Bart Jordan and Flyby News Update

Bart Jordan and Mars Viking 1.mp4.Still001 (1) (1)

For the last 5 weeks Bart Jordan has not explained to Flyby News why he has postponed or canceled his plans to publish mathematical equations that he referenced in our last program recorded on 09 August, 2018 “Bart Jordan Manhattan Project NASA Whistleblower” 

Jordan had been preparing mathematical equations regarding DNA signature in the atomic bomb sequence and the warning on mars in the Cydonia region. Those equations can also show a relationship with measures of Mars’ two satellites, Phobos and Deimos, (fear and terror), but also two daughters of Ares and Aphrodite (Mars and Venus) with the 5th moon of Uranus, Harmonia, (renamed by Kuiper Miranda) and a horse-bone shaped asteroid recorded around 2000 called Ainomrah, Harmonia spelled in other direction, which NASA identified as Kleopatra-216

Plus he was going to present where the abundance number for Plutonium 238 (universally accepted) came from. He also planned to present atomic weights, (more on his work on the Trinity Test), and the Scorpios formula, and show a deeper understanding of Pi and his information used by James Watson that was used to take credit away from an incredibly talented chemist and X-ray crystallographer whose work led to the discovery of DNA, Rosalind Franklin.

In addition Bart Jordan planned to review what he has already shared with two formulas saying the same thing numerically; one is shaped like a temple and the other one as an axe. The numbers reflect a warning for humankind about its extinction from war and weapons of mass destruction or its evolution to be in harmony with life. Evidently the knowing about the power of the atom is a blessing and the splitting of the atom bomb is an abuse of the light, and breaking of the covenant. 

Bart Jordan has had attempts on his life and had his family threatened when he was only eight years old. Alfred Lee Loomis is the subject of the book called Tuxedo Park. It was he that Bart Jordan said he had received such a threat. Bart Jordan said he believed Loomis was a founder of the Rand Corporation. After the Manhattan Project and devastation that happened in Japan, Jordan came to be a concert classical guitarist and studied under Andres Segovia. However he kept working with NASA and the US government to substantiate what ancient civilizations passed down through many ice ages.. He was sharing what the Manhattan Project scientists (or those controlling them) refused to listen to the importance of his work and the warning about war and abuse of light. Arrogance and ignorance knows no limit until it can be too late.

I had to re-examine Bart after this abrupt non-communication period, and after reviewing his work I came to the same conclusions as stated in the video produced in 2015, “A Flyby News Perspective on Bart Jordan.” 

So, knowing the resistance to a whistleblower revealing not just what has been covered up on Mars and about our ancient past, but also one that has spoken out about the obvious fraud or military psy-ops Apollo lunar 1969-1972 missions, I am not surprised this delay has happened. 

I still have received no other explanation for how the measures were derived that were published 1966 in the Encyclopedia Britannica showing the distances from Phobos and Deimos to Mars center in miles and kilometers. These are ancient measures related to monuments in the Cydonia region on Mars, which is called Signature Site 10 from the Hellenic translation. 

Mars has a very important message for humanity, and meanwhile truth in space is headed like a military blur toward our extinction.. Yet truth here is in our mutual best interest, so Flyby News will continue in all our campaigns.. Note if you review our site the key resource topics listed near the top, and check through until under all the top images for updated news and events. FlybyNews.com


19 September, 2018 – UFOTV Youtube – 1:33:57
UFOs and Nukes
Official Press Conference Washington, DC

08 December, 2000 – UPI – Flyby News
1964 U.S. atomic bomb blast in the Van Allen belts

01 July, 2010 – NPR – Robert Krulwich
Scary Light Show: Exploding H-Bombs In Space

10 September, 2018 – Youtube 0:10:00 – Kabloooee Theater
The Meek Shall Inherit The Earth

20 January, 2019 – Youtube – 1:23:25 – PBS
American Masters: Decoding Watson

01 August, 2018 – Science – Beryl Lieff Benderly
Rosalind Franklin and the damage of gender harassment

24 November, 2018 – Refinery29 – Nick Levine
The Campaign To Honour An Unsung Female
Scientist On The New £50 Note

21 February, 2019 – Phobos Media – Youtube – 11:23
FACE ON MARS
Ancient Monument or Optical Illusion

22 February, 2019 – Universe Inside You – Youtube – 19:58
Mars was Inhabited
Beyond the Shadow of a Doubt

16 January, 2018 – Flyby News – Youtube 1:52:25
Bart Jordan and Mars Viking 1

17 August, 2018 – FN Youtube – 58:00 – Bart Jordan
Manhattan Project NASA Whistleblower
09 August 2018 Interview with Jonathan Mark

Updated – Flyby News – WordPress

Reports on Bart Jordan and evidence
of advanced pre-ice-age civilizations.


.

“There are only two mistakes

one can make along the road to truth:

Not going all the way, and not starting.”

– The Buddha

For additional quotations and poetry, visit:
Life Rhythms poetry blog with Jonathan Mark


Fair Use Policy that describes use of copyrighted material is at FlybyNews.com.
Feedback for story suggestions and networking Flyby News is appreciated.
You can write to the editor by email: -noflyby (at} yahoo.com


Flyby News is educational and nonviolent in focus,
and has supported critical campaigns for a healthy
environment, human rights, justice, and nonviolence,
since the launch of NASA’s Cassini space probe in 1997.

News Fit to Transmit in the Post Cassini Flyby Era

307595_4130695745053_1210616031_n

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Transcript of President George Washington’s Farewell Address (1796)

Friends and Fellow Citizens:

The period for a new election of a citizen to administer the executive government of the United States being not far distant, and the time actually arrived when your thoughts must be employed in designating the person who is to be clothed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that I should now apprise you of the resolution I have formed, to decline being considered among the number of those out of whom a choice is to be made.

I beg you, at the same time, to do me the justice to be assured that this resolution has not been taken without a strict regard to all the considerations appertaining to the relation which binds a dutiful citizen to his country; and that in withdrawing the tender of service, which silence in my situation might imply, I am influenced by no diminution of zeal for your future interest, no deficiency of grateful respect for your past kindness, but am supported by a full conviction that the step is compatible with both.

The acceptance of, and continuance hitherto in, the office to which your suffrages have twice called me have been a uniform sacrifice of inclination to the opinion of duty and to a deference for what appeared to be your desire. I constantly hoped that it would have been much earlier in my power, consistently with motives which I was not at liberty to disregard, to return to that retirement from which I had been reluctantly drawn. The strength of my inclination to do this, previous to the last election, had even led to the preparation of an address to declare it to you; but mature reflection on the then perplexed and critical posture of our affairs with foreign nations, and the unanimous advice of persons entitled to my confidence, impelled me to abandon the idea.

I rejoice that the state of your concerns, external as well as internal, no longer renders the pursuit of inclination incompatible with the sentiment of duty or propriety, and am persuaded, whatever partiality may be retained for my services, that, in the present circumstances of our country, you will not disapprove my determination to retire.

The impressions with which I first undertook the arduous trust were explained on the proper occasion. In the discharge of this trust, I will only say that I have, with good intentions, contributed towards the organization and administration of the government the best exertions of which a very fallible judgment was capable. Not unconscious in the outset of the inferiority of my qualifications, experience in my own eyes, perhaps still more in the eyes of others, has strengthened the motives to diffidence of myself; and every day the increasing weight of years admonishes me more and more that the shade of retirement is as necessary to me as it will be welcome. Satisfied that if any circumstances have given peculiar value to my services, they were temporary, I have the consolation to believe that, while choice and prudence invite me to quit the political scene, patriotism does not forbid it.

In looking forward to the moment which is intended to terminate the career of my public life, my feelings do not permit me to suspend the deep acknowledgment of that debt of gratitude which I owe to my beloved country for the many honors it has conferred upon me; still more for the steadfast confidence with which it has supported me; and for the opportunities I have thence enjoyed of manifesting my inviolable attachment, by services faithful and persevering, though in usefulness unequal to my zeal. If benefits have resulted to our country from these services, let it always be remembered to your praise, and as an instructive example in our annals, that under circumstances in which the passions, agitated in every direction, were liable to mislead, amidst appearances sometimes dubious, vicissitudes of fortune often discouraging, in situations in which not unfrequently want of success has countenanced the spirit of criticism, the constancy of your support was the essential prop of the efforts, and a guarantee of the plans by which they were effected. Profoundly penetrated with this idea, I shall carry it with me to my grave, as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence; that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free Constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained; that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue; that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these States, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it.

Here, perhaps, I ought to stop. But a solicitude for your welfare, which cannot end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger, natural to that solicitude, urge me, on an occasion like the present, to offer to your solemn contemplation, and to recommend to your frequent review, some sentiments which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me all-important to the permanency of your felicity as a people. These will be offered to you with the more freedom, as you can only see in them the disinterested warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his counsel. Nor can I forget, as an encouragement to it, your indulgent reception of my sentiments on a former and not dissimilar occasion.

Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the attachment.

The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.

For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.

But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those which apply more immediately to your interest. Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the union of the whole.

The North, in an unrestrained intercourse with the South, protected by the equal laws of a common government, finds in the productions of the latter great additional resources of maritime and commercial enterprise and precious materials of manufacturing industry. The South, in the same intercourse, benefiting by the agency of the North, sees its agriculture grow and its commerce expand. Turning partly into its own channels the seamen of the North, it finds its particular navigation invigorated; and, while it contributes, in different ways, to nourish and increase the general mass of the national navigation, it looks forward to the protection of a maritime strength, to which itself is unequally adapted. The East, in a like intercourse with the West, already finds, and in the progressive improvement of interior communications by land and water, will more and more find a valuable vent for the commodities which it brings from abroad, or manufactures at home. The West derives from the East supplies requisite to its growth and comfort, and, what is perhaps of still greater consequence, it must of necessity owe the secure enjoyment of indispensable outlets for its own productions to the weight, influence, and the future maritime strength of the Atlantic side of the Union, directed by an indissoluble community of interest as one nation. Any other tenure by which the West can hold this essential advantage, whether derived from its own separate strength, or from an apostate and unnatural connection with any foreign power, must be intrinsically precarious.

While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations; and, what is of inestimable value, they must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves, which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same governments, which their own rival ships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and embitter. Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.

These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting and virtuous mind, and exhibit the continuance of the Union as a primary object of patriotic desire. Is there a doubt whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in such a case were criminal. We are authorized to hope that a proper organization of the whole with the auxiliary agency of governments for the respective subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the experiment. It is well worth a fair and full experiment. With such powerful and obvious motives to union, affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands.

In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. The inhabitants of our Western country have lately had a useful lesson on this head; they have seen, in the negotiation by the Executive, and in the unanimous ratification by the Senate, of the treaty with Spain, and in the universal satisfaction at that event, throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspicions propagated among them of a policy in the General Government and in the Atlantic States unfriendly to their interests in regard to the Mississippi; they have been witnesses to the formation of two treaties, that with Great Britain, and that with Spain, which secure to them everything they could desire, in respect to our foreign relations, towards confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the Union by which they were procured ? Will they not henceforth be deaf to those advisers, if such there are, who would sever them from their brethren and connect them with aliens?

To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliance, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a constitution of government better calculated than your former for an intimate union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.

All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it, avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertion in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should co-operate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment, inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.

Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue ? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?

In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils? Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government. the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing (with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them) conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.

In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish; that they will control the usual current of the passions, or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But, if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism; this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare, by which they have been dictated.

How far in the discharge of my official duties I have been guided by the principles which have been delineated, the public records and other evidences of my conduct must witness to you and to the world. To myself, the assurance of my own conscience is, that I have at least believed myself to be guided by them.

In relation to the still subsisting war in Europe, my proclamation of the twenty-second of April, I793, is the index of my plan. Sanctioned by your approving voice, and by that of your representatives in both houses of Congress, the spirit of that measure has continually governed me, uninfluenced by any attempts to deter or divert me from it.

After deliberate examination, with the aid of the best lights I could obtain, I was well satisfied that our country, under all the circumstances of the case, had a right to take, and was bound in duty and interest to take, a neutral position. Having taken it, I determined, as far as should depend upon me, to maintain it, with moderation, perseverance, and firmness.

The considerations which respect the right to hold this conduct, it is not necessary on this occasion to detail. I will only observe that, according to my understanding of the matter, that right, so far from being denied by any of the belligerent powers, has been virtually admitted by all.

The duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, without anything more, from the obligation which justice and humanity impose on every nation, in cases in which it is free to act, to maintain inviolate the relations of peace and amity towards other nations.

The inducements of interest for observing that conduct will best be referred to your own reflections and experience. With me a predominant motive has been to endeavor to gain time to our country to settle and mature its yet recent institutions, and to progress without interruption to that degree of strength and consistency which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes.

Though, in reviewing the incidents of my administration, I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope that my country will never cease to view them with indulgence; and that, after forty five years of my life dedicated to its service with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest.

Relying on its kindness in this as in other things, and actuated by that fervent love towards it, which is so natural to a man who views in it the native soil of himself and his progenitors for several generations, I anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat in which I promise myself to realize, without alloy, the sweet enjoyment of partaking, in the midst of my fellow-citizens, the benign influence of good laws under a free government, the ever-favorite object of my heart, and the happy reward, as I trust, of our mutual cares, labors, and dangers.

United States
19th September, 1796

Geo. Washington

Transcription courtesy of the Avalon Project at Yale Law School.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

2019 A Golden Opportunity

As 2018 wraps up who can deny the insanity: undeclared wars, corporate not people policies, false flags, damaged elections, environment – the list can be endless, but time is running out. The climate tipping point might have already been missed. Maha Ghosananda said: “In the moment the future is born.” Our actions, our ability to rethink and research 50 years since NASA’s moon walk, as we have witnessed the takeover of space and truth by the military industrial complex, our time is now to take the next step.

Litmus Tests for Truth & Transformation

American Moon

01 October, 2018 – Youtube – 0:30:00 – Flyby News

American Moon’s Massimo Mazzucco Interview

Amazon DVD (3.5 hours) to purchase for the U.S.A.

For other Countries get it from Massimo’s site.


Takola and sun

WINTER 2018-2019 – Youtube – 0:30:00 – Jonathan Mark

Life Rhythms and Flyby News

.Music and Poetry + Overview for Truth & Peace in Space.

Life Rhythms poetry & quote blog

IMG_20171215_103618

Flyby News video productions are available for broadcast

over Community Television Stations. Check them out at

“Flyby News” Youtube channel and GCTV.org/videos

& download Flyby News Productions via Peg Media!


May the new year bring us toward balance and truth


 

307595_4130695745053_1210616031_n


Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

TERROR on the RISE

Many are feeling the decline of our human civilization. We have become divided into two camps, neither one dealing with our collective reality. Yet all is unfolding into chaos, and violence, initiated from the top down, make us feel small, insignificant, and many make believe or thrust themselves into distraction or entertainment, while coming to a place questioning, perhaps, why are we here?

Will new paragraphs help resolve any issue traumatized by confusion where theories are rampant and facts barely noticeable? Truth is scary for those who want to make believe and maintain a set world view. What is, is, and is tough to swallow as one research events like JFK, 9-11, weapons in space; deceptions become visible without even looking for them.

While the end of our life is certain, humanity’s acceleration toward premature extinction of more than just our own species is disgraceful. Have we gone that far berserk? It seems intolerable to enable a few bad apples to turn truth into political maneuvering, where one side denies creating lies, and the other is a master of them.

It would have been helpful if President Trump in 2017 released the government’s research files on the assassination of President Kennedy. People will often either make excuses for Trump or just do not care. President Trump’s rhetoric of there being fake news is real, but the cover-up of the events of September 11, 2001 continue, as well as the JFK U.S. intel-military coup, and the manned moon landing military psychological operation that has overridden truth in space.

Fear, major deceptions, and TV, has destroyed critical thinking for many. It is easier to manipulate people by ridicule and distraction than to admit and to learn from our own mistakes. What is true is that we could not accomplish those missions today, and positively no way with 1960’s technologies. One smart phone has more computer power than on Apollo. Cognitive dissonance, denial, and avoiding truth has become a way of life. Reality has taken a back seat.

Yet not knowing what may come about leaves open all sorts of possibilities. Uniting with truth, knowing there is truth, brings us closer to the essence of our being. There is so much more that unites us than divides us. Are we controlled by our fears, or willing to look into sad truths that will help liberate us in the end?

Litmus Tests for Truth & Transformation

Key article by Jonathan Mark


CRITICAL NEWS AND EVENTS

26 October, 2018 – Democracy Now – Subhankar Banerjee
Trump Admin Opens Up Alaska for Drilling,
Already At-Risk Arctic Biodiversity

26 October, 2018
While Trump Calls Climate Change a Hoax, Hurricane
Michael Damaged US Fighter Jets Worth $6 Billion

is trump for real

A John Hankey Documentary
Is Trump for Real?
08 October, 2018 – Youtube- 0:04:25 – Trailer

You can currently rent the 66-minute
video for $1 on Amazon and Vimeo

23 October, 2018 – Democracy Now – Rula Jebreal
My “Secret Interview” with Jamal Khashoggi
Before His Brutal Murder by the Saudis


01 October, 2018 – Youtube- 0:30:00 – Flyby News
American Moon’s Massimo Mazzucco Interview

Massimo Mazzucco Films
American Moon
American Moon2

Amazon DVD (3.5 hours) to purchase for the U.S.A.

For other Countries get it from Massimo’s site.

Watch a 3-minute Trailer!

Litmus Tests for Truth & Transformation

08 October, 2018 – Youtube- 9:57 – Bart Sibrel
NASA Shoots Themself – AGAIN

14 December, 2017 – Youtube- 5:10:38 – Taboo Conspiracy
Moon Landings Hoax Day Collection

Updated – Flyby News Resource
US 1969-1972 – Evidence of Fraud – Lunar Missions 


07 October, 2018 – Off Guardian
“9/11 Unmasked”
An International Review Panel: By
David Ray Griffin and Elizabeth Woodward

22 August, 2015 – Youtube – 0:54 – We Are Change
Dr. Bob Bowman asks you to
contemplate the Lie of 9/11

19 September, 2017 – Youtube – 1:26:00 – Flyby News
September 11 – New Pearl Harbor
film summary and discussion

september 11

26 May, 2017 – Youtube – 16:27 – Jonathan Mark
Denial, Cognitive Dissonance, & September 11
Flyby News June 2017 Update @ GCTV

Perspective — Resources — Archives
New 9/11 Investigation vs New World Order


10 September, 2018 – Youtube 0:10:00 – Kabloooee Theater
The Meek Shall Inherit The Earth

17 August, 2018 – FN Youtube – 58:00 – Bart Jordan
Manhattan Project NASA Whistleblower
09 August 2018 Interview with Jonathan Mark

Bart Jordan and Mars Viking 1.mp4.Still001 (1) (1)
Updated – Flyby News – WordPress
Bart Jordan & Evidence of Advanced Ancient Civilizations


307595_4130695745053_1210616031_n


 

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

American Moon’s Massimo Mazzucco Interview

Flyby News Update – FlybyNews.com
Publisher, Jonathan Mark 
03 October, 2018
sm2 (1)

Massimo Mazzucco discusses about his film, “American Moon”  with Jonathan Mark of Flyby News. It compares with Mazzucco’s’ epic documentary, “September 11 – The New Pearl Harbor” in that it sets the facts using original footage and experts to show the evidence of what happened, and features those debunking side by side. Viewers must decide what is true or false. 

Yet as 9-11 is a bit in the rear view mirror these days, and with the upcoming 50th anniversary of NASA’s Apollo (or what should be termed as another military psychological operation), and with future missions that will continue to be delayed in sending an astronaut beyond low earth orbit, the moon debate is with us now and in our future. This is true even while the U.S. space force wants to maintain control over what is real and what is their make-believe.  

 

01 October, 2018 – Youtube- 0:30:00 – Flyby News
American Moon’s Massimo Mazzucco Interview  

Massimo Mazzucco Films 
American Moon

American Moon2

Watch a 3-minute Trailer!

American Moon (English version)

      Has man really been to the moon? It’s been 50 years, and the debate rages on. For the firs time, a film compiles in a single piece of work, all the best evidence in favor of the moon landings and the evidence contrary to them. For the first time we can also analyze the Apollo pictures in detail, with the aid of some among the top photographers in the world. What was the Apollo project really? The biggest achievement in the history of mankind, or the biggest fakery of all times, watched on live television by more than half a billion people?

Running time: 3 1/2 hours – Dual layer (8GB) DVD

 

Massimo Mazzucco Films

American Moon

 

Amazon DVD (3.5 hours) to purchase for the U.S.A.

Other Countries get it from Massimo’s site.

01 October, 2018 – Youtube- 0:30:00 – Flyby News

American Moon’s Massimo Mazzucco Interview

 

Updated – Flyby News Resource:
US 1969-1972 – Evidence of Fraud – Lunar Missions

 

307595_4130695745053_1210616031_n

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Morgan Fascist Coup Plot and How FDR Defeated It

Article originally published August 11, 2006 in the Executive Intelligence Review.

“Editor’s note:  The plan was in motion, a veterans group, bankers, Nazi’s all, dictatorship, concentration camps and an end to American democracy.   It almost happened in the 1930s as it could still happen in America today.  This is history, the real history no American child is taught, history no university has in its library…..only the truth can keep America free.”

by L. Wolfe for The Executive Intelligence Review

Introduction

Some 12 years ago, this news service published a report on the 1930s fascist coup plot against the Franklin D. Roosevelt government, led by a Morgan-centered cabal of powerful financial interests; the coup would have replaced FDR with a puppet government whose policies would be controlled by a cabal of wealthy financial plutocrats. As the report made clear, the intention of the conspirators was to use the anarchy and chaos produced by the coup, to eliminate for all time the threat to their power represented by the U.S. Presidency and U.S. Constitution.

Today, we are faced with the same intention by the heirs of that cabal of fascist bankers, who now control most of the Executive branch of the U.S. government and who have, through their agents such as Felix Rohatyn, attempted to emasculate the Democratic opposition. They now seek to impose a fascist government that Democratic leader Lyndon LaRouche has warned would be “Schacht without Hitler”—a brutal austerity government without the overt “messy” characteristics of the Hitler regime.[1]

In the intervening dozen years, our research has more accurately located the Morgan coup plot as part of the broader push for a fascist world order, as promoted by the Nazi-supporting, Synarchist networks of this cabal. The destruction of the U.S. constitutional system was a critical feature of this push for fascism.

Their efforts came close to succeeding and might have, had it not been for the courage of America’s then-most decorated officer, Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Smedley Darlington Butler, and the extraordinary political leadership of FDR himself. While Butler exposed the plot, FDR and his allies waged war against the power of the private investment banks that sponsored fascism at home and abroad, seeking to curb their power, and placing the sovereign power of the U.S. government and Constitution over them. In asserting that all economic policy must serve the constitutionally mandated principle of the General Welfare, FDR put the nation on a pathway out of the chaos and pessimism that served as the breeding grounds for fascist coup plotters. while laying the economic and moral foundation for the direct military battle with the bankers’ fascist golem in Europe in World War II.

ScreenHunter_03-Oct.-13-14.58

The story of this plot was front-page news in even such establishment papers as the New York Times, as it occurred. However, since the death of Roosevelt in 1945, the Synarchists were successful in all but wiping it from the pages of history and common memory. Following the publication of our report, and especially in the recent three years, as the world plunges towards economic collapse and financial chaos worse than the Great Depression, and with it, a new bankers’ drive for fascist dictatorship, there has been a renewed interest in at least some aspects of the plot. PBS, for example, produced a documentary on it, and there are at least two new books in the offing.[2]

We present here an edited and updated version of our 1994 report as an urgent matter of interest to those who must once again rise to fight the renewed fascist threat, so that they might know their true enemies and what they are capable of; and to know that even such powerful forces can be defeated with the kind of policies and leadership that today are provided by Lyndon LaRouche and our movement.

As FDR prepared to take office in the late Winter of 1932-33, the U.S. government, much as today, was a captive of a cabal of private financial interests: the London-New York banking axis, whose strategists were the prime sponsors of fascism in Europe.

President Herbert Hoover’s economic team was controlled by his Ambassador to Britain, former Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon, and Federal Reserve Chairman Eugene Meyer, whose father had helped found the American branch of the Lazard Frères banking house and whose own career was created by Lazard. Behind them was a larger cabal of private investment banking interests, who had a stranglehold on U.S. government credit policy, including the investment banks of Kuhn, Loeb; the Morgan interests; the Rockefellers; Dillon Read; Brown Brothers Harriman; and Lazard Frères.[3]

Since the 1876 Specie Resumption Act, U.S. economic and credit policy had increasingly been dictated from London. Since 1913, the main vehicle for the implementation of that policy had been the Federal Reserve, a private central bank, established by British policy interests, and run by those interests and their U.S. allies in the Wall Street investment banks.

The Morgan bank, at times official U.S. banker for the British government, was founded and always based in London, known there as Morgan, Grenfell, with its arms in New York being J.P. Morgan, Morgan Guaranty, and some other institutions.

Kuhn, Loeb arose as Jacob Schiff’s enterprise, guided by his London partner, Sir Ernst Cassel, personal banker for King Edward VII, the British Round Table, and the Fabian Society. Kuhn, Loeb was then taken over by the London/German Warburg family, the biggest stockholders in the Nazi cartel IG Farben.

The Rockefeller family, beginning with a British partner in their early oil monopoly, extended into a cartel with Britain’s Shell Oil, into Chase Manhattan Bank and Citibank, and into family foundations, all put into the service of British imperial policy.

Brown Brothers Harriman combined Brown Brothers (the family firm of Montagu Norman, known in England as Brown Shipley) in a 1931 merger with the Harrimans, made powerful by Sir Ernst Cassel’s arrangement of British crown financial backing for Averell Harriman to acquire Union Pacific Railroad.

In this “secret government,” which defined the parameters and often the details of critical policies, the House of Morgan held the most important portfolio, as the most important agent of Anglo-Venetian interests in the United States. The Morgan partners held directorships in 167 industrial concerns, banks, railroads, and utilities, and they controlled, through their banking relationships, the most important media in the United States, including the New York Times. And most importantly, the Morgans, along with the other merchant banks, controlled the market in the public debt of the United States, in concert with the Federal Reserve, through the latter’s “open market” operations.

Agents of this cabal, acting under the orders of Bank of England Governor Montagu Norman, helped sponsor Hitler’s Nazis as their proposed handmaidens to implement the policies demanded by their direct agent, Montagu Norman asset, Hjalmar Schacht. Schacht was to head the Hitler regime’s financial and economic policy. Through Schacht and other assets, the Synarchists—Wall Street and London investment banks and their French and German political partners—had created huge global cartels, aimed at controlling all basic industry and raw materials, making governments and their populations subject to their power over economic life.

Throughout the 1920s, the New York and London investment banks participated with the German backers of the Nazi Party, such as Fritz Thyssen, in creating global cartels in steel, raw materials, and chemicals. The Nazis were the operatives chosen to implement the bankers’ policies in Depression-wracked Germany. With plans to seize power in the United States, Britain, and France, along with the Nazis in Germany and Mussolini’s Fascists in Italy, the aim of these private banking circles was world power.

In 1932, as the U.S. Presidential campaign moved towards its conclusion, Hitler’s Nazis were on the edge of financial ruin. A rescue effort was organized, with the supervision of the Bank of England’s Montagu Norman, to funnel cash into the Nazi coffers. The principal Wall Street bank chosen to handle this operation was Brown Brothers Harriman, whose principles included erstwhile playboy Averell Harriman, who was later to gain an important hold on the “liberal” wing of the Democratic Party, and Prescott Bush, grandfather of the current occupant of the White House; Prescott Bush actually served as bagman, taking the funds to Germany.[4]

A Hail of Bullets

From the onset of the Great Depression in 1929, Hoover’s fascist economic policies “succeeded” in collapsing domestic U.S. economic activity. While this created the conditions of mass unemployment and economic dislocation which were breeding grounds for pessimism and a fascist movement, it also made hapless Hoover a very weak standard bearer for the synarchist bankers in the 1932 election. By the late Fall of that year, while they were rescuing Hitler, it was obvious that, despite the best efforts to sabotage FDR’s campaign from the inside by the Democratic Party leadership controlled by Morgan lawyer John W. Davis and the Synarchist John Raskob, an agent of the Morgan-controlled du Pont interests, Roosevelt was on his way to a landslide victory.[5]

However, there was still the period of three months between the election in November 1932 and FDR’s March 4, 1933 inauguration, for the bankers’ to try to deal with their “problem.”

On Feb. 15, 1933, as FDR returned to Miami from a yachting trip with friends, he addressed a crowd of 10,000 at an outdoor waterfront rally. Suddenly, several shots were fired from close range from the crowd at the Presidential party. Five people were hit, although Roosevelt, miraculously, was not.

The man charged with firing the shots, Giuseppe Zingara, a member of a Masonic lodge from New Jersey, was at first branded an “anarchist”; an FBI investigation concluded that he had acted alone. When Chicago Mayor Anton Cermak, who was wounded in the gunfire, died three weeks after the attack, it fed press speculation that he, not Roosevelt, had been the target. The press soon began reporting that various mob sources, including Frank Nitti, boss of the Chicago mob, claimed that Cermak was on a hit list. Today, most U.S. history textbooks do not even mention the assassination attempt, nor do most Americans know that it happened.

However, news accounts published in 1933, speak of the assassin’s arm being deflected by a woman in the crowd. Her report was that the gun was aimed directly at Roosevelt, who was speaking from an open car. Had she not acted, Roosevelt would have been hit and likely killed.

It was reported at first, that Zingara was a “brick mason”; still later, it was revealed that he was a Freemason. The Scottish Rite of Freemasonry felt compelled to issue a pledge of loyalty to the new President and a condemnation of the assassination. Meanwhile, after Cermak’s unexpected death in March, Zingara was swiftly sent to the electric chair and the story faded from the press.

It is still not clear how this assassination attempt was set up. One thing is clear, however: the Synarchist fascists who opposed FDR would have been its potential principal beneficiaries. Had FDR been assassinated prior to inauguration, a constitutional crisis would have been created, providing cover for the bankers and their allies to move to their fascist option—a government imposed from outside the Constitution. Had the assassination been successful, the history of the last century would have been dramatically different.

FDR’s War with the ‘Money Changers’

The Roosevelt who came into office that March was a much wiser man than the one who had run for Vice President in 1920 and been beaten badly. As FDR struggled to overcome polio in 1921-28, he also matured as a political figure, anchoring his identity in a strong commitment to the General Welfare; he saw the Federal government, under the sway of Wall Street-London dictated policies of first the Coolidge, and then the Hoover Administrations, bringing suffering to the vast majority of Americans, who now had no voice speaking for them or acting in their interests in Washington.

As Governor of New York (1928-32), FDR could see firsthand the power of the financial elites, as they tried to appeal to him, as one of their own, coming from the “patrician class,” to implement policies beneficial to their interests, including massive tax breaks for the banks. FDR came to understand that almost all current economic theory was mere cover for the power of these financial interests, and was therefore useless in the face of the Depression that the Coolidge-Hoover policies had brought on. Instead, FDR turned to the traditional, anti-monetarist policies of the American System of Alexander Hamilton, an ally of his great-grandfather Isaac[6], as the basis for “experimentation” in finding a pathway out of the Depression.[7] This was the tradition of economic policy, which, through the actions of Lincoln and others, built American industry into a world power.

The bankers saw in Roosevelt their greatest nightmare: a powerful political figure not under their control, with a vast base of popular support, who was non-ideological, and committed to the view that the sovereign constitutional government of the United States had both the power and moral obligation to take measures to correct imbalances in the economy, and, who was not afraid to act on this. With the knowledge that nothing could be accomplished unless the power of the financial elite were tamed, FDR set about immediately to free the Federal government from its clutches, and then to use the power of that government to level the playing field, with a permanent reduction in the financial elites’ power, by placing them under Federal regulation.

He set the tone for that battle in his stirring March 4 Inaugural address, declaring that he was holding the financial power that had created the Depression accountable for what they had done; the Depression was no natural occurrence, but the was a product of the failure of those who ruled economic policy.

Those responsible for “the exchange of mankind’s goods have failed through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their own failure, and have abdicated,” FDR said. “Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men….

“The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.

Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort. The joy and moral stimulation of work no longer must be forgotten in the mad chase for evanescent profits. These dark days will be worth all they cost us if they teach us that our true destiny is not to be ministered unto but to minister to ourselves and to our fellow man.

“Recognition of the falsity of material wealth as the standard of success goes hand in hand with the abandonment of the false belief that public office and high political position are to be valued only by the standards of pride of place and personal profit; and there must be an end to a conduct in banking and in business which too often has given to a sacred trust the likeness of callous and selfish wrongdoing….”[8]

As FDR was speaking, the coup plot was already in motion. It was not FDR’s words that sped the process along, as we shall see, but his propensity to back such statements with strong and direct actions, as with his large-scale infrastructure building and employment and emergency relief programs. These actions represent a true revolution in policy, the reversal of years of treason against the American System. They included the following:

  • The freeing of U.S. credit from manipulation by foreign central and private banking interests, by removing the U.S. dollar from a gold standard—i.e., the ability to demand payment for dollars in gold; in addition, FDR acted to ban gold sales to individuals and to allow for transfer of gold funds from banks. He did this in a series of steps in 1933, as the U.S. currency came under attack from foreign and domestic banking sources. If this had not been done, the dollar would have collapsed, and, more importantly, the government would have been restricted in the issuance of dollar-denominated debt to the amount of gold on hand for which such fungible debt could have been exchanged. The freeing of the dollar from the gold standard enabled FDR to finance his jobs and infrastructure programs;
  • The regulation of the banking system, through such measures as the Glass Steagall Act, which separated commercial banking from private or investment banking, and required transparency in banking activity. By doing this, he asserted the power of the Federal government over all financial transactions;
  • The regulation by the new Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of all trading in stocks and bonds, preventing insider trading operations which were the highly profitable and corrupt ways that the financial elite were shown to enlarge their fortunes;
  • The regulation of speculation in commodities through the Commodities Trading Commission (CTC);
  • Increased bank supervision by the Treasury Department and others, of all bank operations; the protection of the smaller bank depositors against the loss of their deposits, while limiting the protection of the financial elite, whose policies brought on banking collapses.

Each of these actions struck blows against the power of the financial oligarchy; together, they amounted to a virtual declaration of war against the financial powers who for too long had held sway over the economic and financial policy of the United States.[9]

Two critical aspects of this offensive against the money changers deserve highlighting.

The Fed, created by the financial elite as a mechanism to control the credit of the U.S. government, while making huge financial profits for these same interests in the conduct of the sale of government debt, stood as a major obstacle to any effective New Deal recovery program. As run first by Eugene Meyer and then by another Wall Street flunky, Eugene Black, the Fed had demanded that Roosevelt act in a “financially prudent” way—keeping budget deficits low and limiting the issuance of debt; citing prohibitions they had put in place on long-term debt issuance, they insisted on use of expensive short-term debt financing to try to curb FDR’s spending on recovery programs. In response, FDR had considered measures that would have effectively nationalized the Fed, placing it under Treasury control, and running it as a Hamiltonian national bank. However, he rejected such a plan, indicating to his aides in 1933 that he would prefer not to fight that fight at the moment, fearing a lack of guts by the Congress in backing such action, and a possible ability of the bankers to divide the New Deal camp.[10] Instead, he wanted to wait for the opportunity to “seize” the Fed, in his own way.

As the New Deal gained momentum and FDR gained political strength, some time in the Spring of 1934, Roosevelt’s new Treasury Secretary and close ally, Henry Morgenthau, was summoned to the New York home of George L. Harrison, the president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank. There, as he was seated in a chair, Harrison and Owen D. Young stood over him, pointing threatening fingers; Morgenthau was delivered an ultimatum. As he later recounted, he was told: “You will do what we want you to do or we will not support your government bond markets.”[11]

The Treasury Secretary went back to Roosevelt, who then decided it was time to take action against the Fed. But instead of seizing it, which would have been well within his right as Chief Executive, he asked Morgenthau to recommend a Wall Street outsider whom he could appoint to the Board and make its chairman.[12] The man chosen, Marriner Eccles of Utah, was a self-made regional banker, a former industrialist, who like FDR, was committed to the principle that economic and financial policy must serve the General Welfare, and not the profits of the private bankers and corporate shareholders. It was this alliance between a President capable of mobilizing the population for General Welfare policies, and his outspoken chief banker, committed to the same general goals, that allowed the Fed to function, even against the will of some its Board members and Reserve Bank presidents. This permitted the financing of FDR’s recovery program and later his war mobilization. It was Eccles who, working on FDR’s behalf, actually drafted and redrafted the critical landmark bank regulation acts, including what became the Glass Steagall banking regulation bill.[13]

‘Pitiless Publicity’

FDR had earlier opened another flank in his assault on the power of the financial oligarchy: the use of what he liked to refer to as “pitiless publicity,” telling the truth about the secretive, destructive ways and corruption of the monetarist financial powers and their hired hands.

In particular, FDR went after the vast power combinations that had effectively cartelized American finance and industry, giving the international Synarchy vast control, through interlocking directorates and private, unregulated financial operations, over every aspect of American (and international) economic life; this was a necessary prerequisite for taking away such power through the action of sovereign government, asserting its authority to regulate finance in the interest of the General Welfare.

Even before he took office, Roosevelt had seen to it that allies in the Senate, working through its Banking Committee, had launched a highly publicized investigation of the practices and power of the New York commercial banks. In February 1933, the committee’s exposure of their questionable banking practices had forced the resignation of two FDR enemies—National City Bank’s Charles Mitchell and the president of the bank’s holding company, Hugh Baker, both leading Morgan allies. Mitchell’s successor, James Perkins, immediately moved to separate the commercial deposit bank operations from its investment banking, to emphasize the banks’ return to “commercial banking.”[14]

The Rockefellers’ Chase National Bank was next on the Senate probers’ list. Its new head, Rockefeller brother-in-law Winthrop Aldrich, announced on the day following Perkins’ action, that Chase too was going to divorce its securities affiliate.

The bankers lobbied for the hearings to be called off. But President-elect Roosevelt demanded that they continue. He asked his political troops to turn their fire directly onto Morgan and his allies at Kuhn, Loeb and Dillon Read.

In late 1932, Roosevelt approved the committee’s hiring as its special counsel Ferdinand Pecora, a former district attorney from New York with a reputation for fearlessness. Pecora planned to place the most powerful people on Wall Street in “the dock,” and try them in a way that would have been impossible in court, given their ability to “purchase” justice.

In the opening hearings on the commercial banks, Pecora established that some of the most powerful bank officers, such as Mitchell of National City, and Albert Wiggin of Chase, had lied to their shareholders, manipulated stocks for their own benefit, and had made profits beyond anything reasonable, without the least bit of concern for the national interest. Pecora refused to allow them to be evasive, and his questioning often made them look ridiculous. Public sentiment, aroused by Roosevelt’s speech on “the money changers,” was then further aroused with concrete evidence.

In early March, Pecora fired off a series of detailed and embarrassing questions about the operations of the House of Morgan and its relationship to other banks, corporations, and clients. Morgan counsel, former Democratic Party 1924 Presidential candidate, and former ambassador to Great Britain, John W. Davis, declared the questions to be outrageous. But Morgan was forced ultimately to answer them, and then to submit to hearings in May and June that shook the foundations of the “secret government.”

Pecora and his staff spent most of February, March, and April 1933 in New York, working from early morning until 6 p.m. in the offices of J.P. Morgan and Company, poring over its records of financial dealings since the war. He told no one, with the possible exception of the White House, what he was looking for and what tack he would take, fearing that that information would be leaked to Morgan.

The hearings opened on May 24, to packed chambers. J.P. Morgan, Jr. was the first witness. In his opening statement, printed in the next day’s New York Times, Morgan heaped praise on himself and on the “honorable tradition” of private banking in the United States, which he said performed an essential function. Morgan had once stated that he would never invest in “unfinished industry,” since he sought to maximize his clients’ monetary profit. That edict, which was shared by most private bankers, meant that there would be no real economic development and there was limit placed on entrepreneurship—totally contrary to the American System principles to which FDR subscribed.

As was to become clear in the Senate testimony of the days following, what Morgan meant by “private banking” was the unregulated financial manipulations by an oligarchical club, in which the rich and powerful were allowed to reap enormous profits, and through which the House of Morgan was able not just to buy and sell securities, but to gain control of most of U.S. industry, to buy politicians and diplomats, and effectively to control the most powerful banks in the United States.

Pecora wrote five years later, in his book Wall Street Under Oath: “Undoubtedly, this small group of highly placed financiers, controlling the very springs of economic activity, holds more real power than any similar group in the United States.”

The meek response of the Morgan partners to these charges was that, while it might appear that they had control of many companies and banks, they were merely performing a “service” and exercised no control other than the “power of argument and persuasion.”

Thomas Lamont, the partner who effectively managed the firm, told the committee that the common belief in the great power of the House of Morgan was “a very strong popular delusion.” All the firm did was offer advice, which its clients could take or leave. “We are credited with having what is known as power or influence; and we admit that we hope that our counsels are of some avail….”

On the very first day, it was revealed that J.P. Morgan, arguably the most powerful banker in the nation, and all the 20 partners in his Morgan and Company and its Philadelphia operation, Drexel and Co., had paid no income taxes in 1931 and 1932, and had paid only small amounts in previous years! Morgan defended himself, claiming that he had merely taken advantage of tax laws: “If the laws are faulty, it is not my problem,” he arrogantly told the committee. It was also shown that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) had never examined Morgan’s transactions—anything that was prepared by the bank was simply passed on by the examiners without even a cursory glance!

Pecora fought to have various items entered on the public record: lists of companies in which Morgan partners held directorships, lists of banks on which they were directors, lists of banks which held their deposits, and the firm’s balance sheets for the previous three years.

Most shocking were the lists of “preferred clients” and friends of the bank, who had been let in at a below-market price on a major 1929 speculative stock offering. The list revealed two tiers of Morgan “cronies.” The first were true “friends of the firm” who were Morgan allies and operatives, and the second was a “fishing list,” by which they sought prospective new operatives, with whom they would deepen their relations. It showed that Morgan had effectively controlled those who made U.S. financial policy for more than three decades, as well as the leadership of both political parties, and much of the Federal bench!

Pecora showed, and the partners confirmed, that Morgan handled one of the most confidential and critical aspects of British financial policy—the Bank of England’s pound stabilization fund operations. This was handled, on this side of the Atlantic, by J.P. Morgan, Jr., personally, and his top henchman, Thomas Lamont. In London, the office of Morgan Grenfell, from which two partners were members of the House of Lords, coordinated continental European operations.

A similar fund was set up to market $24 million in securities for Mussolini’s Fascist Italy (and an additional £5 million in securities), administered by Morgan Grenfell, and a syndicate of private bankers including Hambros and N.M. Rothschild and Sons. Additional securities and currency accounts were set up with Morgan by the Fed, the Bank of England, and Schacht’s Reichsbank.

It was brought up that such operations might in fact be against the interests of the United States and some of the “clients” Morgan represented in the U.S.A. Morgan categorically denied this. When Pecora pointed out that members of the Morgan firm in London were members of the House of Lords and officials of the British government, Morgan and his partners blustered that there was a “wall” between business and politics. When Pecora pursued the issue, the raving Tory fascist Morgan simply stated that there could be no conflict in policy between U.S. and British interests as such, and if there were such an “absurd” eventuality, the House of Morgan would behave as “reliable bankers”!

Throughout the country, even the Morgan-controlled press was forced to print the daily dispatches from the hearings. Given what was being said, given Morgan’s attitude, it was impossible to edit them so as to place Morgan in a favorable light. The New York Times meekly editorialized that there was nothing sensational in what was being revealed, that it was all “old news.” It even tried to praise Morgan for pointing up inadequacies in income tax law!

Wrote Pecora: “The power of J.P. Morgan was not ‘a very strong popular delusion,’ as Mr. Lamont would have it, but a stark fact. It was a great stream that was fed by many sources: by its deposits, by its loans, by its promotions, by its directorships, by its pre-eminent position as investment bankers, by its control of holding companies which, in turn, controlled scores of subsidiaries, and by its silken bonds of gratitude in which it skillfully enmeshed the chosen ranks of the ‘preferred lists.’ It reached into every corner of the nation and penetrated into public, as well as business affairs. The problems raised by such an institution go far beyond banking regulation in the narrow sense. It might be a formidable rival to the government itself.”

Senate Banking Committee hearings investigating the New York commercial banks, convened by Roosevelt allies in the Senate, continued through the second week in June 1933.

After that, Pecora turned his guns on Kuhn, Loeb and its flamboyant head, Otto Kahn, who was instructed by the cabal to put on a more congenial face than the stiff Morgan partners. The Dillon Read partners were similarly congenial, as Pecora brought out more evidence of the private bankers’ manipulation of the financial markets and their highly irregular practices. The hearings were suspended until late Fall, when they resumed to examine certain specific speculative swindles; the effect FDR desired had already been achieved, as the press reflected the “common man’s” anger at the corruption and arrogance of international finance.

The Coup Plot Develops

Meanwhile, what was to be exposed as a coup plot against FDR, financed by Morgan and allied interests, was already well under way. The plot involved using an asset that had already been created for such a purpose—the networks of the American Legion.[15]

The Legion today is thought to be a rather docile association of veterans, with a “right-wing” slant. It was founded in 1919, with money from Morgan and other New York bankers and their allies, as a union-busting organization of thugs for hire. Its leadership, appropriately called the “Royal Family,” was culled from bankers, stockbrokers, and the like.

Many disgruntled veterans resented their brothers being used as cannon fodder in World War I for policies that they neither supported, nor even understood. The disgust led to the formation of a rival organization, the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), which, as the Depression deepened, lobbied for the immediate, accelerated cash payment of promised veterans’ bonuses.

In the early Summer of 1933, as the plans for a fascist plot developed, its organizers hoped to draw both the Legion and the VFW in to a form of people’s militia, modelled on Mussolini’s Fascisti, using the veterans’ anger over Roosevelt’s reduction and cancellation of bonus payments.

However, in 1934, the man whom these fascists wished to lead their army, Maj. Gen. Smedley Darlington Butler, the most honored and decorated soldier in the land, blew the whistle on the whole rotten affair. In spectacular revelations to the House Un-American Activities Committee in November and December, Butler reviewed his firsthand knowledge of the plot, identifying the House of Morgan and its operatives as playing a central role.

Smedley Butler appeared to be an unlikely candidate for the fascist coup plotters. Twice decorated with the Congressional Medal of Honor, he was a Quaker from a prominent Pennsylvania family, he thought of himself as a patriot who would never betray the values embodied in the Constitution. He had been both the most distinguished serving officer in the nation, and also its most outspoken.

Butler had once been placed in charge of the deployments of Marines on behalf of American business and banking interests in foreign lands. For a long time, he held his tongue, loyally carrying out orders, which he had personally questioned. But, following a stint in China in the late 1920s, during which he perceived that his orders were to protect Standard Oil’s interests, even at the expense of American citizens, he began to speak out.

In December 1929, addressing veterans in Pittsburgh, he stated that, in his deployment in 1912 in Nicaragua, he had helped rig elections to back the candidate desired by the banking firm of Brown Brothers. He was immediately called on the carpet by Navy Secretary Francis Adams, whose name was later to appear on the Morgan “preferred list.” But the local press, and then some national press, covered Butler’s remarks, and they were later favorably reported by various members of Congress. Two days after his attack, the Hoover Administration was forced to beat a hasty retreat from its public support of “gunboat diplomacy,” and repudiated the Teddy Roosevelt corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, stating that it would not intervene “by right” into the internal affairs of an Ibero-American nation.

BUTLER, HOWEVER, WAS PASSED OVER FOR COMMANDANT OF THE MARINE CORPS, AN APPOINTMENT WHICH, CONSIDERING HIS RANK AND HIS SERVICE CREDENTIALS, SHOULD HAVE BEEN HIS.

IN JANUARY 1931, WHILE IN UNIFORM, AT WHAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE AN OFF-THE-RECORD PRIVATE MEETING, BUTLER DELIVERED A STINGING ATTACK ON MUSSOLINI, RECOUNTING A STORY TOLD TO HIM ABOUT HOW MUSSOLINI HAD BEEN RIDING IN HIS LIMOUSINE AND HAD RUN OVER A LITTLE CHILD. BUTLER’S FRIEND, WHO WAS IN THE CAR WITH MUSSOLINI, SCREAMED IN HORROR. “MUSSOLINI SAID THAT YOU SHOULDN’T DO THAT, THAT IT WAS ONLY ONE LIFE AND THE AFFAIRS OF STATE COULD NOT BE STOPPED FOR ONE LIFE,” BUTLER TOLD HIS SHOCKED AUDIENCE. “HOW CAN YOU TALK DISARMAMENT WITH A MAN LIKE THAT?”

AN ITALIAN DIPLOMAT, PRESENT AT THE MEETING, SENT A WIRE TO ROME, AND THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT FILED A PROTEST WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENT. THE PRO-MUSSOLINI PRESS CASTIGATED BUTLER FOR INSULTING THE HEAD OF A “FRIENDLY POWER.” THE SECRETARY OF STATE, HENRY SIMPSON, CABLED A PERSONAL APOLOGY, ON BEHALF OF HERBERT HOOVER, TO IL DUCE.

ON JAN. 29, BUTLER, THE COMMANDANT OF THE QUANTICO MARINE BASE AT THE TIME, WAS PLACED UNDER ARREST AND TOLD THAT HE WAS TO BE COURT-MARTIALLED BY DIRECT ORDER OF PRESIDENT HOOVER, WITH THE FULL APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY.

THE PLANS FOR THE COURT-MARTIAL PROVOKED A TREMENDOUS OUTPOURING OF SUPPORT FOR BUTLER. THE ANTI-FASCIST LOCAL PRESS LEVELED CHARGES AGAINST THE HOOVER ADMINISTRATION THAT IT WAS KNUCKLING UNDER TO THE “THUG” MUSSOLINI AND SACRIFICING AMERICA’S MOST DISTINGUISHED MILITARY FIGURE. FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT, THEN THE GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK, AND A FRIEND OF BUTLER’S DATING FROM FDR’S DAYS AS ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, WORKED TO HELP THE GENERAL AND SPOKE OUT AGAINST HIS COURT-MARTIAL.

HOOVER AND ADAMS WERE FORCED TO BACK DOWN. BY FEB. 9, THE COURT-MARTIAL WAS CANCELLED, AND BUTLER WAS GIVEN ONLY A MILD REPRIMAND. HE REFUSED, HOWEVER, TO RETRACT HIS STATEMENT, SAYING ONLY THAT HE HAD BEEN TOLD IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING THAT WHAT HE SAID WOULD BE CONFINED TO THE FOUR WALLS OF THE ROOM.

BUTLER’S ATTACK ON IL DUCE HAD ANGERED THE MORGAN INTERESTS, WHO HAD PLAYED A MAJOR ROLE IN FINANCING MUSSOLINI’S FASCISTS. ACCORDING TO TESTIMONY IN CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, THE HOUSE OF MORGAN HAD SYNDICATED A $100 MILLION LOAN TO MUSSOLINI’S GOVERNMENT IN 1925, AND HAD MADE SUBSEQUENT LOANS TO THAT GOVERNMENT, AS WELL AS A $30 MILLION LOAN TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CITY OF ROME. DILLON READ, WHICH HAD PARTICIPATED IN THE MORGAN LOAN, ALSO ARRANGED A LOAN OF $30 MILLION FOR THE CITY OF MILAN.

Through the mid-1930s, Morgan partners, including Thomas Lamont, continued to praise the Fascist experiment in Italy.

American Fascism

It was becoming increasingly obvious to Butler and many others that the American Legion was a stooge of these fascist bankers. As early as 1923, the Legion’s Commander in Chief Alvin Owsley, had openly embraced Mussolini, and endorsed Fascism as a viable policy for the United States. Having done that, he announced that the Legion was, if necessary, prepared to kick out the elected government of the United States and back anyone who would follow a policy of “Americanism.”

“IF EVER NEEDED,” HE STATED, “THE AMERICAN LEGION STANDS READY TO PROTECT OUR COUNTRY’S INSTITUTIONS AND IDEALS AS THE FASCISTI DEALT WITH THE DESTRUCTIONISTS WHO MENACED ITALY.”

Asked if this meant taking over the government, he stated:

“EXACTLY THAT. THE AMERICAN LEGION IS FIGHTING EVERY ELEMENT THAT THREATENS OUR DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT—SOVIETS, ANARCHISTS, I.W.W., REVOLUTIONARY SOCIALISTS AND EVERY OTHER RED…. DO NOT FORGET THAT THE FASCISTI ARE TO ITALY WHAT THE AMERICAN LEGION IS TO THE UNITED STATES.”

In late March 1931, National Commander Ralph T. O’Neill presented Italian Ambassador de Martino with a copy of a resolution passed by the American Legion‘s National Executive Committee, praising Mussolini as a great leader. Meanwhile, the Legion’s leadership propagandized against the “non-Aryan” pollution of the American stock, repeating the racialist garbage of the eugenics movement.

THROUGHOUT THE 1920S AND EARLY 1930S, THE AMERICAN LEGION WAS USED AS A RECRUITING BASE FOR THE REBIRTH OF THE KU KLUX KLAN, WITH MANY OF THE SOUTHERN LEGION BRANCHES OPERATING AS KLAN CELLS.

The so-called communist menace used to help organize a fascist counter-reaction was a bogeyman. The Communist Party U.S.A. and its splinter groups, were effectively run by police agents, and other stooges, and were even funded by the bankers themselves, including Morgan. Many well-meaning people, upset with the effects of Anglo-American policy, wandered into these circles, only to have their actions rendered impotent by the overall control of these movements and their ideology.

In August 1931, Butler chose an address made before an American Legion convention in Connecticut to deliver perhaps the most remarkable speech ever given by a serving officer about the misuse of military power. “I have spent 33 years … being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism,” Butler said.

“I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1916. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City [Bank] boys to collect revenue in. I helped rape half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street…. In China, I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested…. I had … a swell racket. I was rewarded with honors, medals, and promotions. I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was operate a racket in three cities. The Marines operated on three continents….”

To the dismay of the bankers who directed the Legion, Butler’s remarks were greeted with riotous applause. In Washington, Hoover refused to answer reporters’ questions about the general’s statements. The major press blacked out most of what Butler said, but the word leaked out in the regional press, and was spread through word of mouth.

Navy Secretary Adams demanded that someone silence Butler, but no one dared to say anything, especially after the Mussolini flap. Butler continued to hammer away on the theme that the American military was being deployed to collect bankers’ debts and secure looting rights in foreign countries.

When Butler finally retired, he was no longer constrained by military protocol. He now travelled the country, addressing anyone who would listen, attacking the bankers who controlled the deployment of the military.

On Dec. 5, 1931, an article under his byline appeared in Liberty Magazine, titled “To Hell with the Admirals! Why I Retired at 50.” In it, Butler charged the leadership of the Navy with complicity in policies that now revolted him and in working to try to prevent his promotion and ultimately, to silence him. He attacked a number of Central American leaders as Wall Street stooges, naming again Brown Brothers and Morgan.

The Bonus Army

In late July 1932, the Bonus Army of unemployed and starving veterans descended upon Washington to back passage of the Bonus Bill. Butler was asked by the head of the VFW to come to lend support to the soldiers. As the soldiers rallied in Washington, the bill passed the House but was overwhelmingly defeated in the GOP-dominated Senate. Butler was asked to address the 10,000 angry veterans who had set up a shantytown on the banks of the Anacostia River.

He urged them to fight on. “If you don’t hang together, you aren’t worth a damn,” he said. “They may be calling you tramps now, but in 1917, they didn’t call you bums…. When you go home, go to the polls in November, lick the hell out of those who are against you. You know who they are…. Now go to it.” The crowd roared.

Butler stayed with the veterans, talking to them through the night and into the next day. As he prepared to leave, he warned them against allowing their frustrations to well over into violence: “You are all right as long as you keep your sense of humor….”

The next day, Hoover ordered Gen. Douglas MacArthur to drive the veterans from Washington at bayonet point, unleashing violence against the unarmed “army.” The nation was stunned.

Butler phoned the governors of a number of states and received their agreement to provide relief for the veterans who wanted to return home. He told the leaders of the Bonus Army of this arrangement, and urged them to break camp. They agreed. Butler then delivered a sharp attack on the Hoover Administration for its heartlessness.

For his actions, Butler earned the praise of many Americans, including the Democratic nominee for President, Franklin Roosevelt.

Butler and FDR

Butler, a lifelong Republican who claimed he had never voted for a Democrat, had greeted Roosevelt’s nomination with a wire to his former Navy assistant secretary: “We salute your nomination as one of the greatest blessings granted any nation in its hour of need.”

On July 7, speaking in New York, Butler demanded that the government be rescued from the “clutches of the greedy and dishonest.”

“Today, with all our wealth, a deadly gloom hangs over us. Today, we appear to be divided. There has developed, through the past few years, a new Tory class, a group that believes that the nation, its resources, and its manpower was provided by the Almighty for its own special use and profit…. On the other side is the great mass of the American people who still believe in the Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution of the United States.

“THIS TORY GROUP, THROUGH ITS WEALTH, ITS POWER AND ITS INFLUENCE, HAS OBTAINED A FIRM GRIP ON OUR GOVERNMENT, TO THE DETRIMENT OF OUR PEOPLE AND THE WELL-BEING OF OUR NATION. WE WILL PROVE TO THE WORLD THAT WE MEANT WHAT WE SAID A CENTURY AND HALF AGO—THAT THIS GOVERNMENT WAS INSTITUTED NOT ONLY TO SECURE FOR OUR PEOPLE THE RIGHTS OF LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, BUT THE RIGHT TO EAT, AND TO ALL OUR WILLING MILLIONS, THE RIGHT TO WORK.”

Butler was particularly useful to Roosevelt in countering the line from the bankers’ press that a Democratic victory would open the door to a “socialist America.” In an interview on Oct. 2, Butler branded that charge an “absurd myth.”

Less than a week before the election, at a rally in Queens, New York, Butler told cheering veterans that he was a:

MEMBER OF THE HOOVER FOR EX-PRESIDENT LEAGUE BECAUSE HOOVER HAD USED GAS AND BAYONETS ON UNARMED HUMAN BEINGS…. NOBODY HAS ANY BUSINESS OCCUPYING THE WHITE HOUSE WHO DOESN’T LOVE HIS OWN PEOPLE. I WAS RAISED A REPUBLICAN, BUT I WAS BORN AN AMERICAN. I HAVE NO RING THROUGH MY NOSE AND I VOTE FOR WHOM I PLEASE.”[16]

When Roosevelt won an overwhelming victory, Butler sent him another telegram of congratulations.

Three weeks before the Inauguration, when an assassin’s bullets were fired at the President-elect, Butler wondered aloud whether those bullets weren’t being ordered by a bankers’ cabal enraged that Roosevelt would not be their President.

All of this would make it seem remarkable that the Morgan interests would even consider turning to Butler as the putative leader for their fascist coup against Roosevelt.

Those behind the offers to be made to Butler also believed that every person has his price, be it monetary, sexual, or other inducement. Butler seemed easy prey: After he had left the service, his financial situation bordered on the catastrophic, and he was heavily in debt. If all the appeals to the general’s ego and all the “promises” of support for his soldier causes failed, Butler, could be “bought,” they thought.

The Synarchist Connection

On July 1, two American Legion officials visited Butler at his Newton Square, Pa. home. They were Bill Doyle, the commander of the Massachusetts American Legion, and Gerald C. MacGuire, who was a former commander of the Connecticut department of the Legion.

MacGuire was in the employ of Col. Grayson Mallet-Prevost Murphy, who ran a leading New York brokerage that traded in stocks and international bond syndications, working with the House of Morgan.

Grayson Murphy, who was on Morgan’s “preferred client list,” was a director of Morgan’s Guaranty Trust bank and several Morgan-connected corporations. He and his banking house had played an important role in syndicating Morgan loans to Fascist Italy, for which he was decorated by Mussolini.

As a member of the Mallet-Prevost clan, he was at the center of international Synarchy, and was their man on the ground for this operation. Murphy came from a long line of traitors. The Mallet-Prevost families have been central to British intelligence operations since the 18th Century. They have been involved in assassinations, in espionage and political warfare against the enemies of London, (including their control of the traitor and assassin of Alexander Hamilton, Aaron Burr, who was married to a Prevost), and their direct control of the forces that ran the mobs of the French Revolution. Through intermarriages and financial manipulations, the Mallet-Prevost interests evolved into the Schlumberger financial empire, which continues to this day to play a key role in Synarchist operations, and which played a role in the assassination of President Kennedy.[17]

Grayson Mallet-Prevost Murphy carried on his family’s tradition of treason as a high-ranking officer in a private intelligence operation that reported to the Morgan cabal, and interfaced directly with British intelligence, and reported as well to the French-Belgium networks of continental Synarchy. As early as 1903, he had been selected by President Theodore Roosevelt for secret assignments, which included planning U.S. military interventions into the Americas to collect debt, during which time he deployed directly with Morgan interests. Later, he became the head of American Red Cross relief efforts in post-World War I Europe, a post he used to develop a network of informants and operatives in European governments, again liasing to various Synarchist networks. In the 1920s, he made several “fact-finding” trips to Europe which included trips to Italy for meetings with Mussolini, prior to his 1922 March on Rome.

IN FEBRUARY 1919, THE INTELLIGENCE OPERATIVE MURPHY HAD BEEN ONE OF 200 ELITE SERVING U.S. MILITARY OFFICERS WHO MET IN PARIS WITH THE GUIDANCE OF MORGAN & COMPANY OPERATIVES AND WITH COOPERATION AND GUIDANCE FROM FRENCH SYNARCHIST NETWORKS TO FOUND THE AMERICAN LEGION. MURPHY PERSONALLY UNDERWROTE THAT OPERATION TO THE TUNE OF $125,000, AND SOLICITED ADDITIONAL FUNDS FROM ALLIES OF MORGAN IN THE INDUSTRIAL AND FINANCIAL COMMUNITY.

Murphy, it was admitted to Butler in subsequent conversations, retained his role as “kingmaker” for the Legion’s “Royal Family,” by virtue of the fact that the Legion still owed him and his friends a great deal of money.

MacGuire informed Butler that both he, MacGuire, and Doyle, were speaking for a group of “influential” Legionnaires who were extremely dissatisfied with the Legion’s current leadership, because it had betrayed the common soldier. He announced that they were planning to dislodge the current regime at an upcoming Chicago convention. They asked Butler to join their ranks, and to deliver a rabble-rousing speech against the “Royal Family.”

Butler, although sympathetic, declined their invitation, stating that he wanted to stay out of internal Legion politics.

MacGuire then revealed that he was the chairman of a “distinguished guest committee,” and was on the staff of the outgoing national commander, Gen. Louis Johnson, a former Secretary of Defense (also on Morgan’s preferred-client list). MacGuire claimed that he had had Johnson include Butler’s name on the invitation list, but that Johnson had taken the list to Louis Howe, Roosevelt’s personal political secretary, and that Howe had crossed Butler’s name off, stating that the President was opposed to any invitation of Butler. They offered no reason for this, but Doyle said that they had come up with a plan for Butler to address the convention anyway: He would be appointed a delegate from Hawaii, which would therefore give him the right to speak.

Butler, smelling a rat, declined their offer. Later, Butler said that he did not believe their story about Roosevelt being against him, and that it appeared they were trying to plant ideas in his head about the President.

A Second Try

In August 1933, Doyle and MacGuire, under Murphy’s directive, returned, with a new plan for the convention. They now agreed that it would be undignified for Butler to try to speak from the floor. The new plan called for him to gather 200-300 Legionnaires and take them by train to Chicago. They would scatter throughout the audience, and when Butler appeared in the gallery, they would stage a demonstration. Along with “allies” of MacGuire-Doyle faction, they would stampede the convention with cries demanding that Butler speak. They would guarantee that nothing would proceed until the general delivered a speech.

“A speech about what?” Butler asked. MacGuire and Murphy showed him the draft of the speech. Butler said that most of the soldiers he knew didn’t even have enough to eat, and that he had hardly any money, and he asked how he would get them to Chicago. MacGuire showed him a bank deposit book with two recent deposits, one for $42,000 and a second for $64,000. Don’t worry, Butler was told: If he could round up the soldiers, MacGuire and his friends would take care of getting them to Chicago and pay their expenses while there.

The speech Butler had been handed was a rabble-rousing defense of the gold standard, featuring a demand that the Roosevelt policy severing the U.S. from gold be reversed immediately, so that the soldiers’ bonuses could be paid with “sound money.” Butler was later to learn that the speech had been written by John W. Davis, the former Democratic Presidential candidate who was chief counsel to J.P. Morgan and Company, and the personal counsel to J.P. Morgan.

Unbeknownst to Butler, one of the funding conduits for this fascist plot was the Committee for a Sound Dollar and Sound Currency, Inc., a group backed by and composed of members of Morgan’s “preferred-client list.” MacGuire was an official of the committee, which produced a stream of propaganda calling for a return to the gold standard and denouncing Roosevelt’s policies.

A short time after the second visit, MacGuire went to see Butler again, this time alone. After listening to another pitch for him to round up 500 veterans, Butler told MacGuire that he would not risk his personal prestige unless he was told who might be standing behind him. MacGuire stated that he had the backing of “some of the most powerful men in America.” He claimed to have already a small war chest funded by nine men, with the largest contribution being $9,000 and the smallest $2,500. However, he would name only three men, showing their checks to Butler: his boss, Murphy; financier Robert S. Clark, a member of Morgan’s “preferred-client list” and an heir to the Singer Sewing Machine fortune; and John S. Mills, who married into the du Pont family. All three were members of the Committee for a Sound Dollar.

MacGuire told Butler that an expense account would be opened in Chicago with the money from the “nine men.”

In September 1933, MacGuire offered a bribe to Butler into delivering this “gold” speech, which he refused to accept. Instead, he asked to meet with one of MacGuire’s “higher-ups.” MacGuire agreed to “send over” Robert S. Clark to see him.

‘Roosevelt Is Weak’

One week later, Clark arrived by train in Paoli, Pa. to see Butler. Clark, as Butler described him, carried himself as a member of the “ruling class.” He asked Butler about the “gold speech,” and expressed amusement that Butler had thought that MacGuire or Doyle had written it. “That speech cost a lot of money,” he told Butler, and revealed that Davis had been its author. Butler stated that he didn’t see what difference it made to soldiers whether the nation was on the gold standard. Clark replied that the soldiers’ bonus must not be paid in “rubber money,” and that gold-backed dollars were the only answer.

Butler challenged him, stating that it looked like the speech was “a big business speech.” Clark replied, “I have $30 million. I don’t want to lose it. I am willing to spend half the $30 million to save the other half. If you go out and make that speech in Chicago, I am certain that they will adopt a resolution and that will be one step toward the return to gold, to have the soldiers stand up for it. We can get the soldiers in great bodies to stand up for it.”

When Butler asked why he thought that they could make Roosevelt, who was opposed to the gold standard, listen, Clark replied: “You know the President is weak. He will come right along with us. He was born in this class. He was raised in this class and he will come back. He will run true to form. In the end he will come around. But we have to be prepared to sustain him when he does.”

Butler lost his mercurial temper. He said that he would not go to Chicago and that he refused to be part of a plan to use the soldiers to impose the gold standard and force the President “back to his class.”

Clark then tried to bribe Butler: “Why do you have to be so stubborn? Why do you want to be different from other people? We can take care of you….” He offered to pay the mortgage on Butler’s house and to take care of his family.

Butler blew up. He took Clark into his trophy room, where his medals were displayed along with gifts from many poor people around the world. “I will not betray their trust,” he told Clark.

A Fascist Solution

Within a week, the Legion convention was under way in Chicago. According to a New York Times report, the convention was swamped by “a flood of telegrams” supporting the gold standard, and adopted by acclamation a resolution supporting it.

On his way back from Chicago, MacGuire stopped to see Butler, this time arriving in a hired limo. He and his cohorts had been successful in getting their candidate elected as commander and had passed the gold resolution, he boasted to the general. “Yes,” said Butler, “but I see you didn’t endorse the soldiers’ bonus.”

“Well, we have to have a sound currency before it is worthwhile to endorse the bonus,” MacGuire replied.

“Their man” was Frank N. Belgrano, Jr., who happened also to be a senior vice president of the Bank of Italy/Bank of America, the bank that handled Mussolini’s business accounts in the United States and internationally. Although the bankers had controlled the Legion from its outset, this was the first time that an actual banker had served as its head.

At the end of October 1933, Butler arrived in New York City to make some campaign speeches on behalf of a fellow Marine who was running for municipal office. To his surprise, he was met at Penn Station by MacGuire. Butler was planning on a nationwide recruiting tour for the VFW, to counter the treachery of the Legion and its Royal Family. MacGuire knew of his plans, which surprised the general. He was even more surprised when MacGuire proposed that he accompany Butler, “to talk to the soldiers in the background and to see if we cannot get them to join a great big superorganization to maintain democracy.”

This was the first time that MacGuire was to mention the creation of an organization that would essentially supersede the Legion, the first indication that something more than support for the gold standard was a goal. Butler told MacGuire that he couldn’t stop him from following him around, but that he wanted no part of such organizing, which he said would “fiddle with this form of government.” MacGuire assured him that this was not their goal, that everything would be “very democratic.”

MacGuire also offered to finance the general’s tour through payments of $750 for each speech, in which he inserted a short reference to the need for the gold standard. Butler again refused to have words put in his mouth, at any price. MacGuire left, and disappeared for a time from the scene.

The White House was made aware of MacGuire’s activities in trying to use the general to work against Roosevelt policy. On Dec. 11, a former New York City detective, an associate of the Senate Banking Committee counsel and former assistant New York District Attorney Ferdinand Pecora, Val O’Farrell, sent a confidential letter to Roosevelt’s personal secretary Col. Louis Howe, detailing the offer and praising Butler for refusing it. O’Farrell indicated that it was his belief that a plot against the U.S. government was afoot.

The bankers’ cabal began now to consider more drastic action to deal with their “Roosevelt problem.”

The keynote for what was intended was struck by none other than Morgan partner Thomas Lamont, who chose an address before the Foreign Policy Association, to heap praise on Mussolini, stating that Fascism, as an OBeconomic and political policy, works.

“We count ourselves liberal, I suppose,” he told the FPA. “Are we liberal enough to be willing for the Italian people to have the sort of government they apparently want?” asked Lamont.

Fascism, or some variant of it, he said, was not to be ruled out as policy for the United States.[18]

On Dec. 1, 1933, MacGuire left with his family for a seven-month trip to Europe, spending time in France, Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, England, Scotland, Holland, and, according to one report, Russia. He was later to report to Butler that he was on a “fact-finding” mission to study the relationship of soldiers to fascist mass movements. He was looking for something that would work in the United States.

MacGuire, to impress Butler with the powers that were backing his efforts to establish a fascist superorganization, stated that while in Paris, he worked directly from the offices of Morgan and Harges. MacGuire may have indeed established contacts with various fascist organizations, and found the structure of the Synarchist-supported “secret conspiracy” of the French Croix du Feu (Fiery Cross) a useful model for the type of organization to be created in the United States. But those behind the bond salesman and manipulator MacGuire certainly did not need to learn how to create fascist “mass” movements, of either the left or right. They had been doing so for years.

The Fascist Base for the Coup

It would be easy to dismiss the plot as improbable, if not impossible. It had, with Butler’s steadfast refusal to participate, no “man on a white horse” to lead it, and would appear to have only the slightest base among disgruntled veterans. However, with mass unemployment and despair still gripping the nation in these early days of the New Deal, before FDR’s job and infrastructure programs “kicked in,” the coup plotters believed that the climate was ripe for mass recruitment to fascism.

MacGuire sent Butler a card from the French Riviera in February. He sent another in June 1934 from Berlin.

During the Spring of 1934, money was pumped into the creation of various fascist paramilitary organizations, each of which claimed to be the protection of America from the “Red Menace” and the “New Deal.” Some were openly fascist, such as the Silver Shirts, the stormtroopers led by the Rev. Gerald L. K. Smith. Others, such as the Crusaders, spurned the fascist epithet, but nonetheless avowed fascist policy goals to crush organized labor and the “Reds.” Still others were directly funded by bankers and financiers, such as the Sentinels of the Republic, funded by the Morgan-allied Pew and Pitcarin families.

The Scottish Rite Freemasons, in the tradition of the treasonous Albert Pike, helped John H. Kirby establish the Southern Committee To Uphold the Constitution, which, like the Klan itself, was financed with “Northern money.”

In Hollywood, the actor Victor McLaglen, who was reputed to be an operative of the British Foreign Office, established the California Light Brigade, which was ready to march at a moment’s notice against any threat to “Americanism.” He was rewarded for his efforts with an Academy Award for best actor by pro-fascist Louis Mayer’s Academy of Motion Picture Arts in 1935.

All these organizations spawned cells throughout the country. They were in no way impeded in their operations by the FBI, under the direction of Masonic operative “Gay” Edgar Hoover.

This organizing, in the Spring and early Summer of 1934, took place under an intensifying media barrage about the danger of “New Deal socialism” and the threat of a “Red” takeover in the United States. Morgan mouthpiece Herbert Hoover called the New Deal “class hatred … preached by the White House,” and its policies, “universal bankruptcy.” He urged the American people to “rise up” against the menace represented by Roosevelt.

While this propaganda was directed at the Babbitts of the American middle class, there was an outright organizing campaign for fascism directed at the leaders of American industry and finance, and management-level personnel in the private sector and the government. The content of this, taken from the media of the day, is all basically the same: glorification of the economic “miracle” of Mussolini’s Italy, with the pointed inference that this form of Fascism was just what the doctor ordered to restore order in the United States.

For example, the July 1934 issue of Henry Luce’s Fortune magazine devoted its entire issue to praise of Mussolini! In an editorial by Laird Goldsborough, the British-linked foreign editor of the magazine, readers were told that “Fascism is achieving in a few years or decades such a conquest of the spirit of man as Christianity achieved only in ten centuries…. 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, and Sacrifice.”

The Plan for the Coup

On Aug. 22, Butler received a phone call from MacGuire, who said there was something “of the utmost importance” that he must tell the general that day. Butler, exhausted from a nationwide tour for the VFW, nonetheless agreed to meet him at the Bellevue Hotel in Philadelphia. In a corner of the hotel’s deserted restaurant, MacGuire laid out the plans that been hatched in Europe, and now apparently agreed upon by the coup plotters.

Now, MacGuire said, the time had come to “get the soldiers together.” He explained that the purpose of his European trip was to study organizations whose methods and structure could be adapted to American needs.

HE HAD FOUND THAT VETERANS’ ORGANIZATIONS WERE THE “BACKBONE” OF THE FASCIST MOVEMENTS IN ITALY AND GERMANY; HOWEVER, AMERICAN SOLDIERS WOULD NOT GO ALONG WITH A PARAMILITARY MOVEMENT, ORGANIZED FOR AN OVERTLY POLITICAL PURPOSE.

However, in France, he said, he had found the perfect organization: the Synarchist-linked “Croix du Feu” of de la Rocque. This organization had functioned politically, but was organized for an economic purpose. He explained that the “Fiery Cross” had a core membership of about 500,000 officers and non-commissioned officers, but that each member was responsible for organizing at least ten others, covertly, giving the organization a “fighting strength” of more than 5 million.

Butler asked what this new “superorganization” of soldiers would do. MacGuire hesitated, then answered that it would “support” the President; the general replied that Roosevelt didn’t need such support and wondered when MacGuire and his clique had become “supporters” of Roosevelt.

MacGuire responded by pointing out that Roosevelt needed money to finance the New Deal and that money came from the sale of government bonds through the banking interests that were controlled by Morgan and his allies. “There is not any more money to give him,” MacGuire now claimed. “Eighty percent of the money is now in government bonds, and he can’t keep this racket up much longer…. He has either got to get more money out of us or he has got to change the method of financing the government, and we are going to see that he does not change that method. He will not change it.”

MacGuire tried to explain that his backers were confident that they would force Roosevelt to change his policy, and the 500,000 soldiers and the millions behind them in secret organizations “would sustain him when others assault him.”

Butler questioned how Roosevelt, who had staked his personal reputation on the New Deal, would explain such an abrupt about-face.

MacGuire explained that Roosevelt did not have to “explain” it.

“Did it ever occur to you that the President is overworked?” MacGuire asked. He said that the “overworked President” needed help, and that an “assistant President” was needed. This “assistant President” would take over much of Roosevelt’s job and could take the blame for the change of policy.

MacGuire said that it “wouldn’t take any constitutional change to authorize another cabinet official, somebody to take over the details of the office—to take them off the President’s shoulders.” He mentioned that the position would be sort of a “super secretary” or what he referred to as a “secretary of general affairs.” MacGuire claimed that the American people would be more than willing to swallow this:

“WE HAVE GOT ALL THE NEWSPAPERS. WE WILL START A CAMPAIGN THAT THE PRESIDENT’S HEALTH IS FAILING. EVERYBODY CAN TELL BY LOOKING AT HIM, AND THE DUMB AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL FALL FOR IT IN A SECOND.”

MacGuire then indicated that Roosevelt was already surrounded by allies of the coup plotters. He said that the pro-fascist Gen. Hugh Johnson, whom Roosevelt had put in charge of the National Recovery Administration (NRA), and who had expressed admiration for Mussolini, was the man the Morgan group would have preferred as this general secretary. But, according to MacGuire, Roosevelt was going to fire him because he “talked too damn much.” (Roosevelt did fire Johnson, the following month.)

Butler asked MacGuire how he knew so much about what was going on inside the White House and the administration. “Oh, we are in with him all the time,” came the reply. “We know what is going to happen.”

MacGuire told Butler that, within a year from this discussion, the coup plotters wanted him to march his army of 500,000 into Washington. He stressed that there would be no revolution, that everything would be constitutional: It had all been worked out, in advance. Secretary of State Cordell Hull would resign, as would Vice President John Nance Garner; the sense given was that both these figures were “in” on the plot, or minimally, that Morgan and their allies had enough “chits” to call in that they could be counted on to do what they were instructed. According to MacGuire, Roosevelt would allow the plotters to appoint a new Secretary of State. If Roosevelt, with 500,000 men occupying Washington, was willing to “return to his class,” he would be allowed to remain on as President.

“WE’D DO WITH HIM WHAT MUSSOLINI DID TO THE KING OF ITALY,” MACGUIRE TOLD BUTLER, SAYING THAT THE PRESIDENT’S FUNCTION WOULD BECOME CEREMONIAL, MUCH LIKE THE PRESIDENT OF FRANCE.

But, if Roosevelt refused to go along, MacGuire insisted, he “would be forced to resign, whereupon under the Constitution, the Presidential succession would place the Secretary of State in the White House.” Butler was to tell a Congressional committee that MacGuire thought that all this could take place bloodlessly—a “cold coup.” All that was needed was a “show of force in Washington” and then he, Butler, would be “the man on the white horse” who would “ride to the rescue of capitalism.” An armed show of force was the “only way to save the capitalist system,” MacGuire asserted.

Butler, trying to play along with MacGuire to discover who was behind this plot, said that what was being proposed would cost a great deal of money. He was told not to worry. MacGuire already had “$3 million to start with, on the line, and we can get $300 million if we need it.”

He then told Butler that powerful people stood directly behind the plan. When he was in Europe, he reported, he had held meetings at the Paris office of Morgan & Hodges, Morgan’s Paris operation. He claimed that the Morgan group had strong reservations about Butler, fearing that he might try to double-cross them. He stressed that the others involved, however, had gotten the Morgan interests to agree that Butler was the best man to “get the soldiers together,” implying that Grayson Murphy, Clark, and he, himself had backed the general.

Butler tried to probe further, asking when there would be signs of the coming together of a larger and powerful organization which would provide public backing for this plot. He was astonished when he was told that “within a few weeks” there would be an organization of some of the most powerful people in the land who would come together to “defend the Constitution.” MacGuire explained the manner in which this organization, which he would not name, would function, using a musical analogy: It was to serve the purpose of “the villagers or chorus in an opera,” establishing the setting and the scene, for the great action to take place.

Asked for more information, MacGuire would only reveal that one of the new group’s spokesmen would be the 1928 Democratic Presidential candidate Al Smith, who until that time had backed Roosevelt and the New Deal. It was explained that Smith, who edited New Outlook magazine, would within weeks, break with Roosevelt and launch attacks on the New Deal and the administration. It had all been arranged, he told Butler, who still refused to make a commitment to the plot.

The League of Treason

As MacGuire and Butler met in Philadelphia, Jouett Shouse, a protégé of du Pont lawyer and Morgan operative John J. Raskob, who had headed the Democratic Party, assembled the press in his office in Washington, D.C.’s National Press Building to announce the formation of a new policy advocacy group, the American Liberty League.

A former Congressman from Kansas and Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during the Wilson Administration, Shouse had gained the reputation of a political “fixer,” much like the present-day Robert Strauss. In 1928, the bankers’ operative Raskob, a former director of General Motors, was moved into the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee, running the disastrous election campaign of Al Smith, ensuring a Hoover victory. Not wishing to give up control of the party to the political machines, Raskob brought in Shouse as the executive director of the National Committee. As soon as Roosevelt was in a position to do it, he moved to get rid of both of these “inside” men.

Shouse claimed that the Liberty League would be a mass-based movement, whose intention it was, as the next day’s headline on the front page of the New York Times declared, “To Scan New Deal, ‘Protect Rights.’ ” The Times printed the entirety of Shouse’s statement, which had been prepared in conjunction with Raskob. This new organization would, according to Shouse, “unite several millions of people from all walks of life who are now without organized influence in legislative matters.”

There were, said Shouse, “no covert purposes. There is no object sought beyond the simple statement in our charter…. The League aims to do just what is outlined in its charter, to organize those who believe in upholding property and constitutional rights into a vocal group,” Shouse told the press. “It is not intended to be antagonistic to the administration. We intend to try to help the President.” Asked how such a group could “help” the President, Shouse replied: “If a tendency towards extreme radicalism developed which the President wished to check, we might be most helpful with our organization in which we expect to enlist 2,000,000 to 3,000,000.”

Shouse announced that a group had been self-selected to serve as the League’s initiating executive committee. All of them were Morgan-allied stooges: Morgan’s lawyer, John W. Davis, the former Democratic Presidential candidate; Irénée du Pont, who ran the du Pont fortune, at that point controlled by the Morgan interests; Nathan Miller, the former GOP Governor of New York and a Morgan preferred-client list member; Rep. James Wadsworth (R-N.Y.), a supporter of the gold standard; and Al Smith, the “Happy Warrior” who had been totally corrupted by Morgan money and who had headed the corporation that built and ran the Empire State Building.

Shouse showed the press letters from financiers, business leaders, and politicians from all over the country, applauding the League’s formation.

A few weeks later, this group was expanded to include additional prominent leaders of finance and business, with a heavy emphasis on Morgan allies. On its advisory council were, among 200 others: Dr. Samuel Hardin Church, who ran the Carnegie Institute in Pittsburgh, and who was a mouthpiece for the Mellons; W.R. Perkins of National City Bank; Alfred Sloan, the man the Morgans selected to run General Motors; David Reed, a U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania, who in May 1932, said on the floor of the Senate, “I do not often envy other countries and their governments, but I say that if this country ever needed a Mussolini, it needs one now”; E.T. Weir of Weirton Steel, who was also known as a supporter of Fascism. On its executive committee was Morgan stooge and former New York Supreme Court Justice Joseph M. Proskauer, the general counsel to the Consolidated Gas Company, who later became the chief spokesman against the anti-Nazi boycott; J. Howard Pew of Sun Oil and the funder of the openly fascist Sentinels of the Republic; and Hal Roach, the Hollywood producer, who, like many of his peers, was an open admirer of Mussolini, and who was later to become a partner with Mussolini’s son in a Hollywood production company, RAM (“Roach and Mussolini”) Films, Inc.

The League’s treasurer was none other than Grayson Mallet-Prevost Murphy.

Despite all the publicity and statements from Shouse, the League never recruited large numbers of people, nor was it really intended to. It was a sham, intended to give the appearance of mass resistance to Roosevelt, and to offer a constant attack on his policies.

One week earlier, Shouse had gone to the White House to brief the President on the new organization, and ascertain the President’s advance knowledge, while seeking a statement of support for League from FDR; no such statement ever came.

Roosevelt returned to Washington on Aug. 24 and held his weekly press conference. He had avoided all comment on the League until them, but when asked, he had a ready reply. The Liberty League, he told the press, was founded “to uphold two of the Ten Commandments,” the ones nominally dealing with protecting property. It said nothing about protecting the average citizen, or of helping the unemployed and others in need. In short, said the President, it didn’t deal with anything that was covered by that most important Commandment, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” The League was fine as far as it went, he said, but it was stopping short of doing what was Christian and necessary. He couldn’t support it because of that problem, but whether other people want to or not, is “none of my business,” he said, laughing.

The League’s attack on Roosevelt started in late November, after the Fall Congressional elections. In the last four months of 1934, it spent about $94,000; the next year it was to spend just under $390,000, mostly on the publication and circulation of pamphlets, leaflets, and bulletins attacking Roosevelt’s policies. The League also received millions of dollars in free publicity for its “authoritative” views from very friendly press and radio networks. This operation, in all its forms, was the most sophisticated multi-media smear campaign in history up to that point.

The Plot Is Exposed

After the Aug. 22 meeting, and the quick succession of events that MacGuire had matter of factly “forecast,” including the appearance of the Liberty League, Butler became convinced that a network, centered around the powerful Morgan interests, had indeed launched a “live” coup operation against the government in Washington.

Butler decided that it was his duty, regardless of the consequences that might befall him and his family, to expose the plotters, to the extent of his knowledge of that plot. He had been both controversial and in the public eye for some time; he realized that all those involved in the plot would simply deny it, using their influence over the press to ridicule him for publicity seeking. He therefore decided to take a risk, and seek help in at least corroborating some of the key information, before he went public.

Butler turned to Tom O’Neill, the city editor of the Philadelphia Record with whom he had become friends during his stint fighting the underworld as the city’s appointed anti-crime czar in the 1920s. O’Neill was flabbergasted by the report of the coup plot, but knowing how the Morgan interests operated in his own city, he didn’t doubt that they were capable of treason. He assigned his star reporter, Paul Comley French, to investigate the story. French, who also wrote for the New York Evening Post and who was later to become the director of the Committee for American Relief in Europe (CARE), was set up by Butler to talk to MacGuire, posing as an intermediary to discuss the general’s further participation in MacGuire’s plans.

In early September, French went to see MacGuire at his offices on the premises of Grayson M.P. Murphy and Company in New York. In the meeting, French was able to substantiate every allegation about the plot that Butler had attributed to MacGuire. But the bond salesman chose to be even more frank with French than he had dared to be with the general. He made it clear that those backing the coup were interested in destroying the Presidency and in creating an American form of fascist government.

“We need a fascist government,” French was to quote MacGuire as saying, in his testimony before a Congressional committee, “to save the nation from the Communists.” MacGuire repeated this theme several times during his conversation with French. Taking the bait that French was operating as Butler’s “agent” in negotiations, MacGuire told him that his backers would have no problems coming up with $1 million immediately to organize Butler’s “army.” MacGuire said that all he needed to do to get the money was to place phone calls to Morgan attorney John W. Davis and W.R. Perkins of National City Bank, and to some other people of similar status. MacGuire also revealed that several national commanders of the American Legion, including Louis Johnson, Henry Stevens, and the present commander, the banker Frank Belgrano, were all in favor of the plot and would back it.

MacGuire, seeing that French was more interested in questions of policy than the crusty general, informed French that his backers had already devised a plan to end unemployment:

“It was the plan that Hitler had used in putting all of the unemployed in labor camps or barracks—enforced labor. That would solve it overnight.” He also claimed that they would force everyone in the nation to “register” and carry identification papers

. “He said that would stop a lot of these communist agitators who were running around the country,” French later told the Congressional committee.

MacGuire reported that those behind him were going to deliberately create a financial crisis for the administration. They were prepared to choke off credit to the New Deal programs, force interest rates higher, and force the rates that the government would have to pay to borrow up toward then-astronomical level of 5% or more. This, MacGuire said, would produce a “new crash.” He then described how the crash would unleash the “left,” creating new agitation and disruptions, especially among the growing numbers of new unemployed. With the nation consumed in chaos, the time would be right for the “man on the white horse” to ride into Washington, overturn the elected government, put an end to “Presidential rule,” and start a new, fascist era for the nation.

MacGuire told French that it would be no problem getting the soldiers Army weapons from the du Pont-controlled Remington Arms Company; the du Pont interests were fully in support of the plans, MacGuire stated.

French went to see MacGuire once more, on Sept. 27, again at the offices of Grayson M.P. Murphy and Co. in New York. MacGuire said that things were moving along nicely. ” ‘Everything is coming our way’ is the way he expressed it,” French told the committee.

With corroboration in hand, Butler felt it now was necessary to go public. Before he could make his decision on how to proceed, he was approached by investigators for the Special House Committee To Investigate Nazi Activities in the United States.

That committee would soon have its Congressional mandate changed to focus primarily on “Reds,” evolving still later into the House Un-American Activities Committee, which became even more noxious under the leadership of Rep. Martin Dies. But at that moment, its leadership was controlled by allies of Roosevelt. The committee had, through its own sources, heard of a plot to overthrow the government that had involved General Butler. It was arranged for Butler to testify in executive session on Nov. 20, when the committee was in New York.

Butler welcomed the chance to testify, but was concerned that it was going to be behind closed doors. This would allow for managed news coverage, which could be leaked to the media from the committee staff. It would also mean that, with the plotters controlling the press, there would be no assurance that his story would ever be made known to the American people. Butler and French decided on an insurance policy: Three days before he was to testify, French broke the coup story simultaneously in The Record and The Post, under the banner headline “$3,000,000 Bid for Fascist Army Bared”; the story featured direct statements from Butler, naming most of the names he was later to reveal in his testimony.

Butler Names the Names

As the hearing opened on Nov. 20, Butler thought it necessary to make a brief statement concerning his involvement in the plot: “May I preface my remarks, by saying sir, that I have one interest in all of this and that is to try to do my best to see that democracy is maintained in this country?”

Cutting him short, committee co-chair Rep. John McCormack, Democrat of Massachusetts, who was later to become Speaker of the House, stated, “Nobody who has either read or known about General Butler would have anything but that understanding.”

Butler then proceeded to tell the story, in the great detail that we have described above. He was asked for clarification on several points. The general provided what additional details he could, but never ventured into speculation, sticking to the statements made directly to him by those involved in the conspiracy.

He was followed as a witness by Paul Comley French, who, from his own direct contact with MacGuire, was able to corroborate all the pertinent details of the fascist plot, and added additional details revealed by MacGuire, including the fascist policies preferred by the coup’s backers. In all, their testimony lasted approximately two hours.

Butler and French were followed in the afternoon by Gerald MacGuire, the employee of Grayson M.P. Murphy who had served as the intermediary for “the higher ups” to General Butler. MacGuire meekly claimed that he was merely a $150-a-week bond salesman, and denied that there was any plot. He told the committee that he had merely gone to talk to the general about buying some bonds.

Committee investigators produced evidence that the bond salesman MacGuire handled funding for various operations outside “normal business,” for the banker Robert S. Clark, for whom he did not work. It was revealed that he was the treasurer for the Committee for a Sound Dollar, Inc., which was widely known to be a front for Morgan and other large financial interests. Caught in his own lies, MacGuire offered no explanation of how he became involved in this activity, but claimed that it had nothing to do with any conversations with General Butler, whom he described as a “personal friend.”

Several times, under direct examination, MacGuire denied having asked Butler to lead any organization of soldiers or having discussed any plans to march “troops” on Washington.

Members of the committee found MacGuire’s denials unconvincing; they ordered him to return the next day for further questioning.

On Nov. 21, the New York Times, a paper that Heywood Broun once described as “black with the shoe polish of Morgan,” took the lead in this campaign, with a front-page, two-column article under the headline:

“General Butler Bares ‘Fascist Plot’ To Seize Government by Force.”

Having already put the words ‘fascist plot’ in quotes, the paper led with:

“A PLOT OF WALL STREET INTERESTS TO OVERTHROW PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT AND ESTABLISH A FASCIST DICTATORSHIP BACKED BY A PRIVATE ARMY OF 500,000 EX-SOLDIERS AND OTHERS, WAS CHARGED BY MAJOR GENERAL SMEDLEY D. BUTLER, RETIRED MARINE CORPS OFFICER, WHO APPEARED YESTERDAY BEFORE THE HOUSE UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES COMMITTEE, WHICH BEGAN HEARINGS ON THE CHARGES.”

The Times avoided providing on the front page an account of the charges as given by the committee co-chairs, and instead, citing “sources in Philadelphia,” the paper claimed that Butler had named Morgan and Murphy as being behind a plan under which the former NRA administrator Hugh Johnson “was scheduled for the role of dictator.”

What followed on the front page was a string of denials or ridicule of the charges from those prominent people named: “Perfect moonshine! Too utterly ridiculous to comment upon,” said Morgan partner Thomas Lamont. “A fantasy! I can’t imagine how anyone could produce it or any sane person believe it. It is absolutely false as far as it relates to me and my firm, and I don’t believe there is a word of truth in it with regards to Mr. MacGuire,” said Grayson Murphy. “It’s a joke! A publicity stunt! I know nothing about it. The matter is made up out of whole cloth. I deny it completely,” said Gerald MacGuire. “He had better be pretty damn careful. Nobody said a word to me about anything of this kind and if they did, I’d throw them out the window. I know nothing about it,” said Hugh Johnson.

Only on the jump page, did one find some details of what Butler had charged, and statements by committee co-chair Rep. Samuel Dickstein (D-N.Y.), that Butler had substantiated much of what had been attributed to him in previous press reports. “From present indications,” Dickstein is quoted as saying, “Butler has the evidence. He’s not going to make these charges unless he has something to back them up. We’ll have names here with bigger names than his.”

The article ended with another denial by Grayson Murphy of any involvement, terming reports of his involvement “an absolute lie.”

That same day, Nov. 21, 1934, MacGuire entered the committee room with his lawyer, and the doors were closed once again. Once again, he denied all charges that he had approached General Butler with plans for a fascist coup, or that he had asked Butler to lead an army of ex-soldiers on Washington, D.C.

MacGuire did not know that the investigators for the McCormack-Dickstein committee already had in their possession letters from MacGuire to Clark and his lawyer Albert Grant Christmas, describing the former’s search, at the latter’s request, for an appropriate fascist organization, while on his all-expenses-paid junket to Europe.

In answer to many specific questions, MacGuire feigned a loss of memory: “It’s too far back … I can’t recall.”

Emerging from the hearing room, Representative Dickstein told reporters, supposedly off the record after MacGuire’s testimony, that the bond salesman was “hanging himself” by contradictions in his account of events, and by forced admissions when confronted with evidence developed by investigators.

Mangling the News

The New York Times of Nov. 22 pulled the story off its front page, placing it on page 5, in one column, under the headline “Inquiry Pressed in ‘Fascist Plot.’ ” It led with MacGuire’s denials of all charges. Committee co-chair McCormack stressed that all testimony would be withheld. Backtracking, McCormack now said that the committee was undecided as to calling any other witnesses, or whether there would be a public hearing.

The Times and those who dictated its policy were clearly upset by what was occurring and didn’t think it sufficient to merely mangle and manage the news. Its lead editorial was entitled, “Credulity Unlimited,” and began: “A Washington correspondent asked: ‘What can we believe?’ Apparently, anything, to judge by the number of people who lend a credulous ear to the story of General Butler’s 500,000 Fascists in buckram marching on Washington to seize the government. Details are lacking to lend verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative…. The whole story sounds like a gigantic hoax. General Butler himself does not appear to more than half credit it. He and some others, however, ask us to follow the famous saying of Tertullian: ‘I believe it because it is impossible.’ It does not merit serious discussion, but if the army and the navy authorities, or the Congressional committee can develop any ‘facts’ about it, let them do so quickly, so as to prevent this nation from appearing as gullible as were the Germans in the case of the Hauptmann von Kopenick,” the innocent person the Nazis blamed for the Reichstag Fire.

With the Times editorial setting the tone, there began a smear and ridicule campaign against Butler. New York’s Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia, who was known as the “Little Flower,” but who more appropriately should have been called the “Little Fascist,” a lover of the Fascist program of Mussolini, coined the term “cocktail putsch” to describe the Butler story: It’s a joke of some kind, he told the wire services; “someone at a party had suggested the idea to the ex-Marine as a joke.”

It was decided that, given the extreme interest in Butler’s remarks and in the speculation taking place about them, the committee would issue a summary of what it had found during the executive sessions. In a statement announcing the committee’s intentions, McCormack said that the committee would reveal “several important inconsistencies” between MacGuire’s testimony and what he was telling the press—which the press was subsequently quoting and portraying as “fact.” The Congressman emphasized that General Butler could not and should not be accused of “publicity seeking” in going public with his exposure of the plot.

On Nov. 26, the committee released an 8,000-word statement summarizing the testimony and providing details of the plot. It showed that MacGuire swore several times his denial of the details of Butler’s testimony about the expenditure of monies for purposes described in the general’s testimony, only to have committee investigators substantiate each of the general’s claims.

However, the attention of most of the press focussed on the first paragraph of the summary statement: “This committee has had no evidence before it that would in the slightest degree warrant calling before it such men as John W. Davis, General Hugh Johnson, General James G. Harbord, Thomas W. Lamont, Admiral William S. Sims or Hanford MacNider. The committee will not take cognizance of names brought into testimony which constitutes mere hearsay….”

Whatever was being done by the committee was being worked out directly with the White House, and most likely with Roosevelt himself. That was the reason for the hinting about the calling of big names, and then the apparent pullback from that posture. From the point that Butler had stepped forward and likely even before that, the White House knew that it had caught its enemies in the act of treason. From the point of its public revelation, prior to the committee hearing, by the reporter French, and then in the hearing itself, the attempted fascist coup was a dead letter: It could no longer happen as planned, under any circumstances.

The Morgan interests and their allies were named by Butler, and now their names appeared in the first paragraph of the committee’s summary. There had been 16 people named by Butler, but of those 16, the names of Morgan lawyer Davis, Morgan partner Lamont, supposed Morgan stooge Johnson (whom Roosevelt had fired as NRA administrator), and Morgan operative MacNider, were placed in the first paragraph. Meanwhile, left open was the possibility of calling Clark, his attorney Christmas, and Grayson Murphy, the treasurer of the Liberty League.

Dickstein had sent Roosevelt a copy of the report. Roosevelt sent the Congressman a reply on Nov. 30. “I am very interested in having it,” wrote the President. “I take it that the committee will proceed further.”

The plotters also ordered an intensification of the ridicule of General Butler. The vehicle chosen was Time magazine, the Luce interests’ mass circulation “current events” rag. Under the headline “Plot Without Plotters,” the Dec. 3 Time ran a parody of Butler’s testimony as its lead article. After mocking details of the plot, Time wrote: “Such was the nightmarish page of future United States history pictured last week in Manhattan by General Butler himself to the Special House Committee investigating un-American activities. No military officer of the United States since the late tempestuous George Custer has succeeded in floundering in so much hot water as Smedley Darlington Butler.”

Interviewed 27 years later by author Jules Archer, the still-feisty McCormack commented: “Time has always been about as filthy a publication as ever existed. I’ve said it publicly many times. The truth gets no coverage at all….”

FROM AROUND THE COUNTRY, VFW POSTS SENT LETTERS OF SUPPORT TO PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT, COMMENDING BUTLER FOR EXPOSING THE PLOT. VFW COMMANDER VAN ZANDT GAVE RADIO INTERVIEWS SUPPORTING THE STATEMENTS OF GENERAL BUTLER. OTHER LETTERS WENT TO NEWSPAPERS DEMANDING FAIR COVERAGE OF THE GENERAL’S STATEMENTS. BUTLER HIMSELF TOOK TO THE AIRWAVES STARTING JAN. 4, 1935, ON WCAU IN PHILADELPHIA, REPEATING THE CHARGES HE HAD MADE BEFORE THE COMMITTEE AND DEMANDING THAT ACTION BE TAKEN AGAINST THOSE POWERFUL INTERESTS, LED BY THE MORGANS, WHO WOULD IMPOSE A FASCIST REGIME ON AMERICA.

Coverup

With the hearings concluded, Dickstein stated in February 1935, “The country should know the full truth about these reputed overtures to General Butler. If there are individuals or people who have these ideas and plans such as he testified to, they should be dragged out into the open.”

The Morgan lobbyists pulled whatever levers they had to let the investigation die. It would have taken direct intervention from the White House to force the issue, but no such intervention was forthcoming.

On Feb. 15, the committee published its findings in a report submitted to the House, on its full investigation. The section dealing with the Butler testimony began with the following paragraphs:

“In the last few weeks of the committee’s official life, it received evidence that certain persons had made an attempt to establish a fascist organization in this country.

“No evidence was presented and this committee had none to show a connection between this effort and any fascist activity of any European country.

“There is no question that these attempts were discussed, were planned, and might have been placed in execution when and if the financial backers deemed expedient….

“The committee received evidence from Major General Smedley D. Butler (ret.), twice decorated by the Congress of the United States. He testified before the committee on conversations with one Gerald C. MacGuire in which the latter is alleged to have suggested the formation of a fascist army under the leadership of General Butler.

“MacGuire denied these allegations under oath, but our committee was able to verify all the pertinent statements of General Butler, with the exception of the direct statement suggesting the creation of the organization. This however was corroborated in the correspondence of MacGuire … while MacGuire was abroad studying various forms of organizations of fascist character….”

The committee had thus stated that it had confirmed a plot to seize the government of the United States by force, organized by interests whose control by Morgan and allied circles was already widely established. However, that was as far as it went: There would be no prosecution of the individuals and entities named by Butler and confirmed by the committee to be at least contemplating a seditious, fascist plot against the lawful government of the United States.

With the Times in the lead, the national media now buried the story or did not cover it all.

The story would have probably stayed buried, had it not been for a discovery made by the journalist John L. Spivak, who wrote for the Communist-linked magazine New Masses. He had been tipped by a source in Washington that the committee’s report had been “sanitized,” that sections of General Butler’s testimony had been deleted, especially the parts where he named some of the Wall Street conspirators, other than Clark, Murphy, and MacGuire, and including the references to Morgan partner Thomas Lamont and John W. Davis, the Morgan lawyer, as well as Butler’s statements about the American Liberty League. Somehow, the unexpurgated transcripts, which confirmed the censorship, were handed to Spivak.

Butler took to the radio in a campaign denouncing the committee for bowing to the power of Wall Street and for censoring his remarks. Meanwhile, Spivak published an exposé of the coverup in New Masses, charging a wide-ranging conspiracy to bury the true origins of the plot and political deals to protect those who would commit treason.[19]

Butler Is Tamed

As for the straight-talking General Butler, he was placed under effective control of the same traitorous crowd he sought to destroy.

Shortly after the hearings, “Gay” Edgar Hoover was dispatched to personally solicit the general’s “advice” on crime fighting; he quickly became a trusted confidant of Butler. The general who had exposed the attempt to impose a fascist police state now became a gushing admirer of Hoover and his police-state tactics. Unbeknownst to Butler, Hoover kept close tabs on all the general’s activities, including his associations with “leftists” such as Spivak.

Becoming increasingly discouraged by Roosevelt’s policy of rearmament, which he mistook for a “racket” directed by Wall Street, Butler broke with the President. His speeches became more and more pacifist, even as the threat of the expansion of Fascism in Europe became more real. Butler fought against any use of American troops overseas, and any use of troops at all, unless the United States itself were attacked.

However, Butler continued to make reference to the “Wall Street plot,” as he made thousands of talks to groups of all kinds and sizes across the country. He died on June 21, 1940 probably of cancer, only hours before France was to surrender to Hitler.

The next day, the Times printed a flattering obituary, calling him “one of the most glamorous and gallant men who ever wore the uniform of the United States Marine Corps … a brave man and an able leader.” The paper added that he was often a “storm center” and that “It was when he ventured into public affairs that his impetuosity led him into trouble.”

President Roosevelt sent personal condolences to Butler’s family: “I grieve to hear of Smedley’s passing…. My heart goes out to you and the family in this great sorrow.”

In 1971, former Speaker of the House John McCormack told Jules Archer that Roosevelt and the nation owed General Butler a debt of gratitude for his exposure of the Morgan plot:

“If General Butler had not been the patriot that he was, and if they [the plotters] had been able to maintain their secrecy, the plot certainly might very well have succeeded, having in mind the conditions existing at the time…. If the plotters had gotten rid of Roosevelt, there is no telling what might have taken place.”

Conclusion: The Synarchist Conspiracy

Most investigators of this plot, including contemporaries, look at the evidence provided above, and brand the plot “Wall Street” in origin. But as we have indicated, the majority of the U.S. “players” and operatives, while having connections to the House of Morgan, etc., are also connected to powerful sections of British oligarchy, and with direct connection to the networks of international Synarchy, especially those France- and Belgium-based interests that were directly involved in the creation of the Hitler and Mussolini regimes. The “Morgan Coup Plot,” as it was called then, was part of the same drive for fascism that produced the Hitler and Mussolini regimes, which is broader than “Wall Street” or even “British.”

Just as with the drive for fascism today, behind it are the entirety of what LaRouche has called the “slime mold” of oligarchical financial interests, led by international Synarchy. While Butler, the committee members such as McCormack, and Spivak did not understand this principle, FDR, later given special intelligence from his operatives, had a deeper understanding of this enemy and the danger it represented, as well as its control of aspects of the U.S. economy through international cartel operations.

The coup plot was not defeated by mere exposure, though this played a crucial role. It was FDR, and his recovery program, coupled with this exposure—the “pitiless publicity” focussed on the financier conspirators—that defeated the plotters. Today, we have no FDR in the White House, and instead, find the Presidency in the clutches of the fascist conspirators and their henchmen like Dick Cheney; and we have the Congress, especially the Democratic opposition, manipulated by the fascist Felix Rohatyn. The leadership and program to defeat the coup must come from elsewhere: Lyndon LaRouche and his wing of the Democratic Party are the only chance this nation has for survival.

——————————————————————————–

[1] There has been a long line of pro-fascists who have argued that the Nazis gave fascism a bad name. This is similar to the argument used by the late pro-fascist economist Abba Lerner in his 1971 debate with Lyndon LaRouche, where he maintained that if people had only listened to and followed Nazi Economics Minister Hjalmar Schacht’s austerity policies Hitler would not have been necessary. It is also the genesis for 1970s promotion by the Rockefeller Trilateral Commission circles of the idea of marketing “fascism with a human face.”

[2] In the last two years, two putative authors have contacted this author for information about the coup plot, with one maintaining that there is interest in a possible Hollywood movie on the subject.

[3] Wealthy “tories”—loyalists to the British side in the American Revolution—founded the banks in Boston and New York which crystallized in the 19th and early 20th Centuries as the British strategic outpost called Wall Street.

[4] It was a matter of public scandal that the Harriman family in the 1920s and 1930s openly funded and supported conferences featuring leading Nazi eugenicists, and more generally promoted eugenics, including forced sterilization “experiments” in this country. See the research of Robert Zubrin on the Harriman eugenics connection in Anton Chaitkin, Treason in America (New York: Franklin House, New York 1984).

[5] L. Wolfe, “The Battle for the Soul of the Democratic Party: How the Roosevelt Revolution Reshaped the Democratic Party,” American Almananc, New Federalist, July 26, 2004, Vol 27 for information on Raskob and Davis efforts to lose the 1932 election for FDR, including their failure to mobilize various party machines. Roosevelt overcame this through building his own “grassroots” movement that essentially took over the party.

[6] Roosevelt had more than a keen interest on Hamilton and his policies, dating back to his senior thesis on the subject at Harvard.

[7] As Governor of New York, FDR and his trusted aide Harry Hopkins helped craft a relief and public/conservation works program that was the model for larger programs during the New Deal.

[8] Quotes from FDR speeches are taken from John Gabriel Hunt, ed., The Essential Franklin Delano Roosevelt (New York: Gramercy Books, 1995).

[9] See the earlier version of this article, most recently published in Tony Papert, ed., The Synarchist Resurgence Behind the Madrid Train Bombing of March 11, 2004), LaRouche in 2004; also Richard Freeman, “Then and Now: Why Roosevelt’s Explosive 1933-1945 Recovery Program Worked,” EIR, April 26, 2002.

[10] Ibid.

[11] See Marriner S. Eccles, Beckoning Frontiers (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1951).

[12] Ibid.

[13] Eccles, a Mormon, was involved with mining and lumber production, before he got into banking. In his autobiography, Eccles writes that the Depression taught him two things: that everything he had ever thought about economics was wrong, that there was an absolute necessity for man, acting through his constitutional government, to intervene to reverse actions of malfeasance and negligence, to revive the economy. The arguments against government intervention to put people to work at socially and economically necessary tasks and to provide relief from suffering were “nothing more than the determination of this or that interest, specially favored by the status quo, to resist any new rules that might be to their disadvantage…. I saw [that] men with great economic power had an undue influence in making the rules of the economic game, in shaping the action of government that enforced those rules, and in conditioning the attitude of people towards those rules….” Eccles says that the wealth of the nation is really defined in physical and not monetary terms, and in placing a premium on the value of physical and creative labor that produces wealth. While stating that he is not a Keyensian or any kind of believer in economic “theories,” he expounds a philosophy of banking that demands the determination of the value of an asset, not in monetary terms, but in its long-term worth to the economy; it were better to lend for things of long-term real worth, that have the potential to add real wealth over time than to seek to maximize short-term monetary profit. Eccles became a fully committed advocate of using government funds and credit to create employment in productive work, for the long-term benefit of the nation. In that way, while not a Hamiltonian, he was determined to use the Fed, as its chairman, for this purpose of national banking. Not surprisingly, once FDR was gone, Truman wasted little time in removing Eccles from the Board chairmanship, at the behest of powerful New York banking interests.

[14] The reports on the Senate Testimony come from a number of sources, including the transcripts of the McCormack-Dickstein hearings; also, Ferdinand Pecora, Wall Street Under Oath (New York: 1939).

[15] Reports on the details of the coup plot and testimony come from a number of sources, including committee transcripts and its final report; Jules Archer, The Plot To Seize the White House (New York: Hawtorne Books, 1973); John L. Spivak, “Wall Street’s Fascist Conspiracy, Parts 1 & 2,” New Masses, Jan. 29 and Feb. 5, 1935. Butler’s speeches are quoted in these articles and contemporary press accounts.

[16] The theme of the enemy being a clique of “economic royalists” and “Tories” was later picked up and hammered home by FDR as President, as his way of identifying the Synarchist and other financial powers that were the enemies of the nation.

[17] For a history of these treasonous families and networks, see Chaitkin, op. cit. For more on the Synarchist networks, see Papert, op. cit., and Dr. Clifford Kiracofe, “The U.S.A.: Fascism Past and Present,” EIR, July 7, 2006.

[18] Taken from the Foreign Policy Association’s transcript of his remarks, as reported in Archer, op. cit.

[19] In 1935, the popular novelist Sinclair Lewis created a bestselling novel about the coup, entitled It Can’t Happen Here. Lewis presents the story of a financier and big business plot that overthrows a popular President who had moved to challenge their power, deposing him with a populist hero, “a man on a white horse;” the novel deal with the resistence to this fascist coup. Lewis created a screenplay out of his novel, only to have the pro-fascist Louis B. Mayer purchase all rights to it, under the pretext of doing a movie in 1936; the movie censorhsip board, headed by the Wall Street asset, Will Hays, deemed the subject too controversial, and Mayer put the screenplay into a vault where it remains today.

Also published by Veterans Today: Suppressed History: When Wall Street Tried to Bring The Holocaust to America


Fair Use Notice

Flyby News film-TV-video productions and website contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

 


Flyby News is educational and nonviolent in focus,
and has supported critical campaigns for a healthy
environment, human rights, justice, and nonviolence,
since the launch of NASA’s Cassini space probe in 1997.

News Fit to Transmit in the Post Cassini Flyby Era


307595_4130695745053_1210616031_n

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

JFK Files – Trump trumped by CIA

Proof of Cover-up – Trump trumped by CIA

For twenty-five years files from US-paid research regarding the November 22, 1963 assassination of US President John F. Kennedy was again put on hold by President Trump. The Law signed by President George Bush, Sr. on October 26, 1992 gave the final release date for October 26, 2017, except that Trump asked the CIA and other officials if there is information there they need to continue to withhold. This is not only proof of a cover-up, but another example that whoever is US President since the 1963 coup d’etat, the CIA and other intelligence groups declare what they believe is in “national security interests” and the collapsed Republic continues to make believe we have rule of Law. This was true for Hitler’s Germany; it all could be done and claimed to be “legal,” but fascism holds on with a mighty grip with ruthless results when one connects the dots to policies engaged since November 22, 1963.

30 October, 2017 – Consortium News – Ray McGovern
Deep State’s JFK Triumph Over Trump

16 November, 2017 – Facebook – Oliver Stone
Thoughts on the JFK Files

October, 2017 – Mary Ferrell Foundation – Rex Bradford
What Happened Thursday with the JFK Records

26 October, 2017 – Archives.gov
JFK Assassination Records – 2017 
Additional Documents Release

JFK - Nov 22 - gctv -

Dark Legacy – JFK & 9-11 is a 2012 Flyby News film compilation that uses an array of films and music in a sequence that could help break the spell of mind control for many. Awakening to what is going down in our civilization and environment is vital in order to best deal with current realities. The clips used are some of the most revealing and creative work during times of universal deceit.

Dark Legacy – JFK & 9-11

Part 1 – running time – 0:56:00
(Sept. 11, Star Trek, Lyn Margulis, Wellstone)

Part 2 – running time – 1:28:00
(JFK, Fed. Reserve, Lunar Lunacy, Democracy)

^Watch Online^

Short Version – 58 minutes – Online Film

Dark Legacy: JFK & 9/11
Subjects of parts 1 and 2 reversed

Also available on YouTube

“If the United States ever experiences an attempted coup
to overthrow the government it will come from the CIA.
The Agency represents tremendous power and total
unaccountability to anyone.”

Kennedy knew a coup was coming

JFK and the unspeakable

KEY UPDATED RESOURCES

JFK Assassination 1963 Coup D’etat

Evidence of fraud, US 1969-1972 lunar missions

Energy Pollution’s Impact On Our Environment

 Resources for reclaiming a lost USA Republic

New 9/11 Investigation vs New World Order


Flyby News is educational and nonviolent in focus,
and has supported critical campaigns for a healthy
environment, human rights, justice, and nonviolence,
since the launch of NASA’s Cassini space probe in 1997.

News Fit to Transmit in the Post Cassini Flyby Era

307595_4130695745053_1210616031_n

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment