Resist or collaborate?

Resultado de imagem para The chéf of the Resistance Photo by Henri Cartier-Bresson/Magnum

The chéf of the Resistance in Vergt, Acquitaine, France (left) talks to a member of the FFI in 1944. Photo by Henri Cartier-Bresson/Magnum

The Nazis have occupied France. It’s easy to condemn the collaborators. But be honest: what would you really do?

Robert Gildea is professor of modern history at Worcester College, University of Oxford. His most recent book is Fighters in the Shadows: A New History of the French Resistance (2015).

A puncture can change your life. In Louis Malle’s film Lacombe, Lucien (1974), the young peasant Lucien is rejected by his former schoolteacher who runs the local resistance organisation he wishes to join and then, returning home by bicycle, gets a flat tire. Seeking help in a nearby farmhouse, he finds himself among a band of carousing militiamen, collaborators sworn to eradicate La Résistance. He denounces the teacher, becomes a local boss of the militia, and is finally shot by resistance fighters.

This much-quoted moment of chance is the starting point for the book Aurais-je été resistant ou bourreau? (2013) by literature professor and psychoanalyst Pierre Bayard, which translates as ‘Would I have been a resister or a collaborator?’ As historians, and indeed as citizens, we assume that we would have made the right decision during the Second World War, given what we know about its horrors. The myth developed by General Charles de Gaulle in 1944 – that the French overwhelmingly behaved patriotically, rallied behind his leadership, and liberated the country themselves – persuades us that we would most likely have resisted Nazi Germany. A myth, however, is designed to unify a people and legitimate its rulers, not to tell the truth. As a young lecturer at Oxford 35 years ago, I remember looking round my college’s governing body, composed overwhelmingly of conservative middle-aged men, and wondering what they would have done if Britain had been occupied by the Germans. I concluded that most of them would have collaborated.

Today, after the shocks of Brexit and the Trump election, and with Marine Le Pen still lurking in the wings, I now begin to understand how the French must have felt in 1940. They underwent a double collective trauma. First, their country, which had emerged triumphant in 1918 after four years in the trenches, succumbed in six weeks to a German Blitzkrieg. The government fell, to be replaced by another led by Marshal Philippe Pétain, the hero of Verdun in 1916, which immediately sued for an armistice. The northern half of the country was occupied by German forces, 1.5 million Frenchmen were taken to POW camps in Germany, the army was reduced to a peace-keeping Armistice Army of 100,000 – what the Allies had allowed Germany after 1918 – and a huge reparations bill was imposed. Second, dazed and demoralised politicians reconvened in the spa town of Vichy in the so-called Free Zone and handed full powers to Pétain to make a new, stronger constitution. Parliament was dismissed, the Republic that had stood since 1870 was abolished, and executive, legislative and judicial powers were vested in Pétain as head of state. A National Revolution was launched to regenerate France in preparation for the time it might recover its independence. Freemasons, communists and Jews, alleged to have dominated the Third Republic and stabbed France in the back, were pilloried as the ‘anti-France’, purged and persecuted. The ‘decadence’ said to have sapped France’s strength was dealt with by sending young people to the so-called ‘Chantiers de la jeunesse française’ (CJF), or glorified boy-scout camps. Married women were removed from public-sector jobs and sent back to the kitchen and bedroom; the author Benoîte Groult, then a 20-year-old writing in her diary, remarked: ‘of the sexes, we are the Jews’.

In such a situation of shock and bewilderment, it was not obvious what the French should do. Overwhelmingly, they were patriotic, but where did patriotism lie? Most took the view that France had been undermined and betrayed by forces that were not properly French. These should be excluded to restore France’s health and vigour, and the nation’s fortunes should be entrusted to a real military hero, Marshal Pétain. The Marshal met Hitler in October 1940 and shook hands with him, announcing that he was embarking on a strategy of collaboration. This was not necessarily all bad. Its purpose was to bring POWs home sooner, to make it easier to cross the demarcation line between the occupied and non-occupied zones and to reduce some of the financial and economic burdens inflicted by Germany, although in practice the Germans made few concessions. Many people thought that Pétain, while working ostensibly with the Germans, was playing a double game – in secret contact with the British in order to eventually bring France back into the war against Germany…

more…

https://aeon.co/essays/put-yourself-in-vichy-france-do-you-resist-or-collaborate

WIKK WEB GURU

The Coming Shift to Cosmic Fascism

[ Editor’s note: Bookmark this article and reread it a couple of times to assimilate how these unAmerican activities reverberated through the decades to the present time. This is the type of article that, in previous centuries, would have created its own entry in Encyclopedia Britannica. For those of us who lived through the Nixon resignation, the information below casts a different light on the lost 18 minutes of the tape.

The Assassination of JFK in broad daylight triggered the emergence of Super fascism in America. Super Fascism has facilitated the emergence of a Secret Shadow Government (SSG) which in turn has transformed the USG in DC into a ceremonial puppet of the SSG, destroyed the Rule of Law and neutralized the protections of the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights.

Just like at Valley Forge in winter, there have always been good and resolute Americans who lived or died trying to take the right course of action, in the face of overwhelming opposition. ]

How did Super Fascism emerge in the first place in America?

America was abruptly transformed into a Super-Fascist state by a major catalyst – the CIA OP40 Assassination of sitting President John F. Kennedy in broad daylight.

Clearly, November 22, 1963 was a major turning point in American History.

Justice Earl Warren was appointed by President Johnson to be the head of the cleverly contrived Warren Commission to investigate this “crime of the century”, while a whole new radical form of government was being installed.

Justice Warren did not want to take on this responsibility but, according to one report, the CIA allegedly reminded him that his daughter had a skeleton in the closet that would best remain unpublicized.

Justice Warren was told by LBJ that if he didn’t pin the assassination on Lee Harvey Oswald as a “lone nut” single assassin, it was likely that the blame would be fixed on Cuba (a Soviet Union ally).

LBJ claimed this would then result in a full-scale nuclear WW3 with Russia, because the generals and the American People would never put up with that and would demand an invasion of Cuba, which would provoke a nuclear response by the Soviet Union, which is what many of the USAF generals really wanted anyway.

An accurate descriptionof the USAF generals’ ideology at the time (as odd as this may seem) is well-expressed in the notorious Peter Sellers movie, “Dr. Strangelove or How I learned to love the Bomb”. Peter Sellers allegedly played the part of Dr. Edward Teller.

Strangelove was actor Slim Pickin’s greatest part ever played, even better than his superb part in the movie the “Flim Flam Man” with actor George C. Scott, who had also played a major role in the Strangelove movie.

When Earl Warren went to the Dallas jail to see Ruby, Ruby told him “you need to take me to Washington DC; I cannot talk openly here”.

Jack Ruby’s words, in a one-minute video:

Ruby had done investigative work for Richard Nixon in the past on the House Un-American Activities Committee; and he was a fixture in the local Dallas organized-crime network, which also involved associations, and gambling and drinking with several of the big oil tycoons, LBJ, some mafioso, and various Intel agents, operatives and assets.

Ruby had done investigative work for Richard Nixon in the past on the House Un-American Activities Committee; and he was a fixture in the local Dallas organized-crime network, which also involved associations, and gambling and drinking with several of the big oil tycoons, LBJ, some mafioso, and various Intel agents, operatives and assets.

Ruby’s bar and strip club, the Carousel, was a legend among the Dallas police, where they received free drinks and were always welcomed by Jack, a generous host who also did his own bouncing when necessary. Jack was usually quite friendly to his customers, but had an explosive temper at times when conflicts arose.

Soon after the Assassination, a local news crew went to Ruby’s club and interviewed a comedian and a waitress outside; and when the reporter showed them some photos of Oswald, the comedian claimed that Mr. Oswald had been in the club before and had sat at a table with Mr. Ruby and some businessmen from Chicago. This was broadcast live nationally; and as soon as the comedian made this statement, a test pattern was imposed on the broadcast, with the statement “technical difficulty”. The clip disappeared from the station and was never broadcast or even mentioned publicly again…

more…

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/05/21/the-coming-shift-to-cosmic-fascism-part-ii/

WIKK WEB GURU

Beethoven’s Advice on Being an Artist: His Touching Letter to a Little Girl Who Sent Him Fan Mail

“The true artist is not proud… Though he may be admired by others, he is sad not to have reached that point to which his better genius only appears as a distant, guiding sun.”

Beethoven by Joseph Karl Stieler

“The Artist is no other than he who unlearns what he has learned, in order to know himself,” E.E. Cummings wrote in contemplating what it means to be an artist — a sentiment which intimates that the accumulation of learning, an inevitable byproduct of the process of growing up, takes us not closer to but further away from our creative source. Baudelaire captured this perfectly when he wrote: “Genius is nothing more nor less than childhood recovered at will.” This, perhaps, is why some of humanity’s most fertile minds have traced the origin of their creative purpose in childhood moments of epiphany — Pablo Neruda in his anecdote of the hand through the fence, Patti Smith in her encounter with the the swan, and Albert Einstein in his formative memory of the compass.

In speaking with children, therefore, one might be able to get to the heart of art most simply and directly, unobstructed by the learned assumptions with which the act of living cloaks the act of creation.

That’s precisely what Ludwig van Beethoven (December 16, 1770–March 26, 1827) did in his response to a fan letter from a little girl.

In the summer of 1812, a young aspiring pianist named Emilie sent her hero a beautiful hand-embroidered pocketbook to express her admiration for his artistic genius. Touched by the gesture, 41-year-old Beethoven wrote back, offering some simple yet profound words of encouragement and advice on the creative life — an exquisite micro-manifesto for what it means to be an artist and what art demands of those who make it.

In a letter from July 17 of that year, found in Beethoven: Letters, Journals and Conversations (public library) — which also gave us the great composer’s stirring letter to his brothers about how music saved his life — Beethoven writes to Emilie:

My dear good Emilie, my dear Friend!

[…]

Do not only practice art, but get at the very heart of it; this it deserves, for only art and science raise men to the God-head. If, my dear Emilie, you at any time wish to know something, write without hesitation to me. The true artist is not proud, he unfortunately sees that art has no limits; he feels darkly how far he is from the goal; and though he may be admired by others, he is sad not to have reached that point to which his better genius only appears as a distant, guiding sun.

Although known for his explosive anger, a bout of which reportedly caused his deafness, Beethoven was indeed a man of multitudes, capable at times of tremendous tenderness and sensitivity. It is from that soft and human place that he adds, in this letter to a little girl of meager means and no social advantage, a touching note on the artist’s responsibility to humility:

I would, perhaps, rather come to you and your people, than to many rich folk who display inward poverty. If one day I should come to [your town], I will come to you, to your house; I know no other excellencies in man than those which causes him to rank among better men; where I find this, there is my home.

If you wish, dear Emilie, to write to me, only address straight here where I shall be still for the next four weeks, or to Vienna; it is all one. Look upon me as your friend, and as the friend of your family.

Complement this particular fragment of Beethoven: Letters, Journals and Conversations with Einstein’s advice to a little girl on being a scientist, Sol LeWitt’s electrifying letter of encouragement on being an artist, and Rilke’s timeless wisdom on what it takes to create, then revisit Beethoven’s passionate love letters.

https://www.brainpickings.org/

WIKK WEB GURU

Democracy needs politeness

Imagem relacionada

Drafting the Declaration of Independence by Alonzo Chappel (1828-87). L – r; Robert Livingston, Roger Sherman, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin The Heckscher Museum of Art, Huntington, NY, USA/Bridgeman

Autocrats shouted, cursed, and bullied, while American revolutionaries used politeness as a tool of radical politics

Steven Bullock is professor of history at Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts. His research focuses on Colonial and Revolutionary America.

Long before current fears about incivility in public life – before anxieties about Twitter-shaming and cable-news name-calling – politeness was very much on the minds of United States leaders. In 1808, the US president Thomas Jefferson ranked the ‘qualities of mind’ he valued. Not surprisingly, he included ‘integrity’, ‘industry’, and ‘science’. These traits were particularly important to American revolutionaries seeking a society based on independent citizens, rather than harsh rulers and inherited privilege. But at the top of his list, Jefferson chose not these familiar Enlightenment values but ‘good humour’ – or what contemporaries usually called ‘politeness’.

Placing politeness first seems surprising. Today, the term often connotes a lesser, private virtue, reminiscent of antiquated childhood rules and required thank-you notes. At worst, politeness keeps people from revealing themselves or speaking out against injustice. One of the longest-running US reality TV shows, The Real World (1992-), suggests in its introduction that the truth about who people are comes out only when they ‘stop being polite – and start getting real’.

However, 18th-century Britons and Americans believed that politeness was essential for a free society. Autocrats shouted, cursed and berated. But they sought only obedience. Leading a more open society required respect for other people, sensitivity to their expectations and concerns. By the time of Jefferson’s ranking, politeness had been part of the project of challenging authoritarian rule for more than a century.

Later in 1808, Jefferson explained the importance of politeness more fully. The president’s 16-year-old grandson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, had recently left home for further education in Philadelphia. ‘Safety’ in this situation, Jefferson suggested, required three qualities: moral virtue, ‘prudence’, and ‘good humour’ supported by ‘politeness’. He explained further that politeness was ‘artificial good humour’, the habits and discipline that filled in when good humour flagged. It was, therefore, ‘an acquisition of first-rate value’. Consideration for other people, refraining from disputes in company, and sacrificing one’s own ‘conveniences and preferences’ to please others could ‘win’ their ‘good will’.

Jefferson was not saying anything new. His grandson could already have studied The Polite Student (1748) and The Polite Philosopher (1736) – or works offering the ‘Complete art of polite correspondence’, ‘the principles of politeness’, or ‘the character of a polite young gentleman’. Randolph’s mother might have read The Polite Lady (1760).

But Jefferson also knew that politeness was complicated. The term originally meant polished or smooth. As ‘polite’ came to be applied to humans as well as things towards the end of the 17th century, it became linked to the emerging ideal of refinement. Contemporaries celebrated (or moralised about) ‘polite society’ and the ‘polite world’, sometimes in ‘polite literature’.

‘Politeness’ differed from related terms such as ‘gentility’ and ‘civility’ because it focused on human interactions. Jefferson’s call to ‘conciliate’ other people highlighted this distinction. In 1702, the prolific writer Abel Boyer suggested that ‘politeness’ meant ‘a dextrous management of our Words and Actions, whereby we make other People have better Opinion of us and themselves’. Or, as Benjamin Franklin put it simply in 1750: ‘The polite Man aims at pleasing others.’…

more…

https://aeon.co/essays/how-politeness-became-a-tool-of-radical-democratic-politics

WIKK WEB GURU

What is human capital?

Resultado de imagem para Workers leaving Pennsylvania shipyards, Beaumont, Texas in 1943. Photo by John Vachon/Library of Congress

Workers leaving Pennsylvania shipyards, Beaumont, Texas in 1943. Photo by John Vachon/Library of Congress

Human capital theory was invented as an ideological weapon in the Cold War. Now it is helping to Uberise the world of work

Peter Fleming is professor of business and society at Cass Business School at City, University of London. His latest book is The Death of Homo Economicus (forthcoming, 2017).

Chicago, 1960. The United States is bogged down in a long, expensive and dangerous Cold War with the Soviet Union. Inside the Economics Building at the University of Chicago, two academics are engaged in a private, intense conversation. Theodore ‘Teddy’ Schultz is tall and lanky. Raised on a South Dakota farm and pulled out of school by his father, he’d still managed to scale the heady heights of academia, first as chairman of the Economics Department in 1944 and then as president of the American Economic Association in 1960. Schultz has strong connections with the Ford Foundation, an important front for CIA programmes during the Cold War.

His younger sparring partner is Milton Friedman who in 1946 joined what became known as the ‘Chicago school’. Although Friedman was of diminutive stature, measuring only 1.52 metres tall, he already enjoyed a fierce reputation as a verbal opponent. Friedman will flirt with the CIA in due course too, training Chilean economists in the art of neoliberal ‘shock therapy’. His know-how came in handy after the US-sponsored overthrow/death of Chile’s Marxist president Salvador Allende in 1973. Richard Nixon said he wanted to hear the Chilean economy scream.

As the two men faced each other in that dark, oak-panelled office, they had a big problem on their hands. University economists were being recast in a new light by US state authorities; no longer bumbling professors (sporting a pipe and tweed jacket) but the creators of ideational weapons, just as important as the intercontinental ballistic missiles being readied at Vandenberg airbase in California. Members of the Chicago school were confident they could make a significant contribution in the struggle.

But how exactly?

Schultz shifts nervously in his leather-bound chair. Economic growth has to be the answer, he avers. Friedman nods in agreement, but quietly frowns as Schultz makes his case. In Moscow, Nikita Khrushchev has just announced that ‘growth of industrial and agricultural production is the battering ram with which we shall smash the capitalist system’. This brazen provocation caused a stir when it was read to the US Joint Economic Committee of Congress in 1959.

Friedman is stony silent – a rarity that Schultz seizes upon to extend his point. There’s a very pragmatic aspect to his plan, too. Not only is growth a ‘hot topic’ following the Khrushchev speech, but a number of powerful technocrats in the US government are increasingly sympathetic to Schultz’s views, especially the Council of Economic Advisers. They’ve been instructed by the Oval Office to devise a growth strategy that will eclipse the USSR and leave it for dead.

Although Schultz holds staunch neoclassical assumptions about growth and development, he learnt from his earlier studies of agricultural productivity that increased public spending on education was absolutely vital to the nation’s growth agenda. It will not only give the US a scientific edge in the space race but also enrich the country’s wider skill reserves, making it more productive and thus beating the Soviets at their own ‘growth game’.

Friedman abruptly interjects. Yes, he intones, the question of economic growth is vital. But public spending is not the way forward. It’s easy to picture Friedman browbeating his weary chairman once again about the evils of ‘big government’ and central planning. The Soviet enemy instead needs to be confronted on strictly US terms, where individual freedom and capitalist enterprise come to the fore. Government is the problem, not the solution. Friedman’s ideal hero is the self-made entrepreneur. He often cited a joke from the vaudeville humourist Will Rogers to cut down his government-friendly critics: just be thankful you don’t get the government you actually pay for!

Here, Friedman is echoing the views of the Austrian free-market zealot F A Hayek, who had joined the University of Chicago in 1950. While exiled in London back in the 1940s, Hayek had written the rabid anti-communist tract, The Road to Serfdom. A condensed version was published by Reader’s Digest and made its author famous. Hayek’s near-fanatical belief in capitalist individualism and all things anti-USSR undoubtedly swayed the terms of the debate that Schultz and Friedman were presently having.

The two academics pause to gather their thoughts. Then the concept of human capital is broached. Possibly by Schultz since it might help to find some common ground with his tiny counterpart. Unfortunately, it proved to be the older academic’s undoing in the debate.

more…

https://aeon.co/essays/how-the-cold-war-led-the-cia-to-promote-human-capital-theory

WIKK WEB GURU

The cosmology of Poe

Imagem relacionada

image edited by Web Investigator

Drawing on intuition, Edgar Allan Poe offered some remarkably prescient ideas about the universe in his poem ‘Eureka’

Paul Halpern is professor of physics at the University of the Sciences in Philadelphia. A prolific science writer, his latest book is The Quantum Labyrinth: How Richard Feynman and John Wheeler Revolutionized Time and Reality(forthcoming, 2017). He lives near Philadelphia, PA.

Looking about me upon the wide waste of liquid ebony on which we were thus borne … I now began to watch, with a strange interest, the numerous things that floated in our company. I must have been delirious – for I even sought amusement in speculating upon the relative velocities of their several descents toward the foam below.

‘A Descent into the Maelström’ (1841), Edgar Allan Poe

Nature’s power enthralled the American writer Edgar Allan Poe, and galvanised some of his most memorable works. He was particularly captivated by the natural world’s ghastly capacity for destruction. In the short story ‘A Descent into the Maelström’, for instance, a sea voyage turns into sheer mayhem when a fierce vortex hurls the vessel toward its briny doom, shattering it into splinters. As if he were a journalist reporting a maritime calamity, Poe describes each stage of the devastation in riveting detail. His amateur interest in science lends his tales a measure of credibility that makes them all the more horrific. 

Despite his relatively brief life, from 1809 to 1849, Poe applied his style to an astounding range of genres, from supernatural horror to detective stories. Even among that diversity, though, one piece stands out. In his final major work, Eureka – A Prose Poem (1848), he took his fascination with nature beyond the human world and crafted a chronicle of the Universe itself. The unique subject matter required an inversion of his usual approach. Instead of imagining a breaking down of regularity into shards, as in many of his famous short stories, Poe envisioned a systematic building up of order from a unitary beginning – a genesis rather than an apocalypse. Moreover, he offered his account as an attempt at realistic truth rather than mere fiction. ‘My general proposition … is this,’ he wrote. ‘In the Original Unity of the First Thing lies the Secondary Cause of All Things, with the Germ of their Inevitable Annihilation.’

Readers who first encounter Eureka are often surprised by its resemblance to the Big Bang model of cosmology, pioneered by the Belgian physicist and cleric Georges Lemaître in the 1920s, and later developed by the Russian-born cosmologist George Gamow and others. In the Big Bang narrative, the Universe started as a kind of dense, unitary ‘primeval atom’ (Lemaître’s term) that diversified as it expanded. The narrative of Eureka is similar enough that, taking it out of context, Poe seems uncannily prescient, almost a prophet of modern cosmology. Even though he had no access to the later theoretical insights and experimental evidence upon which the Big Bang is based, one might trace a narrative thread connecting Eureka’s ethereal speculations with the more solid scientific theory.

Poe identified a vital cosmos, pulsing with change, as dynamic as volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, and indeed maelströms. The Universe, painted with Poe’s vivid colours, became not just a backdrop to nature’s theatrics but a dramatis persona in its own right, much like the seven chambers in another of Poe’s stories, ‘The Masque of the Red Death’ (1842), or the turbulent sea in ‘A Descent’. In bringing the cosmos to life, Poe mirrored the embrace of natural transformation in many of the writings of the Transcendentalists around this time, such as Ralph Waldo Emerson in his lecture ‘The Method of Nature’ (1841), which advised: ‘If anything could stand still, it would be crushed and dissipated by the torrent it resisted.’ In a similar vein, Walt Whitman’s poem ‘A Song of the Open Road’ (1856) speaks of ‘wild seas… where winds blow, waves dash’.

Science today has embraced a dynamic Universe that alters from aeon to aeon (or even from second to second), but in the mid-19th century that view was rather radical. By then, Isaac Newton’s mechanistic laws of motion were well-established. At face value, they seemed to suggest a timeless Universe driven by deterministic rules to persist indefinitely. Running those laws backward into the past implied that the clockwork Universe would have always ticked, eliminating the need for Genesis. Eschewing Biblical teachings of a divine creation completely had proven too bold a step for Newton to take, however.

Lacking an obvious starting point, Newton had felt the need to insert one deus ex machina. In a letter to the English theologian Thomas Burnet, Newton envisioned how the early Universe was constructed:

One may suppose that all the planets about our sun were created together… That they all, and the sun too, had, at first, one common chaos. That this chaos, by the spirit of God moving upon it, became separated into several parcels, each parcel for a planet. That at the same time the matter of the sun also separated from the rest, and upon the separation began to shine before it was formed into that compact and well-defined body we now see it.

Newton had little reason to doubt the Biblical timeline that Earth and the cosmos were thousands of years old. In his day, fossil evidence for a distant past was just starting to be examined, and geological dating and astronomical observation had not yet revealed the true multi-billion-year timeline. The Irish archbishop James Ussher’s infamous 1654 proclamation that the Universe began on 22 October 4004 BCE was emblematic of the widespread misconceptions about a young Earth…

more…

https://aeon.co/essays/edgar-allan-poe-visionary-of-big-bang-cosmology

WIKK WEB GURU

Former President of Merck Led Secret Biowarfare Program, Influencing Experiments on Americans

by Cassius Methyl, Guest Waking Times

Merck & Co. is the world’s largest vaccine manufacturing corporation, and is one of the largest pharma companies in the world. They created such things as the MMR vaccine, and the HPV vaccine Gardasil.

As a corporation that has affected the lives of almost everyone around us in the Western world, with most people receiving their vaccinations that are known to do damage, we should know their history.

In this article, we will examine Merck’s connection to biological warfare, and the implications of that connection. Merck & Co. is not to be confused with the German “Merck KGaA,” but they both originate from the original German Merck. Merck was founded in 1668, in Germany. By 1887, a US division of Merck called Merck & Co. was set up in New York by George Merck. George Merck moved to NY in 1891.

In April 1917, as the US entered the Great War (WWI), the government announced the seizure of corporations affiliated with Germany.

Merck & Co. was seized, but George Merck and partners founded a “McKenna Corporation” to bid on Merck as it was put up for auction, and they managed to buy Merck back in 1919, fully separating from the other Merck in Germany (as far as we know).

From that point, Merck made efforts to stay boldly on the side of the American war effort, and perhaps that influenced their involvement with the US’ biological warfare program during the peak of World War II.

In 1925, the same year Nazi chemical monopoly IG Farben was created, George Merck passed his company onto his son, George W. Merck.

George W. Merck grew up in a privileged position, using the workshop of Thomas Edison as a child and inheriting his position as the president of the company.

He would become Merck’s president for 25 years, all throughout World War II: and he was given a central leadership position in the US’ biological warfare program during the same years he led Merck, retiring from the company years after his alleged retirement from biowarfare.

It was George W. Merck who led biological warfare work as the head of the War Research Service, the department in charge of Ft. Detrick, while still being president of Merck. According to Wikipedia:

“During World War II, he led the War Research Service, which initiated the U.S. biological weapons program with Frank Olson.”

According to MIT Press:

“By midsummer, three candidates had rejected an offer to head the new group: economist Walter W. Stewart, who chaired the Rockefeller Foundation, geographer Isaiah Bowman, president of Johns Hopkins University, and economist Edmund Ezra Day, president of Cornell University. Finally, in August, chemist George W. Merck, president of the pharmaceutical firm Merck & Co., accepted the position.

The innocuously named War Research Service (WRS) started out in mid-1942 with an initial allocation of $200,000. Wide contacts with major biologists and physicians enabled the eight member directorate to initiate secret work in about 28 American universities, including Harvard University, Columbia University, the University of Chicago, Northwestern University, Ohio State University, the University of Notre Dame, the University of Wisconsin, Stanford University, and the University of California.”

To read George W. Merck’s report to the Secretary of War in 1945, click here.

This history perfectly illustrates what “the system” is, and how it extends into all the major universities.

He was later given several awards, and was put on the cover of the August 18, 1952 edition of Time Magazine, while the public was unaware he was ever involved with biological warfare, let alone his setting the foundation for experiments on Americans.

Ft. Detrick is one of the most well known biological warfare centers in US history: it’s the place where the plan to spray bacteria over San Francisco in the 1950’s and 60’s under Operation Sea Spray was conceived, shortly after Merck left. After Merck’s departure from the War Research Service, Ft. Detrick became a central factor in experiments on US citizens.

It was the place where paperclipped Nazi scientist Kurt Blome advised biological warfare experts on how to experiment on US citizens. Blome had previously experimented on his victims with Bubonic Plague.

It was where Frank Olson worked, the man who was almost certainly assassinated for starting to question the morality of his work with biowarfare, and with MK Ultra. According to Center for Research on Globalization:

“On 28 November 1953, at 2 am, a man crashed through a closed window and fell to his death from the 10th floor of the Statler Hotel in New York City. He was identified as Frank Olson, a bacteriologist with the US Army Research Center at Fort Detrick, Maryland. He had fallen from a room he shared with another scientist, Robert Lashbrook. It was ruled a suicide.

Twenty-two years later, in 1975, William Colby, then CIA director, declassified documents that changed the complexion of the case. It was revealed that Olson had actually been an undercover CIA operative at Fort Detrick, and that one week prior to his death, he had been drinking Cointreau at a high-level meeting with scientists at Deep Creek Lodge in rural Maryland. The Cointreau was laced with a large dose of LSD administered by his CIA boss, Sidney Gottlieb. He was then sent to New York with Lashbrook, also with the CIA, to see a psychiatrist because the LSD had induced a psychosis.

It was also revealed that Olson had been part of the top secret CIA program that was known as Project MK-ULTRA, exploring the use of chemicals and drugs for purposes of mind control, and bacteriological agents for covert assassination. Olson had been working on ways to deliver anthrax in aerosol form, for use as a weapon. New evidence that came to light, through the persistent efforts of Olson’s son Eric, made the suicide ruling highly suspect.”…

more…

About the Author
Cassius Methyl is a researcher and writer from Sacramento, California. He is the founder of Era of Wisdom, writer/director of the documentary “Toddlers on Amphetamine: History of Big Pharma and the Major Players,” and a writer in the alternative media since 2013 at the age of 17.
This article (Former President of Merck Led Secret Biowarfare Program, Influencing Experiments on Americans) was originally created and published by The Mind Unleashed and is re-posted here with permission. 

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2017/05/03/former-president-merck-led-secret-biowarfare-program-influencing-experiments-americans/

WIKK WEB GURU