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

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

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

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

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

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

So what is to be done?

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

The Strategic Significance of 1776 on International Affairs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adams, Lincoln and National Banking

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

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

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

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

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

Abraham Lincoln Arises

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

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

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

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

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

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

William McKinley Revives the American System

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

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

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

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

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

FDR and Wallace Attempt to Revive a Sane American Foreign Policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘America First’ Revives a Sane Security Doctrine

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

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

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

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

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

America’s Slide into Self-Destruction

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

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

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

The author can be reached at matthewehret.substack.com

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

“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 Delano Roosevelt

Many have increasingly come to terms with the reality that today’s multipolar system led by Russia and China has premised itself upon the defense of international law and national sovereignty as outlined in the UN Charter signed into law on June 26, 1945.

The Imperial Roots of the Rules-Based-Order

The opposing paradigm which emerged with the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1992 has taken the form of a security doctrine entitled Responsibility to Protect (R2P) which set the tone for the Unipolar “rules based order” of the Anglo-American establishment which has incrementally sought to replace all traces of nation states with supranational mechanisms that render the UN Charter and all associated legal structures built upon it null and void.

This post-nation state paradigm was most recently outlined in the absurd “New Atlantic Charter” co-signed by President Biden and Prime Minister Johnson on June 10, 2021.

While the original August 12, 1941 Atlantic Charter co-signed by FDR and Churchill framed international sovereignty and self-determination as its organizing principle, the new Atlantic Charter attempts to establish adherence to NATO’s Collective Defense, “Open Society” and “Rule of Law” as primal. Under these conditions, any attempt to maintain a veneer of harmonious co-existence on earth is less than meaningless.

It isn’t much of a wonder that this Rules-Based Order” should unwelcoming for the vast majority of UN member states and why it is a direct attack on the UN Charter itself (which had itself been drafted only two days after the Atlantic Charter was made public on August 14, 1941).

Since R2P’s cancerous growth in world affairs, the unipolar system has masqueraded behind humanitarian bombing campaigns, supranational regimes that demand submission to new decarbonization protocols and new international banking regimes that demand national sovereignty be replaced by something called “shareholder capitalism” where private corporations, big tech, intelligence agencies, civil society groups, and shadowy teams of technocrats managing a dumbed down society in lieu of those irresponsible democratic institutions that we are told gave rise to all the evils of the last 200 years.

What is the UN Charter and Why Must it be Defended?

Since Putin and Xi Jinping have called out this fraud and made their choice to stand for win-win cooperation over Hobbesian Zero Sum thinking, and since their entire strategy is premised upon the UN Charter, it is worth taking the time to briefly examine this legal document, how it came into being and why its beautiful principles were sabotaged while it was still in the cradle.

Let us start by reviewing the first four sections of article one of the charter, where we find that the new organization was mandated:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

And just in case any imperially minded legalist wished to read the charter loosely, Article two quickly made it clear that “the Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.”

These and other articles contained within this historic document which should be read in full here, are a clear break from the earlier League of Nations created in the wake of World War I and which demanded a total dissolution to the national sovereignty of all members. While patriotic forces across the world rallied to block the League of Nations from implementing its imperial agenda by the mid-1930s, the young United Nations established was premised on the intention to extend capital intensive infrastructure across the world in the form of an international New Deal.

These were programs designed to give economic vitality and meaning to the post war age as hundreds of international delegates from India, Latin America, China, Russia and Africa outlined great infrastructure programs at Bretton Woods. These projects enjoyed the full support of the American delegation led by Harry Dexter White and Henry Morgenthau on the one hand and the disdain of the British imperial delegation led by Lord Keynes and his Bancor-loving fellow British delegates loyal only to the City of London and Bank of England.

Despite the fact that this history should be common knowledge to all, 80 years of revisionism does wonders to confuse the zeitgeist and so the question should still be asked: was FDR’s intention to dismantle the British Empire only a ruse to create the Anglo-American special relationship in a new US-led reconquest of the world, or was his plan genuine?

As FDR’s son Elliot Roosevelt outlined in his 1946 book “As He Saw It”, a telling 1941 confrontation took place between his late father and Winston Churchill. In the course of this clash, FDR’s intention for a post-world of win-win cooperation drove his strategic thinking to Churchill’s chagrin.

Elliot recounts his father telling Churchill of the need to let go of 19^th century methods in favor of 20^th century methods of governance saying:

“Whichever of your ministers recommends a policy which takes wealth in raw materials out of a colonial country, but which returns nothing to the people of that country in consideration. Twentieth-century methods involve bringing industry to these colonies. Twentieth-century methods include increasing the wealth of a people by increasing their standard of living, by educating them, by bringing them sanitation—by making sure that they get a return for the raw wealth of their community.”

Around the room, all of us were leaning forward attentively. Hopkins was grinning. Commander Thompson, Churchill’s aide, was looking glum and alarmed. The P.M. himself was beginning to look apoplectic.

“You mentioned India,” he growled.

“Yes. I can’t believe that we can fight a war against fascist slavery, and at the same time not work to free people all over the world from a backward colonial policy.”

“What about the Philippines?”

“I’m glad you mentioned them. They get their independence, you know, in 1946. And they’ve gotten modern sanitation, modern education; their rate of illiteracy has gone steadily down…”

“There can be no tampering with the Empire’s economic agreements.”

“They’re artificial…”

“They’re the foundation of our greatness.”

“The peace,” said Father firmly, “cannot include any continued despotism. The structure of the peace demands and will get equality of peoples. Equality of peoples involves the utmost freedom of competitive trade. Will anyone suggest that Germany’s attempt to dominate trade in central Europe was not a major contributing factor to war?”

Elliot described the following day’s conversation where Churchill began by saying:

“Mr. President,” he cried, “I believe you are trying to do away with the British Empire. Every idea you entertain about the structure of the postwar world demonstrates it. But in spite of that”—and his forefinger waved—”in spite of that, we know that you constitute our only hope. And”—his voice sank dramatically—”you know that we know it. You know that we know that without America, the Empire won’t stand.”

Churchill admitted, in that moment, that he knew the peace could only be won according to precepts which the United States of America would lay down. And in saying what he did, he was acknowledging that British colonial policy would be a dead duck, and British attempts to dominate world trade would be a dead duck, and British ambitions to play off the U.S.S.R. against the U.S.A. would be a dead duck. Or would have been, if Father had lived.”

It was but two months after this meeting, that an angry Churchill acquiesced to FDR’s drafting of the August 12, 1941 Atlantic Charter that pulled the British for the first time in history into a new paradigm of cooperation, and multipolarism. When read alongside FDR’s 1941 Four Freedoms speech to congress earlier that year, one can see not only the germ seeds of the later UN Charter drafted on August 14, 1941 and signed into law on June 26, 1945, but also the rise of the Multipolar Alliance and BRI Framework today.

Tragically, FDR died under questionable circumstances on April 12, 1945 resulting in a swift takeover of the US government by supranational forces which have today come to be called “the deep state”. It was within a short interval of time of FDR’s death that every major ally who shared the great president’s vision for a post-war age of cooperation was either dead or labelled a red-commie traitor, never to regain influence again.

Stalin’s Warning to Elliot

Explaining to Elliot why his mother’s request for entry to Russia was rejected, Stalin stated passionately that it was due to Eleanor’s denial of all requests by Soviet representatives to examine the body or even allow for an autopsy. When Elliot pressed for answers to those whom Stalin believed to be his father’s murders, the Russian leader responded: “The Churchill gang! They poisoned your father, and they continue to try to poison me…the Churchill gang!”

It is also telling that Churchill could not bring himself to accept the Order of the Garter at the end of WW2 since he failed to achieve his primary mission as Britain’s wartime leader. Unbeknownst to many historians even today, Churchill’s primary mission was not the winning of the war, or the crushing of fascism, but rather the salvation of the British Empire which had created a Frankenstein monster that refused to play the second string in the New World Order realizing that Germany’s military power gave Hitler the edge he needed to lead in this dystopian dance.

However only a week after Stalin’s death on March 5, 1953, Churchill’s conscience allowed him to accept the honor. Perhaps the rabid imperialist looked upon the new Cold War age that he had earlier set into motion alongside the Anglo-American Alliance that he put into place that the rabid imperialist could sleep satisfied knowing that he did his job.

In the next installment we will review the origins of the UN Charter in greater detail followed by a third part on the Westphalian Treaty of 1648 that ended the 30 years war and the strategic importance of this world-changing policy for today.

“Know Thyself,
Nothing to Excess,
Surety Brings Ruin”

– inscribed at the Temple of Apollo at Delphi

Many are aware of the Apollo at Delphi inscription and associate it as words of wisdom, after all, the Temple at Delphi was at the center of global intelligence. Kings, emperors, statesmen, generals from all quarters of the ancient world would travel to the Temple with a very generous payment in gold in hopes that the wisdom of the great god Apollo would be bestowed on them and give strength and power to their particular cause.

One of the most famous prophecies made by the Cult of Delphi, according to the ancient historian Herodotus, was to King Croesus of Lydia. King Croesus was a very rich king and the last bastion of the Ionian cities against the increasing Persian power in Anatolia. King Croesus wished to know whether he should continue his military campaign deeper into Persian Empire territory and whether he should seek a military alliance in such a feat.

According to Herodotus, the amount of gold King Croesus delivered was the greatest ever bestowed upon the Temple of Apollo. In return the priestess of Delphi, otherwise known as the Oracle, (some poor young girl selected once a year with the “right attributes”) would spout nonsensical babble, intoxicated by the gas vapours of the chasm she was conveniently placed over. The priests would then “translate” the Oracle’s prophecy.

King Croesus was told as his prophecy-riddle, “If Croesus goes to war he will destroy a great empire.” Croesus was also told to ally himself with the most powerful Greek state, and he chose Sparta. Croesus was overjoyed and thought his victory solid and immediately began working towards building his military campaign against Persia. Long story short, Croesus lost everything and Lydia was taken over by the Persians. The Spartans never showed up.

It turns out the prophecy-riddle was not wrong, but that Croesus mistook which great empire would fall.

There is likely a great deal of truth in this story. And the words inscribed at the Temple of Apollo “Know Thyself, Nothing to Excess, Surety Brings Ruin” becomes more a foreboding to anyone who dares enter such a Temple in search of wisdom and power; those who are “worthy” of the god Apollo will have the wisdom to solve the riddle of their prophecy and will prevail, those unworthy of Apollo’s “good graces” will fail and be ruined.

It’s a nice story, but it is in fact, a brilliant cover for a global intelligence racket.

The Cult of Delphi was indeed the nerve center of military and political intelligence that had no “allegiance” to any state or empire, but rather was able to use intel that they collected with their network of spies, along with intel they were given by those foolish enough to layout their plans (and their gold) to them. The priests of Delphi would then decide thereupon what information needed to be shared with what target to fit their purpose, a “prophecy” that they shaped, like moving pawns on a chessboard.

The question for those who dared visit the Cult of Delphi was thus not so much about having enough wisdom to solve the veiled prophecy, but rather, ‘What kind of pawn are you to the priests of Apollo?’

The Morals and Dogma of the Scottish Rite

Those who seek wisdom and power have tended to also have an interest in the realm of “secret knowledge.” After all, who wouldn’t want a fast track toward their desires? Who wouldn’t want to believe that their destiny is to be rich, privileged and powerful? Who wouldn’t want to believe that they were chosen out of a few to hold special qualities (one could say supernatural) that make them superior to the majority?

The Scottish Rite was formally organized in the U.S. in 1801, as a group of Tory partisans on the losing side of the American Revolution. One of the principal men involved from the very beginning was a British general by the name of Augustine Prevost. Prevost had conquered Charleston, South Carolina, and set up a secret police apparatus there which became the Scottish Rite headquarters, after the British Army left. (1)

The Scottish Rite would come to rule over American Freemasonry during the nineteenth century and Albert Pike is recognised as the source of this success.

In 1859, Pike was elected “Sovereign Grand Commander” of the Scottish Rite’s Southern Jurisdiction. In 1871, “Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry” (the anti-bible of the Rite) was first published by its author Albert Pike, former General of the Confederate Armies during the Civil War.

Why am I bringing this all up when the focus of this paper is on the origins of America’s secret police?

Because the man credited for building the FBI into the massive domestic intelligence apparatus that it is today was J. Edgar Hoover, who happened to be a 33^rd degree mason of the Scottish Rite, which he was “coroneted” in 1955 after 35 years of membership.

Why is this relevant for the purpose of this paper? If one is to understand what constitutes the “Morals and Dogma” of such a membership, to which Hoover entered the inner most circle, it will become clear that not only does the Rite act as an opposing church to Christianity, but that pledging one’s allegiance to this secret society is understood as coming before all else in this material world, including government and country.

For this reason I think it apt to share a few quotes…

Writing about top-down organization, Pike wrote the following in his book Morals and Dogma:

“The Blue [or lower] Degrees are but the outer court … of the Temple. Part of the symbols are displayed there to the Initiate, but he is intentionally misled by false interpretations. It is not intended that he shall understand them, but it is intended that he shall imagine he understands them. Their true explication is reserved for the Adepts, the Princes of Masonry. . . .” [emphasis added]

These are the very same techniques used by the Cult of Delphi with the understanding that the “true explication” of the “symbols” will only be understood by those supposedly worthy of them, i.e. “the Adepts, the Princes of Masonry.”

How does one know if one is a Prince of Masonry? Those who are foolish enough to have complete faith in the magic of the occult will give an honest attempt to understand such symbols, however, the truth of the matter is those who are chosen for their “understanding” and thus moved closer to the inner “sanctum”, are merely chosen for their usefulness as an instrument for “a higher will.” While this person might be a pawn who plays the determining role in a checkmate, they remain, nevertheless, just a pawn.

Pike would also write in his Morals and Dogma:

“Men are but the automata of Providence, and [Providenae] uses the demagogue, the fanatic, and the knave . .. as its tools and instruments to effect that of which they do not dream, and which they imagine themselves commissioned to prevent …”

Here it becomes clear that the majority of mankind are considered by the Rite as instruments of Providence, and that to do the will of such Providence justifies that the Rite treat mankind as such. I will address shortly what sort of providence they are speaking of.

Pike goes on to explain the Rite’s main guide to the universe, as:

‘‘Magic is the science of the ancient magi.. Magic unites in one and the same science, whatsoever Philosophy can possess that is most certain, and Religion of the Infallible and the Eternal. It perfectly … reconciles these two terms… faith and reason … those who accept [magic] as a rule may give their will a sovereign power that will make them the masters of all inferior beings and of all errant spirits; that is to say, will make them the Arbiters and Kings of the World….”

Again, we see the concept that only a select few will be chosen to be able to decipher and use magic, and that thereby justifies their dominion “that will make them masters of all inferior beings…[and] make them the Arbiters and Kings of the World.”

Pike wrote the above quote to instruct “Sublime Princes of the Royal Secret”- gentlemen of the 32nd Degree.

At this point, it is clear that to truly hold this view of oneself, humankind and the “laws of the universe” means that one is in direct conflict with the idea of democracy towards a “government of the people, by the people, for the people.”

Lastly, I will share a quote from 1889 while Pike was in France, expressing his views of God and what is to be considered “the Good”:

“The Masonic religion should be, by all of us initiates of the high degrees, maintained in the purity of the Luciferian Doctrine. If Lucifer were not God, would Adonay (the God of the Christians) whose deeds prove his cruelty, perfidy and hatred of man, barbarism and repulsion to science, would Adonay and his priests calumniate him?

`Yes, Lucifer is God, and unfortunately Adonay is also God. For the eternal law is that there is no light without shade, no beauty without ugliness, no white without black, for the absolute can only exist as two Gods…the true and pure philosophical religion is the belief in Lucifer, the equal of Adonay; but Lucifer, God of Light and God of Good, is struggling for humanity against Adonay, the God of Darkness and Evil.”

This quote, as per historian Anton Chaitkin, is available in French and English in the Albert Pike vertical file at the library of the Scottish Rite Southern Jurisdiction at 1733 16th St. NW, Washington D.C.

In later years, the body of Albert Pike would be interred inside the Washington DC Temple’s walls. A few feet away, they built a complete replication of the office and desk of their second most honored member, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover.

It should also be known that much of the FBI is implicated in the Scottish Rite. For instance, there are certain Washington lodges which have a disproportionately high number of FBI agents in them such as the Alexandria Lodge.

[For more information on this refer to historian Anton Chaitkin’s “Treason in America”.]

The Seat of Government

On Dec. 17, 1906, Teddy Roosevelt promoted his Navy Secretary, Charles J. Bonaparte, to become Attorney General. Bonaparte lost no time and told Congress that the Department of Justice must be given “a force of permanent police… under its control.”

On May 27, 1908, Congress reacted by prohibiting all Executive departments from using Secret Service agents as policemen, including the Justice Department. During this period only the Treasury Department had the authority to use Secret Service men.

To get around this block from Congress, on July 26, 1908, Attorney General Bonaparte, on Teddy Roosevelt’s instructions, ordered the creation of an investigative agency within the Department of Justice; which later became known as the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

It was the start of what would become an unelected oligarchy, in direct opposition to the rule of self-government.

In the midst of this, a 22-year-old J. Edgar Hoover was first recruited, the year was 1917. Just out of law school, he was put in charge of the Department of Justice’s War Emergency Division’s Enemy Alien Bureau, and was quickly immersed in the wildly lawless wartime counterinsurgency of the First Red Scare (1917-1920).

Anton Chaitkin writes of this period in his paper “Hoover’s FBI and Anglo-American Dictatorship”:

“Attorney General Palmer created a General Intelligence (or “Radical”) Division in the Bureau of Investigation, and appointed Hoover its head. Military Intelligence and Hoover’s agents working together as a single secret service now built up a network of civilian vigilante spies, informers and provocateurs.

These auxiliaries were then set loose in the “Palmer Raids,” a war on unions, radicals, civil rights advocates, teachers, and immigrants from November 1919 to January 1920. This initial descent into a police state was, however, deeply opposed by the American population, and sparked popular protests and outrage.”

1. Edgar Hoover was well fitted as Palmer’s deputy, in overseeing the political mass arrests, deportations, lynchings, terror propaganda, and witch-hunts. Hoover would put a Southern White Masonic unit inside the Bureau itself, called the Fidelity Chapter. And insist that his agents refer to the Bureau, and his office, as “The Seat of Government”. (2)

In 1922, Walter Lippmann put forth in his incredibly influential book “Public Opinion,” that a dictatorship was of the utmost necessity to correct the crisis America was now facing, and that it could no longer afford to delude itself with the idea of a Constitutional system. Lippmann argued that the general public was incapable of exercising reasoned judgment. He claimed the people could only think in “stereotypes” such that they are led to believe in “villains and conspiracies.”

Thus, to overcome such “ignorance,” Lippmann declared that the consensus must be generated not by the ill-educated people, but rather “engineered” by an elite class of “experts”, using “propaganda.” This elite class was in turn to guide the national government from within its every department, forming a permanent dictatorship, its governing members appointed, not elected, to serve for life. A “soft” dictatorship so to speak.

When the Great Depression hit (1929-1933), Hoover blamed the general lawlessness on inefficient, corrupt local politicians and police. What was the solution? More power to “the Bureau.”

Presidents Come and Go But One Thing Remains Constant

While campaigning for the Presidency, Franklin Roosevelt installed his close friend Thomas J. Walsh as the 1932 Democratic convention chairman.

Montana Senator Walsh “knew where the bodies were buried” so to speak.

The reason for this was that in 1921, Thomas J. Walsh had led the battle at the Senate hearings on the Justice Department’s illegal practices. During the hearings he confronted Palmer and his deputy Hoover with evidence that they had perpetrated “an orgy of terror, violence and crime against citizens and aliens….”

Walsh remained in the Senate as J. Edgar Hoover’s dedicated enemy.

Franklin Roosevelt won the election on November 8, 1932; he was to take office in March. On February 15, 1933, a low-level Italian Freemason named Giuseppe Zingara shot at President-elect Roosevelt. He missed and ended up killing the Chicago Mayor Anton Cermak instead.

On February 26, Franklin Roosevelt announced his appointment of Senator Thomas J. Walsh as U.S. Attorney General. On March 1, the New York Times reported Walsh’s pledge that “he would re-organize the Department of Justice when he assumes office, probably with an almost completely new personnel.” (3) It is said that Walsh had declared that one of his first acts would be to oust J. Edgar Hoover.

Walsh was found dead the next morning, while on a train to Washington, D.C. for Roosevelt’s March 4 inauguration and his own swearing-in.

Starting in July 1933, a group of American Legion officials paid by J.P. Morgan’s men asked Marine Corps General Smedley Butler to lead a coup d’état against President Roosevelt. When General Butler had gathered enough evidence he went to J. Edgar Hoover for action. Hoover refused to take any action stating that there was no evidence a federal criminal statute had been violated. General Butler had no choice but to broadcast the coup plot to the American people in order to subvert the fascist takeover.

Franklin Roosevelt was entirely aware that the growing power of the federal bureau was a terrible threat, and had rapidly become an abhorrent opposing force to the president’s authority. It is for that reason that Franklin Roosevelt made the decision to centralise U.S. intelligence under his own control, which was to be created and guided by Colonel Donovan under the newly created OSS.

It was no secret that Colonel Donovan and J. Edgar Hoover were entirely opposed to each other. In fact, Donovan was up there with Martin Luther King, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Robert Kennedy on Hoover’s most despised list.

Franklin Roosevelt died on April 12^th, 1945. WWII was officially over on Sept 2^nd, 1945. The OSS would be dissolved three weeks later on Sept 20^th, 1945. The CIA was “officially” created two years later, purged of its FDR patriots. Donovan vied for leadership of the CIA and was denied. Instead Truman assigned him the task of heading a committee studying the country’s fire departments. (For more on this refer to my paper)

Following this the FBI continued to conduct witch hunts through Congressional committees, President Truman, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, and the young California Congressman Richard M. Nixon.

On November 22^nd, 1963 President Kennedy was brutally murdered in the streets of Dallas, Texas in broad daylight.

On November 29^th, 1963 the Warren Commission was set up to investigate the murder of President Kennedy.

The old Congressman Hale Boggs of Louisiana (an ally of FDR) was a member of that Warren Commission. Boggs became increasingly disturbed by the lack of transparency and rigour exhibited by the Commission and became convinced that many of the documents used to incriminate Oswald were in fact forgeries.

In 1965 Rep. Boggs told New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison that Oswald could not have been the one who killed Kennedy. (4) It was Boggs who encouraged Garrison to begin the only law enforcement prosecution of the President’s murder to this day.

Nixon was inaugurated as President of the United States on Jan 20^th, 1969. Hale Boggs soon after called on Nixon’s Attorney General John Mitchell to have the courage to fire J. Edgar Hoover. (5)

It wasn’t long thereafter that the private airplane carrying Hale Boggs disappeared without a trace.

Jim Garrison was the District Attorney of New Orleans from 1962 to 1973 and was the only one to bring forth a trial concerning the assassination of President Kennedy. In Jim Garrison’s book “On the Trail of the Assassins”, J. Edgar Hoover comes up several times impeding or shutting down investigations into JFK’s murder, in particular concerning the evidence collected by the Dallas Police Department, such as the nitrate test Oswald was given and which exonerated him, proving that he never shot a rifle the day of Nov 22^nd, 1963. However, for reasons only known to the government and its investigators this fact was kept secret for 10 months. (6) It was finally revealed in the Warren Commission report, which inexplicably didn’t change their opinion that Oswald had shot Kennedy.

Another particularly damning incident was concerning the Zapruder film that was in the possession of the FBI and which they had sent a “copy” to the Warren Commission for their investigation. This film was one of the leading piece of evidence used to support the “magic bullet theory” and showcase the direction of the headshot coming from behind, thus verifying that Oswald’s location was adequate for such a shot.

During Garrison’s trial on the Kennedy assassination (1967-1969) he subpoenaed the Zapruder film that for some peculiar reason had been locked up in some vault owned by Life magazine. This was the first time in more than five years that the Zapruder film was made public. It turns out the FBI’s copy that was sent to the Warren Commission had two critical frames reversed to create a false impression that the rifle shot was from  behind.

When Garrison got a hold of the original film it was discovered that the head shot had actually come from the front. In fact, what the whole film showed was that the President had been shot from multiple angles meaning there was more than one gunman. (7)

When the FBI was questioned about how these two critical frames could have been reversed, they answered self-satisfactorily that it must have been a technical glitch…

Today there are those who continue an attempt to discredit the work of Jim Garrison for the crime of challenging the absurd narrative of the Warren Commission. However, anyone who bothers to read the Warren Commission report, would soon discover it to be a mess of contradictions, fallacies and outright fabrications. Not only an absurd sham but ultimately complicit in one of the most disgraceful cover-ups in American history.

When will the American people realise that the biggest threat to American freedom is not from without but from within its very own walls, where it has been prominently residing for the last 112 years…

[In a following article I will be addressing the central role of H.G. Wells and Walter Lippmann in British-American Intelligence which will subsequently be followed by an expose on the role of CIA Godfather Allen Dulles and the real reason Americans were manipulated into entering the Vietnam War.]

The author can be contacted at cynthiachung@tutanota.com

(1) Anton Chaitkin’s “Treason in America” p. 152-160
(2) Anton Chaitkin’s paper “Hoover’s FBI and Anglo-American Dictatorship”
(3) New York Times, March 1, 1933, p. 2.
(4) Anton Chaitkin’s paper “Hoover’s FBI and Anglo-American Dictatorship”
(5) New York Times, April 6, 1971, “Boggs Demands That Hoover Quit,” p. 1.
(6) Jim Garrison’s “On the Trail of the Assassins” p. 116/(7) For more on this refer to Oliver Stone’s film on the Garrison trial titled “JFK”

– Shakespeare’s Hamlet Act III, scene I

[This paper works as a follow-up to a previous article titled, “On Roosevelt and Stalin: What Revisionist Historians Want Us to Forget.”]

Upon discovery of such an extraordinary weapon, like a terrible sword Excalibur, it was thought by some that they could use it to rule forever.

Others recognised that such power was fleeting, and would always be fleeting, that it had opened up Pandora’s Box and unleashed itself onto the world, with no limit to the magnitude of destruction it could incur, and no limit to how many hands it could fall into.

Today, we find ourselves in a self-made purgatory; we have condemned ourselves and the generations that will follow to an endless stand-off with no release, while the entire world holds its breath taken in as its hostage.

Is this what we call security? Is this what we call peace?

It is a nightmarish twisting of those words. It is, in fact, the most brutal form of tyranny that, like a madman, wildly threatens whole civilizations. It uses terror to get its way and is ready to turn those who rise up against it into ash. It has no regard for reason or understanding, it is drunk on its own colossal power and cares not what came before it and what will come after, its obsession is a fading now.

There is no escape from this type of hell through savage force, this should be clear by now, there can only be an end to this when we turn away from the very thing that brought us here in the first place, blind fear.

Let us stop this madness, and in this enterprise of great pith and moment, let us not allow our currents to turn awry…let us not lose the name of action.

“We’ve Just Saved Two Million Americans”

Despite the attack on Pearl Harbor occurring Dec 7, 1941, giving the U.S. impetus to enter the war more directly, the Americans would only begin their military air campaign against Japan in mid-1944. This is, of course, a massive lag in response.

It was understood by the U.S. that they would need the support of Russia to launch an attack on Japan. Although Germany and Japan had been in partnership and communication throughout the war, the Allied countries did not all regard the war with Japan “their problem.”

General MacArthur estimated that a million Americans would die in only the first phase of the Pacific War. The Russians were being heavily courted by the Americans to break their Neutrality Pact with Japan and enter into the Pacific War for the very straightforward reason that less Americans would die.

In a memo to FDR, General MacArthur would write, “We should make every effort to get Russia into the Japanese war before we go into Japan, otherwise we will take the impact of the Jap divisions and reap the losses…I will not consider going into any part of the Japanese islands unless the Japanese armies in Manchuria are contained by the Russians.” (1)

After three years of the most savage warfare against the German Nazis, where over 25 million Russian soldiers and civilians died, Russia was now prepared to enter into another war, only months later, with Japan to offer military support to the U.S., a country that had suffered minute losses in comparison.

When Admiral King, chief of naval operations, was informed that the Russians would definitely enter the fight against Japan, he was immensely relieved commenting “We’ve just saved two million Americans.”

“They Will Never Allow Hitler to Have a Bomb”

By early Oct 1940, it was believed by the British that a bomb could be developed from U-235, and that the American branch was in consensus that the British were right.

Despite this, Roosevelt remained reluctant to authorize the bomb-production project. For almost two years more, FDR delayed any decision, despite prodding and increasingly strident demands from Churchill, and others.

In Oct 1941, nuclear physicist Niels Bohr and his wife would secretly meet with their old friend and colleague, Prof. Werner Heisenberg, in Sweden. Heisenberg was working for the Nazis, and briefed Bohr about their nuclear weapons program. He also reported to Bohr that he believed the scientists on the project would never allow Hitler to have a bomb (2).

By mid-1942, Roosevelt would be persuaded to approve bringing in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to manage a full-scale bomb-production project, named the Manhattan Engineering District, later known as the Manhattan Project.

The Manhattan Project under the direction of Vannevar Bush and Henry Stimson (U.S. Secretary of War), at its peak employed 120,000 people and built and ran 37 installations, at a cost of more than $2 billion.

No one thought of the Soviet Union as a possible threat at the time, but rather it was the horrifying possibility that Hitler could be the first to control a nuclear bomb.

Is Russia our “Friend” or our “Foe”?

Niels Bohr would flee Nazi occupied Denmark in Sept 1943, and arrive in Washington D.C. on Dec 8th 1943. Bohr was quickly recruited in becoming an advisor to the Manhattan Project, and would propose that the United States work, along with Britain and Russia, to set up international control and inspection of atomic energy, for use of atomic energy based on “cooperation” not conflict, and that Russia must be approached as soon as possible to create mutual trust.

FDR would assign Bohr to meet with Churchill in May 1944, in order to persuade him on the matter.

Needless to say, the meeting was an absolute disaster.

It was the thought of Churchill, and many in the U.S. military circles such as General Groves (who would go on record (3), that the Soviets, if ever, would only succeed in building an atomic bomb ten or more years after the Americans. And thus, to share knowledge with the Soviets was “unnecessary.”

Although Bohr was the most outspoken on the subject, the reality was that the greater majority of the scientists working on the Manhattan Project were of a similar accord. From the first, discussions had been held between the scientists and the military as to the question of how long a lead time America would have.

If the bomb could be kept secret for a number of years, it was the thinking among the military (excepting General Marshall) that there was no need to tell Russia. But if it could not be, and the scientists were agreed that it could not be, that the extremely dangerous matter of an arms race had to be faced.

The other complication was that even if secrecy could be maintained for a few years, it would still jeopardize the trust of the Russians, and could potentially threaten the U.S.-Russia alliance. The ultimate question was thus whether the Russians were to be considered a “friend” or “foe” on the subject of nuclear energy.

Churchill would write, “Even six months will make a difference should it come to a show-down with Russia.” (4)

Churchill was always convinced that such a day would inevitably come, when the Russians would militarily attack Britain, it is interesting that he never seemed to reflect on his own possible role in bringing such a thing about.

In July 1944, Bohr would send a long memo to FDR, disclosing his meeting with Kapitza (a Russian physicist) while he was in London, and his view that the Soviets are indeed working on nuclear weapons, that when they seize Germany they will have access to “immense resources for a full scale effort”, and that this would lead to “a fateful competition” against the Americans if secrecy is maintained.

FDR would meet with Niels Bohr on August 26th, 1944, and agreed that Russia should be approached. (5)

On Sept 18th, 1944 FDR would meet with Churchill at Hyde Park. It was at this meeting that the controversial Hyde Park Aide-Mémoire would be signed, an extraordinary memo stating that the atomic bomb should be kept a secret solely between the U.S. and Britain, and for the first time mentions the possible use of the bomb against the Japanese.

In this aide-mémoire, Churchill was also able to cause Roosevelt to distance himself from Bohr, who was being accused of being a Russian agent by British intelligence, since he failed to inform them of his meeting with Kapitza while in London, to which the memo references.

I suspect we will never know why or how Churchill had prevailed that day in getting Roosevelt to sign such a thing, which was entirely uncharacteristic of him. The likeliest explanation is that FDR figured he could introduce new arguments in a later discussion and reverse his position, as he frequently did with Churchill; an aide-mémoire was by no means a binding contract.

Perhaps Roosevelt’s greatest mistake in the matter was that he presumed, despite his failing health, that he was going to live to see out the end of the war.

On Sept 30th, 1944, after a meeting with FDR who almost certainly steered them in this direction, Vannevar Bush, along with James Conant, would produce a document that completely refuted the path set out in the aide-mémoire; it was titled “Salient Points Concerning Future International Handling of Subject of Atomic Bombs.”

The memo states that “it would be the height of folly for the United States and Great Britain to assume they will always continue to be superior in this new weapon,” and thus most dangerous to continue to maintain secrecy towards the Russians, as to the existence and intention of the program.

The memo continues on how the international exchange of information should be handled, not disclosing how to manufacture a nuclear weapon but on how to harness the benefits of nuclear energy in good faith.

After all, good faith was all they had, since it could never be kept a secret forever, and thus it had to be introduced with trust rather than giving the impression that such power was being withheld to usurp over others. If the United States, by far the strongest country in the world was to respond with fear and distrust, how could they expect those in a much more vulnerable position to operate under a fully committed trust?

On March 15th, 1945, just one month before FDR died, he met with Stimson and would have the last discussion on record about the bomb project. Stimson would write about the meeting:

“I went over with him the two schools of thought that exist in respect to the future control after the war of this project in case it is successful, one of them being the secret close-in attempted control of the project by those who control it now, and the other being the international control based upon freedom both of science and of access. I told him that those things must be settled before the first projectile is used and that he must be ready with a statement to come out to the people on it just as soon as that is done. He [FDR] agreed to that.” (6)

On April 12th 1945, Roosevelt died, four months before the launch of the first atomic bomb on Japan, with no official statement written on which school of thought the United States would or should adopt. The man to replace him as President would not even be aware that a bomb project existed…

“The President is my Friend”

Stalin would say of Roosevelt in July 1944, “The President is my friend, we will always understand each other.” FDR would remark in turn the following month at the Dumbarton Oaks Conference, “At Tehran the Marshal and I got to know each other. We got on beautifully. We cracked the ice, if there ever was any ice; and since then there has been no ice.” (7)

The final document presented at the Dumbarton Oaks was the result of five years of fine-tuning by FDR. Russia, China, Great Britain, the U.S. and after discussion France, were to be the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.

In Stalin’s annual eve of anniversary speech on Nov 6th 1944 he 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 Germany continue to act in a spirit of unanimity and harmony. They will not be effective if this essential condition is violated.” (8)

The first successful atomic bomb test occurred on July 16th, 1945 in Alamogordo, New Mexico. Seven days later, Stalin was informed at the Potsdam conference by Truman that America now had the bomb. (9) Truman, contrary to what he was advised to do, made no mention of collaboration, no mention of making the world peaceful and safe, and no offer to share information with the Russians, not even in return for any quid pro quo. Simply that America now had the bomb.

Both Churchill and Clement Attlee were also present at Potsdam, the reason being, was that Churchill was in fact on his way out as Prime Minister of Great Britain, his last official day being 26th July, 1945 which overlapped with the Potsdam conference (July 17th to August 2nd). The British people had made it crystal clear where they stood in relation to Churchill’s conduct during the terrible war.

On August 6th 1945, Little Boy, the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.

On August 9th at 1:00 am one million Soviet troops crossed the border into eastern Manchuria to face the Kwantung, the culmination of ten months of coordinated planning. However, later that same day a second atomic bomb, Fat Man (named after Churchill), was dropped on Nagasaki. The Russians were completely taken aback.

On August 10th, Japan surrendered.

The decision to drop the bomb, Truman would write in a letter to his daughter Margaret, was “no great decision…not any decision you would have to worry about.”

Nuclear physicist Yuli Khariton would voice a common Russian reaction when he wrote that the two bombs that were dropped on Japan were used “as atomic blackmail against the USSR, as a threat to unleash a new, even more terrible and devastating war,” if Russia refused to play by the rules decided for her.

With this terrible display of horrifying power, most of the world quickly forgot that the Russians were ever willing to enter the Pacific War to “spare American lives.”

There is little doubt which road Roosevelt would have taken if he had lived.

International control based on freedom of access was a Roosevelt hallmark. A strong international organization was his goal in life. His plan for the postwar limitation of arms from the start had been based on parity among the four powers: Russia, China, Britain and the United States.

On April 11th, 1945, the day before Roosevelt died; he drafted a speech that he was to deliver in the coming days, it is considered his last message to the American people:

“We must go on to do all in our power to conquer, the doubts and fears, the ignorance and greed, which made this horror possible…

Today, we are faced with the preeminent fact that, if civilization is to survive, we must cultivate the science of human relationships – the ability of all peoples, of all kinds to live together and to work together, in the same world, at peace…

The work, my friends is peace. More than an end of this war – an end to the beginnings of all wars. Yes, an end, forever, to this impractical, unrealistic settlement of differences between governments by the mass killing of peoples…

The only limits to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts of today. Let us move forward with strong and active faith.”

To Be or Not To Be

By the end of the war, the contrast between the United States and Soviet Union was enormous. The U.S. was supplying over half of the world’s manufacturing capacity, more than half of the world’s electricity, holding two-thirds of the world’s gold stocks and half of all the monetary reserves. It had suffered 405,000 casualties, .003 percent of its population.

Russia suffered 27 million casualties, 16 percent of its population. The Germans burned 70,000 Russian villages to the ground and destroyed 100,000 farms. Twenty-five million Russians were homeless. 32,000 factories and 65,000 railroad tracks were destroyed. And its major cities: Leningrad, Stalingrad and Moscow were in shambles.

Though the Russians had received supplies from the U.S. (despite the grumblings of Churchill), what allowed them to ultimately defeat the Wehrmacht was their strength of spirit and will. If Russia had fallen, it would have been much worse for Britain which had, at its peak, an infantry of 18,347 soldiers.

Roosevelt had promised a thirty year post-war loan to the Russians to allow them to rebuild after the war, which had been in discussion for two years prior to his death.

However, there was never to be such a loan or even financial credits offered, in fact, it was refused.

When asked, Truman denied that the Russians had even applied for credits, that the U.S. had invited the Soviet Union to negotiate credits and that it had not responded.

In March, 1946, the State Department had to acknowledge that this was not true, that the August, 1945 original Russian loan application had, in fact, been apparently “lost” during a transfer of the documents from the Foreign Economic Administration. (10)

Secretary of State James Byrnes would later admit that he made sure that the credits would not be granted by burying the pertinent folder: “I had it placed in the forgotten file, as I felt sure that Fred Vinson, the new Secretary of the Treasury, would not press it.” (11)

Roosevelt had also offered the Soviet Union to become an original member of the World Bank and IMF, however, these were also never realised after FDR’s death, claiming the Cold War (that Churchill had pronounced with no due cause) now made such a thing impossible.

Incredibly, much of this ill treatment of the Soviet Union was from the standpoint that they could never be trusted, that if they were allowed to rebuild themselves they would use their strength to militarily strike against Britain and the U.S. The ongoing fear was that Stalin was and would always be worse than Hitler that it was only a matter of time before Stalin would reveal his desire to brutally rule over the West.

Yet, 75 years later, there was never such an attempt. And this fear has yet to confirm itself as something more than the orchestrations of a paranoid, if not lunatic, mind.

Today, the Russian Federation is one of the most powerful nations in the world. Its nuclear weapons and deterrence capabilities are among the most sophisticated, if not the most sophisticated. And U.S.-Russian relations are possibly the lowest they have ever been.

So, I ask you, was it worth it?

The author can be reached at cynthiachung@tutanota.com

(1) P 389, S. Butler, On Roosevelt and Stalin: A Portrait of a Partnership
(2) N. Blaedel, Harmony and Unity: The Life and Times of Niels Bohr. Heisenberg is widely believed to have deliberately sabotaged the German nuclear weapons program.
(3) P 312, S. Butler Ibid
(4) P 312, S. Butler Ibid
(5) S. Butler Ibid
(6) P 321 Ibid
(7) P 285 Ibid
(8) P 301 Ibid
(9) P 493 Ibid
(10) P 507 Ibid
(11) P 507 Ibid

– William Shakespeare (Twelfth Night)

There is a very real attempt to rewrite history as we speak. A history that is at the root of what organises our world today, for it is understood that who controls the past, will have control over our present and our future.

This attempt to rewrite history is of the most paramount significance because it is what is used today to shape who we regard as a “friend” and who we regard as a “foe.” Thus who controls the “narrative” of history, will also control who we see ourselves “aligned” with.

There is a consequence to this which can only lead to further disunity, to further conflict, to further war. It can only be remedied when the past is finally acknowledged.

There is still time to change this dreadful course.

A Meeting of Minds

The Tehran conference (Nov 28 – Dec 1, 1943) was the first time that Roosevelt and Stalin met in person. It was a historic meeting of the two most important leaders of the Allies that would shape the outcome of WWII.

Roosevelt had been trying to set up a meeting for more than a year, the meeting was of utmost importance because it would allow the two leaders to begin a basis for a solid “trust” to be formed, essential to not only winning the war but for maintaining a stable peace afterwards.

Over four years into WII had passed, and the level of distrust, fear and hatred for the Soviets was still prevalent in the political and military circles within the United States.

This was especially the case within the State Department career officers who were against FDR’s recognition of the Soviet Union in 1933, and thus antagonism to him and his policies were pervasive (1). When Harry Hopkins, FDR’s closest advisor on foreign policy during WWII, was sent to Europe to check in on the foreign service, he had found many U.S. embassies and legations still displaying the portrait of Herbert Hoover on their walls instead of FDR.

George Keenan, best known as the author of the Cold War strategy of “containment,” was among many of similar fibre, who opposed FDR’s recognition of the Soviet Union, stating: “We should have no relationship at all with them…Never- neither then nor at any later date- did I consider the Soviet Union a fit ally or associate, actual or potential, for this country.”

The Foreign Services’ anti-Soviet attitude ran so deep that most were against aid to Russia even after Hitler had invaded, despite the Soviets losing more lives against the Nazis in the first few months than all of Europe combined.

Churchill himself made it no secret that he wanted to make sure Germany would emerge from the war strong enough to counterbalance Russia in Europe (strong… but as he sought to soothingly explain not dangerous).

However, Roosevelt would be the first to recognize that the ever growing barbarism of Hitler was much more dangerous than these foreign intelligence circles were estimating, and that Russia was an imperative ally, in fact the only ally, that could ensure its defeat.

The Tehran conference was a great success in collaborative strategy to win the war, but more importantly, it was a great diplomatic success that would begin one of the most important alliances to have ever occurred in modern history.

The Truth Behind the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact

In 1936, Stalin had predicted how German aggression would break out upon the world:

“History shows that when any state intends to make war against another state…it begins to seek frontiers across which it can reach the frontiers of the state it wants to attack…I do not know precisely what frontiers Germany may adapt to her aims, but I think she will find people willing to ‘lend’ her a frontier.”

These statements were made before the Munich Agreement which was just that, a “lending of a frontier.”

On March 18^th 1939 at Stalin’s direction Litvinov, Soviet Commissar for Foreign Affairs, proposed that France, Britain, Poland, Russia, Romania and Turkey join together at a conference to draw up a treaty to stop Hitler. Chamberlain was strongly against the idea, writing to a friend: “I must confess to the most profound distrust of Russia. I have no belief whatever in her ability to maintain an effective offensive, even if she wanted to. And I distrust her motives.” (2)

On April 14^th 1939, Lord Halifax, British Foreign Minister said that Britain would not extend an alliance to Russia in case Germany were to attack. Russia was clearly being told to go at it alone.

On April 16^th 1939, Stalin had Litvinov propose to Sir William Seeds the British ambassador, that Russia, France and Britain make a pact that would bind their three countries to declare war on Germany if they or any nation between the Baltic and the Mediterranean were attacked.

Great Britain and France refused.

The Munich Betrayal had already been signed Sept 30^th 1938, where Britain had “allowed” Hitler’s annexation of the German speaking territory of Czechoslovakia, as if it were a British colony that it could do with as it wished.

In addition, the Bank of England and the Bank of International Settlements, through BoE Governor Montague Norman, allowed for the direct transfer of 5.6 million pounds worth of gold to Hitler that was owned by the Bank of Czechoslovakia.

And lastly, that Prescott Bush on behalf of Union Banking was caught funding Hitler before and during WWII and on Oct 20th, 1942 had its bank assets seized under the “U.S. Trading with the Enemy Act.”

Despite all of this, it is the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact that has been selected by “historians” to go down in history as a deep stain on the moral character and true “face” of the Soviet Union. Confirmation that the Russians should never be trusted, for they would side with whoever wielded the greatest power, no matter the ideologies held.

This could not be further from the truth, and is in fact a gross disregard of the responsibility that Great Britain and France held in creating such a desperate situation for the Soviet Union. They had left her destitute because they wanted to see her destroyed.

Stalin was under no illusion. He knew that it was an impossibility for the USSR to coexist with a Nazi Germany, specifically because the existence of the Slavic people was considered unacceptable to the latter. Hitler, who described this belief in detail in his Mein Kampf, made no secret that he thought the Slavic people an inferior race and that after his conquest he planned to turn Russia and Poland into slave nations. Hitler would boast “The conflict [in the east] will be different from the conflict in the west.” The people of the west were to be subdued, the people of the east were to be annihilated.

Poland’s foreign minister Josef Beck who controlled foreign policy was strongly pro-German, and was adamant that Germany would never invade Poland. Some say Beck was a Nazi agent. It is curious that his son Anthony would in fact find after his father’s death, among his possessions an entire album filled with photos of Beck posing with Nazi generals and various officials of the Nazi government elite. (3)

Poland’s refusal to strategise a defense put the Soviet Union in an understandably difficult situation, since Poland shared a border with them. If Poland were to be invaded it would be used as a launching pad to attack the USSR, which had happened numerous times in the recent past, including during WWI.

Despite the fact that Poland would have absolutely no ability to defend itself in the case of a German invasion, Lord Halifax used as his excuse for putting off serious negotiations with the USSR that it was due to Josef Beck’s refusal to allow Russian soldiers to enter Poland, even if it were to drive back a Nazi army…who wanted to exterminate the Polish race as Hitler explicitly stated repeatedly.

Lord Halifax is on record after a meeting with Hitler having said of the führer “By destroying communism in his [Hitler’s] country, he had barred its road to Western Europe…Germany therefore could rightly be regarded as a bulwark of the West against communism.” (4)

Nine days after the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was signed on Sept 1, 1939 the Wehrmacht invaded Poland. After 18 days of fighting not a single Polish division was left. On Sept 17th, the Red Army entered eastern Poland and Poland ceased to exist.

This situation could have been avoided. Poland did not have to suffer the fate it did during WWII, which had the only concentration camp outside of Germany, near their shared border with the Soviet Union, meant to extinguish their race (and everyone knew that the Russians were next on the list).

Poland suffered this fate because Great Britain and France had decided that they were “expendable” for the destruction of the Russian people. Hitler would have to consume Poland before consuming the Soviet Union. By failing to organise an alliance as Stalin requested months beforehand, Germany was allowed to wreak havoc on numerous countries, each country left to attempt meekly to defend itself, and one by one they fell.

What was it all for?

Stalin was aware that Hitler would never leave Russia alone, and the pact was a desperate manoeuvre to attempt to buy time, it was his hope that Hitler would attack France and Great Britain and only then turn his attention towards Russia. We cannot judge this harshly, since it had already been decided by Britain and France to play those very cards. Since alliance was off the table, it was left to a matter of avoiding being first on the chopping block.

Churchill was convinced throughout the war and afterwards, that Stalin was no different from Hitler, and that no alliance could be trusted. Churchill feared that Stalin’s greatest wish was to conquer and subdue western Europe. This fear and delay in forming a second front, by rejecting Eisenhower’s Operation Sledgehammer and delaying Operation OVERLORD for months would cost many millions of innocent lives.

The United States chose to see the situation differently, as Cordell Hull, U.S. Secretary of State from 1933-1944, wrote in his Memoirs that the signing of the pact was Stalin’s way “to keep Hitler’s legions from approaching too close to Russia…We [FDR and Hull] did not wish to place her on the same belligerent footing as Germany…Hitler had not abandoned his ambition with regard to Russia.” And thus, it was regarded as a defensive manoeuvre.

It is interesting to note that Stalin received messages that summer of 1939 from both Hitler and Roosevelt but he received no messages from either Chamberlain or Daladier.

On Oct 31, 1939 Hans Frank, the German governor-general of occupied Poland announced:

“The Poles do not need universities or secondary schools; the Polish lands are to be turned into an intellectual desert…The only educational opportunities that are to be made available are those that demonstrate to them their hopelessness or their ethnic fate.”

And indeed, that is exactly what happened.

When the Red Army liberated Poland, it found no buildings usable as schools, no school equipment, no scientific material, no laboratories. What the Germans did not destroy they shipped back to the fatherland.

The Fight for a U.S.-Russia Alliance

On June 22, 1941 Operation Barbarossa was launched. Within a week the Germans had captured 400,000 soldiers, damaged more than 4,000 planes beyond repair and penetrated 300 miles into Russia, capturing Minsk. Another 200,000 soldiers were captured the second week.

Stalin, recollecting himself from the shock of such levels of destruction, gave a speech July 3, 1941 stirring the spirit of Russia and reassuring its people that victory was possible against such a formidable foe, that the Russian struggle “will merge with the struggle of the peoples of Europe and America for their independence, for democratic liberties. It will be a united front of the peoples who stand for freedom and against enslavement.”

However, the Soviet Union was still going to need support if they were to win against Hitler’s armies. There was strong opposition in America to aiding Russia for various reasons, but the most disruptive one was the thought that the Russians did not deserve American support, that they were no different from the Nazis.

Senate opposition to the very idea of aid to Russia was especially forceful. The Missouri senators were the worst. “It’s a case of dog eat dog,” barked Senator Bennett Clark from Missouri. Senator Harry Truman, yapped in accord: “If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany and that way let them kill as many as possible.”

Bone chilling words to come from a future American President, words that no Russian would ever forget.

It was thought by many that the Soviets would not last long in a war with Hitler. British intelligence estimated that the Wehrmacht would reach Moscow “in three weeks or less.”

Roosevelt felt differently. He would set up a Lend-Lease in March 1941 which allowed the U.S. to supply anti-Hitler collation allies with material. Despite this aid being delayed for months in the case of the Soviet Union, it nevertheless did come, and not a minute too soon.

On Sept 8, 1941 the siege of Leningrad began and would only end in Jan 1944. Hitler intended to starve the 2.2 million Russian inhabitants declaring “Requests to be allowed to surrender will be rejected…We have no interest in preserving any part of the population of that large city.”

General Zhukov was sent to the city’s defense and saved Leningrad from such a fate. Later Eisenhower would say of Zhukov “In Europe the war has been won and to no man do the United Nations owe a greater debt than to Marshal Zhukov.”

Roosevelt’s Lend-Lease program was a major factor in Russia’s salvation. The list of goods that Roosevelt committed to send to the Soviet Union was astounding. It included shipments every month of 400 planes, 500 tanks, 5,000 cars, 10,000 trucks and huge quantities of anti-tank guns, anti-aircraft guns, diesel generators, field telephones, radios, motorcycles, wheat, flour, sugar, 200,000 pairs of boots, 500,000 pairs of surgical gloves and 15,000 amputation saws. By the end of October 1941, ships were carrying 100 bombers, 100 fighter planes, 166 tanks all with spare parts and ammunition, plus 5,500 trucks. (5)

The siege of Moscow lasted from Oct 1941 to Jan 1942, it would claim 926,000 Soviet lives before it ended.

The Soviet Union was receiving supplies from the U.S., but it was taking the full brunt of the Wehrmacht army on their own.

According to WWII historian and authority on Nazi Germany Gerhard Weinberg, the German military’s own figures show that ten thousand Russian prisoners of war were shot or killed by hunger and disease EVERY SINGLE DAY for the first seven months of the war. This amounts to two million, adding one million Soviet citizens who died during this period, 3 million Russians died in the first seven months of the war.

Eisenhower had drafted a plan code name Sledgehammer to organise a second front to support Russia, but it would rely on the complete backing of Great Britain from where the operation would be launched, for housing and aircraft support.

Major General Ismay head of the British Office of the Minister of Defense was among those who thought it a great mistake to have misled General George Marshall and Hopkins on British support for the operation, stating:

“Our American friends went happily under the mistaken impression that we had committed ourselves to both Roundup and Sledgehammer…When he had to tell them, after the most thorough study of Sledgehammer, that we were absolutely opposed to it, they felt that we had broken faith with them…I think we should have come clean, much cleaner than we did, and said, “We are frankly horrified because of what we have been through in our lifetime.’ “(6)

The second front was postponed yet again, the invasion of French North Africa by a joint U.S.-British operation occurred instead.

It is interesting to note that Churchill is on record for his frustration at the Soviets destroying German weapons upon capturing German soldiers, he was furious because he wanted these weapons kept in case they would be needed against the Russians in a future war…

FDR’s Vision for a Postwar World

The Atlantic Charter was to be the death knell for colonial empires. Western Europe and America thought of it in terms of safety within borders, but the Third World heard the true spirit; national sovereignty. It would take years to make its way around the globe but the fiery spirit had been lit among colonial peoples. Churchill only went along with it because he had to. The continued existence of the British Empire was at stake and only America could save it.

As recounted in, Elliot Roosevelt’s As He Saw It, FDR made his thoughts clear on the matter: “I think I speak as America’s president when I say that America won’t help England in the war simply so that she will be able to continue to ride roughshod over colonial peoples.”

Churchill never understood FDR’s idea that independence, not dependence, was the best economic solution to the world’s problems, nor did he understand that FDR believed the pursuit and maintenance of colonial empires was a root cause of WWII (as did Stalin), and that before independence of these countries could be accomplished it would need in the meantime a strong and balanced leadership of the four powers; U.S., Russia, China and Great Britain to defend nations’ right to sovereignty.

On February 23 1944, FDR stated at a press conference his thoughts on the United Nations:

Q: Do you conscientiously believe that the Conference can be the foundation of world peace for more than the generation of the men who are building that peace?

FDR: I can answer that question if you can tell me who your descendants will be in the year 2057.

Q: Can we look forward?

FDR: We can look as far ahead as humanity believes in this sort of thing. The United Nations will evolve into the best method ever devised for stopping war, and it will also be the beginning of something else to go with it.

On March 1^st, 1944 FDR spoke to a packed joint session of Congress stating:

“The Crimea [Yalta] Conference was a successful effort by the three [U.S., USSR and Britain] leading Nations to find a common ground for peace. It ought to spell the end of the system of unilateral action, the exclusive alliances, the spheres of influence, the balance of power, and all the other expedients that have been tried for centuries – and have always failed. We propose to substitute for all these, a universal organization in which all peace-loving Nations will finally have a chance to join.”

Let U.S. not U.S. not allow so many millions to have died for this vision, be for naught.

An upcoming paper will focus on the relations between Truman and Stalin, the dropping of the Atomic Bomb and Churchill’s announcement of the Iron Curtain.

The author can be reached at cynthiachung@tutanota.com

(1) On November 16, 1933, President Roosevelt had ended almost 16 years of American non-recognition of the Soviet Union following a series of negotiations in Washington, D.C. with the Soviet Commissar for Foreign Affairs, Maxim Litvinov.
(2) P 162, Susan Butler’s “Roosevelt and Stalin: Portrait of a Partnership”
(3) P 160, Ibid
(4) P 165, Ibid
(5) Ibid
(6) P 247, Ibid

The UN, in the vision of its initiator, who was the anti-imperialist Franklin Delano Roosevelt, was supposed to be an actually functioning international democracy composed of independent nations which would be interrelating on the basis of international laws that would concern only international relations, and not at all intranational relations or “domestic policies” (including all internal state matters). The basic idea was that each nation’s internal policies would continue to be determined strictly by that given nation’s own constitution and laws. FDR had no fantasy of having the UN become involved in the internal affairs of its constituent nations.  However, FDR died on 12 April 1945 and became replaced by the pro-imperialist Harry S. Truman, who produced, and mainly created, the imperialism-accepting UN that has since degenerated into the international lawlessness which prevails today, under the existing international PR-forum, which is today’s United Nations. FDR had intended to design (and largely created the design for) a UN so as to avoid the then-existing international lawlessness, which he said had produced both of the World Wars. That was the problem he was concerned with in creating the UN — to prevent WW III. He created it because he believed that only by avoiding the international lawlessness that had always prevailed can a Third World War be avoided. His intention was to devote the rest of his life to building and solidifying that UN

The UN that the pro-imperialist Truman shaped, in violation of his predecessor FDR’s anti-imperialist intention, has degenerated so much, by now, so that it has become effectively dead (except as a PR forum). Truman’s imperialism-accepting UN has died — become the walking-dead zombie it now is — because the U.S. Government no longer even has any need to be concerned about possibly being held legally to account under international law. Power corrupts, and, by now, the most-powerful (the U.S. and its allies) have no accountability at all, on the international stage. Without accountability on the part of the most-powerful, there is really no international law — no international government — at all. That’s today’s UN: it’s this Truman-birthed zombie, the fill-in UN

Throughout the world today, there is no effective international law in any instance in which the U.S. Government doesn’t want international law to apply. If the U.S Government doesn’t want international law to apply, then international law doesn’t become applied to that particular instance. The U.S. Government, and any of its allies, is immune from international law — stands above it (not nominally, but actually) — though all nations that are not allied with the U.S. are, in fact, subject to, and must adhere to, international law. This is today’s international reality.

The U.S. Government doesn’t only have a veto-power at the UN Security Council (which four other nations also have), but it — and it alone — also has an effective ability, outside the UN altogether, to exempt from international law any international violation that the U.S. Government wants to exempt, which the U.S. Government routinely does want whenever the violation is being done by the U.S. Government or by an ally, such as Israel. This is a veto-power that is not within the UN, but entirely outside it — and only the U.S. has this veto.

The U.S. and Israel are the most-frequent — and always un-prosecuted — violators of international laws; and the U.S. Government itself is also, and uniquely, the world’s most common repudiator of the will of other nations in snubbing, and refusing to participate in, agencies of international law, such as the International Criminal Court, and international agreements to restrain global warming.

The U.S. Government is not taking over any functions of international law, but is instead effectively destroying international law and the United Nations itself, by its own manifest ignoring and contempt of international law, and effectively imposing upon the entire planet an internationally lawless world, a rule by force, overriding any international rule by law.

This is not the UN that FDR envisioned and hoped for; it is instead the rule-by-force that Adolf Hitler and the Axis powers during World War II intended to exist.

The United States Government itself has taken upon itself the mantle of Hitler’s intended Thousand-Year Reich, though with the aims of the U.S. regime, instead of with the aims of the German regime. Instead of aiming for a rule by force over the entire world by Germany’s Government, today’s reality is a rule by force over the entire world by America’s Government. This is not Germany’s imperialistic fascism ruling the world; it is instead America’s imperialistic fascism ruling the world.

What we see around us now is understandable realistically only as reflecting the lawless world that the world’s most powerful nation has created, and effectively imposes upon the rest of the world.

Here are some examples:

On July 21st, South Front headlined “Israel Responds With Force To Iranian Plans To Deploy Air Defense Systems In Syria” and reported “Late on July 20, the Israeli Air Force carried out a new wave of airstrikes on the southern countryside of the Syrian capital of Damascus. According to Syria’s state-run news agency SANA, Israeli warplanes launched missiles from the airspace over the Golan Heights at 21.48 local time.” How is this invasion by Israel not an example of aggressive war, such as was prosecuted at the Nuremberg Tribunal after WW II and such as is prohibited by the UN Charter? The invasion is routine by Israel and always unprosecuted by any UN agency. Furthermore, Israel militarily seized the Golan Heights from Syria and possesses no right to launch air strikes from Syria’s territory there against the parts of Syria that Israel does not control. Israel can do this only because the U.S. regime allow it to.

The UN is irrelevant.

Rule-by-force pertains internationally. Unrestrained. Unpunished.

Actually, for over a decade, ever since at least when the U.S. President Barack Obama came into power in 2009 and won the Nobel Peace Prize for his hypocritical rhetoric, and started his secret planning to overthrow and replace Syria’s Government, such military invasions of Syria by the U.S. regime and its allies have continued unabated and destroyed Syria — and who has been punished for this?

And he and his allies did it to Libya first, in 2011, and “We came, we saw, he died, ha, ha, ha!” How brazen is that? According to the Judgment at Nuremberg, “To initiate a war of aggression … is the supreme international crime,” and the Nazi leaders were executed for having produced it. The United States Government routinely produces it, such as in Iraq 2003, Libya 2011, Syria 2012-, Yemen 2015-; and the U.S. regime’s allies — Israel, UK, and others — likewise do. All leaders who do so must be executed, or else the Judgment at Nuremberg was mere victors’ ‘justice,’ nothing such as Franklin Delano Roosevelt, leading America’s allies in WW II, intended. Furthermore, a strong case could likewise be made that America’s coups which overthrew and replaced Governments in dozens of countries after WW II, such as Thailand 1948, Syria 1949, Iran 1953, Guatemala 1954, and up through to Ukraine 2014 and others that were attempted such as against Venezuela many times, likewise constitute the international crime of aggression, though perpetrated by subversion and bribery, instead of by paying outright armed forces in an overt military invasion.

Consequently, there can be no reasonable question that the United States of America is uniquely the successor-nation to Adolf Hitler’s Germany.

For example: how was Obama allowed to overthrow and replace the democratically elected leaders of Ukraine in February 2014 in a barbaric and bloody coup by means of which his agent Victoria Nuland was able, in a telephone call on 27 January 2014 (prior to the February 2014  coup), to instruct the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, whom to get appointed to lead the post-coup government, and to tell him that “Yats is the guy”? (And a month later, he was appointed to lead that Government.)

How can a national head-of-state who decides on his own which foreign heads-of-state will be regime-changed and how, and even which ones will be assassinated (as Libya’s Gaddafi became, by U.S.-backed forces — and as Iraq’s Saddam Hussein had been, by U.S.-backed forces, in 2003), and not himself face an international court and firing-squad, guillotine, or other means of public execution? Is such, a world, a world under international law, or instead, a world under international lawlessness?

This can happen only in an internationally lawless world — a world in which FDR’s UN does not exist, at all. And it does not. And an internationally lawless world does now exist.

Either the world will end this international lawlessness, or it will end the world, and this was the reason why FDR planned the UN — in order to save the world by establishing an international world by international laws, and not merely by international tyrants (such as America’s leaders are).

Furthermore, Obama was the norm for this regime’s head-of-state. His immediate predecessor, George W. Bush, invaded Iraq on 20 March 2003 without any UN authorization, and destroyed the country — a country that had not invaded the United States nor even threatened to do so. (Just like Syria. Just like Libya. And just like Venezuela and Iran, which his successor Donald Trump wants to destroy.)

Obama’s successor, Trump, has not only perpetrated yet more of Obama’s invasions of Syria, and of Iraq, and of Iran, and of Yemen, and elsewhere, but he even continued Obama’s coup-attempts against Venezuela, and cancelled the international agreement that enabled nuclear inspections in Iran, and refused to sign the tepid Paris Climate agreement, which — unenforced though it was — was nonetheless unacceptably strong for the U.S. regime to allow.

How and why is it, then, that all three of America’s recent international dictators still have heads on their shoulders, instead of in the ditch?

Where international law is not enforced, international law does not exist.

Hitler gave up his life for one cause above all else: a dictatorial world order. He died in that vicious cause. But ultimately he won WW II, because the America that followed after him and participated in killing him and his top followers is mainly his international regime of global conquest, not FDR’s democracy in an international democracy of independent nations.

Hitler, in the deepest sense, won WWII. How long will his victory be allowed to stand? How long will his successor, the global American empire, be allowed to continue? What will bring it to an end? Will that be yet another imperialistic fascist regime? Or will it instead be FDR’s vision, of an international federation of independent nations, a global democracy of independent states — the UN that he had planned?

– Willy Brandt (German Federal Chancellor, right before he stepped down in 1974)

Believe it or not, but the dystopic view that democracy is dead is by no measure a new idea. However, what might disturb you is where this design, in its contemporary form, really germinated from.

The idea that democracy is in a crisis and needs to be replaced with a new form of “governance” did not originate from the outcries of an oppressed people demanding their rights to a decent life. We are not presently seeing an organic, grassroots process in reforming how government, that is, democracy will be “improved” upon. Rather, what we are seeing is a controlled disintegration of the very thing we think we are trying to uphold, and this destruction has been in the works for over 45 years.

It is no coincidence that Samuel P. Huntington is very fond of the Willy Brandt quote “prophesising” the end of democracy (which was used at the beginning of both his books ‘The Crisis of Democracy’ and ‘Disaffected Democracies’), that is after all his purpose in life…to see to it that that prophecy comes true.

In this paper I will go through how the Henry Kissinger crew successfully purged the last significant remnants of decency within the CIA and reshaped the government structure into the Deep State that we see it grotesquely throbbing as today. In this story, we will see how those prominent figureheads who prophesise the “end of democracy” have been the very orchestrators of its destruction.

The First Purge of American Intelligence: The Dismantling of the OSS

On March 4th 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt would be elected President of the United States, which would become a twelve year presidency, ending only due to his passing away. Roosevelt was an anti-imperialist who actively, and successfully, organised towards abolishing imperialism throughout the world.

The Office of Strategic Services (OSS) was established by Roosevelt on June 13th 1942, under the direction of William J. Donovan, as a wartime intelligence agency. Its purpose was to collect and analyze strategic information required by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and to conduct special operations not assigned to other agencies.

Contrary to how we think of American foreign intelligence today, the raison d’être of the OSS was to genuinely win the war (WWII) quickly and with the least amount of loss.

However, FDR would pass away on April 12th 1945, and the OSS would be dismantled a mere five months after FDR’s passing and two weeks after the official end of WWII.

On Sept 20th 1945, Truman infamously ordered the shutdown of the OSS, referring to it as a potential Gestapo , however, not with the intention to disband all foreign intelligence capabilities. The OSS would be replaced under the new banner of CIA, on Sept 18th 1947, and more importantly as a contingent to the National Security Council which was created on the same day. Refer to my paper on this.

Many respectable and patriotic intelligence officers of repute, who were loyal to FDR’s vision, were also thrown out of the intelligence community with the disbanding of the OSS.

In August 1949, the Soviet Union tested its first atomic bomb, several years before the 1953 date forecast by the CIA. As a response, the Joint Intelligence Committee submitted an estimate of the nature of the nuclear threat from the Soviets. JIC-502 claimed that once the Soviets had 200 atomic bombs, they could launch a surprise attack and defeat the U.S.

These assertions were made without analysis of Soviet capabilities to actually deliver the weapons, let alone produce them at that rate. The estimates did not even attempt to analyze Soviet strategic intentions.

JIC-502, titled “Implications of Soviet Possession of Atomic Weapons” and drafted Jan 20th 1950, turned out not to be an intelligence report at all but rather a sales pitch, claiming that a nuclear-armed Soviet Union had introduced the notion that “a tremendous military advantage would be gained by the power that struck first and succeeded in carrying through an effective surprise attack.”

It was JIC-502 which would be the first to put forward a justification for the preventive first strike concept, supported by a massive military buildup under the pretence of pre-emptive war.

NSC-68 would be drafted the same year, declaring that the U.S. was in the moral equivalent of war with the Soviet Union and called for a massive military buildup to be completed by 1954 dubbed the “year of maximum danger”, the year JIC-502 claimed the Soviets would achieve military superiority and be able to launch war against the U.S. This proposed military buildup would increase the defense budget from $10 billion to $40 billion from 1950-53.

During this same period another security doctrine was drafted, titled “NSC-75: A Report to the NSC by the Executive Secretary on British Military Commitments”. The report concluded that if the British Empire collapsed, and Britain could no longer carry out these deployments, in defending the “free world” against the Soviets, the U.S. would not be able to carry out its current foreign policy, including NSC-68.

It was thus concluded in the report that it would be more cost-effective to aid Britain in saving its Empire!

If you were ever wondering why the CIA was constantly found paired with British Intelligence, starting from its very inception, in a series of coups in countries they had no reason to be in, now you know why.

The U.S. had gone from an explicit mission to end imperialism worldwide under Roosevelt, to actively supporting and upholding British colonies and vassal states under Truman!

This was all done under the pretence of protecting the “free world” from the evil boogeymen Soviets, whom Churchill decided to be labelled such in his Iron Curtain Speech. And thus, the interests of the British Empire were safeguarded by an abiding American stooge, as long as the narrative that all Russians were villains was believed.

Interestingly, the CIA was not on board with the pre-emptive war strategy, as defined by JIC-502. In February 1950 the CIA responded in ORE 91-49, stating:

“It is always possible…that the USSR would initiate a war if it should estimate that a Western attack was impending. [However], It is not yet possible to estimate with any precision the effects of Soviet possession of the Atomic Bomb upon the probability of war. The implications of atomic warfare, either militarily or psychologically, have not yet been fully appraised.” (emphasis added)

In other words, the CIA was stating that JIC-502’s frantic lunacy in demanding a military buildup and first strike capability against the Soviets was groundless. That there was no data to support such a claim, and thus such a response would be a reckless and dangerous one.

It became evident to those who wished to push through these permanent war policies that the CIA was going to need “stronger” leadership.

At least, this was the argument made by the Dulles-Jackson-Correa Report which called for a strong CIA Director in the wake of the Cold War. Though Walter Bedell Smith, who would become CIA Director from 1950-53, did much to reorganise the CIA away from the pre-emptive war mongering, it was ultimately Allen Dulles who would take the CIA throne.

It should not come as a surprise that Dulles had himself in mind the whole time when he was talking about the stuff that was needed for a “strong” CIA Director… however, he was not referring to a strong mind, but rather a strong stomach.

Dulles would act as Director of the CIA from 1953-61, until he was fired by President Kennedy (along with the Deputy Director and Deputy Director for Plans), all three were caught essentially committing treason during the Bay of Pigs fiasco, refer to my paper on this.

McCone would replace Dulles as CIA Director and would attempt to clear the CIA of its Dulles loyalists in the Bay of Pigs incident; unfortunately it would not be enough.

During Dulles’ term as CIA Director, he did nothing less than entrench America’s role in exacting permanent warfare across the world against “communist insurgents”, with the never-ending Indochina wars lasting for over 35 years.

Though Bedell Smith would only be CIA Director for three years, he would succeed, along with Donovan (founder of the OSS) to create the most strategically important departments within the CIA: the Office of National Estimates (ONE).

Smith sought potential candidates for this new branch from those who had been thrown out of the intelligence community when Truman disbanded the OSS. Many of these “retired” intelligence officers had served in the OSS’ original Research and Analysis Branch; including William Langer and Sherman Kent who both played crucial roles in the running of ONE. Both Langer and Kent were reputable historians.

It was recognised that there was a crisis in competent intelligence gathering and analysis that would in turn be used to shape reckless war mongering policies such as JIC-502, NSC-68 and NSC-75. As Kent would state, there were those in the CIA who were “seeking power through sacrificing the truth.”

The formation of ONE was to be a major pushback on this type of groupthink within the intelligence community.

Kent would comment on the issue of the agency’s security screening (McCarthyism was in full swing at the time) stating:

“When an intelligence staff has been screened through [too finely], its members will be as alike as tiles on a bathroom floor – and about as capable of meaningful and original thought.”

In summary, since the death of FDR there was a somewhat open battle between members of the intelligence community, which could be categorised as FDR loyalists vs Churchill loyalists (1). Although there was an attempt to expunge the most notable intelligence officers who remained anti-imperial, Bedell Smith was successful in bringing these men back in, under the reorganised department ONE, who would in turn be a form of sane leadership within the CIA.

Unfortunately, the NSC did not share these views and there would be a second purge of the last remnants of true American patriots.

The Second Purge of American Intelligence: The Deep State is Born

From the moment Kissinger assumed the post of National Security Advisor to Nixon, he set out to centralize all intelligence estimates, diplomatic initiatives, and covert operations over figuratively and sometimes literal dead bodies of members of the CIA, Joint Chiefs of Staff, State Department and Congress.

According to John Ranelagh in his book The Agency: The Rise and Decline of the CIA:

“Very early in the Nixon administration, it became clear that the President wanted Henry Kissinger to run intelligence for him and that the NSC staff in the White House under Kissinger would control the intelligence community. This was the beginning of a shift of power away from the CIA to a new center: the growing NSC staff.”

Kissinger would use the Watergate scandal, where the CIA was caught by Congress directly implicated in treasonous activities, as the impetus needed to form a new CIA, a secret branch away from the scrutiny of Congress.

In 1978, Kissinger would launch the Intelligence Reorganization and Reform Act, which essentially worked to “clean house” of the intelligence community.

In 1982, under the direction of Kissinger, President Reagan would sign NSDD 77 under Cold War duress, which would launch Project Democracy, a sardonic name for a Trojan Horse.

NSDD 77 allowed Project Democracy the reins over “covert action on a broad scale” as well as overt public actions later to be associated with the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). The directive ordered the CIA to stay out of both the overt and covert part of Project Democracy, thus giving free reign to the Kissingerian “NSC apparatus”.

Almost one year later, the uninformed and naïve Congress passed the NED Act in Oct 1983, and effectively signed off on wrapping duct tape around their heads.

The structure of the NED essentially functions as a private CIA political operations arm of an invisible, secret government beyond accountability and beyond the reach of the law.

Those who still had a degree of humanity as members of the intelligence community, and had survived the Kissinger purge, were simply kept in the dark about the cloak and dagger operations of the secret government branch.

As for the department ONE, they would be disbanded in 1973 (the year Kissinger became Secretary of State) and replaced with a “group of experts” that would later form the National Intelligence Council in 1979. This would be the last purge of sane patriotic leadership within the intelligence community, left to the hyenas and jackals to run from thenceforth.

In a 1991 interview, then NED President David Ignatius arrogantly stated “a lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA…The biggest difference is that when such activities are done overtly, the flap potential is close to zero. Openness is its own protection”.

The Real “Crisis of Democracy”

The Trilateral Commission was founded in the wake of Watergate and oil crisis of 1973. It was formed under the pretence of addressing the “crisis of democracy” and calling for a reshaping of political systems in order to form a more “stable” international order and “cooperative” relations among regions.

Its formation would be organised by Britain’s hand in America, the Council on Foreign Relations, (aka: the offspring of the Royal Institute for International Affairs, the leading think tank for the British Crown).

Project Democracy would originate out of a Trilateral Commission meeting on May 31st, 1975 in Kyoto Japan, where the Trilateral Commission’s “Task Force on the Governability of Democracies” findings were delivered. The project was overseen by Trilateral Commission Director Zbigniew Brzezinski and its members James Schlesinger (former CIA Director) and Samuel P. Huntington.

It would mark the beginning of the end, introducing the policy, or more aptly “ideology”, for the need to instigate a “controlled disintegration of society.”

The Trilateral Commission is a non-governmental body, its members include elected and non-elected officials scattered throughout the world, ironically coming together to discuss how to address the “crisis of democracy” in the most undemocratic process possible. It is an organisation meant to uphold the “interests” of its members, regardless of who the people voted in.

You see, by the 1970s democracy was obviously broken, and someone had to put things back in order, right?

This elite grouping of people decided that this approach would be the best for all democracies and just like that, it was brought into official policy across the western hemisphere.

On Nov 9th, 1978, Trilateral Commission member Paul Volcker (Federal Reserve Chairman from 1979-1987) would affirm at a lecture delivered at Warwick University in England: “A controlled disintegration in the world economy is a legitimate object for the 1980s.” This is also the ideology that has shaped Milton Friedman’s “Shock Therapy”.

By the time of Jimmy Carter’s Administration, the majority of the government was being run by members of the Trilateral Commission. But who runs the Trilateral Commission?

Well, keeping in mind that this whole operation is run as an “open conspiracy”, in May 1981, Henry Kissinger who replaced Brzezinski as the head of the Trilateral Commission gave a speech at Chatham House describing his term as Secretary of State:

“[The British] became a participant in internal American deliberations, to a degree probably never practiced between sovereign nations…In my White House incarnation then, I kept the British Foreign Office better informed and more closely engaged than I did the American Department…It was symptomatic.” (emphasis added).

In his speech, Kissinger outlined the conflicting ideologies between Churchill and Roosevelt, and concluded with his support for the British worldview as the more superior of the two.

Looks like the Churchill loyalists have won.

Controlled Disintegration: And We All Fall Down

In 1975 the CFR launched a public study of global policy titled the 1980’s Project. The general theme was “controlled disintegration” of the world economy, and the report did not attempt to hide the famine, social chaos, and death its policy would bring upon most of the world’s population.

The study explained that the world financial and economic system needed a complete overhaul according to which key sectors such as energy, credit allocation and food would be placed under the direction of a single global administration. The objective of this reorganization would be the replacement of nation states.

However, before this could occur, nation states would have to falter, or at least give off the impression of faltering.

The failure of the nation state is not a natural phenomenon but rather is the outcome of a fascist coup; involving a banker’s dictatorship, economic looting and permanent warfare (the Cold War never ended) to hinder national industrial growth.

Among the most effective strategies towards this end has been color revolutions, which just so happens to be the NED’s specialty practice and has included, to name a few, the nations of Yugoslavia, Georgia, Iraq, Lebanon, Burma, Iran, Egypt, Yemen, Ukraine and the ongoing Hong Kong protests.

Wherever this strategy has unfolded, the target state is told by the international community that it has no right to intervene and is told to stand by as its nation is ransacked by locusts and its government ‘reorganised’.

With the final purge of American intelligence and the formation of a secret government, rendering anything resembling a democratic process obsolete, unless someone can restart the engine fast, we will soon be confronted by Willy Brandt’s prophecy of finding ourselves rudderless, under a surrounding sea of dictatorship.

Notes

(1) Speaking to his son during WWII, FDR said: “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….”

INTRODUCTION

To understand today’s world, an introduction is needed first that summarizes what World War II (the Cold War’s predecessor) was actually all about, in geostrategic terms:

The key decision-makers who coordinated together, in order to defeat the three fascist powers of Germany, Japan, and Italy, in WWII, were America’s Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR), Britain’s Winston Churchill, and the Soviet Union’s Joseph Stalin. If any one of those three would abandon the Allied side, or as FDR anticipatorily named it the “United Nations,” then the Axis would win the war, and then a war between the three Axis leaders — Hitler, Hirohito, and Mussolini — would follow afterward, in which Hitler was generally considered to be the likeliest to achieve his “Thousand Year Reich”: global control. If so, the result would have been a Nazi-controlled planet. But each of the three Allied leaders had different political views and priorities.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was an intense anti-imperialist: he believed that the Second World War had been started by the fascist, or “Axis,” powers because each one of them wanted to increase the percentage of the planet’s surface that it controlled.

Winston Churchill was an intense imperialist: he believed, exactly as did the founder of modern British imperialism, Cecil Rhodes, starting in 1877, that the larger the percentage of this planet’s surface that is controlled by the English “race,” the better. The only difference between Rhodesist imperialism and prior British imperialism is that Rhodes’s plan was based upon the geostrategic belief that the only way in which Britain could continue and expand its empire would be by retaking the United States via subversion (as he planned), in which the leaders of America would be deceived to believe that, in the U.S.-and-UK “Special Relationship” which Rhodes had in mind, Britain would be following America’s lead, when actually those American leaders would be following Britain’s lead and not be aware of that subterranean UK supremacy. (Rhodes championed subversive aristocratic rule. Subversion is basic to his plan.)

Joseph Stalin was an intense anti-imperialist like FDR was, especially because Stalin’s chief competitor for leadership of the Soviet Union was Leon Trotsky, the most passionate supporter of a Soviet imperialism, “Trotskyism.” Wikipedia contains an accurate thumbnail description of this:

Trotskyism is the theory of Marxism as advocated by the Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky. Trotsky identified as an orthodox Marxist and Bolshevik–Leninist. He supported founding a vanguard party of the proletariat, proletarian internationalism and a dictatorship of the proletariat based on working class self-emancipation and mass democracy. Trotskyists are critical of Stalinism as they oppose Joseph Stalin‘s theory of socialism in one country in favor of Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution. Trotskyists also criticize the bureaucracy that developed in the Soviet Union under Stalin.

In order for Stalin to support Soviet imperialism, he would have had to accept Trotskyism, which he refused to do. At Yalta (February 1945), FDR and Stalin agreed together that though every major power has a right to intervene in the internal affairs of other nations in its “neighborhood” insofar as is necessary in order to block such nearby nation’s alliance with any hostile major power (an example is the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, when Kennedy had a right to block Cuba from receiving Soviet missiles), no such right to intervene in a foreign country’s purely internal or domestic affairs exists: i.e., the right to intervene exists ONLY to protect that given major power’s own national security, but not to intervene into that nearby nation’s internal affairs for any other reason than this. This was FDR’s view and Stalin’s view. They both agreed to disagree together against Churchill’s view that a major power should be allowed to intervene outside of its own neighborhood or to “have an empire.” (In the billionaires’ updated and far more hypocritical version of the pro-imperialistic argument, such as George Soros’s argument, the case for imperialism is “R2P” or “the rulers of a sovereign state have a responsibility to protect [‘R2P’] the state’s citizens. When they fail to do so, the responsibility is transferred to the international community,” which is then allowed to invade. This is the ‘democratic’ argument to invade foreign countries that one wants to conquer and turn into a vassal-nation. The world’s billionaires started pushing for this argument internationally in 1994 because the ‘anti-communist’ excuse for invading had just recently ended, in 1991. Soros stated the argument this way in 2009, after George W. Bush’s having done, to such disastrous effect, such an invasion against Iraq in 2003. But Bush’s lies to ‘justify’ invading had been mainly of the ‘national security’ variety. He was conservative, not liberal; so, his lies were different.)

FDR rejected dictatorship as an internal-policy matter and therefore he disapproved of communism (because it is internally dictatorial), but he had no trouble negotiating with Stalin, because that relationship concerned only international and never domestic-policy matters (since Stalin was not a Trotskyist).

Consequently, amongst the Allies, only Churchill — the British imperialist who, in accord with Cecil Rhodes’s scheme, was seeking America’s help so as to conquer other imperialisms in order to ‘preserve’ The British Empire — endorsed imperialism. His actual aim was ultimately to extend that Empire and to use American might so as to assist this, as being U.S. rule or “hegemony” over the entire planet, which would be controlled behind the scenes by Britain’s aristocracy. When Churchill came to power within the United Kingdom, the change in leadership represented a supreme victory of Rhodes’s branch of the British Conservative Party, pushing aside the pre-Rhodes Tories (such as Neville Chamberlain). Under Labour Party leader Tony Blair starting on 2 May 1997, both of Britain’s major Parties were Rhodesist, and (after Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s defeat) they still are in Rhodes’s mold.

There was a severe split within Britain’s aristocracy over whether to ally with Hitler or instead with FDR and Stalin. (FDR himself wasn’t able to avoid having lots of pro-Nazis even in his own Administration: for example, the U.S. intelligence official Allen Dulles secretly said in late 1942, “We’re fighting the wrong enemy,” and General George Patton said exactly the same thing at war’s-end, May 1945. America’s billionaires have profited enormously from invasions and therefore sponsor the careers of many high policy officials, and did so even when FDR was in power.) Churchill’s immediate predecessor, Neville Chamberlain, represented England’s pro-Hitler aristocrats. They were not followers of Rhodes’s plan. They were instead pure anti-socialists. (They were more concerned to protect the aristocracy than to extend their empire.) There were actually two varieties of socialism: one, dictatorial, which was Marxism, the other democratic, which was the main type and the one that prevailed in much of Europe. By contrast, there was only a dictatorial form of fascism, because fascism was (and is) dictatorial capitalism, and any form of democratic capitalism was called simply “democracy.” Thus, there was “social democracy” versus “democracy” versus “fascism” versus “communism.” The Axis powers all were fascist. (Hitler labelled his German fascism Nazism as “National Socialism” in order to be able to win support from workers, but his “Volkisch” ’socialism’ was actually very different: pro-racist, instead of anti-classist or anti-aristocratic like almost all of the actually “socialist” parties in Europe were.)

These facts (including the internal ideological conflicts within the United Kingdom, and also within the Soviet Union) are basic, in order to be able to understand recent world history, and current events.

Now we get to the Cold War:

FDR died on 12 April 1945, and his naive V.P., Harry Truman, became President. Promptly, Truman was surrounded by Rhodesists and he didn’t understand what was going on. Churchill advised him against accepting the Soviet Union. However, the key person who also did was U.S. General Dwight Eisenhower, who seems to have clinched the case on 26 July 1945 by confirming Churchill’s view and telling the President that either the U.S. would conquer the Soviet Union or else the Soviet Union would conquer the U.S. (In other words: Ike was telling Truman that Stalin was a Trotskyist, and Truman believed it even if he had no idea of what Stalinism versus Trotskyism were — Truman was tragically naive.) Though Truman had been advised by the scientists not to A-bomb Japan, which was about to fall anyway, Ike’s advice clinched the case in Truman’s mind, to A-bomb it in order to prevent the Soviet Union from conquering Japan, as the Soviets were on the verge of doing. (Under FDR’s plan, not only would the UN have been much stronger, but Stalin would have taken Japan, whereas all of the Western Hemisphere plus central and western Europe would have been within the U.S. sphere, and there would have been negotiations at the UN internationalizing nuclear weapons and the control over other strategic issues between the East and the West, so as to prevent, by clear international laws backed up by the UN’s diplomatic mechanisms and control over all strategic forces, any imperialism or military conflicts, between the U.S. and USSR. Both the U.S. and USSR would have, within a context of effective international law, been allowed some sway over international relations within its own respective sphere of influence. This would have been a bipolar world within a single federal global government, the UN, but a very different UN than Truman participated in. Hegemony, or global empire, would have been outlawed, and the UN would have had the military forces to back up its authority in that regard. The current international gangland would not exist. International law would have been established and enforced instead of having become the hypocritical farce that it is. It would be FDR’s world, if western democracy would have outproduced communism, which — given Marxism’s crippling labor theory of value — seems likely. Marxist economics was a crippler, but abandoning it means abandoning Marxism.)

Here, providing a favorable (pro-Rhodesist-regime, anti-Soviet-regime) slant upon the same ugly reality that has just been documented about Rhodesism, is from the CIA’s own retired Miles Copeland’s 1969 book, The Game of Nations: The Amorality of Power Politics, the opening of Chapter 2:

On a cold and rainy February afternoon in 1947 [21 February 1947], one year before the Games Center was established, First Secretary H. M. Sichel of the British Embassy in Washington telephoned Loy Henderson, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and African Affairs. He had two messages from the Foreign Office which were “rather important.” They were of a sort that normally should be delivered by the British Ambassador direct to the Secretary of State, George Marshall, but since General Marshall had already left the office for the weekend perhaps, Sichel suggested he could drop off the notes, have a “brief” chat about them, and allow Mr. Henderson a weekend of reflection on them before briefing the Secretary prior to meeting the British Ambassador on Monday morning.

Sichel arrived as State Department employees, after a comparatively dull week, were donning their raincoats and galoshes to take off for an indoor weekend. Loy Henderson, who habitually worked until eight or nine o’clock even on Fridays, had sent off all his secretaries and was alone in the office. The scene was the one of utter calm that skillful dramatists often establish to provide the psychological setting for a shattering announcement.

The announcement, which Mr. Sichel delivered in the course of his “brief chat,” was certainly shattering. The two messages were official notification that the Pax Britannica, which had kept order in much of the world for over a century, was at an end. Specifically, His Majesty’s Government could no longer afford the $50,000,000 or so that was required to support the resistance of the Greek and Turkish Governments to Communist aggression either, as in the first case, by guerrilla warfare or, in the second, by direct military action of the Soviet Union. Either the United States Government would fill the gap, or it would go unfilled — or it would be left to the Russians. Mr. Henderson, whose considerable diplomatic experience included assignments in Moscow and other capitals in the Soviet orbit, didn’t need a weekend of reflection to realize that more than Greece and Turkey was at stake. The vacuum of which these two countries were a part extended throughout all of southern Europe that was not already behind the Iron Curtain, and through North Africa and the Middle East. With the British announcement, delivered so calmly by Mr. Sichel, the United States was given the choice of becoming an active world power — an “on-the-ground” world power, as a lecturer at the State Department’s Foreign Service Institute was later to put it — or seeing the Soviets become a more menacing feature of world politics than Nazi Germany could ever have been.

THEN P. 38:

there was the necessary discrepancy between the publicly stated attitude of our Government toward world questions and the attitudes held in the inner sanctums of the State Department and the Pentagon. Early in 1946, George Kennan, during the last few weeks in his assignment as deputy chief of mission in Moscow, wrote a letter to the State Department which correctly outlined the shape of the oncoming Cold War and which was immediately accepted as the definitive analysis of Soviet intentions, outlook and behavior. At the same time, Mr. Kennan argued convincingly that if Europe was to be divided the blame should be placed on the Russians and not on ourselves. Winston Churchill, in a speech delivered at Fulton, Missouri, referred to the “Iron Curtain,” and the presence of President Truman at his side implied official U.S. Government endorsement of such an attitude. Apart from this one lapse, however, official policy was still to pretend that the “spirit of Yalta” guided our actions.

1. 42:

Our aboveboard response to the British diplomatic notes of February 21, 1947, was the Truman Doctrine, which was announced, after three weeks of hectic State Department and White House staff work, on March 12. Announcement of the Marshall Plan followed shortly; in July and from then on a flood of editorial, semiofficial and official comment (the latter mainly in the form of college commencement addresses delivered by top government officials) began to deal openly with the Cold War and our policy of “containing” Soviet expansion.

And here is about the Marshall Plan, which was an extremely effective Cold War tactic.

And, then, there was the American double-crossing of Mikhail Gorbachev when he ended communism in 1991 and the U.S. secretly continued the Cold War nonetheless, and of post-1991 U.S. coups such as against neutralist Ukraine on Russia’s border in February 2014.

A typical coup under Truman was the Miles-Copeland-engineered coup against Syria in 1949, which he discussed here. Between the lines he described it as a Deep State operation which carried out what was being kept secret from the President but which was tacitly approved by the State Department. He, of course, never revealed who actually controlled the CIA and the State Department. But he probably knew.

And, as they say: “The rest is history.” And this is the “history” that we’ve actually been living through and are still experiencing — not the myth that the ‘news’-media merely presume.

For further information, click on the links in this article. By means of those links (and what’s linked to in those online sources), this article is at least one full book, and it’s all right here, and without any paper. No paper or broadcast medium (TV or otherwise) can do that. Only this type of medium — online text that includes links — can. That’s a crucial advantage of this medium, which you’re now reading.

Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif wrote to the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres this past Sunday, that the real purpose for this move by the U.S. is to “intervene and create disruption in the transfer of Iran’s fuel to Venezuela.” In the same letter, Zarif expressed concern over “the United States’ intention to consider dangerous, unlawful and provocative measures against Iranian oil tankers engaged in perfectly lawful international commerce with the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.”

The Iranian deployment consists of five tankers carrying around $45.5million of gasoline and related products, as part of a wider deal between Iran and Venezuela. The U.S. has imposed sanctions on both nations’ oil exports.

For the first time since 1962, Iran has requested IMF assistance due to severe shortages created by the COVID-19 pandemic, with Iran requesting an emergency loan of $5 billion. However, the request is currently being blocked by the U.S., which accounts for slightly more than 16.5% of IMF’s voting shares and has an effective veto over decisions.

Iran is presently experiencing a critical shortage of medicines and equipment amid the pandemic, and yet is prohibited from purchasing medicines and supplies because of the banking sanctions.

It is clear that these manoeuvres against Iran are not on behalf of anyone’s “security” but rather an attempt to force Iran to finally bend the knee and be reduced to a state of complete dependence.

Iran has fought a long fight to claim its independence from western powers.

However, what if I were to tell you that once there was a time when Iran and the U.S. had good relations and that the U.S. was in fact the leading promoter and supporter of Iran’s sovereignty?

Almost out of a Shakespearean play of tragedy and betrayal, the relationship was jeopardised by a third player. As identified by John Perkins, in his book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, the first ever U.S. coup against a foreign country was the overthrow of Iran’s nationalist Prime Minister Mosaddegh in 1953. However, what is often left out…is that it was a British authored and designed operation.

In order for us to understand how and why the U.S. was dragged into such an affair, our story starts 150 years ago…

Dieu et mon droit

It all started in 1872, with Nasir al-Din Shah having granted to the British Baron Julius de Reuter, rights to Iran’s entire economic estate. Reuter not only controlled Iran’s industry, farming, and rail transportation, but also held the right to issue currency and to set up a national bank, called the Imperial Bank of Persia, which was under direct British control.

In 1901, Muzzaffar al-Din Shah negotiated what became known as the D’Arcy Contract, granting William Knox D’Arcy, a millionaire London socialite, the special and exclusive privilege to basically own and manage the natural gas and petroleum of Iran for a term of 60 years.

In May 26th 1908 D’Arcy struck pay-dirt in Iran, discovering a huge oil field in Masjed-Soleiman. Britain immediately set up APOC in 1908, purchasing the rights to the black gold from D’Arcy. Six years later, First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill gave the order to purchase 51% of APOC, effectively nationalizing the company. This was to ensure the free flow of oil to the British navy. It was the first company to extract petroleum from Iran.

Iran received only 16% of the royalties on the oil.

Britain continued to pursue total control of Iran, not through colonial occupation, but rather through economic “agreements”. In the midst of carving up the empire’s new “jewels” of the Middle East from the Sykes-Picot fraud on the Arabian people and the illegal British occupation of Palestine, the notorious Anglo-Persian Agreement of Aug 19, 1919 was also signed, with London effectively turning Iran into a de facto protectorate run by British “advisors”. Britain had succeeded in becoming the masters of Iran’s natural resources through this agreement.

Iran received almost nothing in return, not even oil from APOC for domestic consumption, but rather had to import it from the Soviet Union!

On Nov 28th 1932 Reza Shah announced that he would be cancelling the British concession to APOC. The British Navy was heavily dependent on cheap Iranian oil and thus Britain refused to acquiesce. A compromise was reached in 1933 through bilateral negotiations and the British managed to extend their concession up until 1993! Iran had succeeded in getting the British to pay a higher price but it still did not control its own oil.

The American Relationship

Despite claiming a neutral stance for Iran during WWII, word had gotten out that Reza Shah was apparently sympathetic to the cause of Hitler. The argument was thus used that a pro-German Iran could become a launching pad for an attack against the Soviet Union, justifying British and Soviet entry into the country on Aug 25th 1941 for what would be a several years’ occupation. On Sept 16th Reza was forced by the British to abdicate and go into exile transferring power to his 22 year old son, Mohammad Reza Shah.

Mohammad Reza Shah was not happy with the joint occupation and sought an American military presence as a mediator to British and Soviet interests. The Shah sent a letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt on Aug 25th 1941 asking him to:

“be good enough to interest yourself in this incident…I beg Your Excellency to take efficacious and urgent humanitarian steps to put an end to these acts of aggression.”

In response to this plea, Roosevelt sent Gen. Patrick Hurley as his special representative to Iran to help prepare what was to become the Iran Declaration, finally adopted at the Tehran Conference where Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill would agree to guarantee the territorial integrity and national sovereignty of Iran.

The Iran Declaration was used to finally end the foreign occupation of Iran after WWII, despite some resistance, and would play a crucial role in Iran’s future fight for sovereignty. The Iran Declaration thus proved itself to be more than just words, and this would certainly never have happened if not for FDR.

As part of Hurley’s report to FDR, he wrote some biting words on the present system of British imperialism, “The imperialism of Germany, Japan, Italy, France… will, we hope, end or be radically revised by this war [WWII]. British imperialism seems to have acquired a new life. . . What appears to be a new life… is the result of the infusion, into its emaciated form, of the blood of productivity and liberty from a free nation [Iran] through Lend-Lease.”

Roosevelt sent a copy of the Hurley report to Churchill with his thoughts on the matter: “The enclosed memorandum was sent to me… I rather like his general approach to the care and education of what used to be called ‘backward countries’…the point of all this is that I do not want the United States to acquire a ‘zone of influence,’ or any other nation for that matter [in Iran].”

Churchill was less than enthusiastic on the Hurley-FDR vision. He was particularly irked by Hurley’s notion that British imperialism were in conflict with democracy.

FDR died only a few months later, and with his interment, Hurley’s plans for American support for a sovereign and democratic Iran as a model for the rest of the Middle East were relegated to the dust bins of time and forgotten by much of the world.

Following WWII, nationalistic sentiments were on the rise including in the Middle East, the most notable being Iran. However, following the death of FDR the British were free to disingenuously respond to Iran’s request for better economic conditions by offering what was called the “Supplemental Agreement”, in May 1949. This entailed a better payment in royalties but still denied Iran any oversight over accounts or any other form of control over Iranian oil.

Enter Mosaddegh

In the late 1940s, a new political force emerged in Iran called the National Front led by Mohammad Mosaddegh. Their campaign was centered on the demand to nationalize the AIOC and the people of Iran were in accord, electing Mosaddegh into the Majlis (parliament) in 1949.

Mosaddegh lost no time, and quickly became the head of the Majlis Oil Committee which was tasked to study the British “Supplemental Agreement”. When it came time to put it to a vote on Nov 25th 1950, the committee delivered a resounding “no” to the British proposition.

Less than four months later, the Majlis voted on March 15th 1951 for nationalization of the AIOC, and it was renamed as the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC). Less than two months later, Mosaddegh became Prime Minister of Iran on April 28th 1951.

The British were left empty handed.

Twice the British tried to argue their case before the international community, once in May 1951 at The Hague and again in October at the UN Security Council. Both attempts were to lose to Mosaddegh’s defense. Mosaddegh had earned a Ph.D. in law from the Neuchatel Law School in Switzerland in 1914.

This was anything but a formal victory. It was to set a precedent in the international community that a country’s right to national sovereignty would be favored over Britain’s imperial “claims”, which were exposed during these two very public trials as amounting to nothing more than the threats and bribes of pirates.

At the UN Security Council, Mosaddegh responded to Britain’s imperial ambitions over Iran with these eloquent words:

“My countrymen lack the bare necessities of existence…Our greatest natural asset is oil. This should be the source of work and food for the population of Iran. Its exploitation should properly be our national industry, and the revenue from it should go to improve our conditions of life. As now organized, however, the petroleum industry has contributed practically nothing to the well-being of the people or to the technical progress or industrial development of my country…if we are to tolerate a situation in which the Iranian plays the part of a mere manual worker in the oil fields…and if foreign exploiters continue to appropriate practically all of the income, then our people will remain forever in a state of poverty and misery. These are the reasons that have prompted the Iranian parliament… to vote unanimously in favor of nationalizing the oil industry.”

A British coup

The British were fuming over Mosaddegh’s high profile humiliation of the British Empire’s claim to Iran’s oil. Mosaddegh would have to be deposed, however, this could not look like a British retaliation.

During Averell Harrimann’s visit to Tehran in July 1951, in an attempt to salvage the broken British-Iranian relationship, Mosaddegh is reported to have said,

“You do not know how crafty they are. You do not know how evil they are. You do not know how they sully everything they touch.”

As coup rumours circulated and reports were rife of British contact being sought with Iranian military officers, Mosaddegh severed diplomatic relations with the UK on Oct 16th 1952. The British were further humiliated and had to leave the country taking their agents with them.

It was at this point that Churchill “invited” his lap dog, de facto president Truman, to participate in his vision for regime change in Iran. In November 1952, NSC 136 and 136/I were written into record, Truman had agreed to promote direct intervention in Iran through covert operations and even military force. A detailed plan was approved on Jan 8th 1953 which was 12 days before Eisenhower was inaugurated.

The management of this covert operation was under the treasonous Dulles brothers, who would use the very same technique when JFK first entered office in setting him up with the Bay of Pigs fiasco, however, JFK managed to publicly expose Allan Dulles in this scheme and fired him. Dulles had been the Director of the CIA for 8 years up until that point, and was Deputy Director of the CIA for two years prior. Refer to my paper on this for further details.

A preliminary meeting in Washington saw representatives of the Near East and Africa Division (NEA) with British Intelligence. The key personalities were Christopher Montague Woodhouse who had been station chief for British Intelligence in Tehran and on the American side Kermit Roosevelt (son of Teddy Roosevelt) acting as NEA Division Chief. It was the British who would propose a joint political action to remove Prime Minister Mosaddegh according to CIA documents, which were in part leaked by the New York Times on April 16th 2000. The final plan was codenamed TPAJAX.

Appendix B, aka “London Draft of the TPAJAX Operational Plan” was black propaganda aimed at hammering out these themes 1) Mosaddegh favors the Tudeh Party and the USSR 2) Mosaddegh is an enemy of Islam since he associates with Tudeh.

The aim of such tactics was to drive a wedge between Mosaddegh and his National Front on the one side and his clerical allies, especially Kashani on the other. Demonstrations against Mosaddegh in the streets were to provide the pretext for bought MPs to hold a vote against him, if he refused to step down the plan was to have Fazlollah Zahedi, leader of the opposition, to arrest him. Zahedi, as laid out in Appendix B was selected by the British to replace Mosaddegh as Prime Minister after the coup.

Chief of Staff Gen. Taghi Riahi found out about the coup plans and alerted Mosaddegh in time. When the chief of the Imperial Guards, Col. Nasiri went to Mosaddegh’s house the evening before the planned coup day (Aug 16th) to arrest him, Nasiri himself was taken as prisoner by the pro- Mosaddegh military. Zahedi managed to flee.

The coup attempt had failed and the word spread fast, crowds flooded the streets supporting Mosaddegh and denouncing the Shah. The Shah left the country quickly.

The CIA informed of the fiasco alerted Kermit Roosevelt that he should leave Iran immediately. But Kermit believed the coup could still work and would make a second attempt three days later. British Intelligence and CIA orchestrated demonstrations set to the streets on Aug 19th. The royal decrees signed by the Shah for the deposal of Mosaddegh to be replaced by Zahedi were made public in the press that very day with the radio news announcing: that Zahedi was Prime Minister, that Mosaddegh had been ousted and that the Shah would return soon.

Military units were dispatched to Mosaddegh’s home. As his house was being destroyed by gunfire and tanks, Mosaddegh managed to escape. It is said he later turned himself in to the authorities.

After a ten-week period in a military prison, Mosaddegh was tried on charges of treason, because he had allegedly mobilized for a rebellion and had contradicted the Shah. In fact, the accused treason was a nationalistic response to a foreign led coup.

Mosaddegh was promptly found guilty and sentenced to death, later lessened to three years in prison, followed by house arrest.

Mosaddegh’s response to the kangaroo court proceedings was,

“My only crime is that I nationalized the oil industry and removed from this land the network of colonialism and the political and economic influence of the greatest empire [the British Empire] on Earth.”

Members of his government were also arrested, as were the leading military who remained loyal to him. Six hundred of the 6, 000 of these men were executed.

Even after Mosaddegh had passed away, on March 5th, 1967, his enemies were fearful of his influence. Mosaddegh had requested that upon his death, he be buried in the public graveyard beside the victims of the political violence that occurred on the 21st July 1952 from British-backed Ahmad Qavam who ordered soldiers to shoot at Mosaddegh nationalists during a demonstration, resulting in a blood bath. Not wanting his grave to become the site of political manifestations, a public funeral for Mosaddegh was denied and his body was quietly buried underneath the floorboards of a room in his house.

Part 2 will cover U.S.-Iran relations from the period of 1953 to present day.

Yet as becomes more clear every day, far from maintaining the current global structure, created by U.S. bankers and diplomats and dictated to the rest of the world back in 1944, all these efforts are just accelerating the disintegration of the Old Order.

There is a supreme irony to this, for the most important creator of the Old World Economic and Financial Order – the one that is now disintegrating as we watch – was none other than the patron saint of liberalism – a man who has become a non-person in the United States in the past 40 year “Age of Reagan” (as I explain in my 2015 book “Cycles of Change“) – legendary 32nd President of the United States President Franklin Roosevelt.

It is fascinating to watch Democratic Party leaders today as they desperately try to conjure up the great appeal and success of the only man ever to win four U.S. presidential held up Roosevelt’s leadership through World War II as a model of leadership for today.

That should be entirely true, But neither current (and sinking fast) putative party nominee Joe Biden nor his always-collapses-at-the-crucial-moment Senator Bernie Sanders haven’t a clue what they are talking about.

Two factors were central to Franklin Roosevelt’s extraordinary success as a war leader – and Sanders and Biden are both pathetically blind to both of them:

The first was Roosevelt’s unhesitating and consistent support for his allies, especially the unprecedented flow of Lend Lease aid in food, trucks and other equipment to the Soviet Union which was carrying the main burden of the combat war against Nazi Germany almost single-handedly.

The second was the remarkable fiscal prudence and caution Roosevelt showed throughout his presidency, especially in his creation of the landmark Social Security program.

Roosevelt was vastly more cautious and even cynical in developing this program to give financial support for the first time in history to aging Americans.

Although the landmark congressional legislation was passed in 1935 and became law on August 14 of that year as part of the so-called “Second New Deal,” financial contributions out of the pay checks of all legally working Americans only started to be withdrawn in 1937. Even then, it was still another three years before the first U.S. citizen ever to receive a check from Social Security picked it up: That was 76-year-old Ida Fuller of Vermont on January 17, 1940. Her first check came to the generous sum of $41.30.

From 1935, when the legislation was passed to vast popular acclaim, it was another six years at the height of the Great Depression, when more Americans were starving and dying of poverty and related hardships than ever before or since in the nation’s history before a single individual actually got any benefit from it.

The actuarial calculations on which Roosevelt designed Social Security were even more cynical and ruthless.

Social Security was to be paid to retirees after the age of 65. But at the time, the median age of Americans was 61. Only a tiny privileged minority survived to the age of 65 or beyond.

Roosevelt practiced exceptional caution to keep the U.S. economy and currency stable during the New Deal and the Great Depression. Contrary to popular (Republican) myth, he was adamantly opposed to bankrupting the country either in his own time or in that of his grandchildren. “It is almost dishonest to build up an accumulated deficit for the Congress of the United States to meet in 1980,” he famously said. “We can’t do that. We can’t sell the United States short in 1980 any more than in 1935.”

Roosevelt’s exceptional caution contrasts with the wild spending both Republicans and Democrats from Bernie Sanders to Donald Trump have been practicing, driving their country into final bankruptcy during the current coronavirus crisis.

Comments financial analyst and former London merchant banker Martin Hutchinson in his May 4 “Bear’s Lair” column, “the CBO (Congressional Budget Office)’s estimate of budget deficits of 18% of GDP in 2020 and 10% of GDP in 2021 are truly frightening. …they bring the likely bankruptcy of the U.S. government much closer than seemed likely previously, probably to around 2030.”

Indeed, given the terrifying vulnerability of the U.S. financial system to the collapse of the $2 trillion junk bond market used to financial the collapsing fracking energy sector, projecting a meltdown U.S. financial crisis a balmy ten years ahead seems wildly optimistic.

In fact, the road from Franklin Roosevelt’s cautious callousness in designing Social Security so that it would not pay a penny to those who needed it for another five years (until, indeed, the Great Depression was already over!) to the “spend endlessly, spend now” crazed panic of both Republicans and Democrats is a very clear one:

It is the road of palliative Western liberalism, open borders and global Free Trade: It is a road that inevitably leads to ever huger debt burdens, ever-declining standards of living and inevitable ruin.

By contrast, the extremely fiscally cautious, highly conservative financial policies that Russian President Vladimir Putin continues to follow get no respect from the spendthrift, zero interest rate maniacs on Wall Street. Yet it is Russia that is currently in a far stronger position to ride out the global financial as well as pandemic crises than the United States.

In statecraft and economics as in architecture, the most important issue is not how high you build but how well you build and how deep you build – How good your foundations are.

The storm of pandemic is already heralding the storm of financial crisis. That crisis can indeed be solved, but only by abandoning the old shibboleths, the old false gods that, as Dostoyevsky predicted at the very beginning of our modern industrialized, interconnected Age, would inevitably bring us to our ruin, unless reined in and reversed in time.