Posts Tagged ‘Dulles’

Plutocratic Planet

January 2, 2015

Plutocrats control the thinking, thus the law. In the USA, it is unlawful for Medicare, the public health insurance for seniors, to discuss the price of drugs with (private) providers. If a drug company asks for an outrageous price for a drug, Medicare has to say yes.

However, private insurers can negotiate all they want. I asked a health care executive if this was fair. He smiled sardonically: “It’s the law.”

Krugman is increasingly discovering that plutocracy is a problem (although he is careful to not use the word too much, as it smells, literally, of sulfur). He wrote an excellent editorial in the New York Times, January 2, 2015 (time flies, happy New Year!)

Income to 2008. Return of Feudalism: It Has Got Worse Since.

Income to 2008. Return of Feudalism: It Has Got Worse Since.

Says Krugman: “What you see is the surge by the global elite (the top 0.1, 0.01, etc. would be doing even better than his top 1%), plus the dramatic rise of many but not all people in emerging markets. In between is what … I’d say corresponds to advanced-country working classes in general, at least if you add post-2008 data with the effects of austerity. I’d call it the valley of despond…”

I sent a comment putting things in historical perspective. The New York Times censored it (I am on the NYT’s official watch and censor list). Here is my comment below. I will comment more on what Krugman said, after it.

Patrice Ayme (censored by NYT): “Agreed to all. Let me add more perspective. Plutocrats rose after World War One, especially in the USA, by acquiring effective control of Germany, through the good offices of Dr. Schacht (Germany’s top banker, a pawn of JP Morgan), Henri Ford (financing Hitler massively), IBM (monopoly of computing in Germany).

This allowed to turn around the anti-monopoly laws of Teddy Roosevelt. One could argue that Hitler’s Reich was an American plutocrats’ puppet. By 1945, the USA was master of the world.

However, the US army (16 million young soldiers trained to kill), had to be pacified, so GIs were treated like kings (thanks to a 93% tax on the wealthy). The economy boomed.

However, what plutocrats want is to rule: that means they want the Commons despondent. Their world domination could be accentuated by repeating, worldwide, what they had done with Germany, Italy and even the USSR between the wars. They invested far away from Western workers.

The same situation exactly led to the implosion of the Roman economy. But, first, by voiding the core of the empire of work and power, Roman plutocracy insured for itself several centuries of rule.

The same psychology is at work today: plutocrats want to deprive of power who could take it away: the Western Middle Class. “Austerity” is a just a ruse that way. Its true validity is that it diverts money and power from We The People to the richest people in the world, by fiscally means.

Wealth organize its subjects’ minds all over. No hope?”

No hope to see such ideas in the New York Times: the preceding was censored, as deserved for doubting the goodness of the institutions and history our masters have set-up. By censoring such facts, and ideas, the plutocrats insure that their satanic conspiracy can blossom ever more. The facts above are correct, and there are much more, thousand more, like them (I have detailed them in preceding essays).

One can literally said that American plutocrats used Nazism as a tool.

I talk all the time to very educated Americans and Europeans who are persuaded that the USA did all it could against Hitler: the cover-up has splendidly held. So they have no idea of what we see today is a continuation of a process started a century ago. And that it can lead to the worst, because it already did.

Some American friends I had for years called me an uneducated Satan for evoking such facts, and have not talked to me once ever since. It is the world upside down, the inversion of all values.

The collaboration between American plutocrats, and the government they control went on, during and after the World War. Both institutionally, and individually: IBM made itself busy helping the Allies after the Nazis capitulated (they had the monopoly of organizing in Hitler’s Reich). Tens of thousands of Nazis escaped under USA supervision.

The other day, I saw a documentary on TV explaining to me how great the Nazi engineers who built rockets were, and how they got to the moon. Yes, they got to the moon (Saturn V employed more than 100 Nazi engineers). The documentary forgot to mention the tens of thousands of slaves who died in underground rocket factories managed by the same characters.

Klaus Barbie, well known to have tortured to death around 5,000 people in Lyon, personally, and having boasted about it lyrically, was in CIA employ for decades afterwards; the French arrested him in Bolivia and brought him to trial later. Barbie had tortured to death tens of British agents, of both genders, not just the French. Maybe he killed some Americans from the OSS too, I don’t remember. The CIA knew this very well, but it was headed by lawyer Dulles, who represented 1,000 Nazi companies before WWII.

In TWIN PEAKS PLANET, Krugman opines that:

“In 2014, soaring inequality in advanced nations finally received the attention it deserved, as Thomas Piketty’s “Capital in the Twenty-First Century” became a surprise (and deserving) best seller. The usual suspects are still in well-paid denial, but, to everyone else, it is now obvious that income and wealth are more concentrated at the very top than they have been since the Gilded Age — and the trend shows no sign of letting up.

But that’s a story about developments within nations, and, therefore, incomplete. You really want to supplement Piketty-style analysis with a global view, and when you do, I’d argue, you get a better sense of the good, the bad and the potentially very ugly of the world we live in.”

The potentially very ugly has been seen many times in the past, all over the world, from Japan to Central America: feudalism, and, or, giant war(s), sometimes for millennia.

Even the Roman Republic, which was extremely aware of the plutocratic problem, and had been built around the idea to not fall into it again, fell into it, after a long degeneracy,  with “Senatus Princeps” Augustus. (Princeps evolved in the word “Prince”).

The rest of Krugman’s essay is a rewording of what I have been saying for more than a decade in writing. A delight to read, and I will comment on it in another essay, because I do not have the time now, and readers tend not to have time for long essays, either.

Krugman finally pays attention to the thought control the greedy oligarchies have achieved. The power is in the discourse. (As Foucault, and others, noticed.)

So see you soon, and, again, Happy New Year!

Patrice Ayme’

Who Wanted Kennedy Dead?

November 22, 2013

For 50 years, many theories have come up about Kennedy’s termination. It may be good to recapitulate what’s certain.

First it’s certain that we are strangely uncertain. The president of the USA is assassinated, and we don’t know for sure why, or even how. History helps. In 98 years, three presidents of the USA were assassinated. For the first two, Lincoln and McKinley, we know exactly whom, how and why. Not so with JFK.

To get a perspective, look at a much older country. In 15 centuries of continuous governance, France had two leaders executed. One was a long reigning Frankish queen, Brunhilda, at the end of a long civil war; the second one was ex-Prime Minister Laval, for collaborating with Hitler too enthusiastically.

France also had two kings assassinated. Yes, in 15 centuries. Two. For basically the same reason. One after the other. The great Henri III, and his hand-picked successor, the just as great Henri IV.

The cause? Overall, the cause was the religious wars of the Sixteenth Century, seven of them in quick succession, involving the fanatical Catholic League, financed by Catholic fascists in Spain (themselves of Bourgogne origin)… and sometimes nearly as fanatical Hugenots.

We know exactly who killed the kings. Extreme attention was given to find out whether there had been conspiracies behind the hands of the killers. Enough was found to reveal that both killers fed on the atmosphere created by a number of Catholic grandees. No direct links sufficient enough to convict was found, but enough to steer the mood in France, for centuries to come. Making both leaders, and the people, very suspicious, and then pro-active, against religious fanaticism. There is a direct logical chain between Henri IV’s death, in 1610, and the expropriation of the Catholic church, in 1905.

Both assassinations were no surprise. There had been at least 17 attempts against Henri IV. Clearly his bodyguard was incredibly at fault for allowing Ravaillac to come close.

In the case of Kennedy, there was just one attempt (compare with the many attempts by the CIA to kill Castro). And it was just perfect. Supposedly three shots by one man, in six seconds, with an old bolt action rifle, two of them lethal. Captured after killing a police officer, Ostwald was asked if he killed the president. His first words were:“It’s for you to figure out.”

Enigmatic.

Jack Ruby knew everybody at the police station, and everybody knew him, a French journalist found out (he talked to Ruby before the assassination, and was interviewed by the Warren Commission!)

The verdict, in the case of Henri III and Henri IV, was that the fanatical mood of the worst Catholics drove the will to kill. Both the fanatical Dominican friar, Jacques Clément, and Ravaillac evolved in an atmosphere of extreme zealotry fed by their entourages.

The (very educated, but Catholic fundamentalist) family of Ravaillac was actually condemned very severely, as it was viewed responsible for having fostered a mood of religious hatred. Catherine Henriette de Balzac d’Entragues, Marquise de Verneuil, who had two children with Henri IV, was revealed as having been involved in at least one conspiracy against the king. She was exiled forever. Her motive? Henri had married Marie de Medici, a banker.

In any case French authorities, in 1610 CE, recognized that a mood could be culprit.

Was there such a similar killing mood involved in JFK’s death?

Of course. An obvious set of suspects offers itself.

Who would have wanted Kennedy dead? The same mood and galaxy of conspirators that has been involved in the Plot Against France.

John Kennedy had refused to support the Bay of Pigs Invasion (revealing called Operation Pluto) with regular troops. Instead, he compromised the CIA, the Mafia, and more than 100 Cuban plutocrats (many of whom Castro gleefully executed).

Who headed the CIA? Allen Dulles, the brother of Eisenhower’s Secretary of State Dulles, the man who told Ike what had been done on his behalf.

The Dulles Brothers represented up to 800 Nazi firms before the Second World War, and kept on managing Nazis after the war (the one who created the CIA was head of the OSS bureau in Berlin in charge of de-Nazification, immediately after the war). When Kennedy started his crack-down on the CIA and the Mafia, the Dulles were not amused.

Don’t forget that, at the time, the 100 top engineers of NASA were Nazis. And not small Nazis. Big, large, genuinely ultimately vicious Nazis. Look at the esteemed Werner Von Braun: a full SS commander, who was not just decorated by his friend Hitler, but managed some of the most deadly death camps (slaves built the “Vengeance Weapons” underground, in the worst conditions).

(By the way, irony of history, that Von Braun’s space program was excellent for the Allies: Albert Speer (top Nazi in charge of industry) estimated that the V2 program cost as much as the construction of 24,000 fighter planes… and had little to show for it, except for exasperated democracies determined on, well, vengeance.)

The Dulles brothers themselves came into that line of business as lawyers employed by their masters, top American financiers. The very financiers, instigators, and incubators of Nazism itself.

John Kennedy knew the music. His father, having pulled out of the market before the 1929 crash, lent money to the Mafia during the Prohibition. The Senior Kennedy, nominated by FDR, ambassador to Great Britain, had to be recalled after he declared, on the record, that “democracy was finished” in Britain and the USA (and had to be replaced by a Nazi-like system).

Why did the Senior Kennedy declare this? He misjudged the new mood. Until 1936, the Nazis were engaged in a quiet coup in Britain, involving the king. A proof? The 1935 Nazi-Britain treaty deliberately violating the Versailles Treaty (and especially its secret informal protocols, or why the Nazis attacked Poland).

After that disaster, the French had to work hard to get the British leadership to regain its senses (something that went on between 1936 and 1939; the first move of the British anti-Nazis was to kick the king out; that was facilitated because his future American wife was known to be spying for… Hitler)

Similarly, Kennedy’s son misjudged the mood of the upper crust of American society, and, especially, that of its racist, violent, greedy, ruthless, darker underbelly. JFK had deeply annoyed a lot of mighty, ruthless organizations by 1963. JFK also knew there were bodies buried, why, and where (at least figuratively speaking).

Kennedy expected to be assassinated. He spoke of this to his wife everyday. So it is likely that he knew he had crossed the thin red line to messianism.  JFK, and his Jesus Christ attitude was a Damocles Sword over the plutocratic establishment. After calling businessmen “son of bitches”, what was JFK going to do next? Rant against Foundations?

For the nastiest plutocrats, it’s much better to have clueless presidents, such as Reagan, Clinton, or Obama.

50 years later, the same nastiness is firmly in control. It promises to keep the USA in Afghanistan another ten years. It has dismantled FDR’s Banking Act of 1933. It has instituted a new health system same as the old one, that promises to increase further the profits of health plutocrats in the USA. it has launched the USA on an energy policy of fracking its way into bankruptcy, same as the “subprime” mess, just bigger.

Don’t ask who killed the Kennedys. Ask instead: who could have profited from it?

Patrice Ayme