theduran--2020-04-28--America’s enemy is England, not Russia.

America’s enemy is England, not Russia.

America ’ s sole enemy during the Revolutionary War ( 1775-1783 ) was England .
Ever since being defeated in that war , England ( controlled by the British aristocracy ) has tried various ways to regain its control over America .
The British aristocracy ’ s latest attempt to regain control over America started in 1877 , and continues today , as the two countries ’ “ Deep State ” — comprising not only the lying CIA and the lying MI6 , but the entire joint operation of the united aristocracies of Britain and the U.S .
These two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and control the top levels of both intelligence agencies , and of both Governments , and prevent democracy in both countries .
The aristocracy rules each of them .
The 1877 plan was for a unification of the two aristocracies , and for the then-rising new world power , American industry , and its Government , to become controlled by the wealthiest individuals in both countries .
Franklin Delano Roosevelt had tried to break the back of that intended global-imperialist combine , but he tragically died before he achieved this goal .
America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power was the War of 1812 ( 1812-1815 ) , in which the U.S.A. , so soon after its own victorious Revolution to free itself from Britain , tried to go even further , and to remove Britain altogether from North America .
There still remained , among Americans , some fear that England might try to retake the U.S.A .
The historian , Don Hickey , wrote that “ In North America , the United States was the only belligerent that could lose the war and still retain its independence .
Since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stake in the Napoleonic Wars , one might argue that the United States was the only belligerent on either side of the Atlantic in the War of 1812 that had nothing to fear for its independence.
” Because King George III was still hated by many Americans , the U.S. aimed to free from Britain ’ s control the British colonies that remained to the north of America ’ s border , present-day Canada .
Most of the residents there , however , continued to think of themselves as subjects of the King @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Furthermore , British soldiers , coming down from what now is Canada , actually did manage to to jeopardize America ’ s independence : they burned down Washington .
It wasn ’ t the King ’ s subjects north of America ’ s border who did this ; it was British troops .
The King ’ s army did it .
Americans did have real reason to fear King George III .
America ’ s continuing independence was , indeed , at stake in that war .
That wasn ’ t merely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Party ) ; there was reality to it .
During a 25 May 2018 phone-call between the Presidents of America and Canada , America ’ s ignoramus President — Donald Trump — justified tariffs against Canada partially by saying “ Didn ’ t you guys burn down the White House ?
” However , King George III ’ s troops had actually done that , on 24 August 1814 ( and destroyed the Capitol building on the same day ) ; and not only did Canada not yet exist at that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ troops had done this in retaliation for a successful American invasion into the King ’ s northern territory — which territory was subsequently to win its own partial independence ( after the unsuccessful rebellions of 1837-1838 , by the King ’ s subjects there ) .
Though the U.S. won the War of 1812 , in the sense of not losing its independence to England , it failed to free Canada .
However , two years after America ’ s own Civil War ( 1860-1865 ) , Canada finally won a messy partial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the British-destroyed U.S. White House was completed in 1817 ; that of the British-destroyed U.S. Capitol was completed in 1826 .
The most celebrated battle in the War of 1812 was at Baltimore ’ s Fort McHenry , on 13 September 1814 , where America ’ s soldiers hoisted in victory the U.S. flag , which inspired Francis Scott Key to write “ The Star-Spangled Banner ” .
That ode was celebrating what became considered by Americans to have been their country ’ s second victory against Britain ’ s imperial tyranny .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ conquer the U.S. was during the Civil War , when England was supporting the Southerners ’ right to continue enslaving Blacks and to break away from the federal Union for that purpose ( to perpetuate slavery ) .
If the South had won , this would not only have considerably weakened the U.S.A. , but it would have placed to America ’ s south a new nation which would be allied with America ’ s enemy , Britain , the Southern Confederacy .
By contrast against England ’ s support for slavery , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States , Russia was a leading global supporter of the U.S. , and of its movement to abolish slavery .
Under Tsar Alexander II , the Russian Government opposed not only slavery but also serfdom , and thus became immortalized amongst Russians as “ The Great Liberator , ” for his ending serfdom , which was , for Russia , what slavery was for America — a repudiated relic of a former monarchic absolutism ( that Tsar ’ s predecessors ) .
When the erudite Cynthia Chung headlined on 16 October 2019 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Forgotten History of a Brotherhood ” and wrote there about “ Cassius Clay , ” she wasn ’ t mistakenly referring to the famous American boxer Muhammad Ali ( 1942-2016 ) , but instead , quite correctly , to the individual who is far less well-known today but in whose honor that renowned boxer had originally been named , Cassius Marcellus Clay .
The namesake for that boxer was quite reasonably referred-to by Chung as having been “ possibly the greatest US Ambassador to Russia ( 1861-1862 and 1863-1869 ) .
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indeed , one of America ’ s unsung historical heroes , not only because this Kentuckian “ Cassius Clay ” was an extremely courageous champion of outlawing slavery , but also because he became a great asset to his friend Abraham Lincoln ’ s war to achieve the goal of emancipating America ’ s slaves .
As Wikipedia ’ s article “ Cassius Marcellus Clay ( politician ) ” says , when describing Clay ’ s role in the “ Civil War and Minister to Russia ” : President Lincoln appointed Clay to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court at St. Petersburg on March 28 , 1861 .
The Civil War started before he departed and , as there were no Federal troops in Washington at the time , Clay organized a group of 300 volunteers to protect the White House and US Naval Yard from a possible Confederate attack .
These men became known as Cassius M. Clay ’ s Washington Guards .
President Lincoln gave Clay a presentation Colt revolver in recognition .
When Federal troops arrived , Clay and his family embarked for Russia .
[ 10 ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Tsar ’ s emancipation edict .
Recalled to the United States in 1862 to accept a commission from Lincoln as a major general with the Union Army , Clay publicly refused to accept it unless Lincoln would agree to emancipate slaves under Confederate control .
Lincoln sent Clay to Kentucky to assess the mood for emancipation there and in the other border states .
Following Clay ’ s return to Washington , DC , Lincoln issued the proclamation in late 1862 , to take effect in January 1863 .
[ 11 ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and returned to Russia , where he served until 1869 .
[ 3 ] He was influential in the negotiations for the purchase of Alaska .
[ 12 Thus , this friend of both “ The Great Liberator ” and “ The Great Emancipator ” helped them both .
As Blake Stillwell well summarized in his 16 October 2015 article “ How Russia guaranteed a Union victory in the Civil War ” , Ambassador Clay knew and personally shared the deeply shared values between the heads-of-state in both the U.S. and Russia , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to commit to join the U.S. in a war to conquer England if England would overtly and actively join the U.S. South ’ s war against the United States .
Tsar Alexander II thus stationed Russian warships in New York City and San Francisco during the Civil War , so as to block England from actively supporting the Southern Confederacy , which England had been planning to do .
Probably no single country was as helpful to the Union cause as was Russia , and this was not merely for purposes of power-politics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ progressive principles , both Lincoln ’ s and that Tsar ’ s — their shared Enlightenment goals for the world ’ s future .
Imperialistic England ’ s imperialistic foe France was also pro-slavery , but not as big a threat to the U.S. as England was .
The way that Michael O ’ Neill phrased this in his 10 May 2019 “ France ’ s Involvement in the U.S. Civil War ” was : “ The French government certainly had sympathies for the Confederacy because both regimes were aristocratic , while the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic system that wasn ’ t as rigidly hierarchical .
France ’ s trade prospects were also hurt because of Northern blockades of Southern ports .
France wanted to intervene in order to ensure the trade of cotton , wine , brandy and silk.
” This was an instance where the English and French empires were on the same side — against democracy , and for slavery .
Every aristocracy is driven by unlimited greed , and this greed drove the French and English aristocracies together , regarding America ’ s Civil War @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rare progressive aristocrat — like U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt subsequently also was .
As Chung ’ s article also noted , the friendly relations between Russia and the United States had started at the time of the American Revolution , and Benjamin Franklin ( who then was America ’ s Ambassador to France ) was key to that .
In 1877 , the future British diamond-magnate Cecil Rhodes came up with his lifelong plan , to unite the aristocracies of Britain and the U.S. so as to ultimately conquer the entire world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ upon his death , which occurred in 1902 , when the Rhodes Trust began and created the core of a spreading movement at the top levels of finance in both countries , including the Royal Institute of Foreign Affairs , a.k.a.
, Chatham House , in London , and then the Council on Foreign Relations in NYC ( RIFA ’ s U.S. branch ) , both of which institutions became united with the European aristocracies in the Bilderberg group , which started in 1954 , and which was initiated by the ‘ former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and David Rockefeller of U.S. ; and , then , finally , the Trilateral Commission , bringing Japan ’ s aristocrats into the Rhodesian fold , in 1973 , under the aegis of David Rockefeller ’ s agent and chief anti-Russian strategist , Zbigniew Brzezinski .
( Nelson Rockefeller ’ s chief anti-Russian strategist was Henry Kissinger . )
There are also other significant offshoots from the Rhodes Trust — it ’ s the trunk of the tree , and Cecil Rhodes seems to have been its seed .
Then , during World @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were , yet again , crucial allies , but this time England was with us , not against us , because Britain ’ s aristocracy were competing against Germany ’ s .
The Marxist Revolution in Russia in 1917 terrified all of the world ’ s super-rich , much as they had been terrified by the failed revolutions in Europe during 1848 , but this in Russia was a revolution for a dictatorship by workers against the middle class ( “ the bourgeoisie ” ) and not only against the aristocracy ; and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ project , and it certainly wasn ’ t at all democratic .
Furthermore , Germany during World War I was even more dictatorial than was England .
Indeed : Kaiser Wilhelm II initiated the World War in order to maintain and continue the ancient tradition of the divine right of kings — hereditary monarchy ( the most retrogressive of all forms of governmental rule , hereditary rule ) .
And Germany was threatening America ’ s ships , whereas England was not .
At the Versaille Peace Conference after WW I , four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intensely pro-British : the extremely conservative pro-aristocracy Democrat and U.S. Secretary of State Robert Lansing , and his two nephews , the extremely conservative devoutly Christian pro-aristocracy Republicans John Foster Dulles , and his brother Allen Dulles , and the devoutly Christian partner of J.P. Morgan , Thomas Lamont .
All four supported an obligation by Germany ’ s taxpayers to pay reparations to French taxpayers so large as to destitute the newly established democratic Weimar German Government .
This destitution of Germans — approved by the U.S. delegation — helped to cause @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come into power against the democratic Weimar Government .
The Dulles brothers had many friends amongst the aristocracies of both England and Germany , and became two leaders of the war to conquer Russia , under U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower .
Whereas U.S. President Harry S. Truman had sought to “ contain ” the Soviet Union , the Dulles brothers sought instead to “ conquer ” it .
Both of them had a visceral hatred of Russia — not only of communism .
It was a hatred which was widely shared amongst the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , U.S. , Germany , and Japan .
U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was an exception to the almost universal hatred of Russia amongst U.S.-and-allied aristocracies : he recognized and acknowledged that though Joseph Stalin was a barbaric dictator , Stalin was a deeply committed anti-imperialist like FDR himself was , because Stalin led the Communist Party ’ s anti-imperialist wing , against Trotsky ’ s imperialist wing .
Stalin advocated passionately for “ communism in one country ” — the doctrine that the Soviet Union must first clearly establish a thriving economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a model which would inspire the masses in capitalist nations to rise up against their oppressors ; and that only after such a communist model of success becomes established can communism naturally spread to other countries .
FDR was absolutely opposed to any sort of imperialism , and he had passionate private arguments against Winston Churchill about it , because Churchill said , “ There can be no tampering with the Empire ’ s economic agreements , ” in reply to FDR ’ s “ I can ’ t believe that we can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and at the same time not work to free people all over the world from a backward colonial policy.
” And , afterwards , FDR said privately to his son Elliott , contemptuously against Churchill , “ A real old Tory , isn ’ t he ?
A real old Tory , of the old school.
” FDR ’ s post-war vision was for a United Nations which would possess all nuclear and all other strategic weapons , and which would control all aspects of international law , and nothing of intranational law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is unanimous , but only as being exceptions ) .
Each of the major powers would be allowed to intervene intranationally into their bordering nations , but only so as to prevent any inimical major power from gaining a foothold next door — purely defensive , nothing else .
This would have been very different from what the U.N. became .
It ’ s something that the gullible Truman ( who knew and understood none of that ) was able to be deceived about by Churchill , and , even more so , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because both of them were committed imperialists and aimed to conquer Russia — and not only to end its communism .
The crucial date was 26 July 1945 , when Eisenhower convinced Truman to start the Cold War .
Then , on 24 February 1990 , U.S. President George Herbert Walker Bush established the policy of the U.S. since then : that when the Soviet Union would end its communism in 1991 , the U.S. and its allies would secretly continue the Cold War against Russia , until Russia becomes conquered so as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , no longer an independent nation .
This is continuation of Cecil Rhodes ’ s plan : the U.S. doing the British aristocracy ’ s bidding to lead in conquering the entire world .
On 14 August 1941 , at the time when FDR and Churchill formed the Atlantic Charter and were planning for a joint war against Hitler , they agreed to form the “ UKUSA Agreement ” , a “ secret treaty ” between those two countries , which became formalized on 17 May 1943 as the “ BRUSA Agreement ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Truman became officially signed , and its contents finally became public on 25 June 2010 .
It was/is the basis of what is more commonly know as “ the Five Eyes ” of the Cecil-Rhodes-derived ( though they don ’ t mention that ) foreign-intelligence operations , uniting UK and U.S. intelligence as the core , but also including the intelligence-operations of the other Anglo-Saxon English-speaking colonies : Canada , Australia , and New Zealand .
India and other ‘ inferior races ’ of English-speaking countries ( as Rhodes and Winston Churchill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
For examples : the UK/USA joint effort to produce the death of Julian Assange ( and they seem likely to succeed soon in doing that ) became part of this UK/USA working-together , as have also been the UK/USA sanctions against Russia regarding the trumped-up cases and sanctions against Russia concerning Sergei Magnitsky in 2012 and Sergei Skripal and the “ Russiagate ” charges against Donald Trump in 2018 .
This full flowering of the Rhodesian plan is also publicly known as “ the Special Relationship ” and as “ the Anglosphere @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and UK aristocracies , against their own nations — against their own people — but for the essential imperial operations by both U.S. and UK international corporations , which those billionaires control .
This is why all sanctions against Russia are based on lies .
Certainly , it doesn ’ t happen by accident .
At each step , in virtually each instance , the U.S. and UK aristocracies are working together on these libels — libels against the actual main foreign ally of the U.S. ( UK ’ s aristocracy has always @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s public , and also against Russia — and against the American people .
This is entirely consistent with Rhodes ’ s plan , which was to use the U.S. in order to expand Britain ’ s Empire .
That is the history of our times . )
This is the ultimate success of King George III ’ s plan , and it is a profound betrayal of the intentions of America ’ s Founders , who were passionate anti-imperialists .
And so too was FDR .
But right after WW II @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s billionaires ) took over .
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author , most recently , of They ’ re Not Even Close : The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records , 1910-2010 , and of CHRIST ’ S VENTRILOQUISTS : The Event that Created Christianity .

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Eric Zuesse, originally posted at The Saker
America’s sole enemy during the Revolutionary War (1775-1783) was England. Ever since being defeated in that war, England (controlled by the British aristocracy) has tried various ways to regain its control over America. The British aristocracy’s latest attempt to regain control over America started in 1877, and continues today, as the two countries’ “Deep State” — comprising not only the lying CIA and the lying MI6, but the entire joint operation of the united aristocracies of Britain and the U.S. These two aristocracies actually constitute the Deep State, and control the top levels of both intelligence agencies, and of both Governments, and prevent democracy in both countries. The aristocracy rules each of them. The 1877 plan was for a unification of the two aristocracies, and for the then-rising new world power, American industry, and its Government, to become controlled by the wealthiest individuals in both countries. Franklin Delano Roosevelt had tried to break the back of that intended global-imperialist combine, but he tragically died before he achieved this goal.
America’s second war against a foreign power was the War of 1812 (1812-1815), in which the U.S.A., so soon after its own victorious Revolution to free itself from Britain, tried to go even further, and to remove Britain altogether from North America. There still remained, among Americans, some fear that England might try to retake the U.S.A. The historian, Don Hickey, wrote that “In North America, the United States was the only belligerent that could lose the war and still retain its independence. Since Great Britain’s independence was at stake in the Napoleonic Wars, one might argue that the United States was the only belligerent on either side of the Atlantic in the War of 1812 that had nothing to fear for its independence.” Because King George III was still hated by many Americans, the U.S. aimed to free from Britain’s control the British colonies that remained to the north of America’s border, present-day Canada. Most of the residents there, however, continued to think of themselves as subjects of the King, and so the U.S. effort failed. Furthermore, British soldiers, coming down from what now is Canada, actually did manage to to jeopardize America’s independence: they burned down Washington. It wasn’t the King’s subjects north of America’s border who did this; it was British troops. The King’s army did it. Americans did have real reason to fear King George III. America’s continuing independence was, indeed, at stake in that war. That wasn’t merely the perception of the Democratic-Republicans (Jefferson’s Party); there was reality to it.
During a 25 May 2018 phone-call between the Presidents of America and Canada, America’s ignoramus President — Donald Trump — justified tariffs against Canada partially by saying “Didn’t you guys burn down the White House?” However, King George III’s troops had actually done that, on 24 August 1814 (and destroyed the Capitol building on the same day); and not only did Canada not yet exist at that time, but the King’s troops had done this in retaliation for a successful American invasion into the King’s northern territory — which territory was subsequently to win its own partial independence (after the unsuccessful rebellions of 1837-1838, by the King’s subjects there). Though the U.S. won the War of 1812, in the sense of not losing its independence to England, it failed to free Canada. However, two years after America’s own Civil War (1860-1865), Canada finally won a messy partial independence in 1867.
The rebuilding of the British-destroyed U.S. White House was completed in 1817; that of the British-destroyed U.S. Capitol was completed in 1826.
The most celebrated battle in the War of 1812 was at Baltimore’s Fort McHenry, on 13 September 1814, where America’s soldiers hoisted in victory the U.S. flag, which inspired Francis Scott Key to write “The Star-Spangled Banner”. That ode was celebrating what became considered by Americans to have been their country’s second victory against Britain’s imperial tyranny.
England’s next big attempt to conquer the U.S. was during the Civil War, when England was supporting the Southerners’ right to continue enslaving Blacks and to break away from the federal Union for that purpose (to perpetuate slavery). If the South had won, this would not only have considerably weakened the U.S.A., but it would have placed to America’s south a new nation which would be allied with America’s enemy, Britain, the Southern Confederacy.
By contrast against England’s support for slavery, and for the breakup of the United States, Russia was a leading global supporter of the U.S., and of its movement to abolish slavery. Under Tsar Alexander II, the Russian Government opposed not only slavery but also serfdom, and thus became immortalized amongst Russians as “The Great Liberator,” for his ending serfdom, which was, for Russia, what slavery was for America — a repudiated relic of a former monarchic absolutism (that Tsar’s predecessors). When the erudite Cynthia Chung headlined on 16 October 2019, “Russia and the United States: The Forgotten History of a Brotherhood” and wrote there about “Cassius Clay,” she wasn’t mistakenly referring to the famous American boxer Muhammad Ali (1942-2016), but instead, quite correctly, to the individual who is far less well-known today but in whose honor that renowned boxer had originally been named, Cassius Marcellus Clay. The namesake for that boxer was quite reasonably referred-to by Chung as having been “possibly the greatest US Ambassador to Russia (1861-1862 and 1863-1869).” This “Cassius Clay” was, indeed, one of America’s unsung historical heroes, not only because this Kentuckian “Cassius Clay” was an extremely courageous champion of outlawing slavery, but also because he became a great asset to his friend Abraham Lincoln’s war to achieve the goal of emancipating America’s slaves. As Wikipedia’s article “Cassius Marcellus Clay (politician)” says, when describing Clay’s role in the “Civil War and Minister to Russia”:
President Lincoln appointed Clay to the post of Minister to the Russian court at St. Petersburg on March 28, 1861. The Civil War started before he departed and, as there were no Federal troops in Washington at the time, Clay organized a group of 300 volunteers to protect the White House and US Naval Yard from a possible Confederate attack. These men became known as Cassius M. Clay’s Washington Guards. President Lincoln gave Clay a presentation Colt revolver in recognition. When Federal troops arrived, Clay and his family embarked for Russia.[10]
As Minister to Russia, Clay witnessed the Tsar’s emancipation edict. Recalled to the United States in 1862 to accept a commission from Lincoln as a major general with the Union Army, Clay publicly refused to accept it unless Lincoln would agree to emancipate slaves under Confederate control. Lincoln sent Clay to Kentucky to assess the mood for emancipation there and in the other border states. Following Clay’s return to Washington, DC, Lincoln issued the proclamation in late 1862, to take effect in January 1863.[11]
Clay resigned his commission in March 1863 and returned to Russia, where he served until 1869. [3] He was influential in the negotiations for the purchase of Alaska.[12
Thus, this friend of both “The Great Liberator” and “The Great Emancipator” helped them both. As Blake Stillwell well summarized in his 16 October 2015 article “How Russia guaranteed a Union victory in the Civil War”, Ambassador Clay knew and personally shared the deeply shared values between the heads-of-state in both the U.S. and Russia, and he thereby persuaded Tsar Alexander II to commit to join the U.S. in a war to conquer England if England would overtly and actively join the U.S. South’s war against the United States. Tsar Alexander II thus stationed Russian warships in New York City and San Francisco during the Civil War, so as to block England from actively supporting the Southern Confederacy, which England had been planning to do. Probably no single country was as helpful to the Union cause as was Russia, and this was not merely for purposes of power-politics, but very much for democratic and progressive principles, both Lincoln’s and that Tsar’s — their shared Enlightenment goals for the world’s future.
Imperialistic England’s imperialistic foe France was also pro-slavery, but not as big a threat to the U.S. as England was. The way that Michael O’Neill phrased this in his 10 May 2019 “France’s Involvement in the U.S. Civil War” was: “The French government certainly had sympathies for the Confederacy because both regimes were aristocratic, while the North had a more democratic social and economic system that wasn’t as rigidly hierarchical. France’s trade prospects were also hurt because of Northern blockades of Southern ports. France wanted to intervene in order to ensure the trade of cotton, wine, brandy and silk.” This was an instance where the English and French empires were on the same side — against democracy, and for slavery. Every aristocracy is driven by unlimited greed, and this greed drove the French and English aristocracies together, regarding America’s Civil War. Tsar Alexander II was an extremely rare progressive aristocrat — like U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt subsequently also was.
As Chung’s article also noted, the friendly relations between Russia and the United States had started at the time of the American Revolution, and Benjamin Franklin (who then was America’s Ambassador to France) was key to that.
In 1877, the future British diamond-magnate Cecil Rhodes came up with his lifelong plan, to unite the aristocracies of Britain and the U.S. so as to ultimately conquer the entire world. His plan was to be activated upon his death, which occurred in 1902, when the Rhodes Trust began and created the core of a spreading movement at the top levels of finance in both countries, including the Royal Institute of Foreign Affairs, a.k.a., Chatham House, in London, and then the Council on Foreign Relations in NYC (RIFA’s U.S. branch), both of which institutions became united with the European aristocracies in the Bilderberg group, which started in 1954, and which was initiated by the ‘former’ Nazi Prince Bernhard of Netherlands, and David Rockefeller of U.S.; and, then, finally, the Trilateral Commission, bringing Japan’s aristocrats into the Rhodesian fold, in 1973, under the aegis of David Rockefeller’s agent and chief anti-Russian strategist, Zbigniew Brzezinski. (Nelson Rockefeller’s chief anti-Russian strategist was Henry Kissinger.)
There are also other significant offshoots from the Rhodes Trust — it’s the trunk of the tree, and Cecil Rhodes seems to have been its seed.
Then, during World War I, the U.S. and Russia were, yet again, crucial allies, but this time England was with us, not against us, because Britain’s aristocracy were competing against Germany’s. The Marxist Revolution in Russia in 1917 terrified all of the world’s super-rich, much as they had been terrified by the failed revolutions in Europe during 1848, but this in Russia was a revolution for a dictatorship by workers against the middle class (“the bourgeoisie”) and not only against the aristocracy; and, so, it was no Enlightenment project, and it certainly wasn’t at all democratic. Furthermore, Germany during World War I was even more dictatorial than was England. Indeed: Kaiser Wilhelm II initiated the World War in order to maintain and continue the ancient tradition of the divine right of kings — hereditary monarchy (the most retrogressive of all forms of governmental rule, hereditary rule). And Germany was threatening America’s ships, whereas England was not.
At the Versaille Peace Conference after WW I, four influential leaders of the U.S. delegation were intensely pro-British: the extremely conservative pro-aristocracy Democrat and U.S. Secretary of State Robert Lansing, and his two nephews, the extremely conservative devoutly Christian pro-aristocracy Republicans John Foster Dulles, and his brother Allen Dulles, and the devoutly Christian partner of J.P. Morgan, Thomas Lamont. All four supported an obligation by Germany’s taxpayers to pay reparations to French taxpayers so large as to destitute the newly established democratic Weimar German Government. This destitution of Germans — approved by the U.S. delegation — helped to cause the extremist conservative right-wing-populist Nazi Party to come into power against the democratic Weimar Government. The Dulles brothers had many friends amongst the aristocracies of both England and Germany, and became two leaders of the war to conquer Russia, under U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower. Whereas U.S. President Harry S. Truman had sought to “contain” the Soviet Union, the Dulles brothers sought instead to “conquer” it. Both of them had a visceral hatred of Russia — not only of communism. It was a hatred which was widely shared amongst the aristocracies of all empires, especially England, U.S., Germany, and Japan.
U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was an exception to the almost universal hatred of Russia amongst U.S.-and-allied aristocracies: he recognized and acknowledged that though Joseph Stalin was a barbaric dictator, Stalin was a deeply committed anti-imperialist like FDR himself was, because Stalin led the Communist Party’s anti-imperialist wing, against Trotsky’s imperialist wing. Stalin advocated passionately for “communism in one country” — the doctrine that the Soviet Union must first clearly establish a thriving economy within the country and thereby serve as a model which would inspire the masses in capitalist nations to rise up against their oppressors; and that only after such a communist model of success becomes established can communism naturally spread to other countries. FDR was absolutely opposed to any sort of imperialism, and he had passionate private arguments against Winston Churchill about it, because Churchill said, “There can be no tampering with the Empire’s economic agreements,” in reply to FDR’s “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.” And, afterwards, FDR said privately to his son Elliott, contemptuously against Churchill, “A real old Tory, isn’t he? A real old Tory, of the old school.” FDR’s post-war vision was for a United Nations which would possess all nuclear and all other strategic weapons, and which would control all aspects of international law, and nothing of intranational law (except perhaps if the Security Council is unanimous, but only as being exceptions). Each of the major powers would be allowed to intervene intranationally into their bordering nations, but only so as to prevent any inimical major power from gaining a foothold next door — purely defensive, nothing else. This would have been very different from what the U.N. became. It’s something that the gullible Truman (who knew and understood none of that) was able to be deceived about by Churchill, and, even more so, by the then-General, Dwight Eisenhower, because both of them were committed imperialists and aimed to conquer Russia — and not only to end its communism. The crucial date was 26 July 1945, when Eisenhower convinced Truman to start the Cold War. Then, on 24 February 1990, U.S. President George Herbert Walker Bush established the policy of the U.S. since then: that when the Soviet Union would end its communism in 1991, the U.S. and its allies would secretly continue the Cold War against Russia, until Russia becomes conquered so as to be part of the U.S. empire, no longer an independent nation. This is continuation of Cecil Rhodes’s plan: the U.S. doing the British aristocracy’s bidding to lead in conquering the entire world.
On 14 August 1941, at the time when FDR and Churchill formed the Atlantic Charter and were planning for a joint war against Hitler, they agreed to form the “UKUSA Agreement”, a “secret treaty” between those two countries, which became formalized on 17 May 1943 as the “BRUSA Agreement” and then on 5 March 1946 under President Truman became officially signed, and its contents finally became public on 25 June 2010. It was/is the basis of what is more commonly know as “the Five Eyes” of the Cecil-Rhodes-derived (though they don’t mention that) foreign-intelligence operations, uniting UK and U.S. intelligence as the core, but also including the intelligence-operations of the other Anglo-Saxon English-speaking colonies: Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. India and other ‘inferior races’ of English-speaking countries (as Rhodes and Winston Churchill viewed them) weren’t included. For examples: the UK/USA joint effort to produce the death of Julian Assange (and they seem likely to succeed soon in doing that) became part of this UK/USA working-together, as have also been the UK/USA sanctions against Russia regarding the trumped-up cases and sanctions against Russia concerning Sergei Magnitsky in 2012 and Sergei Skripal and the “Russiagate” charges against Donald Trump in 2018. This full flowering of the Rhodesian plan is also publicly known as “the Special Relationship” and as “the Anglosphere”.
It’s the U.S. and UK aristocracies, against their own nations — against their own people — but for the essential imperial operations by both U.S. and UK international corporations, which those billionaires control.
This is why all sanctions against Russia are based on lies. Certainly, it doesn’t happen by accident. At each step, in virtually each instance, the U.S. and UK aristocracies are working together on these libels — libels against the actual main foreign ally of the U.S. (UK’s aristocracy has always been the main enemy of the UK’s public, and also against Russia — and against the American people. This is entirely consistent with Rhodes’s plan, which was to use the U.S. in order to expand Britain’s Empire. That is the history of our times.)
This is the ultimate success of King George III’s plan, and it is a profound betrayal of the intentions of America’s Founders, who were passionate anti-imperialists. And so too was FDR. But right after WW II, the imperialists (run by America’s billionaires) took over.
—————
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-04-28--Western Accusations of Russian Interference in Libya Is a Distraction from Their Own Crimes

Marshal Khalifa Haftar of the Libyan National Army ( LNA ) has declared that his forces will take control of Libya , arguing that the UN-negotiated unity agreement is dead .
The statement was made during a televised speech , in which Haftar reported that “ the will of the people ” gave him a mandate to govern , announcing that the LNA will take control of the country , radically changing the situation in the war-torn country .
“ We thus announce that the General Command of the Armed Forces accepts the will of the people despite the burden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the magnitude of responsibilities before God , our people , and conscience and history , ” he said .
Haftar ’ s forces already control most of Libya ’ s territory and population , and have spent much of the past year advancing against the capital city of Tripoli to overthrow the Turkish-backed Muslim Brotherhood Government of the National Agreement ( GNA ) .
The GNA was created in 2015 after UN-mediated talks following the 2011 NATO-led operation by the U.S. that deposed long-time Libyan ruler Muammar Gaddafi and threw the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ During Haftar ’ s speech , addressing the “ free Libyans , ” the marshal condemned the unity agreement that established the GNA , insisting that it “ destroyed ” Libya , and that the citizens had chosen another “ eligible ” leader .
“ We have followed up the call that you announced to end the Political Agreement , which has destroyed the country and led it to the abyss , and also to authorize those you consider eligible to lead , ” said Haftar , adding that the LNA would work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ civil state.
” In response to the announcement , the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli said Washington regrets “ Haftar ’ s suggestion that changes in Libya ’ s political structure can be imposed by a unilateral declaration , ” and urged the LNA to declare a ceasefire during the month of Ramadan that is holy for Muslims and while the country fights the coronavirus outbreak .
With the support of Turkey , the GNA has managed to repel Haftar ’ s latest offensive , including regaining a small amount of ground against the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ However , the GNA asked Washington for support , declaring in February that it would welcome U.S. troops on Libyan soil to help fight “ terrorism , ” the irony being that many of the GNA militias are jihadists themselves .
It is not such a shameful prospect for the GNA to ask for U.S. assistance considering it once supported the very same jihadist militias in 2011 that toppled Gaddadi .
The NATO regime change operation in 2011 that was aimed at maintaining the U.S. global hegemony and toppling those who opposed it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ended in his brutal roadside execution at the hands of Western-backed jihadists .
The end of his decades-long rule transformed Libya into a war-torn state , prompting armed conflict between competing powers and the rise of terrorist groups such as ISIS , which flourished because of the anarchy created in the midst of fighting .
The LNA however emerged in the midst of the Western-created chaos as a unifying force for Libyans and aims to expel the Turkish-backed and UN-recognized Muslim Brotherhood government .
However , Haftar ’ s move to declare the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a shock for many international players , with Moscow describing it as “ surprising , ” according to Reuters via RIA who cited a foreign ministry source on Tuesday .
The source added that “ we support the continuation of the political process .
There is no military solution to the conflict.
” Many commentators on Libya have argued that Russia has big influence in Libya like it does in Syria .
The Russian Wagner volunteer group are contracted on the side of the LNA .
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan claims there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but there is no evidence on the actual amount .
Washington , Ankara and commentators from the West have pointed to the Wagner group as evidence that Russia is influencing events in Libya like it does in Syria , but this is just a distraction and diversion for their own responsibilities in creating the near 10-year chaos in the North African country .
Rather , Haftar ’ s surprising move even caught Moscow off guard .
Turkey will surely act more aggressively now in Libya to defend the GNA , but to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ battles a destructive coronavirus outbreak and sees its economy slumping , hampering its efforts for power projections in the Eastern Mediterranean .
The NATO powers of the U.S. , Italy and France were the main Western players involved in Libya , however , with all three countries distracted by the coronavirus that has killed tens of thousands , Libya would be a minor concern for them .
This has provided Haftar the opportunity to cease power with only the GNA standing in the way of complete control over Libya .
As his power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Moscow despite accusations made by the West and he will surely begin a new campaign to complete the takeover of Tripoli .

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Submitted by InfoBrics, authored by Paul Antonopoulos, independent geopolitical analyst…
Marshal Khalifa Haftar of the Libyan National Army (LNA) has declared that his forces will take control of Libya, arguing that the UN-negotiated unity agreement is dead. The statement was made during a televised speech, in which Haftar reported that “the will of the people” gave him a mandate to govern, announcing that the LNA will take control of the country, radically changing the situation in the war-torn country.
“We thus announce that the General Command of the Armed Forces accepts the will of the people despite the burden of that trust, multiplicity of obligations, and the magnitude of responsibilities before God, our people, and conscience and history,” he said.
Haftar’s forces already control most of Libya’s territory and population, and have spent much of the past year advancing against the capital city of Tripoli to overthrow the Turkish-backed Muslim Brotherhood Government of the National Agreement (GNA). The GNA was created in 2015 after UN-mediated talks following the 2011 NATO-led operation by the U.S. that deposed long-time Libyan ruler Muammar Gaddafi and threw the country in years of civil war.
During Haftar’s speech, addressing the “free Libyans,” the marshal condemned the unity agreement that established the GNA, insisting that it “destroyed” Libya, and that the citizens had chosen another “eligible” leader.
“We have followed up the call that you announced to end the Political Agreement, which has destroyed the country and led it to the abyss, and also to authorize those you consider eligible to lead,” said Haftar, adding that the LNA would work in “building durable institutions of the civil state.”
In response to the announcement, the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli said Washington regrets “Haftar’s suggestion that changes in Libya’s political structure can be imposed by a unilateral declaration,” and urged the LNA to declare a ceasefire during the month of Ramadan that is holy for Muslims and while the country fights the coronavirus outbreak.
With the support of Turkey, the GNA has managed to repel Haftar’s latest offensive, including regaining a small amount of ground against the LNA near Tripoli in recent weeks. However, the GNA asked Washington for support, declaring in February that it would welcome U.S. troops on Libyan soil to help fight “terrorism,” the irony being that many of the GNA militias are jihadists themselves. It is not such a shameful prospect for the GNA to ask for U.S. assistance considering it once supported the very same jihadist militias in 2011 that toppled Gaddadi.
The NATO regime change operation in 2011 that was aimed at maintaining the U.S. global hegemony and toppling those who opposed it, forced Gaddafi out of power and ended in his brutal roadside execution at the hands of Western-backed jihadists. The end of his decades-long rule transformed Libya into a war-torn state, prompting armed conflict between competing powers and the rise of terrorist groups such as ISIS, which flourished because of the anarchy created in the midst of fighting. The LNA however emerged in the midst of the Western-created chaos as a unifying force for Libyans and aims to expel the Turkish-backed and UN-recognized Muslim Brotherhood government.
However, Haftar’s move to declare the LNA as the government has come as a shock for many international players, with Moscow describing it as “surprising,” according to Reuters via RIA who cited a foreign ministry source on Tuesday. The source added that “we support the continuation of the political process. There is no military solution to the conflict.”
Many commentators on Libya have argued that Russia has big influence in Libya like it does in Syria. The Russian Wagner volunteer group are contracted on the side of the LNA. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan claims there are 2,500 Wagner volunteers operating in Libya, but there is no evidence on the actual amount. Washington, Ankara and commentators from the West have pointed to the Wagner group as evidence that Russia is influencing events in Libya like it does in Syria, but this is just a distraction and diversion for their own responsibilities in creating the near 10-year chaos in the North African country.
Rather, Haftar’s surprising move even caught Moscow off guard. Turkey will surely act more aggressively now in Libya to defend the GNA, but to what extent is not known considering it battles a destructive coronavirus outbreak and sees its economy slumping, hampering its efforts for power projections in the Eastern Mediterranean.
The NATO powers of the U.S., Italy and France were the main Western players involved in Libya, however, with all three countries distracted by the coronavirus that has killed tens of thousands, Libya would be a minor concern for them. This has provided Haftar the opportunity to cease power with only the GNA standing in the way of complete control over Libya. As his power grab has shown, Haftar acts independently of Moscow despite accusations made by the West and he will surely begin a new campaign to complete the takeover of Tripoli.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-04-28--Might the Current Global Crisis Revive the Wallace/FDR Grand Design for Russia-China-USA Cooperation

Might the Current Global Crisis Revive the Wallace/FDR Grand Design for Russia-China-USA Cooperation?

This article was written as part of the Rising Tide Foundation ’ s contribution to a conference celebrating the 75th Anniversary of Elbe Day on April 25-25 , sponsored by the American University in Moscow where it was originally featured .
The title of the conference was The Meaning of the Meeting on the Elbe after 75 Years : The Possibility and Necessity of Cooperation and featured speakers from over 40 nations .
A fuller description of the event can be found here .
On April 14th , President Putin re-iterated his January 15th , 2020 call for a new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nuclear powers of the United Nations Security Council and guided by the UN Charter ’ s founding principles .
The Kremlin stated that : Putin had earlier described this intended meeting in the following terms : Just two days before his announcement , Putin held his 3rd phone conversation in three days with President Trump where both men discussed joint cooperation on coronavirus mitigation , oil prices , as well asjoint collaboration on space exploration and lunar mining which both nations have made strong national priorities .
While Russia has embarked fully onto @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in recent years , both through the Eurasian Economic Union ’ s merging with the BRI since 2015 and also with the new and exciting Polar Silk Road extension of this traditionally east-west project into the high north , ALL THREE nations have increasingly found a common objective in space with Russia and China jointly signing a treaty to cooperate on lunar development throughout the coming decade .
This space orientation which hasn ’ t been seen in many decades vectors around lunar mining , asteroid defense , and exploration .
Based on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new system premised around space , the Health Silk Road to fight COVID-19 , and cooperation on the Polar Silk Road , I believe it is a good time to review some very important , yet often overlooked history .
In conducting this exercise we should not be surprised to find that that the current alignment of forces and ideas called for by President Putin were established during the 1941-1944 period led by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his loyal collaborator/Vice-President Henry A. Wallace who had planned a grand design for a US-Russia-China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Atlantic Charter and enunciated in Wallace ’ s 1942 “ Century of the Common Man ” speech .
While serving as FDR ’ s Vice President , Wallace wrote in his 1944 book Our Job in the Pacific : In another 1944 piece Two Peoples-One Friendship ( Survey Graphic Magazine ) , Wallace described the destiny of the US-Russian arctic relations centered on infrastructure development with transportation connections across the Bering Strait : “ Of all nations , Russia has the most powerful combination of a rapidly increasing population , great natural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Siberia and China will furnish the greatest frontier of tomorrow… When Molotov [ Russia ’ s Foreign Minister ] was in Washington in the spring of 1942 I spoke to him about the combined highway and airway which I hope someday will link Chicago and Moscow via Canada , Alaska and Siberia .
Molotov , after observing that no one nation could do this job by itself , said that he and I would live to see the day of its accomplishment .
It would mean much to the peace of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ link of this sort between the pioneer spirit of our own West and the frontier spirit of the Russian East.
” Expressing a mode of long term thinking and sensitivity to the Asian psyche rarely seen by westerners , Wallace wrote that “ Asia is on the move .
Asia distrusts Europe because of its “ superiority complex ” .
We must give Asia reason to trust us .
We must demonstrate to Russia and China , in particular that we have faith in the future of the Common Man in those two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both China and Russia and in being helpful can be helpful to ourselves and to our children .
In planning our relationships today with Russia and China , we must think of the world situation as it will be forty years hence.
” So What Went Wrong ?
While much can be said about this chapter in world history , in short ; a complex political coup was launched .
This coup saw Wallace lose the Vice Presidential nomination to Harry S. Truman in 1944 , who found himself in the White House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ April 12 , 1945 .
Truman ’ s immediate belligerence to Russia caused Russia ’ s cancellation of its $ 1.2 billion subscription to join the World Bank agreed to in 1944 , and Churchill ’ s Iron Curtain speech enshrined the bi-polar dynamic of Mutually Assured Destruction as the bedrock of the post war age of nuclear terror .
As Truman unleashed the “ Truman Doctrine ” of US foreign entanglements in the new Cold War against Russian expansion starting with America ’ s enmeshment into the Greece-Turkey conflict orchestrated by London @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said in Fulton Missouri : The Truman doctrine and Special Relationship represented the total reversal of the “ community of principle ” policy to avoid “ foreign entanglements ” advocated by George Washington , John Quincy Adams and adopted by FDR and Wallace .
Before being fired from his post as Commerce Secretary in 1946 for giving a speech calling for US-Russia friendship , Wallace warned of the emergence of a new “ American fascism ” which Eisenhower confirmed in his 1961 Military Industrial Complex speech .
Wallace said : In his 1946 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Henry Wallace did not disappear as his enemies would have liked , but became a third party candidate for the 1948 presidency acquiring the support of leading patriots and artists , not the least of whom included the great African American activist/singer Paul Robeson who set into a motion a process that blossomed under Martin Luther King ’ s Civil Rights movement .
Wallace ’ s presidential speeches are a stirring call to action which can educate and inspire today ’ s generation .
It is a tragic reminder that the American people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to stop a global fascist movement during WWII , failed to stop the emergence of a new fascism in America itself and did not vote for Wallace when they had the chance .
Although John F. Kennedy did attempt to revive the spirit of FDR and Wallace during his three years in office , his early assassination , ( followed by those of his brother , Martin Luther King and Malcolm X ) , sabotaged the re-awakening of the true constitutional America .
Today , the great infrastructure programs driven by the spirit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and FDR has come alive in the surprising Belt and Road Initiative and emerging Polar Silk Road , Health Silk Road and Space Silk Road .
Russia and China have thus found themselves in the ironic role of having become more American than the America which the world has known for the past half century .
So let us take the opportunity that the current crisis has forced upon us to make the Wallace/FDR Grand Design a reality once more by joining hands with the Multipolar Alliance .
The better constitutional traditions of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now more than ever , and the spirit of win-win cooperation represented by the New Silk Road holds the keys to forever ending the interconnected afflictions of famine , war , and empire from the world .
The author can be reached at [ email protected ]

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
This article was written as part of the Rising Tide Foundation’s contribution to a conference celebrating the 75th Anniversary of Elbe Day on April 25-25, sponsored by the American University in Moscow where it was originally featured. The title of the conference was The Meaning of the Meeting on the Elbe after 75 Years: The Possibility and Necessity of Cooperation and featured speakers from over 40 nations. A fuller description of the event can be found here.
-Rising Tide Foundation editorial
On April 14th, President Putin re-iterated his January 15th, 2020 call for a new system to be led by the 5 nuclear powers of the United Nations Security Council and guided by the UN Charter’s founding principles. The Kremlin stated that:
“The meeting was initiated by the [Russian] President as a visionary meeting and, naturally, the video conference format that is widely used now for crisis management does not possibly create the necessary atmosphere for such a visionary conversation, even more so for the heads of five members of the Security Council.”
Putin had earlier described this intended meeting in the following terms:
“The founding countries of the United Nations should set an example. It is the five nuclear powers that bear a special responsibility for the conservation and sustainable development of humankind. These five nations should first of all start with measures to remove the prerequisites for a global war and develop updated approaches to ensuring stability on the planet that would fully take into account the political, economic and military aspects of modern international relations.”
Just two days before his announcement, Putin held his 3rd phone conversation in three days with President Trump where both men discussed joint cooperation on coronavirus mitigation, oil prices, as well asjoint collaboration on space exploration and lunar mining which both nations have made strong national priorities.
While Russia has embarked fully onto China’s Belt and Road Framework in recent years, both through the Eurasian Economic Union’s merging with the BRI since 2015 and also with the new and exciting Polar Silk Road extension of this traditionally east-west project into the high north, ALL THREE nations have increasingly found a common objective in space with Russia and China jointly signing a treaty to cooperate on lunar development throughout the coming decade. This space orientation which hasn’t been seen in many decades vectors around lunar mining, asteroid defense, and exploration.
Based on this breathtaking drive to create a multipolar new system premised around space, the Health Silk Road to fight COVID-19, and cooperation on the Polar Silk Road, I believe it is a good time to review some very important, yet often overlooked history. In conducting this exercise we should not be surprised to find that that the current alignment of forces and ideas called for by President Putin were established during the 1941-1944 period led by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his loyal collaborator/Vice-President Henry A. Wallace who had planned a grand design for a US-Russia-China World Order founded upon principles enshrined in the Atlantic Charter and enunciated in Wallace’s 1942 “Century of the Common Man” speech.
The Wallace/FDR Fight for a Multipolar World Order
While serving as FDR’s Vice President, Wallace wrote in his 1944 book Our Job in the Pacific:
“It is vital to the United States, it is vital to China and it is vital to Russia that there be peaceful and friendly relations between China and Russia, China and America and Russia and America. China and Russia complement and supplement each other on the continent of Asia and the two together complement and supplement America’s position in the Pacific.”
In another 1944 piece Two Peoples-One Friendship (Survey Graphic Magazine), Wallace described the destiny of the US-Russian arctic relations centered on infrastructure development with transportation connections across the Bering Strait:
“Of all nations, Russia has the most powerful combination of a rapidly increasing population, great natural resources and immediate expansion in technological skills. Siberia and China will furnish the greatest frontier of tomorrow… When Molotov [Russia’s Foreign Minister] was in Washington in the spring of 1942 I spoke to him about the combined highway and airway which I hope someday will link Chicago and Moscow via Canada, Alaska and Siberia. Molotov, after observing that no one nation could do this job by itself, said that he and I would live to see the day of its accomplishment. It would mean much to the peace of the future if there could be some tangible link of this sort between the pioneer spirit of our own West and the frontier spirit of the Russian East.”
Expressing a mode of long term thinking and sensitivity to the Asian psyche rarely seen by westerners, Wallace wrote that “Asia is on the move. Asia distrusts Europe because of its “superiority complex”. We must give Asia reason to trust us. We must demonstrate to Russia and China, in particular that we have faith in the future of the Common Man in those two countries. We can be helpful to both China and Russia and in being helpful can be helpful to ourselves and to our children. In planning our relationships today with Russia and China, we must think of the world situation as it will be forty years hence.”
So What Went Wrong?
While much can be said about this chapter in world history, in short; a complex political coup was launched. This coup saw Wallace lose the Vice Presidential nomination to Harry S. Truman in 1944, who found himself in the White House with Roosevelt’s unexpected death on April 12, 1945.
Truman’s immediate belligerence to Russia caused Russia’s cancellation of its $1.2 billion subscription to join the World Bank agreed to in 1944, and Churchill’s Iron Curtain speech enshrined the bi-polar dynamic of Mutually Assured Destruction as the bedrock of the post war age of nuclear terror. As Truman unleashed the “Truman Doctrine” of US foreign entanglements in the new Cold War against Russian expansion starting with America’s enmeshment into the Greece-Turkey conflict orchestrated by London in the Spring of 1947, Churchill said in Fulton Missouri:
“Neither the sure prevention of war, nor the continuous rise of world organization will be gained without what I have called the fraternal association of the English speaking peoples. This means a special relationship between the British Commonwealth and Empire and the United States.”
The Truman doctrine and Special Relationship represented the total reversal of the “community of principle” policy to avoid “foreign entanglements” advocated by George Washington, John Quincy Adams and adopted by FDR and Wallace.
Wallace Fights Back
Before being fired from his post as Commerce Secretary in 1946 for giving a speech calling for US-Russia friendship, Wallace warned of the emergence of a new “American fascism” which Eisenhower confirmed in his 1961 Military Industrial Complex speech. Wallace said:
“Fascism in the postwar inevitably will push steadily for Anglo-Saxon imperialism and eventually for war with Russia. Already American fascists are talking and writing about this conflict and using it as an excuse for their internal hatreds and intolerances toward certain races, creeds and classes.”
In his 1946 Soviet Asia Mission, Wallace said:
“Before the blood of our boys is scarcely dry on the field of battle, these enemies of peace try to lay the foundation for World War III. These people must not succeed in their foul enterprise. We must offset their poison by following the policies of Roosevelt in cultivating the friendship of Russia in peace as well as in war.”
Henry Wallace did not disappear as his enemies would have liked, but became a third party candidate for the 1948 presidency acquiring the support of leading patriots and artists, not the least of whom included the great African American activist/singer Paul Robeson who set into a motion a process that blossomed under Martin Luther King’s Civil Rights movement. Wallace’s presidential speeches are a stirring call to action which can educate and inspire today’s generation. It is a tragic reminder that the American people, having just heroically given so much to stop a global fascist movement during WWII, failed to stop the emergence of a new fascism in America itself and did not vote for Wallace when they had the chance.
Wallace and his supporters Albert Einstein, Lewis Wallace of Princeton University and Paul Robeson
A Last Chance?
Although John F. Kennedy did attempt to revive the spirit of FDR and Wallace during his three years in office, his early assassination, (followed by those of his brother, Martin Luther King and Malcolm X), sabotaged the re-awakening of the true constitutional America.
Today, the great infrastructure programs driven by the spirit which epitomized the New Deal under Wallace and FDR has come alive in the surprising Belt and Road Initiative and emerging Polar Silk Road, Health Silk Road and Space Silk Road. Russia and China have thus found themselves in the ironic role of having become more American than the America which the world has known for the past half century.
So let us take the opportunity that the current crisis has forced upon us to make the Wallace/FDR Grand Design a reality once more by joining hands with the Multipolar Alliance. The better constitutional traditions of America demand that this course be taken now more than ever, and the spirit of win-win cooperation represented by the New Silk Road holds the keys to forever ending the interconnected afflictions of famine, war, and empire from the world.
The author can be reached at matt.ehret@tutamail.com
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-04-29--Triumph Of The Woke Oligarchs

Triumph Of The Woke Oligarchs

Like the rest of the country , although far less than New York , California is suffering through the Covid-19 crisis .
But in California , the pandemic seems likely to give the state ’ s political and corporate elites a new license to increase their dominion while continuing to keep the middle and working classes down .
Perhaps nothing spells the triumph of California ’ s progressive oligarchy more than Governor Gavin Newsom ’ s decision to off-load the state ’ s recovery strategy to a task force co-chaired by hedge-fund billionaire Tom Steyer .
A recently failed presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ funder .
He is as zealous as he is rich .
Steyer sometimes even found the policies adopted by climate-obsessed former governor Jerry Brown not extreme enough for his tastes .
Some conservatives wistfully hope that the pandemic will push the climate crusaders to the side .
In California , at least , the corporate aristocrats , the governmental apparat , and the progressive nonprofits have the momentum to impose their ultra-green vision on the state ’ s residents .
Steyer may have made much of his fortune on fossil fuels , including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as “ a reverent Christian , ” the Bay Area mogul seems to be eager to repent , both through his political largesse and as operator of a fulsomely organic ranch down the coast from his San Francisco manse .
What Kind of Recovery Will the Oligarchy Allow ?
Steyer ’ s failed , self-funded presidential run was full of extreme notions , such as imposing a “ state of emergency ” to address climate issues , essentially shutting down fossil fuels ; and , as a kind of bonus for those who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 22 an hour minimum wage while offering alms for the soon-to-be-eliminated legions of miners and energy workers .
If this is what he wants for the recovery , Steyer will simply accelerate the state ’ s already poor performance in creating higher-wage middle- and working-class jobs outside those created or subsidized by government .
Over the past decade , according to Chapman University ’ s Marshall Toplansky , the vast majority of jobs being produced in California pay under the median wage , and 40 % pay under $ 40,000 a year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ created five times as many low-wage jobs as high-wage jobs .
California ’ s climate regulatory regime , notes relocation expert Joe Vranich , has been particularly hard on manufacturing .
Over the past decade , according to BLS data , California has fallen into the bottom half of states in manufacturing-sector employment growth , ranking 44th last year ; its industrial new job creation has been negative , compared with gains from competitors such as Nevada , Kentucky , Michigan , and Florida .
Even without adjusting for costs , no California @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in terms of well-paying blue-collar jobs ; but four metro areas—Ventura , Los Angeles , San Jose , and San Diego—sit among the bottom ten .
Perhaps nowhere will the pain be worse than in Bakersfield , capital of California ’ s once-vibrant oil industry .
That industry is now slated for extinction by policymakers , even as the state has emerged as the largest US importer of energy and oil , much of it from Saudi Arabia .
This ultimate effort at “ virtue signaling ” will cost California as many as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ held by minorities , and will particularly devastate the San Joaquin Valley , where 40,000 jobs depend on the industry .
In California today , anyone who dissents—even a scientist or respected economist—with the green party line is dismissed as a heretic who is not worth listening to .
This treatment is facilitated by a media that tends to embrace the most apocalyptic projections of , for example , coastal erosion , with little attempt to ascertain the facts or look at alternative analyses .
The predictably pious Steyer and his fellow commissioners @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interests of average citizen .
But , as a new lawsuit filed by some 300 civil rights leaders asserts , the policies being backed by Steyer and his fellow commissioners have already had produced disastrous results for millions of Californians .
The real collective badge of shame is not California ’ s GHG emissions but the prevalence of poverty amid enormous affluence .
Critically , economic growth , at least outside asset- and iPhone-price inflation , is itself considered a threat to the planet within the environmental community , which largely hails the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” for future actions to promote “ de-growth.
” The open hope , as a Psychology Today writer puts it , would be to tame “ the human beast ” by imposing low-consumption lifestyles on hoi polloi , including in developing countries .
Such policies might not affect the prospects for social media , search , or import-dependent firms like Apple , but they have already been beastly for millions of Californians .
Even before the lockdowns , which could last until summer , California ’ s cost-adjusted poverty level was among the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2019 than in 2007 .
Nearly one in five Californians—many who are working—lives in poverty ( using a cost-of-living adjusted poverty rate ) , the highest rate of any state ; the Public Policy Institute of California estimates that another 20 % live in near-poverty—roughly 15 million people in total .
The lack of upwardly mobile jobs has created poverty rates for California ’ s Latinos and African Americans , most of them working , and has made them poorer than their counterparts elsewhere , including in Texas , California ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ company locations and a state with a similarly diverse population .
More than half of all California Latino households , now a plurality in the state , can barely pay their bills , according to a United Way study .
“ For Latinos , ” notes longtime political consultant Mike Madrid , “ the California Dream is becoming an unattainable fantasy.
” The loss of jobs , particularly in hospitality and retail , from the coronavirus crisis could further exacerbate this situation further .
The most extreme and , most obvious expression of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evident on our streets .
Indeed , even as homelessness has been reduced in much of the country , it has continued to swell in California .
Roughly half the nation ’ s homeless population lives in the Golden State , many concentrated in disease- and crime-ridden tent cities in either its largest urban region , greater Los Angeles , ( its largest urban region ) or in iconic San Francisco .
And for Our Next Act : Making the State More Vulnerable to the Next Pandemic When Steyer and other members of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but compare them to the crime commission run in New York City by Charles “ Lucky ” Luciano—decide to open the economy , they will no doubt claim , as with their climate pieties , that they are acting purely on the basis of “ science ” —as long as it agrees with their conclusions .
Logic is not a strong point here , since the green lobbies and their developer allies keep pushing density and getting people out of the relative safety of their cars and into mass transit , which , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much to deepen the crisis in New York , as the Manhattan Institute ’ s Howard Husock observes .
As of April 26 , Los Angeles County , with almost 2 million more residents than New York ’ s five boroughs , had suffered 913 Covid deaths , compared to 12,067 in New York City .
The Big Apple accounts for over two-fifths of all US transit ridership , and its subways have repeatedly been singled out , including in a recent MIT report , as incubators of the pandemic .
The key @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has described as “ exposure density.
” Compared with Angelenos , Cox suggests , New Yorkers tend to work in large , crowded workplaces and are far more mass-transit-dependent .
On an average workday , more than 5 million people – nearly 40 times as many as ride LA ’ s subway lines and 15 times as many when the lower-capacity light rail lines are added in .
The rates of infection and death are far lower in the surrounding areas – even in more dispersed , car-dependent Orange , Riverside , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the nation ’ s second-densest municipality , with more than 500,000 residents , has been far more successful in controlling the virus ’ s spread .
The city is somewhat less car-centric than greater Los Angeles ; and the Bay Area transit commuting rate is about 60 percent lower than that of New York ( combined statistical areas , or CSA ) .
San Francisco has a vehicle ownership rate at least 85 % higher than in the four most dense New York boroughs ( Manhattan , Brooklyn , the Bronx , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ smaller city ; San Franciscans are far more able to cab , Uber , or drive their own vehicles , avoiding crowded public transit .
Clearly , some ways to reduce exposure , as well as GHG emissions , would embrace telecommuting , which had been expanding and seems certain to grow in the future .
But California , unlike other states , has no interest in adopting telecommuting as a key strategy ; instead , it seems eager to embrace the viral formula of New York , which is driving a new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ urban center .
They continue to push their transit and density strategy despite concerns about social distancing and a profound resistance from hoi polloi .
As in many areas , the greens have no real interest in actual data : despite state climate policies designed to push people onto buses and trains , transit ridership has lagged—in Los Angeles , it is lower than in 1985—and virtually all population growth has taken place on the periphery of large metropolitan agglomerations .
Under the leadership of politicians like Newsom and Steyer , however promising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and green energy speculators , the Golden State seems determined to offer ever less opportunity for the state ’ s already struggling middle- and working-class families—except , perhaps , to get sicker when the next pandemic comes along .

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Authored by Joel Kotkin via RealClearEnergy.org:
Like the rest of the country, although far less than New York, California is suffering through the Covid-19 crisis. But in California, the pandemic seems likely to give the state’s political and corporate elites a new license to increase their dominion while continuing to keep the middle and working classes down.
Perhaps nothing spells the triumph of California’s progressive oligarchy more than Governor Gavin Newsom’s decision to off-load the state’s recovery strategy to a task force co-chaired by hedge-fund billionaire Tom Steyer. A recently failed presidential candidate, Steyer stands as a progressive funder. He is as zealous as he is rich. Steyer sometimes even found the policies adopted by climate-obsessed former governor Jerry Brown not extreme enough for his tastes.
Some conservatives wistfully hope that the pandemic will push the climate crusaders to the side. In California, at least, the corporate aristocrats, the governmental apparat, and the progressive nonprofits have the momentum to impose their ultra-green vision on the state’s residents. Steyer may have made much of his fortune on fossil fuels, including coal, but now, approvingly described as “a reverent Christian,” the Bay Area mogul seems to be eager to repent, both through his political largesse and as operator of a fulsomely organic ranch down the coast from his San Francisco manse.
What Kind of Recovery Will the Oligarchy Allow?
Steyer’s failed, self-funded presidential run was full of extreme notions, such as imposing a “state of emergency” to address climate issues, essentially shutting down fossil fuels; and, as a kind of bonus for those who still can find work, promoting a $22 an hour minimum wage while offering alms for the soon-to-be-eliminated legions of miners and energy workers.
If this is what he wants for the recovery, Steyer will simply accelerate the state’s already poor performance in creating higher-wage middle- and working-class jobs outside those created or subsidized by government. Over the past decade, according to Chapman University’s Marshall Toplansky, the vast majority of jobs being produced in California pay under the median wage, and 40% pay under $40,000 a year. Since 2008, the state has created five times as many low-wage jobs as high-wage jobs.
California’s climate regulatory regime, notes relocation expert Joe Vranich, has been particularly hard on manufacturing. Over the past decade, according to BLS data, California has fallen into the bottom half of states in manufacturing-sector employment growth, ranking 44th last year; its industrial new job creation has been negative, compared with gains from competitors such as Nevada, Kentucky, Michigan, and Florida. Even without adjusting for costs, no California metro ranks in the US top ten in terms of well-paying blue-collar jobs; but four metro areas—Ventura, Los Angeles, San Jose, and San Diego—sit among the bottom ten.
Perhaps nowhere will the pain be worse than in Bakersfield, capital of California’s once-vibrant oil industry. That industry is now slated for extinction by policymakers, even as the state has emerged as the largest US importer of energy and oil, much of it from Saudi Arabia. This ultimate effort at “virtue signaling” will cost California as many as 300,000 generally high-paying jobs, roughly half held by minorities, and will particularly devastate the San Joaquin Valley, where 40,000 jobs depend on the industry.
“Imagine that the state dictated that the entertainment industry be eliminated from Los Angeles, or the tech industry be eliminated from Silicon Valley. That is what removing the oil and agriculture industries from Bakersfield is like. It is an existential threat to the entire area,” says Rob Ball of the Kern County Council of Governments.
Poverty and Denial
In California today, anyone who dissents—even a scientist or respected economist—with the green party line is dismissed as a heretic who is not worth listening to. This treatment is facilitated by a media that tends to embrace the most apocalyptic projections of, for example, coastal erosion, with little attempt to ascertain the facts or look at alternative analyses.
The predictably pious Steyer and his fellow commissioners will no doubt claim devotion to the interests of average citizen. But, as a new lawsuit filed by some 300 civil rights leaders asserts, the policies being backed by Steyer and his fellow commissioners have already had produced disastrous results for millions of Californians. The real collective badge of shame is not California’s GHG emissions but the prevalence of poverty amid enormous affluence.
Critically, economic growth, at least outside asset- and iPhone-price inflation, is itself considered a threat to the planet within the environmental community, which largely hails the Covid lockdowns as a “fire drill” for future actions to promote “de-growth.” The open hope, as a Psychology Today writer puts it, would be to tame “the human beast” by imposing low-consumption lifestyles on hoi polloi, including in developing countries. Such policies might not affect the prospects for social media, search, or import-dependent firms like Apple, but they have already been beastly for millions of Californians.
Even before the lockdowns, which could last until summer, California’s cost-adjusted poverty level was among the highest of any state and remained higher in 2019 than in 2007. Nearly one in five Californians—many who are working—lives in poverty (using a cost-of-living adjusted poverty rate), the highest rate of any state; the Public Policy Institute of California estimates that another 20% live in near-poverty—roughly 15 million people in total.
The lack of upwardly mobile jobs has created poverty rates for California’s Latinos and African Americans, most of them working, and has made them poorer than their counterparts elsewhere, including in Texas, California’s primary competitor for talent, jobs and company locations and a state with a similarly diverse population. More than half of all California Latino households, now a plurality in the state, can barely pay their bills, according to a United Way study. “For Latinos,” notes longtime political consultant Mike Madrid, “the California Dream is becoming an unattainable fantasy.”
The loss of jobs, particularly in hospitality and retail, from the coronavirus crisis could further exacerbate this situation further. The most extreme and, most obvious expression of pervasive inequality and economic dysfunction lies is evident on our streets. Indeed, even as homelessness has been reduced in much of the country, it has continued to swell in California. Roughly half the nation’s homeless population lives in the Golden State, many concentrated in disease- and crime-ridden tent cities in either its largest urban region, greater Los Angeles, (its largest urban region) or in iconic San Francisco.
And for Our Next Act: Making the State More Vulnerable to the Next Pandemic
When Steyer and other members of the task force—one can’t help but compare them to the crime commission run in New York City by Charles “Lucky” Luciano—decide to open the economy, they will no doubt claim, as with their climate pieties, that they are acting purely on the basis of “science”—as long as it agrees with their conclusions.
Logic is not a strong point here, since the green lobbies and their developer allies keep pushing density and getting people out of the relative safety of their cars and into mass transit, which, along with entrenched poverty, has done much to deepen the crisis in New York, as the Manhattan Institute’s Howard Husock observes.
As of April 26, Los Angeles County, with almost 2 million more residents than New York’s five boroughs, had suffered 913 Covid deaths, compared to 12,067 in New York City. The Big Apple accounts for over two-fifths of all US transit ridership, and its subways have repeatedly been singled out, including in a recent MIT report, as incubators of the pandemic.
The key here may be what demographer Wendell Cox has described as “exposure density.” Compared with Angelenos, Cox suggests, New Yorkers tend to work in large, crowded workplaces and are far more mass-transit-dependent. On an average workday, more than 5 million people jostle onto the city’s subway trains – nearly 40 times as many as ride LA’s subway lines and 15 times as many when the lower-capacity light rail lines are added in. The rates of infection and death are far lower in the surrounding areas – even in more dispersed, car-dependent Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties.
Even San Francisco, the nation’s second-densest municipality, with more than 500,000 residents, has been far more successful in controlling the virus’s spread. The city is somewhat less car-centric than greater Los Angeles; and the Bay Area transit commuting rate is about 60 percent lower than that of New York (combined statistical areas, or CSA). San Francisco has a vehicle ownership rate at least 85% higher than in the four most dense New York boroughs (Manhattan, Brooklyn, the Bronx, and Queens) and is a much smaller city; San Franciscans are far more able to cab, Uber, or drive their own vehicles, avoiding crowded public transit.
Clearly, some ways to reduce exposure, as well as GHG emissions, would embrace telecommuting, which had been expanding and seems certain to grow in the future. But California, unlike other states, has no interest in adopting telecommuting as a key strategy; instead, it seems eager to embrace the viral formula of New York, which is driving a new exodus from the country’s premier urban center.
They continue to push their transit and density strategy despite concerns about social distancing and a profound resistance from hoi polloi. As in many areas, the greens have no real interest in actual data: despite state climate policies designed to push people onto buses and trains, transit ridership has lagged—in Los Angeles, it is lower than in 1985—and virtually all population growth has taken place on the periphery of large metropolitan agglomerations.
California’s problems won’t end with this pandemic.
Under the leadership of politicians like Newsom and Steyer, however promising the future is for the tech oligarchs and green energy speculators, the Golden State seems determined to offer ever less opportunity for the state’s already struggling middle- and working-class families—except, perhaps, to get sicker when the next pandemic comes along.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report