ramallamamama
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2009
- Messages
- 888
Controlled Opposition - A must read for everyone in the liberty movement
- Thread starter FrankRep
- Start date
InterestedParticipant
Member
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 2,193
For those that think G. Griffin is not controlled opposition, please describe for us what controlled opposition looks like and provide examples of people and organizations that fit this description.
Interesting piece, but I have to say I have mixed feelings about The JB Society. I seem to remember back in the day they were big time supporters of the war in Vietnam and US militarism and suppression of dissent and big "law and order" types. I could be wrong, but that is what I remember from the 60's and 70's.
Wow, that pretty much covers everybody. I'm surprised that Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell aren't on there - or maybe I missed them. Explain to me how people speaking out against exactly and everything most of us oppose in here constitute a controlled opposition. Explain to me how people speaking out against The NWO and world government and central banking and the Fed and pre-emptive war and world empire and those promoting a return to a Constitutional republic and individual liberty constitute a controlled opposition?
The JBS / Robert Welch was against the Vietnam War. Watch the video below.
YouTube - Robert Welch Explains Purpose of Vietnam War
InterestedParticipant
Member
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 2,193
Can you please provide links to other references that show that the JBS was publicly against the Vietnam war at the time of the War. The left-vector clearly understood at the time that the Birchers were in alignment with the right-vector, with their position being that the War was necessary to stop the Communists from taking over the World via the 'domino' theory.
"THE TRUTH ABOUT VIETNAM" by Robert Welch published by American Opinion, 1967
"MORE TRUTH ABOUT VIETNAM" by Robert Welch published by American Opinion, 1967
Antiwar.com - May 1, 2000
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/pf/p-j050100.html
THE TRUTH IN TIME
If we are examining right-wing revisionist accounts of the Vietnam war, then I much prefer the one proffered by Robert Welch, the much vilified founder of the John Birch Society who was once a bogeyman to the liberal elites, in his excellent pamphlet The Truth in Time. As the war was tearing the country – and the American military – apart, Welch noted that it was the West that created the conditions (including the Viet Minh) for precisely the kind of war that America could not hope to win. Welch also maintained that the installation of President Ngo Dinh Diem, and his subsequent persecution of the Buddhists, had done more to undermine the noncommunist element in Vietnam than any action initiated by Ho Chi Minh and his subordinates. The subsequent US-engineered coup, in which Diem was killed, led to the seizing of power by a series of generals who seemed to change by the week – and led Welch to ask: who benefits from the Vietnam war?
If we are examining right-wing revisionist accounts of the Vietnam war, then I much prefer the one proffered by Robert Welch, the much vilified founder of the John Birch Society who was once a bogeyman to the liberal elites, in his excellent pamphlet The Truth in Time. As the war was tearing the country – and the American military – apart, Welch noted that it was the West that created the conditions (including the Viet Minh) for precisely the kind of war that America could not hope to win. Welch also maintained that the installation of President Ngo Dinh Diem, and his subsequent persecution of the Buddhists, had done more to undermine the noncommunist element in Vietnam than any action initiated by Ho Chi Minh and his subordinates. The subsequent US-engineered coup, in which Diem was killed, led to the seizing of power by a series of generals who seemed to change by the week – and led Welch to ask: who benefits from the Vietnam war?
LewRockwell.com - March 25, 2003
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/epstein11.html
Buckley of course focuses on the least pleasant aspects of the John Birch Society and Rand’s Collective. The main focus on Rand is her affair with Branden. When dealing with the John Birch Society, he spends more time on General Walker and Revilo Oliver, a man who was eventually forced out of the Society for his anti-Semitism, than on Robert Welch. Interestingly enough, Oliver originally wrote for National Review and was a close friend of Buckley’s, indeed a member of his wedding party. National Review also editorialized in defense of Walker after he was arrested for his protest. They hoped "that all civil libertarians in the United States will take on the General Walker case, and that President Kennedy will telephone his condolences to him in jail, that being his habit when people involved in racial entanglements are abused by local courts, proving that Mr. Kennedy is willing to intercede on behalf of the victimized, irrespective of race, color, or creed." Obviously if someone wrote anything like that today, the mini-cons at National Review would call for their head.
More importantly is the fact that this book only touches on Buckley’s excommunication of the Randians and Birchers. While I don’t think Buckley should have written either group out of the conservative movement, the book still accurately shows the absurdities of some of the John Birch Society’s conspiracy theories, and the cult-like atmosphere of the Objectivists.
In fact it was not really the kookiness of the John Birch Society that led to their excommunication. By Buckley’s own account the final straw in writing out the Birchers was Robert Welch’s editorial opposing the Vietnam War.
More importantly is the fact that this book only touches on Buckley’s excommunication of the Randians and Birchers. While I don’t think Buckley should have written either group out of the conservative movement, the book still accurately shows the absurdities of some of the John Birch Society’s conspiracy theories, and the cult-like atmosphere of the Objectivists.
In fact it was not really the kookiness of the John Birch Society that led to their excommunication. By Buckley’s own account the final straw in writing out the Birchers was Robert Welch’s editorial opposing the Vietnam War.
friedenmeister
Member
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2008
- Messages
- 21
Glenn Beck is quite simple to analyze once you understand Leninist doctrine and where he fits in it. One of the first things Lenin said you should do is organize your own opposition. Then, you can easily misguide and distract those who oppose you and you can squander their time, energy and resources on meaningless battles. This makes it easy for you to do what you really came to do: build collectivism.
Glenn Beck is the figurehead for a Leninist controlled opposition movement. He is not one of us; he never was and never will be.
Rather think of it like this: the inmates of Concentration Camp USA have become more restless over the last couple of years. The establishment realizes that if the braindead are not kept tuned in to the mindless propaganda on television, they will start looking for answers on their own. The natural place for people to look for information is on the internet, where there are no controls on information. This scares the establishment more than anything under the sun.
In order to keep this from happening, Glenn Beck comes on the scene to discuss and discredit the topics people are most worried about. He trots around the issues people are worried about and then inevitably circles back around to validating the government's position. You can think of Glenn Beck like a dog who goes out into the back yard, remembering that somewhere back there he buried a bone last month. Unable to find the bone, the dog sniffs the ground all around the place where he did bury it, and then, in defeat, walks back to the house with no reward.
In the case of Glenn Beck, his sole purpose is to keep people from understanding what is going on. The people tuning in to him are increasingly more restless, and they are gathering in numbers next to the electric fence at the aforementioned Concentration Camp USA. As they congregate, they are rumbling louder and louder about how nice the frontier of Liberty beyond the fence looks.
This is where Glenn Beck comes on stage. He rides up to the congregating inmates to tell them that he has just come from outside the gates and he personally has investigated what they are looking at out there. Then he tells them there is nothing to experience and that things are much better inside the prison camp. The solution to their sorrows, he assures them, is to sign his new petition asking the warden of the concentration camp for better heat in the winter and better AC in the summer. Then he cracks a few jokes about the bureaucratic inefficiency of the prison camp administration and makes a sneer about one of the foul-smelling camp guards. Assured that Beck really is on their side and that things really will get better now, the inmates go back to their barracks and turn in for the evening.
Because Glenn Beck is credible to so many people, he is able to get away with this. I am among those who are not fooled by Glenn Beck the Leninist. Make no mistake, he is a Leninist and he has full knowledge of what is going on, and he is instrumental in making sure Americans continue pouring their energy into worthless endeavors like his 9/12 groups.
Glenn Beck is the figurehead for a Leninist controlled opposition movement. He is not one of us; he never was and never will be.
Rather think of it like this: the inmates of Concentration Camp USA have become more restless over the last couple of years. The establishment realizes that if the braindead are not kept tuned in to the mindless propaganda on television, they will start looking for answers on their own. The natural place for people to look for information is on the internet, where there are no controls on information. This scares the establishment more than anything under the sun.
In order to keep this from happening, Glenn Beck comes on the scene to discuss and discredit the topics people are most worried about. He trots around the issues people are worried about and then inevitably circles back around to validating the government's position. You can think of Glenn Beck like a dog who goes out into the back yard, remembering that somewhere back there he buried a bone last month. Unable to find the bone, the dog sniffs the ground all around the place where he did bury it, and then, in defeat, walks back to the house with no reward.
In the case of Glenn Beck, his sole purpose is to keep people from understanding what is going on. The people tuning in to him are increasingly more restless, and they are gathering in numbers next to the electric fence at the aforementioned Concentration Camp USA. As they congregate, they are rumbling louder and louder about how nice the frontier of Liberty beyond the fence looks.
This is where Glenn Beck comes on stage. He rides up to the congregating inmates to tell them that he has just come from outside the gates and he personally has investigated what they are looking at out there. Then he tells them there is nothing to experience and that things are much better inside the prison camp. The solution to their sorrows, he assures them, is to sign his new petition asking the warden of the concentration camp for better heat in the winter and better AC in the summer. Then he cracks a few jokes about the bureaucratic inefficiency of the prison camp administration and makes a sneer about one of the foul-smelling camp guards. Assured that Beck really is on their side and that things really will get better now, the inmates go back to their barracks and turn in for the evening.
Because Glenn Beck is credible to so many people, he is able to get away with this. I am among those who are not fooled by Glenn Beck the Leninist. Make no mistake, he is a Leninist and he has full knowledge of what is going on, and he is instrumental in making sure Americans continue pouring their energy into worthless endeavors like his 9/12 groups.
InterestedParticipant
Member
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 2,193
Well ... well.... well... what a difference a year makes.
This is a highly encouraging post, that most likely would have incited a vicious attack on this poster last year. I must say, the forum is progressing quite quickly. It's very encouraging.
Thanks very much for the added insight.
InterestedParticipant
Member
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 2,193
Wow, I wrote some very profound material in this thread. I was just rereading some of my posts, and I forgot what good stuff is buried inside the noise of this very important thread. Perhaps there might be the odd-person still hanging on to hope here who might actually take a moment to review this thread in order to gain new insight. Just block out all the noise, as there is a lot of it.
Yes and no.
Welch was NOT opposed to our involvement in Vietnam---he simply wanted us to "win" the conflict by any means necessary.
Two prominent JBS members in Wichita KS (Robert Love and Charles Koch) ran a full-page ad in the Wichita KS Eagle in May 1968 entitled "Let's Get Out of Vietnam Now" -- which produced an immediate hostile response from JBS headquarters.
Both Koch and Love were requested to resign from the JBS. Love and Koch wanted the U.S. to withdraw from Vietnam whereas the official JBS position at that time was that we should "win" and defeat the Communists.
Koch did resign immediately but Robert Love (a JBS National Council member) initially hesitated -- but he was convinced to resign by fellow Council member William Grede. Grede also asked Koch to help convince Love to resign.
Keep in mind the context i.e. Welch and the JBS had gotten almost a million signatures on a Vietnam petition advocating a winning policy and withholding aid to Communist countries -- so Welch/JBS thought Koch and Love had sabotaged that project.
Danke
Top Rated Influencer
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 44,263
With respect to #1 -- what does Moodys Manual have to do with your assertions? Be specific. What specific edition are you "quoting" and what page number and what, exactly, does it say? What "Candy Industry" data are you citing? Be specific. If you are, as you claim, "quoting another source" -- then where are the "quotes"?
With respect to #2 -- what specific "claim" are you asserting that I cannot validate?
With respect to #3 -- what "absent documentation" are your referring to? What "hyypothesis" are you referring to? It is YOU that is providing no documentation -- but merely the assertion.
With respect to #4 -- The "brothers" were not given money. Only one person owned the company and as James made perfectly clear, he insisted that his brother Robert severe all connections with his candy company more than a year before the JBS was even founded. If you claim that James secretly gave Robert money for the JBS -- where is your documentation for that -- especially since James rejected the political views of his brother?
With respect to #5 -- your comments are absurd. Mullins' claimed that the sale of the candy company financed the "set up" of the JBS but the JBS was started 5 years BEFORE that sale. Second, the greatest growth period of the JBS (members and financial support) occurred simultaneously with the Goldwater run for the Presidency (which, incidentally, also dramatically increased the revenues of all conservative organizations). There is no connection to the sale of the candy company.
With respect to #6 -- "Controlled opposition" is a buzz phrase used mindlessly by people to dismiss any inconvenient evidence which otherwise would disprove their speculations. One could argue that YOUR messages amount to controlled opposition -- designed to eviscerate anyone or anything that contradicts your personal political positions.
blissentia
Member
- Joined
- May 23, 2010
- Messages
- 6
The following is from "Judas Goats" by Michael Collins Piper, a Bible for understanding controlled opposition:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter Twenty-Two
The John Birch Society:
A Premier Case Study of The Judas Goat
Although William F. Buckley, Jr. and his fellow “responsible conservatives”
made many noises critical of the John Birch Society, founded by
Massachusetts candy maker Robert Welch in 1958—therefore leading
many to believe that the Birch Society and Buckley were, in some ways,
at odds in their approach to dealing with the problems of the day
(despite the fact that both the Buckleyites and the Birchers claimed the
mantle of “anti-communism” and “conservatism”)—there are many
intriguing elements surrounding the history of the John Birch Society
that have largely remained ignored by many Americans who believe the
Birch movement, in the balance, made a valuable contribution to the
anti-communist cause.
The truth is that Buckley’s attacks on the John Birch Society—
echoing much of the same rhetoric about the Society appearing in the
major media in America—effectively brought massive publicity to the
Birch movement that it would not have otherwise received. And the
very fact that the major media gave so much attention to the society is
an interesting point indeed. For the direct result of all of the attention
was that the Birch Society grew exponentially and effectively “corralled”
a very substantial group of American anti-communists into the ranks of
an organization which—as we shall see—was very suspect indeed.
The following essay is an account by the author of The Judas
Goats—The Enemy Within of his own brief journey into the strange
world of the John Birch Society. While highly personal in nature, the
essay reflects much of the thinking of many others who had their own
individual experiences as members—and ultimately former members—
of the JBS.The essay—originally published in the July-August 2005 issue
of The Barnes Review, the bimonthly historical magazine based in
Washington—speaks for itself.The essay was originally entitled “My One-
Minute Membership in the John Birch Society.”
Many questions about the John Birch Society (JBS) have
passed through my own mind since I first became aware
of the existence of the JBS when I was a sixteen-year-old
high school student. Honestly, I’m fully aware that there will be many
good people who will be utterly inflamed by my remarks, but let’s let
the chips fall where they may.
My first awareness of the JBS came at a time when I was becoming
embroiled (for better or worse) in political affairs. Having pretty much
determined (on my own,with no input from friends or family) that I was
some sort of “conservative,” I quickly began the process of trying to
learn as much as I could about various “right wing” political organizations.
That led me to my local libraries where I savored all the standard
conservative writings that were available.However, I did not restrict my
reading to literature that reflected my own point of view.Always openminded,
I was curious to see what “the other side” had to say.
As a consequence of that, I zipped through a wide variety of volumes
coming from what might be described as the “liberal-left” and I
continually came across references to a mysterious and controversial
“John Birch Society” and its founder, Robert Welch. In my own mind, I
said,“If the liberals consider the JBS and its founder to be so bad, then
they must be pretty good.”
No sooner had I made up my mind to try to find the address of,and
contact, the John Birch Society, than there—lo and behold—in my own
local public library—I spotted a copy of the JBS publication, American
Opinion, sitting right there on the shelf, alongside so-called “mainstream”
publications.
With great excitement, I began leafing through the professionallyproduced
JBS journal, thrilled to have access to the forbidden facts and
hidden information that I just knew I couldn’t get from Time or
Newsweek or even in the pages of the so-called “conservative”weekly,
U.S. News & World Report.
That particular issue of American Opinion had a chart that captured
my attention. It was an overview—country by country—of “communist
influence” (by percent, on a scale of 0 to 100) in the various
countries of the world.
I knew, of course, that communists were in control of the Soviet
Union and Eastern Europe and that they also had widespread influence
throughout the West. I was acutely aware that communist influence, in
one form or another, had gained a stranglehold in my own United States
of America.
However, I was surprised to see that, according to the JBS, communist
strength in America was far more powerful than I would have
estimated. I don’t recall the exact percentage, but I recall that it was
extraordinarily high.
“Thank God,” I thought, as I studied the chart,“that there are a few
countries, such as Argentina and Chile, that are in the hands of anti-communist
military leaders.” But when I turned to those two republics, I
found that the JBS listed communist influence there to be in the range
of 70 to 90 percent. I was startled, needless to say.“Maybe they know
something I don’t know,” I thought. But I continued to read on.
Next I turned to the state of Israel. Based on my own earlier
research I knew that Israel’s economy was based on a strictly socialist model,
funded by billions in U.S. tax dollars. In addition, I was also aware
of the predominant influence of Russian and Eastern European Jews in
the worldwide communist movement and knew that many Jews of a
Marxist bent had been involved in establishing the Jewish state.What’s
more, I also knew that not only had Israel been strategically assisted, in
its founding years, with arms and support from the communist bloc, but
also that tiny Israel was the only nation in the Middle East with a freelyflourishing
communist party.
With all of this in mind, imagine how surprised I was to learn that
—at least according to the JBS in its American Opinion chart—communist
influence in Israel was hardly more than 10 to 20 percent!
At that moment—having only had a JBS publication in my hand for
the first time ever, for less than several minutes, in fact—I realized that
something was very much amiss.
Skimming the rest of the chart, I soon saw that, in the Birch worldview,
Israel was probably the only serious bastion of anti-communism on
the entire face of the planet. Not even the anti-communist regimes in
Argentina and Chile seemed to qualify.
It was then I knew, pure and simple, that those at the highest levels
of the JBS had fallen under the influence—perhaps the outright control—
of the insidious force of political Zionism.That was enough for
me. I knew then that the JBS was not for me. My “membership” in the
JBS, if truth be told, lasted little more than a minute.
Little did I know at that time, however, that I had learned, rapidly
and quite easily,what thousands of good,honest members of the JBS had
to learn with much more pain over a considerably longer period of time.
I had no idea that there were disillusioned former members of the JBS
all over the United States who had, in one way or another, figured out
what I had discovered on my own, without ever even having been a
member of the JBS.
The most notable among the former Birchers,perhaps,was the late
Dr.Revilo P. Oliver, an eminent classicist and former U.S. intelligence officer
who, for several years, was quite active in the JBS and very much
publicly identified with the group. However, Oliver quit the Birchers
precisely because he knew that Birch Boss Welch was determined to
carry water for the Zionist cause and Oliver wanted nothing to do with
it.
[...]
In any case, some four years later, when I went to work in
Washington for The Spotlight, I learned the full history of the Zionist
infiltration and manipulation of the JBS.At The Spotlight I gained access to
fascinating archives accumulated over the years, pointing to the
strange origins—and directions—of the JBS.There I discovered the facts
about the little-known “Rockefeller connection” to the JBS. In the August
1965 edition of Capsule News, Morris Bealle laid it bare. He wrote:
And, for the record, in more recent years, famed populist historian
Eustace Mullins, author of The Federal Reserve Conspiracy, The World
Order and other classics, has said publicly—more than once—that his
research led him to the conclusion that the Birch Society was indeed a
creation of the Rockefeller empire, based on precisely the same data
that led Bealle to reach his assessment. So Bealle was not standing alone,
by any means, in making these allegations.
In the matter of the privately-owned Federal Reserve banking
monopoly, the JBS took some mighty peculiar positions. In the
September 1964 issue of American Opinion, one of Birch’s favorite
economists, Hans Sennholz, wrote an article about the Federal Reserve
System.The article stated of the Fed as follows:
The late Norbert Murray, an outspoken Montana patriot who was a
career journalist in the mainstream media and a former New York publicist
for major business interests, succinctly described the article as a
“pack of lies” that “protected the fraud of the system.”
Publication of such an article could only mislead good members of
the JBS who were trying to sort out the myths—from the facts—about
the nature of the privately-owned and banker-dominated Federal
Reserve and of the powerful international banking houses that play
such a major role in the manipulation of U.S. foreign policy.
In any case, while working for The Spotlight, I did indeed learn
much more about the JBS than I would have ever imagined possible.
It was at that point—in the late 1970s and early 1980s—that the
JBS began actively promoting the interests of the state of Israel and hyping
spokesmen for its powerful lobby in Washington, discarding any
ambiguity about where the Birch Society’s controllers stood on the
issue of U.S. policy toward the Middle East.
Much to the dismay of longtime JBS loyalists, The Spotlight’s hardhitting
senior journalist, the legendary Andrew St. George, reported at
length and in devastating detail on the mysterious manueverings of one
John Rees, a Britisher by birth and one with quite a murky past,who had
squirreled his way into the inner circles of the JBS, establishing himself
as the real “power behind the throne” during Robert Welch’s declining
days. The Spotlight pinpointed Rees’ disturbing role in operating his
own intelligence and spying operation which was, in many respects,
quite akin to that of the Anti-Defamation League, the all-powerful
American adjunct of Israel’s intelligence agency, the Mossad.
For my own part, as a student of the JFK assassination, I discovered
the fact that like Robert Welch in his heyday, the John Birch Society—to
this day—endorses the discredited Warren Commission fraud that “one
lone nut” assassinated President Kennedy.
Morris Bealle pointed out early on (June 19, 1965) in his newsletter,
Capsule News, that Robert Welch had declared Bealle’s book, The
Guns of the Regressive Right—which pointed a finger in the direction
of the CIA—to be “all wrong” and told his followers that it was not the
CIA but Lyndon Johnson behind the JFK assassination.
According to Bealle,“We examined thoroughly all of his 1964 bulletins
. . . [which] were filled with attacks on Earl Warren and curious
expressions of hearty agreement with him on the myth that ‘a
Communist [meaning the Decoy Man Oswald] killed Kennedy.’”
In fact, as I pointed out in Final Judgment, my own book on the
JFK assassination,Welch played a major part in directing conservative
attention away from a possible role by the CIA in the JFK assassination
and in the direction of the Soviet KGB. This was the same propaganda
line of top CIA figure James J.Angelton, the CIA’s pro-Israel liaison to
Israel’s Mossad.
So while the Birchers think Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone-nut
communist under the direction of the Soviet KGB—the theory put forth
by the Mossad loyalist Angleton—they are very careful to avoid pointing
toward the culpability of the CIA and certainly never ever dare mention
that—as documented in my own book—the Mossad also played a critical
role in the assassination conspiracy.
On Nov. 21, 1988 the Birch Society’s New American magazine touted
the Warren Commission Report, saying that “evidence demonstrates
beyond a reasonable doubt” that Lee Harvey Oswald—one lone communist
nut—killed JFK.
In any case, however, the JBS acceptance of the obviously dubious
claim that one lone communist nut killed JFK remains in force. In 1995,
I sent a copy of the second edition of my book to a vast array of individuals
inviting them to debate the thesis of the book with me—on
radio or in any public forum or in writing. I gave them the opportunity
to refute the book in the manner they wished. One of those to whom
I sent a copy of the book was Bill Jasper, senior editor of the Birch
Society’s New American.To this day—more than ten years later, and following
the sales of almost 50,000 copies of Final Judgment to enthusiastic
readers around the world—I have yet to hear from Mr. Jasper.
My experiences with the JBS—as far as the issue of the JFK assassination
is concerned—were certainly instructive. But (years before) I
had already figured out that the Birch Society was somewhat dubious,
based on my research and that of others and on the study of Birch publications.
Certainly, there are many fine Americants who are supporters
of the JBS but my “one minute membership” was enough for me.
In closing this essay on the role of the Birchers in “shifting” the philosophy
of many good Americans, it seems appropriate to recall what
Richard Gid Powers, in his book Not Without Honor: A History of
American Anti-Communism, had to say about Robert Welch and the
John Birch Society:
So while, on the one hand, self-styled “responsible conservative”
William F. Buckley, Jr. was denouncing the Birch Society, the American
“mainstream”media was providing massive publicity to the JBS and corralling
many Americans into this dubious movement.
There could be much more written. However, considering even
just what we have examined, can there be any real doubt that America
would have been much better off if Robert Welch had stayed in the
candy business and stayed out of politics?
Last edited:
1.) The John Birch Society is NOT secretly (or openly) controlled by the Jews.
2.) Saying that Nelson Rockefeller funded or setup the John Birch Society is a complete lie. Nelson Rockefeller's Nabisco Company bought James O. Welch's Candy Company. James O. Welch is Robert Welch's brother.
The Welch brothers didn't share the same political views.
3.) Eustace Mullins received his information from the Revilo Oliver, a Racist White Nationalist. The John Birch Society didn't share the racist views of Revilo Oliver so Revilo Oliver "declared war" on the JBS by spreading smears and rumors of the JBS being secretly controlled by Rockefeller and the Jews.
Read the background.
blissentia
Member
- Joined
- May 23, 2010
- Messages
- 6
Griffin plagiarized and distorted the work of Mullins for his federal Reserve book - per Mullins' admission, and from comparative analysis of the texts. Then he promoted Rockefeller Foundation financed Austrian "Economics"/neo-feudalism:
YouTube - Eustace Mullins' on FED, Ron Paul, Rockefeller & G. Edward Griffin
Examples of honest works that use original research are Sutton's "The Federal Reserve Conspiracy" and Brown's "The Web of Debt". Sutton believed in Austrian slavery, and seemed to think that rather than totalitarian collectivists running the country, it would be better to have the Old style of exploitation with Drug Running, Slave Trading, and financially exploitative capitalists setting up their dominions like feudal fiefdoms, but at least he did original research.
It doesn't matter if somebody is a white nationalist or anti-Semite, it matters if what they say is true. The information concerning Rockefeller and the CFR also comes from Morris Beale. Please consider this in the context of the other information in Piper's chapter.
YouTube - Eustace Mullins' on FED, Ron Paul, Rockefeller & G. Edward Griffin
Examples of honest works that use original research are Sutton's "The Federal Reserve Conspiracy" and Brown's "The Web of Debt". Sutton believed in Austrian slavery, and seemed to think that rather than totalitarian collectivists running the country, it would be better to have the Old style of exploitation with Drug Running, Slave Trading, and financially exploitative capitalists setting up their dominions like feudal fiefdoms, but at least he did original research.
It doesn't matter if somebody is a white nationalist or anti-Semite, it matters if what they say is true. The information concerning Rockefeller and the CFR also comes from Morris Beale. Please consider this in the context of the other information in Piper's chapter.
Last edited:
What's your problem?
Eustace Mullins doesn't have a copyright on the subject of the Federal Reserve.
blissentia
Member
- Joined
- May 23, 2010
- Messages
- 6
Much of the "research" Griffin did paralleled Mullins extensively, save for the fact that Griffin included the work of other authors and made extensive digressions.
Here is Mullins' text for comparison: http://www.mediafire.com/?mr14lwh2vmz
I believe it is intellectually dishonest of Griffin to have not credited Mullins. He credited Mullins once, in a disparaging way, but nearly all the information from the first chapter comes from Mullins. A great deal of the other information comes from Mullins. Even the title of a chapter called "The London Connection" comes from Mullins. Griffin's methods in this regard give him the appearance of having dug up hard to find documentation, which seem highly implausible, since they were dug up from a person who was a disciple of Ezra Pound, the social credit advocate.
The Gold Standard was a favorite of the international bankers for a while, as Gold could be expanded and contracted at will, and was inherently deflationary. For years the daily price of gold was set by the Rothschilds: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_fixing
Now they have moved away from gold, into the "higher spheres" of carbon credits, which will be the backbone of the Technetronic era: http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=90090
On this and the power of international bankers, Quigley had a few interesting things to say:
"Indeed, some of them intended to contribute to both and to allow an alternation of the two parties in public office in order to conceal their own influence, inhibit any exhibition of independence by politicians, and allow the electorate to believe that they were exercising their own free choice.
"[in 1924] J. P. Morgan was able to sit back with a feeling of satisfaction to watch a presidential election in which the candidates of both parties were in his sphere of influence. [The same is happening today w/ David Rockefeller and the Trilateral Commission]
"Usually, Morgan had to share this political influence with other sectors of the business oligarchy, especially with the Rockefeller interest (as was done, for example, by dividing the ticket between them
"The Power of Investment Bankers Over Governments
"The power of investment bankers over governments rests on a number of factors, of which the most significant, perhaps, is the need of governments to issue short-term treasury bills as well as long-term government bonds. Just as businessmen go to commercial banks for current capital advances to smooth over the discrepancies between their irregular and intermittent incomes and their periodic and persistent outgoes (such as monthly rents, annual mortgage payments, and weekly wages), so a government has to go to merchant bankers (or institutions controlled by them) to tide over the shallow places caused by irregular tax receipts. As experts in government bonds, the international bankers not only handled the necessary advances but provided advice to government officials and, on many occasions, placed their own members in official posts for varied periods to deal with special problems. This is so widely accepted even today that in 1961 a Republican investment banker became Secretary of the Treasury in a Democratic Administration in Washington without significant comment from any direction.
"The Key International Banking Families
"The names of some of these banking families are familiar to all of us and should he more so. They include Raring, Lazard, Erlanger, Warburg, Schroder, Seligman, the Speyers, Mirabaud, Mallet, Fould, and above all Rothschild and Morgan. Even after these banking families became fully involved in domestic industry by the emergence of financial capitalism, they remained different from ordinary bankers in distinctive ways: (1) they were cosmopolitan and international; (2) they were close to governments and were particularly concerned with questions of government debts, including foreign government debts, even in areas which seemed, at first glance, poor risks, like Egypt, Persia, Ottoman Turkey, Imperial China, and Latin America; (3) their interests were almost exclusively in bonds and very rarely in goods, since they admired `liquidity' and regarded commitments in commodities or even real estate as the first step toward bankruptcy; (4) they were, accordingly, fanatical devotees of deflation (which they called "sound" money from its close associations with high interest rates and a high value of money) and of the gold standard, which, in their eyes, symbolized and ensured these values; and (5) they were almost equally devoted to secrecy and the secret use of financial influence in political life. These bankers came to be called `international bankers' and, more particularly, were known as `merchant bankers' in England, `private bankers' in France, and `investment bankers' in the United States. In all countries they carried on various kinds of banking and exchange activities, but everywhere they were sharply distinguishable from other, more obvious, kinds of banks, such as savings banks or commercial banks."
"The Dynasties of International Bankers
"In time they brought into their financial network the provincial banking centers, organized as commercial banks and savings banks, as well as insurance companies, to form all of these into a single financial system on an international scale which manipulated the quantity and flow of money so that they were able to influence, if not control, governments on one side and industries on the other. The men who did this, looking backward toward the period of dynastic monarchy in which they had their own roots, aspired to establish dynasties of international bankers and were at least as successful at this as were many of the dynastic political rulers. The greatest of these dynasties, of course, were the descendants of Meyer Amschel Rothschild (1743-1812) of Frankfort, whose male descendants, for at least two generations, generally married first cousins or even nieces. Rothschild's five sons, established at branches in Vienna, London, Naples, and Paris, as well as Frankfort, cooperated together in ways which other international banking dynasties copied but rarely excelled."
"The Money Power-Controlled by International Investment Bankers-Dominates Business and Government
"As early as 1909, Walter Rathenau, who was in a position to know (since he had inherited from his father control of the German General Electric Company and held scores of directorships himself), said, `Three hundred men, all of whom know one another, direct the economic destiny of Europe and choose their successors from among themselves.' Big Banking and Business Control the Federal Government The structure of financial controls created by the tycoons of `Big Banking' and `Big Business' in the period 1880-1933 was of extraordinary complexity, one business fief being built on another, both being allied with semi-independent associates, the whole rearing upward into two pinnacles of economic and financial power, of which one, centered in New York, was headed by J. P. Morgan and Company, and the other, in Ohio, was headed by the Rockefeller family
"By 1930 these 200 largest corporations held 49.2 percent of the assets of all 40,000 corporations in the country
"In fact, in 1930, one corporation (American Telephone and Telegraph, controlled by Morgan) had greater assets than the total wealth in twenty-one states of the Union.
"The influence of these business leaders was so great that the Morgan and Rockefeller groups acting together, or even Morgan acting alone, could have wrecked the economic system of the country"
Of course pure debt fiat is better for them, since it allows more speculation. We will soon probably see carbon credits replace them: http://www.augustreview.com/issues/...a_new_beginning_for_technocracy?_20100125155/
Last edited:
