Although the women of the United States are confined within the narrow circle of domestic life, and their situation is, in some respects, one of extreme dependence, I have nowhere seen woman occupying a loftier position; and if I were asked... in which I have spoken of so many important things done by Americans, to what the singular prosperity and growing strength of that people ought mainly to be attributed, I should reply, To the superiority of their women.

--Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

Thursday, October 13, 2011

Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution: Chapter 11


I know that anyone following this series is probably getting weary, as it challenges everything you've ever been taught about capitalism and communism. It can make you get a headache. I highlight the word taught. Who's been writing the history curriculum and funding the post grad history students stipends? The same Wall Street banksters who funded communism you say? Point made.

Dr. Sutton uses this chapter to summarize the previous ten. He then goes on to offer explanations for this "unholy alliance":

But why allow Russia to become a competitor and a challenge to U.S. supremacy? In the late nineteenth century, Morgan/Rockefeller, and Guggenheim had demonstrated their monopolistic proclivities. In Railroads and Regulation 1877-1916 Gabriel Kolko has demonstrated how the railroad owners, not the farmers, wanted state control of railroads in order to preserve their monopoly and abolish competition. So the simplest explanation of our evidence is that a syndicate of Wall Street financiers enlarged their monopoly ambitions and broadened horizons on a global scale. The gigantic Russian market was to be converted into a captive market and a technical colony to be exploited by a few high-powered American financiers and the corporations under their control. What the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Federal Trade Commission under the thumb of American industry could achieve for that industry at home, a planned socialist government could achieve for it abroad — given suitable support and inducements from Wall Street and Washington, D.C.

Finally, lest this explanation seem too radical, remember that it was Trotsky who appointed tsarist generals to consolidate the Red Army; that it was Trotsky who appealed for American officers to control revolutionary Russia and intervene in behalf of the Soviets; that it was Trotsky who squashed first the libertarian element in the Russian Revolution and then the workers and peasants; and that recorded history totally ignores the 700,000-man Green Army composed of ex-Bolsheviks, angered at betrayal of the revolution, who fought the Whites and the Reds. In other words, we are suggesting that the Bolshevik Revolution was an alliance of statists: statist revolutionaries and statist financiers aligned against the genuine revolutionary libertarian elements in Russia.
Once again, we have the collectivists versus free men. You'll never hear in history class about the Green Army that tried to take back Russia from this monstrous scheme  of forcing communism down their throats. I've seen this question posed elsewhere about why would anyone choose communism when it doesn't work. Oh, honeychild, its working pretty fine for our boys at JP Morgan and Co.
'The question now in the readers' minds must be, were these bankers also secret Bolsheviks? No, of course not. The financiers were without ideology. It would be a gross misinterpretation to assume that assistance for the Bolshevists was ideologically motivated, in any narrow sense. The financiers were power-motivated and therefore assisted any political vehicle that would give them an entree to power: Trotsky, Lenin, the tsar, Kolchak, Denikin — all received aid, more or less. All, that is, but those who wanted a truly free individualist society.
These people are using the same playbook in the here and now. We've got genuine true believing publicly educated useful idiots hanging Mao ornaments on their Christmas trees. We've got the Fortune 500 companies promoting radical environmentalism, climate change, gay days, etc. that destabilize the republic. We've also got the 1% ers donating vast sums of money to liberal democrats and RINO republicans. The endgame goal is collectivization of America, with the resources, wealth, and power all winding up with them. Also note, that when it comes to religion and fearing a future Judgement, these people (Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, David Rockefeller, etc.) are pretty much athiest/agnostic types. If they ain't afraid of God, they sure aren't' going to be afraid of the proles! If anyone can give me an example of a born-again monopolisitc Wall Streeter, please email me. There's nothing wrong with being successful, but when you use your wealth to take away or buy off other people's rights, I think you've got to stand up and say something.

Getting back to our study, it wasn't just communism the banksters supported. Head of JP Morgan, Thomas Lamont, secured a $100,000,000 loan for one fascist dictator, Mussolini. Perhaps you've heard of him, he's the one who coined the term "corporatism".  Another supporter of the Italian dictator was Otto Kahn:

Otto Kahn, director of American International Corporation and of Kuhn, Leob & Co., felt sure that "American capital invested in Italy will find safety, encouragement, opportunity and reward."This is the same Otto Kahn who lectured the socialist League of Industrial Democracy in 1924 that its objectives were his objectives. They differed only — according to Otto Kahn — over the means of achieving these objectives.

Are you ready for the Marburg Plan? We see it all around us... 
The governments of the world, according to the Marburg Plan, were to be socialized while the ultimate power would remain in the hands of the international financiers "to control its councils and enforce peace [and so] provide a specific for all the political ills of mankind.
---Nation's Business, February 1923, pp. 22-23. 

Don't you just love it when they enforce peace? Of course the way they do that is by stripping you of all your human rights and killing you if you don't go along with their psychotic power play. Death is peaceful,  I reckon. Maybe they'll just unleash the Marburg virus on us all so that they may implement their Marburg Plan.

Club X - Are you in?
In New York the socialist "X" club was founded in 1903. It counted among its members not only the Communist Lincoln Steffens, the socialist William English Walling, and the Communist banker Morris Hillquit, but also John Dewey, James T. Shotwell, Charles Edward Russell, and Rufus Weeks (vice president of New York Life Insurance Company). The annual meeting of the Economic Club in the Astor Hotel, New York, witnessed socialist speakers. In 1908, when A. Barton Hepburn, president of Chase National Bank, was president of the Economic Club, the main speaker was the aforementioned Morris Hillquit, who "had abundant opportunity to preach socialism to a gathering which represented wealth and financial interests."
You'll probably recognize John Dewey as one of the architects of the modern public school system.

So the international socialist movement was born. They poured their resouces into the Carnegie Foundation, the readers of this blog are familiar with. The Carnegie Foundation, according to the report given by Katherine Casey, set up in its founding minutes three objectives:

1. Gain effective control of the State Department.
2. Gain control of the public education system.
3. Gain control of higher education, specifically the American History departments.

Sutton continues to name names and connect more dots.
From these unlikely seeds grew the modern internationalist movement, which included not only the financiers Carnegie, Paul Warburg, Otto Kahn, Bernard Baruch, and Herbert Hoover, but also the Carnegie Foundation and its progeny International Conciliation. The trustees of Carnegie were, as we have seen, prominent on the board of American International Corporation. In 1910 Carnegie donated $10 million to found the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and among those on the board of trustees were Elihu Root (Root Mission to Russia, 1917), Cleveland H. Dodge (a financial backer of President Wilson), George W. Perkins (Morgan partner), G. J. Balch (AIC and Amsinck), R. F. Herrick (AIC), H. W. Pritchett (AIC), and other Wall Street luminaries. Woodrow Wilson came under the powerful influence of — and indeed was financially indebted to — this group of internationalists. As Jennings C. Wise has written, "Historians must never forget that Woodrow Wilson... made it possible for Leon Trotsky to enter Russia with an American passport."
Understand that big banksters would rather work with a centralized power than with a laissez-fare country. They use their wealth to finance the aggregation of power.

This, therefore, is an explanation that fits the evidence. This handful of bankers and promoters was not Bolshevik, or Communist, or socialist, or Democrat, or even American. Above all else these men wanted markets, preferably captive international markets — and a monopoly of the captive world market as the ultimate goal. They wanted markets that could be exploited monopolistically without fear of competition from Russians, Germans, or anyone else — including American businessmen outside the charmed circle. This closed group was apolitical and amoral. In 1917, it had a single-minded objective — a captive market in Russia, all presented under, and intellectually protected by, the shelter of a league to enforce the peace.
The "money speech" from the movie network is very appropriate here. There are no boundaries to these men and those who believe in national sovereignty they regard as fools. In their power-hungry minds, the future is theirs. They now possess approximately 40% of the world's wealth. Please don't try to equate them to small businesses that became successful. They are entirely in a different league, many of them living off of inherited money kept in trusts that the average person can not set up easily. They like to use the PR that they are just like you, they worked hard for their money. How the heck is giving Vladimir Lenin whatever he needed to pull of his revolution, so that you may have a captive Russian market, working hard? How does that kind of thing affect the American businessman who just wants to have a nice life and leave something to his kids, the thought of world domination never crossing his mind? The average American businessman of the 1920s probably thought that goals of world domination were best left to God and was content with what had and was able to achieve in the land of the free.

Dr. Sutton then goes on to describe the religion of these banksters, which is humanism. He mentions John D. Rockefeller III's book, The Second American Revolution, and newsflash, it ain't the R3volution.
The book contains a naked plea for humanism, that is, a plea that our first priority is to work for others. In other words, a plea for collectivism. Humanism is collectivism. It is notable that the Rockefellers, who have promoted this humanistic idea for a century, have not turned their OWN property over to others.. Presumably it is implicit in their recommendation that we all work for the Rockefellers. Rockefeller's book promotes collectivism under the guises of "cautious conservatism" and "the public good." It is in effect a plea for the continuation of the earlier Morgan-Rockefeller support of collectivist enterprises and mass subversion of individual rights.
I hate to keep quoting this chapter so much, but I can't improve upon what is said. It is so profound for the times we're living in that I want you to understand how this works:
 In brief, the public good has been, and is today, used as a device and an excuse for self-aggrandizement by an elitist circle that pleads for world peace and human decency. But so long as the reader looks at world history in terms of an inexorable Marxian conflict between capitalism and communism, the objectives of such an alliance between international finance and international revolution remain elusive. So will the ludicrousness of promotion of the public good by plunderers. If these alliances still elude the reader, then he should ponder the obvious fact that these same international interests and promoters are always willing to determine what other people should do, but are signally unwilling to be first in line to give up their own wealth and power. Their mouths are open, their pockets are closed.
Frederic C Howe, on whom I've posted before said that to be a good monopolist you have to get society to work for you. Get political, get control of the regulators, and buy it up, basically.

Wall Street went to bat in Washington for the Bolsheviks. It succeeded. The Soviet totalitarian regime survived. In the 1930s foreign firms, mostly of the Morgan-Rockefeller group, built the five-year plans. They have continued to build Russia, economically and militarily. On the other hand, Wall Street presumably did not foresee the Korean War and the Vietnam War — in which 100,000 Americans and countless allies lost their lives to Soviet armaments built with this same imported U.S. technology. What seemed a farsighted, and undoubtedly profitable, policy for a Wall Street syndicate, became a nightmare for millions outside the elitist power circle and the ruling class.
I could fill this post with pictures of those killed by communism, but you get the idea. Jesus Christ said the the love of money was the root of all evil. That statement has resonated with me at a whole other level while doing this series of posts. Taking these series of events and extrapolating it further, the Chase Manhattan Bank opened a new branch in May 1973 chairman, David Rockefeller opened its Moscow office at 1 Karl Marx Square, Moscow. Isn't that special? Don't forget what David Rockefeller had to say about Chinese Communist Party leader Mao Tse "Dung:"

"Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose. The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history."

---David Rockefeller, statement about Mao Tse-tung in The New York Times, August 10, 1973  

He's totally down with mass extermination, just so you know where you stand with these people. 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Related Posts with Thumbnails