Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: The American Lie

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2015

    The American Lie

    You might know some people who thought the USSR was communist doctrine in action. You might be a person who thinks the United States is a moral democratic nation even though it is a Republic in which people do not vote in the President, as directly as people would like to believe. Even when a President takes office he has to carry through decisions of the previous administration and has little more influence than a talking head on TV. His advisory staff and the bureaucrats can keep even a President with Alzheimer's under their thumb to some extent. That was not easy to do and Reagan acted as an individual more than most because of it. You might recall Nancy consulted the astrologer about decisions including when to go out or how to dress.

    Have you read The End of History and The Last Man? If you have not read it or do not understand what it says - you do not deserve the right to vote. In fact your vote will counteract a good vote by a person who has a decent chance of making an informed decision. That is why Plato felt democracy dumbed down government. That book says Christianity and other absolute religions are tools for social engineering and have been for almost all of recorded history. That is the truth and the person who wrote it should know. Francis Fukayama was a top US Policy Manager or social engineer, He was moved up the ladder to the Rand Corporation, and you might benefit from understanding their Delphi Technique. Once you grasp that start going down the NeuroLinguistic and Memetic rabbit hole until you are certain you have cleansed your mind of all outside influences on the thinking process that varies from a well considered moral path - you might wish to live.

    The Carnegie Endowment people have a similar author who I have only peeked into the book he wrote. Maybe you will read it a little more than I have and start to see just how much America is actually an immoral historical freak show just like you can see in Gangs of New York or by reading General Smedley Butler. Don't forget Eisenhower's famous Military-Industrial Complex, either.

    America Right or Wrong : An Anatomy of American ... - Page 69

    Anatol Lieven Senior Associate for Foreign and Security Policy Carnegie Endowment for International Peace - 2004 - ‎Preview - ‎More editions
    ... Anatol Lieven Senior Associate for Foreign and Security Policy Carnegie Endowment for International Peace ... This attitude to history and society is quite as distant from any observable historical reality as were the assumptions of doctrinaire ...

    I believe you will find a great deal of truth in this book. You will find you have been exploited (his words) by the American myth and creed which is not anywhere close to reality. He may have a bias against the Republican Party but the facts are stated and as far as I am concerned the Democrats (Clinton thanked Fukayama for the same management of a religio-nation state) are similarly unable to develop a platform to address the future and overcome the lies this country truly is based upon.

    Here are three informed people expressing their opinion from three centuries of the existence of the USA. You should make certain you know what they are saying before you pass judgement about most any thing you presently think.

    "The U.S.A. is not run by its would-be 'democratic' government. All the latter can do is try to adjust to the initiatives already taken by [the] great corporations. Nothing can be more pathetic than the role that has been played by the President of the United States, whose power is approximately zero. Nevertheless, the news media and most over-thirty-years-of-age U.S.A. citizens carry on as if the president had supreme power." - Bucky Fuller

    “I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country.

    As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.”
    - President Abraham Lincoln, 1865

    "It was not my intention to doubt that, the Doctrines of the Illuminati, and principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more truly satisfied of this fact than I am... The idea that I meant to convey, was, that I did not believe that the Lodges of Free Masons in this Country had, as Societies, endeavoured to propagate the diabolical tenets of the first, or pernicious principles of the latter (if they are susceptible of separation). That Individuals of them may have done it, or that the founder, or instrument employed to found, the Democratic Societies in the United States, may have had these objects; and actually had a separation of the People from their Government in view, is too evident to be questioned." The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799. John C. Fitzpatrick, Editor. Mount Vernon, October 24, 1798!!!

    Hakim Subani and many other people like myself are getting the message out which people like Eisenhower have openly stated - and greed is still in control because people are told they need jobs - which is certainly no longer true if it ever was. Truman gave the Russians a whole air force just before the start of the Cold War. As Sutton found out there have been deals and Russia was part of many sides to these deals since it started the democratization of Europe in the mid 19th Century shortly after helping the US fend off the British Naval and land forces about to invade and pick up the pieces.

    "Antony Sutton has been persecuted but never prosecuted for his research and subsequent publishing of his findings. His mainstream career was shattered by his devotion towards uncovering the truth. In 1968, his Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development was published by The Hoover Institute at Stanford University. Sutton showed how the Soviet state's technological and manufacturing base, which was then engaged in supplying the North Vietnamese the armaments and supplies to kill and wound American soldiers, was built by US firms and mostly paid for by the US taxpayers. From their largest steel and iron plant, to automobile manufacturing equipment, to precision ball-bearings and computers, basically the majority of the Soviet's large industrial enterprises had been built with the United States help or technical assistance.

    Professor Richard Pipes of Harvard said in his book, Survival Is Not Enough: Soviet Realities and America's Future (Simon & Schuster;1984): "In his three-volume detailed account of Soviet Purchases of Western Equipment and Technology . . . [Antony] Sutton comes to conclusions that are uncomfortable for many businessmen and economists. For this reason his work tends to be either dismissed out of hand as 'extreme' or, more often, simply ignored."

    The report was too much and Sutton's career as a well-paid member of the academic establishment was under attack and he was told that he "would not survive".

    His work led him to more questions than answers. "Why had the US built-up it's enemy? Why did the US build-up the Soviet Union, while we also transferred technology to Hitler's Germany? Why does Washington want to conceal these facts?"

    Sutton, following his leads, proceeded to research and write his three outstanding books on Wall Street, FDR, the Rise of Hitler, and The Bolshevik Revolution. Then, someone sent Antony a membership list of Skull and Bones and "a picture jumped out". And what a picture! A multigenerational foreign-based secret society with fingers in all kinds of pies and roots going back to 'Illuminati' influences in 1830's Germany."
    Last edited by R_Baird; 03-21-2016 at 08:35 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    The Club of Athens has made a call for changes to Sovereign Rights which I agree is necessary for any true morality to become real in this world. When all nations spy and lie like they do against their citizens and each other (allies included as in the case of Israel and the US back-dooring Canada's top secret computers during NAFTA negotiations for a period of eight years) there is a farce of immense proportions. The wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan had a major component the government still lies about - drugs that fuel the black ops programs and major corporate or elite family bank vaults. It does not take much to see the Opium Wars were highly profitable and done with national support against China because it was too successful and had too much wealth. The Shah or earlier oil gamesmanship lead to de-stabilization of the whole Mideast which might not have happened if Gamal Abdul Nasser had been encouraged. I could go on - Gen. Zia, Saddam, Osama and other CIA assets all would make an appearance - you really should read General Smedley Butler.

    But in the interest of transparency and fairness here is what conservative mouthpieces are saying today.

    "Why Putin's actions in Crimea look to the rest of the world a lot like NATO's Kosovo intervention.

    By Miguel Nunes Silva • March 26, 2014

    There are two main schools of “exceptionalism” in the West: the Europe-centered one and the America-centered one. The first sees the future of mankind as bureaucratic and liberal, the second sees it as democratic and, again, liberal. These schools are exceptionalist because they hold others to the West’s own standards: anyone below the high standards of rule of law, gender equality, political freedom, and freedom of speech that the West currently observes is simply inferior in moral authority and civilizational development.

    This is why in forums like the United Nations European states try to pass measures to transform the world into a semblance of their own reality and values. It is why the U.S. occasionally feels compelled to intervene abroad to “save lives” and “spread democracy and freedom.” Because much of the current body of international law originated in the West, the West deeply resents having that same law used against it. When the West breaks the law, it believes it is doing so for good reason and tries to legalize its breaches ex post facto. This was the case with Kosovo, when NATO’s intervention was later legalized with a UN resolution, and with humanitarian interventions in general, which the “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine is supposed to justify for the future. In others words, the sovereignty that the West claims is being breached in Ukraine can only be breached on humanitarian grounds—preferably by liberal democratic states.

    This helps explain the virulent Western denunciation of false moral equivalence on Russia’s part: Crimea is not Kosovo because in Kosovo an ethnic minority was actually being oppressed and required outside intervention for its protection.

    Forbes’s Paul Roderick Gregory put the West’s position eloquently:

    We cannot rehash the complicated histories of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Kosovo in a few words, but these enterprises share common features that are notably absent in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

    First, in each case, there was no masking or disguising of operations a la Putin. … Second, no Western intervention had territorial ambitions or aimed for annexation of territory, or changes in accepted international boundaries. … Third, in each case, the perceived need to remove, or assist in the removal, of a bad actor or actors, who pose a danger to their own people and beyond their borders, motivated Western military action. … Fourth, in each case, the United States and its allies made every effort, some less successful than others, to attract international partners and the support of international organizations.

    While these claims may be generally true, there are exceptions. And they reveal a certain Manichean distinction between good and evil that has less basis in reality than in a number of foreign-policy myths.

    First, throughout the Cold War the U.S. did resort to a number of “masked operations,” such as with the Bay of Pigs effort in Cuba or the overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran. After 1989 such practices became unnecessary, but Russia is correct in pointing out that many of the activists who instigated and led the Color Revolutions, and now the overthrow of Yanukovych, were sponsored or trained by Western NGOs. One might ask what the problem is with furthering and teaching democratic/liberal values, but the answer is obvious: Russia doesn’t do the same in the West. What would demonstrations against Western governments during the current economic crisis look like if what Gregory calls “lefties” had financing and education provided by rival foreign governments and NGOs? Indeed, when other governments do provide such financing and education, the West cries foul, as with Saudi-funded Wahhabi/Salafist madrassas across the world.

    Second, other countries have indeed annexed territory, or tried to, in recent history, including Egypt, China, Indonesia, India, Armenia, or South Africa. Even Western or Western-backed states such as Turkey, Croatia, Morocco, and Israel have made similar moves—not to mention ongoing disputes between a number of Western states themselves, ...

    Third, the notion of humanitarian grounds is a bit shaky. While the West always reacts with outrage at any major human-rights violation, the truth remains that it is not always ready to act. ...

    The reason why need is not otherwise met proportionately by action is, simply, because the West could never afford it. If the West were to sanction trade with China every time it violates human rights, or stop buying oil from the Middle East every time a sheikhdom muzzles democratic activists, we would soon find ourselves isolated.

    However, there is another reason why the West tends to act more vigorously on its own periphery rather than where its efforts are most needed in proportional terms: cultural bias. It is easier for Western elites to identify with people that possess ethnic and ideological profiles similar to themselves. Many of the men and women fighting Vladimir Putin and Arab autocrats are genuine liberals and were educated in Western universities. On the other hand, Asian or African realities are more distant from the ideological radar of North Atlantic normative empathy.

    Fourth, it may come as shock to most Westerners to find that Putin is not exactly an outcast in the so-called “international community.” Several nations around the world are ready to support or acquiesce to Russia’s stance on Ukraine, including India, China, and even Turkey. This reveals that Western outrage is not the same as world outrage—indeed, when many commentators refer to the “international community,” they actually mean “Western community.”

    The West is concerned that a UN Security Council permanent member goes forth in annexing territory. Fareed Zakaria writes:

    I have generally been wary of the calls for U.S. intervention in any and every conflict around the world. But this is different. The crisis in Ukraine is the most significant geopolitical problem since the Cold War. Unlike many of the tragic ethnic and civil wars that have bubbled up over the past three decades, this one involves a great global power, Russia, and thus can and will have far-reaching consequences. And it involves a great global principle: whether national boundaries can be changed by brute force.

    Nothing Zakaria says is untrue, but imagine for a second what it would have looked like if, at every breach of international law by the West, the rest of the world had decided to sanction and isolate us: no more raw materials or fossil fuels would have flowed to the West, no more manufactured goods or technology would have been exported to the globe. Why should the “[non-Western] international community” care if one more global power and UN Security Council permanent member violates international law?

    There is a clear divide between Western perceptions and global perceptions of Ukraine. Why? Perhaps it can be partly explained by the different interpretations of history at play. {Everywhere!}

    For the West, history is seen as linear. It consists of an inexorable evolution to today’s sophisticated standards from a primitive and violent past. Francis Fukuyama’s “End of History” thesis epitomizes this attitude. Of course, no one in the West wishes to publicly {But the fact remains no one is foolish enough to believe them.} declare themselves superior in any way to the rest of the world other than in material terms. Yet it is obvious from the actions of Westerners that not all democracies are equal—Putin, Yanukovych, and Turkey’s Recep Erdogan were all elected and re-elected—and that some “Europeans” are more “European” than others.

    For the rest of the world, history is seen as cyclical and the breach of international norms, while crass, is not a calamity. Unlike in Hegelian progressivism, Asians and Africans don’t find history flowing in any particular direction, they see it as a succession of cycles of prosperity and turmoil. Which is why to them 1945 and 1989 are not crucial dates. There is no acquis intrinsically worthy of being considered sacred or vital to the international system. Reality changes norms, not the opposite.

    In 2011, the Malaysian “Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal” found George W. Bush and Tony Blair guilty of war crimes after trying them in absentia. Obviously the trial was a political stunt, but it serves to show that there is growing resentment of Western normative unilateralism. Russia, being on the immediate periphery of Western efforts to spread democracy and liberal values, feels the same."

    Last edited by R_Baird; 01-10-2016 at 01:11 AM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Who are you to argue with Jefferson?

    "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"

    Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to Lafayette in 1823 that went as follows:

    "I do not believe with the Rochefoucaults and Montaignes, that fourteen of fifteen men are rogue. I believe a great abatement from that proportion may be made in favor of general honesty. But I have always found that rogues would be uppermost, and I do not know that the proportion is to strong for the higher orders... These set out with stealing the people's good opinion, and then steal from them the right of withdrawing it by contriving laws and associations against the power of the people themselves."

    His words about the priesthood are decidedly more aggressive in pointing to the lies and deceits they employ. Here is a modern woman of supposed Christian beliefs pointing out various difficulties in her own faith. I personally do not think a person who has not studied and lived the life of Yeshua Bar Joseph or others in his family (David, Solomon etc.) can really believe they are Christian and they are (If they quote the Gospels) actually maintaining the effort of Rome to quash Jesus and create an Empire over all people. Luther called it Popery and most scholars have names like Romanism or Pauline Christianity for it.

    ""Most men indeed, as well as most sects in religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them, it is so far error."


    We are blessed to have more insight into the American experiment from a Physiocrat who called Adam Weisthaupt a philanthropist and who owed a large sum of money to the Rothschilds when he died. Far from a deep inspection of why Adam Smith did not challenge the elite power structure of his compatriot author Pierre Dupont de Nemours who later moved to Delaware to be near the Hapsburgs and Joseph Bonaparte - you will not grasp the true purpose of economic theory. The average American will think or be heard to say things about their government and Constitution which are ignorant at best and manipulated in the main.

    "Hamilton’s proposals convinced Jefferson that the Secretary of the Treasury stood as a threat to the legitimate division between federal powers and state rights. Such proposals forced Jefferson to take an active role in the defense of States against Federalist consolidation.

    This dispute was not merely a speculative argument between two theorists: both men were practical politicians and statesmen. When Hamilton introduced the National Bank in 1791, it became the first major initiative of the Hamiltonian System.29 But Jefferson did not stand idle. The Secretary of State disagreed with the concept of a National bank based on constitutional grounds. The tenth amendment became integral in the Constitutional debate surrounding the Bank for Jefferson. It reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."30 For Jefferson, the key to the tenth amendment pertained to whether the particular action interfered with the proper division of power between the States and the federal government. According to David Mayer, the Bank bill concerned Jefferson mainly because it “threatened federalism by establishing a corporation with powers that would impinge upon the sphere of state authority reserved by the Tenth Amendment.”31 This realization ensured the opposition of Jefferson to the Bank Bill and Hamilton’s attempts to consolidate power in America. He prophesied the dangers of surpassing the division of power presented in the Constitution: "To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."32 As Federalists, led by Hamilton, advocated a stronger, more centralized government, Jefferson defended the Constitution that, to him, limited the opportunities of the federal government to consolidate power"
    Last edited by R_Baird; 01-10-2016 at 05:17 AM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    There are many outstanding issues and questions still up in the air in regards to the atomic bombs dropped on Japan. Americans were still being used as guinea pigs in atomic tests and Robert Oppenhiemer is still considered to be treasonous even though I and a friend of mine who was his cousin think he was a conscience driven objector to the need for power and plans to increase defense spending after the war. Looking backwards one can see issues with Russia deserved consideration but why were airplanes given to them after the war and then Russia was called an enemy and up went defense spending to the tune of tripling the budget very quickly. I am certain Japan would have surrendered before the bombs were dropped if the US had allowed the Emperor not to face war trials. But it appears there were many Americans including Herbert Hoover and General MacArthur who made billions or even hundreds of billions of dollars by saving Hirohito and his family who had stolen from all the nations they invaded. I have heard in the 1970s that Marcos had $5 Billion dollars in Swiss banks accounts.

    "The controversy simmered over the years with major contributions by Martin Sherwin and Barton J. Bernstein but it became explosive during the mid-1990s when curators at the National Air and Space Museum met the wrath of the Air Force Association over a proposed historical exhibit on the Enola Gay.[3] The NASM exhibit was drastically scaled down but historians and journalists continued to engage in the debate. Alperovitz, Bernstein, and Sherwin made new contributions to the debate as did historians, social scientists, and journalists such as Richard B. Frank, Herbert Bix, Sadao Asada, Kai Bird, Robert James Maddox, Robert P. Newman, Robert S. Norris, Tsuyoshi Hagesawa, and J. Samuel Walker.[4] The controversy has revolved around the following, among other, questions:

    •Were atomic strikes necessary primarily to avert an invasion of Japan in November 1945?
    •Did Truman authorize the use of atomic bombs for diplomatic-political reasons-- to intimidate the Soviets--or was his major goal to force Japan to surrender and bring the war to an early end?
    •If ending the war quickly was the most important motivation of Truman and his advisers to what extent did they see an "atomic diplomacy" capability as a "bonus"?
    •To what extent did subsequent justification for the atomic bomb exaggerate or misuse wartime estimates for U.S. casualties stemming from an invasion of Japan?
    • Were there alternatives to the use of the weapons? If there were, what were they and how plausible are they in retrospect? Why were alternatives not pursued?
    •How did the U.S. government plan to use the bombs? What concepts did war planners use to select targets? To what extent were senior officials interested in looking at alternatives to urban targets? How familiar was President Truman with the concepts that led target planners to choose major cities as targets?
    •Did President Truman make a decision, in a robust sense, to use the bomb or did he inherit a decision that had already been made?
    •Were the Japanese ready to surrender before the bombs were dropped? To what extent had Emperor Hirohito prolonged the war unnecessarily by not seizing opportunities for surrender?
    •If the United States had been more flexible about the demand for "unconditional surrender" by guaranteeing a constitutional monarchy would Japan have surrendered earlier than it did?
    •How greatly did the atomic bombings affect the Japanese decision to surrender?
    •Was the bombing of Nagasaki unnecessary? To the extent that the atomic bombing was critically important to the Japanese decision to surrender would it have been enough to destroy one city?
    •Would the Soviet declaration of war have been enough to compel Tokyo to admit defeat?
    •Was the dropping of the atomic bombs morally justifiable?

    This briefing book will not attempt to answer these questions or use primary sources to stake out positions on any of them. Nor will it attempt to substitute for the extraordinarily rich literature on the atomic bombs and the end of World War II."

    I would like to know the current state of affairs near the bomb blast sites. Would the abortion rate and mutations have some interest for you? It was not a powerful bomb in terms of yield - we have conventional bombs which are more powerful, so why not call it what it was? It was a means to deliver long term genetic terror, worse than just poison and similar to depleted uranium and dirty bombs used by Al Qaeda. Why is it you have phrases like Iraqi Freedom to hang on wars by the Allies and "dirty" bombs on what Osama's people were planning to use?

    I lived in the US when GHWBush was President and the 50th anniversary of the invited attack on Pearl Harbor took place. I heard him say on the radio that the families of the military leaders who took the blame should be satisfied with his apology for what happened in the deceit surrounding the INVITED (and much needed) attack which would bring America into the war to protect Britain - which A Man Called Intrepid was a vital cog in arranging.

    I had always heard about the code being broken in time to warn the US commanders in Hawaii but I did not know the extent of it. This video should be used in every American school system today, at every immigration center seeking people to become Americans - and the facts are overdue just as they are in the matters of Gamal Abdul Nasser, The Shah, Opium Wars and all sorts of trickery causing terrorism and war today.
    Last edited by R_Baird; 02-05-2016 at 10:27 PM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    There are so many lies associated with the war and subsequent increases in militarism and scare tactics. The Movie Atomic Cafe will seem like comedy to people who did not live through it. It and Birth of a Nation should be shown at least as often as The Good, the Bad and the Ugly except when it is being shown the first few times there should be no programming but it available.

    The abuses of power include mind control still being developed from wartime efforts as well as far worse applications of technologies you know little or nothing about. I have had partners involved and I have done major research for fifty years since I heard rumours while an officer of the regiment which watched over the birthplace of the OSS and many non-lethal weapons. That is Camp X!

    The Nazis or German people were not the first movers in eugenics and human experimentation. In fact they were the only nation with laws regulating such things until after the war.

    You might say War is Hell and we all know what goes on in war includes a lot of lies. Fine - that is true, but the wars of the 20th Century were all planned and it was not until the Treaty of Lisbon recently, that Hitler can declare a victory for what he wrote was his assigned task - bringing down the borders in Europe! The implementation of communism (Yeltsin quote available) was part of the plan, but it was not communism as much as it was an extension of capitalism US - style. Who cares if you get your flag over the steeples in a country if you are getting the resources and corporate deals you want? Call it colonialism, imperialism and a hundred other names; the words do not matter no matter how often they change.

    Worse things are now being planned and almost every person living in the Americas is either blind or ignorant - just as the German people chose to look the other way as the camps were being built long before the war and they started reporting their gay neighbors or other mutants and lesser (supposed) people were forced to work for ideologies they would never have anything to do with.

    Here is more to consider as you try to assimilate what you just read while thinking of names to sling at me so that YOU feel you are not guilty.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    You have heard the slogan
    "the government that governs least governs best".
    It is a catchy phrase and you should know anything written about the Physiocrats and Adam Smith as being the first economic school of thought is utter nonsense. The monopolists and oligarchs including the family of Pierre Dupont de Nemours who authored some of the French Physiocratic writings have always understood and managed the Wealth of Nations. His family wrote the Hebrew Bible in 600 BCE and gave his fellow family members, the Benjaminites, the monopoly on usury. Keep this in mind as you read what I have excerpted herewith from a book on the web addressing Smith's book The Wealth of Nations. Or just read the last sentence.

    "The Physiocrats, on their part, clearly laid down and steadily contended that nothing that did not have material existence, or was not produced from land, could be included in the category of the wealth of society. Adam Smith, however, with seeming inadvertence, has fallen in places into the inconsistency of classing personal qualities and obligations as wealth. This is probably attributable to the fact that what it seemed to him possible to accomplish was much less than the Physiocrats aimed at. The task to which he set himself, that in the main of showing the absurdity and impolicy of the mercantile or protective system, was sufficiently difficult to make him comparatively regardless of speculations that led far beyond it. With the disproval of the current notion that the wealth of nations consists of the precious metals, his care as to what is and what is not a part of that wealth relaxed. He went with the Physiocrats in their condemnation of the attempts of governments to check commerce, but stopped both where they had carried the idea of freeing all production from tax or restraint to the point of a practical proposition, and where they had fallen into obvious error. He neither proposed the single tax, nor did he fall into that mistake of declaring agriculture the only productive occupation. That there is a natural order he saw; and that to this natural order our perceptions of justice conform, he also saw. But that involved in this natural order is a provision for the material needs of advancing society he seems never to have seen.

    There are passages in the Wealth of Nations where Adam Smith checks his inquiry with a suddenness that shows an indisposition to venture on ground that the possessing classes would deem dangerous."

    The very term "Physiocrat" is an invention of Pierre Dupont de Nemours. He sold weapons to both sides of all conflicts in his time, before moving his family to Delaware where they continued playing both ends against the middle (Hegelian Dialectic) and benefitting from what became the Military Industrial Complex. I know the serious thinker will see what I quote next meant he wanted no taxes on his income, and he wanted rents on land to carry the full burden of government. What a master-stroke of deceit he achieved when he got economics to follow this path of reasoning - and then came Keynesian nonsense and building weapons which would never be used (Even giving a complete air force to the Russians shortly before saying they were not to be trusted and therefore we must increase military spending during Peacetime.) just to make work.

    "As land is the only source of wealth, then the burden of all taxes ultimately bears down on the landowner. So instead of levying a complicated collection of scattered taxes (which are difficult to administer and can cause temporary distortions), it is most efficient to just go to the root and tax land rents directly.

    However practical many of the Physiocrats' policy measures were, they wrapped their arguments in metaphysical clouds. They differentiated between the ordre naturel (natural order, or the social order dictated by nature's laws) and the ordre positif (positive order, or the social order dictated by human ideals). They charged that social philosophers had gotten both of these mixed up. The ordre positif was wholly about man-made conventions. It was about how society should be organized to conform to some human-constructed ideal. This, they argued, was what the "natural law" and "social contract" philosophers, like Locke and Rousseau, were concerned with. However, there was, the Physiocrats argued, nothing "natural" in them at all -- and so these theories ought to be dumped. In contrast, the ordre naturel were the laws of nature, which were God-given and unalterable by human construct. The believed that the only choice humans had was either to structure their polity, economy and society in conformity with the ordre naturel or to go against it."
    The Physiocrats were a group of French Enlightenment thinkers of the 1760s that .... The term "Physiocracy" itself (introduced by Dupont de Nemours (1767)) ...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    "In 2010 groups in Afghanistan produced 90 percent of the world's illicit opium, using clandestine labs well hidden in the country's topography."

    You can say this is ancient history - and there is nothing we can do about it. But that only shows how brainwashed you are. The facts are there - the US invaded Afghanistan after their former "student radicals" (They called the Taliban this when the Taliban was doing their bidding.) who were supported by US funds channeled through Pakistan's General Zia stopped the flow of drugs from Afghanistan. Yes, and the UN recognized their good work just a month before the US and Allies invaded in 2001. A very successful invasion of a country which only a few years before fought for the US and lost over a million fighters when Osama Bin Laden worked with the Mujahedin and later the CIA. You can see a little truth in the movie with Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts addressing how ghastly the US was to promise to take care of their fighters (In Vietnam they promised the Hmong would get US Citizenship for similar efforts.) and do NOTHING!

    Is it pure co-incidence that GHW Bush was on the Board of Directors of Carlyle Corporation (Armaments goes hand in glove with drugs) with the Bin Laden family. And don't forget his son SHRUB who allowed them to fly away after 9-11 when no planes could be flown by any commercial or private concern.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    What level of guilt should those living off the spoils of colonial enterprises including mass genocide and Manifest Destiny fiction feel?

    The US has the most foul history of colonialism ever seen and yet kept hidden.

    George Santayana, Character And Opinion In The United States:

    "There is much forgetfulness, much callow disrespect for what is past or alien; but there is a fund of vigour, goodness, and hope such as no nation ever possessed before. In what sometimes looks like American greediness and jostling for the front place, all is love of achievement, nothing is unkindness; it is a fearless people, and free from malice, as you might see in their eyes and gestures, even if their conduct did not prove it. This soil is propitious to every seed, and tares must needs grow in it; but why should it not also breed clear thinking, honest judgment, and rational happiness? These things are indeed not necessary to existence, and without them America might long remain rich and populous like many a barbarous land in the past; but in that case its existence would be hounded, like theirs, by falsity and remorse. . .

    "[Academic] [f]reedom, when nominally allowed, was a provisional freedom; if your wanderings did not somehow bring you back to orthodoxy you were a misguided being, no matter how disparate from the orthodox might be the field from which you fetched your little harvest; and if you could not be answered you were called superficial. Most spirits are cowed by such disparagement; but even those who snap their fingers at it do not escape; they can hardly help feeling that in calling a spade a spade they are petulant and is only here and there that a very great and solitary mind, like that of Spinoza, can endure obloquy without bitterness or can pass through perverse controversies without contagion.""

    Speaking at the meeting of the IMF in the year 2000, Vaclav Havel emphasised that the “the crucial task is to fundamentally strengthen a system of universally shared moral standards that will make it impossible, on a truly global scale, for the various rules to be time and again circumvented with still more ingenuity than had gone into their invention.”
    Last edited by R_Baird; 01-11-2016 at 01:16 PM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    I guarantee less than one per cent of people in the Americas have a clue about communism, how it was financed, and for what reason. People may have an inkling of understanding regarding the genocide that founded their nest eggs, but not what is really going on.

    I suppose I should give a little more insight to many of the claims I have made regarding Jean Lafitte. In the process of writing my book on Synarchy and the Pirates I was in touch with one of his descendants or a descendant of the family who is a lawyer in France. He sent me information about their family, a Mssr. LaTour and Edward Livingstone. Livingstone was associated with Andrew Jackson who double-crossed Lafitte and all the blacks who fought to defeat the British. He was a Minister Plenipotentiary like my ancestor Rufus King and Pierre DuPont de Nemours. The Duponts relocated to Delaware near their Royal cousins the Hapsburgs and Napoleon's brother Joseph. I did a book on Napoleon and Josephine whose origins in the Caribbean play a role in all of this. It is too much to even summarize.

    Nemours was a commune near the French border where Lafitte did the transaction with Engels - in one source I found. I think Sutton raises the matter of Jackson being the last anti-elitist. I found lots of evidence that Jackson fought the bankers and Rothschilds who Jean Lafitte worked for after being forced to leave Texas and Barateria, Louisiana and go underground. Lafitte had been promised a sovereign station for he and his friends who fought and won the Battle of New Orleans so I empathize with him. His work as a spy seems a lot like the Templars who I suspect his family included in Cathar times. I also found where Lafitte worked with people in St. Louis to start the union movement and support for that will be found in the following quote of Sutton's esteemed work. YES - why did I have to point out to Jim Marrs (A Texan) that Edward Mandell House and his father before him were seventh sons who took over Lafitte's house in Galveston and amazingly also all his businesses - and we both cannot yet prove the Houses are his offspring. But there can be no doubt Col. House is the most important person of the 20th Century in America.

    "The conduit for financing the printing of the Manifesto was none other than Louisiana pirate Jean Laffite, who was, among his later occupations, a spy for Spain and a courier for a group of American bankers.

    The evidence for this twist in modern history has been ignored by modern historians although the documents, authenticated by Library of Congress and other sources, have been available for some 30 years.

    It is extraordinary that the first academics to report this source of financing for Marx were writing in French, not English! It was a French book by Georges Blond entitled Histoire de la Filibuste that contains the remarkable story of Karl Marx as a friend of Jean Laffite the pirate who "financed the printing of the Manifesto of the Communist party." Where did Blond get his information? It originated in two privately printed books published in New Orleans by Stanley Clisby Arthur, Jean Laffite, the Gentleman Rover and The Journal of Jean Laffite. These books contain original documents describing meetings between Marx and Laffite and the method used to finance the Manifesto.

    Now of course if you look up the name Jean Laffite in the Encyclopedia Britannica, you will learn that Laffite died in 1823 and therefore could not possibly have financed Marx in 1847 and 1848. Unfortunately the Britannica is wrong, as it is on many other points. Laffite went underground about 1820 and lived a long and exciting life as courier for American bankers and businessmen.

    Laffite's courier and underground work for American bankers is noted in The Journal:

    We employed four men as secret officers to spy and report every pertinent conversation and to make verbal reports about any new happenings. We carried out our secret missions very well. We had only two ships operating under private contract with banking interests in Philadelphia. We decided, and took our oath, never to visit saloons or travel the same route twice, or ever go back to Louisiana, Texas or Cuba or any of the Spanish speaking countries.^

    In the same Journal under date of April 24, 1848 we find the note:

    My interviews were brief, but direct. I lived at the home of Mr. Louis Bertillon in Paris and sometimes hotels. I met Mr. Michel Chevreul, Mr. Louis Braille, Mr. Augustin Thierry, Mr. Alexis de Tocqueville, Mr. Karl Marx, Mr. Frederic Engels, Mr. Daguerre and many others. (5)

    Then Laffite goes on to the eye-opening statement:

    Nobody knew the real facts about my mission in Europe. I opened an account in a bank in Paris, a credit in escrow to finance two young men, Mr. Marx and Mr. Engels to help bring about the revolution of working men of the world. They are now working at it. (6)

    So here we have it. Jean Laffite was the agent of American banking interests and arranged for the financing of the Manifesto. In The Journal the reader will find other prominent names, i.e., Dupont, Peabody, Lincoln and so on. (I found separate sources talking about Lafitte wearing a Masonic apron in Washington at a meeting with important Masons {Fraternally connected is one code for these associations you will see vis a vis Greeley in the following.} long after his supposed death.)

    While Jean Laffite was in Brussels he wrote at length to his artist friend De Franca in St. Louis, Missouri about financing Marx. Here's the translation of the letter dated September 29, 1847:

    I am leaving Brussels for Paris, in three or four weeks I will go to Amsterdam, then enroute for America. I have had a number of conversations with Mr. Marx and Mr. Engels, but have refused to participate in the conferences with the other debaters to compose the manifest, because I do not wish to be identified with the other men.

    Mr. Engels is going with me to Paris so that I may prepare a schedule to finance Mr. Marx and him, for a long time in advance, to proceed with their manuscripts, and to put in texts "Capital and Labor." From the beginning it seemed to me that the two young men are themselves gifted and endowed, I firmly believe, with the highest intelligence and that they merit this is justified by the statistic research in the discovery on "La Categorie du Capital,"

    Value, Price and Profit.

    They have penetrated a forgotten time in the exploitation of man by man without halt. From the Serf, of the Feudal Slave, and the Salaried Slave, they discover that exploitation is at the base of all evil. It has taken a long time to prepare "The manifests for the workers of the world." A great debate took place between the two young men and others from Berlin, Amsterdam, Paris, and others from the Swiss Republic.

    I am enthused in regard to the manifests and other prospects for the future, as I heartily support the two young men. I hope and I pray that the projects may become joined in a strong doctrine to shake the foundations of the highest dynasties and leave them to be devoured by the lower masses.

    Mr. Marx advises and warns me not to plunge into all America with the manifests because there are others of the same kind for New York. But I hope that Jean or Harry will show the manifests to Mr. Joshua Speed, and he, in his turn, can show them to Mr. Lincoln. I know that nothing else can confuse it, as it would have the same chance. Its reception at Washington would be a sacred promise that the path that I am on is in conformity with the policy at present pursued in the Republic of Texas.

    Mr. Marx accepts some of my texts on the communes that I was forced to abandon some time ago, weighing carefully rules and regulations not based on a strong foundation, as so-called pure and simple Utopia, without preamble or body, without an apparent base to build on. I was in accord with the two young men at this date, apropos of my Utopian dreams of the past.

    The sacrifice was made to preserve the great manuscript that was composed and its constitution, to endure forever with the radiance of the stars, but not for those in power to abuse or exploit.

    Oh! to my dismay; I have agreed to the abuses practiced in the last part of the same year after the Dragon was eradicated and utterly abolished. I have described my second commune which I was forced to break up and abandon to the flambeau March 3, 1821, I then took the resolution to withdraw without convert. I am no longer aiding those who are opposed to my principles. {Code and subterfuge}

    I must stop. I will bring several manuscripts and the manifest. I hope that Jules and Glenn (Presumably his children.) are progressing at school with Miss Wing and Miss Burgess. I know they have much patience as teachers. Glenn is not as strong as Jules. (6)

    The second source of American financing for Karl Marx came from Charles Anderson Dana, Editor of the New York Tribune owned by Horace Greeley. Both Dana and Greeley were fraternally associated with the Clinton Roosevelt we cited in Chapter Three and with his Roosevelt Manifesto for dictatorial government. Dana hired Marx to write for the New York Tribune. This Marx did, in over 500 articles spread over ten years from 1851 to 1861."

    It is of special importance that Sutton found the reference to a Roosevelt Manifesto for dictatorial government. You probably know that is what happened - not communism!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Have you heard about Howling Mad Smith? I went to my browser to see if it mentioned this giant of American military might, who is recognized as the Father of American amphibious warfare, is also recognized for his part in the genocidal mania that was American policy in the Philippines at the start of the 20th C.

    Surprise, surprise! Little was mentioned except that he was there; and it appears there is little talk about it being a genocide practiced upon a peaceful people. Of course we all know the great relief and joy which Filipinos felt when MacArthur "returned". The movies about that didn't really cover anything either. Finally I found Gore Vidal telling some truth.

    "Between the years 1899 and 1913 the United States of America wrote the darkest pages of its history. The invasion of the Philippines__ for no other reason than acquiring imperial possessions, prompted a fierce reaction of the Filipino people. 126000 American soldiers were brought in to quell the resistance. As a result, 400000 Filipino "insurrectos" died under the American fire and one million Filipino civilians died because of the hardship, mass killings and scorched earth tactics carried out by the Americans. In total the American war against a peaceful people who fairly ignored the existence of the Americans until their arrival wiped out 1/6 of the population of the country. One hundred years have passed. Isn't it high time that the USA army, Congress and Government apologised for the horrendous crimes and monstruous sufferings that inflicted upon the peoples of Filipinas?

    Alfonso Velázquez

    It was American policy at the turn of the century to kill as many Filipinos as possible. The rationale was straightforward: "With a very few exceptions, practically the entire population has been hostile to us at heart," wrote Brigadier General J. Franklin Bell, a propos our seizure of the Philippines. "In order to combat such a population, it is necessary to make the state of war as insupportable as possible, and there is no more efficacious way of accomplishing this than by keeping the minds of the people in such a state of anxiety and apprehension that living under such conditions will soon become intolerable."

    The comparison of this highly successful operation with our less successful adventure in Vietnam was made by, among others, Bernard Fall, who referred to our conquest of the Philippines as "the bloodiest colonial war (in proportion to population) ever fought by a white power in Asia; it cost the lives of 3,000,000 Filipinos." (cf. E. Ahmed's "The Theory and Fallacies of Counter-Insurgency," The Nation, August 2, 1971.) General Bell himself, the old sweetheart, estimated that we killed one-sixth of the population of the main island of Luzon—some 600,000 people.

    Now a Mr. Creamer quotes a Mr. Hill ("who grew up in Manila," presumably counting skulls) who suggests that the bodycount for all the islands is 300,000 men, women, and children—or half what General Bell admitted to.

    I am amused to learn that I have wandered "so far from easily verified fact." There are no easily verified facts when it comes to this particular experiment in genocide. At the time when I first made reference to the 3,000,000 (NYR, October 18, 1973), a Filipino wrote me to say she was writing her master's thesis on the subject. She was inclined to accept Fall's figures but she said that since few records were kept and entire villages were totally destroyed, there was no way to discover, exactly, those "facts" historians like to "verify." In any case, none of this is supposed to have happened and so, as far as those history books that we use to indoctrinate the young go, it did not happen."

    Gore Vidal"

    Humor can be a great way to address things which need real discussion. Unfortunately these things need more than just discussion and prioritization must be at the top of any realizable agenda.

    Obama White House correspondents speech.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts