Debunked: "A conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists" (Hoover)

I wonder why that HAS to be a conspiracy, however. You really wouldn't put plumbers on that board, or would you? You put the EXPERTS there and the fact that many of them work for the government is not a surprise.

That is the problem with those that see a conspiracy under every rock, they see conspiracies in things that are just common sense to those that don't share their 'interest'.

Reading between the lines or imagining between the lines?
 
You put the EXPERTS there and the fact that many of them work for the government is not a surprise.
The problem is that the 'experts' of modern economics are practicing a fiction, not a science. The modern economic models are set in a fictional world where all resources are infinite, perpetual growth is sustainable, and environmental factors are non-existent. Under the guise of being an accurate science, this fantasy-doctrine now has an inordinate level of power over all of America's, and really the world's financial policies and institutions, with the federal reserve as its backbone. There's even a religious element to this doctrine, the 'invisible hand of the market', the mythic 'force' of capitalism which makes all free business inherently good business. This belief system, and it truly is nothing more than a belief system, now pervades over most all aspects of economic education, students of finance and business taught to believe in this fictional world and it's doctrines. All the while it becomes increasingly obvious to everyone else that the worlds resources are not infinite, environmental factors are very real and exceedingly important, and perpetual growth in a limited system is just asking for disaster.
 
The problem is that the 'experts' of modern economics are practicing a fiction, not a science. The modern economic models are set in a fictional world where all resources are infinite, perpetual growth is sustainable, and environmental factors are non-existent. Under the guise of being an accurate science, this fantasy-doctrine now has an inordinate level of power over all of America's, and really the world's financial policies and institutions, with the federal reserve as its backbone. There's even a religious element to this doctrine, the 'invisible hand of the market', the mythic 'force' of capitalism which makes all free business inherently good business. This belief system, and it truly is nothing more than a belief system, now pervades over most all aspects of economic education, students of finance and business taught to believe in this fictional world and it's doctrines. All the while it becomes increasingly obvious to everyone else that the worlds resources are not infinite, environmental factors are very real and exceedingly important, and perpetual growth in a limited system is just asking for disaster.

Economists don't actually believe in a magic "invisible hand", it's an emergent behavior of a complex system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

It obviously exists, but its actual quality is debatable.
 
Watergate is a good example of a conspiracy. It never involved more that what a couple of dozen folks? SMALL is the word, limited in scope.

The world's resources may be limited, but that is NOT all there is available.

Are you really suggesting that the Third world be told, SORRY you're out of luck, you will continue to live in poverty?

While there are many trappings of our 'way of life' that I think are foolish, like McMansions that a couple live in, I do feel that we are beginning to see a turnaround of those excesses.

I guess one of the things that is a big difference between me and most C. T.s is that I believe in the goodness and intelligence of mankind. Of course there are selfish folks and even folks that are sociopaths/psychopaths out there, but in the end the majority are NOT
 
The problem is that the 'experts' of modern economics are practicing a fiction, not a science. The modern economic models are set in a fictional world where all resources are infinite, perpetual growth is sustainable, and environmental factors are non-existent. Under the guise of being an accurate science, this fantasy-doctrine now has an inordinate level of power over all of America's, and really the world's financial policies and institutions, with the federal reserve as its backbone. There's even a religious element to this doctrine, the 'invisible hand of the market', the mythic 'force' of capitalism which makes all free business inherently good business. This belief system, and it truly is nothing more than a belief system, now pervades over most all aspects of economic education, students of finance and business taught to believe in this fictional world and it's doctrines. All the while it becomes increasingly obvious to everyone else that the worlds resources are not infinite, environmental factors are very real and exceedingly important, and perpetual growth in a limited system is just asking for disaster.
My wife's thesis thirty years ago. Time passes. It's just as true now. I wholeheartedly agree. Maybe human nature is immutable.

Mick said:
Economists don't actually believe in a magic "invisible hand", it's an emergent behavior of a complex system.
I also agree with this. Thirty years ago "emergence" was far more abstract a word for me. The irritating thing about emergent properties is their revolutionary attributes: they cannot be defined except in their own terms, and for that definition, interpreters will compete. It's political.
 
Economists don't actually believe in a magic "invisible hand", it's an emergent behavior of a complex system.
Is the current financial system not the modern 'magic'? A cryptic force almost entirely beyond the understanding of all but those few who devote their lives to its mysteries? Has the stock market and modern banking in general not taken on a distinctly 'alchemical' quality, in which one man's stone can be turned to gold, sold, then turned to stone again? Are the financial gurus of our time, the Bernanke's and the Paulson's and all those like them, not afforded all the powers of high priests, their advise shaping and redefining nations? If the system has its basis in a fictional premise, is it such a stretch to call that system a religious doctrine? A heavily mathematic philosophy instead of a science?

Are you really suggesting that the Third world be told, SORRY you're out of luck, you will continue to live in poverty?
I don't understand this comment. Who's suggesting that? What good do you surmise the gestation and development of the modern financial system has done for the Third World...?

While there are many trappings of our 'way of life' that I think are foolish, like McMansions that a couple live in, I do feel that we are beginning to see a turnaround of those excesses.
Perhaps, as they become less financially viable in the west for the common person. Personal excess is a bit of an aside though.

The world's resources may be limited, but that is NOT all there is available.
Look, I like Star Trek as much as the next nerd... in fact, TNG was one of my favorite programs as a tyke, and for a while, until I became wiser, I believed the 'Prime Directive', that strict policy of rightness and respect to which star-fleet had to adhere, was the actual policy of our times. That being said, I know better now. I'm also of the opinion we're not going be traveling the stars or terraforming Mars any time soon. And by any time soon I mean ever. Maybe I'm wrong, and if you believe otherwise I commend you for your faith in your dreams... maybe I've just gotten too cynical in that respect.

I guess one of the things that is a big difference between me and most C. T.s is that I believe in the goodness and intelligence of mankind. Of course there are selfish folks and even folks that are sociopaths/psychopaths out there, but in the end the majority are NOT
See, you're dead wrong here. I strongly believe that for the most part people are inherently good and decent, even many of those who've done questionable things. I'm also frequently in awe of the brilliance often and readily apparent in the world, especially in the scope of artistic expression. The thing is, though the majority of people likely are good and decent, the sociopaths and the psychopaths are the ones with the twisted desire and ruthless drive to rise above and subjugate others, or endlessly better their own positon with no regard for the effect on others doing so may have. Positions of power over others attract these sorts of people, and as much as the average person may shake their head in dismay to see it, the popular media, in the pockets of more sociopaths, often openly idolizes them for it.
 
Are you really suggesting that the Third world be told, SORRY you're out of luck, you will continue to live in poverty?
The difference between poverty and comfort is depressingly small, considering we don't seem to make that last inch. Is that too socialist? :confused:
 
Is the current financial system not the modern 'magic'? A cryptic force almost entirely beyond the understanding of all but those few who devote their lives to its mysteries? Has the stock market and modern banking in general not taken on a distinctly 'alchemical' quality, in which one man's stone can be turned to gold, sold, then turned to stone again? Are the financial gurus of our time, the Bernanke's and the Paulson's and all those like them, not afforded all the powers of high priests, their advise shaping and redefining nations? If the system has its basis in a fictional premise, is it such a stretch to call that system a religious doctrine? A heavily mathematic philosophy instead of a science?

What are its articles of faith?
 
One thing that folks need to realize is that as we develop labor saving devices, we often change the job. Washing hair is a good example. When I was a child, NO ONE washed their hair daily. Hair was washed once every week or two (maybe longer in cold weather). Hair dryers were in homes they were only in beauty shops (Washing hair that often was a fairly recent development--indoor plumbing and hot water heaters started it) . Hair dryers allowed folks to wash their hair daily. When you wash that often, you have to condition it--and the hair care companies were ready with a new product.

We would have more money, and the environment would be happier, if we went back on once a week hair shampooing.
 
Ladies and Gentleman, may I present Gavrilo_Princip, somone debunking conspiracy theories expertly on a conspiracy based website.
"I too have come from.... blah blah" This is called "Bonding" kids.. - this chap has had an identical experience as someone else on this thread and therefore must be taken seriously. Narp.
"I .. blah blah blah.. frustrated..blah blah blah regsiter for the first time..blah blah.." Really mate? So upset were you that you just HAD to register and deliver your answer like a speech from Henry V. Narp
"Can we agree that...blah blah blah, no international world encompassing conspiracy".. the majority on here are saying the opposite, so a poor attempt at getting people onside with you champ. Narp.
3 types of people post this guff:
Paid Schills (a job which definitely exists, ADL, AHS etc..)
Trolls (do we love them or hate them? Youtube suggests we hate them, but love it if it's someone else being trolled)
Bitter douchebags (I think we have a wiener)
Senor Princip - read "The Unseen Hand" if you want a theory that just might broaden your thin view of what is and isn't possible in the world. I'm not saying it's the truth, but it creates a reasonably succint argument that Communism is ENTIRELY a creation of the Elite ruling class. Boy, you need to start asking "Why do these people have these views that are so contrary to mine and am I genuinely interested in pursuing a few different ideas" Your presence here suggests you are interested.
All you need to do now is step away from your current meme and imagine a world unlike the one you think you live in. Use some imagination, then look at the facts of history over the last 200+ years to see if any of these good people have pointed you at information, which doesn't in fact support your "No No NO NO NO conspiracy at the Global level" and gives weight to different possibilities.
Good luck. And get away from whatever is forcing you to argue with strangers without having done the work. Slightly embarassing for you, but all our journeys start somewhere.
 
DEBUNKED? HARDLY

How is a quote that actually appeared in print in the proper time frame under the name of the person it was attributed to be labeled DEBUNKED just because someone says with no proof that it may not have been written by the person it is attributed to without any proof whatsoever?

Further, how does saying it doesnt mean what people think it says constitute debunking. There is no final word in interpretting what a paragraph means or was intended to mean short of the author making the clarification.

IMHO Metabunk.org does itself a disservice by allowing this post declaring the quote in question as debunked from remaining posted.

Those were my thoughts.

Don MAShak
The Cynical Patriot
 
Hi Don,

Debunking a subject does not mean proving the subject is false, it means removing the bunk surrounding a subject.

In this case, I point out right off the bat that the quote is accurate. However what is bunk is that the quote is used to suggest the existence of some NWO conspiracy, when in fact that Hoover is talking about Soviet Communism in the 1950s.
 
As soon as you get into debating what the words mean, there is no last word... Words mean to people what they think or want them to mean. It is clear to me that Hoover was speaking to conspiracy ney, those involvement prefer the term consensus, that transcends arbritrary political designations of communist or capitalist...

To make the point, many Americans think of our politics as Republic vs Democrat. The reality is there are not 2 political parties, there is one ruling class pretending to be 2 political parties...

You need to study more about central bankings to know that straw men are set up to knock down by the ruling class all the time. At the same time, politicalll divisions and theories of government are contrived and/or exist as much to divide and conquer the masses as they do to provide a platform for political debate.

Finally, it is totally legimate to point out that an article that actually appears in print in the correct time frame under the name of the correctly attributed author is not debunked just by saying Hoover may not have written the article without specific evidence that he did not write that article rather than wide ranging hearsay.

Are you really trying to tell me that you dont beleive the American Government does not manage and manipulate its general public to the same extent that communist government's do.... And if you do believe that I would direct your attention to the privately owned Federal REserve bank established in 1913... A private bank that is unconstitutional and is inviolation of the 13th Amendment by virtue of a debt WE THE PEOPLE owe it that can never be fully paid off (involuntary servitude) And just to blow your mind, right now we pay the Private owners of the FED 25 billion dollars per year for return on their original capitalization. Next our money is supposed to be back by specie aka gold/silver etc. BUT WE ARE NOW PRINTING WORTHLESS MONEY. If the Government was acting in accordance with the best interests of WE THE PEOPLE, why would they not print enough worthless money to buy the privately owned FED back so the 25 billion per year would go to our treasury instead of private bankers? Apparently you have not listened to JFK's secret societies speech from 1961, a few days before he was assasinated and just a few years after "Hoovers Individual handicapped by conspiracy so monstous" What the heck do you think JFK was talking about? Communism? IF you think the enemy is is the simple bogey man called communism, you are living in la la land....

None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free... Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe
 
As soon as you get into debating what the words mean, there is no last word... Words mean to people what they think or want them to mean. It is clear to me that Hoover was speaking to conspiracy ney, those involvement prefer the term consensus, that transcends arbritrary political designations of communist or capitalist...


Or you can read the first post in this thread where Mick effectively lays out the debunking.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/33...ous-he-cannot-believe-it-exists-quot-(Hoover)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Don, are you saying that since YOU see his words as referring to conspiracy, that now means that that is WHAT he thought he was referring to?

That is the problem with the READER deciding what the words mean. To get the correct meaning, one either has to ask them (sort of hard when they are deceased) or one looks at the context of the words. The old 'where/ when/ questions. There is nothing in those that you indicate that he was referring to anything other than the way is normally interrupted.
 
Hello everybody.
I'm new here but you will never believe what brought me here!
Song called: ranking studio mix
Artist: Headphone Commute
I was listening to this ~1h song almost everyday and at some point you can hear JFK talking, I was curious who is talking in this song so I have googled his words, that brought me here!
This is one way to spread the word :)
Also, I have been studying history since my Grandpa told me that history books aren't saying the truth. I though at first that JFK was referring to the captured ET craft (Dr Steven Greer info) but after reading through all the posts I can see that it was something bigger. Thanks everybody for opening my eyes.
 
I don't think this quote was 100% about Communism either. Those words also describe something that was going on leading up to the Bay of Pigs. There has been a conspiracy so monstrous going on that most would not believe it exists.

You forget what Hoover did in the 1943, closing Union Bank of NY and freezing it's assets for laundering Nazi money. Then, in June 1960 he writes a memo (Here: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=363807) about Lee Harvey Oswald's birth certificate and an impostor using his birth certificate. If you read the memo, it discusses how "subject's mother" was concerned. Why do you suppose Hoover and the FBI had a special interest in Oswald in June 1960, three years before he (supposedly) did what he did?

See, you forget that J. Edgar Hoover WAS the man who really attempted to get into everyone's business (as many of you probably know). So, while he watched Communism from the outside. He also watched the conspiracy forming from the inside of the country. This interview was made in 1956, two years after Zapata Offshore Company named a new president. Zapata Offshore Company was an offshore oil drilling company that ONLY focused their offshore drilling off the coast of Cuba (Operation Zapata, aka Bay of Pigs).

Hoover was a master at leaving a proper paper trail so anyone with a desire to connect the dots could do so. He might very well be speaking frankly about Communism, but I can almost guarantee if you read his memos and watch this master at work, the conspiracy he is referencing even in this Elk Magazine is MUCH greater than Communism.

Because I still contend that Communism as a whole, has never been a "monstrous conspiracy." But if you really buy that J. Edgar Hoover was as simplistic as referencing Communism as a grand conspiracy more power to you. Based on my own research, I have a new found respect for what Hoover attempted to do for this country, even though he was spying on people left and right.
 
It's not 100% about communism. The "secrecy" mentioned is a reference to state censorship. The speech is about him asking newspapers to self-regulate, otherwise the state will have to, and we don't want that because we are, as a nation, opposed to secrecy, etc.
 
It's not 100% about communism. The "secrecy" mentioned is a reference to state censorship. The speech is about him asking newspapers to self-regulate, otherwise the state will have to, and we don't want that because we are, as a nation, opposed to secrecy, etc.

Mick, you would be surprised because it ties in with the Bay of Pigs and the assassination. Remember, J. Edgar Hoover was keeping tabs on EVERYONE. He knew what even was lurking in the hearts of men, specifically those in the government that were intimately involved with "playing with" Communism at the time (Castro Communism).
 
Mick, you would be surprised because it ties in with the Bay of Pigs and the assassination. Remember, J. Edgar Hoover was keeping tabs on EVERYONE. He knew what even was lurking in the hearts of men, specifically those in the government that were intimately involved with "playing with" Communism at the time (Castro Communism).

Actually I thought we were talking about the JFK speech there, sorry.

Anyway, I see nothing to indicate he was not referring to communism. The word "conspiracy" was quite commonly used to reference communism at the time.

And why wouldn't he have an interest in Oswald? LHO was exactly the type of person the FBI kept tabs on back then.
 
It's truly responsible to attempt to debunk potentially erroneous or unfounded beliefs - which is what attracted me to this discussion.

However I find the result more interesting than expected.

In this case, I point out right off the bat that the quote is accurate. However what is bunk is that the quote is used to suggest the existence of some NWO conspiracy, when in fact that Hoover is talking about Soviet Communism in the 1950s.

Both Lenin and Trotsky had lived in New York and the Bolshevik revolution was financed by Wall Street and principally Rothschild's agents. Adam (Spartacus) Weishaupt - referred to by Winston Churchill - created the illuminati on May 1st 1776 at the request of Rothschild.

"From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States)... this worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the 19th century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire." Winston Churchill 1920​

Weishaupt's six point program:
1) Abolition of the Monarchy and all ordered government. 2) Abolition of private property. 3) Abolition of inheritance. 4) Abolition of patriotism. 5) Abolition of the family, through the abolition of marriage, all morality, and the institution of communal education for children. 6) Abolition of all religion.

After the demise of the original illuminati in 1790, Weishaupt wrote according to David Allen Rivera: “By this plan we shall direct all mankind. In this manner, and by the simplest means, we shall set in motion and in flames. The occupations must be allotted and contrived, that we may in secret, influence all political transactions.” And furthermore: “Princes and nations will disappear without violence from the earth. The human race will then become one family, and the world will be the dwelling of rational men.” Weishaupt´s disciples (i.a. de Mirabeau) made the French masons illuminist – and they ran the French Revolution, according to Rivera.

What I'm very briefly attempting to demonstrate here is that communism has always been a tool of the illuminati and its freemason offshoots. The Rothschild clan still dominates international banking and the corporate world.

Only a few months ago the so called "father of globalism" Peter Sutherland - ex head of the World Trade Organisation - wrote that the creation of the WTO had been the single biggest step towards world government! (He is now head of immigration for the UN representing Europe - and up to his old tricks again there.) Fortunately the WTO was put in its place by major street riots in Seattle - because people do not want un-elected corporate world government. (Were they just imagining this conspiracy? I think not!)

Personally I'm disturbed by the fact that the replacement for the twin towers in NY is to be called the "One World Trade Center" and its height is exactly 1776ft. Sure that was the date of the declaration of independence, so why not call it the American World Trade Center? Notice that I mentioned the 1776 date also before the quote from Churchill - the date the Rothschild illuminati was born. Coincidence perhaps - but when the organisation created on that date has covertly striven for One World totalitarian government since the start then the choice of name is at the very least extremely unfortunate.

“A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the Nation and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the world - no longer a Government of free opinion no longer a Government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men.... Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the U.S., in the field of commerce and manufacturing, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.” –
Woodrow Wilson - In The New Freedom (1913)

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them, will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.” - Thomas Jefferson

“The governments of the present day have to deal not merely with other governments, with emperors, kings and ministers, but also with the secret societies which have everywhere their unscrupulous agents, and can at the last moment upset all the governments' plans."
- British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, 1876

"Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government."
- Henry Kissinger, Bilderberger Conference in Evians, France, 1991

"The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining super capitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control.... Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent."
- Congressman Larry P. McDonald, 1976, killed in the Korean Airlines 747 that was shot down by the Soviets

“Some even believe we (the Rockefeller family) are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
- David Rockefeller, Memoirs, page 405

So - anyway - I think it's quite clear that the attempt at de-bunking here truly backfires. By referring to both communism and hidden conspiracy there is is no contradiction whatsoever with the "existence of some NWO conspiracy" - it's precisely what all those other presidents and statesmen quoted here are talking about. The thing is though - we are just scratching the surface here.
 
Last edited:
It's truly responsible to attempt to debunk potentially erroneous or unfounded beliefs - which is what attracted me to this discussion.

However I find the result more interesting than expected.



Both Lenin and Trotsky had lived in New York and the Bolshevik revolution was financed by Wall Street and principally Rothschild's agents. Adam (Spartacus) Weishaupt - referred to by Winston Churchill - created the illuminati on May 1st 1776 at the request of Rothschild.

"From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States)... this worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the 19th century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire." Winston Churchill 1920​

[...]

You might want to take a gander at the posting guidelines here. Also, can you provide proof of any of your claims? For example, while Wikipedia mentions Trotsky being in New York in 1917 there is no mention of Lenin ever being in New York.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You might want to take a gander at the posting guidelines here. Also, can you provide proof of any of your claims? For example, while Wikipedia mentions Trotsky being in New York in 1917 there is no mention of Lenin ever being in New York.

Sure - Lenin didn't make it to New York - he holed up in Switzerland - my mistake - only a statue of him seems to have made it to New York in a relatively humorous capacity. Changes very little in the overall scheme of things. Of course I can't personally prove even that Trotsky went to New York so your request is unrealistic. Do your own research though - you now have a lot of quotes all from statesmen, presidents and elites that need to be debunked too. I can supply you with hundreds more if you like - all corroborating the same story! Deal with this lot first though. The Lenin issue is my mistake - it's actually a massive subject and this is only one small subset of it so it's easy to tangle things up a bit. I'll try to find the Peter Sutherland article for you for starters - if I can. His latest thing was on the BBC website where he stated that more immigration was needed in Europe to de-homogenize the nation states! In other words, to destroy national identities. All verifiable by your own good self if you make the effort.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sure - Lenin didn't make it to New York - he holed up in Switzerland - my mistake - only a statue of him seems to have made it to New York in a relatively humorous capacity. Changes very little in the overall scheme of things. Of course I can't personally prove even that Trotsky went to New York so your request is unrealistic. Do your own research though - you now have a lot of quotes all from statesmen, presidents and elites that need to be debunked too. I can supply you with hundreds more if you like - all corroborating the same story! Deal with this lot first though. The Lenin issue is my mistake - it's actually a massive subject and this is only one small subset of it so it's easy to tangle things up a bit. I'll try to find the Peter Sutherland article for you for starters - if I can. His latest thing was on the BBC website where he stated that more immigration was needed in Europe to de-homogenize the nation states! In other words, to destroy national identities. All verifiable by your own good self if you make the effort.

Again, read the posting guidelines. Make a claim and support it with evidence. We are not here to do your research for you. For example, five minutes of research and I found this.

Here I was in New York, city of prose and fantasy, of capitalist automatism, its streets a triumph of cubism, its moral philosophy that of the dollar. New York impressed me tremendously because, more than any other city in the world, it is the fullest expression of our modern age.
Content from External Source
 
five minutes of research and I found this.
Here I was in New York, city of prose and fantasy, of capitalist automatism, its streets a triumph of cubism, its moral philosophy that of the dollar. New York impressed me tremendously because, more than any other city in the world, it is the fullest expression of our modern age.
Content from External Source
And it is wonderful writing. Vibrant.
 
Right, because Hoover knew what the international communist conspiracy really was, who was supporting it, and what the ultimate goal was, while the American people didn't. He could try to sit down and explain it to the American people, but they wouldn't believe him. They would be "handicapped" by what he was saying because it was so unbelievably "monstrous". That's what he was really communicating, or trying to communicate, in that quote.

He was probably handicapped by it himself, as are most people who learn about this stuff.

Two videos that should be watched and understood to provide a little context:




Threads like this are fascinating to me. I thought Mick's contextualisation was excellent and pretty much clinched it for me until I read the input from posters such as Juror, Geronimo and Gavrilo_Princip. I learned a lot from that. I had no idea Wall Street was instrumental in establishing Communist Russia and that U.S troops were involved. Excellent videos.

Here is some more on the theme... this from Antony C. Sutton






Sutton studied at the universities of London, Göttingen, and California, and received his D.Sc. from the University of Southampton. He was an economics professor at California State University, Los Angeles and a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution from 1968 to 1973. During his time at the Hoover Institution, he wrote the major study Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development (in three volumes), arguing that the West played a major role in developing the Soviet Union from its very beginnings up until the present time (1970). Sutton argued that the Soviet Union's technological and manufacturing base — which was then engaged in supplying the Viet Cong — was built by United States corporations and largely funded by US taxpayers. Steel and iron plants, the GAZ automobile factory — a Ford subsidiary, located in eastern Russia — and many other Soviet industrial enterprises were built with the help or technical assistance of the United States or US corporations. He argued further that the Soviet Union's acquisition of MIRV technology was made possible by receiving (from US sources) machining equipment for the manufacture of precision ball bearings, necessary to mass-produce MIRV-enabled missiles.


In 1973, Sutton published a popularized, condensed version of the three volumes called National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union and was thereby[citation needed] forced out of the Hoover Institution. His conclusion from his research on the issue was that the conflicts of the Cold War were "not fought to restrain communism", since the United States, through financing the Soviet Union "directly or indirectly armed both sides in at least Korea and Vietnam"; rather, these wars were organised in order "to generate multibillion-dollar armaments contracts".[1] The update to this text, The Best Enemy Money Can Buy, looked at the role of technology transfers up to the 1980s. Appendix B of that text contained the text of his 1972 testimony before Subcommittee VII of the Platform Committee of the Republican Party where he summarized the essential aspects of his overall research:

“ In a few words: there is no such thing as Soviet technology. Almost all — perhaps 90-95 percent — came directly or indirectly from the United States and its allies. In effect the United States and the NATO countries have built the Soviet Union. Its industrial and its military capabilities. This massive construction job has taken 50 years. Since the Revolution in 1917. It has been carried out through trade and the sale of plants, equipment and technical assistance.[2]
Sutton's next three major published books — Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler and Wall Street and FDR — detailed Wall Street's involvement in the Bolshevik Revolution (in order to destroy Russia as an economic competitor and turn it into "a captive market and a technical colony to be exploited by a few high-powered American financiers and the corporations under their control"[3]) as well as its decisive contributions to the rise of Adolf Hitler and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, whose policies he assessed as being essentially the same, namely "corporate socialism" planned by the big corporations.[4] Sutton concluded that this was all part of the economic power elites' "long-range program of nurturing collectivism"[1] and fostering "corporate socialism" in order to ensure "monopoly acquisition of wealth", because it "would fade away if it were exposed to the activity of a free market".[5] In his view, the only solution to prevent such abuse in the future was that "a majority of individuals declares or acts as if it wants nothing from government, declares it will look after its own welfare and interests", or specifically that "a majority finds the moral courage and the internal fortitude to reject the something-for-nothing con game and replace it by voluntary associations, voluntary communes, or local rule and decentralized societies".[1] In Sutton's own words he was "persecuted but never prosecuted" for his research and subsequent publication of his findings.

Content from External Source
 
Oxy, interesting. This was a favorite position of my grandfather and many of his children. So I got a big dose of it growing up. Seems one has to conger up a most cooperative group of competing economic elites to make such a theory work. It just seems to me to go against human nature. Too many cooks spoils the stew as the say. I would think they would go around trying to kill each other.
 
Oxy, interesting. This was a favorite position of my grandfather and many of his children. So I got a big dose of it growing up. Seems one has to conger up a most cooperative group of competing economic elites to make such a theory work. It just seems to me to go against human nature. Too many cooks spoils the stew as the say. I would think they would go around trying to kill each other.
Yes, truly Machiavellian. U.S Corporations supplying the soviets, so they can supply the Viet Cong and N Korea with armaments to fight allied troops. And supply Nazi Germany even in the midst of the war. I knew Bush family were involved but didn't realise it was so widespread. It fits in well with the original video claiming they conspired to cause war in the first place and then to drag it on as long as possible. It also fits well with the training,arming, funding of AlQaeda and Neo Nazis in Ukraine.

I see the Right Sector is embarking on a mission to put down the rebellion in E. Ukraine and calling for the police and army, not to get in their way and promising 'traitors and pacifists will be shot'.


and

http://on.rt.com/55dzpi

Here is the Wiki link to the above text.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_C._Sutton
 
Interesting, to say the least. Not that bringing an obvious fictional story into the discussion, but I'm just now re-watching the iconic film "Alien", and with its sub-plot of Corporate intervention into Human affairs, it is indeed a coincidence. And serves to give the mind something to chew on.
 
“ In a few words: there is no such thing as Soviet technology. Almost all — perhaps 90-95 percent — came directly or indirectly from the United States and its allies. In effect the United States and the NATO countries have built the Soviet Union. Its industrial and its military capabilities. This massive construction job has taken 50 years. Since the Revolution in 1917. It has been carried out through trade and the sale of plants, equipment and technical assistance.[2] ”
Sutton's next three major published books — Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler and Wall Street and FDR — detailed Wall Street's involvement in the Bolshevik Revolution (in order to destroy Russia as an economic competitor and turn it into "a captive market and a technical colony to be exploited by a few high-powered American financiers and the corporations under their control


If that was true then- other than the military- they failed miserably.
 
Oxy, it is not that these speculations are not founded in pits and pieces of occasional evidence but the flow of history seems way too chaotic to be orchestrated/controlled by any single coherent plot or group. No matter their wish to do so.

I would assert there is evidence that groups of economic manipulators are investing in the best way to maximize their profits. That there is no long range plan to create revolutionary shifts in human governance but to just profit from a natural process of inevitable change and human social evolution. That is IMO opportunism not a coherent plan.

In other words I think we give the economic elite too much credit. Insider trading, Yes; price fixing, Yes; trying to get their man elected, Yes; trying to buy votes, Yes; controlling history, No! They are not all powerful; however, some may feel they are. Lol!!;)
 
Last edited:
Can you please explain your rationale for that statement as it appears unfounded and even IMO, contrary to the evidence. Thanks.

Seems like a contradiction- one quote says "they" built the Soviet Union - the other says they destroyed it...which is it?


In Today's Russia, which "American financiers and the corporations under their control" are exploiting Russia in any dominant way?
 
Back
Top