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

From the ancient pleasure-seeking Epicureans who argued against the logic-heavy Stoics of ancient Rome to the war of “salvation through faith vs works” that schismed western Christianity, to the chaotic emotional energy driving the Jacobin mobs of France whose passions were only matched by the radical Cartesian logic of their Girondin enemies; humanity has long been manipulated by oligarchs who knew how to set the species to war against itself. Although these operations have taken many forms, the desired effect has always been the same: divide-to-conquer bloodbaths which drowned out the saner voices of Cicero (executed in 44 BCE), Thomas More (executed in 1535 CE), or Jean Sylvain Bailly (executed in 1793 CE).

Today’s polarization across the Trans-Atlantic world has reached a fevered pitch with the “right wing conservatives” shouting for liberty and less government while left wing liberals call for more government and top-down reforms of the system (with Great Reset technocrats laughing in the background).

Everyone with half a brain should be able to sense that the danger of civil war and economic meltdown hang over our destinies like a sword of Damocles, but instead of hearing calls for restoring the SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN traditions of American System banking that author Ellen Brown recently documented in her powerful new essay, we find only feuding sects that assert we must EITHER have top-down centralized planning OR bottom-up free markets laissez faire policies devoid of any government intervention.

To the degree that this false debate continues the overtones of France’s 1789-94 bloodbath will be heard growing louder with every passing day.

Keynes vs Hayek: A False Dualism

In this first of a three-part series, I will argue that the source of this confusion among Americans was first concocted in London during the height of the depression, centering on the figures of two London-based Malthusian hedonists. One was top-down economist John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946) and the other played the role of his supposed opponent in the form of “bottom up” advocate Friedrich von Hayek (1899-1992).

To put it another way, these two fundamentally anti-republican ideologues whose lives were each devoted to the hereditary systems of empire constructed a widely publicized debate that asserted two opposing economic theories, either 1) government must spend arbitrarily to create jobs OR 2) government must cut budgets, end social safety nets and public services and let the strong survive leaving each unit of society to its own (supposedly) self-regulating passions.

The constants among both apparent opponents (who remained friends throughout their lives) were that 1) neither believed that INTENTION or MIND should govern economic policy (Keynes believed in arbitrary “make work” which could not differentiate between the qualitative difference of a $100 paycheck to a digger of random holes vs $100 paycheck to an engineer building a dam), and 2) both believed equally in the universal validity of Malthus’s population theories, and of Bernard Mandeville’s satanic belief that personal vice creates public virtue. Both theories have underpinned British imperial grand strategy for over two centuries.

It is also important to hold in mind that this 1932 debate emerged at a time that the world government agenda driven by the Bank of England and League of Nations were on the ascendency. This operation, in which both Keynes and von Hayek were thoroughly enmeshed, demanded fascist regimes control the world under a “scientifically managed” bankers’ dictatorship.

One month after the London Times October 17, 1932 publication began to print arguments from proponents of both schools on how to best end the depression, Franklin Roosevelt was elected to the U.S. presidency.

With his presidential victory, a specific form of economic planning was restored to the republic that had nothing to do with either school of Keynes or Hayek and everything to do with something uniquely embedded in the U.S. Constitutional traditions that petrified the hereditary empires of Europe’s old nobility.

In the years leading up to his victory, FDR had worked closely with a grouping of bipartisan American congressmen and senators to revive a form of political economy which involved the paradoxical coexistence of increased government involvement together with massive increase in entrepreneurism, and private sector growth. The fact that FDR is attacked by communists for being a capitalist shill while being simultaneously attacked by capitalists for being a communist shill to this very day is a sign of this ongoing confusion and a testament to the effectiveness of British intelligence propaganda.

The systemic inability for modern Americans to resolve the ‘FDR paradox’ today is due entirely to a sleight of hand pulled by the very same imperial power that has never forgiven the USA for declaring its independence in 1776.

What Ben Franklin Created

When Benjamin Franklin (1705-1790) had orchestrated his life-long project of establishing a new nation on this earth founded upon the principle of the sanctity of the individual (enunciated in the 1776 Declaration of Independence) and the sanctity of the General Welfare (as outlined in the Constitution’s 1787 pre-amble), he and his leading co-thinkers demonstrated a profoundly philosophical understanding of the political economy and also nature of true freedom which citizens must re-learn – quickly.

In order to give practical meaning to the ideals of individual (bottom up) freedom and national (top down) collective well-being enshrined in America’s founding documents, a new system of political economy was created by Franklin and his closest followers among the founding fathers.

This new system did not arise ex nihilo but was itself based upon the greatest traditions of French dirigisme of Jean-Baptiste Colbert (1619-1683), and earlier Cameralist schools of economic planning which grew out of the creation of the first modern nation states of France’s Louis XI and England’s Henry VII. For the first time in history (at least since the short-lived effort by Charlemagne in the 8^th century), the idea of “money”, “value”, “profit” were tied not to the passive capital off which feudal landlords fed parasitically, or bounty to be looted, but rather the improvement of the lives of people from whom the legitimacy of government was recognized to originate.

Throughout the 18^th century, Benjamin Franklin became a leading American force for this school of thought which was outlined in his 1729 On the Necessity for a Paper Currency. In this influential essay, the young scientist argued for a system of finance, colonial scrip, and value governed by the growth of manufacturing and full spectrum economics. In his essay Franklin battled the British establishment who argued that the colonies should forever remain agrarian, backward and cash cropping, saying:

“As Providence has so ordered it, that not only different Countries, but even different Parts of the same Country, have their peculiar most suitable Productions; and like wise that different Men have Genius’s adapted to Variety of different Arts and Manufactures, Therefore Commerce, or the Exchange of one Commodity or Manufacture for another, is highly convenient and beneficial to Mankind.”

Some of Franklin’s leading protégé’s who carried this tradition into the 19^th century included the first U.S. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton (1755-1804), John Jay (1745-1829), Gouverneur Morris (1752-1816), Robert Morris (1734-1806), Isaac Roosevelt (1726-1794) (great-great grandfather to Franklin Roosevelt) and later Henry Clay (1777-1852), John Quincy Adams (1767-1848), Matthew Carey (1760-1839). Matthew Carey’s son Henry C. Carey (1793-1879) became a leading economic advisor to Abraham Lincoln.

All of these figures defended the right of the young republic to develop “full spectrum economics” in order to gain true independence from the City of London.

Henry C. Carey’s Seminal works that rallied the nation’s patriots to the cause of the American System included The Principles of Political Economy (1840), How to Outdo England Without Fighting Her (1865), Unity of Law (1872) and more. It was in The Harmony of Interests (1856) that Carey famously foretold of the emerging global fight between open vs closed systems that would define the post Civil War decades:

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

What did the “American System” Do?

While the British System of laissez fair free trade demanded that governments do nothing, regulate nothing and plan nothing in order for the magical creative animal spirits of the self-regulating markets to “do their thing”, the American System took a very different approach.

By applying protectionism, national banking, internal improvements and public credit, the American System was driven by the idea that “value” was located not in money or any material thing existent in the ephemeral “now” but rather in the development of the creative powers of mental activity of the people. Lincoln outlined this concept beautifully in his powerful “On Discoveries and Inventions” (1858) and this principle governed the creation of the Greenbacks when private bankers made every effort to cripple the Union’s access to credit needed to win the war.

Using protection, all nations have the right and even duty to prevent the cheap dumping of foreign goods by imposing a tariff upon imports, thus ensuring that local production be favored. Dumping was an old practice of economic warfare which the British had honed since the 17th century crushing its colonies’ efforts to build up local manufacturing on countless occasions (and continues to be a key element of economic warfare masquerading behind the veneer of globalization in our current age).

As demonstrated in the LPAC documentary 1932, whenever American System-followers in Russia, Germany, Italy, Japan, China, Spain and France applied protection, rail, and dirigiste credit, prosperity, independence and abundance flourished. Whenever these policies were abandoned, those nations were crippled and manipulated into wars by foreign interests.

Between 1880-1930, this system was led by nationalist forces affiliated with President Garfield (1831-1881), President Ulysses Grant (1822-1885), Governor William Gilpin (1813-1894), President McKinley (1843-1901), Secretary of State James Blaine (1830-1893), and President Warren Harding (1865-1923). Each time it began to take hold the system was derailed by timely assassinations and it was only able to emerge once more in 1932.

How Franklin Roosevelt Revived the American System

With Roosevelt’s entry into office, the British Empire (using its Wall Street lackies) that had intentionally orchestrated the Great Depression in 1929 had realized that the American System was coming back to life for the first time in decades.

While Warren Harding’s short-lived presidency saw a few noble attempts to resurrect the McKinley-Lincoln traditions of the republican party, his convenient “death by oyster poisoning” in 1923 ensured that the revival of the American System would not succeed. Over Harding’s dead body, free trade, bank deregulation, and speculation ran rampant throughout the “roaring twenties” led by Andrew Mellon, the Morgan dynasty and their puppet Calvin Coolidge. This decay turned the once-productive industrial economy of America into a casino of bubbles built on unpayable debts and over-extended broker call loans that went up in smoke in 1929.

The “solution” that the financial oligarchy provided to the world in anticipation of the fear and starvation unleashed by the planned meltdown of the banking system was a novel economic miracle solution called “fascism”. This system soon swept the world from Italy, Germany, Austria and Spain. Within Britain, Canada and the USA, Wall Street/London sponsored fascist movements arose with lightning speed offering to solve all financial woes “and put food on the table” for millions of traumatized citizens. In a world of fear and instability, the masses were proving all too willing to ignore Ben Franklin’s sage advice by giving up their liberties to achieve a bit of security.

It was within this context that Franklin Roosevelt’s call to kick the money changers out of the temple and declare war on the abuses of Wall Street was an unexpected breath of fresh air for millions of suffocating citizens. With FDR’s sabotage of the 1933 London Conference, the empire gasped as their carefully laid plans for world government run by local fascist enforcers were going up in smoke. Wall Street’s assassination plot in February 1933 and a military coup plot in 1934 failed, as the Pecora Commission shone the light of truth upon the abuses of those bankers that created the great depression.

After putting dozens of leading bankers in prison, prosecutor Ferdinand Pecora described the operation years later: “Under the surface of the governmental regulation of the securities market, the same forces that produced the riotous speculative excesses of the ‘wild bull market’ of 1929 still give evidence of their existence and influence. Though repressed for the present, it cannot be doubted that, given a suitable opportunity, they would spring back to their pernicious activity.”

In Washington, a bi-partisan network of patriotic statesmen representing the Lincoln-McKinley-Harding traditions rose to prominence and shaped in large measure the policies which came to be known as the New Deal together with associated bank reforms of the Glass-Steagall, national credit, protectionism, and large-scale megaprojects known as the “four corners” vision (Tennessee Valley authority/Rural Electrification, Hoover Dam, Grand Coulee dam/Colorado River development, and St Lawrence Seaway).

Much like the Belt and Road Initiative today, these large-scale macro projects governed the tens of thousands of smaller state, county and municipal “micro” projects within a top-down dynamic.

The Keynesian Myth

Even though today’s popular narrative has asserted that FDR’s New Deal was a Keynesian innovation managed by the nebulous “Brain Trust”, the reality is that Keynes believed that FDR was a buffoon and FDR believed the Fabian eugenicist could only be considered a detached ivory tower mathematician but not a competent economist.

In her autobiography, FDR’s Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins recorded the 1934 interaction between the two men when Roosevelt told her: “I saw your friend Keynes. He left a whole rigmarole of figures. He must be a mathematician rather than a political economist.” In response Keynes, who was then trying to coopt the intellectual narrative of the New Deal stated he had “supposed the President was more literate, economically speaking.”

The ‘American System’ Caucus

Those forgotten forces who have been nearly written out of history were American statesmen who had battled against the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, stood up to the police state apparatus begun by Teddy Roosevelt’s FBI in 1908, and against America’s turn towards imperialism with the death of McKinley. They were the men who risked much to stand up against the League of Nations World government schemes launched in 1919, and against the Wall Street/CFR takeover of U.S. foreign and internal policy.

Senator George Norris showcasing the web of controls managed by the Wall Street oligarchs

These names which should be celebrated today, interfaced closely with FDR and his allies Harry Hopkins and Henry Wallace. Some of their names include Senator Robert Lafollette Jr (R-Iowa) (1895-1953), Sen. Robert Wagner (D-NY) (1877-1953), Sen. Peter Norbeck (R-SD) (1870-1936), Sen. Edward Costigan (D-Colo.) (1874-1939), Senator George Norris (R-Neb) (1861-1944) and Rep. William Lemke (R-N.D.)(1878-1950). These were a few of the leading men that some historians have dubbed “the American System Caucus”, and while this article doesn’t leave room for their story, rest assured that more will be said about them in a future installment.

While it would be a lie to say that there was no such thing as a “Brain Trust” or that Keynesian economists and Rhodes Scholars were not to be found among this group, the idea that this was the “cause” of the New Deal is a pure fiction.

Taking Back Control of Credit Policy

While surgery was begun on the cancerous financial system and unpayable debts depriving the nation of the credit needed to commence a reconstruction policy of the physical economy (over 50% of U.S. industrial potential was destroyed and unemployment hit 25%), Franklin Roosevelt’s long time ally Harry Hopkins worked with Harold Ickes to provide emergency work for over 3 million people in the first months under the Public Works Administration and Works Progress Administration.

Although FDR could not destroy the private Federal Reserve that had taken control of U.S. monetary policy 30 years earlier, he was able to impose his own man (Marinner Eccles) onto it in 1934, forcing the beast to start obeying national law for the first time ever. Despite this maneuver, Wall Street oligarchs continued to sabotage FDR’s recovery by constricting credit, refusing to purchase treasury notes at strategic moments, or even speculating against the U.S. dollar itself. To get around these manipulations, the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) was brought online to function as a surrogate national bank channeling billions of dollars into small and medium businesses, industrial growth, and infrastructure projects.

Psy Ops vs the New Deal: The Rise of the Austrian School

Throughout the 1930s and 1940s, Mellon-Morgan-Rockefeller interests ran a multifaceted psychological war against the population. After their coup plans failed due to Gen. Butler’s brave whistleblowing in 1934, these groups created a think tank calling itself the “American Liberty League”. The irony of the word “Liberty” used by an organization whose controllers sponsored fascism before and even during WWII should not be lost on anyone.

Through powerful oligarchs like William Randolph Hearst, Henry Luce, the Morgans, the Warburgs, the Duponts, and the Rockefellers, the Liberty League controlled the majority of mainstream media outlets, radio stations, and publishing houses in the USA, at the same time they co-ordinated with the newly re-organized FBI under J. Edgar Hoover. These groups worked hard to paint FDR as a Keynesian who only created inflationary “make work jobs” without any concrete intention for the future productive powers of labor. Through this sleight of hand, FDR’s enemies were able to invent a straw man that they could then refute by promoting the anti-Keynesian model known as the “Austrian School” that had formerly grown out of the British System inspired theories of Carl Menger (retainer for the Habsburg empire) and his aristocratic disciples Ludwig von Mises, Friedrick von Hayek, Frank Knight, and Sir John Claphan.

By 1940, the American Liberty League formerly disbanded. However with FDR’s death its cabal of controllers spawned dozens of new think tanks that were enmeshed with the Council on Foreign Relations and Mont Pelerin Society mothership founded in 1947 by von Hayek and a group of eugenics-loving oligarchs whom we will encounter in a following report..

Over the coming decades, the Liberty League morphed into hundreds of new think tanks which began with the American Enterprise Association (AEA) [later American Enterprise Institute] founded by Liberty League leader Raymond Moley and sponsored by General Mills, Chemical Bank and Bristol Meyers.

Other think tanks built up by this network over the years included the Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, Hudson Institute, Mises Institute, Manhattan Institute etc… which would set the groundwork for the later “conservative revolution” of the 1970s. This “Austrian School” revolution would spring to life once the 1945-1971 Keynesian perversion of Bretton Woods ended with the 1971 floating of the dollar off of the fixed exchange rate gold reserve system.

Under this post-1971 era, a new god of the “markets” would replace the old god of “the state” and a new ethic of post-industrial consumerism would replace the former system of Keynesian controls that defined the post-WWII era. Those anti-Keynesian leaders of the American System tradition such as Henry Dexter White, Franklin Roosevelt, Wendell Wilkie, Sumner Welles, and Harry Hopkins were taken out of power through various means between 1945-1946 as the Anglo-American establishment regained control over U.S. foreign and internal policies. This Keynesian takeover destroyed the positive potential of the Bretton Woods Institutions which were designed originally to internationalize the New Deal via the creation of cheap credit for global development and win-win cooperation.

In our next installments, we will look more deeply into the sordid minds and political operations controlling the figures of John Maynard Keynes and Friedrich von Hayek.

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

At this event, Le Maire stated ever-so candidly that “the Bretton Woods order has reached its limits. Unless we are able to re-invent Bretton Woods, the New Silk Road might become the New World Order”.

He went onto state that “the pillars of that order have been the International Monetary Fund and its sister institution, the World Bank since their inception at the Bretton Woods conference in  New Hampshire in 1944.”

Were a radical transformation not undertaken immediately, then Le Maire laments “Chinese standards on state and on access to public procurements, on intellectual property could become global standards”.

The finance minister’s statements reflect the growing awareness that two opposing systems operating on two conflicting sets of principles and standards are currently in conflict, where only one can succeed. Yet as much as he appears to be aware of the forces at play between two systems, Le Maire fails miserably to identify what the Bretton Woods System was meant to accomplish in the first place, or what type of “radical transformation” is needed to save Europe from the collapse of its own speculation-ridden system.

Le Maire dives so deeply out of reality that he actually believes that the radical transformation desperately needed in the west does not involve collaborating with the New Silk Road, but rather to strengthen the power of Brussels, while becoming more technocratic and more green (aka: de-industrialized, de-populated).

The Bretton Woods of 1944 and New Silk Road of Today

Seventy five years of revisionist historians largely funded by the British Roundtable/Chatham House and its American branch (The Council on Foreign Relations) have obstructed the true anti-imperial nature of the founding intention of Bretton Woods and the post war order centered on the United Nations.

Then, much as today, two opposing factions were vying to shape the essence of the world order as the Nazi machine (funded by Wall Street and London’s Bank of International Settlements) was drawing to a close. I am not talking about Capitalism vs. Communism.

This faction fight was between New Deal nationalists led by Franklin Roosevelt vs those racist imperialists represented by Sir Winston Churchill who wished to use the crisis of the war to establish a revived British Empire strengthened by American muscle. FDR’s New Dealers were characterized by their total adherence to the belief that the plague of colonialism had to be undone and a new age of long term development of great infrastructure projects had to characterize the community of sovereign nations for the coming century. These patriots believed in the internationalization of the New Deal, were committed to working with Russia and China as natural allies of America and profoundly distrusted the British.

In the case of Bretton Woods, where representatives from 44 nations convened for two weeks to create a new post war system in July 1944, this fight amounted to a battle between FDR’s trusted economic advisor Harry Dexter White (first director of the IMF and ally of FDR’s vice-president Henry Wallace) and Lord John Maynard Keynes (eugenicist, pedophile and defender of the British Empire).

Churchill and Keynes: Hard Racist/Soft Racist of the Empire

Where Churchill represented the unapologetic conservative proponent of the “White Man’s Burden” to exercise dominion over the “inferior” colored peoples of the earth, Keynes represented the soft cop of the Empire as a “Fabian Society Socialist” (aka: Social Engineer) from the London School of Economics. Where Churchill’s ilk preferred mowing down their enemies with Canons, body counts and torture as seen in the Boer War or opium wars or WWI, Keynes’ Fabian methods preferred attrition and slow subversion. Either way, the result of either pathway was the same.

While many know of the racist and pro-fascist views of Sir Churchill who spoke admiringly of Mussolini and even Hitler in the early days when it was still believed that these fascists and corporatists would act as marcher lords for the financial oligarchy, but most people are unaware that Keynes also supported Hitler and despised FDR.

Contradicting the mythos that FDR was a Keynesian, FDR’s assistant Francis Perkins recorded the 1934 interaction between the two men when Roosevelt told her: “I saw your friend Keynes. He left a whole rigmarole of figures. He must be a mathematician rather than a political economist.” In response Keynes, who was then trying to coopt the intellectual narrative of the New Deal stated he had “supposed the President was more literate, economically speaking.”

In his 1936 German edition of his General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, Keynes wrote: “For I confess that much of the following book is illustrated and expounded mainly with reference to the conditions existing in the Anglo Saxon countries. Nevertheless, the theory of output as a whole, which is what the following book purports to provide, is much more easily adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state.”

Keynes Contaminates Bretton Woods

Lord Keynes was deployed to lead the British delegation to Bretton Woods and advance a Delphic plan that called for creating an International Clearing Union controlled by the City of London denominating all payments in a common accounting unit: the Bancor.

The Bancor would be used to measure all nations’ trade or surplus deficits- expropriating surpluses by the end of the year and taxing countries with deficits. The imposition of a “mathematical architecture” upon the physical (non-mathematical) systems of nations was the surest way to keep an invisible cage upon the earth under an ideal of “mathematical equilibrium.” The sadistic fiscal austerity demanded by mathematical economists and other technocrats in Brussels reflect the still active force of Keynes’ spirit haunting the world today.

The Bretton Woods as a Global New Deal

In opposition to Keynes, FDR’s America was represented by his close ally Harry Dexter White in Bretton Woods. White (today slandered as a Soviet agent by CFR historians) fought tooth and nail to ensure that Britain would not be in the driver’s seat of the new emerging economic system or the important mechanisms of the IMF that he would go onto lead, World Bank or monetary policy more generally. White ensured the colonial economic “preference” system Britain used to maintain free trade looting across its empire was destroyed, and the pound sterling did not play a primary role in global trade. Instead a fixed exchange rate system was set up to guarantee that speculation could not run rampant over national growth strategies and the dollar (then backed by a powerful PHYSICAL economic platform) was a backbone for world trade (1).

White, like Franklin Roosevelt, Henry Wallace, and Harry Hopkins believed that the US currency (rather than the pound sterling) had to become the foundation for the world economy as America exited WWII as the most powerful productive, growing nation of the world untouched by the ravages of Eurasian war.

Just as the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) was used like a national bank to fund thousands of great infrastructure, transport, energy, and water projects during the New Deal and just as Glass-Steagall broke the monopoly of private speculative finance over the productive economy, these New Dealers wished to use the World Bank and IMF to issue long term, low interest productive credit for long term mega infrastructure projects around the world. Not just in Europe’s reconstruction.

FDR’s battle with Churchill on this matter was well documented in his son/assistant Elliot Roosevelt’s book As He Saw It (1946): “I’ve tried to make it clear … that while we’re [Britain’s] allies and in it to victory by their side, they must never get the idea that we’re in it just to help them hang on to their archaic, medieval empire ideas … I hope they realize they’re not senior partner; that we are not going to sit by and watch their system stultify the growth of every country in Asia and half the countries in Europe to boot.”

FDR continued: “`The colonial system means war. Exploit the resources of an India, a Burma, a Java; take all the wealth out of these countries, but never put anything back into them, things like education, decent standards of living, minimum health requirements–all you’re doing is storing up the kind of trouble that leads to war. All you’re doing is negating the value of any kind of organizational structure for peace before it begins.”

Writing from Washington in a hysteria to Churchill, Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden said that Roosevelt ”contemplates the dismantling of the British and Dutch empires.”

In 1942, FDR sent his close ally Wendell Wilkie on a world tour to meet with international leaders of colonial nations in order to spread the President’s vision for a global new deal. On his return Willkie gave a speech saying:

“In Africa, in the Middle East, throughout the Arab world, as well as in China, and the whole Far East, freedom means the orderly but scheduled abolition of the colonial system. I can assure you that this is true. I can assure you that the rule of people by other people is not freedom and not what we must fight to preserve… Men and women all over the world are on the march, physically, intellectually and spiritually. After centuries of ignorant and dull compliance, hundreds of millions of people in Eastern Europe and Asia have opened the books. Old fears no longer frighten them. They are no longer willing to be eastern slaves for western profits. They are beginning to know that men’s welfare throughout the world is interdependent. They are resolved, as we must be, that there is no more place for imperialism within their own society than in the society of nations.”

This vision was expressed continually by FDR in his hundreds of speeches, as well as by his Vice-President Henry Wallace, in the creation of the Atlantic Charter, and Four Freedoms. It was embedded in the defense of national sovereignty in the UN Constitution (conspicuously non-existent in the British-directed League of Nations earlier). It was meant to be the governing spirit animating the world as mankind entered a matured age of creative reason.

So What happened?

Describing the deep British penetration of the American state department, infested with Rhodes Scholars and Fabians, FDR described his understanding of the problem to his son:

“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….”

As long as FDR was in office, this British-run hive was kept at bay, but as soon as he died, the infestation took over America and immediately began undermining everything good FDR and his allies had created.

Harry Dexter White was ousted from his position as director of the IMF and labelled a communist agent. Henry Wallace was ousted for similar reasons and worked with White on a 1948 presidential bid as third party presidential candidate. William Wilkie (who had discussed creating a new party with FDR) died in October 1944, and FDR’s right hand man Harry Hopkins who did the most to initiate a close bond of friendship with Stalin, died in 1946.  Elliot Roosevelt interviewed Stalin a few years later, and recorded that Stalin always believed that Elliot’s father was poisoned “by Churchill’s gang.” By 1946, Churchill ushered in the Cold War setting former allies at each other’s’ throats for the remaining 70 years while dropping nuclear bombs on a defeated Japan. Stalin bemoaned Roosevelt’s death saying “the great dream has died”.

It took the oligarchy another 25 years to dismantle the fixed exchange rate system of the Bretton Woods leading to Nixon’s 1971 floating of the US dollar onto the speculative markets, converting the world ever more into a militarized casino system. Rather than used as instruments for long term growth as they were intended, the IMF and World Bank were used as tools of debt slavery and re-colonialization as outlined in John Perkins’ Confessions of an Economic Hitman.

Today the world has captured a second chance to revive the “great dream”. In the 21^st century, this great dream has taken the form of the New Silk Road, led by Russia and China (and joined by a growing chorus of nations yearning to exit the invisible cage of colonialism).

If western nations wish to survive the oncoming collapse, then they would do well to join this new framework rather than drink more of the poison promoted by the likes of Le Maire, Ursula von Leyen and their masters who want to transform the dying remains of Bretton Woods into a “Green New Deal”.

Appendix: Churchill, Keynes and FDR in their own words…

 “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.”

-John Maynard Keynes on Galton’s Eugenics, Eugenics Review 1946

“I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.”

– Winston Churchill to the Peel Commission, 1937

“There never has been, there isn’t now, and there never will be, any race of people fit to serve as masters over their fellow men… We believe that any nationality, no matter how small, has the inherent right to its own nationhood.”

– Franklin Delano Roosevelt, March 1941

“They who seek to establish systems of government based on the regimentation of all human beings by a handful of individual rulers call this a new order. It is not new and it is not order.”

– Franklin Roosevelt

(1) American economist Lyndon LaRouche has explained in his hundreds of writings for decades, that as long as the PHYSICAL economy continued to grow without imagined “mathematical future” limits which some wished to impose onto the system, then the viability of the U.S. dollar was solid and the controlled sabotage of the gold standard during the 1960s, leading to the 1971 floating of the dollar could NEVER have occurred.