Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics

LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 02-01-2008, 05:22 AM   #1 (permalink)
Historical "real Enemy" ultra conservative wealthy christian /jewish white guys ?

After reading some of the posts in the other thread in Politics about the city of Berkeley, CA attempts to stop military recruiting, I read this and it "hit home" with me:
Glenn Greenwald
Thursday January 31, 2008 07:33 EST
Enemies everywhere

Writing about last night's GOP debate, John Hinderaker of Powerline, Time's 2004 Blog of the Year, <a href="http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/01/019682.php">shared this observation</a>:

<i>Businessmen, in my experience, are generally more idealistic than politicians. Businessmen really do make deals with a

handshake. No one would dream of doing that with Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi or the Clintons. . . .

I don't view this as an argument in Romney's favor. <h3>As President, he wouldn't be dealing with honorable, law-abiding

businesspeople. He would be going up against the Vladimir Putins, Osama bin Ladens and Harry Reids</h3> of the world."</i>

That passage was then <a href="http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDEzYzkxNDMzMWNlOTBiYWZhY2FiZjUzOWYyMjdlNGU=">promptly

quoted</a> by National Review's Mark Steyn, who said that Hinderaker "might be on to something."...

.....Why don't Democrats become more bipartisan? Why are liberal bloggers and The Angry Left so hateful? Why does Bush Derangement

Syndrome cause people to say such mean things, make such extreme accusations, about the Commander-in-Chief? After all, the right-

wing of the Republican Party is so reasonable and sober and so eager to work cooperatively with Democrats for what's best for the

country that it's just inexcusable for liberals to view politics as warfare and refuse to shed their hostility in order to get

things done.

And besides, the nation's poor War Cheerleaders of the Right are always so besieged by vicious Enemies lurking on every corner --

people who are ruthless, without scruples, and who are even willing to break the law. Like Vladimir Putin, Osama bin Laden, and

Harry Reid.

They're treated very unfairly everywhere -- by the press, by colleges, by political elites, by other countries, by the U.N., by

minorities. <h3>There is no more besieged and victimized group anywhere on the planet than white, Christian, American conservative

males (except, perhaps, right-wing Jews, the only worthy competitor for the glorious mantle of Most Persecuted).</h3> Among other

things, <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={0D04F5F9-E7DC-4D8E-A7D8-209D50FF9BCD}">they must battle</a.

"the unholy alliance of leftists, Islamists and multiculturalist racial pressure groups."

Every institution treats them unfairly; every sector poses a threat to their Goodness; they are surrounded by soul-less Enemies

who wish to do them harm. <a href="http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/8627.html">Nobody</a> deserves the slightest sympathy -- <a href="http://instapundit.com/archives2/014735.php">nobody's plight merits the slightest concern</a> -- except for theirs. They are

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/opinion/31Cohen.html?hp">the best people on Earth -- actually, the best people ever in
all of human history. And everyone is against them.</a> Everyone is waging war on them. Enemies everywhere work together to

threaten and harm them. It's all deeply unfair. And they must wage vicious war -- against all the Enemies, Everywhere -- if they

have any hope of being protected.
<h3>I'm thinking we're locked in a long running battle with the heirs of our great-grandfathers' political enemies, and this is an

example of the "liberal democrat", "Angry left", lack of "bipartisanship. Scott Horton thought that he knew Mukasey, and originally thought he should be confirmed by the senate to "restore" the "law" at the DOJ:</h3>
Confirm Michael Mukasey
BY Scott Horton
PUBLISHED September 17, 2007

The president has nominated former federal judge Michael Mukasey to serve as the next attorney general. The Senate will have

plenty of questions to ask and issues to raise, and it should take this confirmation seriously. But it should move expeditiously

to approval, recognizing that this is the first essential step towards taking the Justice Department off of life-support and

making it a functioning agency once more.

I have known Michael Mukasey for over twenty years and I have a pretty good sense of his views on a great many issues. Frankly,

there are not many issues on which we agree. I am a civil libertarian and human rights advocate, while Mukasey is driven by a

concern for national security–his many years on the bench tell him that our criminal justice system is inadequate to the task of

trying terrorists. I recently parsed his op-ed in the Wall Street Journal looking for some important points I could agree with,

and struggled to find them. Many of the civil liberties that Mukasey sees as vulnerabilities I see as strengths.

Nevertheless, I consider Mukasey a highly qualified candidate and am prepared to support him with enthusiasm. Why? First, the

president is entitled to nominate a candidate who represents his views on legal policy. I don’t think there’s room for a ray of

light to pass between the Bush Administration and Mukasey, frankly. Mukasey has been close to Rudy Giuliani for many years, but

those who know him also recognize that Mukasey is more of a traditional social conservative than Giuliani, which is to say he is

actually closer to Bush than to Giuliani on a series of legal policy issues. Critics who argue that the next attorney general

should turn from the Administration’s viewpoint are not being realistic. That is not the way our system works, and to hold to such

a posture would only result in an administrative gridlock that would serve no one’s interests.

....Third, Mukasey is a lawyer’s lawyer. He actually cares a great deal about the law and what it provides; he approaches a

question very carefully and with appropriate respect and deference for statutes and precedent. <h3>He knows how to separate and he

does separate his own political views from what the law says</h3>. We haven’t had an attorney general like that in quite a long

time and we’re past due. In fact, having an attorney general who places emphasis on the traditional virtues of a great profession

will be a very good thing for the Bush Administration and for the Justice Department.

Fourth, the Department of Justice faces a crisis of morale and confidence the likes of which it has rarely seen in American

history. The only recent parallel was in the months following Watergate, when Gerald Ford chose Edward Levi as attorney general

(and that nomination is certainly the closest in modern times to the selection of Mukasey). Mukasey is a man who first made his

career as a prosecutor working for the Department of Justice and who was clearly moved, long into his later career, by love for

the Department. That makes him a perfect person to address the internal problems of the department. We face a number of pressing

policy issues relating to law and the administration of justice, but they are all somehow dwarfed by the institutional troubles of

the Department of Justice. This great ship has been tragically steered into a shoals and it is now in real danger. I think Mukasey

is just the pilot to steer it clear again.

Civil libertarians will find no shortage of things to dislike about Michael Mukasey. But they should stop and recognize that he

reflects the fundamentally conservative values which are essential to making our government work, and which have been often

missing in a government that calls itself conservative, but really is not. Mukasey is a true conservative in much the same sense

that Edmund Burke was a conservative. And perhaps that’s the strongest argument that can be mustered for his confirmation.

The Torture Litmus Test
BY Scott Horton
PUBLISHED November 2, 2007

Several days before his first meeting with the Senate Judiciary Committee, Michael Mukasey’s Justice Department handlers arranged

a private meeting for him with a number of “movement conservatives.” Two different administration sources have described the

meeting to me. During the meeting, Mukasey’s counterparts, largely figures associated with the Federalist Society, pushed him on

two points in particular.

First, they wanted him to undertake that he would not appoint a special prosecutor to look into the U.S. attorneys scandal and

related charges concerning political prosecutions. At this point it is clear that if an independent investigation were to be

launched, it would quickly run head-on into some of the same figures who sat in the room with Mukasey. The email traffic which has

surfaced already—and it is only a tiny fraction of the total—shows how Rove and Miers repeatedly relied upon the Federalist

Society and its members to help them out in addressing recalcitrant U.S. Attorneys who would not debase their office by converting

it into a political tool. Let’s be cynical and say that the first request they put to Mukasey was designed simply to protect

themselves and keep their behind-the-scenes involvement with the Justice Department’s highest profile scandal so far out of the


And second, they pushed aggressively on the torture question. They wanted Mukasey to pledge that he would toe the Administration’s

line on “the Program,” that he would continue to protect those who authored the program with the cloak of an Attorney General

opinion keeping them safe from prosecution.....

....The New York Times says the issue is one of legal culpability of those who have administered the program. In a speech I

delivered in Ohio last October, <a href="http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/10/when-lawyers-are-war-criminals.html">“When Lawyers Are

War Criminals,”</a> I went over this analysis in some detail and concluded it was incorrect. The CIA personnel, military personnel

and contractors all have immunity. But there is a class of persons who are probably not immunized in any effective way by the

current statutes, namely the administration officials who authored this scheme: Dick Cheney, David Addington, Donald Rumsfeld, Jim

Haynes and a handful of others. They are the figures “on the line” who are most adamant that Mukasey (or any substitute for

Mukasey) provide them with the protection they feel they need.

Hence, the debate around Michael Mukasey has really ceased to be about Michael Mukasey and his qualifications to serve as attorney

general. It has become a debate about the torture issue. And protecting the authors of a criminal scheme from their certain

ultimate fate: prosecution.

I have very strong conflicting views about the vote which is coming in the Judiciary Committee. I believe that Mukasey, as an

individual, is exceptionally well qualified to serve as attorney general. I would approve the Mukasey who says he “personally”

finds waterboarding abhorrent. <h3>But I am troubled by the “official” Mukasey who is being trotted out as something different.

And I believe that the nation cannot, at this stage, accept the appointment of an attorney general who refuses to come clean on

the torture issue.</h3> In the end this is essential to national identity, and to the promise of the Justice Department to serve

as a law enforcement agency. Too much of what the Justice Department has done of late has little resemblance to law enforcement.

Rather it looks to be just the opposite.

If the Bush Administration wants to turn torture into a litmus test, so must Congress. The question therefore ultimately becomes

one of principle and not personality. <h3>The Judiciary Committee should not accept any nominee who fails to provide meaningful

assurance on this issue. And, though it saddens me to say this, Michael Mukasey has not.</h3>

‘Reasonable Minds Can Differ’
BY Scott Horton
PUBLISHED <h3>January 31, 2008

....Watching Mukasey was a painful experience. . . .The Senate Judiciary Committee put Michael Mukasey to the test yesterday. And

he left the hearing room as an embarrassment to those who have known and worked with him over the last twenty years, and who

mistakenly touted his independence and commitment to do the right thing, come what may.......</h3>
The sad thing, <h3>the most alarming thing....</h3> is that "the reds" in our own midst, and "the brown people", the "other", the

"islamo-fascist terrorists", and even bin Laden himself, are no match for our perennial, tireless, "enemy of the people", but we

seem to forget who "the enemy" is, as one generation fades into another, and a compliant corporate media fades the "news":

Monday, Sep. 10, 1973
By Lance Morrows



256 pages. Hawthorn. $7.95.

Now, in the midst of Watergate, 40 years after the incident occurred, it has a certain sinister plausibility not widely evident in

1933. At the time, the newspapers reported some allegations that a big business cabal had hatched a "plot"—the headlines generally

put it in quotes. Its aim was to undo F.D.R.'s power and install a "Secretary of General Affairs" to take effective control of the

Executive as a dictator.

Obviously the plot failed. Jules Archer, journalist-historian, supplies some fascinating details that make the episode

considerably more than a paranoid fantasy. In 1933 emissaries purporting to represent an organization called the American Liberty

League approached a retired Marine general named Smedley Darlington Butler. The League was devoted to laissez-faire capitalism and

backed by such people as the Du Ponts and J.P. Morgan. The general was offered an extravagant budget — $3,000,000 for starters,

with a possible $300 million if necessary — to mobilize an army of 500,000 veterans and lead them to Washington, there to force

Roosevelt into accepting "the popular will." The cabal even had a man touring Europe to study the Fascists' success with certain

veterans' groups.

Butler seemed a likely candidate — twice a winner of the Congressional Medal of Honor, an authentic soldiers' hero. But he

reported the plot in detail to the House Un-American Activities Committee, then chaired by Massachusetts' John McCormack, later

Speaker of the House. At the hearings, the gobe tweens denied everything, and the com mittee was simply afraid to call titans of

finance as witnesses.

Another problem was that the whole thing seemed too preposterous a plan to be taken seriously. And it was never decided whether

the important figures of finance knew what was being proposed on their behalf. The American Liberty League was finally disbanded

in 1936. But Author Archer believes the plot was in earnest — and so did John McCormack, who once told Archer: "They were going to

make it all sound constitutional, of course, with a high-sounding name for the dictator and a plan to make it all sound like a

good American program."

∙Lance Morrows

The dark history of Sterling Clark

By Alex Beam, Globe Columnist | May 2, 2007

It is true that I have an unhealthy obsession with Sterling Clark, the meta-rich , right-wing maniac who built the lovely Sterling

and Francine Clark Art Institute in Williamstown. A lifetime ago I lived across the street from the institute, actually an art

museum flush with gorgeous Impressionist paintings. And no, I did not pal around with my famous South Street neighbors, author Joe

McGinniss and "Empress" Farah Pahlavi , the widow of the deposed Shah of Iran, both of whom have since decamped.

Only recently has the dark history of Clark, whom the Institute describes in official biographies as a moneyed thoroughbred

aficionado married to a Paris showgirl, resurfaced. In 2004, Joel Bakan's book "The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of

Profit and Power" resuscitated the story of an attempted coup d'etat against Franklin Roosevelt by right-wing financiers in 1934,

and Clark's role in funding the effort.

It is a tangled tale. Clark, busily squandering his Singer sewing machine fortune in Paris with the above mentioned showgirl, also

fell in love with European Fascist politics. He and some cronies approached two-time Medal of Honor winner, Marine General Smedley

Darlington Butler , to lead a putsch against Roosevelt. Butler wasn't interested, and ratted out Clark & Co. After the plot came

to light, Clark threatened to sue Time magazine for reporting on his role, and promised to return to the United States to defend

his reputation. True to form, he did neither.

To date, mainstream historians have dismissed the coup talk as overblown. "The gap between contemplation and execution was

considerable," the late Arthur Schlesinger Jr. wrote in "The Age of Roosevelt." "It can hardly be assumed that the republic was in

much danger." Roosevelt biographer Conrad Black thought Clark's coup effort was absurd, and described the Singer heir as "sort of

batty . . . he was never taken seriously by anybody."

Well, OK. But here's a new book, "The Clarks of Cooperstown," by historian Nicholas Fox Weber , which seems extraordinarily well

researched and takes the coup attempt very seriously indeed. (Coincidentally, Jules Archer's 1973 book, "The Plot to Seize the

White House," has just been republished.) Weber leans on Archer's account, and on the archives of the House Un-American Activities

Committee, chaired by former Boston trial lawyer John McCormack . Weber calls Sterling "a volatile reactionary," who habitually

called Roosevelt "Rosenfart." The historian definitely believes Clark was angling for regime change on Pennsylvania Avenue.

As did McCormack, the future speaker of the House, who later called the plot "a threat to our very way of government by a bunch of

rich men who wanted fascism." "It was one aspect of European culture that Robert Sterling Clark did not succeed in bringing to

America," Weber writes.....

Monday, Dec. 12, 1932
Married. Jouett Shouse, new president of <h3>the Association Against the Prohibition Amendment</h3>

Monday, May. 07, 1934

Unsuccessful last fortnight were a group of Senate silverites who <h3>tried to enlist the support of President Roosevelt for legislation to up the metal's price from 45¢ to $1.29 per oz. by huge treasury purchases.</h3> Before their White House visit, however, hard money Senators had already made what they hoped would be a strategic move to head off Inflation by the silver route. Adopted by the Senate was a resolution calling upon Secretary Morgenthau to supply a list of all big silver owners. Unlike gold, silver is not an illegal private possession but if it could be shown that the loudest silverites, in or out of Congress, were also heavy owners of the commodity for private profit, the cause of bimetallism would receive a bad moral tarring before the country.

Last week Secretary Morgenthau submitted his lists. <h3>As expected the biggest silver holders turned out to be banks and precious few bankers are silverites. Chase National of Manhattan nominally owned the largest amount (18,000,000 oz.). Since futures for silver are normally higher than spot prices, the banks had bought and stored spot silver while selling equal quantities for future delivery. Such transactions gave them a profit of 2½% on their investment, about five times as much as they could get</h3> on other short term investments.

Not a silver Congressman was found on the list. Democrat Joseph Tumulty and <h3>the wife of Democrat Jouett Shouse made small headlines as silver owners</h3> but neither the onetime secretary to Woodrow Wilson nor the wife of the onetime party manager could be called insiders with the silver bloc. Notable catches were Errett Lobban Cord, member of the Committee for the Nation, owning 1,651,000 oz.; Frank A. Vanderlip Jr., son of another member, owning 300,000 oz.; Amy Collins, treasurer of the Radio League of the Little Flower, mouthpiece for ardent Silverite Father Coughlin, 500,000 oz.; A. Atwater Kent, radio tycoon, 675,000 oz.; Everett Sanders, chairman of the Republican National Committee, 75,000 oz.

Monday, Sep. 03, 1934

Prior to March 4, 1933, when a statesman solemnly announced that he favored upholding the Constitution, U. S. citizens quietly turned to their sports pages and forgot him. If he asserted that the Government ought to protect property rights, ought to encourage men to earn, save, acquire and keep property, he could not stir even a flutter of interest. <h3>But last week when six eminent gentlemen propounded these propositions they made front-page news. Finally it seemed as if the New Deal were to meet something more potent than the disorganized opposition of Herbert Hoover's well-beaten henchmen.

A strange political nosegay were the six gentlemen:

John William Davis, Democratic nominee for President in 1924, Morgan attorney, a high-minded and thoroughly conservative Democrat.

Jouett Shouse, active head of the Democratic National Committee during the Raskob regime, who, upon his ousting at Chicago, consolidated the Wets for the final drive upon the 18th Amendment.</h3>

Alfred Emanuel Smith, most famed Democratic liberal until the New Deal shoved back the liberal frontier and moved out on the Santa Fe trail of experiment.

James Wolcott Wadsworth, well-born Republican conservative who opposed Al Smith in the New York Legislature, served twelve years as a U. S. Senator, started his political career all over again in the House last year and is today probably the most notable member of his party in that chamber.

Nathan Lewis Miller, onetime (1921-23) Republican Governor of New York, who now serves U. S. Steel Corp. as its chief counsel.

Irenee du Pont, of the Delaware du Fonts, Republican in days gone by, but a supporter of Smith in 1928, of Roosevelt in 1932; a generous donor to what he considers worthy causes.....

Monday, Jan. 21, 1935

"The League is in no sense a political party," insisted the American Liberty League's President Jouett Shouse last week. "It has no intention of placing its own candidates in the field for any public office." Just to be on the safe side, however, President Shouse filed with the clerk of the U. S. House the League's annual financial report required of all political organizations under the Federal Corrupt Practices Act. Some League investors:

Irénée du Pont $5,000 Lammot du Pont 5,000 Edward F. Hutton (General Foods) 5,000 Sewell Lee Avery (Montgomery Ward) 5,000 George Monroe Moffett (Corn Products) 5,000 Rufus Lenoir Patterson 2nd (American Machine & Foundry) 5,000 Samuel Bayard Colgate (Colgate-Palmolive-Peet) 5,000 Robert Sterling Clark (broker) . . 4,900 Archibald M. L. du Pont 2,500 Hal Roach (cinema comedies) . . 2,500 William Lockhart Clayton (cotton broker) 1,000 Renée W. Baruch (daughter) . . . 100 Mrs. Clarence Mackay 100

Nothing but their names gave the League's well-to-do founders John W. Davis, James W. Wadsworth and Alfred E. Smith. Founder-President Shouse received a salary of $12,000 for Sept. 15-Dec, 29, plus $6,000 traveling expenses.

Helpful Harold
Monday, Dec. 16, 1935

...."Liberty League—A term of unconscious humor applied to itself by a group of multimillionaires and their worshipful hangers-on who indignantly insist that the Federal Constitution is an instrument written by Alexander Hamilton for the exclusive protection of large aggregations of property, howsoever acquired.

State of the Union Address
Franklin D. Roosevelt

3 January 1936

Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives:

..Now, after thirty-four months of work, we contemplate a fairly rounded whole. We have returned the control of the Federal Government to the City of Washington.

To be sure, in so doing, we have invited battle. We have earned the hatred of entrenched greed. The very nature of the problem that we faced made it necessary to drive some people from power and strictly to regulate others. I made that plain when I took the oath of office in March, 1933. I spoke of the practices of the unscrupulous money-changers who stood indicted in the court of public opinion. I spoke of the rulers of the exchanges of mankind's goods, who failed through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence. I said that they had admitted their failure and had abdicated.

Abdicated? Yes, in 1933, but now with the passing of danger they forget their damaging admissions and withdraw their abdication.

They seek the restoration of their selfish power. They offer to lead us back round the same old corner into the same old dreary street.

Yes, there are still determined groups that are intent upon that very thing. Rigorously held up to popular examination, their true character presents itself. They steal the livery of great national constitutional ideals to serve discredited special interests. As guardians and trustees for great groups of individual stockholders they wrongfully seek to carry the property and the interests entrusted to them into the arena of partisan politics. They seek--this minority in business and industry--to control and often do control and use for their own purposes legitimate and highly honored business associations; <h3>they engage in vast propaganda to spread fear and discord among the people--they would "gang up" against the people's liberties.</h3>

The principle that they would instill into government if they succeed in seizing power is well shown by the principles which many of them have instilled into their own affairs: autocracy toward labor, toward stockholders, toward consumers, toward public sentiment. Autocrats in smaller things, they seek autocracy in bigger things. "By their fruits ye shall know them."

If these gentlemen believe, as they say they believe, that the measures adopted by this Congress and its predecessor, and carried out by this Administration, have hindered rather than promoted recovery, let them be consistent. Let them propose to this Congress the complete repeal of these measures. The way is open to such a proposal.

Let action be positive and not negative. The way is open in the Congress of the United States for an expression of opinion by yeas and nays. Shall we say that values are restored and that the Congress will, therefore, repeal the laws under which we have been bringing them back? Shall we say that because national income has grown with rising prosperity, we shall repeal existing taxes and thereby put off the day of approaching a balanced budget and of starting to reduce the national debt? Shall we abandon the reasonable support and regulation of banking? Shall we restore the dollar to its former gold content?...

Monday, Jan. 13, 1936
League's Lenders

All it takes to start a political organization are two members and one slogan. But to keep a political organization alive requires real money. Very much alive, therefore, was the American Liberty League according to its year-end financial report filed with the Clerk of the House of Representatives last week. The League had taken in $483,175.46 in 1935, still had more than $93,000 in the bank.

Biggest single outlay: $36,750 salary and $18,000 expenses for cold-eyed President Jouett Shouse. Biggest single item of income: a $79,750 "loan" from Irenee du Pont. League lenders in the $10,000 class included Lammot, Pierre, S. Hallock and William du Pont, John J. Raskob, Alfred P. Sloan Jr., Ernest T. Weir, Joseph E. Widener, all good haters of the New Deal. In the $5,000 class were Phillips Petroleum Co. and Edward F. ("Let's Gang Up") Hutton.

The Scripps-Howard press and its United Press wire service, an exception to the
... a story headlined: "Liberty League Controlled by Owners of $37,000,000,000.

Monday, Jul. 31, 1939

Hearing that Democratic Chairman James Aloysius Farley, GOP Chairman John D. M. Hamilton, Liberty Leaguer Jouett Shouse, Stiff-necked Democratic Senator Joseph O'Mahoney, Republican Congressman Ham Fish and John and Anna Roosevelt were all sailing for Europe on the same ship, Franklin D. Roosevelt remarked : "That will be a great boatload," observed that if someone didn't get thrown overboard before the ship reached Southampton he would miss a guess. It would not, he predicted, be Jim Farley....

TITLE 1934: The Plot Against America
BY Scott Horton
PUBLISHED July 28, 2007

....A story in the New York Times and several other newspapers reported on it, and a special Congressional committee was created to conduct an investigation. The records of this committee were scrubbed and sealed away in the National Archives, where they have only recently been made available.

The Congressional committee kept the names of many of the participants under wraps and no criminal action was ever brought against them. But a few names have leaked out. And one is Prescott Bush, the grandfather of the incumbent president. Prescott Bush was of course deep into the business of the Hamburg-America Lines, and had tight relations throughout this period with the new Government that had come to power in Germany a year earlier under Chancellor Aldoph Hitler. It appears that Bush was to have formed a key liaison for the group with the new German government.

Prescott Bush, of course, went on to service as a U.S. Senator from Connecticut, and his son, George H.W. Bush emerged from World War II as a hero.

The Plot Against America portrayed in this episode of the BBC series “Document” gives fascinating insight into a dark and little known piece of American history in which the nation stood on the brink of betrayal. The role of the most powerful political dynastic family in the nation’s history in this whole affair is shocking.

Published on Thursday, August 2, 2007 by CommonDreams.org
The Threat of U.S. Fascism: An Historical Precedent
by Alan Nasser

Perhaps the most alarming slice of twentieth-century U.S. history is virtually unknown to the general public, including most scholars of American history. One hopes that a recent BBC documentary titled The Plot Against America and an article of the same name by Columbia Law School professor and longtime human rights activist Scott Horton, on the website of Harper’s magazine, will sound an alert.

In 1934 a special Congressional committee was appointed to conduct an investigation of a possible planned coup intended to topple the administration of president Franklin D. Roosevelt and replace it with a government modelled on the policies of Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini. The shocking results of the investigation were promptly scotched and stashed in the National Archives. While the coup attempt was reported at the time in a few newspapers, including The New York Times, the story disappeared from public memory shortly after the Congressional findings were made available to president Roosevelt. It was the recent release from the Archives of the Congressional report that prompted the BBC and Horton commentaries.....

....Today’s Democrats’ abdication of the role of opposition party is far more consequential than Roosevelt’s decision to permit our embryonic fascists to continue to gestate. The difference between FDR and his Republican antagonists was far greater than the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats today. Today’s Democrats have internalized and identified with the interests of those whom they should be actively mobilizing the population against. The Republocrats are now all of them heir to the fascist instincts inherent in the ruling elite. Republican elites manifest this in their policies as the party in power; Democratic elites evidence their unsavory class heritage by railing ritualistically against the Republicans even as they betray their fed-up constituencies by supporting the fundamental policies of their alleged “opponents”.

Effective opposition at the current historical juncture requires the only force capable of defeating the neoliberal and imperialist obsessions of the mainstream parties and their financial masters: street politics, the mobilization and eventual organization of the people against a ruling establishment seen by an increasing number of Americans as terminally corrupt and indifferent to their most pressing needs.

Lest this popular disaffection be siphoned into an impotent and resigned cynicism, it would seem that intense educational efforts regarding the desirability and possibility of a third party, a genuine party of labor, become a priority for serious progressives. MoveOn must yield to MoveBeyond. As harder economic times threaten the not distant future, the economic stagnation and austerity that is fertile soil for the growth of fascist politics poses an unmistakbly clear and present danger. Thinking and acting outside the political box has never been as pressing an impertive as it is now.

<i>Alan Nasser is professor emeritus of Political Economy at The Evergreen State College in Olympia Wa.</i>
May 24, 1994
Villalba Journal; How Don Calo (and Patton) Won the War in Sicily

Biagio Plumeri sits at the desk of the man a lot of people around here regard as a key to the Allies' speedy occupation of Sicily in World War II.

Mr. Plumeri, a 55-year-old tomato farmer who has been part-time mayor on and off since 1967, is not much troubled that President Clinton will not stop at Villalba in June when he visits Italy to help celebrate the 50th anniversary of the liberation of Rome by Allied forces.

Mr. Clinton, who will attend the D-Day commemorations in France, plans to visit Anzio and Nettuno, the beaches between Rome and Naples where Allied forces went ashore on the Italian mainland in January 1944. But the Allies actually stepped into Europe six months earlier, on July 9-10, 1943, when American soldiers of Gen. George Patton's Seventh Army and British troops of Gen. Sir Bernard Montgomery's Eighth Army made amphibious landings at Licata and Gela and along the beaches of Sicily's southern coast. A month later, the island was in Allied control.

"We don't really mark the day," Mayor Plumeri admitted.

Villalba's moment of glory came in 1943 because of one of Mr. Plumeri's predecessors, a prosperous local farmer named Calogero Vizzini, known locally as Don Calo. Mussolini's Fascists hated him; the American invaders named him Mayor, and most people around here say he was considerably more than just a footnote in the history of the invasion.

"They came up Route 121 from Caltanissetta, armored vehicles, jeeps," Mr. Plumeri recounted, mixing childhood memories with what older folks had told him about that sunny day. "One tank was hit near the turnoff when the Germans took them under fire, and a soldier died.

"One guy took a white sheet and fixed it to a pole, and we all walked out, even us little kids, like a parade. They only stayed 24 hours, and then pushed on to Palermo. But they named Don Calo mayor."

Don Calo, he said, had established his fortune in the town in 1922, before the Fascists came to power, when he led disgruntled peasants who grabbed land from the aristocratic absentee landlords. Every peasant got a plot, he said, but Don Calo, with characteristic forethought, kept more than 12,000 acres, for himself.

Among those who remember, sitting like lizards in the sun on benches around the town's main piazza, dressed in the customary black cardigans and soft peaked caps, oral history is at best an inexact science. But Don Calo is recalled as a kind of St. Francis in baggy high-rise trousers and suspenders.

"Don Calo was a magnanimous person, a good man, not vindictive, despite the many outrages committed," said Giuseppe Selvaggio, 72, who deserted his Italian Army unit in Rome at the twilight of the war and walked 40 days home to Sicily.

Sitting in the Catholic Men's Social Club, he described Don Calo as an indulgent man. "When the Fascist mayor and political secretary were supposed to be arrested," Mr. Selvaggio said, "Don Calo told the Americans: 'Let them go. They're good people. They aren't molesting anyone.' "

"The Vizzini family was anti-Fascist," he recalled. "They struggled against Mussolini, especially Calo Vizzini. He was under house arrest on his own property."

For decades after the war Vill alba's politics were rock-solid Christian Democratic, though in the last elections the majority voted for Silvio Berlusconi, the tycoon-turned-politician who is Prime Minister of a right-wing coalition. But no one ever much liked the Fascists around Villalba.

When Don Calo died in 1947, a death notice read: "He received from friends and foes alike, that most beautiful of all tributes: He was a gentleman."

Indeed, dozens of anti-Fascists like Don Calo were named mayors when the Americans arrived in Sicily, including Don Calo's friend Giuseppe Genco Russo, who was appointed mayor over in Mussomeli, a nearby farming village.

But in 1974, an Italian parliamentary commission investigating the resurgence of organized crime concluded that at the time of his appointment during the American Seventh Army's one-day visit to Villalba, Don Calo had probably been the boss of all bosses of the Mafia. Mr. Genco Russo, who later succeeded him, was at the time his No. 2.

When the black market sprouted in postwar economic confusion, the commission said, Don Calo's men ran it. When the Communists held a rally in Villalba in September 1944 that ended in a shootout, it said Don Calo probably sent in the gunmen.

In his book, "Crime in America," Senator Estes Kefauver wrote how in the course of investigating organized crime in the United States, he found indications that American intelligence agencies used Mafiosi to contact anti-Fascist figures in Sicily before the invasion. That could explain why Sicily fell rather quickly.

Senator Kefauver said that Moses Polakoff, the lawyer for Meyer Lansky, had told him about being a go-between for Naval Intelligence with Lucky Luciano, who was born the next big town up from Villalba.

After the war, stories sprouted and became legend. One had it that when the American tanks arrived in Villalba, Luciano himself jumped from one of them to embrace Don Calo.

Most historians caution against such reports. But Nicola Cattedra, a former editor of l'Ora, a Palermo paper, and author of the book "The Black Line," has revived the debate.

"I don't want to criminalize the United States," Mr. Cattedra said. "But they met formidable resistance, and then after only a very few days, they arrived in Palermo. The Americans wanted to win the war, and they found a group within the country that counted."

Congressional Investigator Jack Blum's
Prepared Statement
The following text is an electronic reproduction of the statement prepared by Jack Blum for his testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on October 23, 1996

Statement of Jack A. Blum, Esq.
Former Special Counsel
Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on Drug Trafficking and the Contra War

October 23, 1996

My name is Jack A. Blum. I am a partner in the Washington D.C. law firm of Lobel, Novins & Lamont. From January of 1987 to May 1989 I served as the Special Counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In that capacity I staffed the investigation by the Subcommittee on Narcotics, Terrorism, and International Operations into whether the effort to achieve foreign policy objectives had interfered with law enforcement efforts to control the flow of narcotics into the United States.

From time to time we have trained groups to run a covert operation. When the operation is over we have had a "disposal" problem. The difficulty has been finding safe and useful work for people trained in the arts of killing, smuggling, and bomb making. Our disposal efforts have been only marginally successful and covert operations alumni have peopled the ranks of criminal organizations for decades.

<i>Comments: Yes, and these alumni seem to creep back into future covert operations.</i>

The first marriage of obvious marriage of convenience was the Lansky-Luciano cooperation with the Office of Naval Intelligence during World War II. Meyer Lansky brokered a deal for Lucky Luciano that allowed Luciano to be freed on parole and deported to Italy in exchange for intelligence information and protection against axis spies on the docks of New York. Luciano delivered and he was freed to resume his criminal career in Sicily. Part of that career included the post war reintroduction of heroin to the United States.

<i>Comments: I'm sure the Congressmen knew the rest of the Meyer Lansky story: Lansky settled in Cuba, where his mob activities (prostitution, gambling and narcotics) played a central role in supporting the Batista regime. Finally the Cuban people revolted, and Fidel Castro came to power. Escaping Castro's rise to power, the Lansky mob moved on to run rackets in Miami.</i>

That was followed by covert assistance to the organized criminal gangs in the port of Marseilles. The gangs opposed the Communist unions and helped ensure that France stayed in the non-communist world. The gangs also went on to become the "French connection" in the heroin trade. We worked with the Japanese Yakuza to contain the communists in Japan after World War II. The Yakuza became a major source of methamphetamine in Hawaii.

Khun Sa, the well known leader of the heroin business in the golden triangle succeeded in the heroin business because of American and French support for remnants of the defeated Kuomintang Chinese army that fled across the border to Burma when Mao took over and the rest of the nationalists went to Taiwan. We are still living with the resulting heroin problem even though our ally has just retired from the trade.

To quote Al McCoy:

In retrospect, the entire Burma operation of the 1950s appears as one of the most dismal episodes in the history of the CIA. At the most basic level, the KMT's rag-tag invasion was easily repulsed by Yunnan provincial militia after an advance of only sixty miles, thus failing in its main mission of drawing regular Chinese forces away from the Korean front. Although this disaster contributed to the abolition of the responsible CIA affiliate, the Office of Policy Coordination, the agency's internal review failed to grasp the full implications of the Burma operation. Drawing upon an interview with CIA veteran Tom Braden, one historian explained that the CIA would not admit that the KMT campaign had become "a drug producing operation" and later "hatched elaborate plans for the army, knowing full well they were engaged in nonsense but not prepared to jeopardize careers ... by admitting to so monumental a mistake." By failing to repudiate the KMT and its involvement in the opium trade, the CIA had, in effect, created precedent that would allow later covert operations to become similarly compromised. [1]

The story of the connection between our covert allies in the Vietnam war especially the hill tribes in Laos -- and the drug trade, has been documented in Al McCoy's book "The politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia." It has also been mocked in the movie "Air America". Returning Vietnam veterans brought a heroin epidemic home with them.

More recently our efforts in Afghanistan have helped turn the region into one of the world's largest producers and exporters of heroin. The war focused the Afghan farmers on their best crop - opium poppy. The poppy requires little attention. Opium paste is light weight is very valuable and can be moved to market over high mountains on the backs of donkeys. It is the perfect crop for people fighting a guerrilla war. That covert" operation has also produced a bumper crop of terrorists trained by us. They turned against us and everything Western the minute the Russians left Afghanistan. These folks brought us the World Trade Center, bombings in Paris, Cairo, Bombay, Saudi Arabia, and on two Air India flights. There have been assassinations of Americans here and in Karachi. If there was a "disposal" effort in Afghanistan it was pretty dismal. .....
John Hindraker of powerlineblog, in the opening article was quoted as saying that a future republican president will have a much easier time, dealling with "honest" businessmen, before lumped senate democratic majority leader, Harry Reid, into a separate group of the "hard to trust"...along with Putin and bin Laden. Newly appointed Attorney General Mukasey came out in senate questioning as saying , when it comes to torture, the president is above the law.

What has changed in the last 80 years? The chairman of he biggest US bank in 1932 was investigated and prosecuted by <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=2357006&postcount=29">Ferdinand Pecora</a> for the crimes of bringning down investors, rigging markets, and misrepresenting valuations of securities, just as we see happning now, and seven years ago, in the Enron collapse. Now, as in those times, the criminal business people finanace the campaigns of and sit next to the elected officials who are supposed to be representing us.

Today, the powerful wealthy conservative cabal is represented by Council for National Policy, and 70 years ago, it was something called American Liberty League. The message and goals are always the same, fear used to leverage political control, war with "blowback" as we see with the military and CIA partnering with mafia eingpin Lucky Luciano and a Sicilian Don, for convenience sake. The result was the resurgence of the mafia in Italy and in the US and Cuba, and the heroin trafficking in Cuba that put drugs on US streets and hastened Castro's ousting of Batista, in Cuba.

Through all 80 fucking destructive and costly years of it, we should learn that these manipulative, selfish, aggressive assholes are not out to "lead" us, they think we are expendable "marks". Notice the move to persuade the US treasury in the '30's to push up silver prices by more than double. Who would benefit?

Notice that money party democrats were then and now, on the same page, working an agenda that benefited only their wealthy patrons and themselves, as their equally corrupt, greedy and cynical republican "partners".

We won't stop them by waging a "war on terror" in Iraq and Afghanistan, or by passing a 4th amendment busting, telecom amnesty included permanent FISA neutered bill. The guns need to be shifted from the "brown people" that they are pointed at now, and instead trained on these fucking great grandsons of the criminal parasites who were sucking the wealth out of the country, back in the '30's.

<h3>How do some of you still buy their shit?</h3> It is as plain as day that we could bring home the troops, restore the tax rates to where they were on Jan. 20, 2001, and the military budget to where it was thens, and launch some investigations with real teeth, after the DOJ is purged of politcal operatives and attempt to govern ourselves and end this cycle.

It's getting so old, and it's killing our future.

Last edited by host; 02-01-2008 at 05:38 AM..
host is offline  
Old 02-02-2008, 12:34 AM   #2 (permalink)
Location: a little to the right
It's not really killing our future. I appreciate how hard it is to feel like things are improving, especially while processing the glut of information that's available these days, but things really are improving the world over. From time to time all populations have to be reminded how vital our rights are. People strive for stasis and comfort in their lives, and in a democracy it's especially easy to fall into a state of complacency. There's work to be done, and there are very real problems in our politics and our bureaucracy, but northing so dire it can't be fixed. It's easy to understand why you sense a cabal, some type of guiding cadre, but it's just people being people. While Bush and his administration have likely broken laws, certainly subverted the spirit of the constitution, they are going to be gone in a year. Banks and corporations have always sacrificed ethics for profits. In the same vein, journalists, pundits and politicos use sensationalism and alarmism to peddle their wares.
In heaven all the interesting people are missing.
Friedrich Nietzsche
pr0f3n is offline  
Old 02-03-2008, 08:36 PM   #3 (permalink)
Originally Posted by pr0f3n
.... It's easy to understand why you sense a cabal, some type of guiding cadre, but it's just people being people. .....
I could not disagree with you more, and I can make a reasonable case to support my contrary opinion:

The History Channel:The Plot to Overthrow FDR
43 min - Sep 20, 2006

This post is a presentation about the corporatist "bi-partisan" plot to overthrow FDR's government in 1934 and install a fascist dictatorship in it's place. The point of this thread is that the paranoia, propaganda, and political ambition of the wealthy conservative segment in this country, was and is a cancer fomenting war and the threat of war for the sake of the economic churning (opportunity) that enriches this segment with the wealth that buys the power and influence that controls the rest of us and has bankrupted the US treasury...

Plot Without Plotters
Monday, Dec. 03, 1934

....After these highly embarrassing incidents, General Butler found it best to resign from the Marines in 1931 to devote himself to politics and public speaking as a private citizen. In 1932 he went to Washington to harangue the Bonus Army, was an unsuccessful candidate for Senator from Pennsylvania on a Dry ticket. Last December he exhorted veterans: 'If the Democrats take care of you, keep them in —if not, put 'em out." In May the current Butlerism was: "War Is A Racket." Last month he told a Manhattan Jewish congregation that he would never again fight outside the U. S. General Butler's sensational tongue had not been heard in the nation's Press for more than a week when he cornered a reporter for the Philadelphia Record and the New York Post, poured into his ears the lurid tale that he had been offered leadership of a Fascist Putsch, scheduled for next year.

Congressmen Samuel Dickstein, from Manhattan's lower East Side, and John W. McCormack, from South Boston, picked up the fantastic story and summoned the doughty warrior from his home at Newtown Square, Pa., to a closed hearing of the Un-American Activities Committee.

The general began by saying that last summer Gerald McGuire, a bond salesman for G. M.P. Murphy & Co. of Manhattan, had approached him in behalf of a big private investor named Robert Sterling Clark, offered him $18,000 to address the American Legion convention in behalf of hard money. This the general refused to do. Then, said the general, McGuire. a onetime Connecticut Legion commander, had broached the big plan for the Fascist coup. Du Pont and Remington were putting up the arms. Morgan & Co. and G. M.P. Murphy & Co. were putting up $3,000.000 to raise an army of 500.000 veterans which apparently would be concentrated at Elkridge. If General Butler refused to be "the man on the White Horse" who would lead it into Washington and wrest the Government from Franklin Roosevelt, command would be offered to others in on the scheme—General Johnson, General MacArthur, the three ex-commanders of the American Legion. General Butler said he had "bided his time" until he had heard the whole plot, then made his revelations.


Thanking their stars for having such sure-fire publicity dropped in their laps, Representatives McCormack & Dickstein began calling witnesses to expose the "plot." But there did not seem to be any plotters.

A bewildered army captain, commandant at the Elkridge CCC camp, could shed no light on the report that his post was to be turned into a revolutionary base.

Mr. Morgan, just off a boat from Europe, had nothing to say, but Partner Lamont did: "Perfect moonshine! Too unutterably ridiculous to comment upon!"

"He had better be pretty damn careful," growled General Johnson. "Nobody said a word to me about anything of this kind, and if they did I'd throw them out the window."

G.M.-P. Murphy & Co.'s President Grayson Mallet-Prevost Murphy, Wartime lieutenant colonel, snorted: "A fantasy! . . . and I don't believe there is a word of truth in it with respect to Mr. McGuire."

Investor Clark, in Paris, freely admitted trying to get General Butler to use his influence with the Legion against dollar devaluation, but stoutly declared: "I am neither a Fascist nor a Communist, but an American." He threatened a libel suit "unless the whole affair is relegated to the funny sheets by Sunday."

"It sounds like the best laugh story of the year," chimed in General MacArthur from Washington.

From San Francisco, Socialist Norman Thomas wryly doubted that "it would be worth $3,000,000 to any Wall Street group to attempt to overthrow the Government under the present Administration, because Wall Street and Big Business have flourished under it more than any other group."

Dr. William Albert Wirt, Gary, Ind. school superintendent, who thought the Reds were about to capture the Government last spring, took a practical view of General Butler's Fascist uprising. "Three million dollars would be a mere bagatelle for a revolution," said he. "Why, that would be only $6 a head for an army of 500,000. . . ."

Only public figure to support General Butler's story was Commander James Van Zandt of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. He said he had known about the plot all along, that he had refused to participate in it.

Though most of the country was again laughing at the latest Butler story, the special House Committee declined to join in the merriment. Turning from the Fascist putsch yarn to investigate Communism among New York fur workers, Congressman Dickstein promised Commander Van Zandt a later hearing in Washington. "From present indications," said the publicity-loving New York Representative, "General Butler has the evidence. He's not making serious charges unless he has something to back them up. We will have some men here with bigger names than Butler's before this is over."
<h3>Although for months, the corporate news media delighted in making Major Gen. Smedley Butler look ridiculous, in a footnoot, at the bottom of yet another article painting Gen. Butler as a clown, Time magazine printed:</h3>
Monday, Feb. 25, 1935
"Names make news." Last week these names made this news:

...To Pittsburgh one morning went eagle-nosed Major-General Smedley Darlington ("Old Gimlet Eye") Butler, to speak at a banquet.* That same day Jimmy ("Schnozzle") Durante was appearing at a Pittsburgh theatre. Stepping off his train, General Butler thrust his head forward in characteristic pose, stomped down the platform. Loiterers, mistaking him for the well-publicized Durante, began to cheer. That evening nosey Comedian Durante turned up at the banquet where nosey General Butler was speaking. A cameraman snapped them nose to nose.....


....Also last week the House Committee on Un-American Activities purported to report that <h2>a two-month investigation had convinced it that General Butler's story of a Fascist march on Washington was alarmingly true.</h2>
The Plot to Seize the White House: The Shocking True Story of the ... - Google Books Result
by Jules Archer - 2007 - History - 256 pages
... his broadcast over WCAU on February 17, 1935, Butler revealed that some of the ... he growled, had "stopped dead in its tracks when it got near the top. ...

Home >
History Today > Magazine Online > Archives (1980-2008) > Volume: 45 Issue: 11 > An American Coup d'Etat?
Volume: 45 Issue: 11 | November 1995 | Page 42-47 | Words: 3980 | Author: Cramer, Clayton


Did America's far right plot a coup d'etat against Franklin Roosevelt and his new Deal -- only to be foiled by a retired Marine Corps general? Clayton Cramer lifts the lid on an intriguing but little-known tale.

Some Americans regard their country as superior to other nations because they do not change governments by coup d'etat and never have. Perhaps because of a long tradition of power changing hands by election, Americans regard their nation as immune to the use of force for political purposes. True, assassins have killed four presidents, but these deaths did not lead to turmoil and chaos; the government simply followed well-established procedures for transferring control to the vice-president. Unlike other nations where assassination often leads to civil war, the United States has avoided this.

How different is America from nations where political power comes quite directly 'from the barrel of a gun'? A curious footnote to American history suggests that, except for the personal integrity of a remarkable American general, a coup d'etat intended to remove President Franklin D. Roosevelt from office in 1934 might have plunged America into civil war.

This remarkable man was Smedley Darlington Butler, retired US Marine Corps Major-General. Butler is the sort of person for whom the word' colourful' is woefully inadequate. This is a man who won America's highest military award for bravery (the Congressional Medal of Honor) twice. His style of warfare was unusual not only for his personal courage, but for the energy he put into avoiding bloodshed when it was possible to achieve his aims in other ways. Not surprisingly, this engendered a remarkable loyalty among the men who served under him --and that loyalty was why certain men asked Butler to lead a military attack on Washington DC, with the goal of capturing President Roosevelt.

Butler was more than a remarkable soldier. He served as police commissioner of Philadelphia during 1924-25 (on loan from the Marines), in an attempt to enforce Prohibition. While the effort was a failure, his insistence on enforcing the law against wealthy party goers as well as poor immigrants established his reputation as a man of high integrity. He was not universally loved, but he was widely respected.

Butler is best remembered today for his oft-quoted statement in the socialist newspaper Common Sense in 1935:

I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half-a-dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-12. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras 'right' for American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested . . . Looking back on it, I felt I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate this racket in three city districts. We Marines operated on three continents.

In his book War Is A Racket, Butler argued for a powerful navy, but one prohibited from travelling more than 200 miles from the US coastline. Military aircraft could travel no more than 500 miles from the US coast and the army would be prohibited from leaving the United States altogether. Butler also proposed that all workers in defence industries, from the lowest labourer to the highest executive, be limited to 'thirty dollars a month, the same wage as the lads in the trenches get'. He also proposed that a declaration of war should be passed by a plebiscite in which only those subject to conscription would be eligible to vote.

From 1935 to 1937, Butler was a spokesman for the League Against War and Fascism, a Communist-dominated organization of the time. He also participated in the Third US Congress Against War and Fascism, sharing the platform with well-known leftists of the era, including the poet Langston Hughes, Heywood Broun and Roger Baldwin. When the Spanish Civil War threatened the collapse of the Soviet-supported Spanish government, the League's pacifism evaporated and they supported intervention. Butler, however, remained true to his belief in non-interventionism. 'What the hell is it our business what's going on in Spain?' he asked. But before Butler became involved in these causes, he had already exposed a fascist plot against his own government.

Butler had friends in the press and Congress, so he could not be ignored when he came forward in late 1934 with a tale of conspiracy against President Roosevelt, in which he had been asked to take a leading role. At first glance, Butler seems an unlikely candidate for such a position. Even though Butler was a Republican, in 1932 he campaigned for Roosevelt, calling himself a 'Republican-for-Ex-President Hoover'. (Butler had a poor relationship with Hoover going back to their time together during the Boxer Rebellion, when Hoover had been a civilian engineer in Peking and had behaved in a rather cowardly manner.)

But there were good reasons why someone seeking to overthrow the US government would have wanted Butler involved. Butler was a powerful symbol to many American soldiers and veterans -- an enlisted man's general, one that spoke out for their interests while on active duty and after retirement. Butler would have attracted men to his cause that would not otherwise have participated in a march on Washington.

Butler would also have been a good choice because of his military skills. His personal courage and tactical skill would have made him a powerful commander of an irregular army. Finally, his ties of friendship to many officers still on active duty might have undermined military opposition to his force, as friends and colleagues sought to avoid a direct confrontation with him.

Another reason that the plotters might have approached such an unlikely candidate was that Butler was not regarded as having a great intellect. After the First World War, the Marine Corps had began to emphasise a new college-educated professionalism. Butler, one of the old-style less educated 'bushwhacker' generals, might have seemed easy to manipulate.

Butler testified that bond trader Gerald MacGuire had approached him in the summer of 1933. MacGuire claimed to represent wealthy Wall Street broker Grayson Murphy, Singer sewing machine heir Robert Sterling Clark and other unnamed men of wealth. They asked Butler to speak publicly on behalf of the gold standard, recently abandoned by Roosevelt. MacGuire's rationale as to why Butler should ally himself with the gold standard cause was that the veterans of the First World War were due a bonus in 1945. As MacGuire told Butler, 'We want to see the soldiers' bonus paid in gold. We do not want the soldiers to have rubber money or paper money'.

It appears that the plotters underestimated Butler's intelligence and character. When this explanation failed to persuade Butler, MacGuire and Clark offered him money, abandoning any pretence of civic-mindedness. Butler's sense of honour prevented him from speaking in favour of any policy for mercenary reasons.

MacGuire eventually told Butler their real aim. MacGuire asked Butler to lead an army of 500,000 veterans in a march on Washington DC. The stated mission was to 'protect' Roosevelt from other plotters, and install a 'secretary of general welfare' to 'take all the worries and details off of his shoulders . . .' But Butler saw through their supposed concern for Roosevelt. He testified before COngress that he told MacGuire:

[M]y interest is, my one hobby is, maintaining a democracy. If you get these 500,000 soldiers advocating anything smelling of Fascism, I am going to get 500,000 more and lick the hell out of you, and we will have a real war right at home . . .

Yes; and then you will put Somebody in there you.can run; is that the idea? The President will go around and christen babies and dedicate bridges and kiss children. Mr. Roosevelt will never agree to that himself.

Butler deduced that the real goal was a coup to take Roosevelt captive and force reinstatement of the gold standard, the loss of which many wealthy Americans feared would lead to rapid inflation. The plotters would keep Roosevelt as a figurehead until he could be 'encouraged' to retire.

That MacGuire had significant financial backing behind him seems clear, considering the substantial bank savings books he showed to Butler. What remains unclear is whether the names MacGuire dropped (other than Robert Sterling Clark) were really involved, or whether MacGuire was a conman.

MacGuire's claims and financial resources alone did not convince Butler that such a conspiracy actually existed. The fulfillment of a series of startling predictions by MacGuire did finally persuade Butler that there was more than just hot air involved.

MacGuire knew in advance of significant personnel changes in the White House. He correctly predicted the formation of the American Liberty League (the major conservative opposition to Roosevelt) and the principal players in it. Especially disturbing was that many of the supposed backers of the plot were also members of the League. MacGuire's claim that the League was part of the plot could not be easily dismissed.

The American Liberty League was a successor to the highly effective Association Against the Prohibition Amendment, the lobbying organization responsible for the repeal of the 'Noble Experiment'. From its formation in 1918 until 1926, the AAPA made little progress, at least partly because it had little money. But from 1926 money poured into the AAPA from some of America's wealthiest men, including Pierre, Irenee and Lammot du Pont, John J. Raskob and Charles H. Sabin. The AAPA spent its new-found wealth on the distribution of literature and on the formation of a bewildering number of associated organizations. These gave the impression of a grassroots movement, rather than a collection of millionaires feeding press releases to friendly newspapers. The AAPA also rapidly took control of the Democratic Party, with one of their supporters, Al Smith, receiving the 1928 Democratic presidential nomination. While the AAPA had powerful friends within the Republican Party, they never achieved control of it.

The AAPA's motivations were a mixture of idealism and pragmatism. The stated concern was that Prohibition had done serious damage to the principle of federalism -- that the federal government's authority did not include the police powers used to enforce Prohibition. But it appears that this was not the only motivation, or even the reason most important to the men who funded the AAPA. Like many other Americans, these business leaders found themselves unable to gratify what seemed a natural, more or less innocent, desire without breaking a law (i.e. the consumption of alcoholic beverages).

To suddenly find themselves among the criminal classes was not pleasant to a group who had always thought of themselves as law-abiding and respectable members of American society. There is also strong evidence that the backers of the AAPA saw repeal as a method of reducing income and corporate taxes, by taxing alcohol instead.

The AAPA went out of business at the end of 1933, with the end of Prohibition. But within a year, from the same offices, with most of the same backers, many of the same employees and much of the same style, it reappeared as the American Liberty League. Throughout the next six years, it led the fight against the New Deal, arguing that much of Roosevelt's programme was contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution. In an age where Hitler and Mussolini had commandeered extraordinary economic powers, the fears that the American Liberty League expressed about Roosevelt's vaguely similar gathering of economic power could not be summarily dismissed.

The League, in spite of its impressive resources, was rapidly made to appear 'ridiculous or dangerous' or both by the Roosevelt administration. Most importantly, the leadership of the League was made up of largely rich men. The Depression-era gap between rich and poor had become too wide, too obvious and too painful for the League to be credible to the majority of Americans. Butler's testimony before Congress claimed that some of the people associated with the League were the very ones that had approached him -- including Grayson Murphy, the League's treasurer.

In the depths of the Depression, in that nadir of despair before Roosevelt gave his stirring first inaugural address in 1933, America was awash with political groups identifying in greater or lesser degrees with communism or fascism. Samuel Dickstein, the Democrat Representative for New York, concerned about the threat of such groups, persuaded the House of Representatives to create the Special Committee to Investigate Nazi Propaganda Activities in the United States. It was this committee which investigated Butler's charges in late 1934.

MacGuire, not surprisingly, denied that such a plot existed. Instead, he claimed his activities had been political lobbying to preserve the gold standard. But he quickly destroyed his credibility as a witness by giving contradictory testimony.

Yet while the final report agreed with Butler that there was evidence of a plot against Roosevelt, no further action was taken on it. The Committee's authority to subpoena witnesses expired at the end of 1934 and the Justice Department started no criminal investigation.

Part of the reason for the lack of prosecution of the alleged plotters may have been the untimely death of the only man who could have testified against the rest: Gerald MacGuire. He died at thirty-seven from complications of pneumonia, less than a month after the Committee released its report. MacGuire's physician claimed that his death was partly the result of the stress induced by the charges made by Butler, but there is no reason to assume that MacGuire's death was in any way suspicious.

The Committee's report excluded many of the most embarrassing names given by MacGuire and repeated by Butler. MacGuire had claimed that the 1928 Democratic presidential candidate Al Smith, General Hugh Johnson (head of Roosevelt's National Recovery Administration), General Douglas MacArthur and a number of other generals and admirals were privy to the plot.

Since Butler had no evidence of their involvement, other than MacGuire's claims, it was certainly reasonable for the Committee to exclude these details from the final report as 'certain immaterial and incompetent evidence'. But in conjunction with MacGuire's apparent advance knowledge of the details of internal White House staff activities, it certainly suggests that if a coup was planned, it had significant support within the Roosevelt administration.

The news media gave an inappropriately small amount of attention to the report. Time magazine ridiculed Butler's claims. The week following Butler's testimony, Time described it as a 'Plot Without Plotters', simply because the alleged plotters claimed innocence. But Time admitted that the Veterans of Foreign Wars Commander James Van Zandt confirmed that he, too, had been approached to lead such a march on Washington.

The leftist magazine New Masses carried an article by John Spivak that included wild claims of 'Jewish financiers working with fascist groups'. Spivak's article spun an elaborate web involving the American Jewish Congress, the Warburg family, 'which originally financed Hitler', the Hearst newspaper chain, the Morgan banking firm, the du Ponts, a truly impressive list of prominent American Jewish businessmen and Nazi spies. Spivak's article raised some disturbing and legitimate questions about why much of Butler's testimony was left out of the final committee report. But these important concerns were seriously undermined by Spivak's paranoid ravings. The left-of-centre magazines Nation and New Republic were unconcerned about the plot, since in their view 'fascism originated in pseudo-radical mass movements', and therefore could not come from a wealthy cabal.

Newspaper descriptions of the final report are also astonishing for how lightly most treated it. A New York Times article about subversion and foreign agitators started on the front page, but gave only two paragraphs to the coup plot inside the paper. 'It also alleged that definite proof has been found that the much publicised Fascist march on Washington . . . was actually contemplated'. It was not a major story.

The San Francisco Chronicle took the story more seriously. The only headline with a larger type size that day concerned the recent fatal crash of the airship Macon. The Chronicle carried an Associated Press story headlined, 'Justice Aides Probe Butler Fascist Story'. The first five paragraphs were devoted to Butler's allegations. The Chronicle quoted the Committee report that it 'was able to verify all the pertinent statements by General Butler, with the exception of the direct statement suggesting creation of the organization'.

A third newspaper showed an even more astonishing lack of interest than the New York Times: the Sacramento Bee used a substantially different Associated Press wire story that emphasized propaganda efforts by foreign agents. Another AP wire story, at the bottom of page five, described Butler's allegations, taking the Committee's report at face value. This wire story includes the comforting knowledge that the Committee found 'no evidence to show a connection between this effort' and any foreign government.

An apparently serious effort to overthrow the government, perhaps with the support of some of America's wealthiest men, largely substantiated by a Congressional Committee, was mostly ignored. Why? Roosevelt's Secretary of the Interior, Harold Ickes, wrote a book in 1939 about the concentration of American journalism. He claimed that, 'in 1934, eighty-two per cent of all dailies had a complete monopoly in their communities'. Newspaper chains, in Ickes' view, 'control a dangerously large share of the national daily circulation and in many cities have no competition'.

Ickes' book was largely devoted to proving that the major newspapers of the United States were intentionally distorting the news and, in some cases, directly lying. Ickes argued that newspaper editors did so in the interests of both their advertisers and in defence of the capitalist class. Ickes mentioned the Liberty League as one of the 'propaganda outfits' who were allied with the major newspapers. Indeed the New York Times, one of the papers that had downplayed the Committee's report, had editorialized in favour of the Liberty League's formation.

Did newspapers and magazines consciously play down the plot, because it represented an embarrassment to people of influence? Or did editors simply give it low visibility because they regarded it as an absurd story?

We must consider another disturbing possibility. Butler was associated with the loose alliance of progressive and populist forces that were dragging Roosevelt towards the left. It is easy to forget that for much of Roosevelt's first term as president from 1932-36, he was the rope in a tug-of-war between conservative and progressive forces in America. The popularity of men such as Senator Huey Long, the Democrat for Louisiana, and the nationally known radio priest Father Coughlin -- and the need to short-circuit their rising political power -- appears to have caused Roosevelt's increasingly leftward movement in 1935-36.

Is it possible that Butler concocted this story as a way of creating animosity towards conservatives by Roosevelt? If Butler had lied to the Committee and no such conspiracy was ever planned, why did MacGuire apparently perjure himself before the Committee? Or, alternatively, could left-leaning members of the Roosevelt administration have manipulated Butler into believing that such a plot actually existed as a way of creating animosity towards conservatives, thus dragging Roosevelt to the left? Either theory could explain why MacGuire, Murphy, Clark, or the other supposed plotters were never prosecuted.

Yet another possibility (though less likely) is that there was no prosecution because Roosevelt's own advisers had taken part in the plot, as MacGuire claimed. A criminal prosecution would have meant washing the Roosevelt administration's dirty laundry in public.

Butler's account of the MacGuire plot was a very serious accusation. If MacGuire had told Butler the truth, a large number of wealthy men had made serious plans to overthrow representative government in the United States -- though their concern that Roosevelt was creating a government in the style of Mussolini or Hitler might provide some legitimate reason for their actions. Why does this plot not appear in the history books? That conservatives might discount the plot is not unexpected; that liberals have tended to ignore it is a little more surprising.

It is hard to imagine how different American politics was in the 1930s. The collapse of the world economy had shaken the faith of many Americans in individualism and free-market capitalism. Many traditionalists, in the US and in Europe, toyed with the ideas of Fascism and National Socialism; many liberals dallied with Socialism and Communism. Prominent populists such as Huey Long and Father Coughlin sided with progressives in support of isolationism, redistribution of wealth and a federal government that would play a more active role in the American economy.

In hindsight, the moral and economic deficiencies of these various corporatist systems are now clear. In 1934, however, people of good will persuaded themselves that Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin were doing good, and ignored the great evils that were already underway. To turn over the rock exposing MacGuire's plot raises unpleasant questions about the political sensibilities of both right and left in 1930s America.

It would be tempting to write off this entire matter as a group of conmen separating wealthy conservatives from their money by pretending to hatch a plot against Roosevelt. But there are too many disturbing pieces of evidence in this tale that suggest that the Zeitgeist of the 1930s was not limited to Europe.

If MacGuire's claims to Butler were true, some US military commanders were prepared to stand aside while 500,000 veterans marched on Washington and took Roosevelt captive. (Between the World Wars, the United States Army was so small that 500,000 veterans might have given them a serious fight -- even if every officer remained loyal to Roosevelt).

But unlike many European countries, American government was highly decentralized in 1934, and this would have hindered any serious military action against the legitimate government. Every state governor had control of state militia units, armed with out-of-date, but still serviceable, military weapons.

In addition to the regularly organized state militias, the population of the United States, then as now, was heavily armed with the sort of weapons well suited to military operations. Whatever the advantages of the plotters' army of veterans, they would have been far outnumbered by the unorganized militia of the United States -- consisting of every US citizen between eighteen and forty-five, and legally obligated by state laws to fight at the order of the governor in the event of insurrection, invasion, or war.

But in a nation that was suffering from the ravages of the Depression, another model exists for what might have happened: the Spanish Civil War. The divisions over religion in America were not as dramatic as those that ripped apart Spanish society. But many Americans were beginning to lose their faith in American institutions -- as evidenced by the growth of American Nazi and Communist movements during the 1930s. It is frightening to think of what might have happened if a general as capable as Butler had become the man on a white horse.

In the words of US Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, delivered at New York University in 1960, concerning the protections of the US Bill of Rights:

I cannot agree with those who think of the Bill of Rights as an eighteenth century straitjacket, unsuited for this age . . . The evils it guards against are not only old, they are with us now, they exist today . . . Experience all over the world had demonstrated, I fear, that the distance between stable, orderly government and one that has been taken over by force is not so great as we have assumed.

Indeed, the plot that Butler exposed if what MacGuire claimed was true -- is a sobering reminder to Americans. They were not immune to the sentiments that gave rise to totalitarian governments throughout the world in the 1930s. It would be a serious mistake to assume 'It can't happen here!'


Jules Archer, The Plot To Seize The White House, (Hawthorn Books, 1973); Alan Brinkley, Voices of Protest, (Knopf, 1982); Smedley D. Butler, War Is A Racket, (New York, 1935); Hans Schmidt, Maverick Marine (University Press of Kentucky, 1987); George Wolfskill, The Revolt of the Conservatives: A history of the American Liberty League, 1934-1940 (Houghton Mifflin Co;, 1962); Eric Sevareid, Not So Wild a Dream, (Knopf, 1946).


By Clayton E. Cramer
The Plot to Seize the White House: The Shocking True Story of the ... - Google Books Result
by Jules Archer - 2007 - History - 256 pages
In addition to Butler and himself, Van Zandt told reporters, MacArthur, Colonel Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., and former Legion Commander Hanford MacNider had ...
Page 29
by Jules Archer - History - 2007 - 256 pages
He would be approached by one of MacGuire's envoys at the forthcoming VFW convention
in Louisville, Kentucky. Butler asked when the new ...
<h3>Read the testimony (from Macguire) and then post how credible it impresses you to be, responding to investigators' questions about the money that was shown to Ge, Butler, in the lower part of the page at this link:</h3>
McCormack-Dickstein Committee

.....Page 5

Paul Comley French, a reporter for the Philadelphia Record and the New York Evening Post, followed the general on the witness stand, testified that General Butler had spoken to him about this matter, and that they agreed that French should go to New York to get the story.

French testified that he came to New York, September 13, 1934, and went to the offices of Grayson M.-P. Murphy & Co. on the twelfth floor of 52 Broadway and that MacGuire received him shortly after 1 o'clock in the afternoon and that they conducted their entire conversation in a small private office.

French testified under oath, that as soon as he left McGuire's office, he made a careful memorandum of everything that MacGuire had told him.

French testified that MacGuire stated, “We need a fascist government in this country to save the Nation from the Communists who want to tear it down and wreck all that we have built in America. The only men who have patriotism to do it are the soldiers and Smedley Butler is the ideal leader. He could organize one million men over night."

Continuing, French stated that during the conversation MacGuire told him about his trip to Europe and of the studies that he had made of the Fascist, Nazi, and French movements and the parts that the veterans had played in them.

French further testified that MacGuire considered the movement entirely and tremendously patriotic and that any number of people with big names would be willing to help finance it. French stated that during the course of the conversation, MacGuire continually discussed "the need of a man on a white horse" and quoted MacGuire as having said "We might go along with Roosevelt and then do with him "what Mussolini did with the King of Italy."

MacGuire, according to French, expressed the belief that half of the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars would follow General Butler if he would announce the plan that MacGuire had in mind.

Toward the close of the conversation, French says that MacGuire told him that he was going to Miami for the American Legion convention and that he would try to see Butler before he left, but that Butler's being out of town prevented a meeting and that, so far as he knew, they had not seen each other since.....

MacGuire’s offer to overthrow the government

[edit] Page 18

cannot keep this racket up much longer. He has got to do something about it. He has either got to get more money out of us or ho hw got to change the method of financing the Government, and we are going to see to it that he does not change that method. He will not change it.

I said, "The idea of this great group of soldiers, then, is to sort of frighten him, is it?"

"No, no, no; not to frighten him. This is to sustain him when others assault him."

I said, "Well, I do not know about that. How would the President explain it? "

He said: "He will not necessarily have to explain it, because we are going to help him out. Now, did it ever occur to you that the President is overworked? We might have an Assistant President somebody to take the blame; and it things do not work out, he can drop him."

He went on to say that it did not take any constitutional chance to authorize another Cabinet official, somebody to take over the details of the office—take them off the President's shoulders. He mentioned that the position would be a secretary of general affairs— a sort of a super secretary.

The CHAIRMAN. A secretary of general affairs?

General BUTLER. That is the term used by him—or a secretary of general welfare—I cannot recall which. I came out of the interview with that name in my head. I got that idea from talking to both of them, you see. They had both talked about the same kind of relief that ought to be given the President, and he said: "You know the American people will swallow that. We have got the newspaper. We will start a campaign that the President's health is failing. Everybody can tell that by looking at him, and the dumb American people will fall for it in a second."

And I could see it. They had that sympathy racket, that they were going to have somebody take the patronage off of his shoulders and take all the worries and details off of his shoulders, and then he will be like the President of France. I said, “So that is where you got this idea ? "

He said; " I have been traveling around—looking around. Now about this superorganization—would you be interested in heading it?"

I said, " I am interested in it, but I do not know about heading it I am very greatly interested in it, because you know, Jerry, my interest is, my one hobby is, maintaining a democracy. If you gut these 500,000 soldiers advocating anything smelling of Fascism, lam going to get 500,000 more and lick the hell out of you, and we will have a real war right at home. You know that."

"Oh, no. We do not want that. We want to ease up on the President."

He is going to ease up on him.

“Yes; and thon you will put somebody in there you can run; U that the idea? The President will go around and christen babies and dedicate bridges, and kiss children. Mr. Roosevelt will never agree to that himself."

"Oh, yes; he will. He will agree to that."

[edit] Page 19

I said, “I do not believe he will." I said, “Don’t you know that this will cost money, what you are talking about?”

He says, “Yes; we have got $3,000,000 to start with, on the line, and we can get $300,000,000, if we need it."

"Who is going to put all this money up?”

“Well," he said, "you heard Clark' tell you ho was willing to put op $15 000,000 to save the other $15,000,000."

“How are you going to care for all these men ? "

He said, "Well, the Government will not give them pensions, or anything of that kind, but we will give it to them. We will give privates $10 a month and destitute captains $35. We will get them all right."

"It will cost you a lot of money to do that."

He said, “We will only have to do that for a year, and then everything will be all right again."

Now, I cannot recall which one of these fellows told me about the rule of succession, about the Secretary of State becoming President when the Vice President is eliminated. There was something said in one of the conversations that I had, that the President's health was bad, and he might resign, and that Garner did not want it anyhow, and then this supersecretary would take the place of the Secretary of State and in the order of succession would become President. That was the idea. He said that they had this money to spend on it, and he wanted to know again if I would head it, and I said, “No; I was interested in it, but I would not head it."

He said “When I was in Paris, my headquarters were Morgan & Hodges. We had a meeting over there. I might as well tell you that our group is for you, for the head of this organization. Morgan & Hodges are against you. The Morgan interests say that you cannot be trusted, that you will be too radical, and so forth, that you are too and I said, "No; I was interested in it, but I would not head it." much on the side of the little fellow; you cannot be trusted. They do not want you. But our group tells them that you are the only fellow in America who can get the soldiers together. They say, 'Yes, but he will get them together and go in the wrong way’ That is what they say if you take charge of them."

So he left me, saying, “I am going down to Miami and I will get in touch with you after the convention is over, and we are going to make a fight down there for the gold standard, and we are going to organize."

So since then, in talking to Paul French here—I had not said anything about this other thing, it did not make any difference about fiddling with the gold standard resolution, but this looked to me as though it might be getting near, that they were going to stir some of these soldiers up to hurt our Government. I did not know anything about this committee, so I told Paul to let his newspaper see what they could find out about the background of these fellows. I felt that it was just a racket, that these fellows were -working one another and getting money out of the rich, selling them cold bricks. I have been in 752 different towns in the United States in 3 years and 1 month, and I made 1,022 speeches. I have seen absolutely no sign of anything showing a trend for a change of our form of Government. So it has never appealed to me at all. But

[edit] Page 20

as long as there was a lot of money stirring around—and I had noticed some of them with money to whom I have talked were dissatisfied and talking about having dictators—I thought that perhaps they might be tempted to put up money.

Now there is one point that I have forgotten which I think is the most important of all. I said, "What are you going to call this organization?"

He said, “Well, I do not know."

I said, “Is there anything stirring about it yet." "Yes," he says; "you watch; in 2 or 3 weeks you will see it come out in the paper. There will be big fellows in it. This is to be the background of it. These are to be the villagers in the opera. The papers will come out with it." He did not give me the name of it, but he said that it would all be made public; a society to maintain the Constitution, and so forth. <h3>and in about two weeks the American Liberty League appeared, which was just about what he described it to be. We might have an assistant President, somebody to take the blame; and if things do not work out, he can drop him. He said, "That is what he was building up Hugh Johnson for. Hugh Johnson talked too damn much and got him into a hole, and he is going to fire him in the next three or four weeks."

I said, "How do you know all this?" "Oh," he said, "we are in with him all the time. We know what is going to happen."</h3>[deleted] They had a lot of talk this time about maintaining the constitution. I said, "I do not see that the Constitution is in any danger," and I ask him again, why are you in this thing?" He said, "I am a business man. I have got a wife and children."

In other words, he had had a nice trip to Europe with his family, for 9 months, and he said that that cost plenty, too.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you have any further talks with him?

General BUTLER. NO. The only other time I saw or heard from him was when I wanted Paul to uncover him. He talked to me and he telephoned Paul, saying he wanted to see him. He called me up and asked if Paul was a reputable person, and I said he was. That is the last thing I heard from him.

The Chairman. The last talk you had with MacGuire was in the Bellevue in August of this year?

General BUTLER. August 22; yes. The date can be identified,

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you, General Butler, for coming here this morning.

We will hear Mr. French.....

Captain Glazier’s testimony

[edit] Page 8

The CHAIRMAN. Did he say anything about what the form of the Government would be when they took the Government over?

Captain GLAZIER. Strictly a dictatorship—absolutely. That inference was very plain.

The CHAIRMAN. Did he say that?

Captain GLAZIER. Yes; he made the statement.

The CHAIRMAN. What did he say in connection with that?

Captain GLAZIER. He said that there ought to be one man who would run the country; and he would be the head of the organization.

The CHAIRMAN. He would be the head of the organization?

Captain GLAZIER. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Did he tell you who was the head of the organization?

Captain GLAZIER. Yes; he was the man.

The CHAIRMAN. He said he was the man ?

Captain GLAZIER. Yes. He was doing all of this.

The CHAIRMAN. Did he say anything about having an office anywhere outside of New York?

Captain GLAZIER. Yes. lie said that he had men all over the United States, and particularly I saw on this News Letter this office in Cincinnati.

The CHAIRMAN. In connection with this organization or this movement ?

Captain GLASSIER. Nothing except in this News Letter that he publishes.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all, captain; thank you.

We will hear General Butler.

[edit] Testimony of Maj. Gen. S. D. Butler (Retired)

[edit] Page 8.....

Deleted Text

^ ^ Text in BOLD is deleted excerpts.

"Suppression by the House Un-American Activities Committee took the form of deleting extensive excerpts relating to Wall Street financiers including Guaranty Trust director Grayson Murphy, J.P. Morgan, the Du Pont interests, Remington Arms, and others allegedly involved in the plot attempt. Even today, in 1975, a full transcript of the hearings cannot be traced."[1]

"Journalist John L. Spivak, researching Nazism and anti-Semitism for New Masses magazine, got permission from Dickstein to examine HUAC's public documents and was (it seems unwittingly) given the unexpurgated testimony amid stacks of other papers",[2] which he printed.
Butler in his own words, describing the plot, at 1:45 min. into this video:

Last edited by host; 02-03-2008 at 09:20 PM..
host is offline  
Old 02-03-2008, 10:14 PM   #4 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
Ustwo's Avatar
And here I thought it was Cthulhu.

Thanks for clarifying that.

I still buy their shit though. Your hostile posting style really leaves nothing to respond to, and in fact this isn't really a discussion, yet again, but a bully pulpit for your pet hatreds.
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 02-03-2008, 10:46 PM   #5 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
Willravel's Avatar
Originally Posted by Ustwo
And here I thought it was Cthulhu.

Thanks for clarifying that.

I still buy their shit though. Your hostile posting style really leaves nothing to respond to, and in fact this isn't really a discussion, yet again, but a bully pulpit for your pet hatreds.
Friendly reminder:
Originally Posted by Forum Rules
No baiting (trolling) - Posting comments with the intention to draw the ire of your fellow board members is just as bad as insulting them directly.
Originally Posted by Forum Rules
If you do not like a post for its content or its author, it's best to hit the back button on your browser rather than giving your heated two cents.

The first article makes me a little sick to my stomach.

I'm still threading the rest together for a bigger picture, but I'll get it.
Willravel is offline  
Old 02-03-2008, 11:18 PM   #6 (permalink)
Originally Posted by Ustwo
And here I thought it was Cthulhu.

Thanks for clarifying that.
I still buy their shit though. Your hostile posting style really leaves nothing to respond to, and in fact this isn't really a discussion, yet again, but a bully pulpit for your pet hatreds.
I guess If I agreed with this, from the first quote box in this thread's OP, i would be posting something similar to your sentiments:
.....They're treated very unfairly everywhere -- by the press, by colleges, by political elites, by other countries, by the U.N., by

minorities. <h3>There is no more besieged and victimized group anywhere on the planet than white, Christian, American conservative

males (except, perhaps, right-wing Jews, the only worthy competitor for the glorious mantle of Most Persecuted).</h3> Among other

things, <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={0D04F5F9-E7DC-4D8E-A7D8-209D50FF9BCD}">they must battle</a.

"the unholy alliance of leftists, Islamists and multiculturalist racial pressure groups."

Every institution treats them unfairly; every sector poses a threat to their Goodness; they are surrounded by soul-less Enemies

who wish to do them harm. <a href="http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/8627.html">Nobody</a> deserves the slightest sympathy -- <a href="http://instapundit.com/archives2/014735.php">nobody's plight merits the slightest concern</a> -- except for theirs. They are

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/opinion/31Cohen.html?hp">the best people on Earth -- actually, the best people ever in
all of human history. And everyone is against them.</a> Everyone is waging war on them. Enemies everywhere work together to

threaten and harm them. It's all deeply unfair. And they must wage vicious war -- against all the Enemies, Everywhere -- if they

have any hope of being protected.
Do you disagree with any of the description of Glenn Greenwald of the opinion of the people described above? Is Greenwald inaccurately describing how people who's views seem (to me, from reading your posts) of the world political dynamic, closely aligned with yours ?

Where does he have it wrong? Read in the way that Greenwald described it, can you not see, at all, how I could view this mindset as exactly backwards?

I am not the only one who sees what is really going on in the US, and has been since at least WWI.

From Gen. Butler's congressional committee testimony, in the last quote box, (page 20), in my last post:
....I said, “Is there anything stirring about it yet." "Yes," he says; "you watch; in 2 or 3 weeks you will see it come out in the paper. There will be big fellows in it. This is to be the background of it. These are to be the villagers in the opera. The papers will come out with it." He did not give me the name of it, but he said that it would all be made public; a society to maintain the Constitution, and so forth.
and in about two weeks the American Liberty League appeared, which was just about what he described it to be......
Ustwo, we have plenty to discuss. Mr. Shouse was an executive in the democratric party. I'd enjoy reading your opinion about why the NY Times had no interest in seriously reporting on Gen. Smedley butler's testimony in Washington, yet it was in the midst of publishing this flurry of articles about the "new organization" Mr. Shouse was fronting for, backed financially by the same men who Butler testified had attempted to persuade him to take their money for the work of mobilizing a veterans' army to serve as the muscle for their fascist coup:

Article available with Home Delivery/Times Reader subscription or for purchase. LEAGUE IS FORMED TO SCAN NEW DEAL, 'PROTECT RIGHTS'; Smith, Davis, Wadsworth and I. du Pont Among F... [PDF]

WASHINGTON, Aug. 22. -- A group of prominent Democrats joined a few Republicans today to incorporate the American Liberty League, intended, according to its incorporators, to combat radicalism, preserve property rights, uphold and preserve the Constitutio...View free preview
August 23, 1934 - Special to THE NEW YORK TIMES. - Front Page
Article available with Home Delivery/Times Reader subscription or for purchase. UNEXCEPTIONABLE AIMS. [PDF]

As certain of the New Deal theorists in-office became more articulate, and emergency laws began to grow hoary with age, the suggestion was increasingly heard that some of those who believe in the fundamentals of this country should form a sort of vigilanc...View free preview
August 23, 1934 - Editorial
Article available with Home Delivery/Times Reader subscription or for purchase. FINANCE WELCOMES LIBERTY LEAGUE; Leaders See in the Movement a Force for Conservatism in Fiscal Leg... [PDF]

Wall Street is favorably inclined toward the new American Liberty League, sponsored by Alfred E. Smith, John W. Davis, Irene du Pont and Representative James W. Wadsworth. It was learned yesterday that conferences were held with many leaders in the financ...View free preview
August 24, 1934 - Article
Article available with Home Delivery/Times Reader subscription or for purchase. 5 SENATORS COOL TO LIBERTY LEAGUE; ' Conservative' Democrats Call Shouse Organization a Move Agains... [PDF]

WASHINGTON, Aug. 23. -- Five Democratic Senators, who have at various times opposed administration legislation in connection with the New Deal, pledged their loyalty to President Roosevelt and his program today, and denied any intention to align themselve...View free preview
August 24, 1934 - Special to THE NEW YORK TIMES. - Article

Article available with Home Delivery/Times Reader subscription or for purchase. " Right" and "Left" Battle Seen. [PDF]

WASHINGTON, Aug. 23. -- The five Democratic Senators whose names had been mentioned in connection with the American Liberty League tonight affirmed their loyalty to the administration in a statement issued from the Democratic headquarters, in which each b...View free preview
August 24, 1934 - By The Associated Press. - Article
Article available with Home Delivery/Times Reader subscription or for purchase. Many Contributions Reported. [PDF]

WASHINGTON, Aug. 24. -- The enthusiasm with which financiers have welcomed the Liberty League emphasized its being considered conservative and destined to assume a critical role before Congress....View free preview
August 25, 1934 - By The Associated Press. - Article
Article available with Home Delivery/Times Reader subscription or for purchase. GROWING PAINS. [PDF]

" You are being mentioned for President," said a newspaper correspondent once to JOHN W. KERN in his office at Kokomo. "Who is mentioning me?" asked the Senator. "I am," was the reply. It is a good political trick that always works, and the press bureau o...View free preview
August 25, 1934 - Editorial
Article available with Home Delivery/Times Reader subscription or for purchase. ROOSEVELT TWITS LIBERTY LEAGUE AS LOVER OF PROPERTY; ' Love Thy Neighbor' Appears to Be Missing Fro... [PDF]

WASHINGTON, Aug. 24. -- The new American Liberty League is good so far as it goes, President Roosevelt suggested in comment at a press conference today. He indicated his belief that it laid too much stress on protection of property and too little on prote...View free preview
August 25, 1934 - Special to THE NEW YORK TIMES. - Front Page
Article available with Home Delivery/Times Reader subscription or for purchase. CAPITAL EXPECTS SMITH MOVE NEXT IN LIBERTY LEAGUE; Series of Speeches Carrying Organization's Case ... [PDF]

WASHINGTON, Aug. 26. -- This week is counted upon here to clarify whether the American Liberty League will precipitate the greatest conflict of constitutional and economic philosophy of the times....View free preview
August 27, 1934 - By The Associated Press. - Front Page
Article available with Home Delivery/Times Reader subscription or for purchase. PLEDGES POUR IN AT LIBERTY LEAGUE; Shouse Tells of 'Avalanche' of Messages From All Parts of Nation... [PDF]

An "avalanche of telegrams, letters and pledges of support, including many contributions," has swept in upon the founders of the American Liberty League since the announcement of its formation last week. Jouett Shouse declared yesterday....View free preview
August 29, 1934 - Article
Article available with Home Delivery/Times Reader subscription or for purchase. WADSWORTH FIGHTS 'NEW DEAL' IN STATE; Also Says He Runs Only for Congress, but Old Guard Do Not Des... [PDF]

BUFFALO, N.Y., Aug. 30 (AP). -- Disregarding the efforts of the Republican State chairman, W. Kingsland Macy, to restrict the Fall campaign to State issues, Representative James W. Wadsworth, Old Guard leader, has announced that he would lead a drive to m...View free preview
August 31, 1934 - Article
Article available with Home Delivery/Times Reader subscription or for purchase. SHOUSE ELECTED BY LIBERTY LEAGUE; Plans Educational Program With Widespread Organization in All Sec... [PDF]

WASHINGTON, Sept. 6. -- Jouett Shouse, who led the successful interim campaign against President Hoover from 1929 to 1932 and later directed the final assault of the wet forces against the Eighteenth Amendment, has been chosen president of the new America...View free preview
September 7, 1934 - Special to THE NEW YORK TIMES. - Article
Article available with Home Delivery/Times Reader subscription or for purchase. LEAGUE AIM TO END FEAR, SHOUSE SAYS; New Deal Policies Scored by Implication in Resume of Liberty G... [PDF]

WASHINGTON, Sept. 7. -- Implicit criticism of administration policies as embodied in operations of the NRA, the Agricultural Adjustment Act and the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 was voiced by Jouett Shouse, president of the American Liberty League, in a radio ...View free preview
September 8, 1934 - Special to THE NEW YORK TIMES. - Article

Article available with Home Delivery/Times Reader subscription or for purchase. Bond Club to Hear Shouse. [PDF]

View free preview
November 7, 1934 - Article
Article available with Home Delivery/Times Reader subscription or for purchase. In Washington; American Liberty League Soon to Begin Activities. [PDF]

WASHINGTON, Nov. 9. -- Now that the elections are over, something will soon be heard of the American Liberty League. Partly because of the unfortunate atmosphere that surrounded the announcement of its formation, the league was silent -- if not dormant --...View free preview
November 10, 1934 - By ARTHUR KROCK. - Article
Article available with Home Delivery/Times Reader subscription or for purchase. Bond Club to Hear Shouse. [PDF]

View free preview
November 20, 1934 - Article
Article available with Home Delivery/Times Reader subscription or for purchase. LIBERTY LEAGUE A TARGET.; New Representative Will Urge That It Account for Sponsorship. [PDF]

WASHINGTON, Nov. 20 (AP). -Frank E. Hook, Democratic Representativeelect from Michigan, said today that his first bill in Congress would be "to place the American Liberty League under the provisions of the Federal Corrupt Practices Act."...View free preview
November 21, 1934 - Article
Article available with Home Delivery/Times Reader subscription or for purchase. SHOUSE DEFENDS LIBERTY LEAGUE; It is 'Educational,' He Says, and Will Inform Congress of Its Views ... [PDF]

The purpose of the American Liberty League and the course it intends to follow were outlined to several hundred members of the Bond Club yesterday by Jouett Shouse, president of the league. He spoke at a luncheon at the Bankers Club, 120 Broadway....View free preview
November 21, 1934 - Article
Article available with Home Delivery/Times Reader subscription or for purchase. AMERICAN LIBERTY LEAGUE. [PDF]

View free preview
November 25, 1934 - By JOUETT SHOUSE. Speaking Before the Bond Club, He Submits That It Is Progressive and Constructive. - Editorial
Article available with Home Delivery/Times Reader subscription or for purchase. NEW DEAL IS TARGET FOR GRIDIRON CLUB; Roosevelt Hears Fun Poked at Policies and Aides at the Annual... [PDF]

WASHINGTON, Dec. 8. -- President Roosevelt, as guest of honor at the semi-annual Gridiron Club dinner tonight, came face to face with the man who publicly proposed that, by a simple constitutional change, Mr. Roosevelt be made a hereditary monarch, but wh...View free preview
December 9, 1934 - Special to THE NEW YORK TIMES. - Article
Article available with Home Delivery/Times Reader subscription or for purchase. SHOUSE FOR RELIEF RUN BY RED CROSS; In Speech at Boston He Says That Organization Should Handle Dir... [PDF]

BOSTON, Dec. 8. -- Transfer of direct relief distribution from government hands to those of the American Red Cross was urged tonight by Jouett Shouse, president of the American Liberty League, in a speech before the Beacon Society of Boston....View free preview
December 9, 1934 - Special to THE NEW YORK TIMES. - Article
Article available with Home Delivery/Times Reader subscription or for purchase. NYE SEES IN LETTER BY RASKOB 'BIRTH' OF LIBERTY LEAGUE; Enlistment of du Ponts and General Motors t... [PDF]

WASHINGTON, Dec. 20. -- Evidence viewed as giving the "birthplace and birth-time" of the American Liberty League, nonpartisan critic of some New Deal policies, was uncovered today by the Senate munitions inquiry in the form of some correspondence in which...View free preview
December 21, 1934 - Special to THE NEW YORK TIMES. - Front Page

Article available with Home Delivery/Times Reader subscription or for purchase. Chronological Survey of the Outstanding Financial Events of the Past Year; Incidents of a Confusing... [PDF]

The financial history of 1934 is told in the following columns, which give, so to speak, a bird's-eye view of the past year's notable financial developments. The narrative of each month is introduced by a summary of the period's general trend and statisti...View free preview
January 2, 1935 - Article
Article available with Home Delivery/Times Reader subscription or for purchase. SHOUSE BOOK ASKS BUREAUCRACY CURB; System Is at Record Height, He Says in 'You Are the Government,'... [PDF]

WASHINGTON, Jan. 1. -- The present economic emergency has led to the greatest development of bureaucracy in the history of this government, Jouett Shouse, president of the American Liberty League, declares in a book, "You Are the Government," which appear...View free preview
January 2, 1935 - Special to THE NEW YORK TIMES. - Article
Article available with Home Delivery/Times Reader subscription or for purchase. SHOUSE ASKS DEBT CHECK; Holds Roosevelt Work Relief Plan Depend on it. [PDF]

WASHINGTON, Jan. 4. -- Commenting on President Roosevelt's message, Jouett Shouse, president of the American Liberty League, expressed a view today that if the government did not increase the national debt beyond $31,834,000,000 by June 30, the work relie...View free preview
January 5, 1935 - Special to THE NEW YORK TIMES. - Article
Article available with Home Delivery/Times Reader subscription or for purchase. The Role of Citizen; YOU ARE THE GOVERNMENT. By Jouett Shouse. 122 pp. Boston: Little, Brown & Co. ... [PDF]

MR. SHOUSE'S explanation of the fundamental principles of the American system of government is distinctive in its constant endeavor to link the individual citizen to the processes of government and impress upon him his personal responsibility for the dire...View free preview
January 6, 1935 - Review
Article available with Home Delivery/Times Reader subscription or for purchase. TWO BOARDS LISTED BY LIBERTY LEAGUE; Many Open Foes of New Deal on Executive Committee and Advisory... [PDF]

WASHINGTON, Jan. 8 (AP). -- The American Liberty League today disclosed that many open anti-new dealers had become aligned with it to complete the organization of its executive committee and advisory council....View free preview
January 9, 1935 - Article
Article available with Home Delivery/Times Reader subscription or for purchase. SHOWS DU PONT AID TO LIBERTY LEAGUE; Shouse Report to House Lists $104,830 Gifts, Many From the Del... [PDF]

WASHINGTON, Jan. 10. -- The American Liberty League has received substantial contributions from several du Ponts, Hal E. Roach, motion picture producer, and numerous other persons, but nothing from Alfred E. Smith, one of its founders, or John W. Davis, a...View free preview
January 11, 1935 - Special to THE NEW YORK TIMES. - Article
Article available with Home Delivery/Times Reader subscription or for purchase. DEMOCRACY FACES END, SAYS SHOUSE; He Declares That Bureaucracy Will Displace It if Relief Bill is P... [PDF]

PHILADELPHIA, Feb. 4. -- Assailing the Roosevelt administration's $4,880,000,000 work-relief bill, Jouett Shouse, president of the American Liberty League, asserted here today, that the future of democracy in this country was bound up in the measure's fat...View free preview
February 5, 1935 - Special to THE NEW YORK TIMES. - Article
To distill this further, what has been happening at least since WWI is that the same song is financed and distributed to us, over, and over....in the current edition, it is about "Islamo Fascism". It knows no single political party, only the party of power and money, which are indistinguishable.

The corporate news media, is "not liberal", and neither is the democratic party. Quite the opposite is the truth. There is no "left" in the US, only the men with the shears, and the herd to be sheared. We're going to cover the 40's, 50's, and 60's, next. If you view it as "hate" posting, it is your reaction to information, well supported, reasonable, easy to defend.

Here's a preview, have you ever heard of this group?

I am trying to convey to you that I am not privy to exactly who calls the shots and what the agenda is, but I can post with a high level of confidence, and back it up....that the political dynamic in the US is not what you think it is, and the problems you perceive, (trial lawyers, and muslim extremists, for example) are the distractions, not the problems. <h3>The actual problems are the people who invest in steering you to focus on the "problems" of trial lawyers and muslim extremists....</h3>

Last edited by host; 02-03-2008 at 11:50 PM..
host is offline  
Old 02-04-2008, 04:15 AM   #7 (permalink)
Location: a little to the right
Originally Posted by host
I could not disagree with you more, and I can make a reasonable case to support my contrary opinion:
You've misunderstood me. I'm not saying there aren't rich and powerful people who wish to maintain their wealth and status, I'm saying they're nothing new, nothing interesting, and as evidenced by Gen. Butler, there are always people who resist.

There is nothing special about the Business plot, it's predecessors are riddled throughout history in every family, tribe, and country since time immemorial. From your posting I'd say your view of society is too narrow and short-term. How much do you know about the history of the world? It's been 230 years since our nation was founded (the first time!). When our vaunted Constitution was written, we codified the worth of a slave as 3/5 of a man and the disenfranchisement of women. It's been 90 years since women won suffrage and 44 years since all citizens were finally ensured their right to vote. What more basic a right is there in a representative republic than the right to vote, and 81% of our history had at least some form of legal disenfranchisement. Change comes slowly, from the bottom up, and we're just starting to get the basics right.

The rich have always had undue influence, have often caused the suffering of hundreds, thousands, even millions in the course of their pursuits. The industrial revolution gave rise to far greater concentrations of money and power in the merchant class, but they're just people, and their reigns are by structure ephemeral.

It's a miracle of our age that so much information is available to the working class. It's driving our governments to behave more ethically, and when they fail, at least in the western world, we have at our disposal orderly revolutions to usurp failed leaders. Now that the merchant class has grown to be more powerful, and proportionally less responsible to it's counterparts in society, we've started to push, from the bottom up, to restrain and correct that imbalance. We've only been at this struggle for 150 years, and won some major battles along the way (unions, Sherman Act, etc.).

It's been less than 100 years since we had a global pandemic. The spread of AIDS, though urgent in it's need for attention, pales in comparison to the Spanish flu. Literacy and suffrage has never been higher in the world. Every single health indicator since we began recording these statistics has risen steadily. We have a (mostly) neutral world diplomacy organization for crissakes.

I'm not saying there are no problems, or that they shouldn't be confronted aggressively. I'm saying we are confronting the social, economic, and political problems of the world as aggressively as is reasonably possible. When we read about the Business Plot, or Enron, or Duke Cunningham, or Alberto Gonzales it should cause outrage, it should heighten our vigilance, but don't go looking for the core of the problem. The core of the problem is evident and intractable: It's humanity, in all our imperfection, failing ourselves and each other. The core of the problem can't be solved, so we must work, in the system, to improve the system. To eliminate, to the best of our ability, user error. Once we've done everything, once all solutions have been implemented, if the system still fails, that's when we change things. To do so before hand is impetuous and cruel.

Originally Posted by host
I am trying to convey to you that I am not privy to exactly who calls the shots and what the agenda is, but I can post with a high level of confidence, and back it up....that the political dynamic in the US is not what you think it is, and the problems you perceive, (trial lawyers, and muslim extremists, for example) are the distractions, not the problems.

Again, you're too narrow and temporary in your analysis. What you're describing is demagoguery, and yes, it works, sadly, on a great swathe of the populace. You're perceiving the lie, and you're sensing who manipulates that lie, industrialists and politicians, but you're missing the point of demagoguery. People always need someone to blame. Politicians seize that fear and anger to garner votes. Merchants seize that fear and anger to sell their goods. You're doing no different, you're just demagoguing demagogists (demagoguerists?). Fear-monger the fear mongers. That's how Obama's winning, that's where Ron Paul's support came from, that's how politics works. The system works independently of demagoguery, and the better the demagogue, the less you notice the system working.
In heaven all the interesting people are missing.
Friedrich Nietzsche

Last edited by pr0f3n; 02-04-2008 at 04:26 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
pr0f3n is offline  
Old 08-30-2008, 12:10 PM   #8 (permalink)
roachboy, your World Health Org. article reinforces my theory about the American "one party: system:
Gore Vidal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"[t]here is only one party in the United States, the Property Party...and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt—until recently... and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties."
Our history shows that our presidents opted for the advice and practice of extreme right thugs, no matter what political party held the white house:

John J. McCloy and the "Splendid Reconciliation"

....As the United States began the transition from occupation to supervision a year later, McCloy became U.S. High Commissioner, a position that demanded the talents of a diplomat and administrator. McCloy was particularly effective as he enjoyed the confidence of and excellent relations with the President, the U.S. Army and Averell Harriman, the top administrator of Marshall Plan aid. He used his almost dictatorial powers to scrupulously promote the growth of German democracy and the rejuvenation of the German economy, even when it meant treading on dangerous political ground, as was the case when he overturned the Nuremberg judgements against the Krupp family. During his tenure, he helped lay the basis for the more "normal" relations that a sovereign German government would one day carry on with the new U.S. Embassy in Bad Godesberg....

The SS Brotherhood of the Bell: The ... - Google Book Search

...We do know what another prominent member of the Warren Commission was up to before the war: John J. McCloy. FOr those who may have forgotten, John J, McCloy was the post-war American Higher Commissioner for (West) Germany, and was responsible for pardoning many Nazis from their war crimes sentences in order to expedite their extradition to the U.S.A. and their use in Operation Paperclip and similar projects.

But before the war John J. McCloy was so highly placed, so "in" on the "inside track," that he managed to share a box with Adolf Hitler at the 1936 Berlin Olympics in what may have been his first television appearance. But why such high honors for an American lawyer? This is in part because he was an attorney for the German chemical cartel I.G. Farben before the war.

Ultimate Insider, Ultimate Outsider - New York Times
Ultimate Insider, Ultimate Outsider

Published: April 12, 1992

THE journalist Richard Rovere was once challenged to name the chairman of the Establishment, that predominantly WASP ruling class that for decades had steered American domestic and foreign policy. He pondered for a while. "Suddenly the right name sprang to my lips. 'John J. McCloy,' " Rovere declared. "My God, how could I have hesitated?"

It was a logical choice: John J. McCloy, the friend and adviser to nine Presidents, the Wall Street lawyer par excellence, the chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations (emblematic institution of the Establishment if ever there was one), the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation and the Chase Manhattan Bank, the president of the World Bank, the virtual dictator of postwar Germany for three years as commissioner of occupied Germany, a member of the Warren Commission . . . and the resume goes on and on.....

...As Mr. Bird writes, he was responsible "more than any other individual" for getting the President to issue the infamous Executive Order 9066, calling for the resettlement of more than 100,000 Japanese-Americans from the West Coast to "relocation centers" (or, as Roosevelt more bluntly called them, "concentration camps"). McCloy justified the decision by proclaiming, "If it is a question of safety of the country, [ or ] the Constitution of the United States, why, the Constitution is just a scrap of paper to me."...

.....He became a well-regarded corporate attorney at several New York law firms and joined all the right clubs. Recruited to Washington by Franklin D. Roosevelt's Secretary of War, Henry Stimson, McCloy was eventually appointed Assistant Secretary of War. Like Woody Allen's Zelig, he seemed to turn up everywhere -- smoking cigars with Churchill amid the ruins of the House of Commons; consulting with Charles de Gaulle, George Patton and George Marshall; participating in the discussions over whether to drop the atomic bomb on Japan.....

Ultimate Insider, Ultimate Outsider - New York Times

...In March 1945 Roosevelt greeted McCloy in the Oval Office with arm extended in a Nazi salute, saying, "Heil McCloy -- Hochkommissar fur Deutschland." McCloy declined the position, urging that Roosevelt pick a military man. But when Harry S. Truman offered him the same job four years later, he finally accepted, thus entering one of the most controversial periods of his long career.

AS High Commissioner for occupied Germany, McCloy granted clemency to dozens of Nazi war criminals. He freed, or reduced the sentences of, most of the 20 SS extermination squad leaders, whose crimes he freely conceded were "historic in their magnitude and horror." Of the 15 death sentences handed down at the Nuremberg trials, McCloy carried out a mere five. Of the remaining 74 war criminals who were sentenced at Nuremberg to prison terms, he let many go free -- most notoriously the industrialist Alfried Krupp, who had been sentenced at Nuremberg to 12 years in prison for using concentration camp inmates as slave labor. Krupp, accompanied by most of his board of directors, walked out of the Landsberg prison in 1951 to a cheering crowd and a champagne breakfast -- with his fortune and industrial empire intact.

Much of the world was outraged. "Why," Eleanor Roosevelt wrote to McCloy, "are we freeing so many Nazis?.....

Ultimate Insider, Ultimate Outsider - New York Times

....Throughout the late 1960's and the 70's, McCloy continued to exert an enormous influence on American foreign policy. In 1979, when David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger began pressing the Carter Administration to admit the deposed Shah of Iran to the United States for medical treatment (actually, for asylum), they asked McCloy to orchestrate the extensive lobbying effort. His motivations were not entirely disinterested: Milbank, Tweed provided legal counsel to the Shah, who also had billions of dollars on deposit with Chase. Every Christmas, the Shah sent his friend Jack McCloy five pounds of Beluga caviar....
The House That Krupp Rebuilt - TIME
Monday, Aug. 19, 1957
The House That Krupp Rebuilt

The wealthiest man in Europe—and perhaps in the world
—rose shortly before 8 one morning this week in a modest ranch-style house overlooking the city of Essen on West Germany's Ruhr River. Tall and spare, with steel-grey eyes and finely cut features, he slipped into a dressing gown and carefully selected an expensively tailored dark business suit from his wardrobe. After shaving, he sat down to his usual solitary breakfast of coffee and a single egg, read newspapers and personal mail as he ate. Though his normally taciturn air and faithfulness to morning routine gave little hint of it, the day was an important one in the life of Alfried Felix Alwyn Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach, ruler and sole owner of Germany's $1 billion Krupp industrial empire....

The House That Krupp Rebuilt - TIME
....Kruppianer Spirit. Krupp was confident from the first that his prison sentence would be reduced. In 1951. having made an investigation of Krupp's war guilt. U.S. High Commissioner for Germany John J. McCloy commuted the sentences of Alfried and his directors to time already served. Said Lawyer McCloy: "I can find no personal guilt in Defendant Krupp, based upon the charges in this case, sufficient to distinguish him above all others sentenced by the Nurnberg courts." He therefore ordered Krupp's property returned to him though Krupp later had to sign the Mehlen Accord which split up his empire. On a foggy February morning, after six years in prison, Krupp walked forth from Landsberg prison, went off with brother Berthold to a champagne breakfast in a nearby hotel. Said he to correspondents: "I hope it will never be necessary to produce arms again."

He began rebuilding the Krupp empire as soon as he was permitted to return to his Essen headquarters. To finance the comeback, he dug out the firm's accumulated deposits from still-existing bank accounts, borrowed upwards of $17 million from commercial banks, used the $2,600,000 that he (and each of his brothers and sisters) got from the Allied sale of Krupp properties. With the help of this capital and generous tax write-offs from the West German government, Krupp had spent some $40 million in plant rebuilding by 1955. Since 1954, the firm has been making a profit. ....

Krupp on the March -- Printout -- TIME
Monday, Jan. 19, 1959
Krupp on the March

"We have a moral obligation, and I will not look for escapes." Thus spoke West Germany's Alfried Krupp (TIME Cover, Aug. 19, 1957) of his pledge to the Allies to sell the coal and steel companies in his industrial empire. Last week, instead of selling, Alfried Krupp got permission from the High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community to buy another steelmaker. The firm: Bochumer Verein, Germany's biggest producer of special steel. The purchase would give Krupp the biggest steelmaking capacity (4,000,000 tons) in Europe.

The Allied ruling on Krupp, later written into German law, was designed to break up the huge combine that supplied Hitler with much of his arms. Krupp won extensions from the original March 1958 deadline by pleading he could not find a buyer for the Rheinhausen works, center of his coal and steel holdings. Permission for Rheinhausen to buy the new company made it almost certain that Krupp will not have to keep his promise to dispose of his coal and steel holdings this year. Said a Krupp spokesman: "The promise was given under compulsion."

The Allies themselves are divided on Krupp. Both the U.S. and France have let the West German government know that they are not opposed to letting Krupp keep his property. Only the British have insisted on holding Krupp to his promise. Since there is little they can—or want to —do about it, the Allies may now decide to release Krupp formally from his pledge. Krupp is already believed to own 75% of Bochumer Verein's stock, obtained through the good offices of his friend, Swedish Industrialist Axel Wenner-Gren.

The Big Eight. The trend toward reconcentration of West German industry affects more than Krupp. Eight big firms—Krupp (with Bochumer Verein), Dortmund-Horder Hlittenunion, Phoenix-Rheinrohr, Mannesmann, Hoesch Werke, Klockner-Werke, August Thyssen-Hütte, Hüttenwerk Oberhausen—control 75% of West Germany's steel production, almost 40% of German coal.

To make the ring even tighter, August Thyssen-Hütte, one of the keystones of a huge Third Reich steel combine of 177 companies, has applied to the High Authority to merge with Phoenix-Rheinrohr, West Germany's third biggest steel producer. The move would create a giant even bigger than Krupp-Bochumer Verein, with a 6,000,000-ton capacity and nearly $1 billion in sales. Mannesmann, the No. 4 steel producer, recently eliminated several of its subsidiaries, absorbed them into the main firm. The trend to growth extends beyond iron and coal. Friedrich Flick, a prewar steel baron who was forced to sell off many of his holdings after he was sent to prison as a war criminal, has built a new empire in autos. He got control of Daimler-Benz, joined it with the big Auto Union manufacturer to form Germany's biggest auto moneymaker.

The Big Three. To finance industrial reconcentration, many West German banks have gone down the reconcentration path themselves. Last September the last of the Big Three commercial banks, the Commerzbank, linked its semi-independent units into one big house; Deutsche and Dresdner banks, the other members of the Big Three, did the same two years ago.

Some Germans are worried about the trend. Said Chancellor Konrad Adenauer: "There is great future danger that a handful of economic structures will control the German economy to such a degree that government will be forced to take drastic steps against them." But the opposition to bigness is largely weak and scattered. German firms argue that they are forced to merge by anticartel laws which prevent them from making price and production agreements, point at such foreign combines as the Luxembourg's ARBED steel combine as proof that they are not alone in the need to merge. Asked a Krupp official last week: "Is it bad for Germans to be big, and not bad for others?"....
Treason's Peace: German Dyes ... - Google Book Search
Treason's Peace: German Dyes & American Dupes ...
By Howard Watson Ambruster
Published by The Beechhurst Press, 1947

Shaking the Foundations: 200 Years ... - Google Book Search
Shaking the Foundations: 200 Years of Investigative Journalism in America - Page 193
by Bruce Shapiro - History - 2003 - 518 pages
This story, by reporter Lowell L. Leake, is a notable example ... into Germany's
war chest through purchases from the Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey...
host is offline  

christian, conservative, enemy, guys, historical, or jewish, real, ultra, wealthy, white

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:24 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360