Western historians who condemn the USSR for the deaths under Stalin’s dictatorship should shed a spotlight on the millions who died under British rule, including those in engineered famines across the Indian subcontinent.
The UK general election is a week away and a significant chunk of the country’s media, three-quarters of which is reportedly owned by a few billionaires, is hard at work digging up dirt on Jeremy Corbyn to prevent a Labour Party victory at all costs. However, this uphill task is becoming harder as recent polls show the frequently cited Conservative lead over Labour is rapidly decreasing. The possibility that Mr Corbyn will be Britain’s next prime minister, perhaps at the head of a minority government, is now grudgingly acknowledged.
When Corbyn launched Labour’s manifesto at the end of November, he pledged to conduct a formal enquiry into the legacy of the British Empire “to understand our contribution to the dynamics of violence and insecurity across regions previously under British colonial rule” and set up an organisation “to ensure historical injustice, colonialism, and role of the British Empire is taught in the national curriculum.”
The idea of teaching a population about the unsavoury aspects of its history, and in Britain’s case revealing how several of today’s geopolitical crises are rooted in the past folly and avarice-fuelled actions of its ruling class, is commendable.
It would be prudent to inform UK citizens about the British Empire’s divide and conquer tactics across the Indian subcontinent and Africa, the stirring up of Hindu-Muslim antagonism in the former, or the impact of the Sykes-Picot agreement that precipitated instability across the Middle East which continues to the present day. Doing so might enable the public to gain a better understanding of how past actions affect present realities, in turn making them more eager to hold contemporary politicians to account so past mistakes are not repeated. As Spanish philosopher George Santayana said: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
Some right-wingers may be quick to dismiss Corbyn’s manifesto promise as self-indulgent politically-correct onanism. Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage commented: “I don’t think I should apologise for what people did 300 years ago. It was a different world, a different time.” Yet, some of the violence perpetuated in the name of protecting the empire’s interests is not exactly ancient history, having occurred within living memory for some. The Malayan Emergency, Kenya’s Mau Mau uprising, the Suez Crisis, or the deployment of British troops to Northern Ireland are a few examples.
Segments of the intelligentsia may also feel unease at Corbyn’s manifesto promise, namely those academics who still view the British Empire as the UK’s legacy and ‘gift’ to the world. This includes those who, by extension, consider modern Britain (and the West in general) as bestowed with a cultural superiority that makes it the unchallenged arbiter of global affairs and the indisputable defender of ‘human rights’ and ‘democracy’, regardless of what these laudable terms have been corrupted into justifying. The invasion of Iraq, the destruction of Libya, and the civil wars in Syria and Ukraine are a few manifestations of Western intervention.
Some Western historians fall over themselves condemning the USSR for the millions who died under the dictatorship of Stalin, with a significant proportion of these victims perishing during famines. The people of the former Soviet Union need to come to terms with their history, just like any other country. In the meantime, Western historians should shine a spotlight closer to home. Engineered famines across the Indian subcontinent reportedly killed up to 29 million in the late 19th century and a further 3 million in 1943.
The Indian subcontinent was only one of the regions under British rule and the deaths mentioned above do not include those violently killed by occupying forces. Unlike the USSR, which kept oppression confined within its borders and those of neighbouring countries under its sphere of influence, Britain together with the American Empire (to which it handed over the baton of imperialism after WWII) has interfered on pretty much every continent except Antarctica. In modern times we see the UK, now a vassal of the US-led NATO empire, condemn nations that refuse to submit to Western hegemony.
Apologists for Empire claim it brought ‘progress’ such as railways, infrastructure, education, cricket, as well as free trade and order (i.e. Pax Britannica). Irrespective of whether such ‘gifts’ were appreciated by occupied nations, this line of reasoning opens up a dangerous precedent. For example, supporters of Stalin overlook his despotism by crediting him with rapidly industrializing an underdeveloped nation that later played a major role in defeating Nazism, bestowing upon him an honour that instead belongs to millions of rank and file soldiers, officers, and commanders of the Red Army.
During the time of the British Empire, as was the case with other European empires and many dictatorships, the majority of working people were not personally enriched by the plunder of imperialism and their descendants are not to blame for the actions of the former ruling class. Nevertheless, learning one’s history is the first step to understanding the present, ensuring today’s leaders are held to account, and preventing the same mistakes from being repeated.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Of all the ludicrous aspects of the Cold War, among the most ridiculous was the notion that Cuba posed a threat to U.S. “national security.” For some 30 years, the U.S. deep state (i.e., the Pentagon, CIA, and NSA) maintained that Cuba was a communist “dagger” pointed at America’s neck and, therefore, was a grave threat to “national security.”
Through it all, hardly anyone ever asked a very simple but important question: What did they mean when they said that Cuba was a threat to “national security”?
Did they mean that the Cuban army was about to invade Florida, conquer the state, move up the Eastern Seaboard, and end up forcibly taking over the reins of the federal government, thereby enabling it to control the IRS and HUD?
If so, that’s absolutely ridiculous. Cuba has always been an impoverished Third World country, one with a very small military force. Even if it could have scrounged up a few transport boats to get a few dozen troops to Miami, they would have been quickly smashed by well-armed private American citizens. Anyone who really thinks that Cuba could have invaded and conquered the United States needs a serious dose of reality.
So, then what did they mean when they repeatedly told us that Cuba was a threat to “national security”?
Maybe they meant that Cuban leader Fidel Castro would export socialist ideas to the United States, where they would then infect the minds of the American people.
If so, that’s ridiculous because socialism was already taking over the minds of the American people, and long before Fidel Castro took power in Cuba. That’s what President Franklin Roosevelt’s Social Security scheme was all about — bringing socialism to America. That was some 25 years before Castro came to power!
Let’s not forget, after all, that Social Security did not originate with James Madison or Patrick Henry. It originated among German socialists near the end of the 1800s and then came to the United States in the 1930s. That’s why the Social Security administration has a bust of Otto von Bismarck, the Iron Chancellor of Germany, prominently displayed on its website. Bismarck introduced Social Security to Germany. He got the idea from German socialists.
When President Lyndon Johnson enacted Medicare and Medicaid into law in the 1960s, it would be safe to say that he hadn’t gotten the idea from Fidel Castro. Socialism was gripping the minds of Americans independently of what was happening in Cuba. The fact is that the entire world was moving toward socialism.
What about the Cuban Missile Crisis, when Castro invited the Soviet Union to install nuclear missiles in Cuba aimed at the United States? They were defensive in nature. The Pentagon and the CIA were pressuring President Kennedy to wage a war of aggression against Cuba, with the aim of installing another pro-U.S. dictator into power, such as Fulgencio Batista, the brutal and corrupt Cuban dictator who preceded Castro. A prime example was Operation Northwoods, the false and fraudulent scheme that the Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously presented to Kennedy after the CIA’s Bay of Pigs disaster, with the aim of securing regime change in Cuba. (To Kennedy’s everlasting credit, he rejected it.)
To deter another U.S. attack or to defend against such an attack, Castro sought assistance from the Soviets. If the Pentagon and the CIA had not been pressuring Kennedy to attack Cuba, Castro would never have invited the Soviets to install those missiles. This was confirmed by the fact that once Kennedy promised that he would not permit the deep state to attack Cuba again, the Soviets took their missiles home.
Today, 30 years after the end of the Cold War, the U.S. deep state steadfastly maintains that Cuba continues to pose a threat to U.S. “national security.” That’s what the decades-old economic embargo that targets the Cuban populace with impoverishment and death is all about.
But the fact is that Cuba has never posed a threat to U.S. “national security,” whatever definition one puts on that nebulous, meaningless term. The truth is that it has always been the U.S. government that has posed a threat to Cuban “national security,” as manifested by such illegal and wrongful actions as the CIA invasion at the Bay of Pigs, the decades-long cruel and brutal economic embargo against the Cuban people, the false and fraudulent Operation Northwoods, state-sponsored assassinations attempts against Castro, and acts of terrorism and sabotage within Cuba.
The truth is that the entire decades-long anti-Cuba campaign has always been nothing more than a fear-mongering racket by the U.S. deep state, one designed to assure ever-increasing budgets and power for the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA.
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987, Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education. He has advanced freedom and free markets on talk-radio stations all across the country as well as on Fox News’ Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren shows and he appeared as a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s show Freedom Watch.
In the 1990s with the Soviet Union collapsed as a result of the communist hardliners’ arrest of Soviet President Gorbachev and Yeltsin serving as Washington’s puppet while Americans and Israelis looted Russia, the neoconservatives called for Washington to overthrow Middle Eastern governments. The neocon scenario for remaking the Middle East was set out prior to the events of September 11, 2001. https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/whose-war/
Israel’s principal target was the water resources in southern Lebanon.The Israeli Army had tried to occupy southern Lebanon but was sent fleeing back into Israel by the Hezbollah militia.Israel concluded that it would use their American vassal to overthrow Iraq, Syria, and Iran, the governments that supplied the Hezbollah militia.Once the American puppet had overthrown the resistance to Israel’s expansion, Hezbollah would have no financial or military backing and could safely be attacked by the Israeli army, a military force good only for killing unarmed Palestinian women and children.
9/11 was their New Pearl Harbor.
General Wesley Clark, a 4-star US general who was Supreme allied Commander of NATO, revealed on television that a mere 10 days after 9/11 he was in the Pentagon and was told by a general who formerly worked under him that the decision had been made to invade Iraq. This was before any of the alleged and disproven connections between Iraq and 9/11 had emerged from the neoconservatives’ manipulation of America’s presstitute media.
In other words the invasion of Iraq was planned long before 9/11.It was there all ready for a false flag launch.
General Clark, with 4-stars, was one of the anointed ones.He thought he could tell the truth, but his revelation had no effect. I am surprised that he wasn’t arrested and tortured like Julian Assange for revealing “classified secrets.”
Osama bin Laden, a CIA asset used against the Soviets in Afghanistan, and Al Qaeda, a CIA-supported group of fighters used against the Soviets in Afghanistan, were blamed for the 9/11 attack despite bin Laden’s denial.Everyone knows that real terrorists claim responsibility for everything that happens, whether they had anything to do with it or not.It is the way that they build their movement. It makes zero sense for the alleged Terrorist Leader bin Laden to deny a victory unprecedented in history over the “worlds only superpower.”
According to obituary notices from all over the Middle East, Egypt, and Fox News, Osama bin Laden died from renal failure and a variety of other illnesses in December 2001.I published the widespread obituary notices on my website.
Osama bin Laden was a man who died twice. His death in December 2001 did not stop the corrupt Obama regime from killing bin Laden in Abbottabad, Pakistan a decade later in 2011 when Obama, whose first term failure was threatening him with challengers to his renomination, desperately needed a vindication.
We were presented with one.Obama and his top officials were shown fixed in front of a TV screen allegedly watching the US SEAL Team killing an undefended bin Laden. This false claim was a mistake as everyone wanted the film of bin Laden’s death released. Someone hadn’t given the PR event much thought. As there was no film, the Obama regime found itself on the spot. A correction was issued. It was a media false report that Obama and his team were watching a film of the SEALs’ assault on bin Laden’s compound. The replacement story was that they were listening to reports of the attack on bin Laden.
More problems emerged.Pakistani TV interviewed the next door neighbor of the alleged “bin Laden compound” about what he witnessed on the night in which US SEAL forces allegedly landed and killed Osama bin Laden and carried away his body to be buried at sea from a US aircraft carrier.
The next-door resident said that three helicopters flew above and only one landed. The language soldiers spoke from the helicopter that landed was “Pashto.”Navy SEALS don’t know Pashto. There were no Navy SEALs present.
The witness—all of this was on Pakistani TV with links in my archives, assuming that they haven’t been erased by Google or some other servant of the Evil Empire—reported that the occupants of the single helicopter that landed went into the home of his friend, who most certainly was not bin Laden, and returned in 20 minutes.He said that when the helicopter lifted off it exploded.He said there were no survivors, that body parts were all over.He said that the Pakistani military appeared and cleared the immediate area of observers. The witness said that no other helicopter landed.
The US government acknowledged that a helicopter exploded and fought with Pakistan to get the remains of the helicopter returned to the US. The Obama regime claimed that other helicopters landed and conveyed the SEAL team and bin Laden’s body to a US aircraft carrier.The Pakistani eyewitnesses to the scene said no such thing happened. The only helicopter they reported on Pakistani television was the one that exploded, and there were no survivors.
So, how did anyone escape with bin Laden’s body to be dumped into the sea off a US aircraft carrier?
Many problems resulted from this Obama regime false news stunt.
The 2 or 3 thousand US sailors on the alleged aircraft carrier from which bin Laden allegedly was given a burial at sea wrote home that there was no bin Laden burial from their ship.Aircraft carriers, like all navy ships, have people awake all hours of the day and night on watch. A ship doesn’t just close down and go to sleep during which a secret burial can take place.
Moreover, as those of sufficient intelligence asked, why was the undefended“mastermind” senselessly killed when he held so much valuable information?Why was his body disposed of instead of presented as evidence?Why dispose of the body that would prove that the person who died a decade ago still lived despite renal failure and was finally hunted down after a decade and murdered in a foreign country not subject to US law?The presstitutes were not interested in the questions, and neither was the Obama regime.
Next we heard that the SEAL unit from which the SEAL team was allegedly drawn was loaded into a Vietnam era troop helicopter in violation of the rule against putting all members of a SEAL unit on the same aircraft, and this unarmored ancient helicopter was shot down over Afghanistan with all SEALs killed.
SEAL families raised a stink.They reported receiving messages from their sons that something was wrong, that they felt endangered. The families wanted the explanation why the rule against putting all SEAL unit members on the same aircraft was broken.Why were they flown over hostile territory in an antique helicopter? I reported this information at the time.It has since disappeared from the news. Obviously, the SEALs were asking one another, “were you on the mission that got bin Laden?”And no one was.So Washington had to eliminate the SEAL unit.
Washington produced an alleged SEAL team member who “killed bin Laden” and sent him on a speaking tour. A book was written. A movie was made. The CIA-obedient presstitute media gave high emphasis to the veracity of the false story.Gullible Americans were pleased to hear that Osama bin Laden had been given his just deserts with a second death a decade after he had died from renal failure.
A population as naive as America’s has no prospect of discerning truth from fiction.They are a lost people whose fate is tyranny.And they will think that they live in truth.
Through its control over the media as evidenced by Operation Mockingbird and Udo Ulfkotte’s book ( https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/10/27/the-end-of-accountable-government-is-close-at-hand/ ), the CIA has succeeded in turning the American population into Stepford Wives.This serves the Deep State’s domestic control, but Stepford Wives are not a force capable of confronting the Russian and Chinese armed forces.The military/security complex has seized control by turning a proud nation into misinformed sheeple.
This history written in the closing months of the second decade of the 21st century is the last independent history available before the Age of Tyranny.
“Essentially, capitalism is a plunder mechanism that generates short-run profits by externalizing long-run costs.It exhausts natural resources, including air, land, and water, for temporary profits while imposing most of its costs, such as pollution, on the environment. “
Capitalists have claimed responsibility for America’s past economic success.Let’s begin by setting the record straight. American success had little to do with capitalism. This is not to say that the US would have had more success with something like Soviet central planning.
Prior to 1900 when the frontier was closed, America’s success was a multi-century long success based on the plunder of a pristine environment and abundant natural resources. Individuals and companies were capitalized simply by occupying the land and using the resources present.
As the population grew and resources were depleted, the per capita resource endowment declined.
America got a second wind from World War I, which devastated European powers and permitted the emergence of the US as a budding world power.World War II finished off Europe and put economic and financial supremacy in Washington’s hands.The US dollar seized the world reserve currency role from the British pound, enabling the US to pay its bills by printing money.The world currency role of the dollar, more than nuclear weapons, has been the source of American power. Russia has equal or greater nuclear weapons power, but it is the dollar not the ruble that is the currency in which international payments are settled.
The world currency role made the US the financial hegemon.This power together with the IMF andWorld Bank enabled the US to plunder foreign resources the way vanishing American resources had been plundered.
We can conclude that plunder of natural resources and the ability to externalize much of the cost have been major contributors right through the present day to the success of American capitalism.Michael Hudson has described the plunder process in his many books and articles (for example, http://www.unz.com/mhudson/u-s-economic-warfare-and-likely-foreign-defenses/ ), as has John Perkins in Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.
Essentially, capitalism is a plunder mechanism that generates short-run profits by externalizing long-run costs.It exhausts natural resources, including air, land, and water, for temporary profits while imposing most of its costs, such as pollution, on the environment.An example is the destruction of the Amazon rain forest by loggers.The world loses a massive carbon sink that stabilizes the global climate, and loggers gain short-run profits that are a tiny percentage of the long-run costs.
This destructive process is amplified by the inherently short-run time perspective of capitalist activity which seldom extends beyond the next quarter.
US economic success was also a result of a strong consumer demand fed by rising real wages as technological advances in manufacturing raised the productivity of labor and consumer purchasing power. The middle class became dominant. When I was an economics student, Paul Samuelson taught us that American prosperity was based entirely on the large American consumer market and had nothing to do with foreign trade.Indeed, foreign trade was a minor factor in American GDP.America had such a large domestic consumer market that the US did not need foreign trade to enjoy economics of scale.
All of this changed with the rise of free-market ideology and the collapse of the Soviet Union. When I was a student we were taught that boards of directors and corporate executives had responsibilities to their employees, their customers, their communities, and to their shareholders.These responsibilities were all equally valid and needed to be kept in balance.
In response to liberals, who tried to impose more and more “social responsibilities” on corporations, free-market economists responded with the argument that, in fact, corporations only have responsibilities to their owners. Rightly or wrongly, this reactive argument is blamed on Milton Friedman.Conservative foundations set about teaching jurists and legislators that companies were only responsible to owners.
Judges were taught that ownership is specific and cannot be abridged by government imposing obligations on the investments of owners for responsibilities that do not benefit the owners. This argument was used to terminate all responsibilities except to shareholders and left profit maximization as the corporate goal.
Thus, when the Soviet Union collapsed and China and India opened their economies to foreign capital, US corporations were free to desert their work forces and home towns and use cheaper labor abroad to produce the goods and services sold to Americans. This increased their profits and, thereby, executive bonuses and shareholder capital gains at the expense of the livelihoods of their former domestic work force and tax base of their local communities and states.The external costs of the larger profits were born by their former employees and the impaired financial condition of states and localities. These costs greatly exceed the higher profits.
Generally speaking, economists assume away external costs.Their mantra is that progress fixes everything.But their measures of progress are deceptive.Ecological economists, such as Herman Daly, have raised the issue whether, considering the neglect of external costs and the inaccurate way in which GDP is measured, announced increases in GDP exceed in value the cost of producing them.It is entirely possible that GDP growth is simply an artifact of not counting all of the costs of production.
As we approach the end of the second decade of the 21st century, the long history of American capitalism fed by plunder seems to be coming to an end simultaneously with the ability of the US central bank to protect existing financial wealth by creating ever more money with which to support stock, bond, and real estate prices.The US has a long history of overthrowing reformist governments in Latin America that threatened American control over their resources.Washington’s coups against democracy and self-determination succeeded until Venezuela.Washington’s coup against Chavez was overturned by the Venezuelan people and military, and so far Washington’s attempt to overthrow Chavez’s successor, Maduro, has failed.
Washington’s attempt to overthrow the Syrian government was prevented by Russia, and most likely Russia and China will prevent Washington from overthrowing the government of Iran.In Africa, the Chinese are proving to be better business partners than the exploitative American corporations.To continue feeding the empire with its heavy costs is becoming more difficult.
Washington’s policy of sanctions is making it even more difficult. To avoid the arbitrary and illegal sanctions, other countries are starting to abandon the US dollar as the currency of international transactions and arranging to settle their international accounts in their domestic currencies. China’s Silk Road encompasses Russia with much of Asia in a trade bloc independent of the Western financial system.Other countries hoping to escape US control are turning to Russia and China to achieve sovereignty from Washington.These developments will reduce the demand for dollars and impair US financial hegemony.Alternatives to the World Bank will remove areas of the world from the reach of US plunder.
As plunderable resources diminish, American capitalism, which is heavily dependent on plunder, will have one foundation of its success removed.As aggregate consumer demand collapses from the absence of growth in real income, absence of middle-class jobs, and the extreme polarization of income and wealth in the US, another pillar of American capitalism disintegrates.As business investment has also collapsed, as indicated by the use of corporate profits and borrowing to repurchase the corporations’ equity, thus decapitalizing the companies, total aggregate demand itself collapses.
The absence of growth in aggregate demand will make the gap between high stock prices and dismal prospects for corporate profits too great to be bridged by the Federal Reserve flooding money into financial assets.Without the ability to prop up financial asset prices with money creation, flight from dollar-denominated assets could bring down the US dollar.
Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland has become a bit of a living parody of everything wrong with the detached technocratic neo-liberal order which has driven the world through 50 years of post-industrial decay.
Now, two years into the Trump presidency, and five years into the growth of a new system shaped by the Russia-China alliance, the world has become a very different place from the one which Freeland and her controllers wish it to be.
Having been set up as a counterpart to the steely Hillary Clinton who was supposed to win the 2016 election, Freeland and her ilk have demonstrated their outdated thinking in everything they have set out to achieve since the 2014 coup in Ukraine. Certainly before that, everything seemed to be going smoothly enough for End of History disciples promoting a script that was supposed to culminate in a long-sought for “New World Order”.
The Script up until Now
Things were going especially well since the collapse of the Soviet system in the early 1990s. The collapse ushered in a unipolar world order with the European Union and NAFTA, followed soon thereafter by the World Trade Organization and the 1999 destruction of Glass-Steagall (1). The trans-Atlantic at last was converted into a cage of “post-sovereign nations” that no longer had actual control of their own powers of credit generation. Under NATO, even national militaries were subject to technocratic control. This cage was perfect for the governing elite “scientifically managing” from above while the little people bickered over their diminishing employment and standards of living from below.
Even though the former Soviet bloc nations were in tatters by 1992, their sovereign powers could only be undone by applying the liberalization process which took 30 years in the west in a short space of only a decade. This was done under the direction of such monetarist “reformers” such as Anatoly Chubais and Yegor Gaidar under Yeltsin. Similar privatization and liberalization reforms were applied viciously to Ukraine and other Warsaw pact countries during the same period. Those pirates that became the “nouveau riche” of the west were joined by such contemporary modern oligarchs such as Oleg Deripaska, Boris Berezovksy, Mikhail Fridman, Roman Abramovich in Russia, alongside Petro Poroshenko, Rinat Akhmetov, Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Viktor Pinchuk of Ukraine (to name a few). Not to forget their spiritual roots, many of these oligarchs soon purchased houses in the swank upmarket sections of London which has come to be known as “Moscow on Thames.” (2)
By the end of the 1990s a new phase of this de-nationalization was unleashed with the unveiling of the Blair doctrine explicitly calling for a “post-Westphalia” world order which unleashed a wave of hellish regime change wars in the Arab World beginning with 9-11, and with a long term intention to target Libya, Syria, Iran, and Lebanon while expanding NATO’s hegemony against the potential re-emergence of Russia and China.
The Economic Meltdown Was Always the Intention
Let’s be clear: the whole point of the post-1971 world was directed with the intention of destroying the moral-political and economic foundations for western society. The belief in scientific progress and industrial growth was the cause of all true progress from the 15th century Golden Renaissance to the assassinations of the 1960s. The intended consequences of this post-1971 (zero growth) policy were:
1) The destruction of the productive forces of labor vis a vis outsourcing to “cheap labour markets” driven by shareholder profit.
2) The consolidation of wealth into an ever smaller array of private multi-billionaire owners under a logic of Darwinian survival of the fittest.
3) The creation of a vast speculative bubble supported by ever greater rates of unpayable debt and totally detached from the physically productive forces of reality.
Just like 1929, after years of speculation known as the roaring twenties, the “plug could be pulled” on the bubble in order to impose a bit of shock therapy onto a sleeping population who would beg for fascism as a solution if only it would put bread on their tables. Though this plan failed 80 years ago due to the American rejection of fascism under President Roosevelt, the belief that the formula could succeed in the 21st century was adhered to most closely as long as America was brought firmly under control of the City of London and their Wall Street lackies (3).
Although the fascist “solution” to their manufactured crisis was put down during WWII, this new attempt was premised upon the policy that a new system of Global Government managed by draconian regulation would be imposed under a “Green New Deal” framework whereby the instruments of banking regulation, state directed capital and centralized government (not evils unto themselves), would be directed only to green, low energy flux density forms of energy which inherently lower the population of the earth. This is very different from the protectionism, bank regulation, state credit and central authority exerted by America during the 1930s New Deal (or Eurasian New Silk Road policy today). The difference is that one system empowers sovereign nations, and increases the productive powers of labor and energy flux density of humanity while increasing quality of life, the other “Green” agenda has the opposite effect whereby monetary incentives are tied to decreasing the “carbon footprint” of the earth. The image of a drug addict getting paid heroine as an incentive to bleed himself to death is useful here.
With the slow collapse of first world economies after the assassination of nationalist leaders in the 1960s, the plan for depopulation and global government seemed to be unfolding without serious opposition.
The Role of Chrystia Freeland
Freeland’s bizarre role in this whole affair was to do what every good Rhodes Scholar is conditioned to do upon their completion of their indoctrination at Oxford: facilitate the tough transition of the “pre-collapse” world economy into a new operating system that was meant to be the “green post-collapse” world economy. It wasn’t going to be easy to tell a new “pirate class” of billionaires that they would have to accept losing much of their wealth (less population equals less money), and operate under a strict new global operating system of regulation necessary to contract the society. The Rhodes Scholarship program begun in 1902 to advance a re-organized British Empire and had worked alongside the Fabian Society for over a century producing more than 7000 scholars who have permeated across all fields of society (media, education, government, military and corporate).
In his 1877 will, Cecil Rhodes said this group should be “a society which should have its members in every part of the British Empire working with one object and one idea we should have its members placed at our universities and our schools and should watch the English youth passing through their hands just one perhaps in every thousand would have the mind and feelings for such an object, he should be tried in every way, he should be tested whether he is endurant, possessed of eloquence, disregardful of the petty details of life, and if found to be such, then elected and bound by oath to serve for the rest of his life in his Country. He should then be supported if without means by the Society and sent to that part of the Empire where it was felt he was needed.”
After leaving Oxford in 1993, Chrystia Freeland learned the ropes of “perception management” by working for the London Economist, Washington Post, Financial times and Globe and Mail and Reuters. After serving a stint as editor-at-large of Reuters, the time had come for her to play the role of Valery Jarrett to the “Barack Obama” of Canada then being prepped for Prime Ministership of Justin Trudeau.
She was perfect.
As an asset of the global propaganda system, Freeland had made high level contacts with those Ukrainian, Russian, and Western oligarchs mentioned above including Viktor Pinchuk and Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Larry Summers, George Soros and Al Gore, were just a few players in the west whom she considered her “close friends” and whom she was happy to bring into Canada during the period of re-organization of the Liberal Party (2011-2014) as it prepared to take power under the banner of the Canada 2020 think tank. What made Freeland even more special was that she was bred from a zealous family of Ukrainian nationalists under the patriarchy of her Nazi grandfather Michael Chomiak. This network was brought to Canada after WWII by Anglo-American intelligence and cultivated as a force with ties to pro-Nazi Ukrainian counterparts ever since.
Freeland’s admission into politics was managed by another Rhodes Scholar named Bob Rae who served as interim controller of the Liberal Party during several of the Harper years and was a major player in Canada 2020. Rae, who had been the NDP Premier of Ontario from 1990-1995 was happy to abdicate his seat to Freeland ensuring her entry into Trudeau’s inner circle and thus becoming his official handler (4).
Freeland Promotes the New Global Elite
Freeland has made it clear that she understands well that there is a fundamental difference in cultural identities of the “new rich” relative to the older oligarchic families which she serves. In the 2011 Rise of the New Global Elite, she describes it as follows:
“To grasp the difference between today’s plutocrats and the hereditary elite, who “grow rich in their sleep” one need merely glance at the events that now fill high-end social calendars.”
Freeland then breaks down the categories of “new plutocrats” into two subcategories: the good, technocratic friendly plutocrats who are ideologically compatible with the New World Order of depopulation, such as Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, George Soros, et al and the “bad” plutocrats who tend not to conform to the British Empire’s program of global governance and depopulation under the green agenda. In Freeland’s world “good oligarchs” are those who adhere to this agenda, while “bad oligarchs” are those who do not. Trump is a terrible Plutocrat, and – Viktor Yanukovych was a good plutocrat until he decided to not sacrifice Ukraine on the altar of the collapsing European Union and chose to throw Ukraine’s destiny into the Eurasian Economic Union in October 2013.
In the same paper, Freeland wrote:
“if the plutocrats’ opposition to increases in their taxes and tighter regulation of their economic activities is understandable, it is also a mistake. The real threat facing the super-elite, at home and abroad, isn’t modestly higher taxes, but rather the possibility that inchoate public rage could cohere into a more concrete populist agenda– that, for instance, middle-class Americans could conclude that the world economy isn’t working for them and decide that protectionism… is preferable to incremental measures.”Quoting billionaire Mohamed El-Erian, the CEO of Pimco she wrote: “one of the big surprises of 2010 is that the protectionist dog didn’t bark.”
Freeland ended her article with this message:
“The lesson of history is that, in the long run, super-elites have two ways to survive: by suppressing dissent or by sharing their wealth… Let us hope the plutocrats aren’t already too isolated to recognize this”.
But what does Freeland really think of the technocratic management under a plutocratic governance of society? In Plutocrats vs. Populists (Nov. 2013), Freeland lets her pro-plutocratic worldview out of the bag when she gushes:
“At its best, this form of plutocratic political power offers the tantalizing possibility of policy practiced at the highest professional level with none of the messiness and deal making and venality of traditional politics… a technocratic, data-based, objective search for solutions to our problems”
Since a technocratic managerial class committed to a common ideology must be solidified for this system to work, Freeland goes on to make the case to recruit young people to the imperial civil service:
“Smart, publicly minded technocrats go to work for plutocrats whose values they share. The technocrats get to focus full time on the policy issues they love, without the tedium of building, rallying– and serving– a permanent mass membership. They can be pretty well paid to boot.”
The End of a Delusion?
Now that Russia and China’s new operating system shaped by the Belt and Road Initiative has created a force of opposition to this British-run Deep State design, nothing which those would-be gods of Olympus have attempted to achieve has succeeded. Syria stands strong and the Arab nations are increasingly joining China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Venezuela has failed to fall the way so many regimes have done before 2014 and NAFTA has been seriously challenged by a nationalistic president in the USA who has also totally rejected the Malthusian agenda with the killing of COP21 and the Green New Deal. Trudeau’s usefulness has withered away quicker than you can say “SNC Lavalin” and now the decision appears to be seriously humored whether Freeland will take the reins of Canada after Trudeau is eliminated in order to “preserve the dying British Empire” and the dream of Cecil Rhodes. While the universe may be organized by a principle of reason, no one can say the same applies to the mind of an oligarchic.
(1) The separation of speculative from commercial banking was the bedrock of financial regulation since its implementation in 1933. Its destruction as Clinton’s last act in office resulted in the creation of the largest bubble in history amounting to a $700 trillion derivatives time bomb now ready to explode.
(2) When Putin began exiling many of these unrepentant oligarchs, they quickly made their way to London where many became disposable playthings of the British Empire.
(3) The self-professed “Fabian Society of Canada” was set up in the height of the Depression by five Rhodes Scholars in order to create a Canadian fascist regime in 1932. This organization known as the League of Social Reconstruction, set up a political party called the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) which later changed its name to the New Democratic Party (NDP) in 1961. While good people have found themselves members of the NDP and Liberals over the years, it is useful to keep in mind that this rotten core tied to the highest echelons of the British oligarchy are real.
(4) It is a useful point to make here that as Premier of Ontario Bob Rae brought in Maurice Strong as President of Ontario Hydro from 1992-1994 during which time Canada’s nuclear sector was nearly shut down and a prototype for a “green New Deal” was applied. Strong had famously described a “fiction book he wished to write someday saying: “What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group’s conclusion is ‘no’. The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
Matthew J.L. Ehret is a journalist, lecturer and founder of the Canadian Patriot Review.
The heroes of Dickens’ Pickwick Papers visit the fictional borough of Eatanswill to observe an election between the candidates of the Blue Party and the Buff Party. The town is passionately divided, on all possible issues, between the two parties. Each party has its own newspaper: the Eatanswill Gazette is Blue and entirely devoted to praising the noble Blues and excoriating the perfidious and wicked Buffs; the Eatanswill Independent is equally passionate on the opposite side of every question. No Buff would dream of reading the “that vile and slanderous calumniator, the Gazette”, nor Blue the ”that false and scurrilous print, the Independent”.
As usual with Dickens it is both exaggerated and accurate. Newspapers used to be screamingly partisan before “journalism” was invented. Soon followed journalism schools, journalism ethics and journalism objectivity: “real journalism” as they like to call it (RT isn’t of course). “Journalism” became a profession gilded with academical folderol; no longer the refuge of dropouts, boozers, failures, budding novelists and magnates like Lord Copper who know what they want and pay for it. But, despite the pretence of objectivity and standards, there were still Lord Coppers and a lot of Eatanswill. Nonetheless, there were more or less serious efforts to get the facts and balance the story. And Lord Coppers came and went: great newspaper empires rose and fell and there was actually quite a variety of ownership and news outlets. There was sufficient variance that a reader, who was neither Blue nor Buff, could triangulate and form a sense of what was going on.
In the Soviet Union news was controlled; there was no “free press”; there was one owner and the flavours were only slightly varied: the army paper, the party paper, the government paper, papers for people interested in literature or sports. But they all said the same thing about the big subjects. The two principal newspapers were Pravda (“truth”) and Izvestiya (“news”). This swiftly led to the joke that there was no truth in Pravda and no news in Izvestiya. It was all pretty heavy handed stuff: lots of fat capitalists in top hats and money bags; Uncle Sam’s clothing dripping with bombs; no problems over here, nothing but problems over there. And it wasn’t very successful propaganda: most of their audience came to believe that the Soviet media was lying both about the USSR and about the West.
People in Crimea are pretty happy to be in Russia.
The US and its minions have given an enormous amount of weapons to jihadists.
Elections in Russia reflect popular opinion polling.
There really are a frightening number of well-armed nazis in Ukraine.
Assad is pretty popular in Syria.
The US and its minions smashed Raqqa to bits.
The official Skripal story makes very little sense.
Ukraine is much worse off, by any measurement, now than before Maidan.
Russia actually had several thousand troops in Crimea before Maidan.
There’s a documentary that exposes Browder that he keeps people from seeing.
I typed these out as they occurred to me. I could come up with another ten pretty easily. There’s some tiny coverage, far in the back pages, so that objectivity can be pretended, but most Western media consumers would answer they aren’t; didn’t; don’t; aren’t; isn’t; where?; does; not; what?; never heard of it.
So, in a world where the Integrity Initiative is spending our tax dollars (pounds actually) to make sure that we never have a doubleplusungood thought or are tempted into crimethink, (and maybe they created the entire Skripal story – more revelations by the minute), what are we to make of our Free Media™? Well, that all depends on what you’re interested in. If it’s sports (not Russian athletes – druggies every one unlike brave Westernasthmatics) or “beach-ready bodies” (not Russian drug takers of course, only wholesome Americans) – the reporting is pretty reasonable. Weather reports, for example (Siberian blasts excepted) or movie reviews (but all those Russian villains). But the rest is some weird merger of the Eatonswill Gazette and Independent: Blues/Buffs good! others, especially Russians, bad!
So, as they say in Russia, что делать? What to do? Well, I suggest we learn from the Soviet experience. After all, most Soviet citizens were much more sceptical about their home media outlets than any of my neighbours, friends or relatives are about theirs.
Notice what they’re not telling you. For example: remember when Aleppo was a huge story two years ago? But there’s nothing about it now. One should wonder why there isn’t; a quick search will find videos like this (oops! Russian! not real journalism!) here’s one from Euronews. Clearly none of this fits the “last hospitals destroyed” and brutal Assad memes of two years ago; that’s why the subject has disappeared from Western media outlets. It is always a good rule to wonder why the Biggest Story Ever suddenly disappears: that’s a strong clue it was a lie or nonsense.
Most of the time, you’d be correct to believe the opposite. Especially, when all the outlets are telling you the same thing. It’s always good to ask yourself cui bono: who’s getting what benefit out of making you believe something? It’s quite depressing how successful the big uniform lie is: even though the much-demonised Milosevic was eventually found innocent, even though Qaddafi was not “bombing his own people”, similar lies are believed about Assad and other Western enemies-of-the-moment. Believe the opposite unless there’s very good reason not to.
In the Cold War there was a notion going around that the Soviet and Western systems were converging and that they would meet in the middle, so to speak. Well, perhaps they did meet but kept on moving past each other. And so, the once reasonably free and varied Western media comes to resemble the controlled and uniform Soviet media and we in the West must start using Soviet methods to understand.
Always remember that the Soviet rulers claimed their media was free too; free from “fake news” that is.
Most people living in the United States know little about Albert Einstein. What people do know of Einstein is usually confined to his many achievements in the realm of science. Fred Jerome’s updated version of The Einstein File: The FBI’s Secret War Against the World’s Most Famous Scientist analyzes the enormous FBI file compiled on the world-renowned scientist. The book, originally published in 2002, has been updated to include contributions from fellow Black Agenda Report editor Ajamu Baraka and scientist David Suzuki as well as additional analysis on the implications of Einstein’s file for the current political situation. Jerome’s update provides readers with a glimpse into Einstein’s political life and an overview of a period of history characterized by the emergence of US hegemony, fascism, and worldwide socialist struggle.
The update of the book couldn’t come at a more pertinent time. The FBI and its intelligence partners are attempting a public relations revival under the Trump Administration. Like the first Cold War, Russia is the US intelligence apparatus’ object of scorn. Anti-Russian sentiment has justified the never-ending intelligence “investigation” into alleged political meddling by Russia in the 2016 election. The investigation has been directed mainly at alternative political ideologies and governments that the US seeks to suppress and overthrow. However, unlike the first Cold War, to be Russian is no longer synonymous with communism. Rather than subsuming all leftist forces such as Einstein under the banner of communism, these days the FBI, CIA, and its intelligence partners prefer terms such as “Russian hacker.”
Since the end of the Cold War, the ruling class has been further weaponizing the US intelligence apparatus with the largest surveillance state in human history to suppress the movements and interests of downtrodden and oppressed people everywhere. The War on Terror enhanced the weapons at the disposal of the intelligence apparatus to greater and more commanding heights, leading to endless US-led wars on “rogue” nations and the collection of private data on every American citizen. Russiagate is an outgrowth of War on Terror’s failure to maintain popular support. Russia’s economic and political policies toward independent development and the rise in popularity of terms such as “socialism” in the US have given rise to fears of impending doom for the rulers of the US imperial project. This fear reflects the decline of US imperial influence abroad and the waning domestic popularity of both major parties. A new enemy was required to mitigate these crises, and the rulers have once again settled on Russia.
The Einstein File reminds us that the FBI has always been an enemy of all the people and a tool of the oligarchs that rule the country. It also reminds us that the War on Terror and Russiagate ultimately share a common historical lineage with the “Red Scare” of the 20thcentury. The FBI used the “Red Scare” as justification to harass, murder, infiltrate, detain, and deport “dissidents” that the organization deemed agents of “Communist Russia.” Jerome’s review of Einstein’s file reveals the extent to which the famous scientist was caught in the FBI’s war on dissent. The Hoover-led FBI collected nearly 2,000 pages worth of intelligence on Albert Einstein over two decades of his life, most of which pertained to his affiliations with progressive organizations.
Einstein’s FBI file uncovers the enormous scope of repression experienced not only by Einstein but also a range of political activists and organizations of the period. In fact, much of the file contains fabrications and exaggerations related to Einstein’s activities with what Hoover and the FBI considered “communist front groups.” Some of these groups included the Board of Guardians of Basque Children, formed during the Spanish war against fascism, and the American Crusade to End Lynching, inspired by Paul Robeson in 1946. Einstein’s file proves that for decades leading up to the official “Red Scare” of the 1950s, the FBI kept tabs on Einstein and others affiliated with socialist, anti-racist, and anti-fascist organizations. More than this, progressive and radical activists were often direct targets of laws such as Truman’s “loyalty oath” for federal employees or the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. These laws required public sector workers and union members to denounce any affiliation with the Communist Party.
The Einstein File beautifully recovers this history from the grips of an establishment narrative that has all but erased it from popular memory. Too many Americans remember the first half of the 20thcentury as a “rags to riches” story of recovery from the ruins of the Great Depression and the Second World War. By 1946, the US had become the dominant capitalist economy and military power in the world. The standard of living for millions of US, mainly white workers, were raised by the fruits of a war economy and a wave of domestic labor insurgency. Yet the FBI’s file on Einstein details his deep commitment to social justice throughout the so called “Golden Age” of US capitalism. We learn from the FBI that Einstein spoke out in opposition to racism, whether through his speeches at the historically Black Lincoln University or his organizing against the lynching of Black Americans. We also learn that Einstein was a tireless advocate for peace who never hesitated to fight Nazism and militarism wherever they arose.
The Einstein File further shows that the world’s most famous scientist was a social democrat whose specific experience with anti-Semitism in Germany and anti-communism in the US greatly influenced his political strivings. Einstein vocally rejected communism but that didn’t matter to the FBI. Einstein never leaked nuclear secrets to the Soviets not only because he disagreed with Soviet policy but also because it was the US intelligence apparatus itself that prevented Einstein from participating in the Manhattan Project (and he certainly opposed the use of the atomic bomb after witnessing the horrors inflicted on Japan). Einstein declined an invitation to the Soviet Union when many other leftists in the US visited the country. Yet by the end of his life, Einstein was the target of charges of espionage and efforts on the part of the INS to deport him from the country for his alleged ties to communism.
Einstein faced such an assault from the FBI precisely because of his strong adherence to the principle of solidarity. One of the primary historical tasks of US intelligence agencies has been to discourage solidarity between oppressed people in the United States and the downtrodden around the world. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that the FBI was so obsessed with Einstein’s relationship with Paul Robeson, his opposition to white lynch mob violence against Black Americans, and his firm position against global warfare and fascism. While the FBI never took time to explain what truly motivated Einstein’s political activity in his file, we can conclude that the agency’s interest in Einstein was motivated by the larger goal of breaking the spirit of revolutionary fervor against global capital spreading across the planet at the time.
The Einstein File helps readers understand the FBI’s historic role in suppressing the efforts of communists, socialists, and progressives while ignoring or actively aiding fascists and the Klan. Jerome masterfully tells the story of Einstein’s political development through the information gathered in his FBI file. That Einstein’s anti-racist, anti-fascist, and pro-peace politics so threatened the agency gives us an idea of what and whose interests the FBI serves. In a period where the FBI and other intelligence agencies are posing as a bulwark against “Russian aggression” and “interference” in the US’ “democracy,” Jerome’s analysis reminds us that the FBI is an instrument of an oppressor class that actively works not for democracy but for war, fascism, and racial oppression. His book exposes why the FBI is an enemy of all the people and does so by documenting the dynamic political conditions of the early to mid-20thcentury that produced Einstein’s progressivism and the lessons they provide today.
Danny Haiphong is an activist and journalist in the New York City area. He and Roberto Sirvent are co-authors of the forthcoming book entitled American Exceptionalism and American Innocence: The Fake News of Wall Street, White Supremacy, and the US War Machine (Skyhorse Publishing). He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org
“Our citizens should know the urgent facts…but they don’t because our media serves imperial, not popular interests. They lie, deceive, connive and suppress what everyone needs to know, substituting managed news misinformation and rubbish for hard truths…”—Oliver Stone