Author Topic: * Fascism Part II: The Rise of American Fascism  (Read 10773 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline EyeBelieve

  • General of the Army
  • *****
  • Posts: 8632
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
- * Fascism Part II: The Rise of American Fascism
« Reply #40 on: October 18, 2012, 06:08:40 PM »
All three are Jewish

OK, FDR was wrong to help Britain & USSR destroy Germany.  OTOH FDR helped restrain the banks, put folks to work building stuff, helped protect farms & homes against foreclosure etc.  We have bankster-controlled gentile Presidents that have been worse on economic things like Nixon (floating the dollar), Carter (pushing massive deregulation, Clinton (ending Glass Steagall) & Dubya giving $$billions to bankster bailouts.

Offline wag

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 10423
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
- * Fascism Part II: The Rise of American Fascism
« Reply #41 on: October 18, 2012, 06:22:28 PM »

Teddy got "lucky" when that Jew shot McKinley.


 
They put McKinley on a $500.  You wonder why Salmon P Chase is on the $10,000 bill? 
Nobody gets paid to tell the truth.

Offline jacob gold

  • Troll
  • General of the Army
  • *
  • Posts: 9200
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
- * Fascism Part II: The Rise of American Fascism
« Reply #42 on: October 18, 2012, 08:32:56 PM »
The 1938 madman, Father Coughlin, made awful remarks about Roosevelt and his Jews - just awful


« Last Edit: October 19, 2012, 05:14:09 PM by sushigirl »

Offline EyeBelieve

  • General of the Army
  • *****
  • Posts: 8632
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
- * Fascism Part II: The Rise of American Fascism
« Reply #43 on: October 18, 2012, 09:45:28 PM »
They put McKinley on a $500.  You wonder why Salmon P Chase is on the $10,000 bill?

When I go to the VIP nightclubs with my rapper & sports friends I used to get pissed off when the staff refused to take my McKinleys & Clevelands, they didn't get concept of "legal tender".  But then my nice jewish accountant explained that during Nixon administration the Fed withdrew the big notes to fight "money laundering".   ;)

Seriously though, I've been in the Fed HQ where they have the Chases etc on display under marble & glass enclosures.  The whole building was a money temple with a vast atrium surrounded by only a few offices.  Actually the building was the AFAIK newer building across the street from the main Fed building.  Looked at Google Maps just now & the bigger north-side 20th & C St building is unlabelled (just an unmarked square).  Secrecy necessary to stymie Bangladeshi terrorists perhaps.

Offline EyeBelieve

  • General of the Army
  • *****
  • Posts: 8632
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
- * Fascism Part II: The Rise of American Fascism
« Reply #44 on: October 18, 2012, 09:58:19 PM »
The 1938 madman, Fathe Coughlin, made awful remarks about Roosevelt and his Jews - just awful

Coughlin was a good guy I guess, though in the speech mentions jews only about once & barely implies they're connected to banksters.  BTW yesterday C-Span mentioned the Alfred Smith Memorial Dinner in NYC where Romney, Obama & numerous (mostly jewish) NYC VIPS attended & spoke.  Alfred E. Smith 1st Catholic Prez nominee in '28 so it's sad to see his name connected with such crooks.  Also BTW reminded of Mad Magazine's fictional spokesman, Alfred E. Neuman...was that name specifically chosen due to long-lasting jew hate?

Offline Sue

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 19731
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
- * Fascism Part II: The Rise of American Fascism
« Reply #45 on: October 19, 2012, 02:54:13 PM »
American Race relations during Roosevelt's administration


"District Judge Caruthers convened a grand jury in June 1911 to investigate the lynching of [this] Negro woman and her son. In his instructions to the jury, he said, "The people of the state have said by recently adopted constitutional provision that the race to which the unfortunate victims belonged should in large measure be divorced from participation in our political contests, because of their known racial inferiority and their dependent credulity, which very characteristic made them the mere tool of the designing and cunning. It is well known that I heartily concur in this constitutional provision of the people's will. The more then does the duty devolve upon us of a superior race and of greater intelligence to protect this weaker race from unjustifiable and lawless attacks.""

Throughout the 1920s and 1930s race relations in America were in a general decline at the social level. This is one reason why the situation in Germany with the Jews was not seen by many Americans as anything extraordinary. That Jews were discriminated against in Germany and segregated was nothing new to Americans who were accustomed to racial segregation. In fact Hitler mentioned that his segregation practices were based on the American example.

The term lynching originated in America when, after the American Revolution, a judge named Lynch became well known for the large number of loyalists that he sentenced to hanging. After the Civil War the lynching of blacks took on a new aura as it was seen as a "defense of white culture against the Negro." The practice, after blacks had been freed as slaves, was to keep blacks in fear and in a subordinate status. There were close to 2,000 lynching in America in the 20th century, almost all of them coming before World War II. In terms of violence and repression Germany was not much more repressive than America until the war broke out. The Germans did not begin the mass killing of Jews and others until after the war started. Prior to that the situation in Germany was mostly one of segregation, discrimination, and public acts of violence, nothing that was out of character in American race relations of the time.

         



Note on body reads:
"Let this be a warning to you niggers to let white people alone or you will go the same way."

Early 20th century lynchings in America

For more information on these and other lynchings see:

http://www.musarium.com:16080/withoutsanctuary/

http://www.americanlynching.com/

When FDR came into office his primary goal was the passing of his New Deal legislation. The New Deal represented a tremendous change in the American system, and thus FDR was always walking a fine line in Congress in terms of getting support for his measures. Because of this FDR tried to distance himself from race issues as much as possible because, being a Democrat, most of his fellow Democrats were from the South. At the time the South was politically dominated by conservative Democrats, also known as Dixiecrats. So in order for FDR to pass his New Deal legislation he needed Democratic support; in order to keep his Democratic support he could not be very progressive on race matters.

Roosevelt expressed personal sympathy with the cause of blacks in America, but for the reasons mentioned above he never committed to any progressive racial legislation. However, the First Lady, Eleanor Roosevelt, was a vocal advocate of racial justice and she visited with blacks and invited blacks to the White House, something that was very progressive for the times.

While Roosevelt was in office anti-lynching bills were proposed. The anti-lynching bills were quite divisive and Roosevelt tried to distance himself from them. In speaking about the Wagner Bill (the anti-lynching bill) FDR told Walter White of the NAACP: "I did not choose the tools with which I must work. Had I been permitted to choose then I would have selected quite different ones. But I've got to get legislation passed by Congress to save America. The Southerners by reason of the seniority rule in Congress are chairmen or occupy strategic places on most of the Senate and House committees. If I come out for the anti-lynching bill now, they will block every bill I ask Congress to pass to keep America from collapsing. I just can't take that risk."

While the Wagner bill was pending in Congress in 1934 lynching did subside for a bit, but  as soon as the bill failed to pass lynching started up again.

In October of 1934 a particularly gruesome lynching took place in Marianna Florida as is recounted here:

    Not long after midnight on October 26, 'an armed mob of approximately 100 men stormed the county jail at Brewton, Alabama,' and seized Claude Neal, a black man accused of the murder of a white women. According to an NAACP investigator, the mob took Neal back to Florida, where the murder had been committed, and subjected him to 'the most brutal and savage torture imaginable, the greatest possible humiliation and agony.' They sliced him with knives, severed parts of his body, and made him eat his penis and testicles. Then they branded him with red hot irons, choked him several times with a rope, tied him to the back of a car, and dragged him to the home of the dead woman, where a member of her family drove a butcher knife into his heart. A crowd of thousands assembled; the body was repeatedly trampled, and 'little children waiting with sharp sticks drove their weapons deep into the flesh of the dead man.' The mutilated body was hung on a tree in the courthouse square; hawkers sold photographs for fifty cents apiece.

Source: Farwell to the Party of Lincoln: Black Politics in the Age of FDR by Nancy J. Weiss

It was common practice for photographs of lynchings to be sold to the pubic, and even postcards that could be sent through the mail, which is why so many photos of lynchings exist today. It was also common for lynchings to be large public events with hundreds or thousand of participants. This was not a backwoods occurrence of a few deranged men, this was a commonly accepted social practice in the regions where lynchings took place, primarily the South. Children were also commonly involved and children observers can be seen in many lynching photographs.

Body mutilation was also common in lynchings, with one of the common practices being the live castration of the victim. Lynchings were most often directed against alleged criminals, however the first problem is that there was seldom any trail, and often allegations against blacks quickly sprang up as soon as any violent crime was committed with the result being that "some" black  man was going to get lynched. Often who got lynched was based on a "hunch" by the vigilantes, and blacks were often simply scapegoats for crimes committed by whites. Whites were occasionally lynched as well. Group lynchings and family lynchings were also not unheard of. Victims were also burned at the stake on occasion, or burned alive while they hung.

 

Two lynchings from 1935

Throughout FDR's administration Eleanor continued to support racially liberal causes, despite the fact that FDR himself seldom gave public support for them. This was a somewhat calculated measure because they both supported progressive racial causes, however Roosevelt knew that in the racial climate of the day his direct involvement in racial issues would be political suicide for him, thus he and she took on a somewhat detached public stance, she taking on the issues that FDR felt were too radical for his own platform.

Eleanor received a lot of criticism for her actions however, especially on race issues. Some familiar complaints were: "She goes around telling Negroes they are as good as anyone else." "Wherever she has spoken the Negroes always act like they are white folks."

Despite FDR's conscious attempts to distance himself from racial issues it seemed that nothing was ever good enough for the American public. FDR drew constant criticism on matters of race. In relation to the New Deal's equal treatment of blacks and whites a man from Dearborn Michigan (familiar place eh?) wrote that "any white man who worked for the betterment of negroe [sic] races, the President included, was a traitor."

FDR and Eleanor were often referred to as "nigger lovers". During the 1936 presidential campaign a popular anti-Roosevelt song was as follows:
"You kiss the niggers,
I'll kiss the Jews.
We'll stay in the White House
As long as we choose"

In letters to the White House people stated:

"Let [the Negro] stay in his place."

"Mr. President, we southern people don't believe in no such stuff as social equality with the negroes as you are doing."

During the 1936 political conventions the Democrats began reaching out to blacks for the first time. At a Democratic convention black pastor Marshall L. Shepard gave the invocation, a first for such an event, however immediately after the pastor spoke  "Dixie" was sung by the group. When the pastor took  the podium Senator Ed Smith from South Carolina walked out stating: "By God, he' as black as melted midnight!" "Get out of my way. This mongrel meeting ain't no place for a white man!" "I am not opposed to any Negro praying for me but I don't want any blue-gummed, slew footed Senegambian praying for me politically!" Smith later stated that "acceptance of the Negro on terms of political equality humiliated the South."

Through all of this Roosevelt did little of substance directly for blacks. Eleanor reached out to them socially, as did a few other politicians, but no legislation of any substance was passed to protect or promote blacks during the 1930s. Blacks began voting in large numbers for FDR because he was at least not hostile to them (something that was an accomplishment in the times), because Eleanor had established a good public image towards blacks, and because the New Deal helped them in the same way that it helped whites.

The perception that Roosevelt was favorable to blacks (because he wasn't oppressing them) had a negative impact on him politically, however the economic situation was such that people were voting primarily with their pocketbooks, even if they were uncomfortable with their views that Roosevelt was friendly to blacks. Despite the fact that Roosevelt never supported any racially progressive laws, just the mere fact that he wasn't taking action against blacks was bad enough for some Americans, especially in the South.

to be continued...
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Offline jacob gold

  • Troll
  • General of the Army
  • *
  • Posts: 9200
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
- * Fascism Part II: The Rise of American Fascism
« Reply #46 on: October 19, 2012, 03:11:32 PM »
Multiculturalism never works



Jews have been wrecking nations with this since the beginning of time. 120 yrs ago it was negroes, and today it's Mexicans.

Offline laconas

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 13653
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
- * Fascism Part II: The Rise of American Fascism
« Reply #47 on: October 19, 2012, 03:24:50 PM »
Quote
American Race relations during Roosevelt's administration

The pictures look very bad, but there are probably more blacks being murdered today, even as a % of the total, than the 1930's.
Nobody censors what they agree with

Offline EyeBelieve

  • General of the Army
  • *****
  • Posts: 8632
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
- * Fascism Part II: The Rise of American Fascism
« Reply #48 on: October 19, 2012, 04:05:04 PM »
The pictures look very bad, but there are probably more blacks being murdered today, even as a % of the total, than the 1930's.

Plus a good portion of lynching victims had to be guilty.

Offline laconas

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 13653
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
- * Fascism Part II: The Rise of American Fascism
« Reply #49 on: October 19, 2012, 05:01:04 PM »
Plus a good portion of lynching victims had to be guilty.

I don't think we're supposed say that in the same way can't say some Jews in Europe 70 years ago might have been up to something.
Nobody censors what they agree with

Offline Sue

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 19731
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
- * Fascism Part II: The Rise of American Fascism
« Reply #50 on: October 19, 2012, 05:09:49 PM »
Statistics (Canada)

    About 30% of Black Canadians have Jamaican heritage.[44]
    An additional 32% have heritage elsewhere in the Caribbean or Bermuda.[12]
    60% of Black Canadians are under the age of 35.[12]
    60% of Black Canadians live in the province of Ontario.[1]
    97% of Black Canadians live in urban areas.[12]
    There are 32,000 more black women than black men in Canada.[9]

    Compared:
        Black Canadians – 783,795 (2.5% of Canadian population)
        Black British – 1,464,000 (2.5% of British population)
        African Australians – 400,000 (2.2% of Australian population)
        African Americans – 39,500,000 (12.4% of American population)
        Afro-Brazilians – 13,252.000, (6.9% of Brazilian population)
        Afro-Colombians – 10,500,000 (21% of Colombian population)

While blacks folks make lots of babies, white women since WWII have fewer children.
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Offline laconas

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 13653
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
- * Fascism Part II: The Rise of American Fascism
« Reply #51 on: October 19, 2012, 05:21:12 PM »
Quote
Afro-Brazilians – 13,252.000, (6.9% of Brazilian population)
            Afro-Colombians – 10,500,000 (21% of Colombian population)

Probably a lot more in Brazil and fewer in Colombia.
Nobody censors what they agree with

Offline wag

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 10423
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
- * Fascism Part II: The Rise of American Fascism
« Reply #52 on: October 19, 2012, 05:26:13 PM »
I don't think we're supposed say that in the same way can't say some Jews in Europe 70 years ago might have been up to something.

Germany back then is the US of today.  Eliminating jewish influence is the only way to restore the national spirit.  It wouldn't be a first or last. 
Nobody gets paid to tell the truth.

Offline jacob gold

  • Troll
  • General of the Army
  • *
  • Posts: 9200
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
- * Fascism Part II: The Rise of American Fascism
« Reply #53 on: October 19, 2012, 06:04:42 PM »
Germany back then is the US of today.  Eliminating jewish influence is the only way to restore the national spirit.  It wouldn't be a first or last.


Judens are a cancer ..... Das kamps would be a fine place ...... food shortages would be kept to an minimum

Offline Sue

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 19731
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
- * Fascism Part II: The Rise of American Fascism
« Reply #54 on: October 19, 2012, 06:48:37 PM »
Multiculturalism never works



Jews have been wrecking nations with this since the beginning of time. 120 yrs ago it was negroes, and today it's Mexicans.

I could not agree more, Jacob. So true.
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Offline Sue

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 19731
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
- * Fascism Part II: The Rise of American Fascism
« Reply #55 on: October 19, 2012, 07:04:56 PM »
The Rise of the Black Legion


As I said, after the demise of the Ku Klux Klan in the late 1920s due to legal problems, the ideology of the Klan still lived on among the American public. By the 1930s a new organization had formed out the  remains of the of KKK, but this new group, The Black Legion, was larger, more aggressive, and estimated to have as many as 7 million members nation wide.

Below is a collection of new paper articles on the Black Legion from the 1930s:






As stated above, the group primarily targeted Communists, blacks, Jews, and Catholics in the name of God and protecting white Protestant America. The group was also opposed to FDR and his policies and was involved heavily with the Republican Party.  The group was political, large, and took serious action, including lynching people, shooting murders, floggings, kidnappings, and general threats of violence against people and groups that they opposed. The Black Legion was also acting in accord with the interests of some corporations as will be discussed below. They were involved in union busting and threatening labor organizers. In addition to this there were institutional members of the Black Legion, just as there had been institutional members of the KKK. As discussed above, members of the military and National Guard were of the Legion.

The Black Legion was the most violent expression of organized opposition against FDR and his New Deal policies. The Black Legion openly acknowledge that they considered the president a threat and sought the overthrow of the government.

More on the Black Legion can be found in the Federal Freedom of Information Archives, which states:

    "This cult-type organization operated in the Midwest in the 1930's supposedly to protect the country from various forms of "isms". Members wore black costumes with skull and crossbones insignia and were allegedly responsible for numerous murders."

Supporters of the European Fascists

While FDR was busy bringing American capitalism under the control of the State, many American capitalists began looking to blatantly Fascist Italy and Germany, who were engaged in a large amount of spending, as favorable regions to expand their capitalist empires. In addition, many of America's wealthy elite were primarily concerned with Communism and viewed the Fascist regimes as a bulwark against the spread of Communism.

Some of these people were simply businessmen doing business, but others were more involved.


Professor William E. Dodd

William E. Dodd, the US Ambassador to Germany, gave important insight into German and American economic alliances. He wrote of the situation in general that:

    "A clique of U.S. industrialists is hell-bent to bring a fascist state to supplant our democratic government and is working closely with the fascist regime in Germany and Italy. I have had plenty of opportunity in my post in Berlin to witness how close some of our American ruling families are to the Nazi regime. "

    "Certain American industrialists had a great deal to do with bringing fascist regimes into being in both Germany and Italy. They extended aid to help Fascism occupy the seat of power, and they are helping to keep it there." 
    - William E. Dodd, U.S. Ambassador to Germany, 1937

Some of the primary and more famous American companies and individuals that were involved with the Fascist regimes of Europe are: William Randolph Hearst, Joseph Kennedy (JFK's father), Charles Lindbergh, John Rockefeller, Andrew Mellon (head of Alcoa, banker, and Secretary of Treasury), DuPont, General Motors, Standard Oil (now Exxon), Ford, ITT, Allen Dulles (later head of the CIA), Prescott Bush, National City Bank, Coca-Cola, and General Electric. 

It should be noted that businessmen from many countries, including England and Australia, also worked with the Fascist regimes of Europe prior to WWII. The Fascist governments were involved in a high level of construction, production, and international business. All in all, American corporate investments in Germany grew by almost 50% between 1929 and 1940, while declining in the rest of continental Europe.

I.G. Farben, a German company, was the largest chemical manufacturing enterprise in the world during the early part of the 20th century. As such, the company had many holdings in a variety of countries, including America. The American holdings of I.G. Farben included Bayer Co., General Aniline Works, BASF, Agfa Ansco, and Winthrop Chemical Company.


I.G. Farben stamp showing corporate logo

I.G. Farben was critical in the development of the German economy and war machine leading up to WWII. During this time I.G. Farben's international holdings along with its international business contracts with companies like Standard Oil, DuPont, Alcoa, and Dow Chemical were crucial in supplying the Nazi regime with the materials needed for war, as well as financial support.

Ford and GM supplied European Fascists with trucks and equipment, as well as investing money in I.G. Farben plants. Standard Oil supplied the fascists with fuel. US Steel and Alcoa supplied them with critically needed metals. American banks gave them billion's of dollars worth of loans. American banks and businesses continued to support the Fascist regimes of Europe legally up until the day Germany declared war on America and the activities were stopped under the Trading with the Enemy Act. Despite this, some companies and individuals still maintained a business relationship with the Third Reich.

The following is excerpted from a report printed by the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary in 1974:

    The activities of General Motors, Ford and Chrysler prior to and during World War II...are instructive. At that time, these three firms dominated motor vehicle production in both the United States and Germany. Due to its mass production capabilities, automobile manufacturing is one of the most crucial industries with respect to national defense. As a result, these firms retained the economic and political power to affect the shape of governmental relations both within and between these nations in a manner which maximized corporate global profits. In short, they were private governments unaccountable to the citizens of any country yet possessing tremendous influence over the course of war and peace in the world. The substantial contribution of these firms to the American war effort in terms of tanks, aircraft components, and other military equipment is widely acknowledged. Less well known are the simultaneous contributions of their foreign subsidiaries to the Axis Powers. In sum, they maximized profits by supplying both sides with the materiel needed to conduct the war.

    During the 1920's and 1930's, the Big Three automakers undertook an extensive program of multinational expansion...By the mid-1930's, these three American companies owned automotive subsidiaries throughout Europe and the Far East; many of their largest facilities were located in the politically sensitive nations of Germany, Poland, Rumania, Austria, Hungary, Latvia, and Japan...Due to their concentrated economic power over motor vehicle production in both Allied and Axis territories, the Big Three inevitably became major factors in the preparations and progress of the war. In Germany, for example, General Motors and Ford became an integral part of the Nazi war efforts. GM's plants in Germany built thousands of bomber and jet fighter propulsion systems for the Luftwaffe at the same time that its American plants produced aircraft engines for the U.S. Army Air Corps....

    Ford was also active in Nazi Germany's prewar preparations. In 1938, for instance, it opened a truck assembly plant in Berlin whose "real purpose," according to U.S. Army Intelligence, was producing "troop transport-type" vehicles for the Wehrmacht. That year Ford's chief executive received the Nazi German Eagle (first class)....

    The outbreak of war in September 1939 resulted inevitably in the full conversion by GM and Ford of their Axis plants to the production of military aircraft and trucks.... On the ground, GM and Ford subsidiaries built nearly 90 percent of the armored "mule" 3-ton half-trucks and more than 70 percent of the Reich's medium and heavy-duty trucks. These vehicles, according to American intelligence reports, served as "the backbone of the German Army transportation system."...

    After the cessation of hostilities, GM and Ford demanded reparations from the U.S. Government for wartime damages sustained by their Axis facilities as a result of Allied bombing... Ford received a little less than $1 million, primarily as a result of damages sustained by its military truck complex at Cologne...

    Due to their multinational dominance of motor vehicle production, GM and Ford became principal suppliers for the forces of fascism as well as for the forces of democracy. It may, of course, be argued that participating in both sides of an international conflict, like the common corporate practice of investing in both political parties before an election, is an appropriate corporate activity. Had the Nazis won, General Motors and Ford would have appeared impeccably Nazi; as Hitler lost, these companies were able to re-emerge impeccably American. In either case, the viability of these corporations and the interests of their respective stockholders would have been preserved.

In 1940 Graeme K. Howard, of General Motors, published America and the New World Order, in which he advised that America give full cooperation to the Nazi regime. In his book he blames FDR for causing the war in Europe and goes on to say that the fascists should be supported as the better alternative to the spread of Communism.


Ambassador Dodd also relayed important information about major American publicist William Randolph Hearst's relationship with the European fascists and how Heart's publications were influencing American readers.

By the late 1930s a significant coalition of wealthy American businessmen had formed opposition to FDR. Many believed that he was getting too cozy with the Soviet Union and perceived his New Deal as communist style legislation, which in fact it was not.

FDR did want to form peaceful relations with the Soviet Union however, as he did with all nations. FDR's vision of the future was one of peace among all nations, who would work together cooperatively. FDR saw the fascists in Europe, especially Germany, as a threat to that climate. Both Roosevelt and Churchill, while opposed to Communism, also preferred opening relations with the Soviets in order to contain the fascists.

So, while FDR was pursuing peace with the Soviet Union and a domestic program of serious economic reform, powerful American businessmen interpreted his actions as "Red" and formed coalitions against him and began working hard on all fronts, political, economic, foreign and domestic, to oppose FDR and his policies.

to be continued...
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Offline wag

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 10423
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
- * Fascism Part II: The Rise of American Fascism
« Reply #56 on: October 19, 2012, 07:10:13 PM »
History is two things, the truth, and the "history" of it.

See note below in 'green'.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2012, 06:56:56 AM by sushigirl »
Nobody gets paid to tell the truth.

Offline Sue

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 19731
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
- * Fascism Part II: The Rise of American Fascism
« Reply #57 on: October 20, 2012, 06:04:19 AM »
History is two things, the truth, and the "history" of it.

There is an abundance of 'manufactured' history out there, 9/11, etc., etc.

See note below in 'green'.
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Offline Sue

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 19731
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
- * Fascism Part II: The Rise of American Fascism
« Reply #58 on: October 20, 2012, 06:51:13 AM »
A 1935 letter to FDR from Dodd
relayed a conversation that Dodd had with Karl von Wiegand, a 25 years principal
correspondent of the International News Service in Central Europe.


Dodd stated that:

    Since the present regime began, von Wiegand has been very much embarrassed, and Hearst has been even more embarrassing to him.  A little more than a year ago he and George Vincent were guests at my house, and he told us then how Hearst had subsidized Mussolini.

Dodd then went on to relay information directly from von Wiegand:

    ...In 1924, Hearst sent Bertilli, one of his best correspondents, to Italy for a series of articles designed to appraise accurately the Mussolini movement. After a month or so of work, the first article was sent to Hearst. It was plain enough that the verdict of Bertilli was not flattering.

    It had also been understood that Hearst had no sympathy with dictatorial governments. Strangely enough, Bertilli was recalled and all his work scrapped. Another strange thing, Gianini, President of the Italian Bank System of California, an ardent supporter of Mussolini, agreed to lend Hearst some millions of dollars, Hearst being thought at that time to be in embarrassing financial circumstances...

    Hearst then sent me (von Wiegand) to Rome for an interview with Mussolini, and asked me to engage him to write articles whenever he chose for the Hearst press at $l a word. Mussolini was greatly pleased and he wrote articles over a number of years, and I delivered to him large checks from time to time. From that time on Hearst was considered by his correspondents as an ally of Mussolini...

    In 1934 he (Hearst) came with a big party, including his mistress, and spent the summer at Nauheim. Once more representatives of the German Government visited him, and finally Rosenberg (editor of the VOELKISCHER BEOBACHTER and representative of German foreign propaganda work) made an engagement for him to see the Chancellor, and he flew to Berlin one night in September. The next day he had an interview of nearly an hour with the Chancellor, and he reported to me that he was greatly impressed with the genius and friendliness of Hitler...

    A little later he asked me to negotiate a deal with Goebbels for supplying the German Propaganda Ministry with all the Hearst news service. I declined. Hearst then appointed Hillman, of London, to work out the deal, and I went to London to continue my work for the International News Service. Hillman arranged for the Propaganda Ministry to have all continental Hearst information in Europe delivered to its office at the same time it went to the Hearst press over the world. For this service Hearst was to receive $200,000 a year, and he at once began to bring pressure to bear on his correspondents to give only friendly accounts of what happened in Germany...

    ...I learned a little later that all my reports from Germany went directly to Hearst and were re-edited so as to fit the new program...

    ...he at the same time sent Dosch-Fleurot here from Paris to administer the service in such a way that it would always be friendly to the Hitler regime. However, Dosch-Fleurot's attitude in the winter of 1934-35 began to change, and now he is called home for discipline. I might add that other representatives of the service in Germany have been dismissed, and still others dislike to write one-sided reports...

In his closing Dodd stated:

    You will see from von Wiegand's statements that what I told you about Hearst being an ally of Mussolini and Hitler is correct.

This relationship between Hearst and the Nazis has even greater implications than it first seems as well. Hearst's relationship with the Nazis in 1934 is of critical importance in understanding a major element of American anti-Communist propaganda. In 1934 Hearst published a number of stories about the 1932-1933 famine in Ukraine. Nazi Germany had been waging a major anti-Communist propaganda campaign as part of its agenda, fascism being the "sworn enemy" or communism.

In 1933 of course, Hitler falsely blamed the Reichstag fire on Communists, which triggered the beginning of the militarization of the German government and establishment of concentration camps in Germany.


WAG: note, speaking of lies: Dutch Council Communism and Van der Lubbe Burning the Reichstag - The question of "exemplary acts".

It was the significance of the young Dutch council communist Van der Lubbe's torching of the Reichstag (27 Feb. 1933), more than Hitler's coming to power, which focused the debates within Dutch council communism. The latter was profoundly divided on the question of 'exemplary acts' and of individual violence against symbols of bourgeois order.


http://libcom.org/library/reichstag-fire-dutch-communism

"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Offline Sue

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 19731
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
- * Fascism Part II: The Rise of American Fascism
« Reply #59 on: October 20, 2012, 09:13:14 AM »
continuing:


Hearst with Nazi officers

As part of this larger propaganda campaign the German Ministry of Propaganda created a story about a Soviet program of genocide in Ukraine. This was all part of the larger German plans to not only put down Communist support in Germany, but justify later invasions to the east under the banner of "liberation."

The Germans manufactured stories about the famine in Ukraine and used false photographs to depict the famine conditions as worse than they really were, including pictures from a 1920-22 famine in Russia during the Russian Civil War and pictures of famine conditions during World War I of regions that were not even Russian.

The Germans wanted to expand this propaganda campaign against the USSR to potential rival states which it hoped to build support in, such as the United States and Britain. This is where Hearst came in.

Hearst's role for the Nazis was to try and build Nazi sympathy in America, which was to be achieved by both portraying Nazi Germany in a good light, as well as portraying Germany's primary target, the Soviet Union, and Communism in general, in an exaggeratedly negative light.

Hearst picked up the Ukraine famine story in 1934, about a year after the famine actually took place. In a press like the Hearst Press everything relied on "breaking news." Had Hearst had a real interest in covering the Ukraine famine it would have been covered in 1932 and 1933 when it was taking place, however it was not covered in Hearst presses until 1934, after he picked up the story for the Nazis.


1935 Hearst publication showing pictures taken prior to 1930.
Notice claim that "reporter risked life to get photographs."

Hearst's Ukraine famine stories have proven to have had a huge impact among Americans, and even today the majority of Americans believe that there actually was a "Ukraine Holocaust." Common figures are that 6 million people died in Ukraine under Stalin's rule in what was an intentional starving to death of these millions of people. This 6 million figure is in fact a pure fabrication of Nazi propaganda. The idea that Ukrainians were intentionally starved to death is likewise a product of Nazi propaganda, picked up by Hearst and spread to the United States, where it was accepted at truth, and for the most part still is today.

For more on the Ukrainian famine and the role of the Hearst Press in creating the myth of a Ukrainian genocide see: Fraud, Famine and Fascism: The Ukrainian Genocide Myth from Hitler to Harvard

In 1938 George Seldes, famous American journalist, wrote of Hearst in Lords of the Press:

    The year 1935 marked the height of the Hearst Red-baiting campaign in the universities. It must be remarked here and now that there is no Red teaching in the schools and colleges of the United States, but the institutions of learning of our country still attempt to give their students a liberal education. It is inconceivable that they should do anything else. No school can supply an anti-liberal education, or a Fascist education, as these terms are contradictory. Liberalism and education are one, and all Hearst did was to call liberal education "Red" education.

    To this day the Hearst press is filled with Red-baiting articles and attacks upon such notable Americans as Prof. Charles A. Beard, Prof. George S. Counts, of Teachers College; Prof. E.A. Ross, of the University of Wisconsin; Prof. Frederick L. Schuman, of Chicago. Hearst reporters in numerous instances have been sent as students to interview professors or to take courses for the purpose of writing Red-baiting articles. When these reporters found nothing to write about they falsified. In several cases they later confessed.

In the 1930s Heart Consolidated Publications was the largest publishing business in the world, and his publications had a definite impact on the views of Americans. It is obvious that Hearst was attempting to influence Americans to be sympathetic to the European fascist cause, and it is arguable that it his efforts were in fact working.

In 1937 Fortune Magazine, a Hearst publication, stated that:

    The good journalist must recognize in Fascism certain ancient virtues of the race, whether or not they happen to be momentarily fashionable in his own country. Among these are Discipline, Duty, Courage, Glory, Sacrifice.

The Reader's Digest, another Hearst publication, reprinted and article from The New Statesman, also a Hearst publication, that stated:

    That Hitler's conquest of the hearts and minds of all classes of Germans is now so complete that even if all his Brown Shirts and Steel Helmets were to be disbanded, tomorrow he would still be easily the strongest man in Germany, and on any appeal to the electorate would be confirmed in power by a quite overwhelming majority of votes.

    Hitler is recognized by the whole of the political and official intelligentsia as an exceedingly able man. As of the militarist question: One may say with complete certainty that what Hitler said in his Reichstag speech on May 17 was exactly what he meant and accurately represents the policy that he will pursue.

    I found no German who dreamed of the possibility of war, few who did not hope that it might be prevented in the future altogether. The truth is that the Nazi mind is concentrated on the internal problems of Germany and does not want to be bothered by foreign affairs for a long time to come.

    Hitler has passed from the stage of party leader to being the national prophet of an exceedingly serious people, and it would need another prophet to replace him.
Below is a copy of a 1938 article published in Better Homes and Gardens, a Hearst publication.
The article paints a quaint portrait of Hitler as a nice, humble, personable man of taste.


Another fact about Hearst is that Hearst originally backed FDR and the New Deal, but again, in 1935 Hearst turned decidedly against FDR and the New Deal, launching a media campaign against it calling it the "Raw Deal".

In 1941, after the Nazis began their invasion of the Soviet Union, President Roosevelt extended Lend-Lease aid to the Soviets. In response to this Hearst presses attacked FDR's policies, as in the example below:

    If we are fighting totalitarianism as a foul principle and oppressive policy, why in the name of high heaven should we not desire to see the two totalitarian powers exterminate each other and destroy not only the principle but the practice of despotic government?

    If we are citizens--or subjects--of a genuine democracy and if we are devoted to the ideals of democracy, and honestly desirous of preserving and perpetuating those ideals, why should we not desire to see the enemies of democracy destroy each other?...

    Is our free country piling up deficits, bleeding its citizens white with confiscatory taxation, rushing headlong into national bankruptcy, shoveling out our wealth abroad, and shipping our war materials to alien nations to bolster up Bolshevism in Russia to spread it over all of Europe, including Britain, and to breed it and broadcast it in our own America?

    We may not think that this is what we want to do, but this is exactly what we are doing with our Bolshevist alliance, and no smoke screen of fine phrases can obscure that outstanding fact.

    No country which fights for Russia can claim to be honestly opposed to tyranny, since Bolshevism is the basest and bloodiest tyranny that has disgraced the supposed civilization of Europe since the time of Ivan the Terrible.

    No country can truthfully claim to be crusading for democracy and the four freedoms when it is supporting a tyranny which is the most evil enemy of democracy--a tyranny where all the four freedoms have been brutally suppressed--a tyranny with no liberty, no opportunity, no morality, and no God.

    New York Journal-American, September 5, 1941.

The plot deepens though. There were some much more substantial contributors to the Nazis, direct contributors to the Holocaust itself and the German plans for "master race."

Perhaps one of the most egregious contributors to the Nazi cause was IBM under the direction of Thomas J. Watson.

Another fact about Hearst is that Hearst originally backed FDR and the New Deal, but again, in 1935 Hearst turned decidedly against FDR and the New Deal, launching a media campaign against it calling it the "Raw Deal".

In 1941, after the Nazis began their invasion of the Soviet Union, President Roosevelt extended Lend-Lease aid to the Soviets. In response to this Hearst presses attacked FDR's policies, as in the example below:

    If we are fighting totalitarianism as a foul principle and oppressive policy, why in the name of high heaven should we not desire to see the two totalitarian powers exterminate each other and destroy not only the principle but the practice of despotic government?

    If we are citizens--or subjects--of a genuine democracy and if we are devoted to the ideals of democracy, and honestly desirous of preserving and perpetuating those ideals, why should we not desire to see the enemies of democracy destroy each other?...

    Is our free country piling up deficits, bleeding its citizens white with confiscatory taxation, rushing headlong into national bankruptcy, shoveling out our wealth abroad, and shipping our war materials to alien nations to bolster up Bolshevism in Russia to spread it over all of Europe, including Britain, and to breed it and broadcast it in our own America?

    We may not think that this is what we want to do, but this is exactly what we are doing with our Bolshevist alliance, and no smoke screen of fine phrases can obscure that outstanding fact.

    No country which fights for Russia can claim to be honestly opposed to tyranny, since Bolshevism is the basest and bloodiest tyranny that has disgraced the supposed civilization of Europe since the time of Ivan the Terrible.

    No country can truthfully claim to be crusading for democracy and the four freedoms when it is supporting a tyranny which is the most evil enemy of democracy--a tyranny where all the four freedoms have been brutally suppressed--a tyranny with no liberty, no opportunity, no morality, and no God.
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.