|American soldier dies during a German gas attack. Picture made in May, 1918.|
|Israel attack on a Gaza school Aug. 3, 2014|
100 years since the start of World War I. The timeline is essentially the same for the creation of the Federal Reserve in concert with the City of London. 100 years of manufactured booms and busts and of course never ending wars for the profit of a few.
We have always had the warnings. Except for rare occasions these warnings fell to the wayside. The psyops of war have effectively neutralized truth
Here are two examples of long forgotten warnings. One right before the US entered World War I and one right after we jumped into the Rothschild zionist conflict... and both were from Senators.
US Senator George William Norris - Opposing US Entry Into World War I - 4 April 1917
The enormous profits of munition manufacturers, stockbrokers, and bond dealers must be still further increased by our entrance into the war. This has brought us to the present moment, when Congress urged by the President and backed by the artificial sentiment, is about to declare war and engulf our country in the greatest holocaust that the world has ever known....
In showing the position of the bondholder and the stockbroker, I desire to read an extract from a letter written by a member of the New York Stock Exchange to his customers. This writer says:
Regarding the war as inevitable, Wall Street believes that it would be preferable to this uncertainty about the actual date of its commencement. Canada and Japan are at war and are more prosperous than ever before. The popular view is that stocks would have a quick, clear, sharp reaction immediately upon outbreak of hostilities, and that then they would enjoy an old - fashioned bull market such as followed the outbreak of war with Spain in 1898. The advent of peace would force a readjustment of commodity prices and would probably mean a postponement of new enterprises. As peace negotiations would be long drawn out, the period of waiting and uncertainty for business would be long. If the United States does not go to war, it is nevertheless good opinion that the preparedness program will compensate in good measure for the loss of the stimulus of actual war.Here we have the Wall Street view. Here we have the man representing the class of people who will be made prosperous should we become entangled in the present war, who have already made millions of dollars, and who will make many hundreds of millions more if we get into the war.Here we have the cold - blooded proposition that war brings prosperity to that class of people who are within the viewpoint of this writer.
He expresses the view, undoubtedly, of Wall Street, and of thousands of men elsewhere who see only dollars coming to them through the handling of stocks and bonds that will be necessary in case of war mass of common and patriotic citizens. It increases the cost of living of those who toil and those who already must strain every effort to keep soul and body together. War brings prosperity to the stock gambler on Wall Street - to those who are already in possession of more wealth than can be realized or enjoyed.
We are going into war upon the command of gold. We are going to run the risk of sacrificing millions of our countrymen's lives in order that other countrymen may coin their lifeblood into money.
Robert La Follette delivered his famous Free Speech in Wartime oration on October 6, 1917. In this speech, widely regarded as one of the most powerful arguments for free speech rights during wartime, La Follette defended his right and the right of all Americans to voice their opposition to war.
A progressive Senator from Wisconsin, La Follette was opposed to American involvement in World War I, believing that those promoting the war were doing so for financial gain and that the war efforts were hurting American consumers. Along with five other Senators, he voted against the declaration of war. After the vote, he continued to voice his opposition to the war and opposed a number of measures related to the war.
The press vilified La Follette and his antiwar colleagues, calling them traitors and worse. The attack on those opposed to the war extended to private citizens as well. In September 1917, the Associated Press distorted some of La Follettes remarks, stating that La Follette supported Germanys sinking of the Lusitania, a British ship. This prompted several senators to call for La Follettes expulsion from the Senate, and a petition was filed with a Senate committee to begin investigations into charges of disloyalty and sedition.
On October 6, 1917, La Follette delivered a three-hour address to the Senate, defending his and others right to speak out against the war. His well documented and classic arguments for free speech in wartime brought spontaneous, resounding applause from the Senate galleries. It also prompted a caustic rebuttal from Arkansas Democrat Joseph Robinson, in what one newspaper account deemed, "the most unrestrained language that has ever been heard in the Senate."La Follette was later vindicated. In 1919, the Senate dismissed the pending charges against Follette and paid his legal expenses
Free Speech in Wartime
Senator Robert LaFollette (R-Wisc.)
United States Senate Chamber, Washington, DC
October 6, 1917
Prior to the declaration of war every man who had ventured to oppose our entrance into it had been condemned as a coward or worse.
Since the declaration of war the triumphant war press has pursued those Senators and Representations who voted against war with malicious falsehood and recklessly libelous attacks, going to the extreme limit of charging them with treason against their country.
This campaign of libel and character assassination directed against the Members of Congress who opposed our entrance into the war has been continued down to the present hour, and I have upon my desk newspaper clippings, some of them libels upon me alone, some directed as well against other Senators who voted in opposition to the declaration of war.
One of these newspaper reports most widely circulated represents a Federal judge in the State of Texas as saying, in a charge to a grand jury--I read the article as it appeared in the newspaper and the headline with which it is introduced:
DISTRICT JUDGE WOULD LIKE TO TAKE SHOT AT TRAITORS IN CONGRESS.
[By Associated Press leased wire.]
Houston, Texas., October 1, 1917
Judge Waller T. Burns, of the United States district court, in charging a Federal grand jury at the beginning of the October term to-day, after calling by name Senators STONE of Missouri, HARDWICK of Georgia, VARDAMAN of Mississippi, GRONNA of North Dakota, GORE of Oklahoma, and LAFOLLETTE of Wisconsin, said:
"If I had a wish, I would wish that you men had jurisdiction to return bills of indictment against these men. They ought to be tried promptly and fairly, and I believe this court could administer the law fairly; but I have a conviction, as strong as life, that this country should stand them up against an adobe wall tomorrow and give them what they deserve. If any man deserves death, it is a traitor. I wish that I could pay for the ammunition. I would like to attend the execution, and if I were in the firing squad I would not want to be the marksman who had the blank shell."But, sir, it is not alone Members of Congress that the war party in this country has sought to intimidate. The mandate seems to have gone forth to the sovereign people of this country that they must be silent while those things are being done by their Government which most vitally concern their well-being, their happiness, and their lives. To-day and for weeks past honest and law-abiding citizens of this country are being terrorized and outraged in their rights by those sworn to uphold the laws and protect the rights of the people. I have in my possession numerous affidavits establishing the fact that people are being unlawfully arrested, thrown into jail, held incommunicado for days, only to be eventually discharged without ever having been taken into court, because they have committed no crime. Private residences are being invaded, loyal citizens of undoubted integrity and probity arrested, cross-examined, and the most sacred constitutional rights guaranteed to every American citizen are being violated.
It appears to be the purpose of those conducting this campaign to throw the country into a state of terror, to coerce public opinion, to stifle criticism, and suppress discussion of the great issues involved in this war.
But sir, the right to control their own Government according to constitutional forms is not one of the rights that the citizens of this country are called upon to surrender in time of war.
Rather in time of war the citizen must be more alert to the preservation of his right to control his Government. He must be most watchful of the encroachment of the military upon the civil power. He must beware of those precedents in support of arbitrary action by administrative officials, which excused on the plea of necessity in war time, become the fixed rule when the necessity has passed and normal conditions have been restored.
More than all, the citizen and his representative in Congress in time of war must maintain his right of free speech. More than in time of war must maintain his right of free speech. More than in times of peace it is necessary that the channels for free public discussion of governmental policies shall be open and unclogged. I believe, Mr. President, that I am now touching upon the most important question in this country to-day--and that is the right of the citizens of this country and their representatives in Congress to discuss in an orderly way frankly and publicly and without fear, from the platform and through the press, every important phase of this war; its causes, the manner in which it should be conducted, and the terms upon which peace should be made. The belief which is becoming wide spread in this land that this most fundamental right is being denied to the citizens of this country is a fact the tremendous significance of which, those in authority have not yet begun to appreciate. I am contending, Mr. President, for the great fundamental right of the sovereign people of this country to make their voice heard and have that voice heeded upon the great questions arising out of this war, including not only how the war shall be prosecuted but the conditions upon which it may be terminated with a due regard for the rights and the honor of this Nation and the interests of humanity.
Mr. President, our Government, above all others, is founded on the right of the people freely to discuss all matters pertaining to their Government, in war not less than in peace, for in this Government the people are the rulers in war no less than in peace. It is true, sir, that Members of the House of Representatives are elected for two years, the President for four years, and the Members of the Senate for six years, and during their temporary official terms these officers constitute what is called the Government. But back of them always is the controlling sovereign power of the people, and when the people can make their will known, the faithful officer will obey that will. Though the right of the people to express their will by ballot is suspended during the term of office of the elected official, nevertheless the duty of the official to obey the popular will continues throughout this entire term of office. How can that popular will express itself between elections except by meetings, by speeches, by publications, by petitions, and by addresses to the representatives of the people? Any man who seeks to set a limit upon those rights, whether in war or peace, aims a blow at the most vital part of our Government.
Today we have a Congress who will argue, mostly theater, about most anything and everything but when it comes to empire, big banks, war and the support of homicidal maniacs overseas, they all stand together. The banks and their war machine still pull the strings after 100 years and dammit, we have allowed it.
The warnings now only come from some outside the system. A few alternative voices. A minority who refuses to remain silent. The numbers are growing. There are some chinks in the armour of money and hate.