The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewRon Unz Archive
American Pravda: Our Great Purge of the 1940s
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_337364513

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Although I’ve soured on him in recent years, for the first decade and more of Paul Krugman’s tenure at the New York Times I regarded him as about the only national columnist worth reading. Certainly many others felt the same way, and Krugman regularly ranked among the most influential liberal voices in the country, gaining that position by his uniquely strong stance against the Iraq War plans of President George W. Bush, while his prestige was capped by winning 2007 Nobel Prize in Economics.

But few probably remember that just a couple of years into his column there was a concerted effort to pressure the Times into firing him, a campaign spearheaded by blogger Andrew Sullivan, then an ardent Bush supporter. Given the steady drum-beat of harsh accusations and the climate of that period, I had feared that it would succeed. Now suppose that he had been purged from all media access in 2002, and also that Bush’s Iraq adventure had turned out to be a considerable success, rather than the utter disaster it actually became. A couple of decades hence, would anyone remember Krugman, except in some minor historical footnote recounting the misguided naysayers whom our heroic President “W” had fortunately overcome?

Perhaps by 2040 any mention of Krugman’s name would either draw a blank stare or evoke a vague sense that he had been some sort of disreputable radical activist, perhaps with pro-Islamicist leanings and even suspected by some of having had a hand in the 9/11 attacks. History has traditionally been written by the political winners, and this was especially true in the days before the growth of the Internet weakened the total monopoly of our establishment media.

These were some of the thoughts that gradually crossed my mind during the middle part of the 2000s as I discovered some remarkable anomalies while creating my content-archiving website, a system intended to provide convenient access to millions of articles from America’s most influential publications of the last 150 years. Since I had never really studied American history, my views were generally quite conventional ones, formed from a mixture of the History 101 classes I had taken and what I had casually absorbed over the years from all the newspapers and magazines that I read.

Many of the most frequent names I encountered in America’s prestigious and respectable periodicals of the past were reasonably well known to me, but others were not. It was a strange feeling to see the overwhelming presence of writers who were either completely obscure or else whom I had always regarded as denizens of the disreputable radical fringe, distributing their angry mimeographed tracts on street corners, rather than respected figures regularly gracing the pages of The New Republic, Foreign Affairs, and The Nation. My comprehension of the past was obviously mistaken.

Take the case of John T. Flynn, probably unknown today to all but one American in a hundred, if even that. Given my much broader ideological explorations, I had sometimes seen him hailed as an important figure in the Old Right, a founder of the America First Committee, and someone friendly to both Sen. Joseph McCarthy and the John Birch Society, though falsely smeared by his opponents as a proto-fascist or Nazi-sympathizer. This sort of description seemed to form a consistent if somewhat disputed picture in my mind.

So imagine my surprise at discovering that throughout the 1930s he had been one of the single most influential liberal voices in American society, a writer on economics and politics whose status may have roughly approximated that of Paul Krugman, though with a strong muck-raking tinge. His weekly column in The New Republic allowed him to serve as a lodestar for America’s progressive elites, while his regular appearances in Colliers, an illustrated mass circulation weekly reaching many millions of Americans, provided him a platform comparable to that of an major television personality in the later heyday of network TV.

To some extent, Flynn’s prominence may be objectively quantified. A few years ago, I happened to mention his name to a well-read and committed liberal born in the 1930s, and she unsurprisingly drew a complete blank, but wondered if he might have been a little like Walter Lippmann, the very famous columnist of that era. When I checked, I saw that across the hundreds of periodicals in my archiving system, there were just 23 articles by Lippmann from the 1930s but fully 489 by Flynn.

Much of Flynn’s early prominence came from his important role in the 1932 Senate Pecora Commission, which had pilloried the grandees of Wall Street for the 1929 stock market collapse, and whose recommendations ultimately led to the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission and other important financial reforms. Following an impressive career in newspaper journalism, he had moved over to The New Republic as a weekly columnist in 1930. Although initially sympathetic to Franklin Roosevelt’s goals, he soon became skeptical about the effectiveness of his methods, noting the sluggish expansion of public works projects and wondering whether the vaunted NRA was actually more beneficial to big business owners than to ordinary workers.

As the years went by, his criticism of Roosevelt Administration turned harsher on economic and eventually foreign policy grounds, and he incurred its enormous hostility as a consequence. Roosevelt began sending personal letters to leading editors demanding that Flynn be barred from any prominent American print outlet, and perhaps as a consequence he lost his longstanding New Republic column immediately following FDR’s 1940 reelection, and his name disappeared from mainstream periodicals. However, he still authored a number of best-selling books over the years sharply attacking Roosevelt, and after the war his byline occasionally surfaced in much less mainstream and influential publications. A decade ago the libertarian Ludwig von Mises Institute republished a couple of Flynn’s books, and a lengthy introduction by Prof. Ralph Raico sketched in some of this background.

 

ORDER IT NOW

Supporters of my local Palo Alto library hold a monthly book sale at which donated items are sold for a pittance, and I usually drop by to browse the shelves out of curiosity for what I might find. A few years ago, I happened to notice one of Flynn’s FDR books, published in 1948, and bought it for a quarter. The material presented on the yellowing pages of The Roosevelt Myth were eye-opening to me.

Anyone can write a book saying anything, and if some obscure right-winger leveled astonishing charges against a liberal president, I might not pay much attention. But if Paul Krugman had spent years expressing growing doubts about Barack Obama’s policies and effectiveness, then finally turned against him and published a national best-seller denouncing his administration, surely those opinions would carry much more weight. And so it was with Flynn’s accusations against Roosevelt.

I am no expert on the New Deal Era, but Flynn’s work seemed soberly and persuasively written, although in a journalistic muck-raking style, and he makes all sorts of claims I had never previously encountered. My software system provides cross-referenced book reviews and I read a dozen of these. A few from around the time of the book’s publication were extremely critical, denouncing the contents as total nonsense written by a notoriously crazed “Roosevelt-hater.” But no specific rebuttals were provided and the general tone was much like that of the numerous Wall Street Journal op-eds from the mid-2000s which issued blanket denunciations of books written by “crazed Bush-haters.” Indeed, the sum-total of the one 1949 review consisted of the single sentence “Unadulterated venom from a professional F.D.R.-hater.” However, other, more recent reviews, admittedly drawn from the libertarian camp, were overwhelmingly favorable. Having no great expertise, I cannot effectively judge.

But Flynn’s claims were extremely precise, detailed, and specific, including numerous names, dates, and references. Most surprisingly, he accused the Roosevelts of exhibiting an extraordinarily degree of familial financial corruption, which he claimed may have been unprecedented in American history. Apparently, despite his wealthy and elite background FDR’s eldest son Elliott never attended college and had essentially no professional qualifications in anything. But soon after FDR became president, he began soliciting large personal payments and “investments” from wealthy businessmen who needed favors from the massively growing federal government, and seemingly did so with FDR’s full knowledge and approval. The situation sounded a little like Billy Carter’s notorious activities during the late 1970s, but the money involved totaled as much as $50 million in present-day dollars relative to the household income of that era. I had never heard a word about this.

Even more shocking was the case of First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, who also had never attended college and apparently had little formal education of any sort. Soon after FDR was inaugurated, she began a major round of very well-paid personal advertising for corporate consumer products such as soap and took all sorts of other large payments over the next few years from various businesses, especially those crucially dependent upon government regulatory decisions. Imagine if recent First Ladies such as Michelle Obama or Laura Bush were constantly seen in TV ads hawking cars and diapers and fast food. The payments Eleanor personally received over the course of the FDR’s dozen years in office allegedly came to an astonishing $150 million, again relative to current family incomes. This, too, was something that I had never suspected. And all this was occurring during the very depths of the Great Depression, when a huge fraction of the country was desperately poor. Perhaps Juan and Eva Peron just didn’t hire the right PR people or simply aimed too low.

Obviously, the unprecedented growth in the spending and regulatory power of the federal government during the New Deal years increased opportunities for this sort of personal graft by an enormous amount. But Flynn notes how odd the situation seemed since FDR’s inherited fortune meant that he had already come into office as one of the wealthiest presidents of modern times. And as far as I’ve heard, his successor Harry S. Truman left the White House about as poor as he had entered it.

Some of Flynn’s other shocking claims were easier to verify. He argues that the New Deal was largely a failure and in support of that contention notes that when FDR entered office in 1933 there were 11 million unemployed and in 1938 after six years of enormous government spending and deficits and the creation of an alphabet soup of New Deal programs there were…11 million unemployed. That claim appears to be factually correct.

Indeed, Flynn alleges that by late 1937, FDR had turned towards an aggressive foreign policy aimed at involving the country in a major foreign war, primarily because he believed that this was the only route out of his desperate economic and political box, a stratagem not unknown among national leaders throughout history. In his January 5, 1938 New Republic column, he alerted his disbelieving readers to the looming prospect of a large naval military build-up and warfare on the horizon after a top Roosevelt adviser had privately boasted to him that a large bout of “military Keysianism” and a major war would cure the country’s seemingly insurmountable economic problems. At that time, war with Japan, possibly over Latin American interests, seemed the intended goal, but developing events in Europe soon persuaded FDR that fomenting a general war against Germany was the best course of action. Memoirs and other historical documents obtained by later researchers seem to generally support Flynn’s accusations by indicating that Roosevelt ordered his diplomats to exert enormous pressure upon both the British and Polish governments to avoid any negotiated settlement with Germany, thereby leading to the outbreak of World War II in 1939.

Such an interventionist foreign policy may have represented a remarkable reversal of Roosevelt’s promises. All my introductory history books had always indicated that an Isolationist-leaning Congress had passed the various Neutrality Acts of the mid-1930s over FDR’s strong opposition and that these were intended to handcuff him. But according to Flynn, FDR had not only initially proposed that very legislation to his close Congressional allies, but actually made his personal advocacy and support for the Neutrality laws ones of the most popular centerpieces of his successful 1936 reelection campaign, thereby helping him carry the Mid West against Kansas Gov. Alf Landon. Once gain, Flynn provides a very specific and detailed description of that history. Unsurprisingly, Wikipedia provides the opposite, totally conventional account.

Leaving aside the extraordinary level of family financial corruption alleged by Flynn, his portrayal of FDR reminds me more of “W” than any other recent president. We must remember that “W” had run for office promising a “humble” foreign policy and the removal of various kinds of anti-Muslim government profiling, but quickly reversed himself when the 9/11 attacks gave him the opportunity to enter the history books as a “war president.”

The background of the book’s publication provides an indication of the publication obstacles faced by critics of government policy. Notwithstanding Flynn’s outsize reputation and his previous string of best-sellers, his manuscript was rejected by virtually every major publisher, and in desperation, he finally turned to an obscure Irish-American house. Yet despite such an inauspicious launch and his near-complete exclusion from mainstream media outlets, his book quickly rose to the #2 spot on The New York Times list. Merely a decade earlier, he had been at the pinnacle of American influence, and the ongoing blacklisting by the mainstream media had apparently not yet fully managed to smother his memory.

 

Although Flynn was perhaps the most prominent public figure to disappear from public visibility around that time, he was hardly alone. As I began to explore the aggregate contents of so many of the publications that had influenced our ideas since the 19th century, I detected a significant discontinuity centered around a particular period. Quite a number of individuals—Left, Right, and Center—who had been so prominently featured until that point suddenly disappeared, in many cases permanently, near the start of the Great American Purge of the 1940s.

I sometimes imagined myself a little like an earnest young Soviet researcher of the 1970s who began digging into the musty files of long-forgotten Kremlin archives and made some stunning discoveries. Trotsky was apparently not the notorious Nazi spy and traitor portrayed in all the textbooks, but instead had been the right-hand man of the sainted Lenin himself during the glorious days of great Bolshevik Revolution, and for some years afterward had remained in the topmost ranks of the Party elite. And who were these other figures—Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin, Rykov—who also spent those early years at the very top of the Communist hierarchy? In history courses, they had barely rated a few mentions, as minor Capitalist agents who were quickly unmasked and paid for their treachery with their lives. How could the great Lenin, father of the Revolution, have been such an idiot to have surrounded himself almost exclusively with traitors and spies?

But unlike their Stalinist analogs from a couple of years earlier, the American victims who disappeared around 1940 were neither shot nor Gulaged, but merely excluded from the mainstream media that defines our reality, thereby being blotted out from our memory so that future generations gradually forgot that they had ever lived.

Sometimes echoes of their former existence remained in the most unlikely contemporary contexts. For example during the early 2000s when I occasionally browsed websites of the ultra-right fringe, I might sometimes see favorable references to some totally unknown individual named “Harry Elmer Barnes,” who apparently seemed to have been some long-forgotten homegrown Fascist ideologue of the 1930s.

Imagine my shock at later discovering that Barnes had actually been one of the most frequent early contributors to Foreign Affairs, serving as a primary book reviewer for that venerable publication from its 1922 founding onward, while his stature as one of America’s premier liberal academics was indicated by his scores of appearances in The Nation and The New Republic throughout that decade. Indeed, he is credited with having played a central role in “revising” the history of the First World War so as to remove the cartoonish picture of unspeakable German wickedness left behind as a legacy of the dishonest wartime propaganda produced by the opposing British and American governments. And his professional stature was demonstrated by his thirty-five or more books, many of them influential academic volumes, along with his numerous articles in The American Historical Review, Political Science Quarterly, and other leading journals.

A few years ago I happened to mention Barnes to an eminent American academic scholar whose general focus in political science and foreign policy was quite similar, and yet the name meant nothing. By the end of the 1930s, Barnes had become a leading critic of America’s proposed involvement in World War II, and was permanently “disappeared” as a consequence, barred from all mainstream media outlets, while a major newspaper chain was heavily pressured into abruptly terminating his long-running syndicated national column in May 1940.

In many respects, Barnes’ situation typified those who fell in the purge. Although many powerful critics of FDR’s presidency seem to have suffered from a considerable amount of government investigation and IRS harassment throughout the 1930s, America’s movement towards involvement in a new world war seems to have been the central factor behind a wider purge of public intellectuals and other political opponents. The combined influence of the pro-British Eastern Establishment together with powerful Jewish groups was deployed to clear the media of opposing figures, and after the Germans broke the Hitler-Stalin Pact by attacking the USSR in June 1941, Communists and other leftists also joined this effort. Polls seem to have shown that as much as 80% of the American public was opposed to such military involvement, so any prominent political or media figure giving voice to that popular super-majority needed to be silenced.

ORDER IT NOW

Over a dozen years after his disappearance from our national media, Barnes managed to publish Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, a lengthy collection of essays by scholars and other experts discussing the circumstances surrounding America’s entrance into World War II, and have it produced and distributed by a small printer in Idaho. His own contribution was a 30,000 word essay entitled “Revisionism and the Historical Blackout” and discussed the tremendous obstacles faced by the dissident thinkers of that period.

The book itself was dedicated to the memory of his friend, historian Charles A. Beard. Since the early years of the 20th century, Beard had ranked as an intellectual figure of the greatest stature and influence, co-founder of The New School in New York and serving terms as president of both The American Historical Association and The American Political Science Association. As a leading supporter of the New Deal economic policies, he was overwhelmingly lauded for his views.

Yet once he turned against Roosevelt’s bellicose foreign policy, publishers shut their doors to him, and only his personal friendship with the head of the Yale University Press allowed his critical 1948 volume President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War, 1941 to even appear in print. Beard’s stellar reputation seems to have begun a rapid decline from that point onward, so that by 1968 historian Richard Hofstadter could write: “Today Beard’s reputation stands like an imposing ruin in the landscape of American historiography. What was once the grandest house in the province is now a ravaged survival”. Indeed, Beard’s once-dominant “economic interpretation of history” might these days almost be dismissed as promoting “dangerous conspiracy theories,” and I suspect few non-historians have even heard of him.

Another major contributor to the Barnes volume was William Henry Chamberlin, who for decades had been ranked among America’s leading foreign policy journalists, with more than 15 books to his credit, most of them widely and favorably reviewed. Yet America’s Second Crusade, his critical 1950 analysis of America’s entry into World War II, failed to find a mainstream publisher, and when it did appear was widely ignored by reviewers. Prior to its publication, his byline had regularly run in our most influential national magazines such as The Atlantic Monthly and Harpers. But afterward, his writing was almost entirely confined to small circulation newsletters and periodicals, appealing to narrow conservative or libertarian audiences.

In these days of the Internet, anyone can easily establish a website to publish his views, thus making them immediately available to everyone in the world. Social media outlets such as Facebook and Twitter can bring interesting or controversial material to the attention of millions with just a couple of mouse-clicks, completely bypassing the need for the support of establishmentarian intermediaries. It is easy for us to forget just how extremely challenging the dissemination of dissenting ideas remained back in the days of print, paper, and ink, and recognize that an individual purged from his regular outlet might require many years to regain any significant foothold for the distribution of his work.

And this situation actually understates the tremendous obstacles faced by Flynn, Barnes, and similar writers, which they themselves probably did not fully recognize at the time. We must remember that by the early 1950s, television and films had only just begun to displace all other forms of media in their reach and influence, but soon the three networks and the handful of Hollywood studios began to enjoy an overwhelming stranglehold on the popular interpretation of historical events and all other types of information. So although many of the once-prominent individuals we have discussed sometimes retained a foothold in books, small-circulation magazines, and even some radio broadcasts, their total exclusion from TV and movies effectively transformed them into un-persons.

Given the remarkable prosperity and domestic tranquility of the 1950s, most ordinary Americans were reasonably content, and saw no great need to question the veracity of what they heard and saw on their magical screens, whether small or large. If once-prominent but now half-forgotten intellectuals sought to rehash the past political decisions of 15 or 20 years earlier, they inevitably attracted small audiences.

 

The year 1940 seemed to mark the point at which some of the most significant dissenting voices in the national media were either removed or intimidated into silence. Once that had been accomplished, the strategic landscape obviously shifted, facilitating political maneuvers that might have been far more difficult under a climate of robust press scrutiny.

DesperateDeception Given the overwhelming popular opposition to war intervention, Roosevelt’s prospects for an unprecedented third term might have seemed difficult, since he would either be forced to strongly commit himself to that position or else risk defeat against his Republican opponent, drawn from a party that was overwhelmingly anti-interventionist. But in one of the most unlikely twists in all of American political history, the June 1940 Republican convention held in Chicago selected as its nominee the obscure Wendell Willkie, a strongly pro-interventionist individual who had never previously held any public office and until just a few months earlier had been a committed lifelong Democrat. Two decades ago, historian Thomas E. Mahl thoroughly documented that British intelligence agents played a crucial role in that extremely unexpected turn of events, quite possibly even employing lethal means. The resulting Roosevelt-Willkie race thus provided voters virtually no choice on foreign policy matters, and FDR was reelected in a huge landslide, thereby largely freeing his hands to pursue a much more aggressive foreign policy.

Alarmed by their growing fear that America might be drawn into another world war without voters having had any say in the matter, a group of Yale Law students launched an anti-interventionist political organization that they named “The America First Committee,” and it quickly grew to 800,000 members, becoming the largest grass-roots political organization in our national history. Numerous prominent public figures joined or supported it, with the chairman of Sears, Roebuck serving as its head, and its youthful members included future presidents John F. Kennedy and Gerald Ford as well as other notables such as Gore Vidal, Potter Stewart, and Sargent Schriver. Flynn served as chairman of the New York City chapter, and the organization’s leading public spokesman was famed aviator Charles Lindbergh, who for decades had probably ranked as America’s greatest national hero.

Throughout 1941, enormous crowds across the country attended anti-war rallies addressed by Lindbergh and the other leaders, with many millions more listening to the radio broadcasts of the events. Mahl shows that British agents and their American supporters meanwhile continued their covert operations to counter this effort by organizing various political front-groups advocating American military involvement, and employing fair means or foul to neutralize their political opponents. Jewish individuals and organizations seem to have played an enormously disproportionate role in that effort.

At the same time, the Roosevelt Administration escalated its undeclared war against German submarines and other naval forces in the Atlantic, unsuccessfully seeking to provoke an incident that might stampede the country into war. FDR also promoted the most bizarre and ridiculous propaganda inventions aimed at terrifying naive Americans, such as claiming to have proof that the Germans—who possessed no large surface navy and were completely stymied by the English Channel—had formulated concrete plans to leap across two thousand miles of the Atlantic Ocean and seize control of Latin America. British agents supplied some of the crude forgeries he cited as evidence.

These facts, now firmly established by decades of scholarship, provide some necessary context to Lindbergh’s famously controversial speech at an America First rally in September 1941. At that event, he charged that three groups in particular were “pressing this country toward war[:] the British, the Jewish, and the Roosevelt Administration,” and thereby unleashed an enormous firestorm of media attacks and denunciations, including widespread accusations of anti-Semitism and Nazi sympathies. Given the realities of the political situation, Lindbergh’s statement constituted a perfect illustration of Michael Kinsley’s famous quip that “a gaffe is when a politician tells the truth – some obvious truth he isn’t supposed to say.” But as a consequence, Lindbergh’s once-heroic reputation suffered enormous and permanent damage, with the campaign of vilification echoing for the remaining three decades of his life, and even well beyond. Although he was not entirely purged from public life, his standing was certainly never even remotely the same.

Meanwhile, FDR’s drive to have America enter the war continued on various parallel tracks. Over the years, diplomatic historians have demonstrated that faced with such stubborn domestic opposition to direct military intervention in Europe, the Roosevelt Administration undertook a wide range of steps directly intended to provoke a Japanese attack and thereby achieve a “back door to war” as Prof. Charles C. Tansill later entitled his important 1952 book on that history. These measures include a complete freeze on Japanese assets, an embargo on the oil absolutely vital to the Japanese military, and the summary rejection of the Japanese Prime Minister’s personal plea to hold top-level governmental negotiations aimed at maintaining peace. As early as May 1940, FDR had ordered the Pacific Fleet relocated from its San Diego home port to Pearl Harbor in Hawaii, a decision strongly opposed as unnecessarily provocative and dangerous by James Richardson, its commanding admiral, who was fired as a result.

Thus, the Japanese attack on December 7, 1941 actually marked the success of Roosevelt’s strategy by putting America into the war. Indeed, some scholars have even pointed to considerable evidence that the highest levels of the U.S. government were fully aware of the impending attack and allowed it to proceed in order to ensure that a sufficiently large number of American casualties would sweep away all popular obstacles to full-scale involvement in the world war.

There was also a very strange domestic incident that immediately followed the Pearl Harbor attack, one which seems to have attracted far too little interest. In that era, films were the most powerful popular media, and although Gentiles constituted 97% of the population, they controlled only one of the major studios; perhaps coincidentally, Walt Disney was also the only high-ranking Hollywood figure perched squarely within the anti-war camp. And the day after the surprise Japanese attack, hundreds of U.S. troops seized control of Disney Studios, allegedly in order to help defend California from Japanese forces located thousands of miles away, with the military occupation continuing for the next eight months. Consider what suspicious minds might have thought if on September 12, 2001, President Bush had immediately ordered his military to seize the CBS network offices, claiming that such a step was necessary to help protect New York City against further Islamicist attacks.

 

Most of us live within a comfortable framework of what we have been taught and therefore believe to be true, and breaking out of that sheltering cocoon often entails considerable mental adjustments. This was certainly the case for me a dozen years ago as I increasingly noticed the sharp divergence between the claims and implications of my history books and the actual facts contained within the scanned pages of old publications.

The notion of a sweeping purge of media dissidents in the past seemed far easier for me to accept when I myself had witnessed something rather similar only a couple of years earlier, once again aimed at clearing away the obstacles to an American foreign war.

In the patriotic fervor following the 9/11 attacks, few national media figures dared challenge the plans and proposals of the Bush Administration, with Paul Krugman’s column at the Times being a very rare exception; expressing “unpatriotic sentiments” as very broadly defined could severely impact a career. This was especially true of the electronic media, with its vastly greater reach and therefore subject to more extreme pressure. During 2002 and 2003, it was very rare to find an Iraq War naysayer anywhere on network television or among the fledgling cable alternatives, and even MSNBC, the least popular and most liberal of the latter soon began a sharp ideological crackdown.

For decades, Phil Donahue had pioneered the daytime television talk show, and in 2002 he revived it to high ratings on MSNBC, but in early 2003 his show was canceled, with a leaked memo indicated that his opposition to the looming war was the cause. Conservative Pat Buchanan and liberal Bill Press, both Iraq War critics, hosted a top-rated debate show on the same network, allowing them to spar with their more pro-Bush opponents, but it too was cancelled for similar reasons. If the cable network’s most famous hosts and highest rated programs were subject to summary termination, lesser ranking personalities surely drew the appropriate conclusions about the risks of crossing particular ideological lines.

My old friend Bill Odom, the three-star general who ran the NSA for Ronald Reagan and possessed among the strongest national security credentials in DC was similarly blacklisted from the media for his opposition to the Iraq War. Numerous other prominent media voices were “disappeared” around the same time, and even after Iraq became universally recognized as an enormous disaster, most of them never regained their perches.

ORDER IT NOW

By this time the early Internet had come into existence, so these media disappearances were often noted by angry commentators, and therefore less completely effective. Buchanan might no longer have a show on cable television, but his pungent print commentaries were still available on the web, and the same was true for others. However, the political impact of an audience of thousands of selected website readers was very different than that of a national audience of millions of mainstream viewers.

When we seek to understand the past, we must be careful to avoid drawing from a narrow selection of sources, especially if one side proved politically victorious in the end and completely dominated the later production of books and other commentary. Prior to the existence of the Internet, this was an especially difficult task, often requiring a considerable amount of scholarly effort, even if only to examine the bound volumes of once popular periodicals. Yet without such diligence, we can fall into very serious error.

The Iraq War and its aftermath was certainly one of the central events in American history during the 2000s. Yet suppose some readers in the distant future had only the collected archives of The Weekly Standard, National Review, the WSJ op-ed page, and FoxNews transcripts to furnish their understanding the history of that period, perhaps along with the books written by the contributors to those outlets. I doubt that more than a small fraction of what they would read could be categorized as outright lies. But the massively skewed coverage, the distortions, exaggerations, and especially the breathtaking omissions would surely provide them with an exceptionally unrealistic view of what had actually happened during that important period.

Over the last fifteen-odd years, I’ve gradually come to believe that exactly the same is probably true of much of the American history I had always assumed that I knew.

Related Reading:

 
• Category: History • Tags: American Media, American Pravda, World War II 
The American Pravda Series
Hide 267 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Rational says:

    WW I = WHITES KILLING WHITES ONE.
    WW II = WHITES KILLING WHITES TWO.

    Thanks for the great article, Sir. We must not forget the greatest tragedy in the history of mankind—WW2. Over 100 million (mostly white Christians) died in this greatest tragedy.

    Though whites are the smartest people around and have invented most of the great inventions we have around us today, they somehow managed to kill so many of their own brothers and sisters.

    These 100 M whites would have been about 1 billion whites today, and whites would have been a world majority today, had it not been for WW2.

    Even though decades have passed, we must keep exposing the mendacity of our politicians and the special interests (you know who) who caused this great tragedy.

    Let all people learn that the best way to serve your country is to NOT join the army.

    The most heroic thing our soldiers could have done is REFUSE to fight.

    I would rather go to prison than bomb innocent people in Dresden.

  2. Anonymous[346] • Disclaimer says:

    Mideast stink-tank neocon adovates a false flag to start war with Iran and in doing so suggest all of our previous wars were started with false flags:

    • Replies: @Merckx Factor
    , @Wade
    , @utu
  3. Anon[389] • Disclaimer says:

    Great article as usual. I knew something about the Roosevelt children taking advantage of their father’s position. I had no idea Eleanor was endorsing products and made so much money. Hundreds of glorifying hagiographies were written about the Roosevelts and administration aides.

    I’ve read several books praising the British propaganda efforts to get us into WW2 such as The Man Called Intrepid and others. When I first started using the internet I loved cruising the right wing sites and discovered there were other people who had the same opinions as I do about so many things.

  4. llloyd says: • Website

    I grew up in New Zealand with the FDR myth. I would suggest it was even stronger than in America, where he wasn’t generally considered a Saint. I was quite startled reading Grapes of Wroth by Steinbeck published in 1937. These were the Roosevelt years when the American population declined by several million. Ironically, about the same statistical proportion that Mao Tse Tung was supposed to have murdered. Of course he didn’t. But it was the same consequence of mass hunger and dislocation. World War Two restored the wasp oligarchy.

  5. “Early in life I have noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper, but in Spain, for the first time, I saw newspaper reports which did not bear any relation to the facts, not even the relationship which is implied in an ordinary lie. I saw great battles reported where there had been no fighting, and complete silence where hundreds of men had been killed. I saw troops who had fought bravely denounced as cowards and traitors, and others who had never seen a shot fired hailed as the heroes of imaginary victories; and I saw newspapers in London retailing these lies and eager intellectuals building emotional superstructures over events that had never happened. I saw, in fact, history being written not in terms of what happened but of what ought to have happened according to various ‘party lines”. [“Looking Back on the Spanish War,” 1943. George Orwell

    • Agree: artichoke
    • Replies: @Liza
  6. Brewer says:

    Over the last fifteen-odd years, I’ve gradually come to believe that exactly the same is probably true of much of the American history I had always assumed that I knew.

    Despite being a History grad way back in the 60s, this mirrors my own experience, not just of American History but that of the British Empire and Commonwealth as well.
    In almost every case, the victor’s propaganda becomes the “History”.

  7. Another great feast, thank you Ron. Even more substantial than your Suvarov based essay.

    Would you do your readers another favour and tell us how to use your software simply to find cross-referenced reviews in case what I infer from following the link you gave to the reviews isn’t sufficient. To be able to find the reviews for any substantial book one might think of reading would be an enormous boon. Think of the side benefit if some of the conspiracy nuts on UR threads got some assistance before thrusting on us one or two books as containing all that needs to be known about a subject.

  8. Yes, Ron it is the age of the awakening. It’s what most of have known all our lives but we fantasized we had a real government and our vote mattered. In our programmed metaphysical universe we believed that the parties were different and that there was some morality or integrity in government. There are no true governments just Corporate Fascist Military-Industrial Police States that are the servants of Khazars, bankers, war mongers and corporations who answer to no one. We are nothing more than little pawns on the chess board sold to the highest bidder. We conveniently fight among ourselves while our masters accumulate the wealth and send our children to fight their wars.

    The media must keep this illusion and the myth that we can have it all….alive. Because if most people are suddenly awakened from this fantasy there would the greatest bloodshed in the history of mankind. Why do you think they want all these illegals? Because too many of us are awake and these little illegals will buy this fantasy and a “toaster” too to keep this magic consumer utopian world alive.

    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
  9. Biff says:

    And then there was the election of Donald Trump, or more precisely, the non-election of the sure to win media darling Hillary Clinton. Enter the era of “Fake news”, which you can translate into “any news the mainstream doesn’t agree with”, and the new era of “Russia did it”.

    The establishment media and its government minions, or the establishment government and its media minions are clearly in damage control mode with the WaPo, and Propornot, coming out with their list media/news websites that we are told are Russian front groups(that have nothing to do with Russia). And the on-line mainstream media websites that have all eliminated their comments sections(can’t control the message with people pointing out the lies).

    It’s also an era of new lows, with the likes of serial bullshitters James Clapper, and John Brennan on Cables news. One wonders if they are trying to do comedy or the news?

    “It’s all bullshit and its bad for you”
    George Carlin

    • Replies: @Eagle Eye
  10. I read somewhere that on Dec 6, 1941, FDR, George Marshall and Bernard Baruch pulled an “all-nighter” waiting for word to come in from Hawaii confirming the prompted and expected Japanese attack. The Hawaii strategy was to debunk Lindberg’s statement that the U.S. was protected by oceans and therefore beyond the possibility of attack. The Pearl Harbor attack debunked that idea and the America First Committee disbanded shortly afterward. A great article. Thank you for the MI6 input on the Wilkie campaign. I wonder if MI6 put Truman in to pave the way for the anti-Soviet pivot?

  11. Check out also Herbert Hoover’s recently published “Lost Victories”

    • Replies: @fnn
  12. utu says:

    Consider what suspicious minds might have thought if on September 12, 2001, President Bush had immediately ordered his military to seize the CBS network offices, claiming that such a step was necessary to help protect New York City against further Islamicist attacks.

    Anthrax letters did a better job.

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
  13. I discovered the “Roosevelt Myth ” about 20 years ago and it led me over the years down a similar path of historical “Enlightenment” about our secular saint, FDR articulated so masterfully by Ron Unz in this column. Particularly depressing is the ample evidence of his conniving with Winston Churchill to give British intelligence agents a home base in NYC and access to whatever resources they need to smear the war-opposition, conduct a secret war against the Axis, and get the U. S. into the war. Both FDR and Churchill knew that Stalin had murdered the 15,000 or so Polish officers and intelligencia at Katyn in 1940 and let them skate so that they could help them conduct the Nuremberg show trial.

    Ron’s recent columns on David Irving, and his making available his books are wonderful efforts at combating the enforced orthodoxy and help to complete the circle of truth about the horrific corruption and dishonesty of FDR and Churchill. Watching the You Tube videos of Irving, especially his description of Churchill’s hypocrisy and alcohol sodden routines you suddenly realize why Irving’s character has been assassinated and his work reviled. Until Ron’s column I had avoided Irving. I intend to read all of his books.

    Irving’s account of his arrest, trial and incarceration in Austria in 2002 should shatter any illusions that the western world “democracies” are not other than disguised tyrannies.

    • Replies: @republic
    , @Anon
  14. Jake says:

    “In his January 5, 1938 New Republic column, he alerted his disbelieving readers to the looming prospect of a large naval military build-up and warfare on the horizon after a top Roosevelt adviser had privately boasted to him that a large bout of “military Keysianism” and a major war would cure the country’s seemingly insurmountable economic problems. At that time, war with Japan, possibly over Latin American interests, seemed the intended goal, but developing events in Europe soon persuaded FDR that fomenting a general war against Germany was the best course of action.”

    War – the god of the State. It is a god that demands massive human sacrifice so the super rich of the State can get even richer.

    Flynn might not have had any interest in pursuing such matters, but among the powerful Brits on the 1930s there also was a crowd that was determined to angle until they got another major war. Most of that Brit maneuvering for what would be WW2 was to use war economics and then post-war pillaging to save and revive the British Empire. For a few, simple desire to get even with Germany for causing the UK to waste its empire in WW1 was sufficient.

  15. This was an outstanding essay. Those who control our understanding of the past, can shape the present, and then direct our course into their future.

    This phenomenon helps explain why our ‘news’ is so monitored, controlled, and censored. And uniform. The sheeple can be herded; their autonomy softened.

    ‘News’ is highly processed and often uniform. It is converted into digestible nuggets of politically-correct sound-bites and ideas. Eat, children.

    The theory: manage political discourse and public opinion will follow. The theory often works.

    The sheeple can be taught to vote ‘correctly’. Think correctly.

    To round this out, dissenting voices must be purged, forgotten, or marginalized. This is how the architects of ‘centrism’ maintain their dominant position.

    Sure, people can vote. They can switch TV stations or pick up a different newspaper. They can even contact their congressperson. But these conventional political avenues achieve little.

    And with more and more of the mainstream media in the hands of fewer and fewer individuals, the power to shape and steer public opinion is becoming more concentrated. This is power. Dangerous power.

    Billion-dollar news/entertainment conglomerates may be ‘free’ from government interference, but they are not free from their own in-house prejudices or agendas. The Fourth Estate can behave as a Fifth Column. Indeed, the so-called ‘free press’ does not necessarily produce truth or honesty–or even freedom.

    These toxic deficiencies remind us why it’s imperative to uphold the tradition as well as the right to express any kind of political opinion on the internet–without fear of censorship or reprisal.

    The world wide web is not only the freest and most dynamic forum of political expression ever invented, but its unique accessibility renders it the most level playing field ever for discourse and commentary. So let the debates begin! All sides. All perspectives. Why not?

    It is in an open, unrestricted, and uncensored forum where the ‘marketplace of ideas’ can flourish best. Truth has nothing to fear in an open debate.

    Yet it is this rare and precious openness that apparently threatens powerful factions within America’s ruling elite. Their counter-strategy?

    –To restrict and regulate political discourse on the web.

    –To declare questionable assertions ‘fake news’ or ‘hate speech’.

    Arrest the evildoers!

    What these self-appointed censors actually fear is a genuine, open and fair ‘marketplace of ideas’ coming into existence.

    Why?

    Unregulated discourse could jeopardize their immense (but fragile) political power.

    They rule by deception.

    We comply by fear.

    That however could change. But to do so, Free Speech must be upheld.

    In the meantime, these enemies of intellectual liberty are crafting legislation (worldwide) that will restrict certain ideas and commentary. They intend to employ devious legalisms which denote ‘hate speech’, spread ‘fake news’ or cross the line into ‘Holocaust denial’. It’s all an outrage. But it’s happening.

    These kosher taboos and concocted ‘crimes’ tell us plenty about their underhanded strategies as well as their true identities. The usual suspects refuse to play fair.

    We must resist their supremacist impulses.

    • Replies: @Wally
  16. Jake says:
    @Brewer

    Eliminate that ‘almost.’ The propaganda of the war victor becomes enshrined as the only possible truth.

    That means that the most ridiculous exaggerations and the largest number of outright lies and misleading distortions and omissions will come from the largest and wealthiest empires.

    For those who require help seeing the obvious: British Empire and Yankee Empire, which actually are two phases of the WASP Empire.

  17. WJ says:

    I am still amazed by the media betrayal during the buildup to the Iraq war. It was difficult to find a mainstream media talking head that gave the other side of the story, i.e. Saddam had no nukes, or even that Saddam had chemical weapons but why in the world would he use them or give them to al Quada, etc. There was no balance and the current media’s spin on the Syrian conflict is much the same.

    I knew all hope was lost when NPR and Daniel Schoor essentially came out for the Iraq war.

    As Mr. Unz states, it should make you question the official history and the justification for every US war or military engagement for at least the last 100 years.

  18. Weird for me, to see the names of Flynn, Beard, Barnes, Tansill, mentioned here by someone from the USA, I have their books since ten years or so.
    Do not see Harold L Ickes, Frederick W. Marks III, William L. Neumann, Robert E. Sherwood, Elisabeth Dilling, George F. Kennan or Charles E. Bohlen mentioned.
    In order to understand ‘sold me down the river’, an expression Ickes uses often about FDR, a USA friend gave me a dictionary of American slang.

    • Replies: @Them Guys
  19. @Anonymous

    Patrick Clawson’s Wiki page mentions that he received his Ph.D from The New School for Social Research (i.e. The Frankfort School) and was an economist for the IMF and World Bank.

    • Replies: @republic
  20. It’s the news you don’t get, opposing news to the narrative of 1918, 1939-45 that you can barely find evidence of today. Vietnam opposition was substantial, but then, the academics and boomers were required to fight and so they marched in the streets. The WW1&2 Generation were a more patriotic lot. That day is now passed. Opposition today, is a disappearing act. Difficult as that was, future historians will likely find it impossible to find the opposing voices of say, 1967-present because the narrative owns the WWWeb after all in complete accord and cooperation with the Federal levers, all of those stronger than any 75 years back, never mind 100. They own it all. And so they’re so powerful, they actually allow Ron Unz, and previously “Pravda’d” writers such as Pat Buchanan and Steve Sailor, Goad at Taki’s, Carlton Meyers and others of similar esteem. And they allow us to talk back, because big picture, what’s it matter? We’re all fringe here.

    This is Siberia. They figure no one who counts reads here, but in any case, in two seconds they can put the lights out here, at Taki’s, Heartise, everywhere people talk against the narrative can go poof, “server not found”. Snowden told us this, warned us against all of it, from the inside. The Generals run it all, there’s no civilian control, no draft, no marching on the streets. The Israeli-Adjunct U.S. MIC run us, but they’re so powerful they don’t even need to quiet us, they hold complete sway, media, academia, Capitol Hill, the White House. No one on The Hill dares question in the slightest the wars Congress is Constitutionally mandated to vote on, each and every one. Not anymore.

    While I’m grateful to have the writing we have, they can disappear all of it in two minutes. In 20 days, let alone 75 years, no one would know our alternative media ever existed except those of us that read here. Love to know how it comes out differently. There’s a yoke around our necks and it has tightened greatly in just the past ten years. How that gets thrown off I have no idea.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  21. Heros says:

    This is another great essay from Ron Unz, but once again he evades much of the JQ. It is also presented from a typically US viewpoint and attitude.

    Throughout the early 1900′s Jewish communists were busy lobbying in Washington for Bolshevism, while the zionists were busy lobbying for zionism. They were also murdering each other, as Trotsky’s murder attests to.

    But one thing they were united in was hatred of Christianity and Germany. Here is an article about how Germans were treated in the US during the war:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4992032/Germans-AMERICA-World-War.html

    These US citizens of German decent lost a lot more that the ability to be published, they were locked up in concentration camps across the US. I particularly like the photo of the burning of German books.

    Most people are also aware of how Wilson shut down the entire German-American publishing industry during the WWI and closed all the German language newspapers. This would of course be after the Balfour declaration was signed, the Tsar had been forced to abdicate, and the communist Jews in Germany had sided with the allies and the bolschevics against the Kaiser, which was later known as the stab in the back.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  22. Borsalino says:

    Thanks for this excellent and informative article, and the same can be said of this entire website. Your essay is a timely reminder of something a professional historian and teacher once sharply pointed out to me when I was an eager undergrad claiming to have found a book that was the definitive history on a particular event: “There is no such thing as a definitive history!”. Indeed, time (and the internet) are instrumental in revealing documents and witnesses that are gradually shifting the world’s perception of history (and its historians).

    • Agree: Mike P
  23. Another superb article and as of comment #9, consistently good comments too.

    Anyone interested in American history can hardly do better than RU’s other site,

    http://www.unz.com/print/

    The bulk of what we proles are fed in skool and in da media is fetid waste; mind poison.

    “You know well that [the British] government always kept a kind of standing army of news writers who without any regard to truth, or to what should be like truth, invented & put into the papers whatever might serve the minister. This suffices with the mass of the people who have no means of distinguishing the false from the true paragraphs of a newspaper.”

    Thomas Jefferson, to G. K. van Hogendorp, Paris, Oct. 13, 1785

    The world wars were certain bankers’ and industrialists’ fights, not “ours” and we got suckered into them for their benefit. They won, “we” did not. The rest is BS.

  24. iffen says:

    Another excellent and apropos article for the Unz Enquirer.

  25. @Brewer

    Indeed.
    The great problem of the present Germans is that they have been educated the victor’s propaganda, the USA made the new Germany agree to doing this in 1953, when the USA realised they needed a Germany against Stalinist Russia, thus confirming Hitler’s views.
    So present Germans still have a guilt feeling, more than seventy years after the last event, of having caused two wars, and having gassed six million jews.
    These guilt feelings make any discussion about how Israel treats the Palestinians, about if large numbers of immigrants should be welcomed, or about the EU, that supposedly brought peace, impossible.
    Anyone doubting the victor’s propaganda is ostracised immediately, he or she is a neonazi.
    That AfD, a party among other things against immigration, got seats in parliament, a great shock.
    Even stating that the Germans fought professionally in WWII, just neonazis can say such things.

  26. iffen says:

    Three four trick pony: Hitler didn’t order the extermination of Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, or anyone shoe-horned into the untermensch category; Stalin was the “real” culprit who started WWII; FDR duplicitously maneuvered the US into the War; dem Jews ran the whole show from behind the scenes. Lap it up.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    , @Wally
  27. TG says:

    Minor point: Paul Krugman did NOT win the Nobel Prize in economics.

    That’s because there is NO Nobel Prize in economics! Look it up on Wikipedia. There is a fake award, given out by the big banks for those economist-whores as a prize to reward their loyal service and to put liptick on the pig, and it is CLAIMED to be a Nobel prize, but it’s a fake. The Nobel family has complained about this misuse of Alfred Nobel’s name for years, but of course, if you have powerful friends, who cares?

    Krugman is a fraud. He talks like John Maynard Keynes, but he walks like Milton Friedman. Krugman is for cheap-labor trade agreements. He is for cheap-labor immigration policies. He CLAIMS to be against bailing out the big banks – but not really, and he is more than happy to guard the left flanks of bank-friendly politicians like Barack Obama and Bill Clinton etc. against those who oppose such stealing from the public treasury (who obviously must be fascists and racists). He is the pretend liberal economist of the New York Times, giving the appearance of criticizing the status quo but not really. IMHO.

  28. Jake says:

    “These facts, now firmly established by decades of scholarship, provide some necessary context to Lindbergh’s famously controversial speech at an America First rally in September 1941. At that event, he charged that three groups in particular were “pressing this country toward war[:] the British, the Jewish, and the Roosevelt Administration,” and thereby unleashed an enormous firestorm of media attacks and denunciations, including widespread accusations of anti-Semitism and Nazi sympathies. Given the realities of the political situation, Lindbergh’s statement constituted a perfect illustration of Michael Kinsley’s famous quip that “a gaffe is when a politician tells the truth – some obvious truth he isn’t supposed to say.” But as a consequence, Lindbergh’s once-heroic reputation suffered enormous and permanent damage, with the campaign of vilification echoing for the remaining three decades of his life, and even well beyond.”

    An elderly relative once told me that it was only after Lindbergh’s “gaffe” that he ever noticed Protestant preachers linking the British Empire directly to their Protestant faith, with the Jews emphasized as a sacrosanct group of permanent victims of the ungodly. He said then that it became common to hear sermons and Bible class lessons that rather mathematically declared that England + Jews + Americans = God’s desired order of world domination. True religion was WASP Empire, in the sense that The Saker stresses with the term Anglo-Zionist Empire.

    Clearly, those things long had been central parts of the culture, seen in different ways in Mainline (upper middle class and wealthy) Protestantism and small town/rural Evangelicalism. But it was with WW1 and then the lead up to WW2 that they came out, as it were, loud and proud, marking what the core of English-speaking Protestantism must is. And that coming out meant that America was poised to take over running the Globalist WASP Empire, DC/NYC/Hollywood rather than London directing its policy of permanent war for permanent peace.

    Not only is it impossible to solve the Jewish problem without also solving the WASP problem, but you cannot solve the Jewish problem without acknowledging that the WASP problem has made the Jewish problem many times worse than it would have been with a Reformation that succeeded exactly as it did on the Continent but failed in England.

  29. military Keysianism

    Brilliant article Ron please correct the quoted text.

    Indeed, he is credited with having played a central role in “revising” the history of the First World War so as to remove the cartoonish picture of unspeakable German wickedness left behind as a legacy of the dishonest wartime propaganda produced by the opposing British and American governments.

    The same thing needs to be done for WW2 but no respectable figure dares it. None dares to take on the Jewish Mafia the gate keepers of the official atrocity tales. Menacing thugs with baseball bats who throw 90 year old grannies into prison. But forget the Germans look at the treatment Seymour Hersch one of America’s finest investigative Journalists got for exposing the raid to kill Bin Laden. He claimed that it was a deal with the Pakistanis and which a former ISI chief corroborated recently. He got fired from the New Yorker for the expose.

    Whatever happened to the explosive work ‘Other losses’ which claimed that up to a
    million German POWs died in US custody. The court historians dismissed it as a sham and that was that the book was flushed down the memory hole.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other_Losses

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  30. fnn says:
    @Moodhe McFee

    It’s called “Freedom Betrayed.”

  31. The Scalpel says: • Website

    The incident that opened my eyes was before 911. TWA flight 800 exploded on July 17, 1996. It was associated with the purge of Pierre Salinger, a prominent journalist and public figure. Salinger reported openly to what the evidence overwhelmingly supports -that a US Navy missile fired in error brought down TWA flight 800.

    https://georgetowner.com/articles/2013/07/22/salingers-accusations-about-twa-flight-800-resurface-new-documentary/

    (It seems the original article “TWA 800: The Truth Is Out There; Tell It” has also been purged from the internet)

    Salinger had served as White House Press Secretary for U.S. Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson. Salinger served as a United States Senator in 1964 and as campaign manager for the 1968 Robert F. Kennedy presidential campaign.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Salinger.

    Family members of the victims continue to fight for the truth in this case having organized the “TWA 800 Project”

    https://twa800project.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/stalcup-hughes-to-tochen-final.pdf

    • Replies: @The Scalpel
  32. @Jim Christian

    While I’m grateful to have the writing we have, they can disappear all of it in two minutes.

    True. It’s already happened here once.

    And for that matter, our sources of energy and pretty much everything else could no doubt be stopped with the flick of a button or two as well.

    I have no answers either.

  33. @Heros

    Most people are also aware of how Wilson shut down the entire German-American publishing industry during the WWI and closed all the German language newspapers.

    Even the Atlantic communications cables between the US and Germany were cut so all communication between the two had to be routed through Great Britain where it was subject to “tampering.”

  34. @iffen

    …dem Jews ran the whole show from behind the scenes. Lap it up.

    Yup. It was dem Nazis. Always dem Nazis.

    You want to talk trick ponies? What do you call “The” holocaust?

    Maybe two trick pony, Umma viktum!!!”

  35. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @The Scalpel

    TWA 800 Project documentary

    https://flight800doc.com/

    as a side note, in another instance of Google meddling, when one does a specific google search for the title of the documentary in quotation marks, one does not get the documentary first, but gets an article titled “Why the TWA Flight 800 Documentary is Wrong”

  36. @TG

    As you said, it’s a minor point and I happen to agree with everything you wrote.

    But if you read the brilliant essay, you may have noticed that the writer was pointing to the moon.
    Forget the finger.

  37. @Rational

    “These 100 M whites would have been about 1 billion whites today, and whites would have been a world majority today, had it not been for WW2.”

    I’ve been trying to put a number on the dysgenic effect of regularly killing off huge numbers of our best young men, starting with the truely horrific slaughter in our own “civil” war, through WW1 and 2, estimating the number of generations of children never born, multiplied by average family sizes, and considering that the offspring of the survivers would be increasingly weighted against the traits we regard as positive (bravery, patriotism, selflessness, fitness, etc.)

    I think we can generally see the results in our stock today, characterized in the term “soy boys”. Mental and physical problems seem historically high, so your estimate of one billion might even be low, but plausible; but as importantly, the quality of our people resulting from this systematic filtering seems undeniable e.g. compare the Wehrmact to today’s German army, where the effect of also murdering so many young women negates the possible benefits that would have accrued from their possession of these warrior genes.

    Reverse natural selection in action. Difficult to believe this isn’t by plan, that the Saxon will never again begin to hate.

    No more brother wars!

    • Agree: The Scalpel
    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @Cloudswrest
  38. Great to see Ron regularly writing again!

    • Agree: Dan Hayes
  39. Curle says:

    Thank you for providing an excellent reading list.

  40. @TG

    Krugman is a fraud.

    Of course he is otherwise he would never get published, and I figured that out as a kid.

    But don’t tell the know-it-all, the Maven, because he, the financial wizard, pushes the Jugboy as some sort of eekonomik gooroo.

    Frauds indeed.

  41. For another person who became a non-person for continuing opposition to our entry into WWII after Pearl Harbor check out the poet Robinson Jeffers.

    He is often called “prophetic”, but really he just understood human beings for what we are. Once you understand what humans are then it is easy to understand what has happened and will happen.

  42. @Jake

    Jake,

    Thanks for your comments on the ‘Judaizing Heresy of Protestantism’ you always learn something new on UNZ.

  43. This is probably all true- but what if FDR was, essentially, right in his scheming? Nothing succeeds like success, and the US emerged out of WWII as the only real superpower, with over 50% of global economy.

    It wouldn’t have happened without war.

    British empire basically dissolved into something 2nd rate; Germany and France were crushed, as was Japan; Soviet Union became dominant force in the limited area, but nothing that could even remotely challenge US global dominance.

    Without war, even without German invasion of Soviet Union, Europe would have remained a conglomerate of 4 uneasy semi-powers & the US bogged in a position of just a bit stronger semi-power, without enormous success in ending unemployment & global popular cultural dominance.

    It is different from 9/11 & Bush, because that intervention turned out to be a massive failure.
    Scheming Roosevelt spectacularly succeeded & scheming Bush spectacularly- failed.

    • Replies: @skrik
    , @The Alarmist
  44. Tyrion 2 says: • Website

    Good for Krugman being against foreign adventurism, on that one occasion. Having said that, despite what one might infer from this article, it has done his career zero harm.

    As for America’s entry into WWII, I thought you guys were meant to be our allies. Instead you waited until Germany was over-stretched every which way, Japan was overruning us in Asia, and you had guaranteed your pound of flesh through lending.

    Also, whatever you say about Roosevelt’s provocative manoeuvring, it still took Japan bombing your fleet and Hitler declaring warfor you lot to come help out.

  45. republic says:
    @Stephen Paul Foster

    Irving’s account of his arrest, trial and incarceration in Austria in 2002

    “Banged Up,” 2008 is free to download

    highly readable account of the odious Austrian judiciary and the vile treatment of Irving during his 14 months of incarceration there

  46. escobar says:

    Four takes on American history:

    # 1 -3 by Henry Adams”

    1″ We have a single system, and in that system the only question is the price at which the proletariat is to be bought and sold, the bread and circuses.” (1890)

    2. The whole fabric of society will go to wrack if we really lay hands of reform on our rotten institutions.” (1910)

    3. “From top to bottom the whole system is a fraud,all of us know it, laborers and capitalists alike, and all of us are consenting parties to it.” (1910)

    4. Smedley Butler, “War is a Racket,” (1935)

    (Also, re “liberal”: Chris Hedges is right, the “liberal” class died. And Christopher Lasch, in “The Culture of Narcissism” (1979) showed what they have become.

  47. Unz implies that the internet has uncovered gems of truth and anyone can just start a website and say anything. Neither is entirely accurate. DARPA’s original design was never intended to be about freedom or truth the way most people understand them but to evolve into a sophisticated survelliance and propaganda system. The war is right here as usual. Let the truth comfort you and always post when sufficiently triggered.

    “Empire” depends on control of information and superior systems of propaganda. The internet, as most people use it, is a box where real dissent is basically criminalized so censorship is the standard. This is entirely unsuspected and unrecognized by millions of sheep who assume the exact opposite of their daily theater.

    The choices include two basic flavors. You’re simply not allowed to look or understand anywhere or at anything else but you’ll eventually be convinced to believe in the real McCoy: ‘Look, you had it all wrong about back then. Think about those things that you knew in a different way. What was the truth then isn’t the truth now. We’ll right the truth for you to write about’

    Krugman and Friedman play in the same band. Remember that Krugman’s opposition to Trump meant Krugman was a pro-war interventionist neocon – according to Michael Hudson in 2016. Keep laughing.

    Let the left become the right. Remember your manners and keep up the keystrokes!

  48. republic says:
    @Merckx Factor

    speaking of the Wikipedia isn’t it very odd and strange that every web search on every conceivable topic gives Wikipedia the first view?

    • Replies: @Wade
    , @Anonymous
  49. Great article. And very interesting.

  50. Wade says:
    @Anonymous

    That is simply unbelievable. I had to listen to it twice with my jaw agape. If they say it this way publicly imagine what has been said privately. This guy needs to be tarred and feathered literally. These people are unafraid.

    Whose interests is this man speaking on behalf of?

    • Replies: @Carroll Price
  51. republic says:
    @Jake

    His speech to the American First Committee on September 11, 1941 in Des Moines, Iowa is available
    on YouTube.

    a great flier and a great American patriot!

  52. @Grahamsno(G64)

    My second hand copy in the German translation has a margin annotation ‘I was in that death camp’.
    The camps in Germany with dying POW’s were described by Lindbergh, POW’s escaping death by starvation by entering the French Foreign Légion are mentioned in a book about the Indochina war.
    Charles A. Lindbergh, ´The Wartime Journals of Charles A. Lindbergh’, New York, 1970
    Paul Bonnecarrère, ´Par le sang versé, La Legion étrangère en Indochine’ , Paris, 1968, 2006
    The great thing about truth is consistency.
    The great thing about printed books is that they cannot be changed.

  53. @Tyrion 2

    As Charles A Beard shows, from 1932 on FDR tried to begin war.
    His correspondence with Churchill began in 1933, large parts still secret.
    FDR manoevred to make pro war Willkie the republican candidate in 1940.
    On the day Willkie was chosen Churchill stopped peace negotiations with Germany.

    From early 1940 on the USA Atlantic fleet joined the GB war, escorting convoys.
    However, FDR had a big problem, at the 1940 elections he had promised ‘not to send USA boys overseas to fight, unless the USA was attacked’.
    He therefore engineered Pearl Harbour.

    Britain in March 1939 gave Poland a guarantee, this made it possible for Poland to provoke Hitler’s attack.
    If it is true dat FDR in August also guaranteed Poland, we just have Hoggan for this, who seems to have been told by Bullitt.

    To sum up, without FDR I suppose there never would have been war, Poland would have had to negotiate with Germany over the german city of Danzig and a corridor through the Korridor to E Prussia.

    I just mention the source of the Willkie manipulation, where possibly FDR had a murder committed in order to remove the peace candidate.
    Thomas E. Mahl, ‘Desperate deception, British covert operations in the United States 1939-44’, Dulles, Virginia, 1998

  54. anon[317] • Disclaimer says:

    At that event, he (Lindbergh) charged that three groups in particular were “pressing this country toward war[:] the British, the Jewish, and the Roosevelt Administration,”
    that was post 1897.. nearly all of this can be traced to the bankers use of the Zionist organization.

    The great push to war was aided and abetted by the British Intelligence services.. they came to America at Wilson’ s request to conduct propaganda leading to the overthrow of the Ottoman Empire(G. Creel and Beynys? I think see https://theconversation.com/how-woodrow-wilsons-propaganda-machine-changed-american-journalism-76270 ) for Banker backed Zionist plant Wilson Roosevelt (the whole thing was organized in London, and implemented in Switzerland in 1897 (Hertzl’s organization was copted by the British Bankers; the message of Zionism was “Jewish Heritage impels personal and group support to help the (bankers) take possession of the oil in the oil rich Ottoman empire”. Used as a weapon against the Arabs, Jews were herded to the oil rich Ottoman land, in order to help the bankers take the oil from the Arabs (Salonika 1908, NYC Wilson 1913(fed reserve/income tax) Czarist Russian (October Revolution1919 ) WWI Mandate Palestine=> military base with nation state privilege< Israel.)
    Basically the Jews were used by the Bankers..

  55. 1 Cavil says:

    There’s a bit more to Willkee than the British-black-ops narrative admits. I suggest you put his book One World into the archives. One World sold a million copies in seven weeks. Willkee was first and foremost an internationalist. It wasn’t a simple matter of isolation or intervention. Rather, his principles, rights and something inchoate like equity, led him to advocate first armed intervention, and later peace through what was then called world government. So rather than echoing FDR to foreclose public choice, Willkie had something of his own to offer, something very appealing at the time. Willkie drew the largest vote ever for a Republican.

    The false dichotomy of isolationist v. interventionist is part of US statist doctrine. Internationalists like Willkie didn’t fit on that 1-D continuum because they were legalists, concerned with the legal and institutional basis of world comity. So you see Robert Taft pigeonholed as an isolationist, when his beef with the UN was that veto impunity prevents equal justice under law. The same reductive dichotomy puts Willkie in the interventionist pigeonhole when he wanted world government that could maintain or impose world peace. US state doctrine filters out legalist ideas because rule of law cramps the US hegemon’s style. When US statist doctrine can’t avoid talking about legalism, its intelligentsia use the terms realism and idealism, where idealism is characterized as some old thing that died with Woodrow Wilson.

    Internationalists loomed large among the gadflies who got purged in the 1940s. Remember Virginia Gildersleeve? Founding mother of the world, wrote part of the UN Charter. She went down the memory hole when she made the mistake of consistently applying legalist logic to Zionism.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    , @Hibernian
  56. @Jake

    ” the British, the Jewish, and the Roosevelt Administration,” ”

    He was not quite right, Chamberlain cried in a cabinet meeting after war had been declared.
    The GB problem was an overstretched empire, unable to at the same time control the Med and the Far East.
    Lawrence R. Pratt, ‘East of Malta, West of Suez’, London, 1975
    Colonel Roderick Macleod, D.S.O., M.C., and Dennis Kelly, ‘TIME UNGUARDED The Ironside Diaries 1937- 1940′, New York, 1963

    I never found ‘the jewish’.
    Just four jews: Baruch, Samuel Untermeijer, Frankfurter and Brandeis:
    Bernard M. Baruch, ‘Die Jahre des Dienens’, München 1962 (The public years, New York, 1960)
    Bernard M. Baruch, Gute 88 Jahre, Autobiographie, München 1963 (New York)
    Bruce Allen Murphy, ‘The Brandeis/Frankfurter Connection, The Secret Political Activities of Two Supreme Court Justices’, New York, 1983
    H.N. Hirsch, ‘The Enigma of Felix Frankfurter’, New York, 1981
    There is no specific book that I know about Untermeijer, he however was chairman of the WJC in Amsterdam where the jewish declaration of war on Germany was decided.
    After the congress Untermeijer traveled several times to Moscow.
    What he did there, one can just guess.

    Last but not least, as far as I know nobody in the FDR’s administration except FDR himself knew or understood that FDR wanted war.
    With the possible exception of Harry Hopkins

  57. Wally says:
    @mark green

    “Now revisionism teaches us that this entire myth, so prevalent then and even now about Hitler, and about the Japanese, is a tissue of fallacies from beginning to end. Every plank in this nightmare evidence is either completely untrue or not entirely the truth. If people should learn this intellectual fraud about Hitler’s Germany, then they will begin to ask questions, and searching questions, about the current World War III version of the same myth. Nothing would stop the current headlong flight to war faster, or more surely cause people to begin to reason about foreign affairs once again, after a long orgy of emotion and cliché.
    For the same myth is now based on the same old fallacies. And this is seen by the increasing use that the Cold Warriors have been making of the “Munich myth”: the continually repeated charge that it was the “appeasement” of the “aggressor” at Munich that “fed” his “aggression” (again, the Fu Manchu, or Wild Beast, comparison), and that caused the “aggressor,” drunk with his conquests, to launch World War II. This Munich myth has been used as one of the leading arguments against any sort of rational negotiations with the Communist nations, and the stigmatizing of even the most harmless search for agreement as “appeasement.” It is for this reason that A.J.P. Taylor’s magnificent Origins of the Second World War received probably its most distorted and frenetic review in the pages of National Review.
    For revisionism, in the final analysis, is based on truth and rationality. Truth and rationality are always the first victims in any war frenzy; and they are, therefore, once again an extremely rare commodity on today’s “market.” Revisionism brings to the artificial frenzy of daily events and day-to-day propaganda, the cool but in the last analysis glorious light of historical truth. Such truth is almost desperately needed in today’s world.”

    - Righteous Jew, Murray Rothbard, Review of The Origins of the Second World War, 1966
    http://mises.org/daily/2592

    The ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ are scientifically impossible frauds.
    See the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here: http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here: http://forum.codoh.com

    • Replies: @Patricus
  58. anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:

    Excellent, eye-opening article. As noted, opponents haven’t been shot or gulaged and that’s a good thing. It hasn’t been necessary since ways have been refined of stampeding and manipulating the general public so there hasn’t been any real need for that sort of thing anyway. They’ve gotten the results they want as it is. The internet is now a source for alternative points of view and news so I expect some eventual government moves to squelch it’s freewheeling nature as is being done currently in an incremental way. The more one looks at our demonized enemies and what they supposedly engaged in the more one can see it’s counterpart here. The Soviets airbrushed people out of their pictures, we’ve done our own version of it in a different manner. Going through everything we were taught in school one can later see that most of it was just a collection of fairy tales intermingled with some facts, all designed to produce a compliant population.

  59. Wally says:
    @iffen

    Indeed Hitler did not order it and you cannot show us his orders to do so.
    You cannot provide proof for your propaganda of ’6M Jews’, Slavs, & Gypsies’ and you know it and I have proved it.

    But what you really mean is the US concentration camps for Japanese.
    Or how about this real “untermensch category”:
    http://j387mediahistory.weebly.com/uploads/6/4/2/2/6422481/259686.jpg
    The ‘holocaust’ storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged supremacist Jews demand censorship.
    Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.
    Only liars demand censorship.

    The ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here: http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here: http://forum.codoh.com

  60. In connection with 1941 and the great push for war, the film Sergeant York is worth watching. Sergeant York was an actual hero of the First World War, who captured 132 Germans, basically single-handed. No foolin.’

    The film resurrects his legend to do duty in World War Two as well. It’s a propaganda tour de force. Our salt-of-the-earth rural American is a born-again Christian and pacifist — but his understanding commander and preacher make him realize that sometimes you just gotta fight.

    Off he goes — and becomes friends with some sort of generically ethnic city dweller. Sergeant York captures his 132 prisoners — but makes the mistake of trusting them. One of those wily Germans treacherously murders York’s ethnic friend. Sergeant York has learned all about Germans.

    It’s interesting reading about Alvin York. The Wikipedia page obscures it, but he was a pacifist — and came to feel the First World War had been a waste, and America should have stayed out of it. Hollywood had quite a tussle getting him to realize that World War Two would be different, and he should endorse this film.

    By 1950, he was calling for nuking the Communists. Woah there, Bessie!

    • Replies: @Mike P
  61. Thank you, Mr. Unz. There is no end to the rabbit hole, it seems.

  62. We must remember that “W” had run for office promising a “humble” foreign policy and the removal of various kinds of anti-Muslim government profiling, but quickly reversed himself when the 9/11 attacks gave him the opportunity to enter the history books as a “war president.”

    I thought that they stopped (outwardly, at least) profiling Muslims after 9/11. “Islam is a religion of Peace,” TSA agents groping grannies and all that sort of thing…

  63. bjondo says:

    Another history purged, denied, lied about:

    https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/06/08/israels-attack-on-the-uss-liberty-a-half-century-later-still-no-justice/

    @48- You think that might not be in the natural order of things?

    • Replies: @bjondo
  64. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Stephen Paul Foster

    The British spies and propagandists NYC headquarters was in Rockefeller Center provided rent free. After the war so many books were written praising the British propaganda effort to drag all us isolationist hillbilly Nazi anti semites into the war

  65. As one commentator sums this up:

    ‘Despite being a History grad way back in the 60s, this mirrors my own experience, not just of American History but that of the British Empire and Commonwealth as well.
    In almost every case, the victor’s propaganda becomes the “History”.’

    Yeah, but…

    The conventional narrative selects some of the facts and uses them to construct a satisfying tale, one that has a beginning, and an end, and that usually imparts some sort of satisfying moral.

    Revisionism rejects all of the dominant narrative — usually just constructing an alternative, opposite fable. Above, we have the corrupt, scheming Roosevelts.

    I’d say the fact is history is a morally and dramatically incoherent jumble, and for that matter, people aren’t very consistent either. Confronted by this mess, we attempt to extract a meaningful and comprehensible tale — ‘World War Two in Three Hundred Words,’ so to speak.

    Well, of course it’s inaccurate. But it has to be realized that’s almost inevitable.

    • Replies: @Wally
  66. anon111 says:
    @Rational

    Though whites are the smartest people around

    does not appear to be true – NE Asians at IQ 106-107 and (((someone else))) may be 110-115

  67. @utu

    “Anthrax letters did a better job.”

    That’s what popped up in my brain after reading the above excerpt in the article. I guess this means I’m a conspiracy theorist.

    • Replies: @utu
  68. in support of that contention notes that when FDR entered office in 1933 there were 11 million unemployed and in 1938 after six years of enormous government spending and deficits and the creation of an alphabet soup of New Deal programs there were…11 million unemployed. That claim appears to be factually correct.

    Actually it doesn’t. Unemployment was 25% in 1933 and 19% in 1938. Total numbers of unemployed persons seem harder to find, but this source (https://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1528.html) has 12.8 million unemployed in 1933 and 10.4 million in 1938.

    Even if the numbers are accurate, choosing 1938 is cherry-picking since it was the middle of a brief recession (likely caused by trying to balance the budget too soon.). By 1941 5.5 million were unemployed.

    Conclusion? FDR still awesome.

  69. Anonymous[292] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rational

    “Though whites are the smartest people around and have invented most of the great inventions”

    Lol. You sound like a white wakandian. Whites have created a lot in the last couple hundred years, much of it due to shady means such as stealing gold and land from the new world and also playing the divide and conquer games.

    Just remember one thing, whites are reaping what they sow. Whites have no one to blame except themeselves.

  70. renfro says:

    Brilliant, informative…..so many things I never knew!

    THANKS RON

  71. Mike P says:
    @Colin Wright

    Alvin York … came to feel the First World War had been a waste, and America should have stayed out of it … By 1950, he was calling for nuking the Communists. Woah there, Bessie!

    Interesting parallel to Bertrand Russell. He had himself imprisoned for his opposition to the war during WW1 but came to support a preemptive nuclear strike on the Soviet Union as well.

    It does seem that some people felt strongly that a nuclear war could not be avoided, and thus that it would be the lesser evil to get done with it while it would be a quick, one-sided affair.

    • Replies: @James Brown
  72. Wally says:
    @Tyrion 2

    US was already at war with Germany before Germany’s declaration.

    The US had been attacking German subs & shipping while supplying Britain and the communist USSR long before.

    http://www.codoh.com

  73. anon[118] • Disclaimer says:

    https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/how-george-orwell-predicted-the-challenge-of-writing-today?

    WTF? Debunking the narrative is totalitarianism. Masha Geeson,ewww.

    People are alarmed at nuclear NORKS. Imagine a Russian color revolution led by Pussy Riot.

  74. but developing events in Europe soon persuaded FDR that fomenting a general war against Germany was the best course of action. Memoirs and other historical documents obtained by later researchers seem to generally support Flynn’s accusations by indicating that Roosevelt ordered his diplomats to exert enormous pressure upon both the British and Polish governments to avoid any negotiated settlement with Germany, thereby leading to the outbreak of World War II in 1939.

    I don’t think that refusing to give in to Germany’s demands can be described as “fomenting war.” The idea that Britain and France should have just folded and allowed Germany to control all of Europe is nonsense. FDR was clearly in the right on this and, if anything, should be faulted for waiting so long to get involved in Europe.

    It seems like these views weren’t “purged” at all. Rather they are just incredibly unpopular as they seem to argue that the poor Nazis were mistreated and forced into war.

  75. No mention of Garet Garrett and “The People’s Pottage”?

  76. @Rational

    We must not forget the greatest tragedy in the history of mankind—WW2. Over 100 million (mostly white Christians) died in this greatest tragedy.

    Yes, the Nazi ideology is truly dangerous.

    • Replies: @Liberty
  77. Wally says:
    @Colin Wright

    said:
    “Revisionism rejects all of the dominant narrative — usually just constructing an alternative, opposite fable.”

    A classic false, strawman argument.

    Revisionists do NOT “reject all of the dominant narrative”.
    We rationally, logically, & scientifically scrutinize the dominate narrative.
    If that dominant narrative does not withstand that scrutiny we then speak out.

    The grand enabler of the lion’s share of lies that are shoved down our throats is the utterly absurd & impossible ’6,000,000 Jews’. That Big Lie is used for just about everything. And we all know it.

    Only liars demand censorship.
    Holocaust Handbooks, Documentaries, & Videos

    http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?main_page=1

    The ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here: http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here: http://forum.codoh.com

  78. Paul Krugman is a man who would expect one and all to bend over and spread their cheeks ready to receive whatever it is that he is pushing at any particular time and if any are unwilling he is happy to question those persons right to speak at all. He is a truly loathsome specimen.

    • Replies: @Bill Jones
  79. Rurik says:

    Very powerful Mr. Unz.

    Kudos to you Sir.

    I’m reminded of something I read here:

    http://www.unz.com/proberts/ron-unz-a-defender-of-truth/

    There is a theme that runs though your article that resonates with my understanding of these historical events, and the motivations, personalities and agendas behind them.

    Since I’ve become ‘woke’, I’ve learned of Woodrow Wilson’s historic treachery in handing over the destiny of America and the Western world to the tender mercies of ‘International finance’, also known as “World Jewry”, or ‘Rothschild central banking’, or whatever you want to call it. (‘Zionism’ seems to be pretty close too)

    FDR’s administration seems to reflect that general theme. America must do internationally (destroy Germany) and domestically (declare owing gold illegal) what’s “good for the Jews”.

    It seems to be ever thus.

    But what you’ve done here Sir, is connect some very salient dots.

    In the last century’s catastrophic wars, Americans were very strongly against participating- to the grinding chagrin of the International Jewish Zionist banking cartel.

    With Wilson’s war, they used lies about the Lusitania,

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1098904/Secret-Lusitania-Arms-challenges-Allied-claims-solely-passenger-ship.html

    and then spread relentless lies about Germans as murderous fiends. Belgian babies and bayonets, etc… ad nauseam, as we all know.

    All lies. Just like with WWII, as you painstakingly chronicle. Wars that will result in the slaughter of scores of millions of innocent Gentiles- to benefit the agendas of powerful Jews and non-Jewish opportunists of all stripes. And fomented with treachery, deceit and murderous scheming.

    But where you synthesize the evils of the last century ~ with the evils of this century, is how you point out the parallels.

    the Roosevelt Administration undertook a wide range of steps directly intended to provoke a Japanese attack and thereby achieve a “back door to war”

    that we all know today as Pearl Harbor, just as the PNC neocons demanded their ‘new Pearl Harbor’, for the exact same reason.

    They used lies and treachery and mass-murder to get America to fight their wars in the last century, just as they’re using lies and treachery and 9/11 mass-murder to get Americans to kill and die in their wars in this century too.

    And this fact, once it becomes glaringly evident, is the most important truth that anyone living on this planet can be aware of today.

    Because their psychotic imperative for war (to slaughter Gentiles wholesale), seems literally insatiable. As we hear the relentless lies and false flag pretexts to go slaughter Syrians!! and Iranians!!! and even eventually Russians!!!!

    And because Wilson handed them the keys to the Treasury, their power is as infinite as the ((Fed’s)) ability to create unlimited trillions of dollars out of thin air. And target that (ultimate weapon) lucre to every potential hotspot in their nefarious devil’s grip over the Western world.

    This is why they’ve been so remarkably successful.

    When you want a nation like Ukraine to obey you like a cringing dog, the price is apparently five billion Federal Reserve Notes. And voila!

    There’s nothing we can do about the Satanic scum who foisted the demonic wars on the planet in the last century, except what you’re doing, and pointing out the truth, for all who will hear it.

    But there is something we can all do about their agenda for Eternal War in this century, and that is to tell the truth about 9/11. Because if Americans would have known the truth about the Lusitania and Belgian babies, then WWI would have ended peaceably and with honorable terms. There would be been no WWII, no Holocaust, and no scores of millions of innocent people slaughtered horrifically.

    They wanted their wars in the last century, and with sufficient treachery, murder and subterfuge, they got them.

    Just as they want their wars in this century as well, and they did 9/11 to accomplish just that.

    So all we have to do is expose who was responsible for 9/11, spread this truth as widely as possible, and force a grass roots, international zeitgeist that springs from the people of the world and repudiates the war fiends.

    If an aspiration is worth striving for, I can’t think of a more worthy one.

    • Agree: Mike P, Druid
  80. JackOH says:

    Ron, thanks. I think I recall reading about both Flynn and Chamberlin in something called Prophets on the Right by Ronald Radosh.

    I’ve already mentioned the following saying distinguishing dictatorships from representative democracies, and it seems worth repeating:

    Dictatorships suppress free speech because they fear too many people will care. Representative democracies encourage free speech because they know no one gives a damn.

    Maybe we’ve got some truly odious “middle way”, Suppression Lite (?), in which persuasive individuals who spill the beans are targeted for “special handling”, including criminal and civil misconduct directed against them by the authorities. Grassroots folks with any energy left for dissent are channeled into front organizations that offer up canned phrases that are easily managed by our political elites.

  81. utu says:
    @SunBakedSuburb

    I guess this means I’m a conspiracy theorist.

    I just do not see a better explanation for the anthrax letters. Even National Enquirer was targeted which actually makes a lot of sense when you think of it. They could report some inconvenient facts about the hijackers who spent a lot of time in the Florida town where National Enquirer headquarter was located.

    Nothing works as well as a personal death threat. Everybody got the message. Even the director of CIA, George ‘Slam Dunk’ Tenet was paranoid and fearing for his life or his family safety while being driven around Washington DC in 2002.

  82. Sam Shama says:

    Hi Ron,

    [ Most surprisingly, he accused the Roosevelts of exhibiting an extraordinarily [sic] degree of familial financial corruption, which he claimed may have been unprecedented in American history.]

    A very stimulating piece. Like you, I find the accusations of financial corruption more than a little surprising. Particularly as it related to First Lady Eleanor. One has to be quite careful about these things, particularly when heavy partisanship weighs in on the allegations and the overall tone, as both would’ve been especially acerbic given the political loyalties of Flynn.

    Many things can be put in print, with a specificity of names, places and stories, yet none of it might be true. Take for example all that has been written about the Clinton Foundation. Whether one dislikes the Clintons [I do] or not, they made their money through speaking engagements and investments primarily, but the CF itself – a vanity project no doubt – has given about 90% of the monies towards the purposes for which they were raised. So, my point here is, should a hatchet job needs doing on FDR’s legacy, one would expect the first salvoes to come from the likes of a Flynn. Muck-raking he does rather well, just as you put it.

    A more troubling point in this essay has to do with the assertions on economic performance which Flynn made. Paul Krugman, to whom you rightly credit truthfulness re: the Iraq war and much more, has quite carefully examined the economic record of the FDR policies, and, shown them to be not especially sufficient until the full-blown expenditures undertaken on the eve of the War. Much before Krugman, E. Cary Brown had carefully laid out the misunderstandings about these policies, which crop up all the time, especially on the pages of the WSJ.

    E. Cary Brown’s analysis of the 1930s economic policies: https://campus.fsu.edu/bbcswebdav/users/jcalhoun/Courses/Growth_of_American_Economy/Chapter_Supplemental_Readings/Chapter_23/Brown-Fiscal_Policy_in_the_Thirties.pdf

    Some of Flynn’s other shocking claims were easier to verify. He argues that the New Deal was largely a failure and in support of that contention notes that when FDR entered office in 1933 there were 11 million unemployed and in 1938 after six years of enormous government spending and deficits and the creation of an alphabet soup of New Deal programs there were…11 million unemployed. That claim appears to be factually correct.

    This part is very difficult to reconcile with the official records of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. I certainly don’t see the unemployment numbers reflected as claimed by Flynn.

    https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1948/article/pdf/labor-force-employment-and-unemployment-1929-39-estimating-methods.pdf

    Page 2, Table 1 sets out the unemployment levels: 1933 at 12.83 million and 1938 at 10.39 million. That is more than 2.4 million more employed in 1938 [not to say that this was exemplary by any means, but fiscal brakes had been applied and the Fed too, had contracted its accommodation]

  83. @Mike P

    “Interesting parallel to Bertrand Russell. He had himself imprisoned for his opposition to the war during WW1 but came to support a preemptive nuclear strike on the Soviet Union as well”

    Can you please give a source ?

    Bertrand Russell was one of the first western intellectual to visit the “new paradise” the criminals were building in soviet union and contrary to many intellectuals, he understood immediately that it was all a big lie. He was always against nuclear weapons. He went to prison because he campaigned against nuclear weapons.

    • Replies: @Mike P
  84. @Tyrion 2

    Tyrion 2, I’m guessing you’re from the United Kingdom. I love English shotguns and English men’s tailoring but your arrogance toward the “bloody Yanks” causes you to underestimate our savy. Regarding WWII, yes we were your ally, and an ally of France, but we wanted you to lose, and we wanted Germany and Japan to lose as well. The agenda of The United States from 1776 on was to break the European colonial stranglehold on the planet. WWII was simply the last act. In Asia, the plan was to let a rising Japan crack the Euro colonial grip, then defeat Japan( and we bloody Yanks are so stupid we even turned the Japanese into allies and made them rich). In Europe, we saw a rising Germany after 1870 facing a hostile Britain and France as an opportunity to have all your houses come crashing down.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
  85. @Bill TotenWeiss

    The greatly reduced 1941 unemployment number was due to massive military conscription, NOT to any of FDR’s “New Deal” policies. Those who are serving in the military are not included in either the numerator or the denominator of the unemployment rate fraction.

  86. Rurik says:
    @jacques sheete

    can disappear all of it in two minutes.

    True. It’s already happened here once.

    As I’ve already pointed out here a while back, during hurricane Irma, as it was landing on Florida’s coast, all real-time radar and satellite imagery was cut off. People were literally forced to watch the cable networks like The Weather channel for any information, and all you saw was hysterical, ‘YOU’RE ALL GOING TO DIE!! hype. No radar. No satellite. No Doppler. Exactly when people were most counting on it.

    So then I knew how easy it is for them to hit the switch. And for something as mundane as a hurricane.

    When it comes to 9/11 redux, then we’ll really see the iron dome slam shut.

    • Replies: @Mike P
    , @jacques sheete
  87. Mike P says:
    @James Brown

    AFAIK Russell was imprisoned during WW1. I just looked at wikipedia, which mentions a second imprisonment in 1961, for 7 days, because of his participation in an anti-nuclear protest.

    I remember reading a statement to the effect that he came to support a nuclear war in his own words; IIRC it was in his autobiography, but I don’t have that handy right now.

    • Replies: @James Brown
  88. Rurik says:
    @TG

    Krugman is a fraud.

    I’d say hack, but I suppose fraud works as well

    I must say, however.. that I was surprised that he was against the Iraq war. Wow, didn’t see that one coming.

    Kruggy is a hack for the Fed and assorted Wall Street banksters. “Debt is good” (if you’re a class A stock holder in the Federal Reserve Bank! ; )

    He’s also a lying little rat for the liberal, progressive (exp. Obama) SJW legions of imbeciles.

    (IMHO)

  89. anon[277] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bill TotenWeiss

    It was really a choice of who to oppose first, Germany/Hitler or USSR/Stalin. We gave away Eastern Europe after WW 2, so it wasn’t about dying for Poland.

    • Replies: @fnn
  90. Mike P says:
    @Rurik

    I’ve been wondering what it would take to build some basic parallel, peer-to-peer internet infrastructure – could be slow and narrow bandwidth, just for text-based communication. Unfortunately I have no expertise in that area.

    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @The Alarmist
  91. Anon[301] • Disclaimer says:

    I’ve always thought one of the more interesting looks at FDR was in the book 1920: The Year of the Six Presidents by David Pietrusza. FDR is shown to be a real schemer and a plotter after power in the convention fight over who would get the nomination, and it was plain that FDR was trying for it even as early as that date. The book also has an unusual view of Harding. It’s one of the best books about “Smoke-Filled Room” decision-making that I’ve come across.

  92. Years ago, my late great-grandmother attended a performance of the play Little Orphan Annie

    After the performance, the gentleman who played FDR shook my great-grandmother’s hand. She looked at him and proudly said in a stacatto old voice, “I didn’t vote for you.”

  93. fnn says:
    @anon

    THe US and British Empire had no desire to oppose the Soviets until the war was over. Those days were over by the 1930s. FDR was very friendly with the Soviets (and the CPUSA) and the Brits didn’t seem much concerned about them. And Soviet industry was mostly built by Western capitalists:

    http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-Doc-ConspiracyTheory&NWO/+Doc-ConspiracyTheory-FalseEnemies/TheWestFinancedSoviets.htm

    [MORE]

    During the early thirties, the amount and type of “aid and comfort” to the Soviet Union was almost unbelievable. In 1930 the Ford Motor Company established the Russian motor car industry by constructing a factory “capable of turning out 140,000 cars a year.” By the end of the decade the factory, at Gorki, was one of the largest in the world. Ford also provided training for the Russians in assembling automobiles “plus patent licenses, technical assistance, and advice,” and “an inventory of spare parts.” (Keller, East Minus West Equals Zero, pp. 208-209, 215-216). Americans also built, in the Soviet Union, the largest iron and steel works in the world; patterned after the city of Gary, Indiana. The huge steel complex, built at Maginitogorsk, was constructed by a Cleveland firm. (Ibid., pp. 209-210).

    LARGEST TRACTOR FACTORY IN THE WORLD
    The largest tractor factory in the world was another American contribution to Soviet technology.

    “Tractors were a necessity to modernize Soviet agriculture. A Detroit engineer designed and constructed a tractor factory without parallel in any other country. The assembly works were 2,000 feet long and 650 feet wide, covering an area of thirty acres. Twenty-one American football fields would fit into just one building, with locker rooms for the players. The tractors produced were copies of the American Caterpillar Company, but there were no arrangements made for payment for use of the patent. Russia merely bought one sample and copied it. The factory was so designed that production could be adopted almost overnight to the production of another less innocuous commodity – tanks.” (Ibid., p. 213).
    LARGEST HYDROELECTRIC DAM IN THE WORLD
    The largest hydroelectric installation and dam in the world was built at Dnieproges, Soviet Union, by Col. Hugh Cooper, famed for having built the dam at Muscle Shoals, Tennessee. “The power plant increased Russia’s hydroelectric system output by six times, and produced more power than Niagara Falls.” (Ibid., pp. 216-217). According to Antony Sutton:

    “Two agreement with Orgametal by other American companies completed assistance in the heavy engineering field. The electrical industry had the services of International General Electric (in two agreements), the Cooper Engineering Company and RCA for the construction of long range powerful radio stations. The stuart, James and Cooke, Inc. contracts with various coal and mining trusts were supplemented by specialized assistance contracts, such as the Oglebay, Norton Company aid agreement for the iron ore mines and the Southwestern Engineering agreement in the non-ferrous industries. The chemical industry turned to Du Pont and Nitrogen Engineering for synthetic nitrogen, ammonia and nitric acid technology; to Westvaco for chlorine; and to H. Gibbs to supplement I.G. Ferben aid in the Aniline Dye Trust. This was supplemented by more specialized agreements from other countries; ball bearings from Sweden and Italy; plastics, artificial silk, and aircraft from France; and turbines and electrical industry technology from the United Kingdom.
    “The penetration of this technology was complete. At least 95 percent of the industrial structure received this assistance.” (Sutton, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1917-1930, pp. 347-348).

    The industrial plants built in Russia by the United States between 1929- 1932 were

    “… far larger than units designed and built by the same construction firms in the rest of the world and, in addition, combining separate shops or plants for the manufacture of inputs and spare parts. The Urals-Emash combination multiplied Soviet electrical equipment manufacturing capacity by a factor of seven; the KHEMZ at Kharkov, designed by the General Electric Company, had a turbine-manufacturing capacity two and one-half greater than the main G.E. Schenectady plant; and Magnitogorsk, a replica of the U.S. Steel plant at Gary, Indiana, was the largest iron and steel plant in the world. When the Soviet claim these units are the `largest in the world’ they do not exaggerate; it would of course be impolitic of them to emphasize their Western origins.” (Anthony C. Sutton, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1930-1945, Hoover Institute Press, Stanford University, 1971, p. 343).

    The primary objective of each plant was to satisfy military requirements. “It is ironic, from the Western viewpoint, that contracts viewed as serving the cause of world peace (Henry Ford, for example, elected to build the Gorki plant to advance peace) should have been utilized immediately for military purposes.” (Ibid.).

    The seriousness of the influence of this industrial giveaway upon our national security again cannot be overstated. Western assistance between 1917 and 1930 “was the single most important factor first in the sheer survival of the Soviet regime, and secondly in industrial progress to prerevolutnionary levels.” (Anthony C. Sutton, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1945-1965, p. 412).

    • Replies: @Wally
  94. Rurik says:
    @Jeff Albertson

    I think we can generally see the results in our stock today, characterized in the term “soy boys”.

    I don’t think it’s just ‘the Jews’ who’re doing it

    I’ve suspected for a long time that our (Euro-Christian) stock have been ruled for so long by the idiot offspring of once great men, that soon these inbred, pampered genetic defects (and their offspring) are fundamentally unable to compete with the ‘average man in the street’. And the leaders decide that wiping out large swaths of the hearty and strong young men in the nation will give their spawn a fighting chance to compete for status. Just as it will help with the idiot spawn of the offspring of the elites in general.

    What would be the chances of someone like Dubya (or Jeb for that matter) to ascend to the highest office in the nation, if we had all those millions of hearty stock that were slaughtered off (to massive profits for the elites).

    It isn’t just ‘the Jews’ who’re doing it.

    England and France and Germany were not forced into WWI by ‘the Jews’, as far as I know. (not that anyone said they were)

    Europe’s elites willingly allowed millions of their best and brightest to be butchered in the trenches to no discernible advantage. A few hundred yards of territory, back and forth. While artillery shells and exposure in the freezing mud accomplished the grim goal.

    And when the boys decided to play soccer instead of kill each other, the elites flew into a tizzy.

    ‘They’re supposed to be putting bullets into each other! Not chumming it up!’

    If it were up to Prescott Bush.. ‘hey, how’d you like to see a war that will do so much damage to the best and brightest “(bravery, patriotism, selflessness, fitness, etc.)” of your nation that your own banal, pencil-necked, anemic, snooty loser of a son will one day be president of the United States?! Instead of a third rate accountant- with sons who like Dubya, Jeb and Neil, who’d achieve doorman at a mid-level building, night manager at a Mexican restaurant, and clerk at an adult book store, respectively.

    Contrast that with seeing your son and grandson become the ‘most powerful man in the world’, and you understand how expendable your son’s completion for position in the world really is.

    (it’s a theory of mine anyways ; )

  95. Rurik says:
    @Mike P

    Unfortunately I have no expertise in that area.

    me either, but I agree an alternative to the controlled Internet would be a very good thing.

    like you said, some kind of parallel means of communication.

    I remember the dissidents of the past using CB radios, and I think some people still do. Maybe I’m not even using the right terminology for that. Some kind of radio where you can listen to global stations. Or rogue stations in the ZUS.

    It will happen. If their iron grip on power is ever threatened. I remember reading once that they incinerated Germany and much of Europe to stay in power, so putting anything beyond them is certainly folly.

    And, like I said, they were willing to cut off information for something as silly as a hurricane. So the precedent is there.

    • Agree: Mike P
  96. @Mike P

    “because of his participation in an anti-nuclear protest.”

    More than that. Bertrand Russel was the founder of CND – Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.
    It was a very powerful movement during the cold war.

    Bertrand Russel was probably one of the most important intellectuals of the XX century.

    So important that the tribunal to judge war crimes committed in Vietnam was called “Russel Tribunal.”

    Bertrand Russell justified the establishment of this body as follows:

    If certain acts and violations of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them. We are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us.

    — Justice Robert H. Jackson, Chief Prosecutor, Nuremberg War Crimes Trials[2]

    Today there is a “Russel Tribunal on Palestine”. Of course you don’t hear about it on MSM

    http://www.russelltribunalonpalestine.com/en/

    About CND : https://cnduk.org/60-faces-bertrand-russell/

    I’d suggest to you that is highly likely that it is someone else who “came to support a preemptive nuclear strike on the Soviet Union as well.”.

    Bertrand Russel was a genius and a moral being.

    • Replies: @Mike P
    , @Mike P
    , @utu
  97. @Jeff Albertson

    I’ve been trying to put a number on the dysgenic effect of regularly killing off huge numbers of our best young men

    War’s aftermath; a preliminary study of the eugenics of war as illustrated by the civil war of the United States and the late wars in the Balkans
    by Jordan, David Starr, 1851-1931; Jordan, Harvey Ernest, 1878-

    https://archive.org/details/warsaftermathpre00jordrich

    • Replies: @Jeff Albertson
  98. @Anonymous

    Lol. You sound like a white wakandian.

    Wakandians are black people cosplaying as white people.

    Whites have created a lot in the last couple hundred years, much of it due to shady means such as stealing gold and land from the new world and also playing the divide and conquer games.

    Being better (for one reason or another) at the same shady means and games every other human group has been playing at since the dawn of history, in other words.

    Just remember one thing, whites are reaping what they sow. Whites have no one to blame except themeselves.

    Yeah, sharing our technology and medicine with the rest of the world turns out to have been a really horrible idea, in hindsight.

  99. Liberty says:
    @Bill TotenWeiss

    You must like being a Shabbos Goy or you are just another mendacious Hebrew.

  100. B Thorn says:

    Mr. Unz,

    Thank you very much for this article and for your recent articles on WW II. I have learned much from them! As a reader in Canada, the articles have been eye-opening.

  101. Mike P says:
    @James Brown

    Let me try to find that quote again. It is indeed a long time ago that I have read it, but I remember being quite as surprised by it as you are.

  102. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rurik

    Wasn’t George, the son of Prescott Bush the youngest fighter pilot in the military in WW2?

    • Replies: @Rurik
  103. @jacques sheete

    Do you really think that the entire system is centralized to the point that they could disappear it in a manner of minutes?

    If they, ((( them ))) plus the cucks and Shabbos goys and useful idiots, can do it, that is frightening.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  104. Tyrion 2 says: • Website
    @Bombercommand

    I totally get that, it just means you were bad friends.

    • Replies: @Bombercommand
  105. Mike P says:
    @James Brown

    Found it – not the very same quotation, but something equivalent:

    Q: Is it true or untrue that in recent years you advo­cated that a preventive war might be made against communism, against Soviet Russia?

    Russell: It’s entirely true, and I don’t repent of it now. It was not inconsistent with what I think now. … There was a time, just after the last war, when the Americans had a monopoly of nuclear weapons and offered to internationalize nuclear weapons by the Baruch proposal, and I thought this an extremely generous proposal on their part, one which it would be very desirable that the world should accept; not that I advocated a nuclear war, but I did think that great pressure should be put upon Russia to accept the Baruch proposal, and I did think that if they continued to refuse it it might be necessary actually to go to war. At that time nuclear weapons existed only on one side, and therefore the odds were the Russians would have given way. I thought they would …

    Q: Suppose they hadn’t given way.

    Russell: I thought and hoped that the Russians would give way, but of course you can’t threaten unless you’re prepared to have your bluff called.

    You might argue that Russell did “not really” for advocate nuclear war, but at the very least with this he shows himself to be a raving lunatic in the Strangelovian mould.

    • Replies: @James Brown
  106. @Leander Starr

    I’ve never seen Krugman as anything other than a glib self-regarding opportunist.
    These guys take him down on a weekly basis:

    https://contrakrugman.com/

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  107. utu says:
    @James Brown

    “Whether Russell advocated a preventive atomic war against the USSR in the period 1945-49 remains a matter of controversy. It has been discussed by all biographers of Russell from Alan Wood to Ray Monk, and was the subject of a debate in the pages of Russell between Douglas Lackey and Ray Perkins, Jr. It was recently the object of an exchange of letters between Nicholas Griffin and Lord Lawson in The Economist. The subject is rendered more noteworthy not only because of the perceived inconsistency of a noted pacifist advocating war—and atomic war at that—but also because of the numerous occa- sions on which Russell denied having advocated such a position, then recognized that, in a way, he had.”

    • Replies: @James Brown
  108. Anon[436] • Disclaimer says:
    @Pat Pappano

    “I read *somewhere* etc”. That is just pollution of Ron Unz’s great contribution of UR and his article. Equally worthwhile threads can do without bizarre and totally ignoranr speculations about Truman and MI6.

  109. Amazing piece! As a side note I’d say that I’d prefer Truman coming out a rich man from the White House to him bombing Hiroshima.
    More important is the point you mentioned: that R administration pushed Britain and Poland to war with Germany. It would be good if you were to enlarge on it, for it slightly contradicts the main thesis. If the US pushed Britain to war, how could Britain push the US to war? Does it makes sense? Doesn’t it undermine the idea of British influence over choice of Wilkie etc?
    Perhaps the explanation that Jews pushed for war is better and sufficient? There was after all never a war Jews didn’t like, be it WW2, or Iran-Iraq war, or North-South Sudan, or Syrian civil war, or their own conflict with Palestinians? Even today, an Israeli observer Pfeffer says in Haaretz, that though alas, to our great sorrow there is a chance of peace in Korea, but be comforted: this makes war of the US and Iran so much more probable!
    Naturally the Brits wanted the US to enter the war after Dunkirk, and the Russians also wished that after June 1941, but who pushed for war in 1938-1939?

  110. @Bill TotenWeiss

    Well spotted on the mini recession.

    I think FDR has to be given marks for trying honestly and humanely but, apart from having to deal politically with antediluvian economic ideas he didn’t really grasp what Keynes and the early Keynesians were teaching and indeed trying to teach him (Keynes was very critical of the budget tightening that produced the 1938 recession).

  111. iffen says:
    @Israel Shamir

    Perhaps the explanation that Jews pushed for war is better and sufficient?

    Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!

  112. Rurik says:
    @Anon

    Wasn’t George, the son of Prescott Bush the youngest fighter pilot in the military in WW2?

    bomber pilot, but in all likelihood accomplished that feat due to strings pulled on his behalf.

    and I say that because from what I understand, the really cushy/glory jobs like pilot are often given to the (idiot) sons of the powerful, just like Dubya

    or John McCain, whose daddy was an admiral, and so the mediocre little shithead was allowed to play at being a fighter pilot, and incinerated 134 US sailors with a prank, before he was shot down, and then betrayed his fellow soldiers (and this country, on many, many occasions). What are the chances that rat would have been Senator unless his daddy was an admiral?

    It could be that G. H. W. Bush was an adequate pilot, and could have grown up to run an entire accounting firm, rather than just being an accountant. But he was a disaster as potus, but only a tiny fraction of the unmitigated catastrophe that his idiot son would turn out to be.

    You see how that works? First you have a fellow who distinguished himself, Prescott, and then he had a son who was able enough to run a small company. But then his sons, if left to compete in the real world on an equal footing with your typical America man, would have been lucky to be a retail store assistant manager. Neil wouldn’t even make that. Just a two bit criminal.

    Dubya and Jeb are so glaringly beta, and lackluster, that the only way on earth that they became governor and potus was though corrupt hereditary / legacy passing down of power.

    • Replies: @prusmc
    , @Wizard of Oz
  113. utu says:
    @Israel Shamir

    but who pushed for war in 1938-1939

    From 21 November 1938 report by Ambassador Potocki on conversation with Ambassador Bullitt

    As the Soviet Union’s potential strength is not yet known, it might happen that Germany would have moved too far away from its base, and would be condemned to wage a long and weakening war. Only then would the democratic countries attack Germany, Bullitt declared, and force her to capitulate.

    In reply to my question whether the United States would take part in such a war, he said, ‘Undoubtedly yes, but only after Great Britain and France had let loose first!’

    Clearly FDR had a pretty good idea in 1938 how Hitler’s war will unfold.

    • Replies: @fnn
    , @Israel Shamir
  114. @anon

    Basically the Jews were used by the Bankers..

    Very true, at least for a certain handful of bankers. It’s long amazed me that a relative handful of scheming parasites can and were responsible for the wars.

  115. @1 Cavil

    Remember Virginia Gildersleeve?

    Never heard of her, but this sounds interesting. Please tell us more or offer some good (concise) references, thank you.

    • Replies: @1 Cavil
  116. I can guarantee you a “back door to war” or false flag is currently under way for Iran, they’re probably working on something for Venezuela and N Korea too.
    I don’t think it will work, as we recently seen in Syria with the chemical attack false flag and with the Scripal case, most people aren’t buying it.
    Don’t know if it will matter in the end though, the politicians are just faces for you to get mad at, in the end Wall st , Bankers, The Lobby, MIC, are the real shot callers, and they’re unelected.
    We’re already in WW3, have been since 9/11 false flag,it just hasn’t got real hot yet. I think we’re headed there though. Won’t be good for anyone.

  117. @Cloudswrest

    Thanks for the link. I’ve been turning it over in my mind for some time, but there are a lot of variables (estimates of dead, especially civilians, average family sizes over time in many different societies, unpredictable results of population growth, persistence of genetic continuity through surviving females, and “unknown unknowns”). I think a smart and diligent researcher could come up with an reasonable number; that’s not me though, I can only speculate.

    Saw some pictures of row upon row of graves on memorial day and thought each one represented a family that never started. The trend is positive since we entered the forever war, but could reverse massively at any time. Not optimistic…

  118. @Rurik

    Excellent point, thanks. I meant here at UR, where the archives have been conveniently lost. Your point is even better.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  119. @Anonymous

    Whites have created a lot in the last couple hundred years, much of it due to shady means such as stealing gold and land from the new world and also playing the divide and conquer games.

    Just remember one thing, whites are reaping what they sow. Whites have no one to blame except themeselves.

    I think you mean rich people, not white people.

  120. @Liberty Mike

    Do you really think that the entire system is centralized to the point that they could disappear it in a manner of minutes?

    I remember the oil embargo of 1979 or so and things certainly seem to be much more centralized now.

  121. @Bill Jones

    I think he’s also a cheek spreading opportunist as someone else suggested. Please don’t tell The Mave.

  122. @Israel Shamir

    Perhaps the explanation that Jews pushed for war is better and sufficient?

    Chaim Weizmann, Louis Brandeis, “rabbi” Stephen Wise, Gerard Swope and a few other fanatic, extremist, terrorist, busy bodies and their handlers and dupes would be sufficient, I think

  123. Hibernian says:
    @1 Cavil

    Internecine warfare among Communists.

  124. @Rurik

    Thanks for the reply. To be clear, I don’t believe any one group is responsible. Europeans, like everyone else, have been slaughtering each other with gusto throughout history, and the smart fraction have always taken advantage and encouraged this. The process is eugenic for them, to be sure. As for the Jews, I want us to have the same regard for our young people as investments and not commodities.
    Trouble is we’re very good at war, and even enjoy the excitement unless it goes pear-shaped, then we mourn and start getting ready for the next one.
    Which might be the last one

  125. @Tyrion 2

    Granted, and I’m not proud of it. For what it is worth, if anything, when an American is invited to an English shooting party, he will turn up in proper tweed, with breeks.

  126. Anonymous[298] • Disclaimer says:

    Fascinating article!

    On a news-related note, see how local newspapers, or lack thereof, impact people.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-06-11/6-facts-what-happens-when-local-newspapers-shut-down

  127. fnn says:
    @utu

    Clearly FDR had a pretty good idea in 1938 how Hitler’s war will unfold.

    Curious that Hitler cut arms plans by 30% after Munich:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origins_of_the_Second_World_War#Reception

    Taylor responded in the April 1965 issue of Past and Present: “The evidence for economic or political crises within Germany between 1937 and 1939 is very slight, if non-existent. Hitler cut German armaments plans by 30 per cent after Munich. He cut them again drastically after the fall of France …

    It’s often said that Hitler thought the war was over after the fall of France. and he expected Britain to make peace terms. and thereafter a return to something resembling normalcy. Especially when you consider that France was resource. A normal trade regime would mean no need to seize the Ukraine to counteract the food blockade that was so devastating in the Great War.

    An old Pat Buchanan column:

    https://buchanan.org/blog/did-hitler-want-war-2068

    But if Hitler was out to conquer the world — Britain, Africa, the Middle East, the United States, Canada, South America, India, Asia, Australia — why did he spend three years building that hugely expensive Siegfried Line to protect Germany from France? Why did he start the war with no surface fleet, no troop transports and only 29 oceangoing submarines? How do you conquer the world with a navy that can’t get out of the Baltic Sea?

    If Hitler wanted the world, why did he not build strategic bombers, instead of two-engine Dorniers and Heinkels that could not even reach Britain from Germany?

    Why did he offer the British peace, twice, after Poland fell, and again after France fell?

    Why, when Paris fell, did Hitler not demand the French fleet, as the Allies demanded and got the Kaiser’s fleet? Why did he not demand bases in French-controlled Syria to attack Suez? Why did he beg Benito Mussolini not to attack Greece?

    Because Hitler wanted to end the war in 1940, almost two years before the trains began to roll to the camps.

    Hitler had never wanted war with Poland, but an alliance with Poland such as he had with Francisco Franco’s Spain, Mussolini’s Italy, Miklos Horthy’s Hungary and Father Jozef Tiso’s Slovakia.

    Indeed, why would he want war when, by 1939, he was surrounded by allied, friendly or neutral neighbors, save France. And he had written off Alsace, because reconquering Alsace meant war with France, and that meant war with Britain, whose empire he admired and whom he had always sought as an ally.

    As of March 1939, Hitler did not even have a border with Russia. How then could he invade Russia?

    And Hitler’s rearmament had reached only modest proportions by the start of the war:

    • Replies: @utu
  128. Wally says:
    @fnn

    Indeed. Britain & France declared war on Germany when Germany took back it’s stolen land from Poland, but did not declare war on the communist USSR when they invaded Poland from the east.
    recommended:
    When the USSR invaded Poland, Britain was silent

    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7556

    Polish Atrocities against Germans before 1. September 1939 and Poland’s desire for war.

    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7525

    http://www.codoh.com

  129. @Rurik

    it’s a theory of mine anyways

    It appears to be a fine theory since it fits a lot of the facts, at least as as I seen them.

  130. Anon[840] • Disclaimer says:

    Flynn also wrote the pamphlet ‘The Truth About Pearl Harbor” 1944 which is apparently the first public discussion of the rather obvious fact that the US govt. knew well in advance that the Japanese attack was about to take place.

  131. @escobar

    Henry Adams. Never heard of the man, but sounds extremely interesting. What sources would you recommend?

  132. 1 Cavil says:
    @jacques sheete

    Nowadays you mostly find her mentioned by hasbara weasels foaming at the mouth, but she and Kermit Roosevelt formed the Committee for Justice and Peace in the Holy Land. She was a delegate to Dumbarton Oaks and San Francisco, where she set up UNESCO, which is still pissing off Zionazis to this day. Her memoirs are Many a Good Crusade (1954).

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  133. @Bill TotenWeiss

    Is there anyone worse than Nazis?

  134. Patricus says:
    @Wally

    I read codah.com and it is an interesting introduction. It seems entirely plausible that there is insufficient physical evidence to support claims of six million Jews (and plenty of others) murdered. If that number is a grotesque exaggeration then how does one account for the reduction of the Jewish population in Poland? Before the war there were 3.4 million. After the war just tens of thousands. Where did they all go?

    • Replies: @KA
  135. @1 Cavil

    …still pissing off Zionazis to this day.

    She must’ve been a fine character.

    Her memoirs are Many a Good Crusade (1954).

    Thanks.

  136. @Ron Unz

    Another great article by Ron Unz. However, at least one woman also deserves to be mentioned. Probably the greatest woman foreign correspondent, journalist, columnist, and radio news commentator in America from the 1920s to the 1940’s was Dorothy Thompson, who was ultimately destroyed because her views were no longer in sync with those allowable in the mainstream media. She was one of the principal figures in my doctoral dissertation ”The Intellectual Wellsprings of American World War II Interventionism, 1939-1941.”

    Thompson was an early and persistent critic of Nazism. She had an interview with Hitler in 1931 before he had become German Chancellor, which was made into a popular book. Thompson portrayed Hitler and Nazism in a negative light and in 1934, the new Nazi government of Germany expelled her when she attempted to visit the country, for which she received considerable notoriety as the first American journalist to be expelled from Nazi Germany.

    From 1934 onward, the bulk of her writing dealt with the danger posed by Nazism to the Western democracies. After the start of World War II in Europe in September 1939, Thompson was a staunch interventionist who initially advocated greater American aid to the allies but by the latter part of 1941 came to advocate American entrance into the war.

    In 1939, Time Magazine named Thompson the second most popular and influential woman in America behind Eleanor Roosevelt. She spoke out about anti-Semitism and the plight of the Jews in Europe, and urged a relaxation of immigration restrictions so the U.S. could be a safe haven for Jews under threat in Europe. She also was a strong supporter of Zionism. Consequently, she became a favorite speaker for US Jewish groups.

    But then she began to take positions at odds with those of her major backers, especially Jewish backers, her status began to dissipate. In 1943, she vehemently opposed the policy of “Unconditional Surrender” and then the “Morgenthau Plan” in 1944. These policies were directed against the German people not simply Hitler and the Nazi leadership. Thompson had believed that the Allied victory in the war should lead to a better world not one based on racial vengeance.

    What finally made the Jewish American leadership invincibly against her was her position on the Jews in Palestine. In early 1945, she took a trip to Palestine where she saw firsthand Jews oppressing Palestinians. She came to realize that the Zionists sought to create a Jewish exclusivist state, not one that would include all of its current inhabitants. Her criticism of Zionism led to charges against her of “anti-Semitism” and even pro-Nazism, as absurd as that was given her background. As a result of this all-out Zionist attack, newspapers began to drop her columns.

    Especially harmful was her loss of an outlet in New York City—where she had received a large proportion of her income—when the New York Post dropped her column with no other major New York City daily being willing to pick it up. Her radio program and speaking engagements also disappeared. Despite these problems, Thompson would not back away from her criticism of Zionism. And she continued to do so in the dwindling number of newspapers that still took her column, which did not end until 1958.

    It is significant that the black-out of Dorothy Thompson has continued after her death, and perhaps even become worse. In the effort to make the subject of American history more inclusive, recent historians have often added women who were little known in their own eras, whereas Thompson who had been an important figure remains unmentioned. It seems certain that she has remained largely unmentioned because of what she had to say about Zionism

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @JackOH
  137. @Mike P

    You must be joking or you don’t understand what you’re quoting.

    I tried to tell you who was the man, but you’re simply not interested in finding out.

    You won. Bertrand Russel was a lunatic, a war criminal.

    • Replies: @utu
  138. Ron Unz says:
    @Bill TotenWeiss

    Actually it doesn’t. Unemployment was 25% in 1933 and 19% in 1938. Total numbers of unemployed persons seem harder to find, but this source (https://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1528.html) has 12.8 million unemployed in 1933 and 10.4 million in 1938.

    Actually, based on Flynn’s phrasing, I think he was referring to the *average* unemployment during 1933, which I do think was around 11M, and the *peak* unemployment during 1938, which was also around that same figure. I don’t regard this as deceptive since he was just using it to make a rhetorical point. Here’s the link to a month-by-month FED chart:

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M0892AUSM156SNBR

    Frankly, I couldn’t match his exact numbers, which is why I rounded them, and I’d guess they were from his 1930s news clipping file since he was a leading financial journalist during that period. It wouldn’t surprise me if the government definition of unemployment numbers later changed, and past FED figures were correspondingly adjusted.

    Even if the numbers are accurate, choosing 1938 is cherry-picking since it was the middle of a brief recession (likely caused by trying to balance the budget too soon.). By 1941 5.5 million were unemployed.

    This is exactly what that top FDR had boasted to Flynn in early 1938, namely that getting America involved in a major war would solve all the economic problems, including unemployment. Once FDR’s efforts succeeded in igniting WWII in Europe, the huge flood of weapons orders and US rearmament started an economic boom, just like they had in WWI.

  139. Ron Unz says:
    @Israel Shamir

    If the US pushed Britain to war, how could Britain push the US to war? Does it makes sense? Doesn’t it undermine the idea of British influence over choice of Wilkie etc?

    Actually, according to this reconstruction it was a two-stage process. Prior to the outbreak of WWII in 1939, FDR’s diplomats were putting heavy pressure on the British and the Poles to take positions likely to result in war.

    However, once the British had gotten involved in the war (and generally been losing), their intelligence agents in 1940 obviously had to do everything they possibly could to ensure that FDR would still be in a position to help them militarily as much as possible, and FDR certainly welcomed their covert assistance.

    In some ways, it’s a little like the NSA spying on British citizens as a favor for the British government and the British GCHQ spying on American citizens as a favor for the American government.

  140. utu says:
    @James Brown

    So how do you explain this quote?

  141. @utu

    It’s not because you quote someone that what you’re saying becomes true.

    As far as I know, Russel never advocated a preventive nuclear war. That would have been too stupid for a man who spent part of his life fighting for nuclear disarmament and educated millions about danger of a Nuclear war.

    Contrary to “useful idiots”, Russel knew early on (in the 20′s) about the criminal enterprise that was the Bolshevik “revolution”. He had no doubts about how evil that regime was.

    A Trotskyste, a Neo-con , a “Christian” (Tony Blair for example) can see no contradiction in fighting evil by killing millions of innocent people.

    Russel was never a Trotskyste, or a “Christian” or that stupid.

    I repeat: He was a genius and what is very, very rare indeed, a moral being.

    I’d argue that “the debate” about him “advocating a preventive nuclear war” is a distraction.
    It’s probably an attempt to destroy his reputation.

    It’s very strange this discussion. Had Russel been an American, he would have been on the list of thinkers that Ron so brilliantly wrote about. He was anti-war.

    He wasn’t against the II WW, because by then the propaganda was so complete that it was impossible to be against the “war to save civilization”.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @Mike P
  142. Ron Unz says:
    @Stephen Sniegoski

    Probably the greatest woman foreign correspondent, journalist, columnist, and radio news commentator in America from the 1920s to the 1940’s was Dorothy Thompson, who was ultimately destroyed because her views were no longer in sync with those allowable in the mainstream media.

    That’s an another excellent example that I’d forgotten about. I remember reading an article about the story of what happened to her a few years ago but I can’t remember the source or the author. Here’s the link to her content in my system (though her middle name is incorrect):

    http://www.unz.com/print/author/ThompsonDorothyBrown/

    There’s a noticeable “discontinuity” around 1949, and I don’t think this 1950 article in Commentary helped her situation:

    http://www.unz.com/print/Commentary-1950mar-00210/

    Otherwise, I’d really like to thank so many commenters for their very kind words about this article.

    • Replies: @utu
  143. @Israel Shamir

    “Syrian civil war”.

    There was never a “Syrian civil war”. I’m sure you know that.
    Coming from you, that is a serious mistake. Please correct.

  144. utu says:
    @James Brown

    As far as I know, Russel never advocated a preventive nuclear war.

    But the quote proves that he did. Change to the the past tense: “As far as I knew…”

    It is not the distraction. You have to incorporate it into the false image of him you have created. Is he your idol or something?

    You wrote that he was a genius. He was a competent mathematician. Burnt out on Prinicpia Mathematica which he wrote with Whitehead who was much better mathematician. After that he was scientifically adrift. Perhaps meeting Wittgenstein gave coup de grâce to his scientific career. He recognized that Wittgenstein was a true genius.

    His political activism is another thing.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  145. @utu

    Bullitt was nobody in 1938, partly because of his anti-Russian views. He was an important person earlier and later, yes.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @jilles dykstra
  146. utu says:
    @fnn

    Did Hitler really believe that Great Britain would accept his conquest of Europe and sign a peace treaty with him? What was he thinking? Going to war defeating minor countries and hoping that the Anglo-American empire would accept it? He was an amateur, an adolescent dreamer playing a game in his fantasy world. Did he really think that making nice gestures like letting Dunkirk happen was the way to deal with the British? That they would reciprocate? In 1940 he should have known that he was screwed. And he decided to slack off on war production. He did not want to mobilize German people and put them on war footing because he wanted Germans to have a nice life without the usual inconvenience that war brings.

    He was reluctant to impose the test of total mobilisation on the German ‘master race’ until it was too late to matter, so that with munitions factories crying out for manpower, idle German housewives were still employing half a million domestic servants to dust their homes and polish their furniture. Hitler’s military irresolution sometimes showed through, for example in his panicky vacillation at times of crisis like the battle for Narvik in 1940.

    Perhaps he was a better person that Churchill or Roosevelt but unlike them he was not grounded in reality.

  147. “But the quote proves that he did”

    The quote doesn’t prove that.

    This is the main part of the quote:

    “when the Americans had a monopoly of nuclear weapons and offered to internationalize nuclear weapons by the Baruch proposal, and I thought this an extremely generous proposal on their part, one which it would be very desirable that the world should accept; not that I advocated a nuclear war”

    You can accused him of having been naîve. He believed the Americans were serious. Of course they were lying.

    “, but of course you can’t threaten unless you’re prepared to have your bluff called.”

    Don’t forget, it’s an interview. Russel would have never written that. I know, because I read what he wrote. I read also his “definitive” biography by Ray Monk. I don’t remember him discussing this topic.

    “Is he your idol or something?”

    I don’t have idols. I respect him. That’s all. I believe also that those who are interested in peace and the truth (like you and Mike P., I presume) should also respect him. You don’t have lots of people with his intellectual power and moral stature being anti-war.

    You can’t condemn a man because of a quote from an interview that he probably wouldn’t have repeated.

    This is what I believe Russel had in mind:

    Americans had at the time the monopoly of nuclear weapons. They could have just threatened that they are going to use them if the Russians do not surrender. This way, communism would have been defeated without killing millions of innocent people, which , of course,Russel would have been against.

    Of course Russel didn’t know at the time, very few people know it even today, that the forces that controlled and gave Russia communism, also controlled the USA and its nuclear weapons.

    Today,the same forces still control the USA and Russia hence the farce of “cold war 2″

    “He was a competent mathematician”. Well, you can put that way. I believe that he deserves to be considered genius for his scientific work but I am not competent to decide. Ray Monk who has intellectual authority also believes that the man was a genius, which of course doesn’t mean that Wittgenstein wasn’t also one.

    • Replies: @bj
  148. utu says:
    @Ron Unz

    Could Douglas Reed be a part of the big purge? In his case it happened in 1951 after the publication of Far and Wide

    Reed spent the duration of the Second World War in England; in 1948, he moved to Durban, South Africa. In 1951 his book Far and Wide he wrote: “During the Second World War I noticed that the figures of Jewish losses, in places where war made verification impossible, were being irresponsibly inflated, and said so in a book. The process continued until the war’s end when the figure of six millions was produced… No proof can be given”. Reed was subsequently virtually banned by establishment publishers and booksellers, and his previous titles were often removed from library shelves.

    Before that his books were bestsellers:

    His 1938 book Insanity Fair analysing the situation in pre-war Europe brought him worldwide fame. His next few books were also bestsellers.

    • Replies: @republic
  149. Hitler admired the British empire, and hoped to cooperate with it.
    Just after he knew of the British French plan to occupy neutral Norway and Sweden he began another war.
    Had not Poland provoked him, and refused negatiotiations about the german city of Danzig, and a land connection between Germany and East Prussia, he would not have attacked Poland.
    Occupation of Tsjechoslovakia, the Germans in Sudentenland were discriminated, but far more important was that the USSR could bomb the Ruhr industries from Tsjechoslovakia.
    That Hitler did not understand the international situation, true.
    As Francois de Wendel said ‘the big mistake of Hitler was to underestimate international jewish power’.
    Jean-Noël Jeanneney, ‘Francois de Wendel en République, L’Argent et le Pouvoir 1914-1940, Paris 1976

  150. utu says:
    @Israel Shamir

    As for nobody he had a fairly good grasp of reality and prescient abilities. Bullitt became anti-communist once he got more acquainted with workers paradise as ambassador to the USSR. In 1938 he was ambassador to France and did not fell out with Roosevelt until 1940.

    In 1939 he sent French info on Alger Hiss to the State Dept that he was working for Soviet intelligence.

    While in Moscow he had lots of fun:

    On April 24, 1935, he hosted a Spring Festival at Spaso House, his official residence. He instructed his staff to create an event that would surpass every other embassy party in Moscow’s history. The decorations included a forest of ten young birch trees in the chandelier room; a dining room table covered with Finnish tulips; a lawn made of chicory grown on wet felt; an aviary made from fishnet filled with pheasants, parakeets, and one hundred zebra finches, on loan from the Moscow Zoo; and a menagerie of several mountain goats, a dozen white roosters, and a baby bear.[15]

    The four hundred guests included Foreign Minister Maxim Litvinov and Defense Minister Kliment Voroshilov; Communist Party luminaries Nikolai Bukharin, Lazar Kaganovich, and Karl Radek; Soviet Marshals Alexander Yegorov, Mikhail Tukhachevsky, and Semyon Budyonny; and the writer Mikhail Bulgakov.

  151. @Ron Unz

    My suspicion is that FDR deliberately maintained USA unemployment, for use in war industries.

    • Replies: @Anon
  152. @Israel Shamir

    A few years in the USSR can open one’s eyes.
    Bullitt was the first USA ambassador

  153. Them Guys says:
    @jilles dykstra

    jilles: ever heard of catholic priest named Fr. Coughlin (SP?)? He had a massive huge audience and iirc was based out of new York. During pre WWII 1930′s era. He held huge rallies, did his own radio talk show, and not only spoke out truth of elites wwii promotions. But his biggest “sin” was that he was a huge, maybe the biggest of his time, outspoken critic and truth teller of jewry and jews mass involvement regarding wwii.

    He also highly favored and spoke truth on germany and germans then too. That is probably the key main issue and topic that created so much vast jewish hatred of him. Later when he died, I recall reading how many believe his death was No accident. If I recall correct he slipped on some flooring and banged his head and died later due to that “accident” or if elsewise it was still a phony explanation by msm etc about how he died. Maybe his death was a combo of perps from international jewry + Vatican infiltrators?

    All I know is that whenever I seen articles and quoted speech’s mentioned that he spoke to those huge crowds of supporters, he sure was jewised up and knew what he talked about regarding germans and wwii etc.

    Picture our world today if he and all those names Ron Unz article here speaks of were listened to by usa leaders, and also if perhaps U.S. Gen G. Patton discovered sooner what he finally figured out and patton wrote of in his own diary…Ie; “We Fought the WRONG people in wwii”!

    Indeed even if only after wwii end patton was still able to wipe out Bolsheviks and the many jewish cohort leaders within it eh…The entire world we see today would have a drasticly different make up so to speak, and very likely all for the better for all or most of world now.

    But as we know jewdeo bolshies were ran out and invaded America, and now world faces WWIII and potential neocon crazed Nuke war to boot.

    So I guess this is how international jewry thanks euro whitey americans for providing very best ever homeland and opportunity and wealth prosperities ever imagined by that nefarious tribe eh.

    Hope I live long enough to see day when fed ups in usa decide to return favor and “Thank” them in ways one can only dream of. A good advice for they and other minorities who hate whiteys etc would be to remember, africans wreck cities, jews wreck and ruin nations, but while it usually takes whiteys longer to get fed up, once whitey is fed up to the max, entire continents burn to ground!

  154. utu says:

    1940 Republican Convention

    Churchill had just become prime minister in May 1940, and he hired freelance agent William Stephenson to head up the new North American operation.

    Then a poll came out from a polling organization called Market Analysis, Inc. It said that 60 percent of delegates favored helping the UK. The findings were published by the New York Herald, and an influential syndicated columnist, William Allen White, wrote that it was now clear the other candidates were out of touch with the party’s grassroots.

    Decades after the war, it was revealed that Market Analysis, Inc., was a British creation.

    Stephenson’s agents also wiretapped the French embassy and used honey traps to get intelligence from French diplomats about pro-German activities, and stories were then planted in the press.

    Stephenson’s agents found proof that the Nazis were funding America First, the leading isolationist group, with ties to white supremacists. This information was used to discredit the isolationists.
    Dirty tricks and fake news were employed to discredit individual congressmen

    During the convention, two dynamite bombs were discovered outside of the hall; a total of seven bombs were discovered in the greater Philadelphia area during the convention. The discoveries of the bombs were inadvertently released to the public by an emotional New York City police commissioner Lewis J. Valentine while discussing the New York World’s Fair bombing that killed two police officers.

    Wilkie vote counts from 1st to 6th ballot: 10.5%, 17.1%, 25.9%, 30.6%, 42.9%, 65.5%

  155. skrik says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Scheming Roosevelt spectacularly succeeded

    Oh, really? In what terms, may we know? IF you respond THEN kindly 1st consider:

    Jeremy Bentham. The greatest happiness of the greatest number is the foundation of morals and legislation.

    Neither achieved then, nor our actual current state – or so it would seem. rgds

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  156. JackOH says:
    @Stephen Sniegoski

    Stephen, thanks, and also for your previous contributions on these pages.

    I’ve believed for a good while that the long shadow of WWII–the Saturday morning cartoon version–has had a bad effect on our capacity to deal forthrightly with political problems today. The only way I can think of to change that cartoon version is to re-examine the facts, re-examine the interpretations of those facts, take another look at the motives and actions of the major players, and so on.

  157. Sam Shama says:
    @Ron Unz

    The monthly unemployment numbers during 1933 never once went below the peak unemployment in 1938, and the BLS definition hasn’t changed. The interpolation method was uniformly applied as of that BLS paper in 1948, which I linked above. So no bias involved.

    https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1948/article/pdf/labor-force-employment-and-unemployment-1929-39-estimating-methods.pdf

    The Annual averages are displayed in Table 1, page 2.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @Ron Unz
  158. @skrik

    Oh, really? In what terms, may we know?

    Read what I wrote. No need for further elaboration. And Jeremy Bentham was, in Marx’s words (I agree with him on that particular matter) “a genius of bourgeois stupidity”.

    • Replies: @skrik
  159. Mike P says:
    @James Brown

    I repeat: He was a genius and what is very, very rare indeed, a moral being.

    Karl Popper called Russell “the greatest philosopher since Kant”. I have tried and failed to understand what was so great about Kant; he is marginally more readable than Hegel, but his ideas, as far as I could make them out, never recover from having started with flawed assumptions. Russell is a much better writer, a truly great one indeed, and so it is very easy to follow his ideas and see for yourself how flawed and absurd they really are. Indeed Popper also called Russell’s “neutral monism” a form of idealism, and that sums it up quite well – old wine in new skins.

    As to his being a “rare moral being” – moral beings may be in the minority, but they are not rare; I personally know many. Russell, on the other hand, may have been well-intentioned, but he lacked the modesty – in every meaning of that word – to be a truly moral being. His stance on preemptive nuclear war is but one expression of his intellectual arrogance.

    There is one famous quote by Russell: “This is one of those views which are so absolutely absurd that only very learned men could possibly adopt them.” The irony is that he was the very best illustration of this quote one could ask for.

    Over and out.

    • Replies: @utu
  160. @utu

    Russell was never central to my studies of anything but I would credit him with the gift of easy (apparently anyway) lucid writing embodying clear thinking in limpid prose.

    • Replies: @Anon
  161. @jacques sheete

    And for that matter, our sources of energy and pretty much everything else could no doubt be stopped with the flick of a button or two as well.”

    All the more reason to not give up on using cash. What a nasty surprise political dissidents will get when they find out that their bank card is no longer accepted at grocery stores, or anywhere else one day.

  162. Eagle Eye says:
    @Biff

    Enter the era of “Fake news”, which you can translate into “any news the mainstream doesn’t agree with”, and the new era of “Russia did it”.

    The term “fake news” itself was designed as a highly sophisticated distracting meme in the Goebbels/AH “Big Lie” tradition.

    “Fake news” as a term was launched in the 2016 election cycle, apparently commissioned by that life-long adept of National Socialist techniques, George “Soros.” (Soros is far from the only powerful player to have internalized National Socialist writings as “how to” manuals.)

    Mark Zuckface and the Google cabal were enthusiastic early adopters of “fake news” as a pretext for censorship. It’s almost as if they secretly agreed beforehand on this collusive operation to shut out real news.

    Coming from a privileged but very narrow background, Zuckface like many of his self-absorbed type has never quite learned and internalized what it means to be an American, and never will.

    • Replies: @Biff
  163. @anon

    I presume you are not a historian who knows of so many primary sources that he can just give the authoritative account from on high so I wonder where you get this stuff from that sounds very dodgy to me.

    E.g. Oil was discovered in large quantities in Persia/Iran only in 1908 and in Saudi Arabia in 1938. The Shell Transport and Trading Company founded by Marcus Samuel – not yet even a serious *merchant* banker – in 1897 for trading oil in the tankers he had commissioned to use the Suez Canal and merged with a Dutch company to become Royal Dutch Shell in 1907. So I wonder not only about your dates but about all the stuff about “bankers”. (Certainly if you look up the 1st Viscount Bearsted you will find him referred to as the first chairman of Shell rather than as a banker. BTW the big oil companies could have bought up most of the banks for most of the 20th century.

  164. Eagle Eye says:
    @Pat Pappano

    Thanks – had never heard about possible Truman – MI6 connection. Worth considering.

    The larger question from the British perspective is what Britain was doing getting involved in another Continental war.

    Remember Churchill, whose mother was a notorious syphilitic sybarite, had been in the thick of it in WWI, and apparently was obsessed with the “greatness” and personal profit that war can bring.

  165. prusmc says: • Website
    @Rurik

    Would the US have been a better place if JFK, Johnson, George H.W. Bush had not made it through WWll, albeit that Lyndon was a fraud. Furthermore, what would be list if McCain just survived a tour in Man but didn’t become a POW hero?

    • Replies: @Rurik
  166. @Rurik

    I think part of the mesh of causation may not have been observed. I have (I think) observed it. When a party’s active members choose candidates to receive the party’s endorsement for higher office one of the natural, barely conscious, ways to avoid fratricidal strife and scandal amongst the young and ambitious is to give almost automatic preference to those already of higher status. And we know the truth in Freud’s observation about the narcissism of minor difference”: we are as a species well tuned to making quite fine discriminations of status. And who would argue that an instinct to prefer a Nelson Rockefeller over a Donald Trump wouldn’t be sound?

    • Replies: @Rurik
  167. David says:

    This article has caused a veritable rush on books by Flynn on abebooks.com. At least three dozen in the last 24 hours. You’re moving markets, Ron.

  168. @jacques sheete

    What archives have been lost at UR?

  169. @Them Guys

    You seem to be saying when one fills in the blanks that the world would have been a better place and everything sorted out to non Communists’ satisfaction if only Hitler and the Nazis hadn’t been so loudly and virulently anti-Semitic from 1919 onward.

  170. Anon[436] • Disclaimer says:
    @jilles dykstra

    A good idea to withhold your suspicions when they are as mad as that. Try exercising a little discipline when tempted just to blurt out what comes into your head.

  171. @Sam Shama

    You are right I think. Unfortunately FDR wasn’t a Keynesian and included in his portfolio of policies measures to prop up prices which were seriously bad news. He was trying honestly and humanely no doubt but he couldn’t really be expected to be at the forefront of economics. Common sense and a bit of daring might have got him up with some others who knew instinctively they had to spend and spend. By 1938 Keynes’s “General Theoty” would have made it clear to him (via those who had read it) that war was going to be the great depression buster.

  172. @escobar

    It occurs to me that Henry Adams was the very type of one sort of old aristocrat, Bostonians not least, who reacts to the unpleasant smell of competitive businessmen. One unfortunate characteristic would be indifference to or even disdain for STEM which was and is the basis on which wealth increases to feed mankind’s 200 per cent sense of entitlement.

  173. skrik says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Read what I wrote

    Why else might I have responded? But you didn’t answer my Q: “In what terms?” Latest from when Wilson fascinated Bernays via his exhorting that the world should “be made safe for democracy” by going to war, then intermittently/continuously ‘more of the same’ ever since (including your “Roosevelt spectacularly succeeded” assertion), I think we are entitled to know just how war for democracy [alternative formulation: murdering for spoil] may be benefiting us, if not by maximising we the people’s welfare? IF you choose to respond THEN kindly 1st consider: ~50mio on food stamps, crumbling infrastructure etc., and all that despite the latest round of aggressive wars presaged by WC7in5.

  174. utu says:
    @Mike P

    Wrong angle of attack! Kant was a great philosopher. Russel was just a footnote.

    “rare moral being”. – a joke? Is this James Brown from some cult? Or a troll?

  175. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    clear thinking

    Sometimes.

    lucid writing

    Always.

    I would agree with utu’s assessment, in general.

    Since my comment seems somewhat pointless I will pad it out with an anecdote courtesy of Arnold Lunn.

    Lady Russell is young and beautiful, and Lord Russell may insist on being called Mr. Russell, but Mrs. Russell is equally insistent on being addressed as Lady Russell.

    “Somebody said to me the other day,” she remarked, ‘Don’t you feel guilty in these democratic days when people call you Lady Russell? I said, ‘No, but I should feel guilty if I was wearing your expensive mink coat.’”

    • Replies: @utu
  176. Rurik says:
    @prusmc

    Would the US have been a better place if JFK, Johnson, George H.W. Bush had not made it through WWll

    JFK was a good man, (as least comparatively considering his peers)

    Lyndon was a fraud.

    fraud?

    How about a treasonous, mass-murdering scumbag. A sniveling little turd in the service of America’s enemy.

    Yea, that resonates a little better with the truth, don’t ya think?

    McCain just survived a tour in Man but didn’t become a POW hero?

    of course you mean ‘Nam’. You can be forgiven that, but not calling him a “hero”.

    Are you out of your mind? Or being sarcastic?

    McCain was a traitor. He betrayed his fellow soldiers when in Nam. Then he went on to betray Americans in a tenure as Senator that would make Caligula’s horse seem a great statesman by comparison.

    ♪♫♬ bomb bomb Iran.. ♪♫♬

    what a loathsome POS

    would the world be better off if McCain had died in Nam?

    ask he fellow veterans of that war

    ask the survivors of the USS Liberty

    ask the loved ones of the millions of people who’ve died or been maimed in the ZUS’s illegal wars of aggression in the Middle East…

    From the Keating Five, to a thousand treasons, this man is as rotten as they come.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  177. Rurik says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    And who would argue that an instinct to prefer a Nelson Rockefeller over a Donald Trump wouldn’t be sound?

    I would, of course.

    the Rockefellers were globalists and Nelson was a New York liberal. The first of the so-called RINOs.

    so it would be decidedly unsound to prefer a globalist to a nationalist, if you’re a typical American voter/tax slave/cannon fodder.

  178. Mike P says:

    Kant was a great philosopher.

    I only attempted to read his “Critique of Pure Reason” and gave up about one third way in, when it became clear to me that he was profoundly wrong, and on top of that his writing style was pedantic and tedious. I never tried his other works, because at the time I was only interested in theory of cognition, not in moral philosophy etc. With respect to theory of cognition, I fail to see Kant’s contribution as lasting or important.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @utu
  179. Rurik says:
    @Israel Shamir

    If the US pushed Britain to war, how could Britain push the US to war?

    Consider the sinking of the Lusitania. Elements within both governments were working simultaneously towards the same goal.

    Just as they were with WWII, just as they are today.

    who pushed for war in 1938-1939?

    Who sent the Lusitania to its doom in 1915?

    Who’s pushing for war today?

    On May 7, 2017 president Trump ordered the bombing of Syria (on behalf of Zionism, as we all know)

    That was exactly one hundred years to the day that the US entered the first world war (on behalf of Zionism)

    Do you think that was a coincidence, Mr. Shamir?

    • Replies: @Rurik
  180. @Mike P

    I never quite got round to falling in love with the synthetic a priori either and/but I think I have to concede that your one third of Die Kritik der Reinen Vernunft beats my small bite. I think that was one of the books I kept on display in their original languages, as I did with Descartes’ Discours de la Méthode. It didn’t encourage my actually reading much of the great philosophers’ ipsissima verba.

  181. Rurik says:
    @Rurik

    Ministerial bill recognizes Israel as Jewish nation-state. May 7, 2017

    https://worldisraelnews.com/israel-ministerial-committee-backs-bill-recognizing-israel-jewish-nation-state/

    another coincidence!

  182. Ron Unz says:
    @Sam Shama

    The monthly unemployment numbers during 1933 never once went below the peak unemployment in 1938, and the BLS definition hasn’t changed. The interpolation method was uniformly applied as of that BLS paper in 1948, which I linked above. So no bias involved.

    I certainly never meant to imply that the BLS figures were biased. Quite the reverse—as I emphasized, Flynn was using a somewhat apples-and-oranges comparison to make what was obviously just a rhetorical point, including ignoring the fact that the total labor force was significantly higher in 1938.

    However, I’d be very surprised given that Flynn was one of America’s most prominent financial journalists throughout the 1930s, I’d tend to doubt his actual unemployment figures were incorrect, but I’d have to spend reading through many of his TNR and Colliers columns to check that.

    • Replies: @Sam Shama
  183. utu says:
    @Anon

    Good anecdote. It would be better if the conversation was between Lady Russel and Mr. Russel who may or may not (I do not know) had a weakness for luxurious things.

  184. @Eagle Eye

    As the British saw FDR constructing a new world run by USA and Soviet Union, they needed to do something to stay in #2 position, which was the least they would acceot and the most they could manage. Truman was put in to replace a guy named Wallace who appears to have been the “Real Deal.” Then to do the anti-Soviet pivot, they poisone FDR and that was 1945. Then in 1953 they poisoned Stalin. Stalin was being run by Schiff and his Jewish buds and Truman was turned by Harriman. It looks like MI6 and the Jews are not always on the same page.

  185. utu says:
    @Mike P

    when it became clear to me that he was profoundly wrong

    And you haven’t published your profound critique of the Critique yet? What are you waiting for?

    Kant points to real philosophical problems that can’t be circumvented yet it seems that our Zeitgeist managed to do so. If you are coming form this Zeitgeist obviously Kant will seem incomprehensible or wrong or superfluous. This Zeitgeist philosophy is a vulgar materialism and reductionism. Everything is knowable by its reduction to cells, genes, molecules and atoms which have postulated existence. It must be so, right? This Zeitgeist you will find filled up with Ted Talks of Pinkers, Dennetts and Churchlands which does not leave any room for another option. It can’t imagine another option. So, yes Kant is wrong and profoundly so in this universe. Though it can’t be demonstrated directly by engaging him. So we ignore him. He is wrong because he must be wrong as there is no room for him in the tight space that we created for our materialism to be right.

    There are other angles involved to it like the war for dominance by Anglo Weltanschauung. British empiricism and American pragmatism are winning. Destroying Germany and Japan in WWII and sidelining the Continental Europe played an important role in the realm of ideas as well.

    I really like and find very useful Kant’s moral philosophy. The two Categorical Imperatives are on my mind in all kinds of situations. According to Kant the two imperatives are equivalent, i.e, you can reason form them into the same moral space but I find the 2nd one very profound because it gets to the essence of what it means to be human to another human: this is a precept against treating others instrumentally. Our culture is all about treating people instrumentally. Jews would cease to exist if they stopped treating others instrumentally. Kant must be then dismissed and ridiculed.

    • Replies: @Mike P
  186. bjondo says:
    @bjondo

    @48- You think that might not be in the natural order of things?

    Jew rigged for Jew.

  187. Mike P says:
    @utu

    Thank you for your comment (sincerely). I do agree with you that moral philosophy is relevant, but I was at the time more interested in how we know what is true that how we know what is good. It may sound silly, but during my very Christian upbringing I had heard quite enough about morality and didn’t feel like taking in more.

    Kant’s “Critique of Pure Reason” deals with a fictitious problem, namely, how we can be sure that our built-in understanding of the world outside ourselves – our cognition a priori – is correct. One of his examples is our built-in assumption that the world follows Euclidean geometry. This assumption is now understood to be erroneous; no need for a book by me. Our built-in understanding of the world should be useful, as the evolutionary philosophers argue; and Euclidean geometry is certainly a good enough approximation of the world for daily life, but that does not make it true.

    There are other angles involved to it like the war for dominance by Anglo Weltanschauung. British empiricism and American pragmatism are winning.

    Philosophy is about truth, not about winning.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @Rurik
  188. utu says:
    @Mike P

    Philosophy is about truth, not about winning.

    Tell it to the ones who are into to for the winning.

    Euclidean geometry is often used as a metaphor and it serves as a template for a scientific systems we are building. You have to establish the a priori knowledge. You have axioms that you do not prove and can’t prove but from them all he rest follows. And always the problem is on agreeing on axioms. Te axiomatic nature of Kant’s approach is not the most important about him. I think it is rather the realization of what empiricism overlooks, i.e., the implicit assumptions about reality. Kant tried to deal with this part, actually he tried to make as aware of it. But empiricist and pragmatist will say screw the insight, we do not care, we just do what works. Next to Kant they are like barbarians. Usually barbarians win.

    Euclid should be considered as the most profound and most important mathematician by formulating his geometry as an axiomatic structure. Was it 2300 years ago? His achievement is amazing yet even Newton in his British empirical arrogance could not appreciate it. Newton did not have a good concept of mathematical prove. Comparing to Euclid Newton was a barbarian.

    • Replies: @Mike P
  189. republic says:
    @utu

    His book, The Controversy of Zion was published after his death

  190. republic says:
    @Them Guys

    The Roosevelt administration forced the closure of his highly popular radio program and his Social Justice periodical lost the use of the postal service’s second class mailing permit.

    • Replies: @Them Guys
  191. Rurik says:
    @Mike P

    Philosophy is about truth, not about winning.

    the truth is philosophy won’t do you much good unless you’re alive to ponder it

    part of a healthy philosophy should include doing whatever is necessary not to lose, if losing means being subdued or killed by enemies with a more vigorous philosophy

    From what I’ve glimmered, philosophy means ‘Why are we here? And what are we? And being here, and being who and what we are, what should we do?

    If your philosophy is virtuous, then part of ‘what should we do’, must include – not losing to enemies, who are and always have been legion.

    For instance I suppose you could call the suicidal insanity of SJW a philosophy of sorts, but it isn’t a very good one. Because it’s based on losing as the main virtue.

    IMHO

    (I confess I wasn’t closely following your conversation, but that’s my two centavos anyways ; )

    • Replies: @Mike P
    , @utu
  192. Incitatus says:
    @Rurik

    “…he [McCain] went on to betray Americans in a tenure as Senator that would make Caligula’s horse seem a great statesman by comparison.”

    Who says I’m not a great statesman? Do’in a hell of a lot better than your son Igor (couldn’t walk straight after the Drevlains finished with him). Wife Olga had to do his job.

    Watch your mouth, Rurik!

    • Replies: @Rurik
  193. Rurik says:
    @Incitatus

    ah..

    of course, you are indeed more of a statesman than John McCain

    even your road apples put him to shame

  194. Mike P says:
    @utu

    You have to establish the a priori knowledge. You have axioms that you do not prove and can’t prove but from them all he rest follows. And always the problem is on agreeing on axioms.

    You are right about Euclid – but in quoting him, you make my point for me. Euclid explicitly rested his theory on unprovable axioms, unlike Kant, who wanted to base it on some a priori verification device built into his own cognition.

    Einstein is often quoted thusly:

    As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.

    We don’t need certainty to do science. We can agree on axioms and on all the statements that follow from them, but only as working hypotheses that remain open to empirical falsification. That is essentially what Popper says, with the added twist that it is easier to disprove than prove an empirical hypothesis – no amount of white swan observations can definitely establish the law that ‘all swans are white,’ but a single black swan can disprove it.

    Popper makes a lot more sense to me than either Kant or Russell.

    I think it is rather the realization of what empiricism overlooks, i.e., the implicit assumptions about reality. Kant tried to deal with this part, actually he tried to make as aware of it.

    Very good point.

    • Replies: @utu
  195. Anonymous[422] • Disclaimer says:
    @republic

    speaking of the Wikipedia isn’t it very odd and strange that every web search on every conceivable topic gives Wikipedia the first view?

    Why would that be strange? Google and Wikipedia are both subdivisions of the Deep State’s Propaganda Division aka MiniTruth.

    • Replies: @Wally
  196. Mike P says:
    @Rurik

    You are right, philosophy without practical and ethical principles doesn’t do us much good. However, I feel quite strongly that ethical principles that we recognise as helpful in getting on with life should not dictate our metaphysical or religious beliefs.

    Any and all arguments that I have heard in favour of religion boil down to some form of “I believe in the truth of it, because it makes me happy/a good person/stronger/more successful.” If I accepted that, I would revert to the Christian faith of my parents in a heartbeat, because I do see the compassion and strength that it inspired in them. Instead, I try to live by their moral principles even without sharing their religious faith. My wife, who like me is not religious, shows me that it can be done.

    • Agree: Rurik
  197. Ron Unz says:
    @Them Guys

    jilles: ever heard of catholic priest named Fr. Coughlin (SP?)? He had a massive huge audience and iirc was based out of new York. During pre WWII 1930′s era. He held huge rallies, did his own radio talk show, and not only spoke out truth of elites wwii promotions.

    Actually, the entire run of his SOCIAL JUSTICE publication are available in my system:

    http://www.unz.com/print/SocialJustice/

    One interesting thing I remember noticing when I was processing this archives is that contrary to my History 101 impressions, he actually seemed to have been more of a leftist, and was an enthusiastic FDR supporter early on before he became disillusioned with FDR’s economic failures and turned against him.

    But that was over a decade ago, and my recollections are pretty fuzzy…

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    , @Them Guys
  198. “Imagine if recent First Ladies such as Michelle Obama or Laura Bush were constantly seen in TV ads hawking cars and diapers and fast food.”

    Funny how you ignore all the first ladies sans Melania hawking green energy while their coffers get stuffed with cash from those that profit from green energy and US energy handicaps.

    • Agree: iffen
  199. utu says:
    @Mike P

    To me Popper is simple minded yet his view got the traction and prevails and everybody keeps talking about white and black ravens or swans. Much more nuanced approach was made by Pierre Duhem.

    In his The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory[6] (1914), Duhem provided a devastating critique of Baconian crucial experiments. According to this critique, an experiment in physics is not simply an observation, but rather an interpretation of observations by means of a theoretical framework. Furthermore, no matter how well one constructs one’s experiment, it is impossible to subject an isolated single hypothesis to an experimental test. Instead, it is a whole interlocking group of hypotheses, background assumptions, and theories that is tested. This thesis has come to be known as confirmation holism. This inevitable holism, according to Duhem, renders crucial experiments impossible. More generally, Duhem was critical of Newton’s description of the method of physics as a straightforward “deduction” from facts and observations.

    Confirmation of theory or its de-confirmation was already talked by Thomas Aquinas (nihil sub sole novum) in the context of eccentrics and epicycles:

    Reason may be employed in two ways to establish a point: firstly, for the purpose of furnishing sufficient proof of some principle. [...] Reason is employed in another way, not as furnishing a sufficient proof of a principle, but as confirming an already established principle, by showing the congruity of its results, as in astronomy the theory of eccentrics and epicycles is considered as established, because thereby the sensible appearances of the heavenly movements can be explained; not, however, as if this proof were sufficient, forasmuch as some other theory might explain them.

    The awareness of what it means to know and what is known and in what way was pretty deep from Antiquity and Middle Ages. Nihil sub sole novum as far as Popper is concerned. As I said Euclid in some ways was more modern and more advanced than Newton.

    This brings me to Einstein. Henri Poincare was one of Duhen advisers on his doctorate in math. He also had very deep and subtle approach to physics and was more aware of issues of epistemology than most active physicists then and since. This may explain his half hearted approach to the theory of relativity that he together with Lorentz more or less worked on for at least five years before Einstein. They were not ready to formulate it in the form of two forceful postulates because they believed they could derive their equivalents or their weaker but sufficient analogs. Einstein’s more simplistic formulation has won but they were asking much deeper questions than Einstein.

    What does the citation attributed to Einstein that you quoted supposed to illustrate? Ultimately all theories in physics are mathematical. It can’t be otherwise because humans can only describe reality in terms of mathematics. The fact that new empirical fact may question the exiting theory is really banal. Thomas Aquinas was cognizant of it. Perhaps the more important question should be about the minimal theory. Which theory is minimal that is consistent with all known empirical data? Mathematicians are aware of it and that’s why they deal with the issues of incompleteness , consistency and decidability. There is much less of such self-awareness in other fields. Do Darwinists ponder what is undecidable in their theory? No, they think their theory is complete and not inconsistent at the same time. Furthermore in its semantic formulation the theory of evolution seems to be so iron clad that it seems to be not falsifiable. So, what would be te minimal theory that could replace Einstein? It comes from mathematical structure of the theory. Poincare observed that Lorentz transforms are an algebraic group. Conversely if we assume the requirement of having an algebraic group we get Lorentz transforms which imply the invariance of some constant c. That this constant c is the speed of light can be deduced from Maxwell equations or proven empirically. This creates much more elegant and somewhat ‘weaker’ theory equivalent to Einstein without its crude postulate that speed of light must be invariant.

    But returning to the point of the departure which was Kant. You can learn about the quest of what is reality and what is your relation to it from Kant. You can’t learn it form Popper. Or in another words Popper’s reality is an amputated caricature of Kant’s reality.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  200. utu says:
    @Rurik

    Victor Hugo was not known for a great sense of humor yet to the questions

    Where are we coming from? What are we? Where are we going?

    that circulate among as always pretentious intelligentsia added:

    When will we be eating?

    • Replies: @Rurik
  201. bj says:
    @James Brown

    Lord Bertrand Russell is the culmination of enlightenment thinking. The godless elites rule a scientific dictatorship without regard for the sanctity of human life. The man was a psychopath, not a pacifist!

    The Impact of Science on Society-Lord Bertrand Russell

    “But bad times, you may say, are exceptional, and can be dealt with by exceptional methods. This has been more or less true during the honeymoon period of industrialism, but it will not remain true unless the increase of population can be enormously diminished. At present the population of the world is increasing at about 58,000 per diem. War, so far, has had no very great effect on this increase, which continued through each of the world wars. … War … has hitherto been disappointing in this respect … but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. … The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of it? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people’s.”

    He was devoid of empathy. Men, women, and children were mere census numbers to be manipulated as if they are cattle at the disposal of agribusiness.

    “Unlike the misinformed honest atom scientists, the Russell of 1939 pushed to have the weapon built for exactly the motives he articulated later in the 1946 restatement of his intent. World-federalist, utopian fanatic Russell conceived of the development and use of nuclear weaponry as a trick for terrifying governments into abandoning the right to defend their sovereignties by military means. As he stated this purpose in his 1946 piece, he intended to terrify the peoples of the world into submitting to rule by a global arbiter of conflicts, to a world empire, a global, Malthusian dictatorship of the United Nations Organization.”

    from https://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_91-96/943a_russell_lhl.html#fn23-30

    Brave new world indeed! Lord Bertrand Russell is the prophet of the Twentieth Century death cults and their gulags and their slaughter of innocents.

    • Agree: Mike P
    • Replies: @utu
    , @James Brown
    , @Anonymous
  202. Mike P says:

    Your quote by Duhem is interesting; TBH I had not heard of him. However, it is not accurate to contrast him with Popper the way you do. I was offering a very simplified version of Popper (my excuse is that Popper himself used similar short versions himself). However, in his “Logic of scientific discovery”, Popper discusses at length that observations are not pure and unbiased but are themselves expressed in the terms and context of a theory. As indicated earlier, Popper also revered Kant.

    Your Duhem quote is also interesting to me for another reason: my empirical observation is that physicists are bad empiricists. They tend to be overly concerned with the integrity of their entire edifice, and driven by this concern they ride roughshod over inconvenient empirical facts. The only sort of people who are even worse empiricists are pure mathematicians and computer scientists. If you look into it, you will find that the entire “anthropogenic global warming” fiasco, which is based on data fudging plain and simple, has been perpetrated by these three groups of people. Actual empirical earth scientists are far more likely to have a more balanced or outright sceptical view.

    It can’t be otherwise because humans can only describe reality in terms of mathematics.

    You may want to reconsider this. Take a statement like “infectious diseases are caused by viruses, bacteria, or eukaryotic parasites that we can isolate, classify and combat with hygiene, vaccination, and antibiotics.” Can you give it a mathematical form? If so, does that form add any value? If mathematics is so fundamental to human cognition, how come most of us are so poor at it?

    • Replies: @utu
  203. Rurik says:
    @utu

    you know there are few things so obnoxious as misquoting someone.

    so you sat there are created those idiotic questions for the specific purpose of quoting me as having wrote them.

    do you realize how that shreds any scintilla of credibility you ever had as someone who participates in a forum like this in good faith?

    what kind of asshole twists another person’s words into gibberish, and then attributes them as actual quotes?

    Wow

  204. utu says:

    Rurik, I wrote about Victor Hugo fyi only. It was a mistake. I forgot that you are a nut. Did you take ‘pretentious intelligentsia’ personally? Why, because you think you are intelligentsia? What gave you this crazy idea?

    • Replies: @Rurik
  205. Rurik says:
    @utu

    and further…

    the reason I simply ‘agreed’ with the (excellent commenter) Mike P, is because these long comments on philosophy (and your tortured attempts at sounding intelligent) are a distraction to this excellent article.

    It can’t be otherwise because humans can only describe reality in terms of mathematics. The fact that new empirical fact may question the exiting theory is really banal. …

    talk about banal !

    Which theory is minimal that is consistent with all known empirical data? Mathematicians are aware of it and that’s why they deal with the issues of incompleteness , consistency and decidability. There is much less of such self-awareness in other fields. Do Darwinists ponder what is undecidable in their theory? Furthermore in its semantic formulation…

    blah, blah, blah

    ‘see everybody, I’m smaart!

    not like everybody says! Like dumb! I’m smaart and I want respect!

    Poincare observed that Lorentz transforms are an algebraic group. Conversely if we assume the requirement of having an algebraic group we get Lorentz transforms which imply the invariance of some constant c.

    if you only knew how stupid people sound when they’re sooo desperate to be considered smaart

  206. Rurik says:
    @utu

    you think you are intelligentsia? What gave you this crazy idea?

    unlike you, I couldn’t give a flying fuck about being considered a member of some vaunted ‘intelligentsia’. Which are generally nothing but court whores to the popular narrative du jour.

    I suspect George Will considers himself a member in good standing. Kruggy too.

    nor am I worried, (unlike some others ; ) about being considered smaart

    • Replies: @Anon
  207. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rurik

    about being considered smaart

    It does not matter what you are considered. If you read more carefully you will find you have been acting in reaction to insults not given.

    There was an actual insult given (“nut”) but I suspect you would see that as a compliment.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  208. Sam Shama says:
    @Ron Unz

    [but I’d have to spend reading through many of his TNR and Colliers columns to check that.]

    Actually, that’d be quite an interesting exercise. I’ll do some nosing around on my end into the older economic literature as well. Since all Labor dept and GDP numbers are subject to revisions (always have been), that 1948 paper was certainly subject to a few…….

  209. utu says:
    @bj

    Russel’s own words might be enough to condemn him. Do we need bring up the kooky Lyndon LaRouche and his sycophantic dogmatic doctrinaires?

  210. Rurik says:
    @Anon

    There was an actual insult given (“nut”) but I suspect you would see that as a compliment.

    there’s a history there

    one on the most mean-spirited, gratuitous, personal attacks I’ve ever absorbed participating here at Unz- lo these many years, came from that particular person.

    So when I saw my ‘quote’ misquoted, I (I suspect) understandably took it for a jab.

    And when I get gratuitously jabbed, I tent to reciprocate and escalate.

    There is often times a lot of vituperation here, and that’s part of the fun, but if utu meant no harm or foul, then I’d happily take back all my (perhaps hasty) contention.

    Rurik ~ the penitent

    • Replies: @utu
    , @Anon
  211. utu says:
    @Mike P

    If mathematics is so fundamental to human cognition, how come most of us are so poor at it?

    Actually people might be less bad in mathematics than they are in their ability to express themselves in their native language. We are just more tolerant of people speaking and writing badly. When people say they are bad in math it is just coquetry that suppose to mean that they are good at something else like writing which usually is not true.

    When you search for food or run for your life lots of computations are happening in your brain related with geometry, distances, optima trajectories of which you are not that aware but they are much more sophisticated than most linguistic statements you can make. So we are mathematical creatures also in this sense.

    “infectious diseases are caused by viruses, bacteria, or eukaryotic parasites that we can isolate, classify and combat with hygiene, vaccination, and antibiotics.”

    This is just a synopsis. A description of what people think and how they act in a particular situation. Many more statements and clarifications would be needed to make a science of it. There is not much predictive possibilities here. No criteria. You could read a shoeshine instructions where you combat the dirt on your shoes and think this is a science as well by this standard. But if you decided to test the simplest statement there like “viruses cause infectious diseases” you would pretty soon discover that you end up with bunch mathematical statements and procedures because verification of this statement must be quantitative. Then you get to probabilities and so on. Then you realize that the statement “viruses cause infectious diseases” when unqualified is unscientific or simply empty. And you have to qualify it with quantitative statements. So you realize that to make scientific statements it must be mathematical.

    my empirical observation is that physicists are bad empiricists

    In some sense it is true because they validate theories using controlled experiments which result in very low errors and high correlations. In medical science they get correlation 0.15 and get excited while in physics they prefer to work close to 0.9999 correlations. They have to because they are testing fundamental theories. But if some physics come up with a method to predict how a drop of water is sliding on the window this is no loner a fundament issue but a derivative one so it requires less scrutiny and accuracy. Other sciences do not have fundamental issues. They are dealing with droplets sliding on the windows or rats doing this or that or viruses infecting or not infecting. They do not know how to reduce it more fundamental issues.

    The only sort of people who are even worse empiricists are pure mathematicians and computer scientists. If you look into it, you will find that the entire “anthropogenic global warming” fiasco, which is based on data fudging plain and simple, has been perpetrated by these three groups of people.

    This is not entirely true. I am sure there is some fudging here and there and there is a group think phenomenon but the fundamental physics about spectroscopy and thermodynamics is correct. Because of the fact that data are global it is beyond any individual to pose a serious challenge to this institutional endeavor of global warming. But because it is a hard science eventually the truth will be revealed. No single empiricist in this is of much use because they act and think only locally but now in the satellite age with global remote sensing the empiricists are global except they are no longer just empiricists. Lots of theory goes to these measurements.

    • Replies: @Mike P
  212. utu says:
    @Rurik

    fyi, Victor Hugo anecdote was in good faith, no harm was meant or intended. I find the anecdote funny so I wanted to share. You were kind of saying a similar thing that besides the lofty questions philosophy should deal with practical issue so I thought the anecdote was very apropos. No need for reply.

  213. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rurik

    one on the most mean-spirited, gratuitous, personal attacks I’ve ever absorbed participating here at Unz- lo these many years, came from that particular person.

    OK, sorry, I didn’t know.

    Utu sometimes accuses people of being paid stooges, not quite at random but pretty nearly so; I don’t know if that’s what you mean or something else, but maybe I should drop the matter.

    Anyway he didn’t come across to me as insulting here, for whatever that’s worth; thanks for the polite response.

    At any rate I like to have something topical in my comments, so I will say I was really quite surprised considering the allegations of corruption against Roosevelt, considering the wealth he had to start out with. I had always pegged him as an unscrupulous seeker after power, but I did not suspect after money too. However, as far as I can tell the things Flynn accuses Roosevelt of weren’t even kept secret at the time.

  214. Mike P says:
    @utu

    When you search for food or run for your life lots of computations are happening in your brain related with geometry, distances, optima trajectories of which you are not that aware but they are much more sophisticated than most linguistic statements you can make. So we are mathematical creatures also in this sense.

    That also goes for honey bees. We were talking about human conscious cognition, however.

    This is just a synopsis.

    OK. Look at this original paper on the discovery of the cause of anthrax, and report back once you have translated it into mathematical language. Also don’t forget to point out what insight is gained by such translation.

    Other sciences do not have fundamental issues. They are dealing with droplets sliding on the windows or rats doing this or that or viruses infecting or not infecting. They do not know how to reduce it more fundamental issues.

    Yes. My point is that this kind of science is valid and useful nevertheless. I have met quite a few excellent scientists who had no talent or inclination at all for using mathematical methods but were superb at asking the right questions and finding ingenious ways of answering them.

    I am sure there is some fudging here and there … But because it is a hard science eventually the truth will be revealed.

    It will eventually be revealed, but mostly not by those who got paid to do the science; instead, it is driven by unpaid outsiders like Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre. I recently noticed that Steve has now also ventured into debunking the Skripal and Gouta hoaxes. And BTW he is a mathematician by training, but nevertheless a superb empiricist who scrutinises the evidence relentlessly.

  215. Biff says:
    @Eagle Eye

    Mark Zuckface and the Google cabal were enthusiastic early adopters of “fake news” as a pretext for censorship. It’s almost as if they secretly agreed beforehand on this collusive operation to shut out real news.

    I wouldn’t doubt that for a second.

  216. @Eagle Eye

    Where do you get the “syphilitic” for his mother. His father almost certainly but his mother???? She was not apparently a good or affectionate mother though pulled a few strings to help Winston in his very early career.

    Anyway what is the point of what you say about her? Is there any point at all or is it just intended to tell us something about you?

  217. @bj

    “Lord Bertrand Russell is the culmination of enlightenment thinking.”

    Agree and I don”t share his vision of a godless world. Although Russel died in in 1970, he was essentially a man of XIX. His religion was science and progress. IMHO, he was completely wrong.

    “The godless elites rule a scientific dictatorship without regard for the sanctity of human life. The man was a psychopath, not a pacifist!”

    It’s just your opinion which is incompatible with his record. The man did more to get the world rid of nuclear weapons than any other intellectual I know of. Very few people today, even in Great Britain, know CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament), but believe me, it was really a very important organization in 50′s and 60′s. Yes, it was infiltrated by MI6 and CIA etc…but they did try to do something about nuclear weapons. CND is Russel’s legacy more important for me (and the world, I believe) than his ” Principia Mathematica”.

    Of course today, people don’t care about Nuclear Weapons…They believe that the mafia that govern us are rational beings and they will never use them. I”m not so sure.

    Take the example of that guy who NYT called ” arguably the most important intellectual alive.”

    What is the most serious problem facing humanity according to “the most important intellectual alive ?”

    Well, according to Noam Chomsky, who fancies himself as being the successor of Bertrand Russel, it’s the global warming.

    If you are not blind, you should know by now that NC is a buffoon.

    Still, if you believe as I do that world should abolish nuclear weapons and one should be always against war – the supreme crime, than you can understand why Bertrand Russel is important.

    “He was devoid of empathy”.
    Agree. He was probably a nasty piece of work. Ray Monk’s biography of Russel is called ” The Ghost of Madness”. You got the idea.

    I am not sure but I believe he even destroyed the life of his only son.

    I was probably wrong in calling him a “moral being”.

    But living us in a world where merchants of death are making money selling weapons to kill millions of innocent people, I would probably, to paraphrase, say something positive about the devil if he was against wars.

    “Lord Bertrand Russell is the prophet of the Twentieth Century death cults and their gulags and their slaughter of innocents.”

    You’re being unfair and you are wrong. He was one of the first to be against the “death cults and their gulags”.

    In the 20′s he went to Russia and when he returned to England he wrote about the evil regime. He condemned the “death cults”.

    Can you give me another example of an intellectual of his stature having done the same in the 20′s ?

    Russel might have been a bad man, bad father, bad husband, bad friend but he was anti-war. He was a sincere pacifist.

    Today Russel would have been easily destroyed because he was a racist. He believed blacks were intellectually inferior.

    Again, I would rather walk with a racist that is against war than with a “non racist” like Tony Blair, George Bush or Clinton.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  218. utu says:

    I like Robert Koch. He was my childhood hero as the Microbe Hunters was my first popular science book though at that time I did not know what science was and probably still I am not sure about it. We have started with Einstein’s quote in which he clearly did not mean the science of Robert Koch. Carelessly I extended my conclusion that science must be mathematical w/o really thinking it through. Doing a detective work to find who is stealing the cookies from a jar I did not consider to be in the category of science. But how different is what Koch was doing from the detective work of finding the cookie thief? Was a farmer who discovered that in order to have chicken eggs he had to have a rooster a scientist? Was Columbus a scientist? Yes, they were all scientists. But this is a very rudimentary form of discovery. Mostly observations and establishing some causality with a very low level of abstraction. You are right. On this level of collecting knowledge mathematics is not necessary but as the complexity of the structure of knowledge increases the mathematics will begin to play more significant role.

  219. @Ron Unz

    Coughlin, yes, of Irish origin.
    He was not popular with FDR.
    But I do not remember much specifics about him.
    The Irish, of course were anti British.
    In WWII Britain did not dare to use their navy base Cork, out of fear for sabotage.
    This meant that ships had to be sent to the convoys from S England, some 100 miles further away, exposing the convoys to German submarine danger.

  220. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @bj

    Only a bovine clod could read that paragraph ending “especially other people’s” without detecting the heavily signalled irony.

  221. @Them Guys

    See my other answer.
    Did not know he died a suspicious death, but it does not surprise me much.
    In
    Thomas E. Mahl, ‘Desperate deception, British covert operations in the United States 1939-44’, Dulles, Virginia, 1998
    the author was denied access to the post mortem report on the death of the chairman of the republican convention where pro war Willkie was elected as presidential candidate.
    In war one gets dirty hands, so there is no doubt in my mind that Churchill killed the Polish president in exile Sikorski
    David Irving, ‘Accident – The death of General Sikorsky’, 1979, München (German translation)
    The president already had survived an amazing number of aircraft ‘accidents’.
    Jan Ciechanowski, vormals polnischer Botschafter in den Vereinigten Staaten, ´Vergeblicher Sieg’, Zürich 1948 ( Defeat in Victory, New York, 1947)

  222. @Ron Unz

    In 1933, on request of Frankfurter, Keynes wrote an open letter to FDR, stating that only huge deficits could solve the USA unemployment, but that the political will for such deficits probably just would exist in time of war.
    Flynn therefore accused FDR of causing war for internal political reasons.
    As Frankfurter, the author of LendLease, was one of the main architects of WWII, it puzzled me why F urged Keynes to write such a letter.
    Bruce Allen Murphy, ‘The Brandeis/Frankfurter Connection, The Secret Political Activities of Two Supreme Court Justices’, New York, 1983
    However, it may be that F’s political ideas changed.
    His 1937 diary disappeared from the library where these diaries were.
    My suspicion is that this diary told too much of his war preparations.
    F, in my opinion, never expected Hitler to carry out his threat of ‘ausrotten’ of jews, of 1939 ‘if they again would start a world war’.
    How ausrotten at the time was meant, opinions differ.
    For me it still is likely he meant the Madagaskar plan
    Hans Jansen, ‘Der Madagaskar Plan, Die beabsichtigte Deportation der europäischen Juden nach Madagaskar’, München 1997
    Whatever the case, shortly after the first jews were deported to the camps a jew managed to escape, was smuggled to the USA, where he informed Frankfurter.
    What exactly he said, I do not know.
    In any case, F answered ‘I do not believe one word of what you’re saying’.
    Much later F solved the problem ‘I did not say he lied, I said I did not believe him’.
    F was at the Nüremberg show, seen by many at the time as just jewish revenge.
    The mentioned book about F quotes the chairman of the USA High Court, who called Nüremberg ‘a farce’, and said to F ‘you’re not going there as a judge, but as a jew’.
    The farce can be read about in
    Richard Overy, ‘Interrogations, the Nazi elite in Allied hands, 1945’, London 2001
    The ‘interrogation’ of Von Ribbentrop can be seen as amusing, if it had not caused his death by hanging.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  223. SteveK9 says:

    I stopped reading when I got to the line about how there were 11 million unemployed in 1933 and the same in 1938 … proving the New Deal did not work. It’s rather famously known that Roosevelt reversed the New Deal spending in 1937 (at the urging of advisors) and brought about another recession. Before that unemployment had been cut substantially.

    World War II proved that the problem with the New Deal was not that it was too big, but that it was not big enough. When all restraints on spending were removed, and (literally) everyone was put to work, the Depression ended … and it did not come back, and there was no problem with the debt incurred. One should ponder that. Or, better read something on Modern Monetary Theory.

    • Agree: Wizard of Oz
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  224. Coughlin
    In all three parts of Ickes’ diaries
    Harold L Ickes, ‘The secret diaries of Harold L Ickes, I, The first thousand days’, New York, 1954
    Harold L Ickes, ‘The secret diaries of Harold L Ickes, II, The inside struggle’, New York, 1954
    Harold L Ickes, ‘The secret diaries of Harold L Ickes, III, The lowering clouds’, New York, 1954
    Coughlin is mentioned several times, never in a positive way.

    The first pg 284 285 in I, added by the editor, Jan 30 1935:
    ‘Senate refusing to join the World Court. Press opinion favoured three to one, but opposition by Hearst papers, Cooghlin’s radio speeches and the deep rooted isolationism of the “irreconcilable” Republicans of the Middle West.’

    The last one pg 382 in III, Dec 1 1940:
    ‘The Reverend Dr Maurice S Sheehy had asked for an inteview with me and I saw him on Friday morning. It seemed he had seen my reference to Coughlin in what I had said before the Town Hall Forum in new York…
    He told me what a load Coughlin was to the Catholic Church and … immediate bishop and others .. to keep him under control. Sheely himself has attacked C publicly…
    He believes C is getting his ammunition for his pro-nazi propaganda from Germany and that Germany is also financing him. He would not be surprised C leaving the church…
    He (S) has been trying to persuade the Jewish publishers of big newspapers not to mention him and what I thought of this. … perfectly sound’

    Maybe good to add a few lines of Sunday Dec 14 1941
    ‘ I called Governor Poindexer at Honolulu just before noon on Monday. … Fortunately, two squadrons of our warships had been out on patrol and none of our carriers was hit’

    Fortunately Ickes did not ask where the carriers had been.
    There are two possibilities, the first the most probable: the idea that Pearl Harbour had been provoked deliberately, and that is was indeed chance that made the Japanese just destroy old iron, the second one, improbable in my opinion, that he did not dare write down his suspicion.

    Ickes writes enough nasty things in his diaries, about many persons, including the president, but the idea that the president deliberately provoked Pearl Harbour, with some 2600 casualties, a bridge too far, at the time.
    This why, in my opinion, the Roosevelt Administration did not provoke war.

    What the America First Committee thought is not clear, Lindbergh was called afterr the attack with the words ‘he (FDR) got us (USA) in (the war) through the back door’.
    If this meant deliberate provocation, Lindbergh does not state
    Charles A. Lindbergh, ´The Wartime Journals of Charles A. Lindbergh’, New York, 1970

  225. Sometimes Ron Unz is a complete loon. This is one of those times.

    • Troll: Mike P
  226. @James Brown

    If your and utu’s references to Bertrand Russell spelled his surname correctly it might give weight to the idea thst you could have something worthwhile to say about him.

  227. Another excellent article. Thank you.

  228. @SteveK9

    Larry G. Gerber, ´The Limits of Liberalism, Josephus Daniels, Henry Stimson, Bernard Baruch, Donald Richberg, Felix Frankfurter and the Development of the Modern American Political Economy’, New York, London, 1984
    Would have to check the book, but my memory is that the New Deal was mostly hogwash.
    Peter H. Nicoll, ´Englands Krieg gegen Deutschland, Ursachen, Methoden und Folgen des Zweiten Weltkriegs’, 1963, 2001, Tübingen ( Britain’s Blunder, 1953)
    The only book I know that has a calculation how much WWII made the average USA citizen poorer.
    Government debts are not for free.
    Hjalmar Schacht, ´76 Jahre meines Lebens’, Bad Wörishofen, 1953
    describes how clever use of Keynesian financing, with control of wages, made it possible without inflation to reduce German unemployment in just three years, 1933 to 1936, from six to one million.
    Interesting is that at a White House dinner Schacht was seated next to Morgenthau jr, FDR’s financial expert.
    Schacht did not remember the name, but did remember that he found him extraordinarily stupid.

  229. @Bardon Kaldian

    Maybe the US came out of WW2 smelling like a rose because its Deep State rescued it from the clutches of FDR’s cabal, which had been playing in to Soviet hands from its earliest days, including the US conduct of the war and planning for the post-war order, when it installed Harry Truman as vice presiden rather than FDR’s VP Henry Wallace.

    McCarthy, Nixon, et al focused on Soviet penetration of State, but truth is that under FDR, the Reds were sprinkled all across the top levels of the US government, and focusing on State was a polite way to avoid admitting to a larger problem.

  230. Realist says:

    OT; Ron you should consider featuring Caitlyn Johnstone. She currently has an interesting article that I think your readers would like called: Twelve Tips For Making Sense Of The World

  231. Anonymous[591] • Disclaimer says:
    @jilles dykstra

    [Felix Frankfurter], in my opinion, never expected Hitler to carry out his threat of ‘ausrotten’ of jews, of 1939 ‘if they again would start a world war’.

    Frankfurter was born in Austria in 1882. Hitler was born in Austria in 1889. Frankfurter lived in Austria until he was 12, and must have continued to absorb Austrian bourgeois culture and the German language at home in the U.S.

    Not familiar with Frankfurter specifically, but there is a common phenomenon whereby people who spent their childhood in a country but later emigrate to another culture retain a lifelong, instinctive sense that they “UNDERSTAND” their erstwhile compatriots much better than they do.

    The fallacy, of course, is due to the fact that memories of the old country are from the perspective of a child or youth without the kind of insights that can be gained only through first-hand experience of living and working in the society of adults.

    Frankfurter could well have persuaded himself until it was far too late that he “understood” Hitler on an instinctive human level as one Austrian to another, in a way that WASPs and other Americans could not.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  232. Them Guys says:
    @republic

    Thank you for that info as I was not aware of it. Plus whatever I did read about him was like 20 yrs ago and memory fades at times.

  233. Them Guys says:
    @Ron Unz

    Ron, I Thank You very much! and must say that your website on its own is one of the very best that exist….Yet after I viewed this link to Publications it is even better yet!….I do not know how you could create so much info as this and do it so well…I am not very computers wise, just know how to surf web and do emails basically and that’s with over 20 yrs being online connected too…Oh well we all have our own various specialties I rekon eh….and its sure great your specialty is creating this website.

    I first learned of this unz site from the same guy that owns a website also and which I prior posted his web address to on another article here….his website is.

    Judaism dot com

    a very good info site also.

    Again, Thank you Ron, I love to read, read everything, and do so typically from 8hrs to 18 hrs per day depending how good the info I am reading is. I will definitly be doing reading at the link you provided, and I recommend others here check it out as well. Them Guys

    • Replies: @Them Guys
  234. Them Guys says:
    @Them Guys

    Oopps! Sorry but that Link is at Dot is not dot com

    judaism dot is

  235. @Anonymous

    Read
    H.N. Hirsch, ‘The Enigma of Felix Frankfurter’, New York, 1981
    According to the book F succeeded in turning his wife into a psychiatric patient

  236. Maybe you can then say something “worthwhile ” about the man so we can all learn from your expertise.

  237. @Wade

    Whose interests is this man speaking on behalf of?

    Surely your question is in jest…

  238. @Brewer

    The only difference between war heroes and a war criminals is which side they’re on when the war ends.

  239. @Eagle Eye

    Truman would have certainly played a significant role in hosting Winston Churchill’s visit to Fulton, Missouri in 1946 where he made his famous Iron Curtain Speech marking the official start of the Cold War, which was a fake war invented by the same people and for the same reasons as the War on Terror. This shit has been going on for a long time.

    https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/churchill-delivers-iron-curtain-speech

  240. utu says:
    @Anonymous

    ATLANTA JEWISH NEWSPAPER CALLS FOR OBAMA ASSASSINATION (JANUARY 22, 2012)

    https://www.jpost.com/International/Atlanta-Jewish-newspaper-calls-for-Obama-assassination

    Atlanta Jewish Times’ owner apologizes for column suggesting Netanyahu deploy Mossad agents to assassinate US president.

  241. For decades, Phil Donahue had pioneered the daytime television talk show, and in 2002 he revived it to high ratings on MSNBC, but in early 2003 his show was canceled,

    What first got Donahue on the Jew’s shit list was his 1994 airing of the holocaust denial series in which guest like David Cole proved, without a doubt, that the alleged holocaust never occurred. His later opposition to the Jew’s Iraq war was the last straw. While pundits on the left and right are free to discuss the strategy of contrived wars, questioning the morals is strictly forbidden.

  242. @Israel Shamir

    ‘…Naturally the Brits wanted the US to enter the war after Dunkirk, and the Russians also wished that after June 1941, but who pushed for war in 1938-1939?’

    Hitler.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    , @JackOH
    , @fnn
  243. @Colin Wright

    Simon Newman, ´March 1939, The British guarantee to Poland, A study in the continuity of British Foreign Policy’, 1976, Oxford
    Lawrence R. Pratt, ‘East of Malta, West of Suez’, London, 1975
    Comte Jean Szembek, Ancien sous-secrétaire d’État aux Affaires étrangères de Pologne, ‘Journal, 1933 – 1939’, Paris 1952
    A J P Taylor, ‘The Origins of the Second World War’, 1961, 1967, Londen
    Charles A. Beard, ‘President Roosevelt and the coming of the war 1941, A study in appearances and realities’, New Haven, 1948

  244. JackOH says:
    @Colin Wright

    Colin, yep.

    Does anyone know of any evidence that Germany’s diplomatic corps or civic leadership, such as businessmen, presented any non-war alternative to resolving Germany’s demands on Poland in 1939? For example, straightforward diplomatic pressure and economic incentives?

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  245. fnn says:
    @Colin Wright

    FDR relentlessly pushed for war in 1939:

    http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2012/05/poland-as-pawn-hoover-identifies.html

    Hoover would document his conversations with the various people he met with. An example is provided of Hoover’s meeting with Kennedy on May 15, 1945. Kennedy indicated he had over 900 dispatches which he could not print without consent of the U.S. Government. He hoped one day to receive such permission as it was Kennedy’s intention to write a book that would:

    …put an entirely different color on the process of how America got into the war and would prove the betrayal of the American people by Franklin D, Roosevelt.

    …Roosevelt and Bullitt were the major factors in the British making their guarantees to Poland and becoming involved in the war. Kennedy said that Bullitt, under instructions from Roosevelt, was constantly urging the Poles not to make terms with the Germans and that he Kennedy, under instructions from Roosevelt, was constantly urging the British to make guarantees to the Poles.

    He said that after Chamberlain had given these guarantees, Chamberlain told him (Kennedy) that he hoped the Americans and the Jews would now be satisfied but that he (Chamberlain) felt that he had signed the doom of civilization.

    Kennedy said that if it had not been for Roosevelt the British would not have made this most gigantic blunder in history.

    Kennedy told me that he thought Roosevelt was in communication with Churchill, who was the leader of the opposition to Chamberlain, before Chamberlain was thrown out of office….

    James Forrestal, Under Secretary of the Navy, documented in his diaries a substantially similar conversation with Kennedy.

    Noted mainstream liberal Jewish Zionist historian:

    https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R1G7H48SQQAXD8/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1557780218

    For three quarters of a century, scholars have debated President Roosevelt’s role in bringing the United States into World War II. But this book goes far beyond that question: It argues that FDR was the mastermind behind the very war itself. From late 1938, Robert Herzstein writes, Roosevelt’s agents in Europe were busy at work agitating for a total European war to destroy Germany: They incited Poland and Germany against each other, and at the same time more or less bullied Britain and France into supporting Poland. At the same time, the President set up a virtual police state at home, using the HUAC, the FBI, and other government agencies to spy on, harass, and ultimately annihilate the domestic opposition.

    These are startling claims, to say the least, which challenge the fundamental assumptions of most historical writings on World War II. As summarized above, they sound as though they might even be dismissed as kooky conspiracy theories. But the author who makes them is no marginal figure. Robert E. Herzstein, Professor of History at the University of South Carolina and former consultant to the Jewish World Council and the US Department of Justice, has previously written several other acclaimed books on the Interwar-World War II period, including “The War That Hitler Won” (1978, on propaganda) and “When Nazi Dreams Come True” (1982, on Nazi designs for European integration). Most famously, he authored the best-selling “Waldheim: The Missing Years” (1988), which was glowingly reviewed by Simon Wiesenthal (among others) for exposing the Austrian President’s past in the German Wehrmacht. Herzstein is without doubt a respected authority on the subject, and thus we must take him seriously and consider his arguments with care.

    http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2013/06/world-war-two-view-from-different-eyes.html

    …it is quite clear that the US, Great Britain, and France did, in fact, push Poland into war and did cause Poland to not negotiate with Hitler and Germany, for example from “Freedom Betrayed,” by Herbert Hoover:

    Further American activities were disclosed after the Germans had invaded Poland in September 1939 and seized the Polish Foreign Office records. The Germans released a mass of documents which certainly indicated that the American Ambassador to France, William C. Bullitt, who could only act on Mr. Roosevelt’s authority, had made a profusion of oral assurances to officials of Poland and France which they could only interpret as a promise of assistance of some kind of force from the United States.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    , @conatus
  246. @fnn

    All these things I explained here, mentioning the sources.

  247. @JackOH

    A. von Ribbentrop, ´Deutsch-Englische Geheimverbindungen, Britische Dokumente der Jahre 1938 und 1939 im Lichte des Kriegsschuldfrage’, Tübingen 1967
    Leonard Mosley, ‘The Reich Marshall, A Biography of Hermann Goering’, London 1974
    Simon Newman, ´March 1939, The British guarantee to Poland, A study in the continuity of British Foreign Policy’, 1976, Oxford
    Poland wanted war:
    Comte Jean Szembek, Ancien sous-secrétaire d’État aux Affaires étrangères de Pologne, ‘Journal, 1933 – 1939’, Paris 1952

    • Replies: @Anon
  248. Anon[156] • Disclaimer says: • Website

    Great article … but … on reflection … it only really goes part way – it discuses the media disappearance of persons who were once prominent in govt. or the media, and this is straight out of Orwell’s ’1984′ and is surely what’s happening.

    But the article doesn’t discuss the disappearance of those who were disappeared before they ever appeared, i.e., became prominent.

    And who is not allowed any voice at all in the US media or govt.? The answer: non-Zionists. That is, no one who thinks Israel doesn’t ‘have the right go to exist’ is or can be heard in the US govt. or media. The Orwellian state has successfully suppressed the ideas of non-Zionists with resorting to force.

    However, as per Orwell, when the state cannot suppress deviant ideas by control of information and propaganda alone it does resort to force and hunts down and locks up the thought criminal.

    Who is being hunted down and locked up today? In the US no one, the 1st Amendment as thus far protected us, but in Europe and Russia denying the Holocaust will get you locked up. Why is the holocaust hoax so important? Three quotes sum it up:

    Charles Krauthammer – “The Holocaust and Jewish identity it has become increasingly common for American Jews to locate their identity in the Holocaust.”

    Bernard Postal, editor of Jewish Week – “Not until the Holocaust, did anti-Semitism become taboo. There was a time when anti-Semitic speeches were an open factor in national (political) campaigns. The Holocaust puts a taboo on overt anti-Semitism among upper-level statesmen and publicists.”

    Nahum Goldmann, president of the World Jewish Congress – “Without Auschwitz there would be no Israel”

    Unless the holocaust hoax is exposed nothing can loosen the stranglehold the Zionists have on the US. Until that happens not only can the Zionists not be defeated or overcome, they can’t even be confronted.

    Here is what Chomsky about the limits of speech – “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum – even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.”

    The article as it stands doesn’t go beyond the limits imposed by ‘The Party’, that’s it’s problem.

  249. Liza says:
    @Godfree Roberts

    That was an interesting quote, to say the least.

    I can’t just “agree” with you because I don’t have 10 comments/30 days yet. Hope that the moderator will put this through and one fine day I’ll be accepted around here, able to agree the easy way. :)

  250. Glad you like the quote.

    I contribute articles and comments but I’ve never been able to ‘agree’ either. That feature needs tweaking.

  251. Anon[156] • Disclaimer says:
    @jilles dykstra

    Your references are, as usual, all misleading. These are the ones you should read:

    Hergé, Cigars of the Pharoah, Little Brown 1975

    Hergé, The Blue Lotus (The Adventures of Tintin), 1984

    Amanda Boulter and Leo Hartas, Mindfulness for Vikings: Inspirational quotes and pictures encouraging a happy stress-free life for adults and kids (A Little Moose and Wolfie Book Book 1)Nov 14, 2017

    Rene Goscinny & Uderzo, Le Livre d’or l’anniversaire d’Asterix et Obelix , Hachette 2005

    Most of all, this one you’ll find, to be right after your heart:

    M.D. Whalen, The Fantastic Flatulent Fart Brothers’ Big Book of Farty Facts: An Illustrated Guide to the Science, History, and Art of Farting, 2017

  252. fnn says:

    Hergé, The Blue Lotus (The Adventures of Tintin), 1984

    Tintin was exposed as a racist decades ago.

    Rene Goscinny & Uderzo, Le Livre d’or l’anniversaire d’Asterix et Obelix , Hachette 2005

    I’m pretty sure Asterix and Obelix are Celtic-Germanic pagan proto-anti-semites, Just today I saw a big feature story on a MMA site warning about the purported threat of non-multiculturalist pagan MMA fighters in Europe doing their own thing. I was thinking they’re not likely a big threat since they have to operate underground to evade the state security forces-at least in Germany. Don’t they know about Fight Club in Germany?

  253. @Bill TotenWeiss

    FDR interfering in European politics to encourage the British and Poles to adopt the most inflexible position possible to practically guarantee a general European war he intended to embroil America in is admirable?

    Without the British war guarantee to Poland, the Poles would’ve likely surrendered Danzig and agreed to a plebiscite in the corridor. The French were less enthused, commonly saying “Do you want to die for Danzig?”. But they went along with it for the sake of the Entente Cordial. Didn’t work out too well for them, did it?

    Of course the H-man didn’t help matters by escalating his demands to include all pre-1914 German territory in Poland after being particularly impressed with experimental Luftwaffe weapons.

    This is now “controversial” despite being well supported by primary documents from the time owing cartoon villain characterization of the Nazis.

    FDR “succeeded”. Thanks to him we now have a vast, unaccountable military-industrial complex and deep state which killed 100,000 more Americans in postwar wars (and 400,000 during that unnecessary war) and continually foments trouble all over the world. American troops have been occupying Europe, Japan, and Korea now for generations.

    That might be nice if we got something out of it, but we’re a cuck empire that transfers resources to our vassals.

    Then there were the unexpected consequences like selling half of Europe into Soviet slavery and the weird entrenchment of anti-racism as state theology.

    And then there’s FDR’s disastrous domestic legacy, permanently entrenching big government and abandoning trade protectionism.

    FDR is the greatest monster in America history and the founding father of our current disastrous state, and I made a point of urinating in his crappy memorial the last time I had the distinct misfortune of visting the imperial capital.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Thorfinnsson
  254. @Israel Shamir

    Franklin Roosevelt, who was surrounded and totally controlled by Jewish advisors (a large majority of whom were avowed Marxist) pushed for war with Germany from the 1st day of his presidency. It just so happened that Japan, an ally of Germany served as a convenient, less sophisticated enemy maneuver into the Pearl Harbor trap set for them.

  255. Anonymous[308] • Disclaimer says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    What would have kept Germany from continuing to demand more?

  256. @Thorfinnsson

    Demand more from whom is the question?

    Obviously a conflict was brewing between Germany and the USSR.

    Why get involved at all?

    Especially America which is not even in Europe, but even the UK.

    Could’ve acquiesced to redrawing the map in Eastern Europe while continuing to re-arm.

  257. Anonymous[421] • Disclaimer says:

    Bertrand Russell advocating nuclear war with Russia when the Russians were too weak to retaliate, and then advocating pacifism when they no longer were, is a good example of logic divorced from ethics. It’s the kind of policy a thinking machine would come up with.

  258. Bukowski says:

    With the recent meeting of Trump and Kim it should be noted that Roosevelt and his support of Stalin are responsible for there being a North Korea in the first place. During WW2 Korea was a Japanese protectorate and there was talk after the conflict of an independent Korea that once stabilised would have general elections. But Roosevelt abandoned that idea and agreed to the north of the country being given to Stalin who set up a communist dictatorship. That was in 1945 and just 5 years later Americans were fighting and dying over there because of Roosevelt’s perfidy -

    https://jamesperloff.com/2014/03/29/the-korean-war-another-conflict-that-served-the-illuminati-agenda/

    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7486

  259. KA says:
    @Patricus

    That also has my question for a longtime.

  260. conatus says:
    @fnn

    Herbert Hoover p. 818 in his long history of the Second World War ‘Freedom Betrayed’
    said Kennedy, the Ambassador to Great Britain, told Hoover that FDR lobbied incessantly for Britain to give a war guarantee to Poland, thus steeling the Polish resolve and causing Britain to be drawn into a war that would lose its Empire.

    “Kennedy said that after the Germans had occupied Prague and the great cry of appeasement had sprung up in the world and after the Germans had pressed their demands for Danzig and an passage through the Corridor, that Roosevelt and Bullitt were the major factors in the British making their guarantees to Poland and becoming involved in the war. Kennedy said that Bullitt, under instructions from Roosevelt, was constantly urging the Poles not to make terms with the Germans and that he Kennedy, under instructions from Roosevelt, was constantly urging the British to make guarantees to the Poles. Kennedy said he had received a cable from Roosevelt to “put a poker up Chamberlain’s back and make him stand up.” Kennedy saw Chamberlain on numerous occasions, urging him in Roosevelt’s name to do all this with the implication that the United States would give the British support. He said that after Chamberlain had given these guarantees, Chamberlain told him(Kennedy) that he hoped the Americans and the Jews would now be satisfied but that he(Chamberlain) felt that he had signed the doom of civilization.

  261. @Pat Pappano

    Office of Naval Intelligence Lt. Commander Arthur McCollum’s October 7, 1940 memo to two of FDR’s closest advisors outlining 8 recommended steps for the FDR administration to get ready for war has been called “the smoking gun” of Pearl Harbor.

    It is well worth reading in full. Contrary to Wikipedia’s claims, it is inconceivable that FDR never saw it.
    Why?
    Because FDR then enacted ALL EIGHT RECOMMENDATIONS!

    McCollum’s last two sentences:
    “10. If by these means Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better. At all events we must be fully prepared to accept the threat of war.”

    Ron Unz, this formerly TOP SECRET memo was declassified in 1995. Please link it to your article.

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/McCollum/index.html

  262. Perhaps there is more point than I thought to this line that ends Cole Porter’s song Anything Goes:
    “When Missus R with all her trimmins can broadcast a bed from Simmons, Franklin knows: anything goes!” (Porter changed the lyrics around so the first version you check may not have the line.)

  263. Kali says:

    Dear Mr Unz, I recently stumbled across a book, The Controvercy of Zion, by British journalist and author, Doulas Reed. This book represents an entire history of Juahism from its inception right up until the creation of the State of ‘Israel’ in 1948. Reed wes a correspondant for The Times of London stationed in Berlin at the time when Hitler came to power and, seeing that his editors were deliberately keeping their readers in the dark regarding the social and political climate in Germany at that time, he eventually undertook to discover why that was so. The primery focus of the book, written between 1953-56 and potumously published in 1978 (two years after his death) is the rise of political Zionism and its effects on the British and American administrations before, during and in between both world wars.
    Naturally it goes into some detail regarding the FDR presidency (amongst others) and the Prime Ministership of Churchill.
    It can be found on archive.org and downloaded for free.
    It’s a long but very worthwhile read which answers many questions with regard to the history of the twentyth century and the cause of both world wars.
    I hope you and your readers find it as eye opening as myself and my husband have.

    On another note, this website and your writing is very new to me (I came across an article writen by you just a few weeks ago and followed the source link here). I have to say I’m very much appreciating your work, your research and your candor, as well as your massive reference library. Thank you.
    Kind regards, Kali Prajita.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ron Unz Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.
Talk TV sensationalists and axe-grinding ideologues have fallen for a myth of immigrant lawlessness.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?