Saturday, February 24, 2018

712 Bloed en Puin geeft existentiële angst geeft imprinting geeft onveranderlijke overtuiging.

  ( onder constructie)
eswdfv edf

Belgische babies en belgische borsten WO1.

qerfvqerv



qewdrfvqewfrv



Bosnische man achter prikkeldraad in 'Servisch concentratiekamp' : de man was ziek maar vrij, en de fotograaf was achter een prikkeldraad gaan staan. ( idem)

qaewdrv

911 foto's

qewrfverv


jongetje in ambulance.




jongetje op het strand




Soldaat met knuffel van MH17 slachtoffertje

Wednesday, February 21, 2018

711 Premier Rutte: Halbe heeft gelijk: Rusland is agressief.

Het is onvoorstelbaar  dat Premier Rutt een week lang overal kon vertellen dat Putin wel had aangetoond dat hij een agressor was die graag Groot Rusland wilde herstellen.

Want: Hoe bepaal je of iemand een agressor is ? 
Door op een paar gebeurtenissen te wijzen, ook nog in de overbekende valse context ?  
Nee, mijnheer Rutte.
Dat is propaganda. Daar kun je èlke bewering mee onderbouwen.

Volgens mij doe je dat als volgt:
1. Dan kijk je eerst of er geheime plannen zijn uitgelekt. 
2. Verder kijk je wat hij aan plannen heeft bekendgemaakt.
3. En ten slotte kijk je naar wat hij al heeft gedaan in het verleden.

Met deze drie bronnen ( geheime plannen, gepubliceerde plannen en daden) kun je redelijk vast stellen wie van de twee, Rusland of Amerika, het meest agressief genoemd mag worden.

Ik heb in de nacht vóór Zijlstra zijn ontslag in diende een pamflet gemaakt  waarbij ik Rusland en Amerika volgens deze drie vragen beoordeelde.
Op het pamflet begin ik met de 'ontdekte plannen' en eindig ik met de 'daden'.

Ik wilde het pamflet uitdelen aan zoveel mogelijk politici en journalisten, maar dat lukte helemaal niet.  De paar journalisten die op de publieke tribune zaten te schrijven hadden geen enkele interesse in mijn pamflet.
Toch is mijn benadering helemaal niet onzinnig, want de door mij bewonderde britse journalist
Neil Clark doet in feite precies hetzelfde, al schrijft hij natuurlijk 100 maal beter dan ik.


Hoe weten we dat Rusland agressieve plannen heeft?

1)      Door hun plannen:

= Er zijn geen Russische rapporten bekend (uitgelekt noch gehackt) die tonen dat Rusland agressie in de zin heeft.
= Het defensiebudget van Rusland is gedaald van 60 naar 47 miljard $.

2)      Door hun woorden

=  In een speech in 2005 zei Putin: “ Above all, we should acknowledge that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century.”
Putin doelt op de complete ontwrichting van het land: werkloosheid, armoede , maffia-aan de macht,  Oligarchen aan de macht, allemaal gevolgen van die collapse.  Dat hij zou denken aan het verlies van grondgebied en dat hij die gebieden zou willen heroveren is ‘spin’ van de Amerikanen.  Dat blijkt  niet uit de context van de uitspraak. Google op: ‘Putin speech 2005’ en lees onderaan pagina 1.
=  Halbe Zijlstra was er bij toen aan Putin werd gevraagd:  “wat hij verstond onder Groot Rusland. Want Groot Rusland, dat is waar hij naar terug wil. En zijn antwoord was: Dat is Rusland, Wit Rusland, Oekraïne en de Baltische staten. En O ja, Kazachstan, dat was 'nice to have’. “
Halbe was er niet bij. Jeroen van der Veer wel. Van der Veer zegt dat Putin met ‘Groot Rusland’ de USSR beschreef en dat Zijlstra de rest zelf bedacht heeft.  ( Elsevier, 12 febr. 2018)

3)      Door hun recente daden.

= De onbarmhartige oorlog in Tsjetsjenië. ( Aangestoken door Graham Fuller, CIA. Zie Engdahl.)
= De inval in Georgië.  ( EU onderzoek wees uit dat Georgië met de vijandigheden begon.)
= De ‘annexatie’ van de Krim. Dit is wat de bewoners willen, zo blijkt  uit elk onderzoek. Kiev haat de etnische Russen in haar Oostelijke gebieden, en dat weten deze mensen heel goed.
= De hulp aan de etnische Russen in de Donbas. Als ingrijpen in Libië onder R2P viel, dan Donbass ook. En als poging om NATO opmars te stoppen. Want dan staat Rusland strategisch schaakmat.
= Hacken, verkiezingen beïnvloeden etc.  Op dit terrein zijn bewijzen niet te leveren. Wie zijn opponent zwart wil maken kan beweren dat die hem gehackt heeft. Geen zinvolle beschuldiging.

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



 Hoe weten we dat Amerika agressieve plannen heeft?

1)      Door hun geheime en later uitgelekte plannen.

= De Wolfowitz Doctrine, 1992. Geen enkel land nog kans geven om een rivaal te worden.
= Het PNAC rapport, ofwel ‘Rebuilding America’s Defenses’, 1999.  Nog 100 jaar de Hegemon zijn, door met een sterk leger iedereen de baas te zijn.
= Training Circular 18-01.  Handboek waarin wordt uitgelegd hoe je een land kapot maakt: verdeel en heers. Steun oppositie partijen. Werk met proxy legers. 

= Vision 2020: Full Spectrum Dominance. Baas op land, ter zee, in de lucht, in space en in cyberspace.
= Het Defensiebudget gaat van 600 naar ca 750 miljard $  ( 15 maal zo groot als Rusland).
= Het Yinon Plan, 1982, dat de Neocons inspireert. (Zie: Stephen Sniegoski, 2008 en Ostrovsky 1990)


2)      Door hun woorden.

= Volgens 2004-presidentskandidaad Generaal Wesley Clark werd meteen na 9/11 in het Pentagon besloten dat men 7 moslimlanden zou gaan vernietigen.  Alleen Iran is nog niet kapot gemaakt.  Youtube zoekterm:  Wesley Clark Fora.  
= Wij staan boven de wet, want  “We are Exceptional” en “ We are indispenasable” en “We can use pre-emptive strikes” en “We may use an atomic bomb on you if we think you are hacking us”.
= De zeer invloedrijke miljardair Sheldon Adelson: “ US should throw atomic bomb on Iran.”


3)      Door hun recente daden. 

= Kleuren revoluties : Yugoslavië 2000, Georgië 2003,  Oekraïne 2004, Libanon 2005,  Kigizistan 2005.         Eventueel googlen op: Gene Sharp, Otpor, Canvas,  F. William Engdahl.
= Het opzeggen van het ABM verdrag.  Het uitbreiden en moderniseren van hun Atoom-wapens.
= Destructie van Servië (Milosevic recent vrijgesproken. Basis Bondsteel).  Inval in Afghanistan. ( Mullah Omar wilde Osama uitleveren.) Inval in Irak (5 leugens als motief). Destructie van Libië ( youtube: Kuperman: Was NATO's Libya Intervention a Humanitarian Success?).  Destructie van Syrië (Mattis febr 2018: géén bewijs van gifgas). Noord Korea (Pence boos over mogelijke vrede!).      
= Militaire aanwezigheid in 150 van de 200 landen.  900 militaire bases. NGO’s in veel landen die regeringen destabiliseren:  (Youtube)  National Democratic Institute Democracy Awards Dinner
= Sinds WO2 bombardeerde de VS meer dan 33 landen ( William Blum),  beïnvloedden ze de verkiezingen  meer dan 80 maal in andere landen volgens  Carnegie Mellon University researcher Dov Levin), steunden een lange rij dictators en wierpen democratisch gekozen regeringen omver. Etc etc. (Zie William Blum.)
= De Bretton Woods afspraken die Amerika tot supermacht maakten toen de rest van de wereld uitgeteld op de grond lag.  Het IMF, de Wereldbank en de Dollar werden gebruikt om de rest van de wereld economisch te onderwerpen en kaal te plukken.  Youtube: Economic hitman.
= Iets langer geleden, maar passend bij de bovenstaande kenmerken: de genocide op 20 miljoen indianen. De slavernij. De Monroe doctrine ( ‘Zuid Amerika is van ons’).
                                                 
                             -------------------------------------------------------------

Uit de bovenstaande feiten blijkt dat wij een onjuist wereldbeeld hebben. Hoe is dat mogelijk?      Vaak gaat dat middels bloederige aanslagen die je in de schoenen schuift van de opponent, gevolgd door  onophoudelijke verdachtmakingen. Zo kan de agressor zich voordoen alsof hij de vredestichter is en het slachtoffer als dader ‘verkopen’.  Orwell heeft het al beschreven.   
Voor meer uitleg kunt U deze items googlen:  * Malcolm X the media are * Bertrand Russell errant * False Flag * Tolstoy slow witted * Twain easier to fool people * Oscar Callaway J P Morgan * groepsdenken * masters of discourse * Trevor Aaronson*
         

Monday, February 19, 2018

710 Sutton: Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution










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)
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 Ruskom-bank 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 pro-Bolshevik 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.
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 1877-1916Gabriel 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, 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.13Bolshevists 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 self-aggrandizement 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).

709 Geheime Diensten die infiltreren. Voorbeelden die ik verzamel.

Ik herinner mij dat ik las ( bij Antony Sutton?) dat de Grote Banken in de VS het belangrijkste socialistische Magazine hebben opgezet.

Ik moet nazoeken of ik me dit juist herinner.

Aanleiding voor deze post is:
http://politiek.tpo.nl/column/hoe-onze-geheime-dienst-de-revolutie-predikte/

De AIVD heeft in de jaren 1970 zelf een communistische Partij opgericht. Deels om competitie te vormen tegen de CPN en de KEN(ml), maar mogelijk ook om ìn de denkwereld van dezemensen te kijken.

Op dit blog wil ik soortgelijke vormen van infiltratie / wind uit de zeilen nemen/ etc.  plaatsen.
   ==========================

Hier uit Hoofdstuk 5 van Sutton's boek ( Wall Street -Bolshevik) een beschrijving over hoe de bankiers een belangrijk links schrijver en magazine exploiteren en gebruiken in plaats van hem te bestrijden: Pagina's 103 tot 103 op dit document:




 He is liked by the Petrograd Bolsheviki, however, and, therefore, anything which our police may do which looks like "persecution" will be resented in Petrograd, which I believe to be undesirable because unnecessary. He can be handled and controlled much better by other means than through the police.

I have not seen the memorandum he gave to Mr. Bullitt — I wanted him to let me see it first and perhaps to edit it, but he had not the opportunity to do so.

I hope that you will not consider me to be intrusive in this matter or meddling with matters which do not concern me. I believe it to be wise not to offend the Bolshevik leaders unless and until it may become necessary to do so — if it should become necessary — and it is unwise to look on every one as a suspicious or even dangerous character, who has had friendly relations with the Bolsheviki in Russia. I think it better policy to attempt to use such people for our own purposes in developing our policy toward Russia, if it is possible to do so. The lecture which Reed was prevented by the police from delivering in Philadelphia (he lost his head, came into conflict with the police and was arrested) is the only lecture on Russia which I would have paid to hear, if I had not already seen his notes on the subject. It covered a subject which we might quite possibly find to be a point of contact with the Soviet Government, from which to begin constructive work!

Can we not use him, instead of embittering him and making him an enemy? He is not well balanced, but he is, unless I am very much mistaken, susceptible to discreet guidance and might be quite useful.

Saturday, February 17, 2018

708 Perspectief. Relatief gezien. Propaganda. Doodzwijgen. Malcolm X.

Malcolm X zei:
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.

Gerard Menuhin: Es gibt in der heutigen Welt keine größere Macht als die, die von den Beherrschern der öffentlichen Meinung ausgeübt wird. Kein früherer König oder Papst, kein Eroberer oder Priester hatte je annähernd die Macht wie einige Dutzend Menschen, die die Massenmedien der Nachrichten und der Unterhaltung beherrschen.

Een constatering van mijzelf :
99% van de mensen heeft niet eens de moed om hun kinderen voor de slavernij te beschermen.  Dan moeten ze heilige huisjes aanvallen. Durven ze niet.

----

140 Jaar geleden werd de Russische Tsaar door een joodse mijnheer vermoord. 
Daarna kregen de joden in Rusland het moeilijker,  Uiteindelijk hebben ze met hulp van Amerikaanse bankiers de Russische Revolutie gepleegd en de macht over genomen in dat land. In samenwerking met andere minderheden (Litouwers etc.) 
De elite werd vermoord of moest vluchten: adel, intellectuelen en priesters. 'Geen competitie svp.'

Als verdediging voor deze machts-overname wordt wel gezegd: "Ja, maar de joden leden heel erg on der de pogroms, na de moord op de Tsaar.'

Bij Solzhenisyn  vinden we hoeveel joodse mensen er door pogroms om het leven kwamen in die 40 jaar , in een gebied zo groot als Europa: 3000 mensen. (1)
Dat is 80 per jaar. In dat reusachtige land. Heel erg natuurlijk. 

Maar laten we het in perspectief plaatsen: 
Onder het joodse communisme stierven tussen 1917 en 1953 volgens Solzhenitsyn 66 miljoen mensen.( Volgens prof. R.J.  Rummel waren het er 60 miljoen). Bijna 2 miljoen per jaar. 

De pogroms in Tsaristisch Rusland zijn bij heel veel mensen bekend. 
De 60 miljoen doden in de Gulag zijn heel wat minder bekend. 

En dan kwam ik deze week nog een keer het getal van 3000 doden tegen: 
Dat is het aantal Palestijnse kinderen dat in de laatste 17 jaar is gedood door de Israeli's. 


Wie niet overleed was waarschijnlijk wel gemarteld, zo blijkt uit het bericht. 

Hoe is het toch mogelijk dat we over sommige moorden van meer dan 100 jaar geleden àlles weten en dat die in ons wereldbeeld een flinke ruimte in nemen, terwijl we over àndere moorden nooit iets hebben gehoord?

Zou het komen door de bloedbanden tussen de Media-bazen en de auteurs enerzijds en de slachtoffers of daders anderzijds ? Dat het eigen slachtofferschap enorm wordt opgeblazen en herhaald, terwijl het daderschap wordt doodgezwegen?  Zou het kunnen ?

Kan het zijn dat ons wereldbeeld van geen kanten klopt? 
Hebben we niet het geringste idee over wat werkelijkheid is en wat niet? 


(1)     Solzhenitsyn, 200Years Together, Pag. 295.  Citaat: 

Sometimes, when such a team of Jewish inmates smoothly bands together and, being no longer impeded by the ferocious struggle for survival, they can engage in extraordinary activities. An engineer named Abram Zisman tells us: “In Novo-Archangelsk camp, in our spare time, [we] decided to count how many Jewish pogroms occurred over the course of Russian history. We managed to excite the curiosity of our camp command on this question (they had a peaceful attitude toward us). TheNachlag [camp commander] was captain Gremin (N. Gershel, a Jew, son of a tailor from Zhlobin). He sent an inquiry to the archives of the former Interior Department requesting the necessary information, and after eight months we received an official reply that … 76 Jewish pogroms occurred from 1811 to 1917 on the territory of Russia with the number of victims estimated at approximately 3,000” (That is, the total number of those who suffered in any way.)

Monday, February 05, 2018

707 Orwelliaanse omkering van de feiten.


De feiten:

De democratie is heilig in Amerika.
Niemand mag die bedreigen of bedriegen.
De Russen zéker niet, zoals we allemaal goed weten.

De FBI en het Ministerie van Justitie (MvJ)  mogen dat natuurlijk óók niet.  En de Media óók niet.

Deze organisaties moeten de Democraten en de Republikeinen gelijk behandelen.
Tijdens Watergate bespioneerden de Republikeinen de Democraten, en hop: president Nixon werd afgezet.

Maar nu is er het Nunes rapport, ook wel de FISA memo genoemd.

Hier is helder bewijs dat de FBI en het MvJ willens en wetens de Democraten hebben geholpen tégen de Republikeinen.  Hier onder zal ik dat uit de doeken doen.

Maar eerst nog dit:

Vlak voor het bekend worden van de Memo  --die een ingewikkeld verhaal omvat--  zorgt de New York Times dat er in de hoofden van de lezers een idee ontstaat dat de Democraten de good guys zijn, en dat de Republikeinen de bad Guys zijn.
Dat zal nog van pas komen als straks die lastige memo  in de krant komt. Als je al weet hoe het ongeveer zit, dan lees je alles door die bril (confirmation bias).

Echter: In de memo is niets te vinden dat reden kan zijn om de Republikeinen als Bad Guys te zien.
De hele kwestie is een en al bedrog door de FBI en het MvJ , in samenwerking ( samenzwering is ook een goed woord in dit geval) met de Democraten.

Hier de Orwelliaanse omkering van de New York Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/01/opinion/nunes-memo-fbi-trump.html



The Republican Plot Against the F.B.I.


So this is what a partisan witch hunt really looks like.
In a demonstration of unbridled self-interest and bottomless bad faith, the Trump White House and its Republican minions in Congress are on the cusp of releasing a “memo” that purports to document the biggest political scandal since Watergate. To pull it off, they are undermining the credibility of the law enforcement community that Republicans once defended so ardently, on the noble-sounding claim that the American public must know the truth.
Don’t fall for it. 
( De rest kunt U op de NYT site lezen, of hier helemaal onderaan.) 
Wat is er gebeurd?  Wat staat er in het Nunes Memo, ook wel FISA memo genoemd? 
Dit is wat er gebeurd is: 
De FBI wilde Carter Page gaan volgen en afluisteren. Page wat in het Trump team, dus hem afluisteren kan belangrijke informatie over de verkiezingscampage opleveren.
Om iemand te mogen afluisteren moeten een aantal rechters, die uiteraard in het geheim bijeen komen, besluiten dat er gegronde redenen voor zijn. 
De FBI moet daarvoor met bewijzen of informatie komen.  Dat deed de FBI: ze gebruikten daarvoor een onderzoek dat gemaakt en betaald was door mensen van Hillary Clinton ! 
De màker van dat dossier was een oud spion die al 20 jaar niet in Rusland is geweest, en bovendien geen geheim maakte van het feit dat hij heel graag wilde dat Trump geen president sou worden. 
Het Rapport dat aan de rechters werd voorgelegd was dus op 2 manieren fout:  
1 De maker was niet objectief.
2. De opdrachtgever  was niet de FBI, maar de tegenstander van Trump
3. De inhoud van het rapport is door niemand bevestigd. Het kan dus net zo goed uit de duim zijn gezogen. 
De FBI had dit rapport nooit mogen gebruiken. Om drie redenen: 
1 Ze wist dat het Rapport onbetrouwbaar was (zie  de 3 punten hierboven)
2. Ze hebben het aan de rechters voorgelegd en die gingen er van uit dat het een neutraal FBI rapport was.  
3. Twee belangrijke schakels in dit geheel zijn McCabe ( FBI) en Orf ( MvJ).   Beide 'schakels'  hebben geld ontvangen van de Democratische partij, of liever gezegd: hun echtgenotes hebben flinke bedragen ontvangen om campagne te voeren. 
De FBI en het MvJ handelen dus op corrupte wijze en zeker niet onpartijdig:  ze bedriegen de rechters om zodoende de Republikeinen te bevoordelen en de Democraten te benadelen. 
Dàt is het schandaal waar we het over hebben. Niet over wat er verder nog aan de hand is.
Alle andere zaken hoeven hier niet beschouwing te worden genomen. Zaken die de NYT hieronder aanvoert. ( En die ik zelf niet kan beoordelen op hun waarheidsgehalte.
==================
Waar het mij in dit blog om gaat is niet zozeer het 'ondermijnen van de democratie' door de FBI en het MvJ,  maar om de 'Framing' door de NYTimes: de slachtoffers eisen dat hetrecht zijn loop krijgt, en dan gaat de krant schrijven : "de slachtoffers willen de daders zwart malen ! "
Dat is de omkering waar Orwell voor gewaarschuwd heeft: 
daders worden tot slachtoffer gemaakt.  


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

Vervolg NYT artikel: 
Reports suggest that the three-and-a-half-page document — produced by the staff of Representative Devin Nunes (R-White House), who somehow still leads the House Intelligence Committee despite his own record of shilling for President Trump, and who is supposed to be recused from these matters — has nothing to do with truth or accountability. Rather, it appears to be misleading propaganda from people who are terrified by the Russia investigation and determined to derail it by any means necessary.
Mr. Nunes’s cut-and-paste job ostensibly shows that anti-Trump F.B.I. investigators conspired to trick a federal intelligence court into granting them a warrant to spy on a former Trump campaign adviser, Carter Page, because of his Russian connections — in that way corrupting the entire Russia investigation from the start. How did the investigators manage this feat? By relying on a dossier prepared by a former British intelligence agent, Christopher Steele, but hiding from the court that Mr. Steele’s work was being funded by Democrats, including Hillary Clinton’s campaign, and thus was hopelessly biased.
There’s so much deception and obfuscation going on here that it’s hard to know where to start.
First, Mr. Nunes and his fellow Republicans have treated the dossier like the holy grail for the Russia investigation, but it didn’t reach the F.B.I. until the inquiry was already underway — prompted in mid-2016 by suspicious contacts between Russians and George Papadopoulos, a foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign. Mr. Papadopoulos has pleaded guilty to lying about those contacts and is now cooperating with the special counsel’s investigation.
Second, the F.B.I. didn’t zero in on Mr. Page for the hell of it. He has been in the government’s sights since 2013, when investigators learned he was being targeted for recruitment by a Russian agent. To obtain a warrant to spy on someone like Mr. Page, an American citizen, investigators must show probable cause that he is working as a foreign intelligence agent. This would require reams of documentary and other evidence gathered over the years, of which the dossier would have been only one part. In addition, the 90-day warrant for Mr. Page has already been extended at least once, which means investigators had to show the intelligence court new information, beyond the dossier, justifying the basis of the original warrant.

Sunday, February 04, 2018

706 It's the Mossad, stupid !


Poisoned toothpaste and exploding phones: Israel linked to 2,700 assassination operations in 70 years

Over het boek: Rise and kill first.

De bron is een Canadese website/krant die even openhartig is  over joodse zaken als Haaretz in Israel, zo is mijn indruk. Het schrijft voor joods publiek. Daarom treffen we hier een recensie van eenIsraelisch boek aan die we verder nergerns hebben gezien.

A new book also strongly suggests that Israel used radiation poisoning to kill Yasser Arafat, the longtime Palestinian leader, an act its officials have consistently denied

In this Monday, Feb. 23, 2015 file photo Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu walks past a window overlooking the Old City of Jerusalem.AP Photo/Sebastian Scheiner
Bloomberg News
Ethan Bronner
January 27, 2018
Poisoned toothpaste that takes a month to end its target’s life. Armed drones. Exploding cell phones. Spare tires with remote-control bombs. Assassinating enemy scientists and discovering the secret lovers of Islamic holy men.

A new book chronicles these techniques and asserts that Israel has carried out at least 2,700 assassination operations in its 70 years of existence. While many failed, they add up to far more than any other Western country, the book says.

Ronen Bergman, the intelligence correspondent for Yediot Aharonot newspaper, persuaded many agents of Mossad, Shin Bet and the military to tell their stories, some using their real names. The result is the first comprehensive look at Israel’s use of state-sponsored killings.

Based on 1,000 interviews and thousands of documents, and running more than 600 pages, “Rise and Kill First” makes the case that Israel has used assassination in the place of war, killing half a dozen Iranian nuclear scientists, for instance, rather than launching a military attack. It also strongly suggests that Israel used radiation poisoning to kill Yasser Arafat, the longtime Palestinian leader, an act its officials have consistently denied.


Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat speaks at the signing of the Wye Peace Accord in the West Room of the White House in Washington on October 23, 1998. Dennis Brack / Bloomberg
Bergman writes that Arafat’s death in 2004 fit a pattern and had advocates. But he steps back from flatly asserting what happened, saying that Israeli military censorship prevents him from revealing what – or if – he knows.

The book’s title comes from the ancient Jewish Talmud admonition, “If someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first.” Bergman says a huge percentage of the people he interviewed cited that passage as justification for their work. So does an opinion by the military’s lawyer declaring such operations to be legitimate acts of war.

Despite the many interviews, including with former prime ministers Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert, Bergman, the author of several books, says the Israeli secret services sought to interfere with his work, holding a meeting in 2010 on how to disrupt his research and warning former Mossad employees not to speak with him.

He says that while the U.S. has tighter constraints on its agents than does Israel, President George W. Bush adopted many Israeli techniques after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and President Barack Obama launched several hundred targeted killings.

If someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first

  
“The command-and-control systems, the war rooms, the methods of information gathering and the technology of the pilotless aircraft, or drones, that now serve the Americans and their allies were all in large part developed in Israel,” Bergman writes.

The book gives a textured history of the personalities and tactics of the various secret services. In the 1970s, a new head of operations for Mossad opened hundreds of commercial companies overseas with the idea that they might be useful one day. For example, Mossad created a Middle Eastern shipping business that, years later, came in handy in providing cover for a team in the waters off Yemen.

There have been plenty of failures. After a Palestinian terrorist group killed Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics, Israel sent its agents to kill the perpetrators – and shot more than one misidentified man. There were also successful operations that did more harm than good to Israel’s policy goals, Bergman notes.

Zev Chafets: If Israel played by America’s rules, Iraq and Syria would have nuclear weapons
How a high-ranking Nazi ended up becoming a killer spy for Israel in the 1960s
Jeffrey Collins: Israeli intelligence increasingly worried about Netanyahu’s focus on Iran
Bergman raises moral and legal concerns provoked by state-sponsored killing, including the existence of separate legal systems for secret agents and the rest of Israel. But he presents the operations, for the most part, as achieving their aims. While many credit the barrier Israel built along and inside the West Bank with stopping assaults on Israeli citizens in the early 2000s, he argues that what made the difference was “a massive number of targeted killings of terrorist operatives.”

One of Bergman’s most important sources was Meir Dagan, a recent head of Mossad for eight years who died in early 2016. Toward the end of his career, Dagan fell out with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu partly over launching a military attack on Iran. Netanyahu said intelligence techniques such as selling the country faulty parts for its reactors – which Israel and the U.S. were doing – weren’t enough.

Dagan argued back that these techniques, especially assassinations, would do the job. As Bergman quotes him saying, “In a car, there are 25,000 parts on average. Imagine if 100 of them are missing. It would be very hard to make it go. On the other hand, sometimes it’s most effective to kill the driver, and that’s that.”
                                     --------------------------------------

Nog een verslag over dit boek:


De gele tekst verwijstnaar de Talmud,waar het idee op gebaseerd is.
Het lijkt natuurlijk ook op de doctrine van de pre-emptive strike.
Onderstrepingen zijn door JV gemaakt.

‘Rise and Kill First’: Israel’s Hidden Assassinations
By Koushik Das
February 03, 2018 "Information Clearing House" -  Poisoning toothpaste….triggering explosion through cell phones…… bombs dropped from flying drones! Since its creation in 1948, Israel has carried out nearly 2,700 ‘secret’ assassination operations in the last 70 years. Although many of these attempts have not been successful, the success rate of Israel is far better than the Western countries.
After a long interaction with the Israeli spies, journalist Ronen Bergman has penned a book – ‘Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel’s Targeted Assassinations’. In his publication based on 1,000 interviews and thousands of documents, Bergman narrates various ‘strange’ methods – adopted by the Israeli spies over the years – to eliminate personalities who in some way or the other proved to be threat to them.
Before writing the book, the 45-year-old Israeli journalist met a number of agents of Mossad and Shin Bet – the two intelligence organisations of his country. Bergman also interviewed some senior Army officers who were allegedly involved in such ‘expeditions’. The 600-page book has enough information to ‘surprise’ the readers.
 The essence of those secret missions of Israel was: “If someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first” (an ancient Jewish Talmud admonition). The Army officers argue that such missions help avoid ‘costly’ warfare. They claim that a person will die within a month, if someone mixes poison in his/her toothpaste. Bergman – the intelligence correspondent for ‘Yediot Aharonot’ daily – mentions in his book that Mossad killed an Iranian nuclear scientist by using this method. An Israeli Army officer has admitted that they killed at least 12 Iranian scientists through various methods after receiving the information that Tehran was secretly implementing nuclear programmes. He further revealed that Mossad assassinated an Iranian scientist through explosives kept in the spare tyre of his car. The Israeli intelligence agency killed another Iranian scientist by dropping a bomb on his car from a home-made drone.
Israel also killed a number of Islamist leaders who backed the Palestinian movement. Interestingly, Bergman’s publication hints that the Israeli spies secretly killed former Palestinian President Yasser Arafat on November 11, 2004. However, it has not been possible for the author to narrate the death of Arafat in his book. Bergman said that Israeli military censorship prevented him from revealing the facts.
Koushik Das, based in the Indian capital of New Delhi, is a senior news editor with more than 15 years of experience. He also runs a blog - Boundless Ocean of Politics. E-Mail: koushik@inserbia.info
This article was originally published by "In Serbia" -