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

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?
I would say the conspiracy theorists would say they did both. Because they would profit from selling the explosives and demolishing the old infrastructure, nuclear weapons, etc. and selling the building materials, cell phones and consumer goods at the same time!!!:confused:
 
I would say the conspiracy theorists would say they did both. Because they would profit from selling the explosives and demolishing the old infrastructure, nuclear weapons, etc. and selling the building materials, cell phones and consumer goods at the same time!!!:confused:


Perhaps...but then we are back at my first comment. They failed miserably considering the US runs a trade deficit with Russia:

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c4621.html
 
The US deficit is not their's.

Whose is it then? The "they" you are referring to are supposedly "a few high-powered American financiers" supposedly exploiting Russia with the "corporations under their control"

So, if they companies they control are doing what amounts to a pittance in yearly trade ($11 Billion-total) then...the premise of Russia being exploited by a "few high-powered American financiers and the corporations under their control" seems a bit of the mark...to say the least.

Is Gazprom secretly controlled by US Financiers?
 
Whose is it then? The "they" you are referring to are supposedly "a few high-powered American financiers" supposedly exploiting Russia with the "corporations under their control"

So, if they companies they control are doing what amounts to a pittance in yearly trade ($11 Billion-total) then...the premise of Russia being exploited by a "few high-powered American financiers and the corporations under their control" seems a bit of the mark...to say the least.

Is Gazprom secretly controlled by US Financiers?
Don't know the specifics of Gazprom but the overarching theory of the conspiracy buffs would be the deficit is mega profit for the owners of the Federal Reserve Banks which they control. Any loans from national banks to governments they profit as well. Simple commerce is just an engine for currency printing and loans, this is their true power.
 
Seems like a contradiction- one quote says "they" built the Soviet Union - the other says they destroyed it...which is it?
Sutton is saying Wall Street bankrolled the Bolshevik Revolution in the knowledge that it would 'take Russia out of the economic game' as an economic competitor to the U.S.

A bit like two chicks in the nest and one will attempt to get all the food by blocking the other.

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])
Content from External Source
In Today's Russia, which "American financiers and the corporations under their control" are exploiting Russia in any dominant way?

I don't know SR, the references only go to 1970 on that link and do not name names. Do you dispute he is qualified to make such assertions? Would you like to debunk him?

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).
Content from External Source
Do you dispute the U.S has done everything in its power to destabilise and limit Russia as a competitor?

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:
Content from External Source
 
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!!;)
I am afraid I disagree there George and in particular with this, (upon which the rests the whole argument), "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.."

This is where the 'Twix' politics comes in. We have seen warmonger Bush and most people were keen to see a change in policy... ergo Obama's "Change is a coming", "Peace and goodwill to all" campaign. I even bought into it and was really pleased when he won. But what happened after he took office?

What is going in the World? Russia stands up for Syria and Iran and the next thing is high ranking politicians and diplomats are over in Ukraine handing out food parcels and cheering on neo nazis to destroy government buildings and attack members of the elected government.... and then these exact same politicians accuse Russia of 'organising counter demonstrations which Kerry & co call 'terrorists':(

So Kerry's violent neo nazis who kidnap threaten and beat and shoot people who disagree with them are "peaceful protesters" whilst villagers from the East are 'Terrorists' and 'separatists'.

Sorry it is easy to see, once it is pointed out.

Huge respect to your Grandfather for being on it that long ago. Where did he get his information from?
 
Sutton is saying Wall Street bankrolled the Bolshevik Revolution in the knowledge that it would 'take Russia out of the economic game' as an economic competitor to the U.S.

But he also said- according to your post- "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."

I know Russians who disagree. I also know people who were involved with trade between the Soviet Union and the US in the 70s and who would disagree.

I also never saw any US or Western technology when I was in the Soviet Union- but what ever I am sure you got it all figured out from the comfort of your keyboard.

Do you dispute the U.S has done everything in its power to destabilise and limit Russia as a competitor?

I do. They could have lobbed a few nuclear at Russia...that was/is in their power.

Again, can you answer this question: In Today's Russia, which "American financiers and the corporations under their control" are exploiting Russia in any dominant way? If the answer is no or none..then I suggest that "they" were not successful. If the goal was to keep Russia a minor player in World affairs, then they failed.

You can trudge Sutton's CV as an appeal to authority but that doesn't mean he is right.

here is an interesting debate someone had with him:

http://www.conspiracytheories.us/a-debate-with-anthony-sutton
 
Last edited:
I am afraid I disagree there George and in particular with this, (upon which the rests the whole argument), "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.."

This is where the 'Twix' politics comes in. We have seen warmonger Bush and most people were keen to see a change in policy... ergo Obama's "Change is a coming", "Peace and goodwill to all" campaign. I even bought into it and was really pleased when he won. But what happened after he took office?

What is going in the World? Russia stands up for Syria and Iran and the next thing is high ranking politicians and diplomats are over in Ukraine handing out food parcels and cheering on neo nazis to destroy government buildings and attack members of the elected government.... and then these exact same politicians accuse Russia of 'organising counter demonstrations which Kerry & co call 'terrorists':(

So Kerry's violent neo nazis who kidnap threaten and beat and shoot people who disagree with them are "peaceful protesters" whilst villagers from the East are 'Terrorists' and 'separatists'.

Sorry it is easy to see, once it is pointed out.

Huge respect to your Grandfather for being on it that long ago. Where did he get his information from?
Oxy, seems Obama's evolution into a cookie cutter President is not unprecedented. They all seem to start on the left or right and then steer their administration into a centrist position opting for more and more central control and exhibit more and more paranoid behaviors. It is a risk of the office. When one gets the security briefings and the constant bombardment of a pending fiscal Armageddon they all fold into a literal fetal position and just want their advisors to run the government. These advisors are from the same schools, same families, same socio-economic and intellectual elite. So the government always flows down the same path no matter who the President is.
 
Huge respect to your Grandfather for being on it that long ago. Where did he get his information from?
Thanks ! Grandad was born about 15 years after the Civil War and participated in the Spanish American war. Was too old for WWI and WWII. Was a career school teacher, principle, Member of the Tennessee House of Representatives and 32nd degree Mason. He, my mother and my mother's siblings became refugees from the Coal Union/Coal Company war in West Va which had reproductions in Southeast Kentucky where he was teaching in a coal company compound. This was a real deal battle and pitted owners, Pinkerton's and federal troops against workers in a shooting war with modern weapons including explosives, artillery, aircraft and machine guns. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain
This could have formed his belief in the organized elite against the masses. He was quite conservative politically (republican) ;however, and was highly anti-communist, anti-socialist, and extremely patriotic. Four of his six children served in the military in WWI and WWII including my Mother (army nurse in North Africa and Italy with the 3rd Army).
 
Last edited:
Oxy, seems Obama's evolution into a cookie cutter President is not unprecedented. They all seem to start on the left or right and then steer their administration into a centrist position opting for more and more central control and exhibit more and more paranoid behaviors. It is a risk of the office. When one gets the security briefings and the constant bombardment of a pending fiscal Armageddon they all fold into a literal fetal position and just want their advisors to run the government. These advisors are from the same schools, same families, same socio-economic and intellectual elite. So the government always flows down the same path no matter who the President is.
Yes, there used to be an extremely good comedy/satirical series in the U.K called "Yes Minister", which dealt with the scenario of a new Prime Minister taking office with the express intention of radically overhauling and changing things, (in line with election manifesto), only to be countered by the establishment 'Whitehall Mandarins' who have in reality been running things exactly as they want and are expert at manipulation and subverting changes and thereby maintaining the status quo.

But this defacto continuation of 'main policy' is to my mind an extremely visible indication of the 'secret government' which manifests itself in the Twix politics of today and throughout large parts of history.

Yes there are differences but in the main they are trifling differences. An analogy of the Lilliputians warring over which end of an egg to should be upside in the cup seems not overly hyperbolic to me but I expect SR will disagree. :)

The similarities are far more weighty... Nato expansionism, (contrary to agreements I may add), warmongering and warring, an ever growing military industrial complex, the criminalising of the populace by ever restrictive laws and 'zero tolerance' and the massive and ever increasing disparity in wealth distribution.

I am not convinced that Hoover was in fact referring to these type of issues in his statement, (the OP), as he appears to me to be someone who would actually be content with the way things are and the way things are heading; although I am open to being corrected on this perception. However, whether he was referring to these wider issues or not, I see they are real and of serious concern to a massive swathe of people, (albeit in varying degrees).
 
But he also said- according to your post- "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."

I know Russians who disagree. I also know people who were involved with trade between the Soviet Union and the US in the 70s and who would disagree.

I also never saw any US or Western technology when I was in the Soviet Union- but what ever I am sure you got it all figured out from the comfort of your keyboard.
No need for personal attacks SR, let's try to keep it civil and productive.

I am basing my opinions on commonly known facts and logic, as well as Sutton's revelations.

The U.S, (like all nations), are predisposed to act in their own interests. It is a compelling argument that competitors should be held back and the Bolshevik revolution certainly did that as far as Russia was concerned. Russia is now emerging as a resource rich country capable of competing in an effective way with its own version of capitalism.

Is there any significance that the equally resource rich continent of Africa has emerged as an impoverished, corrupted and debt ridden continent which is both the provider of huge natural resources for more affluent countries as well as the dumping ground of the West.

Obviously China is a bigger competitor but it could be argued this is an unintended consequence of the use of cheap labour by the West.

Do you dispute, with all its connotations, " 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."

A more recent striking example, (albeit Anglo French), appears to be the 'Conkordski' or whatever it was called... the Russian 'clone' of the top secret Concorde. Yes it could have resulted from some industrial espionage or perhaps there were other machinations going on.

They could have lobbed a few nuclear at Russia...that was/is in their power.
I wonder why they didn't do that? Sounds M.A.D to me. Do you think they possibly took into account that the Soviets also had that capability, (as distinct from Japan which didn't and was nuked twice). I wonder what inspires you to even postulate such an option. Do you think that would have been the right thing to do?

Again, can you answer this question: In Today's Russia, which "American financiers and the corporations under their control" are exploiting Russia in any dominant way? If the answer is no or none..then I suggest that "they" were not successful. If the goal was to keep Russia a minor player in World affairs, then they failed.
Such a statement appears to ridicule the sanctions recently imposed on Russia by the West, which are admittedly pretty ineffective and self defeating. Mastercard, Visa, SWIFT etc have been stopped from operating in Russia, although there was a challenge I believe by the shareholders which reinstated it for a while. This has resulted in Russia embarking on an independent system (based in other currencies).

I feel compelled to comment on the farcical and exemplary hypocrasy nature of Kerry's pronouncement that 'Russia should not use it's resources, (gas/oil) as a weapon', whilst willy nilly imposing economic sanctions and trade embargoes, not only on Russia but many other countries around the World.

You can trudge Sutton's CV as an appeal to authority but that doesn't mean he is right.

So you disregard his stature, qualifications and experience because his views do not align with yours... Surprised not as i have seen this many times on this site by a number of 'debunkers'.

here is an interesting debate someone had with him:

http://www.conspiracytheories.us/a-debate-with-anthony-sutton

What a 'debate that never happened' and limited to the FED. Hardly relevant SR
 
Last edited:
You can trudge Sutton's CV as an appeal to authority but that doesn't mean he is right.

here is an interesting debate someone had with him:

http://www.conspiracytheories.us/a-debate-with-anthony-sutton


I could see right through what was happening; the visitor wanted to see me humbled by an academic. When I showed that indeed some of the quotes at his web site had been fabricated, my conspiracy theorist academic started packing lickety split, never to be heard from again. A single email was all that was needed there as well. As to the visitor expecting to see fireworks with me being shot full of holes, he ended up accusing me of being part of the plot and deliberately spreading misinformation, indeed calling me finally a shill
Content from External Source
 
I could see right through what was happening; the visitor wanted to see me humbled by an academic. When I showed that indeed some of the quotes at his web site had been fabricated, my conspiracy theorist academic started packing lickety split, never to be heard from again. A single email was all that was needed there as well. As to the visitor expecting to see fireworks with me being shot full of holes, he ended up accusing me of being part of the plot and deliberately spreading misinformation, indeed calling me finally a shill
Content from External Source
Yep, nails his colours firmly to the mast.

It’s an interesting point, but that has already been done countless
times by others. Just what do you think conspiracy theorists are
going to say, anyway, “Gee, I didn’t do my homework; you’re right,
there really is no conspiracy out there and I fabricated my data?”

Bottom line. Like I tell everyone else, if you will take a few
minutes to check a few reference sources from any conspiracy theory
book out there, you’ll see what I’m talking about. The entire
theory has been fabricated from stem to stern.

So where does he debunk anything to do with the issue in question, (the fed system is not at issue in this thread so I will not address any such issues raised by the 'debunker' in that regard here.

The issues are 'Did the U.S supply Germany through large parts of the war with technology and resources which enabled it to mount it's military and political expansions'

Did Wall Street and U.S Corporations do likewise with the Soviet Union i) in general, ii) in Korea, iii) in Vietnam.

Was the U.S instrumental in instigating the Bolshevik Revolution and was that part of an overarching policy designed to contain and limit Russia as a competitor.

Dodge the issues and offer the 'opinion of some debunker off the net' as you will they do not disappear.

Sutton did not engage with the site but was dragged into an unwanted exchange which Sutton chose not to engage because he had more important things to do. i could equally put forward that because Kerry doesn't choose to come on here and answer criticism of his warmongering and hypocrisy, that proves his guilt.

Dear Gerry,
> After forwarding your examples, I did in fact receive a letter from

Antony Sutton,

> I wish I could tell you the results were encouraging, but it seems he is

> very content with what he is now involved in, and considering his

> present workload, to divert himself to what he considers to be a waste

> of his precious time, would be impossible at this time.
Content from External Source
 
You championed Sutton's "excellent videos" and his long resume in post #74. Unfortunately, Sutton is not a reliable source since he is incapable or unwilling to support his research.
Repost some debunkers blog all you like, there was nothing of substance in it other than the typical debunker rhetoric that all conspiracy theories/theorists are crazy.

It appears that in order for him to have any credibility, in your eyes, he must engage with any 'debunker' who wishes to nit pick away about minor issues or play semantics. Usual modus operandi.

I see you have no rebuttal of merit yourself either. Case closed.
 
Last edited:
Yes, there used to be an extremely good comedy/satirical series in the U.K called "Yes Minister", which dealt with the scenario of a new Prime Minister taking office with the express intention of radically overhauling and changing things, (in line with election manifesto), only to be countered by the establishment 'Whitehall Mandarins' who have in reality been running things exactly as they want and are expert at manipulation and subverting changes and thereby maintaining the status quo.
But this defacto continuation of 'main policy' is to my mind an extremely visible indication of the 'secret government' which manifests itself in the Twix politics of today and throughout large parts of history.

As I remember Yes Minister, that's a rather skewed view of it. It was more illustrative of the career politician who was well-intentioned, but rather impractical, and the civil servant who had to deal with the actual nuts and bolts, and was interested mostly in his own career. There was no 'secret government', just a bunch of individual self-interests. It is these banal individual self-interests that I feel are the real problem with our political systems, not some shadowy elite.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_Minister#Politics

Adam Curtis, in his three-part TV documentary The Trap, criticised the series as "ideological propaganda for a political movement",[9] and claimed that Yes Minister is indicative of a larger movement of criticism of government and bureaucracy, centred upon public choice economics. This view has been supported by Jay himself:

The fallacy that public choice economics took on was the fallacy that government is working entirely for the benefit of the citizen; and this was reflected by showing that in any [episode] in the programme, in Yes Minister, we showed that almost everything that the government has to decide is a conflict between two lots of private interest – that of the politicians and that of the civil servants trying to advance their own careers and improve their own lives. And that's why public choice economics, which explains why all this was going on, was at the root of almost every episode of Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister.[10]

Content from External Source
(Public choice theory is an attempt to explain how these self-interest result in what happens in governement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice )
 
As I remember Yes Minister, that's a rather skewed view of it. It was more illustrative of the career politician who was well-intentioned, but rather impractical, and the civil servant who had to deal with the actual nuts and bolts, and was interested mostly in his own career. There was no 'secret government', just a bunch of individual self-interests. It is these banal individual self-interests that I feel are the real problem with our political systems, not some shadowy elite.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_Minister#Politics

Adam Curtis, in his three-part TV documentary The Trap, criticised the series as "ideological propaganda for a political movement",[9] and claimed that Yes Minister is indicative of a larger movement of criticism of government and bureaucracy, centred upon public choice economics. This view has been supported by Jay himself:

The fallacy that public choice economics took on was the fallacy that government is working entirely for the benefit of the citizen; and this was reflected by showing that in any [episode] in the programme, in Yes Minister, we showed that almost everything that the government has to decide is a conflict between two lots of private interest – that of the politicians and that of the civil servants trying to advance their own careers and improve their own lives. And that's why public choice economics, which explains why all this was going on, was at the root of almost every episode of Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister.[10]

Content from External Source
(Public choice theory is an attempt to explain how these self-interest result in what happens in governement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice )
Fairish comment but I think I may have expressed myself slightly ambiguously.

I wasn't citing 'Yes Minister' as 'secret government', although it may have, (and obviously did to you), come across that way.

"Yes Minister", which dealt with the scenario of a new Prime Minister taking office with the express intention of radically overhauling and changing things, (in line with election manifesto), only to be countered by the establishment 'Whitehall Mandarins' who have in reality been running things exactly as they want and are expert at manipulation and subverting changes and thereby maintaining the status quo
Basically in line with your post.

And separated by a different paragraph, a general observation.
But this defacto continuation of 'main policy' is to my mind an extremely visible indication of the 'secret government' which manifests itself in the Twix politics of today and throughout large parts of history.
But I do take your point.
 
Yes, there used to be an extremely good comedy/satirical series in the U.K called "Yes Minister", which dealt with the scenario of a new Prime Minister taking office with the express intention of radically overhauling and changing things, (in line with election manifesto), only to be countered by the establishment 'Whitehall Mandarins' who have in reality been running things exactly as they want and are expert at manipulation and subverting changes and thereby maintaining the status quo.

But this defacto continuation of 'main policy' is to my mind an extremely visible indication of the 'secret government' which manifests itself in the Twix politics of today and throughout large parts of history.

Yes there are differences but in the main they are trifling differences. An analogy of the Lilliputians warring over which end of an egg to should be upside in the cup seems not overly hyperbolic to me but I expect SR will disagree. :)

The similarities are far more weighty... Nato expansionism, (contrary to agreements I may add), warmongering and warring, an ever growing military industrial complex, the criminalising of the populace by ever restrictive laws and 'zero tolerance' and the massive and ever increasing disparity in wealth distribution.

I am not convinced that Hoover was in fact referring to these type of issues in his statement, (the OP), as he appears to me to be someone who would actually be content with the way things are and the way things are heading; although I am open to being corrected on this perception. However, whether he was referring to these wider issues or not, I see they are real and of serious concern to a massive swathe of people, (albeit in varying degrees).
Hmmmm, Me thinks most conflicts, disagreements, battles political and otherwise are rather useless in the final analysis except to motivate action in an otherwise complacent populous. Yes, there are rare examples of fundamental social evolution as in women's rights, suppression of slavery, gay rights, suppression of abuse of children, etc. but few required war to accomplish. War I agree is a profit machine. Therefore, I agree it is possible IMO that war is propagated by a few for the destruction of many and the financial benefit of the few who designed the whole thing.
 
It is a compelling argument that competitors should be held back and the Bolshevik revolution certainly did that as far as Russia was concerned.

To me, there seems to be an inherent contradiction. Finance the Bolsheviks because you knew Communism would be an abject failure in order to remove them as an economic competitor. (that actually seems plausible)...Yet then provide them with "90-95%" of all technology and industry in order to create "a captive market and a technical colony to be exploited by a few high-powered American financiers and the corporations under their control ". This last sentence simply seems like a pipedream that never materialized. They failed. The Soviet Union was not running on "95%"of US technology. Thats simply a false claim. I take it you have never been to Russia? driven in a Lada? Been to a collective farm? Fired an AK-47? Indeed the most famous weapon in the World was designed without JP Morgan's help.

What technological and industrial achievements the Soviets did make were more than likely due to the intelligence and hard work of the Soviets rather than a Master Plan by "Wall Street Financiers"

It is an illogical proposition and not something a typical Capitalist/Robber Baron would think would work. People need money to buy things.

Do you dispute, with all its connotations, " 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.

I dont know. Its just a claim. I haven't read the book. What is the evidence?

My opinion is that I doubt that the Soviet technological and industrial legacy was "largely" funded by US tax dollars. I don't think we had that much money. (Ironically, I once worked for an NGO that did helped post-Soviet Russian entrepreneurs come to the US to gain market-oriented knowledge and technical assistance in their respective industries. We were partly funded by the State department. :)

I wonder why they didn't do that? Sounds M.A.D to me. Do you think they possibly took into account that the Soviets also had that capability, (as distinct from Japan which didn't and was nuked twice). I wonder what inspires you to even postulate such an option. Do you think that would have been the right thing to do?

I simply answered your question. You asked if the US had done "everything in its power". It did not.

Of course, you neglect the reality that it takes 2 to play realpolitik. Did the Soviets do anything to try and undermine the US?

Such a statement appears to ridicule the sanctions recently imposed on Russia by the West, which are admittedly pretty ineffective and self defeating. Mastercard, Visa, SWIFT etc have been stopped from operating in Russia, although there was a challenge I believe by the shareholders which reinstated it for a while. This has resulted in Russia embarking on an independent system (based in other currencies).

So, you just debunked yourself. Putin ridiculed them. Russia is not run by "Wall Street Financiers".

I feel compelled to comment on the farcical and exemplary hypocrasy nature of Kerry's pronouncement that 'Russia should not use it's resources, (gas/oil) as a weapon', whilst willy nilly imposing economic sanctions and trade embargoes, not only on Russia but many other countries around the World.

I agree (although sanctions are not imposed "willy nilly"- they are fairly deliberate...and what else is he supposed to say? go ahead and cut off gas to Ukraine cuz we placed sanctions on you?). And yet how is this different than ANY other Diplomat throughout the course of history- trying to effect outcomes to their respective benefits. That you feel compelled to spell out perceived hypocrisy in the minutiae of diplomat speak from Kerry but all the while remain silent about Lavrov et al is quite telling. No doubt were you to quote-mine Lavrov you could find similar hypocrisy.


So you disregard his stature, qualifications and experience because his views do not align with yours... Surprised not as i have seen this many times on this site by a number of 'debunkers'.

I didnt disregard his CV-merely pointed out that your blatant appeal to authority rang hollow as such are typically waved away by CTs. And yet, it does not mean he was correct.
 
Last edited:
It is not 'all about Sutton', Sutton has documentation which backs up his claims... and no I have not checked it all out but it seems to stand up to scrutiny (apart from a debunker miffed that Sutton would not engage with him and be interrogated by him).

In fact the accusations are researched by a number of people:

http://www.whale.to/b/allen_b1.html#chapter4
In the Soviet Union, as in every Communist country (or as they call themselves-the Socialist countries), the power has not come to the Communists' hands because the downtrodden masses willed it so. The power has come from the top down in every instance. Let us briefly reconstruct the sequences of the Communist takeover.
The year is 1917. The Allies are fighting the Central Powers. The Allies include Russia, the British Commonwealth, France and by April 1917, the United States. in March of 1917, purposeful planners set in motion the forces to compel Czar Nicholas II to abdicate. He did so under pressure from the Allies after severe riots in the Czarist capitol of Petrograd, riots that were caused by the breakdowns in the transportation system which cut the city off from food supplies and led to the closing of factories.

But where were Lenin and Trotsky when all this was taking place? Lenin was in Switzerland and had been in Western Europe since 1905 when he was exiled for trying to topple the Czar in the abortive Communist revolution of that year. Trotsky also was in 'exile, a reporter for a Communist newspaper on the lower east side of New York City. The Bolsheviks were not a visible political force at the time the Czar abdicated. And they came to power not because the downtrodden masses of Russia called them back, but because very powerful men in Europe and the United States sent them in.

Lenin was sent across Europe-at-war on the famous "sealed train." With him Lenin took some $5 to $6 million in gold. The whole thing was arranged by the German high command and Max Warburg, through another very wealthy and lifelong socialist by the name of Alexander Helphand alias "Parvus." When Trotsky left New York aboard the S.S. Christiania, on March 27, 1917, with his entourage of 275 revolutionaries, the first port of call was Halifax, Nova Scotia. There the Canadians grabbed Trotsky and his money and impounded them both. This was a very logical thing for the Canadian government to do for Trotsky had said many times that if he were successful in coming to power in Russia he would immediately stop what he called the "imperialist war" and sue for a separate peace with Germany. This would free millions of German troops for transfer from the Eastern front to the Western front where they could kill Canadians. So Trotsky cooled his heels in a Canadian prison-for five days. Then all of a sudden the British (through future Kuhn, Loeb partner Sir William Wiseman) and the United States (through none other than the ubiquitous "Colonel" House) pressured the Canadian government. And, despite the fact we were now in the war, said, in so many words, "Let Trotsky go." Thus, with an American passport, Trotsky went back to meet Lenin. They joined up, and, by November, through bribery, cunning, brutality and deception, they were able (not to bring the masses rallying to their cause but) to hire enough thugs and make enough deals to impose out of the gun barrel what Lenin called "all power to the Soviets." The Communists came to power by seizing a mere handful of key cities. In fact, practically the whole Bolshevik Revolution took place in one city-Petrograd. It was as if the whole United States became Communist because a Communist-led mob seized Washington, D. C. It was years before the Soviets solidified power throughout Russia.
Content from External Source
http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Oth...ganizations/NWO-Masonic&MoneyConnections.html

In this section we are going to quote Larry Abraham from his book Call It Conspiracy, Double A Publications, P.O. Box 609, Wauna, Washington 98395.

  • First, the leftist movement in the U.S was financed by the international bankers. Larry Abraham (p. 68) quotes Oswald Spengler, the great historian of the 20th century:
    • "There is no proletarian, not even a Communist, movement that has not operated in the interests of money, in the direction indicated by money, and for the time being permitted by money -- and that without the idealists among its leaders having the slightest suspicion of the fact." (Decline of the West, Modern Library, New York, 1945)
  • The Reece Committee which investigated foundations for Congress in 1953 proved with an overwhelming amount of evidence that the various Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations have been promoting socialism since their inception. (See René Wormser's Foundations: Their Power and Influence, Devin Adair, New York, 1958.) (Abraham, p. 70)
  • Larry Abraham asserts that "the conspiracy had been planning the war (World War I) for over two decades. The assassination of an Austrian Archduke was merely an incident providing an excuse for starting a chain reaction." (p.71) But we know now that even that "incident" was planned as well.
  • The war prolonged despite the stalemate in the battle front because of the entry of the U.S. into the war. Winston Churchill once observed that the world would have been better if the U.S. stayed out of it since "peace would have been made with Germany, and there would have been no collapse in Russia leading to Communism; no breakdown of government in Italy followed by Fascism; and Naziism never would have gained ascendancy in Germany." (Social Justice Magazine, July 3, 1939, p. 4). But "World War I was a financial bonanza for the international bankers." (ibid., pp. 74-75)
  • The Bolshevik Revolution happened, not because of the downtrodden masses rising up against exploiting bosses as the communists perpetuate the big lie, but because very powerful men in Europe and the United States sent Lenin in Switzerland and Trotsky in New York to Russia to organize it. (ibid., p. 76).
  • "Lenin was sent across Europe-at-war on the famous "sealed train." With him Lenin took some $5 to $6 million in gold. The whole thing was arranged by the German high command and Max Warburg, through another very wealthy and lifelong socialist by the name of Alexander Helphand, alias "Parvus." When Trotsky left New York with an American passport with his entourage of 275 revolutionaries. (ibid., pp. 76-77)
  • Jacob Schiff, senior partner in Kuhn, Leob & Co., and father-in-law of Max Warburg's brother Felix, also helped finance Leon Trotsky. According to the New York Journal-American of February 3, 1949: ""Today it is estimated by Jacob's grandson, John Schiff, that the old man sank about 20,000,000 dollars for the final triumph of Bolshevism in Russia." (ibid., pp. 77-78)
  • Arsene de Goulevitch, an important White Russian General, wrote in his book Czarism and the Revolution :
    • "The main purveyors of funds for the revolution, however, were neither the crackpot Russian millionaires or the armed bandits of Lenin. The 'real' money primarily came from certain British and American circles which for a long time past had lent heir support to the Russian revolutionary cause. . . . The important part played by the wealthy American banker Jacob Schiff in the events in Russia, though as yet only partially revealed, is no longer a secret." (ibid., p. 78)
  • General Alexander Nechvolodov is quoted by de Goulevitch as saying that:
    • "In April 1917, Jacob Schiff publicly declared that it was thanks to his financial support that the revolution in Russia had succeeded."
  • Schiff's participation in the Bolshevik Revolution was well known among Allied intelligence services at the time. Later evidence indicates that the bankrolling of the Bolsheviks was handled by a syndicate of international bankers, which in addition to the Schiff-Warburg clique, included Morgan and Rockefeller interests. Documents show that the Morgan organization put at least $1 million in the Red revolutionary kitty. The paymaster of these funds in Petrograd, where the Revolution started, was Lord Alfred Milner, head of the secret "Round Table" Group which was backed by Lord Rothschild. De Goulevitch reveals that:
    • "In private interviews I was told that over 21 million roubles were spent by Lord Milner in financing the Russian Revolution." (ibid., pp. 79-80)
  • Professor Antony Sutton of Stanford University's Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, using for the most part, official State Department documents, shows conclusively that virtually everything the Soviets possess has been acquired from the West. It is not much of an exaggeration to say that the U.S.S.R. was made in the U.S.A. (ibid., p. 83)
Content from External Source
 
It is not 'all about Sutton', Sutton has documentation which backs up his claims... and no I have not checked it all out but it seems to stand up to scrutiny (apart from a debunker miffed that Sutton would not engage with him and be interrogated by him).

In fact the accusations are researched by a number of people:

I do not doubt that private citizens helped finance the Bolsheviks. Jacob Schiff in particular as he was a very prominent Jewish activist and had the means. He was concerned about the plight of the Jews under the Tsars. He had previously loaned money to Japan to support their effort in the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-5.

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

The US government and its allies, however, were funding the Bolshevik's enemy- the White army:

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


Its seems the main impetus for the funding of the Bolsheviks by Schiff et al was to remove the Tsarist regime to help their oppressed Jewish diaspora- not economic dominance of the Soviet Union. To suggest it was "Wall Street" is sweeping generalization and implies broad coordination amongst a large group when the reality can be pointed to a few specific people who motives do not appear to economic dominance of the Soviet Union.

Nothing you posted speaks to this claim ""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."
 
I do not doubt that private citizens helped finance the Bolsheviks. Jacob Schiff in particular as he was a very prominent Jewish activist and had the means. He was concerned about the plight of the Jews under the Tsars. He had previously loaned money to Japan to support their effort in the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-5.

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

The US government and its allies, however, were funding the Bolshevik's enemy- the White army:

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


Its seems the main impetus for the funding of the Bolsheviks by Schiff et al was to remove the Tsarist regime to help their oppressed Jewish diaspora- not economic dominance of the Soviet Union. To suggest it was "Wall Street" is sweeping generalization and implies broad coordination amongst a large group when the reality can be pointed to a few specific people who motives do not appear to economic dominance of the Soviet Union.

Nothing you posted speaks to this claim ""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."

So effectively funding/aiding both sides yet again, as in Korea and Vietnam as well as the World Wars

There appears to be a hell of a lot of evidence to ignore, in order to arrive at a conclusion that 'some private citizens' funded the Bolsheviks rather than 'major players of Wall Street'.

http://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/WallStreetCommieRevolution.pdf

Documents in the State Department files demonstrate that the National City Bank, controlled
by Stillman and Rockefeller interests, and the Guaranty Trust, controlled by Morgan interests,
jointly raised substantial loans for the belligerent Russia before U.S. entry into the war, and that
these loans were raised
alter
the State Department pointed out to these firms that they were
contrary to international law. Further, negotiations for the loans were undertaken through
official U.S. government communications facilities under cover of the top-level "Green
Cipher" of the State Department. Below are extracts from State Department cables that will
make the case
Content from External Source
 
Last edited:
So effectively funding/aiding both sides yet again, as in Korea and Vietnam as well as the World Wars
There appears to be a hell of a lot of evidence to ignore, in order to arrive at a conclusion that 'some private citizens' funded the Bolsheviks rather than 'major players of Wall Street'.

Who is ignoring evidence? As Sutton himself points out- it was a "handful" of private citizens with varying motives and allegiances. They were out to preserve their self interest- as is evidenced by the assistance to the some of the anti-Bolsheviks. They were doing what Capitalist do.

This handful of bankers and promoters was not Bolshevik, or Communist, or socialist, or Democrat, or even American. Above all else
these men wanted markets, preferably captive international markets — and a monopoly of the captive world market as the ultimate goal. They wanted markets that could be exploited monopolistically without fear of competition from Russians, Germans, or anyone else —including American businessmen outside the charmed circle. This closed group was apolitical
Content from External Source
Indeed, as Sutton points out, they were not all American or "Wall Street".


Consequently, we can identify a pattern of assistance by capitalist bankers for the Soviet Union. Some of these were American bankers, some were tsarist bankers who were exiled and
living in Europe, and some were European bankers. Their common objective was profit, not ideology.
Content from External Source
You neglected to address Jacob Shiff's motives in all of this- he was one of the most prominent donors and their is plenty of evidence his motive was not economic:

From Sutton's book:


Jacob Schiff in fact made a public announcement and it was due to his financial influence that the Russian revolution was successfully accomplished and in the Spring 1917 Jacob Schitf started to finance Trotsky, a Jew, for the
purpose of accomplishing a social revolution in Russia
Content from External Source

So, wealthy power brokers doing what they do- is this somehow a surprise to you?

Your are conveniently ignoring this claim- nothing you- or even Sutton presented in his book has addressed this claim:

"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."
 
Metabunk is corrupt and untrustworthy. Comments cannot be uprated in a fair way to show opinion of the majority, which is important.

On this article, he never once says communism at all, and it seems obvious to me he is talking about something deeper, very similar to what JFK talked for instance.

Neither ever mentioned communism in their speech.
 
Metabunk is corrupt and untrustworthy. Comments cannot be uprated in a fair way to show opinion of the majority, which is important.

On this article, he never once says communism at all, and it seems obvious to me he is talking about something deeper, very similar to what JFK talked for instance.

Neither ever mentioned communism in their speech.
How does not having a comment rating system like reddit make us corrupt or untrustworthy?
That's a pretty ridiculous way to decide something is untrustworthy.
We do have a 'like' system with several options, so the 'majority' of members always have the option to register their opinion of a post. Or they could simply rebut a post with facts and evidence instead.

While it may be 'obvious to you' it's not at all to other people. Do you have anything other than your opinion to show conclusively he was definitely talking about something else?
 
Neither ever mentioned communism in their speech.

Perhaps you missed this bit in the OP:

Make no mistake about it. The strategy of the communist conspiracy has not changed. The tactics only have altered and they are presently designed to develop a climate more favorable to conspiratorial activities. Subversion, infiltration and espionage can best be carried out when the people of a nation have been lulled into a state of lethargy.
Content from External Source
(emphasis is mine)

JFK's speech is in the OP of this thread, with appropriate links. You might have missed this bit:

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.
Content from External Source
So if he is not referring to communism, what is it that you think it is that he feels is such a threat and is conducting "the cold war"??
 
Perhaps you missed this bit in the OP:

Make no mistake about it. The strategy of the communist conspiracy has not changed. The tactics only have altered and they are presently designed to develop a climate more favorable to conspiratorial activities. Subversion, infiltration and espionage can best be carried out when the people of a nation have been lulled into a state of lethargy.
Content from External Source
(emphasis is mine)

JFK's speech is in the OP of this thread, with appropriate links. You might have missed this bit:

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.
Content from External Source
So if he is not referring to communism, what is it that you think it is that he feels is such a threat and is conducting "the cold war"??
What this forum needs is something above the level of "agree" otherwise how are we to properly gauge the opinion of the majority!:cool:
 
maybe Camraid is wanting a way to uprate loads so as to show the opinion of the "majority" they claim to speak for.
Otherwise I have no idea what is untrustworthy.
Like you said, there are agree and disagree buttons, amongst others. Each member only gets one vote. In what way this is unfair I am not sure.
 
I only mentioned Mensa, because YOU implied that I was being 'dumbed down' by the fluoride in my water. If it was, then my IQ should be declining as I aged.

Now, it would seem real easy, to me to prove that fluoride was damaging IQs, by tracking IQ scores through life.

We were NOT discussing how 'socially adept' folks are, we were discussing intelligence. Why the distraction?

Now offer some proof that fluoride is reducing our IQs.

X
All you needed to do was to go to google scholar and type in Fluoride and IQ! It took one second to find. Of course it does not prove a conspiracy but it does seem to offer some kind of proof that fluoride affects IQ. I did not copy and paste all of the articles, just the first three.

Fluoride Vol. 36 No. 2 84-94 2003 EFFECT OF FLUORIDE IN DRINKING WATER ON CHILDREN’S INTELLIGENCE Xiang Q, Liang Y, Chen L, Wang C, Chen B, Chen X, Zhou M


Fluoride Vol. 33 No. 2 74-78 2000 EFFECT OF HIGH FLUORIDE WATER ON INTELLIGENCE IN CHILDREN Y Lu, ZR Sun, LN Wu, X Wang, W Lu, SS Liub Tianjin, China Department of Environmental Health, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.

These articles are available at: available at

http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/pesticides/epa-sf/table.4.iq.behav.pdf

Fluoride Vol. 33 No. 2 74-78 2000 Research Report ——————————————— a For correspondence: Dr Yan Lu, Department of Environmental Health, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China. Tianjin Xiqing District Anti-Epidemic Station, Tianjin, China. EFFECT OF HIGH-FLUORIDE WATER ON INTELLIGENCE IN CHILDREN Y Lu,a ZR Sun,a LN Wu,a X Wang,a W Lu,a SS Liu

available at: http://www.silver47.eu/Etude Chine Fluor.pdf


Perhaps more importantly there is scientific evidence that fluoride calcifies the pineal gland.

''In conclusion, this study presented evidence that fluoride readily accumulates in the aged pineal. Fluoride may also accumulate in a child's pineal because significant amounts of calcification have been demonstrated in the pineals from young children [Cooper, 1932; Wurtman, 1968; Kerényi and Sarkar, 1968; Tapp and Huxley, 197 1; Doskocil, 1984].''

Fluoride Deposition in the Aged Human Pineal Gland (2001) Jennifer Luke
available at: http://www.icnr.com/articles/fluoride-deposition.html


Why is the pineal gland important?

Think Hinduism, meditation, DMT production, Descartes, Strassman's book the Spirit Molecule etc.
 
All you needed to do was to go to google scholar and type in Fluoride and IQ! It took one second to find. Of course it does not prove a conspiracy but it does seem to offer some kind of proof that fluoride affects IQ. I did not copy and paste all of the articles, just the first three.

If you were to look at those articles, you'd see that they describe the well-known effects of naturally occuring fluoride from well water. The concentrations are far higher than the amounts added to strengthen teeth.

And before you mention the EPA's recent downward adjustment of the acceptable level of fluoride in municipal water supplies, you should note the original recommendations were made at a time when few other sources were available. Today, virtually all toothpaste contains fluoride, as does some mouthwash and dental rinses. In light of the average American's likely *total* fluoride intake, the EPA lowered the acceptable amount obtained from the water supply.[/QUOTE]
 
If you were to look at those articles, you'd see that they describe the well-known effects of naturally occuring fluoride from well water. The concentrations are far higher than the amounts added to strengthen teeth.

And before you mention the EPA's recent downward adjustment of the acceptable level of fluoride in municipal water supplies, you should note the original recommendations were made at a time when few other sources were available. Today, virtually all toothpaste contains fluoride, as does some mouthwash and dental rinses. In light of the average American's likely *total* fluoride intake, the EPA lowered the acceptable amount obtained from the water supply.
[/QUOTE]


Okay, thanks for that. It was a good answer. What's behind the image of the pyramid and the eye - serious or ironic, or not willing to say?
Unfortunately I can't open those articles on this tablet - I will check them later but it sounds like you're probably right.
 
What's behind the image of the pyramid and the eye - serious or ironic, or not willing to say?
you see a pyramid and eye somewhere on the EPA website? or study papers?

But this thread is about Hoover's quote. Please start a new thread for new topics. If you want to discuss an off-topic topic someone mentioned, just click reply then copy/paste that reply into a new thread.

You can also use the search function to see if there are previous threads on a topic.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/posting-guidelines.2064/
 
Metabunk is corrupt and untrustworthy. Comments cannot be uprated in a fair way to show opinion of the majority, which is important.
Screen Shot 2015-01-24 at 9.01.50 AM.png
Yes, everything would be cool if only Metabunk would find a way, some way, for the masses to
register agreement...or a coven o' disagreement!
 
you see a pyramid and eye somewhere on the EPA website? or study papers?

But this thread is about Hoover's quote. Please start a new thread for new topics. If you want to discuss an off-topic topic someone mentioned, just click reply then copy/paste that reply into a new thread.

You can also use the search function to see if there are previous threads on a topic.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/posting-guidelines.2064/

Sandy Brown was replying to mazoola so it's probably in reference to mazoola's avatar...

 
Back
Top