LeaNder wrote: Admittedly I have a moral problem here. I guess I do not need to explain it further, do I? My central question would be, could he foresee the results of his actions, that is the rise of the communists? He does not feel like somebody, who would support it, considering his occupation and status. I checked in Google Scholar. So yes, willful ignorance. What books/experts/authors would you recommend on the issue.
Jacob Schiff was pretty much at the center of a revolution in US affairs that occurred between the Civil War and The beginning of World War I. This was when we were transformed from a democracy into a plutocracy. For a brief introduction that manages to hit many of the big issues with great clarity see The Case Against the Fed <http://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Fed-Murray-Rothbard/dp/094546617X/re\ f=sr_1_1/103-7039982-4971803?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190372470&sr=1-1> by Murray Rothbard. His online essay Wall Street, Banks and American Foreign Policy <http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard66.html> covers some of the same material. The financial powers that consolidated their control of the United States during this period appear to have gone on to fund both the Communist Revolution in Russia, and the rise of the Nazis in Germany. See: * Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution <http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/bolshevik_revolution/index.html\ > , Anthony Sutton * Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler <http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/index.html> , Anthony Sutton * Conjuring Hitler: How Britain And America Made the Third Reich <http://www.amazon.com/Conjuring-Hitler-Britain-America-Third/dp/0745321\ 81X> , Guido Giacomo Preparata I haven't read the last yet, but it looks very interesting, and I have it on order. We've discussed Sutton here before, and I know you and Sean have an aversion because you associate him with the CIA Drugs crowd. Try not to hold that against him - this is not his fault! Sutton is actually a very fine scholar. Tim Howells > > I guess we have approached the center of earlier allusions, I never > quite understood. > > > > LeaNder" wrote: > > ... But I find it hard to consider this as double loyalty.Admittedly, I > still wonder why Tim picked this example. Schiff'sactions were > supportive of his countries politics. So politicians atthe time probably > considered them utterly loyal. > > Barbara, you are once again withdrawing into your willful ignorancemode. > As you know perfectly well, and as I explicitly spelled out foryou in a > previous post <../../../../message/25236> , I was talking about the > impact of Schiff's actions, which he took on behalf of the Russian > Jewish community, on RUSSIA and not the impact of those actions on the > United States. > > But in any case your assumption that Schiff's actions weresupportive of > US policies is also completely wrong. In fact Schiffpressured President > Taft to abrogate treaties that the US had signedtogether with Russia, > and when Taft refused Schiff stormed out of theroom and started working > feverishly to defeat Taft in the nextelection. This was ultimately > accomplished by convincing TeddyRoosevelt to run again on a third party > ticket, splitting theRepublican vote, and allowing the political > featherweight, WoodrowWilson to waltz into the White House. > > There were other more important reasons why Schiff and other > majorfinancial forces turned against Taft, but for Schiff, the Russian > issuewas a factor. > > Tim Howells >
