeated when it bore the name Aldrich, nevertheless its essential points were all contained in the plan that finally was adopted.”

As Congress neared a vote, they called Ohio attorney Alfred Crozier to testify. Crozier noted the similarities between the Aldrich Bill and the Glass-Owen Bill:    “The … bill grants just what Wall Street and the big boys for twenty-five years have been striving for – private instead of public control of currency. It [the Glass-Owen bill] does this as completely as the Aldrich Bill. Both measures rob the government and the people of all effective control over the public’s money, and vest in the banks exclusively the dangerous } power to make money among the people scarce or plenty.”

Exactly. During the debate on the measure, Senators complained that the big banks were using their financial muscle to influence the outcome. “There are bankers in this country who are enemies of the public welfare,” declared one Senator. What an understatement!

Despite the charges of deceit and corruption, the bill was finally rammed through the House and Senate on December 23, 1913, after many Senators and Representatives had left town for the Holidays, having been assured by the leadership that nothing would be done until long after the Christmas recess. On the day the bill was passed, Congressman Lindbergh prophetically warned his countrymen that:  “This Act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President signs this bill, the invisible government by the Monetary Power will be legalized. The people may not know it immediately, but the day of reckoning is only a few years removed… The worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking bill.”

On top of all this, only weeks earlier, Congress had finally passed a bill legalizing the income tax. Why was the income tax law importt? Because bankers finally had in place a system which would run up a virtually unlimited federal debt. How would the interest on this debt be repaid, never mind the principal? Remember, a privately-owned central bank creates the principal out of nothing. The federal government was small then. Up to then, it had subsisted merely on tariffs and excise taxes.

Just as with the Bank of England, the interest payments had to be guaranteed by direct taxation of the people. The Money Changers knew that if they had to rely on contributions from the states, eventually the individual state legislatures would revolt and either refuse to pay the interest on their own money, or at least bring political pressure to bear to keep the debt small.
It is interesting to note that in 1895 the Supreme Court had found a similar income tax law to be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court even found a corporate income tax law unconstitutional in 1909. As a result, in October, 1913 Senator Aldrich hustled a bill through the Congress for a constitutional amendment allowing income tax.

The proposed 16th Amendment to the Constitution was then sent to the state legislatures for approval, but some critics claim that the 16th Amendment was never passed by the necessary 3/4s of the states. In other words, the 16th Amendment may not be legal. But the Money Changers were in no mood to debate the fine points. Without the power to tax the people directly and bypass the states, the Federal Reserve Bill would be far less useful to those who wanted to drive America deeply into their debt.

A year after passage of the Federal Reserve Bill, Congressman Lindbergh explained how the Fed created what we have come to call the “Business Cycle” and how they use it to their advantage:
“To cause high prices, all the Federal Reserve Board will do will be to lower the rediscount rate…, producing an expansion of credit and a rising stock market; then when… business men are adjusted to these conditions, it can check… prosperity in mid-career by arbitrarily raising the rate of interest.  It can cause the pendulum of a rising and falling market to swing gently back and forth by slight changes in the discount rate, or cause violent fluctuations by a greater rate variation, and in either case it will possess inside information as to financial conditions and advance knowledge of the coming change, either up or down.   This is the strangest, most dangerous advantage ever placed in the hands of a special privilege class by any Government that ever existed.  They know in advance when to create panics to their advantage. They also know when to stop panic. Inflation and deflation work equally well for them when they control finance…”

Congressman Lindbergh was correct on all points. What he didn’t realize was that most European nations had already fallen prey to the private central bankers decades or even centuries earlier. But he also mentions the interesting fact that only one year later, the Fed had cornered the market in gold: According to Lindbergh, “Already the Federal Reserve banks have cornered the gold and gold certificates…”

But Congressman Lindbergh was not the only critic of the Fed. Congressman Louis McFadden, the Chairman of the House Banking and Currency committee from 1920 to 1931 remarked that the Federal Reserve Act brought about:  “A super state controlled by international bankers and international industrialists acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure.”
Notice how McFadden saw the international character of the stockholders of the Federal Reserve.

Another chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1960s, Wright Patman from Texas, put it this way:   “In the United States today we have in effect two governments … We have the duly constituted Government … Then we have an independent, uncontrolled and uncoordinated government in the Federal Reserve System, operating the money powers which are reserved to Congress by the Constitution.”

Even the inventor of the electric light, Thomas Edison, joined the fray in criticizing the system of the Federal Reserve:   “If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good, also… It is absurd to say that our country can issue $30 million in bonds and not $30 million in currency. Both are promises to pay, but one promise fattens the userers and the other helps the people.”

Three years after the passage of the Federal Reserve Act, even President Wilson began to have second thoughts about what he had unleashed during his first term in office.   “We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled governments in the civilized world – no longer a government of free opinion, no longer a government by … a vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.
Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.”

Before his death in 1924, President Wilson realized the full extent of the damage he had done to America, when he sadly confessed:  “I have unwittingly ruined my government.”

So finally, the Money Changers, those who profit by creating and manipulating the amount of money in circulation, had their privately owned central bank installed again in America. The major newspapers (which they owned or heavily influenced through their advertising) hailed passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, telling the public that “now depressions could be scientifically prevented.” The fact of the matter was that now depressions could be scientifically initiated.

By bribery, deceitful political manipulation and abuse of their press influence and ownership, they had usurped the monetary function of government. The U.S. government was left with only trivial relics of its sovereign monetary power: the minting of coins (a tiny fraction of the money supply, but a debt-free one); the re-printing of Lincoln’s U.S. notes (Greenbacks, but limited to $300,000,000 total); and issuing a limited number of gold and silver certificates.

As Mr. James Rand, former President of Remington Rand, Inc. well said:
“No government should permit such coercive power over its own credit to be held by any one group or class as the privately owned Federal Reserve System holds today.   No government should delegate to private interests the control over the purchasing power of money.  The issue must be faced and settled. There can be no complete restoration of confidence until the conflict between private and government control over money is ended.”

The 5th American Bank War ended in victory for the Money Changers and the defeat of the American people.   In the interim, the Money Changers’ grip has gradually tightened, hiding this history, propagandizing our people to support their various nefarious activities through their media control, and choking our liberties by degrees.   Whether America will escape their tightening grip is an open question, but is increasingly unlikely.

Morgan/World War I

Economic power was now centralized to a tremendous extent. Now it was time for a war – a really big war – in fact, the First World War. Of course, as the central bankers knew, nothing creates debts like warfare. England was the best example up to that time. During the 119-year period between the founding of the Bank of England and Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo, England had been at war for 56 years. And much of the remaining time, she’d been preparing for war.

In World War I, the German Rothschilds loaned money to the Germans, the British Rothschilds loaned money to the British, and the French Rothschilds loaned money to the French. It was all highly profitable. In America, J.P. Morgan was the sales agent for war materials to both the British and the French.

In fact, six months into the war, Morgan became the largest consumer on earth, spending $10 million a day. His offices at 23 Wall Street were mobbed by brokers and salesmen trying to cut a deal. In fact, it got so bad that the bank had to post guards at every door and at the partners’ homes as well.
Other Rothschild allies in the United States made out as well from the war. President Wilson appointed Bernard Baruch to head the War Industries Board. According to historian Jarnes Perloff, both Baruch and the Rockefellers profited by some $200 million during the war.

But profits were not the only motive. There was also revenge and power. The Money Changers never forgave the Czars for their opposition nor for supporting Lincoln during the Civil War. Also, Russia was the last major European nation to refuse to give in to the privately-owned central bank scheme.

Three years after World War I broke out, the Russian Revolution toppled the Czar. Jacob Schiff of Kuhn, Loeb & Company bragged on his deathbed that he had spent $20 million towards the defeat of the Czar. But the truth was that much of that money funded the communist coup d’etat replacing the democratically elected Kerensky regime, which had replaced the Czar months earlier.

The bankers were not so much enemies of the Czar, as they were intent on seizing power in Russia, through the Bolsheviks. Three gold shipments in 1920 alone, from Lenin to Kuhn, Loeb & Company and Morgan Guaranty Trust repaid the $20 million to the bankers, and this was just a small down payment.
But would some of the richest men in the world financially back communism, the system that was openly vowing to destroy the so-called capitalism that made them wealthy? Communism, like plutocracy, is a product of capitalism. Researcher Gary Allen explained it was this way:
“If one understands that socialism is not a share-the-wealth program, but is in reality a method to consolidate and control the wealth, then the seeming paradox of super-rich men promoting socialism becomes no paradox at all. Instead, it becomes logical, even the perfect tool for power-seeking megalomaniacs. Communism or more accurately, socialism, is not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite.”
As W. Cleon Skousen put it in his 1970 book The Naked Capitalist:
“Power from any source tends to create an appetite for additional power… It was almost inevitable that the super-rich would one day aspire to control not only their own wealth, but the wealth of the whole world. To achieve this, they were perfectly willing to feed the ambitions of the power-hungry political conspirators who were committed to the overthrow of all existing governments and the establishment of a central world-wide dictatorship.”
But what if these revolutionaries get out of control and try to seize power from the Money Changers? After all, it was Mao Tse-tung who in 1938 stated his position concerning power:
“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”

The London/Wall Street axis elected to take the risk. The master-planners attempted to control revolutionary communist groups by feeding them vast quantities of money when they obeyed, and contracting their money supply, or even financing their opposition or fascist parties in bordering nations, if they got out of control. Lenin began to understand that although he was the dictator of the new Soviet Union, he was not pulling the financial strings, someone else was silently in control:“The state does not function as we desired. The car does not obey. A man is at the wheel and seems to lead it, but the car does not drive in the desired direction. It moves as another force wishes.”
Who was behind it? Rep. Louis T. McFadden, the Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee throughout the 1920s and into the Great Depression years of the 1930s, explained it this way:   “The course of Russian history has, indeed, been greatly affected by the operations of international bankers… The Soviet Government has been given United States Treasury funds by the Federal Reserve Board … acting through the Chase Bank England has drawn money from us through the Federal Reserve banks and has re-lent it at high rates of interest to the Soviet Government… The Dnieper story Dam was built with funds unlawfully taken from the United States Treasury by the corrupt and dishonest Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks.”

In other words, the Fed and the Bank of England, along with their controlling stock-holders, the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Morgans, Schiffs, Warburgs, etc., were creating a monster, one which would fuel seven decades of unprecedented Communist revolution, warfare, and most importantly – debt.
The Soviet Union was also a useful counterbalance to Germany, and later to the U.S., until 1989 with its dismemberment into fifteen countries. China then became a new counterbalance to the U.S., and is being built up at the rate of over $100 million dollars a day by lopsided trade deals, IMF loans and Western investments.

Such balance-of-power arrangements assure that the Money Changers cannot be overthrown worldwide by a political revolt in any single country. In that case, they simply shift support to the counter-balanced country. Additionally, the inevitable military rivalry between roughly balanced powers results in massive expenditures and so more national borrowing and debt.
In case one thinks there is some chance that the Money Changers got communism going and then lost control – keep in mind that even in the socialist paradise, Rockefeller’s National City Bank (now Citigroup) in St. Petersburg was never nationalized, as were all Russian banks. Numerous Western bankers operated openly in the Soviet Union, and made vast profits.

However, setbacks, some major, did occur. For instance, it is likely the bankers early on preferred the more compliant Mensheviks to the more independent Bolsheviks, but Lenin got the upper hand. But both groups had the same end and so this was not a fundamental division. However, it did lead to a serious problem when Lenin died, as an even more independent sort – Stalin – squeezed out the bankers’ candidate – Leon Trotsky (real name: Bronstein; whose wife was linked to the Warburgs) – and took control of Soviet Communism. Even then Stalin continued to fear Trotsky’s powerful connections, and so had him tracked down and eventually assassinated in Mexico.
To pressure Stalin back into the ranks, as C.G. Rakovsky explained, the bankers financed Hitler, who was an avowed enemy of communism and openly advocated invading the Soviet Union. Anthony C. Sutton and others have documented the money trail from Wall Street to Hitler, which was mentioned above by Congressman McFadden. But it was only on the death of Stalin, with the rise of Khruschev et seq., that the Soviet Union was fully back in the ranks, securely under the bankers’ control.

In 1992, The Washington Times reported that Russian President Boris Yeltsen was upset that most of the incoming foreign aid was being siphoned off “straight back into the coffers of Western banks in debt service.” Much of that debt was incurred under the prior communist regimes, which were heavily in debt to the Money Changers.

Similarly, once in power, Mao Tse-Tung spread his wings and expelled the Soviets from Red China leading to the Sino-Soviet rift of the 1960’s. The U.S. and the U.S.S.R. initiated an encirclement policy of China including: heavy Soviet troop concentrations and border provocations in Manchuria; drawing North Korea and Mongolia tightly into the Soviet camp; placing nuclear weapons in Manchuria; arming Tibetan freedom fighters and Taiwanese troops; and establishing important U.S. (now Soviet) air and naval bases in Vietnam (such as Cam Rahn Bay) while beefing up U.S. forces in Guam, Japan, Laos and Thailand, all under the pretext of the Vietnam War.
Under this growing pressure, Mao first responded with internal political purges just as Stalin had done, but with the failure of the Great Leap Forward and with the U.S./U.S.S.R. noose tightening, Mao blinked and Kissinger was sent in to strike the deal.

Still, Mao’s price for China’s cooperation and integration in the bankers’ one-world scheme was obviously high, here is the result: the encirclement ended, including U.S. abandonment of South Vietnam and Laos; China got Taiwan’s U.N. seat (and doubtless a pledge of eventually getting Taiwan itself); a free hand in Tibet, Hong Kong; and gigantic bribes in the form of Western development of China.

This left the Bankers with few obstacles worldwide: Muslim fundamentalism here and there, India’s nuclear development, and the weak remnants of Western nationalism (concentrated in the large [but rapidly shrinking] U.S. middle class and in a minority of the British, French, and Russian aristocracy [e.g. Thatcher and Le Pen]).

To overcome these, the Russian Empire was dismembered into fifteen nations; the U.K, France and the U.S.A. are gradually being submerged into regional and global entities (such as NAFTA, WTO, MAI, EEC, EU, etc.) and Desert Storm et seq. is keeping the Muslims on a tight leash while India is being pressured to abandon its nuclear program.

The bankers’ three main regional groupings: the European Union, the proposed American Union in the Western hemisphere, and Chinese dominance in Asia, are rapidly bringing to life Orwell’s three virtually identical world nations set forth in his book 1984: Eurasia, Oceania and East Asia – all set to engage in perpetual war (WWIII) with its attendant debt and population reduction and control.

Wars are complex things with many causative factors. But on the other hand, it would also be equally foolish to ignore as a prime cause of World Wars I and II those who would profit the most from war, both financially and politically.

Senator Nye of North Dakota raised the possibility that the Wilson administration entered WWI, at a critical juncture for the allies, in order to protect huge Wall Street bank loans to the allies. During the War the U.S. money supply was doubled to pay for it, halving the dollar’s purchasing power and so Americans’ savings.

It is also interesting to note that the most belligerent pro-war hawk surrounding President Wilson was a man named Colonel Edward Mandell House, the son of a man commonly believed to be a Rothschild agent, who was himself closely associated with Wall Street and European bankers.

The role of the Money Changers is no wild conspiracy theory. They had a motive – a short-range, self-serving motive as well as a long-range, political motive of advancing totalitarian government, with the Money Changers maintaining the financial clout to control whatever politicians might emerge as the leaders.




In this research, democracy’s powerful enemy is capitalism that has produced a potent military industrial complex and entertainment-riddled complicit mainstream media. These nearly unstoppable forces controlled by a powerful elite in business and government incorporate elements of organized crime that are perhaps the most powerful force within their dominant structure. Viewed alone, organized crime seems nearly ubiquitous in American life whether on Wall Street where legitimate or illegitimate businesses cannot be differentiated; in government that employs mobsters in covert operations and elects and appoints others to office to be bribed and sometimes sent to jail; and in media where roots in Hollywood attached to mostly Jewish and Italian mobsters producing then and now, along with regular fare, evermore violent and degrading films for the movies and television world markets.

Organized crime no doubt has always been part of structures of governments everywhere and in every age but in our modern times the question must be ask if it has become the dominant force. One of its latest American expressions is the proliferation of once banned and now legal gambling casinos in nearly every state since the first was built outside of Las Vegas in the 1970’s  in New Jersey.   Another expression is television where poker games seem just another sport. Our children are growing up to be gamblers in a toxic environment producing a constant stream of scandals pouring out of the nation’s local communities about bribes and illegal contributions most of which subvert local zoning laws and, as previously described, Wall Streets scams and rip-offs whose losses Americans taxpayers will absorb as manipulators are rewarded with the monies they steal and the exemptions they receive.
Las Vegas and Organized Crime

In 2000 Sally Dentin and Roger Morris published The Power and Money: The Making of Las Vegas.

. . . .  Sally Dentin, a native Nevadan who grew up around Lake Mead just outside of Las Vegas, spent nearly 25 years as an investigative reporter. Her husband, Roger Morris, served in the White House and on the National Security Council before becoming a researcher and author of histories among which include presidential biographies. Their book covers the period from 1947 through 2000 the period in which Las Vegas began and grew into a crossroad city for the collusion of political, economic and criminal elements with international connections. In their Prologue the authors describe a meeting in Las Vegas in 1998 in which a Customs agents’ sting “Operation Casablanca” took in 12 prominent Mexican bankers who were among 140 arrests in six locales across three continents.   The investigation has uncovered crimes in the hundreds of billions of dollars amid international corruption at the highest levels of business and government. And now, as over the past half century, Las Vegas is a nexus of it all. (Page 4)

In beginning chapters the authors relate biographical detail about major American criminals of the Syndicate whose founding father was Meyer Lansky.   Tidbits about small time organized crime hoodlums include those about Jack Ruby,  the assassin of the assassin Oswald as well as information about the Kennedy’s,  a recent Las Vegas boss Steve Wynn and major organized crime members connected to major political figures.

Among other facts, we learn the Teamsters pension fund controlled by Jimmy Hoffa ignited the growth of Las Vegas while other monies flowing into the city among other sources came from Mormon banks in Utah and Wall Street corporations and investors. In all, the story is about the dark forces of a shadow government controlling the country which, as these author mention, the eminent and respected historian Daniel Bornstein, who served as Librarian of Congress, had warned Americans in his book Hidden History. Unfortunately, as Ms. Denton and Mr. Morris note, most historians find such a subject uncomfortable.

Other absorbing information about Las Vegas concerns how and when cash called “juice” from gambling and illegal drug crimes spread through the country into the hands or resources of often identified major political leaders and presidents up to and including Clinton. One of their most important points is the major misfortune that the Italian mafia came to be identified as the country’s major and sometimes apparently only organized crime group as seen in the mantra “the mob did it!”. Such concentration set up other ethnic criminals to be more lethal, information that harps back to those in Gus Russo’s 2007 book Supermob. As Dentin and Morris explain, the Syndicate, in fact, had participants from many ethnic groups.  Jews in Las Vegas represented one-half of them and Italians a quarter with Irish and Poles having some shares and it is the kingpin Meyer Lansky and his Jewish cohorts who have a special place in the criminals’ cannons.  For one thing, Lansky possessed compromising photographs of Edgar Hoover’s homosexual activities to keep the FBI chief at a distance. Hoover in turn famously laid off the Syndicate keeping his own files on major politicians to maintain his job. As to Meyer’s seminal position in organized crime, it was he who first and most understood the importance of Wall Street.

. . . . .a gifted mathematician who organized crime along hierarchical lines. . . . recognizing how much the country was in the grip of Wall Street financial houses and powerful local banks, industrial gains in steel, automobiles, mining and manufacturing, the growing power of labor unions, the entrenched political machines. . .. (Page 23)

Lanksy and his ilk get major credit for blending legitimate and illegitimate enterprises:

. . . . .The term “Lansky operation” came to be used by insiders—even when he himself was not involved at all—to denote a generic, classic blending of organized crime with the legal, surface world, even employing in many cases some of his purposed official pursuers as well as his Syndicate associates. That evolution to a largely compromised, exploitative economy was his real legacy, and his real heirs much of a corporate and political elite—from the monopolistic owners of Las Vegas casinos to the masters of conglomerate mergers to presidential candidates taking in tens of millions of dollars from vested interests—governing the nation by Lansky principles at the turn of the next century. . . . .    Their capital in spirit would always be Las Vegas. What Lansky brought there in symbol and substance—the national power and organization of the Syndicate, the centrality of drugs and money-laundering as means of finance, the compromising of law enforcement and the corrupt collusion with government, the underlying principle that the only player who wins is the one who controls the game—would be constant elements in the rise and expansion of gambling and thus of the town itself. In what he had once called that “horrible place” in the Nevada desert, Lansky founded a city that would represent the essence of his vision of America. Far more than a string of carpet joints, it was to be an entire society dominated by the ethic he had adopted so long before—a boss’s paradise of suckers. (Page 29)

In a Current Affairs interview available on the Internet, Ms. Denton and Mr. Morris their book sum up some of their book’s major points.

. . . . .   The Strip was founded by Meyer Lansky and a truly multi-ethnic criminal consortium of underworld and legitimate business with most of the capital coming from the international drug trade, Mormon-dominated banks, and other financial institutions, insurance companies, Wall Street and other ostensibly legitimate interests. The Strip was certainly not founded and sustained by a stereotypical Italian mafia.    The corruption of America’s government, economy, and society nationwide in the 1920s and ’30s traced principally to that multi-ethnic force, of which the popular Mafia caricature was only a fragment. Our book shows that from the beginning in the 1940s and ’50s the city became a national, and soon global, money laundering capital of underworld profits from every conceivable pursuit—from petty vice in dozens of American cities and rural areas to international arms trafficking to the Middle East and Central America. . . . . 

Denton and Morris recognize that Americans find it difficult to look into the face of the reality of its corruption for one important reason that both its legitimate and illegitimate systems are based on similar principles.

. . . . .It is misleading in Las Vegas, and even in much of America, to draw that old distinction between criminal and legal. The system we are describing in the nation and the city is so profoundly and inextricably enmeshed, the old criminal ethic of exploitation and greed is so much the ethic of corporate “legal” America, that the distinctions are difficult to make when it comes to understanding power, the way things really work in America. The short answer is that a practically and/or ethically criminal system survived and survives in Las Vegas and elsewhere because it’s in essence inseparable from the ruling regime.. . . . .

When the authors were asked if they would consider Las Vegas an American financial success story, they said they did but at an extraordinary price. While no city has grown faster, generated more visitors and wealth and profits for its size, or made money more freely and rapidly for its people, its dark side leaves the city and the nation dominated by an oligopoly that has brought

. . . . . the ethics and values of a corrupt company town to the rest of the nation. The price of success was and has been terrible.    Everyone who reads our book will realize that this is not a diatribe against gambling. In fact, both of us believe that Americans, who have a long tradition of wagering, ought to be free to gamble. The issues at stake are: who controls the billions of dollars involved, how much exploitation is inflicted on gamblers and the rest of society, and how much the huge power generated from this activity controls and distorts the rest of our political, economic, and social system.. . . .  Most of America has learned the wrong lessons, if any. Most of the country is still content to see Las Vegas as a distant aberration, a fun place in the desert that has little to do with the reality of their own lives even if casino gambling and the political power of the industry is dominant in their own home states. But as the book makes plain, to come to grips with the reality of Las Vegas is not to understand some pariah city, but rather to confront the underlying reality of America’s worship of money and all its materialism and the devastation of our democracy and economy by that obsession.

The Las Vegas book, written and published before 9/11, cannot bring that story into its perspective and also omits major discussion of the country’s democratic history and values in which the power and conglomeration of its mainstream media played and continues to play a vital role. Surely, as they write, Americans had within their legitimate capitalistic economic system the seeds brought to fruition by its criminals, bringing to mind words of Tocqueville, the famous 19th Century Frenchman, who toured the country and found Americans all wanting to become rich unlike Europeans who either were too rich to care or never could have such hope. Nevertheless, those Americans having real democratic instincts saw them buried under mainstream media’s power, especially in television, to indoctrinate a whole people with a message about keeping up with the Jones tying them to a treadmill of materialistic life centered on just another credit card purchase and a lottery ticket to wipe away their misery. While some of us are old enough to have escaped such media saturation, we remained victims helpless to stop the indoctrination of our children and their children who were turned into gamblers and too often criminals fascinated by shootouts and murders.

Assassination of JFK

While our nation has been changing from a democracy to an empire since   its inception, corruption played a major part in that process and many historians. Then in the ‘60s some came to conclude that our dismal fate was sealed after the assassinations of the Kennedy’s and Martin Luther King with some concluding that the Kennedy’s were America’s last chance to check its rampant corruption. Others not so sure see the Kennedy’s as part and parcel of the country’s corrupt power structure with Robert Kennedy’s famous investigations of mob figures excluding people like Sydney Korshak of Chicago who was an associate of his father and Robert McNamara, JFK’s Secretary Defense, giving the mobbed- up Chicago company and owner, General Dynamics and Henry Crown, the contract over Boeing to make the disastrous F 111.

While such facts cannot be denied, neither can the truth of RFK’s statement especially in light of our present environment that if organized crime was not stopped then it would come to run the country for it had infiltrated legitimate businesses and our local communities. Unfortunately it was the Kennedy’s and King, a progressive leader igniting his black community to action, who were stopped dead in their tracks and all three investigations of their murders closed with the conclusions that each had been killed by a crazy lone gunman to stir eternal conflict since most people studying the murders found evidence of conspiracy.

The Warren Commission investigating JFK’s assassination examined only evidence that accommodated their agenda which was to assure Americans that the murder of their president was committed by Lee Harvey Oswald and not part of a conspiracy to bring down their government. The media proliferated that view but most people remained at least skeptical. Something was surely fishy when Jack Ruby killed Oswald not long after Oswald was arrested as Oswald was escorted through a corridor of the Dallas Police Station.  Jack Ruby was an open book, a small time hoodlum with big time associates running a seedy Dallas nightclub where the Dallas police came in for free drinks and other favors.  Just days before the assassination his telephone records show he was calling back and forth to major crime figures. Could it really be, as he said, he killed Oswald because he grieved over the death of his president?   Not likely although the Warren Commission accepted that story and others like it.

There are many reasons to believe Oswald had not operated alone. JFK opposed his military and CIA leaders many of whom attempted to kill Castro several times and one at least advocated nuclear war with the Russians. Early in his first term, after the debacle of the Bay of Pigs, the invasion of Cuba in which the military, CIA agents and organized crime figures from the US and from Cuba cooperated, the furious and deceived President fired and relocated key military and CIA players having refused their overtures to make a full scale invasion of Cuba and making his intentions known that he would pursue détente with the Soviets. As to suspects in organized crime who were most likely to have been at least part of the conspiracy as they had long been part of CIA covert actions, certainly grudges were held against the Kennedy’s whose father had enlisted their members to help elect his son only to see the brothers in office trying to put them in jail.

As to Oswald, no one ever questioned the fact that he fired from the warehouse in Dealey Plaza and after killed Officer Tippit who pulled him over as he walked a street and then fled to hide in a movie house where he was captured and arrested. Suspicion of conspiracy involves questions about how many shooters fired at the President and was or was not Oswald working for the CIA.

In contrast to the open book that was Ruby, Lee Harvey Oswald was an enigma wrapped in a mystery as described by G. Robert Blakely, Chief Counsel and Staff Director for the House Select Committee on Assassinations investigating the crime fifteen years after it occurred.   He concluded  previous investigations of the FBI and Warren Commission had been seriously flawed for one reason that the CIA had been uncooperative. In their conclusion Kennedy was assassinated by a conspiracy in which four shots had been fired, the first, second and fourth by Oswald and a third by an unnamed second assassin. Years after the House investigation Mr. Blakely called into question the honesty of the CIA in his own House’s investigation.

Amateur photographer Abraham Zapruder, who stood that fateful day on the sidewalk watching and filming the scene, captured the assassination. As he relates, he heard a shot and after saw the President slump to his side then heard another shot or two to see, as his film shows, the President’s head falling forward not backward from a bullet in front not in the back of him.   JFK’s body was whisked away and an autopsy if ever completed never appeared to explain exactly how he died.

Taken into the Dallas police headquarters, Oswald called himself a patsy while his mother raved until her death that he had been a CIA agent. Serving in the army as a young man in the ‘50’s, soon after he began to claim he was a communist curiously finding his way to Russia where its secret service kept an eye on him but in the end thought that he was too insignificant a figure to be working for the CIA. There marrying his wife Marina and having a daughter, he retuned to the US and here, fluent in Russia, he worked intermittently at menial jobs while establishing himself pro-Castro. In April 1963 having quit his job and moved to Dallas, he shot and wounded through the window of his home General Edwin Walker, a known rabid anti-Castro fanatic who Kennedy was known to hate and had forced into retirement. Later Oswald would be in New Orleans passing out on its streets pro-Castro leaflets, the only member of his pro-Castro club. However, he seemed in New Orleans to have other connections. People swore they saw him in the office of Guy Bannister and in the company of David Ferrie.

. . . .William Guy Banister was a career member of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and a private investigator. He gained notoriety from the allegations made by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison after Banister’s death that he had been involved in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy. He was an avid anti-communist — member of the Minutemen, the John Birch Society, Louisiana Committee on Un-American Activities and publisher of the Louisiana Intelligence Digest. He also supported various anti-Castro groups in the New Orleans area: “Cuban Democratic Revolutionary Front”; “Anti- Communist League of the Caribbean”; and “Friends of Democratic Cuba”[1].. . . . . On the afternoon of November 22, 1963, the day that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated, Banister and one of his investigators, Jack Martin, were drinking together at the Katzenjammer Bar, located in New Orleans next door to 544 Camp Street. On their return to Banister’s office, the two men got into a dispute. Banister believed that Martin had stolen his files and drew his .357 magnum revolver, striking Martin with it several times. During the argument Martin asked: “What are you going to do, kill me? Like you all did Kennedy?” Martin was badly injured and treated at Charity Hospital.  Over the next few days Martin told authorities and reporters that Banister and Ferrie (David) had been involved in the assassination. He claimed that Ferrie knew Oswald from their days in the New Orleans Civil Air Patrol and may have taught Oswald how to use a rifle with a telescopic sight. Martin also claimed that Banister drove Ferrie to Texas so Ferrie could fly the assassins of JFK out of the state. Additionally, within hours of the assassination a tip from an employee of Banister was submitted to the New Orleans authorities linking Bannister, Ferrie and Oswald with the activities of the Fair Play For Cuba Committee.

David Ferrie was a rabid anti-communist who became convinced Castro was a communist and joined an anti-Castro movement to work with right-wing Cuban exile, Sergio Archaca Smith, director of the CIA-backed Cuban Democratic Revolutionary Front. Ferrie had been a member of the Civil Air Patrol, starting as a “senior” with the Fifth Cleveland Squadron at Hopkins Airport in 1947. Moving to New Orleans he transferred to its Cadet Squadron at Lakefront Airport, first as an instructor and later as a Commander. He lost his position after the death of a pilot he had trained becoming a guest lecturer at a smaller squadron at Moisant Airport. There he met a 15 year old Lee Harvey Oswald who joined this squadron on July 27, 1955. Ferrie

PBS Frontline documentary Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald? provides an excellent account of such complex circumstances around Lee Harvey Oswald’s life and the assassination. A note about Oswald’s wife Marina who never provided information for or against conspiracy theories comes from Sally Dentin and Roger Morris in their book on Las Vegas.

. . . . . Not long after the killings, Oswald’s wife, Marina, would be provided legal aid and patronage from the Great Southwest Corporation of Dallas, a real estate venture controlled by a close associate of Bobby Baker—and ties from all that wound back to the Teamsters’ pension fund, through Washington lawyer Ed Morgan, and ultimately back to Las Vegas. (Page 253)

Of the many books and movies supporting the theory that JFK was a victim of conspiracy is Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years by David Talbot, one of the latest and best of the lot. Mr. Talbot is a journalist and founder of the online news magazine Salon who does not claim to know who killed JFK but rather sets forth a compelling circumstantial story about the president and his brother and their enemies to conclude that the assassins came from organized crime, the military, CIA, FBI or Cuban anti Castro forces offering his best guess that the greatest probability is a conspiracy of some combination of them. What Mr. Talbot advocates most of all is a reinvestigation to discover the real truth, recalling to mind other like critics of the 9/11 investigation who have a similar wish.

One of Talbot’s new revelations in his book concerns Bobby Kennedy’s quiet investigation of his brother’s murder. RFK publicly supported the conclusion of the Warren Commission for complicated reasons but believed his brother like Mr. Talbot had been killed by some combination of members of the mentioned organizations. He also questioned why the Secret Service hadn’t protected his brother. Among the relevant information presented in the book linked to conspiracy is the Chief of Secret Service, James Rowley, telling Bobby that his brother had been cut down in a crossfire by three, perhaps four, gunmen; that the autopsy of JFK had been in the “. . . hands of three inexperienced pathologists under the constant supervision of a cadres of high ranking military men”; that Bobby had said Jack Ruby had the mob written all over him” and later when he looked at Ruby’s telephone records that “the list was almost a duplicate of the people I called before the Rackets Committee”. Further, RFK ‘s crusade against organized crime connected to his understanding that it was threatening to take control of the economy of the US. With their deep pockets criminals were paying off politicians, judges and elected officials around the country. Also, although he had known of his father’s ties to corruption, during his investigations he was crushed learning just how deep they were.

Talbot goes on to report that after the assassination a Kennedy emissary who was a friend of the family was sent to explain that RFK believed his brother was killed by a large conspiracy and certainly not by a lone assassin which Talbot says shows that in the days following the murder, RFK put more trust in the Russian government than he did in his own. Then in 1976 a Senate investigation, The Church Committee, mentioned above, concluded that since the CIA had been capable of working hand in hand with Mafia assassins against Castro, it had been capable of other such crimes. Further, during the active days of the administration, the Kennedy’s knowing the powerful influence of Hollywood tried to enlist their friends to make a move of Bobby’s book The Enemy Within to bring the country knowledge about the great influence of organized crime. With so much organized crime muscle in Hollywood, the movie was never made and this outcome a lesson revealing to RFK an even deeper truth about the dark powers he wanted to expose.

Of all the powers the Kennedy’s took on in their brief time, nothing was as great as that of the military and their partner the CIA which had been growing every since World War II. As Talbot explains  . . . .  Cuba was the Iraq of its day, no more than a swath of sugar cane afloat in the Caribbean, but to the national security elite who determined such things, it was where the forces of good and evil were arrayed against one another, the epicenter of a struggle that would come close to a literally earth-shattering climax. And in his first test in this supreme confrontation, Kennedy was judged by military and intelligence officials to be a dangerously weak link at the top of the chain of command. (Page 50)

General Curtis LeMay who was portrayed by Sterling Hayden as General Jack D. Ripper in the film Dr. Strangelove especially hated the “Kennedy crowd” calling them ruthless and vindictive cockroaches. . . . . The Air Force chief stunned the capital in July when Washington Post columnist Marquis Childs reported that he (the general) causally predicted that nuclear war would break out in the final weeks of the year. . . to a Senator’s wife at a Georgetown dinner party, telling the shocked woman that war was inevitable and that it would likely incinerate such major U.S. cities as Washington, New York , Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Chicago and Detroit as well as level most Soviet cities. (Page 66)

JFK pushed LeMay into retirement and got rid of or outmaneuvered others like him including Generals Lucius Clay, Edwin Walker and Lyman Lemnitzer, chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Lemnitzer had approved Operation Northwoods which was a plan that included a string of false flag events to discredit Castro.   Presented to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, he in turn took it to the president who refused to consider it and denied Lemnitzer another term as Join Chief of Staff chairman.

In Brothers Talbot relates to the Kennedy’s as heroes coming to pay the price for taking on the country’s right-wing military and organized crime and provides reason for their contradictions of being both hawks and doves. While RFK in fact early on even advocated the elimination of Castro,  with his brother they advocated negotiation with the Russians to find peaceful resolutions to military problems, a side they kept under cover until winning office because of the popularity of strong militaristic positions. Thus, JFK outmaneuvered his political opponent Nixon, a stronger hawk who also had underworld alliances.

The Kennedy’s were nothing if not complicated and their story has elements of a Shakespearean or Greek tragedy. After Dallas, Bobby Kennedy remarked that he had learned then that his world had not been the real world. Dominating their lives was a rich, corrupt and hugely loving father that Talbot describes as a mother hen. With unrequited ambitions, he schooled his children to fulfill himself and in that process give them the edge of political wisdom beyond their years. But these children,  although spoiled having been raised with the proverbial silver spoons,  must have been as all children would be in painful conflict trying to fulfill their father’s ambition and become their own persons. Of all forms of human domination love is the most powerful and complex. Perhaps the crazy sexual excesses of JFK combined with his long history of medical problems accounted for his recklessness that might have had him writhing in pain locked in emotional bondage that had placed him in his dangerous office. As Talbot informs he had often spoken about his premonitions of assassination. While politically and emotionally divided, in office he rose to idealistic heights which must also have been part of his rearing inspiring people like Talbot and other Americans to revere him.

Connecting the dots

The assassinations of the ’60’s and the environment we live in today, especially after 9/11, have disturbing similarities.  JFK and the other assassinations remain uninvestigated and  so does 9/11. A corrupted capitalism has advanced to a new corrupted global environment. With America  its overwhelming nuclear power and Israel its I  Middle East ally,  the Bush administration obviously apparently works  to accomplish its goals that apparently include controlling oil-rich Middle East and central Asian countries; weaponizing space for an eventual world war; and preparing NATO to be its world police force with increased power of nuclear preemptive strikes  all the while denying resistant countries from developing nuclear power.  .

Yellow Cake and the Italian Connection
On May 4, 2007 Bill Moyers on his PBS Journal interviewed Carlo Bonini, an Italian investigative journalist, about his new book Collusion in which he describes how SISME, the Italian secret service, forged the Yellowcake story that Bush came to relate in his State of the Union speech to persuade the country to invade Iraq.  Mr. Bonini explains that the documents that claimed to prove Saddam Hussein purchased uranium cakes from Niger were falsified and classified by Italian intelligence. Five months before Prime Minister Berlusconi won the general election,  he was eager to have relationships with Bush. Knowing   how it would please Mr. Berlusconi to have something to take to Bush and in that way be a great opportunity for SISME, agents cooked up the story about Saddam being in Niger looking for yellowcakes. Mr. Berlusconi went to the White House with his story and Bush put it into his State of the State message as evidence Saddam was looking to restart his nuclear program

Berlusconi owns among other things the largest Italian  company operating in media and finance which includes three national TV channels accounting for nearly half of the Italian TV market.   In the spring of 2008 Berlusconi was re-elected Italy’s prime minister. Previously in the 2001 elections in which he and his allies won every seat in parliament, his opponents accused him and them of buying their seats and Berlusconi of being part of Italy’s mafia.  In 2001 elections he and his allie who won every parliamentary seat in Sicily were accused of vote-buying. Two of Mr. Berlusconi’s closest allies were subsequently found guilty of dealing with the Mafia. Salvatore Cuffaro, the island’s former governor,   given a five-year sentence,   is running for a seat in the senate, Italy’s upper house, in the election on April 12.. . Rumours about Mr. Berlusconi’s links to the Mafia have circled since the beginning of his business career.  He faced considerable embarrassment in the 1980s when it became public that the “gardener” at his Arcore estate in Milan was Vittorio Mangano, a powerful mafioso from Porta Nuova.   Mangano was described by anti-mafia investigators as “one of those personalities who acted as a bridgehead for the Mafia in northern Italy”. He was later tried and convicted of murder and died in prison in 2000.

In 1998, Mr. Berlusconi was formally investigated on suspicion of commissioning the murders of two anti-Mafia judges, based on the testimony of a Mafia informant. However, no case was brought.

France and Sarkozy

In May 2007 France elected Nicolas Sarkozy, a professed admirer of the U.S. and close friend of Israel’s Netanyahu. Unlike Chirac his predecessor who opposed Bush and the Iraq war, Sarkozy boasts of his admiration for the U.S. and his intention to move his country forward to compete with other global powers. On May 11, 2007 The New York Times reported on his post election vacation when he and his then wife and their son were guests aboard the 190 foot yacht of billionaire Vincent Bollore, a personal friend, corporate raider and media tycoon.  
The French press likened Mr. Sarkozy’s appetite for the fine life to that of Silvio Berlusconi, the much-maligned former Italian prime minister. Libération, a left-leaning daily in Paris, ran a front-page picture of the Sarkozys on the yacht with the headline “Boat People.” Unlike other French leaders, Mr. Sarkozy flaunts his connections with the moneyed class and has criticized France’s penchant for hiding wealth and ambition.

As in the US, media around the world is more and more conglomerated and controlled. Sarkozy gets more than his share of coverage and as we all know has come to have a public divorce and a public remarriage to a hot Italian movie star. While he seems a most unlikely man to have become president of a country like France with its Catholic tradition and socialized history, in the new world of media technology, conglomeration and celebrity news traditions can be easily dismissed

Syriana, a movie
Syriana is about the oil game of world oil companies struggling to get their share and control of final supplies. American and Chinese traders along with others are all corrupt committing any crime to reach their goals in a world where supplies are less than the world believes. It is a have and have not story in which the more ruthless survive. Among its many lines of action, an oil company merges, an American financial analyst becomes an expatriate and adviser to an Arab prince who wants to succeed his father as ruler of an oil-rich emirate, and a Pakistani laborer turns radical Islamist. Themes of greed, ambition, idealism and self interest emerge to intertwine in an incomprehensible swirl to make money, commit terror and gain power. All seekers are confused as are those watching them, the point being that no one can have a handle on the whole picture just their small part in it. The chaotic oil race is uncontrollable. In the end an ideal uncompromised Arab prince, unlike his compromised brother, is blown to bits evidently by the CIA.

The film is based on a novel See No Evil by Robert Baer who was or maybe still is a CIA agent operating in hot spots like Beirut and Tehran. In a PBS Charlie Rose Show interview, Stephan Gagon, the director of the film, comes nearly to plead with Americans to somehow or other kick the oil habit that is providing so many opportunities for so many corrupt players. syrihtml? r=1&oref=slogin


This country on our borders that is now one of our major global partners in new global trading alliances is drowning in corruption and violence related mostly to illegal drugs in which the US is evidently playing a major role. The following was published in the Houston Chronicle in May 2008.    . . . .   As many as 200 U.S.-trained Mexican security personnel have defected to drug cartels to carry out killings on both sides of the border and as far north as Dallas, Rep. Ted Poe, R- Humble, told Congress on Wednesday.   The renegade members of Mexico’s elite counter-narcotics teams trained at Fort Benning, Ga., have switched sides, contributing to a wave of violence that has claimed some 6,000 victims over the past 30 months, including prominent law enforcement leaders, the Houston-area Republican told the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
The slaughter has gained urgency amid high-profile assassinations of law officers in Mexico since May 1, claiming six senior officers, five of them with the federal police.   Poe held aloft a dramatic, poster-board-size photograph that he said showed guerrilla- style commandos crossing into the United States.   He said the Department of Homeland Security had documented “over 250 incursions by suspected military forces” into the United States over the past decade.
http://newsfromthe helping.html

Global Crime

. . . . In June 2008 PBS’s Charlie Rose Show presented his interview of Misha Glenny author of a new book McMafia which attempts to summarize global crime throughout the world. The discussion and evidently the book based on it has special emphases that include among others falling Soviets states with their economies tanked turning to organized crime. For example, in Bulgaria many of the 14,000 police officers sacked who had been trained to kill became members of organized gangs developing a global market economy in illegal drugs and prostitution with human bondage. Further, in 1999 when Russia was in dire straight from rampant corruption, Putin took control by reasserting state police power to consequently earn support of his people Both Glenny and Rose expressed surprise that nuclear weapons as of this time have not been stolen from Russia as had been so widely expected. . . . .


Other emphasis concerned China which Mr. Glenny believes is the breeding grounds of tomorrow’s criminality as well as be a large source of it today. As he explained, China with its vast population must continuously create jobs and export products to the west, a major consequence of which is their copying or reproducing just about everything to become a monumental problem for the US whose service industry is now its dominant industry. At the heart of it are intellectual property rights. Then there is Italy whose famous Cosa Nostra   badly beaten after the fall of communism making the Camorra of Naples the country’s most lethal organization. As Glenny informs, Italy is a deeply corrupted country whose institutions are being destroyed and whose leaders do not know what to do about their problems.


Misha Glennary is a former BBC reporter who spent years in the Balkans covering the war. As he learned the Balkans has a huge transit zone for illicit goods and services from all over the world and desperately wants to get into the European Union. There picking up threads, he followed leads to other places in the world to investigate organized crime and interview its masters. The thesis of his book seems to be that we all live in a global world riddled with mafias especially those developing and growing in leaps and bounds from the Soviet collapse. Unlike older mafias the new organizations are not geographically defined and are independent of clans or families with unhealthy loyalties and consequent vendettas.  Mr. Glenny, as he said, found many of their masters mysterious and interesting such as the electrical engineer he met in Rambai, Indonesia who spoke to him about Indian politics and also how he carries out executions .   The author estimates that mafia crime represents around 15 to 20 % of total crime which includes tax evasion, corruption and corporate fraud. Then,  while admittedly these organizations are under the control of some very nasty people, without them the free market in Eastern bloc countries would not have emerged for it was their groups that gave people jobs and moved goods and services around.   In conclusion Mr. Glenny explained that if drugs were legalized the rug would be pulled from under the vast number of criminal organizations trading them, pointing to Afghanistan to show how bad guys like the Taliban prosper from opium production whose profits are dedicated to killing NATO soldiers.


Emphasis in this shot uncritical interview tended to create the impression, at least in this viewer, that an out-of-control mafia ridden world emerging especially from fallen Soviet countries and China needs some means of control of what he calls its shadow government. In May Peter Robb had reviewed Mr. Glenny’s book for The New York Times. Mr. Robb is an Australian who also knows a few things about crime having also lived in many places two of which, Brazil and Italy, he wrote about in books. He describes Glenny’s book as a “dizzy tour of the forms of global crime born in the late ‘80’s when finance capital shook off restraints and the Soviet Union collapsed.


While Glenny implies the criminality he describes is new, the reviewer in contrast says the countries described have had long criminal histories of their own with international trading links. Skirting from one country to another, Glenny overstretches his view and in fragmenting that view obscures important patterns. . . . . Glenny looks at prostitution rackets out of Eastern Europe, indentured labor in the Gulf states and migration rackets out of China — where he sees “the future of organized crime” — but hardly suggests how far people themselves have become merchandise, as indentured laborers, domestic slaves, child thieves, child soldiers, child prostitutes, babies for sale and children for adoption, pharmaceutical guinea pigs or organ suppliers. All move around the world with the collusion of customs, immigration, police, social services, charities and aid agencies.   Traveling through the global underworld and . . . flying high over points where the licit and illicit economies meet, Glenny tends to forget that one man’s crime is another man’s legitimate business opportuny. . . .

Further, while Glenny describes the criminality in oil and gas industries in the former Soviet Union,  he skirts them in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria or Angola. More importantly Glenny does not consider how the horrific crimes of the third world countries link to the financial systems of the first world.  . . . “McMafia” ignores a dense network of complicity in the institutions of the West. Neither, after some vague talk at the outset of “global reach as criminal corporations aspire to penetrate markets the world over,” does it identify a global crime corporation, or explain how its activities might be “mirroring the global goals of legal entities such as McDonald’s    A model for all this remains the Sicilian Mafia, which is ignored here. Mafia is about control on the ground. It maintains order locally, and its reward is a free hand in business. Mafia is government and crime intertwined, and so, below the surface, are most of the instances Glenny describes.. . . .

There’s no big picture here, no corporate brand, no franchise. In global crime, the structures, the methods, the personnel, the channels, the merchandise, the alliances change even faster than they do in the world of legal business. There are patterns of complicity, however, and closer to home than Glenny’s nightmare settings. 

SECTION II: The Candidates 2008

Three major party presidential candidates reduced to two all ran with the backing of the moneyed class of Wall Street. Ralph Nader, who sometimes seems the only public democrat left on the scene, is out of sync with the imperial government to have no significant big donors, no media presence,  and certainly never to be included in “staged” presidential debates.

Hillary and Obama  

 Parading in a charade that, if elected, she would be the first “woman” president and that mean democratic progress, Hillary, that other half of the imperial Clinton administration, now stands ready to serve as vice president which could lead her to another presidential try in our future.  If president, she would surely be ready to bring back her husband and most of their neo-liberal friends like Rubin, Cohen and Summers who all did their best to put more power into the hands of the Superclass extending Reagan’s agenda and beginning George W.’s.   It was she and her husband and their friends who promoted and delivered the greatest conglomeration of the telecommunications world in their telecommunications act to make our inaccessible media more inaccessible;  it was she and was husband and friends who promoted the global agenda with Nafta and Cafta legislation sending our jobs and companies to Mexico and other places and bringing us the poorest of the poor to compete for the crumbs left;  and it was she and her husband and friends that were the first to organize NATO allies for the U.S. to first strike preemptively a sovereign nation, Serbia, that was in a civil war like many other countries and not in any way a threat to the US.   Serbia’s misfortune was to be located in a strategic area important to the agenda of the Superclass where they built their infamous Bondsteel military base.

While it is true that Obama’s election as the nation’s first black president would be a new experience in the States, he like Hillary would not change or alter our military empire and its imperial government that Wall Street and their friends firmly control.   Pam Martens who now writes from New Hampshire after having worked on Wall Street for 21 years knows the Street’s ins and outs.  In May 2008 her Internet article Obama’s Money Cartel explains how our first black presidential candidate in spite of claims not to take lobbyists’ contributions takes lobbyists’ contributions from

. . . . .a Wall Street cartel of financial firms, their registered lobbyists, and go-to law             firms that have a death grip on our federal government. . . .    Seven of the Obama      campaign’s top 14 donors consisted of officers and employees of the same Wall Street            firms charged time and again with looting the public and newly implicated in originating           and/or bundling fraudulently made mortgages.. . . .

These seven Wall Street firms are (in order of money given): Goldman Sachs, UBS AG,        Lehman Brothers, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse.      There is also a large hedge fund, Citadel Investment Group, which is a major source of             fee income to Wall Street. There are five large corporate law firms that are also             registered lobbyists; and one is a corporate law firm that is no longer a registered        lobbyist but does legal work for Wall Street. . . . .

Ms. Martens sees that Obama, a lawyer, distances himself from lobbyists but not from law firms registered as lobbyists to make monies coming from such firms or even from the employees of such firms no different.   Further several of Obama’s salaried aides are registered lobbyists for dozen of corporations.  Ms Martens suspects his efforts to distance himself from lobbyists hark back to his vote in February 2005 supporting the Class Action Fairness Act that many of his prominent Democratic colleagues voted against such as Senators Boxer, Byrd, Clinton, Corzine, Durbin, Feingold, Kerry, Leahy, Reid and 16 others as well as 14 state attorney generals including that of his own state Illinois and more than 40 civil rights and labor organizations including the NAACP.

In contrast to this major opposition Senator Obama, a member of the black community, supported and praised the passage of this bill for which Congress had been under pressure to support for five long years from

. . . . .. 100 corporations, 475 lobbyists, tens of millions of corporate dollars buying influence in our government and the active participation of the Wall Street firms now             funding the Obama campaign.

Passing the Senate 72-26, the bill was signed into law impairing, even more than the rest of us our poorest citizens, dramatically limiting the rights of labor, consumers and others to seek redress for wrongs inflicted upon them by the powerful. These rights that should have been strengthened not weakened are

. . . .one of the few weapons left to seek justice against giant corporations and their legions of giant law firms.  The class-action vehicle confers upon each citizen one of the             most powerful rights in our society: the ability to function as a private attorney general          and seek redress for wrongs inflicted on ourselves as well as for those similarly injured   that might not otherwise have a voice.  . . . . .    According to federal data, people of color            are more than three times more likely to have subprime loans:  high-cost loans account             for 55 per cent of loans to blacks, but only 17 per cent of loans to whites..

Ms. Martens sees a direct connection to Wall Street in the strange sudden emergence of a black presidential candidate in a country still bitterly racist that has had only five black senators and on Wall Street, after 30 years, a mere 3.5% at best of black stockbrokers. The Obama Mania is just another bubble brought to us by the makers of Nasdq/tech and sub prime-mortgage-in-every-pot bubbles.   As a former Wall Streeter, Ms Martens knows the inside details:

In March of 2000, the Nasdaq stock market, hyped with spurious claims for startup tech      and companies, reached a peak of over 5,000. Eight years later, it’s trading in    the 2,300 range and most of those companies no longer exist. From peak to trough,        Nasdaq transferred over $4 trillion from the pockets of small mania-gripped investors to         the wealthy and elite market manipulators.

The highest monetary authority during those bubble days, Alan Greenspan, chairman of      the Federal Reserve, consistently told us that the market was efficient and stock prices     were being set by the judgment of millions of “highly knowledgeable” investors.

Mr. Greenspan was the wind beneath the wings of a carefully orchestrated wealth    transfer system known as “pump and dump” on Wall Street.  As hundreds of court cases,         internal emails, and insider testimony now confirm, this bubble was no naturally occurring phenomenon any more than the Obama bubble is.

First, Wall Street firms issued knowingly false research reports to trumpet the growtprospects for the company and stock price; second, they lined up big institutional clients            who were instructed how and when to buy at escalating prices to make the stock price     skyrocket (laddering); third, the firms instructed the hundreds of thousands of    stockbrokers serving the mom-and-pop market to advise their clients to sit still as the             stock price flew to the moon or else the broker would have his commissions taken away        (penalty bid). While the little folks’ money served as a prop under prices, the wealthy             elite on Wall Street and corporate insiders were allowed to sell at the top of the market          (pump-and-dump wealth transfer).

Asking and answering her own question about why people bought into these schemes, she tells us what we know that common sense fails when massive hype spewed out by big media and big public relations are

. . . . .shielded from regulation by big law firms, all eager to collect their share of Wall Street’s rigged cash cow. The current housing bubble bust is just a freshly minted version of Wall            Street’s real estate limited partnership frauds of the ‘80s, but on a grander scale. In the             1980s version, the firms packaged real estate into limited partnerships and peddled it as secure investments to moms and pops. The major underpinning of this wealth transfer    mechanism was that regulators turned a blind eye to the fact that the investments were          listed at the original face amount on the clients’ brokerage statements long after they had lost most of their value. 

Today’s real estate related securities (CDOs and SIVs) that are blowing up around the         globe are simply the above scheme with more billable hours for corporate law firms.

While this research in total gives many accurate takes on Wall Street corruption, Ms. Marten expands that understanding by connecting Wall Street, their law firms and Washington lobbying.  Lobbyists and lawyers in Washington had worked furiously to pave the way for Wall Street scams that bundled mortgages into packages to sell to yield-hungry hedge funds and institutions.  Underpinning and securing Wall Street schemes were

. . . . . artificial rating of AAA from rating agencies that were paid by Wall Street to provide the rating. When demand from institutions was saturated, Wall Street kept the scheme going by hiding           the debt off its balance sheets and stuffed this long-term product       into mom-and-pop money markets, notwithstanding that money markets are      required by law to hold only short-term investments. To further perpetuate the bubble             as long as possible, Wall Street prevented pricing transparency by keeping the trading off    regulated exchanges and used unregulated over-the-counter contracts instead. (All of this required lots of lobbyist hours in Washington.)

Ms Marten suspects that the now concocted Obama bubble has much to do with Obama being a Harvard lawyer and his number one industry supporter lawyers/law firms most of which are on Wall Street’s payroll, a story which big media should cover but seems to show no interest.

Yes, the other leading presidential candidates are taking money from lawyers/law firms/lobbyists, but Senator Obama is the only one rallying with the populist cry that he   isn’t.  That makes it not only a legitimate but a necessary line of inquiry. 

The Obama campaign’s populist bubble is underpinned by what, on the surface, seems to    be a real snoozer of a story. It all centers around business classification codes developed         by the U.S. government and used by the Center for Responsive Politics to classify          contributions.

In other words Obama’s campaign, hinged to his not taking lobbyists’ money, is enabled by a system of business classification or CODE gamed for political advantage.

The Akin Gump law firm is a prime example of how something as mundane as a business classification code can be gamed for political advantage. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Akin Gump (law firm) ranks third among all Federal lobbyists,         raking in $205,225,000 to lobby our elected officials in Washington from 1998 through           2007. The firm is listed as a registered federal lobbyist with the House of Representatives            and the Senate; the firm held lobbying retainer contracts for more than 100 corporate             clients in 2007. But when its non-registered law partners, the people who own this    business and profit from its lobbying operations, give to the Obama campaign, the          contribution is classified as coming from a law firm, not a lobbyist. . . . . 

Senator Obama’s premise and credibility of not taking money from federal lobbyists             hangs on a carefully crafted distinction: he is taking money, lots of it, from owners and   employees of firms registered as federal lobbyists but not the actual individual lobbyists.

Wearing the sheep’s clothing of a black populist, Obama’s campaign rakes in corporate monies just as the other major campaigns. Looking at the Obama bubble, the Black Agenda Report for the Journal of African American Political Thought and Action says

The 2008 Obama presidential run may be the most slickly orchestrated marketing    machine in memory. That’s not a good thing. Marketing is not even distantly related to    democracy or civic empowerment. Marketing is about creating emotional, even irrational     bonds between your product and your target audience.

And slick it is. According to the Obama campaign’s financial filings with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and aggregated at the Center for Responsive Politics, the        Obama campaign has spent over $52 million on media, strategy consultants, image             building, marketing research and telemarketing.

Ms Martens explains the motivation behind Obama Mania:

The Wall Street plan for the Obama-bubble presidency is that of the cleanup crew for the     housing bubble: sweep all the corruption and losses, would-be indictments, perp walks           and prosecutions under the rug and get on with an unprecedented taxpayer bailout of            Wall Street. (The corporate law firms have piled on to funding the plan because most   were up to their eyeballs in writing prospectuses or providing legal opinions for what        has turned out to be bogus AAA securities. Lawsuits naming the Wall Street firms will,             no doubt, shortly begin adding the law firms that rendered the legal guidance to issue         the securities.)

  Who better to sell this agenda to the millions of duped mortgage holders       and foreclosed             homeowners in minority communities across America than our first, beloved, black president of hope and change? 

Why do Wall Street and the corporate law firms think they will find a President Obama         to be accommodating? As the Black Agenda Report notes, “Evidently, the giant insurance companies, the airlines, oil companies, Wall Street, military contractors and        others had closely examined and vetted Barack Obama and found him pleasing.”   That vetting included his remarkable “yes” vote on the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, a            five-year effort by 475 lobbyists, despite appeals from the NAACP and every other major      civil rights group. Thanks to the passage of that legislation, when defrauded homeowners of the housing bubble and defrauded investors of the bundled mortgages try       to fight back through the class-action vehicle, they will find a new layer of corporate- friendly hurdle.

If Obama becomes president, how things go after might be seen in an appearance he made just after his nomination.   Uri Avnery in No, I Can’t! Obbama, Israel and AIPAC refers firs to the miracle of a black candidate running for president in the world’s mot powerful country and then describes Obama rushing to AIPAC, the American Israel Political Action Committee, to give a speech that “broke all records for obsequiousness and fawning”. WAS a triumphalist  conference Even this powerful organization had never seen anything like it.  lihe it 7000 Jewish Functionaries  from sll over the United States came together  to accept the obeisance of the entire Washington  elite. which came to kowtow at their feet.  All the three presidential hopefuls made speeches trying to undo such other in flattery. 300 Senators and Members of ‘Congress crowded the hallways. Everybody who wants to be elected or reelected to office  indeed everybody who  has any political ambitions at all, came to see and be seen  The Washington  AIPAC is like the Constantinople of the Byzantine emperors in its heyday. 

About Obama the news gets worse. From Chicago he has the support of the Crown familrassociated with the aerospace firm General Dynamics .  Alexander Cockburn gives some history.

.           . . . . a notorious scandal of the Kennedy years  was JFK’s defense secretary, RobertMcNamara. overruling all expert review and procurement recommendations and insisting that General Dynamics rather than Boeing make the disastrous F-l I l. at that time one of the e largest procurement contracts in the Pentagon’s history. The suspicion was that Henry Crown  of Chicago was calling in some chits for his role in  fixing the 1960 JFK vote in Cook County. Illinois. to the impotent fury of the teenage Hillary Clinton, who was a poll watcher for Nixon. Crown of Chicago Sand and Gravel had $300 million of the mob’s money in General Dynamics’ debentures and after the disaster of the Corvair, General Dynamics needed the F 111 to avoid going belly-up, taking the mob’s $300 million with it.


While Henry Crown is long gone, his descendants support the candidate with  tens of thousands of dollars as can be verified on the website of the Center for Responsible Politics. Further two Crowns sit on the board of General  Dynamics that has formed a €  strategic alliance with  an Israeli firm, Aeronautics DefenseLtd which developed the Unmanned Multi Appliation System (UMAS), an aerial surveillance tool of the Israeli military.   Prime Minister Olmert said  the agreement between   the companies bring to both companies’ state-of-the art   technologies in defense and homeland security. . . additional proof of the technological and commercial benefits that alliances between  industries from the U.S. and Israel can produce.”

 John McCain  

The Republican nominee, unlike the shorter-lived Obama but like Hillary Clinton, comes with a lot of baggage from a biography full of liabilities. John McCain graduated from Annapolis in 1958, he was sixth from the bottom of his class of 899.  Nicknamed “Punk” and “McNasty” he would not be known for his academics but rather earn a reputation for truculence, partying, driving a Corvette and while training in Pensacola dating an exotic dancer, Marie the Flame of Florida.  McCain would come to admit that he generally abused his health and youth in these years.  In 1965 he married Carol Shepp, a model who had divorced one of his classmates the year before, adopting her two children. Together they had a daughter Sidney in 1966.

John McCain was the son and grandson of Navy brass. His grandfather was a four star admiral as was his father who in 1967 became Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Naval Forces in Europe stationed in London.   McCain went on to receive unearned rewards but not follow in their footsteps.  Becoming a navy pilot his skills were described below par but did improve after several crashes and close calls.  During the Vietnam War, flying missions on an A4 attached to the aircraft carrier USS Forrestal , in the very year his father was promoted, 1967, he was shot down by an enemy missile.  Parachuting out, he landed in a lake and would have drowned if not saved by the enemy.   Desperately ill with many broken bones, he was taken to an infamous prison, Hanoi Hilton, where he begged for medical treatment.  When the enemy came to learn about his father, he received the treatment he needed and came to be moved to one of their better prison camps.  His military heroism relates to these years and is conflicted.

In his account of his years as a POW McCain received marginal care, lost 50 pounds, and, at the camp on the outskirts of Hanoi, was put into solitary confinement for two years. There he is said to have turned down preferential treatment and offers of repatriation unless and until every man taken in before him was released with him.  However, McCain came to confess that he had also bargained with his captors for which he felt shame but could explain.

In August of 1968, a program of severe torture began on McCain, at the same time as          he was suffering from dysentery, and McCain made an anti-American propaganda     “confession”. He has always felt that his statement was dishonorable, but as he would later write, “I had learned what we all learn over there.  Every man has his     breaking point. I had reached mine.” His injuries left him permanently incapable of raising his arms above his head. He subsequently received two to three beatings per      week because of his continued refusal to sign additional statements. Other     American POWs were similarly tortured and maltreated in order to extract         “confessions” and propaganda statements, with many enduring even worse treatment than McCain

While a POW, McCain refused to meet with various anti-war groups that traveled to Hanoi to seek peace claiming he did not want to give the enemy a propaganda victory.   From late 1969 his treatment and that of other POW’s was said to become more tolerable.   McCain was a prisoner for five and a half years, returning to the states in 1973 and later in 1999 wrote a book about his life in which he described his POW experience as life transforming.

At home united with his wife, not long after they were estranged. Carol had also undergone an ordeal.  Having had a car accident in 1969, she had needed several operations that left her crippled, heavy and several inches shorter while McCain had to undergo demanding physical therapy before he could return to navy service.  Then and until 1979 he held a number of positions, the last of which was navy liaison for the U.S. Senate.  That same year he met his present wife, Cindy Lou Hensley, heiress to Hensley & Co., one of the largest Anehuser-Busch distributors in the nation.  Carol divorced McCain in February 1980 and that May he and Cindy were married and, after, McCain retired from the Navy and moved to Arizona to work for Cindy’s father.  Two years later in 1982,  with the help of his wealthy wife,  in-laws and their friends, who included Charles Keating of Lincoln Savings and Loan and Duke Tully, editor-in-chief of the Arizona Republic, McCain was elected to Congress where he aligned with Ronald Reagan.   In 1986 when Barry Goldwater retired from the Senate, McCain won his seat and not long after became enmeshed in the “Keating scandal” becoming one of the now famous “Keating Five” senators accused of aiding and abetting the shady Charles Keating and his associates at the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association.

Between 1982 and 1987, McCain had received $112,000 in legal political    contributions from Charles Keating Jr. and his associates at Lincoln Savings and Loan   Association, along with trips on Keating’s jets that McCain failed to repay until two         years later. In 1987, McCain was one of the five Senators whom Keating contacted in     order to prevent the government’s seizure of Lincoln, which was by then insolvent and     being investigated for making questionable efforts to regain solvency.  McCain met twice     with federal regulators to discuss the government’s investigation of Lincoln.. . . .

Federal regulators ultimately filed a civil suit against Keating. The five senators       came    under investigation for attempting to influence the regulators.  In the end, none of           the senators were charged with any crime. .  . . .    Keating was later convicted of fraud, racketeering, and conspiracy and (Duke)  Tully (publisher of Arizona’s largest          newspaper, The Arizona Republic) was disgraced for concocting a phony military record of combat in Korea and Vietnam including medals for heroism.  

In 2008, for the second time, John McCain attempted to garner the Republican presidential nomination. With his heroic reputation firmly in place was another he long cultivated as an honest maverick critical of right wing religious influence on his Republican party and the misadventures of George W. Bush.   Also, and  in spite of  inherent contradictions, McCain was known as a strong advocate of the military and a scourge railing against government waste, fraud and especially  “earmarks” those attachments to major legislation whose sponsors, never identified, reap billions of dollars in boondoggles like an Alaskan bridge that goes nowhere special.

In his new campaign no sooner had McCain jumped again onto his famous “Straight Talk Express” then he turned on a dime. Opposing his Democratic opponents who wanted to end the Iraqi war, McCain embraced George W., supported and approved our ever growing billions of dollars in debt for our Middle East adventures, declared Israel our greatest ally, and doing one better admitted our troops could spend “maybe 100” years in Iraq as they now serve in South Korea, Japan and Germany.  It was our social programs not our wars that caused our dreadful economic malaise.  Topping off all this, McCain stood  shoulder to shoulder in support of former much maligned and most radical of right wing religious fanatics, Reverend Hagee, whose crazed constituency responds to their leader’s maddened cries to support Israel by raising and waving frantically hand-held Israeli flags.  As journalist Justin Raimonda writes, Reverend Hagee is

. . . . .a vicious Catholic-hater and all-around nut-job who looks forward to a nuclear          war in  Middle East as the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. Hagee has lately taken up       with AIPAC, appearing at their last national confab in a starring role.    

During the presidential campaign when Reverend Hagee took a wrong turn suggesting that Adolf Hitler had been fulfilling God’s will by hastening Jews’ desire to return to Israel, the controversy billowing up especially in the Jewish community forced McCain to publicly reject Hagee’s support.

While in the beginning of his 2008 presidential campaign, media generally portrayed McCain a loser and underdog, it too turned on a dime, claiming the “underdog” miraculously won the nomination. It was then, after the fact, in February 2008 that The New York Times published their major story The Long Run recalling some unpleasant facts about McCain’s political history which concerned among other things his long record of support for media conglomeration connected to his 2000 campaign and forty year old female lobbyist, Viki Iseman, with whom he might have been having a romantic liaison.    

As the story goes, during the earlier campaign McCain’s aides grew anxious over his relationship with Ms. Iseman and started working

behind the scenes to keep Iseman away from McCain, and confronted McCain over the relationship. . . because McCain, who had a history of corruption, most notably his card-carrying membership in the Keating Five savings and loan scandal, couldn’t afford to appear to be backsliding. . .      . .

The lobbyist, a partner at the firm Alcalde & Fay, represented telecommunications companies for whom Mr. McCain’s commerce committee was pivotal. Her clients contributed tens of thousands of dollars to his campaigns. . . ..       In 1999 she began           showing up so frequently in his offices and at campaign events that staff members took            notice. One recalled asking, “Why is she always around?

That February, Mr. McCain and Ms. Iseman attended a small fund-raising dinner with        several clients at the Miami-area home of a cruise-line executive and then flew back to            Washington along with a campaign aide on the corporate jet of one of her clients, Paxson Communications. By then, according to two former McCain associates, some of the senator’s advisers had grown so concerned that the relationship had become romantic         that they took steps to intervene.  A former campaign adviser described being instructed             to keep Ms. Iseman away from the senator at public events, while a Senate aide recalled      plans to limit Ms. Iseman’s access to his offices.

Adhering to the advice of his aides, McCain stayed away from the lobbyist for the rest of his 2000 campaign. Now in 2008 with The Times recalling the matter, he told the press The Times was using gutter politics to conduct a smear campaign, swearing he had never violated the principles that always guided his career.

Among many things in The Times article that riled the Senator was his description as

A champion of deregulation, Mr. McCain wrote letters in 1998 and 1999 to the Federal Communications Commission urging it to uphold marketing agreements allowing a television company to control two stations in the same city, a crucial issue for Glencairn     Ltd., one of Ms. Iseman’s clients. He introduced a bill to create tax incentives for         minority ownership of stations; Ms. Iseman represented several businesses seeking such             a program. And he twice tried to advance legislation that would permit a company to  control television stations in overlapping markets, an important issue for Paxson.

In late 1999, Ms. Iseman asked Mr. McCain’s staff to send a letter to the commission to        help Paxson, now Ion Media Networks, on another matter. Mr. Paxson was impatient for F.C.C. approval of a television deal and Ms. Iseman acknowledged in an e-mail message  to The Times that she had sent to Mr. McCain’s staff information for drafting a letter           urging a swift decision.

Mr. McCain complied. He sent two letters to the commission, drawing a rare rebuke for interference from its chairman. In an embarrassing turn for the campaign, news reports   invoked the Keating scandal, once again raising questions about intervening for a patron. . . . .

One might agree that suggesting McCain and the female lobbyist were having a romantic relationship could be a cheap shot but only if it had not connected to some political consequence resonating to his past.   

Obviously information in The Times’ story was important for voters to know.  The real problem with the story, as Dave Lindorff points out in Vicki’s John, was its timing.

For over two months the paper held a significant political story during a critical       election campaign. How different might             the presidential campaign look now if the Times had run its story in December, when it was ready to go, well ahead of the Iowa caucus and the         New Hampshire primary, instead of now when McCain has the Republican nomination          all but sewn up?    

Another problem with the story was of even greater concern as Liliana Segura writes in her article McCain’s Blonde Diversion.  Just hours before The Times broke the Long Run story, McCain had told reporters that President Bush should veto the Senate’s anti-torture bill.

In some ways, McCain is right: The media should be blamed — but not just for shoddy reporting of a rather sexless scandal. They should be castigated for ignoring a much more important and damning story about the so-called principled maverick — one that has actual implications for American democracy.

. . . . .. He talked in support of “additional techniques” for interrogation, sounding ever        more in line with the White House’s official stance. McCain, the “war hero” who has been an outspoken opponent of torture, voted against the bill, which would restrict the CIA to some 19 interrogation techniques listed in the Army field manual.

Now, having passed the Senate, the bill is headed for a veto at the hands of President Bush. For a man who would be president — and who is practically giddy at the prospect of being Commander in Chief — McCain’s push for a veto is ominous.

His evolving position on torture should be deeply troubling — much moreso than      the current scandal. Yet it has received a fraction of the media attention that has already been devoted to whatever he did or did not do with a blonde lobbyist eight years ago..

While McCain’s political history is significant, his military history can be seen of more significance. Was McCain a hero as he and some others have written or said?  Or was he a collaborator as others believe including Douglas Valentine writing in the April 1-15 Counterpunch Hardcopy. Editor Alexander Cockburn previewed and summarized the Valentine article on the magazine’s free Internet site.

Cockburn believes McCain gets the “kid-glove” treatment from the press and nothing shows that more than how the press avoids questions about the Senator’s collaboration with his Vietnamese captors. Along with his positive reputations, McCain is also well-known for erratic and explosive behavior in tirades where he spontaneously and wildly berates and verbally abuses others.

McCain is probably the most unstable man ever to have got this close to the White    House. He’s one election away from it. Republican senator Thad Cochrane has openly             saidhe trembles at the thought of an unstable McCain in the Oval Office with his finger      on the nuclear trigger.

Cockburn speculates that a kind of madness driving McCain may come from a conflict between a crafted heroic story and a real one about major collaboration, referring to Doug Valentine’s article and wondering if perhaps some private memory causes McCain’s uncontrollable furies and ranting about “gooks” and hundred years of war in Iraq. As Cockburn explains, Valentine is not the first to comment on such possibilities as rumors and charges have long been swirling around McCain’s POW experiences.

Fellow prisoners have given the lie to McCain’s claims. But Valentine has assembled the      dossier. It’s devastating.

Excerpts from Valentine’s Hardcopy article follows: War Hero? Meet the Real John McCain: North Vietnam’s Go-To Collaborator

McCain had a unique POW experience. Initially, he was taken to the infamous Hanoi           Hilton prison camp, where he was interrogated. By McCain’s own account, after three or four days he cracked. He promised his Vietnamese captors, “I’ll give you military            information if you will take me to the hospital …

His Vietnamese captors soon realized their POW, John Sidney McCain III, came from a       well-bred line in the American military elite. . .    The Vietnamese realized, this poor    stooge has propaganda value.  The admiral’s boy was used to special treatment, and his captors            knew that.   They were working him.”

.. . .two weeks into his stay at the Vietnamese hospital, the Hanoi press began quoting          him. It was not ‘name rank and serial number, or kill me’ as specified by the military            code of conduct.  McCain divulged specific military information: he gave the name of the             aircraft carrier on which he was based, the number of U.S. pilots that had been lost, the   number of aircraft in his flight formation, as well as information about the location of    rescue ships.”

.…McCain was held for five and half years. The first two weeks’ behavior might have           been pragmatism, but McCain soon became North Vietnam’s go-to collaborator. . .   .   McCain cooperated with the North Vietnamese for a period of three years. . .. .   McCain             was repaying his captors for their kindness and mercy..  (Hardcopy April 1-15 2008 vol. 15, no. 7)

Whoever the next president is, Obama or McCain, he will be the choice not “of the people” but of the “manipulators” of the people.  In the case of Obama while we will have a president like none before, as Ms Marten believes, his election will please his special supporters looking for release from responsibility of their role in the up and coming economic fallout.  It will also help keep alive the deception that America is a true democracy.   On the other hand, McCain, the trumped up military hero, has done all he can to satisfy the money crowd.  Either way the House wins.