31 March, 2006

Wood’nhead Wilson, Classic Canting Crusading Christing Cunt

Posted by alex in history at 8:02 pm | Permanent Link

Making the World Safe for Christianity

Rep. Ron Paul

The top Neo-Con of the twentieth century was Woodrow Wilson. His supposed idealism, symbolized in the slogan “Make the world safe for democracy,â€? resulted in untold destruction and death across the world for many decades. His deceit and manipulation of the pre-war intelligence from Europe dragged America into an unnecessary conflict that cost the world and us dearly. Without the disastrous Versailles Treaty, World War II could have been averted — and the rise to power of Communists around the world might have been halted.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congre c/congrec2006/cr032806.htm


  1. Similar posts:

  2. 09/05/09 Sowing the Seeds: Powder Keg on the Baltic 39% similar
  3. 09/06/14 The Endless Jewing of Germany 20% similar
  4. 04/29/08 New Buchanan Book About WWII 16% similar
  5. 05/15/15 Some Thoughts on Hitler 14% similar
  6. 01/25/18 Hitler Revisited 12% similar
  7. 11 Responses to “Wood’nhead Wilson, Classic Canting Crusading Christing Cunt”

    1. Socrates Says:

      The Versailles Treaty meeting was Jewed, i.e., Jews like Rabbi Stephen Wise and Bernard Baruch were advisors to the top political leaders who attended the meeting. On the surface, the public saw the “Big Four” gentile leaders; below the surface was Talmudic goodness served up by the schnozzim.

    2. alex Says:

      True, but this is the rare time when you can lay almost as much guilt on the Anglo-American Christian cads who sold our nation out to Britain. Wilson was an ass any way you look at it.

      Wilson’s Raiders

      by Murray N. Rothbard

      First published in Inquiry, 19 & 23 June 1980.

      America’s entry into World War I was marked by a system of repression of dissent and civil liberties unprecedented our history. The repression ranged from the jailing of thousands of critics of the war, most notably Socialist leader Eugene Debs, to banning the playing of Beethoven (a Hun), changing the name of sauerkraut to Liberty cabbage, and seeking to prohibit the teaching of the German language in the public schools (“Speech of Hated Hun Forbidden,” was how the press saw one such triumph). Leading the nationwide assault was the federal government; the executive branch also orchestrated councils and organizations on the state and local level, and gave official sanction to vigilante activities of superpatriots engaging in surveillance of their neighbors.

      The parlous state of individual freedoms in the United States was sketched by H. L. Mencken in the early 1920s, when he satirically suggested what was “wrong” with civil libertarians from the viewpoint of the average American. The problem was that they were too dogmatic, too doctrinaire in the espousal of the Bill of Rights, a bunch of troublemakers and semi-anarchistic johnny-one-notes constantly bemoaning the alleged threats to liberty in this freest land on earth. In short, Mencken wrote in mock scorn, they were “the same fanatics who shake the air with sobs every time the Postmaster-General of the United States bars a periodical from the mails because its ideas do not please him, and every time some poor Russian is deported for reading Karl Marx, and every time a Prohibition enforcement officer murders a bootlegger who resists his levies, and every time agents of the Department of Justice throw an Italian out of the window…”

      Establishment historians have long been rather embarrassed by this veritable reign of terror during and following World War I. For they have a particular problem: At the top of the pyramid of repression was none other than Woodrow Wilson, one of the great triad of “strong” presidents (the others are Lincoln and FDR) who are supposed to have brought America to its present pinnacle of preeminence. As Mencken put it, their attitude has been that Woodrow Wilson was the natural candidate “for the first vacancy in the Trinity.” What then to do about Wilson as commander in chief of the repression machine? Up until the last two decades, the solution was to levitate him above the carnage; not Wilson but his impetuous and reactionary advisers were to blame, both for the wartime repression and for the notorious Palmer “red raids” conducted well after the end of the war.

      Fortunately, in recent years historians have been more willing to topple their idols. Paul Murphy’s new book is a welcome addition to the newer tough-minded literature on the suppression of civil liberties in the war. Woodrow Wilson is given the primacy and the major responsibility for the terror system that he so richly deserves. Murphy provides us with a competent and useful account of the suppression and the emergence of the organized civil liberties movement. Although his brief treatment lacks some of the juicy details of H. C. Peterson and Gilbert Fite’s Opponents of War, 1917–1918, Murphy is particularly good on an area relatively neglected in the other treatments: the reaction of lawyers and jurists to the civil liberties issue.

      The discussion, however, is often skimpy, perhaps a function of the severe space limits that the otherwise excellent Norton series in American history seems to impose on its authors. The treatment of the Progressive period is scanty and unsatisfactory, with no discussion of the anti-anarchy laws that swept the nation after the assassination of McKinley, or of Teddy Roosevelt’s fortunately unsuccessful attempt to revive the charge of federal seditious libel against the New York World in 1910 for its exposé of his chicaneries in the Panamanian revolution. And there is no treatment of the Palmer raids of 1919–20, which clearly grew out of the wartime hysteria and continued it into peacetime.

      There also might have been at least a mention of the fact that on the day war was declared, Secretary of the Navy Josephus Daniels managed to get Wilson to nationalize the radio waves and to place radio in Navy Department hands – where Daniels unsuccessfully tried to keep it after the war had ended. Or of the bizarre establishment by the War Department of its own lumber union, the Loyal Legion of Loggers and Lumbermen, as part of the government’s successful effort to crush the radical IWW. And Murphy misses the fact that the Post Office’s suppression of an issue of The Nation was a reaction against libertarian Albert Jay Nock’s editorial attacking leader Samuel Gompers for his pro-war activities within the international labor movement. Apparently, a mere criticism of Gompers was enough to get even a leading magazine banned from the mails.

      But the major problem with Murphy’s book is his fundamental confusion about the nature of the Progressive movement that underlay the war effort and the war mobilization. Murphy seems torn between the older myths and the more recent insights about the Progressives, as witness his belief that this fundamentally militaristic and imperialistic movement had been at least half pacifist. And although he acknowledges the vital role of such classical liberals and anti-statists as Roger Baldwin and Oswald Garrison Villard in the battle against war and on behalf of civil liberties, he attacks classical liberal property rights theory as furnishing, in essence, protection to only the civil liberties of the “propertied.” What he misses is the fundamental Lockean axiom that every individual, by virtue of being human, has a “self propriety” – a property right in his own person, including his life and liberty. The argument that there can be no firmer groundwork than this for civil liberties for all, he doesn’t even bother to tackle.

      Murphy’s crucial failure is in not understanding that the Progressive movement was a comprehensive drive for statism and big government across the board – in every area of American life, from the economy to foreign policy to the treatment of dissent, and even to sex and the consumption of alcohol. The movement was a coalition of certain big business groups and new circles of technocratic intellectuals, devoted to a planned and cartelized economy in which they would share the rule. The embracing of the war by John Dewey and countless other Progressive intellectuals was no incomprehensible betrayal of their reform ideals, but rather part and parcel of their vision of a nationalized future. In James Weinstein’s insight, the Progressives saw the war as the “fulfillment” of their cherished goals. And Progressive jurists, as Murphy only partly recognizes, were devoted not to the classical doctrine of property rights, but to governmental intrusion and interference with those rights.

      And so Murphy misses the crucial fact that the entire Wilson administration was “progressive,” from the President on down. The greatest censors and oppressors during the war were Attorney General Thomas W Gregory and Postmaster General Albert S. Burleson, leading Texas progressives. Both were placed in their posts in Washington by the President’s mysterious alter ego, “Colonel” Edward M. House, long the grey eminence of the progressive wing of the Texas Democratic party. And the notorious A. Mitchell Palmer, who became attorney general in 1919, was a leading Pennsylvania progressive. From Murphy’s own account it is also clear that the members of the U.S. Supreme Court, which put its vital imprimatur on the wartime repression, were almost all progressives, including Chief Justice Edward D. White of Louisiana, Joseph McKenna of California, and William R. Day and John H. Clarke of Ohio.

      One of Murphy’s welcome contributions, in fact, is to debunk the allegedly civil libertarian position of the sainted Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. As Murphy perceptively sees, Holmes’s progressive commitment to judicial realism and restraint meant that the courts could no longer serve as a bulwark of either property rights or civil liberties against government invasion. As Murphy states, Holmes revealed an attitude of “permissive majoritarianism and a commitment to judicial self-restraint,” and hence advocated “permitting the federal government and the states to use power positively to confront a variety of situations and to impose social control where necessary.” And since rights were supposedly “social and not natural,” Holmes was “fairly well in tune with the growing tendency in twentieth-century America toward community control, with its corresponding limitation upon individual freedom.” Yet Murphy is not convincing when he tells us that Holmes had been converted to supporting a civil liberties position by the time of the Abrams case in late 1919. During the Volstead Act (Prohibition) and other cases of the 1920s, Holmes was back at the same old “permissive majoritarian” stand.

      The period of the First World War was a watershed in the evolution of the corporate-liberal warfare state. It saw the burgeoning not only of the government-business alliance in industry, and American militarism and globalism, but also of the ideology and apparatus of the national security state. In the years and crises to come, the threats to civil liberties would be systematized. As the latest depredations by the CIA, FBI, and other federal agencies show, these have far from disappeared.

      Murray N. Rothbard (1926–1995) was the author of Man, Economy, and State, Conceived in Liberty, What Has Government Done to Our Money, For a New Liberty, The Case Against the Fed, and many other books and articles. He was also the editor – with Lew Rockwell – of The Rothbard-Rockwell Report.

      Copyright © 2005 Ludwig von Mises Institute
      All rights reserved.

      Murray Rothbard Archives

      Back to LewRockwell.com Home Page

    3. alex Says:

      War Fever in America: Silencing and Punishing Dissent (Book Notes: Mencken)
      One of the most disturbing features of America’s march towards invading and occupying Iraq was the treatment of those who disagreed. War dissenters were labeled traitors and “objectively pro-terrorist.” It wasn’t enough to simply oppose Saddam Hussein, one had to favor America removing him by force. Even more disturbing is how often this has been repeated in American history.

      In Mencken: The American Iconoclast, Marion Elizabeth Rodgers writes about the pro-war hysteria that gripped America at the beginning of World War I:

      The request for a declaration of war came … on April 2, 1917, when President Woodrow Wilson told the nation that “the world must be safe for democracy.â€? Mencken again wrote Dreiser, “Once the world is safe for democracy, all that will remain will be to make democracy safe for the world.â€?

      The American entry into war turned Mencken’s life upside down. A target of superpatriots before, he now faced even greater hostility. Within days, supporters of the war lashed out at all who stood in their way. They suggested that pacifists should be silenced, jailed, or even killed. In Baltimore, five boys who refused to salute the flag, including one who left the room during the singing of “The Star-Spangled Banner,� were suspended from school and their parents were brought before the school board.

      Adding to the hysteria were attacks against immigrants, pacifists, and German Americans. In Baltimore as elsewhere, German-born persons, already suffering from an acute conflict of loyalties, rushed to take out citizenship papers, changing their names from Schmidt to Smith, from Wolfsheimer to Wolf…

      The teaching of German was eliminated from public schools. German clubs disappeared. Local epidemics were blamed on contamination of the local water supply by German spies. At Baltimore’s prestigious Goucher College, President William Westley Guth demanded the resignation of one of the most beloved and respected members of the faculty, Professor Hans Froelicher, on the grounds that, while declaring his complete loyalty to the United States, he had expressed sympathy for the German people. (He was, incidentally, Swiss, without a drop of German blood.)

      Such flagitious behavior wasn’t merely directed at Americans who were innocent of even dissent, much less treason. War supporters also aimed their bumptious patriotism at language which failed to fit their ideological goals:

      The hamburger became the liberty sandwich, sauerkraut, the liberty cabbage. In Congress, a resolution was introduced that would eliminate German names from cities. Streets across America were now renamed… In Washington, senators began to wear little enameled American flags on their coat lapels. … Not a single newspaper in the whole United States, said Mencken, offered any fair play to its opponents.

      Liberty sandwich rather than freedom fries — slightly different terms, but the principle is the same. After nearly 90 years, creating names like “liberty sandwich� and “liberty cabbage� looks completely absurd, but it shouldn’t take that long to realize that the same is true of “freedom fries.�

      The parallels between Americans’ behavior at the outbreak of World War I and Americans’ behavior over the invasion of Iraq should make us all pause and think. The problems we see today are not unique to this context or this era; if anything, the situation may be a little bit better than in the past because the government hasn’t passed the same political censorship laws that were created during WWI.

      On the other hand, it’s clear that the attacks on dissenters and war opponents are, in principle, incompatible with American ideals about political diversity and freedom of speech. It’s one thing to disagree with and criticize the position of dissenters, but it’s quite another to equate dissent with treason and call for the suppression of dissent — not to mention the elimination of dissenters themselves. This, however, is precisely what many conservatives have done and those who haven’t also haven’t strongly opposed such arguments.

    4. alex Says:

      The WASP elite are second only to jews in their disloyalty to America.

    5. alex Says:

      There’s a backhanded filip to optimism in all this: America was just as dumb when it was civilized and educated as it is today. Take away jew control of mass media, deprive christians of tax-status preference, things would clear up quickly.

    6. alex Says:

      Anyone who praises democracy is dead to any kind of taste, quality, tone, music, what have you.

      If it needs a trak to know when to laff, do you really want the thing voting?

    7. Lokuum Says:

      It’s my understanding East coast anglos wanted war but the jewish bankers wouldn’t move untill the Balfour declaration was signed. this was the moment when the jews played the anglos for suckers, formented the revolution in Russia, then jumped in with the allies to destroy Germany.
      Bush and the boys have been trying to play catch up ever since.
      Men create systems, political, financial, economical to serve them and end up serving the system. Dying for democracy. It doesn’t get more obvious than that. The people are the Nation not the political system.

    8. van helsing Says:

      A lot of people are in to wart as war profiteers. They arent all jewish unless maybe they could be considered “functionally jewish”. But there has been a lot of intermarriage between kikes and upper level wasps. Reading about the Astors makes me believe they were full jewish from day one.

      Jews dont have a problem sacrificng other, lower jews. Not at all. it is just that the “level of sacrifice” they have been mentioned (by the likes of Makow) as condoning (like Hitler, who actually didnt), is far far less than was ever ‘sacrificed’.

    9. Carpenter Says:

      There’s something in “1984” which always stuck with me: the proles are disinterested in politics, except when they are worked up to the occasional frenzy against the enemy. This is true of any time and any people. (Except the Jews, who seem to be interested in politics all the time.)

      Mencken was right in that you can’t expect a very good result from democracy. It seems a one-party state is the least bad way to go: you gain admittance to the party through merit, so it’s kind of a democracy of the best.

      Liberty cabbage and Freedom Fries – does it get any more glaringly stupid than that. Talk about a disservice to your cause when the rest of the world finds out about it. By the way, didn’t the Congressman who invented “Freedom Fries” turn against the Iraq occupation last year, admitting he had been wrong?

    10. Celtic Warrior Says:

      Wasn’t Wilson the holier-than-thou adulterer managed and controlled by the puppet-masters Mandel House and ‘Justice’ Brandeis?

      Only a jew could think up something as brainless as ‘liberty cabbage’.

    11. elbrus_arya Says:

      ancient judes'(magicians’) plots to conquere the whole world began with genocide of ancient iranian and egyptian civilizations 2400 to 2500 years ago acording to PURIM and dead sea scrolls ; but the final part of the legend is very devastating for them . it has already begun . the intrigue made by humanity to decode purim ,the scrolls and democracy(to pretend and cheat) .