Since Russia’s decision to militarily intervene into Ukraine, a darkness that had long remained in the shadows has been brought to the surface. This darkness took the form of an intention that could no longer hide behind the veneer of “plausible deniability” or self-congratulatory devotees of a ‘liberal rules-based international order’ that has been repeatedly blared like a broken record onto the world since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1992.

Rather than continuing to play by the rules of those who wish all evidence to militarily contain Russia with a NATO-controlled Ballistic Missile Shield targeting Russian defenses, it was decided that a new approach was needed and the game was called out.

Was it the evidence of the bioweapons facilities in Ukraine long treated as conspiracy theory, though now admitted to having existed by Victoria Nuland as the straw that broke the camel’s back? Was it the evidence of an immanent assault led by neo-Nazi forces onto Donbass and Crimea that had been the deciding factor? Some speculate that it was Zelensky’s February 19 call for Ukraine to break the 1994 Budapest Treaty and adopt nuclear weapons.

In truth, we may never know the specific cause of Putin’s decision, but one this is sure.

A war was NOT begun on February 24 2022. The war against Russia was actually launched on February 22, 2014 when the USA finalized its regime change on the democratically elected government of Victor Yanukovych and began what some have termed a slow-motion Operation Barbarossa over a prolonged 8-year period with one objective in mind: The total destruction and subjugation of the Russian Federation as outlined in Zbigniew Brzezinski’s Grand Chessboard in 1997.

With the shadow creatures having been forced to the surface, it has become increasingly clear that the virtuous image projected by the western alliance is anything but peaceful, or democratic. Rather than capturing the many obvious opportunities to resolve the crisis diplomatically over the past eight years, the USA, UK, and Kiev have instead chosen only the path of sabotage, slander, and economic war via unilateral sanctions.

So what is to be done?

I honestly don’t know if today’s USA is too far gone for its better constitutional foreign policy traditions to be revived, but I do know that if this history continues to remain buried as it has for the past several generations, then any small chance to save the republic and preserve world peace will certainly be destroyed.

The Strategic Significance of 1776 on International Affairs

Although many have been fed the myth that the USA was a nation bred for global imperial ambitions at its birth, the truth is far different. Certainly, it was never a utopic bastion of liberty untainted by hypocrisy or corruption that some romantic historians have painted over years, but inversely it was never a unidimensional evil slaveocracy as cynical Critical Race Theoreticians maintain. The USA should rather be understood as an unfinished symphony of sorts, whose practical performance too often fell far short than its sound constitutional ideals.

For starters, it is important to appreciate the fact that America’s founding documents (the 1776 Declaration of Independence, and 1787 Constitution) were the first examples in history of a form of government premised on the idea that all people were made equal, endowed with inalienable rights with no mention for race, creed, gender or class. Additionally, the notion that the legitimacy of a nation’s laws arose from the consent of the governed, and mandated to support the general welfare both in the present and long into posterity, was a profound break from the previous notions of Hobbesian law of ‘might makes right’ that had governed hereditary institutions for eons.

The practical expression of these principles to foreign policy were discussed at length by President Washington who warned the young nation of avoiding the dual evils of foreign entanglements externally and party politics domestically when he asked his fellow citizens during his outgoing address of 1796:

“Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humour or caprice?”

President Washington painted by Gilbert Stuart featuring his right hand resting on the Constitution

During this speech, Washington explained that IF the USA were to survive, it would be due to an international policy of “extending our commercial relations, to have with them [foreign nations] as little political connection as possible.”

Some have slandered Washington’s call for reduced political enmeshment with other nations as isolationist, but he always promoted international commerce driven by mutual benefit. It was merely imperial operations, intrigue, deceit and the new age of color revolutions starting with the Jacobin Terror during Washington’s presidency which the great leader saw as an poisonous mess that would destroy the young republic if it became enmired in foreign escapades.

John Quincy Adams and the Anti-Imperial Origins of the Monroe Doctrine

John Quincy Adams (1767-1848) extended these ideas further still by drafting the Monroe Doctrine during his stint as Secretary of State from 1817-1825 which he knew could only work if America ventures “not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy”.

President John Quincy Adams with his hand resting on a sketch of Washington

That is to say, as long as the USA focused her efforts on fixing her own problems with a focus on internal improvements, then the Monroe Doctrine would be a blessing for both herself and the international community.

John Quincy Adams also understood the danger of the growing British-run fifth column inside of the heart of the USA then centered around the Federalist Party. While serving as U.S. Ambassador to Russia, Adams wrote to his mother in 1811 (just as Napoleon was preparing his Russian invasion and as Britain were on the verge of a new war against the USA):

“If that Party [the Federalist Junto of New England] are not effectually put down in Massachusetts, as completely as they already are in New York, and Pennsylvania, and all the southern and western states, the Union is gone. Instead of a nation, coextensive with the North American continent, destined by God and nature to be the populous and most powerful people ever combined under one social compact, we shall have an endless multitude of little insignificant clans and tribes at eternal war with one another for a rock, or a fish pond, the sport and fable of European masters and oppressors.” (1)

John Quincy Adams firmly understood the world historic significance of the American revolution not as a geographical phenomenon among 13 isolated British colonies, but potentially as the spark of a new paradigm for all humanity liberated from hereditary institutions. At the turn of the 19^th century, there were still French, British, Spanish and Russian imperial interests which all had ambitions to gain control of the territories of the Americas forcing the Hobbesian paradigm of war and intrigue into the new world. In the mind of Adams, as all great American patriots, this had to be stopped.

During the July 4 celebrations in 1821, Adams noted that the Declaration of Independence “was the first solemn declaration by a nation of the only LEGITIMATE foundation of civil government. It was the corner stone of a new fabric, destined to cover the surface of the globe. It demolished at a stroke the lawfulness of all governments founded upon conquest. It swept away all the rubbish of accumulated centuries of servitude. It announced in practical form to the world the transcendent truth of the unalienable sovereignty of the people.”

Did Adams believe that “destined to cover the surface of the globe” meant that the USA was destined to become a Pax Americana subduing the weak to her hegemony? Not at all.

On January 23, 1822 Adams wrote that colonial institutions “are incompatible with the essential character of our institutions.” He also said that “great colonial establishments are engines of wrong, and that in the progress of social improvement it will be the duty of the human family to abolish them, as they are now endeavoring to abolish the slave trade.”

Adams understood the importance of seeing the world as “a community of principle” where win-win cooperation based upon the self-improvement of all parts and the whole international community as more than the mere sum of parts, would constantly bring renewal and creative vitality to diplomacy. It was a top-down systemic approach to policy that saw economics, security and political affairs interwoven into one unified system. This is an integrative way of thinking that has been sorely lost in the hyper theoretical, compartmentalized mode of zero-sum thinking dominant in today’s neo-liberal think tank complex.

It was for this reason, that Adams advocated the use of Hamiltonian national banking and large-scale infrastructure projects like the Erie Canal and railways throughout his years as Secretary of State and President. IF this system were the causal force behind the growth of American interests across the continent or the world more broadly, it would not be through brute force, but rather by the uplifting of standards of living of all parties.

Adams, Lincoln and National Banking

Working with a young protégé named Abraham Lincoln, Adams fought tooth and nail against the Spanish-American War of 1846 which saw a deep abuse of his Monroe Doctrine.

Both a young Lincoln and John Quincy Adams had earlier organized to get Whig leader William Harrison (1773-1841) elected president in 1841 with a focus on reviving Hamilton’s national bank which had earlier been killed by President Andrew Jackson to great damage to the economic sovereignty of the USA itself.

Although this ugly chapter of history has been scrubbed from the popular records, the operation to kill the second National Bank in 1832 resulted in a total collapse of all public works in order to pay the national debts using a technique not that different from the IMF demands for austerity on debtor nations in our modern era. Credit was to farmers and entrepreneurs dried up, speculation ran rampant, thousands of local currencies (many counterfeit) ran rampant, and the growth of slave-picked cotton took over the production of the nation’s productivity like a cancer.

Sadly even though legislation to revive a national bank had passed both Houses of Congress and only awaited the signature of President Harrison, his mysterious death after only three months in office put an end to that dream.

The best elements of the Whig party regrouped to form the anti-slavery republican party in 1856 after the second Whig president Zachary Taylor also died of poisoning in 1851 after only 2 years in office.

Abraham Lincoln Arises

Out of this small grouping of nationalists struggling to preserve the Union, Abraham Lincoln emerged with a concise plan to revive national banking, protectionism and a security policy founded upon the Monroe Doctrine. Describing the terms of the oncoming civil war from a global strategic perspective, Lincoln debated the pro-slavery candidate Judge Stephen Douglass in 1858 saying:

“That is the issue that will continue in this country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent. It is the eternal struggle between these two principles – right and wrong – throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time, and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity and the other the divine right of kings.”

We all know essentials of the Civil War, but we may not appreciate the success of that conflict depending upon Lincoln’s activation of state banking via the issuance of greenbacks and 5-20 bonds that by-passed private financiers demanding usurious interest rates. These productive bonds and greenbacks also funded the execution of the war at the same time as they funded great infrastructure projects like the Trans Continental railway uniting the continent.

Lincoln found like-minded reformers in Russia whose new Czar Alexander II was intent on carving out the rot of oligarchism, serfdom and underdevelopment that had subverted Russian potential for far too long. To this end, Alexander II liberated over 25 million serfs, began sweeping anti-corruption reforms and overhauled the finances of his nation with a focus on industrial development in tandem with the United States. The czar’s decision to send a fleet of Russian naval ships to the eastern and western coasts of the USA as a message to the British and French imperialists to stay out of the war gave Lincoln a decisive edge he needed to end the secession and preserve the union.

Sadly, this victory did not play on either the national or international scale as it should have. Not only was reconstruction soon thwarted with a newly re-organized slaveocracy creating a new program of “share cropping” that pulled newly freed blacks into a new master-slave dependency, but Lincoln’s greenbacks were soon taken out of circulation under Anglophile puppet presidents. With the 1876 Specie Resumption Act, tying the U.S. dollar to a one-to-one parity with gold, internal improvements seized up, credit to industry evaporated, speculation began to run rampant once more and bank panics began to periodically wreak havoc on the nation’s stability.

With the assassinations of Lincoln, President Garfield, and Alexander II between 1865 to 1881, a mad effort to put the Constitutional genie back into the bottle as the fifth column operations within Boston and Manhattan pushed increasingly for a new imperial foreign policy modelled on the British Empire.

William McKinley Revives the American System

The last major 19^th century effort to break this traitorous network took the form of President William McKinley’s emergence into the White House in 1897. Once again, a program of national planning, protective tariffs, industrial growth both at home and abroad became the characteristic shaping U.S. domestic and foreign policy. Describing his understanding of the historic current that he was stepping into, McKinley eulogized both Lincoln and Washington in 1895 saying:

“The greatest names in American history are Washington and Lincoln. One is forever associated with the independence of the States and formation of the Federal Union; the other with universal freedom and the preservation of the Union. Washington enforced the Declaration of Independence as against England; Lincoln proclaimed its fulfillment not only to a downtrodden race in America, but to all people for all time who may seek the protection of our flag. These illustrious men achieved grander results for mankind within a single century, from 1775 to 1865, than any other men ever accomplished in all the years since first the flight of time began.”

Although he was sucked into an unjust war in the Philippines by Assistant Secretary of the Navy Theodore Roosevelt (the story told here), McKinley fought consistently to defend the Monroe Doctrine by giving full U.S. support to the industrial growth of North, South and Central America. Internationally, McKinley fought to keep the USA out of the carving up of China in the wake of the Boxer Rebellion and worked closely with international co-thinkers like Russia’s Count Sergei Witte and France’s Gabriel Hanotaux to advance rail development and peace treaties across Eurasia. Had such programs not been sabotaged by murder, coups and regime change operations, then it is certain that the train wreck of World War One and its sequel would never have been possible.

Sadly, after McKinley was assassinated, Teddy Roosevelt’s “big stick” diplomacy launched a new 20^th century trend that saw the USA extending its hegemony over weak states rather than keeping out foreign imperial intrigue as Adams had envisioned.

Assassination of President William McKinley by Leon Czolgosz at Pan-American Exposition reception on Sept. 6, 1901. (BY AMERICAN PAINTER T. DART WALKER, 1905/LIBRARY OF CONGRESS)

FDR and Wallace Attempt to Revive a Sane American Foreign Policy

Since 1901, we have seen small but significant attempts to revive Adams’ overarching security doctrine.

We saw it come alive again with Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s program for internationalizing the New Deal across China, India, Ibero America, the Middle East, Africa and Russia. FDR’s Vice President Henry Wallace laid out the terms of this international New Deal in his 1943 book “The Century of the Common Man” laid out this vision for the post-war world saying:

“The new democracy by definition abhors imperialism. But by definition also, it is internationally minded and supremely interested in raising the productivity, and therefore the standard of living, of all the peoples of the world. First comes transportation and this is followed by improved agriculture, industrialization, and rural elecrification…. As Molotov so clearly indicated, this brave, free world of the future can not be created by the United States and Russia alone. Undoubtedly China will have a strong influence on the world which will come out of the war and in exerting this influence it is quite possible that the principles of Sun Yat Sen will prove to be as significant as those of any other modern statesman.”

Sadly after FDR’s untimely death on April 12, 1945, the Anglo-American special relationship was again revived and all international New Dealers were quickly purged from all positions of influence. Despite an Orwellian age of anti-Russian hysteria then taking hold, Henry Wallace still maintained some influence in the U.S. government (although having been downgraded to Secretary of Commerce under President Harry Truman).

In the September 12, 1946 speech that got him fired, Wallace clearly laid out the two paths forward for the USA:

“Make no mistake about it—the British imperialistic policy in the Near East alone, combined with Russian retaliation, would lead the United States straight to war…

“… It is essential that we look abroad through our own eyes and not through the eyes of either the British Foreign Office or a pro-British or anti-Russian press…. The tougher we get, the tougher they get.

“I believe that we can get cooperation once Russia understands that our primary objective is neither saving the British Empire nor purchasing oil in the near East with the lives of American soldiers. We cannot let national oil rivalries force us into a war….”

Eisenhower to Kennedy: The Battle for the Soul of America Continued

Eisenhower made some positive moves towards this renewal by ending the Korean War and attempting his Crusade for Peace driven by U.S.-Russian cooperation and advanced scientific investments into India, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Latin America. Eisenhower’s many positive plans were sadly derailed by a growing parasite in the heart of the U.S. deep state which he addressed in his famous “military industrial complex” speech of 1960.

Kennedy’s efforts to extract the U.S. military from Vietnam, revive FDR’s New Deal spirit in the 1960s, while seeking entente with Russia was another noble effort to bring back Adams’ security doctrine, but his early death soon put an end to this orientation.

From 1963 to 2016, tiny piecemeal efforts to revive a sane security doctrine proved short-lived and were often undone by the more powerful pressures of unipolarist intrigue that sought nothing less than full Anglo-American hegemony in the form of a New World Order whose arrival was celebrated by the likes of Bush Sr and Kissinger in 1992.

‘America First’ Revives a Sane Security Doctrine

Despite his many limitations, President Trump did make an effort to restore a sane security doctrine by focusing American interests on healing from 50+ years of self-inflicted atrophy under globalized outsourcing, militarism and post-industrialism.

Despite having to contend with an embarrassingly large and independent military-intelligence industrial complex that didn’t get less powerful after Kennedy’s murder, Trump announced the terms of his international outlook in April 2019 saying:

“Between Russia, China and us, we’re all making hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of weapons, including nuclear, which is ridiculous.… I think it’s much better if we all got together and didn’t make these weapons … those three countries I think can come together and stop the spending and spend on things that are more productive toward long-term peace.”

This call for a U.S.-Russia-China cooperative policy ran in tandem with the first phase of the U.S.-China Trade deal which went into effect in January 2020 guaranteeing $350 billion of U.S. finished goods purchased by China. None other than Soros himself suffered a public meltdown that month when he announced that the two greatest threats to his global open society were 1) Trump’s USA and 2) Xi’s China.

Of course, a pandemic derailed much of this momentum and the trade deal slowly broke apart. Despite these failures, the idea of returning the USA to an “American first” outlook by cleaning up its own internal messes, extracting CIA operations from the military, cutting the USA out of the Big Pharma-led World Health Organization, defunded regime change organizations like NED abroad and returning to a traditionally American policy of protective tariffs were all extremely important initiatives that Trump put into motion, and set a precedent which must be capitalized upon by nationalist forces from all parties wishing to save their republic from an oncoming calamity.

America’s Slide into Self-Destruction

One year into Biden’s “rules based international order”, the hope for stability and peaceful cooperation among the nations of the earth has been seriously undermined. Unlike Trump, who rightfully severed U.S. cooperation with NATO, the current neo-con heavy administration has made absorbing Ukraine and other former Soviet States into NATO a high priority going so far as to infuse private mercenary forces, and Al-Qaeda-affiliated fighters from Syria into Ukraine to fight the Russians. To this dangerous policy we have also seen billions of dollars of lethal weapons sent into a neo-Nazi infested Ukrainian military with confused untrained citizens from Ukraine being told to fight and die for a cause that even western geopoliticians admit they cannot win.

Today’s USA has committed to a full-scale policy of self-destruction both on economic and military levels promoting a war which risks escalating out of control into a thermonuclear exchange both against Russia and also China.

When looking at Russian demands for security guarantees from this standpoint and holding in mind the new form of a Eurasian Manifest Destiny emerging with Putin’s Far Eastern Vision, Polar Silk Road and China’s Belt and Road Initiative, it is a rich irony that the spirit of John Quincy Adams’ security doctrine is alive in the world. Just not in the USA.

The author can be reached at matthewehret.substack.com

(1) Samuel Flagg Bemis, John Quincy Adams and the Foundation of American Foreign Policy (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1950).

In my last essay, I made the case that a specifically Eurasian expression of Manifest Destiny has emerged in recent years sharing many important parallels with the original Manifest Destiny often associated with 19th century America, but with one big difference. Unlike the earlier U.S. variant, the current Eurasian version is not being used as a big stick to smash small nations and minority groups into obedience to an elitist master class.

Despite the many abuses committed by U.S. devotees of “Manifest Destiny”, one might be surprised to discover that it is not entirely evil. This better tradition has sadly been scrubbed out of history books which have been framed to present an over-simplified narrative that asserts either 1) “all American expansion was good”, or 2) “America is just shaped by evil white males destroying minorities, raping pristine nature and pushing slavery”.

If you are surprised by my proposition that something positive actually existed beyond these two wrong extremes, then I’m sorry to say, you’ve been fed a bad batch of either romanticism, or Critical Theory Kool Aid and this article is for you. By reading onward, I promise that you will be able to appreciate the historical forces active behind both China and Russia’s long term strategic thinking and maybe something good embedded within the USA itself that you didn’t realize existed.

The 1890 Cosmopolitan Railway: Master key to Universal History

Let us start with an 1890 map commissioned by an American statesman named William Gilpin (titled “Gilpin’s American Economic, Just and Correct Map of the World”) and featured in his 1890 Magnum Opus‘The Cosmopolitan Railway” (subtitle: compacting and fusing together all the world’s continents).

Several peculiar things pop out upon looking at this map:

1) It is among the earliest American-made maps featuring a Pacific-centric focus rather than the typical Atlantic perspective.

2) It features the growth of railways across every continent including the closing of the Darian Gap uniting North and South America, east-west rail from China to Europe and extensions across Southwest Asia and into Africa via Egypt.

3) It centers around a keystone extension rail connecting Eurasia with the USA via the Bering Strait.

This map, and associated book have been known by many for a long time. Many look at it, murmur “interesting idea” and then turn their brains off.

The inquiring mind should instead be provoked to ask: IS there a story here? Was this Gilpin guy some lone eccentric envisioning a fantasy world completely disconnected from reality? Or was there an international geopolitical process underway that he was an integral part of?

In order to address this question, let’s start by asking: Who was William Gilpin anyway?

William Gilpin: American Patriot and Sinophile

Born into a leading American political family in 1813, William Gilpin became known during his adult life as the “Prophet of Manifest Destiny” serving as state representative, spy, bodyguard to Lincoln, industrialist, and Governor of Colorado. America changed a lot during its early years growing from 13 states to 45 by 1900 (sometimes legitimately and sometimes illegitimacy).

Through out this period, there was a raging fight over what identity would shape the young republic? Would it devolve into racism, slavery and empire, or would it endure and develop according to the ideals laid out in its founding documents?

The USA that existed when Gilpin was born looks very different from the USA of today

As we will come to see, Gilpin’s life was dedicated to the latter. Starting in 1843, Gilpin devoted himself fully to building the world’s first trans continental railway uniting for the first time an entire continent by rail.

Having drafted a 1949 resolution in Missouri conference devoted to the Trans Continental Railway, Gilpin wrote: “Let it be resolved that, whereas the Almighty has placed the territories of the American Union in the center between Asia and Europe and the Route of the Asiatic and European Railway” through the heart of our national domain, it is our duty to the human family to prosecute, vigorously, through its new channel, that supreme commerce between the oriental nations and the nations of the Atlantic, which history proves to have existed in all ages, and to be necessary to keep alive comity, science and civilisation among mankind”.

Watching the decay of the minds and morals of the U.S. population and political establishment then firmly underway, Gilpin explained to German publisher Julius Frobel in 1852 why he believed it necessary to unite Chinese and American cultures into a new synthesis in order to save the nation:

“Salvation must come to America from China, and this consists in the introduction of the “Chinese constitution” viz. the “patriarchal democracy of the Celestial Empire”. The political life of the United States is “through European influences”, in a state of complete demoralization, and the Chinese Constitution alone contains elements of regeneration. For this reason, a railroad to the Pacific is of such vast importance, since by its means the Chinese trade will be conducted straight across the North American continent. This trade must bring in its train Chinese civilization. All that is usually alleged against China is mere calumny spread purposefully, just like those calumnies which are circulated in Europe about the United States”.

Speaking in 1856, Gilpin advanced this idea of a paradigm shift saying that America must: “disinfect ourselves of inane nepotism to Europe in other things as we have done in politics; to ponder boldly on ourselves and our mission, and develop an indigenous dignity- to appreciate Asiatic sciences, civilization, commerce and population- these are essential preparatory steps to which we must tune our minds.”

Gilpin and his World

Among the earliest of Gilpin’s childhood memories was an aging Marquis de Lafayette coming to his home to celebrate the anniversary of the Brandywine Battle victory during the Revolutionary War. During this decisive battle, the Gilpin home served as Lafayette’s headquarters, and Gilpin’s grandfather Thomas was a close collaborator of both Ben Franklin and the French General. Both Gilpin’s father and grandfather were members of Benjamin Franklin’s Philosophical Society and worked closely with the Hamiltonian National Bank where the Gilpins were in charge of constructing one of the largest infrastructure projects in U.S. history: The Chesapeake-Delaware Canal.

Before his 1804 murder at the hands of Aaron Burr, Alexander Hamilton (founder of the National Bank) had innovated a new form of political economy tied to large scale national credit generation via a nationally-directed banking system, internal improvements, and protective tariffs/bounties. This system of political economy was dubbed “The American System” by German Economist Friedrich List in 1827 and was used successfully to transform the republic from an underdeveloped bankrupt agrarian society in 1783 to an industrially advanced nation outperforming much of Great Britain within 40 years. Large scale projects like the Erie Canal, Chesapeake-Delaware Canal and a growing network of railways was instrumental in this process.

When Hamilton’s Bank was killed by Andrew Jackson (not coincidentally a leading figure in Aaron Burr’s political machine) in 1836, the most important instrument to direct national development was destroyed. National projects were cancelled, economic systems deregulated in favor of money worshipping British Free Trade, and unbounded speculation resulted in chaotic boom/bust cycles starting with the Bank Panic of 1837. Local banks were empowered to print their own currencies and soon over a thousand different notes sent the divided nation into chaos.

The 19th Century Deep State

Under Jackson, the Anglo-American deep state consolidated its power, genocidal programs were launched against natives, and influxes of black slavery grew from two million in 1830 to four million by 1860. With fertile southern soils cleansed of natives, the Slavocracy increased its cotton output becoming among the richest regions on earth with London purchasing over 80% of the south’s output.

By 1860, Britain had acquired a near monopoly on textile production, having destroyed India’s sovereign industries and forcing that once proud nation into producing opium as it’s primary export product. This soul-killing drug was then infused (via British free trade) into the heart of China which suffered crushing defeats when it tried to block the poisoning of its citizens in 1840 and again in 1859.

The Anglo American deep state grew immensely in power leading towards the near break up of the young republic into “free” vs “slave” confederacies… which had been the objective since 1800 when Aaron Burr first attempted it.

The Transformative Power of Rail Development

Despite having lost the national bank, a general orientation towards scientific and technological optimism still animated the American character. The first passenger and freight railway was built in 1827 (the Baltimore and Ohio Railway) and soon rail extensions began moving across the daunting Appalachian mountains. By 1840, over 2800 miles of rail had been laid, growing to 9021 miles in 1850. By 1860 that number had grown to 30,000 miles but a new quantum leap was effected by Lincoln’s decision to devote considerable resources during the height of the Civil War towards the construction of the Trans Continental Railway (built between 1863-1869). With the completion of this project, and the resolution of the Civil War (largely through the intervention of the Russians), rail growth and industrialization exploded. By 1880, over 93,000 miles of rail were laid and when Gilpin published his Cosmopolitan Railway in 1890, the USA had over 163,000 miles of railway while many other nations were experiencing parallel growth through the application of this same model of political economy.

It was in this context that Gilpin became a leading figure of the anti-slavery America, developing a reputation as an Anglophobe suspicious of British Imperial intrigue and working closely with patriots who wished to take back their nation from the clutches of the oligarchical slave power.

For decades, this grouping rallied primarily around the Whig Party of John Quincy Adams and even won two important victories in 1840 and 1850. The first 1840 victory of the nationalists saw President William Harrison take office on the basis of reviving Hamilton’s national bank and re-launching protective tariffs and internal improvements. This was followed by the 1848 victory of Zachary Taylor. Unfortunately, both Whig presidents were poisoned with Harrison only serving three months and dying under mysterious circumstances before the legislation for a Third National Bank (passed by both houses of Congress) could be signed into law. The official cause of Taylor’s 1851 death? Too many cherries and cold milk.

Gilpin soon became an early member of the republican party (founded in 1856 as the anti-slavery party of the USA), where he rose quickly to prominence as one of Lincoln’s team of 11 elite bodyguards who accompanied the newly elected president from Illinois to Washington (narrowly avoiding an assassination attempt along the way).

Lincoln, Carey and the Global Dynamics of the Civil War

Lincoln clearly understood that the USA would not survive as a house divided saying in an 1858 speech:

“Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new, North as well as South.”

Most importantly, Lincoln and his allies understood that this was much more than a domestic issue, but profoundly implicated the course of world civilization and touched upon the nature of empire itself as the basis of international law. In a debate with Judge Stephen Douglas, Lincoln stated:

“That is the issue that will continue in this country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent. It is the eternal struggle between these two principles – right and wrong – throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time, and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity and the other the divine right of kings.”

The terms and conditions of the clash of paradigms on a global level was iterated masterfully by a leading Whig economist who soon became a principal economic advisor to Lincoln named Henry C. Carey. In his 1852 Harmony of Interests, Carey stated:

“Two systems are before the world; the one looks to increasing the proportion of persons and of capital engaged in trade and transportation, and therefore to diminishing the proportion engaged in producing commodities with which to trade, with necessarily diminished return to the labor of all; while the other looks to increasing the proportion engaged in the work of production, and diminishing that engaged in trade and transportation, with increased return to all, giving to the laborer good wages, and to the owner of capital good profits… One looks towards universal war; the other towards universal peace. One is the English system; the other we may be proud to call the American system, for it is the only one ever devised the tendency of which was that of elevating while equalizing the condition of man throughout the world.”

Image: Left to right: Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln and Henry C. Carey

Gilpin and the Greenbacks

In order to do battle with the London-centered financier oligarchy, while simultaneously battling the slave power, Lincoln took control of credit emissions from the private banking cartels by establishing a government-issued “greenbacks”, and “5-20 bonds” starting in 1862. Through these new credit mechanisms directed by national priorities, and a nationally-regulated banking system, Lincoln was able to fund the war and also drive vast development projects like the trans-continental railway.

Before it was launched on a national level, Lincoln’s trusted bodyguard William Gilpin was the first to use this successfully on a state level.

How?

In March 1861, Lincoln appointed Gilpin first governor of the newly formed Colorado Territory on the southwest frontlines of the civil war. During his commission, Gilpin received word that Confederate plans were underway to open up a western front, and was confronted with the dismal fact that financial resources did not exist to organize, train or arm militias to stop this from happening. Before leaving to Colorado, Gilpin’s biographer records the following orders Lincoln gave his lieutenant:

“On finances we have not one cent. I have just negotiated a loan of $50 million from the banks of New York and have called a special session of Congress to meet on the 4th of July to know if they will hang me for this unconstitutional act. If you are driven to extremities, you must do as I have done- issue drafts on your own responsibility”

Gilpin used his authority to issue state-level funds to pay for the militia which made it possible to do battle with the invading confederacy culminating in the Battle of Glorietta Pass in New Mexico in March 1862 which became known as “The Gettysburg of the West”. After putting down this attack, no effort to open a western front was ever to be tried again. Speaking to the Colorado Legislative Assembly in September 1861, Gilpin described his understanding of the strategic importance of Colorado as a bridge not only between oceans but as a gateway to Asia:

“Our territory will be bisected East and West, by the grandest work of all time, constructed to fraternize the domestic relations of our people and to draw the travel and commerce of all the nations, and all the continents of the world.”

The U.S.-Russian Alliance That Changed the Course of History

In the ensuing years, Lincoln’s allies worked closely with their Russian counterparts who helped save the Union in 1863 when Czar Alexander II deployed his navy to Pacific and Atlantic Coasts. These same forces worked together in constructing railways in Russia (with the later Trans Siberian railway built with the help of American engineers and using rail cars made by Baldwin Locomotives from Philadelphia. These would be the same networks that effected the sale of Russian Alaska to the USA in 1867.

Defending the Alaska Purchase in the Congess, Senator Charles Sumner stated: “To unite the East of Asia with the West of America is the aspiration of commerce now as when the English navigator (Meares) recorded his voyage. Of course, whatever helps this result is an advantage. The Pacific railroad is such an advantage; for, though running westward, it will be, when completed, a new highway to the East.”

As the trans-continental railway was being completed, the Alaska purchase was initiated and everyone knew that the continuation of rail from California through British Canada, Alaska and Eurasia was an organic next step.

Gilpin described this program in his 1890 Cosmopolitan Railway saying: “From what has been stated, it is sufficiently apparent that the building of a railroad by way of Alaska, Bering Strait and Northeastern Siberia, connecting with the Canadian Pacific in British Columbia and in Siberia with the Russian line now being pushed forward to Vladivostok, is by no means an impracticable and perhaps not a very difficult undertaking.”

Although Lincoln’s Greenbacks had been destroyed with the 1875 Specie Resumption Act (shackling the U.S. dollars to gold availability), Gilpin fought to revive the American System traditions to fund this new age of global rail development saying “For every dollar that is laid out on railroads, it is estimated that at least ten dollars is added to the sum of human wealth; and that this ratio would be largely increased by completing the chain which needs but a few more links to encircle the globe, is beyond a shadow of a doubt. It would not be a difficult matter for the governments of the United States and Russia to issue say 4-40 bonds and thus settle at once the financial question”.

In both the USA and Russia, this Gilpin’s vision took concrete steps towards realization, first with Edward Harriman’s 1899 expedition to Alaska where plans for an extension of Union Pacific Rail to Russia were charted out. By 1905, as Sergei Witte served as Prime Minister to Czar Nicholas II, a team of American engineers was hired to conduct surveys for the Bering Strait tunnel connection with a March 23, 1906 New York Times headline reading: ‘For Bering Strait Tunnel- Czar Approves Recommendation for All-Rail Route to America’. Sadly, chaotic events of that era derailed this program from unfolding as it should have.

The Strategic Value of Hamiltonian Credit

Gilpin’s reference to “4-40” signified bonds issued with four to forty year maturation and tied directly to the construction of specific megaprojects. This type of productive bond/credit was the essential master key to the success of the Hamiltonian system from its earliest days in 1791 to its renewal under Franklin Roosevelt during the New Deal. Every time this system has been applied, measurable bursts of progress, strengthening of sovereignty, uplifting of citizens and destruction of deep state controls have followed in its wake. Whenever it has been repealed, the opposite has occurred.

Gilpin was extremely direct about this tradition, writing: “No amount of Argument will make America adopt old world theories… To rely upon herself, to develop her own resources, to manufacture everything that can possibly be manufactured within her territory- this is and has been the policy of the United States from the time of Alexander Hamilton to that of Henry Clay and thence to our own days.”

Some might say that Gilpin only wished to advance his rail program in order to make money for investors, but that would be the furthest thing from the truth. A few pages later (in his Cosmopolitan Railway), he wrote: “Let the world but for a day stop its senseless wranglings over political clap-trap, stop its wars and preparations for further human butcheries and devote its intelligence and energy to this works and it is done. It is a small matter how the money is raised; or by whom, so that it is forthcoming; only as before remarked, the work, in my opinion is better in the hands of the nations than under the control of individuals; For all species of tyranny, that which emanates from individuals or corporate power, is the worst.”

Speaking of China, Gilpin stated: “The ancient Asiatic colossus, in a certain sense, needed only to be awakened to new life, and European Culture finds a basis there on which it can build future reforms.”

As Gilpin wrote these words, Russian Finance Minister Sergei Witte, German Chancellor von Bismarck, French Foreign Minister Gabriel Hanotaux and leading industrialists in Japan were working hard to implement the American System in their respective nations as rail lines, productive credit, protectionism, technical education and industrial progress were expanded both within each nation and among themselves.

Despite the assassination of leading statesmen by British directed anarchists between 1865-1905, the orientation towards a new post-imperial society of win-win cooperation moved ever closer to realization.

Lincoln’s Spirit Revived in China

In China, a process was unleashed by a young revolutionary who had been given the opportunity to study in the United States due to the 1868 Seward-Burlingham Treaty that created a short lived ‘special relationship’ between the USA and China. This treaty gave China free emigration and travel in America, reciprocal access to education for citizens living in the others’ country, and favored nation status with the United States. (1)

That young man was recruited to republican networks in the USA and became a devotee of Lincoln’s system of government, which guided his every strategic insight culminating in the 1911 overthrow of the corrupt Qing Dynasty. When he received word of the success of the revolution, Dr. Sun Yat-sen was organizing funding for the Chinese republican cause in the USA (to be specific, in Denver, Colorado). Upon receiving the good news, he immediately returned home to lead the new nation, becoming China’s first President.

It is for this reason that a special 1942 stamp commemorating U.S.-China friendship was first issued in Colorado, featuring portraits of Presidents Sun Yat-sen and Lincoln with the motto “Of the People, By the People, For the People”. The Chinese rendition of this motto was written as “民族, 民權, 民生,” which was made the basis of Sun Yat-sen’s “Three Principles of the People”.

Although foreign intrigues forced him to abdicate the presidency, Dr. Sun Yat-sen remained the moral and strategic force of the Chinese patriots authoring an in-depth program for an industrial renaissance in China tied to a renewal of rail lines, development corridors, energy projects, ports and educational institutions.

Forecasting an interconnected Eurasian railway system and U.S.-Asia alliance, Sun Yat-sen echoed the spirit of Gilpin, famously stating in his 1920 treatise:

“The world has been greatly benefited by the development of America as an industrial and a commercial Nation. So a developed China with her four hundred millions of population, will be another New World in the economic sense. The nations which will take part in this development will reap immense advantages. Furthermore, international cooperation of this kind cannot but help to strengthen the Brotherhood of Man.”

Image: Sun Yat Sen’s rail plans for China published in his 1917 International Development of China called for 10 000 km of rail, 100 000 km of roads, ports, mines and industrial sovereignty. All this was finally accomplished with the advent of Xi Jinping’s age of the Belt and Road – Image EIR

This network of industrial corridors stretched across China, and into India, Southwest Asia, Mongolia, Russia and Europe. Anyone reviewing this grand design today would clearly see the germ seed of the Belt and Road Initiative which has sprung to life since 2013.

In recent years, Russian President Vladimir Putin has made it known to the west his desire to open up the Siberian and Far Eastern zones of Eurasia to large scale development. As early as 2007, Putin began publicizing his desire to even extend rail through the Bering Strait itself connecting new and old worlds. Although rejected by Bush in 2007, it was renewed in 2011 and in 2014 China began showing significant support for the project. By 2018, China’s BRI took on an Arctic branch known as the Polar Silk Road and today, both nations have clearly picked up the torch dropped by the west after the murder of President Kennedy.

Image: The next phase of the evolving Belt and Road Initiative branching out across the world [image produced by the Schiller Institute]

It is clear that Russia and China have revived a new form of Manifest Destiny in Eurasia as both nations have integrated their destinies into a new garment of interconnected mutual interest bringing in over 135 other nations into agreements of cooperation.

If the west is able to discover the moral fitness to survive at this late stage of decay, it will be due to our rediscovery of this lost heritage and recognize its living expression in the Russian-Chinese alliance today.

The author delivered remarks on this topic viewable here.

(1) With the ouster of Lincoln’s allies from power after the assassination of President Garfield in 1880, however, the stage was set for the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which overthrew Seward’s treaty and many of the efforts to create a new global system based upon US-China cooperation.

– James Fenimore Cooper (The American Democrat 1838)

I think it is evident to most by now that the United States is presently undergoing a crisis that could become a full-blown second civil war.

Some might be wondering, is it really so bad that the U.S. could possibly collapse in the not-so-distant future? After all, isn’t it acting like the worst of empires? Isn’t it wreaking havoc on the world today? Is it not a good thing that it collapse internally and spare the world from further wars?

It is true that the U.S. is presently acting more like a terrible empire than a republic based on liberty and freedom. It may even be the case that the world is spared for a time from further war and tyranny, if the U.S. were to collapse. However, this is unlikely and it most certainly would be only temporary, since the U.S. is not the source of such monstrosities but rather is merely its instrument.

This paper will go not only go through why this is the case and but will also analyze Russia’s historical relationship to the U.S. in context to its recognition of this very fact.

The Great Liberators

In 1861, the Emancipation Edict was passed and successfully carried out by Czar Alexander II that would result in the freeing of over 23 million serfs. This was by no means a simple task and met much resistance, requiring an amazing degree of statesmanship to see it through. In a speech made by Czar Alexander II to the Marshalls of Nobility in 1856 he stated:

“You can yourself understand that the present order of owning souls cannot remain unchanged. It is better to abolish serfdom from above, than to wait for that time when it starts to abolish itself from below. I ask you to think about the best way to carry this out.”

The success of this edict would go down in history as one of the greatest accomplishments for human freedom and Czar Alexander II became known as the ‘Great Liberator’, for which he was beloved around the world.

Shortly after, in 1863, President Lincoln would pass the Emancipation Proclamation which declared “that all persons held as slaves” within the rebellious states “are, and henceforward shall be free.” There is astonishingly a great deal of cynicism surrounding this today. It is thought that because Lincoln did not announce this at the beginning of the war it somehow was never genuine. However, Lincoln was always for the abolishment of slavery and the reason for his delay was due to the country being so at odds with itself that it was willing to break into pieces over the subject, an intent that Lincoln rightfully opposed and had to navigate through.

Former slave and Lincoln ally, Frederick Douglass, though himself frustrated with the delay to equal rights, understood after meeting and discussing his concerns with Lincoln that the preservation of the country came first, stating:

“It was a great thing to achieve American independence when we numbered three millions [slaves], but it was a greater thing to save this country from dismemberment and ruin when it numbered thirty millions. He alone of all our presidents was to have the opportunity to destroy slavery, and to lift into manhood millions of his countrymen hitherto held as chattels and numbered with the beasts of the field.”

For more on the Lincoln-Douglass story refer to my paper.

In addition, there are many speeches Lincoln gave while he was a lawyer, where he most clearly and transparently spoke out against slavery. In a speech at Peoria, Illinois (Oct 16, 1854), 7 years before he would become president, Lincoln stated:

“This declared indifference, but as I must think, covert real zeal for the spread of slavery, I cannot but hate. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world—enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites—causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men among ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principle of civil liberty—criticizing the Declaration of Independence and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest.”

During the civil war lord Robert Cecil (later called the Marquess of Salisbury and three-time Prime Minister of Britain) expressed his viewpoint on the matter in the British Parliament:

“The Northern States of America never can be our sure friends because we are rivals, rivals politically, rivals commercially…With the Southern States, the case is entirely reversed. The population are an agricultural people. They furnish the raw material of our industry, and they consume the products which we manufacture from it. With them, every interest must lead us to cultivate friendly relations, and when the war began they at once recurred to England as their natural ally.” [emphasis added]

By 1840, cotton made up more than half of American exports. More than 75% of slave cotton was exported to Britain. American slave cotton was the centerpiece of the British Empire’s world cheap-labor system.

The autumn of 1862 would mark the first critical phase of the Civil War. Lincoln sent an urgent letter to the Russian Foreign Minister Gorchakov, informing him that France was ready to intervene militarily and was awaiting England. The salvation of the Union thus rested solely on Russia’s decision to act.

The Foreign Minister Gorchakov wrote in response to Lincoln’s plea:

“You know that the government of United States has few friends among the Powers. England rejoices over what is happening to you; she longs and prays for your overthrow. France is less actively hostile; her interests would be less affected by the result; but she is not unwilling to see it. She is not your friend. Your situation is getting worse and worse. The chances of preserving the Union are growing more desperate. Can nothing be done to stop this dreadful war? The hope of reunion is growing less and less, and I wish to impress upon your government that the separation, which I fear must come, will be considered by Russia as one of the greatest misfortunes. Russia alone, has stood by you from the first, and will continue to stand by you. We are very, very anxious that some means should be adopted–that any course should be pursued–which will prevent the division which now seems inevitable. One separation will be followed by another; you will break into fragments.”

Russia’s proclaimed support in its letters to Lincoln would be put to the test during the summer of 1863. By then, the South’s invasion of the North had failed at Gettysburg and the violent anti-war New York draft riots also failed and Britain, as a result, was thinking of a direct military intervention with the backing of France. What would follow marks one of the greatest displays of support for another country’s sovereignty to ever occur in modern history.

The Russian Navy arrived on both the east and west coastlines of the United States late September and early October 1863.

The timing was highly coordinated due to intelligence reports of when Britain and France were intending their military action. The Russian navy would stay along the US coastline in support of the Union for 7 months! They never intervened in the American civil war but rather remained in its waters at the behest of Lincoln in the case of a foreign power’s interference.

If Russia had not done this, Britain and France would most certainly have intervened on behalf of the Confederate states as they made clear they would, and the United States would have most certainly broken in two at that point. It was Russia’s direct naval support that allowed the United States to remain whole.

Czar Alexander II, who held sole power to declare war for Russia, stated in an interview to the American banker Wharton Barker on Aug. 17, 1879 (Published in The Independent March 24, 1904):

“In the Autumn of 1862, the governments of France and Great Britain proposed to Russia, in a formal but not in an official way, the joint recognition by European powers of the independence of the Confederate States of America. My immediate answer was: `I will not cooperate in such action; and I will not acquiesce. On the contrary, I shall accept the recognition of the independence of the Confederate States by France and Great Britain as a casus belli for Russia. And in order that the governments of France and Great Britain may understand that this is no idle threat; I will send a Pacific fleet to San Francisco and an Atlantic fleet to New York.

…All this I did because of love for my own dear Russia, rather than for love of the American Republic. I acted thus because I understood that Russia would have a more serious task to perform if the American Republic, with advanced industrial development were broken up and Great Britain should be left in control of most branches of modern industrial development.” [emphasis added]

What was Czar Alexander II referring to exactly when mentioning the advanced industrial development of the American Republic? Well, in short he was referring to the Hamiltonian system of economics. Notably, Alexander Hamilton’s 1791 Report on the Usefulness of the Manufactories in Relation to Trade and Agriculture which was published in St. Petersburg in 1807, sponsored by Russian Minister of Finance D.A. Guryev.

It was Hamilton who pioneered a new system of political economy coming out of the war of Independence which saw America bankrupt, undeveloped, and agrarian. Hamilton solved this problem by federalizing the state debts and converting it into productive credit, channelled by national banks into large scale internal improvements with a focus on the growth of manufacturing. Anyone wishing to learn more about this should read Anton Chaitkin’s recent publication Who We Are: America’s Fight for Universal Progress.

In the introduction to the translated Hamilton pamphlet, Russian educator V. Malinovsky wrote:

“The similarity of American United Provinces with Russia appears both in the expanse of the land, climate and natural conditions, in the size of population disproportionate to the space, and in the general youthfulness of various generally useful institutions; therefore all the rules, remarks and means proposed here are suitable for our country.”

This “American system” was what Tsar Alexander II recognised as the only economic system to have successfully challenged the system of empire, which he recognized as the root of all slavery. The ineffective and ultimately costly labour of slaves was no match for competing against a machine tool industry to which Frederick Douglass attested. The construction of rail that was made possible through the development of this machine tool industry is what freed countries from Britain’s maritime supremacy.

The “American System”

In 1842, Czar Nicholas I hired American engineer George Washington Whistler to oversee the building of the Saint Petersburg-Moscow Railway, Russia’s first large-scale railroad. In the 1860s, Henry C. Carey’s economics would be promoted in St. Petersburg’s university education, organised by US Ambassador to Russia Cassius Clay. Carey was a leading economic advisor to Lincoln and leading Hamiltonian of his age.

Sergei Witte, who worked as Russian Minister of Finance from 1889-1891 and later became Prime Minister in 1905, would publish in 1889 the incredibly influential paper titled “National Savings and Friedrich List” which resulted in a new customs law for Russia in 1891 and resulted in an exponential growth increase in Russia’s economy. Friedrich List publicly attributed his influence in economics to Alexander Hamilton.

Lincoln’s Pacific Railroad superintendent, General Grenville Dodge, advised Russia on its Trans-Siberia railroad, built with Pennsylvania steel and locomotives from 1890-1905.

In his 1890 budget report, Sergei Witte- echoing the Belt and Road Initiative unfolding today, wrote:

“The railroad is like a leaven, which creates a cultural fermentation among the population. Even if it passed through an absolutely wild people along its way, it would raise them in a short time to the level requisite for its operation.”

Sergei Witte was explicit of his following of the American model of political economy when he described his re-organization of the Russian railways saying:

“Faced by a serious shortage of locomotives, I invented and applied the traffic system which had long been in practice in the United States and which is now known as the “American system.”

By 1906, Czar Nicholas II of Russia supported the plan for the American-Russian Bering Strait tunnel, officially approving a team of American engineers to conduct a feasibility study.

Russia would complete the trans-Siberian railway in 1905 under the leadership of “American System” follower Count Sergei Witte. On its maiden voyage the Trans-Siberian rail saw Philadelphia-made train cars run across the Russian heartland, and it is no accident that all of the key players involved in the Alaska purchase were also involved in the Russian continental rail program on both sides of the ocean.

Bismarck’s Zollverein

In 1876 Henry C. Carey organized the centennial exhibition where 10 million people from 37 countries came to Philadelphia to see the achievements of the United States in its advancements in machine tool industry, which propelled their economy to the first in the world.

Only three years later, Otto von Bismarck broke Germany’s free trade system implementing an American style tariff policy for his nation. The kinship between Germany and the United States became so strong at this time that Otto von Bismarck’s speech in the parliament (1879) was quoted by McKinley on the floor in US Congress:

“A success of the United States in material development is the most illustrious of modern time. The American nation has not only successfully born and suppressed the most gigantic and expensive war of all history, but immediately afterward disbanded its army, found employment for all its soldiers and marines, paid off most of its debt, given labour and homes to all the unemployed in Europe as fast as they could arrive within its territory and still by a system of taxation so indirect as not to be perceived, much less felt… Because it is my deliberate judgement that the prosperity of America is mainly due to its protective laws, I urge that Germany has now reached that point, where it is necessary to imitate the tariff system of the United States.”

Otto von Bismarck was heavily organising for the building of the Berlin to Baghdad railway, which after much resistance and delay would only be completed in 1940. If this has been accomplished during Otto von Bismarck’s life, the Middle East could have avoided the Sykes Picot carving up.

In 1869, Japanese modernizers working directly with the Lincoln-Carey strategists ran the Meiji Restoration which industrialized Japan.

In the 1880s and 90s, Lincoln-Carey Philadelphia industrialists were contracted for huge infrastructure and nation-building projects in China. Hawaiian Christian missionary Frank Damon, having participated in the Carey group’s strategies at a very high level, helped instigate, shape, and build the Sun Yat-sen organization that gave birth to modern China.

Sun Yat-sen referred to his admiration of Lincoln’s USA as the basis for a new multipolar system saying:

“The world has been greatly benefited by the development of America as an industrial and a commercial Nation. So a developed China with her four hundred millions of population, will be another New World in the economic sense. The nations which will take part in this development will reap immense advantages. Furthermore, international cooperation of this kind cannot but help to strengthen the Brotherhood of Man.”

How Did We End Up Where We Are Today?

With such a glorious outlay of cooperation and common interests across the globe united against an economic system of empire, it begs the obvious question “What went wrong? How did we end up where we are today?”

To give one a quick glimpse into the reason why, let us look at some of the major assassinations and soft-coups from the late 19^th century and early 20^th century of American system proponents (refer to the image below).

Henry C. Carey stated it best when he described the situation as such, in his “Harmony of Interests” (1851):

“Two systems are before the world; the one looks to increasing the proportion of persons and of capital engaged in trade and transportation, and therefore to diminishing the proportion engaged in producing commodities with which to trade, with necessarily diminished return to the labor of all; while the other looks to increasing the proportion engaged in the work of production, and diminishing that engaged in trade and transportation, with increased return to all, giving to the laborer good wages, and to the owner of capital good profits… One looks to pauperism, ignorance, depopulation, and barbarism; the other in increasing wealth, comfort, intelligence, combination of action, and civilization. One looks towards universal war; the other towards universal peace. One is the English system; the other we may be proud to call the American system, for it is the only one ever devised the tendency of which was that of elevating while equalizing the condition of man throughout the world.”

We have yet to conclude the victor between these two opposing systems, the fight is not over and we would be foolish to give up at the finishing line. What we do today will decide the course of things in the future, and whether we live under a true recognition of freedom and prosperity, or whether we are ruled-over and our liberties treated as “privilege,” that can be given or taken based on the judgement of a ruling class, remains to be seen.

Thus, let us hearken to the words of Lincoln, who in a debate with the slave power’s champion Stephen Douglas, said:

“That is the issue that will continue in this country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent. It is the eternal struggle between these two principles – right and wrong – throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time, and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity and the other the divine right of kings.”

The financial system was bankrupt, speculation had run amok, and all infrastructure had fallen into disarray over the course of 30 years of unbroken free trade. To make matters worse, the nation was on the verge of a civil war and international financiers in London and Wall Street gloated over the immanent destruction of the first nation on earth to be established not upon hereditary institutions, but rather on the consent of the governed and mandated to serve the general welfare.

Although one might think that I am referring now to today’s America, I am in fact referring to the United States of 1860.

The Trifold Deep State

In my past two articles in this series, I discussed how a new system of political economy was established by Benjamin Franklin and his disciples in the wake of the war of independence driven by protectionism, national banking and internal improvements.

I also demonstrated that the rise of the thing known as today’s “deep state” can also be understood as a three-headed beast which arose in its earliest incarnation under the leadership of arch traitor Aaron Burr who established Wall Street, killed Alexander Hamilton and devoted his life to the cause of dissolving the union. After having been caught in the act of sabotage, Burr escaped arrest in 1807 by running off to England where he live in Jeremy Bentham’s mansion for 5 years, only to return to oversee a new plot to break up the union that eventually boiled over in 1860.

The three prongs of the operation that Burr led on behalf of British intelligence and which remains active to this very day, can loosely be described as follows:

• The Anglo-Canadian establishment that arose in the wake of the “United Empire Loyalists” who left the rebelling colonies in 1776 to found English speaking Canada and who were soon labelled as the “Family Compact” by republican revolutionary William Lyon Mackenzie and which ultimately managed the eventual creation of the Rhodes Trust under George Parkin and his heirs.
• The Eastern Establishment families sometimes known as the Essex Junto who took control of Hamilton’s Federalist Party. These were Empire Loyalists who remained within the USA under the illusion of loyalty to the constitution, but always adherent to a British Imperial world order and devoted to eventually undermining it from within. These were the circles that brought the USA into Britain’s Opium trade against China as junior partners in crime and who promoted the dissolution of the union as early as 1800 under the leadership of Aaron Burr.
• The “Virginia Junto”, slave owning aristocracy which also worked with Aaron Burr in his 1807 secessionist plot and whose alliance with the British Empire was instrumental in its rise to power from 1828-1860. This was the structure that soon returned to power, after the civil war, under the guiding hand of such Mazzini-connected “Young Americans” as KKK founder Albert Pike and the Southern establishment that later executed nationalist presidents in 1880, 1901 and in 1963.

Some Uncomfortable Questions

The story has been told of Lincoln’s murder in tens of thousands of books and yet more often than not the narrative of a “single lone gunman” is imposed onto the story by researchers who are either too lazy or too corrupt to look for the evidence of a larger plot.

How many of those popular narratives infused into the western zeitgeist over the decades even acknowledge the simple fact that John Wilkes Boothe was carrying a $500 bank draft signed by Ontario Bank of Montreal President Henry Starnes (later to become Montreal Mayor) when he was shot dead at Garrett Farm on April 26, 1865?

How many people have been exposed to the vast Southern Confederacy secret service operations active throughout the civil war in Montreal, Toronto and Halifax which was under the firm control of Confederate Secretary of State Judah Benjamin and his handlers in British intelligence?

How many people know that Boothe spent at least 5 weeks in the fall of 1864 in Montreal associating closely with the highest echelons of British and Southern intelligence including Starnes, and confederate spy leaders Jacob Thompson and George Sanders?

Demonstrating his total ignorance of the process that controlled him, Booth wrote to a friend on October 28, 1864: “I have been in Montreal for the last 3 or 4 weeks and no one (not even myself) knew when I would return”.

On The Trail of the Assassins

After Lincoln was murdered, a manhunt to track down the intelligence networks behind the assassination was underway that eventually led to the hanging of four low level co-conspirators who history has shown were just as much patsies as John Wilkes Boothe.

Days later, President Johnson issued a proclamation saying: “It appears from evidence in the Bureau of Military Justice that the … murder of … Abraham Lincoln … [was] incited, concerted, and procured by and between Jefferson Davis, late of Richmond, Va., and Jacob Thompson, Clement C. Clay, [Nathaniel] Beverly Tucker, George N. Sanders, William C. Cleary, and other rebels and traitors against the government of the United States harbored in Canada.”

Two days before Booth was shot, Secretary of War Edwin Stanton wrote: “This Department has information that the President’s murder was organized in Canada and approved at Richmond.”

Knowledge of Canada’s confederate operations was well known to the federal authorities in those days even though the majority among leading historians today are totally ignorant of this fact.

George Sanders remains one of the most interesting figures among Booth’s handlers in Canada. As a former Ambassador to England under the presidency of Franklin Pierce (1853-1857), Sanders was a close friend of international anarchist Giuseppe Mazzini – the founder of the Young Europe movement. Sanders who wrote “Mazzini and Young Europe” in 1852, had the honor of being a leading member of the southern branch of the Young America Movement (while Ralph Waldo Emerson was a self-proclaimed leader of the northern branch of Young America). Jacob Thompson, who was named in the Johnson dispatch above, was a former Secretary of the Interior under President Pierce, handler of Booth and acted as the top controller of the Confederacy secret service in Montreal.

As the book Montreal City of Secrets (2017), author Barry Sheehy proves that not only was Canada the core of Confederate Secret Services, but also coordinated a multi pronged war from the emerging “northern confederacy” onto Lincoln’s defense of the union alongside Wall Street bankers while the president was fighting militarily to stop the southern secession. Sheehy writes: “By 1863, the Confederate Secret Service was well entrenched in Canada. Funding came from Richmond via couriers and was supplemented by profits from blockade running.”

The Many Shapes of War from the North

Although not having devolved to direct military engagement, the Anglo-Canadian war on the Union involved several components:

Financial warfare: The major Canadian banks dominant in the 19^th century were used not only by the confederacy to pay British operations in the construction of war ships, but also to receive much needed infusions of cash from British Financiers throughout the war. A financial war on Lincoln’s greenback was waged under the control of Montreal based confederate bankers John Porterfield and George Payne and also JP Morgan to “short” the greenback.

By 1864, the subversive traitor Salmon Chase had managed to tie the greenback to a (London controlled) gold standard thus making its value hinge upon gold speculation. During a vital moment of the war, these financiers coordinated a mass “sell off” of gold to London driving up the price of gold and collapsing the value of the U.S. dollar crippling Lincoln’s ability to fund the war effort.

Direct Military intervention Thwarted: As early as 1861, the Trent Crisis nearly induced a hot war with Britain when a union ship intervened onto a British ship in international waters and arrested two high level confederate agents en route to London. Knowing that a two-fold war at this early stage was unwinnable, Lincoln pushed back against hot heads within his own cabinet who argued for a second front saying “one war at a time”. Despite this near miss, London wasted no time deploying over 10 000 soldiers to Canada for the duration of the war ready to strike down upon the Union at a moment’s notice and kept at bay in large measure due to the bold intervention of the Russian fleet to both Atlantic and Pacific coasts of the USA. This was a clear message to both England and to Napoleon III’s France (who were stationed across the Mexican border) to stay out of America’s war.

Despite Russia’s intervention, Britain continued to build warships for the Confederacy which devastated the Union navy during the war and which England had to pay $15.5 million to the USA in 1872 under the Alabama Claims.

Terrorism: It is less well known today than it was during the 19^th century that confederate terror operations onto the north occurred throughout the civil war with raids on Union POW camps, efforts to burn popular New York hotels, blowing up ships on the Mississippi, and the infamous St Albans raid of October 1964 on Vermont and attacks on Buffalo, Chicago, Sandusky, Ohio, Detroit, and Pennsylvania. While the St Albans raiders were momentarily arrested in Montreal, they were soon released under the logic that they represented a “sovereign state” at conflict with another “sovereign state” with no connection with Canada (perhaps a lesson can be learned here for Meng Wanzhou’s lawyers?).

Assassination: I already mentioned that a $550 note was found on Boothe’s body with the signature of Ontario Bank president Henry Starnes which the failed actor would have received during his October 1864 stay in Montreal. What I did not mention is that Booth stayed at the St Lawrence Hall Hotel which served as primary headquarters for the Confederacy from 1863-65. Describing the collusion of Northern Copperheads, anti-Lincoln republicans, and Wall Street agents, Sheehy writes: “All of these powerful northerners were at St. Lawrence Hall rubbing elbows with the Confederates who used the hotel as an unofficial Headquarters. This was the universe in which John Wilkes Booth circulated in Canada.”

In a 2014 expose, historian Anton Chaitkin, points out that the money used by Boothe came directly from a $31,507.97 transfer from London arranged by the head of European confederate secret service chief James D. Bulloch. It is no coincidence that Bulloch happens to also be the beloved uncle and mentor of the same Teddy Roosevelt who became the president over the dead body of Lincoln-follower William McKinley (assassinated in 1901).

In his expose, Chaitkin wrote:

“James D. Bulloch was the maternal uncle, model and strategy-teacher to future U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt. He emerged from the shadows of the Civil War when his nephew Teddy helped him to organize his papers and to publish a sanitized version of events in his 1883 memoir, The Secret Service of the Confederate States in Europe. Under the protection of imperial oligarchs such as Lord Salisbury and other Cecil family members, working in tandem with Britain’s military occupation of its then-colony Canada, Bulloch arranged English construction and crewing for Confederate warships that notoriously preyed upon American commerce.”

The Truth is Buried Under the Sands of History

While four low level members of Booth’s cell were hanged on July 7, 1865 after a four month show trial (1), the actual orchestrators of Lincoln’s assassination were never brought to justice with nearly every leading member of the confederate leadership having escaped to England in the wake of Lincoln’s murder. Even John Surrat (who was among the eight who faced trial) avoided hanging when his case was dropped, and his $25 000 bail was mysteriously paid by an anonymous benefactor unknown to this day. After this, Surrat escaped to London where the U.S. Consuls demands for his arrest were ignored by British authorities.

Confederate spymaster Judah Benjamin escaped arrest and lived out his days as a Barrister in England, and Confederate President Jefferson Davies speaking to adoring fans in Quebec in June 1867 encouraged the people to reject the spread of republicanism and instead embrace the new British Confederation scheme that would soon be imposed weeks later. Davies spoke to the Canadian band performing Dixie at the Royal Theater: “I hope that you will hold fast to their British principles and that you may ever strive to cultivate close and affectionate connections with the mother country”.

With the loss of Lincoln, and the 1868 death of Thaddeus Stevens, Confederate General Albert Pike established restoration of the southern oligarchy and sabotage of Lincoln’s restoration with the rise of the KKK, and renewal of Southern Rite Freemasonry. Over the ensuing years, an all out assault was launched on Lincoln’s Greenbacks culminating in the Specie Resumption Act of 1875 tying the U.S. financial system to British “hard money” monetarism and paving the way for the later financial coup known as the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 (2).

While the Southern Confederacy plot ultimately failed, Britain’s “other confederacy operation launched in 1864 was successfully consolidated with the British North America Act of July 1, 1867. The hoped-for extension of trans continental rail lines through British Columbia and into Alaska and Russia were sabotaged as told in the Real Story Behind the Alaska Purchase of 1867.

Instead of witnessing a new world system of sovereign nation states under a multipolar order of collaboration driven by international infrastructure projects as Lincoln’s followers like William Seward, Ulysses Grant, William Gilpin and President McKinley envisioned, a new age of war and empire re-asserted itself throughout the 20^th century.

It was this same trifold Deep State that contended with Franklin Roosevelt and his patriotic Vice President Henry Wallace for power during the course of WWII, and it was this same beast that ran the assassination of President Kennedy in 1963. As New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison demonstrated in his book On the Trail of the Assassins (1991), Kennedy’s murder was arranged by a complex assassination network that brought into play Southern secret intelligence assets in Louisiana, and Texas, Wall Street financiers, and a strange assassination bureau based in Montreal named Permindex under the leadership of Maj. Gen. Louis Mortimer Bloomfield. This was the same intelligence operation that grew out of MI6’s Camp X in Ottawa during WWII and changed its name but not its functions during the Cold War. This is the same British Imperial complex that has been attempting to undo the watershed moment of 1776 for over 240 years.

It is this same tumor in the heart of the USA that has invested everything in a gamble to put their senile tool Joe Biden into the seat of the Presidency and oust the first genuinely nationalist American president the world has seen in nearly 60 years.

The author can be reached at matt.ehret@tutamail.com

(1) The four conspirators that faced the gallows included Mary Surratt, Lewis Powerll, George Atzerodt, and David Herold.

(2) The entire principle of the American Credit System as embodied by Lincoln’s Greenback, is that it is driven not by the highly volatile prices of gold or silver but rather to the powers of productivity of the nation as a whole (see: ongoing scientific and technological rates of progress that render debt’s incurred by a national bank self-extinguishing). For more on this system, read the writings of Alexander Hamilton located here.

I tend to think that this is overly simplistic wishful thinking and it is much more likely that a new more virulent form of fascism would likely rise to “restore order” onto the chaotic fires as the military industrial complex drives ever more aggressively for war with Russia and China. The sociopathic forces attempting to steer the formerly free trans Atlantic community are after all, so ideologically committed to their unipolar utopian vision of world government, depopulation and total hegemony that they would rather rule in hell than serve in heaven.

So is it too late, or is there still hope for the troubled republic?

In my last paper I introduced the figure of Alexander Hamilton (first Treasury Secretary and founder of the American System of political economy). I reviewed how America was saved from an early dismemberment in the early years of chaos after 1783’s Peace of Paris which finally ended the war with Britain but left a nation divided amongst itself, economically bankrupt and hopelessly in debt with no manufacturing power or national regulation of finance.

In that location I contrasted Hamilton’s system which tied the value and behaviour of money to the increasing powers of production of a society through manufacturing and internal improvements, to the opposing system of British free trade which tied value to hedonistic impulses and the worshiping of money.

In this essay, I’d like to take a moment to explore another chapter in America’s history that saw it come close to total dissolution under conditions not entirely dissimilar from those faced today. I speak here of the year 1861 as a newly elected Abraham Lincoln narrowly avoided several assassination attempts and entered the white house.

What did Lincoln Actually Face?

Beyond the dangers of secession, Lincoln had to contend with the Wall Street financiers and anglophile families who worked tirelessly to sabotage the president’s ability to acquire the funds necessary to execute the war.

To make matters worse, the state of economic affairs was impossibly unmanageable with over 7000 recognized bank notes in the USA and over 1496 banks each issuing multiple notes. Under this highly de-regulated system made possible by the 1836 killing of the national bank years earlier under Andrew Jackson and the passage of the 1846 Independent Treasury Act which prevented the government from influencing economic affairs, every private bank could issue currencies with no federal authority. With such a breakdown of finances, no national projects were possible, international investments were scarce and free market money worshipping ran rampant. Manufacturing collapsed, speculation took over and the slavocracy grew in influence between the 1837’s bank panic and 1860.

The City of London was obviously not interested in allowing the USA to get out from under water, and with the gold-backed pound sterling, ensured the manipulation of gold prices and orchestrated the buyout of U.S. gold reserves. When Lincoln sought loans to execute the war, whether from Wall Street or International banking houses, the loans were granted only at excessive interest rates of 20-25%.

Russian Ambassador to London de Brunow reported to Moscow of England’s desire to break the Union writing in January 1861:

“The English government, at the bottom of its heart, desired the separation of North America into two republics, which will watch each other jealously and counterbalance one the other. Then England, on terms of peace and commerce with both, would have nothing to fear from either; for she would dominate them, restraining them by their rival ambitions.”

Historian Robert Ingraham described this impossible situation in 2002:

“In January 1862, Gallatin [head of the NY Associated Banks] presented the bankers’ ultimatum to the Treasury: 1) pay for the war effort through a massive increase of direct taxation of the population; 2) deposit all U.S. government gold in the private New York banks and make those banks the sole (monopoly) agent for the marketing of U.S. government debt (primarily bonds sold in London); 3) suspend the “sub-treasury laws” (government regulation of banks); and 4) withdraw all government-issued paper currency so that only gold and private bank notes would circulate as currency.”

Although 150 years of revisionist historians have obscured the real Lincoln and the true nature of the Civil War as a British run operation to undo the revolution of 1776. The martyred president was always an opponent to slavery and always situated himself in the traditions of the American System of Hamilton describing in 1832 a policy which he later enacted 30 years later: “My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman’s dance. I am in favor of a national bank. I am in favor of the internal improvement system, and a high protective tariff. These are my sentiments and political principles.”

From this period in the Congress where he became a leading ally of John Quincy Adams, and played a leading role in opposition to the unjust U.S.-Mexican War, Lincoln committed himself consistently to ending not only systems of slavery but also all hereditary power structures internationally which he understood were inextricably connected saying during an 1858 debate with the slavocracy’s Judge Douglas:

“That is the issue that will continue in this country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent. It is the eternal struggle between these two principles – right and wrong – throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time, and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity and the other the divine right of kings.“

The means needed to break both systems of empire and slavery were located in the American System of political economy.

Lincoln Revives the American System

Putting this economic policy into action during the height of the war occurred in a 3-step operation which began with Banking and Currency Acts in 1862 and 1863. These acts established placed the thousands of local state banks under a federal charter with federal supervision for the first time in decades. By imposing a 10% tax on state bank notes, private independent state banks shrank from 1466 in 1861 to only 297 by 1865 and over 1630 national banks took their place.

The Bank Act of 1863 established reserve requirements for the first time, and also capped the interest rates in order to destroy usury within the nation itself. In order to eliminate international interference and manipulation from Wall Street financiers, the Bank Act also forced 75% of all bank directors to reside in the state in which the bank was located and all directors had to be American citizens.

The most important step in this fight was the sovereign control of credit issuance which according to Article 1 section 8 of the U.S. constitution can only be affected through the U.S. treasury (an important lesson for anyone serious about ending the privately run Federal Reserve controls over national finance today). Following this constitutional principle, Lincoln issued a new form of currency called Greenbacks which could only be issued against U.S. government bonds. These began being issued with the 1862 Legal Tender Act.

Nationally-chartered banks were now obliged to deposit into the federal treasury totalling at least one third of their capital in exchange for government notes issued by the Mint and Treasury (in order to qualify for federal charters needed to avoid the tax on state bank activities, banks found themselves lending to the government which gave Lincoln an ability to avoid the usurious loans from London and Wall Street.)

New bonds were issued under this scheme called 5:20 bonds (due to their 5-20 year maturation), which citizens purchased as investments into their nations’ survival. These bonds which united “personal self interest” with the general welfare of the nation provided loans to manufacturing as well as served as the basis for the issuance of more Greenbacks. Organized by Lincoln’s ally Jay Cooke (a patriotic Philadelphia banker), the 5-20 bonds were sold in small denominations to average citizens who then had a vested interest in directly participating in saving their nation. Between 1862-1865 these bonds accounted for $1.3 billion. Lincoln described the success of this new approach to finance saying:

“The patriotism of the people has placed at the disposal of the government the large means demanded by the public exigencies. Much of the national loan has been taken by citizens of the industrial classes, whose confidence in their country’s faith and zeal for their country’s deliverance from present peril has induced them to contribute to the support of the government the whole of their limited acquisitions. This fact imposes peculiar obligations to economy in disbursement and energy in action.”

These measures were accompanied by a strong protective tariff to grow American industries as well.

By the beginning of 1865, $450 million in Greenbacks were issued making up over half of all currency in circulation. Greenbacks and 5-20 bonds financed not only the arming, feeding and payments to soldiers, but also the often-overlooked large scale industrial and rail programs begun during the peak of the war itself… namely the trans continental railway (started in 1863 and completed in 1869 linking for the first time in history a continent from east to west). This was financed through grants and subsidies made possible by the greenbacks which increased government spending power by 300%!

In his 1865 essay How to Outdo England Without Fighting Her, Lincoln’s economic advisor Henry C Carey stated: “The ‘greenback’ has fallen on the country as the dew falls, bringing with it good to all and doing injury to none.”

Unfortunately, the subversion of Lincoln’s American System began quickly with Lincoln’s murder (carried out from Confederate intelligence operations run through British Canada). Rather than impose full reconstruction of the defeated south after the war as Lincoln planned, a new war was waged against Greenbacks led by the City of London and its American agents in Wall Street which ultimately subverted American productive credit with the 1871 Specie Resumption Act. This act killed the greenbacks and tied the republic’s currency to gold submitting the nation to London’s speculative controls while contracting the means of credit from large scale long term infrastructure projects.

In his 1865 inaugural address Lincoln’s treacherous Vice-President Andrew Johnson attacked protectionism and said “Free trade with all the markets of the world is the true theory of government.”

Contemplating the international scope of the Civil War, Lincoln stated in 1862:

“Fellow citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this Congress, and this administration, will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the last generation. We say we are for the Union. The world will not forget that we say this. We know how to save the Union. The world knows we know how to save it. We even here–hold the power and bear the responsibility. In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free–honorable alike in what we give and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last, best hope of earth. Other means may succeed–this could not fail. The way is plain, peaceful, generous and just–a way which, if followed, the world will forever applaud and God must forever bless… If we do this we shall not only have saved the Union, but we shall have so saved it, as to make, and to keep it forever worthy of the saving. We shall have so saved it, that the succeeding millions of free happy people the world over shall rise up and call us blessed, to the latest generations.”

One Last Chance…

Like Lincoln, President Trump faces many threats today both within his own neocon-infested administration as well as within the British run deep state that has taken over the Democratic party since the murder of JFK.

But in spite of these problems, he is the first president to publicly invoke the American System of Lincoln by name since the assassinated President McKinley in 1901. His recent Republican party convention speech of August 27 repeatedly invoked Lincoln’s name while calling for a newly reconstituted party without the Bush dynasty poison (the Bush family completely boycotted the convention). During the speech Trump stated:

“The Republican Party, the party of Abraham Lincoln, goes forward united, determined and ready to welcome millions of Democrats, independents and anyone who believes in the greatness of America and the righteous heart of the American people.”

In an earlier 2017 Kentucky speech Trump invoked the “American model” and said “this is the system our Founders wanted. Our greatest American leaders — including George Washington, Hamilton, Jackson, Lincoln — they all agreed that for America to be a strong nation it must also be a great manufacturing nation.”

Will Trump have the strength to give neocon vipers in his cabinet the Bolton treatment before they unleash war with Russia and China? Will he be able to avoid a new economic meltdown, civil war and coup d’état before 2021? Will Lincoln’s system be revived both in America and alongside other nations like Russia and China before a global catastrophe befalls us? Those questions remain to be seen.

The author can be reached at matt.ehret@tutamail.com

This project was led by a team of evolutionary virologists using a line of reasoning that “random mutation can account for anything” and was parroted loudly and repeatedly by Fauci, WHO officials and Bill Gates in order to shut down all uncomfortable discussion of the possible laboratory origins of COVID-19 while also pushing for a global vaccine campaign. On April 18, Dr. Fauci (whose close ties with Bill Gates, and Big Pharma have much to do with his control of hundreds of billions of dollars of research money), stated:

“There was a study recently that we can make available to you, where a group of highly qualified evolutionary virologists looked at the sequences there and the sequences in bats as they evolve. And the mutations that it took to get to the point where it is now is totally consistent with a jump of a species from an animal to a human.”

I think at this moment, rife as it is with speculative arguments, confusion and under-defined data, it is useful to remove oneself from the present and look for higher reference points from which we can re-evaluate events now unfolding on the world stage.

In order to do this, let us begin by asking a new series of questions:

What is Nature Magazine exactly? Is it truly an “objective” platform for pure scientific research untainted by the filth of political agendas? Is this standard-bearer of “proper method”, which can make or break the career of any scientist, truly the scientific journal it claims to be or is there something darker to be discovered?

As I presented a part of this story in my previous installment in this series The Rise of Optical Biophysics and Clash of the Two Sciences, a very old battle has been waged around political systems but also what sort of scientific paradigms will shape our future.

A Bit of Historical Context

In 1865, a group of 12 scientists under the leadership of Thomas Huxley, Matthew Arnold, Joseph Hooker, and Herbert Spencer (founder of social Darwinism) was created under the name “X Club” with the mandate to reform global British Imperial strategy.

At the time of this group’s formation, Lincoln’s north was on the cusp of putting down the secessionist rebellion which the British Intelligence establishment had work decades to nurture guided by Anglo-American operatives in America itself as well as operations in British Canada.

Having far over-extended itself during the 2nd Chinese Opium War (1856-1860) to the Crimean War (1853-1856) to putting down Indian uprisings (1857-1858) and sponsoring the Southern Confederacy (1861-1865), the British Empire knew that it was on the verge of collapse. The world was quickly waking up to its evil nature, and a new paradigm of win-win cooperation was being exported from Lincoln’s America to nations across the world (American was a very different nation from the Anglo-American dumb giant the world has known since JFK’s 1963 murder -MEK).

Lincoln’s system had been known as ‘American System of National Economy’, a name created by the father of Germany’s Zollverein Friedrich List years earlier. Unlike British Free Trade, this ‘American System’ was premised on protectionism, national banking, long term infrastructure and most importantly placed the source of value on the human mind’s capacity to make discoveries and inventions as outlined by Lincoln’s 1858 speech by the same name. In this system, the Constitutional concept of the General Welfare was not mere ink on parchment but rather the governing principle of monetary value and national policy.

Lincoln’s chief economic advisor and coordinator of the export of the American system internationally after the Civil War was named Henry C. Carey. As early as 1851, Carey wrote his Harmony of Interests which stating:

“Two systems are before the world; the one looks to increasing the proportion of persons and of capital engaged in trade and transportation, and therefore to diminishing the proportion engaged in producing commodities with which to trade, with necessarily diminished return to the labour of all; while the other looks to increasing the proportion engaged in the work of production, and diminishing that engaged in trade and transportation, with increased return to all, giving to the labourer good wages, and to the owner of capital good profits… One looks to pauperism, ignorance, depopulation, and barbarism; the other in increasing wealth, comfort, intelligence, combination of action, and civilization. One looks towards universal war; the other towards universal peace. One is the English system; the other we may be proud to call the American system, for it is the only one ever devised the tendency of which was that of elevating while equalizing the condition of man throughout the world.”

In Germany, the American System inspired Zollverein (custom’s union) had not only unified a divided nation, but elevated it to a level of productive power and sovereignty which had outpaced the monopoly power of the British East India Company. In Japan, American engineers helped assemble trains funded by a national banking system, and protective tariff during the Meiji Restoration.

In Russia, American System follower Sergei Witte, Transport Minister and close advisor to Czar Alexander III, revolutionized the Russian economy with the American-made trains that rolled across the Trans-Siberian Railway. Not even the Ottoman Empire remained untouched by the inspiration for progress, as the Berlin to Baghdad Railway was begun with the intention of unleashing a bold program of modernization of southwest Asia.

The construction of continental railroads, and industrial powers of nations internationally was quickly bringing the world land bridge concept first elaborated by Colorado’s Governor William Gilpin quickly into being. For those who are unaware, Gilpin (who was also Lincoln’s body guard and loudest advocate of America’s transcontinental railroad) spent decades championing the international system of win-win cooperation which he outlined in his 1890 Cosmopolitan Railroad stating:

“The weapons of mutual slaughter are hurled away; the sanguinary passions find a check, a majority of the human family is found to accept the essential teachings of Christianity IN PRACTICE… Room is discovered for industrial virtue and industrial power. The civilized masses of the world meet; they are mutually enlightened, and fraternize to reconstitute human relations in harmony with nature and with God. The world ceases to be a military camp, incubated only by the military principles of arbitrary force and abject submission. A new and grand order in human affairs inaugurates itself out of these immense concurrent discoveries and events”.

Reorganize or Perish

The British Empire knew that this emerging new paradigm would render both its maritime control of international trade as obsolete as its international program of usury and cash cropping.

It was clear that something had to change dramatically, for if the empire could not adapt in response to this new paradigm, it surely would soon perish. The task of re-shaping imperial policy from a “material force” approach of control to a more “mental force” of control, was assigned to T. H. Huxley and the X Club. This group established the guiding scientific principles of empire that were soon put into practice by two new think tanks known as the Fabian Society and Rhodes Scholar Trust which I outlined in my 3-part series ‘Origins of the Deep State in North America’.

Huxley, who is famously known as ‘Darwin’s bulldog’ for relentlessly promoting Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection (a theory in whose scientific merits he didn’t even believe) soon decided that the group should establish a magazine to promote their propaganda.

Founded in 1869, the magazine was called Nature and featured articles by Huxley and several X Club members. The deeper purpose of the X Club and its magazine as outlined in a 2013 report entitled ‘Hideous Revolution: The X Club’s Malthusian Revolution in Science’, was geared towards the redefinition of all branches of science around a statistical-empiricist interpretation of the universe which denied the existence of creative reason in mankind or nature. Science was converted from the unbounded study and perfectibility of truth to a mathematically sealed “science of limits”.

Darwin, Malthus and the Political Use of a ‘Science of Limits’

The science of “limits” became the foundation of an oligarchical economic science for the elite and naturally had to be kept hidden from the minds of the general population since it followed Thomas Malthus’ mathematical principle of population growth. Malthus’ “principle” of population supposed that unthinking humans reproduce geometrically while nature’s bounty only grows arithmetically and as such periodic population collapses were an unavoidable law of nature which could at best be managed by an oligarchical scientific priesthood who were obliged to periodically cull the herd.

Malthus and the X Club leaders believed that nature bestowed upon the ruling class certain tools to accomplish this important task (namely war, famine and disease) and Malthus stated so cold-bloodedly in his 1799 Essay on Population:

“We should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality; and if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague.”

The X Club’s support of the Darwinian theory of Natural Selection was less a scientific decision in this respect and more of a political one, as Darwin later admitted in his autobiography that his own theory arose directly from his study of Malthus:

“In October 1838, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic inquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on, from long-continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result would be the formation of a new species. Here then, I had at last got a theory by which to work”.

By universalizing Malthus onto all living creation, the X Club obscured the qualitative difference between humans and monkeys which was advantageous for an empire that can only control humans when they adopt the law of the jungle as standards of moral practice and identity formation rather than anything actually moral.

It was thus no accident that Henry C. Carey targeted Darwinism, Malthus and the X Club relentlessly in his Unity of Law: An Exhibition on the Relations of Physical, Social, Mental and Moral Science (1872). In this important book, Carey attacked all systems founded upon master-slave relations saying:

“Hence it is that it has given rise to the doctrine e of over-population, which is simply that of slavery, anarchy and societary ruin, as the ultimate condition of mankind; that, too, coming as a consequence of laws emanating from an all-wise and all powerful Being who could, if He would, have instituted laws in virtue of which freedom, order, peace and happiness would have been the lot of man. That these latter have been instituted- that the scheme of creation is not a failure; that is marred by no such errors as those assumed by Mr. Malthus; is proved by all the facts presented for consideration by the advancing communities of the world- the habit of peace, among both individuals and nations, growing with growth of numbers, and increase in power for self-direction.”

Anti-Darwinian Approaches to Evolution

Although we are told too often today that no alternative system ever existed outside of Darwin’s theory of evolution, a closer inspection of science history during the 19th century proves that to be far from true.

During this period, an anti-Darwinian scientific revolution was blossoming in the life sciences under the guiding leadership of figures like James Dwight Dana, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, Alexander von Humboldt, Georges Cuvier, Karl-Ernst von Baer, and Benjamin Silliman. These scientists not only began questioning the static theory of nature as derived from a literal reading of the Bible, but made huge strides in realizing the higher causal mechanisms defining the flow of evolution. This process was outlined in a 2010 lecture delivered by the author of this report entitled “the Matter Over Darwin’s Missing Mind”.

Unlike many of our modern scientists, these figures never saw a dichotomy separating science from religion, as “science” was understood as nothing less than the investigation and participation in God’s Creation, and as such the biosphere and all “units” within it were implicitly defined as more than the sum of its parts and all fast approaching theories of evolution that were driven by intention, harmony and directionality.

This outlook was showcased brilliantly by the great naturalist and embryologists Karl Ernst von Baer who wrote in his On the Purpose of Nature (1876):

“The reciprocal interconnections of organisms with one another and their relationship to the universal materials that offer them the means for sustaining life, is what has been called the harmony of nature, that is a relationship of mutual regulation. Just as tones only give rise to a harmony when they are bound together in accordance with certain rules so can the individual processes in the wholeness of nature only exist and endure if they stand in certain relationships to one another. Chance is unable to create anything enduring, rather it is only capable of destruction.”

Huxley and the Darwinians on the other hand, promoted an opposing “bottom up” interpretation of evolution by starting with the imagined ‘random mutations’ in the immeasurably small which supposedly added up to the collective sum of all species and biosphere. This biosphere was thus defined as little more than the sum of its parts.

The imperial school of Huxley’s X Club denied not only creativity’s existence from this higher metaphysical standpoint, but also denied the fact that humanity can uniquely translate the fruits of those creative discoveries into new forms of scientific and technological progress which had the effect of increasing our species’ ability to transcend our “limits to growth” (or as modern neo-Malthusians have termed our “carrying capacity”).

Nature Magazine Continues its Dismal Legacy

Throughout the 20th century Nature Magazine has won an ugly reputation as an enforcer of deductive/inductive models of thinking which have destroyed the careers and lives of many creative scientists.

One of these scientists was the preeminent immunologist Jacques Benveniste (1935-2004) who suffered a 15 year witch hunt led by Nature Magazine as punishment for his discoveries on “water memory and life” (ie: how organic molecules configure the geometry of H2O molecules and imprint their “information” into said water).

This defamation campaign began in 1988 when Nature Magazine conducted an “official” attempt to duplicate the results of Benveniste’s discoveries on water’s power to retain the information of allergenic substances within its structure which continued to cause allergic reactions upon living tissues and organs long after all traces of the substances were filtered from various solutions.

As outlined in the 2014 documentary Water Memory, Nature Magazine went so far as to hire a stage magician named James Randy to co-lead an investigative team which intentionally botched Benveniste’s results, lied about the data and condemned Benveniste as a fraudster. This operation ruined the scientist’s reputation, dried up his funding and kept biology locked into the materialist cage for another three decades. Nature Magazine’s slander campaigns were described by Benveniste as a “mockery” which used “McCarthy-like methods and public defamation campaigns” to crush him.

Today’s Fight for a Science of Causes

Whether or not COVID-19 arose naturally as Nature Magazine attests or whether it arose in a laboratory as Dr. Luc Montagnier believes, what is certain is that science can be temporarily retarded, but its course of evolution cannot be held back forever.

Today, the legacy of Alexander von Humboldt, Karl Erst von Baer and Cuvier, Dana, Vernadsky and Benveniste is alive and well with Dr. Montagnier and teams of international researchers who have taken the theoretical, experimental and clinical work on water memory to a revolutionary new level with the opening up of a new school of quantum optical biophysics as I outlined in my recent paper Big Pharma Beware: Dr. Montagnier Shines New Light on COVID-19 and The Future of Medicine.

Describing the coming revolutions in biology, Montagnier said:

“The day that we admit that signals can have tangible effects, we will use them. From that moment on we will be able to treat patients with waves. Therefore it’s a new domain of medicine that people fear of course. Especially the pharmaceutical industry… one day we will be able to treat cancers using frequency waves.”

With Montagnier’s bold call for an international scientific crash program into wave harmonics therapy to deal with COVID-19, and with the new alignment of nationalist systems amidst the multi-polar alliance led by Russia and China, there is a serious chance that the new paradigm of win-win cooperation championed by Henry C. Carey, Lincoln and other international patriots in the wake of America’s Civil War, may actually be blossoming once more.

The author can be reached at matt.ehret@tutamail.com

Decades of this modern religion have resulted in an incredibly tragic situation: a disproportionate wealth distribution in the hands of the 0.1%, an over-bloated services/consumer driven economy, increased rates of poverty and despair internationally as well as a dismal loss of vital skills, and productive capacity once enjoyed by advanced industrial nations just four decades ago. Vital infrastructure built up during the 1930s-1960s has been permitted to decay through simple neglect while un-payable debts have reached record highs.

Then like a thief in the night, the illusion was ripped away.

The Confused Response to the Crisis

This ripping away took the form of an international pandemic which has resulted in western nations’ economies grinding to a halt with a new $2 Trillion government emergency spending bill unveiled on March 24. The Washington Post reports that this bill will authorize “hundreds of billions of dollars sent to Americans in the form of checks as a way to flood the country with money in an effort to blunt the dramatic pullback of spending that has resulted from the coronavirus outbreak.”

Governments across the Trans-Atlantic have also announced national interventions into banks and private industry in order to force production quotas of vital equipment like ventilators, masks and other medical necessities to meet the increased demand. Banks in Spain have been nationalized (albeit only “temporarily”) to force finance to act in accordance with the needs of society. In America, the Defense Authorization Act and broader War Powers Act passed by President Trump gives the executive broad powers to take over vital industries if needed in order to mobilize the nation to respond to the crisis.

This renewal of national sovereign powers breaks all of the monetary “laws of the neoliberal order” and with that defiance of globalization, a genuine positive potential for a paradigm shift is visible… but something vital is still missing.

This “missing something” is clearly demonstrated by the continued obsession with money as new bailouts of the collapsing speculative banks have now risen to a $1 trillion/day overnight repo loan to collapsing banks which is added to the $1 Trillion 14 week loans offered every week that will dramatically increase the $9 trillion already emitted since helicopter money began in earnest in September 2019. With the mass panic and economic shutdown instigated by COVID-19, markets have lost over 30% of their value and fears of a new great depression have spread far and wide. Rather than impose serious bank regulation like Glass-Steagall to break up the commercial from speculative banks as was done in 1933, the American government has merely unleashed unlimited money printing. This bipolar response is akin to trying to stop a raging fire with a combination of water and gasoline.

We thus find that the greatest crisis facing humanity is not caused by the market crisis, or even the coronavirus per se, but rather society’s profound inability to understand the source of real from fictitious value.

What is REAL Value? Lincoln and FDR Revisited

“The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is the Government’s greatest creative opportunity. By the adoption of these principles, the long-felt want for a uniform medium will be satisfied. The taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest, discounts and exchanges. The financing of all public enterprises, the maintenance of stable government and ordered progress, and the conduct of the Treasury will become matters of practical administration. The people can and will be furnished with a currency as safe as their own government. Money will cease to be the master and become the servant of humanity. Democracy will rise superior to the money power.”

These words were uttered by none other than America’s 16th president Abraham Lincoln as he fought to take federal control of credit vis a vis the “greenbacks” that not only allowed him to win the war of secession but also construct the greatest infrastructure and industrialization programs of history driven by the trans continental railway. The dramatic success of Lincoln’s “American System” not only saved the union, but spread successfully across the world from Japan’s Meiji restoration, Russia’s trans Siberian rail development, Bismarck’s Zollverein in Germany and Sadi Carnot’s France. This powerful spread of what German economist Friedrich List called “the American System of Political Economy” nearly annihilated the money-worshipping system of Adam Smith’s Free Trade doctrine from the earth and only failed in this task via a plenitude of London-directed assassinations, and a couple of imperially-orchestrated wars and revolutions along the way [1].

The world spun out of control between the murder of the “last Lincoln republican” William Mckinley in 1901 [2] and the orchestrated meltdown of the U.S. economy known as the great depression of 1929.

Amidst this dark period, Franklin Roosevelt called for the Democrats to claim the legacy of Lincoln from the corrupt republican party and faced a Wall Street-backed coup d’etat, survived a freemasonic assassination attempt and subverted a City of London-orchestrated bankers’ dictatorship… all in his first year in office. During his March 4, 1933 inaugural address, the president rallied the american people saying:

“I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measures that a stricken nation in the midst of a stricken world may require. These measures, or such other measures as the Congress may build out of its experience and wisdom, I shall seek, within my constitutional authority, to bring to speedy adoption.”

As I have outlined in my recent paper How to Crush a Bankers’ Dictatorship, FDR took control of credit in a similar manner as Lincoln by forcing the Federal Reserve to obey a national mandate for the first time since the private bank was set up in 1913. He did so by imposing his ally Mariner Eccles into the position of Chairman who understood that money had to create infrastructure and industrial growth in order to acquire any claim to having actual “value”. This was a stark break from the “hands off/laissez-faire” policy of President Hoover and his JP Morgan-run cabinet. FDR also emitted Lincoln-styled productive credit through the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) to fuel the New Deal. The RFC issued over $33 billion in low-interest loans by the end of the war (more than all private banks combined).

Describing his moral philosophy of political economy, FDR stated:

“We seek not merely to make government a mechanical implement, but to give it the vibrant personal character that is the very embodiment of human charity. We are poor indeed if this nation cannot afford to lift from every recess of American life the dread fear of the unemployed that they are not needed in the world. We cannot afford to accumulate a deficit in the books of human fortitude.”

What is missing today

Today’s America is confronting an existential crisis similar to that which both Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt battled in their time. Just as the proto-deep state of 1865 ran Lincoln’s assassination from Montreal Canada, and took over the White House minutes after FDR’s untimely death in 1945, today’s deep state has attempted in vain to overthrow President Trump while successfully undermining the political viability of other “outsiders” like Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard.

The difference is that today’s crisis combines elements of all previous crises of 1861-1865, 1929-1933 and 1938-1945: the very real new threat of chaos and civil war within, NATO-led wars with China and Russia without and economic collapse across the entire trans-Atlantic bubble economy. The other difference is located in the current presidency’s inability to FOCUS with a clear mind on principled solutions to this multi-faceted crisis while instead finding itself trapped within contradictory impulses.

While FDR and Lincoln understood that VALUE was located the physically productive forces of labor which sustained and improved the lives of people and gave the constitution’s pre-amble a real living character, today’s American leadership has displayed a far greater ignorance to this basic fact of life. The vital difference between “need” vs “want” which has been obscured by decades of free market ideology has resulted in a loss of moral judgment necessary to properly put out the fires threatening to unleashing civil war, chaos and fascist global government “solutions” across the Trans Atlantic today.

The new multipolar alliance led by Russia and China have demonstrated what modern day New Deal policies can do. The Belt and Road Initiative as well as the Strategic Eurasian Partnership, Polar Silk Road and bold space exploration projects all reflect the type of principles of win-win cooperation and long term planning that characterized both FDR and Lincoln earlier. The Health Silk Road announced earlier this week by President Xi Jinping provides a brilliant maneuver to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic under a non-Malthusian worldview. This Multipolar Alliance exists as a form of a life raft for anyone wishing to escape the fate of the Titanic and embark on a new epoch of growth and cooperation.

The question is: Do western powers have the ability to act according to a scientific (and moral) standard of value by aligning with this multipolar alliance or will they choose to remain in Orwell’s dystopic cage and succumb to a fate which Lincoln, FDR and other great leaders gave their lives to prevent?

Footnotes

[1] Before his assassination, McKinely attacked the neo-liberals of his day saying “Then they say `everything would be so cheap,’ if we only had free trade. Well, everything would be cheap and everybody would be cheap. I do not prize the word `cheap.’ It is not a word of hope; it is not a word of comfort; it is not a word of cheer; it is not a word of inspiration! It is the badge of poverty; it is the signal of distress; and there is not a man in the audience, not a white-haired man, who, if he will let his memory go back, will not recall, then when things were the cheapest, men were the poorest…. Cheap? Why, cheap merchandise means cheap men, and cheap men mean a cheap country; and that is not the kind of Government our fathers founded, and it is not the kind their sons mean to maintain. If you want cheap things, go where you can get them…. We want labor to be well paid.”

[2] Some of the most notable murders of the day included Czar Alexander II (1880), U.S. President Garfield (1880), France’s President Sadi Carnot (1895), Prime Minister Castillo of Spain (1897) and even though Bismarck avoided assassination, his 1891 ouster from chancellorship firmly set Germany onto the slow course of self-destruction known as WWI and WWII. The full story is told in the 2008 film 1932: Speak not of Parties.