Our friend Josh has published a 43-page paper over at The MM site. It is about the so-called “Business Plot” to overthrow FDR, replacing him with General Smedley Butler, who blew the whistle. Josh uses much if this first paper to deconstruct FDR, long overdue, and will follow up on Butler in a second part of the paper.
I read it over two days. It has nice flow and held my interest. Give it a read when you have a spare couple of hours. Worth it.
Piece of Mindful 
I wonder if some elements of the Business Plot and Roosevelt Presidency were taken from Philip Dru:Administrator by Mandell House. Actually elements from that book (1912) are relevant to Wilson’s presidency, but this is somewhat expected since House was Wilson’s advisor. I didn’t read the book but I listened to an audio version (from librivox). I remember the overall story but there are details in that book regarding various policies. People may find parallels between Dru’s policies and Wilson’s /Rooslvelt’s policies. Of course the book also has Dru’s civil war against plutocrats which is similar in a way with this Business plot. Maybe this book was in the collective mind during the 30’s, making the plot more plausible for some people. I also want to add that I don’t assume that the book was necessarily written by House himself. Maybe it was written by a committee doing some predictive programming before predictive programming was cool. A quote from wiki “Oddly enough, in 1911 he [House] had published a political novel, Philip Dru: Administrator, in which a benevolent dictator imposed a corporate income tax, abolished the protective tariff, and broke up the ‘credit trust’—a remarkable adumbration of [Woodrow] Wilson and his first term”.
LikeLike
I already read the paper and now I wait for the 2nd part. This is an important paper since Butler is one of the oldest gatekeepers or heroes of the “conspiracy people”.
LikeLike
I had a screen shot of Butler and his famous quote re war is a racket. I had happily and proudly sent it to family members who are fellow truthseekers, thinking Butler was a hero. I have subsequently dumped the photo, but only after Josh’s paper. Of course, another “hero” falls. We need to be our own heroes of course. Enough is enough. I have a family member seeking truth who believes David Irving and says he’s a hero among holocaust truthers… I sent him MM’s paper on Irving.
LikeLike
FYI, I recently posted a question regarding that topic. Interested in some feedback:
https://pieceofmindful.com/2017/06/21/the-jewish-question-again/#comment-53934
LikeLike
Grace: May I suggest a better option: toss the photo, keep the cannoli, I mean, keep the quote.
LikeLike
You also said I might be the same person as Allan Weisbecker. That would be funny if it wasn’t so insulting. I mean, if you’re going to accuse me of being the brains behind more than one person, couldn’t you choose somebody with a sharper intellect than poor old Allan? He’s asking good questions but good lord does that man have a thick skull! He still hasn’t realized that I hoisted him by his own petard and roasted him on it like a pig on a spit.
As for this “bold” idea of yours that just “popping out” of you — please do allow similar ideas that pop out of you to be flushed down the drain. No need to pluck it out of the toilet bowl and show it to us as if it’s something to be proud of. It’s not.
LikeLike
Good evening to you. Well, those are loaded words and powerful images… but my response will not be predictable. Do not worry, if my idea was crazy and outlandish, no wonder why you devote time to it -you are very busy, remember-. I apologize, no insult intended and this is my last post about it. The cards have been stacked already. That one, was just a thought and I was compelled to better leave it in writing, I even wrote it was a crazy thought as a caveat emptor. You know, the weakest ink beats the strongest memory every time. Please understand, it was nothing personal, I acknowledge you have worthy but few material published online under nick “Josh”. You are welcome here at this blog by its hosts, I think we all do, your last paper is praiseworthy in many ways. It’s just I would welcome more info about its author, you won’t give it away, you have your reasons, your call, fine. MM is clear and thorough, I have studied his papers since long time. Personally, I think he’s dropping the ball lately but his credit is still high. No need to defend him, I am not attacking him either, how could I? Though you have been just awake since 1/1/16, I realize you should be familiar with current ops tactics: posting material to the Internet and falsely attributing it to someone else (below more info). That is why I feel cagey, but let’s leave it at that. Nobody else cared about my crazy post or knew what I was talking about. Out of sight, out of mind. I deserve that right, no?
https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/
LikeLike
I believe it’s still useful to recommend the book. to the beginners. It is too much to send them to this blog or to MM’s papers. They have to digest less revolutionary ideas and start to question things. When they start to see the various contradictions of history they are ready for the higher view. This is like climbing a mountain. To fully appreciate the view and the mountain, they must familiarize with the mountain from bottom to top, no helicopter ride. Even the seasoned seekers must read the primary sources (or the supposed primary sources) in my opinion. For example I question a lot of ancient history but I still want to read Tacitus, Suetonius, Polybius,Josephus, Herodotus, Plutarch , Arrian, Procopius, Diodorus Siculus, Ammianus Marcelinnus, The Augustan History etc (I wanted to give a useful list of ancient historians). Nonetheless, here is a link to the book https://archive.org/details/WarIsARacket .
LikeLike
calgacus: I do too like your approach. Also, let me offer the following:
Propaganda Detox Diet:
+ Whatever the amount of TV you watch… watch less. In fact, aim for watching no TV at all. 30-days minimum.
+ Cut-off Social media. 3 weeks.
+ Do not try to understand the World by watching/listening/reading mainstream media.
+ Search for facts. “Just the facts, man”.
+ Keep it simple. Less is more.
+ Think for yourself. It’s hard, man. You tell me! Conduct a personal self-assessment and evaluate all the ideas you entertain on your mind that are actually yours and not product of some other man’s/woman’s mind.
+ List your top 5 favorite books of all time. Why did they top the list?
+ Take a vacation, but take no electronics with you: phone, laptop, tablet, etc.
+ Always remember: opinion is not a fact. Also, perception is not the truth.
+ Attack the idea, not the person.
+ As a bonus: Follow Gen. Mattis advice and never use Powerpoint. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/world/27powerpoint.html
LikeLike
calgacus: That is a very prominent list of ancient (and western) historians, which I, for one, applaud. I would only add the renowned Thucydides to that list. Other than that, well put together. Cheers.
LikeLike
Agricola, calgacus: I bet all your money you are not americans. I have yet to meet (in person) another fellow yankee for whom those names listed above were recognizable or at least ringed a bell, let alone having read some of their books 😉
LikeLike
Thanks, Cal! Good point about Philip Dru. They are constantly blurring the boundaries between fiction and manufactured history, with each drawing on the other. We will see more of this in Part 2…
LikeLike
I don’t know Jesse from Adam, but the writing seems familiar. Upgraded, with lots of photos, but the phrase: “Back to …..” is where I started to remember. Probably nothing.
LikeLike
That’s Josh. My bad.
LikeLike
Something quick about me to start and avoid being labeled as troll, gnome, shill, etc.: Hold a degree in Engineering, not from an American University but a Western Hemispher University, native English language, good french, basic german and spoken japanese besides good Spanish comprehension, MBA in Finance, not an artist but appreciate godd Art, be it Painting, Music, Novels, etc. Devourer of “History”, or mostly fables considered real History… Like dogs -from a distance-, hate cats… Never watche Star Wars -LOTR trilogy, that I did watch it- of ET or Terminator. Do not watch cable since 2002, so I have never watched a TV “reality show”. NY Mets fan. Huge soccer fan: Manchester United is my team. Or was my team, it ceased to exist around 2004/2005 when Malcolm Glazer purchased the team… I digress… Anyway, I have a stern question: Do you guys (this includes 1313, or MM that is, I noticed the prominuen use of numbers, well some, not all numbers of course) have a valid, logic, reasoned argument to use Wikipedia as the basis for most research papers/blog posts/conclusions? Do you consider Wikipedia a reliable, credible source? I bet you know by now Wikipedia is a seriously compromised source of information. Just Google “can you trust Wikipedia”, “Wikipedia reliability” or any other same line variation. What is the value you place on Wikipedia or how is it that it directs your research? Or perhaps I do not grasp how you rely on it as a tool? I’m trying to add to the matter on researching and writing based on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a Propaganda tool. I hold that statement as self-evident and I think you do too. If you keep using Wikipedia as the basis, you are using propaganda or propagandizing for the most part. If you do not get confirmation from other reputable sources and still use what you found on Wiki to sustain your premises or argument, I am afraid to say that it could be considered a red flag. Just resorting to Wikipedia for the sake of it or because it is accessible by practically anyone… it just plays into the hands of TPTB, that is precisely what is expected from the masses, or at least the proud few that still read. I wait for a respectful and thoughtful discussion of this topic. Ii consider it more important than distracting on finding out whou is a Crypto–Jew, don’t you agree? Suppose X writer based his/her research on information mostly provided by CNN? What would be your reaction? How would you take it? It is the same -or worse, in fact!- with Wikipedia. I welcome any respectful and reasoned comments.
LikeLike
Define “reputable”, please.
I don’t know of any source I’d personally call reputable. At the end of the day it doesn’t matter whether it’s Wikipedia telling me something or my dear old granny telling me: I don’t believe either one of them. I take it all as data, nothing more. “Truthfulness” is determined, at least by me, based on something more internal, a process, not the data itself and thus the source is irrelevant in many ways.
So whether I’m reading Wikipedia or this site or anything else I strive to approach it all with an attitude of naivete. I try to bring nothing into it with me or of me. Honestly it’s hard to put it into words because the words themselves end up being a barrier to understanding. It’s quite difficult to train yourself to stop your internal monologue, what a Buddhist might call “monkey mind”. Not talking is easy. All you have to do is keep your mouth closed. But silencing those inner voices takes a lot of effort and patience. If you manage it, however, you’ll find there’s another language being “spoken” and that the only reason you never heard it before was because your own voice was drowning it out.
Just as a side note it’s interesting that you suggested people “just Google” questions about Wikipedia. Do you see the irony there? One hand whitewashes the other, you might say.
LikeLike
I reply out of respect and cordiality, I suspect you are good spirited but do not set your eyes on minutiae: I do not think this is a semiotics forum… Anyway, I do not define reputable, the dictionary does it: “considered to be good or acceptable”, “honorable”, that’s it. As if you have some kidney problems you go to a reputable Nephrologist…. Another one, Google, what search engine do you use sir/ma’am? DuckDuckGo? Copernic? Google Scholar? Wolfram Alpha? or perhaps something more sophisticated. I’m trying to keep this simple and focused. Time is precious. I like to think that if a contribute to a discussion, I strive to make it impactful.
LikeLike
I agree, and many others here know as well, that Wikipedia is a compromised source. It was set up to be such, just as SNOPES was set up to be a source to reinforce official lies.
Knowing that going in gives an advantage, because whatever Wiki says is official truth, and our job then becomes to find out what is true by resolving contradictions. I did a long piece on the death of John Denver in part relying on Wiki, as it gave me much of the contradictory evidence I needed to ferret out what really happened.
One former writer here thinks that Wiki footnote numbers are significant, and I have seen this to be the case, but not to the point where I think it reliable. Sometimes truth is hidden by other means, such as repeating official sources, or repeating the numbers used by those who sponsor fake events, such as 108 victims in the Pulse nightclub event. Wikipedia always repeats official truth; it is a de facto participant in all public hoaxes, and so for that reason can be used as a reliable source from which to begin looking for truth. If it is in Wiki, it should be questioned.
LikeLike
Thanks for your John Denver post reference. Got it. I will check it out. It must have been an important or decisive person in your life perhaps, I will be careful and respectful in treating the subject. You devoted a ~8000-word blog post to him. I will review it not so much for the performer, but I am interested to see how you did with “find out what is true by resolving contradictions”. In the meantime, perhaps more readers/participants care to join in the discussion.
Regarding the signaling system, or the use of -not the references, but the numbers mentioned in the references- the Wiki footnotes, I must admit my perplexity. I still do not see how that argument hold any water for some, dare I say what persuaded you, but I will keep my mind open and alert. I understand Secret Services are idem. Same for Intelligence Agencies. Do you seriously think the Mossad -you can put in here the name of your IA of choice: CIA, etc., I would guess it will be the one we are most heavily propagandized, just think about it- … do you think the Mossad goes around the place merrily throwing out, scattering numbers for their awareness and our amusement? Hum. They are no Hänsel und Gretel, they do not need breadcrums. Let’s Think!!. Cloak and Dagger, so to speak (no reference to “Tyrone” and “Tandy”, of course). Deception. When you are in war, what do you feed your enemy: your intelligence info or your disinfo? Do you know your enemy? or has the enemy made sure you are chasing ghosts?
LikeLike
I really think it is just a communication system … a way of saying “This is not real, ” “ignore this,” etc. The use of other symbolic items, such as the book Catcher in the Rye, is apparent too. When Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested and it was announced that Catcher was checked out of the library in his name, spooks around the world immediately knew the event was fake. I regard it is mere professional courtesy on their part among colleagues. Others take teh numbers more seriously.
LikeLike
OK. I see. I was curious about what persuaded you about that system. Perhaps you got that info from an insider. I will keep an open mind, but hopefully you agree that, for someone else, it is need more than a book reference and a personal perception about courtesy among colleagues. Highly appreciate you point me to a definitive doc, something that you somewhat trust or trust, at least conditionally, if such a concept exist. Please do not view it (asking for link or doc) as laziness from my part, it’s just that the wheel is already round, do not need to invent it again. Also, I do not try to unfool anyone here nor proselytize or evangelize about a better system or truth. I will approach this subject candidly but hard.
LikeLike
I don’t have a document. We’ve noticed the reappearance of numbers time and again, and on the outside looking in have tried to understand what they mean. 33, for example, is supposedly the highest order in Scottish Rite Freemasonary, Ok, I’ll bite. It is everywhere. 11 I do not get, but it is everywhere. The variations are amazing … K is the 11th letter of the alphabet, KKK = 33, the Klan was an Intelligence front. JFK was fake-killed on 11/22. A recent gun incident in NY involved an 11 second gun burst … it is evident all around us.
Join us in trying to comprehend, maybe you will produce a breakthrough. We are not geniuses. We are just of open minds and high curiosity.
LikeLike
Mark, I am grateful for and accept your ostensible warm invitation. I acknowledge I am viewed with suspicion, distrust and skepticism from you and fellow readers. That is fine. I reciprocate.
LikeLike
I know some blog readers are apprehensive about typos. Please accept my apologies. Do not fret!! I just typed my comment in a rush, during my coffee break!! Do not focus on the inconsequential losing sight of the question posted.
LikeLike
Ahmad, may I ask what is your native language?
In response to your question, I will answer you what I answered Phil Solensky, who asked the same exact question in an e-mail he wrote to me about the Smedley Butler paper on the same day you posted here:
I agree that using Wikipedia is problematic. On the one hand we use it for information and at the same time we show that much of the information it has doesn’t make logical sense. I can’t speak for anyone else, but for me I’ll say that I feel that Wikipedia contains some truth and some lies, and I’d like to think I can tell the difference more often than not. And also, I frequently use Wikipedia to show the logical or other inconsistencies in the mainstream narrative or bring other evidence to bear that shows it’s wrong. But that just pushes the question back: how can I trust any of those other sources? All of the books I relied on for part 1 of the Smedley Butler piece I consider to have been limited hangouts, sometimes with deliberate disinfo or misdirection. There are no reliable sources, and Wikipedia is not necessarily any better or worse in that regard. As I wrote in the Dreyfus paper, it feels like trying to build on quicksand. There I said it in the context of newspapers, but of course it’s true of Wikipedia or any other source as well.
LikeLike
Josh, sorry for the late reply but I don’t visit around here daily. Besides, I like to let some time to pass, to allow other readers to chime in and go ahead answering comments in batches. Very few participants to my question posted, perhaps Summer recess (for Europe residents, at least) has to do with it. Anyway… I do not have any idea who Phil Solensky is… should I?
I agree about how problematic it is making Wikipedia the foundation of a research. Do you have a method to tell the difference between the truth and the lies contained in its articles? Regarding printed o electronic books, I think many are Propaganda, some others could be considered LHs as you call all the books you used (I have not read your Smedley Butler piece in full, but is very promising). I hold printed and e- books somewhat more reliable in the sense that they are less transient than Wiki. Also, if Anthony Sutton stamped his name on the cover, at least you know he is standing behind it, his name and his family’s name is behind it, even if you catch him spreading disinfo or LH… Another point to consider is what you mention regarding logic attributes in Wiki articles. Perhaps you know better than me, Logic and rigor are very lacking in many of them. At least some renowned writers worth their salt are very good at their craft, Edward Gibbon, Niall Ferguson and Thomas Mann to name just a tiny sample. I find it encouraging to see some of us (you included) are aware of the problems posed by Wiki as a source.
LikeLike
In my current piece on Columbine I am using Wiki to a degree, along with Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office, Bowling for Columbine, a book by Diane Gimpel intended for high school students, and soon to come a book by Cullen considered the final word. All are deeply compromised and dishonest. All repeat the official story, which was written by Intelligence, or Langley, or Spooks, that undefined group of people who manage our perceptions via news, entertainment, books and education. As Bernays said on the opening page of his book Propaganda, and I don’t have it handy, all of our attitudes and ideas are given to us by unseen men working behind the scenes. So my primary source in working this subject, and this is true of all of us here, is me. I look at the event and it does not make sense. That is all Josh did with the business plot, and all that any of us do. We unravel the lies. It is hard work.
LikeLike
Bernays? Edward Bernays. Agent extraordinaire. Gatekeeper. Once you get to pass that gate, who do you find next? George E. Creel.
LikeLike
Clearly, for a large segment of the population, Wikipedia is used as the main resource for information about events and people. If you want the “mainstream” perspective on events of significance, wiki will provide that for you.
So when researchers here are “using Wikipedia,” it is not to obtain facts…it is to study what the MS story is, and to discern contradictions or errors or to compare wiki’s story with other resources.
If you want to destroy the official narrative, you need to research and use the official narrative, right?
And as far as “anyone can edit Wikipedia” goes, I think that if anyone believes they can edit any page that describes important/significant events or persons, then they are being naive. Those wiki pages are monitored and the official story is maintained. Some pages are obviously monitored more closely than others.
But a fun experiment might be to choose a wiki page that is associated to one of the stories here at POM, and try to edit it with the research here, and links to this page. See if its possible, and if so, how long it is allowed to stand
LikeLike
That is a great idea. I don’t have the credentials or the desire. But just like YouTube only works if people think it is an uncensored media, so too with Wiki. Censorship is only effective when people do not realize it is there. Book banning does not work. Never being able to get a book published does.
LikeLike
I’m doing this in a rush. I acknowledge bmseattle input and I will comment in detail later hopefully more joining in the discussion.
I bothered to take note of the last 33 “individuals” or “users” (some could be bots, in fact) that have edited Benjamin Franklin’s Wiki page. Sorry if I abuse the space in this comment section. I have all 243 distinct users (some have made more than one edit, so more shows up listed, up to 500), if Mark issues clearance or permits, I can post all 243 usernames. These are the ones that have kept Old Ben’s Wiki page for us to enjoy:
Jodosma , Anpanman , Laszlo Panaflex , GlasshouseWP , Bender the Bot , Geoffrey.landis , Magic links bot , Koavf , Wantley , InternetArchiveBot , Ben76266 , Rjensen , Aumnamahashiva , PackMecEng , Freezer430 , JocularJellyfish , Drugzis , Keith-264 , SpikeballUnion , Alanscottwalker , Mattymmoo , Piledhigheranddeeper , Srich32977 , KConWiki , Cydebot , Skipfortyfour , Cocktail88 , Ne0Freedom , SlitherySentinel , Station1 , Doug Coldwell , Czar , Chris the speller.
LikeLike
Forgot to add: If audience interested, can post the list in Chronological order (newest first) or Alpha order. Very amusing names in fact. Your call.
LikeLike
I think oftentimes, Wikipedia is your gateway for research, BUT should not be the foundation of it. If you base your argument on a sole mention in Wikipedia, that is too shabby. If you can corroborate what you are saying citing multiple sources confirming -again, consider the source, though- then we’re in business. Wikipedia can be edited by ANYONE. Also, I consider superior articles ones using bibliographical references using proper format.
That is why I consider as shady articles signed by noms de plume and not by real person names standing behind research/articles. Of course, those articles could be well intended… but it is also true they could be propaganda. If a read a paper from a nick or a pseudonym I raise my antennas. Comments are not paper or research articles, so again, consider the source. I comment under “47 Ronin”, obviously a nick, but then again, it is a “comment” in the [Comments] section of a blog not a research paper. I might as well start using TUNA MELT as my nick, sounds harmless.
My opinion following: I say this is how you end a bloody Civil War with class… a handshake!!:
Right. Here I present one -guy among many- that profited from this “War”. He lend money to the Confederacy. He also teamed with the founder of the news agency “Reuters” among many other interesting ventures as well as investing in Healthcare, that HC system still “Open” for business to this day:
https://www.britannica.com/event/Erlanger-Loan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_%C3%89mile_d%27Erlanger
Hopefully someday, this fairy tale will be unspinned too, as well as the founding of “We the people”, the fakest of fakes!!
LikeLike
Comment was sent to moderation due to more than two links, just so you know. Beyond my control.
LikeLike
No worries, I know. I realized it after I hit [Post Comment]. I wanted to provide more references and forgot about that constraint from WP. Anyway, thanks for the the note.
LikeLike