Naïveté is not innocence, it is gross and moribund ignorance.~ww

It is not education, of course, but as political indoctrination it will be highly effective.
Blame it on the early indoctrination in the imperial system.
The results of this indoctrination campaign are already evident.

. . . . .

From an essay by John Taylor Gatto – 09/2003
Mass schooling of a compulsory nature really got its teeth into the United States between 1905 and 1915, though it was conceived of much earlier and pushed for throughout most of the nineteenth century. The reason given for this enormous upheaval of family life and cultural traditions was, roughly speaking, threefold:
1) To make good people.
2) To make good citizens.
3) To make each person his or her personal best.

These goals are still trotted out today on a regular basis, and most of us accept them in one form or another as a decent definition of public education’s mission, however short schools actually fall in achieving them. But we are dead wrong. Compounding our error is the fact that the national literature holds numerous and surprisingly consistent statements of compulsory schooling’s true purpose. We have, for example, the great H. L. Mencken, who wrote in The American Mercury for April 1924 that the aim of public education is not to fill the young of the species with knowledge and awaken their intelligence. . . . Nothing could be further from the truth. The aim.. . is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality. That is its aim in the United States . . . and that is its aim everywhere else.

Because of Mencken’s reputation as a satirist, we might be tempted to dismiss this passage as a bit of hyperbolic sarcasm. His article, however, goes on to trace the template for our own educational system back to the now vanished, though never to be forgotten, military state of Prussia. And although he was certainly aware of the irony that we had recently been at war with Germany, the heir to Prussian thought and culture, Mencken was being perfectly serious here. Our educational system really is Prussian in origin, and that really is cause for concern.

The odd fact of a Prussian provenance for our schools pops up again and again once you know to look for it. William James alluded to it many times at the turn of the century. Orestes Brownson, the hero of Christopher Lasch’s 1991 book, The True and Only Heaven, was publicly denouncing the Prussianization of American schools back in the 1840s. Horace Mann’s “Seventh Annual Report” to the Massachusetts State Board of Education in 1843 is essentially a paean to the land of Frederick the Great and a call for its schooling to be brought here. That Prussian culture loomed large in America is hardly surprising, given our early association with that utopian state. A Prussian served as Washington’s aide during the Revolutionary War, and so many German- speaking people had settled here by 1795 that Congress considered publishing a German-language edition of the federal laws. But what shocks is that we should so eagerly have adopted one of the very worst aspects of Prussian culture: an educational system deliberately designed to produce mediocre intellects, to hamstring the inner life, to deny students appreciable leadership skills, and to ensure docile and incomplete citizens – all in order to render the populace “manageable.”

It was from James Bryant Conant – president of Harvard for twenty years, WWI poison-gas specialist, WWII executive on the atomic-bomb project, high commissioner of the American zone in Germany after WWII, and truly one of the most influential figures of the twentieth century – that I first got wind of the real purposes of American schooling. Without Conant, we would probably not have the same style and degree of standardized testing that we enjoy today, nor would we be blessed with gargantuan high schools that warehouse 2,000 to 4,000 students at a time, like the famous Columbine High in Littleton, Colorado. Shortly after I retired from teaching I picked up Conant’s 1959 book-length essay, The Child the Parent and the State, and was more than a little intrigued to see him mention in passing that the modern schools we attend were the result of a “revolution” engineered between 1905 and 1930. A revolution? He declines to elaborate, but he does direct the curious and the uninformed to Alexander Inglis’s 1918 book, Principles of Secondary Education, in which “one saw this revolution through the eyes of a revolutionary.”

Inglis, for whom a lecture in education at Harvard is named, makes it perfectly clear that compulsory schooling on this continent was intended to be just what it had been for Prussia in the 1820s: a fifth column into the burgeoning democratic movement that threatened to give the peasants and the proletarians a voice at the bargaining table. Modern, industrialized, compulsory schooling was to make a sort of surgical incision into the prospective unity of these underclasses. Divide children by subject, by age-grading, by constant rankings on tests, and by many other more subtle means, and it was unlikely that the ignorant mass of mankind, separated in childhood, would ever reintegrate into a dangerous whole.

Inglis breaks down the purpose – the actual purpose – of modem schooling into six basic functions, any one of which is enough to curl the hair of those innocent enough to believe the three traditional goals listed earlier:

1) The adjustive or adaptive function. Schools are to establish fixed habits of reaction to authority. This, of course, precludes critical judgment completely. It also pretty much destroys the idea that useful or interesting material should be taught, because you can’t test for reflexive obedience until you know whether you can make kids learn, and do, foolish and boring things.

2) The integrating function. This might well be called “the conformity function,” because its intention is to make children as alike as possible. People who conform are predictable, and this is of great use to those who wish to harness and manipulate a large labor force.

3) The diagnostic and directive function. School is meant to determine each student’s proper social role. This is done by logging evidence mathematically and anecdotally on cumulative records. As in “your permanent record.” Yes, you do have one.

4) The differentiating function. Once their social role has been “diagnosed,” children are to be sorted by role and trained only so far as their destination in the social machine merits – and not one step further. So much for making kids their personal best.

5) The selective function. This refers not to human choice at all but to Darwin’s theory of natural selection as applied to what he called “the favored races.” In short, the idea is to help things along by consciously attempting to improve the breeding stock. Schools are meant to tag the unfit – with poor grades, remedial placement, and other punishments – clearly enough that their peers will accept them as inferior and effectively bar them from the reproductive sweepstakes. That’s what all those little humiliations from first grade onward were intended to do: wash the dirt down the drain.

6) The propaedeutic function. The societal system implied by these rules will require an elite group of caretakers. To that end, a small fraction of the kids will quietly be taught how to manage this continuing project, how to watch over and control a population deliberately dumbed down and declawed in order that government might proceed unchallenged and corporations might never want for obedient labor.

That, unfortunately, is the purpose of mandatory public education in this country. And lest you take Inglis for an isolated crank with a rather too cynical take on the educational enterprise, you should know that he was hardly alone in championing these ideas. Conant himself, building on the ideas of Horace Mann and others, campaigned tirelessly for an American school system designed along the same lines. Men like George Peabody, who funded the cause of mandatory schooling throughout the South, surely understood that the Prussian system was useful in creating not only a harmless electorate and a servile labor force but also a virtual herd of mindless consumers. In time a great number of industrial titans came to recognize the enormous profits to be had by cultivating and tending just such a herd via public education, among them Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller.

There you have it. Now you know. We don’t need Karl Marx’s conception of a grand warfare between the classes to see that it is in the interest of complex management, economic or political, to dumb people down, to demoralize them, to divide them from one another, and to discard them if they don’t conform. Class may frame the proposition, as when Woodrow Wilson, then president of Princeton University, said the following to the New York City School Teachers Association in 1909: “We want one class of persons to have a liberal education, and we want another class of persons, a very much larger class, of necessity, in every society, to forgo the privileges of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks.” But the motives behind the disgusting decisions that bring about these ends need not be class-based at all. They can stem purely from fear, or from the by now familiar belief that “efficiency” is the paramount virtue, rather than love, liberty, laughter, or hope. Above all, they can stem from simple greed.

There were vast fortunes to be made, after all, in an economy based on mass production and organized to favor the large corporation rather than the small business or the family farm. But mass production required mass consumption, and at the turn of the twentieth century most Americans considered it both unnatural and unwise to buy things they didn’t actually need. Mandatory schooling was a godsend on that count. School didn’t have to train kids in any direct sense to think they should consume nonstop, because it did something even better: it encouraged them not to think at all. And that left them sitting ducks for another great invention of the modem era – marketing.

Now, you needn’t have studied marketing to know that there are two groups of people who can always be convinced to consume more than they need to: addicts and children. School has done a pretty good job of turning our children into addicts, but it has done a spectacular job of turning our children into children. Again, this is no accident. Theorists from Plato to Rousseau to our own Dr. Inglis knew that if children could be cloistered with other children, stripped of responsibility and independence, encouraged to develop only the trivializing emotions of greed, envy, jealousy, and fear, they would grow older but never truly grow up. In the 1934 edition of his once well-known book Public Education in the United States, Ellwood P. Cubberley detailed and praised the way the strategy of successive school enlargements had extended childhood by two to six years, and forced schooling was at that point still quite new. This same Cubberley – who was dean of Stanford’s School of Education, a textbook editor at Houghton Mifflin, and Conant’s friend and correspondent at Harvard – had written the following in the 1922 edition of his bookPublic School Administration: “Our schools are . . . factories in which the raw products (children) are to be shaped and fashioned.. . . And it is the business of the school to build its pupils according to the specifications laid down.”

It’s perfectly obvious from our society today what those specifications were. Maturity has by now been banished from nearly every aspect of our lives. Easy divorce laws have removed the need to work at relationships; easy credit has removed the need for fiscal self-control; easy entertainment has removed the need to learn to entertain oneself; easy answers have removed the need to ask questions. We have become a nation of children, happy to surrender our judgments and our wills to political exhortations and commercial blandishments that would insult actual adults. We buy televisions, and then we buy the things we see on the television. We buy computers, and then we buy the things we see on the computer. We buy $150 sneakers whether we need them or not, and when they fall apart too soon we buy another pair. We drive SUVs and believe the lie that they constitute a kind of life insurance, even when we’re upside-down in them. And, worst of all, we don’t bat an eye when Ari Fleischer tells us to “be careful what you say,” even if we remember having been told somewhere back in school that America is the land of the free. We simply buy that one too. Our schooling, as intended, has seen to it.

Now for the good news. Once you understand the logic behind modern schooling, its tricks and traps are fairly easy to avoid. School trains children to be employees and consumers; teach your own to be leaders and adventurers. School trains children to obey reflexively; teach your own to think critically and independently. Well-schooled kids have a low threshold for boredom; help your own to develop an inner life so that they’ll never be bored. Urge them to take on the serious material, the grown-up material, in history, literature, philosophy, music, art, economics, theology – all the stuff schoolteachers know well enough to avoid. Challenge your kids with plenty of solitude so that they can learn to enjoy their own company, to conduct inner dialogues. Well-schooled people are conditioned to dread being alone, and they seek constant companionship through the TV, the computer, the cell phone, and through shallow friendships quickly acquired and quickly abandoned. Your children should have a more meaningful life, and they can.

First, though, we must wake up to what our schools really are: laboratories of experimentation on young minds, drill centers for the habits and attitudes that corporate society demands. Mandatory education serves children only incidentally; its real purpose is to turn them into servants. Don’t let your own have their childhoods extended, not even for a day. If David Farragut could take command of a captured British warship as a preteen, if Thomas Edison could publish a broadsheet at the age of twelve, if Ben Franklin could apprentice himself to a printer at the same age (then put himself through a course of study that would choke a Yale senior today), there’s no telling what your own kids could do. After a long life, and thirty years in the public school trenches, I’ve concluded that genius is as common as dirt. We suppress our genius only because we haven’t yet figured out how to manage a population of educated men and women. The solution, I think, is simple and glorious. Let them manage themselves.

**  09/2003 Harper’s Magazine.

* John Taylor Gatto is a former New York State and New York City Teacher of the Year and the author, most recently, of The Underground History of American Education. He was a participant in the Harper’s Magazine forum “School on a Hill,” which appeared in the September 2001 issue. You can find his web site here.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of issues of environmental and humanitarian significance. I believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


  1. The Trivium
    The Trivium is a systematic method of critical thinking used to derive factual certainty from information perceived with the traditional five senses: sight, sound, taste, touch, and smell. In the medieval university, the trivium was the lower division of the seven liberal arts, and comprised grammar, logic, and rhetoric (input, process and output).[1]

    Etymologically, the Latin word trivium means “the place where three roads meet” (tri + via); hence, the subjects of the trivium are the foundation for the quadrivium, the upper division of the medieval education in the liberal arts, which comprised Arithmetic (number), Geometry (number in space), Music (number in time), and Astronomy (number in space and time). Educationally, the trivium and the quadrivium imparted to the student the seven liberal arts of Classical antiquity.[1]

    The trivium is implicit in the De nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii (“On the Marriage of Philology and Mercury”), by Martianus Capella, although the term was not used until the Carolingian Renaissance, when the term was coined, in imitation of the earlier quadrivium.[2] Grammar, Logic, and Rhetoric were essential to a Classical education, as explained in Plato’s dialogues. Together, the three subjects were included to and denoted by the word “trivium” during the Middle Ages, but the tradition of first learning those three subjects was established in ancient Greece. Contemporary iterations have taken various forms, including those found in certain British and American universities (some being part of the Classical education movement) and at the independent Oundle School, in the United Kingdom.[3]

    The Quadrivium
    The quadrivium (plural: quadrivia[1]) are the four subjects, or arts, taught after teaching the trivium. The word is Latin, meaning “the four ways” (or a “place where four roads meet”),[2] and its use for the four subjects has been attributed to Boethius or Cassiodorus in the 6th century.[3][4] Together, the trivium and the quadrivium comprised the seven liberal arts (based on thinking skills),[5] as opposed to the practical arts (such as medicine and architecture).

    The quadrivium consisted of arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy. These followed the preparatory work of the trivium made up of grammar, logic, and rhetoric. In turn, the quadrivium was considered preparatory work for the serious study of philosophy (sometimes called the “liberal art par excellence”)[6] and theology.

    The Pythagoreans considered all mathematical science to be divided into four parts: one half they marked off as concerned with quantity, the other half with magnitude; and each of these they posited as twofold. A quantity can be considered in regard to its character by itself or in its relation to another quantity, magnitudes as either stationary or in motion. Arithmetic, then, studies quantities as such, music the relations between quantities, geometry magnitude at rest, spherics [astronomy] magnitude inherently moving.[8]

  2. Steps Toward British Union, a World State, and International Strife—Part I
    Monday, August 19.1940

    Mr. THORKELSON. Mr. Speaker, In order that the American people may have a clearer understanding of those who over a period of years have been undermining this Republic, in order to return it to the British Empire, I have inserted in the RECORD a number of articles to prove this point. These articles are entitled “Steps Toward British Union, a World State, and International Strife.” This is part I, and in this I include a hope expressed by Mr. Andrew Carnegie, in his book entitled “Triumphant Democracy.” In this he expresses himself in this manner:

    Let men say what they will, I say that as surely as the sun in
    the heavens once shone upon Britain and America united, so surely
    is it one morning to rise, to shine upon, to greet again the reunited
    states—the British-American Union

    This statement is clear, and the organizations which Mr. Carnegie endowed have spent millions in order to bring this about. This thing has been made possible by scholarships, exchange professors, subsidies of churches, subsidies of educational institutions; all of them working for the purpose of eliminating Americanism as was taught once in our schools and to gradually exchange this for an English version of our history.
    These organizations were organized to bring about a British union, a union in which the United States would again become a part of the British Empire. However, this has been upset to some extent by the attempt of the internationalists to establish their own government as an International or world union. And there is, therefore, a conflict between the two, for England wants a British union, with America as a colony, and the international money changers want a Jewish controlled union, in order to establish their own world government.
    It is, therefore, best for us to stay out of both of these, in order to save what is left of this Republic as it was given to us in 1787, by a people who knew more about international intrigue and the real problems that confronted the world, than we know today. These early founders not only understood the problems, but in drafting the Constitution they provided an instrument for us to follow, so that we could remain secure from foreign double-dealing and intrigue.

    Click to access us-congressional-record-1940-british-israel-world-$1.pdf


    • “The great discovery of the “Dark Ages” is that people can have a society without a state.”
      ~Carroll Quigley

  3. “The extension of the empire has meant the growth of private fortunes. This is nothing new, indeed it is in keeping with the most ancient history” -Gaius Asinius Gallus (The Annals of Imperial Rome)

  4. Bayer and poison gas…
    by Antony C. Sutton
    from Mega.Nu Website
    Farben was Hitler and Hitler was Farben.
    Senator Homer T. Bone
    to Senate Committee on Military Affairs, June 4, 1943

    On the eve of World War II the German chemical complex of I.G. Farben was the largest chemical manufacturing enterprise in the world, with extraordinary political and economic power and influence within the Hitlerian Nazi state. I. G. has been aptly described as “a state within a state.”

    The Farben cartel dated from 1925, when organizing genius (with Wall Street financial assistance) created the super-giant chemical enterprise out of six already giant German chemical companies – Badische Anilin, Bayer, Agfa, Hoechst, Weiler-ter-Meer, and Griesheim-Elektron.

    These companies were merged to become Internationale Gesellschaft Farbenindustrie A.G. – or I.G. Farben for short. Twenty years later the same Hermann Schmitz was put on trial at Nuremburg for war crimes committed by the I. G. cartel. Other I. G. Farben directors were placed on trial but the American affiliates of I. G. Farben and the American directors of I. G. itself were quietly forgotten; the truth was buried in the archives.

    It is these U.S. connections in Wall Street that concern us. Without the capital supplied by Wall Street, there would have been no I. G. Farben in the first place and almost certainly no Adolf Hitler and World War II.

    German bankers on the Farben Aufsichsrat (the supervisory Board of Directors)1 in the late 1920s included the Hamburg banker Max Warburg, whose brother Paul Warburg was a founder of the Federal Reserve System in the United States. Not coincidentally, Paul Warburg was also on the board of American I. G., Farben’s wholly owned U.S. subsidiary.

    In addition to Max Warburg and Hermann Schmitz, the guiding hand in the creation of the Farben empire, the early Farben Vorstand included Carl Bosch, Fritz ter Meer, Kurt Oppenheim and George von Schnitzler.2 All except Max Warburg were charged as “war criminals” after World War II.

    In 1928 the American holdings of I. G. Farben (i.e., the Bayer Company, General Aniline Works, Agfa Ansco, and Winthrop Chemical Company) were organized into a Swiss holding company, I.G. Chemic (Internationale Gesellschaft fur Chemisehe Unternehmungen A. G.), controlled by I. G. Farben in Germany. In the following year these American firms merged to become American I. G. Chemical Corporation, later renamed General Aniline & Film.

    Hermann Schmitz, the organizer of I. G. Farben in 1925, became a prominent early Nazi and supporter of Hitler, as well as chairman of the Swiss I. G. Chemic and president of American I. G. The Farben complex both in Germany and the United States then developed into an integral part of the formation and operation of the Nazi state machine, the Wehrmacht and the S.S.

    I. G. Farben is of peculiar interest in the formation of the Nazi state because Farben directors materially helped.

    Hitler and the Nazis to power in 1933. We have photographic evidence that I.G. Farben contributed 400,000 RM to Hitler’s political “slush fund.” It was this secret fund which financed the Nazi seizure of control in March 1933. Many years earlier Farben had obtained Wall Street funds for the 1925 cartelization and expansion in Germany and $30 million for American I. G. in 1929, and had Wall Street directors on the Farben board.

    It has to be noted that these funds were raised and directors appointed years before Hitler was promoted as the German dictator.
    The Economic Power of I.G. Farben

    Qualified observers have argued that Germany could not have gone to war in 1939 without I. G. Farben.

    Between 1927 and the beginning of World War II, I.G. Farben doubled in size, an expansion made possible in great part by American technical assistance and by American bond issues, such as the one for $30 million offered by National City Bank. By 1939 I. G. acquired a participation and managerial influence in some 380 other German firms and over 500 foreign firms.

    The Farben empire owned its own coal mines, its own electric power plants, iron and steel units, banks, research units, and numerous commercial enterprises.

    There were over 2,000 cartel agreements between I. G. and foreign firms – including Standard Oil of New Jersey, DuPont, Alcoa, Dow Chemical, and others in the United States, The full story of I.G. Farben and its world-wide activities before World War II can never be known, as key German records were destroyed in 1945 in anticipation of Allied victory.

    However, one post-war investigation by the U.S, War Department concluded that:
    Without I. G.’s immense productive facilities, its intense re. search, and vast international affiliations, Germany’s prosecution of the war would have been unthinkable and impossible; Farben not only directed its energies toward arming Germany, but concentrated on weakening her intended victims, and this double-barreled attempt to expand the German industrial potential for war and to restrict that of the rest of the world was not conceived and executed “in the normal course of business.”

    The proof is overwhelming that I. G. Farben officials had full prior knowledge of Germany’s plan for world conquest and of each specific aggressive act later undertaken ….3
    Directors of Farben firms (i.e., the “I. G. Farben officials” referred to in the investigation) included not only Germans but also prominent American financiers.

    This 1945 U.S. War Department report concluded that I.G.’s assignment from Hitler in the prewar period was to make Germany self-sufficient in rubber, gasoline, lubricating oils, magnesium, fibers, tanning agents, fats, and explosives.

    To fulfill this critical assignment, vast sums were spent by I.G. on processes to extract these war materials from indigenous German raw materials – in particular the plentiful German coal resources. Where these processes could not be developed in Germany ,they were acquired from abroad under cartel arrangements.~Sutton

  5. Going along to get along is fine until you get to where they are taking you. By the time you get there and realize you have abandoned your moral code along the way, it’s too late to admit it.
    But you’re still a member of their club, that is the vile consolation prize for those who obey illegitimate authority. Who have become “well adjusted” to the pathological society.

  6. Oh how I would rather hear the meadow lark sing than the hellish racket of machinery filling the modern world.

  7. US Oligarchy – Not Democracy

    “Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.”~Princeton University Prof Martin Gilens and Northwestern University Prof Benjamin I Page

    When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organised interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.
    They conclude:
    “Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organisations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.

    Each of four theoretical traditions in the study of American politics—which can be characterized as theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, and two types of interest-group pluralism, Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralism—offers different predictions about which sets of actors have how much influence over public policy: average citizens; economic elites; and organized interest groups, mass-based or business-oriented.
    A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues.
    Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.”

    Perspectives on Politics [doi:10.1017/S1537592714001595] © American Political Science Association 2014

    Click to access gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf


    • For decades, I have held that there has always been only one form of government; Oligarchy. It masquerades as many different types throughout history, but it always boils down to the rich and powerful calling the shots. Even in Dictatorships, the ‘glorious leader’ can never stand alone, but needs the support of finance and military force.

      “Government” is a racket, and it has always been.

      I assert that this is self-evident to those who have shed the shackles of indoctrination to the myths of history.

  8. Upon the suggestion of a good friend I was advised we should polish up our pitchforks.
    I replied:

    I have a few dinner forks… I haven’t any hay today, I hadn’t any hay yesterday when all my troubles seemed so far away. It is important to know who’s got the hay and who’s not today, but I don’t claim to be born again, or even before! I have taken the word of my mother. It seems likely or plausible or plasticable and practicable, or perchance to escalate a thought or two into the keyboard here. Which I do have, pitchforkless or not! This keyboard is not polished, but rather dusty with cigarette ash and bird dander. But it is in reasonably good health, and may fit my needs for the foreseeable future, which has a limited horizon as the road ahead is certainly not as long as that behind.

    And as it is oft times fun to be verbose for my own entertainment, I hope you can enjoy it somewhat as well. But it is indeed a fine and good morning. Glory gory halls of loosia, his Truth is marching on.

    • A pitchfork can be used with bailing hay, or it can be used as a weapon.
      Like the phrase “Might is Right” is bullshit, as might is neutral depending on the intent of it’s use.
      There is no “devil”, the concept is an excuse for the evil done by humans.

  9. In his interesting book The Secret Team, Col. Fletcher Prouty, briefing officer of the US President from 1955-63, narrates a remarkable incident in which Winston Churchill made a most revealing utterance during World War II:

    “On this particular night there had been a heavy raid on Rotterdam. He sat there, meditating, and then, as if to himself, he said, ‘Unrestricted submarine warfare, unrestricted air bombing – this is total war.’ He continued sitting there, gazing at a large map, and then said, ‘Time and the Ocean and some guiding star and High Cabal have made us what we are’.”

    Prouty further states:

    “This was a most memorable scene and a revelation of reality that is infrequent, at best. If for the great Winston Churchill, there is a ‘High Cabal’ that has made us what we are, our definition is complete. Who could know better than Churchill himself during the darkest days of World War II, that there exists, beyond doubt, an international High Cabal? This was true then. It is true today, especially in these times of the One World Order. This all-powerful group has remained superior because it had learned the value of anonymity.” This “High Cabal” is the “One World Cabal” of today, also called the elite by various writers.

  10. How They Manipulate Public Opinion

    In addition to these strategic “think tanks” the elite has set up a chain of research institutes devoted to manipulating public opinion in a manner the elite desires. As pointed out by John Coleman in his eye opening book The Tavistock Institute on Human Relations – Shaping the Moral, Spiritual, Cultural, Political and Economic Decline of the United States of America, it was in 1913 that an institute was established at Wellington House, London for manipulation of public opinion. According to Coleman:

    The modern science of mass manipulation was born at Wellington House London, the lusty infant being midwifed by Lord Northcliffe and Lord Rothmere. The British monarchy, Lord Rothschild, and the Rockefellers were responsible for funding the venture… the purpose of those at Wellington House was to effect a change in the opinions of British people who were adamantly opposed to war with Germany, a formidable task that was accomplished by “opinion making” through polling. The staff consisted of Arnold Toynbee, a future director of studies at the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA), Lord Northcliffe, and the Americans, Walter Lippmann and Edward Bernays. Lord Northcliffe was related to the Rothschilds through marriage.

    Bernays was a nephew of Sigmund Freud, a fact never mentioned, and developed the technique of “engineering consent.” When Sigmund Freud moved to Britain he also, secretly, became associated with this institute through the Tavistock Institute. According to Coleman, Bernays “pioneered the use of psychology and other social sciences to shape and form public opinion so that the public thought such manufactured opinions were their own.”

  11. SGT Report: Chinese BRICS in the New World Order
    James has carefully documented the history of “8 Immortal Families” in his report ‘China and the New World Order‘ which shows how the 8 Immortals are totally connected to Henry Kissinger and the Rockefeller-Rothschild banking elite. “This is the way they will lead us into a New WORLD Order,” James says.

    “The West is being engineered into a world system of governance and government that can only come about through the rise of the East. It’s been puppeteered from the very start. There is no doubt that China’s rise right now is something that has been long planned for and carefully engineered.”


  12. “America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America’s power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a popular democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public’s sense of domestic well-being… The economic self-denial (that is, defence spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization.“~Brzezinski

  13. “My country is dead. Its people have surrendered to tyranny and in so doing, they have become tyranny’s primary support group; its base; its defender. Every day they offer their endorsement of tyranny by banking in its banks and spending their borrowed money with the corporations that run it. The great Neocon strategy of George H.W. Bush has triumphed. Convince the America people that they can’t live without the ‘good things’, then sit back and watch as they endorse the progressively more outrageous crimes you commit as you throw them bones with ever less meat on them. All the while lock them into debt. Destroy the middle class, the only political base that need be feared. Make them accept, because of their shared guilt, ever-more repressive police state measures. Do whatever you want.”~Michael Ruppert

  14. Mao was a Yale Man

    “By about the year 2000 Communist China will be a “superpower” built by American technology and skill.”
    ~Antony C. Sutton, American Secret Establishment published 1984

    Student Mao Zedong & Yale in China

    Skull and Bones reaches to all the leaders around the world and this may explain Bush’s obsessive support of China, regardless of the human rights violations and arsenal buildup.

    “Skull and Bones is a secret fraternity at Yale University which restricts their membership to only fifteen per year. . The society was formed in 1832 by General William Russell, whose shipping firm later dominated the U.S. side of the China opium trade. Yale University was founded by Eli Yale, who made his fortune working for the opium smuggling British East India Company.

    “Skull and Bones became the recruiting grounds and preserve of the most important New England-centered families–families who also made their money in the opium trade. These families, whose sons regularly join Skull and Bones, include the little known, but powerful, Coffins, Sloanes, Tafts, Bundys, Paynes, Whitneys. They are a dominant element of the U.S. ‘Eastern Establishment’ to this day. The Bush family is one of a cluster of lower-level Establishment families controlled by these interests.

    “George Bush, the first U.S. diplomatic representative to the People’s Republic of China back in 1973, was a member of Skull and Bones. So was his father, brother, son, uncle, nephew, and several cousins. Winston Lord, the Reagan-Bush administration Ambassador to China was a member; so was his father and several other relatives. James Lilley, the current Ambassador to China, is a member of Skull and Bones, as was his brother. With the exception during the Carter administration, every U.S. Ambassador to Beijing ,since Kissinger’s deal with Mao Zedong was a member of the Skulls and Bones.

    In 1903, Yale Divinity School established a number of schools and hospitals throughout China that were collectively known as ‘Yale in China.’ It has since been shown that ‘Yale in China’ was an intelligence network whose purpose was to destroy the republican movement of Sun Yat-sen on behalf of the Anglo-American Establishment. The Anglo-American “Establishment” hated Sun, because he wanted to develop China. On the other hand, they loved the Chinese communists because they intended to keep China backward, and were committed to the production of drugs. . One of ‘Yale in China’s’ most important students was Mao Zedong.

    “During World War II, ‘Yale in China’ was a primary instrument used by the U.S. Establishment and its Office of Strategic Services (OSS) to install the Maoists into power.

    ‘Yale in China’ was run by OSS operative Reuben Holden, the husband of Bush’s cousin, and also a member of Skull and Bones. “The Maoists made China into the world’s largest opium producer.

    “‘Yale in China’ was also closely associated with the New York-based Union Theological Seminary, which has been a center for U.S. subversion of Asia According to Branton, they were literally wolves in sheeps clothing Every prominent radical leader operating in Korea today was trained at Union Theological. Union Theological was dominated for twenty years by Henry Sloane Coffin, a U.S. intelligence executive from the Sloane and Coffin families. He was a Skull and Bones member as were a dozen of his relatives.

    “Nor should it be forgotten that Averell Harriman, the former Ambassador to Moscow who did so much to build up the Soviet Union, was a member of Skull and Bones. Harriman was also a business partner of Prescott Bush, Sr., the father of Maoist enthusiast George Bush.”

    According to geopolitical and economics researcher, Dr. Antony Sutton in his book ‘The Patriot Review’, not only did the Skulls and Bones help to build up the Communist movement in China, but they gave financial aide to the Soviet Union communists as well. This power cult has for centuries been playing a “two ends against the middle” type of game, attempting to control America (the thesis) and Russia (the anti-thesis) and other countries or movements, carefully pitting them against each other at the lower levels in order to keep the populations of the world in a state of confusion and despair, to the point that they will – hopefully – resign themselves into accepting the New World Order “synthesis” as the only alternative to solve the very “problems” which ‘they’ the New World Order initiators, created in the first place.

    The latter gentleman had been on the staff of the Yale University establishment in China in 1921-22. Yale and the Rockefellers were breeding a grotesque communist insurgency with British Empire ideology; another Yale staffer there was Mao Zedong, later the communist dictator and mass murderer. While he was over in China, Papa Godfrey’s cousin Isabel had been the bridesmaid at the wedding of George Bush’s parents. His Uncle Percy had co-founded the Harriman bank with George Walker, and backed George Bush’s father in several Nazi German enterprises. His grandfather had been the founding treasurer of the Standard Oil Company, and had made the Harrimans (and thus, ultimately, George Bush) rich.
    Changsha was the site of Mao Zedong’s conversion to communism

    The 1903 Treaty of Shanghai between China and Japan opened the city to foreign trade. Consequently, factories, churches and schools were built. A college was started by Yale University bachelors, and later became a medical center named Xiangya and a secondary school named the Yali School.

    Mao Zedong, founder of the People’s Republic of China began his political career in Changsha. He was a student at the Hunan Number 1 Teachers’ Training School from 1913 to 1918. He later returned as a teacher and principal from 1920 to 1922. The school was destroyed during the Chinese Civil War but has since been restored. The Former Office of the Hunan Communist Party Central Committee where Mao Zedong once lived is now a museum that includes Mao’s living quarters, photographs and other historical items from the 1920s.

    Yali School

    Founded in 1906 by Yale-in-China (雅礼协会 now known as the Yale-china association), Yali School has been known throughout China for its quality instruction, both as an American-owned private school during the first half of the 20th century and as a public school since then. The name Yali 雅礼 (pinyin: Yǎ Lǐ) comes from the Analects of Confucius, meaning elegance of expression (ya 雅) and propriety of conduct (li 礼), and is a transliteration of Yale in early-20th century. Yali’s school colors are blue, white (Yale colors) and red (China), as appear on the school uniform.

    Founded in 1901, the Yale-China Association is a private, nonprofit organization with more than a century of experience contributing to the development of education in and about China and to the furtherance of understanding and knowledge between Chinese and American people.

    • The Crucible Of The 60’s
      “Our compulsion to right the world’s wrongs ensures that, along the way to losing our own freedom, we gratuitously kill lots of foreigners in the name of some hopeless cause.”~Tony Thomson – ‘Eat Your Heart Out Ho Chi Minh’


    • The war in Vietnam was a war of aggression by the US.

      Vietnam was never a threat to the United States.
      Wars of Aggression are against international law. A War of Aggression is considered the proximate War Crime, for from it all other war crimes arise.

      Ho Chi Minh, as has been discussed before, admired Thomas Jefferson and used the template of the US Declaration of Independence for the one he composed for the people of Vietnam.

      INDEPENDENCE is the central issue here. The peoples of this planet have the right to determine their own destiny.

      Vietnam had experienced colonial rule by the French, the Japanese, and then the futile attempt by the warmongering Amerikan military.

      As Kennedy said, the fight was for the people of Vietnam to fight themselves. They did, and they won on their own terms whether the US likes it or not.

      Whether or not Ho Chi Minh would have turned to Communism if the US hadn’t taken up the imperial void left by France is in doubt, considering his admiration for the principles of unalienable rights to liberty as articulated by Jefferson.

  15. seal
    The Secretary of War became The Secretary of Defense on September 19, 1947, as part of the reorganization under The National Security Act. The term, “Department of Defense” is quite Orwellian in that it has always been used for wars of aggression, as there has never been an attack on the United States since the institution was formed.

    • “Those who fail to learn the lessons of history … and blablabla …

      Lollipop History and Bubblegum Physics & whoopy its’a police state! how cool dude!!!

      Always wanted to live in the Twilight Zone!!
      “Let’s go!” Yuri Gagarin

  16. Current >>

    Letter from Ho Chi Minh to President Lyndon Johnson
    Digital History ID 3641

    Author: Ho Chi Minh

    Annotation: This letter from Ho Chi Minh was a response to a message from Johnson who wanted to begin negotiations to end the war. Ho Chi Minh stated that he would not negotiate until the United States stopped bombing Vietnam.

    Document: To His Excellency Mr. Lyndon B. Johnson, President, United States of America

    Your Excellency:

    On February 10, 1967, I received your message. This is my reply. Vietnam is thousands of miles away from the United States. The Vietnamese people have never done any harm to the United States. But contrary to the pledges made by its representative at the 1954 Geneva conference, the U.S. has ceaselessly intervened in Vietnam, it has unleashed and intensified the war of aggression in North Vietnam with a view to prolonging the partition of Vietnam and turning South Vietnam into a neocolony and a military base of the United States. For over two years now, the U.S. government has, with its air and naval forces, carried the war to the Democratic Republic of (North) Vietnam, an independent and sovereign country.

    The U.S. government has committed war crimes, crimes against peace and against mankind. In South Vietnam, half a million U.S. and satellite troops have resorted to the most inhuman weapons and most barbarous methods of warfare, such as napalm, toxic chemicals and gases, to massacre our compatriots, destroy crops, and raze villages to the ground. In North Vietnam, thousands of U.S. aircraft have dropped hundreds of thousands of tons of bombs, destroying towns, villages, factories, schools. In your message, you apparently deplore the sufferings and destruction in Vietnam. May I ask you: Who has perpetrated these monstrous crimes? It is the United States and satellite troops. The U.S. government is entirely responsible for the extremely serious situation in Vietnam.

    The U.S. war of aggression against the Vietnamese people constitutes a challenge to the countries of the socialist camp, a threat to the national independence movement, and a serious danger to peace in Asia and the world.

    The Vietnamese people deeply love independence, freedom and peace. But in the face of U.S. aggression, they have risen up, united as one man, fearless of sacrifices and hardships. They are determined to carry on their resistance until they have won genuine independence and freedom and true peace. Our just cause enjoys strong sympathy and support from the peoples of the whole world, including broad sections of the American people.

    The U.S. government has unleashed the war of aggression in Vietnam. It must cease this aggression. This is the only way to restoration of peace. The U.S. government must stop definitely and unconditionally its bombing raids and all other acts of war against the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, withdraw from South Vietnam all U.S. and satellite troops, recognize the South Vietnam National Front for Liberation, and let the Vietnamese people settle themselves their own affairs. Such is the basis of the five-point stand of the government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, which embodies the essential principles and provision of the 1954 Geneva Agreements on Vietnam; it is the basis of a correct political solution to the Vietnam problem.

    In your message you suggested direct talks between the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the United States. If the U.S. government really wants these talks, it must first of all stop unconditionally its bombing raids and all other acts of war against the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. It is only after the unconditional cessation of U.S. bombing raids and all other acts of war against the Democratic Republic of Vietnam that the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the U.S. could enter into talks and discuss questions concerning the two sides.

    The Vietnamese people will never submit to force, they will never accept talks under threat of bombs.

    Our cause is absolutely just. It is to be hoped that the U.S. government will act in accordance with reason.


    Ho Chi Minh


      Twenty-one years have already elapsed since the end of the last world conflagration; numerous publications, in every possible language, celebrate this event, symbolized by the defeat of Japan. There is a climate of apparent optimism in many areas of the different camps into which the world is divided.

      Twenty-one years without a world war, in these times of maximum confrontations, of violent clashes and sudden changes, appears to be a very high figure. However, without analyzing the practical results of this peace (poverty, degradation, increasingly larger exploitation of enormous sectors of humanity) for which all of us have stated that we are willing to fight, we would do well to inquire if this peace is real.

      It is not the purpose of these notes to detail the different conflicts of a local character that have been occurring since the surrender of Japan, neither do we intend to recount the numerous and increasing instances of civilian strife which have taken place during these years of apparent peace. It will be enough just to name, as an example against undue optimism, the wars of Korea and Vietnam.

      In the first one, after years of savage warfare, the Northern part of the country was submerged in the most terrible devastation known in the annals of modern warfare: riddled with bombs; without factories, schools or hospitals; with absolutely no shelter for housing ten million inhabitants.

      Under the discredited flag of the United Nations, dozens of countries under the military leadership of the United States participated in this war with the massive intervention of U.S. soldiers and the use, as cannon fodder, of the South Korean population that was enrolled. On the other side, the army and the people of Korea and the volunteers from the Peoples’ Republic of China were furnished with supplies and advise by the Soviet military apparatus. The U.S. tested all sort of weapons of destruction, excluding the thermo-nuclear type, but including, on a limited scale bacteriological and chemical warfare.

      In Vietnam, the patriotic forces of that country have carried on an almost uninterrupted war against three imperialist powers: Japan, whose might suffered an almost vertical collapse after the bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; France, who recovered from that defeated country its Indo-China colonies and ignored the promises it had made in harder times; and the United States, in this last phase of the struggle.

    • A war of aggression, sometimes also war of conquest, is a military conflict waged without the justification of self-defense, usually for territorial gain and subjugation. The phrase is distinctly modern and diametrically opposed to the prior legal international standard of “might makes right”, under the medieval and pre-historic beliefs of right of conquest.

      The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which followed World War II, called the waging of aggressive war “essentially an evil thing…to initiate a war of aggression…is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

      “To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”
      ~Robert H. Jackson

      Associate Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas charged that the Allies were guilty of “substituting power for principle” at Nuremberg. “I thought at the time and still think that the Nuremberg trials were unprincipled.”, he wrote. “Law was created ex post facto to suit the passion and clamor of the time.”

    • The Russian Revolution
      In 1905, while Russia was engaged in the Russo-Japanese War, the Communists tried to get the farmers to revolt against the Czar, but they refused. [Many of the leaders, including Lenin and Trotsky were exiled –ed].

      After this aborted attempt, the Czar deposited $400,000,000 in the Chase Bank, National City Bank, Guaranty Trust Bank, the Hanover Trust Bank, and Manufacturers Trust Bank, and $80,000,000 in the Rothschild Bank in Paris, because he knew who was behind the growing revolutionary movement, and hoped to end it.

      The Rothschilds, through Milner, planned the Russian Revolution, and along with Schiff (who gave $20 million), Sir George Buchanan, the Warburgs, the Rockefellers, the partners of J.P. Morgan (who gave at least $1 million), Olaf Aschberg (of the Nye Bank of Stockholm, Sweden), the Rhine Westphalian Syndicate, a financier named Jovotovsky (whose daughter later married Leon Trotsky), William Boyce Thompson (a director of Chase National Bank who contributed $1 million), and Albert H. Wiggin (President of Chase National Bank), helped finance it.

      The Rockefellers had given their financial support after the Czar refused to give them access to the Russian oil fields, which were already being pumped by the Royal Dutch Co. (owned by the Rothschilds and the Nobel brothers) and giving Standard Oil plenty of competition on the international market. Even though John D. Rockefeller possessed $15,000,000 in bonds from the Royal Dutch Co. and Shell, rather than purchase stock to get his foot in the door and indirectly profit, he helped to finance the Revolution so that he would be able to get Standard Oil firmly established in the country of Russia. As the Congress of Vienna (1814) had shown, the Illuminati had never been able to control the affairs of Russia, so they had to get rid of the Czar so he couldn’t interfere with their plans.

      Czar Nicholas II (who succeeded Alexander III, 1881-94) was dethroned in March, 1917 after a series of riots, and a provincial government was set up by Prince George Lvov, a liberal progressive reformer who wanted to set up a democracy. He made an effort to strengthen the Russian Army to prevent any future revolts but ended up resigning which allowed Kerensky, a democratic Socialist, to take over and form a coalition government. He kept the war with Germany going, and issued an amnesty order for the Communists who had been exiles after the aborted Red Revolution in 1905. Nearly 250,000 revolutionaries returned to Russia.

      In October, 1917, the Bolshevik Revolution began. Grand Duke Nicholas said: “It is on God himself that the Bolshevicks are waging war.”

      [For more, see “Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution” by Antony Sutton –ed]

      Leon Trotsky Returns from New York
      Leon Trotsky (whose real name was Lev Davidovich Bronstein, 1879-1940, the son of wealthy Jewish parents), was exiled from Russia because of his part in the aborted revolution in 1905 and was a reporter for Novy Mir, a communist paper in New York, from 1916-17. He had an expensive apartment and traveled around town in a chauffeur-driven limousine. He sometimes stayed at the Krupp mansion, and had been seen going in and out of Schiff’s New York mansion.

      Leon Trotsky was given $20 million in Jacob Schiff gold to help finance the revolution, which was deposited in a Warburg bank, then transferred to the Nya Banken (Nye Bank) in Stockholm, Sweden. According to the Knickerbocker Column in the New York Journal American on February 3, 1949:

      “Today it is estimated by Jacob’s grandson, John Schiff, that the old man sank about $20,000,000 for the final triumph of Bolshevism in Russia.”
      Leon Trotsky left New York aboard the S. S. Kristianiafjord (S. S. Christiania), which had been chartered by Schiff and Warburg, on March 27, 1917 [along] with communist revolutionaries. At Halifax, Nova Scotia on April 3rd, the first port they docked at, the Canadians under orders from the British Admiralty seized Trotsky and his men, taking them to the prison at Amherst, and impounding his gold.

      Official records, later declassified by the Canadian government, indicate that they knew Trotsky and his small army were “…Socialists leaving for the purposes of starting revolution against [the] present Russian government…” The Canadians were concerned that if Lenin took over Russia, he would sign a Peace Treaty and stop the fighting between Russia and Germany, so that the Germany Army could be diverted to possibly mount an offensive against the United States and Canada.

      The British government (through intelligence officer Sir William Wiseman, who later became a partner with Kuhn, Loeb and Co.), and the American government (through Col. House) urged them to let Trotsky go. Wilson said that if they didn’t comply, the U.S. wouldn’t enter the War. Trotsky was released, given an American passport, a British transport visa, and a Russian entry permit. It is obvious that Wilson knew what was going on, because accompanying Trotsky, was Charles Crane of the Westinghouse Company, who was the Chairman of the Democratic Finance Committee. The U.S. entered the war on April 6th, [1917]. Trotsky arrived in Petrograd on May 17.

      Nikolai Lenin Returns From London
      Meanwhile, Lenin had been able to infiltrate the Democratic Socialist Republic established by Kerensky. In October, 1917 when the Revolution started, Lenin, who was in Switzerland (also exiled because of the 1905 uprising [and after having spent several years plotting with the Fabians in London –ed]), negotiated with the German High Command with the help of Max Warburg (head of the Rothschild-affiliated Warburg bank in Frankfurt) to allow him, his wife, and 32 other Bolsheviks to travel across Germany to Sweden, where he was to pick up the money being held for him in the Swedish bank, then go on to Petrograd. He promised to make peace with Germany if he was able to overthrow the new Russian government.

      He was put in a sealed railway car with over $5 million in gold from the German government and upon reaching Petrograd, was joined by Stalin and Trotsky. He told the people that he could no longer work within the government to effect change, that they had to strike immediately in force to end the war, and end the hunger conditions of the peasants. His war cry was: “All power to the Soviets!”.

      He led the revolution, and after seizing the reins of power from Kerensky on November 7, 1917, replaced the democratic republic with a communist Soviet state. He kept his word and made peace with Germany in February, 1918, and was able to get out of World War I. While most members of the Provisional Government were killed, Kerensky was allowed to live, possibly because of the general amnesty he had extended to the communists exiled in 1905. Kerensky later admitted to receiving private support from American industry which led some historians to believe that the Kerensky government was a temporary front for the Bolsheviks.

      Elections were held on November 25, 1917 with close to 42 million votes being cast and the Bolshevik Communists only received 24% of the vote. On July 18, 1918 the People’s Congress convened having a majority of anti-Bolsheviks which indicated that Communism wasn’t the mass movement that Lenin was claiming. The next day he used an armed force to disband the body.

      In a speech to the House of Commons on November 5, 1919 Winston Churchill said:

      “…Lenin was sent into Russia … in the same way that you might send a vial containing a culture of typhoid or of cholera to be poured into the water supply of a great city, and it worked with amazing accuracy. No sooner did Lenin arrive than he began beckoning a finger here and a finger there to obscure persons in sheltered retreats in New York, Glasgow, in Berne, and other countries, and he gathered together the leading spirits of a formidable sect, the most formidable sect in the world … With these spirits around him he set to work with demoniacal ability to tear to pieces every institution on which the Russian State depended.”
      In a February 8, 1920 article for the Illustrated Sunday Herald, Churchill wrote:

      “(From) the days of Spartacus Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, to those of Trotsky, Bela-Kuhn, Rosa Luxembourg and Emma Goldman, this world-wide conspiracy … has been steadily growing. This conspiracy played a definitely recognizable role in the tragedy of the French Revolution.
      It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the nineteenth century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads, and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.

      There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the bringing about of the Russian revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews.”

      Russian General Arsene DeGoulevitch wrote in Czarism and the Revolution that:

      “the main purveyors of funds for the revolution, however, were neither crackpot Russian millionaires nor armed bandits on Lenin. The ‘real’ money primarily came from certain British and American circles which for a long time past had lent their support to the Russian revolutionary cause…”
      DeGoulevitch, who received the information from another Russian general, said that the revolution was

      “…engineered by the English, more precisely by Sir George Buchanan and Lord (Alfred) Milner [of the Round Table] … In private conversations I have been told that over 21 million rubles were spent by Lord Milner in financing the Russian Revolution.”

      [By contrast], Frank Vanderlip, President of the Rockefeller-controlled First National Bank, compared Lenin to George Washington. The Rockefeller’s public relations man, Ivy Lee, was used to inform Americans that the Communists were “misunderstood idealists who were actually kind benefactors of mankind.”

      In March, 1918, on orders from Schiff which were relayed by Col. House, the Bolshevik’s Second Congress adopted the name “Communist Party.” That same year, Lenin organized the Red Army… to control the population, and a secret police to keep track of the communists.

      “Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution” by Antony Sutton

      Click to access 125047.pdf


  17. “Dear Mr. President:
    I am in sympathy with the Soviet form of government as that best suited for the Russian people…”

    -Letter to President Woodrow Wilson (October 17, 1918) from William
    Lawrence Saunders, chairman, Ingersoll-Rand Corp.; director, American
    International Corp.; and deputy chairman, Federal Reserve Bank of New York
    . . . . . .
    “Modern history possesses such a built-in duality and certainly if too many uncomfortable facts have been rejected and brushed under the rug, it is an inaccurate history.
    On the other hand, it may be observed that both the extreme right and the extreme left of the conventional political spectrum are absolutely collectivist. The national socialist (for example, the fascist) and the international socialist (for example, the Communist) both recommend totalitarian politico-economic systems based on naked, unfettered political power and individual coercion. Both systems require monopoly control of society. While monopoly control of industries was once the objective of J. P. Morgan and J. D. Rockefeller, by the late nineteenth century the inner sanctums of Wall Street understood that the most efficient way to gain an unchallenged monopoly was to “go political” and make society go to work for the monopolists — under the name of the public good and the public interest. This strategy was detailed in 1906 by Frederick C. Howe in his Confessions of a Monopolist.[1] Howe, by the way, is also a figure in the story of the Bolshevik Revolution.

    Therefore, an alternative conceptual packaging of political ideas and politico-economic systems would be that of ranking the degree of individual freedom versus the degree of centralized political control. Under such an ordering the corporate welfare state and socialism are at the same end of the spectrum. Hence we see that attempts at monopoly control of society can have different labels while owning common features.

    Consequently, one barrier to mature understanding of recent history is the notion that all capitalists are the bitter and unswerving enemies of all Marxists and socialists. This erroneous idea originated with Karl Marx and was undoubtedly useful to his purposes. In fact, the idea is nonsense. There has been a continuing, albeit concealed, alliance between international political capitalists and international revolutionary socialists — to their mutual benefit. This alliance has gone unobserved largely because historians — with a few notable exceptions — have an unconscious Marxian bias and are thus locked into the impossibility of any such alliance existing. The open-minded reader should bear two clues in mind:
    monopoly capitalists are the bitter enemies of laissez-faire entrepreneurs; and, given the weaknesses of socialist central planning, the totalitarian socialist state is a perfect captive market for monopoly capitalists, if an alliance can be made with the socialist powerbrokers.
    Suppose that American monopoly capitalists were able to reduce a planned socialist Russia to the status of a captive technical colony? Would not this be the logical twentieth-century internationalist extension of the Morgan railroad monopolies and the Rockefeller petroleum trust of the late nineteenth century?”

    “Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution” by Antony Sutton

    Click to access 125047.pdf


    • “In brief, this is a story of the Bolshevik Revolution and its aftermath, but a story that departs from the usual conceptual straitjacket approach of capitalists versus Communists. Our story postulates a partnership between international monopoly capitalism and international revolutionary socialism for their mutual benefit. The final human cost of this alliance has fallen upon the shoulders of the individual Russian and the individual American.

      Entrepreneurship has been brought into disrepute and the world has been propelled toward inefficient socialist planning as a result of these monopoly maneuverings in the world of politics and revolution.

      This is also a story reflecting the betrayal of the Russian Revolution. The tsars and their corrupt political system were ejected only to be replaced by the new powerbrokers of another corrupt political system. Where the United States could have exerted its dominant influence to bring about a free Russia it truckled to the ambitions of a few Wall Street financiers who, for their own purposes, could accept a centralized tsarist Russia or a centralized Marxist Russia but not a decentralized free Russia. And the reasons for these assertions will unfold as we develop the underlying and, so far, untold history of the Russian Revolution and its aftermath.[4]”
      – “Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution” by Antony Sutton

    President Woodrow Wilson was the fairy godmother who provided Trotsky with a passport
    to return to Russia to “carry forward” the revolution. This American passport was
    accompanied by a Russian entry permit and a British transit visa. Jennings C. Wise, in
    Woodrow Wilson: Disciple of Revolution, makes the pertinent comment, “Historians must
    never forget that Woodrow Wilson, despite the efforts of the British police, made it possible
    for Leon Trotsky to enter Russia with an American passport.”
    President Wilson facilitated Trotsky’s passage to Russia at the same time careful State
    Department bureaucrats, concerned about such revolutionaries entering Russia, were
    unilaterally attempting to tighten up passport procedures. The Stockholm legation cabled
    the State Department on June 13, 1917, just after Trotsky crossed the Finnish-Russian
    border, “Legation confidentially informed Russian, English and French passport offices at
    Russian frontier, Tornea, considerably worried by passage of suspicious persons bearing
    American passports.”[9]

  19. The best-documented example of Wall Street intervention in revolution is the operation of a
    New York syndicate in the Chinese revolution of 1912, which was led by Sun Yat-sen.
    Although the final gains of the syndicate remain unclear, the intention and role of the New
    York financing group are fully documented down to amounts of money, information on
    affiliated Chinese secret societies, and shipping lists of armaments to be purchased. The
    New York bankers syndicate for the Sun Yat-sen revolution included Charles B. Hill, an
    attorney with the law firm of Hunt, Hill & Betts. In 1912 the firm was located at 165
    Broadway, New York, but in 1917 it moved to 120 Broadway (see chapter eight for the
    significance of this address). Charles B. Hill was director of several Westinghouse
    subsidiaries, including Bryant Electric, Perkins Electric Switch, and Westinghouse Lamp —
    all affiliated with Westinghouse Electric whose New York office was also located at 120
    Broadway. Charles R. Crane, organizer of Westinghouse subsidiaries in Russia, had a
    known role in the first and second phases of the Bolshevik Revolution (see page 26).
    The work of the 1910 Hill syndicate in China is recorded in the Laurence Boothe Papers at
    the Hoover Institution.[5] These papers contain over 110 related items, including letters of
    Sun Yat-sen to and from his American backers. In return for financial support, Sun Yat-sen
    promised the Hill syndicate railroad, banking, and commercial concessions in the new
    revolutionary China.

  20. On Moral Relativity and Eternal Principles

    “This, I believe, should always be taken into account before judging men of that era. Including those who killed JFK.”~JohnR
    . . . . .
    “The dirty commie Uncle Ho admired Jefferson for the only good thing he ever did in his life, the Declaration of Independence.”~Roy W Kornbluth
    . . . . .
    What we have here is the distinction between ‘Moral Relativity’ and ‘Eternal Principles’.

    It seems that JohnR would give Thomas Jefferson the ‘benefit of his era’, espousing a relation between morals and the time period a human being lives within. So the argument goes; Jefferson was “enlightened for his age” he was farther along on the path to principled thinking than most others of his day, and should not only be celebrated for his “far sighted” moral values. but excused for the “foibles of his times”.

    While no human being is perfect, I have to disagree with this assessment, and pronounce that harsh judgment of Eternal Principle, as I think I detect in the words of Mr Kornbluth. I hold that men of countless era’s have held to and recognized such eternal principles as would be reflected in my stated axiom:

    Liberty is not an INVENTION of Revolution – Liberty is the DISCOVERY of Enlightened Reason.

    In other words the Unalienable Individual Rights of Liberty are one of the penumbra of eternal principles that make us Human.

    It is moral ambiguity that leads to the errors of the concept of the “Just War” as anything that treads one iota beyond clear and obvious self-defense. That such issues are stretched beyond reason are evident in what is called “practical politics”, which is in fact nothing more than the ancient regime of ‘Realpolitik’ and the devious Machiavellian concepts of “Might is Right” & it’s comrade in arms; “Means are justified by the Ends ‘.

    As a lifetime student of Natural Law I have to reject the concepts of Moral Relativity, and assert that there are self-evident Eternal Principles such as those so eloquently put by Thomas Jefferson in the celebrated US Declaration of Independence.

    Finally I must say that those who killed Kennedy must be judged in harshest way, especially as this judgement must now be made posthumously. Their names should be blackened by righteous curses of infamy, and their memory held in the highest contempt. The heritage of their evil ways should be brought down and laid to waste. The National Security State should be abolished, should have been abolished long ago.

    • Just war theory

      For the individual Christian under the rule of a government engaged in an immoral war, Augustine admonished that Christians, “by divine edict, have no choice but to subject themselves to their political masters and [should] seek to ensure that they execute their war-fighting duty as justly as possible.”

      The above is the height of irrational bullshit, based in superstitious dogmatic nonsense.~ww

      • “The folklore of war, of course, begins long before the fighting is done; and, by the time the last smoke has drifted away, this folklore has congealed into a “truth” of a neolithic hardness.”
        ~Stewart H. Holbrook, Lost Men of American History, p. 42.

    Edited by Harry Elmer Barnes

    The United States has been engaged in what the great historian Charles A. Beard called “perpetual war for perpetual peace.” The Federation of American Scientists has cataloged nearly 200 military incursions since 1945 in which the United States has been the aggressor.

    “America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to
    the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her
    own. She will recommend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the
    benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other
    banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would
    involve herself beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of
    individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standards
    of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty
    to force.”~John Quincy Adams

    The title of this book was suggested to the editor by the late Charles Austin Beard in our last conversation. With characteristic cogency and incisiveness, Beard held that the foreign policy of Presidents Roosevelt and Truman, and of their ideological supporters, whether Democrats, Republicans, Socialists, or Communists, could most accurately and precisely be described by the phrase “perpetual war for perpetual peace.” Events since that time (June, 1947) have further reinforced Beard’s sagacity and insight in this respect. George Orwell’s brilliant and profoundly prophetic novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, has since shown how a new political order throughout the world may be erected on the premises and implications of this goal of perpetual war, presented in the guise of a global struggle of free peoples for perpetual peace.

    There is already alarming evidence that this is just the type of regime into which the world is now moving, consciously or unconsciously, as a result of the foreign policy forged by Roosevelt, Truman, Churchill, and Stalin. The main practical purpose of this volume is to acquaint the American public with this fact before we reach the “point of no return” and it is too late to revise our course and resume a sane foreign policy, based on continentalism, national interest, ideological coexistence, international urbanity, and rational co-operation in world affairs. If trends continue as they have during the last fifteen years we shall soon reach this point of no return, and can only anticipate interminable wars, disguised as noble gestures for peace. Such an era could only culminate in a third world war which might well, as Arnold J. Toynbee has suggested, leave only the pygmies in remote jungles, or even the apes and ants, to carry on “the cultural traditions” of mankind.

    Click to access Barnespwpp.pdf


  22. I. How War Has Transformed the American Dream into a Nightmare

    “The first World War and American intervention therein marked an ominous turning
    point in the history of the United States and of the world. Those who can remember “the
    good old days” before 1914 inevitably look back to those times with a very definite and
    justifiable feeling of nostalgia. There was no income tax before 1913, and that levied in
    the early days after the amendment was adopted was little more than nominal. All kinds
    of taxes were relatively low. We had only a token national debt of around a billion
    dollars, which could have been paid off in a year without causing even a ripple in
    national finance. The total Federal budget in 1913 was $724,512,000, just about one per
    cent of the present astronomical budget.

    Ours was a libertarian country in which there was little or no witch-hunting and few of
    the symptoms and operations of the police state which have been developing here so
    drastically during the last decade. Not until our intervention in the first World War had
    there been sufficient invasions of individual liberties to call forth the formation of special
    groups and organizations to protect our civil rights. The Supreme Court could still be
    relied on to uphold the Constitution and safeguard the civil liberties of individual citizens.
    Unfortunately, there are relatively few persons today who can recall those happy
    times. In his devastatingly prophetic book, Nineteen Eighty-Four, (2) George Orwell
    points out that one reason why it is possible for those in authority to maintain the
    barbarities of the police state is that nobody is able to recall the many blessings of the
    period which preceded that type of society. In a general way this is also true of the
    peoples of the Western world today. The great majority of them have known only a world
    ravaged by war, depressions, international intrigues and meddling, vast debts and
    crushing taxation, the encroachments of the police state, and the control of public opinion
    and government by ruthless and irresponsible propaganda. A major reason why there is
    no revolt against such a state of society as that in which we are living today is that many
    have come to accept it as a normal matter of course, having known nothing else during
    their lifetimes.”
    ~H. E. Barnes

    • “Treason doth never prosper, what’s the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”
      ~Sir John Harrington (1561-1612)

  23. “The Rockefeller Foundation and the Council on Foreign Relations . . . intend to prevent, if they can, a repetition of what they call in the vernacular “the debunking journalistic campaign following World War I.” Translated into precise English, this means that the Foundation and the Council do not want journalists or any other persons to examine too closely and criticize too freely the official propaganda and official statements relative to “our basic aims and activities” during World War II. In short, they hope that, among other things, the policies and measures of Franklin D. Roosevelt will escape in the coming years the critical analysis, evaluation and exposition that befell the policies and measures of Woodrow Wilson and the Entente Allies after World War I.” ~ Charles Austin Beard

  24. The Court Historians and Hired Men of Academia

    “Moreover, the gullibility of many “educated” Americans has been as notable as the
    mendacity of the “educators.” In Communist Russia and Nazi Germany, as well as in
    Fascist Italy, and in China, the tyrannical rulers found it necessary to suppress all
    opposition thought in order to induce the majority of the people to accept the material fed
    them by official propaganda. But, in the United States, with almost complete freedom of
    the press, speech, and information down to the end of 1941, great numbers of Americans
    followed the official propaganda line with no compulsion whatever. This is a remarkable
    and ominous contrast, especially significant because it has been the “educated” element
    which has been most gullible in accepting official mythology, taking the population as a
    whole. And this situation has continued since 1945, though of course the public has been
    less able to get the truth from the avenues of information since V-J Day than it was
    before Pearl Harbor.
    The opposition to Revisionism—that is, to truth in the premises—stems in part from
    emotional fixation on the mythology built up after 1937 and in part from personal loyalty
    to President Roosevelt and the naturally resulting desire to preserve the impeccability of
    the Roosevelt legend. In regard to the latter, the Roosevelt adulators are much more
    solicitous about defending their late chief’s foreign policy than they are in upholding the
    infallibility of his much more creditable domestic program. There is, of course, a
    powerful vested political interest in perpetuating the accepted mythology about the
    causes, issues, and results of the second World War, for much of the public policy of the
    victorious United Nations since 1945 can only make sense and be justified on the basis of
    this mythology.
    Today, this situation has been multiplied many fold. Historians and other social
    scientists veritably swarmed into the various wartime agencies after 1941, especially the
    Office of War Information and the Office of Strategic Services. They were intimately
    associated with the war effort and with the shaping of public opinion to conform to the
    thesis of the pure and limpid idealism and ethereal innocence of the United States and our
    exclusive devotion to self-defense and world betterment through the sword. Hence, the
    opposition of historians and social scientists to truth about the responsibility for the
    second World War and its obvious results is many times greater than it was in the years
    following the close of the first World War. Since the war several corps of court historians
    have volunteered to work to continue the elaboration of official mythology. In addition,
    the State Department and the Army and Navy have a great swarm of historians dedicated
    to presenting history as their employers wish it to be written, and at the present time there
    is a new influx of American historians and social scientists into our ‘Ministry of Truth.'”
    ~H. E. Barnes

  25. Design for War
    A Study of Secret Power Politics, 1937-1941
    By Frederick R. Sanborn
    New York: Devin-Adair Company 1951

    “This book narrates the history of what was largely the personal and single-handed direction of foreign affairs by Mr. Roosevelt from 1937 until the day when the war officially began. It traces what Mr. Roosevelt earlier called the “small decisions of each day [which] lead towards war.” Because domestic and foreign politics were so intertwined during those years, this book necessarily has to tell about the domestic policies of the time so far as they appear to have had some influence or bearing upon the course of our foreign policies.

    This history is neither pro-Roosevelt nor anti-Roosevelt-it is factual. When history goes beyond an honest attempt to discover what the facts were, and to narrate them, it ceases to be history. It may become apologetics; it may become an attempt at justification of self or policy or party; it may become propaganda, either friendly or hostile, either retrospective or prospective (as some recent books have been)—but obviously it is not history. This is a factual history.” ~Frederick R. Sanborn

  26. There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960’s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies…but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.” (Georgetown University Professor Carroll Quigley, Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World in Our Time, p. 950. 1964.)

  27. “I’ve seen some of the handiwork of the communist party so please don’t tell me what a swell bunch they are. Communism, Willy, is the most stupid and oppressive style of government I know of.”~Bill Clarke

    I am utterly opposed to Collectivism of any kind Mr Clarke, so I assure you it is not my intent to tell you, “what a swell bunch [Communists] are”. My purpose here is to expose how history has been misframed by academia, and that there is and has indeed been a conspiracy to bring about a tyrannical global governance. But it is completely different from what you have been conditioned to believe.

    Let me quote Carroll Quigley on this issue:

    There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960’s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies…but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.” (Georgetown University Professor Carroll Quigley, Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World in Our Time, p. 950. 1964.)

    I have developed a page on my blog that delves into these issues. If you wish you can get a more expansive introduction there:


  28. “The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences.” (Georgetown University Professor Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, p. 324. 1966.)
    “The Council on Foreign Relations is the American branch of a society which originated in England [and] believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established.” (Tragedy and Hope, p. 951. 1966.)
    “The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy” (Tragedy and Hope, 1966.)

  29. Revisionism and the Promotion of Peace
    By Harry Elmer Barnes

    During the last forty years or so, revisionism has become a fighting term. To so-called revisionists, it implies an honest search for historical truth and the discrediting of misleading myths that are a barrier to peace and goodwill among nations. In the minds of anti-revisionists, the term savors of malice, vindictiveness, and an unholy desire to smear the saviors of mankind.

    U.S. memorial poster of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
    Actually, revisionism means nothing more or less than the effort to correct the historical record in the light of a more complete collection of historical facts, a more calm political atmosphere, and a more objective attitude. It has been going on ever since Lorenzo Valla (1407-1457) exposed the forged “Donation of Constantine,” which was a cornerstone of the papal claim to secular power, and he later called attention to the unreliable methods of Livy in dealing with early Roman history. Indeed, the revisionist impulse long antedated Valla, and it has been developing ever since that time. It had been employed in American history long before the term came into rather general use following the first World War.

    Revisionism has been most frequently and effectively applied to correcting the historical record relative to wars, because truth is always the first war casualty, the emotional disturbances and distortions in historical writing are greatest in wartime, and both the need and the material for correcting historical myths are most evident in connection with wars.

    Revisionist historians soon tackled the propaganda concerning the Spanish-American War which had been fomented by Hearst and Pulitzer and exploited by the war camp among the Republicans of 1898. James Ford Rhodes showed how McKinley, with the full Spanish concessions to his demands in his pocket, concealed the Spanish capitualtion. from Congress and demanded war. Further research has revealed that there is no conclusive evidence whatever that the Spanish sank the battleship Maine and has shown that Theodore Roosevelt quite illegally started the war by an unauthorized order to Admiral Dewey to attack the Spanish fleet at Manila while Secretary Long was out of his office. Julius H. Pratt and others have exposed the irresponsible war-mongering of the “war hawks” of 1898, such as Theodore Roosevelt, Henry Cabot Lodge and Albert J. Beveridge, and indicated the primary responsibility of Admiral Mahan for the expansionist philosophy upon which this rise of American imperialism was based.

    Hence, long before the Austrian Archduke was assassinated by Serbian plotters on June 28, 1914, revisionism had a long and impressive history and had been brought into use on all the important wars in which the United States had been engaged. Applied abroad to the Franco-Prussian War, it clearly proved that the initiative lay with France rather than Bismarck and the Prussians. But it was the first World War which brought the term “revisionism” into general use. This was because many wished to use the historical studies of the causes of the War as the basis for a revision of the Treaty of Versailles, which had been based on a complete acceptance of the theory of sole German-Austrian responsibility for the outbreak of the European War in early August 1914.

    By that time, the new methods of communication, mass journalism, and greater mastery of propaganda techniques enabled the combatants to whip up popular opinion and mass hatred as never before in the history of warfare. Jonathan French Scott’s Five Weeks revealed how the press stirred up violent hatreds in July 1914. The intensity of feeling in the United States has recently been recalled in an impressive manner in H.C. Peterson’s Opponents of War, 1917-1918. As C. Hartley Grattan, the present writer, and others, have pointed out, the historians scrambled on the propaganda bandwagon with great alacrity and vehemence. It was almost universally believed that Germany was entirely responsible not only for the outbreak of war in 1914 but also for American entry in April, 1917. Anyone who publicly doubted this popular dogma was in danger of the tar bucket, and Eugene Debs was imprisoned by the man who had proclaimed the War to be one to make the world safe for democracy. Debs’ crime was a statement that the War had an economic basis, precisely what Wilson himself declared in a speech on September 5, 1919…

    … Unless and until we can break through the historical blackout, now supported even by public policy, and enable the peoples of the world to know the facts concerning international relations during the last quarter of a century, there can be no real hope for the peace, security and prosperity which the present triumphs of science and technology could make possible. The well-being of the human race, if not its very survival, is very literally dependent on the triumph of revisionism.

    • Whereas, in 1914, British responsibility for the first World War was chiefly that of weakness and duplicity on the part of Sir Edward Grey — more a negative than a positive responsibility — the British were almost solely responsible for the outbreak of both the German-Polish and the European Wars in early September 1939. Lord Halifax, the British Foreign Minister, and Sir Howard Kennard, the British Ambassador in Warsaw, were even more responsible for the European War of 1939 than Sazonov, Izvolski, and Poincare were for that of 1914. Chamberlain’s speech before Parliament on the night of September 2, 1939, was as mendacious a misrepresentation of the German position as had been Sir Edward Grey’s address to Parliament on August 3, 1914.

      The Case Against Roosevelt
      As for American entry into the second World War, the case against President Roosevelt is far more impressive and damaging than that against Woodrow Wilson, who maintained at least some formal semblance of neutrality for a time after August 1914. Roosevelt “lied the United States into war.” He went as far as he dared in illegal efforts, such as convoying vessels carrying munitions, to provoke Germany and Italy to make war on the United States. Failing in this, he turned to a successful attempt to enter the War through the back door of Japan. He rejected repeated and sincere Japanese proposals that even Hull admitted protected all the vital interests of the United States in the Far East, by his economic strangulation in the summer of 1941 [that] forced the Japanese into an attack on Pearl Harbor, took steps to prevent the Pearl Harbor Commanders, General Short and Admiral Kimmel, from having their own decoding facilities to detect a Japanese attack, kept Short and Kimmel from receiving the decoded Japanese intercepts that Washington picked up and indicated that war might come at any moment, and ordered General Marshall and Admiral Stark not to send any warning to Short and Kimmel before noon on December 7th, when Roosevelt knew that any warning sent would be too late to avert the Japanese attack at 1:00 P.M., Washington time.

    • “By March 1946, Winston Churchill was proclaiming the Cold War in his speech at Fulton, Missouri, delivered with the benediction of President Truman, and a year later Truman actually launched the Cold War. This led, in 1950, to the outbreak of a hot war in Korea. The Orwellian technique of basing political tenure and bogus economic prosperity on cold and phony warfare had taken over by 1950, to enjoy an indefinite domination over the public mind. A hot war spontaneously provides plenty of genuine, even if dangerous and misguided, emotion, but a cold war has to be built up by propaganda and mythology and sustained on synthetic excitement which is provided by planned propaganda.

      Since 1945, we have run into a period of intellectual conformity unmatched since the supreme power and unity of the Catholic Church at the height of the Middle Ages. Between the pressures exerted by the Orwellian cold-war system and those which are equally powerful in the civilian or commercial world, intellectual individuality and independence have all but disappeared. In this era of Nineteen Eighty-four, “The Organization Man,” “The Man in the Grey Flannel Suit,” the “Hidden Persuaders,” and “Madison Avenue,” even the average American college graduate is no more inclined to independent thinking than was a Catholic peasant during the papacy of Innocent III.”~Harry Elmer Barnes

  30. “In the meantime, some 37 volumes dealing with our foreign policy since 1939 were collected and made ready for publication. But nothing was sent to the printer and, in the spring of 1958, the State Department blandly announced that it did not propose to publish any of these volumes in the predictable future. It gave as the reason the assertion that publication might possibly offend some persons among our NATO allies. To give this amazing procedure some semblance of historical authority, the State Department had appointed a hand-picked committee in 1957 to advise the Department on publication. The personnel of the committee, which did not contain one revisionist historian, assured that the right advice would be turned in. The chairman was none other than Professor Dexter Perkins, admittedly a jolly and affable historical politician, but also one of the half-dozen outstanding and unremitting opponents of revisionist scholarship in this country. The committee dutifully reported that publication of any of the 37 volumes lying on the shelves awaiting the government printers would not be politically expedient.

    When Dr. Barron appeared before a Senatorial committee to protest against the censorship and delays, he was allowed only eleven minutes to testify, although witnesses supporting the official censorship were allowed ample time. As one of the abler editorial writers in the country commented, quite correctly: “Such a record of concealment and duplicity is unparalleled. Its only counterpart is the ‘memory hole’ in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, where an authoritarian regime of the future was depicted as disposing of all document and facts that failed to fit into the current party line.” All this is hardly consistent with the assumed role of the United States as the leader of the “Free Nations” or with our bitter condemnation of the Russians for censoring their official documents.”~Harry Elmer Barnes

  31. The Balfour Declaration may be the most extraordinary document produced by any Government in world history. It took the form of a letter from the Government of His Britannic Majesty King George the Fifth, the Government of the largest empire the world has even known, on which — once upon a time — the sun never set; a letter to an international financier of the banking house of Rothschild who had been made a peer of the realm.

    Arthur Koestler wrote that in the letter “one nation solemnly promised to a second nation the country of a third.” More than that, the country was still part of the Empire of a fourth, namely Turkey.

    It read:

    Foreign Office, November 2nd,1917

    Dear Lord Rothschild,

    I have much pleasure in conveying to you on behalf of His Majesty’s Government the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations, which has been submitted to and approved by the Cabinet:

    “His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

    I should be grateful if you would bring this Declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

    Yours sincerely,

    Arthur James Balfour.[1]
    . . . . . . . . .
    It was decided by Lord Allenby that the “Declaration” should not then be published in Palestine where his forces were still south of the Gaza-Beersheba line. This was not done until after the establishment of the Civil Administration in 1920.

  32. “I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism [corporatism]. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”~Smedley Darlington Butler
    -Major General, U.S. Marine Corps

    Writing in the mid-1930s, Butler foresaw a U.S. war with Japan to protect trade with China and investments in the Philippines, and declared that it would make no sense to the average American:

    We would be all stirred up to hate Japan and go to war — a war that might well cost us tens of billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives of Americans, and many more hundreds of thousands of physically maimed and mentally unbalanced men.

    Of course, for this loss, there would be a compensating profit — fortunes would be made. Millions and billions of dollars would be piled up. By a few. Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders. Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators. They would fare well.…

    But what does it profit the men who are killed? What does it profit their mothers and sisters, their wives and their sweethearts? What does it profit their children?

    What does it profit anyone except the very few to whom war means huge profits?

    Noting that “until 1898 [and the Spanish-American War] we didn’t own a bit of territory outside the mainland of North America,” he observed that after becoming an expansionist world power, the U.S. government’s debt swelled 25 times and “we forgot George Washington’s warning about ‘entangling alliances.’ We went to war. We acquired outside territory.”

  33. In 1939 and 1940, the vast majority of the American people wanted to avoid involvement in the European war. They felt that U.S. participation in the First World War had been a catastrophic error and wanted to insure that the mistake would not be repeated. The Congress was likewise committed to a policy of firm neutrality and had passed the Johnson and Neutrality Acts to make sure that America kept out of war in Europe.

    The President is constitutionally charged with the duty to execute the will of the American people as expressed through the Congress. The Constitution reserves the power to make war and peace exclusively to Congress. But with brazen contempt for the will of the people, the law and the constitution, President Roosevelt conspired with a small circle of confidants to incite war in Europe and bring the United States into the conflict. He broke his oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

  34. I. The Peace Treaties of 1919 Insure the Outbreak of Another World War

    1. The Allies Build the Treaty of Versailles upon the Shifting Sands of Betrayal— The Violation of the Pre-armistice Contract
    It was easy for President Roosevelt and Secretary Hull to talk glibly of the sanctity of treaties and contracts. It was an essential part of the international ritual that became quite popular after 1919. But, in Germany, numerous persons could not forget the fact that the Treaty of Versailles was the cornerstone of a structure that had been built upon the dubious sands of betrayal. Lloyd George and Clemenceau had reluctantly agreed to a preArmistice contract that bound them to fashion the treaty of peace along the lines of the Fourteen Points. The Treaty of Versailles was a deliberate violation of this contract. In the dark soil of this breach of promise, the seeds of another world war were deeply sown.
    It should be kept in mind that Woodrow Wilson acquiesced in this violation of contract. His ardent admirers have contended that he was tricked into the unsavory bargain by astute European statesmen who were masters of the craft sinister. Ben Hecht, in his Erik Dorn, appears to accept this viewpoint and refers to Wilson at Versailles as a “long face virgin trapped in a bawdy house and calling in valiant tones for a glass of lemonade.” (1) In truth, Wilson had ordered his glass of lemonade heavily spiked with the hard liquor of deceit, and the whole world has paid for the extended binge of a so-called statesman who promised peace while weaving a web of war.
    –Charles Callan Tansill

    Click to access Barnespwpp.pdf


  35. “Logic! Logic! I don’t give a damn for logic.” ~Woodrow Wilson, during discussions on Versailles.


    Whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad!
    . . . . .

  36. The permanence of war propaganda during permanent war.

    The former myths of ‘prior war PR’ are dusted off and refurbished to buttress the current false paradigm. As astutely forecast by Orwell.

    Remarkably Orwell originally titled his book 1948. It was during discussions for publishing it that the title was changed to 1984. The ‘Big Brother’ system came to stay in 1948, as a result of the National Security Act in 1947. The conformist plastic people will try to say that the book ‘1984’ is mere science fiction. It is closer to the truth that Official History is science fiction; fiction developed by scientific sociological and psychological propaganda, perception manipulation and deep generational indoctrination.

    Those born into a brainwashed psychopathic society have no other experience than that of being in a constant trance state as a general rule. There always has been some small percentage who have somehow escaped the official matrix. There is another slightly larger percentage of the population who have come partly awake, but retain large vestiges of their former programming in hidden compartments of their minds.

    Whether this System will eventually collapse from rot from within, or will finally come to full fruition is yet to be determined.

  37. “During the war our habit was to treat Pearl Harbor day as, in F.D.R.’s words, “a day of infamy.” This newspaper throughout the war protested against any such observance.
    The appellation was almost Oriental in its masochism-unworthy of us, a travesty of truth. It gave a totally wrong impression of a peace-loving, unoffensive, non-interfering America suddenly set upon by a bully with whom we had no quarrel. No historian will ever accept the interpretation.”
    —Editorial in the Washington (D.C.) Post, December 7, 1951

    “Japan was meant by the American President to attack the United States. . . . It is very questionable whether the word treachery is a legitimate one to use in these circumstances.” ~Captain Russell Grenfell,
    – Main Fleet to Singapore, 1952

    “It is for peace that I have labored; and it is for peace that I shall labor all the days of my life.”
    ~Franklin Delano Roosevelt – August 1, 1944

    “Hope & Change.”~Barack Obama – November 2008

    Click to access Barnespwpp.pdf

    As George Orwell wrote; “Those who control the past control the future. Those who control the present control the past”. Put bluntly, those who control the present write the official history—that is control of the past.

    • Roosevelt was thus compelled to trim his sails to the prevailing wind. The party platform he accepted in 1940 pledged that war would be shunned “except in case of attack.” In his celebrated speech at Boston on October 30, 1940, the third-term candidate promised American parents “again and again and again” that “your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.”(11) His speech writer, Robert E. Sherwood, later confessed that, although the pledge was deceitful, “I . . . urged him to go the limit on this, feeling as I did that the risk of future embarrassment was negligible as compared with the risk of losing the election.”(12)

  38. Interview 1035 – James Perloff on the 100th Anniversary of the Lusitania False Flag

    On the brink of the 100th anniversary of the sinking of the Lusitania, James Perloff of joins us today to discuss his in-depth expose of the incident, “False Flag at Sea.” We talk about the sinking of the ship and how it was used to sway American public opinion on “The Great War,” how the event was planned and engineered, who masterminded the plan, and why it still matters a century later.

    by James Perloff

    The Lusitania, Woodrow Wilson, and the Deceptions that Dragged America into World War I

    This is a long article. But World War I – which was the first global war, and claimed as many as 65 million lives – has nearly been forgotten about. This article contains many suppressed facts, and I hope you come away from it with a better understanding of how the present connects to the past.

  39. “There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960’s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies…but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.” (Georgetown University Professor Carroll Quigley, Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World in Our Time, p. 950. 1964.)

    “The powers of financial capitalism had [a] far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations.”
    –Tragedy and Hope by Carroll Quigley

  40. Tragedy and Hope
    A History of Banking and Money by Carroll Quigley

    Chapter 5—European Economic Developments

    Commercial Capitalism

    “The powers of financial capitalism had [a] far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences.”
    — Quote from Caroll Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope, Chapter 20

    The Operations of Banking Were Concealed So They Appeared Difficult to Master

    In sum, specialization of economic activities, by breaking up the economic process, had made it possible for people to concentrate on one portion of the process and, by maximizing that portion, to jeopardize the rest. The process was not only broken up into producers, exchangers, and consumers but there were also two kinds of exchangers (one concerned with goods, the other with money), with almost antithetical, short-term, aims. The problems which inevitably arose could be solved and the system reformed only by reference to the system as a whole.

    Unfortunately, however, three parts of the system, concerned with the production, transfer, and consumption of goods, were concrete and clearly visible so that almost anyone could grasp them simply by examining them, while the operations of banking and finance were concealed, scattered, and abstract so that they appeared to many to be difficult. To add to this, bankers themselves did everything they could to make their activities more secret and more esoteric. Their activities were reflected in mysterious marks in ledgers which were never opened to the curious outsider.

    In the course of time the central fact of the developing economic system, the relationship between goods and money, became clear, at least to bankers. This relationship, the price system, depended upon five things: the supply and the demand for goods, the supply and the demand for money, and the speed of exchange between money and goods.

    An increase in three of these (demand for goods, supply of money, speed of circulation) would move the prices of goods up and the value of money down. This inflation was objectionable to bankers, although desirable to producers and merchants. On the other hand, a decrease in the same three items would be deflationary and would please bankers, worry producers and merchants, and delight consumers (who obtained more goods for less money). The other factors worked in the opposite direction, so that an increase in them (supply of goods, demand for money, and slowness of circulation or exchange) would be deflationary [and vice versa].

    Such changes of prices, either inflationary or deflationary, have been major forces in history for the last six centuries at least. Over that long period, their power to modify men’s lives and human history has been increasing.
    The Dynasties of International Bankers

    The merchant bankers of London … brought into their financial network the provincial banking centers, organized as commercial banks and savings banks, as well as insurance companies, to form all of these into a single financial system on an international scale which manipulated the quantity and flow of money so that they were able to influence, if not control, governments on one side and industries on the other.
    [Cecil] Rhodes (1853-1902) feverishly exploited the diamond and goldfields of South Africa, rose to be prime minister of the Cape Colony (1890-1896), contributed money to political parties, controlled parliamentary seats both in England and in South Africa, and sought to win a strip of British territory across Africa from the Cape of Good Hope to Egypt and to join these two extremes together with a telegraph line and ultimately with a Cape-to-Cairo Railway.

    Rhodes inspired devoted support for his goals from others in South Africa and in England. With financial support from Lord Rothschild and Alfred Beit, he was able to monopolize the diamond mines of South Africa as De Beers Consolidated Mines and to build up a great gold mining enterprise as Consolidated Gold Fields. In the middle 1890’s Rhodes had a personal income of at least a million pounds sterling a year [equivalent to about $100 million a year in current U.S. dollars] which was spent so freely for his mysterious purposes that he was usually overdrawn on his account.

    An association was formally established on February 5, 1891, when Rhodes and [William] Stead organized a secret society of which Rhodes had been dreaming for sixteen years. In this secret society Rhodes was to be leader; Stead, Brett, and Milner were to form an executive committee; Arthur (Lord) Balfour, (Sir) Harry Johnston, Lord Rothschild, Albert (Lord) Grey, and others were listed as potential members of a “Circle of Initiates”; while there was to be an outer circle known as the “Association of Helpers” (later organized by Milner as the Round Table organization).

    In 1919 [Rhodes’ followers] founded the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House) for which the chief financial supporters were Sir Abe Bailey and the Astor family (owners of The Times). Similar Institutes of International Affairs were established in the chief British dominions and in the United States (where it is known as the Council on Foreign Relations) in the period 1919-1927. The power and influence of this Rhodes-Milner group in British imperial affairs and in foreign policy since 1889, although not widely recognized, can hardly be exaggerated. We might mention as an example that this group dominated The Times from 1890 to 1912, and has controlled it completely since 1912 (except for the years 1919-1922).

    [Note: The above excerpts are taken from chapters 5, 9, 20, 65, and 77 of Tragedy and Hope, with a focus on Prof. Quigley’s excellent discussion of the role of money and banking in world history. This is a 10-page summary. To go directly to a more in-depth 40-page summary, go to the following:


    • Tragedy & Hope by Carroll Quigley
      Chapter 77—Conclusion

      The hope of the twentieth century rests on its recognition that war and depression are man-made and needless. They can be avoided in the future by turning from … nineteenth-century characteristics … and going back to other characteristics that our Western society has always regarded as virtues: generosity, compassion, cooperation, rationality, and foresight, and finding an increased role in human life for love, spirituality, charity, and self-discipline.

      • Chapter 5—European Economic Developments – (from TRAGEDY & HOPE)

        Commercial Capitalism

        Western Civilization is the richest and most powerful social organization ever made by man. One reason for this success has been its economic organization, [which] has passed through six successive stages, of which at least four are called “capitalism.” Three features are notable about this development as a whole.

        In the first place, each stage created the conditions which tended to bring about the next stage. The [first stage] of self-sufficient agrarian units (manors) was in a society organized so that its upper ranks—the lords, lay and ecclesiastical—found their desires for necessities so well met that they sought to exchange their surpluses of necessities for luxuries of remote origin.

        This gave rise to a trade in foreign luxuries (spices, fine textiles, fine metals) which was the first evidence of the stage of commercial capitalism. In this second stage, mercantile profits and widening markets created a demand for textiles and other goods which could be met only by application of power to production.

        This gave the third stage: industrial capitalism. The stage of industrial capitalism soon gave rise to such an insatiable demand for heavy fixed capital, like railroad lines, steel mills, shipyards, and so on, that these investments could not be financed from the profits and private fortunes of individual proprietors. New instruments for financing industry came into existence in the form of limited-liability corporations and investment banks. These were soon in a position to control the chief parts of the industrial system, since they provided capital to it.

        This gave rise to financial capitalism. The control of financial capitalism was used to integrate the industrial system into ever-larger units with interlinking financial controls. This made possible a reduction of competition with a resulting increase in profits. As a result, the industrial system soon found that it was again able to finance its own expansion from its own profits, and, with this achievement, financial controls were weakened, and the stage of monopoly capitalism arrived.

        In this fifth stage, great industrial units, working together either directly or through cartels and trade associations, were in a position to exploit the majority of the people. The result was a great economic crisis which soon developed into a struggle for control of the state—the minority hoping to use political power to defend their privileged position, the majority hoping to use the state to curtail the power and privileges of the minority. Both hoped to use the power of the state to find some solution to the economic aspects of the crisis. This dualist struggle dwindled with the rise of economic and social pluralism after 1945.~Quigley
        I dispute that “This dualist struggle dwindled with the rise of economic and social pluralism after 1945.” I find the assertion flies in the face of the very history from 1945 to the present, which proves that the minority used their privileged position to successfully curtail the majority from true access to the power of the state. Rather, Corporatist propaganda was becoming perfected, while a permanent war economy was developed and pursued. The meme of “Social Pluralism” is created by the manipulation of the perception of appearances, using the techniques of psychological persuasion developed by Bernays as early as the 1920’s. “Social Pluralism” is in fact a method of ‘divide and conquer’ used by the Public Relations Regime of the Money Power.

        The key issue to grasp is that it is not wealth that is the goal to the elites, it is POWER, that is their ultimate goal.~ww

  41. DEA agents caught in drug money prostitute scandal.
    Corbett Report

    This is the short and sweet entry on Wikipedia;
    Russell & Company (Chinese: 旗昌洋行; pinyin: Qíchāng Yángháng) was the largest and most important American trading house in Qing dynasty China from 1842 to its closing in 1891.
    Samuel Russell founded Russell & Company in Canton, China, in 1824. Dealing mostly in silks, teas and opium, Russell & Company prospered, and by 1842, it had become the largest American trading house in China. It kept its dominance until its closing in 1891. Russell withdrew from the company in 1836 and returned to the United States.

  42. So anyhow, melumps and mumpos of the hoose uncommons, after that to wind up that longtobechronickled gettogether thanksbetogiving day at Glenfinnisk-en-la-Valle, the anniversary of his finst homy commulion, after that same barbecue bean feast was all over poor old hospitable corn and eggfactor, King Roderick O’Conor, the paramount chief polemarch and last pre-electric king of Ireland, who was anything you say yourself between fiftyodd and fiftyeven years of age at the time after the socalled last supper he greatly gave in his umbrageous house of the hundred bottles with the radio beamer tower and its hangars, chimbneys and equilines or, at least, he was’nt actually the then last king of all Ireland for the time being for the jolly good reason that he was still such as he was the eminent king of all Ireland himself after the last preeminent king of all Ireland, the whilom joky old top that went before him in the Taharan dy-nasty, King Arth Mockmorrow Koughenough of the leathered leggions, now of parts unknown, (God guard his generous comicsongbook soul !) that put a poached fowl in the poor man’s pot before he took to his pallyass with the weeping eczema for better and worse until he went under the grass quilt on us, nevertheless, the year the sugar was scarce, and we to lather and shave and frizzle him, like a bald surging buoy and himself down to three cows that was meat and drink and dogs and washing to him, ’tis good cause we have to remember it, going through summersultryngs of snow and sleet witht the widow Nolan’s goats and the Brownes girls neats anyhow, wait till I tell you, what did he do, poor old Roderick O’Conor Rex, the auspicious waterproof monarch of all Ireland, when he found him- self all alone by himself in his grand old handwedown pile after all of them had all gone off with themselves to their castles of mud, as best they cud, on footback, owing to the leak of the McCarthy’s mare, in extended order, a tree’s length from the longest way out, down the switchbackward slidder of the land-sown route of Hauburnea’s liveliest vinnage on the brain, the unimportant Parthalonians with the mouldy Firbolgs and the Tuatha de Danaan googs and the ramblers from Clane and all the rest of the notmuchers that he did not care the royal spit out of his ostensible mouth about, well, what do you think he did, sir, but, faix, he just went heeltapping through the winespilth and weevily popcorks that were kneedeep round his own right royal round rollicking toper’s table, with his old Roderick Ran-dom pullon hat at a Lanty Leary cant on him and Mike Brady’s shirt and Greene’s linnet collarbow and his Ghenter’s gaunts and his Macclefield’s swash and his readymade Reillys and his pan-prestuberian poncho, the body you’d pity him, the way the world is..
    ~James the joyous Joyce

  43. The Dynasties of International Bankers

    The merchant bankers of London had already at hand in 1810-1850 the Stock Exchange, the Bank of England, and the London money market when the needs of advancing industrialism called all of these into the industrial world which they had hitherto ignored. In time they brought into their financial network the provincial banking centers, organized as commercial banks and savings banks, as well as insurance companies, to form all of these into a single financial system on an international scale which manipulated the quantity and flow of money so that they were able to influence, if not control, governments on one side and industries on the other.

    The men who did this, looking backward toward the period of dynastic monarchy in which they had their own roots, aspired to establish dynasties of international bankers and were at least as successful at this as were many of the dynastic political rulers. The greatest of these dynasties, of course, were the descendants of Meyer Amschel Rothschild (1743-1812) of Frankfort, whose male descendants, for at least two generations, generally married first cousins or even nieces. Rothschild’s five sons, established at branches in Vienna, London, Naples, and Paris, as well as Frankfort, cooperated together in ways which other international banking dynasties copied but rarely excelled.

    The Financial Activities of International Bankers

    In concentrating, as we must, on the financial or economic activities of international bankers, we must not totally ignore their other attributes. They were, especially in later generations, cosmopolitan rather than nationalistic…. They were usually highly civilized, cultured gentlemen, patrons of education and of the arts, so that today colleges, professorships, opera companies, symphonies, libraries, and museum collections still reflect their munificence. For these purposes they set a pattern of endowed foundations which still surround us today.

    The Key International Banking Families

    The names of some of these banking families are familiar to all of us and should he more so. They include Raring, Lazard, Erlanger, Warburg, Schroder, Seligman, the Speyers, Mirabaud, Mallet, Fould, and above all Rothschild and Morgan.

    Even after these banking families became fully involved in domestic industry by the emergence of financial capitalism, they remained different from ordinary bankers in distinctive ways: (1) they were cosmopolitan and international; (2) they were close to governments and were particularly concerned with questions of government debts, including foreign government debts; (3) their interests were almost exclusively in bonds and very rarely in goods, since they admired “liquidity” and regarded commitments in commodities or even real estate as the first step toward bankruptcy; (4) they were, accordingly, fanatical devotees of deflation (which they called “sound” money from its close associations with high interest rates and a high value of money) and of the gold standard, which, in their eyes, symbolized and ensured these values; and (5) they were almost equally devoted to secrecy and the secret use of financial influence in political life.

    These bankers came to be called “international bankers” and, more particularly, were known as “merchant bankers” in England, “private bankers” in France, and “investment bankers” in the United States. In all countries they carried on various kinds of banking and exchange activities, but everywhere they were sharply distinguishable from other, more obvious, kinds of banks, such as savings banks or commercial banks.

    The International Banking Fraternity Operates As Secretive Private Firms

    One of their less obvious characteristics was that they remained as private unincorporated firms, usually partnerships, until relatively recently, offering no shares, no reports, and usually no advertising to the public. This risky status, which deprived them of limited liability, was retained, in most cases, until modern inheritance taxes made it essential to surround such family wealth with the immortality of corporate status for tax-avoidance purposes.

    This persistence as private firms continued because it ensured the maximum of anonymity and secrecy to persons of tremendous public power who dreaded public knowledge of their activities. As a consequence, ordinary people had no way of knowing the wealth or areas of operation of such firms, and often were somewhat hazy as to their membership.

    Thus, people of considerable political knowledge might not associate the names Walter Burns, Clinton Dawkins, Edward Grenfell, Willard Straight, Thomas Lamont, Dwight Morrow, Nelson Perkins, Russell Leffingwell, Elihu Root, John W. Davis, John Foster Dulles, and S. Parker Gilbert with the name “Morgan,” yet all these and many others were parts of the system of influence which centered on the J. P. Morgan office at 23 Wall Street.

    This firm, like others of the international banking fraternity, constantly operated through corporations and governments, yet remained itself an obscure private partnership until international financial capitalism was passing from its deathbed to the grave. J. P. Morgan and Company, originally founded in London as George Peabody and Company in 1838, was not incorporated until March 21, 1940, and went out of existence as a separate entity on April 24, 1959, when it merged with its most important commercial bank subsidiary, the Guaranty Trust Company. The London affiliate, Morgan Grenfell, was incorporated in 1934, and still exists.
    ~Quigley — Tragedy & Hope

  44. JFK #17: Daniel Sheehan and Alternative Theories of the JFK Assassination Nov. 21, 2013
    There is much more to this excellent class than just the JFK Assassination – Sheehan puts it in historical perspective, puts it in the context of the continuum and paradigm we are still within.
    A wonderful adjunct to the material already put to this page.


  45. “All words, in every language, are metaphors.”

    “Only puny secrets need protection. Big discoveries are protected by public incredulity.”~Marshall McLuhan

    • “Whereas convictions depend on speed-ups, justice requires delay.”~Marshall McLuhan

      “The price of eternal vigilance is indifference.”~Ibid

  46. The Plague of Psychoanalysts & Reality Noir
    Tripe Salad with Bernays Sauce

    . . . . . .
    The Century of the Self
    This 4-part BBC mini-series aired in 2002, tracing the development of Freudian psychology and its exploitation by advertising to manipulate people into wanting things they don’t need. The documentary describes the impact of Freud’s theories on the perception of the human mind, and the ways public relations agencies and politicians have used this during the last 100 years for their engineering of consent. Among the central characters are Freud himself and his nephew Edward Bernays, who was the first to use psychological techniques in advertising. He is widely regarded as the father of the modern public relations industry.

    • Individualism vs. Collectivism: Our Future, Our Choice
      by Craig Biddle

      The fundamental political conflict in America today is, as it has been for a century, individualism vs. collectivism. Does the individual’s life belong to him—or does it belong to the group, the community, society, or the state? With government expanding ever more rapidly—seizing and spending more and more of our money on “entitlement” programs and corporate bailouts, and intruding on our businesses and lives in increasingly onerous ways—the need for clarity on this issue has never been greater. Let us begin by defining the terms at hand.

      Individualism is the idea that the individual’s life belongs to him and that he has an inalienable right to live it as he sees fit, to act on his own judgment, to keep and use the product of his effort, and to pursue the values of his choosing. It’s the idea that the individual is sovereign, an end in himself, and the fundamental unit of moral concern. This is the ideal that the American Founders set forth and sought to establish when they drafted the Declaration and the Constitution and created a country in which the individual’s rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness were to be recognized and protected.

      Collectivism is the idea that the individual’s life belongs not to him but to the group or society of which he is merely a part, that he has no rights, and that he must sacrifice his values and goals for the group’s “greater good.” According to collectivism, the group or society is the basic unit of moral concern, and the individual is of value only insofar as he serves the group. As one advocate of this idea puts it: “Man has no rights except those which society permits him to enjoy. From the day of his birth until the day of his death society allows him to enjoy certain so-called rights and deprives him of others; not . . . because society desires especially to favor or oppress the individual, but because its own preservation, welfare, and happiness are the prime considerations.”1

      Individualism or collectivism—which of these ideas is correct? Which has the facts on its side?
      When we look out at the world and see people, we see separate, distinct individuals. The individuals may be in groups (say, on a soccer team or in a business venture), but the indivisible beings we see are individual people. Each has his own body, his own mind, his own life. Groups, insofar as they exist, are nothing more than individuals who have come together to interact for some purpose. This is an observable fact about the way the world is. It is not a matter of personal opinion or social convention, and it is not rationally debatable. It is a perceptual-level, metaphysically given fact. Things are what they are; human beings are individuals.

      • According to collectivism, the group or society is metaphysically real—and the individual is a mere abstraction, a fiction:

        “Society in its unified and structural character is the fact of the case; the non-social individual is an abstraction arrived at by imagining what man would be if all his human qualities were taken away. Society, as a real whole, is the normal order, and the mass as an aggregate of isolated units is the fiction.” ~John Dewey

      • “Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark. In the hopeless swamps of the not quite, the not yet, and the not at all, do not let the hero in your soul perish and leave only frustration for the life you deserved, but never have been able to reach. The world you desire can be won, it exists, it is real, it is possible, it is yours.” ~ Ayn Rand

  47. Q: In Colleen McCullough’s historical novel Fortune’s Favorites, one of the characters mentions the Latin term cunnus, which I found means vagina. So Latin is apparently the source of the dirtiest word in the English language, right?

    A: No, the word “cunt” is not derived from Latin—it came into English from ancient Germanic sources.

  48. The New Deal had its feet of clay mired “one in the Red mud of Soviet communism and the other in the stinking cesspool of pagan plutocracy.”

    When a nations fails to learn the true history of its past, the people are doomed to reside within a fairy tale of delusions. Once that deception becomes ingrained into the popular culture, the task of the tyrant simplifies. How soon the country is transformed into a civic ordeal and betrayal of principle and heritage. Then, the masses cling to the big lie as fact; the new gospel for the social order becomes transformed into a somber reality. Finally, only the very few question its veracity.
    Most of us were born into a society that abandoned the essence of our founding country. The quiet revolution that destroyed America was conducted in full view and sanctified with government attainment. The past was buried without a solemn ceremony and the New Deal was born to reconstruct a fatherland upon the ashes of the American experience. The mother’s milk of this overthrow in fundamental values was based upon the Marxism of patrician traitors. FDR was the supreme socialist. His ideal was the total destruction of the balanced “Federalism” that shared power, affirmed State’s Rights and respected individual Liberty.

    The blind and mentally deficient refuse to face the record of treachery that Roosevelt imposed. The deformed dictator shared a collective identity with Stalin, a lust for power that approached Hitler and a deceit only surpassed by Churchill. All four were allies of Socialism. Only slender degrees of separation and fabricated nuances of emphasis disguise their mutual love for totalitarian control over their own country and global vision.


    “Commentators more accustomed to thinking outside their underpants, like Barry Grey, Bill Van Auken, and Patrick Martin of, Webster Tarpley, Wayne Madsen, Tom Burghardt, Pete Johnson, Michael Collins, and Paul Craig Roberts, have picked up the ball in the meantime where Obama predictably dropped it (“our intelligence community failed to connect those dots”) and see the incident as another false-flag operation, strikingly similar to 9/11, designed to justify ratcheting up the war on “terror” in the Middle East and at home (the Patriot Act is up for renewal).

    But does this make any more sense? Surely if the “intelligence community” wanted to create a false-flag incident, they would be able to do so without leaving true flags all over the place pointing to themselves. Some will say I underestimate the stupidity of spooks, who no matter how much money and power you give them are still more like Maxwell Smart than James Bond, but I do not buy into Stupidity Theory. This is what is sold by the mainstream media, of course. If no plausible lie can be found, the affair is dismissed as “failing to connect the dots,” to use the latest expression. This is the official explanation of 9/11 (the alternative, that 19 Arabs beat the crap out of the US Air Force, being less plausible), of the Manhattan fly-by, of Gen. McChrystal’s blatant disregard of the chain of command in announcing troop requirements in Afghanistan, and of the underpants incident. Even wars can be sent down the rabbit hole this way; e.g., Vietnam was a “well-intentioned mistake,” and despite all the evidence to the contrary, much clearer now than in the case of Vietnam, Iraq/Afghanistan is already getting the same treatment.

    Transparency Theory makes more sense. In 2008 I wrote an essay redubbing it MITOP (Made It Transparent On Purpose) in relation to 9/11, because the acronym fits well with and is actually the logical extension of LIHOP (Let It Happen On Purpose) and MIHOP (Made It Happen On Purpose), a distinction which now seems to have dissipated and never made much sense anyway.

    I think MITOP applies to the underpants bomber as well: Yes, Big Brother did it, and he wants us to know it.

    A good theory, in science, is one that explains more facts better than others. It fulfills the requirements of explanatory power and simplicity, or Occam’s razor. In other words, if the walking, talking, and quacking is duck-like, most likely we’re dealing with a duck. We might not want it to be a duck, or we might be terrified that it will turn out to be a duck, but this is not science, and not rational. The facts will most often quack for themselves, if we allow them to.”~Michael David Morrissey

  50. “You can fool all of the people some of the time
    You can fool some of the people all of the time
    But you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”
    ~Abraham Lincoln, 1864


  51. “Bin Laden’s (Digital) Bookshelf”
    English-Language Books

    >The 2030 Spike by Colin Mason
    >A Brief Guide to Understanding Islam by I. A. Ibrahim
    >America’s Strategic Blunders by Willard Matthias
    >America’s “War on Terrorism” by Michel Chossudovsky
    >Al- Qaeda’s Online Media Strategies: From Abu Reuter to Irhabi 007 by Hanna Rogan
    >The Best Democracy Money Can Buy by Greg Palast
    >The Best Enemy Money Can Buy by Anthony Sutton
    >Black Box Voting, Ballot Tampering in the 21 st Century by Bev Harris
    >Bloodlines of the Illuminati by Fritz Springmeier
    >Bounding the Global War on Terror by Jeffrey Record
    >Checking Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions by Henry Sokolski and Patrick Clawson
    >Christianity and Islam in Spain 756-1031 A.D. by C. R. Haines
    >Civil Democratic Islam: Partners, Resources, and Strategies by Cheryl Benard
    >Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins
    >Conspirators’ Hierarchy: The Committee of 300 by John Coleman
    >Crossing the Rubicon by Michael Ruppert
    >Fortifying Pakistan: The Role of U.S. Internal Security Assistance (only the book’s introduction) by C. Christine Fair and Peter Chalk
    >Guerrilla Air Defense: Antiaircraft Weapons and Techniques for Guerilla Forces by James Crabtree
    >Handbook of International Law by Anthony Aust
    >Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance by Noam Chomsky
    >Imperial Hubris by Michael Scheuer
    >In Pursuit of Allah’s Pleasure by Asim Abdul Maajid, Esaam-ud-Deen and Dr. Naahah Ibrahim
    >International Relations Theory and the Asia-Pacific by John Ikenberry and Michael Mastandano
    >Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions since World War II by William Blum
    >Military Intelligence Blunders by John Hughes-Wilson Project
    >MKULTRA , the CIA’s program of research in behavioral modification. Joint hearing before the Select Committee on Intelligence and the Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research of the Committee on Human Resources, United States Senate, Ninety-fifth Congress, first session, August 3, 1977. United States. Congress. Senate. Select Committee on Intelligence.
    >Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies by Noam Chomsky
    >New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 by David Ray Griffin
    >New Political Religions, or Analysis of Modern Terrorism by Barry Cooper
    >Obama’s Wars by Bob Woodward
    >Oxford History of Modern War by Charles Townsend
    >The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers by Paul Kennedy
    >Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower by William Blum
    >The Secret Teachings of All Ages by Manly Hall (1928)
    >Secrets of the Federal Reserve by Eustace Mullins
    >The Taking of America 1-2-3 by Richard Sprague
    >Unfinished Business, U.S. Overseas Military Presence in the 21 st Century by Michael O’Hanlon
    >The U.S. and Vietnam 1787-1941 by Robert Hopkins Miller
    >“Website Claims Steve Jackson Games Foretold 9/11, ” article posted on (this file contained only a single saved web page…
    This is a list of digital books being read by Osama bin Laden’s ghost in the compound in Islamabad, Pakistan when Seal Team 6 went in with their “Ghostbusters” machine … Lol


      At its heart, the story of Osama bin Laden’s time at his house in Abbottabad is surreal. The American image of bin Laden — leering at us from under his head wrap as he plots and schemes — is undermined by the mundane realities of his life. The guy was responsible for murdering thousands of Americans and orchestrating a global terror network. He also sat in his house in Pakistan and read Time magazine articles about AOL’s stock price and loopy conspiracy theories he found online.

      On Tuesday, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a compilation of the reading material found at bin Laden’s compound during the 2011 raid that killed him. What strikes you as you skim it is one central theme: This is what your bookshelf looks like when you don’t have access to the Internet.

      He had a suit of manuals for Adobe image- and video-editing software, raising the tantalizing prospect that he was himself Photoshopping al Qaeda propaganda. He had a number of books about foreign policy and the Bush administration. He had maps of the world and maps of time zones. He had a bunch of articles from Newsweek and Time either clipped or printed out, and copies of Foreign Policy magazine. He had a manual for the game Delta Force Extreme 2, and a Gamespot guide to videogames. He had … other things. Hecouldn’t get online to look up a time zone or to figure out how to use Adobe Premiere’s timeline functionality, so he had it on paper, within reach.

      But more specifically: Bin Laden’s library was the equivalent of an Internet conspiracy theorist’s browser history. There was a print out of a weird articleabout a card game that was said to have predicted the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. He had an e-book about voter fraud conspiracies from He had books documenting the fringes of American politics. He had a 1928 book called “The Secret Teaching of All Ages” that details various aspects of forgotten religions and the occult; he had a book unveiling “The Secrets of the Federal Reserve.” And, like a rebellious teenager, he checked out the official government material on MK ULTRA, the CIA’s mind control efforts during the Cold War.

      The bookshelf contains a number of letters, too (letters once upon a time served a function similar to e-mail). There’s a paper job application, which includes — and I am not making this up — an emergency contact request: “Who should we contact in case you became a martyr?” Oh, my wife, here’s her cell.

      Combing through the list is fascinating in the same way that it’s interesting to go to a garage sale. You can come to a lot of conclusions about a person by looking at what they own, conclusions that may be correct or not. In this case, our information about the owner of the books is backed up by knowing who he was in the rest of his life. The guy seems like an anti-American conspiracy nut — only fitting for a guy who conspired against America. But also he seems kind of sad, not in a way to inspire empathy, but in a way that would inspire pathos.

      Not that any of our browser histories are much better.


    It did not surprise me that almost every child in the D.C. public high school class raised a hand when I asked if any of them had been stopped and searched by the police. When I told them that being stopped without reasonable suspicion that they were committing a crime is a violation of the United States Constitution, one of the students corrected me: “No, you don’t understand, these are the Jumpouts, not the police. They’re allowed to do that.” I’m used to people laughing in disbelief when I do constitutional rights trainings in heavily policed communities. But when I heard those words, my heart sank. In front of me was a child in whose world being stopped and frisked was so regular, such a fact of everyday life, that he had reasonably concluded that it must be lawful. This child was growing up believing that his suspicious body could be probed at will by government employees. One by one, the students described to me the routine that they had developed to turn and face the nearest wall while officers searched through their backpacks and pockets on the way home from school. Like many of the problems in the criminal legal system, there is no genuine dispute that these and more serious illegalities are happening on a massive scale. In the seven years that I have spent working in American courts and jails, one thing sticks out above all else: the divergence between the law as it is written and the law as it is lived.

    The contemporary system of American policing and incarceration puts human beings in cages at rates unprecedented in American history and unparalleled in the modern world. It is a considerable bureaucratic achievement to accomplish the transfer of thirteen million bodies each year from their homes and families and schools and communities into government boxes of concrete and metal. It is also a failure of the legal profession.


    Claiming that there are “just certain kids we should have 24/7,” the controversial figure also proposed, citing inaccurate information, turning government schools across America into “community centers” that would offer students even more “after-school programming.” Despite escalating criticism of Duncan and his scheming — one analyst called it “scary” — the proposed plots were hardly surprising considering other elements of what senior officials often refer to as the “cradle-to-career” education agenda.

    In essence, according to Duncan in various speeches, government schools, now largely controlled from Washington, D.C., are being used as a “weapon” to “change the world.” With the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) as what the education secretary called his “global partner,” public education will also serve as a tool to transform children into what he described as “green citizens.” If Obama’s “Green Jobs” Czar Van Jones had not been forced to resign over his self-declared revolutionary communist views, he could have even placed the newly minted “green citizens” into the “green jobs” Duncan says the feds are preparing them for.

    – See more at:


    On Monday, May 18, the conservative government watchdog group Judicial Watch published a selection of formerly classified documents obtained from the U.S. Department of Defense and State Department through a federal lawsuit.
    While initial mainstream media reporting is focused on the White House’s handling of the Benghazi consulate attack, a much “bigger picture” admission and confirmation is contained in one of the Defense Intelligence Agency documents circulated in 2012: that an ‘Islamic State’ is desired in Eastern Syria to effect the West’s policies in the region.
    isis doc
    The DIA report, formerly classified “SECRET//NOFORN” and dated August 12, 2012, was circulated widely among various government agencies, including CENTCOM, the CIA, FBI, DHS, NGA, State Dept., and many others.
    The document shows that as early as 2012, U.S. intelligence predicted the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS), but instead of clearly delineating the group as an enemy, the report envisions the terror group as a U.S. strategic asset.
    While a number of analysts and journalists have documented long ago the role of western intelligence agencies in the formation and training of the armed opposition in Syria, this is the highest level internal U.S. intelligence confirmation of the theory that western governments fundamentally see ISIS as their own tool for regime change in Syria. The document matter-of-factly states just that scenario.
    Forensic evidence, video evidence, as well as recent admissions of high-level officials involved (see former Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford’s admissions here and here), have since proven the State Department and CIA’s material support of ISIS terrorists on the Syrian battlefield going back to at least 2012 and 2013 (for a clear example of “forensic evidence”: see UK-based Conflict Armament Research’s report which traced the origins of Croatian anti-tank rockets recovered from ISIS fighters back to a Saudi/CIA joint program via identifiable serial numbers).


      Professor Monmonier discussed the use of territorial labeling to decide the political future of a given territory. Is the term “Middle East” an accurate descriptor for the region; who determined the location of the modern “Middle East”?

      The situation is complicated. We divide the world into global regions, such as Latin America, East Asia, Eastern or Western Europe. The term “Middle East” falls into this collection. But what is complicated about the Middle East is that it does not have a geographical reference; every term we use to divide the world is descriptive of that place’s physical location. When talking about the “Middle East,” we need to ask the question: “in the middle of what East?” When we talk about Central America, for example, we start with “America,” and we are describing its central part.

      The “Middle East” does not have that starting point. The term originated in 1900, used specifically in reference to British politics. Broadly, “East” was used to describe anything that was to the British Empire’s East; “Far East,” “Near East,” and then the “Middle East” — it was quite literally in the middle of Britain’s East.

      Is this an accurate descriptor? It is if you are looking at it from a British-centric perspective. It is not an accurate term whatsoever if you are living in Cairo. When asking about the accuracy of the term, it is crucial to determine the perspective.

      What have been the ramifications of the western-drawn Middle East map in the region; how have the western-labeled charts been a source of conflict?

      Within the region, the western-centric terms are not used topographically cartographically. It is a term that westerners have given to the region. Politicians in the region will use this term when discussing issues of interest to a western audience. But as a topographical term it is meaningless, and it is not used within the regional context.

      Have maps been used as ‘weapons’ in the Middle East, that is, have cartographers used maps to muddle space and claim territory, such as during the Israel/Palestine conflict when Palestinians resurrect villages that do not exist, and Israelis label place-names in Hebrew?

  55. Project for a New American Century in their infamous “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” document: “advanced forms of biological warfare that can ‘target’ specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.”

    • “[…] Anybody who doesn’t believe that we’re trapped hasn’t taken a good look around. We’re trapped in a sort of mutating multinational corporate oligarchy that’s not about to go away. We’re trapped by the limitations of our species. We’re trapped in time. At the same time identity, politics, and ethics have long turned liquid. […] Cyberculture (a meme that I’m at least partly responsible for generating, incidentally) has emerged as a gleeful apologist for this kill-the-poor trajectory of the Republican revolution. You find it all over Wired [an online magazine] – this mix of chaos theory and biological modeling that is somehow interpreted as scientific proof of the need to devolve and decentralize the social welfare state while also deregulating and empowering the powerful, autocratic, multinational corporations. You’ve basically got the breakdown of nation states into global economies simultaneously with the atomization of individuals or their balkanization into disconnected sub-groups, because digital technology conflates space while decentralizing communication and attention. The result is a clear playing field for a mutating corporate oligarchy, which is what we have. I mean, people think it’s really liberating because the old industrial ruling class has been liquefied and it’s possible for young players to amass extraordinary instant dynasties. But it’s savage and inhuman. Maybe the wired elite think that’s hip. But then don’t go around crying about crime in the streets or pretending to be concerned with ethics”~R. U. Sirius (Ken Goffman)

  56. Anatomy of the New World Order (transcript)
    Broc West • 06/01/2015 • 0 Comments
    EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is a transcript of Interview 600 – James Corbett on The Mind Renewed, which was originally recorded on February 7, 2013.

    Now, from a conventional, historiographical point of view, the term ‘New World Order’ tends to be seen as just something that’s said by statesmen at dramatic moments in world history – like World War I, World War II, or the Fall of Communism – as a way of expressing the hope that there will now be a new era of close co-operation between sovereign nation states. And that’s all it means; it’s not a World Government or anything like that. So my question is: How do you understand the term ‘New World Order’, in the way that you use it in your book, Reportage: Essays on the New World Order.? How do you mean it as you use it there?

    JaC: My forthcoming book, I should stress to the audience. You have broadly outlined the two main definitions for this term. I don’t think they’re mutually exclusive; that we have to pick one or the other. I think they’re both operative. I think it’s both a term used in moments of great political upheaval by the political class, and also something that’s used as a vision for a type of One-World Government system. (That makes it sound like there’s more to it than there really is.) I mean, I think we can see it as just the age-old quest for empire, which has dominated political dynasties since the rise of civilization. I think we’ve seen it going back thousands of years, looking at the Caesars etc., so I think it’s just part of that same old idea that has gripped would-be rulers of all sorts.

    TheNewWorldOrder-01But as I say, I think the term ‘New World Order’ encompasses both meanings. You mentioned that it’s a phrase often used by the political class. It was, for example, made popular once again in the modern political era by George H. W. Bush in the early 1990s. There’s a famous media clip of him saying that in a speech talking about the Gulf War and the rise of a New World Order in which nations will be part of a world system of law and order, etc. But, the term itself stretches back much further than that. For some of the more interesting uses, you might look at someone like H.G. Wells, who of course is popularly known as a science fiction writer from the early 19th Century. But actually, he was quite politically involved, and wrote a lot of non-fiction, including a book called The New World Order (pictured right), which talks about his vision for a future technocratic Utopia. That’s where there’s a tie into some of the more nefarious uses of the term: this other type of vision of a One-World Government order. It takes on different hues and inflections depending on who is using it and in what context.

    As Dr. Stanley Monteith outlined last time, I think there are people who dream or quest for a New World Order as a type of oligarchical World Government ruled by a small elite. Whether or not everyone who employs this term is aware of its full context, or is simply echoing a political catch phrase, is debatable. So, I think we should consider it on a case-by-case basis. But I think people like George H. W. Bush, Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski and others are quite well aware of its use within certain circles (such as those organizations outlined by Dr. Stanley Monteith last time), and understand its full context.

    JuC: I have that quote by George H.W. Bush here:

    “Out of these troubled times our fifth objective, a New World Order, can emerge, a new era freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice, and more secure in the quest for peace, an era in which the nations of the world, East and West, North and South, can prosper and live in harmony.”

    It sounds really fluffy: world peace, harmony, and all that sort of thing. And then I found Webster Tarpley’s view of that. I’ve got to quote Webster Tarpley, because I love his style.
    He says:

    “… the breathtaking collapse of the Soviets opened up megalomaniac vistas to the custodians of the Imperial idea in London drawing rooms and English country houses. The practitioners of the Great Game of geopolitics were now enticed by the perspective of the Single Empire, a worldwide Imperium that would be a purely Anglo-Saxon show, with the Russians and Chinese forced to knuckle under. Like the contemporaries of the Duke of Wellington in 1815, the imbecilic Anglo-American think-tankers and financiers contemplated the chimera of a new century of world domination…”

    That’s how Webster Tarpley sees Bush using that term in 1990. Do you agree with that analysis?

    JaC: I think it certainly has to be taken within that context of the fall of the Soviet Empire and the beginning of this new stage of concerted political action to bring about the Gulf War, and the united action that was taking place on that front at that time. There certainly was the sense that this was a new era in international politics, one that was free of the old Cold-War encumbrances, which could embrace this new idea of nations acting together in fulfillment of the ideas of the United Nations etc. On the back of such lofty aspirations, I think it was quite easy to float a phrase like ‘New World Order’ and for it to seem like a benign entity. But I think that comes from an ignorance of the phrase and its use by various political actors in different political eras, which I think does have that implication or connotation that this is a quest towards World Government of some sort. Whether it’s actually called that, or whether it’s called a system of law for nations to follow, or whatever fluffy rhetoric is used, I think it ultimately amounts to that.

    JuC: Yes, of course that brings up the question: Whose law? I mean a system of law sounds fine, but it depends on who is actually writing the laws.

    JaC: And how they’re being enforced.

    JuC: Indeed. I’d like to ask you about some of the less well-know groups that you mention in your recent article, “Rings Within Rings : How Secret Societies Direct World Politics”. Here you mention less well-known groups like The Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House), the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, and Common Purpose UK. Could you tell us something about these, and how they fit into the picture?

    • The American economist and sociologist Thorstein Veblen was an early advocate of Technocracy, and was involved in the Technical Alliance as was Howard Scott and M. King Hubbert (who later developed the theory of peak oil). Veblen believed that technological developments would eventually lead toward a socialistic organization of economic affairs. Veblen saw socialism as one intermediate phase in an ongoing evolutionary process in society that would be brought about by the natural decay of the business enterprise system and by the inventiveness of engineers.[31] Daniel Bell sees an affinity between Veblen and the Technocracy movement.[32]

      In 1932, Howard Scott and Marion King Hubbert founded Technocracy Incorporated, and proposed that money be replaced by energy certificates. The group argued that apolitical, rational engineers should be vested with authority to guide an economy into a thermodynamically balanced load of production and consumption, thereby doing away with unemployment and debt.[33]

      The Technocracy movement was highly popular in the USA for a brief period in the early 1930s, during the Great Depression. By the mid-1930s, interest in the movement was declining. Some historians have attributed the decline of the technocracy movement to the rise of Roosevelt’s New Deal.[34][35]

      Historian William E. Akin rejects the conclusion that Technocracy ideas declined because of the attractiveness of Roosevelt and the New Deal. Instead Akin argues that the movement declined in the mid-1930s as a result of the technocrats’ failure to devise a ‘viable political theory for achieving change’ (p. 111 Technocracy and the American Dream: The Technocrat Movement, 1900–1941 by William E. Akin). Akin postulates that many technocrats remained vocal and dissatisfied and often sympathetic to anti-New Deal third party efforts.[36]

      Many books have discussed the Technocracy movement.[37] One of these is Technocracy and the American Dream: The Technocrat Movement, 1900–1941 by William E. Akin.[38]

  57. The Death of the Language of Freedom

    In the 19th century, when the committees on the police of the metropolis wrote these reports, there was a richer language of freedoms and liberties. It was common for parliamentarians to use the phrase “unconstitutional” to criticise excesses of the state, so that in effect if some measure or proposal was right it was constitutional and if it was wrong it was unconstitutional. This use of the word constitutional demonstrated that certain core values were considered to be part of the life blood of the people. There were basic concepts of right and wrong that a much larger proportion of the population, compared to today, just got and the values of freedom and liberty permeated through the whole of western society.

    This is not to idealise life in the 19th century (neither, for that matter, is this to say that things were worse – in fact there is plenty of evidence to suggest that select committees could be just as bent then as they are now! [4]). This is to explore the sterile and dead language of dissent that mortally constrains modern discourse of matters that affect our freedoms and liberties. It is through language that we communicate and understand concepts such as freedom. When the language of freedom dies, freedom itself dies.

    In 1829, despite the above mentioned opposition, a new preventative professional police force was introduced in London and it didn’t take long before they were caught spying on the people. In 1832, Sergeant Popay of the Metropolitan Police, wearing plain clothes and using a false name, joined the Camberwell Branch of the National Political Union and attended meetings at which he urged members to “use stronger language than they did in their resolutions” [5] and generally encouraged violence against the state.

    When members of the union discovered Popay’s true identity there was a public outcry and during a debate on the new police of London (the Metropolitan Police) William Cobbett MP presented a petition to parliament “against the system of Police adopted in the Metropolis”. The parliamentary record of that debate shows [6]:

    “The Petition stated the abhorrence of the Petitioners at the conduct of Popay, who was a member of that novel and unconstitutional force called the New Police, the members of which were employed as spies, as instigators of mischief, ensnaring, betraying, and coercing the people.”

    [‘Metropolitan Police’, House of Commons Debate, 7th August 1833]

    • “Newspeak was designed not to extend but to DIMINISH the range of thought, and this purpose was indirectly assisted by cutting the choice of words down to a minimum.”
      [George Orwell, ‘1984’, Appendix]

  58. National Security is in itself a Conspiracy. It is a self professed “covert operation”; a secret operation, with secret methods, secret means, and a secret agenda. And it is plainly a criminal operation outside of lawful restraint; it is constitutionally ultra vires.

    This truth is not difficult to ascertain if one is lucid and aware. However the Public Relations Regime in the Technocratic era is profoundly sophisticated and entrenched, and has put the vast majority of the population of the planet into a deep and lasting trance.

  59. The Deceptions of Freedom: Reviving the Patriot Act
    By Binoy Kampmark
    Global Research, June 03, 2015

    Even as talk about the expiry of various parts of the USA Patriot Act was taking place, the background was never going to move that much. Assumptions of security – or its other side, paralytic insecurity – are so entrenched in the complex of power that they tend to win out. Empires on the run tend to seek ways of affirming their demise.

    That said, media outlets would speak about how, “For the first time since the September 11, 2001 attack triggered a massive US counterterrorism response, the US Congress is curtailing the broad electronic spying authority given to the National Security Agency” (Al Jazeera, Jun 2). Had Edward Snowden’s revelations from 2013 on warrantless mass surveillance won the day?

    Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Liberty and National Security Project at the Brennan Centre for Justice at New York University slipped into hyperbole in thinking so, calling it “a new day. We haven’t seen anything like this since 9/11.” The vote came in at a convincing 67-32 for the panacea coated USA Freedom Act, a term that says as much about the fetishistic nature of freedom in US legislation as it does about its illusions. If freedom needs to be mentioned in text, you know the political taxidermist is getting ready to stuff it into a cabinet.
    Unmentioned in the debate are those areas of surveillance that remain in place, untouchable expanses that tend to avoid the space of congressional scrutiny. As the ACLU’s deputy legal director Jameel Jaffer explained, “The bill leaves many of the government’s most intrusive and overbroad surveillance powers untouched, and it makes only very modest adjustments to disclosure and transparency requirements.”[4]

    The security complex that feeds off the carrion of the Republic continues, invasive, hefty and voracious. This legislation was merely the most minor adjustment, the most modest of changes in diet.

  60. President Ronald Reagan’s 8-year crusade to
    stop the spread of leftist revolution in Central
    America was always a two-front war. The
    president and his men realized from the start
    that to carry out their aggressive plans to
    defeat Marxist rebels in El Salvador and to
    oust the Sandinista government in Nicaragua
    they would need to neutralize the post-Vietnam
    public opposition to U.S. intervention in
    the Third World. To win this war at home,
    the White House created a sophisticated apparatus
    that mixed propaganda with intimidation,
    consciously misleading the American
    people and at times trampling on the right to
    dissent. In short, the administration set out to
    reshape American perceptions of Central
    America; and the Orwellian methods employed
    could be one of the most troubling
    legacies of Reagan’s presidency.

    The congressional committees investigating
    the U.S. arms sales to Iran and the subsequent
    diversion of profits to the anti-Sandinista
    Nicaraguan rebels known as contras, as well as
    other congressional investigations, elicited
    thousands of pages of documents and testimony
    about different parts of this White House
    domestic campaign; but it has never been
    understood in its totality. Congressional investigators
    did draft a chapter about the domestic
    side of the scandal for the Iran-contra report,
    but it was blocked by House and Senate
    Republicans. Kept from the public domain,
    therefore, was the draft chapter’s explosive
    conclusion: that, according to one congressional
    investigator, senior CIA covert operatives were assigned to the White House to
    establish and manage a covert domestic operation
    designed to manipulate the Congress and
    the American public.
    An in-depth analysis of the little-examined
    investigative documents released by the
    Iran-contra committees, as well as interviews
    with dozens of participants and investigators,
    shows that the administration was indeed
    running a set of domestic political operations
    comparable to what the CIA conducts against
    hostile forces abroad. Only this time they were
    turned against the three key institutions of
    American democracy: Congress, the press, and
    an informed electorate.
    The similarities to a CIA covert operation
    were no coincidence. Iran-contra documents
    show that its chief architects were the late CIA
    director William Casey and a veteran of the
    CIA’s clandestine overseas media operations,
    Walter Raymond, Jr., who, with Casey’s authorization,
    was detailed to the National Security
    Council (NSC) staff in 1982 to set up a
    “public diplomacy” program. Described by
    one U.S. government source as the CIA’s
    leading propaganda expert, Raymond was
    recommended for the NSC staff by another
    CIA veteran, Donald Gregg, the national security
    adviser to Vice President George Bush.
    Raymond engineered the creation of a key
    propaganda arm, the State Department’s Office
    of Public Diplomacy for Latin America
    and the Caribbean (S/LPD), which was under
    the guidance of a restricted interagency group
    (RIG) dominated by then NSC aide Lieutenant
    Colonel Oliver North, CIA Central American
    Task Force chief Alan Fiers, and Assistant
    Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs
    Elliott Abrams. Indeed, congressional investigators
    discovered that many of the scandal’s
    key players-Casey, North, and national security
    advisers Robert McFarlane and John
    Poindexter-also were deeply enmeshed in
    the domestic operation….”~Peter Kornbluh & Robert Parry

    Click to access Iran-ContrasUntoldStory-PublicDiplomacyAsCovertOp-PeterKornbluhRobertParry.pdf


  61. “Truth and fiction are different. Fiction has to make sense.
    ~quote from the film, The International

  62. A sanitized version of Otto Reich. Certainly a Lollipop Legend:

    Otto Juan Reich (born October 16, 1945), a Cuban-American, is former senior official in the administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, andGeorge W. Bush. Among other positions held, he has been the President’s Special Envoy for the Western Hemisphere; Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs; United States Ambassador to Venezuela; and Assistant Administrator of the US Agency for International Development, a recess appointment. In 2003, Bush appointed him US Special Envoy to the Western Hemisphere. Since leaving the White House in 2004, he has headed his own international consulting firm, Otto Reich Associates, LLC, based in Washington, D.C..

    During the Nicaraguan Civil War, Reich was in charge of the U.S. Office of Public Diplomacy for Latin America and the Caribbean, which was involved in lobbying efforts for the contras.

    In July 2012, Reich received the Walter Judd Freedom Award, which is awarded yearly by the Fund for American Studies to recognize “individuals who have advanced the cause of freedom in the United States and abroad, are devoted to the preservation and expansion of freedom, influential in world and national affairs, and are outspoken voices against tyranny and oppression, while embodying the characteristics of self-sacrifice and patriotism.”[1]


    • Reich drew on Defense Department personnel with intelligence experience. One, Lieutenant Colonel Daniel (“Jake”) Jacobowitz, who served as Reich’s executive officer, had a “background in psychological warfare,”

      Jacobowitz wrote in a May 30, 1985, memorandum to Reich. “If you look at it as a whole,” an S/LPD official
      candidly admitted in a July 19, 1987, Miami Herald article, “the Office of Public Diplomacy was carrying out a huge psychological operation, the kind the military conduct to influence the population in denied or enemy territory.”

  63. More on Otto Reich – Source Watch

    Otto Juan Reich, “born in Cuba, … was the director of the Latin American division of the ominously misnamed Agency for International Development (AID) during the Reagan administration. According to declassified documents, former US attorney general and general adviser to AID, John R. Bolton, described the organisation as ‘a subsidiary of the CIA which serves to promote political and economic interest of the federal government through financial assistance programs abroad.’ Bolton is now George W. Bush’s under secretary of state for Arms Control and International Security.[1]

    “Between 1983-1986, Reich was selected by the veteran CIA agent and propaganda specialist, Walter Raymond, to run the notorious Office of Public Diplomacy (OPD), a covert psychological and media spinning unit which reported to Colonel Oliver North at the National Security Council. Raymond described the OPD’s role as selling to the US ‘a new product — Central America’.[2]

    “Working closely with the CIA, directed at the time by George Herbert Walker Bush, the ODP created a multitude of false news stories to garner congressional and public support for the right wing Contra guerrillas in Nicaragua.”[3] See Iran-Contra scandal for more details.

    Reich became in 2000 the vice-chairman of Worldwide Responsible Apparel Production (WRAP), a group financed by the clothing industry to support sweatshops.

  64. Cold in July
    Wow!! So many twists and turns of plot that it leaves your head spun right off!
    A damned amazing movie!!!!!!


  65. The Importance of Metaphor

    I think it is essential that this idea, this meme or paradigm I am proposing be thought out as clearly as possible while recognizing that our thoughts are conveyed metaphorically themselves. It may seem a sort of Catch 22, but I think it is possible to formulate our allegories with care and conscious recognition of how they are used.

    Firstly, language is built on a series of metaphors entwining and spinning more abstract constructs on original simple metaphors. Our conscious thinking is an internal conversation with ourselves, it is private and defined by our own experience. There are also cultural metaphors that we are compelled to adapt to this private language in order to attempt to communicate our own private thoughts to others, as well as strategies to hide certain private thoughts from others.

    These cultural metaphors are constructed by consensus, which brings us to another observation; consensus is in many ways elusive and temporary. We not only redefine our own meanings in our strategies to communicate (or not), but we redefine the cultural meanings with these constantly morphing stages of “understanding” one another, building a temporary temporal bridge to mutual consensus, that may change at some indeterminate future moment, slightly or radically. This can bring a sense of wonder at how curious “the future” can be, or it may bring on feelings of insecurity on how unreliable “the future” can be,

    Our self image is built of metaphors we use to describe ourselves, which are built to a larger or smaller portions on how others have described us. How we treat ourselves, and how others treat us has profound effect on the meanings of our metaphors and the stories the voices in our head tell us.

    Have we really understood what others have told us in explaining or not what they have done to us? Do we really understand the stories we tell ourselves explaining what we do to ourselves and others?
    How much of your life do you attempt to go through on ‘automatic’? Relying on your habits and the habits of others to play out routines.

    Now let us consider that the above is all a construct of metaphorical language that is attempting to get you to understand a concept that cannot be directly spoken. The words are meant here to make you feel something that can only be ‘described’ as “epiphany”. That epiphany must come from you, I cannot directly project it into your being.

    If you have a sense that you might be interested in such an epiphany; one strategy I suggest is that you write down what you think I have said in this short exposition, using your own language and allegories.
    If not you can just pass on it, maybe giving it more thought later if something reminds you of this.


    Every student is given a “THREAT ASSESSMENT” by police and school administrators!

    Schools and police are using V-STAG to assess a students threat level:

    “The Virginia Student Threat Assessment Guidelines (V-STAG) is a school-based manualized process designed to help school administrators, mental health staff, and law enforcement officers assess and respond to threat incidents involving students in kindergarten through 12th grade and prevent student violence.”

    The war on terror is out of control! Watch out that kindergarten kid could be a threat!

    Did you know, police are giving American addresses color coded threat ratings? And our govt. has also assigned you a threat assessment while travelling inside the U.S.

    V-STAG was developed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Secret Service, and the U.S. Department of Education.

    “Although both the FBI and Secret Service reports made a compelling case for student threat assessment, schools had no experience with this approach and there were many questions concerning the practical procedures that should be followed. In response, researchers at the University of Virginia developed a set of guidelines for school administrators to use in responding to a reported student threat of violence.”

    The Secret Service has the audacity to call threat assessing of kindergarten students a safety concern. “The Final Report And Findings Of The Safe School Initiative.”

    “The Safe School Initiative” was implemented through the Secret Service’s National Threat Assessment Center and the Department of Education’s Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program.

    Every student is being PROFILED and given a risk assessment rating, according to the Secret Services article titled “Evaluating Risk For Targeted Violence In Schools: Comparing Risk Assessment, Threat Assessment and Other Approaches.”

  67. Financial Warfare: The Recolonization of Korea. Seoul Black Monday. IMF Intervention in Korea
    By Prof Michel Chossudovsky
    Global Research, April 06, 2013
    Global Research 10 July 2000
    This article first published in July 2000 identifies the process whereby South Korean capitalism was literally hijacked at the height of the 1997-98 Asian Crisis. The objective was also to destabilize and its major business conglomerates as well as take over its banking system. The IMF reforms triggered a string of bankruptcies and the downfall of industrial wages.

    The IMF program applied to a advanced market economy was to undermine national sovereignty as well as shunt the process of reunification of North and South Korea. The longer term objective is to open up North Korea to Western corporate capital as well as transform the DPRK into a new cheap labor frontier of the global economy. That was the fate of Vietnam starting in the early 1990s upon the lifting of US economic sanctions.

    The deadly sanctions regime imposed on Pyongyang over a period of more than half a century combined with the relentless threat to wage a nuclear attack against North Korea are intended to eventually impose the “Free Market” on the DPRK Korea under the guidance of Wall Street and the IMF.

    An expanded and updated version of this text was subsequently included in the second edition of my book, The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order, Global Research, Montreal, 2003.


    Was the Unabomber crazy, or just so sane he was blowing our minds?

    I talked to David Skrbina, confidant of Kaczynski, and philosophy professor at the University of Michigan. Skrbina wrote the intro to Technological Slavery.

    Can you tell me a bit about how you and Kaczynski began to communicate? Are you still in touch with him today?

    Back in 2003, I began work on a new course at the University of Michigan: ‘Philosophy of Technology.’ Surprisingly, such a course had never been offered before, at any of our campuses. I wanted to remedy that deficiency.
    I then began to pull together recent and relevant material for the course, focusing on critical approaches to technology. These, to me, were more insightful and more interesting, and were notably under-analyzed among current philosophers of technology. Most of them are either neutral toward modern technology, or positively embrace it, or accept its presence resignedly. As I found out, very few philosophers of the past four decades adopted anything like a critical stance. This, for me, was highly revealing.

    Anyway, I was well aware of Kaczynski’s manifesto, “Industrial society and its future,” which was published in late 1995 at the height of the Unabomber mania. I was very impressed with its analysis, even though most of the ideas were not new to me (many were reiterations of arguments by Jacques Ellul, for example—see his 1964 book The Technological Society). But the manifesto was clear and concise, and made a compelling argument.

    After Kaczynski was arrested in 1996, and after a year-long trial process, he was stashed away in a super-max prison in Colorado. The media then decided that, in essence, the story was over. Case closed. No need to cover Kaczynski or his troubling ideas ever again.

    By 2003, I suspected he was still actively researching and writing, but I had heard nothing of substance about him in years. So I decided to write to him personally, hoping to get some follow-up material that might be useful in my new course. Fortunately, he replied. That began a long string of letters, all on the problem of technology. To date, I’ve received something over 100 letters from him.

    Most of the letters occurred in the few years prior to, and just after, the publication of Technological Slavery. Several of his more important and detailed replies to me were included in that book—about 100 pages worth.

    We’ve had less occasion to communicate in the past couple years. My most recent letter from him was in late 2014.

    You have said that his ideas “threaten to undermine the power structure of our technological order. And since the system’s defenders are unable to defeat the ideas, they choose to attack the man who wrote them.” Can you expand on that?

    The present military and economic power of the US government, and governments everywhere, rests on advanced technology. Governments, by their very nature, function to manipulate and coerce people—both their own citizens, and any other non-citizens whom they declare to be of interest. Governments have a monopoly on force, and this force is manifest through technological structures and systems.

    Therefore, all governments—and in fact anyone who would seek to exert power in the world—must embrace modern technology. American government, at all levels, is deeply pro-tech. So too are our corporations, universities, and other organized institutions. Technology is literally their life-blood. They couldn’t oppose it in any substantial way without committing virtual suicide.

    So when a Ted Kaczynski comes along and reminds everyone of the inherent and potentially catastrophic problems involved with modern technology, “the system” doesn’t want you to hear it. It will do everything possible to distort or censor such discussion. As you may recall, during the final years of the Unabomber episode, there was very little—astonishingly little—discussion of the actual ideas of the manifesto. Now and then, little passages would be quoted in the newspapers, but that was it; no follow-up, no discussion, no analysis.

    Basically, the system’s defenders had no counterarguments. The data, empirical observation, and common sense all were on the side of Kaczynski. There was no rational case to be made against him.

    The only option for the defenders was an ad hominem attack: to portray Kaczynski as a sick murderer, a crazed loner, and so on. That was the only way to ‘discredit’ his ideas. Of course, as we know, the ad hominem tactic is a logical fallacy. Kaczynski’s personal situation, his mental state, or even his extreme actions, have precisely zero bearing on the strength of his arguments.

    The system’s biggest fear was—and still is—that people will believe that he was right. People might begin, in ways small or large, to withdraw from, or to undermine, the technological basis of society. This cuts to the heart of the system. It poses a fundamental threat, to which the system has few options, apart from on-going propaganda efforts, or brute force.

    What do you think of the fact that when our government, or any figure in authority such as a police officer, kills in the name of the established belief system, it is thought of as just. But when a guy like Kaczynski kills in the name of his belief system, he is thought of as a deranged psychopath?

    As I mentioned, governmental authorities have a monopoly on force. Whenever they use it, it is, almost by definition, ‘right.’ Granted, police can be convicted of ‘excessive force.’ But such cases, as we know, are very rare. And militaries can never be so convicted.

    At best, if the public is truly appalled by some lethal action of our police or military, they may vote in a more ‘pacifist’ administration. But even that rarely works. People were disgusted by the war-monger George W. Bush, and so they voted in the “anti-war” Obama. Ironically, he continued on with much the same killing. And through foreign aid and UN votes, Obama continues to support and defend murderous regimes around the world. So much for pacifism.

    Let’s keep in mind: Kaczynski killed three people. This was tragic and regrettable, but still, it was just three people. American police kill that many citizens every other day, on average. The same with Obama’s drone operators. Technology kills many times that number, every day—even every hour. Let’s keep things in perspective.

    Does the end justify the means? It’s too early to tell. If Kaczynski’s actions ultimately have some effect on averting technological disaster, there will be no doubt: his actions were justified. They may yet save millions of lives, not to mention much of the natural world. Time will tell.~ David Skrbina – Author of, The Metaphysics of Technology

    Just my own personal note here on the last sentence of the excerpt I quoted: I have insisted before many times that ends never justify means, that means define ends, The assertion that means can be justified by ends is belied by the fact that we do not know the ultimate end; it is all conjecture at this point.

    As much as I agree with Ellul and Kaczynski in their critique of Technology, I will note that Ellul has made a much larger impact on society’s thinking on the issues than has Kaczynski – and this is precisely because of Kaczynsk’s means as a murderer.~ww

    • “What is technology? Why does it have such power in our lives? Why does it seemingly progress of its own accord, and without regard to social or environmental well-being? The quest for the essence of technology is an old one, with roots in the pre-Socratic philosophy of ancient Greece. It was then that certain thinkers first joined the ideas of technê and logos into a single worldview. The Greeks saw it as a kind of world-force, present in both the works of men and in nature itself. It was the very creative power of the cosmos. In the 20th century, German thinkers like Dessauer, Juenger, and Heidegger sought the metaphysical basis of technology, with varying success. French theologian Jacques Ellul argued persuasively that technology was an autonomous force of nature that determined all aspects of human existence, but he neglected the metaphysical underpinnings. Recent writers in the philosophy of technology have generally eschewed metaphysics altogether, preferring to concentrate on constructivist models or pragmatic analyses. In the present work, Skrbina returns to a classic metaphysical approach, seeking not so much an essence of technology but rather a deep and penetrating analysis of the entire technological phenomenon. Drawing on the Greeks, he argues for a teleological metaphysics in which increasing order in the universe is itself defined as a technological process. On this reading, all of reality constitutes a technical sphere, a “pantechnikon,” of universal scope. This work ― the first-ever book-length treatment of the topic ― breaks new ground by providing an in-depth and critical study of the metaphysics of technology, as well as drawing out the practical consequences. Technology poses significant risks to humanity and the planet, risks that can be mitigated through a detailed philosophical analysis.”~ David Skrbina – The Metaphysics of Technology

    • “Also, the media treatment of his whole case has been enlightening. When his book, Technological Slavery, came out in 2010, I expected that there would be at least some media coverage. But there was none. The most famous “American terrorist” publishes a complete book from a super-max prison—and it’s not news? Seriously? Compare this topic to the garbage shown on our national evening news programs, and it’s a joke. NPR, 60 Minutes, Wired magazine, etc.—all decided it wasn’t newsworthy. Very telling.”~ David Skrbina

  69. “Only the collapse of modern technological civilization can avert disaster. Of course, the collapse of technological civilization will itself bring disaster. But the longer the technoindustrial system continues to expand, the worse will be the eventual disaster. A lesser disaster now will avert a greater one later.” ~Theodore Kaczynski

    • The truth is too painful for most to accept.

      There is a discussion on T&S as to 9/11 being the “Litmus Test” to one having a correct grounding to trust their stated opinions.
      I completely disagree with this as a form of dogmatic reasoning. Although I grasp the reasoning, it breaks down at the core context.

      If I were chose a “Litmus Test” for comparison, it would by those who grasp that Technology is an autonomous entity, and ignorance of that fact is what puts the Earth and Humanity in the gravest danger. I will not propose a “litmus test’ however. I will merely state the proposition that the facts about technological autonomy are verifiable & true.


    “A massive manhunt is underway north of Chicago after a 32-year veteran police officer was shot dead while on a routine patrol.
    Three armed and dangerous suspects, two white and one black, are at large after Lieutenant Charles Joseph Gliniewicz was gunned down in Fox Lake near the Illinois-Wisconsin border, at around 8am.
    The cop, a father of four nicknamed GI Joe, was found in a marshy area stripped of his gun and other equipment by the trio who then fled the scene.
    Three armed suspects, two white and one black, are at large following the shooting in the Fox Lake area. Hundreds of members of law enforcement have been sent to the area to join the search
    FBI and US Marshals are part of the huge the search which covers a vast area near Route 21 – a major highway connecting Chicago, which is around 60 miles south.

    Residents have been told to stay in doors and local schools have been placed on lockdown.

    A statement from Grant Community High School said students were being kept in classrooms and were being checked on a constant basis.
    Lake County Undersheriff Raymond Rose has urged citizens to call 911 if they see anyone in the area they don’t know.”

    . . . . . .

    Well well, Amerika is conditioned to accept this police state reaction now. A few may grumble, but for most this is now seen as “reasonable” …

    “Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them” __________ YUP!

  71. Jargon is a type of language that is used in a particular context and may not be well understood outside of it

    A shibboleth (/ˈʃɪbəlɛθ/[1] or /ˈʃɪbələθ/[2]) is a word or custom whose variations in pronunciation or style can be used to differentiate members of ingroups from those of outgroups. Within the mindset of the ingroup, a connotation or value judgment of correct/incorrect or superior/inferior can be ascribed to the two variants.

    An argot (English pronunciation: /ˈɑrɡoʊ/; from French argot [aʁˈɡo] ‘slang’) is a secret language used by various groups—e.g. schoolmates, outlaws, colleagues, among many others—to prevent outsiders from understanding their conversations. The term argot is also used to refer to the informal specialized vocabulary from a particular field of study, occupation, or hobby, in which sense it overlaps with jargon.

  72. The Failure to Defend the Skies on 9/11
    By Paul Thompson

    On May 22 and 23, 2003, the 9/11 Independent Commission held its second set of public hearings, focusing on the issue of air defense. It’s not surprising if you haven’t heard about this, because the hearings were poorly covered by the media, with major papers such as the New York Times and Los Angeles Times failing to write any articles on them.

  73. There is a major distinction between the concept of “experts” and “authorities”? The words are often used interchangeably, but there is an an important difference:
    noun, plural authorities.

    >1. the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine.

    >2. a power or right delegated or given; authorization :
    Who has the authority to grant permission?

    >3. a person or body of persons in whom authority is vested, as a governmental agency: The housing authority provides rental assistance payments to low-income residents.
    The bridges and piers are built and maintained by the Port Authority.

    >4. Authorities: persons having the legal power to make and enforce the law; government
    . . . . .
    An expert, more generally, is a person with extensive knowledge or ability based on research, experience, or occupation and in a particular area of study. Experts are called in for advice on their respective subject, but they do not always agree on the particulars of a field of study.

    Those with such a profound misunderstanding of critical thinking cannot make such obvious distinction and end up making fallacious arguments as a result.

  74. Reasonable Person Standard
    David P. Schmidt
    The reasonable person standard is a test used to define the legal duty to protect one’s own interest and that of others. The standard requires one to act with the same degree of care, knowledge, experience, fair-mindedness, and awareness of the law that the community would expect of a hypothetical reasonable person. The standard is objective in that it compares one’s behavior with that expected of a “reasonable person,” without regard to one’s intention or state of mind. The reasonable person standard plays a key role in negligence law, where behavior falling below the standard triggers liability. The reasonable person standard also appears in contract law, criminal law, civil rights law, and elsewhere. The reasonable person standard has roots in the development of the concept of negligence in common law. The purpose behind the reasonable person standard is the public good. The legal use of the standard clarifies behavioral expectations.

      (The Indian Procedure – Sterilization)
      By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
      April 29, 2002

      The Florida Forum Editor’s note: This is a particularly important article to understand some of the disruptive forces which have altered our way of life in America. The socialists clearly point out that this was their goal. Few people understand the Socialist’s role or goal in the establishment of the Smithsonian Institute. The underlying Socialist/globalist interconnections of various movements in our society are rarely understood, and we owe Dr. Cuddy a deep debt of gratitude for his tireless efforts to inform our society of these interconnections, and the impact of such movements upon our lives. The dates of these movements show that the Socialists movement in the U.S. is not new, nor without influence.

      The impression of most Americans regarding Indiana is that it is a rather typical midwestern state. Historically, however, it is much different. The first commune in America was founded in New Harmony, Indiana in 1825 by British Socialist Robert Owen and his son, Robert Dale Owen, with Robert Owen stating: “I am come to this country to introduce an entire new order of society”

      In 1829, Robert Dale Owen and others formed the Working-Man’s Party in New York, and its “great object was to get rid of Christianity, and to convert our churches into halls of science.” This was according to Robert Dale Owen’s partner in the effort, Orestes Brownson, who later converted to Christianity and exposed their earlier plot. Brownson went on to say that “one of the principal movers of the scheme had no mean share in organizing the Smithsonian Institute.” The Smithsonian Institute was established through the efforts of Robert Dale Owen as an Indiana Congressman.

      One of the ways that science was to undermine Christianity was through the theory of evolution (prominent at the Smithsonian) as proposed by Charles Darwin beginning in the 1850’s. Darwin’s first cousin was Francis Galton, who coined the term “eugenics,” which he promoted and which included sterilization of “the unfit.” At the end of the 1800s, many people in Indiana were being sterilized, so much so that even the Nazi doctors during the later Nuremberg trials after World War II referred to “the Indiana procedure.”

      David Starr Jordan was president of Indiana University from 1885 to 1891. He later was founding president of Stanford University, founder of the radical environmental group called the Sierra Club, and he was a member of Society for Psychical Research. At Indiana University, Jordan taught a course called “Bionomics,” and when he went to Stanford, he took with him his prize pupil, Elwood Cubberly, who would become the Dean of the School of Education at Stanford. In 1915, the Education Trust was formed to control American education through the placement of politically correct “progressive educators” across the land. Cubberly was a leader in this regard, and David Tyack and Elisabeth Hansot in Managers of Virtue wrote that Cubberly has “an educational Tammany Hall.” The same year the Educational Trust was formed, 1915, Jordan was president of the National Education Association.

      About the same time, the New York City Board of Education was adopting “The Gary Plan,” named for the “innovative” educational system of Gary, Indiana, introduced by William Wirt of that city, who had been hired by the New York City Board of Education as an “expert” educational consultant. Judge John Hylan successfully ran for mayor of New York City opposing this plan, stating on March 26, 1922: “One of my first acts as Mayor was to pitch out, bag and baggage, from the educational system of our city the Rockefeller agents and the Gary plan of education to fit the children for the mill and factory.”

      On April 11, 1933, Rockefeller Foundation president Max Mason assured foundation trustees that in their program, “the Social Sciences will concern themselves with the rationalization of social control, …the control of human behavior.” In this same month, Birth Control Review featured an article by Nazi official Dr. Ernst Rudin on eugenics. Rudin was curator of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Human Genetics, and Eugenics, which for many years was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. And less than a year later, in a February 1934 “progress report” by one of the Rockefeller Foundation’s division heads, one finds the statement: “Can we develop so sound and extensive a genetics that we can hope to breed, in the future, superior men?” (See The Circuit Rider: Rockefeller Money and the Rise of Modern Science by Gerald Jonas, 1989.) After the Second World War, the Rockefeller Foundation would also fund the establishment of the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations to see if the kind of social psychiatry developed by the army during wartime could be relevant for civilian society.

      Two years after Mason’s statement to the trustees of the Rockefeller Foundation, sexologist Alfred Kinsey was well into research and writing about sexuality. And in 1938, Indiana University president Herman Wells approved Kinsey’s course there on marriage. Kinsey’s research into sexuality expanded, and in 1941, he began to receive funding from Alan Gregg, Rockefeller Foundation medical director, who would also fund the establishment of Tavistock.

  75. Debunking Education: Exposing The Syndicate

    Have you ever seriously considered that education is the best and truest form of mass programming, or as Charlotte Iserbyt calls it in her now infamous book of primary research horror, The Deliberate Dumbing Down Of America? Is there more to it than just tainted textbooks and the drive to make kids less intelligent? Is there a criminal element organized at the very top that can only maintain its control and authoritarian grip on industry through this institutionalized education process, never allowing deviation from the prescribed curriculum of professors (those who profess) in a closed loop university system?

    Many have considered the fleeting fancy that this is so… but establishing without doubt this notion as the foundational and obvious disposition regarding the institution of education is another matter. Mrs. Iserbyt certainly does a good job of creating the case through documentation and historical perspective, but is there some deeper aspect to this that we can delve into to prove the fraud of education as a cover for the continued inducement of organized crime?

  76. I know how difficult it is for most of us who mow our lawns and walk our dogs to comprehend that long-range social engineering even exists, let alone that it began to dominate compulsion schooling nearly a century ago. Yet the 1934 edition of Ellwood P. Cubberley’s Public Education in the United States is explicit about what happened and why. As Cubberley puts it:

    It has come to be desirable that children should not engage in productive labor. On the contrary, all recent thinking … [is) opposed to their doing so. Both the interests of organized labor and the interests of the nation have set against child labor.

    The statement occurs in a section of Public Education called “A New Lengthening of the Period of Dependence,” in which Cubberley explains that “the coming of the factory system” has made extended childhood necessary by depriving children of the training and education that farm and village life once gave. With the breakdown of home and village industries, the passing of chores, and the extinction of the apprenticeship system by large-scale production with its extreme division of labor (and the “all conquering march of machinery”), an army of workers has arisen, said Cubberley, who know nothing.

    Furthermore, modern industry needs such workers. Sentimentality could not be allowed to stand in the way of progress. According to Cubberley, with “much ridicule from the public press” the old book-subject curriculum was set aside, replaced by a change in purpose and “a new psychology of instruction which came to us from abroad.” That last mysterious reference to a new psychology is to practices of dumbed-down schooling common to England, Germany, and France, the three major world coal-powers (other than the US), each of which had already converted its common population into an industrial proletariat long before.

    This is the same Ellwood R Cubberley, it should be noted, who wrote in his Columbia Teachers College dissertation of 1905 that schools were to be factories “in which raw products, children, are to be shaped and formed into finished products … manufactured like nails, and the specifications for manufacturing will come from government and industry.”John Gatto
    See Also:
    As Well As:
    See Specifically:

  77. Ignatius
    Ignatius’s picture
    God damn it, people, read some John Taylor Gatto and realize that this extended childhood is a deliberate creation of compulsory public schooling and stop reacting to its gross consequences.

    Short read that sums it up:

    You wanna direct your anger, direct it at the Rockefeller, Carnegie and Gates foundations who designed and proliferate this assault on common people and common sense.

    * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    I finally found the Zerohedge article that has this page promoted in the comments section.
    Thank you Ignatius, whoever you are, I got a flood of hits because of that.


  78. One thing I rarely mention about myself is this:

    When I was very young, in the first grade, my teacher became concerned about my “inattention” in class and sent these concerns on to my parents. It was determined I see a child psychoanalyst. I was only 6 years old at the time, but I remember the event well.

    My mom took me to see this nice old man who had all sorts of games and puzzles and he was rather like the old guy from Wizard of Oz, the guy that played the Wiz. So I hung out with him for an afternoon, and he had me put the blocks into matching shaped holes and all that. Showed me pictures and talked about them, had me draw some pictures, etc.

    I had a good time there, never thought much about it. Later on when I was a teenager, my mom asked if I remembered that time. I said, “Oh yea! That was a fun time…” She then revealed what it was really about. She said it was a psychological evaluation. She said that what the report said was that I was a child savant. That I was bored in class because I was having my own thoughts far more sophisticated than what was going on around me.
    This was interpreted as “day dreaming”… Lol

    She showed me the report, and I read it, but didn’t understand all the terms even then. She said it was on file in my school records as well.

    Anyway, several years ago I asked mom about that written report. And sure enough as is true of many of the things from my childhood, she “lost it in a move”! Like a hand carved chess set, my grandfather had made for me when I was around 11, like a set of miniature tools; a hammer with a real steel head on a perfectly fashioned wood handle that was about an inch long, a working wrench of steel the same scale, a screw driver and a working vice, all in that miniature scale — absolute masterpieces of a tool and die maker, which was my grandfather’s trade. Her own father!! She was simply oblivious to the worth, how priceless such things were… it boils my blood to this day.

    Anyway (again), I don’t mention the “child savant” thing because it seems to insult most people, they see it as an empty boast, as my trying to make it appear that I am smarter than everybody else. Hahahaha…I AM SMARTER THAN MOST by gawd!!! But I do not claim to be a genius. I doubt that I am. And it doesn’t matter how smart someone is at any rate. What matters is how awake they are to the fucking bullshit. Very smart people can be totally deluded – and I know you know this.

    I figured out long before leaving school that it was all just bullshit, that I could learn more on my own by following my Muse. So I made it a point not to go into college, to ‘do it my way. I made a “success” of myself as an artist. But it was never the money that inspired me. It was always the quest to be better at my craft, to go beyond myself. As I matured this quest became more intellectual as well.

  79. Dave Emory on Seldes and Gen George Marshal’s Faq sheet #64 on Fascism Foreign & Domestic:

    [audio src="" /]

  80. The Goose-Step

    The Goose-step: A Study of American Education is a book, published in 1923, by the American novelist and muckraking journalist Upton Sinclair. It is an investigation into the consequences of plutocratic capitalist control of American colleges and universities. Sinclair writes, “Our educational system is not a public service, but an instrument of special privilege; its purpose is not to further the welfare of mankind, but merely to keep America capitalist.” (p. 18)

    The book is one of the “Dead Hand” series: six books Sinclair wrote on American institutions. The series also includes The Profits of Religion, The Brass Check (journalism), The Goslings (elementary and high school education), Mammonart (great literature, art and music) and Money Writes! (literature). The term “Dead Hand” criticizes Adam Smith’s concept that allowing an “invisible hand” of capitalist greed to shape economic relations provides the best result for society as a whole.

    To explain how higher education is controlled by financial interests, Sinclair quotes from a report of the 1913 Pujo Committee of the United States House of Representatives.

    “Interlocking directorates” are “the device whereby three great banks in New York, with two trust companies under their control, manage the financial affairs and direct the policies of a hundred and twelve key corporations of America. The three banks are J. P. Morgan and Company, the First National Bank, and the National City Bank; and the two trust companies are the Guaranty and the Equitable. Their directors sit upon the boards of the corporations, sometimes several on each board, and their orders are obeyed because they control credit, which is the life-blood of our business world.” (p. 19)
    The interlocking directorate was equally well represented on the boards of trustees of American universities. Sinclair cites a survey by Evans Clark, “a preceptor in Princeton University–until he made this survey.” Of the boards of the 29 largest universities, “the plutocratic class…composed 56 per cent of the membership of the privately controlled boards, and 68 per cent of the publicly controlled boards.” In contrast, the board members included 4-6 per cent farmers, no representatives of labor, and no inhouse professors to represent the faculty. (Clark’s findings were confirmed by a 1917 study by Scott Nearing.)

    For each school (see below), Sinclair describes how the interlocking directorate exercises its influence on the school’s Board of Trustees. Bankers and powerful local businessmen dominate the boards, ensuring that school policies support their class interest.


  81. The peril of valuing celebrity over history
    By JAMES CARROLL JULY 30, 2007

    The difference between Sinclair Lewis and Upton Sinclair matters. Both were acclaimed novelists, setting much of the literary style of American letters in the first half of the 20th century. Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle,” published in 1906 and exposing abuses in the meat packing industry, was the progenitor of muckraking, but as late as 1943 his “Dragon’s Teeth” won the Pulitzer Prize. He was a Socialist and frequently ran for political office.

    Among the many people who were inspired by him was the young Sinclair Lewis, who joined a short-lived utopian community that Upton Sinclair founded in 1907. But Lewis became famous for “Main Street” and “Babbitt” in the early 1920s and, in 1930, became the first American writer to win the Nobel Prize. Like Upton Sinclair, Sinclair Lewis was profoundly countercultural, but he was an omni-directional satirist, and his 1935 forecast of American fascism, “It Can’t Happen Here,” included a portrait of Upton Sinclair as a political nutcase.

    It was my host’s house that “had history,” but not my host. The shallowness of contemporary public discourse, devoid of history, is everywhere visible – from the “eternal now” of celebrity journalism to the absurdity of an “antiwar” rhetoric that assumes, in fact, a permanent U.S. war machine in Iraq. In the emerging Democratic consensus, forged by Congressional leaders and presidential front-runners, supposedly in opposition to President Bush’s war, “out now” is becoming “out when conditions permit” – which is, of course, Bush’s exact position. Such conditions will never come; therefore – Garrison Forever.

    Yet, speaking of history, this conjuring of the appearance of opposition where none actually exists has been mandated by the American political system since the onset of the Cold War. The quadrennial political puppet show, highlighting not opposition but its appearance, is essential to keeping the captive-taking war machine running and to inoculating the American people from the viral knowledge that they themselves were first to be captured.

    A minimal acquaintance with history, including dissections of American culture already performed by both Sinclairs, would undermine our national complacency. Upton Sinclair, for example, showed the rapaciousness of capitalism, the vampire-like appetite with which it feeds on the blood of human beings. Even with “reforms” (“The Jungle” led to the establishment of the Food and Drug Administration), the profit-worshipping economy to this day eludes controls that would protect majorities of citizens in this country and across the world. Sinclair Lewis, for his part, showed how the simultaneously banalizing methods of capitalist enterprise (false advertising, consumerism, pieties of affluence, amoral bureaucracy) are exactly what that enterprise created to keep from being criticized. Then inhale the crack cocaine of celebrity.
    The U.S. conflagration in the oil well of the globe was ignited without attention to history, which is why it flares out of control. But that war – fought by GIs, mercenaries and proxies – will continue indefinitely, because, under the martial law that implicitly governs the United States, history can never be invoked except for its celebrity value – not even history in the making. Therefore, it is certain that the staggering failures of Washington’s current policy, so evident today, will be forgotten tomorrow, even as that policy is reaffirmed. Or, as they say, what’s the dif?”~James Carroll
    More at:
    James Carroll is the son of the founding director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Joseph Carroll.:

    PDF of ‘The Brass Check‘ by Upton Sinclair:

    Click to access sinclairtbc.pdf

    The Brass Check is a muckraking exposé of American journalism by Upton Sinclair published in 1919. It focuses mainly on newspapers and the Associated Press wire service, along with a few magazines. Other critiques of the press had appeared, but Sinclair reached a wider audience with his personal fame and lively, provocative writing style.[1] Among those critiqued was William Randolph Hearst, who made routine use of yellow journalism in his widespread newspaper and magazine business.

    Sinclair called The Brass Check “the most important and most dangerous book I have ever written.”[2] The University of Illinois Press released a new edition of the book in 2003, which contains a preface by Robert W. McChesney and Ben Scott. The text is also freely available on the Internet, as Sinclair opted not to copyright the text in an effort to maximize its readership.

    • “Who owns the press, and why?
      When you read your daily paper, are you reading facts, or
      propaganda? And whose propaganda?
      Who furnishes the raw material for your thoughts about life?
      Is it honest material?
      No man can ask more important questions than those; and here for the first time the questions are answered in a book.”~Upton Sinclair
      –The Brass Check
      . . . .
      “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. …We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. …In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”
      ― Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda
      “There are invisible rulers who control the destinies of millions. It is not generally realized to what extent the words and actions of our most influential public men are dictated by shrewd persons operating behind the scenes.”
      ― Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda (1928)
      Bernays was one of the most influential people in postmodern American history, yet very few know his name or what his business was. He was a nephew of Sigmund Freud, and the first to apply psychology to the field of propaganda, which Bernays termed “public relations”. Within the field of Public Relations, Bernays is known as “the father of spin,” which is simply rhetorical psychological manipulation of the mind through text, and symbols.

  82. “Coexistence on this tightly knit earth should be viewed as an existence not only without
    wars… but also without [the government] telling us how to live, what to say, what to think,
    what to know, and what not to know.”~Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, from a speech given September 11, 1973

    “Educated men are as much superior to uneducated men as the living are to the dead.”~Aristotle

    Click to access DDDoA.sml.pdf


  83. An equation that debunks conspiracy theories
    OK, not really. But for real: don’t believe silly conspiracy theories.

    Now who in their right mind would write a schizo sentence like the header in this article?

    Of course reading the body of the article one finds it is equally absurd. It is an “equation” that is meant for hand wavers: “You don’t need to know any facts about a specific conspiracy – just that it is exponentially implausible by these calculations.”

    When so called “intellectuals” and “scientists” come up with this sort of voodoo superstitious nonsense, you KNOW that the readers who accept this BS have been dumbed down to the point of imbecile level; which is veritably proven by the mess this planet is in.

    Leading to an obvious question: ‘What does it mean to be well adjusted in a pathological society?’

    The answer is within the question itself.


    The epistemic structure of one’s “inner world” can be defined as a Paradigm. This paradigm defines how an individual views and interprets the world around them.

    There are multiple worlds, or universes; paradigms in play at all times in human cultures. There is the dominant paradigm enforced through indoctrination. There are then varying degrees of personal paradigm shifts as certain individuals break free from the dominant paradigm of their day.

    “What is Truth” said jesting Pilate is an eternal question, best understood in grasping human language as metaphor…ie; Like is Not.

    • Another manifestation of the All Seeing Eye of Horus:

      Many corporate logos include the oculus (Eye of Horus) as does the logo for the US (see back of dollar bill)

      • $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
        $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $


    • Carbon dioxide
      Chemical Compound
      Carbon dioxide is a colorless and odorless gas vital to life on Earth. This naturally occurring chemical compound is composed of a carbon atom covalently double bonded to two oxygen atoms. Wikipedia
      Molar mass: 44.01 g/mol
      Formula: CO2
      Boiling point: -109.3°F (-78.5°C)
      Melting point: -69.88°F (-56.6°C)
      Soluble in: Water
      Drug class: Radiocontrast agent

      Carbon dioxide (chemical formula CO2) is a colorless and odorless gas vital to life on Earth. This naturally occurring chemical compound is composed of a carbon atom covalently double bonded to two oxygen atoms. Carbon dioxide exists in Earth’s atmosphere as a trace gas at a concentration of about 0.04 percent (400 ppm) by volume.[3] Natural sources include volcanoes, hot springs and geysers and it is freed from carbonate rocks by dissolution in water and acids. Because carbon dioxide is soluble in water, it occurs naturally in groundwater, rivers and lakes, in ice caps and glaciers and also in seawater. It is present in deposits of petroleum and natural gas.[4]

      Atmospheric carbon dioxide is the primary source of carbon in life on Earth and its concentration in Earth’s pre-industrial atmosphere since late in the Precambrian was regulated by photosynthetic organisms and geological phenomena. As part of the carbon cycle, plants, algae, and cyanobacteria use light energy to photosynthesize carbohydrate from carbon dioxide and water, with oxygen produced as a waste product.[5]

      Carbon dioxide (CO2) is produced by all aerobic organisms when they metabolize carbohydrate and lipids to produce energy by respiration.[6] It is returned to water via the gills of fish and to the air via the lungs of air-breathing land animals, including humans. Carbon dioxide is produced during the processes of decay of organic materials and the fermentation of sugars in bread, beer and winemaking. It is produced by combustion of wood, carbohydrates and fossil fuels such as coal, peat, petroleum and natural gas.

  85. Interview 1160 – James Perloff on The False Flag Heard Round the World
    Corbett • 04/20/2016 •
    [Audio Player]
    On April 19, 1775 the shot(s) heard round the world began the War of Independence. But who fired the shot(s)? Today we talk to James Perloff of about the hidden history and context of the Battle of Lexington and Concord, the players who set up the plot, and the plan to engineer a “Lexington Massacre” that could sell war to the Continental Congress.
    Who Really Fired “The Shot Heard Round The World”?
    By James Perloff

    • The Declaration of Independence

      “When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of …”~Thomas Paine – 1776

      (Attributed to Thomas Jefferson)


  86. ruffadam
    April 19, 2016 at 11:38 am
    You know I have to say Craig it is times like these when I really miss Hybridrouge1 here. I just don’t have the time or energy to deal with troll filth like Jens while Willy certainly would have time and would do a great job of ripping his BS to shreds. Now as it is no one is countering his endless stream of disinformation and JREF talking points. Top it off with Fetzer and Deets and this blog is becoming downright irritating for me. I just don’t need the BS anymore. I am going to stop reading here and stop participating. Sorry Craig but I am DONE! These fucking slime disinformationists can just fill your blog with whatever BS they want I am sick of reading it.

    Hohohoho!!! Whatcha know ’bout that? Is Craig going to let that stand???

    “P.S. Willy was booted but only after a vicious and gratuitous attack on me that ended up lasting weeks on his own blog. The last one I remember had him claiming that following his departure, my blog had turned into a rotting whale carcass or something colorful like that.”~Craig McKee – April 19, 2016 at 5:35 pm

    That is absurd. My harsh critiques of McKee came only after our dispute ended in me leaving of my own volition. I decided Craig was hysterical during a three-way email conference between Adam Ruff, McKee, and myself. Adam asked if we would agree to attempt at reconciliation, my response was “sure I would”, Craig’s response was hateful and derogatory, saying that I would never again say another word on Truth & Shadows.
    It was following that, I began making critiques of Craig. I pointed out that McKee has no capacity for science and technology. Which he does not, which is why he falls for bullshit charlatans like Fetzer and Max Bridges. I criticized him for allowing obvious shills like Fetzer to have a platform on his site. In fact that was the spark of our disagreement in the first place, his insistence that I had “attacked” Fetzer. Anything truthful said about Fetzer is going to ‘appear’ like an “attack”, because Fetzer is as despicable as language can express. He is such a monstrous prick that saying such directly is not strong enough.

    And I still consider McKee a namby pampy pussyboy for not taking a sledgehammer to Fetzer, and driving the motherfucker off of his site.

  87. “Paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.”~Hugo Black, American jurist and politician, 1886-1971

    Published: May 14, 2016

    The first step toward self-emancipation is certainly not supporting or opposing a presidential candidate. Neither need it be civil disobedience, evasion of government directives, or resistance to the authorities. There is much lower hanging fruit to be had than that.

    The impediments to our freedom are not limited to the guns, handcuffs, and prison cells that threaten us with violence if we disobey the powers that be. We are also burdened with spiritual chains. These bonds are the self-limiting habits of mind and false presumptions that weigh us down throughout life. They were fastened on our minds through compulsory schooling: by the state monopolizing most of our waking hours throughout our most formative years. The mindset installed by schooling makes things much easier for the government, which can rely on us to largely police ourselves. We have virtually been deputized as our own spiritual prison wardens.

    So the first step to self-emancipation is what Zak Slayback, author of The End of School, calls “deschooling.” But this involves not just unlearning disinformation, but unlearning attitudes. Even if you have already shaken off the indoctrination, you may still be burdened with the conditioning you were subjected to at school. And that may be holding you back in your career and your life in general.

    The good news is that these mental shackles can be unlocked, once you are aware of them. And doing so requires no political campaigning or confrontation with the authorities. This liberation is yours for the taking.

    Here are seven horizon-limiting mindsets that almost everybody has picked up from their schooling to some extent….

    By Craig McKee

    We don’t want war. But we have war – all the time. Why? Because the bankers run the world, and war is the best thing for them.” – Ken O’Keefe

    “He is passionate, fearless, charismatic, and very blunt.

    To be sure, human rights activist and former U.S. Marine Ken O’Keefe says things some people don’t want to hear, things that jolt them from their complacency about the tyranny and deceptions that pervert our world. The message he has to offer is not an easy one to accept for so many who have had their perceptions molded by the mainstream media, mainstream entertainment, and mainstream politics.

    Recently, O’Keefe concluded a North American speaking tour with appearances in Montreal (April 23) and Toronto (April 28 and 29) that both I and fellow Truth and Shadows contributor Barrie Zwicker attended. We also had the opportunity to sit down together with O’Keefe for more than two hours the night before the first of those talks at Concordia University in Montreal. (Zwicker co-organized the two appearances in Toronto the following week, one at the Beit Zatoun Cultural Centre and the other at the University of Toronto.)”…
    Read entire article at:


  90. The cult of ignorance in the United States: Anti-intellectualism and the “dumbing down” of America

    Ray Williams
    Sat, 07 Jun 2014 14:57 UTC

    There is a growing and disturbing trend of anti-intellectual elitism in American culture. It’s the dismissal of science, the arts, and humanities and their replacement by entertainment, self-righteousness, ignorance, and deliberate gullibility.

    Susan Jacoby, author of The Age of American Unreason, says in an article in the Washington Post, “Dumbness, to paraphrase the late senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, has been steadily defined downward for several decades, by a combination of heretofore irresistible forces. These include the triumph of video culture over print culture; a disjunction between Americans’ rising level of formal education and their shaky grasp of basic geography, science and history; and the fusion of anti-rationalism with anti-intellectualism.”

    There has been a long tradition of anti-intellectualism in America, unlike most other Western countries. Richard Hofstadter, who won a Pulitzer Prize in 1964 for his book, Anti-Intellectualism In American Life, describes how the vast underlying foundations of anti-elite, anti-reason and anti-science have been infused into America’s political and social fabric. Famous science fiction writer Isaac Asimov once said:
    “There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
    Mark Bauerlein, in his book, The Dumbest Generation, reveals how a whole generation of youth is being dumbed down by their aversion to reading anything of substance and their addiction to digital “crap” via social media.

    Journalist Charles Pierce, author of Idiot America, adds another perspective:
    “The rise of idiot America today represents – for profit mainly, but also and more cynically, for political advantage in the pursuit of power – the breakdown of a consensus that the pursuit of knowledge is a good. It also represents the ascendancy of the notion that the people whom we should trust the least are the people who best know what they are talking about. In the new media age, everybody is an expert.”
    “There’s a pervasive suspicion of rights, privileges, knowledge and specialization,” says Catherine Liu, the author of American Idyll: Academic Antielitism as Cultural Critique and a film and media studies professor at University of California. The very mission of universities has changed, argues Liu. “We don’t educate people anymore. We train them to get jobs.”

    Part of the reason for the rising anti-intellectualism can be found in the declining state of education in the U.S. compared to other advanced countries:
    After leading the world for decades in 25-34 year olds with university degrees, the U.S. is now in 12th place. The World Economic Forum ranked the U.S. at 52nd among 139 nations in the quality of its university math and science instruction in 2010. Nearly 50% of all graduate students in the sciences in the U.S. are foreigners, most of whom are returning to their home countries;
    The Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs commissioned a civic education poll among public school students. A surprising 77% didn’t know that George Washington was the first President; couldn’t name Thomas Jefferson as the author of the Declaration of Independence; and only 2.8% of the students actually passed the citizenship test. Along similar lines, the Goldwater Institute of Phoenix did the same survey and only 3.5% of students passed the civics test;
    According to the National Research Council report, only 28% of high school science teachers consistently follow the National Research Council guidelines on teaching evolution, and 13% of those teachers explicitly advocate creationism or “intelligent design;”
    18% of Americans still believe that the sun revolves around the earth, according to a Gallup poll;
    The American Association of State Colleges and Universities report on education shows that the U.S. ranks second among all nations in the proportion of the population aged 35-64 with a college degree, but 19th in the percentage of those aged 25-34 with an associate or high school diploma, which means that for the first time, the educational attainment of young people will be lower than their parents;
    74% of Republicans in the U.S. Senate and 53% in the House of Representatives deny the validity of climate change despite the findings of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and every other significant scientific organization in the world;
    According to the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress, 68% of public school children in the U.S. do not read proficiently by the time they finish third grade. And the U.S. News & World reported that barely 50% of students are ready for college level reading when they graduate;
    According to a 2006 survey by National Geographic-Roper, nearly half of Americans between ages 18 and 24 do not think it necessary to know the location of other countries in which important news is being made. More than a third consider it “not at all important” to know a foreign language, and only 14 percent consider it “very important;”
    According to the National Endowment for the Arts report in 1982, 82% of college graduates read novels or poems for pleasure; two decades later only 67% did. And more than 40% of Americans under 44 did not read a single book–fiction or nonfiction–over the course of a year. The proportion of 17 year olds who read nothing (unless required by school ) has doubled between 1984-2004;
    Gallup released a poll indicating 42 percent of Americans still believe God created human beings in their present form less than 10,000 years ago;
    A 2008 University of Texas study found that 25 percent of public school biology teachers believe that humans and dinosaurs inhabited the earth simultaneously.
    In American schools, the culture exalts the athlete and good-looking cheerleader. Well-educated and intellectual students are commonly referred to in public schools and the media as “nerds,” “dweebs,” “dorks,” and “geeks,” and are relentlessly harassed and even assaulted by the more popular “jocks” for openly displaying any intellect. These anti-intellectual attitudes are not reflected in students in most European or Asian countries, whose educational levels have now equaled and and will surpass that of the U.S. And most TV shows or movies such as The Big Bang Theory depict intellectuals as being geeks if not effeminate.

    John W. Traphagan, Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Texas, argues the problem is that Asian countries have core cultural values that are more akin to a cult of intelligence and education than a cult of ignorance and anti-intellectualism. In Japan, for example, teachers are held in high esteem and normally viewed as among the most important members of a community. There is suspicion and even disdain for the work of teachers that occurs in the U.S. Teachers in Japan typically are paid significantly more than their peers in the U.S. The profession of teaching is one that is seen as being of central value in Japanese society and those who choose that profession are well compensated in terms of salary, pension, and respect for their knowledge and their efforts on behalf of children.

    In addition, we do not see in Japan significant numbers of the types of religious schools that are designed to shield children from knowledge about basic tenets of science and accepted understandings of history – such as evolutionary theory or the religious views of the Founding Fathers, who were largely deists – which are essential to having a fundamental understanding of the world, Traphagan contends. The reason for this is because in general Japanese value education, value the work of intellectuals, and see a well-educated public with a basic common knowledge in areas of scientific fact, math, history, literature, etc. as being an essential foundation to a successful democracy.

    We’re creating a world of dummies. Angry dummies who feel they have the right, the authority and the need not only to comment on everything, but to make sure their voice is heard above the rest, and to drag down any opposing views through personal attacks, loud repetition and confrontation.

    Bill Keller, writing in the New York Times argues that the anti-intellectual elitism is not an elitism of wisdom, education, experience or knowledge. The new elite are the angry social media posters, those who can shout loudest and more often, a clique of bullies and malcontents baying together like dogs cornering a fox. Too often it’s a combined elite of the anti-intellectuals and the conspiracy followers – not those who can voice the most cogent, most coherent response. Together they foment a rabid culture of anti-rationalism where every fact is suspect; every shadow holds a secret conspiracy. Rational thought is the enemy. Critical thinking is the devil’s tool.

    Keller also notes that the herd mentality takes over online; the anti-intellectuals become the metaphorical equivalent of an angry lynch mob when anyone either challenges one of the mob beliefs or posts anything outside the mob’s self-limiting set of values.

    Keller blames this in part to the online universe that “skews young, educated and attentive to fashions.” Fashion, entertainment, spectacle, voyeurism – we’re directed towards trivia, towards the inconsequential, towards unquestioning and blatant consumerism. This results in intellectual complacency. People accept without questioning, believe without weighing the choices, join the pack because in a culture where convenience rules, real individualism is too hard work. Thinking takes too much time: it gets in the way of the immediacy of the online experience.

    Reality TV and pop culture presented in magazines and online sites claim to provide useful information about the importance of The Housewives of[you name the city] that can somehow enrich our lives. After all, how else can one explain the insipid and pointless stories that tout divorces, cheating and weight gain? How else can we explain how the Kardashians, or Paris Hilton are known for being famous without actually contributing anything worth discussion? The artificial events of their lives become the mainstay of populist media to distract people from the real issues and concerns facing us.

    The current trend of increasing anti-intellectualism now establishing itself in politics and business leadership, and supported by a declining education system should be a cause for concern for leaders and the general population, one that needs to be addressed now.

    Comment: Professor Patrick Deneen explains how kids have become a generation of know-nothings
    We have fallen into the bad and unquestioned habit of thinking that our educational system is broken, but it is working on all cylinders. What our educational system aims to produce is cultural amnesia, a wholesale lack of curiosity, history-less free agents, and educational goals composed of content-free processes and unexamined buzz-words like “critical thinking,” “diversity,” “ways of knowing,” “social justice,” and “cultural competence.”

    Our education system produces solipsistic, self-contained selves whose only public commitment is an absence of commitment to a public, a common culture, a shared history. They are perfectly hollowed vessels, receptive and obedient, without any real obligations or devotions.

  91. Censored truth about the American Revolution
    Blacks and whites fought together
    and excelled afterward…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s