Sunday, October 29, 2017

652 Langs welke meetlat behoor je een Leider te leggen?


Correspondenten in Rusland bekritiseren Putin onophoudelijk wegens drie zaken:

1) Hij is niet voldoende democratisch
2) De pers is niet vrij in zijn land.
3)  Hij zou zichzelf verrijken met miljarden, en ook zijn vrienden.

Ik zal die punten bespreken.
1) Hij is niet voldoende democratisch
Putin heeft zover ik weet niks aan de wet veranderd. Die is nog precies zoals ze onder Yeltsin was.  En omdat Yeltsin helemaal in de handen van de Chicago-bosy was, hebben die er in de jaren 90 voor gezorgd dat de president veel meer macht kreeg.

Putin weet dat hij zijn land heel goed leidt, ( 80% tot 90% approval rate is zeer hoog voor een regeringsleider) , en dus is het in feite heel democratisch dat hij lang aan de macht blijft:  het volk is daar blij om.

2) De pers is niet vrij in zijn land.
Er zijn zaken die je als journalist niet moet schrijven: dat Putin miljarden heeft gestolen en dat hij zijn vrienden rijk maakt.  Maar verder kun je alles schrijven. Naar mijn mening is de censuur in het Westen veel groter en efficienter:  waar waren de Amerikaanse kranten die Trump steunden? Ze waren er niet.   Vreemd, want Trump is wel door het volk verkozen. Hoe zit dat dan met evenwichtige berichtgeving?

3)  Hij zou zichzelf verrijken met miljarden, en ook zijn vrienden.
Ik heb hier nog geen bewijzen van gezien. Ik zie een man die onvoorstelbaar veel werk verzet. Ik zie een man die eerst geen premier wilde worden, uit bezorgdheid voor de toekomst van zijn kinderen.

Ik zie een land dat onder Putin veel veiliger is geworden: veel minder moorden dan onder Yeltsin.
De politie is de baas op straat, niet langer de maffia.  Oude mensjes worden niet langer uit hun huis verdreven door criminelen. Etnische Russen die na 1992 plots onder een vijandige regering leefden, voelen dat er iemand is die zal verhinderen dat ze iets wordt aangedaan.
Toen Putin begon leefde 45% van de mensen onder de armioede grens,. Nu 13%. ( Even veel als in de VS) .
Àls Putin zichzelf miljarden zou hebben toegeëigend, dan zou ik bijna zeggen: hij is het waard.
Die miljarden komen nu in elk geval niet bij de Rothschilds in de kluis te liggen. ( U weet dat Chodorkovsky zijn bedrijf Yukos aan de Rotschilds over liet , toen hij de gevangenis in moet.)

========================

Waarom is het goed of fout zijn van een Leider alleen maar afhankelijk van zijn 'democratisch gehalte' en van 'de persvrijheid' ? Waarom juist DIE criteria?

Dat heb ik in een eerdere blog beschreven, maar heel kort komt het hier op neer: in een democratie met veel persvrijheid kan de VS en zeker de joodse groepering elk land  in zijn macht nemen.
Ze kunnen leiders kapot maken in hun media. Ze kunnen hun eigen mensen populair maken. En nog een zeer belangrijk punt: ze manipuleren de massa precies die kant op die voor hèn  belangrijk en gunstig is.

Die arme Amerikanen zijn tevreden dat ze kunnen kiezen. Maar èlke president belooft om geen oorlogen meer te voeren, en èlke president gaat toch weer al die belastingcenten aan het MIC overdragen: oorlog voeren dus.
En zoals bekend:  Wall Street mag met ons geld gokken. Bij winst is het voor de gokkers. Bij verlies moet het volk het gelag betalen. ( Dat het volk daar  niet over in opstand komt, dat komt omdat men af en toe de druk van de ketel laat ( Occupy) en maar mondjesmaat deze info in de media herhaalt.

====================

Welke criteria zijn dan WEL zinvol om een leider te beoordelen?

Dat is heel eenvoudig:

A)  Brengt de leider veiligheid in zijn land. Voorkomt hij oorlog. Voorkomt hij etnische strijd.

B)  Brengt een leider welvaart, op korte en lange termijn?

C)  Houdt een leider een goede balans tussen arm en rijk in zijn land.

D) Zijn gezondgheidszorg, onderwijs en een sociaal vangnet voor alle inwoners van voldoende kwaliteit?

======
Als onze Rusland Correspondenten DEZE MEETLAT zouden gebruiken, dan zouden ze zien dat mijnheer Putin een goede leider is, en dat de Amerikaanse presidenten al 50 jaar slechte presidenten zijn.
Kan iemand mij uitleggen waarom ze die vreemde meetlat van 'persvrijheid' en 'democratie' gebruiken? (*)
Ik denk dat ze uiteindelijk dit zullen antwoorden:

Omdat democratie en een vrije pers zorgen dat we een regering krijgen die zorgt voor:
vrede, veiligheid, welvaart, evenwicht tussen arm en rijk, een verantwoorde gezondheidszorg, goed  onderwijs en een sociaal vangnet.

Als  het dààr om gaat. neem DAT dan als criterium.

                        =========================

(*) De Chinezen vinden het heel dom om een leider te  hebben die niet jarenlang door een selectief proces is gegaan. Ze vinden een democratie een wankele bestuursvorm. En zie hoe onnavolgbaar ze hun land hebben opgebouwd. De levenskwaliteit van elke chinees is sterk verbeterd, en die van burgers in democratiën is gedaald. 








Saturday, October 28, 2017

652 Geen nieuwe JFK informatie, dan maar oude leugens herhalen


Update:  Blij te zien dat Paul Craig Roberts ook het meest waarde hecht aan de inzichten van Jim Douglas.  Ook Oliver Stone ondersteunt Douglas op de cover van zijn boek.   https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/10/28/the-kennedy-assassination/

Update: Onderstaande blog is in feite niet zo belangrijk.  Het boek van Jim Douglas is alles dat je moet weten. Hier staat een goede samenvatting:  Blog 309. 
http://xevolutie.blogspot.nl/2013/11/309-jfk-and-unspeakable.html

Gisteren zijn duizenden documenten vrij gegeven inzake de JFK moord.

Vreemd genoeg mochten ambtenaren toch nog allerlei passages doorstrepen. Wat hebben ze te verbergen?
"Namen van mensen die nu nog in kwetsbare posities zitten." 
Het klinkt allemaal onwaarschijnlijk.
Trump wilde wel alles vrij geven, maar hij kan natuurlijk onmogelijk bepalen waar wel of niet een zwarte streep doorheen gaat.

Ik wacht af of de alternatieve media zaken zal ontdekken die van belang en nieuw zijn.

Waar ik niet op hoef te wachten is natuurlijk het misbruik door de huidige media om ook dit weer aan te grijpen om Rusland toch weer een beetje zwart te maken.

Rob Trip interviewde een journalist die in Washington bij de National Archives stond en waarover begon deze brave borst meteen te praten?
Over het bezoek dat Oswald had gebracht aan Mexico enkele weken voor de aanslag, en zijn ontmoeting aldaar met een KGB agent.

Dat is een oud verhaal, en het zit zo:
Ja, de FBI kreeg tapes opgestuurd uit Mexico, maar toen ze die tapes afluisterden, was hen duidelijk dat dit niet de echte Lee Harvey Oswald was die men hoorde. Het was een imposter.
De FBI heeft dan ook besloten om die tapes niet aan de Warren commissie te geven.
Ze werden door  de FBI als vervalsing beschouwd. Gemaakt door de ware moordenaars, die toen al van plan waren om de schuld op Oswald en de KGB te gaan steken.

Richard Helms, de CIA man die later bij de Warren commissie getuigde, heeft daar een 'aangepast' dossier over Oswald gepresenteerd.  En bovendien was er nòg een ander dossier over Oswald bij de geheime diensten.
Als bij al is duidelijk dat die Warren Commissie flink voor de gek is gehouden.

Over de toedracht van "Oswald's bezoek aan Mexico" kunt U drie artikelen van Peter Dale Scott lezen: Deel 1.   Deel 2    Deel 3.

Ik weet niet zo veel van de JFK  moord, maar was erg onder de indruk van een korte samenvatting van het boek van Jim Douglas: mijn blog 309:  JFK and the unspeakable. 
( mijn blogs 308-312 gaan over JFK.)

                                 -------------------------------------

Gisteren zag ik weer een video met Jim Douglas, en dan valt me toch iets op: deze man is een religieus man en was een professor die zijn universitaire carriere verloor toen hij mee deed aan Vietnam -protesten. Hij zat 1,5 jaar in de gevangenis voor zijn idealen.
Ik denk dat dit  voldoende aanwijzing is om in de integriteit en in de goede humane bedoelingen van deze man te geloven. Dat wil niet zeggen dat Douglas altijd gelijk heeft. Ook hij kan zich vergissen. Maar in elk geval liegt hij niet om daaruit persoonlijk voordeel te behalen.
Als bron krijgt hij van mij 5 sterren: het maximale aantal.

Als U hem op video hoort spreken, wordt die indruk van betrouwbaarheid bevestigd: TalkingStickTV - Jim Douglass - JFK and the Unspeakable

Hier  nog een goede voordracht van Jim Douglas:
         Jim Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable, COPA Dallas 2009.

Samenvatting van deze video:   Seven days in may was een boek waarin stond hoe er in de VS een staatsgreep werd gepleegd door het leger.   Kennedy las het en zei: Dat zou alleen kunnen als een jonge president driemaal een soort van 'Bay of pigs'  zou veroorzaken. Dan zou het leger hem afzetten.

( Bay of pigs:
de CIA organiseerde een aanval op Cuba,uitgevoerd door amateurs.  de CIA wist dat dit niet haalbaar was, maar giong er van uit dat de president dan wel het leger zou inzetten, om verlies te voorkomen. Kennedy weigerde, accepteerde het verlies en ontsloeg de top van de CIA en zei: "ik wil de CIA in 1000 stukjes versplinteren".
Ook George Kennan ( bedenker van de methode van 'plausible deniability'  had spijt van zijn CIA.  Zelfs Truman schreef enkele maanden na de JFK moord dat hij liever de CIA zag verdwijnen ! )

Kennedy voorspelde zijn eigen ondergang toen hij zei dat het leger ( de CIA) zou ingrijpen als een jonge president drie maal zijn eigen gang zou gaan,. tegen de wil van de 'deep state'in.

2) Zijn tweede 'Bay of Pigs' - event  was de Cuba missile crisis.
De generaals ( als Curtis Le May) vonden Kennedy veel te vredelievend. Vergeleken hem met 'Munchen-Appeasement- Chamberlain'. Het was ook spannend.  Maar wat niemand wist is dat Chrustjov en Kennedy al enkele heel lange brieven naar elkaar hadden gesmokkeld.  Daarin schreven ze dat ze de plicht hadden om de mensheid niet door atoomgeweld te laten uitsterven. Maar beiden voelden de hete adem van de hardliners en de militairen in hun nek. Chroestjev schreef: We drijven als een Ark van Noe op een oceaan van atoomgeweld. Kennedy gaf als antwoord: Ja, we moeten onze uiterste best doen om die Ark te redden.

3) Zijn derde 'Bay of Pigs' daad, zijn derde rebellie tegen het Militaire Industrieel Complex was tijdens zijn toespraak op de Washington Universiteit, 10 juni 1963.  Hier pleitte hij voor een weg naar vrede, weg van het atoom inferno.  De speech werd integraal verbreid in Rusland en vond veel bijval. In Amerika was er weinig bijval...
Ik denk dat het een van de belangrijkste oorzaken was voor de moord op Kennedy. De Russen waren erg bedroefd na de moord op Kennedy.
(En vandaag, 28 oktober 2017, durven nederlandse journalisten nog te suggereren dat de Russen mogelijk achter de moord op JFK zaten... tragisch.)
==

Nog enkele oorzaken voor de moord op Kennedy ..... :

4) Hij stelde voor dat er niet langer tests gedaan werden met atoombommen. Aanvankelijk was iedereen tegen dit voorstel, maar uiteindelijk ging de Senaat akkoord. ( Wikipedia)

5) -- Op 11 oktober kondigde Kennedy aan dat eind 1965 de laatste Amerikaanse militairen uit Vietnam zouden zijn terug gekeerd... ( National Security Memorandum 263)

6) - Toenadering tot Cuba:
Intussen drong Chroestjov er sterk op aan bij Castro dat hij Kennedy zou gaan vertrouwen. Een franse journalist Jean Daniel, fungeerde als contact tussen Kennedy en Castro.  Ze zaten bij elkaar toen op 22 november de moord bekend werd.  Jean Daniel beschreef alles 2 weken na de moord in The New Republic. ( maar hier vind ik er niets over:
http://jfkfacts.org/?s=jean+daniel )

7) JFK nam grote opdrachten weg bij de Grote Staalbedrijven. Hij nam het op tegen Big Steel.

8) Sukarno wilde een eigen neutrale stroming van 3e wereldlanden: los van de Russen en los van de Amerikanen. Kennedy  steunde Sukarno en de vrijheid vanb 3e wereldlanden en hij zou op bezoek gaan in Indonesië in 2064.

9) Kennedy wilde samen met de Russen naar de maan. Hij wilde de Amerikaanse kennis delen met de Russen.  In november 1963  was Chroestjov van plan om op dat verzoek van Kennedy in te gaan. Vermoedelijk wist JFK dit al voor zijn dood: hij vaardigde een plan uit: 12 nov National Security  Act Memorandum 271: samenwerking met de USSR.
Chroestjev had het gewonnnen van zijn generaals.


NB: Jim Douglas noemt 7 redenen waarom de Deep State de moord op Kennedy zal hebben gepleegd.  Maar waar blijf je als je de Media tegen je zou krijgen? Dat is levensgevaarlijk.
Waar blijf je als je Hollywood tegen je krijgt?
Hoe moet het verder als je de Universitaire wereld tegen je krijgt?

Dinesh D'Souza noemt deze drie : Academia, Media en de Entertainment Industrie de drie 'Bullhorns' , de megafoons waarmee je het grote publiek bereikt en bespeelt.
Zonder hen is het levensgevaarlijk.

Ik geloof dus dat Collins Piper óók een deel van de JFK puzzel heeft gelegd: Kennedy is óók vermoord met hulp en medeweten van de joodse elite, die een enorme macht heeft in Academia, Media en entertainment.

JFK verbood Israel ronduit om zelf een atoombom te maken. Dàt was onacceptabel voor Ben Gurion.

Als ik  me goed herinner waren het ook enkele joodse gezinnen die Oswald 'begeleidden' in zijn loopbaan om een 'patsy' te worden: iemand die werd klaargestoomnd om een geloofwaardige 'lone wolf assasin' te zijn voor het grote publiek.  Klopt:  zie punt 10:  George de Mohrenschildt en Ruth Forbes. 




651 Over de joodse zeden en gewoonten.

Tamarah Benimah ( vrouwelijke rabbi in Amsterdam) schrijft dat sex bij joden iets is om plezier aan te beleven. Het wordt niet snel als een taboe onderwerp gezien.
Hieronder  een samenvatting van colleges die ze gaf. (*)

Ik vrees dat sex zo'n sterke menselijke 'drift' is dat het aardig uit de hand kan lopen als je er zo permissief tegenover staat als de rabbi's die de Talmud schreven.

In een cultuur met zware taboes op sexueel gebied ga je al over de schreef als je fantasiën in je hoofd toelaat. 
Een mens durft de 'normale regels in zijn cultuur' wel een beetje te overtreden, maar niet met tien stappen.  [ Tenzij er een bijzondere omstandigheid is, zoals bij de katholieke priesters: (**) ]



Mijn vertaling van dit artikel uit Vice:  

'Bij de orthodoxe joden gebeurt  het verkrachten van kinderen aan de lopende band"

 ( Ik heb enkele cruciale passages paars gemaakt)



The Child-Rape Assembly Line

Rabbi Nuchem Rosenberg—who is 63 with a long, graying beard—recently sat down with me to explain what he described as a "child-rape assembly line" among sects of fundamentalist Jews.



Rabbi Nuchem Rosenberg, victim of a bleach attack.



Rabbi Nuchem Rosenberg—who is 63 with a long, graying beard—recently sat down with me to explain what he described as a "child-rape assembly line" among sects of fundamentalist Jews. He cleared his throat. "I'm going to be graphic," he said.

A member of Brooklyn's Satmar Hasidim fundamentalist branch of Orthodox Judaism, Nuchem designs and repairs mikvahs in compliance with Torah Law. The mikvah is a ritual Jewish bathhouse used for purification. Devout Jews are required to cleanse themselves in the mikvah on a variety of occasions: Women must visit following menstruation, and men have to make an appearance before the High Holidays, such as Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. Many of the devout also purify themselves before and after the act of sex and before the Sabbath.

On a visit to Jerusalem in 2005, Rabbi Rosenberg entered into a mikvah in one of the holiest neighborhoods in the city, Mea She'arim. "I opened a door that entered into a schvitz," he told me. "Vapors everywhere, I can barely see. My eyes adjust, and I see an old man, my age, long white beard, a holy-looking man, sitting in the vapors. On his lap, facing away from him, is a boy, maybe seven years old. And the old man is having anal sex with this boy."

Rabbi Rosenberg paused, gathered himself, and went on: "This boy was speared on the man like an animal, like a pig, and the boy was saying nothing. But on his face—fear. The old man [looked at me] without any fear, as if this was common practice. He didn't stop. I was so angry, I confronted him. He removed the boy from his penis, and I took the boy aside. I told this man, 'It's a sin before God, a mishkovzucher. What are you doing to this boy's soul? You're destroying this boy!' He had a sponge on a stick to clean his back, and he hit me across the face with it. 'How dare you interrupt me!' he said. I had heard of these things for a long time, but now I had seen."

The child sex abuse crisis in ultra-Orthodox Judaism, like that in the Catholic Church, has produced its share of shocking headlines in recent years. In New York, and in the prominent Orthodox communities of Israel and London, allegations of child molestation and rape have been rampant. The alleged abusers are schoolteachers, rabbis, fathers, uncles—figures of male authority. The victims, like those of Catholic priests, are mostly boys. Rabbi Rosenberg believes around half of young males in Brooklyn's Hasidic community—the largest in the United States and one of the largest in the world—have been victims of sexual assault perpetrated by their elders. Ben Hirsch, director of Survivors for Justice, a Brooklyn organization that advocates for Orthodox sex abuse victims, thinks the real number is higher. "From anecdotal evidence, we're looking at over 50 percent. It has almost become a rite of passage."

Ultra-Orthodox Jews who speak out about these abuses are ruined and condemned to exile by their own community. Dr. Amy Neustein, a nonfundamentalist Orthodox Jewish sociologist and editor of Tempest in the Temple: Jewish Communities and Child Sex Scandals, told me the story of a series of Hasidic mothers in Brooklyn she got to know who complained that their children were being preyed on by their husbands.

In these cases, the accused men "very quickly and effectively engage the rabbis, the Orthodox politicians, and powerful Orthodox rabbis who donate handsomely to political clubs." The goal, she told me, is "to excise the mother from the child's life." Rabbinical courts cast the mothers aside, and the effects are permanent. The mother is "amputated." One woman befriended by Dr. Neustein, a music student at a college outside New York, lost contact with all six of her children, including an infant she was breastfeeding at the time of their separation.


Rabbi Rosenberg inspects a ritual purification bath, known as a mikvah. In 2005, he witnessed a young boy being raped inside a similar bath.

Seven years ago, Rabbi Rosenberg started blogging about sex abuse in his community and opened a New York City hotline to field sex abuse complaints. He has posted appeals on YouTube, appeared on CNN, and given speeches across the US, Canada, Israel, and Australia. Today, he is the lone whistleblower among the Satmar. For this he is reviled, slandered, hated, feared. He receives death threats on a regular basis. In Yiddish and Hebrew newspapers, advertisements taken out by the self-described "great rabbis and rabbinical judges of the city of New York" have denounced him as "a stumbling block for the House of Israel," "a public rebuker and preacher of ethics" who "persists in his rebelliousness" and whose "voice has been heard among many Jewish families, especially young people in their innocence... drawn to listen to his poisonous and revolting speeches." Leaflets distributed in Williamsburg and Borough Park, the centers of ultra-Orthodoxy in Brooklyn, display his bearded face over the body of a writhing snake. "Corrupt Informer," reads one of the leaflets, followed by the declaration that Rabbi Rosenberg's "name should rot in hell forever. They should cut him off from all four corners of the earth."

When Rabbi Rosenberg wants to bathe at a mikvah in Brooklyn to purify himself, none will have him. When he wants to go to synagogue, none will have him. "He is finished in the community, butchered," said a fellow rabbi who would only talk anonymously. "No one will look at him, and those who will talk to him, they can't let it be known. The pressure in our community, it's incredible."

The powerful men—and it is worth noting that this community is regulated by men only—who govern the world of ultra-Orthodox Judaism would rather their adherents be blind in their faith, their eyes closed to the horrors Rabbi Rosenberg is exposing. Like the Catholic establishment, the rabbinate seeks to cover up the crimes, quiet the victims, protect the abusers, and deflect potential criticism of their institutional practices. Those who speak out are vilified, and the faithful learn to shut their mouths. When the father of the seven-year-old boy whom Rabbi Rosenberg rescued from the Jerusalem bathhouse showed up to collect his son, he couldn't believe his son had been raped. Trembling, terrified, he whisked his son away to get medical help but was still too scared to raise a formal complaint. According to Ben and Survivors for Justice, "The greatest sin is not the abuse, but talking about the abuse. Kids and parents who step forward to complain are crushed."

As for Rabbi Rosenberg, when he voiced his concerns to the rabbinate in Israel, he was brought up on charges by the mishmeres hatznuis, the archconservative Orthodox "modesty squad," which regulates, often through threats of violence, proper moral conduct and dress in the relations between men and women. The modesty squad is a sort of Jewish Taliban. According to Rabbi Rosenberg, the rapist he caught in the act was a member of the modesty squad, which charged him with the unconscionable offense of having previously been seen walking down a street in Jerusalem with a married woman. "But it's OK to molest children," he adds.

The abuse and its cover-up are symptoms of wider political dysfunction—or, more precisely, symptoms of socially disastrous political control by religious elites.

"This isn't a problem about a few aberrant cases or an old-fashioned community reluctant to talk to police about sexual matters," said Michael Lesher, a practicing Jew who has investigated Orthodox sex abuse and represented abuse victims. "This is about a political economy that links Orthodox Judaism with other fundamentalist creeds and with aspects of right-wing ideologies generally. It's an economy in which genuine religious values will never really rise to the top, so long as they're tied to the poisonous priorities that elevate status and power over the basic human needs of the most vulnerable among us."

Michael, who is completing a book on the topic, noted that the infamous Rabbi Elior Chen, convicted in 2010 in what was arguably Israel's worst case of serial child abuse, is still defended in public statements by leading ultra-Orthodox rabbis. Among other legal and moral crimes, the rabbi forced his victims to eat feces, claiming that this cruelty was necessary to "purify" the children he abused.

According to Ben, the ultra-Orthodox community has never been as repressive as it is today. The repression, as he describes it, stems from the burden of having too many children. Huge families are encouraged: Every child born to a Hasid is seen as "a finger in the eye of Hitler." Ben also told me that the average family size among Williamsburg Hasidim is nine, and that some families include more than 15 children.


Mikvah Israel of Boro Park, one of the many mikvahs in Brooklyn that no longer accept Rabbi Rosenberg.

Families saddled with an increasing number of children soon enter into a cycle of poverty. There is simultaneously an extreme separation of the sexes, which is unprecedented in the history of the Hasidim. There is limited general education, to the point that most men in the community are educated only to the third grade, and receive absolutely no sexual education. No secular newspapers are allowed, and internet access is forbidden. "The men in the community are undereducated by design," Ben said. "You have a community that has been infantilized. They have been trained not to think. It's a sort of totalitarian control."

The rabbis, dominating an ignorant and largely poverty-stricken flock, determine the fate of every individual in the community. Nothing is done without the consent of the rabbinical establishment. A man wants to buy a new car—he goes to the rabbi for counsel. A man wants to marry—the rabbi tells him whether or not he should marry a particular bride. As for the women, they don't get to ask the rabbi anything. Their place is beneath contempt.

Michael told me that current Orthodox leadership, accruing wealth from the tithes of subservient followers, is "drifting to the right, politically as well as religiously." Many rabbis in New York City have taken up the banner of neoliberalism. "Every English-language Orthodox publication I know embraced Romney during the 2012 elections, decried national health insurance, blamed liberals for bribing the lower classes," he said. "In Orthodox society, just as in America at large, the financial mismatch between the elite and the rest of us is ominously large."

Michael also notes that the problem is not confined to the extremists. "The same patterns of victim-blaming, covering up, idealizing the rabbis so that cover-ups aren't even acknowledged, are found all across the spectrum of Orthodoxy," he told me. "The Orthodox left was shamefully slow to react to Rabbi Baruch Lanner's abuse or to the similar case of Rabbi Mordechai Elon." Rabbi Lanner, a former New Jersey yeshiva high school principal, was found guilty in 2000 of sexually abusing dozens of teenage students over the decades of his tenure. Rabbi Elon, who had publicly denounced homosexuality, was convicted last August on two counts of forcible sexual assault on a male minor, following several years of reports of his abuse of young boys.

"I have children come to me with their parents, and the blood is coming out of the anus," Rabbi Rosenberg told me when we met. "These are zombies for life. What are we to do?"

This of course is the key question, and no answers are forthcoming. Michael holds out little hope that the situation will change. "If Orthodox institutions continue on their current trajectory," he said, "I'd say things could get worse before they get better."

A few weeks after our interview, Rabbi Rosenberg was walking through the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn when an unidentified man rushed up behind him, tapped him on the shoulder, and threw a cup of bleach in his face. He went to the hospital with facial burns and was temporarily blinded. Such is the measure of justice among the Satmar that a once-respected rabbi, now amputated from the community, should find himself chemically burned on a street in a neighborhood considered holy.

Later Rabbi Rosenberg told me a story of being surrounded by young boys in Williamsburg. The boys cursed him, laughed at him, threatened him, and spat at him. He wondered how many of them would end up molested.






(*)  College 7.
Seks: vrijmoedige hoogtepunten Genieten is een must in het Jodendom.
 Ook in de seksualiteit. En ook voor vrouwen. Bijna alles mag, in het monogame huwelijk. Seks leer je van je leermeesters (maar natuurlijk niet door het met ze te doen). In de traditionele joodse teksten wordt mannen geleerd hoe ze met hun vrouw moeten omgaan, teneinde ze te bevredigen, want de joodse vrouw heeft recht op bevredigende seks. Niet als toevalstreffer, maar regelmatig. De joodse geleerden bediscussiëren zelfs hoe vaak. Dit is een uitvloeisel van de wet van onah, die gebaseerd is op een bijbeltekst. Mannen mogen zich niet van seks onthouden zonder toestemming van hun echtgenote, en als al, dan niet voor lange tijd. Ook dat valt onder onah. Wat niet mag is coïtus interruptus, in het Nederlands bekend als ‘voor het zingen de kerk uit’. Ook dit is gebaseerd op een bijbelverhaal, namelijk het verhaal over Tamar, stamhoofd Jehoeda en zijn twee zonen Er en Onan. Maar het verspillen van zaad is niet altijd een probleem. En de kabbalisten, de joodse mystici, beweren eigenlijk dat er van verspilling geen sprake is als er geen kind wordt verwekt. Als seks mag, mag bijna alles, maar seks mag niet altijd. Niet als de echtgenote menstrueert en de zeven witte dagen nadat het vloeien is afgelopen. Rachel Biale stelt dat deze restrictie in stand is gehouden in het Rabbijnse Jodendom (het Jodendom zoals dat nu bestaat), maar dat de rabbijnen juist veel restricties voor menstruerende vrouwen die bestonden in de Oudheid hebben geschrapt. Nidda, geen seks tijdens menstruatie, wordt door echtparen gewaardeerd, omdat het hun seksuele leven ten goede komt, maar is dat echt zo, of liegen ze erover? Afgezien van een nichtje/nicht is alle seks met vrouwen uit de familie verboden, ook met de aangetrouwde vrouwen. In dit hoorcollege komt ook homoseksualiteit en lesbiciteit aan de orde, en menselijke seksualiteit als functie van de schepping en als helende functie voor de gebrokenheid in mens, wereld en de Eeuwige zelf.

(**)
Hoe is het mogelijk dat in katholieke internaten veel jongens zijn misbruikt door de geestelijken, en dat dit jarenlang door kon gaan zonder dat het werd toegegeven en werd gestopt?

Ik denk omdat het te groot was. Het verschil tussen de officiele leer omtrent zedelijk gedrag en de praktijk van die geestelijken  in de internaten was zo groot, dat men er niet eens over durfde praten. Het zou ook enorme schade aan  De Kerk kunnen doen, en dat had men er niet voor over.
Het werd dus vanaf het begin toegedekt. Maar de driften waren in de mens aanwezig, en  wellicht ook in de hogere rangen , zij die het toezicht moesten uitvoeren.
 Het priesterambt (de mannenwereld in het seminarie, de mis opdragen, zingen , kleurige en neit mannelijke gewaden  dragen,  niet huwen) heeft bovendien een grote aantrekkingskracht op homosexuele mannen.

Daar komt bij dat ook in de gewone maatschappij vrijwel alle sexuele misstappen en misdaden onbesproken bleven.
Zelf herinner ik me dat een meisje in ons dorp een kind van haar eigen vader had gekregen. Dat hoorde je dan wel 1 keer, maar verder sprak niemand daar ooit over.  Die vader is daarvoor ook nooit veroordeeld.  Het was 'Te Groot' om openlijk over te kunnen praten.  ( 'The unspeakable' heeft Thomas Merton dit verschijnsel genoemd, meen ik.)
In zo'n klimaat gaat het misbruik natuurlijk gewoon door.
Tot de Kerk zijn macht volledig heeft verloren en de Media in handen van de vijand zijn en bloed ruiken. Pas dan wordt er over gesproken.

===

Update: 28 okt 2017:
Bericht in Haaretz: In de Anna Loulou bar in Jaffa krijgen vrouwen die ongesteld zijn 25% korting....
Vergelijk dit met het feit dat orthodoxe joodse vrouwen hun eigen haar nooit mogen tonen aan de buitenwereld, en dus allemaal een pruik op hebben. ( Het joodse geloof is één lange poging om G-d te slim af te zijn. Niet een poging om oprecht de geest van de wet te volgen.)

Monday, October 23, 2017

650 De Bende van Nijvel en de State Sponsored terror.

In 1982 tot 1985 pleegde een bende overvallen op supermarkten in diverse belgische steden.

De buit was laag ( 150.000 euro in vijf overvallen met 28 doden), en als een dader gepakt zou worden zou hij de rest van zijn leven achter de tralies gaan. En dat voor enkele duizenden euro's per persoon.

Het waren dus geen normale roofovervallen.
Het was terreur.
Het diende om de mensen bang te maken.
De daders wisten dat ze nooit opgepakt zouden worden, want anders zouden ze dit nooit hebben gedaan. 
Hoe kun je zo'n groep daders bij elkaar brengen?
Geen enkele misdadiger die dit wil doen.

En wat is het nut van terreur ?

En hoe kan het dat al die onderzoeken nergens toe hebben geleid, terwijl de man die nu heeft bekend ( de Reus)  al 17 jaar geleden werd verdacht van deelname aan de bende.
Al die onderzoeken werden ook 'bij toeval' steeds afgebroken of verplaatst , zeker als ze vruchten gingen opleveren.

Ik heb de indruk dat er een inspanning was vanuit het allerhoogste niveau om dit onderzoek te laten mislukken.
Parlementsleden in Belgie hebben er wel voor gezorgd dat de termijn van verjaring, zoals die in de wet stond, werd verlengd.  De Hoge Machten konden dit niet voorkomen, want dat zou hen exposeren.

Gaat dit ergens toe leiden?  Nee, ik denk het niet.  maar hoop is er altijd.

Mijn grote vraag: In hoeverre is het Belgische publiek op de hoogte van Gladio ?
Weet men in België dat de bomaanslagen in Bologna het werk waren van 'agenten' die dit in opdracht deden van de CIA ? En dat die 'agenten' gebruik maakten van wapens die in Italië waren opgeslagen op geheime plaatsen, voor het geval Rusland zou binnen vallen: dan had het verzet al wapens. Dit verzet zou worden uitgevoerd door mensen die 'zouden achterblijven ' ( de stay behinds)  in bezet gebied, om de Russen te saboteren.

Ergens in de Lubbers tijd werd bekend dat er ook Gladio wapens in Nederland lagen.

Het is zeker niet onwaarschijnlijk dat de bende van Nijvel bestond uit een zeer goed getrainde Elite eenheid van de Rijkswacht ( de groep Diane), welke uiteraard bestond uit Law and order karakters die zich in de vrijgevochten jaren 80 niet helemaal gelukkig voelden.
Ook Amerika vond dat de centrale overheid wel wat steun kon gebruiken, en een beetje terreur is altijd goed : dat maakt het volk bang en zorgt dat het naar een autoriteit verlangt.

Het is heel goed mogelijk dat dit samenspel zorgde voor de Bende van Nijvel.

De BBC heeft een 2,5 uur durende documentaire gemaakt ( in 1992) over Gladio, over de Brigate Rosso en over de aanslag op het station in Bologna. 

Youtube: Operation Gladio [BBC Timewatch, 1992] State-Sponsored Terror   ( Gemaakt door Adam Curtis) 


YoutubeNATO's Secret Armies: Operation GLADIO and Terrorism in Western Europe

Interview met de ex echtgenote van 'De Reus'.

Hieronder info die bij de eerste video staat: 

Operation Gladio is undisputed historical fact. Gladio was part of a post-World War II program set up by the CIA and NATO supposedly to thwart future Soviet/communist invasions or influence in Italy and Western Europe. In fact, it became a state-sponsored right-wing terrorist network, involved in false flag operations and the subversion of democracy. The existence of Gladio was confirmed and admitted by the Italian government in 1990, after a judge, Felice Casson, discovered the network in the course of his investigations into right-wing terrorism. Italian prime minister Giulio Andreotti admitted Gladio's existence but tried to minimize its significance. The main function of the Gladio-style groups, in the absence of Soviet invasion, seems to have been to discredit left-wing groups and politicians through the use of "the strategy of tension," including false-flag terrorism. The strategy of tension is a concept for control and manipulation of public opinion through the use of fear, propaganda, agents provacateurs, terrorism, etc. The aim was to instill fear into the populace while framing communist and left-wing political opponents for terrorist atrocities.

649 De positie van Israel is flink verzwakt na de oorlog in Syrië: Elijah J. Magnier


Magnier is een pundit die ik ooit in Antwerpen heb gezien toen hij daar over Syrië sprak.

Hij staat volgens mij hoog aangeschreven, want Moon of Alabama citeert hem nogal eens, en Willy van Damme heeft zeker ook respect voor Magnier.

Hij is in Engeland geboren en getogen, maar zou best joods of arabisch bloed in zich kunnen hebben.
Hij spreekt arabisch en verblijft al decennia in het Midden Oosten.

Zijn laatste blog wil ik hier kort samenvatten:

Door de oorlog in Syrië en de samenwerking tussen het Syrische leger, Hezbollah en Iran is daar in feite een sterk en goed getrainde krijgsmacht ontstaan die helemaal niet meer bang is voor Israel.
Niet dat ze Israel zullen aanvallen, maar een aanval van Israel op één van hen zal  niet zo snel meer gebeuren, omdat het er dan niet zo goed voor Israel zal uitzien: Hezbollah en Syrië zullen openlijk samen de aanval bestrijden, en Iran zal wellicht ook zijn duit in het zakje doen. 

Ik vind dat geweldig nieuws.
Syrië is ook wat zelfverzekerder geworden:  als er nu een Israelische bommenwerper over de grens komt, dan durft Syrië daar al een afweer raket op af te sturen. Ook al zal Israel die raket dan neutaliseren en de Israelische  piloot weer gewoon naar huis kunnen vliegen: de tijd dat Israel deze afweer raket aan greep om eens flink wat  bommen over Syrië af te werpen is voorbij.  Nu zegt Israel: "we gaan dit niet laten escaleren.' Ze binden dan dus in.

Daar komt bij dat Trump weinig zin heeft om militair in Israel bij te springen als Israel een oorlog zou beginnen. Ook die tijd is voorbij.


         =================

Voor de volledigheid zal ik het artikel van Magnier hieronder integraal plaatsen:


Tel Aviv aimed at a Hezbollah moving target but was hit by a new “Rule of Engagement”: get ready for war


By Elijah J. Magnier – @ejmalrai
20 October 2017
A few days ago, Israeli jets violated the Lebanese airspace (not the usual “routine recognition flight” as claimed by Israel’s official spokesperson), with the aim of bombing a Hezbollah convoy (as usual, trucks loaded with weapons) heading from Syria towards Lebanon, according to a well-informed source. The Syrian Army fired a ground to air missile, an old SA-5 (S-200) against the Israeli jets over the sky of Lebanon, to divert attention from the moving target. This Syrian act represented a direct threat – felt by the Israeli command – to the Israeli jets who managed to shoot the missile down. The Israeli Air Force ordered the jets to return to base for evaluation. One hour later, Tel Aviv ordered Israeli jets to fly over the occupied Golan Heights and target the static Syrian military position as retaliation, disregarding the Hezbollah convoy.
The Syrian Command did not decide within minutes of their presence to target the Israeli jets over Lebanon that particular day. That decision had been made during a meeting of the Syrian, Hezbollah and Iranian leadership to agree on progressive measures against Israel to make it understand the message. 10 days ago or more, Syrian anti-aircraft batteries fired upon Israeli jets violating Syrian air space. Days later, Syria shot down an Israeli drone. Last but not least, Syria launched an SA-5 (removed from service by Russia decades ago) against the Israeli jets.
Hezbollah has used this style (which can be called “snowballing”) in every battle or war with Israel to avoid burning bridges and to test the enemy’s reaction. So today, this same style is implemented in Syria where Hezbollah’s experience is not only increasing but is also accessible and integrated with the Syrian High Command. To fight Israel, the frontier barriers between Lebanon and Syria have been lifted- probably for good.
The first message is obvious: in any new confrontation or war between Hezbollah and Israel – said the source –, the sky over Lebanon and the borders with Israel and Syria will form one single front. The second message – and the most important one – is tells Israel that the Syrian Army is on a high about its victory: Russia secured deconfliction and de-escalation zones, al-Qaeda is contained for the moment, and ISIS (the “Islamic State” group) is left with a minute amount of territory, surrounded in the north-east along the Syrian-Iraqi borders.
At the moment, the powers of the Syrian army appear almost unlimited, with over 200,000 men (army, national forces and allies included) who are mostly well-trained and experienced fighters. These will certainly allow Damascus, after 6 years of devastating war, to engage when necessary against Israel in any future battle regardless of the consequences. Syria is determine to free the occupied Golan Heights and will stand next to Hezbollah – and vice versa – in any future war.
Russia has announced that it has updated the Syrian air defence system. The message reaches Israel that this system may come into use at any time, at Syrian discretion. Russia also stressed that it was not interfering in any Syrian-Israeli war and therefore (with a subtle mixed message!) would not mind if Damascus used Russian missiles to defend itself, in the same way Israel does against Syria and Hezbollah under the title of “self-defence and national security.”
As for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, he is confident of the effect of the Russian presence to preserve the unity of Syria, and trusts that Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards who have stood with him during the war will help him recover the entire Syrian territory. Assad eagerly awaits the moment he will stand by the “axis of the resistance”(which he is part of) if threatened. What Assad did in 2006 by opening his weapon stores to Hezbollah can now be seen as a small gesture belonging to the past: in the next battle with Israel, Assad will engage the entire Syrian army as part of the battle, to fight the war side by side with Hezbollah (Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah).
As for Israel, it will continue to try to keep to the algorithm of “open skies” and try to eliminate the very existence of separate Lebanese airspace. Syria will maintain in readiness its decision to strike Israeli jets (when these are within the reach of the Syrian air defence system), and will engage with these jets even if the likelihood of shooting them down is weak.
The decision has been taken: if it comes to war, Syria and Lebanon will wage full-scale, all-out war against Israel. This is a political and military decision arising from the Syrian leadership and its allies. This decision reflects Damascus’s unwillingness to give the left cheek to Israel (as it has done in the past) whenever it breaches the security of Syria and makes its land and its air space vulnerable, including the Lebanese air space that is now part of the balance. Israel, for its part, considers that any future war against Hezbollah will include the entire Lebanon and Syria with all its allied forces operating in the Levant. But Syria is in a good state not seen for more than six years and therefore can realistically and explicitly consider any threat to Lebanon to be a threat against Damascus.
Israel understood the new rules of engagement and fired its rockets from inside the occupied territories of the Golan Heights,not from the Syrian or the Lebanese skies. That does not mean Israel will not try again, but now its leaders know that the “promenade” is over. Thus Israel immediately declared it had “no interested in escalating,” following the Syrian missile launching.
This also indicates that Israel is not ready. This is not only because of the unpreparedness of the internal front and Hezbollah’s accumulated warfare experience in Syria, and the overt presence of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in Syria (which became known for its operational presence with its modern armed drones and ground forces), but because Donald Trump is unwilling to engage in any war in the Middle East: neither on behalf of the Kurds (for their independence) nor for the Arabs and Israel (who desperately want to see Iran and Hezbollah defeated).
The old war in Syria is nearing completion after long six years, and with it comes a new equation and difficult days for Israel. Tel Aviv will continue screaming loudly against Iran and Hezbollah. But its actions will be limited to security operations and sporadic strikes, because there are those who have their finger on the trigger, ready to retaliate and gathering more strength. Certainly, when Nasrallah said “there are hundreds of thousands men waiting to fight Israel if war is waged”, he knew he had reached a united front with Syria and all its allies willing fight together as one body. Certainly Assad and Nasrallah will aim to recover the Syrian and Lebanese territories under Israeli occupation: they now increasingly have the means.

Sunday, October 22, 2017

648 Een militaire coup in de VS? Moon of Alabama zegt het.


b.
Weet U wie b.  is?
Het is de man achter de website Moon of Alabama.
(Ik meen dat hij voluit Bernhard heet. Hij woont in Duitsland en/of is een Duitser van geboorte.)

Een meer bescheiden 'nom de plume' dan b.  kan ik me niet voorstellen.  En toch is deze b. voor mij de beste blogger in de wereld.
Nu het conflict in Syrie op zijn eind loopt zal hij hopelijk steeds meer blogs wijden aan de rest van de wereld.  Ik ben zeer benieuwd.

Ik weet niet of b.  alleen opereert, maar in elk geval heeft hij zijn zaakjes op orde, want hij onderbouwt zijn opinies altijd met berichten of citaten die soms wel 10 jaar oud zijn.

Ik wil het over zijn laatste blog hebben:
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/10/above-all-the-junta-expands-its-claim-to-power.html

Hij zegt ons dat de CIA altijd achter Hillary stond, en dat het Pentagon, de Generaals, altijd achter Trump stonden. En nu hebben ze de macht in handen en doet Trump wat hem gezegd wordt.

Ik begrijp dat er in Raqqa in feite dezelfde scheiding en dezelfde strijd was: de CIA steunde ISIS, maar de Generaals wilden ISIS verdrijven: de generaals wonnen.

En zo hebben ze nu het Witte Huis in hun macht. Trump moet doen wat zij zeggen.  En als het nodig is zullen ze Trump verdedigen.

MoA noemt het meestal een junta, maar soms is hij wat preciezer en zegt : het is een stratocracy - a military junta which nominally follows the rule of law.

Op fantastische wijze ondergraaft hij daarna de geloofwaardigheid van deze junta generaal Kelly.

Hij toont aan dat - zoals in een echte junta- er geen tegenspraak wordt geduld: de persvoorlichter van het Witte Huis zegt: 'twijfel aan de woorden van Kelly is ongepast.'
Ze gaat er niet op in, want op youtube kan iedereen zien dat Kellty loog.  En excuses maken past niet bij een junta-baas.

Wel het verheerlijken, het op een voetstuk zetten van Het leger.
Dat doet Kelly dus.

Dezelfde Kelly die ook over een modern concentratie-kamp de scepter zwaaide, waar mensen werden gemarteld. ( Guantanamo Bay)

Een andere militair, Pompeo,  is nu baas van de CIA.
Hij beloofde dat de CIA nog bloeddorstiger zou worden dan ze tot nu toe was.  Spek voor het bekkie van de Neocon-bijeenkomst waar hij dat zei, natuurlijk.

Maar wat deden diue Amerikaanse militairen eigenlijk daar in Niger?
Ze leerden de lokale militairen de kneepjes van de 'Mensenrechten', zei Kelly.
Bedoelt hij  het waterboarden van meestal onschuldige gevangenen?  Met drones bombarderen van bruiloften?
Let op. want er is een aanwijzing voor wat die 'mensen rechten bevorderaars' daar deden:
Eén van de 4 gesneuvelde militairen was een deskundige op het terrein van kernwapens !

Het zal toch niet te maken hebben met die Uranium-mijnen in Niger, mijnheer Kelly ?

Weet U nog dat de Irak inval o.a. werd gemotiveerd door het verhaal dat Saddam 'yellow cake' in Niger had gezocht?   De  Secret Service man die dat onderzocht had, ik meen dat ie Williams heette, werd later een klokkeluider en zei:  Uit mijn onderzoek bleek juist dat dit verhaal over  yellow cake onwaar was !   ( Was hij niet de man van Valerie Plame ? )

                                 --------------------------------------------------


Het is fascinerend om het gevecht in Washington tussen de diverse machten te volgen. Maar je hebt goede pundits nodig om er iets van te begrijpen.

C Wright Mills schreef in 1956 dat de macht in handen was van de Elite:
de politieke Elite, de militaire Elite en de Elite van de Corporations. 
Video, 3 min.) ( Video 10 min)
En dat hùn belangen niet hetzelfde waren als de belangen van het gewone volk.

Nu weten we allemaal dat politici en bedrijven heel erg rijk kunnen worden met wat ze doen. Ze hebben veel te verliezen als ze hun Elitaire  positie verliezen.

Maar soldaten, generaals:   wat hebben die te verliezen?

Moon of Alabama heeft daar kort geleden een blog aan gewijd.  Het blijkt dat Amerikaanse soldaten een luizenleventje lijden. En dat ze bovendien veel minder gevaar lopen dan de gewone arbeider in de straat! Minder kans op ongelukken of sneuvelen !   Het enige dat ze doen is klagen. Ze besteden 1 miljard $ per jaar aan propaganda ! 

                                --------------------------------


Hieronder enkele vage vermoedens die ik heb over de machtsverhoudingen in de VS elite:

Er zijn toch meer machtsblokken dan alleen de CIA en Het Leger  en het Witte Huis? 

Waar is nu de macht van de Neocons?  En van het Congres?  En van de Corporations. En de Media ?  

Misschien is dat een verkeerde benadering. 
Het is beter om de keuzes die de VS  heeft , op tafel te leggen, en te kijken wie een bepaalde richting uit willen. 
Ik denk dat de Generaals geen 'onwinbare oorlogen ' willen beginnen of voortzetten. De Neocons doen dat wel heel graag: om Israel te helpen door Israels buurlanden te verdelen en te verzwakken.  
De CIA stond in dienst van de Neocon-wars. De media eveneens.
De Corporations alleen als ze Halliburton heeft en of Blackwater. Niet als ze Exxon heetten of Monsanto.  Het Congres doet wat Aipac eist, dus steunt ze de Neocon-wars. 

Maar die generaals willen wel hun spierballen tonen en hun macht.  
De stoere taal van de Nato versus Rusland is iets dat ze graag steunen.  DE dreiging opvoeren naar Noord Korea: ze zullen het graag doen. 





647 Dag BlikopNosjournaal

Trollen hebben nut.
Ze kunnen een blog kapot maken. Dat is ook hun doel.

Lukt niet altijd natuurlijk. Als een site goed wordt gemodereerd, dan staan ze machteloos.

Maar BlikopNosjournaal wordt nauwelijks gemodereerd.

Ik heb er sinds zomer 2014 erg veel geschreven en erg veel discussies gevoerd.

Ik moest wel, want als je kritiek op 'de joden' hebt, dan word je overal al snel af gegooid.

Maar het was een fijne blog, omdat er enkele vaste schrijvers kwamen die ook  goed op de hoogte waren van de bedrieglijkheid van de MSM.

Natuurlijk kwamen er ook trollen ( LGK, Cruelman 1974 en Eddy) , en helaas waren er twee vaste gasten die niets liever deden dan met die trollen discussieren. ( Matt en Joop)

Een trol is lastig, want hij besteedt geen tijd aan onderzoek of aan onderbouwing. Hij poneert gewoon keer op keer  wat beweringen en als je daar niet op reageert, dan lijkt het net alsof je de discussie verliest.  Dat wil je niet.  Een trol kan honderd discussies op rij verliezen, het deert hem totaal niet: de volgende dag is hij er weer en beweert weer de zaken die je grondig hebt weerlegd de vorige dag.

Daarom is het nuttig dat je een moderator hebt die zulke kletskoek verwijdert.

Blik doet dat niet.
Hij schreef me al vele malen dat hij mijn bijdragen zeer waardeert, maar ik merk er helemaal niks van.

Dit is de mail die ik hem zojuist stuurde:

Huib, 


je schreef dat je de code's zou zoeken en sturen.

Maar je koos er voor om dat niet te doen. 

Ik kies er voor om jouw blog aan jouw trol over te laten. 

succes er mee. 


Ja, ik ben boos. 

De site van Blik was mijn digitale huiskamer.
Ik kon daar kwijt wat me op de lever lag. 
Ik kreeg af en toe een reactie. 
Dat heb je nodig als je  intensief bij de wereld betrokken bent. 
Een uitlaatklep. Een klankbord, Een vleugje kritiek. Een stukje aanvulling. Een schouderklopje.
Ik heb Blik aangeboden om hem te helpen bij  het modereren.
Een jaar geleden gaf hij me de code's. Maar ik schrapte ook Joop, als hij onzin verkocht, en binnen no time had Blik de toegangscode veranderd.
OK. Het is zijn blog.

Toen kwam Eddy, en toen had ik na een paar weken zo genoeg van de site dat ik hem verliet.
Maar na een maand was Eddy ineens weg, en keerde ik weer terug naar Blik.

Nu is Eddy al weer een maand actief, en ik heb er alweer helemaal geen behoefte meer aan om op Blik te publiceren: alles wordt letterlijk ondergepoept met drollen van Eddy.
Hij kan wel 10 berichten per uur schrijven,. allemaal direct standpunten uit de MSM. dus allemaal zaken die we overal tegen komen.  Heeft geen enkele info waarde.

Daar komt nog bij dat hij zichzelf in elk bericht feliciteert met zijn eigen voortreffelijkheid:  Hij is namelijk chauffeur op een vrachtwagen, en als er geen transport is - zo redeneert Eddy-   dan lijden we allemaal honger. Dat is het denk-niveau van Eddy.  Zonde van onze tijd.


Saturday, October 21, 2017

646 De Media zijn de Machtigsten.




Dit is een haastig bedachte blog.  Over de Media macht, en wat ik daarover de laatste dagen las.

Favoriet blijft Malcolm X uitspraak: dat de Media het machtigste zijn, omdat ze goede mensen tot slecht kunnen veranderen en ook omgekeerd.
The media’s the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and the guilty innnocent, and that’s power. Because they control the minds of the masses


In een gesprek tussen De Saker en Catherine Austin Fitts waren beiden het er over eens dat de Neocons van alles proberen om de First Amendment te omzeilen. ( Vrijheid van meningsuiting)
Het zit zo stevig in de Grondwet verankerd, dat het heel moeilijk zal zijn om die wet te veranderen.
'They bully people out of free speech' zegt mevr. Fitts.  Heel kernachtig uitgedrukt: je durft niet meer te zeggen wat je vindt, want je weet dat je enorm zwart zult worden gemaakt. 'Pesten' is dan te zacht uitgedrukt. Karaktermoord is meestal een juistere benaming van wat er gebeurt.

( Geschreven verslag Saker-Fitts, pagina 31 en 32.  Op pagina's 42 tot 44 gaat het over de vijand van de wereld: de Neocons, En dat ze het liefst de grondwet willen veranderen om vrij spel te hebben)

Ron Unz schreef langer geleden al een artikel over het belang van de Media: Breaching the Media wall. 

Aaron Schwarz begreep in 2011 dat die copyrights Sopa en Pipa wetten in  feite bedoeld waren om de vrijheid van meningsuiting aan banden te leggen. Youtube:  The Internet's Own Boy: The Story of Aaron Swartz | full movie (2014)

Hier nog een interview op Novini met Tabe Bergman.

In het boek van Alex Krainer werd een aardig kenmerk van het Putin bashen beschreven: ook  mensen die niks geloven van de Putin zwartmakerijen moeten toch elke zin over Putin met een disclaimer beginnen : 'Niet dat ik geloof dat Putin een heilige is, maar   of: Natuurlijk zal hij ook wel slechte dingen doen, maar '  ( The killing of Bill Browder. pag 6)
Het is taboe geworden om Putin een goed mens te vinden.  Terwijl het niet taboe is om positief over Blair of Bush te spreken.  Je hoeft dat nooit vooraf te laten gaan door een disclaimer.

Robert Parry schrijft dat het Rusland bashen nu echt absurde vormen heeft aangenomen: men spreekt dagenlang over enkele advertenties van de Russen op het internet  die de Verkiezingen zouden hebben beïnvloed. Over enkele Facebook accounts. Over het spelletje Pokomon. Parry gaat de aantallen eens serieus vergelijken met wat er in totaal aan verkiezings-geld om gaat, en met het totaal aan facebook accounts etc. Dan zie je dat - als het allemaal waar zou zijn -  de invloed minder dan nihil is.  Maar het kan niet waar zijn, want een deel van die "Russische verkiezings-beïnvloeding" gebeurde na de verkiezingen. ( Het artikel van Perry )

Ik wil daar aan toevoegen:
de Media hebben zeer duidelijk partij gekozen tegen Trump. ( Er was één  krant die pro Trump schreef, ergens in het Midden Westen,. als ik me goed herinner.)

Hebben de Media dan niet de plicht om 'gebalanceerd' verslag te doen?
Dat zal toch zeker gelden voor media die met overheids geld weren. Of bestaan die in de VS niet meer?  Dan hebben ze dus àltijd en legaal met 'adverteerders-belangen-nieuws' te maken?


Robert Perry toont aan dat je niet lang hoeft na te denken om te begrijpen dat 'Pokemon' en 'Facebook' nooit de verkiezingen kon beïnvloeden.
Waarom dan toch al die bombarie?
Volgens mij hoef je helemaal geen zinnige dingen te zeggen om toch effect te hebben dat je verlangt.

Wie gelooft er nu letterlijk al die claims die in een reclamebericht voorbij komen?  Niemand toch?
Maar de adverteerder gaat toch door, want hij weet:  het heeft weel degelijk invloed.

Tot zover deze korte overdenking.


















Sunday, October 15, 2017

645 Wall Street abnd the Bolshevik revolution. Antony Sutton. Marburg Plan etc.



This is Chapter XI form Antony Suttons Boog about the strong connectiuon between Wall Street bankers and the Russian Revolution. 



Here    you can see the whole book by Antony Sutton and click on every Chapter and you can read it in the right lay-out. 



Below is only chapter 11: 

In the blue marked text you can read what the Bankers said during the hearing in the Congress hearing by the Senate Overmann Committee on the question  'Why did you Bankers  support ( and create?)  the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia ? 


Chapter XI
THE ALLIANCE OF BANKERS AND REVOLUTION
The name Rockefeller does not connote a revolutionary, and my life
situation has fostered a careful and cautious attitude that verges on
conservatism. I am not given to errant causes...
John D. Rockefeller III, The Second American Revolution (New York: Harper
& Row. 1973)
THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED: A SYNOPSIS
Evidence already published by George Katkov, Stefan Possony, and Michael Futrell has
established that the return to Russia of Lenin and his party of exiled Bolsheviks, followed a few
weeks later by a party of Mensheviks, was financed and organized by the German
government.1 The necessary funds were transferred in part through the Nya Banken in
Stockholm, owned by Olof Aschberg, and the dual German objectives were: (a) removal of
Russia from the war, and (b) control of the postwar Russian market.2
We have now gone beyond this evidence to establish a continuing working relationship
between Bolshevik banker Olof Aschberg and the Morgan-controlled Guaranty Trust Company
in New York before, during, and after the Russian Revolution. In tsarist times Aschberg was
the Morgan agent in Russia and negotiator for Russian loans in the United States; during 1917
Aschberg was financial intermediary for the revolutionaries; and after the revolution Aschberg
became head of Ruskombank, the first Soviet international bank, while Max May, a vice
president of the Morgan-controlled Guaranty Trust, became director and chief of the Ruskombank
foreign department. We have presented documentary evidence of a continuing working
relationship between the Guaranty Trust Company and the Bolsheviks. The directors of
Guaranty Trust in 1917 are listed in Appendix 1.
Moreover, there is evidence of transfers of funds from Wall Street bankers to international
revolutionary activities. For example, there is the statement (substantiated by a cablegram) by
William Boyce Thompson — a director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, a large
stockholder in the Rockefeller-controlled Chase Bank, and a financial associate of the
Guggenheims and the Morgans — that he (Thompson) contributed $1 million to the Bolshevik
Revolution for propaganda purposes. Another example is John Reed, the American member of
the Third International executive committee who was financed and supported by Eugene
Boissevain, a private New York banker, and who was employed by Harry Payne Whitney's
Metropolitan magazine. Whitney was at that time a director of Guaranty Trust. We also
established that Ludwig Martens, the first Soviet "ambassador" to the United States, was
(according to British Intelligence chief Sir Basil Thompson) backed by funds from Guaranty
Trust Company. In tracing Trotsky's funding in the U.S. we arrived at German sources, yet to
be identified, in New York. And though we do not know the precise German sources of
Trotsky's funds, we do know that Von Pavenstedt, the chief German espionage paymaster in
the U.S., was also senior partner of Amsinck & Co. Amsinck was owned by the ever-present
American International Corporation — also controlled by the J.P. Morgan firm.
Further, Wall Street firms including Guaranty Trust were involved with Carranza's and Villa's
wartime revolutionary activities in Mexico. We also identified documentary evidence
concerning. a Wall Street syndicate's financing of the 1912 Sun Yat-sen revolution in China, a
revolution that is today hailed by the Chinese Communists as the precursor of Mao's revolution
in China. Charles B. Hill, New York attorney negotiating with Sun Yat-sen in behalf of this
syndicate, was a director of three Westinghouse subsidiaries, and we have found that Charles
R. Crane of Westinghouse in Russia was involved in the Russian Revolution.
Quite apart from finance, we identified other, and possibly more significant, evidence of Wall
Street involvement in the Bolshevik cause. The American Red Cross Mission to Russia was a
private venture of William B. Thompson, who publicly proffered partisan support to the
Bolsheviks. British War Cabinet papers now available record that British policy was diverted
towards the Lenin-Trotsky regime by the personal intervention of Thompson with Lloyd
George in December 1917. We have reproduced statements by director Thompson and deputy
chairman William Lawrence Saunders, both of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York,
strongly favoring the Bolshevists. John Reed not only was financed from Wall Street, but had
consistent support for his activities, even to the extent of intervention with the State
Department from William Franklin Sands, executive secretary of American International
Corporation. In the sedition case of Robert Minor there are strong indications and some
circumstantial evidence that Colonel Edward House intervened to have Minor released. The
significance of the Minor case is that William B. Thompson's program for Bolshevik revolution
in Germany was the very program Minor was implementing when arrested in Germany.
Some international agents, for example Alexander Gumberg, worked for Wall Street and the
Bolsheviks. In 1917 Gumberg was the representative of a U.S. firm in Petrograd, worked for
Thompson's American Red Cross Mission, became chief Bolshevik agent in Scandinavia until
he was deported from Norway, then became confidential assistant to Reeve Schley of Chase
Bank in New York and later to Floyd Odium of Atlas Corporation.
This activity in behalf of the Bolsheviks originated in large part from a single address: 120
Broadway, New York City. The evidence for this observation is outlined but no conclusive
reason is given for the unusual concentration of activity at a single address, except to state that
it appears to be the foreign counterpart of Carroll Quigley's claim that J.P. Morgan infiltrated
the domestic left. Morgan also infiltrated the international left.
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York was at 120 Broadway. The vehicle for this proBolshevik
activity was American International Corporation — at 120 Broadway. AIC views on
the Bolshevik regime were requested by Secretary of State Robert Lansing only a few weeks
after the revolution began, and Sands, executive secretary of AIC, could barely restrain his
enthusiasm for the Bolshevik cause. Ludwig Martens, the Soviet's first ambassador, had been
vice president of Weinberg & Posner, which was also located at 120-Broadway. Guaranty
Trust Company was next door at 140 Broadway but Guaranty Securities Co. was at 120
Broadway. In 1917 Hunt, Hill & Betts was at 120 Broadway, and Charles B. Hill of this firm
was the negotiator in the Sun Yat-sen dealings. John MacGregor Grant Co., which was
financed by Olof Aschberg in Sweden and Guaranty Trust in the United States, and which was
on the Military Intelligence black list, was at 120 Broadway. The Guggenheims and the
executive heart of General Electric (also interested in American International) were at 120
Broadway. We find it therefore hardly surprising that the Bankers Club was also at 120
Broadway, on the top floor (the thirty-fourth).
It is significant that support for the Bolsheviks did not cease with consolidation of the
revolution; therefore, this support cannot be wholly explained in terms of the war with
Germany. The American-Russian syndicate formed in 1918 to obtain concessions in Russia
was backed by the White, Guggenheim, and Sinclair interests. Directors of companies
controlled by these three financiers included Thomas W. Lamont (Guaranty Trust), William
Boyce Thompson (Federal Reserve Bank), and John Reed's employer Harry Payne Whitney
(Guaranty Trust). This strongly suggests that the syndicate was formed to cash in on earlier
support for the Bolshevik cause in the revolutionary period. And then we found that Guaranty
Trust financially backed the Soviet Bureau in New York in 1919.
The first really concrete signal that previous political and financial support was paying off
came in 1923 when the Soviets formed their first international bank, Ruskombank. Morgan
associate Olof Aschberg became nominal head of this Soviet bank; Max May, a vice president
of Guaranty Trust, became a director of Ruskom-bank, and the Ruskombank promptly
appointed Guaranty Trust Company its U.S. agent.


THE EXPLANATION FOR THE UNHOLY ALLIANCE

What motive explains this coalition of capitalists and Bolsheviks?
Russia was then — and is today — the largest untapped market in the world. Moreover, Russia,
then and now, constituted the greatest potential competitive threat to American industrial and
financial supremacy. (A glance at a world map is sufficient to spotlight the geographical
difference between the vast land mass of Russia and the smaller United States.) Wall Street
must have cold shivers when it visualizes Russia as a second super American industrial giant.
But why allow Russia to become a competitor and a challenge to U.S. supremacy? In the late
nineteenth century, Morgan/Rockefeller, and Guggenheim had demonstrated their monopolistic
proclivities. In Railroads and Regulation 1877-1916 Gabriel Kolko has demonstrated how the
railroad owners, not the farmers, wanted state control of railroads in order to preserve their
monopoly and abolish competition. So the simplest explanation of our evidence is that a
syndicate of Wall Street financiers enlarged their monopoly ambitions and broadened horizons
on a global scale. The gigantic Russian market was to be converted into a captive market and a
technical colony to be exploited by a few high-powered American financiers and the
corporations under their control. What the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Federal
Trade Commission under the thumb of American industry could achieve for that industry at
home, a planned socialist government could achieve for it abroad — given suitable support and
inducements from Wall Street and Washington, D.C.
Finally, lest this explanation seem too radical, remember that it was Trotsky who appointed
tsarist generals to consolidate the Red Army; that it was Trotsky who appealed for American
officers to control revolutionary Russia and intervene in behalf of the Soviets; that it was
Trotsky who squashed first the libertarian element in the Russian Revolution and then the
workers and peasants; and that recorded history totally ignores the 700,000-man Green Army
composed of ex-Bolsheviks, angered at betrayal of the revolution, who fought the Whites and
the Reds. In other words, we are suggesting that the Bolshevik Revolution was an alliance of
statists: statist revolutionaries and statist financiers aligned against the genuine revolutionary
libertarian elements in Russia.3
'The question now in the readers' minds must be, were these bankers also secret Bolsheviks?
No, of course not. The financiers were without ideology. It would be a gross misinterpretation
to assume that assistance for the Bolshevists was ideologically motivated, in any narrow sense.
The financiers were power-motivated and therefore assisted any political vehicle that would
give them an entree to power: Trotsky, Lenin, the tsar, Kolchak, Denikin — all received aid,
more or less. All, that is, but those who wanted a truly free individualist society.
Neither was aid restricted to statist Bolsheviks and statist counter-Bolsheviks. John P. Diggins,
in Mussolini and Fascism: The View from America,4 has noted in regard to Thomas Lamont of
Guaranty Trust that
Of all American business leaders, the one who most vigorously patronized the cause of
Fascism was Thomas W. Lamont. Head of the powerful J.P. Morgan banking network, Lamont
served as something of a business consultant for the government of Fascist Italy.
Lamont secured a $100 million loan for Mussolini in 1926 at a particularly crucial time for the
Italian dictator. We might remember too that the director of Guaranty Trust was the father of
Corliss Lamont, a domestic Communist. This evenhanded approach to the twin totalitarian
systems, communism and fascism, was not confined to the Lamont family. For example, Otto
Kahn, director of American International Corporation and of Kuhn, Leob & Co., felt sure that
"American capital invested in Italy will find safety, encouragement, opportunity and reward."5
This is the same Otto Kahn who lectured the socialist League of Industrial Democracy in 1924
that its objectives were his objectives.6 They differed only — according to Otto Kahn — over the
means of achieving these objectives.
Ivy Lee, Rockefeller's public relations man, made similar pronouncements, and was
responsible for selling the Soviet regime to the gullible American public in the late 1920s. We
also have observed that Basil Miles, in charge of the Russian desk at the State Department and
a former associate of William Franklin Sands, was decidedly helpful to the businessmen
promoting Bolshevik causes; but in 1923 the same Miles authored a profascist article, "Italy's
Black Shirts and Business."7 "Success of the Fascists is an expression of Italy's youth," wrote
Miles while glorifying the fascist movement and applauding its esteem for American business.


THE MARBURG PLAN

The Marburg Plan, financed by Andrew Carnegie's ample heritage, was produced in the early
years of the twentieth century. It suggests premeditation for this kind of superficial
schizophrenia, which in fact masks an integrated program of power acquisition: "What then if
Carnegie and his unlimited wealth, the international financiers and the Socialists could be
organized in a movement to compel the formation of a league to enforce peace."8
The governments of the world, according to the Marburg Plan, were to be socialized while the
ultimate power would remain in the hands of the international financiers "to control its councils and enforce peace [and so] provide a specific for all the political ills of mankind."9
This idea was knit with other elements with similar objectives. Lord Milner in England
provides the transatlantic example of banking interests recognizing the virtues and possibilities
of Marxism. Milner was a banker, influential in British wartime policy, and pro-Marxist.10 In
New York the socialist "X" club was founded in 1903. It counted among its members not only
the Communist Lincoln Steffens, the socialist William English Walling, and the Communist
banker Morris Hillquit, but also John Dewey, James T. Shotwell, Charles Edward Russell, and
Rufus Weeks (vice president of New York Life Insurance Company). The annual meeting of
the Economic Club in the Astor Hotel, New York, witnessed socialist speakers. In 1908, when
A. Barton Hepburn, president of Chase National Bank, was president of the Economic Club,
the main speaker was the aforementioned Morris Hillquit, who "had abundant opportunity to
preach socialism to a gathering which represented wealth and financial interests."11
From these unlikely seeds grew the modern internationalist movement, which included not
only the financiers Carnegie, Paul Warburg, Otto Kahn, Bernard Baruch, and Herbert Hoover,
but also the Carnegie Foundation and its progeny International Conciliation. The trustees of
Carnegie were, as we have seen, prominent on the board of American International
Corporation. In 1910 Carnegie donated $10 million to found the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, and among those on the board of trustees were Elihu Root (Root Mission
to Russia, 1917), Cleveland H. Dodge (a financial backer of President Wilson), George W.
Perkins (Morgan partner), G. J. Balch (AIC and Amsinck), R. F. Herrick (AIC), H. W. Pritchett
(AIC), and other Wall Street luminaries. Woodrow Wilson came under the powerful influence
of — and indeed was financially indebted to — this group of internationalists. As Jennings C.
Wise has written, "Historians must never forget that Woodrow Wilson... made it possible for
Leon Trotsky to enter Russia with an American passport."12
But Leon Trotsky also declared himself an internationalist. We have remarked with some
interest his high-level internationalist connections, or at least friends, in Canada. Trotsky then
was not pro-Russian, or pro-Allied, or pro-German, as many have tried to make him out to be.
Trotsky was for world revolution, for world dictatorship; he was, in one word, an
internationalist.13 Bolshevists and bankers have then this significant common ground —
internationalism. Revolution and international finance are not at all inconsistent if the result of
revolution is to establish more centralized authority. International finance prefers to deal with
central governments. The last thing the banking community wants is laissez-faire economy and
decentralized power because these would disperse power.
This, therefore, is an explanation that fits the evidence. This handful of bankers and promoters
was not Bolshevik, or Communist, or socialist, or Democrat, or even American. Above all else
these men wanted markets, preferably captive international markets — and a monopoly of the
captive world market as the ultimate goal. They wanted markets that could be exploited
monopolistically without fear of competition from Russians, Germans, or anyone else —
including American businessmen outside the charmed circle. This closed group was apolitical
and amoral. In 1917, it had a single-minded objective — a captive market in Russia, all
presented under, and intellectually protected by, the shelter of a league to enforce the peace.
Wall Street did indeed achieve its goal. American firms controlled by this syndicate were later
to go on and build the Soviet Union, and today are well on their way to bringing the Soviet
military-industrial complex into the age of the computer.
Today the objective is still alive and well. John D. Rockefeller expounds it in his book The
Second American Revolution — which sports a five-pointed star on the title page.14 The book
contains a naked plea for humanism, that is, a plea that our first priority is to work for others. In
other words, a plea for collectivism. Humanism is collectivism. It is notable that the
Rockefellers, who have promoted this humanistic idea for a century, have not turned their
OWN property over to others.. Presumably it is implicit in their recommendation that we all
work for the Rockefellers. Rockefeller's book promotes collectivism under the guises of
"cautious conservatism" and "the public good." It is in effect a plea for the continuation of the
earlier Morgan-Rockefeller support of collectivist enterprises and mass subversion of
individual rights.
In brief, the public good has been, and is today, used as a device and an excuse for selfaggrandizement
by an elitist circle that pleads for world peace and human decency. But so long
as the reader looks at world history in terms of an inexorable Marxian conflict between
capitalism and communism, the objectives of such an alliance between international finance
and international revolution remain elusive. So will the ludicrousness of promotion of the
public good by plunderers. If these alliances still elude the reader, then he should ponder the
obvious fact that these same international interests and promoters are always willing to
determine what other people should do, but are signally unwilling to be first in line to give up
their own wealth and power. Their mouths are open, their pockets are closed.
This technique, used by the monopolists to gouge society, was set forth in the early twentieth
century by Frederick C. Howe in The Confessions of a Monopolist.15 First, says Howe, politics
is a necessary part of business. To control industries it is necessary to control Congress and the
regulators and thus make society go to work for you, the monopolist. So, according to Howe,
the two principles of a successful monopolist are, "First, let Society work for you; and second,
make a business of politics."16 These, wrote Howe, are the basic "rules of big business."
Is there any evidence that this magnificently sweeping objective was also known to Congress
and the academic world? Certainly the possibility was known and known publicly. For
example, witness the testimony of Albert Rhys Williams, an astute commentator on the
revolution, before the Senate Overman Committee:
. . . it is probably true that under the soviet government industrial life will perhaps be much
slower in development than under the usual capitalistic system. But why should a great
industrial country like America desire the creation and consequent competition of another great
industrial rival? Are not the interests of America in this regard in line with the slow tempo of
development which soviet Russia projects for herself?

Senator Wolcott: Then your argument is that it would be to the interest of America to have
Russia repressed?

MR. WILLIAMS: Not repressed ....

SENATOR WOLCOTT: You say. Why should America desire Russia to become an industrial
competitor with her?

MR. WILLIAMS: This is speaking from a capitalistic standpoint. The whole interest of
America is not, I think, to have another great industrial rival, like Germany, England, France,
and Italy, thrown on the market in competition. I think another government over there besides
the Soviet government would perhaps increase the tempo or rate of development of Russia, and
we would have another rival. Of course, this is arguing from a capitalistic standpoint.

SENATOR WOLCOTT: So you are presenting an argument here which you think might
appeal to the American people, your point being this, that if we recognize the Soviet
government of Russia as it is constituted we will be recognizing a government that can not
compete with us in industry for a great many years?
MR. WILLIAMS: That is a fact.
SENATOR WOLCOTT: That is an argument that under the Soviet government Russia is in no
position, for a great many years at least, to approach America industrially?
MR. WILLIAMS: Absolutely.17
And in that forthright statement by Albert Rhys Williams is the basic clue to the revisionist
interpretation of Russian history over the past half century.
Wall Street, or rather the Morgan-Rockefeller complex represented at 120 Broadway and 14
Wall Street, had something very close to Williams' argument in mind. Wall Street went to bat
in Washington for the Bolsheviks. It succeeded. The Soviet totalitarian regime survived. In the
1930s foreign firms, mostly of the Morgan-Rockefeller group, built the five-year plans. They
have continued to build Russia, economically and militarily.18 On the other hand, Wall Street
presumably did not foresee the Korean War and the Vietnam War — in which 100,000
Americans and countless allies lost their lives to Soviet armaments built with this same
imported U.S. technology. What seemed a farsighted, and undoubtedly profitable, policy for a
Wall Street syndicate, became a nightmare for millions outside the elitist power circle and the
ruling class.
Footnotes:
1Michael Futrell, Northern Underground (London: Faber and Faber, 1963);
Stefan Possony, Lenin: The Compulsive Revolutionary (London: George Allen
& Unwin, 1966); and George Katkov, "German Foreign Office Documents on
Financial Support to the Bolsheviks in 1917," International Affairs 32 (Royal
Institute of International Affairs, 1956).
2Ibid., especially Katkov.
3See also Voline (V.M. Eichenbaum), Nineteen-Seventeen: The Russian
Revolution Betrayed (New York: Libertarian Book Club, n.d.).
4Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Prss, 1972.
5Ibid., p. 149.
6See p. 49.
7Nation's Business, February 1923, pp. 22-23.
8Jennings C. Wise, Woodrow Wilson: Disciple of Revolution (New York:
Paisley Press, 1938), p.45
9Ibid., p.46
10See p. 89.
11Morris Hillquit, Loose Leaves from a Busy Life (New York: Macmillan,
1934), p. 81.
12Wise, op. cit., p. 647
13Leon Trotsky, The Bolsheviki and World Peace (New York: Boni &
Liveright, 1918).
14In May 1973 Chase Manhattan Bank (chairman, David Rockefeller) opened
it Moscow office at 1 Karl Marx Square, Moscow. The New York office is at
1 Chase Manhattan Plaza.
15Chicago: Public Publishin, n.d.
16Ibid.
17U.S., Senate, Bolshevik Propaganda, hearings before a subcommittee of the
Committee on the Judiciary, 65th Cong., pp. 679-80. See also herein p. 107 for
the role of Williams in Radek's Press Bureau.
18See Antony C. Sutton, Western Technology and Soviet Economic
Development, 3 vols. (Stanford, Calif.: Hoover Institution, 1968, 1971, 1973);
see also National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union (New York:
Arlington House, 1973)I

Chapter XI

THE ALLIANCE OF BANKERS AND REVOLUTION
The name Rockefeller does not connote a revolutionary, and my life
situation has fostered a careful and cautious attitude that verges on
conservatism. I am not given to errant causes...
John D. Rockefeller III, The Second American Revolution (New York: Harper
& Row. 1973)

THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED: A SYNOPSIS
Evidence already published by George Katkov, Stefan Possony, and Michael Futrell has
established that the return to Russia of Lenin and his party of exiled Bolsheviks, followed a few
weeks later by a party of Mensheviks, was financed and organized by the German
government.1 The necessary funds were transferred in part through the Nya Banken in
Stockholm, owned by Olof Aschberg, and the dual German objectives were: (a) removal of
Russia from the war, and (b) control of the postwar Russian market.2
We have now gone beyond this evidence to establish a continuing working relationship
between Bolshevik banker Olof Aschberg and the Morgan-controlled Guaranty Trust Company
in New York before, during, and after the Russian Revolution. In tsarist times Aschberg was
the Morgan agent in Russia and negotiator for Russian loans in the United States; during 1917
Aschberg was financial intermediary for the revolutionaries; and after the revolution Aschberg
became head of Ruskombank, the first Soviet international bank, while Max May, a vice
president of the Morgan-controlled Guaranty Trust, became director and chief of the Ruskombank
foreign department. We have presented documentary evidence of a continuing working
relationship between the Guaranty Trust Company and the Bolsheviks. The directors of
Guaranty Trust in 1917 are listed in Appendix 1.
Moreover, there is evidence of transfers of funds from Wall Street bankers to international
revolutionary activities. For example, there is the statement (substantiated by a cablegram) by
William Boyce Thompson — a director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, a large
stockholder in the Rockefeller-controlled Chase Bank, and a financial associate of the
Guggenheims and the Morgans — that he (Thompson) contributed $1 million to the Bolshevik
Revolution for propaganda purposes. Another example is John Reed, the American member of
the Third International executive committee who was financed and supported by Eugene
Boissevain, a private New York banker, and who was employed by Harry Payne Whitney's
Metropolitan magazine. Whitney was at that time a director of Guaranty Trust. We also
established that Ludwig Martens, the first Soviet "ambassador" to the United States, was
(according to British Intelligence chief Sir Basil Thompson) backed by funds from Guaranty
Trust Company. In tracing Trotsky's funding in the U.S. we arrived at German sources, yet to
be identified, in New York. And though we do not know the precise German sources of
Trotsky's funds, we do know that Von Pavenstedt, the chief German espionage paymaster in
the U.S., was also senior partner of Amsinck & Co. Amsinck was owned by the ever-present
American International Corporation — also controlled by the J.P. Morgan firm.
Further, Wall Street firms including Guaranty Trust were involved with Carranza's and Villa's
wartime revolutionary activities in Mexico. We also identified documentary evidence
concerning. a Wall Street syndicate's financing of the 1912 Sun Yat-sen revolution in China, a
revolution that is today hailed by the Chinese Communists as the precursor of Mao's revolution
in China. Charles B. Hill, New York attorney negotiating with Sun Yat-sen in behalf of this
syndicate, was a director of three Westinghouse subsidiaries, and we have found that Charles
R. Crane of Westinghouse in Russia was involved in the Russian Revolution.
Quite apart from finance, we identified other, and possibly more significant, evidence of Wall
Street involvement in the Bolshevik cause. The American Red Cross Mission to Russia was a
private venture of William B. Thompson, who publicly proffered partisan support to the
Bolsheviks. British War Cabinet papers now available record that British policy was diverted
towards the Lenin-Trotsky regime by the personal intervention of Thompson with Lloyd
George in December 1917. We have reproduced statements by director Thompson and deputy
chairman William Lawrence Saunders, both of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York,
strongly favoring the Bolshevists. John Reed not only was financed from Wall Street, but had
consistent support for his activities, even to the extent of intervention with the State
Department from William Franklin Sands, executive secretary of American International
Corporation. In the sedition case of Robert Minor there are strong indications and some
circumstantial evidence that Colonel Edward House intervened to have Minor released. The
significance of the Minor case is that William B. Thompson's program for Bolshevik revolution
in Germany was the very program Minor was implementing when arrested in Germany.
Some international agents, for example Alexander Gumberg, worked for Wall Street and the
Bolsheviks. In 1917 Gumberg was the representative of a U.S. firm in Petrograd, worked for
Thompson's American Red Cross Mission, became chief Bolshevik agent in Scandinavia until
he was deported from Norway, then became confidential assistant to Reeve Schley of Chase
Bank in New York and later to Floyd Odium of Atlas Corporation.
This activity in behalf of the Bolsheviks originated in large part from a single address: 120
Broadway, New York City. The evidence for this observation is outlined but no conclusive
reason is given for the unusual concentration of activity at a single address, except to state that
it appears to be the foreign counterpart of Carroll Quigley's claim that J.P. Morgan infiltrated
the domestic left. Morgan also infiltrated the international left.
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York was at 120 Broadway. The vehicle for this proBolshevik
activity was American International Corporation — at 120 Broadway. AIC views on
the Bolshevik regime were requested by Secretary of State Robert Lansing only a few weeks
after the revolution began, and Sands, executive secretary of AIC, could barely restrain his
enthusiasm for the Bolshevik cause. Ludwig Martens, the Soviet's first ambassador, had been
vice president of Weinberg & Posner, which was also located at 120-Broadway. Guaranty
Trust Company was next door at 140 Broadway but Guaranty Securities Co. was at 120
Broadway. In 1917 Hunt, Hill & Betts was at 120 Broadway, and Charles B. Hill of this firm
was the negotiator in the Sun Yat-sen dealings. John MacGregor Grant Co., which was
financed by Olof Aschberg in Sweden and Guaranty Trust in the United States, and which was
on the Military Intelligence black list, was at 120 Broadway. The Guggenheims and the
executive heart of General Electric (also interested in American International) were at 120
Broadway. We find it therefore hardly surprising that the Bankers Club was also at 120
Broadway, on the top floor (the thirty-fourth).
It is significant that support for the Bolsheviks did not cease with consolidation of the
revolution; therefore, this support cannot be wholly explained in terms of the war with
Germany. The American-Russian syndicate formed in 1918 to obtain concessions in Russia
was backed by the White, Guggenheim, and Sinclair interests. Directors of companies
controlled by these three financiers included Thomas W. Lamont (Guaranty Trust), William
Boyce Thompson (Federal Reserve Bank), and John Reed's employer Harry Payne Whitney
(Guaranty Trust). This strongly suggests that the syndicate was formed to cash in on earlier
support for the Bolshevik cause in the revolutionary period. And then we found that Guaranty
Trust financially backed the Soviet Bureau in New York in 1919.
The first really concrete signal that previous political and financial support was paying off
came in 1923 when the Soviets formed their first international bank, Ruskombank. Morgan
associate Olof Aschberg became nominal head of this Soviet bank; Max May, a vice president
of Guaranty Trust, became a director of Ruskom-bank, and the Ruskombank promptly
appointed Guaranty Trust Company its U.S. agent.
THE EXPLANATION FOR THE UNHOLY ALLIANCE
What motive explains this coalition of capitalists and Bolsheviks?
Russia was then — and is today — the largest untapped market in the world. Moreover, Russia,
then and now, constituted the greatest potential competitive threat to American industrial and
financial supremacy. (A glance at a world map is sufficient to spotlight the geographical
difference between the vast land mass of Russia and the smaller United States.) Wall Street
must have cold shivers when it visualizes Russia as a second super American industrial giant.
But why allow Russia to become a competitor and a challenge to U.S. supremacy? In the late
nineteenth century, Morgan/Rockefeller, and Guggenheim had demonstrated their monopolistic
proclivities. In Railroads and Regulation 1877-1916 Gabriel Kolko has demonstrated how the
railroad owners, not the farmers, wanted state control of railroads in order to preserve their
monopoly and abolish competition. So the simplest explanation of our evidence is that a
syndicate of Wall Street financiers enlarged their monopoly ambitions and broadened horizons
on a global scale. The gigantic Russian market was to be converted into a captive market and a
technical colony to be exploited by a few high-powered American financiers and the
corporations under their control. What the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Federal
Trade Commission under the thumb of American industry could achieve for that industry at
home, a planned socialist government could achieve for it abroad — given suitable support and
inducements from Wall Street and Washington, D.C.
Finally, lest this explanation seem too radical, remember that it was Trotsky who appointed
tsarist generals to consolidate the Red Army; that it was Trotsky who appealed for American
officers to control revolutionary Russia and intervene in behalf of the Soviets; that it was
Trotsky who squashed first the libertarian element in the Russian Revolution and then the
workers and peasants; and that recorded history totally ignores the 700,000-man Green Army
composed of ex-Bolsheviks, angered at betrayal of the revolution, who fought the Whites and
the Reds. In other words, we are suggesting that the Bolshevik Revolution was an alliance of
statists: statist revolutionaries and statist financiers aligned against the genuine revolutionary
libertarian elements in Russia.3
'The question now in the readers' minds must be, were these bankers also secret Bolsheviks?
No, of course not. The financiers were without ideology. It would be a gross misinterpretation
to assume that assistance for the Bolshevists was ideologically motivated, in any narrow sense.
The financiers were power-motivated and therefore assisted any political vehicle that would
give them an entree to power: Trotsky, Lenin, the tsar, Kolchak, Denikin — all received aid,
more or less. All, that is, but those who wanted a truly free individualist society.
Neither was aid restricted to statist Bolsheviks and statist counter-Bolsheviks. John P. Diggins,
in Mussolini and Fascism: The View from America,4 has noted in regard to Thomas Lamont of
Guaranty Trust that
Of all American business leaders, the one who most vigorously patronized the cause of
Fascism was Thomas W. Lamont. Head of the powerful J.P. Morgan banking network, Lamont
served as something of a business consultant for the government of Fascist Italy.
Lamont secured a $100 million loan for Mussolini in 1926 at a particularly crucial time for the
Italian dictator. We might remember too that the director of Guaranty Trust was the father of
Corliss Lamont, a domestic Communist. This evenhanded approach to the twin totalitarian
systems, communism and fascism, was not confined to the Lamont family. For example, Otto
Kahn, director of American International Corporation and of Kuhn, Leob & Co., felt sure that
"American capital invested in Italy will find safety, encouragement, opportunity and reward."5
This is the same Otto Kahn who lectured the socialist League of Industrial Democracy in 1924
that its objectives were his objectives.6 They differed only — according to Otto Kahn — over the
means of achieving these objectives.
Ivy Lee, Rockefeller's public relations man, made similar pronouncements, and was
responsible for selling the Soviet regime to the gullible American public in the late 1920s. We
also have observed that Basil Miles, in charge of the Russian desk at the State Department and
a former associate of William Franklin Sands, was decidedly helpful to the businessmen
promoting Bolshevik causes; but in 1923 the same Miles authored a profascist article, "Italy's
Black Shirts and Business."7 "Success of the Fascists is an expression of Italy's youth," wrote
Miles while glorifying the fascist movement and applauding its esteem for American business.
THE MARBURG PLAN
The Marburg Plan, financed by Andrew Carnegie's ample heritage, was produced in the early
years of the twentieth century. It suggests premeditation for this kind of superficial
schizophrenia, which in fact masks an integrated program of power acquisition: "What then if
Carnegie and his unlimited wealth, the international financiers and the Socialists could be
organized in a movement to compel the formation of a league to enforce peace."8
The governments of the world, according to the Marburg Plan, were to be socialized while the
ultimate power would remain in the hands of the international financiers "to control its councils
and enforce peace [and so] provide a specific for all the political ills of mankind."9
This idea was knit with other elements with similar objectives. Lord Milner in England
provides the transatlantic example of banking interests recognizing the virtues and possibilities
of Marxism. Milner was a banker, influential in British wartime policy, and pro-Marxist.10 In
New York the socialist "X" club was founded in 1903. It counted among its members not only
the Communist Lincoln Steffens, the socialist William English Walling, and the Communist
banker Morris Hillquit, but also John Dewey, James T. Shotwell, Charles Edward Russell, and
Rufus Weeks (vice president of New York Life Insurance Company). The annual meeting of
the Economic Club in the Astor Hotel, New York, witnessed socialist speakers. In 1908, when
A. Barton Hepburn, president of Chase National Bank, was president of the Economic Club,
the main speaker was the aforementioned Morris Hillquit, who "had abundant opportunity to
preach socialism to a gathering which represented wealth and financial interests."11
From these unlikely seeds grew the modern internationalist movement, which included not
only the financiers Carnegie, Paul Warburg, Otto Kahn, Bernard Baruch, and Herbert Hoover,
but also the Carnegie Foundation and its progeny International Conciliation. The trustees of
Carnegie were, as we have seen, prominent on the board of American International
Corporation. In 1910 Carnegie donated $10 million to found the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, and among those on the board of trustees were Elihu Root (Root Mission
to Russia, 1917), Cleveland H. Dodge (a financial backer of President Wilson), George W.
Perkins (Morgan partner), G. J. Balch (AIC and Amsinck), R. F. Herrick (AIC), H. W. Pritchett
(AIC), and other Wall Street luminaries. Woodrow Wilson came under the powerful influence
of — and indeed was financially indebted to — this group of internationalists. As Jennings C.
Wise has written, "Historians must never forget that Woodrow Wilson... made it possible for
Leon Trotsky to enter Russia with an American passport."12
But Leon Trotsky also declared himself an internationalist. We have remarked with some
interest his high-level internationalist connections, or at least friends, in Canada. Trotsky then
was not pro-Russian, or pro-Allied, or pro-German, as many have tried to make him out to be.
Trotsky was for world revolution, for world dictatorship; he was, in one word, an
internationalist.13 Bolshevists and bankers have then this significant common ground —
internationalism. Revolution and international finance are not at all inconsistent if the result of
revolution is to establish more centralized authority. International finance prefers to deal with
central governments. The last thing the banking community wants is laissez-faire economy and
decentralized power because these would disperse power.
This, therefore, is an explanation that fits the evidence. This handful of bankers and promoters
was not Bolshevik, or Communist, or socialist, or Democrat, or even American. Above all else
these men wanted markets, preferably captive international markets — and a monopoly of the
captive world market as the ultimate goal. They wanted markets that could be exploited
monopolistically without fear of competition from Russians, Germans, or anyone else —
including American businessmen outside the charmed circle. This closed group was apolitical
and amoral. In 1917, it had a single-minded objective — a captive market in Russia, all
presented under, and intellectually protected by, the shelter of a league to enforce the peace.
Wall Street did indeed achieve its goal. American firms controlled by this syndicate were later
to go on and build the Soviet Union, and today are well on their way to bringing the Soviet
military-industrial complex into the age of the computer.
Today the objective is still alive and well. John D. Rockefeller expounds it in his book The
Second American Revolution — which sports a five-pointed star on the title page.14 The book
contains a naked plea for humanism, that is, a plea that our first priority is to work for others. In
other words, a plea for collectivism. Humanism is collectivism. It is notable that the
Rockefellers, who have promoted this humanistic idea for a century, have not turned their
OWN property over to others.. Presumably it is implicit in their recommendation that we all
work for the Rockefellers. Rockefeller's book promotes collectivism under the guises of
"cautious conservatism" and "the public good." It is in effect a plea for the continuation of the
earlier Morgan-Rockefeller support of collectivist enterprises and mass subversion of
individual rights.
In brief, the public good has been, and is today, used as a device and an excuse for selfaggrandizement
by an elitist circle that pleads for world peace and human decency. But so long
as the reader looks at world history in terms of an inexorable Marxian conflict between
capitalism and communism, the objectives of such an alliance between international finance
and international revolution remain elusive. So will the ludicrousness of promotion of the
public good by plunderers. If these alliances still elude the reader, then he should ponder the
obvious fact that these same international interests and promoters are always willing to
determine what other people should do, but are signally unwilling to be first in line to give up
their own wealth and power. Their mouths are open, their pockets are closed.
This technique, used by the monopolists to gouge society, was set forth in the early twentieth
century by Frederick C. Howe in The Confessions of a Monopolist.15 First, says Howe, politics
is a necessary part of business. To control industries it is necessary to control Congress and the
regulators and thus make society go to work for you, the monopolist. So, according to Howe,
the two principles of a successful monopolist are, "First, let Society work for you; and second,
make a business of politics."16 These, wrote Howe, are the basic "rules of big business."
Is there any evidence that this magnificently sweeping objective was also known to Congress
and the academic world? Certainly the possibility was known and known publicly. For
example, witness the testimony of Albert Rhys Williams, an astute commentator on the
revolution, before the Senate Overman Committee:
. . . it is probably true that under the soviet government industrial life will perhaps be much
slower in development than under the usual capitalistic system. But why should a great
industrial country like America desire the creation and consequent competition of another great
industrial rival? Are not the interests of America in this regard in line with the slow tempo of
development which soviet Russia projects for herself?
Senator Wolcott: Then your argument is that it would be to the interest of America to have
Russia repressed?
MR. WILLIAMS: Not repressed ....
SENATOR WOLCOTT: You say. Why should America desire Russia to become an industrial
competitor with her?
MR. WILLIAMS: This is speaking from a capitalistic standpoint. The whole interest of
America is not, I think, to have another great industrial rival, like Germany, England, France,
and Italy, thrown on the market in competition. I think another government over there besides
the Soviet government would perhaps increase the tempo or rate of development of Russia, and
we would have another rival. Of course, this is arguing from a capitalistic standpoint.
SENATOR WOLCOTT: So you are presenting an argument here which you think might
appeal to the American people, your point being this, that if we recognize the Soviet
government of Russia as it is constituted we will be recognizing a government that can not
compete with us in industry for a great many years?
MR. WILLIAMS: That is a fact.
SENATOR WOLCOTT: That is an argument that under the Soviet government Russia is in no
position, for a great many years at least, to approach America industrially?
MR. WILLIAMS: Absolutely.17
And in that forthright statement by Albert Rhys Williams is the basic clue to the revisionist
interpretation of Russian history over the past half century.
Wall Street, or rather the Morgan-Rockefeller complex represented at 120 Broadway and 14
Wall Street, had something very close to Williams' argument in mind. Wall Street went to bat
in Washington for the Bolsheviks. It succeeded. The Soviet totalitarian regime survived. In the
1930s foreign firms, mostly of the Morgan-Rockefeller group, built the five-year plans. They
have continued to build Russia, economically and militarily.18 On the other hand, Wall Street
presumably did not foresee the Korean War and the Vietnam War — in which 100,000
Americans and countless allies lost their lives to Soviet armaments built with this same
imported U.S. technology. What seemed a farsighted, and undoubtedly profitable, policy for a
Wall Street syndicate, became a nightmare for millions outside the elitist power circle and the
ruling class.
Footnotes:
1Michael Futrell, Northern Underground (London: Faber and Faber, 1963);
Stefan Possony, Lenin: The Compulsive Revolutionary (London: George Allen
& Unwin, 1966); and George Katkov, "German Foreign Office Documents on
Financial Support to the Bolsheviks in 1917," International Affairs 32 (Royal
Institute of International Affairs, 1956).
2Ibid., especially Katkov.
3See also Voline (V.M. Eichenbaum), Nineteen-Seventeen: The Russian
Revolution Betrayed (New York: Libertarian Book Club, n.d.).
4Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Prss, 1972.
5Ibid., p. 149.
6See p. 49.
7Nation's Business, February 1923, pp. 22-23.
8Jennings C. Wise, Woodrow Wilson: Disciple of Revolution (New York:
Paisley Press, 1938), p.45
9Ibid., p.46
10See p. 89.
11Morris Hillquit, Loose Leaves from a Busy Life (New York: Macmillan,
1934), p. 81.
12Wise, op. cit., p. 647
13Leon Trotsky, The Bolsheviki and World Peace (New York: Boni &
Liveright, 1918).
14In May 1973 Chase Manhattan Bank (chairman, David Rockefeller) opened
it Moscow office at 1 Karl Marx Square, Moscow. The New York office is at
1 Chase Manhattan Plaza.
15Chicago: Public Publishin, n.d.
16Ibid.
17U.S., Senate, Bolshevik Propaganda, hearings before a subcommittee of the
Committee on the Judiciary, 65th Cong., pp. 679-80. See also herein p. 107 for
the role of Williams in Radek's Press Bureau.
18See Antony C. Sutton, Western Technology and Soviet Economic
Development, 3 vols. (Stanford, Calif.: Hoover Institution, 1968, 1971, 1973);
see also National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union (New York:

Arlington House, 1973).