The Continuing Vatican Scandal

[Editor's Note: This article may highly offend our Catholic readers, so discretion is requested. We do not intend to offend those who are innocent of the misdeeds reported below, but we do not shy away from the truth.]

The recent news of Pope Benedict's resignation surprised the world as a near Black Swan event, the first papal resignation in 600 years. But those believing that his resignation is due to the frailties of old age might be candidates for a time share in the Brooklyn Bridge. The real reason for his departure is to be out of the room when feces hit the fan over the Roman Catholic Church’s trail of scandals.

 

The corruption of the Roman church is legendary and stretches back over centuries, so the eruption of yet another scandal should surprise no one with a modicum of objectivity and historical perspective. The sexual molestations and rapes of boys and men by Roman Catholic cardinals continue unabated as a recent ABC News report made clear.

 

The latest scandal involves the Cardinal of Los Angeles, Roger Mahoney, who has been accused of sexually assaulting seminary students for years. According to Jim Willie, there are strong indications that these sexual rituals practiced in the Vatican were the straw which broke the Pontiff’s back, leading to his decision to resign.

 

We believe that this story ultimately ties in to the male prostitute rings operated by GOP heavy hitters in the Midwest and which saw a burgeoning of missing children appearing on milk cartons in the 1970s and 1980s because they had been abducted into slave prostitution. The sex ring still operates today and involved the first Bush White House with the “suicide” of lobbyist Craig Spence in 1989, with one witness reporting George Bush, Sr as a paying customer for underage girls at one power party.

 

The confluence of political and religious power explains why the sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church continues, and why these clerical criminals are protected in the USA. The furor over the scandal from the 1990s may have subsided, but the assaults have not followed suit. All of that come to Jesus malarkey displayed by the Church was but crocodile tears.

 

But that is not all to the story of the former and avid Hitler Youth. Willie also reports that the Vatican is in the crosshairs of criminal investigators who link it with drug money laundering having its origins in Afghanistan. Willie previously reported the bailout of Bank of America – with Italian roots – by George Bush, Sr. who loaned it his enormous pile of drug money in 2010 – heroin being one of the chief exports of Afghanistan and most likely the primary reason for America’s aggression in that country outside of the desire for a pipeline from the Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean expanding the tentacles of the Seven Sisters.

 

With impending exposures of drug laundering, it is no wonder that the Pope wants to be out of Dodge when indictments start flying and paparazzi start flashing.

While we acknowledge the need for a trial to evaluate the evidence, substantial legal documents paint a damning picture of the Cardinal and the Vatican, as ABC News reported. We are not holding our breath for justice as the men involved in these sordid affairs frequently control the levers of justice.

References

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/pope-benedict-resignation-clouded-scandal-british-cardinal-resigns-18596359

Gritty Questions on the Historic Collapse, Jim Willie, 2/27/2013, http://news.goldseek.com/GoldenJackass/1361998800.php

Copyright 2013 Tony Bonn. All rights reserved.

Rethinking Lenin

Painting of Vladimir Lenin, Isaac Brodskey

Vladimir Lenin  (1870 - 1924) cast a long shadow over 20^th century political theory and praxis, but in the United States he has been painted as an extremist Communist. We think that this portrait is an exercise in historical Dadaism designed to cover up more duplicitous political goals.

 

Although The American Chronicle is focused tightly on American history, we will reach across our borders when foreign topics are required to better understand our own history by providing necessary context. Lenin is one such subject requiring closer examination because most of popular and right winged politics hinges upon making him the bane of 20^th century existence and the cause of the Red Scare hysteria of the post war years.

 

Lenin ruled briefly the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics from 1918 to 1924, although the practical period of his reign ended in 1922 when a series of strokes incapacitated him. He was a Bolshevik who established a number of very progressive laws including legalization of abortion, civil rights for women, universal health care and education, land reform – all of which makes him nearly indistinguishable from an American Democrat. But this underscores a point in American politics – the only difference between a Republican and Democrat is about 10 – 20 years. There is no substantive difference between the two parties.

 

Recent research has revealed that Lenin was assassinated by Josef Stalin (1879 - 1953), the dictator who succeeded him, an act concealed by the dilapidated state of the ruler’s health. This murder by Stalin marks a strong division in Soviet history wherein the former ruler was co-opted by the usurper in order to establish his bonafides to succeed to the throne.

 

Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote a profound essay many years ago explaining the distinctions between Russia and the Soviet Union – a conflation of which many Americans were wont to indulge due in large part to propaganda induced ignorance. The author noted that the two entities were almost antithetical to each other, the former being a theistic nation of pious people – if only outwardly in some cases - while the latter was an atheistic wasteland.

 

Solzhenitsyn made his most cogent case comparing the cultures of the two nations by calling on Dostoyevsky as the archetype of the Russian soul and pointing to a barren, desiccated consistory of Soviet command artists as the emblem of Soviet communism.

The same divide exists in Soviet history at the time of Lenin’s death in which he represented the aspirations of the revolutionaries whose goals were generally peaceable while Stalin ruled with an iron fist, machine guns, and gulags.

The 1930s were a time of devastation over much of the world but none more so than in Stalin’s USSR during which time he engaged in countless bloody purges to rid the country of Bolshevik or Leninists influences. His enforced collectivizations resulted in deaths by the millions, most of which were by starvation.

Lenin had insisted on peaceful negotiations with all parties, including the Mensheviks, White Russians, and others hostile to his reforms. This protocol represented the first phase of the October Revolution which was punctuated by the ensuing civil wars between the Red Russians and White Russians, with the latter being a revanchist atavism to the Tsarist imperium.

Although an atheist, Lenin tolerated the Orthodox Church and was a strong opponent of anti-semitism - putting him at considerable odds with the Tsars.

All of this changed with the rise of Stalin whom Lenin had sought to remove from power at the 13^th Party Congress in 1924. But as previously noted, failing health and Stalin’s assassination short circuited his plans.

Apres Lenin, le deluge. We have already noted Stalin’s massive party purges and murders, especially in the Ukraine. Many of the deprivations and disasters – particularly famines and starvations – of the post war years were not in any way attributable to Lenin’s agriculture policy. Rather they were the deliberate consequences of Western banksters depriving the Russians of food in order to discredit the Revolution.

In fact, so hostile were Western powers to the October Revolution that British general W Thompson rounded up Bolsheviks in Aberzaijan to murder them in cold blood without trial.

The Western press glorified the Stalin revolution with glowing reports of its progressive and prosperous society all through the 1930s – especially the New York Times and Walter Duranty. Why would the capitalist paper of record conceal the brutalities of Stalin? The most probable reason - in our mind - is that it was influenced and controlled by the banksters who so abhorred the October Revolution. They – such as the Rockefellers and DuPonts – were extra busy during the 1920s and 1930s establishing totalitarian regimes in Europe and the United States. They did not want anyone to understand the brutality of Stalin’s regime.

While we do not find Lenin terribly attractive either as a person or ruler, we are in great accord with him in his recognition that reforms were desperately needed in Russia, and that the isolated, aloof, arrogant aristocracy had outlived its usefulness. On the other hand, Lenin was, according Bertrand Russell, quite modest though rather doctrinaire in his beliefs - a man devoid of pretensions or entitlement.

All of this contrasts with the popular portraiture of Lenin as a Stalinist, ruthless dictator. We encourage Americans to revisit their perceptions of Lenin in light of these disclosures as he was probably the best outcome in all possible Russian worlds at the close of World War I.

References

Lenin's Stroke: Doctor Has a Theory, New York Times, May 7, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/08/health/research/lenins-death-remains-a-mystery-for-doctors.html?_r=0

Lenin: The Original Dictator? Per-Ake Westerlund,  Socialism Today, February 2004, http://www.socialistalternative.org/literature/lenin/

Vladimir Lenin. (2013, February 22). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 02:04, February 27, 2013, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vladimir_Lenin&oldid=539562767

Alexander Solzhenitsyn essay of unknown origin

Copyright 2013 Tony Bonn. All rights reserved.

The Collapse of the Silver Standard



Comstock Miners c. 1885

Orthodox economic theory asserts that the disappearance of silver from the economic lexicon was due, at least in the United States, in large measure to the abundance of silver, and its consequent debasement. Professor Fekete offers a more interesting and compelling theory by charging the collapse of silver to an international banking cartel seeking to obtain a stranglehold on the world’s money supply.

We should note that Dr Fekete is not your standard issue conspiracy theorist – a label from which he explicitly attempts to disassociate. He is a highly distinguished mathematician by métier and monetary scientist by avocation, having established – without conscious effort – the field of what we at the The American Chronicle call auroeconomics, in conjunction with a renaissance in Austrian economics, a flame kept alive by the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, among others.

In fact, Fekete offers an experiment to his hypothesis which would potentially prove or disprove his speculation. He outlines the data analysis required to verify his theory in his article which we cite in our References section. We urge our more scholarly readers to inspect it. It is this scientific and scholarly approach which earns Fekete our undying admiration.

However, leading up to this experiment, Fekete presents a fascinating case for the collusion of international banksters in demonetizing silver which precipitated the evaporation of its value. The primary predicate for these collusions was that banksters found gold an easier target to manipulate since its mining and availability were in fewer hands than silver. As a rarer substance, its stores and mines, as well as its value, would be easier to manage .

While Fekete avoids examining the reasons for seeking such control, we do not. There has long been a cabal of plutocrats and intellectuoids who seek to control the world because they believe themselves to be smarter than everyone else, and should thus dictate their lives. Having accumulated so much wealth, what else is there to do but control men’s souls?

According to the establishment economists, silver’s price collapsed due to its over abundance, particularly in the United States, such as that found in the fabled Comstock Lode in Nevada. Since silver was now too plentiful, it lost one of its primary characteristics as money – namely that its price was no longer inelastic. As such silver as money went the way of the dodo bird even if it took nearly a century until 1965 to accomplish.

Fekete notes two alternate, possibly synchronous, events explaining the collapse of the price of silver and its subsequent demonetization. One is the Franco Prussian war of 1871 in which the victor Germany demanded and received from France 1 billion dollars worth of gold. This hoarding of gold anticipated the last closing of any mints to the free mintage of silver by the Latin Monetary Union in 1878.

Ten years earlier, in 1868, the first shot against silver in America was fired when Senator John Sherman – the same man who gave us the Sherman Anti-Trust Act – proposed legislation demonetizing silver. Although unsuccessful at first, demonetization occurred through Coinage Act of 1873 which closed the mint to the free coinage of silver.

During the same period, the Resumption Act of 1875 authorized the retirement of Greenbacks by redemption in gold specie beginning in 1879. Those controlling the levers of power conspicuously avoided redemption in silver, which would have maintained bi-metalic money. Seeing the divergence – most likely through engineering it – certain banksters began a 10 year program of reconfiguring their assets from silver to gold.

This is the point at which Fekete introduces his experiment of measuring the standard deviations of various gold and silver spreads to see if causality can be identified in the banksters’ actions by measuring prices of commodities and mining shares.

Debts once contracted in silver would now be payable in gold, thus extracting a pound of flesh from the debtor – in this case the Confederate mortgagor, among others. With silver demonetized, its demand quickly waned while that of gold sharply rose. The sudden demonetization of silver both in Europe and in America would explain the deflationary tendencies associated with the gold standard because heretofore the majority of wealth was held in silver given its greater availability.

The friction between the gold bugs and the common man came to a head in the presidential campaigns of William Jennings Bryan - truly a man of the people - who deplored this cross of gold on which the multitude were being crucified.

Fekete notes that the unconstitutional closure of the mint to silver was ostensibly a protective measure to preserve the mint’s supplies of gold since they was under constant pressure due to arbitrage in America and overseas – particularly India and China – where silver had a greater value. But this explanation is a snow job designed to confuse rather than explain. The deliberate actions of politicians and banksters suggest a more duplicitous operation of defrauding large groups of peoples of their wealth. The elimination of the false ratio between gold and silver would have handily rectified the price discrepancy which motivated the arbitrage trade.

While we have omitted some important aspects to Fekete’s dissertation, we have presented enough to whet some readers’ appetites – we hope. The main point is that the opening of the western silver mines did not precipitate the collapse of silver prices – rather its legal demonetization was the causal factor – both in America and Europe.

Reference

Antal Fekete, The Silver Saga, November 30, 2012, http://professorfekete.com/

Copyright 2013 Tony Bonn. All rights reserved.

The Gulf War Hoax

Many Americans remember the First Gulf War as America’s 20^th century version of a splendid war, redolent of the quick victory this country had over Spain in the Spanish American War nearly a century earlier. The truth, we believe, is much stranger than a made for Hollywood war.

If anyone stops to think about the events surrounding the First Gulf War, he is struck by the facileness of it all. First is the casus belli in which the evil Saddam Hussein sends his imperious military into neighboring Kuwait to seize its oil. Then George Bush waxes indignant about a big bully picking on a small weak neighbor, telling him to get out or else. Soon the United States whips up a frenzy of support for war followed by a massive deployment of troops to the Middle East – which must be made safe for something. Shortly thereafter, the combined arms doctrine and high tech weapons of the United States and its coalition of the willing launch Desert Storm to expel Hussein’s forces which fold like a cheap suit faster than you can say fake war. Then everyone hails the liberator for his heroism and Americans can feel good again about being an arsenal for democracy.

As we wipe the tears from our bleary eye, we stand erect, proud once again to be an American. The story sounds good and even played out well, but as with all of America’s foreign escapades, it was a complete crock.

Saddam Hussein was a close ally of the Bush family whose collaborations went back at least decade when the CIA helped install Hussein as despotic dictator of Iraq – a country he ruled with a heavy hand much as the Shah ruled Iran with his dreaded CIA trained SAVAK Gestapo.

After installing Hussein, the CIA encouraged him to invade Iran whose clerics had just over turned the CIA’s pet ruler in the Middle East. So unprepared for war were the Iranians that they were sending 12-16 year old boys to fight the Iraqi troops who were using CIA supplied weapons.

When Bush came to full power, he planned to implement elements of the Plan for a Renewed American Century which outlined a sequence of nations for regime change. Hussein would stage an attack on Kuwait to provide a provocation for American intervention. The plan included the launching of those stupid SCUD missiles against Israel to secure their involvement.

Once American troops were positioned, they would never leave. The United States has a permanent presence in the Middle East – not to secure peace or stability – but to secure oil for the West and more specifically for the fabled Seven Sisters.

As American troops began their attack, Iraqi resistance began to melt faster than snow on a Panama beach. The meltdown was so severe that American forces had trouble corralling and feeding the tens of thousands of surrenderers. At the same time, American troops put on a spectacular show of arms and high tech gadgetry to impress the folks back home into spending more billions on war tricks.

Bush chased the Iraqi troops back to Iraq were he stopped cold – not because of any improprieties in crossing the border or killing mostly unarmed troops – but because the Iraqi dictator had played his part and there was no hard feeling between friends.

We strongly believe that due to what we know about the relationship between Bush Sr and Hussein, and the cartoonish nature of the war that it was an elaborate ruse to gain American military bases and presences throughout the Middle East – not for the benefit of Americans, but for the benefit of the Bush Crime Syndicate and its oil lusting masters. He who controls the oil makes the rules.

Copyright 2013 Tony Bonn. All rights reserved.

The Origins of the Iranian Hostage Crisis

Most Americans of a certain age recall the incessant coverage of the Iranian hostage whose 444 days of drama ultimately doomed the hapless Carter presidency. Unfortunately Americans were not told the truth of the matter which would shape the region for the next 2 generations but whose omission we attempt to rectify herein.

The immediate cause for the Iranian students taking 52 American hostages was the admission of the Shah of Iran to the United States for medical treatment. The two men who agitated for this exception to Carter’s policy against the Shah were Henry Kissinger and David Rockefeller, whose emissary John McCloy lobbied Carter relentlessly for admission of the Shah.

Why would the Iranian students react with such hostility to an ostensible act of dying mercy? The reason is that the Shah showed absolutely no mercy to anyone during his wretched murderous reign modeled after those of Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin. The Shah’s vicious SAVAK secret police ruthlessly rooted out adversaries, especially those seeking a nationalist tilt in Iranian foreign policies.

That kind of a stance directly contradicted the Western oil barons who coveted Iran’s vast oil supplies. In fact the CIA installed the Shah to power in 1953 by staging a coup against the democratically elected Mohammad Mosaddegh who nationalized British Petroleum (BP Oil) oil assets in Iran. Up to that point, Iran had been largely a British foot stool from whom to extract prodigious amount of petroleum.

Unfortunately, the British were in a tight squeeze and in the process of unwinding their once vast empire. So they turned to the United States to recover the oil assets. The CIA under John Dulles was only too happy to oblige and promptly murdered Mosaddegh.

Once he was out of the way, the CIA installed Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as the new Shah, a man who acquiesced quite willingly to Western demands and to Western ways of violence through the establishment of the CIA trained SAVAK. This Gestapo organization kept a tight lid on matters until the late 1970s when the Shah's health began to fail.

Now who would have such a keen interest in Iranian oil? British Petroleum certainly did but so did the United States and more specifically David Rockefeller. But in 1979 the interest was not so much oil as the presidency. The CIA was desperate to remove Carter from office, with the Secret Service cooperating again in political assassination just as it did in 1963 at Dealey Plaza, Parkland Hospital, and Bethesda Naval Hospital.

Rockefeller, McCloy, and Kissinger – all of whom are proto-Nazis – were setting Carter up for a big failure. Carter, against his better judgment, allowed the Shah to enter the United States when he should have had him dropped from a helicopter. Rockefeller also knew that admission of the Shah into the country would have deleterious results which is the prime reason why he badgered Carter into a policy reversal.

Carter took the bait whic sunk his administration into a hopeless tar pit of impossible electoral consequences. It is conceivable that the students were acting under direction from the CIA but we have not been able to confirm that theory. In any event, the nightly news reporting was drummed up – as in the Watergate days by the CIA – to topple the president.

In the meantime, George Bush Sr’s political ally Saddam Hussein was convinced to invade Iran, thus starting the bloody Iran-Iraq war which saw young children sent to war as soldiers. Thus creating a need for weapons, Bush went to Paris and Switzerland to negotiate an arms exchange for the hostages. Of course the timing of it – 5 minutes after Reagan’s swearing in to office – was a pointed gesture to Carter of who was in control. That made the third president of whom Bush had disposed since he murdered Kennedy. He would momentarily attempt his 4^th political assassination.

We do not believe that Reagan had any knowledge or participation in the arms for hostages deal – it being all the handiwork of Bush; but we are open to facts which show otherwise. We do know that Bush was hyperactively busy – not going to dead heads of state funerals – but expanding the arms program into the Iran Contra scandal whose political fallout nearly sunk the Reagan presidency courtesy of his devious vice president.

We know that this is a lot of information to digest, but the events in the Middle East are largely the orchestrations of the CIA and have been so since the end of World War 2. The Bush Crime Syndicate and Rockefeller Axis of Evil are intent upon establishing their pavilion of war in the lands of oil. Much more interesting events will transpire next in Iraq and Syria.

Copyright 2013 Tony Bonn. All rights reserved.