del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
December 25, Christmas Day, is also the birthday of one of the most exotic and courageous thinkers ever to stride across the American political stage: Lawrence Dennis.
Now, there are three basic facts everyone learns about Mr. Dennis at the outset.
One: he was a leading Right-wing economic and political theorist of the 1930s and ’40s—an American fascist if you will. And he got caught up the the “Great Sedition Trial of 1944” (a trial that ended inconclusively when Judge Edward Eicher, a former Iowa congressman, suddenly dropped dead and no one cared to reconvene proceedings).
Two: Lawrence Dennis was part African-American, a fact that was marginally believable at first glance, given his “swarthy” or “bronzed” complexion and short, wiry hair. Dennis could “pass for white” if he wanted to, and so he did for several decades. But this was mainly for reasons of convenience. During his years at Exeter, Harvard, the diplomatic corps, and Wall Street, talking about a mulatto heritage was just an unnecessary complication, and so he didn’t. At the end of the day there is no reason to believe he was ashamed of his mixed-race heritage; it is said that when he died in his eighties he was sporting an afro [2].
Dennis’s racial mixture, coupled with his radical-right politics, confounds political historians on the Left. They have no trouble dealing with the fact that W. E. B. DuBois, another light-skinned mulatto, went to Harvard and later joined the Communist Party USA. But to imagine another light-skinned man of Negro heritage was a fascist? And not only an American fascist, but former diplomat and famous diplomatic theorist. In 2007 a biography of Dennis was a published with the title of The Color of Fascism.[1] As one might expect from that lurid title, the publisher promoted the bio as a racial saga: a story of “deception” and hypocrisy and living in shame among virulent hatemongers.
But now we come to the third remarkable thing about Lawrence Dennis—maybe the weirdest fact of all. He had been a baby celebrity, a child preacher.
At the end of the 19th century, newspapers in New York and Chicago were fascinated by the something of this infant phenomenon, “Larney Dennis”—the Child Prodigy from Georgia, come to save yo’ souls!
Decades later, the whole notion of a colored moppet haranguing the sinners would become a routine item on the church-vaudeville circuit (Rev. Al Sharpton started out this way). But in the late 1890s this little hi-yaller preaching prodigy with the white frock and booming voice was one-of-a-kind, a huge drawing card:
“Pray! Pray! Down on yo’ knees and pray!”
A child’s quivering tones, yet instinct with power. Above a tiny form in shot white frock with a strange majesty in the upraised olive face and small commanding hand. Below a vast multitude of more than three thousand souls, curious, cynical, devout; yet all, believer and scoffer, alike, held in sway by this morsel of humanity.
In a word, Lawrence Dennis, the negro baby evangelist, was before his first New York audience at the Mount Olivet Baptist Church in West Fifty-third street this afternoon enacting one of the most remarkable scenes in the shifting life of the great metropolis.
Long before 4, the hour named for the service, the church was packed…
Little Lawrence shook the black curls confined at either side of his head with a pink ribbon and looked expectantly about.
“I am 5 years old,” in reply to the first query, “and I was bo’n on the 25th of December, Christ’s birthday.”
***
“Why are you here?” cried a negress from the middle of the house.
“To save New York,” ejaculated the preacher. “I’se got to save you goats.”
(Chicago Tribune, January 8, 1899)
A most bizarre start in life for a diplomat, or Wall Street investment banker, or fascist economic theorist—all of which Dennis would be in the 1920s and ’30s.
It all seems mythical, this story of the white-frocked child evangelist; so disconnected is it from Dennis’s adult careers. A bit like the Homeric story of Achilles on Skyros, disguised as a princess so he wouldn’t have to die in the Trojan Wars as prophecy predicted. (As you may recall, this experience gave Achilles such a tough hide that he went off and died in the Trojan Wars anyway.)
Lawrence Dennis’s break with his past came in his mid-teens, and it was drastic. He went to prep school at Philips Exeter and pretty much swept his childhood fame and negritude under the rug. He was a star debater at Exeter and then at Harvard College, where he crash-coursed an accelerated A.B. degree in two-and-a-half years. (This was rather less difficult than it sounds today: during the Great War, Harvard and Yale handed out course credits like doughnuts, so the boys could get to France, or come back and graduate without much effort.)
After that, it was the Foreign Service corps for Dennis, in Haiti, Romania, and Central America. It seems to be his time in Honduras and Nicaragua that radicalized this rising young diplomat. It became clear to him that Central America and the Caribbean—most of the Americas in fact—were the playthings, the game-board of the U.S. State Department and, ultimately, Wall Street. He tried to publish articles about revolutions in Honduras and Nicaragua in the Atlantic Monthly and Foreign Affairs, but Foggy Bottom embargoed them.[3]
Rather ironically, Dennis thereupon left the State Department and went to work for the Guaranty Trust Company for a while,[4] followed by the J. & W. Seligman investment bankers. Seligman sent Dennis to Lima, as their representative.
Dennis took one look and balked: the Wall Street loans to Peru were ill-constructed and predestined to fail. This was an old Wall Street trick, going back at least to the mid-19th century. The basic idea was that the investment bank would make loans to a Latin American country, which the country didn’t ever have a prayer of paying back. When the foreign government defaulted, the investment bank would demand that the US State Department and Treasury step in and guarantee the loans, by claiming assets or future revenues from the country.[5]
Lawrence Dennis quit Seligman and wrote some articles for The New Republic exposing these shenanigans in Peru. Thenceforth he was essentially barred from employment on both Wall street and the State Department. He didn’t much care. It was the height of the depression, 1932, and he wrote a well-received book, based on on diplomatic and banking experience, called Is Capitalism Doomed?[6]
The capitalism Dennis refers to here is not international banking per se, but rather the specific American brand of “Wild West” laissez-faire capitalism, with no governmental restraints and oversight. Drawing a parallel to Frederick Jackson Turner’s thesis about the closing of the American frontier in the 1890s, Dennis argued that the days of “Wild West” capitalism—arrant speculation, plutocratic strong-arming of Congress and weak foreign “republics”—were dead and gone.[7]
It was 1932, and there was no shortage of howls about the demise of capitalism. But oddball Dennis didn’t howl with the crowd. For him, the solution wasn’t some Bolshevik revolution that destroyed most existing structures of society and put an alien class on top. He proposed something much simpler: a nationalistic ethos that restrained the capitalists and put the American people’s needs into the driver’s seat. In other words, American fascism.
Is Capitalism Doomed? was mostly a reflection of Dennis’s diplomatic and Wall Street adventures. It took a few more years for him to articulate a cogent argument of why fascism, rather than bolshevism, was the proper replacement for freebooting Wall Street capitalism. This came with his 1940 treatise, The Dynamics of War and Revolution.[8]
Is Capitalism Doomed? had been published by Harper & Bros., as mainstream and old-line a New York publishing house as existed; but by the late ’30s Dennis’s fascist connections put him beyond the pale, and he had to distribute this through his own private imprint.[9]
Accordingly this Dennis book never got much distribution. But it is clear he was reaching the apogee of his political insight in such toothy passages as these:
Back in 1933 an 1934 I was one of the few writing Americans who saw that both socialism and nazism had to end in an extreme form of socialism by reason of the pressures of inevitable trends in social change. I derided the interpretations of Fascism and Naziism made equally by the conservatives and the communists at the time. Incidentally, it is to be remarked the American communists and fellow travelers, who are as unsophisticated in politics as Wall Streeters or Mrs Roosevelt, helped both Mussolini no end in the early days by denouncing them as capitalist stooges. My book The Coming American Fascism, was treated my many critics as wholly irrelevant to Fascism because it did not accord with the the orthodox Moscow interpretation of this new phenomenon. On this point, the orthodox line of Union Square and the Union League Club was the same. . . .
To me in 1933-1936, as now, the idea then being advanced on Park Avenue and lower Third Avenue that the demagogue of a popular national socialist movement with a private army of the people under his orders could be the Charlie McCarthy of big businessmen was utterly preposterous. I have known intimately too many big businessmen to have any uncertainly as to the role they would be playing in any Charlie McCarthy act with a Hitler. Businessmen are socially the least intelligent and creative members of our ruling classes. . . .
Notes
1. Gerald Horne, The Color of Fascism: Lawrence Dennis, Racial Passing, and the Rise of Right-Wing Extremism in the United States (New York: New York University Press, 2007).
2. Ibid.
3. A more famous diplomat radicalized by similar experiences in Latin America was Sumner Welles, Undersecretary of State in the Cordell Hull years, who devoted a long book, Naboth’s Vineyard: The Dominican Republic 1844-1924 (New York: Payson and Clarke, 1928) to detailing the exploitation of that island nation by American banking interests.
4. Later Morgan Guaranty Trust; currently a segment of JPMorganChase.
5. Barbara Stallings, Banker to the third World: U.S. portfolio Investment in Latin America, 1900-1986 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987).
6. Lawrence Dennis, Is capitalism doomed? (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1932).
7. See Keith Stimely’s treatment of this topic, reprinted here [4] December 25, 2014.
8. Lawrence Dennis, The Dynamics of War and Revolution (New York: The Weekly Foreign Letter, 1940).
9. Justus Doenecke, “The Isolationist as Collectivist: Lawrence Dennis and the Coming of World War II” https://mises.org/library/isolationist-collectivist-lawre... [5]
There is nothing like Putin anywhere in the West, over which presides a collection of bought-and-paid-for-puppets who report to private interest groups, such as Wall Street, the military-industrial complex, the Israel Lobby, agribusiness, and the extractive industries (energy, mining, timber). 
While the Clinton years of domestic prosperity saw the US economy achieve the rarity of a budget surplus, the citizens of its erstwhile antagonist were (probably with the exception of 
There are three key elements in the organization’s lobbying strategy to denigrate Russia and promote an intervention in Chechnya that serve to unmask a larger pattern behind the US foreign policy after 9/11. First, the labeling of a particular leader or government as “authoritarian” or in some other way “undemocratic” (Vladimir Putin, in this case). Second, the concept of an oppressed yet positively connoted population that strives for freedom and democracy (Chechen terrorists with 
C’est notamment l’objectif du 
Huntington, in his 1996 book “
Mais l’aristocratie américaine ne veut certainement pas que le Président, dont ils sont propriétaires, le fasse ; après tout, les Saoud leur ont toujours énormément rapporté. Comme Thalif Deen de Inter Press Service l’
La pomposità e il clima festoso con i quali vengono accolte notizie, definite epocali, come la vittoria di leader definiti democratici ed incensati dall’opinione pubblica come salvatori dei popoli, hanno accompagnato ancora una volta le vicissitudini tortuose del trionfo elettorale di Aung San Suu Kyi, storica cenerentola della ex-Birmania, oggi Myanmar, che dopo 15 anni di prigionia politica nella sua villa ed un Nobel per la Pace ha portato ad una vittoria schiacciante la Lega nazionale per la Democrazia, con un 70% che questa volta pare essere stato accordato dal Presidente Thein Sein il quale, insieme all’alleato politico Htay Oo, ha ammesso la schiacciante sconfitta riportata dal Partito dell’Unione per la solidarietà e lo sviluppo, maggioranza uscente. Insomma la democrazia ha vinto? Non lo sappiamo, e le ragioni sono tante e tali da non consentire a tutti gli addetti ai lavori di poter confermare la notabile ondata di entusiasmo che ha seguito l’ufficializzazione di questi risultati. Madre Suu, così come definita in patria, si trova di fronte all’impedimento costituzionale di potersi candidare a Presidente del Paese, in quanto imparentata con cittadini stranieri (vedova e madre di cittadini britannici). Ciò la configura quindi come una “burattinaia”, che detto così può sembrare dispregiativo, ma è quello che si accingerà ad essere, dovendo esprimere un candidato presidente per la terna dalla quale si sceglierà il prescelto, eventualmente destinato a seguire le direttive del partito, quindi di Suu Kyi. All’impedimento personale si somma ovviamente l’ingombrante ed imprescindibile influenza della giunta militare, la quale continua a mantenere il 25% dei seggi in parlamento, a designare un candidato presidente per la terna e a nominare i Ministri degli Interni, degli Affari di confine e della Difesa.
De Marenches and the Safari Club certainly had a clear motive to oust Carter: They blamed him for allowing one of their charter members, the Shah, to fall from power. But whether de Marenches’ claims were true or not, we do know that history unfolded exactly as he and the Safari Club would have wished. The hostages weren’t released until Reagan was inaugurated, Reagan appointed Casey director of the CIA, and from that point forward America’s intelligence “community” was back in business.
Schools are no longer places of learning. They are places of punishment. Kids are punished for the most absurd reasons. Nothing more than behaving as a child brings on punishment. As Henry Giroux has written, schools have become places of control, repression, and punishment.
The war on terror, that campaign without end launched 14 years ago by George Bush, is tying itself up in ever more grotesque contortions. On Monday the trial in London of a Swedish man, Bherlin Gildo, accused of terrorism in Syria, collapsed after it became clear British intelligence had been arming the same rebel groups the defendant was charged with supporting.
The prosecution abandoned the case, apparently to avoid embarrassing the intelligence services. The defence argued that going ahead with the trial would have been an “affront to justice” when there was plenty of evidence the British state was itself providing “extensive support” to the armed Syrian opposition.
That didn’t only include the “non-lethal assistance” boasted of by the government (including body armour and military vehicles), but training, logistical support and the secret supply of “arms on a massive scale”. Reports were cited that MI6 had cooperated with the CIA on a “rat line” of arms transfers from Libyan stockpiles to the Syrian rebels in 2012 after the fall of the Gaddafi regime.
Clearly, the absurdity of sending someone to prison for doing what ministers and their security officials were up to themselves became too much. But it’s only the latest of a string of such cases. Less fortunate was a London cab driver Anis Sardar, who was given a life sentence a fortnight earlier for taking part in 2007 in resistance to the occupation of Iraq by US and British forces. Armed opposition to illegal invasion and occupation clearly doesn’t constitute terrorism or murder on most definitions, including the Geneva convention.
But terrorism is now squarely in the eye of the beholder. And nowhere is that more so than in the Middle East, where today’s terrorists are tomorrow’s fighters against tyranny – and allies are enemies – often at the bewildering whim of a western policymaker’s conference call.
For the past year, US, British and other western forces have been back in Iraq, supposedly in the cause of destroying the hyper-sectarian terror group Islamic State (formerly known as al-Qaida in Iraq). This was after Isis overran huge chunks of Iraqi and Syrian territory and proclaimed a self-styled Islamic caliphate.
The campaign isn’t going well. Last month, Isis rolled into the Iraqi city of Ramadi, while on the other side of the now nonexistent border its forces conquered the Syrian town of Palmyra. Al-Qaida’s official franchise, the Nusra Front, has also been making gains in Syria.
Some Iraqis complain that the US sat on its hands while all this was going on. The Americans insist they are trying to avoid civilian casualties, and claim significant successes. Privately, officials say they don’t want to be seen hammering Sunni strongholds in a sectarian war and risk upsetting their Sunni allies in the Gulf.
A revealing light on how we got here has now been shone by a recently declassified secret US intelligence report, written in August 2012, which uncannily predicts – and effectively welcomes – the prospect of a “Salafist principality” in eastern Syria and an al-Qaida-controlled Islamic state in Syria and Iraq. In stark contrast to western claims at the time, the Defense Intelligence Agency document identifies al-Qaida in Iraq (which became Isis) and fellow Salafists as the “major forces driving the insurgency in Syria” – and states that “western countries, the Gulf states and Turkey” were supporting the opposition’s efforts to take control of eastern Syria.
Raising the “possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality”, the Pentagon report goes on, “this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)”.
Which is pretty well exactly what happened two years later. The report isn’t a policy document. It’s heavily redacted and there are ambiguities in the language. But the implications are clear enough. A year into the Syrian rebellion, the US and its allies weren’t only supporting and arming an opposition they knew to be dominated by extreme sectarian groups; they were prepared to countenance the creation of some sort of “Islamic state” – despite the “grave danger” to Iraq’s unity – as a Sunni buffer to weaken Syria.
That doesn’t mean the US created Isis, of course, though some of its Gulf allies certainly played a role in it – as the US vice-president, Joe Biden, acknowledged last year. But there was no al-Qaida in Iraq until the US and Britain invaded. And the US has certainly exploited the existence of Isis against other forces in the region as part of a wider drive to maintain western control.
The calculus changed when Isis started beheading westerners and posting atrocities online, and the Gulf states are now backing other groups in the Syrian war, such as the Nusra Front. But this US and western habit of playing with jihadi groups, which then come back to bite them, goes back at least to the 1980s war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, which fostered the original al-Qaida under CIA tutelage.It was recalibrated during the occupation of Iraq, when US forces led by General Petraeus sponsored an El Salvador-style dirty war of sectarian death squads to weaken the Iraqi resistance. And it was reprised in 2011 in the Nato-orchestrated war in Libya, where Isis last week took control of Gaddafi’s home town of Sirte.
In reality, US and western policy in the conflagration that is now the Middle East is in the classic mould of imperial divide-and-rule. American forces bomb one set of rebels while backing another in Syria, and mount what are effectively joint military operations with Iran against Isis in Iraq while supporting Saudi Arabia’s military campaign against Iranian-backed Houthi forces in Yemen. However confused US policy may often be, a weak, partitioned Iraq and Syria fit such an approach perfectly.
What’s clear is that Isis and its monstrosities won’t be defeated by the same powers that brought it to Iraq and Syria in the first place, or whose open and covert war-making has fostered it in the years since. Endless western military interventions in the Middle East have brought only destruction and division. It’s the people of the region who can cure this disease – not those who incubated the virus.