New Age History and Economics

The Day We See The Truth And Cease To Speak it, Is The Day We Begin To Die. MLK Jr.

Friday, March 16, 2012

Churchill and J P Morgan Sank Lusitania.

Lusitania Sinking Truth and Myths

Lies being taught;

Germans sunk British liner Lusitania that killed 128 American citizens.
In an act of retribution USA entered the war on the side of England.
It was a passenger liner meant to carry civilians and had no war material.

Now the facts;

Lusitania sank on May 7th, 1915. USA joined the war on April 6th 1917 almost 2 years after the sinking of Lusitania.

German torpedo did not sink the ship but another explosion seconds after the first explosion and much larger than the one possible by torpedo was responsible for sinking of Lusitania.

The ship sunk in 18 minutes whereas if hit by torpedo, it would have taken more than 2 hours to sink.

It was carrying war material for England as already declared in its manifesto.
After it sinking, British Navy mined the ship wreck to destroy evidence about what was held in its cargo hold.

At the time, no ship had been torpedoed travelling at more than 15 knots. Lusitania had speed of 25 knots and travelled at an average speed of more than 21 knots but was asked to reduce to below 15 knots. Why? The Ship could outrun any U boat but it was deliberately slowed down. Why?

Its escort battleship “Juno” which was patrolling the waters was recalled to port and no alternative was sent out.

British intelligence was aware that the U-boat was operating in the area but no warning was sent by Navy. Churchill at that time was first Lord of admiralty.

A week before the disaster, Winston Churchill had wrote to Walter Runciman, President of the Board of Trade that it was "most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores, in the hopes especially of embroiling the United States with Germany." Many highly-placed persons in Britain and America believed that the German sinking of the Lusitania would bring the United States into the war.

The evening before the attack, King George V asked an ambassador whether the USA would enter the war if a U-boat sank Lusitania. Churchill then went on holiday. Who was to blame for the murder of over a thousand people?
Why an evening before the sinking King George knew that it is going to be sunk tomorrow?

The Navy had dispatched a cruiser from nearby Queenstown to undertake a rescue — but the ship was mysteriously recalled just as it steamed into view of the survivors. The stricken masses were left frantically waving in disbelief.

Dublin-based technical diver Des Quigley, who dived on the wreck in the 1990s with Bemis' permission, has reported that the wreck is "like Swiss cheese" and the seabed around her "is littered with unexploded hedgehog mines". Royal Navy officials have claimed they had merely been "practicing" on the wreck, but others have said that in fact the Navy was deliberately trying to destroy evidence. Professor William Kingston of Trinity College, Dublin has said, "There's no doubt at all about it that the Royal Navy and the British government have taken very considerable steps over the years to try to prevent whatever can be found out about the Lusitania".

In February 2009, the Discovery Channel TV series Treasure Quest aired an episode titled "Lusitania Revealed", in which Gregg Bemis and a team of shipwreck experts explore the wreck via remote control unmanned submersible. At one point in the show it is mentioned that Cobh locals have believed for years that in the 1950s during a two week period, the Royal Navy dropped depth charges on the wreck, greatly worsening its condition. It was stated that numerous Cobh residents on shore heard the blasting and saw navy ships hovering over the area of the wreck. At one point in the show an unexploded depth charge was found in the wreckage, in plain sight, clearly seen by the remote control submersible's video camera. Gregg Bemis, as well as other people on the team, believe the British Royal Navy deliberately bombed the Lusitania site to "make the wreck as unattractive as possible, to prevent further salvage" and to "prevent divers from going in and finding that there was contraband cargo". No government has ever admitted to the depth charging. The narrator says the depth charges probably crushed the upper decks of the ship, and further scattered the debris field.

Who was really responsible for killing of USA Citizens? Churchill or Germany?
Now the sinking;

The Lusitania made her maiden voyage from Liverpool to New York in September 1907. Construction had begun in 1903 with the goal of building the fastest liner afloat. Her engines produced 68,000-horse power and pushed the giant through the water at a speed over 25 knots. Dubbed the "Greyhound of the Seas" she soon captured the Blue Ribbon for the fastest Atlantic crossing.

The British Admiralty had secretly subsidized her construction and she was built to Admiralty specifications with the understanding that at the outbreak of war the ship would be consigned to government service. As war clouds gathered in 1913, the Lusitania quietly entered dry dock in Liverpool and was fitted for war service. This included the installation of ammunition magazines and gun mounts on her decks. The mounts, concealed under the teak deck, were ready for the addition of the guns when needed.

Lusitania departed Pier 54 in New York on 1 May 1915 for Liverpool. Unknown to her passengers but no secret to the Germans, almost all her hidden cargo consisted of munitions and contraband destined for the British war effort that included 600 tons of explosives, 6 million pounds of ammunition, 1,248 cases of shrapnel shells, and some American passengers. The Germans placed full page newspaper ads in 50 newspapers across USA, warning Americans not to travel aboard the Lusitania, which was carrying munitions but masquerading as an ocean liner. The German Embassy in Washington had issued this warning on 22 April 1915. This warning was printed adjacent to an advertisement for Lusitania's return voyage.
Travellers intending to embark on the Atlantic voyage are reminded that a state of war exists between Germany and her allies and Great Britain and her allies; that the zone of war includes the waters adjacent to the British Isles; that, in accordance with formal notice given by the Imperial German Government, vessels flying the flag of Great Britain, or any of her allies, are liable to destruction in those waters and that travelers sailing in the war zone on the ships of Great Britain or her allies do so at their own risk."
Imperial German Embassy
Washington, D.C. 22nd April 1915

As the fastest ship afloat, the luxurious liner felt secure in the belief that she could easily outdistance any submarine. Nonetheless, the menace of submarine attack reduced her passenger list to only half her capacity.

On May 7, the ship neared the coast of Ireland. At 2:10 in the afternoon a torpedo fired by the German submarine U 20 slammed into her side. Few seconds later, a mysterious second explosion ripped the liner apart. Chaos reigned. Most passengers never had a chance. Within 18 minutes the giant ship slipped beneath the sea. One thousand one hundred nineteen of the 1,924 aboard died. The dead included 128 Americans. During enquiry many witnesses testified that portholes across the ship had been open at the time of attack and an expert witness confirmed that such a single porthole would let in four tons of water per minute. WHY all the portholes were left open? Was it in anticipation of torpedo attack? Interestengly J P Morgan had shown keen interest in this ship.

A British battleship, Juno, which had been patrolling the waters serving as an escort to Lusitania but this Juno was recalled to port shortly before the attack no alternative was sent out. British intelligence was aware that the U-boat was operating but no specific warning was sent by Churchill. Lusitania was capable of great speed and could have out-sailed any U-boat, but the ship was travelling at only 15 knots much below her capacity of 25 knots (Why?) and the ship did not zigzag (Why?) as others did to make a torpedo attack virtually impossible.

The mystery of the Lusitania's sinking was the speed in which she sank, in just 18 minutes. There were 2 explosions on the Lusitania, but only one torpedo fired, and witnesses agree that the 2nd explosion was the larger, and it was this second explosion that doomed the ship, and led to the rapid sinking that resulted in such a loss of life. One torpedo should not have caused a ship of Lusitania's size to sink to so rapidly. Indeed, it took the Titanic close to 2 hours to sink, and if the Lusitania sank as slowly, all passengers would have been saved. Another interesting factor, there were enough life boats on the ship to carry all passengers. How did they were destroyed?

German Submarine U-20’s Commander Schwieger's log entries attest that he only launched one torpedo. Some doubt the validity of this claim, contending that the German government subsequently altered the published fair copy of Schwieger's log, but accounts from other U-20 crew members corroborate it. The entries were also consistent with intercepted radio reports sent to Germany by U-20 once she had returned to the North Sea, before any possibility of an official cover up.

The false flag attack;

The same crowd which manipulated the passage of the income tax and the Federal Reserve System wanted America in the war. J. P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, "Colonel" House, Jacob Schiff, Paul Warburg and the rest of the Jekyll Island conspirators were all deeply involved in getting us involved. Many of these financiers had loaned England large sums of money. In fact, J. P. Morgan & Co. served as British financial agents in this country during World War I.” -Gary Allen, None Dare Call it Conspiracy

J P Morgan had ben showing extra interest in Lusitania.
World War I officially began on June 28th, 1914 when members of the Jewish Black Hand secret society assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Europe quickly polarized and warred for nearly a year before Americans were given their false-flag reason to join.

The German government took out large ads in all the New York papers warning potential passengers that the ship was carrying munitions and telling them not to cross the Atlantic on it … Yet the sinking of the Lusitania was used by clever propagandists to portray the Germans as inhuman slaughterers of innocents. Submarine warfare was manufactured into a cause celebre to push us into war." -Gary Allen,

Midday May 7th, off the coast of Ireland, the Lusitania was ordered to reduce speed, and “Juno,” its British military escort vessel ‘Juno’, was ordered to withdraw. Committee of 300, 33rd degree Freemason, and Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill knew German U-Boats were in the vicinity and purposely called off Juno.

British commander Joseph Kenworthy, on duty when the ship was sunk, later revealed that her military escort was withdrawn at the last minute and her captain ordered to enter at reduced speed in an area where a German U-boat was known to be operating. It is clear why Germany attacked this ship, and Britain would have done the same if U.S. munitions were being shipped to Germany. ‘The Germans, whose torpedo struck the liner, were the unwitting accomplices or victims of a plot probably concocted by Winston Churchill,’ concluded author Simpson.” -Jim Marrs, “Rule by Secrecy” (189)

The Lusitania was a ploy. It was packed with some Morgan owned ammunition, had been given over to England as a member of the navy, and despite the warnings of the Germans was sent Into a naval war zone, specifically to be a target - the catalyst for America’s entrance to the war …Churchill ordered the Lusitania’s naval escort to return to port, and the fated ship was left unprotected, to be sunk. Rothschild agent Colonel House probably knew of this plot, records point to a discussion of it between him and Sir Edward Grey of England. Historian Colin Simpson called the sinking of the Lusitania the ‘foulest act of willful murder ever committed on the seas.’” -Fritz Springmeier, “Bloodlines of the Illuminati”

Churchill’s fellow Committee of 300 member, CFR founder, and Rothschild agent Colonel Mandel House was also President Wilson’s top political advisor. Wilson said “Mr. House is my second personality. He is my independent self. His thoughts and mine are one. If I were in his place, I would just do as he suggested.” This is a man who has also been called the Henry Kissinger of his day. In the book “The Intimate Papers of Colonel House” is a conversation recorded between Colonel House and the Foreign Secretary of England, Sir Edward Grey. Grey asked, “What will America do if the Germans sink an ocean liner with American passengers on board?” and House answered, “I believe that a flame of indignation would sweep the United States and that by itself would be sufficient to carry us into the war.” Emphasis supplied. That is exactly what happened. Around 1,200 were killed, including 128 Americans.

This act set off a firestorm of anti-German feeling throughout the United States, fanned by the Rockefeller-Morgan dominated press.” –Jim Marrs, “Rule by Secrecy” (188)
Post sinking Exploration of the wreck;

In late July 2008 Gregg Bemis was granted an "imaging" license by the Department of the Environment, allowed him to photograph and film the entire wreck, and allowed him to produce the first high-resolution pictures of it. Bemis planned to use the data gathered to assess the wreck's deterioration and to plan a strategy for a forensic examination of the ship, which he estimated would cost $5m. Florida-based Odyssey Marine Exploration (OME) was contracted by Bemis to conduct the survey. The Department of the Environment's Underwater Archaeology Unit joined the survey team to ensure that research would be carried out in a non-invasive manner, and a film crew from the Discovery Channel was on hand. Bemis found munitions in the wreck said: 'Those four million rounds of .303s were not just some private hunter's stash.

“Now that we've found it, the British can't deny any more that there was ammunition on board. That raises the question of what else was on board.
'I've always felt there were some significant high explosives in the holds  -  shells, powder, gun cotton  -  that were set off by the torpedo and the inflow of water. That's what sank the ship.'” The central point to this question has always been the timeline: torpedo strike, then a 15 second delay, then the bigger explosion. The Germans knew that their torpedoes in no way had such explosive power.

"Everyone who survived said how awful it was, listening to all these people crying for help," he muses. "Just hundreds of people were about to perish in the cold water and just yelling for help." Barnes shudders, imagining the wildly tilting lifeboats spilling passengers 60 feet headlong into the sea ... and a tiny periscope disappearing beneath the waves. His voice quavers slightly as he recounts the unfathomable actions of the British Royal Navy. The Navy had dispatched a cruiser from nearby Queenstown to undertake a rescue — but the ship was mysteriously recalled just as it steamed into view of the survivors allowing them to die. The stricken masses were left frantically waving in disbelief.

British false propaganda

It was in the interests of the British to keep US passions inflamed, and a fabricated story was circulated that in some regions of Germany, schoolchildren were given a holiday to celebrate the sinking of the Lusitania. This story was so effective that James W. Gerard, the US ambassador to Germany, recounted it in his memoir of his time in Germany, Face to Face with Kaiserism (1918), though without substantiating its validity.

Simpson, Colin, The Lusitania (1972); Hickey, Des & Smith, Gus, Seven Days to Disaster (1982).


Thursday, March 1, 2012

It’s hard to live a moral life.

It’s hard to live a moral life.

 • Don’t Lie.
 • Don’t Cheat.
 • Don’t Steal
 • Don’t Kill
 • Don’t take advantage of those who are weaker than you are.
 • Protect those who are weaker than we are.

It’s hard to do that….. Especially when we live in a culture that demands that we only have ourselves to blame if our morality gets us in trouble.

I give you the medical industry. I know a lot of people in this particular industry, and for the most part, they’re pretty nice folks. Nice folks who would not be gainfully employed if they lived moral lives. There are just too many things that they have to turn a blind eye to if they want to keep their jobs. Same is with every other job or promotion.

But this isn’t about the medical industry. It’s about being trapped in flawed, dysfunctional, and immoral places in our lives. We get ourselves into these places and we see no way out.

It’s hard to live a moral life.

To our very core, most of us don’t like to lie, cheat, steal, kill, or take advantage of those who are weaker than we are. We really do want to protect those who are weaker than we are.

We want to be moral, but we don’t have the courage to step away from immorality. We want someone else to fix it. We rationalize it. We lie to ourselves.

It’s hard to live a moral life, because in our culture, morality is the bedfellow of poverty and social ostracism.

So we suck ourselves up into little shells of self-denial and a sense of determinism that we can’t fight. Too bad, because we can be moral. It isn’t easy, and our morality may very well throw us into bed with poverty, and we will most certainly be ostracized. But it can be done.

Living a moral life is hard, but we’ll never know the beauty and rewards of morality until we take that first courageous step.

One dangerous foot in front of the other.

Have a nice day.


Who benefits more from International Trade? Developed or Developing Countries?

Whether it is developed or developing countries which benefit more from the liberalization of international trade than the developing one?

1. Whether liberalization is a good idea or bad one is essentially independent of who benefits more.

If you have a choice of gaining $5 dollars by playing a game vs. nothing if you don't, isn't it worthwhile for you to play whether or not I get $10 for playing? Why should how much I get affect your willingness to play as long as you get enough to make it worthwhile for you?

2. What is your measure for "benefitting more"? Is it total benefits in absolute dollars? total benefits per capita? benefits per capita in relative terms (i.e. percentage improvement)

Some developing countries (such as China) have benefited greatly from the liberalization of international trade, while others (such as many of those in Africa) have not.

On the other hand, it is clear that all the developed countries have benefited significantly from the liberalization of trade.
If you went back to the protectionism of the last century, the developed countries would lose more in absolute terms: total dollars and total dollars per capita. That's because they are rich and spend much more. Trade between the developed countries is much higher than trade between the developed world and the rest of the world.

Thus even though the U.S. gets about 20% of its imports from China, most of its imports come from the developed world: Canada, Germany Japan, etc.
On the other hand, if you went back to the protectionism of the last century, countries like China and India would be the biggest losers in percentage of loss. Their absolute gains aren't as high, but since they have a low base, their relative gains are very high.

But then there are developing countries such as Gabon, Cote d'Ivoire, and Chad who are not doing well at all by any measure.

So there are reasons for arguing that the developed countries benefit more:
and it is certainly true that the rules are biased in favor of the developed world (if only because they have the clout - both economic and military)
but also arguments for countering that is meaningless. For example, China is clearly powerful enough not to trade if it did not see trade as being in its benefit, yet it is committed to increasing trade, not reducing it. Ditto for India.

Just simplicitus