Trump threatens Cuba with ‘regime change’

On Friday, speaking to Cuban-American exiles in Miami, Florida, Donald Trump ordered tighter restrictions on Americans traveling to Cuba and a clampdown on US businessmen doing business with companies allegedly controlled by the Cuban military.

Effective immediately, I am canceling the last administration’s completely one-sided deal with Cuba. Our policy will seek a much better deal for the Cuban people and the USA,” said Trump.

Trump called Raul Castro’s government brutal and vowed to liberate the island nation. “With God’s help a free Cuba is what we will soon achieve,” he thundered.

It is best for America to have freedom in its hemisphere whether in Cuba or Venezuela,” he added.

The Castro regime has sent arms to North Korea and fueled chaos in Venezuela. It has supported human trafficking, forced labor and exploitation across the globe,” added Trump.

It would be talking to Holy Cow to remind Donald Trump that Washington has been arming Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, and Egypt which are using them against Palestinian, Syrians, Yemenis and Lebanese. In 2016, Human trafficking in the United States rose 35.7 percent from the previous year.

US, the self-appointed champion for human rights around the globe – is also the worst human rights abuser when it comes to minors. According to the Family Research Council:

Each year, right under our noses, 100,000 American children are victimized by sex traffickers. Make no mistake, this is not a problem that’s just “over there.” These heinous crimes are happening in our own backyards”.

In 2007, UNICEF reported that the US and Britain  are the worst nations for children to live among the industrialized nations.

Cuban-American Israel-Firsters Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) are allegedly the authors of Trump’s anti-Havana rant.

Since Barack Obama’s historic visit to Cuba in March 2016, a lot of people felt happy believing that finally the five-decade old American crusade against Castro dynasty came to an end. But now they’re disappointed to find out that the ‘crippling sanctions’ against Cuba, like Iran, are still in force.

Washington lifted some travel restrictions against Cuban citizen. The US released the Cuban-Five in exchange for American Jew spy Alan Gross. US State Department even took-off Cuba from list of countries sponsoring terrorism. Iran and N. Korea are still on that list while Israel which had committed most terrorist acts against the US, never made to the list.

Commenting on Trump’s rant, Ellie Schwartz (Jew) at the Latin America Working Group (LAWG) said:

The way forward for US-Cuba relations is to not simply relax travel and trade restrictions, but to end the embargo once and for all. After half a century, it is clear that the embargo is a failed policy. It has done nothing to accomplish its primary goal of regime change. The embargo has not improved Cuban lives; it has succeeded only in further snubbing the Cuban people it claims to help. If Trump truly sought a better deal for the Cuban people, he would support continued engagement, trade, and travel to Cuba, and thereby increase opportunity for all.”

Both Cuba and Venezuela have no diplomatic relations with the Zionist entity. Both countries have recognized a separate Palestinian state. Cuban president Fidel Castro and Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez have paid state visits to Iran. Iranian president Dr. Hassan Rouhani has also visited both Cuba and Venezuela.

The Dirty War on Syria: Professor Anderson Reveals the “Unspoken Truth”

Global Research, June 13, 2017

The following texts are excerpts from the Preface of  Professor Tim Anderson’s timely and important book entitled The Dirty War on Syria. The book is available for order from Global Research, place your order here now!

Although every war makes ample use of lies and deception, the dirty war on Syria has relied on a level of mass disinformation not seen in living memory. The British-Australian journalist Philip Knightley pointed out that war propaganda typically involves ‘a depressingly predictable pattern’ of demonising the enemy leader, then demonising the enemy people through atrocity stories, real or imagined (Knightley 2001). Accordingly, a mild-mannered eye doctor called Bashar al Assad became the new evil in the world and, according to consistent western media reports, the Syrian Army did nothing but kill civilians for more than four years. To this day, many imagine the Syrian conflict is a ‘civil war’, a ‘popular revolt’ or some sort of internal sectarian conflict. These myths are, in many respects, a substantial achievement for the big powers which have driven a series of ‘regime change’ operations in the Middle East region, all on false pretexts, over the past 15 years.

Dr. Tim Anderson

This book is a careful academic work, but also a strong defence of the right of the Syrian people to determine their own society and political system. That position is consistent with international law and human rights principles, but may irritate western sensibilities, accustomed as we are to an assumed prerogative to intervene. At times I have to be blunt, to cut through the double-speak. In Syria the big powers have sought to hide their hand, using proxy armies while demonising the Syrian Government and Army, accusing them of constant atrocities; then pretending to rescue the Syrian people from their own government. Far fewer western people opposed the war on Syria than opposed the invasion of Iraq, because they were deceived about its true nature.

Dirty wars are not new. Cuban national hero Jose Martí predicted to a friend that Washington would try to intervene in Cuba’s independence struggle against the Spanish. ‘They want to provoke a war’, he wrote in 1889 ‘to have a pretext to intervene and, with the authority of being mediator and guarantor, to seize the country … There is no more cowardly thing in the annals of free people; nor such cold blooded evil’ (Martí 1975: 53). Nine years later, during the third independence war, an explosion in Havana Harbour destroyed the USS Maine, killing 258 US sailors and serving as a pretext for a US invasion.

The US launched dozens of interventions in Latin America over the subsequent century. A notable dirty war was led by CIA-backed, ‘freedom fighter’ mercenaries based in Honduras, who attacked the Sandinista Government and the people of Nicaragua in the 1980s. That conflict, in its modus operandi, was not so different to the war on Syria. In Nicaragua more than 30,000 people were killed. The International Court of Justice found the US guilty of a range of terrorist-style attacks on the little Central American country, and found that the US owed Nicaragua compensation (ICJ 1986). Washington ignored these rulings.

With the ‘Arab Spring’ of 2011 the big powers took advantage of a political foment by seizing the initiative to impose an ‘Islamist winter’, attacking the few remaining independent states of the region. Very quickly we saw the destruction of Libya, a small country with the highest standard of living in Africa. NATO bombing and a Special Forces campaign helped the al Qaeda groups on the ground. The basis for NATO’s intervention was lies told about actual and impending massacres, supposedly carried out or planned by the government of President Muammar Gaddafi. These claims led rapidly to a UN Security Council resolution said to protect civilians through a ‘no fly zone’. We know now that trust was betrayed, and that the NATO powers abused the limited UN authorisation to overthrow the Libyan Government (McKinney 2012).

Subsequently, no evidence emerged to prove that Gaddafi intended, carried out or threatened wholesale massacres, as was widely suggested (Forte 2012). Genevieve Garrigos of Amnesty International (France) admitted there was ‘no evidence’ to back her group’s earlier claims that Gaddafi had used ‘black mercenaries’ to commit massacres (Forte 2012; Edwards 2013).

… Two days before NATO bombed Libya another armed Islamist insurrection broke out in Daraa, Syria’s southernmost city. Yet because this insurrection was linked to the demonstrations of a political reform movement, its nature was disguised. Many did not see that those who were providing the guns – Qatar and Saudi Arabia – were also running fake news stories in their respective media channels, Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya. There were other reasons for the durable myths of this war. Many western audiences, liberals and leftists as well as the more conservative, seemed to like the idea of their own role as the saviours of a foreign people, speaking out strongly about a country of which they knew little, but joining what seemed to be a ‘good fight’ against this new ‘dictator’. With a mission and their proud self-image western audiences apparently forgot the lies of previous wars, and of their own colonial legacies.

I would go so far as to say that, in the Dirty War on Syria, western culture in general abandoned its better traditions: of reason, the maintenance of ethical principle and the search for independent evidence at times of conflict; in favour of its worst traditions: the ‘imperial prerogative’ for intervention, backed by deep racial prejudice and poor reflection on the histories of their own cultures. That weakness was reinforced by a ferocious campaign of war propaganda. After the demonisation of Syrian leader Bashar al Assad began, a virtual information blockade was constructed against anything which might undermine the wartime storyline. Very few sensible western perspectives on Syria emerged after 2011, as critical voices were effectively blacklisted.

The Dirty War on Syria

by Professor Tim Anderson

click to purchase, directly from Global Research Publishers

In that context I came to write this book. It is a defence of Syria, not primarily addressed to those who are immersed the western myths but to others who engage with them. This is therefore a resource book and a contribution to the history of the Syrian conflict. The western stories have become self-indulgent and I believe it is wasteful to indulge them too much. Best, I think, to speak of current events as they are, then address the smokescreens later. I do not ignore the western myths, in fact this book documents many of them. But I lead with the reality of the war.

Western mythology relies on the idea of imperial prerogatives, asking what must ‘we’ do about the problems of another people; an approach which has no basis in international law or human rights. The next steps involve a series of fabrications about the pretexts, character and events of the war. The first pretext over Syria was that the NATO states and the Gulf monarchies were supporting a secular and democratic revolution. When that seemed implausible the second story was that they were saving the oppressed majority ‘Sunni Muslim’ population from a sectarian ‘Alawite regime’. Then, when sectarian atrocities by anti-government forces attracted greater public attention, the pretext became a claim that there was a shadow war: ‘moderate rebels’ were said to be actually fighting the extremist groups. Western intervention was therefore needed to bolster these ‘moderate rebels’ against the ‘new’ extremist group that had mysteriously arisen and posed a threat to the world.

That was the ‘B’ story. No doubt Hollywood will make movies based on this meta-script, for years to come. However this book leads with the ‘A’ story. Proxy armies of Islamists, armed by US regional allies (mainly Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey), infiltrate a political reform movement and snipe at police and civilians. They blame this on the government and spark an insurrection, seeking the overthrow of the Syrian government and its secular-pluralist state. This follows the openly declared ambition of the US to create a ‘New Middle East’, subordinating every country of the region, by reform, unilateral disarmament or direct overthrow. Syria was next in line, after Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. In Syria, the proxy armies would come from the combined forces of the Muslim Brotherhood and Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabi fanatics. Despite occasional power struggles between these groups and their sponsors, they share much the same Salafist ideology, opposing secular or nationalist regimes and seeking the establishment of a religious state.

However in Syria Washington’s Islamists confronted a disciplined national army which did not disintegrate along religious lines, despite many provocations. The Syrian state also had strong allies in Russia and Iran. Syria was not to be Libya Take Two. In this prolonged war the violence, from the western side, was said to consist of the Syrian Army targeting and killing civilians. From the Syrian side people saw daily terrorist attacks on towns and cities, schools and hospitals and massacres of ordinary people by NATO’s ‘freedom fighters’, then the counter attacks by the Army. Foreign terrorists were recruited in dozens of countries by the Saudis and Qatar, bolstering the local mercenaries.

Though the terrorist groups were often called ‘opposition, ‘militants’ and ‘Sunni groups’ outside Syria, inside the country the actual political opposition abandoned the Islamists back in early 2011. Protest was driven off the streets by the violence, and most of the opposition (minus the Muslim Brotherhood and some exiles) sided with the state and the Army, if not with the ruling Ba’ath Party. The Syrian Army has been brutal with terrorists but, contrary to western propaganda, protective of civilians. The Islamists have been brutal with all, and openly so. Millions of internally displaced people have sought refuge with the Government and Army, while others fled the country.

In a hoped-for ‘end game’ the big powers sought overthrow of the Syrian state or, failing that, the creation of a dysfunctional state or dismembering into sectarian statelets, thus breaking the axis of independent regional states. That axis comprises Hezbollah in south Lebanon and the Palestinian resistance, alongside Syria and Iran, the only states in the region without US military bases. More recently Iraq – still traumatised from western invasion, massacres and occupation – has begun to align itself with this axis. Russia too has begun to play an important counter-weight role. Recent history and conduct demonstrate that neither Russia nor Iran harbour any imperial ambitions remotely approaching those of Washington and its allies, several of which (Britain, France and Turkey) were former colonial warlords in the region. From the point of view of the ‘Axis of Resistance’, defeat of the dirty war on Syria means that the region can begin closing ranks against the big powers. Syria’s successful resistance would mean the beginning of the end for Washington’s ‘New Middle East’.

That is basically the big picture. This book sets out to document the A story and expose the B story. It does so by rescuing some of the better western traditions: the use of reason, the maintenance of ethical principle and the search for independent evidence in case of conflict. I hope it might prove a useful resource. Here is a brief overview of the chapters.

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-8-4

Year: 2016

Pages: 240

Author: Tim Anderson

List Price: $23.95

Special Price: $15.00

The Dirty War on Syria 

by Professor Tim Anderson

click to purchase, directly from Global Research Publishers

Chapter Overview:

Chapter 1, ‘Syria and Washington’s ‘New Middle East’’ puts Syria in context of the US plans for a ‘New Middle East’, the latest chapter in a longer history of US attempts to dominate the region.

Chapter 2, ‘Barrel Bombs, Partisan Sources and War Propaganda’ addresses the problem of reporting and reading the Syrian crisis. Media channels have shown a hyper-reliance on partisan sources, committed to the war and denigrating the Syrian Army. This is the key barrier to understanding the controversies around chemical weapons, civilian massacres and the levels of support for or opposition to President Assad.

Chapter 3, ‘Daraa 2011: Another Islamist Insurrection’ reconstructs, from a range of sources, the Saudi-backed Islamist insurrection in Daraa in March 2011. Those armed attacks were quite distinct from the political reform rallies, which the Islamists soon drove off the streets.

Chapter 4, ‘Bashar al Assad and Political Reform’ explains the political reform movement from the time Bashar assumed the presidency in the year 2000 to the beginning of the crisis in 2011. From this we can see that most opposition groups were committed to reform within a Syrian context, with virtually all opposing attacks on the Syrian state. The chapter then reviews the role of Bashar as a reformer, and the evidence on his popularity.

Chapter 5, ‘The Empire’s Jihadis’ looks at the collaboration between Salafist political Islam and the imperial powers in the Middle East. Distinct from the anti-imperial Islamic currents in Iran and south Lebanon, Salafist political Islam has become a sectarian force competing with Arab nationalism across Egypt, Palestine and Syria, and drawing on long standing collaborative relations with the big powers. This history provides important background to the character of Syria’s Islamist ‘revolution’, and its various slogans.

Chapter 6, ‘Embedded Media, Embedded Watchdogs’ identifies the propaganda techniques of media channels and the network of ‘human rights’ bodies (Human Rights Watch, Avaaz, etc) which function as megaphones and ‘moderators’ for the Washington agenda. Many have become fierce advocates for ‘humanitarian war’. A number of newer western NGOs (e.g. The Syria Campaign, The White Helmets) have been created by Wall Street agencies specifically for the dirty war on Syria. A number of their fabrications are documented here.

Chapter 7, ‘The Houla Massacre Revisited’ considers in detail the evidence from the first major massacre designed (following success of the technique over Libya) to influence UN Security Council consideration of military intervention. While the first UN inquiry group, actually in Syria, found contradictory evidence on this massacre, a second UN group outside Syria and co-chaired by a US diplomat, tried to blame the Syrian Government. Yet more than a dozen witnesses blamed Farouq FSA Islamists, who killed pro-government villagers and took over the area, holding it for some months. Several other ‘false flag’ massacres are noted.

Chapter 8, ‘Chemical Fabrications: the East Ghouta Incident’ details the second major ‘false flag’ incident of international significance. This incident in August 2013, which nearly sparked a major escalation involving US missile attacks on Syria, was used to accuse the Syrian Government of killing hundreds of civilians, including children, with chemical weapons. Within a fairly short time multiple sources of independent evidence (including North American evidence) disproved these accusations. Nevertheless, Syria’s opponents have repeated the false accusations, to this day, as though they were fact.

Chapter 9, ‘The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and the Double Game’ addresses a recent political doctrine, a subset of ‘humanitarian intervention’ popularised to add to the imperial toolkit. The application of this doctrine in Libya was disastrous for that little country. Fortunately the attempts to use it in Syria failed.

Chapter 10, ‘Health and Sanctions’ documents the NATO-backed Islamist attacks on Syria’s health system, linked to the impact of western economic sanctions. These twin currents have caused great damage to Syrian public health. Such attacks carry no plausible motive of seeking local popular support, so we must interpret them as part of an overall strategy to degrade the Syrian state, rendering it more vulnerable to outside intervention.

Chapter 11 ‘Washington, Terrorism and the Islamic State (ISIS)’, documents the links between the big powers and the latest peak terrorist group they claim to be fighting. Only evidence can help develop informed opinion on this contentious matter, but the evidence is overwhelming. There is little ideological difference between the various Salafi-Islamist groups, and Washington and its allies have financed and armed every one of them.

Chapter 12, ‘Western Intervention and the Colonial Mind’ discusses the western cultural mindset that underlies persistent violations of the rights of other peoples.

Chapter 13 ‘Towards an Independent Middle East’, considers the end-game in the Syrian crisis, and its implications for the Middle East region. At tremendous cost the Syrian Arab Republic, its army and its people, have successfully resisted aggression from a variety of powerful enemies. Syria’s survival is due to its resilience and internal unity, bolstered by support from some strong allies. The introduction of Russian air power in late September 2015 was important. So too were the coordinated ground forces from Iran, Iraq and Lebanon, in support of an independent Syria.

When the attacks on Syria abate the Middle East seems set to be transformed, with greater political will and military preparedness on the part of an expanded Axis of Resistance. That will signal the beginning of the end for Washington’s 15 year spree of bloodshed and ‘regime change’ across the entire region.

Also available in PDF version, click here to purchase

Reviews:

Tim Anderson  has written the best systematic critique of western fabrications justifying the war against the Assad government. 

No other text brings together all the major accusations and their effective refutation.

This text is essential reading for all peace and justice activists.  -James Petras, Author and Bartle Professor (Emeritus) of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York, Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Tim Anderson’s important new book, titled “The Dirty War on Syria” discusses US naked aggression – “rely(ing) on a level of mass disinformation not seen in living memory,” he explains.

ISIS is the pretext for endless war without mercy, Assad the target, regime change the objective, wanting pro-Western puppet governance replacing Syrian sovereign independence.

There’s nothing civil about war in Syria, raped by US imperialism, partnered with rogue allies. Anderson’s book is essential reading to understand what’s going on. Stephen Lendman, Distinguished Author and Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Host of the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

Professor Anderson demonstrates unequivocally through carefully documented research that America’s “Moderate Opposition” are bona fide Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists created and protected by the US and its allies, recruited  and trained by Saudi Arabia, Turkey, in liaison with Washington and Brussels.

Through careful analysis, professor Anderson reveals the “unspoken truth”: the “war on terrorism” is fake, the United States is a “State sponsor of terrorism” involved in a criminal undertaking. Michel Chossudovsky, Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization, Professor of Economics (Emeritus), University of Ottawa.

Click here to order Tim Anderson’s Book

Dr Tim Anderson is a Senior Lecturer in Political Economy at the University of Sydney. He researches and writes on development, rights and self-determination in Latin America, the Asia-Pacific and the Middle East. He has published many dozens of chapters and articles in a range of academic books and journals. His last book was Land and Livelihoods in Papua New Guinea (Australian Scholarly Publishing, Melbourne, 2015).


Special: Dirty War on Syria + Globalization of War (Buy 2 books for 1 price!) 

original

Special: Dirty War on Syria + America’s “War on Terrorism” (Buy 2 books for 1 price!) 

original

Bulk Order: Click here to order multiple copies at a discounted price (North America only)


Notes:

Edwards, Dave (2013) ‘Limited But Persuasive’ Evidence – Syria, Sarin, Libya, Lies’, Media Lens, 13 June, online: http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/alerts-2013/735-limited-but-persuasive-evidence-syria-sarin-libya-lies.html

Forte, Maximilian (2012) Slouching Towards Sirte: NATO’s War on Libya and Africa, Baraka Books, Quebec

ICJ (1986) Case concerning the military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) Merits’, International Court of Justice, Judgement of 27 June 1986, online: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/?sum=367&p1=3&p2=3&case=70&p3=5

Knightley, Phillip (2001) ‘The disinformation campaign’, The Guardian, 4 October, online: http://www.theguardian.com/education/2001/oct/04/socialsciences.highereducation

Kuperman, Alan J. (2015) Obama’s Libya Debacle’, Foreign Affairs, 16 April, online: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/libya/2015-02-16/obamas-libya-debacle

Martí, Jose (1975) Obras Completas, Vol. 6, Editorial de Ciencias Sociales, La Habana

McKinney, Cynthia (Ed) (2012) The Illegal War on Libya, Clarity Press, Atlanta

Putin, Vladimir (2015) ‘Violence instead of democracy: Putin slams ‘policies of exceptionalism and impunity’ in UN speech’, RT, 28 September, online: https://www.rt.com/news/316804-putin-russia-unga-speech/

Richter, Larry (1998) ‘Havana Journal; Remember the Maine? Cubans See an American Plot Continuing to This Day’, New York Times, 14 February, online: http://www.nytimes.com/1998/02/14/world/havana-journal-remember-maine-cubans-see-american-plot-continuing-this-day.html

Venezuela – Confronting the Neoliberal Propaganda Media Machine

by Peter Koenig

June 10, 2017

On 8 of JunVenezuela – Confronting the Neoliberal Propaganda Media Machinee, I had the privilege to attend a press conference hosted by the Venezuelan Ambassador in Bern, Switzerland. The purpose of the press conference was to clarify the current highly misrepresented situation in Venezuela, as well as explaining the process of electing a new National Constitutional Assembly (Asamblea Nacional Constituyente – ANC) on July 30, 2017.

In his hour-long presentation, the Ambassador introduced the issues at stake by explaining that Venezuela today has the largest known oil reserves in the world and the fourth largest deposits of gas; that the US is importing 60% of its lush energy use (a distant first of the globe’s per capita energy users), mostly from the Middle East, where it is subject to long and costly transport (40-45 days), and to many risk factors, including the Gulf of Hormuz, controlled by Iran, where today about one third of all the world’s petrol must pass through.

By contrast, shipments of petroleum from Venezuela across the Caribbean to the refineries in Texas takes only 4-5 days.

This is the main reason why Venezuela is in the White House’s crosshairs, plus, of course, the fact that for Washington it is totally intolerable to have a sovereign socialist Republic in its ‘backyard’ – and so close, the same syndrome applies also for Cuba, a genuinely successful socialist nation, having survived almost sixty years of atrocious and criminal American strangulation. There is no tolerance for sovereign independent countries that do not bend to the dictate of the United States and her behind the scene handlers.

The Ambassador then went on explaining the process of the upcoming election of the National Constitutional Assembly (ANC). He described the process of direct democracy, where Venezuelans elect their delegates by region and by sector, and where of course, the opposition was also supposed to participate, although the opposition’s leadership has already declared they would boycott the process.

The elected new ANC would then be called to amend the Constitution of 1999, to adapt it to today’s circumstances. The current Constitution was approved in a similar democratic process by the people and sanctioned by the ANC one year after President Hugo Chavez Frias became President in 1998. The 1999 Constitution is still valid and adhered to until this day.

The July election will choose 545 members to the National Assembly, of which two thirds (364) would be elected on a regional or territorial basis, and one third (181) by sectors of professions or activities, i.e. students, farmers, unions of different labor forces, employees, business owners – and so on. This cross-section of people’s representation is the most solid basis for democracy.

The Ambassador assured the journalists that there will be a very high peoples’ participation in the elections, as was the case for the 19 democratic elections that took place since1998, when Comandante Chavez became President.

This election should be an opportunity for the opposition to gather as many Assembly seats as possible, and then help shape the new Constitution in a fully democratic process. Not by street violence.

The fact that the opposition is planning to boycott the election shows clearly, they are not interested in democracy. They have one goal only, to oust President Maduro and take power, privatize state assets, especially hydrocarbons (petroleum and gas) to hand them to international mainly US corporations to be exploited at no benefits for the Venezuelan people.

This was precisely the case before President Chavez took the reins of the country. Foreign corporations, almost all North Americans, left not a dollar in tax revenues in Venezuela.

Venezuela today is arguably the only true democracy in the western world, as said on numerous occasions by Professor Noam Chomsky, MIT.

——-

To counter the neoliberal mainstream media’s (MSM) demonization of the Bolivarian Revolution and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and her President Nicolas Maduro, the Ambassador showed various videos demonstrating that the instigators of violence were clearly the armed opposition. They are constituted and led by a rich elite and supported ideologically and financially from outside.

Among different foreign sources of support and funding, most of them American, is the infamous National Endowment for Democracy – NED, a so called “fake” NGO “think-tank” (sic), receiving from the US State Department hundreds of millions of dollars per year to ’spread democracy’ American style around the globe, i.e. training local rebel groups abroad and within the targeted country to provoke instability through unrest and violence; distribute anti-government propaganda, infiltrate the media, universities and so on. They are the same who were responsible for the so-called Arab Spring and the Color Revolutions in former Soviet Republics, including Ukraine.

The facts explained and demonstrated by the Ambassador showed clearly who was responsible for most of the 67 deaths and more than 1,200 injured within the last couple of months.

This is all supported by unmistakable videos, showing government supporters, who are despite what the western media are saying, the vast majority – between 70% and 80%, demonstrating peacefully and unarmed.

However, western media twists and manipulates the truth to become anti-Venezuela propaganda, including video clips presented out of context, or outright falsified, blame the aggression on the government supporters, accusing authorities and police of oppressing civil liberties, of dictatorship, of killing its own people.

The western MSM do not show the weaponized right-wing opposition attacking police with explosives, putting police cars on fire and throwing Molotov cocktails and more sophisticated explosives at police and authorities.

This point of opposition violence, blackmail and more, is clearly demonstrated by a recent US journalist covering the riots for the pan-Latin American TeleSur TV. Ms. Abby Martin, the host of the Empire Files, an investigative program, told RT (Russia Today) that she received numerous death threats from opposition fighters during her work on the ground in Venezuela. She says protesters threatened to lynch and burn her alive if she tried to contradict their narrative (https://www.rt.com/news/391338-us-journalist-venezuela-threats/). This is to be taken seriously, because several journalists have already been murdered by the opposition.

——

The Ambassador made two very important points that the west should listen to. He said, that despite the violent social upheavals, the government is respecting the principles of democracy and has not declared a State of Emergency or Martial Law, nor curtailed private-owned foreign media slandering Venezuela with lies.

This contrasts with other countries, like France which for the past two years has been under a declared State of Emergency, just a small step below Martial Law, and is about to put this state of permanent militarization into her Constitution; or take Argentina which is suppressing foreign media like TeleSur (and were at the point of shutting down also RT), because they are telling Argentinians the inconvenient truth.

——

When the Ambassador opened the floor for questions and comments, most of the journalists present were polite, seeking clarifications of the election process. But there were two sore thumbs sticking out, the representatives of the two largest and most neoliberal Swiss newspapers, the Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ) and the Tagesanzeiger.

They came with a specific agenda. It seems they didn’t listen to anything the Ambassador said. They simply hurled their list of insults, accusations and offensive negative lie-propaganda at the Ambassador. Both of them are what one would assume in Switzerland, educated people. They must know the truth. If they don’t say the truth, they are most likely bought agents of the Anglo-Zionist network that controls 90% of the news throughout the western world. After they accomplished their mission of insulting the Ambassador, they left the conference.

Isn’t it a journalist’s foremost obligation to adhere to a code of ethics? – That’s what they were taught at universities, to seek the truth and portray the truth as objectively as possible.

And what about Switzerland? A country that boasts about its neutrality, appears to have completely abandoned her noble principles and moved to become Europe’s epicenter of neoliberalism. No wonder, such alternative international media like TeleSur and RT are not publicly offered to households by the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation (SRG), the monopoly holder (90%) of Swiss television and radio providers.

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a former World Bank staff and worked extensively around the world in the fields of environment and water resources. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for Global Research, ICH, RT, Sputnik, PressTV, The 4th Media (China), TeleSUR, The Vineyard of The Saker Blog, and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance.

 

ADL: How to neutralize Hizbullah

On June 8, one of America’s most hateful group, Anti-Defamation League, submitted a series of proposals to House Foreign Affairs Committee, designed to limit the influence and military capability of Hizbullah, the Lebanon-based Islamic Resistance group which is not only a charitable organization but also leads the opposition groups in country’s 124-member parliament. Lebanon’s Christian president Michel Naim Aoun is an ally of Hizbullah. During he visit to Saudi Arabia, Gen. Aoun told the Saudi ‘royals’ that Hizbullah is the real defender of Lebanon.

The  proposals read as follows:

  1. Apply secondary sanctions to financial entities connected to Hizbullah and/or its associates.
  2. Identify, designate and sanction more individuals belonging to the organization’s leadership cadre.
  3. Highlight Iran’s role in financing Hizbullah and assessing ways to stem the cash and arms flow from Tehran.
  4. Investigate and expose intelligence and logistical support networks in the Latin American region.

Considering the Israeli terrorism in past, it would be appropriate to substitute Israel to Hizbullah. After all, it’s Israel which had received US$3 trillion aid during 1980-2004, and not Hizbullah.

ADL proposals were in the aftermath the arrest of two US citizen allegedly linked to Hizbullah. Hizbullah is classified as a terrorist organization in Israel, the US, Canada, UK, Saudi Arabia, and UAE.

Let’s believe for a change that the allegations against those two Americans can be proved in a court of law which one doubt very much considering what happened to Muslim inmates at guantanamo bay Auschwitz – how about those 80 Senators and 350 Congressmen who have ties with Israeli terrorism againgst United States.

Ironically, last year, Israeli veteran columnist, and former member of Jewish terrorist group Irgun and Israeli Knesset, Uri Avnery claimed that Hizbullah is not a terrorist organization.

Is Iran really arming Hizbullah? Well, if one has to believe Israeli propaganda lies – The Tower news site (January 11, 2016) claimed that Russia is providing Hizbullah with advanced weaponry, including long-range tactical missiles, laser guided rockets, and anti-tank weapons.

Hizbullah is supported by Lebanese diaspora communities in Latin America. In February 2017, Trump administration put sanctions on Lebanese-born Venezuelan Vice-president Tareck El-Aissami, over his alleged links to Hizbullah. Washington put a freeze on El-Aissami’s assets, mostly in real-state, which would soon be opened for the families of 147 Israeli soldiers killed by Hizbullah fighters in 2006 war to dip-in.

Hizbullah is the only Arab militia which defeated Jewish army in 2000 and 2006. Now, Netanyahu and the Jewish lobbying groups in the West are drums-beating for a new war with Hizbullah to settle the old scores at the risk of annihilation of half of Jewish population without destroying Hizbullah.

Oligarchs Succeed! Only the People Suffer!

By James Petras

June 01, 2017 “Information Clearing House” – On a scale not seen since the ‘great’ world depression of the 1930’s, the US political system is experiencing sharp political attacks, divisions and power grabs. Executive firings, congressional investigations, demands for impeachment, witch hunts, threats of imprisonment for ‘contempt of Congress’ and naked power struggles have shredded the façade of political unity and consensus among competing powerful US oligarchs.

For the first time in US history, the incumbent elected president struggles on a daily basis to wield state power. The opposition-controlled state (National Public Radio) and corporate organs of mass propaganda are pitted against the presidential regime. Factions of the military elite and business oligarchy face off in the domestic and international arena. The oligarchs debate and insult each other. They falsify charges, plot and deceive. Their political acolytes, who witness these momentous conflicts, are mute, dumb and blind to the real interests at stake.

The struggle between the Presidential oligarch and the Opposition oligarchs has profound consequences for their factions and for the American people. Wars and markets, pursued by sections of the Oligarchs, have led opposing sections to seek control over the means of political manipulation (media and threats of judicial action).

Intense political competition and open political debate have nothing to do with ‘democracy’ as it now exists in the United States.

In fact, it is the absence of real democracy, which permits the oligarchs to engage in serious intra-elite warfare. The marginalized, de-politicized electorate are incapable of taking advantage of the conflict to advance their own interests.

What the ‘Conflict’ is Not About

The ‘life and death’ inter-oligarchical fight is not about peace!

None of the factions of the oligarchy, engaged in this struggle, is aligned with democratic or independent governments.

Neither side seeks to democratize the American electoral process or to dismantle the grotesque police state apparatus.

Neither side has any commitment to a ‘new deal’ for American workers and employees.

Neither is interested in policy changes needed to address the steady erosion of living standards or the unprecedented increase in ‘premature’ mortality among the working and rural classes.

Despite these similarities in their main focus of maintaining oligarchical power and policies against the interests of the larger population, there are deep divisions over the content and direction of the presidential regime and the permanent state apparatus.

What the Oligarchical Struggle is About

There are profound differences between the oligarch factions on the question of overseas wars and ‘interventions’.

The ‘opposition’ (Democratic Party and some Republican elite) pursues a continuation of their policy of global wars, especially aimed at confronting Russian and China, as well as regional wars in Asia and the Middle East. There is a stubborn refusal to modify military policies, despite the disastrous consequences domestically (economic decline and increased poverty) and internationally with massive ethnic cleansing, terrorism, forced migrations of war refugees to Europe, and famine and epidemics (such as cholera and starvation in Yemen).

The Trump Presidency appears to favor increased military confrontation with Iran and North Korea and intervention in Syria, Venezuela and Yemen.

The ‘Opposition’ supports multilateral economic and trade agreements, (such as TTP and NAFTA), while Trump favors lucrative ‘bilateral’ economic agreements. Trump relies on trade and investment deals with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Emirates and the formation of an aggressive military ‘axis’ (US-Saudi Arabia-Israel -Gulf Emirates) to eventually overthrow the nationalist regime in Iran and divide the country.

The ‘Opposition’ pursues wars and violent ‘regime change’ to replace disobedient ‘tyrants’ and nationalists and set up ‘client governments’, which will provide bases for the US military empire. Trump’s regime embraces existing dictators, who can invest in his domestic infrastructure agenda.

The ‘opposition’ seeks to maximize the role of Washington’s global military power. President Trump focuses on expanding the US role in the global market.

While both oligarchical factions support US imperialism, they differ in terms of its nature and means.

For the ‘opposition’, every country, large or small, can be a target for military conquest. Trump tends to favor the expansion of lucrative overseas markets, in addition to projecting US military dominance.

Oligarchs: Tactical Similarities

The competition among oligarchs does not preclude similarities in means and tactics. Both factions favor increased military spending, support for the Saudi war on Yemen and intervention in Venezuela. They support trade with China and international sanctions against Russia and Iran. They both display slavish deference to the State of Israel and favor the appointment of openly Zionist agents throughout the political, economic and intelligence apparatus.

These similarities are, however, subject to tactical political propaganda skirmishes. The ‘Opposition’ denounces any deviation in policy toward Russia as ‘treason’, while Trump accuses the ‘Opposition’ of having sacrificed American workers through NAFTA.

Whatever the tactical nuances and similarities, the savage inter-oligarchic struggle is far from a theatrical exercise. Whatever the real and feigned similarities and differences, the oligarchs’ struggle for imperial and domestic power has profound consequence for the political and constitutional order.

Oligarchical Electoral Representation and the Parallel Police State

The ongoing fight between the Trump Administration and the ‘Opposition’ is not the typical skirmish over pieces of legislation or decisions. It is not over control of the nation’s public wealth. The conflict revolves around control of the regime and the exercise of state power.

The opposition has a formidable array of forces, including the national intelligence apparatus (NSA, Homeland Security, FBI, CIA, etc.) and a substantial sector of the Pentagon and defense industry. Moreover, the opposition has created new power centers for ousting President Trump, including the judiciary. This is best seen in the appointment of former FBI Chief Robert Mueller as ‘Special Investigator’ and key members of the Attorney General’s Office, including Deputy Attorney General Rob Rosenstein. It was Rosenstein who appointed Mueller, after the Attorney General ‘Jeff’ Session (a Trump ally) was ‘forced’ to recluse himself for having ‘met’ with Russian diplomats in the course of fulfilling his former Congressional duties as a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. This ‘recusal’ took significant discretionary power away from Trump’s most important ally within the Judiciary.

The web of opposition power spreads and includes former police state officials including mega-security impresario, Michael Chertoff (an associate of Robert Mueller), who headed Homeland Security under GW Bush, John Brennan (CIA), James Comey (FBI) and others.

The opposition dominates the principal organs of propaganda -the press (Washington Post, Financial Times, New York Times, and Wall Street Journal), television and radio (ABC, NBC, CBS and PBS/ NPR), which breathlessly magnify and prosecute the President and his allies for an ever-expanding web of unsubstantiated ‘crimes and misdemeanors’. Neo-conservative and liberal think tanks and foundations, academic experts and commentators have all joined the ‘hysteria chorus’ and feeding frenzy to oust the President.

The President has an increasingly fragile base of support in his Cabinet, family and closest advisers. He has a minority of supporters in the legislature and possibly in the Supreme Court, despite nominal majorities for the Republican Party.

The President has the passive support of his voters, but they have demonstrated little ability to mobilize in the streets. The electorate has been marginalized.

Outside of politics (the ‘Swamp’ as Trump termed Washington, DC) the President’s trade, investment, taxation and deregulation policies are backed by the majority of investors, who have benefited from the rising stock market. However, ‘money’ does not appear to influence the parallel state.

The divergence between Trumps supporters in the investment community and the political power of the opposition state is one of the most extraordinary changes of our century.

Given the President’s domestic weakness and the imminent threat of a coup d’état, he has turned to securing ‘deals’ with overseas allies, including billion-dollar trade and investment agreements.

The multi-billion arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Emirates will delight the military-industrial complex and its hundreds of thousands of workers.

Political and diplomatic ‘kowtowing’ to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu should please some American Zionists.

But the meetings with the EU in Brussels and with the G7 in Siciliy failed to neutralize Trump’s overseas opposition.

NATO’s European members did not accept Trump’s demands that they increase their contribution to the alliance and they condemned his reluctance to offer unconditional US military support for new NATO members. They showed no sympathy for domestic problems.

In brief, the President’s overseas supporters, meetings and agreements will have little impact on the domestic correlation of forces.

Moreover, there are long-standing ties among the various state apparatuses and spy agencies in the EU and the US, which strengthen the reach of the opposition in their attacks on Trump.

While substantive issues divide the Presidential and Opposition oligarchs, these issues are vertical, not horizontal, cleavages – a question of ‘their’ wars or ‘ours’.

Trump intensified the ideological war with North Korea and Iran; promised to increase ground troops in Afghanistan and Syria; boosted military and advisory support for the Saudi invasion of Yemen; and increased US backing for violent demonstrations and mob attacks in Venezuela.

The opposition demands more provocations against Russia and its allies; and the continuation of former President Obama’s seven wars.

While both sets of oligarchs support the ongoing wars, the major difference is over who is managing the wars and who can be held responsible for the consequences.

Both conflicting oligarchs are divided over who controls the state apparatus since their power depends on which side directs the spies and generates the fake news.

Currently, both sets of oligarchs wash each other’s ‘dirty linen’ in public, while covering up for their collective illicit practices at home and abroad.

The Trump’s oligarchs want to maximize economic deals through ‘uncritical’ support for known tyrants; the opposition ‘critically’ supports tyrants in exchange for access to US military bases and military support for ‘interventions’.

President Trump pushes for major tax cuts to benefit his oligarch allies while making massive cuts in social programs for his hapless supporters. The Opposition supports milder tax cuts and lesser reductions in social programs.

Conclusion

The battle of the oligarchs has yet to reach a decisive climax. President Trump is still the President of the United States. The Opposition forges ahead with its investigations and lurid media exposés.

The propaganda war is continuous. One day the opposition media focuses on a deported student immigrant and the next day the President features new jobs for American military industries.

The emerging left-neo-conservative academic partnership (e.g. Noam Chomsky-William Kristol) has denounced President Trump’s regime as a national ‘catastrophe’ from the beginning. Meanwhile, Wall Street investors and libertarians join to denounce the Opposition’s resistance to major tax ‘reforms’.

Oligarchs of all stripes and colors are grabbing for total state power and wealth while the majority of citizens are labeled ‘losers’ by Trump or ‘deplorables’ by Madame Clinton.

The ‘peace’ movement, immigrant rights groups and ‘black lives matter’ activists have become mindless lackeys pulling the opposition oligarchs’ wagon, while rust-belt workers, rural poor and downwardly mobile middle class employees are powerless serfs hitched to President Trump’s cart.

Epilogue

After the blood-letting, when and if President Trump is overthrown, the State Security functionaries in their tidy dark suits will return to their nice offices to preside over their ‘normal’ tasks of spying on the citizens and launching clandestine operations abroad.

The media will blow out some charming tid-bits and ‘words of truth’ from the new occupant of the ‘Oval Office’.

The academic left will churn out some criticism against the newest ‘oligarch-in-chief’ or crow about how their heroic ‘resistance’ averted a national catastrophe.

Trump, the ex-President and his oligarch son-in-law Jared Kushner will sign new real estate deals. The Saudis will receive the hundreds of billions of dollars of US arms to re-supply ISIS or its successors and to rust in the ‘vast and howling’ wilderness of US-Middle East intervention. Israel will demand even more frequent ‘servicing’ from the new US President.

The triumphant editorialists will claim that ‘our’ unique political system, despite the ‘recent turmoil’, has proven that democracy succeeds … only the people suffer!

Long live the Oligarchs!

James Petras is a Bartle Professor (Emeritus) of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York.http://petras.lahaine.org

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

 

Click for Spanish, German, Dutch, Danish, French, translation- Note- Translation may take a moment to load.

What’s your response? –  Scroll down to add / read comments 

The Coup, Then and Now – The Enemies of Humanity Try to Give Trump the JFK Treatment

May 31, 2017

By Anton Chaitkin

The Coup, Then and Now – The Enemies of Humanity Try to Give Trump the JFK Treatment

The Anglo-American oligarchy began a coup against President Donald Trump after his surprise 2016 election. They were in a panic to block his announced aims of partnership with Russia, the end of permanent war, the overturn of predatory Free Trade, and the return of Glass Steagall to break Wall Street’s power. The panic turned into a frenzy on the Russian angle, as it emerged that Trump had been working with strategic advisors who were prepared to return the United States to its traditional support for national sovereignty, and drop the regime-change insanity pursued by Presidents Bush and Obama.

We have seen this kind of coup d’etat before, against the outstanding nationalist U.S. President of the second half of the 20th century, John F. Kennedy.We have lived in the shadow of that coup ever since.

Perhaps throwing some new light on those events and, most importantly, what Kennedy himself understood about them, can help us see our way now to sanity and survival.

In this report, we will focus on two leading mortal opponents of JFK, Allen Dulles and Lyman Lemnitzer, the first in the spy world, and the other in the military. Alhough they were Americans, we will situate them as they saw themselves, internationally: they were men of the London-centered power structure that ran the Cold War against President Franklin Roosevelt’s design for peace at the end of World War II, that warred on President Kennedy, and that now pushes for world war.

1. Dulles and Lemnitzer Betray President Roosevelt

In November, 1942, Allen Dulles set up shop in the Swiss capital, Bern, in collaboration with the British secret intelligence service station chief in that city, Frederick Vanden Heuvel.

Allen Dulles was the most prominent American attorney for the Morgan, Rockefeller and Harriman financial and political interests, interests closely allied to the British Crown and the City of London. He was nominally a high officer of President Roosevelt’s Office of Strategic Services (OSS) intelligence organization. But Dulles and the President were the deepest of enemies.

A month before Dulles arrived in Bern, the Roosevelt administration had used the Trading with the Enemy Act to confiscate shares in a Nazi-front banking apparatus (“Union Banking Corporation”) run from the New York offices of a core client of Allen and his brother John Foster Dulles, Brown Brothers Harriman.[1] The Harriman parent enterprise was the world’s largest private investment bank, closely connected to the Bank of England. Its attorneys, the Dulles brothers, had long acted as that bank’s intermediaries with the Hitler regime.

In Bern, Dulles and Vanden Heuvel began conferring with their Nazi contacts on how German forces would be redeployed against the Soviet Union, America’s ally against Hitler, after Britain and the United States would conclude what they hoped would be a separate peace deal with the Nazis.

The British intelligence strategist Van den Heuvel and Dulles met in February 1943 with a representative of the Nazi SS (“storm troopers”)—the section of the German regime then in charge of exterminating the Jews. The SS spokesman was a German prince from Czechoslovakia, Max Egon Hohenlohe,[2] Dulles’s friend of 20 years.

In reporting on those 1943 discussions in Bern, Hohenlohe said that Dulles told him the post-war arrangements must permit “the existence of a ‘Greater Germany’ which would include Austria and a section of Czechoslovakia. This … would be a part of ‘a cordon sanitaire against Bolshevism and pan-Slavism’ which … would be ‘the best guarantee of order and progress in Central and Eastern Europe.’” [3]

Meanwhile, President Franklin D. Roosevelt conferred with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill at Casablanca, Morocco in January 1943. Roosevelt declared that “unconditional surrender” of the Nazis must be the firm policy of the Allies. FDR, using the terminology of American Civil War General Ulysses S. Grant, emphasized that German war-power must be ended completely, as opposed to London’s idea of shifting Germany into action against Russia. Churchill was shocked by Roosevelt’s stance; although he made no rebuttal, he never accepted this standpoint.

Russia had long been a target in British geopolitical wars. The British Empire abhorred the potential rise in Eurasia of national industrial powers that could challenge its global hegemony, which was based on free trade, control of financial flows, and supremacy on the seas. Most greatly feared was any alliance between Russia and the United States, two transcontinental nations whose best thinkers came to see themselves as natural allies—a relationship that took shape through the close Russian study of Alexander Hamilton’s nation-building economics in the early 19th century; American participation in building Russia’s first railroads in the 1830s; great popular support for Russia by Americans when Russia was under attack by Britain in the 1850s Crimean War; Russian Tsar Alexander II’s military backing of President Abraham Lincoln and the Union against the London-sponsored Confederacy; and the late-19th century surge of Russian industry under the guidance of Finance Minister Count Sergei Witte, a practitioner of Hamiltonian “American System” economics.

In the course of its long drive in the late 19th century to disrupt the spread of the American System in Europe, especially through pitting Germany and Russia against each other, Britain sponsored the 1905 war by its ally Japan, which destabilized Russia and led, in 1917, to upheavals that London tried to control. But the British did not succeed in controlling the Bolshevik Revolution or the subsequent policies of Lenin and Stalin in the Soviet Union; and when Russia could not be controlled through agents and allies within, the traditional British practice was to seek to weaken it by war.

British interests and their Wall Street partners had backed the rise of Hitler, largely on the logic that Hitler would make war on Russia. Britain only began really opposing Hitler when he turned his forces west, toward them, in 1940.

Once the United States joined the war against Germany, fascist Italy, and Japan at the end of 1941, Churchill worked to prolong the conflict, while Russians were dying by the millions fighting the Nazis, who had invaded in June of that year. Churchill prevented, until 1944, a direct western invasion through France to hit Germany. Churchill’s chief factional allies in this stalling tactic were General Bernard Montgomery, commander of the British Eighth Army, and Montgomery’s superior officer, General Harold Alexander, Britain’s Mediterranean commander, a high English aristocrat close to the Royal Family.

President Roosevelt was well aware of the British and Wall Street perfidy. When he returned home from Casablanca, Roosevelt explained the unconditional surrender doctrine to the American people:

[U]nless the peace that follows [this war] recognizes that the whole world is one neighborhood and does justice to the whole human race, the germs of another world war will remain as a constant threat to mankind….

In an attempt to ward off the inevitable disaster that lies ahead of them, the Axis propagandists are trying all their old tricks, in order to divide the United Nations. They seek to create the idea that if we win this war, Russia, and England, and China, and the United States are going to get into a cat-and-dog fight.

This is their final effort to turn one Nation against another, in the vain hope that they may settle with one or two at a time—that any of us may be so gullible and so forgetful as to be duped into making ‘deals’ at the expense of our allies.

To these panicky attempts—and that is the best word to use: “panicky”—to escape the consequences of their crimes, we say—all the United Nations say—that the only terms on which we shall deal with any Axis Government, or any Axis factions, are the terms proclaimed at Casablanca: “unconditional surrender.” We know, and the plain people of our enemies will eventually know, that in our uncompromising policy we mean no harm to the common people of the Axis Nations. But we do mean to impose punishment and retribution in full upon their guilty, barbaric leaders.

The Nazis must be frantic—not just panicky, but frantic if they believe that they can devise any propaganda that would turn the British and the American and the Chinese Governments and peoples against Russia—or Russia against the rest of us.

The overwhelming courage and endurance of the Russian people in withstanding and hurling back the invaders- the genius with which their great armies have been directed and led by Mr. Stalin and their military commanders—all speak for themselves.[4]

London’s stalling tactics succeeded in diverting Anglo-American military force into North Africa and across into Italy, beginning with the invasion of Sicily. Decades of geopolitical mischief would be set afoot from the British position in Italy.

Relations between the American and British allies were deeply mistrustful in July 1943, as they began moving into Sicily. On the premise that American troops were inferior in fighting quality to the British, General Alexander initially ordered U.S. General George Patton to keep his forces lagging behind those of General Montgomery, for a long slog through the island. The American liaison officer on Alexander’s staff, Gen. Clarence Huebner, angered Gen. Alexander by maneuvering to help Patton break out of the British grip and race past Montgomery towards victory in Sicily.

The too-Yankee Huebner was kicked out of Alexander’s entourage.

Enter Lyman Lemnitzer

General Lyman Lemnitzer replaced Huebner (July 25, 1943) as the U.S. liaison with the British Mediterranean commander. Lemnitzer, an American of ordinary birth and great ambition, looked up to the British aristocracy, and to High Society folks, as lords of the world’s great and important affairs. Lemnitzer had a “passion for keeping out of the limelight,” “rarely read a book,” and “could speak no foreign languages.”[5]

But Harold Alexander became his revered mentor[6] and under that British general’s sponsorship throughout his subsequent career, Lemnitzer rose to the highest American military rank.

Lemnitzer had a pathetically worshipful attitude towards the oligarchs, and what he assumed to be the magic of their secrets. His authorized biographer hints that this state of mind was reflected in the General’s pride in having risen to the highest levels of Freemasonry.[7]

General Harold Alexander was the son of the Earl of Caledon, and an aide-de-camp to King George VI. The general had been a high officer of the Masonic Grand Lodge of England, the governing body of British empire freemasonry, in which princes of the Royal Family have traditionally been Grand Masters.

Lord Alexander was a master of the Athlumney Masonic Lodge, whose initiates were usually also members of White’s—the legendary London gentlemen’s club at whose elegant bar MI6 director Stewart Menzies conducted “much of the informal business” of the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) during and after World War II.[8]

For the war’s last two years, 1943-1945, Gen. Lemnitzer organized meetings for Gen. Alexander with King George VI, Winston Churchill, Harold MacMillan, and other British leaders, travelling back and forth from Gen. Alexander’s headquarters in a vast palace at Caserta, Italy, to the royal precincts of London.

Operation Sunrise

On March 1, 1945, as Allied armies were finally rushing through Germany to terminate the war against Hitler, President Roosevelt reported to Congress on his just completed meeting with Soviet Premier Josef Stalin and Churchill at Yalta on the Crimean Peninsula in the Soviet Union.

Roosevelt reiterated that Nazi unconditional surrender meant American-Soviet post-war cooperation in running the affairs of both eastern and western Europe; that “the political and economic problems of any area liberated from Nazi conquest … are a joint responsibility of all three Governments”—the USA, Britain, and the USSR. He insisted that the coming peace should be the end of the failed system of “exclusive alliances, the spheres of influence, the balances of power”—i.e., the old British system of divide-and-rule.

But at that moment Dulles had already begun secret negotiations in Bern with German Gen. Karl Wolff,[9] head of the SS forces in Italy, for Britain and the USA to reach a separate peace with Germany, allowing the redeployment of German assets against Russia. On March 13, British commander Harold Alexander sent the American General Lemnitzer (accompanied by British General Terence Airey, an intelligence officer on Alexander’s staff) to Switzerland, to continue these talks. Dulles, Lemnitzer, Airey and Wolff now met repeatedly in Lugano, Switzerland.

These talks came to be known as Operation Sunrise. Dulles and Lemnitzer would gain great notoriety, and applause in London, for this betrayal of their Commander-in-Chief.

Roosevelt was told only what Dulles and the British wanted him to think—that the talks with Gen. Wolff were merely preliminary, to arrange a meeting with Gen. Alexander at his Caserta headquarters to negotiate a surrender.

Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov sent a letter to the American ambassador in Moscow, Averell Harriman, on March 22, protesting that the Dulles/British meetings had been occurring for two weeks behind the back of the Soviets. From Roosevelt’s reply,[10] it appears the President was not aware that actual negotiations were already under way, on the British premise that World War was to continue indefinitely—now against Russia.

The Post-Colonial World

The U.S. President had then recently stated very publicly his anti-colonial outlook for the post-war world, in contradiction to the plans of his London opponents. Roosevelt said in his press conference February 23, 1945, aboard the U.S.S. Quincy, en route home from Yalta:

I have been terribly worried about Indo-China [Vietnam and neighboring countries]. I talked to [China’s Generalissimo] Chiang Kai-shek in Cairo, Stalin in Teheran. They both agree with me. The French have been in there some hundred years….

[Chiang] said that [Indo-China] should not go back to the French, that they have been there for over 100 years and had done nothing about educating them, that for every dollar they have put in, they have taken out ten….

With the Indo-Chinese, there is a feeling that they ought to be independent but they are not ready for it. I suggested at the time, that Indo-China be set up under trusteeship—have a Frenchman, one or two Indo-Chinese, a Chinese, and a Russian because they are on the coast, and maybe a Filipino and an American—to educate them for self-government….

Stalin liked the idea. Chiang liked the idea. The British don’t like it. It might bust up their empire, because if the Indo-Chinese were to work together and eventually get their independence, the Burmese might do the same thing to England….

[Reporter’s question:] Is that Churchill’s idea on all territory out there, that he wants it back just the way they were?

The President: Yes, he is mid-Victorian on all things like that….

[Reporter’s question:] Do you remember that speech the Prime Minister made about the fact that he was not made Prime Minister of Great Britain to see the empire fall apart?

The President: Dear old Winston will never learn on that point. He has made his specialty on that point….[11]

President Roosevelt died April 12. A surrender of Nazi military forces in Italy was finally signed at Alexander’s Caserta headquarters on April 29, only eight days before the total German surrender in Europe. But a great deal of evil had been set in motion in the Swiss talks.

Roosevelt’s death before he had secured the peace was a catastrophe for America and the world. Those FDR had called the “Tories” rushed in to assert control over U.S. strategy. By tradition of family and institutions, these London/Wall Street royalists had never accepted the principles of the American Revolution. They had gained power over U.S. affairs at the dawn of the 20th century, after the assassination of President William McKinley in 1901 and the rise of such figures as President Theodore Roosevelt and President Woodrow Wilson. But the 1930s crash of their misrule had allowed FDR, with his New Deal and infrastructure development, to bring back that American devotion to progress that has inspired the world’s nationalists and modernizers. With FDR out of the way, the leading Anglo-American faction now emphasized financial-imperial aims, under the theme of “freedom” versus “communism.”

The British shut the Soviets out of the Wolff negotiations on the grounds that the Soviets must not participate in post-war arrangements in Italy or other West Europe countries, while the British did not desire the Allies to participate in arrangements in East European countries that would be occupied by Soviet forces. This was the beginning of the division of the world which became known as the Cold War. [12]

Allen Dulles and British MI6 aided many other top Nazi war criminals along with Karl Wolff to evade prosecution at the Nuremberg war crimes trials. They went out via the “ratlines” in Europe, the Mideast, and Latin America to prop up dictators and run covert armies. Among them were Klaus Barbie (the SS mass murderer in France); Reinhard Gehlen (Nazi intelligence officer who became post-war Germany’s intelligence service chief under the direct supervision of the CIA and MI6); Otto Skorzeny (head of the SS commando units, master of stay-behind covert armies and death squads in Europe, Africa and South America); and Hjalmar Schacht (Skorzeny’s father-in-law, banker, protégé of Bank of England Governor Montagu Norman and of John Foster Dulles). Schacht had coordinated the fundraising to install Hitler as Germany’s dictator, and had supervised the building of the Nazi war machine.[13]

The 14th Waffen SS Grenadier Division (1st Galician), a unit of eight thousand Ukrainian troops under Nazi command, including concentration camp guards, surrendered to General Alexander. Instead of being sent back to the USSR to be broken down, they were dispersed to Britain, to Canada, and throughout Europe for use in new underground secret armies under NATO. The direct heirs of these and other wings of the Ukrainian fascist Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) still celebrate Hitler’s war with Russia. They have considerable influence today in NATO and Washington corridors of power, which they brought to bear in rallying U.S. support for the Anglo-American coup of February 2014 that installed the present regime in Ukraine.[14]

2. Kennedy Views the Postwar Tragedy

In April 1945, as the world war drew to its heartbreaking and uncertain end, John F. Kennedy[15]became a special correspondent for Hearst Newspapers. Kennedy covered the tense conference (July 17 to August 2, 1945) at Potsdam, near Berlin, between Churchill, Stalin, and Harry Truman, Roosevelt’s successor.

Behind the scenes in Berlin, the British were pursuing the logic of Operation Sunrise. With Roosevelt dead, Churchill had commissioned a top secret military plan, Operation Unthinkable,[16] in which German armies, rather than being demobilized, were to be put back into action alongside British and American divisions for all-out war against the Soviet Union. The final Unthinkable report came back to Churchill July 11.

On July 16, the day before the Potsdam conference opened, the United States successfully tested the first atomic bomb (in New Mexico). Churchill was in on the secret, which gave even graver implications to Unthinkable. Churchill commented that the now nuclear-armed Truman was elated at Potsdam, and was “bossing” Stalin around.

Mid-conference, on July 26, Labour Party leader Clement Attlee was declared winner of the British election and replaced Churchill as Prime Minister. Unthinkable went onto the shelf—but the Soviets did not forget the intent of the British Establishment.

As Truman sailed back home from Europe, on August 6, Hiroshima, Japan was destroyed by an atomic bomb.[17]

A shadow of fear soon covered the Earth; by 1953, the United States and the Soviets would both develop hydrogen bombs capable of ending all human life.

Years later, John Kennedy indicated that by 1946, when he first ran for a seat in Congress, he was already surveying with bitterness the dark world his generation had inherited. He labored to understand what had gone wrong. How had Roosevelt’s peace policy been destroyed? He believed that Soviet Communism distorted history and violated human nature; but that America’s own mission of uplifting mankind was being buried in the fast-widening world division. JFK won a seat in Congress in 1946. Within his family, he was taking on the leading political role his brother Joseph had been expected to play before he had died in the war, and the assumption grew in Kennedy’s mind that he himself would have to lead the way out of the national policy disaster.

The problem that Kennedy would have to confront, was that the London-centered imperial system which FDR had sought to abolish, persisted after his death in the form of a global financial-looting apparatus, which controlled continents even without formal colonial governments. The preservation and expansion of this system underlay the activities of the Anglo-American secret intelligence agencies and the Atlantic military alliance structure after World War II.

The Special Operations Executive

We may observe the realities of this cryptic governance by looking into the origin of the “stay-behind” covert military-political armies that the British, with help from Dulles, Lemnitzer and some old Nazis, put in place around Europe.

The Special Operations Executive (SOE) had been formed in 1940 as Britain’s wartime agency for spying, sabotage, and assassinations within Nazi-occupied areas. SOE was run principally by two men, SOE commander Roundell Palmer, and SOE director Charles Hambro. They were exalted figures in the City of London financial center and the associated imperial apparatus.

Roundell Cecil Palmer, the 3rd Earl of Selborne, was born into imperial power as the son of the High Commissioner for South Africa,[18] the nephew and protégé of Lord Robert Cecil, and the grandson of Lord Salisbury (Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne-Cecil), who had been UK Prime Minister thrice during 1885-1902. The Palmers were one of the families comprising the “Cecil Bloc,” the “great nexus of power, influence and privilege controlled by the Cecil family” which “has been all-pervasive in British life since 1886.”[19]

Roundell Palmer and his Palmer ancestors were also the hierarchical leading family in the Most Worshipful Company of Mercers—the very highest ranking of the secret society “livery” companies running the City of London Corporation. These livery groups are the core of the centuries-old apparatus for funds management, connecting the Royal Family, the London banks, and their colonial enterprises. Roundell Palmer was a director of the Union Minière du Haut Katanga corporation in the Congo, in association with the Royal Family’s own central-Africa holdings.

As Minister of Economic Warfare, Palmer selected Hambro, his City colleague, to direct SOE operations.

Sir Charles Hambro, of an old British/Scandinavian banking family, had been a powerful director of the Bank of England working with Montagu Norman to install and nurture the Hitler regime in Germany, and to found the Swiss-based Bank for International Settlements (with several Nazis on its board), through which Nazi loot and SS funds would be used for post-war objectives.

The Special Operations Executive was officially disestablished after the Nazi surrender. But Roundell Palmer insisted that its personnel, assassination capabilities, assets, and intelligence arrangements be continued underground in Western Europe, in a quasi-war against the Soviet Union.

The new “intelligence community” was managed from the Privy Council, from the permanent government apparatus that ran the Cabinet and Foreign Office, from White’s Club, and from the Mercers’ haunts and the City board rooms, regardless of elections or political parties. The very existence of MI6, the British Secret Intelligence Service, was not officially acknowledged until 1994.

The U.S. marriage to imperial Britain for the Cold War led to the 1947 National Security Act, creating the Central Intelligence Agency and the Defense Department. Reacting to Britain’s threat to pull its forces out of Greece, the United States declared the “Truman Doctrine” in March 1947, which committed the United States to building up an anti-Soviet presence in Europe. Marshall Plan funding for European war-recovery was also partially channeled into Cold War geopolitical intrigue, while the war-devastated Soviet Union was excluded from such assistance.

The Western European Union, NATO, and the Rise of the Dulleses

Gen. Lyman Lemnitzer’s deep British connection made him the natural choice for Defense Secretary James Forrestal to send to London in 1948 as the U.S. observer in secret talks establishing the Western European Union (WEU), a military alliance of Britain, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. Planning sessions were held at British General Montgomery’s headquarters in Fontainebleau, France.

Over the next year, a Clandestine Committee of this WEU’s military arm, the Western Union Defense Organization (WUDO), went into operation under the guidance of MI6 director Stewart Menzies.[20]

The WUDO itself was transformed into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), as a result of British strategy operating on the United States as follows:

Beginning in 1948, President Harry Truman was counseled by Sir Oliver Franks, the British Ambassador. Franks had helped ram acceptance of the new Atlantic Alliance through the British government, past the national-sovereignty objections of Labour politicians. Franks had been sent to Washington to overcome the same misgivings in America. Anglophile Secretary of State Dean Acheson boasted in his memoirs that he met regularly in secret with Franks and made him a virtual member of the President’s Cabinet.

Truman soon brought in John Foster Dulles as advisor to the State Department, and Allen Dulles as the CIA’s director of covert operations. Under-Secretary of State Robert A. Lovett (Averell Harriman’s partner and client to the Dulles brothers in the Hitler-buildup) ran the U.S. negotiations for the Atlantic Alliance. Under heavy British pressure, Congress voted for the United States to join NATO in 1949. Kim Philby, a Soviet agent still working for the British, then came to Washington as Ambassador Franks’s first secretary and as the MI6 liaison with the CIA. Philby fed Soviet paranoia with accounts of evil American deeds, thus cementing the Cold War Anglo-American alliance. Sir Oliver Franks went back to London to become chairman of Lloyds Bank.

The Western Union Defense Organization clandestine structure set up under Sir Stewart Menzies persisted under NATO auspices. It managed the MI6/CIA-run secret armies with their old-Nazi and Italian fascist components, which were to infest Europe over the following decades. Gen. Lemnitzer, running back and forth between Washington and Europe in the late 1940s, was given control of the logistics for American military supplies to the Western Union/NATO apparatus.[21]

3. JFK Opens the Attack

Congressman John F. Kennedy toured the Middle East and Asia in 1951, accompanied by his younger brother Robert. Kennedy was angered to see that the United States was giving up its own Revolutionary heritage, in support of British and other imperial aims.

Among the places he visited was Iran, where Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh had just nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company to end Britain’s domination and impoverishment of the country. President Roosevelt had been in Teheran eight years earlier. FDR had commissioned the Hurley Report, supporting Iran’s use of its own resources free of imperialism, as a model for the national sovereignty to be gained by all former colonies.[22] But now Dean Acheson was coordinating with Sir Oliver Franks and a joint CIA-MI6 team, planning a coup d’etat against Mossadegh,—whose courage was then inspiring nationalist revolts by Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser and others across the rest of North Africa.

Kennedy went to Israel and Arab countries, which were embroiled in the bitter conflict brewed under British rule in the area.

After Yalta, Roosevelt had called for economic development of the desperately poor Muslim countries, based on the sovereign use of their oil resources, as the only road to regional peace.[23] But now, masses of hopeless Palestinian exiles sat in camps, and the Anglo-American Cold War alliance had buried FDR’s plans for progress.

In Vietnam, Congressman Kennedy sought out his own U.S., French and Vietnamese sources to get behind official explanations for the policies that would soon lead the United States to disaster. FDR and his Vietnamese ally Ho Chi Minh had called for that country’s independence. But in 1945, the British army had taken over Vietnam from Japan, and had given control back to the French empire. When Truman sided with the empires, Ho had turned to the Communists for support, and war again consumed the region.

Returning home, Kennedy aired a blistering radio report on the sickness of America’s alliance with its imperial opponents. Six years after the death of his Commander-in-Chief, Kennedy precisely echoed FDR’s warnings against imperialist aims.

[The post-war colonial world] is an area in which poverty and sickness and disease are rampant, in which injustice and inequality are old and ingrained, and in which the fires of nationalism so long dormant have been kindled and are now ablaze. It is an area of our world that for 100 years and more has been the source of empire for Western Europe—for England and France and Holland….

A Middle East Command operating without the cooperation and support of the Middle East countries … not only would intensify every anti-western force now active in that area, but from a military standpoint would be doomed to failure. The very sands of the desert would rise to oppose the imposition of outside control on the destinies of these proud peoples….

The true enemy of the Arab world is poverty and want…. Our intervention in behalf of England’s oil investments in Iran, directed more at the preservation of interests outside Iran than at Iran’s own development, our avowed willingness to assume an almost imperial military responsibility for the safety of the Suez, our failure to deal effectively after three years with the terrible human tragedy of the more than 700,000 Arab refugees, these are things that have failed to sit well with Arab desires and make empty the promises of the Voice of America….

In Indo-China [Vietnam] we have allied ourselves to the desperate effort of a French regime to hang onto the remnants of empire…. To check the southern drive of Communism makes sense, but not only through reliance on force of arms….

[O]ne finds too many of our representatives toadying to the shorter aims of other Western nations, with no eagerness to understand the real hopes and desires of the peoples to which they are accredited, too often aligning themselves too definitely with the “haves” and regarding the actions of the “have-nots” as not merely an effort to cure injustice, but as something sinister and subversive.

The East of today is no longer the East of Palmerston and Disraeli and Cromer…. We want, we may need, allies in ideas, in resources, even in arms, but if we would have allies, we must first of all gather to ourselves friends.[24]

Kennedy became a Senator in 1953. Meanwhile, President Eisenhower brought in John Foster Dulles as Secretary of State and Allen Dulles as Director of Central Intelligence, and began elevating Gen. Lemnitzer, the Dulles-British cohort in Operation Sunrise, to successively higher commands.

Thus, despite the better intentions President Eisenhower revealed in policies such as the Atoms for Peace initiative he made at the United Nations in December 1953, there was a dreadful continuity of British imperial control over crucial U.S. government functions, reaching from the Truman era forward into Eisenhower’s Presidency. It was personified by the Dulles brothers. The effects came quickly, around the world.

Iran’s government was overthrown in 1953 by British Intelligence and the Dulles CIA. A ghoulish dictatorship put Prime Minister Mossadegh into solitary confinement, and he later died under house arrest. The rescued British oil giant changed its name to British Petroleum. Anti-Western fury ultimately would lead to Iran’s Islamic Revolution of 1979.

In 1954, the CIA overthrew Guatemala’s President Jacobo Arbenz to reverse his nationalization of the United Fruit Company, whose plantations had kept the population in feudal backwardness. Among the charges hurled at the government was that it proposed to divert a river used by a plantation, to build a hydroelectric station. The Dulles law firm represented United Fruit, and Allen Dulles had been on the company’s board of directors. The coup helped lock Central America into poverty that bred drug-smuggling, violent insurrections, and migrations of hopeless masses north to the United States.

The French were driven out of Vietnam in 1954, despite U.S. backing. During the climactic battle at Dien Bien Phu, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles offered to nuclear-bomb the battlefield, but President Eisenhower decided against the plan. A new U.S.-backed regime was then installed in the southern half of Vietnam; warfare dragged on for years.

In 1955 (two years after the end of the Korean War), Lyman Lemnitzer became Commander of the U.S. Army forces in the Far East. He pushed for bringing tactical nuclear weapons into Korea.[25] Battlefield nuclear missiles came over in 1957; these weapons were withdrawn from Korea only in the 1990s. The North Korean Communist regime, increasingly paranoid, began developing its own nuclear weapons.

In 1956, President Eisenhower acted to curb America’s involvement in overseas colonial operations, by demanding an end to Britain’s imperial invasion of Egypt. He acted diplomatically with the Soviet Union and through economic pressure, to force Britain, France, and Israel to withdraw the troops that had invaded Egypt to seize the Suez Canal and attempt to overthrow President Nasser. Eisenhower would never move directly to break the power of the British and their American partners, but in JFK, that enemy faction now saw a new, more threatening challenger arise on the American scene.

4. Going Head to Head

Who now remembers how John Kennedy first shook up politics and became world famous?

He spoke to the U.S. Senate on July 2, 1957, on “Imperialism—the Enemy of Freedom.”[26] As Americans prepared to celebrate the July 4th anniversary of their Revolutionary War for Independence, Kennedy blasted the U.S. alliance with European imperialism to violently suppress African and Asian freedom—for U.S. actions vis-a-vis the raging war in Algeria had differed sharply from the American position on Suez.

That speech, and the reaction to it, put Kennedy in the kind of public spotlight Abraham Lincoln had stepped into when he debated Stephen Douglas over slavery, a century before. As Lincoln’s emergence had alarmed the dominant pro-slavery leaders, so now the alarm rang at White’s Club in London, at NATO command centers, and among those who considered themselves the permanent U.S. government. From that moment until his 1963 assassination, JFK was head to head with his and mankind’s enemies.

French troops, NATO-sponsored and U.S.-helicopter-equipped, bombed, burned, tortured and assassinated Arabs fighting for Algerian national independence. But Kennedy said imperial troops could never prevail over rebels representing the hopes of the native population. Imperial failure was as certain as it had been in Vietnam, into which we had “poured money and materiel … in a hopeless attempt to save for the French a land that did not want to be saved, in a war in which the enemy was both everywhere and nowhere at the same time.”

Kennedy reported that he had undertaken “an intensive study of the problem” for more than a year. He chaired the Senate Subcommittee on United Nations Affairs—and he had worked out the July 2 speech in personal cooperation with the Algerian rebel leadership. He stressed that he had long criticized U.S. policy, hitting the betrayal of our interests by both the Truman Democrats and the Dulles Republicans.

He attacked the reigning axiom that every other interest must be sacrificed to the anti-Communist Cold War. Why hadn’t this conflict ended long ago?

[We] have been told that the war was being kept alive only because of interference and meddling by Colonel Nasser … or … because of Russian and Communist meddling in Algeria. None of these explanations which seek to make outsiders the real agents of the Algerian rebellion carries much conviction any longer, … as shown [by] attempts to suppress … critical newspaper and public comment….

If we are to secure the friendship of the Arab, the African, and the Asian—and we must, despite what Mr. [Secretary of State John Foster] Dulles says about our not being in a popularity contest—we cannot hope to accomplish it … by selling them free enterprise, by describing the perils of communism or the prosperity of the United States, or limiting our dealings to military pacts. No, the strength of our appeal … lies in our traditional and deeply felt philosophy of freedom and independence for all peoples everywhere.

Kennedy inserted into this speech a remarkable historical clue. It helps us see how his “intensive study of the problem” had inspired him to revive, from the late Franklin Roosevelt, the American tradition of anti-imperial leadership. JFK spoke of “Sultan Ben Youssef, with whom President Roosevelt had conferred at the time of the Casablanca Conference.”

Back in 1943, FDR had sought out this Sultan of Morocco to assure him of U.S. support for his country’s economic development and independence from France. The meeting had deeply moved the Sultan, an FDR favorite who had stood up against the Vichy French government’s attempts to exile Morocco’s huge Jewish population to Nazi death camps. The Sultan afterwards credited FDR with having ignited his and other nationalist movements for self-rule. By 1956 he had successfully negotiated with France and Spain for Moroccan independence; one month after Kennedy’s groundbreaking speech, the Sultan took the title of King Mohammad V.

Kennedy concluded by offering a Senate resolution, calling on President Eisenhower and Secretary of State Dulles to place U.S. influence behind efforts, either through NATO “or through the good offices of the Prime Minister of Tunisia and the Sultan of Morocco,” to move toward Algerian independence and the end of the bitter war.

The Kennedy speech electrified African nationalists. A stream of African, Arab, and Asian leaders came to confer with the young Senator, whom they wanted to see elected as the next U.S President.[27]

John Foster Dulles counterattacked Kennedy on Cold War grounds, as did the New York Times, and Dean Acheson and other anti-FDR Democrats.

French imperial leaders and their scheming “stay-behind” NATO sponsors were particularly furious: JFK had pointedly made common cause with French people of good will who agreed with his standpoint, but who had been afraid to speak out against the proto-fascist hardliners running France’s government.

The most extreme hardline elements of the French army and secret services had been operational partners of British MI6 and Dulles’s faction since 1946, fighting in Indochina, and then in Algeria. By 1958 the Algerian Arab rebels provoked the most savage, Hitler-style repression, torture, and assassination by these French forces, throwing both Algeria and France into chaos.

The hardliners staged a coup in Algeria against the “weak” Paris government. Charles de Gaulle came out of retirement to solve the great national crisis. He created a new, Fifth Republic, became President, and led the country out of the disaster of futile British-aligned imperialism and permanent war. The hardliners and their British and American partners, having expected de Gaulle to hold onto the Algerian colony, cried “treason” against de Gaulle and vowed revenge. The seat of this hot fury was NATO headquarters in Paris, France.

Throughout this period, the Cold War had grown increasingly dangerous. Soviet forces crushed the Anglo-American-encouraged 1956 revolt in Hungary. The nuclear arms race intensified after the Soviets rocketed the first satellite, Sputnik, into Earth orbit in 1957. The insane strategy of “limited nuclear war” gained credence in NATO.

5. In an Age of Dread, the New Frontier

Senator Kennedy announced his Presidential candidacy on January 2, 1960. As Kennedy campaigned, President Eisenhower prepared to meet Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchov at a crucial May 16 East-West-South summit conference in Paris. President de Gaulle and India’s President Jawaharlal Nehru had planned the meeting to promote nuclear disarmament, and East-West cooperation for aid to underdeveloped countries.[28]

But two weeks before the summit, Dulles’s CIA sent a U2 spy plane on a photo mission over the USSR. It was shot down; its pilot was captured and confessed his mission on May 1, deeply embarrassing Eisenhower and collapsing the Eisenhower-Khrushchov summit meeting. Khrushchov lashed out at the United States and disinvited Eisenhower from his planned June visit to Moscow.

Kennedy meanwhile won Democratic primary elections, famously taking West Virginia May 10, on his way towards a November final-election victory. The NATO partners hastened to pre-empt any serious alteration in global arrangements.

Central Africa was their first target.

In January, 1960, Congo nationalist leader Patrice Lumumba had declared the independence of Congo from the rule of Belgium. The British were the predominant power in the Congo, exercising control through the Union Minière du Haut Katanga corporation, owner of most of Congo’s valuable minerals, including uranium.

Calling for the use of his county’s resources to bring his people out of backwardness—in other words, precisely Senator Kennedy’s program—Patrice Lumumba became Congo’s first elected Prime Minister in June 1960. In July, the British detonated war against the Congo: the British-controlled Katanga province, containing most of Congo’s mineral wealth, declared its secession from the newly independent nation.

Days later, the Democratic Party nominated Kennedy for President.

On September 14, the elected Congolese government was forcibly overthrown by Belgian military and anti-nationalist paramilitary forces sponsored by the British power center in Katanga and their CIA partners. Prime Minister Lumumba was kidnapped, escaped, and was repeatedly hemmed in by his would-be assassins.

Lemnitzer’s Special Ops

In October 1960, Gen. Lyman Lemnitzer was appointed chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Now the two men who had betrayed President Roosevelt in Operation Sunrise sat at the top of the U.S. strategic services apparatus, Dulles at CIA and Lemnitzer at the Pentagon.

Lemnitzer had displayed what his faction viewed as his qualifications for this role back in August, when, as Army chief of staff, he announced that the Army was all ready to “restore order” in the United States after a nuclear war with the Soviet Union—to bring back normalcy just as the military does after a flood or a riot.[29]

To move a bit closer to that “orderly” nuclear war, Chairman Lemnitzer now went ahead with plans to install U.S. nuclear ballistic missiles in Turkey,[30] on the border of the Soviet Union.

Lemnitzer and Dulles meanwhile proceeded with secret arrangements for an invasion of Cuba and the overthrow of Fidel Castro. His rebel movement had taken power in Cuba in 1959, and Castro had confiscated foreign-owned properties, including the plantations of the Dulles company, United Fruit. The Russians had then given Castro military aid against an expected U.S. counterrevolution. Russian military personnel were on the island. An invasion might lead to shooting between the two great powers, both now armed with nuclear weapons a thousand times as deadly as the Hiroshima bomb, and both exploding them in open-air tests.

The American public was then widely debating the doomsday threat.

In June 1960, two veteran Washington journalists had issued a startling book about the 1945 U.S. nuclear bombings of Japan.[31] Fletcher Knebel and Charles Bailey had used newly available archival sources and had interviewed participants in the nuclear decision-making process. They showed that many relevant military and government leaders had not been allowed to know of the bomb’s development or the attack plans; and that warnings by critical scientists were brushed aside when Truman, encouraged by Churchill, had made the call. Knebel and Bailey made clear that the atomic bomb had forever changed the logic of full-scale war, because a new World War would be civilization’s suicide.

John Kennedy was elected President on November 8, 1960. He sent representatives to Africa to announce America’s renewed commitment to national sovereignty. They reported that African crowds everywhere were chanting “Kennedy! Kennedy! Kennedy!”

He would have ten weeks to plan a government, before his January 20, 1961 inauguration. In Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America, hopes rose for a new U.S. role that might dispel the fearful tension.

Seeking to take office and get some kind of start without provoking open insurrection from the Anglo-American establishment, Kennedy announced that Allen Dulles would stay on at the helm of the CIA, and J. Edgar Hoover would remain at the FBI. To placate Wall Street, he made investment banker Douglas Dillon the Treasury secretary. [32] Lyman Lemnitzer’s term as Joint Chiefs chairman was to run until 1962, and by tradition it would then be extended.

But JFK also brought in people intensely loyal to his promises of a new direction. His brother Robert, who had been by his side since the 1951 anti-imperial tour, would ride shotgun as attorney general.

On January 17, three days before Kennedy’s inauguration, the British MI6 station chief in Congo, Ms. Daphne Park, reportedly gave the signal for the forces that the Anglo-Americans had assembled, and Congo head of state Patrice Lumumba was assassinated in a remote location to which he had been kidnapped. [33] The incoming U.S. President was not notified of the plan, nor was he even informed, until two months later (February 13), that the murder had even occurred.

On January 17, 1960, the day the Anglo-Americans murdered Lumumba, President Eisenhower delivered his Farewell Address. He warned:

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence … by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.[34]

President John F. Kennedy’s January 20 Inaugural Address[35] called for a reversal of the slide toward nuclear war with Russia, and announced clearly the return of the American founding mission:

[M]an holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe….

He awakened in young people, especially, a passion to improve the world. Colonial-sector leaders already knew him better than most Americans, and were thrilled at the suddenly enhanced prospects for progress.

Kwame Nkrumah arrived in Washington March 8, 1961, becoming the first foreign head of state to visit President Kennedy. They began working together on overcoming political and financial roadblocks to Nkrumah’s great project: a dam on the Volta River through Ghana, to generate cheap electricity that could help industrialize West Africa.[36]

6. Regime Change

Allen Dulles now pressed upon the President the plan he and General Lemnitzer had concocted to overthrow Fidel Castro. Kennedy was told that Cuban exiles would invade and do the fighting, not U.S. troops. Dulles warned that if the plan were not approved, armed and dangerous exiles could be smoldering in Florida, directing their anger at the President. Seeing Castro as a brutal dictator close to American shores, and being as yet unsure of his own Presidential leadership, Kennedy approved the plan on April 4, 1961. He specified that U.S. warships and combat aircraft would not be allowed to support the enterprise. But Dulles and Lemnitzer planned to compel Kennedy to throw in U.S. forces when the 1,500-man invasion would inevitably falter.

Just five days before the Cuban invasion went ahead, a Dulles representative in Spain assured French generals that the United States would recognize their new regime if they would overthrow President de Gaulle and install a military dictatorship to stop Algerian independence.[37]

The invasion at Cuba’s Bay of Pigs April 17-19, collapsed quickly, a terrible embarrassment to the new President. Confronting Kennedy, Dulles, and Lemnitzer demanded that he bring in naval and air cover to save the operation, but he kept his resolve not to allow it. He took upon himself full responsibility for the plan’s failure. The word went out at the CIA and the Pentagon that Kennedy was weak-unfit-dangerous. Just in case curious Congressmen might meddle into the affair, Gen. Lemnitzer destroyed his aide’s notes of the Joint Chiefs’ discussions leading into the Bay of Pigs.[38]

On April 21, 1961, two days after Castro defeated the Cuban invasion, French generals led by former NATO Central Europe Commander Gen. Maurice Challe staged an attempted coup d’etat in France. Thousands of paratroopers were stationed not far from Paris, preparing to move on the Presidential palace. De Gaulle appealed to the French people to support him and save their country. Millions of French citizens blocked the coup plotters with strikes and other pro-government actions. Directly countering Dulles, President Kennedy contacted his French counterpart and pledged full support, including military assistance if de Gaulle wanted it.

New York Times reporter James Reston wrote that the CIA had masterminded “the rebel attack on Cuba last week, the U-2 spy plane incident a year ago, and [now] was involved in an embarrassing liaison with the anti-Gaullist officers who staged last week’s insurrection in Algiers.”

[In] the last few days, the President has looked into angry reports from Paris that the C.I.A. was in touch with the insurrectionists who tried to overthrow the de Gaulle government of France…. C.I.A. officials gave a luncheon here in Washington for Jacques Soustelle, a leader of the anti- de Gaulle movement, when M. Soustelle was … in Washington [last December.]

All this has increased the feeling in the White House that the CIA has gone beyond the bounds of an objective intelligence-gathering agency and has becomethe advocate of men and policies that have embarrassed the administration.

Reston reported that Kennedy wanted to bring in his brother Robert to replace Dulles at the CIA and clean the Agency up.[39] Claude Krief, reporting for the liberal weekly magazine L’Express, gave details on a clandestine meeting held April 12, 1961 in Madrid, of “various foreign agents, including members of the CIA and the Algiers conspirators, who disclose their plans to the CIA men.” The CIA men were said to have complained that de Gaulle’s policy was “paralyzing NATO and rendering the defense of Europe impossible,” and assured the French that if they succeeded, Washington would recognize the new government within two days.[40]

By the end of April, Kennedy made it known that he considered the CIA disloyal, that—as the Paris newspapers put it—it constituted “a reactionary state-within a state.”[41] Kennedy forced the resignation of Allen Dulles, his deputy Richard Bissell (involved in both the Cuban and Paris disasters), and Charles Cabell, the CIA’s liaison with Gen. Lemnitzer. Dulles left the CIA in November 1961, but within a month or two he was back at the center of the ruling group at the Agency, giving and receiving briefings several times a week. Those who frequented Dulles’s house in Georgetown viewed the President as a usurper-weak-dangerous.[42]

American opinion rallied behind Kennedy after he took public responsibility for the Bay of Pigs disaster. Resolving to put his own stamp on the Presidency, Kennedy announced to Congress on May 25, 1961 the dramatic goal of sending an American safely to the Moon before the end of the decade.

But with the news from Cuba, the Congo, and Paris, murder was in the air in Washington. Journalists Fletcher Knebel and Charles Bailey were working on an urgent follow-up to their 1960 book on nuclear war. Knebel interviewed Air Force Chief of Staff Curtis LeMay, who had led the firebombing of Japan, and had transmitted the orders for Hiroshima. Knebel picked up the scent of madness that permeated the Pentagon.

Knebel and Bailey now crafted an account of a future military coup d’etat against the United States President, to be called Seven Days in May. The beliefs and actions of the chief perpetrator, a fictionalized Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff named “James Matoon Scott” mirrored the real-life role of Lyman Lemnitzer. To make certain that this identification was not missed, the authors gave the fictional President the last name “Lyman.” The plotters target him as weak-unfit-dangerous, denouncing his attempt to get a nuclear disarmament treaty with the Soviet Union.

7. Shall Mankind Die?

The real chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Lyman Lemnitzer, met with President Kennedy and his National Security Council on July 20, 1961, just as the East-West crisis over Berlin threatened to explode into immediate hot war in Europe. Lemnitzer presented his plan for a surprise, preemptive nuclear attack on the Soviet Union, to take place in 1963. This was Churchill’s Operation Unthinkable, updated for thermonuclear use.

Lemnitzer cautioned that if all-out nuclear war were begun a year earlier, it would not be as effective in utterly annihilating Russia; he said that only by 1963 would the United States have absolute superiority in delivery systems, at which point the Soviets would possess no real ability to retaliate. The President asked Lemnitzer how long Americans would have to remain in fallout shelters after the rival country was exterminated. A Lemnitzer aide replied that about two weeks should be sufficient. Kennedy concluded the meeting by directing that “no member in attendance at the meeting disclose even the subject of the meeting.”

A memorandum with notes of this meeting was declassified only in June of 1993. Professor James Galbraith, son of JFK’s trusted strategic advisor John Kenneth Galbraith, discovered this declassified memo and immediately brought it to the attention of the public.[43] His article received virtually no attention in the corporate media.

McGeorge Bundy recalled that “In the summer of 1961 [Kennedy] went through a formal briefing on the net assessment of a general nuclear war between the two superpowers, and he expressed his own reaction to [Secretary of State] Dean Rusk as they walked from the cabinet room to the Oval Office for a private meeting on other subjects: ‘And we call ourselves the human race.’”[44]

On March 13, 1962, Joint Chiefs Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer gave Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara a plan for the United States to carry out terror attacks against its own armed forces and civilians, to be blamed on the Castro regime as “pretexts which would provide justification for US military intervention in Cuba.” Known as Operation Northwoods, the plan would remain secret until declassified in the 1990s. It is now available online.[45]

The state of mind discernable behind Northwoods comes straight out of the history of the British Empire. “False flag” terror had been the British specialty in Africa, India, and Ireland, and through synthetic Muslim movements in the Mideast. During and after the Cold War, it has been the trademark of the MI6 and Special Air Services that have instructed and guided NATO strategy.

Among Lemnitzer’s proposals were these:

Bomb the U.S. base at Guantanamo, Cuba, and destroy U.S. ships—“Lob mortar shells from outside of base into base…. Blow up ammunition inside the base; start fires. Burn aircraft on air base (sabotage). Sabotage ship in harbor; large fires—naphthalene. Sink ship near harbor entrance. Conduct funerals for mock-victims…. We could blow up a drone (unmanned) vessel anywhere in the Cuban waters…. The presence of Cuban planes or ships merely investigating the intent of the vessel could be fairly compelling evidence that the ship was taken under attack.”

Lie to news media—“[After] an air/sea rescue operation … to ‘evacuate’ remaining members of the non-existent crew … [c]asualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.”

Conduct terror atrocities inside the United States—“We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington. The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans en route to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized. Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots ….”

A military attack to “be simulated against a neighboring Caribbean nation….”

An “incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner en route from the United States…. [The] aircraft [used in the fake attack] … could be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area….”

“Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft….”

Make it “appear that Communist Cuban MIGs have destroyed a USAF aircraft over international waters in an unprovoked attack.”

Kennedy dismissed the Northwoods proposal. About a month later, Lemnitzer simply demanded that the United States stage a full-scale military invasion of Cuba, without provocation, on the presumption that the Soviets would not react.[46]

The President now ordered that Lemnitzer be ousted as chairman of the Joint Chiefs when his term expired in October 1962, six months hence. Kennedy designated General Maxwell Taylor to replace Lemnitzer as chairman at that time, and to supervise Lemnitzer as long as he remained the chief. Lemnitzer’s British sponsors intervened at this crucial stage to keep him in a position of power, as he later explained to his authorized biographer:

[In] the Spring of 1962 … [he] had been invited by his old World War II commander, retired Field Marshal Earl Alexander, to come out to his home near Windsor castle for Easter dinner. The earl was no longer the British minister of defense [as he had been in the Churchill cabinet, 1952-54], but he was still influential in government affairs, and he was a lifelong friend of Harold Macmillan, the prime minister. While the two were walking in his garden, Alexander ask the general about his retirement plans. When Lemnitzer said he was considering several offers in the private sector, Alexander asked him if he had ever thought of succeeding general [Lauris] Norstad as NATO’s supreme Allied Commander. Lemnitzer said he was surprised and replied ‘Hell no. I’ve never even thought about it. As far as I know, Larry is doing well there and I’ve never given it any consideration. Why do you ask?’ Alexander answered that Macmillan, with whom Lemnitzer had been acquainted when he served with Alexander in Italy, had asked him to bring up the subject and inquire if the general was interested. The two went on to talk about other things, and he put the conversation in the back of his mind until he returned to Washington…. The next move came from Kennedy, who talked to Lemnitzer … in June, and told him he wanted to nominate him to succeed Norstad.[47]

Kennedy saw the British proposal for Lemnitzer to command NATO military forces in Europe as a way to kick him out of the Pentagon without provoking an open revolt by his high-ranking military followers.

8. Against Pure Evil, JFK Did Not Flinch

The novel about a coup d’etat against the U.S. President, Seven Days in May,[48] came out in September 1962. Chilling real-life events made the book a best seller.

On August 22, a few days before the book’s release, a squad of assassins on motorcycles had attacked French President de Gaulle’s car with automatic weapons fire. Bullets passed very near his head, but he escaped unhurt.

General Lemnitzer stepped down as chairman of the Joint Chiefs on October 1, 1962, but his departure for Paris NATO headquarters was temporarily delayed while the hunt was on for the Algerian Secret Army would-be assassins. Lemnitzer remained at the Pentagon, in the same unofficial top-boss status among his colleagues as Allen Dulles retained within the CIA.

Thus it was amidst a struggle for the survival of lawful government that the Cuban Missile Crisis began on October 16, 1962. During those terrifying hours, Seven Days in May was the number one best seller in Washington DC, because no one viewed it as fiction.

A U.S. spy plane over Cuba took photographs showing that the Soviets had brought in ballistic missiles capable of striking the United States with nuclear weapons. The President kept the situation secret until he could reach a firm decision on what to do, to get the missiles out of Cuba without starting World War III. The sacked Joint Chiefs chairman, Lemnitzer, attended the meetings of the special “Executive Committee” (Excomm) which Kennedy had created to deliberate on the correct path to take. [49]

A battle of wills went on day after day. The President and his loyal staff wanted to give the Russians a way to back down without being crushed or humiliated. The Dulles-Lemnitzer faction wanted to bomb the missile sites, and follow that action with an all-out U.S. invasion of Cuba. They claimed that even if Russian soldiers were killed, the Russians would do nothing; and that even if the Russians struck back in Berlin (then divided East-West), the United States could easily defeat them in a nuclear conflict.

Kennedy raised the possibility that the USA might remove its missiles from Turkey in exchange for the Soviets taking theirs out of Cuba. Lemnitzer reacted angrily that the missiles in Turkey were not ours to withdraw—they belonged to NATO!

A partly fictionalized film about the Cuban Missile Crisis—13 Days, starring Kevin Costner—omits Lemnitzer from its depiction of those secret strategy meetings. Nonetheless, the film provides a sense of the Lemnitzer faction’s attempt to bully the President into a catastrophic war.

Kennedy decided to impose a naval blockade around Cuba, which could interdict any ships transporting offensive weapons. As both the United States and the Soviets continued testing nuclear weapons throughout the crisis, the entire world awaited the outcome, and the likely death of humanity.

Kennedy said that if the Soviets removed the missiles, he would pledge never to invade Cuba. He kept in touch with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchov through private channels, and sent his brother Robert to meet in strict secrecy with Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin. The crisis ended with the successful offer to take the missiles out of Turkey, the removal to occur quietly six months later on.

The Manchurian Candidate, a film about a plot to take over the White House by assassination, was released to American movie theaters at the height of the 13-day missile crisis. Its director, John Frankenheimer, became very close to Robert Kennedy.[50] Frankenheimer bought the rights to Seven Days in May, the novel about a future coup d’etat in the USA, and proceeded to make it into a movie. President Kennedy and his staff gave Frankenheimer their active, eager cooperation in the film-making project. The movie is a startling reflection of the psychology of the two sides, the mortal enemies who had confronted each other within the Excomm during the missile crisis.

Lyman Lemnitzer, defeated in the Cuban Missile Crisis and sacked as Joint Chiefs’ chairman—but not incarcerated—went over to Paris as head of NATO military forces. Lemnitzer inherited a continent-wide covert apparatus of Mafia killers, Hitler Nazis and Mussolini fascists, French colonial diehards, and white mercenaries fuming about the loss of Africa. This was the “stay-behind” network he had seen constructed after World War II by the British Secret Service, with help from Dulles and logistical support by himself. It was not until October 1990 that Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti rocked the political world by revealing the existence of this covert network, which came to be called after the name for its Italian section, “Gladio.”

This was the apparatus that had repeatedly attempted to murder President de Gaulle, who finally kicked NATO and Lemnitzer out of France in 1967.

Intimidation by “Gladio” had worked a 1964 coup d’etat in Italy, forcing the government to purge ministers and parties favoring East-West cooperation. The apparatus had killed several German leaders who were seeking peaceful relations between East and West.

Its most notorious crime was the so-called Strategy of Tension, exploding bombs and murdering civilians in the name of non-existent radical groups, to foster servile obedience in the population.[51]The apparatus had carried out the 1978 “Red Brigades” kidnapping and murder of Italian Prime Minister Aldo Moro. This was the same “false flag” terror campaign that Lemnitzer had unsuccessfully proposed to President Kennedy for the USA. The tactic has persisted into the present age of terror and counter-terror.

In 1967, New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison would prosecute CIA/MI6 asset Clay Shaw as a perpetrator of the JFK assassination, showing that Shaw was a central figure in the Italian Gladio murder apparatus.

9. What the World Lost in the American Coup

The peaceful outcome of the Cuban Missile Crisis, serving the mutual interests of the United States and the Russians, was a decisive victory of Kennedy over his Anglo-American opponents. With the grateful opinion of a reprieved world at his back, he immediately pressed the advantage, acting to secure a future in which American interests were once again identified with the world’s progress and safety.

His murder one year later (November 22, 1963) ought to be recognized as the decisive act in a coup d’etat against the United States. The resultant absence of America’s unique optimism and creativity from world affairs was everywhere deeply demoralizing.

We may now be witnessing a global popular revolt against the failed system which Kennedy’s enemies imposed after his death: uncontrolled financial speculation, deindustrialization, and the devastation of permanent wars. It may now be possible, culturally and politically, for citizens to once again understand Kennedy’s traditional American viewpoint, which has otherwise been incomprehensible to generations subjected to humiliation and social degradation. We will briefly here examine how Kennedy, as the representative and leading American, acted on the world immediately after he had faced down and defeated his internal enemies in the Missile Crisis.

Kennedy’s first target was the Congo, engulfed by war and chaos since the imperial murder of Prime Minister Lumumba just before Kennedy’s Presidency had begun.

The old, hideously cruel colonial system in Africa had little support at that time outside the City of London, Wall Street, and a hard-right circle supporting the financiers. But the British royals and their continental cousins, together with their secret services and military apparatus, defined their very existence around their colonial-sector investments. The original Belgian crown colony in the Congo had long ago come under control of interlocked banking and mining interests linking British Rhodesia and Congo’s Katanga province, joined by Morgan, Rockefeller and other clients of the Dulles Brothers.[52]

The London “Katanga Lobby” steered the Congo mayhem from their castles, from White’s, and from the Worshipful Companies of the City of London. Its leaders were the Marquess of Salisbury, his cousin Lord Selborne (Roundell Palmer), Lord Clitheroe, Ulick Alexander, and Captain Charles Waterhouse, who together managed the British Royal Household, represented royal investments, ran Tanganyika Concessions and Union Minière du Haut Katanga, owned the relevant central African railroads, deployed regional mercenary gangs, and controlled the funding mechanisms for the Conservative Party.

Acting only a month after the Soviet stand-down in Cuba, President Kennedy got the rather reluctant Belgian Foreign Minister Paul Henri Spaak to issue a joint statement with him, threatening “severe economic measures” against Katanga unless secession were quickly ended. Kennedy simultaneously applied painful political pressure on the British regime that was backing the Congo’s dissolution: he decided to prevent the U.K. from acquiring an independent nuclear weapons delivery system, the Skybolt air-to-ground missile, which they had counted on acquiring from the USA The British press blasted Kennedy; Anglophile right-wingers in the Deep South attacked him for betraying the White Race. Kennedy met with Prime Minister MacMillan and forced him to accept an American nuclear-umbrella defense of Britain in place of Skybolt.

With the British reeling, Kennedy moved the United Nations to support the Congo’s national sovereignty with U.N. military forces and U.S. logistics. Within weeks, peace was restored, the Katanga secession was crushed, Katanga leader Moise Tshombe was arrested, and the Congo government asked British diplomats to leave.

A letter to the London Daily Telegraph, January 9, 1963, expressed imperial rage: “We … have witnessed three … attempts at world domination, first by Hitler, then by Stalin … and now by President Kennedy.” But this hatred was perhaps not widely shared among Britons, who were alive because the American President had followed his own judgment and had not been intimidated by anti-Russian madmen.

The Akosombo Hydroelectric Dam, the joint Ghana-U.S. great project, was then midway to completion. More broadly, Kennedy sought to employ nuclear energy as a peace-building development tool. The International Atomic Energy Agency started a panel dedicated to nuclear desalination/irrigation works as joint projects of the United States and Russia, Israel and the north African Arabs, India and Pakistan, North and South America.

Kennedy’s “Peace Speech”

After securing the Congo, Kennedy moved diplomatically for a U.S.-Soviet agreement to end nuclear weapons testing, and pushed strongly towards a broad agreement to scale back the suicidal arms race. A Test Ban Treaty among the U.S., U.S.S.R., UK and France had been another item on the Spring 1960 Paris summit agenda, which was wrecked by the U-2 spy plane incident.

JFK’s famous “Peace Speech” came on June 10, 1963 as the commencement address at American University in Washington, DC.[53] He announced that the United States would unilaterally stop testing nuclear weapons, to encourage a U.S.-Soviet accord. He said that Russia had suffered more than any other country to defeat Hitler.

He asked Americans to re-examine their own attitudes toward Russia:

… not to see only a distorted and desperate view of the other side, not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodation as impossible, and communication as nothing more than an exchange of threats. No government or social system is so evil that its people must be considered as lacking in virtue. As Americans, we find communism profoundly repugnant as a negation of personal freedom and dignity. But we can still hail the Russian people for their many achievements—in science and space, in economic and industrial growth, in culture and in acts of courage…. What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave…. Our problems are man-made—therefore, they can be solved by man.

The USA and the Soviets soon entered into a treaty partially banning nuclear bomb testing, opening the way toward greater accords.

The next day after the peace speech, Kennedy reported to the American people on the fight for civil rights.[54] Again, he challenged American attitudes:

One hundred years of delay have passed since President Lincoln freed the slaves, yet their heirs, their grandsons, are not fully free. They are not yet freed from the bonds of injustice. They are not yet freed from social and economic oppression. And this Nation, for all its hopes and all its boasts, will not be fully free until all its citizens are free.

We preach freedom around the world, and we mean it, and we cherish our freedom here at home, but are we to say to the world, and much more importantly, to each other that this is the land of the free except for the Negroes; that we have no second-class citizens except Negroes; that we have no class or caste system, no ghettoes, no master race except with respect to Negroes?

Now the time has come for this Nation to fulfill its promise.

With the additional impetus of the Civil Rights Movement’s August 28, 1963 March on Washington, the occasion of the Rev. Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech, the Kennedy Administration began crafting the epochal civil rights legislation that would be passed after his assassination.

In the last weeks of his life, he pressed for a joint space program with the Soviet Union; at the U.N. on September 20, he called for a joint U.S.-Soviet expedition to the Moon.[55]

On October 5, President Kennedy decided to withdraw U.S. military advisers from Vietnam to prevent an American war there. This decision was given force by his National Security Action Memorandum 263, issued October 11, 1963.[56]

Kennedy was quietly putting out peace feelers to Fidel Castro, when he was shot to death.

***

This, then, is what Senator Chuck Schumer (Dem., NY) meant January 3, 2017 when he tried to intimidate Donald Trump by calling him “really dumb” for attacking the covert agencies: “Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.”

Schumer’s brutal threat was that Trump would get the Kennedy treatment.

Since the murder of the last President to stand up decisively to the oligarchs, the United States and Britain have been led to abandon industrial progress in their own countries, and to attack the right of poor countries to industrialize as “environmentally dangerous,” and as a potential military risk if such countries were to know too much science. Governments, bribed and coerced, have surrendered economic control to financiers who are universal plunderers.

They have launched dozens of new Bay of Pigs wars–in Iraq, Libya, Syria, all over Africa and all around Russia–killing millions, producing only refugees and terrorists, even as they “preach freedom around the world.” They paid billions of dollars to buy the forcible overthrow of the elected president in Ukraine when he opted for closer relations with neighboring Russia.

Citizens’ revulsion against the Establishment swept Europe and hit the United States in the 2016 elections, in the votes cast both for Bernie Sanders and for Donald Trump. When Wikileaks exposed Hillary Clinton’s betrayal of her country—she had assured her Wall Street sponsors that they would control national policy—the frantic lie came back that Russia was somehow responsible for leaking Clinton’s secret speech, and thus Russia had meddled in the U.S. elections.

NATO—the NATO of Lord Harold Alexander and his idolizer Lyman Lemnitzer—is now stationing American and British troops in the Baltic countries on Russia’s borders, preparing for a Third World War.

It takes little imagination to think how quickly and forcibly the United States would have reacted during the Cold War, if the Soviet Union had stationed Soviet combat-ready troops just across the U.S. border in Mexico.

Kennedy acted to remove Allen Dulles and Lyman Lemnitzer. Kennedy’s murder gave their faction a victory, but not until he had left an indelible mark on human history.

President Donald Trump has fired FBI Director James Comey for his participation in the blatant coup attempt against Trump on the anti-Russian theme.

Proceeding further in the face of the coup, Trump decided to send a U.S. delegation to Beijing for the Belt and Road summit meeting on global infrastructure, to discuss the way out of strategic disaster.

China has recently raised hundreds of millions of its people out of poverty. And it has now been joined by Russia and many other like-minded nations to build the greatest set of transport, electric power and industrial projects ever seen.

John F. Kennedy’s 100th birthday is commemorated on May 29, 2017.

The United States, which brought electricity to the world in the 19th century, and brought the world to the Moon in the 20th, could best celebrate JFK’s memory by joining in our era’s great infrastructure projects—and thus rejoining the civilized world.

The author may be contacted at antonchaitkin@gmail.com.

  1. On October 24, 1942, the U.S. Alien Property Custodian issued Vesting Order 248, seizing the shares in “Union Banking Corporation” held by E. Roland Harriman (brother of Averell Harriman), Prescott Bush (father of President George H.W. Bush), three Nazi executives, and two other Harriman partners. The UBC had been created in the 1920s for a single client, Fritz Thyssen, Adolf Hitler’s chief political fundraiser. See also Anton Chaitkin and Webster Tarpley, George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography (Washington: Executive Intelligence Review, 1992), pp. 26-44.
  2. Prince Max Hohenlohe was loosely related to British royalty, and had holdings in Spain and Mexico, besides his estates in Czechoslovakia’s Sudetenland. He longed for a return to the feudal imperial world of the Habsburgs. Back in 1938, Prince Max had helped bring the British and Nazi-German governments to the ill-fated agreement at Munich, allowing Hitler to take control of Czechoslovakia. London interests then joined Berlin in looting the subdued Czechs. The whole swindle soon blew up in World War II.
  3. Stephen Dorril, MI6: Inside the Covert World of Her Majesty’s Secret Intelligence Service (New York: The Free Press, 2000), p. 168.
  4. Franklin D. Roosevelt, Address to the White House Correspondents’ Association, February 12, 1943. Roosevelt had in mind the immense Soviet death toll, which would reach over 27 million civilians and soldiers, in fighting Hitler. This Russian sacrifice on humanity’s behalf would be brought up by President Kennedy in his famous 1963 peace speech at American University.
  5. James L. Binder, Lemnitzer: A Soldier for His Time (Washington and London: Brassey’s, 1997). This is the authorized Lemnitzer biography, written with the cooperation of the general’s family and his Anglo-American military faction.
  6. Binder, Lemnitzer, see chapter entitled “The Mentor,” pp. 106-125.
  7. Binder, Lemnitzer, pp. 9-10. “When Lemnitzer sat for formal photographs or was otherwise conscious of the camera, he almost always turned the back of his left hand toward the lens so that the ring on his third finger would show. It was his West Point class ring, but the reason he displayed it so prominently was that it also carried the Masonic emblem. The general took his masonic obligations very seriously; he joined the freemasons in 1922 when he was a young lieutenant at Fort Adams, Rhode Island, eventually became a 32nd Degree Mason, and finally attained the honorary rank of 33rd Degree. He was a member of the Masons’ Shrine, whose charitable work for orphans probably helped influence his strong interest in Korean orphanages when he was [later] Far East commander in chief. A sure way of getting the general’s attention was to identify yourself as a Mason; military members of all ranks wrote to him, addressing him as ‘brother’ and being addressed the same way in Lemnitzer’s reply.”
  8. Dorril, MI6, p. 3.
  9. Karl Wolff had been chief of personal staff to SS boss Heinrich Himmler, and later was Himmler’s intermediary with Hitler. Wolff had supervised the deportation of Jews from the Warsaw Ghetto to be exterminated. He wrote from Hitler’s headquarters to Nazi railway chief Albert Ganzenmüller on August 13, 1942, referring to shipment of victims to the Treblinka death camp: “I note with particular pleasure from your communication that a train with 5,000 members of the chosen people has been running daily for 14 days and that we are accordingly in a position to continue with this population movement at an accelerated pace…. I thank you once again for the effort and at the same time wish to ask you to continue monitoring these things. With best wishes and Heil Hitler, yours sincerely W.” Kerstin von Lingen, Allen Dulles, the OSS, and Nazi War Criminals: The Dynamics of Selective Prosecution (Cambridge University Press, 2013), p. 216.
  10. Michigan State University, “Seventeen Moments in Soviet History,” Roosevelt to Stalin, March 25, 1945:“[I have received the contents of] a letter … from Mr. Molotov regarding an investigation being made by Field Marshal Alexander into a reported possibility of obtaining the surrender of part or all of the German army in Italy. In this letter Mr. Molotov demands that, because of the non-participation therein of Soviet officers, this investigation to be undertaken in Switzerland should be stopped forthwith.“The facts of this matter I am sure have, through a misunderstanding, not been correctly presented to you. The following are the facts:“Unconfirmed information was received some days ago in Switzerland that some German officers were considering the possibility of arranging for the surrender of German troops that are opposed to Field Marshal Alexander’s British-American Armies in Italy.“Upon the receipt of this information in Washington, Field Marshal Alexander was authorized to send to Switzerland an officer or officers of his staff to ascertain the accuracy of the report and if it appeared to be of sufficient promise to arrange with any competent German officers for a conference to discuss details of the surrender with Field Marshal Alexander at his headquarters in Italy. If such a meeting could be arranged Soviet representatives would, of course, be welcome.“Information concerning this investigation to be made in Switzerland was immediately communicated to the Soviet Government. Your Government was later informed that it will be agreeable for Soviet officers to be present at Field Marshal Alexander’s meetings with German officers if and when arrangements are finally made in Berne for such a meeting at Caserta to discuss details of a surrender.“Up to the present time the attempts by our representatives to arrange a meeting with German officers have met with no success, but it still appears that such a meeting is a possibility“My Government, as you will of course understand, must give every assistance to all officers in the field in command of Allied forces who believe there is a possibility of forcing the surrender of enemy troops in their area….“There can be in such a surrender of enemy forces in the field no violation of our agreed principle of unconditional surrender and no political implications whatever….”
  11. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=16589.
  12. Stuart Rosenblatt, “The British Empire’s Cold War vs. the U.S.-Russia Alliance,” Executive Intelligence Review, July 11, and August 1, 2014, provides an overview of British-guided postwar strategy.
  13. Allen Dulles justified the ratlines by stressing, in each case, how the individual Nazi in question had better manners than the typical brute, wanted to be useful to the Western cause, and had at some point been in factional conflict with Hitler—just as he himself claimed that, by the late 1930s, he had criticized the pro-Nazi policy of his brother and their law firm, Sullivan and Cromwell.
  14. “Heirs of the OUN, Grandchildren of MI6” in “British Imperial Project in Ukraine: Violent Coup, Fascist Axioms, Neo-Nazis,” Executive Intelligence Review, May 16, 2014.
  15. Navy Lieutenant John F. Kennedy had been honorably discharged on March 1, 1945, due to painful injuries sustained when a Japanese destroyer had smashed through his tiny patrol boat. For a summary account of Kennedy’s public life, see Anton Chaitkin, “John F. Kennedy vs. the Empire,” Executive Intelligence Review, August 30, 2013.
  16. Operation Unthinkable: “Russia: Threat to Western Civilization,” British War Cabinet, Joint Planning Staff—Draft and Final Reports: 22 May, 8 June, and 11 July 1945, Public Record Office, CAB 120/691/109040 /001.
  17. The decision to A-bomb Japan was reached without the approval of senior U.S. military leaders. General Dwight Eisenhower wrote:“[I]n [July] 1945 … Secretary of War Stimson … informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act…. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face’…. ” [Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change: The White House Years, 1953-1956 (New York: Doubleday, 1963), pp. 312-313.]Norman Cousins, a consultant to General Douglas MacArthur in the American occupation of Japan, wrote:“MacArthur’s views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed. When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.” [Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power (New York: W.W. Norton, 1988), pp. 65, 70-71.] Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, wrote:”It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons. The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.” [William Leahy, I Was There (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1950), p. 441.]The outstanding U.S. nuclear chemist Glenn T. Seaborg was one of a group of the scientists on the bomb’s development who wrote (in their Franck Committee report):“We believe that … the use of nuclear bombs for an early, unannounced attack against Japan [is] inadvisable. If the United States would be the first to release this new means of indiscriminate destruction upon mankind, she would sacrifice public support throughout the world, precipitate the race of armaments, and prejudice the possibility of reaching an international agreement on the future control of such weapons.” (Political and Social Problems, Manhattan Engineer District Records, Harrison-Bundy files, folder # 76, National Archives.) As President, John F. Kennedy would make Glenn Seaborg chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, to push for global, peaceful use of nuclear power, and against the nuclear arms race. The above quotations from Eisenhower, MacArthur, Leahy and the Franck committee are cited in Doug Long, “Hiroshima: Was it Necessary?” (http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm).
  18. William W. Palmer, 2nd Earl of Selborne, succeeded Alfred Milner as High Commissioner for South Africa and ran “Milner’s Kindergarten” of rising imperial rulers; they would form the Round Table strategy circle, associated with gold magnate Cecil Rhodes, the British Crown and the Rothschild family.
  19. Carroll Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment, from Rhodes to Cliveden (San Pedro: Books in Focus, 1981), p. 15.
  20. Nick Must, “The Western Union Clandestine Committee: Britain and the ‘Gladio’ networks,” in Lobster magazine, 1972.
  21. Binder, Lemnitzer, pp. 162-165.
  22. Anton Chaitkin, “FDR’s Hurley Memorandum,” Executive Intelligence Review, November 30, 2012.
  23. Roosevelt press conference Feb 23, 1945, op. cit.
  24. Papers of John F. Kennedy. Presidential Papers. President’s Office Files. Special Events Through the Years. Radio report on trip to Middle and Far East, 1951.
  25. Lee Jae-Bong, “US Deployment of Nuclear Weapons in 1950s South Korea & North Korea’s Nuclear Development: Toward Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula,”Japan Focus: the Asia Pacific Journal, February 17, 2009). “Commander-in-Chief of the [United Nations Command] Lyman Lemnitzer sent a telegram dated January 30, 1956 to the Department of the Army in which he suggested that it was highly desirable for the U.S.F[orces]K[orea] to possess weapons with atomic delivery capability in order to alleviate the imbalance of strength between the opposing forces in Korea…. U.S. diplomatic correspondence during the 1950s [shows that] the U.S.F.K. started deploying nuclear weapons in January 1958 at the latest. But according to a secret report written by the U.S. Pacific Command, nuclear weapons were first deployed to South Korea in 1957 and withdrawn in 1991. The Washington Post also reported in October 2006 that ‘In 1957, the United States placed nuclear-tipped Matador missiles in South Korea, to be followed in later years … by nuclear artillery…’”
  26. https://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/Research-Aids/JFK-Speeches/United-States-Senate-Imperialism_19570702.aspx
  27. Kennedy would later meet with Guinea’s nationalist President Sékou Touré, and became his confidant. Most importantly, Kennedy opened channels of communication with Ghana’s President Kwame Nkrumah, who had lived for 10 years in FDR’s America, and returned to lead the struggle against Britain. In March 1957, Nkrumah had declared Ghana’s independence as the first black African nation to overthrow colonial rule.
  28. “De Gaulle and Nehru Hold ‘Useful’ Pre-Summit Talk,” New York Times, May 9, 1960.
  29. Binder, Lemnitzer, pp. 245-246, quotes from Mark S. Watson, Baltimore Sun, August 8, 1960: “There was no question in the minds of the public that many thousands, even millions, of civilians would die in a nuclear attack; what was not clear was how order would be restored afterward…. The chief of staff stated: ‘As proved by the handling of lesser peacetime disasters over and over again, the surest means of broad-scale relief and recovery is the nation’s military organization—organized, disciplined and of all establishments the best equipped for that urgent responsibility.’”
  30. The Turkey missiles were officially a NATO project, carried out with the support of two key NATO officials who were factionally close to Lemnitzer: Sir Evelyn Shuckburgh, a high official of the British foreign-policy establishment who was then Assistant Secretary General of NATO, stationed at NATO headquarters in Paris; and French Air Force General Maurice Challe, Commander-in-Chief of Allied Forces in Central Europe, who had led the brutal counter-insurgency against the Algerian Arabs.Shuckburgh and Challe were old imperial dance partners. Years earlier, Sir Evelyn had confided to his diary, “the Americans are not backing us anywhere. In fact, having destroyed the Dutch empire, the United States are now engaged in undermining the French and British empires as hard as they can” (quoted in Dorril, MI6, page 497). Tony Shaw, Eden, Suez and the Mass Media (London: I.B. Tauris & Co., 1966), p. 67 reports that in 1956, Gen. Challe had visited with UK Prime Minister Anthony Eden (whom he served as principal private secretary) to propose that Britain, France and Israel should jointly invade Egypt to overthrow President Nasser, and pretend it was just an Israeli defensive move. President Eisenhower forced their withdrawal from Egypt in the Suez Crisis.
  31. Fletcher Knebel and Charles W. Bailey II, No High Ground (New York: Harper & Row, 1960).
  32. Kennedy chose Douglas Dillon even though he had been the pro-imperial Ambassador to France until 1957. In Kennedy’s famous 1957 speech on Algerian independence, Kennedy had named Dillon as part of the problem of the Dulles-dominated American policy.
  33. The following letter by Lord David Lea to the London Review of Books (April 11, 2013) politely reviewed Britain’s culpability, a half century after Lumumba’s assassination.“WE DID IT“[Quoting a previous letter:] ‘The question remains whether British plots to assassinate Lumumba … ever amounted to anything. At present, we do not know’…. Actually, in this particular case, I can report that we do. It so happens that I was having a cup of tea with Daphne Park—we were colleagues from opposite sides of the Lords—a few months before she died in March 2010. She had been consul and first secretary in Leopoldville, now Kinshasa, from 1959 to 1961, which in practice (this was subsequently acknowledged) meant head of MI6 there. I mentioned the uproar surrounding Lumumba’s abduction and murder, and recalled the theory that MI6 might have had something to do with it. ‘We did,’ she replied, ‘I organised it.’“We went on to discuss her contention that Lumumba would have handed over the whole lot to the Russians: the high-value Katangese uranium deposits as well as the diamonds and other important minerals largely located in the secessionist eastern state of Katanga. Against that, I put the point that I didn’t see how suspicion of Western involvement and of our motivation for Balkanising their country would be a happy augury for the new republic’s peaceful development. David Lea London SW1.” Lord Lea’s letter sparked a political row, featuring an ambiguous response from the BBC.
  34. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/eisenhower001.asp
  35.  https://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/Research-Aids/Ready-Reference/JFK-Quotations/Inaugural-Address.aspx
  36. During his ten years in the USA, Nkrumah had seen how FDR’s Tennessee Valley Authority dams had helped end backwardness in the South; he saw this could be done once Ghana was free to improve itself.
  37. Claude Krief, in L’Express, cited in William Blum, Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II (London: Zed Books, 2003), pp. 150-151.
  38. Binder, Lemnitzer, p. 273.
  39. James Reston, New York Times, April 29, 1961
  40. Krief, cited in Blum, op. cit.
  41. Thomas P. Brady, “Paris Rumors on C.I.A.,” New York Times, May 2, 1961.
  42. David Talbot, The Devil’s Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America’s Secret Government (New York: 2015, Harper).
  43. The memorandum was reproduced with an article by Galbraith and his aide Heather Purcell, “Did the U.S. Military Plan a Nuclear First Strike for 1963?” which appeared in the American Prospect, number 19, Fall 1994, pp. 88-96. The text was as follows:TOP SECRET—EYES ONLYNotes on National Security Council MeetingJuly 20, 1961General Hickey, Chairman of the Net Evaluation Subcommittee, presented the annual report of his group. General Lemnitzer stated that the assumption of this year’s study was a surprise attack in late 1963, preceded by a period of heightened tensions.After the presentation by General Hickey and by the various members of the Subcommittee, the President asked if there had ever been made an assessment of damage results to the U.S.S.R which would be incurred by a preemptive attack. General Lemnitzer stated that such studies had been made and that he would bring them over and discuss them personally with the President. In recalling General Hickey’s opening statement that these studies have been made since 1957, the President asked for an appraisal of the trend in the effectiveness of the attack. General Lemnitzer replied that he would also discuss this with the President.Since the basic assumption of this year’s presentation was an attack in late 1963, the President asked about probable effects in the winter of 1962. Mr. Dulles observed that the attack would be much less effective since there would be considerably fewer missiles involved. General Lemnitzer added a word of caution about accepting the precise findings of the Committee since these findings were based upon certain assumptions which themselves might not be valid.The President posed the question as to the period of time necessary for citizens to remain in shelters following an attack. A member of the Subcommittee replied that no specific period of time could be cited due to the variables involved, but generally speaking, a period of two weeks should be expected.The President directed that no member in attendance at the meeting disclose even the subject of the meeting. Declassified: June, 1993.
  44. Quoted by Galbraith, op. cit.
  45. http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/news/20010430/
  46. https://www.awesomestories.com/asset/view/U.S.-Military-Intervention-in-Cuba-10-April-1962-Recommendation and https://www.awesomestories.com/asset/view/U.S.-Military-Intervention-in-Cuba-10-April-1962-Recommendation-Pg-2
  47. Binder, Lemnitzer, p. 306.
  48. Fletcher Knebel and Charles Bailey II, Seven Days in May (New York: Harper & Row, 1962).
  49. Binder, Lemnitzer, p. 309.
  50. John Frankenheimer would go on to produce campaign ads for Bobby Kennedy’s 1968 run for the Presidency. Frankenheimer was in Los Angeles with Bobby after the California primary victory made Bobby the likely next President, and was devastated by Bobby’s assassination that same night.
  51. Claudio Celani, “Strategy of Tension: The Case of Italy,” Executive Intelligence Review, 2004.
  52. In the April 1962 showdown over steel price increases, Kennedy had used the government’s full force to defeat the Anglophile Morgan and Rockefeller interests, who dominated the steel industry with an anti-industrial, speculative financial bias. JFK said, “the American people will find it hard, as I do, to accept a situation in which a tiny handful of steel executives whose pursuit of private power and profit exceeds their sense of public responsibility can show such utter contempt for the interests of 185 million Americans” (https://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/Research-Aids/Ready-Reference/Press-Conferences/News-Conference-30.aspx).
  53. https://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/BWC7I4C9QUmLG9J6I8oy8w.aspx
  54. https://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/LH8F_0Mzv0e6Ro1yEm74Ng.aspx
  55. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=9416
  56. James K. Galbraith, “Exit Strategy,” Boston Review, October/November, 2003.

Syria’s Assad Just Explained How America Really Works

By Brandon Turbeville

While Americans endlessly battle each other over seemingly important choices like Clinton and Trump or Democrats and Republicans, it is clear that the majority of the population has little understanding of how the U.S. government operates. Yet, for those who pay the price for the apathy and confusion of the general population of the West, it often becomes stunningly obvious that neither presidents nor political parties in America represent any discernible difference in the ongoing agenda of the Deep State and the rest of the oligarchical apparatus. Indeed, that agenda always marches forward regardless of who is president or which political party is in control.

Syria’s president Bashar al-Assad has thus had the unique position of not only being on the receiving end of American imperialism by virtue of not only being a citizen of a target country but also by being the head of the country, steeped in politics in his own right and thus understanding how certain factors come into play at the national level.

With that in mind, it is worth pointing out a recent statement made by Assad during the course of an interview regarding the opinion of the Syrian government on Donald Trump. Assad stated,

The American President has no policies. There are policies drawn by the American institutions which control the American regime which are the intelligence agencies, the Pentagon, the big arms and oil companies, and financial institutions, in addition to some other lobbies which influence American decision-making. The American President merely implements these policies, and the evidence is that when Trump tried to move on a different track, during and after his election campaign, he couldn’t. He came under a ferocious attack. As we have seen in the past few week, he changed his rhetoric completely and subjected himself to the terms of the deep American state, or the deep American regime. That’s why it is unrealistic and a complete waste of time to make an assessment of the American President’s foreign policy, for he might say something; but he ultimately does what these institutions dictate to him. This is not new. This has been ongoing American policy for decades.

Assad also addressed the Western media’s portrayal of him as a “devil” who kills and oppresses his own people. He stated,

Yes, from a Western perspective, you are now sitting with the devil. This is how they market it in the West. But this is always the case when a state, a government, or an individual do not subjugate themselves to their interests, and do not work for their interests against the interests of their people. These have been the Western colonial demands throughout history. They say that this evil person is killing the good people. Okay, if he is killing the good people, who have been supporting him for the past six years? Neither Russia, nor Iran, nor any friendly state can support an individual at the expense of the people. This is impossible. If he is killing the people, how come the people support him? This is the contradictory Western narrative; and that’s why we shouldn’t waste our time on Western narratives because they have been full of lies throughout history, and not something new.

When asked about the allegations made by the United States that the Syrian government has retained some stocks of chemical weapons, Assad responded by saying,

You and I remember well what happened in 2003, when Colin Powell showed the world in the United Nations what he claimed to be the evidence which proves that President Saddam Hussein possessed chemical, nuclear, and other weapons. However, when the American forces invaded Iraq, it was proven that all he said was a lie. Powell himself admitted that the American intelligence agencies deceived him with that false evidence. That wasn’t the first nor will it be the last time. This means that if you want to be a politician in the United States, you have to be a genuine liar. This is what characterizes American politicians: they lie on a daily basis, and say something and do something different. That’s why we shouldn’t believe what the Pentagon, or any other American institution says, because they say things which serve their policies, not things which reflect reality and the facts on the ground.

One can scarcely argue with Assad’s portrayal of the U.S. government and the position of the presidency in 2017. After all, Donald Trump campaigned on keeping America out of foreign wars and the affairs of other countries as well as the WW3 policy of Hillary Clinton. However, not even four months into his presidency, Trump launched 59 Tomahawk missiles into Syria and the United States struck a Syrian military convoy en route to liberate the southeast of the country from terrorists only days ago.

The Trump administration has repeatedly pushed the envelope even further in Syria and provoked fears that the U.S. aggression in the region and in Asia could result in a confrontation with a nuclear power much in the same way that Hillary Clinton advocated for during the campaign.

While Americans remain more divided than ever and as they ceaselessly argue over which party and political figurehead is better, the war machine marches onward not only in Syria but also in Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia and elsewhere. If Americans are not capable of understanding that there is more to the system in which they live than two pathetic political parties and clownish presidential personalities, that war machine will march itself clear across the globe until it comes back home.

The transcript of the interview with Bashar al-Assad is included below in this article. Assad addresses the United States involvement in the Syrian crisis, the Israeli role, and the attempt to destabilize Venezuela.

teleSUR (TS): Mr. President, thank you for receiving us.

President Bashar al-Assad (BA): I welcome you and teleSUR TV in Syria. You are welcome.

TS: Let’s start directly with the latest developments. Russia has warned that there might be other alleged chemical attacks. What are the precautionary measures that Syria has taken in order to prevent that?

BA: First of all, terrorists have used chemical materials more than once in the past several years and in more than one region throughout Syria. We have asked the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to send specialized missions to investigate what happened. And every time, the United States obstructed these investigations or prevented sending such missions in order to carry out such investigations. This is what happened last week when we called for investigations over the alleged use of chemical weapons in the town of Khan Sheikhoun. The United States and its allies prevented OPCW from taking that decision. As far as we are concerned, we still insist on an investigation, and we and our Russian and Iranian allies are trying to persuade OPCW to send a team to investigate what happened, because if it doesn’t, the United States might repeat the same charade by fabricating the use of false chemical weapons in another place in Syria in order to justify military intervention in support of the terrorists. On the other hand, we continue to fight the terrorists, because we know that the objective of all these American and Western allegations concerning chemical weapons is to support terrorists in Syria. That’s why we will continue to fight these terrorists.

TS: But the Pentagon says that Syria has chemical weapons. Is it true that Syria has kept one percent of the weapons it has committed itself to hand over and destroy four years ago?

BA: You and I remember well what happened in 2003, when Colin Powell showed the world in the United Nations what he claimed to be the evidence which proves that President Saddam Hussein possessed chemical, nuclear, and other weapons. However, when the American forces invaded Iraq, it was proven that all he said was a lie. Powell himself admitted that the American intelligence agencies deceived him with that false evidence. That wasn’t the first nor will it be the last time. This means that if you want to be a politician in the United States, you have to be a genuine liar. This is what characterizes American politicians: they lie on a daily basis, and say something and do something different. That’s why we shouldn’t believe what the Pentagon, or any other American institution says, because they say things which serve their policies, not things which reflect reality and the facts on the ground.

TS: What is the objective behind Syria’s desire to acquire the latest generation of anti-missile systems from Russia?

BA: We are already in a state of war with Israel; and Israel has been committing aggressions on the Arab states surrounding it since its creation in 1948. So, it’s natural that we should have such systems. However, the terrorists, acting on Israeli, American, Turkish, Qatari, and Saudi instructions have destroyed some of these systems. And it is natural for us to negotiate with the Russians now with a view to strengthening these systems, whether to face any Israeli threats from the air or the threats of American missiles. That has become a real possibility after the recent American aggression on al-Shairat airbase in Syria.

TS: What is the role that Israel, in particular, has played in this war against Syria? We know that Israeli attacks against the positions of the Syrian Arab Army have continued in recent weeks.

BA: It is playing this role in different forms; first, by direct aggression, particularly by using warplanes, artillery, or missiles against Syrian Army positions. Second, it is supporting terrorists in two ways: first by providing direct support in the form of weapons, and second by providing logistic support, i.e. allowing them to conduct military exercises in the areas it controls. It also provides them with medical assistance in its hospitals. These are not mere claims or assumptions. They are facts, verified and published on the internet which you can easily access as proven evidence of the Israeli role in support of the terrorists in Syria.

TS: How do you assess the current policy of Donald Trump in the world, and in Syria in particular?

BA: The American President has no policies. There are policies drawn by the American institutions which control the American regime which are the intelligence agencies, the Pentagon, the big arms and oil companies, and financial institutions, in addition to some other lobbies which influence American decision-making. The American President merely implements these policies, and the evidence is that when Trump tried to move on a different track, during and after his election campaign, he couldn’t. He came under a ferocious attack. As we have seen in the past few week, he changed his rhetoric completely and subjected himself to the terms of the deep American state, or the deep American regime. That’s why it is unrealistic and a complete waste of time to make an assessment of the American President’s foreign policy, for he might say something; but he ultimately does what these institutions dictate to him. This is not new. This has been ongoing American policy for decades.

TS: The American administration has opened a new front now with North Korea. Is it possible that this will affect the current American approach towards Syria?

BA: No, the United States always seeks to control all the states of the world without exception. It does not accept allies, regardless of whether they are developed states as those in the Western bloc, or other states of the world. Every state should be an American satellite. That is why what is happening to Syria, to Korea, to Iran, to Russia, and maybe to Venezuela now, aims at re-imposing American hegemony on the world, because they believe that this hegemony is under threat now, which consequently threatens the interests of American economic and political elites.

TS: Russia’s role in the Syrian conflict is very clear; but what is the role of China, this other great global power?

BA: There is great cooperation with Russia and China in terms of political action or political positions. Viewpoints are similar, and there is cooperation in the Security Council. As you know, the United States and its allies have tried several times to use the Security Council in order to legitimize the role of the terrorists in Syria and to legitimize their role in the illegitimate and aggressive intervention in Syria. That’s why Russia and China stood together, and China’s role, with the Russian role, was essential in this regard.

Moreover, some of the terrorists are Chinese nationals who came to Syria through Turkey. They pose a threat to us in Syria, but they pose an equal threat to China. China is aware of the fact that terrorism in any place in the world moves to any other place; and consequently, whether these terrorists are of Chinese or any other nationality, they might return to China and strike there as they have done in Europe, in Russia, and in Syria. We are now cooperating with China on security issues.

TS: Western and American media talk now about moderate terrorists and extremist terrorists. In reality, is there a difference between the two groups?

BA: For them, a moderate terrorist is that who carries out acts of beheading and slaughter but without carrying al-Qaeda flag, or without saying “Allah Akbar,” while an extremist terrorist is that who carries the flag and says Allah Akbar when carrying out acts of beheading and slaughter. This is the only difference. For the United States, all those who serve its political agenda against other states are classified as moderate opposition and not as extremist and terrorist, even if they commit the worst acts of terrorism. They are freedom fighters and not fighters in the cause of destruction and sabotage.

TS: There have been six years of war in Syria. What is Syria’s position now, particularly in the absence of statistics about human losses?

BA: The most painful loss in any war is human loss, the suffering which is inflicted any family when it loses one of its members; for the whole family is scarred for life. This is the natural feeling in a region like ours, where family ties are very strong. Nothing compensates that loss, and nothing exceeds the pain it causes. There are of course huge economic and infrastructure losses, but this infrastructure has been built for a little over 50 years by Syrian hands, not foreign hands. And we have the capacity to rebuild this infrastructure. The same goes for the economy, for the Syrian economy is based on Syrian capabilities first and foremost; and our economic ties with the West have always been limited. When the war is over, it will all be rebuilt. We do not have a problem with that. It is true that it takes time, but it is not impossible. So, the greatest and most painful loss for Syria is the human loss.

TS: Of the 86 states constituting the alliance waging war on Syria, are there any that would take part in the process of reconstruction?

BA: No, of course not. First of all, they do not want to rebuild Syria, but some companies in those countries, if they see that the wheel of the economy and rebuilding has started to turn, and since they are opportunists, they are certainly prepared to come and have a share of rebuilding Syria in order to make money. The Syrian people will certainly not accept this. All the states which stood against the Syrian people and took part in the destruction and sabotage will never take part in rebuilding Syria. That is final.

TS: But how was life during these past six years in this besieged country?

BA: Life has certainly been tough to every Syrian citizen. The terrorists have destroyed the infrastructure. In certain areas, electricity is on for one or two hours, and there are areas in which there’s no electricity at all. There are areas in which electricity has been cut off for more than two or three years. People don’t know television, children do not go to school, there are no medical clinics or hospitals, and nobody treats the ill. They live a prehistoric existence thanks to the terrorists. There are areas which did not have water for years, like what happened in Aleppo, which did not have water for many long years. Sometimes, they use polluted water for drinking, washing up, and other purposes. Life has been very tough.

TS: One of the main targets during these years has been the person of Bashar al-Assad. Have you ever felt fear during these years?

BA: When you are in the middle of the war, you do not feel fear. I believe this is something common to all people. But you have a general concern for the homeland; for what is the value of being safe, as an individual, as a citizen, while the country is under threat? You cannot feel safe. I believe that the feeling we have in Syria in general is concern for the future of Syria rather than personal fear. The evidence is that mortar shells fall anywhere, on any house; nevertheless, you see that life continues in Syria. The will to life is much stronger than personal fear. As a President, I take strength from the feelings of the general public, not from my personal feelings. I do not live in isolation from the others.

TS: Western media have been waging a media campaign against you. Am I sitting now with this devil portrayed by the media?

BA: Yes, from a Western perspective, you are now sitting with the devil. This is how they market it in the West. But this is always the case when a state, a government, or an individual do not subjugate themselves to their interests, and do not work for their interests against the interests of their people. These have been the Western colonial demands throughout history. They say that this evil person is killing the good people. Okay, if he is killing the good people, who have been supporting him for the past six years? Neither Russia, nor Iran, nor any friendly state can support an individual at the expense of the people. This is impossible. If he is killing the people, how come the people support him? This is the contradictory Western narrative; and that’s why we shouldn’t waste our time on Western narratives because they have been full of lies throughout history, and not something new.

TS: What can Syria, too, do in order to put an end to this war ahead of the sixth round of Geneva talks?

BA: We said that there are two axes: the first is fighting the terrorists; and this is not subject to any discussion, and we don’t have any other choice in dealing with the terrorists except fighting them. The other axis, the political one, includes two points: first, dialogue with the different political forces over the future of Syria; and second: local reconciliations, in the sense that we negotiate with the terrorists in a certain village or city, depending on each case separately. The objective of this reconciliation is for them to lay down their weapons and receive an amnesty from the state, and consequently return to their normal life. This approach has been implemented during the past three or four years, has succeeded, and is ongoing now. These are the axes which we can work on in order to find a solution to the Syrian crisis.

TS: From the perspective of a country in a state of war, how do you see the situation in Latin America, particularly in Venezuela, where a number of acts very similar to those which caused the conflict in Syria have emerged?

BA: Of course, they should be similar, because the party planning and implementing these acts is the same. It is the United States as a maestro and the Western states constituting the choir. Latin America in general, and Venezuela in particular, used to be the backyard of the United States for decades. Through that backyard, Western states, particularly North America, or the United States, used to secure their economic interests through the influence of the big companies in your countries. Military or political coups in Latin America during the 1960s and the 1970s aimed at perpetuating American hegemony over the interests of your people. But Latin America freed itself during the past twenty years and gained its independent decision-making. Governments started defending the interests of their peoples, which is unacceptable to the United States. That’s why they are exploiting what’s happening in the world, starting with the orange revolution in Ukraine up to the recent coup there a few years ago, and what is taking place in the Arab countries, in Libya, Syria, Yemen and others, in order to implement it in Latin America. They started in Venezuela with the objective of overthrowing the national government, and it will spread over to other Latin American countries.

TS: Some people, particularly ordinary citizens in Latin America, think that a scenario similar to what’s happening in Syria could be repeated in Latin America. What do you think?

BA: This is true. That’s why I say since the party planning and implementing is the same, it’s natural that the scenario is not only similar, but identical. Some local elements might be different. In Syria, they said in the beginning that there were peaceful demonstrations, but in fact, when these peaceful demonstrations did not spread wide enough, they implanted individuals who fired on both sides, on the police and the demonstrations, and there were casualties. They started to say that the state is killing the people, and this scenario is being repeated everywhere. The same scenario will be repeated in Venezuela. That’s why the Venezuelan people have to be very careful. There is a difference between opposing the government and being against the homeland, a huge difference. On the other hand, no foreign state can be more concerned about Venezuela’s interests than the Venezuelan people themselves. Do not believe the West, for it’s not concerned either about human rights or about the interests of states. It is only concerned about the interests of part of the governing elites in its countries. And these governing elites are not necessarily politicians, they are economic companies too.

TS: I’m talking about Latin America, Venezuela, the Bolivarian Revolution which was your strong ally. How do you remember the late Hugo Chavez?

BA: President Chavez was a world-class distinguished personality. When we talk about Latin America, we immediately remember the late President Chavez and the late leader Fidel Castro, the leader of the Cuban Revolution. They are distinguished personalities who changed the face of Latin America. But of course the leader I knew personally and whom I met more than once and had a personal relationship with was President Chavez, when he visited us in Syria and I visited him in Venezuela. He visited us twice. When you meet him, you can tell that he is the son of the people. You do not feel that you are meeting a president or a politician, but a person who lived the suffering of his people. Everything he said, and every minute of his time, was about the details related to the people of his country. And when he talked with a head of another state, or an official from another state, he always thought of how to create common interests which reflect positively on his people. He was a real and strongly charismatic leader. And he was an extremely genuine person.

TS: They demonized Chavez before; and it is clear that it is Nicolas Maduro’s turn now.

BA: Of course, as long as President Maduro is walking the same patriotic line, the line of Venezuela’s independence, and acting in the best interest of his country’s people, it is natural that he should be the first target of the United States. This is self-evident.

TS: How does Bashar al-Assad envision the end of the war?

BA: Today, foreign intervention in Syria aside, the problem is not complicated, for the majority of the Syrians are tired of the war and want a solution. They want to return to safety and stability. There is a dialogue between us as Syrians, there are meetings, and people live with each other, i.e. there is no real barrier. The problem now is that with every step we make towards a solution and regaining stability, the terrorist gangs receive more money and weapons in order to blow the situation up. That’s why I can say that the solution should be stopping outside support to the terrorists. As far as we are concerned in Syria, reconciliation among all Syrians, and forgetting and forgiving all that happened in the past throughout this war, is the way to restore safety to Syria. Rest assured that Syria will be then much stronger than it was before the war.

TS: Are you prepared to have reconciliation with those who carried arms against the Syrian people?

BA: Of course, and this has actually happened in many and different places, and some of them have fought side by side with the Syrian Army, some fell martyrs, and some returned to their cities and live in the part under government control. We don’t have a problem. Tolerance is essential to end any war. And we are proceeding on that track.

TS: Mr. President, what is your message to Latin America and the world?

BA: Keep your independence. We, in the Arab region, are celebrating independence in more than one country. But this independence used to mean, in a number of countries in the region, the mere evacuation of occupying forces. But real independence happens when you are in possession of your national decision-making. For us, Latin America was a model of independence, in the sense that occupiers were evacuated, in case there were foreign forces, but at the same time there was national decision-making, openness, and democracy. You provided the world with an important model. So, keep it, because if the countries of the third and developing world wanted to develop, they should follow the model implemented in Latin America.

TS: Mr. President, thank you for giving teleSUR this interview, and thank you for your precious time and all the information that you have provided.

BA: Thank you for coming, and once again I welcome you in Damascus.

Brandon Turbeville – article archive here – is the author of seven books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 andvolume 2, The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President, and Resisting The Empire: The Plan To Destroy Syria And How The Future Of The World Depends On The Outcome

List Price: $14.95
Current Price: $14.95
Resisting The Empire: The Plan To Destroy Syria And How The Future Of The World Depends On The Outcome
Prices are accurate as of May 27, 2017 9:44 pm

. Turbeville has published over 1000 articles on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s radio show Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST atUCYTV. His website is BrandonTurbeville.com He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.This article may be freely shared in part or in full with author attribution and source link.

%d bloggers like this: