German Left Party MP Sevim Dağdelen denounces the proxy war in Ukraine, saying EU members have become “servile vassals” that are “pursuing the interests of US corporations and following foreign policy instructions from Washington”, in an attempt “to preserve its absolute global predominance in the twilight of a unipolar age”
Sevim Dağdelen has been a member of Germany’s parliament, the Bundestag, since 2005. She is the spokeswoman for the Die Linke (Left Party) parliamentary group on the Bundestag’s Committee on Foreign Affairs, a deputy member of the Defense Committee, and spokeswoman for international policy and disarmament.
This is the speech she delivered at the International Conference for the Balance of the World (Conferencia internacional “Por el Equilibrio del Mundo”) in La Habana, Cuba, on January 26, 2023.
It is an honor for me to be given the privilege of addressing you here today as part of this superb program. This conference turns the spotlight on the key question of our time – namely, how can humanity, in all its diversity, achieve balanced coexistence?
In a context of war, militarization, and increasingly bitter bloc confrontation with the potential to escalate into a third world war, this question is of existential importance.
I speak to you today as a Member of Parliament from the left- wing opposition in a country that is a warring party in the Ukraine conflict.
Germany is not only taking part in the West’s unprecedented economic war against Russia, but Germany is also participating in the US-led proxy war against Russia on Ukrainian soil by supplying heavy arms, training Ukrainian troops, and providing intelligence support.
Because of massive pressure from the USA, just today [January 26] the German government decided to send Leopard battle tanks to Ukraine. This is an extremely dangerous escalation and paves the way for sending Germany directly into the line of fire.
Until just now, supplying heavy battle tanks was considered absolutely taboo and has been a red line for German Chancellor Scholz. In this context, it is extremely worrying how the war propaganda in Germany is picking up speed. In the German public and the mainstream media, this step is celebrated as an important milestone.
Immediately after the federal government’s decision to deliver heavy battle tanks, there are now calls for the delivery of fighter jets. In this logic of military escalation, the delivery of fighter jets is followed by the delivery of warships, ballistic missiles and, in the end, own troops.
In order to stop the war in Ukraine and prevent an escalation towards a third world war, we urgently need diplomatic initiatives.
The absence of military and economic force is also the prerequisite for a global balance, for a just world order, for social and environmental development.
The war in Ukraine has set humanity back several years, if not decades, on this path. Against this backdrop, I would like to deal in my talk with the following questions:
How can the origins of this war be explained? What are the global effects of the war, particularly on countries of the Global South that are not involved in the war but are severely affected by its consequences?
What ways could there be to resolve this conflict, and what prospects could there be for a world order based on peaceful coexistence and fairness?
My initial hypothesis comprises three parts.
Firstly, the proxy war in Ukraine is indicative of an attempt by the United States to preserve its absolute global predominance in the twilight of a unipolar age.
An elementary part of this strategy has been the US quest since the end of the Cold War to prevent the creation of a common security system in Europe that includes Russia.
The resultant war is therefore partly due to the inability of Europe and the EU, because of the political rule of a comprador bourgeoisie, to cast off their dependence on the United States and to pursue a sovereign policy attuned to the interests of their own population, a policy aimed at peace, stability, and prosperity.
Secondly, the war against Russia, which is being waged primarily on the economic front, is also an inwardly targeted social assault.
In Europe, the senseless economic war is tantamount to economic self-amputation, and is conducive to a shift in the balance of power within the Western alliance in favor of the United States.
The unprecedented militarization in the context of the mobilization against Russia is also being accompanied by a massive bottom-up redistribution of wealth within NATO countries. While low-earners despair of meeting the rocketing cost of energy and food because of the economic sanctions, the energy companies are reaping billions in windfall profits.
Thirdly, in the hegemonic conflict with Russia, the West is holding the countries of the Global South hostage, and so is increasingly isolating itself.
Rising food and energy prices, the spread of hunger and poverty and the stifling of economic development in the already vulnerable parts of this world are the devastating collateral damage.
Given the global impact of the war and the way in which the so-called “rules-based international order” propagated by the West has lost credibility, it is understandable that many states in Africa, Latin America, and Asia have refused to take sides on the war in Ukraine.
The brazen attempts made by the West to nevertheless enlist these countries’ support in the confrontation with Russia are a manifestation of neo-colonial arrogance. Rather, the failure to make Russia a pariah state shows the limits of the Western drive for hegemony in an increasingly multipolar world.
Yet before potential solutions to the conflict can be discussed, we cannot avoid casting a backward glance to its origins. I would like to make it clear that Russia’s attack on Ukraine constitutes an illegal war that can be justified neither by the Western violations of international law nor by NATO breaking its promises, made after the end of the Cold War, not to expand to the borders of Russia.
There is, however, a history behind the war in Ukraine; that must be stressed. The war in Ukraine is the direct consequence of NATO’s eastward expansion after the end of the Cold War.
Following the end of the bloc confrontation, instead of helping to build a Common European Home in the spirit of the 1990 Charter of Paris, the West systematically drove Russia into a corner.
Driven by the hubris of belief in the superiority of the capitalist market economy at the “end of history” proclaimed by Francis Fukuyama, the United States did all in its power to denigrate Russia as the loser of the Cold War.
Pushing NATO’s boundaries to Russia’s borders constitutes a breach of Russia’s security interests, which Russia calls an existential threat. In this respect, accession of Ukraine or Georgia to NATO were unmistakably presented as a red line.
As more or less servile vassals of the United States, the EU member states have been unable to find a diplomatic solution that would prevent a military escalation of the Ukraine conflict.
Part of that history is also the recent admission made by former German Chancellor Angela Merkel and former French President François Hollande, who acknowledged that there had never been any interest on the part of the West in fulfilling the legal requirements of the Minsk agreements, but that the sole objective was to gain time for Ukraine to arm itself.
Even after February 24, 2022, when the Russian attacks began, the West scuppered a peaceful solution to the conflict in Ukraine.
As early as the end of March 2022, very promising negotiations took place between Russia and Ukraine under Turkish mediation in Istanbul.
The withdrawal of the West’s support for a ceasefire and a diplomatic agreement has resulted in more than 200,000 dead and wounded military personnel on both sides, 40,000 civilian deaths, and millions of refugees.
The sheer cynicism of this war is also exemplified by the fact that, in the dazzled eyes of Western public opinion, “solidarity with Ukraine” is measured in arms supplies instead of in diplomatic initiatives to end the war, while people are being sacrificed on the battlefield in Ukraine to the geopolitical goals of the United States.
The Western strategy of seeking to defeat Russia militarily by supplying Ukraine with more and more heavy armaments is foolish and irresponsible. Russia is a nuclear power and is not prepared to give up its existential interests.
The arms supplies are prolonging the war and creating a risk of escalation to a third world war. Those who seek war send weapons; those who seek peace send diplomats.
Against the backdrop of a potential futile static war of attrition, even General Mark Milley, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, has now expressed the opinion that the time for negotiation has come.
Regrettably, the views of Milley, who is one of the few voices of reason on this issue in the US establishment, have not gained acceptance.
NATO’s military proxy war in Ukraine is backed up by unprecedented economic sanctions. While the West is clearly failing to achieve its declared aim of bankrupting Russia or even reducing Russia’s ability to wage war, the economic war is having a boomerang effect, especially in Europe.
Employees in Germany have suffered a 4.7% drop in real incomes, the largest real wage slump in the history of the Federal Republic. One in four businesses is planning job cuts in the wake of spiralling energy prices, while entire industries are facing ruin or intend to relocate their production facilities to other countries.
What is more, the US is trying, through investment programs worth several hundred billion dollars, to squeeze extra profits out of the disastrous situation at the expense of the EU.
Besides the cannibalization of the West and its self-amputation that are resulting from the economic war, its governments are knowingly accepting the devastating effects of the sanctions on large areas of the Global South.
The Western sanctions against Russia have caused a huge global surge in food and energy prices. Because of the EU sanctions exports of Russian fertilizers fell by 15% last year.
According to UN data, last year’s global grain harvest had already declined by 2.4%, which was due to a fertilizer shortage. While accusing Russia of weaponizing hunger, the West is still undermining the promise made to Russia as part of the UN-brokered grain deal that sanction-based restrictions on food and fertilizers would be lifted in full awareness that this will lead to millions more people in the Global South dying of starvation.
These Western double standards are another reason why the West has failed in its bid to isolate Russia.
In the Western media, a clear North-South divide concerning the war on Ukraine is often overlooked. The fact is that fewer than 40 of the 193 UN member states have imposed sanctions on Russia, while fewer than 30 have pledged military assistance for Ukraine.
This can hardly be described as isolation of Russia by the so-called “international community”. On the contrary, large countries like China and India are currently intensifying their economic relations with Russia.
There is widespread mystification in the Global South regarding the assertion that the Russian attack on Ukraine marks a historical watershed and an unparalleled violation of international law.
NATO’s illegal wars, the heinous crimes against human rights, the bombardments of civil infrastructure, the drone killings, the extrajudicial executions, and the selective application of international law have not strengthened the credibility of the West and of its alleged commitment to a rules-based international order, but weakened it.
Representatives of states in the Global South rightly refer to the many other wars and conflicts that receive far less coverage.
Malian human-rights activist and former Minister of Culture and Tourism Aminata Traoré reminded delegates at a conference in Berlin last week that 90% of the world’s armed conflicts are taking place in the Middle East and Africa, much of the blame for which attaches to the EU states, with their neocolonialist policies.
And Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the Ethiopian secretary-general of the WHO, the World Health Organization, has observed that “the world is not treating the human race the same way”.
In the light of the enduring crises in Ethiopia, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Syria, he made the apt comment that “some are more equal than others”.
The fact that the countries of the Global South are not participating in the economic sanctions against Russia is not without reason. It testifies to the painful experience that many countries have undergone because of the dire consequences of Western sanctions policies.
Let me repeat quite clearly that sanctions are an act of war. Or, to paraphrase the saying coined by Carl von Clausewitz, sanctions are the continuation of war by economic means.
Since they are designed to bring poverty, destitution, and death to the civilian population, economic sanctions are always an inherently violent course of action.
This is illustrated by the 500,000 children in Iraq who had to die as a result of the sanctions in the 1990s. In response to their deaths, Madeleine Albright, the former US secretary of state, said “the price is worth it“.
For decades, the West, besides resorting to military invasions, has used sanctions and economic blockades to bring about regime change and to subjugate countries that had been using their democratic sovereignty for their own autonomous development, free from neocolonial exploitation.
The inhuman embargo imposed on Cuba by the United States in breach of international law has lasted more than 60 years, costing this country several billion dollars every year.
May I also mention the 40,000 people in Venezuela who, according to a study conducted by the Washington-based Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), lost their lives as a result of US sanctions in the years from 2017 to 2019.
The self-assured responses to the failed isolation strategy of the West are also a reflection of tectonic shifts in the global power structure.
The relative decline of the West and its leading power, the United States, has been accompanied by the meteoric economic development of ascendent powers, especially of China.
Given the neocolonial domination of much of the Global South, such developments are a thorn in the flesh for the West. It was not without reason that US President Joe Biden described China as the arch-enemy of the United States.
And at the NATO summit in Madrid in June 2022, China was flagged up for the first time as a challenging source of “systemic competition”, not because China – which, unlike the United States, has not fought a war for decades – poses a military threat but rather because China’s economy has grown within a very short space of time into the second largest in the world and one of the main drivers of innovation and technological progress.
What is at stake in the systemic rivalry proclaimed by the West between “democracies” and “autocracies” is quite simply the defense of its own hegemonic primacy.
The accompanying Western policy of expansion and confrontation, as illustrated by the militarization of the Indo-Pacific region, has huge escalation potential.
On January 24, the hands of the doomsday clock, a metaphor that represents how close humanity is to self- destruction, were edged closer than ever toward midnight by the risk of nuclear war and advancing climate change.
The urgent need for action is self-evident. But how can a way out of the present existentially threatening situation be found?
In view of the horrific impact of the war in Ukraine on the people there and in very many other parts of the world and given the real danger of nuclear war, ending that conflict must take priority.
The wise and forward-pointing calls made by many countries of the Global South for a ceasefire and for a diplomatic solution that will bring an early end to the war are in tune with the fervent wish of most of the population in Western countries for peace, security and stability.
This common interest must be harnessed to bring forth a peaceful solution and for the time thereafter.
Like almost all wars, this one can only be ended through negotiation. It will not be possible to arrive at a peaceful solution by sidestepping the issue at the heart of the conflict, namely NATO enlargement and Ukrainian neutrality.
Unrealistic demands, such as full restoration of the territorial integrity of Ukraine, including Crimea, will make any compromise impossible from the outset.
Unlikely though it may now seem, peace and security are possible in the long term, but only with a European security structure to supersede the NATO policy of confrontation and arms accumulation.
Achievement of this goal depends on Europe freeing itself from US domination and pursuing its own independent, sovereign foreign and security policy. This should be based on a fundamental quest for peaceful coexistence through diplomacy and conciliation of interests.
It also involves preventing any exacerbation of the bloc confrontation between the West and China and refusing to be drawn into the US economic war with China, also to avoid the consequences of a ruinous decoupling.
We must be clearly aware, however, that we in Europe – as was the case in Latin America before the Cuban and Bolivarian Revolutions – are now confronted with comprador bourgeoisies that seem only to be pursuing the interests of US corporations and following foreign policy instructions from Washington.
The recent decision of supplying heavy battle tanks shows that Europe and Germany in particular are submitting to the US strategy to conclusively destroy European-Russian relations and to be sent into Russia’s line of fire.
The democratic emancipation of Europe from the US is thus a question of “to be or not to be”; it has become an issue of existential importance.
To the countries of the South, the current trend towards a multipolar world order offers a great opportunity.
The economic and geopolitical weight of international groupings such as the BRICS bloc of countries, which are home to 40% of the global population, or the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, but also of anti-hegemonic regional organizations such as CELAC and the African Union, could potentially enable these bodies to renegotiate international economic relationships and restore democratic sovereignty.
Recent political developments in Latin America, where for the first time in history the six largest economies of the region have left-wing or center-left governments, can also decisively advance self-determined regional integration politically and economically.
When we discuss a New International Economic Order here, the experiences of the regional alternative alliance ALBA-TCP (La Alianza Bolivariana para los Pueblos de Nuestra América -Tratado de Comercio de los Pueblos), which was launched more than 18 years ago by Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, are of crucial importance for a complementary solidary economy. So are alternative financial institutions like the Banco del Sur and the Banco del ALBA.
In a world marred by war, neo-colonial exploitation, growing inequality and environmental destruction, the common task of progressive forces in the West, as in the South, is to reflect on new fairer multilateral alternatives for global equilibrium in place of neoliberal globalization and to make them a reality.
In this spirit, let me express my gratitude for this great conference. I look forward to the continuing discussions with you.
Another world is possible – we are not abandoning hope. Thank you very much.
Germany has become an economic satellite of America’s New Cold War with Russia, China and the rest of Eurasia. Germany and other NATO countries have been told to impose trade and investment sanctions upon themselves that will outlast today’s proxy war in Ukraine. U.S. President Biden and his State Department spokesmen have explained that Ukraine is just the opening arena in a much broader dynamic that is splitting the world into two opposing sets of economic alliances. This global fracture promises to be a ten- or twenty-year struggle to determine whether the world economy will be a unipolar U.S.-centered dollarized economy, or a multipolar, multi-currency world centered on the Eurasian heartland with mixed public/private economies.
President Biden has characterized this split as being between democracies and autocracies. The terminology is typical Orwellian double-speak. By “democracies” he means the U.S. and allied Western financial oligarchies. Their aim is to shift economic planning out of the hands of elected governments to Wall Street and other financial centers under U.S. control. U.S. diplomats use the International Monetary Fund and World Bank to demand privatization of the world’s infrastructure and dependency on U.S. technology, oil and food exports.
By “autocracy,” Biden means countries resisting this financialization and privatization takeover. In practice, U.S. rhetoric means promoting its own economic growth and living standards, keeping finance and banking as public utilities. What basically is at issue is whether economies will be planned by banking centers to create financial wealth – by privatizing basic infrastructure, public utilities and social services such as health care into monopolies – or by raising living standards and prosperity by keeping banking and money creation, public health, education, transportation and communications in public hands.
The country suffering the most “collateral damage” in this global fracture is Germany. As Europe’s most advanced industrial economy, German steel, chemicals, machinery, automotives and other consumer goods are the most highly dependent on imports of Russian gas, oil and metals from aluminum to titanium and palladium. Yet despite two Nord Stream pipelines built to provide Germany with low-priced energy, Germany has been told to cut itself off from Russian gas and de-industrialize. This means the end of its economic preeminence. The key to GDP growth in Germany, as in other countries, is energy consumption per worker.
These anti-Russian sanctions make today’s New Cold War inherently anti-German. U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken has said that Germany should replace low-priced Russian pipeline gas with high-priced U.S. LNG gas. To import this gas, Germany will have to spend over $5 billion quickly to build port capacity to handle LNG tankers. The effect will be to make German industry uncompetitive. Bankruptcies will spread, employment will decline, and Germany’s pro-NATO leaders will impose a chronic depression and falling living standards.
Most political theory assumes that nations will act in their own self-interest. Otherwise they are satellite countries, not in control of their own fate. Germany is subordinating its industry and living standards to the dictates of U.S. diplomacy and the self-interest of America’s oil and gas sector. It is doing this voluntarily – not because of military force but out of an ideological belief that the world economy should be run by U.S. Cold War planners.
Sometimes it is easier to understand today’s dynamics by stepping away from one’s own immediate situation to look at historical examples of the kind of political diplomacy that one sees splitting today’s world. The closest parallel that I can find is medieval Europe’s fight by the Roman papacy against German kings – the Holy Roman Emperors – in the 13th century. That conflict split Europe along lines much like those of today. A series of popes excommunicated Frederick II and other German kings and mobilized allies to fight against Germany and its control of southern Italy and Sicily.
Western antagonism against the East was incited by the Crusades (1095-1291), just as today’s Cold War is a crusade against economies threatening U.S. dominance of the world. The medieval war against Germany was over who should control Christian Europe: the papacy, with the popes becoming worldly emperors, or secular rulers of individual kingdoms by claiming the power to morally legitimize and accept them.
Medieval Europe’s analogue to America’s New Cold War against China and Russia was the Great Schism in 1054. Demanding unipolar control over Christendom, Leo IX excommunicated the Orthodox Church centered in Constantinople and the entire Christian population that belonged to it. A single bishopric, Rome, cut itself off from the entire Christian world of the time, including the ancient Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople and Jerusalem.
This break-away created a political problem for Roman diplomacy: How to hold all the Western European kingdoms under its control and claim the right for financial subsidy from them. That aim required subordinating secular kings to papal religious authority. In 1074, Gregory VII, Hildebrand, announced 27 Papal Dictates outlining the administrative strategy for Rome to lock in its power over Europe.
These papal demands are in striking parallel to today’s U.S. diplomacy. In both cases military and worldly interests require a sublimation in the form of an ideological crusading spirit to cement the sense of solidarity that any system of imperial domination requires. The logic is timeless and universal.
The Papal Dictates were radical in two major ways. First of all, they elevated the bishop of Rome above all other bishoprics, creating the modern papacy. Clause 3 ruled that the pope alone had the power of investiture to appoint bishops or to depose or reinstate them. Reinforcing this, Clause 25 gave the right of appointing (or deposing) bishops to the pope, not to local rulers. And Clause 12 gave the pope the right to depose emperors, following Clause 9, obliging “all princes to kiss the feet of the Pope alone” in order to be deemed legitimate rulers.
Likewise today, U.S. diplomats claim the right to name who should be recognized as a nation’s head of state. In 1953 they overthrew Iran’s elected leader and replaced him with the Shah’s military dictatorship. That principle gives U.S. diplomats the right to sponsor “color revolutions” for regime-change, such as their sponsorship of Latin American military dictatorships creating client oligarchies to serve U.S. corporate and financial interests. The 2014 coup in Ukraine is just the latest exercise of this U.S. right to appoint and depose leaders.
More recently, U.S. diplomats have appointed Juan Guaidó as Venezuela’s head of state instead of its elected president, and turned over that country’s gold reserves to him. President Biden has insisted that Russia must remove Putin and put a more pro-U.S. leader in his place. This “right” to select heads of state has been a constant in U.S. policy spanning its long history of political meddling in European political affairs since World War II.
The second radical feature of the Papal Dictates was their exclusion of all ideology and policy that diverged from papal authority. Clause 2 stated that only the Pope could be called “Universal.” Any disagreement was, by definition, heretical. Clause 17 stated that no chapter or book could be considered canonical without papal authority.
A similar demand as is being made by today’s U.S.-sponsored ideology of financialized and privatized “free markets,” meaning deregulation of government power to shape economies in interests other than those of U.S.-centered financial and corporate elites.
The demand for universality in today’s New Cold War is cloaked in the language of “democracy.” But the definition of democracy in today’s New Cold War is simply “pro-U.S.,” and specifically neoliberal privatization as the U.S.-sponsored new economic religion. This ethic is deemed to be “science,” as in the quasi-Nobel Memorial Prize in the Economic Sciences. That is the modern euphemism for neoliberal Chicago-School junk economics, IMF austerity programs and tax favoritism for the wealthy.
The Papal Dictates spelt out a strategy for locking in unipolar control over secular realms. They asserted papal precedence over worldly kings, above all over Germany’s Holy Roman Emperors. Clause 26 gave popes authority to excommunicate whomever was “not at peace with the Roman Church.” That principle implied the concluding Clause 27, enabling the pope to “absolve subjects from their fealty to wicked men.” This encouraged the medieval version of “color revolutions” to bring about regime change.
What united countries in this solidarity was an antagonism to societies not subject to centralized papal control – the Moslem Infidels who held Jerusalem, and also the French Cathars and anyone else deemed to be a heretic. Above all there was hostility toward regions strong enough to resist papal demands for financial tribute.
Today’s counterpart to such ideological power to excommunicate heretics resisting demands for obedience and tribute would be the World Trade Organization, World Bank and IMF dictating economic practices and setting “conditionalities” for all member governments to follow, on pain of U.S. sanctions – the modern version of excommunication of countries not accepting U.S. suzerainty. Clause 19 of the Dictates ruled that the pope could be judged by no one – just as today, the United States refuses to subject its actions to rulings by the World Court. Likewise today, U.S. dictates via NATO and other arms (such as the IMF and World Bank) are expected to be followed by U.S. satellites without question. As Margaret Thatcher said of her neoliberal privatization that destroyed Britain’s public sector, There Is No Alternative (TINA).
My point is to emphasize the analogy with today’s U.S. sanctions against all countries not following its own diplomatic demands. Trade sanctions are a form of excommunication. They reverse the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia’s principle that made each country and its rulers independent from foreign meddling. President Biden characterizes U.S. interference as ensuring his new antithesis between “democracy” and “autocracy.” By democracy he means a client oligarchy under U.S. control, creating financial wealth by reducing living standards for labor, as opposed to mixed public/private economies aiming at promoting living standards and social solidarity.
As I have mentioned, by excommunicating the Orthodox Church centered in Constantinople and its Christian population, the Great Schism created the fateful religious dividing line that has split “the West” from the East for the past millennium. That split was so important that Vladimir Putin cited it as part of his September 30, 2022 speech describing today’s break away from the U.S. and NATO centered Western economies.
The 12th and 13th centuries saw Norman conquerors of England, France and other countries, along with German kings, protest repeatedly, be excommunicated repeatedly, yet ultimately succumb to papal demands. It took until the 16th century for Martin Luther, Zwingli and Henry VIII finally to create a Protestant alternative to Rome, making Western Christianity multi-polar.
Why did it take so long? The answer is that the Crusades provided an organizing ideological gravity. That was the medieval analogy to today’s New Cold War between East and West. The Crusades created a spiritual focus of “moral reform” by mobilizing hatred against “the other” – the Moslem East, and increasingly Jews and European Christian dissenters from Roman control. That was the medieval analogy to today’s neoliberal “free market” doctrines of America’s financial oligarchy and its hostility to China, Russia and other nations not following that ideology.
In today’s New Cold War, the West’s neoliberal ideology is mobilizing fear and hatred of “the other,” demonizing nations that follow an independent path as “autocratic regimes.” Outright racism is fostered toward entire peoples, as evident in the Russophobia and Cancel Culture currently sweeping the West.
Just as Western Christianity’s multi-polar transition required the 16th century’s Protestant alternative, the Eurasian heartland’s break from the bank-centered NATO West must be consolidated by an alternative ideology regarding how to organize mixed public/private economies and their financial infrastructure.
Medieval churches in the West were drained of their alms and endowments to contribute Peter’s Pence and other subsidy to the papacy for the wars it was fighting against rulers who resisted papal demands. England played the role of major victim that Germany plays today. Enormous English taxes were levied ostensibly to finance the Crusades were diverted to fight Frederick II, Conrad and Manfred in Sicily. That diversion was financed by papal bankers from northern Italy (Lombards and Cahorsins), and became royal debts passed down throughout the economy.
England’s barons waged a civil war against Henry II in the 1260s, ending his complicity in sacrificing the economy to papal demands.
What ended the papacy’s power over other countries was the ending of its war against the East. When the Crusaders lost Acre, the capital of Jerusalem in 1291, the papacy lost its control over Christendom. There was no more “evil” to fight, and the “good” had lost its center of gravity and coherence. In 1307, France’s Philip IV (“the Fair”) seized the Church’s great military banking order’s wealth, that of the Templars in the Paris Temple. Other rulers also nationalized the Templars, and monetary systems were taken out of the hands of the Church. Without a common enemy defined and mobilized by Rome, the papacy lost its unipolar ideological power over Western Europe.
The modern equivalent to the rejection of the Templars and papal finance would be for countries to withdraw from America’s New Cold War. They would reject the dollar standard and the U.S. banking and financial system that is happening as more and more countries see Russia and China not as adversaries but as presenting great opportunities for mutual economic advantage.
The broken promise of mutual gain between Germany and Russia The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 promised an end to the Cold War. The Warsaw Pact was disbanded, Germany was reunified, and American diplomats promised an end to NATO, because a Soviet military threat no longer existed. Russian leaders indulged in the hope that, as President Putin expressed it, a new pan-European economy would be created from Lisbon to Vladivostok. Germany in particular was expected to take the lead in investing in Russia and restructuring its industry along more efficient lines. Russia would pay for this technology transfer by supplying gas and oil, along with nickel, aluminium, titanium and palladium.
There was no anticipation that NATO would be expanded to threaten a New Cold War, much less that it would back Ukraine, recognized as the most corrupt kleptocracy in Europe, into being led by extremist parties identifying themselves by German Nazi insignia.
How do we explain why the seemingly logical potential of mutual gain between Western Europe and the former Soviet economies turned into a sponsorship of oligarchic kleptocracies. The Nord Stream pipeline’s destruction capsulizes the dynamics in a nutshell. For almost a decade a constant U.S. demand has been for Germany to reject its reliance on Russian energy. These demands were opposed by Gerhardt Schroeder, Angela Merkel and German business leaders. They pointed to the obvious economic logic of mutual trade of German manufactures for Russian raw materials. The U.S. problem was how to stop Germany from approving the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.
Victoria Nuland, President Biden and other U.S. diplomats demonstrated that the way to do that was to incite a hatred of Russia. The New Cold War was framed as a new Crusade. That was how George W. Bush had described America’s attack on Iraq to seize its oil wells. The U.S.-sponsored 2014 coup created a puppet Ukrainian regime that has spent eight years bombing of the Russian-speaking Eastern provinces. NATO thus incited a Russian military response. The incitement was successful, and the desired Russian response was duly labeled an unprovoked atrocity. Its protection of civilians was depicted in the NATO-sponsored media as being so offensive as to deserve the trade and investment sanctions that have been imposed since February. That is what a Crusade means.
The result is that the world is splitting in two camps: the U.S.-centered NATO, and the emerging Eurasian coalition. One byproduct of this dynamic has been to leave Germany unable to pursue the economic policy of mutually advantageous trade and investment relations with Russia (and perhaps also China). German Chancellor Olaf Sholz is going to China this week to demand that it dismantle is public sector and stops subsidizing its economy, or else Germany and Europe will impose sanctions on trade with China. There is no way that China could meet this ridiculous demand, any more than the United States or any other industrial economy would stop subsidizing their own computer-chip and other key sectors. The German Council on Foreign Relations is a neoliberal “libertarian” arm of NATO demanding German de-industrialization and dependency on the United States for its trade, excluding China, Russia and their allies. This promises to be the final nail in Germany’s economic coffin.
Another byproduct of America’s New Cold War has been to end any international plan to stem global warming. A keystone of U.S. economic diplomacy is for its oil companies and those of its NATO allies to control the world’s oil and gas supply – that is, to reduce dependence on carbon-based fuels. That is what the NATO war in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan and Ukraine was about. It is not as abstract as “Democracies vs. Autocracies.” It is about the U.S. ability to harm other countries by disrupting their access to energy and other basic needs.
Without the New Cold War’s “good vs. evil” narrative, U.S. sanctions will lose their raison d’etre in this U.S. attack on environmental protection, and on mutual trade between Western Europe and Russia and China. That is the context for today’s fight in Ukraine, which is to be merely the first step in the anticipated 20 year fight by the US to prevent the world from becoming multipolar. This process will lock Germany and Europe into dependence on the U.S. supplies of LNG.
The trick is to try and convince Germany that it is dependent on the United States for its military security. What Germany really needs protection from is the U.S. war against China and Russia that is marginalizing and “Ukrainianizing” Europe.
There have been no calls by Western governments for a negotiated end to this war, because no war has been declared in Ukraine. The United States does not declare war anywhere, because that would require a Congressional declaration under the U.S. Constitution. So U.S. and NATO armies bomb, organize color revolutions, meddle in domestic politics (rendering the 1648 Westphalia agreements obsolete), and impose the sanctions that are tearing Germany and its European neighbors apart.
How can negotiations “end” a war that either has no declaration of war, or is a long-term strategy of total unipolar world domination?
The answer is that no ending can come until an alternative to the present U.S.-centered set of international institutions is replaced. That requires the creation of new institutions reflecting an alternative to the neoliberal bank-centered view that economies should be privatized with central planning by financial centers. Rosa Luxemburg characterized the choice as being between socialism and barbarism. I have sketched out the political dynamics of an alternative in my recent book, The Destiny of Civilization.
Europe should have heeded the advice of Henry Kissinger: “To be an enemy of the U.S. is dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal.”
With an investigation continuing into the destruction of the Nord Stream gas pipeline that provided energy supplies to Europe from Russia, there appears to be just one prime suspect, and that should surprise nobody.
Following the sabotage of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines, former Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski already seemed to know the identity of the perpetrator when he tweeted out: “Thank you, USA.”
At first glance, it seemed that Sikorski was speaking sarcastically, berating Washington for carrying out an attack that will have severe repercussions for the people of Europe. After all, how could anyone see any good coming from the termination of Europe’s primary source of gas reserves with winter just around the corner? It was Sikorski’s homeland of Poland, after all, that urged its citizens to collect firewood in the face of dwindling gas reserves.
In fact, the Polish diplomat was speaking one-hundred percent literally, thanking the United States for plunging the continent deeper into the abyss. This has been the attitude of European leaders from the start of Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine: ‘we will accept our self-destruction as scripted by Washington policymakers so long as the baddies in Moscow hears our virtue-signaling whimpers and screams.’ European capitals are about to learn the hard way that virtue signaling does not put food on the table or heat homes.
Judging by the rising temperature in Europe, however, last seen in Italy where a far-right leader has come to power on the wave of voters fed up with high electricity bills and loose immigration, the phrase ‘Thank you, USA’ may eventually be chiseled into Europe’s tombstone.
But first, the big question: was the United States really responsible for the destruction of Nord Stream, as Sikorski seems to believe? Well, if we were are to take bumbling Joe Biden at his word, then the answer would seem to be yes.
“If Russia invades, that means tanks or troops crossing the border of Ukraine, again, then there will be — there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2,” the U.S. leader told reporters two weeks before Russia began its Ukrainian mission. “We will bring an end to it.”
When asked to specify, Biden responded, “I promise you, we’ll be able to do it.”
There are other clues that point to American complicity.
On September 2, an American helicopter with the call sign FFAB123 was observed maneuvering in the area of the Nord Stream pipelines. According to the site ads-b.nl, six aircraft used this call sign that day, of which the tail numbers of three were established. All of them were Sikorsky MH-60S. By overlaying the FFAB123 route on the scheme marking the areas of the explosions, it is observable that the helicopter either flew along the Nord Stream-2 route, or exactly between the points where the ‘accident’ occurred.
Meanwhile, on Twitter, there are screenshots of other American aircraft flights as of September 13th in exactly the same area. In June there was an article in Sea Power magazine where the Americans boast of experiments in the field of underwater drones that they set up at the BALTOPS 22 exercises – in the area of Bornholm Island, the Danish island where the explosions were reported to have occurred.
“Experimentation was conducted off the coast of Bornholm, Denmark, with participants from Naval Information Warfare Center Pacific, Naval Undersea Warfare Center Newport, and Mine Warfare Readiness and Effectiveness Measuring all under the direction of U.S. 6th Fleet Task Force 68,” Sea Power reports.
Such an “experiment” would have required the deep-sea equipment needed for reaching the depths where the Nord Stream pipelines are located.
Finally, here’s one last tantalizing piece of information for all of the ‘coincidence theorists’ out there. On the day after Nord Stream 1 and 2 went offline, Poland, Norway and Denmark’s leaders attended the opening ceremony of the new Baltic Pipe, which will transport natural gas from Norway via Denmark and through the Baltic Sea to, yes, Sikorski’s ferociously Russophobic homeland of Poland. Yes, just a coincidence.
However, the main motivating factor for Washington having a hand in destroying Nord Stream is the awesome powers – both financial and political – that it will reap. The economic crisis in Europe is already forcing companies and corporations to consider relocating to the U.S., which is providing a better business environment and more or less affordable electricity bills.
And after the destruction of Nord Stream, the economic situation on the continent will deteriorate significantly. Even though the NS-II was not launched, there was the chance of its launch, and this “chance” had a considerable effect on the market. Now, without its main energy supplier, Europe is doomed while America will soar.
The economic destruction of Europe makes it totally dependent on the U.S. economically, politically, and militarily, turning it into a toothless tiger with no political will and independence. At the same time, Europe will become almost completely dependent on the U.S. for its (prohibitive) gas. The United States plans to supply at least 15 billion cubic metres (bcm) of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to European Union markets this year as Europe seeks to wean itself off Russian gas supplies.
In other words, the transformation of the EU into a banana republic – albeit it one in the northern hemisphere with winter quickly approaching – has already begun.
Europe, you really should have heeded the advice of Henry Kissinger, who understands the nature of the U.S. better than anyone: “To be an enemy of the U.S. is dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal.”
As conflict rages overseas, the public is losing the ability to effectively track the use of American guns and other weapons of war.
For around 60 years, the United States published an annual study called the World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers (WMEAT) report. The document provided detailed information on global arms transfers, defense spending, and a range of other military-related topics.
For reasons that remain unclear, last year’s defense spending bill put an end to the report. The State Department published its final edition last month, quietly marking the end of an era in military disclosures.
“At one point in history, the WMEAT report was the model for transparency around the world,” Jeff Abramson of the Arms Control Association said, noting the importance of its Cold War-era origins.
Of course, the report wasn’t perfect. Experts say WMEAT tended to overcount military sales in misleading ways, among other things. But its demise is part of a larger shift away from transparency in military affairs, according to experts who spoke with Responsible Statecraft. In recent years, civil society has lost access to some of the most detailed information about which American weapons are being exported, where they’re going, and how they’re being used — crucial gaps given that U.S. companies account for almost 40 percent of global arms exports.
“We are the number one supplier of the weapons that enable and extend conflict,” said Ari Tolany of the Center for Civilians in Conflict. “It is a responsibility to understand how and where those defense articles and services are being transferred and proliferating.”
The drivers of the downturn remain unclear. Some speculate that the government is simply trying to avoid sharing embarrassing information, like whether human rights abusers are using American arms. Others say that increased international tensions have driven the U.S. and other states to guard their secrets more closely or simply ignore calls to share information with the public.
What is clear is that the problem comes from across the government. Both Congress and the executive branch have contributed to the downturn, and they’ll need to work together in order to change course.
Unlike the sudden end of the WMEAT, much of the drop in public information has been gradual. Take the Section 655 report, an annual round-up that details direct commercial sales (DCS) from American arms manufacturers to foreign clients. The document used to stretch for several hundred pages, giving such granular detail that researchers could know that, in 2008, U.S. manufacturers gave Colombia exactly 325 non-automatic firearms at a value of $1,869,129.
More recent 655 reports have been far less thorough, providing only broad information on commercial sales in a brief, pamphlet-length format. For example, readers of the 2021 edition only know that U.S. companies sold Colombia around 3247 guns and/or gun-related items at a value of $789,953 — hardly a useful data point for those who want to understand the arms trade.
Notably, the report’s drop in quality has coincided with a relative jump in the use of DCS at the expense of foreign military sales (FMS), which are country-to-country deals overseen by the Pentagon. FMS, which has far more transparency requirements than other programs, shrank to approximately $30 billion last year while DCS sales authorizations totalled more than $100 billion for at least the fifth year in a row. (It is worth noting that DCS authorizations don’t necessarily lead to sales, but they are a helpful data point given that there are no requirements to disclose actual deliveries.)
Arms researchers also say that many reports made by the executive branch have become unavailable to the public. While they used to be able to ask congressional offices to share documents, analysts contend that such reports are increasingly marked as “official use only,” meaning that non-government analysts aren’t allowed to see them.
The sharpest drop in transparency has come in the area of small arms, a worrisome development given that guns tend to prolong conflicts and enable human rights abuses, as both the Red Cross and UN have noted. Between 1981 and 2010, the United States sent such weapons to about 60 percent of countries who were involved in a violent conflict, sometimes providing them to more than one party in a single war.
In 2020, President Donald Trump moved regulation of non-automatic firearm exports from the Department of State to the Department of Commerce, which is not obligated to share detailed information on these sales with the public. Despite hopes that President Joe Biden would overturn Trump’s controversial decision, the policy change has remained in place.
“Everything I’ve heard and everything they’ve said in hearings makes me think they’re actively not doing it,” said Nate Marx, a research fellow at the Center for International Policy.
There is, however, one major exception to the drop in transparency: arms transfers to Ukraine. Since Russia’s invasion, Washington has shared detailed and timely information on 22 separate weapons packages, allowing the public to know exactly which weapons the U.S. is sending to support Ukraine’s defense.
Explanations for this exceptional transparency vary widely. Some experts give a positive take, arguing that the Biden Administration is committed to transparency and sees the disclosures as a necessary part of security aid, a category that has a higher level of built-in scrutiny than other types of weapons transfers. More cynical analysts view the approach as a way to show off and earn political points by announcing a new tranche of aid every couple of weeks.
Regardless of why they’re doing it, most experts agree that the Biden team’s approach to Ukraine aid would be a much-improved baseline for transparency moving forward. But the biggest change that many analysts and activists want comes in a more challenging area: “end-use monitoring,” or EUM.
EUM is a wonky term for verifying that weapons 1) get where they’re supposed to go and 2) aren’t used in ways that violate the laws of war. While the U.S. is a relative leader in military transparency, EUM has long been a bit of a blind spot, with officials focusing mainly on whether U.S. weapons have made it to the correct stockpile.
“It’s not been what we think would be proper end-use monitoring, which is have they been misused?” says Abramson of the Arms Control Association. “For example, is Saudi Arabia using U.S. weapons in Yemen in ways that it wasn’t supposed to? That kind of reporting and tracking and care has not been the norm, and that’s what we really should be doing.”
Even in Ukraine, the U.S. seems to have relied on Kyiv’s word as to how the weapons have been used, according to Abramson, who added that we “don’t quite know” what protections are in place to prevent diversion.
“I understand that there are policies in place, and they may share those at some point,” he said. “But, at this point, I haven’t seen it.”
Fortunately, that could change soon. The House version of the defense spending bill has a provision that would expand EUM to include reporting about whether U.S. arms are being misused.
If the Senate agrees to leave in that proposal, then Americans will get access to a much clearer picture of how U.S. weapons are being used abroad. With billions of dollars worth of American arms pouring into Ukraine each month, this could hardly come at a better time.
This conflagration is swelling into a greater conflict.Those are American mercenaries, speaking ENGLISH.
The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation published footage of the transfer of armored vehicles, artillery and personnel to the Kharkiv direction. BTR-82A armored personnel carriers, army trucks, “Msta-B” howitzers moving along the highway are being dismantled. Heavy helicopters are also involved in the transfer.
The transfer of forces is apparently taking place in connection with the latest actions of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. According to some reports, our military had to leave at least part of the previously liberated town of Balakleia. It is also confirmed that the Ukrainian Armed Forces occupied Shevchenkovo and Senkovo on the right bank of the Oskol River.
The situation in the Kupyansk region is dire, but the military is holding it together. Residents of the Kharkiv region have been evacuated to the LPR and Russia due to shelling by the armed forces of Ukraine, the head of the region said. According to him, the military is trying to push Ukrainian forces out of the suburbs of Balakleia.
According to Zakhar Prilepin, our fighters have mastered the Kupyansk-Izyum road, and are also on the defensive in the central direction of the front towards Slavyansk. “Mood: Calm. Men work. Thank you for the visible help that has begun to appear,” he wrote.
Earlier, Prilepin complained that Moscow was not using all the power it has: “We are asking you not to turn Izyum into the Brest Fortress. The people will stand, but behind them is Russia, which has 150 million people and an army of two million. I would like to see all of this from Raisin.
As the commander of the Sherwood Forest volunteer battalion explained, the most obvious plan of the VSU is the complete encirclement of the Izyum Group of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation with the withdrawal of the VSU to the Oskolsky Reservoir simultaneously from the north and south. It is easier to do this from a southern direction from Slavyansk (via Svyatogorsk or Raigorodok) than by fighting for Balakleya, he noted.
There can be no talk of any “breakthrough” by the Ukrainian Armed Forces during their “counter-offensive”, Vasyl Nebenzya said at a meeting of the UN Security Council last night. He explained that in the run-up to the latest meeting of NATO defense ministers in Ramstein, Germany, VSU activity increased to “beg” for new weapons.
At the same time, Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin said that Ukraine had achieved some success near Kherson and Kharkiv.
In the meantime, information appeared about the first mini-cell, where the units of the Ukrainian Armed Forces were deployed. The territory around Sinikha, Senkovo, Vorontsovka, Fedorovka, Lesnaya stenka, where the forces of the Armed Forces of Ukraine were previously broken through, was captured by the fighters of the 60th unit of the OMSB “Veterans” and the forces assigned to them are encircled.
Watching from the DPR, military commander Dmitry Seleznyov shared his impressions of the ongoing events:
It has long been known that the National Guard of Ukraine, as well as tank units from Chernihiv, were transferred in the direction of Kharkiv. There are also mercenaries. Although they try to fight not on the front line, but where they are sure that they will be able to retreat, sometimes they are killed – corpses are found. There are also Western military instructors. The HIMARS MLRS now hitting Kupyansk are controlled by the US military, not Ukrainians.
All these movements of VSU did not go unnoticed. Analysts talked about the danger of encirclement of our Ryzyum Group two months ago. Of course, this is not a disaster, but it is definitely an emergency. The armed forces of Ukraine have already reached the Oskol dam and the cities of Kupyansk and Izyum are under threat.
There is a version that this is a kind of “bait” for the armed forces of Ukraine. For example, now that their units have advanced 20-30 kilometers deep into our defenses and communications have stretched, our military will be able to “cut the boilers”. The consequences can be like at Kherson…
Dmitry Seleznev: I don’t believe much in cunning plans. It is clear that the front line that our military has to guard is very long. The breakthrough can happen anywhere. Judging by what is happening, we are moving units from one sector to another, strengthening the front in one place, but exposing it in another. It is fortified near Kherson, exposed near Kharkiv. We don’t have enough reserves. So it is necessary to introduce new reserves, to change something. Time to start getting serious.
It is no longer a secret that Russia is actually at war with the West. All the weapons that Ukraine had were almost gone. Now there is a kind of “depreciation” of the spent military reserves of Ukraine by the Western arsenals. The Armed Forces have American and French howitzers, armored personnel carriers, drones, ammunition, means of communication. Only the military, the “smoke meat”, are Ukrainian there. We defeated the Ukrainian army a long time ago. We are now at war with NATO. Everything is run by NATO generals.
It is necessary to take measures so that Kyiv does not get weapons. I would completely cut off Europe’s gas. They fight against us. Maybe this is planned, just waiting for winter to get more painful. It is necessary to destroy the bridges, power plants, communications and all infrastructure of the enemy. By the way, we have already given enough reasons for this. I don’t even want to talk about the notorious “decision centers”.
The head of the Center for the Study of Social-Applied Problems of National Security, retired colonel Alexander Zhilin, is also sure that Russia is at war with the West:
Now Ukraine’s military potential is growing every month, if not every week. Supplies from the West are colossal, instructors are employed in the military units. As far as I understand, according to a number of signs of intelligence, strategic planning, and even tactical planning, is already carried out not only by the Pentagon, but also by NATO structures. They act, unfortunately, very sensibly.
The combined grouping of more than 40 nations supplies Kyiv with all the intelligence it needs, from satellite to data to help with planning and munitions delivery. In fact, they fight with common, and we only with our resources.
The Anglo-Saxons did what was requested. Today, Ukraine is an instrument of a heated battle between the West and Russia. Ukrainians die there, not Englishmen and Americans. They only supply them with ammunition, equipment and so on. The ideal scheme for war with Russia. Couldn’t we have calculated this beforehand? It was obvious.
And looking at what is happening near Balakleia, in the region of Kupyansk or Izyum. This is no longer of any fundamental importance. Most importantly, the hot phase is organized and launched. And what was built as a project “Ukraine – anti-Russia” is already cemented with blood, mutual hatred. That’s how they bastards work.
I fear we may now declare a mobilization in the hope of winning by manpower. But in our time it is impossible to act like in the Second World War. If Marshal Zhukov could operate in large formations, now they will be immediately swept away by these American HIMARS. Some other solutions are needed. Conflict can be brutal, but it doesn’t have to be long.
The financial war between Russia with China’s tacit backing on one side, and America and her NATO allies on the other has escalated rapidly. It appears that President Putin was thinking several steps ahead when he launched Russia’s attack on Ukraine.
We have seen sanctions fail. We have seen Russia achieve record export surpluses. We have seen the rouble become the strongest currency on the foreign exchanges.
We are seeing the west enter a new round of European monetary inflation to pay everyone’s energy bills. The euro, yen, and sterling are already collapsing — the dollar will be next. From Putin’s point of view, so far, so good.
Russia has progressed her power over Asian nations, including populous India and Iran. She has persuaded Middle Eastern oil and gas producers that their future lies with Asian markets, and not Europe. She is subsidising Asia’s industrial revolution with discounted energy. Thanks to the west’s sanctions, Russia is on its way to confirming Halford Mackinder’s predictions made over a century ago, that Russia is the true geopolitical centre of the world.
There is one piece in Putin’s jigsaw yet to be put in place: a new currency system to protect Russia and her allies from an approaching western monetary crisis. This article argues that under cover of the west’s geopolitical ineptitude, Putin is now assembling a new gold-backed multi-currency system by combining plans for a new Asian trade currency with his new Moscow World Standard for gold.
Currency developments under the radar
Unreported by western media, there are some interesting developments taking place in Asia over the future of currencies. Earlier this summer, it emerged that Sergei Glazyev, a senior Russian economist and Minister in charge of the Eurasian Economic Commission (EAEU), was leading a committee planning a new trade currency for the Eurasian Economic Union.
As put forward in Russian and EAEU media, the new currency is to be comprised of a mixture of national currencies and commodities. A weighting of some sort was suggested to reflect the relative importance of the currencies and commodities traded between them. At the same time, the new trade settlement currency was to be available to any other nation in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and the expanding BRICS membership. The ambition is for it to become an Asia-wide replacement for the dollar.
More specifically, the purpose is to do away with the dollar for trade settlements on cross-border transactions between participants. It is worth noting that any dollar transaction is reflected in US banks through the correspondent banking system, potentially giving the US authorities undesirable economic intelligence, and information on sanction-busting and other activities deemed illegal or undesirable by the US authorities. Furthermore, any transaction involving US dollars becomes a matter for the US legal system, giving US politicians the authority to intervene wherever the dollar is used.
As well as removing these disadvantages, through the inclusion of a basket of commodities there appears to be an acceptance that the new trade currency must be more stable in terms of its commodity purchasing power than exists with that of the dollar. But we can immediately detect flaws in the outline proposal. The mooted inclusion of national currencies in the basket is not only an unnecessary complication, but any nation joining it would presumably trigger a wholesale rebalancing of the currency’s composition.
Including national currencies is a preposterous suggestion, as is any suggestion that the commodity element should be weighted by trade volumes transacted between participating states. Instead, an unweighted average of energy, precious metals, and base metals makes more sense, but even that does not go far enough. The reasons are illustrated by the two charts in Figure 1.
The upper chart shows baskets of different categories of commodities indexed and priced in dollars. Between them, they represent a wide range of commodities and raw materials. These baskets are considerably less volatile than their individual components. For example, since April 2020 oil has risen from a distorted minus figure to a high of $130, whereas the energy basket has risen only 6.3 times, because other components have not risen nearly as much as crude oil and some components might be rising while others might be falling. Agriculture raw materials are comprised of cotton, timber, wool, rubber, and hides, not raw materials liable to undesirable seasonality. But the average of the four categories is considerably more stable than its components (the black line).
We are moving towards price stability. However, all commodities are priced in US dollars, which being undesirable, cannot be avoided. Pricing in gold, which is legal money, eventually resolves this problem because it can be fixed against participating currencies. The result of pricing the commodity categories in gold and the average of them is shown in the lower chart.
Since 1992, the average (the black line) has varied between 0.37 and 1.66, and is currently at 0.82, or 18% less than in January 1992. This is as stable as it gets, and even this low volatility would probably be less if the dollar wasn’t itself so volatile and the gold price manipulated by nay-saying western authorities. To further illustrate these points, Figure 2 shows the dollar’s volatility in terms of crude oil.
Before the abandonment of Bretton Woods in 1971, the price of oil hardly changed. Since then, measured by gold the dollar has lost 98% of its purchasing power. Furthermore, the chart shows that it is the dollar which is extremely volatile and not oil, because the price of oil in gold is relatively constant (down only 20% from 1950), while in dollars it is up 33.6 times with some wild price swings along the way. Critics of measuring prices in gold ignore the fact that legal money is gold and not paper currencies or bank credit: attempts by governments and their epigones to persuade us otherwise are propaganda only.
Therefore, Glazyev should drop currencies from the proposed basket entirely and strive to either price a basket of non-seasonal commodities in gold, or alternatively simply reference the new currency to gold in a daily fix. And as the charts above confirm, there is little point in using a basket of commodities priced in dollars or gold when it is far simpler for the EAEU nations and for anyone else wishing to participate in the new trade currency to use a trade currency directly tied to the gold price. It would amount to a new Asian version of a Bretton Woods arrangement and would need no further adjustment.
Attributing them to excessive credit, from recent statements by President Putin it is clear he has a better understanding of currencies and the west’s inflationary problems than western economists. Intellectually, he has long demonstrated an appreciation of the relationship between money, that is only gold, and currency and credit. His knowledge was further demonstrated by his insistence that the “unfriendlies” pay for energy in roubles, taking control of the media of energy exchange into Russia’s own hands and away from those of his enemies.
In short, Putin appears to understand that gold is money and that the rest is unreliable, weaponizable, credit. So, why does he not just command a new trade currency to be created, backed by gold?
Enter the new Moscow gold standard
Logic suggests that a gold-backed currency will be the outcome of Glazyev’s EAEU committee’s trade currency deliberations after all, because of a subsequent announcement from Moscow concerning a new Russian bullion market.
In accordance with western sanctions, the London Bullion Market refused to accept Russian mined and processed gold. It was then natural for Russia to propose a new gold market based in Moscow with its own standards. It is equally sensible for Moscow to set up a price fixing committee, replicating that of the LBMA. But instead of it being the basis for a far larger unallocated gold deposit account offering by Russian and other banks, it will be a predominantly physical market.
Based in Moscow, with a new market called the Moscow International Precious Metals Exchange, the Moscow Gold Standard will incorporate some of the LBMA’s features, such as good delivery lists with daily, or twice daily fixings. The new exchange is therefore being promoted as a logical replacement for the LBMA.
But could that be a cover, with the real objective being to provide a gold link to the new trade currency planned by Glazyev’s EAEU committee? Timing suggests that this may indeed be the case, but we will only know for sure as events unfold.
If it is to be backed by gold, the considerations behind setting up a new trade currency are fairly straightforward. There is the Chinese one kilo bar four-nines standard, which is widely owned, has already been adopted throughout Asia, and is traded even on Comex. Given that China is Russia’s long-term partner, that is likely to be the standard unit. The adoption of the Chinese standard in the new Moscow exchange is logical, simplifying the relationship with the Shanghai Gold Exchange, and streamlining fungibility between contracts, arbitrage, and delivery.
Geopolitics suggest that the simple proposition behind the establishment of a new Moscow exchange will fit in with a larger trans-Asia plan and is unlikely to move at the glacial pace of developments between Russia and China to which we have become accustomed. The gold question has become bound up in more rapid developments triggered by Russia’s belligerence over Ukraine, and the sanctions which quickly followed.
There can be little doubt that this must be leading to a seismic shift in gold policy for the Russian Chinese partnership. The Chinese in particular have demonstrated an unhurried patience that befits a nation with a sense of its long history and destiny. Putin is more of a one-man act. Approaching seventy years old, he cannot afford to be so patient and is showing a determination to secure a legacy in his lifetime as a great Russian leader. While China has made the initial running with respect to gold policy, Putin is now pushing the agenda more forcefully.
Before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the strategy was to let the west make all the geopolitical and financial mistakes. For Putin perhaps, the lesson of history was informed by Napoleon’s march to the gates of Moscow, his pyrrhic victory at Borodino, and his defeat by the Russian winter. Hitler made the same mistake with Operation Barbarossa. From Putin’s viewpoint, the lesson was clear — Russia’s enemies defeat themselves. It was repeated in Afghanistan, where the American-led NATO enemy was conquered by its own hubris without Putin having to lift so much as a finger. That is why Russia is Mackinder’s Pivot Area of the World Island. It cannot be attacked by navies, and supply line requirements for armies make Russia’s defeat well-nigh impossible
Following the Ukraine invasion, Putin’s financial strategy has become more aggressive, and is potentially at odds with China’s economic policy. Being cut off from western markets, Putin is now proactive, while China which exports goods to them probably remains more cautious. But China knows that western capitalism bears the seeds of its own destruction, which would mean the end of the dollar and the other major fiat currencies. An economic policy based on exports to capitalistic nations would be a passing phase.
China’s gold policy was aways an insurance policy against a dollar collapse, realising that she must not be blamed for the west’s financial destruction by announcing a gold standard for the yen in advance of it. It would be a nuclear equivalent in a financial war, only an action to be taken as a last resort.
Developments in Russia have changed that. It is clear to the Russians, and most likely the Chinese, that credit inflation is now pushing the dollar into a currency crisis in the next year or two. Preparations to protect the rouble and the yuan from the final collapse of the dollar, long taught in Marxist universities as inevitable, must assume a new urgency. It would be logical to start with a new trade settlement currency as a testbed for national currencies in Asia, and for it to be set up in such a way that it would permit member states to adopt gold standards for their own currencies as well.
Possession of bullion is key
The move away from western fiat currencies to gold backed Asian currencies requires significant gold bullion ownership at the least. The only members, associates, and dialog partners of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and the EAEU whose central banks have not increased their gold reserves since the Lehman failure when the credit expansion of dollars began in earnest, are minor states. Since then, between them they have added 4,645 tonnes to their reserves, while all the other central banks account for only 781 tonnes of additional gold reserves.
But central bank reserves are only part of the story, with nations running other, often secret national bullion accounts not included in reserves. The appendix to this article shows why and how China almost certainly accumulated an undeclared quantity of bullion, likely to be in the region of 25,000 tonnes by 2002 and probably more since.
Since 2002, when the Shanghai Gold Exchange opened and China’s citizens were permitted for the first time to own gold, gold delivered into public hands has totalled a further amount of over 20,000 tonnes. While the bulk of this is jewellery and some has been returned to the SGE as scrap for re-refining, it is clear that the authorities have encouraged Chinese citizens to retain gold for themselves, which traditionally has been real money in China.
According to Simon Hunt of Simon Hunt Strategic Services, as well as declared reserves of 2,301 tonnes Russia also holds gold bullion in its Gosfund (the State Fund of Russia) bringing its holdings up to 12,000 tonnes. This is significantly greater than the 8,133 tonnes declared by the US Treasury, over which there are widespread doubts concerning the veracity of its true quantity.
Obviously, the Asian partnership has a very different view of gold from the American hegemon. Furthermore, in recent months evidence has confirmed what gold bugs have claimed all along, that the Bank for International Settlements and major bullion operators such as JPMorgan Chase have indulged in a price suppression scheme to discourage gold ownership and to divert bullion demand into synthetic unallocated accounts.
The secrecy that surrounds reporting of gold reserves to the IMF raises further suspicions over the true position. Furthermore, there are leases and swaps between central banks, the BIS, and bullion dealers that lead to double counting and bullion recorded as being in possession of governments and their central banks but being held by other parties.
As long ago as 2002 when the gold price was about $300 per ounce, Frank Veneroso, who as a noted analyst spent considerable time and effort identifying central bank swaps and leases, concluded that anything between 10,000 and 15,000 tonnes of government and central bank gold reserves were out on lease or swapped — that is up to almost half the total official global gold reserves at that time. His entire speech is available on the Gold Antitrust Action Committee website, but this is the introduction to his reasoning:[i]
“Let’s begin with an explanation of gold banking and gold derivatives.
“It is a simple, simple idea. Central banks have bars of gold in a vault. It’s their own vault, it’s the Bank of England’s vault, it’s the New York Fed’s vault. It costs them money for insurance – it costs them money for storage— and gold doesn’t pay any interest. They earn interest on their bills of sovereigns, like US Treasury Bills. They would like to have a return as well on their barren gold, so they take the bars out of the vault and they lend them to a bullion bank. Now the bullion bank owes the central bank gold—physical gold—and pays interest on this loan of perhaps 1%. What do these bullion bankers do with this gold? Does it sit in their vault and cost them storage and insurance? No, they are not going to pay 1% for a gold loan from a central bank and then have a negative spread of 2% because of additional insurance and storage costs on their physical gold. They are intermediaries—they are in the business of making money on financial intermediation. So they take the physical gold and they sell it spot and get cash for it. They put that cash on deposit or purchase a Treasury Bill. Now they have a financial asset—not a real asset—on the asset side of their balance sheet that pays them interest—6% against that 1% interest cost on the gold loan to the central bank. What happened to that physical gold? Well, that physical gold was Central Bank bars, and it went to a refinery and that refinery refined it, upgraded it, and poured it into different kinds of bars like kilo bars that go to jewellery factories who then make jewellery out of it. That jewellery gets sold to individuals. That’s where those physical bars have wound up—adorning the women of the world…
“We have gotten, albeit crude, estimates of gold borrowings from the official sector from probably more than 1/3 of all the bullion banks. We went to bullion dealers, and we asked, “Are these guys major bullion bankers, medium bullion bankers, or small-scale bullion bankers?” We classified them accordingly and from that we have extrapolated a total amount of gold lending from our sample. That exercise has pointed to exactly the same conclusion as all of our other evidence and inference—i.e., something like 10,000 to 15,000 tonnes of borrowed gold.”
Veneroso’s findings were stunning. But two decades later, we have no idea of the current position. The market has changed substantially since 2002, and today it is thought that swaps and leases are often by book entry, rather than physical delivery of bullion into markets. But the implications are clear: if Russia or China cared to declare their true position and made a move towards backing their currencies with gold or linking them to gold credibly, it would be catastrophic for the dollar and western fiat currencies generally. It would amount to a massive bear squeeze on the west’s longstanding gold versus fiat policy. And remember, gold is money, and the rest is credit, as John Pierpont Morgan said in 1912 in evidence to Congress. He was not stating his opinion, but a legal fact.
In a financial crisis, the accumulated manipulation of bullion markets since the 1970s is at significant risk of becoming unwound. The imbalance in bullion holdings between the Russian Chinese camp and the west would generate the equivalent of a financial nuclear event. This is why it is so important to understand that instead of being a longstop insurance policy against the Marxist prediction of capitalism’s ultimate failure, it appears that the combination of planning for a new trade currency for Asian nations centred on members of the EAEU, coinciding with the introduction of a new Moscow-based bullion standard, is now pre-empting financial developments in the west. That being the case, a financial nuclear bomb is close to being triggered.
China’s gold policy
China actually took its first deliberate step towards eventual domination of the gold market as long ago as June 1983, when regulations on the control of gold and silver were passed by the State Council. The following Articles extracted from the English translation set out the objectives very clearly:
Article 1. These Regulations are formulated to strengthen control over gold and silver, to guarantee the State’s gold and silver requirements for its economic development and to outlaw gold and silver smuggling and speculation and profiteering activities.
Article 3. The State shall pursue a policy of unified control, monopoly purchase and distribution of gold and silver. The total income and expenditure of gold and silver of State organs, the armed forces, organizations, schools, State enterprises, institutions, and collective urban and rural economic organizations (hereinafter referred to as domestic units) shall be incorporated into the State plan for the receipt and expenditure of gold and silver.
Article 4. The People’s Bank of China shall be the State organ responsible for the control of gold and silver in the People’s Republic of China.
Article 5. All gold and silver held by domestic units, with the exception of raw materials, equipment, household utensils and mementos which the People’s Bank of China has permitted to be kept, must be sold to the People’s Bank of China. No gold and silver may be personally disposed of or kept without authorization.
Article 6. All gold and silver legally gained by individuals shall come under the protection of the State.
Article 8. All gold and silver purchases shall be transacted through the People’s Bank of China. No unit or individual shall purchase gold and silver unless authorised or entrusted to do so by the People’s Bank of China.
Article 12. All gold and silver sold by individuals must be sold to the People’s Bank of China.
Article 25. No restriction shall be imposed on the amount of gold and silver brought into the People’s Republic of China, but declaration and registration must be made to the Customs authorities of the People’s Republic of China upon entry.
Article 26. Inspection and clearance by the People’s Republic of China Customs of gold and silver taken or retaken abroad shall be made in accordance with the amount shown on the certificate issued by the People’s Bank of China or the original declaration and registration form made on entry. All gold and silver without a covering certificate or in excess of the amount declared and registered upon entry shall not be allowed to be taken out of the country.
These articles make it clear that only the People’s Bank was authorised to acquire or sell gold on behalf of the state, without limitation, and that citizens owning or buying gold were not permitted to do so and must sell any gold in their possession to the People’s Bank.
Additionally, China has deliberately developed her gold mine production regardless of cost, becoming the largest producer by far in the world.[ii] State-owned refineries process this gold along with doré imported from elsewhere. Virtually none of this gold leaves China, so that the gold owned today between the state and individuals continues to accumulate.
The regulations quoted above formalised the State’s monopoly over all gold and silver which is exercised through the Peoples Bank, and they allow the free importation of gold and silver but keep exports under very tight control. The intent behind the regulations is not to establish or permit the free trade of gold and silver, but to control these commodities in the interest of the state.
This being the case, the growth of Chinese gold imports recorded as deliveries to the public since 2002, when the Shanghai Gold Exchange was established and the public then permitted to buy gold, is only the more recent evidence of a deliberate act of policy embarked upon thirty-nine years ago. China had been accumulating gold for nineteen years before she allowed her own nationals to buy when private ownership was finally permitted. Furthermore, the bullion was freely available, because in seventeen of those years, gold was in a severe bear market fuelled by a combination of supply from central bank disposals, leasing, and increasing mine production, all of which I estimate totalled about 59,000 tonnes. The two largest buyers for all this gold for much of the time were private buyers in the Middle East and China’s government, with additional demand identified from India and Turkey. The breakdown from these sources and the likely demand are identified in the table below:
In another context, the cost of China’s 25,000 tonnes of gold equates to roughly 10% of her exports over the period, and the eighties and early nineties in particular also saw huge capital inflows when multinational corporations were building factories in China. However, the figure for China’s gold accumulation is at best informed speculation. But given the determination of the state to acquire gold expressed in the 1983 regulations and by its subsequent actions, it is clear China had deliberately accumulated a significant undeclared stockpile by 2002.
So far, China’s long-term plans for the acquisition of gold appear to have achieved some important objectives. To date, additional deliveries to the public through the SGE now total over 20,000 tonnes.
China’s motives for taking control of the gold bullion market have almost certainly evolved. The regulations of 1983 make sense as part of a forward-looking plan to ensure that some of the benefits of industrialisation would be accumulated as a risk-free national asset. This reasoning is similar to that of the Arab nations capitalising on the oil-price bonanza only ten years earlier, which led them to accumulate their hoard, mainly held in private as opposed to government hands, for the benefit of future generations. However, as time passed the world has changed substantially both economically and politically.
2002 was a significant year for China, when geopolitical considerations entered the picture. Not only did the People’s Bank establish the Shanghai Gold Exchange to facilitate deliveries to private investors, but this was the year the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation formally adopted its charter. This merger of security and economic interests with Russia has bound Russia and China together with a number of resource-rich Asian states into an economic bloc. When India, Iran, Mongolia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan join (as they now have or are already committed to do), the SCO will cover more than half the world’s population. And inevitably the SCO’s members are looking for an alternative trade settlement system to using the US dollar.
At some stage China with her SCO partner, Russia, might force the price of gold higher as part of their currency strategy. You can argue this from an economic point of view on the basis that possession of properly priced gold will give her a financial dominance over global trade at a time when we are trashing our fiat currencies, or more simply that there’s no point in owning an asset and suppressing its value for ever. From 2002 there evolved a geopolitical argument: both China and Russia having initially wanted to embrace American and Western European capitalism no longer sought to do so, seeing us as soft enemies instead. The Chinese public were then encouraged, even by public service advertising, to buy gold, helping to denude the west of her remaining bullion stocks and to provide market liquidity in China.
What is truly amazing is that the western economic and political establishment have dismissed the importance of gold and ignored all the warning signals. They do not seem to realise the power they have given China and Russia to create financial chaos as a consequence of gold price suppression. If they do so, which seems to be only a matter of time, then London’s fractional reserve system of unallocated gold accounts would simply collapse, leaving Shanghai as the only major physical market.
This is probably the final link in China’s long-standing gold strategy, and through it a planned domination of the global economy in partnership with Russia and the other SCO nations. But as noted above, recent events have brought this outcome forward.
The present state of the U.S. economy does not suggest that it can function without the financial and material support from external sources. The quantitive easing policy, which the Fed has resorted to regularly in recent years, as well as the uncontrolled issue of cash during the 2020 and 2021 Covid lockdowns, have led to a sharp increase in the external debt and an increase in the dollar supply.
The continuing deterioration of the economic situation is highly likely to lead to a loss in the position of the Democratic Party in Congress and the Senate in the forthcoming elections to be held in November 2022. The impeachment of the President cannot be ruled out under these circumstances, which must be avoided at all costs.
There in an urgent need for resources to flow into the national economy, especially the banking system. Only European countries bound by EU and NATO commitments will be able to provide them without significant military and political costs for us.
The major obstacle to it is growing independence of Germany. Although it still is a country with limited sovereignty, for decades it has been consistently moving toward lifting these limitations and becoming a fully independent state. This movement is slow and cautious, but steady. Extrapolation shows that the ultimate goal can be reached only in several decades. However, if social and economic problems in the United States escalate, the pace could accelerate significantly.
An additional factor contributing to Germany’s economic independence is Brexit. With the withdrawal of the UK from the EU structures, we have lost a meaningful opportunity to influence the negotiation of crossgovernmental decisions.
It is fear of our negative response which by and large determines the relatively slow speed of those changes. If one day we abandon Europe, there will be a good chance for Germany and France to get to a full political consensus. Then, Italy and other Old Europe countries — primarily the former ECSC members — may join it on certain conditions. Britain, which is currently outside the European Union, will not be able to resist the pressure of the Franco-German duo alone. If implemented, this scenario will eventually turn Europe into not only an economic, but also a political competitor to the United States.
Besides, if the U.S. is for a certain period is engulfed by domestic problems, the Old Europe will be able to more effectively resist the influence of U.S.-oriented Eastern European countries.
Vulnerabilities in German and EU Economy
An increase in the flow of resources from Europe to U.S. can be expected if Germany begins to experience a controlled economic crisis. The pace of the economic developments in the EU depends almost without alternative on the state of the German economy. It is Germany that bears the brunt of the expenditure directed towards the poorer EU members.
The current German economic model is based on two pillars. These are unlimited access to cheap Russian energy resources and to cheap French electric power, thanks to the operation of nuclear plants. The importance of the first factor is considerably higher. Halting Russian supplies can well create a systemic crisis that would be devastating for the German economy and, indirectly, for the entire European Union.
The French energy sector could also soon being to experience heavy problems. The predictable stop of Russian-controlled nuclear supplies, combined with the unstable situation in the Sahel region, would make French energy sector critically dependent on Australian and Canadian fuel. In connection with the establishment of AUKUS, it creates new opportunities to exercise pressure. However this issue is beyond the scope of the present report.
A Controlled Crisis
Due to coalition constraints, the German leadership is not in full control of the situation in the country. Thanks to our precise actions, it has been possible to block the commissioning of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, despite the opposition of lobbyists from the steel and chemical industries. However, the dramatic deterioration of the living standards may encourage leadership to reconsider its policy and return to the idea of European sovereignty and strategic autonomy.
The only feasible way to guarantee Germany’s rejection of Russian energy supplies is to involved both sides in the military conflict in Ukraine. Our further actions in this country will inevitably lead to a military response from Russia. Russians will obviously not be able to leave unanswered the massive Ukrainian army pressure on the unrecognized Donbas republics. That would make possible to declare Russia an aggressor and apply to it the entire package of sanctions prepared beforehand.
Putin may in turn decide to impose limited counter sanctions — primarily on Russian energy supplies to Europe. Thus, the damage to the EU countries will be quite comparable to the one to Russians, and in some countries — primarily in Germany — it will be higher.
The prerequisite for Germany to fall into this trap is the leading role of green parties and ideology in Europe. The German Greens are a strongly dogmatic, if not zealous, movement, which makes it quite easy to make them ignore economic arguments. In this respect, the German Greens somewhat exceed their counterparts in the rest of Europe. Personal features and the lack of professionalism of their leaders — primarily Annalena Baerbock and Robert Habeck — permit to presume that it is next to impossible for them to admit their own mistakes in a timely manners.
Thus, it will be enough to quickly form the media image of Putin’s aggressive war to turn the Greens into ardent and hardline supporters of sanctions, a ‘party of war’. It will enable the sanctions regime to be introduced without any obstacles. The lack of professionalism of the current leaders will not allow a setback in the future, even when the negative impact of the chose policy becomes obvious enough. The partners in the German governing coalition will simply have to follow their allies — at least until the load of economic problems outweighs the fear of provoking a government crisis.
However, even when the SPD and the FDP are ready to go against the Greens, the possibility for the next government to return relations with Russia to normal soon enough will be noticeable limited. Germany’s involvement in large supplies of weapons and military equipment to the Ukrainian army will inevitably generate a strong mistrust in Russia, which will make the negotiations process quite lengthy.
If war crimes and Russian aggression against Ukraine are confirmed, the German political leadership will not be able to overcome its EU partners’ veto on assistance to Ukraine and reinforced sanctions packages. This will ensure a sufficiently long gap in cooperation between Germany and Russia, which will make large German economic operators uncompetitive.
A reduction in Russian energy supplies — ideally, a complete halt of such supplies — would lead to disastrous outcomes for German industry. The need to divert significant amounts of Russian gas for winter heating of residential and public facilities will further exacerbate the shortages. Lockdowns in industrial enterprises will cause shortages of components and spare parts for manufacturing, a breakdown of logistics chais, and, eventually, a domino effect. A complete standstill at the largest chemical, metallurgical, and machine-building, plants is likely, while they have virtually no spare capacity to reduce energy consumption. It could lead to the shutting down of continuous-cycle enterprises, which could mean their destruction.
The cumulative losses of the German economy can be estimated only approximately. Even if the restriction of Russian supplies is limited to 2022, its consequence will last for several years, and the total losses could reach 200-300 billion euros. Not only will it deliver a devastating blow to the German economy, but the entire EU economy will inevitably collapse. We are talking not about a decline in economy growth pace, but about a sustained recession and a decline in GDP only in material production by 3-4% per year for the next 5-6 years. Such a fall will inevitably cause panic in the financial markets and may bring them to a collapse.
The euro will inevitably, and most likely irreversibly, fall below the dollar. A sharp fall of euro will consequently cause its global sale. It will become a toxic currency, and all countries in the world will rapidly reduce its share in their forex reserves. This gap will be primarily filled with dollar and yaun.
Another inevitable consequence of a prolonged economic recession will be a sharp drop in living standards and rising unemployment (up to 200,000-400,000 in Germany alone), which will entail the exodus of skilled labour and well-educated young people. There are literally no other destinations for such immigration other than the United States today. A somewhat smaller, but also quite significant flow of migrants can be expected from other EU countries.
The scenario under consideration will thus serve to strengthen the national financial conditions both indirectly and most directly. In the short term, it will reverse the trend of the looming economic recession and, in addition, consolidate American society by distracting it from immediate economic concerns. This, in turn, will reduce electoral risks.
In the medium terms (4-5 years), the cumulative benefits of capital flight, re-oriented logistical flows and reduced competition in major industries may amount to USD 7-9 trillion.
Unfortunately, China is also expected to benefit over the medium term from this emerging scenario. At the same time, Europe’s deep political dependence on the U.S. allows us to effectively neutralise possible attempts by individual European states to draw closer to China.
“We make war against all prevailing ideas of religion, of the state, of country, of patriotism. The idea of God is the keynote of a perverted civilization. It must be destroyed.”
This is Part Seven. The Sacred Destabilization will tie components of the Occult to “Secret Societies” – clubs of the elite/political/donor/ruling class – to the neoliberal, internationalist, corporatist oligarchy which rules over the resources. Power is possession of the Resources. Control. Law. Force. Self-anointed divinity. There is nothing motivating the Big People from ever relinquishing their power. Though, they masquerade in duplicitous behavior, with promoting agendas of “Diversity, Inclusion, Equity” once called Equality. They state they are fighting inequality. Yet to fight this ghost, they work to eliminate QUALITY. In America, some ten years ago we called it the “pussification of America.” The fuckery has been turned up quite a notch. The quality of your life. Of your children’s lives. And your posterity after that. And they are doing so for they know the competent, capable people are their greatest threat to the stability of their control. And since the promise of dystopia via “the New Normal” – there is an Acceleration underway.
The powerful have co-opted the political utopian ideologies of the Left to weaponize against the capable, competent people of the West – in order to bring about the fall of the threat of any competition. Critical Theory and Political Correctness are at the heart of the scheme.
Let us move through this history…
Sabbatean-Frankism to Destabilize Reality
The word “Radiance” from the Zohar was also interpreted into English as “Illuminate” – this is the root of the chosen name, Illuminati. In Sabbatean-Frankism, “who permits the forbidden” later became the Illuminist “do as thou wilt” the expression of their “religious” feeling. That is their tactic. They don’t advocate a Satanic kingdom. They gently steer you that way by questioning the existence of God, by demanding “sexual liberation,” “independence” for women, “internationalism,” “diversity” and “religious tolerance.”
Adam Weishaupt was not, he said, against religion per se, but rather against the way it was practiced and enforced. His thinking, he wrote, freed “from all religious prejudices; cultivated social virtues; and animated them with a deep, realizable and immediate sense of universal happiness. To achieve this, it was necessary to create “a state of freedom and moral equity, free from the obstacles imposed by subordination, rank and wealth.”
Weishuapt was given the task of adapting the ritual and rites of Illuminism for use of initiation into the Grand Orient Masonry. He also lived in Frankfort, Germany. Mirabeau introduced the Duc D’Orleans and his friend Talleyrand to Weishaupt who initiated them into the secrets of Grand Orient Masonry. By the end of 1773 Phillipe, Duc D’Orleans had introduced the Grand Orient Ritual into French Freemasonry. By 1788 there were more than two thousand lodges in France affiliated with Grand Orient Masonry and the number of individual adepts exceeded one hundred thousand. Thus the Jewish Illuminati under Moses Mendelssohn was introduced into Continental Freemasonry by Weishaupt under the guise of Lodges of the Grand Orient. The Jewish Illuminati next organized secret revolutionary committees within the lodges. Thus the revolutionary underground directors were established throughout France.
Turn to sin, sin is holy, sin brings about the return of Yawweh
Adultury, pedophilia, incest, prostitution is acceptable
Blackmail, espionage, sabotage, usury, theft are acceptable
Fraud, deceit, lying, manipulating are acceptable
Inversion of all that is wholesome; family, gender roles, values, morals, ethics, reality itself
“Revolution is a blow struck at a paralytic. … When the debt-grip has been firmly established, control of every form of publicity and political activity soon follows, together with a full grip on industrialists, [both management and labour]. The stage is then set for the revolutionary blow. The grip of the right hand of finance establishes the paralysis; while the revolutionary left hand that holds the dagger and deals the fatal blow. Moral corruption facilitates the whole process.”
-Captain A.H.M. Ramsay: The Nameless War
The French revolution was a period of major uprising and upheaval for France, between 1789 and 1799, when the people fought for greater equality and representation against the ‘ancien regime’ – a long-standing system where the monarchy, aristocracy and Catholic Church held absolute power and privilege over ordinary people. The period was chaotic and brutal as France fought internally as well as with other nations in the struggle for a fairer constitution. During this time, the monarchy was overthrown, the Church disestablished and France declared a republic, sending Louis XIV and his despised Queen Marie Antoinette to the guillotine. Thousands more were executed at the guillotine, which became an enduring symbol of the events of the time. The revolutionary ideas unleashed by the French Revolution – among them liberté, egalité, and fraternité, influenced countries and peoples far and wide, setting up a new model for what revolution looked like and the powerful effects it could achieve. It sent shockwaves of fear through the British establishment, who inflicted harsh punishments on those who sought to protest or campaign for reform in the coming decades.
During the early days of the French Revolution (1789 – 1799) the red flag was adopted by the Jacobins (the more extreme revolutionaries), and was presented as their statement of a willingness to die as martyrs to the cause. During the Reign of Terror (1793 – 94) it came to symbolise the martial law of the people in their fight against oppression. The red flag became part of the development of new national emblems for France (including the republican cockade), and was soon taken up by revolutionaries elsewhere.
In 1785 a courier was galloping madly on horseback from Frankfort to Paris carrying detailed information regarding the World Revolutionary Movement in general, and instructions for the planned French Revolution in particular. The instructions originated with the Jewish Illuminati in Germany and were addressed to Grand Master of the Grand Orient Masons in France. The Grand Orient Lodges had been established as the revolutionary underground by the Duc D’Orleans after he, as Grand Master of French Masonry, had been initiated into the Jewish Illuminati in Frankfort by Mirabeau. The courier was struck by lightning while passing through Ratisbon, and killed. The documents he carried fell into the hands of the police who turned them over to the Bavarian Government. A record of historical events told in chronological order connects the House of Rothschild with the Jewish Illuminati in Frankfort and the Illuminati within French Free Masonry known as the Grand Orient Lodges.
After the secret documents found on the body of the Courier had been read by the police, the documents were passed on to the Bavarian Government. The Bavarian Government ordered the police to raid the headquarters of the Illuminati. Further evidence was obtained which exposed the wide-spread ramifications of the World Revolutionary Movement. The Governments of France, England, Poland, Germany, Austria and Russia were informed of the International Nature of the revolutionary plot, but as has happened repeatedly since, the governments concerned took no serious action to stop the diabolical conspiracy. Why ? The only answer to this question is this : The power of the men behind the world revolutionary movement is greater than the power of any elected government.
After various governments failed to act on the information made known by the Bavarian police in 1785, the sister of Marie Antoinette wrote her personal letters warning her of the revolutionary plot; the connection of the International Bankers; the part Freemasonry was destined to play, and her own danger. Marie Antoinette (1755 – 1793) was the daughter of the Emperor Francis I of Austria. She married Louis XVI of France. She just couldn’t bring herself to believe the terrible things her own sister told her were being plotted by the Illuminati. To the repeated warnings sent by her sister, Marie Antoinette wrote long letters in reply. In regard to her sister’s claim that evidence had been obtained that the Illuminati operating under the guise of Philanthropic Freemasonry planned to destroy both the Church and State in France, Marie Antoinette replied : “I believe that as far as France is concerned, you worry too much about Freemasonry. Here it is far from having the significance it may have elsewhere in Europe.”How wrong she proved to be is a matter of history. Because she refused consistently to heed her sister’s repeated warnings she and her husband died under the guillotine.
Another piece of evidence which connects the English Jewish moneylenders with the plot to bring about the French Revolution was unearthed by Lady Queensborough, author of “Occult Theocrasy”. While doing some research work she read a copy of “L’Anti-Semitisme” written by a Jew named Bernard Lazare and published in 1849. With the leads obtained from this book Lady Queensborough claims Benjamin Goldsmid, his brother Abraham, and their partner Moses Mecatta, and his nephew Sir Moses Montifiore, were Jewish financiers in England who were definitely affiliated with their continental Jewish brethren in the plot to bring about the revolution in France. Further evidence was found to tie Daniel Itsig of Berlin, and his son-in-law David Friedlander, and Herz Gergbeer of Alsace in with the Rothschilds and the plot.
It has been recorded how the Jewish Rabbis claimed the power to interpret the secret and hidden meanings of the writings of Holy Scripture by special revelation obtained through Cabala. Claiming to have such powers was of little avail unless they had an organization, or instrument, in their hands to put the inspiration they claimed to have received into effect. The money-lenders, certain High Priests, Directors, and Elders decided to organize a very secret society to serve their evil purpose — they named it “The Illuminati”. The word Illuminati is derived from the word Lucifer, which means Bearer of the Light, or Being of extraordinary brilliance. Therefore the Illuminati was Organized to carry out the inspirations given to the High Priests by Lucifer during the performance of their Cabalistic Rites. Thus Christ is proved justified when he named them of the Synagogue of Satan. The Supreme Council of the Jewish Illuminati numbered thirteen. They were, and still remain, the executive body of The Council of Thirty Three. The heads of the Jewish Illuminati claim to possess superlative knowledge in everything pertaining to religious doctrine, religious rites, and religious ceremonies. They were the men who conceived the Atheistic-materialistic ideology which in 1848 was published as “The Communist Manifesto” by Karl Marx.
Origin of the Left v. Right Political Spectrum
The modern usage of the political terms left and right comes from the French Revolution of 1789 when supporters of the king stood to the president’s right, and supporters of the revolution to his left.
This split between liberty and authority and split between individualism and collectivism AKA “social equality and inequality” (or more generally between liberalism and conservatism; AKA “left” and “right”) has defined the political left and right since its first usage in the French press of the time.
A simple way to see this is in terms of classical government types: The French Revolutionaries wanted a more liberal democracy (where both liberalism and democracy are the ideologies of liberty and equality) and that the aristocracy wanted a more aristocratic form of Monarchy (the ideology of hierarchies, order and authority). So those who want Democracy, Liberalism, Equality, and Liberty are “to the political left” of those who want Monarchy, Conservatism, Authority (Illiberality), Hierarchy (Inequality), Tradition, and Order.
Karl Marx & 1848
Karl Marx said as much In the Communist Manifesto of 1848, in which he called for the abolition of the family. The family was already absent among the proletariat, Marx and his co-author Friedrich Engels wrote, and among the bourgeoisie, the family was a mere “money relation.”Most importantly, Marx said that communism would ensure that children would be educated by the state and not by their parents. Communists, he wrote in the Manifesto, would “rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.” The making of the “New Man” was the priority, and the family was an obstacle.
Who Financed Bolshevik Revolution?
The top Communist leaders have never been as hostile to their counterparts in the West, as the rhetoric suggests. They are quite friendly to the world’s leading financiers and have worked closely with them, when it suits their purposes. The Bolshevik revolution actually was financed by wealthy financiers in London and New York. Lenin and Trotsky were on the closest of terms with these moneyed interests both before and after the Revolution. Those hidden liaisons have continued to this day and occasionally pop to the surface, when we discover a David Rockefeller holding confidential meetings with a Mikhail Gorbachev in the absence of government sponsorship or diplomatic purpose.
One of the greatest myths of contemporary history is that the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia was a popular uprising of the downtrodden masses against the hated ruling class of the Tsars. However, the planning, the leadership and especially the financing came entirely from outside Russia, mostly from financiers in Germany, Britain and the United States. Furthermore, the Rothschild Formula played a major role in shaping these events.
Jacob Schiff – the Financier
Jacob Schiff was head of the New York investment firm Kuhn, Loeb and Co. He was one of the principal backers of the Bolshevik revolution and personally financed Trotsky’s trip from New York to Russia. He was a major contributor to Woodrow Wilson’s presidential campaign and an advocate for passage of the Federal Reserve Act.
The Russo-Japanese War
This amazing story begins with the war between Russia and Japan in 1904. Jacob Schiff, who was head of the New York investment firm Kuhn, Loeb and Company, had raised the capital for large war loans to Japan. It was due to this funding that the Japanese were able to launch a stunning attack against the Russians at Port Arthur and the following year to virtually decimate the Russian fleet. In 1905 the Mikado awarded Jacob Schiff a medal, the Second Order of the Treasure of Japan, in recognition of his important role in that campaign.
The Manufactured Revolutionaries
During the two years of hostilities thousands of Russian soldiers and sailors were taken as prisoners. Sources outside of Russia, which were hostile to the Tsarist regime, paid for the printing of Marxist propaganda and had it delivered to the prison camps. Russian-speaking revolutionaries were trained in New York and sent to distribute the pamphlets among the prisoners and to indoctrinate them into rebellion against their own government.
When the war was ended, these officers and enlisted men returned home to become virtual seeds of treason against the Tsar. They were to play a major role a few years later in creating mutiny among the military during the Communist takeover of Russia.
Leon Trotsky – the Triple Agent
One of the best known Russian revolutionaries at that time was Leon Trotsky. In January of 1916 Trotsky was expelled from France and came to the United States. It has been claimed that his expenses were paid by Jacob Schiff. There is no documentation to substantiate that claim, but the circumstantial evidence does point to a wealthy donor in New York.
He remained for several months, while writing for a Russian socialist paper, the Novy Mir (New World) and giving revolutionary speeches at mass meetings in New York City. According to Trotsky himself, on many occasions a chauffeured limousine was placed at his service by a wealthy friend, identified as Dr. M.
The doctor’s wife took my wife and the boys out driving and was very kind to them. But she was a mere mortal, whereas the chauffeur was a magician, a titan, a superman! With the wave of his hand he made the machine obey his slightest command. To sit beside him was the supreme delight. When they went into a tea room, the boys would anxiously demand of their mother, “Why doesn’t the chauffeur come in?” (Leon Trotsky: My Life, New York publisher: Scribner’s, 1930, p. 277)
It must have been a curious sight to see the family of the great socialist radical, defender of the working class, enemy of capitalism, enjoying the pleasures of tea rooms and chauffeurs, the very symbols of capitalist luxury.
Overthrow of the Tsarist Regime
On March 23, 1917 a mass meeting was held at Carnegie Hall to celebrate the abdication of Nicolas II, which meant the overthrow of Tsarist rule in Russia. Thousands of socialists, Marxists, nihilists and anarchists attended to cheer the event. The following day there was published on page two of the New York Times a telegram from Jacob Schiff, which had been read to this audience. He expressed regrets, that he could not attend and then described the successful Russian revolution as “…what we had hoped and striven for these long years”. (Mayor Calls Pacifists Traitors, The New York Times, March 24, 1917, p. 2)
In the February 3, 1949 issue of the New York Journal American Schiff’s grandson, John, was quoted by columnist Cholly Knickerbocker as saying that his grandfather had given about $20 million for the triumph of Communism in Russia. To appraise Schiff’s motives for supporting the Bolsheviks, we must remember, that he was a Jew and that Russian Jews had been persecuted under the Tsarist regime. Consequently the Jewish community in America was inclined to support any movement, which sought to topple the Russian government and the Bolsheviks were excellent candidates for the task.
However, there were also strong financial incentives for Wall Street firms, such as Kuhn, Loeb and Company, of which Schiff was a senior partner, to see the old regime fall into the hands of revolutionaries, who would agree to grant lucrative business concessions in the future in return for financial support today.
When Trotsky returned to Petrograd in May of 1917 to organize the Bolshevik phase of the Russian Revolution, he carried $10,000 for travel expenses, a generously ample fund considering the value of the dollar at that time. Trotsky was arrested by Canadian and British naval intelligence, when the ship, on which he was traveling, the S.S. Kristianiafjord, put in at Halifax. The money in his possession is now a matter of official record. The source of that money has been the focus of much speculation, but the evidence strongly suggests, that its origin was the German government. It was a sound investment.
Trotsky was not arrested on a whim. He was recognized as a threat to the best interests of England, Canada’s mother country in the British Commonwealth. Russia was an ally of England in the First World War, which then was raging in Europe. Anything, that would weaken Russia – and that certainly included internal revolution – would be, in effect, to strengthen Germany and weaken England.
In New York on the night before his departure Trotsky had given a speech, in which he said: “I am going back to Russia to overthrow the provisional government and stop the war with Germany.” (A full report on this meeting had been submitted to the U.S. Military Intelligence. See Senate Document No. 62, 66th Congress, Report and Hearings of the Subcommittee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 1919, Vol. II, p. 2680.) Trotsky therefore represented a real threat to England’s war effort. He was arrested as a German agent and taken as a prisoner of war.
Trotsky’s mysterious release With this in mind we can appreciate the great strength of those mysterious forces both in England and the United States, that intervened on Trotsky’s behalf. Immediately telegrams began to come into Halifax from such divergent sources, as an obscure attorney in New York City, from the Canadian Deputy Postmaster-General and even from a high-ranking British military officer, all inquiring into Trotsky’s situation and urging his immediate release.
The head of the British Secret Service in America at the time was Sir William Wiseman, who, as fate would have it, occupied the apartment directly above the apartment of Edward Mandell House and who had become fast friends with him. House advised Wiseman, that President Wilson wished to have Trotsky released. Wiseman advised his government and the British Admiralty issued orders on April 21st, that Trotsky was to be sent on his way. (“Why Did We Let Trotsky Go? How Canada Lost an Opportunity to Shorten the War”, MacLeans magazine, Canada, June 1919. Also see Martin, pp. 163-164.) It was a fateful deecision, that would affect not only the outcome of the war, but the future of the entire world.
President Woodrow Wilson – the Fairy Godmother
It would be a mistake to conclude, that Jacob Schiff and Germany were the only players in this drama. Trotsky could not have gone even as far as Halifax without having been granted an American passport and this was accomplished by the personal intervention of
President Woodrow Wilson was the fairy godmother, who provided Trotsky with a passport to return to Russia to “carry forward” the revolution… At the same time careful State Department bureaucrats, concerned about such revolutionaries entering Russia, were unilaterally attempting to tighten up passport procedures. (Antony C. Sutton, Ph. D.: Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, published by Arlington House in New Rochelle, NY, 1974, p. 25)
Robert Minor’s Deelighted
In 1911 the St. Louis Dispatch published a cartoon by a Bolshevik named Robert Minor. Minor was later to be arrested in Tsarist Russia for revolutionary activities and in fact was himself bankrolled by famous Wall Street financiers. Since we may safely assume, that he knew his topic well, his cartoon is of great historical importance. It portrays Karl Marx with a book entitled Socialism under his arm, standing amid a cheering crowd on Wall Street. Gathered around and greeting him with enthusiastic handshakes are characters in silk hats identified as John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, John D. Ryan of National City Bank, Morgan partner George W. Perkins and Teddy Roosevelt, leader of the Progressive Party.
Deelighted – This cartoon by Robert Minor appeared in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch in 1911. It shows Karl Marx surrounded by enthusiastic Wall Street financiers: Morgan partner George Perkins, J.P. Morgan, John Ryan of National City Bank, John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie. Immediately behind Marx is Teddy Roosevelt, leader of the Progressive Party.
What emerges from this sampling of events is a clear pattern of strong support for Bolshevism coming from the highest financial and political power centers in the United States; from men, who supposedly were “capitalists” and who according to conventional wisdom should have been the mortal enemies of socialism and communism. Nor was this phenomenon confined to the United States.
The British Betrayal
Trotsky in his book My Life tells of a British financier, who in 1907 gave him a “large loan” to be repaid after the overthrow of the Tsar. Arsene de Goulevitch, who witnessed the Bolshevik Revolution firsthand, has identified both the name of the financier and the amount of the loan.
“In private interviews”, he said, “I have been told that over 21 million rubles were spent by Lord Alfred Milner in financing the Russian Revolution… The financier just mentioned was by no means alone among the British to support the Russian revolution with large financial donations.” Another name specifically mentioned by de Goulevitch was that of Sir George Buchanan, the British Ambassador to Russia at the time. (See Arsene de Goulevitch: Czarism and Revolution, published by Omni Publications in Hawthorne, California, no date; rpt. from 1962 French edition, pp. 224, 230)
It was one thing for Americans to undermine Tsarist Russia and thus indirectly help Germany in the war, because Americans were not then into it, but for British citizens to do so was tantamount to treason. To understand, what higher loyalty compelled these men to betray their battlefield ally and to sacrifice the blood of their own countrymen, we must take a look at the unique organization, to which they belonged.
The Round Table Agents
In Russia prior to and during the revolution there were many local observers, tourists and newsmen, who reported, that British and American agents were everywhere, particularly in Petrograd, providing money for insurrection. One report said, for example, that British agents were seen handing out 25-rouble notes to the men at the Pavlovski Regiment just a few hours, before it mutinied against its officers and sided with the revolution. The subsequent publication of various memoirs and documents made it clear, that this funding was provided by Lord Alfred Milner and channeled through Sir George Buchanan, who was the British Ambassador to Russia at the time.
Round Table members were once again working both sides of the conflict to weaken and topple a target government. Tsar Nicholas had every reason to believe, that since the British were Russia’s allies in the war against Germany, British officials would be the last persons on Earth to conspire against him. Yet the British Ambassador himself represented the hidden group, which was financing the regime’s downfall.
The Red Cross’s Military Mission
The Round Table Agents from America did not have the advantage of using the diplomatic service as cover and therefore had to be considerably more ingenious. They came not as diplomats or even as interested businessmen, but disguised as Red Cross officials on a humanitarian mission. The group consisted almost entirely of financiers, lawyers and accountants from New York banks and investment houses. They simply had overpowered the American Red Cross organization with large contributions and in effect purchased a franchise to operate in its name.
The 1910 [Red Cross] fund-raising campaign for $2 million, for example, was successful only, because it was supported by these wealthy residents of New York City. J.P. Morgan himself contributed $100,000… Henry P. Davison [a Morgan partner] was chairman of the 1910 New York Fund-Raising Committee and later became chairman of the War Council of the American Red Cross… The Red Cross was unable to cope with the demands of World War I. and in effect was taken over by these New York bankers. (Sutton: Revolution, p. 72)
For the duration of the war the Red Cross had been made nominally a part of the armed forces and subject to orders from the proper military authorities. It was not clear, who these authorities were and in fact there were never any orders, but the arrangement made it possible for the participants to receive military commissions and wear the uniform of American army officers. The entire expense of the Red Cross Mission in Russia, including the purchase of uniforms, was paid for by the man, who was appointed by President Wilson to become its head, “Colonel” William Boyce Thompson.
William Boyce Thompson – the American Tsar
Thompson was a classical specimen of the Round Table network. Having begun his career as a speculator in copper mines, he soon moved into the world of high finance.
He refinanced the American Woolen Company and the Tobacco Products Company; He launched the Cuban Cane Sugar Company; He purchased controlling interest in the Pierce Arrow Motor Car Company; He organized the Submarine Boat Corporation and the Wright-Martin Aeroplane Company; He became a director of the Chicago Rock Island & Pacific Railway, the Magma Arizona Railroad and the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; He was one of the heaviest stockholders in the Chase National Bank; He was the agent for J.P. Morgan’s British securities operation; He became the first full-time director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the most important bank in the Federal Reserve System; He contributed a quarter-million dollars to the Red Cross.
When Thompson arrived in Russia, he made it clear, that he was not your typical Red Cross representative. According to Hermann Hagedorn, Thompson’s biographer:
He deliberately created the kind of setting, which would be expected of an American magnate: established himself in a suite in the Hotel de l’Europe, bought a French limousine, went dutifully to receptions and teas and evinced an interest in objects of art. Society and the diplomats, noting that here was a man of parts and power, began to flock about him. He was entertained at the embassies, at the houses of Kerensky’s ministers. It was discovered, that he was a collector and those with antiques to sell fluttered around him offering him miniatures, Dresden china, tapestries, even a palace or two. (Hermann Hagedorn: The Magnate: William Boyce Thompson and His Time, published by Reynal & Hitchcock, New York, 1935, pp. 192-93)
When Thompson attended the opera, he was given the imperial box. People on the street called him the American Tsar. And it is not surprising, that according to George Kennan, “He was viewed by the Kerensky authorities as the ‘real’ ambassador of the United States.” (George F. Kennan: Russia Leaves the War: Soviet-American Relations, 1917-1920 published by Princeton University Press in Princeton, NJ, 1956, p. 60)
Funding Both Sides
It is now a matter of record, that Thompson syndicated the purchase on Wall Street of Russian bonds in the amount of ten million roubles. In addition, he gave over two million roubles to Aleksandr Kerensky for propaganda purposes inside Russia and with J.P. Morgan gave the rouble equivalent of one million dollars to the Bolsheviks for the spreading of revolutionary propaganda outside of Russia, particularly in Germany and Austria. It was the agitation made possible by this funding, that led to the abortive German Spartacus Revolt of 1918.
At first it may seem incongruous, that the Morgan group would provide funding for both Kerensky and Lenin. These men may have both been socialist revolutionaries, but they were miles apart in their plans for the future and in fact were bitter competitors for control of the new government. But the tactic of funding both sides in a political contest by then had been refined by members of the Round Table into a fine art.
Subjugation of Independent Republics
Towards the middle of the twentieth century, the Colonial Era started winding down, and independent republics started coming up. Starting from 1920 to 1970, huge economic assets were created in more than forty or so countries under the tight control and supervision of their own watchful governments. Though there were complaints about some level of mismanagement of the funds, overall trillions of dollars worth of economic assets were created in these countries, these assets being off-limits to every Colonial Power.
Every war that happened during this period, every coup that took place were aimed at knocking down these republics one after the other and sucking their economic resources into the un-maintainable, wasteful Western Economic Lifestyle based on faulty economic theories. After thirty such countries were knocked down, the process of divide and rule and plunder was christened with a nice-sounding name: “Privatization and Liberalization”. The theoretical framework of this was proposed by none other than the Chairman of the Bank of England around 1971. The final frontiers in this process of knocking down the country’s economic resources were Russia and India. Excerpts from GreatGameIndia‘s exclusive book India in Cognitive Dissonance.
Going beyond the economic mechanisms involved in Das Kapital and the Communist Manifesto is the aim to dissect these other attributes of the West; Patriarchy, Gender dynamics, race, faith, culture, history.
Hungarian communists managed to establish a Hungarian soviet for a short time in 1919. They quickly realized that the way to completely change society was to destroy the most important civil society institution, the family. Its culture and education commissar, George Lukacs, therefore instituted a system to instruct young children into sexual perversions.
Lukacs’s biographer described it this way: “Special lectures were organized in schools and literature printed and distributed to ‘instruct’ children about free love, about the nature of sexual intercourse, about the archaic nature of bourgeois family codes, about the outdatedness of monogamy, and the irrelevance of religion, which deprives man of all pleasure. Children urged thus to reject and deride paternal authority and the authority of the church, and to ignore precepts of morality.”None of this went down well with the typical Hungarian, needless to say, and the Hungarian soviet lasted only 133 days.
Luckas escaped with this life and influenced a group of neo-communists academics in Germany that we know as “the Frankfurt School.”
The Frankfurt School
All the tensions within the German academic community which accompanied the changes in political, cultural and intellectual life in Germany since 1890 were reproduced in the Institute for Social Research from its inception in Frankfurt in 1923. These changes were widely diagnosed as a ‘crisis in culture’. By this very definition the ‘crisis’ was deplored yet exacerbated. The Institute carried these tensions with it into exile and when it returned to Germany after the war and found itself the sole heir to a discredited tradition the inherited tensions became even more acute. These tensions are evident in the work of most of the School’s members, and most clearly, self-consciously and importantly in the work of Theodor W. Adorno.
Three of their most famous scholars were Theodore Adorno, Max Horkheimer and Herbert Marcuse. One of their key intellectual contributions was the idea that it was the family that created the authoritarian character. The patriarchal father created in his children the desire to obey and submit to authority.
The single, most important organizational component of this conspiracy was a Communist thinktank called the Institute for Social Research (I.S.R.), but popularly known as the Frankfurt School.
In the heady days immediately after the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, it was widely believed that proletarian revolution would momentarily sweep out of the Urals into Europe and, ultimately, North America. It did not; the only two attempts at workers’ government in the West— in Munich and Budapest—lasted only months. The Communist International (Comintern) therefore began several operations to determine why this was so. One such was headed by Georg Lukacs, a Hungarian aristocrat, son of one of the Hapsburg Empire’s leading bankers. Trained in Germany and already an important literary theorist, Lukacs became a Communist during World War I, writing as he joined the party, “Who will save us from Western civilization?” Lukacs was well-suited to the Comintern task: he had been one of the Commissars of Culture during the short-lived Hungarian Soviet in Budapest in 1919; in fact, modern historians link the shortness of the Budapest experiment to Lukacs’ orders mandating sex education in the schools, easy access to contraception, and the loosening of divorce laws—all of which revulsed Hungary’s Roman Catholic population.
Fleeing to the Soviet Union after the counter-revolution, Lukacs was secreted into Germany in 1922, where he chaired a meeting of Communist-oriented sociologists and intellectuals. This meeting founded the Institute for Social Research. Over the next decade, the Institute worked out what was to become the Comintern’s most successful psychological warfare operation against the capitalist West.
Lukacs identified that any political movement capable of bringing Bolshevism to the West would have to be, in his words, “demonic”; it would have to “possess the religious power which is capable of filling the entire soul; a power that characterized primitive Christianity.” However, Lukacs suggested, such a “messianic” political movement could only succeed when the individual believes that his or her actions are determined by “not a personal destiny, but the destiny of the community” in a world “that has been abandoned by God [emphasis added-MJM].” Bolshevism worked in Russia because that nation was dominated by a peculiar gnostic form of Christianty typified by the writings of Fyodor Dostoyevsky. “The model for the new man is Alyosha Karamazov,” said Lukacs, referring to the Dostoyevsky character who willingly gave over his personal identity to a holy man, and thus ceased to be “unique, pure, and therefore abstract.”
This abandonment of the soul’s uniqueness also solves the problem of “the diabolic forces lurking in all violence” which must be unleashed in order to create a revolution. In this context, Lukacs cited the Grand Inquisitor section of Dostoyevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov, noting that the Inquisitor who is interrogating Jesus, has resolved the issue of good and evil: once man has understood his alienation from God, then any act in the service of the “destiny of the community” is justified; such an act can be “neither crime nor madness…. For crime and madness are objectifications of transcendental homelessness.”
According to an eyewitness, during meetings of the Hungarian Soviet leadership in 1919 to draw up lists for the firing squad, Lukacs would often quote the Grand Inquisitor: “And we who, for their happiness, have taken their sins upon ourselves, we stand before you and say, ‘Judge us if you can and if you dare.’ “
The task of the Frankfurt School, then, was first, to undermine the Christian legacy through an “abolition of culture” (Aufhebung der Kultur in Lukacs’ German); and, second, to determine new cultural forms which would increase the alienation of the population, thus creating a “new barbarism.” To this task, there gathered in and around the Frankfurt School an incredible assortment of not only Communists, but also non-party socialists, radical phenomenologists, Zionists, renegade Freudians, and at least a few members of a self-identified “cult of Astarte.” The variegated membership reflected, to a certain extent, the sponsorship: although the Institute for Social Research started with Comintern support, over the next three decades its sources of funds included various German and American universities, the Rockefeller Foundation, Columbia Broadcasting System, the American Jewish Committee, several American intelligence services, the Office of the U.S. High Commissioner for Germany, the International Labour Organization, and the Hacker Institute, a posh psychiatric clinic in Beverly Hills.
Similarly, the Institute’s political allegiances: although top personnel maintained what might be called a sentimental relationship to the Soviet Union (and there is evidence that some of them worked for Soviet intelligence into the 1960’s), the Institute saw its goals as higher than that of Russian foreign policy. Stalin, who was horrified at the undisciplined, “cosmopolitan” operation set up by his predecessors, cut the Institute off in the late 1920’s, forcing Lukacs into “self-criticism,” and briefly jailing him as a German sympathizer during World War II.
Lukacs survived to briefly take up his old post as Minister of Culture during the anti-Stalinist Imre Nagy regime in Hungary. Of the other top Institute figures, the political perambulations of Herbert Marcuse are typical. He started as a Communist; became a protégé of philosopher Martin Heidegger even as the latter was joining the Nazi Party; coming to America, he worked for the World War II Office of Strategic Services (OSS), and later became the U.S. State Department’s top analyst of Soviet policy during the height of the McCarthy period; in the 1960’s, he turned again, to become the most important guru of the New Left; and he ended his days helping to found the environmentalist extremist Green Party in West Germany.
In all this seeming incoherence of shifting positions and contradictory funding, there is no ideological conflict. The invariant is the desire of all parties to answer Lukacs’ original question: “Who will save us from Western civilization?”
Perhaps the most important, if least-known, of the Frankfurt School’s successes was the shaping of the electronic media of radio and television into the powerful instruments of social control which they represent today. This grew out of the work originally done by two men who came to the Institute in the late 1920’s, Theodor Adorno and Walter Benjamin.
After completing studies at the University of Frankfurt, Walter Benjamin planned to emigrate to Palestine in 1924 with his friend Gershom Scholem (who later became one of Israel’s most famous philosophers, as well as Judaism’s leading gnostic), but was prevented by a love affair with Asja Lacis, a Latvian actress and Comintern stringer. Lacis whisked him off to the Italian island of Capri, a cult center from the time of the Emperor Tiberius, then used as a Comintern training base; the heretofore apolitical Benjamin wrote Scholem from Capri, that he had found “an existential liberation and an intensive insight into the actuality of radical communism.”
Lacis later took Benjamin to Moscow for further indoctrination, where he met playwright Bertolt Brecht, with whom he would begin a long collaboration; soon thereafter, while working on the first German translation of the drug-enthusiast French poet Baudelaire, Benjamin began serious experimentation with hallucinogens. In 1927, he was in Berlin as part of a group led by Adorno, studying the works of Lukacs; other members of the study group included Brecht and his composer-partner Kurt Weill; Hans Eisler, another composer who would later become a Hollywood film score composer and co-author with Adorno of the textbook Composition for the Film; the avant-garde photographer Imre Moholy-Nagy; and the conductor Otto Klemperer.
From 1928 to 1932, Adorno and Benjamin had an intensive collaboration, at the end of which they began publishing articles in the Institute’s journal, the Zeitschrift fär Sozialforschung. Benjamin was kept on the margins of the Institute, largely due to Adorno, who would later appropriate much of his work. As Hitler came to power, the Institute’s staff fled, but, whereas most were quickly spirited away to new deployments in the U.S. and England, there were no job offers for Benjamin, probably due to the animus of Adorno. He went to France, and, after the German invasion, fled to the Spanish border; expecting momentary arrest by the Gestapo, he despaired and died in a dingy hotel room of self-administered drug overdose.
Benjamin’s work remained almost completely unknown until 1955, when Scholem and Adorno published an edition of his material in Germany. The full revival occurred in 1968, when Hannah Arendt, Heidegger’s former mistress and a collaborator of the Institute in America, published a major article on Benjamin in the New Yorker magazine, followed in the same year by the first English translations of his work. Today, every university bookstore in the country boasts a full shelf devoted to translations of every scrap Benjamin wrote, plus exegesis, all with 1980’s copyright dates.
Adorno was younger than Benjamin, and as aggressive as the older man was passive. Born Teodoro Wiesengrund-Adorno to a Corsican family, he was taught the piano at an early age by an aunt who lived with the family and had been the concert accompanist to the international opera star Adelina Patti. It was generally thought that Theodor would become a professional musician, and he studied with Bernard Sekles, Paul Hindemith’s teacher. However, in 1918, while still a gymnasium student, Adorno met Siegfried Kracauer. Kracauer was part of a Kantian-Zionist salon which met at the house of Rabbi Nehemiah Nobel in Frankfurt; other members of the Nobel circle included philosopher Martin Buber, writer Franz Rosenzweig, and two students, Leo Lowenthal and Erich Fromm. Kracauer, Lowenthal, and Fromm would join the I.S.R. two decades later. Adorno engaged Kracauer to tutor him in the philosophy of Kant; Kracauer also introduced him to the writings of Lukacs and to Walter Benjamin, who was around the Nobel clique.
In 1924, Adorno moved to Vienna, to study with the atonalist composers Alban Berg and Arnold Schönberg, and became connected to the avant-garde and occult circle around the old Marxist Karl Kraus. Here, he not only met his future collaborator, Hans Eisler, but also came into contact with the theories of Freudian extremist Otto Gross. Gross, a long-time cocaine addict, had died in a Berlin gutter in 1920, while on his way to help the revolution in Budapest; he had developed the theory that mental health could only be achieved through the revival of the ancient cult of Astarte, which would sweep away monotheism and the “bourgeois family.”
By 1928, Adorno and Benjamin had satisfied their intellectual wanderlust, and settled down at the I.S.R. in Germany to do some work. As subject, they chose an aspect of the problem posed by Lukacs: how to give aesthetics a firmly materialistic basis. It was a question of some importance, at the time. Official Soviet discussions of art and culture, with their wild gyrations into “socialist realism” and “proletkult,” were idiotic, and only served to discredit Marxism’s claim to philosophy among intellectuals. Karl Marx’s own writings on the subject were sketchy and banal, at best.
In essence, Adorno and Benjamin’s problem was Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. At the beginning of the eighteenth century, Leibniz had once again obliterated the centuries-old gnostic dualism dividing mind and body, by demonstrating that matter does not think. A creative act in art or science apprehends the truth of the physical universe, but it is not determined by that physical universe. By self-consciously concentrating the past in the present to effect the future, the creative act, properly defined, is as immortal as the soul which envisions the act. This has fatal philosophical implications for Marxism, which rests entirely on the hypothesis that mental activity is determined by the social relations excreted by mankind’s production of its physical existence.
Marx sidestepped the problem of Leibniz, as did Adorno and Benjamin, although the latter did it with a lot more panache. It is wrong, said Benjamin in his first articles on the subject, to start with the reasonable, hypothesizing mind as the basis of the development of civilization; this is an unfortunate legacy of Socrates. As an alternative, Benjamin posed an Aristotelian fable in interpretation of Genesis: Assume that Eden were given to Adam as the primordial physical state. The origin of science and philosophy does not lie in the investigation and mastery of nature, but in the naming of the objects of nature; in the primordial state, to name a thing was to say all there was to say about that thing. In support of this, Benjamin cynically recalled the opening lines of the Gospel according to St. John, carefully avoiding the philosophically-broader Greek, and preferring the Vulgate (so that, in the phrase “In the beginning was the Word,” the connotations of the original Greek word logos—speech, reason, ratiocination, translated as “Word”—are replaced by the narrower meaning of the Latin word verbum). After the expulsion from Eden and God’s requirement that Adam eat his bread earned by the sweat of his face (Benjamin’s Marxist metaphor for the development of economies), and God’s further curse of Babel on Nimrod (that is, the development of nation-states with distinct languages, which Benjamin and Marx viewed as a negative process away from the “primitive communism” of Eden), humanity became “estranged” from the physical world.
Thus, Benjamin continued, objects still give off an “aura” of their primordial form, but the truth is now hopelessly elusive. In fact, speech, written language, art, creativity itself—that by which we master physicality—merely furthers the estrangement by attempting, in Marxist jargon, to incorporate objects of nature into the social relations determined by the class structure dominant at that point in history. The creative artist or scientist, therefore, is a vessel, like Ion the rhapsode as he described himself to Socrates, or like a modern “chaos theory” advocate: the creative act springs out of the hodgepodge of culture as if by magic. The more that bourgeois man tries to convey what he intends about an object, the less truthful he becomes; or, in one of Benjamin’s most oft-quoted statements, “Truth is the death of intention.”
This philosophical sleight-of-hand allows one to do several destructive things. By making creativity historically-specific, you rob it of both immortality and morality. One cannot hypothesize universal truth, or natural law, for truth is completely relative to historical development. By discarding the idea of truth and error, you also may throw out the “obsolete” concept of good and evil; you are, in the words of Friedrich Nietzsche, “beyond good and evil.” Benjamin is able, for instance, to defend what he calls the “Satanism” of the French Symbolists and their Surrealist successors, for at the core of this Satanism “one finds the cult of evil as a political device … to disinfect and isolate against all moralizing dilettantism” of the bourgeoisie. To condemn the Satanism of Rimbaud as evil, is as incorrect as to extol a Beethoven quartet or a Schiller poem as good; for both judgments are blind to the historical forces working unconsciously on the artist.
Thus, we are told, the late Beethoven’s chord structure was striving to be atonal, but Beethoven could not bring himself consciously to break with the structured world of Congress of Vienna Europe (Adorno’s thesis); similarly, Schiller really wanted to state that creativity was the liberation of the erotic, but as a true child of the Enlightenment and Immanuel Kant, he could not make the requisite renunciation of reason (Marcuse’s thesis). Epistemology becomes a poor relation of public opinion, since the artist does not consciously create works in order to uplift society, but instead unconsciously transmits the ideological assumptions of the culture into which he was born. The issue is no longer what is universally true, but what can be plausibly interpreted by the self-appointed guardians of the Zeitgeist.
Thus, for the Frankfort School, the goal of a cultural elite in the modern, “capitalist” era must be to strip away the belief that art derives from the self-conscious emulation of God the Creator; “religious illumination,” says Benjamin, must be shown to “reside in a profane illumination, a materialistic, anthropological inspiration, to which hashish, opium, or whatever else can give an introductory lesson.” At the same time, new cultural forms must be found to increase the alienation of the population, in order for it to understand how truly alienated it is to live without socialism. “Do not build on the good old days, but on the bad new ones,” said Benjamin.
The proper direction in painting, therefore, is that taken by the late Van Gogh, who began to paint objects in disintegration, with the equivalent of a hashish-smoker’s eye that “loosens and entices things out of their familiar world.” In music, “it is not suggested that one can compose better today” than Mozart or Beethoven, said Adorno, but one must compose atonally, for atonalism is sick, and “the sickness, dialectically, is at the same time the cure….The extraordinarily violent reaction protest which such music confronts in the present society … appears nonetheless to suggest that the dialectical function of this music can already be felt … negatively, as ‘destruction.’ “
The purpose of modern art, literature, and music must be to destroy the uplifting—therefore, bourgeois — potential of art, literature, and music, so that man, bereft of his connection to the divine, sees his only creative option to be political revolt. “To organize pessimism means nothing other than to expel the moral metaphor from politics and to discover in political action a sphere reserved one hundred percent for images.” Thus, Benjamin collaborated with Brecht to work these theories into practical form, and their joint effort culminated in the Verfremdungseffekt (“estrangement effect”), Brecht’s attempt to write his plays so as to make the audience leave the theatre demoralized and aimlessly angry.
The Adorno-Benjamin analysis represents almost the entire theoretical basis of all the politically correct aesthetic trends which now plague our universities. The Poststructuralism of Roland Barthes, Michel Foucault, and Jacques Derrida, the Semiotics of Umberto Eco, the Deconstructionism of Paul DeMan, all openly cite Benjamin as the source of their work. The Italian terrorist Eco’s best-selling novel, The Name of the Rose, is little more than a paean to Benjamin; DeMan, the former Nazi collaborator in Belgium who became a prestigious Yale professor, began his career translating Benjamin; Barthes’ infamous 1968 statement that “[t]he author is dead,” is meant as an elaboration of Benjamin’s dictum on intention. Benjamin has actually been called the heir of Leibniz and of Wilhelm von Humboldt, the philologist collaborator of Schiller whose educational reforms engendered the tremendous development of Germany in the nineteenth century. Even as recently as September 1991, the Washington Post referred to Benjamin as “the finest German literary theorist of the century (and many would have left off that qualifying German).”
Readers have undoubtedly heard one or another horror story about how an African-American Studies Department has procured a ban on Othello, because it is “racist,” or how a radical feminist professor lectured a Modern Language Association meeting on the witches as the “true heroines” of Macbeth. These atrocities occur because the perpetrators are able to plausibly demonstrate, in the tradition of Benjamin and Adorno, that Shakespeare’s intent is irrelevant; what is important, is the racist or phallocentric “subtext” of which Shakespeare was unconscious when he wrote.
When the local Women’s Studies or Third World Studies Department organizes students to abandon classics in favor of modern Black and feminist authors, the reasons given are pure Benjamin. It is not that these modern writers are better, but they are somehow more truthful because their alienated prose reflects the modern social problems of which the older authors were ignorant! Students are being taught that language itself is, as Benjamin said, merely a conglomeration of false “names” foisted upon society by its oppressors, and are warned against “logocentrism,” the bourgeois over-reliance on words.
If these campus antics appear “retarded” (in the words of Adorno), that is because they are designed to be. The Frankfurt School’s most important breakthrough consists in the realization that their monstrous theories could become dominant in the culture, as a result of the changes in society brought about by what Benjamin called “the age of mechanical reproduction of art.”
“Entertainment” Replaces Art
Before the twentieth century, the distinction between art and “entertainment” was much more pronounced. One could be entertained by art, certainly, but the experience was active, not passive. On the first level, one had to make a conscious choice to go to a concert, to view a certain art exhibit, to buy a book or piece of sheet music. It was unlikely that any more than an infinitesimal fraction of the population would have the opportunity to see King Lear or hear Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony more than once or twice in a lifetime. Art demanded that one bring one’s full powers of concentration and knowledge of the subject to bear on each experience, or else the experience were considered wasted. These were the days when memorization of poetry and whole plays, and the gathering of friends and family for a “parlor concert,” were the norm, even in rural households. These were also the days before “music appreciation”; when one studied music, as many did, they learned to play it, not appreciate it.
However, the new technologies of radio, film, and recorded music represented, to use the appropriate Marxist buzz-word, (see box) a dialectical potential. On the one hand, these technologies held out the possibility of bringing the greatest works of art to millions of people who would otherwise not have access to them. On the other, the fact that the experience was infinitely reproducible could tend to disengage the audience’s mind, making the experience less sacred, thus increasing alienation. Adorno called this process, “demythologizing.” This new passivity, Adorno hypothesized in a crucial article published in 1938, could fracture a musical composition into the “entertaining” parts which would be “fetishized” in the memory of the listener, and the difficult parts, which would be forgotten.
“The counterpart to the fetishism is a regression of listening. This does not mean a relapse of the individual listener into an earlier phase of his own development, nor a decline in the collective general level, since the millions who are reached musically for the first time by today’s mass communications cannot be compared with the audiences of the past. Rather, it is the contemporary listening which has regressed, arrested at the infantile stage. Not only do the listening subjects lose, along with the freedom of choice and responsibility, the capacity for the conscious perception of music …. [t]hey fluctuate between comprehensive forgetting and sudden dives into recognition. They listen atomistically and dissociate what they hear, but precisely in this dissociation they develop certain capacities which accord less with the traditional concepts of aesthetics than with those of football or motoring. They are not childlike … but they are childish; their primitivism is not that of the undeveloped, but that of the forcibly retarded. “
This conceptual retardation and preconditioning caused by listening, suggested that programming could determine preference. The very act of putting, say, a Benny Goodman number next to a Mozart sonata on the radio, would tend to amalgamate both into entertaining “music-on-the-radio” in the mind of the listener. This meant that even new and unpalatable ideas could become popular by “re-naming” them through the universal homogenizer of the culture industry. As Benjamin puts it,
“Mechanical reproduction of art changes the reaction of the masses toward art. The reactionary attitude toward a Picasso painting changes into a progressive reaction toward a Chaplin movie. The progressive reaction is characterized by the direct, intimate fusion of visual and emotional enjoyment with the orientation of the expert…. With regard to the screen, the critical and receptive attitudes of the public coincide. The decisive reason for this is that the individual reactions are predetermined by the mass audience response they are about to produce, and this is nowhere more pronounced than in the film.”
At the same time, the magic power of the media could be used to re-define previous ideas. “Shakespeare, Rembrandt, Beethoven will all make films,” concluded Benjamin, quoting the French film pioneer Abel Gance, “… all legends, all mythologies, all myths, all founders of religions, and the very religions themselves … await their exposed resurrection.”
Hence, the task of the Frankfurt School was sociological analysis and deconstruction of the ruling-class narrative as an alternative path to realizing the Marxist revolution.
We are told “free sex” is “progressive and modern.” In fact, the Sabbatean sect has indulged in wife sharing, sex orgies, adultery and incest for more than 350 years. They also promoted interracial sex. Many of the intellectuals that were at the Frankfurt School were openly Sabbatean-Frankist.
Scholem told his friend Walter Benjamin of his attraction to “the positive and noble force of destruction,” and declared that “destruction is a form of redemption.”
The philosophical tradition of the Frankfurt School is associated with the philosopher Max Horkheimer, who became the director in 1930, and recruited intellectuals such as Theodor W. Adorno, Erich Fromm, and Herbert Marcuse.
In addition to Hegel, Marx, and Weber, Freud became one of the foundation stones on which the Frankfurt School’s interdisciplinary program for a critical theory of society was constructed.
The purpose of critical theory is to analyze the true significance of the ruling understandings (the dominant ideology) generated in bourgeois society, by showing that the dominant ideology misrepresents how human relations occur in the real world, to legitimate the domination of people by capitalism.
Through Freud’s influence, the “incest taboo” would become an issue of fundamental concern to the Frankfurt School. Freud’s theories were excessively concerned with sex and even incest, which is reflected in Sabbateanism.
The Radio Project
Here, then, were some potent theories of social control. The great possibilities of this Frankfurt School media work were probably the major contributing factor in the support given the I.S.R. by the bastions of the Establishment, after the Institute transferred its operations to America in 1934.
In 1937, the Rockefeller Foundation began funding research into the social effects of new forms of mass media, particularly radio. Before World War I, radio had been a hobbyist’s toy, with only 125,000 receiving sets in the entire U.S.; twenty years later, it had become the primary mode of entertainment in the country; out of 32 million American families in 1937, 27.5 million had radios — a larger percentage than had telephones, automobiles, plumbing, or electricity! Yet, almost no systematic research had been done up to this point. The Rockefeller Foundation enlisted several universities, and headquartered this network at the School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. Named the Office of Radio Research, it was popularly known as “the Radio Project.”
The director of the Project was Paul Lazersfeld, the foster son of Austrian Marxist economist Rudolph Hilferding, and a long-time collaborator of the I.S.R. from the early 1930’s. Under Lazersfeld was Frank Stanton, a recent Ph.D. in industrial psychology from Ohio State, who had just been made research director of Columbia Broadcasting System—a grand title but a lowly position. After World War II, Stanton became president of the CBS News Division, and ultimately president of CBS at the height of the TV network’s power; he also became Chairman of the Board of the RAND Corporation, and a member of President Lyndon Johnson’s “kitchen cabinet.” Among the Project’s researchers were Herta Herzog, who married Lazersfeld and became the first director of research for the Voice of America; and Hazel Gaudet, who became one of the nation’s leading political pollsters. Theodor Adorno was named chief of the Project’s music section.
Despite the official gloss, the activities of the Radio Project make it clear that its purpose was to test empirically the Adorno-Benjamin thesis that the net effect of the mass media could be to atomize and increase lability—what people would later call “brainwashing.”
Soap Operas and the Invasion from Mars
The first studies were promising. Herta Herzog produced “On Borrowed Experiences,” the first comprehensive research on soap operas. The “serial radio drama” format was first used in 1929, on the inspiration of the old, cliff-hanger “Perils of Pauline” film serial. Because these little radio plays were highly melodramatic, they became popularly identified with Italian grand opera; because they were often sponsored by soap manufacturers, they ended up with the generic name, “soap opera.”
Until Herzog’s work, it was thought that the immense popularity of this format was largely with women of the lowest socioeconomic status who, in the restricted circumstances of their lives, needed a helpful escape to exotic places and romantic situations. A typical article from that period by two University of Chicago psychologists, “The Radio Day-Time Serial: Symbol Analysis” published in the Genetic Psychology Monographs, solemnly emphasized the positive, claiming that the soaps “function very much like the folk tale, expressing the hopes and fears of its female audience, and on the whole contribute to the integration of their lives into the world in which they live.”
Herzog found that there was, in fact, no correlation to socioeconomic status. What is more, there was surprisingly little correlation to content. The key factor — as Adorno and Benjamin’s theories suggested it would be — was the form itself of the serial; women were being effectively addicted to the format, not so much to be entertained or to escape, but to “find out what happens next week.” In fact, Herzog found, you could almost double the listenership of a radio play by dividing it into segments.
Modern readers will immediately recognize that this was not a lesson lost on the entertainment industry. Nowadays, the serial format has spread to children’s programming and high-budget prime time shows. The most widely watched shows in the history of television, remain the “Who Killed JR?” installment of Dallas, and the final episode of M*A*S*H, both of which were premised on a “what happens next?” format. Even feature films, like the Star Wars and Back to the Future trilogies, are now produced as serials, in order to lock in a viewership for the later installments. The humble daytime soap also retains its addictive qualities in the current age: 70% of all American women over eighteen now watch at least two of these shows each day, and there is a fast-growing viewership among men and college students of both sexes.
The Radio Project’s next major study was an investigation into the effects of Orson Welles’ Halloween 1938 radioplay based on H.G. Wells’ War of the Worlds. Six million people heard the broadcast realistically describing a Martian invasion force landing in rural New Jersey. Despite repeated and clear statements that the show was fictional, approximately 25% of the listeners thought it was real, some panicking outright. The Radio Project researchers found that a majority of the people who panicked did not think that men from Mars had invaded; they actually thought that the Germans had invaded.
It happened this way. The listeners had been psychologically pre-conditioned by radio reports from the Munich crisis earlier that year. During that crisis, CBS’s man in Europe, Edward R. Murrow, hit upon the idea of breaking into regular programming to present short news bulletins. For the first time in broadcasting, news was presented not in longer analytical pieces, but in short clips—what we now call “audio bites.” At the height of the crisis, these flashes got so numerous, that, in the words of Murrow’s producer Fred Friendly, “news bulletins were interrupting news bulletins.” As the listeners thought that the world was moving to the brink of war, CBS ratings rose dramatically.
When Welles did his fictional broadcast later, after the crisis had receded, he used this news bulletin technique to give things verisimilitude: he started the broadcast by faking a standard dance-music program, which kept getting interrupted by increasingly terrifying “on the scene reports” from New Jersey. Listeners who panicked, reacted not to content, but to format; they heard “We interrupt this program for an emergency bulletin,” and “invasion,” and immediately concluded that Hitler had invaded. The soap opera technique, transposed to the news, had worked on a vast and unexpected scale.
Little Annie and the “Wagnerian Dream” of TV
In 1939, one of the numbers of the quarterly Journal of Applied Psychology was handed over to Adorno and the Radio Project to publish some of their findings. Their conclusion was that Americans had, over the last twenty years, become “radio-minded,” and that their listening had become so fragmented that repetition of format was the key to popularity. The play list determined the “hits”—a truth well known to organized crime, both then and now—and repetition could make any form of music or any performer, even a classical music performer, a “star.” As long as a familiar form or context was retained, almost any content would become acceptable. “Not only are hit songs, stars, and soap operas cyclically recurrent and rigidly invariable types,” said Adorno, summarizing this material a few years later, “but the specific content of the entertainment itself is derived from them and only appears to change. The details are interchangeable.”
The crowning achievement of the Radio Project was “Little Annie,” officially titled the Stanton-Lazersfeld Program Analyzer. Radio Project research had shown that all previous methods of preview polling were ineffectual. Up to that point, a preview audience listened to a show or watched a film, and then was asked general questions: did you like the show? what did you think of so-and-so’s performance? The Radio Project realized that this method did not take into account the test audience’s atomized perception of the subject, and demanded that they make a rational analysis of what was intended to be an irrational experience. So, the Project created a device in which each test audience member was supplied with a type of rheostat on which he could register the intensity of his likes or dislikes on a moment-to-moment basis. By comparing the individual graphs produced by the device, the operators could determine, not if the audience liked the whole show — which was irrelevant—but, which situations or characters produced a positive, if momentary, feeling state.
Little Annie transformed radio, film, and ultimately television programming. CBS still maintains program analyzer facilities in Hollywood and New York; it is said that results correlate 85% to ratings. Other networks and film studios have similar operations. This kind of analysis is responsible for the uncanny feeling you get when, seeing a new film or TV show, you think you have seen it all before. You have, many times. If a program analyzer indicates that, for instance, audiences were particularly titilated by a short scene in a World War II drama showing a certain type of actor kissing a certain type of actress, then that scene format will be worked into dozens of screenplays—transposed to the Middle Ages, to outer space, etc., etc.
The Radio Project also realized that television had the potential to intensify all of the effects that they had studied. TV technology had been around for some years, and had been exhibited at the 1936 World’s Fair in New York, but the only person to attempt serious utilization of the medium had been Adolf Hitler. The Nazis broadcast events from the 1936 Olympic Games “live” to communal viewing rooms around Germany; they were trying to expand on their great success in using radio to Nazify all aspects of German culture. Further plans for German TV development were sidetracked by war preparations.
Adorno understood this potential perfectly, writing in 1944:
:Television aims at the synthesis of radio and film, and is held up only because the interested parties have not yet reached agreement, but its consequences will be quite enormous and promise to intensify the impoverishment of aesthetic matter so drastically, that by tomorrow the thinly veiled identity of all industrial culture products can come triumphantly out in the open, derisively fulfilling the Wagnerian dream of the Gesamtkunstwerk—the fusion of all the arts in one work.”
The obvious point is this: the profoundly irrational forms of modern entertainment—the stupid and eroticized content of most TV and films, the fact that your local Classical music radio station programs Stravinsky next to Mozart—don’t have to be that way. They were designed to be that way. The design was so successful, that today, no one even questions the reasons or the origins.
Creating “Public Opinion” & The “Authoritarian Personality”
The efforts of the Radio Project conspirators to manipulate the population, spawned the modern pseudoscience of public opinion polling, in order to gain greater control over the methods they were developing.
Today, public opinion polls, like the television news, have been completely integrated into our society. A “scientific survey” of what people are said to think about an issue can be produced in less than twenty-four hours. Some campaigns for high political office are completely shaped by polls; in fact, many politicians try to create issues which are themselves meaningless, but which they know will look good in the polls, purely for the purpose of enhancing their image as “popular.” Important policy decisions are made, even before the actual vote of the citizenry or the legislature, by poll results. Newspapers will occasionally write pious editorials calling on people to think for themselves, even as the newspaper’s business agent sends a check to the local polling organization.
The idea of “public opinion” is not new, of course. Plato spoke against it in his Republic over two millenia ago; Alexis de Tocqueville wrote at length of its influence over America in the early nineteenth century. But, nobody thought to measure public opinion before the twentieth century, and nobody before the 1930’s thought to use those measurements for decision-making.
It is useful to pause and reflect on the whole concept. The belief that public opinion can be a determinant of truth is philosophically insane. It precludes the idea of the rational individual mind. Every individual mind contains the divine spark of reason, and is thus capable of scientific discovery, and understanding the discoveries of others. The individual mind is one of the few things that cannot, therefore, be “averaged.” Consider: at the moment of creative discovery, it is possible, if not probable, that the scientist making the discovery is the only person to hold that opinion about nature, whereas everyone else has a different opinion, or no opinion. One can only imagine what a “scientifically-conducted survey” on Kepler’s model of the solar system would have been, shortly after he published the Harmony of the World: 2% for, 48% against, 50% no opinion.
These psychoanalytic survey techniques became standard, not only for the Frankfurt School, but also throughout American social science departments, particularly after the I.S.R. arrived in the United States. The methodology was the basis of the research piece for which the Frankfurt School is most well known, the “authoritarian personality” project.
In 1942, I.S.R. director Max Horkheimer made contact with the American Jewish Committee, which asked him to set up a Department of Scientific Research within its organization. The American Jewish Committee also provided a large grant to study anti-Semitism in the American population. “Our aim,” wrote Horkheimer in the introduction to the study, “is not merely to describe prejudice, but to explain it in order to help in its eradication…. Eradication means reeducation scientifically planned on the basis of understanding scientifically arrived at.”
Ultimately, five volumes were produced for this study over the course of the late 1940’s; the most important was the last, The Authoritarian Personality, by Adorno, with the help of three Berkeley, California social psychologists.
In the 1930’s Erich Fromm had devised a questionnaire to be used to analyze German workers pychoanalytically as “authoritarian,” “revolutionary” or “ambivalent.” The heart of Adorno’s study was, once again, Fromm’s psychoanalytic scale, but with the positive end changed from a “revolutionary personality,” to a “democratic personality,” in order to make things more palatable for a postwar audience.
Nine personality traits were tested and measured, including:
conventionalism—rigid adherence to conventional, middle-class values
authoritarian aggression—the tendency to be on the look-out for, to condemn, reject and punish, people who violate conventional values
projectivity—the disposition to believethat wild and dangerous things go on in the world
sex—exaggerated concern with sexual goings-on.
From these measurements were constructed several scales: the E Scale (ethnocentrism), the PEC Scale (poltical and economic conservatism), the A-S Scale (anti-Semitism), and the F Scale (fascism). Using Rensis Lickerts’s methodology of weighting results, the authors were able to tease together an empirical definition of what Adorno called “a new anthropological type,” the authoritarian personality. The legerdemain here, as in all psychoanalytic survey work, is the assumption of a Weberian “type.” Once the type has been statistically determined, all behavior can be explained; if an anti-Semitic personality does not act in an anti-Semitic way, then he or she has an ulterior motive for the act, or is being discontinuous. The idea that a human mind is capable of transformation, is ignored.
The results of this very study can be interpreted in diametrically different ways. One could say that the study proved that the population of the U.S. was generally conservative, did not want to abandon a capitalist economy, believed in a strong family and that sexual promiscuity should be punished, thought that the postwar world was a dangerous place, and was still suspicious of Jews (and Blacks, Roman Catholics, Orientals, etc. — unfortunately true, but correctable in a social context of economic growth and cultural optimism). On the other hand, one could take the same results and prove that anti-Jewish pogroms and Nuremberg rallies were simmering just under the surface, waiting for a new Hitler to ignite them. Which of the two interpretations you accept is a political, not a scientific, decision. Horkheimer and Adorno firmly believed that all religions, Judaism included, were “the opiate of the masses.” Their goal was not the protection of Jews from prejudice, but the creation of a definition of authoritarianism and anti-Semitism which could be exploited to force the “scientifically planned reeducation” of Americans and Europeans away from the principles of Western civilization, which the Frankfurt School despised. In their theoretical writings of this period, Horkheimer and Adorno pushed the thesis to its most paranoid: just as capitalism was inherently fascistic, the philosophy of Christianity itself is the source of anti-Semitism. As Horkheimer and Adorno jointly wrote in their 1947 “Elements of Anti-Semitism”:
“Christ, the spirit become flesh, is the deified sorcerer. Man’s self-reflection in the absolute, the humanization of God by Christ, is the proton pseudos [original falsehood]. Progress beyond Judaism is coupled with the assumption that the man Jesus has become God. The reflective aspect of Christianity, the intellectualization of magic, is the root of evil.”
At the same time, Horkheimer could write in a more-popularized article titled “Anti-Semitism: A Social Disease,” that “at present, the only country where there does not seem to be any kind of anti-Semitism is Russia”
This self-serving attempt to maximize paranoia was further aided by Hannah Arendt, who popularized the authoritarian personality research in her widely-read Origins of Totalitarianism. Arendt also added the famous rhetorical flourish about the “banality of evil” in her later Eichmann in Jerusalem: even a simple, shopkeeper-type like Eichmann can turn into a Nazi beast under the right psychological circumstances—every Gentile is suspect, psychoanalytically.
It is Arendt’s extreme version of the authoritarian personality thesis which is the operant philosophy of today’s Cult Awareness Network (CAN), a group which works with the U.S. Justice Department and the Anti-Defamation League of the B’nai B’rith, among others. Using standard Frankfurt School method, CAN identifies political and religious groups which are its political enemies, then re-labels them as a “cult,” in order to justify operations against them.
The Public Opinion Explosion
Despite its unprovable central thesis of “psychoanalytic types,” the interpretive survey methodology of the Frankfurt School became dominant in the social sciences, and essentially remains so today. In fact, the adoption of these new, supposedly scientific techniques in the 1930’s brought about an explosion in public-opinion survey use, much of it funded by Madison Avenue. The major pollsters of the 1980s-1990s—A.C. Neilsen, George Gallup, Elmo Roper—started in the mid-1930’s, and began using the I.S.R. methods, especially given the success of the Stanton-Lazersfeld Program Analyzer. By 1936, polling activity had become sufficiently widespread to justify a trade association, the American Academy of Public Opinion Research at Princeton, headed by Lazersfeld; at the same time, the University of Chicago created the National Opinion Research Center. In 1940, the Office of Radio Research was turned into the Bureau of Applied Social Research, a division of Columbia University, with the indefatigable Lazersfeld as director.
After World War II, Lazersfeld especially pioneered the use of surveys to psychoanalyze American voting behavior, and by the 1952 Presidential election, Madison Avenue advertising agencies were firmly in control of Dwight Eisenhower’s campaign, utilizing Lazersfeld’s work. Nineteen fifty-two was also the first election under the influence of television, which, as Adorno had predicted eight years earlier, had grown to incredible influence in a very short time. Batten, Barton, Durstine & Osborne — the fabled “BBD&O” ad agency—designed Ike’s campaign appearances entirely for the TV cameras, and as carefully as Hitler’s Nuremberg rallies; one-minute “spot” advertisements were pioneered to cater to the survey-determined needs of the voters.
This snowball has not stopped rolling since. The entire development of television and advertising in the 1950’s and 1960’s was pioneered by men and women who were trained in the Frankfurt School’s techniques of mass alienation. Frank Stanton went directly from the Radio Project to become the single most-important leader of modern television. Stanton’s chief rival in the formative period of TV was NBC’s Sylvester “Pat” Weaver; after a Ph.D. in “listening behavior,” Weaver worked with the Program Analyzer in the late 1930’s, before becoming a Young & Rubicam vice-president, then NBC’s director of programming, and ultimately the network’s president. Stanton and Weaver’s stories are typical.
Today, the men and women who run the networks, the ad agencies, and the polling organizations, even if they have never heard of Theodor Adorno, firmly believe in Adorno’s theory that the media can, and should, turn all they touch into “football.” Coverage of the 1991 Gulf War should make that clear.
The technique of mass media and advertising developed by the Frankfurt School now effectively controls American political campaigning. Campaigns are no longer based on political programs, but actually on alienation. Petty gripes and irrational fears are identified by psychoanalytic survey, to be transmogrified into “issues” to be catered to; the “Willy Horton” ads of the 1988 Presidential campaign, and the “flag-burning amendment,” are but two recent examples. Issues that will determine the future of our civilization, are scrupulously reduced to photo opportunities and audio bites—like Ed Murrow’s original 1930’s radio reports—where the dramatic effect is maximized, and the idea content is zero.
Espionage &the Office of Strategic Services
Part of the influence of the authoritarian personality hoax in our own day also derives from the fact that, incredibly, the Frankfurt School and its theories were officially accepted by the U.S. government during World War II, and these Cominternists were responsible for determining who were America’s wartime, and postwar, enemies.
In 1942, the Office of Strategic Services, America’s hastily-constructed espionage and covert operations unit, asked former Harvard president James Baxter to form a Research and Analysis (R&A) Branch under the group’s Intelligence Division. By 1944, the R&A Branch had collected such a large and prestigious group of emigré scholars that H. Stuart Hughes, then a young Ph.D., said that working for it was “a second graduate education” at government expense. The Central European Section was headed by historian Carl Schorske; under him, in the all-important Germany/Austria Section, was Franz Neumann, as section chief, with Herbert Marcuse, Paul Baran, and Otto Kirchheimer, all I.S.R. veterans. Leo Lowenthal headed the German-language section of the Office of War Information; Sophie Marcuse, Marcuse’s wife, worked at the Office of Naval Intelligence. Also at the R&A Branch were: Siegfried Kracauer, Adorno’s old Kant instructor, now a film theorist; Norman O. Brown, who would become famous in the 1960’s by combining Marcuse’s hedonism theory with Wilhelm Reich’s orgone therapy to popularize “polymorphous perversity”; Barrington Moore, Jr., later a philosophy professor who would co-author a book with Marcuse; Gregory Bateson, the husband of anthropologist Margaret Mead (who wrote for the Frankfurt School’s journal), and Arthur Schlesinger, the historian who joined the Kennedy Administration.
Marcuse’s first assignment was to head a team to identify both those who would be tried as war criminals after the war, and also those who were potential leaders of postwar Germany. In 1944, Marcuse, Neumann, and Kirchheimer wrote the Denazification Guide, which was later issued to officers of the U.S. Armed Forces occupying Germany, to help them identify and suppress pro-Nazi behaviors. After the armistice, the R&A Branch sent representatives to work as intelligence liaisons with the various occupying powers; Marcuse was assigned the U.S. Zone, Kirchheimer the French, and Barrington Moore the Soviet.
In the summer of 1945, Neumann left to become chief of research for the Nuremburg Tribunal. Marcuse remained in and around U.S. intelligence into the early 1950’s, rising to the chief of the Central European Branch of the State Department’s Office of Intelligence Research, an office formally charged with “planning and implementing a program of positive-intelligence research … to meet the intelligence requirements of the Central Intelligence Agency and other authorized agencies.” During his tenure as a U.S. government official, Marcuse supported the division of Germany into East and West, noting that this would prevent an alliance between the newly liberated left-wing parties and the old, conservative industrial and business layers. In 1949, he produced a 532-page report, “The Potentials of World Communism” (declassified only in 1978), which suggested that the Marshall Plan economic stabilization of Europe would limit the recruitment potential of Western Europe’s Communist Parties to acceptable levels, causing a period of hostile co-existence with the Soviet Union, marked by confrontation only in faraway places like Latin America and Indochina—in all, a surprisingly accurate forecast. Marcuse left the State Department with a Rockefeller Foundation grant to work with the various Soviet Studies departments which were set up at many of America’s top universities after the war, largely by R&A Branch veterans.
At the same time, Max Horkheimer was doing even greater damage. As part of the denazification of Germany suggested by the R&A Branch, U.S. High Commissioner for Germany John J. McCloy, using personal discretionary funds, brought Horkheimer back to Germany to reform the German university system. In fact, McCloy asked President Truman and Congress to pass a bill granting Horkheimer, who had become a naturalized American, dual citizenship; thus, for a brief period, Horkheimer was the only person in the world to hold both German and U.S. citizenship. In Germany, Horkheimer began the spadework for the full-blown revival of the Frankfurt School in that nation in the late 1950’s, including the training of a whole new generation of anti-Western civilization scholars like Hans-Georg Gadamer and Jürgen Habermas, who would have such destructive influence in 1960’s Germany. In a period of American history when some individuals were being hounded into unemployment and suicide for the faintest aroma of leftism, Frankfurt School veterans—all with superb Comintern credentials — led what can only be called charmed lives. America had, to an incredible extent, handed the determination of who were the nation’s enemies, over to the nation’s own worst enemies.
The Aristotelian Eros: Marcuse and the CIA’s Drug Counterculture
In 1989, Hans-Georg Gadamer, a protégé of Martin Heidegger and the last of the original Frankfurt School generation, was asked to provide an appreciation of his own work for the German newspaper, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. He wrote,
“One has to conceive of Aristotle’s ethics as a true fulfillment of the Socratic challenge, which Plato had placed at the center of his dialogues on the Socratic question of the good…. Plato described the idea of the good … as the ultimate and highest idea, which is supposedly the highest principle of being for the universe, the state, and the human soul. Against this Aristotle opposed a decisive critique, under the famous formula, “Plato is my friend, but the truth is my friend even more.” He denied that one could consider the idea of the good as a universal principle of being, which is supposed to hold in the same way for theoretical knowledge as for practical knowledge and human activity.”
This statement not only succinctly states the underlying philosophy of the Frankfurt School, it also suggests an inflection point around which we can order much of the philosophical combat of the last two millenia. In the simplest terms, the Aristotelian correction of Plato sunders physics from metaphysics, relegating the Good to a mere object of speculation about which “our knowledge remains only a hypothesis,” in the words of Wilhelm Dilthey, the Frankfurt School’s favorite philosopher. Our knowledge of the “real world,” as Dilthey, Nietzsche, and other precursors of the Frankfurt School were wont to emphasize, becomes erotic, in the broadest sense of that term, as object fixation.
The universe becomes a collection of things which each operate on the basis of their own natures (that is, genetically), and through interaction between themselves (that is, mechanistically). Science becomes the deduction of the appropriate categories of these natures and interactions. Since the human mind is merely a sensorium, waiting for the Newtonian apple to jar it into deduction, humanity’s relationship to the world (and vice versa) becomes an erotic attachment to objects. The comprehension of the universal—the mind’s seeking to be the living image of the living God—is therefore illusory. That universal either does not exist, or it exists incomprehensibly as a deus ex machina; that is, the Divine exists as a superaddition to the physical universe — God is really Zeus, flinging thunderbolts into the world from some outside location. (Or, perhaps more appropriately: God is really Cupid, letting loose golden arrows to make objects attract, and leaden arrows to make objects repel.) The key to the entire Frankfurt School program, from originator Lukacs on, is the “liberation” of Aristotelian eros, to make individual feeling states psychologically primary. When the I.S.R. leaders arrived in the United States in the mid-1930’s, they exulted that here was a place which had no adequate philosophical defenses against their brand of Kulturpessimismus [cultural pessimism].
However, although the Frankfurt School made major inroads in American intellectual life before World War II, that influence was largely confined to academia and to radio; and radio, although important, did not yet have the overwhelming influence on social life that it would acquire during the war. Furthermore, America’s mobilization for the war, and the victory against fascism, sidetracked the Frankfurt School schedule; America in 1945 was almost sublimely optimistic, with a population firmly convinced that a mobilized republic, backed by science and technology, could do just about anything.
The fifteen years after the war, however, saw the domination of family life by the radio and television shaped by the Frankfurt School, in a period of political erosion in which the great positive potential of America degenerated to a purely negative posture against the real and, oftentimes manipulated, threat of the Soviet Union. At the same time, hundreds of thousands of the young generation—the so-called baby boomers—were entering college and being exposed to the Frankfurt School’s poison, either directly or indirectly. It is illustrative, that by 1960, sociology had become the most popular course of study in American universities. Indeed, when one looks at the first stirrings of the student rebellion at the beginning of the 1960’s, like the speeches of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement or the Port Huron Statement which founded the Students for a Democratic Society, one is struck with how devoid of actual content these discussions were. There is much anxiety about being made to conform to the system—”I am a human being; do not fold, spindle, or mutilate” went an early Berkeley slogan—but it is clear that the “problems” cited derive much more from required sociology textbooks, than from the real needs of the society.
The simmering unrest on campus in 1960 might well too have passed or had a positive outcome, were it not for the traumatic decapitation of the nation through the Kennedy assassination, plus the simultaneous introduction of widespread drug use. Drugs had always been an “analytical tool” of the nineteenth century Romantics, like the French Symbolists, and were popular among the European and American Bohemian fringe well into the post-World War II period. But, in the second half of the 1950’s, the CIA and allied intelligence services began extensive experimentation with the hallucinogen LSD to investigate its potential for social control.
It has now been documented that millions of doses of the chemical were produced and disseminated under the aegis of the CIA’s Operation MK-Ultra. LSD became the drug of choice within the agency itself, and was passed out freely to friends of the family, including a substantial number of OSS veterans. For instance, it was OSS Research and Analysis Branch veteran Gregory Bateson who “turned on” the Beat poet Allen Ginsberg to a U.S. Navy LSD experiment in Palo Alto, California. Not only Ginsberg, but novelist Ken Kesey and the original members of the Grateful Dead rock group opened the doors of perception courtesy of the Navy. The guru of the “psychedelic revolution,” Timothy Leary, first heard about hallucinogens in 1957 from Life magazine (whose publisher, Henry Luce, was often given government acid, like many other opinion shapers), and began his career as a CIA contract employee; at a 1977 “reunion” of acid pioneers, Leary openly admitted, “everything I am, I owe to the foresight of the CIA.” Hallucinogens have the singular effect of making the victim asocial, totally self-centered, and concerned with objects.
Even the most banal objects take on the “aura” which Benjamin had talked about, and become timeless and delusionary profound. In other words, hallucinogens instantaneously achieve a state of mind identical to that prescribed by the Frankfurt School theories. And, the popularization of these chemicals created a vast psychological lability for bringing those theories into practice. Thus, the situation at the beginning of the 1960’s represented a brilliant re-entry point for the Frankfurt School, and it was fully exploited. One of the crowning ironies of the “Now Generation” of 1964 on, is that, for all its protestations of utter modernity, none of its ideas or artifacts was less than thirty years old. The political theory came completely from the Frankfurt School; Lucien Goldmann, a French radical who was a visiting professor at Columbia in 1968, was absolutely correct when he said of Herbert Marcuse in 1969 that “the student movements … found in his works and ultimately in his works alone the theoretical formulation of their problems and aspirations [emphasis in original].” The long hair and sandals, the free love communes, the macrobiotic food, the liberated lifestyles, had been designed at the turn of the century, and thoroughly field-tested by various, Frankfurt School-connected New Age social experiments like the Ascona commune before 1920. (See box.) Even Tom Hayden’s defiant “Never trust anyone over thirty,” was merely a less-urbane version of Rupert Brooke’s 1905, “Nobody over thirty is worth talking to.” The social planners who shaped the 1960’s simply relied on already-available materials.
Eros and Civilization –
The founding document of the 1960’s counterculture, and that which brought the Frankfurt School’s “revolutionary messianism” of the 1920’s into the 1960’s, was Marcuse’s Eros and Civilization, originally published in 1955 and funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. The document masterfully sums up the Frankfurt School ideology of Kulturpessimismus in the concept of “dimensionality.” In one of the most bizarre perversions of philosophy, Marcuse claims to derive this concept from Friedrich Schiller. Schiller, whom Marcuse purposefully misidentifies as the heir of Immanuel Kant, discerned two dimensions in humanity: a sensuous instinct and an impulse toward form.
Schiller advocated the harmonization of these two instincts in man in the form of a creative play instinct. For Marcuse, on the other hand, the only hope to escape the one-dimensionality of modern industrial society was to liberate the erotic side of man, the sensuous instinct, in rebellion against “technological rationality.” As Marcuse would say later (1964) in his One-Dimensional Man, “A comfortable, smooth, reasonable, democratic unfreedom prevails in advanced industrial civilization, a token of technical progress.” This erotic liberation he misidentifies with Schiller’s “play instinct,” which, rather than being erotic, is an expression of charity, the higher concept of love associated with true creativity.
Marcuse’s contrary theory of erotic liberation is something implicit in Sigmund Freud, but not explicitly emphasized, except for some Freudian renegades like Wilhelm Reich and, to a certain extent, Carl Jung. Every aspect of culture in the West, including reason itself, says Marcuse, acts to repress this: “The totalitarian universe of technological rationality is the latest transmutation of the idea of reason.” Or: “Auschwitz continues to haunt, not the memory but the accomplishments of man—the space flights, the rockets and missiles, the pretty electronics plants….”
This erotic liberation should take the form of the “Great Refusal,” a total rejection of the “capitalist” monster and all his works, including “technological” reason, and “ritual-authoritarian language.” As part of the Great Refusal, mankind should develop an “aesthetic ethos,” turning life into an aesthetic ritual, a “life-style” (a nonsense phrase which came into the language in the 1960’s under Marcuse’s influence). With Marcuse representing the point of the wedge, the 1960’s were filled with obtuse intellectual justifications of contentless adolescent sexual rebellion. Eros and Civilization was reissued as an inexpensive paperback in 1961, and ran through several editions; in the preface to the 1966 edition, Marcuse added that the new slogan, “Make Love, Not War,” was exactly what he was talking about: “The fight for eros is a political fight [emphasis in original].” In 1969, he noted that even the New Left’s obsessive use of obscenities in its manifestos was part of the Great Refusal, calling it “a systematic linguistic rebellion, which smashes the ideological context in which the words are employed and defined.” Marcuse was aided by psychoanalyst Norman O. Brown, his OSS protege, who contributed Life Against Death in 1959, and Love’s Body in 1966—calling for man to shed his reasonable, “armored” ego, and replace it with a “Dionysian body ego,” that would embrace the instinctual reality of polymorphous perversity, and bring man back into “union with nature.” The books of Reich, who had claimed that Nazism was caused by monogamy, were re-issued. Reich had died in an American prison, jailed for taking money on the claim that cancer could be cured by rechanneling “orgone energy.”
Primary education became dominated by Reich’s leading follower, A.S. Neill, a Theosophical cult member of the 1930’s and militant atheist, whose educational theories demanded that students be taught to rebel against teachers who are, by nature, authoritarian. Neill’s book Summerhill sold 24,000 copies in 1960, rising to 100,000 in 1968, and 2 million in 1970; by 1970, it was required reading in 600 university courses, making it one of the most influential education texts of the period, and still a benchmark for recent writers on the subject. Marcuse led the way for the complete revival of the rest of the Frankfurt School theorists, re-introducing the long-forgotten Lukacs to America. Marcuse himself became the lightning rod for attacks on the counterculture, and was regularly attacked by such sources as the Soviet daily Pravda, and then-California Governor Ronald Reagan.
The only critique of any merit at the time, however, was one by Pope Paul VI, who in 1969 named Marcuse (an extraordinary step, as the Vatican usually refrains from formal denunciations of living individuals), along with Freud, for their justification of “disgusting and unbridled expressions of eroticism”; and called Marcuse’s theory of liberation, “the theory which opens the way for license cloaked as liberty … an aberration of instinct.” The eroticism of the counterculture meant much more than free love and a violent attack on the nuclear family. It also meant the legitimization of philosophical eros. People were trained to see themselves as objects, determined by their “natures.” The importance of the individual as a person gifted with the divine spark of creativity, and capable of acting upon all human civilization, was replaced by the idea that the person is important because he or she is black, or a woman, or feels homosexual impulses. This explains the deformation of the civil rights movement into a “black power” movement, and the transformation of the legitimate issue of civil rights for women into feminism. Discussion of women’s civil rights was forced into being just another “liberation cult,” complete with bra-burning and other, sometimes openly Astarte-style, rituals; a review of Kate Millet’s Sexual Politics (1970) and Germaine Greer’s The Female Eunuch (1971), demonstrates their complete reliance on Marcuse, Fromm, Reich, and other Freudian extremists.
This popularization of life as an erotic, pessimistic ritual did not abate, but in fact deepened over the twenty years leading to today; it is the basis of the horror we see around us. The heirs of Marcuse and Adorno completely dominate the universities, teaching their own students to replace reason with “Politically Correct” ritual exercises. There are very few theoretical books on arts, letters, or language published today in the United States or Europe which do not openly acknowledge their debt to the Frankfort School.
The witchhunt on today’s campuses is merely the implementation of Marcuse’s concept of “repressive toleration”—”tolerance for movements from the left, but intolerance for movements from the right”—enforced by the students of the Frankfurt School, now become the professors of women’s studies and Afro-American studies. The most erudite spokesman for Afro-American studies, for instance, Professor Cornell West of Princeton, publicly states that his theories are derived from Georg Lukacs.
At the same time, the ugliness so carefully nurtured by the Frankfurt School pessimists, has corrupted our highest cultural endeavors. One can hardly find a performance of a Mozart opera, which has not been utterly deformed by a director who, following Benjamin and the I.S.R., wants to “liberate the erotic subtext.” You cannot ask an orchestra to perform Schönberg and Beethoven on the same program, and maintain its integrity for the latter. And, when our highest culture becomes impotent, popular culture becomes openly bestial. One final image: American and European children daily watch films like Nightmare on Elm Street and Total Recall, or television shows comparable to them. A typical scene in one of these will have a figure emerge from a television set; the skin of his face will realistically peel away to reveal a hideously deformed man with razor-blade fingers, fingers which start growing to several feet in length, and—suddenly—the victim is slashed to bloody ribbons. This is not entertainment. This is the deeply paranoid hallucination of the LSD acid head. The worst of what happened in the 1960’s is now daily fare. Owing to the Frankfurt School and its co-conspirators, the West is on a “bad trip” from which it is not being allowed to come down.
The principles through which Western Christian civilization was built, are now no longer dominant in our society; they exist only as a kind of underground resistance movement. If that resistance is ultimately submerged, then the civilization will not survive—and, in our era of incurable pandemic disease and nuclear weapons, the collapse of Western civilization will very likely take the rest of the world with it to Hell.
The way out is to create a Renaissance. If that sounds grandiose, it is nonetheless what is needed. A renaissance means, to start again; to discard the evil, and inhuman, and just plain stupid, and to go back, hundreds or thousands of years, to the ideas which allow humanity to grow in freedom and goodness. Once we have identified those core beliefs, we can start to rebuild civilization.
Ultimately, a new Renaissance will rely on scientists, artists, and composers, but in the first moment, it depends on seemingly ordinary people who will defend the divine spark of reason in themselves, and tolerate no less in others. Given the successes of the Frankfurt School and its New Dark Age sponsors, these ordinary individuals, with their belief in reason and the difference between right and wrong, will be “unpopular.” But, no really good idea was ever popular, in the beginning.
Make Love, Not War
Marcuse didn’t stop there. He emigrated to the United States in the 1930 to escape Hitler, and while here wrote an influential best seller in 1959, Eros and Civilization, which is seen as a founding document of the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s. Marcuse was very clear why the revolution was important—to destroy the family. He wrote:
“The body in its entirety would become . . . a thing to be enjoyed—an instrument of pleasure. This change in the value and scope in libidinal relationships would lead to a disintegration of the institutions in which the private interpersonal relations have been organized, particularly the monogamic and patriarchal family.”
The New Age Paradigm Shift
The Frankfurt School’s original 1930’s survey work, including the “authoritarian personality,” was based on psychoanalytic categories developed by Erich Fromm. Fromm derived these categories from the theories of J.J. Bachofen, a collaborator of Nietzsche and Richard Wagner, who claimed that human civilization was originally “matriarchal.” This primoridial period of “gynocratic democracy” and dominance of the Magna Mater (Great Mother) cult, said Bachofen, was submerged by the development of rational, authoritarian “patriarchism,” including monotheistic religion. Later, Fromm utilized this theory to claim that support for the nuclear family was evidence of authoritarian tendencies.
In 1970, forty years after he first proclaimed the importance of Bachofen’s theory, the Frankfurt School’s Erich Fromm surveyed how far things had developed. He listed seven “social-psychological changes” which indicated the advance of matriarchism over patriarchism:
“The women’s revolution;”
“Children’s and adolescents’ revolution,” based on the work of Benjamin Spock and others, allowing children new, and more-adequate ways to express rebellion;
The rise of the radical youth movement, which fully embraces Bachofen, in its emphasis on group sex, loose family structure, and unisex clothing and behaviors;
The increasing use of Bachofen by professionals to correct Freud’s overly-sexual analysis of the mother-son relationship—this would make Freudianism less threatening and more palatable to the general population;
“The vision of the consumer paradise…. In this vision, technique assumes the characteristics of the Great Mother, a technical instead of a natural one, who nurses her children and pacifies them with a never-ceasing lullaby (in the form of radio and television). In the process, man becomes emotionally an infant, feeling secure in the hope that mother’s breasts will always supply abundant milk, and that decisions need no longer be made by the individual.”
The Frankfurt School devised the “authoritarian personality” profile as a weapon to be used against its political enemies. The fraud rests on the assumption that a person’s actions are not important; rather, the issue is the psychological attitude of the actor—as determined by social scientists like those of the Frankfurt School. The concept is diametrically opposed to the idea of natural law and to the republican legal principles upon which the U.S. was founded; it is, in fact, fascistic, and identical to the idea of “thought crime,” as described by George Orwell in his 1984, and to the theory of “volitional crime” developed by Nazi judge Roland Freisler in the early 1930’s.
When the Frankfurt School was in its openly pro-Bolshevik phase, its authoritarian personality work was designed to identify people who were not sufficiently revolutionary, so that these people could be “re-educated.” When the Frankfurt School expanded its research after World War II at the behest of the American Jewish Committee and the Rockefeller Foundation, its purpose was not to identify anti-Semitism; that was merely a cover story. Its goal was to measure adherence to the core beliefs of Western civilization, so that these beliefs could be characterized as “authoritarian,” and discredited.
For the Frankfurt School conspirators, the worst crime was the belief that each individual was gifted with sovereign reason, which could enable him to determine what is right and wrong for the whole society; thus, to tell people that you have a reasonable idea to which they should conform, is authoritarian, paternalistic extremism.
By these standards, the judges of Socrates and Jesus were correct in condemning these two individuals (as, for example, I.F. Stone asserts in one case in his “Trial of Socrates.”) It is the measure of our own cultural collapse, that this definition of authoritarianism is acceptable to most citizens, and is freely used by political operations like the Anti-Defamation League and the Cult Awareness Network to “demonize” their political enemies.
The vile assassination of Darya Dugina, or terror at the gates of Moscow, is not really solved – as much as the FSB seems to have cracked the case in a little over 24 hours.
It’s now established that the main perpetrator, Azov batallion asset Natalia Vovk, did not act alone but had an Ukrainian sidekick, one Bogdan Tsyganenko, who provided false license plates for the Mini Cooper she was driving and helped to assemble a crude car bomb inside a rented garage in the southwest of Moscow.
According to the FSB, Vovk followed the Dugin family to the Tradition festival, and detonated the car bomb by remote control. The only missing pieces seem to be when the bomb was placed under Dugin’s SUV, and by whom; and whether such a sophisticated cross-border targeted assassination was aimed at both father and daughter.
As recalled by geopolitical analyst Manlio Dinucci, even the Los Angeles Times had made it public that “since 2015, the CIA has been training Ukrainian intelligence agents in a secret facility in the United States”.
Russian intel was more than aware of it. In fact, in an interview to Italian media in December 2021, Darya Dugina herself, based on FSB information, revealed, “they had identified 106 Ukrainian agents who were preparing attacks and massacres in 37 regions of Russia.”
Yet now a high-ranking member of Russian intel – who for obvious reasons must remain anonymous – has shed some information that, in his words, “will add the whole picture to this incident.”
It goes without saying that this is as much as he’s been allowed to reveal by his superiors. According to his analysis, “the tragedy was in the evening. In the next two days the FSB shared the whole data about SBU people who were involved with the incident. The majority of people think that it was a political kill. There are a lot of political kills in Ukraine but this tragedy has no political root. It is actually connected to organized crime money flow.”
The source asserts, “Darya was inside the patriotic movement and had connections in Moscow and Donetsk area. As you know there is a large money flow to the Donbas to restore the economy. This huge money flow provides an extreme incentive for criminal activity. Donetsk crime organizations are more dangerous than others because they operate in the war territory. Thus, someone was afraid that Darya was going to compromise money flow schemes by making this public.”
The source makes the important point that “Boris Nemtsov [a key actor in the liberal reforms imposed on post-Soviet Russia] was also killed by an organized crime group who was afraid that he might compromise some money flow schemes by making them public despite the fact that he was a quite powerful politician. Also [journalist] Anna Politkovkaya. She was given $900,000.00 in cash at Chubais election office during the election days for a political purpose. But some other guys knew it and grabbed the bag. She was slain.”
Disclosure: I prize my friendship with Alexander Dugin – we met in person in Iran, Lebanon and Russia: a towering intellectual and extremely sensitive spirit, eons away from the crude stereotype of “Putin’s brain” or worse, “Putin’s Rasputin” slapped on him by Western media sub-zoology specimens. His vision of Eurasianism should be granted the merit of an ample intellectual discussion, a real dialogue of civilizations. But obviously the current woke incarnation of the collective West lacks the sophistication to engage in real debate. So he’s been demonized to Kingdom Come.
Darya, who I had the honor to meet in Moscow, was a young, shining star with an ebullient personality who graduated in History of Philosophy at Moscow University: her main research was on the political philosophy of late Neoplatonism. Obviously that had nothing to do with the profile of a ruthless operative capable of “compromising” money flows. She did not seem to understand finance, much less “dark” financial ops. What she did understand is how the Ukrainian battlefield mirrored a larger than life clash of civilizations: globalism against Eurasianism.
Back to the assertions by the Russian intel agent, they cannot be simply dismissed. For instance, at the time he came up with the definitive version of the hit on the Moskva – the flagship of the Russian Black Sea fleet.
As he emailed to a select audience, “the destruction of the flagship of the fleet was planned as a strategic task. Therefore, the operation of delivering the PKR [anti-ship missile] to Odessa took place in strict secrecy and under the cover of electronic warfare. As the ‘killer’ of the cruiser, they chose the PKR, but not the Neptune, as spread by Ukrainian propaganda, but the fifth-generation NSM PKR (Naval Strike Missile, range of destruction 185 km, developed by Norway-USA). The NSM is able to reach the target along a programmed route thanks to the GPS-adjusted INS, independently find the target by flying up to it at an altitude of 3-5 meters. When reaching the target, the NSM maneuvers and puts electronic interference. A highly sensitive thermal imager is used as a homing system, which independently determines the most vulnerable places of the target ship. A stationary container installation secretly delivered to Ukraine was used as a launcher. Thus, after the damage to the cruiser Moskva, which led to its flooding (…) the Black Sea Fleet, unfortunately, no longer has a single ship with a long-range anti-aircraft missile system. But not everything is so bad. A three-band radar ‘Sky-M’ is located in Crimea, which is capable of tracking all air targets at a range of up to 600 km.”
So there you go. The hit on the Moskva was a NATO operation, ordered by the U.S. The Russian Ministry of Defense knows – and the Americans know they know. Retaliation will come – in the time and place of Moscow’s choosing.
The same will apply to the response for Darya Dugina’s assassination. As it stands, we may have 3 hypotheses.
The FSB official story, pointing to the SBU in Kiev. The FSB is obviously revealing only a fraction of what they know.
The high-level Russian intel agent pointing towards organized crime.
The usual Zionist suspects – who loathe Dugin for his fierce anti-globalism: and that would point to a Mossad operation, who in many aspects enjoys way more qualified local intel in Russia than the CIA and MI6.
A fourth hypothesis would point to a perfect storm: a confluence of interests of all the above organized crime syndicates. Once again, resorting to hegemonic American pop culture, and to borrow from Twin Peaks; “The owls are not what they seem”. Black ops can also reveal themselves as much darker than what they seem.
The world is on the edge of nuclear catastrophe in no small part because of the failure of Western political leaders to be forthright about the causes of the escalating global conflicts. The relentless Western narrative that the West is noble while Russia and China are evil is simple-minded and extraordinarily dangerous. It is an attempt to manipulate public opinion, not to deal with very real and pressing diplomacy.
Europe should reflect on the fact that the non-enlargement of NATO and the implementation of the Minsk II agreements would have averted this awful war in Ukraine.
The essential narrative of the West is built into US national security strategy. The core US idea is that China and Russia are implacable foes that are “attempting to erode American security and prosperity.” These countries are, according to the US, “determined to make economies less free and less fair, to grow their militaries, and to control information and data to repress their societies and expand their influence.”
The irony is that since 1980 the US has been in at least 15 overseas wars of choice (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Panama, Serbia, Syria, and Yemen just to name a few), while China has been in none, and Russia only in one (Syria) beyond the former Soviet Union. The US has military bases in 85 countries, China in 3, and Russia in 1 (Syria) beyond the former Soviet Union.
President Joe Biden has promoted this narrative, declaring that the greatest challenge of our time is the competition with the autocracies, which “seek to advance their own power, export and expand their influence around the world, and justify their repressive policies and practices as a more efficient way to address today’s challenges.” US security strategy is not the work of any single US president but of the US security establishment, which is largely autonomous, and operates behind a wall of secrecy.
The overwrought fear of China and Russia is sold to a Western public through manipulation of the facts. A generation earlier George W. Bush, Jr. sold the public on the idea that America’s greatest threat was Islamic fundamentalism, without mentioning that it was the CIA, with Saudi Arabia and other countries, that had created, funded, and deployed the jihadists in Afghanistan, Syria, and elsewhere to fight America’s wars.
Or consider the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan in 1980, which was painted in the Western media as an act of unprovoked perfidy. Years later, we learned that the Soviet invasion was actually preceded by a CIA operation designed to provoke the Soviet invasion! The same misinformation occurred vis-à-vis Syria. The Western press is filled with recriminations against Putin’s military assistance to Syria’s Bashar al-Assad beginning in 2015, without mentioning that the US supported the overthrow of al-Assad beginning in 2011, with the CIA funding a major operation (Timber Sycamore) to overthrow Assad years before Russia arrived.
Or more recently, when US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recklessly flew to Taiwan despite China’s warnings, no G7 foreign minister criticized Pelosi’s provocation, yet the G7 ministers together harshly criticized China’s “overreaction” to Pelosi’s trip.
The Western narrative about the Ukraine war is that it is an unprovoked attack by Putin in the quest to recreate the Russian empire. Yet the real history starts with the Western promise to Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not enlarge to the East, followed by four waves of NATO aggrandizement: in 1999, incorporating three Central European countries; in 2004, incorporating 7 more, including in the Black Sea and Baltic States; in 2008, committing to enlarge to Ukraine and Georgia; and in 2022, inviting four Asia-Pacific leaders to NATO to take aim at China.
Nor do the Western media mention the US role in the 2014 overthrow of Ukraine’s pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych; the failure of the Governments of France and Germany, guarantors of the Minsk II agreement, to press Ukraine to carry out its commitments; the vast US armaments sent to Ukraine during the Trump and Biden Administrations in the lead-up to war; nor the refusal of the US to negotiate with Putin over NATO enlargement to Ukraine.
Of course, NATO says that is purely defensive, so that Putin should have nothing to fear. In other words, Putin should take no notice of the CIA operations in Afghanistan and Syria; the NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999; the NATO overthrow of Moammar Qaddafi in 2011; the NATO occupation of Afghanistan for 15 years; nor Biden’s “gaffe” calling for Putin’s ouster (which of course was no gaffe at all); nor US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin stating that the US war aim in Ukraine is the weakening of Russia.
At the core of all of this is the US attempt to remain the world’s hegemonic power, by augmenting military alliances around the world to contain or defeat China and Russia. It’s a dangerous, delusional, and outmoded idea. The US has a mere 4.2% of the world population, and now a mere 16% of world GDP (measured at international prices). In fact, the combined GDP of the G7 is now less than that of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), while the G7 population is just 6 percent of the world compared with 41 percent in the BRICS.
There is only one country whose self-declared fantasy is to be the world’s dominant power: the US. It’s past time that the US recognized the true sources of security: internal social cohesion and responsible cooperation with the rest of the world, rather than the illusion of hegemony. With such a revised foreign policy, the US and its allies would avoid war with China and Russia, and enable the world to face its myriad environment, energy, food and social crises.
Above all, at this time of extreme danger, European leaders should pursue the true source of European security: not US hegemony, but European security arrangements that respect the legitimate security interests of all European nations, certainly including Ukraine, but also including Russia, which continues to resist NATO enlargements into the Black Sea. Europe should reflect on the fact that the non-enlargement of NATO and the implementation of the Minsk II agreements would have averted this awful war in Ukraine. At this stage, diplomacy, not military escalation, is the true path to European and global security.
As Eurasian integration will become an even stronger vector, Russian diplomacy will be solidifying the new normal.
Dmitry Medvedev, relishing his unplugged self, has laid down the law on the Special Military Operation (SMO). Bluntly, he affirmed there is a “one and a half” scenario: either to go all the way, or a military coup d’etat in Ukraine followed by admitting the inevitable. No tertium applies.
That’s as stark as it gets: the leadership in Moscow is making it very clear, to internal and international audiences, the new deal consists in slow cooking the Kiev racket inside a massive cauldron while polishing its status of financial black hole for the collective West. Until we reach boiling point – which will be a revolution or a putsch.
In parallel, The Lords of (Proxy) War will continue with their own strategy, which is to pillage an enfeebled, fearful, Europe, then dressing it up as a perfumed colony to be ruthlessly exploited ad nauseam by the imperial oligarchy.
Europe is now a runaway TGV – minus the requisite Hollywood production values. Assuming it does not veer off track – a dicey proposition – it may eventually arrive at a railway station called Agenda 2030, The Great Narrative, or some other NATO/Davos denomination du jour.
As it stands, what’s remarkable is how the “marginal” Russian economy hardly broke a sweat to “end the abundance” of the wealthiest region on the planet.
Moscow does not even entertain the notion of negotiating with Brussels because there’s nothing to negotiate – considering puny Eurocrats will only be hurled away from their zombified state when the dire socio-economic consequences of “the end of abundance” will finally translate into peasants with pitchforks roaming the continent.
It may be eons away, but inevitably the average Italian, German or Frenchman will connect the dots and realize it is their own “leaders” – national nullities and mostly unelected Eurocrats – who are paving their road to poverty.
You will be poor. And you will like it. Because we are all supporting freedom for Ukrainian neo-nazis. That brings the concept of “multicultural Europe” to a whole new level.
The runaway train, of course, may veer off track and plunge into an Alpine abyss. In this case something might be saved from the wreckage – and “reconstruction” might be on the cards. But reconstruct what?
Europe could always reconstruct a new Reich (collapsed with a bang in 1945); a soft Reich (erected at the end of WWII); or break with its past failures, sing “I’m Free” – and connect with Eurasia. Don’t bet on it.
Get back those Taurian lands
The SMO may be about to radically change – something that will drive the already clueless denizens of U.S. Think Tankland and their Euro vassals even more berserk.
President Putin and Defense Minister Shoigu have been giving serious hints the only way for the pain dial is up – considering the mounting evidence of terrorism inside Russian territory; the vile assassination of Darya Dugina; non-stop shelling of civilians in border regions; attacks on Crimea; the use of chemical weapons; and the shelling of Zaporizhzhya power plant raising the risk of a nuclear catastrophe.
This past Tuesday, one day before the SMO completing six months, Crimea’s permanent representative to the Kremlin, Georgy Muradov, all but spelled it out.
He stressed the necessity to “reintegrate all the Taurian lands” – Crimea, the Northern Black Sea and the Azov Sea – into a single entity as soon as “in the next few months”. He defined this process as “objective and demanded by the population of these regions.”
Muradov added, “given not only the strikes on Crimea, but also the continuous shelling of the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant, the dam of the Kakhovka reservoir, peaceful facilities on the territory of Russia, the DNR and LNR, there are all preconditions to qualify the actions of the Banderite regime as terrorist.”
The conclusion is inevitable: “the political issue of changing the format of the special military operation” enters the agenda. After all, Washington and Brussels “have already prepared new anti-Crimean provocations of the NATO-Bandera alliance”.
So when we examine what the “restoration of the Taurian lands” implies, we see not only the contours of Novorossiya but most of all that there won’t be any security for Crimea – and thus Russia – in the Black Sea without Odessa becoming Russian again. And that, on top of it, will solve the Transnistria dilemma.
Add to it Kharkov – the capital and top industrial center of Greater Donbass. And of course Dnipropetrovsk. They are all SMO objectives, the whole combo to be later protected by buffer zones in Chernihiv and Sumy oblasts.
Only then the “tasks” – as Shoigu calls them – of the SMO would be declared fulfilled. The timeline could be eight to ten months – after a lull under General Winter.
As the turbo-charged SMO rolls on, it’s a given the Empire of Chaos, Lies and Plunder will continue to prop up and weaponize the Kiev racket till Kingdom Come – and that will apply especially after the Return of Odessa. What’s unclear is who and what gang will be left in Kiev posing as the ruling party and doing specials for Vogue while duly fulfilling the mass of imperial diktats.
It’s also a given the CIA/MI6 combo will be refining non-stop the contours of a massive guerrilla war against Russia in multiple fronts – crammed with terror attacks and all sorts of provocations.
Yet in the Bigger Picture it’s the inevitable Russian military victory in Donbass and then “all the Taurian lands” that will hit the collective West like a lethal asteroid. The geopolitical humiliation will be unbearable; not to mention the geoeconomic humiliation for vassalized Europe.
As Eurasian integration will become an even stronger vector, Russian diplomacy will be solidifying the new normal. Never forget that Moscow had no trouble normalizing relations, for instance, with China, Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Israel. All these actors, in different ways, directly contributed to the fall of the USSR. Now – with one exception – they are all focused on The Dawn of the Eurasian Century.
[This article is derived from a speech I made at the July 23rd Peace and Freedom Rally in Kingston New York]
There are some things that I believe to be true about the anarchy that purports to be US foreign policy. First, and most important, I do not believe that any voter cast a ballot for Joe Biden because he or she wanted him to relentlessly pursue a needless conflict with Russia that could easily escalate into a nuclear war with unimaginable consequences for all parties. Biden has recently declared that the US will support Ukraine “until we win” and, as there are already tens of billions of dollars of weapons going to Ukraine plus American “advisers” on the ground, it constitutes a scenario in which American and Russian soldiers will soon likely be shooting at each other. The President of Serbia and columnists like Pat Buchanan and Tulsi Gabbard believe that we are already de facto in World War 3 and one has to wonder how the White House is getting away with ignoring the War Powers mandates in the US Constitution.
Second, I believe that the Russians approached the United States and its allies with some quite reasonable requests regarding their own national security given that a hostile military alliance was about to land on its doorsteps. The issues at stake were fully negotiable but the US refused to budge on anything and Russia felt compelled to take military action. Nevertheless, there is no such thing as a good war. I categorically reject anyone invading anyone else unless there is a dire and immediate threat, but the onus on how the Ukraine situation developed the way it did is on Washington.
Third, I believe that the US and British governments in particularly have been relentlessly lying to the people and that the media in most of west is party to the dissemination of the lies to sustain the war effort against Russia in Ukraine. The lies include both the genesis and progress of the war and there has also been a sustained effort to demonize President Vladimir Putin and anything Russian, including food, drinks, the Russian language and culture and even professional athletes. The latest victim is a Tchaikovsky symphony banned in Canada. Putin is being personally blamed for inflation, food shortages and energy problems which more properly are the fault of the Washington-led ill-thought-out reaction to him. There is considerable irony in the fact that Biden is giving Ukraine $1.7 billion for healthcare, while healthcare in the US is generally considered among the poorest in the developed world.
I believe that Russia is winning the war comfortably and Ukraine will be forced to give up territory while the American taxpayer gets the bill for the reckless spending policies, currently totaling more than $60 billion, while also looking forward to runaway inflation, energy shortages, and, in a worst-case scenario, a possible collapse of the dollar.
All of the above and the politics behind it has led me to believe that the United States, assisted by some of its allies, has become addicted to war as an excuse for domestic failures as well as a replacement for diplomacy to settle international disputes. The White House hypocritically describes its role as “global leadership” or maintaining a “rules based international order” or even defending “democracy against authoritarianism.” But at the same time the Biden Administration has just completed a fiasco evacuation that ended a twenty-year occupation of Afghanistan. Not having learned anything from Afghanistan, there are now US troops illegally present in Syria and Iraq and Washington is conniving to attack Iran over false claims made by Israel that the Iranians are developing a nuclear weapon. Neither Syria nor Iraq nor Iran in any way threaten the United States, just as the Russians did not threaten Americans prior to a regime change intervention in Ukraine starting in 2014, when the US arranged the overthrow of a government that was friendly to Moscow. The US has also begun to energize NATO to start looking at steps to take to confront the alleged Chinese threat.
The toll coming from constant warfare and fearmongering has also enabled a steady erosion of the liberties that Americans once enjoyed, including free speech and freedom to associate. I would like to discuss what the ordinary concerned citizen can do to cut through all the lies surrounding what is currently taking place, which might well be described as the most aggressive propaganda campaign the world has ever seen, far more extensive than the lying and dissimulation by the White House and Pentagon officials that preceded the disastrous Iraq war. It is an information plus propaganda war that sustains the actual fighting on the ground, and it is in some senses far more dangerous as it seeks to involve more countries in the carnage while also creating a global threat perception that will be used to justify further military interventions.
Part of the problem is that the US government is awash with bad information that it does not know how to manage so it makes it hard to identify anything that might actually be true. Back in my time as an intelligence officer operating overseas, there were a number of short cuts that were used to categorize and evaluate information. For example, if one were hanging out in a local bar and overheard two apparent government officials discussing something of interest that might be happening in the next week, one might report it to Washington with a source description FNU/LNU, which stood for “first name unknown” and “last name unknown.” In other words, it was unverifiable hearsay coming from two individuals who could not be identified. As such it was pretty much worthless, but it clogged up the system and invited speculation.
My personal favorite, however, was the more precise source descriptions developed by military intelligence using an alphabet letter followed by a number in a sequence running from A-1 to F-6. At the top of an intelligence report there would be an assessment of the source, or agent. A-1 meant a piece of information that was both credible and had been confirmed by other sources and that was also produced by an agent that had actual access to the information in question. At the other end of the scale, an F-6 was information that was dubious produced by a source that appeared to have no actual access to the information.
By that standard, we Americans have been fed a lot of largely fabricated F-6 “fake information” coming from both the government and the media to justify the Ukraine disaster. Here is how you can spot it. If it is a newspaper or magazine article skim all the way down the text until you reach a point towards the end where the sourcing of the information is generally hidden. If it is attributed to a named individual who indeed indisputably had direct access to the information it would at least suggest that the reporting contains a kernel of truth. But that is almost never the case, and one normally sees the source described as an “anonymous source” or a “government official” or even, in many cases, there is no source attribution at all. That generally means that the information conveyed in the reporting is completely unreliable and should be considered the product of a fabricator or a government and media propaganda mill. When a story is written by a journalist who claims to be on the scene it is also important to check out whether he or she is actually on site or working from a pool operating safely in Poland to produce the reporting. Yahoo News takes the prize in spreading propaganda as it currently reproduces press releases originating with the Ukrainian government and posts them as if they are unbiased reporting on what is taking place on the ground.
Another trick to making fake news look real is to route it through a third country. When I was in Turkey we in CIA never placed a story in the media there directly. Instead, a journalist on our payroll in France would do the story and the Turkish media would pick it up, believing that because it had appeared in Paris it must be true even though it was not. Currently, I have noted that a lot of apparently MI-6 produced fake stories on Ukraine have been appearing in the British media, most notably the Telegraph and Guardian. They are then replayed in the US media and elsewhere to validate stories that are essentially fabricated.
Television and radio media is even worse than print media as it almost never identifies the sources for the stories that it carries. So my advice is to be skeptical of what you read or hear regarding wars and rumors of wars. The war party is bipartisan in the United States and it is just itching to seize the opportunity to get a new venture going, and they are oblivious to the fact that they might in the process be about to destroy the world as we know it. We must expose their lies and unite and fight to make sure that they can’t get away with it!
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is firstname.lastname@example.org.
With the recent political events involving such different parts of the world, but usually for the same reasons: popular dissatisfaction, rising prices, and the like. And these causes arise with the decision-making errors of Western leaders, who end up suppressing popular opinion, in what generates a kind of democratic government in the archetype but doesn’t really care about its people.
The most practical example arises when countries try to enter into military alliances without popular consultation as to whether the people agree with what is at stake. The Nordics in NATO were a very clear example of this.
The politicians who now manage the finances of powers within Europe were clearly not prepared for what is happening, mainly because in the global production chain, which involves Russia, now sanctioned, reflects much more on the sanctioning regional economy than on the sanctioned one. Plus it…
These happened on June 11 to 13. Non military targets were shelled. A market was hit. Several houses were hit. Several people were killed, and many more were wounded. Reports say that Tochka-U ballistic missiles were used by Ukr to bomb people’s houses.
And then on June 14, one of Zelensky’s advisors, Mikhail Podolyak, took an interview with the New York Times and boasted that the Ukrainian military’s predominant tactic is to embed themselves into the civilian populace while fighting. Apparently the Ukrainian command sought to take advantage of a directive given to Russian soldiers that forbids Russian soldiers from targeting civilian areas.
In an interview with the New York Times published on Tuesday, Mikhail Podolyak argued that the “Russians fight poorly in the cities.” The Ukrainian official went on to explain that “in the cities, it is possible to maneuver, and find cover, and you minimize losses; you can…
In terms of safety, how does Sputnik V’s stack up against Pfizer’s shot and other mRNA vaccines? It’s difficult to say. Russia does not have a VAERS-like database for reporting suspected adverse events among the general public. In fact,there is no regularly updated, publicly available data on any post-vaccination complications in Russia. It seems the Russian government’s position is that they do not exist. But doctors and lawmakers tell a different story, one supported by an informal database of suspected vaccine-linked deaths. Undeterred, authorities have compared these concerned citizens to “terrorists” and are now threatening “anti-vax” doctors with fines and even prison time, in essence making any medical professional who questions the vaccine a suspected criminal in the eyes of the Russian government.
SOME people like Jews and some do not; but no thoughtful man can doubt the fact that they are beyond all question the most formidable and the most remarkable race which has ever appeared in the world.
Disraeli, the Jew Prime Minister of England, and Leader of the Conservative Party, who was always true to his race and proud of his origin, said on a well-known occasion: “The Lord deals with the nations as the nations deal with the Jews.” Certainly when we look at the miserable state of Russia, where of all countries in the world the Jews were the most cruelly treated, and contrast it with the fortunes of our own country, which seems to have been so providentially preserved amid the awful perils of these times, we must admit that nothing that has since happened in the history of the world has falsified the truth of Disraeli’s confident assertion.
Good and Bad Jews
The conflict between good and evil which proceeds unceasingly in the breast of man nowhere reaches such an intensity as in the Jewish race. The dual nature of mankind is nowhere more strongly or more terribly exemplified. We owe to the Jews in the Christian revelation a system of ethics which, even if it were entirely separated from the supernatural, would be incomparably the most precious possession of mankind, worth in fact the fruits of all other wisdom and learning put together. On that system and by that faith there has been built out of the wreck of the Roman Empire the whole of our existing civilization.
And it may well be that this same astounding race may at the present time be in the actual process of producing another system of morals and philosophy, as malevolent as Christianity was benevolent, which, if not arrested, would shatter irretrievably all that Christianity has rendered possible. It would almost seem as if the gospel of Christ and the gospel of Antichrist were destined to originate among the same people; and that this mystic and mysterious race had been chosen for the supreme manifestations, both of the divine and the diabolical.
There can be no greater mistake than to attribute to each individual a recognizable share in the qualities which make up the national character. There are all sorts of men — good, bad and, for the most part, indifferent — in every country, and in every race. Nothing is more wrong than to deny to an individual, on account of race or origin, his right to be judged on his personal merits and conduct. In a people of peculiar genius like the Jews, contrasts are more vivid, the extremes are more widely separated, the resulting consequences are more decisive.
At the present fateful period there are three main lines of political conception among the Jews. two of which are helpful and hopeful in a very high degree to humanity, and the third absolutely destructive.
First there are the Jews who, dwelling in every country throughout the world, identify themselves with that country, enter into its national life and, while adhering faithfully to their own religion, regard themselves as citizens in the fullest sense of the State which has received them. Such a Jew living in England would say, “I am an English man practising the Jewish faith.” This is a worthy conception, and useful in the highest degree. We in Great Britain well know that during the great struggle the influence of what may be called the “National Jews” in many lands was cast preponderatingly on the side of the Allies; and in our own Army Jewish soldiers have played a most distinguished part, some rising to the command of armies, others winning the Victoria Cross for valour.
The National Russian Jews, in spite of the disabilities under which they have suffered, have managed to play an honorable and useful part in the national life even of Russia. As bankers and industrialists they have strenuously promoted the development of Russia’s economic resources, and they were foremost in the creation of those remarkable organizations, the Russian Co-operative Societies. In politics their support has been given, for the most part, to liberal and progressive movements, and they have been among the staunchest upholder of friendship with France and Great Britain.
In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort rise the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.
There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution, by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews, it is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd) or of Krassin or Radek — all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses. The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing.
‘Protector of the Jews’
Needless to say, the most intense passions of revenge have been excited in the breasts of the Russian people. Wherever General Denikin’s authority could reach, protection was always accorded to the Jewish population, and strenuous efforts were made by his officers to prevent reprisals and to punish those guilty of them. So much was this the case that the Petlurist propaganda against General Denikin denounced him as the Protector of the Jews. The Misses Healy, nieces of Mr. Tim Healy, in relating their personal experiences in Kieff, have declared that to their knowledge on more than one occasion officers who committed offenses against Jews were reduced to the ranks and sent out of the city to the front. But the hordes of brigands by whom the whole. vast expanse of the Russian Empire is becoming infested do not hesitate to gratify their lust for blood and for revenge at the expense of the innocent Jewish population whenever an opportunity occurs. The brigand Makhno, the hordes of Petlura and of Gregorieff, who signalized their every success by the most brutal massacres, everywhere found among the half-stupefied, half-infuriated population an eager response to anti-Semitism in its worst and foulest forms.
The fact that in many cases Jewish interests and Jewish places of worship are excepted by the Bolsheviks from their universal hostility has tended more and more to associate the Jewish race in Russia with the villainies, which are now being perpetrated. This is an injustice on millions of helpless people, most of whom are themselves sufferers from the revolutionary regime. It becomes, therefore, specially important to foster and develop any strongly-marked Jewish movement which leads directly away from these fatal associations. And it is here that Zionism has such a deep significance for the whole world at the present time.
A Home for the Jews
Zionism offers the third sphere to the political conceptions of the Jewish race. In violent contrast to international communism, it presents to the Jew a national idea of a commanding character. it has fallen to the British Government, as the result of the conquest of Palestine, to have the opportunity and the responsibility of securing for the Jewish race all over the world a home and centre of national life. The statesmanship and historic sense of Mr. Balfour were prompt to seize this opportunity. Declarations have now been made which have irrevocably decided the policy of Great Britain. The fiery energies of Dr. Weissmann, the leader, for practical purposes, of the Zionist project. backed by many of the most prominent British Jews, and supported by the full authority of Lord Allenby, are all directed to achieving the success of this inspiring movement.
Of course, Palestine is far too small to accommodate more than a fraction of the Jewish race, nor do the majority of national Jews wish to go there. But if, as may well happen, there should be created in our own lifetime by the banks of the Jordan a Jewish State under the protection of the British Crown, which might comprise three or four millions of Jews, an event would have occurred in the history of the world which would, from every point of view, be beneficial, and would be especially in harmony with the truest interests of the British Empire.
Zionism has already become a factor in the political convulsions of Russia, as a powerful competing influence in Bolshevik circles with the international communistic system. Nothing could be more significant than the fury with which Trotsky has attacked the Zionists generally, and Dr. Weissmann in particular. The cruel penetration of his mind leaves him in no doubt that his schemes of a world-wide communistic State under Jewish domination are directly thwarted and hindered by this new ideal, which directs the energies and the hopes of Jews in every land towards a simpler, a truer, and a far more attainable goal. The struggle which is now beginning between the Zionist and Bolshevik Jews is little less than a struggle for the soul of the Jewish people.
Duty of Loyal Jews
It is particularly important in these circumstances that the national Jews in every country who are loyal to the land of their adoption should come forward on every occasion, as many of them in England have already done, and take a prominent part in every measure for combating the Bolshevik conspiracy. In this way they will be able to vindicate the honor of the Jewish name and make it clear to all the world that the Bolshevik movement is not a Jewish movement, but is repudiated vehemently by the great mass of the Jewish race.
But a negative resistance to Bolshevism in any field is not enough. Positive and practicable alternatives are needed in the moral as well as in the social sphere; and in building up with the utmost possible rapidity a Jewish national centre in Palestine which may become not only a refuge to the oppressed from the unhappy lands of Central Europe, but which will also be a symbol of Jewish unity and the temple of Jewish glory, a task is presented on which many blessings rest.
As we saw earlier, since the times of Alexander II, the Tsars opposed the creation of a central bank by the Rothschilds; as it happened in England (Bank of England) and France (Bank of France), of which the Rothschilds were the major shareholders.  From that moment on, the Romanov family would suffer a series of… “accidents”.
Alexander II would be the first. After many failed assassination attempts (of which the first came in 1866; just three years after the dispute with the Rothschilds over the American Civil War), in 1881, three men awaited between the crowds for Alexander’s royal carriage from Manezh. The first man threw a bomb at the carriage; which was bulletproof. Alexander was unhurt, but he abandoned the carriage due to the explosion. At that time, the second man threw another bomb at Alexander’s feet. This time he was hit; and he fell on the street bleeding to death, with his legs torn away, his stomach ripped open, and his face mutilated. A third man would be detained minutes after, carrying a third bomb; which was not necessary; Alexander II died that same night. All three detainees belonged to the Narodnaya Volya party,  which already carried seven assassination attempts until that date.  One of the members of that organisation was a young man by the name of Aleksandr Ulyanov; he was the older brother of Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (best known as Lenin),  who would later be financed by Jacob Schiff, through Trotsky, not only to start the revolution, but for quite a few years more after it was over. 
Alexander III succeeded to the throne that same year, and the Jews were blamed for the assassination; which caused an anti-Semitic wave throughout Russia, to which the new Tsar added stronger anti-Semitic policies. Aleksandr Ulyanov also attempted to assassinate Alexander III, for which he was sentenced to death and hanged in 1887. Alexander III died in 1894 due to kidney failure, which was later linked to the blunt trauma suffered at the Borki train disaster of 1888.  And there wouldn’t be anything unusual about Alexander’s death; if it wasn’t for the fact that the Borki train disaster consisted in a roof from one of the cars (casually the royal car) falling down exactly over the Tsar and injuring him; while no one else from his family was hurt. None of the three investigations carried out agreed on the direct cause of the crash.  Though, it seems that the Rothschilds were the ones that financed the Russian railroad network.  Nicholas II succeeded to the throne after Alexander III died.
But there is far more to this story. Alfonse de Rothschild was investing in Russian oil, which in the 1860s was already emerging as the European rival to the American monopoly of Standard Oil (owned by Rockefeller). In the early 1880s the Rothschild family had nearly two hundred refineries at work in Baku, Russia’s oil rich region. Though, by the mid 1880s the Baku-Batum railroad proved to be inadequate to transport the volume of oil produced. Another route was needed, and came in the form of the recently opened Suez Canal. Palestine was suddenly of interest to the Rothschilds as it provided access to the Suez Canal.  Benjamin Disraeli (Prime Minister of Britain) turned to the Rothschilds for the cash advance needed to buy shares in the Suez Canal Company. 
At the same time, Tsar Nicholas II instituted more anti-Semitic pogroms and discrimination against Jews; and many emigrated. The British Rothschilds were very concerned with this wave of Jewish immigrants into Western Europe and Britain. One potential solution considered to the problem of increased Jewish immigrants in Britain was to institute restrictions on immigration. However, this would likely backlash, in the sense that it would be viewed as comparable to expulsion. So, Edmond Rothschild began his personal campaign to create a Jewish homeland in Palestine in order to create a release valve for Jewish immigrants to put their political action behind a new cause, and to promote them emigrating to Palestine, and out of Western Europe.  His proposal for the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine served major economic interests of the Rothschilds and of the British Empire, so, Rothschild bought the Suez Canal for the British, which was the primary transport route for Russian oil. Palestine, thus, would be a vital landmass as a protectorate for British and Rothschild imperial-economic interests. In 1895, the Rothschilds, then one of the world’s leading producers and distributors of oil, co-sign an agreement with America’s Standard Oil to divide up world markets. It never took effect, presumably because of the opposition of the Tsar Nicholas II.  And we all know what happened to the last Tsar: he was executed with all his family in 1918 by Lenin’s Bolsheviks; funded by the bankers.
The Brutal Murder of Tsar Nicholas II and his Family
The U.S. State Department published a three-volume report in 1931 stating that Jewish-owned German banks conspired to send large sums of money to Lenin, Trotsky, and other Bolshevik luminaries to overthrow the Tsar.
In the nineteenth century, the Tsar began to discover that Jews were fomenting revolution and began to establish policies in an attempt “to russify the Jews through conversionist assimilation.”
Historian Erich E. Haberer writes that this was largely forced assimilation, but Jewish scholar Benjamin Nathans seems to show that it was not forced; since the tsarist government wanted the Jews to integrate, they produced a number of academic programs that would be suitable to Jews. One of them was the university, “the setting in which selective Jewish integration achieved its most dramatic success.”
When the Tsar was governing Russia, Jacob Schiff plotted against the government, supplied millions of dollars to the Japanese to overthrow the Russian government, and called Russia “the enemy of all mankind.” Incredibly, Paul Johnson only mentions the idea that a number of Jews, including Jacob Schiff, sought to overthrow the Tsar’s government, and on another occasion mentions Schiff in a positive light.
Instead, Johnson tells us that during the tsarist government, “Everything was done to prevent Jews getting to university.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Yes, the tsars were against subversive movements, in which revolutionary Jews played a major role. But they were not so much interested in marginalizing all the Jews in Russia, otherwise they would not have adopted programs for assimilation. Johnson’s History of the Jews seems to confirm this point; he writes that in Poland, Hungary, and Romania in the 1920s,
“The local Communist Parties had been largely created and run by Non-Jewish Jews…Jewish Bolsheviks were numerous in the Cheka (secret police), as commissars, tax inspectors and bureaucrats. They took a leading part in the raiding parties organized by Lenin and Trotsky to gouge grain out of hoarding peasants. All these activities made them hated.”
Leon Blum wrote in 1901 that “the collective impulse” of the Jews “leads them towards revolution; their critical powers drive them to destroy every idea, every traditional form which does not agree with the facts or cannot be justified by reason.”
Well, the fear that Jewish revolutionaries would want to usurp Russia’s traditional values had always been a concern of the tsars—not because the tsars were inherently anti-Semitic, but because the traditional government in Russia, which was built on the Western intellectual tradition, despised subversive activities such as Communism and Marxism.
Jews were about four percent of the Russian population at the turn of the twentieth century, yet they not only dominated the Russian Revolution but initiated the movement. Johnson writes, “It is true that Jews were prominent in the Bolshevik party, in the top echelons as well as among the rank and file: 15-20 percent of the delegates were Jewish.” He moves on to say,
“One list showed that, of thirty-one top Soviet leaders, all but Lenin were Jews [Johnson’s book came out in 1987; later documents revealed that Lenin was also a Jew]; another analyzed the members of the Petrograd Soviet, showing that only sixteen out of 388 were Russians, the rest being Jews, of whom 265 came from New York’s East Side. A third document showed that the decision to overthrow the Tsar’s government was actually taken on 14 February 1916 by a group of New York Jews including the millionaire Jacob Schiff.”
Yet Johnson plays down this involvement by saying that “these were Non-Jewish Jews.”191 Referring to the Revolution in an essay entitled “The Relentless Cult of Novelty,” Alexander Solzhenitsyn called it “the most physically destructive revolution of the 20th century” that sought “to sweep away all religions or ethical codes, to tear down, overthrow, and trample all existing traditional culture.” Jewish historian Steven Beller said,
“It is well known that the leadership of the socialist party in Austria before and after the First World War was heavily Jewish. This was also the case for the group of theorists collectively known as the Austro-Marxists, the most interesting group of political theorists to emerge from the liberal bourgeoisie in Vienna. Of the major theorists in Austro-Marxism only Karl Renner was not of Jewish descent.”
This is also true of those who conspired against the tsarist government. In fact, the U.S. State Department published a three-volume report in 1931 stating that Jewish-owned German banks conspired to send large sums of money to Lenin, Trotsky, and other Bolshevik luminaries to overthrow the Tsar.
Jewish financiers such as Jacob Schiff in the United States and Max and Paul Warburg in Germany poured millions of dollars into the Bolshevik movement. Schiff is said to have given $20 million dollars to the regime—a sum equivalent to billions of dollars today. Even The Jewish Encyclopedia calls communism and socialism Jewish phenomena.
The culmination of all this is the death of Tsar Nicholas II. This is where Michael Walsh’s in-depth analysis comes in.
Michael Walsh: Across Russia’s vast eleven time zones Church bells toll as the nation evokes the centennial of the horrific and senseless slaughter of Nicholas II, Tsar of Imperial Russia, his wife, their five beautiful children, and staff. Dubbed Azrael’s abattoir the ritualistic and racist nature of their family’s diabolical end is marked in countless ways in every village and city.
Before the outbreak of the 1914 ~ 1918 war Warsaw shops patronised by the Jewish community furtively sold greeting cards the message of which would be lost on most Gentiles. Each greeting card carried the image of the tzadik. This image depicts a Talmudic Jew with Torah in one hand and a white fowl in the other. The bird’s head is a facsimile of Imperial Russia’s Tsar Nicholas II. Below this image is the inscription in Hebrew: “This is a sacrificial animal so is my cleansing; it will be my replacement and cleansing the victim.”
This message relates to the Yom Kippur atonement ritual in which the live sacrifice is swung about the head before being slaughtered by the shechita method; the creature’s blood being drained. This greeting card is a copy of American (Jewish) greeting cards first discovered in the United States in 2007.
The ritual slaughter of Tsar Nicholas II was the dream of many Jews. This curiosity is dismissed by palace media as being due to the Tsar’s alleged anti-Semitism. In fact, his anti-Semitism was hardly unique; many heads of state were outspoken in their criticism of the Jewish community.
Upon their being arrested the revolutionary Yakov Sverdlov ordered the slaughter of Tsar Nicholas II, his entire family, and all assistants. Regicide was a cherished ambition for this Jewish revolutionary. This is proven by the text of leaflets written by Yakov Sverdlov. These were published May 19, 1905, a date that marks the birthday of Nicholas II. The text on the leaflets: “Struck your hour, the last hour of you and all yours! This is a terrible judgment, the revolution is coming!”
The decision to massacre Russia’s Imperial family was taken by the Ural authorities. The decision is consistent with the stated demands of Yakov Sverdlov, Chairman of the Central Executive Committee of Soviets of Workers ‘and Soldiers’ Deputies.
The massacre’s organisers and accompanying guards were militants involved in the organisation of the future Communist party, R.S.D.L.P. Its 1905 genesis was in the Urals, when the group was under the direction of Yakov Sverdlov. At the time of the slaughter, the aforementioned were the main participants in the massacre of the Romanovs.
Long before the Wall Street-inspired 1917 coup that delivered Tsarist Russia to mostly American corporate interests, Yakov Sverdlov and Bolshevik insurrectionists served prison sentences or were otherwise exiled in Siberia. Militant Yakov Sverdlov was exiled to Turukhansk as was Josef Stalin, Julius Martov (Tsederbaum), and Aron Solts.
The malevolent Yakov Sverdlov gathered around him the most aggressive and ruthless elements of this loose-knit association of brigands. Yakov Sverdlov was reputed to be pathologically sadistic. Such were the gratuitous cruelties inflicted on those he regarded as expendable that even fellow party members already accustomed to extreme violence were appalled.
On the eve of the 1905 Revolution and during his exile Sverdlov formed an organisation known as The Battle Squad of the People Weapons (BONV). This sinister terrorist group slaughtered indiscriminately in ways that would make today’s ISIS terrorists appear docile by comparison. The band’s victims included anyone thought to be in the pay or sympathetic towards Tsarist Russia.
The victims of Yakov Sverdlov and his band of brigands: Slaughtered at Ipatiev house. 1st row: Nicholas II and his family (Olga, Maria, Tsar Nicholas II, Tsarina Alexandra, Anastasia, Alexei, and Tatiana), surgeon to Tsar Eugene Botkin and Royal chef Ivan Kharitonov, maid Anna Demidova and the Tsar’s valet Colonel Alexei Trupp.
The band increased its wealth following constant attacks on banks, post offices, cash desks, trains and shops. “They were desperate murderers” writes Eduard Hlystalov who describes the marauders leader as ‘the frail bespectacled Yakov Sverdlov.’
Philippe (Shaya-Isay Fram) Goloshchyokin, personal and plenipotentiary ambassador of Yakov Sverdlov, dealt with all the gang’s organisation detail. The Ural region was soon to become Yakov Sverdlov’s personal fiefdom. The revolutionary placed those he considered loyal to him in government positions throughout the Urals region.
‘Under the protection of the Tsar’s personal bodyguards, the train carrying the soon to be martyred family departed Tobolsk on April 26, 1918, to arrive in Tyumen during the evening of April 27. On April 30 the train from Tyumen arrived in Yekaterinburg, where Vasily Yakovlev signed over a delivery of the Imperial couple and their daughter Maria to the Head of Ural Council Alexander Beloborodov.
As the Bolsheviks increased their hold on Russia confidence was such that it was decided that the children, the ill Alexei and his sisters Olga, Tatiana and Anastasia were to re-join their mother, father, and sister Maria in Yekaterinburg. The children left Tobolsk in May 1918. Tsarevich Alexei and his three sisters arrived in Yekaterinburg on 23 May 1918, accompanied by a group of servants and officials of the royal retinue.
On July 16, 1918, the day before the massacre, there arrived in Yekaterinburg a special train consisting of a locomotive and a single passenger carriage. The few other passengers included one person in the black attire of a Jewish rabbi with his face disguised. The rabbi was greeted by Shaya Isaakovich Goloshchekin and accorded with maximum respect as might a visiting dignitary. The rabbi was accompanied by protection of six soldiers. Upon being directed to the basement of Ipatiev house the rabbi traced cabalistic signs on the wall: “The Tsar sacrificed, the kingdom destroyed! About this notifies all peoples.”
Leading executioners of the Imperial family whose Jewish names appear in brackets. Left to right: Top (Yankel Solomon Movshevich Sverdlov) Yakov Sverdlov, Philippe Goloshchyokin (Shaya-Isay Fram Goloshchekin) and Pyotr Voykov (Pinhus Wainer). Bottom row: Alexander Georgievich Beloborodov (Vaisbart Yankel Isidorovich), Konstantin Myachin (Vasily Yakovlev) and Georgy Safarov (Voldin).
Yakov Yurovsky supervised the Imperial family’s assassination. He was responsible for administering the coup de grâce and afterwards searching the bodies. Pyotr Voykov (Pinhus Wainer) took part in the shooting and assisted in carrying out the coup by bayoneting their victims. Later, he was delegated to destroy the family’s remains by a combination of dismemberment and the use of sulphuric acid.
The scrawled writing was afterwards found on the walls of the room in which the Imperial family was slaughtered. These were translated and transcribed by German-Jewish poet Heinrich Heine (1797-1856). The lines appear on the wall which the Imperial family had their backs to whilst being gunned down. There was also writing discovered near the basement window of Ipatiev House.
Belsatzar ward in selbiger Nacht / Von seinen Knechten umgebracht or in English ‘Belsatzar was, on the same night, killed by his slaves.’
In the Old Testament story, the King of the Gentiles, Belshazzar, saw ‘the writing on the wall’ foretelling his destruction (Daniel 5) and he was killed as punishment for his offenses against Israel’s God.
In a clever play on the original Heine quotation the unknown writer, almost certainly one of the killers, substituted Belsatzar for Heine’s spelling Belsazar, in order to signal even more clearly his intended symbolism. The Heine inscription described the racial / ethnic nature of the murders: ‘A Gentile king had just been killed as an act of Jewish retribution.’
According to the guard’s recollection, the Empress and Grand Duchess Olga with others during the massacre made a vain attempt at crossing themselves. Yakov Yurovsky reportedly raised his gun at Nicholas’s torso and fired; the Tsar fell dead after which his killer shot the schoolboy son of the Tsar and Tsarina.
An assortment of killers then began shooting chaotically until all the intended victims had fallen. Several more shots were fired and the doors were then opened to disperse the smoke and fumes. A few of the martyrs survived the carnage. These unfortunates were stabbed to death with bayonets by Peter Ermakov. It was necessary for him and others to use bayonets as with the doors now open there was a need to keep the noise of the carnage muted.
The last martyrs to die were Tatiana, Anastasia, and Maria. Between them, the sisters were carrying a little over 1.3 kilograms of diamonds sewn into their clothing. This had given them a degree of protection from the gunshots. These young women and girls were bayoneted to death.
Olga sustained a gunshot wound to the head. Maria and Anastasia were said to have crouched up against a wall covering their heads in terror until they were shot down. The Jewish revolutionary Yakov Yurovsky personally killed Tatiana and Alexei. Tatiana died from a single bullet through the back of her head. Alexei received two bullets to the head, one behind the ear after the executioners realised he had not been killed by the first shot. Anna Demidova, Alexandra’s maid, survived the initial onslaught but was stabbed to death against the back wall while trying to defend herself with a small pillow that was filled with precious gems and jewels.
While the bodies were being placed on stretchers, one of the girls, possibly Anastasia, cried out and covered her face with her arm. Ermakov grabbed Alexander Strekotin’s rifle and bayoneted her in the chest. When it failed to penetrate the young woman’s torso he pulled out his revolver and shot her in the head.
Some of Pavel Medvedev’s stretcher bearers had by now begun to rifle through the victims’ clothes for valuables. On seeing such activity Yakov Yurovsky demanded that they surrender looted items or be shot.
In the hasty burial of the bodies, several jewels like these topazes were overlooked by Yurovsky’s murderers and eventually recovered by White Army investigator Nikolai Sokolov in 1919
The attempt to completely destroy the Imperial family’s remains began the following day. This operation was assisted by Yakov Yurovsky and carried out under the direction of Pyotr Voykov (Pinhus Wainer). The occasion was supervised also by Goloshchyokin and Beloborodov.
Pyotr Voykov recalled that dreadful scene with an involuntary shudder. He said that when this work was completed the dismembered cadavers were thrown down a forest mine. Upon this appalling scene of carnage was poured gasoline and sulphuric acid. In a vain attempt to destroy all evidence of the massacre the parts were afterwards allowed to burn for two days.
Pyotr Voykov afterwards recounted: “It was a terrible picture. We, the participants of the burning corpses were downright depressed about this nightmare. Even Yurovsky, in the end, could not resist and said that even those few days and he would have gone mad.” (Besedovsky G. Z. ‘On the Road to Thermidor’ M., 1997. S.111-116).
Soon after the massacre, Yekaterinburg was liberated by the White Armies. An aim of the liberating armies was to discover the mystery of the Imperial Russian family’s disappearance. To carry out his investigations the White Army’s delegated investigator, Nikolai Sokolov dressed as a peasant in order that he drew as little attention to himself as possible. It was at this point that the reward for the assassination of the Imperial family posted by Wall Street banker Jacob Schiff was settled. Jacob Schiff (1847~1920) is the Jewish-American banker whose financial clout funded the 1904 ~ 1905 Japanese in war against Tsarist Russia. Schiff’s apologists and palace historians say the banker’s generosity was on account of the alleged anti-Semitism of Tsar Nicholas II.
On the basis of the material brought before it the White Army’s official investigator Nikolai Sokolov drew the following conclusions: ‘the corpses were brought to the mine under the cover of darkness in the early morning of July 17, 1918. Clothing was roughly cut (damage is found on buttons, hooks, and eyes). The corpses were then dismembered and completely destroyed by fire and sulphuric acid.
At the same time, the bodies of those executed were heated with fat added to by lead from bullets. To explain the later finding of jewels Nikolai Sokolov explained that according to the testimony of the witness Tyegleva the Grand Duchess secretly sewed jewelry in her clothing. The princesses had also secreted gems in their apparel, some of which went unnoticed during the disposal of the family’s remains.
When the mine shaft was later excavated there were discovered much jewelry. From the torn brassieres a rain of pearls and precious stones cascaded. Some jewelry, mostly earrings, and pendants lay unnoticed in the surrounding grass. Despite the discovery of the jewelry the executioners and body disposal team worked quickly to finish their work with their paying attention to individual items. Witnesses reported the movement of cars and trucks, carts and riders near Ganina Yama 15 km north of Yekaterinburg. This area during the period July 17 to 19, 1918 was cordoned off by Red Guards. Nikolai Sokolov writes that during these days were also heard grenade explosions.
Ganina Yama (Ganya’s Pit or Ganina hole). Investigator Nikolai Sokolov at the site of a bonfire. Nikolai Sokolov devoted his life to collecting documents and evidence relating to the murder of the Romanovs.
Nikolai Sokolov later managed to find two orders drawn up by Pyotr Voykov on July 17, 1918. These orders had been placed with a local drugstore named Russian Society. Each order bore the requirement to issue employee Commissariat Zimin with sulphuric acid. The first order was for 5lbs with 3lbs more placed in the second jar. In total, Zimin was issued 11lbs of sulphuric acid for which was paid 196 roubles and 50 kopecks. According to Nikolai Sokolov, the sulphuric acid was delivered to the mine on 17 and 18 July.
At the mine itself traces of two large fires were discovered. Here, dozens of objects have since been discovered that relate to the murdered Imperial family. Many items were burned or otherwise destroyed. Nothing was spared of the Tsar’s family; even their pet dogs were slaughtered.
Nikolai Sokolov. To carry out his investigations the Nikolai Sokolov dressed in peasant in order that he draws as little attention to himself as possible.
Following the massacre of the Imperial family, the German-born Jacob Schiff celebrated the funding of the 1917 Bolshevik coup which had brought about regime change in Russia. Schiff had personally underwritten a substantial reward for the murder of the Russian royal family.
This Jewish banker’s investment funded a tyranny which, at the time of its collapse in 1990, is estimated to have directly or indirectly led to a loss of life estimated between 70 and 100 million mostly European Christians. Thus, Jacob Schiff appears to have achieved the dubious distinction of being the biggest killer in the history of humankind.
On the night of the New York celebrations a letter penned by the banker was read out to the ecstatic attendees.: “Will you say for me to those present at tonight’s meeting how deeply I regret my inability to celebrate with the Friends of Russian Freedom the actual reward of what we hoped for and striven for these long years.” ~ Jacob Schiff, New York bankers, ‘Kuhn, Loeb & Co. Quote: New York Times, March 24. 1917.
From this point on the insurrection was to continue until 1922. Soon after the expulsion of the White Armies corporate America and Europe moved in to plunder the assets of the nation that was before the coup Imperial Russia.
Yekaterinburg bore the name of Sverdlovsk from 1924 to 1991. The street and Ipatiev House where the Imperial family was placed under house arrest before their slaughter was renamed Sverdlov Street. In this grim building, Imperial Russian Emperor Nicholas II, his family and members of his household staff, were massacred. In 1991 a decision was made that this city’s name be returned to its original name of Yekaterinburg.
The Russian President Vladimir Putin during his tenure has atoned for the crimes carried out by the Bolsheviks. Throughout the Russian Federation now appear monuments dedicated to the memory of the Gulag network of slave camps. Ipatiev House was razed to the ground during the Soviet period in 1977. Since, on the ruins of the demolished house, stands Yekaterinburg’s Church of the Blood Cathedral.
In addition to the cathedral the Church of St. Nicholas (the Tsar has since been canonised) has been built at the Romanov Monastery. This holy place of pilgrimage is situated close to where the Tsar and his family’s remains were discovered at Ganina Yama.
About Author: Michael Walsh, an international journalist and broadcaster, was voted Writer of the Year by the Euro Weekly News Group of Newspapers. The author of 48 book titles, Walsh was the leader of the British Movement from 1968 to 1984. He now lives in Spain. Some of his books include Witness to History, Life in the Reich, Ransacking the Reich, The Red Brigands, Slaughter of a Dynasty, etc
 Erich E. Haberer, Jews and Revolution in Nineteeth-Century Russia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 9.  Benjamin Nathans, Beyond the Pale: Jewish Encounter with Late Imperial Russia (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002), 201-202.  Naomi Wiener Cohen, Jacob H. Schiff: A Study in American Jewish Leadership (Waltham, MA: Brandeis University Press, 1999), 38.  Paul Johnson, A History of the Jews (New York: Harper Perennial, 1987), 459.  Ibid., 369.  Ibid., 424.  Ibid., 451-452, 452-53.  Ibid., 458.  Yuri Slezkine, The Jewish Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 204), 105.  Johnson, A History of the Jews, 459.  Alexander Solzhenitsyn, “The Relentless Cult of Novelty,” Catholic Education Resource Center.  Steven Beller, Vienna and the Jews, 1867-1938: A Cultural History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 17.  http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/forrel.asp.  See Gary Allen, None Dare Call It Conspiracy (Cutchogue, NY: Buccaneer Books, 1976).  Cyrus Adler and Isidore Singer, ed., The Jewish Encyclopedia (New York: Funk-Wagnalls, 1901-1906), 583-585.
Two destinies are pulling on West Asia from two opposing visions of the future.
As devotees of the rules-based order laid out by Zbigniew Brzezinski 40 years ago strive to uphold their dystopic model of dividing populations to feed endless wars, a more optimistic program of cooperation is being ushered in by China’s ever-evolving Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
While many nations have jumped on board this new paradigm with enthusiastic support, others have found themselves precariously straddling both worlds.
Turkey plays footsie with great powers
Chief among those indecisive nations is the Republic of Turkey, whose leader was given a harsh wake up call on 15 July, 2016. It was on this date that Russian intelligence provided Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan the edge needed to narrowly avoid a coup launched by followers of exiled Islamist leader Fetullah Gulen.
The timing of the coup has been subject to much speculation, but the fact that it occurred just two weeks after Erdogan’s letter of apology to Putin went public was likely not a coincidence. The apology in question referred to Turkey’s decision to shoot down a Russian fighter jet flying in Syrian airspace in November 2015, killing a soldier and very nearly activating NATO’s collective security pact.
For years instrumental in providing weapons and logistical support to ISIS in both Iraq and Syria (via Operation Timber Sycamore), it is possible Erdogan was tiring of being used to further western interests in the Levant, when it had its own, quite different, aspirations in those territories.
Whatever the case, since that fateful day, Turkey’s behavior as a player in West Asia took on an improved (though not entirely redeemed) character on a number of levels. Chief among those positive behavioral changes is Ankara’s participation in the Astana process with Tehran and Moscow to demilitarize large swathes of Syria. Turkey then purchased Russian S400 medium-long range missile defense systems, and has recently advanced plans to jointly produce submarines, jet engines and warships with Russia, while also accelerating the construction of a nuclear reactor built by Rosatom.
That said, old habits die hard, and Turkey has been caught playing in both worlds, providing continued support for the terrorist-laden Free Syrian Army and Al Qaeda offshoot Hayat Tahrir Al Sham in Syria’s Idlib governorate. Turkey now has a total of 60 military bases and observation posts that provide protection for these and other militant groups in the country’s north.
The Middle Corridor option
On an economic level, Turkey’s ambition to become a gateway between Europe and Asia along the New Silk Road also indicates Erdogan’s resolution to break from his previous commitments to join the European Union and engage more intricately with the East.
Turkey’s 7500 km Trans-Caspian East-West Middle Corridor is an ambitious project that runs parallel to the northern corridor of the BRI connecting China to Europe.
This corridor, which began running in November 2019, has the benefit of cutting nearly 2000 km of distance off the active northern corridor and provides an efficient route between China and Europe. The route itself moves goods from the north-eastern Lianyungang Port in China through Xinjiang into Kazakhstan, the Caspian Sea, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey and on to Europe via land and sea routes. Erdogan has previously stated that “the Middle Corridor lies at the heart of the BRI” and has called to “integrate the Middle Corridor into the BRI.”
Other projects that are subsumed by the Middle Corridor include the $20 billion Istanbul Canal which will be a 45km connection between the Black and Marmara Seas (reducing traffic on the Bosporus) as well as the Marmara undersea railway, Eurasian Tunnel, and the third Istanbul Bridge.
Without China’s increased involvement, not only will these projects fail to take shape, but the Middle Corridor itself would crumble into oblivion. Chinese trade with Turkey recently grew from $2 billion in 2002 to $26 billion in 2020, more than 1,000 Chinese companies have investment projects throughout the nation, and Chinese consortiums hold a 65 percent stake in Turkey’s third largest port.
Restraining Ankara’s options
These projects have not come without a fight from both internal forces within Turkey and external ones. Two major Turkish opposition parties have threatened to cancel the Canal Istanbul as a tactic to scare away potential investors at home and abroad. And internationally, financial warfare has been unleashed against Turkey’s economy on numerous levels.
Credit ratings agencies have downgraded Turkey to a ‘high risk’ nation, and sanctions have been launched by the US and EU. These acts have contributed to international investors pulling out from Turkish government bonds (a quarter of all bonds were held by foreign investors in 2009, collapsing to less than 4 percent today) and depriving the nation of vital productive credit to build infrastructure. These attacks have also resulted in the biggest Turkish banks stating they will not provide any funding to the megaproject.
Despite the fact that Chinese investments into Turkey have increased significantly, western Financial Direct Investments (FDIs) have fallen from $12.18 billion in 2009 to only $6.67 billion in 2021.
Dialing down its Uyghur project
As with Turkey’s relations with Russia, Erdogan’s desperate need to collaborate with China in the financial realm has resulted in a change of policy in his support for Uyghur extremists. Of the 13 million Chinese Uyghurs, 50,000 live in Turkey, many of whom are part of a larger CIA-funded operation aimed at carving up China.
For many years, Turkey has provided safe haven to terrorist groups like the East Turkmenistan Islamic Movement, which cut its teeth fighting alongside ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Operatives affiliated with the World Uyghur Congress, funded by the US National Endowment for Democracy and based in Germany, have also found fertile soil in Turkey.
In 2009, Erdogan publicly denounced China for conducting a genocide on Muslims living in Xinjiang (long before it became de rigueur to do so in western nations). After Turkey’s 2016 failed coup, things began to change. In 2017, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu stated: “We will absolutely not allow in any activities in Turkey that target or oppose China. Additionally, we will take measures to eliminate any media reports targeting China.”
There are many parallels to Turkey’s protection of radical Islamic groups in Idlib, but Ankara’s protection of radical anti-China Uyghur groups was more gradual. However, recent significant moves by Erdogan have demonstrated good faith, including the 2017 extradition treaty signed with China (ratified by Beijing though not yet by Ankara), an increased clampdown on Uyghur extremist groups, and the decision to re-instate the exclusion order banning World Uyghur Congress president Dolkun Isa from entering Turkey on 19 September, 2021.
Might the INSTC bypass Ankara?
Not only is Turkey eager to play a role in China’s BRI and secure essential long term credit from Beijing – without which its future will be locked to the much diminished fortunes of the European Union – but Ankara has also factored the growing International North South Transportation Corridor (INSTC) into its calculus.
A multimodal corridor stretching across a dozen nations, the INSTC was launched by Russia, India and Iran in 2002 and has been given new life by China’s BRI. In recent years, members of the project have grown to also include Azerbaijan, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkey, Ukraine, Syria, Belarus, Oman and Bulgaria.
While Turkey is a member of the project, there is no guarantee that the megaproject will directly move through its borders. Here too, Erdogan is keen to stay on good terms with Russia and its allies.
The Middle Corridor loses its shine Up until now, Turkey’s inability to break with zero-sum thinking has resulted in the self-delusion that Turkey’s Middle Corridor would be the only possible choice China had to move goods through to Europe and North Africa.
This perception was for many years buoyed by the war across the ISIS-ridden region of Syria and Iraq (and the relative isolation of Iran), which appeared to ensure that no competing development corridor could be activated.
However, Iran’s entry into the BRI as part of its 25-year Comprehensive Strategic Partnership struck with China in March, and its ascension to full membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in September, has provided an attractive new east-west alternative route to the Middle Corridor.
This potential branch of the New Silk Road connecting China with Europe via Iran, Iraq and Syria into the Mediterranean through Syria’s port of Latakia provides a unique opportunity to not only reconstruct the war-torn West Asian nations, but to also create a durable field of stability after decades of western manipulation.
This new route has the additional attraction of incorporating Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and other Arab states into a new strategic dynamic that connects Eurasia with an African continent desperate for real development. As of this writing, 40 sub-Saharan African nations have signed onto China’s BRI.
The first glimmering light of this new corridor took form in a small but game-changing 30 km rail line connecting the border city of Shalamcheh in Iran with Basra in Iraq. Work began this year, with its $150 million cost supplied by the semi-private Mostazan Foundation of Iran.
Foreseeing a much larger expansion of this historic connection, Iran’s ambassador to Iraq stated: “Iraq can be connected to China through the railways of Iran and increase its strategic importance in the region … this will be a very big change and Iran’s railways will be connected to Iraq and Syria and to the Mediterranean.”
Ambassador Masjidi was here referring to the provisional agreement reached among Iran, Iraq and Syria in November 2018 to build a 1570 km railway and highway from the Persian Gulf in Iran to the Latakia Port via Iraq.
Already, Iran’s construction-focused investments in war-torn and sanction-torn Syria have grown immensely, boosting estimated trade between the two nations with an additional $1 billion over the next 12 months.
Indicating the higher development dynamic that is shaping the Iraq–Iran railway, Iraq’s Prime Minister stated in May 2021 that “negotiations with Iran to build a railway between Basra and Shalamcheh have reached their final stages and we have signed 15 agreements and memorandums of understanding with Jordan and Egypt regarding energy and transportation lines.”
Indeed, both Egypt and Jordan have also looked east for the only pathway to durable peace in the form of the New Silk Road. The trio of Egypt, Jordan and Iraq began setting the stage for this Silk Road route with a 2017 energy agreement designed to connect the electricity grids of the three nations and also construct a pipeline from Basra to Aqaba in Jordan followed by a larger extension to Egypt.
Iraq and the New Silk Road In December 2020, Iraq and Egypt agreed on an important oil for reconstruction deal along the lines of a similar program activated earlier by former Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul Mahdi and his Chinese counterpart in September 2019. The latter project was seriously downgraded when Mahdi stepped down in May 2020, and although PM Mustafa Al-Kadhimi has begun to repair Chinese relations, Iraq has not yet returned to the level of cooperation reached by his predecessor.
To date, the only major power that has shown any genuine concern for Iraq’s reconstruction – and been willing to invest actual resources toward it – has been China.
Despite the trillions of dollars wasted by the United States in its brutal invasion and occupation of the country, not a single energy project has been built by US dollars there. In fact, the only power plant constructed after 2003 has been the Chinese-built 2450 mW thermal plant in Wassit which supplies 20 percent of Iraq’s electricity. Iraq requires at least 19 GW of electricity in order to supply its basic needs after years of western bombardment strategically targeting its vital infrastructure.
To this day, hardly any domestic manufacturing exists in Iraq, with 97 percent of its needs purchased from abroad, and entirely with oil revenue. If this dire situation is to be reversed, then China’s oil-for-construction plan must be brought fully back online.
The kernel of this plan involves a special fund which will accumulate sales of discounted Iraqi oil to China until a $1.5 billion threshold is reached. When this happens, Chinese state banks have agreed to add an additional $8.5 billion, bringing the fund to $10 billion to be used on a full reconstruction program driven by roads, rail, water treatment, and energy grids, as well as soft infrastructure like schools and healthcare.
Where the western economic models have tended to keep nations underdeveloped by emphasizing raw material extraction with no long-term investments that benefit its citizenry, creating no manufacturing capabilities or an increase in the powers of labor, the Chinese-model is entirely different, focusing instead on creating full spectrum economies. Where the former is zero sum and a closed system, the latter model is win-win and open.
If Turkey can find the sense to liberate itself from the obsolete logic of zero sum geopolitics, then a bright future will await all of West and Central Asia.
There is no reason to believe that the Middle Corridor will in any way be harmed by the success of an Iran–Iraq–Syria Silk Road corridor, or by its African extensions. By encouraging the development of collaborative relations, large scale infrastructure, and full-spectrum economic networks, abundance can be created in these regions to offset the underdevelopment and stagnation of recent years.
The Inquiry, which included Walter Lippmann as well, met to assemble the strategy for the postwar world. According to The Anglo-American Establishment by Carroll Quigley, Col. House, along with Walter Lippmann, J.P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie, were all members of the Round Table. Like his son, J.P. Morgan Jr., J.P. Morgan belonged to the American branch of the Sovereign Order of Saint John of Jerusalem (SOSJ), part of the Russian Tradition of the Knights Hospitaller, which evolved from the Knights of Malta. In 1893, the Russian Ambassador to the United States, Prince Cantacuzene, Russian Admiral Grand Duke Alexander Michaelovich (1866 – 1933) and Russian Transportation Commissioner Colonel A. Cherep Spiridovich (1867 – 1926), the former head of the Okhrana, who wrote a biography of Rasputin, introduced the Russian SOSJ White Cross at the Chicago World’s Fair to American civic leaders. The Grand Duke was the son of Grand Duke Michael Nikolaevich of Russia, the youngest son of Nicholas I of Russia, and Grand Duchess Olga Feodorovna. Grand Duke Alexander directed the assassination of the spiritualist monk Gregori Rasputin in late 1916. The men directly involved in the murder of Rasputin were the Grand Duke’s sons, son-in-law, cousin and a member of British MI6.
The SOSJ was legitimately continued outside of Russia by Grand Duke Kirill Vladimirovich of Russia (1876 – 1938), son of the Russian SOSJ Grand Prior, Grand Duke Vladimir Alexandrovich of Russia (1847 – 1909). Kirill was the legal heir to the Russian throne as he was third in line behind the heir of Russia’s last Tsar, Nicholas II. Kirill was the son of Grand Duke Vladimir Alexandrovich of Russia, a grandson of Emperor Alexander II and a first cousin of Nicholas II. Kirill married his paternal first cousin, the granddaughter of Queen Victoria, Princess Victoria Melita of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Their granddaughter, Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna, is the current claimant to the headship of the House of Romanov.
Grand Duke Kirill assisted Richard Teller Crane of Chicago with plans to organize the American White Cross in New York City. Richard Teller Crane I (1832 – 1912) was the founder of R.T. Crane & Bro., a Chicago-based manufacturer, later Crane Co.. He was also a member of the famous Jekyll Island Club (aka The Millionaires Club) on Jekyll Island, Georgia, whose members came from many of the world’s wealthiest families, most notably the Morgans, Rockefellers, and Vanderbilts.
The American White Cross was designed for intelligence gathering operations. In 1901, the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (SMOM) headquartered in Rome, and Cardinal Gibbons, announced that an American Grand Priory would be started solely for the American Catholic members of a fraternal organization called the “Knights of St. John” which had been started about 1880 in imitation of the old order. In 1904, the American White Cross First Aid Society was started in Chicago by civic leader Mrs. Potter Palmer, Roman Catholic Cardinal Gibbons, the industrialist Andrew Carnegie, representatives of the U.S. Army and Edward Howe, formerly the American Red Cross Field Superintendent. A similar arrangement existed in England between the Venerable Order of St. John of Jerusalem and the British Red Cross.
An early and prominent member of the American White Cross was Wall Street lawyer William Nelson Cromwell (1854 – 1948). Future CIA chief Allen Dulles would later work for the law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell, founded in 1879 by Cromwell and Algernon Sydney, which gained renown for its business and commercial law practices and its impact on international affairs. The firm advised John Pierpont Morgan during the creation of Edison General Electric (1882) and later guided key players in the formation of U.S. Steel (1901). American Grand Priory leaders, Nicholas Murray Butler, President of Columbia University, Archer Huntington, founder of the Hispanic Society of America, William Nelson Cromwell, Wall Street lawyer and Francis C. Nicholas, founder of the American International Academy, are among those who crafted the American Grand Priory into an intelligence organization. Some results of their careers include the founding of the Republic of Panama and the successful purchase and construction of the Panama Canal. They were also responsible for the founding of the Pan-American “Organization of American States” and directly influenced the founders of the Central Intelligence Agency. Cromwell was responsible for the success of, among many other projects, McCormick Harvester, Carnegie’s U.S. Steel Corporation and the Panama Canal. He became Grand Prior of the American SOSJ in 1912.
An epidemic of political assassinations and the abortive Russian Revolution of 1905 prompted the expansion of the Order into the United States. In 1905, Count Alexis Ignatiev, Commander of the SOSJ Chevalier Guards, was assassinated in Russia. Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich was also assassinated. These events hastened the development of a permanent presence of the Knights of St. John in America. Cherep Spiridovich, President, was among the coordinators of this expansion. The American Grand Priory also had a history of cooperation with members of the monarchist and anti-Semitic Russian Black Hundred’s Movement due to their association with Cherep Spiridovich. As an intelligence operative, he was handled by the Russian Ambassador to the U. S., Baron Rosen.
In 1909, Grand Duke Vladimir was assassinated in Russia, and his son, Grand Duke Kirill, thereby became Grand Prior of the SOSJ Russian Grand Priory. William Nelson Cromwell became American Grand Prior in 1912, and meetings thereafter were usually held at his offices in the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel. The name of the hotel is ultimately derived from the town of Walldorf in Germany, the ancestral home of the prominent German-American Astor family who originated there. Others prominent in the OSJ at this time included John Jacob Astor until his death on the Titanic, J.P. Morgan, his son J.P Morgan, Jr. and the extended Cornelius Vanderbilt and Chicago Crane families. The Chicago Crane family affiliation with the White Cross eventually led, in 1941, to their daughter Frances’ marriage to OSJ Hereditary Knight Commander Belosselsky-Belozersky, in New York City. Charles R. Crane, son of R.T. Crane, became a philanthropist, diplomat, and, unfortunately, a financial supporter of the first Russian revolution of 1917.
The American Grand Priory leaders were mostly socially prominent Protestant Episcopalians from New York City and Chicago. There was also a small group of American descendants of Catholic Jacobites, who were still followers of the old Stuart Pretender to the throne of England and Scotland. The Pretender at the time was Queen Mary IV of Bavaria (1849 – 1919), and an army physician and OSJ member Edgar Erskine Hume was among those who later considered Mary’s successor, Bavarian Crown Prince Rupprecht (1869 – 1955), as his “rightful sovereign.” The American Grand Prior, William Nelson Cromwell, and Dr. Francis C. Nicholas had had contact with Spanish Knights of St. John during years of preparation work for the American Panama Canal project. Interaction with the Spanish knights was also the result of Americans meeting Spanish knights during the Spanish-American War from 1898 to 1900, and later during the Mexican civil wars. The remnant Castellany of Guadalajara, Mexico, of the Spanish Order of St. John the Baptist joined the American Grand Priory with their monarchist Pretender, Don Agustin Yturbide. King Alphonso XIII of Spain was the protector of the remnants of the Spanish Order which was given a papal blessing as late as 1879. He expanded his association to the SOSJ in America.
According to SOSJ’s own history, “The American Grand Priory was peopled with the scions of Wall Street and the ‘Eastern Establishment.’ These men and women, many of them active or reserve officers in the military, worked with the fledgling western military intelligence communities and made the Grand Priory the first civilian foreign intelligence organization in the United States.” As a result of the “success” of SOSJ international ventures, President Wilson and Col. House had created “The Inquiry” at the American Grand Priory headquarters on upper Broadway in New York City in 1917, which became the internationalist advisory Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in 1921.
From the book, Ordo ab Chao, by David Livingstone.
Blaming cyber attacks on governments has become routine, but has it resulted in accountability, punishment, or reduction in hostile cyber activities?
In the ongoing cyber tete-a-tete between nation states, the digital domain has been used to conduct an array of operations including network exploitation, data theft, network disruption, and network destruction. Additionally, states have used the cyber domain and the tools therein (e.g., social media, chat rooms, bulletin boards, blogs) to enable other more traditional operations of statecraft such as propaganda, disinformation, and social/political influence operations. Long considered difficult to attribute, governments are more confident in publicly identifying the states they believe are responsible for covert cyber activities against them. In an effort to strengthen such claims, levying legal indictments against the individuals responsible—often foreign nationals with a direct tie to a government or a military—has become popular. The United States in particular has engaged in this practice, executing indictments for cyber activities since 2014 against state actors with direct or tangential ties to foreign governments.
The tactic seemed practical at first, bringing formal charges against suspected government actors, and by extension, implicating that government for supporting, or at least, giving tacit approval of, the activities. The May 2014 indictment against five actors tied to the People’s Liberation Army appears to have had direct influence in China and the United States agreeing not to not to hack each other for commercial advantage in 2015. For a brief period after, this seemed to work with a noticeable reduction in the volume of Chinese theft of intellectual property. However, this was short lived with China allegedly resuming normal level of cyber operations in 2018.
Still, proponents of the indictment strategy have pointed out that an important gain was made—persuading China to curb its previous levels of data theft; in essence, the indictment appeared to have influenced a state’s cyber behavior. While it did not last, it could be argued that even the momentary success suggested that the approach was viable and just needed adjustment for to accomplish strategic deterrence. After all, shortly after the 2014 China-U.S. agreement was made, China entered into similar understanding with Russia in 2015, and ultimately led the G20 (including China) to make a comparable arrangement in November 2015. Many G20 nations were among those that China had also targeted via its global cyber espionage and intellectual property theft operations.
Unsurprisingly, these agreements have not deterred commercial cyber theft, nor more traditional cyber espionage activities, particularly from China that likely views industrial cyber theft a national security imperative for the country’s continued economic development. As long as China sees economic strength as essential to its emergence as a global leader, supporting Chinese companies that are important to accomplishing this goal could be perceived as less about commercial advantage and more about preserving its national interests. This is an important nuance to keep in mind when understanding why China continues to do what it does. Countries finally began to see the futility in trying to make certain countries like China honor these agreements in 2019 when 27 governments signed a joint statement to advance responsible state behavior in cyberspace. Notably, neither China nor Russia were signatories.
Where diplomatic overtures have thus failed, the U.S. has resorted to indictments and has since levied them against official and non-official actors linked to Iran, North Korea, and Russia. As of this writing, these indictments have not yielded the obvious objective—state deterrence from conducting the crimes for which they have been charged. However, this raises the hopeful question—if deterrence wasn’t the primary objective, have indictments achieved what was truly intended? Certainly, indictments could be foils used to further other U.S. political or economic objectives. If so, their influence may not be readily seen as instrumental to achieving seemingly unrelated strategic goals.
Another likely objective is to get on record that a particular government is responsible for illicit cyber activity, thereby letting the world know of its culpability. This seems to be closer to the mark. Prior to May 2014, attribution made in public was mostly accusatory and based on speculation and suspicion, or at least without providing classified evidence to strengthen claims. Indictments have since changed that paradigm, purposefully made for global consumption and to make it clear who the charging state believes to be behind a specific incident. Since there is little hope that any of these individuals will be extradited to the United States, indictments seem less about arrest and prosecution and more about demonstrating capability to identify culprits by detailing their operations. Simply, punishment does not appear to be the primary motive.
Other states have now joined the public attribution bandwagon. In March 2020, Chinese computer security company Qihoo 360 reported that the CIA had been conducting an 11-year cyber espionage campaign against Chinese organizations and in April identified South Korean cyber espionage activity targeting Chinese health organizations for COVID-19 information. Qihoo 360 works closely with the Chinese government, which has prompted concerns with companies like Microsoft collaborating with the company. Although not an official arm of the Chinese government, its stature as a global cyber security leader and a primary supplier of security and monitoring equipment to the People’s Republic of China raises the question of how the company could be used as the voice for leadership. Iran, too, is no stranger to calling out perpetrators of cyber attacks, citing the United States and Israel for various cyber attacks. Even North Korea blamed the United States for knocking it off the Internet, after the former had accused North Korean hackers of attacking Sony in November 2014.
It remains to be seen if or when other foreign governments will step up to the next level and levy cyber indictments against other countries. It is likely that they will wait and see how the United States fares with this approach and if any favorable results are realized. The recent removal of two Russian companies from indictment set forth by special counsel Robert Mueller illustrates a potential impediment to indictment strategy, further raising the question of its effectiveness at deterring future cyber incidents by state and/or state-related entities. One of the companies challenged the charges, hiring a law firm to defend it, marking the first time a defendant has been willing to go to court on a cyber-related indictment. The potential threat of exposing classified information was one reason provided for this result. The fact that the charges were dropped may encourage other indicted individuals and entities to follow suit, potentially derailing the strategy, reducing it to an exercise in making formal attribution.
Cyber operations were once clandestine and mysterious; now, states are emboldened to pull back the curtain and sanitize them in the public spotlight. What remains consistent for now is that public attribution—whether via accusation, indictment, or naming and shaming—has done little to change state behavior, decrease volume of activity, or deter future activity. It’s clear that any one approach—whether it be a legal action, economic influence, a retaliatory strike, or diplomatic engagement—is not a silver bullet, and should not be done independently of each other if any progress is to be made in how cyber space is used for and against states. They must be done in concert and in proportion to the inciting incident, and with a quantifiable, reachable, goal in mind. Absent that, the stakes are not high enough to incite the change that’s often talked about but never done. Perhaps states should consider the fable of the shepherd boy who called wolf before making public attribution. Calling wolf frequently does not get the volume of support to stop the threat; rather, it numbs ears so that they don’t listen and ignore signs that that pack is closing in.
Nord Stream 2 is a $12 billion pipeline bringing the Arctic Russian gas under the Baltic Sea to Germany. Doesn’t seem that hot-button right. I mean, it’s a progressive initiative that is expected to double the Russian gas supply to Germany, Europe’s largest economy. It’s a little more complicated than that. The reality is that Russia already supplies 40% of the EU’s total gas supply – just behind Norway. The new pipeline is reportedly touted to increase that amount by as much as 55 billion cubic meters per annum. That project has thus permeated a prospect of EU’s dependence on Russia, majorly spearheaded by the Russian-arch-rival United States. Another hurdle is that the pipeline is effortlessly skipping Ukraine to supply gas to Germany. With the Moscow-Ukraine Transit agreement expiring in 2024, it is estimated that the pipeline would cost Kyiv an annual loss of $1.5 billion in transit fees. Thus, brewing geopolitical aggravation and monopolizing concerns misting Russia, the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline is much more complicated than I initially assumed; until I dabbled with each perspective in detail.
Target sectors: Multiple, including government, international financial organization, and aerospace and defense organizations, as well as high tech, construction and engineering, telecommunications, media, and insurance.
Overview: APT31 is a China-nexus cyber espionage actor focused on obtaining information that can provide the Chinese government and state-owned enterprises with political, economic, and military advantages.
In the modern world, a multipolar model is clearly taking shape – almost taking shape. It replaced the unipolarity that was marked after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and especially the USSR. And the unipolar world, in turn, replaced the bipolar one, in which the Soviet camp geopolitically and ideologically opposed the capitalist West. These transitions between different
Take a look at this new hashtag #nato2030 all over the massive worldwide, globalist think-tanks and foundations as they “define NATO’s role in 2030″…
Chatham House – New Ideas for NATO 2030
NATO has been a bedrock of security and stability for over 70 years. But today, it is facing an increasingly complex world full of new actors, threats and challenges. How can it guarantee that it will remain fit, united and adaptable in this new world? What hard decisions does it need to take to be fit for purpose in the next decade? In his first major policy speech of 2021, NATO Secretary-General, Jens Stoltenberg, outlines his vision for NATO to 2030 with recommendations from the NATO 2030 Young Leaders – a group he appointed to advise him on how the organization can meet the demands of a rapidly changing world. The event also features the culmination of a week-long policy hackathon that will see students from 10 universities ‘pitch for purpose’ on key strategic themes for NATO 2030: Turning the tide: NATO’s role in defending and re-shaping a values-based international order Full spectrum security: building resilience against economic security risks People first: protecting populations in modern-day conflicts Innovating innovation: next steps in technology cooperation Less is more: reducing military carbon emissions How will NATO continue to be a strategic anchor in uncertain times? How will it adapt to well-known threats such as terrorism and new risks that loom from pandemics and climate change particularly as emerging and disruptive technologies (EDTs) present both dangers and opportunities for its members? And what lessons can be drawn from NATO’s experience that can apply to other multilateral organizations?
GLOBSEC – The Future of Warfare
NATO leaders have asked the Secretary-General to lead a forward-looking reflection on NATO’s future, NATO 2030. As part of this effort, NATO seeks to strengthen its engagement with civil society, youth and the private sector. This is why NATO is launching the NATO 2030: NATO-Private Sector Dialogues. Facilitated by GLOBSEC, the dialogues will look to deepen the involvement of the private sector across the transatlantic sphere and galvanize their activity in advancing NATO’s collective security agenda. This initiative will begin with a conference on November 25th focusing on The Future of Warfare and the Role of New and Emerging Technologies that will bring together experts from the fields of technology, security, and public policy. Threats in the international security landscape have never been so diverse or so quick to materialize. From hypersonic delivery systems to the integration of machine-human teaming on the battlefield, quantum leaps in technological development and ultra-connectivity are transforming how nations assess national security threats as well as how they organize societies and engage with citizens. This interplay between technology, society, and conflict is only just beginning, and the Transatlantic community will need critical reflection leading to action to guarantee its peace and prosperity. Going forward, and into 2021, six NATO 2030 dialogues will explore how the private sector can contribute to addressing the most pressing technology-based security risks and contribute to increasing societal resilience across the Alliance. GLOBSEC is proud to have been selected by NATO to lead the engagement with the private sector on this high-profile project. We encourage you to follow GLOBSEC on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and our website where you can find the latest news on #NATO2030, as well as information about the upcoming conference. You can find all the information about the event here: https://bit.ly/3phVm1l
Munich Security Conference – NATO 2030 Youth Summit
Fourteen emerging leaders from across the Alliance were nominated as #NATO2030 Young Leaders at the NATO 2030 Youth Summit to assist #NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg with input to inform his recommendations for NATO 2030. Here, they introduce themselves and answer questions posed to them by incumbent heads of state, including Zuzana Čaputová, Boris Johnson, Kersti Kaljulaid, Angela Merkel, Mark Rutte, Pedro Sánchez and Justin Trudeau.
Atlantic Council – NATO 2030: Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg on strengthening the Alliance in a post-COVID world
As COVID-19 accelerates existing global trends and tensions, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg discusses how the Alliance is embracing this new normal and preparing for the next decade and beyond. For more information, please visit: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/event… —————————— Subscribe for more! https://www.youtube.com/user/Atlantic… Driven by our mission of “shaping the global future together,” the Atlantic Council is a nonpartisan organization that galvanizes US leadership and engagement in the world, in partnership with allies and partners, to shape solutions to global challenges. Find out more about us by visiting: atlanticcouncil.org
German Marshall Fund – NATO 2030 – United for a New Era
Speakers: Marta Dassù, Senior Director, European Affairs, The Aspen Institute; Editor-in-Chief, Aspenia Thomas de Maizière, Member, German Bundestag Wess Mitchell, Vice Chairman, Board of Directors, Center for European Policy Analysis Moderator Ian Lesser, Vice President, The German Marshall Fund of the United States At their December 2019 meeting, NATO leaders invited Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg to lead a forward-looking reflection process to strengthen NATO’s political dimension. To support him in this process, Stoltenberg appointed a group of ten experts to answer a broad set of questions, including how to keep NATO strong militarily, more united politically, and how to engage the Alliance globally. In November 2020, the Reflection Group published their conclusions in a report titled “NATO 2030: United for a new Era.” Please join the co-chairs of the Reflection Group to discuss the analysis and recommendations of the report and to explore some of the key issues pertaining to the future of the Alliance.
SFU NATO Field School and Simulation Program- NATO2030 Hackathon
In on February 4th, 2021, a team of NATO Field School alumni participated in the first-ever NATO2030 Policy Hackathon, where they pitched innovative ideas to a wide NATO audience, including the Secretary General. The SFU team was the only Canadian university represented in the competition, and in the end an expert jury panel determined them to have won in their category, Reducing Military Carbon Emissions, and judged their presentation to be in 2nd place overall, tied with Harvard University.
Carnegie Europe – NATO in 2030: Adapting to a New World
With the changing nature of global security challenges, the coming decade will see NATO confronted by emerging world powers, climate change, and new disruptive technologies. Is NATO prepared for this future? Can it balance firm military commitments with political unity and a broader global mandate? Carnegie Europe is delighted to host a virtual discussion on the findings of the independent group supporting NATO 2030 (https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl20…), a forward-looking process initiated by the NATO Secretary General in March 2020. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg will give a keynote address, before group co-chairs Thomas de Maizière and Wess Mitchell are joined by Alexandra de Hoop Scheffer and Anna Wieslander for a discussion on the coming decade for NATO. Rosa Balfour will moderate. To submit a question for the event, please use the YouTube chat, email email@example.com, or tweet at @Carnegie_Europe using the hashtag #NATO2030. To receive invitations to similar events and alerts of new publications, register here: https://carnegieeurope.eu/resources/r…
Woodrow Wilson Center – Is NATO Prepared for the Future
How well is NATO prepared for the future? NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg asked former German Defense Minister Thomas de Maizière and former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Wess Mitchell to co-chair an independent Reflection Group to take up the challenge.
American Council on Germany – Moving Towards NATO 2030
Dr. Thomas de Maizière, Member of the Bundestag (CDU) and former Defense Minister, and Dr. A. Wess Mitchell, Vice Chairman of CEPA and former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Europe discuss the findings of the independent Reflection Group on the future strategic concept for NATO 2030, established by Secretary General Stoltenberg, which they chaired over the course of nine months in 2020.
European CFR – NATO in a Multipolar World
Discussion on the role of NATO in a world of revived geopolitical competition with a focus on the potential of the transatlantic alliance, organised by the European Council on Foreign Relations – Sofia office. The event took place on 16 December 2020 in a hybrid format with a connection from Sofia. Interview: “NATO 2030 – United for a New Era” – key takeaways, with • Marta Dassù, Board member, ECFR; Senior Advisor for European Affairs, The Aspen Institute Speakers: • Assen Agov, Journalist, Former Member of Parliament and Chair of the Foreign Policy Committee, Bulgarian National Assembly • Dzhema Grozdanova, ECFR Council Member; Former Chair of the Foreign Policy Committee, Bulgarian National Assembly • Dragomir Zakov, Ambassador, Permanent Representative of the Republic of Bulgaria to NATO Moderator: Vessela Tcherneva, Deputy Director and Head of Sofia office, ECFR
The NWO as seen in 1990 died in 2020. The idea of a New World Order we lost alot, and worse here in America complete loss of trust in any government/media/bullshit narrative:
• The sensational attack on Iraq (which had legitimate beef with Kuwait). This was done under the guise of liberating Kuwait – when in fact this was done to entrench US Military assets permanently in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan and Israel….at the behest of the wishes of the Zionist agenda for a Greater Israel Project.
• Waco – documented on the film “Waco – A New Revelation” , this is the most powerful expose of what really happened at the beginning of the standoff with a 4 hour gun battle raging between Waco compound Christians vs. ATF, DEA, FBI, State Police agents armed to the teeth for a blood bath. And how the fuckery intertwines with Texas State Government, the Clinton Administration…and how Delta Force (a shadow black ops force) officially ended the standoff providing military grade ammunition rounds, flame accelerants and tactical and logistical support. If you watch the documentary, there are dozens of former ATF, DEA, FBI, CIA, local Waco police, Texas State Police members (mostly former members) testify to the truth – Waco was a GAY-OP.
•Y2K… this was such a scam. Look at the power vacuum quickly usurped by this explosion in “security software” which actually created bloatware/spyware/adware/viruses/worms/trojan horses etc to make their bullshit software seem effective. Anyone that understands TCP/IP protocols and FTP/SSH/SSL and a bulk of these network telecommunications standards know that a PHYSICAL FIREWALL that manages layers of administrative access is the best way to reduce “h4XX0rz” ….
•The tech “dot com” stock bubble and Lead Zeppelin like crash. Financial analysts, advisors and planners as well as brokers etc had violated their FIDUCIARY DUTY to the PUBLIC TRUST by pushing fictious asset bubbles that were stocks trading at 247 times earnings – because they weren’t earning anything. Pets.com at one point was trading at like $400 share. All it was – was a domain. In the realms of private equity and venture capital this type of scenario is commonplace. That is, a business entity lacking actual business operations as well as any type of Immediate plan to launch an operation….pure SPECULATION AND MOMENTUM KILLED THE INVESTMENT MARKETS. Now 82 yo retired truckers in Nevada as well as 22 yo college students in Boston could electronically place stock trades – purely riding speculation and momentum. Very few people understood “day trading” The value of a capital investment – in financial/economic fundamental terms proper means “the net present value of future discounted cash flows.” These principals of the markets died with momentum and speculation based trading and hence the big tech dot com bubble crash in March 2000. With people having $500 in the bank yet they have leveraged 4x the amount of shares in Lucent Technologies, never realized any of the unrealized gains they had for they figured the boom times would last forever…and ended up in bankruptcy.
•Enron accounting fraud in collusion with their auditors Arthur Anderson CPA. Enron was bigger than Exxon Mobil – on paper. But their auditor (the auditor acts as a detective of the reasonableness and completeness of stated balance sheet account items as well as the yearly statement of operations aka income statement. It was quite obvious that AA, CPA was breaking their duty to the public trust and were entangled in the greatest financial conflict of interest of the new millennium as they were AIDING AND ABETTING the financial scheme which allowed Enron to bury losses through off balance sheet “variable interest entities”. These entities however would obtain millions even billions in funding. And Enron had tens of thousands of them. And they would take the monies that technically, in accounting terms, were loans or the fancy term “corporate debentures”. Therefore these monies should have been reported as LIABILITIES/DEBT. Instead the influx of the cash was recorded as REVENUE. Enron was the largest entity in market cap of all the energy companies circa 2000, battling with rivals Exxon Mobil and Gazprol. Enron even tricked their entire workforce to sink 100% of all of their retirement assets into Enron ESOP and Preferred Stock and Common Stock acquisitions. This was malicious in intent, made two years before the Enron collapse, which was a decade in the making. And those tens of thousands of ordinary working class people were left penniless in terms of retirement funds and had no where to turn. And the SEC, the regulatory body that is supposed to monitor such related party and offshore and off balance sheet events and transactions – dropped the fucking ball! Who got punished? A small handful of Enron executives , some of which took their own lives prior to facing the judgement of the court of law. This was the biggest erasure of net worth revolving around a SINGLE FUCKING BUSINESS. EVER. The impact on the prudence and viability and reliability and the skeptics new eye of the actual financial health and reality of publicly traded companies entered a new phase for fear. Let’s couple this with similar schemes at Tyco, WorldCom, there are many others.
• Then the planes hit the buildings. Men like Alex Jones who were laughed off as koooks and fear mongering desperados trying to make a buck saw this coming for years. Infact, there were multiple streams and live call in shows Alex Jones and Infowars (pre-Super Male Vitality horseshit days) from May 2001- August 2001 where Jones stated as clear as the night is day that “an attack is going to happen on the United States soil, a terrorist attack, to help usher in a police and welfare state as part of the NWO’s master plan for power over the people of the free world. Yeah, there were “radicalized Islamic Jihadists” that boarded those planes convinced they were on a holy mission. And for them, it very well was. However, the state’s official narrative that 19 men circled the globe and circumvented investigation and then successfully hijacked 4 large jumbo jets and crashed them into targets – this is only the Jihadists version. Perhaps aware, perhaps not, this was allowed to happen. The Israeli mossad agents dancing and lighting lighters and taking pictures admitted on a November nightly TV show in Israel that they were there to “document the event”. Ryan Dawson has done absolutely amazing work laying out in mind-blowing, explicit details and I highly suggest checking out his work for you to see the inner workings of the powers behind the 9/11 attack. Another thing, a man named Lyndon Larouche, a politician (Third Positionist) wanted to enter the Senate and begin to point out the major fuckery of our wages/prices disparity, over-aggressive appreciation in property values in record minimum time, he spoke about the Secret Police state, how no citizen is safe and how a Zionist cabal of international central banks was working to ultimately destroy the freedoms of the constitution. In January of 2001 – HE PREDICTED THE ATTACKS, THE NARRATIVE, THE RETALIATION AGAINST AFGANISTAN TALIBAN FOR HOUSING AL QAUDA – and finally how this would be the carrying out of Bill Kristol’s PNAC white paper – written in 1998. And Larouche got thrown into an investigation of filing inaccurate tax returns that landed him in federal felony territory. I myself have been a CPA since 2006 and I know the severity of the charges he faced – where to destroy his political career – for any ordinary tax payer may have made the same mistakes – it’s a 95% chance they would simply be mandated by the IRS to amend their returns. The fuckery of FREEDOM!
• AFGANISTAN war. Very ironic. For in 1979, THE US CIA, STATE DEPARTMENT, the Israeli Mossad, the British MI-6 and other glow in the dark CIA ninjas created the Mujahideen – Islamic Jihadists, mostly mercenaries that were not from Afganistan – they were armed to fight “Capitalism’s proxy war” against the USSR.
They were supplied with liquidity, weapons, training, logistics, food, medical supplies, tactical training. And one of the main assets of the Mujahideen was one Tim Osman. Aka Osama Bin-Laden. The book House of Bush, House of Saud does an excellent job of illustrating in detail the emergence of an alliance between the Bush family and it’s consortium of close ties, with both the Royal Saudi Family as well as the Bin-Laden dynasty – a very large electricity and commercial hardware powerhouse in the Middle East and surrounding areas (think General Electric, Honeywell sized – also think monopoly).
As the Afganistani native forces with heavy support from this Mujahideen apparatus never allowed the Soviets to take control of Afganistan and after a decades long campaign of guerilla warfare, the Mujahideen prevailed. Soon there after , with 2 years, the USSR fell.
The remnants of the Mujahideen were not that. No remnants. This was now a unique Pro-Islamic, Pro-protect vital resources, Anti-privatization, Anti-deregulation, Anti-Western value system, Anti-foreign intervention league of HOLY WARRIORS. And a generation went by (1989-1998) when the Mujahideen morphed and created new alliances, Sunni and Shiite alike, with Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Nusra…there are many thousands of small factions over history the Mujahideen – renamed “Al-Queda” upon the day of the planes hitting the buildings in NYC and DC. Al-Queda simply means “the base” in Arabic.
What transpired was these Holy Warriors had a new enemy of oppression, new enemies and ideals intertwined with DEMOCRACY. 1. The aggressive actions of the Zionist ethnostate against Palestinian people, land and rights. 2. Companies like the now defunct Enron, also Chevron, Exxon Mobil, BP, etc absolutely ignoring the sovereignty of these Arabic nations and frankly coercing Arabic governments into taking loans from the International Monetary Fund that were destined to default. And default they did. And from Morocco to Libya to Tunisia to Lebanon to Afganistan – mega fossil fuel conglomerates were pillaging fossil fuels from the region. Amongst many more human atrocities never discussed under the banner of American Exceptionalism.
And US military assets became the police of the world for one key reason – to enforce the viability of the Petrodollar. Plainly stated, say the UN recognized 200 sovereign nations. Some 175 of them were REQUIRED to be in PHYSICAL POSSESSION of the DOLLAR to purchase Brent and Crude market oil.
The Afganistan war was tied into this. Also, the opportunity to seize control of 90% of the world’s poppy supply (used for oxycodone, heroin, etc). 20 years since 2001 we are still there…and for what? For the struggle of the precious resources – poppy – and pipelines.
• 2003, the Iraq war, marked the official downfall of America as the “do no wrong” world superpower. They wanted this war against Saddam Hussein and this had nothing to do with “SPREADING DEMOCRACY”.
2000 election/supreme Court
Housing, food, transport costs rise
Tech, toys, distractions , porn free
Sexual revolution in the 20 yrs
Hope and change – Obama
Financial crisis 2007-08
APPLE, GOOGLE, MICROSOFT, FACEBOOK, AMAZON – monopolies that stifle innovation, crush ordinary people, run on tax funded telegram taxes, public utility, public square, censorship