-Caveat Lector- "I pledge Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands, one Nation under God,indivisible,with liberty and justice for all."
visit my web site at http://www.voicenet.com/~wbacon My ICQ# is 79071904 for a precise list of the powers of the Federal Government linkto: http://www.voicenet.com/~wbacon/Enumerated.html ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 08:25:55 -0800 (PST) From: knee om <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ctrl] Major Jordan, Atomic Shipments to USSR, Baruch Plan & Major Jordan, Atomic Shipments to USSR, Baruch Plan & Convergence Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 06:46:21 +1100 From: Peter Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: clem clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (1) Prudent Bear missing the obvious (2) Prudent Bear only half-right; Immigration as solution to shortage of workers (3) Religion Helps Shape Wealth Of Americans, Study Finds (4) to (6) Major Jordan, Atomic Shipments to USSR, Baruch Plan & Convergence (1) Prudent Bear missing the obvious Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 17:31:23 -0000 From: "Rowan Berkeley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Much as I love prudentbear, I fear they are missing the obvious; when America has borrowed enough money to build a global space-based offensive weapon system and bring it to operational status, the question of America owing money to people will cease to be of major significance, since anyone who demands their money back can be zapped from low orbit. (2) Prudent Bear only half-right; Immigration as solution to shortage of workers Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 00:42:27 -0800 (GMT-08:00) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Whatever. The purpose of financial advisories like Prudent (?) Bear is not to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth -- it's to make money by purveying part of the truth. (not much different than the general media, which might be cheaper for the average person) Most economic terminology and equations are the equivalent of alchemy formulas in Old English. USD is finally depreciating because it is massively inflated. By exporting the inflation and allowing domestic "bubble markets" to rise, the principal problem has been evaded here for years, while laying off most of the downside on developing countries which have to pay for imports (particularly oil) in USD. Foreign cooperation, buying into the US through treasuries and market purchases (military, stock, or otherwise), helped keep the dance going along. Although true price inflation is masked by manipulated CPI components, there is no doubt the trade deficit resulting from cheap imported goods are a factor as well. So much for transplanting the definition of inflation at the printing press to merely resulting retail price increases. Deflation? Consumers are still buying (and borrowing); savings are next to nil (could be even below nil) and no one wants to "sit on cash". Yet velocity of circulation is low (government revenue down). Living on early retirement saving withdrawals and equity borrowing keeps many households out of bankruptcy for the time-being. Companies aren't hiring. Real wage increases are non-existent. Good jobs are exported to foreign countries, while cheap labor is admitted through legal and illegal immigration. H1-B visas have been only slightly curbed. But it's the concentration of low-end competition which really pulls wages down. Giving illegal immigrants some "legally recognized" status will not solve any of these problems. Immigration is also perceived to be a solution to the Social Security problem of too few workers in the future (the environmentalists' dilemma). However, most immigrants will never achieve the earnings of average workers decades ago. Remittances to their home countries abroad take USD out of circulation here. They add push to housing costs and drag on social services. (IIRC, some 90%+ of US currency circulates outside the US, but I only saw the figure once and could be wrong.) The full consequences of the S&L fiasco of the '80s, the peso bail-out, the Asian currency crisis, the LTCM bail-out (which was actually a banking bail-out), among others, have never been adequately taken into account. Modern times: Greenspan politely refrains from pointing out that the federal government spends every extra dime that is paid into social security, puts IOUs into the "trust fund" and the infamous "borrowing" is just an accounting gimmick to delay interest payments from time to time; that congressional legislation and executive administration of policies are responsible for at least part of flight of business operations to foreign soil; etc. Congress politely refrains from pointing out that Federal Reserve policy ignores unregulated euro-dollar debt syndication (Enron, WorldCom, Global Crossing -- far bigger than the equity share sales); that as a privately held corporation, the Fed's first interest is not the general public; that the most manipulated currency is USD; only a few diehard representatives still talk about an audit of the Fed books; etc. Mop-up operations are necessitated from time to time due to the collusion of Fed and government policies which perpetrate nothing less than fraud on the public. Racketeering at its finest. Neither the Federal Reserve nor congress will publically pin the hammer on the illicit and evil black ops money operators since they (or their associates) are benefitting -- and because naysayers are ignored at best, imperiled at worst. This is not "economics". It's mystical dogma. Like Marxism, definitions are invented to serve the dogma. When reality diverges from the definitions, the dogma is stubbornly maintained. Rarely, a new term is invented -- like "stagflation" -- befuddling, because at the time, those who understood the real cause weren't about to explain it to the masses. Maybe another new term will be invented for the situation today. Defreciation? "During the '70s, Americans were stagflated. In the late '90s and early 21st century, they were defreciated." Out with new, in with the old: In 1913, Ford began mass production of the Model T; he raised worker pay to $5 a day. Three years later, two shareholders sued for breach of fiduciary responsibility, complaining the money he was putting into plant expansion should be going to dividend Immigration is also perceived to be a solution to the Social Security problem of too few workers in the future They won. >From 1996 to 2002, retained profits plunged while dividends soared. Depleted pension funds are a hazard, particularly the defined benefit programs (especially in the automotive industry). Personal savings have fallen dramatically since 1992, while mortgage equity withdrawal shot up. Commercial bank return on equity has been essentially flat for more than a decade; there are more non-performing loans and credit losses, though they make up a smaller portion of bank equity ("made up for" by higher fees and interest rates -- and back they go to hedge-land, tra la). [[Financial Stability Review 2002: December 2002 -- US http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/fsr/fsr13art1sec2.pdf ]] The enemy of my enemy is an still an enemy and I'm not going to make friends: US foreign diplomacy of "malice toward none, good will to all" has been replaced by the three Bs (in descending order): bribery, bullying, bombing. Mad Albright excelled; Powell is castigated by the B-ers in the Pentagon for not being oppressive enough. There's a whole herd of elephants ... plus the crazy grandmother in the attic, the man behind the curtain, and rats in the basement eating the corn. (3) Religion Helps Shape Wealth Of Americans, Study Finds Ohio State Research http://www.osu.edu/researchnews/archive/relgwlth.htm COLUMBUS, Ohio � A new national study shows that religious affiliation plays a powerful role in how much wealth Americans accumulate, with Jews amassing the most wealth and conservative Protestants the least. Mainline Protestants and Catholics fall in between and are about average with the rest of the population in terms of overall wealth. Moreover, people who attend religious services regularly build more wealth than those who don�t, the study found. The effect of religion is robust, even after taking into account inheritances, levels of education and other factors affecting wealth that may be associated with particular religious denominations, said Lisa Keister, author of the study and associate professor of sociology at Ohio State University. �Religion is an important factor in wealth accumulation, a factor that hasn�t received a lot of attention,� Keister said. �The results suggest people draw on the tools they learn from religion to develop strategies for saving, investing and spending, and those tools may be different in various faiths.� The study is published in the September issue of the journal Social Forces. Keister used data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. The NLSY is a nationwide survey, conducted by Ohio State for the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, which follows a group of people over time, visiting each participant annually or biennially. She used data on 4,950 participants collected from 1985 through 1998. Overall, the median net worth of Jewish people in the survey was $150,890, more than three times the median for the entire sample ($48,200). The median net worth for conservative Protestants (which included Baptists, Jehovah�s Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists, Christian Scientists, among others) was $26,200, or about half the overall average. The median net worth of mainstream Protestants (including Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Unitarians and others) and Catholics were similar to each other and about the average for the whole sample. While some may say that the results confirm religious stereotypes, such as the contention that Jewish people are greedy and acquisitive, Keister strongly disagrees. �What I�m finding is that families have a powerful influence on how people learn to save, and religion is often an important part of family life,� Keister said. �The things children are taught in Jewish homes are very different than those that are taught in conservative Protestant homes.� But it wasn�t just religious affiliation itself that had an impact on wealth accumulation. The study found that people who regularly attended religious services tended to be more wealthy. �It seems strange � why should it matter whether you go to church in terms of building wealth?� Keister said. �But going to religious services may be another opportunity, especially for Jews, to be indoctrinated with beliefs that help build wealth. Also, it is a social network issue � a church or synagogue can be a good place to meet people with investment tips or money to loan for a new business.� The religious beliefs children learn in their families translate into educational attainment, adult occupations, financial literacy, social connections and other factors that influence adult wealth ownership, she said. Religious teachings of different faiths may influence spending and saving strategies in a variety of ways, according to Keister. For example, conservative Protestants often emphasize prayer and trust in God, which may reduce their desire to invest. Conservative Protestants also look forward to the rewards of the afterlife and don�t promote acquiring wealth as a good for this life. Jews, on the other hand, don�t have a strong orientation to the afterlife, but encourage pursuits that will lead to wealth accumulation, such as high-income careers and investing. Mainline Protestants and Roman Catholics were at one time distinct from each other and from the rest of the population, Keister said, but this study shows that the distinctiveness has diminished in recent years. The result is that both groups look like the rest of the population in terms of wealth. These religious backgrounds lead people of various faiths to take different financial trajectories in their lives, Keister said. In the study, she examined how religious affiliation related to some typical financial trajectories for Americans. For example, only 1 percent of Jewish people remained asset poor throughout life, compared to 15 percent of conservative Protestants. About 9 percent of mainline Protestants and 7 percent of Catholics followed this trajectory. The most common trajectory is to buy a home relatively early in life and then accumulate other assets, such as stocks and bonds, later. About 35 percent of Jews followed this path, compared to 3 percent of conservative Protestants, 22 percent of mainline Protestants and 20 percent of Catholics. Jewish people stood out in a third trajectory in which people invest early in life in high-risk, high-return assets such as stocks and bonds and build wealth quickly while putting less emphasis on homeownership. About one-third of Jews followed this path, compared to no conservative Protestants, 7 percent of mainline Protestants and 4 percent of Catholics. Keister emphasized that religion is only one among many factors that influence wealth. This research is part of a larger series of studies Keister is doing to explain why some people accumulate more wealth than others. She said that once she began studying wealth, the impact of religion stood out plainly. �Religion keeps coming up in any model you run to explain wealth,� she said. �It�s something you can�t ignore, but there�s been little effort to explain the connection between religion and wealth accumulation.� Keister said she hopes the results of the study can be used to help others build more wealth. �There are lessons to be learned here,� she said. �For example, we can take what we see happening in Jewish families and translate that into ways to help others teach their children about building wealth.� The study was partially funded by the American Sociological Association. # Contact: Lisa Keister, (614) 688-8685; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Written by Jeff Grabmeier, (614) 292-8457; [EMAIL PROTECTED] (4) Major Jordan, Atomic Shipments to USSR, Baruch Plan & Convergence Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 18:16:46 -0800 From: Phil Eversoul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Re: your article in Rense: Zionist Plans For World Government - 1946 / 2-22-4 and the Baruch Plan. Have you read the book by Major George Racy Jordan that shows that in 1943-44 Roosevelt shipped all the atomic bomb plans and all the materials used in the Manhattan Project to Stalin via Siberia? This was under the charge of Harry Hopkins. Major Jordan kept a copy of the invoices and shipping records. Solid evidence. If you have read it, what do you think of it? REPLY (Peter M): Phil, Yes, I have it somewhere. I can't recall the details, e.g. whether it says Roosevelt knew about it, or to what extent Hopkins knew the details. Jordan�s allegations relate to the perid when World War II was still raging. Defeating Nazi Germany was seen as the top priority, and the USSR treated as a full ally, especially as it was doing most of the fighting. There was no perception, at the time, that the Cold War would soon break out. When it did, it was at the urging not only of the Far Right, who had opposed the USSR all along as the greatest danger, but also of the Neo-Cons of the time, who had been Trotskyists, such as James Burnham. I would also place Arthur Koestler in the Trotskyist camp, because he combined moderate Zionism with Communism. A number of such Marxist Anti-Communists joined the CIA at the forefront of the Cold War, as Frances Stonor Saunders shows in her book Who Paid the Piper? The CIA and the Cultural Cold War. If you consider the Baruch Plan of 1946, here you find many of those who helped the USSR get nuclear weapons supporting a plan to "internationalize" the bomb, i.e. place it in the hands of a "World Government" body. Bertrand Russell even said that the West should threaten war if the USSR did not comply. It is arguable that the international body would have been under US control. Yet, many of those backing the proposal, in the "advertisement" that appeared in the Bulletin of the Scientists, were scientists who helped the USSR get the bomb. The "advertisement" - March 1, 1946, back page - is about a book called "One World Or None". Authors include Bohr, Oppenheimer, Szilard, Einstein, & Walter Lippmann: http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/bas460301-back-page.jpg Pavel Sudoplatov, head of Stalin's spies, is a good source on the Atomic Spies: http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/atomic-spies.html (5) Major Jordan, Atomic Shipments to USSR, Baruch Plan & Convergence Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 18:22:59 -0800 From: Phil Eversoul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> As a follow-up to the note I just sent you about Major Jordan, it strikes me that Stalin's rejection of the Baruch Plan was probably the major cause of the Cold War and the major reason that Stalin and communism suddenly and inexplicably became "bad" after years of the most favorable publicity under Roosevelt. This would then explain a pro-capitalist, pro-West Trotskyist revival among Jewish Marxists. I wonder if it's too far-fetched to call the Cold War "Trotsky's revenge". REPLY (Peter M): Phil, Those scientists I mentioned preferred Stalin to Hitler, but probably had preferred Trotsky (then dead, of course) to Stalin. Their motive seems not to have been pro-American; for example, Ilya Ehrenberg wrote that Einstein lambasted the US for its treatment of blacks: http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/einstein.html Nor were they pro-Stalin, except in so far as he was the defeater of Hitler. So they belong to the Convergence camp. Stalin refused Convergence, but Gorbachev was all for it. Wilson�s 14 Points were also a Convergence program; it gave thoughtful Germans the idea of a different goal to fight for: World Unity. But after surrendering in 1918, the Germans found that they�d been betrayed, just as the Russians found after 1991. Kennedy put a Convergence program to Khruschev too: disarmament down to the police level. Yet Kennedy was later assassinated. Perhaps that is evidence of two competing internationalisms - the Rhodes-CFR-moderate Zionist one (which promoted the Peace Plan in the Middle East) and the expansionist Zionist one. This can be seen as a struggle over whether the centre of power will be Washington or Jerusalem. Similarly, there was a struggle between saw Moscow and Jerusalem as rival centres of socialism; this is the context of the murder of Stalin: http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/death-of-stalin.html George Soros - representing the moderate faction - recently upset the Jewish Funders Network - the pro-Sharon faction - with his remarks that Sharon�s policies were the cause of increased �Anti-Semitism�: http://www.jfunders.org/news/news.htm (6) Major Jordan, Atomic Shipments to USSR, Baruch Plan & Convergence Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 18:14:48 -0800 From: Phil Eversoul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Yes, I have it somewhere. [referring to George Racy > Jordan's expose of Roosevelt's shipments of all the > secrets and blueprints of the Manhattan Project to > Stalin in 1943-44 via Siberia]. Good. A key book. > I can't recall the details, e.g. whether it says Roosevelt knew about it, or > to what extent Hopkins knew the details. Hopkins was in charge of this mission. There is no reason to think he did not do it at Roosevelt's behest. But there is no explicit evidence of this, because there was no way for Jordan to know about the intrigues in Washington. > Jordan�s allegations relate to the perid when World > War II was still raging. > Defeating Nazi Germany was seen as the top priority, > and the USSR treated as a full ally, especially as it > was doing most of the fighting. True, but there was no way to tell the American people that our top secret atomic technology was going to be sent to the Soviet Union. What this moves also clearly says is that the USA and the USSR were going to merge their political systems -- otherwise, you do not give away your most essential and powerful technology. This is what the Reece Commission found out a few years later (about 1954, I think) in its investigation of American foundations, you may recall. The goal of the top American foundations, like the Ford Foundation, was to assist this merger of the Soviet and American systems. > There was no perception, at the time, that the Cold War would soon break out. Yes, exactly. Stalin was "good." Suddenly he became "bad." That is what I call the mystery of the Cold War. However, your explanation of the Baruch Plan's rejection by Stalin goes a long way towards explaining the mystery. > When it did, it was at the urging not only of the Far Right, Whoa there. What you are calling the "Far Right" was simply the American Right that had always existed -- the people who were anti-United Nations, anti-interventionist, anti- big government, and believers in America First, meaning simply enlightened national self-interest. Once the Republicans of the East Coast redefined themselves as internationalists and pro-United Nations after WWII, the original American Right was scorned (on the East Coast, anyway) as "paleoconservative." From East Coast Republican internationalist to pro-Israel "neoconservative" was a small jump, assisted by such as William Buckley. The original American Right was left in the dust, to be championed later, although in a compromised way, by such as Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. > who had opposed the USSR all along as the greatest danger, Yes, but remember also that the Old Right (as I would prefer to call them) had lost national political power with the ascension of Roosevelt, and they never regained it in the post-war years. The East Coast "liberal and moderate" Right saw to that. The Old Right, therefore, never had the political power to declare and launch the Cold War, although they certainly supported it. This was part of the mystery of the Cold War: the Old Right, those who truly detested communism, never had the political power to make post-war anti-communist policy. And in fact, the post-war American anti-communist policy was quite insincere and fake, for under this policy, the communist world continued to make immense gains, especially in China as well as Eastern Europe. The communist conquest of China would have been impossible without the assistance of American (and British) policy, for it was based on the abandoning of Chiang Kai-Shek. And the communist conquest of Eastern Europe meant the abandoning of Poland, for whose sake, supposedly, the West declared war on Germany. Later, there was the anti-communist Hungarian revolution, which the West betrayed. I believe that the war in Viet Nam was also set up to be a failure for the West and a victory for the communists. As Roosevelt said, "If something happens in politics, you can bet it was planned that way." The immense failure of the West in Viet Nam was too big not to be part of a deliberate plan, and this plan was consistent with the way the entire Cold War was handled: the West loses ground, the communists gain ground. Almost every time. Therefore, the West must merge with communism. Result: tyrannical world government. Since communism had always received its primary funding, capital, and technology from the West (as we saw with Sutton), there was no way for communism to achieve all those Cold War victories without Western betrayal. That is what is the most sickening part of it, not the losses themselves. For the most part, the Cold War was a series of successes by the communists and failures by the West. This was no accident. It was planned that way to try to make the West accede to a "compromise" and eventual merger with communism, thereby achieving the World Government that was the holy grail. > but also of the Neo-Cons of the time, who had been > Trotskyists, such as James Burnham. I would also place > Arthur Koestler in the Trotskyist camp, because he > combined moderate Zionism with Communism. A number > of such Marxist Anti-Communists joined the CIA at the > forefront of the Cold War, as Frances Stonor Saunders > shows in her book > Who Paid the Piper? The CIA and the Cultural Cold War. Yes. The driving forces of the Cold War, from the Western side, were the anti-Stalinist forces, which were far more extensive than merely the Old Right, which was out of power and on the decline. You might call it the Marxist, socialist, liberal establishment neo-conservative "Right," as contrasted with any pro-Stalinist forces. But again, this opposition to Stalinism, as it expressed itself in America, was (except for the Old Right) insincere and wishy-washy. It is a fact that Joseph McCarthy showed (and he has been vindicated by the Venona revelations) that there was a strong pro-Stalinist communist underground in America. The Rosenberg spy case was evidence of this. The pro-Stalinist espionage and propaganda movements in America were protected by the highest levels of the American East Coast Establishment, and this is the real reason McCarthy had to be demonized and destroyed, not because he was on a "witchhunt" or because he was some sort of fascist demagogue. It was the Eisenhower Administration, acting on behalf of the East Coast Establishment, that was determined to destroy McCarthy, for McCarthy was on the verge of showing that the super-rich Eastern capitalists -- the Lodges, the Bundies, the Rockefellers -- were in fact supporters of communism. That was McCarthy's true "sin." In American of the 1950s, such a revelation would have been earth-shattering. In our day, with the disappearance of mainstream American opposition to communism and socialism such as was prevalent in the 1950s, and the current acceptance of cultural Marxism, nobody bats an eye at capitalist-communist cooperation, as in China. Times have changed. My own take on this is that, whereas the American-Soviet cooperation had to be largely secret, in order not to offend American mainstream opinion, the American-Chinese cooperation is openly admitted. Even the massacres at Tien-Amin Square made hardly a dent. George Bush, Sr saw to that. Too much trade was at stake. > If you consider the Baruch Plan of 1946, here you find > many of those who helped the USSR get nuclear weapons > supporting a plan to "internationalize" the bomb, i.e. > place it in the hands of a "World Government" body. Yes. That was indeed the plan, the way to establish the World Government. Nuclear fear. Surrender your freedom or risk nuclear war. Better red than dead, said Bertrand Russell. It was nuclear intimidation to make us surrender all our rights and freedoms. Again, the communists would have had no nuclear weapons at all, but for the West. That was the plan. > Bertrand Russell even said that the West should > threaten war if the USSR did not comply. I didn't know that, but it makes sense, for that would have meant that Stalin was messing up the plan. Maybe we should all thank Stalin for preserving our freedom from tyrannical world government, at least for a while longer. > It is arguable that the international body would have been under US control. No, I don't think so, at least not more than 50-50. The communists were given huge enticements and powers to make them join. For example, in the Korean War, one of the communist functionaries at the UN knew all of the military plans of the United States, by the way the UN was designed --the Korean War was a UN operation -- and he relayed those plans to Stalin and Mao. MacArthur had to be pretty good to fight off the Chinese, the North Koreans, and the UN back-stabbers. (And by the way, MacArthur didn't trust Eisenhower in Korea, thought he was a poor general, and sent him away). Ultimately, Truman had to fire MacArthur to prevent him from achieving victory, in defiance of policy. Defeats of communism were not part of the plan. > Yet, many of those backing the proposal, in the > "advertisement" that appeared in the Bulletin of > the Scientists, were scientists who helped the USSR > get the bomb. Why, what a coincidence. > The "advertisement" - March 1, 1946, back page - is > about a book called "One World Or None". Authors include > Bohr, Oppenheimer, Szilard, Einstein, & Walter Lippmann: Yes, nuclear intimidation to make us "merge" with communism. Urged upon us from within. The betrayal of civilization is always from within. It's not the external enemy. It's the fact that our own supposed leaders are working hand in glove with the enemy. And we don't know it, because of media control. REPLY (Peter M): James Burnham wrote, in his book The Struggle For the World, published in 1947, that the Third World War (the Cold War) began in April 1944, when communist Greek sailors unsuccessfully mounted a minor mutiny. Another incident was the struggle between Mao and Chiang Kai-Chek, which resumed just after the Red Army evicted the Kwantung Army from Manchuria in the space of 2 weeks. A third was the Soviet Union�s settling up of a �little red army� in Iran. Burnham�s argument is that these three events happened while the USSR & the West were still allied in World War II. Since they fly in the face of that alliance, Burnham argues that they are part of the Cold War. I think that he is back-dating things somewhat. With regards to the Greek sailors, Burnham attributes their rebellion to Comintern headquarters in the Soviet Union. This is drawing a long bow; Stalin & co. would have been too much absorbed by winning World War II, to bother stirring up rebellion in the West at that time. As for Mao�s conflict with Chiang, China�s civil war had been going on for years; it was suspended during the Japanese occupation, but its resumption was not part of the Cold War. If it was, then the Cold War began much earlier, when China�s civil war began. And the Iranian case is minor. If Burnham had really believed, in April 1944, that the Third World War had broken out, he would have written his book then. Instead, it was written & published in 1947; which makes sense if we date the start of the Cold War to 1946. The Cold War can hardly be dated to before the Baruch Plan, since that Plan was for an alliance - a World Government - which would not make sense if the two were already enemies: http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/baruch-plan.html However, the publication of Bertrand Russell�s threatening article shows that the alliance must have been at the point of breaking: http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/bas461001-p21.jpg Ilya Ehrenburg wrote, �In 1946 the cold war was gaining ground fast ... � (Postwar Years 1945-1954, tr. TATIANA SIIEBUNINA in collaboration with YVONNE KAPP, LONDON, MACGIBBON & KEE, 1966, p. 60.) Pavel Sudoplatov wrote in Special Tasks : The Memoirs Of An Unwanted Witness - A Soviet Spymaster (Little, Brown and Company, London, 1995 paperback edition): {p. 172} The most vital information for developing the first Soviet atomic bomb came from scientists engaged in the Manhattan Project to build the American atomic bomb - Robert Oppenheimer, Enrico Fermi, and Leo Szilard. {p. 207} Bohr had sent official confirmation to the Soviet Embassy that he would meet with a delegation and now he realized that the delegation contained both a scientist and an intelligence officer. ... Bohr readily explained to Terletsky the problems Fermi had at the University of Chicago putting the first nuclear reactor into operation, and he made valuable suggestions that enabled us to overcome our failures. Bohr pointed to a place on a drawing Terletsky showed him and said, "That's the trouble spot." This meeting was essential to starting the Soviet reactor, and we accomplished that feat in December 1946. (See Appendix Seven.) ... After our reactor was put into operation in 1946, Beria issued orders to stop all contacts with our American sources in the Manhattan Project; the FBI was getting close to uncovering some of our agents. Beria said we should think how to use Oppenheimer, Fermi, Szi- {p. 208} lard, and others around them in the peace campaign against nuclear armament. Disarmament and the inability to impose nuclear blackmail would deprive the United States of its advantage. We began a worldwide political campaign against nuclear superiority, which kept up until we exploded our own nuclear bomb, in 1949. {p. 221} The conventional wisdom is that the Cold War started with Winston Churchill's "iron curtain" speech in Fulton, Missouri, on March 6, 1946, but for us, confrontation with the Western allies had begun when the Red Army liberated Eastern Europe. The conflict of interest was evident. The principle agreed upon with Roosevelt at Yalta, providing for multiparty elections, was acceptable to us only for the transition period after the defeat of Germany, while the fate of Eastern Europe was in the balance. {endquote} http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/sudoplat.html Bohr was one of the scientists promoting the Baruch Plan. In their book One World Or None (1946), about half the authors are Jewish: Bohr, Oppenheimer, Szilard, Einstein, and Walter Lippmann. Lippmann�s was the biggest article. Of him, Carroll Quigley wrote in Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (Macmillan, New York, 1966): {p. 939} This new recruit, Walter Lippmann, has been, from 1914 to the present, the authentic spokesman in American journalism for the Establishments on both sides of the Atlantic in international affairs. His biweekly columns, which appear in hundreds of American papers, are copyrighted by the New York Herald Tribune which is now owned by J. H. Whitney. It was these connections, as a link between Wall Street and the Round Table Group, which gave Lippmann the opportunity in 1918, while still in his twenties, to be the official interpreter of the meaning of Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points to the British government.� {endquote} James Burnham broke with Trotsky in 1939/40 and became a leading Anti-Communist. Trotsky�s book In Defence of Marxism is a refutation of Burnham and the other rebels in his Fourth International; published in 1942, it must be about the last book Trotsky wrote. I have a copy. In 1941, Burnham wrote The Managerial Revolution. Someone recently asked how to obtain this book. I have a copy, plus a spare photocopy I don�t need. However, copies should be available at http://dogbert.abebooks.com/abe/BookSearch?an=james+burnham&tn=managerial+revolution -- Peter Myers, 21 Blair St, Watson ACT 2602, Australia http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers ph +61 2 62475187 to unsubscribe, reply with "unsubscribe" in the subject line APFN-1 YahooGroups: Subscribe: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apfn-1/join Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what you�re looking for faster. www.ctrl.org DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
