If President Barack Obama and his administration are not lying in the lead-up to a probable bombing campaign of Syria it will be a rare exception among US Presidents, particularly since their public duplicity concerning war dates to at least the early twentieth century. Indeed, being forthrightly dishonest to the American people concerning the rationales for engaging in foreign wars has become a century-old White House tradition. The historical record of past presidents’ prewar and wartime hucksterism is unambiguous, greatly contributing to the immense bloodshed and destruction that continues under the country’s reckless international leadership to this day.


 Thomas Woodrow Wilson, Harris & Ewing bw photo portrait, 1919.jpgWoodrow Wilson: Sinking of the Lusitania–World War I, 1917-1918

“It is a war against all nations. American ships have been sunk, American lives taken, in ways which it has stirred us very deeply to learn of, but the ships and people of other neutral and friendly nations have been sunk and overwhelmed in the waters in the same way. There has been no discrimination. The challenge is to all mankind. Each nation must decide for itself how it will meet it. The choice we make for ourselves must be made with a moderation of counsel and a temperateness of judgment befitting our character and our motives as a nation. We must put excited feeling away. Our motive will not be revenge or the victorious assertion of the physical might of the nation, but only the vindication of right, of human right, of which we are only a single champion.” April 2, 1917

 FDR in 1933.jpgFranklin D. Roosevelt: Embargo against Japan, Pearl Harbor—World War II, 1941-1945

“Yesterday, December 7th, 1941 — a date which will live in infamy — the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan. The United States was at peace with that nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific.It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time, the Japanese government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.” December 8, 1941

A middle-aged Caucasian male wearing a dark business suit and wireframe glasses is depicted smiling pensively at the camera in a black-and-white photo.Harry S. Truman: Threat of Communism, Violation of UN Charter–Korean War 1950-1953

“On Sunday, June 25th, Communist forces attacked the Republic of Korea. This attack has made it clear, beyond all doubt, that the international Communist movement is willing to use armed invasion to conquer independent nations. An act of aggression such as this creates a very real danger to the security of all free nations. The attack upon Korea was an outright breach of the peace and a violation of the Charter of the United Nations. By their actions in Korea, Communist leaders have demonstrated their contempt for the basic moral principles on which the United Nations is founded. This is a direct challenge to the efforts of the free nations to build the kind of world in which men can live in freedom and peace. This challenge has been presented squarely. We must meet it squarely. . . .” July 19, 1950

37 Lyndon Johnson 3x4.jpgLyndon B. Johnson: Tonkin Gulf Incident, “Domino Effect”—Vietnam War, 1964-1974; “War on Poverty”

“Last night I announced to the American people that the North Vietnamese regime had conducted further deliberate attacks against U.S. naval vessels operating in international waters, and therefore directed air action against gunboats and supporting facilities used in these hostile operations. This air action has now been carried out with substantial damage to the boats and facilities. Two U.S. aircraft were lost in the action. After consultation with the leaders of both parties in the Congress, I further announced a decision to ask the Congress for a resolution expressing the unity and determination of the United States in supporting freedom and in protecting peace in southeast Asia. These latest actions of the North Vietnamese regime have given’ a new and grave turn to the already serious situation in southeast Asia.” August 5, 1964

Richard Nixon.jpgRichard M. Nixon: “Vietnamization”; Bombing of Cambodia, 1969-1973; “War on Crime”

“Tonight, American and South Vietnamese units will attack the headquarters for the entire Communist military operation in South Vietnam … This is not an invasion of Cambodia … We take this action not for the purpose of expanding the war into Cambodia but for the purpose of ending the war in Vietnam and winning the just peace we all desire. We have made we will continue to make every possible effort to end this war through negotiation at the conference table rather than through more fighting on the battlefield…. The action that I have announced tonight puts the leaders of North Vietnam on notice that we will be patient in working for peace; we will be conciliatory at the conference table, but we will not be humiliated. We will not be defeated.” April 30, 1970

Official Portrait of President Reagan 1981.jpgRonald Reagan: Threat to American medical students—Invasion of Grenada, 1983; Bombing of Libya, 1986; US vs. “Evil Empire”–Cold War 1981-1989; “I don’t recall.”—Iran-Contra; “War on Drugs”

“In all, Reagan said ‘I don`t recall’ or ‘I can`t remember’ 88 times in the eight hours of testimony on Iran-Contra on Feb. 16-17, 1990,” the New York Times observes.

“I remember being told that there were certain levels of government or agencies and so forth that were not prohibited by the Boland Amendment, and I remember that. And this was in connection with my telling us that we must stay within the law and so forth. And I never challenged or questioned what I was told about that or something else because, not being a lawyer myself, but being surrounded by a number of them in government, I figured that I was hearing the truth when they told me that something could be done and still be exempt from the Boland Amendment.” February 16-17, 1990

George H. W. Bush, President of the United States, 1989 official portrait.jpgGeorge H. W. Bush: “Drug indicted dictator” Manuel Noriega—Invasion of Panama, 1989; “Incubator Babies Story”–Gulf War, 1991; “War on Drugs” (continued)

“And I am very much concerned, not just about the physical dismantling but of the brutality that has now been written on by Amnesty International confirming some of the tales told us by the Amir of brutality. It’s just unbelievable, some of the things at least he reflected. I mean, people on a dialysis machine cut off, the machine sent to Baghdad; babies in incubators heaved out of the incubators and the incubators themselves sent to Baghdad. Now, I don’t know how many of these tales can be authenticated, but I do know that when the Amir was here he was speaking from the heart. And after that came Amnesty International, who were debriefing many of the people at the border. And it’s sickening.” October 9, 1990

Bill Clinton.jpgWilliam J. Clinton: “Humanitarian Intervention”—NATO bombing of Bosnia and Herzegovina 1995; “Humanitarian Intervention”—NATO bombing of Yugoslavia 1999

“Our humanitarian coordinator, Brian Atwood, who just returned from the region, has described an elderly Albanian woman he met in a camp outside Tirana. She saw all the male members of her family and most of the men in her village rounded up by Serbian authorities, tied up, doused with gasoline, and set on fire in front of their families. It’s the kind of story that would be too horrible to believe if it were not so consistent with what so many other refugees have been saying. What we need to remember is that this is the result of a meticulously planned campaign, not an isolated incident of out-of- control rage, a campaign organized by the government of Belgrade for a specific political purpose –to maintain its grip over Kosovo by ridding the land of its people. This policy must be defeated.” April 28, 1999

George-W-Bush.jpegGeorge W. Bush: “Al Qaeda” attack of 9/11—Afghanistan, 2001-present, “War on Terror,”—2001-present; 9/11 and Iraq’s alleged “Weapons of Mass Destruction”–Iraq 2003-present

“Facing clear evidence or peril, we cannot wait for the final proof–the smoking gun–that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs and deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring.” October 6, 2002

U.S. President Barack Obama is photographed standing in front of the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office of the White House, December 6, 2012.Barack H. Obama: “Humanitarian Intervention” and “Responsibility to Protect”—NATO Bombing, Guerrilla War in Libya, 2011; “Humanitarian Intervention” and “Responsibility to Protect”—Guerrilla War in Syria 2011-present

“In a volatile situation like this one, it is imperative that the nations and peoples of the world speak with one voice, and that has been our focus … Yesterday a unanimous U.N. Security Council sent a clear message that it condemns the violence in Libya, supports accountability for the perpetrators, and stands with the Libyan people. Like all governments, the Libyan government has a responsibility to refrain from violence, to allow humanitarian assistance to reach those in need, and to respect the rights of its people.  It must be held accountable for its failure to meet those responsibilities, and face the cost of continued violations of human rights.” February 22, 2011

Republished at GlobalResearch on September 1, 2013.

Leave a Reply

63 thought on “A Century of Lies”
    1. Hi Al….I wanted to thank you for dropping the link and of course looking around in the site I found a link to this document. I had seen bits and pieces of this particular document over the years but never enough to completely grasp the bigger picture. The document is 41 pages long, but well worth the read and quite astounding in content.

      It was a long time ago that I actually realized the word ‘war’ presents semantic problems where it is not always what we think war is. The above document makes that so clear.

      Thanks again and let us hope that we can non-violently turn ourselves around and out of this madness.
      As usual James, thanks for your unique input.

  1. The Military-Industrial complex:
    Use it or lose it!
    If we didn’t use our military, we might have to cut back on spending and – gasp! – LOWER TAXES!
    (Heaven forbid the feds should ever reduce spending and lower taxes)

  2. Have you seen this?

    That the rebels may have in fact caused the problem, and possibly even not deliberately at this time.

    Memory Hole wrote, On 8/30/13 1:34 PM: > James posted: “If President Barack Obama and his administration are > not lying in the lead-up to a probable bombing campaign of Syria it will > be a rare exception among US Presidents, particularly since their public > duplicity concerning war dates to at least the early twe” >

  3. It’s a vicious cycle, our economy is like a house of cards, dependant upon the military industrial complex to sustain itself. Without a war of some kind, you would be laying off millions of government workers, not including those civilians who support war efforts, and those who manufacturer guns and weapons. Sandy Hook was not an effort to remove guns from the public it was actually more of a covert effort to get more people to buy both guns and ammunition and it worked. There ought to be a shrine to Eisenhower for warning us about this. War, what is it good for, absolutely nothin’..say it again!

  4. Our taxpayer dollars are being used to buy weapons for our enemies while our government conspires to confiscate our guns.. Interesting that a polititian would use the term false flag…
    Wonder when the MSM is going to run this report from a respected 20 year Middle Eastern reporter and Associated Press, BBC and NPR correspondent Dale Gavrak? .
    You forgot the war on women, which has been very successful in demeaning, dividing and yes, I call it murdering, a large portion of the population!

  5. This was not a chemical attack by Syria, the only ones to gain from such an attack is the rebels.

    The attack was either faked or non weapons grade chemicals were used, the rescuers and medics were not wearing protective gear yet were unaffected by residual gas, and the ‘victims’ eye dilations appear normal…

    Another lie is that Syria held up access to UN inspectors for days, the reality is that the UN dispatch never arrived in Syria until Saturday and was granted access on Sunday.

    The West’s weasel at the UN, Ban Ki Moon, publicly demanded access on Thursday but then sent an official envoy to request access, she didn’t arrive until Saturday. Why didn’t he just use the inspectors who were there? And why hasn’t he made clear that Syria did not hinder the request?

  6. I agree with the assessment on all presidents except FDR. He had a monumental task on his hands trying to bail out the excesses that capitalism accrues when oversight is denied. Never bought into the theory that he ‘allowed’ Pearl Harbor to happen. The sinking of one ship would have been a catalyst for declaring war; to say he stood down and let our entire Pacific fleet go under is ludicrous, IMO. He was also surrounded by German sympathizers who aided and abetted Hitler’s rise to power. Some of his most trusted aids, in hindsight, could not be trusted. Fighting Japan might have been seen as helpful to their position. He stood tall for a man who could not stand and walk.

    1. Sorry, Marilyn, but Roosevelt intentionally goaded Japan into war. The key factor was a blockade he set up in South East Asia, denying Japan access to oil. There is no question that he essentially forced the Japanese to attack, and there is no question that he knew exactly when that attack was going to happen. He murdered those boys. “Stand tall”? He should be vilified today, not lionized.

      1. An oil embargo does not deserve a sucker punch.

        Stop the forgiving and empathetic tone. If it were your relation who got killed that morning would your reaction have been “oh well, we didn’t fuel THEIR war machine, so I guess thousands had to die.”

        Figure out WHY the embargo happened, because the Japansese were bent on taking over the Pacific.


        1. “Figure out WHY the embargo happened, because the Japansese were bent on taking over the Pacific.”

          Not true. Roosevelt spent years aggressively taunting Japan. He was hell bent on getting us into the war, which the people of this country were dead set against entering. Japan resisted, time and again, all his provocations, so Roosevelt increased the pressure. Without fuel, a modern economy can’t survive. He knew that by cutting off Japan’s access to oil, he’d finally force them to fight back. That’s the truth. Roosevelt is (was) a war criminal.

          “If it were your relation who got killed that morning would your reaction have been “oh well, we didn’t fuel THEIR war machine, so I guess thousands had to die.””

          Well, it’s likely that I would not have known much about the secret lies and manipulations Roosevelt had been engaging in for years to trick us into yet another unnecessary war, so I suppose that if I had some relation murdered by Roosevelt that morning I probably would have believed the media bullshit that portrayed America as an innocent victim, like everyone else. We did not, after all, have the internet in those days.

          The thousands only “had to die” because that despicable man was intent on tricking us into that fabricated war. Sure, I’d have blamed the Japs, like everyone else, and because the press protected Roosevelt for the decades that followed, from the truth about his evil, it would have been a long time before I’d be able to find out the truth, when it finally came out. And maybe, like most old timers, I’d refuse to face the truth even then. He, after all, was made a demigod by the hacks in the history guild, and I’d be old by now, and we all know that old dogs don’t like to revisit comforting historical myth.

          (Incidentally, it wasn’t a case of us “not fueling their war machine”; it was a case of us cutting off their economy’s access to fuel–whatever they wanted to do with it–which was an act of war. It was not OUR fuel we were denying Japan; you make it sound like we had stopped selling oil to them. We sere stopping their ability to buy oil from willing sellers that were not ourselves.)

    2. “He had a monumental task on his hands trying to bail out the excesses that capitalism accrues when oversight is denied.”

      Pure mythology. The Great Depression was a product of Federal Reserve and gov excesses. If the Fed hadn’t been pumping money into the economy in the 1920’s inflating the stock bubble, the crash would have been a normal correction. And if FDR hadn’t compounded the problem created by the Fed with massive gov spending, confiscation of private gold, draconian protectionism, the Great Depression would have lasted only one year like there was in 1921. The guy was a total menace. Funny how the absolute most awful Presidents are the most revered by Americans…

      The Great Depression was brought to us by a gov gone wild! The only thing that got the US out of it was that FDR finally died thank God.

      1. Depends upon which political persuasion is narrating the plotline. Have heard Socialists argue persuasively that pumping gov money into the depressed economy after 1929 was the answer–only a partial remedy since greed had a head start. Capitalism, it is theorized, is a very unstable form of political economy–almost impossile to control in its complexity. Ah, but if the public good were actually at the core of the system, the governing bodies would pull rank and rein in the bubble-makers and scam artists. Who is minding the mint?

        Only god seems to know. (Think about it as a global monstrosity.)

        1. >> Depends upon which political persuasion is narrating the plotline.

          Have you ever heard of the Great Depression of 1921? No? That’s because instead of responding the way FDR did in the 30’s, Harding cut gov spending and allowed the markets to correct by themselves. That depression lasted one year not 12…

          >> Ah, but if the public good were actually at the core of the system, the governing bodies would pull rank and rein in the bubble-makers and scam artists.

          The public good *is* at the core of capitalism. The whole enterprise of laissez faire capitalism is predicated on *voluntary transactions*. It’s the gov that enables the “bubble-makers” aka Federal Reserve and the “scam artists” aka Goldman Sucks, JP Morgan, BoA, Madoff, Enron… all operating with the *protection* of politicians and regulators. It’s not until they completely blow up is anything done and in the case of GS and JPM, not even then… “to big to fail”!

          Anyone who thinks that gov is noble and incorruptible is living in La La Land. The duty of the state is to stop fraud and theft, but instead politicans promote both (and war) to line their pockets… Always have and always will.

    3. “He had a monumental task on his hands trying to bail out the excesses that capitalism accrues when oversight is denied.”

      You would be much more accurate to say “bail out the excesses that corporate welfare accrues”. Capitalism is an ideal to be sure, but it certainly doesn’t deserve to be vilified by anyone alive today – we haven’t had free markets here since before the turn of the last century.

      You sound like you are lapping up the far left’s propaganda of the man. His economic ideas were disastrous and were it not for the inevitable profit machine that war is for the then burgeoning military/industrial complex, he likely would have left office with the US economy further in tatters.

      I’m not condoning war, or necessarily suggesting that FDR was a totally evil guy – but anybody who would artificially subsidize grain prices to bring down the price of food to hide his dismal economic policies just to get elected to a third term in office I think is worthy of more than a little skeptical inquiry.

  7. Ahhhh-America’s ‘beloved’ presidents. Our leaders.

    Most wanted.

    Great post James. Very creative and well done.

    When college professors start displaying their talents in ways that OBJECT, then there is hope.

    your friend,

  8. Perhaps not completely off topic: Markus Allen, in a comment, recently embedded a video of his here (Nationwide Post-Sandy Hook Terror Drills: Real or Fake?, last comment in the thread). It was intriguing, so I subscribed to his email mailings.

    There seems to be something wrong with his system, because for the last couple of days the email teaser he sends out does not relate to the web page the link launches. But today, the mistake was perfect. It is all about Anderson Cooper’s hit job on our gracious host, last January. Markus embeds the whole egregious CNN segment, and includes a separate audio commentary of his own, an hour and a quarter long, which I just listened to. It’s great. Here it is:

    Now, the fact he commented here half a year later indicates that he’s paying attention to this place, so he has probably put to bed his initial suspicion that James Tracy was part of the Sandy Hook lie–so don’t hold those brief comments against him. Listen to his play-by-play audio critique of Cooper’s nasty hit piece. Great stuff.

    I fiddled around a bit at his web site, and I’m pretty sure he’s one of us.

    On second thought, this really was off-topic; so, I’ll add this, which is in fact pertinent. James, you should have started your list with the Maine, the lie that started “our” war against Spain. You could stretch the “century”, loosely defined, and get away with it.

    True, you could have gone all the way back to 1812, and the lies that “justified” our war against Canada, but that would inevitably lead to the false flag that in 1848 launched our war against Mexico…but then we’d find ourselves in another long chat about the lies that made the War to Prevent Southern Independence. And as readers here well know, I hate to enter into a controversy about things like that.

    Suffice it that since the coup d’etat that overthrew our original constitution (the Articles of Confederation), America has had nothing but conquest and meddling in others’ affairs on its agenda.

    I have a dream, that if the states had not ratified the new Constitutio, that the” Albions’ Seed” regions would have split away from one another, developing their own cultures much the way the countries of Europe did, and North America would today be more kindly. Perhaps there would be Indian nations today flourish proudly amongst the rest, and in the South, blacks would be happy and just as free as the independent Indian countries my dream envisions, racial strife never having arisen. One can dream, no? Who knows what California would have ended up being? Or the rest of Mexico, for that matter. We’d all probably be a lot better off. A lot less war, I’m guessing. And a lot fewer lies.

    1. Patrick, I am surprised your list of executive felons doesn’t start with Lincoln. Actually, re Japan’s military expansionism, going back to post WW 1, an American general, Billy Mitchell, stated that Japan would soon be a threat to Western interests in the Pacific. He was lampooned for his presient vision. In American popular culture, Japan was seen as a small island adrift in the past, the maker of tin toys and little paper unbrellas. The samurai tradition is embedded in their ethos, just as the American Revolution galvanizes our historical ideology. The games for territory and resources play out into our current malaise.

      Of course FDR had a eye on both Hitler and Tojo. Thank goodness he was president and not Dewey or Truman in our season of peril. Many forces–left and right–brought pressure to bear, some even mounting a coup to overthrow the Roosevelt government. Gen Smedley Butler exposed the industrialists and bankers who were behind it. Thank God for Smedley Butler. Where are generals of integrity when we need them now? (Planning their cushy retirement?)

      1. With all respect, Marilyn, perhaps you misunderstand my point. It matters not at all to me how bad other countries are, when it comes to our own country going to war. Japan was “bad”, true enough. The point is that Japan would never have attacked us (and didn’t want to) if Roosevelt had not essentially forced them to fight back against his passive aggression.

        That’s the American way. The war against Mexico, Lincoln’s war, the war against Spain, WWI, WWII, Vietnam; “we” always either trick the other side into firing the first shot (which they don’t want at all to do), or lie about them having done it. This is the way it’s done in this country, because our people NEVER want these wars. Once they are started, our people feel obligated to support the effort.

        The difference is, these days, we quickly find out that it was all a fraud–because we CAN find it out (the internet, most recently), and also because the state has become so self evidently evil; in the old days, access to the truth was much harder to come by, and people were far more likely to trust the state because it was not yet self evidently evil.

        I would call Roosevelt the border line between the two; he was just as evil as Johnson and Nixon and the Bushes and Clinton and Barry, but everyone knows about it in those fellows’ life times. Roosevelt got away with it, for a while, but the truth is now out, and he will in the future be remembered not as he was in the decades after his death, but as he truly was. His name will, in his phrase, live in infamy. Only a matter of time.

        The whole point of this post of James’ is that these lies these horrible politicians tell, that change our history in such terrible ways, are usually justified by the supposed evils of the states the state that rules us wants to destroy. But who do we think we are? Is it our business to police the world, and punish the bad actors on the other side of the globe, people we have little reason to pay attention to? Americans, as a people, have never thought so (and I’m with them). So the politicians that presume to rule us must force us to do what we would not do, by lies, and tricks, otherwise they would not get their way. Roosevelt is right behind Lincoln in mastery of that despicable craft.

    2. How to reply???

      Well, it certainly does seem like War and Lies seem to go hand in hand. And that the good ol’ U. S. hasn’t been very peacelike.

      Still, I’m not sure I’d TOTALLY condemn FDR (although indeed some of his actions were pretty deplorable – i.e., Japanese detention) – but I feel he did some more redeemable things and I don’t think WWII could have been avoided without even more disastrous consequences.

      As far as Lincoln, I see you hold him in disregard. I think he did what he had to do (although I’m sure you’d disagree). Some of the other Presidents, such as Wilson, I don’t see has having many redeeming qualities.

      Your dream of the Constitution not being ratified was interesting. I often wonder about that myself. It’s almost certain that things would be so different today in what we call the U.S. /North America. Your dream of the South and blacks being happy, racial strife never having a nice dream, but I’m not sure how realistic. Just this year a fellow at the Conservative meeting was videoed saying how he supported segregation. I visited one alternative news site (I think it was geared toward African Americans) – and one commenter said she wouldn’t advise African Americans to move South.

      Now don’t think for a moment I hate the South or anything – or don’t realize things can happen in the North (which I realize was complicit in many respects in the slavery angle). For instance, during the Great Migration, things were not always perfect in the Northern migratory centers, but generally, things were better in them (C-Span had a great prof who did a lecture in history on that topic). Fast forward to just this year: a Phila. Eagles player stirred up a lot of controversy for a racial slur. You might say I’ve picked out some isolated incidents. Well, those are ones I can mention off the top of my head. I guess the point I am trying to make is that – although there has been a lot of progress, it seems like these racial attitudes are still just below the surface (in who knows how many individuals), still – here in the 211st Century. They’re still entrenched in some ways – so I’m just not sure that what you envision for the South (and yes, even the North in some ways) would have been realized by now on its own.

      1. I trace all racial strife in America to Reconstruction. Prior to Lincoln’s unnecessary war, White and black in the South knew how to live together, and get along. They knew each other well, because a couple hundred years can do that. When slavery naturally ended (as it did everywhere else), there would have been no hatred between the two. Blacks would gradually equalize, as they learned how to be self reliant, and not utterly dependent on whites. Just as happened everywhere else in the world.

        Reconstruction undid all that reality and potentiality. By artificially elevating ignorant blacks, and artificially debasing decent whites, simply to humiliate them, the occupation army created in whites a genuine hatred of the blacks. When the Yankee invasion force finally left, and white Southerners finally got the chance to rule their own affairs again, the result was Jim Crow. They got even real good. That is, real bad.

        Meanwhile, there were hardly any blacks in the North–and the North liked it that way. Not having ever been around blacks, thus learning to live together, Northerners hated them. Always had done.

        When Southern governors started giving blacks one way train tickets to the North (in the 1950s), and blacks flooded into Northern cities, the innate racism of Northerners became clear; they fled in horror, abandoning entire neighborhoods, creating new suburbs to escape to. The prospect of the South sending its blacks North never occurred to the meddlesome, sanctimonious New England Yankee back when he was agitating for a war against the South; it took a century for it to happen, but boy was Boston unhappy to find itself actually filling up with black faces. Talk about racial strife! Talk about the chickens coming home to roost!

        1. Very interesting reply.

          I don’t know if I would agree with racial strife all stemming from reconstruction. It may be true that in the South, African Americans and White Americans did live together —- but I think what you describe is more like African Americans having to accommodate to the restraints they lived under. Your statement – “artificially elevating ignorant Blacks” – seems to me off the mark. It sounds like blaming the victim when slaves were kept from being educated. I know you think slavery would have ended naturally – and I’m not at all sure about that.

          Interesting point about the reaction of Northerners to the Great Migration. Yes, unfortunately in some quarters, that prejudicial attitude was right there, below the surface – and in places it did indeed come out. Yes, I’ve heard of Chicago riots, the trouble in Manyunk in Phila., and the summer of 1919. But I don’t think you can say that “Northerners hated them. Always had done.” as a blanket statement. There were/are many people of goodwill up here in the North! Still, today, “White flight” continues to be a problem – and even now, long after Brown v. Board of Ed., in too many places the schools are segregated! I’m not sure of what the answers are, but we definitely need to come together across racial, political, and social lines), somehow – the challenges we face are just too great (I hope you can agree with that).

          And I’d hoped to clarify (sorry if my brain doesn’t hit all pistons at the same time), but I think your “dream” would be more likely if you changed the start of the scenario back to the “Age of Discovery” or whatever we’re calling it these days. Imagine if immigrants came over with intentions of living peacefully with Native Americans – and stuck to it; imagine if slavery never got coded into law; imagine if religious freedom really got respected all over. I think your dream may have some merit – however,I do think that by the time of the ratification of the Constitution, attitudes were already hardened enough to cause future problems.

        2. “I think what you describe is more like African Americans having to accommodate to the restraints they lived under”

          Not at all. 92% of Southern white families did not own slaves, but they were around black people all the time. Most slave owners held only a handful, at most, and these were regarded as part of the family. It was a very common thing for such slaves to be hired out as laborers to neighboring farms. White and black worked and lived together very closely. Blacks were not resentful, by and large, about their social status, as you seem to imagine, as if grinding under “restraints.” This perhaps was the case in the very large plantations, but this was a very tiny percentage of the tiny percentage of slave holdings. But most whites’ acquaintance with slaves was nothing like that. In fact, in the social organization of the South, black slaves actually had a higher status than “poor white trash”, as they were called. The truth of the matter is that blacks, in most cases, were content in the same way any peasant in any country tends to be content.

          “Your statement – “artificially elevating ignorant Blacks” – seems to me off the mark.”

          You obviously don’t know this history. Illiterate blacks were made senators, congressmen and given all manner of authoritative positions, just to rub the South’s defeat in, so that former world the South knew would be painfully turned upside down. The terror that the Yankee occupiers intentionally inflicted on the conquered often involved finding the most ignorant blacks and encouraging them to lord it over the defeated whites.

          “I know you think slavery would have ended naturally – and I’m not at all sure about that.”

          Then you obviously must think that English Christians in North America were uniquely distinct from all the other English Christians across the world at the time, not to mention French and Spanish and Portuguese and Belgian and German Christians. That somehow, perhaps, they had acquired a genetic defect that would make them impervious to the social realities that every other slave holding country experienced. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, Mollie, but I’d rethink it if I were you.

          “I don’t think you can say that “Northerners hated them. Always had done.” as a blanket statement.”

          Oh, but I can. It is historical fact. Obviously, there were individuals who didn’t feel that way, but it was true of the vast majority. I’m growing weary of this; you obviously know very little of the actual social history of those complicated times, and I’m tired of spelling out what any informed person would already know.

          “Imagine if immigrants came over with intentions of living peacefully with Native Americans”

          They did. The Puritans steadily converted the local Algonquin tribes to Christianity; at the start of King Phillip’s War, half the towns in Massachusetts were Christian Indian towns. Phillip hated the fact that this meant Indians adopting new cultural ways (he also hated the pigs that the colonists let free range, ruining his people’s hunting grounds). The war he launched was something the English could not have imagined in its insane viciousness. The atrocities committed completely and permanently changed white people’s attitude toward what they had thought of as a “noble savage.” By the time the war was over, Massachusetts’ population was cut in half; it would be many decades before it recovered. And newly imprinted on the Mind of the white American was the notion that “the only good Indian is a dead Indian.”

        3. Oh, one more thing:

          ” imagine if slavery never got coded into law”

          Slavery was introduced in North America by men in London. It was not a choice the colonists made, and they had no power to reject it; the colonies were corporations chartered by the King, and financed by investors. It is these investors, who would never visit North America, who decided to move African slaves to the colonies. Of course, it had to do with the lack of manpower on these shores, and so our economies here became completely dependent on African slavery very quickly. Many fortunes were made and businesses passed down through the generations that were integrally intertwined with slavery. Unraveling such family businesses after hundreds of years is very difficult. It’s thus not a matter of “codification in law” but of long tradition, which is far stronger than law.

        4. “To say they knew how to get along is ignorant and boorish.”

          If so, then so is Thomas Sowell, Thomas DiLorenzo, Robert William Fogel & Stanley L. Engerman, and, if I remember the book as well as I think I do, Jeffrey Rogers Hummel. Pretty good company.

        5. Patrick,

          You destroy Lincoln an his “unnecessary war”. Interesting thought.

          Found this…

          “Ken Masugi is partially right about Tom DiLorenzo?s book, The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War (2002).? It is “awful”?”awful”ly good, even great.? Tom DiLorenzo has completely and irrevocably destroyed the myth, the legend, the fable, the fairy tale–the tall tale of Abraham Lincoln, American?s first military dictator and its first Presidente after the violent regime change of 1861.”

          It would have been nice if you passed this nonsense, not as your own, but of someone else’s. god knows what else you have plagiarized

        6. “plagiarized”? What are you talking about? Did I reproduce DiLorenzo’s words somewhere I don’t know about? Is sharing the same ideas plagiarism in your world?

          Do you think DiLorenzo stands alone in this matter? If you think there are no others who have revealed the real Lincoln, you haven’t looked very hard.

  9. What a brilliant word master you are! You boldly choose less than a hundred words of your own and portions of the hucksters’ war speeches to clearly demonstrate we have been hoodwinked for a very long time! As demonstrated by commentators on many sites and political pundits, it is hopeful to see persons of opposite believes are for once in agreement on why we should not bomb a country that is bombing itself. The media has even given glimpses of telling the truth!

  10. The travesty list delivered to us by those, not us. Serious pollution, chemtrails, pharmaceuticals, GMO food, drugged meat and restrictions on freedom of person or assets, can those crimes get any closer to home? We should have zero trust in all corporate authorities including or maybe especially government from bottom to top. Who are we?
    Person, taxpayer, resident, agent or are we flesh and blood human beings. Who ought to be protecting you?
    Thanks James for keeping your eye on the ball.

  11. Maybe I just have a soft place in my heart for FDR, but to think he was either that obtuse or worse, that evil, to ‘allow’ the Pearl Harbor attack to go off deliberately undefended does not compute.

    I think this link is fairly cogent. Of course, it depends upon which side you wish to support–or not, when debating any issue. All we have are the records and testimony of witnesses. Some things are more self evident than others. Then it comes down to native intuition in the final analysis. FDR detractors have been with us since he entered the White House. Some politicians simply attract visceral animosity; the Bushes do it for me–for far more reason.

      1. Well, true to some extent. But I have heard complaints about Wikipedia, too. However, I have read that WP’s content is often on a par with (gasp) Encyclopedia Britannica. Who knew? I pulled that site (Rational Wiki) up on the fly; not my best research attempt, admittedly. On the other hand, I have been trying to recapture a really in-depth analysis of the FDR-Pearl Harbor debate that I ran across some time ago. The argument comes up on most boards. It is intriguing and certainly a basic sticking point in American history. (But I have noticed some oft-quoted opinion from Jeff Rinse, who seems to be stuck on anti-American themes–mostly anti-American themes that bear scrutiny.) The case was made that FDR did not know the specifics of the attack and thought the strike would be closer to the Japanese home islands.

        From that point, I sometimes jump to the valued advisors surrounding FDR, referenced above. One was Averell Harriman, banker and financier who did help to finance Hitler’s bid for power along with like-minded corporatists. If war indicates the health of the state, war certainly fills the coffers of those who stoke the engines of war. Many American firms are implicated in the German war effort. IBM supplied the technology that tracked Jews, facilitating their round up and transport to concentration camps. No banker or industrialist went to jail for high treason; however, they cleverly pointed in the direction of FDR to cover their duplicity. Ah, there is the rub. That line of logic continues today. When caught in the act, always redirect attention.

  12. It is high time we stop dreaming what could have been or what should have been. We have to face the facts of where we are now. There are a multitude of distractions that keep us from seeing the reality of our dire current predicament. There is no war against women, or one on any particular race, but there is one that is hammering the middle and lower class. We were lied to with the promise of no additional taxes and in fact the taxation and regulation nation has crippled us, it is time we stand up on our crutches and say no more! No more wars! We do not want or need to bomb other countries that are bombing their own!

  13. Dr. Tracy, this an excellent overview of politically significant historical events as they relate to the context of our country’s current situation.
    There is a massive caveat, however.
    If was viewing videos ~3-4 hours prior to watching your video accompanying this post with my wife and son, age 22. They were demonstration/analyses of NLP (NeuroLinguisticProgramming) techniques used in (primarily video) media.
    Your video that I, and my wife and son easily confirmed, watched was severely manipulated with the very techniques we had learned about earlier. Very, very obviously.
    It was jarringly manipulated. So much so that I pulled up “Max Headroom” videos from the mid 1980’s. The similarity is stunning, to all of us. Watch the music video “Paranoimia” by The Art Of Noise and the David Letterman interview with “Max Headroom” as examples.
    I don’t know if this was intentional or unintentional editing by you, or if this is real video of you manipulated by “others”, or if this is a totally fabricated concoction to manipulate, confuse, confound, intimidate me to not follow your blog, or is a not so subtle threat to me and my family to NOT pursue the subjects covered in this blog.
    I have watched enough Skype video interviews to know what internet/bandwidth glitches, etc. look like. That is NOT what we see here. This is blatant NLP manipulation.
    I sincerely hope this post makes you aware of what is happening to your politically unpopular messages (to the powers that be). If it is otherwise, then I’m fearful we are all screwed….But maybe that’s the point.
    I would sure appreciate a response from you about this, as it is deeply distressing to me and many of the people I value in my life. The cognitive dissonance generated by this is very real. We can easily deal with it but occasionally it is truly horrifying to ponder its’ consequences.
    Michael Meyers MD

  14. Dr. Tracy – I’ve been lurking around your website for awhile, checking out the information and your videos. I appreciate what you are trying to do.

    I personal don’t agree with the last comment by Michael Meyers MD. There is huge difference between propaganda and delivering information with a message is that intended to provoke a response – hopefully in this case a reflective and thoughtful response. The editing was dramatic certainly, but you are dealing with a dramatic subject matter – the manipulation and propaganda games of the US government over the last 100 years.

    I do not consider myself an NLP expert, despite having been interested in the subject for the past 20 years of my life and having read most of the seminal books on the subject. It is a hobby, nothing more. So I find it fascinating that Michael Meyers MD can – according to his own comment – watch a few hours of video on the subject of NLP and then jump to the rather irrational conclusion that you are attempting to manipulate him on a website that he had to go to of his own volition.

    Is he man, or jelly fish?

    Personally, I think he is conflating his personal dislike for the video editing techniques with a rather limited understanding of NLP. I would highly recommend that Mr. Meyers start at the beginning with Bandler and Grinder, The Structure of Magic I and II and the life and work of Milton Erickson and hypnotherapy to begin a more comprehensive understand of NLP and perhaps separate his criticism of your editor’s video editing technique from his fears about psy-ops taking place on random websites that criticize the government.

    After all, I can just as easily accuse without any basis that perhaps Mr. Meyers is a crisis actor on the dole of the statist political class seeking to ameliorate the damage that such pointed criticism does to the government.

    As you might have gathered, I enjoyed the video and found it informative. Kudos.

    1. Bungalo Joe – I concur with you, the MD and his 22 year old son are very suspicious characters and apparently, the poorly written intimidation worked. Enjoyed the video as it demonstrated real passion, and imagine it is a difficult task to produce one. Seems some of the comments were going off on tangents and suspect the goal was to bring us back to the topic of government lies. This is a very frightening topic, but one that we must address!

  15. Its nice to see the support for the Professor; most people posting here respect and trust his preoccupation with serious matters that consume him.

    When I first saw this post in question I was intrigued by the contrast of approval, non-approval and what seemed a carefully worded accusation. I wasn’t sure but it seemed to me to be similar to the kinds of techniques that come out of the numerous constructed, ‘think tanks.’

    I would say that if the Professor can pass the ‘suspicion-radar’ of Markus Allen (smiles) then the post could be considered a blip in the airwaves and I would say ‘keep on trucking.’

    Double kudos from me!!

  16. Dr Tracy or others, regarding Syria, do you know where the intelligence that Assad used WMD’s came from? In other words was it primarily foreign intelligence gathered by Israel and France, and not originating from US intelligence agencies directly?

    Also, will we ever see the so called declassified evidence or will it be distilled by only politicians in DC? So far all I’ve heard is that the politicians are saying to trust them, but without any documentation. Even with documentation, if said documentation largely originated from the sources listed above would it not be dubious at best and thus actually undermine the governments claim of being compelling evidence?

    I’d appreciate any links or feedback to these questions.

    1. A discussion of the evidence or asking for proof is playing their game. It is essential to know those of the US regime, and the cabals in charge of it, not as representatives but as absolute criminals. They have committed war crimes. They would do very poorly if tried for war crimes. They have provided support to terrorists who have invaded and are destroying Syria. There is a direct link between championing the cause of war on Syria and a terrorist in Syria cutting a child’s head off, pulling a man’s heart out of his chest and taking a bite.

      Do you really think we should be asking monsters for the reasons and proofs they have? Do you ask a meat grinder for its reasons? I’m sorry—it’s time to get real. If you can find a legal and formal way to say skull and bones John Kerry, for example, wants to make Syrians into hamburger meat you go ahead. But don’t waste time keeping up his appearance and pleading with death machines.

  17. Who are Bungalo Joe, Kathy, and Bev? They know my name but don’t list their full names. I wonder why? Who are the real disinformation/ crisis actor/ machine intelligence/NSA shills?
    James, I know you know who I am. We have corresponded before. These people commenting on my post, i suspect, are cyphers.
    Your video is NOT on your global article, yet Kathy referenced the site.
    Jellyfish? What is that? Bizarre.
    I don’t see how they interpreted my post as a criticism. That is totally incorrect. I was elated to see you bring up these important historical topics on your blog. Any interpretation otherwise is a significant error in their judgement. And, I view it as a diversion to the purpose of my post. Please continue to expand your blog to include media manipulation throughout US history.
    I find it fascinating that a person with NLP as a 20 year “hobby ” has been “lurking” around your blog. I haven’t looked up his detailed recommendations to further my NLP knowledge, but “lurking” feels creepy to me.
    I check your website because you provide an informative and logically consistent narrative to the media manipulation I/we see in the US.
    Please continue expanding the scope of your blog. And please continue our correspondence.
    As an aside, my 22 yo son was apoplectic that I used my real name on my response to your post. He feels I have exposed myself and our family to malicious attacks/manipulations by random (non-government/corporate) “hackers”. I am sad about his view but respect his judgement. I hope he is in error about the risk to my family’s online/computer presence.
    I say “Kudos” for your blog post of my own volition. And “I” honestly mean it. Thanks again for your correspondence.
    Sincerely, MM MD

    1. Dear MM: Jelly fish was my tongue in cheek flippant response to your suggestion that you were SO overcome by the video editing’s alleged similarities to NLP/mind control programs on this post that you just HAD to respond NOT in regards to the subject matter but to your own fixation.

      Your initial comment was an off topic comment irrelevant to the subject matter Dr. Tracy is addressing and not exactly constructive in terms of criticism of the video itself. As far as me being a cypher/NSA shill – they need to pay me and stop auditing me first before I consider going over to the dark side.

      Not everyone is a shadowy g-man looking to getcha, bro. Good luck to you.

  18. Good morning Dr. Its nice to see that you returned with a follow-up post. I’d like to assure you that far from being a cypher, I am a Canadian researcher now standing on 29 years of research.

    If you would re-read my comments you should see that I was questioning a writing style and that was because I see no NLP in the aforementioned video. Really the only reason for my comment was to help in preserving the integrity of the blog, as I refer many to come here and read.

    I sincerely apologize if my comment offended you but here in my tiny world its called wondering and drawing things out to a bigger picture which can be understood.

    The top of the morning to you Sir and best to the family.

  19. Dr. Meyers, you have no need to fear the commenters on this site seeking to find the truth. If I shared my last name, you still would not know me, Dr. Tracy has it. Your reference to Max Headstroom was insulting, I could not watch him for 1 minute!

    My link was pointing to an article that disputes the evidence regarding who and why the gas was released.

    It is surprizing the mainstream media and Drudge are reporting on the lies that are going on! Noticed USAToday cut out the really damming parts.

  20. In reply to Patrick –

    I suggest you reread some of your comments and really listen to how they sound. Not very pretty. I have tried to be as measured as I can in responding to you. I suggest you educate YOURSELF further!

    Thank you Robert Walk for chiming in. In addition to the paper Robert Walk mentioned, you should visit here –
    and maybe learn a thing or two about the realities of slavery. Also, look at this article concerning VA – doesn’t sound to me as though these repressive laws were IMPOSED from elsewhere!

    And you twisted my remark about Native Americans. Yes, some came over intending to live peaceably, but is coming to someone else’s land and insisting they accommodate to YOU and your ways the best way to accomplish that?

    It’s time YOU stepped out of whatever dark corner you live in and into the sunlight.

    1. Please accept my apology, Molly.

      I’m sorry if I insulted you; believe me when I tell you it was not intentional. I tend toward sarcasm, and although I try to rein it in, in the thrill of debate I sometimes fail at that. I did not mean to hurt your feelings, and I’m sorry I did. I have enjoyed our conversations.

      As for my need “to learn a thing or two about the realities of slavery,” I’m afraid you’ve got that wrong; I’ve read many books on the subject, along with the socio-economic world of America in the antebellum period. (If you look up the authors I mentioned in my last comment, you will notice some breadth in that small sample). Although one would not know it, if you go exclusively by the popular culture, here is considerable debate about these matters. ( Most Americans think, for example that Ken Burns’ asinine The Civil War is a valuable history lesson).

      As I repeatedly acknowledge, on some of the large plantations, conditions were quite harsh for slaves, but I am afraid that that’s all Americans think they know about the subject. Again, most slaves were held by families who owned very few, and for them life was not at all like that. And even life for slaves on many, maybe most, of the large plantations was not the nightmare the Lincoln-apologia that is received wisdom would have us believe. Again, there is a very large body of literature on the subject, and it’s hotly debated, but increasingly the conclusion moves toward the one I have related to you.

      Of course, you don’t have to believe my personal research in this matter. How about listening to the voices of the slaves themselves, Mollie, as I have done (admittedly not all of them–there are far too many, and time is always short)? These are the Slave Narratives, collected by Allan Lomax in the 1930s; surviving former slaves, who in their 80s, 90s, and up (one very clear-headed lady was 121!) were interviewed, and Lomax trained the interviewers how to put in written form the exact way they spoke–so it’s almost like hearing these people talk. There are lots of ways to find this trove on the internet. Here’s a way to get started:

      Here’s a great one; in it, Tempe Herndon Durham describes her wedding:

      One thing that shines through these voices is the relative happiness they had had, and the collegial relations they had with whites.

      Now as for my twisting your words about the Indians, that was not what I was trying to do. By referencing King Phillip’s War, I was pointing out that the whites’ attitude toward the Indians underwent a sudden, dramatic change. Puritans will be puritans, and converting others to their way of living is what they do. But they intended it with all the best intentions in the world. Then, they stopped trying to convert the Indians, and started to genuinely hate them–and that spilled over to all the rest of white America, for hundreds of years, all the way to the Pacific. So what I was saying was the Indian-clearing that later prevailed in America was not the original intent.

      If you re read my initial comment that got all this started, my “dream” included independent Indian nations–which as I envision them would retain their distinct cultures. Alas, that was not to be.

      All the best to you, Mollie

      1. Apology accepted, Patrick. Evidently race relations are very complex – even to this day. And maybe I wasn’t clear so sorry if I was not – I was not trying to “diminish” your dream — I just was trying to point out it would have probably been more feasible if started on earlier. My Dad always said – “Don’t try to fix problems, start over.” Hope that explains a bit where that part of it was coming from

        I have heard of the slave narratives; have not heard any – that’s something I should check out sometime. As I said, the more I read about slavery, the more I haven’t like what I’ve read… So I have to pace myself and not bite off too much all at once.

        I will leave with this — I’m not sure who said it but I think it rings true: a slave with a harsh master yearns for a kind master. And a slave with a kind master yearns for no master.

        I think we all do on some level; I think that’s one reason why we’re here ( we feel bonds forming around us).

        I have also enjoyed conversing – at the very least it forces us to think, eh?

        Now back to worrying about the latest NSA spying revelations. Gotta keep current.

        Take care,

  21. Interesting, the only relevant debate on this subject was about FDR, was he or was he not part and participle of this global plan of deceit? Tend to skip over the minutia of the debates, when we have such dire issues confronting our basic civil liberties. Made a note that perhaps this era should be revisited in more depth, until the History channel relayed he was related to eleven other presidents! That is enough information to stop further investigation on this question for myself and most forward thinking folks. We need to focus on what is happening now and hopefully have learned from what has happened in the past.

  22. Thank you for the incredible timing of this post! The tides seem to be changing. Some of the MSM are actually reporting both sides of the conflict and showing the rebels our government has supported are also brutal murderers. Have been praying for the safety and well being of our country and the world and will join the call of the Pope, who declares 9/7/13, the day we should all pray for a peaceful end to this conflict.

  23. Subject: Sen. Graham Warns of Charleston, South Carolina Nuke Strike after Missing Warheads Report
    Is this another potential false flag to terrorize and blackmail US citizens to support warmongering profiteers?
    Where are these nuclear warheads and what are they being used for?
    Alex Jones & Anthony Gucciardi,, September 5, 2013 Sen Graham Warns of Nuke Strike After Missing Warheads Report
    Senator Lindsay Graham has warned South Carolinians about the threat of a ‘terrorist nuclear attack’ on the same day that our exclusive high level military intel revealed to us that nuclear warheads were being shipped to South Carolina from a major Texas airforce base under an ‘off the record’ black ops transfer.
    Found in the CBS report entitled ‘Graham: Nukes In Hands Of Terrorists Could Result In Bomb Coming To Charleston Harbor’, the report details Graham’s warning that a lack of military action in Syria could result in a nuclear ‘bombing’ in Charleston, South Carolina — the very destination of the black ops nuclear transfer. The CBS report reads:
    “He [Graham] says if there is no U.S. response [to Syria], Iran will not believe America’s resolve to block Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Graham also says those nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists could result in a bomb coming to Charleston Harbor.”
    “………. No signature was required for transfer… There was no directive. He said that Dyess Commander was on site to give authority to release. No one knew where they were going really, but the truck driver said to take them to South Carolina and another pick up will take them from there.”

Leave a Reply