Tuesday, 7 July 2015

FEMA and The Rodney King Riots

On the third day of riots, suspected looters are detained at Main Street and Washington Boulevard.

"...the Pan Am plane landed in Guyana. And I talked to the air traffic controller there, who was present at the time, and he told me every Black that came off the plane was bound and gagged. "

John Judge

"...the Pan Am plane landed in Guyana. And I talked to the air traffic controller there, who was present at the time, and he told me every Black that came off the plane was bound and gagged. 

He told me that people who lived as close as 5 miles away, and I've gotten this from other sources, in the bush, did not know that there was a single Black living at Matthew's Ridge in Guyana. All they had ever seen were the Whites. 

Because the Whites were the only ones allowed in and out of the camp, allowed to have money; allowed to carry a gun; allowed to go into the city. 

In the city they were paying off Black and Indian women to sell their babies. Which they were taking back to the camp. 

And all of these people were being experimented on by Dr. Lawrence Schacht, the camp doctor, and a crew of about 40 nurses. For a population of about 1200 people, 40 nurses. 

And he was infamous for participating in the torture, for doing suturing without anesthetic. I believe that he is none other than the grandson of Hjalmar Schacht, the Reichminister of Economics, who moved to Houston Texas where Larry Schacht's family is from, at the end of the war. 

And it was Hjalmar Schacht who invented the slogan, over the gate at Auschwitz:

 Arbeit Macht Frei



"Work Makes You Free."


May 10, 1992

Los Angeles Police Differ Sharply With Prosecutors on Arrest Totals


LOS ANGELES, May 9— Reflecting the confusion that has characterized this city's response to the violence that broke out 10 days ago, prosecutors and the police are giving widely different estimates of the number of riot-related arrests. 
Police officials said today that they had arrested 18,000 people from Wednesday night, April 29, the day the riots began, through this morning. But prosecutors said they could not account for as many as 10,000 of those people. 
"We don't know where these people are," said James K. Hahn, the Los Angeles City Attorney. "It is a mystery to a lot of people in the system right now." 
Difficult Job Ahead 
Prosecutors said they had finished the initial processing of all those arrested during the riots, and only about 8,000 defendants had come through the courts. The police said they could not explain the discrepancy, but they stood by their number. 
Whatever the case, prosecutors anticipate unusual difficulties in proving the charges against the thousands of defendants arrested by harried police officers amid the chaos of the riots, in which more than 50 people were killed and hundreds of businesses were looted and burned. 
Following a week of calm, Federal troops, held in staging areas in Southern California, were awaiting orders today to return home. Deputy Hal Grant of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department said the previous night had been quiet, with only routine police calls. 
Deputy Grant said the total of riot-related arrests reached 18,213 as police continued to search for and arrest people found in possession of property stolen during the rioting. He said the arrest figure was compiled from a number of sources, including the Los Angeles Police Department and from smaller cities in Los Angeles County. 
But the number of arrests in recent days has been small compared with the thousands of people rounded up by police during the height of the violence last week. 
Like Traffic Tickets 
Ira Reiner, the Los Angeles County District Attorney, said Friday that there had been only about 7,000 riot-related arrests, including 3,000 for felonies and 2,100 for misdemeanors. Mr. Reiner said that at least 2,000 people included in the police arrest total were apparently only cited by police officers and let go at the scene. 
"It's like getting a traffic ticket," said Mr. Hahn, the city attorney, whose office prosecutes misdemeanors. Mr. Hahn said he had received no paperwork on those cases from the police, who would assign the defendants court dates on the spot before releasing them on their own recognizance. 
"If there's suddenly going to be a thousand people coming into court on the same day, we need to know," Mr. Hahn said. 
A spokesman for the Los Angeles Police Department said Friday that the department was still trying to catch up on its paperwork and it was not clear how many, if any, of those arrested during the violence were let go after being stopped and cited by the police. 
That procedure been criticized by some local officials who fear that those involved in the violence might get off too lightly. Call for Tough Prosecution 
"If it was any more than violating curfew early in the evening, they should have been arrested," said Joan Milke Flores, a member of the Los Angeles City Council, who has proposed legislation to stiffen penalties for crimes committed during rioting. Mrs. Flores criticized what she viewed as overly lenient sentences handed out by judges over the last week as hundreds of those arrested pleaded guilty to riot-related charges and were sentenced to the time they had already served in jail, usually two to four days. 
"It bothers me that these looters and burglars are going to be right back out on the streets when the National Guard leaves," Mrs. Flores said. 
Mr. Hahn said he, too, was unhappy with some of the sentences handed out. A partial review of the cases, he said, indicated that 15 to 18 percent of those arrested were convicted felons on parole or probation. Mr. Hahn said judges consistently ignored his office's requests for minimum 90-day sentences for looters, often ordering the defendants to 30 days in jail or less. 
In one case, a person caught carrying a can of kerosene during the riots was charged with violating the curfew, the only charge available, and was released almost immediately after pleading guilty, Mr. Hahn said. "That was all we could really prove," he said. 
Mr. Hahn predicted significant difficulty in proving cases against the hundreds of defendants who pleaded not guilty and requested trials.

June 1, 1992

Riots' Victims Begin Getting $638 Million in Aid


LOS ANGELES, May 31— A month after rioting swept the nation's second-largest city, financial aid promised by the Government is beginning to reach those who lost jobs, homes and businesses. 
Recipients say they are surprised and delighted to get the money this quickly. But some community leaders and local officials say thousands of people are still going hungry or homeless because of the riots, and they have called on Federal agencies to do more to make people aware of the programs and help them apply. 
When they picked up their $7,000 low-interest loan from the Small Business Administration on Thursday to rebuild a wheelchair-repair business devastated by looters, Sheila and Ernie Tousant said that before the riots they had consistently been turned down for bank loans. But the Government, Mrs. Tousant said, "removed all the red tape and actually gave us a chance." 
"I'm shocked," she said, "because I was here in the Watts riots, and I saw the money go to everyone except the people who needed it." 'Long Way to Go' 
Visiting Los Angeles on Friday, President Bush said of the rebuilding, "We have a long way to go," but he praised the Federal relief effort as "massive" and "quick." 
The Government is financing some efforts to address deep-rooted urban problems. The Justice Department, for example, is providing $19 million for anti-crime and anti-poverty programs. But the emphasis is on patching up the damage from the riots, and some residents said they were angry that money was being spent to aid business owners while little was being provided to help those who had been homeless and hungry long before the riots. 
A pastor at the First African Methodist Episcopal Church at the edge of South-Central Los Angeles said that as late as last week up to 1,500 people a day had still been arriving to pick up donated food. 
"There's a problem that's not being addressed," said the pastor, the Rev. Leonard B. Jackson. "It seems to me that if people can find the church to get food, then the Government agencies that are coming in can find us and do more to help these people." 
Evelyn White, a volunteer at an encampment for homeless people set up in South-Central Los Angeles by the Brotherhood Crusade, a black community organization, said: "Every person you see here needs aid, but they needed it before all of this started. That's why all this happened." 
Through Wednesday, nearly 15,000 people had visited one of the nine disaster application centers run by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which is overseeing the process of taking requests for help from victims of the riots and routing them to the appropriate Government agencies. Relatively Few Applications 
The centers offer "one-stop shopping" for people needing almost any kind of assistance, from money for food and clothing to low-interest loans for businesses. But the number of people who have actually completed applications for aid under the programs remains relatively small. 
The Small Business Administration, for example, said that although it had passed out 11,000 applications, as of Thursday it had received 528 completed requests for assistance. 
As of May 23, 4,876 people had filed claims with the state for unemployment insurance after losing jobs because of the riots. By some estimates, tens of thousands of people lost jobs, at least temporarily, because of the damage to businesses. 
"I appreciate how fast the Federal Government has moved, but we need to work harder," said Deputy Mayor Linda Griego. "And they need to work harder to do the outreach and the follow-up to make sure people are getting what they need. More Applications Expected 
Federal officials said they expected the numbers of applications to some programs, especially those for small businesses, to increase sharply in coming weeks. They said that Federal agencies had been working hard to inform the community about the programs by meeting with local groups, answering questions and providing assistance with filling out forms at the application centers. 
The city, too, has stepped up its efforts to encourage people to seek help, Ms. Griego said. Concerned that undocumented workers are not applying for aid out of fear that they might be reported to the immigration authorities or the Internal Revenue Service, the city has set up programs with churches and other groups to reassure people that none of the information from relief applications will be used against them. 
Federal officials said they were trying to shore up weaknesses in their response. Eleven days ago, after complaints that the Government was not providing food fast enough, the Agriculture Department authorized the purchase of $2 million worth of food to be distributed through food banks to riot victims. The first shipments will reach the food banks this week. 
The Agriculture Department also loosened restrictions on providing food stamps, dropping, for example, a rule disqualifying people who own cars. More Money Pledged 
President Bush pledged in the week following the riot that the Federal Government would make available almost $638 million in financial assistance through a variety of existing programs, and perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars more, depending on spending decisions made by Congress. On Friday, he said he had authorized an additional $12 million for job training and public-service jobs. 
The amount of Federal money actually disbursed since the riots is relatively small, totaling about $3.2 million as of Thursday. The largest chunk of that, $2.8 million, came from the Small Business Administration for 42 low-interest loans totaling $2.8 million, mostly to owners of small businesses that were looted or burned. 
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, which had received 4,694 applications for emergency housing assistance so far, had processed 299 grants totaling $372,000. Under another program to replace personal possessions, like clothing, appliances and cars, the agency had paid out $43,000 to eight applicants as of Wednesday. 'A Great Relief Effort' 
At the Disaster Application Center at the old Ambassador Hotel on the edge of Koreatown, James Baker, his wife, Carolyn, and their 2-month-old son, James Jr., were among the more than 200 people a day who had continued to stream in during the previous week seeking aid. 
Mr. Baker said he had not found work since he lost his job as a stock person at a Newberry's discount store when it was burned in the rioting. After spending 45 minutes filling out forms and talking to officials from several government agencies and the Red Cross, he said the process of applying for help had gone very smoothly and that he had been assured he would qualify for food stamps, unemployment insurance and grants to help pay the family's rent temporarily. 
"This is a great relief effort," he said. "They have all the agencies you need here to take care of each aspect of your life." 
Photo: Aid promised by the Government is just beginning to reach those who lost jobs, homes and businesses in the Los Angeles riots. James Baker and his wife, Carolyn, with their 2-month-old son, James Jr., applied for aid at the Disaster Application Center at the old Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles. (Bart Bartholomew for The New York Times) Chart: "Federal Aid to the Riot Areas" FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY Disaster Housing Assistance and Individual and Family Grants: $100 million Mortgage, rent assistance: 4,964 applications received, 299 approved, $372,000 disbursed. Personal property replacement: 1,425 applications, 8 approved, $42,987 disbursed. Public Assistance to Local Governments: $200 million Applications being prepared by local governments for grants to repair or replace public buildings destroyed in the riots. Other programs: $2.7 million Crisis counseling for people suffering psychological problems from the unrest ($2.3 million). Emergency food and shelter vouchers ($378,750). SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Disaster Loans: $300 million Could go as high as $500 million, 11,000 applications distributed, 528 received, 42 approved, $2.8 million disbursed. LABOR DEPARTMENT Job Training Partnership: $14 million Grant to augment $20 million in state money being used for job training and employment in areas affected by the riots. AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT Food Bank purchases: $2 million Food to arrive at area food banks for distribution this week. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT Weed and Seed Grants: $19 million Local officials developing proposals to aid existing anti-crime, anti-poverty programs. TOTAL AID: $637.7 million (Sources: Federal Emergency Management Agency; State of California; City of Los Angeles.)




Faster U.S. Aid Sought for Victims of Riots, Hurricanes

October 27, 1992|PAUL LIEBERMAN | TIMES STAFF WRITER
A coalition of legal aid groups plans today to petition the beleaguered Federal Emergency Management Agency to speed up assistance to victims of the Los Angeles riots and this year's devastating hurricanes in Florida and Hawaii.
Leaders of Los Angeles-based Public Counsel said the petition will be filed with FEMA officials in Washington seeking greater relief for tens of thousands of people who suffered damage in those three disasters. The group is also seeking aid for victims of a series of forest fires in Northern California.
"People across the country . . . have been left homeless, unemployed and frustrated by a bureaucratic maze which fails to provide the basic relief it promises," according to a statement from Public Counsel, which is coordinating the campaign. It complains that six months after the Los Angeles riots, "FEMA has disbursed less than 12% of the $300 million in emergency funds allocated to help disaster victims."
A FEMA official said that the government agency will not comment in detail until it reviews the petition. But Lorri Jean, FEMA's San Francisco-based deputy regional director, said the charges are based on "totally inaccurate" data.
"All their stats are wrong," Jean said. She put the assistance to Los Angeles riot victims at more than $100 million.
The issue of disaster aid is likely to get close scrutiny this week--and not just because of the legal aid groups' complaints.
A federal task force led by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is completing an investigation into fraud in the filing of relief applications in Los Angeles, focusing largely on store owners suspected of burning their own businesses during the riots.
Two federal officials confirmed Monday that indictments of "multiple parties" are expected to be returned Wednesday.
Established in 1978 to coordinate federal civil defense and disaster programs, FEMA has faced unprecedented demands for its resources this year with the series of natural disasters and the riots.
Cynthia D. Robbins, a directing attorney for Public Counsel, an offshoot of the Los Angeles County and Beverly Hills Bar associations, said that similar legal aid groups in the other affected areas are joining in the challenge to FEMA practices. "There is a legal group in Florida, one in Hawaii and one in Northern California . . . but there will be one petition that will be jointly filed," Robbins said.
One of their complaints is that FEMA has made it particularly difficult for low-income people and non-English speakers to get help. Latino advocacy groups in Los Angeles said it was almost impossible to get aid applications in Spanish after the riots.
But the critics and FEMA offered widely varying statistics on how many people applied for and received assistance after the many disasters--and had varying interpretations of what the data meant.
Public Counsel said that eight weeks after Hurricane Andrew swept through Florida, "FEMA had provided assistance to less than half of the 154,000 victims . . . who had applied for disaster relief." But FEMA's Jean said that as of Oct. 22, only 79,000 applications had been received for temporary housing relief. In response, she said, the agency has issued 41,000 checks totaling $86 million.
Jean added: "In fact, most people have gotten help."
In Hawaii, Public Counsel complained, a flood of 19,488 applications for assistance yielded just 3,593 temporary housing assistance checks from FEMA after Hurricane Iniki prompted the declaration of a federal disaster Sept. 12.
FEMA said that 12,786 applications had been received and that 4,774 checks were issued, totaling about $15 million. About 6,000 of the applications were "withdrawn or denied as ineligible," Jean said, many because property owners had private insurance. "When they're covered by insurance, FEMA never pays," she said.
Times staff writer Jim Newton contributed to this story.


Disaster Agency Probe Hit for Ignoring Riots

January 11, 1993|CARLA RIVERA | TIMES STAFF WRITER
The Federal Emergency Management Agency will come under unprecedented scrutiny in coming months as congressional investigators try to determine why the agency was unprepared for the onslaught of calamities that struck the nation in 1992.
But in a turn of events that some observers see as ironic and shortsighted, FEMA's response to Los Angeles' cataclysmic episode of 1992--the spring riots--is not scheduled to be the focus of any federal review. The investigations and hearings will target only FEMA's handling of natural disasters in Florida, Louisiana and Hawaii.
Many Los Angeles officials are particularly upset by the federal government's narrow focus because they believe that the city's civil disturbances, the first riots ever to be declared a federal disaster, can offer lessons about the needs of inner-city residents after such upheavals.
Much of the sharpest criticism of FEMA's relief programs has come from Los Angeles, where 50% to 60% of riot victims were denied disaster aid. Given the depth of social conflict in urban centers throughout the nation, experts say, FEMA could be called on to provide aid again to residents in many cities.
Incensed at what they believe is the snub being given the city, Los Angeles officials say they will push for federal hearings that deal exclusively with FEMA's handling of riot victims.
"I can assure you Los Angeles will see a very serious and profound hearing on FEMA's response or lack of response (to its crisis)," said Rep. Maxine Waters (D--Los Angeles).
Deputy Mayor Linda Griego said: "If Congress is going to be changing policy, then they do need input from us."
The federal investigations of FEMA include one by the General Accounting Office, which was commissioned by Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D--Md.) and several other members of Congress. In addition, about 10 congressional oversight committees have indicated a desire to hold hearings on the beleaguered agency's response to the year's most devastating natural disasters.
Although GAO officials said they could not discuss the investigation until it is completed, a preliminary report concludes that FEMA is not prepared for large-scale emergencies and suggests that the federal government develop contingency plans to suit specific kinds of disasters. FEMA officials also declined to discuss the inquiry, pending release of the GAO's final report.
Stan Czerwinski, who is heading the GAO investigation, said his agency confined the scope of its investigation to natural disasters at the request of Senate and House members. He confirmed that no investigators have been sent to Los Angeles, although state disaster officials were contacted.
Aides to Mikulski and other members of Congress said the investigation was sparked by FEMA's widely criticized response to Hurricane Andrew, which devastated South Florida, and to a lesser extent, Hawaii's Hurricane Iniki. Both storms caused extensive damage to residences, leaving thousands of victims homeless, whereas the violence in Los Angles was primarily upon businesses.
A press aide to Rep. Ron Packard (R-Oceanside), who, as chairman of the House Investigations and Oversight subcommittee, was the only Southern California representative to call for the FEMA review, said there was no intent to slight Los Angeles.
"Hurricane Andrew was handled in a manner that was not good for the victims and we didn't want that to repeat," said Melissa Dollaghan. "It's not an omission of L.A, it's just that the scope was limited to the natural disasters."
But local advocates see the federal government's exclusion of Los Angeles from the federal reviews of FEMA as part of a pattern of disregard and rejection of inner-city residents, one that has cast Los Angeles' riots victims in a highly political light.
They argue that the federal response is no surprise when, even at the state level, virtually every piece of legislation designed to speed the city's recovery has failed to pass.
The unpleasant truth of the matter, community leaders say, is that riot victims are viewed less sympathetically than the victims of natural disasters.
"The bottom line is that most of the victims are people of color," said Assemblyman Curtis Tucker (D-Los Angeles), chairman of a state committee that reviewed the causes of the Los Angeles riots. "Many of my colleagues in Sacramento asked why they should lift a finger to help when (the city's residents) brought it on themselves."
Waters said she has encountered the same view in Washington.
"As a representative of this area, I have to explain not only the root causes of the riot but that a lot of people are innocent victims who should not be penalized," she said.
Griego said much of the focus on hurricanes Andrew and Iniki may have to do with the perceptions formed by televised images of wrecked homesteads and scattered personal belongings. She disputed assertions that more attention might have been paid to Los Angeles had city officials been more vocal in their criticism of FEMA.
"I suppose we could have taken the position of bashing FEMA but I don't know that that gets the check here sooner," she said. Instead, city leaders tried to exert pressure behind the scenes but consistently ran into resistance from federal officials.
"The attitude was that this wasn't really a disaster and that FEMA really shouldn't be here," Griego said.
President Bush declared Los Angeles a disaster site after a highly publicized visit to the city a week after the violence had ended.
But state emergency officials say that federal authorities had to be persuaded that the Stafford Act, which controls declarations of a natural disaster, applied to Los Angeles.
Under amendments made in 1988, the act could be applied to a situation where fire, regardless of its origin, caused widespread destruction. This clause was used to make the case for Los Angeles.
Still, at the onset of FEMA's response to the Los Angeles riots, federal officials wanted to restrict its relief programs to those who suffered fire damage, insisting that the agency would not extend aid to victims whose homes or businesses were looted, said Richard Andrews, director of the state Office of Emergency Services.
"It is just one example of the extreme legalistic view they wanted to take," he said. "We told them it made no sense at all."
Andrews said the federal agency has also balked at reimbursing the state for more than $1 million in costs incurred staffing 10 disaster application centers and fencing about 60 demolition sites.
"FEMA has tended to view the application for assistance with a great deal of suspicion whether it is individuals or local governments, and has tended to act as if their sole responsibility is to protect the federal treasury," said the state's disaster chief.
Andrews said he has been asked to testify before a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing about FEMA's handling of the Loma Prieta earthquake, but will bring up the Los Angeles crisis on his own if no one asks about it.
Frank Kishton, deputy director of disaster programs in FEMA's San Francisco office, said the agency is attempting to settle a number of outstanding eligibility issues with the state. He declined to comment on other criticisms directed at the agency. Almost from the outset, those who lost homes, livelihoods or loved ones during the riots criticized the relief effort's limited outreach to victims, the lack of bilingual staff and inability to overcome bureaucratic red tape.
Those problems prompted Los Angeles legal aid groups to file a petition against FEMA on behalf of disaster victims nationwide, calling on the agency to speed its relief efforts and provide more equitable treatment.
Disaster officials respond that statutory limitations prevented them from changing requirements that would have opened up more aid to victims.
Riot victims complain that now, when those statutes are undergoing review, they will be ignored during the process.
"I'm shocked and disappointed," said Bong Hwan Kim, a community leader who has negotiated with FEMA on behalf of Korean-American riot victims. "The federal response . . . has been far from adequate. We have data to show that too many people have fallen through the cracks. For any investigation of FEMA to ignore (Los Angeles) is something we will strongly protest to our elected representatives."
It is the consensus of people who have dealt with FEMA that the agency must be revamped or its procedures improved.
Los Angeles' riot victims and their advocates say they want to ensure that this city's painful experience informs any recommendations or proposed reforms.
"I think the majority of white voters in the state and the country . . . have to recognize they had a role in the creation of this disturbance and are going to have a stake in its outcome," Kim said.

Monday, 6 July 2015

Answer to Stalin (1948)


Episode of "the March of Time" newsreel from 1948.

US & British response to Soviet aggression; Marshall Plan.

The March of Time Volume 14, Episode 17 November 26, 1948



"I don't quite understand your last point, Senator...?"

Putin is the most intelligent and capable world leader on the scene today.

Irrational Exuberance - "Don't Go There"


 

H. G. Wells and the Baby Boomers from Spike EP on Vimeo.

 

The Baby Boomer Problem = Don't Go There!

 


Remarks by Chairman Alan Greenspan

At the Annual Dinner and Francis Boyer Lecture of The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Washington, D.C.

December 5, 1996

The Challenge of Central Banking in a Democratic Society

 

Good evening ladies and gentlemen. I am especially pleased to accept AEI's Francis Boyer Award for 1996 and be listed with so many of my friends and former associates. In my lecture this evening I want to give some personal perspectives on central banking and, consequently, I shall be speaking only for myself.

 

William Jennings Bryan reportedly mesmerized the Democratic Convention of 1896 with his memorable ". . . you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold." His utterances underscored the profoundly divisive role of money in his time--a divisiveness that remains apparent today. Bryan was arguing for monetizing silver at an above-market price in order to expand the money supply. The presumed consequences would have been an increase in product prices and an accompanying shift in the value of net claims on future wealth from the "monied interests" of the East to the indebted farmers of the West who would arguably be able to pay off their obligations with cheaper money.

 

The debates, before and since, over the issue of our money standard have mirrored the deliberations on the manner in which we have chosen to govern ourselves, and, perhaps more fundamentally, debates on the basic values that should govern our society.

 

For, at root, money--serving as a store of value and medium of exchange--is the lubricant that enables a society to organize itself to achieve economic progress. The ability to store the fruits of one's labor for future consumption is necessary for the accumulation of capital, the spread of technological advances and, as a consequence, rising standards of living.

 

Clearly in this context, the general price level, that is, the average exchange rate for money against all goods and services, and how it changes over time, plays a profoundly important role in any society, because it influences the nature and scope of our economic and social relationships over time.

 

It is, thus, no wonder that we at the Federal Reserve, the nation's central bank, and ultimate guardian of the purchasing power of our money, are subject to unending scrutiny. Indeed, it would be folly were it otherwise.

 

A central bank in a democratic society is a magnet for many of the tensions that such a society confronts. Any institution that can affect the purchasing power of the currency is perceived as potentially affecting the level and distribution of wealth among the participants of that society, hardly an inconsequential issue.

 

Not surprisingly, the evolution of central banking in this nation has been driven by such concerns. The experiences with paper money during the Revolutionary War were decidedly inauspicious. "Not worth a Continental" was scarcely the epithet one would wish on a medium of exchange. This moved Alexander Hamilton, with some controversy, to press for legislation that established the soundness of the credit of the United States by assuming, and ultimately repaying, the war debts not only of the fledgling federal government, but of the states as well. Equally controversial was the chartering of the First Bank of the United States, which, although it had few functions of a modern central bank, was nonetheless believed to be a significant threat to states rights and the Constitution itself.

 

Although majority controlled by private interests, the Bank engaged in actions perceived to shift power to the federal government. Such a shift was thought of by many as a fundamental threat to the new democracy, and an essential element of what was feared to be a Hamilton plan to re-establish a powerful aristocracy. The First Bank--and especially its successor Second Bank of the United States--endeavored to restrict state bank credit expansion when it appeared inordinate, by gathering bank notes and tendering them for specie. This reduced the reserve base and the ability of the fledgling American banking system to expand credit. The issue of states' rights and concern about the power of the central government reflected the free wheeling individualism of that time. The Second Bank was a major issue of the election of 1832. Earlier in that year, President Andrew Jackson had vetoed the bill to extend its charter, and the election became a referendum on his veto. The outcome was a resounding victory for Jackson and the death knell for the Bank.

 

It has not been easy, however, to separate often seemingly conflicting threads in the debate between advocates of state powers over money and those seeking a national role. When Andrew Jackson vetoed the charter renewal of the Second Bank of the United States, for example, he argued for the severing of the grip on the economy of easterners and especially foreigners, who owned a significant stock interest in the bank. Ironically, by helping to create what was perceived to be an unstable currency, he set the stage for the later development of a full-fledged gold standard, the institution that Bryan railed against in 1896 from much the same populist philosophical base as Jackson.

 

After the Civil War, redemption of the paper greenbacks issued during the war brought an era of a gold-standard-induced deflation, which, while it may not have thwarted the impressive advance of industrialization, was seen by many as suppressing credit availability for the rural interests of the nation, which were still a majority. The general price level declined for more than two decades, which meant borrowers were paying off their loans in more expensive dollars than those they borrowed.

 

Not surprisingly, mounting pressures developed for reform, with Bryan bearing the standard for subsidized silver coinage, that is, free silver. Though Bryan lost to McKinley in 1896 (and again in 1900), the rural-based pressures for a more elastic currency did not diminish and ultimately were reflected, in part, in the creation of the Federal Reserve.

 

Nonetheless, many of the proponents of banking reform in the 1890s, and in the aftermath of the Panic of 1907, were suspicious of creating a central bank. In very large measure, those concerns underlay the various threads of reform that were joined together in the design and creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913. Its founding followed a prolonged debate on the balance of power between the interests of the New York money center banks and the rest of the nation, still largely rural. The compromise that resulted from that debate created twelve regional Reserve Banks with a Washington presence vested with a Federal Reserve Board. Its purpose was to "furnish an elastic currency, . . . to establish a more effective supervision of banking in the United States, and for other purposes." Monetary policy as we know it today, was not among the "other purposes." That evolved largely by accident in the 1920s.

 

Even with a central bank, the gold standard was still the dominant constraint on the issuance of paper currency and the expansion of bank deposits. Accordingly, the Federal Reserve was to play a minor role in affecting the purchasing power of the currency for many years to come.

The world changed markedly with the advent of the Great Depression of the 1930s, and the evisceration of the gold standard. The upheaval, and still festering fear of New York "monied interests," engendered the Banking Acts of 1933 and more importantly of 1935, which vested more of the Federal Reserve's authority with the Board of Governors in Washington. During World War II, and through 1951, however, monetary policy was effectively subservient to the interests of the Treasury, which sought access to low-cost credit. With the so-called Federal Reserve-Treasury Accord of 1951, the Federal Reserve began to develop its current degree of independence.

 

Although in the 1950s and early 1960s there were short-lived bouts of inflation that caused momentary concern about sustained increases in the price level, these events did little to shake the conviction of most that America's economic and financial structure would indefinitely and effectively contain any inflationary forces. This prescription certainly seems to have been reflected in the low inflation premium then embedded in long-term bonds.

 

That this view was profoundly wrong soon became apparent. The 1970s saw inflation and unemployment simultaneously at relatively elevated levels for some time. The notion that this could occur was nowhere to be found in the conventional wisdom of the economic policy philosophy that developed out of the Keynesian revolution of the 1930s and its subsequent empirical applications. Moreover, these models embodied the view that aggregate demand expansion, from almost any level, would permanently create new jobs. When that expansion carried the economy beyond "full employment" there would be a cost in terms of higher inflation--but only a one-time increase in inflation, so that there existed a permanent trade off between sustainable levels of inflation and employment.

 

The stagflation of the 1970s required a thorough conceptual overhaul of economic thinking and policymaking. Monetarism, and new insights into the effects of anticipatory expectations on economic activity and price setting, competed strongly against the traditional Keynesianism. Gradually the power of state intervention to achieve particular economic outcomes came to be seen as much more limited. A consensus gradually emerged in the late 1970s that inflation destroyed jobs, or at least could not create them.

 

This view has become particularly evident in the communiques that have emanated from the high-level international gatherings of the past quarter century. That inflation could reduce employment was a highly controversial subject in the mid-1970s when introduced into communique language drafts. At the meetings I attended as Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, the notion invariably induced extended debates. Today in similar communiques such language is accepted boiler plate and rarely the focus of discussion. This shift in attitudes and understanding provided political support in 1980 and thereafter for the type of monetary policy required to rebalance the economy.

 

Despite waxing and waning over the decades, a deep-seated tension still exists over government's role as an economic policymaker. This tension is evident in Congressional debates, campaign rhetoric, and our ubiquitous talk shows.

 

It should not be a surprise that the very same ambiguities and conflicts that characterize the rest of our political life have their reflection in the nation's current view of its central bank, the Federal Reserve. With regard to monetary policy, the view--or at least the suspicion--still persists in some quarters that an activist, expansionary policy could yield dividends in terms of permanently higher output and employment.

Nonetheless, there is a grudging acceptance of the degree of independence afforded our institution, and an awareness that unless we are free of the appropriations process that our independence could be compromised. It is generally recognized and appreciated that if the Federal Reserve's monetary policy decisions were subject to Congressional or Presidential override, short-term political forces would soon dominate. The clear political preference for lower interest rates would unleash inflationary forces, inflicting severe damage on our economy.

 

Notwithstanding, the central bank has not been immune from the suspicion and lack of respect that has come to afflict virtually all institutions in our society since the traumas of Vietnam, Watergate, and the destabilizing inflation in the 1970s.

 

The Federal Reserve's most important mission, of course, is monetary policy. I wish I could say that there is a bound volume of immutable instructions on my desk on how effectively to implement policy to achieve our goals of maximum employment, sustainable economic growth, and price stability. Instead, we have to deal with a dynamic, continuously evolving economy whose structure appears to change from business cycle to business cycle, an issue I shall return to shortly.

 

Because monetary policy works with a lag, we need to be forward looking, taking actions to forestall imbalances that may not be visible for many months. There is no alternative to basing actions on forecasts, at least implicitly. It means that often we need to tighten or ease before the need for action is evident to the public at large, and that policy may have to reverse course from time to time as the underlying forces acting on the economy shift. This process is not easy to get right at all times, and it is often difficult to convey to the American people, whose support is essential to our mission.

 

Because the Fed is perceived as being capable of significantly affecting the lives of all Americans, that we should be subject to constant scrutiny should not come as any surprise. Indeed, speaking as a citizen, and not Fed Chairman, I would be concerned were it otherwise. Our monetary policy independence is conditional on pursuing policies that are broadly acceptable to the American people and their representatives in the Congress.

 

Augmenting concerns about the Federal Reserve is the perception that we are a secretive organization, operating behind closed doors, not always in the interests of the nation as a whole. This is regrettable, and we continuously strive to alter this misperception.

 

If we are to maintain the confidence of the American people, it is vitally important that, excepting the certain areas where the premature release of information could frustrate our legislated mission, the Fed must be as transparent as any agency of government. It cannot be acceptable in a democratic society that a group of unelected individuals are vested with important responsibilities, without being open to full public scrutiny and accountability.

 

To be sure, if we are to carry out effectively the monetary policy mission the Congress has delegated to us, there are certain Federal Reserve deliberations that have to remain confidential for a period of time. To open up our debates on monetary policy fully to immediate disclosure would unsettle financial markets and constrain our discussions in a manner that would undercut our ability to function. Nonetheless, we continue to look for ways to expand the flow of information to the public without compromising our deliberations and purposes. We have recently commenced to announce all policy actions immediately (federal funds rate changes as well as discount rate changes) and have expanded the minutes of the Federal Open Market Committee.

 

For many years, the Federal Reserve has maintained what we trust is a highly sophisticated day-by-day, near real-time, evaluation of the American economy and, where relevant, of foreign economies as well. We are able, partly through our twelve Reserve Banks, to monitor continuously developments in the real world. The information supplied about local conditions by the directors of the Reserve Banks has been frequently useful in identifying emerging national trends and in evaluating their underlying regional implications.

 

The issues with which we are confronted differ in urgency over time. Inflation concerns were not a dominant factor in economic forecasting in the 1950s and early 1960s, for example. Since the late 1970s, however, such concerns have become an important element in policymaking. More recently inflation has been low, but its future course remains uncertain. The development of comfortable product, but tight labor, markets has been a crucial factor in short-term economic forecasts of recent months--a phenomenon for which there is scant historic precedent.

There is, regrettably, no simple model of the American economy that can effectively explain the levels of output, employment, and inflation. In principle, there may be some unbelievably complex set of equations that does that. But we have not been able to find them, and do not believe anyone else has either.

 

Consequently, we are led, of necessity, to employ ad hoc partial models and intensive informative analysis to aid in evaluating economic developments and implementing policy. There is no alternative to this, though we continuously seek to enhance our knowledge to match the ever growing complexity of the world economy.

 

At different times in our history a varying set of simple indicators seemed successfully to summarize the state of monetary policy and its relationship to the economy. Thus, during the decades of the 1970s and 1980s, trends in money supply, first M1, then M2, were useful guides. We could convey the thrust of our policy with money supply targets, though we felt free to deviate from those targets for good reason. This presumably helped the Congress, after the fact, to monitor our contribution to the performance of the economy. I should add that during this period we maintained a fully detailed analysis of the economy, in part, to make sure that money supply was still emitting reliable signals about the state of the economy.

 

Unfortunately, money supply trends veered off path several years ago as a useful summary of the overall economy. Thus, to keep the Congress informed on what we are doing, we have been required to explain the full complexity of the substance of our deliberations, and how we see economic relationships and evolving trends.

 

There are some indications that the money demand relationships to interest rates and income may be coming back on track. It is too soon to tell, and in any event we can not in the future expect to rely a great deal on money supply in making monetary policy. Still, if money growth is better behaved, it would be helpful in the conduct of policy and in our communications with the Congress and the public. In the absence of simple, summary indicators, we will continue our detailed evaluation of economic developments. As we seek price stability and maximum sustainable growth, the changing economic structures constantly present more analytic challenges.

 

I doubt the tasks will become any easier for the Federal Reserve as we move into the twenty-first century. The Congress willing, we will remain as the guardian of the purchasing power of the dollar. But one factor that will continue to complicate that task is the increasing difficulty of pinning down the notion of what constitutes a stable general price level.

 

When industrial product was the centerpiece of the economy during the first two-thirds of this century, our overall price indexes served us well. Pricing a pound of electrolytic copper presented few definitional problems. The price of a ton of cold rolled steel sheet, or a linear yard of cotton broad woven fabrics, could be reasonably compared over a period of years.

 

But as the century draws to a close, the simple notion of price has turned decidedly ambiguous. What is the price of a unit of software or a legal opinion? How does one evaluate the price change of a cataract operation over a ten-year period when the nature of the procedure and its impact on the patient changes so radically. Indeed, how will we measure inflation, and the associated financial and real implications, in the twenty-first century when our data--using current techniques--could become increasingly less adequate to trace price trends over time?

 

So long as individuals make contractual arrangements for future payments valued in dollars, there must be a presumption on the part of those involved in the transaction about the future purchasing power of money. No matter how complex individual products become, there will always be some general sense of the purchasing power of money both across time and across goods and services. Hence, we must assume that embodied in all products is some unit of output and hence of price that is recognizable to producers and consumers and upon which they will base their decisions. Doubtless, we will develop new techniques of price measurement to unearth them as the years go on. It is crucial that we do, for inflation can destabilize an economy even if faulty price indexes fail to reveal it.

 

But where do we draw the line on what prices matter? Certainly prices of goods and services now being produced--our basic measure of inflation--matter. But what about futures prices or more importantly prices of claims on future goods and services, like equities, real estate, or other earning assets? Are stability of these prices essential to the stability of the economy?

 

Clearly, sustained low inflation implies less uncertainty about the future, and lower risk premiums imply higher prices of stocks and other earning assets. We can see that in the inverse relationship exhibited by price/earnings ratios and the rate of inflation in the past. But how do we know when irrational exuberance has unduly escalated asset values, which then become subject to unexpected and prolonged contractions as they have in Japan over the past decade? And how do we factor that assessment into monetary policy? We as central bankers need not be concerned if a collapsing financial asset bubble does not threaten to impair the real economy, its production, jobs, and price stability. Indeed, the sharp stock market break of 1987 had few negative consequences for the economy. But we should not underestimate or become complacent about the complexity of the interactions of asset markets and the economy. Thus, evaluating shifts in balance sheets generally, and in asset prices particularly, must be an integral part of the development of monetary policy.

The public examination of Federal Reserve actions extends well beyond our stewardship of monetary policy. Our overall management of the Federal Reserve System should, and does, come under considerable scrutiny by the Congress. Since we expend unappropriated taxpayer funds, we have an especial obligation to be prudent and efficient with the use of those funds. I am not particularly concerned about the one-third of our annual $2 billion budget that is expended to provide financial services to the private sector in competition with other providers. Such services include the clearing of checks, the operation of the Fedwire system, and the processing of automated clearing house payments. We are reimbursed for those services, and at competitive prices still make a reasonable profit for the Treasury. If we became inefficient and uncompetitive, we would be priced out of the market, and eventually out of that line of business.

 

An additional one-sixth of our expenses are for providing services to the Treasury and other agencies of government for which we are subject to reimbursement with appropriated funds. For the remainder, which mainly covers monetary policy, supervision and regulation of banks, and currency operations, we have to be especially diligent, for there is no external arbiter.

 

The rapidly changing technologies of recent years are pressing us to review thoroughly our structure and operations. We have already engaged in major consolidations of operations when such consolidations have been made cost effective by the newer technologies. Although in my experience the Federal Reserve System has been responsible, efficient, and has performed well, the rapidly changing external environment frequently requires us to rethink our role and mission. Even where we can be competitive, it is not the role of a government agency, especially one vested with an unsurpassable credit rating, to seek out all available market opportunities. Accordingly, where specific priced services have become effectively and competitively provided by private sector suppliers, the Federal Reserve needs to reassess whether the extent of our participation in those services fulfills a reasonable public purpose. There are, of course, certain services that the Congress has, and will in the future, deem appropriate for us to subsidize. But these areas presumably will remain circumscribed.

 

As a step in our periodic reassessment, a special committee of Federal Reserve Board governors and Reserve Bank presidents has been set up to review our priced services operations and other Systemwide activities.

 

Another step has been to engage outside accounting firms to audit the Federal Reserve Board and the twelve Reserve Banks. We had been quite satisfied with the Board as general auditor of the Reserve Banks since 1914. But the range of activities and the reach of the Federal Reserve in recent years requires us to address the perception that we are auditing ourselves without the full arm's length relationship deemed appropriate in today's environment.

 

Finally, the substantial changes under way in bank risk management are pressing us to continuously alter our modes of supervision and regulation to keep them as effective and efficient as possible.

 

Most importantly, all of our recent initiatives, especially the strengthening of the payments system and supervision, are critical to a central mission of the Federal Reserve, to maintain financial stability and reduce and contain systemic risks. This mission is an extension of our monetary policy. Our country can not enjoy the long-run "maximum employment and stable prices" objectives we are given for monetary policy if the financial system is unstable. In this regard, the successes that most please us are not so much the visible problems that we solve, but rather all the potential crises that could have happened, but didn't.

 

Doubtless, the most important defense against such crises is prevention. Recent mini-crises have identified the rapidly mushrooming payments system as the most vulnerable area of potential danger. We have no tolerance for error in our electronic payment systems. Like a breakdown in an electric power grid, small mishaps create large problems. Consequently, we have endeavored in recent years, as the demands on our system have escalated (we clear $1-1/2 trillion a day on Fedwire), to build in significant safety redundancies. This has been costly in terms of equipment and buildings.

 

Along with our other central bank colleagues, we are always looking for ways to reduce the risks that the failure of a single institution will ricochet around the world, shutting down much of the world payments system, and significantly undermining the world's economies. Accordingly, we are endeavoring to get as close to a real time transaction, clearing, and settlement system as possible. This would sharply reduce financial float and the risk of breakdown. Meaningful progress has already been made in this direction.

 

This evening I have tried to put current central banking issues in historical context. Monetary arrangements, including central banks, naturally are under constant scrutiny and criticism. This is no less true of the Federal Reserve in 1996 than of the gold standard in 1896. Central banks need to respond patiently and responsibly to the commentary, and we need to adapt to changing circumstances in markets and the economy.

 

A democratic society requires a stable and effectively functioning economy. I trust that we and our successors at the Federal Reserve will be important contributors to that end.

 

Sunday, 5 July 2015

The Watusi

Genesis 6
King James Version (KJV)

6 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.


VI-XI. The Fall of the Angels: the Demoralisation of Mankind: the Intercession of the Angels on behalf of Mankind. The Dooms pronounced by God on the Angels: the Messianic Kingdom (a Noah fragment).

CHAPTER VI.

1. And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters.

2. And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: 'Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children.'

3. And Semjâzâ, who was their leader, said unto them: 'I fear ye will not indeed agree to do this deed, and I alone shall have to pay the penalty of a great sin.'

4. And they all answered him and said: 'Let us all swear an oath, and all bind ourselves by mutual imprecations not to abandon this plan but to do this thing.'

5. Then sware they all together and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it.

6. And they were in all two hundred; who descended ⌈in the days⌉ of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon, and they called it Mount Hermon, because they had sworn and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it.

7. And these are the names of their leaders: Sêmîazâz, their leader, Arâkîba, Râmêêl, Kôkabîêl, Tâmîêl, Râmîêl, Dânêl, Êzêqêêl, Barâqîjâl, Asâêl, Armârôs, Batârêl, Anânêl, Zaqîêl, Samsâpêêl, Satarêl, Tûrêl, Jômjâêl, Sariêl.

8. These are their chiefs of tens.




"[...]generations of gene flow obliterated whatever clear-cut physical distinctions may have once existed between these two Bantu peoples – renowned to be height, body build, and facial features. With a spectrum of physical variation in the peoples, Belgian authorities legally mandated ethnic affiliation in the 1920s, based on economic criteria. Formal and discrete social divisions were consequently imposed upon ambiguous biological distinctions. To some extent, the permeability of these categories in the intervening decades helped to reify the biological distinctions, generating a taller elite and a shorter underclass, but with little relation to the gene pools that had existed a few centuries ago. The social categories are thus real, but there is little if any detectable genetic differentiation between Hutu and Tutsi."

"The Tutsi were in all likelihood once a Nilotic speaking population, who switched to the language of the Bantus amongst whom they settled."


Dr. Tschudi offers, "...physiologists are undoubtedly in error, who suppose (dolichocephaly in) the Peruvian race is exclusively artificial. This hypothesis rests on insufficient grounds; its authors could have made their observations solely on the crania of adult(s) ... (however) two mummies of children (analyzed in England) ... belonged to the tribe Aymaraes. The two crania (both of children scarce a year old), had in all respects, the same form as those of adults. We ourselves have observed the same fact in many mummies of children of tender age..."
"More still: the same formation of the head presents itself in children yet unborn; and of this truth we have had convincing proof in sight of a foetus enclosed in the womb of a mummy of a pregnant woman, ... which is, at this moment, in our collection." The foetus was aged 7 months! (6)


Lloyd Pye - Everything You Know Is Wrong from Spike EP on Vimeo.
And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

VI-XI. The Fall of the Angels: the Demoralisation of Mankind: the Intercession of the Angels on behalf of Mankind. The Dooms pronounced by God on the Angels: the Messianic Kingdom (a Noah fragment).

CHAPTER VI.

1. And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters.

2. And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: 'Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children.'

3. And Semjâzâ, who was their leader, said unto them: 'I fear ye will not indeed agree to do this deed, and I alone shall have to pay the penalty of a great sin.'

4. And they all answered him and said: 'Let us all swear an oath, and all bind ourselves by mutual imprecations not to abandon this plan but to do this thing.'

5. Then sware they all together and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it.

6. And they were in all two hundred; who descended ⌈in the days⌉ of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon, and they called it Mount Hermon, because they had sworn and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it.

7. And these are the names of their leaders: Sêmîazâz, their leader, Arâkîba, Râmêêl, Kôkabîêl, Tâmîêl, Râmîêl, Dânêl, Êzêqêêl, Barâqîjâl, Asâêl, Armârôs, Batârêl, Anânêl, Zaqîêl, Samsâpêêl, Satarêl, Tûrêl, Jômjâêl, Sariêl.

8. These are their chiefs of tens.

Saturday, 4 July 2015

Rupert Murdoch, Rhodes-Rothschild and De Beers


"After cashing out of the diamond business, Nicky Oppenheimer has moved into investing. The Oppenheimer family ended its 85-year reign atop diamond giant De Beers in 2012 when Nicky sold his 40% stake to mining conglomerate Anglo American for $5.1 billion in cash. Anglo American, which Nicky's grandfather founded, now controls 85% of De Beers; the government of Botswana owns the remaining 15%. Nicky Oppenheimer served on Anglo American's board for 37 years through 2011, and he retains an estimated 1.8% stake in the company. His E. Oppenheimer & Son entity controls investment arms Stockdale Street Capital and Tana Africa Capital, a joint venture with Singapore government-owned investment firm Temasek. Tana holds minority interests in African food manufacturers Promasidor and Regina Co."



"Is there a connection between Rupert Murdoch and the House of Rothschild...?

Interestingly enough, in the history of South Africa, there was a White man of the Jewish religion by the name of Barney Bonarto...." 


"...who, when the rich Whites decided that he wasn't operating in a certain sort of 'professional' way, all of a sudden, his boat to England, he went overboard.

Rupert Murdoch, the way that he got his start in America was that another White Man of the Jewish religion, Robert Maxwell - who was deep in debt & mystery - went overboard, on his way to.... Somewhere. And Murdoch gathered up his assets.


Murdoch has unlimited finance - he bought the [LA] Dodgers, didn't he? 

He bought Football off of NBC, or whatever.

Murdoch has more money than he has assets - Murdoch's unlimited financing comes from his relationship with De Beers Diamond Mines of Australia, his predominant financier.

That's the connection.

- Bro. Steve Cokely





http://murderiseverywhere.blogspot.co.uk/2010/04/barney-barnato.html

South Africa has had its share of colorful characters, many of whom have been associated with the mining industry. Usually the person whose name first comes to mind is Cecil Rhodes, one of the founders of diamond giant De Beers. I plan to write about him later in the year because he was one of the most influential people in Southern Africa.

Today I want to say a few words about the other man who founded De Beers – Barney Barnato. One of the unusual things about him is that he still enjoys a good reputation even though he has been dead for over a hundred years. This is in contrast to Rhodes, whose reputation is mixed at best.

Barnato was born in London with the name Barnet Isaacs in one of three years. He claimed he had the same birthday as Rhodes – 5 July 1853. Most biographies put the date a year earlier, but Wikipedia claims that his birth certificate says 21 February 1851. His family was poor – his father a seller of second-hand clothing, and he left school – the Jews’ Free School – very young to help support the family.

He and his brother Harry became entertainers, Harry doing magic tricks and Barnet acrobatics. It was as a result of their shows that Barnet became known as Barney Barnato. Records relate that Harry always took the bow at the end of their act. Eventually the theatre manager shouted, “and Barney too”. The brothers liked the sound of that and became Harry and Barney Barnato – the Italian entertainers.

Their father also taught them how to box, and Barney fancied himself as a good boxer and fought a number of times, probably for money. But he was very short – I’ve found one reference that puts him at 5’ 3” (about 1,6 metres) - and did not do very well.

When diamonds were discovered in South Africa in 1866, Harry and his cousin David Harris went off to make their fortunes. Neither were successful as amateur diamond traders. But David won a large bet in a gambling establishment and returned to England with a reasonable amount of money – enough to tempt Barney to go to Kimberley too. When he arrived, having walked for a month from Cape Town, he had very little money. But he had a very outgoing personality and was a superb salesman. And he was hard working. He and Harry started putting on theatrical shows again to make a little money, while Barney got to know the diamond business and, more importantly, the diamond people.

He joined forces with a Louis Cohen, starting a small company. They wold tour the diggings in and around the Big Hole, buying and selling stones. Barney always sealed a deal with both parties taking a swig from a brandy bottle he carried around. About this time, the flow of diamonds from the yellow sand started to dry up. But Barney had listened to a geologist, Dr. Atherstone, who told him how diamonds were formed and pushed to the surface in pipes. Barney basically bet all the company’s money on buying up some claims and started to dig the blue soil (Kimberlite) below the yellow. At first few diamonds were found, then they flowed freely. 

By the end of the year they had sold £100 000 worth – a fortune at the time.

Of course, success brought notoriety – and people accused Barney of dealing in stolen stones. He always denied this, and no charges were ever laid.

This success brought him into conflict with Rhodes, who wanted the money from diamonds to finance his sweeping political ambitions in Southern Africa. After a battle lasting several months, in which the shares of Barney’s company soared as a result of take-over attempts, Rhodes outmaneuvered Barney, forcing him to sell his share of the company in return for positions in De Beers – the company that resulted from the various mergers. Barney took home a cool £4,000 000. Some historians believe that Rhodes eventually clinched the deal by offering Barney membership in the prestigious Kimberley Club, something that Barney had wanted as proof of his acceptance in the community. 

He also became a member of the Cape parliament.

A while later Barney was tempted by the gold that had been found in the Johannesburg area in 1886, and started the Johannesburg Consolidated Investment company (JCI), which also became very successful and profitable.

The gold rush caused great tensions between the miners, called uitlanders or foreigners, and the Boers in whose country the mines had been found. Soon the uitlanders outnumbered the locals, and President Kruger and his parliament changed the voting laws to make it difficult for the foreigners to get the vote. Obviously they were scared of being ousted. Rhodes saw this as an opportunity and encouraged a raid into the Transvaal by a small force led by a Dr. Jameson. It was a total fiasco, and some of the some of the supporters of the raid in Johannesburg were tried for treason and sentenced to death. 

Barney threatened President Kruger that he would pull all his businesses out of Johannesburg unless these death sentences were commuted. Eventually Kruger capitulated and the men were spared. At the time JCI employed 20,000 Whites and 100,000 Blacks on the mines.

In 1897 Barney and his family sailed for England. Somewhere near Madeira he was lost overboard and drowned. Officially he committed suicide, but there is circumstantial evidence that he may have been murdered. Travelling with him was a Solly Joel who was walking with him at the time of his fall overboard. He was related in some way to Barney. Nine months later Barney’s nephew Woolf Joel was murdered and Joel inherited the bulk of Barney’s estate.

Throughout his life, Barney never forgot his roots and provided funds for various Jewish institutions in London, including his old school. Today there is a school and a suburb named after him in Johannesburg – Barnato Park.

The mystery surrounding Barney’s death remains just that. At least old Barney was true to the theatrical maxim by which he lived: 

"Always wind up with a good curtain, and bring it down before the public gets tired - or has had time to find you out."

Barney Barnato is buried in the Jewish Cemetery in Willesden, London.

Stan – Thursday

PS. Am going to listen to Car tonight at Once Upon a Crime in Minneapolis.

http://murderiseverywhere.blogspot.co.uk/2010/04/barney-barnato.html




"Rupert Murdoch, the global media mogul who is now a kingmaker in American politics, was brought into those power circles by the infamous lawyer/activist Roy Cohn who arranged Murdoch’s first Oval Office meeting with President Ronald Reagan in 1983, according to documents released by Reagan’s presidential library.



“I had one interest when Tom [Bolan] and I first brought Rupert Murdoch and Governor Reagan together – and that was that at least one major publisher in this country … would become and remain pro-Reagan,” Cohn wrote in a Jan. 27, 1983 letter to senior White House aides Edwin Meese, James Baker and Michael Deaver. “Mr. Murdoch has performed to the limit up through and including today.

The letter noted that Murdoch then owned the “New York Post – over one million, third largest and largest afternoon; New York Magazine; Village Voice; San Antonio Express; Houston Ring papers; and now the Boston Herald; and internationally influential London Times, etc. Cohn sent the letter nine days after Murdoch met Reagan in the Oval Office along with Cohn, his legal partner Thomas Bolan, and U.S. Information Agency Director Charles Wick.
In a photograph of the Jan. 18, 1983 meeting, Cohn is shown standing and leaning toward Reagan who is seated next to Murdoch. Following that meeting, Murdoch became involved in a privately funded propaganda project to help sell Reagan’s hard-line Central American policies, according to other documents. That PR operation was overseen by senior CIA propaganda specialist Walter Raymond Jr. and CIA Director William Casey, but the details of Murdoch’s role remain sketchy partly because some of the records are still classified more than three decades later.


Team Murdoch or team Freud? Who backs whom in the divorce of the decade



Friends in high places: from top left, Emily Oppenheimer, Claudia Winkleman, David and Samantha Cameron, Tony and Cherie Blair, Andre Balazs and Jeremy Clarkson flank Matthew Freud and Elisabeth Murdoch (Picture: Rex/Richard Young/David Fisher/xposurephotos.com/David M. Benett/Getty)
It’s the £250 million divorce that is set to divide not just the assets of one of Britain’s most high-profile media couples but will also split London’s elite social circles, and disrupt a political power nexus.
Elisabeth Murdoch and Matthew Freud are due to be granted a decree nisi this week, ending their 13-year marriage.
The couple, who have two children together, met in 1997 when both were married to other people — Murdoch, now 46, was pregnant with her second child by Ghanaian financier Elkin Kwesi Pianim. PR guru Freud, now 50, had two sons with Caroline “Pidge” Hutton.
They split in 2000, shortly after Murdoch gave birth to their daughter Charlotte, but were reunited in 2001 and married later that year at Blenheim Palace in a ceremony attended by the great and the good. Since then, they have become one of the most powerful media couples in Britain — their break-up will disrupt a party power nexus that has taken root over the past 13 years. Their sphere of influence straddles the high-octane Primrose Hill gang, the well-connected Chipping Norton set, political friends from both sides of the spectrum (Tony Blair and David Cameron are regulars at the couple’s soirées and weekends) and everyone else from TV titans Jeremy Clarkson and Claudia Winkleman to former London Mayor Ken Livingstone.
There is speculation that the split was over a massive falling-out between Freud and his father-in-law Rupert Murdoch over the friendship between Rupert’s now ex-wife Wendi Deng and Tony Blair. Freud has stuck with the ex-PM — Rupert was absent from Freud’s 50th birthday party last year (Tony and Cherie were among the guests). The row is said to have caused huge tension between Murdoch and Freud. Last week Murdoch announced she was stepping down from Shine, the TV production company she founded and sold to her father’s company. Now she is also stepping away from her marriage. So who else will be affected by the Freud-Murdoch divorce?
The BLAIRS
The Blairs have been a regular guests. Tony apparently likes “dossing about in jeans” at Burford Priory but also loves the celebrity crowd that congregates there and at the London parties. His friendship with Freud goes back more than two decades. Freud provided Blair with offices in Mayfair after he stepped down as PM and has continued to advise him in the years since.
Likely to side with: Freud
THE CAMERONS
The couple’s country home in the village of Dean is just a borrowed horse ride away from Burford Priory and the phone-hacking scandal exposed just how close the PM and his wife were to the Freud-Murdochs.
Sam Cam is said to get on well with Murdoch but is said to be cooler to Freud. Cameron attended Murdoch’s 40th birthday at Burford as well as Freud’s 50th bash last year and as leader of the opposition in 2008 used Freud’s private jet to fly to a private meeting with Rupert on a yacht in Greece.  The PM may now not want to be too closely associated with Rupert but he considers Elisabeth to be the next generation. Murdoch senior isn’t so keen — he recently tweeted that he “hopes” his daughter isn’t friends with the PM.
Likely to side with: Murdoch
NICK JONES AND KIRSTY YOUNG
In summer 2011, the Freud-Murdochs threw one of their famous bashes. Notable guests included Nick Jones and his wife, Desert Island Discs presenter Kirsty Young: Jones — the entrepreneur behind the Soho House group — is a long-term client of Freud’s and a former neighbour from those heady Notting Hill years, and had provided two extravagant marquees containing miniature versions of his restaurants Pizza East and Cecconi’s to fire the hungry guests (like most Freud-Murdoch bashes, the soiree apparently continued till 4am).
Likely to side with: Freud
CLAUDIA WINKLEMAN
The Strictly Come Dancing host met the couple through her husband. Mr Claudia Winkleman, Kris Thykier, used to be Freud’s right hand man and they are still pals, despite him leaving to pursue a career in film production. The WAGs hit it off and Winkleman is a regular at Murdoch’s dinner parties and always brings a treat, whether it’s homemade sponge cake studded with Smarties or a bag of sausages and wine from the corner shop. An awkward split in the Winkleman/Thykier house.
Likely to side with: Murdoch
ANDRE BALAZS
Mr Chiltern Firehouse started out on Team Murdoch — Rupert and Wendi Deng stayed at his New York hotel The Mercer for months while their Soho apartment was being refitted. But when Balazs opened Chiltern Firehouse in London, his mate Matthew was the natural choice to do the PR. The two were seen laughing together at the GQ Men of the Year Award at the Royal Opera House last month. Balazs lived in the Chiltern Firehouse hotel for the best part of a year, and it looks like Freud will be welcome any time.
Likely to side with: Freud
EMILY OPPENHEIMER
The De Beers diamond heiress, painter and socialite is a close friend of Murdoch (the pair are horse-mad) and now also shares another common bond with her — Oppenheimer’s 13-year marriage to film producer Will Turner ended in divorce last year.
Oppenheimer, 45, is part of the Chipping Norton set  — Rebekah and Charlie Brooks have holidayed with her at her St Tropez villa and Murdoch often likes to moor her yacht nearby during the summer.
Likely to side with: Murdoch
GEORGE OSBORNE
It was the heady summer of 2008: the Freud-Murdochs were holidaying on their yacht, which was moored off the coast of Corfu; George Osborne was staying nearby at the home of banking heir Jacob Rothschild. Cue the now-infamous “meeting” with Oleg Deripaska to discuss donating to the Tory party — placing the Freud-Murdochs within tantalising proximity to political scandal.
Osborne also attended Freud’s mega 50th birthday bash — he was apparently mocked mercilessly by the Tory illuminati for behaving like a star-struck teen and recording a duet by Bono and Bob Geldof.
Likely to side with: Freud
JEMIMA KHAN
With her home the Oxfordshire village of Woodstock, Khan is part of the Chipping Norton set and also a close friend of Freud. Following the phone hacking scandal she is said to be more wary of Murdoch. Khan and then-boyfriend Russell Brand were guests at the now-notorious post-GQ Awards party held at the Freud-Murdochs’ London home last year. Neighbours complained about the raucous bash, at which Khan and Brand were apparently told to “get a room”.
Other Primrose Hill set members including Kate Moss and Stella McCartney are tipped to side with Murdoch but Khan is said to remain loyal to Freud.
Likely to side with: Freud
JEREMY CLARKSON
Another Chipping Norton neighbour, the Top Gear presenter is one of Matthew’s “bloke mates”  — loathed by Murdoch but tolerated because as a television executive she recognises his cachet as a celebrity.
Fellow Chipping Nortonites include Blur’s Alex James, who is said to get on especially well with Murdoch, and of course Rebekah Brooks, whose close relationship with Rupert is not exactly replicated with this daughter.
Likely to side with: Freud