DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Geopolitics
*****************************************************
#Post#: 173--------------------------------------------------
Key Historical Events ...THAT YOU MAY HAVE NEVER HEARD OF
By: AGelbert Date: October 27, 2013, 4:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://allart.biz/up/photos/album/B-C/Alexey_Bogolyubov/bogolyubov_alexey_377_russian_fleet_on_the_road_1863.jpg[/img]
[B]Civil War Era Russian Fleet[/b]
As we mark the sesquicentennial of the Civil War, commemorations
of the mid-point year of that terrible conflict in 1863 are
dominated by much-studied battles like Gettysburg, Vicksburg,
and Chickamauga. Often forgotten are events of perhaps even
greater strategic importance – the arrival of the Russian Baltic
Fleet in New York City on September 24, 1863, and of the Russian
Pacific Squadron in San Francisco on October 12 of the same
year. The two Russian admirals carried secret sealed orders they
were instructed to open only if Great Britain and France
declared war on Russia and/or the United States.
Any aggression by London and Paris against the Union in support
of the Confederacy would have caused the Russian Empire to enter
the war on the side of Lincoln. If war had come, the secret
orders told the Russian admirals to cooperate with the Union
Navy in attacking Anglo-French commerce on the high seas, in the
manner of the highly successful Confederate raiders like the
Alabama.
Napoleon III of France and Lord John Russell, Lord Palmerston,
and William Gladstone of Britain had been threatening to
intervene in favor of the Confederacy since 1861. They were
deterred by the pro-Lincoln policy of the Imperial Court of St.
Petersburg. With the arrival of the Russian fleets,
consternation in London, Paris, and their partner Madrid was
great.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/www_MyEmoticons_com__smokelots.gif
In the North, still traumatized by losses at Gettysburg and
Chickamauga,
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-052.gif
and by the New York City draft riots, the Russian fleets were a
decisive morale booster.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/19.gif<br
/>When a Confederate warship was feared to be approaching San
Francisco, the Russian admiral cleared for action and prepared
to defend the port. Russia was the only country to extend direct
military support to the Lincoln government.
The Imperial Russian government had issued an ultimatum to
Britain and France specifying that if those powers should
intervene on the side of the Confederate States of America they
would immediately find themselves at war with the Russian
Empire.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/cowboypistol.gif
Cassius Marcellus Clay of Kentucky, a cousin of the Great
Compromiser who was Lincoln’s Ambassador to Russia, later
claimed that he had done more than any person to save the Union
by obtaining Russian help to keep the British and French out of
the war. Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles summed up much
Northern opinion when he observed: “God bless the Russians!”
[i]But later, Anglophilia and the Cold War helped obscure these
decisive facts >:([/I].
HTML http://tarpley.net/2013/10/25/tarpleys-national-press-club-lecture-on-russian-fleets-of-1863-to-air-this-weekend-on-c-span3
#Post#: 177--------------------------------------------------
Debts to Russia for their part in the cause of World Peace and c
ivil rights.
By: AGelbert Date: October 27, 2013, 8:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Surly1 link=topic=559.msg34635#msg34635
date=1382920641]
[quote author=agelbert link=topic=559.msg34612#msg34612
date=1382910962]
The Imperial Russian government had issued an ultimatum to
Britain and France specifying that if those powers should
intervene on the side of the Confederate States of America they
would immediately find themselves at war with the Russian
Empire.
Key Historical Events...[I] that you may have never heard of
:o[/I]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/geopolitics/key-historical-events-that-you-may-have-never-heard-of/
[/quote]
This is really quite remarkable. Read a lot about the civil War
but can't remember learning this. Great find!
[/quote]
Surly,
Glad you found it informative. Webster Tarpley can be rather
eccentric but he is a walking no holds barred history book of
Western Civilization. The guy knows history and the nuts and
bolts of empire power politics intimately.
But getting back to the Lincoln/Russian alliance, think about
how things REALLY work in our government, especially after WWII
when Russia became the "enemy du jour" to fatten up the military
industrial complex, NOT for national security...
I ASKED MYSELF A SIMPLE QUESTION: Suppose NOBODY but us had
nukes back then? Would we have done exactly what we DID (go on a
world pillage rampage for big oil and other predatory corporate
interests) after the Soviet Union collapsed?
YEP! And, OF COURSE, lacking a big boogeyman like Russia would
not have been an impediment for our boogeyman inventing
propagandists. The convenient perpetual swag for the military
industrial complex called the "war on terror" would have been
manufactured a lot sooner!
Russia ACTUALLY contributed to the advance of civil rights in
our country (although they were rather effective in crushing
civil rights in theirs :P), not because our leaders gave a
damn, but because we were trying to counter Russia's truths
about how we mistreated minorities. So Russia was just keeping
us towing our PR "freedom, democracy and pro-human rights" line
for real! Anyone that doesn't agree with that hypothesis or the
premise behind it need only observe what we did the INSTANT we
didn't have a strong competitor for people's hearts and minds on
the global stage (1990-2013 :P).
What went down after the Soviet collapse PROVES that our
government NEVER had ANY OTHER GOAL but global domination, the
very thing we, in true Orwellian
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-devil19.giffashion,<br
/>accused the Ruskies of going all out to do.
In the light of TRUE history after WWII, the Soviet "threat"
ACTUALLY KEPT THE USA FROM GOING FULL FASCIST POLICE STATE UNTIL
NOW! :o
So we OWE the Russians for two great historical achievements in
the defense of democracy and freedom, not just one.
[move]And with keeping the Israel firsters in Congress, our
warmongering Secretary of State and the matrix media honest by
exposing the false flag terror attack killing kids and
fraudulent attempt to try to pin it on the Syrian Government,
that makes THREE! :o :emthup: :icon_sunny: GOD BLESS THE
RUSSIANS![/move]
I have feeling Freedom and Democracy Debt Number FOUR to Russia
is coming pretty soon... ;)
#Post#: 183--------------------------------------------------
1993-2013: Is"pas de deux" of Russia and the USA comin
g to an END?
By: AGelbert Date: October 28, 2013, 1:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Saturday, October 12, 2013
1993-2013: is the twenty years long "pas de deux" of Russia and
the USA coming to an end?
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif
The latest tensions between the EU and Russia over Greenpeace's
stunt in the Arctic only confirmed a fact which nobody really
bothers denying anymore: Western political and financial elites
absolutely hate Vladimir Putin and they are appalled at Russia's
behavior, both inside Russia and on the international scene.
This tension was quite visible on the faces of Obama and Putin
at the G8 summit in Lough Erne where both leaders looked
absolutely disgusted with each other. Things got even worse
when Putin did something quite unheard of in the Russian
diplomatic history: he publicly said that Kerry was dishonest
and even called him a liar.
While tensions have reached some sort of climax over the Syrian
issue, problems between Russia and the USA are really nothing
new. A quick look at the recent past will show that the western
corporate media has been engaged in a sustained strategic
campaign to identify and exploit any possible weaknesses in the
Russian "political armor" and to paint Russia like a very nasty,
undemocratic and authoritarian country, in other words a threat
to the West. Let me mention a few episodes of this
Russia-bashing campaign (in no particular order):
•Berezovsky as a "persecuted" businessman
•Politkovskaya "murdered by KGB goons"
•Khodorkovsky jailed for his love of "liberty"
•Russia's "aggression" against Georgia
•The Russian "genocidal" wars against the Chechen people
•"Pussy Riot" as "prisoners of conscience"
•Litvinenko "murdered by Putin"
•Russian homosexuals "persecuted" and "mistreated" by the state
•Magnitsky and the subsequent "Magnitsky law"
•Snowden as a "traitor hiding in Russia"
•The "stolen elections" to the Duma and the Presidency
•The "White Revoluton" on the Bolotnaya square
•The "new Sakharov" - Alexei Navalnyi
•Russia's "support for Assad", the (Chemical) "Butcher of
Baghdad"
•The Russian constant "intervention" in Ukrainian affairs
•The "complete control" of the Kremlin over the Russian media
This list is far from complete, but its sufficient for our
purposes. Let me also immediately add here that it is not my
purpose today to debunk these allegations one by one. I have
done so in this blog many times the past, so anybody interested
can look this up. I will just state here one very important
thing which I cannot prove, but of which I am absolutely
certain: 90% or more of the Russian public believe that all
these issues are absolute nonsense, completely overblown
non-issues. Furthermore, most Russians believe that the
so-called "democratic forces" which the Western elites support
in Russia (Iabloko, Parnas, Golos, etc.) are basically agents of
influence for the West paid for by the CIA, MI6, Soros and
exiled Jewish oligarchs. What is certain is that besides these
small liberal/democratic groups, nobody in Russia takes these
accusations seriously. Most people see them exactly for what
they are: a smear campaign.
In many ways, this is rather reminiscent of how things stood
during the Cold War where the West used its immense propaganda
resources to demonize the Soviet Union and to support
anti-Soviet forces worldwide, including inside the USSR itself.
I would argue that these efforts were, by and large, very
successful and that by 1990s the vast majority of Soviets,
including Russians, were rather disgusted with their leaders.
So why the big difference today?
To answer that question, we need to look back at the processes
which took place in Russia in the last 20 years or so because
only a look at what happened during these two decades will
allows us to get to the root of the current problem(s) between
the USA and Russia.
When did the Soviet Union truly disappear?
The official date of the end of the Soviet Union is 26 December
1991, the day of the adoption by the Supreme Soviet of the
Soviet Union of the Declaration № 142-Н which
officially recognized dissolution of the Soviet Union as a state
and subject of international law. But that is a very
superficial, formal, view of things. One could argue that even
though the Soviet Union had shrunk to the size of the Russian
Federation it still survived within these smaller borders.
After all, the laws did not change overnight, neither did most
of the bureaucracy, and even though the Communist Party itself
had been banned following the August 1991 coup, the rest of the
state apparatus still continued to exist.
For Eltsin and his supporters this reality created a very
difficult situation. Having banned the CPUS and dismantled the
KGB, Eltsin's liberals still face a formidable adversary: the
Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation, the Parliament of the
Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, elected by the
Congress of People's Deputies of the Russian Federation. Nobody
had abolished this *very* Soviet institution which rapidly
became the center of almost all of the anti-Eltsin and
pro-Soviet forces in the country. I cannot go in all the
details of this legal nightmare, suffice to say that the Supreme
Soviet presented itself as the "Russian Parliament" (which is
not quite true) and that its members engaged in a systematic
campaign to prevent Eltsin to implement his "reforms" (in
hindsight, one could say that they tried to prevent Eltsin from
ruining the country). One could say that the "new Russia" and
the "old USSR" were fighting each other for the future of the
country. Predictably, the Supreme Soviet wanted a parliamentary
democracy while Eltsin and his liberals wanted a presidential
democracy. The two sides presented what appeared to be a stark
contrast to most Russians:
1) The Russian President Eltsin: officially he represented
Russia, as opposed to the Soviet Union; he presented himself as
an anti-Communist and as a democrat (nevermind that he himself
had been a high ranking member of the CPSU and even a non-voting
member to the Politburo!). Eltsin was also clearly the darling
of the West and he promised to integrate Russia into the western
world.
2) The Supreme Soviet: headed by Ruslan Khasbulatov with the
support of the Vice-President of Russia, Alexander Rutskoi, the
Supreme Soviet became the rallying point of all those who
believed that the Soviet Union had been dissolved illegally
(which is true) and against the will of the majority of its
people (which is also true). Most, though not all, the
supporters of the Supreme Soviet were if not outright
Communists, then at least socialists and anti-capitalists. A
good part of the rather disorganized Russian nationalist
movement also supported the Supreme Soviet.
We all know what eventually happened: Eltsin crushed the
opposition in a huge bloodbath, far worse than what was reported
in the Western (or even Russian) media. I write that with a
high degree of confidence because I have personally received
this information from a very good source: it so happens that I
was in Moscow during those tragic days and that and I was in
constant contact with a Colonel of a rather secretive special
forces unit of the KGB called "Vympel" (more about that below)
who told me that the internal KGB estimate of the number of
people killed in the Moscow Oblast was close to 3'000 people. I
can also personally attest that the combats lasted for far
longer than the official narrative clams: I witnessed a very
sustained machine gun battle right under my windows a full 5
days after the Supreme Soviet had surrendered. I want to stress
this here because I think that this illustrates an often
overlooked reality: the so-called "constitutional crisis of
1993" was really a mini civil war for the fate of the Soviet
Union and only by the end of this crisis did the Soviet Union
really truly disappear.
Full story here:
HTML http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2013/10/1993-2013-is-twenty-years-long-pas-de.html
#Post#: 192--------------------------------------------------
Re: Key Historical Events ...THAT YOU MAY HAVE NEVER HEARD OF
By: AGelbert Date: October 29, 2013, 12:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Surly,
Saker knocked it out of the park with the
1993-2013: is the twenty years long "pas de deux" of Russia and
the USA coming to an end
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/geopolitics/key-historical-events-that-you-may-have-never-heard-of/msg184/#new<br
/>article!
SO many keeper quotes!:
[quote]So let's add it all up:
Money+violence+illegality+arrogance+deception+Messianism equals
what?
Does that not all look very, very familiar? Is that not a
perfect description of Zionism and Israel?
No wonder the Neocons flocked in greater and greater number to
this new GOP! Reagan's GOP was the perfect Petri dish for the
Zionist bacteria to grow, and grow it really did. A lot.[/quote]
Exactly! And the bacteria has reached the edge of the dish and
is trying to ring circle as RE once talked about but it's NOT
WORKING because the whole predatory capitalist machine has
ALWAYS been a fraud! There is nothing to keep these bastards
going but illusion and propaganda. And them ore they push the
fascist police state crap, the sooner it all falls apart.
Greedy, evil IDIOTS, all of them.
Are you aware that what happened to the Soviet Union and what is
happening to us is PROOF that the Wall Street and Pentagon
worshipped Game Theory is an illusion of "winning" that
guarantees Failure? The whole modern mindset in Game Theory that
morals are a hindrance and a stumbling block to gaining an
advantage over your competition is EXACTLY BACKWARDS.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gif
[quote]The USSR and the USA - back to the future?
It is quite amazing for those who remember the Soviet Union of
the late 1980 how much the US under Obama has become similar to
the USSR under Brezhnev: internally it is characterized by a
general sense of disgust and alienation of the people triggered
by the undeniable stagnation of a system rotten to its very
core. A bloated military and police state with uniforms
everywhere, while more and more people live in abject poverty. A
public propaganda machine which, like in Orwell's 1984,
constantly boasts of successes everywhere while everybody knows
that these are all lies. Externally, the US is hopelessly
overstretched and either hated and mocked abroad. Just as in the
Soviet days, the US leaders are clearly afraid of their own
people so they protect themselves by a immense and costly global
network of spies and propagandists who are terrified of dissent
and who see the main enemy in their own people.
[/quote]
Bingo!
[quote]
And above it all, a terminally sclerotic public discourse, full
of ideological clichés an completely disconnected from reality.
I will never forget the words of a Pakistani Ambassador to the
UN Conference on Disarmament in Geneva in 1992 who, addressing
an assembly of smug western diplomats, said the following words:
[I] "you seem to believe that you won the Cold War, but did you
ever consider the possibility that what has really happened is
that the internal contradictions of communism caught up with
communism before the internal contradictions of capitalism could
catch up with capitalism?!".[/I]
[/quote]
DOUBLE Bingo!
[quote]
A new teacher comes into the class:
- My name is Abram Davidovich, I'm a liberal. And now all stand
up and introduce yourself like I did ...
- My name is Masha I liberal ...
- My name is Petia, I'm a liberal ...
- My Little Johnny, I'm a Stalinist.
- Little Johnny, why are you a Stalinist? !
- My mom is a Stalinist, my dad is a Stalinist, my friends are
Stalinists and I too am a Stalinist.
- Little Johnny, and if your mother was a whore, your father - a
drug addict, your friends - homos, what would you be then in
that case? !
- Then I would be a liberal.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/funny.gif
[/quote]
In the USA the Russian "liberal" above translates to a predatory
capitalist neocon Israel Firster!
[quote]First, since more and more people in the West realize
that they are not living in a democracy, but in a plutocracy of
the 1%, they tend to take the official propaganda line with more
than a grain of salt (which, by the way, is exactly what was
happening to most Soviet people in the 1980s). Furthermore, more
and more people in the West who oppose the plutocratic imperial
order which impoverishes and disenfranchises them into corporate
serfs are quite sympathetic to Russia and Putin for "standing up
to the bastards in Washington". But even more fundamentally,
there is the fact that in a bizarre twist of history Russia
today stands for the values of the West of yesterday:
international law, pluralism, freedom of speech, social rights,
anti-imperialism, opposition to intervention inside sovereign
states, rejection of wars as a means to settle disputes, etc.
[/quote]
TRIPLE Bingo!
[quote][I]When I say the hungry should have food
I speak for many
When I say no one should have seven homes
While some don't have any
Though I may find myself stranded in some strange place
With naught but a vapid stare
I remember the world and I know
We are everywhere
When I say the time for the rich, it will come
Let me count the ways
Victories or hints of the future
Havana, Caracas, Chiapas, Buenos Aires
How many people are wanting and waiting
And fighting for their share
They hide in their ivory towers
But we are everywhere
Religions and prisons and races
Borders and nations
FBI agents and congressmen
And corporate radio stations
They try to keep us apart, but we find each other
And the rulers are always aware
That they're a tiny minority
And we are everywhere
With every bomb that they drop, every home they destroy
Every land they invade
Comes a new generation from under the rubble
Saying "we are not afraid"
They will pretend we are few
But with each child that a billion mothers bear
Comes the next demonstration
That we are everywhere.[/I]
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/47b20s0.gif
[/quote]
The verses above brought tears to my eyes.
[quote]As David Rovic's puts it so well, the big weakness of the
1% which rule the US-Ziocon Empire is that "they are a tiny
minority and we are
everywhere".
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/128fs318181.gif
Russian leaders could repeat the words of the English rapper
Lowkey and declare "I'm not anti-America, America is anti-me!"
and they could potentially be joined by 99% of Americans who,
whether they already realize it or not, are also the victims of
the US-Ziocon Empire.
[/quote]
The 99% of America ARE Americans. The propagandist neocon liars,
thieves, predatory, conscieless capitalist crooks and warmongers
are the one who are ANTI-AMERICAN! Like Saker says, Putin is
more PRO-AMERICAN than most of our politicians!
Thank you Surly, fro this stimulating and hope inspiring
article.
Webster Tarpley has a theory that after a series of historical
idiot leaders lead most of civilization to ruin (as has happened
in the past 50 years or so), a new epoch of honest leaders who
are trustworthy and have a high level of integrity come on the
scene. He sees the new pope and Putin as two examples of this. I
hope he is right. God help us.
#Post#: 252--------------------------------------------------
Re: Key Historical Events ...THAT YOU MAY HAVE NEVER HEARD OF
By: AGelbert Date: November 3, 2013, 4:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Russia's Participation in the U.S. Civil War (VIDEO SPEECH)
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
Historian Webster Griffin Tarpley talked about the contribution
of Russian Tsar Alexander II to a northern victory in the U.S.
Civil War. He said that the Imperial Russian government had
issued an ultimatum to Britain and France specifying that if
those powers should intervene on the side of the Confederate
States of America they would immediately find themselves at war
with the Russian Empire.
Mr. Tarpley marked the 150th anniversary of the arrival of the
Russian Baltic Fleet in New York City on September 24, 1863, and
of the Russian Pacific Squadron in San Francisco on October 12,
1863. He argued that it was the presence of those fleets that
provided the final deterrence. Russia was the only country to
extend direct military support to the Lincoln government.
"Commemorating the Russian Fleets of Autumn 1863" was an event
of the McClendon Group, held in the Zenger Room of the National
Press Club.
C-SPAN 3 Video: 1 hour, 23 minutes
HTML http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/315198-1
#Post#: 253--------------------------------------------------
Re: Key Historical Events ...THAT YOU MAY HAVE NEVER HEARD OF
By: AGelbert Date: November 3, 2013, 6:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[move][I] >:( Please observe the Reptilian Conscience Challenged
Consistency of the Supreme Court during the 1920 - 1940 period.
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-devil19.gif
[/I][/move]
When you look at the following timeline and compare it with the
1994 -2013 period, the later period of history LACKS ANY of the
reforms that pulled us out of the earlier Depression even though
the causes (Government blind eye to predatory business greedfest
and human needs and dignity of the average worker) were EXACTLY
THE SAME! ??? :( :P >:(
TIMELINES OF THE GREAT DEPRESSION:
1920s (Decade)
•During World War I, federal spending grows three times larger
than tax collections. When the government cuts back spending to
balance the budget in 1920, a severe recession results. However,
the war economy invested heavily in the manufacturing sector,
and the next decade will see an explosion of productivity...
although only for certain sectors of the economy.
•An average of 600 banks fail each year. :o
•Organized labor declines throughout the decade. The United Mine
Workers Union will see its membership fall from 500,000 in 1920
to 75,000 in 1928. The American Federation of Labor would fall
from 5.1 million in 1920 to 3.4 million in 1929.
•Over the decade, about 1,200 mergers will swallow up more than
6,000 previously independent companies; by 1929, only 200
corporations will control over half of all American industry.
•By the end of the decade, the bottom 80 percent of all
income-earners will be removed from the tax rolls completely.
Taxes on the rich will fall throughout the decade. >:(
•By 1929, the richest 1 percent will own 40 percent of the
nation's wealth. The bottom 93 percent will have experienced a 4
percent drop in real disposable per-capita income between 1923
and 1929.
•Individual worker productivity rises an astonishing 43 percent
from 1919 to 1929. But the rewards are being funneled to the
top: the number of people reporting half-million dollar incomes
grows from 156 to 1,489 between 1920 and 1929, a phenomenal rise
compared to other decades. But that is still less than 1 percent
of all income-earners.
1922
•The conservative Supreme Court strikes down federal child labor
legislation. >:(
1923
•President Warren Harding dies in office. Calvin Coolidge,
becomes president. Coolidge is no less committed to
laissez-faire and a non-interventionist government.
•Supreme Court nullifies minimum wage for women in District of
Columbia. >:(
1924
•The stock market begins its spectacular rise. Bears little
relation to the rest of the economy.
1925
•The top tax rate is lowered to 25 percent >:( - the lowest
top rate in the eight decades since World War I.
1928
•Between May 1928 and September 1929, the average prices of
stocks will rise 40 percent. The boom is largely artificial.
1929
•Herbert Hoover becomes President.
•Annual per-capita income is $750. More than half of all
Americans are living below a minimum subsistence level.
•Backlog of business inventories grows three times larger than
the year before.
•Recession begins in August, two months before the stock
market crash. During this two month period, production will
decline at an annual rate of 20 percent, wholesale prices at 7.5
percent, and personal income at 5 percent.
•Stock market crash begins October 24. Investors call October 29
Black Tuesday. Losses for the month will total $16 billion, an
astronomical sum in those days.
1930
•By February, the Federal Reserve has cut the prime interest
rate from 6 to 4 percent. Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon
announces that the Fed will stand by as the market works itself
out: 'Liquidate labor, liquidate real estate... values will be
adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wreck from
less-competent people'.
•The Smoot-Hawley Tariff passes on June 17. With imports forming
only 6 percent of the GNP, the 40 percent tariffs work out to an
effective tax of only 2.4 percent per citizen. Even this is
compensated for by the fact that American businesses are no
longer investing in Europe, but keeping their money stateside.
The consensus of modern economists is that the tariff made only
a minor contribution to the Great Depression in the U.S., but a
major one in Europe.
•Supreme Court rules that the monopoly U.S. Steel does not
violate anti-trust laws as long as competition exists, no matter
how negligible. >:(
•The GNP falls 9.4 percent from the year before. The
unemployment rate climbs from 3.2 to 8.7 percent.
1931
•No major legislation is passed addressing the Depression.
•The GNP falls another 8.5 percent; unemployment rises to 15.9
percent.
1932
•This and the next year are the worst years of the Great
Depression. For 1932, GNP falls a record 13.4 percent;
unemployment rises to 23.6 percent.
•Industrial stocks have lost 80 percent of their value since
1930.
•10,000 banks have failed since 1929, or 40 percent of the 1929
total.
•GNP has also fallen 31 percent since 1929.
•Over 13 million Americans have lost their jobs since 1929.
•International trade has fallen by two-thirds since 1929.
Congress passes the Federal Home Loan Bank Act and the
Glass-Steagall Act of 1932.
•Top tax rate is raised from 25 to 63 percent.
•Popular opinion considers Hoover's measures too little too
late. Franklin Roosevelt easily defeats Hoover in the fall
election. Democrats win control of Congress.
1933
•Roosevelt inaugurated; begins 'First 100 Days'; of intensive
legislative activity.
•A third banking panic occurs in March. Roosevelt declares a
Bank Holiday; closes financial institutions to stop a run on
banks.
•Alarmed by Roosevelt's plan to redistribute wealth from the
rich to the poor, a group of millionaire businessmen, led by the
Du Pont and J.P. Morgan empires, plans to overthrow Roosevelt
with a military coup and install a fascist government modelled
after Mussolini's regime in Italy. The businessmen try to
recruit General Smedley Butler, promising him an army of
500,000, unlimited financial backing and generous media spin
control. The plot is foiled when Butler reports it to Congress.
•Congress authorizes creation of the[ Agricultural Adjustment
Administration, the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Farm Credit
Administration, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the
Federal Emergency Relief Administration, the National Recovery
Administration, the Public Works Administration and the
Tennessee Valley Authority.
•Congress passes the Emergency Banking Bill, the Glass-Steagall
Act of 1933, the Farm Credit Act, the National Industrial
Recovery Act and the Truth-in-Securities Act.
•Roosevelt does much to redistribute wealth from the rich to the
poor, but is concerned with a balanced budget. He later
rejects Keynes' advice to begin heavy deficit spending.
•The free fall of the GNP is significantly slowed; it dips only
2.1 percent this year. Unemployment rises slightly, to 24.9
percent.
1934
•Congress authorizes creation of the Federal Communications
Commission, the National Mediation Board and the Securities and
Exchange Commission.
•The economy turns around: GNP rises 7.7 percent, and
unemployment falls to 21.7 percent. A long road to recovery
begins.
•Sweden becomes the first nation to recover fully from the Great
Depression. It has followed a policy of Keynesian deficit
spending.
1935
•The Supreme Court declares the National Recovery Administration
to be unconstitutional. >:(
•Congress authorizes creation of the Works Progress
Administration, the National Labor Relations Board and the Rural
Electrification Administration.
•Congress passes the Banking Act of 1935, the Emergency Relief
Appropriation Act, the National Labor Relations Act, and the
Social Security Act.
HTML http://www.websmileys.com/sm/violent/sterb029.gif
•Economic recovery continues: the GNP grows another 8.1 percent,
and unemployment falls to 20.1 percent.
1936
•Top tax rate raised to 79 percent.
•Economic recovery continues: GNP grows a record 14.1 percent;
unemployment falls to 16.9 percent.
1937
•The Supreme Court declares the National Labor Relations Board
to be unconstitutional. >:(
•Roosevelt seeks to enlarge and therefore liberalize the Supreme
Court ;D. This attempt not only fails, but outrages the public.
???
•Economists attribute economic growth so far to heavy government
spending that is somewhat deficit. Roosevelt, however, fears an
unbalanced budget and cuts spending for 1937. That summer, the
nation plunges into another recession. Despite this, the yearly
GNP rises 5.0 percent, and unemployment falls to 14.3 percent.
1938
•No major New Deal legislation is passed after this date, due to
Roosevelt's weakened political power.
•The year-long recession makes itself felt: the GNP falls 4.5
percent, and unemployment rises to 19.0 percent.
1939
•The United States will begin emerging from the Depression as it
borrows and spends $1 billion to build its armed forces. From
1939 to 1941, when the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor, U.S.
manufacturing will have shot up a phenomenal 50 percent!
•The Depression is ending worldwide as nations prepare for the
coming hostilities.
Roosevelt began relatively modest deficit spending that arrested
the slide of the economy and resulted in some astonishing growth
numbers. (Roosevelt's average growth of 5.2 percent during the
Great Depression is even higher than Reagan's 3.7 percent growth
during his so-called 'Seven Fat Years!') When 1936 saw a
phenomenal record of 14 percent growth, Roosevelt eased back on
the deficit spending, worried about balancing the budget. But
this only caused the economy to slip back into a recession in
1938.
•World War II starts with Hitler's invasion of Poland.
1945
•Although the war is the largest tragedy in human history, the
United States emerges as the world's only economic superpower.
Deficit spending has resulted in a national debt 123 percent the
size of the GDP. By contrast, in 1994, the $4.7 trillion
national debt will be only 70 percent of the GDP!
•The top tax rate is 91 percent. It will stay at least 88
percent until 1963, when it is lowered to 70 percent. During
this time, America will experience the greatest economic boom it
had ever known until that time.
The above timeline has been complied by Steve Kangas from the
Resurgence Magazine.
HTML http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n2/connections_n2/great_depression.html
See also cycle of past depressions
HTML http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n2/connections_n2/depressions.html.<br
/>
#Post#: 334--------------------------------------------------
Re: Key Historical Events ...THAT YOU MAY HAVE NEVER HEARD OF
By: AGelbert Date: November 14, 2013, 10:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Key Historical Events; That you may have NEVER HEARD OF.
The Great Dissenter: Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
Ninety four years ago, on November 7, 1919, as federal agents
launched a nationwide raid on the homes and meeting halls of
Russian immigrants, three members of the United States Supreme
Court visted Holmes at his home a few blocks from the White
House. Unlike the agents sent by J. Edgar Hoover, the justices
were not hunting for communists. They were there to call on
their colleague Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Boston Brahmin, Civil
War veteran, and sage of the common law. But their visit,
unusual and unexpected, was linked to the larger mission being
carried out that day, and, to the justices at least, it was
every bit as important. [sup]1[/sup]
Holmes was a learned man with more than ten thousand volumes
packed on his bookshelves. They included mostly law, philosophy,
and history, but also the occasional detective story or racy
French novel.[sup]1[/sup] Do you think he might have had a
Sherlock HOLMES novel? The Hound of the Baskervilles was
published in 1901"hailed as "the greatest mystery novel of all
time and The Valley of Fear in 1914 (a fresh murder scene that
leads Holmes to solve a long-forgotten mystery) so it is
possible.
I would bet on it because of this little nugget of history I dug
up: [quote]Originally, Doyle named his detective Sherrinford
Holmes, after Oliver Wendell Holmes - and named Holmes's
sidekick Ormand Sacker. But during the three weeks it took to
write the story, Doyle renamed the characters Sherlock Holmes,
after a cricket player he had once played against, and Thomas
John H. Watson, after Patrick Watson, a colleague of Dr.
Bell's.[/quote]Oliver Wendell Holmes was a famous
doctor.[sup]2[/sup] He was the father of our Oliver Wendell
Holmes Jr.! [img width=30
height=30]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113185047.png[/img]<br
/> How about that! England had a fictional Holmes solving cases
while the real Holmes' son was actually involved with law and
order as a judge in the USA!
So why am I going on about something seemingly unrelated to the
high court Dissents of Holmes in general and the one the three
other high court judges just mentioned are "concerned" with?
Because I have read Sherlock Holmes and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
always attacked greedy people and unethical, predatory business
practices in his writings through Holmes and Dr. Watson.
Although it is speculative, I suspect some of that rubbed off
Holmes. You DON'T have books of fiction, being a jurist, in your
library just because the author gave Sherlock the "Holmes"
handle to honor your daddy. A fictional book pushes a
philosophy, not just a good story. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was a
Liberal (he had stood unsuccesfully as a Liberal Unionist
parliamentary candidate in 1900 and 1906,).[sup]3[/sup]
I think Holmes, unlike many industrialists and fellow jurist
stuffed shirts, saw though the self serving "conservative" view
that the government's job was to let employers run ragged over
the common man in order to exact a higher profit, regardless of
the toll in human misery. Nevertheless, I believe this type of
logical thinking was a work in progress for him throughout his
life. He was NOT considered a sentimental person.
Back to the 1919. That was a significant year in American
History. That year Franklin D. Roosevelt was caught having an
affair with a Miss Mercer by Eleanor. Eleanor offered to divorce
him. Franklin's mother promised to cut him off from the family
money if he divorced Eleanor. Franklin D saw "reason" and the
rest is history. He was lucky he did. Imagine being married to
his new wife a little over a year later when he was struck with
polio. Do you think Lady Mercer had the stuffing to insert a
glass tube in his penis and give him an enema EVERY DAY due to
his paralysis?[sup]4[/sup] I doubt it.
But I continue to digress. Sorry, but I want you to get the
picture of how things were in late 1919. World War I was over. A
lot of people were dying from the Influenza Pandemic that came
in three waves (1918 and throughout 1919). [sup]5[/sup]
[img width=640
height=320]
HTML http://www.dailygalaxy.com/.a/6a00d8341bf7f753ef0115719af579970b-pi[/img]<br
/>
[img width=400
height=300]
HTML http://wodumedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Influenza-Fears-1918.-Photograph-by-Underwood-and-UnderwoodTime-amp-Life-PicturesGetty-Images.-Surgical-masks-provide-a-measure-of-protection-against-a-killer-flu-for-American-baseball-players-in-1918.-That-year%20%20%20the-final-y.jpg[/img][img<br
/>width=240
height=300]
HTML http://0.tqn.com/d/history1900s/1/0/2/F/1/flu9.jpg[/img]
In 1918, life expectancy for men was only 53 years. Women’s life
expectancy at 54 was only marginally better.[sup]6[/sup]
Sure, there were people enjoying a better standard of living and
moving around more in their Model T "Tin Lizzie" Fords but these
were still the privileged few in American life. Most Americans
had no toilet and ignorance of proper sanitary habits caused a
lot of dysentery. Oliver Wendel Holmes Jr. had almost died of
dystentery during the Civil War.[sup]1[/sup] I'm sure seeing all
the sickness around moved him to be more sympathetic to the
plight of the common people. He was, above all, a no nonsense,
honest man.
The three justices explained the reason for their visit. The day
before, Holmes had circulated a DISSENTING opinion in a case the
Court had heard two weeks earlier. It was an important case
testing the government’s power to punish the so-called
anarchists and agitators who had spoken out against the recent
war. For most members of the Court, elitist to the hilt, it was
an easy case. The high court judges were members of an American
elite that certainly did NOT consider the common man equal to
them, or to the government, as far as rights of any sort. They
automatically and unthinkingly accepted the right of the
government to punish such "troublemakers". Freedom of speech was
not absolute (to put it mildly), and if the defendants had
intended to disrupt the war, that was tantamount to "criminal"
(anti-establishment) activity so they deserved to be treated as
criminals. [sup]1[/sup] It's amazing how little has changed in
2013[img width=30
height=30]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113183729.png[/img]<br
/>
The majority of the Court, and anyone who followed its
decisions, might have expected Holmes to agree. After all, just
nine months earlier he had written three opinions for the Court
saying pretty much the same thing. One of those cases was an
appeal by Eugene V. Debs, the leader of the Socialist Party and
a frequent candidate for president, who had been sentenced to
ten years in prison for a speech he had given in the summer of
1918.[sup]1[/sup]
Even though he said nothing that explicitly urged interference
with the war, he did praise party members who had opposed the
draft. For Holmes, an old Civil War Soldier, that had been
enough. In a short and dismissive opinion, he had accepted the
jury’s verdict that Debs meant to illegally obstruct military
recruiting and had affirmed his conviction.[sup]1[/sup] Holmes
was doing his DUTY as a member of the US elite to defend the war
effort, regardless of how the people felt about it. He was
certainly not a pacifist.
So when the Court heard arguments in the anarchists’ case, few
people expected Holmes to side with the defendants.
But something had changed. Instead of voting with the majority,
Holmes said the convictions should be reversed.[quote] The
defendants had no intent to undermine the fight against
Germany,[/quote] he explained. [quote]They were merely upset
with President Wilson’s decision to intervene in the Russian
Revolution..[/quote][sup]1[/sup] Check that word, "merely", in
regard to the actions of a U.S. President! That's a rather
significant adjective to me for a jurist that hitherto mostly
towed the establishment "line".
Besides, he argued, their speech was protected by the First
Amendment. [sup]1[/sup]To us in modern times, that sounds like a
no-brainer bit of boiler plate. However, as you will see, it was
a rather revolutionary statement.
Many of us on the internet have repeated over an over that the
Constitution had a lot of fancy rhetoric that applied to such a
narrow slice of the nation that, for all practical purposes, it
was a propaganda tour de force. It looked great on paper but the
common person didn't have any chance whatsoever to demand the
rights clearly written on it. THAT was the reality in the USA.
The brief bit of jurisprudent sanity the Civil War produced with
the 12th, 13th and 14th Constitutional Amendments was noble
legislation. But it was quickly renedered as toothless as the
rest of the Constitution for the average American in general
(and freed slaves, for whom the Amendments were mainly written,
in particular [sup]7[/sup]).[img width=30
height=30]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113183729.png[/img]
In spite of the high sounding Constitutional rhetoric about
“Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of
speech” the First Amendment at that time was a nice piece of
pretty wording (like "all men are created equal" STILL is). It
was a toothless bit of inspiring rhetoric, nothing more.
[sup]1[/sup] And you thought that was a modern problem?
The High Court itself had never ruled in favor of a free speech
claim, and lower courts had approved all manner of speech
restrictions, including the censorship of books and films, the
prohibition of street corner speeches, and assorted bans on
labor protests, profanity, and commercial advertising. Even
criticism of government officials could be punished, the courts
had ruled, if it threatened public order and morality
[b][sup]1[/sup](and you know how the "threat" is in the eye of
the cop or official that wants to jail you).[/b]
But now, with the country gripped by fear (i.e. scaremongering
propaganda in the service of capitalism) of the communist
threat, Holmes was proposing something radical: an
interpretation (rather than the hitherto "interpretation" ::)
[img width=100
height=100]
HTML http://www.opednews.com/populum/uploaded/wemeantwell-23439-20130307-234.jpg[/img]<br
/> that basically ignored the wording) of the First Amendment th
at
would protect all but the most immediately dangerous speech.
His opinion was passionate and powerful, especially the long
concluding paragraph. The delivery was masterful. He actually
began the opinion sounding like he was making the case against
free speech, not for it:[sup]1[/sup]
[quote]Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me
perfectly logical.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/cowboypistol.gif
If you have no
doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result
with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and
sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems
to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man
says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care
whole heartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your
power or your premises—[/quote] [sup]1[/sup]
Up to now he sounds like a hard core elitist bigot (as in, By
God I'm RIGHT and I will NOT ALLOW foolish and irrelevant
dissent!). But that's not it at all. As you will see, his point
is that there is a CLEAR DIFFERENCE between obstructionist
speech uttered with the purpose of sowing discord and what he
will now mention. In other words, it's perfectly correct,
logical and lawful to censor mendacious or duplicitous
propaganda. HOWEVAH...
[quote]But when men have realized that time has upset many
fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they
believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the
ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in
ideas—that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to
get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that
truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be
carried out.
That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution. It is an
experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year if not
every day we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy
based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of
our system I think that we should be eternally vigilant against
attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and
believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently
threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing
purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save
the country.[/quote][sup]1[/sup]
Agelbert NOTE: Unfortunately, some phrases in the above wisdom
were subsequently hijacked and turned upside down for the
benefit of predatory, consciense free capitalism:
1. "Free Trade" in ideas - There is no such thing when money
rules the media by elite power over government regulation or the
lack of it - e.g. selectve enforcement, etc. >:(
2. "Accepted in the Competition of the Market" in regard to
TRUTH is an idealistic bit of fantasy when there is NO free
market competition of ideas or truth - i.e. a "level playing
field" for publishing and media access that looks more like an
alpine slope! - BECAUSE elite power controls who gets to operate
with impunity and who gets crushed through selective
enforcement. >:(
IOW, in the USA we have a RIGGED market and a RIGGED media and,
OF COURSE, those doing the RIGGING insist it is a FREE market
and a FREE press. Cui Bono? [img width=40
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png[/img]<br
/>)
Back to Holmes' Historical Dissent
Holmes understood exactly where the rhetorical rubber meets the
road as far as freedom of speech. He was very much at home with
the populist notion, though he was not much of populist, that
unchecked government power meant tyranny.
It's clear to me that he had a problem with his fellow judges
wanting to give government unrestrained power over the people in
regard to freedom of speech.
The court he was on was an absolute travesty for the working man
and a great friend of predatory capitalism's abominal working
conditions including slave prison labor in mines (mostly blacks
picked up in the South on "vagrancy" or other trumped up charges
- Then it was dangerous to be black. Now it's still dangerous
but being white and smoking pot has been added to the "business"
model) and child labor abuses. We had the number one industrial
accident rate in the WORLD while that court (and a few before
it) presided over our "laws".
[img width=640
height=390]
HTML http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/hine-photos/images/bottle-factory.gif[/img]
1908 bottle Factory. Note the child labor[sup]9[/sup]
Recent race riots, labor strikes were making the elite nervous.
And a bomb had exploded on the attorney general’s doorstep—the
opening strike, the papers warned, in a grand Bolshevik
plot.[sup]1[/sup] WE KNOW today those race riots and strikes
were a cry for justice. We also know that our government
officials in general, and Mr J. Edgar Hoover in particular, knew
exactly how to get people stirred up by blaming a bomb on x, y
or z scapegoat target in order to get more funding for his
growing FBI empire.
I don't know who placed that bomb. But looking at it from
today's revelations, I think it was an inside job. Like 9/11
today, they needed a pretext to crack down. If it didn't just
happen, I'm sure J. Edgar was up to the task of rigging a bomb
and blaming it on the commies, anarchists or whatever pejorative
name the establishment had for people who wanted justice and
weren't afraid to make their voices heard.
Now Holmes' dissent was serious feather ruffling for the elites.
Was he now going to give "comfort to the enemy"?[sup]1[/sup]
What did his fellow judges do? They pulled the old "National
Security" trick on Holmes to "get him to see reason". The
nation’s security was at
stake![sup]1[/sup]
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-scared005.gif,<br
/>they told Holmes. He was urged to close ranks and set aside hi
s
personal views. They weren't belligerent. He was, after all, one
of them and they respected him. Holmes listened thoughtfully. He
had always respected the institution of the Court and more than
once had suppressed his own beliefs for the sake of unanimity.
[sup]1[/sup]
But this time he felt a duty to speak his mind. He told his
colleagues he regretted he could not join them, and they left
without pressing him further.[sup]1[/sup]
Three days later, Holmes read his dissent in Abrams v. United
States from the bench. As expected, it caused a sensation.
Conservatives
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/nocomment.gif<br
/>denounced it as dangerous and extreme. (Another thing those CO
NS
had in common with the ones in 2013 ). ][img width=3=
height=30]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113183729.png[/img]Progressives<br
/>hailed it as a monument to liberty.
[sup]1[/sup]
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/19.gif
Free speech stopped being a Constitutional rhetorical flourish
to be used as an elite fig leaf to claim OUR elites were
"different" from the elites in other countries (until 9/11, of
course).
Agelbert NOTE: Admittedly, the Constitution DID do away with
landed gentry and titles. Of course, humans being clever
rascals, new forms of wealth hogging dynasty tricks accomplished
the same thing without titles. But that's another story.
The justices’ visit to Holmes isn't just a remarkable piece of
Constitutional history. Going to a judge's house to disuade him
from a dissenting opnion just wasn't done. :o[sup]1[/sup] That
these judges were involved in such intrigue smacks of
industrialists strong arming them to make sure the "rabble was
kept in check". War profiteering magnates had already made
fortunes on the war and they did not want anyhting upsetting
theAmerican race to empire though profitable wars (The predators
are always thinking ahead). ;)
There is no known High Court History of such a personal appeal
to one justice by a group of his colleagues. That it took place
in the privacy of Holmes’s study, in the presence of his wife
(the justices sought her help with their appeal!) only heightens
the intrigue.[sup]1[/sup]
Second Half of OWH Jr. Article
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/geopolitics/key-historical-events-that-you-may-have-never-heard-of/msg335/#msg335
#Post#: 335--------------------------------------------------
Re: Key Historical Events ...THAT YOU MAY HAVE NEVER HEARD OF
By: AGelbert Date: November 14, 2013, 10:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Key Historical Events; That you may have NEVER HEARD OF.
The Great Dissenter: Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Second Half of
Article
Holmes was a loyal member of the elite establishment. Prior to
his dissent in Abrams he had done as much as any judge to render
the First Amendment toothless. In one of the first Court
opinions to address the topic, he had embraced the cramped
English view that freedom of speech prohibits only
prepublication censorship but places no limits on the
government’s power to punish speakers after the fact. He had
even affirmed the conviction of an anarchist for nude
sunbathing.[b][sup]1[/sup]
HTML http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif
[/b]
As a judge on the Massachusetts Supreme Court he was no friend
of free speech. When a policeman complained that he had been
fired for expressing his political views, Holmes had famously
responded, [quote]“The petitioner may have a constitutional
right to talk politics, but he has no constitutional right to be
a policeman.”[/quote][sup]1[/sup]
Holmes once said that the law not being based on logic, but on
experience! He was NOT a friend of the Constitutional Rights.
Freedom of Speech was just one of those rights he sniffed at.
[sup]10[/sup] That's what makes his dissent here so special.
He was a man who thought and learned throughout his life. He was
also a supporter of the will of the people; something not
usually associated with a high court judge UNLESS he is a
progressive.
For his love of truth, I believe he became a thorn in the
establishment side and, had not the Republican administrations
of the 1920s and early 1930s not kept putting more fascist
judges in the court, he would have left earlier. For more than a
decade, until Louis D. Brandeis joined him on the Court, Holmes
was often in dissent and often alone.While Brandeis joined him
in many later dissents, it was Holmes's vision of the law
expressed in those opposing views that made him "The Great
Dissenter."[sup]10[/sup]
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://www.oyez.org/sites/default/files/courts/hughes/hugh2/photograph/hugh2_photograph.jpg[/img]
Hughs Supreme Court (1930-1932)
I recommend you research the pack of calloused, predatory
capitalist supporting, child labor abuse ignoring bunch of
criminals on this court that Holmes (Supreme Court 1902-1932)
had to contend with. You will then understand why, except when
Brandeis (Supreme Court 1916-1939), joined him in a dissent, he
was alone in his dissents.
He became well known for his DISSENTS on a long line of cases
involving progressive labor laws. The conservative (i.e.
fascist) majority of the Court had repeatedly invalidated these
laws, arguing that minimum-wage and maximum-hour regulations
deprived businessmen and workers of their “liberty” (i.e. the
ability ensure the "sanctity of contracts" for labor - just as
long as the employer dictated the terms!) and thus violated the
Fourteenth Amendment. [sup]1[/sup]Yes friends, THAT 14th
Amendment originally written for the benefit of African American
Slaves was now a totally Orwellian (long before Orwell!)
document. What a massive private joke it must have been for the
one percenters of those days. >:(
These "conservative" (conserving cruelty, inhumane working
conditions and predatory capitalist profts) , using the
rhetorical fig leaf of "laissez faire", didn't really give a
tinke'rs damn about the “right” of employees to work fourteen
hour days at rock bottom wages; they were really protecting the
consciense free power of employers to get cheap labor.
But while Holmes’ dissents in these cases made him a hero to
progressives, he was not motivated by any sympathy for the
common workers. He once called them “thick-fingered clowns”.
[sup]1[/sup]
Plainly speaking, he saw humans as cogs in a nation's wheels to
be used as needed by the governemnt. I think he was a realist
about what government REALLY is and didn't sugar coat it.
[quote]“Every society rests on the death of men,” he liked to
say. If a nation needs soldiers, it seizes young men and marches
them off to war at the point of a bayonet. If an epidemic breaks
out, it forces the public to get vaccinated.[/quote]
[sup]1[/sup]
He knew government is a compromise where the citizenry gets
certain benefits but the lion's share of those "benefits" will
always be controlled by an elite establishment. I think he just
didn't want the elite establishment to become a dicatorship.
But, considering the goons that populated the high court then,
he was a breath of fresh air.
He believed, unlike most of his stuffed shirt peers, that VOX
POPULI (the voice of the people) must be respected if a nation
is to remain united. As a judge he felt he had no business
standing in the way of pro-labor legislation because the very
same government that snatches people off to war has the right,
through its elected representatives, to limit working hours and
regulate conditions too.
[quote]“If my fellow citizens want to go to Hell I will help
them,” was another favorite saying. “It’s my
job.”[/quote][sup]1[/sup]
So why did he defend Freedom of Speech in his famous dissent?
Why did a man who disdained liberal sentimentality his whole
life write one of the canonical statements of American
liberalism? Was his opinion somehow consistent with everything
he had said and done throughout his life? Did he SEE the effects
of industrialization? Did he vist a ghetto or watch children
working in a factory? Arthur Conan Doyle, the writer of the
Sherlock Holmes books was no friend of predatory capitalism.Was
it something he read? Did he ponder what the original intent of
the 14th Amendment was and how much it ahd been perversely
twisted? I don't know.
But he gave progressives the boost they needed and an era of
positive change resulted (until Reagan).
His dissent continues to influence our thinking about free
speech more than any other single document.[sup]1[/sup]
He hung on to be the longest serving Supreme Court Justice. He
was named by Theodore Roosevelt and left the court in 1932,
BEFORE FDR was elected, due to ill health (he was also 90 years
old). [sup]11[/sup]
But an excellent replacement was made by Hoover, as strange as
that sounds. Hoover replaced Holmes with Benjamin N. Cardozo, an
honest and passionate liberal. Cardozo became known was a member
of the Three Musketeers along with Brandeis and Stone, which was
considered to be the liberal faction of the Supreme Court. This
probably angered Justice James McReynolds (a notorious
anti-Semite) because Cardozo was a Jew. Cardozo more than made
up for Oliver Wendell Holmes' absence with his contributions to
the court, despite the fact that the majority of the stuffed
shirts there were obstacles to freedom, democracy and human
rights.[sup]11[/sup]
[img width=640
height=680]
HTML http://www.verrone.com/catalog/!BfCZhyQ!mk~$(KGrHqQH-CgErdJHRIH,BK+wvp5y5w~~_1_402_1.JPG[/img]
A BIGOT on the BENCH.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2rzukw3.gif
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013201314.png<br
/>Another stuffed shirt you never heard of that did a LOT of
damage to the cause of Freedom, Democracy and Human Rights in
the USA. [img width=30
height=50]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113183729.png[/img]<br
/>Hitler must have admired this GOON.
[quote]McReynolds would not accept "Jews, drinkers, blacks,
women, smokers, married or engaged individuals as law clerks". A
blatant anti-Semite, Time "called him 'Puritanical',
'intolerably rude', 'savagely sarcastic', 'incredibly
reactionary', and 'anti-Semitic'". McReynolds refused to speak
to Louis Brandeis, the first Jew on the Court, for three years
following Brandeis's appointment and, when Brandeis retired in
1939, did not sign the customary dedicatory letter sent to
justices on their retirement. He habitually left the conference
room whenever Brandeis spoke. When Benjamin Cardozo's
appointment was being pressed on President Herbert C. Hoover,
McReynolds joined with fellow justices Pierce Butler
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2rzukw3.gif
and Willis Van
Devanter
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/www_MyEmoticons_com__burp.gif
in
urging the White House not to "afflict the Court with another
Jew".[/quote] [sup]13[/sup]
Back to Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
He made a clear differentiation between Freedom of Speech and
using the "freedom of speech" fig leaf as a license to obstruct,
delay and destroy the abilty to reach the truth through honest
interchange of fact based opinions.
It's okay to have an agenda. It's not okay to pretend you don't.
Everyone reading the above will agree with the CONCEPT that the
"power of free and vigorous debate to change the course of
history" is a good thing. The problem is in defining "vigorous"
and defining "free". Obstructive tactics, ad hominem or/and fact
free gratuitous insults are not, and should not EVER be
considered "free Speech".
Only when the goal of said free and vigorous debate is the TRUTH
by both parties can the "course of history" be changed for the
BETTER.
The human experience has been mostly the opposite no matter what
Martin Luther King ( “The arc of the moral universe is long, but
it bends towards justice.”) believed. I hope he is right but I
am NOT encouraged by what I have experienced. The "arc" looks
too much like a ballistic trajectory and we passed the apex
right around the time the industrial revolution began. God help
us. :(
If a person derails a thread or refuses to argue the merits but
instead stoops to attacking the messenger, said person is
practicinng obstructionism, NOT Free Speech and deserves to be
censored, period. I believe Justice Oliver Wendell Homes Jr.
would agree.
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. was a man of his time. But I like that
tough old bird. He had a great sense of humor. Here are some of
his quotes for your enjoyment:
[img width=640
height=860]
HTML http://coacheshotseat.com/coacheshotseatblog/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/OliverW5.jpg[/img]
[quote][font=times new roman]A child's education should begin at
least one hundred years before he is born.
The language of judicial decision is mainly the language of
logic. And the logical method and form flatter that longing for
certainty and for repose which is in every human mind. But
certainty generally is illusion, and repose is not the destiny
of man.
Certitude is not the test of certainty. We have been cocksure of
many things that were not so.
The greatest act of faith is when a man understands he is not
God.
A moment's insight is sometimes worth a life's experience.
Young man, the secret of my success is that an early age I
discovered that I was not God.
A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged; it is the
skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and
content according to the circumstances and time in which it is
used.
Nothing is so commonplace has the wish to be remarkable.
Most of the things we do, we do for no better reason than that
our fathers have done them or our neighbors do them, and the
same is true of a larger part than what we suspect of what we
think.
The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye. The more light
you shine on it, the more it will contract.
We should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the
expression of opinions that we loathe.
To have doubted one's own first principles is the mark of a
civilized man.
It seems to me that at this time we need education in the
obvious more than the investigation of the obscure.
Man's mind, stretched by a new idea, never goes back to its
original dimensions.
The greatest thing in this world is not so much where we are,
but in what direction we are moving.
Men must turn square corners when they deal with the Government.
A man is usually more careful of his money than of his
principles.
Any two philosophers can tell each other all they know in two
hours.
The only prize much cared for by the powerful is power.
Beware how you take away hope from any human being.
Every event that a man would master must be mounted on the run,
and no man ever caught the reins of a thought except as it
galloped past him.
Don't be 'consistent,' but be simply true.
Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at the touch,
nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will
be round and full at evening.[/font][/quote]
SOURCE OF QUOTES:[sup]14[/sup]
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. was a man of TRUTH. We could use
someone like that on the Supreme Court
today.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/128fs318181.gif
1. [img width=60 height=100]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-131113204809.jpeg[img]<br
/>
HTML http://us.macmillan.com/thegreatdissent/ThomasHealy
2.
HTML http://www.neatorama.com/2008/01/21/the-origin-of-sherlock-holmes/#!n7G0M
3.
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Unionist_Party
4.
HTML http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/LadyEl&showFullAbstract=1
5.
HTML http://www.flu.gov/pandemic/history/1918/
6.
HTML http://www.flu.gov/pandemic/history/1918/life_in_1918/index.html
7.
HTML http://library.thinkquest.org/J0112391/civil_war_amendments.htm
8. Read Farwell v. Boston & Worcester Rail Road for an
EXCELLENT example of 19th century US law on responsibility for
workplace accidents (ALWAYS the worker). Follow the decision to
the twisted logic the juidge used and you will find the BASIS of
the so called "Sanctity of Contracts"(ONLY the ones employers
demand you write). And it's worse than that. When there is NO
written contract, the worker assumes ALL RESPONSIBILITY. No
wonder so-called conservaives and libertarians want to take us
back to the 19th century!
HTML http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1399&context=fss_papers
9.
HTML http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/hine-photos/
10.
HTML http://www.fofweb.com/History/MainPrintPage.asp?iPin=APL128&DataType=AmericanHistory&WinType=Free
11.
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_N._Cardozo
12.[quote]On August 19, 1914, Wilson appointed him to the
Supreme Court, to a seat vacated by Horace H. Lurton. McReynolds
was confirmed by the United States Senate and received his
commission the same day, starting with the new term on October
12, 1914. However, it was also accepted that Wilson only
appointed McReynolds to the Supreme Court because he did not
want to work with him anymore. [/quote]
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clark_McReynolds
13.
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clark_McReynolds
14.
HTML http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/o/oliver_wendell_holmes_jr.html
#Post#: 338--------------------------------------------------
Re: Key Historical Events ...THAT YOU MAY HAVE NEVER HEARD OF
By: Surly1 Date: November 15, 2013, 5:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for researching and writing this. Upon reading this, what
occurs is that we have some very quaint ideas about the law. The
law is, after all, only what a judge says it is. The light you
have shone upon the Supreme Court in Holmes' time showed me
details I was not aware of as well.
In many ways apparently, the fix has always been in.
This was a rewarding read. thanks for strolling through some
dusty archivds to dredge this one up.
Your correspondent,
A Thick-Fingered Clown
#Post#: 340--------------------------------------------------
Re: Key Historical Events ...THAT YOU MAY HAVE NEVER HEARD OF
By: AGelbert Date: November 15, 2013, 1:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Surly,
Agreed.
You are welcome. If you could tack this on to FB to help give my
forum some views, you will be helping another thick fingered
clown. ;D
Yes, I certainly qualify as an "anarchist" or "bleeding heart
commie". WHY? Because I have the distinction of having organized
a pilot's union (we got a national Labor Relations Board rep to
come down and help us organize the official vote!) and promptly
get fired for it! I was the ultimate "traitor" because I was
Chief Pilot of that air taxi at the time. I'll blog that
experience soon. It was quite an education in Nicole Foss's
"real world" (the fake world that predatory, conscience free
humans pretend is the real world). Voltaire wasn't far off the
mark when he said that "Hell is other people." >:(
By the way, wasn't that an eye opener about what Brandeis had to
put up with from the McReynolds
[quote]McReynolds refused to speak to Louis Brandeis, the first
Jew on the Court, for three years following Brandeis's
appointment and, when Brandeis retired in 1939, did not sign the
customary dedicatory letter sent to justices on their
retirement. He habitually left the conference room whenever
Brandeis spoke.[/quote]?
McReynolds claimed to be a Christian!
HTML http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/stock/thumb_smiley-sign0105.gif
In Brandeis' shoes, I would have been hard pressed to not offer
McReynolds a knuckle sandwich! >:(
And that part about President Wilson "kicking McReynolds
upstairs to the Supreme Court" was priceless. ;D [quote]..it
was also accepted that Wilson only appointed McReynolds to the
Supreme Court because he did not want to work with him anymore.
[/quote]
Isn't it absolutely TRAJIC that several decades of potentially
progressive American jurisprudence were through under a bus by a
world class bigot just because a President didn't have the balls
to FIRE that hate filled, intolerant piece of human fecal
coliform? :(
Wilson knew the score and was simply afraid to rock the boat in
the cesspool of American power politics. [quote]Since I entered
politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me
privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States —in the
fields of commerce and manufacturing—are afraid of somebody.
They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so
subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive,
that they had better not speak above their breath when they
speak in condemnation of it.[/quote]
HTML http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson
Another bought and paid for COWARD with a big vocabulary. So it
goes.[img width=30
height=30]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113183729.png[/img]
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page