Isolationism Strikes Again





Mr. Radosh, Prof. Emeritus of History at the City University of New York, is an adjunct fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy. He is the co-author of The Rosenberg File and The Amerasia Spy Case: Prelude to McCarthyism, as well as Divided They Fell: The Demise of the Democratic Party, 1964-1996, and Prophets On the Right: Profiles of Conservative Critics of American Globalism. He is a frequent contributor to The New Republic, National Review and the New York Sun among others.

Find the lowest price on Books and Textbooks. Use the Internet's fastest price comparison search engine http://www.hnn.directtextbook.com. Check the price of your next book purchase at over 10,000 bookstores at http://www.hnn.directtextbook.com

The isolationism that was employed to undermine American will and self-confidence in fighting the fascist and militarist aggressors in World War II has been revived, this time targeted against our President and our commitment to the liberation of Iraq.

It had to happen. The naysayers opposed to the campaign for liberation of Iraq, and the doomsday scenario they laid out, struck those of us with knowledge of history with an eerie sense of déjà vu. The isolationism that was employed to undermine American will and self-confidence in fighting the fascist and militarist aggressors in World War II has been revived, this time targeted against our President and our commitment to the liberation of Iraq.

Let us examine, in this historical context, the isolationist arguments, which we hear repeated time and time again in op-eds, press conferences, and protest statements.

First and foremost: “No Blood for Oil.” The implication is that the United States acts at the behest of its largest corporations, in this case, the ever-greedy oil lobby. We were told that access to Iraqi oil fields alone motivated U.S. policy. Our critics said American boys were going to be sacrificed for wealthy business interests.

Second: Our Enemies are Victims. The opponents of intervention said that people whose identity, livelihood and well-being have been harmed by precipitous American action, including no-fly zones and an embargo on trade, will now face suffering in the hundreds of thousands, including scores of civilian deaths as a result of both the strategic bombing of Iraq and armed invasion. They declared that nothing that Saddam Hussein has done compares to the evil that will be inflicted on the people of the Middle East as a result of U.S. military action.

Third: The Hegemonic U.S. Empire Expands. Our opponents claim a drift to war is a result of the mechanism of the American Empire – acting to thwart the efforts of competing powers to dominate the trade and investment patterns of the world. The U.S. is merely new imperialism, acting to advance its interests throughout the world.

Fourth: War means militarism and repression at home. This is alleged to include erosion of civil liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, and the transformation of the United States into a repressive authoritarian regime similar in nature to that of our proclaimed enemy’s regime.

Fifth: The U.S. is the Enemy. Antiwar activists claim the present Bush administration, not Iraq or any other foreign power harms the interests of the American people, as well as that of all peoples around the world. As the International ANSWER group that runs the peace marches, proclaimed: “the real threat of nuclear war and the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction arises within the U.S. administration.” The administration’s goal is described as a simple one, to “conquer the oil, land and resources of the Middle East.” The result will be a “catastrophe,” a “war of aggression” in which social programs will end, as government funds are exclusively used in the attempt to “take control of and profit from the oil of the Persian/Arabian Gulf.”

Sixth: America approached a new Quagmire. The enemies of liberation in Iraq, speaking from U.S. soil, warned that rather than victory, the U.S. would once again be blindly sucked into a useless and unwinnable war turning the rest of the world against our nation. The U.S., as Pat Buchanan so plainly put it, is acting in a “triumphalist” fashion leading to “an imperial war on Iraq.” And, of course, Buchanan argued that the U.S. is fundamentally manipulated by the Israeli government, which hopes that war with Iraq will give Israel an excuse to return to Lebanon and “settle scores with Hizbollah.” The Jews, now as in the past, are projected as the driving force pushing the U.S. to accept their agenda and endanger the peace of the world.

HNN FUND RAISING DRIVE
If you like the service HNN provides, please consider making a donation.

These themes are all reminiscent of those offered in the years before the outbreak of World War II, when home-grown isolationists in protest movements and pressure groups, backed by a hardy group of supporters in Congress, argued that a sound American policy was one that put “America First.” This gave the name to the most wide ranging and representative American isolationist group. Indeed, Pat Buchanan’s demagogy about Israeli influence calls to mind Charles Lindbergh’s 1941 accusation that the drive to enter the war against Hitler emanated from “the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration.” Jewish interventionists (neo-conservatives, Buchanan now says) were powerful, according to Lindbergh, because of their “large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio, and our government.”

In a fashion strikingly similar to Buchanan, the former conservative, now left-wing writer Michael Lind, has come out with his own virtually anti-Semitic conspiracy theory seeking to explain what lay behind the war against Saddam Hussein. He sees policy being made by “neoconservative defense intellectuals” who are “products of the influential Jewish-American sector of the Trotskyist movement…which morphed into a kind of militaristic and imperial right.” According to Lind, they support “preventive warfare,” which he argues is based on “Trotsky’s theory of the permanent revolution mingled with the far-right Likud strain of Zioninsm.” They are the center, he argues, of a “metaphorical ‘pentagon’ of the Israel lobby and the religious right, plus conservative think tanks, foundations and media empires.” It is a virtual new neoconservative conspiracy theory, which as political scientist Robert J. Lieber writes, is a “sinister mythology…worthy of the Iraqi Information Minister, Muhammed Saeed Al-Sahaf, who became notorious for telling Western journalists not to believe their own eyes as American tanks rolled into view just across the Tigris River.”

In an analysis similar to that made by Lind, the left-wing journalist Eric Alterman, writing in the Nation, has stressed that “the war has put Jews in the showcase as never before;” and like Lind, he asserts that a cabal of Jews, including Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith make up the “neoconservative” triumvirate who along with their “media cheerleaders” William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer and Martin Peretz have become the “primary intellectual architects” of war against Saddam Hussein.

On both Left and Right, therefore, we see a new conspiracy theory emerging—one that shows the mindset of classical anti- Semitism; ie, as Lieber puts it, “a small, all powerful but little known group or ‘cabal’ of Jewish masterminds is secretly manipulating policy.” Under their influence, the nation has supposedly shifted away from a policy based on protecting the people’s interests to one that is subversive of that interest—and that benefits primarily the right-wing Zionist leadership of the Likud in Israel.

A striking parallel between today and the 1930’s is the blending together of opposition to a forceful American foreign policy by remnants of both the Old and New Left and the Old Right. Early in the Cold War, Harry S. Truman advisor Joseph P. Jones wrote that “most of the outright opposition” to Truman’s new bi-partisan interventionist foreign policy came from “the extreme Left and the extreme Right…from a certain group of ‘liberals’ who had been long strongly critical of the administration’s stiffening policy toward the Soviet Union, and from the ‘isolationists,’ who had been consistent opponents of all foreign-policy measures that projected the United States actively into World Affairs.”

Some fifty years later, opposition to a forceful U.S. response to new international threats, comes from the same pair of elements. Once again, Left and Right stand on common ground, active in what some have called “the Red-Brown coalition”—after the creation in post-Soviet Russia of an alliance of extreme nationalists with old Communists. Today, Old Right descendants and imitators gather around Pat Buchanan and his journal, the American Conservative, which joins the Left in the fight against so-called U.S. “global hegemony.” Their anti-Americanism has become so visceral and extreme that one of the journal’s contributors, Dennis “Justin” Raimondo, actually wrote, in the Russian newspaper Pravda, that the claim that “America is a civilized country” is false, and, referring to World War II, he argued “the wrong side won the war in the Pacific.” And like the conspiratorial anti-Semitic Arab newspapers, Raimondo also writes that “Israel had foreknowledge of 9/11,” a claim that puts him in league with the most extremist anti-Semites in the Arab world.

Let us look more closely at the claims outlined herein as they appeared in the years before U.S. entry into the Second World War, when isolationist sentiment was overwhelming, and the advocates of a forceful U.S. response to fascist and militarist aggression were fighting a rearguard battle. Just as the opposition to war with Iraq called for lifting the sanctions imposed against Saddam Hussein – sanctions he successfully mitigated by business deals with nations like Russia and France – pre-World War II isolationists argued that sanctions against Japan did not have the effect of forcing a cessation of Japanese aggression, but rather – as the historian Charles Beard wrote at the time – the “application of sanctions to Japan… would end in war” and represented a move by the President to seek “war in the Pacific.” Isolationists then opposed sanctions as a step in the road to war, used unnecessarily by an administration hell bent on military action. When Japan finally attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor, Beard and others saw that attack as an act to which Japan had been driven by an intransigent American policy. Even Pearl Harbor, to the isolationists, was America’s fault. And as today, the isolationists argued that the U.S. was approaching war because of the dire influence of big business. There was, in other words, no legitimate interest in protecting our nation’s national security.

There are so many similarities, in the pre-World War II arguments of the opponents of interventionism, to those made today by opponents of any military action against Iraq. Let us take up the argument that waging war means the onset of fascist repression at home. Lindbergh’s statements appear eerily similar to many made today. We are frequently warned that if we go to war against Saddam Hussein, we will be saddled with an endless commitment to Iraq, in effect a permanent occupation. Speaking in 1939, Lindbergh argued “if we enter in the quarrels of Europe during war, we must stay in them in time of peace as well.” Substitute Middle East for Europe, and the concept is the same. He went on: “If we enter the fighting for democracy abroad we may end by losing it at home;” or, as many argue today, the result at home of war with Iraq will be increased militarization, repression and an end to all individual liberty.

There was, of course, a desire for oil. Contrary to the protester’s current chant, “No War for Oil,” the oil industry wanted to continue with its purchases of Iraqi oil, and favored an end to sanctions which harms the flow. And just as nations like France and Russia desired to maintain their cozy business relations with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq—including access to its oil— in the period before World War II Japan was set to strike against Dutch and British possessions in East Asia, because of its desire for Indonesian oil. Indeed, the Roosevelt administration let Japan occupy Indo-China. But it drew the line at a takeover of the Dutch East Indies and Malaya—much as George W. Bush has drawn the line with his insistence that Saddam Hussein had to seriously disarm.

Then, as now, there were polls. In Europe a large majority of the public recently favored peace over resistance to tyranny—just as they did before the Second World War, when the young and the brightest signed the Oxford Union Pledge that they would not fight “for King and country.” In late 1940, the U.S. faced a similar situation. Gallup polls showed that while 60 percent of the American public favored aid to Britain, less than 13 percent were willing to see the U.S. go to war with Nazi Germany, even if it meant that Britain would lose. FDR acted against the tide, daring to show true leadership by advancing policies that would deal with the actual threat, while skillfully avoiding the wrath of the isolationist lobby and Congress. Today, George W. Bush shows his ability for comparable leadership, by moving ahead to do what is necessary, taking the nation with him, and ignoring the protestors, the disgruntled opposition anti-war Democrats, and the fierce opposition of the French and German governments.

One difference between then and now, however, was that a large portion of the intellectual community then formed committees in favor of intervention against the Nazi menace. These groups countered large and influential anti-war lobbies exemplified by the American First Committee. And just as today, opponents of war smeared the President, arguing, as Senator Burton K. Wheeler of Montana did, that the President sought to “plow under every fourth American boy,” since his aim was to get the U.S. into war, and not to keep it out. To the isolationists, Franklin D. Roosevelt was not a democratically elected President, but a virtual dictator, who if the U.S. went to war, as Senator Robert A. Taft put it, would become “a complete dictator over the lives and property of our citizens.” Like the left today, Taft claimed that the President was presiding over a state that allegedly had become fascist, and in which the President showed “a complete lack of regard for the rights of Congress,” and in which he was making policy “in violation of the people’s will.” Today, George W. Bush is accused by his opponents on the far Right and far Left of being an unelected President, a virtual dictator who seeks wars to validate his Presidency.

And in the 30’s, as today, the proponents of intervention are labeled the forces of big business and oil, those who seek profits above all. Taft argued in 1941, “the most conservative members of the [Republican] party – the Wall Street bankers…the plutocratic newspapers, and most of the party’s financial contributors,” favor “intervention in Europe.” On the other hand, it was “the common people, the farmer, the workman…the small business man—who are opposed to war.” Then, it was the “big business interests of the East” who feared “destruction of our foreign trade” who sought war; now, in the 21st Century, the same arguments are being made, and we hear again and again how the business interests desire war, while the common people— millions through Europe demonstrating in the streets—want peace.

Today, we hear the argument that the America cannot and should not be global policemen, intervening in the long and bloody European wars. It is also a familiar argument. Speaking in 1939, historian Charles A. Beard told Congress that “the Orient from Siberia to Singapore is not worth the bones of one American soldier,” and that Americans were not “smart enough to solve the problems of Europe which are encrusted in the blood rust of fifty centuries of warfare.” Although Beard acknowledged that a threat existed from Germany and Italy—much as those opposed to war with Iraq argued that Saddam Hussein is a threat but could be dealt with by avoiding war— Beard argued that the rest of Europe outnumbered the fascist states by three to one, and were superior in both armed forces and material. Moreover, like those who today condemn the United States as no better than many dictatorships—essentially regarding the U.S.A. as evil itself and our President as the equivalent of Saddam Hussein—Beard claimed that the Western nations opposed to Hitler were quarreling “over the spoils of empire.” It is a refrain echoed today in the claim of the antiwar protesters that America’s reason for wanting to disarm Saddam stems from its own imperial goals—particularly oil for American firms. As for freeing those who live under the rule of a monstrous tyrant, the argument today is that such action is not America’s As Cooke points out, when Churchill warned that Hitler had built a giant army and superior air force, the peace movement retorted— “But he’s not used them.” The British Left and the American isolationist Right stood together against intervention.

We are now at a stage in which many wish to emulate the discredited policy of appeasement—as defined by the British during the Chamberlain era—and in which opponents of war against tyranny argue that the old isolationist arguments were essentially correct. Then and now, their claim was simple; the U.S. should seek peace by only narrowly defending itself against direct attacks; it could not and should not allow any President to use his power to maneuver the nation into war; nor should it seek to try and spread democracy elsewhere in the world, no matter how tyrannical a government that has challenged the U.S. may be. Just as Neville Chamberlain called the Munich treaty the essence of “peace in our time,” a sentiment shared by all the would-be “progressive” and “right-thinking” people in Europe, who saw handing over to Hitler the territory he sought as a strategy that would satisfy the dictator and guarantee the pace—today’s leftwing and rightwing isolationists—the Red- Brown coalition—argue that the Bush administration with its bellicose behavior ignores popular sentiment. The British journalist Alistair Cooke, a young man at the time of Munich, recently recalled that almost 11 million British subjects had signed a “peace ballot” expressing their opposition to war and confrontation with Hitler. Their noble slogan was “Against War and Fascism;” almost eerily similar to the cry of today’s left-wing opponents of war. When they use the term Fascism, they are referring to the U.S. Government—and they remain silent about the monstrous regime and practices of Saddam Hussein. No wonder Alistair Cooke says today “so many of the arguments mounted…today…are exactly what we heard in the House of Commons debates and read in the French press” in the 1930’s. Even after Hitler began his invasion of Europe, the British and French peace advocates called only for “negotiation.” They were so successful, Cooke quips, that the French ended with “their whole country defeated and occupied.” As for the British, each advance by Hitler’s armies produced only a new call for disarmament and for leaving any response to the League of Nations.

We all know what happened. The League was incapable of responding to violations of its own rule of law, and sat idly by as Japan invaded China and Italy, massacred the Ethiopians and as the mechanized brutes summoned up by Hitler marched through Europe. The League did nothing to protect the fragile Spanish Republic, as its civilian men and women bared their breasts to the bombs of the Nazi Luftwaffe. The fate of the League was sealed, and its irrelevancy led to its final collapse. When the Bush administration and Tony Blair in Britain, supported by the gallant Spanish and Portuguese, sought to move the United Nations against Saddam Hussein, and thus to hold him to account for the requirements the UN itself mandated – instead, its members and the European public argued that must be avoided above all, and that the Iraqi dictator should be given more time. Each obfuscation and avoidance of compliance led the antiwar opponents not to support tough measures that might affect Saddam Hussein, but to counsel avoidance of war above all else. As Cooke points out, when Churchill warned that Hitler had built a giant army and superior air force, the peace movement retorted—“But he’s not used them.” The British Left and the American isolationist Right stood together against intervention.

And so, as Cooke says, “the voices of the 30s are echoing through 2003.” This was made most clear in the speech presented to the U.S. Senate given in late February by Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia. The new antiwar movement was so impressed with Byrd’s presentation that they e-mailed it to their supporters throughout the country. Evidently they find it the most eloquent statement of their current beliefs and arguments. Yet it is strikingly similar to a speech given by Robert A. Taft in May 1940—a speech correctly disdained at the time as the epitome of isolationism.

The essential problem is that the new isolationists not only emulate and imitate their 1930’s predecessors, but in some cases, acknowledge this and are proud of those who preached appeasement in that earlier era. Thus Pat Buchanan, in a forum held on Frontpagemag.com, argued that “there was nothing immoral, or unwise, about the isolationists’ position of 1940-41.” Calling the effort made by the discredited America First Committee as helping the U.S. “stay out of the war” until late after it had started, which Buchanan calls “courageous.” Thus those whose actions would have prevented the U.S. from readying itself for a necessary fight against that generation’s evil, are today praised by the new isolationists, who seek as they did in the 30’s, to build an antiwar movement uniting the left-wing and conservative opponents of military action.

Of course, the left-wing opponents of intervention have their own agenda. When Bill Clinton was President, and acted unilaterally against Saddam Hussein— however weakly and ineffectively—many on the political Left either supported Clinton’s brief attempts to deflect terrorism—such as threatening Iraq and bombing a purported chemical factory in Sudan—or remained silent. Approve or disapprove, they favored the Democratic President, and said not a word. In the 1930s, one saw formation of a united front of pro-Soviet groups with “progressive” isolationists like Senator William Borah of Idaho. Indeed, the draft—introduced in Congress as the Selective Service Act of 1940—almost did not pass. The Roosevelt administration’s victory was achieved by only one vote.

In the 1930s, isolationists sought to protect the U.S. by naively believing that America could stand aside as totalitarianism swept the globe, and make pragmatic alliances with evil dictators that would keep our homeland out of the war. In Britain the result was the Munich Pact; in America it was congressional obstruction of measures sought by the President to aid our British ally.

Now, at the beginning of the 21st Century, a new form of totalitarianism—Islamist extremism—threatens the security and well-being of our people. The danger is that our nation will be unable to meet the challenge facing it, if the protestations of the new isolationists are heeded.

When the remnants of the Old Right and the ever diminishing political Left unite against American “global hegemony” and American “imperialism,” even their language is the same. Secretary of State Colin Powell’s logical and devastating account of Saddam’s evasions and acquisition of banned arms—so similar to the secret re-armament forbidden by the Versailles Treaty and carried out by Hitler with the West’s acquiescence—put an end to any chance that the American government would pursue the policy advocated in the 1930s by Neville Chamberlain. After Pearl Harbor, the anti-interventionist movement collapsed overnight. Will our military action against Iraq lead today’s “peace movement” leaders to cease nattering and scurry off into the darkness? Not any time soon.


This article was first published by the The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and is reprinted with the permission of the author.


comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:


Jason KEuter - 4/10/2006

A good summation of the anti-U.S. position. If looking for historical parallels, however, look to the cold war. This is even true of some of the anti-interventionism during the Wolrd War II era: its mainspring is communism.

Gone are the days when the left could claim that corporations ruled America and invented Soviet threats in order to justify transferring wealth from the masses (taxpayers is a conservative term) into their own pockets. That the Islamic "threat" was a bogeyman to replace the Soviets was an article of faith on the left.

The left thus must minimize realities that suggest threats: this entails romaniticizing any and everything that dresses in the garb of "resistance" to America (the prevailing assumption that there's something to resist is not examined too closely). Conversely, the left must also demonstrate the maliciousness of the US in order to dramatize for the unknowing masses the "true" nature of the capitalist ("corporate" in today's lingo) system. This involves crediting every bad thing outside America's borders to "American Imperialism". In the case of the Middle East, American Imperialism must essentially be invented, as it never really existed.

There are many people who don't want the US to stay in Iraq and many of them don't want the US there for understandable reasons: saving AMerican lives and seeing no light at the end of the tunnel. But the base of the "peace" movement are the "intellectuals" who believe that the biggest threat to humanity itself is America.

What the peace movement really favors, however, is unfettered military conquest by America's enemies, bemoaning the occaisonal blood spilling power grab but urging first and foremost AMerican restraint, under the assumption that what the corporate overlords would do once they've amassed their power would be unthinkably bad.

This is a continuation of communism. Sure, the left will say all the right things about what a "monster" Stalin was but they'll qualify these comments with plenty of comments about America that could've been lifted from the pages of Pravda.

Then, they'll pull out all the stops and talk about how labelling dissenters as enemies has always been a way of stifling dissent itself and paving the way for the dominance of a ruling class, which in turn makes those who point to the obvious root of their ideas as handmaidens of future capitalist overlords and enemies of America's democratic traditions.

Then they have the floor to themselves.


Jan Doernte - 11/26/2003

How exactly was the CIA involved in the attempted coup in Venezuela?

It is a fact that a large group of educated and intelligent Venezuelans are deeply disappointed with Chavez's inane "populist" policies. The man acts like just another version of Castro or Franco. If the CIA was involved, its a shame for the Venezuelan people they didn't succeed. And by the way, it wasn't the CIA that opened fire and murdered many peaceful demonstrators in Caracas that escalated the situation. I have a former colleague who moved back to Caracas 4 months before that happened and witnessed that crime first-hand. His arguments against Chavez are extremely convincing.

regards
Jan


wambatron - 10/20/2003

Check out this website for some free laughs...
http://members.fortunecity.com/fbush2/campnot.html

Feel free to link to or share this page.


Nora Mares - 9/21/2003

To Mark Franklin,
your article is opening our eyes , but what could be done now ?
Even Jesus Christ who was a jew got silenced.
Could " Love " teach " Hate " lesson ?
To me it looks like a sickness , but who can heal the infected milions of masses ?
Perhaps God is going to help all of us.
Peace be with you !


MARIA BDIE BIROS - 8/27/2003

FROM: MARIA BDIE BIROS
E-MAIL: bdie_biros@yahoo.com.au, maria_biros@37.com, bdie_maria@netzero.net
DATE: 27TH AUGAST 2003.

Dear Rod Howell,
WITH THE BEST COMPLIMENTS OF THE YEAR,
I wish to solicit your help in migrating to your country, My name is Maria BdieBiros the daughter of Late General Alexander Biros the former Director of military intelligence and special acting General Manager of the Sierra Leone Diamond mining cooperation (SLDMC). I am contacting you to seek your good assistance to transfer and invest {EURO 10, 500,000.00 MILLION} belonging to my late father, which is deposited in a bank in Nigeria. This money is revenue from solid minerals and diamonds sale, which were under my fathers possession before the civil war, broke out.

Following the brake out of the war, almost all Government offices, corporations and Parastators were attacked and vandalized. The {SLDMC} was looted and burnt down to ashes, and diamonds worth millions of Euro was stolen by the rebel military forces that attacked my father's office.

Many top government officials and senior army officers were assassinated and my father was a key target because of his very sensitive military position and appointment in the SLDMC. Regrettably, my father was captured and murdered along with half brother in cool blood during a mid-night rebel shoot-out when our official residence in Freetown was arm bushed by Force Sanko the notorious rebel leader.

My mother sustained very severs bullet injuries, which resulted to her untimely and painful death in a private hospital here in Nigeria. Now we are alone in a totally strange country without parents, relatives or any body to care for us.

Before our mother died, she told us that our father deposited some money which he made from diamond sales and contracts at this bank here in Nigeria and that we should pray and find a trustworthy foreign business partner who would help us to transfer and invest this money in profitable business venture overseas.

She told us to do this quickly so that we can leave Nigeria. She gave us all the bank documents to prove the deposit and then told us that my father used my name as the only daughter to deposit the money in the bank. She told us that this is the reason why we came to Nigeria. My mother died afterwards. May her spirit rest in perfect peace.

I have gone to the bank with a help of lawyer to make inquires about this money and we spoke with the director of International remittance who assured me that the everything is intact and promised to help me transfer this money to my foreign partners bank account as soon as I provide my partners foreign bank account for them. However, the director is very concerned because of my age, I am 26 years and as such promised to help me and he would like to speak with my partner to ensure that this money is invested wisely in only profitable business because of his personal interest and sympathy for me.

Please if you will to assist us, please let us know immediately and provide us with your bank information follows: -
1. Your full names and address telephone & fax
2. Name of your Bank and address, Telephone, fax & telex
3. Account name, number and Swift code etc.

Please note that I can only offer you 25% of the total money as compensation for your assistance, while 5% will set aside for any expenses that will arise, in accordance with my mothers advise. I am interested in any profitable commercial venture, which you consider very well in your country and you would also get a school for my two little brothers, my cousin so that we can finish our education.

I am hoping to hear your urgent response so that I cannot look for another foreign partner. Thanks God bless you and your dear family.

Yours sincerely
MARIA BDIE BIROS


Derek Catsam - 7/27/2003

Don --
The larger point, which you have never addressed, is your misrepresentation of FDD. You intentionally left out any mention of the fact that Democrats and even liberals sit on the board of directors in order to distort the ideology of the organization. That the Democrats on the board are pro-Israel is hardly a compelling argument -- that just goes to show that support of Israel is not a simple question of left-right, no matter how many aspersions you cast on the character of those who support Israel.


Don Williams - 7/25/2003

In my opinion, historical pogroms against the Jews have been a means whereby Gentile leaders have evaded paying their debts.

The information sharing and mutual assistance among Jews seem to me to be, not a drive for conquest but a means for survival in a hostile environment. When people are discriminated against and have to feed their families, one can hardly complain if they are skilled in business dealings.

Hitler rose to power because he made the Jews the scapegoat for Germany's misery -- the worthless currency, loss of life savings, loss of World War I, economic depression, unemployment at 50%,etc
Yet Germany's elite, not the Jews, were to blame for starting and losing World War I, for surrendering before the peace terms had been agreed, and for signing the ruinous Versailles Treaty. Germany's elite supported Hitler in order to suppress the rising and justifiable resentment of the common people.

Similarly, if our elected leaders allow a corrupt campaign finance system to exist, if they become whores for Israel for the sake of money, and if their unfair , vicious acts on behalf of Israel trigger attacks like Sept 11, then the fault lies with us who elect them, not with our small Jewish population. Look at Tom
Delay's statements in today's New York Times for example:

"I'm sure there are some in the administration who are smarter than me, but I can't imagine in the very near future that a Palestinian state could ever happen," he[Tom Delay] said in an interview today, as he prepared to leave for a weeklong official tour.

"I can't imagine this president supporting a state of terrorists, a sovereign state of terrorists," he said. "You'd have to change almost an entire generation's culture."
source: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/25/international/middleeast/25DELA.html


Josh Greenland - 7/25/2003

Why do we suddenly have so many anti-Semites in this forum?

Raimundo exhorted his readers to show up here:

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j072303.html

"I am sure, however, that not a few of my readers will want to express their opinions to Shenkman (at this address: editor@historynewsnetwork.org) and perhaps even post their own rebuttals to Radosh's jargon-ridden jeremiad."

"Radosh's jargon-ridden jeremiad" links to this forum.


Mark Franklin - 7/25/2003

Gentile Leaders Have Not Liked Jews
Truman's Latest Revealing Quote Part of an Historical Trend
by Mark Franklin
July 11, 2003


Many Jews are somewhat "shocked" to have recently discovered that President Truman did not care too much for them. In his diary that was recently released by the National Archives, he stated,

"The Jews, I find, are very, very selfish. They care not how many Estonians, Latvians, Finns, Poles, Yugoslavs or Greeks get murdered or mistreated as D[isplaced] P[ersons] as long as the Jews get special treatment. Yet when they have power, physical, financial or political neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment to the underdog."

Jews are quick to say that this was an isolated comment by President Truman, and that his comments do not accurately reflect his true feelings nor America's many elected and non-elected leaders throughout history. However, such an argument is contrary to reality. In fact, most Americans, including their leaders, have disliked Jews because of their mean and hateful nature; and this is part of a long and ongoing trend. Due to Gentile characteristics and Jewish political campaign support, however, Gentiles wink at their fellow Gentiles and often pretend to be nice to Jews. In reality, Gentiles have long voiced their opposition to Jews, whether openly or behind-the-scenes.

Indeed, the comments recently unearthed by President Truman were not the first such comments about Jews that were noted by him. Henry Wallace, the Secretary of Commerce under President Harry Truman, noted in his diary President Harry Truman's true feeling towards Jews. Truman, who Jews have often celebrated in America's past, apparently did not care too much for them, according to Wallace. Wallace noted:

"Truman was 'exasperated' over Jewish pressure that he support Zionist rule over Palestine. . . . Pres. Truman expressed himself as being very much 'put out' with the Jews. He said that 'Jesus Christ couldn't please them when he was on earth, so how could anyone expect that I would have any luck?' Pres. Truman said he had no use for them and didn't care what happened to them."

If Truman was the only President who was known to have said such comments, it might be simply ignored. But his comments were part of America's ongoing trend. President Dick Nixon once talked about the Jewish influence over American society. Nixon, a bit irritated with Jewish tactics at times and much like many other American Gentiles, often referred to Jews as "kikes" and "left-wing" Jews, which has been disclosed more recently in articles about him, much to the chagrin of Jews. When news stories were leaked, he noted--and rightly so--that it was often the fault of "our Jewish friends." When accusations that his Vice President took bribes were brought forth, he noted that the "Jewish crowd in Baltimore" were responsible for these accusations. He felt that the "Jewish cabal"--that is, those Jews who held appointments in the Bureau of Labor Statistics--were trying to make him look bad.(1) In one incident, he reportedly said something that is really disturbing to Jews:

"[T]here may be some truth in that if the Arabs have some complaints about my policy towards Israel, they have to realize that the Jews in the U.S. control the entire information and propaganda machine, the large newspapers, the motion pictures, radio and television, and the big companies. And there is a force that we have to take into consideration."(2)

At another time, Nixon Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman described such typical discussions behind-the-scenes in the White House:

"There was considerable discussion of the terrible problem arising from the total Jewish domination of the media, and agreement that this was something that would have to be dealt with."(3)

Just as Nixon honestly noticed with alarm that the Jews control the media, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff George S. Brown noticed this as well. This was some time back, of course. And things have gotten much worse since then. When Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff George S. Brown spoke to Duke University on October 10, 1975, he was asked a question by a student: "How can we stop Israel from obtaining from the Congress more foreign aid than any other nation in the world?" General Brown responded:

"When they get tough-minded enough to set down the Jewish influence in this country and break that lobby. It is so strong, you wouldn't believe it. Now, we have the Israelis coming to us for equipment. We say we can't probably get the Congress to support a program like this. And they say, 'Don't worry about the Congress. We will take care of the Congress.' This is somebody from another country. But they can do it. They own--you know--the banks in this country, the newspapers. Just look at where the Jewish money is."(4)

American Jewry demanded that Brown resign for telling the truth about their nefarious activities. Noticing this with deep concern, General M.B. Twining, a hero of WWII and the Korean War who was Commander of the U.S. Air Force, reportedly told the San Diego Union:

"A group of powerful U.S. Jews have grotesquely distorted U.S. foreign policy in blind fanatic support of Israel, and Gen. Brown deserves praise, not criticism, for saying so. As head of our nation's armed forces, he sees us--a nation of 200 million people--being dragooned into a disastrous war . . . by a ruthless lobby of Jewish-American extremists single-mindedly bent on enforcing their rule or ruin policy in the Middle East."(5)

The Generals were correct in their contention about the "Jewish-American extremists" who own the "newspapers" and a whole lot more. Even Jews such as Ben Stein have admitted to this openly in recent times. In fact, many Jews gloat about this fact, which is readily available on the Internet for those willing to take the time with a search engine. How did this come about--that Jews were able to take control of this country's leadership, as the generals accurately noted? It is interesting to take a look at the distant past and how this transition occurred.

At the time of the American Revolution, there were only about 1,000 Jews in all of America. This was because Gentiles were knowledgeable of the Jews' beliefs in colonial America and, for the most part, did not want Jews here. By 1790, Jews numbered only 1,350, while there were approximately 3.9 million Gentiles. And the number of Jews in the U.S. increased only to 2,700 by 1820. Whether it was due to a hostile Gentile climate, Jewish fears of savages, or Jewish thoughts of having to farm and physically work for their money, Jews did not markedly increase in population in the U.S. until the mid-1800s.

In any event, Jews such as Haym Salomon did try to curry the favor of Jefferson and Washington by giving them money. Other Jews, such as Mordecai Moses Noah, probably gave Jefferson and Washington good prices on the slaves they purchased, as Noah was a prominent slave trader, as were many of the early Jewish settlers.

While some Jews have claimed that Benjamin Franklin and George Washington were friends of the Jewish Race (and offered support and their names to help Jews build synagogues), it seems highly unlikely; and the sources of these Jews seem circumspect. For instance, Franklin has commented on a Jew, Neufville, in the past. Demonstrating that Franklin was aware of the Jewish cohesiveness even at this early date, he suggested that this Jew was "as much a Jew as any in Jerusalem." Franklin promulgated:

"It seems to me that it is principally with Mr. Neufville we have to do; and tho' I believe him to be as much a Jew as any in Jerusalem, I did not expect that with so many and such constant Professions of Friendship for the United States with which he loads all his Letters, he would have attempted to enforce his Demands (which I doubt not will be extravagant enough) by a Proceeding so abominable."(6)

The same can be said of John Quincy Adams, who was very much against Jewry. In 1780, he went to Amsterdam, Holland. While there, he went to a synagogue. In his diary, he noted his opinion of Jews there:

"[Jews] are all wretched creatures, for I think I never saw in my life such a set of miserable looking people. And they would steal your eyes out of your head if they could."(7)

Opinions such as Quincy's were the rule in colonial America, generally speaking, rather than the exception. While Thomas Jefferson's opinion of Jews seemed to echo that of John Quincy Adam's, it seems that Jefferson's feelings towards Jews were more based on solid reason than Adam's. Jefferson regarded the Jewish People as such:

"Jews. Their system was Deism; that is, the belief in one only God. But their ideas of him and attributes were degrading and injurious. Their ethics were not only imperfect, but often irreconcilable with the sound dictates of reason and morality, as they respect intercourse with those around us; and repulsive and anti-social, as respecting other nations. They need reformation, therefore, in an eminent degree."(8)

When discussing the ethics of Jews, Jefferson felt that the Jews were severely lacking. Although there were instances of Jefferson paying respect to individual Jews, there was no indication that he wanted more of their kind in the U.S. Jefferson often gave "word" to Jewish rights, much like he did to the emancipation of slaves (only a handful of his 100-plus slaves were freed upon his death, despite his remarks against slavery). Still, he glowingly approved and cited William Enfield's findings to John Quincy Adams, noted in the epitome of Johann Jakob Brucker's Historia critica philosophae:

"Ethics were so little studied among the Jews, that in their whole compilation called the Talmud, there is only one treatise on moral subjects. Their books of Morals chiefly consisted in a minute enumeration of duties. From the law of Moses were deduced 613 precepts, which were divided into two classes, affirmative and negative, 248 in the former, and 365 in the latter. It may serve to give the reader some idea of the low state of moral philosophy among the Jews in the Middle Age, to add, that of the 248 affirmative precepts, only 3 were considered as obligatory upon women; and that in order to obtain salvation, it was judged sufficient to fulfill any one single law in the hour of death; the observance of the rest being deemed necessary, only to increase the felicity of the future life. What a wretched depravity of sentiment and manners must have prevailed before such corrupt maxims could have obtained credit! It is impossible to collect from these writings a consistent series of moral Doctrine."(9)

Peter Stuyvesant, the Governor of New Amsterdam, expelled Jews from his colony. He did this because he was knowledgeable of the Jewish Oral Laws and sought to prevent them from gaining a foothold in America, which would eventually lead to conflict and problems. He wrote a letter to the Amsterdam Chamber of the Dutch West India Company on September 22, 1654, telling his reason. (However, the Jews whom he banished contacted their fellow Jews in Holland, who demanded that those Jews be allowed to stay. The company said that the Jews should not be expelled because they were "poor" and "persecuted," and also because the Jews who Stuyvesant sought to banish had "a large amount of capital which they have invested in shares of this company.") In his letter, Stuyvesant wrote:

"The Jews who have arrived would nearly all like to remain here, but learning that they (with their customary usury and deceitful trading with Christians) were very repugnant to the inferior magistrates, as also to the people having the most affection for you; the Deaconry also fearing that owing to their present indigence they might become a charge in the coming winter, we have, for the benefit of this weak and newly developing place and land in general, deemed it useful to require them in a friendly way to depart; praying also most seriously in this connection, for ourselves as also for the general community of your worships, that the deceitful race . . . not to be allowed to infect and trouble this new colony."(10)

During colonial times, Jews were often not allowed to vote or to hold any type of public office. For instance, in New Netherland, as Leonard Dinnerstein notes in his book Anti-Semitism in America, Jews "were refused by law permission to worship in public, vote, hold office, purchase land, work as craftsmen, engage in retail operations, or trade with Indians." Also, they were not allowed to practice law. France's minister to the U.S. commented that, in 1786, anti-Jewish feelings "are still too strong to enable Jews to enjoy the privileges accorded to all their citizens." Indeed, while Jews petitioned Maryland in 1797 to be allowed to vote, practice law, and hold office, it was not for nearly three decades--1826--that Maryland passed what was deemed as the "Jew Bill," due to its strong opposition. And, Jews were not allowed to vote in North Carolina until 1868, while New Hampshire did not allow Jews that until 1877--several years after the 15th Amendment gave them that "right."(11)

From an ethical standpoint, there can be no justification for any religious Jew being given a Law License. The Jews' Oral Laws--that is, those contained in their Talmud--state that "the best of Gentiles deserves to be killed." This is not an exaggeration either, as I have seen this in an English version of the Talmud. It also says that it is OK for them to cheat Gentiles; that land owned by Gentiles is like "unclaimed land in the desert" (hence, the situation in Israel where non-Jews cannot obtain building permits or own--or even lease--land); and all sorts of other unethical ideals. Yet no consideration is given for these Jews not to practice law, which certainly lies contrary to the ethics required of attorneys.

But back to the distant past: Anti-Jewish sentiment was clearly prevalent among Gentile colonists. While much of it was religious in nature, some of it was for the other reasons why Jews are generally disliked throughout the civilized world today: usury, cheating, lying, stealing, murdering, debauchery-producing, revolution-inciting, decadence-promoting, et cetera, ad nauseam. (You can do a search with http://www.google.com for the online English translation of a book called "The Jew as Criminal," which presents some interesting findings from pre-WWII Germany, which details criminal statistics.) The Niles' Register, a large early American newspaper, noted that Jews were "everywhere despised and maltreated." Instilling anti-Jewish values was common among Gentiles. In one children's book, for example, it had a character who said, "I have heard that hatred of Jews has been a reckoned a virtue." Also, a Mother Goose rhyme promoted similar thoughts:

Jack Sold His Egg
To a Rogue of a Jew
Who Cheated Him Out
Of Half His Due.(12)

In the 1870s, some resorts and nice hotels refused Jews entrance. Some neighborhoods refused Jews to move there by "gentlemen's agreements." Many private clubs did not permit Jews to join.

Numerous prestigious universities denied Jews entrance. Administrator of Harvard Increase Mather and his successor, Samuel Willard, both denounced Jews in colonial America. Later, Lawrence Lowell, president of Harvard, said he felt that Harvard had a "Jewish problem" in 1922, because he felt there was a disproportionate number of Jews.(13) (Unfortunately, today, since America has allowed Jews to teach at Harvard, Jews have worked in a cohesive manner to essentially "steal" the university. It is now filled with such Jewish pseudo-scholars as Noel Ignatiev, who openly seeks to destroy Gentile civilization.)

In the past, things were much different. In 1855, William W. Stowe, the speaker of the House of Representatives, proposed charging Jews a high tax to keep them out of the state of California. They weren't. Now, look at California.

During the Civil War, General Ulysses S. Grant noticed with alarm that Jews, despite their small number in the general population, were engaged in a disproportionate amount of illegal trade. Reportedly, he felt that they were engaged in smuggling, theft, speculation, vagrancy, and a host of other crimes, including possible treason. Most noticeably, he felt that Jews were the carpetbaggers, who were despised in the South. In a letter to C.P. Wolcott, Assistant Secretary of War, on December 17, 1862, Grant wrote:

"I have long since believed that in spite of all the vigilance that can be infused into post commanders, the specie regulations of the Treasury Department have been violated, and that mostly by the Jews and other unprincipled traders. So well satisfied have I been of this that I instructed the commanding officer at Columbus to refuse all permits to Jews to come South, and I have frequently had them expelled from the department. But they come in with their carpet-sacks in spite of all that can be done to prevent it. The Jews seem to be a privileged class that can travel anywhere. They will land at any woodyard on the river and make their way through the country. If not permitted to buy cotton themselves, they will act as agents for someone else, who will be at a military post with a Treasury permit to receive cotton and pay for it in Treasury notes which the Jew will buy at an agreed rate, paying gold."

Also, on December 17, 1862, General Ulysses S. Grant issued General Orders No. 11. This order banished all Jews from Tennessee's western military district. General Orders No. 11 declared:

"1. The Jews, as a class, violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department, are hereby expelled from the Department.
"2. Within 24 hours from the receipt of this order by Post Commanders, they will see that all of this class of people are furnished with passes required to leave, and anyone returning after such notification, will be arrested and held in confinement until an opportunity occurs of sending them out as prisoners, unless furnished with permits from these headquarters.
"3. No permits will be given these people to visit headquarters for the purpose of making personal application for trade permits.
"By order of Major Gen. Grant.
"Jno. A. Rawlings, Assistant Adjutant General"

Abraham Lincoln rescinded General Orders No. 11. However, Henry W. Halleck, the General-in-Chief of the Army, told Grant that "the President has no objection to you expelling traitors and Jew peddlers."(14)

Perhaps, this comment later led, in part, to Lincoln's assassination by John Wilkes Booth, an advocate of slavery. (Some have alleged that Booth was also Jewish, and that his real last name was Botha, though I have not been able to verify that for certain.) Booth was a friend of Simon Wolf--an attorney for the Jewish secret society B'nai B'rith. (B'nai B'rith is the parent organization of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League--ADL--founded after B'nai B'rith Atlanta chapter head Leo Frank murdered the 12-year-old Gentile girl Mary Phagan.) Simon Wolf was often involved in theatrical productions. Reportedly, Esther L. Panitz briefly notes in her authorized biography of B'nai B'rith's Simon Wolf that he had a sense of familiarity with Booth. Panitz describes this little-known relationship between Wolf and Booth:

"Locally, the group's theatrical productions received good press. Wolf, who would often play the Ghost in Hamlet or Shylock in the Merchant of Venice, bore an uncanny resemblance to John Wilkes Booth, Lincoln's assassin. Earlier in Cleveland, Booth had Wolf and Peixotto in dramatic performances. Years afterward, Wolf remembered that he had met Booth once again in the Willard Hotel, on the morning of the day Lincoln was shot. . . . Wolf also recalled that once he sat for a picture entitled 'The Assassination of President Lincoln.'"

Also, in Wolf's book Presidents I Have Known, Wolf reportedly acknowledged that he had met with Booth at the Willard Hotel on the fateful day that Lincoln was assassinated. Apparently, they even had a few drinks together. Strange bedfellows.

Wolf probably had bitter feelings towards Lincoln, especially to watch a play entitled "The Assassination of President Lincoln" about Lincoln's death. This may have been because of the past difficulties Wolf had with Lincoln's subordinates. For instance, Wolf was arrested by LaFayette C. Baker, the chief of detectives in Washington, D.C., for being part of a "conspiratorial organization" that was allegedly involved in "spying and blockade running on behalf of the Confederacy." (Later, LaFayette was promoted to the position of head of the U.S. Secret Service.) Both General Grant and Baker reportedly looked at the B'nai B'rith as a "spy agency."(15) Perhaps, Wolf was involved in such activities because of Lincoln putting an end to slavery; or perhaps Wolf did it because Judah P. Benjamin in the South was a member of the Jewish Race, though a proselyte-Christian, and, consequently, Wolf felt more secure with the South. Some have suggested that Lincoln was despised by Jewish aristocrats because he produced "greenbacks," thereby making international financiers purposeless. It is difficult to speculate why, whatever the case.

If Grant was alone in his recognition of Jews being involved in traitorous activities and unscrupulous trade, his findings could be perhaps written off as mere fanaticism. However, he was not. And there was more than just LaFayette Baker. As noted in The Sherman Letters, Gen. William Sherman also said similar things when he was in Union-occupied Memphis, Tennessee, on July 30, 1862:

"I found so many Jews and speculators here trading in cotton, and secessionists had become so open in refusing anything but gold, that I have felt myself bound to stop it. The gold can have but one use--the purchase of arms and ammunition. . . . Of course, I have respected all permits by yourself of the Secretary of the Treasury, but in these new cases (swarms of Jews), I have stopped it."

There has been some speculation that Lincoln was assassinated as a result of Jewish hatred. If that was the case, he was not the last.

Huey Long, a pro-Gentile presidential candidate in the 1920s who had a good chance of being elected, was assassinated by the Jewish dentist Carl Weiss. It almost seems as if assassinations in America are part of a trend among Jews.

With regards to Kennedy's assassination, there was that strip club owner Jack Ruby who somehow was able to get close enough to shoot Lee Harvey Oswald. Oswald, who had once gave up his American citizenship and ran off to the Soviet Union at the height of Jewish Communism, was held in custody for killing Kennedy; and while being taken somewhere, Ruby comes out of nowhere with a loaded pistol and puts a bullet in Oswald--shortly after he had agreed to tell all. This shows there is much more to this issue than we know. Why would a strip club owner, not the typical person who seems like he would care too much, take this upon himself? How did Ruby know that Oswald would be coming out at that time and that entrance? How was Ruby able to get by security with a loaded gun? How was he able to get close enough to Oswald to shoot him at point-blank range? These are all good questions that need to be answered.(16) I don't think Kennedy cared too much for Israel's terrorist activities, and that might have made some Jews unhappy.

But, if Jews made Kennedy unhappy, he was hardly the first. Jews have been kicked out of nearly every civilization in the entire world. These are a few of the areas in which Jews have been expelled, noted as the areas they are known as today and followed by the year of the expulsion(s):

Africa (1147, 1790), Arabia (624), Austria (1298), Babylon (586BC), Bavaria (1551), Belgium (1370), Czechoslovokia (1745), Denmark (not allowed in until the 17th century), Egypt (1571BC, 38BC, 3BC, 66), England (not allowed in until the 12th century, expelled in 1290), France (561, 1182, 1242, 1306, 1394, 1540, 1682), Germany (1012, 1096, 1146, 1298, 1510, 1614, 1935-revoked citizenship), Hungary (1360, 1582, 1717), Italy (1492, 1540, 1550, 1846), Iraq (not allowed to emigrate to until 2003), Lebanon (Jews not allowed entrance), Palestine (70, 324), Lithuania (1495), Netherlands (1444), Norway (1814), Poland (1453, 1772-Pale of Settlement), Portugal (1498), Prussia (1510), Rome (315, 379), Russia (1772-Pale of Settlement, 1881), Saxony (1349), Slovakia (1380, 1744), Spain (612, 694, 1391, 1492-1968, officially), Sweden (until 1782), Switzerland (1939), Syria (Jews not allowed entrance).

Hence, we see that these "underground" feelings that are prevalent among Gentiles are not even isolated to America; they accurately reflect the entire world's feelings towards Jews throughout history. The reason for this is that Jews are generally "mean," for lack of a better all-inclusive term that adequately summarizes Jewish characteristics, though Jews are basically incapable of introspection and fail to recognize this inherent trait among them. Indeed, looking at WWII, it would not have even been caused if not for Jews. Jews had taken over Russia and had murdered 60 million Russians. Jews then tried to do the same with Germany, but failed miserably (at first). Today, about 60 years after the fact, they continuously feed the world pity-the-Jew-propaganda on a daily basis.

Many respectable Americans felt that Jews had indeed caused WWII (just as today many feel that they are at fault for the Iraq War). Joseph P. Kennedy, the father of America's Kennedy dynasty, who was a U.S. Ambassador in London prior to WWII, stated why England went to war:

"[British Prime Minister] Chamberlain stated that America and the world's Jews had forced England into the war."(17)

Indeed, during WWII, most Americans could have cared less for Jews. Hugh Wilson, the US Ambassador in Berlin until 1938, the year before the war broke out, found anti-Semitism in Germany "understandable." This was because before the advent of the National Socialists there, "the stage, the press, medicine and law [were] crowded with Jews...among the few with money to splurge, a high proportion [were] Jews ... the leaders of the Bolshevist movement in Russia, a movement desperately feared in Germany, were Jews. One could feel the spreading resentment and hatred."(18)

World War II hero General George Patton reflected many of America's leaders views of Jews. He described Jewish Displaced Persons as being "without any of the cultural or social refinements of our time." He found that many lacked morals common among others. "My opinion is that no people," said Gen. Patton, "could have sunk to the level of degradation these people have reached in the short space of four years."(19) Writing of the "Semitic revenge [planned by Morgenthau and Baruch] against all Germans," Gen. Patton promulgated:

"Harrison and his ilk believe that the displaced person is a human being, which he is not, and this applies particularly to the Jews, who are lower than animals."(20)

General Patton was hardly alone in those feelings. General MacArthur also felt similarly. Likewise, George Van Horn Moseley did too. George Van Horn Moseley was both a General of the United States and Deputy Secretary of State.

At one time, he had been asked to join the America First Committee (AFC). The following letter, which is Moseley's response to join the AFC, is reprinted in the book The 'Jewish Threat': Anti-Semitic Politics of the U.S. Army by Jewish author Joseph Bendersky. Similar to many others who are in or have been in the government, former General and Deputy Secretary of State George Van Horn Moseley was also concerned about Jewish influence. His voice still needs to be heard, and perhaps his lifting idea, which he wrote in all caps below, needs to be considered today. Differing from many others in this aspect, however, he was outspoken about his beliefs, not being a politician nor one to hide. His letter follows:

Atlanta, Georgia
October 23, 1940

Mr. R. Douglas Stuart, Jr., Director
America First Committee,
1806 Board of Trade Building,
Chicago, Illinois

Dear Mr. Stuart:

If I am to acknowledge the receipt of your letter dated October 11th, I must, in keeping with the principles which have always governed me, write you very frankly.

At the outset, I must say that I am happy to know that your organization has chosen such a vital mission. But I wonder if you realize the difficulties of such a campaign and the real strength of the enemy-and are you prepared to go to battle with him and with his tribe? A number of organizations have stared out bravely with a mission similar to yours, but too often they have melted away before the enemy.

I have had considerable experience on this subject, for I tried to arouse the American people from their apathy, pointing out the dangers confronting us as a nation. But I stated the truth too frankly and so, for many months now, my pen and my voice have been silenced.

Early in my endeavors, I received an invitation to speak before the Union League Club of Chicago, an organization I remember from boyhood, which always marched in step with the Republic. No date had been fixed but when the enemy went after me in the public press the heroic Union League Club evidently lost their nerve, and they did not renew their invitation.

What prevents America from being first today? Let me be frank and point out the enemy who would themselves be first in America today, and that is the Jewish nation, a nation within a nation. If you will investigate, as I have - crime, graft, filthy publications and unsavory movies, the liquor and drug traffic, the red light district, white slave traffic, and WAR - you will arrive head on against a pack of Jews in control.

I am not going to take your time to discuss in this letter the age old problem of the Jew, but if you are interested, you can get all the evidence concerning his plans for world domination from the writings of Jews, themselves. You do not have to rely on the statement of any Gentile. Suffice it to say, however, that they have been driven out of every country in which they have been domiciled, and for good reason, and EVENTUALLY THEY WILL BE DRIVEN OUT OF THE U.S.A. [Moseley's emphasis]

The Jew may tell you that there are only some four and a half million of them in the United States. The fact is there are over thirteen million of them in the United States today. Formerly I felt sorry for the Member of Congress who could not face this problem frankly on account of Jewish influence in his district, but now I find the influence of the Jew extends to every field. The banker, who may agree with me on principle just one hundred percent, dares not touch this problem, for some of his biggest depositors are Jews; many a lawyer will not face it for some of his big clients are Jews; the press cannot touch it, for so many of the big advertisers are Jews, and it is the advertiser who makes the paper pay. If we lack the character to face this problem squarely and solve it, we will experience the tragedy which overtook France.

I shall be glad to join your organization, assisting it as far as I am permitted to do so -

1. If you eliminate from your organization all Jews and all Jewish influences (they join all organizations and buy in or on both political parties; thus they keep themselves fully advised, and control or ruin);

2. If you will come out before the nation with a definite statement against the Jew and all he stands for, including the closing of our doors to all refugee Jews, of whatever nationality;

3. If you will take a definite stand against the control by Jews in local, state and national affairs;

4. If you will advocate the restoration of our REPUBLIC [Moseley's emphasis], bringing back the in the written and spoken language throughout the United States the words, "Republic, Christ and Christian".

If you will take the stand that I have suggested above, millions of Gentiles will rush to your banner. But if you fail to meet this issue squarely, your organization will accomplish nothing, except possibly to support a certain overhead, including perhaps several Jewish secretaries, placed with you for the purpose of spying upon you and your work.

You may not agree with me in what I have written above. Perhaps you will give this letter no consideration whatsoever, but may I ask you to preserve it, so that as the years roll by you may again read it, with the perspective of, say, ten to fifteen years. May I ask also that you make acknowledgement of it, for I plan to give copies of this letter to individuals over the land who know this problem and agree with me just one hundred percent.

Enclosed herewith is a copy of a letter inviting me to meet Mr. Lewis L. Strauss of Kuhn, Loeb & Company, and my reply.

Very sincerely yours,
George Van Horn Moseley

It has been many years since Moseley's comments. Since that time, Jews have gained nearly full control of America's government. Such power is clearly illustrated by former Illinois Congressman of 20 years Paul Findley's book They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby. He tells about how Jewish plutocrats strongly influence America's policies, particularly with respect to Israel and the Mid-East. But this control is over much more than America's foreign policy with respect to Israel. Indeed, America has just gotten out of the Iraq War, which was caused due to Jewish influence.

Shall we allow America to continue to be taken by the hands of Jews, letting Jews lead America down the pathway towards apocalypse. Or shall we put an end to this control, and proclaim from the highest pulpit,

"Free at last! Thank God Almighty, Gentiles are free at last!"




____________________________________

NOTES:

1. Dinnerstein, Leonard, Anti-Semitism in America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994).

2.) Dinnerstein, pp. 232-233.

3.) "The Haldeman Diaries" (N.Y.: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1994), p. 405.

4.) "The Generals and the Jews," Newsweek (November 25, 1974), p. 39.

5.) Also, see The 'Jewish Threat': Anti-Semitic Politics of the U.S. Army by Jewish author Joseph Bendersky (New York: Basic Books, 2000), pp. 428-429, for more about this particular controversy.

6.) The Writings of Benjamin Franklin, Vol. 8, The MacMillian Co., p. 332.

7.) Dinnerstein, p. 11; citing Diary of John Quincy Adams (Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University, 1981), I, p. 59.

8.) Gerber, David, Anti-Semitism in American History (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1986), p. 59.

9.) Gerber, p. 59.

10.) Dinnerstein, p. 5; Letter to the Amsterdam Chamber of the Dutch West India Company from New Amsterdam, September 22, 1654; Harry Golden and Martin Rywell, The Jews in American History.

11.) Dinnerstein, pp. 5, 7, 11, 15, 17.

12.) Dinnerstein, p. 17, 18, 19.

13.) Dinnerstein, p. 8, 84.

14). Dinnerstein, p. 32.

15.) EIR, The Ugly Truth about the ADL (Washington, D.C.: Executive Intelligence Review, 1994), pp. 8-9.

16.) The fact that Ruby was able to get close enough to Oswald after he murdered President Kennedy--and Ruby knew where Oswald would be at a particular time--while carrying a loaded weapon speaks great deals in and of itself. There is a book written by Michael Piper, who works at the American Free Press, that mentions possible Jewish involvement in Kennedy's assassination, I am told, though I have not personally read it yet.

17.) The Forrestal Diaries, ed. Millis, Cassell, 1952, p. 129.

18.) Hugh Wilson: Diplomat between the Wars (Longmans, 1941), quoted by Leonard Mosley, Lindbergh (Hodder, 1976), p. 252.

19.) Bendersky, Joseph, The 'Jewish Threat': Anti-Semitic Politics of the U.S. Army (New York: Perseus Books, 2000), pp. 352-357

20.) Bendersky, p. 357


Mark Franklin - 7/25/2003

Gentile Leaders Have Not Liked Jews
Truman's Latest Revealing Quote Part of an Historical Trend
by Mark Franklin
July 11, 2003


Many Jews are somewhat "shocked" to have recently discovered that President Truman did not care too much for them. In his diary that was recently released by the National Archives, he stated,

"The Jews, I find, are very, very selfish. They care not how many Estonians, Latvians, Finns, Poles, Yugoslavs or Greeks get murdered or mistreated as D[isplaced] P[ersons] as long as the Jews get special treatment. Yet when they have power, physical, financial or political neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment to the underdog."

Jews are quick to say that this was an isolated comment by President Truman, and that his comments do not accurately reflect his true feelings nor America's many elected and non-elected leaders throughout history. However, such an argument is contrary to reality. In fact, most Americans, including their leaders, have disliked Jews because of their mean and hateful nature; and this is part of a long and ongoing trend. Due to Gentile characteristics and Jewish political campaign support, however, Gentiles wink at their fellow Gentiles and often pretend to be nice to Jews. In reality, Gentiles have long voiced their opposition to Jews, whether openly or behind-the-scenes.

Indeed, the comments recently unearthed by President Truman were not the first such comments about Jews that were noted by him. Henry Wallace, the Secretary of Commerce under President Harry Truman, noted in his diary President Harry Truman's true feeling towards Jews. Truman, who Jews have often celebrated in America's past, apparently did not care too much for them, according to Wallace. Wallace noted:

"Truman was 'exasperated' over Jewish pressure that he support Zionist rule over Palestine. . . . Pres. Truman expressed himself as being very much 'put out' with the Jews. He said that 'Jesus Christ couldn't please them when he was on earth, so how could anyone expect that I would have any luck?' Pres. Truman said he had no use for them and didn't care what happened to them."

If Truman was the only President who was known to have said such comments, it might be simply ignored. But his comments were part of America's ongoing trend. President Dick Nixon once talked about the Jewish influence over American society. Nixon, a bit irritated with Jewish tactics at times and much like many other American Gentiles, often referred to Jews as "kikes" and "left-wing" Jews, which has been disclosed more recently in articles about him, much to the chagrin of Jews. When news stories were leaked, he noted--and rightly so--that it was often the fault of "our Jewish friends." When accusations that his Vice President took bribes were brought forth, he noted that the "Jewish crowd in Baltimore" were responsible for these accusations. He felt that the "Jewish cabal"--that is, those Jews who held appointments in the Bureau of Labor Statistics--were trying to make him look bad.(1) In one incident, he reportedly said something that is really disturbing to Jews:

"[T]here may be some truth in that if the Arabs have some complaints about my policy towards Israel, they have to realize that the Jews in the U.S. control the entire information and propaganda machine, the large newspapers, the motion pictures, radio and television, and the big companies. And there is a force that we have to take into consideration."(2)

At another time, Nixon Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman described such typical discussions behind-the-scenes in the White House:

"There was considerable discussion of the terrible problem arising from the total Jewish domination of the media, and agreement that this was something that would have to be dealt with."(3)

Just as Nixon honestly noticed with alarm that the Jews control the media, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff George S. Brown noticed this as well. This was some time back, of course. And things have gotten much worse since then. When Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff George S. Brown spoke to Duke University on October 10, 1975, he was asked a question by a student: "How can we stop Israel from obtaining from the Congress more foreign aid than any other nation in the world?" General Brown responded:

"When they get tough-minded enough to set down the Jewish influence in this country and break that lobby. It is so strong, you wouldn't believe it. Now, we have the Israelis coming to us for equipment. We say we can't probably get the Congress to support a program like this. And they say, 'Don't worry about the Congress. We will take care of the Congress.' This is somebody from another country. But they can do it. They own--you know--the banks in this country, the newspapers. Just look at where the Jewish money is."(4)

American Jewry demanded that Brown resign for telling the truth about their nefarious activities. Noticing this with deep concern, General M.B. Twining, a hero of WWII and the Korean War who was Commander of the U.S. Air Force, reportedly told the San Diego Union:

"A group of powerful U.S. Jews have grotesquely distorted U.S. foreign policy in blind fanatic support of Israel, and Gen. Brown deserves praise, not criticism, for saying so. As head of our nation's armed forces, he sees us--a nation of 200 million people--being dragooned into a disastrous war . . . by a ruthless lobby of Jewish-American extremists single-mindedly bent on enforcing their rule or ruin policy in the Middle East."(5)

The Generals were correct in their contention about the "Jewish-American extremists" who own the "newspapers" and a whole lot more. Even Jews such as Ben Stein have admitted to this openly in recent times. In fact, many Jews gloat about this fact, which is readily available on the Internet for those willing to take the time with a search engine. How did this come about--that Jews were able to take control of this country's leadership, as the generals accurately noted? It is interesting to take a look at the distant past and how this transition occurred.

At the time of the American Revolution, there were only about 1,000 Jews in all of America. This was because Gentiles were knowledgeable of the Jews' beliefs in colonial America and, for the most part, did not want Jews here. By 1790, Jews numbered only 1,350, while there were approximately 3.9 million Gentiles. And the number of Jews in the U.S. increased only to 2,700 by 1820. Whether it was due to a hostile Gentile climate, Jewish fears of savages, or Jewish thoughts of having to farm and physically work for their money, Jews did not markedly increase in population in the U.S. until the mid-1800s.

In any event, Jews such as Haym Salomon did try to curry the favor of Jefferson and Washington by giving them money. Other Jews, such as Mordecai Moses Noah, probably gave Jefferson and Washington good prices on the slaves they purchased, as Noah was a prominent slave trader, as were many of the early Jewish settlers.

While some Jews have claimed that Benjamin Franklin and George Washington were friends of the Jewish Race (and offered support and their names to help Jews build synagogues), it seems highly unlikely; and the sources of these Jews seem circumspect. For instance, Franklin has commented on a Jew, Neufville, in the past. Demonstrating that Franklin was aware of the Jewish cohesiveness even at this early date, he suggested that this Jew was "as much a Jew as any in Jerusalem." Franklin promulgated:

"It seems to me that it is principally with Mr. Neufville we have to do; and tho' I believe him to be as much a Jew as any in Jerusalem, I did not expect that with so many and such constant Professions of Friendship for the United States with which he loads all his Letters, he would have attempted to enforce his Demands (which I doubt not will be extravagant enough) by a Proceeding so abominable."(6)

The same can be said of John Quincy Adams, who was very much against Jewry. In 1780, he went to Amsterdam, Holland. While there, he went to a synagogue. In his diary, he noted his opinion of Jews there:

"[Jews] are all wretched creatures, for I think I never saw in my life such a set of miserable looking people. And they would steal your eyes out of your head if they could."(7)

Opinions such as Quincy's were the rule in colonial America, generally speaking, rather than the exception. While Thomas Jefferson's opinion of Jews seemed to echo that of John Quincy Adam's, it seems that Jefferson's feelings towards Jews were more based on solid reason than Adam's. Jefferson regarded the Jewish People as such:

"Jews. Their system was Deism; that is, the belief in one only God. But their ideas of him and attributes were degrading and injurious. Their ethics were not only imperfect, but often irreconcilable with the sound dictates of reason and morality, as they respect intercourse with those around us; and repulsive and anti-social, as respecting other nations. They need reformation, therefore, in an eminent degree."(8)

When discussing the ethics of Jews, Jefferson felt that the Jews were severely lacking. Although there were instances of Jefferson paying respect to individual Jews, there was no indication that he wanted more of their kind in the U.S. Jefferson often gave "word" to Jewish rights, much like he did to the emancipation of slaves (only a handful of his 100-plus slaves were freed upon his death, despite his remarks against slavery). Still, he glowingly approved and cited William Enfield's findings to John Quincy Adams, noted in the epitome of Johann Jakob Brucker's Historia critica philosophae:

"Ethics were so little studied among the Jews, that in their whole compilation called the Talmud, there is only one treatise on moral subjects. Their books of Morals chiefly consisted in a minute enumeration of duties. From the law of Moses were deduced 613 precepts, which were divided into two classes, affirmative and negative, 248 in the former, and 365 in the latter. It may serve to give the reader some idea of the low state of moral philosophy among the Jews in the Middle Age, to add, that of the 248 affirmative precepts, only 3 were considered as obligatory upon women; and that in order to obtain salvation, it was judged sufficient to fulfill any one single law in the hour of death; the observance of the rest being deemed necessary, only to increase the felicity of the future life. What a wretched depravity of sentiment and manners must have prevailed before such corrupt maxims could have obtained credit! It is impossible to collect from these writings a consistent series of moral Doctrine."(9)

Peter Stuyvesant, the Governor of New Amsterdam, expelled Jews from his colony. He did this because he was knowledgeable of the Jewish Oral Laws and sought to prevent them from gaining a foothold in America, which would eventually lead to conflict and problems. He wrote a letter to the Amsterdam Chamber of the Dutch West India Company on September 22, 1654, telling his reason. (However, the Jews whom he banished contacted their fellow Jews in Holland, who demanded that those Jews be allowed to stay. The company said that the Jews should not be expelled because they were "poor" and "persecuted," and also because the Jews who Stuyvesant sought to banish had "a large amount of capital which they have invested in shares of this company.") In his letter, Stuyvesant wrote:

"The Jews who have arrived would nearly all like to remain here, but learning that they (with their customary usury and deceitful trading with Christians) were very repugnant to the inferior magistrates, as also to the people having the most affection for you; the Deaconry also fearing that owing to their present indigence they might become a charge in the coming winter, we have, for the benefit of this weak and newly developing place and land in general, deemed it useful to require them in a friendly way to depart; praying also most seriously in this connection, for ourselves as also for the general community of your worships, that the deceitful race . . . not to be allowed to infect and trouble this new colony."(10)

During colonial times, Jews were often not allowed to vote or to hold any type of public office. For instance, in New Netherland, as Leonard Dinnerstein notes in his book Anti-Semitism in America, Jews "were refused by law permission to worship in public, vote, hold office, purchase land, work as craftsmen, engage in retail operations, or trade with Indians." Also, they were not allowed to practice law. France's minister to the U.S. commented that, in 1786, anti-Jewish feelings "are still too strong to enable Jews to enjoy the privileges accorded to all their citizens." Indeed, while Jews petitioned Maryland in 1797 to be allowed to vote, practice law, and hold office, it was not for nearly three decades--1826--that Maryland passed what was deemed as the "Jew Bill," due to its strong opposition. And, Jews were not allowed to vote in North Carolina until 1868, while New Hampshire did not allow Jews that until 1877--several years after the 15th Amendment gave them that "right."(11)

From an ethical standpoint, there can be no justification for any religious Jew being given a Law License. The Jews' Oral Laws--that is, those contained in their Talmud--state that "the best of Gentiles deserves to be killed." This is not an exaggeration either, as I have seen this in an English version of the Talmud. It also says that it is OK for them to cheat Gentiles; that land owned by Gentiles is like "unclaimed land in the desert" (hence, the situation in Israel where non-Jews cannot obtain building permits or own--or even lease--land); and all sorts of other unethical ideals. Yet no consideration is given for these Jews not to practice law, which certainly lies contrary to the ethics required of attorneys.

But back to the distant past: Anti-Jewish sentiment was clearly prevalent among Gentile colonists. While much of it was religious in nature, some of it was for the other reasons why Jews are generally disliked throughout the civilized world today: usury, cheating, lying, stealing, murdering, debauchery-producing, revolution-inciting, decadence-promoting, et cetera, ad nauseam. (You can do a search with http://www.google.com for the online English translation of a book called "The Jew as Criminal," which presents some interesting findings from pre-WWII Germany, which details criminal statistics.) The Niles' Register, a large early American newspaper, noted that Jews were "everywhere despised and maltreated." Instilling anti-Jewish values was common among Gentiles. In one children's book, for example, it had a character who said, "I have heard that hatred of Jews has been a reckoned a virtue." Also, a Mother Goose rhyme promoted similar thoughts:

Jack Sold His Egg
To a Rogue of a Jew
Who Cheated Him Out
Of Half His Due.(12)

In the 1870s, some resorts and nice hotels refused Jews entrance. Some neighborhoods refused Jews to move there by "gentlemen's agreements." Many private clubs did not permit Jews to join.

Numerous prestigious universities denied Jews entrance. Administrator of Harvard Increase Mather and his successor, Samuel Willard, both denounced Jews in colonial America. Later, Lawrence Lowell, president of Harvard, said he felt that Harvard had a "Jewish problem" in 1922, because he felt there was a disproportionate number of Jews.(13) (Unfortunately, today, since America has allowed Jews to teach at Harvard, Jews have worked in a cohesive manner to essentially "steal" the university. It is now filled with such Jewish pseudo-scholars as Noel Ignatiev, who openly seeks to destroy Gentile civilization.)

In the past, things were much different. In 1855, William W. Stowe, the speaker of the House of Representatives, proposed charging Jews a high tax to keep them out of the state of California. They weren't. Now, look at California.

During the Civil War, General Ulysses S. Grant noticed with alarm that Jews, despite their small number in the general population, were engaged in a disproportionate amount of illegal trade. Reportedly, he felt that they were engaged in smuggling, theft, speculation, vagrancy, and a host of other crimes, including possible treason. Most noticeably, he felt that Jews were the carpetbaggers, who were despised in the South. In a letter to C.P. Wolcott, Assistant Secretary of War, on December 17, 1862, Grant wrote:

"I have long since believed that in spite of all the vigilance that can be infused into post commanders, the specie regulations of the Treasury Department have been violated, and that mostly by the Jews and other unprincipled traders. So well satisfied have I been of this that I instructed the commanding officer at Columbus to refuse all permits to Jews to come South, and I have frequently had them expelled from the department. But they come in with their carpet-sacks in spite of all that can be done to prevent it. The Jews seem to be a privileged class that can travel anywhere. They will land at any woodyard on the river and make their way through the country. If not permitted to buy cotton themselves, they will act as agents for someone else, who will be at a military post with a Treasury permit to receive cotton and pay for it in Treasury notes which the Jew will buy at an agreed rate, paying gold."

Also, on December 17, 1862, General Ulysses S. Grant issued General Orders No. 11. This order banished all Jews from Tennessee's western military district. General Orders No. 11 declared:

"1. The Jews, as a class, violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department, are hereby expelled from the Department.
"2. Within 24 hours from the receipt of this order by Post Commanders, they will see that all of this class of people are furnished with passes required to leave, and anyone returning after such notification, will be arrested and held in confinement until an opportunity occurs of sending them out as prisoners, unless furnished with permits from these headquarters.
"3. No permits will be given these people to visit headquarters for the purpose of making personal application for trade permits.
"By order of Major Gen. Grant.
"Jno. A. Rawlings, Assistant Adjutant General"

Abraham Lincoln rescinded General Orders No. 11. However, Henry W. Halleck, the General-in-Chief of the Army, told Grant that "the President has no objection to you expelling traitors and Jew peddlers."(14)

Perhaps, this comment later led, in part, to Lincoln's assassination by John Wilkes Booth, an advocate of slavery. (Some have alleged that Booth was also Jewish, and that his real last name was Botha, though I have not been able to verify that for certain.) Booth was a friend of Simon Wolf--an attorney for the Jewish secret society B'nai B'rith. (B'nai B'rith is the parent organization of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League--ADL--founded after B'nai B'rith Atlanta chapter head Leo Frank murdered the 12-year-old Gentile girl Mary Phagan.) Simon Wolf was often involved in theatrical productions. Reportedly, Esther L. Panitz briefly notes in her authorized biography of B'nai B'rith's Simon Wolf that he had a sense of familiarity with Booth. Panitz describes this little-known relationship between Wolf and Booth:

"Locally, the group's theatrical productions received good press. Wolf, who would often play the Ghost in Hamlet or Shylock in the Merchant of Venice, bore an uncanny resemblance to John Wilkes Booth, Lincoln's assassin. Earlier in Cleveland, Booth had Wolf and Peixotto in dramatic performances. Years afterward, Wolf remembered that he had met Booth once again in the Willard Hotel, on the morning of the day Lincoln was shot. . . . Wolf also recalled that once he sat for a picture entitled 'The Assassination of President Lincoln.'"

Also, in Wolf's book Presidents I Have Known, Wolf reportedly acknowledged that he had met with Booth at the Willard Hotel on the fateful day that Lincoln was assassinated. Apparently, they even had a few drinks together. Strange bedfellows.

Wolf probably had bitter feelings towards Lincoln, especially to watch a play entitled "The Assassination of President Lincoln" about Lincoln's death. This may have been because of the past difficulties Wolf had with Lincoln's subordinates. For instance, Wolf was arrested by LaFayette C. Baker, the chief of detectives in Washington, D.C., for being part of a "conspiratorial organization" that was allegedly involved in "spying and blockade running on behalf of the Confederacy." (Later, LaFayette was promoted to the position of head of the U.S. Secret Service.) Both General Grant and Baker reportedly looked at the B'nai B'rith as a "spy agency."(15) Perhaps, Wolf was involved in such activities because of Lincoln putting an end to slavery; or perhaps Wolf did it because Judah P. Benjamin in the South was a member of the Jewish Race, though a proselyte-Christian, and, consequently, Wolf felt more secure with the South. Some have suggested that Lincoln was despised by Jewish aristocrats because he produced "greenbacks," thereby making international financiers purposeless. It is difficult to speculate why, whatever the case.

If Grant was alone in his recognition of Jews being involved in traitorous activities and unscrupulous trade, his findings could be perhaps written off as mere fanaticism. However, he was not. And there was more than just LaFayette Baker. As noted in The Sherman Letters, Gen. William Sherman also said similar things when he was in Union-occupied Memphis, Tennessee, on July 30, 1862:

"I found so many Jews and speculators here trading in cotton, and secessionists had become so open in refusing anything but gold, that I have felt myself bound to stop it. The gold can have but one use--the purchase of arms and ammunition. . . . Of course, I have respected all permits by yourself of the Secretary of the Treasury, but in these new cases (swarms of Jews), I have stopped it."

There has been some speculation that Lincoln was assassinated as a result of Jewish hatred. If that was the case, he was not the last.

Huey Long, a pro-Gentile presidential candidate in the 1920s who had a good chance of being elected, was assassinated by the Jewish dentist Carl Weiss. It almost seems as if assassinations in America are part of a trend among Jews.

With regards to Kennedy's assassination, there was that strip club owner Jack Ruby who somehow was able to get close enough to shoot Lee Harvey Oswald. Oswald, who had once gave up his American citizenship and ran off to the Soviet Union at the height of Jewish Communism, was held in custody for killing Kennedy; and while being taken somewhere, Ruby comes out of nowhere with a loaded pistol and puts a bullet in Oswald--shortly after he had agreed to tell all. This shows there is much more to this issue than we know. Why would a strip club owner, not the typical person who seems like he would care too much, take this upon himself? How did Ruby know that Oswald would be coming out at that time and that entrance? How was Ruby able to get by security with a loaded gun? How was he able to get close enough to Oswald to shoot him at point-blank range? These are all good questions that need to be answered.(16) I don't think Kennedy cared too much for Israel's terrorist activities, and that might have made some Jews unhappy.

But, if Jews made Kennedy unhappy, he was hardly the first. Jews have been kicked out of nearly every civilization in the entire world. These are a few of the areas in which Jews have been expelled, noted as the areas they are known as today and followed by the year of the expulsion(s):

Africa (1147, 1790), Arabia (624), Austria (1298), Babylon (586BC), Bavaria (1551), Belgium (1370), Czechoslovokia (1745), Denmark (not allowed in until the 17th century), Egypt (1571BC, 38BC, 3BC, 66), England (not allowed in until the 12th century, expelled in 1290), France (561, 1182, 1242, 1306, 1394, 1540, 1682), Germany (1012, 1096, 1146, 1298, 1510, 1614, 1935-revoked citizenship), Hungary (1360, 1582, 1717), Italy (1492, 1540, 1550, 1846), Iraq (not allowed to emigrate to until 2003), Lebanon (Jews not allowed entrance), Palestine (70, 324), Lithuania (1495), Netherlands (1444), Norway (1814), Poland (1453, 1772-Pale of Settlement), Portugal (1498), Prussia (1510), Rome (315, 379), Russia (1772-Pale of Settlement, 1881), Saxony (1349), Slovakia (1380, 1744), Spain (612, 694, 1391, 1492-1968, officially), Sweden (until 1782), Switzerland (1939), Syria (Jews not allowed entrance).

Hence, we see that these "underground" feelings that are prevalent among Gentiles are not even isolated to America; they accurately reflect the entire world's feelings towards Jews throughout history. The reason for this is that Jews are generally "mean," for lack of a better all-inclusive term that adequately summarizes Jewish characteristics, though Jews are basically incapable of introspection and fail to recognize this inherent trait among them. Indeed, looking at WWII, it would not have even been caused if not for Jews. Jews had taken over Russia and had murdered 60 million Russians. Jews then tried to do the same with Germany, but failed miserably (at first). Today, about 60 years after the fact, they continuously feed the world pity-the-Jew-propaganda on a daily basis.

Many respectable Americans felt that Jews had indeed caused WWII (just as today many feel that they are at fault for the Iraq War). Joseph P. Kennedy, the father of America's Kennedy dynasty, who was a U.S. Ambassador in London prior to WWII, stated why England went to war:

"[British Prime Minister] Chamberlain stated that America and the world's Jews had forced England into the war."(17)

Indeed, during WWII, most Americans could have cared less for Jews. Hugh Wilson, the US Ambassador in Berlin until 1938, the year before the war broke out, found anti-Semitism in Germany "understandable." This was because before the advent of the National Socialists there, "the stage, the press, medicine and law [were] crowded with Jews...among the few with money to splurge, a high proportion [were] Jews ... the leaders of the Bolshevist movement in Russia, a movement desperately feared in Germany, were Jews. One could feel the spreading resentment and hatred."(18)

World War II hero General George Patton reflected many of America's leaders views of Jews. He described Jewish Displaced Persons as being "without any of the cultural or social refinements of our time." He found that many lacked morals common among others. "My opinion is that no people," said Gen. Patton, "could have sunk to the level of degradation these people have reached in the short space of four years."(19) Writing of the "Semitic revenge [planned by Morgenthau and Baruch] against all Germans," Gen. Patton promulgated:

"Harrison and his ilk believe that the displaced person is a human being, which he is not, and this applies particularly to the Jews, who are lower than animals."(20)

General Patton was hardly alone in those feelings. General MacArthur also felt similarly. Likewise, George Van Horn Moseley did too. George Van Horn Moseley was both a General of the United States and Deputy Secretary of State.

At one time, he had been asked to join the America First Committee (AFC). The following letter, which is Moseley's response to join the AFC, is reprinted in the book The 'Jewish Threat': Anti-Semitic Politics of the U.S. Army by Jewish author Joseph Bendersky. Similar to many others who are in or have been in the government, former General and Deputy Secretary of State George Van Horn Moseley was also concerned about Jewish influence. His voice still needs to be heard, and perhaps his lifting idea, which he wrote in all caps below, needs to be considered today. Differing from many others in this aspect, however, he was outspoken about his beliefs, not being a politician nor one to hide. His letter follows:

Atlanta, Georgia
October 23, 1940

Mr. R. Douglas Stuart, Jr., Director
America First Committee,
1806 Board of Trade Building,
Chicago, Illinois

Dear Mr. Stuart:

If I am to acknowledge the receipt of your letter dated October 11th, I must, in keeping with the principles which have always governed me, write you very frankly.

At the outset, I must say that I am happy to know that your organization has chosen such a vital mission. But I wonder if you realize the difficulties of such a campaign and the real strength of the enemy-and are you prepared to go to battle with him and with his tribe? A number of organizations have stared out bravely with a mission similar to yours, but too often they have melted away before the enemy.

I have had considerable experience on this subject, for I tried to arouse the American people from their apathy, pointing out the dangers confronting us as a nation. But I stated the truth too frankly and so, for many months now, my pen and my voice have been silenced.

Early in my endeavors, I received an invitation to speak before the Union League Club of Chicago, an organization I remember from boyhood, which always marched in step with the Republic. No date had been fixed but when the enemy went after me in the public press the heroic Union League Club evidently lost their nerve, and they did not renew their invitation.

What prevents America from being first today? Let me be frank and point out the enemy who would themselves be first in America today, and that is the Jewish nation, a nation within a nation. If you will investigate, as I have - crime, graft, filthy publications and unsavory movies, the liquor and drug traffic, the red light district, white slave traffic, and WAR - you will arrive head on against a pack of Jews in control.

I am not going to take your time to discuss in this letter the age old problem of the Jew, but if you are interested, you can get all the evidence concerning his plans for world domination from the writings of Jews, themselves. You do not have to rely on the statement of any Gentile. Suffice it to say, however, that they have been driven out of every country in which they have been domiciled, and for good reason, and EVENTUALLY THEY WILL BE DRIVEN OUT OF THE U.S.A. [Moseley's emphasis]

The Jew may tell you that there are only some four and a half million of them in the United States. The fact is there are over thirteen million of them in the United States today. Formerly I felt sorry for the Member of Congress who could not face this problem frankly on account of Jewish influence in his district, but now I find the influence of the Jew extends to every field. The banker, who may agree with me on principle just one hundred percent, dares not touch this problem, for some of his biggest depositors are Jews; many a lawyer will not face it for some of his big clients are Jews; the press cannot touch it, for so many of the big advertisers are Jews, and it is the advertiser who makes the paper pay. If we lack the character to face this problem squarely and solve it, we will experience the tragedy which overtook France.

I shall be glad to join your organization, assisting it as far as I am permitted to do so -

1. If you eliminate from your organization all Jews and all Jewish influences (they join all organizations and buy in or on both political parties; thus they keep themselves fully advised, and control or ruin);

2. If you will come out before the nation with a definite statement against the Jew and all he stands for, including the closing of our doors to all refugee Jews, of whatever nationality;

3. If you will take a definite stand against the control by Jews in local, state and national affairs;

4. If you will advocate the restoration of our REPUBLIC [Moseley's emphasis], bringing back the in the written and spoken language throughout the United States the words, "Republic, Christ and Christian".

If you will take the stand that I have suggested above, millions of Gentiles will rush to your banner. But if you fail to meet this issue squarely, your organization will accomplish nothing, except possibly to support a certain overhead, including perhaps several Jewish secretaries, placed with you for the purpose of spying upon you and your work.

You may not agree with me in what I have written above. Perhaps you will give this letter no consideration whatsoever, but may I ask you to preserve it, so that as the years roll by you may again read it, with the perspective of, say, ten to fifteen years. May I ask also that you make acknowledgement of it, for I plan to give copies of this letter to individuals over the land who know this problem and agree with me just one hundred percent.

Enclosed herewith is a copy of a letter inviting me to meet Mr. Lewis L. Strauss of Kuhn, Loeb & Company, and my reply.

Very sincerely yours,
George Van Horn Moseley

It has been many years since Moseley's comments. Since that time, Jews have gained nearly full control of America's government. Such power is clearly illustrated by former Illinois Congressman of 20 years Paul Findley's book They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby. He tells about how Jewish plutocrats strongly influence America's policies, particularly with respect to Israel and the Mid-East. But this control is over much more than America's foreign policy with respect to Israel. Indeed, America has just gotten out of the Iraq War, which was caused due to Jewish influence.

Shall we allow America to continue to be taken by the hands of Jews, letting Jews lead America down the pathway towards apocalypse. Or shall we put an end to this control, and proclaim from the highest pulpit,

"Free at last! Thank God Almighty, Gentiles are free at last!"




____________________________________

NOTES:

1. Dinnerstein, Leonard, Anti-Semitism in America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994).

2.) Dinnerstein, pp. 232-233.

3.) "The Haldeman Diaries" (N.Y.: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1994), p. 405.

4.) "The Generals and the Jews," Newsweek (November 25, 1974), p. 39.

5.) Also, see The 'Jewish Threat': Anti-Semitic Politics of the U.S. Army by Jewish author Joseph Bendersky (New York: Basic Books, 2000), pp. 428-429, for more about this particular controversy.

6.) The Writings of Benjamin Franklin, Vol. 8, The MacMillian Co., p. 332.

7.) Dinnerstein, p. 11; citing Diary of John Quincy Adams (Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University, 1981), I, p. 59.

8.) Gerber, David, Anti-Semitism in American History (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1986), p. 59.

9.) Gerber, p. 59.

10.) Dinnerstein, p. 5; Letter to the Amsterdam Chamber of the Dutch West India Company from New Amsterdam, September 22, 1654; Harry Golden and Martin Rywell, The Jews in American History.

11.) Dinnerstein, pp. 5, 7, 11, 15, 17.

12.) Dinnerstein, p. 17, 18, 19.

13.) Dinnerstein, p. 8, 84.

14). Dinnerstein, p. 32.

15.) EIR, The Ugly Truth about the ADL (Washington, D.C.: Executive Intelligence Review, 1994), pp. 8-9.

16.) The fact that Ruby was able to get close enough to Oswald after he murdered President Kennedy--and Ruby knew where Oswald would be at a particular time--while carrying a loaded weapon speaks great deals in and of itself. There is a book written by Michael Piper, who works at the American Free Press, that mentions possible Jewish involvement in Kennedy's assassination, I am told, though I have not personally read it yet.

17.) The Forrestal Diaries, ed. Millis, Cassell, 1952, p. 129.

18.) Hugh Wilson: Diplomat between the Wars (Longmans, 1941), quoted by Leonard Mosley, Lindbergh (Hodder, 1976), p. 252.

19.) Bendersky, Joseph, The 'Jewish Threat': Anti-Semitic Politics of the U.S. Army (New York: Perseus Books, 2000), pp. 352-357

20.) Bendersky, p. 357


R. Piper - 7/24/2003


How amusing.

So, you won't post a reply of the person attacked on the HNN homepage because he "regularly employs inflammatory rhetoric"?

Really?
Dare to tell us what you consider "inflammatory rhetoric"?

And, even assuming your lame smear of Raimondo's style is correct:
So What?
-- His reply apparently does not employ inflammatory rhetoric.
-- HNN apparently has no problem with regularly posting inflammatory rhetoric of Israeli Patriots (Pipes et al).

Your transparently bogus excuse is both sophomoric and pathetic:
It is obvious that you will not publish anyone critical of Israel, period.

You need to work on your agitprop skills, sir.






Don Williams - 7/24/2003

Radosh lists six reasons why some people oppose the invasion of Iraq-- then goes on to launch what is essentially a muddled ad hominem without attempting to refute the six arguements he presents-- and Radosh's incoherent, insulting metaphor is that people opposed to the Iraqi war are anti-Semitic supporters of bloody pathological tyrants like Hitler.

Maybe Radosh can explain why, when I see pictures of US officials shaking hands with Saddam Hussein in the 1980s, the person in the picture is Donald Rumsfeld or some other Republican. Maybe Radosh can tell us how many armaments were given to Hussein in the 1980s by people in the antiwar movement?


editor - 7/24/2003

Editorial Note: Mr. Raimondo wanted the following article to be published on HNN's homepage. We declined. He argues in a note appended to his article that our decision reflects a policy of censorship. Indeed, we chose not to publish his article on the homepage to signal our discomfort with the inflammatory rhetoric he regularly employs.

Justin Raimondo, writing on his website, anti-war.com (July 23, 2003):


Ronald Radosh's essay, "Isolationism Strikes Again," which seeks to make a parallel between the "isolationism" of the 1930s and the antiwar movement of today, fails to account for several differences, the first and most obvious being that the America First Committee (AFC), the leading anti-interventionist organization opposing U.S. entry into World War II, voted to disband immediately after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Secondly, Radosh fails to take into account the balance of forces: the idea that a fourth-rate military power such as Iraq under Saddam Hussein constituted the equivalent of Hitler's Germany is simply not supported by any evidence. Hitler had overrun most of Europe and was venturing into Asia by the time the U.S. entered the fray: Saddam Hussein, on the other hand, had been driven out of Kuwait, subjected to a crippling embargo for over a decade, and represented a threat to nothing and no one but his own people – and, even in that case, had lost control of the northern part of his domain, where a virtually independent Kurdish state had taken root.

Saddam another Hitler? The comparison is overblown, to say the least.

Radosh writes:

"The enemies of liberation in Iraq, speaking from U.S. soil, warned that rather than victory, the U.S. would once again be blindly sucked into a useless and unwinnable war turning the rest of the world against our nation."

But this is precisely what is happening in Iraq, as the U.S. gets bogged down in a guerrilla war against an enemy that is everywhere and nowhere in particular. The headlines refuted Radosh, even as his essay was posted.

Radosh then goes on to attack Pat Buchanan:

"The U.S., as Pat Buchanan so plainly put it, is acting in a 'triumphalist' fashion leading to 'an imperial war on Iraq.' And, of course, Buchanan argued that the U.S. is fundamentally manipulated by the Israeli government, which hopes that war with Iraq will give Israel an excuse to return to Lebanon and 'settle scores with Hizbollah.' The Jews, now as in the past, are projected as the driving force pushing the U.S. to accept their agenda and endanger the peace of the world."

Why does Radosh conflate Israel and "the Jews"? What Buchanan calls Israel's "amen corner" in the U.S. is hardly synonymous with people of the Jewish faith: Christian fundamentalists, who hold a key position of influence within the GOP, are Israel's best (and most numerous) friends, and are especially supportive of the present radical right-wing Likud government. So it isn't "the Jews" who are the objects of Buchanan's ire, but an organized lobby, the main component of which is non-Jewish.

Radosh cites Charles Beard and Charles A. Lindbergh, but nowhere refutes them. Beard held that sanctions against Japan would lead to war – and that is precisely what happened. Lindbergh said we would occupy Europe in peacetime if we intervened in the European war – and we are still in Europe, last time I checked.

Radosh writes:

"One difference between then and now, however, was that a large portion of the intellectual community then formed committees in favor of intervention against the Nazi menace. These groups countered large and influential anti-war lobbies exemplified by the American First Committee."

What Radosh fails to mention, however, is that these interventionist committees and groups of intellectuals were motivated by their sympathy for the Soviet Union, which had been attacked by the Axis powers. The campaign to drag us into war became a crusade to open up a "second front" and save the "workers' fatherland," and was directed, in large part, by the Communists. Radosh says it is different in the case of the war on Iraq, but this is simply not true: the War Party of today has its little bands of intellectuals who favored a U.S. invasion. Instead of the "workers' fatherland," however, the chief interest of these intellectuals seems to have been furthering the strategic interests of Israel.

One hardly knows what to make of Radosh's assault on the Old Right, the so-called "isolationists" whose cause he so ably presented in his 1976 book Prophets on the Right: Profiles of Conservative Critics of American Globalism. Radosh's wonderful book contradicts the crude characterization in his essay to such an extent that the innocent reader may wonder if, perhaps, a Radosh doppelganger exists, somewhere, and is trying to confuse us. In his essay, Radosh accuses the Old Right of being part of an "anti-Semitic" "conspiracy" that sought to aid the Axis powers. In his earlier book, however, he says of the Old Right:

"Their criticisms were ignored as Americans centered their attention on whether to enter the war against Nazi Germany, and they were soon branded as apologists for the Axis powers. Their voices stilled by patriotic fervor, they hoped to be heard once again in saner times. But such a time did not come….

"It would be left to a later generation to raise them again. If we listen carefully to these individuals, omitting our well-worn ideologies and political biases, we will learn much from their journeys and courage. Whether we agree with all, some, or few of their particular judgments, we may be inspired to act more thoughtfully to reach viable alternatives to foreign adventure and interventionism."

Yes, they did indeed hope to be heard once again, "in saner times." Those times, I fear, have yet to come. In any case, Radosh – once a real historian, now reduced to jargonized sloganeering – is no longer capable of listening.

Finally, I regretfully must answer Radosh's accusations directed at me, to wit:

"Today, Old Right descendants and imitators gather around Pat Buchanan and his journal, the American Conservative, which joins the Left in the fight against so-called U.S. 'global hegemony.' Their anti-Americanism has become so visceral and extreme that one of the journal's contributors, Dennis 'Justin' Raimondo, actually wrote, in the Russian newspaper Pravda, that the claim that 'America is a civilized country' is false, and, referring to World War II, he argued 'the wrong side won the war in the Pacific.' And like the conspiratorial anti-Semitic Arab newspapers, Raimondo also writes that 'Israel had foreknowledge of 9/11, a claim that puts him in league with the most extremist anti-Semites in the Arab world."

Radosh can't seem to get even the most basic facts right: my legal name is Justin Raimondo. I changed it years ago, when I was barely out of my teens. So what, exactly, is the point of putting my name in ironic quotes?

Furthermore, I have never written for any Russian newspaper. Radosh lifts the fragment of a phrase out of a column I wrote for Antiwar.com, in which I refuted a piece in the New York Post that tried to justify the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and attempts to somehow prove that I favored a Japanese victory in World War II. But putting the sentence fragment he cites in its original context makes it clear that I advocated no such thing. Here is the full quote in context:

"The great horror is that this heinous deed was committed against Japan, a civilization as far removed from our own as the streets of New York are from the African savannas. It's at times like these that I tend to believe the wrong side won the war in the Pacific. Just think: if we all woke up one day living in some alternate history, as in Phillip K. Dick's The Man in the High Castle, our cultural malaise would disappear overnight. Instead of listening to the latest loutish lyrics of Eminem, American teenagers would be contemplating the subtle beauty of the Japanese tea ceremony. If contemporary Japan is any clue, the crime rate would be cut by 95 percent, and the literacy rate would skyrocket. Certainly everyone's manners would improve. All in all, life would be far more civilized, imbued with a gentility that would make the New York Post an impossibility."

I guess it's too much to expect, in the feverish "gotcha" atmosphere of today, that irony is going to be appreciated. That this quote is now being exhumed – in fractured form – and lifted out of context to prove my alleged "sympathy" for Japanese militarism would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

Radosh contends that my series of articles averring that Israel had some foreknowledge of 9/11 put me "in league with the most extremist anti-Semites in the Arab world."

Is Fox News reporter Carl Cameron also part of the vast anti-Semitic conspiracy? In December 2001, he reported:

"There is no indication that the Israelis were involved in the 9-11 attacks, but investigators suspect that the Israelis may have gathered intelligence about the attacks in advance, and not shared it. A highly placed investigator said there are – quote – 'tie-ins.' But when asked for details, he flatly refused to describe them, saying, – quote – 'evidence linking these Israelis to 9-11 is classified.'"

Salon, Le Monde, Jane's Intelligence, the wire services, Der Spiegel, Die Zeit, the BBC – all have reported on various aspects of this story. Are they also in on the Vast Anti-Semitic Conspiracy?

Numerous stories emanating from the Arab world have contended that Israel actually executed the 9/11 attacks. That is not what I have written or believe. The reporting done by Fox News, Salon, other mainstream news sources indicates that Israeli intelligence agents were watching the hijackers very closely in the weeks and months prior to 9/11. In my writing I have been careful to say only that the Israelis must have known something about the 9/11 plot, and – for some reason – failed to inform the U.S.


Don Williams - 7/24/2003

1) As I've noted before, I think it is unfair to blame American Jews for the actions of the neocons. There are only roughly 6 million American Jews -- and it's questionable how many of them define themselves solely in terms of being Jewish. They are not a large enough voting bloc to be driving Bush's extreme policy. Many of them are middle class and do not have enough wealth to drive US policy. While they want Israel to survive, their humane values do not support the continuing misery of the Palestinians.

2) I really think this is all about money-- about Bush trying to undermine the Democratic Party by pulling away it's primary financiers. Sept 11 was just one price for these political manipulations.

Plus some of the most powerful neocons are not even Jewish. The much-vaunted Richard Perle is, in my opinion, merely a lapdog/tool belonging to Conrad Black , the Canadian who's the third largest media magnate in the world. While Conrad Black is a rabid supporter of Sharon, he is not Jewish.

It should also be noted that some American Jews are among the strongest critics of the Israeli occupation and of the US governments unjust support for Israeli aggression.

Finally, there are other powerful interests (oil, defense contracting) allied behind the scenes with the neocon agenda.

The primary thing that angers me is the way in which the major news media are presenting a false and distorted picture in order to manipulate US public opinion. The media hides the major players, their political and business agendas, their actions,and the malign effects of their actions.


Robert Backas - 7/24/2003

If William Appleman Williams were still alve he would be ashamed to see what you have become.He was a great historian with courage,erudition and integrity.Apparently he wasted his time and energy on you.
"Prohets on the Right" was an excellent book.It is sad to see what you have become.I am disappointd.


Curtis Alln - 7/24/2003

It is not racism to note that Jewish americans are overly visible in the support for war in Iraq. its a fact. people who avoid facts are usually have something to hide (eg, their motives).

Mrs. Debolt has it just right: this article reeks of neo-fascism.

I shall quote you words of George Washington, and then you tell me who the traitors are in the war debate (think about the US Israeli alliance as you read this):

"a passionate attachment of one Nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite Nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification."

and what about wolfowitz, perle, feith, kristol, etc? are they good patriotic americans, Pres. Washington?

"And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, (who devote themselves to the favorite nation,) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation."

just as the abused child is predisposed to be an abuser, the american jewish community is apparently predisposed to fascism and violation of american principles...



Josh Greenland - 7/24/2003

Justin Raimundo wanted to have a rebuttal essay to Radosh's piece posted on HNN as an article. HNN declined to do this (as described by Raimundo below) but told him he could post it as a comment. Raimundo wasn't willing to do this, but instead posted his rebuttal on his antiwar.com site, preceded by an attack on HNN. Here they are:

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j072303.html

Raimundo describes himself as an historian and points to two books that he's written as proof. I'm wondering how seriously to take his historical claims when he can blithely write something like this (in the URLed essay):

"What Radosh fails to mention, however, is that these interventionist committees and groups of intellectuals were motivated by their sympathy for the Soviet Union, which had been attacked by the Axis powers. The campaign to drag us into war became a crusade to open up a "second front" and save the "workers' fatherland," and was directed, in large part, by the Communists."

I've done some reading about WWII and the years preceding it, and the pro-Soviet sympathies of US groups wanting war on the Axis is news to me! This sounds like a standard Buchananite pro-Nazi lie. No wonder HNN didn't let Raimundo post an article.


Don Williams - 7/24/2003

In addition to what Ms DeBolt cited above, I would note that (a) Dick Cheney was on Kazakhstan's oil advisory board during his tenure at Halliburton in the 1990s and was involved in Houston's attempts to gain access to the Caspian Sea . The Bush diatribes against Hussein are hilarious when you look at the oil dictatorships he is cozing up to in Central Asia.

Morocco is backing Bush in the "war on terror" because Bush is letting Morocco steal the Western Sahara and its offshore oil fields. Similarly, Bush's "war on drugs" in Colombia is a cover for
military attacks on rebels who have blown up the oil pipeline and electric facilities , thereby disrupting Occidental Oil's
operations and cutting into Occidental's profits.

But , as Ms Debolt noted, the Social Security assets of the workers are being stolen to pay for Bush's military empire while rich investors, who have laid off Americans and moved capital overseas, are reaping the profits.


Suzanne DeBolt - 7/23/2003

Neo-fascism is the fundamental principle driving the dreams of people like Radosh.

Radosh's contemptible reductive arguments are rank hypocrisy; his blatant lies should be refuted with a right of reply from Justin Raimondo. Unfortunately, the History News Network refuses to publish Raimondo's right of reply. Censoring opposing viewpoints doesn't reflect well on History News Network. In fact, it undermines the credibility of this site completely, in my view.

I defy Radosh to deny the following: The CIA sponsored Coup in Iran to put the Shah in place, was directly related to oil. The attempted CIA coup last year in Venezuela was directly related to oil. The invasion and occupation of Iraq is directly related to oil. The invasion of Afghanistan is directly related to oil and natural gas in the Caspian Basin. The consideration of sending troops to Liberia is directly related to oil; the Pentagon is advocating establishing US military bases in the region for the purposes of securing US energy interests. The Pentagon has already established military bases in Central Asia for that purpose. And, as a result of our global drive for empire--and to protect the oil and defense corporate interests, our own security here in the United States has been seriously undermined.

The paradigm suggested by Radosh and other Neocon "World Empire" interventionists was well delineated in Bryzinski's book, "The Grand Chessboard." The canard about isolationists being anti-semitic is, of course, the most egregious demogoguery. In fact, Israel publicly stated that they provided a report to the Bush administration in August, 2001, delineating risks of an attack by Al-Qaeda. How is it that Radosh is so seriously under-informed of this? It was reported in major media.

Criticizing foreign influence on US governmental affairs was clearly espoused by both George Washington and James Madison. The influence of the Israeli lobby on our Congress, and on our domestic and foreign policy, is pervasive and insidious. Criticizing such foreign influence is, of course, not anti-semitic. But that smear generally serves to silence any debate, so it is a convenient weapon in their dirty war. An excellent source, by former Congressman Paul Findley, is "They Dare To Speak Out: People and Institutions confront Israel's lobby," published in 1985, '89 by Lawrence Hill Books.

Lastly, Radosh's view is the height of arrogance, when one considers who pays the costs of our "Empire of Global Dominance"--mostly the poor and middle class who serve in the military, and pay the bulk of the taxes which support our military-corporate "Pigs At the Trough" while they gorge themselves and become fat with arrogance and power. Radosh is elitist, and his arguments reek of Straussian contempt for the people of the United States. History News Network has silently colluded in this exercise by not allowing opposing viewpoints. Shame on HNN.


jim - 7/22/2003

Mr. Kriz, I've been reading your postings. Isn't Bush the "unelected" President? Isn't he the stupid President? Isn't he the reincarnation of Hitler? Why would this monster of your fevered imagination worry about the PBGC and Social Security?

Your posting here is standard issue leftist drivel. Name every problem you can come up with and lay it at the feet of the guy you don't like. Do you honestly believe that the problems of PBGC and Social Security are only 2 1/2 years old?

You refer to the Bill of Rights. Is there an amendment there that lays out a scenario where the President singlehandedly solves all the world's problems (provided he sees the world's problems exactly as Mr. Kriz sees them)? Did I miss the repeal of three branches and checks and balances?

The worst thing about your rant is that it is so hackneyed, so unoriginal. Every single day, I can pick up a paper or look at a website and read your post. The same mindless script, bereft of serious thought, but goosed up to the stars with hyperbole.

You have the right, of course, to disagree with Bush's war on terrorism. But to make final conclusions about a situation that is still in its early days suggests that you are only interested in -- or only capable of -- political rhetoric.

In the event that WMDs are found, I know, with absolute certainty, that you will be posting that Bush had them planted. No amount of evidence to the contrary will be able to unseat the conclusion that you have already arrived at. Or, rather, the conclusion that some leftist mentor of yours has already arrived at, and which you will slavishly parrot.


jim - 7/22/2003

"Saddam was telling the truth and Bush was lying." If UN inspectors destroyed 95 percent of Saddam's weapons in 1991, why the UNSCOM inspections between roughly 1995 and 1998? Why did Richard Butler, the head of UNSCOM, write a book called The Greatest Threat, in which he claims, based on his firsthand experience, that 1) Saddam had such weapons, tons of them 2) Saddam not only lied to the inspectors but repeatedly insulted and threatened their safety? Butler concludes that UNSCOM, a creation of the UN Security Council, ultimately failed because it was undermined by the two members of the Council who had a vested interest in seeing them fail -- France and Russia.

Speaking of blowhards, Scott Ritter made a name for himself by claiming that the inspectors were not working assiduously enough. After leaving Iraq in a snit, he resurfaced as a Saddam shill. Some have alleged, and have supported the allegations with circumstantial evidence, that Ritter was paid off.


jim - 7/22/2003

"Saddam was telling the truth and Bush was lying." If UN inspectors destroyed 95 percent of Saddam's weapons in 1991, why the UNSCOM inspections between roughly 1995 and 1998? Why did Richard Butler, the head of UNSCOM, write a book called The Greatest Threat, in which he claims, based on his firsthand experience, that 1) Saddam had such weapons, tons of them 2) Saddam not only lied to the inspectors but repeatedly insulted and threatened their safety? Butler concludes that UNSCOM, a creation of the UN Security Council, ultimately failed because it was undermined by the two members of the Council who had a vested interest in seeing them fail -- France and Russia.

Speaking of blowhards, Scott Ritter made a name for himself by claiming that the inspectors were not working assiduously enough. After leaving Iraq in a snit, he resurfaced as a Saddam shill. Some have alleged, and have supported the allegations with circumstantial evidence


Don Williams - 7/21/2003

See, for example, http://ontheissues.org/NY/Eliot_Engel_War_+_Peace.htm and
http://www.israelforum.com/board/printthread.php3?threadid=2850
Re the latter, note that Syria is not a threat to the US but is seen
as a threat by Israel, so Israel's advocates in the US government are trying to manipulate the US into attacking Syria.

See also http://in.news.yahoo.com/030610/137/250wo.html , in which
Engel attacked Bush after Bush had criticized Israel for disrupting the
roadmap for peace process by firing helicopter air to ground missiles into a crowded intersection in Gaza in an attempt to assassinate a Hamas leader. Whores like Engel , and their manipulation of the US government into a one-sided support of Israeli aggresstion contrary to our national values, are what provoked
Sept 11.

I support Israel's right to exist and recognize she is an ally. But any American who puts Israeli interests above those of the US--and who attempts to drag the US into a war with the Islamic world in order to serve Israel -- is, in my opinion, the moral
equivalent of a traitor.


Josh Greenland - 7/21/2003

I'm a little surprised that there was almost no comment in this forum against Radosh's attempt to smear the anti-Iraq war movement as anti-Semitic. Is it that the article was too long and difficult to read, that those of you who oppose the Iraq war are inured to the anti-Semitism smear, or is there some other reason?

Radosh's remarks about WWII and the period preceding are
generally correct. But he has gotten some history wrong in ways that support his thesis. Mostly his misleading and directly false historical statements advance the fantasy that there was an anti-war left/right coalition in the United States before WWII.

Radosh perpetrated the great majority of his falsehoods against the present anti-war movement. His worst one is his "anti-semitic conspiracy theory" construct, which has the current anti-war movement believing that an all-Jewish cabal of neoconservatives is behind the Iraq war. In order to cobble this one together, Radosh brings in the indisputably anti-Semitic rightwinger Pat Buchanan and a nutty follower of his, Justin Raimundo, to establish the conspiracy theory's existence on the anti-war Right, and tries to tie the anti-war Left to the theory by bringing in Michael Lind, whose thinking Radosh called "virtually anti-Semitic," and Eric Alterman, who to my knowledge is no fan of anti-Semitism, and whose position I strongly suspect Radosh mischaracterized to make it look "virtually anti-Semitic" as well. Radosh wants us to believe that the writings of these four men establish that all parts of the anti-war movement, left and right, believe the US was made to fight the Iraq war by "the Jews."

Radosh also tries to establish that the current anti-war movement could hamper America's necessary war against the international threat of Hussein's Iraq, but he never manages to prove the existence of that threat. The effort to prove it is feeble and unconvincing, especially given the well-publicized rebutting of the sinister aluminum tubes, the evil drone wooden planes and the trailers of mass destruction, not to mention the current (last ditch?) attempts on the part of the Blair and Bush administrations to establish in the public's mind with bluster what they couldn't with evidence in regards to the Niger uranium claims.

I'm not sure why Radosh made so much effort in this poorly edited article (the first, thesis-establishing sentence is repeated at the end of the second paragraph, and did Spanish civilian women really respond to German bombing by baring their breasts?) to link America's current anti-war movement to our pre-WWII isolationist one. The effort seems too great given that relatively few people care about the pre-WWII isolationist movement. Radosh puts more verbiage into the isolationist analogy than he needs to to use it to support his contentions that the center of modern anti-war movement ideology is anti-semitism and that the anti-war movement could hurt America's ability to fight a real threat. Taken all together, it's an oddly structured, poorly argued and sloppily written essay.


Josh Greenland - 7/20/2003

Don,
What you've said about Chuckie Schumer is also true of fellow FDD advistory board member Frank Lautenburg.


Stephen Kriz - 7/19/2003



Blair and Bush are ruthless, heartless money-grubbers who don't care a thing about human life. The Bush family has left a trail of dead bodies behind them, just look:

http://www.bk2k.com/bushbodycount/index.shtml

One more notch in Dubya's holster.......


Don Williams - 7/18/2003

Pat Buchanan is a conservative. Chuck Schumer, on the other hand, is, in my opinion, a whore for Israel who has sabotaged the Democratic Party and helped elect Bush and the Republicans. See
http://www.jnewswire.com/news_archive/03/05/030520_end_talks.asp
and http://www.mediamonitors.net/amr114.html .


Derek Catsam - 7/18/2003

Why not mention Schumer? Well, let's recall the chronology of all of this -- on more than one occasion you have smeared a writer of a piece with some FDD affiliation by pointing out only the conservatives that work with FDD. I pointed out a list of non-conservatives. I did not point out Schumer, but the difference is, you painted FDD out to have only conservative backers, thus misrepresenting the organization. I pointed out that things were not how you were portraying them -- that in effect you were being disingenuous in your portrayal of who makes up the board of FDD. For the purposes of my argument, misrepresenting nothing, Schumer is irrelevent. For the purposes of your argument, however, the lack of an acknowledgment of the democrats and even liberals also on FDD's board represents willful duplicity all for the purposes of bolstering your ideology. That there are centrist democrats, even conservative Democrats, bolsters my point, not yours. So fine, if you want to be hoisted on your own petard, I'll assist -- Schumer, a Democrat, albeit one of whom I am not much of a fan, is also on the board of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, further revealing your blatant attempt to distort who the group is and what it stands for.


Don Williams - 7/18/2003

Hmmm. Reading between the lines, it looks to me like the old guy
was imprisoned in a safe house, had the screws put to him (he could have been threatened with imprisonment for his remaining life under the Official Secrets Act), and then forced to recant in public with two MOD policemen sitting behind him and breathing down his neck. Guy then goes for an evening stroll ,is found dead, and his house is raided/material removed by MoD agents "conducting an investigation".

Like I said, Tony Blair knows the correct role for a junior partner.


Don Williams - 7/18/2003

The essential rule in both international law and the United Nations is that one country does not unilaterally attack another country unless it faces an imminent threat and must act in self defense.

Bush broke that law --he acted without the consent of the Security Council -- and he thereby put the US government on the same level as Hussein. The US has had total control of Iraq for three months and Bush has yet to show any serious threat to the US existed prior to the invasion. It is also clear that he intends to stay in Iraq indefinitely in order to exploit Iraq's oil.

It takes utterly shameless hypocrisy to argue that Bush's aggression is in conformance with international law --much less upholding it. It takes utter stupidity to argue that displaying to the world that the US government is a two-faced malign aggressor is somehow in the national interest --that it makes US citizens more secure.

Radosh misses the real analogy to the 1930s -- He and the other Bush supporters are like the good Germans cheering Hitler's invasion of Poland because "it shows the world we are strong". What it shows the world is that other nations better start making covert preparations to deal with a deceitful psychopath.
How many Germans in Berlin circa 1946 were still praising Hitler's strong leadership?


Don Williams - 7/18/2003

From http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1000922,00.html
**********
Police searching for Dr David Kelly, the Ministry of Defence official quizzed this week over the government's Iraq dossier, have found a man's body.

Officers have confirmed that the body matches Dr Kelly's description.

Reading a statement outside Wantage police station, Acting Superintendent Dave Purnell said: "The formal identification of the body that we found in Harrowdown Hill will not take place until tomorrow.

"What we can say is that the description of the man found there matches the description of Dr David Kelly.

"At this very difficult time our condolences must go out to his family, friends and work colleagues."

The 59-year-old went missing from his home in Abingdon, Oxfordshire, at 3pm yesterday afternoon after telling his wife he was going for a walk, according to a Thames Valley police spokesman.

The body was discovered lying face down at 9.20am by a police search team at Harrowdown Hill, about five miles from Dr Kelly's home in Abingdon.

No note has been found either at the scene or at Dr Kelly's house. Responding to questions about whether the dead man had died of gunshot wounds, the spokesman said that Dr Kelly was not a licensed firearms holder.

He also confirmed that a number of items had been removed from Dr Kelly's house but said this was normal procedure in missing persons investigations. His family contacted police when he had failed to return by 11.45pm yesterday, two days after he gave evidence to a parliamentary inquiry into the affair.

Dr Kelly, who volunteered to give evidence to the foreign affairs select committee (FAC), admitted to MPs last week he had met the BBC defence correspondent, Andrew Gilligan, on three occasions since September 2002.

With two MoD police sitting behind him, Dr Kelly confirmed he met Mr Gilligan in a central London hotel on the same day that the reporter said he met his sole source at a central London hotel.

But Dr Kelly said he did not believe he could be the primary source of the report at the centre of a bitter row between the BBC and No 10.

"I believe I am not the main source. From the conversation I had with him I don't see how he could make the authoritative statements he was making from the comments that I made," Dr Kelly said.

Committee members were critical of the government's handling of Dr Kelly, saying he had been the "fall guy" and had been "poorly treated" by the defence minister.

Sir Richard Ottaway, a Tory member of the FAC, told Sky News that if the body was Dr Kelly, it "threw into stark relief the actions of the spin doctors within Downing Street and the Labour government".

He added that "an innocent scientist used in this way demands an inquiry at the highest level".

Although Sir Richard defended the FAC questioning of Dr Kelly on Tuesday, he said: "We thought he'd been put up quite deliberately to distract us from the case of the government's case for war."

"What I do regret is the way that he was quite obviously used by the government and the ministry of defence in this situation."

Donald Anderson, the chairman of FAC, said however that there was no "no way in which government ministers can be blamed" for the way in which Dr Kelly's name became public.

"On the face of it, this appears to be a human tragedy, if the news is now confirmed, and puts much of the discussion which we have had in a very different and personal perspective."

Mr Anderson rejected the idea that the committee's questioning of the former weapons inspector had been unduly harsh.

Expressing condolences the Conservative leader, Iain Duncan Smith, said: "Of course, there will be many questions arising from these events but now is not the moment for me to comment on the implications of this dreadful news."

The MoD has consistently stood by its claims that Dr Kelly was the sole source of the story, pointing to Mr Gilligan's evidence that he had relied on one source and that three other sources mentioned had not discussed the September dossier or had done so only later.

Dr Kelly has been under enormous pressure since he admitted making contact with Mr Gilligan. He was officially reprimanded for having an "unauthorised" meeting with a journalist, and recently complained that his home was surrounded by journalists.

The MoD denied this afternoon that Dr Kelly had at no point been threatened with suspension or dismissal. It was made clear to him at the time that he had broken civil service rules by having unauthorised contact with a journalist, but "that was the end of it", said a spokesman.

Dr Kelly was given five days to think about his options before the MoD issued its statement on Tuesday July 8 to say that an unnamed official had spoken to Mr Gilligan. And he was given an opportunity to talk through the possible ramifications of going public before the statement was released.

The spokesman added that the MoD had offered Dr Kelly the use of alternative accommodation in order to avoid any press attention at his home address.

A friend of Dr Kelly's, TV journalist Tom Mangold, said that Dr Kelly had told him he had been living in a 'safe house'.

Mr Mangold told ITV News: "She [Dr Kelly's wife] told me he had been under considerable stress, that he was very very angry about what had happened at the committee, that he wasn't well, that he had been to a safe house, he hadn't liked that, he wanted to come home.

"She didn't use the word depressed, but she said he was very very stressed and unhappy about what had happened and this was really not the kind of world he wanted to live in."

Mr Mangold said Dr Kelly was a source to many reporters. His ambition was to help serious journalists understand a complex topic....


Dave Tabaska - 7/18/2003

"[R}ather, they insist that the US,whenever and wherever possible, should act in conjunction with willing allies and under internationally accepted rules (UN resolutions)not as the hegemon in a coalition of the bribed and the bullied."

And what happens when the nation the US is taking action against decides not to bother with the UN resolutions? Pass yet another resolution? I believe that was the point of Bush's September 2002 speech to the UN - that a body such as the UN cannot let states such as Iraq violate resolution after resolution, do nothing, and expect to remain credible. To expect yet one more resolution to work really isn't a matter of high-minded principle and respect for law.


Stephen Kriz - 7/18/2003


Let's see:

> Two wars in three years, both killed thousands of innocents, but left the intended victims (i.e Osama and Saddam) unscathed.
> Took a $127 billion surplus and turned it into a $455 billion deficit.
> The environment is a disaster and getting worse because his advisors refuse to acknowledge global climate change.
> With the baby boomers near retirement, the nation's health care system, private pension system (PBGC) and Social Security and Medicare are near collapse and nothing is being done.
> His attorney general is gutting the Bill of Rights and American citizens are imprisoned without being charged, they are not allowed to see an attorney and hundreds are imprisoned off-shore and tortured and kept in dog cages without trials, to avoid the American public's scrutiny.

Yeah, that Dubya is a bloody, f*&%ing genius, isn't he??? Like a modern day Nero, he fiddles while the U.S. burns. I'll bet 20 years from now he'll be remembered - as the worst American president ever!


NYGuy - 7/18/2003

Don,

Is your specialty arguing "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" Sounds great.

But if you want leadershiip you have to rely on someone like GW and his advisors who are big picture visionaries.

GW is a genius, i.e. someone who hits a target no one else sees.

I can't go into it now, but in 20-30 years when historians begin to understand you will be getting the picture.

Keep on counting.


Josh Greenland - 7/18/2003

"Mr. Greenland, you have a technical argument, insofar as congress did not declare war until December, 1941."

"I don't see where Mr. Radosh is wrong about the isolationist sentiment being a serious problem."

I don't see where Radosh said isolationist sentiment was "a problem." Here is what he did say:

"The isolationism that was employed to undermine American will and self-confidence in fighting the fascist and militarist aggressors in World War II has been revived, this time targeted against our President and our commitment to the liberation of Iraq."

As I'm sure you know, isolationism was dropped as an argument after we started fighting WWII. Isolationism was not used to hamper the war effort then. Yes, it was used to make it less likely that we would declare war and join the other combatants, but that isn't what Radosh wrote.


Jonathan Dresner - 7/18/2003

Cato,

By long-standing internet usage (over ten years), a "troll" is a post to a discussion list or board whose sole purpose is to start an argument. The term derives, I believe, not from the bridge-lurking ogre, but from the fishing net (i.e., casting a wide net, dragging the bottom, etc.).

There are some who post nothing but trolls, and there are people who apply the term troll to the poster as well. That was not my intention, as I think is clear from my post.


Don Williams - 7/17/2003

It's nice to see that Blair understands the role of "the junior partner".


Don Williams - 7/17/2003

See the report of Blair's speech to Congress at http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20030717/ts_nm/britain_usa_dc&e=5

I find it interesting that Bush's big source is admitting to the
possibility that the WMD story could possibly be wrong. I thought
British intelligence was all-knowing and infallible -- given that Bush indicates he started a war on their say so.


Don Williams - 7/17/2003

see http://www.defenddemocracy.org/biographies/biographies.htm .


Don Williams - 7/17/2003

eom


Don Williams - 7/17/2003

What I find interesting is that Senator Schumer, although a Democrat, has done more to sabotage the Democratic Party -- and
make the Neocons victorious-- than anyone I can think of. His
ill-advised gun control jihad alienated millions of blue-collar union workers -- a major part of the Democratic base -- and dragged the party over the cliff in every election since the Republican takeover in 1994.


Cato - 7/17/2003

I see now...it is our task to convince Mrs. Schmoe up the street to send her kids to Iraq (or somewhere else) to be target practice for parties unknown on account of:

a. An unreciprocated sentimental mishmash. I say unreciprocated in that I have yet to hear anyone in Iraq take a interest in, for example, the havoc that Walmart is about to cause in our town. (You'll have to excuse me if I don't hold my breath while waiting anybody in the Middle East, Europe, or even Canada to contribute to the "stability and growth" of my midwestern town.)

B. Overblown and well-mongered fears of ivy leaguers who don't have enough honest work to do.

C. A need to improve our chances of exporting still more local money and jobs to low wage nations.

As for not working -- is that a reference to "isolationisnism" or to NAFTA and these other trade deals?

Anyway, I can see the kind of morality involved in this thinking. I am sure that Mrs. Schmoe would agree.

PS...what's a "troll"? My kids need to know if their old man is a troll.


NYGuy - 7/17/2003

Kriz,

As you were told before this is not your parents you are dealing with. Telling us that you will hold your breath until we agree with you does not work. You are in the big boy world now.

And please do not repeat your ignorance of business, of history in the prewar period, of capital and finance markets, of the structure of the chemical industry before the war, etc

If we don't hear from you we will know you made good on your threat. Otherwise, go home and have your parents tell you how wonderful you.


Stephen Kriz - 7/17/2003

NYGuy:

If you want to get in a fight, come armed with facts. Prescott Bush was the managing partner of Union Banking Corp. If you knew anything about a law firm, brokerage house or any other professional services firm, (which you probably wouldn't since I suspect you are employed in the fast food industry), you would know that a managing partner is intimately involved in every detail of the firm. Prescott knew and had to know, every scintilla of detail regarding the financing of Hitler's war machine. Here is a link to substantiate it:

http://www.tarpley.net/bush2.htm

Let me spell it out for you: PRESCOTT BUSH WAS A TRAITOR! This is only one example in a long line of perfidy involving the Bush clan. You can go all the way back to the Revolutionary War, when ancestor Timothy Bush, who was a Tory, sided with the British against the American revolutionists. These money-grubbing scumbags would sell out their country for a nickel and have repeatedly throughout history. The smirking chimp in the White House and his clandestine deals with Unocal and the Taliban, not to mention Bechtel and Halliburton, is just the latest manifestation of this phenomenon.

Regardless of what you think, the Bush family is the lowest form of slime in America!


Herodotus - 7/17/2003

"Regarding the assertion that an Iraqi agent was based out of Pakistan - doesn't that make him a Pakistani agent?"

Not any more than a British agent of the U.K. government based in Brazil is a Brazilian.


Don Williams - 7/17/2003

1) The US was dragged into WWI partly due to the sinking of the passenger liner Lusitania near Ireland, with the loss of American
passengers as well as British.
After the Lusitania was sunk, the British denied that she was smuggling contraband war munitions, although several thousand cases of ammunition, labelled "sporting cartridges" were eventually acknowledged.

However, it was a common trick to load war material at the last minute, so that it did not show up on the published manifest. An amendmend manifest was published 5 days later, but my understanding is the the Lusitania's amended manifest is still classified by the US government and that the British still have Naval intelligence files on the matter sealed. See
http://www.lusitania.net/manifest.htm and
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0802713750/002-3538892-3798433?vi=glance

2) William Stephenson ,in "A Man Called Intrepid", acknowledged how his "British Security Coordination" organization in New York helped Roosevelt orchestrate America into the war. Stephenson explained how British intelligence attacked American pacifists and organized several hoaxes -- such as the leak of a "secret" Roosevelt plan for war in Europe which manipulated Hitler into declaring war on the US.


NYGuy - 7/17/2003

Kriz,

You just had you A__ kicked on your Bush lies on the Ann Coulter early post: Does Ann Coulter Know What She's Talking About? Seems like you are a glutton for punishment. All brawn and no brains.

Repeat after me:

1) Doing business with Nazi Germany was wrong.
A. The whole world did it, or didn't you know.

2) Doing business with Nazi Germany was against the law.
A. It was not against the law. In 1942 the APC seized the assets of over 5,000 companies that were owned by our enemies, including Germany.

3) Prescott Bush did business with Nazi Germany.
A. Prescott Bush was a director. Directors do not do the day-to-day business it is the management who overseas the activities. The management team was:
B. E. Roland Harriman – Chairman, 3,991 shares, owns 99.78%
Cornelis Lievense -President owns 4 shares, or 0.10%
Harold D Pennington - Treasurer 1 share, or 0.03%.

4) The fact that others, including some Democrats, also did business with Nazi Germany does not excuse Prescott Bush.

A. Since Bush was an employee, and over 5,000 alien property vesting orders were sent out, you are accusing perhaps 1,000,000 loyal Americans of doing business with Nazi Germany. Of course many of these people fought against Germany and some were KIA. I find your branding of these loyal Americans disgraceful. Have you no shame.

I think if you still feel strongly about this subject you should contact the DNC and complain about Roosevelt, Harriman’s friend, and the Harriman family etc.

Finally,

I appreciate your respect for me.

"You're a absolute, reprehensible piece of garbage."

You could have said worse.

Please don’t rehash your disgraceful attack again on millions of Americans who fought and died for this country and whom you claim were Nazis collaborators.

Kriz are you one of the communists AC is talking about. Hmm. Danger still lurks.


Charles V. Mutschler - 7/17/2003

Josh Greenland writes, "In other parts of the world and by other countries, it was, but not by the US. So isolationism before Pearl Harbor wasn't "undermining" any US war effort, Radosh's false claim notwithstanding."

Mr. Greenland, you have a technical argument, insofar as congress did not declare war until December, 1941. However, I think the crewmen on the USS Reuben James would have understood themselves to be in the opening phase of a shooting war with the Nazis. Then there was the Lend-Lease act, which congress passed before December 7, 1941.

These measures seem to indicate that President Roosevelt was trying to prpeare the USA for entry into a war, and was, in fact, (the ships exchanging fire with Nazis) entering into war. I don't see where Mr. Radosh is wrong about the isolationist sentiment being a serious problem.

Charles V. Mutschler


Melvyn Dubofsky - 7/17/2003

Ron has been doing history long enough to know full well that his brief essay in which he alleges that the critics of the current administration's foreign policy and its war in Iraq are 1930s style "isolationists" (a term that he also equates with appeasement)demolishes strawmen and strawwomen. The issue today, as in the past, has never been isolationism v. internationalism or multilaterialism. It has always been about how the U.S. will exercise its power on the world stage, either on its own terms in its own way or on a shared basis together with other major and minor powers who sought similar ends and respected the opinions of humankind broadly defined. The battle over Wilson's postwar diplomatic initiatives and FDR's internationalism (also Truman's cold-war initiatives) always concerned whether the US would act alone in its "national interest" undeterred by the concerns of allies or traditional rules of international law (or latterly the rules of the League of Nations) or whether it would do precisely as it pleased, the remainder of the world be damned. Many of the opponents of Wilson's foreign policy and especially the League and Article 10 (collective security) had been among the most vociferous advocates of US expansion overseas (let's call it imperialism) and a powerful navy that could exercise its power globally, none more so than Henry Cabot Lodge. The opponents of FDR's efforts to build an anti-Fascist coalition, to amend neutrality legislation, to offer material assistance to Hitler's opponents, including the Soviet Union after June 22, 1941, and to institute conscription, were among the first to demand that the US come to Finland's aid when the Soviet Union attacked and to criticize FDR for not defending adequately US interests in the Pacific. Equally so today. The critics and opponents of Bush-Cheyney-Rice-Rumsfeld policy are not isolationists; rather, they insist that the US,whenever and wherever possible, should act in conjunction with willing allies and under internationally accepted rules (UN resolutions)not as the hegemon in a coalition of the bribed and the bullied. By contrast, BCRR follow in the wake of those Radosh defines as "isolationists," people who believe that the US must exercise its power unbound by the conerns of allies or international bodies. The issue is not and never has been whether or not Saddam was evil and a despoiler of the Iraqi nation and people. It was whether after his defeat in 1991 Saddam still posed a threat to others in the Middle East or to the US and its allies. No clear evidence yet exists that his regime posed such a threat, and, if it did, it has yet to be proved that the US solution was the proper or correct one. Moreover, if it is the role and obligation of the US to remove from power every tyrant, every malevolent government, and the rulers of every mismanaged state, we will be engaged in perpetual war and perpetual occupations of discontent peoples. It would also serve to confirm Paul Kennedy's analysis of the fate of over-extended empires. Let Radosh defend the war in Iraq and the policy that underlay it if he thinks them right and in the best interest of the US and humanity; but let him not use a false and tendentious history to criticize and condemn those who disagree.


Stephen Kriz - 7/17/2003


Don:

Got those right-wingers spinning furiously - Good job! They hate the truth. It is much more satisfying to them to live in a dream world where the holy conservative labors mightily against the evil liberal. Poppycock!

Don't forget to mention that Dubya's grandfather, Prescott Bush, was one of the early financiers of the Third Reich, through the Union Banking Corp., whose assets were seized under the Trading with the Enemies Act in 1942. Can you spelll, t-r-a-i-t-o-r, Ms. Coulter????


Josh Greenland - 7/17/2003

Depends on what you mean by isolationism. As I see it, isolationism was a hypocritical position that said that we (the US) didn't want foreign entanglements, while ignoring our proclaimed right to intervene anywhere in the Americas south of our borders anytime we damn well pleased. Isolationism seemed to apply to US involvement in the Eastern Hemisphere only.

Due to its hypocrisy, isolationism is an inherent crock. But lets be at least consistent and talk about a doctrine that is consistent, that many people THINK they mean when they say isolationism, and that would be non-interventionism (Libertarians) or anti-interventionism (the Left).

I think non/anti-interventionism was the WRONG way to go in the 30s and 40s because German and Japan had made clear that they wanted to take over and run the world, had the power to go far toward that goal, and were exercising that power. They had to be stopped.

Now? Post-Desert Storm, sanctions-strangled Iraq was barely a concern to its immediate neighbors, and was not a threat to anyone else. The reasons given for invading it are completely bogus. Anti-interventionism should be our present policy. There's no reason to be there, so we need to pull out of Iraq NOW.

Our present, imperial military is HUGE, and hugely expensive. We need to focus on defense of our own borders, some international travel routes, and that's it. IMHO we should get rid of most of our bases in foreign countries, and work with other countries with a fraction of our present foreign troop commitment in peacekeeping duties, under the auspices of an international body, probably the United Nations. If it were up to me, there would be no more unilateral military action in places far from our borders.


Jonathan Dresner - 7/17/2003

OK, I'll bite. It's a troll, but I'll bite.

Isolationism was and is an irresponsible position, narrow-minded and short-sighted, which rejects US involvement in any international issue which does not directly and severely affect our interests. In the 1930s/40s, isolationists advocated a hands-off policy towards Japan in Asia and Hitler in Europe (also Mussolini in Italy, etc.) on the grounds that there was no "clear and present danger" presented to the US by these aggressions, and that involvement in international affairs (particularly Europe/WWI) was more harmful to the US than useful.

Now, isolationism is a pure ostrichism: the global economy, environmental science and travel/communications technology make events all around the world directly relevant to US interests.

There is a moral element as well, which is that the US, like all nations, has a responsibility to contribute to the stability and growth of the world community. Over the last century it has sometimes been put as an exceptional responsibility, based on the power and importance of the US within the world.

Be that as it may, isolationism doesn't work.


Cato - 7/16/2003

Now tell me again -- exactly why was/is "isolationism" as a policy bad, both in the '40s and now??


Stephen Kriz - 7/16/2003


Herodotus is leaving his slimy trail all over these boards again - defending the indefensible, namely George W. Bush.

Regarding the assertion that an Iraqi agent was based out of Pakistan - doesn't that make him a Pakistani agent? In any case, this contact between an al-Qaeda operative and Iraq has been known for some time - and thoroughly discredited. While there may have been a meeting, Hussein had no time for bin Laden and vice versa. Hussein was a secularist who despised the Wahhabis and bin Laden considered Hussein an infidel. Neither felt they could trust the other. Regarding the faux meeting between Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi agent - ***NEWFLASH FOR HERODOTUS*** - NEVER HAPPENED!!! The FBI has credit card receipts and hotel registers in the US bearing Atta's signature for the exact dates Atta was presumably in Prague. Unless you can tell me how a man can be in the United States and in Prague at the same time, you are full of shit.

Regarding WMDs in Iraq - Hussein was telling the truth and Bush was lying. After the first Gulf War, the UN inspectors destroyed 95% of Hussein's WMDs and dismantled his nuclear capabilities. Any chemical weapons he had left after 12 years, would have been so degraded as to be about effective as a can of Mace. Iraq was no threat to the U.S. and honest people like Scott Ritter were saying that all along. There was no urgency in attacking Iraq and now several thousand innocent Iraqis and 200 American soldiers are in their graves as a result. If we had let UN weapons inspectors do their jobs, we could easily have contained Hussein.

Bush is a filthy, incompetent liar and you are a blowhard!
(And maybe you should stop reading the Washington Times)


Jonathan Dresner - 7/16/2003

Historians like myself will be making sense of these events long after the journalists and pundits have gone on to another "suprising development" or "crisis" years in the making and entirely predictable.... And in ten years, we're (those of us who teach world history, particularly) going to be teaching the whole thing to students who've only vague memories of lots of flags and the echoes of catchphrases.

International law is different from the law imposed by states, true. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or that violating it has no consequences. We sow the wind, and we will reap the whirlwind.

Hussein's threat to regional and international security was real, at one time. But it is absurd to assume that invasion was the only solution. And it is ridiculous, given the evidence to the contrary, to take this administration's word for either its reasons or its rationale.

By the way, any major university in the US has the capacity to support chemical and biological terrorism, and it's clear that academics are dangerous anti-patriotic elements. Is it time to invade, or will inspections and regime change be good enough?


Derek Catsam - 7/16/2003

Er, Mr. Williams, I hate to let facts get in the way, but fascism arose well before the 1930s. Do you remember when Il Duce came to power in Italy? (Hint: pre 1930s). The rise of European fascism is the result of a complex array of phenomena and to reduce it to simply a response to the Depression and the policies of GOP presidents is to try to flatten history for ideological reasons.

As someone of the left who also published an article as the result of work I did with FDD, I still am not certain what the point is of Mr. Williams' criticisms. The group is pretty conservative. So what? I don't agree with them on many issues, but I do by and large agree with them on terrorism and on Israel, the organizations raison d'etre.

I also can't help but notice that Mr. Williams never mentions Donna Brazile, Frank Lautenburg (D-NJ), and Eliot Engel (D-NY), all on FDD's Board of Directors, when he talks about the group. Surely he is not willfully misrepresenting the nature of FDD for his own ideological reasons is he? Then again, maybe that conservative evil mastermind Donna Brazile (Whose campaign did she work for in 2000 again? I forget.) made me write all of this.


Josh Greenland - 7/16/2003

"You thought wrong."

Did I? We've seen so many new eyewitnesses and physical evidence "proving" this or that facet of the administration's justifications for this war, loudly trumpeted at first but dwindling off quietly in succeeding newsdays, only to be debunked in small print in the back of the paper where only the very attentive are likely to spot them. You may need to jump on each one of these triumphant new "proofs," but I think a wait and see attitude toward them is more prudent. Lets how these new revelations of the up to now fictional tie between Al Qaeda and Iraq pan out in days ahead.


"The administration hasn't announced publically that they've located any WMD. That's a distinct difference from "they haven't found any." Especially if they're in another country or still trying to track down every single unit."

So they, uhm, aren't in Iraq anymore? If not, then maybe they never were in Iraq?

"As for the 'daily falseness' bit, I would assume you're referring to the Niger/uranium story."

I'm talking about the WHOLE train of BS at least since the war started, including, the dreaded, evil, TRAILERS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!

"Which also broke last week with the additional information that there is additional documentation held by the British and the French (but not the United States) that corroborates the supposition that Hussein was in fact seeking uranium from Africa."

Sounds like more "revelations" likely to peter out into untruth. If these documents are so likely to prove Bush's and Blair's case, I say to those administrations, bring 'em on!

"Again, read the news carefully. And not just in the New York Times."

I've never relied much on that snooty, controlled rag for my news. A lot of media here and abroad have good coverage of the war and the political battles related to it.


Josh Greenland - 7/16/2003

"I think Mr. Radosh's statement is correct. World War II was being fought long before 12/7/41."

In other parts of the world and by other countries, it was, but not by the US. So isolationism before Pearl Harbor wasn't "undermining" any US war effort, Radosh's false claim notwithstanding.


Dave Tabaska - 7/16/2003

While it is true the isolationism disappeared with the attack on Pearl Harbor, how does one explain the US reaction to the sinking of the USS Panay in 1937? There, we see Americans so eager to avoid a confrontation with Japan that they accepted the rather lame excuse that the Japanese could not distinguish between a U.S. and a Chinese flag from 600 yards away. Not to mention other reports of Japanese planes continuing to strafe survivors after the gunboat had sunk.

I think Mr. Radosh's statement is correct. World War II was being fought long before 12/7/41.


Dave Tabaska - 7/16/2003

Wow, it looks like Mr. Williams hit the trifecta - Republican bashing, rich bashing, and Jewish conspiracy all in one post.

I'm not sure of what the point of the post is, anyway. That the US should remain forever isolationist because the economy tanked during a Republican administration? That defending the only democracy in the Middle East makes Mr. Krauthammer, et.al.'s viewpoint illegitimate?

Mr. Dehler's response was very good. We need more like that.


Herodotus - 7/16/2003

"That's funny, I think that claim had been totally debunked the minute the administration made it public, being that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden hate each other. And then there's the question, "What nasty weapons?" The admin seems not to have found any "WMDs", and its military weapon search team gave up and went home after all the likely spots had been checked. And daily there are more revelations of the falseness of the WMD claims."

You thought wrong. The story broke last week about the Iraqi agent who has been picked up who was the conduit between the Hussein regime and bin Laden's group. He was based out of Pakistan, and his role was confirmed in the documents picked up from the Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan that explained how bin Laden's group sought information on chemical and biological weapons from the Iraqis. Incidently, the U.S. also picked up the Iraqi intelligence agent who met with Mohammed Atta in the Czech Republic before 9/11.

The administration hasn't announced publically that they've located any WMD. That's a distinct difference from "they haven't found any." Especially if they're in another country or still trying to track down every single unit. As for the 'daily falseness' bit, I would assume you're referring to the Niger/uranium story. Which also broke last week with the additional information that there is additional documentation held by the British and the French (but not the United States) that corroborates the supposition that Hussein was in fact seeking uranium from Africa.

Again, read the news carefully. And not just in the New York Times.


Josh Greenland - 7/16/2003

I just read through Radosh's article. I'm not an academic but know a fair amount about WWII and the decade preceding it. There are a lot of falsehoods in this piece, as well as carefully written true statements intended to falsely imply something else, and manipulative use of anecdotes or isolated examples in order to support an untrue general statement. Going through it word for word to find out what's wrong with it is easy, given time, since Radosh's dissimulations are barely more clever than those of Daniel Pipes', but so much of this article is false that a cataloging of the falsehoods might be mind-numbing to read.

"The isolationism that was employed to undermine American will and self-confidence in fighting the fascist and militarist aggressors in World War II has been revived, this time targeted against our President and our commitment to the liberation of Iraq."

That's the first sentence of the article. In reality, the main isolationist organization, the America First Committee, disbanded itself after the Pearl Harbor attack. We were in the war at that point, and isolationism wasn't an option anymore. The isolationists and "isolationists" (fans of fascism) continued to try to influence US policy, but they didn't use isolationism as an argument after Pearl Harbor.

That was just the first of a huge number of blatantly bogus and readily refutable statements. Radosh seems to be yet another one of those modern political operators who thinks that if he spews enough false statements that he'll overwhelm his listeners or that they'll be as morally deficient as he is and not care that he lies every 2nd word.


Josh Greenland - 7/16/2003

"Was he capable and willing of attacking or supporting an attack on the United States? You bet. Wouldn't you be interested in getting rid of the crack kingpin who's able to supply drugs to the dealers threatening your neighborhood? Hussein was among the very few capable and willing to deal nasty weapons to groups like Al Qaeda...we just have to pray that they haven't reached terrorist groups already."

That's funny, I think that claim had been totally debunked the minute the administration made it public, being that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden hate each other. And then there's the question, "What nasty weapons?" The admin seems not to have found any "WMDs", and its military weapon search team gave up and went home after all the likely spots had been checked. And daily there are more revelations of the falseness of the WMD claims.


Gregory Dehler - 7/16/2003

It is absurd to blame the United States and the Republican Party for WWII. This is the exact line of thinking Dr. Radosh criticizes above. The German economic distress caused by the reparations regime was a European invention, not American. Second, the Republicans in the 1920s sought to stabalize the German economy in the 1920s with the Dawes and Young Plans which worked. When American banks fell, then the European banks fell. Perhaps War Debts could have been forgiven, but the point would have remained moot unless tied to abolishment of reparations. In any event, that would have rested with the Western Allies (the U.S. never signed the Versailles treaty) and there was no great political outcry in the United States to do so. I believe that Germany must bear the responsibility for having allowed Hitler to become their leader and then following him on his blood thirsty rampage. This is simply another case of the As Dr. Radosh points out above, the far left seems to find the United States responsible for the faults of others.


Herodotus - 7/16/2003

" Ron Radosh ignores...the most important difference between the war against Iraq and WWII: the clear and honest articulation of goals and reasons, and the legal framework within which the government acted. Roosevelt didn't have to exaggerate the aggression of Germany and Japan, or ignore international (and domestic) law to go to war. There was a real enemy who posed a real threat."

*sigh* Historians will have to labor long and hard to re-educate those who weren't paying attention over the last few months. The administration secured the legal cover to act by obtaining a joint resolution from Congress in support of military action. That's all it had to do. This "violation of international law" stuff is a fiction, since "international law" doesn't really exist [who enforces "international law?" what is the jurisdiction? Who enforces it?] There are some historians who argue that international law, such as it once existed, died with Wilson's tweaking of neutrality.

As for "real enemy who posed a real threat", Hussein was a real enemy who posed a real threat. Was he going to invade the U.S.? No. Was he capable of attacking his neighbors? Sure! Was he capable and willing of attacking or supporting an attack on the United States? You bet. Wouldn't you be interested in getting rid of the crack kingpin who's able to supply drugs to the dealers threatening your neighborhood? Hussein was among the very few capable and willing to deal nasty weapons to groups like Al Qaeda...we just have to pray that they haven't reached terrorist groups already.


Don Williams - 7/15/2003

by whoring to the rich and supporting an enormous concentration of wealth.

The wealthy German elite put Hitler in power to quell popular unrest -- unrest due to a 50% unemployment, loss of life savings, and a worthless currency. Maybe Radosh would like to identify the creditors --holding the war bonds -- who drew up the Versailles Treaty?

As noted above, Mr Radosh's article was published by the "Foundation for the Defense of Democracies" -- note the composition of their Board: Gary Bauer, Bill Kristol,
Richard Perle, Charles Krauthammer ,etc.

Can you say "Likud front organization"?


Jonathan Dresner - 7/15/2003

Actually, most of the anti-war arguments that I've heard are more properly defined as internationalist (Perhaps multi-lateralist) rather than isolationist. Ron Radosh ignores (because it doesn't fit neatly in his "wrong before, wrong now" thesis) the most important difference between the war against Iraq and WWII: the clear and honest articulation of goals and reasons, and the legal framework within which the government acted. Roosevelt didn't have to exaggerate the aggression of Germany and Japan, or ignore international (and domestic) law to go to war. There was a real enemy who posed a real threat.


Bill Maher - 7/14/2003



Bravo! Radosh is not off the mark. I am reminded of the following editorial from Vorwarts: Although anti-Semitism was "barbarous," it is "a bearer of culture against its will - cultural manure for socialism in the truest sense of the word. Let us, therefore, rejoice over the successes of anti-Semitism. . ." One should not be surprised that such useful idiots are still around.