Monday, October 23, 2017

650 De Bende van Nijvel en de State Sponsored terror.

In 1982 tot 1985 pleegde een bende overvallen op supermarkten in diverse belgische steden.

De buit was laag ( 150.000 euro in vijf overvallen met 28 doden), en als een dader gepakt zou worden zou hij de rest van zijn leven achter de tralies gaan. En dat voor enkele duizenden euro's per persoon.

Het waren dus geen normale roofovervallen.
Het was terreur.
Het diende om de mensen bang te maken.
De daders wisten dat ze nooit opgepakt zouden worden, want anders zouden ze dit nooit hebben gedaan. 
Hoe kun je zo'n groep daders bij elkaar brengen?
Geen enkele misdadiger die dit wil doen.

En wat is het nut van terreur ?

En hoe kan het dat al die onderzoeken nergens toe hebben geleid, terwijl de man die nu heeft bekend ( de Reus)  al 17 jaar geleden werd verdacht van deelname aan de bende.
Al die onderzoeken werden ook 'bij toeval' steeds afgebroken of verplaatst , zeker als ze vruchten gingen opleveren.

Ik heb de indruk dat er een inspanning was vanuit het allerhoogste niveau om dit onderzoek te laten mislukken.
Parlementsleden in Belgie hebben er wel voor gezorgd dat de termijn van verjaring, zoals die in de wet stond, werd verlengd.  De Hoge Machten konden dit niet voorkomen, want dat zou hen exposeren.

Gaat dit ergens toe leiden?  Nee, ik denk het niet.  maar hoop is er altijd.

Mijn grote vraag: In hoeverre is het Belgische publiek op de hoogte van Gladio ?
Weet men in België dat de bomaanslagen in Bologna het werk waren van 'agenten' die dit in opdracht deden van de CIA ? En dat die 'agenten' gebruik maakten van wapens die in Italië waren opgeslagen op geheime plaatsen, voor het geval Rusland zou binnen vallen: dan had het verzet al wapens. Dit verzet zou worden uitgevoerd door mensen die 'zouden achterblijven ' ( de stay behinds)  in bezet gebied, om de Russen te saboteren.

Ergens in de Lubbers tijd werd bekend dat er ook Gladio wapens in Nederland lagen.

Het is zeker niet onwaarschijnlijk dat de bende van Nijvel bestond uit een zeer goed getrainde Elite eenheid van de Rijkswacht ( de groep Dyana), welke uiteraard bestond uit Law and order karakters die zich in de vrijgevochten jaren 80 niet helemaal gelukkig voelden.
Ook Amerika vond dat de centrale overheid wel wat steun kon gebruiken, en een beetje terreur is altijd goed : dat maakt het volk bang en zorgt dat het naar een autoriteit verlangt.

Het is heel goed mogelijk dat dit samenspel zorgde voor de Bende van Nijvel.

De BBC heeft een 2,5 uur durende documentaire gemaakt ( in 1992) over Gladio, over de Brigate Rosso en over de aanslag op het station in Bologna. 

Youtube: Operation Gladio [BBC Timewatch, 1992] State-Sponsored Terror   ( Gemaakt door Adam Curtis) 


YoutubeNATO's Secret Armies: Operation GLADIO and Terrorism in Western Europe


Hieronder info die bij de eerste video staat: 

Operation Gladio is undisputed historical fact. Gladio was part of a post-World War II program set up by the CIA and NATO supposedly to thwart future Soviet/communist invasions or influence in Italy and Western Europe. In fact, it became a state-sponsored right-wing terrorist network, involved in false flag operations and the subversion of democracy. The existence of Gladio was confirmed and admitted by the Italian government in 1990, after a judge, Felice Casson, discovered the network in the course of his investigations into right-wing terrorism. Italian prime minister Giulio Andreotti admitted Gladio's existence but tried to minimize its significance. The main function of the Gladio-style groups, in the absence of Soviet invasion, seems to have been to discredit left-wing groups and politicians through the use of "the strategy of tension," including false-flag terrorism. The strategy of tension is a concept for control and manipulation of public opinion through the use of fear, propaganda, agents provacateurs, terrorism, etc. The aim was to instill fear into the populace while framing communist and left-wing political opponents for terrorist atrocities.

649 De positie van Israel is flink verzwakt na de oorlog in Syrië: Elijah J. Magnier


Magnier is een pundit die ik ooit in Antwerpen heb gezien toen hij daar over Syrië sprak.

Hij staat volgens mij hoog aangeschreven, want Moon of Alabama citeert hem nogal eens, en Willy van Damme heeft zeker ook respect voor Magnier.

Hij is in Engeland geboren en getogen, maar zou best joods of arabisch bloed in zich kunnen hebben.
Hij spreekt arabisch en verblijft al decennia in het Midden Oosten.

Zijn laatste blog wil ik hier kort samenvatten:

Door de oorlog in Syrië en de samenwerking tussen het Syrische leger, Hezbollah en Iran is daar in feite een sterk en goed getrainde krijgsmacht ontstaan die helemaal niet meer bang is voor Israel.
Niet dat ze Israel zullen aanvallen, maar een aanval van Israel op één van hen zal  niet zo snel meer gebeuren, omdat het er dan niet zo goed voor Israel zal uitzien: Hezbollah en Syrië zullen openlijk samen de aanval bestrijden, en Iran zal wellicht ook zijn duit in het zakje doen. 

Ik vind dat geweldig nieuws.
Syrië is ook wat zelfverzekerder geworden:  als er nu een Israelische bommenwerper over de grens komt, dan durft Syrië daar al een afweer raket op af te sturen. Ook al zal Israel die raket dan neutaliseren en de Israelische  piloot weer gewoon naar huis kunnen vliegen: de tijd dat Israel deze afweer raket aan greep om eens flink wat  bommen over Syrië af te werpen is voorbij.  Nu zegt Israel: "we gaan dit niet laten escaleren.' Ze binden dan dus in.

Daar komt bij dat Trump weinig zin heeft om militair in Israel bij te springen als Israel een oorlog zou beginnen. Ook die tijd is voorbij.


         =================

Voor de volledigheid zal ik het artikel van Magnier hieronder integraal plaatsen:


Tel Aviv aimed at a Hezbollah moving target but was hit by a new “Rule of Engagement”: get ready for war


By Elijah J. Magnier – @ejmalrai
20 October 2017
A few days ago, Israeli jets violated the Lebanese airspace (not the usual “routine recognition flight” as claimed by Israel’s official spokesperson), with the aim of bombing a Hezbollah convoy (as usual, trucks loaded with weapons) heading from Syria towards Lebanon, according to a well-informed source. The Syrian Army fired a ground to air missile, an old SA-5 (S-200) against the Israeli jets over the sky of Lebanon, to divert attention from the moving target. This Syrian act represented a direct threat – felt by the Israeli command – to the Israeli jets who managed to shoot the missile down. The Israeli Air Force ordered the jets to return to base for evaluation. One hour later, Tel Aviv ordered Israeli jets to fly over the occupied Golan Heights and target the static Syrian military position as retaliation, disregarding the Hezbollah convoy.
The Syrian Command did not decide within minutes of their presence to target the Israeli jets over Lebanon that particular day. That decision had been made during a meeting of the Syrian, Hezbollah and Iranian leadership to agree on progressive measures against Israel to make it understand the message. 10 days ago or more, Syrian anti-aircraft batteries fired upon Israeli jets violating Syrian air space. Days later, Syria shot down an Israeli drone. Last but not least, Syria launched an SA-5 (removed from service by Russia decades ago) against the Israeli jets.
Hezbollah has used this style (which can be called “snowballing”) in every battle or war with Israel to avoid burning bridges and to test the enemy’s reaction. So today, this same style is implemented in Syria where Hezbollah’s experience is not only increasing but is also accessible and integrated with the Syrian High Command. To fight Israel, the frontier barriers between Lebanon and Syria have been lifted- probably for good.
The first message is obvious: in any new confrontation or war between Hezbollah and Israel – said the source –, the sky over Lebanon and the borders with Israel and Syria will form one single front. The second message – and the most important one – is tells Israel that the Syrian Army is on a high about its victory: Russia secured deconfliction and de-escalation zones, al-Qaeda is contained for the moment, and ISIS (the “Islamic State” group) is left with a minute amount of territory, surrounded in the north-east along the Syrian-Iraqi borders.
At the moment, the powers of the Syrian army appear almost unlimited, with over 200,000 men (army, national forces and allies included) who are mostly well-trained and experienced fighters. These will certainly allow Damascus, after 6 years of devastating war, to engage when necessary against Israel in any future battle regardless of the consequences. Syria is determine to free the occupied Golan Heights and will stand next to Hezbollah – and vice versa – in any future war.
Russia has announced that it has updated the Syrian air defence system. The message reaches Israel that this system may come into use at any time, at Syrian discretion. Russia also stressed that it was not interfering in any Syrian-Israeli war and therefore (with a subtle mixed message!) would not mind if Damascus used Russian missiles to defend itself, in the same way Israel does against Syria and Hezbollah under the title of “self-defence and national security.”
As for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, he is confident of the effect of the Russian presence to preserve the unity of Syria, and trusts that Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards who have stood with him during the war will help him recover the entire Syrian territory. Assad eagerly awaits the moment he will stand by the “axis of the resistance”(which he is part of) if threatened. What Assad did in 2006 by opening his weapon stores to Hezbollah can now be seen as a small gesture belonging to the past: in the next battle with Israel, Assad will engage the entire Syrian army as part of the battle, to fight the war side by side with Hezbollah (Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah).
As for Israel, it will continue to try to keep to the algorithm of “open skies” and try to eliminate the very existence of separate Lebanese airspace. Syria will maintain in readiness its decision to strike Israeli jets (when these are within the reach of the Syrian air defence system), and will engage with these jets even if the likelihood of shooting them down is weak.
The decision has been taken: if it comes to war, Syria and Lebanon will wage full-scale, all-out war against Israel. This is a political and military decision arising from the Syrian leadership and its allies. This decision reflects Damascus’s unwillingness to give the left cheek to Israel (as it has done in the past) whenever it breaches the security of Syria and makes its land and its air space vulnerable, including the Lebanese air space that is now part of the balance. Israel, for its part, considers that any future war against Hezbollah will include the entire Lebanon and Syria with all its allied forces operating in the Levant. But Syria is in a good state not seen for more than six years and therefore can realistically and explicitly consider any threat to Lebanon to be a threat against Damascus.
Israel understood the new rules of engagement and fired its rockets from inside the occupied territories of the Golan Heights,not from the Syrian or the Lebanese skies. That does not mean Israel will not try again, but now its leaders know that the “promenade” is over. Thus Israel immediately declared it had “no interested in escalating,” following the Syrian missile launching.
This also indicates that Israel is not ready. This is not only because of the unpreparedness of the internal front and Hezbollah’s accumulated warfare experience in Syria, and the overt presence of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in Syria (which became known for its operational presence with its modern armed drones and ground forces), but because Donald Trump is unwilling to engage in any war in the Middle East: neither on behalf of the Kurds (for their independence) nor for the Arabs and Israel (who desperately want to see Iran and Hezbollah defeated).
The old war in Syria is nearing completion after long six years, and with it comes a new equation and difficult days for Israel. Tel Aviv will continue screaming loudly against Iran and Hezbollah. But its actions will be limited to security operations and sporadic strikes, because there are those who have their finger on the trigger, ready to retaliate and gathering more strength. Certainly, when Nasrallah said “there are hundreds of thousands men waiting to fight Israel if war is waged”, he knew he had reached a united front with Syria and all its allies willing fight together as one body. Certainly Assad and Nasrallah will aim to recover the Syrian and Lebanese territories under Israeli occupation: they now increasingly have the means.

Sunday, October 22, 2017

648 Een militaire coup in de VS? Moon of Alabama zegt het.


b.
Weet U wie b.  is?
Het is de man achter de website Moon of Alabama.
(Ik meen dat hij voluit Bernhard heet. Hij woont in Duitsland en/of is een Duitser van geboorte.)

Een meer bescheiden 'nom de plume' dan b.  kan ik me niet voorstellen.  En toch is deze b. voor mij de beste blogger in de wereld.
Nu het conflict in Syrie op zijn eind loopt zal hij hopelijk steeds meer blogs wijden aan de rest van de wereld.  Ik ben zeer benieuwd.

Ik weet niet of b.  alleen opereert, maar in elk geval heeft hij zijn zaakjes op orde, want hij onderbouwt zijn opinies altijd met berichten of citaten die soms wel 10 jaar oud zijn.

Ik wil het over zijn laatste blog hebben:
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/10/above-all-the-junta-expands-its-claim-to-power.html

Hij zegt ons dat de CIA altijd achter Hillary stond, en dat het Pentagon, de Generaals, altijd achter Trump stonden. En nu hebben ze de macht in handen en doet Trump wat hem gezegd wordt.

Ik begrijp dat er in Raqqa in feite dezelfde scheiding en dezelfde strijd was: de CIA steunde ISIS, maar de Generaals wilden ISIS verdrijven: de generaals wonnen.

En zo hebben ze nu het Witte Huis in hun macht. Trump moet doen wat zij zeggen.  En als het nodig is zullen ze Trump verdedigen.

MoA noemt het meestal een junta, maar soms is hij wat preciezer en zegt : het is een stratocracy - a military junta which nominally follows the rule of law.

Op fantastische wijze ondergraaft hij daarna de geloofwaardigheid van deze junta generaal Kelly.

Hij toont aan dat - zoals in een echte junta- er geen tegenspraak wordt geduld: de persvoorlichter van het Witte Huis zegt: 'twijfel aan de woorden van Kelly is ongepast.'
Ze gaat er niet op in, want op youtube kan iedereen zien dat Kellty loog.  En excuses maken past niet bij een junta-baas.

Wel het verheerlijken, het op een voetstuk zetten van Het leger.
Dat doet Kelly dus.

Dezelfde Kelly die ook over een modern concentratie-kamp de scepter zwaaide, waar mensen werden gemarteld. ( Guantanamo Bay)

Een andere militair, Pompeo,  is nu baas van de CIA.
Hij beloofde dat de CIA nog bloeddorstiger zou worden dan ze tot nu toe was.  Spek voor het bekkie van de Neocon-bijeenkomst waar hij dat zei, natuurlijk.

Maar wat deden diue Amerikaanse militairen eigenlijk daar in Niger?
Ze leerden de lokale militairen de kneepjes van de 'Mensenrechten', zei Kelly.
Bedoelt hij  het waterboarden van meestal onschuldige gevangenen?  Met drones bombarderen van bruiloften?
Let op. want er is een aanwijzing voor wat die 'mensen rechten bevorderaars' daar deden:
Eén van de 4 gesneuvelde militairen was een deskundige op het terrein van kernwapens !

Het zal toch niet te maken hebben met die Uranium-mijnen in Niger, mijnheer Kelly ?

Weet U nog dat de Irak inval o.a. werd gemotiveerd door het verhaal dat Saddam 'yellow cake' in Niger had gezocht?   De  Secret Service man die dat onderzocht had, ik meen dat ie Williams heette, werd later een klokkeluider en zei:  Uit mijn onderzoek bleek juist dat dit verhaal over  yellow cake onwaar was !   ( Was hij niet de man van Valerie Plame ? )

                                 --------------------------------------------------


Het is fascinerend om het gevecht in Washington tussen de diverse machten te volgen. Maar je hebt goede pundits nodig om er iets van te begrijpen.

C Wright Mills schreef in 1956 dat de macht in handen was van de Elite:
de politieke Elite, de militaire Elite en de Elite van de Corporations. 
Video, 3 min.) ( Video 10 min)
En dat hùn belangen niet hetzelfde waren als de belangen van het gewone volk.

Nu weten we allemaal dat politici en bedrijven heel erg rijk kunnen worden met wat ze doen. Ze hebben veel te verliezen als ze hun Elitaire  positie verliezen.

Maar soldaten, generaals:   wat hebben die te verliezen?

Moon of Alabama heeft daar kort geleden een blog aan gewijd.  Het blijkt dat Amerikaanse soldaten een luizenleventje lijden. En dat ze bovendien veel minder gevaar lopen dan de gewone arbeider in de straat! Minder kans op ongelukken of sneuvelen !   Het enige dat ze doen is klagen. Ze besteden 1 miljard $ per jaar aan propaganda ! 

                                --------------------------------


Hieronder enkele vage vermoedens die ik heb over de machtsverhoudingen in de VS elite:

Er zijn toch meer machtsblokken dan alleen de CIA en Het Leger  en het Witte Huis? 

Waar is nu de macht van de Neocons?  En van het Congres?  En van de Corporations. En de Media ?  

Misschien is dat een verkeerde benadering. 
Het is beter om de keuzes die de VS  heeft , op tafel te leggen, en te kijken wie een bepaalde richting uit willen. 
Ik denk dat de Generaals geen 'onwinbare oorlogen ' willen beginnen of voortzetten. De Neocons doen dat wel heel graag: om Israel te helpen door Israels buurlanden te verdelen en te verzwakken.  
De CIA stond in dienst van de Neocon-wars. De media eveneens.
De Corporations alleen als ze Halliburton heeft en of Blackwater. Niet als ze Exxon heetten of Monsanto.  Het Congres doet wat Aipac eist, dus steunt ze de Neocon-wars. 

Maar die generaals willen wel hun spierballen tonen en hun macht.  
De stoere taal van de Nato versus Rusland is iets dat ze graag steunen.  DE dreiging opvoeren naar Noord Korea: ze zullen het graag doen. 





647 Dag BlikopNosjournaal

Trollen hebben nut.
Ze kunnen een blog kapot maken. Dat is ook hun doel.

Lukt niet altijd natuurlijk. Als een site goed wordt gemodereerd, dan staan ze machteloos.

Maar BlikopNosjournaal wordt nauwelijks gemodereerd.

Ik heb er sinds zomer 2014 erg veel geschreven en erg veel discussies gevoerd.

Ik moest wel, want als je kritiek op 'de joden' hebt, dan word je overal al snel af gegooid.

Maar het was een fijne blog, omdat er enkele vaste schrijvers kwamen die ook  goed op de hoogte waren van de bedrieglijkheid van de MSM.

Natuurlijk kwamen er ook trollen ( LGK, Cruelman 1974 en Eddy) , en helaas waren er twee vaste gasten die niets liever deden dan met die trollen discussieren. ( Matt en Joop)

Een trol is lastig, want hij besteedt geen tijd aan onderzoek of aan onderbouwing. Hij poneert gewoon keer op keer  wat beweringen en als je daar niet op reageert, dan lijkt het net alsof je de discussie verliest.  Dat wil je niet.  Een trol kan honderd discussies op rij verliezen, het deert hem totaal niet: de volgende dag is hij er weer en beweert weer de zaken die je grondig hebt weerlegd de vorige dag.

Daarom is het nuttig dat je een moderator hebt die zulke kletskoek verwijdert.

Blik doet dat niet.
Hij schreef me al vele malen dat hij mijn bijdragen zeer waardeert, maar ik merk er helemaal niks van.

Dit is de mail die ik hem zojuist stuurde:

Huib, 


je schreef dat je de code's zou zoeken en sturen.

Maar je koos er voor om dat niet te doen. 

Ik kies er voor om jouw blog aan jouw trol over te laten. 

succes er mee. 


Ja, ik ben boos. 

De site van Blik was mijn digitale huiskamer.
Ik kon daar kwijt wat me op de lever lag. 
Ik kreeg af en toe een reactie. 
Dat heb je nodig als je  intensief bij de wereld betrokken bent. 
Een uitlaatklep. Een klankbord, Een vleugje kritiek. Een stukje aanvulling. Een schouderklopje.
Ik heb Blik aangeboden om hem te helpen bij  het modereren.
Een jaar geleden gaf hij me de code's. Maar ik schrapte ook Joop, als hij onzin verkocht, en binnen no time had Blik de toegangscode veranderd.
OK. Het is zijn blog.

Toen kwam Eddy, en toen had ik na een paar weken zo genoeg van de site dat ik hem verliet.
Maar na een maand was Eddy ineens weg, en keerde ik weer terug naar Blik.

Nu is Eddy al weer een maand actief, en ik heb er alweer helemaal geen behoefte meer aan om op Blik te publiceren: alles wordt letterlijk ondergepoept met drollen van Eddy.
Hij kan wel 10 berichten per uur schrijven,. allemaal direct standpunten uit de MSM. dus allemaal zaken die we overal tegen komen.  Heeft geen enkele info waarde.

Daar komt nog bij dat hij zichzelf in elk bericht feliciteert met zijn eigen voortreffelijkheid:  Hij is namelijk chauffeur op een vrachtwagen, en als er geen transport is - zo redeneert Eddy-   dan lijden we allemaal honger. Dat is het denk-niveau van Eddy.  Zonde van onze tijd.


Saturday, October 21, 2017

646 De Media zijn de Machtigsten.




Dit is een haastig bedachte blog.  Over de Media macht, en wat ik daarover de laatste dagen las.

Favoriet blijft Malcolm X uitspraak: dat de Media het machtigste zijn, omdat ze goede mensen tot slecht kunnen veranderen en ook omgekeerd.
The media’s the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and the guilty innnocent, and that’s power. Because they control the minds of the masses


In een gesprek tussen De Saker en Catherine Austin Fitts waren beiden het er over eens dat de Neocons van alles proberen om de First Amendment te omzeilen. ( Vrijheid van meningsuiting)
Het zit zo stevig in de Grondwet verankerd, dat het heel moeilijk zal zijn om die wet te veranderen.
'They bully people out of free speech' zegt mevr. Fitts.  Heel kernachtig uitgedrukt: je durft niet meer te zeggen wat je vindt, want je weet dat je enorm zwart zult worden gemaakt. 'Pesten' is dan te zacht uitgedrukt. Karaktermoord is meestal een juistere benaming van wat er gebeurt.

( Geschreven verslag Saker-Fitts, pagina 31 en 32.  Op pagina's 42 tot 44 gaat het over de vijand van de wereld: de Neocons, En dat ze het liefst de grondwet willen veranderen om vrij spel te hebben)

Ron Unz schreef langer geleden al een artikel over het belang van de Media: Breaching the Media wall. 

Aaron Schwarz begreep in 2011 dat die copyrights Sopa en Pipa wetten in  feite bedoeld waren om de vrijheid van meningsuiting aan banden te leggen. Youtube:  The Internet's Own Boy: The Story of Aaron Swartz | full movie (2014)

Hier nog een interview op Novini met Tabe Bergman.

In het boek van Alex Krainer werd een aardig kenmerk van het Putin bashen beschreven: ook  mensen die niks geloven van de Putin zwartmakerijen moeten toch elke zin over Putin met een disclaimer beginnen : 'Niet dat ik geloof dat Putin een heilige is, maar   of: Natuurlijk zal hij ook wel slechte dingen doen, maar '  ( The killing of Bill Browder. pag 6)
Het is taboe geworden om Putin een goed mens te vinden.  Terwijl het niet taboe is om positief over Blair of Bush te spreken.  Je hoeft dat nooit vooraf te laten gaan door een disclaimer.

Robert Parry schrijft dat het Rusland bashen nu echt absurde vormen heeft aangenomen: men spreekt dagenlang over enkele advertenties van de Russen op het internet  die de Verkiezingen zouden hebben beïnvloed. Over enkele Facebook accounts. Over het spelletje Pokomon. Parry gaat de aantallen eens serieus vergelijken met wat er in totaal aan verkiezings-geld om gaat, en met het totaal aan facebook accounts etc. Dan zie je dat - als het allemaal waar zou zijn -  de invloed minder dan nihil is.  Maar het kan niet waar zijn, want een deel van die "Russische verkiezings-beïnvloeding" gebeurde na de verkiezingen. ( Het artikel van Perry )

Ik wil daar aan toevoegen:
de Media hebben zeer duidelijk partij gekozen tegen Trump. ( Er was één  krant die pro Trump schreef, ergens in het Midden Westen,. als ik me goed herinner.)

Hebben de Media dan niet de plicht om 'gebalanceerd' verslag te doen?
Dat zal toch zeker gelden voor media die met overheids geld weren. Of bestaan die in de VS niet meer?  Dan hebben ze dus àltijd en legaal met 'adverteerders-belangen-nieuws' te maken?


Robert Perry toont aan dat je niet lang hoeft na te denken om te begrijpen dat 'Pokemon' en 'Facebook' nooit de verkiezingen kon beïnvloeden.
Waarom dan toch al die bombarie?
Volgens mij hoef je helemaal geen zinnige dingen te zeggen om toch effect te hebben dat je verlangt.

Wie gelooft er nu letterlijk al die claims die in een reclamebericht voorbij komen?  Niemand toch?
Maar de adverteerder gaat toch door, want hij weet:  het heeft weel degelijk invloed.

Tot zover deze korte overdenking.


















Sunday, October 15, 2017

645 Wall Street abnd the Bolshevik revolution. Antony Sutton. Marburg Plan etc.



This is Chapter XI form Antony Suttons Boog about the strong connectiuon between Wall Street bankers and the Russian Revolution. 



Here    you can see the whole book by Antony Sutton and click on every Chapter and you can read it in the right lay-out. 



Below is only chapter 11: 

In the blue marked text you can read what the Bankers said during the hearing in the Congress hearing by the Senate Overmann Committee on the question  'Why did you Bankers  support ( and create?)  the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia ? 


Chapter XI
THE ALLIANCE OF BANKERS AND REVOLUTION
The name Rockefeller does not connote a revolutionary, and my life
situation has fostered a careful and cautious attitude that verges on
conservatism. I am not given to errant causes...
John D. Rockefeller III, The Second American Revolution (New York: Harper
& Row. 1973)
THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED: A SYNOPSIS
Evidence already published by George Katkov, Stefan Possony, and Michael Futrell has
established that the return to Russia of Lenin and his party of exiled Bolsheviks, followed a few
weeks later by a party of Mensheviks, was financed and organized by the German
government.1 The necessary funds were transferred in part through the Nya Banken in
Stockholm, owned by Olof Aschberg, and the dual German objectives were: (a) removal of
Russia from the war, and (b) control of the postwar Russian market.2
We have now gone beyond this evidence to establish a continuing working relationship
between Bolshevik banker Olof Aschberg and the Morgan-controlled Guaranty Trust Company
in New York before, during, and after the Russian Revolution. In tsarist times Aschberg was
the Morgan agent in Russia and negotiator for Russian loans in the United States; during 1917
Aschberg was financial intermediary for the revolutionaries; and after the revolution Aschberg
became head of Ruskombank, the first Soviet international bank, while Max May, a vice
president of the Morgan-controlled Guaranty Trust, became director and chief of the Ruskombank
foreign department. We have presented documentary evidence of a continuing working
relationship between the Guaranty Trust Company and the Bolsheviks. The directors of
Guaranty Trust in 1917 are listed in Appendix 1.
Moreover, there is evidence of transfers of funds from Wall Street bankers to international
revolutionary activities. For example, there is the statement (substantiated by a cablegram) by
William Boyce Thompson — a director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, a large
stockholder in the Rockefeller-controlled Chase Bank, and a financial associate of the
Guggenheims and the Morgans — that he (Thompson) contributed $1 million to the Bolshevik
Revolution for propaganda purposes. Another example is John Reed, the American member of
the Third International executive committee who was financed and supported by Eugene
Boissevain, a private New York banker, and who was employed by Harry Payne Whitney's
Metropolitan magazine. Whitney was at that time a director of Guaranty Trust. We also
established that Ludwig Martens, the first Soviet "ambassador" to the United States, was
(according to British Intelligence chief Sir Basil Thompson) backed by funds from Guaranty
Trust Company. In tracing Trotsky's funding in the U.S. we arrived at German sources, yet to
be identified, in New York. And though we do not know the precise German sources of
Trotsky's funds, we do know that Von Pavenstedt, the chief German espionage paymaster in
the U.S., was also senior partner of Amsinck & Co. Amsinck was owned by the ever-present
American International Corporation — also controlled by the J.P. Morgan firm.
Further, Wall Street firms including Guaranty Trust were involved with Carranza's and Villa's
wartime revolutionary activities in Mexico. We also identified documentary evidence
concerning. a Wall Street syndicate's financing of the 1912 Sun Yat-sen revolution in China, a
revolution that is today hailed by the Chinese Communists as the precursor of Mao's revolution
in China. Charles B. Hill, New York attorney negotiating with Sun Yat-sen in behalf of this
syndicate, was a director of three Westinghouse subsidiaries, and we have found that Charles
R. Crane of Westinghouse in Russia was involved in the Russian Revolution.
Quite apart from finance, we identified other, and possibly more significant, evidence of Wall
Street involvement in the Bolshevik cause. The American Red Cross Mission to Russia was a
private venture of William B. Thompson, who publicly proffered partisan support to the
Bolsheviks. British War Cabinet papers now available record that British policy was diverted
towards the Lenin-Trotsky regime by the personal intervention of Thompson with Lloyd
George in December 1917. We have reproduced statements by director Thompson and deputy
chairman William Lawrence Saunders, both of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York,
strongly favoring the Bolshevists. John Reed not only was financed from Wall Street, but had
consistent support for his activities, even to the extent of intervention with the State
Department from William Franklin Sands, executive secretary of American International
Corporation. In the sedition case of Robert Minor there are strong indications and some
circumstantial evidence that Colonel Edward House intervened to have Minor released. The
significance of the Minor case is that William B. Thompson's program for Bolshevik revolution
in Germany was the very program Minor was implementing when arrested in Germany.
Some international agents, for example Alexander Gumberg, worked for Wall Street and the
Bolsheviks. In 1917 Gumberg was the representative of a U.S. firm in Petrograd, worked for
Thompson's American Red Cross Mission, became chief Bolshevik agent in Scandinavia until
he was deported from Norway, then became confidential assistant to Reeve Schley of Chase
Bank in New York and later to Floyd Odium of Atlas Corporation.
This activity in behalf of the Bolsheviks originated in large part from a single address: 120
Broadway, New York City. The evidence for this observation is outlined but no conclusive
reason is given for the unusual concentration of activity at a single address, except to state that
it appears to be the foreign counterpart of Carroll Quigley's claim that J.P. Morgan infiltrated
the domestic left. Morgan also infiltrated the international left.
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York was at 120 Broadway. The vehicle for this proBolshevik
activity was American International Corporation — at 120 Broadway. AIC views on
the Bolshevik regime were requested by Secretary of State Robert Lansing only a few weeks
after the revolution began, and Sands, executive secretary of AIC, could barely restrain his
enthusiasm for the Bolshevik cause. Ludwig Martens, the Soviet's first ambassador, had been
vice president of Weinberg & Posner, which was also located at 120-Broadway. Guaranty
Trust Company was next door at 140 Broadway but Guaranty Securities Co. was at 120
Broadway. In 1917 Hunt, Hill & Betts was at 120 Broadway, and Charles B. Hill of this firm
was the negotiator in the Sun Yat-sen dealings. John MacGregor Grant Co., which was
financed by Olof Aschberg in Sweden and Guaranty Trust in the United States, and which was
on the Military Intelligence black list, was at 120 Broadway. The Guggenheims and the
executive heart of General Electric (also interested in American International) were at 120
Broadway. We find it therefore hardly surprising that the Bankers Club was also at 120
Broadway, on the top floor (the thirty-fourth).
It is significant that support for the Bolsheviks did not cease with consolidation of the
revolution; therefore, this support cannot be wholly explained in terms of the war with
Germany. The American-Russian syndicate formed in 1918 to obtain concessions in Russia
was backed by the White, Guggenheim, and Sinclair interests. Directors of companies
controlled by these three financiers included Thomas W. Lamont (Guaranty Trust), William
Boyce Thompson (Federal Reserve Bank), and John Reed's employer Harry Payne Whitney
(Guaranty Trust). This strongly suggests that the syndicate was formed to cash in on earlier
support for the Bolshevik cause in the revolutionary period. And then we found that Guaranty
Trust financially backed the Soviet Bureau in New York in 1919.
The first really concrete signal that previous political and financial support was paying off
came in 1923 when the Soviets formed their first international bank, Ruskombank. Morgan
associate Olof Aschberg became nominal head of this Soviet bank; Max May, a vice president
of Guaranty Trust, became a director of Ruskom-bank, and the Ruskombank promptly
appointed Guaranty Trust Company its U.S. agent.


THE EXPLANATION FOR THE UNHOLY ALLIANCE

What motive explains this coalition of capitalists and Bolsheviks?
Russia was then — and is today — the largest untapped market in the world. Moreover, Russia,
then and now, constituted the greatest potential competitive threat to American industrial and
financial supremacy. (A glance at a world map is sufficient to spotlight the geographical
difference between the vast land mass of Russia and the smaller United States.) Wall Street
must have cold shivers when it visualizes Russia as a second super American industrial giant.
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.3
'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.
Neither was aid restricted to statist Bolsheviks and statist counter-Bolsheviks. John P. Diggins,
in Mussolini and Fascism: The View from America,4 has noted in regard to Thomas Lamont of
Guaranty Trust that
Of all American business leaders, the one who most vigorously patronized the cause of
Fascism was Thomas W. Lamont. Head of the powerful J.P. Morgan banking network, Lamont
served as something of a business consultant for the government of Fascist Italy.
Lamont secured a $100 million loan for Mussolini in 1926 at a particularly crucial time for the
Italian dictator. We might remember too that the director of Guaranty Trust was the father of
Corliss Lamont, a domestic Communist. This evenhanded approach to the twin totalitarian
systems, communism and fascism, was not confined to the Lamont family. For example, 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."5
This is the same Otto Kahn who lectured the socialist League of Industrial Democracy in 1924
that its objectives were his objectives.6 They differed only — according to Otto Kahn — over the
means of achieving these objectives.
Ivy Lee, Rockefeller's public relations man, made similar pronouncements, and was
responsible for selling the Soviet regime to the gullible American public in the late 1920s. We
also have observed that Basil Miles, in charge of the Russian desk at the State Department and
a former associate of William Franklin Sands, was decidedly helpful to the businessmen
promoting Bolshevik causes; but in 1923 the same Miles authored a profascist article, "Italy's
Black Shirts and Business."7 "Success of the Fascists is an expression of Italy's youth," wrote
Miles while glorifying the fascist movement and applauding its esteem for American business.


THE MARBURG PLAN

The Marburg Plan, financed by Andrew Carnegie's ample heritage, was produced in the early
years of the twentieth century. It suggests premeditation for this kind of superficial
schizophrenia, which in fact masks an integrated program of power acquisition: "What then if
Carnegie and his unlimited wealth, the international financiers and the Socialists could be
organized in a movement to compel the formation of a league to enforce peace."8
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."9
This idea was knit with other elements with similar objectives. Lord Milner in England
provides the transatlantic example of banking interests recognizing the virtues and possibilities
of Marxism. Milner was a banker, influential in British wartime policy, and pro-Marxist.10 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."11
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."12
But Leon Trotsky also declared himself an internationalist. We have remarked with some
interest his high-level internationalist connections, or at least friends, in Canada. Trotsky then
was not pro-Russian, or pro-Allied, or pro-German, as many have tried to make him out to be.
Trotsky was for world revolution, for world dictatorship; he was, in one word, an
internationalist.13 Bolshevists and bankers have then this significant common ground —
internationalism. Revolution and international finance are not at all inconsistent if the result of
revolution is to establish more centralized authority. International finance prefers to deal with
central governments. The last thing the banking community wants is laissez-faire economy and
decentralized power because these would disperse 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.
Wall Street did indeed achieve its goal. American firms controlled by this syndicate were later
to go on and build the Soviet Union, and today are well on their way to bringing the Soviet
military-industrial complex into the age of the computer.
Today the objective is still alive and well. John D. Rockefeller expounds it in his book The
Second American Revolution — which sports a five-pointed star on the title page.14 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.
In brief, the public good has been, and is today, used as a device and an excuse for selfaggrandizement
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.
This technique, used by the monopolists to gouge society, was set forth in the early twentieth
century by Frederick C. Howe in The Confessions of a Monopolist.15 First, says Howe, politics
is a necessary part of business. To control industries it is necessary to control Congress and the
regulators and thus make society go to work for you, the monopolist. So, according to Howe,
the two principles of a successful monopolist are, "First, let Society work for you; and second,
make a business of politics."16 These, wrote Howe, are the basic "rules of big business."
Is there any evidence that this magnificently sweeping objective was also known to Congress
and the academic world? Certainly the possibility was known and known publicly. For
example, witness the testimony of Albert Rhys Williams, an astute commentator on the
revolution, before the Senate Overman Committee:
. . . it is probably true that under the soviet government industrial life will perhaps be much
slower in development than under the usual capitalistic system. But why should a great
industrial country like America desire the creation and consequent competition of another great
industrial rival? Are not the interests of America in this regard in line with the slow tempo of
development which soviet Russia projects for herself?

Senator Wolcott: Then your argument is that it would be to the interest of America to have
Russia repressed?

MR. WILLIAMS: Not repressed ....

SENATOR WOLCOTT: You say. Why should America desire Russia to become an industrial
competitor with her?

MR. WILLIAMS: This is speaking from a capitalistic standpoint. The whole interest of
America is not, I think, to have another great industrial rival, like Germany, England, France,
and Italy, thrown on the market in competition. I think another government over there besides
the Soviet government would perhaps increase the tempo or rate of development of Russia, and
we would have another rival. Of course, this is arguing from a capitalistic standpoint.

SENATOR WOLCOTT: So you are presenting an argument here which you think might
appeal to the American people, your point being this, that if we recognize the Soviet
government of Russia as it is constituted we will be recognizing a government that can not
compete with us in industry for a great many years?
MR. WILLIAMS: That is a fact.
SENATOR WOLCOTT: That is an argument that under the Soviet government Russia is in no
position, for a great many years at least, to approach America industrially?
MR. WILLIAMS: Absolutely.17
And in that forthright statement by Albert Rhys Williams is the basic clue to the revisionist
interpretation of Russian history over the past half century.
Wall Street, or rather the Morgan-Rockefeller complex represented at 120 Broadway and 14
Wall Street, had something very close to Williams' argument in mind. 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.18 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.
Footnotes:
1Michael Futrell, Northern Underground (London: Faber and Faber, 1963);
Stefan Possony, Lenin: The Compulsive Revolutionary (London: George Allen
& Unwin, 1966); and George Katkov, "German Foreign Office Documents on
Financial Support to the Bolsheviks in 1917," International Affairs 32 (Royal
Institute of International Affairs, 1956).
2Ibid., especially Katkov.
3See also Voline (V.M. Eichenbaum), Nineteen-Seventeen: The Russian
Revolution Betrayed (New York: Libertarian Book Club, n.d.).
4Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Prss, 1972.
5Ibid., p. 149.
6See p. 49.
7Nation's Business, February 1923, pp. 22-23.
8Jennings C. Wise, Woodrow Wilson: Disciple of Revolution (New York:
Paisley Press, 1938), p.45
9Ibid., p.46
10See p. 89.
11Morris Hillquit, Loose Leaves from a Busy Life (New York: Macmillan,
1934), p. 81.
12Wise, op. cit., p. 647
13Leon Trotsky, The Bolsheviki and World Peace (New York: Boni &
Liveright, 1918).
14In May 1973 Chase Manhattan Bank (chairman, David Rockefeller) opened
it Moscow office at 1 Karl Marx Square, Moscow. The New York office is at
1 Chase Manhattan Plaza.
15Chicago: Public Publishin, n.d.
16Ibid.
17U.S., Senate, Bolshevik Propaganda, hearings before a subcommittee of the
Committee on the Judiciary, 65th Cong., pp. 679-80. See also herein p. 107 for
the role of Williams in Radek's Press Bureau.
18See Antony C. Sutton, Western Technology and Soviet Economic
Development, 3 vols. (Stanford, Calif.: Hoover Institution, 1968, 1971, 1973);
see also National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union (New York:
Arlington House, 1973)I

Chapter XI

THE ALLIANCE OF BANKERS AND REVOLUTION
The name Rockefeller does not connote a revolutionary, and my life
situation has fostered a careful and cautious attitude that verges on
conservatism. I am not given to errant causes...
John D. Rockefeller III, The Second American Revolution (New York: Harper
& Row. 1973)

THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED: A SYNOPSIS
Evidence already published by George Katkov, Stefan Possony, and Michael Futrell has
established that the return to Russia of Lenin and his party of exiled Bolsheviks, followed a few
weeks later by a party of Mensheviks, was financed and organized by the German
government.1 The necessary funds were transferred in part through the Nya Banken in
Stockholm, owned by Olof Aschberg, and the dual German objectives were: (a) removal of
Russia from the war, and (b) control of the postwar Russian market.2
We have now gone beyond this evidence to establish a continuing working relationship
between Bolshevik banker Olof Aschberg and the Morgan-controlled Guaranty Trust Company
in New York before, during, and after the Russian Revolution. In tsarist times Aschberg was
the Morgan agent in Russia and negotiator for Russian loans in the United States; during 1917
Aschberg was financial intermediary for the revolutionaries; and after the revolution Aschberg
became head of Ruskombank, the first Soviet international bank, while Max May, a vice
president of the Morgan-controlled Guaranty Trust, became director and chief of the Ruskombank
foreign department. We have presented documentary evidence of a continuing working
relationship between the Guaranty Trust Company and the Bolsheviks. The directors of
Guaranty Trust in 1917 are listed in Appendix 1.
Moreover, there is evidence of transfers of funds from Wall Street bankers to international
revolutionary activities. For example, there is the statement (substantiated by a cablegram) by
William Boyce Thompson — a director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, a large
stockholder in the Rockefeller-controlled Chase Bank, and a financial associate of the
Guggenheims and the Morgans — that he (Thompson) contributed $1 million to the Bolshevik
Revolution for propaganda purposes. Another example is John Reed, the American member of
the Third International executive committee who was financed and supported by Eugene
Boissevain, a private New York banker, and who was employed by Harry Payne Whitney's
Metropolitan magazine. Whitney was at that time a director of Guaranty Trust. We also
established that Ludwig Martens, the first Soviet "ambassador" to the United States, was
(according to British Intelligence chief Sir Basil Thompson) backed by funds from Guaranty
Trust Company. In tracing Trotsky's funding in the U.S. we arrived at German sources, yet to
be identified, in New York. And though we do not know the precise German sources of
Trotsky's funds, we do know that Von Pavenstedt, the chief German espionage paymaster in
the U.S., was also senior partner of Amsinck & Co. Amsinck was owned by the ever-present
American International Corporation — also controlled by the J.P. Morgan firm.
Further, Wall Street firms including Guaranty Trust were involved with Carranza's and Villa's
wartime revolutionary activities in Mexico. We also identified documentary evidence
concerning. a Wall Street syndicate's financing of the 1912 Sun Yat-sen revolution in China, a
revolution that is today hailed by the Chinese Communists as the precursor of Mao's revolution
in China. Charles B. Hill, New York attorney negotiating with Sun Yat-sen in behalf of this
syndicate, was a director of three Westinghouse subsidiaries, and we have found that Charles
R. Crane of Westinghouse in Russia was involved in the Russian Revolution.
Quite apart from finance, we identified other, and possibly more significant, evidence of Wall
Street involvement in the Bolshevik cause. The American Red Cross Mission to Russia was a
private venture of William B. Thompson, who publicly proffered partisan support to the
Bolsheviks. British War Cabinet papers now available record that British policy was diverted
towards the Lenin-Trotsky regime by the personal intervention of Thompson with Lloyd
George in December 1917. We have reproduced statements by director Thompson and deputy
chairman William Lawrence Saunders, both of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York,
strongly favoring the Bolshevists. John Reed not only was financed from Wall Street, but had
consistent support for his activities, even to the extent of intervention with the State
Department from William Franklin Sands, executive secretary of American International
Corporation. In the sedition case of Robert Minor there are strong indications and some
circumstantial evidence that Colonel Edward House intervened to have Minor released. The
significance of the Minor case is that William B. Thompson's program for Bolshevik revolution
in Germany was the very program Minor was implementing when arrested in Germany.
Some international agents, for example Alexander Gumberg, worked for Wall Street and the
Bolsheviks. In 1917 Gumberg was the representative of a U.S. firm in Petrograd, worked for
Thompson's American Red Cross Mission, became chief Bolshevik agent in Scandinavia until
he was deported from Norway, then became confidential assistant to Reeve Schley of Chase
Bank in New York and later to Floyd Odium of Atlas Corporation.
This activity in behalf of the Bolsheviks originated in large part from a single address: 120
Broadway, New York City. The evidence for this observation is outlined but no conclusive
reason is given for the unusual concentration of activity at a single address, except to state that
it appears to be the foreign counterpart of Carroll Quigley's claim that J.P. Morgan infiltrated
the domestic left. Morgan also infiltrated the international left.
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York was at 120 Broadway. The vehicle for this proBolshevik
activity was American International Corporation — at 120 Broadway. AIC views on
the Bolshevik regime were requested by Secretary of State Robert Lansing only a few weeks
after the revolution began, and Sands, executive secretary of AIC, could barely restrain his
enthusiasm for the Bolshevik cause. Ludwig Martens, the Soviet's first ambassador, had been
vice president of Weinberg & Posner, which was also located at 120-Broadway. Guaranty
Trust Company was next door at 140 Broadway but Guaranty Securities Co. was at 120
Broadway. In 1917 Hunt, Hill & Betts was at 120 Broadway, and Charles B. Hill of this firm
was the negotiator in the Sun Yat-sen dealings. John MacGregor Grant Co., which was
financed by Olof Aschberg in Sweden and Guaranty Trust in the United States, and which was
on the Military Intelligence black list, was at 120 Broadway. The Guggenheims and the
executive heart of General Electric (also interested in American International) were at 120
Broadway. We find it therefore hardly surprising that the Bankers Club was also at 120
Broadway, on the top floor (the thirty-fourth).
It is significant that support for the Bolsheviks did not cease with consolidation of the
revolution; therefore, this support cannot be wholly explained in terms of the war with
Germany. The American-Russian syndicate formed in 1918 to obtain concessions in Russia
was backed by the White, Guggenheim, and Sinclair interests. Directors of companies
controlled by these three financiers included Thomas W. Lamont (Guaranty Trust), William
Boyce Thompson (Federal Reserve Bank), and John Reed's employer Harry Payne Whitney
(Guaranty Trust). This strongly suggests that the syndicate was formed to cash in on earlier
support for the Bolshevik cause in the revolutionary period. And then we found that Guaranty
Trust financially backed the Soviet Bureau in New York in 1919.
The first really concrete signal that previous political and financial support was paying off
came in 1923 when the Soviets formed their first international bank, Ruskombank. Morgan
associate Olof Aschberg became nominal head of this Soviet bank; Max May, a vice president
of Guaranty Trust, became a director of Ruskom-bank, and the Ruskombank promptly
appointed Guaranty Trust Company its U.S. agent.
THE EXPLANATION FOR THE UNHOLY ALLIANCE
What motive explains this coalition of capitalists and Bolsheviks?
Russia was then — and is today — the largest untapped market in the world. Moreover, Russia,
then and now, constituted the greatest potential competitive threat to American industrial and
financial supremacy. (A glance at a world map is sufficient to spotlight the geographical
difference between the vast land mass of Russia and the smaller United States.) Wall Street
must have cold shivers when it visualizes Russia as a second super American industrial giant.
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.3
'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.
Neither was aid restricted to statist Bolsheviks and statist counter-Bolsheviks. John P. Diggins,
in Mussolini and Fascism: The View from America,4 has noted in regard to Thomas Lamont of
Guaranty Trust that
Of all American business leaders, the one who most vigorously patronized the cause of
Fascism was Thomas W. Lamont. Head of the powerful J.P. Morgan banking network, Lamont
served as something of a business consultant for the government of Fascist Italy.
Lamont secured a $100 million loan for Mussolini in 1926 at a particularly crucial time for the
Italian dictator. We might remember too that the director of Guaranty Trust was the father of
Corliss Lamont, a domestic Communist. This evenhanded approach to the twin totalitarian
systems, communism and fascism, was not confined to the Lamont family. For example, 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."5
This is the same Otto Kahn who lectured the socialist League of Industrial Democracy in 1924
that its objectives were his objectives.6 They differed only — according to Otto Kahn — over the
means of achieving these objectives.
Ivy Lee, Rockefeller's public relations man, made similar pronouncements, and was
responsible for selling the Soviet regime to the gullible American public in the late 1920s. We
also have observed that Basil Miles, in charge of the Russian desk at the State Department and
a former associate of William Franklin Sands, was decidedly helpful to the businessmen
promoting Bolshevik causes; but in 1923 the same Miles authored a profascist article, "Italy's
Black Shirts and Business."7 "Success of the Fascists is an expression of Italy's youth," wrote
Miles while glorifying the fascist movement and applauding its esteem for American business.
THE MARBURG PLAN
The Marburg Plan, financed by Andrew Carnegie's ample heritage, was produced in the early
years of the twentieth century. It suggests premeditation for this kind of superficial
schizophrenia, which in fact masks an integrated program of power acquisition: "What then if
Carnegie and his unlimited wealth, the international financiers and the Socialists could be
organized in a movement to compel the formation of a league to enforce peace."8
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."9
This idea was knit with other elements with similar objectives. Lord Milner in England
provides the transatlantic example of banking interests recognizing the virtues and possibilities
of Marxism. Milner was a banker, influential in British wartime policy, and pro-Marxist.10 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."11
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."12
But Leon Trotsky also declared himself an internationalist. We have remarked with some
interest his high-level internationalist connections, or at least friends, in Canada. Trotsky then
was not pro-Russian, or pro-Allied, or pro-German, as many have tried to make him out to be.
Trotsky was for world revolution, for world dictatorship; he was, in one word, an
internationalist.13 Bolshevists and bankers have then this significant common ground —
internationalism. Revolution and international finance are not at all inconsistent if the result of
revolution is to establish more centralized authority. International finance prefers to deal with
central governments. The last thing the banking community wants is laissez-faire economy and
decentralized power because these would disperse 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.
Wall Street did indeed achieve its goal. American firms controlled by this syndicate were later
to go on and build the Soviet Union, and today are well on their way to bringing the Soviet
military-industrial complex into the age of the computer.
Today the objective is still alive and well. John D. Rockefeller expounds it in his book The
Second American Revolution — which sports a five-pointed star on the title page.14 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.
In brief, the public good has been, and is today, used as a device and an excuse for selfaggrandizement
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.
This technique, used by the monopolists to gouge society, was set forth in the early twentieth
century by Frederick C. Howe in The Confessions of a Monopolist.15 First, says Howe, politics
is a necessary part of business. To control industries it is necessary to control Congress and the
regulators and thus make society go to work for you, the monopolist. So, according to Howe,
the two principles of a successful monopolist are, "First, let Society work for you; and second,
make a business of politics."16 These, wrote Howe, are the basic "rules of big business."
Is there any evidence that this magnificently sweeping objective was also known to Congress
and the academic world? Certainly the possibility was known and known publicly. For
example, witness the testimony of Albert Rhys Williams, an astute commentator on the
revolution, before the Senate Overman Committee:
. . . it is probably true that under the soviet government industrial life will perhaps be much
slower in development than under the usual capitalistic system. But why should a great
industrial country like America desire the creation and consequent competition of another great
industrial rival? Are not the interests of America in this regard in line with the slow tempo of
development which soviet Russia projects for herself?
Senator Wolcott: Then your argument is that it would be to the interest of America to have
Russia repressed?
MR. WILLIAMS: Not repressed ....
SENATOR WOLCOTT: You say. Why should America desire Russia to become an industrial
competitor with her?
MR. WILLIAMS: This is speaking from a capitalistic standpoint. The whole interest of
America is not, I think, to have another great industrial rival, like Germany, England, France,
and Italy, thrown on the market in competition. I think another government over there besides
the Soviet government would perhaps increase the tempo or rate of development of Russia, and
we would have another rival. Of course, this is arguing from a capitalistic standpoint.
SENATOR WOLCOTT: So you are presenting an argument here which you think might
appeal to the American people, your point being this, that if we recognize the Soviet
government of Russia as it is constituted we will be recognizing a government that can not
compete with us in industry for a great many years?
MR. WILLIAMS: That is a fact.
SENATOR WOLCOTT: That is an argument that under the Soviet government Russia is in no
position, for a great many years at least, to approach America industrially?
MR. WILLIAMS: Absolutely.17
And in that forthright statement by Albert Rhys Williams is the basic clue to the revisionist
interpretation of Russian history over the past half century.
Wall Street, or rather the Morgan-Rockefeller complex represented at 120 Broadway and 14
Wall Street, had something very close to Williams' argument in mind. 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.18 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.
Footnotes:
1Michael Futrell, Northern Underground (London: Faber and Faber, 1963);
Stefan Possony, Lenin: The Compulsive Revolutionary (London: George Allen
& Unwin, 1966); and George Katkov, "German Foreign Office Documents on
Financial Support to the Bolsheviks in 1917," International Affairs 32 (Royal
Institute of International Affairs, 1956).
2Ibid., especially Katkov.
3See also Voline (V.M. Eichenbaum), Nineteen-Seventeen: The Russian
Revolution Betrayed (New York: Libertarian Book Club, n.d.).
4Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Prss, 1972.
5Ibid., p. 149.
6See p. 49.
7Nation's Business, February 1923, pp. 22-23.
8Jennings C. Wise, Woodrow Wilson: Disciple of Revolution (New York:
Paisley Press, 1938), p.45
9Ibid., p.46
10See p. 89.
11Morris Hillquit, Loose Leaves from a Busy Life (New York: Macmillan,
1934), p. 81.
12Wise, op. cit., p. 647
13Leon Trotsky, The Bolsheviki and World Peace (New York: Boni &
Liveright, 1918).
14In May 1973 Chase Manhattan Bank (chairman, David Rockefeller) opened
it Moscow office at 1 Karl Marx Square, Moscow. The New York office is at
1 Chase Manhattan Plaza.
15Chicago: Public Publishin, n.d.
16Ibid.
17U.S., Senate, Bolshevik Propaganda, hearings before a subcommittee of the
Committee on the Judiciary, 65th Cong., pp. 679-80. See also herein p. 107 for
the role of Williams in Radek's Press Bureau.
18See Antony C. Sutton, Western Technology and Soviet Economic
Development, 3 vols. (Stanford, Calif.: Hoover Institution, 1968, 1971, 1973);
see also National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union (New York:

Arlington House, 1973).