A Tsunami of Relief
Right now NBC is airing a star-studded telethon called Tsunami AId: A Concert for Hope.
TV personalities, political commentators, ex-presidents George Bush and Bill Clinton, scores of movie stars and singers are all encouraging viewers to donate money to the American Red Cross.
We are bombarded with images of children who have lost their parents and any sense of security in life. Drew Barrymore just told us about all the pregnant women who have been left homeless who will be delivering babies in the next three months.
The head of the American Red Cross was interviewed by Chris Matthews and she assured potential donors that 94% of their contributions would go directly to those who were harmed by this natural disaster.
I hate to be a party pooper and I risk being viewed as the biggest cynic on the entire planet by saying what I’m about to say, but it has been said that those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.
So you can regard this as my own effort to “reach out and touch somebody’s hand and make this world a better place if you can” as Diana Ross is instructing me in song right now on the TV.
The truth will set you free.
When I recently read G. Edward Griffin’s The Creature from Jekyll Island, it was the first I’d heard of the role that Wall Street bankers played in financing the Bolshevik revolution in Russia and the role that the Red Cross played in masking that operation.
In searching the Internet tonight I found a book by Antony C. Sutton, Wall Street & the Bolshevik Revolution that covers the same topic. A copy of the book is also available online here.
Back to the show: Hugh Grant just told us that he’s always skeptical when movie stars and celebrities tell us what to do, but that even he has written a check, though he is “famously stingy.”
But I digress.
Chapter V of Sutton’s book is called “The American Red Cross Mission in Russia – 1917.” It provides documentation of how Wall Street bankers used The American Red Cross like a Trojan Horse to slip into Russia to influence the political scene and ultimately to bring the Bolsheviks to power, supporting one of the bloodiest, most brutal regimes in history which ultimately took the lives of an estimated 20 million people, in order to obtain access to the country’s natural resources.
In August 1917 the American Red Cross Mission to Russia had only a nominal relationship with the American Red Cross, and must truly have been the most unusual Red Cross Mission in history. All expenses, including those of the uniforms — the members were all colonels, majors, captains, or lieutenants — were paid out of the pocket of William Boyce Thompson.
[...]
The majority of the mission, as seen from the table, was made up of lawyers, financiers, and their assistants, from the New York financial district. The mission was financed by William B. Thompson, described in the official Red Cross circular as “Commissioner and Business Manager; Director United States Federal Bank of New York.” Thompson brought along Cornelius Kelleher, described as an attache to the mission but actually secretary to Thompson and with the same address — 14 Wall Street, New York City. Publicity for the mission was handled by Henry S. Brown, of the same address. Thomas Day Thacher was an attorney with Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett, a firm founded by his father, Thomas Thacher, in 1884 and prominently involved in railroad reorganization and mergers. Thomas as junior first worked for the family firm, became assistant U.S. attorney under Henry L. Stimson, and returned to the family firm in 1909. The young Thacher was a close friend of Felix Frankfurter and later became assistant to Raymond Robins, also on the Red Cross Mission. In 1925 he was appointed district judge under President Coolidge, became solicitor general under Herbert Hoover, and was a director of the William Boyce Thompson Institute.
The table Sutton mentions gives the name of all those who went on the mission and there were clearly more Wall Street operatives than medical personnel.
To spell it out more clearly, The Red Cross, in union with Wall Street financiers, went on a “humanitarian” mission which ultimately brought about one of the worst man-made disasters in the history of mankind.
In contrast, Sutton notes, The American Red Cross also sent a mission to Rumania that was more in keeping with their charter:
In 1917 the American Red Cross also sent a medical assistance mission to Rumania, then fighting the Central Powers as an ally of Russia. A comparison of the American Red Cross Mission to Russia with that sent to Rumania suggests that the Red Cross Mission based in Petrograd had very little official connection with the Red Cross and even less connection with medical assistance. Whereas the Red Cross Mission to Rumania valiantly upheld the Red Cross twin principles of “humanity” and “neutrality,” the Red Cross Mission in Petrograd flagrantly abused both.
I’m all for private efforts to help people who have suffered from a sudden natural disaster. If I was in a similar situation, I would certainly be grateful for any assistance that others offered to me.
As I have noted before, however, the scope of current natural disaster is quite small in comparison to other natural disasters and pales in comparison to man-made disasters like the current war in Iraq, or the genocide in Rwanda where an estimated 800,000 Tutis were slaughtered and an estimate quarter million to one half million women were raped. Amnesty International UK says that 70% of the rape victims are now infected with with HIV/AIDS.
Now that’s a disaster.
So when the United Nations, the governments of the world, movie stars, and politicians all rush to the aid of the tsunami victims after remaining comparitively silent in the face of far more devastating disasters, I have to wonder what the real motives are. If they were politically neutral and purely humanitarian, wouldn’t disasters receive aid in proportion to their magnitude?
Aid to the tsunami disaster victims is being so heavily promoted that I think it is fair to assume that the government and the rich and powerful see much to gain from infusing themselves into the situation, just as Wall Street bankers saw much to gain from financing the Bolsheviks, using The Red Cross in 1917 as a facade for their real motives.
The big difference is that now the rich and powerful don’t have to finance the entire operation with their own money. They’ve enlisted the help of celebrities to encourage the working classes to donate the money. The working classes have already “donated” with the tax dollars that have already been offered in aid by our government.
Shortly after the tsunami occured and the initial pleas for financial aid were made, I saw one of those unscientific polls online. The question was “Do you think the money will reach the people who really need it?” I was surprised that something like 85% of respondents answered “No.”
UPDATE 1/16/05: MSNBC has a report on the event today.
| Go to Home - Most Recent Posts
January 18th, 2005 at 1:00 pm
i have also read griffin’s book, and i also have an skepticism like yours about the donations.
first, our country is not free if we are forced to donate with our tax dollars. freedom means the option to choose who to donate to, why, and how much.
more importantly, i noticed this statement from kofi annan :
“What happened on 26 December, 2004 was an unprecedented, global catastrophe. It requires an unprecedented, global response,” he said on Thursday, calling it the largest natural disaster the world body had faced. (reuters)
first, that is wrong. it is not the largest disaster a UN country has faced. (see my posting of the almanac disaster stats).
second, under this false pretense, he is proposing a *removal of debt* to the affected countries. its exactly as griffin described : reckless high-interest loans are given to countries that are not expected to pay them back. after several rounds of high-margin lending, the country will eventually become insolvent. in order to have the american public approve (read: pay) a bail-out, there needs to be a large disaster/war/tragedy in that nation. so we give money and arms to neighboring states and dictators (making money off of that as well) until the borrowing nation begins to collapse, and we justify a bail-out on the grounds of moral altruism. at that point, the socialist forces behind the original lenders move in to take control of the nation. the banks get their money, the politicians get their power, and its all risked, approved, and financed by the american public.
in this case, we didn’t need to invent a reason or manufacture an “evil-do-er” – nature did that for us.
January 18th, 2005 at 4:47 pm
Great comment, Dan.
You did a great job of summarizing Griffin’s thesis.
Did you catch the report from the United Nations that says we could half the world’s poverty if countries like the U.S. would just triple the money they give away?
The U.N. will be seen by the poor as their economic savior seducing them into wanting it to rule the world.
Of course, dumping lots of money into impoverished economies will do nothing but cause inflation as well as enrich corrupt governments.
Remember the U.N.’s food for oil program in Iraq? How quickly people forget.
When I read stuff like the U.N.’s lates proposal, Griffin’s work seems prophetic.
January 20th, 2005 at 4:44 pm
your comments in the UN article sum it up well.
i was bummed when i heard friends saying that our country’s money will somehow create a safer region in the tsunami areas. did you ever ask yourself why those regions don’t have the technology that we do? or why they dont have famous scientists and designers? or famous research universities? maybe because their form of government and economy is not the best for that kind of growth. they are all nations dominated by mysticsm and collective rights.
germany faced the same problem, and their scientists fled collectivist persecution and found a great life in america and lifted the poverty level for everyone. even the poorest bum in america can find shelter in the warm vestibule of a skyscraper, or wearing a torn gortex jacket. japan is located in a very dangerous region, but they used their minds and a free trade political-economic system to design all kinds of crazy things like giant tunnels, floating airports, and weather prediction systems. the average 5.0 quake in LA would kill thousands in india.
instead of throwing money at people *after* tragedy has occured (which is a typical bleeding heart thing to do – please help my liberal guilt go away!), i want to use my mind and reason to explore why these regions cannot develop on their own. i want to see free people collaborating for *mutually beneficial* reasons – not out of abstract guilt, and not forced to the way bush is doing. thats literally what made america great. oh wells…