Well Miriam, you posted an article about Pacifica that really knocked
the underpinnings out. I am really down.
Seriously. Even a victory by the Sea Hawks over New England could
only raise my glumness for a short time.
But as for your housekeeper, expecting anything other than her
assessment of the world is whistling in the dark.
She, along with so many other folks new to America, is trying to fit
in. And her only source of information is coming to her through the
Mass Media owned by the Empire and its Ruling Class. Perhaps you
might print off several of the articles you post to Blind Democracy,
and ask her opinion of them. My hope in doing this myself, is to open
a closed door in peoples minds. A door of curiosity, a sense of
questioning. Does it work? Not always. Not even often. But once in
a while I connect with someone looking for answers.
But tonight I am really bummed out over the thought of possibly losing
Pacifica.
Actually it's funny when I think about it. Blind Democracy has been a
real source of growth for me, mentally speaking. Yet I suspect I've
had very little impact on the folks on this list. I offer my
opinions, but seldom have any real discussion come from them. Same is
true with my blog. Only a handful of folks read, and few ever
comment. But I saw about the same results with my dad. He never
stopped trying to get other people to open their minds and think.
When he died, a number of people I never knew came to us and told us
of the deep impact my dad had on their lives. Small victories, true.
But in the face of super corporate citizens and an Empire with
unlimited resources, those small gains loomed large.
So, I will keep going, even if into the dark storm clouds of a long,
cold winter.
Carl Jarvis
On 1/31/15, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
> Well, You're more optimistic about helping people change than I am. The
> last
> straw for me was recently when the lovely Croatian lady who cleans my
> apartment told me that the problem with this country is that it's too
> liberal and that she read Bill O'Reilly's latest book which explained
> everything.
>
> Miriam
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Blind-Democracy [mailto:blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org] On
> Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
> Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 12:55 PM
> To: Blind Democracy Discussion List
> Subject: Re: Why CodePink Calls Kissinger the Real 'Low-life Scum'
>
> Division is the tool of the Ruling Classes.
> Fanning "National Pride", fostering the belief that we are "better than
> them", encouraging contempt for those who the Ruling Classes do not want.
> It has been forced upon us for so long that many people never question it.
> And we like to have things around us that we are familiar with, comfortable
> with. So we push away "outside of the box"
> thinking.
> Those of us who feel we have a point of view that is different, perhaps
> better, than theirs, we need to find ways to get underneath their fixed
> beliefs and cause them to question them and to consider alternatives.
> Just finding ways to get folks to think. To teach others that what they
> have been taught to believe is Thinking, is merely a process of
> regurgitation.
> I'd ramble on, but we are headed off to pick up the last of my
> mother-in-laws furniture out of storage. It is a six foot long stereo,
> radio combination. A very heavy piece of furniture that has outlived its
> time but is still highly desired by Dorothy. So we have the hand truck and
> five people ready to test our backs. It will need to be moved to our truck
> and then into the apartment building, down to the lower floor and along two
> long halls to Dorothy's apartment. Then the trick will be to scoot it
> through the door and around into the spare bedroom. I have tried in vain
> to
> declare it a boat anchor and give it to the Navy.
>
> Carl Jarvis
>
>
> On 1/31/15, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
>> Carl,
>>
>> I know that people are misinformed by the mass media. I know that
>> they've been taught a false history in school. And I also know that
>> they have varying degrees of intellectual competence. Having said all
>> that, for whatever reason, most people do support what is happening.
>> If they didn't, they'd be in the streets. They'd be talking about
>> their distress with our wars and our torture. But they aren't doing
>> that. And if I inadvertently get into discussions with people about
>> any of this, I find that they are embued with patriotism, fear of
>> terrorists, and concern about their own economic welfare.
>> Unfortunately, their concern about their economic welfare doesn't
>> extend to seeing change in our economic system as a solution. When
>> progressive writers say that a majority of people support what
>> progressives stand for, what they're really talking about is polls
>> that show people's concern about their economic welfare, not their
>> support for socialism. Of course, the people with whom I come into
>> contact, and that is a small number these days, are residents of
>> nassau County Long Island. Most of these people own small homes, have
>> moderate incomes, and either grew up here, or moved here from the city
>> in order to live in the suburbs where, they believed, they'd be
>> protected from people of color and crime. There are also some
>> extremely wealthy people living in Nassau County, but they're in
>> separate areas. There are also some areas where very poor people live.
>> So the people I encounter, tend to have the prevailing view of this
>> socially, and politically conservative area.
>>
>> Miriam
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blind-Democracy mailing list
> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>
Saturday, January 31, 2015
Netanyahu speech scandal blows up, no thanks to the narrow minded, short sighted Republicans
So often I start to accuse Benjamin Netanyahu of being a Traitor. But
then I remember Benjamin Netanyahu is not an American Citizen! He,
like his
arrogant associate, Doctor Kissinger, serves the special interests of
the Empire's ruling class, not ever the American People.
By even considering accepting the invitation to come to Washington
DC., and speak, he demonstrates that he is no more aware of the inner
workings and forces within the Empire, than Washington DC. officials
are aware of the complexities within the Israeli government.
Frankly, I hope Benjamin Netanyahu got more than his fingers burned.
Carl Jarvis
On 1/30/15, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
> 3 Netanyahu speech scandal blows up, and 'soiled' Dermer looks like the
> fall
> guy
>
>
>
> http://mondoweiss.net/2015/01/netanyahu-scandal-soiled?utm_source=Mondoweiss
> +List&utm_campaign=f185692135-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0
> _b86bace129-f185692135-395685658
>
> Philip Weiss on January 29, 2015 62 Comments
>
>
>
>
>
> Obama and Dermer, in happier days Obama and Dermer, in happier days
>
>
>
>
>
> In the last 24 hours the controversy over the planned speech by Israeli PM
> Benjamin Netanyahu to both houses of Congress on March 3 to rebut the
> president's policy on Iran has blown up to a new level. Muted outrage over
> the invitation has turned into open rage. The opposition to the speech by
> major Israel supporters across the political spectrum, liberal J Street,
> center-right Jeffrey Goldberg, and hard-right Abraham Foxman, all of whom
> say the speech-planners have put the US-Israel relationship at risk by
> making it a political controversy in the U.S., has been conveyed to the
> Democratic establishment.
>
>
>
> The New York Times and Chris Matthews both landed on the story last night,
> a
> full week after it broke, to let us know what a disaster the speech would
> be
> if it's ever delivered. So these media are acting to protect the special
> relationship by upping the pressure to cancel the speech.
>
>
>
> With even AIPAC washing its hands of the speech, it sure looks as if Israel
> supporters want an exit from this fiasco. Jettisoning Israeli ambassador
> Ron
> Dermer or cancelling the speech would seem like a small price to pay in the
> news cycle next to a spectacle in which leading Democrats are forced to
> line
> up against Netanyahu in Washington, even as they file in and out of the
> AIPAC policy conference and praise Israel to the skies.
>
>
>
> Here are the developments. First, the New York Times' Julie Hirschfeld
> Davis
> has a report of unleashed White House fury over the invitation. The story
> contains the signal that Ron Dermer, the Israeli ambassador, will be the
> fall guy for the scandal:
>
>
>
>
>
> The outrage the episode has incited within President Obama's inner circle
> became clear in unusually sharp criticism by a senior administration
> official who said that the Israeli ambassador, Ron Dermer, who helped
> orchestrate the invitation, had repeatedly placed Mr. Netanyahu's political
> fortunes above the relationship between Israel and the United States.
>
>
>
> The official who made the comments to The New York Times would not be
> named,
> and the White House declined to comment..
>
>
>
> So: The White House gets to appear as if it is protecting the special
> relationship between the countries from that shmendrick Dermer. The message
> to Dermer is delivered in scatological terms by former ambassador Dan
> Kurtzer, a liberal Zionist:
>
>
>
>
>
> "He has soiled his pad; who's he going to work with?" Mr. Kurtzer said.
>
>
>
> Dermer's felony was politicizing the relationship between the countries.
> Hey, no one wants this politicized? The neoconservatives do; they want a
> battle over Iran policy. So did Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez, when he
> said Obama was taking his talking points from Tehran. The left surely wants
> the matter politicized; that way our politicians can come out against
> Israeli settlements and massacres. But the centrist elements of the lobby
> have cohered over this issue, saying the speech is a big problem, and Obama
> must keep Israel supporters happy in order to get the prize here: freedom
> to
> negotiate with Iran.
>
>
>
> Even AIPAC is trying to steer clear of the wreckage. Ron Kampeas reports:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Alan Elsner of J Street has savaged Dermer in Haaretz, "Israel's ambassador
> to the U.S. is planting a rotten seed." Elsner wrote that Dermer has placed
> Israel's most essential protection at risk:
>
>
>
>
>
> At a time of growing diplomatic isolation, Israel only has one firm ally
> that it can depend on - the United States. Does it really want to further
> narrow that base of support by depending entirely on Republicans, as Dermer
> seems to want to do?
>
>
>
> The Times echoes the point, saying the last thing Obama wants is for
> Americans to start arguing about the special relationship:
>
>
>
>
>
> White House officials were at first wary that Mr. Dermer would politicize
> relations between Washington and Jerusalem, but over time cultivated a
> working relationship with him after concluding that there were advantages
> in
> his closeness to Mr. Netanyahu.
>
>
>
> The last week has borne out their initial concerns.
>
>
>
> The Israelis are reportedly enraged about it too. The Times also published
> the story that Michael Oren has called on Netanyahu to cancel the speech.
> Short term political gain at the risk of the entire US-Israel relationship.
>
>
>
> Is there a conspiracy of folks trying to protect the US-Israel relationship
> from any robust debate? Yes. Chris Matthews led off his broadcast last
> night
> with the story. This after ignoring it the day it broke last week. Matthews
> slyly wondered who was at the bottom of the invitation, but then went on to
> praise Tzipi Livni, Isaac Herzog, Michael Oren, and Abe Foxman as wonderful
> people. Talk about covering your bases. David Corn seemed to echo J Street
> when he explained that an Israeli prime minister had two jobs, keeping his
> country safe and protecting the relationship with the United States. But
> gosh, that's Israel's problem. Where is the American interest? Maybe it
> would be a good thing if the issue were open to the American voters. They'd
> get to discuss how they feel about Israeli expansion and massacres and
> nuclear weapons, and their feelings would be echoed by politicians. We
> would
> have a deal with Iran in no time; and there'd be huge pressure on Israel to
> end the occupation.
>
>
>
> Corn said the battle is for "Jewish voters." This is not true; Jewish
> voters
> are in safe states, with the exception of Florida. It's about Jewish donors
> and Jewish friends of Israel all over the establishment. Matthews said
> again
> that no president could be elected or reelected if he/she allowed Iran to
> get a nuclear weapon. To his great credit, Corn disagreed. While
> emphasizing
> that it is not evident that Iran even wants a nuclear weapon, Corn seemed
> to
> express the view that we can contain a nuclear Iran. It's about time that
> realist view was expressed in the MSM. The establishment wants this scandal
> to end in a hurry, but it continues to yield benefits.
>
>
>
> Thanks to James North.
>
>
>
> Update: National Iranian American Council organizes a campaign to stop the
> speech. It has three Congresspeople on board.
>
>
>
>
>
> It is unbelievable that some in our Congress would provide a foreign leader
> with an official platform to attack our President and start a war. If
> sanctions pass and diplomacy collapses, Americans could be sent to die in a
> war with Iran. That is not Bibi Netanyahu's decision to make.
>
>
>
> So some in Congress are taking action to stop Bibi's speech.
> Representatives
> Keith Ellison (D-MN), Maxine Waters (D-CA), and Steve Cohen (D-TN) are
> organizing a letter to demand that House Speaker John Boehner (who made the
> invitation) cancel Bibi's invite.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blind-Democracy mailing list
> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>
then I remember Benjamin Netanyahu is not an American Citizen! He,
like his
arrogant associate, Doctor Kissinger, serves the special interests of
the Empire's ruling class, not ever the American People.
By even considering accepting the invitation to come to Washington
DC., and speak, he demonstrates that he is no more aware of the inner
workings and forces within the Empire, than Washington DC. officials
are aware of the complexities within the Israeli government.
Frankly, I hope Benjamin Netanyahu got more than his fingers burned.
Carl Jarvis
On 1/30/15, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
> 3 Netanyahu speech scandal blows up, and 'soiled' Dermer looks like the
> fall
> guy
>
>
>
> http://mondoweiss.net/2015/01/netanyahu-scandal-soiled?utm_source=Mondoweiss
> +List&utm_campaign=f185692135-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0
> _b86bace129-f185692135-395685658
>
> Philip Weiss on January 29, 2015 62 Comments
>
>
>
>
>
> Obama and Dermer, in happier days Obama and Dermer, in happier days
>
>
>
>
>
> In the last 24 hours the controversy over the planned speech by Israeli PM
> Benjamin Netanyahu to both houses of Congress on March 3 to rebut the
> president's policy on Iran has blown up to a new level. Muted outrage over
> the invitation has turned into open rage. The opposition to the speech by
> major Israel supporters across the political spectrum, liberal J Street,
> center-right Jeffrey Goldberg, and hard-right Abraham Foxman, all of whom
> say the speech-planners have put the US-Israel relationship at risk by
> making it a political controversy in the U.S., has been conveyed to the
> Democratic establishment.
>
>
>
> The New York Times and Chris Matthews both landed on the story last night,
> a
> full week after it broke, to let us know what a disaster the speech would
> be
> if it's ever delivered. So these media are acting to protect the special
> relationship by upping the pressure to cancel the speech.
>
>
>
> With even AIPAC washing its hands of the speech, it sure looks as if Israel
> supporters want an exit from this fiasco. Jettisoning Israeli ambassador
> Ron
> Dermer or cancelling the speech would seem like a small price to pay in the
> news cycle next to a spectacle in which leading Democrats are forced to
> line
> up against Netanyahu in Washington, even as they file in and out of the
> AIPAC policy conference and praise Israel to the skies.
>
>
>
> Here are the developments. First, the New York Times' Julie Hirschfeld
> Davis
> has a report of unleashed White House fury over the invitation. The story
> contains the signal that Ron Dermer, the Israeli ambassador, will be the
> fall guy for the scandal:
>
>
>
>
>
> The outrage the episode has incited within President Obama's inner circle
> became clear in unusually sharp criticism by a senior administration
> official who said that the Israeli ambassador, Ron Dermer, who helped
> orchestrate the invitation, had repeatedly placed Mr. Netanyahu's political
> fortunes above the relationship between Israel and the United States.
>
>
>
> The official who made the comments to The New York Times would not be
> named,
> and the White House declined to comment..
>
>
>
> So: The White House gets to appear as if it is protecting the special
> relationship between the countries from that shmendrick Dermer. The message
> to Dermer is delivered in scatological terms by former ambassador Dan
> Kurtzer, a liberal Zionist:
>
>
>
>
>
> "He has soiled his pad; who's he going to work with?" Mr. Kurtzer said.
>
>
>
> Dermer's felony was politicizing the relationship between the countries.
> Hey, no one wants this politicized? The neoconservatives do; they want a
> battle over Iran policy. So did Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez, when he
> said Obama was taking his talking points from Tehran. The left surely wants
> the matter politicized; that way our politicians can come out against
> Israeli settlements and massacres. But the centrist elements of the lobby
> have cohered over this issue, saying the speech is a big problem, and Obama
> must keep Israel supporters happy in order to get the prize here: freedom
> to
> negotiate with Iran.
>
>
>
> Even AIPAC is trying to steer clear of the wreckage. Ron Kampeas reports:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Alan Elsner of J Street has savaged Dermer in Haaretz, "Israel's ambassador
> to the U.S. is planting a rotten seed." Elsner wrote that Dermer has placed
> Israel's most essential protection at risk:
>
>
>
>
>
> At a time of growing diplomatic isolation, Israel only has one firm ally
> that it can depend on - the United States. Does it really want to further
> narrow that base of support by depending entirely on Republicans, as Dermer
> seems to want to do?
>
>
>
> The Times echoes the point, saying the last thing Obama wants is for
> Americans to start arguing about the special relationship:
>
>
>
>
>
> White House officials were at first wary that Mr. Dermer would politicize
> relations between Washington and Jerusalem, but over time cultivated a
> working relationship with him after concluding that there were advantages
> in
> his closeness to Mr. Netanyahu.
>
>
>
> The last week has borne out their initial concerns.
>
>
>
> The Israelis are reportedly enraged about it too. The Times also published
> the story that Michael Oren has called on Netanyahu to cancel the speech.
> Short term political gain at the risk of the entire US-Israel relationship.
>
>
>
> Is there a conspiracy of folks trying to protect the US-Israel relationship
> from any robust debate? Yes. Chris Matthews led off his broadcast last
> night
> with the story. This after ignoring it the day it broke last week. Matthews
> slyly wondered who was at the bottom of the invitation, but then went on to
> praise Tzipi Livni, Isaac Herzog, Michael Oren, and Abe Foxman as wonderful
> people. Talk about covering your bases. David Corn seemed to echo J Street
> when he explained that an Israeli prime minister had two jobs, keeping his
> country safe and protecting the relationship with the United States. But
> gosh, that's Israel's problem. Where is the American interest? Maybe it
> would be a good thing if the issue were open to the American voters. They'd
> get to discuss how they feel about Israeli expansion and massacres and
> nuclear weapons, and their feelings would be echoed by politicians. We
> would
> have a deal with Iran in no time; and there'd be huge pressure on Israel to
> end the occupation.
>
>
>
> Corn said the battle is for "Jewish voters." This is not true; Jewish
> voters
> are in safe states, with the exception of Florida. It's about Jewish donors
> and Jewish friends of Israel all over the establishment. Matthews said
> again
> that no president could be elected or reelected if he/she allowed Iran to
> get a nuclear weapon. To his great credit, Corn disagreed. While
> emphasizing
> that it is not evident that Iran even wants a nuclear weapon, Corn seemed
> to
> express the view that we can contain a nuclear Iran. It's about time that
> realist view was expressed in the MSM. The establishment wants this scandal
> to end in a hurry, but it continues to yield benefits.
>
>
>
> Thanks to James North.
>
>
>
> Update: National Iranian American Council organizes a campaign to stop the
> speech. It has three Congresspeople on board.
>
>
>
>
>
> It is unbelievable that some in our Congress would provide a foreign leader
> with an official platform to attack our President and start a war. If
> sanctions pass and diplomacy collapses, Americans could be sent to die in a
> war with Iran. That is not Bibi Netanyahu's decision to make.
>
>
>
> So some in Congress are taking action to stop Bibi's speech.
> Representatives
> Keith Ellison (D-MN), Maxine Waters (D-CA), and Steve Cohen (D-TN) are
> organizing a letter to demand that House Speaker John Boehner (who made the
> invitation) cancel Bibi's invite.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blind-Democracy mailing list
> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>
another unique voice is stilled
Like Rod McKuen, each one of us has the ability to make our voice
heard. Will it be a strong voice in the light of day, or a whimper in
the dark?
Carl Jarvis
*****
Rod McKuen dies.
By HILLEL ITALIE
AP National Writer
NEW YORK (AP) - Rod McKuen, the husky-voiced "King of Kitsch" whose
avalanche of music, verse and spoken-word recordings in the 1960s and
'70s overwhelmed
critical mockery and made him an Oscar-nominated songwriter and one of
the best-selling poets in history, has died. He was 81.
McKuen died Thursday morning at a rehabilitation center in Beverly
Hills, California, where he had been treated for pneumonia and had
been ill for several
weeks and was unable to digest food, his half-brother Edward McKuen Habib said.
Until his sabbatical in 1981, McKuen was an astonishingly successful
and prolific force in popular culture, turning out hundreds of songs,
poems and records.
Sentimental, earnest and unashamed, he conjured a New Age spirit world
that captivated those who didn't ordinarily like "poetry" and those
who craved relief
from the war, assassinations and riots of the time.
"I think it's a reaction people are having against so much insanity in
the world," he once said. "I mean, people are really all we've got.
You know it
sounds kind of corny, and I suppose it's a cliche, but it's really
true; that's just the way it is."
His best-known songs, some written with the Belgian composer Jacques
Brel, include "Birthday Boy," ''A Man Alone," ''If You Go Away" and
"Seasons In the
Sun," a chart-topper in 1974 for Terry Jacks. He was nominated for
Oscars for "Jean" from "The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie" and for "A Boy
Named Charlie
Brown," the title track from the beloved Peanuts movie.
Frank Sinatra, Madonna, Dolly Parton and Chet Baker were among the
many artists who recorded his material, although McKuen often handled
the job himself,
in a hushed, throaty style he honed after an early life as a rock
singer cracked his natural tenor.
McKuen is credited with more than 200 albums - dozens of which went
gold or platinum - and more than 30 collections of poetry. Worldwide
sales for his
music top 100 million units while his book sales exceed 60 million copies.
He was especially productive from 1968 to 1969, releasing four poetry
collections, eight songbooks, the soundtracks to "Miss Jean Brodie"
and "A Boy Named
Charlie Brown" and at least 10 other albums. Around the same time, his
"Lonesome Cities" album won a Grammy for best spoken word recording
and Sinatra
commissioned him to write material for "A Man Alone: The Words and
Music of Rod McKuen."
With his sharply parted blond hair, sneakers and jeans, McKuen was
recognized worldwide and thrived in every medium: movies, music,
books, television,
stage. When not writing or recording, he appeared on "The Tonight
Show" with Johnny Carson and other talk show programs, formed a film
production company
with Rock Hudson and toured constantly until he took an extended break in 1981.
"I was tired. I peaked. I left when I was on top," McKuen told the
Chicago Tribune in 2001. "One year, I did 280 concerts."
He had no formal musical or literary training, but often turned out a
song or poem per day and prided himself on writing verse that anyone
could understand.
The work seemed to call for accompaniment by a single, sad guitar or a
sobbing chorus of strings. Among his most quoted phrases: "Listen to
the warm" and
"It doesn't matter who you love, or how you love, but that you love."
The words written about McKuen were as notable as his own. Often
compared to "Love Story" author Erich Segal, he was dubbed "The King
of Kitsch" by Newsweek,
while the magazine Mademoiselle preferred "Marshmallow Poet." A
National Lampoon parody interspaced mock verses with dollar signs.
The escapism of his work was contrasted by an early life well in need
of escaping. Born in Oakland in 1934, he hardly knew his father, who
left the family
when he was a baby, and McKuen recalled being terrified of his
alcoholic stepfather. By age 11, McKuen had run away and he would
spend his teens doing
everything from ranching to roping horses in a rodeo, while writing
poetry in his free time.
After serving as a propaganda writer in the Korean War, McKuen wound
up in San Francisco, where his friend Phyllis Diller helped him find
work in the growing
nightclub scene. He went on to sing with the Lionel Hampton band,
acted in a handful of movies and TV shows, read poetry on the same
bill as Jack Kerouac
and other Beat writers and had a minor hit single in the early 1960s
with the dance parody "Oliver Twist."
Without critical approval or a book or recording contract, McKuen
proved that an artist could thrive on word of mouth alone. He sang in
bowling alleys
to promote "Oliver Twist," and his self-published collection of poems
and lyrics, "Stanyan Street and Other Sorrows," sold tens of thousands
of copies
before Random House acquired it.
McKuen slowed down over the second half of his life, and many of his
books fell out of print. But he continued to publish poetry,
remastered old musical
recordings and gave occasional concerts. He provided voiceovers for
the Disney movie and TV series "The Little Mermaid" and appeared at
Carnegie Hall in
1995 for an 80th birthday tribute to Sinatra. Artists continued to
record his songs, including the former Gene Ween, Aaron Freeman, who
in 2012 released
an album of McKuen covers called "Marvelous Clouds."
McKuen did at times take on social and political issues. He opposed
the Vietnam War, wrote a poem about the Watergate scandal and
supported civil rights
and equal rights for gays. Often described as a loner, he was
reluctant to discuss his own romantic preferences beyond saying he did
have them.
"Cats have it all," he once wrote, "admiration, an endless sleep, and
company only when they want it."
___
heard. Will it be a strong voice in the light of day, or a whimper in
the dark?
Carl Jarvis
*****
Rod McKuen dies.
By HILLEL ITALIE
AP National Writer
NEW YORK (AP) - Rod McKuen, the husky-voiced "King of Kitsch" whose
avalanche of music, verse and spoken-word recordings in the 1960s and
'70s overwhelmed
critical mockery and made him an Oscar-nominated songwriter and one of
the best-selling poets in history, has died. He was 81.
McKuen died Thursday morning at a rehabilitation center in Beverly
Hills, California, where he had been treated for pneumonia and had
been ill for several
weeks and was unable to digest food, his half-brother Edward McKuen Habib said.
Until his sabbatical in 1981, McKuen was an astonishingly successful
and prolific force in popular culture, turning out hundreds of songs,
poems and records.
Sentimental, earnest and unashamed, he conjured a New Age spirit world
that captivated those who didn't ordinarily like "poetry" and those
who craved relief
from the war, assassinations and riots of the time.
"I think it's a reaction people are having against so much insanity in
the world," he once said. "I mean, people are really all we've got.
You know it
sounds kind of corny, and I suppose it's a cliche, but it's really
true; that's just the way it is."
His best-known songs, some written with the Belgian composer Jacques
Brel, include "Birthday Boy," ''A Man Alone," ''If You Go Away" and
"Seasons In the
Sun," a chart-topper in 1974 for Terry Jacks. He was nominated for
Oscars for "Jean" from "The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie" and for "A Boy
Named Charlie
Brown," the title track from the beloved Peanuts movie.
Frank Sinatra, Madonna, Dolly Parton and Chet Baker were among the
many artists who recorded his material, although McKuen often handled
the job himself,
in a hushed, throaty style he honed after an early life as a rock
singer cracked his natural tenor.
McKuen is credited with more than 200 albums - dozens of which went
gold or platinum - and more than 30 collections of poetry. Worldwide
sales for his
music top 100 million units while his book sales exceed 60 million copies.
He was especially productive from 1968 to 1969, releasing four poetry
collections, eight songbooks, the soundtracks to "Miss Jean Brodie"
and "A Boy Named
Charlie Brown" and at least 10 other albums. Around the same time, his
"Lonesome Cities" album won a Grammy for best spoken word recording
and Sinatra
commissioned him to write material for "A Man Alone: The Words and
Music of Rod McKuen."
With his sharply parted blond hair, sneakers and jeans, McKuen was
recognized worldwide and thrived in every medium: movies, music,
books, television,
stage. When not writing or recording, he appeared on "The Tonight
Show" with Johnny Carson and other talk show programs, formed a film
production company
with Rock Hudson and toured constantly until he took an extended break in 1981.
"I was tired. I peaked. I left when I was on top," McKuen told the
Chicago Tribune in 2001. "One year, I did 280 concerts."
He had no formal musical or literary training, but often turned out a
song or poem per day and prided himself on writing verse that anyone
could understand.
The work seemed to call for accompaniment by a single, sad guitar or a
sobbing chorus of strings. Among his most quoted phrases: "Listen to
the warm" and
"It doesn't matter who you love, or how you love, but that you love."
The words written about McKuen were as notable as his own. Often
compared to "Love Story" author Erich Segal, he was dubbed "The King
of Kitsch" by Newsweek,
while the magazine Mademoiselle preferred "Marshmallow Poet." A
National Lampoon parody interspaced mock verses with dollar signs.
The escapism of his work was contrasted by an early life well in need
of escaping. Born in Oakland in 1934, he hardly knew his father, who
left the family
when he was a baby, and McKuen recalled being terrified of his
alcoholic stepfather. By age 11, McKuen had run away and he would
spend his teens doing
everything from ranching to roping horses in a rodeo, while writing
poetry in his free time.
After serving as a propaganda writer in the Korean War, McKuen wound
up in San Francisco, where his friend Phyllis Diller helped him find
work in the growing
nightclub scene. He went on to sing with the Lionel Hampton band,
acted in a handful of movies and TV shows, read poetry on the same
bill as Jack Kerouac
and other Beat writers and had a minor hit single in the early 1960s
with the dance parody "Oliver Twist."
Without critical approval or a book or recording contract, McKuen
proved that an artist could thrive on word of mouth alone. He sang in
bowling alleys
to promote "Oliver Twist," and his self-published collection of poems
and lyrics, "Stanyan Street and Other Sorrows," sold tens of thousands
of copies
before Random House acquired it.
McKuen slowed down over the second half of his life, and many of his
books fell out of print. But he continued to publish poetry,
remastered old musical
recordings and gave occasional concerts. He provided voiceovers for
the Disney movie and TV series "The Little Mermaid" and appeared at
Carnegie Hall in
1995 for an 80th birthday tribute to Sinatra. Artists continued to
record his songs, including the former Gene Ween, Aaron Freeman, who
in 2012 released
an album of McKuen covers called "Marvelous Clouds."
McKuen did at times take on social and political issues. He opposed
the Vietnam War, wrote a poem about the Watergate scandal and
supported civil rights
and equal rights for gays. Often described as a loner, he was
reluctant to discuss his own romantic preferences beyond saying he did
have them.
"Cats have it all," he once wrote, "admiration, an endless sleep, and
company only when they want it."
___
Friday, January 30, 2015
More thoughts about Woodrow Wilson: Intellectual defender of the Landed Gentry.
Miriam wrote in part:
"...Explaining human experience and realities by using these big
sweeping generalizations such as God's will or class struggle, often
doesn't explain anything. It
explains away human experience and reality. It removes our feeling of
individual agency or control. People can't be pigeon holed, described by
putting them into categories."
At one level this is true. Grandma Jarvis went to her grave believing
that she was part of the Landed Gentry of Missouri.
And so did her father, despite working side by side with his slaves.
He believed himself to be superior to them, and to the White Trash
that owned no land. Great Grandpa Hickman saw that plantation of his
as proof that he was a member of the Missouri Ruling Class. But just
because he believed it and told all who'd listen, that he was a member
in good standing, did not make it true.
I know very little about Grandpa Hickman, born sometime in the 1840's,
But from the stories my grandma Jarvis told me, he was working on a
very slim profit margin. Which explains why he went into the fields
each day. He was owned by those who controlled the prices his crops
brought in the produce houses of the day. And who knows what became
of that plantation when Grandpa Hickman laid down and died. I only
knew three of his children, grandma Jarvis, Aunts Ollie and Mary.
None of them knew what became of the Land. None of them ever received
a single cent from its sale.
My dad seemed to think it was sold eventually, to pay back taxes.
But my point is this, despite what each of these people believed about
their station in life, they were actually members of the Working
Class. It didn't matter if they went about waving degrees or
pedigrees, or if they looked down their noses at other folk. They
were in debt to the Ruling Class of their day.
In her later years, grandma Jarvis accepted an Old Age Pension from
the State of Washington. She lived her last years in low income
housing provided to her by the "hated democrats"in Central Seattle.
She lived to be 86 years old, and spent her days behind shuttered
windows in fear of some Colored Man grabbing her and raping her. And
yet, she told me that They(the colored folk) were all right, in their
place.
So back to my point. The fantasy world grandma Jarvis lived in did
her no good as far as her life in the real world. What this fantasy
did do for her, was to wrap her in false comfort, in a dream of better
times to come. We can spend tons of words trying to explain the
complexities of this one woman, dead since 1960, and never solve the
puzzle that is her Being. But we can see, without taking any thing
away from her, that she lived life as a member of the Working Class.
Why can we not talk about her struggle in the world and talk about her
place in our Class Culture, without distracting from either? Perhaps
instead of considering her place in the American Class System, we
could focus on her deep Faith. Raised in the 18 hundreds in the Bible
Belt, grandma grew up as a True Believer. A Presbyterian. Baptists
and Methodists were beneath her. Catholics belonged to the Devil. One
of her brothers was a minister. Two of my dads uncles, on his
father's side, were ministers, also. Grandma believed beyond all
doubt that when she opened her eyes after her physical death, she
would be looking into the precious face of her beloved Savior, Jesus
Christ. All three of her living children became Atheists despite her
daily preaching to them, and practically living in the church
building. Grandma looked down her nose at "Unbelievers". But she
seemed to ignore the fact that all three of her children had turned
away from the church. I think she believed they would return one day.
Everything grandma Jarvis did or said flew in the face of her
religious beliefs.
But inside her brain she was a loving Christian Lady. But the fact
is, two of her children, her daughter and my dad, were far more
attentive to the needs of the down trodden than was she. Her eldest
son, while not a Christian, did become a good and faithful
informant(Stool Pigeon) for the FBI.
So again, what grandma Jarvis believed she was did not mesh with how
she lived her life. And I can honestly say that her favorite
grandson(Me!) is no different. In my head I am a radical, breathing
fire, speaking words of wisdom. In my walk through life, I am far
more of a Centrist possessing no particular original thoughts, and
certainly short on wisdom. And gazing about me, I see a Land filled
with similar people. Each holding onto an inner image, while living
life at a different level.
So this leaves me with nothing more to say this morning.
Carl Jarvis, who sees himself about to go off and do good in the world
of the elder low vision and blind world.
On 1/29/15, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
> Carl,
>
> So your family story illustrates the point I keep trying to make.
> Explaining
> human experience and realities by using these big sweeping generalizations
> such as God's will or class struggle, often doesn't explain anything. It
> explains away human experience and reality. It removes our feeling of
> individual agency or control. People can't be pigeon holed, described by
> putting them into categories.
>
> Miriam
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Blind-Democracy [mailto:blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org] On
> Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 11:45 AM
> To: Blind Democracy Discussion List
> Subject: More thoughts about Woodrow Wilson: Intellectual defender of the
> Landed Gentry.
>
> Joe's comments regarding the humble beginnings of such presidents as
> Abe Lincoln and LBJ, brings me back to the point that this is a
> complex subject. Naturally, since Human-Type People are involved. We
> are each of us products of a complex range of internal and external
> forces. Important to remember is that it is an internal process that
> weighs what information is coming into our pointed little heads. For
> example, my dad, and avowed Marxist, was born into a wealthy family.
> His grandfather owned a plantation and with it, several slaves. My
> grandmother Jarvis grew up in comfort, with her own Nanny, wet nurse
> and doting parents. She married well. An independent miner who was
> in partnership with a group who contracted to clean out mine shafts
> that were no longer producing at the rate the larger companies needed
> in order to show a profit. Until he died of Black Lung, from his long
> years in the mines, grandpa Jarvis showered gifts and love upon his
> only son, my dad. Even though his death threw my grandmother into
> poverty, she still had the support of her parents, along with her own
> determination. Grandma always saw herself as a member of the Landed
> Gentry. She raised my dad in this frame of mind. A Lincoln
> Republican, a devout Presbyterian, and a stern disciplinarian. My dad
> looked around himself and found a world that did not match his
> mother's beliefs. He became a Marxist, a union organizer and
> constantly questioned the government, a government his mother
> worshipped unquestioningly.
> In case anyone who reads my ramblings recalls, I often say that my
> People have always been Working Class People. And so they were. Even
> great grandpa Hickman, whose wife was niece to Jefferson Davis, even
> grandpa Hickman worked shoulder to shoulder with his slaves. Even his
> son-in-law, Fletch Jarvis, worked underground with his crew. Only my
> grandmother Jarvis was raised to believe she was "special". She had
> instilled in her all of the unfulfilled
> dreams and aspeerations of her parents. And so she remembered life
> quite differently than other members of her family. Things she told
> me when I would visit her. Grandma was born in 1874 in Missouri.
> "Colored folks should stay in their place". "Men should never look
> upon a woman's unclothed body".
> And on and on....
> But I must get out of here and go about doing good in the world.
>
> Carl Jarvis
> On 1/28/15, joe harcz Comcast <joeharcz@comcast.net> wrote:
>> LBJ in particlar was not ofthe "gentry" and in fact was a product of
> poverty
>>
>> and deprivation.
>>
>> As was lincoln not mentioned hereine. Regardless both were poor in their
>> upbbringings and both were not only not part of the so-called middle
> class,
>>
>> but both grew up as Roger and classical Marxists call the lumpen
>> proletariate or as some call the "under class" or as others call the
>> impoverished class.
>>
>> Regardless both L
>> BJ and Lincoln were as poor as Church mouses whilst growing up. And those
>> are facts sir, not oopinions.
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "ted chittenden" <tchittenden@cox.net>
>> To: "Blind Democracy Discussion List" <blind-democracy@octothorp.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 4:06 PM
>> Subject: Re: Woodrow Wilson: Intellectual defender of the Landed Gentry.
>>
>>
>>> Carl:
>>> Of course all of them have been under the pressure of the ruling gentrys
>>> of their day to protect that gentry! In fact, nearly all of our
> presidents
>>>
>>> have come from that gentry and from a few specific families within that
>>> gentry.
>>>
>>> That said, some of these men in some areas have turned out to be very
>>> farsighted. They include, in no particular order, LBJ and the Great
>>> Society; FDR and the New Deal; Chester A. Arthur for setting up the U.S.
>>> Civil Service; and even Woodrow Wilson for his Fourteen Points!
>>>
>>> I think the other thing to remember here is that, for the vast majority
> of
>>>
>>> U.S. history, most of the white peasantry (and later middle class)
>>> supported the goals of the landed gentry, and I maintain that this is
>>> still the case today.
>>> --
>>> Ted Chittenden
>>>
>>> Every story has at least two sides if not more.
>>> ---- Carl Jarvis <carjar82@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Ted,
>>> Exactly so. The founding fathers were the establishment, setting up a
>>> government that would protect their interests. In fact, they excluded
>>> most people from participating meaningfully in their government. Down
>>> through the years the dance has been back and forth between allowing
>>> the masses more involvement, or less. Today the push is toward less
>>> participation.
>>> But you are right about the men in the office of president. They
>>> were, and are, human. But beyond that, I maintain that they are under
>>> pressure from the Landed Ruling Class to defend and protect their
>>> interest just as the original government was established to do.
>>> Carl Jarvis
>>>
>>> On 1/28/15, ted chittenden <tchittenden@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> Carl:
>>>> Keep in mind that the founding fathers of the U.S. were themselves
>>>> landed
>>>> gentry, and the U.S. constitution was written ultimately to protect
>>>> their
>>>> property rights.
>>>>
>>>> As far as the U.S. presidents go, they were all human beings, just like
>>>> you
>>>> and me. A few were farsighted and made decisions that assisted many
>>>> people;
>>>> but most could not really see beyond their own short term personal and
>>>> political interests.
>>>> --
>>>> Ted Chittenden
>>>>
>>>> Every story has at least two sides if not more.
>>>> ---- Carl Jarvis <carjar82@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> My purpose has not been to paint Woodrow Wilson as some dark monster.
>>>> Like each of us, he was a product of his time. Southern roots, highly
>>>> educated, moved North to a position in a university, became governor
>>>> of New Jersey, and onward to the White House, bringing all sorts of
>>>> baggage with him. In all of that, Wilson was no different than those
>>>> presidents before him. Sad to say, all those who followed him were no
>>>> different. Only a very few managed to rise above the level of
>>>> Servant, and make life some easier for the People.
>>>> But each president has been the puppet of the Ruling Establishment.
>>>> Even the wide spread reforms enacted under FDR, went only far enough
>>>> to save a collapse of the Establishment.
>>>> We worship some of them and villainize others, but they are all merely
>>>> reflecting the values of their times. This should cause us to ponder
>>>> why even a Prince of Peace, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, Barak
>>>> Obama, is as prone to advance the Empire's Programs with violence.
>>>> Looking at Obama and Bush II, we see great intellectual differences.
>>>> But both men danced to the Empire's Waltz. In person I would far
>>>> rather sit with Obama and chat about world affairs than to sit with
>>>> Bush and talk about God....his God. But in their official office,
>>>> neither one is able to put the People first.
>>>> As far as I'm concerned, reviewing each of the accomplishments of each
>>>> of our presidents is interesting, but in the end, they are all
>>>> beholden to their Masters. Yes, even our Founding Fathers.
>>>>
>>>> Carl Jarvis
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 1/28/15, joe harcz Comcast <joeharcz@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> No doubt Ted these are accurate and rightful interpretations of the
>>>>> man
>>>>> and
>>>>>
>>>>> his policies in these regards. It goes to show that an otherwise
>>>>> hidious
>>>>> leader on so many counts could and did have some good ideas and
>>>>> actions
>>>>> in
>>>>> spite of his flaws.
>>>>>
>>>>> And I think it is important as you've done here to point to the
>>>>> positive
>>>>> examples of policies and the man behind them, just as it is important
>>>>> to
>>>>> point to the factually accurate "negatives".
>>>>>
>>>>> And there were many negatives about the man and his policies for sure.
>>>>> More
>>>>>
>>>>> than can ever be detailed upon this list serve let alone abook or two
>>>>> on
>>>>> the
>>>>>
>>>>> subject.
>>>>>
>>>>> But, again Ted you are both accurate in my understanding of history
>>>>> and
>>>>> in
>>>>> facts, as well as analysis of same in these regards hhere.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem, in my opinion, is that these things that you suggest are
>>>>> the
>>>>> only things taught to most school kids about Wilson. Again they are
>>>>> not
>>>>> unimportant and they are factually accurate. So I do not diminish
>>>>> these
>>>>> things at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please understand that fact.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you do by the way.
>>>>>
>>>>> And in the noise of historical analysis I wish to say only this:
>>>>> Once again on this narrow point, though valuable you are correct and
>>>>> on
>>>>> target so far as I'm concerned Ted, for what that is worth, and this
>>>>> analysis is of value to me too.
>>>>>
>>>>> So kkkkkkkkkeep it a coming sir and never let anyone disuade you from
>>>>> your
>>>>> analysis or from posting!
>>>>>
>>>>> It is of value to me and I thankyou for it and always will so.
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "ted chittenden" <tchittenden@cox.net>
>>>>> To: "Blind Democracy Discussion List" <blind-democracy@octothorp.org>
>>>>> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 1:47 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: Woodrow Wilson, You're Hereby Charged!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> While I agree with all of the points about Woodrow Wilson that both
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> you
>>>>>>
>>>>>> have made, nevertheless I was, and remain, impressed with his
>>>>>> Fourteen
>>>>>> Points for ending World War I, especially the one about having secret
>>>>>> defense treaties between countries, which Otto von Bismarck did. Mr.
>>>>>> Wilson also foresaw the need for a body that could handle conflicts
>>>>>> between countries before most of his fellow countrymen did (it was
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> U.S. Congress that voted not to involve the U.S. in the League of
>>>>>> Nations). Finally, among his Fourteen Points, the other one that
>>>>>> stands
>>>>>> out for me is the point about war reparations. If France had not
>>>>>> insisted
>>>>>>
>>>>>> on Germany paying it back for all of its war bills, it seems likely
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> Adolf Hitler would never have come to power and World War II would
>>>>>> most
>>>>>> likely not have occurred.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Ted Chittenden
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every story has at least two sides if not more.
>>>>>> ---- joe harcz Comcast <joeharcz@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> You are accurate on all counts, Wilson in spite of his "liberal
>>>>>> label",
>>>>>> was
>>>>>> the product of Virginia and those who bemoaned the loss of the civil
>>>>>> war,
>>>>>> with subjegation of African-Americans, so he did believe and act on
>>>>>> behalf
>>>>>> of Jim Crow laws and segregation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He also engaged in some of the worst red baiting including the Palmer
>>>>>> Raids
>>>>>> and other anti-civil libertarian witch hunts in the name of national
>>>>>> security in the nation's history, so your other points are valid too
>>>>>> Carl.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>> From: "Carl Jarvis" <carjar82@gmail.com>
>>>>>> To: "Blind Democracy Discussion List" <blind-democracy@octothorp.org>
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 10:11 AM
>>>>>> Subject: Woodrow Wilson, You're Hereby Charged!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just to get serious for a moment, and without researching the
>>>>>>> subject,
>>>>>>> which means I'm shooting from the hip, Woodrow Wilson is credited
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> segregating Washington DC. You know, entrances for Whites and
>>>>>>> entrances for Colored. Drinking fountains for White and drinking
>>>>>>> fountains for Colored. Public toilets for White, and....well, maybe
>>>>>>> there's one for Colored on the other side of town.
>>>>>>> But in fairness to Wilson, a word he seems not to have known the
>>>>>>> meaning of, he was not just a Racist. He carried his elitist,
>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>> than Thou, attitude over to his fellow Whites.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Carl Jarvis
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/26/15, joe harcz Comcast <joeharcz@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Woodrow Wilson was also a virulent racist and regularly played D.W.
>>>>>>>> Griffin's "Birth of the Nation", the celebration of southern values
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> literal klan fest of a movie in the White House, emphasis on white.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>>> From: "Carl Jarvis" <carjar82@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> To: "Blind Democracy Discussion List"
>>>>>>>> <blind-democracy@octothorp.org>
>>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 12:17 PM
>>>>>>>> Subject: Woodrow Wilson, You're Hereby Charged!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Woodrow Wilson? Guilty? Wilson was a mere mortal, fumbling about
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> the world outside his Ivory Palace/University. Wilson had no clue
>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>> to how the People thought. He had his wonderful scholarly books
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> guide him.
>>>>>>>>> So who really is to blame? If indeed, we put all the blame on one
>>>>>>>>> man's shoulders?
>>>>>>>>> Jesus Christ. Yes, it's all the fault of Jesus Christ! Here was
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> man who was proclaimed to be more than a mere mortal. He walked
>>>>>>>>> among
>>>>>>>>> the People. He knew their ways, their fears, their hopes. And
>>>>>>>>> Jesus
>>>>>>>>> Christ responded by dangling Hope just above their reach. He made
>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> sound as though there was a wonderful place for these tired and
>>>>>>>>> bullied people.
>>>>>>>>> And ever since, people have been striving to get there. They not
>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>> want Heaven for themselves, but in their zest, they want it for
>>>>>>>>> everyone....as long as it's Their Heaven. Poor old Woodrow Wilson
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> no match for the likes of Jesus Christ. Wilson was just another
>>>>>>>>> victim of the Father in Heaven story promoted by Jesus.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Carl Jarvis
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 1/21/15, David Chittenden <dchittenden@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> David Chittenden, MSc, MRCAA
>>>>>>>>>> Email: dchittenden@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>> Mobile: +64 21 2288 288
>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> From: Daily Reckoning <dr@dailyreckoning.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> Date: 22 January 2015 12:44:17 NZDT
>>>>>>>>>>> To: <dchittenden@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Woodrow Wilson, You're Hereby Charged!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The Daily Reckoning Presents...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> January 21, 2015
>>>>>>>>>>> Archives | Unsubscribe
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Woodrow Wilson, You're Hereby Charged!
>>>>>>>>>>> The weird woman in front who cried and kept interrupting the
>>>>>>>>>>> speakers
>>>>>>>>>>> nearly choked when he said it...
>>>>>>>>>>> 28, but not all of the things, that Woodrow Wilson is
>>>>>>>>>>> responsible
>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>> mucking up big time...
>>>>>>>>>>> Then, David Stockman substantiates our laundry list with cold
>>>>>>>>>>> hard
>>>>>>>>>>> facts...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> External Advertisement
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> An URGENT Message to Anyone Born Before 1964...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Financial "Experts" Warn a Major Retirement Crisis is Coming
>>>>>>>>>>> Soon.
>>>>>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>>>>>> They Blame YOU for Not Saving Enough Money. Don't Fall for this
>>>>>>>>>>> Lie.
>>>>>>>>>>> It's
>>>>>>>>>>> NOT Your Fault! You Can Escape the Coming Crisis and Live the
>>>>>>>>>>> Retirement
>>>>>>>>>>> of Your Dreams No Matter How Much Money You Have (or Don't
>>>>>>>>>>> Have).
>>>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>>>> You
>>>>>>>>>>> Must ACT TODAY. Click Here Now To Avoid Becoming a Victim...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Baltimore, Maryland
>>>>>>>>>>> January 21, 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I think someone choked on their cookie when they heard it...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "My humble thesis tonight" the speaker said, "is that the entire
>>>>>>>>>>> 20th
>>>>>>>>>>> Century was a giant mistake."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Heh. David Stockman knows how to get a party started.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For background, Addison and I traveled into D.C. last night to
>>>>>>>>>>> attend
>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>> panel discussion on the Long Shadow of WWI. It was hosted by our
>>>>>>>>>>> friend
>>>>>>>>>>> John Henry, a direct descendant of Patrick Henry. John has been
>>>>>>>>>>> playing
>>>>>>>>>>> host to what he calls the Empire Salon for a decade or so in
>>>>>>>>>>> Washington
>>>>>>>>>>> D.C. The attendees are mostly writers, academics, think tank
>>>>>>>>>>> guys
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> odd, if cranky, libertarian type.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "We know the Empire is declining," John told us once about the
>>>>>>>>>>> founding
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> the Salon, "but in the spirit of the old Salons of Paris in the
>>>>>>>>>>> late
>>>>>>>>>>> 1800s, we just want to drink wine and talk about it."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And so it was, David Stockman, who was a congressman, Reagan's
>>>>>>>>>>> budget
>>>>>>>>>>> director and now, proprietor of the Stockman's Contra Corner
>>>>>>>>>>> blog,
>>>>>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>>>>> became a keynote speaker last night.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> He made the unapologetic case that everything bad that happened
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> 20th century was Woodrow Wilson's fault. He forwarded his speech
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> us
>>>>>>>>>>> this morning and it was over 3,000 words. We won't assume you're
>>>>>>>>>>> geeks
>>>>>>>>>>> like us for this stuff, so we'll paraphrase the full indictment,
>>>>>>>>>>> laundry
>>>>>>>>>>> list style.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Woodrow Wilson, you hereby stand accused by David Stockman of:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Midwifing violent nationalism...
>>>>>>>>>>> A destroyed Europe...
>>>>>>>>>>> The Great Depression..
>>>>>>>>>>> The warfare state...
>>>>>>>>>>> The welfare state...
>>>>>>>>>>> Keynesian economics...
>>>>>>>>>>> World War II...
>>>>>>>>>>> The Holocaust...
>>>>>>>>>>> The Cold War...
>>>>>>>>>>> The permanent warfare state...
>>>>>>>>>>> the military industrial complex...
>>>>>>>>>>> Nixon's 1971 destruction of sound money...
>>>>>>>>>>> Reagan's failure to tame Big Government...
>>>>>>>>>>> Greenspan's destructive cult of monetary central planning...
>>>>>>>>>>> George Bush's wars of intervention and occupation...
>>>>>>>>>>> The failed states in Islamic lands arbitrarily conjured by
>>>>>>>>>>> map-makers
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> Versailles...
>>>>>>>>>>> Terrorism...
>>>>>>>>>>> The Bernanke/Yellen plague of bubble economics...
>>>>>>>>>>> "The 1%"...
>>>>>>>>>>> Wild bank speculation...
>>>>>>>>>>> Crushing public and private debts...
>>>>>>>>>>> The end of free market capitalism...
>>>>>>>>>>> Destruction personal liberty...
>>>>>>>>>>> The end of constitutional safeguards...
>>>>>>>>>>> The 5th Indiana Jones movie...
>>>>>>>>>>> Smaller Big Macs...
>>>>>>>>>>> Bad Pizza...
>>>>>>>>>>> Miley Cyrus...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Empires play the role they're meant to play. This was the
>>>>>>>>>>> central
>>>>>>>>>>> insight
>>>>>>>>>>> of Addison's best-selling book with Bill Bonner, The Empire of
>>>>>>>>>>> Debt.
>>>>>>>>>>> And,
>>>>>>>>>>> since an empire's role is to "make the world safe", it's little
>>>>>>>>>>> surprise
>>>>>>>>>>> the empire is always at war... always propping up the financial
>>>>>>>>>>> system... and
>>>>>>>>>>> always telling people what the can't eat or say.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But it took a true kook to cast America for the part.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "I believe that God planted in us visions of liberty" Wilson
>>>>>>>>>>> proclaimed
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>> the 1912 campaign trail. "That we are chosen and prominently
>>>>>>>>>>> chose
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> show
>>>>>>>>>>> the way to the nations of the world how the shall walk in the
>>>>>>>>>>> path
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> liberty."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What does all of this mean for you? It's hard to say...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> One possible lesson: It's hard to know where you're headed
>>>>>>>>>>> unless,
>>>>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>>>>> once and a while, you look where you've been and understand the
>>>>>>>>>>> havoc
>>>>>>>>>>> blowhards are capable of wreaking on your wellbeing.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Another: We need a better hobby than attending epochal history
>>>>>>>>>>> lectures...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> At any rate, hobnobbing with people inside the beltway gives you
>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>> appreciation for living outside of it. Try explaining a
>>>>>>>>>>> financial
>>>>>>>>>>> newsletter to a woman whose claim to fame was her grandmother
>>>>>>>>>>> got
>>>>>>>>>>> her
>>>>>>>>>>> PhD
>>>>>>>>>>> under John Dewey at Chicago.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Before starting these daily reckonings with Bill Bonner in 1999,
>>>>>>>>>>> Addison
>>>>>>>>>>> did a stretch at the Cato Institute. I worked for Ron Paul on
>>>>>>>>>>> Capitol
>>>>>>>>>>> Hill
>>>>>>>>>>> two years ago. Just three hours back in the belly of the
>>>>>>>>>>> beast...
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> neither of us could wait to kiss the Baltimore ground on which
>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>> and write on each day.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Peter Coyne
>>>>>>>>>>> The Daily Reckoning
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> P.S. Tomorrow the European Central Bank is expected to announce
>>>>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>>>> own
>>>>>>>>>>> QE program. "It's going to be a mess" Stockman told me over
>>>>>>>>>>> breakfast
>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>> morning. We'll have his insights and what the move means for
>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>> tomorrow. If you're not following the news, this may be a good
>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> start shorting the Euro...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> P.P.S. David provides substantiation for our list of charges
>>>>>>>>>>> against
>>>>>>>>>>> Wilson, in today's featured essay...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Will This 9-LETTER Word DOUBLE Your Taxes?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you think Obama's latest tax plan is bad news... JUST WAIT
>>>>>>>>>>> till
>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>>>> a load of this...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In short, our "man on the inside" located a nine-letter word
>>>>>>>>>>> swirling
>>>>>>>>>>> around Washington, D.C., that has the potential to DOUBLE your
>>>>>>>>>>> taxes...or
>>>>>>>>>>> more!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> _ E_ _ _ A_ _ E
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And as CRAZY as it sounds, it has nothing to do with Obama's
>>>>>>>>>>> latest
>>>>>>>>>>> tax
>>>>>>>>>>> hike...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Want to get the details on this nine-letter word and find out
>>>>>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>> sure you're protected? Click here today.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The Daily Reckoning Presents... We've taken it upon ourselves to
>>>>>>>>>>> liberally
>>>>>>>>>>> edit David Stockman's 3,000+ word speech from last night. He
>>>>>>>>>>> launched
>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>> scathing indictment of Woodrow Wilson. But alas, we have a word
>>>>>>>>>>> limit.
>>>>>>>>>>> If
>>>>>>>>>>> you want to read it in it's entirety, click here. For the five
>>>>>>>>>>> minute
>>>>>>>>>>> version read on...
>>>>>>>>>>> ******************************
>>>>>>>>>>> The Epochal Consequences of Woodrow Wilson's War
>>>>>>>>>>> by David Stockman
>>>>>>>>>>> Woodrow Wilson has a lot to answer for. In so many words, I can
>>>>>>>>>>> hardly
>>>>>>>>>>> accommodate the full extent of the indictment. But let me try to
>>>>>>>>>>> summarize
>>>>>>>>>>> his own "war guilt" in eight major propositions -- a couple of
>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>> might
>>>>>>>>>>> give rise to a disagreement or two.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Proposition #1: Starting with the generic context -- the Great
>>>>>>>>>>> War
>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>> about nothing worth dying for and engaged no recognizable
>>>>>>>>>>> principle
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> human betterment. There were many blackish hats, but no white
>>>>>>>>>>> ones.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Instead, it was an avoidable calamity issuing from a cacophony
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> political incompetence, cowardice, avarice and tomfoolery.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Blame the bombastic and impetuous Kaiser Wilhelm for setting the
>>>>>>>>>>> stage
>>>>>>>>>>> with his foolish dismissal of Bismarck in 1890, failure to renew
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> Russian reinsurance treaty shortly thereafter and his quixotic
>>>>>>>>>>> build-up
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> the German Navy after the turn of the century.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Blame the French for lashing themselves to a war declaration
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>> triggered by the intrigues of a decadent court in St. Petersburg
>>>>>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> Czar still claimed divine rights and the Czarina ruled behind
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> scenes
>>>>>>>>>>> on the hideous advice of Rasputin.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise, censure Russia's foreign minister Sazonov for his
>>>>>>>>>>> delusions
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> greater Slavic grandeur that had encouraged Serbia's
>>>>>>>>>>> provocations
>>>>>>>>>>> after
>>>>>>>>>>> Sarajevo; and castigate the doddering emperor Franz Joseph for
>>>>>>>>>>> hanging
>>>>>>>>>>> onto power into his 67th year on the throne and thereby leaving
>>>>>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>>>>>> crumbling empire vulnerable to the suicidal impulses of General
>>>>>>>>>>> Conrad's
>>>>>>>>>>> war party.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The British War party led by the likes of Churchill and
>>>>>>>>>>> Kitchener
>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>> about the glory of empire, not the vindication of democracy
>>>>>>>>>>> So too, indict the duplicitous German Chancellor,
>>>>>>>>>>> Bethmann-Hollweg,
>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>> allowing the Austrians to believe that the Kaiser endorsed their
>>>>>>>>>>> declaration of war on Serbia; and pillory Winston Churchill and
>>>>>>>>>>> London's
>>>>>>>>>>> war party for failing to recognize that the Schlieffen Plan's
>>>>>>>>>>> invasion
>>>>>>>>>>> through Belgium was no threat to England, but a unavoidable
>>>>>>>>>>> German
>>>>>>>>>>> defense
>>>>>>>>>>> against a two-front war.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But after all that -- most especially don't talk about the
>>>>>>>>>>> defense
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> democracy, the vindication of liberalism or the thwarting of
>>>>>>>>>>> Prussian
>>>>>>>>>>> autocracy and militarism.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The British War party led by the likes of Churchill and
>>>>>>>>>>> Kitchener
>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>> about the glory of empire, not the vindication of democracy;
>>>>>>>>>>> France'
>>>>>>>>>>> principal war aim was the revanchist drive to recover
>>>>>>>>>>> Alsace-Lorrain --
>>>>>>>>>>> mainly a German speaking territory for 600 years until it was
>>>>>>>>>>> conquered
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>> Louis XIV.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In any event, German autocracy was already on its last leg as
>>>>>>>>>>> betokened
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>> the arrival of universal social insurance and the election of a
>>>>>>>>>>> socialist-liberal majority in the Reichstag on the eve of the
>>>>>>>>>>> war;
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> Austro-Hungarian, Balkan and Ottoman goulash of nationalities,
>>>>>>>>>>> respectively, would have erupted in interminable regional
>>>>>>>>>>> conflicts,
>>>>>>>>>>> regardless of who won the Great War.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In short, nothing of principle or higher morality was at stake
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> outcome.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Proposition #2: The war posed no national security threat
>>>>>>>>>>> whatsoever
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> the US. Presumably, of course, the danger was not the Entente
>>>>>>>>>>> powers --
>>>>>>>>>>> but Germany and its allies.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But how so? After the Schlieffen Plan offensive failed on
>>>>>>>>>>> September
>>>>>>>>>>> 11,
>>>>>>>>>>> 1914, the German Army became incarcerated in a bloody,
>>>>>>>>>>> bankrupting,
>>>>>>>>>>> two-front land war that ensured its inexorable demise. Likewise,
>>>>>>>>>>> after
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> battle of Jutland in May 1916, the great German surface fleet
>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>> bottled
>>>>>>>>>>> up in its homeports -- an inert flotilla of steel that posed no
>>>>>>>>>>> threat
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> the American coast 4,000 miles away.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As for the rest of the central powers, the Ottoman and Hapsburg
>>>>>>>>>>> empires
>>>>>>>>>>> already had an appointment with the dustbin of history. Need we
>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>> bother with the fourth member -- that is, Bulgaria?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Proposition #3: Wilson's pretexts for war on Germany --
>>>>>>>>>>> submarine
>>>>>>>>>>> warfare
>>>>>>>>>>> and the Zimmerman telegram -- are not half what they are
>>>>>>>>>>> cracked-up
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>> by Warfare State historians.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As to the so-called freedom of the seas and neutral shipping
>>>>>>>>>>> rights,
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> story is blatantly simple. In November 1914, England declared
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> North
>>>>>>>>>>> Sea to be a "war zone"; threatened neutral shipping with deadly
>>>>>>>>>>> sea
>>>>>>>>>>> mines;
>>>>>>>>>>> declared that anything which could conceivably be of use to the
>>>>>>>>>>> German
>>>>>>>>>>> army -- directly or indirectly -- to be contraband that would be
>>>>>>>>>>> seized
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>> destroyed; and announced that the resulting blockade of German
>>>>>>>>>>> ports
>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>> designed to starve it into submission.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A few months later, Germany announced its submarine warfare
>>>>>>>>>>> policy
>>>>>>>>>>> designed to the stem the flow of food, raw materials and
>>>>>>>>>>> armaments
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> England in retaliation. It was the desperate antidote of a land
>>>>>>>>>>> power
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> England's crushing sea-borne blockade.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Accordingly, there existed a state of total warfare in the
>>>>>>>>>>> northern
>>>>>>>>>>> European waters -- and the traditional "rights" of neutrals were
>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant and disregarded by both sides. In arming merchantmen
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> stowing munitions on passenger liners, England was hypocritical
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> utterly cavalier about the resulting mortal danger to innocent
>>>>>>>>>>> civilians
>>>>>>>>>>> -- as exemplified by the 4.3 million rifle cartridges and
>>>>>>>>>>> hundreds
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> tons
>>>>>>>>>>> of other munitions carried in the hull of the Lusitania.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> England was hypocritical and utterly cavalier about the
>>>>>>>>>>> resulting
>>>>>>>>>>> mortal
>>>>>>>>>>> danger to innocent civilians.
>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise, German resort to so-called "unrestricted submarine
>>>>>>>>>>> warfare"
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> February 1917 was brutal and stupid, but came in response to
>>>>>>>>>>> massive
>>>>>>>>>>> domestic political pressure during what was known as the "turnip
>>>>>>>>>>> winter"
>>>>>>>>>>> in Germany. By then, the country was starving from the English
>>>>>>>>>>> blockade --
>>>>>>>>>>> literally.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Before he resigned on principle in June 1915, Secretary William
>>>>>>>>>>> Jennings
>>>>>>>>>>> Bryan got it right. Had he been less diplomatic he would have
>>>>>>>>>>> said
>>>>>>>>>>> never
>>>>>>>>>>> should American boys be crucified on the cross of Cunard liner
>>>>>>>>>>> state
>>>>>>>>>>> room
>>>>>>>>>>> so that a few thousand wealthy plutocrat could exercise a
>>>>>>>>>>> putative
>>>>>>>>>>> "right"
>>>>>>>>>>> to wallow in luxury while knowingly cruising into in harm's way.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As to the Zimmerman telegram, it was never delivered to Mexico,
>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>> sent from Berlin as an internal diplomatic communique to the
>>>>>>>>>>> German
>>>>>>>>>>> ambassador in Washington, who had labored mightily to keep his
>>>>>>>>>>> country
>>>>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>>>>> of war with the US, and was intercepted by British intelligence,
>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>> sat
>>>>>>>>>>> on it for more than a month waiting for an opportune moment to
>>>>>>>>>>> incite
>>>>>>>>>>> America into war hysteria.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In fact, this so-called bombshell was actually just an internal
>>>>>>>>>>> foreign
>>>>>>>>>>> ministry rumination about a possible plan to approach the
>>>>>>>>>>> Mexican
>>>>>>>>>>> president regarding an alliance in the event that the US first
>>>>>>>>>>> went
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> war
>>>>>>>>>>> with Germany.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why is this surprising or a casus belli? Did not the entente
>>>>>>>>>>> bribe
>>>>>>>>>>> Italy
>>>>>>>>>>> into the war with promises of large chunks of Austria? Did not
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> hapless
>>>>>>>>>>> Rumanians finally join the entente when they were promised
>>>>>>>>>>> Transylvania?
>>>>>>>>>>> Did not the Greeks bargain endlessly over the Turkish
>>>>>>>>>>> territories
>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>> were to be awarded for joining the allies? Did not Lawrence of
>>>>>>>>>>> Arabia
>>>>>>>>>>> bribe the Sherif of Mecca with the promise of vast Arabian lands
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>> extracted from the Turks?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why, then, would the German's -- if at war with the USA -- not
>>>>>>>>>>> promise
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> return of Texas?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Proposition #4: Europe had expected a short war, and actually
>>>>>>>>>>> got
>>>>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>> the Schlieffen plan offensive bogged down 30 miles outside of
>>>>>>>>>>> Paris
>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> Marne River in mid-September 1914. Within three months, the
>>>>>>>>>>> Western
>>>>>>>>>>> Front
>>>>>>>>>>> had formed and coagulated into blood and mud -- a ghastly 400
>>>>>>>>>>> mile
>>>>>>>>>>> corridor of senseless carnage, unspeakable slaughter and
>>>>>>>>>>> incessant
>>>>>>>>>>> military stupidity that stretched from the Flanders coast across
>>>>>>>>>>> Belgium
>>>>>>>>>>> and northern France to the Swiss frontier.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The next four years witnessed an undulating line of trenches,
>>>>>>>>>>> barbed
>>>>>>>>>>> wire
>>>>>>>>>>> entanglements, tunnels, artillery emplacements and shell-pocked
>>>>>>>>>>> scorched
>>>>>>>>>>> earth that rarely moved more than a few miles in either
>>>>>>>>>>> direction,
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> which ultimately claimed more than 4 million casualties on the
>>>>>>>>>>> Allied
>>>>>>>>>>> side
>>>>>>>>>>> and 3.5 million on the German side.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If there was any doubt that Wilson's catastrophic intervention
>>>>>>>>>>> converted
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>> war of attrition, stalemate and eventual mutual exhaustion into
>>>>>>>>>>> Pyrrhic
>>>>>>>>>>> victory for the allies, it was memorialized in four developments
>>>>>>>>>>> during
>>>>>>>>>>> 1916.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In the first, the Germans wagered everything on a massive
>>>>>>>>>>> offensive
>>>>>>>>>>> designed to overrun the fortresses of Verdun -- the historic
>>>>>>>>>>> defensive
>>>>>>>>>>> battlements on France's northeast border that had stood since
>>>>>>>>>>> Roman
>>>>>>>>>>> times,
>>>>>>>>>>> and which had been massively reinforced after the France's
>>>>>>>>>>> humiliating
>>>>>>>>>>> defeat in Franco-Prussian War of 1870.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But notwithstanding the mobilization of 100 divisions, the
>>>>>>>>>>> greatest
>>>>>>>>>>> artillery bombardment campaign every recorded until then, and
>>>>>>>>>>> repeated
>>>>>>>>>>> infantry offensives from February through November that resulted
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> upwards of 400,000 German casualties, the Verdun offensive
>>>>>>>>>>> failed.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The second event was its mirror image -- the massive British and
>>>>>>>>>>> French
>>>>>>>>>>> offensive known as the battle of the Somme, which commenced with
>>>>>>>>>>> equally
>>>>>>>>>>> destructive artillery barrages on July 1, 1916 and then for
>>>>>>>>>>> three
>>>>>>>>>>> month
>>>>>>>>>>> sent waves of infantry into the maws of German machine guns and
>>>>>>>>>>> artillery.
>>>>>>>>>>> It too ended in colossal failure, but only after more than
>>>>>>>>>>> 600,000
>>>>>>>>>>> English
>>>>>>>>>>> and French casualties including a quarter million dead.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> By year-end 1916 the German generals who had destroyed the
>>>>>>>>>>> Russian
>>>>>>>>>>> armies
>>>>>>>>>>> in the East were given command of the Western Front.
>>>>>>>>>>> In between these bloodbaths, the stalemate was reinforced by the
>>>>>>>>>>> naval
>>>>>>>>>>> showdown at Jutland that cost the British far more sunken ships
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> drowned sailors than the Germans, but also caused the Germans to
>>>>>>>>>>> retire
>>>>>>>>>>> their surface fleet to port and never again challenge the Royal
>>>>>>>>>>> Navy
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> open water combat.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Finally, by year-end 1916 the German generals who had destroyed
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> Russian armies in the East with only a tiny one-ninth fraction
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> German army -- Generals Hindenburg and Ludendorff -- were given
>>>>>>>>>>> command
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> the Western Front. Presently, they radically changed Germany's
>>>>>>>>>>> war
>>>>>>>>>>> strategy by recognizing that the growing allied superiority in
>>>>>>>>>>> manpower,
>>>>>>>>>>> owing to the British homeland draft of 1916 and mobilization of
>>>>>>>>>>> forces
>>>>>>>>>>> from throughout the empire, made a German offensive breakthrough
>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>> nigh
>>>>>>>>>>> impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The result was the Hindenburg Line -- a military marvel based on
>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>> checkerboard array of hardened pillbox machine gunners and
>>>>>>>>>>> maneuver
>>>>>>>>>>> forces
>>>>>>>>>>> rather than mass infantry on the front lines, and an intricate
>>>>>>>>>>> labyrinth
>>>>>>>>>>> of highly engineered tunnels, deep earth shelters, rail
>>>>>>>>>>> connections,
>>>>>>>>>>> heavy
>>>>>>>>>>> artillery and flexible reserves in the rear. It was also
>>>>>>>>>>> augmented
>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> transfer of Germany's eastern armies to the western front --
>>>>>>>>>>> giving
>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>> 200
>>>>>>>>>>> divisions and 4 million men on the Hindenburg Line.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This precluded any hope of Entente victory. By 1917 there were
>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>> enough
>>>>>>>>>>> able-bodied draft age men left in France and England to overcome
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> Hindenburg Line, which, in turn, was designed to bleed white the
>>>>>>>>>>> entente
>>>>>>>>>>> armies led by butchers like Generals Haig and Joffre until their
>>>>>>>>>>> governments sued for peace.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, with the Russian army's disintegration in the east and the
>>>>>>>>>>> stalemate
>>>>>>>>>>> frozen indefinitely in the west by early 1917, it was only a
>>>>>>>>>>> matter
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> months before mutinies among the French lines, demoralization in
>>>>>>>>>>> London,
>>>>>>>>>>> mass starvation and privation in Germany and bankruptcy all
>>>>>>>>>>> around
>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>> have led to a peace of exhaustion and a European-wide political
>>>>>>>>>>> revolt
>>>>>>>>>>> against the war makers.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Wilson's intervention thus did not remake the world. But it did
>>>>>>>>>>> radically
>>>>>>>>>>> re-channel the contours of 20th century history. And, as they
>>>>>>>>>>> say,
>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> a good way.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> BANNED by the News!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The story on the topic you're about to see is so controversial
>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>> banned from the news and the reporters who uncovered it were
>>>>>>>>>>> fired
>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>> trying to bring it to light.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> DO NOT read this if you are happy with the president and his
>>>>>>>>>>> first
>>>>>>>>>>> lady.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Get the full story here.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Proposition #5: Wilson's epochal error not only produced the
>>>>>>>>>>> abomination
>>>>>>>>>>> of Versailles and all its progeny, but also the transformation
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> Federal Reserve from a passive "banker's bank" to an
>>>>>>>>>>> interventionist
>>>>>>>>>>> central bank knee-deep in Wall Street, government finance and
>>>>>>>>>>> macroeconomic management.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This, too, was a crucial historical hinge point because Carter
>>>>>>>>>>> Glass'
>>>>>>>>>>> 1913
>>>>>>>>>>> act forbid the new Reserve banks to even own government bonds;
>>>>>>>>>>> empowered
>>>>>>>>>>> them only to passively discount for cash good commercial credits
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> receivables brought to the rediscount window by member banks;
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> contemplated no open market interventions in debt markets or any
>>>>>>>>>>> remit
>>>>>>>>>>> with respect to GDP growth, jobs, inflation, housing or all the
>>>>>>>>>>> rest
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> modern day monetary central planning targets.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In fact, Carter Glass' "banker's bank" didn't care whether the
>>>>>>>>>>> growth
>>>>>>>>>>> rate
>>>>>>>>>>> was positive 4%, negative 4% or anything in-between; its modest
>>>>>>>>>>> job
>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> channel liquidity into the banking system in response to the ebb
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> flow
>>>>>>>>>>> of commerce and production.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jobs, growth and prosperity were to remain the unplanned outcome
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> millions of producers, consumers, investors, savers,
>>>>>>>>>>> entrepreneurs
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> speculators operating on the free market, not the business of
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> state.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Wilson's war took the national debt from about $1 billion or $11
>>>>>>>>>>> per
>>>>>>>>>>> capita to $27 billion.
>>>>>>>>>>> But Wilson's war took the national debt from about $1 billion or
>>>>>>>>>>> $11
>>>>>>>>>>> per
>>>>>>>>>>> capita -- a level which had been maintained since the Battle of
>>>>>>>>>>> Gettysburg
>>>>>>>>>>> -- to $27 billion, including upwards of $10 billion re-loaned to
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> allies to enable them to continue the war. There is not a chance
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>> massive eruption of Federal borrowing could have been financed
>>>>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> domestic savings in the private market.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So the Fed charter was changed owing to the exigencies of war to
>>>>>>>>>>> permit
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>> to own government debt and to discount private loans
>>>>>>>>>>> collateralized
>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>> Treasury paper.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In due course, the famous and massive Liberty Bond drives became
>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>> glorified Ponzi scheme. Patriotic Americans borrowed money from
>>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>> banks and pledged their war bonds; the banks borrowed money from
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> Fed,
>>>>>>>>>>> and re-pledged their customer's collateral. The Reserve banks,
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> turn,
>>>>>>>>>>> created the billions they loaned to the commercial banks out of
>>>>>>>>>>> thin
>>>>>>>>>>> air,
>>>>>>>>>>> thereby pegging interest rates low for the duration of the war.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When Wilson was done saving the world, America had an
>>>>>>>>>>> interventionist
>>>>>>>>>>> central bank schooled in the art of interest rate pegging and
>>>>>>>>>>> rampant
>>>>>>>>>>> expansion of fiat credit not anchored in the real bills of
>>>>>>>>>>> commerce
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> trade; and its incipient Warfare and Welfare states had an
>>>>>>>>>>> agency
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> public debt monetization that could permit massive government
>>>>>>>>>>> spending
>>>>>>>>>>> without the inconvenience of high taxes on the people or the
>>>>>>>>>>> crowding
>>>>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>>>>> of business investment by high interest rates on the private
>>>>>>>>>>> market
>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>> savings.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Proposition #6: By prolonging the war and massively increasing
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> level
>>>>>>>>>>> of debt and money printing on all sides, Wilson's folly
>>>>>>>>>>> prevented
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>> proper
>>>>>>>>>>> post-war resumption of the classical gold standard at the
>>>>>>>>>>> pre-war
>>>>>>>>>>> parities.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This failure of resumption, in turn, paved the way for the
>>>>>>>>>>> breakdown
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> monetary order and world trade in 1931 -- a break which turned a
>>>>>>>>>>> standard
>>>>>>>>>>> post-war economic cleansing into the Great Depression, and a
>>>>>>>>>>> decade
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> protectionism, beggar-thy-neighbor currency manipulation and
>>>>>>>>>>> ultimately
>>>>>>>>>>> rearmament and statist dirigisme.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In essence, the English and French governments had raised
>>>>>>>>>>> billions
>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>> their citizens on the solemn promise that it would be repaid at
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> pre-war parities; that the war bonds were money good in gold.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But the combatant governments had printed too much fiat currency
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> inflation during the war, and through domestic regimentation,
>>>>>>>>>>> heavy
>>>>>>>>>>> taxation and unfathomable combat destruction of economic life in
>>>>>>>>>>> northern
>>>>>>>>>>> France had drastically impaired their private economies.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Accordingly, under Churchill's foolish leadership England
>>>>>>>>>>> re-pegged
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> gold at the old parity in 1925, but had no political will or
>>>>>>>>>>> capacity
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> reduce bloated war-time wages, costs and prices in a
>>>>>>>>>>> commensurate
>>>>>>>>>>> manner,
>>>>>>>>>>> or to live with the austerity and shrunken living standards that
>>>>>>>>>>> honest
>>>>>>>>>>> liquidation of its war debts required.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Under Churchill's foolish leadership England re-pegged to gold
>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> old
>>>>>>>>>>> parity in 1925
>>>>>>>>>>> At the same time, France ended up betraying its war time
>>>>>>>>>>> lenders,
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> re-pegged the Franc two years later at a drastically depreciated
>>>>>>>>>>> level.
>>>>>>>>>>> This resulted in a spurt of beggar-thy-neighbor prosperity and
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> accumulation of pound sterling claims that would eventually
>>>>>>>>>>> blow-up
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> London money market and the sterling based "gold exchange
>>>>>>>>>>> standard"
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> the Bank of England and British Treasury had peddled as a poor
>>>>>>>>>>> man's
>>>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>>> back on gold.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yet under this "gold lite" contraption, France, Holland, Sweden
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>> surplus countries accumulated huge amounts of sterling
>>>>>>>>>>> liabilities
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> lieu
>>>>>>>>>>> of settling their accounts in bullion -- that is, they loaned
>>>>>>>>>>> billions
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> the British. They did this on the promise and the confidence
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> pound sterling would remain at $4.87 per dollar come hell or
>>>>>>>>>>> high
>>>>>>>>>>> water --
>>>>>>>>>>> just as it had for 200 years of peacetime before.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But British politicians betrayed their promises and their
>>>>>>>>>>> central
>>>>>>>>>>> bank
>>>>>>>>>>> creditors September 1931 by suspending redemption and floating
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> pound
>>>>>>>>>>> -- shattering the parity and causing the decade-long struggle
>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>> resumption of an honest gold standard to fail. Depressionary
>>>>>>>>>>> contraction
>>>>>>>>>>> of world trade, capital flows and capitalist enterprise
>>>>>>>>>>> inherently
>>>>>>>>>>> followed.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Proposition #7: By turning America overnight into the granary,
>>>>>>>>>>> arsenal
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> banker of the Entente, the US economy was distorted, bloated and
>>>>>>>>>>> deformed
>>>>>>>>>>> into a giant, but unstable and unsustainable global exporter and
>>>>>>>>>>> creditor.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> During the war years, for example, US exports increased by 4X
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> GDP
>>>>>>>>>>> soared from $40 billion to $90 billion. Incomes and land prices
>>>>>>>>>>> soared
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> the farm belt, and steel, chemical, machinery, munitions and
>>>>>>>>>>> ship
>>>>>>>>>>> construction boomed like never before -- in substantial part
>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>> Uncle
>>>>>>>>>>> Sam essentially provided vendor finance to the bankrupt allies
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> desperate need of both military and civilian goods.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Under classic rules, there should have been a nasty correction
>>>>>>>>>>> after
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> war -- as the world got back to honest money and sound finance.
>>>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>> didn't happen because the newly unleashed Fed fueled an
>>>>>>>>>>> incredible
>>>>>>>>>>> boom
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>> Wall Street and a massive junk bond market in foreign loans.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In today economic scale, the latter amounted to upwards of $2
>>>>>>>>>>> trillion
>>>>>>>>>>> and, in effect, kept the war boom in exports and capital
>>>>>>>>>>> spending
>>>>>>>>>>> going
>>>>>>>>>>> right up until 1929. Accordingly, the great collapse of
>>>>>>>>>>> 1929-1932
>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>> a mysterious failure of capitalism; it was the delayed
>>>>>>>>>>> liquidation
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> Wilson's war boom.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> After the crash, exports and capital spending plunged by 80%
>>>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> foreign junk bond binge ended in the face of massive defaults
>>>>>>>>>>> abroad;
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> that, in turn, led to a traumatic liquidation of industrial
>>>>>>>>>>> inventories
>>>>>>>>>>> and a collapse of credit fueled purchases of consumer durables
>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>> refrigerators and autos. The latter, for example, dropped from 5
>>>>>>>>>>> million
>>>>>>>>>>> to 1.5 million units per year after 1929.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Proposition #8: In short, the Great Depression was a unique
>>>>>>>>>>> historical
>>>>>>>>>>> event owing to the vast financial deformations of the Great War
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> deformations which were drastically exaggerated by its
>>>>>>>>>>> prolongation
>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>> Wilson's intervention and the massive credit expansion unleashed
>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> Fed and Bank of England during and after the war.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Stated differently, the trauma of the 1930s was not the result
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> inherent flaws or purported cyclical instabilities of free
>>>>>>>>>>> market
>>>>>>>>>>> capitalism; it was, instead, the delayed legacy of the financial
>>>>>>>>>>> carnage
>>>>>>>>>>> of the Great War and the failed 1920s efforts to restore the
>>>>>>>>>>> liberal
>>>>>>>>>>> order
>>>>>>>>>>> of sound money, open trade and unimpeded money and capital
>>>>>>>>>>> flows.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But this trauma was thoroughly misunderstood, and therefore did
>>>>>>>>>>> give
>>>>>>>>>>> rise
>>>>>>>>>>> to the curse of Keynesian economics and did unleash the
>>>>>>>>>>> politicians
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> meddle in virtually every aspect of economic life, culminating
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> statist and crony capitalist dystopia that has emerged in this
>>>>>>>>>>> century.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Needless to say, that is Thomas Woodrow Wilson's worst sin of
>>>>>>>>>>> all.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> David Stockman
>>>>>>>>>>> for The Daily Reckoning
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> David Stockman was a two-term Congressman from Michigan. He was
>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President
>>>>>>>>>>> Ronald
>>>>>>>>>>> Reagan. After leaving the White House, Stockman had a 20-year
>>>>>>>>>>> career
>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>> Wall Street. He's the author of two books, The Triumph of
>>>>>>>>>>> Politics
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>> Great Deformation. He also is founder of David Stockman's Contra
>>>>>>>>>>> Corner.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> BE SURE TO ADD dr@dailyreckoning.com to your address book.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Additional Articles & Commentary:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Join the conversation! Follow us on social media:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The Daily Reckoning is committed to protecting and respecting
>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>> privacy. We do not rent or share your email address. By
>>>>>>>>>>> submitting
>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>> email address, you consent to Agora Financial delivering daily
>>>>>>>>>>> email
>>>>>>>>>>> issues and advertisements. To end your Daily Reckoning e-mail
>>>>>>>>>>> subscription
>>>>>>>>>>> and associated external offers sent from Daily Reckoning, feel
>>>>>>>>>>> free
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> click here.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Please read our Privacy Statement. For any further comments or
>>>>>>>>>>> concerns
>>>>>>>>>>> please email us at dr@dailyreckoning.com. If you are you having
>>>>>>>>>>> trouble
>>>>>>>>>>> receiving your Daily Reckoning subscription, you can ensure its
>>>>>>>>>>> arrival
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> your mailbox by whitelisting the Daily Reckoning.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (c) 2015 Agora Financial, LLC. 808 Saint Paul Street, Baltimore
>>>>>>>>>>> MD
>>>>>>>>>>> 21202.
>>>>>>>>>>> Although our employees may answer your general customer service
>>>>>>>>>>> questions,
>>>>>>>>>>> they are not licensed under securities laws to address your
>>>>>>>>>>> particular
>>>>>>>>>>> investment situation. No communication by our employees to you
>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>> deemed as personalized investment advice.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We expressly forbid our writers from having a financial interest
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>> security they personally recommend to our readers. All of our
>>>>>>>>>>> employees
>>>>>>>>>>> and agents must wait 24 hours after on-line publication or 72
>>>>>>>>>>> hours
>>>>>>>>>>> after
>>>>>>>>>>> the mailing of a printed-only publication prior to following an
>>>>>>>>>>> initial
>>>>>>>>>>> recommendation. Any investments recommended in this letter
>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>> made
>>>>>>>>>>> only after consulting with your investment advisor and only
>>>>>>>>>>> after
>>>>>>>>>>> reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>>>>>>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>>>>>>>> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>>>>>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>>>>>>> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>>>>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>>>>>> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>>>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>>>>> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>>>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>>>>> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>>>> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>>> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>>> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Blind-Democracy mailing list
> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blind-Democracy mailing list
> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>
"...Explaining human experience and realities by using these big
sweeping generalizations such as God's will or class struggle, often
doesn't explain anything. It
explains away human experience and reality. It removes our feeling of
individual agency or control. People can't be pigeon holed, described by
putting them into categories."
At one level this is true. Grandma Jarvis went to her grave believing
that she was part of the Landed Gentry of Missouri.
And so did her father, despite working side by side with his slaves.
He believed himself to be superior to them, and to the White Trash
that owned no land. Great Grandpa Hickman saw that plantation of his
as proof that he was a member of the Missouri Ruling Class. But just
because he believed it and told all who'd listen, that he was a member
in good standing, did not make it true.
I know very little about Grandpa Hickman, born sometime in the 1840's,
But from the stories my grandma Jarvis told me, he was working on a
very slim profit margin. Which explains why he went into the fields
each day. He was owned by those who controlled the prices his crops
brought in the produce houses of the day. And who knows what became
of that plantation when Grandpa Hickman laid down and died. I only
knew three of his children, grandma Jarvis, Aunts Ollie and Mary.
None of them knew what became of the Land. None of them ever received
a single cent from its sale.
My dad seemed to think it was sold eventually, to pay back taxes.
But my point is this, despite what each of these people believed about
their station in life, they were actually members of the Working
Class. It didn't matter if they went about waving degrees or
pedigrees, or if they looked down their noses at other folk. They
were in debt to the Ruling Class of their day.
In her later years, grandma Jarvis accepted an Old Age Pension from
the State of Washington. She lived her last years in low income
housing provided to her by the "hated democrats"in Central Seattle.
She lived to be 86 years old, and spent her days behind shuttered
windows in fear of some Colored Man grabbing her and raping her. And
yet, she told me that They(the colored folk) were all right, in their
place.
So back to my point. The fantasy world grandma Jarvis lived in did
her no good as far as her life in the real world. What this fantasy
did do for her, was to wrap her in false comfort, in a dream of better
times to come. We can spend tons of words trying to explain the
complexities of this one woman, dead since 1960, and never solve the
puzzle that is her Being. But we can see, without taking any thing
away from her, that she lived life as a member of the Working Class.
Why can we not talk about her struggle in the world and talk about her
place in our Class Culture, without distracting from either? Perhaps
instead of considering her place in the American Class System, we
could focus on her deep Faith. Raised in the 18 hundreds in the Bible
Belt, grandma grew up as a True Believer. A Presbyterian. Baptists
and Methodists were beneath her. Catholics belonged to the Devil. One
of her brothers was a minister. Two of my dads uncles, on his
father's side, were ministers, also. Grandma believed beyond all
doubt that when she opened her eyes after her physical death, she
would be looking into the precious face of her beloved Savior, Jesus
Christ. All three of her living children became Atheists despite her
daily preaching to them, and practically living in the church
building. Grandma looked down her nose at "Unbelievers". But she
seemed to ignore the fact that all three of her children had turned
away from the church. I think she believed they would return one day.
Everything grandma Jarvis did or said flew in the face of her
religious beliefs.
But inside her brain she was a loving Christian Lady. But the fact
is, two of her children, her daughter and my dad, were far more
attentive to the needs of the down trodden than was she. Her eldest
son, while not a Christian, did become a good and faithful
informant(Stool Pigeon) for the FBI.
So again, what grandma Jarvis believed she was did not mesh with how
she lived her life. And I can honestly say that her favorite
grandson(Me!) is no different. In my head I am a radical, breathing
fire, speaking words of wisdom. In my walk through life, I am far
more of a Centrist possessing no particular original thoughts, and
certainly short on wisdom. And gazing about me, I see a Land filled
with similar people. Each holding onto an inner image, while living
life at a different level.
So this leaves me with nothing more to say this morning.
Carl Jarvis, who sees himself about to go off and do good in the world
of the elder low vision and blind world.
On 1/29/15, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
> Carl,
>
> So your family story illustrates the point I keep trying to make.
> Explaining
> human experience and realities by using these big sweeping generalizations
> such as God's will or class struggle, often doesn't explain anything. It
> explains away human experience and reality. It removes our feeling of
> individual agency or control. People can't be pigeon holed, described by
> putting them into categories.
>
> Miriam
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Blind-Democracy [mailto:blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org] On
> Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 11:45 AM
> To: Blind Democracy Discussion List
> Subject: More thoughts about Woodrow Wilson: Intellectual defender of the
> Landed Gentry.
>
> Joe's comments regarding the humble beginnings of such presidents as
> Abe Lincoln and LBJ, brings me back to the point that this is a
> complex subject. Naturally, since Human-Type People are involved. We
> are each of us products of a complex range of internal and external
> forces. Important to remember is that it is an internal process that
> weighs what information is coming into our pointed little heads. For
> example, my dad, and avowed Marxist, was born into a wealthy family.
> His grandfather owned a plantation and with it, several slaves. My
> grandmother Jarvis grew up in comfort, with her own Nanny, wet nurse
> and doting parents. She married well. An independent miner who was
> in partnership with a group who contracted to clean out mine shafts
> that were no longer producing at the rate the larger companies needed
> in order to show a profit. Until he died of Black Lung, from his long
> years in the mines, grandpa Jarvis showered gifts and love upon his
> only son, my dad. Even though his death threw my grandmother into
> poverty, she still had the support of her parents, along with her own
> determination. Grandma always saw herself as a member of the Landed
> Gentry. She raised my dad in this frame of mind. A Lincoln
> Republican, a devout Presbyterian, and a stern disciplinarian. My dad
> looked around himself and found a world that did not match his
> mother's beliefs. He became a Marxist, a union organizer and
> constantly questioned the government, a government his mother
> worshipped unquestioningly.
> In case anyone who reads my ramblings recalls, I often say that my
> People have always been Working Class People. And so they were. Even
> great grandpa Hickman, whose wife was niece to Jefferson Davis, even
> grandpa Hickman worked shoulder to shoulder with his slaves. Even his
> son-in-law, Fletch Jarvis, worked underground with his crew. Only my
> grandmother Jarvis was raised to believe she was "special". She had
> instilled in her all of the unfulfilled
> dreams and aspeerations of her parents. And so she remembered life
> quite differently than other members of her family. Things she told
> me when I would visit her. Grandma was born in 1874 in Missouri.
> "Colored folks should stay in their place". "Men should never look
> upon a woman's unclothed body".
> And on and on....
> But I must get out of here and go about doing good in the world.
>
> Carl Jarvis
> On 1/28/15, joe harcz Comcast <joeharcz@comcast.net> wrote:
>> LBJ in particlar was not ofthe "gentry" and in fact was a product of
> poverty
>>
>> and deprivation.
>>
>> As was lincoln not mentioned hereine. Regardless both were poor in their
>> upbbringings and both were not only not part of the so-called middle
> class,
>>
>> but both grew up as Roger and classical Marxists call the lumpen
>> proletariate or as some call the "under class" or as others call the
>> impoverished class.
>>
>> Regardless both L
>> BJ and Lincoln were as poor as Church mouses whilst growing up. And those
>> are facts sir, not oopinions.
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "ted chittenden" <tchittenden@cox.net>
>> To: "Blind Democracy Discussion List" <blind-democracy@octothorp.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 4:06 PM
>> Subject: Re: Woodrow Wilson: Intellectual defender of the Landed Gentry.
>>
>>
>>> Carl:
>>> Of course all of them have been under the pressure of the ruling gentrys
>>> of their day to protect that gentry! In fact, nearly all of our
> presidents
>>>
>>> have come from that gentry and from a few specific families within that
>>> gentry.
>>>
>>> That said, some of these men in some areas have turned out to be very
>>> farsighted. They include, in no particular order, LBJ and the Great
>>> Society; FDR and the New Deal; Chester A. Arthur for setting up the U.S.
>>> Civil Service; and even Woodrow Wilson for his Fourteen Points!
>>>
>>> I think the other thing to remember here is that, for the vast majority
> of
>>>
>>> U.S. history, most of the white peasantry (and later middle class)
>>> supported the goals of the landed gentry, and I maintain that this is
>>> still the case today.
>>> --
>>> Ted Chittenden
>>>
>>> Every story has at least two sides if not more.
>>> ---- Carl Jarvis <carjar82@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Ted,
>>> Exactly so. The founding fathers were the establishment, setting up a
>>> government that would protect their interests. In fact, they excluded
>>> most people from participating meaningfully in their government. Down
>>> through the years the dance has been back and forth between allowing
>>> the masses more involvement, or less. Today the push is toward less
>>> participation.
>>> But you are right about the men in the office of president. They
>>> were, and are, human. But beyond that, I maintain that they are under
>>> pressure from the Landed Ruling Class to defend and protect their
>>> interest just as the original government was established to do.
>>> Carl Jarvis
>>>
>>> On 1/28/15, ted chittenden <tchittenden@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> Carl:
>>>> Keep in mind that the founding fathers of the U.S. were themselves
>>>> landed
>>>> gentry, and the U.S. constitution was written ultimately to protect
>>>> their
>>>> property rights.
>>>>
>>>> As far as the U.S. presidents go, they were all human beings, just like
>>>> you
>>>> and me. A few were farsighted and made decisions that assisted many
>>>> people;
>>>> but most could not really see beyond their own short term personal and
>>>> political interests.
>>>> --
>>>> Ted Chittenden
>>>>
>>>> Every story has at least two sides if not more.
>>>> ---- Carl Jarvis <carjar82@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> My purpose has not been to paint Woodrow Wilson as some dark monster.
>>>> Like each of us, he was a product of his time. Southern roots, highly
>>>> educated, moved North to a position in a university, became governor
>>>> of New Jersey, and onward to the White House, bringing all sorts of
>>>> baggage with him. In all of that, Wilson was no different than those
>>>> presidents before him. Sad to say, all those who followed him were no
>>>> different. Only a very few managed to rise above the level of
>>>> Servant, and make life some easier for the People.
>>>> But each president has been the puppet of the Ruling Establishment.
>>>> Even the wide spread reforms enacted under FDR, went only far enough
>>>> to save a collapse of the Establishment.
>>>> We worship some of them and villainize others, but they are all merely
>>>> reflecting the values of their times. This should cause us to ponder
>>>> why even a Prince of Peace, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, Barak
>>>> Obama, is as prone to advance the Empire's Programs with violence.
>>>> Looking at Obama and Bush II, we see great intellectual differences.
>>>> But both men danced to the Empire's Waltz. In person I would far
>>>> rather sit with Obama and chat about world affairs than to sit with
>>>> Bush and talk about God....his God. But in their official office,
>>>> neither one is able to put the People first.
>>>> As far as I'm concerned, reviewing each of the accomplishments of each
>>>> of our presidents is interesting, but in the end, they are all
>>>> beholden to their Masters. Yes, even our Founding Fathers.
>>>>
>>>> Carl Jarvis
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 1/28/15, joe harcz Comcast <joeharcz@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> No doubt Ted these are accurate and rightful interpretations of the
>>>>> man
>>>>> and
>>>>>
>>>>> his policies in these regards. It goes to show that an otherwise
>>>>> hidious
>>>>> leader on so many counts could and did have some good ideas and
>>>>> actions
>>>>> in
>>>>> spite of his flaws.
>>>>>
>>>>> And I think it is important as you've done here to point to the
>>>>> positive
>>>>> examples of policies and the man behind them, just as it is important
>>>>> to
>>>>> point to the factually accurate "negatives".
>>>>>
>>>>> And there were many negatives about the man and his policies for sure.
>>>>> More
>>>>>
>>>>> than can ever be detailed upon this list serve let alone abook or two
>>>>> on
>>>>> the
>>>>>
>>>>> subject.
>>>>>
>>>>> But, again Ted you are both accurate in my understanding of history
>>>>> and
>>>>> in
>>>>> facts, as well as analysis of same in these regards hhere.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem, in my opinion, is that these things that you suggest are
>>>>> the
>>>>> only things taught to most school kids about Wilson. Again they are
>>>>> not
>>>>> unimportant and they are factually accurate. So I do not diminish
>>>>> these
>>>>> things at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please understand that fact.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you do by the way.
>>>>>
>>>>> And in the noise of historical analysis I wish to say only this:
>>>>> Once again on this narrow point, though valuable you are correct and
>>>>> on
>>>>> target so far as I'm concerned Ted, for what that is worth, and this
>>>>> analysis is of value to me too.
>>>>>
>>>>> So kkkkkkkkkeep it a coming sir and never let anyone disuade you from
>>>>> your
>>>>> analysis or from posting!
>>>>>
>>>>> It is of value to me and I thankyou for it and always will so.
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "ted chittenden" <tchittenden@cox.net>
>>>>> To: "Blind Democracy Discussion List" <blind-democracy@octothorp.org>
>>>>> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 1:47 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: Woodrow Wilson, You're Hereby Charged!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> While I agree with all of the points about Woodrow Wilson that both
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> you
>>>>>>
>>>>>> have made, nevertheless I was, and remain, impressed with his
>>>>>> Fourteen
>>>>>> Points for ending World War I, especially the one about having secret
>>>>>> defense treaties between countries, which Otto von Bismarck did. Mr.
>>>>>> Wilson also foresaw the need for a body that could handle conflicts
>>>>>> between countries before most of his fellow countrymen did (it was
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> U.S. Congress that voted not to involve the U.S. in the League of
>>>>>> Nations). Finally, among his Fourteen Points, the other one that
>>>>>> stands
>>>>>> out for me is the point about war reparations. If France had not
>>>>>> insisted
>>>>>>
>>>>>> on Germany paying it back for all of its war bills, it seems likely
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> Adolf Hitler would never have come to power and World War II would
>>>>>> most
>>>>>> likely not have occurred.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Ted Chittenden
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every story has at least two sides if not more.
>>>>>> ---- joe harcz Comcast <joeharcz@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> You are accurate on all counts, Wilson in spite of his "liberal
>>>>>> label",
>>>>>> was
>>>>>> the product of Virginia and those who bemoaned the loss of the civil
>>>>>> war,
>>>>>> with subjegation of African-Americans, so he did believe and act on
>>>>>> behalf
>>>>>> of Jim Crow laws and segregation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He also engaged in some of the worst red baiting including the Palmer
>>>>>> Raids
>>>>>> and other anti-civil libertarian witch hunts in the name of national
>>>>>> security in the nation's history, so your other points are valid too
>>>>>> Carl.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>> From: "Carl Jarvis" <carjar82@gmail.com>
>>>>>> To: "Blind Democracy Discussion List" <blind-democracy@octothorp.org>
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 10:11 AM
>>>>>> Subject: Woodrow Wilson, You're Hereby Charged!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just to get serious for a moment, and without researching the
>>>>>>> subject,
>>>>>>> which means I'm shooting from the hip, Woodrow Wilson is credited
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> segregating Washington DC. You know, entrances for Whites and
>>>>>>> entrances for Colored. Drinking fountains for White and drinking
>>>>>>> fountains for Colored. Public toilets for White, and....well, maybe
>>>>>>> there's one for Colored on the other side of town.
>>>>>>> But in fairness to Wilson, a word he seems not to have known the
>>>>>>> meaning of, he was not just a Racist. He carried his elitist,
>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>> than Thou, attitude over to his fellow Whites.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Carl Jarvis
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/26/15, joe harcz Comcast <joeharcz@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Woodrow Wilson was also a virulent racist and regularly played D.W.
>>>>>>>> Griffin's "Birth of the Nation", the celebration of southern values
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> literal klan fest of a movie in the White House, emphasis on white.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>>> From: "Carl Jarvis" <carjar82@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> To: "Blind Democracy Discussion List"
>>>>>>>> <blind-democracy@octothorp.org>
>>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 12:17 PM
>>>>>>>> Subject: Woodrow Wilson, You're Hereby Charged!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Woodrow Wilson? Guilty? Wilson was a mere mortal, fumbling about
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> the world outside his Ivory Palace/University. Wilson had no clue
>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>> to how the People thought. He had his wonderful scholarly books
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> guide him.
>>>>>>>>> So who really is to blame? If indeed, we put all the blame on one
>>>>>>>>> man's shoulders?
>>>>>>>>> Jesus Christ. Yes, it's all the fault of Jesus Christ! Here was
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> man who was proclaimed to be more than a mere mortal. He walked
>>>>>>>>> among
>>>>>>>>> the People. He knew their ways, their fears, their hopes. And
>>>>>>>>> Jesus
>>>>>>>>> Christ responded by dangling Hope just above their reach. He made
>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> sound as though there was a wonderful place for these tired and
>>>>>>>>> bullied people.
>>>>>>>>> And ever since, people have been striving to get there. They not
>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>> want Heaven for themselves, but in their zest, they want it for
>>>>>>>>> everyone....as long as it's Their Heaven. Poor old Woodrow Wilson
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> no match for the likes of Jesus Christ. Wilson was just another
>>>>>>>>> victim of the Father in Heaven story promoted by Jesus.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Carl Jarvis
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 1/21/15, David Chittenden <dchittenden@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> David Chittenden, MSc, MRCAA
>>>>>>>>>> Email: dchittenden@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>> Mobile: +64 21 2288 288
>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> From: Daily Reckoning <dr@dailyreckoning.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> Date: 22 January 2015 12:44:17 NZDT
>>>>>>>>>>> To: <dchittenden@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Woodrow Wilson, You're Hereby Charged!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The Daily Reckoning Presents...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> January 21, 2015
>>>>>>>>>>> Archives | Unsubscribe
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Woodrow Wilson, You're Hereby Charged!
>>>>>>>>>>> The weird woman in front who cried and kept interrupting the
>>>>>>>>>>> speakers
>>>>>>>>>>> nearly choked when he said it...
>>>>>>>>>>> 28, but not all of the things, that Woodrow Wilson is
>>>>>>>>>>> responsible
>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>> mucking up big time...
>>>>>>>>>>> Then, David Stockman substantiates our laundry list with cold
>>>>>>>>>>> hard
>>>>>>>>>>> facts...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> External Advertisement
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> An URGENT Message to Anyone Born Before 1964...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Financial "Experts" Warn a Major Retirement Crisis is Coming
>>>>>>>>>>> Soon.
>>>>>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>>>>>> They Blame YOU for Not Saving Enough Money. Don't Fall for this
>>>>>>>>>>> Lie.
>>>>>>>>>>> It's
>>>>>>>>>>> NOT Your Fault! You Can Escape the Coming Crisis and Live the
>>>>>>>>>>> Retirement
>>>>>>>>>>> of Your Dreams No Matter How Much Money You Have (or Don't
>>>>>>>>>>> Have).
>>>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>>>> You
>>>>>>>>>>> Must ACT TODAY. Click Here Now To Avoid Becoming a Victim...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Baltimore, Maryland
>>>>>>>>>>> January 21, 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I think someone choked on their cookie when they heard it...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "My humble thesis tonight" the speaker said, "is that the entire
>>>>>>>>>>> 20th
>>>>>>>>>>> Century was a giant mistake."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Heh. David Stockman knows how to get a party started.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For background, Addison and I traveled into D.C. last night to
>>>>>>>>>>> attend
>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>> panel discussion on the Long Shadow of WWI. It was hosted by our
>>>>>>>>>>> friend
>>>>>>>>>>> John Henry, a direct descendant of Patrick Henry. John has been
>>>>>>>>>>> playing
>>>>>>>>>>> host to what he calls the Empire Salon for a decade or so in
>>>>>>>>>>> Washington
>>>>>>>>>>> D.C. The attendees are mostly writers, academics, think tank
>>>>>>>>>>> guys
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> odd, if cranky, libertarian type.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "We know the Empire is declining," John told us once about the
>>>>>>>>>>> founding
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> the Salon, "but in the spirit of the old Salons of Paris in the
>>>>>>>>>>> late
>>>>>>>>>>> 1800s, we just want to drink wine and talk about it."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And so it was, David Stockman, who was a congressman, Reagan's
>>>>>>>>>>> budget
>>>>>>>>>>> director and now, proprietor of the Stockman's Contra Corner
>>>>>>>>>>> blog,
>>>>>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>>>>> became a keynote speaker last night.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> He made the unapologetic case that everything bad that happened
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> 20th century was Woodrow Wilson's fault. He forwarded his speech
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> us
>>>>>>>>>>> this morning and it was over 3,000 words. We won't assume you're
>>>>>>>>>>> geeks
>>>>>>>>>>> like us for this stuff, so we'll paraphrase the full indictment,
>>>>>>>>>>> laundry
>>>>>>>>>>> list style.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Woodrow Wilson, you hereby stand accused by David Stockman of:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Midwifing violent nationalism...
>>>>>>>>>>> A destroyed Europe...
>>>>>>>>>>> The Great Depression..
>>>>>>>>>>> The warfare state...
>>>>>>>>>>> The welfare state...
>>>>>>>>>>> Keynesian economics...
>>>>>>>>>>> World War II...
>>>>>>>>>>> The Holocaust...
>>>>>>>>>>> The Cold War...
>>>>>>>>>>> The permanent warfare state...
>>>>>>>>>>> the military industrial complex...
>>>>>>>>>>> Nixon's 1971 destruction of sound money...
>>>>>>>>>>> Reagan's failure to tame Big Government...
>>>>>>>>>>> Greenspan's destructive cult of monetary central planning...
>>>>>>>>>>> George Bush's wars of intervention and occupation...
>>>>>>>>>>> The failed states in Islamic lands arbitrarily conjured by
>>>>>>>>>>> map-makers
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> Versailles...
>>>>>>>>>>> Terrorism...
>>>>>>>>>>> The Bernanke/Yellen plague of bubble economics...
>>>>>>>>>>> "The 1%"...
>>>>>>>>>>> Wild bank speculation...
>>>>>>>>>>> Crushing public and private debts...
>>>>>>>>>>> The end of free market capitalism...
>>>>>>>>>>> Destruction personal liberty...
>>>>>>>>>>> The end of constitutional safeguards...
>>>>>>>>>>> The 5th Indiana Jones movie...
>>>>>>>>>>> Smaller Big Macs...
>>>>>>>>>>> Bad Pizza...
>>>>>>>>>>> Miley Cyrus...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Empires play the role they're meant to play. This was the
>>>>>>>>>>> central
>>>>>>>>>>> insight
>>>>>>>>>>> of Addison's best-selling book with Bill Bonner, The Empire of
>>>>>>>>>>> Debt.
>>>>>>>>>>> And,
>>>>>>>>>>> since an empire's role is to "make the world safe", it's little
>>>>>>>>>>> surprise
>>>>>>>>>>> the empire is always at war... always propping up the financial
>>>>>>>>>>> system... and
>>>>>>>>>>> always telling people what the can't eat or say.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But it took a true kook to cast America for the part.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "I believe that God planted in us visions of liberty" Wilson
>>>>>>>>>>> proclaimed
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>> the 1912 campaign trail. "That we are chosen and prominently
>>>>>>>>>>> chose
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> show
>>>>>>>>>>> the way to the nations of the world how the shall walk in the
>>>>>>>>>>> path
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> liberty."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What does all of this mean for you? It's hard to say...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> One possible lesson: It's hard to know where you're headed
>>>>>>>>>>> unless,
>>>>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>>>>> once and a while, you look where you've been and understand the
>>>>>>>>>>> havoc
>>>>>>>>>>> blowhards are capable of wreaking on your wellbeing.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Another: We need a better hobby than attending epochal history
>>>>>>>>>>> lectures...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> At any rate, hobnobbing with people inside the beltway gives you
>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>> appreciation for living outside of it. Try explaining a
>>>>>>>>>>> financial
>>>>>>>>>>> newsletter to a woman whose claim to fame was her grandmother
>>>>>>>>>>> got
>>>>>>>>>>> her
>>>>>>>>>>> PhD
>>>>>>>>>>> under John Dewey at Chicago.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Before starting these daily reckonings with Bill Bonner in 1999,
>>>>>>>>>>> Addison
>>>>>>>>>>> did a stretch at the Cato Institute. I worked for Ron Paul on
>>>>>>>>>>> Capitol
>>>>>>>>>>> Hill
>>>>>>>>>>> two years ago. Just three hours back in the belly of the
>>>>>>>>>>> beast...
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> neither of us could wait to kiss the Baltimore ground on which
>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>> and write on each day.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Peter Coyne
>>>>>>>>>>> The Daily Reckoning
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> P.S. Tomorrow the European Central Bank is expected to announce
>>>>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>>>> own
>>>>>>>>>>> QE program. "It's going to be a mess" Stockman told me over
>>>>>>>>>>> breakfast
>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>> morning. We'll have his insights and what the move means for
>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>> tomorrow. If you're not following the news, this may be a good
>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> start shorting the Euro...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> P.P.S. David provides substantiation for our list of charges
>>>>>>>>>>> against
>>>>>>>>>>> Wilson, in today's featured essay...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Will This 9-LETTER Word DOUBLE Your Taxes?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you think Obama's latest tax plan is bad news... JUST WAIT
>>>>>>>>>>> till
>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>>>> a load of this...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In short, our "man on the inside" located a nine-letter word
>>>>>>>>>>> swirling
>>>>>>>>>>> around Washington, D.C., that has the potential to DOUBLE your
>>>>>>>>>>> taxes...or
>>>>>>>>>>> more!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> _ E_ _ _ A_ _ E
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And as CRAZY as it sounds, it has nothing to do with Obama's
>>>>>>>>>>> latest
>>>>>>>>>>> tax
>>>>>>>>>>> hike...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Want to get the details on this nine-letter word and find out
>>>>>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>> sure you're protected? Click here today.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The Daily Reckoning Presents... We've taken it upon ourselves to
>>>>>>>>>>> liberally
>>>>>>>>>>> edit David Stockman's 3,000+ word speech from last night. He
>>>>>>>>>>> launched
>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>> scathing indictment of Woodrow Wilson. But alas, we have a word
>>>>>>>>>>> limit.
>>>>>>>>>>> If
>>>>>>>>>>> you want to read it in it's entirety, click here. For the five
>>>>>>>>>>> minute
>>>>>>>>>>> version read on...
>>>>>>>>>>> ******************************
>>>>>>>>>>> The Epochal Consequences of Woodrow Wilson's War
>>>>>>>>>>> by David Stockman
>>>>>>>>>>> Woodrow Wilson has a lot to answer for. In so many words, I can
>>>>>>>>>>> hardly
>>>>>>>>>>> accommodate the full extent of the indictment. But let me try to
>>>>>>>>>>> summarize
>>>>>>>>>>> his own "war guilt" in eight major propositions -- a couple of
>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>> might
>>>>>>>>>>> give rise to a disagreement or two.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Proposition #1: Starting with the generic context -- the Great
>>>>>>>>>>> War
>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>> about nothing worth dying for and engaged no recognizable
>>>>>>>>>>> principle
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> human betterment. There were many blackish hats, but no white
>>>>>>>>>>> ones.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Instead, it was an avoidable calamity issuing from a cacophony
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> political incompetence, cowardice, avarice and tomfoolery.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Blame the bombastic and impetuous Kaiser Wilhelm for setting the
>>>>>>>>>>> stage
>>>>>>>>>>> with his foolish dismissal of Bismarck in 1890, failure to renew
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> Russian reinsurance treaty shortly thereafter and his quixotic
>>>>>>>>>>> build-up
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> the German Navy after the turn of the century.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Blame the French for lashing themselves to a war declaration
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>> triggered by the intrigues of a decadent court in St. Petersburg
>>>>>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> Czar still claimed divine rights and the Czarina ruled behind
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> scenes
>>>>>>>>>>> on the hideous advice of Rasputin.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise, censure Russia's foreign minister Sazonov for his
>>>>>>>>>>> delusions
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> greater Slavic grandeur that had encouraged Serbia's
>>>>>>>>>>> provocations
>>>>>>>>>>> after
>>>>>>>>>>> Sarajevo; and castigate the doddering emperor Franz Joseph for
>>>>>>>>>>> hanging
>>>>>>>>>>> onto power into his 67th year on the throne and thereby leaving
>>>>>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>>>>>> crumbling empire vulnerable to the suicidal impulses of General
>>>>>>>>>>> Conrad's
>>>>>>>>>>> war party.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The British War party led by the likes of Churchill and
>>>>>>>>>>> Kitchener
>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>> about the glory of empire, not the vindication of democracy
>>>>>>>>>>> So too, indict the duplicitous German Chancellor,
>>>>>>>>>>> Bethmann-Hollweg,
>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>> allowing the Austrians to believe that the Kaiser endorsed their
>>>>>>>>>>> declaration of war on Serbia; and pillory Winston Churchill and
>>>>>>>>>>> London's
>>>>>>>>>>> war party for failing to recognize that the Schlieffen Plan's
>>>>>>>>>>> invasion
>>>>>>>>>>> through Belgium was no threat to England, but a unavoidable
>>>>>>>>>>> German
>>>>>>>>>>> defense
>>>>>>>>>>> against a two-front war.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But after all that -- most especially don't talk about the
>>>>>>>>>>> defense
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> democracy, the vindication of liberalism or the thwarting of
>>>>>>>>>>> Prussian
>>>>>>>>>>> autocracy and militarism.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The British War party led by the likes of Churchill and
>>>>>>>>>>> Kitchener
>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>> about the glory of empire, not the vindication of democracy;
>>>>>>>>>>> France'
>>>>>>>>>>> principal war aim was the revanchist drive to recover
>>>>>>>>>>> Alsace-Lorrain --
>>>>>>>>>>> mainly a German speaking territory for 600 years until it was
>>>>>>>>>>> conquered
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>> Louis XIV.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In any event, German autocracy was already on its last leg as
>>>>>>>>>>> betokened
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>> the arrival of universal social insurance and the election of a
>>>>>>>>>>> socialist-liberal majority in the Reichstag on the eve of the
>>>>>>>>>>> war;
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> Austro-Hungarian, Balkan and Ottoman goulash of nationalities,
>>>>>>>>>>> respectively, would have erupted in interminable regional
>>>>>>>>>>> conflicts,
>>>>>>>>>>> regardless of who won the Great War.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In short, nothing of principle or higher morality was at stake
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> outcome.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Proposition #2: The war posed no national security threat
>>>>>>>>>>> whatsoever
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> the US. Presumably, of course, the danger was not the Entente
>>>>>>>>>>> powers --
>>>>>>>>>>> but Germany and its allies.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But how so? After the Schlieffen Plan offensive failed on
>>>>>>>>>>> September
>>>>>>>>>>> 11,
>>>>>>>>>>> 1914, the German Army became incarcerated in a bloody,
>>>>>>>>>>> bankrupting,
>>>>>>>>>>> two-front land war that ensured its inexorable demise. Likewise,
>>>>>>>>>>> after
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> battle of Jutland in May 1916, the great German surface fleet
>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>> bottled
>>>>>>>>>>> up in its homeports -- an inert flotilla of steel that posed no
>>>>>>>>>>> threat
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> the American coast 4,000 miles away.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As for the rest of the central powers, the Ottoman and Hapsburg
>>>>>>>>>>> empires
>>>>>>>>>>> already had an appointment with the dustbin of history. Need we
>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>> bother with the fourth member -- that is, Bulgaria?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Proposition #3: Wilson's pretexts for war on Germany --
>>>>>>>>>>> submarine
>>>>>>>>>>> warfare
>>>>>>>>>>> and the Zimmerman telegram -- are not half what they are
>>>>>>>>>>> cracked-up
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>> by Warfare State historians.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As to the so-called freedom of the seas and neutral shipping
>>>>>>>>>>> rights,
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> story is blatantly simple. In November 1914, England declared
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> North
>>>>>>>>>>> Sea to be a "war zone"; threatened neutral shipping with deadly
>>>>>>>>>>> sea
>>>>>>>>>>> mines;
>>>>>>>>>>> declared that anything which could conceivably be of use to the
>>>>>>>>>>> German
>>>>>>>>>>> army -- directly or indirectly -- to be contraband that would be
>>>>>>>>>>> seized
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>> destroyed; and announced that the resulting blockade of German
>>>>>>>>>>> ports
>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>> designed to starve it into submission.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A few months later, Germany announced its submarine warfare
>>>>>>>>>>> policy
>>>>>>>>>>> designed to the stem the flow of food, raw materials and
>>>>>>>>>>> armaments
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> England in retaliation. It was the desperate antidote of a land
>>>>>>>>>>> power
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> England's crushing sea-borne blockade.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Accordingly, there existed a state of total warfare in the
>>>>>>>>>>> northern
>>>>>>>>>>> European waters -- and the traditional "rights" of neutrals were
>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant and disregarded by both sides. In arming merchantmen
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> stowing munitions on passenger liners, England was hypocritical
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> utterly cavalier about the resulting mortal danger to innocent
>>>>>>>>>>> civilians
>>>>>>>>>>> -- as exemplified by the 4.3 million rifle cartridges and
>>>>>>>>>>> hundreds
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> tons
>>>>>>>>>>> of other munitions carried in the hull of the Lusitania.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> England was hypocritical and utterly cavalier about the
>>>>>>>>>>> resulting
>>>>>>>>>>> mortal
>>>>>>>>>>> danger to innocent civilians.
>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise, German resort to so-called "unrestricted submarine
>>>>>>>>>>> warfare"
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> February 1917 was brutal and stupid, but came in response to
>>>>>>>>>>> massive
>>>>>>>>>>> domestic political pressure during what was known as the "turnip
>>>>>>>>>>> winter"
>>>>>>>>>>> in Germany. By then, the country was starving from the English
>>>>>>>>>>> blockade --
>>>>>>>>>>> literally.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Before he resigned on principle in June 1915, Secretary William
>>>>>>>>>>> Jennings
>>>>>>>>>>> Bryan got it right. Had he been less diplomatic he would have
>>>>>>>>>>> said
>>>>>>>>>>> never
>>>>>>>>>>> should American boys be crucified on the cross of Cunard liner
>>>>>>>>>>> state
>>>>>>>>>>> room
>>>>>>>>>>> so that a few thousand wealthy plutocrat could exercise a
>>>>>>>>>>> putative
>>>>>>>>>>> "right"
>>>>>>>>>>> to wallow in luxury while knowingly cruising into in harm's way.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As to the Zimmerman telegram, it was never delivered to Mexico,
>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>> sent from Berlin as an internal diplomatic communique to the
>>>>>>>>>>> German
>>>>>>>>>>> ambassador in Washington, who had labored mightily to keep his
>>>>>>>>>>> country
>>>>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>>>>> of war with the US, and was intercepted by British intelligence,
>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>> sat
>>>>>>>>>>> on it for more than a month waiting for an opportune moment to
>>>>>>>>>>> incite
>>>>>>>>>>> America into war hysteria.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In fact, this so-called bombshell was actually just an internal
>>>>>>>>>>> foreign
>>>>>>>>>>> ministry rumination about a possible plan to approach the
>>>>>>>>>>> Mexican
>>>>>>>>>>> president regarding an alliance in the event that the US first
>>>>>>>>>>> went
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> war
>>>>>>>>>>> with Germany.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why is this surprising or a casus belli? Did not the entente
>>>>>>>>>>> bribe
>>>>>>>>>>> Italy
>>>>>>>>>>> into the war with promises of large chunks of Austria? Did not
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> hapless
>>>>>>>>>>> Rumanians finally join the entente when they were promised
>>>>>>>>>>> Transylvania?
>>>>>>>>>>> Did not the Greeks bargain endlessly over the Turkish
>>>>>>>>>>> territories
>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>> were to be awarded for joining the allies? Did not Lawrence of
>>>>>>>>>>> Arabia
>>>>>>>>>>> bribe the Sherif of Mecca with the promise of vast Arabian lands
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>> extracted from the Turks?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why, then, would the German's -- if at war with the USA -- not
>>>>>>>>>>> promise
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> return of Texas?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Proposition #4: Europe had expected a short war, and actually
>>>>>>>>>>> got
>>>>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>> the Schlieffen plan offensive bogged down 30 miles outside of
>>>>>>>>>>> Paris
>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> Marne River in mid-September 1914. Within three months, the
>>>>>>>>>>> Western
>>>>>>>>>>> Front
>>>>>>>>>>> had formed and coagulated into blood and mud -- a ghastly 400
>>>>>>>>>>> mile
>>>>>>>>>>> corridor of senseless carnage, unspeakable slaughter and
>>>>>>>>>>> incessant
>>>>>>>>>>> military stupidity that stretched from the Flanders coast across
>>>>>>>>>>> Belgium
>>>>>>>>>>> and northern France to the Swiss frontier.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The next four years witnessed an undulating line of trenches,
>>>>>>>>>>> barbed
>>>>>>>>>>> wire
>>>>>>>>>>> entanglements, tunnels, artillery emplacements and shell-pocked
>>>>>>>>>>> scorched
>>>>>>>>>>> earth that rarely moved more than a few miles in either
>>>>>>>>>>> direction,
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> which ultimately claimed more than 4 million casualties on the
>>>>>>>>>>> Allied
>>>>>>>>>>> side
>>>>>>>>>>> and 3.5 million on the German side.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If there was any doubt that Wilson's catastrophic intervention
>>>>>>>>>>> converted
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>> war of attrition, stalemate and eventual mutual exhaustion into
>>>>>>>>>>> Pyrrhic
>>>>>>>>>>> victory for the allies, it was memorialized in four developments
>>>>>>>>>>> during
>>>>>>>>>>> 1916.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In the first, the Germans wagered everything on a massive
>>>>>>>>>>> offensive
>>>>>>>>>>> designed to overrun the fortresses of Verdun -- the historic
>>>>>>>>>>> defensive
>>>>>>>>>>> battlements on France's northeast border that had stood since
>>>>>>>>>>> Roman
>>>>>>>>>>> times,
>>>>>>>>>>> and which had been massively reinforced after the France's
>>>>>>>>>>> humiliating
>>>>>>>>>>> defeat in Franco-Prussian War of 1870.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But notwithstanding the mobilization of 100 divisions, the
>>>>>>>>>>> greatest
>>>>>>>>>>> artillery bombardment campaign every recorded until then, and
>>>>>>>>>>> repeated
>>>>>>>>>>> infantry offensives from February through November that resulted
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> upwards of 400,000 German casualties, the Verdun offensive
>>>>>>>>>>> failed.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The second event was its mirror image -- the massive British and
>>>>>>>>>>> French
>>>>>>>>>>> offensive known as the battle of the Somme, which commenced with
>>>>>>>>>>> equally
>>>>>>>>>>> destructive artillery barrages on July 1, 1916 and then for
>>>>>>>>>>> three
>>>>>>>>>>> month
>>>>>>>>>>> sent waves of infantry into the maws of German machine guns and
>>>>>>>>>>> artillery.
>>>>>>>>>>> It too ended in colossal failure, but only after more than
>>>>>>>>>>> 600,000
>>>>>>>>>>> English
>>>>>>>>>>> and French casualties including a quarter million dead.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> By year-end 1916 the German generals who had destroyed the
>>>>>>>>>>> Russian
>>>>>>>>>>> armies
>>>>>>>>>>> in the East were given command of the Western Front.
>>>>>>>>>>> In between these bloodbaths, the stalemate was reinforced by the
>>>>>>>>>>> naval
>>>>>>>>>>> showdown at Jutland that cost the British far more sunken ships
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> drowned sailors than the Germans, but also caused the Germans to
>>>>>>>>>>> retire
>>>>>>>>>>> their surface fleet to port and never again challenge the Royal
>>>>>>>>>>> Navy
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> open water combat.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Finally, by year-end 1916 the German generals who had destroyed
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> Russian armies in the East with only a tiny one-ninth fraction
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> German army -- Generals Hindenburg and Ludendorff -- were given
>>>>>>>>>>> command
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> the Western Front. Presently, they radically changed Germany's
>>>>>>>>>>> war
>>>>>>>>>>> strategy by recognizing that the growing allied superiority in
>>>>>>>>>>> manpower,
>>>>>>>>>>> owing to the British homeland draft of 1916 and mobilization of
>>>>>>>>>>> forces
>>>>>>>>>>> from throughout the empire, made a German offensive breakthrough
>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>> nigh
>>>>>>>>>>> impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The result was the Hindenburg Line -- a military marvel based on
>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>> checkerboard array of hardened pillbox machine gunners and
>>>>>>>>>>> maneuver
>>>>>>>>>>> forces
>>>>>>>>>>> rather than mass infantry on the front lines, and an intricate
>>>>>>>>>>> labyrinth
>>>>>>>>>>> of highly engineered tunnels, deep earth shelters, rail
>>>>>>>>>>> connections,
>>>>>>>>>>> heavy
>>>>>>>>>>> artillery and flexible reserves in the rear. It was also
>>>>>>>>>>> augmented
>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> transfer of Germany's eastern armies to the western front --
>>>>>>>>>>> giving
>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>> 200
>>>>>>>>>>> divisions and 4 million men on the Hindenburg Line.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This precluded any hope of Entente victory. By 1917 there were
>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>> enough
>>>>>>>>>>> able-bodied draft age men left in France and England to overcome
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> Hindenburg Line, which, in turn, was designed to bleed white the
>>>>>>>>>>> entente
>>>>>>>>>>> armies led by butchers like Generals Haig and Joffre until their
>>>>>>>>>>> governments sued for peace.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, with the Russian army's disintegration in the east and the
>>>>>>>>>>> stalemate
>>>>>>>>>>> frozen indefinitely in the west by early 1917, it was only a
>>>>>>>>>>> matter
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> months before mutinies among the French lines, demoralization in
>>>>>>>>>>> London,
>>>>>>>>>>> mass starvation and privation in Germany and bankruptcy all
>>>>>>>>>>> around
>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>> have led to a peace of exhaustion and a European-wide political
>>>>>>>>>>> revolt
>>>>>>>>>>> against the war makers.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Wilson's intervention thus did not remake the world. But it did
>>>>>>>>>>> radically
>>>>>>>>>>> re-channel the contours of 20th century history. And, as they
>>>>>>>>>>> say,
>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> a good way.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> BANNED by the News!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The story on the topic you're about to see is so controversial
>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>> banned from the news and the reporters who uncovered it were
>>>>>>>>>>> fired
>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>> trying to bring it to light.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> DO NOT read this if you are happy with the president and his
>>>>>>>>>>> first
>>>>>>>>>>> lady.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Get the full story here.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Proposition #5: Wilson's epochal error not only produced the
>>>>>>>>>>> abomination
>>>>>>>>>>> of Versailles and all its progeny, but also the transformation
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> Federal Reserve from a passive "banker's bank" to an
>>>>>>>>>>> interventionist
>>>>>>>>>>> central bank knee-deep in Wall Street, government finance and
>>>>>>>>>>> macroeconomic management.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This, too, was a crucial historical hinge point because Carter
>>>>>>>>>>> Glass'
>>>>>>>>>>> 1913
>>>>>>>>>>> act forbid the new Reserve banks to even own government bonds;
>>>>>>>>>>> empowered
>>>>>>>>>>> them only to passively discount for cash good commercial credits
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> receivables brought to the rediscount window by member banks;
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> contemplated no open market interventions in debt markets or any
>>>>>>>>>>> remit
>>>>>>>>>>> with respect to GDP growth, jobs, inflation, housing or all the
>>>>>>>>>>> rest
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> modern day monetary central planning targets.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In fact, Carter Glass' "banker's bank" didn't care whether the
>>>>>>>>>>> growth
>>>>>>>>>>> rate
>>>>>>>>>>> was positive 4%, negative 4% or anything in-between; its modest
>>>>>>>>>>> job
>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> channel liquidity into the banking system in response to the ebb
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> flow
>>>>>>>>>>> of commerce and production.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jobs, growth and prosperity were to remain the unplanned outcome
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> millions of producers, consumers, investors, savers,
>>>>>>>>>>> entrepreneurs
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> speculators operating on the free market, not the business of
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> state.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Wilson's war took the national debt from about $1 billion or $11
>>>>>>>>>>> per
>>>>>>>>>>> capita to $27 billion.
>>>>>>>>>>> But Wilson's war took the national debt from about $1 billion or
>>>>>>>>>>> $11
>>>>>>>>>>> per
>>>>>>>>>>> capita -- a level which had been maintained since the Battle of
>>>>>>>>>>> Gettysburg
>>>>>>>>>>> -- to $27 billion, including upwards of $10 billion re-loaned to
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> allies to enable them to continue the war. There is not a chance
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>> massive eruption of Federal borrowing could have been financed
>>>>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> domestic savings in the private market.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So the Fed charter was changed owing to the exigencies of war to
>>>>>>>>>>> permit
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>> to own government debt and to discount private loans
>>>>>>>>>>> collateralized
>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>> Treasury paper.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In due course, the famous and massive Liberty Bond drives became
>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>> glorified Ponzi scheme. Patriotic Americans borrowed money from
>>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>> banks and pledged their war bonds; the banks borrowed money from
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> Fed,
>>>>>>>>>>> and re-pledged their customer's collateral. The Reserve banks,
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> turn,
>>>>>>>>>>> created the billions they loaned to the commercial banks out of
>>>>>>>>>>> thin
>>>>>>>>>>> air,
>>>>>>>>>>> thereby pegging interest rates low for the duration of the war.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When Wilson was done saving the world, America had an
>>>>>>>>>>> interventionist
>>>>>>>>>>> central bank schooled in the art of interest rate pegging and
>>>>>>>>>>> rampant
>>>>>>>>>>> expansion of fiat credit not anchored in the real bills of
>>>>>>>>>>> commerce
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> trade; and its incipient Warfare and Welfare states had an
>>>>>>>>>>> agency
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> public debt monetization that could permit massive government
>>>>>>>>>>> spending
>>>>>>>>>>> without the inconvenience of high taxes on the people or the
>>>>>>>>>>> crowding
>>>>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>>>>> of business investment by high interest rates on the private
>>>>>>>>>>> market
>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>> savings.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Proposition #6: By prolonging the war and massively increasing
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> level
>>>>>>>>>>> of debt and money printing on all sides, Wilson's folly
>>>>>>>>>>> prevented
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>> proper
>>>>>>>>>>> post-war resumption of the classical gold standard at the
>>>>>>>>>>> pre-war
>>>>>>>>>>> parities.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This failure of resumption, in turn, paved the way for the
>>>>>>>>>>> breakdown
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> monetary order and world trade in 1931 -- a break which turned a
>>>>>>>>>>> standard
>>>>>>>>>>> post-war economic cleansing into the Great Depression, and a
>>>>>>>>>>> decade
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> protectionism, beggar-thy-neighbor currency manipulation and
>>>>>>>>>>> ultimately
>>>>>>>>>>> rearmament and statist dirigisme.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In essence, the English and French governments had raised
>>>>>>>>>>> billions
>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>> their citizens on the solemn promise that it would be repaid at
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> pre-war parities; that the war bonds were money good in gold.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But the combatant governments had printed too much fiat currency
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> inflation during the war, and through domestic regimentation,
>>>>>>>>>>> heavy
>>>>>>>>>>> taxation and unfathomable combat destruction of economic life in
>>>>>>>>>>> northern
>>>>>>>>>>> France had drastically impaired their private economies.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Accordingly, under Churchill's foolish leadership England
>>>>>>>>>>> re-pegged
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> gold at the old parity in 1925, but had no political will or
>>>>>>>>>>> capacity
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> reduce bloated war-time wages, costs and prices in a
>>>>>>>>>>> commensurate
>>>>>>>>>>> manner,
>>>>>>>>>>> or to live with the austerity and shrunken living standards that
>>>>>>>>>>> honest
>>>>>>>>>>> liquidation of its war debts required.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Under Churchill's foolish leadership England re-pegged to gold
>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> old
>>>>>>>>>>> parity in 1925
>>>>>>>>>>> At the same time, France ended up betraying its war time
>>>>>>>>>>> lenders,
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> re-pegged the Franc two years later at a drastically depreciated
>>>>>>>>>>> level.
>>>>>>>>>>> This resulted in a spurt of beggar-thy-neighbor prosperity and
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> accumulation of pound sterling claims that would eventually
>>>>>>>>>>> blow-up
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> London money market and the sterling based "gold exchange
>>>>>>>>>>> standard"
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> the Bank of England and British Treasury had peddled as a poor
>>>>>>>>>>> man's
>>>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>>> back on gold.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yet under this "gold lite" contraption, France, Holland, Sweden
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>> surplus countries accumulated huge amounts of sterling
>>>>>>>>>>> liabilities
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> lieu
>>>>>>>>>>> of settling their accounts in bullion -- that is, they loaned
>>>>>>>>>>> billions
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> the British. They did this on the promise and the confidence
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> pound sterling would remain at $4.87 per dollar come hell or
>>>>>>>>>>> high
>>>>>>>>>>> water --
>>>>>>>>>>> just as it had for 200 years of peacetime before.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But British politicians betrayed their promises and their
>>>>>>>>>>> central
>>>>>>>>>>> bank
>>>>>>>>>>> creditors September 1931 by suspending redemption and floating
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> pound
>>>>>>>>>>> -- shattering the parity and causing the decade-long struggle
>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>> resumption of an honest gold standard to fail. Depressionary
>>>>>>>>>>> contraction
>>>>>>>>>>> of world trade, capital flows and capitalist enterprise
>>>>>>>>>>> inherently
>>>>>>>>>>> followed.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Proposition #7: By turning America overnight into the granary,
>>>>>>>>>>> arsenal
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> banker of the Entente, the US economy was distorted, bloated and
>>>>>>>>>>> deformed
>>>>>>>>>>> into a giant, but unstable and unsustainable global exporter and
>>>>>>>>>>> creditor.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> During the war years, for example, US exports increased by 4X
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> GDP
>>>>>>>>>>> soared from $40 billion to $90 billion. Incomes and land prices
>>>>>>>>>>> soared
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> the farm belt, and steel, chemical, machinery, munitions and
>>>>>>>>>>> ship
>>>>>>>>>>> construction boomed like never before -- in substantial part
>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>> Uncle
>>>>>>>>>>> Sam essentially provided vendor finance to the bankrupt allies
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> desperate need of both military and civilian goods.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Under classic rules, there should have been a nasty correction
>>>>>>>>>>> after
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> war -- as the world got back to honest money and sound finance.
>>>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>> didn't happen because the newly unleashed Fed fueled an
>>>>>>>>>>> incredible
>>>>>>>>>>> boom
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>> Wall Street and a massive junk bond market in foreign loans.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In today economic scale, the latter amounted to upwards of $2
>>>>>>>>>>> trillion
>>>>>>>>>>> and, in effect, kept the war boom in exports and capital
>>>>>>>>>>> spending
>>>>>>>>>>> going
>>>>>>>>>>> right up until 1929. Accordingly, the great collapse of
>>>>>>>>>>> 1929-1932
>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>> a mysterious failure of capitalism; it was the delayed
>>>>>>>>>>> liquidation
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> Wilson's war boom.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> After the crash, exports and capital spending plunged by 80%
>>>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> foreign junk bond binge ended in the face of massive defaults
>>>>>>>>>>> abroad;
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> that, in turn, led to a traumatic liquidation of industrial
>>>>>>>>>>> inventories
>>>>>>>>>>> and a collapse of credit fueled purchases of consumer durables
>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>> refrigerators and autos. The latter, for example, dropped from 5
>>>>>>>>>>> million
>>>>>>>>>>> to 1.5 million units per year after 1929.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Proposition #8: In short, the Great Depression was a unique
>>>>>>>>>>> historical
>>>>>>>>>>> event owing to the vast financial deformations of the Great War
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> deformations which were drastically exaggerated by its
>>>>>>>>>>> prolongation
>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>> Wilson's intervention and the massive credit expansion unleashed
>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> Fed and Bank of England during and after the war.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Stated differently, the trauma of the 1930s was not the result
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> inherent flaws or purported cyclical instabilities of free
>>>>>>>>>>> market
>>>>>>>>>>> capitalism; it was, instead, the delayed legacy of the financial
>>>>>>>>>>> carnage
>>>>>>>>>>> of the Great War and the failed 1920s efforts to restore the
>>>>>>>>>>> liberal
>>>>>>>>>>> order
>>>>>>>>>>> of sound money, open trade and unimpeded money and capital
>>>>>>>>>>> flows.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But this trauma was thoroughly misunderstood, and therefore did
>>>>>>>>>>> give
>>>>>>>>>>> rise
>>>>>>>>>>> to the curse of Keynesian economics and did unleash the
>>>>>>>>>>> politicians
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> meddle in virtually every aspect of economic life, culminating
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> statist and crony capitalist dystopia that has emerged in this
>>>>>>>>>>> century.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Needless to say, that is Thomas Woodrow Wilson's worst sin of
>>>>>>>>>>> all.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> David Stockman
>>>>>>>>>>> for The Daily Reckoning
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> David Stockman was a two-term Congressman from Michigan. He was
>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President
>>>>>>>>>>> Ronald
>>>>>>>>>>> Reagan. After leaving the White House, Stockman had a 20-year
>>>>>>>>>>> career
>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>> Wall Street. He's the author of two books, The Triumph of
>>>>>>>>>>> Politics
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>> Great Deformation. He also is founder of David Stockman's Contra
>>>>>>>>>>> Corner.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> BE SURE TO ADD dr@dailyreckoning.com to your address book.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Additional Articles & Commentary:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Join the conversation! Follow us on social media:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The Daily Reckoning is committed to protecting and respecting
>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>> privacy. We do not rent or share your email address. By
>>>>>>>>>>> submitting
>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>> email address, you consent to Agora Financial delivering daily
>>>>>>>>>>> issues and advertisements. To end your Daily Reckoning e-mail
>>>>>>>>>>> subscription
>>>>>>>>>>> and associated external offers sent from Daily Reckoning, feel
>>>>>>>>>>> free
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> click here.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Please read our Privacy Statement. For any further comments or
>>>>>>>>>>> concerns
>>>>>>>>>>> please email us at dr@dailyreckoning.com. If you are you having
>>>>>>>>>>> trouble
>>>>>>>>>>> receiving your Daily Reckoning subscription, you can ensure its
>>>>>>>>>>> arrival
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> your mailbox by whitelisting the Daily Reckoning.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (c) 2015 Agora Financial, LLC. 808 Saint Paul Street, Baltimore
>>>>>>>>>>> MD
>>>>>>>>>>> 21202.
>>>>>>>>>>> Although our employees may answer your general customer service
>>>>>>>>>>> questions,
>>>>>>>>>>> they are not licensed under securities laws to address your
>>>>>>>>>>> particular
>>>>>>>>>>> investment situation. No communication by our employees to you
>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>> deemed as personalized investment advice.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We expressly forbid our writers from having a financial interest
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>> security they personally recommend to our readers. All of our
>>>>>>>>>>> employees
>>>>>>>>>>> and agents must wait 24 hours after on-line publication or 72
>>>>>>>>>>> hours
>>>>>>>>>>> after
>>>>>>>>>>> the mailing of a printed-only publication prior to following an
>>>>>>>>>>> initial
>>>>>>>>>>> recommendation. Any investments recommended in this letter
>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>> made
>>>>>>>>>>> only after consulting with your investment advisor and only
>>>>>>>>>>> after
>>>>>>>>>>> reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>>>>>>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>>>>>>>> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>>>>>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>>>>>>> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>>>>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>>>>>> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>>>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>>>>> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>>>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>>>>> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>>>> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>>> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>>> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Blind-Democracy mailing list
> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blind-Democracy mailing list
> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)