Dark, Shadowy and Powerful Forces in American History

[Time for change]

Many ordinary Americans speculate about the “Powers That Be” (PTB), the unelected but powerful and shadowy elite who seem to exercise influence over national and world events far more than a lot of people realize. Yet because of their shadowy nature they are very difficult to talk about with much confidence.

Despite their often minimal visibility, they seem to have their fingerprints over much of our nation’s history. Their ultimate purpose and motives can only be guessed at, but two aspects of our nation’s current condition seem to stand out above most others: 1) Rampant militarism manifested by a military budget almost equal to that of the rest of the world combined, a philosophy of perpetual war, more than 700 military bases scattered throughout all parts of the world, and imperialistic behavior and attitudes in relation to the other nations of the world; and 2) Obscenely unequal distribution of wealth.

It is getting worse. Hopefully some day soon – before it is too late – the American people will understand what is becoming of their country and demand responsible behavior from their leaders. But how do we get to that point, and what are these dark forces?

When one speaks of dark forces with tremendous influence over a powerful nation s/he is likely to be accused by the keepers of the status quo of being a “conspiracy theorist”. But the truth of the matter is that world history – and American history as well – is full of dark and powerful forces. What else could explain the myriad wars and genocides throughout human history? Of course, people are selectively likely to believe that people of their own kind are incapable of dark deeds. But they are wrong.


VAGUE ALLUSIONS TO DARK, POWERFUL AND SHADOWY FORCES

Several authors have commented upon dark shadowy forces without specifying their specific nature – probably because there are few people who understand their specific nature. For example:

Carl Boggs speculated in his book, “The Crimes of Empire – Rogue Superpower and World Domination”, on the possibility that an Obama presidency might take a “less belligerent and militaristic, more diplomatic and peaceful approach” to foreign affairs than his predecessors. After concluding that that possibility is unlikely because of Obama’s “cozy relationship with corporate and military interests”, as well as his initial behavior as president, Boggs notes that:

The notion that a single presidential election might itself reverse some 200 years of U.S. history, bringing to power a leader dedicated to a radical new course, contradicts the historical logic of American politics.

That is quite a statement, given that U.S. presidents are often referred to as “the leader of the Free World” or “the most powerful man in the world”. If a U.S. president can’t alter U.S. foreign policy towards a less belligerent and militaristic direction, then who can?

James Carroll said something very similar in “House of War – The Pentagon and the Disastrous Rise of American Power”, a meticulously detailed history of the rise of American military power since World War II:

The Pentagon defines America’s reach across the world, and for countless millions that reach is choking… The Pentagon is now the dead center of an open-ended martial enterprise that no longer pretends to be defense. The world itself must be reshaped… The Pentagon has, more than ever, become a place to fear.

But why the Pentagon? Doesn’t the Pentagon report to the U.S. Secretary of Defense, who reports to the President, who is elected by the American people?

Chalmers Johnson makes a very similar point in “Nemesis – The Last Days of the American Republic”, in which he warns that American imperial overreach is likely to destroy itself as well as create catastrophic damage to the rest of the world:

Unfortunately, our political system may no longer be capable of saving the United States as we know it, since it is hard to imagine any president or Congress standing up to the powerful vested interests of the Pentagon, the secret intelligence agencies, and the military-industrial complex…

Again, here is an illusion to powerful interests that dictate the fate of our country to American presidents and congresses.


SOME SPECIFIC DESCRIPTIONS OF DARK POWERFUL FORCES

Some authors have been more specific about the nature of these dark shadowy forces:


Peter Dale Scott on “Continuity of Government” (COG)

Peter Dale Scott, in his book, “The Road to 9/11 – Wealth, Empire and the future of America, discusses the Reagan administration’s plans for expanding so-called plans for “Continuity of Government” (COG).

“Continuity of government” is a reassuring title. It would be more honest, however, to call it a “change of government” plan, since according to Alfonso Chardy of the Miami Herald, the plan called for “suspension of the Constitution, turning control of the government over to FEMA, emergency appointment of military commanders to run state and local governments, and declaration of martial law during a national crisis.” The plan also gave the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which had been involved in drafting it, sweeping new powers, including internment.

Regarding the plan developed during the Bush II administration for widespread detention camps, known as “Endgame”:

In August (2002)… (Attorney General) Ashcroft disclosed a plan that “would allow him to order the indefinite incarceration of U.S. citizens and summarily strip them of their constitutional rights and access to the courts by declaring them enemy combatant”…

After widespread protest from legal scholars, the plan for military detention camps was not discussed publicly further. It seems clear, however, that the camps exist and that… the authority already exists for them to be used… On February 6, 2007, homeland security secretary Michael Chertoff announced… more than $400 million to add sixty-seven hundred additional detention beds. Both the contract and the budget allocation were in partial fulfillment of an ambitious ten-year Homeland Security strategic plan, code-named Endgame, authorized in 2003.

John Perkins’ insider account of the corporatocracy plans to profit from the poor

John Perkins’ “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” is best known for its shedding of light on a corrupt system (that Perkins refers to as a “multi-trillion dollar scam”) that keeps or drives billions into poverty in order to add to the wealth and power of the already wealthy and powerful. Much of the book’s power and legitimacy comes from the fact that, while there are many books today that discuss this corrupt system, this is one of the few, if not the only book that tells the story from the point of view of an insider who spent several years working for and benefiting from that system. Perkins notes the purpose of the system:

We build a global empire. We are an elite group of men and women who utilize international financial organizations to foment conditions that make other nations subservient to the corporatocracy running our biggest corporations, our government, and our banks. Like our counterparts in the Mafia, Economic Hit men (EHMs) provide favors...

Naomi Klein on the alliance of state sponsored terror and corporate greed

Naomi Klein, in “The Shock Doctrine – The Rise of Disaster Capitalism”, thoroughly explores the relationship between state-sponsored terror, corporate greed and economic “shock therapy”. Her account demonstrates many similarities to John Perkins’ story – the main difference being that Klein describes the process from the point of view of a researcher/journalist, whereas Perkins’ story is an insider’s account. They both go a long way towards explaining how Third World nations have to a very large extent been kept down by external human forces who seek to profit from the labors of the poor. It involves a process with many parallels to colonization, and is therefore often described by the adjective “Neocolonial”.

Klein’s book begins with Chile in the 1970s, where U.S. complicity in the overthrow of the democratically elected president of Chile, Salvador Allende, had as perhaps its main goal the putting into practice of Milton Friedman’s economic theories, developed at the University of Chicago. These theories, when put into practice in several countries over more than three decades, have served primarily to increase the wealth and power of the wealthy, at the expense of everyone else. They represent the shock doctrine and disaster capitalism referred to in the title of Klein’s book.


James Galbraith on the “Predator State”

James K. Galbraith, in his book “The Predator State” describes the takeover of our country by financial predators, the process that made it into a predator state:

In the late 1970s and 1980s… business leadership saw the possibility of something far more satisfactory from their point of view: complete control of the apparatus of the state. In particular, reactionary business leadership, in those sectors most affected by public regulation, saw this possibility and directed their lobbies – the K Street corridor – toward this goal. The Republican Party… became the instrument of this form of corporate control. The administration… of George W. Bush became little more than an alliance of representatives from the regulated sectors seeking to bring the regulatory system entirely to heel. And to this group was added… those who saw the economic activities of government not in ideological terms but merely as opportunities for private profit on a continental scale…

This is the predator state. It is a coalition of relentless opponents of the regulatory framework on which public purpose depends, with enterprises whose major lines of business compete with or encroach on the principal public functions of the enduring New Deal. It is a coalition, in other words, that seeks to control the state partly in order to prevent the assertion of public purpose…

AMERICAN PRESIDENTS WHO HAVE MADE ATTEMPTS TO COMBAT DARK POWERFUL INTERESTS

I think it is well worth noting that the American people have from time to time elected presidents who attempted to fight these dark powerful forces. Here are some examples:


John Quincy Adams and his long fight against slavery

I think it’s fair to say that from the inception of our country until slavery was abolished in 1865, the darkest powerful force in American politics was the slavocracy. Indeed, the slave power was powerful enough to successfully demand that slavery be embedded in our Constitution, despite widespread sentiment against it and an American Declaration of Independence that declared that all men are created equal and have “inalienable rights” that clearly preclude slavery.

The story of John Quincy Adams’ courageous fight against slavery is told by William Lee Miller in his wonderful book “Arguing About Slavery – John Quincy Adams and the Great Battle in the United States Congress”. Though Adams was passionately against slavery all his adult life (which is evident from his diary entries), he did nothing to combat it during his presidency of 1825-1829. Shortly after he was soundly defeated in his bid for reelection as president, he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from Massachusetts, where he served from 1831 until his death at the age of 80 in 1848, during which he became the most aggressively anti-slavery Congressman in the U.S. House.

For those efforts he was showered with outpourings of abusive mail including death threats throughout much of his House career. He was warned that he could be prosecuted for inciting a slave insurrection. He also survived three attempts by the House to censure him, which he encouraged because he knew that defending himself on the House floor would provide him with his only opportunity to publicly talk about slavery. An entry from his diary in 1841 demonstrates the passion he felt about this issue:

All the devils in hell are arrayed against any man who now in this North American Union shall dare to join the standard of Almighty God to put down the African slave-trade; and what can I, upon the verge of my 74th birthday, with a shaking hand, a darkening eye, a drowsy brain, and with all my faculties dropping from me one by one, as the teeth are dropping from my head – what can I do for the cause of God and man, for the progress of human emancipation, for the suppression of the African slave-trade? Yet my conscience presses me on…

And as he aged he tended to lose his former restraint, as shown in this reply from Adams on the House floor, in response to a man who suggested that his actions could result in a civil war:

Though it cost the blood of millions of white men, let it come. Let justice be done, though the heavens fall.

Abraham Lincoln against imperial conquest

It has long been taboo in our country for mainstream politicians to speak out against wars once our country has entered into them – and those that do so risk being labeled as unpatriotic and un-American. Unfortunately, the progressive failure of the U.S. Congress to restrain American Presidents from going to war has contributed greatly to an imperial course for our country, from which there currently appears to be no end in sight.

Abraham Lincoln, as a first-term U.S. Representative from Illinois, was one of the first and most vocal U.S. Congresspersons to aggressively criticize an American President’s decision and motivation to invade a foreign country. David Donald, in his book “Lincoln”, describes Lincoln’s response to President James K. Polk’s request to Congress for additional funds to bring the Mexican War “to a close”:

Lincoln led the assault on Polk. On December 22 (1847) he introduced a series of resolutions requiring the President to provide the House with “all the facts which go to (justifying the war)”… Lincoln clearly intended to show that the American army had begun the war by making an unprovoked attack on a Mexican settlement… A few days later Lincoln continued the campaign against Polk in a long speech… Subjecting Polk’s version of the origins of the war to a close, lawyerly scrutiny, he chided the President for the gaps in his evidence and his logic… He demanded that Polk respond to the interrogatories… “Let him answer with facts, and not with arguments”… The President, Lincoln speculated… must have begun the war motivated by a desire for “military glory – that attractive rainbow that rises in the shower of blood…”

Lincoln also attacked the constitutionality of the war:

Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion… and you allow him to make war at pleasure.

For his efforts, Lincoln was castigated by various newspapers, warned that he “would have a fearful account to settle with the veterans when they returned from Mexico” (Lincoln was himself a veteran), and denounced for his “base, dastardly, and treasonable assault upon President Polk”.

When Lincoln was elected to the U.S. presidency in 1859, his well known anti-slavery views soon resulted in attempts to secede from the Union by 13 Southern states, which led to a Civil War, Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation of 1863, and the end of slavery after the South was defeated and a U.S. Congress free of Southern obstruction passed the 13th Amendment to our Constitution, almost three years after Lincoln was assassinated.


Franklin D. Roosevelt against the “Economic Royalists”

When FDR entered the presidency in 1933 he inherited the worst depression in U.S. history, brought on by the greatest income inequality that our country had ever known, following 12 years of Republican Party rule that catered to the interests of the wealthy. Because of the threat that his election posed to powerful interests, an assassination and military coup was attempted against him shortly after he assumed the presidency.

That didn’t stop him. In a 1936 speech at the Democratic National Convention Roosevelt addressed the powerful interests that had brought our country to its current sad state:

Out of this modern civilization economic royalists carved new dynasties. New kingdoms were built upon concentration of control over material things. Through new uses of corporations, banks and securities, new machinery of industry and agriculture, of labor and capital … the whole structure of modern life was impressed into this royal service.

There was no place among this royalty for our many thousands of small business men and merchants who sought to make a worthy use of the American system of initiative and profit. They were no more free than the worker or the farmer…

The privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over Government itself. They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction. In its service new mercenaries sought to regiment the people, their labor, and their property. And as a result the average man once more confronts the problem that faced the Minute Man.

The hours men and women worked, the wages they received, the conditions of their labor – these had passed beyond the control of the people, and were imposed by this new industrial dictatorship. The savings of the average family, the capital of the small business man, the investments set aside for old age – other people's money – these were tools which the new economic royalty used to dig itself in.

FDR knew that his economic policies were extremely threatening to powerful economic interests, whose hatred they incurred. And he welcomed their hatred, as demonstrated in another speech on the eve of the 1936 presidential election:

We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace: business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering. They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me – and I welcome their hatred.

FDR’s economic policies, including a 94% top marginal tax rate for the rich, set our country back on the right path, provided long lasting safety measures against economic insecurity, and resulted in the greatest sustained economic boom in U.S. history.


Dwight Eisenhower warns us of the “Military Industrial Complex”

Perhaps Eisenhower doesn’t belong in this discussion; though he did warn us in his farewell address to the nation of powerful interests that could ruin our country, he did nothing to combat them during his presidency, or following his presidency. But at least he did warn us:

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city… We must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

John F. Kennedy’s quest for peace

Perhaps no president in American history made as valiant an effort as President Kennedy to change the course of American history for the better. And probably no president defied militaristic advice from his military as much as Kennedy did.

In a previous post I discussed JFK’s four refusals to let his military and CIA draw him into war with Cuba. Following the failure of the April 1961 CIA-sponsored invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs by a Cuban Expeditionary Force, Kennedy refused the advice of his military invade Cuba. In March 1962 he rejected a plan by his Joint Chiefs of Staff to stage a false flag terrorist operation meant to draw the United States into a war against Cuba. In his handling of the October 1962 Cuban Missile crisis, Kennedy repeatedly resisted advice from his military advisors to escalate the situation by invading Cuba. And Kennedy even had to use his own military in the spring of 1963 to put a halt to CIA-sponsored raids against Cuba.

From the start of his presidency, Kennedy was strongly advised by his military to invade Laos in order to stave off a Communist takeover. The Chief of his Joint Chiefs of Staff even suggested that he use nuclear weapons against Laos. Instead, Kennedy worked out a diplomatic solution that culminated on July 23, 1962, with his signing the “Declaration on the Neutrality of Laos.” Kennedy vigorously promoted an independent Congo, to the dismay of multinational corporations and against the advice of his military and CIA. There is good evidence that Kennedy planned to withdraw from Vietnam – again, against the very strong recommendations of his military.

Most worrisome of all from the standpoint of the Military Industrial Complex was Kennedy’s plans to end the Cold War, as strongly suggested in his peace speech at American University on June 10th 1963, in which he made far greater peace overtures towards the Soviet Union than had been made since the start of the Cold War. This was followed up six weeks later by the signing of the first nuclear test ban treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union.

Just as he repeatedly faced down his own military and CIA, so JFK faced down the corporatocracy. James Douglass, in his book, “JFK and the Unspeakable – Why he Died and Why it Matters”, explains the significance of that.

John and Robert Kennedy had become notorious in the ranks of big business. JFK’s strategy of withdrawing defense contracts and RFK’s aggressive investigating tactics toward men of power were seen as unforgivable sins by the corporate world. As a result of the president’s uncompromising stand against the steel industry – and implicitly any corporation that chose to defy his authority – a bitter gap opened up between Kennedy and big business, whose most powerful elements coincided with the MIC…

Jimmy Carter – Trying to tamper down U.S. imperialism and human rights abuses

On the campaign trail in 1976, Carter was an outspoken critic of U.S. imperialism:

We’re ashamed of what our government is as we deal with other nations around the world… What we seek is … a foreign policy that reflects the decency and generosity and common sense of our own people.

Morris Berman, in his book “Dark Ages America – The Final Phases of Empire”, discusses Carter’s commitment to human rights as President:

Carter never stopped talking about the subject… He cut out aid to Argentina, Ethiopia, Uruguay, Chile, Nicaragua, Rhodesia, and Uganda because of human rights abuses.

Berman discusses the hopes engendered by Carter’s 1976 election to the Presidency and how the American people turned out not to be ready for that kind of change:

For a brief moment in American postwar history, the position of sanity found an echo… We would work for a more humane world order in our international relations, not seek merely to defeat an adversary; military solution would not come first; efforts would be made to reduce the sale of arms to developing countries…

But… the Carter morality was, within two years, heavily out of step with the return to the usual public demand for a more muscular and military foreign policy… Out-of-office cold warriors closed ranks, forming organizations such as the Committee on the Present Danger… Their goal – to revive the Cold War – was ultimately successful; Ronald Reagan and CIA-assisted torture in Central America were the inevitable results. And in the course of all this, a picture was formed of Jimmy Carter as weak, bungling, inept… That Carter would be perceived as weak, and presidents such as Reagan and Bush Jr. as strong, says a lot about who we are as a people…

But was Carter’s morality really out of step with the American people? Or was it rather that the PTB worked hard to get Jimmy Carter marginalized for his refusal to follow the rules – for example by making sure that the U.S. hostages being held in the U.S. embassy in Iran were not released until within five minutes of Ronald Reagan being sworn in as Carter’s successor?


COMMON DENOMINATORS

In the first two sections of this post I provided a description of various viewpoints on the dark, powerful, and shadowy forces that have put our nation on a course towards world-wide imperial domination – a course that serves the interests of a very few wealthy and powerful people, with tragic consequences to much of humanity. The various descriptions have much in common – so much so that in many cases they are probably referring to the same processes and people. Because of that, reading through all these descriptions could tend to get boring. But I believe that the fact that so many well respected authors who have studied and reported on this issue in meticulous detail came to the same general conclusion adds a great detail of credibility to that conclusion – which is why I included these similar but different accounts at the risk of being boring.

My description of former U.S. presidents who fought against these dark forces was meant to be inspiring. I am inspired by those stories because it shows that on occasion the American people can elect leaders who will stand up against the dark forces that seek to oppress us. But whether or not our current political system is now so far weighted in favor of the powerful over the rest of us – to the point where it is no longer possible to elect another Lincoln or FDR or JFK – is an open question. Of the five presidents mentioned here whom I most admire (I’m not including Eisenhower here because although he warned us of the MIC in his farewell address, he never really fought against them), only FDR fared well. The others were all one term presidents. Two were assassinated (Lincoln and Kennedy), and Carter was cheated out of a second term through a conspiracy known as the “October Surprise”. FDR escaped an assassination plot by the powerful interests whom he opposed.

This is a depressing place to end discussion on this issue. But I’ll have to end it here because this post is just getting too long. In my next post I’ll discuss the methods that are used by these dark forces to maintain their wealth and power – which includes: the infusion of vast sums of money into our political process; control of our media; secrecy; election fraud; the maintenance of a false patriotism in our country, sometimes known as the doctrine of “American Exceptionalism”; and, some darker methods. Then I’ll conclude by discussing why it is that such darkly motivated people have climbed to positions of such great power in the world.

[spooked911]

1. This is a great summary but it goes much deeper than this

the ultimate PTB are explained here:
http://anonymous-physicist.blogspot.com/

[postulater]

13. So the PTB are aliens on the back side of the moon?

Maybe Scientology is right!

[Demeter]

2. It's People Vs Corporations

and right now, the corporations are winning. But when the Corporations win, they destroy the people and the nation, and ultimately, themselves.

There must be balance and a cycling amongst the 3 centers: people, government, corporations. Both power and resources must be shared and not piled up as loot. In essence, everything belongs to the people, the society--they form the government and the corporations which continue to exist only by the consent of the people. In theory, and in practice.


But things went out of balance around the time of the Civil War, and W was the culmination of that imbalance. Now it's time to fix the problem.

If we want to have a people, and a nation, that is.

[DemReadingDU]

3. Corporations are winning

Most people have become too complacent. When they finally wake up and realize what is going on to fix it, it will be too late. We are in for some tough times.

[WinkyDink]

75. Pane et circii.

[nashville_brook]

4. a giant k and r...great read. bookmarked for sharing.

[underpants]

5. mark for later read

[formercia]

6. K&R n/t

[asdjrocky]

7. Very good work TFC!

Thank you for the link on the Roosevelt coup attempt. I've always wanted to know more about that time in history and the players behind it, so you really helped me learn about something new today.

[scarletwoman]

8. Enthusiastic k&r.

[zeemike]

9. As usual a well organized and coherent piece.

A must read for me.
K&R

[snagglepuss]

10. Bookmarked to read later.

[RufusTFirefly]

11. Another enthusiastic K and R!

Kudos to Time for Change, who, once again, provides a well-reasoned, well-documented perspective on the course of U.S. history that we rarely find in mainstream media.

[Liberation Angel]

12. Hunter Thompson called it "The Fourth Reich" . Bushes and Nazis and...

the financing og Hitler led to massive amounts of resources for illicit and murderous corporate enterprises globally.

FDR wanted to rposecute these bastards but died an untimely death.

JFK wanted to dismantle their power and he was assassinated.

At the end of WWII the Rockefellers and Bushes et al along with elements within our fgovernment, intelligence and military establishments rescued and protected their Nazi assets and used them for establishment of the continuation of the Third Reich under a new logo (the Swastika was obsolete and tarnished). Standard Oil became ESSO became Exxon and the Nazis and Saudis and US WASP establishment joined together with other corrupted individuals of all stripes to protect their Reich and to use total global fascism (the 2000 year Reich desired by Hitler and paid for by the Bushes and their treasonous fascist collaborators).

Clinton had (despite his working hand in glove with the Bushes as a pragmatist and sellout) DID get a law passed which denied US and other corporations with their money in off shore banks and tax havens government (including military and intel) contracts. (I am sure their were secret exemptions for Halliburton etc., but for the most part this was, at least on the books, the law.

9-11 changed all that. Within days of 9-11 Bush II had his prepared plan in place which suddenly LIFTED the ban on corporations with their money in off shore, secret banks and tax shelters like Vanuatu and the Cayman Islands (and there are many others) which allowed this law to be ignored IF THE CONTRACTORS HAD HOMELAND SECURITY CONTRACTS!

Which means that once again illegal money laundering, drug money, illegal dumping of radioactive and other toxic waste, internet gaming profits for money laundering illegal profits, human sex trafficking ALL OF THESE ACTIVITIES and many others such as illegal arms deals, assassination, secret armies ALL could be financed with US Taxpayer money BECAUSE of 9-11 and the willingness of Congress to allow the Nazi-like (post Reichstag Fire) false flag operation to cause them to blink and let all our rights get obliterated and allow the corrupt Nazi-like Octopus (actual real Nazis if the truth be told) to once again rise up.

Their methodology is fascism, pure and simple.

The Nazis did NOT lose in 1945. They won.

And genocide, assassination and crimes against humanity are the result.

Only our understanding of this history will make it even possible that we can fix it. Your piece helps much in this understanding.

Excellent piece.

Rec'ced highly

[Time for change]

14. The close association between our country's leaders and many of the Nazi war criminals

following WW II is an issue that concerns many of us and deserves a lot of attention IMO.

You are absolutely right that we need to understand this (and related issues) before we can fix it. I have some understanding of it, but not as much as I'd like to have. One reason that is frequently given for these associations was that we needed some of these Nazis in our fight against Communism. Of course Communism was used as an excuse for just about anything that the PTB wanted to do -- so it is difficult to take that excuse very seriously.

It is also true that we adopted many of the techniques of the Nazis -- So in that respect our associations with them become somewhat less significant; it is worse to behave like them than it is to associate with them. But I guess that the two go together; since many of our leaders had a lot in common with them it makes sense that they would associate with them. Still, I would like to know a lot more than I do about the reasons for our associations with them. Do you have references for some of the things you mention in your post? Thank you.

[Liberation Angel]

15. Well, you can take a look at my Youtube Channel: LiberationAngels

And take a look at some of my archives and saved videos. They will lead to more info in video format.

http://www.youtube.com/user/LiberationAngels

Also take a look at my comments there and read the Smithsonian article I link (which is the basis of my film/multimedia project) which is a work in progress, I am still working on uploading videos (I just started the Youtube project)

But I would recommend the following:

John Loftus: Secret War Against the Jews (This documents the Bush family involvement in financing of Hitler as well as the Rockefellers and others. Loftus was a Nazi hunter for the US Justice Department under Carter (Nixon killed the program) and is staunchly pro-Israel: but he does not shine away from issues critical of US or Israeli right wing activities, for example. Last I heard he was president of the Florida Holocaust Memorial Museum in St. Petersburgh. I have interviewed him and he is fearless and has a unique perspective.

Carroll Quigley "Tragedy and Hope" Which documents the network of U.S, interests and bankers who financed Hitler and their ties to the intelligence community. Professor Quigley was Clinton's advisor at Georgetown U, Graduate School of Government. These interests were also financing Stalin.

Anthony Sutton (while much maligned in some circles) has good scholarly work on western financing of totalitarianism, eugenics, fascism, communism and the Third Reich. He has a huge internet following (although deceased) and I have found his academic research well sourced and pretty impeccable.
I think he also has some good material on secret societies and other more visible organizations like Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberger, Bohemian Grove (who are meeting this week!) and Yale/ Harvard/Princeton intelligence blackops recruitment through such things as Skull and Bones, Porcellian and the Princeton "tea clubs". Dulles, Carlucci are Princeton. The Bushes and Walkers Skull, but the Porcellian members is pretty hidden though it is a top intel "fraternity" where people who are "ta<[ed" are known to keep secrets of dirty deeds (and closeted skeletons) like assassination and genocide and war.[br />
The book "IBM and the Holocaust" is a great read on how IBM helped the Nazis track and identify political opposition,

Finally Look up the Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies I think it is www.wymaninstitute.org which does a lot of conferences on US collaboration with the Nazis as well as the failure of the US media (even Jewish owned media like the NYTimes) and its burying of the Holocaust. I have worked with them some and even spoken at their conferences and events over the years. They, too , are fearless.

I will post a link to one project they are working on now if I can find it. It is awesome stuff.

But PLEASE check out my Youtube site, bookmark it or friend me there or subscribe as I will be laying a lot of this out as I progress (I have a book in the works too and a publishing contract, but it will take some time).

Nice work.

Be happy to get you more info

[Liberation Angel]

16. Really cool activist link on this subject

www.wymaninstitute.org has a ton of articles and materials on many of the subjects you touch on (primarily focussed on the Nazis but also to genocide.

THIS piece was in the Los Angeles Times this week and is really really cool imho as far as activism goes. The guy who came up with this is a friend and mentor of sorts for me.

If you are savvy enough to post the image please do so it is well worth its own post:


http://opinion.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c7de353ef0133f28089ac970b-pi (on the Holocaust and genocide in Darfur and the connections)

Highly recommend looking at this collaboration between graphic artists and political activists.

They are doing a collaboration with MAUS graphic artist too.

[Time for change]

20. Thanks a lot for all the references

This will take a long time to go through.

[Liberation Angel]

22. The archives at my youtube site and the books referenced are GREAT reference materials

Use the index of these books too to draw out the sociopolitical networks of the fascist elites.

I remember the day I discovered the following info in Carroll Quigley's book:

Allen Dulles was the head of the CIA, removed by JFK (although he remained on the CIA asset list as consultant/analyst.strategist via the working groups at Princeton and conducted clandestinely elsewhere unbeknownst to JFK)

Dulles was also on the Warren Commission.

Dulles also was the primary proponent of the Warren Commission duty to "prove" that Oswald was NOT a CIA asset (even though he probably was, Dulles convinced Gerald Ford and some of the others that it couldn't be proven and thus must be debunked. Hale Boggs, who protested this, ended up disappeared in a plane crash (body never found).

Dulles worked for JP Morgan Bank (US Steel which had steel deals with Hitler after he took Poland in the Silesian area (where Aushwitz was).

Dulles law firm represented IG Farben which built and ran Auschwitz.

Dulles was on the board of directors of the Schroeder Bank which was Hitler's primary financier beginning in the early 1930's along with a handful of others including the Bushes, Harrimans and Walkers and other Nazi investors.

Dulles was head of the CIA when his brother was Secretary pf State under Eisenhower hence they controlled almost all covert ops and foreign policy. for a long time (more than a decade).

Dulles was also head of the OSS in Europe DURING the war in Switzerland (where the Nazi gold, loot and profits were held under strict banking secrecy laws, and could manage his assets throughout the conflict and profits from the Holocaust. So in many ways Dulles controlled to a large extent both the Nazi secret policie and the allies secret police. Morgan and others btw, also financed Stalin (see Sutton on this and Quigley as well).

SO

The HEAD of our intelligence RAN a substantial degree of the Nazi opweration as well via his law firm, his financial interests, and his connections.

FDR wanted to prosecute him and Morganthau was ggoing to help him (especially after the aborted coup attempt ten years earlier which the same proNazi players were involved in). FDR died an untimely death (his son in law wrote a book saying his death was a very clever assassination) and Morganthau, I believe, ebded up in a mental institution. FDR's leftish VP Wallace was maneuvered out in 1944 in a really corrupt convention (Chicago actually evacuated the convention hall to prevent the vote which would have affirmed wallace as VP candidate again) and put in their patsy Truman to drop the bomb and continue the new cold war profit-making schemes and prevent the prosecutions of the Bushes, Dulles, Rockefellers et al.


All that info is in the three or four books I cited and well documented. And there are links in my subscriptions at my youtube site to vids with a lot more detail.

use them as reference books and use the indexes.

It is some scary shit.

Basically our CIA was designed and operated and run by the architects of the Third Reich. And they never went out of the power loop. They were never prosecuted and the truth has never really been told. This is the historical fact. It IS the Fourth Reich (in many many ways).

Maybe you can help more people to get it as you do so well connecting all the dots.

Cheers!

[defendandprotect]

49. Loftus' book -

"The Secret War Against The Jews" is terrific --

Not familiar with Quigley, but will check for her book --

Agree re Sutton --

And Wyman Institute wasn't familiar with - will read at their website.

I'd also recommend for some interested in these secret organizations Jim Marr's

Book "Rule by Ritual" --

and also his book a few years ago "Rise of the Fourth Reich" -- probably available

at most libraries -

Martin Lee contributres a great deal with his "The Beast Reawakens" --

The Beast Reawakens: Fascism's Resurgence from Hitler's Spymasters to Today's Neo-Nazi Groups and Right-Wing Extremists by Martin A. Lee (Paperback - Oct 1999)

Also found that at my library --

[Liberation Angel]

53. Great references, Thanks

some I had not heard of.

"The Splendid Blonde Beast" is another one. I forget the author but it is about the "Aryan" (Nordic) fascist mentality/ideology of the elites which is really what's behind a lot of this. That is why it is so horrible that many right wingers who are not part of this cult are collaborating with it. They are being used when they are really despised and will be led to the slaughter again and again (or at least their peoples will be).

[Dr Morbius]

17. Terrific work, as usual.

I'm thinking that the main thing is to get the free press back, to restore media to its proper role. After that, anything else becomes possible. Until then, little will be possible.

[The_Commonist]

18. Lincoln became president in 1859?

That's my only quibble.
Well done!

I first became aware of this kind of thinking as a youngster when I bought a copy of the Yippie Handbook "Blacklisted News/Secret Histories - From Chicago to 1984" on a Manhattan street corner in the mid-1980's. As I get older, it's become painfully obvious to me that we are totally owned by corporate interests, and that there is something dark behind those interests. Most of the various left/right arguments that happen in our culture are manufactured distractions from this part of the big picture.

The sad part is that we really do have the power to change things, if we really wanted to. Don't borrow their money to buy stuff we don't need, and then pay interest on that money. That is the mechanism by which they create their wealth. But we are too "doped by religion and sex and TV," to quote a line inspired by those Yippies, to do much about it. For a brief moment in the late 60's and early 70's, it looked like we may have been on the verge of a consciousness-raising as a species that might have led to those changes, but we collectively fell back to sleep. Either we have some kind of wake up call in the next few years, or we are doomed to a life of cheap, plastic slavery...

[Time for change]

23. Elected in 1860

You're right. Too many people let the corporatocracy decide what they need to buy and what they need to do. They make them feel that without these things they will be known as inferior beings, and they fall for it.

[Karenina]

24. What about Andrew Jackson...

Despite his short-lived victory?

[Time for change]

25. Andrew Jackson

Whereas it is true that he fought the corporatocracy, in the form of the Second National Bank, he was a rabid racist who virtually practiced genocide against the Native Americans. So in my opinion, whatever good he did was cancelled out by his rabid racism:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2959.html

By 1837, the Jackson administration had removed 46,000 Native American people from their land east of the Mississippi, and had secured treaties which led to the removal of a slightly larger number. Most members of the five southeastern nations had been relocated west, opening 25 million acres of land to white settlement and to slavery.

[Karenina]

32. Oh, dear...

My dearest TfC, WHAT do we need to learn from this global tribal economic warfare to...

:shrug:

Today USA, UK, CA, AUS, NZ all oppose water and sanitation as human rights.


What have we learned from history? ANYTHING? (See: Afghanistan). Is the sacred myth of "American Exceptionalism" something that precludes our doing so? Just wondering. :shrug:

May I confess that it's very much like racism and so ingrained that it takes an immersion in "otherness" to flesh it out; if indeed one is even open to the possibility of American myths being stripped bare.

[Time for change]

34. I think you're putting your finger on it, Karenina

The myth of American Exceptionalism (as well as similar myths) MUST be stripped bare, and Americans need to become open to that. What will it take? I sure do wish I knew.

I think that the sociopaths have taken over the world. People need to recognize that and act accordingly. But nationalism, racism, and gullibility stand in the way. I think that Bob Altemeyer had a lot of incisive things to say on this subject:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=5385774

I intend to talk some more about those insights in my next post.

[Karenina]

44. When I was cheerleading

for my diagnosed "high-functioning-residual-austistc" Mr. Spock son to MAKE CONTACT with people he asked me, "Mom, you KNOW people are mean, stupid, ill-informed and never get my jokes. WHY do you want me to do this?"

Damn good question...

I do find it BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that sociopaths have taken over the world, as my kid perceived so many years ago.

The sheer meanness of "American Exceptionalism" is beyond comprehension. I'm hoping the latest WikiLeaks caper will put a dent in it. In the words of the revered Judy Tenuta, IT COULD HAPPEN!!! :crazy: Where's my accordion?

[Time for change]

67. That's funny

It seems that many of us could learn a lot from "high-functioning-residual-austistics". There are certainly a lot of people whom I have no desire to MAKE CONTACT with.

[mod mom]

19. Another excellent post, thank you, TFC! rec'd

[Overseas]

21. K&R.

Too much to say before dashing off to my temp job.

But recognizing the extreme power of the multinational corporations in these times is important to me. I have talked about inspiring change scenarios without acknowledging their grip on our government.

They are so strong that even though Democrats knew the Republicans had been fearing their going all FDR again and proving once again that a more equitable tax system and more good government would boost our economy, our Democrats didn't band together as a block and demand a Truth & Reconciliation commission.

Democrats didn't band together as a block and demand single payer. Even when millions had been bankrupted by the Bush crash and were being evicted from their homes purchased with deceptive mortgages and privatized soaring medical bills. That could have been a grand teaching moment and a statement of basic Democratic compassion. But they didn't do it.

We can blame President Obama and his team, but were they just acting in such a limited way because they knew they didn't have the Democratic block pushing for more significant change?

And here we are, with election systems still compromised, and the corporate media ready with the story about the opposition party always gaining seats in the midterms, and the disappointment of us progressives, to explain away the next batch of anomalies in the election results versus exit polls.

Because there we are with the WaPo story this morning about the Obama administration wanting to give the FBI greater freedom to monitor our internet activities. Sure to rile up the Netroots after their big convention. We may get a whole sequence of negative stories about how little has been accomplished, rather than on what good has been done. Hoping to divide the Democrats further so the divided Republicans (hard right vs extreme right) can still "win" seats back.

Lots of people will still remember what party drove the country off the cliff, but will we have enough of a landslide to defeat the prepackaged midterms narrative?

[KoKo]

26. "Overseas"....are you pointing figures at Netroots for Dems not banding together?

You say:

"Because there we are with the WaPo story this morning about the Obama administration wanting to give the FBI greater freedom to monitor our internet activities. Sure to rile up the Netroots after their big convention. We may get a whole sequence of negative stories about how little has been accomplished, rather than on what good has been done. Hoping to divide the Democrats further so the divided Republicans (hard right vs extreme right) can still "win" seats back."

Just a reminder: The Netroots worked harder than the DLC to get a Single Payer enacted in the Health Care Bill. I don't see the Netroots working to divide the party. I see Rahm Emsanuel calling Party Activists like the Netroots, "Fucking Retards!" I see tactics like Rahm uses and a few vocal others in this Administration and certain Dems in Senate and House as dividing the Dem Party by going out of their way to attack Netroots activsts, who are the very people who really have tried for almost a decade now to counteract the Lobbyists Influence, push for Election Reformplus reforms for Media and Corporate Monopolies. If that is divisive then so be it.

[Overseas]

33. No not at all. I liked all the emphasis they put on our holding together.

I just meant that doing so would continue to be very challenging. And grand old institutions like WaPo and NYT would be presenting more of the non-progressive news on our president. Very discouraging, feeding into the "progressives are upset so they stayed home," PTB agenda.

I thought the Netroots message was indeed that we continue to work for Democratic victories.

[KoKo]

60. Thanks for clarifying your position.

:-)'s

[Time for change]

31. I believe that the corporatocracy has gotten to some of our democratic high office holders

How else to explain so little meaningful accomplishment in spite of a fillibuster-proof Congress?

[Overseas]

42. That's what I've been trying to acknowledge within myself.

The corporations are very very strong, so we didn't get our solid Democratic block to move together on the 21st Century FDR plan in 2009, which would have really helped our nation and made Democrats even more popular. And which could so easily have been justified due to the dire circumstances Republican mismanagement created.

And we didn't get national health insurance last time either, even though it would have made Democrats very popular even then.

But I didn't want to accept that corporate power was more important than national security back then too. I kept hoping that if we could just remind them of the facts about the conditions under which our nation had prospered most and could prosper again, we'd get more people on board. Or if we could just appeal to some basic decency we could get a bit more social justice written into our system, like national health insurance to tide people over in the turbulent outsourcing economy. But even that was too much to hope for.

So while I am intensely disappointed at all we have not achieved, I don't want to be used by the right wing PR machine to explain away midterm election losses.

And I suspect there will be more and more such articles in the lead up to November, to build up the narratives they'll use to explain why exit polls again said Democrats were winning, but voting tabulations showed a 2% edge by Republicans in the middle of the night. (You can tell I was here on line during the Kerry victory, and the aftermath of tortured discussions by the punditocracy trying to explain away how exit polls we used to evaluate the fairness of other countries' elections could have somehow failed in this case.)

I was still hoping against hope that somehow this time we'd get some corporate powers interested in the longer-term health of our planet. Maybe this is it. They've allowed some green funding. They've allowed some health insurance reform. They've allowed a middle-class tax cut which I appreciated. And they may even allow the Bush tax cuts to expire.

But how could my Democrats allow BP to manage the disaster they created? That was a very weak narrative they used-- "only BP has the technology to fix the spill." So Big Oil must be much much more powerful than I had imagined. That they could have been allowed to poison the Gulf ecosystem with dispersant poisons just to reduce BP's liability and make things look better sooner.

[defendandprotect]

50. I may be wrong . . .

but it seems to me that Obama well knew that if he called Democrats out to support

liberal causes/issues -- the streets would be flooded with them --

Rather, Democrats have not done that -- and they have left the streets clear while the

right wing has had to BUY and MANUFACTURE their support in T-baggers run by a PR firm!

[KoKo]

27. Nice Job, "TFC." Look forward to reading Part II.

:kick:

[Ignis]

28. K&R

Always a pleasure to read your posts, TFC. :hi:

Thanks for fighting the good fight (and the only one that really matters, in the end).

[Time for change]

70. Thank you

:hi:

[Mimosa]

29. AWESOME topic, TimeforChange

Did you write this yourself? The research is unimpeachable.

[Time for change]

30. Thank you

Yes, I did write it -- except for the quotes that I attributed to other sources.

[Uncle Joe]

35. Perhaps those Dark, Shadowy PTB Forces are what Jackie Kennedy was thinking of when

she spoke in the plural?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Onassis

After the president's death, she refused to remove her blood-stained clothing, and regretted having washed the blood off her face and hands. She continued to wear the blood-stained pink suit as she went on board Air Force One and stood next to Johnson when he took the oath of office as President. She told Lady Bird Johnson, "I want them to see what they have done to Jack."<37>

Thanks for the thread, Time for change.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

38. I believe it is also why she married Onassis.

She wanted to have the economic and geographic ability to protect her children and herself.
We will never know what threats, implied or otherwise, there might have been made for her
to keep her silence.

[Uncle Joe]

40. Well there is an odd coincidence of statements and dates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Onassis

During her widowhood, Jacqueline was romantically linked by the press to a few men, notably David Ormsby-Gore and Roswell Gilpatric. But in June 1968 when her brother-in-law Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated, she came to fear for her life and that of her children, saying "If they're killing Kennedys, then my children are targets...I want to get out of this country."<47> On October 20, 1968 she married Aristotle Onassis, a wealthy, Greek shipping magnate, who was able to provide the privacy and security she needed for herself and her children.<47>

The wedding took place on Skorpios, Onassis's private island in the Ionian Sea, Greece. After her marriage to Onassis, Jacqueline lost her Secret Service protection and her Franking Privilege, both of which are entitlements to a widow of the President of the United States. As a result of the marriage, the media gave her the nickname "Jackie O." which has remained a popular shorthand reference to her. She became the target of paparazzi who were following her.

Then tragedy struck again, as Aristotle Onassis's only son Alexander died in a plane crash in January 1973. Onassis's health began deteriorating rapidly and he died in Paris, on March 15, 1975. Jacqueline's financial legacy was severely limited under Greek law, which dictated how much a non-Greek surviving spouse could inherit. After two years of legal battle, she eventually accepted from Christina Onassis, Onassis's daughter and sole heir, a settlement of $26,000,000, waiving all other claims to the Onassis estate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal

The men who broke into the office were tried and convicted on January 30, 1973. After much investigation, all five men were directly, or indirectly, tied to the 1972 Committee to Re-elect the President (CRP, or sometimes pejoratively referred to as CReeP). The trial judge, John J. Sirica, suspected a conspiracy involving higher-echelon government officials.<10> In March 1973, James McCord wrote a letter to Sirica, claiming that he was under political pressure to plead guilty and he implicated high-ranking government officials, including former Attorney General John Mitchell.<11> His letter helped to elevate the affair into a more prominent political scandal.<12>

Probably nothing to it, but you never know.

[Time for change]

39. Jackie knew!

My thoughts on that matter were exactly the same as yours when I read those words.

[defendandprotect]

52. Yes --

and she told us exactly what the head wound was --

I don't think you can do any better than Jim Garrison's summation that we

are all "Hamlet wondering if we actually know the truth" --

Of course we do! But many are still sitting in front of their TVs waiting

for some anchor to tell them what actually happened!!

Meanwhile, the MSM has never yet acknowledged our 50+ years of open right wing

political violence in assassinations and coups on our "people's" government.

[Time for change]

56. That reminds me of a conversation I had with a cousin of mine just a few weeks ago

He told me we'll never know what happened because it was so long ago. He's almost totally unfamiliar with the vast mountain of evidence, but as far as he's concerned "we'll never know" until someone admits to it or our government officially announces it.
'

[KoKo]

57. It seems to be pretty much the "mind set" these days as younger and younger folks are too busy

with distractions to remember an historical narrative. We are all so distracted by so much. It's hard to keep historical narratives alive so that a NEW GENERATION will continue the investigations.

I think most of investigation is so momentary that our cluttered minds can't remember one thing from the next new event of "major importance" that is spun away as we spend time Social Networking and Distracting ourselves with all the "shiny objects" that are available to us these days...that weren't just maybe a decade ago.

It is what it is....for better or worse.

[defendandprotect]

66. There is purposefully no mechanism . . .

for educating anyone on this issue -- depends on individual curiosity!

Certainly, our MSM doesn't recite every day the crimes of the CIA!

Great job -- TFC!!

:)

[Greyhound]

36. Got to read this one. Auto K&R. n/t

[EmeraldCityGrl]

37. Bravo!

I look forward to your next post. You say, " I am inspired by those stories because it shows that on occasion the American people can elect leaders who will stand up against the dark forces that seek to oppress us." My great fear is that we will no longer have even the mere opportunity to elect men of character and integrity that
love this country as much as we do. My fear that the economic constraints which have been perfectly executed and refined through campaign laws will enslave us
and doom us to one Corporate Gatekeeper after the next. How we break free just enough so that we have the opportunity to elect the type of men and women you
profiled will only happen through campaign finance reform.

[Dr.Phool]

41. Wow. 10 new recs in the time it took me to read it.

Everything was excellent. However I would have added a little about the drive in the 1980's to take over the propaganda apparatus. I remember Jesse Helms goading corporations to take over the media. "Become Dan Rathers boss".

Enter Disney, GE, Murdoch, and further media consolidation. Now, they're working on the internet.

[Auggie]

43. BRAVO! A BIG K&R!

[defendandprotect]

45. Great post -- !!! These are all the complications of capitalism and violence ....

some day we're going to have to get serious about uninventing the dollar bill --

and preventing violence by the few --


Re Carter, I wonder how many Americans are even aware of the "October Surprise" which

actually mimicked Nixon's beghind the scenes deal to keep LBJ's attempt to encourage

peace in VN by stopping the bombing and setting the "peace table." Nixon feared that

any Democratic Party advancements in "peace in VN" could put Humphrey into the White House.

Secretly, Nixon worked to ensure that there would be better terms AFTER he was president!

The election was a squeaker as I recall -- but buy that time we had already had the large

computers used by MSM and the smaller voting computers begin to enter our voting halls --

mid-and-late 1960's --

Coinicidentally, about the time that America passed The Voting Rights Act -- !!



The large computers gave MSM the ability to PREDICT and CALL elections -- prior to that

time they could only report official vote tallies. Now they PREDICT and CALL even

Electoral College votes and ANNOUNCE the new president.

What we saw in 2000 was simply a reversal of those new powers --

used to RECALL Florida from Gore --

[Dystopian]

46. KandR.

It takes forever and a day for me to get through your brilliant posts....all backed by facts.
I've read so many articles on your points made.
You weave it all together ...

You are a DU treasure.
Thank you...

peace~

[Time for change]

68. Thank you very much Dystopian

:hi:

[defendandprotect]

47. K&R --

[onethatcares]

48. bookmarked and thank you for all you've put into this

seriously, thank YOU>

[Octafish]

51. People who investigate this area are the bravest of patriots.

Taht includes you, Time for change, and a whole lotta DUers.

A few more names who've also shed light on this topic:

Rex Bradford

Mae Brussell

Debra Conway

James DiEugenio

Mary Ferrell

Mark Lane

Gerald D. McKnight

Philip H. Melanson

Joan Mellen

John M. Newman

Mark North

Carl Oglesby

Vince Palamara

Lisa Pease

E. Martin Schotz

John Simkin

Harold Weisberg

Donald E. Wilkes

In compiling this listing, I am struck by the fact how the powers-that-be could consider them threats. More than anything, criminals fear truth. The fear of discovery, then, must loom largest in the breast of the traitor.

BTW: The list above augments your references, Tfc. It is by no means complete.

PS: A couple on there are DUers.

[defendandprotect]

54. Familiar with all . . .

but Conway and North -- so thank you, I'll look into their work --


but you might consider adding to your list FLETCHER PROUTY who has written

quite a few books on the assassination and "Secret Government" --

very powerful stuff -- he died a few years ago but I think someone still keeps

his website up. And his books are usually to be found in local libraries.


I'd also mention --

JIM MARRS who wrote "Crossfire" and a number of other interesting works --

including what I think is his most recent - "The Rise of the Fourth Reich" --


And --

HARRISON EDWARD LIVINGSTONE

Who wrote High Treason I and High Treason II --

also usually in local libraries --


And would also recommend the many books by JIM GARRISON on this subject --

many of those in local libraries.




:)

[KoKo]

59. I was surprised not to see links to Kevin Phillips incredible books compiling much info

that have allowed others to go forward. His "American Dynasty" was an incredible read about Bushies and others during the rise of them. He said in a "Q&A" on C-Span Booknotes that he hoped his book would inspire others to dig deep into the whole Bush Dynasty. He said that so many were dead from the early years...but he hoped that picking threads would lead to more investigation.

He's done other excellent books, but I found American Dynasty particularly readable and a good resource about the Bush Family from the beginning and the history surrounding them.

[defendandprotect]

65. Had no idea that Kevin Phillips wrote anything like that . . .

and will try to find "American Dynasty" --

BUT . . .

is this the same Kevin Phillips who was a conservative GOP supporter back in the '80's???

Not sure?

[Octafish]

72. The very same, ''Southern Strategy'' Phillips.

Very, very brave man. Called the Bush clan: "a multi-generational family of fibbers."

[defendandprotect]

78. Octafish . . .

Presume he saw the light?

But a question for you --

Was there really ever a "Southern Strategy" . . .

or was there simply the large and smaller computers coming in during the mid-late-1960's?

You might remember that up until then, all MSM could do on election night was report

actual vote tallies? Yeah, they could get a small group together and discuss

likelihood of this or that, but that was all.

The LARGE computers used by MSM brought then new powers to PREDICT and CALL elections --

PREDICT and CALL the Electoral College and CALL an election for a new president.

What we saw in 2000 was simply a reversal of those new powers --

To my knowledge this was about the time America was passing The Voting Rights Act?

Was there a Southern Strategy or were there only hackable computers?

See: Votescam -- the Stealing of America -- an investigation of the computers in Florida

in the late 1960's -- link below --


I'd question every election back to Nixon/Humphrey -- which, as I recall, was a squeaker?

And that was even with Nixon's effort to keep the war going by interfering in the

hoped for Peace negotiations! Remember Kissinger . . . "Peace is at hand!" ???



http://www.constitution.org/vote/votescam__.htm

The book is at the website the family tries to keep going --
but it's also available here and there for like $2 - $3

[KoKo]

77. Here's a Link to Book and Review from Amazon. I read the Book...Excellent!

http://www.amazon.com/American-Dynasty-Aristocracy-Fortune-Politics/product-reviews/0670032646/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush
Kevin Phillips (Author)
3.5 out of 5 stars See all reviews (191 customer reviews)


351 of 363 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars Not merely about the Bushes, but about the nation as a whole, February 1, 2004
By Robert Moore (Chicago, IL USA) - See all my reviews
(TOP 50 REVIEWER) (VINE VOICE) (REAL NAME)
This review is from: American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush (Hardcover)
I have to admit by being completely surprised by this book. From the title and from reading the dust jacket, it sounded a tad conspiratorial to me, as if it were trying to force a template on history that wasn't there. But Phillips's case about the worldview that the Bush and Walker families generated that determined the policies and points of view and values of both George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush is close to overwhelming. I expected going into the book that it would be mildly informative; coming out, I have to say that no book that I have read on either of the Bushes (and I have at this point read pretty all of them) has been as informative and as full of insight as this one.

It is essential to stress two things. First, unlike some of the one star reviewers who obviously haven't cracked the book, Phillips means this as a warning against all political dynasties, which was, in fact, a major concern of the Founding Fathers. They were terrified of political families whose influence would extend from one generation to another. And this fear persisted well into the 19th century. Anyone doubting this should read a good biography of John Quincy Adams. Phillips points out early in the book that the Kennedy family was a bit of a dynasty (and would have been one for certain had Robert F. Kennedy not been assassinated in 1968), and he acknowledges that if Hillary Clinton were to run and win in 2008 that would also constitute a dynasty. His decision to focus on the Bush/Walker family derives from the fact that they in fact have had two presidencies in less than a decade, as well as other members of the family holding other political positions (Preston Bush was a U.S. Senator and Jeb Bush a governor). Second, this book is an exploration of many of the ills of the political system. The faults and flaws are not tied merely to the personalities of Bush 41 and Bush 43, but are systemic and run across the political spectrum, and across the political spectrum. Put simply, the problem is the dominance of the industrial-military complex that Eisenhower tried to warn us against (though Phillips would characterize it as the industrial-military-investment-energy-secret service complex). In "Who is an Author?" Michel Foucault argued that the author was a nexus through which all of society produced a book. In a sense, Bush 41 and Bush 43 are merely conduits through which the great conglomerate that Phillips describes with such clarity makes concrete its goals. Even if Bush 43 is defeated in 2004, this complex is not going to go away. Bush is part of the problem, but merely a part.

The power of the book derives from the deep background he provides of the founders of the Bush/Walker dynasty. Ironically, although two Bushes have become president, the real founding of the family came on the Walker side. George Herbert Walker, Bush 41's maternal grandfather, is the Joseph Kennedy of the Walker/Bush clan. Every indication is that Preston Bush, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush are marginally gifted individuals, with no real abilities of their own, who have managed to be successful because of the mass of extraordinarily high-level connections established by George Herbert Walker. It was through Walker that the two families became allied with many of the most powerful individuals in 20th century American life, connections that Bush 41 and Bush 43 have exploited over and over and over again. I had read before about key individuals who had assisted, say, Bush 43 in ventures like Arbusto or Bush 41 in the Zapata oil operations, but reading of the individuals who would step is with enormous investments meant little to me. But those investors were without exception individuals who had become aligned with the family through George Herbert Walker. These are classic instances of what is known as crony capitalism, which has been key to the ascent of both Bushes to the White House.

Phillips does a magnificent job at detailing the family connections to the investment world, the world of oil and energy, to the Middle East (extending back not merely to the first president, but to George Herbert Walker and his massive business ties to the region in the 1920s and thereafter), and (largely through their Yale connections and through Walker's business ties) to the intelligence community, and especially the CIA. Most disturbing is the way he describes the family's enormously circumscribed view of economics. Essentially, the family knows nothing of business or economics outside the narrow purview of investment (even their connections with oil and energy has been on the investment side). They have little knowledge or contact with industry or small business or, really, any aspect of the economy outside of investing. Therefore, the family assumption is that if you take care of investors, you have taken care of the only thing in an economy that matters. If investors are doing well, you needn't pay direct attention to any other facet of the economy, like jobs or manufacturing capacity. Although many economists are deeply concerned about the current state of the U.S. economy (with gigantic deficits, enormous debt to nations like China, and continued employment difficulties), from the narrow view of the Bushes, things are good because they have taken care of the investment class.

I heartily recommend this book to anyone concerned with the current state of politics in America. It is not, as I said, merely a book on the Bushes, but on many of the things truly wrong today in America. Essential reading.


http://www.amazon.com/American-Dynasty-Aristocracy-Fortune-Politics/product-reviews/0670032646/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

[Octafish]

73. Absolutely. I'd add many, many more, such as Robert Groden and Dick Russell.

Dick Russell the writer and Dick Russell the comedian and activist -- two different people, united in the fight for Truth.

It isn't proper to leave anyone out, my Friend, so I tried to leave things open to build the list...

[Time for change]

55. And that includes you too, Octafish

I would also add David Lifton to the list. I have little doubt that his book, "Best Evidence", is the best account of the medical evidence in the case. His investigation took several years, and it's recounted in meticulous detail in his book.

[Octafish]

74. Lifton added a great deal to what we now know. More light from these...

Jefferson Morley

Doug Horne

Anthony Summers

James Fetzer

And I'd add these names, including a quick grab off o' HistoryMatters.com:

Cyril Wecht MD, Gary Aguilar MD, Don Thomas, Josiah Thompson, David Talbot, David Kaiser, Lamar Waldron and Thom Hartmann.

And there are many, many more, including:

James W. Douglass

[Liberation Angel]

64. Hey Octafish! Great list. Please check out my youtube channel (LiberationAngels)

I am working on a project you might like to contribute some to.

It is a work in progress and is multimedia.

But I would love for you to check it out and give me feedback either by PM or at my channel<

www.youtube.com/user/LiberationAngels

Others are welkcome to visit and comment to.

Read my initial comments there in the comments section.

and more on my own background.


That is all.

[Beam Me Up]

58. This is the kind of post that makes DU great -- and the kind of subject

progressives should be discussing. There's no use talking about ending the war(s) or changing laws to serve our needs so long as we remain unclear about what the real PTB are and how they operate. When we begin to understand that the real PTB do not go into or out of office along with an election cycle or a new president or congress, it all begins to make much more sense.

Thank you, Time for change and I hope this post gets all the recs it deserves!

[BeHereNow]

61. T4C~ this is simply one of the best posts I've ever read on DU. Thank You.

And yes, Eisenhower DOES belong in your mix.

We can no longer ignore the relationship between the MIC and
the multi national corporatist elite, who have allegiance to NO country
and yet continue to utilize the US military machine to further THEIR interests,
when discussing the state of our country and the world.

BHN

PS: I can't wait to read the next section!!!
K&R!!!!!

[laughingliberal]

62. K & R nt

[Liberation Angel]

63. Offshore banks, money laundering and fraud TODAY INDICTMENTS!!!

In a precious post on this thread about the Nazis, Bushes , 9-11 and osshore banks etc I mentioned the Cayman Islands and others where the rethug collaborators are hiding their illegal funds (Bush, right after 9-11, allowed them to do so in the name of "National Security" or rather Homeland Security).

This way the criminal enterprises can launder and hide illegally gotten gains.

Today two BILLIONAIRE Bush backers face prison by Obama's Justice Department for such activities.

Just think how many assassinations you can finance to protect your investments with this kind of money.

A Fresh Thread on this at DU is here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4484844

This underscores my point: I happen to believe that the primary purpose of 9-11 was to reactiviate these offshore sytems of hiding assets and doing illegal ops globally for the purpose of keeping the BFEE in power DESPITE the election of ANY Democrat or anyone else for that matter.

If these bastards can manipulate global warfare, terrorism and politics (Hell, they probably own Amadinejad as well as Netanyahu, and we know they are in bed with the Saudis and Chinese and totalitarians everywhere) how in the hell can we EVER hope to get past this, even with an Obama in the WH.

THIS is how.

Obama sends these motherf*ckers to prison!

Lets hope!

[upi402]

69. FEMA appointing our government

I'm shocked it wasn't Blackwater. But then, it may be that FEMA appointees were in the same club.

The boards of Americas corporations are in the hands of a very few powerful elites. It's pervasive. Yet Dems act like we just need token changes and should be happy with that.

[OnyxCollie]

71. Kicked and bookmarked.

Good post, Time for change.

[PattyRussell]

76. Some people believe America was once great and if only...

America Was Great? When Was That?

What gets to me is people thinking America was once a great country with a moral compass? When was that? I must have missed that part of history. From the massacres of Indians, to slavery, to Hiroshima, Vietnam, to its policies in Latin America, to its support for the creation of the terrorist state of Israel, to supporting the Shah of Iran, to supporting Saddam with intelligence and chemical weapons against the Iranian people, to these modern day Middle East debacles, America has by far the worst track record. They just have a very powerful propaganda machine to show they are the land of the free.

"We" stole half of Mexico by armed force -- the nice parts with rich deposits of gold and silver (and, as it turned out, oil -- though "we" didn't actually recognize that at the time.)

"We" made sure that "our" influence over Latin America was such that wealth would be steadily transferred from their countries to ours. "We" sent the Marines to Nicaragua, Haiti, & Guatemala often enough to insure that life in those countries would be a permanent living hell for most of the inhabitants. "We" imposed military dictatorships in almost every Central & South American country, stunting the aspirations of their people, & imposing conditions from which some of those countries will never recover. (So if some of the people want to escape from the living conditions in those countries, "we" had very much to do with creating those conditions.)

Interestingly, "we" started doing all this at the same time that "we" were exterminating the indigenous people here, AND using black slaves from Africa. What a loveable, righteous people "we" are, here in the "Land of the Free"!!

"We" came here somewhere in the early 1600s. "We" found this Promised Land, rich beyond imagination with fresh water and fertile earth and abundant game and timber for the felling. And to "our" further delight, it was largely uninhabited--if "we" didn't count the Red Ones.

"We" didn't see too many of them at first; they avoided our noise and the smoke from our fires, which were always too big. But soon enough, "we" were here in such numbers that they couldn't go around us anymore.

"We" were shocked--SHOCKED, I tell ya--that there were Savages in "our" Promised Land! So "we" set about exterminating them. "We" killed them whenever "we" saw them, "we" drove them from their land and their homes, "we" slaughtered their food supply and left the buffalo bodies to rot in the sun by the hundreds of acres. "We" gave them blankets full of smallpox, murdered their children and raped their women before "we" murdered them as well. "We" rounded them up into concentration camps and ate their food while they starved. "We" made them cut their hair, wear britches and beat them to death if they wouldn't speak "our" language.

"We" stole a whole fucking continent from them and paid them in Genocide.

The “American” mission was clear, manifest: to endlessly expand through the elimination of impediments posed by the External Other (“savage” Indians), while keeping white society safe and separate from the “debauchery” of the valuable, Internal Other (Black slaves). This is the foundation on which the American iconography and celebration is based. Lacking any other, it is the template of white American identity and purported “civilization.”

[DFW]

79. I didn't see this earlier

This is one HELL of a post!! Kudos!

[BeHereNow]

80. Kicking for those who may have missed this thread. MUST READ.

BHN