Empty Coffers, Filled Coffins

"Some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony, but we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak. And we must rejoice as well, for surely this is the first time in our nation's history that a significant number of its religious leaders have chosen to move beyond the prophesying of smooth patriotism to the high grounds of a firm dissent based upon the mandates of conscience and the reading of history. Perhaps a new spirit is rising among us. If it is, let us trace its movement well and pray that our own inner being may be sensitive to its guidance, for we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that seems so close around us." - Martin Luther King Jr. (April 4, 1967)

Exactly a year after Martin Luther King Jr. delivered a speech about America's moral responsibility in the world and its unsustainable militarism, he was assassinated. The date of his death has probably had a greater effect on the nation's psyche than December 7, 1941, when the Japanese struck Pearl Harbor. In his speech, the revolutionary non-violent sage called for an end to the "tragic war" in Vietnam, but he also revealed his skepticism about America's willingness to make the right decision about its destiny in history, saying "the world now demands a maturity of America that we may not be able to achieve." Forty three years later, America is still not mature enough to take the right course. Will it disengage from needless conflicts around the world, and terminate its war machine and criminal empire, or will it continue its unjust and destructive ways? Before such a decision can be made, the American people must look within the shadows of the nation, and face the darkness that King said "seems so close around us."

The country has been buried in silence about MLK's tragic death, due in large part to the national media, but not everybody has been quiet and lethargic. The King family carried on the tradition of seeking truth and justice through non-violent means. In December 1999, Coretta Scott King and her children took a huge step towards healing the country's psyche, by recovering the details about the murder of their husband and father in a civil court. Twelve jurors reached the still unmentioned verdict that the death of Martin Luther King Jr. was the result of a criminal conspiracy, consisting of the Mafia, and local, state, and federal government agencies. At the trial's end, Mrs. King and the King family addressed a small gathering of reporters, expressing their gratitude for the American justice system, and their commitment to reconciliation and love.

Mrs. Coretta Scott King:

"There is abundant evidence of a major high level conspiracy in the assassination of my husband, Martin Luther King, Jr. And the civil court's unanimous verdict has validated our belief. I wholeheartedly applaud the verdict of the jury and I feel that justice has been well served in their deliberations. This verdict is not only a great victory for my family, but also a great victory for America. It is a great victory for truth itself. It is important to know that this was a SWIFT verdict, delivered after about an hour of jury deliberation. The jury was clearly convinced by the extensive evidence that was presented during the trial that, in addition to Mr. Jowers, the conspiracy of the Mafia, local, state and federal government agencies, were deeply involved in the assassination of my husband. The jury also affirmed overwhelming evidence that identified someone else, not James Earl Ray, as the shooter, and that Mr. Ray was set up to take the blame. I want to make it clear that my family has no interest in retribution. Instead, our sole concern has been that the full truth of the assassination has been revealed and adjudicated in a court of law. As we pursued this case, some wondered why we would spend the time and energy addressing such a painful part of the past. For both our family and the nation, the short answer is that we had to get involved because the system did not work. Those who are responsible for the assassination were not held to account for their involvement. This verdict, therefore, is a great victory for justice and truth. It has been a difficult and painful experience to revisit this tragedy, but we felt we had an obligation to do everything in our power to seek the truth. Not only for the peace of mind of our family but to also bring closure and healing to the nation. We have done what we can to reveal the truth, and we now urge you as members of the media, and we call upon elected officials, and other persons of influence to do what they can to share the revelation of this case to the widest possible audience."

Though many commentators on the left and right will laud the man on the forty-second anniversary of his death this Sunday, few will draw attention to his uncompromising words about restoring peace in the world, and sanity in the nation. At a time when the war in Afghanistan is declared as being "absolutely essential" by President Barack Obama, there is not a King in the land who can stand up and raise the conscience of the country. The people are yearning for a leader with the moral courage and wisdom of Martin Luther King Jr, but no one has risen to the occasion yet. The pain is carved too deep, the problems are too great, if any man was to step forward and lift the ills of the country he would have to be a Messiah. If such a leader is unlikely to emerge, then the destiny of the country falls on the shoulders of the people; but can the people be great? If they can settle their petty political differences, and come together as one, then a leader won't have to be a Christ figure, or a Saint, he would just have to be competent and honest enough to voice the concerns and love of the people.

In "The Silence of the Liberal Lambs" Chris Floyd addresses the silent left who have bowed down to Obama's war on Osama, the same bunch who only two years ago denounced the criminal imperial policy of the Bush administration. Floyd writes:

"Unless there is some profound shift in American consciousness, of the sort that Martin Luther King Jr. was trying to effect in his last years, all of this will continue -- even if we have genuine health care reform, genuine rescue of those ravaged by our financial sharks, genuine environmental protection, and so on."

The time to raise our collective voice is greater now than when King was alive. Many are predicting a summer of hell in Afghanistan. The Washington Post reported in February that nearly 1,000 American combat troops have already died in that country. All to ensure "democracy" and "women's rights." But despite the President's strong commitment to troop escalation, the consensus in the government is not as it appears in press reports and news releases. In November of last year, Gen. Karl Eikenberry, the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, made his frustrations known by sending classified documents to the New York Times. It was a move reminiscent of Daniel Ellsberg, the famous whistle-blower whose efforts in leaking the Pentagon papers helped bring the Vietnam war to an end. Ellsberg, who was once described as the "most dangerous man in America," by Henry Kissinger, recently told Democracy Now:

"There is no prospect of any kind of success in Afghanistan, any more than the Soviets achieved in their ten years there, just as in Vietnam we really had no realistic prospect of more success than the French. But countries find it very hard to learn from the failures of other countries."

It would be miraculous if America avoided the fate of not just the Soviet Union, but the Roman Empire. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are producing empty coffers at home, and filled coffins abroad. Financial and moral bankruptcy of the current criminal regime is certain. The American sleep will come to an end. But it is not up to a president to declare a national nightmare over, as Gerald Ford prematurely did upon the resignation of Richard Nixon, rather, the entire country has to breathe a sigh of relief after a prolonged national crisis. And that may take a long time. Only a great and virtuous people are capable of bringing justice to their deprived leaders, and correcting the wrongs endorsed by generations of government officials. But if there ever was a people in history who could pull off such a task, it is the American people.

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson


newjesustimes's picture

Thanks Truth Excavator

Great to have you here!
I enjoyed this article and the previous one you posted.

Here's some interesting news related to some of the subjects James covered recently; compliments of Plunger at FDL http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/38690

Thanks for the link, NJT

Whoo wooda thunk that JP Morgan, the banking house that 'only lent to men of character' would do such a thing? What is the world coming to? I'm shocked! Shocked!

Great demonstration of shorting to the (no) limit. Good job that 'hidden hand of the market' of Ricardo's is on the job, eh. And what a 'revelation' it is to finally know whose 'hidden hand' it is! Yeah, who wooda thunk it?

Extraordinary research by Plunger. Thanks again for posting it, NJT

newjesustimes's picture

you're welcome

Glad to be able to contribute something, I don't have much to say, but I did find the story and string of articles intriguing; an ongoing real world example for your "Crashing the Market" article.

McJ's picture

Why is the IMF selling gold?

Why is the IMF selling gold? Is it because there is no real gold left in the vaults and they need to fill the gap when individuals and entities request their gold deposits back? China wanting gold? Is this tied to the gold/silver shorting scam? I wish I could figure this sh** out! sticking out tongue
From GATA Jan 2007:
IMF would sell gold because European central banks won't anymore
"It seems that the gold banking system needs roughly 50 tonnes of gold liquidity each month to keep from locking up. There is a natural deposit attrition rate in the gold banking business. In the natural flow of things, individuals and entities request their gold deposits back, and somehow 50 tonnes seems to get the job done. That 50 tonnes has to come from somewhere, and lately the European Central Bank system has been stepping up when the liquidity gets tight -- as the gold supplier of last resort. It may [be] that the European banks have signalled (sic) their intent to withdraw further from the CBGA allotments (maybe France is about to back out of sales?), and the IMF group is trying to fill the gap."


"The most unpleasant truth in the long run is a far safer traveling companion than the most agreeable falsehood." Emerson



newjesustimes's picture


I wish there were a solution to America's mess. An agrarian society, goats and chickens for everybody?
Considering the debt and the endless wars, I can't imagine how things will get better for the US from here.
Even if they get out of Afghanistan, whatever that means, there are US troops stationed all over the world at great expense to their taxpayers, and at this point in history, for what benefit? So something called a military industrial complex can suck out the wealth from the world's formerly most prosperous country?
Should we all be stockpiling solid gold? Can't eat that, can't drink it, can't cook with it... maybe you can buy goats and chickens with it....

....there are solutions

"There is simply no room left for 'freedom from the tyranny of government' since city dwellers depend on it for food, power, water, transportation, protection, and welfare. Your right to live where you want, with companions of your choosing, under laws to which you agree, died in the eighteenth century with Captain Mission. Only a miracle or a disaster could restore it." - William S Burroughs

I think Burroughs was dead on. A societal collapse may unleash new lifestyles, and force people to reflect on what kind of lives they want to live. The whole 24/7 lifestyle could come to a halt. And that's good news, because once people lead less hectic lives, the corruption of big business and big government won't pass over them, and they'll be able to take in the news. Today, people just watch the media, and get depressed because they know something is wrong, but they don't act on their impulses - and who can blame them? Its too much to handle.

But there are solutions. The libertarian political philosopher Karl Hess and the hippie generation figured it out back in the 70's, some of them were just too weird about it. The best solution is self-sufficiency, and living on your own feet, or at least living in a local community that is not totally dependent on a central delivery system for everything. Smallness is the way to go.

And we're lucky. There is a technological revolution going on, people who don't live in the city can install solar panels and live off the sun's energy for the rest of their lives at a free cost. So we don't have to be dependent on a centralized electric grid, and be victims of outages and blackouts. We also have the internet, so we can communicate with like-minded people and communities and be involved in commercial transactions on our own terms. Some of us have decided to grow food and make a living that way. Although, I don't think an agrarian society is going to catch on on a mass level, but that type of living will be more popular than it was in the 1970's because people can stay connected through the internet, video conferencing, the ipad, cell-phones. Plus there is a growing demand for good and healthy food. So this time communal-living (not of the hippie variety) can become permanent in some places around the country. But all that will be for nil if there isn't a political restoration in Washington D.C. And that is what I'm mostly worried about. The potential for wide-scale violence is growing, and there are no spiritual and respected leaders who can lead the nation and the world at this critical time. Obama has always been a fraud. So someone will have to step up. He/she doesn't have to be great, we don't need a Messiah, but we do need political leadership.


It seems localisation - as opposed to globalisation - is the way to go, and that the solution to our problems can't be political. The Burroughs quote reminds me of Kaczynski's manifesto, "Industrial Society and its Future", as well as his other essays. While I don't necessarily agree with all of it, I think he has a point when he states that technology - from the Industrial Revolution onwards - and the economy are the driving forces of our modern world, and that human being and societies merely adapt and serve those powers. Technology is a key factor in shaping our lifestyle, worldwide. The fact that so-called "emerging" countries follow our steps isn't necessarily because they share the West's values or because American propaganda brainwashed them with Mickey and the American Way of Life, but mostly because of a shared technolgoy. I don't know to which extent compromises can be reached with technology and its impact on human life. It seems whatever can be done scientifically, will be done, regardless of consequences human beings can't even fathom. Kaczynski calls for destroying the whole industrial society altogether, which to him means hastening its fall which is inevitable and which will bring about deadly consequences for us all. I think technology and our modern God "Progress" definitely lead to deadly consequences, as every new technology that's used has unknown effets in its interactions with nature and people (see GMO's, pesticides, the ozone layer, computers, etc.). When profits come before safety and since no human being is smart enough to determine the overall impact of genetically modified species on the natural world before they hit us (to name but one example), that's when you realize that addressing technology will be a vital part of the survival of the human race.

McJ's picture

Hello Cryptic

Hello Cryptic,
Glad to see you are still kicking around!
I agree with localization being the way to go. James has posted a lot of good suggestions on how we could accomplish this. I do what things I can to support the local economy. I just wish I could convince someone besides myself that this is a good idea. I'm watching with interest all the hoopla around the launch of the Ipad. It's gonna change the world, ya know. smiling

"The most unpleasant truth in the long run is a far safer traveling companion than the most agreeable falsehood." Emerson

Re Kaczynski

Hey, Cryptic, long time no see smiling
Technology is a tool and though some tools are made with only destruction in mind, overall, I think, the effect is determined by whether they are employed with compassion or exploitation in mind. Mostly it is the latter. But, of course, that is because our society is structured to reward exploitation and penalise compassion. If the motivation of society was affected for the good, then the structures of society would follow and so would technology, in turn, follow along automatically, imnho.

The Catch 22 is that the structures in society largely shape the motivation that supports 'the system' down through the generations.


Thanks for writing and posting this Truth Excavator (you know I'm going to have to shorten this before long!). Ah, and I remember you well from your previous incarnation! Welcome back.
It is remarkable that the people every country's psychopaths fear the most are the peacemakers; their only real enemies. Every violent would be over thrower is of like mind to them and so can be accommodated one way or another and to the continuing cost of the oppressed.

You quoted Daniel Ellsberg as saying-
"There is no prospect of any kind of success in Afghanistan, any more than the Soviets achieved in their ten years there, just as in Vietnam we really had no realistic prospect of more success than the French. But countries find it very hard to learn from the failures of other countries."

But are they failures? Many peoples' interests are served win or lose. And some of the interests involved are not apparent. For instance, the Catholic church had a large stake in the Vietnam war; which it lost. But then that was someone else's gain.

So I don't think the so-called jewish international bankers would necessarily see the Vietnam War as a failure. But that is a quibble and is not to take away from your main point and that is, if I read you correctly, that truth will out and only needs a 'lightening rod' to coalesce this into change.

In your reply to NJT, you emphasis this saying-
But all that will be for nil if there isn't a political restoration in Washington D.C. And that is what I'm mostly worried about. The potential for wide-scale violence is growing, and there are no spiritual and respected leaders who can lead the nation and the world at this critical time. Obama has always been a fraud. So someone will have to step up. He/she doesn't have to be great, we don't need a Messiah, but we do need political leadership.

But political leadership is necessarily a product of the system and so will never change the system in any fundamental way towards the interests of the led at the expense of the leaders. Violence is being provoked and by the system itself because when it doesn't get its way it upends the playing table. It does this because chaos always presents opportunities for the psychopaths.

The system is incapable of reform and to tear it down suits the interests of those behind the system, anyway. So to me, the only answer is to start alternative systems that provide benefits from day one and do not need the approval of the prevailing elite. To that end, I always advocate starting with throwing out the teevee and spreading the truth in any context and opportunity that presents itself and working for co-operation everywhere.

This energy is growing every day and I think the challenge ahead will be to stop this energy being derailed into suicidal violence. And here I'm back with you and your non-violent advocacy!

I am intrigued as to why you say-
Only a great and virtuous people are capable of bringing justice to their deprived leaders, and correcting the wrongs endorsed by generations of government officials. But if there ever was a people in history who could pull off such a task, it is the American people.


There is nothing overly special about the American people. But the country's constitution is special. In America, impeachment is always on the table. The Founders provided a self-correcting mechanism, so that the people could right wrongs, and put abuses to a halt. And the American people are open to such ideas. There is a free-spirited tradition in this country that many other countries lack. The rebellious nature of the French people is well recognized, but let's not forget who were the original rebels of the modern world. If the American public wasn't so dumbed down, they would be rebelling against the corrupt bosses of some of these corporations, just as the French are doing.

And when Americans get radical, and start demanding political/social change, they get very, very radical. Has there ever been a country in history that forced its leader to resign? To my mind, the example of Nixon is the only one that comes up. But I could be wrong.

And also, the fact that 12 American jurors reached the verdict that MLK was killed not by James Earl Ray, but by the help of government agencies, the police, and the mafia, then that's a sign that there are still many virtuous and honest people in government, and in America.

A question that may, or may

A question that may, or may not, be considered immaterial is this:

Did the American people force Nixon to resign?

Imagining the office of POTUS and the ability to continue Nixon's measures through VP Agnew, and then through succeeding POTUS Ford, suggests that removing Nixon from office did nothing more than cause people to believe the system "works." But what good is removing Nixon if his agenda continues on?

This theme is not my own, not solely. Others mention it, usually those who grasp the point of the office of POTUS as figurehead rather than as dictator with immense knowledge and power. (A quick example is found in Nicholson Baker's short novel called "Counterpoint.") The POTUS indeed has power, but does removing one POTUS and substituting another actually cause big shifts in how American government works?

The switch from Bush to Obama was hailed as massive, with "the people" presumed to benefit greatly. Yet here we are some 2 years later, seeing Obama implementing expansion of Bush/Cheney agenda points in many cases, solidifying those agenda points in other cases, and in no case I'm aware of has Obama reversed course significantly from Bush/Cheney.

Sure, there are "niceties" in having a new POTUS with a broader vocabulary and a mantle of populism shrouding him and his entourage, his Cabinet, his followers. But if we simply examine how things work rather than the superficial change in humans holding the office of POTUS, it seems that there hasn't been a change of significance where implementation and use of Federal power is concerned.

A real significant change would be to see a shift away from corporate, moneyed interests running America. Yet that change didn't happen with Nixon's removal/resignation, nor did it happen when POTUS power changed from Bush/Cheney to Obama/Biden, much as it didn't really change from Bush/Quayle to Clinton/Gore.

What's needed is a change in how people envision the role of government. Many of the people who gainsay criticism of Obama's coterie and Cabinet appointments suggest that Obama "had to keep" those people from Bush/Cheney, and "had to use" people who would have fit nicely under Bush/Cheney, supposedly on the ground of "experience." The assumption is that experience as a CEO of a major corporation equals experience serving the American people's interests.

I fail to see that sort of experience as benefiting anyone but the corporations who are served by the administrations of Bush/Quayle, or of Bush/Cheney, to use recent examples that many Democrats quickly will be able and willing to criticize.

Chris Floyd's simple test of

"What if Bush did it?"

continues to apply with even greater relevance as Obama's presidency continues in its tenure. What real differences are we seeing, policy-wise, under Obama/Biden?

The Two-Party scam

It has been widely said that the whole Watergate thing was a carefully CIA orchestrated plot. Woodward is reputed to have intelligence connections, specifically, Naval Intelligence. Gerald Ford prior to his presidential days was derisively known as the Representative for the CIA. One of the main objectives of it all, it has been said was to put Nelson Rockefeller in the White House. Nixon had worked for Nelson Rockefeller as an attorney in NY. This might explain why the Watergate scandal lay dormant till after Nixon won his re-election.

The leaders of both parties are products of those parties and so they're not about to change anything radically to their parties or the two party system. And it is a system. Emphasis on 'a' system. It's one system just like a football game with two opposing sides to provide entertainment but fundamentally co-operating to ensure their continued financial success. It's all a show, a piece of theatre. Perhaps professional wrestling would be an even better analogy.

All the non-elected government officials such as Secretaries of State and Defence, for instance, are members of the Council on Foreign Relations, as are, indeed, all presidential candidates. This is a closed circle offering you real choice between a blow on the head or a poke in the eye!

McJ's picture

I'm intrigued as well

I'm intrigued as well. I can't say I'd pick the Americans necessarily over other peoples. Why not (for instance) the French? As a people they seem as inclined as any to act in protection of their liberties. And I'm not saying that I think any country actually has liberty, just that the French will act together on mass to push back against PTBs. I don't see that happenning in the US. They seem to have been successfully divided...ready to conquer. sad

How about TX for Truth Excavator? smiling

"The most unpleasant truth in the long run is a far safer traveling companion than the most agreeable falsehood." Emerson

newjesustimes's picture

hmm i don't like it

TX is the abbreviation for Texas, not a bad state in some ways, but in other ways, quite a draconian place. Maybe TE instead?
It's not beyond imagining that Americans could still turn it around, with the help of the Internet in spreading ideas and information through the right networks. All it would take is the right memes to ripple through popular culture and suddenly there'd be sit-ins everywhere across the country... I guess it's an extremely unlikely long shot. but wouldn't that be fun?

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.