"Lost American History"
"When the Media Lost It's Soul"
In order to "get to the bottom" of any historical event, story or where the credibility of it's accuracy or it's authors intentions are being questioned, one must go back to that period in time and begin by researching and investigating the facts. It is also necessary to make sure that the resources being used are credible.
By using "credible" sources and gathering as much detail and information as you can, you should be able to have a more complete look at your subject matter. You will, in many cases discover information that has either been excluded, incomplete or changed that in the end will give it's readers an inaccurate, incomplete or deceptive accounting of the information that is being reported. You will find this additional information extremely valuable in getting at the truth.
For our purposes we decided to go back and take a better look at some of our American history. We wanted to take a look at who was informing and influencing the American people just after the turn of the century in the early 1900's. We wanted to see how ordinary people received news and information about their government and how it was being taught in schools. We also wanted to see how historians, economists and journalists may have influenced the information that people were reading.
It's also important to remember that from the time leading up to the Industrial Revolution during the early 1870's and well into the early 1900's the only method available for the "ordinary people" to receive information was through their local newspapers or a limited number of books and that was providing they could read.
The first story that we would like to share with you is about the media. It took place in 1915 but wasn't discovered until 1917 during a session in Congress.
Before we go into the details of this event there are a few things that you need to know. You will hear a couple of terms used throughout history to describe, according to some, who the real rulers of our government are: "power behind the throne" and "the Establishment" are two that seem to be used most frequently.
The first term was coined by Sir William Pitt speaking before Britain's House of Lords in 1770. He declared that "there is something behind the throne greater than the king himself" thus creating the term "power behind the throne."
In the U.S. during the 20th century Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter (no kidding) used this phrase when he said:
"The real rulers in Washington are invisible and exercise power from behind the scenes." Apparently the existence of a group of U.S. secret power elites have been acknowledged, by a number of prominent Americans.
On March 26, 1922, the Mayor of New York City, John F. Hylan said in a speech: (Don Bell, "Who Are Our Rulers?," American Mercury, September 1960)
"The real menace of our "Republic" is the invisible government which, like a giant octopus, sprawls its slimy length over our city, state and nation. At the head is a small group of banking houses generally referred to as "international bankers." This little coterie (look it up) of powerful international bankers virtually run our government for their own selfish ends."
Even Franklin D. Roosevelt wrote in a letter to an associate dated November 21,
1933: (F.D.R.: His Personal Letters (New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1950)
"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, a financial element in the large centers has owned the government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson."
As far as the second term "Establishment" is concerned, it is the term that many Americans use today to describe our government. However there are others who have described it for generations as a general term used for the power elite in international finance, business and professions in government. It is said that these are the people who have the majority of the power, no matter who is in the White House. It is in fact a legitimate word defined by many dictionaries as an "exclusive group of powerful people who rule a government or society by means of private agreements and decisions." Well anticipated decades ago, the thought of the American people agreeing to such an arrangement of an exclusive group of elitists running our government would have been out of the question. Particularly because we have been taught that our government, according to our Constitution, "be of the people, by the people and for the people" and NOT a private few.
As reported by Columnist Edith Kermit Roosevelt, granddaughter of President Theodore Roosevelt, in an article entitled "Elite Clique Holds Power in U.S.," Indianapolis News, December 23, 1961:
"Most people are unaware of the existence of this "legitimate Mafia." Yet the power of the Establishment makes itself felt from the professor who seeks a grant to the candidate for a cabinet post or State Department job. It affects the nation's policies in almost every area.
So now that you have a little bit of untold reference under your belt we can step back into the pages of history to 1917 in Washington, D.C., on the floor of the House where we will meet Congressman Oscar Callaway. He has asked that the following statement be inserted in the Congressional Record: (Congressional Record February 9, 1917,Volume 54, page 2,947)
"In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, shipbuilding and powder interests and their subsidiary organizations got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press of the United States."
"These 12 men worked the problem out by selecting 179 newspapers and then begun, by an elimination process, to retain only those necessary for the purpose of controlling the general policy of the daily press throughout the country. They found that it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers. The 25 papers were agreed upon; emissaries were sent to purchase the policy, national and international, of these papers; an agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies and other things of national and international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers. . . . "
"This policy also included the suppression of everything in opposition to the wishes of the interests served."
The press, now controlled, had the ability to very successfully persuade the American people to support our entry into World War I which is what it was intended to do from the outset.
In the years to follow a number of books appeared, challenging the justification for our involvement in WWI along with the wisdom of Colonel House (Woodrow Wilson's alter ego) and his colleagues in devising the Versailles Treaty. (more later on the Versailles Treaty). A couple of the most notable were Harry Elmer Barnes', "Genesis of the World War" (1926) and Sydney Fay's, Origin's of the World War (1928) along with many others.
After World War II, "the Establishment" decided to eliminate the investigation and recounting of WWI that had been written about for over twenty years. A renown historian by the name of Charles Beard, a former president of the American Historical Association stated in an editorial piece in the Saturday Evening Post in 1947:
The Rockefeller Foundation as well as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) intend to prevent, if they can, a repetition of what they call in the vernacular, "the debunking journalistic campaign following World War I."
Translated into precise English, this means that the "foundation" and the "council" (more on these later) do not want journalists or any other persons to examine too closely and criticize too freely the official propaganda and official statements relative to "our basic aims and activities" during World War II. In short, they hope that, among other things, the policies and measures of Franklin D. Roosevelt will escape in coming years the critical analysis, evaluation and exposition that befell the policies and measures of President Woodrow Wilson and the Entente Allies after World War I.
(Charles Beards "Who's to Write the History of the War?," October 4, 1947).
Dr. Beard also noted that the Rockefeller Foundation granted (payed) the Council on Foreign Relations $139,000 which in turn commissioned a Harvard Professor by the name of William Langer to write a three-volume chronicle of World War II. There were a number of other historian/writers whose accountings of the war closely resembled those of Professor Langer's. All of the authors of the "approved" versions of the war were granted exclusive interviews, given access to government documents, statesman's diaries, were assured of publication and given rave reviews from the New York Times Book Review. Coincidentally, the majority of these men served in the administrations that they wrote about.
However, the "other side of the coin" was not so shiny for those historians who chose to question foreign policy under Roosevelt and Trumen. Those historians such as Charles Beard, Harry Barnes and John Flynn as well as others who chose to tell a more truthful account of what "should have become" our history, found themselves "blacklisted" by the publishing world who had previously welcomed there writings. Money, power and control now ruled not only the news across the country but the publishing world as well.
As the result of an old devoted friend at the Yale University Press, Dr. Beard managed one last time before his death to author two more volumes, critical of the Roosevelt administration. He died in 1948 and was smeared in the media as having been senile.
Several years after Dr. Beards death, in 1953, Harry Elmer Barnes wrote, "Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace," (Caldwell, Idaho: Caxton, 1953) where he described how the censorship process worked:
"The methods followed by the various groups interested in blacking out the truth about world affairs since the 30's are numerous and ingenious. Aside from the subterranean persecution of individuals, they fall mainly into the following patterns or categories: (1) excluding scholars suspected of revisionist views from access to public documents which were freely open to "court historians" and other apologists for the foreign policy of President Roosevelt (FDR); (2) intimidating publishers of books and periodicals, so even those who might wish to publish a book or an article with a revisionists view, wouldn't dare do so; (3) ignoring or obscuring published material which embodied revisionist facts and arguments; and (4) smearing revisionist authors and their writings.
During the 1950's there were only two small publishing companies in the entire United States - the Henry Regnery Company and the Devlin-Adair Company that showed any willingness at all to publish books which frankly aimed to tell the truth to the causes and issues of WWII.
Mr. Barnes admitted to being told by two of the largest publishing houses in the country that no matter what their personal wishes were regarding the circumstances, they did not feel that it would be ethical to endanger their business and the property rights of their stockholders by publishing critical books about American foreign policy since 1933. There was justified reason for their hesitation. The book clubs and main sales outlets were controlled by powerful pressure groups which are opposed to the truth in such matters. These outlets not only refused to sell critical books in the field but also threatened to boycott other books by those publishers who defy their "blackout ultimatum."
The elitists, now through fear, were able to control from "behind the scenes" the individuals who now did the controlling. The historical suppression described by Dr. Barnes still operates today. In more recent years American policy and policy makers have been savaged as with Vietnam. However, such episodes did not bruise the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR, more about them later) or it's allies; instead they would discredit, shame or discount those people whom the "Establishment" disliked and the very policies it had always opposed (or seem to oppose, like nationalism and anti-Communism).
What we have operating today in America is an "Establishment" media. New York Times editor, John Swinton once said: "There is no such thing as an independent press in America except perhaps in a small town."
The only exception to that has been the Internet. But having said that, several months ago Larry Summers former advisor to the current President appeared on C-span talking about the purchase of bandwidth made by the President with your tax dollars from the Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the Stimulus Bill) and was proposing some of the things that they were talking about doing with this new purchase which included auctioning off a portion. This apparently had taken place over a number of months between 09' and 10'. Didn't know? We wouldn't have known either had several people not seen it. Not many Ameericans watch C-span especially in the day time.
We were curious to know if that was something Congress and the Senate knew about when they voted for the "Stimulus Bill" and just how the government purchasing bandwidth would create jobs or was it once again one of those things that our elected officials voted for without reading or were they "encouraged" to vote for it by some of "the powers behind the throne."
Since then we have heard numerous reports about a variety of people who for whatever their reasons or agendas want certain people, news shows, TV/radio personalities etc., removed from the Internet, radio, TV or where ever because they disagree with their opinions on a variety of issues.
Didn't back then or doesn't now the First Amendment apply if one is not an elitist but merely has a difference of an opinion and wants to share that opinion also with the American people? Is it not called giving people a variety of perspectives and allowing them to make their own decisions rather than continuing to controll them and the media as they have for over one hundred years? Or does the Internet become just another target like the newspapers of the early 1900's that started this whole control "thing" sanitizing and pasteurizing what we read, watch and hear?
So now it begins. In upcoming articles we will continue to share some of our history as it should have been told. Because it is by uncovering the truth that we are able to see some of what has been omitted from our history books and hidden from the American people. These things did not happen by themselves and they did not happen overnight. There is a direct correlation with what has been kept from us and what is going on today in our government, our economy and the world.
If we know honestly about how some of these things came to be initially and how they should have worked then we will be able to better understand why they are failing today. Social Security for example and the way it was originally set up and what they were supposed to have done with our money but instead what they actually did with it, will make much more sense.
Knowing that it is pointless to talk about ANY KIND of financial reform until we first understand our "debt based banking system" and the roll that the Federal Reserve plays in our economy is the first step to true financial reform and getting our country back on the road to financial stability.
Until next time, we hope that you will begin to look at the way the majority of the media reports the news. Begin watching several stations reporting the same stories and see if you pick up any differences in the way the stories are told. Then begin doing your own research and investigating on. This IS OUR COUNTRY and each one of us NEEDS to take responsibility and ownership of that which is ours.
Thank you reading this "lost piece of American history." We hope that you enjoyed it and more importantly learned something!
We have to take care of her if she is going to take care of us!!!
Reources: Just to mention a few.
U.S. Code (Tax)
Voting Records of Elected Officials (State and Federal)