In my last article in this history series, I attempted to shed some light on President Putin’s reasons for claiming the Bolshevik Revolution did significantly more harm than good to humanity over a century ago.

My primary intention in that location was to demonstrate that revolutionary the events of 1905 and again in 1917 had many characteristics of a foreign-directed regime change which disrupted a true revolutionary process then coming into being.

In this sequel I would like to delve more deeply into the 1867-1905 period of vast revolutionary potential that swept across the globe which the counter-revolution of 1905 and 1917 de-railed.

A Revolutionary Process Blossoms

The late 19th century was shaped, in large measure, by the growing U.S.-Russian alliance which saved the USA from dissolution during its Civil War. Masterful diplomacy at the time resulted in Czar Alexander II deploying the Russian navy to assist Lincoln in his efforts to preserve the Union with a direct message to both England and France that any direct effort to join the confederacy in war against Lincoln would be seen as casus belli by the Russians. This U.S.-Russian alliance again amplified its force in 1867 when Russian statesmen arranged the sale of Alaska to the republic with the aim of extending telegraph lines and rail through the Americas and across the Bering Strait by the end of that century. By 1890, pro-American networks in Russia had finally launched the construction of the Trans Siberian Railway which was to soon carry Baldwin locomotives produced in Philadelphia across a 9289 km expansive rugged terrain.

But despite the setback of murdered leaders Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield and Czar Alexander II, the momentum behind the growth of a multipolar international alliance of nations continued to grow. In 1890, Colorado Gov. William Gilpin’s designs for a cosmopolitan railway stretching across all nations of earth presented a beautiful vision of the world then coming into being.

In Russia, Finance Minister Sergei Witte led a network of nation builders who worked closely with like-minded collaborators in France, Germany, China and the USA (1).

The common denominators among these nationalist movements were: 1) the application of protectionism to develop native manufacturing sectors, 2) the use of national banking/productive credit, 3) large scale infrastructure projects, 4) an emphasis on education/science and 5) railroad construction to accelerate interconnectivity within and between cooperating nations.

In all cases, British Free Trade, speculation and usury were completely rejected in favor of this superior system of political economy.

As historian William Jones has outlined in his voluminous writings on the subject and showcased in this seminal 1995 lecture, It was Witte, who as Finance Minister from 1891-1903, overhauled the Russian economy, banned free trade in favor of Protectionism (2), brought stability to the ruble by ending speculation by pegging the ruble to gold, and lowered interest rates to favor internal development. He additionally imposed strict controls on foreign direct investments ensuring that his ministry (and not ill willed London-based money lenders) stayed in control of Russia’s economic policies.

With a stabilized currency that won the confidence of international investors, Witte also created a new system of national banking with each new rail station along the Trans Siberian line authorized to institute a bank branch in order to facilitate lending to citizens and industry. The great underdeveloped Siberia and Arctic awoke a form of Russian ‘Manifest Destiny’ and Witte aimed to develop its full potential guided by a similar spirit that guided the best of American System patriots in the 19th century and even the Chinese ambitions to “go west” today.

This positive conception of manifest destiny is not at all tied to the exploitation, and imperialism as is commonly taught, but rather the creative overcoming of limits to growth by a spiritual-intellectual and economic extension of the best of civilization driven by a love for scientific and technological progress.

Dimitry Mendeleyev: Scientist and Nation Builder

Witte set up over 100 new commercial and technical schools across Russia with the help of his close collaborator Dimitry Mendeleyev who not only discovered the table of elements that bears his name but also headed the Committee on the Protective Tariff. Throughout his writings and speeches stretching across 40 years of public service, Mendeleyev promoted a new renaissance culture of citizen scientists. He also polemicized against Adam Smith’s free trade which he likened to the absurd belief in a mysterious substance called “phlogiston” which scientists once believed to be the cause of rust.

Attacking the religious devotion to British Free trade permeating the Russian elite, Mendeleyev wrote in his 1891 Tariff Report:

“I consider it my duty, partly in defense of truly contemporary, progressing science, to say openly and loudly that I stand for rational protectionism. Free tradism as a doctrine is very shaky; the free trade form of activity suits only countries that have already consolidated their manufacturing industry; protectionism as an absolute doctrine is the same sort of nonsense as free trade absolutism; and the protectionist mode of activity is perfectly appropriate now for Russia, as it was for England in its time.” (3)

Mendeleyev was part of the Russian delegation that visited the USA during the 1876 Centennial Exposition organized by Lincoln’s economic advisor Henry C. Carey and which showcased the scientific and industrial accomplishments made possible by the young republic in its first 100 years.

Upon his return to Russia, Mendeleyev championed this system serving as executive director of the Southwestern Railway Company and head of the rail department in the Finance Ministry working closely with Finance Minister Ivan A. Vyshnegradsky. He was simultaneously appointed the scientist to head the Bureau of Weights and Standards where he brought in the metric system to Russia and also led the assessment of mineral potential of Russia’s far east which played a vital role in Russia’s development over the coming century.

Mendeleyev attacked those who asserted that humanity could only adapt to the limits that nature put upon us writing: “The philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rouseau… for a ‘back to nature’ existence, is semi childish. Because in a patriarchical society, as well as among higher animals there is a definite limit to growth, but human beings taken as a whole, recognize no such limit”.

Mendeleyev understood that the only way to avoid the destructive effects of Marxist revolutionary chaos was through the uplifting of all citizens through physical, intellectual and spiritual progress. Writing in his Principles of Chemistry, Mendeleyev said: “Chemistry is closely connected with the work of the manufacturer and the artisan. It is a useful part and is a means of promoting the general welfare. In that pure enjoyment experienced on approaching to the ideal, in eagerness to draw aside the veil from the hidden truth and even in that discord which exists between the various workers, we ought to see the surest pledges for further scientific progress.”

Peace Abroad and Progress at Home

The work of Witte and Mendeleyev paid off and by 1900, the Russian rail industry employed 400,000 people directly with millions in secondary and tertiary sectors which went far to pull Russian society out of destitution (7/8th of the population lived on subsistence levels in 1890). Between 1892-1903, Coal production in the Donets Basin tripled, pig iron production tripled and oil, chemical and metallurgical industries blossomed.

Between 1892-1901, 14,814 miles of rail were built (compared to 5466 miles between 1879-1892). Grain imports from Siberia grew from 10,000 tons to 70,000 tons in the same time frame.

Witte worked arduously to ensure treaties of win-win cooperation to break free of British intrigue exemplified by the 1895 Russo-Chinese Bank and Chinese Eastern Railroad both of which involved strong cooperation with Foreign Minister Gabriel Hanotaux’s France. Witte, Hanotaux and their German collaborators loyal to Bismarck’s strategic outlook always focused their efforts on a cooperative entente needed to avoid falling into British traps that could trigger a bloodbath.

Witte had indicated his deep insight into the nature of the Great Game in a 1897 letter to Kaiser Wilhelm- extolling the leader to sign a peace treaty with Russia which would have created a Russian-German-French continental alliance for progress in order to avert a coming storm. In his letter, Witte wrote:

“Imagine, your majesty, the European countries united in one entity, one that does not waste vast sums of money, resources, blood and labor on rivalry among themselves, no longer compelled to maintain armies for war among themselves, no longer forming an armed camp, as is the case now, with each fearing his neighbor. If that were done, Europe would be much richer, much stronger, more civilized, not going downhill under the weight of mutual hatred, rivalry and war… BUT if European countries continue on their present course, they will risk great misfortune.”

Friedrich List’s American System in Russia

This system was directly informed by the works of nationalist economist Friedrich List whose incredibly popular writings guided Russia’s strategic thinking to a much higher degree than anything found in either extremes of Adam Smith or Karl Marx.

Witte himself oversaw the translation of List’s ‘National System of Political Economy’ in 1891 whereby he ensured that List became a guiding light for all economists and administrators under his watch.

Having coined the term “American System of Political Economy” after his five-year tour of the USA from 1825-1830, Friedrich List became a global champion of progress spearheading the creation of the German Zollverein (aka: ‘Customs’ Union) and polemicizing relentlessly against British Free Trade. List’s understanding of economics was exemplified in this quote often cited by Witte:

“The more rapidly the genius of discovery and industrial improvement as well as of social and political progress advances, the more rapidly is the distance between stationary nations and those which are progressively increased, and the greater is the peril of remaining behind.”

These nation-building statesmen knew there were two opposing approaches to resolving the mechanism of “class struggle”: 1) violent revolution of the proletariat or 2) the fostering of scientific and technological progress guided by win-win cooperation and a human centered development around a harmony of interests.

The philosophy animating this outlook was summed up Witte’s statement “with the investment in industry, the powerful stimulus of personal interest calls forth such curiosity and love of learning as to make an illiterate peasant into a railway builder, a bold and progressive organizer of industry and a versatile financier.”

Looking at rail construction as far more than merely “infrastructure”, Witte saw it as a civilizing force saying in 1890: “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.”

When asked what ideological box he fit into, Witte wrote: “I am neither a liberal nor conservative; I am simply a civilized man. I cannot send someone to Siberia simply because he doesn’t think as I do and I cannot take away his civil rights simply because he does not worship God in the same Church as I.”

Years later, Witte described how he overcame insurmountable odds in the early years of his administration 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.”

The British Empire which always relied on keeping nations divided, underdeveloped and dependent on the use of maritime shipping was not amused.

The British System Strikes

By controlling the international maritime choke points, the tiny island was able to exert its influence across the globe as a hegemon for over two centuries.

Through the vigorous enforcement of laissez-faire doctrines of free trade, nations were blocked from protecting themselves from the financial warfare launched by the city of London against victim states. This financial warfare took many forms ranging from speculative attacks, usurious money lending, the dumping of cheap goods in order to crush local manufacturing, cash cropping and even drug running.

Anyone wishing to engage in long term planning in the building up of the land-based transport corridors via rail, roads and industry would be easily sabotaged if the British System were dominating their economies.

Despite the fact that the Trans-Siberian railway was completed in 1905, a British-manipulated Japanese-Russian War (from 1904-05) devastated the economy as nearly the entire Russian navy.

Not only did $200 million in loans by financier Jacob Schiff grease the wheels of war, but the Anglo-Japanese Alliance of 1902 guaranteed that the militarily advanced Japanese would find an easy victory over Russia as the treaty guaranteed British military support for Japan if any second party joined to assist Russia. On May 28, 1905, two thirds of the Russian fleet was destroyed at the Battle of Tsushima Strait and all hopes for Siberian-Pacific trade routes came undone.

With this defeat, the planned trajectory for Witte’s hopes for industrialization quickly came undone and the world began its slide into the first of a series of wars and color revolutions that would litter the 20th century.

Witte Returns

Amidst the devastation of the war, a short-lived effort was made by saner advisors of Czar Nicholas II including Grand Duke Nikolai Romanov and the Czar’s mother, to bring Witte back into a position of authority after having been foolishly fired in 1903 (4). These figures understood that Witte was the statesman most qualified to get Russia out of its race into chaos which she found herself locked into.

Witte’s first task as Prime Minister was to solidify a peace treaty with Japan with as few concessions as possible to the defeated Russia. His second major task was to carry out sweeping constitutional reforms needed to avert the emerging revolutionary fervor of millions of Russians then being organized by the likes of Trotsky, Lenin, Parvus and a vast array of London-directed revolutionaries. (5)

Witte commented on his new assignment saying: “when a sewer has to be cleaned, they send Witte. But as soon as work of a cleaner and nicer kind appears, plenty of other candidates spring up”.

Witte accomplished the first task returning to Russia from months of negotiations in the USA as a hero. Upon his return he lost no time authoring the October Manifesto of 1905 which called for sweeping changes of every aspect of Russian governance. Pushing back against those who wished to violently suppress all protest movements, Witte insightfully said:

“The present movement for freedom is not of new birth. Its roots are imbedded in centuries of Russian history. Freedom must become the slogan of the government. No other possibility for the salvation of the state exists. The march of historical progress cannot be halted. The idea of civil liberty will triumph if not through reform then by the path of revolution. The government must be ready to proceed along constitutional lines. The government must sincerely and openly strive for the well-being of the state and not endeavour to protect this or that type of government. There is no alternative. The government must either place itself at the head of the movement which has gripped the country or it must relinquish it to the elementary forces to tear it to pieces.”

This manifesto of October 30, 1905 professed to transform Russia into a constitutional monarchy, expanded civil rights for all citizens, guaranteeing freedom of the press, freedom of association, the right to vote, the right to form trade unions and the creation of the first Duma. Witte also pushed for vast land reform to give peasants the power to own and operate their own land.

However, all of these reforms were rejected by the growing revolutionary organizations which chose to push for regime change.

Witte’s enemies in the court used this instability to arrange his firing in April 1906 and soon an iron fist came cracking down upon the rebellious population (anarchist provocateurs and innocents alike) giving rise to new revengiste grievances that would escalate to a boiling point within the coming decade. To get a sense of the tension of the times, between 1905-1916, hundreds of assassinations and terrorist attacks launched by the terrorist cells like “The Black Hundreds” resulted in tens of thousands of dead, including hundreds of Russian politicians. Witte and his heavy-handed successor Peter Stolypin narrowly surviving several attempts which took place in 1906 (6) (Stolypin eventually being killed in 1911).

The Tragic Fall and Hopeful Renewal of Creativity in Statecraft

Sadly, the flowering of the new system of cooperating nation states under a community of progress and common interest was annihilated by a dense array of assassinations, color revolutions and endless wars.

The Witte-Mendeleyev aborted system was fundamentally anti-Malthusian/anti-closed system and tied to the constant self-improvement of the nation and its people. It was never “left” nor “right” according to any conventional definitions given to us following the Marxist/Communist vs Liberal/Capitalist dichotomy.

This system did not then, nor does it now dichotomize the freedom of the individual citizen from the wellbeing of the whole society. It was and is fundamentally driven by a concept of humanity as a species made in the image of a living Creator capable of conceptualizing and then transcending the relative limits to growth which press upon our potential at all stages of society. This system recognizes that these limits are only caused by limits of knowledge and morality. The tension between these two systems: open vs closed/ multipolar vs unipolar has been at the heart of history including the causes of the Bolshevik color revolution.

While representatives of this better tradition have sadly fallen from sight among nations of the Trans Atlantic rules-based liberal order, a re-appearance of this quality of statecraft has begun to be revived among Eurasian leaders.

One prominent leading figure among this renewal is made evident in the recent remarks by renowned Russian economist and EEC leader, Sergey Glazyev who said in an interview titled  “Ideas Rule the World”:

“For many centuries Russia, fighting for a place under the sun in this world, showed miracles of self-sacrifice, miracles of building new meanings. And when these new meanings penetrate people’s souls, a boom arises in society, an opportunity arises to create new things and be “ahead of the rest of the planet.” This remarkable ability or ability to overcome difficulties is, in my opinion, the first component of that deep ideology that is inherent in the entire Russian people. They are not afraid of difficulties and sometimes even “create difficulties and then heroically overcome them.” But, regardless of whether we ourselves create these difficulties by ourselves or our “partners” help us in this, we must understand that the difficulties have been, are and always will be. The theory of long-term economic development, which I am currently pursuing, shows that as human society develops, limits to growth appear, periods of stagnation and threats to the development of humanity’s very existence appear, which must be overcome. The principle of overcoming these limits, difficulties, threats, fighting for something new, positive, creating new opportunities for the development not only of Russia, but of all humanity : this, I believe, is the key principle of ideology that lies in the depths of the Russian character.”

Glazyev was here making the important point that the specific set of ideas which must govern Russia going into the future storm must have certain universal characteristics.

These characteristics are not limited to Russian experience, but are applicable to all societies and are driven, as Glazyev noted, by the mandate to constantly overcome our limits to growth. This is done specifically by increasing the rates of creative leaps, guided by reason and conscience into ever richer forms of discoveries of those invisible causal laws that organize the universe. As discoveries are made through the fostering of scientific progress, new opportunities to translate those ideas into technological progress must be advanced without any assumed end point in this process.

Just as Lincoln, Witte, Mendeleyev and countless great statesmen of the past understood, it is this principled element of the human condition that sets our species apart from and above all other species in the biosphere. The biosphere’s limits only dominate humanity’s destiny when we permit the law of the jungle, rather than the law of civilization, to shape our world… as all empires demand be so.

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

Notes

(1) Leaders of this process in France included President Carnot and Foreign Minister Hanotaux, in Germany, it was led by Chancellor Otto von Bismarck and industrialist Emil Rathenau, while President William McKinley and Secretary of State James Blaine championed Lincoln’s system in the USA against the growing rot of an anglophile deep state
(2) With a protective tariff favoring rail development in 1889 followed by a broader protective tariff in 1891
(3) Mendeleyev’s 1891 Tariff Report citation is taken from SCIENTIST-STATESMAN FOUGHT BRITISH “FREE TRADE” IN RUSSIA by Barbara Frazier, EIR, January 1992
(4) The effect of slanders and court gossip that Witte was “a Rothschild shill” led to the Czar’s hasty decision to fire him. This gossip spread through the courts by Sergei Nilus (confessor of the Czar), Interior Minister Cyacheslav Plehve and even Czarina Hesse-Darmstadt herself fueled this hysteria. The material used to drive the slander was fueled by the work of International Okhrana chief Peter Ivanovich Rachkovsky, Russian Okhrana-chief Sergey Zubatov, and Protocols of Zion author Matvei Golovinsky (who worked for Rachkovsky and later became a leading figure of the Bolshevik revolution). This forgery fueled the fires of anti-Jewish paranoia across the minds of the European elite during these dark days. Proof of the Protocols hoax is told in Eric Bronner’s The Tale of a Forgery: Inventing the Protocols: Conspiracy, Anti-Semitism, and the Protocols of Zion, 2019
(5) Many of these forces, who would increasingly rely on terrorist tactics, often found a strange source of support among controllers of the Russian Secret Police known as the Okhrana who tended to work on behalf of the confused and frightened czar as the Jesuit order worked with the often bewildered papacy.
(6) The Black Hundreds was a paramilitary operation interfacing closely with the Okhrana which was find to be tied to two assassination attempts made on Witte in 1906. After a bomb killed 27 people including two of his children, Stolypin stated: “They will kill me, and those will be members of the Okhranka [secret political police]”

In my last article “Guterres and the Great Reset: How Capitalism Became a Time Bomb”, I made the case that the time bomb justifying a Great Reset of civilization was set into motion over 50 years ago. In that location, we were introduced to a cast of characters surrounding the World Economic Forum and Trilateral Commission who played instrumental roles in bringing about a controlled disintegration of western civilization.

Despite the fact that this un-natural transformation occurred over the dead bodies of great statesmen of the 1960s, a question still lingers: HOW did the western nations… especially the United States, so deeply shaped by a love of freedom, wilfully relinquish its democratic institutions in favor of a new system of supranational governance and de-growth? How did the very people who were targeted for destruction not only let this happen but in some cases even aide and abet the perpetrators?

Epistemological Warfare in America

Here it helps to look to the writings of an imperial grand strategist who is too often championed as a defender of freedom: Aldous Huxley.

While Aldous’ brother Julian was reshaping the global paradigm by re-packaging eugenics under several new costumes post-1945, Aldous’ creative juices were driven entirely by his role as a cultural warrior.

Grand children of Thomas Huxley who was commissioned to re-organize the British Empire in the late 1850s, both grandchildren vigorously embraced the family business working closely with the elite Bloomsbury Group of Bertrand Russell, and John Maynard Keynes between 1914-1937.

Among these creative misanthropes, Lord Bertrand Russell (another celebrated pacifist) had gone far in outlining the sort of bone chilling ideal that Darwinian laws of evolution demanded be humanity’s destiny under a scientifically managed priesthood. In his 1930 Scientific Outlook, Russell stated:

“The scientific rulers will provide one kind of education for ordinary men and women, and another for those who are to become holders of scientific power. Ordinary men and women will be expected to be docile, industrious, punctual, thoughtless, and contented. Of these qualities probably contentment will be considered the most important. In order to produce it, all the researchers of psycho-analysis, behaviourism, and biochemistry will be brought into play…. All the boys and girls will learn from an early age to be what is called `co-operative,’ i.e., to do exactly what everybody is doing. Initiative will be discouraged in these children, and insubordination, without being punished, will be scientifically trained out of them.”

“Except for the one matter of loyalty to the world state and to their own order, members of the governing class will be encouraged to be adventurous, and full of initiative. It will be recognized that it is their business to improve scientific techniques and to keep the manual workers contented by means of continual new amusements”.

Huxley would have Russell’s thesis firmly in mind when he began writing his Brave New World in 1931.

Aldous Goes to Work

Having set up his base of operations in Hollywood in 1937, Aldous lived out his days in the USA writing scripts for Hollywood, exploring psychotropic drugs and coordinating a new cultural movement that would soon overtake the youth growing up amidst the insanity of the Cold War.

In an infamous 1962 speech titled “The Ultimate Revolution”, Aldous Huxley outlined the principles of this new science of governance telling adoring fans amidst the wannabe alphas in the Berkeley auditorium:

“If you are going to control any population for any length of time, you must have some measure of consent. It’s exceedingly difficult to see how pure terrorism can function indefinitely. It can function for a fairly long time, but I think sooner or later you have to bring in an element of persuasion, an element of getting people to consent to what is happening to them. Well, it seems to me that the nature of The Ultimate Revolution with which we are now faced is precisely this: That we are in process of developing a whole series of techniques, which will enable the controlling oligarchy who have always existed and presumably always will exist, to get people, actually, to love their servitude.”

Getting people to love their servitude would be made possible by an array of new techniques outlined in both Huxley’s fiction and non-fiction writings and put into motion by the hard work of CIA-funded laboratories working under secretive umbrella of Allan Dulles’ MK Ultra. Utilizing many techniques pioneered by Nazi psychiatrists in WWII, one of the primary objectives of MK Ultra was to deconstruct the human psyche using a mix of electroshock therapy, psychotropic drugs and other conditioning in order to reconstruct personalities from scratch by professional psychiatrists. As Naomi Klein demonstrated in her famous book The Shock Doctrine, the idea behind MK Ultra was always to extend these behavioral techniques to reprogramming entire groups, societies and nations.

Within Huxley’s Brave New World, psychotropic drugs (soma), cultural norms driven by pre-adolescent sensualism, constant Tinder-esque sexual escapades, the disintegration of family units and hyper-sensualized entertainment (dubbed “feelies”) did the job nicely. Huxley’s dystopia featured a society which had successfully evolved to become a total oligarchy with a scientific priesthood managing the test tube babies bio engineered to become alphas, betas, gammas or the lowly toilet cleaning epsilons reminiscent of the sub-human Morlocks described in H.G. Wells’ earlier Time Machine. In Huxley’s world, family units have long since disintegrated with the nation state and any belief in God.

In his 1958 Brave New World Revisited, Aldous decries the ultimate evil caused by faith in scientific and technological progress as an illusion which cannot provide an escape from the ultimate determining law of humanity: overpopulation. Citing creative breakthroughs in atomic power, space exploration and medicine, Huxley bemoans how each time humanity solves a problem that allows us to save more lives, the species replicates at faster rates bringing about the inevitable Malthusian problems of future wars for resources, diseases and the breeding of the inferior races.

Huxley writes:

“In this second half of the twentieth century we do nothing systematic about our breeding; but in our random and unregulated way we are not only over-populating our planet, we are also, it would seem, making sure that these greater numbers shall be of biologically poorer quality. In the bad old days children with considerable, or even with slight, hereditary defects rarely survived. Today, thanks to sanitation, modern pharmacology and the social conscience, most of the children born with hereditary defects reach maturity and multiply their kind.”

In another speech delivered to the University of California in 1961, Huxley elaborated on this bone chilling plan saying:

“There will be in the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak. Producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel – by propaganda, or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution.”

Huxley knew that if this sort of brainwashing were successfully induced, the ruling oligarchy could ensure that the hedonistic identities of those coming of age within this controlled environment would detach themselves from outdated concepts like nationalism, love of family, or religion, in order to create LSD-driven personal “micro-realities”. Honoring the past and sacrificing for the future became replaced with a new wisdom of “living in the now”.

Huxley was happy to discover that LSD-25 mixed with cannabis, hashish and mescaline was a perfect supplement for soma writing in his 1958 Revisited:

“In LSD-25 (lysergic acid diethylamide) the phar­macologists have recently created another aspect of soma – a perception-improver and vision-producer that is, physiologically speaking, almost costless. This ex­traordinary drug, which is effective in doses as small as fifty or even twenty-five millionths of a gram, has power (like peyote) to transport people into the other world. In the majority of cases, the other world to which LSD-25 gives access is heavenly; alternatively it may be purgatorial or even infernal. But, positive, or negative, the lysergic acid experience is felt by al­most everyone who undergoes it to be profoundly significant and enlightening. In any event, the fact that minds can be changed so radically at so little cost to the body is altogether astonishing.”

During his time in the United States coordinating this new countercultural insurgency, Aldous recruited a young professor of psychiatry named Timothy Leary to his cause. Describing his interaction with Huxley as the two planned this final revolution, Leary wrote in 1983:

“We had run up against the Judeo-Christian commitment to one God, one religion, one reality, that has cursed Europe for centuries and America since our founding days. Drugs that open the mind to multiple realities inevitably lead to a polytheistic view of the universe. We sensed that the time for a new humanist religion based on intelligence, good natured pluralism and scientific paganism had arrived.”

The Creation of Organized Schizophrenia

How the counter-culture was formed in the bowels of such oligarchical psychiatric mental meatgrinders like London’s Tavistock Institute and was applied by psychiatric shock troops strategically placed across all schools, military, unions, corporate boards and government bureaucracies throughout the years is beyond the scope of this present article, although it was explored in a recent video by this author.

What must be kept in mind for our present purposes is that cultural warfare during this intense post WW2 period was full spectrum in nature- taking every major branch of human life into account and extracting all traces of creative reason, universality, Freedom, and Truth anywhere it could be found.

Whether it was in the fine arts and music or whether it was in scientific practice, new dualisms were imposed severing logical thinking from the “pollution” of subjective emotions. Where the arts became shaped increasingly by hedonism liberated from reason (with a “high” post-modern art for the elites and a “low” populist art for the dumb masses), the sciences became governed by the dogmatic faith in cold mathematical sterility governed by “statistics”, entropy, and blind fatalism.

Random paint splashes of CIA-funded artists like Jackson Pollock or the fuzzy squares of Mark Rothko became the new artistic ideal while scientists found themselves trained to think like computers modelling their minds of the methods of Bertrand Russell’s Principia, Norbert Weiner’s Cybernetics and John von Neumann’s Information Theory. Bertrand Russell’s role coordinating the CIA’s Congress for Cultural Freedom should not be lost on anyone.

With the severing of creativity from reason, the minds of those processed by this new cultural field was increasingly shaped by blind rules and axioms enforced by expert consensus rather than personal acts of discovery. Computer modelling thus found itself replacing acts of genuine human thought and within this sterile intellectual climate, a new cult of artificial intelligence began to find fertile soil to grow its perverse roots.

When mixed with heavy doses of imperial wars, assassinations, coups, and the looming threat of nuclear annihilation, the parents of the baby boomers had no clue what evil they were dealing with as their children were absorbed into a new drug/sex-ridden cultural field that no one had ever experienced before. Schizophrenic chaos in the world bred schizophrenic chaos in the culture as increasingly large arrays of youth gave up on reality in order to “tune in, turn on and drop out”.

Throughout the 1960s, patriotic forces around the world rallied to revive the spirit of scientific and technological progress which these neo-Malthusians despised so much. President John F Kennedy attempted to amplify Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace along with large scale investments into Africa, Asia and Ibero America alongside leaders of the Pan African and Pan Arab world who were committed to ending colonialism and bringing their people into the 21^st century.

After Kennedy’s murder, Charles de Gaulle worked with international co-thinkers like Quebec Premier Daniel Johnson, Canadian Prime Minister John Diefenbaker and German Chancellor Adenauer to bring about a coalition of progress which peaked in 1968 with Bobby Kennedy’s inevitable leadership of the United States.

Just as in the period of the late 19^th century when a win-win system of international cooperation was threatening to replace the dying Hobbesian system of the British Empire, a dense string of coups, color revolutions and assassinations ensured the crushing of this dynamic as a new age of post-industrialism, Anglo-American imperialism and monetarism was unleashed onto an unsuspecting society.

The Club of Rome Takes the Stage

In this new post-1968 political climate, new scientific conferences were organized in an attempt to impose statistic modelling premised on systems analysis onto biological, economic and especially ecological systems. Extrapolating present trends into the future and disregarding the sorts of non-linear qualitative leaps caused by creative thought allowed this new breed of scientist to “predict” the inevitable crises caused by population growth and the diminishing returns on finite resources.

The iconic study for this new scientific movement was the Club of Rome-commission MIT report Limits to Growth that “predicted”, as Malthus had done two centuries earlier, the point of crisis when population pressures would outstrip nature’s bounty- giving technocrats managing humanity the tools needed to make the proper sacrifices in the present.

When figures like Mark Carney discuss the “greening of global finance” and placing monetary values upon the reduction of carbon footprints, this is the sick and unscientific foundation of their thinking. Where formerly, humanity valued economic growth via scientific and technological progress (and implicitly the support of increased numbers of people at higher standards of life), the new system of “values” promoted by these misanthropes demanded that profit be tied to the reduction of human activity on the earth.

Club of Rome co-founder Aurelio Peccei, who presented at the inaugural World Economic Forum meetings in Davos, stated: “The economy and the ecology are inextricably united…. A strategy of generating wealth and one of safeguarding this patrimony are opposed. Activities that generate wealth but destroy the natural patrimony even more, create negative value”.

Former President of the World Federation of Mental Health during the high point of MK Ultra, Margaret Mead (wife of MK Ultra controller Gregory Bateson) presided over one such 1975 conference on the environment and atmosphere sponsored by the Club of Rome (this club also being an early sponsor of the World Economic Forum in 1971). Echoing the spirit of Russell and Huxley earlier, Mead called for the creation of a new science of statistics premised on equating pollution to climate change that would become internally consistent and shape the behavior of humanity going into the 21^st century. The focus was always population control. In her speech Mead said:

“The unparalleled increase in the human population and its demands for food, energy, and resources is clearly the most important destabilizing influences in the biosphere. We are facing a period when society must make decisions on a planetary scale.”

“What we need from scientists are estimates, presented with sufficient conservatism and plausibility but at the same time as free as possible from internal disagreements that can be exploited by political interests, that will allow us to start building a system of artificial but effective warnings, warnings which will parallel the instincts of animals who flee before the hurricane. [We must] draw from the necessary capacity for sacrifice. It is therefore a statement of major possibilities of danger, which may overtake humankind, on which it is important to concentrate attention”.

Rather than seeing science as a field for optimistic problem solving, this misanthropic cult of elitists demanded that science be redefined around a “new wisdom” of adapting to problems real or imagined. This cynical science of “problematique” (the science of problems) assumed that since all creative discovery caused population growth, the real enemy was found in the naïve optimists who believe it good to promote discoveries. Mead ridiculed those cultural optimists who rejected this cynical view of science saying:

“Those who react against prophets of doom, believing that there is not adequate scientific basis for their melancholy prophecies, [for they] tend to become in turn prophets of paradisiacal impossibilities, guaranteed utopias of technological bliss, or benign interventions on behalf of mankind that are none the less irrational just because they are couched as ‘rational.’ They express a kind of faith in the built-in human instinct for survival, or a faith in some magical technological panacea.”

Using more truthful language, Club of Rome co-founder Sir Alexander King stated in the preface of The First Global Revolution (1991):

“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.”

Today’s world is being pulled by two opposing dynamics.

The prophets of doom who set the time bomb in place half a century ago giddily prepare their utopian Great Reset which demands vast bloodletting as an overpopulated humanity be sacrificed by a modern pagan scientific priesthood devoted to Gaia and computer models. On the other hand, the spirit of progress and open system thinking has come alive in the form of the multipolar alliance which premises its planning on an opposing set of assumptions about the nature of humanity, creative thought, value, economics, progress and natural law.

Which future wins out in this battle over humanity will be shaped by the decisions and discoveries we make (or fail to make) in the days ahead.

The author can be reached at matthewehret.substack.com

David William Pear says the era in which the British Empire set out to destroy Germany in 1902 — leading the way to World War I — is frighteningly similar to that of today’s U.S. hostility to the rising of China and Russia.

In the wake of the new U.S.-U.K.-Australia defense pact, driven by the decline of Anglo-Saxon power and a desperate and aggressive effort to maintain it, the following article looks at the development of Anglo-Saxion supremacy (Cecil Rhodes called for making “the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire”), how it sparked the First World War, and how it threatens a new world conflagration with Russia and China. 

The Boer War was a long and costly war for Britain.  It marked the beginning of the decline of the British Empire.  Rhodes established his secret society of elites to reverse the decline.  He named it The Society of the Elect.

The defaced bronze bust of Cecil Rhodes in Cape Town, South Africa. The vandalism occurred amid the “Rhodes Must Fall” movement, which criticizes such statues as emblems of racism and imperialist colonialism. (Prosthetic Head, CC BY-SA 4.0, Wikimedia Commons)

Depiction of soldiers wounded in a Boer War battle returning to camp. (Reproduction after a watercolor by F. Dad, Wikimedia Commons)

The Boer War was an important prelude to World War I.  It started off badly in 1899.  It was unpopular at home, and a drain on the British Empire.  In 1902 it ended badly too, with the ethnic cleansing and genocide of Boers.

“Rhodes had written of his planned secret society that it ‘should inspire and even own portions of the press for the press rules the mind of the people.’ ”

Alfred Milner in 1906. (W. Basil Worsfold, Elliott & Fry photo studio, Wikimedia Commons)

The Society of the Elect needed ententes with France and Russia because of their large land armies and strategic locations.  The society secretly promised Russia the prize of Constantinople and the Dardanelles, after the planned breakup of the Ottoman Empire.  Russia had long-coveted a warm-water port.  The Society promised France the return of Alsace-Lorraine, which the French had lost to Germany in 1871.  The secret triple entente planned to divvy up German overseas colonies among themselves.

British soldier carries a wounded comrade on the first day of the Battle of the Somme, which lasted from July 1 – Nov. 18, 1916. (Wikimedia Commons)

It was understood in 1914 that the mobilization of an army was a de facto declaration of war.  If Russia and France mobilized their armies, then Germany was confronted with a fatal disaster, unless they moved quickly.  When Germany invaded Belgium, the trap was sprung.  The Society of the Elect got their planned excuse to go to war.

Kaiser Wilhelm II Tried to Avoid War

Emperor Wilhelm II of Germany in exile at the Dutch manor of Doorn, in civilian clothes and with a cigarette, 1933. (Wikimedia Commons)

According to Hidden History, Kaiser Wilhelm II did everything he could to avoid war.  The Kaiser did not threaten to attack or declare war on France.  He repeatedly asked his British cousin King George V if he could guarantee French neutrality.  He pledged that if France would remain neutral, then Germany would not attack it.

World War I U.S. propaganda poster. (Wikimedia Commons)

So, why did the First World War happen?  The authors of The Hidden History, The Secret Origins of the First World War say that based on documentary evidence, a small group of wealthy British elites took the world to war to preserve the supremacy of the British Empire.  It was a war the Society of the Elect chose.

Time was when Britain’s mighty fleets ruled a quarter of the earth’s surface. I’ve been savoring the names of its dreadnaughts and battle cruisers like George V, Prince of Wales, Hood, Princess Royal, Iron Duke and scores of other renowned warships.

Last week, the imperial British lion made a last, feeble roar by sending one of its new anti-aircraft destroyers, ‘Defender,’ to annoy the Russians by patrolling off the south-western coast of Crimea.

Russia and Ukraine both claim Crimea, which had been Russian since 1783. After a drunken dinner, the late Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev, ‘gave’ the Crimean SSR to the Ukrainian Soviet Republic.

Russia reoccupied Crimea, one of Russia’s most important naval bases, after a US-led coup overthrew Ukraine’s pro-Russian government in 2014. The UK, US and rest of NATO insist Crimea belongs to Ukraine. Of course they do. They engineered it.

HMS ‘Defender’s’ baiting the Russian bear took place while NATO naval and air forces were holding threatening war games over the southern Black Sea to intimidate Russia and embolden allies like Romania, Bulgaria and Poland, the three weak sisters of Eastern Europe.

This tempest in a teapot suddenly became a farce after a stack of soggy secret British naval documents was found behind a park bench in Kent. ‘Defender’s’ mission was discussed in them, Russia’s possible response, and, of all crazy things, potential new British operations in Afghanistan. All to please Uncle Sam, of course.

These embarrassing documents caused an uproar in Britain, made the government look like fools, and put the lie to Whitehall’s claims that the naval operation was only an innocent patrol. Britons are very intelligent people but tend to be sloppy and poorly organized. Britain has been a happy hunting ground for Soviet/Russian spies since the war.

Small wonder the French call Britain ‘perfide Albion.’ The Brits are masters at intrigue, double-dealing and propaganda. British propaganda drew the United States into two world wars. In our era, Britain has assumed leadership of western propaganda efforts against Russia and its allies.

Most Russians, who tend to be well-educated, are well aware of Great Britain’s 1853 invasion of Crimea, in league with France, the Ottoman Empire, and the then kingdom of Sardinia. The Crimean War was a bloody, three-year war designed to wrest the strategic peninsula from Tsarist control and thwart Russia’s expansion into the Balkans.

This nasty war saw the British finally storm fortress Sevastopol and temporarily reduce Russia’s influence in the Black Sea and Balkans. For France, the war was a thrilling return to military victories after the dark years of the Napoleonic wars. For Britain, it was also a triumph in spite of the disaster at Balaclava and heavy casualties due to disease. But, in the end, the war proved a stalemate: the foreign powers withdrew from Crimea and left Russia to lick it wounds.

The next serious invasion came from Germany and Romania in 1941, led by the great German general, Erich von Manstein. The second siege of Sevastopol lasted 250 days. I’ve walked over many of the old Soviet forts that so long resisted German attacks. Crimea was one of the hardest fought campaigns of WWII. Sevastopol was named one of the Soviet Union’s ‘hero cities’ for its legendary resistance.

No one who knows history should be surprised that western moves on Sevastopol and Crimea produced such a strong Russian reaction. Imagine how the US would react to a Russian naval squadron staging war games in the Gulf of Mexico or off New York City.

The point of the ‘Defender’ exercise was to humiliate Russia and show off its weakness, all part of the longer-term US/British/NATO strategy to splinter the remaining Russian Federation in a similar manner that the old Soviet Union was torn apart. That’s what the big NATO Black Sea exercise is about. There will be many more.

ericmargolis.com

It is as if the battle lines of civil war have been drawn up between masses of Americans who have been led to believe in either a false “bottom up” approach to economics, as defined by the Austrian School represented by Friedrich von Hayek, or in the “top-down” approach of John Maynard Keynes. The former sacrifices the general welfare of the whole nation for the sake of the parts (i.e. individual liberties), while the latter sacrifices the individual liberties of each citizen for the sake of the general welfare (or at least some oligarch’s definition of what that should be).

In my last article, I introduced, in broad strokes, a history of the American System of political economy as advanced by Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Henry Clay, Henry Carey, Lincoln, and McKinley. We reviewed how it was derailed by McKinley’s 1901 murder and was only revived 30 years later with Franklin Roosevelt’s 1932 presidential victory which put a stop to the 1933 Bankers Dictatorship.

Finally, we briefly explored how and why both John Maynard Keynes and Friedrich von Hayek whose ideas so deeply influence the polarization of the USA today, not only despised FDR but hated everything the republic stood for.

In this second installment of a three-part series, we will shed light on the anti-human ideas and the political operations that shaped the mind, the life and the politics of Lord John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946).

Keynes the Fabian Eugenicist

Although Keynes is heralded as the guiding light of the New Deal (and, as such defended by modern “Green New Dealers” and Great Reset technocrats wishing to impose a top-down system of governance onto the world), the fact is that Keynes not only detested Franklin Roosevelt, but also humanity more in general.

This will be seen clearly in 1) his devotion to the theories of Thomas Malthus, 2) his promotion of eugenics as a science of racial purification and population control, and 3) his general devotion to World Government as a leading member of the Fabian Society.

From his earliest days at Cambridge where he rose quickly to become one of the select Cambridge Apostles and shared, among other things, a lifelong friendship with Lord Bertrand Russell, Keynes devoted himself to the service of empire, becoming Knight of the Order of Bath and Order of Leopold by 1919.

His early 1911 book on Indian Currency and Finance (conducted during his five-year foray in the Empire’s Indian Office) ignored all actual political reasons for the famines plaguing India and argued coldly for a greater integration of the Indian banking system into the City of London controls which would somehow solve India’s problems. The provable reality was that Indian famines were coordinated tools of population control by the Malthusian elite of the British establishment who considered “war, famine and disease” as the gifts nature gave the strong to manage the weak.

While his later 1919 Consequences of the Peace appeared to be a reasonably sympathetic warning that the draconian Versailles reparations would do incredible damage and lead to a new world war, in reality, Keynes was displaying a cold sleight of hand. Serving as British Treasury representative to the Versailles Conference, Keynes never opposed fascism: he merely argued that a more liberal pathway to global fascism could be established under the direction of the Bank of England. His opposition, though, to the more violent approach preferred by conservative imperialists among the British Intelligentsia, was one of form more than substance.

Keynes and his fellow Fabians H.G. Wells, Bertrand Russell and G.B Shaw preferred the “slow and steady” “long game”, reminiscent of the Roman general Quintus Fabius Maximus who famously fought his enemies by slow attrition rather than in full-scale confrontation. Due to the public’s general ignorance of this strategy, we celebrate these Fabian Society luminaries for their pacifism, though in reality they were just as racist, fascist and eugenics-loving as their more short-sighted, hard-stomached counterparts sir Oswald Mosley, Lord Alfred Milner and even Winston Churchill.

Where the real solution to the hyperinflationary money printing and economic industrial shutdown of Germany during the post WWI years was to be found in the German-Russian Rapallo Agreement (destroyed with the assassination of American System Foreign Minister Walter Rathenau), Keynes and his ilk merely called for economic integration of the German banking and military system under Bank of England/League of Nations control.

Malthus, Eugenics and Keynes

Two theories advanced by the British Empire in response to the growth of the American System, first in the USA, and later internationally, were those of Thomas Malthus, and of Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin who coined the term “eugenics” in 1883. These sister concepts served as nothing less than religious precepts for the ruling elite as it desperately reorganized itself in the late 19^th century.

It must be kept firmly in mind that at this period the British Empire was weak, and incapable of stopping the electric spread of win-win cooperation as the American System was sped around the world bringing progress and full-spectrum economics in its wake. One of the leading voices of the American System in 1890 was Colorado’s first Governor William Gilpin whose The Cosmopolitan Railway laid out a practical vision for a world united by rail, development, and national banking [see map].

Nevertheless, the Empire was determined to put an end to the spread of the American System.

A new breed of think tanks was created to shape the Empire’s grand strategy in the face of this growth of independent sovereign nations: these were T.H. Huxley’s X Club (c.1865), the Fabian Society (c.1884), and the Roundtable Group (c.1902). Where Huxley’s X Club coordinated with Cambridge, and the Roundtable Group/Rhodes Trust interfaced with Oxford, the Fabian Society created a new school called the London School of Economics. All three worked together as one unit.

Defining his misanthropic belief in overpopulation, Thomas Malthus (a British East India Company economist) stated in his famous 1799 Essay on Population:

“The power of population is so superior to the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race.”

How could this crisis be avoided? Malthus answers it like only a devout imperialist could:

“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.”

Darwin himself admitted in his autobiography that his theory of evolution arose only after his 1838 reading of Malthus’ Essay on Population in which he “at last got a theory by which to work”.

So, Darwinism is really an extension of Malthus’s Hobbesian social theories onto all of living nature: a mere struggle for survival in a universe of entropy and diminishing returns. After a Malthusian version of biology was created, Darwin’s theories were in turn re-applied to human society as imperial tools for population control under the form of Galton’s Eugenics thus giving the same old evil practices of empire, war and slavery a “scientific validation”.

Although some apologists considered Keynes an anti-Malthusian- due to his theory that overpopulation might be overcome by encouraging spending rather than savings, which would, in turn, somehow create markets and thence new factories and more growth, the reality was the opposite. Keynes not only spoke gushingly of Malthus throughout his life as one of the greatest minds of all time, but even plagiarized many of Malthus’ own theories, for instance that of “demand deficiency causing unemployment and recession” outlined in his 1930 Treatise on Money. In his 1933 Essay on Malthus, Keynes wrote:

“Let us think of Malthus today as the first of the Cambridge economists—as, above all, a great pioneer of the application of a frame of formal thinking to the complex confusion of the world of daily events. Malthus approached the central problems of economic theory by the best of all routes.”

In his May 2, 1914 lecture Population, Keynes argued that government should “mould law and custom deliberately to bring about that density of population which there ought to be” and that “there would be more happiness in the world if the population of it were to be diminished.”

Saying that “India, Egypt and China are gravely overpopulated”, Keynes advocated using violence to defend the “superior white races” in this struggle of survival with the pacifist saying: “Almost any measures seem to me to be justified in order to protect our standard of life from injury at the hands of more prolific races. Some definite parceling out of the world may well become necessary; and I suppose that this may not improbably provoke racial wars. At any rate such wars will be about a substantial issue.”

As Acting chair of the Neo-Malthusian League, Keynes stated in 1927: “We of this society are neo-Malthusians… I believe that for the future the problem of population will emerge in the much greater problem of Hereditary and Eugenics. Quality must become the preoccupation.”

By 1946, Keynes, still a member of the British Eugenics Society (after serving as Vice President from 1936-1944) wrote in The Eugenics Review: “Galton’s eccentric, sceptical, observing, flashing, cavalry-leader type of mind led him eventually to become the founder of the most important, significant and, I would add, genuine branch of sociology which exists, namely eugenics.”

This was not ivory tower theorizing, but concepts with very real-world significance.

By 1937, Keynes’ General Theory of Employment was published in Nazi Germany. If anyone wishes to defend the idea that the economist was somehow an anti-fascist defender of “liberal values”, let them read his own words in the preface and then either redefine “liberal values” or their naïve idea of Keynes:

“I may perhaps expect to find less resistance among German readers than among English ones, when I put before them a theory of employment and production as a whole… The theory of production as a whole which is the object of this book, can be much better adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state, than the theory of production and distribution of wealth under circumstances of free competition.”

Hitler himself was not only a devout eugenicist (whose racial purification policies emerged through the funding of the Rockefeller, Carnegie Foundations as well as British establishment), but was also a devout Malthusian saying:

“The day will certainly come when the whole of mankind will be forced to check the augmentation of the human species, because there will be no further possibility of adjusting the productivity of the soil to the perpetual increase in the population.”

Keynes was by this time extremely frustrated that the intention-driven system of political economy defining the New Deal under the helm of FDR’s leadership was not absorbing his trojan horse theories on employment, demand, and inflation. However, by the end of the war, many Council on Foreign Relation (CFR)-affiliated operatives pushing Keynesianism were making successful inroads into all branches of U.S. bureaucracy and penetrated the highest levels of the state department and treasury. At one point in 1943, Franklin Roosevelt commented on his understanding of this British Deep State operation when he told his son Elliot:

“You know, any number of times the men in the State Department have tried to conceal messages to me, delay them, hold them up somehow, just because some of those career diplomats over there aren’t in accord with what they know I think. They should be working for Winston. As a matter of fact, a lot of the time, they are [working for Churchill]. Stop to think of ’em: any number of ’em are convinced that the way for America to conduct its foreign policy is to find out what the British are doing and then copy that!” I was told… six years ago, to clean out that State Department. It’s like the British Foreign Office….”

The Battle for Bretton Woods

During the Bretton Woods conference (July 1-20, 1944), the two opposing paradigms, on the one hand the American System of anti-colonialism, and on the other hand the. British System of zero sum Malthusianism, went to war.

This war took the form of the battles waged by FDR’s trusted collaborator Henry Dexter White against John Maynard Keynes at Bretton Woods, where 730 delegates representing 44 nations gathered to settle the terms of the post-war order.

Although this conference is famously associated with the creation of the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), it is falsely assumed to be a Keynesian creation. Keynes’ role as representative of the British Empire, much like his earlier role at Versailles in 1919, was defined by the intention at all costs to shape the conditions of a post-nation state world order on behalf of the City of London. Like Bertrand Russell and other Cambridge Apostles before and since, Keynes was trained in the sophistical deployment of statistics and mathematical logic to cover for the imperial rape of target nations.

Where Dexter White and Franklin Roosevelt demanded a U.S. dollar-backed post-war system of fixed exchange rates (to block speculation on commodities as a tool of economic war), theirs was not an idea premised on imperialism which FDR’s recorded battles with Churchill attest. Unlike the hard vs soft imperialism of Churchill and Keynes, FDR and his allies rather looked to a post-war system defined by U.S.-China-Russia friendship, and the internationalization of the New Deal applying a win-win approach to foreign policy.

At Bretton Woods, Dexter White and Henry Morganthau reached agreements to provide vast technology transfers to help South America industrialize. At the same time, large-scale programs modelled on the New Deal were presented by delegations from India, Eastern Europe, and China. It is noteworthy that the Chinese delegation introduced infrastructure plans first laid out by Sun Yat-sen in his 1920 International Development of China which both Mao, and Zhou Enlai endorsed alongside the Kuomintang’s Chiang Kai-Shek! Had these plans not been sabotaged, it is amazing to consider what sort of progress might have opened up for the Chinese 70 years before anyone heard of the “Belt and Road Initiative”.

At this early stage, Russia was still happy to be a founding member of the IMF and World Bank which were designed to act as cheap lending mechanisms for long-term, low-interest, high-tech global development.

Commenting on support for FDR’s post-war system of mutual interest, Stalin stated: “Can we count on the activities of this international organization being sufficiently effective? They will be effective if the Great Powers who have borne the brunt of the burden of the war against Hitler’s Germany continue to act in a spirit of unanimity and harmony. They will not be effective if this essential condition is violated”.

In opposition to this anti-imperial win-win system defended by Dexter White, and FDR, Keynes demanded a bankers’ dictatorship with a new supranational currency controlled by the Bank of England called the Bancor, as well as an international clearing house. The Bancor was later revived in a modified form when Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) were established, bringing the world closer to the sort of green synthetic hegemonic currency now promoted by the likes of Mark Carney, Klaus Schwab and George Soros under the veil of a Great Reset and Central Bankers Climate Compact.

Similarly to the League of Nations’ earlier design for World Government, Keynes’ arguments entailed the virtual castration of nation states, preventing their involvement in their own economic planning. These arguments also demanded that the USA fully recognize the legitimacy of the British Empire in the post war age (something which Dexter White and Morgenthau refused to do). In Keynes’ view, nation states should relinquish their sovereign financial controls to Malthusian technocrats managing the levers of production and consumption through a system of globally interconnected central banks.

Keynes’ model of governance would ensure that the sorts of INTENTION-driven large-scale projects that could finally end colonialism would not see the light of day.

The Keynesian World That Emerged Over FDR’s Dead Body

Under the Keynesian takeover of Bretton Woods that emerged during the Anglo-American special relationship created by Truman and Churchill, Trans Atlantic nations became increasingly dominated by bloated bureaucratic systems while plans for genuine development were undermined. With Roosevelt dead by 1945, Harry Hopkins dead by 1946, Dexter White dead by 1948, and Henry Wallace’s presidential efforts sabotaged by 1948, the last serious resistance to Britain’s reconquest of the USA had been put down.

After the war, eugenics-promoting organizations and think tanks changed their names while continuing their work, morphing into new forms by the 1960s such as the environmental movement, transhumanist movement, while not even the pharmaceutical/healthcare sector was left untouched.

In the next chapter we will close up this short series by reviewing the figure of Friedrich von Hayek and the Austrian School of Economics which emerged with the collapse of the Keynesian Bretton Woods in 1971 and the rise of the “Conservative Revolution”.

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

Britain’s Armed Services Memorial is a silent, haunting place. Set in the rural beauty of Staffordshire, in an arboretum of some 30,000 trees and sweeping lawns, its Homeric figures celebrate determination and sacrifice.

The names of more than 16,000 British servicemen and women are listed. The literature says they “died in operational theatre or were targeted by terrorists”.

On the day I was there, a stonemason was adding new names to those who have died in some 50 operations across the world during what is known as “peacetime”. Malaya, Ireland, Kenya, Hong Kong, Libya, Iraq, Palestine and many more, including secret operations, such as Indochina.

Not a year has passed since peace was declared in 1945 that Britain has not sent military forces to fight the wars of empire.

Not a year has passed when countries, mostly poor and riven by conflict, have not bought or have been “soft loaned” British arms to further the wars, or “interests”, of empire.

Empire? What empire? The investigative journalist Phil Miller recently revealed in Declassified that Boris Johnson’s Britain maintained 145 military sites – call them bases — in 42 countries. Johnson has boasted that Britain is to be “the foremost naval power in Europe”.

In the midst of the greatest health emergency in modern times, with more than 4 million surgical procedures delayed by the National Health Service, Johnson has announced a record increase of £16.5 billion in so-called defence spending – a figure that would restore the under-resourced NHS many times over.

But these billions are not for defence. Britain has no enemies other than those within who betray the trust of its ordinary people, its nurses and doctors, its carers, elderly, homeless and youth, as successive neo-liberal governments have done, Conservative and Labour.

Exploring the serenity of the National War Memorial, I soon realised there was not a single monument, or plinth, or plaque, or rosebush honouring the memory of Britain’s victims — the civilians in the “peacetime” operations commemorated here.

Strechters Bearer Sculpture. (Geograph/David Dixon)

There is no remembrance of the Libyans killed when their country was wilfully destroyed by Prime Minister David Cameron and his collaborators in Paris and Washington.

There is no word of regret for the Serbian women and children killed by British bombs, dropped from a safe height on schools, factories, bridges, towns, on the orders of Tony Blair; or for the impoverished Yemeni children extinguished by Saudi pilots with their logistics and targets supplied by Britons in the air-conditioned safety of Riyadh; or for the Syrians starved by “sanctions”.

There is no monument to the Palestinian children murdered with the British elite’s enduring connivance, such as the recent campaign that destroyed a modest reform movement within the Labour Party with specious accusations of anti-Semitism.

Two weeks ago, Israel’s military chief of staff and Britain’s Chief of the Defence Staff signed an agreement to “formalise and enhance” military co-operation. This was not news. More British arms and logistical support will now flow to the lawless regime in Tel Aviv, whose snipers target children and psychopaths interrogate children in extreme isolation. (See the recent shocking report by Defense for Children, Isolated and Alone).

Perhaps the most striking omission at the Staffordshire war memorial is an acknowledgement of the million Iraqis whose lives and country were destroyed by the illegal invasion of Blair and Bush in 2003.

ORB, a member of the British Polling Council, put the figure at 1.2 million. In 2013, the ComRes organisation asked a cross-section of the British public how many Iraqis had died in the invasion. A majority said fewer than 10,000.

How is such a lethal silence sustained in a sophisticated society? My answer is that propaganda is far more effective in societies that regard themselves as free than in dictatorships and autocracies. I include censorship by omission.

Our propaganda industries – both political and cultural, including most of the media – are the most powerful, ubiquitous and refined on earth. Big lies can be repeated incessantly in comforting, credible BBC voices. Omissions are no problem.

A similar question relates to nuclear war, whose threat is “of no interest”, to quote Harold Pinter. Russia, a nuclear power, is encircled by the war-making group known as Nato, with British troops regularly “maneuvering” right up to the border where Hitler invaded.

The defamation of all things Russian, not least the historical truth that the Red Army largely won the Second World War, is percolated into public consciousness. The Russians are of “no interest”, except as demons.

The centrepiece of the Memorial comprises two large bronze sculptures, the work of Ian Rank-Broadley, representing loss and sacrifice. (Geograph/David Dixon).

China, also a nuclear power, is the brunt of unrelenting provocation, with American strategic bombers and drones constantly probing its territorial space and – hooray – HMS Queen Elizabeth, Britain’s £3billion aircraft carrier, soon to sail 6,500 miles to enforce “freedom of navigation” within sight of the Chinese mainland.

Some 400 American bases encircle China, “rather like a noose”, a former Pentagon planner said to me. They extend all the way from Australia, though the Pacific to southern and northern Asia and across Eurasia.

In South Korea, a missile system known as Terminal High Altitude Air Defense, or THAAD, is aimed point-blank at China across the narrow East China Sea. Imagine Chinese missiles in Mexico or Canada or off the coast of California.

A few years after the invasion of Iraq, I made a film called The War You Don’t See, in which I asked leading American and British journalists as well as TV news executives – people I knew as colleagues — why and how Bush and Blair were allowed to get away with the great crime in Iraq, considering that the lies were not very clever.

Their response surprised me. Had “we”, they said – that is journalists and broadcasters, especially in the US — challenged the claims of the White House and Downing Street, investigated and exposed the lies, instead of amplifying and echoing them, the invasion of Iraq in 2003 probably would not have happened. Countless people would be alive today. Four million refugees would not have fled. The grisly ISIS, a product of the Blair/Bush invasion, might not have been conceived.

David Rose, then with the London Observer, which supported the invasion, described “the pack of lies fed to me by a fairly sophisticated disinformation campaign”. Rageh Omah, then the BBC’s man in Iraq, told me, “We failed to press the most uncomfortable buttons hard enough”. Dan Rather, the CBS anchorman, agreed, as did many others.

I admired these journalists who broke the silence. But they are honourable exceptions. Today, the war drums have new and highly enthusiastic beaters in Britain, America and the “West”.

Take your pick among the legion of Russia and China bashers and promoters of fiction such as Russiagate. My personal Oscar goes to Peter Hartcher of The Sydney Morning Herald, whose unrelenting rousing drivel about the “existential threat” (of China/Russia, mostly China) was illustrated by a smiling Scott Morrison, the PR man who is Australia’s prime minister, dressed like Churchill, V for Victory sign and all. “Not since the 1930s ….” the pair of them intoned. Ad nauseum.

Covid has provided cover for this pandemic of propaganda. In July, Morrison took his cue from Trump and announced that Australia, which has no enemies, would spend A$270 billion on provoking one, including missiles that could reach China.

That China’s purchase of Australia’s minerals and agriculture effectively underwrote the Australian economy was “of no interest” to the government in Canberra.

The Australian media cheered almost as one, delivering a shower of abuse at China. Thousands of Chinese students, who had guaranteed the gross salaries of Australian vice-chancellors, were advised by their government to go elsewhere. Chinese-Australians were bad-mouthed and deliverymen were assaulted. Colonial racism is never hard to revive.

Some years ago, I interviewed the former head of the CIA in Latin America, Duane Claridge. In a few refreshingly honest words, he summed up “Western” foreign policy as it is ordained and directed by Washington.

The super-power, he said, could do what it wanted where it wanted whenever its “strategic interests” dictated. His words were: “Get used to it, world.”

I have reported a number of wars. I have seen the remains of children and women and the elderly bombed and burned to death: their villages laid to waste, their petrified trees festooned with human parts. And much else.

Perhaps that is why I reserve a specific contempt for those who promote the crime of rapacious war, who beckon it with bad faith and profanities, having never experienced it themselves. Their monopoly must be broken.

consortiumnews.com

– Marquis St. Evrémonde (from Dickens’ Tale of Two Cities)

A major cultural fight has broken out between Donald Trump’s recently announced 1776 Commission and the NY Times’ 1619 Project.

While Trump’s commission designed to “promote patriotic history” naively paints over some glaring hypocrisies of American history by placing figures like Hamilton, Jackson, Jefferson and Lincoln in the same boat (thus keeping a bit too much bathwater along with the baby), it does represent an important major cultural battle over the soul of America which is now sitting precariously upon a new civil war, military coup threat and total disintegration.

In his recent Sept. 17 speech attacking the 1619 Project and announcing his 1776 Commission, Trump said quite rightfully:

“Whether it is the mob on the street, or the “cancel culture” in the boardroom, the goal is the same: to silence dissent, to scare you out of speaking the truth, and to bully Americans into abandoning their values, their heritage, and their way of life.

“We are here today to declare that we will never submit to tyranny. We will reclaim our history and our country for citizens of every race, color, religion, and creed.

“The radicals burning American flags want to burn down the principles in our founding documents, including the bedrock principle of equal justice under law. In order to radically transform America, they must first cause Americans to lose confidence in who we are, where we come from, and what we believe…. The left-wing cultural revolution is designed to overthrow the American Revolution.”

Attacking the underpinnings of Critical Race theory which attempts to assert that belief in rational thought, hard work and the nuclear family were the result of “whiteness”, Trump invoked Martin Luther King saying:

“where children are not judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Critical Race Theory, the 1619 project, and the crusade against American history, are toxic propaganda, ideological poison that, if not removed, will dissolve the civic bonds that tie us together. It will destroy our country.”

What is the 1619 Project?

The New York Times’ 1619 Project which was unveiled in June 2019 by Nikole Hannah-Jones and attempts to smear the entirety of American history as simply a slave-promoting fraud from the moment the first slave arrived in Jonestown in 1619.

During its short existence, this “project” has quickly won over thousands of academics, and in spite of its proven fallacies (which it had to secretly cover up in Orwellian fashion), Jones was still awarded the Pulitzer Prize legitimizing the fraud in the minds of countless school administrators, policy-makers and academics.

If one truly accepts the claims of the 1619 Project which have become turned into a Pulitzer curriculum and already embedded in 4500 U.S. schools, then America’s dissolution would be no great loss to the world. In fact, one would have to conclude that since the republic was always built upon the defense of slavery (going so far as to paint the British Empire as an anti-slavery bastion which the founding fathers broke away from only due to their fear of having their slaves removed), then America was always… evil.

The First Paradox

If it were true that the creation of the American republic was just driven by a desire to protect the institution of slavery from the abolition-loving British then it should be asked: why did every American state shut down the African slave trade by 1793??”

Don’t believe me? Let the facts speak for themselves.

By 1784, six states in the new nation had voted to totally abolish slavery (Rhode Island in 1774, Vermont in 1777, Pennsylvania in 1780, Massachusetts in 1781, New Hampshire in 1783 and Connecticut in 1784), while the importation of all new slaves was banned by every other state by 1793. The important Northwest Ordinances passed in the 1787 Continental Congress ensured that no slavery would be permitted in the immense North West Territories (giving rise to the later addition of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin as free states). This agreement was established during the 1774 Continental Congress where a non-importation act was signed by all colonies stating: “That we will neither import, nor purchase any slave imported, after the first day of December next; after which time, we will wholly discontinue the slave trade, and will neither be concerned in it ourselves, nor will we hire our vessels, nor sell our commodities or manufactures to those who are concerned in it.”

Another Paradox

If Britain was threatening to end the slave trade as the 1619 Project authors teach, then why did the Empire override dozens of petitions from the colonies between 1650-1765 demanding an end to slavery? Rather than oppose slavery, the British Royal Africa Company, under the direction of the Privy Council, and Board of Trade enforced the mass important of 8 million African slaves into the Americas during the 18th century alone! These same organizations constantly strove to destroy all efforts to establish manufacturing within the colonies from 1630-1765 which everyone knew was the only effective pathway to liberating a society from reliance on slave labor.

Additionally, IF it were true that the 1776 revolution were driven by the intent to protect the slave economy from the freedom-loving British Empire, then why did England only ban slavery in 1807 and why did they wait until 1833 to begin extending this ban across their colonies?? Did the founding fathers have a crystal ball and act on events that would occur only 65 years in the future? If the British truly hated slavery so much, then why did the empire maintain a global system of subjugation, famine and exploitation across Asia, Ireland and beyond for so many generations?

So what happened? Was the British Empire seriously pushing an anti-slavery agenda? Why did America’s anti-slave trajectory fall apart so soon after the revolution and why did the rot spread to the point of necessitating a Civil War by 1861?

How to proceed with a serious investigation?

The Matter of Money

Since one of the most effective keys to understanding history starts with the question of “who controls the money”, economics is a good place to start.

Approaching the matter this way will cause the inquiring mind to confront the battle between two opposing paradigms of statecraft which defined the world in which the American revolution arose as part of an international phenomenon involving leaders from Russia, France, Germany, Ireland, Spain, India and Morocco.

The battle over what sort of system of economics would govern America after political independence was achieved in 1783 will here become a very valuable question.

Where certain players of that age believed that “value” should be locked into rules of money-worship and profit (which all people desired since money bought pleasure and helped us avoid pain), others disagreed and believed value should be looked for elsewhere. These others believed that value transcended matters of pleasure/pain and touched upon something less transient and more universal… but what?

Introducing Ben Franklin

During the 18th century, these latter forces centered themselves around the figure of America’s “father of founding fathers” Benjamin Franklin who drafted some of the most important policies that led to the sovereign control over currency from his 1729 On the Necessity for a Paper Currency, onwards. Franklin used his powerful printing presses to spread both sovereign banking and anti-slavery pamphlets, books and treatises for decades before the revolution itself was declared in 1775. One of the most powerful anti-slavery books printed by Franklin was the influential 1737 ‘All Slave Keepers Who Keep the Innocent in Bondage’ by Benjamin Lay which argued that any Christian keeping slaves was an offense against God.

Lay wrote: “No greater sin Hell can invent than to prophane and blaspheme the pure and Holy Truth, which is God all in all, and remove God’s creatures made after his own image, from all the comforts of life and their country… and bring them into all the miseries that dragons, serpents, devils and hypocrites can procure and think of”.

In the mind of Franklin and his co-thinkers these issues (economics and slavery) represented two sides of the same fight.

Franklin argued in his many writings that “value” originated in what you create that satisfies the needs of humanity, and not what “things” you possess or wish to consume. Since a society of creators/producers requires sovereign manufacturing to generate real wealth and constant internal improvements of infrastructure to coordinate the development of all parts of a nation under a unified intention, Franklin recognized clearly that the production generated by “slave labor” is a chimera and actually represented a form of “anti-value”. Like heroine consumption today, anti-value simply means any form of “momentary profits” that might even be measurable as GDP and generate money flows, but actually represent a destruction of that society’s ability to sustain its own existence over time. (1)

The reason for this is simple.

Slavery destroys the creative powers of mentation in both the laboring slave who is valued only for their animal labor, and also the decadent slave master who’s potential for creativity becomes narrowly defined by ways to keep the slave under control.

It is thus no coincidence that Franklin also created the anti-slavery alliance in the 1760s and later founded the 1785 Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves” alongside several of his devoted proteges. These proteges included the figures of Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and Gouvernor Morris who all happened to become the creators and leaders of the “American System of political economy” premised on the use of a national bank, productive credit, protective tariffs, and large scale manufacturing to promote the economic sovereignty of the new nation. I introduced some of this in my recent essay How to Save a Dying Republic: Hamilton’s Genius.

When Jefferson took control of the Presidency from 1801-1809, a major victory was won for the pro-slavery oligarchs of America who saw immense profits to be gained by spreading their peculiar form of society under a perverse form of Manifest Destiny.

Admittedly, these oligarchs would have been much happier with the victory of Aaron Burr to the presidency in 1801 since an immediate dissolution of the union would have occurred between slave and free states as early as 1804 (to be discussed in a future essay). Unlike Burr, Jefferson was at least against breaking up the Union into northern and southern confederacies (with the free states merging with Canada and the slave states becoming their own nation), and that is why Hamilton (Jefferson’s political nemesis) ironically organized aggressively for his victory winning the fatal ire of Burr.

Sadly, Jefferson’s devout belief in agrarianism, hate for manufacturing, love of slavery, and British enlightenment thinking still made him an instrument for the slave power’s cancerous growth during his terms in office.

The British Empire’s Global Game

By destroying Indian textiles and subduing the “Chinese dragon” with a program of mass opium consumption that would stain the 19th century, the City of London quickly took control of world textile manufactures which created a primary export market for southern slave plantation cotton and a new set of addictions began: the addiction to the easy money derived from cheap slave labor. This proto globalization established a global closed system of controls onto all nations through cash cropping, free trade, speculation and drugs.

By 1840 over 20% of the British population was employed in textiles under such anti-human conditions that Charles Dickens described in his Tale of Two Cities and other writings.

The Best of Times and Worst of Times

With the 1804 murder of Hamilton, and undermining of America’s national credit system between 1804-1836, British free trade grew as protective tariffs were taken down, and credit towards infrastructure projects like the Erie Canal, roads, rail, etc shriveled up. Speculation ran rampant whenever this monetarist system was unleashed driven by booms and busts and the rise of “state-rights” programs that superseded all national initiatives. This process was taken directly from classic divide to conquer tactics which I outlined in my last essay Lincoln and the Greenbacks.

An astute Whig economist looking upon this bipolar process in America (while comparing it to the depressingly stagnant Canadian economic situation of 1791-1850) stated in 1853:

“Though the ratio of the increase of the population has been greater in Canada than in the United States, yet their increase of wealth has barely kept pace with the population, and they are as poor as they were half a century since. They have enjoyed the blessings of Free Trade with England all the time, we have only a part of the time. Whenever we have attempted to supply ourselves by our own industry, with the comforts and necessaries of life, we have improved our condition as a people; and during the intervals of Free Trade and large importations of foreign goods, we have relapsed again into a condition bordering on bankruptcy; while the Canadians have been constantly exhausted, and kept so poor by Free Trade, as to be unable to get sufficient credit to have even the ups and downs of prosperity and bankruptcy in succession.”  (2)

The Slave Power Spreads

By 1836, the 2nd National Bank was officially killed after a mass propaganda campaign convinced a duped mob that it was an instrument of tyranny in America, and over the coming 6 decades, the only five presidents who would make any serious effort towards reviving America’s nationalist system would end up dead while in office (Harrison in 1841, Taylor in 1850, Lincoln in 1865, Garfield in 1880, and McKinley in 1901). The man who is today celebrated for having “killed the bank” and “paying Americas debts” was in reality a force of pure destruction. Jackson “paid the debt” by cutting all infrastructure projects and unleashing mass speculation which resulted in a devastating 1837 bank panic that drove the nation into discord and depression. An unrepentant racist, Jackson also gave enormous assistance to the slavocracy by emptying the southern lands of Cherokee in the genocidal “Trail of Tears” and giving the land over to cotton planting oligarchs loyal only to their profits, “way of life” and the British Empire.

This story is told in all of its ugly detail in historian Michael Kirsch’s groundbreaking 2012 study “How Andrew Jackson Destroyed the United States”.

Between 1801 to 1840, southern cotton exports exploded from 100 000 bales/year to 1 million bales/year with 80% of the exports going to Britain. The City of London-Wall Street-New Orleans triangle dominated the world system with New Orleans representing over 12% of all U.S. banking capital. The southern slave states grew to represent the world’s fourth biggest economy through the support of the British Empire both financially and also in the logistical support needed to import mass slavery into the Americas. This degeneration proceeded slowly until the presidencies of Jackson and his handler Martin van Buren, but after this, cotton exports increased to 4 million bales/year by 1860 and the slave power grew immensely under the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 that ensured the spread of slavery west of Mississippi.

While many radical abolitionists in the USA and British Canada then advocated the dissolution of the union as an alternative to civil war, stronger souls like Frederick Douglass recognized the higher historic fight at hand. As a lesson to modern anarchists who believe in the 1619 Project and feel no sorrow at the burning of America under a new civil war today, Douglass took the time to research history, and broke with William Lloyd Garrison (the leader of the abolitionist movement) defending the Constitution in 1852:

“I differ from those who charge this baseness on the framers of the Constitution of the United States. It is a slander upon their memory… In that instrument [the U.S. Constitution] I hold there is neither warrant, license, nor sanction of the hateful thing; but interpreted, as it ought to be interpreted, the Constitution is a Glorious Liberty Document. Read its preamble, consider its purposes. Is slavery among them? Is it at the gateway? or is it in the temple? It is neither. While I do not intend to argue this question on the present occasion, let me ask, if it be not somewhat singular that, if the Constitution were intended to be, by its framers and adopters, a slaveholding instrument, why neither slavery, slaveholding, nor slave can anywhere be found in it”.

This higher understanding of history and the principles of the Constitution caused Douglass to ally himself with Lincoln where he worked with all his might to recruit 200 000 black soldiers to the cause. Later in life, Douglass attacked British free trade and “cheap labor” in defense of the Nationalist system writing in 1871:

“Cheap Labor, is a phrase that has no cheering music for the masses. Those who demand it, and seek to acquire it, have but little sympathy with common humanity. It is the cry of the few against the many. When we inquire who are the men that are continually vociferating for cheap labor, we find not the poor, the simple, and the lowly; not the class who dig and toil for their daily bread; not the landless, feeble, and defenseless portion of society, but the rich and powerful, the crafty and scheming, those who live by the sweat of other men’s faces.”

The British Hand Behind the Civil War

During the entirety of the Civil War, the British Empire’s guiding hand could always be felt, from supplying the south with battle ships, weapons and finances to providing logistic and diplomatic support internationally. Even British Canada was given over to the Confederacy’s intelligence headquarters which deployed spying, money laundering, and terrorist operations against the Union during the entire war.

Speaking to the British Parliament, Lord Robert Cecil (Marquis of Salisbury) expressed Britain’s logic succinctly when he said in 1861:

“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.”

A future instalment will tackle the role of British operations in Canada that organized the murder of Lincoln, sabotaged the industrial reconstruction of the South, and undid the internationalization of Lincoln’s system around the world during the 19-20th centuries. This sabotage of potential created the foundations for the creature embedded within America now organizing a new Civil War and dissolution of the republic once and for all.

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

(1) In the minds of those dirigistes like Franklin (including the Colbertist school of France, and its international leaders like Jonathon Swift, Daniel Dafoe, and Cotton Mathers in America who all wrote pamphlets supporting manufacturing over slave labor), a machine produced by the creative mind of man can accomplish the work of 100 laborers- thus liberating those laborers from the demands of the material forces of nature and freeing them to develop their powers of mind.

(2) Ezra Champion Seaman, Essays on the Progress of Nations (1853), p. 599

It is of course NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg’s new call for NATO, which has already over the past decade exercised its nation-building and promotion of enlightened regime policies with such brilliant success in Ukraine, Libya, Syria and Afghanistan to spread its mantle of protection, enlightenment and peace over the Indo-Pacific and the rest of Asia as well.

But it has all been done before. And the results brought death, enslavement, ruin and destruction to hundreds of millions of entirely innocent people.

From 1840 to 1870, Britain and France joined forces in an extraordinary series of military aggressions and invasions. They invaded Russia, inflicting close to a million civilian and military deaths in the Crimean War of 1854-55. They invaded China – twice, forcing the most populous nation in the world to accept unlimited imports of opium that collapsed its social fabric and brought on the bloodiest civil war in human history – the Taiping Rebellion of 1850 to 1865.

They strongly encouraged the Southern states of the United States to secede as an independent slave owning nation – openly supported by leading liberal internationalists in London and Paris. This set off the bloodiest civil war that the Northern Hemisphere of the world had ever seen – the U.S. Civil War of 1861-65.

French support also enabled Britain to mercilessly crush the first Indian War of National Liberation (which British and other Western historians for 160-plus years have continued to call “the Indian Mutiny.”) At least one million Indians were slaughtered during a year of horror in 1857.

The fate of China was even worse: Estimates of the number of people who died at the hands of the Taiping rebels, who practiced a bizarre, dark parody of Christianity comparable in its genocidal disposal of nonbelievers to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) today, run to 40 million.

With breathtaking daring and hypocrisy, the French, with British encouragement and approval, even toppled the independent government of Mexico and set up an Austrian Archduke, the brother of the Emperor Franz-Josef as Mexico’s new “Emperor” to be supported by the slave-owning Confederate States of America (CSA). France also crippled the Hapsburg Empire of Austria that controlled Central Europe in its war of 1859. For 30 years, nothing could stop the British and the French.

The amount of human suffering caused by these wars of aggression and shameless interference in the internal affairs of other nations was immeasurable. British and French meddling in the internal affairs of the United States, in fact shows astonishing parallels with the fruitless efforts of Britain, France and the United States to topple the lawful government of Syria over the past decade.

Both interventions showed that the “Old” NATO of 1840 to 1870, like the “New” NATO since the end of the Cold War, was capable of the grossest military ineptitude and miscalculations.

Instead, of successfully splitting the United States in two and in practice destroying it – a policy goal openly adumbrated by Robert Gascoigne-Cecil, later Lord Salisbury, the guiding genius of British foreign policy from the mid-1860s all the way to his retirement in 1902 – the American intervention produced a U.S. leader as determined to hold his nation together and protect its security and integrity every bit as implacable and determined as current Syrian President Bashir Assad. His name was Abraham Lincoln.

Like Assad, who worked so hard to prevent the people of Syria being subjected to extermination by ISIS, Lincoln was endlessly slandered and abused in the British and French press as a butcher and tyrant.

The British and French Empires were therefore responsible in large part for the deaths of 850,000 people in the U.S. Civil War. They underestimated Lincoln and failed, like their successors over the past decade seeking to destroy Syria, to anticipate successful Russian diplomatic and military moves to protect the threatened state.

This mid-19th century “golden age” of liberalism also saw open borders, and free trade – driven and enforced by Britain and France enthusiastically under successive regimes, both liberal and supposedly conservative.

It had other appalling dark aspects too. By 1860, the “Two Towers” or “Zwei Migdal” human slavery cartel, the first truly international, transnational and even global modern criminal organization had been set up, utilizing the new technologies of railroads, steamships and speed-of-light telegraph communication across continents.

It flourished for 80 years, luring innocent Orthodox Jewish girls from sheltered backgrounds in Russia and the Austrian Empire into false marriages with respectable appearing pimps who delivered them to usually short lives of horror, abuse and degradation in the brothels of Buenos Aires in Argentina – where the organization was based – and to similar houses of prostitution in British-ruled ports across Africa and as far at least as India.

This prostitution ring was run by Jewish pimps in Buenos Aries preying on their co-religionists with virtual impunity and before the Holocaust brought an end to it, some 140,000 girls are estimated to have been enslaved. Even in the 19th century, open borders and Free Trade had a very definite downside.

Also, the vile British opium trade into China continued, primarily through the port of Hong Kong, set up by Britain after its naval victory over the Qing Dynasty in the First Opium War, for more than a century.

This “First NATO” received its first stunning defeat when Tsar Alexander II sent squadrons of the Russian Navy to the United States to deter any British and French intervention on the side of the slave-owning Confederacy during the U.S. Civil War.

It was finally smashed when Prussian Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, diplomatically supported by the Tsar destroyed the Second French Empire, defeating the armies of the Emperor Napoleon III in 1870.

A united Germany, protected from British economic enslavement and destitution at last by the high tariffs of the Zollverein, the German Customs Union and then by Bismarck’s brilliant economic policies, succeeded France as the dominant power on the European continent.

Britain had lost France as its loyal ally and trusty “sword” to wage war on other major nations around the world, though the Third French Republic in the 1880s continued to expand its colonial empire across vast regions of sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia.

The manic destructive era of “The First NATO” was over. But its lessons for 21st century humanity are all too clear: Once again inspiring slogans about human rights and international interventions supposedly on the side of good are being cynically deployed to project power power and disguise aggression for all too gullible publics in the West.

The new dangers in an age of nuclear weapons and other WMDs are greater than ever. As U.S. President Harry Truman liked to say, there is nothing new under the sun except the history you don’t already know.

The mob which Shakespeare mocked as a mindless instrument of tyrants in his play Julius Caesar, has again been deployed in America where George Soros’ funding has turned this social-justice beast against the very republic itself (ironically under the banner of Freedom from Tyranny” of course).

Instead of hearing calls to save America, break up the Wall Street banks or return America back to its anti-colonial heritage, today we hear only calls for tearing down monuments, and to undo the Constitution as a fraud wrapped in a lie built upon hypocrisy and white privilege with no redeeming value anywhere to be found.

I’d like to take this brief moment to do something a tad unpopular by honoring the positive traditions of the too-often forgotten America whose Father of Founding Fathers Benjamin Franklin, shaped not merely a revolution of 13 independent-minded colonies against the British Empire, but rather a global movement stretching from France, Russia, Poland, Ireland, Prussia, India and Africa!

Without this international array of republican-minded patriots across cultures, religions and continents, then the revolution of 1776 that established on this earth for the first time a system of government founded upon the Consent of the Governed and for the protection of inalienable rights would never have succeeded.

America’s Revolution as an International Affair

As I laid out in my last paper “Why Canada Failed the Ben Franklin Challenge of 1776”, Franklin’s sad return to the Continental Congress in New York from Quebec in May, 1776 was one of the few defeats suffered by the statesman. Franklin’s decades of work to bring the French Colony of Quebec into the independence movement was sabotaged by 1) the slavish illiteracy rampant among the peasants of the feudal system inherited from France, and 2) the rampant corruption of the Catholic clergy elite which signed a devil’s pact with the British Empire to keep the peasants locked into the empire. These factors would play into the collapse of the French Revolution in 1789 as we will see shortly.

One month after this failed effort, a four-man committee led by Franklin drafted the Declaration of Independence on July 2^nd and made public on July 4^th proclaiming:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Although a slave owning degenerate named Thomas Jefferson is sadly given sole credit for this document (fueling the argument of those proclaiming America to be a nation built on hypocrisy), the fact is that the great abolitionist Ben Franklin guided the writing of this document from start to finish. Over 40 corrections to Jefferson’s drafts were made by the old statesman including the erasure of Jefferson’s desired wording of “property” derived from his love of John Locke for the higher Leibnizian idea of “happiness” preferred by Franklin.

Franklin had already fought to unite the colonies for over twenty years beginning with his 1754 Plan of Union at the outset of the French-Indian War adopted by the Albany Congress, but rejected by the individual colonies who were always kept divided amongst themselves. Franklin’s “Join or Die” cartoon had its origins not in 1776, but actually during the battle of 1754 and it was an open secret that the British Elite of the 18^th century collaborated closely with French oligarchical families to keep the troublesome colonialists subjugated, and underdeveloped as part of the “balance of power” game of empire.

After Franklin’s July 4, 1776 success, he knew that America’s fate hinged upon his ability to engage the international network of statesmen, and scientists whom he had organized over the course of 40 years and especially since his 1752 discovery of electricity made him an international sensation earning him the title “Prometheus of America” and immortalized in the painting by Benjamin West.

This post-1776 phase of his plan took him to France where he was made America’s ambassador in Paris. It was here, that Franklin arranged the French-American Treaty of Alliance of 1778 that turned the tide of the revolution towards the American cause which had zero chance of success before this moment.

Franklin had already organized his allies in Prussia where Friedrich the Great voiced open support for the cause and the great military strategist Wilhelm von Steuben became the Inspector General of the Continental Army providing military drills and modern military techniques to the undisciplined “citizen soldiers” of the USA. The republican Polish military engineer and colonel Tadeusz Kosciuszko served as Brigadier-General in the Continental Army and the young Marquis Lafayette who arrived illegally in America along with other French troops before the 1778 alliance treaty, made invaluable contributions to the cause. Over twenty generals of the Continental Congress were Irishmen, and many led the later efforts to create an Irish revolution in 1798-99.

In his ambassadorial station in France, Franklin met many members of the European intelligentsia- including key Russian figures. Among them included a young woman named Ekaterina Dashkova– the younger sister of Catherine the Great and president of the Russian Academy of Sciences who became friends with the elder scientist and was soon inducted into Franklin’s Philosophical Society (becoming the society’s first woman and first Russian). In turn, Dashkova made Franklin the first American member of the Russian Academy of Sciences in 1781. It was through these connections that Franklin played a leading role in organizing the League of Armed Neutrality under the helm of Catherine the Great which ensured that vital supplies and arms would make their way from Europe to America without being blocked by British ships. Within the first 12 months, this League grew to include the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Austria, and Prussia. To this day, Russia’s league created the foundations of Maritime law.

This early alliance sewed the seeds of a larger tradition of U.S.-Russia friendship which saved both nations at existential moments and is outlined brilliantly by American University President Edward Lozansky’s recent July 4^th article.

Franklin’s French networks had deep connections into India as well, which made themselves felt in the French-Indian alliance of 1780 that saw pro-American Muslim leader Hydar Ali lead thousands of Indian soldiers on a march across Western Ghats where they attacked the strategic British Base of Fort St. George near the Port town of Madras. Ali was supported by French troops on land and sea under the command of Admiral Suffren. Hydar Ali had already defeated the British in 1760 and represented a powerful independence force in India that kept British oligarchs up at night (It would still be many years before Britain would gain control of this “Crown Jewel” of the empire). During this conflict, Hydar Ali’s forces innovated rockets which decimated British troops, and forced Britain to re-direct over 20% of their naval fleet from fighting in the Americas- this was a vital boon to the French and American forces a world away. Hydar Ali’s son Tipu Sultan even wrote a message to the Continental Congress in 1781 saying: “every blow that is struck in the cause of American liberty throughout the world, in France, India, and elsewhere and so long as a single insolent savage tyrant remains the struggle shall continue.”

America’s flagship of the Continental fleet was named the Hydar Ali in his honor.

In Morocco, the French were able to arrange an important dialogue between Emperor Sidi Mohammed and American officials which saved American shipping from the ravages of Barbary pirates who ruled the coasts of Africa and the Straits of Gibraltar. During the opening of the war, the British made sure to inform these Barbary pirates of American shipping and used these forces against American ships bound for Europe. Sidi Mohammed agreed to supply protection for America’s ships and guaranteed them safe harbor from the Tunisian and Algerian pirates. Soon the Continental Congress had passed an act which called for Franklin to lead a team of negotiators to work out a deal with Morocco and other North African countries.

Although international political chaos and the constant treachery and intrigue within America during its early years resulted in very little progress on this front, it is noteworthy that Morocco was the first nation in the world to recognize America’s independence on December 20, 1777.

Even though Franklin didn’t appear to have any direct contact with the Chinese during this period (who were busy fending off the British Empire’s lusting dogs of the East India Company who were preparing a new phase of Asiatic expansion), Chinese thought did figure prominently in the thinking of Ben Franklin and Thomas Paine. Franklin had published many writings on Confucius from 1737-1757, which shaped many points of wisdom in the Poor Richards Almanac. Writing to a friend in 1747, Franklin stated “Confucius was my example. I followed Confucius”. As Professor David Wang points out, many of his insights into civil administration and law derived from his studies of China.

While there are many more chapters to this international story, the lesson I wanted readers to come away with is that America was both more than you thought it was and also less than it was meant to be.

According to the intentions of such renaissance men as Franklin, the American cause was never meant to be a “local issue” defined by 13 rebelling colonies, but rather a new age of reason for all mankind.

Kindred spirits across Europe watched in horror as the first European nation to attempt revolution led by Lafayette and other leaders of Franklin’s network (who made the American cause a success) was overthrown by a Jacobin “color revolution”. The noble origins of the June 20, 1789 Tennis Court Oath which kick started the French Revolution were soon lost as a bloodbath (directed by British assets from the Foreign Office) channelled the rage of France’s peasant population against ALL of the elite, corrupt and noble alike, proclaiming “the revolution has no need of scientists”. The sound of the guillotine lopping off the heads of the great revolutionary astronomer/mayor of Paris Jean-Sylvain Bailey and chemist Antoine Lavoisier still resonates as a shame of France. Lafayette only saved his head long enough to end up in an Austrian dungeon for 5 years as punishment for fighting to overthrow hereditary systems and was immortalized in Beethoven’s only opera Fidelio in 1805.

The pro-humanist forces of Europe slowly came undone during the Napoleonic wars which culminated in the 1815 Congress of Vienna and Holy Alliance which re-established “peace” by banning dangerous books, teaching, and art that might awaken revolutionary feelings in the minds and hearts of Europeans. These Orwellian laws were outlined in the Carlsbad decrees of 1819 and ruined more than a few lives of great statesmen and teachers. This story was told in my paper “Kissinger’s Adoration of the 1815 Congress of Vienna”.

During this time, the British Empire came out again as a force of evil preparing a new phase of its global conquest with a crushing of the Hydar Ali spirit in India and a new age of opium wars against China.

In spite of this growing darkness, great poets who dreamed of that better age of reason produced some of the greatest and under-appreciated poetry with Percy Shelley and John Keats leading that movement in Britain, Robbie Burns in Scotland and such figures as Schubert, Heine, Schumann and Beethoven representing this spark in Vienna and Germany. Palmerston-Mazzini’s “Young Europe” anarchist mobs were periodically deployed to disrupt constructive nationalist tendencies throughout this period- laying the groundwork for “color revolutions” of the 20-21^st centuries.

Beethoven’s 1824 Ninth Symphony setting Schiller’s great poem an “Ode to Joy” to music was a celebration of that dreamed-of age of brotherhood and creative reason which Franklin devoted his life to accomplishing and which today’s multipolar alliance has again awoken as a potential alternative to an age of darkness, war and collapse facing humanity in the 21st century.

The author delivered a lecture on July 1, 2020 on this topic and can be reached at matt.ehret@tutamail.com

– Benjamin Franklin

July 1^st is a strange day in Canada. From Pacific to the Atlantic coast, Canadians have made it an annual practice to paint maple leaves on their faces and party like there was no tomorrow.

But what exactly does this day signify?

It may be a bit of a bitter pill to swallow for some, but as I outlined in my Missed Chance of 1867, and the True Story of the Alaska Purchase, the original founding of Canada on July 1^st, 1867 was designed by British Geopoliticians for the explicit purpose of keeping Canada locked into the British Empire as a wedge separating the potential U.S./Russia alliance that had the power of breaking the system of empire forever. During this 1863-1867 period, Canada’s pro-Lincoln statesmen under the influence of Les Rouges in Quebec and Isaac Buchanan in Ontario had lost their grip on power and the nation lost a vital chance of becoming a participant in a new world of win-win cooperation, rail and industrial growth outside of systems of empire.

This failure of 1867 was not the first, but rather the third time in 90 years that Canada missed its chance to break free of the Empire and become a genuine nation state.

Here, I would like to review the first of two pre-1867 “missed chances”.

1774 and the Ben Franklin Challenge

Many Canadians (and Americans) find themselves shocked when confronted with the fact that Canada’s first postal service and first newspaper were both created by… Benjamin Franklin!

Established in 1753 in Halifax as part of Franklin’s overhaul in communications infrastructure in the Americas, mail services were extended to Quebec City and Montreal after the French were defeated in the Seven Years’ War in 1763 as France’s colony north of Vermont fell to the British. Franklin had been made Post-Master General in 1753 (the same year his famous kite experiment made him an international sensation).

Montreal’s Gazette was founded by a French republican named Fleury Mesplat recruited by Franklin in order to help counteract the destructive effects the French feudal system had on the cognitive powers of the Quebec colonists whose rampant illiteracy dovetailed their non-existent appetites for representative government or freedom. In this feudal culture, blind obedience to authority (whether political or religious) was seen as preferable to thinking for oneself.

Although Franklin created these cultural milestones and was an active diplomat working to persuade the Quebecois of the importance of becoming a 14^th member of the united colonies, his mission failed due to a series of bribes, acts of treason and short sighted thinking by men who should have known better. Ultimately, the Quebecois chose submission to Crown rather than risking their lives for freedom.

Before we say how and why this happened, some additional words on Franklin are necessary.

Getting to know the Real Benjamin Franklin

Despite the widespread mythology that the father of the American Revolution, Dr. Benjamin Franklin was merely a womanizing tinkerer and land speculator, the reality, upon closer inspection, is quite different.

Having become recognized as a world’s leading scientist during the 1750s for his discovery of the nature of electricity, Franklin became revered across Europe as the “Prometheus of America” (having stolen fire from Zeus to share with mankind, Prometheus was always seen as an anti-imperial figure by lovers of freedom since the time of Aeschylus). Franklin polarized the elite of the European nobility and strove to infuse a spirit of creative seeking and self improvement wherever he went by promoting industry, infrastructure and science.

His approach to indiscriminate acts of improvement were highly motivated by his early studies of a 1710 book by his mentor Cotton Mather called “Essays to Do Good” which Franklin described as “an influence on my conduct through life; for I have always set a greater value on the character of a doer of good, than on any other kind of reputation; and if I have been, as you seem to think, a useful citizen, the public owes the advantage of it to that book.”

For many years, Franklin was not in favor of a full revolution, but believed that it were possible to reform the British Empire (which had only recently been hijacked by the Venetian Party faction during the Glorious Revolution of 1688). During Franklin’s lifetime, the republican spirit of Thomas More, Erasmus and Shakespeare was still very much alive and it was this Promethean Christian spirit that he felt could be kindled to transform the Empire from a Satanic Hellfire Club operation into something viable and in harmony with humanity’s wellbeing (1).

This belief led Franklin to transform Britain itself through his creation of the British Lunar Society while acting representative to Britain in 1857. This group featured such scientists as Matthew Boulton, Josiah Wedgewood and Erasmus Darwin and uniquely drove the advancement of internal improvements (roads, canals, bridges, steam power, sewage etc), industrial growth and living standards in Britain.

In the 13 colonies of America, Franklin created the first fire department (1736), public library (1731), and founded the University of Pennsylvania. As a leading printer and later post-master general, Franklin knew that the American population of the 1730s did not yet have the moral or cognitive fortitude to induce a revolutionary positive change for the world and as such he created the influential Poor Richards Almanac which wrapped moral lessons and insights into poetry, science, astronomy and philosophy lessons with every single issue. This popular journal probably did more than anything else as a form of mass cultural education which empowered Americans to eventually think on a level sufficient to understand why concepts like Freedom were worth dying for (taxation without representation was merely one of 27 points enumerated in the Declaration of Independence).

In preparing the foundations for a reform of the world political-economic system, Franklin studied Chinese culture and strove to model western reforms on the best principles of Confucianism and the Chinese constitution.

Franklin applied the best techniques of satirist-republican Jonathan Swift and wrote countless hilarious essays under pen names like Silence Dogood, Martha Careful, Richard Saunders and Anthony Afterwit. He also followed Swift’s lead as he argued against British population control in his Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind. As early as 1729, Franklin codified a system of banking tied not to the worship of money or markets but rather internal improvements which argued for the creation of colonial scrip (not controlled by private central bankers). These insights would derive from his studies of Colbertist Dirigism and preceded the later work by his protégé Alexander Hamilton who established the American system of Political economy in his 1790-91 reports.

Most importantly, Franklin worked to coordinate an international network of collaborators among the enlightened intelligentsias of Russia, France, Germany, Prussia, Spain, Italy and even India and Morocco! In this way, the scientist/poet/statesman walked in the footsteps of the great Gottfried Leibniz who had attempted a similar grand design when Franklin was still a boy.

Back to Canada…

When he was still of the view that Britain could be reformed, Franklin wrote his famous Canada Pamphlets of 1760 which made the case that even though monetarily speaking it was more profitable for Britain to take France’s possessions in Guadeloupe due to the high price of sugar and rum, it was infinitely preferable to take Canada instead where potential for growth and improvement was boundless. Franklin knew the evil corruption of London and the European imperial powers (which had vast possessions in the Americas), but always believed that a united colonial republican movement could become the spark plug for an international new renaissance movement forecasted by John Winthrop’s City on a Hill vision of 1630.

This was the belief that underlay Franklin’s 1769 message to Lord Kames which has confused so many modern scholars as Franklin says:

“No one can more sincerely rejoice than I do, on the reduction of Canada and this not merely as I am a Briton. I have long been of opinion that the foundations to the future grandeur and stability of the British Empire lie in America; And though like other foundations they are low and little now, they are nevertheless broad and strong enough to support the greatest political structure that human wisdom ever erected.”

When it became clear that the British aristocracy was intent on crushing Franklin’s dreams of emancipation by the early 1770s, Franklin began devoting all of his energy towards a full revolution from the “mother country” and French Canada was always a high prize. Since British abuses of the French population ran rampant, and sympathy for the republican cause was widespread among Quebec subjects (though not the feudal elite), Franklin and others believed that Quebec’s eventual participation would not be a difficult affair.

By 1774, the British Empire pre-empted the inevitable participation by passing the Quebec Act giving an unprecedented array of religious freedoms to Quebec’s population which were always fearful of losing their Catholic traditions. These freedoms came however, at the cost of unquestioned loyalty to the Crown, and to accept never having representative government (only Crown appointees). The Jesuit-run clergy elite were overjoyed to keep their hold on the population, tithes and still enjoy revenue of the human cows on their lands. As an additional insurance, the Church under the control of Bishop Briand ensured that any subject who joined Washington’s rebellion would be excommunicated on the spot and thus burn in hellfire for eternity!

Ordering all parishes to accept the reign of King George, Bishop Briand stated:

“The God of armies…who extends or restricts at his pleasure the boundaries of empires, having by his eternal decrees put us under the domination of his Britannic Majesty, it is our duty, based on natural law, to be interested in all that concerns him. We order you to submit to the king and to all those who share his authority.”

A particularly dangerous part of the Quebec Act was the extension of Quebec’s Crown-controlled lands down into the Ohio River fully encircling the 13 colonies and making them subject to non-linear attacks by Jesuit-run natives. While the native population was highly wronged by all sides at different times during this conflict but the British and Jesuit collaborators used the most refined techniques of manipulation and have to the present day. The caging of the colonies onto the Pacific Coast was a far sighted maneuver to subvert the mandate of the “Continental” Congress whose name implied it’s larger goal.

On October 26, 1774 a Letter to the Inhabitants of Quebec was sent from the Continental Congress extolling the population to join in the declaration of independence and unite with the 13 colonies. While the whole letter should be read in full, it ended with this call:

“We only invite you to consult your own glory and welfare, and not to suffer yourselves to be inveigled or intimidated by infamous ministers so far as to become the instruments of their cruelty and despotism, but to unite with us in one social compact, formed on the generous principles of equal liberty and cemented by such an exchange of beneficial and endearing offices as to render it perpetual. In order to complete this highly desirable union, we submit it to your consideration whether it may not be expedient for you to meet together in your several towns and districts and elect Deputies, who afterwards meeting in a provincial Congress, may chose Delegates to represent your province in the continental Congress to be held at Philadelphia on the tenth day of May, 1775.”

The British and their French collaborators ensured that hardly any of these letters would be permitted into Quebec, and sadly for the hundreds that did arrive, the rate of illiteracy among the feudal population made it nearly impossible for most to read or understand it. Despite this problem, several hundred did risk perpetual hellfire and joined the revolutionary cause under the leadership of Clement Gosselin (later known as Washington’s French-Canadian Spy).

The Last Attempt: Franklin in Canada

The last effort to convince Quebec to join came a year later, as a delegation led by an aging Ben Franklin made their way to Montreal where they stayed for two weeks from April 29- May 6, 1776. The Continental Congress gave Franklin the following instructions:

“Inform them that in our Judgment their Interest and ours are inseparably united. That it is impossible we can be reduced to a servile Submission to Great Britain without their sharing in our Fate; and on the other Hand, if we obtain, as we doubt not we shall, a full Establishment of our Rights, it depends wholly on their Choice, whether they will participate with us in those Blessings, or still remain subject to every Act of Tyranny, which British Ministers shall please to exercise over them. Urge all such Arguments as your Prudence shall suggest to enforce our Opinion concerning the mutual Interests of the two Countries and to convince them of the Impossibility of the War being concluded to the Disadvantage of the Colonies if we wisely and vigorously co-operate with each other.

“To convince them of the Uprightness of our Intentions towards them, you are to declare that it is our Inclination that the People of Canada may set up such a Form of Government, as will be most likely, in their Judgment, to produce their Happiness; and you are in the strongest Terms to assure them, that it is our earnest Desire to adopt them into our Union as a Sister Colony, and to secure the same general System of mild and equal Laws for them and for ourselves, with only such local Differences, as may be agreeable to each Colony respectively.”

A rampant smallpox outbreak among American soldiers in Montreal (via the British spread of germ-infested blankets), mass demoralization and news of an oncoming British counterattack to regain control of Montreal put an end to that effort and Franklin returned to America empty handed.

The rest they say is history.

How the International Revolution was Subverted

While the French feudal elite were soon joined by a new set of United Empire Loyalists who left America after the Revolutionary War to establish English-speaking Canada, some traitors remained behind in the United States where they passed themselves off outwardly as friends of the revolution but always maintained a secret allegiance to the City of London and the system of hereditary powers antagonistic to the Principles of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

These traitors fomented the growth of a perverse form of manifest destiny which abolitionists like Franklin, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, Gouvernor Morris, Robert Morris, etc… fought tirelessly against throughout their lives. These traitorous bigots made every effort to spread slavery, destroy native Americans while subverting the true heritage of the republican cause from within.

One notable early representative of this group killed Alexander Hamilton in 1804 and set up the Bank of Manhattan establishing Wall Street as a City of London tentacle within America itself where this proto-deep state remained in power for the next 250 years.

In France, Ben Franklin’s allies led by Marquis Lafayette and Jean-Sylvain Bailey found their noble republican efforts of 1789-90 sabotaged by a color revolution in the form of the Bloody Jacobin terror coordinated by London’s Foreign Office and which I outlined in a recent paper: The Jacobin Terror (Just Another Color Revolution?).

In Canada, the British Foreign Office instituted a form of government which gave some limited elected positions to the plebians in 1791 but ensured that all actual power remained firmly in the hands of appointees of the Crown. During the post-1791 years, local oligarchies formed under the Family Compact of Upper Canada and the feudal elite of the Church in Lower Canada who collaborated closely in an unholy alliance. Their efforts were always driven by the need to keep the nation “un-American” by ensuring that the lands remain under-developed, the economy remain cash cropping as “hewers of wood and drawers of water”, and the population docile, ignorant and malleable.

In spite this perversion of history, growing poverty and injustices did induce a movement of resistance which began to take the form of republican “patriot movements” under the leadership of William Lyon Mackenzie in Upper Canada and Louis-Joseph Papineau in Lower Canada- both of whom would come to a head in the Rebellions of 1837-38 (aka: the second missed chance).

*The author wrote a larger series of studies under the title “Origins of the Deep State in North America parts 1-3 and an even fuller picture of this story is told in The Untold History of Canada.

(1) Franklin’s deployment as a counter-intelligence spy into the London Hellfire Clubs in the 1730s as part of Cotton Mathers’ battle against the empire is told in Graham Lowry’s How the Nation Was Won (1630-1754)