Reviewing books, articles, and podcasts, Toward Freedom From Want attempts to bring focus on truth through a sea of deception and distraction. Having school-age children of my own, I share some of my educational strategies.
The deep state is global; the only “American” aspect of it is represented by traitorous characters making up the Uniparty; but it’s nearly succeeded in getting us to forget our true identity as Americans. Other countries have also been battling this globalist Military Occult Banking Syndicate (MOBS); which for centuries has been open about its desire to centralize global control in the hands of a few unelected officials at supranational organizations: a unilateral goal under a thin veneer of multilateralism. Some countries are closer to shutting it out, and better about educating their citizenry, than others. Henry C. Carey, leading economic advisor to Abraham Lincoln, made the American System and its fascist alternative (he identified as “the English system”) crystal clear in 1851:
“Two systems are before the world; the one looks to increasing the proportion of persons and of capital engaged in trade and transportation, and therefore to diminishing the proportion engaged in producing commodities with which to trade, with necessarily diminished return to the labor of all; while the other looks to increasing the proportion engaged in the work of production, and diminishing that engaged in trade and transportation, with increased return to all, giving to the laborer good wages, and to the owner of capital good profits… One looks to pauperism, ignorance, depopulation, and barbarism; the other in increasing wealth, comfort, intelligence, combination of action, and civilization. One looks towards universal war; the other towards universal peace. One is the English system; the other we may be proud to call the American system, for it is the only one ever devised the tendency of which was that of elevating while equalizing the condition of man throughout the world…Such is the true mission of the people of these United States…To raise the value of labour throughout the world, we need only to raise the value of our own. To improve the political condition of man throughout the world, it is that we ourselves should remain at peace, avoid taxation for maintenance of fleets and armies, and become rich and prosperous…To diffuse intelligence and to promote the cause of morality throughout the world, we are required only to pursue the course that shall diffuse education throughout our own land, and shall enable every man more readily to acquire property, and with it respect for the rights of property. To substitute true Christianity for the detestable system known as the Malthusian, it is needed that we prove to the world that it is population that makes the food come from the rich soils, and food tends to increase more rapidly than population, thus vindicating the policy of God to man.” - Henry C. Carey’s Harmony of Interests (1851)
Learning history through the lens of these two systems resolves a lot of paradoxes, and reading perspectives from either side in every era makes it clear that from its initial inception, the American System is the true nemesis of fascism and imperial rule. Anton Chaitkin writes:
In his 1903 book Mankind in the Making, British strategist H. G. Wells bluntly stated the “problem”: U.S.-led global industrialization had suddenly imperiled thousands of years of oligarchical rule. The old system of control over a subservient populace was gone.
Wells wrote,
‘… in a sense, the British system, the pyramid of King, land-owning and land-ruling aristocracy, yeomen and trading middle-class and labourers, is dead—it died in the nineteenth century under the wheels of mechanism . . . Our greatest peers are shareholders, are equipped by marriage with the wealth of Jews and Americans, are exploiters of colonial resources and urban building enterprises; [but] their [old feudal] territorial titles are a mask and a lie.’
In response to the American threat, the Empire must act -- was already acting -- to overwhelm that republic, to extinguish its unique political, industrial and cultural qualities, and squash the dangerously awakened higher aspirations of common people….
What’s going on? If you ever read E. D. Morel’s 1912 book, “Ten Years of Secret Diplomacy,” or more recent titles like Carroll Quigley‘s “Tragedy and Hope,” “The Secret Origins of the First World War” by Gerry Docherty and Jim Macgregor, or “Conjuring Hitler” by Guido Giacomo Preparata (in fact, many such titles have emerged over the last two decades), you may be familiar with the shockingly perfidious scheming of British secret diplomacy, perpetrated by a covert cabal within the ruling establishment. That secret diplomacy – kept secret primarily from the British people – has led to the last two world wars on the European continent. This was done deliberately and with premeditated intention to bring about both great wars.
The purpose of the First World War was to destroy Germany. WW2 was planned in order to use Germany and other central and eastern European nations to destroy the USSR.
…who is exacerbating war tensions and why[?] As I mentioned in the past, the strategy is always based on the same imperial obsession: defending the hegemony over the Eurasian landmass and eliminating any power that can jeopardize that hegemony. Today, that puts Russia and China in the empire’s crosshairs…
“The Revolution of the past 150 years has not been completed: neither here in the United States, or in any other Nation in the World. We know that this Revolution cannot stop until Freedom From Want has been attained.” - Henry Wallace's Four Freedoms Speech (1942)
When Did the United States Start Taking the Widest Degree of Deviation From its Noble Past?
America did not progress in the way that either FDR or Henry Wallace had planned; a fact FDR’s son Elliott makes crystal clear in As He Saw It: The Story of the World Conferences of FDR, which can be downloaded for free. Reading this enlightening book should be a requirement for American High School History education. While FDR’s relationship with Stalin grew to be what he considered a warm alliance, he was endlessly frustrated and irate over Henri Giraud, Charles de Gaulle (at that time), and Winston Churchill’s colonialist priorities:
“One sentence, Elliott: When we’ve won the war, I will work with all my might and main to see to it that the United States is not wheedled into the position of accepting any plan that will further France’s imperialistic ambitions, or that will aid or abet the British Empire in its imperial ambitions”(p.116).
Anton Chaitkin describes the background of FDR and how he became a revolutionary, defending and advancing principles of both Alexander Hamilton and Abraham Lincoln. This is information many conservatives are missing today. Ethical statehood and wise governance serving the benefit of the Nations’ citizens have never been qualities owned exclusively by any one political party, and are currently seldom seen in either.
The UN, the Atlantic Charter, and the Bretton Woods Institutions were originally intended to be conduits for global development which respected sovereignty of all nations.
When the concept for the United Nations was developing between 1940-1945, the concept was inextricably tied to two objectives- one negative and one positive: 1) the dismantling of the systems of imperialism in its French, British, Dutch and Belgium forms, and 2) the creation of an entity that could enhance diplomacy, and economic dialogue to carry out the objectives of the Four Freedoms outlined by FDR’s Vice President Henry Wallace…
If either goal (dismantling of systems of empire or establishing systems of win-win cooperation) would have any hope of success, then new institutions had to be created in tandem with the UN. It was here that the battle between the forces of the British Empire clashed with nationalist forces with the leading anti-imperialist economist Harry Dexter White going toe-to-toe with John Maynard Keynes over the structure of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).
The character of this effort to prevent Keynes’ program for a central bankers’ run world order under a new colonial reconquest was found in the concept of internationalizing the New Deal”.
In 1936, Keynes published The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, a manual to save capitalism by a theoretical plea for governments to use state resources to recycle profits and balance an unbalanceable system. Keynes, who dabbled in eugenics theory, did not extend his views on state intervention to protect the system in the British colonies and prevent the decline of their population’s living standards.
When the United States invited its allies to Bretton Woods (New Hampshire) in July 1944 to discuss how to manage the structural crises that contributed to the Second World War, Keynes – who was one of the main figures at this meeting – said that it would be ‘the most monstrous monkey house assembled for many years’, suggesting that ‘twenty one countries [that] have been invited’ – presenting a list of primarily colonised countries, from Guatemala and Liberia to Iraq and the Philippines – ‘clearly have nothing to contribute and will merely encumber the ground’.11
Instead, Keynes preferred that the two founder states of the Bretton Woods Conference, the United Kingdom and the United States, ‘settle the charter and the main details of the new body without being subjected to the delays and confused counsels of an international conference’, as he explained a few years earlier.12In fact, Keynes (on behalf of the United Kingdom) and Harry Dexter White (on behalf of the United States) arrived at the meeting with two plans already drafted, which they put on the table and upon which the final Articles of Agreement for the International Monetary Fund as well as the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (or the World Bank) were built. The other participants were largely onlookers.
Despite the limited input of most of the world, which was still under colonial rule, the purpose of the IMF as laid out in the Articles of Agreement was straightforward, none of it built to extend the power of the British imperial system.
Harry Dexter White (today slandered as a Soviet agent by CFR- affiliated historians) fought tooth and nail to ensure that Britain would not be in the driver’s seat of the new emerging economic system or the important mechanisms of the IMF that he would go onto lead. White ensured the colonial economic “preference” system Britain used to maintain free trade looting across its empire was destroyed, and that the pound sterling did not play a primary role in global trade. Instead, a fixed exchange rate system was set up under the GATT to guarantee that speculation could not run rampant over national growth strategies and the dollar (then backed by a powerful PHYSICAL economic platform) was a backbone for world trade.
Fixing exchange rates within the context of a pro-industrial growth policy that animated anything good between 1945-1971 ensured that a climate of long term stability conducive to large scale capital/infrastructure creation was facilitated and in that stable climate, markets were made subservient to the broader physical economic development needs of the real economy. This of course was entirely destroyed in the wake of the 1971 floating of the US dollar onto speculative markets and the 1973 creation of the petro-dollar.
At Bretton Woods, Dexter White reached agreements to provide vast technology transfers to help South America industrialize. At the same time, large-scale programs modelled on the New Deal were presented by delegations from India, Eastern Europe, and China. It is noteworthy that the Chinese delegation introduced infrastructure plans first laid out by Sun Yat-sen in his 1920 International Development of China which both Mao, and Zhou Enlai endorsed alongside the Kuomintang’s Chiang Kai-Shek! Had these plans not been sabotaged, it is amazing to consider what sort of progress might have opened up for the Chinese 70 years before anyone heard of the term “Belt and Road Initiative”…
Just as the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) was used like a national bank to fund thousands of great infrastructure, transport, energy, and water projects during the New Deal and just as Glass-Steagall broke the monopoly of private speculative finance over the productive economy, these New Dealers wished to use the World Bank and IMF to issue long term, low interest productive credit for long term mega infrastructure projects around the world. The thought of only reconstructing Europe, or establishing a global Pax Americana was never the plan in the minds of Dexter White or FDR…
“The Atlantic Charter was to be the death knell for colonial empires. Western Europe and America thought of it in terms of safety within borders, but the Third World heard the true spirit: national sovereignty. It would take years to make its way around the globe but the fiery spirit had been lit among colonial peoples. Churchill only went along with it because he had to. The continued existence of the British Empire was at stake and only America could save it.
As recounted in Elliott Roosevelt’s As He Saw It, FDR made his thoughts clear on the matter: ‘I think I speak as America’s president when I say that America won’t help England in the war simply so that she will be able to continue to ride roughshod over colonial peoples.’
Churchill never understood FDR’s idea that independence, not dependence, was the best economic solution to the world’s problems, nor did he understand that FDR believed the pursuit and maintenance of colonial empires was a root cause of WWII [as Stalin also understood], and that before independence of these countries could be accomplished, it would need in the meantime a strong and balanced leadership of the four powers: U.S., Russia, China and Great Britain to defend nations’ right to sovereignty.”
“The United Nations will evolve into the best method ever devised for stopping war, and it will also be the beginning of something else to go with it.”
Cynthia Chung quotes FDR during his speech on March 1st, 1944 to a packed joint session of Congress:
“The Crimea [Yalta] Conference was a successful effort by the three [U.S., USSR and Britain] leading Nations to find a common ground for peace. It ought to spell the end of the system of unilateral action, the exclusive alliances, the spheres of influence, the balance of power and all the other expedients that have been tried for centuries – and have always failed. We propose to substitute for all these, a universal organization in which all peace-loving Nations will finally have a chance to join.”
Cynthia Chung discusses the fine-tuning of the United Nations Charter and Stalin’s conditional endorsement of it:
“The final document presented at the Dumbarton Oaks was the result of five years of fine-tuning by FDR. Russia, China, Great Britain, the U.S. and after discussion France, were to be the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.
In Stalin’s annual eve of anniversary speech on Nov 6th 1944 he stated: ‘Can we count on the activities of this international organization being sufficiently effective? They will be effective if the Great Powers who have borne the brunt of the burden of the war against Hitler Germany continue to act in a spirit of unanimity and harmony. They will not be effective if this essential condition is violated.’”
Upon the president’s death, Harry Dexter White was ousted from his position as director of the IMF and labelled a communist agent.
Henry Wallace was ousted for similar reasons (his warnings of the rise of an Anglo-Fascist world government made him no allies in Truman’s Washington[4]) but he didn’t give up the fight. Wallace worked closely with Dexter White on a 1948 presidential bid as third-party presidential candidate, during which time White died of a heart attack after a grueling testimony to the House of Un-American Activities which had decided that he would be among the top patriots to be destroyed under the new “red scare”.
Wendell Willkie (who had discussed creating a new party with FDR) died in October 1944, and FDR’s right hand man Harry Hopkins who did the most to initiate a US-Russia alliance, died in 1946. FDR’s closest confidante and former chief of Staff Marguerite LeHand died in March 1944, and Roosevelt’s loyal top advisor General Edwin ‘Pa’ Watson fell ill after the Tehran Conference and after meeting Churchill a second time during the Yalta Conference in 1945 dying within days.
The evidence is clear: the IMF not only engineers austerity-driven debt crises, but its policies are designed to ensure and manage a permanent debt crisis, not to erase debt.
“that the United States work, along with Britain and Russia, to set up international control and inspection of atomic energy, for use of atomic energy based on ‘cooperation,’ not conflict, and that Russia must be approached as soon as possible to create mutual trust.”
“two schools of thought that exist in respect to the future control after the war of this project [atomic bombs] in case it is successful: one of them being the secret close-in attempted control of the project by those who control it now, and the other being the international control, based upon freedom both of science and of access.”
It was, according to Cynthia Chung, “the last discussion on record about the bomb project,” and that unfortunately:
“on April 12th 1945, Roosevelt died, four months before the launch of the first atomic bomb on Japan, with no official statement written on which school of thought the United States would or should adopt.”
The Presidency was taken over by Harry Truman, who as a Senator early in the war, had made no secret which school of thought he would endorse:
“If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany and that way let them kill as many as possible.”
“Stalin would say of Roosevelt in July 1944, ‘The President is my friend, we will always understand each other.’ FDR would remark in turn the following month at the Dumbarton Oaks Conference, ‘At Tehran the Marshal and I got to know each other. We got on beautifully. We cracked the ice, if there ever was any ice; and since then there has been no ice.’”
Matthew Ehret describes the post-war takeover of imperial interests in his book, The Clash of the Two Americas, volume 4:
“As long as FDR was in office, this British-run hive was kept at bay, but as soon as he died, the infestation took over America and immediately began undermining everything good FDR and his allies had created.
Upon the president’s death, Harry Dexter White was ousted from his position as director of the IMF and labelled a communist agent. Henry Wallace was ousted for similar reasons and worked with White on a 1948 presidential bid as third party presidential candidate. William Willkie (who had discussed creating a new party with FDR) died in October 1944, and FDR’s right hand man Harry Hopkins who did the most to initiate a close bond of friendship with Stalin, died in 1946. Elliott Roosevelt interviewed Stalin a few years later, and recorded that Stalin always believed that Elliott’s father was poisoned ‘by Churchill’s gang.’ By 1946, Churchill ushered in the Cold War setting former allies at each other’s throats for the remaining 70 years while dropping nuclear bombs on a defeated Japan. Stalin bemoaned Roosevelt’s death saying ‘the great dream has died.’”
“While it is popularly claimed that Roosevelt died of natural causes, the fact remains that all protocols were broken as no autopsy on a sitting president was ever permitted, and the only time this had occurred prior to FDR’s death was in the case of Lincoln republican Warren Harding whose 1923 death “by oysters” dealt a major blow to the anti-League of Nations patriot movement in the USA which he had led.
It is also noteworthy that the inaugural meeting of the United Nations occurred only two weeks later (April 25, 1945) and was intended to be overseen by the president whose death drastically changed the character of the event.”
After the war, Elliott absolved Stalin of blame for strained relations and the establishment of the iron curtain:
“in my effort to get back to first and underlying causes for our critical present, I note only that it was the United States and Great Britain who first shook the mailed fist, who first abrogated the collective decisions…”
“What change was there, which swerved us from the road to peace and has sent us pell-mell in the opposite direction?” (p.248).
“We” (now suddenly somehow in league with British and French imperialists) betrayed the trust of the Chinese, the Dutch East Indies, French Indo-China, the Soviet Union, Greece, Turkey (where the British butchered freedom-fighters) and Iran who had all made pacts with western powers, trusting the goodwill of FDR’s administration. Elliott identifies two main groups as traitors to the American people:
“career men in the State Department whom Father never trusted, including certain men often mistakenly referred to as our ‘experts’ on foreign affairs…reactionaries of both major parties in Congress…[and] our guardians of the ‘free press’”
Fascism in the name of Anti-Communism
To what degree were we threatened by Russian forces in a Communist takeover at the conclusion of WWII? The Soviet Union lost 10-14% (22-27 million) of their population fighting Nazi fascism and beating back the brunt of the German Wehrmacht, while China lost 4% (20 million) to the Japanese. We can compare these Allies’ losses to France and the UK’s total loss of 1.44% of their populations (600,000 each), and the U.S.A.’s loss of 0.17% (418,500). Digging into the paradoxes of history can uncover an abundance of understanding that we’re missing. Bertrand Russell is identified by Western media sources and history books as a prominent pacifist and peace advocate, yet :
Incredibly, in the year 1946, a little over a year after the end of WWII, Bertrand Russell (member of the Fabian Society and British grand strategist) was calling for yet another world war, a war that would finish off the last two countries who threatened Anglo-American global hegemony, Russia and China. The reason why Russell stated that ‘in a few years the opportunity will be gone’ was because he understood that the liklihood of the Soviet Union and China getting the bomb would wreck the great strategic advantage of the United States. Russell feared this window of ‘opportunity’ for unilateral colossal destruction would be lost. It was for this reason that in November 1948, Russell while addressing a gathering at Westminster School, shocked his listeners when he advocated a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union…
[Then] on September 1st 1946, he wrote…’An international government, if it is to be able to preserve the peace, must have the only atomic bombs, the only plant for producing them, the only air force, the only battleships…The international authority must have a monopoly of uranium, and of whatever other raw material may hereafter be found suitable for the manufacture of atomic bombs…It will have to be bound by its constitution to intervene by force of arms against any nation that refuses to submit to the arbitration.’…
All would be decided by a super-state, the United States puppeteered by the British Empire, or a closely allied grouping of nations called ‘the international government’, aka the League of Nations. This ‘closely allied grouping’ would decide the fate of other countries, how they should govern themselves politically and economically, not for the benefit of their citizens, but for the benefit of their ‘elite’ governing class. Russell was calling for a totalitarian system, through the transformation of the United Nations Organization into the kind of one-world dictatorship for which his world federalist utopians have continued to work for throughout this century. It is in fact a continuation of the League of Nations-New World Order vision. -The Empire on Which the Black Sun Never Set, by Cynthia Chung
“The British secret services had destabilized Russia, just as they had previously destabilized France in 1789. They had infiltrated and weaponized the Bolsheviks, just as they had previously weaponized the Jacobin movement against Louis XVI. While the Tsar was technically Britain’s ally in World War I, British elites feared that a victorious Russia would threaten Britain’s global dominance. Bolshevism provided the solution, demolishing the Tsar’s once-mighty empire, and plunging Russia into chaos and civil war.”
Supposed “whistleblower” Bill Browder has been one of the most influential figures shaping Western views of modern Russia. Alex Krainer presents strong evidence here that Browder’s criticism of Putin emerged suspiciously at the same time as his personal and legal difficulties in Russia.
Grover Furr has published a series of books which contradict the modern understanding of early 20th century Russia, which can be downloaded for free. Furr details implications of revelations he discovered using primary resources which have only recently become available, including the Harvard Trotsky Archive and formerly secret recently declassified Soviet archives. He uses Trotsky’s own writings to demonstrate Trotsky’s lies during the three Moscow Trials of 1936, 1937, and 1938. Trotsky also lied in his 1937 testimony to the Dewey Commission and in his writings about the assassination of Sergei Kirov. In his book Khrushchev Lied, Furr provides evidence that every revelation of Stalin’s crimes outlined by Nikita Khrushchev’s “secret speech” of February 1956 are false. Furr builds a strong case for his assertion that much of the 1930s Soviet history has been falsified. In two of Furr’s books, Stalin: Waiting for…the Truth! (2019) and Blood Lies (2014), Furr takes aim at two historians’ works on Stalin (Stephen Kotkin and Timothy Snyder, respectively), and methodically working through every one of their footnotes, demonstrates that every single crime they allege of Stalin is false. Often these historians’ sources do not even say what they claim.
Is there a common enemy?
In smearing Stalin with many crimes he did not commit (if Furr’s theories are true), traitors to the USSR were cooperating with the same globalist oligarchical cabal that was also working with traitors to the United States of America. Anton Chaitkin has a whole chapter devoted to the traitorous partnership of Harriman and Dulles in his book Treason in America from Aaron Burr to Averell Harriman (free to download on archive.org).
U.S. forces landed under fire near Algiers on Nov. 8, 1942; heavy combat raged throughout November. Nazi interests in the Silesian-American Corporation, long managed by Prescott Bush and his father-in-law George Herbert Walker, were seized under the Trading with the Enemy Act on Nov. 17, 1942. In this action, the government announced that it was seizing only the Nazi interests, leaving the Nazis' U.S. partners to carry on the business.
These and other actions taken by the U.S. government in wartime were, tragically, too little and too late. President Bush's family had already played a central role in financing and arming Adolf Hitler for his takeover of Germany; in financing and managing the buildup of Nazi war industries for the conquest of Europe and war against the U.S.A.; and in the development of Nazi genocide theories and racial propaganda, with their well-known results.
The facts presented here must be known, and their implications reflected upon, for a proper understanding of President George Herbert Walker Bush and of the danger to mankind that he represents. The President's family fortune was largely a result of the Hitler project. The powerful Anglo-American family associations, which later boosted him into the Central Intelligence Agency and up to the White House, were his father's partners in the Hitler project…
On May 10, 1982, in a speech entitled "Reflections on a Partnership" given at the Royal Institute of International Affairs at Chatham House in London, Henry Kissinger openly expounded his role and philosophy as a British agent of influence within the US government during the Nixon and Ford years:
"The British were so matter-of-factly helpful that they became a participant in internal American deliberations, to a degree probably never before practiced between sovereign nations. In my period in office, the British played a seminal part in certain American bilateral negotiations with the Soviet Union--indeed, they helped draft the key document. In my White House incarnation then, I kept the British Foreign Office better informed and more closely engaged than I did the American State Department.... In my negotiations over Rhodesia I worked from a British draft with British spelling even when I did not fully grasp the distinction between a working paper and a Cabinet- approved document."
Kissinger was also careful to point out that the United States must support colonial and neo-colonial strategies against the developing sector…
Losing Our Identity
Colonel(retired) Fletcher Prouty reported in 1973 that the war over control of America’s identity was still being waged, but that the window of opportunity was closing:
“…less than six months after the end of World War II, the battle lines for a major internal war had been drawn. Most of the problems and the failures of the past twenty-five years can be attributed directly to inadequate and improper decisions made during these struggles within the Government during this immediate postwar period and to the impact they have had upon the welfare of this country since that time. On one side were the traditional experienced planners who believed in the power of this great nation, all who felt that our future course lay in the increase of our own strength and of the beneficent impact of this strength upon the rest of the world. These men believed in the American way of life and in the ability of our economy to cope with world competition and of American diplomacy to plan our course of action wisely and to carry out effective national policy. They further believed in the capabilities of American military might to back up our diplomats and businessmen. To put it bluntly, these men were not afraid of the Communist bogeyman. They respected Communism for what it was, and they respected the power and strength of the Russian people. At the same time, they were willing and ready to plan for a common world future and an undivided world at peace.
The other side, however, wished to create a sort of Maginot Line of intelligence people around the world, separating the Communist world from the Free World. Then they would peer out at the rest of the world through a veil of secrecy plugged in to data inputs of the intelligence gathering sources wherever they were and supported by a military machine in a defense posture, ready for ‘reaction’ at all times. In essence, this latter point of view of foreign policy operations is passive and reactive, implemented not by plan but only by response to the initiatives of others… Although Allen Dulles does not say it in his book, his concept of Intelligence is about 10 percent real Intelligence and 90 percent clandestine operations. In other words, he would have us busy all around the world all of the time countering ‘ all aspects of the invisible war.’ By this he means intervening in the internal affairs of other nations with or without their knowledge and permission…” - COL(R)Fletcher Prouty’s The Secret Team (published 1973)
We have had leaders who have not chosen a constitutionally supported direction for foreign or domestic policy. At every stage of our nearly 250 years as a Republic, we’ve had whistleblowers trying to reign us back from self-destruction. We were warned.
“How could the great republic navigate through the world as a moral leader when she had so deeply compromised on her own anti-fascist principles? From the earliest days of the Truman Doctrine, unjust wars were launched abroad, and nationalist leaders of foreign countries not wishing to play Banana republic roles in the Great Game often found themselves assassinated or overthrown in CIA-run coups.
The practice of lying to Americans using false flags (such as Operation Northwoods and the Gulf of Tonkin non-incident that unleashed the Vietnam War) became common practice; and the military industrial complex which Eisenhower warned of in 1960 only grew. Under Zbigniew Brzezinski’s guidance, the CIA-funded emergence of Islamic terrorism became just another chess piece on the Great Game. Like the use of Nazi stay-behinds earlier, this was of course justified by the belief that all evils were good if they stopped the supposedly expansionist Soviet Union.
Many hoped that the dissolution of the Soviet Union would finally put an end to this age of chaos, confusion and murky morality. Sadly, it wasn’t long after Bush Sr’s 1990 New World Order speech and Desert Storm that the Wolfowitz doctrine was established calling for the prevention of ‘the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere.’ In a bone chilling 1992 manifesto, William Kristol and Robert Kagan (husband to Victoria F-the-EU Nuland) called for the USA to lead a ‘benevolent global hegemony’” - Matt Ehret, Canadian Patriot Review
“In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded; and that in place of them just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one Nation against another, disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate envenomed and bloody contests. The Nation, prompted by illwill and resentment sometimes impels to War the Government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The Government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the Nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the Liberty, of Nations has been the victim.
So likewise, a passionate attachment of one Nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favourite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and Wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification: It leads also to concessions to the favourite Nation of priviledges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the Nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained; and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom eql. priviledges are withheld: And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favourite Nation) facility to betray, or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition corruption or infatuation. As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent Patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public Councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak, towards a great and powerful Nation, dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, (I conjure you to believe me fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real Patriots, who may resist the intriegues of the favourite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.
The Great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign Nations is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled, with perfect good faith. Here let us stop…” - George Washington’s Farewell Address (1796), emphasis mine
“Israel has been the project of the City of London. It has not been created there as a homeland for the long-suffering Jews. It’s been created there to cynically exploit the Jews in order to create the unsinkable aircraft carrier and the factor of destabilization for the whole region. In its history Israel has fought 19 major military conflicts against their neighbors. It has been the tool of enabling western hegemony in the Middle East, created in order to enable western powers to benefit from the vast natural resources of the region—to their benefit.
This is why Israel is so important to the West, not because they give a rat’s ass about the Jews. Because if they did give a rat’s ass about anybody at all, they would think also ‘oh gosh, you know, maybe the Native Americans deserve to have their own country’; and ‘oh maybe the Mayans deserve to have their own country’; ‘maybe the Aztecs deserve to have their own country’, and on and on and on. But no, only the Israelis do, right, for some reason, and only, as it happens, in this oil-rich region, and only on the condition that they just go to war against everybody as the Empire requires them to do.
So yeah, it’s the City of London project; it has been; it’s on record: it’s not even a conspiracy, this is now well understood. This is how the Iranians perceive Israel; this is how the Americans perceive Israel. I’m not talking about the Zionist Jews; I’m not talking about Evangelical Christians — I’m talking about the Foreign Policy Establishment and the Defense Establishment. They view Israel as an unsinkable aircraft carrier in the region: that’s it. This is also how Hassan Nasrallah, who knew a thing or two about the geopolitics of the region, this is how he described Israel, and perceived Israel.
And so, you know, we can put to rest this quaint notion that somebody’s doing this for the right reasons and out of some kind of a sentimental attachment to the Jewish people: that’s not the case. So it’s a cynical exploitation of the Jewish people, who today, as the Jewish historians and commentators today say, there isn’t a place where Jews are less safe today then they are in Israel. Right? City of London, yes, [Israel is] their baby: they even commissioned the Scofield Bible to be published so that they could get all these American Protestants to buy into the project as some kind of a thing of Biblical importance. And well, okay fine, that worked until it won’t, and I think it’s coming to the end of the road.”
For more information on how pro-globalist financiers corrupted religions over time, Cynthia Chung’s most recent book is an essential read:
"I’m not convinced that Israel is going to survive at all. They’re engaged in 5-front war: Hamas, Hezbollah, Turkey, Yemen, Iran (Iran plus its proxies in Iraq). They’re taking it on as if there’s no tomorrow, as if they’re bullet-proof, as if they can do no wrong, as if they can handle everything without any limitations. Extremely dumb. Extremely arrogant.
Yitzhak Rabin, during his military career, he was an enforcer of Israeli doctrine of the Iron Wall. During his first term as Israel’s Prime Minister, he was still an enforcer of that same military doctrine. The Iron Wall was their National Security Doctrine; it was all based on military strength. And [Rabin] understood, he came to understand that it’s not working; it’s exhausting Israel; it’s making the whole project unsustainable. And today we understand that if it wasn’t for the direct military and financial support from the United States and from the United Kingdom, Israel would be no longer. And today (I don’t know if this is the first time in the history of Israel but) the majority of Americans view Israel unfavorably. So can you continue to count on that support infinitely? You can not. This is why Yitzhak Rabin went to Oslo, signed the Oslo Accords and wanted to make peace, wanted to facilitate an independent sovereign Palestinian State in the neighborhood of Israel, and wanted to base the future security of Israel on mutually beneficial economic cooperation between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Whether that was possible or not, I can’t say.
But he [Yitzhak Rabin] as a former political and military enforcer of the Iron Wall Doctrine, gave up on it, because he came to the realization that it isn’t working; it’s not going to work. It’s only a matter of time before Israel is no longer. And you know we do have Henry Kissinger on record in 2012 saying ten years from now, there’s not going to be any Israel. [The MOBS doesn’t give a crap about Israel or the welfare of the Jews living there]
People who are running Israel today are the exact same zealots that actually killed Yitzhak Rabin for that reason (i.e. Benjamin Netanyahu: he didn’t pull the trigger personally, but he is considered responsible for the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin). And [Netanyahu] is today the man who is indisputably in charge of Israel, and he’s surrounded himself with people who are even more fanatical zealots, and who are also—the last thing they will ever do is negotiate anything with the inferior Arabs or Iranians. They will fight wars to the end. And I think that policy leads to—I think it’s fatal. I think it’s going to be too fatal. You know, Israel maybe will survive, but maybe it will be a one-state solution and maybe that state is not going to be named ‘Israel’; it’s going to be called ‘Palestine’.”
Is our continued support of Israel’s current government’s imperialism, financed by its globalist handlers, reflective of principles we had at our nation’s founding?
What about our pursuit of war with Russia and China, who have had their own major battles with the same globalists we’re fighting (Russia’s struggle described here —follow links provided by Cynthia Chung for further details— China’s struggle here and here (starting at 12min), through which they have not only persevered, but are now thriving as sovereign nations?
“She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force…. She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit….
[America’s] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.”
Back to the American System of Political Economy: What Made Us Prosperous?
I think it was Anton Chaitkin who first highlighted the common thread tying all eight of the U.S. Presidents who died in office together: they were all supporters of the “American System”. Matthew Ehret continues that theme in a recent interview. William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, Garret Hobart, William McKinley, Warren Harding, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy. All of these presidents and one vice president happened to be Nationalists who pursued principles of Alexander Hamilton’s American System of Economics; policies valuing the constitutional powers of the nation state and national control of banking over free trade and private financiers. Alexander Hamilton wrote in his Report on Manufactures (essential reading for every American High School Student):
“Not only wealth, but the independence and security of a Country, appear to be materially connected with the prosperity of manufactures. Every nation, with a view to those great objects, ought to endeavor to possess within itself all the essentials of national supply. These comprise the means of Subsistence, habitation, clothing, and defense” [emphasis in the original]
W. Allen Salisbury explains concisely the function of the American System, and the efforts of its political opponents to subvert it in his book The Civil War and the American System: America’s Battle with Britain, 1860-1876:
“Thus, the cornerstone of the humanist economic policy of the Founding Fathers — the policy which became known as the American System during the nineteenth century — was state direction of the nation’s monetary and credit apparatus through a National Bank. The bank would ensure that the nation’s currency and lending institutions acted as an aid to the productive process by issuing credit for industrialization, the fostering of scientific research, and the prevention of usury or at least the subordination of usurious practices to the process of production. Another included feature was government-financed internal improvements, which had the effect of ordering the investments of private individuals and companies into new manufactures, technological innovations in agriculture, and other, socially useful investments. A third policy associated with the American System ws protective tariffs to prevent the British from wholesale dumping of their goods — as well as their debts — on the country in an effort to ‘strangle’ American manufactures ‘in the cradle,’ as the British ‘liberal’ David Hume put it.
In other words, the aim of the Founding Fathers was to effectively safeguard the nation that had just emerged from a successful revolution against British raw materials looting practices which would have meant the effective recolonization of the United States. At the same time, the Founding Fathers sought to foster the development of the United States until the nation became powerful enough to free the rest of the world from the British System.
From this point of reference, Andrew Jackson’s decision to withdraw government deposits from the National Bank was unquestionably an act of treason. The decision left the U.S. at the mercy of the credit policies of the Rothschild and Baring banking houses, and made the Baring-dominated Associated Banks of New York and New England (the major financiers of Southern cotton exports) the most powerful group of bankers in the nation.
More importantly, Jackson’s actions gave direct support to the theory of ‘free trade’ — an ideology synthetically created by British Royal Society agents like Parson Malthus, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and John Stuart Mill for the express purpose of subverting America’s commitment to dirigisme. This is the same subversive free trade ideology of ‘Cotton Is King’ the outlook for which the South made its insurrection, and against which Lincoln and his Whig allies fought.
Historians of the Sharkey school nobly, but incorrectly conclude that the Civil War was primarily a contest between finance and industrial capital, with Henry Carey as the latter’s chief spokesman. Rather, Lincoln and Carey must be seen as continuing the struggle for industrial development begun by the Founding Fathers against the fundamentally anticapitalist policies of the monetarists of Great Britain and their agents in this country.” [emphasis added]
Nancy Spannaus details the battle that the American System had with Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations economic perspective in her book, Hamilton Versus Wall Street: The Core Principle of the American System of Economics. She explains that it is a lie that Adam Smith’s ideas (since championed by the Austrian School of Friedrich von Hayek and Ludwig von Mises, the Heritage Foundation, and the Adam Smith Institute, among others) have ever contributed to the growth of the American economy.
“Hamilton knew that Smith’s advocacy of free trade was a prescription for maintaining British control over the United States. To defend the gains of the Revolution, Hamilton put forward the American System.
Hamilton’s criticism of Smith on the question of whether the United States should actively promote manufactures was not simply a tactical dispute. It reflected the fundamental difference between Hamilton’s conception of economy, and that of imperial apologist Smith: an industrial republic vs. an imperial satrapy, the American System vs. the British System…[this story is aptly told both in Spannaus’ Chapter 5 and also in Maurice G. Baxter’s book Henry Clay and the American System.]
Was continued dependence upon European (mostly British) manufactures, and continued reliance on raw materials exports to Europe, really the path to progress? Smith knew it was not. Like his sponsor Lord Shelburne, Smith was willing to go so far as to advocate American independence, as long as the new country could be convinced to maintain its proper economic subservience within the Empire. [read more about relevance of Adam Smith’s sponsorship by Lord Shelburne in H. Graham Lowry’s essential book How The Nation Was Won: America’s Untold Story, Volume I, 1630-1754 which details not only the fallacy that John Locke contributed anything of meaning to America’s constitutional model of liberty, but also the extensive international network of leaders who actually made it possible branching out in all directions from Gottfried Leibniz in Hanover, Jonathan Swift in London and Dublin, and Cotton Mather in Boston. Anton Chaitkin reveals a critical point about Lord Shelburne: “Lord Shelburne [was] the chieftain of the East India Company who took power in Britain during the American Revolution. He recognized that the Americans could not be forcibly subdued. He negotiated an end to the Revolutionary War, and made Free Trade the British path toward reconquering the lost colonies.”]
As he shows in his Report on Manufactures, Hamilton knows Smith’s argument is an outright lie: England itself did not develop its industrial and commercial strength without government direction, and neither could the young United States…” [emphasis added]
“Debating the tariff a year after the Civil War, Congressman John A. Griswold blasted free traders for obeying ‘the behests and dictation of British manufacturers and British capitalists.’[36] He supported that assessment with a memo from America’s foremost foreign intelligence officer of that era. Griswold had the clerk read a letter from Thomas H. Dudley, the United States Consul in Liverpool, England:
United States Consulate, Liverpool, April 19, 1866: ‘They are making great efforts on this side to repeal our tariff and admit British goods free of duty … The work is to be done through the agents of foreign [merchant banking] houses in Boston and New York. Their plan is to agitate in the western States and to form free trade associations all over the country. If the people were over here, and could see one half that I do, they would open their eyes. No stone will be left unturned to break down our manufacturers. Sir Morton Peto has written a book to show that we are only fit to grow produce, and that England should do our manufacturing. This book will be circulated by the thousands in the western states.’[37]
Dudley was a master of political and military intelligence inside England. Lincoln had appointed him in view of his pivotal role in Lincoln’s presidential nomination. Dudley’s understanding of the British empire’s adversary relationship to America uniquely fitted him for his post.
Since arriving in Liverpool in November 1861, he had recruited and worked his own network of American agents, exposing and attempting to foil Britain’s aid to the Southern Rebellion. Dudley focused on the Liverpool-based construction of Confederate warships, whose raids significantly prolonged the American Civil War.[38]
Dudley faced off against James D. Bulloch, Confederate secret service chief in Britain who procured ships and British crews to attack U.S. shipping.[39] The U.S. Minister to the U.K, Charles Francis Adams, and the U.S. Consul in Paris, John Bigelow, worked to block British and French assistance to the Confederacy in tandem with Dudley.”
“President McKinley himself was an peacemaker, anti-imperialist of a higher order than most people realize. McKinley was also a strong supporter of two complementary policies: 1) Internally, he was a defender of Lincoln’s “American system” of protectionism, internal improvements and black suffrage and 2) Externally, he was a defender of the Monroe Doctrine that defined America’s anti-imperial foreign policy since 1823.”
Principles of Alexander Hamilton’s American System spread throughout the world
This is a concept covered thoroughly in depth by William Wertz in his recent book Beware the British East India Company: Toward an Alliance Between the USA, Russia, China, and India to Finally Defeat the British Empire.
Another source documenting that American System principles spread worldwide is a book published in 1875 by Wilhelm von Kardorff, a leading member of the German Reichstag (parliament): Against the Current! A Critique of the Trade Policy of the German Reich from the Standpoint of Carey’s Researches was only recently translated to English. America’s victory over slavery following the Civil War also meant victory of protectionism over free trade theories. Free trade theories according to Wilhelm von Kardorff (influential in Germany’s economic success from 1880-1889) “were the greatest fraud ever invented to deceive mankind—the greatest humbug ever invented.” Yet free trade theories are still promoted and taught along with “creative financial instruments” to students of economics today. Wilhelm von Kardorff explains that he
“scarcely had any serious doubts about the correctness of the ruling Manchester doctrine until an outspoken protectionist friend..casually mentioned to me the following practical objections:
‘Were your free trade theories correct, all protectionist nations would become impoverished and all free trading nations would become richer and richer. A clear test of trade policy and a comparison of all nations in the whole world shows, that completely the opposite is the case. All free trade nations become impoverished and all protectionist nations flourish. Therefore there must be a miscalculation inside free trade theories.’”
Von Kardorff was responsible for bringing American System of Economy principles to Germany, transforming it from a feudal to a modern industrial nation. Von Kardorff quotes Carey:
“The numerous factories and enterprises, which were created in 1812 at the opening of the war against England, disappeared with the peace and the resumption of English imports. The consequences of the latter: lowering of wages and depreciation of land, led in 1824 to first a half protectionist, and then in 1828 a completely protectionist tariff system. Immediately, domestic commerce developed to full bloom, the wages were better, the value of the land increased, the money crisis ended. Then the free traders of the Southern states, the slaveholders, gained the upper hand and in 1833 put through a compromise by which protective tariffs would be gradually phased out so that by 1842 they would totally disappear—but long before that the ancient calamities so intensely returned (big trade deficits, sinking and stagnating domestic commerce, falling wages, lack of money, devaluation of the land) that a reversal of the policy and a return to protectionism took place, which was in turn left again in 1846.”
Von Kardorff in 1875 confirms the spread of the American System to the most profitable and successful nations, worldwide:
“Since the end of the Civil War, the protectionist system has now, it seems, permanently gained the upper hand, and when Carey says of the earlier periods that every time free trade was adopted, the same dismal consequences appeared, while as soon as the protectionist system was reinstated in the country, as if by magic it rebounded, so he would be able to point with pride today that the United States now exports, due to the years long duration of the current protectionist system, not only raw materials, but manufactures in huge quantities — a testament to the worth of the proposition preached by the Manchester School, that protective tariffs destroy the export capacity of a country—
*that they were able to pay off a huge war debt in growing annual amounts *that wages and the value of land are steadily rising *that the production in the country is rising incredibly quickly *that credit and cash are available in sufficient quantities.
Another great realm that the protectionist system has developed with the happiest results, is the Russian…But the most brilliant representation of the truthfulness of Carey’s doctrine is given in the recent economic development of France. One of the greatest statesmen ever called to direct the economic life of a nation, the minister Colbert…”
The success of the American System of Economy was crystal clear during von Kardorff’s time. In order to survive, the pro-globalist financial oligarchy had to ensure that the American System’s success was subsequently obscured from the historical record.
Contrived Debate helps to erase American System of Political Economy from consideration
According to Matthew Ehret, the London School of Economics became the hub in 1932 of a very contrived debatebetween two lifelong friends, both of whom were Malthusians: Friedrich von Hayek and John Maynard Keynes. Their debates were published in the London Times. Ehret explains:
“On one hand there was Keynes, Keynesian Economics, pushing doctrine that asserted we have to use government controls to expend capital into making work. In the Keynesian worldview the fallacy is, that he makes no qualitative differentiation between productive work and non-productive work. In his worldview, it’s purely mathematical, and purely based on the idea that productivity doesn’t matter…We’ve been given a story that FDR was Keynesian, and only the historical revisionists that advanced that thesis have been permitted to be published widely. Keynes and FDR hated each other. FDR represented a very different current going back to Lincoln and Hamilton. This current involved an element of utilizing the Nation to direct credit toward building things, but in the American System view, it clearly differentiates productive from unproductive labor. The value is on those activities that increase the productive powers of labor, and those activities which specifically enrich the quality of mind of the citizens in order to make discoveries and leap beyond Malthusian limits to growth. That American System concept is built into the writings of Hamilton, Friedrich List, and Henry C. Carey. This American System is what FDR had studied and was reviving. The system had to be subverted for the oligarchy to remain in control…
On the other side was Friedrich von Hayek, who had himself been an adviser for an early fascist government of Austria, when the Austro-Hungarian government was dissolved after World War I. Von Hayek was actually the assistant to Ludwig von Mises who was the Lead Economic Advisor to the Austrian government. Von Mises and von Hayek had the view that when a nation is in economic crisis, it shouldn’t spend money, it should just privatize and cut the budget. Austerity, budget cuts and privatization: the Austrian School of Economics worldview was premised on the idea that money could be made by privatizing state things and tightening financial belts (cutting government budgets) in order to generate recovery.
Von Mises and von Hayek didn’t actually build any real economy to undo the inflationary effect of money printing. It’s similar to what’s being done today under Javier Milei. People are saying the economy of Argentina is doing great because of all the Austrian School privatizations of the economy and austerity. This is also what’s being pushed by Elon Musk in the DOGE part of the government. But if you look closely at what they’re doing, it’s an illusion. They’re creating money by privatizing things, so there’s an illusion of revenue being created by Argentina as a State, just like there was an illusion of revenue being created for a certain period at different moments under von Hayek’s influence in Austria. It’s an illusion because just like today, if you look at what types of industries are growing in Argentina, it’s all extractive. The actual manufacturing, the productive parts of the industry, have all been shut down. They’re getting rid of government regulation that has been preventing extractive practices of lumber and of natural gas, and things. These extractive practice have been increasing, not for the benefit of their own people, or to be used by their own markets, but instead just for export purposes. Meanwhile they’ve been shutting down social security and pensions. Poverty has been increasing, not decreasing. It’s creating a very momentary appearance of growth but it’s actually sabotaging the means of future actual durable growth.”
Both Alexander Hamilton and Henry C. Carey, Lincoln’s chief economic advisor, were fierce, very vocal opponents of Adam Smith. Adam Smith, whose Wealth of Nations was published in 1776, had direct ties to Lord Shelburne, the enemy of the American Revolution. Matthew again describes the false dualism in the economic field which has replaced evidence of the efficacy of the American System in our history books, in a substack article originally published on The Last American Vagabond:
“…polarization launched in 1932 as a ‘debate’ between two London-based Malthusian economists.
One extreme that deeply sculpted the minds of ‘leftists’ of the Trans Atlantic world was top-down economist named John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946) while the other extreme which went on to mold the thinking of the ‘conservative right’ during the Cold War was found in the ‘bottom up’ advocate of personal liberty, Friedrich von Hayek (1899-1992).
The constants among both apparent opponents (who remained friends throughout their lives) were that 1) neither believed that INTENTION or MIND should govern economic policy (Keynes believed in arbitrary ‘make work’ which could not differentiate between the qualitative difference of a $100 paycheck to a digger of random holes vs $100 paycheck to an engineer building a dam), and 2) both believed equally in the universal validity of Malthus’ population theories, and of Bernard Mandeville’s satanic belief that personal vice creates public virtue. Both theories have underpinned British/Hapsburg imperial grand strategy for over two centuries.
It is also important to hold in mind that the 1932 Keynes vs Hayek debate emerged at a time that the world government agenda driven by the Bank of England and League of Nations were on the ascendency. This operation, in which both Keynes and von Hayek were thoroughly enmeshed, demanded fascist regimes control the world under a ‘scientifically managed’ bankers’ dictatorship.
One month after the London Times October 17, 1932 publication began to print arguments from proponents of both schools of thought on how to best end the depression, Franklin Roosevelt was elected to the U.S. presidency.
As I outlined in How to Crush a Bankers’ Dictatorship, with Roosevelt’s presidential victory, a specific form of political economy was restored in the United States that had nothing to do with either school of Keynes or Hayek and everything to do with something uniquely embedded in the U.S. Constitutional traditions that petrified the hereditary empires of Europe’s old nobility.
In the years leading up to his victory, FDR had worked closely with a grouping of bipartisan American congressmen and senators to revive a form of political economy which involved the paradoxical coexistence of increased government involvement together with massive increase in entrepreneurism, and private sector growth[1]. The fact that FDR is attacked by communists for being a capitalist shill while being simultaneously attacked by capitalists for being a communist shill to this very day is a sign of this ongoing confusion and a testament to the effectiveness of British intelligence propaganda.
Contradicting the popular mythology that ‘FDR was a Keynesian’, US Secretary of Labor Francis Perkins recorded a 1934 interaction between the two men when Roosevelt told her[2]: ‘I saw your friend Keynes. He left a whole rigmarole of figures. He must be a mathematician rather than a political economist.’ In response Keynes, who was then trying to co-opt the intellectual narrative of the New Deal stated he had ‘supposed the President was more literate, economically speaking.’
Although Keynes is heralded as the guiding light of the New Deal (and, as such defended by modern Global Green New Dealers wishing to impose a top-down system of governance onto the world), the fact is that Keynes not only detested Franklin Roosevelt, but also humanity more generally.
This will be seen clearly in 1) his devotion to the theories of Thomas Malthus, 2) his promotion of eugenics as a science of racial purification and population control, and 3) his general devotion to World Government as a leading member of the Fabian Society…”
“the so-called Austrian School of Economics first became a significant factor in history, as an instrument to enforce London’s will. Over the next half century its leaders Mises and Hayek concocted what became Thatcherism in Britain…”
Libertarians need to read Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom again, and in particular one of his final chapters: “The Prospects of International Order”. It’s a free read, and was probably intended more as a blueprint than any form of resistance. Hayek supported central control by an international body of elite experts. The Austrian School of Economics is an offshoot of the London School of Economics, founded by Fabian Society members Sidney and Beatrice Webb, Graham Wallas, and George Bernard Shaw. Anton Chaitkin has a personal challenge to Libertarians:
“..there are people who believe in the Austrian School (this is the ultra free trade, free market idea), who are friends of mine, and who are good people. They're especially good in the sense that they don't think that there should be wars most of the time. So that's good. But [in their ability to] see the two sides in our history and the history of Europe, especially since the creation of the United States, the Austrian School is [unable to see.] There's no honest person who can dispute this, once you know those two sides: the imperialists versus nation-builders.The Austrian School was created by the imperialiststo try to destroy the idea of the rights of people to self-advancement. That's very simple. The two bogeymen of the the Austrian school were Abraham Lincoln and Otto von Bismarck: they're hated by this School in terms of their economic policy and their politics, very specifically in the 20th century. It goes back earlier than that against Bismarck, and so forth.
But the relevant issue is that in the beginning of the 1920s, when Europe was shattered and was in ruins from World War I, the Bank of England leader Montagu Norman began serving 24 years as head of the Bank of England and to a great extent the head of the central banks of the world, and through New York our Federal Reserve system (except when Franklin Roosevelt was President). So this guy in the early 1920s, Montagu Norman, worked with League of Nations leaders and certain other people in the British orbit to [rehabilitate] the destroyed former Austro-Hungarian Empire. They had set up a country called Austria, a very small country without much resources, and said “we're going to make a model out of this, for what should come now.” And this is the birth of the fascism of states in Europe. So they set up a regime there with a Prime Minister dedicated to the will of the Bank of England to cut the budget, to fire the state employees, to lower the wages, and to get militia people that would attack opponents of this process.
The economic advisor to the Prime Minister, in this first experiment with fascism, was Ludwig von Mises, and his right-hand man was Friedrich von Hayek. They went from there to other adventures of the imperialists. Hayek, of course, ended up at the University of Chicago at the end of World War II, and wrote his book about free trade and how we got to have free markets: the book The Road to Serfdom. Everybody should read the last chapter. In that chapter he says that we need in effect a World Government to police all the nations and to prevent anybody from going off the program, by trying to have protectionism for their people.
So much for the idea of freedom! If you don't have freedom, then what's the idea of free markets? You also won't have any markets if the economy crashes. So it's like The Man That Was Used Up; there's nothing there. It's simply a tool: this concept that you shouldn't interfere with trade and with the economy through a government that is an elected government. Now you can't have experts! Central bankers interfere all the time— they do. They set levels of money currency, and so forth. And many of these Freedmanites will say that they're not for that: they want to have private printing of money (I guess crypto and everything else). But what's the history of it? Go look at the actual history! You have these two sides, and these [Austrian School proponents] have been on the side of this Anglo-American and to a certain extent Swiss Amsterdam Protestant French Gang who are trying to cripple mankind. And that's what the Austrian School is about, in my view. And that’s what I think. That's the history.
You want to refute that, let's have a debate about the history.
Which economic policies have served our Nation best? Fact finding while weeding through misinformation.
We need to come back to the ideals which were set out by the American Founding Fathers. Those ideals were and have remained to be under threat and under attack. We are failing to study crucial texts and speeches that distinguish the American System as a proven effective solution against the globalist system of fascist imperialism. Michael Kirsch notes:
“It is important to study the financial policies and institutions that were historically successful and unsuccessful, and how and why. Failure to understand the financial system has too often led to legislation with negative results or inhibited and blocked legislation that would have facilitated economic development. The differences between successful and unsuccessful financial policies in American history cannot be explained without attention to historic detail. Financial legislation that had a beneficial impact in one period was sometimes ineffective during a subsequent period. Other legislation, a change in the mode of its implementation, or institutional mismanagement had an impact on economic and financial outcomes. Ideas both wise and ill-advised had powerful impacts. It has been a challenge for each generation to clarify which specific elements of past policies and institutions were sound and should be employed and which should be discontinued.”
Kirsch’s book The Challenge of Credit Supply traces problems and solutions which were uniquely American between 1650 and 1950. The importance of having a National Bank can’t be confused with the problems that are inherent in the bankers’ Federal Reserve. Kirsch shows how adequate credit supply on a national level has been proven over history to be essential to economic growth.
Hamilton opposed financial speculation – it was the deadly enemy of his Society for Useful Manufactures and the financial infrastructure of the nation. As I headlined the first chapter of my book, he would have been the foremost opponent of Wall Street’s usurious and predatory practices today.
Today’s financial services sector has brought in what it commonly called financialization —the elevation of short-term profit-taking above investment in long-term economic growth. Examples abound, from the flood of corporate share buybacks, to the dangerous disinvestment in engineering at companies such as Boeing, which have prioritized increasing their payoffs to investors above their duty to safety for the public.
Hamilton’s focus on political economy was subsidiary to his primary purpose: building an economically independent, viable United States of America. He was not advancing policies for business against agriculture, but policies that would bring prosperity to the entirety of the country, and even serving such elevated purposes as “cherish(ing) and stimulat(ing) the activity of the human mind.”
Who understands the extent of the treachery of racist President Andrew Jackson in destroying the American System along with tens of thousands of Native American lives? (Please get his portrait painting out of the Oval Office). High school educators can use resources written by Kirsch, Spannaus, and others educated through LaRouche principles (search here), to identify clearly the economic policies which made the U.S.A. a successful, sovereign economic superpower. Who knew that Lincoln decided to devote his 1839-1840 campaigning to one critical issue: restoring the Bank of the United States? Who knew that a portion of Lincoln’s 1839-1840 campaign was successfully used to get William Henry Harrison elected, and that Harrison’s incoming Congress passed a bill establishing a new National Bank? Read about this history, along with the fact that the legislation to establish a new National Bank only failed when Harrison died suddenly (allegedly due to giving a long inaugural speech in cold, rainy weather without a coat or hat, despite his good health before it), and his vice-president (the rabid supporter of slavery and my relative) John Tyler sided with his traitorous predecessor Andrew Jackson, and vetoed the legislation. Free reading on the topic here and here. Read more on the controversy behind a National Bank, and its criticality in getting the U.S.A. out of war debt and into infrastructure development and manufacturing, in Nicholas Biddle’s own words for free:
“Under Biddle, the Bank, as by far the largest financial institution in the country, played a critical role in regulating credit in the private sector, and in quashing speculation. It therefore created a financial environment in which long-term investment was possible. Its notes created the basis for a stable currency and its management was geared to facilitating commerce and investment.
Biddle enunciated his concept of the role of the BUS in a letter to John Quincy Adams in 1838:
‘In truth the banks are but the mere agents of [the]community. They have no funds not already lent out to the people, of whose property and industry they are the representatives. They are only other names for the farms, the commerce, the factories, and the internal improvements of the country…’
From this standpoint, it is no surprise that the BUS subscribed to all the six major canal companies which were chartered in the 1820s. It was positioned to continue such support for infrastructure expansion when it came under assault by the Jackson administration, an assault which redounded to the aid of the major New York City and London banks the populist president claimed to oppose…”
“during its 250 years of life, the only times the USA has successfully industrialized and increased the productive powers of labor has been due to the application of protective tariffs. Taking that same time frame into account, the same fact applies to literally every nation of the world. When unbounded free trade was the norm, industrial growth has diminished, speculation has increased, and empires have benefited through their ability to keep their victims underdeveloped, corrupt and poor…
[but] protective tariffs are not enough…
Knowing that the “money changers” had only been able to create the great bubbles of the 1920s via their access to the deposits of the commercial banks, Franklin Roosevelt made the core of his battle against the abuses of Wall Street centre around a 1933 piece of legislation entitled “Glass-Steagall”, named after the two federally elected officials who led the reform with FDR.
This was a bill that forced the absolute separation of productive from speculative banking, guaranteeing via the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) only those commercial banking assets associated with the productive economy, but forcing any speculative losses arising from investment banking to be suffered by the gambler.
The striking success of this law inspired other countries around the world to establish similar bank separation. Alongside principles of capital budgeting, public credit, parity pricing and a commitment to scientific and technological development, a dynamic had been created that would express the greatest hope for the world, and the greatest fear for the financial empire occupying the City of London and Wall Street.”
Arthur Wilmarth argues this point in greater detail in his work Taming the Megabanks: Why We Need a New Glass-Steagall Act.
Does BRICS policy/intent mirror important aspects of the American System?
“The Russia-China alliance has become an unstoppable powerhouse of visionary infrastructure projects across the Arctic, Eurasia, Africa and Europe exemplified beautifully by the evolving Belt and Road Initiative and BRICS. This cooperative alliance has tapped into a strategic reality of mankind’s genuine common interests which is so powerful that even countries formerly at war with each other and subjects of imperial manipulation have increasingly broken free in order to participate in this new paradigm.
This coalition of nations working with a common sense of both the manipulative hand behind the scenes and common focus for future cooperation may be a new phenomenon in our modern age, but it is certainly not without historical precedent. Not only did such an international coalition form in the wake of the 1865 union victory in the Civil War which saw nations like Germany, France, Argentina, Brazil, Russia and Japan form an anti-British Empire alliance for industrial progress and public works, but it also occurred during a peak of the European Golden Renaissance with an alliance known as the League of Cambrai (1508-1512)….”[read the article to learn more!]
Anton Chaitkin also highlights aspects of the American System which are followed by BRICS nations today. He explains that a major difference in the BRICS’ adoption of some aspects of the American System, was in their method of governance through implementation:
“…Russia and China were not industrialized by the American System. Russia was helped by it, but the Communist party was responsible for development in Russia and in China. There was tremendous cost of human suffering under those systems… These are not the systems that we would choose. These were not the systems that we did choose. But they did develop their countries. Franklin Roosevelt seeing what Stalin had done, was a great partner of Stalin during WWII fighting Hitler. Now, Russia is no longer a communist country… China is governed by a communist party, but clearly it’s not communist in the sense that it was - it’s a mixed system. However, it is an authoritarian country. It is also responsible for sponsoring the greatest progress in the world, far beyond any other country, lifting people out of poverty all over the world.
Our responsibility as human beings in the United States, Australia, etc. is to look at the reality of the world; to look at the countries that can accomplish what needs to be accomplished. To look back at American history, and (I don’t think the world will survive unless this happens) to say to our country from within our country and from outside our country: look at who you really are. You are the blessing of the world. You are not simply dogs that go whining and lying and being deceitful and subservient to a world system that’s butchering people all over the world. Why should we have wars in Syria, in Iraq, and all these other places based on lies and based on torture? That’s not the United States - that’s the globalist system.
This is our responsibility: to have the United States look at its own history as the country that introduced modern times. [Americans] don’t know about that today… Americans don’t understand how modern times came about. They don’t understand it as something other than the power of rich men.It was the power of idealists [which brought it about]. It was the power of the system of the United States that we could restore a community of sovereign nations; a family of Nations. The UN was set up by Franklin Roosevelt and by Stalin to have shared power among all the nations. It’s much safer if you have 100 powerful nations of different races; of different cultures; of different histories: we can all learn from each other. As long as we’re all powerful, we can be safe. That’s the world of the future if we’re going to have a future.” -Anton Chaitkin with the Australian Citizens Party (quote starts at 56:12)
A community of sovereign nations of different races, of different cultures, of different histories..
What does Chaitkin mean when he says that China is a “mixed system” and clearly not communist in the sense that it was? According to Britannica, communism is currently the official form of government in only 5 countries: China, North Korea, Laos, Cuba, and Vietnam. But, as a Khan Academy educator shows in this video (watch at around 12 min of this video or read the transcript ) and in the graph below he uses to illustrate his points, China is even more capitalist than the USA in some aspects, and is only part-way into socialism in others. "It can be a little confusing" says the Kahn Academy educator.
Ehret points out in the report he wrote with Cynthia Chung, Breaking Free of Anti-China Psyops, that China has a vast private sector, entrepreneurial culture and market economy, and that its leaders call this "socialism with Chinese characteristics". According to Ehret and Chung, Dr. Sun Yat-sen, first president of the republic of China, was an anti-imperialist - he wasn't a follower of Karl Marx or a Bolshevik. In 1924 Sun Yat-sen patterned his philosophy for Chinese people after Lincoln's, and said "I am in favor of the internal improvement system and a high protective tariff."
"class war is not the cause of social progress, it is a disease developed in the course of social progress" and "Marx can only be called a social pathologist: we can't say that he is a social physiologist. Marx found only one of the diseases of society: he did not discover the law of social progress and the central force in history. As stated by the American scholar, the struggle for subsistence is the law of social progress and is the central force of history."
According to Ehret and Chung, Sun Yat-sen stressed the need for constant improvement of the quality of life and livelihoods through great public projects, centered on hydroelectric power from the great Yangtze River, industrial growth by the application of the protective tariff, and the application of advanced technology for transportation of rails and roads as well as agriculture.
Sun Yat-sen "rallied against the lies of British Free Trade" that justified two Opium Wars the British inflicted on the Chinese. Sun stated
"England always remains in a commanding position: she makes other countries fight her wars and she herself reaps the fruits of victory."
Sun Yat-sen was both a Christian and Confucian scholar, and wrote in 1904:
"we, in order to make sure of our success..must appeal to the people of the United States in particular...because you are the pioneers of western civilization in Japan; because you are a Christian nation; because we intend to model our new government after yours: above all, because you are the champion of liberty and democracy. We hope we may find many Lafayette's among you".
According to Ehret and Chung:
“Reiterating his long-time support for the protective tariff in order to cultivate local industries and agriculture, [Sun Yat-sen] wrote:
‘How do other countries meet foreign economic pressure and check the invasion of economic forces from abroad? Usually by means of a tariff which protects economic development within these countries. Just as forts are built at the entrances of harbors for protection against foreign military invasion, so a tariff against foreign goods protects a nation’s revenue and gives native industries a chance to develop.’
…In his first lecture on nationalism, Sun Yat-sen clearly described the path to national rejuvenation:
‘Our Three Principles of the People mean government ‘of the people, by the people, and for the people’ — that is, a state belonging to all the people, a government controlled by all the people, and rights and benefits for the enjoyment of all the people. If this is true, the people will have a share in everything. When the people share everything in the state, then will we truly reach the goal of the minsheng principle, which is Confucius’ hope of a ‘great commonwealth.’”
Sun Yat-sen discussed the problem with capitalism patterned after the British Empire System (that was not, in his view, a problem with the American System of Economics written by Alexander Hamilton):
"the fundamental difference between the principle of livelihood (patterned after the American System of Economics where improving the standard of living of all people was primary goal) and capitalism (patterned after the British Empire system and "Free Trade" it imposed on China) is this: capitalism makes profit its sole aim, while the Principle of Livelihood makes the nurture of the people its aim. With such a noble principle we can destroy the old, evil capitalistic system..."
Ehret and Chung describe Sun Yat-sen as "revered by the Chinese Communist party today as the forbearer of its revolutionary legacy"
Isn’t Sun Yat-sen’s categorization as “communist” too simplistic: the man who took direct aim at Marx and who highlighted key differences between the British imperial system and the American system?
Consider what has happened with world poverty since 1981. Over the last 37 years, China has lifted some 850 million people out of poverty, according to World Bank figures. That is more than 10% of the entire human race that is now in a position to make a valuable contribution to mankind’s productivity and help shape its future. In the rest of the world, there are still over 600 million people living in extreme poverty. China went from having 46% of the world’s poor people in 1981, to 5% in 2017, to essentially 0% today.
Not only has poverty been wiped out in China, but the population is large and growing, and its life expectancy has increased over the last five decades from 44 years to 76 years.
Add to that the overall rise in educational and scientific capabilities of that growing population, as reflected in parameters such as a rising literacy rate that has far outstripped the world average, and a clearer picture emerges of a nation with the planet’s most rapidly rising Potential Relative Population-Density. That, and not GDP, is the true metric of physical economic potential, as Lyndon LaRouche repeatedly demonstrated.
So, if China can do it, why not we? China’s economic policies are essentially those of Leibniz, Mather, Hamilton and LaRouche—with Chinese characteristics. Instead, in the trans-Atlantic sector we have tolerated the imposition of genocidal IMF policies on developing sector nations; of Malthusian “green” policies; and of endless bailouts of the $1.5 quadrillion speculative financial bubble which now threatens to blow out the entire international financial system.
Listen to the background behind Xi Jinping’s rise to power and unprecedented success here starting at 12min, and use that presentation to homeschool your kids against Western propaganda which villainizes their feat.
Driving their success is an economic policy that prioritizes investment in domestic infrastructure and technology, education for their citizenry, and global cooperation, instead of endless war. It looks a lot like the American System.
Western powers are all ruled by hereditary oligarchies that are clustered around the banking cartels, and they want to keep the whole rest of the world dependent on them. They want to preserve their global hegemony and to entrench it so that it’s irreversible. They have this idea of a unipolar order, of a Project for the New American Century, the Great Reset that is Western-centric, where the west holds all the keys to future development. To be in this position you have to have a global monopoly on credit creation, on advanced technology and on advanced weaponry. They would prefer we all go by whatever the west dictates, so if they decide it’s going to be solar and wind power, then everyone better fall into line. What the Chinese have been doing is they’ve kept the technologies that are mastered and reliable intact, and then they built on top, they diversified from that. The Europeans have decided we destroy the foundation, do away with what we had before, and we start transitioning to something completely new and untested.
Windmills everywhere are the same design. They didn’t say, ‘let’s see how we can best develop wind power, so why don’t we allow people free reign to develop something that makes sense’. They develop deliberately ginormous windmills that are only produced by a handful of these big corporations that live off of state subsidies that are completely unfeasible without state subsidies. Whereas we’ve seen in history that human ingenuity has already used wind power for centuries and people have designed systems they know how to build and maintain: windmills for producing flour, in Greece windmills to pump water: hundreds of them that were produced from local material with local labor with local expertise. Rather than allowing the bottom-up, pro-bottom-up process to find the direction toward the optimal solution, something that’s cheap, effective, easy to maintain, inexpensive to purchase and inexpensive to own, they imposed top-down this one model, and everybody has to do that. It goes top-down forcing governments to adopt programs to build these monstrosities everywhere, and they’re all the same. Difficult to maintain, very expensive, and disposal causes a massive environmental problem.. In order for the west to retain their hegemony over everybody else, they wanted to force those same models, the same ideas on everybody else. So obviously you don’t want the Chinese to develop their own technologies and to be autonomous, you don’t want the Russians, you want everybody to always be dependent on you for technologies for solutions, for funding, for arming.
I think the way they’re trying to do it, we see that Russia and China are bringing their nuclear technology to many underdeveloped countries. It’s very difficult for a country to be developed when they don’t have access to electricity. The western powers have kept them deliberately in the dark. The western model has been to keep them impoverished so they export all their resources, their commodities to a handful of foreign buyers who then dictate the price.
Then if underdeveloped countries have energy and electricity abundantly in their own countries, they can begin to develop their own economies, and then they will absorb some of those commodities at home. It seems to me that the Chinese positively want this because in the same way that they lifted 850 million Chinese out of poverty, it seems to me that they want to lift billions in the global south out of poverty. Why? Because they have positioned themselves as a global manufacturing hub, and they want them to be affluent consumers of their products. They want that exchange. They want prosperous nations as trading partners, whereas western powers want very weak very impoverished nations as trading partners. They want to buy their commodities at rock bottom prices [requiring third world slavery] that the western powers dictate. It’s a clash of two systems, really. It’s not really the Chinese model: it should be properly called the American System because it has already been adopted by the United States when it became independent. You had Henry C. Carey, who was Abraham Lincoln’s economic advisor who wrote extensively about this in his book The Harmony of Interests: He exactly contrasts this American System of Political Economy with the British Imperial System of Free Trade. Today, the West has largely adopted the British Imperial System of Free Trade. It’s like a monoculture: it’s the unquestioned paradigm on which we are building our world, whereas the Chinese and the Russians are doing something completely different. I think that the development of new technologies and these modular nuclear reactors and possibly in the future thorium reactors are going to be shared with the world…
But I have concrete examples. I was in a conference a few years ago and there were a lot of representatives from African countries there and also representatives from Yemen. I spoke with a young man from Yemen who told me how the Chinese built a very large port in Yemen. The Chinese told them they would build this port for them - at a cost of $500 million. Chinese said they would build this port for them completely and they don’t have to pay them back anything for 20 years. They said this would help the Yemen economy develop. And once their economy is developed and prosperous, then they would able to pay China back, but for now it is just there to help them develop their economy. I asked a number of people what was going on in Africa and every one told me that since the Chinese came there, for the first time people are starting to believe that the lives of their children are going to be better than their lives. They were starting to perceive their society is moving in the right direction; that things are actually improving. They said that the people that China sends them treats them with respect and help them along, in sharp contrast with what the British and the French were doing there. When they broke British and French equipment, all the expense went on their tab and increased their debts. If Chinese send tractors and they break down, the Chinese send engineers, parts, and teach them how to repair them.
This isn’t me rooting for China and against the United States. It’s a clash between two systems of governance. The contrast was articulated almost 200 years ago, and the U.S. emerged as a reaction to this European system. The United States became a power because they rejected this European system. They became an independent and sovereign power and they rose to prominence by applying this American System of Political Economy that is allocating credit to productive uses. It’s allocating credit to development of infrastructure and industrialization and it’s allocating credit to small and medium-size enterprises. These same small and medium-size enterprises are the exact ones that would be the engines of innovation. So if you wanted to have better energy systems, you would expect them to emerge from the ingenuity of a lot of little people, and not from Klaus Schwab's head.
“Win-win cooperation” and respect for other nations’ sovereignty is a requirement in the American System of Political Economy.
What crushed China’s development in the past? What crushed India’s?
A critical question from history was how China’s progress was crushed in the 19th century. How did China go from “being the most powerful GDP in the world in 1802, the most powerful GDP by far, of all countries on the earth, down to become the poorest within a very short period of time”?
The chart shows that in the year 1600, India was the second-largest economy in the world. China was the largest. China had 29.14% of the world’s total GDP, and India had 22.54%. By 1700, China had shrunk and was at 22.3% while India had the largest economy in the world with 24.44%. The GDP of Britain in 1600 was 1.8%, and then in 1700 was 2.88%. But by the time Britain finally left India, at the end of WWII, India’s percentage of the world’s GDP was 3%. What was done to India by Britain was to destroy their textile industry completely, and to destroy their ship building industry (a significant industry) completely, and to destroy their steel industry. They had Crucible Steel [India's production of Crucible Steel probably dates back to somewhere between the 2nd century BC to the 2nd century AD]. The British policy was completely destructive of the Indian economy, and it also had a similar effect upon China, particularly through its efforts to run opium into China.
The devastation the British caused in India and China had a huge role in spurring on the American Revolution, as Mark Fairchild explains:
In a series of agitational pamphlets entitled "The Alarm", circulated in Boston in 1773 calling for refusing to accept the tea brought by the British East-India Company from India to America, "Rusticus" writes…
“Are we in like Manner to be given up to the Disposal of the East India Company, who have now the Assurance, to step forth in Aid of the Minister, to execute his Plan, of enslaving America? Their Conduct in Asia for some Years past, has given simple Proof, how little they regard the Laws of Nations, the Rights, Liberties or Lives of Men. They have levied War, excited Rebellions, dethroned lawful Princes, and sacrificed Millions for the Sake of Gain. The Revenue of Mighty Kingdoms have centered in their Coffers. And these not being sufficient to glut their Avarice, they have, by the most unparalleled Barbarities, Extortions, and Monopolies, stripped the miserable Inhabitants of their Property, and reduced whole Provinces to Indigence and Ruin. Fifteen hundred Thousands (i.e. 1.5 million - ed.), it is said, perished by Famine in one Year, not because the Earth denied its Fruits; but [because] this Company and their Servants engulfed all the Necessaries of Life, and set them so high at a Rate that the poor could not purchase them. Thus having drained the Sources of the immense Wealth . . . they now, it seems, cast their Eyes on America, as a new Theatre, whereon to exercise their Talents.”
In “The Alarm” number two, Rusticus writes:
“IT was fully proved to you in my first Number, That the East-India Company obtained their exclusive Privilege of Trade to that Country, by Bribery and Corruption: Wonder not then, that Power thus obtained, at the Expence of the national Commerce, should be used to the most tyrannical and cruel Purposes. It is shocking to Humanity to relate the relentless Barbarity, practised by the Servants of that Body, on the helpless Asiatics; a Barbarity scarce equalled even by the most brutal Savages, or Cortez, the Mexican Conqueror.”
In other words, Rusticus put the issue before his fellow Americans: the East India Company has just starved to death millions in India for the sake of greed, they've taken over the British government with immense and repeated bribes, and now they have their sights set on America.
It wasn’t a simple matter of increased taxes that enraged the American Colonies and spurred on the American Revolution. American Patriots refused to continue to fund the British Empire’s endless wars which had inflicted complete devastation on other nations, and they refused to accept a future in servitude to imperial loyalists and financiers who were holding our nation back from industrial growth, international trade/cooperation, and technological progress. But what has happened in recent decades?
If it seems that too much responsibility is being laid at the foot of the City of London global financiers whose Commonwealth of Nations still makes up 22-23% of the world's total surface area, keep in mind the following observations by Matt Ehret in the introduction to his book The Clash of the Two Americas vol 4, which provides just a brief overview of culpability:
"--Who controlled the dodgy Steele dossier that put Russiagate into motion? British Intelligence.
--How about the intelligence used to justify the bombing of Iraq? That was British Intelligence too.
--How about the Clash of Civilizations strategy used to blow up the middle east over decades? That just so happened to be British Intelligence’s own Sir Bernard Lewis.
--How about the Council on Foreign Relations takeover of American foreign policy during the 20th century? That is the British Roundtable Movement in America (created as Britain’s Chatham House in America in 1921).
--Who did Henry Kissinger brag that he briefed more than his own State Department at a May 10, 1981 Chatham House seminar? The British Foreign Office.
--How about William Randall Elliot who trained a generation of neocon strategists who took over American foreign policy after the murder of JFK? Well, he was an Oxford Rhodes Scholar and we know what they are zombified to do.
--How about the financial empire running the world drug trade? Well HSBC is the proven leading agency of that game and the British Cayman Islands is the known center of world offshore drug money laundering.
--Who ushered in the Cold War? Sir Winston Churchill.
--Where did the nouveaux riche oligarchs go after Putin kicked them out of Russia? Back to their handlers in London.
--What about the creation of ‘too big to fail’ banks that took over the world over the past decades? That was launched by the City of London’s Big Bank of 1986.
--Who created Saudi Arabia and the state of Israel in the 20th century (as well as both nations’ intelligence agencies?) The British.
--What was the nature of the Deep State that Presidents Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, Harding, FDR, and JFK combatted within their own nations?
--What was the American Revolution all about in the first place?
What has been crushing Africa’s development?
We are led to believe Africa is populated with more primitive cultures. That they are sadly too obsessed with warring each other, and don’t have the capability in their gene pool to produce any exceptional leaders who can organize resources and motivation for development projects.
African Hub on X tweeted the following (original source possibly here):
“If you wanted to stop Africa from becoming a superpower, you wouldn’t have to invent a new strategy. The blueprint has already been written, tested, and perfected over centuries.
You’d start by making sure Africa never unites. The easiest way to do that is by keeping people divided along ethnic, tribal, and religious lines. If they ever start working together, remind them of past grievances. Stoke old wounds. Fund separatist movements. Keep border disputes unresolved. Make sure every time they take one step forward, they take two steps back because they’re too busy fighting each other.
You’d install leaders who serve foreign interests, not their people. Find the most corrupt, the most easily manipulated, the ones who crave wealth and status more than progress. Offer them power in exchange for loyalty. If a leader rises who actually cares about Africa, get rid of them. Assassinate them if necessary. But if that’s too messy, just destabilize their government and back a coup.
If they talk about nationalizing resources, make an example out of them. If they try to unite Africa, take them out before the idea spreads.
You’d keep Africa economically weak by making sure it never industrializes. Let them export raw materials, but never process them themselves. Control the minds, the oilfields, the rare earth minerals. Keep them selling cheap and buying expensive. If a country tries to break free and build its own industries, sabotage it. Place sanctions, destabilize its currency, fund local opposition, crash its economy. If that doesn’t work, orchestrate a civil war. People can’t build when they’re too busy trying to survive.
You’d make sure their education system produces workers, not innovators. Teach them history that glorifies their oppressors. Make them think their cultures are primitive. Their ancestors were savages. Their future depends on foreign approval. Train them to memorize, not to think critically. Keep their best and brightest looking overseas for opportunities. Make them dream of escaping Africa, rather than fixing it. Offer scholarships that take their top minds to the West and never encourage them to return. Let the continent keep training doctors and engineers, only for them to go enrich other nations.
You’d control their narratives. Own their media. Control their stories. Dictate their image to the world. Make them believe they are corrupt, hopeless, eternally in crisis. Flood their screens with poverty porn and war zones. Show them charity ads that make them believe they are helpless without foreign aid. Downplay their successes. Twist their victories into isolated incidents. If an African country develops a ground-breaking innovation, credit a foreign investor. If an African leader implements a successful policy, frame it as an anomaly rather than proof of competence.
You’d make sure they remain dependent. Drown them in debt. Offer loans with impossible conditions. Force them to privatize everything so foreign corporations own their water, their electricity, their land. When they struggle, give them just enough aid to keep them alive, but never enough to make themselves sufficient. Use charities to create a culture of reliance rather than resilience. Make them think foreign intervention is necessary. That they can’t solve their own problems. That they always need help from the outside.
You’d suppress their military strength. Keep their armies weak, their defense industries non-existent. Sell them weapons to fight each other, but never let them develop high-tech military technology. If a country tries to build a strong defense system, accuse them of being a threat to stability. Make sure they always need foreign peace keepers, foreign military bases, foreign advisors controlling their security. Keep them vulnerable to invasion, coups, and foreign interference.
The formula is simple: divide, corrupt, exploit, mis-educate, control. Keep them fighting each other. Keep them looking outside for solutions. Keep them poor, dependent, insecure. Make sure every attempt to break free is met with resistance so strong that the next generation thinks twice before trying again. This isn’t a theory. It’s history. The real question isn’t how to strop Africa from becoming a superpower, it’s how Africa can break the cycle despite every effort to keep it down.”
General Michael Langley, U.S. AFRICOM Commander, made remarks in early April accusing Captain Ibrahim Traoré of misusing the country’s gold reserves to protect his military regime rather than benefitting the nation’s people. Evidence was not given. Burkina Faso, despite being a significant gold producer, has not owned any of its mines until Traoré’s rule. The country has long been exploited by foreign-owned companies both through mining labor and sale of rare minerals mined. But Captain Ibrahim Traoré during his short term till now, has nationalized two foreign-owned mines in Burkina Faso and has announced the construction of the country’s first gold refinery. Traoré’s response to GEN Langley was to demand apology. He’s had other recent public challenges to foreign powers and calls for an Africa free from imperialism and neo-colonialism.
I think that the western powers have Burkina Faso particularly in their crosshairs, with the desire of reversing the coup that happened two years ago, when Ibrahim Traoré came to power. Of course, earlier this month, we had a testimony at the Senate Armed Services Committee where General Michael Langley, who is the the head of AFRICOM, expressed concern that Traoré's government in Burkina Faso was now using the proceeds from the sale of Burkina Faso's gold to protect himself and his regime. Of course, nobody had any trouble with the way things were before. There was basically a neocolonial relationship between Burkina Faso and the western powers: I would say France primarily, but there were at least seven British-based mining companies active in Burkina Faso mining gold, and Burkina Faso got very little from that. Burkina Faso has been ranking consistently for decades among the world's poorest countries. According to the 1922 human development index report, they were ranking at 184th out of 191 nations, which reflects very low incomes, low literacy, low education, and low life expectancy. So nobody had any problems with that; that system could have continued forever. You know, the country barely has any infrastructure. It's very de-industrialized; 80% of the population depends on subsistence farming. And so they had no benefit from being one of the world's largest exporters of gold.
And not only that, but since about 2010s, the country was increasingly the target of jihadist insurgencies which on top of all the misery, made about 10% of the population live as refugees: displaced. So obviously these coups that have taken place across Sahara and Africa, they were a reaction to this. And now we see that Ibrahim Traoré allegedly survived 15 assassination attempts [now 18]. The element of surprise is pretty much gone there: they have restructured his security and the armed forces of Burkina Faso…AFRICOM already set up a command center, in the neighboring Ivory Coast, from which they could maybe launch some kind of a military intervention in Burkina Faso to reverse the coup that took place two years ago.
I think this is an extremely relevant event for Africa, because it has attracted a lot of attention. And I think that an element that is there today, which never used to exist before, is that now more and more African people are using social media. You see a flood of bloggers and podcasters and YouTubers creating their own programs and raising awareness of what is going on, and people are becoming more and more aware of this neocolonial relationship that has kept African countries in poverty, throughout this century or two of colonial dependence. So this is all now being gradually reversed.
In addition to all this, the countries of Africa now have support for their sovereignty from Russia, [North Korea], and from China. So there's a much stronger resistance to recolonization than maybe there ever was. So I think it's going to be one of those very very interesting spaces to pay attention to, even as now the conflict in the Middle East is in some kind of a calm-before-the-storm, perhaps, and the conflict in Ukraine is rapidly winding down.
Russia was prepared to go to war with Britain and City of London financiers in order to keep the United States whole during our Civil War. I don’t know if there are recentparallels with the sovereign nations who took a fierce stand against MOBS hegemony in the past:
But during another interview, Alex Krainer elaborates on a possible source of funding for assassination attempts, and discusses the importance of cultivating optimism:
Burkina Faso was formerly a French colony, not American: and so that's French interests there. As of 2016, there were seven British London stock exchange-listed mining companies with projects in Burkina Faso. I'm not aware of any American companies in Burkina Faso. So how does it happen that American military -U.S troops- [have so much interest] in a country where the main economic interests are British and French? How do you explain that? And it seems to me that the way to explain that is that it doesn't matter whether it's American interests, what matters is that Burkina Faso's natural resources have become the collateral of Western banking institutions…And then somehow they still have decisive influence over not only British and French troops…but they can still (on some kind of an autopilot) can make American troops carry water for them…
It seems in Africa all eyes are on Ibrahim Traoré. There's an absolute flood of African podcasters, bloggers, citizen journalists, who are posting stuff on X, on TikTok, on YouTube, all over the place. And now you have this ground-swell of support for Traoré, and you have other countries who are realizing: maybe this is the way. And so then as a result, you have Algeria which threw out a bunch of French diplomats from their embassies and consulates.
We have to resist pessimism; we have to cultivate optimism; we have to know that we've been given a chance that no generation before us has had. If things go well for African countries, and people like Ibrahim Traoré manage to start raising the standard of living, creating business opportunities: Do you think a lot of those migrants who are now strangers in a strange land in Europe might not say "Hey maybe I want to go back home to Africa? To the Middle East? If we get peace in the Middle East, if Afghanistan gets developed under Belt and Road Initiative through Chinese and Russian investments, maybe a lot of these Afghan refugees are going to decide to go back home. Maybe the world gets peace. Whether it's going to come out that way or not, I think that we have no chance but to give it our all to make sure that we press the political process at home in those directions.
The Worth of Mankind
Children must be taught to value human life above all. All populations have the right to modern technology and resources which allow them to flourish. Children are getting false messages about our planet being choked with human life and short on resources. High School Biology teaches that bacteria in ideal conditions experience exponential growth before reaching steady state, and dying off due to rapidly dwindling resources. This is similar to a Malthusian concept of human growth.
Human beings are not bacteria! We’re getting false messages about the appropriateness of equating human life to other animal species' life. Through human innovation and industrialization, we have repeatedly shown through history that we easily overcome previously anticipated limits to growth. Cynthia Chung’s article “What Determines a “Limit to Growth” provides a solid refutation of Malthusian limits, and Rising Tide Foundation’s videos on that topic are great teaching tools for kids.
“We taught our children that building a Dam on Volta river in Africa would interfere with the rights of the rhinoceroses to drink water from a particular river. Who cares whether the children have electricity or hospitals or schools or can work in a modern factory? This idea that a high living standard is the basic human right was something that was particularly American.”
We should investigate the roots of anti-human messages and show our kids how to recognize propaganda: it drives some to self-harm.
Pro-human angles on History put concepts of dismantling coal, natural gas, nuclear power plants, and blowing up Nord Stream Pipelines in a new light. Our loss of modern manufacturing power means our loss of high living standard. Denying other countries the right to industrialize with affordable/reliable energy denies them a high living standard. In our idea of how the world should be, is the American citizen more valuable than a Chinese life, an Arab in Palestine, or child laborers in the Republic of the Congo and Tanzania?
We can love and nurture nature, but must never lose our respect for human life.
Anton explains:
We accomplished unbelievable miracles that have driven America forward, and the world forward, and civilization forward. We also committed terrible crimes, and we're committing them now, on the same basis that we did then. We didn't see Indians and black people from Africa as man in the image of God. What do we see now? What do we see anywhere in the world?
Cultivating Optimism
Speaking of optimistic takes, I believe there is no one who has untangled the enigma that is the current Middle East situation more optimistically than Gordon McCormick and co-hosts at Badlands Media. Learn the background behind the Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) and The Sword Dance. McCormick explains details behind MBS’s dismantling of Wahhabism and the old Saudi establishment’s collapse with Vegas shooting tie-ins. Watch Donald Trump speak at a U.S.-Saudi Investment Forum May 2025, and MBS’s reactions. Listen to Gordon McCormick’s analysis of Trump’s Middle East trip on 18 May 2025, and get a radically different analysis of current narrative deployment. Their perspective on Syria’s recent takeover and Bashar al-Assad’s ouster possibly being maneuver warfare (at 2:09:30) is shared by Alex Krainer in many of his YouTube interviews. In any case, there’s probably nothing more important in these episodes than Burning Bright’s caution not to outsource our own discernment.
Who Are We?
What motivation is driving American foreign and domestic policy, if its motivation is not securing happiness and the ability to pursue prosperity for its own citizens: rights which we are guaranteed under the Constitution, while not infringing on the rights of foreign citizens? Globalism threatens national sovereignty. We have to understand why sovereignty is important for all nations and how the U.S. originally became great as a nation. Our nation’s best leaders secured peace, stability and achieved fast rising wealth generation for their citizens. Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) explains that
“For most of our country’s history the federal government was funded by tariffs, there was no income tax, the budget was (mostly) balanced, and federal spending was less than 10% of GDP.”
We and our children can experience this kind of prosperity again.
The fact that the United States of America has defeated fascist globalistsin darker times (always with international assistance, and Russia’s consistent assistance in particular) has been obscured by those same globalists, along with burying many detailed explanations of the methods we used to defeat them, and the multitude of heroes who stood up to them. Knowledgeable of those methods and inspired by those heroes, we can defeat globalists again.
How has this revisionist history come about? Mathew Crawford explains that soon to be famous last words are "Of course we can trust the history we learned in school."
More important than any President who ever takes office in the United States is the education of its citizenry. There are plenty of populations who missed clear opportunities to break free from globalist enslavement. Without an informed citizenry, as was made possible by the Juntos in Benjamin Franklin’s time which allowed us to prevail against imperialists during the American Revolution, and the Lyceums in Abraham Lincoln’s time which allowed us to prevail against imperialists during the Civil War, we increase the likelihood that future generations have to suffer.
We have to relearn Who We Are and then educate others, especially our children.
Stay up-to-date
Subscribe to get full access to the newsletter and website. Never miss an update. Every new edition of the newsletter goes directly to your inbox.
Join the crew
To find out more about the company that provides the tech for this newsletter, visit Substack.com.
Subscribe to Toward Freedom From Want
Reason can link together truths. Truths can't contradict one another. -Gottfried Leibniz, 1709
I hold a Masters in IT, but after 13 years left my career in Computer Science. Earned a Bachelors in Exercise Science &a Masters in Human Nutrition, which both shape as well as bias my perspective of overwhelming corruption throughout Health Sciences
