by Paul Craig Roberts
August 1, 2012
The State Department has an office that hunts German war criminals. Bureaucracies being what they are, the office will exist into the next century when any surviving German prison guards will be 200 years old. From time to time the State Department claims to have found a lowly German soldier who was assigned as a prison camp guard. The ancient personage, who had lived in the US for the past 50 or 60 years without doing harm to anyone, is then merciless persecuted, usually on the basis of hearsay.
Thursday, November 27, 2014
Wednesday, November 26, 2014
CIA counterfeit conservative William F. Buckley Jr., after completing his snitch work as FBI shill/informant at Yale, was recruited by the Agency and did his CIA stint with E. Howard Hunt (future Watergate conspirator) in Mexico.
Buckley, with intelligence community colleagues James Burnham, Willmoore Kendall, Priscilla Buckley, and William J. Casey, went on to found National Review magazine as the premier publication of the CIA’s synthetic “Conservative movement” replacing the non-interventionist Old Right coalition of Americans opposed to the corporate welfare-warfare state of Roosevelt and Truman.
What most Americans mistakenly regard today as the “Conservative movement” has undergone many convoluted and dramatic transformations over the past sixty years.
Perhaps the most keen observer has been the late Murray N. Rothbard, the internationally acclaimed economist and historian (and bête noir of Buckley).
How this disinformation process began is detailed in Rothbard’s engaging and insightful book, The Betrayal of the American Right.
It tells the full story of how this subversive movement at war with American liberties and the rule of law, came about.
This book is the definitive examination of how the CIA’s phony “Conservative movement” arose and deluded millions in the name of national security and state power.
“Conservatism,” since the days of Burke and Robespierre, has stood for the status quo and an apologia for tyranny.
William F. Buckley, Jr.’s entire career as a “public intellectual” was built upon one ignominious deception after another as a servitor of state power.
The synthetic “Conservative movement” he help spawn has continued unabated, growing like a cancer in the American body politic.
Buckley was a student at Yale University (Skull and Bones 1950) where he served as shill and informant for J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI. One of Buckley’s Yale professors, former Trotskyist communist Willmoore Kendall (formerly of the OSS and later consultant to the CIA) was a recruiter of talent for the newly created Agency. Kendall recruited Buckley in 1951.
Kendall introduced him to former Trotskyist James Burnham (also formerly of the OSS). Burnham was consultant to the CIA’s Office of Policy Coordination, the CIA’s covert action division. He was later to actively work on the CIA coup d’etat against Mossadegh in Iran.
Burnham first introduced Buckley to agent E. Howard Hunt in his Washington, D. C. apartment. Buckley then served with Hunt in Mexico where Hunt was chief of station and Buckley’s control officer. Hunt later figured as a principal in the Watergate Scandal that brought down Richard Nixon.
Hunt, in his memoirs, American Spy, (in which Buckley wrote the introduction) observes that prior to his stint in the CIA, Regnery published Buckley’s God and Man at Yale, an indictment of the supposed pervasive liberalism on that campus. The book launched Buckley’s career as spokesman for the emerging “Conservative movement” of the early 1950s. With what we now know about CIA covert recruiting on college campuses during this period, particularly Yale, Buckley’s initial book bears a new revisionist examination.
What is not widely known is that the whole enterprise was largely that of a “vanity press” arrangement, with the Buckley family operating covertly under the clandestine guise of the Catawba Corporation, commissioning and financing the book’s publication and publicity. The book’s ownership copyright secretly belonged to Catawba, not WFB.
Buckley was later approached by Regnery to serve on the board of directors of the publishing firm, along with that of William J. Casey. Casey was a prominent Wall Street attorney who had served in the OSS and later became CIA Director under Ronald Reagan.
Hunt pointed out that Regnery was subsidized by the CIA during its early years.
At this time James Burnham, who had maintained many of his former leftist connections, was active in the CIA sponsored front, the Congress for Cultural Freedom, which was secretly funding left-wing, anti-Soviet scholars and publications networks. When later, at Burnham’s urging, Buckley created National Review magazine, the premier “Conservative” publication of the past fifty years, joining him in the endeavor as principal editors were Kendall, Burnham, and his sister Priscilla, all of whom had been employed by the CIA.
William J. Casey drew up the incorporation papers for National Review, and served as its long-time legal counsel.
The mysterious early funding of this “non-profit” publication has long been an enigma to researchers.
One hoped that Hunt (and Buckley) would finally shed light on this subject, for in one of the most fascinating, if incomplete, chapters in Hunt’s memoir, “The Great Propaganda Machine,” he describes some of his activities in the CIA’s on-going efforts to manipulate, subsidize, and influence the news media and, through it, American public opinion.
The great unanswered question remains: What was Hunt’s role in assisting his old colleague in creating the CIA’s synthetic “Conservative movement?” Buckley’s National Review editorial colleague Frank Meyer (and his good friend, National Review former contributor Murray Rothbard) believed that the magazine was a CIA operation run by Burnham as Buckley’s control. And Hunt does detail in the book how the CIA was engaged in many clandestine operations of covert front groups and foundations using media manipulation and propaganda to project American imperial power and hegemony throughout the world.
Buckley and Hunt are dead.
Why not come clean about National Review?
Buckley remained close to Hunt and, as he relates in the memoir, helping him through some trying post-Watergate legal difficulties after the mysterious airline death of his wife Dorothy.
Years later, Buckley was outted as a CIA operative by former CIA agent William Sloane Coffin (Skull and Bones 1949). Coffin was a long-time colleague of George H. W. Bush (Skull and Bones 1948) when they both attended Phillips Andover Academy and later Yale together.
Former CIA Director Bush later presented Buckley the Presidential Medal of Freedom, something Hunt never got for his years of clandestine service. Buckley subsequently created his famous fictional character of CIA agent Blackford Oakes, as Hunt had done earlier in his own series of eight spy novels (under the pseudonym of David St. John) featuring CIA agent ‘Peter Ward.’
But it is not Hunt with whom Buckley should be compared but author Mary Shelley.
Buckley’s entire life as America’s premier “conservative” public intellectual was sheer fiction based on lies and deception. And so has been the Frankenstein movement he created for his intelligence community masters.
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
Obama Justice Dept. Insists Details of Anti-Iran Campaign are so Secret they won't Say Why It's Secret
We are of the informed opinion it remains secret as US foreign policy is prescribed by the Zionist state of Israel. Partial review of this policy of American subservience:
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
The Obama administration has asserted that the secretive nature of its demand for throwing out a lawsuit brought against an anti-Iran organization is consistent with previous hush-hush attempts to stymie the judicial system. Officials just can’t say why that’s so … because it’s (that’s right) a secret.
United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) is being sued by Greek shipping magnate Victor Restis for defamation after the group accused Restis of doing business with Iran and violating the U.S. sanctions against that country.
In what amounts to a trust-us-we-really-know-what’s-best argument, the Department of Justice filed a brief (pdf) in federal court recently that seeks to explain—in a non-explainable way—why it wants the case against UANI tossed. All officials have been willing to say is the case could expose government secrets. They won’t say what kind of secrets they are, or which agency might be involved in the matter.
“Once the Court is satisfied that there is a ‘reasonable danger’ that state secrets will be revealed . . . any further disclosure demanded by plaintiffs would be a ‘fishing expedition’ that the Court should not countenance because it amounts to ‘playing with fire’ on national security matters,” according to the brief.
Legal observers have called the administration’s legal position “extraordinary and unprecedented,” according to Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists.
Justice lawyers have countered that there “have been cases, like this one, where specific details concerning the Government’s interest in a private lawsuit could not be described on the public record,” per their brief. A case from 22 years ago, Terex Corporation v. Richard Fuisz and Seymour Hersh, was cited to back their argument. Aftergood wrote that the government asserted the state secrets privilege in that case, but didn’t identify the source. The case was dismissed.
In the latest brief, the administration again insisted that the government “cannot publicly reveal the scope or nature of the privileged information at issue here. Whatever impact exclusion of this information would have on the parties’ ability to establish their claims or valid defenses, the Government believes that further proceedings would inevitably risk the disclosure of state secrets if this case were to proceed.”
To Learn More:
Some State Secrets Cases Are a Secret, Govt Says (by Steven Aftergood, Federation of American Scientists)
In State Secrets Case, Feds Say Mum’s the Word (by Adam Klasfeld, Courthouse News Service)
Victor Restis v. American Coalition against Nuclear Iran (U.S. District Court, Southern New York)
The Mysterious Case of the Obama Administration Claiming State-Secrets Privilege in a Private Defamation Lawsuit (by Noel Brinkerhoff, AllGov)
Mystery Surrounds U.S. Justice Department Move to Wrap Anti-Iran Group in Shroud of Secrecy (by Noel Brinkerhoff and Steve Straehley, AllGov))
November 25, 2014Thorsten Polleit
The referendum on the Swiss Gold Initiative will take place on November 30.1 The Initiative demands the following: (1) The Swiss National Bank (SNB) shall be prohibited from selling any of its gold reserves; (2) the SNB’s gold reserves must be stored in Switzerland; and (3) the SNB must keep at least 20 percent of its assets in gold (i.e., the “20-percent rule”).
The balance sheet of the SNB currently amounts to 522.3bn CHF (Swiss francs), with its gold holdings and claims from gold transactions amounting to 39.4bn CHF. The share of gold of the SNB’s assets is therefore about 7.5 percent — substantially lower than what the Initiative calls for.
If the referendum is successful, that is, if the Initiative is adopted, the SNB will have to increase its gold holdings relative to its total assets. This can be done in two ways:
1. If the balance sheet of the SNB remains as swollen as it currently is (due to purchases of foreign currency made in recent years), the SNB would have to buy additional gold worth the equivalent of around 65bn CHF.
2. The SNB could shrink its balance sheet (to the level it had at the end of 2007) by selling foreign exchange reserves until gold reserves amount to at least 20 percent of the SNB’s assets. This, however, appears to be unlikely and won’t be considered any further here.2
Let us assume that the SNB has to buy additional gold — and that this would require a fairly sizable amount of money. An important question is: how can the gold purchases be financed? And what are the consequences?
Financing the Gold Purchases
The SNB may finance its gold purchases by exchanging its foreign currency reserves — which are largely held in euros, but also in US dollars, Japanese yen and British Pounds — against gold. Three effects would follow from this:
· Buying gold in exchange of foreign reserves would leave the Swiss domestic money supply unchanged; it would not be inflationary as it does not affect the Swiss quantity of money.
· The currencies sold by the SNB to buy gold would presumably tend to devalue against the Swiss franc; we will look closer into this aspect below.
· SNB gold purchases would presumably tend to raise the gold price; of course, this effect cannot be quantified with any precision in advance.
Restricting Money Creation
Once it complies with the 20-percent rule, the SNB can still increase the domestic quantity of money: namely by buying gold and/or warehouse gold from private persons (Swiss or foreign) against issuing newly created Swiss francs.3
That said, the Initiative would not put Switzerland on a gold standard, under which the SNB has to, for instance, redeem Swiss francs in gold. Nevertheless, the Initiative would certainly have some very positive implications.
First and foremost, the 20-percent rule would make the SNB policy of money expansion more difficult. For increasing the quantity of money, the SNB would have to buy gold equivalent to 20 percent of the Swiss franc amount issued.
The expansion of the Swiss franc would not only be linked to physical gold — that is the ultimate means of payment, which is in short supply. Moreover, such transactions would be “visible” and could be more easily sanctioned by the Swiss public.
Furthermore, the 20-percent rule would force banks to adopt a much more cautious business approach. Fractional reserve banking, for instance, would be much less attractive and possible, as banks could no longer expect the SNB to bail them out by printing up new money.
Last but not least, the Initiative would make the Swiss franc less inflationary, especially so as it discourages greatly commercial banks’ money creation out of thin air — which is also the central cause for boom-and-bust cycles.
On the SNB’s Minimum Exchange Rate
Since the outbreak of the international financial and economic crisis, the SNB has fought against the appreciation of the Swiss franc against the euro. To this end, the SNB has been buying euros against issuing newly created Swiss Francs.
At the end of 2008, the SNB’s foreign reserve holdings amounted to just 47.4bn CHF. At the end of 2011, they had already increased to 257.5bn CHF. At the same time, the monetary base rose from 99.1bn CHF to 137.7bn CHF.
Since September 6, 2011, the SNB defends a “minimum rate” of 1.20 Swiss franc per euro,4 a policy under which the SNB’S foreign reserves climbed further to 471.4bn CHF in August 2014; the monetary base increased to 373.5bn CHF.
If the SNB is subjected to the 20-percent rule, the SNB could no longer continue with this kind of policy. Why? The Initiative, if put into practice, would presumably make the Swiss franc even more attractive from the viewpoint of international investors.
The Swiss currency would appreciate, especially against the euro. For the European Central Bank (ECB) may very well embark upon money printing on the grandest scale, setting into motion a sizable capital flow from the euro area into Switzerland.
Under the 20-percent rule, the SNB’s policy of buying euros against issuing newly created Swiss francs would no longer be possible: because new Swiss francs can only be issued if they are issued for the purchase of gold.
Would an appreciation of the exchange rate hurt Switzerland economically? The answer is no. The Swiss would have to work and export less for importing the same quantities as before. Companies can slash prices and wages, should they need to ramp up their competitiveness.
If put into practice, the Swiss Gold Initiative increases the chances that the Swiss can protect themselves effectively against the destructive policies which are at work in the international unbacked paper money world.
It seems that the SNB cannot, or does not dare to, deviate from the money printing schemes pursued in all major currency areas. It is only the Swiss people who can bring to a halt a monetary policy that will sooner or later end in a debasement of their currency.
The 20-percent rule might not live up to what a perfectly sound money regime should look like: free market money, free banking, and no central banking. However, if strictly adhered to, the 20-percent rule is by all means a highly promising starting point on a journey to truly sound money.
If the Swiss put the Initiative into practice, the world will realize that there are alternatives to today’s unbacked paper money madness. In that sense, a successful Initiative could be a game changer for the better, for Switzerland and also for many other countries in this world.
The author would like to thank Kristoffer Mousten Hansen, UK, for his support in preparing this article.
Image Source: wikimedia.
· 2. For shrinking its balance sheet, the SNB will have to sell foreign exchange and receive Swiss franc in exchange. To bring foreign reserves to the “pre-crisis” level, the quantity of Swiss franc would have to fall by about 420bn CHF. This would exceed the Swiss monetary base (which presently amounts to 373.5bn CHF) and would also reduce the M1 monetary aggregate (which currently amounts to 566.4bn CHF) substantially (in fact, it would push it below the level seen at the end of 2007, which was 268.9bn CHF). In other words, a contraction of the SNB balance sheet without triggering a severe deflation is no longer an option — and would probably not find political support.
· 3. Strictly speaking, increasing the amount of Swiss franc through warehousing is only possible if the SNB records the gold on the asset side of its balance sheet.
· 4. See the SNB’s press release dated 6 September 2011.
Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.
Monday, November 24, 2014
SIECUS is tax-exempt “charity” under an IRS charter. Goodness knows how many more of these subversive orgs are also being subsidized for our own suicide with our tax money. See the list below for some likely prospects.
The Jewish State in the Levant is a burden we shouldn’t have to bear
by Justin Raimondo, November 24, 2014
Today [November 24, 2014] is the deadline for the closing of a deal with Iran regarding their nuclear program. No one should be surprised that Israel is marking this deadline with a threat to attack Iran regardless of the outcome of the negotiations. As the Jerusalem Post is reporting on its front page:
"Israel has issued a stark, public warning to its allies with a clear argument: Current proposals guarantee the perpetuation of a crisis, backing Israel into a corner from which military force against Iran provides the only logical exit."
This is a lie, and is widely recognized as such: the Israelis don’t have the military capacity to take out all the Iranian nuclear sites without American assistance. Aside from that, however, they never attack those capable of hitting back in any significant way, so we can write off this latest threat as just so much kvetching. Yet one has to wonder: is this the way an ally is supposed to act – never mind one that we enjoy a purported "special relationship" with?
The reality is that Israel is our biggest frenemy.
For decades the Israelis have lived off our largesse without having to offer anything of value in return – unless Israeli interference in American politics is considered of value. We’ve handed them over $3 billion a year in tribute, stood by while they subjected their Palestinian helots to conditions not seen since South Africa’s apartheid, and smiled tolerantly, as one would at an obstreperous child, while they noisily spat in our faces at every opportunity. And what have we gotten in return? Insults, interference, and outright threats – not to mention one of the most effective (and obnoxious) spying operations conducted on our soil by a foreign power.
For years, the War Party has been accusing Tehran of running a secret nuclear weapons program, although no convincing evidence of this has ever been produced. The Israelis and their international assets – notably the MEK terrorist group – have done their best to doctor up convincing forgeries, albeit to no avail. They’ve run all kinds of interference in order to prevent the normalization of US-Iranian relations. Their goal: to ensure that Israel’s regional monopoly on nuclear weapons remains intact.
Aside from North Korea, Israel is the only nuclear power that has managed to get away with thumbing its nose at the international community over this issue. The Iranians submitting themselves to a strict inspections regime will doubtless turn the world’s attention to the weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Israel’s leadership – a political class increasingly seen as extremist by outsiders. Steadfastly refusing to sign the Nonproliferation Treaty, along with North Korea, the Israelis have managed to maintain what is referred to as "nuclear ambiguity," but there is absolutely nothing ambiguous about the destructive power of their arsenal.
"Ambiguity" is not a concept that applies to Israel these days. There’s no doubt about where they stand – or what they are becoming. Their latest shtick: taking out the part about being a democracy in their Basic Law, and putting in "no Arabs need apply." Or, as The Age puts it: "
"The proposal would mean Israel would no longer be defined in its Basic Laws as ‘Jewish and democratic’ but instead as ‘the national homeland of the Jewish people.’"
What the great Israeli classical liberal Yeshayahu Leibowitz rightly called the "Judeo-Nazi" trend in that country’s political life has now come to the forefront: they aren’t pretending to be the Gallant Little Democracy of the Middle East any more. Nope, they’re coming out of the closet as ethno-religious fanatics, just like their opposite numbers a few kilometers away in the Islamic State. In tandem with the new law, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced the introduction of legislation stripping "anti-Israel" Arab activists of their Israeli citizenship, along with their entire families. And so the Jewish State of Israel in the Levant – JSIL – is born…
We concur with Kurt Nimmo’s early discovery. Pay heed yourself.
June 13, 2012
In 2010, Rand Paul courted the neocon wing of the Republican Party. His “pilgrimage” to the heart of darkness should have set-off alarm bells in both the Tea Party and libertarian movements, but it was more or less glossed over.
In October of 2010, Jason Zengerle noted the following in a long article about Rand Paul:
At a private office in Dupont Circle, he talked foreign policy with Bill Kristol, Dan Senor, and Tom Donnelly, three prominent neocons who’d been part of an effort to defeat him during the primary. “He struck me as genuinely interested in trying to understand why people like us were so apoplectic,” Senor says of their two-hour encounter. “He wanted to get educated about our problem with him. He wasn’t confrontational, and he wasn’t disagreeable. He didn’t seem cemented in his views. He was really in absorption mode.”
Rand was in “absorption mode,” in other words he was sucking up the neocon ideology of confrontation with the enemies of Israel, its advocacy of mass murder, and the seemingly endless piling up of war crimes and other crimes against humanity.
Prior to this, in 2009, the Rand Paul campaign issued a press release spelling out his neocon take on Gitmo and killing suspected terrorists without trial:
“Foreign terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution,” said Dr. Paul. “These thugs should stand before military tribunals and be kept off American soil. I will always fight to keep Kentucky safe and that starts with cracking down on our enemies.”
Dr. Paul believes in strong national defense and thinks military spending should be our country’s top budget priority. He has also called for a Constitutional declaration of war with Afghanistan.
Early on, Rand Paul was drinking the neocon kool-aid.
Paul’s support of Romney translates into support for more neocon wars, more mass murder, and more tyranny at home.
“If we take the candidate at his word, a Romney presidency would move toward war against Iran; closely align Washington with the Israeli right; leave troops in Afghanistan at least until 2014 and refuse to negotiate with the Taliban; reset the Obama administration’s ‘reset’ with Russia; and pursue a Reagan-like military buildup at home. The Washington Monthly dubbed Romney’s foreign policy vision the ‘more enemies, fewer friends’ doctrine, which is chillingly reminiscent of the world Obama inherited from Bush,” writes Ari Berman.
Romney’s foreign policy advisers are predominately neocon. On May 31, I wrote that “over seventy percent of the neocons who staged the illegal Iraq war have signed up as Mitt’s foreign policy advisors. It is the same old pro-Israel rogue’s gallery, including Elliott Cohen, Robert Kagan (who is behind Romney’s ‘American exceptionalism’ stance), Eric Edelman (one of Bush’s main neocons at the Pentagon), and Dan Senor.”
“Many of these advisors belonged to the PNAC, an influential neoconservative advocacy group founded in the ‘90’s. It has morphed into the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) launched by Kagan, Edelman and Senor. They advocate for regime change in Iran and a more confrontational stance with Russia. They are opposed to cuts in military spending,” writes Nancy Lindsay.
Patrick J. Buchanan has predicted Romney’s secretary of state will either be the irascible neocon John Bolton or the Israel-centric warmonger Joe Lieberman.
“On Tuesday at Manhattan’s B’nai Jeshurun Synagogue during a debate with J Street founder and President Jeremy Ben-Ami, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol predicted that the next U.S. Secretary of State in a Romney administration would be Senator Joe Lieberman,” Maidhc Ó Cathail wrote on May 19.
How is it possible Rand Paul would consent to crawling into bed with this gang of war criminals? Is it possible he was a neocon all along a rode the coattails of his father’s reputation in order to get elected to the Senate?
If so, the people of Kentucky need to send him packing during the next election cycle.