by Miles Mathis
First published December 26, 2015
As usual, this is just my opinion, based on personal research.
As with so many recent papers, this one wasn't easy for me to write. Not because the research was difficult, but because it required me to give up an old hero. Debs wasn't as near to my heart as Chomsky had been, but it was still not pleasant realizing the truth. Although I was never a Socialist, Debs had always appealed to me for his work with unions as well as his strong convictions and his memorable quotes and speeches. I had always thought of him as cut from the same cloth as Thoreau and John Brown and so on.
Of course it was my exposé on Marx that led me to this paper. Once I realized that Marx was an obvious agent and that Marxism was simply a front for the Industrialists, I naturally began to look with suspicion at all famous Marxists or Socialists. Given what I uncovered in that paper, Debs would either have to be a dupe or an agent. After studying his bio closely, I conclude he was not a dupe.
We get most of the standard red flags on Debs, including coming from a family of old wealth. It is admitted his father came from a wealthy French family. It looks like Debs may also have been Jewish. The Socialist Party was led in those decades by five men: Morris Hillquit (who was really Morris Hillkowitz), Victor Berger, Daniel de Leon, Eduard Bernstein and Eugene Debs. The first four are admitted to be Jewish. Debs' grandmother on his father's side was Catherine Marguerite Hoffman. Her parents have been scrubbed, but the surname is possibly Jewish. Debs' mother was Marguerite Marie Betterich and her genealogy has also been scrubbed. We do not know who her parents were. Debs'
wife was Kate Metzel, and her bio also has many scrubbings and anomalies. According to Ancestry.com, her father was Arthur Baur, but according to a 1982 book by Nick Salvatore, he was her stepfather. Her mother's name is conspicuously absent in Salvatore's book, but is given as Katherine Steuber at Ancestry.com. But Steuber's parents are denied us. This is all very curious, since Metzel is also a common Jewish name. Steuber may be Jewish also.
You may say, “What does his being Jewish have to do with anything? Are you implying that every Intelligence project is a Jewish creation?” No, I'm not. But in this case it is quite pertinent, since we are dealing with Socialism here, and of course Marx was Jewish. I have never argued that Jews are behind all plots, but I have shown that they were definitely involved in this one, so there is really no use pretending otherwise. We have already seen that at least four of the founders of the US Socialist Party were Jewish, so there is really no room for denial. We will see many more below.
This argument is in no way anti-Semitic, since as it turns out many of the workers striking in 1894 were poor Jews. Over 12,000 tailors went on strike in that year in New York alone, and a large percentage were Jewish. I am on their side here, understand, since what I am showing you is that their strikes were infiltrated and undermined by the Industrialists. Some of those Industrialists were Jewish, and some of the prominent people hired by those Industrialists were also Jewish. That is simply a fact. I am for the poor Jews being repressed and against the rich Jew repressing them. If you think that is anti-Semitic, well, you have been reading too many journals.
I have shown that Marxism was invented as a joint project between prominent Jewish families and European Industrialists in around 1848 to divert and misdirect the Republican revolutions that were peaking in those years. Since we see Debs doing exactly that in 1895, we should ask if he was part of that project. Given that he did in fact misdirect all the workers' movements of that time, it would be very surprising if he just accidentally misdirected them while innocently thinking he was doing the right thing.
Debs' start in unions is another red flag. We are told he joined the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen in 1875. However, he wasn't a fireman then and they admit that. He had been a fireman from 1871 to early 1875, but quit to work in a wholesale grocery house, where he remained from 1875 to 1879. Despite that, we are told he was elected a delegate from the Terre Haute BLF to their national convention in 1877. What? How could a grocery worker be a national delegate for a locomotive firemen's union? Am I missing something? He was then elected associate editor of their national magazine, Firemen's Magazine in 1878, despite not being a fireman. Although he never worked as a fireman again after quitting at age 19, he became Grand Secretary and Treasurer of the BLF and editor of Firemen's Magazine by the time he was 24. None of that makes any sense to me.
We are told Debs was involved in the Burlington Railroad Strike of 1888, which—take note—was a defeat for labor. We see that Debs' involvement never did labor any good from the beginning. Was that just a coincidence? We have seen that it wasn't a coincidence with Marx. Everything that Marx touched turned to dross, and we see the same thing with Debs.
We see the same thing with the Pullman strike of 1894. Debs started out trying to stall the strike:
Debs tried to persuade the Union members who worked on the railways that the boycott was too risky, given the hostility of both the railways and the federal government, the weakness of the union, and the possibility that other unions would break the strike. The membership ignored his warnings and refused to handle Pullman cars or any other railroad cars attached to them, including cars containing U.S. Mail.
As you see, the rank-and-file workers had to go over his head. Debs didn't join the strike until the director of the American Railway Union Martin J. Elliott—going over his head—extended the strike from Chicago to St. Louis and 80,000 total workers. Despite Debs' position as a drag-along rather than a leader, he was curiously the one singled out by the New York Times as “an enemy of the human race”. [President Wilson would later use exactly the same phrase against Debs years later.] When the Pullman strike was broken by President Cleveland using the Sherman Antitrust Act an excuse, Debs was arrested and put on trial.
What you should ask at this point is, “Why Debs and only Debs?” Why not other union leaders in Chicago and St. Louis?
To answer that, remember that Debs had started the American Railway Union only the year before. That's right: the famous Pullman strike was in 1894 and Debs founded ARU in 1893. That by itself is highly suspicious. It looks very odd that a major union should be founded one year and its founder should be in front of the Supreme Court with Clarence Darrow representing him the next year.
Darrow is also a red flag, since before the Pullman case he had been working for the Railway. From 1892 to 1894 Darrow had been working as an attorney for the Chicago and North-Western Railway. We are told he had to quit and switch sides in order to represent Debs. And no one found that suspicious? No one found it curious that the Railway had its own attorneys sitting on both sides of the courtroom? Obviously, Darrow didn't quit. The Railway was playing both sides and the trial was a hoax.
The court cases also make no sense. Here is what we are told in Farrell's 2011 book on Darrow:
Sensing that Debs would be acquitted, the prosecution dropped the charge when a juror took ill. Although Darrow also represented Debs at the United States Supreme Court for violating the federal injunction, Debs was sentenced to six months in prison.
I can't make any legal sense of that. If the charges were dropped, how did Debs end up in front of the Supreme Court? The Supreme Court would be an appellate court in such a case, and you can't appeal dropped charges. If we go to the actual Supreme Court case that dealt with this matter, In re Debs, we find it was not an appeal of his criminal conviction (how could it be, since he wasn't convicted?); no, it was a technical finding on the right of the government to issue the injunction against the strike. The Court found the government did have the right, but that finding wouldn't have sent Debs to jail. It was a finding, not a criminal conviction. So how and why did Debs end up in jail for six months?
I suggest he didn't. Like many of the other jail terms we have studied— including the term of Charles Manson—it appears to have been faked.
It was during this alleged jail term that Debs allegedly read Marx and became a Socialist. Even the jail is suspicious, since rather than being interned at the Chicago prison at which he should have been interned, he was housed at the tiny Woodstock Jail. The town of Woodstock only had about 1,500 people at the time, and very few people in jail. You can see why that would be very convenient: in Chicago, a lot of inmates would be able to later testify they never saw Debs there. In Woodstock, almost none would.
We get a very curious quote in the next section at Wikipedia on Debs. Debs is quoted,
I began to read and think and dissect the anatomy of the system in which workingmen, however organized, could be shattered and battered and splintered at a single stroke.
Yes, Eugene, you mean like when a mole is sent in disguised as one of their own, and he blows the union from the inside out?
It was in the Woodstock jail where Debs was visited by socialist newspaper editor Victor Berger, whom we already saw above. Berger is one who gave Debs a copy of Das Capital. Berger was already a prominent member of the Socialist Labor Party, which was headed at the time by Daniel de Leon.
De Leon was another prominent Jew from a wealthy family, having grown up in the Netherlands. His father was a surgeon in the Dutch Army. Daniel attended the University of Leiden, where he was a member of the student corps, then transferred to Columbia University in New York. In 1882 a prize lectureship was created at Columbia, and it seems to have been created just for de Leon. He lectured on Latin American diplomacy for 6 years. All these things are red flags, and probably indicate de Leon had been recruited by US Intelligence out of the Netherlands. Another clue in this direction is the admission in the biography that de Leon published no papers in his area of expertise in the period. In other words, while he was allegedly lecturing for six years on Latin America, he published nothing on Latin America. From an academic perspective, that makes no sense.
De Leon's prize lectureship was created under the aegis of the Academy of Political Science.
At Wikipedia, we find this curious quote:
The Academy was one of only a handful of organizations that could be relied upon to produce non-partisan, analytical studies. The Brookings Institution was another one. The Academy also had annual dinners which were newsworthy events that were attended by important politicians, diplomats, scholars, and intellectuals.
First of all, the Brookings Institution produced non-partisan studies? Please! Clearly, the Academy of Political Science was some sort of Intelligence beach head at Columbia, all the way back to the 1880s. In support of that, I will continue quoting from Wikipedia:
In 1932, Walter Lippmann spoke at Academy's annual dinner about liberalism. "The great concern of the liberal spirit" he told the guests, "rests at last upon the conviction that at almost any cost men must keep open the channels of understanding and preserve unclouded, lucid and serene their perceptiveness of truth." [5] In 1940, then-Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson used the Academy's annual dinner to deliver an important pro-preparedness, pro-helping Britain speech. In 1946, then-Secretary of State George C. Marshall delivered a major dinner speech, also widely covered by the press, in favor of the Marshall Plan of aid to Western Europe.
See my paper on John Reed for more on Lippmann. He was a spook from the time he was in kneepants. Nothing he ever did was “unclouded, lucid” or had any concern for truth. Just the reverse. His entire career was concerned with spreading disinformation via the press. But it is Marshall's 1946 speech that gives us the direct tie to Intelligence. The CIA was being formed in that year, and Marshall was the hero of the CIA's founders. The aid to Western Europe he was talking about was the beginning of the post-war propaganda blitz we now know about. It is no longer classified and is now talked of with pride. See Radio Free Europe as just one example.
De Leon's roots in Socialism are mostly hidden. We are told he backed Henry George for mayor in 1886, while in the middle of his second lecture term at Columbia. When his lectureship ended in 1889, he immediately joined the Socialist Labor Party and became the editor of its paper The People. This indicates to me that his lectureship is not what we have been told. Another thing you aren't told is that the Socialist movement in the US had already crashed in around 1880. Although Intelligence pushed it hard in the 1870s, publishing many small journals, none of them lasted. It is admitted that English- speaking members of the various Socialist groups were almost zero. In the early 1880s, some more Germans were shipped in to try to start it up again, but by then they were only preaching to themselves. So at the time de Leon, Berger and Debs got involved, the SLP was just a shell organization, one with almost no members. Of course it had always been a shell, being nothing more than an Intelligence front, but in 1890 it was just a cardboard front, with no ceiling, no side walls, and a dirt floor. The whole Debs project was the attempt to rebuild the failed Socialist entry into the US by tying it directly to the unions. But since the real unions didn't want to have anything to do with it, Intelligence had to create their own fake unions.
As proof of my theory, I will quote again from Wikipedia:
De Leon was highly critical of the trade union movement in America and described the craft-oriented American Federation of Labor as the "American Separation of Labor".
You see, this is exactly what de Leon was inserted to do. This was the whole point of Marxism and Socialism from the beginning: criticize the trade unions and divert them away from their main work of representing workers and collective bargaining for proper wages and into endless political squabbles about economics and armchair philosophy. Socialism was created to splinter and misdirect any and all Republican movements, including unions. They admit that in the histories, where they tell us the Socialists tried to infiltrate the Knights of Labor but were driven out. The Knights were anti-Marxist, possibly because they knew what I am telling you about Marx. One of the goals of these Socialist movements in the 1880s was to destroy the Knight of Labor, which they did.
So that's who Daniel de Leon was. Let us return briefly to Victor Berger. Like de Leon, Berger's job was to splinter the workers, getting them involved in endless political squabbles. He was also on hand to prevent any meaningful action. For instance, Berger was a proponent of Eduard Bernstein's “incremental politics”. What this meant in practice is that both men recommended workers slowly press their agenda via electoral politics rather than strike or revolt. Of course this played right into the hands of the Industrialists. Like Berger and de Leon, Bernstein was of course Jewish, being originally from Berlin.
When Debs allegedly got out of prison in 1895, he joined his American Railway Union to the Brotherhood of the Cooperative Commonwealth to create the Socialist Democracy of America. The problem? The Brotherhood was also a front. It had just been formed in late 1896 and had had no national meetings. So Debs was really joining his ARU to a ghost.
We see this again with the Brotherhood's financial backing by Henry Demarest Lloyd. Lloyd was yet another Intelligence asset mole. A graduate of Columbia Law, Lloyd went on to write for the Chicago Tribune and the Associated Press, supposedly writing in favor of workers and against those such as John D. Rockefeller. However, his articles were all misdirection. For example, he came out in favor of the Haymarket anarchists in 1886. The problem? That whole incident was faked. The anarchists were supposedly hanged on November 11. 11/11. The Haymarket incident was followed by a harsh crackdown on union activity, which was the whole point of the hoax.
Police raids were carried out on homes and offices of suspected anarchists. Scores of suspects, many only remotely related to the Haymarket affair, were arrested. Casting legal requirements such as search warrants aside, Chicago police squads subjected the labor activists of Chicago to an eight-week shakedown, ransacking their meeting halls and places of business.
Sound familiar? We see the same sort of hoaxes today, run for the same reasons. Think of the Boston Marathon bombing, which was hoaxed in a similar way. It was followed by martial law in Boston, with troops taking over the streets and pointing guns at innocent people—all completely illegal.
Also go to the Haymarket page at Wikipedia, and notice that the Pinkerton Agency makes eight appearances. You will see why that is important below, where I out the Pinkerton Agency as a front for Intelligence.
Lloyd was supposedly disinherited by his father-in-law William Bross for supporting the Haymarket anarchists, but the mainstream histories admit that is unlikely, seeing that Bross was living with Lloyd and his wife when he died. It is also unlikely seeing that William Bross was the very wealthy publisher of the Chicago Tribune, and therefore the boss of Lloyd at the paper. If Bross had really been against any of Lloyd's “progressive” articles, he would not have hired him as a writer for the paper or allowed him to be published. Their disagreements are therefore obviously just theater.
It is worth pausing for a moment to study William Bross. Besides being the publisher of the Chicago Tribune, Bross had been Lieutenant Governor of Illinois. He was in office in 1865, right at the close of the Civil War, and the Governor at that time was Richard Oglesby, a Major General. Oglesby was said to have been present at Petersen's Guest House when Lincoln died. [See my paper on Lincoln for evidence that is not true.] Of course Illinois has had one of the most corrupt political machines since the beginning.
Bross got his start in newspaper publishing under the tutelage of the Scripps family, which owned many newspapers in the area and ended up founding the famous Scripps-Howard new service. The Scripps are interesting for many reasons, not least their relation to Frances Stonor Saunders, who has appeared in several of my papers in the past three years. In many ways, she got me started on this trip down the rabbit hole. The Scripps family came from England, and three siblings all became big players in the media in the late 1800s in the US. James owned the Detroit News. E.W. owned at least 25 newspapers including newspapers in Cleveland, Cincinnati, St. Louis, and Chicago and started the UPI. Their sister Ellen founded the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, Scripps College, and Miramar Ranch outside San Diego. This Scripps family ranch in Miramar ended up becoming a military base in 1950, which is a clue like all the rest. Top Gun was filmed there.
They try to tell you the Scripps family just accidentally got involved in publishing, but their grandfather had been a prominent publisher in London back to the early 1800s. Their father, James Mogg Scripps married Ellen Mary Saunders, which family has been linked to the the aristocracy back to the 1500s via the Salisbury line.
We actually find two links to Frances Stonor Saunders there. We are told Stonor Saunders is aristocracy on her mom's side, where her grandfather is the 6th Baron Camoys, one heir to Thomas Arundell. In this line she is also related to Prime Minister Robert Peel. We have seen that name before, haven't we? He is on the cover of Sgt. Pepper's. Besides being the Prime Minister twice in the mid-1800s, Peel was also Home Secretary, in which capacity he was head of the British Secret Service. I think you can see how that is pertinent to our current investigation.
Frances Stonor Saunders' father is denied us in the common biographies. He is Donald Slomnicki Saunders, who is the son of Joseph George Slomnicki Saunders. All information before that is denied us, so we have to return to the other line for more information. Ellen Mary Saunders was the daughter of Edmund Saunders and Elizabeth Mogg, daughter of Abraham Mogg and Mary Bryan. Ellen was the great-niece of Dr. Edward Jenner, who discovered the smallpox vaccination. She was the sister of George L. Saunders, the miniature painter. He painted Princess Charlotte as well as Lord Byron. He is now known as George Sanders, which is one way they scrub the genealogies—they change the spelling of the names to throw you off.
Anyway, it is the Mogg line though which Frances Stonor Saunders is related to the Scripps a second time. John Mogg, b. 1650, was the High Sheriff of Somerset, living in Cholwell. Abraham Mogg was also from Somerset, in the nearby Shepton Montague, so we may assume they were related. The Moggs made a mint from coal mining back to the 17th century. John Rees married Mary Mogg in 1805 and changed his name to John Rees-Mogg, taking her name. This is peculiar. Their great-great- grandson William Rees-Mogg became high sheriff of Somerset just like his great-great-great-great grandfather. This William Rees-Mogg became the editor of The Times, chairman of the Arts Council, and vice-president of the BBC. He also became a baron. His son is Jacob Rees-Mogg, currently in Parliament. So you see that Frances Stonor Saunders is likely to be distantly related to the Rees-Moggs through Elizabeth Mogg. Through the same Moggs, she is also likely related to the Scripps. Not crucial, but it may be of interest to some.
So, back to William Bross and his son-in-law Henry Demarest Lloyd. Remember, Lloyd went from Columbia Law to the Chicago Tribune, where he married the publisher's daughter. So he was marrying into millions. We have seen that Bross was involved with the Scripps family, and he invested with them as well, making a lot of money. So when we are told his son-in-law Lloyd then became a vocal supporter and bankroller of the Socialists, we should be very suspicious. Once again we see Socialism being bankrolled by big money. That makes no sense. The Industrialists were the enemies of Socialism, or should have been. They were certainly the primary enemies of the unions, and the Socialists were supposed to be allied to the unions. So when we see the Industrialists bankrolling Socialism, we see a major logical contradiction. What we have is more obvious proof the unions were being infiltrated by agents of the Industrialists.
We also find more indication Debs was Jewish or working with Jews when we find his running mate in 1912 was named Emil Seidel. We are told Seidel was German, but he appears to be Jewish. His mother was Henrietta Knoll and his wife was Lucy Griessel, both Jewish names. Amusingly, a short search on Griessel took me here, where I discovered that a fraudulent Jewish doctor Laurenz Griessel Landau once used his fake position to treat Elvis Presley for acne, and in doing so to make a homosexual pass at him [Guralnick, p.47]. Which of course links us back to my previous paper.
After founding the Social Democracy of America in 1897, Debs founded the International Workers of the World in 1905. So we may assume the SDA fizzled in the seven years between. In fact, the SDA fizzled within the year and they had to start over, renaming it the Social Democratic Party, SDP, in 1899. That also soon fizzled, and they tried again in 1905 with the fake IWW.
Big Bill Haywood was also involved in the founding of the IWW, and since he was born in Salt Lake City in 1869, we may assume he was a Mormon. This is a big red flag, though I won't have time here to unwind it fully for you. It is known that Mormons are philo-Semitic, which means they like Jews. Mormonism has many parallels to Judaism, and that is admitted. But it goes much deeper than that, since any least research shows Mormonism was founded by crypto-Jews. Joseph Smith founded Mormonism under very peculiar circumstances, and he was the son of Lucy Mack, daughter of Solomon Mack, son of Ebenezer Mack. I assume the Macks were Jewish.
Don't believe me? Well, you find an easy clue online, when you find another Solomon L. Mack was influential in the San Joachin Valley in California in the same years. They admit this Solomon Mack was Jewish. Since his genealogy has been scrubbed, my assumption is he is related to Lucy Mack. His father was Lorenz Mack, said to have been born in Bamberg in 1819, but we have no other information. We are told Lucy's family is Scots, but that is not really believable seeing that Ebenezer's children were named Solomon, Hannah, Deborah, Samuel, Hephzibah, Elisha, Azubah, and Daniel. Do those children sound Scots to you? Seeing the importance of the Mormon Church in America, you would of course expect them to thoroughly scrub any red flags at its founding. This they have done, but not very well. Despite the broken links in the genealogy, it is still clear to me that Joseph Smith was Jewish. This would indicate that Mormonism was a Jewish project from the start.
So Bill Haywood the Mormon was as good as family. You will tell me this all depends on Haywood actually being a Mormon, and we are told his father was just passing through Utah. Yes, but although his mother is scrubbed from most bios, we find she was Henrietta Legg, daughter of Henry James Legg. Since Melvin Dubofsky admits Henrietta was the daughter of a long-settled family in Salt Lake City, the owners of a boarding house, it is almost certain they were Mormons. Since the Haywoods stayed in Salt Lake City, and since Bill Haywood lived there many years, it is almost certain he was a Mormon. In those years, very few or no non-Mormons settled in Salt Lake City, since they would have been about as welcome as a non-Amishman in an Amish community. Although the father William apparently took off after a few years, the mother Henrietta was a local SLC girl and she remarried a local Mormon. Since Bill stayed with her, we must assume he was also raised a Mormon. They try to deny this, but denying that someone who was born and raised in Salt Lake City in the early 1800s is a Mormon is sort of like denying that a slippery little animal with fins and gills is a fish.
Which brings us to the show trial of Haywood in 1907, with Clarence Darrow once again as the defense attorney. Remember, Darrow had also been Debs' attorney in 1894. So Darrow now looks like a fake Intelligence attorney, like several others we have seen, including Alan Dershowitz, David Bruck, Judy Clarke, Marcia Clarke, Vincent Bugliosi, and so on. [We should take that knowledge forward to the famous Scopes trial, at which Darrow also starred, but I don't have time for it here.] The entire trial and pre-trial story is absurd, as you can see on Haywood's Wikipedia page. Haywood and several others were kidnapped from Denver by Pinkerton detective James McParland. Since a Pinkerton detective was a private entity, he had no legal authority to do anything he did in this story. This Pinkerton detective agency is a huge red flag, one so big it basically serves to disprove the entire story, including the entire bios of Eugene Debs, Bill Haywood, Clarence Darrow, and everyone else mentioned in these pages (and many others). The Pinkerton detective agency was founded in 1850 by Allan Pinkerton.
It was basically an arm of military Intelligence, kind of like Blackwater now. Here is the pertinent passage from Pinkerton's Wikipedia page:
Prior to the war, he developed several investigative techniques still used today. Among them are "shadowing" (surveillance of a suspect) and "assuming a role" (undercover work). When the Civil War began, Pinkerton served as head of the Union Intelligence Service during the first two years, foiling an assassination plot in Baltimore, Maryland while guarding Abraham Lincoln on his way to Washington, D.C. His agents often worked undercover as Confederate soldiers and sympathizers to gather military intelligence. Pinkerton served on several undercover missions as a Union soldier using the alias Major E.J. Allen. He was succeeded as Intelligence Service chief by Lafayette Baker. (The Intelligence Service was the predecessor the U.S. Secret Service.)
Are you awake? They never sleep; do you? Take note of the admission of “assuming a role”. Early crisis actors. That is what all these people involved in the show trial of Bill Haywood were. Also note that Pinkerton was not as private as we are led to believe. Head of the Intelligence Service is not a private capacity. They also mislead you into thinking the Intelligence Service was the predecessor of the Secret Service, when it was more like the predecessor of the FBI or now the CIA. It had much broader powers than the Secret Service.
Before we move on, I hope you will take what you just learned back to my paper on the Lincoln assassination, where I showed that was also faked. If you doubted me, your doubt should be somewhat less after reading about Pinkerton and his guard of Lincoln. Remember, according to the mainstream story, Lincoln was guarded at Ford's theater by one policeman, who left to go get drunk next door. But Pinkerton's bio admits that Lincoln was always guarded by the Union Intelligence Service, as we would expect. Given that, the mainstream story breaks down completely. Why would the Intelligence Service allow Booth into the box? And why would they lie to you later, telling you the box was not guarded? If they have nothing to hide, why the huge lies?
Well, the lies continue in this story about Haywood. We are told detective McParland first arrested Harry Orchard for the murder of ex-Governor of Idaho Frank Steunenberg. Strange, since Steunenberg's mother's maiden name was Keppel. Both names may be Jewish. Most people would be surprised to find a Jewish influence in Idaho, but it has been there for a long time. The second Jewish governor of a State is said to be Moses Alexander, and that state is Idaho, 1915.* My assumption is Steunenberg's death was faked, and you will see more evidence in a moment. But remember, having the Pinkerton detective agency involved is already a huge piece of evidence in that direction, since Pinkerton invented “undercover work”. Before Steunenberg was Governor of Idaho, he ran the Caldwell Tribune with his brother. He had also worked for newspapers in Knoxville and Des Moines. So he was already adept at planting stories in the press.
Something came out in the trial I assume they wished hadn't come out, when Orchard admitted he too was a spy. For some reason they haven't found that worth scrubbing, but they should have. It is a gigantic red flag. Orchard admitted in sworn testimony that he was a paid informant of the Mine Owners' Association. Just to be sure you get it, the Mine Owners' Association was a group formed by the Industrialists to break strikes and so on. So Orchard is admitting he was working for those guys. Which should raise the question, “Why would Orchard, working for the Industrialists, murder the ex- Governor of Idaho?” The whole point of the arrests and trials was to show that the unionists and Socialists had done it, so when Orchard admitted he was working for the other side, everyone should have known the whole thing was a hoax.
More evidence is in this admission:
Before any trial had occurred, McParland ordered that Orchard be placed on death row in the Boise penitentiary, with restricted food rations and under constant surveillance.
And you believe that? How can a private detective order anyone be placed on death row? That is like being told that Magnum PI ordered Gary Coleman be placed on death row. Besides, you can't be placed on death row before a trial has occurred. McParland then used faked extradition papers to tie Haywood, Charles Moyer, and George Pettibone to the murder and to kidnap them from Denver and take them back to Idaho. We are then told a habeas corpus appeal for the prisoners to the US Supreme Court failed. If we go to the case at Justia.com, we find this:
Even if the arrest and deportation of one alleged to be a fugitive from justice may have been efected by fraud and connivance arranged between the executive authorities of the demanding and surrendering states so as to deprive him of any opportunity to apply before deportation to a court in the surrendering state for his discharge, and even if, on such application to any court, state or federal, he would have been discharged, he cannot, so far as the Constitution or the laws of the United States are concerned -- when actually in the demanding state, in the custody of its authorities for trial, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof -- be discharged on habeas corpus by the federal court. It would be [Page 203 U. S. 193] improper and inappropriate in the circuit court to inquire as to the motives guiding or controlling the action of the Governors of the demanding and surrendering states.
What? That is exactly what habeas corpus IS. It is asking a controlling court to intervene and determine if the arrest was based on fraud, in which case it is not only proper but required for that court to order the release of the prisoner. If the quote above were legally true, habeas corpus would be permanently void. Assuming this opinion was really written by the Supreme Court and not by storytellers in Intelligence, it means the Supreme Court was already in the pocket of Intelligence by 1906—not a difficult assumption to make. In either case, it is more indication this entire event and trial were faked or controlled.
At any rate, Haywood, Moyers and Pettibone were acquitted, giving Intelligence what it wanted on both sides of the table. Since Orchard was still given the death sentence (later commuted to life), the unionists were tied to the murder and thereby blackwashed. But since the Socialist leaders were acquitted, it greatly increased their visibility, helping Socialism further misdirect the workers' movements. The workers had just been dealt a double defeat.
It is worth going back to Harry Orchard for a moment, since his Wikipedia page is a goldmine. As I suspected when I first saw the name, Harry Orchard was a pseudonym, his real name being Albert Horsley. You should already see that his sentence was also faked. My guess is he never spent a day in jail, since he was an agent himself. We already see that from his admission in testimony to being a hire of the Mine Owners. He also admitted to being an employee of the Pinkerton Agency, which, as we have seen made him an agent. Pinkerton himself was head of US Intelligence, so his agency can be read as an arm of Intelligence. “Evidence of extensive infiltration, spying, and sabotage of the Western Federation of Miners by the Pinkerton Agency” came out in testimony as well. Orchard's page also admits this:
The prosecution acted with significant support and direction from Agent McParland, and with assistance from Governor Gooding [of Idaho]. Chief prosecuting attorneys were William Borah and James H. Hawley, who were paid in part by money secretly supplied by western mine operators and Industrialists. [Lukas, Big Trouble]
They tell us Orchard spent 46 years in jail, dying at age 88. Of course he did. It was either that or age 111.
With that under our belts, we can look at the Molly Maguires, a group also said to have been infiltrated by detective McParland. From what we have learned, we might expect the Mollies to have been manufactured as well, and a little research finds confirmation of that. The following quote is from Joseph Rayback's 1966 book A History of American Labor, but you can also find it at Wikipedia:
The charge has been made that the Molly Maguires episode was deliberately manufactured by the coal operators with the express purpose of destroying all vestiges of unionism in the area... There is some evidence to support the charge... the "crime wave" that appeared in the anthracite felds came after the appearance of the Pinkertons, and... many of the victims of the crimes were union leaders and ordinary miners. The evidence brought against [the defendants], supplied by James McParlan, a Pinkerton, and corroborated by men who were granted immunity for their own crimes, was tortuous and contradictory, but the net effect was damning... The trial temporarily destroyed the last vestiges of labor unionism in the anthracite area. More important, it gave the public the impression... that miners were by nature criminal in character. [p. 133]
Since Rayback is a noted historian, we have confirmation of my main thesis from the mainstream. Rayback isn't alone, either. Many historians doubt the existence of the Mollies, especially regarding this episode involving the Pinkerton Agency. Of course Rayback and the mainstream historians don't expand their doubts to the Socialists as a whole, but I have shown you it isn't hard to do.
By 1911, the Socialists were splintering once again, and Bill Haywood was the instigator this time. One of his speeches was used to oust him from the IWW, which he had helped found just six years earlier. This split the IWW down the middle, as was planned, and led to more useless bickering about politics. Both Hillquit and Debs accused their own IWW of representing anarchy.** Not very good leadership, if you ask me. In 1912, the few Socialists who had been elected at local and state levels lost their seats due to this infighting at the national level.
In 1918 Debs was again chosen for a fake trial. He was arrested for speaking against WW1. I had always admired Debs for this, but I didn't understand what he was up to. Several convictions under the recent Espionage Act of 1917 had failed to stop widespread war protests, and the governors felt they needed a high-profile conviction to scare people into silence and acquiescence. They therefore arrested Debs and appeared to throw the book at him, giving him a 10-year sentence. Before that, the lesser- known Socialists Schenk, Baer, and O'Hare had been prosecuted under the same Act, but received 5- years sentences. O'Hare was pardoned after less than a year (allegedly) in jail, and Schenk and Baer allegedly served about six months. I say “allegedly” since, like Debs, these people were prominent Socialists, and I have shown all prominent Socialists were agents. So I assume the trials of Schenk, Baer, and O'Hare were also show trials, and that their prison sentences were faked.
We see evidence of this with Kate Richards O'Hare, who is said to have met Emma Goldman while in jail. However, O'Hare was allegedly in jail for only a year in late 1919, early 1920 in the Missouri State Penitentiary. But Goldman was arrested and convicted in New York City in 1917, so why would she be incarcerated halfway across the country in Missouri? Do you really think there were no jails for women on the East Coast? Like John Reed, Goldman's entire life is a hoax, although I will have to unwind it later. I don't have room here. But she and her lover/accomplice Alexander Berkman were admitted to be Russian Jews, and it looks to me like they were here in the US for an extended project. We are told they conspired to kill Industrialist Henry Frick, but that is another hoax. All you need to know there is that Pinkerton guards were again involved. The alleged assassination attempt on Frick came in response to the Homestead Strike, and
On July 6, a fight broke out between three hundred Pinkerton guards and a crowd of armed union workers. During the twelve-hour gunfight, seven guards and nine strikers were killed.
Faked, as usual. Remember, we saw above that the Pinkerton Agency was founded by the head of US Intelligence. He invented undercover operations, “assuming a role”. So we may assume no one was really killed in this Homestead Strike. Rather, it was another manufactured event to blackwash the unions. Although Berkman allegedly served 14 years, Goldman mysteriously skated all prosecution, despite all bios admitting she was an accomplice. She was supposed to “explain the deed in words”. She did, but no one apparently noticed. She was needed for other upcoming plots.
Before we move on, I remind you to take what you have learned about the Pinkerton Agency back to the Haymarket Affair, which we briefly looked at above. As I told you, the Pinkerton Agency was also a big player in that event, which you should now see as the biggest of red flags.
But back to Goldman. One of the other plots Goldman was needed for was the assassination of President McKinley in 1901, in which she was arrested as an accomplice but freed for lack of evidence. Her name however was enough to blackwash the Anarchists/unionists one more time. The incoming President, Teddy Roosevelt, used the assassination to crack down on anarchists, by which he meant unionists. Unfortunately, this assassination was also faked. Like the Lincoln assassination, it never happened. Like Lincoln, McKinley was mortally ill and they simply spun his death for political hay. Again, I will have to prove that in full detail later, but I simply offer you this photo, said to be taken that day just before the shooting. It is from Wikipedia.
That is as fake as a four-dollar bill. Look closely at his feet and the stairs. They were very poorly painted in. Can you believe they still publish that! Do they think we are blind? His whole body is painted in as well, with only his face and hat real. See how his hat doesn't match the darkness of anything else?
But when you darken and reduce the photo, it looks more convincing, doesn't it? Strange that Wikipedia is publishing the very large, light photo. Someone is testing us. We are being given clues in many places, including when we are told he was shot and died 8 days later. We see the number eight come up in all these fakes over and over as a marker of Intelligence projects.
Anyway, let us return to Debs. On the page for the Espionage Act, we are told Debs spent five years in jail; but he spent less than three. Someone can't subtract 18 from 21. Actually, I assume he spent no time in jail, just showing up occasionally for photo ops. We have evidence of this when we are told he ran for President from his cell. Since part of his punishment was supposedly being disenfranchised for life, it is strange he was allowed to run for President. He couldn't vote, but he could run for office? C'mon! He also allegedly published a series of articles while in jail, articles which were distributed by the Bell Syndicate. This syndicate distributed comic strips and sports columns, so why were they distributing critiques of the prison system by a convicted Socialist? Real jails don't allow things like this, but it reminds us of Mumia Abu-Jamal, whom I outed in my paper on Ramparts magazine. We are expected to believe that Abu-Jamal was published in 1991 from death row by the Yale Law Journal, and that he recorded commencement addresses for Antioch College and Evergreen State College? He did so only because these are spook colleges.† Real inmates aren't allowed to publish and propangandize like this, but fake agent-inmates are.
Although Debs lived in Indiana, was arrested in Canton, Ohio, and tried in Cleveland, for some reason he is said to have served his sentence in Atlanta. Why? All the jails were full in Ohio and Indiana?
Since we just looked at a faked photo of McKinley, let's look at one of Debs:
That is supposed to be Debs with five young Socialists, including Louis Eisner. Eisner was Jewish, being the father of Elliot Eisner, Stanford University professor of art and education. Unfortunately, that photo is a fake. It is a somewhat scary fake, since that head is pasted in there in a peculiar way. Debs never looked like that, and that is just some other bald man. First, notice he has no hair on the sides. Debs always had some hair on the sides. His chin is too pointed and his neck is too long. His face isn't wide enough. Here is another fake:
The second photo looks real, but the first photo is simply based on the second. It is fake. Look at the identical hand positions, which was my first clue. I can't tell you why they faked it. I suppose they needed a photo from 1908, so they grabbed a photo from 1912 and manipulated it to make him look a few years younger. In support of that, we find there is indeed a gap in Debs' bio at that time. Between 1905 and 1911, his bio is a blank. Perhaps he was out of the country on another assignment. Maybe he was involved in the Tunguska Event.
In conclusion, we have seen that once again, huge piles of evidence are sitting right out in the open on Wikipedia pages indicating most of recent history has been manufactured. To me, it looks like some kind of test, one that everyone is failing. You would expect them to hide this information better, but for some reason they don't bother. They have scrubbed some prominent genealogies, but the rest is left open to the sky. Is it part of the turf war I have talked about? Or is it something much larger? I am reminded of Gandalf's conversation with Frodo about Gollum and the Ring, where he says,
Behind that there was something else at work, beyond any design of the Ring-maker. I can put it no plainer than by saying that Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, and not by its maker.
*The first was Washington Bartlett, Governor of California, 1887.
** The Autobiography of Big Bill Haywood, p. 279.
† See my paper on Kurt Cobain, where I provide a list of spook colleges that includes Evergreen State. I found the list on the Wiki page for Black Mountain State College, where John Cage staged his first happening.
Comments