by Miles Mathis
First published August 28, 2015
As usual, this is an opinion piece. I have no proof of anything concerning John Reed, I am just here telling you how things look to me. I will give you plenty of evidence, but my reading of this evidence is just my reading: as usual you are free to dismiss it if it doesn't make sense to you. It makes sense to me.
John Reed was a journalist and alleged Communist activist in the period of WW1. He allegedly wrote Ten Days that Shook the World. The reasons I looked again at Reed are basically two-fold: one, my recent paper on Marx would naturally make anyone take a second look at anything to do with Marxism, Communism, or Socialism. Finding out how closely Marx was tied to the financiers of the middle 19 th century should make anyone suspicious, and taken with all the other evidence I showed you in that paper, the best reading is that Marx was a mole and an agent. I will show you most of the same markers here with John Reed. Two, the movie Reds also sent me scurrying to the bios and history books. Warren Beatty plays John Reed in the film, remember. I hadn't seen it in years, but I remember thinking it looked like propaganda when I first saw it back in 1981. It looks even more like propaganda now. I was still in minor thrall to Beatty back then, having been extremely taken with his previous film Heaven Can Wait. For that reason I did not look too closely at Reds at the time, simply letting it pass. Besides, I was only 17 at the time and in no position to seriously question the history I had been presented with. I knew I didn't like Reds, that is, but I really didn't know why. Now I do. I didn't like it because I was aware—perhaps subconsciously—that I was being spun with a totally manufactured story sold as history.
As usual, I will do very little original research here, preferring to comb online sources for easy clues. Amazingly, that is usually enough blow these old projects wide open. As many know, I wrote 85 pages PDF on the Manson murders, while getting almost all my information from Google searches. All my other recent papers were written in a similar way, scouring mainstream sources for contradictions and inconsistencies. This method has the added benefit of making my papers easy to read and easy to source. You can follow my links and see exactly what I saw (assuming the links aren't then broken on purpose by the spooks).
Let's start by going to Reed's Wikipedia page, which is very long and full-to-bursting with RED flags. As with Marx, we find Reed is from major wealth. He grew up in a mansion in Portland, Oregon, one staffed with Chinese servants. His maternal grandfather was extremely wealthy, we are told, but we aren't given his name. That is always a red flag. But we know his last name was Green and that his daughter was Margaret, so we can dig him up. He is Henry D. Green, Portland “industrialist”. So the grandfather has already gone from “leading Portland citizen” to “Portland industrialist”. He started Portland Gas&Light, controlled Portland Waterworks, and was the director of the Oregon Ironworks (later Oregon Iron and Steel)—one of the first smelters on the Pacific coast. He was also one of the first importers of sugar from Hawaii, being part of Leonard and Green which had a presence in Honolulu. So basically Henry Green incorporated and then owned Portland.
Curiously, his death is also a question mark. At age 60, in apparent perfect health, he took a trip to the East Coast and never came home. We are told he died before his family even knew he was sick— which is unlikely even for that time. We also find the required and expected military links: one year after the alleged death of Henry Green, his other daughter Katherine married Edward Burr (1886). This Edward Burr went on to become a brigadier general. He was related to Aaron Burr and that lot.
It is also informative to go back even further than Henry Green. In the bios, they don't tell you how Green arrived in Oregon in 1850 with so much money to invest. I was only able to uncover partial answers to that, the best being that Green was somehow related to Joseph Gaston. Gaston wrote a history of Portland that you can read parts of at Google Books, and he was more importantly an early railroad tycoon, being the first president of the Oregon Central Railroad. The Gastons were an extremely prominent family, having a member who was the chief justice of the Supreme Court of North Carolina and one who was governor of Massachusetts. It is also important that Joseph Gaston was editor of the Oregon Sentinel. He was a ranking journalist, which, as we know, is another red flag in these events. We have all the connections here, including connections to the press. Without the press, it is difficult to sell these stories, you see.
Anyway, it is this Joseph Gaston who set up Henry Green and his brother John in business in Oregon. Gaston had known John Green in New York, where Green had worked at Pomeroy and Leonard. This H. C. Leonard was apparently the early money involved. Besides being in dry goods with Pomeroy and Leonard, he was with Leonard, Sheldon & Foster Bank, Wall Street. Beyond backing Gaston's Oregon railroad, this bank also financed the Canada Southern Railway. So although we find no encyclopedia listings for it online, it was not a minor concern.
And here's a strange one to find this early on. H. C. Leonard was linked to the Columbia Trust Company, through his niece Sallie Leonard. She was the mother of Otho Leonard Ferris, who was one of three founders of the Columbia Trust Company—the first major bank of Portland. Joseph Gaston admits in his book that Ferris was a 32nd degree Freemason, so we have that going on in this project as well. Patrick Joseph Kennedy would soon become a major stockholder in this Columbia Trust Company. His son Joseph would be president of the Columbia Trust Company in 1914. This is the same Joseph Kennedy who would own RKO studios, scheme against Roosevelt, work with the mob, and become the father of the 35th President: John F. Kennedy.
[Addendum, September 12, 2016. I was rereading my paper on Frances Stonor Saunders and her outing of MOMA as the CIA's museum. I noticed that she tells us one of the early trustees of the Museum of Modern Art in New York was Joseph Verner Reed. I thought: I bet he is related to John Reed. Is he? Well, they try to scrub it, but they made a mistake. They tell us John Reed's money came from his mother's side, the Greens, not the Reeds. Turns out that is not true, since on Joseph Verner Reed, Jr.'s Wikipedia page, they admit he was descended from Edward Doty. If we go to John Reed's genealogy pages, we find his father was Charles Jerome Reed, son of Silas Walker Reed, son of Ezra Reed, son of Mary Doty. So the two Reeds were fairly closely related. I also beg you to notice the name Walker. We have seen that in recent papers. The Walkers were related to all the usual suspects, including the Morissons, the Strothers and the Wolfes. Consult my paper on Mabel Dodge Luhan. Through the Morrisons they were also related to all the Massachusetts spooks—see my paper on Lizzie Borden, whose grandmother was a Morrison. These Reeds were also related to the Kelloggs, the Bells, the Bishops, and the Cranes.
Which tells us why Mabel Dodge went to Europe with John Reed in 1913. She wasn't his lover, she was his cousin. Through the Whitneys she was related to all these same families. They were both working for Metropolitan Magazine, remember? That was founded by a Walker, so the magazine was also in the family.
Anyway, John Reed had to have been from money on his father's side as well, since Joseph Verner Reed, Sr. was extremely wealthy. His son is still alive, and was Vice-President of Chase Manhattan Bank, where he was also Assistant to Chairman David Rockefeller. The first Joseph Verner Reed is scrubbed from the internet, which is curious seeing he must have been a prominent person. He was a trustee of MOMA and a good friend of Prescott Bush. It is not surprising to see this link: remember George Herbert Walker Bush? Walker.
In searching for information about this Reed, I tripped across some other useful information. We find Bartletts connected to these Reeds. Which leads us to Charles L. Bartlett, a former ONI agent who became a journalist. He allegedly introduced Jacqueline Bouvier to JFK. He was the son of wealthy Jupiter island resident Valentine Bartlett and Marie Frost, who were neighbors of the Reeds on Hobe Sound (Florida). His brother David Frost Bartlett married Gladys Pulitzer in 1949. This is all of interest to me since I can take it back to my paper on Bo Bartlett, trying to figure out where he came from.
Joseph Verner Reed, Sr. was the son of Verner Zevola Reed, a billionaire mostly from Colorado, where he owned much of Colorado Springs. He was involved in the Western Sugar Land Company, which ties him to many of the people we have looked at, including John Reed's grandfather Henry Green, who imported sugar from Hawaii, and Charlie Bluhdorn, whom will we meet below. He was also involved in the oil fields in Wyoming. Colorado Springs links him to William Jackson Palmer, whom we first saw in my paper on Tiger Woods. We have found Palmers in most of my papers since then. Also think of Manly Palmer Hall. William Jackson Palmer founded Colorado Springs with William Abraham Bell in 1871, about two decades before Reed got there. Note the name Bell. We just saw it above. It is not clear how Palmer and Reed were connected, but one link is Oliver H. Shoup, who worked for both. Shoup became an industrialist and governor of Colorado. Shoup was a Case and a Bancroft on his mother's side. Also a Holcombe. Case is a variant of Chase.
Verner Reed's father is given as Hugh Fulton Reed but his mother is scrubbed at Findagrave. However, Googlebooks tells us the mother was Elizabeth Amanda Wolfe. We just saw the Wolfes above, related to John Reed, which gives us another link between these Reeds.]
As you see, John Reed had some extraordinary connections, and I have only shown you a small part of them so far. So let me ask you an early question: does this young man seem like the sort who would become a revolutionary? He's from a billionaire family, connected to all the old wealth in the country, so he doesn't seem like a likely candidate for a communist journalist, does he? You will soon think it even less likely.
Little Johnny was sent off to Morristown School in New Jersey. This prep school was started in 1898 with money from Henry Lee Higginson. Yes, that is the Higginson from Lee, Higginson Investment Bank of Boston, home of very old wealth and the Boston Brahmins, etc. Morristown School has many famous alumni, being a spook school and feeder for Harvard—where John Reed ended up. Although we are told little Johnny had bad grades and failed his entrance exam, he was accepted to Harvard nonetheless. Typical. He then joined the cheerleading squad and the drama team. Note that: drama. He became an actor, as we will see.
At Harvard, he was president of the Glee Club. Not a lot of revolutionaries come out of the Harvard Glee Club and cheerleading squad, it pretty much goes without saying. He was in the Hasty Pudding Theatricals, which are of course famous for their cross-dressing burlesques. Again, not sounding much like a discontented intellectual, is he?
Finally, we get a link to Socialism when we are told Reed attended meetings of the Socialist Club at Harvard. Unfortunately, this club was presided over by Walter Lippmann, which is a big red flag. Lippmann was a notable author for the Council on Foreign Relations, perhaps the premier fascist organization in the US. At Wikipedia, we are told Lippmann “saw the purpose of journalism as 'intelligence work'”. Yes, I bet he did. Wikipedia admits Lippmann was with military intelligence during WW1 (captain, AEF headquarters, France). Now declassified documents admit Lippmann was working with the BSC (the American arm of British Intelligence—see my paper on John Lennon for more on the BSC*) as far back as the 1930s, and he also worked with both the OSS and CIA—as did all journalists of the time. He was an early and top recruit of what was later called Operation Mockingbird, which was simply Intelligence's takeover of the worldwide press. Although Lippmann was later fashioned as a “lefty”, that did not mean he was ever red or even pink. It only meant his assignment was to mislead American democrats instead of American republicans. He is called the father of modern journalism, which—given what modern journalism is—is difficult to read as a commendation or recommendation. Since modern journalism might be defined as “lying all the time about everything,” we can assume Lippmann lied all the time about everything.
Lippmann founded New Republic magazine in 1913, just three years after his graduation from Harvard. The magazine has always been sold as liberal, but it never has been. It was underwritten by Dorothy Payne Whitney, billionaire daughter of billionaire financier and Secretary of the Navy William Collins Whitney. Of course the New Republic was in favor of entering the war in 1917, with Lippmann as its premier hawk. So progressive of them to take a stand like that. But what else would you expect of a magazine bankrolled by the daughter of the Secretary of the Navy? Would you expect the Secretary of the Navy to be liberal or progressive? I wouldn't. Would you expect the Whitneys to bankroll a magazine started by a young guy who was—just three years earlier—promoting Socialism? I wouldn't. Or, I wouldn't expect them to do so unless they knew good and well his promotion of Socialism was just a pose. At Wikipedia, we are told
During the inter-war years the magazine was generally positive in its assessment of the Soviet Union and Joseph Stalin. It reversed course with the start of the Cold War in 1947. . .
Hmmm. Wasn't that also the stance of the financiers? Curious that this “progressive” magazine always just happened to mirror the opinions of the ruling elite.
Interestingly, William Collins Whitney's sister married the president of the Knickerbocker Trust Company, another major bank of the time. So the “liberal” New Republic was linked directly to all sorts of old money. As we see once again, the fascists have been controlling their opposition for a long time. In most cases, the same financiers that are bankrolling the right are also bankrolling the left. As with the other faux-left magazines started by US Intelligence, the New Republic was owned from the beginning. See my paper on the Cultural Cold War for more on that.
The long and short of it is that by the time Lippmann and Reed were pretending to be Socialists at Harvard in 1910, all the Socialist movements had long since been infiltrated and undermined by military intelligence. What had started out decades earlier as workers' unions had by then morphed into Marxist organizations. These fake organizations had a dual purpose: one, they undermined and bottled up the unions by creating internal strife and political bickering. Rather than focusing on wages and workers' rights, these organizations pushed their members into fake international politics and armchair philosophies. These politics and philosophies were created on purpose to cause multiple splintering. Two, by replacing the truly popular revolutions of the 1840s and 1850s with these manufactured revolutions of Marx, the financiers were able to misdirect any and all revolutionary spirit. Leftists and progressives were pushed away from Republicanism [not the Republican party, but Republicanism as a form of anti-fascist government] and towards Marxism, moving them away from a viable form of government to one that was completely fanciful and unworkable.
After traveling through Europe after graduation from Harvard, Reed returned and immediately got published all over the place, including the Saturday Evening Post, Colliers, The Forum, and Century Magazine. One of his poems was set to music by Arthur Foote. What? No real writer finds success that quickly. He was only 24! Like we saw with Ezra Pound in London, his bio makes no sense. Only rich kids who are promoted by Intelligence get published that widely that fast.
By 1913, Reed was writing for The Masses, another Intelligence front. Max Eastman, the first editor, is the one who sent Reed to Russia and published the serialized Ten Days that Shook the World. Eastman's next magazine would be The Liberator, in which he published Ernest Hemingway. I have already outed Hemingway—which wasn't hard to do since cia gov admits he was an agent. Much later, Eastman became a writer for the National Review and worked with agent William F. Buckley. He was a member of the ACCF, joining at the invitation of agent Sidney Hook.
By age 26, John Reed is supposed to be hanging out with Mabel Dodge Luhan and interviewing President Wilson about the Mexican Revolution. Mabel Dodge is another big red flag, since she was the daughter of billionaire banker Charles Ganson. She was connected to Gertrude Stein and her Paris salon, which I have already outed in my long paper called The Stolen Century. Stein was involved in the Armory Show of 1913, which I have shown was another joint project of British/American Intelligence. It was run by John Quinn, although Wikipedia has now scrubbed his name off their page on the Armory Show. Quinn was British Intelligence, and he bankrolled not only the Armory Show but the Paris Salon. Mabel Dodge later became a columnist for the Hearst newspapers, promoting Modern Art, bisexuality, free love, and the destruction of the family by many other means.
Mabel Dodge also promoted Emma Goldman, another fake leftist like herself who was promoting the New World Order for her masters in Intelligence. Like Madame Blavatsky, Goldman was no more than another Russian spook, on loan to us to create worldwide disorder. This is how she avoided any real jail time. Notice that although we are told Goldman conspired to murder industrialist Henry Frick, and her lover Berkman was convicted and allegedly spent 14 years in prison, Goldman mysteriously skated. The whole story reads like an early fake. Like Reed, Goldman's whole life looks like a fake—except that she kept it up a bit longer.
The same can be said of Louise Bryant, who, like Reed, was connected to both fantastic wealth and to ranking journalists. [She was played by Diane Keaton in the movie Reds.] Her father was a journalist—probably also linked to Intelligence—and her step-grandfather, with whom she lived as a girl, was a very wealthy rancher and miner in Nevada. He also directed the overland stage station in that region. He is probably the one who bankrolled and advised her early on. Right out of college, Bryant began working for the Oregonian (Joseph Gaston's paper, remember), as well as the Portland Spectator. This indicates she had probably already been recruited in college, or before. With that in mind, we can back up a few sentences in her bio and look at this strange quote:
Depressed after the death of Say in 1906, Bryant left school for a job in Jolon, California, where for a few months she boarded at a cattle ranch and taught children, mostly young Mexicans.[5] That summer she moved again, this time to Eugene, Oregon, where her brother Louis worked for the Southern Pacific.[7]
Hmmm. Sounds suspicious, doesn't it? So let's search on Jolon, CA. Guess who owned the town and surrounding ranches? William Randolph Hearst.** The major sites tell us Hearst didn't buy the entire valley until 1920, but it turns out that isn't true. Hearst Castle was some distance to the south in San Simeon, but by the time Louise Bryant was in Jolon in 1906, Hearst already owned much of the area around Jolon. We are told it was owned by James Brown Cattle Company at that time, but with a bit more research we find that Hearst owned that Company.
Shortly after the turn of the century Hearst Jr. began buying up properties in the Santa Lucia's. Hearst Sunical Land and Packing Corporation included James Brown Cattle Company which owned most of the large Rancho Milpitas.
So we see that Bryant was working for Hearst by 1906, when she was but 20. If you really believe she was just teaching young Mexicans on that ranch, I don't know what to say. You should consider the
possibility the Milpitas ranch was a training center for young Intelligence recruits. To push you in that direction, remember that this ranch—along with others in the area—very soon went to the US military. This area became Fort Hunter Liggett in 1940. Also of interest is that Fort Liggett was run from nearby Camp Roberts, which we are told is also used by the British Army. Why is the British Army using US bases? A question for another paper, but we already have a link in this paper to the BSC, which is MI6's US division. See above, where Walter Lippmann worked with the BSC in this period and after. Also see my paper on John Lennon for more on the BSC.
But let us return to John Reed. When Reed finally got to Petrograd in 1915, we are told the Russians considered him to be a spy (which he was). He was kicked out of the country and he returned to the US in 1916 to have a fake surgery so that he could avoid conscription in 1917. We are told he had a kidney removed, but I don't tend to believe it. Almost no one has a kidney removed before they are 30. Nephrectomy is a serious surgery, and was more serious in 1916. It is usually done to address cancer or other serious illnesses, none of which Reed seemed to have up to then. My guess is he had a kidney stone removed and paid the doctor to fudge the report. He then had a scar and a piece of paper to show the army. Nephrectomy could keep you out of service, but not a removed kidney stone.
Then we get this:
On August 17, 1917, Reed and Bryant set sail from New York to Europe, having first provided the State Department with legally sworn assurances that neither would represent the Socialist Party at a forthcoming conference in Stockholm.
Right. Then as now, the State Department doesn't take legally sworn assurances like that. Such things would be worthless, as they know. If the magazines Reed had written for had been real, the State Department would never allow him to leave the country at such a time. That he was allowed to leave is all the proof we need that the State Department knew very well who he was and what he was really up to.
Reed and Bryant arrived in Petrograd again just in time for the October Revolution, but it is never explained why they weren't considered spies this time. Why was Reed expelled in 1915 but not in
1917? Could it be because the Bolsheviks were bankrolled by international financiers, and Reed was the son of one of these financiers?
After the taking of the Winter Palace, we are told Reed immediately went to work for the People's Commissariat for Foreign Affairs. This is completely unbelievable. The People's Commissariat was a high ranking committee chosen directly by the leaders of the Revolution. If Reed and the Bolsheviks were who we are told they are, it makes no sense. Why would people like Lenin and his comrades immediately assign a rich young American to such a position? As we have seen, Reed's Socialist background was short and highly suspicious, so why would anyone trust him in such a position? You are expected to believe no one in Russia could speak English, so they turned to the young American, but that is ridiculous. Many of the Bolshevik leaders were wide travelers, and they spoke English as well as German, French, and other languages. So the position should have gone to a Russian. If Reed were really there—and this isn't just a story made up from whole cloth—it of course indicates that Reed was a liaison from the Western financiers who were bankrolling the Russian Revolution. They wanted one of their own sons as eyes on the ground.
In support of that hypothesis, we can return to the whitewashed pages of Wikipedia, which is nice enough to tell us Reed was close to the inner circle of the new government. If that is true, you should
ask how he managed that. He was just 29 and had red flags all over him, so how could he be close to the inner circle? You should also ask when he had managed to create those relationships. In the previous paragraphs of his bio, we are not told of any meetings with Lenin, Trotsky, or others. In fact, we are told he met them for the first time in January 1918. OK, so how was Reed close to the inner circle, and why? What was his entrée into all this? We are never told. We are told he just showed up in Petrograd in October and was immediately admitted to the inner sanctum.
After that, we are told “By December [1917] his funds were nearly exhausted.” What? He was the grandson of a billionaire. He couldn't have exhausted all his funds in 200 years. Besides, he had only been in Russia two months and there was nothing to buy there. You couldn't even buy a loaf of bread or a quart of milk. Then we get more absurd claims:
Reed took employment [in Russia] with an American, Raymond Robins of the Red Cross. Robins wished to set up a newspaper promoting American interests; Reed complied, but in the dummy issue he prepared he included a warning beneath the masthead: "This paper is devoted to promoting the interests of American capital."
You have to be kidding me! Does that sound like a good thing to do in Russia in 1918? If it is true (which I doubt), we see that only the son of a financier could get away with such a thing. And the absurdity continues:
The dissolution of the Constituent Assembly left Reed unmoved, and two days later, armed with a rife, he joined a patrol of Red Guards prepared to defend the Foreign Office from counter-revolutionary attack.[39] Reed then attended the opening of the Third Congress of Soviets, where he gave a short speech promising to bring the news of the revolution to America, where he hoped it would "call forth an answer from America's oppressed and exploited masses."
An American rich boy joins a patrol of Red Guards! The shit they expect you to believe! This is the same John Reed who was in the Glee Club and the cheerleading squad at Harvard. This is a guy who faked a kidney operation to avoid serving in the US military, but we are supposed to believe he is carrying a rifle to defend the Russian Foreign Office? C'mon. And why would he be allowed to speak at, much less attend, the Third Congress of the Soviets? Was he a Soviet? Look at the title of the meeting. It is for Soviets, not rich American spies.
By April both Reed and Bryant were back in the US. Two trials for sedition were awaiting him, but both conveniently ended in hung juries. Within the month he was arrested for inciting a riot, but again was acquitted. To me these all look like show trials, of the sort we saw later with Manson, Kaczynski, Patty Hearst, and O. J. Simpson. Or perhaps they most resembled the fake Chicago 8 trials. It is hard to say, there are so many fake trials to compare them to. Reed then had more fake show hearings before Congress, which then as now was convened by Military Intelligence to blow smoke and do nothing. Think of your Congressmen acting tough when they recently grilled the bankers who caused the financial meltdowns, and who then did precisely nothing about it (besides raise the debt ceiling so the bankers could steal more).
As was planned, in 1919 the Socialist/Communist parties in America used the Russian Revolution and Reed's fake grandstanding to splinter into many pieces. During this splintering, Reed was instructed to use the phrase “dictatorship of the proletariat” as often as humanly possible. See my paper on Marx to understand why this phrase was chosen, and why it so perfectly undercut any chance the underclasses ever had of rising. In short, would the middle classes ever support something called the “dictatorship of the proletariat”? Study the wording. It is meant to scare any sane magazine reader, since no one wants a dictatorship—of the proletariat or anything else. Ask yourself this: if you were a real revolutionary trying to sell an uprising, would you call the fruits of that uprising a dictatorship? Of course not. This is all the indication we should ever have needed that Marxism was created by clever propagandists from the upper class.
It was at this time that some of the American Socialists and Communists began to see through Reed. Not all of them were hired agents. Many of them were nothing more than dupes in the long-running project. Some of these dupes began to see through the curtains in 1919, and Reed then became known to many as “Jack the Liar”. Current historians try to write this off as partisan politics, but it was more than that. Just as the real folkies eventually saw through Bob Dylan, the real progressives eventually saw through John Reed. This is what led to the early end of his career, not any of the phony prosecutions or other stories you are told.
This is when the story switches from “faking his life” to “faking his death.” Precisely because he had been outed in the US in 1919, Reed had to wrap up his part in the project. He was no longer useful in his role, and it was time to move him on. We are told he fled back to Russia to avoid a further trial for sedition, but since it was to be another show trial, he had no fear of the court. In my opinion, it is doubtful anything we are told about his final year is true. He is supposed to have skulked around with a fake passport, passing from Russia to Finland, where he was arrested. The story there is that he couldn't be tried for treason due to his silence. Who writes this stuff? Not lawyers, apparently. One, Finland couldn't try him for treason since he wasn't a Finn. By the definition of “treason,” you can only be treasonous against your own country, and the US wasn't asking for extradition. Two, silence won't keep you for being tried for anything. People get tried and convicted of things all the time while remaining silent. We are told the Finns convicted him for having 102 small diamonds in his luggage. But that isn't illegal. He was a billionaire's son, and supposing he was actually traveling in Europe at the time (which is doubtful), this would be a perfect way to buy things when all the currencies were worthless. Finland would have to prove the diamonds were stolen, but a billionaire's son doesn't need to steal diamonds. He can easily buy them, or borrow them from mommy.
We are then told Reed was illegally detained by Finland. Again, unlikely, considering he was the son of a billionaire and under the protection of US military intelligence. This whole story is obviously made up to give you a reason for his upcoming death: they need him cold and starving in some prison somewhere, getting sick. Finland is supposed to have fed him only dried fish in jail, causing him to acquire scurvy. Right. Because Finland is known for being such a monstrously unfair country, with hellish jails and no standards of humane conduct.
Reed allegedly returned to Moscow for the Second Comintern, but in the bios we aren't told what organization he was representing. We have to look at the delegate list, where we find him listed fourth for the Communist Labor Party. This is curious for a couple of reasons. One, Reed had been AWOL from the party for almost a year. It is doubtful that after such a long absence they would elect him in absentia for this important post. At that time he wouldn't have seemed a very good choice, or a very reliable delegate. Two, he wasn't at the first Comintern, though it would have been fairly easy for him to have stayed in Russia and attended in the summer of 1919. He did nothing that year in the US but get arrested and go to trials. Supposing that there were any chance he might have been convicted, it seems foolish for him to have returned to the US at all. Would you return to a country that was just waiting to arrest you and try you for sedition? Three, it is strange to find four delegates from the CLP in 1920 while the other US parties only have two delegates each. Remember, at the first Comintern in 1919, before the US splintering, there had been only one American delegate (Boris Reinstein). Since there were three parties invited from the US at the second Comintern, it is likely the Comintern committee would have requested each US party to send only three delegates. Due to the difficulty in getting past the blockade and into Russia that year, the other two parties apparently could only manage two of their three allowed delegates. So how did the CLP get four? I suggest Reed's name was added to the list after-the-fact. I don't believe he was really there. His speeches were inserted into the script later by Intelligence.
We have more indication of that by the absurdity of the next chapter of the story, when Reed is supposed to have been ordered by Radek and Zinoviev to travel to Baku for the Congress of the Peoples of the East. Again, was Reed a “person of the East”? No. According to my world map, the US is not in the East. According to the survey of attendees (see the ethnicity chart posted online), no Americans attended this Congress, as would be expected.
And the absurdity continues, as we are told Reed returned to Moscow after the Congress to meet Bryant. Wikipedia tells us, “he looked older and his clothes were in tatters.” Despite that they went to visit the ballet and the galleries. Right. I hate to sound like a broken record, but this was the grandson of a billionaire. Why would his clothes be in tatters? Supposing his diamonds were stolen from him in Finland by the police, his family could send him more. International mail hadn't been stopped in 1919. They hadn't closed all the banks in Russia. Reed could be sent whatever he needed in any number of ways; or he would have been issued credit by anyone, due to his family. Remember, his family had connections to all the biggest banks in the US, which had connections to all the biggest banks in Europe. This story is like the story you are told about Marx and his wife supposedly living close to the bone in France in England, despite both being from huge wealth. Only an idiot would believe it.
And for the preposterous finale, we are told the story of his death. We are told he couldn't get medicine for typhus due to the Allied blockade of Russia. So we are expected to believe that Russia—a country of 166 million people—had no hospitals of its own, and no facilities for manufacturing drugs? Despite having the largest army in Europe and Asia at the time, they had no medical facilities to care for these soldiers? Even if we accept that there were shortages at the time, it is impossible to blockade a country the size of Russia. It has a border of over 12,000 miles—about half the circumference of the Earth. Do you really think the Allies could successfully block all supplies into Russia? They couldn't even stop Communist delegates from entering from all directions for the Comintern and the Congress at Baku. They couldn't block Reed from getting in in the first place. But we are supposed to believe they blocked his typhus medicine? Plus, this was John Reed, who—we were already told—was close to the inner circle of the Bolsheviks. He watched the storming of the Winter Palace with Lenin and Trotsky and was appointed to the Foreign Office. But now we are expected to believe this privileged person can't get medicine? Besides, typhus is caused by rat fleas, and this was known prior to WW1. The son of a billionaire would be the least likely to come down with typhus, since, again, he was privileged. Being close to the inner circle, he would not be sleeping in rat-infested quarters. People like Reed would have been assigned to the confiscated homes of the Russian aristocracy.
They then give us another tall clue, though few have gotten it. We are now told Reed died of scrub typhus. What is scrub typhus? Well, it is a kind of typhus not identified until 1930, so they couldn't have known he died of it in 1920. They must have added it to the story since then. Scrub typhus is caused by mites in heavy scrub brush, rather than by fleas on rats in urban areas. Reed wasn't known to have traveled through such scrub brush. We would have expected him to stay on the road in his travels in and around Moscow, not crash off through the forests. But there is an even bigger problem. Scrub typhus is endemic to a part of the world called the tsutsugamushi triangle. Far-eastern Russia is in this triangle, but northwestern Russia is not. Even Baku [present day Azerbaijan] is not, since scrub typhus is endemic to areas of jungle or sub-tropics. Baku is both too far north and far too dry. Baku is semi-arid, not sub-tropical. Besides, they admit Reed took the official train from Moscow to Baku. Trains do not travel directly through brush, last time I studied them. So I assume that with this “scrub typhus” reference, someone is admitting the whole thing is a hoax. It is a joke they inserted that they know almost no one will get.
Anyway, Reed then allegedly died and was buried in the Kremlin Wall Necropolis. You should ask why Reed would be buried there. The Necropolis at that time was for Bolshevik soldiers. Was Reed a Bolshevik soldier killed in battle? No. He was still a prominent American citizen, and as such his body should have been returned to his home country. We are supposed to believe that because he was a member of the Communist Party, US officials just gave his body up to Russian authorities to do with as they pleased. But that is not how it works. If these events had been real, the US Government should have applied strong pressure for the return of the body, if only because they didn't wish Reed to become a symbol of successful conversion to Communism. Basically, we are supposed to believe that the US just allowed the Bolsheviks to kidnap Reed's body without protest.
I for one do not believe it. Given what I have read and the multiple inconsistencies in the story, I believe Reed was never in Russia in 1920. My best de-spinning of the given story is this: Reed was an agent all along and his project unravelled in 1919. Rather than face his complete outing in the US, he was swept out of the country and his death faked. This created a sort of closure and prevented most people from asking any more questions. Non-Communists already weren't very interested in him, and once they were told he had been buried in the Kremlin Necropolis, these people would write him off completely as a traitor. Many or most US Communists (who were not agents themselves) had become suspicious of him, and the story of his heroic funeral in Moscow might appease them somewhat. And for the rest—those who had become aware he was an agent—they could be further marginalized. Denied places to publish, they could not get the truth out except by word of mouth. I assume the word on the streets in 1919-1920 was that Reed was an agent, and for those who knew this, the story of the final year was probably no more believable than it is to me. But since they weren't writing the history books, their beliefs were lost. They have been buried with all other truths.
So why the movie Reds, in 1981? It was always difficult to see what Hollywood hoped to do with this, after bashing Communism for decades. Why spend all that time and money trying to rehabilitate a Communist? We are told it had something to do with Hollywood's left-leaning sympathies, but that was never believable. Hollywood has always been in the pocket of Intelligence, and its progressive claims are just a feint—much like the progressive claims of Walter Lippmann. Hollywood is “left” only in the sense that its main function is fooling the ninnies in the democratic party and others who consider themselves to be progressive—without actually being so at all.
So what was the point of Reds? It wasn't to promote Communism, it was to whitewash Reed himself. He and his family, although patriotic enough in their own ways, had never been happy with the history Intelligence came up with for them. Although he is now sold as a hero of the left, back then he was mostly considered to be a traitor. The mainstream story protected him from ultimately being outed, and achieved some other things Intelligence wished to achieve, but it made Reed himself look pretty bad. Since Reed lived on for decades and probably had a family of his own—which would still be around— it is likely it is these people who wanted to clear their names. It would be interesting to know who they are—under what aliases—but I suspect they are in Hollywood right now. And there are other near branches of the family that have had to live with the Reed story hanging over them for more than a century. We must assume they are still prominent, and we should also assume they still have ties to Intelligence and Hollywood. All these people would naturally wish to rehabilitate Reed and Bryant and all the rest. I suggest that is what the movie was about.
Which should make us look more closely at Warren Beatty. Might the Beaty family be linked somehow to Reed? Why else would Warren Beatty be making that movie, if not to rehabilitate a recent ancestor? He was never a Socialist of any kind. Like Reed, he was always a privileged rich kid. We are told his parents were unexceptional, with his father being a public school administrator (what, like a principal?), but that was never believable. Due to his career arc, we can tell he was some kind of Hollywood royalty from the beginning. He was on TV from the time he was 20; and although he couldn't act for sour apples, he was already being nominated for major awards (like the Tony) by the time he was 23. At the same age he was chosen as the lead in Splendor in the Grass, where he looked good but had one expression the entire movie. Although everyone else in the film thought he was a jerk, it didn't seem to matter: he continued to progress at an astonishing rate. By the time he was 29 he was producing his own movies—something that is unheard of. So did Beatty have connections we aren't told about?
Leading us in this direction is something we learn from studying the making of Reds. Who financed the movie? Charlie Bluhdorn, who even Beatty admitted was one of the biggest right-wing fascists in Hollywood. So why would a fascist wish to bankroll this movie about Communists? Doesn't that play directly into my thesis here? Yep. But you need to know more about Bluhdorn. He was a Jewish industrialist billionaire, the owner of Gulf+Western, and he bought out Paramount Pictures in 1966. He also owned Madison Square Garden, Simon&Schuster, and several big mining companies. He was a personal friend of Henry Kissinger. In this way, he was very much like John Reed's grandfather. We are told that Beatty fooled him into backing Reds, but of course that is not believable at all. We see the same fascists backing the movie Reds that were backing John Reed, Walter Lippmann, and everyone else famous you have ever heard of, so we can't pass that off as coincidence. Bluhdorn was even involved in importing sugar, just like Reed's grandfather. Remember the scene in Heaven Can Wait, when they tell us the rich guy Farnsworth is thinking of buying Haiti? Well, this is a reference to Bluhdorn, who all but owned the Dominican Republic nearby. He imported sugar and cigars from there, and many big Paramount movies were filmed there, including Apocalypse Now [which I have written about recently] and The Godfather Part 2.
Bluhdorn was probably convinced to back the movie because he knew it was about whitewashing former Intelligence agents. It also whitewashes an old family of industrialist billionaires very much like his, a family he may have been related to.
So let us return to that idea. Oh boy, you won't believe how easy it was to link Warren Beatty to John Reed. Seven degrees of separation? Try three. All I did is call up the ancestry of Warren Beatty at Rootsweb. One of his great grandparents was a Mary Lavinia Pomeroy, daughter of William Pomeroy of Virginia. She died in 1931, and he died in 1890. Does that name Pomeroy ring a bell? We have seen it in this paper already, haven't we? Remember John Reed's grandfather Henry Green? He and his brother John worked for a company called Pomeroy and Leonard before they came west. That Leonard then went into business with the Green brothers, importing sugar from Hawaii under the company name Leonard and Green. The Pomeroy in Pomeroy and Leonard was named Benjamin, according to Joseph Gaston, but maybe he was the brother or other near relation of William. The ages are right.
We find more links with Daniel Pomeroy Rhodes, billionaire Cleveland Industrialist specializing in coal mining. His son-in-law Mark Hanna inherited the business and then went into politics, buying the Presidency for McKinley in 1896. Instead of competing with existing bosses in the North, Hanna had the brilliant idea of buying the votes of whole States in the South, large parts of which were still impoverished after the Civil War. At any rate, this links Beatty to the Rhodes family as well.
You will say, “Well, you have only shown that the Greens worked for the Pomeroys, not that they were related.” True, but you often get work through relatives, so I will pursue that possibility. Again, we find confirmation of links between the two families in the genealogy records. Nancy Pomeroy married Samuel Ring in 1805. Their daughter Nancy Ring married Robert Green in 1850. The Greens and Pomeroys were also linked through Emily Pomeroy, who married Oliver Bourne Green in about 1845. We see more evidence linking the two families with a William Pomeroy Green born in 1874 and another William Pomeroy Green in 1907. Following these links we find that the Pomeroys were also related to James Fenimore Cooper, who wrote The Last of the Mohicans and The Deerslayer—a book that Mark Twain rightly trashed (although mostly for the wrong reasons). He couldn't just come out and say that the book was propaganda. Like Joni Mitchell trashing Bob Dylan or Leonard Cohen, Twain has to find other outlets for his venom.
Curiously, in this search we also run across a William J. Pomeroy born in 1916 who, at age 21, joined the Young Communist League. Soon after he joined the CPUSA. Despite supposedly being a Communist, he was deployed with the 5th Air Force of Douglas McArthur, working as a “ghost writer.” We are told he worked with the Philippine guerillas. All this is very suspect, since he sounds like another Intelligence agent. In support of that hypothesis, we find that after the war this Pomeroy enrolled at the University of the Philippines. In what year? 1947, year one of the CIA. According to his obituary in The Guardian in 2009, he attended on a grant. A grant from whom? After college, he joined the Huks (the guerillas trying to oust the Americans), and he cautioned them against relying on armed resistance. Curious, no? Sounds like Marx, infiltrating and undercutting the revolutions in the
1850s. With the help of Pomeroy, they lost the war and the Americans remained in the Philippines.
We are told Pomeroy spent several years in prison in the Philippines, but we have no possible proof of that. We are told he was imprisoned by the ruling government, but the Americans were ruling the Philippines at that time from behind the curtain (and still are). Why would we imprison our own man? I will be told it is because he crossed over and started helping the rebels. But he was in the Philippines on our dime, first during the war as a soldier and then as a student with a US grant. The Army knew he was (an avowed) Communist going in, so we must assume they were using him in some project. Why else would they give a grant to a Communist to go to a country where Communist rebels were threatening US hegemony? The story we are told makes no sense, as usual.
[Addendum May 9, 2017: while researching something entirely unrelated, I tripped across a book called The History and Genealogy of the Pomeroy Family. It is found in part at GoogleBooks. In it, we find the Pomeroys marrying the Marx more than once. A search on that also finds many Pomeroys working later as writers, and writing about Marx. See this, as just one example of many. That tells us something, doesn't it?
I also later tripped across Admiral of the Fleet David Beatty, 1st Earl Beatty, who died in 1936. That's a 5-star rank, by the way. Beatty's mother-in-law was a Moore. Beatty's father-in-law was related to the Butlers, Barons Dunboyne. They were related to the Everard and Hurly Baronets. Through his grandfather's second wife, he was linked to Alcocks and Kennedys. Admiral Beatty married Ethel Field, daughter of Marshall Field. Yes, that Marshall Field, from Conway, Massachusetts. Ethel's mother was a Scott, Nannie Douglas Scott, which will be important in later papers. But Marshall Field also married Delia Spencer. She is scrubbed at thepeerage, Geneanet and Geni, not linked to the famous Spencers, but she was one. See this reprint of her Chicago Tribune obituary from 1937, which admits that she was a wealthy socialite before she married Marshall Field, and that King Edward VIII attended her London parties, along with “numerous other members of the British Royal family”. Once she moved to the US, one of her sisters married Augustus Eddy, linking her to that family of spooks as well. This links Admiral Beatty and his children to the Spencer-Churchills, Dukes of Marlborough. Beatty's great-grandchildren are Stewarts, their other -great-grandfather being the 15th [Chief] of Appin.]
But back to Warren Beatty. We have only looked at his paternal ancestors. What about his maternal? Some names on his mother's side have been scrubbed, but I did find links to the names Campbell, Richards, Lehigh, Kilborn, Alexander, Sutherland, and Gunn. The name Gunn links him to Bob Dylan and many others (as we will discover in later papers). On his father's side, we find the names Gore and Updike, as well as Edmonds, Partlow, and Johnson. I quickly lose interest in genealogy searches, but if anyone wants to take it further, those are the names to check. I believe the main link is through the Pomeroys, but there may be other links. In my research over the years I have found that all these famous people are related. Everyone in Hollywood and government is a kissing cousin—which is not really surprising. It didn't shock me, and I doubt it will shock you. But when we ask why these movies like Reds get made, it is good to remember.
Given that Beatty also made the movie Bonnie & Clyde, I suggest we have to consider the possibility that whole story was faked by Intelligence and the press as well. Just as they have been faking the more recent serial killers and mass murderers, it may be that the older outlaw stories were fake, too. In fact, that would be my first assumption going in. [That also applies to Bugsy Siegel, by the way.] Remember, Beatty was also involved in the movie Shampoo, which was based on the salons of Jay Sebring. From my Tate/Manson paper, we now know Sebring took part in one of the greatest government hoaxes in recent history, and probably came out of Naval Intelligence. So Beatty has been involved in a string of Intelligence projects. That being so, we should look at all his other work with the same eye.
*Where we learn, among other things, that Sgt. Pepper was head of the BSC in the 1950's. No, really. He was actually a major, but his name was Pepper. “It was 20 years ago today, Sgt. Pepper taught the band to play.” In other words, British Intelligence taught the band to play. It taught a lot of bands to play.
**See my paper on the Patricia Hearst hoax to learn more about the Hearsts.