Mami's Shit: Blackbird9's Breakfast Club Podcast # 181 - 2019.1...: Gone Fishing Between The Wars Part 5 Frederick C. Blackburn (also known as BlackBird9) studied engineering to become an electrical engin...
I don't know which bit of the question "...can you spot the Epstein/Maxwell slutbitchboybitches in the Old Testament? you get but Shirley you can spot where the Talpiot teams were operating in the 1930s, can't you?....." you get. Or where do you think the shapeshifterblousantflotants eternalchildslavers will be operating in the 2030s?
The Marconi Scandal
4,079 words
Guglielmo Marconi
It is the fashion to divide recent history into Pre-War and Post-War
conditions. I believe it is almost as essential to divide them into the
Pre-Marconi and Post-Marconi days. It was during the agitations upon that
affair that the ordinary English citizen lost his invincible ignorance; or, in
ordinary language, his innocence […] I think it probable that centuries will
pass before it is seen clearly and in its right perspective; and that then it will
be seen as one of the turning-points in the whole history of England and the
world. — G. K. Chesterton, 1936
The Marconi Scandal is an episode that has disappeared down the memory hole
of history. There are reasons for this, as will be explained. It was a very
complex series of events that have been difficult to distil into a short
article such as this without leaving out anything essential. Nonetheless, I
believe I have condensed the most important events and actions in this sordid
affair. Firstly, we must begin with a little background history.
Guglielmo Marconi was a young Irish-Italian aristocrat of genius, who, at
the age of 22, invented a crude form of wireless communication and offered it
to the Italian government, who, in their ignorance, refused it. He came to Britain, where
he founded the Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company and in 1901 made the first
transatlantic wireless signal. In spite of this, Marconi was making very little
money and share prices were low, as the profits were put back into further
experiments in wireless.
Enter Godfrey Isaacs, well-acquainted with all the European financial houses
– and, yes, he’s Jewish. Within six months of meeting Marconi, he was running
the company. Within a couple of years, the Marconi Company had become a truly
global concern. It is important to point out here, for reasons that will become
clear, that each branch of Marconi operated as a separate company, but yet all
were under Isaacs’ umbrella. Godfrey Isaacs also had a brother, “Sir” Rufus,
who in 1910 had risen to the rank of Attorney General in the Liberal government
of Great Britain.
In 1911, the Imperial Conference approved the plan to erect state-owned
wireless stations throughout the British Empire.
The Postmaster General, the Jew Herbert Samuel was instructed to put the
contract for the project out to tender. On March 7, 1912, Godfrey Isaacs’
tender on behalf of the Marconi Company was accepted. The contract took time
and had to be tabled before the House of Commons upon completion, the date being
set on July 19th.
Immediately after the tender was accepted, Isaacs went to America to
develop the American Marconi Company. The British Marconi Company held over 50%
of its shares, which meant what was good for the British company was good for
the American. Isaacs bought out the American company’s main rival with money
from the British company, then sold it to the American company. The American
company could then create two million shares, 500,000 of which Isaacs took
responsibility for, and all of which were guaranteed by the British company.
Isaacs then came back to Britain
and told Rufus and his other brother Harry of his arrangements, selling 50,000
shares to Harry. Rufus refused, stating it would be improper, given his
involvement in the Liberal government, but then bought 10,000 from Harry, which
he apparently thought was fine. Rufus then sold 1000 to the Chancellor of the
Exchequer and future Prime Minister, David Lloyd George, and 1000 to the Chief
Whip, Lord Elibank. This was on the day before the shares were actually
created. When the shares were put on public sale, they were 50% dearer.
Rufus then acted as a stockbroker for Lloyd George and Elibank, buying and
selling shares at a tidy profit. No records were kept of the transactions
between the Isaacs, Lloyd George and Elibank. Elibank also bought 3000 shares
for the Liberal Party itself from an unnamed source, all the time, we must
remember, before the contract had been established and signed. What is also
unusual is that between the time of the tender and the time the contract was to
be tabled, Rufus Isaacs, the Attorney General, was brought into Prime Minister
H. H. Asquith’s cabinet.
The contract itself was coming under increased criticism as being too
advantageous to Marconi. The more advantageous the contract to Marconi, the
less beneficial it would be to the taxpayer, but the more beneficial to company
shareholders. Herbert Samuel, who knew what was going on, tried to push the
contract through and further investigation of the rival Poulsen system was
shelved. Samuel made much of the fact that the
Titanic had used the
Marconi system to signal for assistance, which he claimed had saved hundreds of
lives. The sinking of the
Titanic was a boon for Samuel.
On August 8, 1912, Cecil Chesterton’s journal the
New Witness
launched this attack:
Isaacs’ brother is chairman of the Marconi Company. It has therefore been
secretly arranged between Isaacs and Samuel that the British people shall give
the Marconi Company a very large sum of money through the agency of the said
Samuel, and for the benefit of the said Isaacs. Incidentally, the monopoly that
is about to be granted to Isaacs No.2, through the ardent charity of Isaacs
No.1 and his colleague the Postmaster-General, is a monopoly using antiquated
methods, the refusal of competing tenders far cheaper and far more efficient,
and the saddling of this country with corruptly purchased goods, which happen
to be inferior goods.
This was both followed and preceded by a spate of criticism of the contract
in various newspapers and journals. Finally, on October 11th, a Parliamentary
Committee held an enquiry in the House of Commons. A lie was never told in
relation to the accusations because Rufus Isaacs formulated the accusations
himself so that those concerned could easily rebuff them in such a way that
would convince everyone there had been no impropriety. Had the politicians
bought shares from the Marconi Company? No, they hadn’t. Had they bought shares
in the company with the governmental contract? No, they hadn’t. It was left to
L. J. Maxse, editor of the
National Review finally to get to the crux
of the matter on February 12th, 1913:
Over four months have elapsed since the discussion in the House of Commons,
but Ministers have done nothing whatsoever to dispel the mist of suspicion
overhanging the affair. Mr. Samuel stated that Ministers “will be most ready to
appear before”—I am quoting him—”the Committee.” One might have conceived that
they would have appeared at its first sitting clamouring to state in the most
categorical and emphatic manner that neither directly nor indirectly, in their
own names or in other people’s names, have they had any transactions
whatsoever, either in London, Dublin, New York, Amsterdam, Paris, or any other
financial centre, in any shares in any Marconi Company throughout the
negotiations with the Government.
The next day, the newspapers were full of Maxse’s stand and relished the
reopening of the Marconi enquiry. Then, the day after that, a strange article
appeared in the Parisian newspaper
Le Matin, which stated in French a
gross libel against Maxse:
Mr. Leo Maxse, the eminent Editor of the
National Review, protested
vehemently against the way in which this disagreement had been concluded. He
imputed that Mr. Herbert Samuel, the Postmaster-General, whose idea it was to
enter into negotiations with the company, had entered into an arrangement with
Sir Rufus Isaacs, the Attorney-General, also a member of the Government and
brother of Mr. Godfrey Isaacs, managing director of the Marconi Company.
All three had bought shares in the company at an average price of about 50
francs, at which these shares were quoted before the opening of the
negotiations with the Government, and had resold them at a profit rising to as
much as 200 francs per share according as the negotiations enabled it to
be foreseen that the contract would be concluded.
Mr. Maxse attacked at the same time the fact that the contract had been
signed in haste on 7th March, without having been brought before
Parliament as it should have been.
This gave Rufus Isaacs charges he could easily defend himself against –
charges that were completely fabricated – and, indeed, he did so, along with
Samuel, at the hearing of the libel case against
Le Matin, even though
Le Matin had already printed a retraction in its London newspaper at the behest of Rufus
himself. He also admitted freely to dealing in American Marconis to give the
impression that all was above board. What is curious about the whole affair is
that Rufus was in Paris when the clumsy libel
was printed and back in London
to oversee the retraction. It raises the question: did Rufus have the
information for the story sent to the newspaper?
Certainly, G. K. Chesterton believed something was afoot and wrote his
satirical poem “Song of Cosmopolitan Courage” about the whole affair for his
brother’s journal, the
New Witness:
I am so swift to seize affronts,
My spirit is so high,
Whoever has insulted me
Some foreigner must die.
I brought a libel action.
For
The Times had called me ‘thief,’
Against a paper in Bordeaux,
A paper called
Le Juif.
The
Nation called me ‘cannibal’
I could not let it pass—
I got a retraction
From a journal in Alsace.
And when
The Morning Post raked up
Some murders I’d devised,
A Polish organ of finance
At once apologised.
I know the charges varied much;
At times, I am afraid
The
Frankfurt Frank withdrew a charge
The
Outlook had not made.
And what the true injustice
Of the
Standard’s words had been,
Was not correctly altered
In the
Young Turk’s Magazine.
I know it sounds confusing—
But as Mr. Lammle said,
The anger of a gentleman
Is boiling in my head.
It all at least served to speed up the Parliamentary Enquiry, the next
session of which took place the following week. The Liberal politicians
twisted, sweated and snarled throughout, Rufus flying into affected rage at
questions about him not having mentioned buying American Marconi shares in the
first session, while David Lloyd George insisted on having made a loss on his
purchases, as did Rufus. What this had to do with the point was anyone’s guess
and they had certainly not bought them with the intention of making a loss.
Another interesting point to come out was whether the 500,000 shares Godfrey
Isaacs held were his or the English Company’s. Godfrey claimed they were his,
which meant him selling them at cost to others before they were put on public
sale was fine; but where was the record of the transaction for the sale between
him the Marconi Company? The company books were inspected, and it could not be
found – it did not exist.
During the various hearings, all manner of luminaries were called to give
evidence from the worlds of journalism and politics. One last note about the
parliamentary enquiry is that one of those luminaries was a certain Winston
Churchill, whose name had also cropped up as one of those trading in Marconis.
He appeared, denied everything, complained about insults to his honor and
stormed off. And that was that.
The enquiry served little purpose in any case, for the jurors were selected
according to the party majorities in the House of Commons; and so there was a
little murmuring from the Conservative representatives; Rufus and Lloyd George
were given a slap on the wrist and that was the end of the matter. Later, the
writer Lytton Strachey would describe the Liberal government as “a sink of
iniquity tinged with the worst kind of Hebraism.”
It was not the end of the matter for Cecil Chesterton, however, who had been
pursuing the matter with some vigour in the
New Witness. In
particular, he saw Samuel and the Isaacs brothers as being the source of the
corruption, as the tender had been arranged between them. Chesterton had also
made much of the fact that Godfrey Isaacs had been at the head of or implicated
in no less than twenty bankrupted companies, and someone with a sandwich board
with words to this effect had wandered up and down the street outside Godfrey’s
office.
Godfrey’s solicitors wrote to Chesterton demanding that he stop bringing
Godfrey’s honor into question until after the Liberal-biased Parliamentary
Committee, threatening legal action if Chesterton persisted. This is what
Chesterton had wanted all along; although, given who the Attorney General was
and the foregone conclusion of the Parliamentary Committee, it was perhaps
foolish. Godfrey was no stranger to the courthouses and had a penchant for
suing people throughout his life. On February 27, 1913, Chesterton wrote in the
Eye-Witness:
We are up against a very big thing. . . . You cannot have the honour (and
the fun) of attacking powerfully entrenched interests without the cost. We have
counted the cost; we counted it long ago. We think it good enough—much more
than good enough.
Other writers had done most of the criticizing, yet Chesterton took full
responsibility upon himself. Chesterton was an honorable man fighting the
deceitful and unscrupulous when the entire system and those controlling it were
against him. The judge himself, Mr. Justice Phillimore, was against Chesterton
and his counsel, Ernest Wild, from the beginning. One can see this quite
clearly in the court records from his constant interruptions while either was
speaking and from the way he virtually did the prosecution’s job for them. Here
is one such example:
Judge: It is not an imputation against a man that he has
been a failure. There is nothing in your libel to say that because Mr Godfrey
Isaacs is a bad man of business, the Government ought not to deal with the
Marconi Company. The allegations were that the prosecutor is a fraud and a
cheat.
Wild: There are two parts. First we say he is not the sort
of man they ought to deal with because of business failures. Secondly because—
Sir Edward Carson (Prosecutor): That he is a man that ought
to be sent to gaol.
Wild: That is what I am coming to.
Judge: I have not seen the first part.
Wild: (to Godfrey Isaacs) I suggest that you were not
exploiting the public but these rich gentlemen?
Isaacs: I was exploiting nobody, sir.
Judge: How can you exploit rich people if you are not a
promoter?
Wild: The witness was in most of these companies from the
start.
Judge: That is not being a promoter.
Isaacs: I do not think I ever invited people to put money
into any one of these companies. I joined them myself as one of those who put
money into somebody else’s company.
Wild: Here are cases after cases of failure.
Isaacs: That is my misfortune.
Judge: You might as well cross-examine any speculative
widow, Mr Wild.
Wild: A speculative widow would not be concerned in the
management.
This last point reveals just how peculiar the governmental contract was: as
Wild pointed out, there was a vast difference between Isaacs and a speculative
widow and would Justice Phillimore have not thought it strange if the
government had given a huge contract to that widow, especially if she had had
close relatives in the cabinet and if the contract had been very favorable
towards her?
Another peculiarity of the case was that Chesterton wished to defend himself
by showing Godfrey had engaged in misconduct, which meant that the burden of
proof was now on him and not on Godfrey. Chesterton also wished to prove
wrongdoing by those in government, in particular Samuel, Rufus Isaacs, and
David Lloyd George, which, given the outcome of the parliamentary enquiry and
that the Attorney General himself was in the witness box, was an impossibility.
This might seem naïve of Chesterton, for he could not possibly win under such
circumstances, but winning was not as important as showing the public how
corrupt Britain’s
institutions had become.
Chesterton’s point of attack was the contract arranged between the
government and Godfrey. Justice Phillimore immediately insisted that it had
nothing to do with the case “whether the contract was badly drawn or
improvident.” The jury, guided by the discourse made permissible by the judge,
found against Chesterton. The judge, of course, could easily have sentenced
Chesterton to a stretch in prison, but, given public attitudes to the case,
fined him £100 and ordered him to pay Isaacs’ costs (which were not
inconsiderable).
The fines were paid for largely by his famous brother and generous members
of the Conservative Party. Interestingly, this showed a disparity between those
at the head of the party, who refused to press the Liberals on the issue in
Parliament, and the lay members, who were outraged and did all they could to
help Chesterton. This only confirmed Chesterton’s belief that those at the top
of both parties were in cahoots and involved in activities to the detriment of
the British public. One can see his point, for, through Herbert Samuel and other
influential Jews, Semitophilic leaders, past and future, from both parties,
such as David Lloyd George, Winston Churchill and Arthur Balfour, were all to
come under the influence of Chaim Weizmann, the Zionist leader and future first
president of Israel.
As early as 1910, Weizmann was pulling strings in the government, as a
letter to fellow Jew Moses Gaster from November 6 shows, in which he was trying
to hurry through the naturalization process to become a British citizen and
asked Gaster: “perhaps you could do something for me at the Home Office. You
must surely know Winston Churchill very well, also the Under-Secretary of State
[Herbert Samuel], and a word from you would settle the matter.”
As an epilogue, the fates of our protagonist and antagonists are important,
for it shows just how corrupt the political establishment had become. David
Lloyd George, of course, became Prime Minister. Herbert Samuel became
1st Viscount Samuel and 1st High Commissioner of Palestine, as
Zionist Jews took charge of British affairs in the Middle
East. Rufus Isaacs became 1st Marquis of Reading, Lord Chief
Justice, Viceroy of India
and, again critically, Foreign Secretary.
In contrast, Cecil Chesterton died in a French hospital of infected wounds
sustained in the field of battle in December 1918, believing he had served his
country and the forces of liberty, when, like so many, he had unwittingly
served the interests of the corrupt politicians he had once fought against, who
had sent millions off not to war, but to an industrial slaughterhouse. He had
insisted on marching in the victory parade, which exacerbated his injuries.
Afterwards, Chesterton’s wife, Ada,
dedicated herself to the poor, founding a shelter for homeless women.
When Isaacs was made Lord Chief Justice, the great poet Rudyard Kipling, who
had followed the whole Marconi affair with great interest, wrote one of his
finest poems and a personal attack on the character and ethnicity of Rufus
Isaacs, “Gehazi,” blending the narrative of the eponymous corrupt and avaricious
Biblical character with that of Isaacs:
“Whence comest thou, Gehazi,
So reverend to behold,
In scarlet and in ermines
And chain of England’s
gold?”
“From following after Naaman
To tell him all is well,
Whereby my zeal hath made me
A Judge in Israel.”
Well done, well done, Gehazi!
Stretch forth thy ready hand,
Thou barely ‘scaped from judgment,
Take oath to judge the land
Unswayed by gift of money
Or privy bribe, more base,
Of knowledge which is profit
In any market-place.
Search out and probe, Gehazi,
As thou of all canst try,
The truthful, well-weighed answer
That tells the blacker lie —
The loud, uneasy virtue,
The anger feigned at will,
To overbear a witness
And make the Court keep still.
Take order now, Gehazi,
That no man talk aside
In secret with his judges
The while his case is tried.
Lest he should show them — reason
To keep a matter hid,
And subtly lead the questions
Away from what he did.
Thou mirror of uprightness,
What ails thee at thy vows?
What means the risen whiteness
Of the skin between thy brows?
The boils that shine and burrow,
The sores that slough and bleed —
The leprosy of Naaman
On thee and all thy seed?
Stand up, stand up, Gehazi,
Draw close thy robe and go,
Gehazi, Judge in Israel,
A leper white as snow!
The other Isaacs brother involved, Godfrey, died in 1923, the same year
Guglielmo Marconi joined the Italian Fascist Party, which shows the fallacy of
fascists being necessarily “anti-Semitic.” Two years later, the Marconi Company
was in financial trouble.
The Times published an article in which it
stated:
Over a period of years, substantial profits were reported, inordinately
large fees paid to certain directors, and shareholders were lulled into a false
sense of security by receiving appreciable dividends. Yet all the time, as it
now turns out, the company was in fact suffering heavy losses by unwise
investments (several of which had nothing to do with the company’s business),
by advances to subsidiary companies which turned out to be bad debts, and by
foolish speculation in foreign currencies.
These things happened for the most part during the period that the late Mr
Godfrey Isaacs was managing director of the company. Altogether the losses have
involved the writing down of the assets to the extent of approximately
£6,000,000 […] Seldom in the history of a joint-stock enterprise have losses of
this magnitude been sustained by a single company in a few short years.
The
Times, April 18, 1925
There is that number again: six million. It is truly amazing how often that
number crops up in relation to this particular tribe. And so ends our tale. It
may be unsurprising, as it is taken for granted now that politicians are a
corrupt bunch, but this was the first time the public became aware of how ready
and willing they were to sell out their country to foreign powers for personal
gain. The Great War that swiftly followed conveniently blotted out most
people’s memory of the events – but not the Chestertons’. Perhaps it is only
fitting to leave the last words to Gilbert Keith, who, upon his brother Cecil’s
death, published an open letter to Rufus Isaacs in the
New Witness,
which succinctly addresses the concerns in this article:
Not only is there any question of disliking any race, but there is not here
even a question of disliking any individual. It does not raise the question of
hating you; rather it would raise, in some strange fashion, the question of
loving you. Has it ever occurred to you how much a good citizen would have to
love you in order to tolerate you? Have you ever considered how warm, indeed
how wild, must be our affection for the particular stray stock-broker who has
somehow turned into a Lord Chief Justice, to be strong enough to make us accept
him as Lord Chief Justice? It is not a question of how much we dislike you, but
of how much we like you; of whether we like you more than England, more than Europe
[…] more than honour, more than freedom, more than facts. It is not, in short,
a question of how much we dislike you, but of how far we can be expected to
adore you, to die for you, to decay and degenerate for you; for your sake to be
despised, for your sake to be despicable. Have you ever considered, in a moment
of meditation, how curiously valuable you would have to be, that Englishmen
should in comparison be careless of all the things you have corrupted, and
indifferent to all the things that you may yet destroy? Are we to lose the War
which we have already won?
[…] My fancy may be quite wrong; it is but one of the many attempts I have
made to imagine and allow for an alien psychology in this matter; and if you,
and Jews far worthier than you, are wise, they will not dismiss as
Anti-Semitism what may well prove the last serious attempt to sympathise with
Semitism. I allow for your position more than most men will allow for it; more,
most assuredly, than most men
will allow for it in the darker days
that yet may come. It is utterly false to suggest that either I or a better man
than I, whose work I now inherit, desired this disaster for you and yours, I
wish you no such ghastly retribution. Daniel son of Isaac, Go in peace; but go.
This article was first published in
Candour Magazine, volume
75, number 4, issue 857.
Published: March 29, 2016 | This entry
was posted in North
American New Right and tagged articles, British
Marconi Company, Cecil Chesterton,
David Lloyd
George, David
Yorkshire, G.
K. Chesterton, Godfrey Isaacs,
Guglielmo
Marconi, Herbert
Samuel, Marconi
Scandal, North
American New Right, organized crime,
reprints, Rudyard Kipling,
Rufus Isaacs, the Jewish
question, Winston
Churchill. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
2 Comments
- The_Brahmin
The Tribals hacked the Aryan mind a long time ago
with Christ-Pauline ideology. But they achieved major break-through with the
English and later the Americans. I believe religion played a big role,
sub-consciously or unconsciously. The Protestant mind viewed the Tribe as the
elders in faith, as the arbiters of morality, keepers of ”truth”. The Tribe
really prospered under the English/ British patronage and protection.
The price of that gullibility is being paid now,
with high rates of interest. Europe, an entire
continent, stands compromised, subdued and broken and broke. Europeans are
culturally lost, politically confused and have embraced the idelogies of
self-destruction which the Tribe has sold to them.
Now Islam, another Semitic force, has made
murderous incursions into European lands. European resolve is going to be
tested severely. They have no one to blame but themselves.
- Proofreader
Posted March 30, 2016 at 12:23 am
|
Permalink
Revilo P. Oliver’s book The Enemy of Our
Enemies included this interesting footnote on the Marconi Scandal:
“A typical financial operation carried out by
artfully depressing the value of Marconi stock in both England and the United States to induce its owners
to sell for a fraction of its worth and then artfully inflating its value to
sell it to the public for more than it was worth. It involved the bribery of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, an unprincipled opportunist named Lloyd
George, by the common device of ‘selling’ him at depressed prices stock for
which he would not be expected to pay until it greatly increased in value (it
soared suddenly to twelve times its former price). English newspapers that were
still in English hands sometimes caricatured Lloyd George as a little boy
traveling under the escort of his two Jewish tutors, Isaacs and Samuel.”
Imagine life as we know it to be an experiment like Camoron
used to conduct way back when for the Cultic Insinuation Aura in Canada for
Maximal Kulturkampf
Worthless unintelligent innumerate
BBC-style flannel from a hack, November 30, 2010
