Debunking Tom Woods’ “Catholic” Austrian economics
(left: Father James Sadowsky, the Jesuit “grey eminence” behind Murray Rothbard and Tom Woods)
By all appearances, Thomas Woods Jr., a noted promoter of the “Catholic” strand of Austrian economics, is being groomed as the heir apparent to Lew Rockwell in the Libertarian propaganda network. Given Woods’ increasing role and visibility, his background and ideas deserve to be explored further, and the contradictions between the Catholic doctrine and Austrian economics need to be exposed.
By Memehunter for The Daily Knell and Real Currencies
As documented in The “Catholic” Arm of Libertarianism, the Jesuits’ involvement in the Libertarian-Communist false dialectic is nothing new, and has in fact been ongoing for several centuries. In fact, according to Mises Institute’s founder Lew Rockwell, the Spanish Jesuits of the University of Salamanca were the founders of modern “free-market” thinking. Not surprisingly, Jesuits are also behind several of the Austrian think-tanks and propaganda outlets that have sprouted all over America in the last century.
While the Jesuits’ involvement with education and intellectual life may be laudable in some respects, many readers will no doubt be aware that the Jesuits occupy a significant position in the globalist elite’s hierarchy, and that their ideologies and goals often differ substantially from those associated with the traditional Catholic doctrine. In fact, as I wrote in The “Catholic” Arm of Libertarianism, Jesuits are likely part of a long-term Illuminati plot to “infiltrate and subvert Catholicism from within”.
Clearly, Thomas Woods Jr. is being positioned to slowly take over Rockwell and continue this dubious tradition of “Catholic” Austrian economics. In fact, Woods has devoted a considerable part of his output to justifying the “free market” from a “Catholic” perspective (see for instanceThe Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy).
However, there are apparently indissoluble differences between the Catholic and Austrian perspectives, and Woods, despite his scholarship and clever arguments, has not been able to avoid them entirely. In this article, we will first expose Woods’ connections to the Jesuit hierarchy as well as to other “controlled opposition” movements, before discussing some of the contradictions inherent in his intellectual positions.
Father James Sadowsky, SJ: the éminence grise behind Rothbard and Woods
The term “éminence grise” (grey eminence) was first used to describe a French monk who advised Cardinal Richelieu behind the scenes. The tradition continues today with Jesuit priests discreetly advising and guiding academics who are then charged of disseminating their ideas to an unsuspecting public.
One such grey eminence was Father James Sadowsky (1923-2012), who taught at Fordham University for 38 years. Sadowsky, a co-president of the International Philosophy Quarterly, was no run-of-the-mill Jesuit: while he was teaching in Beirut (prior to his appointment at Fordham), one of his students was Peter-Hans Kolvenbach who later became the General Superior of the Jesuits and, according to some alternative researchers, one of the most powerful men on the planet.
Sadowsky, described as an “anarcho-catholic priest”, was a close friend of Murray Rothbard from the early 1960s until Rothbard’s death. While we are told that Sadowsky and Rothbard mutually influenced each other and did not always agree on everything, it is reasonable to suspect that Sadowsky was behind many of Rothbard’s ideas, given what we know of the Jesuits’ modus operandi.
Sadowsky likely exerted a major influence on Woods as well: Woods cited Sadowsky’s writings several times in The Church and the Market and openly sought to acknowledge Sadowsky’s contribution to his book.
Besides the questionable Jesuit infiltration of the Catholic doctrine, it is important to document Woods’ and Rothbard’s connections with Sadowsky as this corroborates the evidence already presented on this blog and elsewhere regarding the Jesuits’ centuries-old campaign for the acceptance of usury in Catholic countries, as well as their unremitting role in fanning the flames of the Libertarian-Communist dialectic.
Woods’ ties to the John Birch Society
I have already shown how the John Birch Society was part of an operation orchestrated by Rothschild and Rockefeller operatives to channel the anti-Communist movement into an essentially harmless organization entirely under the control of the Money Power elites. As such, members and affiliates of the John Birch Society can generally be regarded as gatekeepers who may be telling the truth on many topics, but who generally remain silent on Freemasonry, Zionism, or the Jesuits’ involvement in the elites’ plans for a global takeover. A notable example is G. Edward Griffin.
Unlike Griffin, Woods does not seem to be openly affiliated with the JBS, so we do not know whether he is a bona fide member of the organization (perhaps some better-informed readers can confirm this). However, we know that Woods has given numerous speeches at JBS-sponsored conventions, and videos of his speeches and interviews are available on the JBS website. This strongly suggests that, knowingly or not, Woods is associated with an organization that fits the “controlled opposition” label to a T.
Woods’cognitive dissonances on government, usury, and the Church
Can one denounce government and “statism” and at the same time be a faithful Christian? Although we are not necessarily in favor of “big government” here at the Daily Knell, we also do not claim to strictly follow religious edicts. However, the following passage from Paul’s Letter to the Romans is a seemingly insoluble dilemma for any minarchist or anarcho-capitalist Libertarian who claims to follow the Bible:
“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. […] For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, busy with this very thing. Pay to all what is due to them – taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honour to whom honour is due.”
As noted by this blogger, “it seems very difficult to reconcile Christianity with any kind of anti-state ideology, left or right”.
Usury is another fundamental point of dissent between the Catholic and Austrian doctrines. As I pointed out in my earlier article, “Woods has struggled mightily to justify the Austrian School’s endorsement of usury which goes against authentic Catholic teachings”. In fact, Woods resorted to quoting a Jesuit, Leonard Lessius (1554-1623), who “played a significant role in eroding the interest prohibition”, to wiggle himself out of this uncomfortable position.
The plain truth is that it is impossible to reconcile any form of usury with the Catholic doctrine, as explained in this remarkable article by Anthony Santelli, a former student in economics at George Mason University who reverted to Catholicism and came to the conclusion that “all along it has been usury that lies at the root of many social ills.”
Finally, it is difficult to understand how Woods, as a practicing Catholic, can praise the work of some of his Austrian predecessors such as Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises. Indeed, Rothbard wrote at length about the Church’s hatred of liberalism, while the atheist Mises claimed that Christianity had become a “religion of hatred”. Here, it may be relevant to note that both Woods and his advisor Sadowsky are converts: Sadowsky was originally an Anglican, whereas Woods was a Lutheran.
Conclusion
Like his predecessor Rockwell, Woods’ role is to convince Catholics, and more generally “right-wing” traditionalist Christians, that usury, along with the “free-market” anarcho-capitalist utopia of Austrian economics and its Satanic core, are compatible with their religious beliefs. This, of course, is a lie, as many writers have shown. In his attempts to defile Christian precepts with Libertarian propaganda, while refusing to address the true causes of our social and economic problems, Woods dutifully fulfills his role as a Jesuit-controlled gatekeeper.
Related:
How the Money Power created Libertarianism and Austrian Economics
The “Catholic” Arm of Libertarianism, By Memehunter
Answering Tom Woods
The problem is that the underlying principles of most governments and religions that I am aware of are satanic to the core. So then, if that is true, then anything that spews forth from them is going to be corrupted and dishonest. It is impossible to reason with liars. The churches that label themselves “Christian” are pagans. I don’t believe that God is that stupid to come up with all of these various religions. The rules are the same for everyone, and if we live outside those rules, our lives become compromised and miserable. Clearly, usury is considered stealing in the bible, but even without a bible, we can see that it is a failed economic instrument.
I think the idea here would be to separate ourselves from this nonsense and stay away from groups. Groups get too corrupted all too quickly. The quality of life resides in keeping the commandments and the rest of it that contradicts these commandments are worth nothing.
I find it completely insane that people try to reason with liars. Because just hearing a lie starts to distort the mind into thinking one thing when another is true.
The Catholic church is and never was “Christian.” The Jesus who would have been God in the flesh taught people to keep the commandments. So, once I see a religious or government leader, I assume that they are liars and I don’t even listen to a word they say if I can manage it. I never get anything good out of it so why should I even listen to it.
The Christian churches that I am aware of are so pagan, I sometimes question whether the whole story of Christ was completely made-up. I have no way of knowing other than to look at the pathetic conduct of what is passed of a Christian. In fact, I’m embarrassed to call myself a Christian under these circumstances. If the story of Christ is true, then I would be more of an anti-Nicean Christian.
My suggestions is for people to judge for themselves whether something is good or bad against the natural law and the commandments. I don’t see how one can go wrong with that, and let these other pathetic people wallow in their own misery. The whole point of a satanic government and religion is to destroy the goodness of any life of mankind.
http://verydumbgovernment.blogspot.com/2012/02/bad-government-and-bad-religion.html
I agree Al. What almost everything boils down to, and the answer to every question, is MONEY, and the power it avails those with most of it.
Between Acton’s “power corrupts” and Cicero’s “Cui Bono?” one can muster very little faith in the virtues of those who wield their political power over others for selfish gain.
As an atheist myself, I yet believe most commandments to be worthy guides Golden rule style.
What libertarians believe is generally “Harm no man, then do as you will”.
That is, the non-aggression axiom. Live and let live.
What these guys and their factless rhetoric are trying to do is mix up the religion of Thomas Woods, (poor guy), while steering clear of actually defining his economic beliefs I just stated above and then proving them wrong.
There’s a HUGE difference between “shylock” issuing costless debt fiat from thin air PLUS
interest and the loaning one’s REAL commodity money, or other good, with a voluntary compensation mutually agreed upon for opportunity and risk costs of having one’s capital loaned out.
If voluntary, let no man criticize.
If by coercion, then criticize it for all to hear.
A credit debt contract can be consumated without money. If somebody loans you a lawnmower, and you return it cleaned and full of gas, that represents opportunity and risk costs returned with usury. The goods were returned and usury (more gas) was payment for the risk. This seems natural and right to most humans. But when we mix in money, which stands in as a good, the story changes.
The organic world grows and creates returns through replication. A chicken can be loaned out, and another chicken can be returned sometime later, but with egg usury. This is well within the bounds of nature. Credit and Debt contracts based on goods do not exceed natural limits.
But, lets suppose we have a pond of lilys. The flowers double every day; they get their inputs from the sun and energy from the soil. They grow and multiply and eventually fill the pond 1/2 way. At what point does the pond fill all the way? It filled the final half of pond in 1 day.
This is what usury does, it grows unnaturally and exponentially with mathematical precision. All populations have natural limits. In the case of the Lily’s if they were allowed to continue growing, they would fill the earth, then two earths, and eventually the solar system, and so on.
Money is not organic. It does not reproduce. So, to ask for more back in return as usury conflates money with credit/debt mechanims. Credit/Debt mechanims are so deeply wired in the human mind, people reject the nature of money because their instincts recoil. This allows predators preaching false doctrines to manipulate mankind. They use the money mechanism to their predatory benefit by claiming money is an asset, meaning that it can grow like an organic good. Money’s properties are that it is divisible, has elements of law and force, and stands in as a good at the moment of transaction. Sand is divisible too, and we can count it. But, we cannot make sand get together and reproduce. So to ask for money back as usury, conflates credit/debt mechanims, and assumes money reproduces like an organic good. It does not.
Asking for usury back to settle a debt contract goes against what money is. Entire false doctrines of economics, with value theory (Marxism), human action + Gold (Austrianism), debt contracts (Neo-classicism) have arisen to deal with this fundamental conflict. Rather than deal with the conflict, there are towering edifices of economic babble that are designed to push humans in the direction they already are prewired to go. These economic doctrines all have the same thrust, defending money’s asset function so at to reap rents from the organic economy. Credit and Debts mechanisms are deeply ingrained in humanities hind mind. I fear few can overcome this bias.
A gift as a courtesy or a show of appreciation is not usury. That’s two separate things. Usury is a major economic problem and it should be done away with completely.
Agreed. The example proves the point, humans want their “loans” back the same and better. This is the time principle that “asset” minded economists cannot let go of, especially gold bugs.
A good compromise would be to limit loan payback to 2X the principle. In this way, some natural limits are placed on compounding. The other option is to change the root equation for less compounding. Then, some sort of external inputs to money supply are required to expand said supply. The external input compensates for usury (or gifts) drain.
Unfortunately, demurrage is also totally off of most people’s cognitive map. I would say though, that the average person is pre-wired for credit/debt thinking to such an extent, they cannot easily comprehend the action of money.
First of all, there’s no such thing as humans. http://verydumbgovernment.blogspot.com/2011/03/im-not-human.html The use of any kind of usury will destroy an economy. Almost anything is better than usury. Usury destroys and distorts everything and it has been a plague to mankind since the beginning of its use. There are other ways to proceed that are much better and doesn’t serve to steal from the people.
Just a thought. Unlike a lawnmower, debt based money is not owned by you, its owned by the issuing bank and is a little like owning a hole in the ground. On its own (the hole) is a meaningless concept. To make it mean or be something you need to have/own the dirt that that hole is situated in. The banksters make this happen by assembling all the contracts, loan agreements, bonds, etc that surround this debt based money (holes).
I hope this makes some kind of sense.
‘These economic doctrines all have the same thrust, defending money’s asset function so at to reap rents from the organic economy.’
A lot of rhetoric in the comments on this page from anti-Austrians who all seem to overlook the same things. Firstly, money, whilst it is loaned out does not only stand in for an asset -it is a tools for growing capital, and as such it serves as (the only real) means of improving and refining production. So while the money itself is not organic, it does facilitate a growth in the capital assets that it stands in for. The process of loaning money, and repaying it with interest is therefore not the exploitative process you are trying to paint. Let’s say I can produce one car a week with my existing machinery, that I can sell for 10k. What if, by borrowing 30k, I can purchase machinery that enables me to produce 5 cars in a week, which I can now sell for 8k each? Even accounting for interest at, say 5k, the usury you condemn has in fact facilitated an improvement in everybody’s circumstance. My creditor makes a profit, I improve my ability to make profits while my customers get cheaper cars. Which brings me to the second point: like it or not we live in a world of scarce resource relative to the needs of the world’s population- there just isn’t a more effective way to eliminate poverty than free trade, because without prices it is not possible to plan production effectively. By default all alternatives to capitalism can only ultimately result in misallocation of resources and consequently greater poverty than the usurious capitalism you all condemn. Oh, and Mises was not an atheist, he was agnostic.
All you are showing here is how the loanshark/usurer/banker taxes the productive parts of the economy: you and me. Andy, you are regurgitating the excuses the capitalist is bringing forward for your own enslavement.
I’ve been reading this blog for a while now and I’m still none the wiser as to what you actually advocate as an alternative. What is your wonderful alternative to capitalism? £20 says its impossible.
Hi Andy,
Read ‘Interest Free Economics’, you can find this page in the list on your right. Move on to ‘discussing solutions’.
You can transfer the 20 quid (thanks, much appreciated) to my paypal account via the ‘donate’ button. If you don’t have a paypal account, please let me know via email (info(at)gelre.org), I’ll let you know my BIC and IBAN numbers. Thanks for reading Real Currencies!
Anthony
haha, touche! I’ll check them out and get back to you 🙂
The problem is that usury is unjust gain. It inflates prices and gets people to spend “money” that they don’t have and then pay much more from the product. Usury is the problem and it ought to be done away with forever. It allows psycho bankers to start wars, gets people killed, and anything you can think of as bad, usury will be a part of it. And of course, if I’m a poor man, I won’t qualify for the loan even though I may be skilled, and thus I won’t be able to get a loan if I wanted to. The whole economic system is jacked up because of usury and anyone who advocates it is crazy. http://verydumbgovernment.blogspot.com/2010/02/scourge-of-usury.html
““all along it has been usury that lies at the root of many social ills.””
ONLY on the nearly costless fiat debt money from thin air of the banksters CAN that morally apply.
Eg, I produce, then purchase an implement instead of saving the amount it cost.
Then I rent that implement such that I recoup its cost and then some.
Isn’t the deployment of that capital for a ROE, whether its currency or an implement, just and fully moral when the participation is all voluntarily?
Get it yet?
Ya’ll sound like wannabe central planners.
If its voluntary – there AINT NO victims, ya dig?
The money system establishes the market for usury. Yes, it is voluntary, but if a person needs a car to get to a job, then he is compelled to get a loan because half of his income has been confiscated by taxes. It is a vicious cycle. And people who want another system are thrown in jail because they threaten their money scam. The system is not voluntary. It is a slave system. People who work jobs are wage slaves; tax ni**ers. Don’t give me that crap that it’s voluntary.
Exactly Al! That’s so on target.
‘choice’ and ‘voluntary’ are really very relative in many cases. If your ‘choice’ is between a rock and a hard place, the libertarians will still call it ‘voluntary’. If it puts children in the sweatshops they’ll explain it’s ultimately best for everybody.
We’ve been so programmed to ignore morality it really is sickening.
The idea is encapsulated in the “tragedy of the commons”. Usary is voluntary in the sense that no one is holding a gun to your head, but if you want the common items of life, a car, a house, and other expensive items, then you have to buy it on the installment plan (with interest) for most people. Sure, you can save up, but that is hard to do for the average person.
What is good for an individual, if repeated by everybody, ends up hurting the nation.
That is why Libertarians don’t like nationalism or Nation-states. Libertarians are radical individualists, even to the point of damaging the country.
Anything which reminds people they have a duty greater than themselves or are a part of something greater than themselves, Libertarians disparage or don’t want to talk about.
Libertarians and the Global Elite, alike, want to “atomize” individuals, denude them of their feeling of nationalism.
We know why Libertarians want to “atomize” individuals in society and Global Elites want that result, too, so no group can effectively stand up to their predations.
No MarxBites, there are many ‘voluntary’ exchanges in which one of the parties was forced because he had no other choice, or only worse alternatives. This ‘choice makes it good’ argument has been solidly debunked, also in the article you quote, which is a good read, btw. You should read it, it’s by an Austrian who woke up. It took him decades.
Usury is such an involuntary choice, because in the money monopoly that the rich force upon us (through Government, but it’s the rich that do it), they keep money scarce, whereas interest free money is really the easiest thing in the world.
Come on man! Stop whining because ‘your’ ‘ideas’ are debunked! It does not make you look good! Redo your homework and get even better!
>>>>>>debt money from thin air of the banksters
But it has already been acknowledged by no less an authority than “Republicæ” that that is exactly what “libertarians” want; they do NOT subscribe to the idea of gold/silver/copper coin alone as money; and they do NOT like commodity-based currency
In the name of laissez faire first they monopolize the currency, then the land, then they say: be my tenant and employee, or starve, because it is NOT good for business if you live on your own land and work for yourself; and, if subsistance wage is not good enough for the tenants, they flood the market with aliens; because, when it comes to the labour market, the market must NOT decide.
They would be livid and out-raged and in rage if someone rubbed their faces into the concept of 50th year and 7th year –if these are really God’s intructions, they certainly want a new God
Much of the falseness of liberal premises, whether in ethics, politics, jurisprudence, or economics, rests on a deliberate and persistent refusal to take cognizance of force in economic necessity, or to perceive the coercion implicit in the more or less impersonally and anonymously applied pressures of given situations, whether of individuals, groups, or nations. Broadly stated, a basic premise of the liberal thesis has been, and still is, that anything done or got away with within the law does not involve a resort to force. This premise or assumption, obviously, is purely a matter of arbitrary definition to suit the purposes of propaganda. It is palpably absurd and contrary to experienced or observed fact, either as a premise for discussion or as a definition of force. The simplest explanation of why the premise is absurd and contrary to fact, is to point out that law may, and always does, provide for contests of sheer force or might. It specifically makes possible and easy ways in which the strong can use force to crush and oppress the weak.
If a rich and powerful individual or corporation uses vast economic and legal resources to levy on my daily product a heavy toll, all within the law, there is, according to liberalism, no resort to force involved. I have paid my toll through the mechanism of the “free market,” or in freely made contracts. The facts that in millions of contracts under liberal capitalism one party is coerced by hunger and the other by no immediate personal necessity, or that international relationships rest mainly on rights acquired by force and violence in war, are entirely ignored by liberal theory in its definition of force and violence. If two men fight or shoot out a difference of opinion or a class of interests or wishes, every one will agree that this constitutes a resort to force. But if two competing economic interests wage, within the law, a destructive economic competition in which one finally triumphs and the other is crushed, liberal theory recognizes no resort to force or use of violence and coercion. In fact, of course, there are for every individual winner in the economic struggle scores if not hundreds of losers.
From Wikipedia on “School of Salamanca: Although there does not appear to be any direct influence, the economic thought of the School of Salamanca is in many ways similar to that of the Austrian School. Murray Rothbard referred to them as proto-Austrians.”
“… considered that people had not only the right to own property but — again, a specifically modern idea — they had the exclusive right to the benefit from that property, although the community might also benefit. Nonetheless, in times of great necessity, there all goods become a commons.”
-REN_ Form Henry George, John Stewart Mill, and the Physiocrats, we know that you tax rent value. Land does not follow supply and demand curves, as land is a fixed quantity. Land can become monopolized by a rentier class. The school is in error.
“…Martín de Azpilcueta also considered the effect of time, formulating the time value of money. All things being equal, one would prefer to receive a given good now rather than in the future. This preference indicates greater value. Interest, under this theory, is the payment for the time the loaning individual is deprived of the money.”
REN. From social credit theory, we know this is wrong. This school is ground zero for Usury theory. There is no time value “usury” inherent in credit. In fact, too much credit standing in as money, is seigniorage against the money supply. Modern classical economists confuse credit and money and hence a house loan can have huge usury costs, as if there was time value in the loan. Borrowing a debtors credit with hypothecation, and then then charging usury is the height of perversion. This is as if the bank was loaning out their own money, and not the borrowers credit.
There is some time value to loaning out money when a money system is designed for “money as an asset.” More error in thinking is when this notion comes up against the fact that money is sterile, and paying back usury drains a real money supply toward creditors, creating a plutocratic monied elite. Money system design should never allow money to be an asset. Asset function and counting function of money should become separated. Indeed, credit also should be separated from money. The school of Salamanaca is confused, like their Austrian progeny.
This school also overturned work from the Schoolastics. St. Thomas Aquina and other schoolastics are the intellectual heirs of Aristotle, “Money is a Creature of the Law, and Money is sterile.”
I would also count Calvanist’s as agents of Illuminist confusion attack. Calvanists went after Catholic Bans against Usury, especially in England. This prepared the ground for Cromwell and ultimately the Orange Kings.
Catholics have a checkered history, sometimes being co-opted by money power, or being infiltrated, or sometimes just falling down, as human’s are failed creatures.
There’s no such thing as humans. This word is making me nuts. http://verydumbgovernment.blogspot.com/2011/03/im-not-human.html
From Politically incorrect guide to Western Civilization”
“We know, don’t we, that the Spanish Inquisition was an arm of the oppressive medieval Church? No, it wasn’t. It was requested from Rome in 1478 by Ferdinand of Spain, and was run by the STATE. It was designed to ferret out false converts from Judaism and Islam, but it had more to do with the creation of a Spanish state than with religion. The Spanish monarchs, having driven the last Moorish ruler out of Granada in 1492, and hanker for unity in a land that had long been a checkerboard of feuding dukedoms, ordered the Jews and Muslims leave the country or become Christian.
From Wikipedia
Nevertheless, in some parts of Spain towards the end of the 14th century, there was a wave of violent anti-Judaism, encouraged by the preaching of Ferrand Martinez, Archdeacon of Ecija. The pogroms of June 1391 were especially bloody: in Seville, hundreds of Jews were killed, and the synagogue was completely destroyed. The number of people killed was also high in other cities, such as Córdoba, Valencia and Barcelona.
One of the consequences of these programs was the mass conversion of Jews. Forced baptism was contrary to the law of the Catholic Church, and theoretically anybody who had been forcibly baptized could legally return to Judaism; this however was very narrowly interpreted.
Many conversos, now freed from the antisemitic restrictions imposed on Jewish employment, attained important positions in 15th century Spain, including positions in the government and in the Church. Among many others, physicians Andrés Laguna and Francisco Lopez Villalobos (Ferdinand’s court physician), writers Juan del Enzina, Juan de Mena, Diego de Valera and Alonso de Palencia, and bankers Luis de Santangel and Gabriel Sanchez (who financed the voyage of Christopher Columbus) were all conversos. Conversos – not without opposition – managed to attain high positions in the ecclesiastical hierarchy, at times becoming severe detractors of Judaism. Some even received titles of nobility, and as a result, during the following century some works attempted to demonstrate that virtually all of the nobles of Spain were descended from Israelites.
REN. The church intervened on behalf of Cryto-Jews, keeping the STATE from executing them. Crypto Jews were conversos that continued to practice Judaism in secret. The church had many crypto Jews sent to the Canary Islands rather than be executed. The STATE had been infiltrated by money power elites, among them crypto jews. Why? Don’t forget the EAST-WEST mechanism still controlled by Jews via overland routes. Portugal didn’t break the mechanism until Vasco De Gama’s voyage in 1498. It was sometime after that before Gold, Silver, and Spices found their way to Europe (Amsterdam) by ship; after this Portugal became rich on the exchange rate difference between silver and gold between east and west.
This flood of money from gold/silver exchange rate differences funded money power elites of that era. The goal, as always, is to control the state for private or tribal benefit. Note that it is wonderful METAL money funding our dispossession. This private benefit is to ride herd on and milk the public as overlords. This theme is nauseatingly consistent throughout history.
Note the time period for Salamanaca is 1493 to 1596, and overlays well with the formation of conversos and crypto Jews.
Many crypto jews became Jesuits. See:
http://www.israelect.com/reference/WillieMartin/Ignatius_Loyola.htm
I was going to post this, but you did such a stellar job that I will just affirm that what you say is true and has also been written about by Edward Hendries regarding the Jewish infiltration (very early on) of the Catholic Church, through the conversos and the Jesuits. Your last point is the most important!
>>>Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God.
Are you trying to say that Nero (Elizabeth or Rosewelt or whoever) was blessing from God ? (could God do no better than Trajan ?)
Are you saying that the exact same Jesus who became upset with the merchants at the temple, blessed the neighbourhood with evil empire Rome and evil empire UK; two empires of the international money power which those money-changers were parts of ?
Long before Romans, Yahweh himself talked to Yahshua and told him what sort of government to organize for the chosen people in the promised land. What sort of Government the faithful people of old Israel have ? no government at all: an-archon (try that one on for size, one day)
Of course, libertarians would not like the biblical form of government: homogene nation state, tribal land (which cannot be sold away and alienated), land as an inheritence from God who made it (no mortgage, no rent), 7th year rest and release, 50th year new deal……
king and government was given not as a blessing but as a lesson
Samuel 8:7
they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.
therefore
This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.
12 And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.
13 And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.
14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.
15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.
16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.
17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.
To me, what is a dead giveaway is the fact that the Pauline epistles have Paul the Apostle swearing oaths. Now, Paul was taught directly by Jesus Christ himself, who taught never to swear oaths, then how is it that Paul is swearing oaths? I think the Pauline epistles have either been severely compromised or the man was a heretic. In either case, the Pauline epistles are not usable. Especially, the Chapter 13 In Romans which you mentioned.
Al I’m concerned about the same issues, but conflating the current system with Austrian views is not a valid criticism. What we have now is the opposite of an austrian approach.
I can sense you’re really interested Andy, that’s great. I also understand fully that people are attracted to Austrianism because it provides an alternative to the much detested main stream economic ‘keynesian’ paradigm.
All we’er saying is that ‘austrianism’ is controlled opposition and that we can have interest free money now, if people just knew.
Check ‘Interest Free Economics’ to find out how.
Anthony – I will read up on this. I’m interested in your theories and their ramifications where they to be true, but having read the link to Wayne’s facebook ‘debate’ with Woods though I would like to offer some words of advice. Wayne’s conduct and practice of ‘shouting’ a lot without actually saying anything comes off pretty poorly in the thread. Woods in contrast comes off as very reasonable and fair, and given that Woods is an increasingly author and intellectual, he has so far shown a highly commendable tolerance for Wayne who is, after all, ‘some guy on the internet’ who is shouting at Woods, largely on the basis of his own fundamental misunderstandings about economics and Austrian theory.
From what i have seen on this (very interesting) blog post and the subsequent comments on the blog these failings with your own views and those in agreement with you are repeated here time and again. 1. You have built yourselves a an Austrian starwman which bares very little resemblance to Austrian theory and are demonstrably false. 2. You continually make attacks on prominent Austrians which are demonstrably false. 3. It is clear that none of you have read/understood ‘Human Action’ by Mises. 4. When presented with a laundry list of corrections by Kaj Grussner on the ‘Answering Tom Woods’ you have flat out failed to address your misunderstandings, strawmen and contradictions. If you have not in fact read and understood key Austrian texts, your criticisms are all too easily dismissed. Worse, if you cannot admit when you have been proven wrong, you will never get any change out of us, because it does not make for terribly much faith in your intellectual honesty, and we Austrians are ‘wired’ to seek that above all else.
I sincerely hope the Woods debate does take place, I will be bringing popcorn, but it will not be pretty for you if Wayne, yourself et al don’t stop and listen to what is being said to you instead of keeping on banging drums for demonstrably false claims. For onlookers, you will just lose all credibility and on the evidence of what I have seen here Woods (who is an historian by trade!) will take you to the cleaners. I can only imagine the carnage if you took on an Austrian economist such as Bob Murphy or Bob Wenzel.
Apologies for my poor grammar in the opening sentences above, sleep deprivation does not make for a functioning brain!
The Austrian’s claiming we don’t understand is getting to be pretty annoying. Here’s something they seem to have difficulty understanding. When money looses it’s asset function, Austrian theory and Neo-classical theory ceases to be relevant. We have then entered a new world, and “debt instruments” or “gold assets’ no longer control the economy of producers. Money simply becomes a low friction marker allowing goods and services to be traded.
When money is no longer an asset, then what is “value” theory? What is human action, other than price in a market place?
When money is debt free and allowed to circulate at high velocity, then all of the Austrian paradigms shut down. Gold becomes just so much metal. If somebody wants to buy gold, then let them, but it is not money. It makes for pretty jewelry, and is good for low resistance to electrical current. It is a simple scientific matter to make money “accounting identities” match an economy’s volume of goods and services. We humans are advanced enough now, we have evolved our legal systems, we can jump to a superior money system. We don’t need to go backward’s to the errors of the past. Money errors of the past are retrograde, causing debt peonage, war, and enslavement.
To make money accelerate, we can do it three ways: 1) demmurage 2) Inflation 3) Limit usury to principle, and eliminate compounding (put population limits on usury, thus reducing the “asset” function of money). To reiterate the point, when money looses usury as a base function, it becomes a poor asset. People no longer want to hold “money as poor asset”, and hence it does not form as Capital. People spend their “money as poor asset” buying goods and services, or investing in new enterprise, thus creating new wealth. The people pool their money buying equity in enterprise, thus preserving real economic value, not fake capital. (Austrians, explain to me how human action changes in this debt free world? Any system predicats its output, and the system just changed.)
We can also accelerate velocity using social credit, and spending it into the base of the supply; direct spend into population, now creates an economy of people who have new money that makes up for any leaks out of they system, helping prevent deflation. Social credit spends money right to the base, where goods and services begin, and doesn’t redound to help a “special class.”
To help with the S shaped curve of a normal economy, some industrial credit (paid to farmers and industry) can be used, which is paid back with additinal fees. Said fees cover default ratios. This allows the economy to flex as needed and accelerates real wealth formation.
I’ve presented some historical examples as comments on this site that cannot be wished away. A start up economy strips things down to the bare essence. When Massachuset bills first issued into the Colony, they were used by the population and served as money. They were a promise to receive, NOT a promise to pay. Money does not have to pay in something else (like gold or debt). The same goes for South Africa with DeBeers. In order to enslave the population, a head tax was put on the natives. The natives then had to work to acquire money in order to pay taxes. The new money issued was a promise to receive in taxes. There was plenty of Gold and Diamonds in Africa – did that make the workers automatically rich? If you have lots of Gold, it must automatically follow that your are a rich country; tell that to the African’s who worked to death in the Gold mines for money that was a promise to receive in taxes.
Money volume simply needs to match goods and services produced, and to say it needs to match something else like gold or debt instruments is simply – a lie. And, to say money needs to be a promise to pay – is a lie. History tells us things when we look.
Why do we hear these lies? Because, a parasitic rentier class of predators wants to ride herd on, and live off of the population. The questions are as always, “Who controls the money supply, and to what ends?”
Yes REN, your knowledge is great, thanks for sharing here at real currencies.
Many in the Austrian Community are just out to score points and prove they’re right, instead of making a real effort.
Thanks and my pleasure. In my opinion, the money system is the most important thing facing humanity.
Sorry, you a spending a lot of words for something that doesn’t happen. All exchange medium have asset value or it wouldn’t be accepted as a medium of exchange.
All exchange medium have to have a continuing value as an asset because money is a substitute for barter, exchanging goods for goods or services for services. Instead, the good or service is exchanged for money.
REN,
In your definition of ‘asset’, is it required for the ‘asset’ to provide a rate of ‘return’ or more simply that an ‘asset’ provides a ‘return’?
Thus, with no rate of return on the medium of exchange, the medium of exchange would not constitute an asset.
If so, then I stand corrected. A medium of exchange could exist without the possibility of ‘return’, but that would have to be enforced by law. And, even so, there would exist a black market for the medium of exchange, where interest would be charged on loaning that medium of exchange. This would be be in a secondary market.
The primary market from the government could be without interest in that dispersement transaction, but how could you prevent a blackmarket secondary market where interest would be charged?
Perhaps, I am failing to understand what your distinction is between asset and medium of exchange.
Reblogged this on Recovering Austrians.
DPAUCH
I’ve coined this acronym to define the confusion attack our masters promulgate onto society. D stands for descriptive, where an economic theory attempts to describe the economic world. Various branches of economics use their descriptive powers, and each stands behind their models. P stands for predictive, which correlates to descriptive. Practitioners of DP deception use a syllogism, a logical fallacy at this point. If the D is correct, then it follows that P is correct.
Listen to my predictive powers, because my descriptive powers are so acute. This is the general theme of Austrian theory; “look at how accurate we are” therefore our predictive powers are equally precise. By predictive, I mean the ability to predict good results from a leap to Gold money, competing currencies, or other new economic systems. Descriptive and Predictive are often weaved together in economic writings. In order to accept D we have to accept P.
Some economic theories, such as MMT functional finance, are very powerful at D and also offer a P; MMT wants a job guarantee funded by government, a form of social credit that puts a floor on wages. When reading or analyzing various economic theories, it is important to discern when the writer is pushing for a P. Since they interweave D and P, it takes conscious effort to pull them apart.
A of depauch is for money as an asset. Virtually all usury based economic theories assert money as an asset. Adam Smith, “money is a certain weight of metals”. NeoClassicals insist money is a debt asset. A mortgage document for example, is a debt instrument serving as an asset to the holder. Austrians advocate for Gold or some other form of A = asset money. Asset money advocates predominantly – (P)redict – for private issuance, their desired unit is often based on commodities -like Adam Smith, and the syllogism (logical fallacy) is that asset money has some form of intrinsic value. Some monetary thinkers listed below have pierced this syllogistic fallacy.
As excerpted from IMF white paper, http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2012/wp12202.pdf
————
“The principal advocates of this system of private money issuance were Adam Smith (1776) and Jeremy Bentham (1818), whose arguments were based on a fallacious notion of commodity money. But a long line of distinguished thinkers argued in favor of a return to (or, depending on the country and the time, a maintenance of) a system of government money issuance, with the intrinsic value of the monetary metal (or material) being of no consequence. The list of their names, over the centuries, includes John Locke (1692, 1718), Benjamin Franklin (1729), George Berkeley (1735), Charles de Montesquieu (1748, in Montague (1952)), Thomas Paine (1796), Thomas Jefferson (1803), David Ricardo (1824), Benjamin Butler (1869), Henry George (1884), Georg Friedrich Knapp (1924), Frederick Soddy (1926, 1933, 1943), Pope Pius XI (1931) and the Archbishop of Canterbury (1942,in Dempsey (1948)). “
Moving on down dpauch to U for usury; Again, it follows if money is an asset, then money has some sort of time relevance. Martín de Azpilcueta of “School of Salamanaca” formulated the time value of money theory. If money is an asset, then Usury is required for its time relevance. Debtor must pay creditor loan principle, plus usury. Most money systems have money serving as a counting function, and also serving as an asset function. A real money system separates the two functions. The highest form of money should be as an accounting identity, where money divides itself and counts during moment of transaction. Money stands in as a good during transactions.
A and U of depauch are closely linked. For usury to be taxed onto money, money must be defined as an asset. Those elements of society that receive benefit from usury will understand the close relationship, and will shill for “money” as asset function.
U, C, and H are Usury, Capital, and Hosting. Usury money finds its way to holders of money or those who make money e.g. bankers. They are the money power. This pipeline of Usury accumulates and becomes Capital. This is financial usury Capital and was formed from the usury theft scheme; this capital is then conflated as a productive economic increase. Usury capital conflation with productive capital is yet another syllogistic error. Financial usury Capital is then used to Host and Parasitize Government; this hosting is necessary because at its root money has elements of law. Some level of government hosting is required to preserve private money power. TARP is a good example of hosting powers being used to bail out private money powers. Private money powers will denounce government on one hand, and work to host it on the other.
DPAUCH leads to hosting and controlling the press or any other power levers in order to maintain the con of money as an asset. The circular logic is money as asset, then usury, then hosting, and subsequent confusion attacks to maintain the con. Usury exists and depends on its associatiated schemes: DPA CH. Attack any of the associated schemes, and money powers will react.
This is excellent REN. You should turn this into an article.
You or Anthony have my permission to repost as an article if you want. Feel free to edit as well to make it more coherent. Is there a method for submitting articles?
Regards,
REN
Thanks REN. I don’t think that there is a particular method for submitting articles – you could simply write to Anthony and see what he says. I would be happy to post on the Daily Knell.
This is indeed a very nice take. In ‘why bankers love gold’ I also suggest that one o the reasons they want commodity money back is because it easier to mind control us into paying interest for it: with computer based credit it is a little ‘rich’…… If you work this out to a coherent article (just rework it a little, the basics are there) I’d certainly post!
Memehunter and I would both post, I guess.
Money is a duality; it is both a medium of exchange and an asset, indeed, it must be an asset to be a medium of exchange, in other words to have a continuing value beyond acting as a medium of exchange. Even south sea ‘shells’ used as a medium of exchange, have a continuing value withing the economic system where those ‘shells’ are recognized as a medium of exchange.
Your comment regarding the origins of the Birch Society are maliciously absurd. There is no connection between the Rockefeller family or the Rothschilds to the JBS. That argument originated exclusively with anti-semites like Eustace Mullins and, significantly, Mullins did not present one iota of verifiable factual evidence to support his statements.
Well, maybe you got that information from Mullins, but I didn’t.
Here is a passage from chapter 11 of the Radical Right (ed. Daniel Bell), authored by Prof. Alan Westin, citing a reply by Welch to the allegation that the JBS is antisemitic:
“He [Welch] then cites the names of Jewish members of the Society such as Willi
Schlamm, Julius Epstein, Morrie Ryskind, the late Alfred Kohlberg, and Rabbi Max Merritt, and indicates that it has been endorsed by the American Jewish League Against Communism (a Jewish right fundamentalist group). Next, Welch explains that he probably has “more good friends of the Jewish faith than any other Gentile in America.”
Note that Welch himself mentions Kohlberg and the American Jewish League against Communism.
Please have a look here for more information (and don’t forget to click on the links or use Google):
thedailyknell.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/old-rothschild-and-rockefeller-hands-controlled-the-libertarian-communist-dialectic/
Here, you will learn that 90% of the funding for the AJLAC came from Bernard Baruch, a known Rothschild agent.
Next time, it would not hurt to double-check your facts before that a comment is “maliciously absurd”. I presume you know how to use a search engine :).
As for the Rockefeller connection, I admit that it is harder to prove, but even on the JBS website we read the following:
“Robert Welch was out of the candy manufacturing business (retiring in 1956) when his brother (who he used to work for) sold the James O. Welch Candy company to Nabisco in 1963.” Nabisco was owned by Rockefeller.
And don’t forget Fred Koch (this is from Wikipedia, by the way – not exactly an anti-semitic outlet):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society#Origins
“One of the founding members was Fred Koch, founder of Koch Industries, one of the largest private corporations in America.”
Isn’t it true that old man Koch built refineries for the USSR? Helped fund the JBS after his “epiphany” but continued doing work for the USSR into the 60’s? His sons fund the “tea Party” which is why it has such a fraudulent , neocon flavor? How transparent; the best way to control the opposition id to lead the opposition…The avg tea party drone still doesn’t know that 9-11 was done chiefly by Mossad and it’s agents, assets on the ground and allies in country..It was totally an inside job…and yet they listen to useless people like Palin and Glenn Beck at their rallies..Who owns the Fed is ignored as well of course…The JBS always ignores WHO was driving force behind communism…People like Baruch and Koch are why..
Amen to that…..
That the John Birch Society was anti-communist is well known, but what is not known is whether the leaders had knowledge about the deeper conspiracy behind Communism.
Let’s face it, to this day, most people (this includes parts of the alternative media and those who follow it) don’t know that Communism was part of the transnational bankers’ plan to set-set a competing “false” economic system and rival military “power” to spur war spending — to create the Military-Industrial Complex – and discourage a “middle way” via guilt-by-association and encourage “pure captitalism”, really Monopoly-Cartel Capitalism.
In essence, the plan was to control both poles of the ideological spectrum.
Rank-and-file Birchers were simply ‘anti-communist’ and anti-international governance. Birchers were, and to the extent they are active, today, nationalists.
Peaceful nationalism is good, as opposed to transnational governance, which is elite and subverts nationalism and the demoncratic control, which can be effectuated by nationalism, but not transnationism, which is neo-feudal in its characteristics.
>>>deeper conspiracy behind Communism.
It is dounbtful either of you even know what communism is; you certainly are displaying that you know as much about communism as about Lincoln and the greenbacks.
Could you define what “communism” is; what is the conspiracy (so deep only you can see it) behind it; how are bankers (there is no trans-nationl, only inter-national) opposed to it ?
name789:
Unlike yourself, I have acquired tens of thousands of pages of FBI investigative files via FOIA requests concerning the Communist Party USA.
Many documents in my possession are verbatim transcripts of secret, closed meetings of senior officials of the Communist Party.
Consequently, I know exactly what they believed, what their objectives were, who they liked and disliked, and what instructions senior Party officials gave to their state leaders.
I also know how many CPUSA members there were, how many informants the FBI had inside the FBI, and I have copies of confidential CPUSA documents concerning their membership, dues payments, mailing lists, subscribers to CPUSA publications, financial support by the Soviet Union, internal Communist Party USA disputes, the Soviet-Chinese ideological conflicts, and other matters.
What do YOU have by comparison?
name789,
Communism in its broadest sense, is state ownership of the means of production.
But in operation, it is an elite that control the means of production via a ‘command economy’.
There is plenty of evidence the Russian Revolution of 1917 was sponsored by international bankers (I write ‘transnational’ to conotate these bankers have no loyalty to a nation-state, rather, only to their own power & control). For these international bankers, Communism is only a means to an end, you know, the “ends justify the means”, for the international bankers and their cohorts to control the dynamic of a world political-economy for their benefit.
As far a Lincoln goes, yes, he wanted to save the Union, by any means necessary (which was a brutal campaign, no doubt), as for the Green back, your evidence goes to the state of mind of others in government (various legislators in Congress), not Lincoln’s state of mind or ‘intent’.
You never did demonstrate various quotes attributed to Lincoln were false. You simply claimed as such — you do a lot of claiming.
I’m curious, do you subscribe to Austrian Economics? How would you describe your economic philosophy?
You just displayed that you do not know what communism is
“My” evidence regarding greenbacks shows 1) the scum who sold ye books on Lincoln and greenbacks knew nothing about the subject, and never studied the subject
2) that the whig crew came in with a plan and greenbacks were part of it; Lincoln heartily co-operated with the bankers, Lincoln was the people’s enemy, not their saviour cuming in a shining armour
>>>>There is plenty of evidence the Russian Revolution of 1917 was sponsored by international bankers
Please show one (because the evidence we do have points to someone else)
Being a Brown or Still groupy is something to be ashamed of; being an “austrian” is a result of some learning. Austrians dis-like me just as much as groupies
name 789,
Since you don’t provide your definition of Communism, your claim that I don’t “know what communism is” lacks merit. It’s an unsupported claim.
Wikipedia entry (lead paragraph):
“Communism (from Latin communis – common, universal) is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless, and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order.”
Evans wrote: “…state ownership of the means of production.”
Wikipedia wrote”…common ownership of the means of production”
But Communism has NEVER in practice been “stateless”, so my use of the term “state” reflects practical experience. But if you want to go with the THEORETICAL definition, fine.
I’ll stay with the practical reality.
name789 wrote: “‘My’ evidence regarding greenbacks shows 1) the scum who sold ye books on Lincoln and greenbacks knew nothing about the subject, and never studied the subject”
Again, this is an unsupported claim, which you do often, but if you want to provide a link (which I know you can do) to something that actually disproves those Lincoln quotes, I’ll take a look at it.
name789 wrote: “2) that the whig crew came in with a plan and greenbacks were part of it; Lincoln heartily co-operated with the bankers, Lincoln was the people’s enemy, not their saviour cuming in a shining armour”
From links you previously provided, which I did take time to read, it was not clear what the “whig crew came in with a plan and greenbacks” wanted to do.
Did the “whig crew” want to set up a national bank to issue money without paying interest to private bankers or did they want to set up a private bank similar to the Federal Reserve, where the private bankers created money from thin air and loan it to the government at interest — debt based currency? That is the question and you haven’t answered. Also, even if the “whig crew” wanted a private bank with debt based currency, did Lincoln understand that distinction? Again, you haven’t shown that either.
Regarding the finance of Trotsky, read this link:
http://modernhistoryproject.org/mhp?Article=FinalWarning&C=7.3#Trotsky
“Leon Trotsky was given $20 million in Jacob Schiff [an international banker] gold to help finance the revolution, which was deposited in a Warburg bank, then transferred to the Nya Banken (Nye Bank) in Stockholm, Sweden. According to the Knickerbocker Column in the New York Journal American on February 3, 1949:
‘Today it is estimated by Jacob’s grandson, John Schiff, that the old man sank about $20,000,000 for the final triumph of Bolshevism in Russia.'”
name789 wrote: “Please show one (because the evidence we do have points to someone else)”
I just did. But since you claim (a recurring issue) evidence points to someone else. please state who (or what group) the evidence poins to.
Evans wrote: “I’m curious, do you subscribe to Austrian Economics? How would you describe your economic philosophy?”
name789 responded: “Being a Brown or Still groupy is something to be ashamed of; being an “austrian” is a result of some learning. Austrians dis-like me just as much as groupies”
Sorry, but that is a non-responsive answer. At least it doesn’t answer the question: “How would you describe your economic philosophy?”
name789, I can tell you’ve done considerable research, your website reflects that, so the least you can do is answer direct questions instead of offering snarky comments.
Who knows, you might be able to persuade me that your ideas are worthy of research and possible subscription (as opposed to what you apparently think, I’m not wedded to an ideology, I’m interested in results, from whatever source of ideas that may be), but not with snarky non-responsive answers.
That is your problem and source of your learnedness: you confuse some book-peddlers’s product with history books; nothing I can (or want to) do about that, but now you understand the reason of my contempt for conspiracist groupies
an example of dumbness of these groupies:
>>>>Leon Trotsky was given $20 million in Jacob Schiff gold to help finance the revolution,
You obviously have no ability (genetic short-coming) to comprehend what you read in some regurgitator’s garbage pile, so I help you out: please calculate how much $20 million in gold would weigh…..
The other usual peice of vomit regurgitated by book-peddlers and swallowed by groupies:–
>>>>Lenin was sent across Europe-at-war on the famous “sealed train.” With him Lenin took some $5 to $6 million in gold
So, my question to all these stupid-dumb animals is: what make of forklift did Lenin and Trotsky use to load the loot ?
_____
Help number two:
I am not the one talking about dialectic and communism, you, meme and Migchels are…….
Did you produce the yamaguchy library?
Sounds like you did, since you refer to
people being animals and other similar
insults and such. And your ‘handle’ links
to the site.
Your “voice” comes through
loud and clear. Should I call
you Mr. yamaguchy?
I do appreciate your substantial
work, your library is valuble,
thank you.
If so, then even you catalog
in your library,
“Pawns in the Game”
by William Carr.
http://www.yamaguchy.com/library/carr/pawns_05.html
Carr is not the only source of the assertion
that the international bankers financed the
Russian Revolution. There are many sources.
I do rely on “history books” from your
library! Thanks again.
International bankers at the time, 1917,
had various ways to move the
‘medium of exchange’ around,
I’m sure they could get the money
inside Russia where Trotsky & Lenin
could use it — if they wanted to.
name789 (Mr. yamaguchy), do you
have any doubt the international bankers
could get that ‘money’ inside Russia?
Now, I have reviewed your library
(not in total) so I have some sense
of your political-economy views.
I will continue to review & study
your library because it is valuble.
You have catalogued many
‘primary’ sources — that is what
is in short supply — yes?
Getting back to your views:
Yes, sound currency & banking is
necessary, I agree.
The question is how.
Although, I think there is room for
FAIR TRADE. Again, the question
is how.
What is your starting point for
analysis & interpretation of
political-economy?
The NY Journal American reference in your message refers to a society gossip column written by several unknown individuals under the pseudonym Cholly Knickerbocker. THAT is the quality of evidence you use (and want us to believe is credible) for such a serious accusation?
Furthermore, the FBI investigated and falsified the report about Jacob Schiff giving $20 million to finance the Bolshevik Revolution — and — so did historian Dr. Antony Sutton. As Dr. Sutton pointed out, Jacob Schiff opposed the Bolsheviks and he sent cables to the U.S. State Department urging our diplomats to help anti-Bolshevik elements within Russia.
ernie1241, please show in the quoted material and its
surronding context from which I linked above where the
NY American Journal is cited. Now, I
admit it isn’t the best link because it isn’t foot
noted for original sources, but your claim that the link
relies on a gossip column attributed to anonymous
sources without further support is false. There is no
reference to a gossip column.
http://modernhistoryproject.org/mhp?Article=FinalWarning&C=7.
Now, I will be happy to stand corrected, but
until then, I can only conclude you are attempting
to mislead other readers.
Second, you claim that Anthony Sutton states
there is no link between Jacob H. Schiff and the
Russian Revolution is false. Sutton
mentions Kuhn, Loeb & Co, which was headed
by Jacob H. schiff as being involved.
Now, granted Sutton provides information that the
reason Kuhn, Loeb & Co. was helping the
Russian Revolution was to knock out Russia from
from the war against Germany because they favored
Germany. Makes sense. But could Kuhn & Loeb
have had multiple objectives?
I did not see a reference to the 20 million dollars
allegedly provided by Schiff to the Russian
revolutionaries in Sutton’s work, but that isn’t
dispositive of that allegation.
But Sutton also leads chapter. 4 of Wall Street and
the Bolshevik Revolution with this quote:
“What you Radicals and we who hold
opposing views differ about, is not so much the end
as the means, not so much what should be brought
about as how it should, and can, be brought about ….”
[a quote from]
“Otto H. Kahn, director, American International Corp.,
and partner, Kuhn, Loeb & Co., speaking to the
League/or Industrial Democracy, New York,
December 30, 1924”
One objective, apparently, was to help Germany
in the war, but also it could be they wanted to
help Communism in Russia to further an international
banker consiracy to set-up an enity they secretly
controlled?
I think it is possible.
But read Anthony Sutton’s Wall Street and
the Bolshevik Revolution.
http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/books/bolshevik_revolution/index.html
The book is clear that at least some of the
international bankers helped the Russian
Revolution.
ernie1241, you have to supply more evidence for your
assertions than what you provided.
Jim Evans:
With respect to this quotation from the article you linked to:
“Today it is estimated by Jacob’s grandson, John Schiff, that the old man sank about $20,000,000 for the final triumph of Bolshevism in Russia.”
That “quotation” is cited repeatedly by extreme right-wing conspiracy adherents.
For example, you can see it on page 69 of Gary Allen’s 1972 book, “None
Dare Call It Conspiracy”.
W. Cleon Skousen wrote a virtually identical comment in his 1970 book,
“The Naked Capitalist”, on pages 40-41, as follows:
“One American source gave Trotsky, Lenin and the other Communist
leaders around twenty million dollars for the final triumph of Bolshevism in Russia.
This was Jacob Schiff of Kuhn, Loeb and Company. The figure of twenty million dollars
is cited by his grandson, Jacob Schiff, in the New York Journal-American
for February 3, 1949.”
And Skousen repeated that claim in his March 1971 article, entitled “Home Grown
Subversion” published in Law and Order magazine.
Incidentally, I should mention that this false canard about Jacob Schiff may also be
seen in these publications:
1974: Marvin J. Andleman: To Eliminate The Opiate [Zahavia, p. 26]
1988: James Perloff: Shadows of Power [Western Islands, p39]
1988: Larry Abraham: Call it Conspiracy [Double A Publications, p. 77-78]
1995: G. Edward Griffin: Creature From Jekyll Island [American Opinion, p 265]
However, if you check all of these publications, you will discover something quite
remarkable. Nobody ever cites the page number of the NY Journal-American where the comment appears.
The reason is obvious.
It is because none of these authors ever actually read the NY Journal American.
Instead, they just copied the alleged comment by John Schiff without verifiying its authenticity.
Furthermore, there are no quotation marks in the original gossip column reference to
what John Schiff supposedly “said”. Instead, it is presented as a paraphrase.
No serious researcher or author uses a society gossip column as a credible source.
We already know from Dr. Antony Sutton’s research that Jacob Schiff OPPOSED the Bolshevik regime (see details below) and, obviously, there is no “public” statement
by John Schiff declaring that Jacob’s financial support enabled the Bolshevik
Revolution to succeed. If such a statement existed, don’t you think somebody
would have found the ORIGINAL source and referenced it before Gary Allen
wrote his book in 1971?
An honest historian would search for the ORIGINAL primary source in order to
quote the alleged Schiff comment accurately-especially because it is so inflammatory
and perhaps libelous. The reason why Gary Allen (and like-minded souls)
PREFER to use secondary sources—is because they think such a practice
relieves them of personal responsibility for disseminating falsehoods.
But who was the original source for the accusation regarding Schiff?
It was first published in the U.S. circa November 1920 by Henry Ford’s
newspaper, The Dearborn Independent. It subsequently was spread by
Father Charles E. Coughlin during the 1930’s. Not surprisingly, both Coughlin
and Ford’s newspaper circulated “The Protocols of Zion”.
Gary Allen revealed his ultimate original source for this libel about Jacob Schiff
on pages 69-70 of his book. I quote his comment below:
“One of the best sources of information on the financing of the Bolshevik Revolution is ‘Czarism and the Revolution’ by an important White Russian General named
Arsene de Goulevitch who was founder in France of the Union of Oppressed Peoples.”
(1) How does Gary Allen know that DeGoulevitch is “one of the best sources of
information regarding the financing of the Bolshevik Revolution”? He doesn’t say.
(2) What is Allen’s judgment based upon? Why does he recommend DeGoulevitch?
In fact, WHO IS DeGoulevitch?
(3) All that Gary tells us is that DeGoulevitch was a White Russian General who lived in Paris and he founded the Union of Oppressed Peoples.
(4) The original edition of DeGoulevitch’s book was published in Paris in 1931. The
only English-language edition was published in 1962 by Omni Publications – which
now operates as Omni Christian Book Club.
(5) Readers may ask:
Why would it take 31 years for a book to be published in English?
(6) What type of books does Omni sell? Omni is a one-man book-selling
operation that sells radical traditionalist Catholic materials, including numerous
rabidly anti-semitic conspiratorial writings. At one time, Omni described Jews
as “the first civilization to practice the belief in racial supremacy, and the chief
advocate of that practice today.”
Omni’s catalog has included such books as Richard Harwood’s “Did Six Million Really
Die?” (published by neo-nazi Ernst Zundel); Henry Ford’s “The International Jew”,
Arthur Butz’s “The Hoax of the Twentieth Century” (Butz is another prominent holocaust denier); several issues of the late Father Leonard Feeney’s Jew-bashing monthly newsletter “The Point” (Feeney was ex-communicated by the Pope); and
“The Judaic Connection”, which describes a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy against
the Catholic Church.
(7) So why would Omni think such an arcane book as “Czarism and Revolution”
would be of such interest to their customers that it would be worth translating
and publishing in English. 31 years after it originally was written?
(8) In his book, DeGoulevitch cites, as one his authorities, Boris Brasol–
another White Russian (and a former head of the Czar’s secret police). Brasol
arranged for the translation of “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion” into
English and he then distributed copies – including a copy that was used by
Henry Ford’s newspaper (Dearborn Michigan Independent) in their famous
series of anti-semitic articles entitled “The International Jew”.
Brasol also arranged for the publication of several anti-semitic books in 1920 and
1921 including: “The Protocols and World Revolution” and “The World at the
Crossroads.”
(9) In his book, written in French and subsequently translated into English,
de Goulevitch observed that….
“The main purveyors of funds for the revolution, however, were neither the
crackpot Russian millionaires nor the armed bandits of Lenin. The `real’ money
primarily came from certain British and American circles which for a long time
past had lent their support to the Russian revolutionary cause…”
De Goulevitch continues:
“The important part played by the wealthy American banker, Jacob Schiff,
in the events in Russia, though as yet only partially revealed, is no longer a secret.”
General Alexander Nechvolodov is also quoted as an authoritative source
by de Goulevitch. The General observed that….
“In April 1917, Jacob Schiff publicly declared that it was thanks to his
financial support that the revolution in Russia had succeeded.”
This is a classic example of how amateur “historians” (like Gary Allen and
Cleon Skousen et al) use secondary sources without independently verifying the
accuracy of the information they quote—even when those secondary sources
are making highly defamatory accusations.
(10) So who was Gen. Alexander Nechvolodov? (Actually, his name is Aleksandr Nechvolodov).
He is another pro-Czar White Russian expatriate who lived in Paris. In 1924,
he published a book entitled “L’Empereur Nicholas II et les Juifs” (The Emperor
Nicholas II and the Jews).
Are you beginning to see a pattern here??
In his book, Gen. Nechvolodov included the complete text of “The Protocols of Zion”
and he appended approving commentaries which affirmed the accuracy of the
Protocols.
Both Gary Allen and Cleon Skousen are on record recommending Dr. Antony
Sutton as a reputable and credible historian. For example: in NDCIC (page 75)
Gary Allen refers to Sutton’s “monumental scholarship”.
Chapter 9 of Gary Allen’s book, The Rockefeller File, is entitled “Building the
Big Red Machine” and Allen writes on page 78:
“A meticulously documented book on this subject was written by Antony Sutton,
a research fellow for the prestigious Hoover Institution for War, Revolution and
Peace at Stanford University. Entitled Wall Street And The Bolshevik Revolution,
this book by a respected and fastidiously thorough scholar was almost universally
ignored by the mass media. One does not have to be a Quiz Kid to figure out why.
Sutton sets the stage for the Bolshevik Revolution with this background.”
Pg 80:
“I highly recommend reading Sutton’s book, Wall Street And The Bolshevik Revolution.”
Pg 81:
“No one has even attempted to refute Sutton’s almost excessively scholarly works.
They can’t. But the misinformation machines that compose our mediacracy can
ignore Sutton. And they do. Totally.”
So what did “monumental” scholar Dr. Sutton have to say about Jacob Schiff and the Bolsheviks?
Dr. Sutton actually researched primary source documents pertaining to Schiff’s
views on the Bolsheviks.
In his book, “Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution” Sutton reproduced the text of communications which Schiff sent to the U.S. State Department which clearly reveal
Schiff’s animosity toward any American support of the Bolsheviks.
See Appendix II of Sutton’s book, where he describes the Jacob Schiff accusation as representing a “Jewish Conspiracy Theory of the Bolshevik Revolution” — an excerpt
is copied below:
“THE JEWISH-CONSPIRACY THEORY OF THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION
It is significant that documents in the State Department files confirm that the
investment banker Jacob Schiff, often cited as a source of funds for the
Bolshevik Revolution, was in fact against support of the Bolshevik regime.
This position, as we shall see, was in direct contrast to the Morgan-Rockefeller
promotion of the Bolsheviks.
The persistence with which the Jewish-conspiracy myth has been pushed
suggests that it may well be a deliberate device to divert attention from the
real issues and the real causes. The evidence provided in this book suggests
that the New York bankers who were also Jewish had relatively minor roles
in supporting the Bolsheviks, while the New York bankers who were also
Gentiles (Morgan, Rockefeller, Thompson) had major roles. What better way to
divert attention from the real operators than by the medieval bogeyman of
anti-Semitism?”
Lastly, for readers genuinely interested in the intellectual history of this canard,
I suggest reading FBI files and documents pertaining to this matter.
Interested parties may contact me directly and I will forward the text of relevant
FBI documents: ernie1241@aol.com
Your reply to my original comment does not make any sense. As previously stated, the ONLY source(s) for the claim that the Rockefeller family was connected to the origins of the Birch Society have been anti-semites and they all ultimately relied upon Eustace Mullins.
Originally, Mullins made his claim in a chapter of his book entitled Murder by Injection. He then repeated his story during a rense.com interview.
Keep in mind that Mullins never presented one iota of verifiable proof to substantiate his accusations — and, conveniently, the person whom he claimed gave him the information about the alleged Rockefeller connection to the JBS (Revilo Oliver, a JBS National Council member) was dead by the time Mullins made his accusation.
Revilo Oliver lived in Urbana, IL. He sometimes participated in JBS National Council meetings held at various locations around the country but there is no evidence to indicate that he had access to the type of factual data about JBS financial matters which Mullins claims Oliver was privy to.
More significantly, Revilo Oliver’s 1981 memoir, The Education of A Conservative, DOES NOT mention any Rockefeller connection to the founding or “startup” of the JBS — which certainly is a curious omission!
Secondly, I wrote to Mullins 4 times to ask him for more details about his assertions concerning the origins of the Birch Society. I enclosed a postpaid reply envelope. He refused to reply. That should tell you he was not serious.
Third: Mullins’ time-line doesn’t make any sense (see details below)
Fourth: Mullins gets so many basic factual details wrong, it really calls into question his veracity.
FACTS:
1. Robert Welch worked 22 years for the “James O. Welch Company” not the “Welch Candy Company” as Mullins wrote. The Company was owned by James O. Welch — not Robert Welch. Robert did not even own any stock in it.
2. Robert’s brother’s name was JAMES – not (as Mullins claimed) “John”
3. In 1957, James and Robert had a conversation about Robert’s political activities (and this preceded the creation of the JBS in December 1958).
James did not want his candy company associated with Robert’s political views and activities. Robert agreed to retire from the company. James also gave interviews in which he explicitly stated that he disagreed with his brother’s political beliefs and he did not want his company associated with those beliefs.
4. The Birch Society was founded (on paper) in December 1958. Its first chapters were formed in February 1959. However, the sale of the “James O. Welch Company” to the Nabisco Biscuit Company was announced in June 1963 and completed in October 1963 so why does Mullins claim that the sale of the candy company financed the creation or “startup” of the JBS??
For details concerning the sale, see New York Times article, “Nabisco Enters The Candy Business” in the 10/1/63 issue of the Times. The article mentions that the company was acquired in exchange for 200,000 shares of Nabisco’s common stock, then valued at $10,800,000.
5. Annual sales of the James O. Welch Company at that time were $20 million. Consider the relevance of this fact with respect to Mullins’ assertion that the company was sold “at a highly inflated price”. Mullins never explained the basis for that accusation and he certainly had no personal knowledge or expertise within the candy industry upon which he could base an informed judgment.
WHY WOULD WELCH NEED FUNDS FROM ROCKEFELLER?
6. Significantly, JBS financial statements prior to the sale of the James O. Welch Company in October 1963 reveal that the JBS had VERY substantial income as well as major increases in its income (50%-100% increases per year!) from member dues, contributions, and sale of publications, speech fees, National Council dinners, etc).
So why would Rockefeller money be necessary?
Because of his travels around the country as Sales Manager for his brother’s candy company, and his position as an official within the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), Robert Welch came into contact with many VERY wealthy conservative businessmen who shared his political views — including several BILLIONAIRES (such as H.L. Hunt, Nelson Bunker Hunt, Harry Bradley, and Roger Milliken).
Because of those connections all over the country in business circles from his years in the candy industry and his participation as an officer of NAM, Welch had access to many people of wealth without relying upon any alleged Rockefeller ploys. Incidentally, many of the individuals who attended the founding meeting of the JBS in Indianapolis (December 1958) were very wealthy.
In addition, the JBS received significant sums from bequests of wealthy deceased persons such as D.B. Lewis (Dr. Ross Pet Foods) who bequeathed a million dollars to the JBS.
Some specifics from annual JBS financial reports submitted to Commonwealth of Massachusetts:
1959 income (first year of JBS operations) = $129,844
1960 income = $198,719
1961 income = $595,000 (this was the first year of major publicity for the JBS)
1962 income = $826,100
1963 income = $1.6 million
1964 income = $3.2 million
1965 income = $4.0 million
Incidentally, given Mullins’ hostility toward the JBS and his belief that it was a “Rockefeller front”– why did Mullins contact the JBS to ask them to sell his books in their chain of American Opinion bookstores?
You may read more about the background of Mullins in my Report here:
http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/mullins
I am currently working on a major revision to that Report. The new edition will present a very detailed analysis of Mullins’ autobiographical book, A Writ For Martyrs. I will prove, conclusively, that Mullins was a chronic, habitual, pathological liar. He doctored some of the FBI documents which he reproduced in his book, he lied about materially important factual matters in order to manipulate readers into believing only favorable conclusions about his own history and activities, and he lied about his life-long associations and beliefs.
No serious person can believe that Mullins was a credible source of information about the Birch Society or any other matter. My new Report will prove that definitively.
With respect to Fred Koch — why do you bring his initial JBS membership into this discussion? What is your point? And why did you “forget” to mention that Koch resigned from the JBS because he thought Robert Welch’s ideas were “too extreme”??
Memhunter:
Incidentally, since you mention zionism as some sort of litmus test with respect to how you make judgments about people or organizations, I suggest you acquaint yourself with the full scope of Robert Welch actually believed about that subject.
For example, in a February 10, 1961 Robert Welch letter to Dr. Lawrence A. Lacey of Madison WI, Welch wrote:
‘To me it seems likely, Dr. Lacey, that in 1900 or 1905, at the time of the first Russian Revolution which was led by Trotsky, or in 1917, or even up to the middle 1920’s, the Communist Conspiracy was largely a child or at least a ward of the Zionist conspiracy. And for the reason Jews were preponderant in the top levels of the Communist hierarchy. But it seems equally clear to me that by 1937 or 1938, when Stalin had finally succeeded in taking into his own hands all of the reins of Communist power stretching out all over the world, the child had quite largely outgrown the parent as so often happens in the case of organizations as well as individuals. There followed a period where the Zionist conspiracy and the Communist conspiracy undoubtedly worked closely together, each one hoping and counting on `using’ the other, and coming out on top. But it seems equally clear to me today—and that that this has been completely true for at least the past 15 years— the Communist conspiracy has now absorbed into itself so many other leaders and elements, and has so outgrown the Zionist conspiracy, that it completely dominates the picture and that the Zionist conspiracy has itself become merely one of the tools of the top Communist command.”
I am re-posting this comment because using the “reply” feature on this webpage truncates
sentences — making them incomprehensible.
Jim Evans:
With respect to this quotation from the article you linked to:
“Today it is estimated by Jacob’s grandson, John Schiff, that the old man sank about $20,000,000 for the final triumph of Bolshevism in Russia.”
That “quotation” is cited repeatedly by extreme right-wing conspiracy adherents.
For example, you can see it on page 69 of Gary Allen’s 1972 book, “None
Dare Call It Conspiracy”.
W. Cleon Skousen wrote a virtually identical comment in his 1970 book,
“The Naked Capitalist”, on pages 40-41, as follows:
“One American source gave Trotsky, Lenin and the other Communist
leaders around twenty million dollars for the final triumph of Bolshevism in Russia.
This was Jacob Schiff of Kuhn, Loeb and Company. The figure of twenty million dollars
is cited by his grandson, Jacob Schiff, in the New York Journal-American
for February 3, 1949.”
And Skousen repeated that claim in his March 1971 article, entitled “Home Grown
Subversion” published in Law and Order magazine.
Incidentally, I should mention that this false canard about Jacob Schiff may also be
seen in these publications:
1974: Marvin J. Andleman: To Eliminate The Opiate [Zahavia, p. 26]
1988: James Perloff: Shadows of Power [Western Islands, p39]
1988: Larry Abraham: Call it Conspiracy [Double A Publications, p. 77-78]
1995: G. Edward Griffin: Creature From Jekyll Island [American Opinion, p 265]
However, if you check all of these publications, you will discover something quite
remarkable. Nobody ever cites the page number of the NY Journal-American where the comment appears.
The reason is obvious.
It is because none of these authors ever actually read the NY Journal American.
Instead, they just copied the alleged comment by John Schiff without verifiying its authenticity.
Furthermore, there are no quotation marks in the original gossip column reference to
what John Schiff supposedly “said”. Instead, it is presented as a paraphrase.
No serious researcher or author uses a society gossip column as a credible source.
We already know from Dr. Antony Sutton’s research that Jacob Schiff OPPOSED the Bolshevik regime (see details below) and, obviously, there is no “public” statement
by John Schiff declaring that Jacob’s financial support enabled the Bolshevik
Revolution to succeed. If such a statement existed, don’t you think somebody
would have found the ORIGINAL source and referenced it before Gary Allen
wrote his book in 1971?
An honest historian would search for the ORIGINAL primary source in order to
quote the alleged Schiff comment accurately-especially because it is so inflammatory
and perhaps libelous. The reason why Gary Allen (and like-minded souls)
PREFER to use secondary sources—is because they think such a practice
relieves them of personal responsibility for disseminating falsehoods.
But who was the original source for the accusation regarding Schiff?
It was first published in the U.S. circa November 1920 by Henry Ford’s
newspaper, The Dearborn Independent. It subsequently was spread by
Father Charles E. Coughlin during the 1930’s. Not surprisingly, both Coughlin
and Ford’s newspaper circulated “The Protocols of Zion”.
Gary Allen revealed his ultimate original source for this libel about Jacob Schiff
on pages 69-70 of his book. I quote his comment below:
“One of the best sources of information on the financing of the Bolshevik Revolution is ‘Czarism and the Revolution’ by an important White Russian General named
Arsene de Goulevitch who was founder in France of the Union of Oppressed Peoples.”
(1) How does Gary Allen know that DeGoulevitch is “one of the best sources of
information regarding the financing of the Bolshevik Revolution”? He doesn’t say.
(2) What is Allen’s judgment based upon? Why does he recommend DeGoulevitch?
In fact, WHO IS DeGoulevitch?
(3) All that Gary tells us is that DeGoulevitch was a White Russian General who lived in Paris and he founded the Union of Oppressed Peoples.
(4) The original edition of DeGoulevitch’s book was published in Paris in 1931. The
only English-language edition was published in 1962 by Omni Publications – which
now operates as Omni Christian Book Club.
(5) Readers may ask:
Why would it take 31 years for a book to be published in English?
(6) What type of books does Omni sell? Omni is a one-man book-selling
operation that sells radical traditionalist Catholic materials, including numerous
rabidly anti-semitic conspiratorial writings. At one time, Omni described Jews
as “the first civilization to practice the belief in racial supremacy, and the chief
advocate of that practice today.”
Omni’s catalog has included such books as Richard Harwood’s “Did Six Million Really
Die?” (published by neo-nazi Ernst Zundel); Henry Ford’s “The International Jew”,
Arthur Butz’s “The Hoax of the Twentieth Century” (Butz is another prominent holocaust denier); several issues of the late Father Leonard Feeney’s Jew-bashing monthly newsletter “The Point” (Feeney was ex-communicated by the Pope); and
“The Judaic Connection”, which describes a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy against
the Catholic Church.
(7) So why would Omni think such an arcane book as “Czarism and Revolution”
would be of such interest to their customers that it would be worth translating
and publishing in English. 31 years after it originally was written?
(8) In his book, DeGoulevitch cites, as one his authorities, Boris Brasol–
another White Russian (and a former head of the Czar’s secret police). Brasol
arranged for the translation of “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion” into
English and he then distributed copies – including a copy that was used by
Henry Ford’s newspaper (Dearborn Michigan Independent) in their famous
series of anti-semitic articles entitled “The International Jew”.
Brasol also arranged for the publication of several anti-semitic books in 1920 and
1921 including: “The Protocols and World Revolution” and “The World at the
Crossroads.”
(9) In his book, written in French and subsequently translated into English,
de Goulevitch observed that….
“The main purveyors of funds for the revolution, however, were neither the
crackpot Russian millionaires nor the armed bandits of Lenin. The `real’ money
primarily came from certain British and American circles which for a long time
past had lent their support to the Russian revolutionary cause…”
De Goulevitch continues:
“The important part played by the wealthy American banker, Jacob Schiff,
in the events in Russia, though as yet only partially revealed, is no longer a secret.”
General Alexander Nechvolodov is also quoted as an authoritative source
by de Goulevitch. The General observed that….
“In April 1917, Jacob Schiff publicly declared that it was thanks to his
financial support that the revolution in Russia had succeeded.”
This is a classic example of how amateur “historians” (like Gary Allen and
Cleon Skousen et al) use secondary sources without independently verifying the
accuracy of the information they quote—even when those secondary sources
are making highly defamatory accusations.
(10) So who was Gen. Alexander Nechvolodov? (Actually, his name is Aleksandr Nechvolodov).
He is another pro-Czar White Russian expatriate who lived in Paris. In 1924,
he published a book entitled “L’Empereur Nicholas II et les Juifs” (The Emperor
Nicholas II and the Jews).
Are you beginning to see a pattern here??
In his book, Gen. Nechvolodov included the complete text of “The Protocols of Zion”
and he appended approving commentaries which affirmed the accuracy of the
Protocols.
Both Gary Allen and Cleon Skousen are on record recommending Dr. Antony
Sutton as a reputable and credible historian. For example: in NDCIC (page 75)
Gary Allen refers to Sutton’s “monumental scholarship”.
Chapter 9 of Gary Allen’s book, The Rockefeller File, is entitled “Building the
Big Red Machine” and Allen writes on page 78:
“A meticulously documented book on this subject was written by Antony Sutton,
a research fellow for the prestigious Hoover Institution for War, Revolution and
Peace at Stanford University. Entitled Wall Street And The Bolshevik Revolution,
this book by a respected and fastidiously thorough scholar was almost universally
ignored by the mass media. One does not have to be a Quiz Kid to figure out why.
Sutton sets the stage for the Bolshevik Revolution with this background.”
Pg 80:
“I highly recommend reading Sutton’s book, Wall Street And The Bolshevik Revolution.”
Pg 81:
“No one has even attempted to refute Sutton’s almost excessively scholarly works.
They can’t. But the misinformation machines that compose our mediacracy can
ignore Sutton. And they do. Totally.”
So what did “monumental” scholar Dr. Sutton have to say about Jacob Schiff and the Bolsheviks?
Dr. Sutton actually researched primary source documents pertaining to Schiff’s
views on the Bolsheviks.
In his book, “Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution” Sutton reproduced the text of communications which Schiff sent to the U.S. State Department which clearly reveal
Schiff’s animosity toward any American support of the Bolsheviks.
See Appendix II of Sutton’s book, where he describes the Jacob Schiff accusation as representing a “Jewish Conspiracy Theory of the Bolshevik Revolution” — an excerpt
is copied below:
“THE JEWISH-CONSPIRACY THEORY OF THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION
It is significant that documents in the State Department files confirm that the
investment banker Jacob Schiff, often cited as a source of funds for the
Bolshevik Revolution, was in fact against support of the Bolshevik regime.
This position, as we shall see, was in direct contrast to the Morgan-Rockefeller
promotion of the Bolsheviks.
The persistence with which the Jewish-conspiracy myth has been pushed
suggests that it may well be a deliberate device to divert attention from the
real issues and the real causes. The evidence provided in this book suggests
that the New York bankers who were also Jewish had relatively minor roles
in supporting the Bolsheviks, while the New York bankers who were also
Gentiles (Morgan, Rockefeller, Thompson) had major roles. What better way to
divert attention from the real operators than by the medieval bogeyman of
anti-Semitism?”
Lastly, for readers genuinely interested in the intellectual history of this canard,
I suggest reading FBI files and documents pertaining to this matter.
Interested parties may contact me directly and I will forward the text of relevant
FBI documents: ernie1241@aol.com
ernie1241,
I think it is important to go back to the my original comment which started this discussion:
Evans wrote, in part: “That the John Birch Society was anti-communist is well known, but what is not known is whether the leaders had knowledge about the deeper conspiracy behind Communism.”
[…]
“most people (this includes parts of the alternative media and those who follow it) don’t know that Communism was part of the transnational bankers’ plan to set-set a competing “false” economic system and rival military “power” to spur war spending — to create the Military-Industrial Complex – and discourage a “middle way” via guilt-by-association and encourage “pure captitalism”, really Monopoly-Cartel Capitalism.”
name789 [Mr. yamaguchy?] wrote: “It is dounbtful either of you even know what communism is…”
[…]
“what is the conspiracy (so deep only you can see it) behind it; how are bankers (there is no trans-nationl, only inter-national) opposed to it ?”
Evans responded: “There is plenty of evidence the Russian Revolution of 1917 was sponsored by international bankers (I write ‘transnational’ to conotate these bankers have no loyalty to a nation-state, rather, only to their own power & control). For these international bankers, Communism is only a means to an end, you know, the “ends justify the means”, for the international bankers and their cohorts to control the dynamic of a world political-economy for their benefit.”
COMMENT:
Indeed, Anthony Sutton in his book, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution provides plenty of evidence at least some Wall Street bankers (international bankers) did support the Bolshevik Revolution.
ernie1241, regarding the allegation of 20 million in gold provided by Schiff.
I already acknowledged in a previous comment, that “I admit it isn’t the best link because it isn’t foot
noted for original sources…”
And also in the same comment, “Now, I will be happy to stand corrected…” if you can provide specifics as to why that was a bad quote regarding Schiff and the gold.
ernie1241, you have done that. The allegation of Schiff and the gold is not supported by documentation. Thank you for doing the leg work and discussing how a false quote can take a life of its own.
I do stand corrected.
Regarding Jacob Schiff and his support of Bolshevism.
Anthony Sutton makes a distinction between Jacob Schiff in his personal capacity and Kuhn, Loeb & Co. support for Bolshevism, which Jacob Schiff headed.
Sutton provideds information that identifies Kuhn, Loeb & Co. as supporting Bolshevism.
As provided in a prior comment;
But Sutton also leads chapter. 4 of Wall Street and
the Bolshevik Revolution with this quote:
“What you Radicals and we who hold
opposing views differ about, is not so much the end
as the means, not so much what should be brought
about as how it should, and can, be brought about ….”
[a quote from]
“Otto H. Kahn, director, American International Corp.,
and partner, Kuhn, Loeb & Co., speaking to the
League/or Industrial Democracy, New York,
December 30, 1924″
This is not the only reference to Kuhn, Loeb & Co. supporting Bolshevism in Sutton’s book.
Sutton does specifically address Jacob Schiff and concludes Schiff did not support Bolshevism.
First, Kuhn, Loeb & Co. is a closely held bank and Jacob Schiff is the head of the bank. It is very unlikely that Kuhn, Loeb & Co. is going to do something against the desire of its head, Jacob Schiff.
Where does Sutton draw the conclusion Schiff was against Bolshevism?
Anthony Sutton wrote in Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution:
“Clearly Jacob Schiff of Kuhn, Loeb was not interested in supporting the Kerensky Liberty Loan and Schiff went to the trouble of drawing State Department attention to Kamenka’s pleas for Allied intervention against the Bolsheviks. Obviously Schiff and fellow banker Kamenka, unlike J.P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller, were as unhappy about the Bolsheviks as they had been about the tsars.”
Perhaps, Jacob Schiff did not want to support Kerensky as opposed to Bolshevism, of which, Kerensky was not a part — in other words, Schiff knew, Kerensky was just a “warm up act” with the real thing, Bolshevism, to follow.
Anthony Sutton never explains how Kuhn, Loeb & Co. as an internatioal bank could support Bolshevism while the head of that bank Jacob Schiff did not. That is troubling regarding Sutton’s work.
Regarding Sutton’s statement: “Schiff went to the trouble of drawing State Department attention to Kamenka’s pleas for Allied intervention against the Bolsheviks.”
This raises the issue of the nature of history, itself, or, rather, how it is known to later historians.
History is transmitted by primary accounts or sources, which write down history via newspapers, letters, and commericial records, among other things.
But what happens if there is an attempt to obscure, right from the start?
Newspaper reporters don’t do their job. Or they slant their coverage of a topic.
Or participants don’t want their plan exposed, right from the start?
Is it logical that people who collude won’t go to the newspapers or write letters implicating themselves in a plan (which might be illegal or politically unpopular)?
And, might these individuals actually write letters or take actions which would tend to obscure their role in a plan.
That is the problem with history when you introduce collusion or conspiracy — it makes it hard to know what the history is because then it introduces the idea that actors are misleading or hiding from the start. In other words, when people take action to keep something secret, history has a lot harder time finding out what happened upon later review, study, research, and analysis & interpretation.
So, the question is raised, might Jacob Schiff have written a letter to the State Department with the purpose of intentionally obscuring his actual support for Bolshevism?
Is that beyond the pale? Yet, Sutton never addresses that possibility or explains how Schiff’s bank can be for Bolshevism, but Schiff personally is against it.
Jim Evans:
In the U.S., the first report about Schiff financing the Bolsheviks was presented in the Dearborn MI Independent newspaper articles. Subsequently, the charges were given new impetus by Hitler and Goebbels in 1933 and they were also disseminated by Father Charles Coughlin and Gerald Winrod in the late 1930’s.
As a consequence of Father Coughlin’s statements, in 1937, Kuhn Loeb and Co. issued a categorical denial which stated the following:
“The firm of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. has never had any financial relations, or other relations, with any government in Russia, whether Czarist, Kerensky or Communist. The Kerensky Government, established upon the fall of the Czarist goverment in 1917, was during its existence a military ally of the United States and received loans from the United States government. The late Jacob H. Schiff, then senior partner in this firm, at one time offered as an individual to subscribe to a so-called Liberty Loan of the Kerensky Government, but did not in fact subscribe to such loan. He had no relations with any fomenters of the Bolshevik uprising which destroyed the Kerensky government, being utterly out of sympathy with their methods and principles. During the great famine in Russia in 1921- 1922, the Congress of the United States appropriated large amounts for relief in Russia. These relief funds and contributions from private individuals were distributed in Russia by Mr. Herbert Hoover. The late Felix M. Warburg, then a partner in this firm, as well as thousands of other Americans of all creeds and shades of opinion, contributed liberally as individuals to such Russian relief funds and to the establishment of farm settlements in Russia. A letter was recently addressed by one of the partners of this firm to Father Coughlin, following the first appearance of these charges in his magazine, calling his attention to their falsity. Father
Coughlin has, nevertheless, elected to disregard the facts and has repeated his misstatements in his last two broadcasts. The fact is that neither the firm of Kuhn, Loeb and Co nor any of its partners, past or present, assisted in any way to finance the Communist revolution in Russia or anywhere else.”
The FBI frequently received inquiries about the alleged role of Jacob Schiff and his firm, Kuhn, Loeb and Company, in “financing” the Bolshevik Revolution.
Various accusations regarding Schiff’s financial support are omnipresent in extreme right and anti-semitic literature and they cite different dollar amounts. Consequently, I think it would be useful to copy below one entire FBI internal memo on this matter which was written by Milton A. Jones, the head of the Bureau’s Crime Records Section – which was the Bureau’s research unit.
“The Director has instructed that we should check further into an allegation made by the captioned individual [J. Andrew Moriarty] to the effect that Jacob Schiff of Kuhn, Loeb and Company of New York furnished $5 million to Trotsky to finance the Russian Red Revolution in 1917. Moriarty related that this fact was brought out in a committee hearing of the late Senator Overman in its investigation of communism in 1918 or 1919.”
“We have reviewed the hearings of the Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States Senate for the 65th Congress held in December 1918, entitled Brewing and Liquor Interests and German Propaganda. These hearings were not limited to the subject matter indicated by their titles but also delved into Russian and Bolshevik activities in this country and in Europe. These hearings do bear out Moriarty’s statement that Trotsky was at one time affiliated with a newspaper in New York until 1917 when he returned to Russia. He also stated that Trotsky was interned in Halifax for a short period of time en route to Russia and this fact is also brought out in the testimony.”
“Kuhn, Loeb, and Company, Jacob Schiff, and Mortimer Schiff are frequently mentioned in these hearings in the testimony of Alfred L. Becker who at that time was Deputy Attorney General of the State of New York and [he] had made investigations of German propaganda activities in this country at the direction of the Governor of that state. Becker produced documents which proved that Kuhn, Loeb and Company was one of the investment companies in the United States used by the Germans as a depository for their funds in 1914 and 1915, which funds were channeled into publicity fields carrying German propaganda. It should be noted that Kuhn, Loeb and Company was only one of many well-known investment and banking organizations which served the Germans in this manner during the period immediately preceding our entry into the armed conflict. There was some suspicion that Kuhn, Loeb and Company and the other investment companies were pro-German as a result of their activities in this regard.”
“The hearings did not bring out any information indicating that Jacob Schiff or Mortimer Schiff financed activities of the Russian Red Revolution. On the contrary, documented evidence was presented to prove that Jacob Schiff was definitely unsympathetic toward Russia. This fact was brought out when Anglo-French bonds were issued in this country to assist the Allied war cause and Jacob Schiff refused to purchase any of the bonds as he stated that Russia has persecuted the Jews in that country. Evidence was presented that Otto H. Kahn [a Kuhn Loeb partner] personally subscribed to $5 million worth of the Anglo-French bonds and Mortimer Schiff subscribed to $1 million but the firm of Kuhn, Loeb and Company did not purchase any.”
“These hearings completely absolved Kuhn, Loeb and Company from alleged pro-German sympathies and pointed out the firm’s activities which had materially assisted the Allies in World War I.” [FBI HQ file 100-407194, serial #6; 10/28/59 memo from M.A. Jones to Mr. DeLoach]
An earlier memo by M.A. Jones concerning the accusations made by G. Andrews Moriarty declared:
“We have received information from many different sources to the effect that Schiff did send money to Russia but there is no substantial evidence to support such a statement. Most of the sources alleging this fact are in publications which we know to be anti-semitic and none of them seriously attempt to determine the facts by independent investigation…It should be noted that Moriarty has been described as being violently anti-semitic..” [FBI HQ file 100-407194, #8; 10/23/59 M.A. Jones to Mr. DeLoach]
ernie1241, an interesting response.
It’s not responsive to the evidence and
arguments in my comment…
Rather, it attempts to distract and redirect, first,
by poisoning the discussion, dragging
‘Father Coughlin’, Henry Ford’s ‘Dearborn
MI Independent newspaper’, and even ‘Hitler and
Goebbels’ into the discussion.
Quite a line-up of unsavory characters.
One problem, though, my comments never mention
or rely on such poisonous characters.
In fact, rather, it is you, ernie1241, who previously
inserted Father Coughlin and Ford’s
Dearborn Independent newspaper into the
discussion.
This is a varient on the old “straw man” tactic
mischaracterizing the evidence & argument of
the other side, then arguing against the straw
man.
This tactic, or style, if you will, is considered to
be poor form in a substantive discussion.
Second, ernie1241 relies on a letter of
blanket denial issued in 1937 by Kuhn,
Loeb & Co. and a 1959 FBI memorandum
presented in summary form.
Historical context is important.
That Jacob Schiff provided loans to Japan which
were instrumental in helping Japan defeat Russia
in the 1904-05 Russo – Japanese War is not disputed.
There is evidence Jacob Schiff also provided
support for the attempted 1905 Russian Revolution
where communistism was a leading element among
the revolutionaries.
Jacob Schiff demonstrated hostility to the czarist
government of Russia by sending a telegram
to a March 23, 1917 a mass meeting at
Carnegie Hall celebrating the abdication of
Nicolas II, which signalled the overthrow
of Tsarist rule in Russia.
Jacob Schiff stated his regret he could not
attend and then described the successful
Russian revolution as “…what we had hoped
and striven for these long years”. (Mayor Calls
Pacifists Traitors, The New York Times,
March 24, 1917, p. 2)
By this point Bolschevism was already actively
working to gain control of the Revolution
It is not generally known, today, but many in the
U. S. at the time of the Bolshevik Revolution,
were celebrating it as the advent of “democracy”
in a “free” Russia, as Bolshevik atrocities and
anti-democratic style was no evident in 1917.
Only later did it emerge that Bolschevism
was a monsterous preversion and it fell into
popular disrepute among the general
population of the U. S. and support for
Bolshevism became a political liability.
So, besides Kuhn, Loeb & Co.’s 1937
letter being a self-serving instrument
of denial is a response only much later
when it was clear to the U. S. population
that Bolshevism was nothing to support.
The 1959 FBI memo is again literally
decades after the fact when again,
anti-communist feeling was running high
and Kuhn, Loeb & Co. was still a
repected member of the Wall Street elite.
It is not particularly surprising Hoover’s
FBI, known to cater to the powerful &
protected, offers a white wash for
Kuhn, Loeb & Co., a fading yet still
powerful force on Wall street, to absolve
it of complicity in the rise of Bolshevism.
It’s true Jacob Schiff didn’t provide any
loans to Russia — while the czars were
on the throne — but circustantial evidence
suggests he did suport Russia once
the Czar was deposed.
A quote form Wikipedia’s entry for Jacob Schiff:
“Schiff made sure none of the funds from
his loans ever went to Russia, which
continued to severely oppress the Jewish
people. When the Tsar’s government fell
in 1917, Schiff believed that the oppression
of Jews would end. He formally repealed
the impediments within his firm against
lending to Russia.”
Wikipedia is known for its “political correctness”
and certainly is not known for anti-semetism.
Trotsky’s release from Canadian prison
was facilited by president Woodrow Wilson,
Jacob Schiff was a big Wilson supporter.
In The New York Times, on 24 March 1917,
on pages 1-2, George Kennan explained
how Jacob H. Schiff assisted Russia’s
enemies and how Schiff financed and
trained Russian revolutionaries.
Only later, did George Kennan obscure
Wall Street’s and international bankers’
role in financing the Bolshevik Revolution.
Anthony Sutton does provide reference
to a State Department Decimal File
(861.00/5339) dated November 13, 1918,
which states, in part, the Russian
Revolution was started “in February
1916” and “it was found that the
following persons and firms were
engaged in this destructive work…
(1) Jacob Schiff… (2) Kuhn, Loeb & Company…”
So, allegations of Jaboc Schiff and Kuhn,
Loeb & Co. being involved in the support
of the Bolshevik Revolution are relatively
contemporaneous with the events, themselves.
One measure of the quality of ‘primary sources’
is their contemporaneous recording with the
events, at issue.
Contrast a State Department file of 1918
versus a self-serving 1937 publicity letter
of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. and a FBI memo
issued literally forty years later.
Also, Sutton presents Henry Wickham
Steed, author of Through 30 Years
1892-1922 (p. 302) and how Steed
attempted to apprise Colonel Edward
M. House and President Woodrow
Wilson of Jacob Schiff’s, among
others, involvement in supporting
Bolshevism: “One day in March 1919
Wickham Steed called Colonel House
and found him disturbed over Steed’s
recent criticism of U.S. recognition of
the Bolsheviks. Steed pointed out to
House that Wilson would be
discredited among the many
peoples and nations of Europe
and ‘insisted that, unknown to him,
the prime movers were Jacob Schiff,
Warburg and other international
financiers…”
Again, a contemporaneous
‘primary source’.
It is simplistic to rule out Jacob Schiff
as a supporter of Bolshevism, when
the record is replete with a motive for
Schiff’s support, hostility for the czarist
government, and the record of Schiff’s
support for Japan against Russia and
various contemporaneous accounts of
Schiff’s support.
But again, the point of my original
comment was not to single out one
Wall Street titan for vilification, but to
assert that international bankers
supported communism.
That assertion has been well-documented.
Thank you for this effort and I tend to agree with your comments regarding ernie1241’s attempts to drag all kinds of unrelated characters into this discussion.
Memehunter: They are only “unrelated” if you care nothing whatsoever about whom was responsible for originating a particular assertion and how that assertion was then disseminated over time.
Contrary to what you think, I actually WELCOME the type of arguments made by yourself and by Jim Evans — because no serious historian considers your statements or “evidence” to be reliable.
What I think is particularly relevant is this:
1. I have in my personal collection dozens of books written by right-wing conspiracy adherents.
For example: I previously specified several authors who used the 1949 NY Journal American newspaper reference to Jacob Schiff’s “$20 million” which purportedly financed “the final triumph of Bolshevism”.
2. What is particularly striking about all of these authors is that none of them ever bothered to perform independent primary source research, i.e. their footnotes and bibliographies do not reflect that they ever (for example) interviewed or sent inquiries to individuals who had first-hand knowledge of the events discussed in their books, nor do these authors research pertinent Special Collections archived at colleges and universities or state historical societies that contain relevant documents about whatever matter is being scrutinized.
Furthermore, the acknowledgements pages of their books rarely, if ever, reflect that they ever contacted any historians who have specialized in researching the subject matters which their books discuss.
Nor do they indicate that they ever sent first drafts of individual chapters or their entire book to anyone knowledgeable about the subjects they write about — to get their advice and judgments regarding factual or analytical problems.
3. In other words, there is no fact-checking mechanism in place which is why an obvious falsehood (such as the John Schiff “quote” appearing ONLY in a society gossip column) is never caught before publication.
So—-feel free to continue to circulate whatever absurdities you want. They all will fall of their own weight when persons familiar with the subject matter eviscerate your arguments.
Jim: A fact-based recounting of the intellectual history of an accusation is not “poisoning” any discussion.
As I have repeatedly pointed out, the original accusations concerning Jacob Schiff were concoted by persons with a long history of anti-semitic beliefs and writings. Furthermore, they were motivated by their desire to restore a czarist regime in Russia by obtaining the support of western countries for punitive military and economic actionz against the Bolsheviks.
I suggest, for example, that you do some serious research into the background of Boris Brasol –and, in particular, his association with the Black Hundreds organization in Russia. Brasol was an official of this notorious and virulently anti-semitic group. Furthermore, he played a role in the 1911 prosecution of a Russian Jew by the name of Mendel Beiliss who was falsely accused of murdering a 13-year-old boy as part of an alleged Jewish ritual murder in which it was claimed that Jews drank the blood of gentile boys.
Brasol is the person whom was ultimately responsible for the accusations made by DeGoulevitch when he wrote his 1931 book published in Paris and by Hitler’s propaganda machine in Germany and by Father Charles Coughlin and Gerald Winrod in the United States. He is also the person whom many adherents of the extreme right in the U.S. relied upon for their interpretations and assertions!
A 1942 New York City FBI field office memo contains a report by a Brasol acquaintance who had a 2-hour conversation with Brasol in October 1941. This informant told the FBI:
“Mr. Brasol told me bluntly that he has not changed his previous ideas and that only the Jews are responsible for the Bolshevism and Communism in Russia and that to liberate Russia from the yoke of the Jews, all Russians must wish the defeat of Russia at the hands of the German. ‘I prefer Hitler to Stalin’ Brasol told me, ‘no matter what happens afterward’. ” [FBI HQ file 100-22487, #18 — 2/19/42 NYC field report, pg 9-10.]
In a 1921 letter to Maj. Gen. Count Sherep-Spiridovich, Brasol boasted that:
“Within the last year I have written three books, two of which have done the Jews more injury than would have been done to them by ten progroms.”
Brasol vouched for the authenticity of The Protocols to the American Defense Society and to the editor of Henry Ford’s newspaper and he induced them to disseminate them within the U.S.
A May 1941 FBI memo for Assistant Attorney General Wendell Berge described Brasol as: “extremely mercenary” and “responsible for many of the anti-Jewish protocols published in the U.S. and (he) is violently anti-Semitic.”
Lastly, you focus upon the comments made Jacob Schiff when the czar was overthrown. Surely you are aware that many Americans (Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives) made similar comments.
Your approach to this debate is a classic example of how selection of evidence can be used to distort the historical record because you want a specific conclusion to be validated.
I certainly understand why you do not want to acknowledge the intellectual history and the origins of the Schiff accusations. Obviously, your position is that all data is of equal value regardless of where it originated and regardless of the motives or prejudices or agenda of the persons involved.
Witness impeachment is a fundamental process during historical research, i.e. one does not accept evidence discovered or statements made as factual, accurate, and truthful — unless and until there is corroboration through multiple independent primary sources.
Citing a Wikipedia article is not very compelling evidence. Wikipedia articles are frequently revised precisely because they contain so many factual errors or biased or subjective judgments. I personally have submitted corrections regarding numerous falsehoods contained in Wiki articles. Often, those falsehoods occurred because the person(s) who posted the article or submitted comments on the article simply were not aware of the facts surrounding a particular matter or they relied upon sources which they never independently researched or corroborated.
In closing….you obviously are free to make whatever assertions you want to make.
You (or others) can, for example, “quote” the February 1949 NY Journal American reference which is used by numerous authors to report comments supposedly made by John Schiff regarding his grandfather. OR you are free to quote sources which reply upon Arsene DeGoulevitch’s 1931 book–which, in turn, is based upon assertions made by Boris Brasol.
But don’t be surprised when your argument is eviscerated or ridiculed by historians who have carefully researched these matters (without ever consulting Wikipedia).
You’re right..and Anthony is right..The JBS was/is a controlled opposition financd by the father of the Koch bros.
Charlotte NC Bill:
Since you claim to know something about this topic: Tell us precisely how much money Fred Koch gave to the JBS to “finance” it AND then tell us precisely what Koch did within the JBS during the time he was a member. Also, why did he resign if he wanted to “control” the opposition?
One very brief comment regarding FBI investigative files:
1. J. Edgar Hoover had no impact whatsoever upon FBI investigations. In fact, if you ever bothered to obtain any FBI files you will notice constant and repeated hand-written comments by Hoover on FBI memos in which he asked something like: “What do we know about …?(enter name or subject here).
2. Very often, FBI memos reveal that FBI employees who prepare summary memoranda about any person or an organization or a particular subject matter (normally FBI Assistant Directors or Section Chiefs) usually summarize data they obtained from Congressional hearings and reports or from testimony in court proceedings or from informants inside legitimate or subversive organizations, or from military intelligence agencies, or from local or state law enforcement agencies, or from other outside independent sources who conducted their own investigations.
I realize that it is helpful for your argument to pretend that Hoover “protected” certain people or that the thousands of FBI Special Agents who were responsible for investigating something were all incompetent — but, again, I recommend that you take some time to acquire actual FBI investigative files. Hoover never conducted any investigation himself. He relied upon subordinates in 56 field offices to do all of that work. Furthermore, contrary to your mistaken premise, FBI files are FILLED with adverse information about all sorts of prominent individuals and companies and organizations —including (but not limited to) major financial institutions and very powerful and influential figures in American society.
Keep in mind that the overwhelming majority of FBI investigative files were created before the Freedom of Information Act was passed into law. Consequently, there was never even the remotest hint that the content of FBI files might EVER become publicly available — which is why, for example, virtually everything we know about FBI illegal activities and unethical behavior has been found by and documented exhaustively by scholars and researchers who found indisputable evidence IN FBI FILES!
@Evans (because of truncation)
>>>>International bankers at the time, 1917, had various ways to move the ‘medium of exchange’ around,
In attempting to support your contention, you posted a link to a ‘book’ on modernhistory project, which contains this brain-dead statement about tons of gold……… and not to a line of credit in banks located in Sweden
http://www.yamaguchy.com —the souce of ya’ll’s finagled wisdom— is my handy work (as in: i scanned and prepared the e-text; so, i read more of these type of books than Ellen Brown, Bill Still and their groupies combined)
It contains the e-text of many books, for many reasons; the particular chapter you linked from Guy Carr’s book contains several of my choice comments on Mr. Carr’s research, please read them
The point is: yes, there was/is a conspiracy, but these book-peddlers and their victims know nothing about it.
In the summer of 1998 (14 years ago !) loaded I up the e-text of the one and only book on the story of the financing of the bolshevik revolution: Michael Pearson, The Sealed Train. About time you dared to go near it and read it.
======
http://www.yamaguchy.com/library/denny/foroil_10.html
http://www.yamaguchy.com/library/cikkek/bullitt.html
ernie1241, you don’t respond to evidence.
Please address the reported Carnegie Hall meeting and Jacob Shiff’s telegram:
Jacob Schiff demonstrated hostility to the czarist
government of Russia by sending a telegram
to a March 23, 1917 mass meeting at
Carnegie Hall celebrating the abdication of
Nicolas II, which signalled the overthrow
of Tsarist rule in Russia.
Jacob Schiff stated his regret he could not
attend and then described the successful
Russian revolution as “…what we had hoped
and striven for these long years”. (Mayor Calls
Pacifists Traitors, The New York Times,
March 24, 1917, p. 2)
This near-riotous meeting was a hot bed of communists.
Please address the loans Jacob Schiff provided to Japan which
were instrumental in helping Japan defeat Russia
in the 1904-05 Russo – Japanese War.
Please address The New York Times article by George Kennan:
In The New York Times, on 24 March 1917,
on pages 1-2, George Kennan explained
how Jacob H. Schiff assisted Russia’s
enemies and how Schiff financed and
trained Russian revolutionaries.
Please address Sutton’s reporting of Henry Wickham
Steed, author of ‘Through 30 Years
1892-1922’ (p. 302) and how Steed
attempted to apprise Colonel Edward
M. House and President Woodrow
Wilson of Jacob Schiff’s, among
others, involvement in supporting
Bolshevism: “One day in March 1919
Wickham Steed called Colonel House
and found him disturbed over Steed’s
recent criticism of U.S. recognition of
the Bolsheviks. Steed pointed out to
House that Wilson would be
discredited among the many
peoples and nations of Europe
and ‘insisted that, unknown to him,
the prime movers were Jacob Schiff,
Warburg and other international
financiers…”
The above are examples of a ‘primary source’.
Please address Mr. Otto Kahn’s statement to the League/or Industrial Democracy:
Anthony Sutton prefaces chapter 4, titled, ‘Wall Street and World Revolution’, of his book, ‘Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution’ with this Otto Kahn quote:
“What you Radicals and we who hold
opposing views differ about, is not so much the end
as the means, not so much what should be brought
about as how it should, and can, be brought about ….
Otto H. Kahn, director, American International Corp.,
and partner, Kuhn, Loeb & Co., speaking to the
League/or Industrial Democracy, New York,
December 30, 1924″
And this was addressed well after the horrors of Bolshevism were known.
ernie1241, you have to grasp the neetles and address specific evidence.
This is the second time I’ve provided evidence you fail to address.
I did address the Schiff comment by pointing out that many Americans of all political persuasions expressed optimism about what a post-czar Russia might become.
There is nothing shocking or unusual (as you want us to believe) about Americans initially responding to the overthrow of a long-standing authoritarian regime by expressing their hopes for what might ultimately develop into a just and free society.
We faced this exact same situation with respect to Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak. Americans instinctively wanted to associate themselves with the long-suffering people of Egypt. But that does NOT mean that Americans who favored the overthrow of Mubarak looked forward to a government controlled or dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood or by any fundamentalist Islamic regime. A similar situation exists with respect to the overthrow of the leaders of Libya and Tunisia and other nations.
What you characterize as “specific evidence” that should be addressed is your selection of one or two statements — as if those statements tell you everything you need to know — and no further information is required.
My experience debating persons such as yourself has repeatedly been this artful selection of data — which ignores the larger context or distorts the actual motives and intentions of the persons involved.
I still wish to emphasize that historians who have specialized in researching and writing about this period in world and U.S. history do not accept your interpretations….but please feel free to continue making your arguments. The persons and organizations and publications which, historically, have parroted your contentions consist, almost entirely, of extreme right wing adherents — and many of them were indisputable anti-semites.
ernie1241 wrote: “I did address the Schiff
comment by pointing out that many Americans
of all political persuasions expressed
optimism about what a post-czar Russia
might become.”
Actually, I wrote: “It is not generally
known, today, but many in the U. S. at the time
of the Bolshevik Revolution, were celebrating
it as the advent of “democracy” in a “free”
Russia, as Bolshevik atrocities and
anti-democratic style was not evident in 1917.
Only later did it emerge that Bolshevism
was a monsterous perversion and it fell into
popular disrepute among the general
population of the U. S. and support for
Bolshevism became a political liability.”
So much for ernie’s credibility.
But, of course, even had ernie raised
that issue, simply stating that doesn’t
specifically address Jacob Schiff’s loans
to Japan which were instrumental in
Japan’s defeat of Russia.
Nor does it address Jacob Schiff’s
telegram to Carnegie Hall celebrating
the Tsar’s abdication.
Nor does it address the article by George Kennan
In The New York Times, on 24 March 1917,
on pages 1-2, George Kennan explained
how Jacob H. Schiff assisted Russia’s
enemies and how Schiff financed and
trained Russian revolutionaries.
Nor does it address Sutton’s reporting of
Henry Wickham Steed, author of ‘Through 30 Years
1892-1922′ (p. 302) where “Steed pointed out to
House that Wilson would be
discredited among the many
peoples and nations of Europe
and ‘insisted that, unknown to him,
the prime movers were Jacob Schiff,
Warburg and other international
financiers’…”
I see you do address Otto Kahn, but do not
discuss his actual quote provided by Anthony
Sutton:
“What you Radicals and we who hold
opposing views differ about, is not so much the end
as the means, not so much what should be brought
about as how it should, and can, be brought about ….”
ernie, you dodge evidence.
Therefore, your discussion has limited value.
See, when one side presents evidence, now, for
a third time, and the other side keeps dodging &
avoiding it, refusing to “grasp the nettle”… that
settles the dispute.
But I’ll reiterate my original
comment was not to single out one
Wall Street titan for vilification, but to
assert that international bankers
supported communism.
That is well documented at this point.
But given the circumstancial evidence
and long history of Jacob Schiff supporting
Russian revolution, where communists were long
present and the documents available, there also
is no stretching to conclude Schiff had a role
in the rise of Bolshevism.
No, Jim, I do not “dodge evidence”; I simply do not accept YOUR assumption about what constitutes “evidence” nor do I accept your assumptions regarding the meaning of what you propose as dispositive evidence.
Of course Schiff celebrated the Czar’s abdication. Many prominent, respected, influential and entirely loyal, patriotic and anti-Bolshevik Americans did the same.
When Herbert Hoover proposed food aid to Soviet Russia in 1921, a critic inquired if Hoover was not thus helping Bolshevism. Hoover replied:
“Twenty million people are starving. Whatever their politics, they shall be fed!”
Nobody seriously entertains the idea that Hoover was “pro-Communist” but you could select only anti-famine efforts by Hoover as “evidence” and then propose that he was!
Here’s the bottom line:
You want to reduce all of human history to cartoon caricatures with sinister villains controlling or manipulating events.
You also want to select only that data which you think conforms to your personal judgments and then elevate that data to the most important information we need to consider about the motives and intentions of individuals whom you never met, never spoke with, and never researched. This type of defamation of character is standard within conspiracy argument.
Human beings are very complex social creatures. They have tens of thousands of interactions with other human beings. They have complex self-interests and often those self-interests present conflicting choices.
But people like yourself believe that every person is a unidimensional being whose life and beliefs and values can be reduced down to one report in a newspaper article or one comment by a contemporary actor or one assumption about a motive.
The difference is Hoover didn’t have a long
record of association with the revolutionaries
in Russia, of which numerous had a
communist bent, Lenin being one among
many in the crowd swarming the 1905
Russian Revolution.
Jacob Schiff’s interest never waned,
when the 1905 revolution failed, he kept an
interest in Russian affairs, an interest
started before 1905.
It is naive to believe Jacob Schiff ceased
his interest, actions, and contributions to
potential revolutionaries in Russia.
Indeed, Schiff celebrated it by telegram
to Carnegie Hall.
Jacob Schiff was a careful man of action,
there is little doubt he investigated the motives,
ideologies, and capacities of the potential
revolutionaries.
We do know Jacob Schiff advocated in 1911
for President Taft to annul the 1832 Commerce
and Navigation Treaty with Russia — which
treaty was subsequently abrogated when
Taft asked Congress to rescind the commercial treaty.
Hoover had been a mining engineer, not involved
in the byzantine world of central and eastern
European geopolitical affairs, nor having long-term
financial entanglements spread throughout
the Continent of Europe.
Hoover hit the ground and did the logistics,
just as you might exprect a mining engineer;
solving logistical problems as they arose,
the logistics of massive food shipments,
transport, and direction.
As a result of Hoovers logistical endeavors,
his political stock rose and he was soon
in a Republican Administration.
The evidence Jacob Schiff continued an
active hand in Russian Affairs in the inter-war
years before WWI then up and through the
rise of Bolshevism is supported by
nurmerous documented instances.
In fact, the dispute is not whether Schiff
continued an active hand, but what were
the intentions behind those actions (along
with his brethern international bankers) and
who did it end up helping & hurting.
Something to bolster your point regarding the fall of the Czarist regime in Russia:
I don’t think it was at all clear that the Bolshevik communists were about to seize power, Russia at the time was a hotbed of opposition movements. So the fact that anyone was hopeful after the fall of the Czars doesn’t immediately imply support for the Reds.
Of course there ARE claims that big financial interests helped the Soviets at various times—and if were still speaking of libertarians, they/we roundly condemn such things.
Libertarians OPPOSE corporatism, we simply believe establishment interests are best served by the state, and that’s more than proven.
For example, see The Triumph of Conservatism, by new left historian Gabriel Kolko, lauded by many libertarians including Rothbard. This book shows that Progressive Era “reforms” were driven almost exclusively by industry heads.
So sick of people calling us shills for corporations, we libertarians are damn good on calling out the corporate interests involved in war and banking, always have been.
See Rothbard’s Wall Street, Banks, & American Foreign Policy, puts Alex Jones type Truthers to SHAME.
The problem of Libertarianism is that they don’t understand how money rules. I agree that the State is just a front for these monied interests, but they can live well without it too. It is Usury that monopolizes everything, the State is only necessary to keep the peasants away from their own property.
But we DO understand that! It’s precisely the libertarians above all else who oppose the Fed in its manipulation of money. It isn’t money as a concept, which only facilitates trade, it’s the state-created central bank, and all the “private” entities involved with it. THAT is one of the greatest issues of our day, it ties into the wars, the American empire, and all the neo-colonialism that goes on via various state-involved international institutions/banks/etc.
I’m sorry dude, I am a radical as hell libertarian, and I frankly do NOT see many other schools of thought standing against these issues as we do. Who has vehemently opposed war consistently for decades and decades, regardless of who occupies the annals of power? Certainly is not the left, for the most part. It’s us.
I understand full well that the Libertarian rank and file are idealists who are duped into defending what they hate most, but:
No, Tom Woods will defend Usury until he dies. Deflation too, btw.
Money scarcity does not exist in Austrianism.
These are the key issues of money.
Usury and deflation of course also are the hallmarks of Gold as currency, so that about tells you everything you need to know about Austrianism.
Alright dude, look. I’m willing to grant you the respect of giving you ARGUMENTS and not simply telling you you’re a dupe. That shit is childish and insulting. If you’re really right, make some damn arguments.
I know a thing or two about Austrian economics, but I’m not sure if I know what you mean by “money scarcity.” Money is always scarce, as opposed to what? Infinite amounts?
And deflation is a GOOD thing. It’s INFLATION which steals the purchasing power of money out from under the worker and consumer, all the while having a redistribution effect. Those politically favored financial institutions who get newly printed money BEFORE price inflation inevitably sets in, they essentially get to buy up societies resources for free, with counterfeit, fiat money.
The fear of deflation is ridiculous, while it may have some short term pain, it’s NOTHING compared to the possible harms of hyper inflation, something which actually has historical precedent.
And not being morally repulsed by the idea or charging a price for a service (IE the interest rate on a loan) is NOT being a proponent of “usury.” Either that, or what you call usury simply isn’t a crime.
Why in the world should someone loan out money for free? What, everyone else can freely trade EXCEPT for people who make loans to others? They’re due zero compensation for the service they provide? Why? What possible moral justification could you have for that???
Nobody forces anyone to take out a loan, you don’t have to participate in trade or the division of labor or any of it. Whatever problem usury represents, it’s dwarfed by the other problems I’ve been alluding to, central banking, war, etc
yes, well, please have a look at realcurrencies.wordpress.com/faux-economics
You will see that I have done a great deal to dispel all these quaint austrian ‘theories’.
The deflation argument is really the worst Austrianism has to offer. Please have a look at this:
https://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2012/08/01/austrian-economics-apostles-of-austerity-defending-deflation/
>>>>The above are examples of a ‘primary source’.
examples of your not knowing what a primary source is. 2) Your did not read “Through 30 years,” you did not read “New York Times”……
First, you cite as source of your knowledge, a book-peddler; when it is pointed out to you (which on your own you are not able to notice,) that it would have been somewhat cumbersome for Trotsky to get on the boat with 5 tonnes of gold coins, you slither; you don’t acknowledge that you have been conned. Then it is pointed out to you that most of these book-peddlers are con-men, and you complain about too much information.
Jacob Schiff proudly supported the movement which resulted in the abdication, the so-called February Revolution; a) this was not the bolshevik revolution, b) you have no primary source as to the amount, and how (one day you should read “His life and letters”, but that would require your buying a book, which is against your nature: click, click, mouse is your sum total)
On the other hand, none of the conspiracist book-writers (much less their groupies) ever bothered to look into the primary source on the financing of the bolshevik revolution:–
“among the German documents of Foreign Office expenditure overseas for propaganda and special purposes. This gives an allocation to Russia of 40,580,997 marks, of which by January 31, 1918, a sum of 26,566,122 marks had been spent.”
which would have been available to any of these alleged researchers, but it remained for a non-conspiracist, actual researcher, in 1975 to look into and publish the real story; because he does not fear the library like conspiracists do.
Not one of the gas-bags and low-lifes of the conspiracy industry had and has the brain capacity to notice and comprehend: whence the origin of lenin-ism (and what it is)
Jim:
Permit me one personal observation.
You may consider me stupid but do you honestly believe that I am so stupid that I believe that your conclusions would be altered regardless of how much contradictory evidence I present?
You asked me a question regarding Otto Kahn. How much do you actually know about him?
Give readers of this thread some idea concerning how much research you have done regarding Kahn.
For example:
(1) how many biographies of Kahn have you read — whether books, masters theses, or doctoral dissertations?
(2) have you ever done research into his personal papers and correspondence which are archived at Princeton University—which includes 400 boxes of his correspondence?
(3) have you ever researched the private papers of persons who were friends and business associates of Kahn?
(4) according to the JSTOR database, there are over 300 academic journal articles which discuss Kahn; how many of those have you read?
(5) is it your contention that Kahn is some sort of evil, sinister, villain with utterly no redeeming qualities? Is that your general belief about all of the persons about whom you have derogatory judgments?
It would be fine to sling mud if any of it was true. I doubt you even know what the John Birch Society stood for, much less what it was. You might read Rothbard’s “Betrayal of the American Right” . He points outs the neocons 30 years before the world heard of them. You are writing in favor of a crowd of ignorance or are merely positing an opinion on something you have never studied.
I’ve always wondered how these free market nuts can call themselves “good catholics” all while supporting extremely anti-catholic economic positions. I remember thinking this when I was reading Proudhon’s letters to Bastiat against interest on money (Bastiat was allegedly very religious – at least he brings up God *a lot* in “La Loi” – and Proudhon brought up how much the church was historically against lending on interest. Weird.
HAHA!!
Yes, Tom Woods and Murray Rothbard are Jesuit agents for the new world order!!
I’m curious though, what ARE the causes of our global problems, if not rampant corporatism, fraudulent central banking, and a non stop war machine, to name but a few?
These are things libertarians oppose. Advocating free and voluntary human interactions isn’t akin to supporting satanic, evil, “usery.”
The interest rate, in and of itself, as a concept, is absolutely no different than charging a price for any other good or service in any other exchange.
But this essay is badly researched, Woods is NOT, and never has been, “groomed” for running LvMI. He’s been a fellow there I believe, but only associates with them occasionally now for speeches n whatnot.