shade’s peshar

For those who don’t know or couldn’t read between the lines, Smoking Gun lives in Texas, so again it’s a bit understandable if his opinion is skewed against Kerry.

So, since I’ve known him almost as long as I’ve known Gene-ius, and Smoking Gun’s another Mothers aficionado, I’m cool with his views, too.  I guess I blotted out that he was a life-long Republican; mea culpa, dude.  Yeah, we’ll blame the Brain Police for your not getting the Kerry questionnaire... ...that’s it...

The comment about tracking the money was interesting.  I passed that on to Flaming Faggot, who recommended checking out open secrets.  It lists candidate campaign contributions by dollar, but information about who the donations are by is harder to find.

Interesting stuff, and I am still looking into it.  So while I do some digging, I’ll turn this over to Evil Matt, who wants to have a word with you about some flax...

Evil Matt’s post script Malta peshar

Smoking Gun’s comment about ‘was Allen Dulles a Knight of Malta?’ sent me scrambling back through my notes.

If memory serves right, my original indication of Dulles’s membership came from a few years ago, when I was researching a piece on General Reinhard Gehlen and his spy network.  There is no question that Gehlen was a Knight of Malta, and an article I read at the time mentioned and made some ado about the fact that the person Gehlen “surrendered” to, John Foster Dulles, was also a member, as was his younger brother Allen.  Admittedly, I don’t remember exactly what it said.   I have since attempted to locate that article on line, but have not been able to do so.  I did, however, find numerous other sites that said substantially the same thing: Dulles was a knight of Malta.  I can send you the list if you are interested, so you can confirm the sources’ reliability.

Otherwise, cough up the flax, jack!

Whatever the case, the Knights of Malta are an interesting group, and worth knowing a little about.  Therefore, I turn things back over to shade for his little exposé...

That much is true and undisputed; now here’s the rumor.

 I have heard it alleged from several sources that in Freemasonry, initiation into the 32^nd Degree involves a reenactment of the death of Jacques de Molay.  

This is with something of a morbid precedent: initial initiation into the Craft (1° Entered Apprentice) is an odd reenactment of the death of the architect of Solomon’s Temple, Hiram Abiff (2^nd Chronicles 2:11-14).  But just as the story of Hiram is retold with a Masonic lilt during initiation, apparently the death of de Molay gets a similar skewed treatment.

Specifically, the initiate, in the guise of the dying Grand Master, would be told that the real power behind the betrayal and downfall of the Knights Templar was not the Pope or the King, but the Knights of Malta.  The most controversial (and disputed) rumor of all this is that the Masonic initiate is then told one of the greatest secrets about his group: that the Freemasons are the remnant leftovers of the Knights Templar, and they are to devote themselves to fighting the “tyranny and superstition” which the Knights of Malta exemplify.

I honestly don’t know if that’s true, even though I’ve heard it before from a couple of sources who usually know what they’re talking about.  But what I’m actually interested in here is the claim that it was the Knights of Malta behind the Templar’s downfall.  That I’d never heard, and certainly puts a new spin on history if its true.

...and speaking of putting a new spin on history...

Reagan Revisionism

Well, former president Ronald Reagan’s body finally passed on—joining his mind, which had been dead since the mid-’90s.  

apologetic disclaimer: That’s the only Alzheimer’s joke I’ll make.  My grandfather suffered from it, and spent the last few years of his life thinking he was in a New England train station, so I know how tragic and unfunny Alzheimer’s is.

Anyway, as one can expect, the inevitable has happened: with his moving on to do some Great Communicating with the Cosmos, back on Earth there has been a mad scramble by Republicans to rewrite history books so as to portray Reagan as the greatest President ever.  Even back in the mid-’90s, Rush Limbaugh was calling for him to be added to Mount Rushmore—proof he’s been hooked on painkillers a lot longer than we thought—and currently there is a groundswell to have Reagan’s face replace the current one on either the $10 or $20-dollar bill.

Personally, I would have thought that Bush Jr. would have created a million-dollar bill specifically for him, as Reagan’s greatest benefit was to the elite 1%, and they would be the only ones who would ever see such a bill anyway.

Reagan once said something to the effect that “trees cause more pollution than automobiles.”  In a eulogistic case I suspect that to be true, as I don’t doubt a lot of lumber will be pulped for a plethora of fawning, hero-worshiping books that glamorize what is quickly becoming Saint Reagan.  History is already in the process of being rewritten, and by people who you’d think should know better.  In the myriad of romantic biographies and commentaries that ensued in the days after his death, one of the most sickening myths perpetuated was that Reagan ended Communism, and that this specifically happened on his watch.  Bullshit.  I’ll discuss his contribution to the Cold War in detail later, but for now a simple timeline can serve as the obituary for this bit of fiction: Reagan was out of office in 1988, and Communism collapsed in 1990.  ’Nuff said?  Apparently not, because in the rosy appraisals choking the airwaves in the weeks since he died, people seemed to think that the Berlin Wall came down and the Kremlin collapsed some time during his Oval Office tenure, and I actually heard some so-called historians say this on NPR and in the Arizona Republic.

Fortunately, folks, shade is on the case!  No need to “set the record straight” on this one; all I need to do is recap actual fact before certain sinister “historians” rewrite the textbook and edit out or redact facts to suit their own agenda.

The most cynical of us see the Reagan years as proof that the American Presidency is just a Brain Police figurehead.  The orders still came from Secret Meeting Room at 22A Baker Street, and they had an actor present them palatably to the plebes.  Like in that old commercial: “I’m not a real doctor, but I play one on tv...”  The Brain Police weren’t even trying to hide this one...

Still, I will admit it: I liked Reagan.  I think it is pretty much universally accepted that as a person he was a nice guy; friendly, avuncular, a genuine sense of humor... kind of like your own grandpa.  Although much of this had to do with his professional training as an actor to project himself palatably to the audience, I believe the base beneath it was sincere.

Of course, it is important to distinguish between Reagan-the-Person and Reagan-the-Politician.  Sacred Cows are best barbecued in Branch Floridian fashion, so let’s take a look at Ron in Office.

When Reagan ran for office in 1980, the American economy was in a pretty bad recession, and had been for several years.  Reagan’s plan to kick-start domestic prosperity: a huge round of tax cuts (mostly for the rich) and increased government spending on pork-barrel projects.  Sound familiar?  The general idea was to increase the supply of money available, theoretically to everyone but in practice it was the top 1%ers that saw the most of it.  I think the plan was that rich people would leave bigger tips to the plebes.  Several terms came about to describe this: Supply-Side Economics, Trickle-Down Theory... it is best-remembered today as Reaganomics.

During the Republican primaries, rival candidate George Bush had his own moniker for it: “Voodoo Economics.”  Of course, we all witnessed his overnight epiphany when Reagan tapped him to be his vice president, and he 180’d to whole-heartedly embrace the Reagan economic gameplan.

By cutting taxes, Reagan decreased the amount of money the government was making, but curiously he increased the amount that it was spending on various projects.  To help bankroll this, he would skim money out of other areas, such as budgets for public school lunches.  When someone pointed out that by doing so the next generation wouldn’t have a balanced diet, his infamous reply was, “Well, the lunches still have ketchup.  Ketchup is a vegetable.”

“A prune is not a vegetable. Cabbage is a vegetable.” —FZ

It would be one thing if he had pumped money into domestic projects that benefited everyone, such as  improving our transportation system, education, or the environment.  However, most of the money went into dubious military contracts.  Two examples of pet projects Ron adopted should serve:

• The MX Missile.  Even though we had tons of ICBMs that worked just fine, Reagan decided that we needed more, because the Soviet Union knew where most of ours were.  The solution was to be the MX Missile system, dubbed the “Peacekeeper” by Ron, which would have been a huge underground complex about the size of Montana where missiles would be rotated on trains, so the Russians never knew exactly where they were.  Of course, in the event of war, they could miraculously pop up above ground and fire.  The idea was to get the Russians to waste valuable rockets of their own carpet-bombing the United States in hopes of taking out the MX system.  Fortunately, the idea never got off the ground, but we did spend $20 billion researching it, and even built a few, which sat in silos without guidance systems.

• SDI.  Universally known as “Star Wars,” the Strategic Defense Initiative was another scheme to defend the U.S. from incoming missile attack by somehow having satellites shoot down attacking rockets before they reached us.  There were so many problems with this that it was universally acknowledged by the people assigned to develop it that there was no way to make it work, at least with 1980s technology, but that did not deter Reagan from dropping a wad on the project.  Depending on which source you believe, the bill ran either $36 billion or $70 billion.

So those were the types of things Reagan spent money on.  The end result should be obvious, but if not, here are the figures:

When Reagan took office in 1980, the Federal deficit was $930 billion.  When he left, it was $2.6 trillion.  At the time, and even adjusting for inflation, that was record debt spending of money that the government did not have, though that record has been shattered by the current president.

Reagan’s take on the national deficit was true Ron: “I am not worried about the deficit; it is big enough to take care of itself.”

Still, proponents of Reaganomics gleefully claim, “but it worked!  The economy was great!”

To answer that, I quote Reagan himself (out of context): “Well, yes and maybe no.”  The illusion of prosperity under Reaganomics was just that: largely false, and the bubble did burst during his tenure.  On October 19, 1987, the stock market crashed.  The Dow-Jones dropped 23%—worse that the ‘Great Crash’ of 1929—and a recession began that would last about five years.

Of course, the Reagan years were more than just questionable economics.  Let’s look at his foreign policy.

The first myth attributed to the Reagan Legacy is that he freed the hostages held in Iran.  In a word, BULLSHIT.  True, the hostages were freed within an hour of Reagan’s taking his oath of office, but I defy anyone to demonstrate how Reagan orchestrated their release.  Indeed, there is compelling (if questionable) evidence that the exact opposite happened: Reagan cronies (specifically George Bush) met with Iranian leaders in Paris to ask them to hold on to the hostages until after the election.  For those unfamiliar with the “October Surprise” scenario, it’s a hefty topic and major digression, one that probably cost investigator Danny Casolaro his life.  However, we still have the fact that, shortly after taking office, Reagan quietly unfroze Iranian assets.

Monetary deals with Iran would crop up later in his administration, when it became known that the Reagan Administration was secretly selling weapons such as 4,000 anti-tank TOW missiles to them in exchange for Tehran using its influence to get American hostages in Lebanon released.  And, in the true spirit of capitalism, Reagan cronies were actually overcharging the Iranians and using the surplus money to bankroll anti-communist rebels in Nicaragua.  Both acts were specifically prohibited by laws that Reagan himself had signed into being.  Technically, this scheme was the brainchild of CIA director William Casey, who essentially ran a rogue Agency, but Reagan knew and approved.  What’s more, he lied about it: when investigators asked Reagan under oath what happened, his reply was “The simple truth is, I don’t remember—period.”  This despite his own diary having entries like “I agreed to sell TOWS to Iran” (January 1, 1986) and a signed executive order from 15 days later authorizing the sales.

I have to wonder: if a president lying under oath about getting a blowjob is an impeachable offense, how about lying under oath about selling weapons to an enemy of state and funding an illegal covert war?

Aside from Iran, the whole handling of Nicaragua was a dark chapter of the Reagan Legacy.  Reagan called the Contras “...the moral equivalents of our Founding Fathers.”  It was known even then by the likes of Oliver North that the Contras were raising funds by raising cocaine.  Granted, George Washington grew hemp at Mount Vernon, but I think this is a bit different.  Reagan upped the ante against Nicaragua by authorizing CIA director William Casey to mine the Managua harbor.  When Senator Barry Goldwater learned of this, he sent a terse memo to Casey saying “This is an act violating international law.  It is an act of war” and privately told people “It was the dumbest fucking idea I have ever heard.”

Reagan’s ability to escape unscathed from these impeachable offenses earned him the nickname “the Teflon President.”

Obviously, the Iran/Contra scandal wasn’t the only blemish in his foreign policy; he made a mess all over the globe.  For a particularly bad example, we only need to remember how Reagan committed 1,200 troops to Lebanon as part of a U.N. “peacekeeper” mission, with the result that a suicide bomber blew up 300 of them.  When Reagan removed the troops and put them off-shore on battleships, he called it taking “decisive new steps” to victory; White House spokesman Larry Speakes described it as  “We don’t consider this a withdrawal but more of a redeployment.”

When Reagan did have an unquestionable military victory, it was in 1983 when he invaded the tiny island of Grenada.  The U.S. army soundly defeated a small company of Cuban construction workers.

Of course, the major victory granted to the Reagan regime was the winning of the Cold War.  Now, I’ve already pointed out the timeline flaw in that faulty thinking, but to be honest, there is a kernel of truth to the legend.  Under Reagan, the United States was spending about 6.5% of its GDP on the military, which we realistically could not afford.  By comparison, the U.S.S.R. was spending about 15%, and they could afford that even less.  The claim is that Reagan forced the Russians to bankrupt themselves doing this, or at the very least heavily contributed to the collapse of the communist system.  However, if you’re going to force the Soviets to spend themselves to death, is it wise to make them spend on the one thing they produce both in quantity and quality: weapons?  That was the one sector of the Soviet economy that actually prospered during the Reagan years.  Most people who know the situation will tell you that the collapse came about more from social reforms by Gorbechov than economic pressure from Reagan.  However, even if it were true that Reagan’s actions were the dominant factor in winning the Cold War, economically this is about as close to a pyrric victory as you can come.  It also diminishes the contributions made by every other president from Truman to on the matter.

In all fairness, though, Reagan’s greatest contribution as President was one that you never hear about: he helped restore pride in this country.  After the disastrous incumbencies of Nixon and Carter in the ’70s, American morale was at a low point, and Reagan helped restore pride to a nation that needed it.  I think that is why he is so popular in the public’s mind.

So, if we as a people need to feel good about ourselves by selectively remembering Reagan, what does this say about our current morale and level of self-confidence?  To me, this is eerily similar of the conundrum offered up by the Book of Jonah: which is better — a lie that saves, or a truth that destroys?

Reagan’s death reinforces the fact that people tend to remember selectively, and one of the things people seem to recall most fondly about him was his smooth speaking style.  Admittedly, he wrote many of his own speeches, and sometimes they were great stuff with impeccable delivery.  

Sometimes, they weren’t.

In fact, it’s interesting to study just that aspect of...

The “Great” Communicator

Obviously, Bush made an effort to milk Reagan Mania for all it is worth, attempting to link himself as the intellectual heir to Reagan.  It also must be admitted that Reagan’s death was certainly well-timed for Dubya, because it distracted everyone from the Inquiry into how much Bush and Ashcroft were attempting to do away with the Bill of Rights.

Although Dubya did his best to pick up the mantle, it’s obvious that he won’t inherit Ron’s title as “The Great communicator.”  One of Reagan’s great strengths as a speaker was his ability to improvise.  When Bush departs from a heavily memorized and rehearsed speech, he flounders and flubs up the stuff that has become legend.

I have only found a few instances where Reagan did the same and made a statement that would be the equivalent to a Bushism:

Ronald Reagan: (at a prep school commencement address): “My name is Ronald Reagan. What’s yours?”
Michael Reagan: “I’m your son, Mike.”
Ronald Reagan: “Oh, I didn’t recognize you.”

“We spend weeks and hours every day preparing the Budget.”

“The United Sates has much to offer the third world war.”

Compared with Bush, he gets off easy.  When Reagan would fumble a statement, it was more a case where the words made sense, but the conclusion was absurd.  I would actually classify these more as misinformation based on ignorance.  Let’s take a look:

“All the waste in a year from a nuclear power plant can be stored under a desk.”

“If you’ve seen one redwood, you’ve seen them all.  A tree is a tree. How many more do you have to look at?”—in 1966, opposing expansion of Redwood National Park.

“They (Nazi soldiers) were victims, just as sure as the victims in the concentration camps.”—at the Bitberg cemetery, where SS guards are buried.