Trump’s Surprising Alaska-Canada Rail Announcement: Might America Join the Polar Silk Road?

By Matthew Ehret for the Saker Blog

Trump’s Surprising Alaska-Canada Rail Announcement: Might America Join the Polar Silk Road?

On September 26, President Trump announced that a long-overdue project would receive Federal support which involves connecting Alaska for the first time with Canada and the lower 48 states via a 2570 km railway.

In his Tweet announcing the project, Trump said:

Ever since the days of the sale of Alaska from Russia to the USA in 1867, it was understood by leading statesmen of both nations that an inevitable next phase in human society’s evolution would involve extending the U.S. Trans Continental Railway through Canada, into Alaska and thence into Russia and Asia via the Bering Strait rail tunnel. This project had received fervent support from such figures as Russian Prime Minister Sergei Witte, Colorado’s Governor William Gilpin and even Czar Nicholas II who commissioned American engineers to conduct a feasibility study in 1906. These stories were told in full in my recent reports The Missed Chance of 1867, and The Real Story Behind the Alaska Purchase.

By the mid 20th century, the project to connect Alaska with Canada and the rest of the continent while opening the Arctic for development found its champions in the forms of Vice President Henry Wallace (1941-1945), President John F Kennedy (1961-63) and in Canada B.C. Premier W.A.C. Bennett (1952-72) and Prime Minister John Diefenbaker (1957-1963).

During Bennett’s 20 year role as Premier (from 1952-1972), the Province was pulled quickly into the 20th century becoming an international hub of hydroelectric power, industrial growth and water management. As the story was told in Forgotten Battles Against the Deep State: W.A.C. Bennett vs the Malthusians, Bennett’s growth program never occurred without vicious battles pitting high level anti-development Rhodes Scholars operating within both Ottawa and his own Provincial administration against him and his small team of nation builders. Unfortunately for Bennett who always intended his northern rail programs to connect with Alaska, his key ally in Ottawa was taken out of power during a Rhodes Scholar-driven coup in 1963 and John F Kennedy, who met Bennett and supported many of infrastructure initiatives fell earlier that same year.

With the fall of these statesmen, a new paradigm took hold of western society premised on living in the moment, rejecting ideas like “the nuclear family”, belief in scientific and technological progress”, or the study of “dead white European males” in universities.

The era of building things was choked off and an era of monetary growth was unleashed like a cancerous tumor under globalization.

Today, with the immanent breakdown of the post-1971 de-regulated order, a new order is emerging and it remains to be seen who will benefit.

For all of his limitations, President Trump has displayed a rare and invaluable quality unseen in an American president for decades: Humanity and genuine patriotism. While neocons and technocrats attempt to gain the upper hand amidst the impending blowout of the $1.5 quadrillion derivatives bubble called the western economy, a new epoch of serious nation building has emerged with the Russia-China alliance and Belt and Road Initiative, which has extended development corridors, industrial zones and mass infrastructure led by rail throughout Asia, Africa and increasingly into the Russian Arctic under the Polar Silk Road.

In its essential character, this Multipolar alliance represents a form of thinking and action which are much more in alignment with discoverable principles of natural law (premised not on “Might Makes Right but rather “Right makes Might” as enunciated famously by the great Chinese President and revolutionary in his Three Principles of the People (modelled on his studies of Lincoln’s principles of government) where he said: “The rule of Right respects benevolence and virtue, while the rule of Might only respects force and utilitarianism. The rule of Right always influences people with justice and reason, while the rule of Might always oppresses people with brute force and military measures.”

Todays potential re-emergence of the Alaska-Canada Railway which would be driven under a pro-Pacific and pro-Arctic development model represents the first genuine display of this paradigm in North America in decades.

If it survives the oncoming Environmental Impact Assessments and Federal Government of Canada (which is currently run by anti-development Rhodes Scholars and technocrats committed to depopulation and world government), then it will not only upon up bountiful resources locked up in the inaccessible Arctic, create tens of thousands of much needed jobs directly and millions of jobs indirectly and vector North America’s economic destiny with the ever-growing Asian markets led by China. Most importantly, it will do much to break the west free of the two-fold trap of anti-development versions of environmentalism on the one side and pro-militarization right wing views on the other side- bringing us into a policy of win-win cooperation with our Eurasian partners.

The Alaska-Alberta Railway Development Corporation (tasked by Trump with the job of building and managing this $17 billion project), features on its website programs to tie North America into the Asian market as well as help integrate a North American transport system whose once proud rail system have fallen derelict since WWII and the age of “highways and cars” took over.

A2A CEO Sean McCoshen stated as much this year when he said: “This is a world-class infrastructure project that will generate more than 18,000 jobs for Canadian workers at a time when they are most needed, provide a new, more efficient route for trans-Pacific shipping and thereby link Alberta to world markets.”

Whether or not such programs which may now occur since Globalizated monsters like NAFTA and the TPP have been jettisoned giving nation states the authority to exercise a dirigistic role in long term economic planning remains to be seen.

Matthew Ehret is the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Patriot Review , a BRI Expert on Tactical talk, and has authored 3 volumes of ‘Untold History of Canada’ book series. In 2019 he co-founded the Montreal-based Rising Tide Foundation 

Is America Worth Saving? Trump’s 1776 Commission and the True Cause of the American Revolution

Is America Worth Saving? Trump’s 1776 Commission and the True Cause of the American Revolution

September 21, 2020

By Matthew Ehret for the Saker Blog

Donald Trump’s 1776 Commission announced on in Constitution Hall on September 17 has ruffled more than a few feathers across the radical left who have been clearly exposed as nothing more than ideological post-truth mobs who are driven by impulses that threaten to tear America down into Civil War. While I am not saying that everything about America’s past is as peachy clean as many Americans, including the President, wish to believe, the fact is that this commission represents an extremely important defense of history and the Constitution itself at a time when it is most needed.

In honor of this effort to fight off the cultural Marxists that have infused twisted narratives into the psyches of citizens for too many decades that profess a view that nothing but hypocrisy and slavery gave rise to America, I would like to do something a bit different. In this short essay, I will shed light on some of the positive traditions of the too-often forgotten America whose Father of Founding Fathers Benjamin Franklin, shaped not merely a revolution of 13 independent-minded colonies against the British Empire, but rather a global movement stretching from France, Russia, Poland, Ireland, Prussia, India and Africa!

Without this global perspective and an appreciation for the international array of global patriots who risked their lives for the American cause, then the true heritage of America as a kindred spirit with Russia and China would remain forgotten when it is needed most sitting as we are on the cusp of a new world war.

America’s Revolution as an International Affair

As I laid out in a recent paper “Why Canada Failed the Ben Franklin Challenge of 1776”, Franklin’s sad return to the Continental Congress in New York from Quebec in May, 1776 was one of the few defeats suffered by the statesman. Franklin’s decades of work to bring the French Colony of Quebec into the independence movement was sabotaged by 1) the slavish illiteracy rampant among the peasants of the feudal system inherited from France, and 2) the rampant corruption of the Catholic clergy elite which signed a devil’s pact with the British Empire to keep the peasants locked into the empire. These factors would play into the collapse of the French Revolution in 1789 as we will see shortly.

One month after this failed effort, a four-man committee led by Franklin drafted the Declaration of Independence on July 2nd and made public on July 4th proclaiming:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Although a slave owning degenerate named Thomas Jefferson is sadly given sole credit for this document (fueling the argument of those proclaiming America to be a nation built on hypocrisy), the fact is that the great abolitionist Ben Franklin guided the writing of this document from start to finish. Over 40 corrections to Jefferson’s drafts were made by the old statesman including the erasure of Jefferson’s desired wording of “property” derived from his love of John Locke for the higher Leibnizian idea of “happiness” preferred by Franklin.

Franklin had already fought to unite the colonies for over twenty years beginning with his 1754 Plan of Union at the outset of the French-Indian War adopted by the Albany Congress, but rejected by the individual colonies who were always kept divided amongst themselves. Franklin’s “Join or Die” cartoon had its origins not in 1776, but actually during the battle of 1754 and it was an open secret that the British Elite of the 18th century collaborated closely with French oligarchical families to keep the troublesome colonialists subjugated, and underdeveloped as part of the “balance of power” game of empire.

After Franklin’s July 4, 1776 success, he knew that America’s fate hinged upon his ability to engage the international network of statesmen, and scientists whom he had organized over the course of 40 years and especially since his 1752 discovery of electricity made him an international sensation earning him the title “Prometheus of America”.

This post-1776 phase of his plan took him to France where he was made America’s ambassador in Paris. It was here, that Franklin arranged the French-American Treaty of Alliance of 1778 that turned the tide of the revolution towards the American cause which had zero chance of success before this moment.

Franklin had already organized his allies in Prussia where Friedrich the Great voiced open support for the cause and the great military strategist Wilhelm von Steuben became the Inspector General of the Continental Army providing military drills and modern military techniques to the undisciplined “citizen soldiers” of the USA. The republican Polish military engineer and colonel Tadeusz Kosciuszko served as Brigadier-General in the Continental Army and the young Marquis Lafayette who arrived illegally in America along with other French troops before the 1778 alliance treaty, made invaluable contributions to the cause. Over twenty generals of the Continental Congress were Irishmen, and many led the later efforts to create an Irish revolution in 1798-99.

In his ambassadorial station in France, Franklin met many members of the European intelligentsia- including key Russian figures. Among them included a young woman named Ekaterina Dashkova– the younger sister of Catherine the Great and president of the Russian Academy of Sciences who became friends with the elder scientist and was soon inducted into Franklin’s Philosophical Society (becoming the society’s first woman and first Russian). In turn, Dashkova made Franklin the first American member of the Russian Academy of Sciences in 1781. It was through these connections that Franklin played a leading role in organizing the League of Armed Neutrality under the helm of Catherine the Great which ensured that vital supplies and arms would make their way from Europe to America without being blocked by British ships. Within the first 12 months, this League grew to include the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Austria, and Prussia. To this day, Russia’s league created the foundations of Maritime law.

This early alliance sewed the seeds of a larger tradition of U.S.-Russia friendship which saved both nations and which were covered in a recent conference titled The Historic Clash Between Open vs Closed Systems on August 15.

Franklin’s French networks had deep connections into India as well, which made themselves felt in the French-Indian alliance of 1780 that saw pro-American Muslim leader Hydar Ali lead thousands of Indian soldiers on a march across Western Ghats where they attacked the strategic British Base of Fort St. George near the Port town of Madras. Ali was supported by French troops on land and sea under the command of Admiral Suffren. Hydar Ali had already defeated the British in 1760 and represented a powerful independence force in India that kept British oligarchs up at night (It would still be many years before Britain would gain control of this “Crown Jewel” of the empire).

During this conflict, Hydar Ali’s forces innovated rockets which decimated British troops, and forced Britain to re-direct over 20% of their naval fleet from fighting in the Americas- this was a vital boon to the French and American forces a world away. Hydar Ali’s son Tipu Sultan even wrote a message to the Continental Congress in 1781 saying: “every blow that is struck in the cause of American liberty throughout the world, in France, India, and elsewhere and so long as a single insolent savage tyrant remains the struggle shall continue.”

America’s flagship of the Continental fleet was named the Hydar Ali in his honor.

In Morocco, the French were able to arrange an important dialogue between Emperor Sidi Mohammed and American officials which saved American shipping from the ravages of Barbary pirates who ruled the coasts of Africa and the Straits of Gibraltar. During the opening of the war, the British made sure to inform these Barbary pirates of American shipping and used these forces against American ships bound for Europe. Sidi Mohammed agreed to supply protection for America’s ships and guaranteed them safe harbor from the Tunisian and Algerian pirates. Soon the Continental Congress had passed an act which called for Franklin to lead a team of negotiators to work out a deal with Morocco and other North African countries.

Although international political chaos and the constant treachery and intrigue within America during its early years resulted in very little progress on this front, it is noteworthy that Morocco was the first nation in the world to recognize America’s independence on December 20, 1777.

Even though Franklin didn’t appear to have any direct contact with the Chinese during this period (who were busy fending off the British Empire’s lusting dogs of the East India Company who were preparing a new phase of Asiatic expansion), Chinese thought did figure prominently in the thinking of Ben Franklin and Thomas Paine. Franklin had published many writings on Confucius from 1737-1757, which shaped many points of wisdom in the Poor Richards Almanac. Writing to a friend in 1747, Franklin stated “Confucius was my example. I followed Confucius”. As Professor David Wang points out, many of his insights into civil administration and law derived from his studies of China. On Franklin’s over arching Confucian world view, Dr. Wang stated:

“Benjamin Franklin’s interest in Chinese civilization was so wide that it included all substances from Confucius philosophy to industrial technologies. Then the question is why Franklin spent so much time and energy on studying Chinese civilization. Franklin believed that “what assurance of the Future can be better founded than that which is built on Experience of the Past?”. Franklin’s strive to draw wisdom from Chinese civilization was based on his belief that China was “the most ancient, and from long Experience the wisest of Nations”. For Franklin, obtaining positive elements from Chinese civilization was important for developing the American way of life.”

While there are many more chapters to this international story, the lesson I wanted readers to come away with is that America was both more than you thought it was and also less than it was meant to be.

According to the intentions of such renaissance men as Franklin, the American cause was never meant to be a “local issue” defined by 13 rebelling colonies, but rather a new age of reason for all mankind.

Kindred spirits across Europe watched in horror as the first European nation to attempt revolution led by Lafayette and other leaders of Franklin’s network (who made the American cause a success) was overthrown by a Jacobin “color revolution”. The noble origins of the June 20, 1789 Tennis Court Oath which kick started the French Revolution were soon lost as a bloodbath (directed by British assets from the Foreign Office) channelled the rage of France’s peasant population against ALL of the elite, corrupt and noble alike, proclaiming “the revolution has no need of scientists”. The sound of the guillotine lopping off the heads of the great revolutionary astronomer/mayor of Paris Jean-Sylvain Bailey and chemist Antoine Lavoisier still resonates as a shame of France. Lafayette only saved his head long enough to end up in an Austrian dungeon for 5 years as punishment for fighting to overthrow hereditary systems and was immortalized in Beethoven’s only opera Fidelio in 1805.

The pro-humanist forces of Europe slowly came undone during the Napoleonic wars which culminated in the 1815 Congress of Vienna and Holy Alliance which re-established “peace” by banning dangerous books, teaching, and art that might awaken revolutionary feelings in the minds and hearts of Europeans. These Orwellian laws were outlined in the Carlsbad decrees of 1819 and ruined more than a few lives of great statesmen and teachers. This story was told in my paper “Kissinger’s Adoration of the 1815 Congress of Vienna”.

During this time, the British Empire came out again as a force of evil preparing a new phase of its global conquest with a crushing of the Hydar Ali spirit in India and a new age of opium wars against China.

In spite of this growing darkness, great poets who dreamed of that better age of reason produced some of the greatest and under-appreciated poetry with Percy Shelley and John Keats leading that movement in Britain, Robbie Burns in Scotland and such figures as Schubert, Heine, Schumann and Beethoven representing this spark in Vienna and Germany. Palmerston-Mazzini’s “Young Europe” anarchist mobs were periodically deployed to disrupt constructive nationalist tendencies throughout this period- laying the groundwork for “color revolutions” of the 20-21st centuries.

Beethoven’s 1824 Ninth Symphony setting Schiller’s great poem an “Ode to Joy” to music was a celebration of that dreamed-of age of brotherhood and creative reason which Franklin devoted his life to accomplishing and which today’s multipolar alliance has again awoken as a potential alternative to an age of darkness, war and collapse facing humanity in the 21st century.


The author delivered a lecture on July 1, 2020 on this topic viewable here:

Matthew Ehret is the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Patriot Review , a BRI Expert on Tactical talk, and has authored 3 volumes of ‘Untold History of Canada’ book series. In 2019 he co-founded the Montreal-based Rising Tide Foundation

Canada today slipped beneath the waves, like the Titanic, but into deep dictatorship.

Canada today slipped beneath the waves, like the Titanic, but into deep dictatorship.

August 18, 2020

By Marcel Woland for The Saker Blog

Today, the Minister of Finance, Morneau, was forced by Trudeau to resign, after he and Trudeau were caught (*see below) diverting one billion dollars to personal, non-governmental, associates. George Soros, through an Ukrainian agent/mole, is now the de facto head of Canada.

George Soros’s designated ‘biographer’ (hagiographer) Ukrainian-Canadian Fascist, Chrystia Freeland, becomes Minister of Finance, (presumably de facto keeping her duties as Minister of InterGovernmental Affairs and Deputy Prime Minister) as parliament is dissolved amidst the cover-up of a billion dollar scandal.

With Canada rudderless, in a time of alleged pandemic and economic collapse, the new Minister of Finance, DPM and Intergovernmental Affairs-in-one, has already promised to “help women” using money-printing and the almost empty Treasury of Canada. Women voters are likely the last hope for the oligarch playboy, thrice found guilty of ethics violations, minority PM Trudeau. His support at the last election was 30%. By now it is likely down to 20% of die-hard, mostly female, fans.

Shutting down Parliament completely, which he has partially done for months under cover of the alleged pandemic, will prevent a motion of non-confidence being brought, even if the Sikh leader of the NDP, who keeps Trudeau in power, remembers suddenly that his allegiance is to the country and not to the ‘white Sahib’ PM.

* Our Prime Minister and his ex-Finance Minister were caught recently attempting to siphon one billion dollars to an alleged pedophile cult and real estate assembly crime family(the Kielburgers), with which both their families had business dealings, called The WE Foundation. So far we know that the WE Foundation, or its subsidiaries, had paid the PM  and the former Finance Minister and their families over 500 thousand dollars in ‘free vacations’ and ‘speaker fees’. 

Here ​(below) ​is the new de facto Queen of Canada, Chrystia Freeland who concealed her family’s Nazi past.  “Look upon her​ works​, ye ​M​ighty, and despair.”​ (apology to Percy Shelley) ​ She was instrumental in the coup d’etat in the former The Ukraine, working with various Soros NGOs and the USSD as well as other quasi-criminal organizations. In this time of collapsing trade, and nuclear proliferation, she has long been banned from Russia in any capacity for Russophobia and crazed antagonism towards one of the world’s three “superpowers”. She of course makes no apology for this and the Canadian press dares not pressure her, even if they wanted to. She has also accelerated the destruction of the Canadian economy by the arrest, requested by the USA, of Meng Wan Zhou, CFO of Huawei, in the West’s il-thought out and failing trade war with China.

Meet the new Queen of Canada

And here, for some comic relief, on this bleak day for Canada indeed, is the eternal inspiration of crooked, low-potential, high-achievers (though a bit taller than the micro-Mini-Me Freeland) Pooh-Bah from The Mikado by Gilbert and Sullivan  https://youtu.be/jbpUzCFCy_8?t=889  (to 18:13) …but the whole of The Mikado in this Stratford Ontario Canadian production is often delightful and yet quite a dark and timely tale of misrule. Perfect viewing for a luxurious solitary confinement.

Preview in new tab(opens in a new tab)

Meanwhile, under cover of press silence and collusion, as in Russia, in 1917, the attack on the Church is  advancing at full speed:

VIDEO: Holy Communion BANNED at Churches in Toronto Canada

Rhodes Scholar Talbott’s Hand Revealed in Russia Gate: The Only Foreign Interference America Should Worry About is British.

Rhodes Scholar Talbott’s Hand Revealed in Russia Gate: The Only Foreign Interference America Should Worry About is British.

August 13, 2020

By Matthew Ehret for the Saker Blog

It has recently come to light that the primary source of the Steele Dossier and Mueller Investigation is none other than Igor Danchenko- a veteran Brookings Institute employee from Ukraine who not only hadn’t been to Russia for decades but who admitted to the FBI in January 2017 that the entire Steele dossier was a fraud.

For those who do not know, the Brookings Institute is a powerful DNC think tank founded by Bill Clinton’s former Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott who stepped down as president in 2017. Brookings has become known for its revolving door between officials in the Obama White House/DNC and the private sector. In recent weeks, it has come to light that Talbott reached out to Steele in August 2016 to share his own data accumulated by Danchenko and conspired with Steele on advancing the dossier in the wake of Trump’s November 2016 election. Other Brookings Institute agents deployed by Talbott include former NSC Russia Expert Trump impeachment witness Fiona Hill who co-authored a paper with Danchenko and also Talbott’s brother-in-law Cody Shearer who circulated a parallel dossier containing many of the falsified evidence printed in Steele’s script.

Sadly many analysts have read these new revelations badly and have concluded that MI6’s Christopher Steele was actually duped by fake American intelligence coming from opportunistic American operatives seeking to undermine a republican president for purely political considerations. Nothing however can be further from the truth.

Straussian vs Rhodesian Flavors of the Same Poison

Talbott himself may be American by blood, but thoroughly British in spirit. Both he and Clinton were Rhodes Scholars at Oxford in the 1970s and were joined by dozens of other Rhodes Scholars who flooded into the White House in 1992.

While appearing on the surface to oppose the brute force approach of the neoconservative Straussians, the Rhodes Scholar nests have distinguished themselves over the past century by promoting a world order that saw a more technocratic/Malthusian system of controls with the USA playing a subservient position in the Great Game. The Straussian neocons on the other hand aimed at a post-nation state world order with America acting as the lead and monetarism serving as a ruling religion. The differences between these two outlooks differs only superficially, as both plans involve a global bankers dictatorship controlled by the City of London and both demanded divided world of war, poverty and resource monopolies by an elite that have no allegiance to the USA or any sovereign nation state per se.

This outlook was expressed by Talbott in a most visceral manner in 1992 when he said:

“All countries are basically social arrangements….No matter how permanent or even sacred they may seem at any one time, in fact they are all artificial and temporary….Perhaps national sovereignty wasn’t such a great idea after all….But it has taken the events in our own wondrous and terrible century to clinch the case for world government.”

The exposure of the British hand behind the scenes affords us a unique glimpse into the real historical forces undermining America’s true constitutional tradition throughout the 20th century, as Mueller/the Five Eyes/Rhodes Scholars are not new phenomena but actually follow a modus operandi set down for already more than a century. One of the biggest obstacles to seeing this modus operandi run by the British Empire is located in the belief in a mythology which has become embedded in the global psyche for over half a century and which we should do our best to free ourselves of.

Debunking the Myth of the “American Empire”

While there has been a long-standing narrative promoted for over 70 years that the British Empire disappeared after World War II having been replaced by the “American Empire”, it is the furthest thing from the truth. America, as constitutionally represented by its greatest presidents (who can unfortunately be identified by their early deaths while serving in office), were never colonialist and were always in favor of reining in British Institutions at home while fighting British colonial thinking abroad.

Franklin Roosevelt’s thirteen year-long battle with the Deep State, which he referred to as the “economic royalists who should have left America in 1776″, was defined in clear terms by his patriotic Vice-President Henry Wallace who warned of the emergence of a new Anglo-American fascism in 1944 when he said:

“Fascism in the postwar inevitably will push steadily for Anglo-Saxon imperialism and eventually for war with Russia. Already American fascists are talking and writing about this conflict and using it as an excuse for their internal hatreds and intolerances toward certain races, creeds and classes.”

The fact is that already in 1944, a policy of Anglo-Saxon imperialism had been promoted subversively by British-run think tanks known as the Round Table Movement and Fabian Society, and the seeds had already been laid for the anti-Russian cold war by those British-run American fascists. It is not a coincidence that this fascist Cold War policy was announced in a March 5, 1946 speech in Fulton, Missouri by none other than Round Table-follower Winston Churchill.

The Empire Strikes

When the Round Table Movement was created with funds from the Rhodes Trust in 1902, a new plan was laid out to create a new technocratic elite to manage the re-emergence of the new British Empire and crush the emergence of American-inspired nationalism globally. This organization would be staffed by generations of Rhodes Scholars who would receive their indoctrination in Oxford before being sent back to advance a “post-nation state” agenda in their respective countries.

As this agenda largely followed the mandate set out by Cecil Rhodes in his Seventh Will who said “Why should we not form a secret society with but one object: the furtherance of the British Empire and the bringing of the whole uncivilized world under British rule, for the recovery of the United States, and for the making of the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire?”

With the help of an anglophile, racist president in America, leading figures organizing these think tanks first advanced a program to create a “League of Nations” as the solution to the “nationalist problem” which humanity was told “caused” World War One. Nationalist forces in America rejected the idea that the constitution should be rendered obsolete and the plan for global governance failed. However that did not stop the Round Table Movement from trying again. Leading Round Table controller Lord Lothian (British Ambassador to the USA) complained of the “American problem” in 1918.

There is a fundamentally different concept in regard to this question between Great Britain and the United States  as to the necessity of civilized control over politically backward peoples…. The inhabitants of Africa and parts of Asia have proved unable to govern themselves…. Yet America not only has no conception of this aspect of the problem but has been led to believe that the assumption of this kind of responsibility is iniquitous imperialism.

They take an attitude towards the problem of world government exactly analogous to the one they [earlier] took toward the problem of the world war. If they are slow in learning we shall be condemned to a period of strained relations between the various parts of the English-speaking world. [We must] get into the heads of Canadians and Americans that a share in the burden of world government is just as great and glorious a responsibility as participation in the war”.

A Chinese leader of the American-inspired republican revolution of 1911 named Sun Yat-sen warned of the likes of Lord Lothian and the League of Nations in 1924 when he said:

“The nations which are employing imperialism to conquer others and which are trying to maintain their own favored positions as sovereign lords of the whole world are advocating cosmopolitanism [aka: global governance/globalization -ed] and want the world to join them… Nationalism is that precious possession by which humanity maintains its existence. If nationalism decays, then when cosmopolitanism flourishes we will be unable to survive and will be eliminated”.

New Name. Same Beast

By 1919, the Round Table Movement changed its name to the Royal Institute for International Affairs (aka: Chatham House) with the “Round Table” name relegated to its geopolitical periodical. In Canada and Australia, branches were created in 1928 under the rubrics of “Canadian and Australian Institutes for International Affairs” (CIIA, AIIA). However in America, where knowledge of the British Empire’s subversive role was more widely known, the name “American Institute for International Affairs” was still too delicate. Instead the name “Council on Foreign Relations” was chosen and was chartered in 1921.

Rhodes Scholar William Yandall Elliot surrounded by a few of his leading disciples: Sir Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski Samuel Huntington and Pierre Trudeau

Staffed with Rhodes Scholars and Fabians, the CFR (and its International Chatham House counterparts) dubbed themselves “independent think tanks” which interfaced with Rhodes Scholars and Fabians in academia, government and the private sector alike with the mission of advancing a foreign policy agenda that was in alignment with the British Empire’s dream of an Anglo-American “special relationship”. One such Rhodes Scholar was William Yandall Elliot, who played a major role mentoring Henry Kissinger and a generation of geo-politicians from Harvard, not the least of whom include Zbigniew Brzezinski, Pierre Elliot Trudeau and Samuel (Clash of Civilizations) Huntington.

The Round Table in Canada and the Coup Against FDR

In Canada, five leading Rhodes Scholars were busy creating the League of Social Reconstruction as a self-described “Fabian Society of Canada” in 1931 which was meant to be a fascist/technocratic answer to the chaos of “greedy nationalism” that supposedly caused the economic collapse of Black Friday in 1929. During the same time in America, a different path to fascism was taken by these networks during the early 1930s. This plan involved installing a General named Smedley Butler into power as a puppet dictator steered by the Anglo-American establishment. Luckily for America and the world, General Butler blew the whistle on the coup against Franklin Roosevelt at the last minute.

In a 1934 video address to the nation, General Butler said:

“I appeared before the Congressional Committee, the highest representation of the American people under subpoena to tell what I knew about activities which I believe might lead to an attempt to set up a fascist dictatorship… the upshot of the whole thing was that I was to pose to lead an organization of 500 000 men which would be able to take over the functions of government”

Left-Wing Fascism blossoms in Canada

Kissinger’s British Takeover of America

Though it took a few assassinations throughout the post war years, Kissinger’s takeover of the State Department ushered in a new era of British occupation of American foreign policy, whereby the republic increasingly became the “Dumb Giant” acting as “American Brawn for the British brains” using Churchill’s words. While a nihilistic generation of youth were tuning in on LSD, and an old guard of patriots surrounding Wallace and Kennedy had fallen to the “red scare” witch hunt, geopolitical theory was fed like a sweet poison down the throat of a sleeping nation, replacing a policy of peace and “win-win cooperation” advanced by true nationalist patriots as FDR, Wallace and the Kennedys, with an imperial clone masquerading as a republic.

Kissinger did nothing less than reveal his total allegiance to the British Empire on May 10, 1981 during a Chatham House conference in Britain when he described his relationship with the British Foreign office in the following terms:

“The British were so matter-of-factly helpful that they became a participant in internal American deliberations, to a degree probably never practiced between sovereign nations… In my White House incarnation then, I kept the British Foreign Office better informed and more closely engaged than I did the American State Department… It was symptomatic”.

During this period, Kissinger worked closely with CIA director George Bush Senior, who was later rewarded for his role in advancing the British-planned first war on Kuwait with a knighthood. This war set the stage for the second wave of Middle East wars beginning with the Anglo-Saudi orchestrated operation known as 9/11 and the ushering in of the new “post-nation state order” by Kissinger and Blair.

At the 1991 Bilderberg Conference in France, Kissinger (who would soon be knighted for his work on behalf of the British Empire) stated:

“Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government.”

The Dystopic New World Order Threatened by a New Deal of the 21stCentury

It is this dystopic geopolitical order which has been challenged by the Russia-China alliance which arose in earnest with Xi Jinping’s 2013 announcement of the Belt and Road Initiative as the Grand design for large scale infrastructure projects internationally and in September 2015 with Vladimir Putin’s intervention into Syria which defeated the Hobbesian regime change paradigm which poisoned the west. In 2016, the election of nationalist American President Donald Trump opened the door for the first time in over 50 years to a true national coalition of sovereign nations to eliminate the cancer of colonial thinking forever from the earth.

It is this same British-run deep state which owns Robert Mueller, Strobe Talbott, who along with the Integrity Initiative, Five Eyes and other Deep State operatives are dedicated to overthrowing President Trump from office and undoing the great potential for a Multipolar Alliance of Sovereign Nation States. This sabotage has taken the form of a Great Global Reset and Green New Deal.

Matthew Ehret is the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Patriot Review , a BRI Expert on Tactical talk, and has authored 3 volumes of ‘Untold History of Canada’ book series. In 2019 he co-founded the Montreal-based Rising Tide Foundation 

Mohammed bin Salman Faces His Biggest Threat to the Throne. US Law Suit against Saudi Crown Prince

Law Suit in US Federal Court

By Steven Sahiounie

Global Research, August 12, 2020

Mohammed bin Salman, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, has been able to dodge legal responsibility in the death of Jamal Khashoggi, while US President Trump has defended and supported him.  It appears Mohammed bin Salman is facing a serious legal threat, and it will take personal interference by Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to save him from facing a judge in the federal court at Washington, DC.  Mohammed bin Salman may be praying for Trump to win in November 2020 to be sure he holds a ‘get out of jail’ card. 

Mohammed bin Salman faces US court summons

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has been issued a summons by the US District Court in Washington, DC. on August 7, 2020, after Saad al Jabri filed a lawsuit accusing Prince Mohammed bin Salman of sending a Saudi death squad to Canada to kill him.

Saad al Jabri was a former senior Saudi intelligence official working under the former Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, who was then Minister of the Interior.  Al Jabri was well known as the key link between Saudi intelligence services and their counterparts in the US and Europe.

Jabri’s lawyers filed a recent lawsuit in a federal court in Washington, DC. against Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, alleging he had sent a Saudi death squad to kill him in Canada on October 15, 2018, less than two weeks after the murder of Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul.

Jamal Khashoggi

Al Jabri owes his life to the Canadian border officials who were suspicious of the Saudi death squad after they were caught lying at the Ontario International Airport while carrying forensic equipment and traveling on tourist visas, which resulted in denied entry to all but one member who carried diplomatic credentials.

The lawsuit reads:

“Dr. Saad was privy to sensitive information about Defendant bin Salman’s covert political scheming within the Royal Court, corrupt business dealings, and creation of a team of personal mercenaries that Defendant bin Salman would later use to carry out the extrajudicial killing of Jamal Khashoggi, among others.”

The FBI became aware of the threats to al Jabri and his family in January 2018, when his son, Khalid al Jabri, was prevented from boarding a flight departing from Boston’s Logan International Airport by FBI agents, who informed the young man his life and that of his family were under threat.

Al Jabri’s legal team maintains that the threat to his life remains, and the Saudi death squad was planning to enter Canada by land, thus avoiding any airport security.

Mohammed bin Salman’s death squad on trial in IstanbulIs CIA Leak of Bin Salman’s Guilt in Khashoggi Murder Aimed at Kushner, or Trump Himself?

Last month the trial in Istanbul began against 20 Saudi Arabians accused of killing Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi Consulate at Istanbul on October 2, 2018, even though none of the accused were present. His body was dismembered while his fiancée, Hatice Cengiz, had waited outside the consulate, and his remains have never been found.

Saudi Arabia’s former deputy intelligence chief Ahmed al-Assiri is accused of planning the murder and assembling a team to carry out the murder of Khashoggi at the behest of their boss, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.  Saud al-Qahtani, a close adviser to Mohammed bin Salman, is similarly charged with having “instigated premeditated murder with monstrous intent.”  Qahtani continues to work closely with the crown prince, and according to a Saudi Arabian activist, who had been in prison, Qahtani told her, “I’ll do whatever I like to you, and then I’ll dissolve you and flush you down the toilet.”

Agnès Callamard said the Turkish trial is an “important judicial process. Here we have a space where the victims are heard in a way they have never been heard before. We have a space where witnesses are asked to speak under oath.”

UN report names Mohammed bin Salman in Khashoggi’s death

In June 2019, Agnes Callamard, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Killings, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions, published the results of her investigation into the killing of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey.

The report concluded that Khashoggi’s death “constituted an extrajudicial killing for which the State of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is responsible”. The report also said there is “credible evidence” warranting further investigation of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

The full UN report can be read here.

 “The operation involved multiple flights, including two private jets, one under diplomatic clearance. It entailed training, with two Saudi attaches from Istanbul flying to Riyadh for ‘top secret’, ‘urgent’ training and preparation, and it required planning and execution in Istanbul,” wrote Agnes Callamard in the report for the UN.

Callamard concluded that the decision to murder Khashoggi was taken before two of the most important members of the Saudi death squad Maher Mutreb, and Salah Tubaigy, the forensic pathologist who cut the body up, flew from Riyadh to Istanbul.

CIA concluded Mohammed bin Salman ordered Khashoggi murder

In November 2018, the Central Intelligence Agency concluded that the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, ordered the killing of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi,

Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, and senior adviser have remained close to Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Trump and Kushner have defended and supported the strong relationship with Mohammed bin Salman, despite the various important reports placing the responsibility of the murder of Khashoggi on him.

US arms sales to Saudi Arabia

Democrat and Republican lawmakers in the US Congress had held up a Trump administration request to sell 22 batches of munitions worth $8.1 billion to Saudi Arabia, because the US-made weapons were being used to kill thousands of civilians in Yemen, including the targeting of school buses full of children.

Marik String was acting chief of the US State Department’s political-military affairs bureau in early 2019, and he helped Secretary of State Mike Pompeo bypass a congressional freeze on arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the UAE by using a declared state of emergency in May 2019 to dodge the congressional hold.

The State Department’s inspector general, Steve A. Linick, had opened two investigations; one into the arms sale beginning in June 2019 and one into possible misuse of agency employees for the benefit of Mr. Pompeo and his wife. Pompeo asked Trump to fire Linick in May 2020, who was investigating whether the declared state of emergency was legal. Pompeo promoted String to acting legal advisor the very same day as he had declared the state of emergency.

Congressional officials have been told that the Trump administration plans to sell yet another package of weapons to Saudi Arabia worth $478 million.  With Linick gone, there will be no investigations.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

Steven Sahiounie is an award-winning journalist. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.The original source of this article is Global ResearchCopyright © Steven Sahiounie, Global Research, 2020

Free word | The US-China Conflict كلمة حرة | الصراع الأميركي الصيني

The Vaccine Race Is The Next Phase Of The COVID World Order

Source

By Andrew Korybko

American political analyst

24 JULY 2020

The Vaccine Race Is The Next Phase Of The COVID World Order

The head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) warned last week that the world is at risk of being further divided by the forthcoming COVID-19 vaccines that leading Great Powers are expected to publicly unveil in the coming future, which would make the vaccine race the next phase of the COVID World Order that’s quickly changing life as everyone knows it, including International Relations.

Welcome To World War C

The planet is in the midst of what the author previously referred to as World War C, which is his neologism for the full-spectrum paradigm-changing processes that were catalyzed as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak and the global community’s uncoordinated efforts to contain it. This is part of what he also earlier called the COVID World Order, which specifically relates to the everyday changes brought about by this development but which are also quickly making their impact felt in the sphere of International Relations as World War C continues.

The Vaccine Race

The latest escalation in this unconventional competition between states occurred last week when Canada, the UK, and the US accused Russian hackers of trying to steal information about a British vaccine, a charge that Moscow promptly denied. The day after, the head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), Kirill Dmitriev, warned the Financial Times in an exclusive interview that the world is at risk of being further divided by the forthcoming COVID-19 vaccines that leading Great Powers are expected to unveil in the coming future.

This would in effect make the vaccine race the next phase of the COVID World Order as countries scramble to carve out exclusive markets for what’s being presented as their life-saving product. It’s neither here nor there how anyone personally feels about vaccines or even the reported lethality of COVID-19 since it should be objectively recognized that this epidemiological situation has already been politicized and is being resultantly instrumentalized for grand strategic purposes.

Necessary Disclaimer

To be clear, the author believes that COVID-19 is real, it’s lethal for certain at-risk members of the population, and is reportedly highly contagious. He also recommends that the reader use their personal discretion in deciding which guidelines to apply to protect themselves, their families, and everyone else in society. Still, this doesn’t mean that governments aren’t fearmongering about COVID-19 in order to expand their powers at home and abroad since that’s precisely the case when it comes to the latest accusations against Russia.

Reputational Ramifications

On the surface, the claims are predictable enough since they correspond with the Mainstream Media’s narrative about the so-called “Russian threat” that’s supposedly lurking behind every corner just waiting to undermine the West at each turn. Accusing Russia of trying to steal vaccine information makes sense from their perspective since many of their people are already scared to death of this disease and it thus serves their governments’ interests to make it seem like Russia is somehow trying to sabotage their inoculation efforts.

There might be a more nefarious motive behind all of this than just attempting to ruin Russia’s international reputation, however, since the country’s rivals are likely thinking a few steps ahead as usual. Firstly, they aim to protect their own reputations at home and abroad since they’ll understandably be embarrassed if the same country that they tried to convince everyone else was “backwards” and “isolated” ends up releasing a COVID-19 vaccine before they do. Saying that Russia stole it helps them “save face” a bit.

No Western Vaccine, No Western Travel?

Secondly, peddling this false narrative could create the basis to sanction those countries that buy Russia’s forthcoming vaccine or receive it free of charge as humanitarian aid. The US and its allies can claim that they’re receiving something that was produced with stolen trade secrets and that they should instead buy “the real thing” from them. If those states don’t comply, then their citizens might be banned from traveling to Canada, the UK, and/or the US if those governments claim that Russia’s vaccine “doesn’t work” or “isn’t reliable”.

To put it another way, the Western countries can implement blanket travel bans on the basis that they can’t be certain that foreign guests are inoculated against COVID-19 unless they receive one of their or their allies’ vaccines. Considering how much more closely connected most of the world is to the Western economies as opposed to Russia’s, this might be sufficient enough of a threat to force their governments to comply under pane of suffering unacceptable economic damage if trade is predictably affected as a result of these bans.

Challenging China

Looking ahead, this strategy might be experimented with against Russia in order to gauge its success prior to modifying it for use against China. The challenge there, however, is much more formidable since many countries nowadays are even more closely connected to China than they are to the West so such pressure tactics would amount to a de-facto ultimatum forcing their governments to take a clear side in World War C. It’s unclear how many of them will go with the West, but there’s a credible enough chance that some of them will.

Even so, the soft power victory might just be superficial since China is unlikely to make its own similar ultimatum. The People’s Republic probably won’t ban travelers who weren’t inoculated with a Chinese vaccine so the citizens of those countries that feel pressured to choose Western ones for the previously mentioned reasons can still trade with the world’s second superpower without any problems. If Western vaccines are proven to be ineffective and/or dangerous, however, then that policy might of course change.

“Global South” Guinea Pigs

Returning back to the overarching theme of this analysis, the COVID World Order’s vaccine race, it might very well be a fait accompli that people the world over will be compelled to receive some sort of vaccine in order to travel or even use basic services in their home country. This might especially be the case with the more desperate masses of the “Global South” who could be exploited as guinea pigs by some of the leading Great Powers in order to test the safety of these vaccines in exchange for humanitarian aid and preferential trade.

Concluding Thoughts

However it plays out, the global masses should expect the widespread proliferation of COVID-19 vaccines within the next year. This is no longer only an issue of public health, but is now a geopolitical instrument of power for various governments to wield against one another and their own citizens alike. The epidemic has been politicized and there’s no going back to the innocent assumption that the world might work together “for the common good” to fight this disease. That was never true to begin with, and forthcoming events will prove it.

SYSTEMATIC CENSORSHIP: GOOGLE BANS TSARGRADTV’S YT CHANNEL AND ENTIRE ACCOUNT

South Front

In the very early hours of July 28th, the YouTube channel of TsargradTV was entirely banned, without an explanation.

“Now, until the situation is fully cleared up, instead of an official channel with high-quality video content, YouTube shows our viewers a black plug. The million-strong audience of Tsargrad, in fact, was cut off from the truth, which we were not afraid to speak directly on the air.”

TsargradTV is suing YouTube over its channel being closed.

“We have not received any alerts, notifications or strikes from YouTube. Moreover, the administration of the service still does not explain the reasons for the blocking. They simply refuse to get in touch with us, so we plan to resolve the conflict in court,” said the editor of the TV channel Daria Tokareva.

In addition, Tsargrad is preparing an official appeal to the YouTube administration demanding the restoration of the channel.

The largest media outlets wrote about the blocking of the Tsargrad TV channel on YouTube. Comments on the decision of the administration of the service appeared in a number of telegram channels, dozens of accounts on social networks.

Google, however, has chosen not to enter in any sort of discussion with TsargradTV.

Only in an interview with the Moscow city news agency did the press service of Google say the following:

“Google complies with all applicable sanctions and trade compliance laws. If we find that an account is in violation of these laws, we will take appropriate action.”

As such, Google simply said that it adheres to US sanctions on the territory of Russia.

As such, Tsargrad’s entire Google account was also blocked.

Systematic Censorship: Google Bans TsargradTV's YT Channel and Entire Account

“Your Google account has been locked and cannot be restored, due to a violation of export laws. If you’ve any queries, refer to a lawyer.”

The reason for blocking of the accounts allegedly was “violation of export laws.”

According to SocialBlade, the channel had 1.06 million subscribers the day before the block.

At the same time, the YouTube channel of the Two-Headed Eagle Society, headed by Konstantin Malofeev, the founder of Tsargrad, was also blocked.

YouTube’s notice reads: “Blocked for violating community guidelines.”

The Tsargrad channel, which appeared in 2015, positions itself as “the first Russian conservative information and analytical TV channel,” since the end of 2017 they stopped broadcasting and completely switched to online.

At the same time, in the fall of 2017, Malofeev created the “Two-Headed Eagle”, which he defined as “a society for the development of Russian historical enlightenment”; its goal is to promote monarchism and the history of pre-revolutionary Russia.

Malofeev himself has been under the sanctions of the European Union, the United States and Canada since 2014 due to accusations of financing the military conflict in eastern Ukraine.

SouthFront itself was recently banned on YouTube without a due explanation, and the support team continues the struggle against censorship.

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

The Imperial Myth of Canada’s National Policy and It’s Implications for Today

Source

The Imperial Myth of Canada’s National Policy and It’s Implications for Today

July 21, 2020

By Matthew Ehret for the Saker Blog

The mythology of Canada’s National Policy is a multi-layered fallacy of composition which must be addressed from the standpoint of locating Canada’s struggle for nationhood as locked in the midst of a battle between two conceptions of man and law expressed in the British vs. American systems of political economy. Before entering into any proper analysis of this problem, it must be stated at the outset that the primary fallacy of the Canadian National Policy of 1878-1885 is simply that the policy neither had a national origin, nor was Canada ever permitted by the British Empire to become a truly sovereign nation.

The following paper will demonstrate how the Canadian National Policy is a concoction fabricated by the members of the Imperial Privy Council of the British Monarchy, and this policy merely held back the cultural and political substance of true nationalism in favor of the mere form.

Understanding the National Policy and the true agenda behind Canada’s origins are necessary to understand why it has been the curse of Canada to be endowed with the most bountiful resources and landmass on the one side and the most underdeveloped population with only thirty three million inhabitants, strung across a 8900 kilometer border on the other, while its cousin to the south has a population of over 320 million. The average density per square mile is a mere 3.75 people per sq. km for Canada compared with 34 people per sq. km for the United States. This low density of the Canadian population is in keeping with the deliberate policy of the financial oligarchy to reduce the population of the globe from the current 7.6 billion to 1 billion people.

Today, as the world is threatened by the two-pronged threat of a collapse of world population by the destruction of food and water availability on the one side and thermonuclear war on the other, it is of dire necessity that such large scale development projects as the Bering Strait tunnel rail corridor be commenced post haste in the context of the new multipolar system being led by Russia and China.

The Bering Strait tunnel involves a U.S.-Canada-Russia-China alliance for Arctic development that would extend China’s Polar Silk Road into the Americas and touches on a policy fight which stretches back over 150 years and which I’ve written on extensively here and here and here. For this project to move forward however, it is imperative that Canada let go of its British imperial traditions.

These traditions which must be abandoned have historically defined Canada’s interests around either its “right to be left alone”, or “right to export raw materials as a hewer of wood and drawer of water”[1] and instead apply the superior form of sovereignty defined in the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia as “the Benefit of the other”[2].

Before this can be done, certain ghosts which now haunt the Canadian identity must be identified and then, promptly exorcised. These ghosts shape the cultural/political reflexes which prevent Canada from joining with its neighbours to the south and north in a common mission centering around large scale scientific and technological endeavours. This exorcism must begin with the true story of Canada’s origins and “National Policy” of 1878.

What is the Canadian National Policy?

Over the years, the Canadian “National Policy” has taken on various forms. At its origins, it received its name from the general policy applied by the Conservative Party platform beginning in 1878 under the administration of Sir John A. Macdonald. The policy again arose under significantly diluted forms with successive Conservative governments beginning with the 1911-1919 administration of Sir Robert Borden, followed by the 1930-1935 R.B. Bennett government. The policy ended once and for all after the fall of the 1957-1963 Diefenbaker government.

The National Policy was the protectionist counter-program to the typically free trade policy represented by Canada’s other major party, the Liberals.

From the time of Wilfrid Laurier, to the rise of the “Laurier Liberals” (led by C.D. Howe, O.D. Skelton, Ernest Lapointe, the confused Prime Minister King and St. Laurent), the liberals tended to move towards an economic union of the Americas.

This was a policy denounced by the likes of the Round Table leader Lord Milner and his Fabian ally Lord Halford Mackinder as a death sentence for the world hegemony of the British Empire which had to be stopped at all costs. Early Roundtable/Fabian Society operations resulted in the ouster of PM Laurier in 1911 who lamented during WWI that “Canada is now governed by a junta sitting at London, known as “The Round Table”, with ramifications in Toronto, in Winnipeg, in Victoria, with Tories and Grits receiving their ideas from London and insidiously forcing them on their respective parties.”

The great confusion caused by the dishonest application of the National Policy’s protectionist policies by the Imperial Privy Council and Foreign Office, is to be found in the fact that rather than being applied by a sovereign nation striving for defense against imperial looting as the American republic had adopted similar measures after the 1787 framing of its Constitution, the Canadian example witnessed an empire’s use of the powerful tariff and associated investment program in order to keep its valuable colony under its iron grip. By maintaining control of the vast territory above the United States, Britain could both subvert America’s institutions more easily, while ensuring that the unification of America with their historical allies in Russia could not occur.

Then, as today, the true value of a protectionist policy of America lay in the fact that, when combined with sovereign control over public credit and a commitment to internal improvements and the general welfare, it provided the best line of defence from rapacious imperial intentions on the one side, while providing a powerful instrument for nation building on the other.

The dishonest application of the protective system during Canada’s history have achieved none of these ends.

Diefenbaker’s Misunderstanding

This Conservative National Policy was entirely scrapped after Prime Minister John Diefenbaker attempted to apply it to develop the productive powers of the nation under an honest, but naive vision for the first time in history. Diefenbaker’s policy, which threatened the Empire’s control of Canada was named the “Northern Vision”, or “New National Policy”, and was based on not merely a stroke of genius that called for the opening up of the great Arctic territories to scientific and industrial development but a new system of funding through the Bank of Canada. Diefenbaker’s failure to achieve his objective not only arose from the active nests of Rhodes Scholars within and without his own cabinet who strove to sabotage it, but from his own inability to reconcile his love of progress and creative pioneering change, with his love for his British traditions, which were derived from an intrinsic antagonism to progress and creative change. This has come to be known as the “Diefenbaker Paradox”.

Diefenbaker’s ‘New National Policy” announced in 1957 took its inspiration from a popular misunderstanding of the first “National Policy” of his idol, Sir John A. Macdonald. Although Macdonald’s policy involved the adoption of a protective tariff to favour local Canadian manufacturing and agriculture, and internal improvements vectored on the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, this policy lacked substance as it was not applied against an Imperial intention, but was rather itself an Imperial policy which desired to preserve a strategic North American colony by a dying British Empire.

Although similar in outward form to the Hamiltonian American System adopted a century earlier by the founding fathers of the United States in order to achieve economic independence from the British Empire, the Canadian version lacked all of the substance. It was rather the case that Macdonald’s “progressive” policy was nothing more than an illusion designed to break Canada off from any unification of mission with an America then being shaped by Abraham Lincoln’s nation building dynamic.

The Shadows of a Fraud

The period of 1865-1871 remains one of the densest in terms of potential for the establishment of an evolutionary phase shift in human history that had begun with the success of the American Revolution and the Renaissance view of man over the bestial dark age view embodied in the British imperial traditions.

A quick overview of a timeline of the sweeping events following 1865 will provide the historian a valuable reference point in which to expose the principled drama shaping those dates and events.

April-May 1865: Lincoln’s victory over British sponsored Confederacy. Lincoln is assassinated by John Wilkes Booth via an operation run out of British Canada [3].

March 30, 1867: Alaska is purchased from the Russians by Secretary of State William Seward, a firm believer in Manifest Destiny. The Russians had earlier saved America in 1863 by Czar Alexander II’s deployment of the Russian fleet to the coasts of America in San Franciso and New York. Major allies from both nations recognized the vital extension of rail between the continents even during the Civil War.

March 1867: The first British Columbia annexation movement petition for leaving the British Empire and joining America is presented to Queen Victoria.

July 1, 1867: The British North America Act is established creating a federation of four Canadian provinces under a British-modeled constitution. B.C. resists joining due in large measure to the vast expanse of land separating it from the eastern confederated colonies.

July 18, 1868: Rupert’s Land (the vast private territory separating B.C from the eastern colonies) is purchased from the Hudson’s Bay Company by an Act of Parliament in British Canada establishing this territory as “crown land”.

May 10, 1869: The U.S. Trans-Continental Rail line is completed (begun by Lincoln in 1863) establishing the world’s first rail line crossing a continent and opening up both the middle of America to Manifest Destiny and providing a link to California from the Atlantic. The Colony of British Columbia benefits enormously from the increased access to trade.

June 10, 1869: B.C.’s anti-Confederation Governor Frederick Seymour dies under mysterious circumstances.

December 10, 1869: a 2nd Annexation petition from B.C. merchants and politicians is delivered to President Ulysses S. Grant. Grant and his colleagues make their interest known to the public.

July 20, 1871: Arrangements for B.C’s entry into Confederation are streamlined.

Penetrating Deeper into the Cause of Shadows

By the time of Lincoln’s 1865 victory over the British-financed Confederate South, events were moving at great speed. The continued application of Lincoln’s American System practices of protectionism, public credit and internal improvements was resulting in the greatest potential for growth in world history. British Canada’s failure to break free of the mother country almost 100 years earlier had resulted in a stagnant and underdeveloped economy which was both divided internally, and rift with annexation movements exploding from British Columbia to Nova Scotia in eastern Canada. Former leaders of the Rebellion of Lower Canada of 1837 such as Louis-Joseph Papineau became ardent leaders in the Annexation movement of Quebec that peaked with the Annexation manifesto of 1849 and whose currents were still strongly felt across Quebec… especially among the Eastern Townships largely settled by Americans.

8-b- hudsons bay co land canada

In the United States America, awareness of British-Canada’s pro-Confederacy policy of terrorist operations, hosting the Confederacy Secret Service and even the assassination of Lincoln from Montreal were much better understood than they are today.

The Annexation Bill of 1866 introduced into the U.S. House of Representatives stated: “from the date thereof, the States of Nova ScotiaNew BrunswickCanada East, and Canada West, and the Territories of Selkirk, Saskatchewan, and Columbia, with limits and rights as by the act defined, are constituted and admitted as States and Territories of the United States of America.” [4] The Bill also authorized $10 million dollars to be used to purchase the vast private territory of the Hudson’s Bay Company, known as Rupert’s Land and the North West Territories. Vast public improvement programs were also authorized in the bill centering around canal building, and rail through the Maritimes from New York.

The Hudson’s Bay Territory was a strange phenomenon in North America. From 1670 until 1869, the vast largely unexplored and undeveloped wilderness was the private property of the Hudson’s Bay Company, who, having received a Royal Charter under King Charles II, had the duty as a subsidiary of the British East India Company’s global operation, to maintain an operation of a vast corrupt fur trade on the one side while blocking American ventures into continental development on the other [see figure 1]. The Colonies still in the possession of Britain, north of the United States, had very little opportunity to develop into anything more than “hewers of wood and drawers of water” because of this fact.

The second important post-Civil War development took place on March 30, 1867 with the Alaska Purchase.

8-b- Alaska treaty sign

Lincoln’s Secretary of State William Seward and his close ally Senator Charles Sumner, Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, advanced a bill for the annexation of the Russian territory in North America for the fire sale price of $7 million dollars. It was after all, the Russian Navy under Czar Alexander II that had worked with Sumner and Seward to tip the balance of the Civil War in Lincoln’s favour, by extending their entire fleet to the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts of America as a warning to European powers not to aid the Confederacy in the conflict [5]. This purchase (popularly called by modern fools as “Seward’s Folly”), suddenly made British Columbia very hot real estate. During this 1867 purchase, Lincoln’s Trans Continental Railway, begun in 1863 at the height of the Civil War was a mere two years from completion, linking the Pacific to Atlantic for the first time in history and thus destroying the British monopoly over maritime shipping routes.

8-b- transcontinental USA

With students of Lincoln’s program to be found among the intelligentsia of Russia, led by Count Sergei Witte and Dimitri Mendeleev, the American modeled (and largely American-built) Trans-Siberian Railway’s construction was not far away, and the linking of rail across the two continents was discussed as a real possibility by republican visionaries the world over.

Although the annexation bill of 1866 had the support of men such as William Seward and his ally Senator Charles Sumner, it never entered the Senate and was not voted upon. This Bill’s appearance, combined with the Alaskan purchase, and the growing independence and annexation movements across Canada, did however give Britain the sense of existential urgency to consolidate its territories under some form of imperial federation beholden to the British Crown at all costs. The Colonies of Canada, so close to Britain’s mortal enemy were far too geopolitically important for the Empire to lose at this moment in history.

The Fraud of the BNA Act

The first vital maneuver conducted by the British as a response to these developments, merely three months after the Alaska purchase, was the speedy completion of the confederation of the four easternmost colonies under the British North America Act of July 1, 1867 [6], renaming Upper and Lower Canada as “the provinces of Ontario and Quebec”. The BNA Act was the consolidation of 72 resolutions hammered out in two 1864 conferences which were designed to thwart the dynamic of American Annexationists on the one side and honest Canadian Nationalists such as the President of the Executive Council Isaac Buchanan (under the Macdonald-Cartier government) who worked valiantly not only to unite Canada with Lincoln’s America, but also fought to keep Canada out of any further wars with Great Britain [7]. Buchanan had lost this powerful position by a coup inside of his party run by his nemesis George Brown and John A. Macdonald. While Brown and Macdonald appeared to public view as enemies, the reality was that they were both beholden to the City of London’s interests for the entirety of their lives, and chose to adapt themselves to a rigged game of free market “Grits” on the left (Brown) and “protectionist” Tories on the right (Macdonald). This is the root of the Liberal and Conservative parties of Canada.

The fraud of the BNA Act merits a greater analysis, but for the present purposes, it suffices to demonstrate that it did not establish a “sovereign nation of Canada” as is popularly held. Rather, the architecture merely maintained a framework of pure British Privy Council control of Canadian affairs, permitting only an illusory degree of democracy. By establishing its foundations not upon a Principle of the General Welfare, nor acknowledging the existence of unalienable rights as embodied in Canada’s southern cousin, the Canadian Constitution is a very different beast. Its preamble literally states:

“Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom: And Whereas such a Union would conduce to the Welfare of the Provinces and promote the interests of the British Empire”[8]

According to this preamble, the “raison d’être” of Canada is not the defense of the general welfare of its people, but rather the promotion of interests of the British Empire!

The BNA Act used the old British trick of the “fur blanket” bribe used first in 1774 to keep Quebec from joining the rebellious 13 colonies under the “Quebec Act” [9]. The Act gave the Dominion of Canada increased legislative control over its local affairs by forming for the first time, a federal structure around a Parliament, Judiciary and Senate which would have the appearance of power only, while the true power always remained in the powerful office of the Crown and its agents in the Privy Council Office and Governor General. This fact is laid out in several sections within the act:

“The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.”

Since the Monarch herself could not be in every Dominion at the same time, provisions were made to ensure that her absolute authority would be actively arranging the affairs of state modeled on the British Privy Council system:

“There shall be a Council to aid and advise in the Government of Canada, to be styled the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada; and the Persons who are to be Members of that Council shall be from Time to Time chosen and summoned by the Governor General and sworn in as Privy Councillors, and Members thereof may be from Time to Time removed by the Governor General.”

Peppered throughout the Act are ongoing references to the importance of the Queen’s Privy Council of Canada to “advise” the government under the absolute authority of the Governor General, who is still legally recognized as the only head of state and legal representative of the Crown. Responsibility to keep the individual provinces under coordinated control was left to the power of the Lieutenant Governors assigned to each province. The real seat of power ensuring optimal control of Canadian federal policy by its London masters, especially in the field of economic warfare has been from this time on, the Privy Council, of which every single Prime Minister of Canada has been a member [10]. And just in case one might think that the Canadian military would be exempt from this control, the Act goes on to read:

The Command-in-Chief of the Land and Naval Militia, and of all Naval and Military Forces, of and in Canada, is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen [11]

In order to ensure that Canada was to remain as fragmented as possible and no strong federal structure of checks and balances modeled on the American System could occur, the Act also laid out in Section 92, a framework which gave the largest possible power to the provinces to control their own resources, taxation and internal policy outside of any federal structure.

Sir John A. Macdonald, the Aryan Anglophile

Sir John A. Macdonald, the primary father of Confederation, was appointed Canada’s 1st Prime Minister by the Governor General and knighted on the day of its passage for services rendered to the British Empire. In his last election campaign speech before his death in 1891, Macdonald, now celebrated as the great nationalist, stated “A British subject I was born; a British subject I will die”… strange words for the “founding father” of a supposedly “sovereign” nation.

On closer examination, it may come as no surprise to some that this Anglophobe “father of Confederation” was little more than a racist bigot who also advocated for an ‘Aryan Canada’, cleansed of the Asiatic races, then being used as slave labour to build the Canadian Pacific Rail into the west [12].

A paradox is here presented. If Britain has traditionally kept its Colonies consciously underdeveloped in order to maintain fixed, and thus easy-to-control systems of equilibrium, then under what intention did the British Crown and Privy Council mandate the construction of a rail system from the east coast of Canada all the way to the coastal limit of British Columbia in the west unleashing vast rates of increase in prosperity of the nation? The opening up of the Prairies to development had been something which the Empire, using its Hudson’s Bay Company had been working for over 200 years to prevent… so why did this policy change during the period of Macdonald?

A clue to this question can be found in Macdonald’s famous 1867 quote: “I would be quite willing, personally to leave the whole country a wilderness for the next half century, but I fear if Englishmen do not go there the Yankees will.”

The Historical Dynamic leading up to B.C. Bribe of 1870

Up until 1870, the fate of the new BNA Act was still highly questionable. The Nova Scotian annexation movement had risen to new levels of influence with the post 1867 collapse of their fisheries dominated economy. This collapse was shaped by 1) new binding free trade treaties with Britain which the new Confederacy was subject to and 2) the 1865 cancelling of the U.S.-Canada “Reciprocity Treaty of 1854” by the Americans in response to the British support for the southern rebels during the Civil War. No other path to survival could be seen by the republican Nova Scotians but changing its alliances and breaking out of the 1867 BNA Act. If they would do so, then it was all but guaranteed that New Brunswick would do the same. Meanwhile turmoil in the Red River Settlement (located in today’s Manitoba) had also imbued deep concerns in the British Empire.

Of far more strategic significance to the continuation of the British Empire’s interests than the Red River Settlement or east coast annexation movements, was the troubling developments occurring in the colony of British Columbia. After the 1867 American purchase of Alaska, British Columbia had become very hot real estate. Lincoln republicans in America led by William Seward and Senator Sumner, made their intention of annexation of B.C. well known.

Frustrating matters for the British was the reality that the deep economic depression in B.C. [13], combined with the colony’s vast geographical separation from of its confederated sister colonies on the east coast had resulted in a massive yearning in its inhabitants for annexation into the United States, some on principle and some simply for survival.

Out of sheer desperation, leading merchants and politicians of the colony sent the first Annexation Petition to Queen Victoria on July 2, 1867 which laid out a politely worded ultimatum:

8-b- Gov Seymour

“Either, that Your Majesty’s Government may be pleased to relieve us immediately of the expense of our excessive staff of officials, assist the establishment of a British steam-line with the Panamas, so that immigration from England may more easily reach us, and also assume the debts of the colonies, Or that your Majesty will graciously permit the colony to become a portion of the United States” [14]

In response to this petition, no formal response was given beyond an appeal for the colony to join the confederation. Knowing this was impossible, Governor of the Colony of B.C., Frederick Seymour, who was also a powerful opponent of Confederation, wrote to the Duke of Buckingham later that month describing the situation:

“There is a systemic agitation going on in this town in favour of annexation to the United States. It is believed that money for its maintenance is provided from San Francisco. As yet, however, nothing else has reached me officially on the subject, and should any petition on the subject, I will know how to answer it before I transmit it to your Grace. On the mainland, the question of annexation is not moot.” [15]

As the subsequent year passed, with still no traction on either side, the tension grew more feverish with greater quantities of British loyalists defecting to the annexation camp out of sheer despair. An April 20, 1869 Letter to the Editor of the British Columbian expresses this sentiment well:

“With a depleted treasury, revenue falling off, and the Colony suffering from a depression beyond all precedent, with no prospect, either present, or remote, of immigration, what are we to do? … Were the inhabitants of British Columbia a thriving community, the question of annexation would not be popular; for the people are loyal and patriotic. The force of circumstances alone compels them to advocate a change in nationality… I am a loyal Briton, and would prefer living under institutions of my own country, were it practicable. But I, like the rest of the world of which we are each an atom, would prefer the flag and institutions of the United States with prosperity, to remaining as we are, with no prospect of succeeding as a British Colony”. [16]

Such sentiment, resulted in a second, more powerfully worded petition signed by 100 influential leading citizens, now directed both to the Queen as well as the President of the United States. It read:

“We are constrained by the duty we owe to ourselves and families, in view of the contemplated severance of the political ties which unite this Colony to the “Mother country”, to seek for such political and commercial affinity and connection, as will insure the immediate and continued prosperity and wellbeing of this our adopted home…

That we view with feelings of alarm the avowed intention of Her Majesty’s Government to confederate this Colony with the Dominion of Canada, as we believe such a measure can only tend to still further depression and ultimate injury for the following reasons, viz:

That Confederation cannot give us protection against internal enemies or foreign foes, owing to the distance of this Colony from Ottawa,

That it cannot open to us a market for the produce of our lands, our forests, our mines or our waters.

That it cannot bring us population, (our greatest need) as the Dominion itself is suffering from a lack of it.

That our connection with the Dominion can satisfy no sentiment of loyalty or devotion.

That her commercial and industrial interests are opposed to ours.

That the tariff of the Dominion will be the ruin of our farmers and the commerce of our chief cities.

… The only remedy for the evils which beset us, we believe to be in a close union with the adjoining States and Territories, we are already bound to them by a unity of object and interest; nearly all our commercial relations are with them; They furnish the Chief Markets we have for the products of our mines, lands and waters; They supply the Colony with most of the necessities of life; They furnish us the only means of communication with the outer world;…

For these reasons we earnestly desire the ACQUISITION of this Colony by the United States.” [17]

A copy of the petition was given to Vincent Collyer, the great American painter and Indian Commissioner of Alaska which he personally delivered to President Ulysses S. Grant. The press dispatch from the office of the President printed in the British Colonist of January 11, 1870 read:

8-b- Pres Grant

“Washington D.C. December 30, Vincent Collyer yesterday handed to the President [Grant] a memorial signed by a number of property holders and businessmen in Victoria to be followed by another which will contain the names of all the British merchants and others at Victoria, Nanaimo and other places, in favor of the transfer of British Columbia to the United States. The President today returned Collyer a verbal reply that he had received it with great interest and sent it to the Secretary of State. Collyer also showed a memorial to Senator Sumner, Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, who, after reading it, said the movement was important and could have but one termination. Meanwhile, the government waits to movement of England which is fast seeing the uselessness and impracticability of European Empire on this hemisphere. Both the President and Sumner desired their replies to be made known to the memorialists” [18]

By now, it was a race against time. The colonists knew that Britain was preparing vigorously to regain control of their colony. In July of 1868, the Crown mandated that an Act of British Canada’s parliament allocate funds to purchase Rupert’s Land and the Northwest Territories from the Hudson’s Bay Company, which occurred that same month erasing one major obstacle to British negotiations. On the other hand, by May 10, 1869, the American Transcontinental Railway was completed, linking for the first time an entire continent by rail from coast. A ferry system already existed from B.C. to California, bringing a boom of prosperity to the poor colony and making the feasibility of a rail extension from America into the colony that much more realistic.

The deadly mistake made by the author of the press dispatch, including President Grant was their assumption that England’s intention could be accessed by the loud voices of some of its members of parliament calling for a release of British Columbia. It was and still is the case that the true seat of power of Britain is located far above the parliament in the form of the Queen’s Privy Council and Foreign Office which then had no intention whatsoever of losing this vital possession. Although Sumner and Seward were far less naïve on this matter, the majority of leading Americans, the President included, didn’t fully “get it”. The British Minister in Washington writing to his London associates is useful in providing insight into the British oligarchy’s perception of events:

“The circumstance, the existing disturbance in the Hudson’s Bay Settlement [Red River Colony –ed], and the asserted disaffection in Nova Scotia, are much commented upon by the newspapers of this country, and are looked upon as the beginning of a separation of the British provinces from the mother country, and of their early annexation to the United States. This view of the matter is put in connection with the settlement of the differences with us arising out of the “Alabama Affair”, and senators are evidently indulging in the illusive hope that England has it in her power, and might not be unwilling to come to an amicable settlement of those differences on the basis of the cessation of our territory on this continent to the United States” [19].

The greatest tragedy of patriots everywhere in dealing with the British have been their tendency not to look upon the true nature of its evil soul. This letter demonstrates clearly the disdain that British imperialists have felt towards the naïve idealism of the victims whom they intend to destroy. An evil intention animated by a passionate desire to destroy the good will go to any ends of deceit in order to turn any obstacle against their power into a weapon against their naïve enemies. A case in point can be found in the reference made by the British ambassador to the “Alabama Affair”.

The Alabama Affair

By the end of the Civil War, Sumner and Seward led American patriots to go on the offensive against the true instigator of the war… not the southern confederacy, but the British Empire. The powerful flank which they chose to use as their weapon was the open fact that Confederate Warships used against Lincoln’s forces were built and supplied by the British under direct orders of Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell. The most famous and destructive of the British-made war ships was the “C.S.S. Alabama”.

These American patriots began an international fight over Britain’s obligation to pay reparations for damages incurred during the war known as the “Alabama Claims”. Upon Seward’s purchase of Alaska, Senator Sumner began mobilizing for the demand of $2 billion from Britain or the annexation of its North American territories. Although Seward was highly favorable to the plan, British stalling tactics kept the Alabama Claims fight on hold for years. During these important years, America had lost much of its powerful bargaining chips and British control of its territories had advanced too far. By March of 1871, Grant’s appointed Secretary of State Hamilton Fish worked out an agreement with Britain on the Alabama Claims resulting in a mere $15.5 million dollars and an end to all similar disputes regarding Britain’s role in sponsoring the Southern Confederacy during the Civil War. This became known as “the Washington Treaty”. Much of the potential that was alive two years earlier had by then been sabotaged. It is of interest that one of the key arbitrators of the Alabama Claims was also Canada’s very active Prime Minister Sir John A. Macdonald.

The Elimination of Governor Seymour

During the months preceding the 2nd B.C. Annexation petition, a major tragedy befell the republican cause with the untimely death of Governor Frederick Seymour, who had been a long-time enemy of Confederation. In the short months before Seymour’s death on June 10, 1869, he had enraged the highest echelons of the Empire’s civil servants such as Sir Frederick Rogers, Undersecretary of State for the Colonies who, upon discovering that Seymour had suppressed information for months from the Colonial Office that a vote in favour of Confederation had occurred in the B.C. Legislature wrote “it appears that on March 28 last, the Council passed a Resolution in favour of admission which however Governor Seymour only now [November 4] sends through in his March telegram he said he would write.” [20]

What Sir Rogers is also revealing is that the British had two confederacy plans for the Continent of North America: one in the South of the United States and one in the North of the United States.

When the next opportunity to vote on Confederation occurred in February 17, 1869, Governor Seymour again sabotaged the pro-confederacy supporters and the British Crown, as he now convinced the legislature to postpone as no details were worked out on the settling of the Hudson’s Bay Company land purchase.

John A. Macdonald wrote in anger on May 15 to the Governor General of Canada saying “the first thing to be done will be to recall Governor Seymour if his time is not run out” [21], and on the same day he wrote to the pro-confederation Premier of New Brunswick, Sir Anthony Musgrave informing him that Seymour would be recalled: “as being perfectly unfit for his present position, under present circumstances. From all I hear, he was never fit for it” [22].

Within two weeks of Macdonald’s writing these two telegrams, Governor Seymour was dead. The official story holds that Seymour was sent to the harsh northern tip of B.C. to mediate a conflict between two warring native tribes. Upon his success, Seymour was struck with dysentery and died within days. Seymour was immediately replaced with Macdonald’s ally, Sir Anthony Musgrave, and the annexation movement lost its secret defender. Musgrave immediately set to work preparing for B.C.’s entry into Confederation with the March 1870 “Great Confederation Debates” begun in the legislature and culminated on April 6 with 16 clauses and Resolutions voted upon. Delegates were sent to Ottawa to negotiate these Resolutions while the republican movement in B.C. could only watch helplessly. Final appeals were made during this dark hour by leading citizens to the American Government, evidenced by the following letter of August 17, 1870 written by H.F. Heisterman [23] a leading merchant of the annexation movement, :

“Understanding that you are likely to have his Excellency President Grant among you some time this month and that you will likely have an opportunity, I herewith hand you a further list of names to the memorial presented in December 1869 by Vincent Collyer. It would have been sent then, but owing to the hostility shown to it by the Canadian newspaper here it was not sent. I therefore transmit it to you, to make whatever use of it you see fit in the premises. It is exasperating to me and my fellow citizens, to see a country aggregating 405 000 square miles, of which 11 000 square miles comes upon Vancouver Island and 6000 upon Queen Charlotte Island and the balance 388 000 sq. miles upon the mainland of British Columbia, shut out as it were from the prosperity around it. The people of the colony are too few to make an armed resistance to confederation which seems on all accounts intended to be forced on us unless some countenance were given to parties who desire annexation to the United States by the government of President Grant, in a proposal to settle the Alabama Claim by the transfer of this colony, I don’t see how we can move in the matter.” [24]

The B.C. Bribe is Finalized

Musgrave’s agents advanced negotiations at breakneck speed. Ottawa negotiations began on June 7, 1870 and within weeks nearly all resolutions and clauses were agreed upon. The two biggest impediments to B.C.’s entry into the Confederacy were dealt with by the payment of all of the colony’s debts by Ottawa and the promise made by Macdonald to construct a rail line linking the new province with Montreal and Quebec “within ten years”. This promised rail line was necessary in order to sabotage the intention of the American Manifest Destiny policy.

Sir Alexander Galt, a fellow father of Confederation and proponent of Canadian expansion, speaking to a crowd on May 22, 1867 in Lennoxville Quebec described his views on the need to extend confederation and rail to the Pacific:

“We cannot close our eyes to what is happening in the West… I for one look upon the acquisition of Russian America by the United States as their answer to the arrangements we have been making to unite among ourselves… If the United States desire to outflank us on the west, we must accept the situation and lay our hand on British Columbia and the Pacific Ocean. This country cannot be surrounded by the Unites States- We are gone if we allow it… “From the Atlantic to the Pacific” must be the cry in British America as much as it has ever been in the United States”

Another Father of Confederation George Brown, who ran the influential Toronto Globe and heavily promoted Canada’s trans-continental railway, wrote on July 10, 1867 that “Seward’s attempt to coerce Canada by the purchase of Walrussia has brought down upon him the laughter of mankind and has not altered one white the determination of the people of British America from Prince Edward Island to Cancouver to stand by the old flag to the last man and the last cartridge”

Sir George Etienne Cartier stated in 1865 dreaded the immanent annexation of Canada by saying “We must either have a Confederation of British North America or else be absorbed by the American Confederation.”

With these arrangements agreed upon (paralleling similar arrangements in the former Red River Settlement), British Columbia was admitted into Confederation as the 6th Canadian Province [25]. Within the coming decades, as Canada was increasingly turned into a wedge blocking US-Russian collaboration and arctic development. Saskatchewan and Alberta were formed as provinces where there had formerly been Hudson’s Bay land.

After eight years, still no progress had been made on the construction of the promised rail linking the Dominion and again, British Columbia continued to feel the painful grip and despair of isolation and economic depression. This pain was made that much worse, as the republican neighbour to the south was witnessing unheard of prosperity under the effects of Lincoln’s Trans continental Railroad and vigorous pioneering of the west. The American System’s continuation of John Quincy Adams’ Manifest Destiny policy, led by Lincoln’s economic advisor Henry C. Carey had resulted in the greatest explosion of wealth in the United States, and become a model for the whole civilized world with the 1876 Centennial Celebration in Philadelphia.

The superiority of the American System to the failure of the wicked British System of Free Trade resulted in America becoming the world’s leading productive power.

Converts to the American System were made by all lovers of progress from around the world who came to the Convention. Germany under Chancellor Otto von Bismarck vigorously applied American System practices of high protective tariffs and vast internal improvements. Czar Alexander II and his close circle of Russian advisors applied the American model for the vast modernization of Russia vectored around the Trans-Siberian Rail with the great scientist Dimitri Mendeleev chairing the Committee on Protectionism [26]. Even Japan under the Meiji Restoration applied the American model to escape feudalism and enter the modern age.

In light of this dynamic, leading voices for progress in Canada again began to clamour for real independence from the trap of the British System that they had fallen into. Even some among the greatest enemies of the late Governor Seymour were gripped by this frustration of progress, exemplified by Amor De Cosmos, then a Liberal MP for Victory, who in May 1878 arose in parliament and warned that if rail development did not begin immediately, then British Columbia would annex into the United States!

An Clone is Born without a Soul

The threat of losing Canada to the United States having once again resurfaced, Sir John A. Macdonald was brought back into power after a five year role in opposition under a dysfunctional Liberal Government. The new platform which the Privy Council used to steamroll him back into office was called “The National Policy”. This program was based on a perverse copy of the American Policy of high tariffs, the speedy construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, the creation of new agricultural zones, open immigration and other internal improvements, yet with one caveat… it’s governing intention was aimed not at building a sovereign nation of Canada, but rather the ultimate destruction of America and a reconstruction of global British imperial hegemony.

8-b- National Policy Toon

The National Policy featured a sweet deal with the Canadian Pacific Railway which was incorporated in 1881 and was granted a generous $25 million subsidy from Ottawa along with 10 million hectares of rich land. The CPR was also exempted from paying taxes for the next 20 years. Five years later, on June 28, 1886, the first CPR train left Montreal and, like a slap on the face to all republicans in Canada, and at the same time demonstrating its true anti-American intention, was timed to arrive on July 4, 1886 at Port Moody in British Columbia.

Due to the inability of American System patriots to continue the trajectory of progress unleashed by Lincoln’s victory, the unification of intention of Russia and America was never finalized, the material division which fed a spiritual disease later capitalized upon by the British Foreign Office architects of the wars of the 20th century (including the Cold War which was only unleashed over the dead body of FDR).

Similarly, Berlin to Baghdad rail developments as well as similar rail programs planned between Germany and France and both to Russia had resulted in a dynamic of division which the British capitalized upon to instigate the irrational meat grinders known as World Wars I and II. Due to similar frauds, the birth of a sovereign Canada was derailed, and a population, occupying one of the richest and largest territories in the world, was subject to a dynamic which has left it vastly underdeveloped, with the lowest population density in the world of 34 million for a land area of almost 10 million square kilometers. A single state of California alone sustains over 38 million inhabitants while most of that is desert!

The Conclusion of a Fallacy. Let the Truth Begin Again.

The paradox of “Canadian Nationalism” can only be efficiently addressed by first recognizing the power of progress as a universal phenomenon, expressed both in biological evolution of species, and human evolution of civilization which Lincoln’s advisor Henry Carey referred to as the “increasing powers of association of labor, producer, and consumer”. This power towards increasing self-conscious creative thought actively with an intention to perfect the universe, is so powerful that even those regressive policies expressed by the oligarchical principle must submit and adapt to it.

The power of this anti-entropic capacity of human creativity to leap outside of closed systems of material/intellectual limits in order to discover a higher organizing principle and willfully act in conformity with it, is expressed most clearly in recent history by the American Constitutional System and its affiliated view of man as a creature made in the image of its Creator.

The adoption of momentary progress in order to annihilate a greater good was considered a necessary evil on the part of the leading strategists of the British Empire’s Privy Council, then centered around Lord John Russell, Lord Palmerston of the powerful British Foreign Office. The influential pro-American System faction of Canadian patriots operating under the leadership of Isaac Buchanan was removed from power with the full adoption of the “National Policy” which followed the British North America Act of 1867. These policies stymied the birth of a true sovereign nation.

To the horror of the British Empire in 1958, John Diefenbaker and his collaborators were inspired by the progress achieved during this period of rapid Canadian development, and attempted to reproduce this process once again except with an important ingredient lacking in Sir John A. Macdonald… a devout love of unbounded progress without ulterior motive for destroying America. This approach of an active “nationalism” whose aim was to effect an increase of national power, was about to clash directly with the passive “New Nationalism” then being artificially crafted by the nest of Rhodes scholars working for the British Foreign Office’s Canadian Institute of International Affairs (CIIA) under the likes of Vincent Massey, Georges Henri Levesque, and Walter Gordon.

This perverted “Nationalism” was merely a conduit selected to promote cultural irrationalism, and the acceptance of fascism masquerading as “zero-technological growth”, otherwise known as the “New Cult of Eugenics” or “environmentalism” aimed at destroying the whole continent of North America.

 End notes

[1] This historic economic identity has been re-embodied in recent years with the nation-killing North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

[2] The Treaty of Westphalia of 1648 not only ended the 30 Years War that ravaged Europe, but also established the basis for the modern form of sovereign nation state defining international law for the subsequent 350+ years. The pre-amble of the Treaty read in part: “That this Peace and Amity be observ’d and cultivated with such a Sincerity and Zeal, that each Party shall endeavour to procure the Benefit, Honour and Advantage of the other; that thus on all sides they may see this Peace and Friendship in the Roman Empire, and the Kingdom of France flourish, by entertaining a good and faithful Neighbourhood.” And can be read as a whole here: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/westphal.asp

[3] Anton Chaitkin, Why the British Kill American Presidents, Executive Intelligence Review, December 12, 2008, http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2008/2008_50-52/2008_50-52/2008-50/pdf/26-35_3548.pdf

[4] The full text of the bill can be viewed on http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Annexation_Bill_of_1866

[5] Known as “the Great Liberator”, Czar Alexander II was so inspired by Lincoln’s vision that he followed the American program of emancipation when he liberated the serfs in 1861. His life was cut short by an assassins’ bomb in 1881.

[6] The belief that the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms replaced the 1867 BNA Act is nothing more than a mythology. As section 60 of the Charter clearly lays out: This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1982, and the Constitution Acts 1867 to 1975 (No. 2) and this Act may be cited together as the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982”… meaning the 1867 Act is still in full force to this day.

[7] Buchanan’s famous December 1863 speech provides a clear insight into his principles: “The adoption by England for herself of this transcendental principle [Free Trade] has all but lost the Colonies, and her madly attempting to make it the principle of the British Empire would entirely alienate the Colonies. Though pretending to unusual intelligence, the Manchester Schools are, as a class, as void of knowledge of the world as of patriotic principle… As a necessary con-sequence of the legislation of England, Canada will require England to assent to the establishment of two things: 1st, an American Zollverein [aka: Customs Union]. 2nd: Canada to be made neutral territory in time of any war between Eng-land and the United States”. Cited in Isaac Buchanan’s Relations of the Industry of Canada with the Mother Country and the United States, 1864, p. 9-22

[8] This is especially ironical since the United Kingdom does not have a written constitution. Such a document does not exist. See Professor Helmut Weber’s 1999 paper “Who Guards the Constitution?”, Center for British Studies of Humboldt University, Berlin http://www.gbz.hu-berlin.de/publications/working-papers/downloads/pdf/WPS_Weber_Constitution.pdf

[9] Pierre Beaudry, The Tragic Consequences of the Quebec Act of 1774, The Canadian Patriot Special Edition, 2012,  http://www.committeerepubliccanada.ca

[10]Today the oath of office which every single Prime Minister has taken upon entering office reads: “ I, __________, do solemnly and sincerely swear (declare) that I shall be a true and faithful servant to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, as a member of Her Majesty’s Privy Council for Canada. I will in all things to be treated, debated and resolved in Privy Council, faithfully, honestly and truly declare my mind and my opinion. I shall keep secret all matters committed and revealed to me in this capacity, or that shall be secretly treated of in Council. Generally, in all things I shall do as a faithful and true servant ought to do for Her Majesty. So help me God.” http://www.gg.ca/document.aspx?id=316

[11] This 1867 mandate was re-affirmed in Section 14 of the National Defence Act of 1985 with the words: “The Canadian Forces are the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of one Service called the Canadian Armed Forces.”

[12] During the 1885 Commons debates on the Electoral Fran-chise Act, Sir John is quoted with the following racist state-ment: “The Aryan races will not wholesomely amalgamate with the Africans or the Asiatics… the cross of those races, like the cross of the dog and the fox, is not successful. It cannot be and never will be.” He also went on to say that “if the Chinese were given voting rights then “the Aryan character of the future of British America should be destroyed”. [citation from Tim Stanley’s Ottawa Citizen article: “John A. Macdonald wanted an ‘Aryan’ Canada”, August 2012] [13] The depression then being suffered by B.C. was caused by the collapse of the speculative bubble of the 1857-58 gold rush wherein over 30 000 settlers stormed into town alongside 20 000 prospectors. Entire towns sprung up over night, and land speculation soared. The bubble popped in the mid 1860s leading to the deepest recession in the colony’s history.

[14] Annexation Petition, July 1867, enclosed in Allen Francis to F.H. Seward, July 2, 1867, Consular letters from Victoria to Vancouver Island, Dept. of State, archives, Washington D.C., vol. 1

[15] Letter of Seymour to Buckingham, July 26, 1867 cited in William Ireland, The Annexation Petition of 1869”, British History Quarterly, vol. 4 1940, p. 268

[16] Letter cited in William Ireland, Annexation Petition of 1869.

[17] Ibid. p.270

[18] The British Colonist, Jan.  11, 1870. Cited in William Ireland, Annexation Petition of 1869, p.271

[19] Minister Thornton to Clarendon, January 3, 1870, cited in Ireland’s Annexation Petition of 1869, p.285

[20] Sir John A. Macdonald to Sir John Young, May 25, 1869, PAC., Macdonald Papers, Letterbrook 12 972, cited in Frederick Seymour: The Forgotten Governor, Margaret Ormsby, B.C. Studies no. 22, Summer 1974, p. 20

[21] Ibid p. 21

[22] Heistermann was also the Grand Secretary of the Provincial Grand Lodge of British Columbia

[23] F.H. Heisterman to W.H. Oliver, Aug. 17, 1870, cited in William Ireland, The Annexation Petition of 1869, p. 274

[24] The Red River Colony became the Province of Manitoba on May 12, 1870 with the Manitoba Act.

[25] Both Saskatchewan and Alberta joined confederation as provinces in 1905

[26] This is the same Mendeleev who had recently discovered the ordering principle, now called the “Periodic Table of Ele-ments”. While Chairing the Commission on Protectionism, Mendeleyev astutely annihilated the argument for free trade ending with the following remarks in an 1891 Tariff paper: “Belonging to the small circle of Russians who have given their entire lives to science, who own neither factories nor plants, and knowing that contemporary science has uncovered crude untruths and omissions in the “classical” and “orthodox” teachings of the free trade school, and, finally, seeing that the historical and experimental–that is the real–path of study of political economy leads to different conclusions than those of the free traders, which are taken on faith as “the last word in science”–I consider it my duty, partly in defense of truly con-temporary, progressing science, to say openly and loudly that I stand for rational protectionism. Free trad-ism as a doctrine is very shaky; the free trade form of activity suits only countries that have already consolidated their manufacturing industry; protectionism as an absolute doctrine is the same sort of non-sense as free trade absolutism; and the protectionist mode of activity is perfectly appropriate now for Russia, as it was for England in its time….” cited in Barbara Frazier, Scientist-Statesman Fought British Free Trade in Russia, Executive Intelligence Review, Jan. 1992 http://members.tripod.com/american_almanac/mendel1.htm

Matthew Ehret is the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Patriot Review , a BRI Expert on Tactical talk, and has authored 3 volumes of ‘Untold History of Canada’ book series. In 2019 he co-founded the Montreal-based Rising Tide Foundation 

Russian MoD Says COVID-19 Vaccine Ready, Queue Accusations It Was Stolen From “The West”

Source

Russian MoD Says COVID-19 Vaccine Ready, Queue Accusations It Was Stolen From "The West"

On July 21st, Russia’s first COVID-19 vaccine is ready, First Deputy Defense Minister Ruslan Tsalikov said.

It was created by military specialists and scientists of the Gamaleya National Research Center for Epidemiology and Microbiology.

“Final assessments on the results of testing by our specialists and scientists of the National Research Center have been already made. At the moment of release all volunteers without exception developed immunity against the coronavirus and felt normal. So, the first domestic vaccine against the novel coronavirus infection is ready,” Tsalikov said.

The Russian Ministry of Industry and Trade told TASS that on June 30 documents for registering the vaccine were submitted to the Health Ministry.

The vaccine has two variants – a liquid and freeze-dried one. Both types were tested on 43 volunteers and all of them reportedly developed immunity to COVID-19.

The Defense Ministry reported on July 20th that jointly with the Gamaleya National Research Center for Epidemiology and Microbiology it had successfully completed clinical trials of the coronavirus vaccine on volunteers on the basis of the Burdenko Main Military Hospital.

Separately, a coronavirus vaccine developed by the University of Oxford appears safe and triggers an immune response.

Trials involving 1,077 people showed the injection led to them making antibodies and T-cells that can fight coronavirus.

The US company Moderna was first out of the blocks and its vaccine can produce neutralising antibodies. They are injecting coronavirus RNA (its genetic code), which then starts making viral proteins in order to trigger an immune response.

The companies BioNtech and Pfizer have also had positive results using their RNA vaccine.

Notably, however, Russia was accused of allegedly sending out its hackers to steal information from the UK, US and Canada on their vaccine data, and now that Moscow reportedly has success in its trials, a new row of accusations should be expected and is quite likely.

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

The U.S. Military Is the World’s Biggest Climate Destroyer. No to War and Occupation! No to Environmental Degradation

Emerging Dynamics of Antiwar and Climate Justice Movements

By Alison Bodine

Global Research, July 03, 2020

Talk by Alison Bodine at the United National Antiwar Coalition National Conference held from February 21–23, 2020, at the People’s Forum in New York City.

*** 

To begin, I hope everyone has been able to see actions across Canada in solidarity with the people of Wet’suwet’en media and social media lately, footage and their hereditary chiefs who are standing against a fracked gas, or what they call a “natural” gas pipeline, up in northern British Columbia. This struggle is part of my talk today, however, the focus of what I wanted to say is about the importance of bringing the anti-war movement and the climate justice movement together or anti-war organizers and the climate justice movement together.

The Devastating Human and Environmental Impact of War & Occupation 

I want to start with just three short examples of the impact of war on the environment that I think are very important to remember. 

On January 24th, over a million people protested in Iraq. The streets were full in Baghdad of people demanding the U.S. Out of Iraq Now! It was incredibly inspiring.

Iraq is a country that has been devastated for 17 years by U.S. led war and occupation. Over a million people have been killed, not to mention the millions who were killed before the war began in 2003 when the U.S. and the United Nations Security Council imposed severe sanctions between 1991 and 2003. Iraq is a devastated country where the U.S. has set up 500 big and small military bases throughout 17 years of occupation, and deployed countless bullets, bombs, chemical weapons, depleted uranium and burn pits filled with toxic plastics, heavy military machinery and shells of weaponry.

No wonder people in Iraq were demanding U.S. Out of Iraq Now! Because of the devastation that has been brought upon them. But I wanted to further centre our discussion on climate justice by talking about one example of what climate devastation and climate justice means to people in Iraq.

In 2010, the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health wrote an article where they reported a 38-fold increase in leukemia, a tenfold increase in breast cancer, and an infant mortality rate eight times higher than in neighboring Kuwait, following what had then been seven years of U.S. war and occupation in Iraq. A big cause of this could be linked to the chemical weapons used, and especially to depleted uranium, which has a half-life of 4.5 billion years. According to a 2007 report by the U.N. Environment Program, between 1000 and 2000 metric tons of depleted uranium were fired into Iraq.

The city of Nagasaki is shown as a teeming urban area, above, then as a flattened, desolate wasteland following the detonation of an atomic bomb, below. Circles indicate the thousands of feet from ground zero.

Now I will bring it back home to the U.S. and Canada. In Canada, an Indigenous Dené nation community in the Northwest Territories became known as the “Village of Widows” because men of the population died of cancers that they developed when mining for uranium. This was the same uranium that was used in the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As well, the radium and the uranium mines in the community released tailings into the lake and landfills. The devastating effects of this are still experienced in the community today.

That brings us to what has been said many times, importantly, in this conference already, which is that the U.S. Department of Defense is the world’s largest polluter. We are talking about 1.2 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases emitted annually. That is the equivalent of 257 million cars on the road for a year.

In Canada, the Department of National Defence also makes an enormous contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. A portion of this is through the fueling of the warplanes of Canada and other imperialist countries. The government of Canada is often claiming that they are not participating in U.S.-led wars, but then refueling all the jets that are dropping the bombs. The Canadian military provided 65 million pounds of fuel to refuel aircraft used in the bombing of Iraq and Syria between 2014 and 2019. This is incomparable, of course, to the fuel consumption of the vehicles that any of us here in this room drive.

The Department of Defense in the United States is the largest institutional consumer of fossil fuels. In Canada, the Department of National Defence is the largest consumer of petroleum and Canada’s largest landholder.

This is added to the continued environmental and human impact of chemical and radioactive weapons such as Agent Orange and depleted uranium. Also, the military bases of the United States and its allies around the world persist in poisoning and in polluting.

Another topic to talk about that is important to the discussion about environment and war is military emissions, because specific sources of greenhouse gases are excluded from federal reduction targets due to their important role in “ensuring the national safety and security of all Canadians” — as Canada’s previous environment minister, Catherine McKenna, justified why the declared emissions of the Department of National Defence in Canada has never been counted in Canada’s emission reduction targets.

Military emissions are explicitly stated as excluded in the targets set by the 2015 United National Paris agreements. Under these agreements, countries are “required,” as much as the Paris agreements can “require” anything, to report on their military emissions. Still, countries are not obligated or encouraged to do anything to reduce them. In the international climate agreements that proceeded with the Paris agreement, the Kyoto Accords, military emissions were not even part of the discussion. Military emissions continue to be considered a so-called necessary expense for our planet.

Then, there is the issue of military budgets. For example, the world’s biggest military budget ever has been passed yet again in the United States recently. Instead of being spent on human and environmental destruction, this money could go towards climate justice, meaning health care, education, jobs, public transit, and more.

As Martin Luther King Junior said, and I think this is a good quote for us to use when talking about the environment and war,

“Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men.”

So, where is the technology that we need to save our planet earth now? 

The War at Home: Wet’suwet’en & the Struggle for Indigenous Rights 

The wars abroad by imperialist countries such as the U.S. and Canada are also carried out against people at home. And I think every once in a while, there are these escalated times when that reality can shake oppressed people and their very foundations. And that has happened with Indigenous people in Canada over the past few weeks.

There is a war against Indigenous people in Canada. There has been since the colonisation of Indigenous land. The Canadian state has the same roots as the United States of genocide, residential schools, and reservation systems. This history and the current reality of colonization are reflected in the mobilization of Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in solidarity with Wet’suwet’en today. 

It is important to understand that one year ago, the RCMP -the Canadian national police- first invaded the territory of the Wet’suwet’en people, and they kept a detachment there for an entire year. Then this January is when things escalated again because the RCMP moved further into the territory and cleared people off of a road to make way for the development of the Coastal GasLink pipeline, which is in violation of the demands of the Wet’suwet’en people. British Columbia is an unceded territory. No treaties, in 92 percent of the land, were ever signed. So hereditary chiefs and their system of governance are law in those unceded territories. 

The Coastal GasLink pipeline is fracked gas. There has been a lot of talk, specifically in the Province of British Columbia about how the Coastal GasLink pipeline is going to “replace coal for the world,” and at the same time, not have a big impact on greenhouse gas emissions. However, the impact of “natural gas” emissions can only be considered minor when you ignore the methane and poisons that are released when it is extracted and considering that when it is burned, Canada does not have to count those emissions targets. 

It is Time to Unite the Antiwar and Climate Justice Movement

That brings me to my final point, which is about bringing together the anti-war movement with the climate justice movement. One way to do this is by making sure “self-determination for oppressed nations, including Indigenous nations!” is always part of our demands. This has always been part of our demands within Mobilization Against War and Occupation (MAWO) and MAWO has consistently brought this demand to the cross-border movement that we would like to strengthen and build together, including with this conference. 

I think there are four strategies and demands that we need to bring into our antiwar, anti-pollution, and anti-imperialist movement. The first is that we must build a movement that is against imperialist war and occupation. Today, we live in what we in MAWO call “the new era of war and occupation,” which is the never-ending wars that started in 2001, that we are all coming together to organize against. This era is characterized by a campaign to regain hegemony in the Middle East, North Africa, and Latin America by capitalist countries that are facing a grave economic crisis and a rapid falling rate of profit. These countries are on the war path to gain new markets and resources, which means more killing of our planet. 

Secondly, self-determination for oppressed nations, as I said, must be part of our work, from Indigenous and Black people, to oppressed countries under attack and occupation. This important demand calls on us to have strategical unity against any occupation, domestic or international. We cannot just be talking about the U.S. occupying other countries but also what it means when there are oppressed nations within the U.S. and Canada borders.

Thirdly, we need to fight for a world without NATO and U.S. military bases, because of the environmental pollution and also because of the way that the United States uses these bases to increase their wars and occupations and consequently further ecological degradation.

Lastly, I think the environmental struggle ties into the movement against sanctions and blockades, which are war. These attacks do not allow countries to develop their economies or to use their resources for the good of their people. Sanctions and blockades enforce the hegemony of the world’s biggest corporations, which are also the world’s biggest polluters.

If we combine these four pillars, which bring together the war at home and abroad, this is how we can build an anti-imperialist movement, how we can move from just being against war to also being against imperialism. I think we cannot build an effective anti-war movement without centralizing and emphasizing the slogan of self-determination for all oppressed nations.

I will say that I think this slogan of self-determination for all oppressed nations is as important as “Workers of the world unite,” from Marx and Engels.

People of oppressed nations face war and occupation and the denial of self-determination, which unites them in the fight against imperialism. The common struggle that unites workers is their exploitation by the capitalist class and the denial of their rights.

Within the antiwar and the climate justice movement, we must also emphasize that we are building an international movement, one that is also internationalist in character. The struggles of people against massive resource extraction projects are similar in Standing Rock in North Dakota or the Amazon rainforest in Brazil. The struggle for a sustainable world requires international cooperation between oppressed people. It requires solidarity and, more importantly, unity across borders to become powerful and effective. 

There are many opportunities for antiwar activists to bring the antiwar movement to the climate justice movement. There were massive protests around the world in September 2019; over 9 million people participated in global climate strike actions. And I think we need to continue to take advantage of that mobilization on the streets. We need to strategically bring the antiwar movement and the environmental movement together. Fighting against war is fighting against the degradation of the environment and fighting for climate justice is fighting against war and occupation. We are in an era of history that these two causes have become two struggles for one purpose, to save our lives and the planet.

I think we are now facing the opportunity to build a better and sustainable world. We must not feel inactive or depressed about the climate crisis or endless wars and occupations around us. In the face of this devastation, we have no choice but to take up the call and fight back.

People marching on the streets today against climate change can also be very capable of understanding that it is not just a clean planet we are fighting for. It will not matter if we have a clean planet if the earth is still full of poverty and human suffering and wars and occupations. The antiwar and climate justice movement now more than ever has one cause: Save the planet.

United we will win!

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

First printed in Fire This Time Newspaper Volume 14, Issue 3–5: www.firethistime.net

Alison Bodine is a social justice activist, author and researcher in Vancouver, Canada. She is  the Chair of Vancouver’s peace coalition Mobilization Against War and Occupation (MAWO) and a central organizer with the grassroots climate justice coalition Climate Convergence in Vancouver, Canada. Alison is also on the Editorial Board of the Fire This Time newspaper. 

Featured image is from The GrayzoneThe original source of this article is Global ResearchCopyright © Alison Bodine, Global Research, 2020

Meng, Huawei and Canadian Law: Soap, Rinse and Dry-Laundered

By Harry Glasbeek

Global Research, June 25, 2020

The Bullet

Prologue

One of the graver risks for big-time criminals is that investigators will be able to identify them and their deeds by ‘following the money’. The criminals have to hide the proceeds of their crimes. This is done by depositing their monies into legitimate finance houses and businesses. It often requires some fancy book-keeping tricks and intricate transactions. This is called layering by the afficionados of this dark art. Once it is done, the criminals can draw on the accounts created and mix the ill-gotten gains with legally garnered capital. The term for this is ‘integration’ and it makes the investigators’ tasks much harder. The rotten fruit of crime will have been laundered.,

Extradition

For some time now, Hong Kong has seen massive street protests as many people want more of a say for themselves in governance and less of a say for Beijing. In the midst of the chaos, Hong Kong’s legislators proposed to ink an extradition agreement to which China would be the other signatory.

Extradition treaties are arrangements whereby a nation state agrees to return to its partner-nation to the treaty people alleged to have committed criminal acts against that other nation’s laws. It is meant to prevent alleged criminals from avoiding the consequences for their misconduct by escaping to another jurisdiction. When a request for extradition by a signatory to a treaty is received, a court there is to determine whether the application should succeed. It is not its task to question whether the person actually committed a crime. It merely has to determine whether it is the kind of crime which could lead to prosecution if the conduct had occurred in its jurisdiction. This gives the process its legitimacy because it gives effect to legal values shared by both parties to the extradition treaty. The court considering the request has no interest in whether the conduct actually amounted to a crime, either in the applicant nation or in its own. It assumes the facts as alleged by the applicant nation and then determines whether that conduct would amount to a violation of its own laws if it occurred in its jurisdiction.

It is, then, a judicial exercise which is purely formal. It does not make any findings about the issues between the applicant for extradition and the person resisting extradition.

Although this was the essential nature of the Hong Kong Bill, it met with fierce resistance: huge marches, physical fights in the legislature. The protests added fuel to the already widely burning fires of dissent and the Hong Kong government withdrew the Bill. In addition to the upheaval and violence in the streets, the government was likely somewhat influenced by the great show of support for the anti-Extradition Bill movement in countries such as the UK, the US and Canada. This anti-extradition stance by these nations seemed to sit uneasily alongside the fact that they had signed on to many similar extradition treaties themselves. But, they bought into the argument made by the Hong Kong dissidents. This was that, even though an extradition request made by China would be vetted by Hong Kong courts steeped in the principles and values of English common law, the proposed treaty would allow China to use extradition requests for crass political purposes, to help it chase down political opponents and agitators. It would lead to attacks on precious freedoms. Even though the proposed treaty ‘looked’ much like any other, it was likely to be used for unacceptable purposes. This sort of thing would never occur in the UK the US or Canada because, unlike China, they respected and lived by the Rule of Law.

The Lore and Lure of the Rule of Law

Canada’s legal system presents itself as embodying society’s shared values and norms. They are embodied in principles and the instrumental rules devised to give these fundamental principles life. This presupposes that the basic principles can be found and defined and that the rules will be appropriately fashioned and applied. The conventional view is that the judiciary is an independent institution and can be trusted to go about the finding of principles and the interpretation and application of rules in a non-partisan, in a non-political, manner.

Courts will treat all private individuals, whatever their social or economic circumstances, as legal equals whose disputes must be settled by the application of known, rational criteria. Rationality, of the legal kind, is to replace political and economic power, that is, irrational power.

The courts abide by generalizing principles and specific rules. The rules have to be spelled out clearly; citizens are to know of the existence of those rules; new rules should not apply retroactively. The principles and rules are to be applied even-handedly, regardless of status and class. The access to this justice system should be equally available to one and all. These are some of the ingredients of what is so often termed the Rule of Law. It is an attractive system because it suggests that everyone is subject to the same laws and requirements, that political or economic power is not allowed to deny anyone their entitlements or rights established in law. The UK, US and Canadian view is that it, or any equivalent, regime does not exist in China. But, while the idea of it certainly exists in our rather self-satisfied Anglo-American settings, its implementation may leave something to be desired.

While our courts are punctilious about following the procedural safeguards which make up the Rule of Law, they have an enormous amount of leeway when determining how substantive principles and rules are to be interpreted and applied. They are in a position to launder otherwise politically troubling, anti-liberal, anti-democratic, policies and decisions. What happens is a mixing of the adherence to procedural formalities which abjure bias and prejudice with the manipulation of substantive laws which incorporate bias and prejudice. The integrated outcome is analogous to the consequence of the criminals’ mixing suspect monies with legally acquired assets. It makes it hard to see whether there was a political wrong in the first place. It is a form of laundering, legalized laundering.1

The recent proceedings in Canada dealing with the US demand that the Chief Financial officer of Huawei, Meng Wanzhou, be extradited to the US brings some of this into the open. The Supreme Court of British Columbia ruled that Meng’s argument that there was no legal basis for extradition was rejected. Canada’s talking heads and chattering class sighed with relief. The self-proclaimed liberal Toronto Star’s editors welcomed and characterized the virtue of the decision: “Beijing must understand: out courts don’t serve the government… It’s called ‘rule of law,’ a concept foreign to China’s Communist Party and its mouthpieces.” Apart from their evident cold war genre chauvinism, the editors undoubtedly were glad to have any doubts about the Trudeau government’s and Canada’s allegiance to the Rule of Law stilled.

The recent embarrassment caused by the tawdry behaviour of almost every cog in the ruling class’s legal engine room during the SNC-Lavalin scandal which involved the government forcing its own Minister of Justice to resign because she wanted to act independently and deny a flagrantly wrongdoing corporation any kind of soft landing, now could be pushed aside as an uncharacteristic violation of Canada’s basic principles. To them, the Meng ruling signified that, once again, Canada was entitled to be smug, to assert that it was to be envied because of its stout adherence to an unalloyed good, the Rule of Law.

The Ruling in the Meng Case

It all began with a warrant issued by a New York court for Meng Wanzhou’s arrest in August 2018. She was not there. On December 1, 2018, after an extradition request from the US, Meng was arrested by Canadian authorities when she landed in Vancouver. On 28 January 2019, formal charges were laid by the US Department of Justice, accusing Meng’s employer, Huawei, of misrepresentations about its corporate organization which had enabled it to circumvent laws that imposed economic sanctions on Iran. Huawei was also charged with stealing technology and trade secrets from T-Mobile USA. Meng, the Chief Financial Officer of Huawei, was charged with fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud. Huawei pled not guilty to the charges of violating the Iran sanction provisions in a New York court and not guilty to the stealing charges in a Seattle court. After a number of preliminary legal skirmishes, the extradition hearings against Meng began in 2020. Associate Justice Holmes issued her ruling on 27 May, 2020. Law takes its time.

Meng had told HSBC officials who met with her in the back of a Hong Kong restaurant in 2013 that, despite the allegations in a newspaper article, Huawei had not made improper use of a closely associated firm, named Skycom Tech, to supply US materiel to Iran. The reason she had made this statement to HSBC, it was alleged, was that Huawei used HSBC as a banker when transacting business. If Huawei, as alleged, was implicated in violations of the Iran sanction laws, HSBC might well be held to be complicit in such crimes. The US alleged that Meng’s representations to HSBC constituted fraud under its law.

Meng Wanzhou argued that, for a case of fraud to be made out, in both the US and Canada, it was necessary for the prosecution to prove that the fraud materially contributed to a tangible loss. This could not be made out here. For Meng’s deception of HSBC to cause it a tangible loss in the US, it was necessary for US prosecutors to invoke the impact of another law, the Iranian sanction law. Without it there would not be any harm and, therefore, no fraud in the US. As Canada did not have any such sanction provisions in place, Meng’s deception would not have led to any tangible loss in Canada and there would have been no fraud committed in Canada. This argument that the basic requirement for extradition – mirroring laws – had not been met, was rejected by Associate Chief Justice Holmes.

She deployed standard legal reasoning that is, she looked for previous holdings and used the imprecisions she found in them and in the wording of the legislation she was interpreting. Holmes found that previous decisions had held that, in order to determine whether the conduct in the applicant jurisdiction created an offence, it was necessary to assess the essential nature of that conduct. That meant evaluating the foreign conduct in its context, in its legal environment. Meng argued that looking at the legal environment required taking a foreign law, one distinct from the laws being compared, into account, something which should not be done under the Extradition Law.

The presiding judge responded that only some aspects of the legal environment, constituted by that other law, had to be taken into account, not all of it. It was her job to say which aspects could be so used. Holmes admitted that she was going out on a limb because the distinction between looking at some aspects of a foreign law and taking the actual law into consideration is fraught, both as a matter of logic and of established law. She wrote that “the issue is at what level of abstraction… the essence … of the conduct is to be described… there is little authority or precisely what may be included in ‘imported legal environment’.”

Undeterred by the lack of any known criteria (remember the Rule of Law!), she used what she likely calls her common sense and what Meng’s supporters probably think was her unconscious bias. Associate Justice Holmes decided that, in this case, it was appropriate, when looking for the essential nature of the foreign conduct, to look at the effects of that US law, the Iran sanction law. As its effects made Meng’s deceiving conduct fraudulent in the US, and as deception is the core of fraud in Canada, the essential/contextualized nature of Meng’s conduct satisfied the essence of fraud as defined under Canada’s Criminal Code. Lawyers call this sort of finessing good lawyering; in the wider community it is seen as legal chicanery. Holmes ruled that Canada was free to extradite Meng.

Laundered

All that effort to put Wanzhou Meng’s fraud into legal context and not a scintilla of regard for the political, social and economic context of the case!

Everyone, literally everyone, knew what had led the US to charge Huawei and its CFO. It was to obtain bargaining chips in its fight with China. It was to persuade its citizens that it was right for the government to deny them access to cheaper goods and a better 5G system because China would abuse its growing economic influence and enhance its spying potential. It was to make China more pliable when the US demanded better trade terms and more protection for its intellectual property, etc. There was no attempt to hide any of this.

Did the Canadian government understand this? Of course. Did it feel it had to allow the US to use Canada’s supposedly neutral legal machinery to further its political project? Of course. Could the Canadian government have said “no” and simply turned a blind eye when Wanzhou Meng landed in Vancouver? Of course.

Was Associate Justice Holmes, at the very least, in a position to guess all of this? Of course.

The Supreme Court of British Columbia had the timelines of the saga before it. All the events that led to the fraud charges occurred years before the tug-of-war between the US and China turned into a full blown version of a new cold war. Meng’s alleged misrepresentations to HSBC occurred in August 2013, several months after Reuters had published its report on the links between Huawei and Skycom Tech. that supposedly led to Iran being supplied with US materiel.

It took five years for the US to charge Huawei and Meng. It took five years for its righteous indignation about Huawei’s and Meng’s violations to reach fever pitch. It took five years for the US to decide that a deception of one set of private entrepreneurs by other private entrepreneurs ( a garden variety event in an aggressive competitive milieu), a deception which took place in a far away jurisdiction, presented a danger to the integrity of the US justice system. That integrity had not been seen as severely threatened when the masters of the universe deceived millions of people during the subprime mortgage scandals, at least not sufficiently to charge any of the more senior perpetrators. None of this was of any concern to the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The court was only concerned with the narrowest of decontextualized legal issues before it. Its certainty that its only responsibility was to the Rule of Law signified to it that it should not be troubled by the possibility that it might be used as a pawn, by either the US or the Canadian government or both.

Nor was this lack of concern shaken by President Trump’s highly publicized statement to Reuters (the outfit which had written the report which started the ball rolling), made just after Wanzhou Meng was released on bail. Trump said that he would certainly intervene in her case “if I thought it necessary” to help forge a trade deal with China. Undoubtedly some people (especially lawyers) might think it right and proper for a court to ignore a blatant admission by a craven politician that the supposedly independent system of law of both the US and Canada was being used for partisan political purposes. After all, the statement had been made extrajudicially and had not been put before the court. While the judge might have known about the Trump intervention, much as she knew that the US and China were having a political tug-of-war and that Canada had been drawn into it, the wilful blindness demanded by the Rule of Law demanded that she make no reference to any off this knowledge.

This reasoning makes no sense to anyone not held in rapture by the Rule of Law fantasy. Immediately after Trump made his provocative statement, Trudeau realized that the public might draw the inference that Canada was just bowing to its Big Brother ally and permitting it to abuse the Canadian justice system. It evoked the notion that the US and Canada were just one country with two systems. He was forced to respond.

Trudeau issued the following statement: “Regardless of what goes on in other countries, Canada is and will always remain a country of the rule of law.” The message was clear: we, the elected government and its executive have nothing to do with any of this; we rule an independent country; we have an independent legal system and it makes these kinds of decisions. We respect this and abide by the results. When it comes to the extradition of Meng, we, the politicians, like Pontius Pilate, wash our hands off the whole mess. It has nothing to do with us. It is not a political matter.

This is why the editors of the Toronto Star and all other opinion moulders greeted the ruling in the Meng case with such acclaim. By ignoring all the real facts underlying the dispute, the court had given support to the Canadian government’s pretence that the Meng case had not raised questions about its participation in a complex set of political, economic and ideological controversies. Their role had been laundered. If the outcome suited the US in its struggle with China, this was incidental; Canada’s government had not pushed for such an outcome because it believed in the Rule of Law. These cheerleaders pointed out that, if Canada had interfered with the judiciary’s operations, it would certainly have pushed for a different result.

As it was, the judicial ruling could only strain relations between Canada and China, a most undesirable state of affairs as Canada hoped to have China release two Canadians accused of committing serious offences in China; more Canada had no interest in imperilling important trade relations with China, as the judicial ruling might well do. That is, the result may be a political win for Trump, but a loss for Trudeau, two Canadian citizens and, likely, some farmers and manufacturers if China uses its economic clout to punish Canada.

So viewed, the judicial outcome gives the impression that the government had not played any part in the decision-making. It should, therefore, not be held politically responsible for the consequences. The government had acted righteously, it had been true to the Rule of Law. Its conduct had been sanitized, laundered.

Of course this argument is not as strong if the judicial outcome is not seen as inimical to the government. What did Canada actually want? We can only guess. But it is to be remembered that the government did detain Wanzhou Meng; if it had not done so, the worst that would have happened is that the US might have been annoyed. Assuming, as it makes sense to do, that Canadian officials understood full well what the US was up to, the detention suggests, although it does not prove, that the government was not opposed to the obvious political and economic goals of the US. More strongly, it indicated that it was willing to support those goals. After all, it knew the risks it was taking. The headline in the Ottawa Citizen on 15 December, 2018, read: “Abelev: In the Huawei case, Trump has enlisted in a game Canada can’t win.”

Another glimpse of the Canadian government’s thinking is provided by Prime Minister’s request that John McCallum resign from his post as Ambassador to China after he had made public statements which indicated that he thought the case against Meng was trumped up and, therefore, should lead the government to reject the extradition request. This would help Canada in its negotiations with China which, in apparent retaliation, had jailed two Canadian citizens.

Implicit in McCallum’s intervention was a reference to a legal power that Canada has reserved for itself over extradition processes. The Minister for Justice can, at any moment after a request for extradition is received, abort the process. In Trudeau’s angry reaction to McCallum, he made no reference to this, pretending political interference with the judicial system was to be eschewed.2 While to some people, then, Trudeau’s publicized disapproval of McCallum’s views (and of similar ones by former Prime Minister Jean Chretien a little later), did dovetail with the claim that the government should not take a position on matters to be determined by a judge, it also suggested that the government would not object too much if the ruling went against Meng, regardless of what it might mean for Huawei, Meng and the prisoners. After all, the justification for the hands-off the justice system proffered by Trudeau should not have been given too much credence.

At that time a full-blown scandal was raging over the SNC-Lavalin affair. Trudeau was brazenly trying to get rid of an independent Minister of Justice precisely because she was thwarting his enactment of a law which was to apply retroactively (remember the Rule of Law!) to save a serial wrongdoing corporation. A curious symmetry weirdly surfaces. The Trudeau government was trying to give its rogue actor, SNC-Lavalin, the kind of gentle treatment the US had given HSBC by giving it access to a deferred prosecution agreement of the kind that the US had given that deviant bank.

There were many polluting particles in the ambient air as the Meng case was processed in the supposedly politically unpolluted atmosphere of law. Undoubtedly, Associate Justice Holmes did her best to blow all these toxic particles out of her mind, as all judges claim to do. But this does not mean that they did not influence her mind-set. We will never know. That is how laundering works: if the dirt which soiled the cloth is rinsed out, all that one is left with is clean cloth. Just what the government needed.

Epilogue

The legal processes have not ended. Meng may appeal the ruling on double criminality handed down by the Supreme Court of British Columbia, arguing the Holmes’ reading of how the essential nature of conduct in a foreign state was to be found was erroneous. Her lawyers do have some plausible arguments to proffer on this issue. Before that will take place, a hearing will be held into Meng’s allegation that, when she was detained in Vancouver, prior to being turned over to the RCMP, the border official obtained Meng’s telephone numbers and passwords and then passed these on to the RCMP. She was detained and questioned for three hours before she was told of her arrest. She claims her constitutional rights were violated and that the RCMP and Canada’s Border Services Agency acted, improperly, as US agents.

This is a claim that procedural safeguards essential to the proper operation of the Rule of Law had been breached. If successful it would make the arrest wrongful and mean that the committal process which led to Holmes’ ruling should be voided. The result of the adjudication on this action by Meng can also be the basis for an appeal. If all of it, the denial of proper process and the Supreme Court of British Columbia’s ruling on double criminality, are settled in favour of Canada, the extradition process can continue, although, as seen, the Minister for Justice can always set the whole thing aside.

There are many other hurdles to clear. The Trump Administration may be replaced, the Trudeau government (in a minority position) may fall before all this is over. It is also difficult to know what steps China will take and how this will influence political minds in Washington and Ottawa. These unknowns highlight how artificial it is to pretend that a request for extradition is a legal, non-political, struggle based on rational aseptic criteria.

To underscore this point, note that, on 4 June, 2020, the US State Department issued a threat. It will reassess its sharing of intelligence with Canada (a member of the so-called Five Eye intelligence network) if Canada chooses to let Huawei market its 5G technology in Canada. This makes it clear that the extradition case was never about a fraudulent misrepresentation to a ‘vulnerable’ foreign bank, but about furthering US efforts to ward-off the danger of an economic and political threat posed by China.

Law and its Rule of Law are convenient tools, no more no less. They should not be granted too much respect. Certainly they should not permit our governments to present themselves as unsullied, as if they have come out of the washing machine, smelling fragrantly.

And, oh yes, after its agreement with the US Department of Justice, HSBC had made much of its new approach and had spent money on better systems to inhibit wrongdoing. On 8 April, 2020, it was reported that HSBC had admitted it had engaged in money laundering in Australia. Maybe it does not require Huawei or Meng to engage in fraud to get HSBC to participate in criminality.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Harry Glasbeek is a Professor Emeritus and Senior Scholar, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University. His latest books are Class Privilege: How law shelters shareholders and coddles capitalism (2017) and the follow-up, Capitalism: a crime story (2018) both published by Between the Lines, Toronto.

Notes

  1. ‘The legalization of politics’ is the name given by Harry Glasbeek and Michael Mandel, “The Legalization of Politics in Advanced Capitalism: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms” (1984), Socialist Studies, 2:84, and by Michael Mandel, The Charter of Rights and the Legalization of Politics in Canada, rev. ed., Toronto; Thompson Educational, 1994, to a process which removes class and history from political discourse and consciousness.
  2. As well, there is a rarely used law on the books, the Foreign Extra Territorial Measures Act, that the Attorney-General can deploy to repulse measures of a foreign state that are likely to significantly affect Canadian interests. This is the legislation used to allow Canada not to comply with the US sanctions on Cuba. Arguably, but not certainly, it could be used to block the extradition of Meng.

Featured image is from The BulletThe original source of this article is The BulletCopyright © Harry GlasbeekThe Bullet, 2020

If Trump Is Thinking About a Meeting with Maduro, What About Trudeau?

By Arnold August

Global Research, June 23, 2020

Based on an interview held in the White House last Friday, June 19, the U.S. website Axios reported:

“Asked whether he would meet with Maduro,” Trump said, “I would maybe think about that…. Maduro would like to meet. And I’m never opposed to meetings — you know, rarely opposed to meetings. I always say, you lose very little with meetings. But at this moment, I’ve turned them down.”

The context of what may appear to be a sudden reversal in Trump’s Venezuelan policy is to be found in John Bolton’s recently released memoir on life under Trump, The Room Where It Happened. According to Bolton (cited by Axios), after throwing the full diplomatic weight of the U.S. government behind Juan Guaidó, Trump’s private feelings about his protégé were ambivalent:

“He thought Guaidó was ‘weak,’ as opposed to Maduro, who was ‘strong.’”

“By spring [of 2019], Trump was calling Guaidó the ‘Beto O’Rourke of Venezuela,’ [Democratic Party candidate for the 2016 presidential elections won by Hilary Clinton] hardly the sort of compliment an ally of the United States should expect.”

In the Trump lexicon, the honorific applied to O’Rourke generally means “loser,” a term to deprecate political opponents. It may be that this tentative reaching out to Maduro, as opposed to hanging on to what was appearing even in Trump’s eyes as a lost cause, has its roots in previous discussions among Trump’s Cabinet.

Any eventual contact between Trump and Maduro is an ongoing but controversial story emerging from U.S. corporate media, the White House and perhaps Bolton. In fact, only one day after Trump seemed to have opened the door to discussing with Maduro, he tweeted on June 22.

“I would only meet with Maduro to discuss one thing: a peaceful exit from power!“

However, “meeting” and “discussing” is still in the news. Moreover, the fact remains, following the latest divulgations cited above, that Trump is evaluating “discussion” from a position of weakness. As Trumps has admitted, his anointed “president“ is a complete failure to date.

The situation in Canada is different. Action can be taken now as there is nothing to wait for. The Trudeau government plays a leading role in carrying forward Trump regime-change policy through the right-wing Lima group, with its avowed intention of overthrowing Maduro and installing Guaidó.

The time is ripe, because on June 17 the Trudeau government suffered a humiliating defeat in its high profile bid for a seat on the United Nations Security Council. In the spotlight during the weeks leading up to the vote, we saw just how close Trudeau’s relationship is to Trump. In fact, many Canadians viewed it as subservience. This evaluation even found its way into some corporate editorials on the defeat. Also under scrutiny in the UNSC debacle was the Trudeau government’s lack of respect for international law and UN resolutions.

In a word, since June 17, Trudeau does not have either an international or domestic mandate to conduct foreign policy as he has carried out since winning office. Along with other grassroots organizations and personalities, the Canadian Foreign Policy Institute was instrumental in pushing for the NO vote and creating domestic support to back up the international appeals.

If Trudeau would like to make up for his past errors and show the world there is indeed a difference between the U.S. and Canada, and that we do not perhaps stand behind every Trump move, what better opportunity that to build on Trump’s short-lived opening to Maduro? Why should Trudeau not declare that, unlike Trump, he would like to have fair and open discussions with Maduro, as anyone who believes in an “international rules-based order” should do? Surely it would take courage to do so. But this is far closer to “Canadian values” than what Trudeau has been repeating over the last few weeks. Such a courageous stand would also constitute a rebuttal of Trump’s heavy-handed, dictatorial methods. Since the vote on the 17th, the Canadian Foreign Policy Institute, encouraged by its and others’ success in breaking through the usual mainstream media blackout, is following up on what many see as a mandate from the grassroots. It is calling for a popular discussion and consultations on foreign policy in these terms:

“Dear PM Trudeau,

Time to Fundamentally Reassess Canadian Foreign Policy

One of the 10 subjects raised is:

  • Why is Canada involved in efforts to oust Venezuela’s UN-recognized government, a clear violation of the principle of non-intervention in other country’s internal affairs?

Trudeau has admitted that he has to take stock of a foreign policy that has been so soundly rejected by United Nations’ member states. By revising its failed and harmful policy toward the Venezuelan people, it would contribute to a much-needed atmosphere of discussion and consultation on Canada’s outdated and unpopular foreign policy.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from The Santiago TimesThe original source of this article is Global ResearchCopyright © Arnold August, Global Research, 2020

EMPEROR TRUMP NOW STANDS PARTIALLY NAKED

Source

 A

A child exposing the nakedness of the emperor by speaking truth to power?

Not these days.

More than half of the United States — not just liberals and the left but also the mainstream media and some Republicans — has been shouting at Emperor Trump for months on end that he has no clothes. These declarations have fallen on deaf ears, for Donald Trump is constitutionally incapable of acknowledging his own flaws.

Also, there are still plenty of people telling Trump what he wants to hear. The president is surrounded by family members, advisors, and careerists who have refused to acknowledge the simple truth that the White House has been occupied for more than three years by a person that former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson once called King Moron (oops, I misquote: he actually said a “f**king moron”).

In the last week, however, this picture has begun to change. Three important clothiers of the president have said that maybe the commander-in-chief has been experiencing a wardrobe malfunction all along.

Twitter, Justin Trudeau, and James Mattis all took their turns in the spotlight recently to challenge the American president. Representing three important constituencies — social media, the Pentagon, and the international community — all three in their own way have chipped away at Trump’s power.

True, they have all provided important cover for the naked leader in the past. Also, their statements could have been clearer calls to arms. But now, all three can help precipitate the “run for the exit” moment that will spell Trump’s downfall.

We’ll have to wait until November to be sure, but the president might have effectively lost his reelection bid this month, well before Election Day.

Social Media

Donald Trump once wooed the mainstream media. He chatted up gossip columnists. He pretended over the phone that he was his own publicist, singing the praises of his boss. He so desperately wanted to be on the cover of Time that he created dummy versions of the magazine proclaiming that “Trump is hitting on all fronts” and hung them in at least five of his golf clubs. Throughout, he groused that the media was not sufficiently flattering.

Twitter provided Trump with the ideal solution to his chronic need for attention. He no longer had to rely on the media and instead could communicate directly to his followers. He could simultaneously disparage the mainstream media as “fake news” and dispense his own fake news by tweet.

In the first three years of his presidency, Trump fired off more than 11,000 tweets. Many of them were rambling attacks on his opponents (somehow Trump manages to be rambling in under 280 characters). But some of them were actual policy announcements or served some other tactical purpose.

Twitter wasn’t simply a tool of the presidency. It became the presidency.

According to this New York Times analysis of this incessant Twitterstorm:

Early on, top aides wanted to restrain the president’s Twitter habit, even considering asking the company to impose a 15-minute delay on Mr. Trump’s messages. But 11,390 presidential tweets later, many administration officials and lawmakers embrace his Twitter obsession, flocking to his social media chief with suggestions. Policy meetings are hijacked when Mr. Trump gets an idea for a tweet, drawing in cabinet members and others for wordsmithing. And as a president often at war with his own bureaucracy, he deploys Twitter to break through logjams, overrule, or humiliate recalcitrant advisers and pre-empt his staff.

Twitter has helped Trump. And Trump has helped poison Twitter.

Although the social media giant has had no problem deleting praise for the Islamic State, it hasn’t shown comparable due diligence toward white nationalism. According to an account of a discussion at a Twitter staff meeting, a technical employee explained that “on a technical level, content from Republican politicians could get swept up by algorithms aggressively removing white supremacist material. Banning politicians wouldn’t be accepted by society as a trade-off for flagging all of the white supremacist propaganda.”

With the compliance of social media platforms, Trump and his coterie of Republican extremists have helped to mainstream otherwise marginal content.

But that tide might be turning. At the end of May, Twitter took the unprecedented step of labeling two of Trump’s tweets, directing readers to accurate sources of information on mail-in balloting and announcing that Trump had violated its policies on glorifying violence. Then, last week, Twitter took down an account that retweeted all of Trump’s utterances, again for violating its policies.

Trump, predictably, went ballistic. He lashed out on Twitter (the man is impervious to irony). He retaliated with an executive order to lift some of the liability protections on social media companies.

It’s not as if Trump is going to abandon his principle mode of communication. This last weekend, after all, he broke his own Twitter record by sending out 200 Tweets in a 24-hour period, including 74 in one hour. By increasing the outflow of his firehose, Trump seems to be daring Twitter to keep up with its labels.

Twitter hasn’t deplatformed Trump, as it has some other darlings of the alt-right. It let slide Trump’s latest Twitter outrage — promoting a conspiracy theory about a Buffalo protestor injured by the police — because the use of a question mark marked it as “speculative” (Really? Really??).

But with its labels, Twitter is finally saying that no one is above the law — the admittedly loose laws of the internet — not even the president of the United States.

Justin Trudeau

In the United States, we are still talking about the 8 minutes and 46 seconds that a cop knelt on George Floyd’s neck, killing him.

In Canada, they’re talking about 21 seconds.

That’s the pause that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau took to answer a question on Trump’s threat to use the military against those protesting Floyd’s death. Trudeau could have used that time to criticize Trump directly. Instead, after his long pause, he chose to speak of the problems facing people of color in his own country. “There is systemic racism in Canada,” he said.

Trump has never hesitated to lambaste other heads of state. He called Trudeau “two-faced” as well as “very dishonest and weak.” He labeled comments by Emanuel Macron “very, very nasty.” He criticized comments of Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen as “nasty and inappropriate.” With comments about friends like these, you can imagine how Trump tongue-lashes his enemies.

For the most part, the international community has quietly tolerated Trump. They’ve delivered tersely worded rebuttals. They’ve made fun of him behind his back. But they haven’t directly or personally criticized him.

Given the power of the United States, it’s unlikely that the leader of an allied country will take the president to task. So, perhaps the best we can hope for is 21 seconds of silence, during which the rest of us can voice the thoughts we think are going through Justin Trudeau’s mind.

Maybe it’s because I worked for a Quaker organization for many years, but I think that sometimes silence can speak volumes.

James Mattis

Former Pentagon chief Jim “Mad Dog” Mattis was one of the more prominent “adults in the room” who were supposed to rein in Trump. He failed. He resigned in December 2018 after disagreeing with Trump’s push to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria. When he resigned and later when he published his memoir the following year, Mattis kept his thoughts on Trump to himself.

Last week, Mattis broke his silence with a remarkable statement in The Atlantic criticizing the president’s threatened use of the military against protesters. He said, in part:

Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people — does not even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership. We can unite without him, drawing on the strengths inherent in our civil society.

In all my years as a protester, I have never witnessed someone of Mattis’s background and standing actually side with folks on the street. “The protests are defined by tens of thousands of people of conscience who are insisting that we live up to our values — our values as people and our values as a nation,” he said.

It wasn’t just Mattis. Former chair of the joint chiefs of staff Mike Mullen wrote a similar condemnation of Trump as did former commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan John Allen. It was the journalistic equivalent of D-Day, with the generals landing their forces on Omaha Beach in the hopes of dethroning their adversary several months hence.

Yes, yes, I know: Mattis, Mullen, and Allen are no leftists. You can’t even call them liberals or moderates. Andy Kroll is right to point out in Rolling Stone that these are “the same military leaders who endorsed and defended a policy of forever war that has led to tens of thousands of American deaths, hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis and Afghans and Syrians and Yemenis and Pakistanis, hundreds of thousands of injuries physical and mental suffered by U.S. service members, and many billions of taxpayer dollars poured into endless conflict.”

Kroll is both right and spectacularly off the mark. After all, Donald Trump similarly dismissed Colin Powell’s endorsement of Joe Biden by linking him to America’s failed wars.

The fact that these old establishment figures have blood on their hands is precisely the point. Noam Chomsky denouncing Donald Trump is not news. Everyone expects the leaders of the #BlackLivesMatter movement to criticize the president. I’ve been slamming Trump from day one of his presidency (and many months before), but I doubt my preaching goes very far beyond the choir.

All the attacks on Trump from left and center are what journalists call “dog bites man.” It’s no surprise. But “Mad Dog bites man”? That’s a different story altogether.

The military has been the most trusted institution in U.S. society for decades. According to Gallup, it enjoyed a 73 percent approval rating in 2019 — compared to 38 percent for both the presidency and the Supreme Court, 36 percent for organized religion, and 11 percent for Congress.

People listen to the military. And by people, here I mean folks who voted for Donald Trump, continue to support the president, and are still thinking about voting for him in November.

As importantly, these generals are willing to take enemy fire — from Fox News, from crazy Internet trolls, from the president himself—so that other former Trump enablers might be more willing to stand up and speak their minds.

Immediately after Mattis waded into the debate, Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) confessed her concerns about Trump and said that she hasn’t made up her mind about who to support in November. Francis Rooney, a Republican member of Congress from Florida, is now leaning toward Biden. A number of prominent Republicans won’t vote for Trump, but they also are reluctant to say so in public.

This doesn’t exactly constitute a surge. A solid core of the party remains firmly behind the president. The more telegenic version of Trump, Tom Cotton (R-AR), is enjoying a swell of support after The New York Times criticized its own handling of the senator’s incendiary and inaccurate piece, “Send in the Military.” So far, Mattis has not played the role of the journalist Edward R. Murrow taking down the demagogue Joe McCarthy.

But you have to believe that statements from Mattis and others are at least going to introduce an element of doubt into the minds of some true believers. Active duty soldiers and veterans who voted for Trump — he received 61 percent of the veteran vote compared to Hillary Clinton’s 34 percent — might just heed the generals. And the latest polls suggest that both older Americans and white Americans are starting to abandon Trump.

I don’t expect Mitch McConnell or Tom Cotton to denounce Trump. Much of the Republican Party will loyally follow the president into his White House bunker. But thanks to the truth-telling of Mattis and others, everyone else will be laughing all the way to the polls at the emperor stripped bare by his enablers.


By John Feffer
Source: Foreign Policy In Focus

Empires and their puppets including Israel will eventually fall: “Free Gaza Movement” co-founder Greta Berlin

Preview in new tab(opens in a new tab)

June 8, 2020 – 12:45
Berlin likens the situation in the occupied Palestinian lands to South Africa under the apartheid regime which will finally be a country for all citizens including Jews, Christians, and Muslims.
 “This kind of situation, like its predecessor in South Africa, will eventually fall apart, and the country will end up being a country for all citizens, Jews/Christians/Muslims,” Berlin, an author and activist, tells the Tehran Times in an exclusive interview:  
This is the text of the interview:
1: Madame Greta Berlin, please tell us what Israel has achieved after 72 years since its establishment. Has it succeeded to win legitimacy?
 A: Israel has achieved what all white/colonial/racist entities have achieved; subjugating, terrorizing, marginalizing, and stealing from the indigenous population to make an illicit country. It’s no different than the U.S. or Canada or South Africa or Australia. 
Israel has the biggest gorilla in the room on its side and that’s the U.S.It’s gotten its legitimacy from the very countries who have done the same thing to a population that was already there and perceived as, somehow, being “less human” than the invaders. After 72 years, it’s only legitimate claim to the land of Palestine has been through force, and all empires and their puppets eventually fall. Israel will as well.  
2: How do you analyze the situation inside Israel?
 A: There are three strata inside Israel; Ashkenazi Jews, the white Jews from Europe/Russia, and the U.S. who control power, politics, and money. The second tier is the Sephardic or Arab Jews who were often forced to immigrate to Israel immediately after Israel was founded on the backs of the Palestinians. Once the European Jews drove out 750,000 Palestinians, they needed workers to come and settle in the land they stole. What better place to find them than the Arab Jews of the Middle East and North Africa? If they didn’t want to come peacefully, Mossad made sure they changed their minds. 
After arriving in Israel, they even made up a name for themselves… Mizrahi… so they didn’t have to be called Arab Jews. They are becoming the largest segment of the population, but they have little power. You’ll often see them as members of the IOF, subjugating the third tier in Israel; the Palestinians, who have no power whether they are Israeli citizens or living in the Bantustans of the occupied West Bank and Gaza. 
Americans are beginning to wake up to the terrorism of the Israeli occupation This kind of situation, like its predecessor in South Africa, will eventually fall apart, and the country will end up being a country for all citizens, Jews/Christians/Muslims. 
 3: Israel plans to annex parts of the West Bank, and Netanyahu and opposition leader Benny Gantz are unanimous in this move. Netanyahu has confidently said that annexation will take place within “a few months,” or before the American presidential election in November. What has made Israel behave so unashamedly and intransigently? Don’t you think that an impotent international community or inaction by international bodies have made Tel Aviv so emboldened?
 A: Israel has the biggest gorilla in the room on its side and that’s the U.S. It makes no difference who is President in the U.S., Israel controls Congress, and most politicians will bow to its demands. However, watching what is happening in the U.S., everything is going to change over the next few years, as China emerges triumphant and the U.S. becomes another failed empire like Britain and France. 
Personally, I’m all for a one-state solution and have been for decades. And the sooner, the better for everyone living there. Palestinians already outnumber Jews, and those demographics are only going to improve for Palestinians, both Christian and Muslim.  
 4: You are internationally famous for advocating “justice” for Palestinians since early 1960. What prompted you to highlight the sufferings of the Palestinians?
 A: While in graduate school in 1963, I met and married a Palestinian and had two Palestinian/American children who couldn’t return to Safad, the city where their father was raised, while a Jew from New York City could immigrate there with no other credentials except religion. 
That sense of injustice has challenged me since then. The most outspoken advocate for the rights of marginalized people like Palestinians are often the people who learned the truth after being lied to as children. Like many Americans, I grew up thinking Israel was the victim and Jews had the right to settle in the Holy Land. When I met my husband, and he began telling me the truth of the violent takeover of his land by European terrorist Jews, I became an advocate for justice in Palestine for life.  
 5: You were a co-founder of the Free Gaza Movement and among those brave persons who broke the Gaza siege. Can you please explain your experiences and reactions?
 A: This is such a long story, encompassing two years of planning, buying the boats, sailing to Gaza and so much pain, laughter and delight at finally getting there. It’s a book and a movie and a webinar already. The best way of describing our journey to Gaza is to provide people with these three links.
 6: The U.S. has been blindly defending the illegal behavior of Israel toward Palestinians over the past seven decades. How can such support be justified by a country which proclaims leadership of the free world and defender of democracy and human rights?
 A: The U.S. has never been a defender of democracy and human rights. The country was founded on the genocide of the native population and got rich on the back of slavery. It has had, however, one of the most brilliant PR campaigns of any country in the world. Israel tries to emulate it with many of the same catchphrases such as, “the only democracy in the Middle East.” That’s as big a lie as the U.S. saying it stands for human rights.
However, there is a difference between government propaganda and the citizens of the U.S. Americans, once they wake up, are among the most outstanding advocates for justice for people seeking equal rights, and have put their lives on the line, from the martyrs of the civil rights movement, https://www.splcenter.org/what-we-do/civil-rights-memorial/civil-rights-martyrs
to Rachel Corrie in Palestine. They are the one bright and hopeful beacons of light in the U.S., especially this younger generation. I have great hopes they will become like many of us out of the 1960s, advocates for a better world. 
 7: How is it possible that successive Congresses and to a lesser extent administrations remain so biased in favor of Israel? Does it show that the American people who vote for their representatives are indifferent or ignorant toward the situation of the Palestinians?
A: Bribery, Blackmail, and Benjamins. 
It is true, however, that Americans are beginning to wake up to the terrorism of the Israeli occupation. But to be honest, Americans can barely make it from one paycheck to the next and are overwhelmed with problems in their own back yards. 
And the country is huge, with 331 million people, only 20% who even own a passport. Very few of us travel outside the Northern Hemisphere. America and much of its population are isolated and not very well-educated about other countries.  
 8: And, why anybody who opposes the stealing of the Palestinian lands or criticizes suppression of Palestinians is easily being accused of ant-Semite?
 A: It’s become a badge of honor to be called anti-Semitic. Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, Jimmy Carter, Stephen Hawking, Roger Waters have all been called anti-Semites. I’m proud to be in their company.

Why does the public tolerate its biological warfare?

Why does the public tolerate its biological warfare?

June 10, 2020

by Eric Zuesse for The Saker Blog

As Jeffrey A. Lockwood recounted in his 2008 book Six-Legged Soldiers: Using Insects as Weapons of War, the first four nations that pioneered biological warfare were during the 1930s — Hitler’s Germany, Hirohito’s Japan, and Churchill’s England and Canada. However, under U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1940s, a biowarfare R&D program, “Operation Capricious,” was created in 1943 so secretly that though it operated under William J. “Wild Bill” Donovan, who headed the OSS predecessor to the CIA, it was hidden even from Donovan himself. The way it was hidden is that it was being described to higher-ups as purely defensive, R&D against insect pests that enemy nations might use against America by bombing America with germ-infected insects. It was placed under the direction of George W. Merck, the hereditary President of the pharmaceutical giant, Merck & Co. This newly formed U.S. biological warfare program, that he headed, produced and stockpiled bacillus anthracis (anthrax), clostridium botulinum (botulism), and other deadly bacteria. However, starting under U.S. President Harry S. Truman, the actually aggressive program was finally approved and operationalized by the U.S. military in 1952 against North Korea and parts of China, but it was crude and unsuccessful, like all prior biowarfare efforts had been.

No biological warfare program has ever been strategically successful, because the really effective pathogens, such as viruses or the plague, simply cannot be successfully targeted — they are too contagious — and no weapon that can’t be targeted can be of use either tactically or strategically. However, the United States today has a vast network of biological-warfare laboratories, by far the world’s largest, many of them located in foreign countries.

As Major Leon A. Fox, who was the chief of the Medical Section for the U.S. Army’s Chemical Warfare Service, was the first to point out, in 1932, which then became published in the journal The Military Surgeon, v. 72, #3, in 1933, and republished in the Veterinary Bulletin, v. 28, pages 79-100:

Bacterial warfare is one of the recent scare-heads that are being served by the pseudo-scientists. … 

How are these agents to be introduced into the bodies of the enemy to produce casualties? … Certainly at the present time we know of no disease-producing micro-organisms that will respect uniform or insignia. … The use of bubonic plague today against a field force, when the forces are actually in combat, is unthinkable for the simple reason that the epidemic could not be controlled. …

Many are now associating chemical warfare and bacterial warfare, with the result that in the resolution of adjournment, voted by the General Commission of the Disarmament Conference on July 23, 1932, at Geneva, we find chemical, bacteriological, and incendiary warfare grouped for consideration. …

Certainly at the present time, practically insurmountable difficulties prevent the use of biologic agents as effective weapons.

So, although the U.S. Government, ever since at least 1952, has tried to use bacteria and viruses as weapons, the result has always been failure, for two reasons:

1: Such ‘weapons’ didn’t behave as they had been hoped to behave — they’re uncontrollable (just as Dr. Fox had predicted), and no uncontrollable thing can be effectively used as a weapon.

2: Even if they were to have behaved as they had been hoped to, they cannot be effectively targeted (which again is what Fox had predicted): they would have endangered not only the targeted country but the entire world, even if they worked, since all of us are humans, and since biological ‘weapons’ work only if they’re extremely contagious and thus pose an extreme danger to the entire human species.

Consequently: all of that public expenditure (maybe in the trillions of dollars) is sheer waste, in terms of national defense. But it’s even worse than waste, because it poses extreme danger to ANY nation, including to the one that develops the given ‘weapon’.

And Fox was likewise correct that grouping “chemical and biological weapons” together is plain stupid. Perhaps it works as propaganda, but it certainly is false as science, and as military strategy and tactics. This fact, too, is hidden from the public, instead of published to the public.

The U.S. Arms Control Association, which is secretive but was founded by major figures in America’s military-industrial complex and is charitably funded by U.S. billionaires, has squibs on 16 countries as currently having real or alleged “Chemical and Biological Weapons”, and this ‘charitable’ Association groups together those two types of ‘weapons’, so as to hide the obvious fact that ‘biological weapons’ cannot really exist, as a practical matter, since we all are humans (not only a given targeted country are), and therefore those fake ‘weapons’ are certainly not rationally to be discussed in the same category along with chemical weapons, which — like nuclear weapons — can be targeted, and therefore can and do actually exist as weapons, so that “nuclear weapons and chemical weapons” might be rationally discussed together, but “chemical and biological weapons” cannot (since there are no actual ‘biological weapons’). The ONLY reason why “chemical and biological weapons” are discussed together is that this enables the U.S. military contractors, who derive profits from selling to the United States Government, to continue their “socialism-for-the-rich” gravy train, by treating germs and viruses (which are contagious) as if they were merely chemicals (which are not contagious). For example: On 24 January 2008, Barton J. Bernstein’s article in the Journal of Strategic Studies“America’s biological warfare program in the Second World War” described U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s unsuccessful attempt, on 14 July 1943, to find out “Why is it so confidential to destroy insect pests?” And it’s why that Deep State program was headed by George Merck, who “led the War Research Service, which initiated the U.S. biological weapons program with Frank Olson.”

Nonetheless, as Whitney Webb well documented in her 30 January 2020 “Bats, Gene Editing and Bioweapons: Recent DARPA Experiments Raise Concerns Amid Coronavirus Outbreak”, the Pentagon currently has an extensive program of R&D into even just specifically bat-based biological ‘weapons’, and China has cooperated with the Pentagon in that research. Why would China be cooperating with America in order to develop unnaturally deadly — human-created — human pathogens? Whereas America’s funding of this ‘research’ is open, publicly acknowledged (even though the ‘weapons’ that might result from it would be international war-crimes to use), China’s Government claims to have no biological-warfare program. Who, then was funding such useless ‘research’ at the Wuhan lab?

The basic question here, however, is “Why does the public tolerate its biological warfare?” and one possible reason why they tolerate it might be that they are propagandized by the media of the billionaires who benefit from bioweapons R&D — profit from it — and who (like the Arms Control Association, and like the also billionaires-owned-and-

Who profits from biowarfare R&D? Who are the people that have been behind this?

The laboratories, that do it, receive some, but not all, of their funding from the governments (the taxpayers) in all nations that perform this research — mainly the U.S., but also including China, Canada, and perhaps a few others.

Here are the top 100 U.S. corporations that profit from warfare — invading and militarily occupying and subduing foreign countries (since all actual dangers to U.S. national security that haven’t been “false-flag” events such as 9/11, ended when World War II ended, and were produced in order to increase U.S. military expenditures, not actually in order to protect Americans or anyone else). Other than some universities, such as (in 2015) #56 Johns Hopkins, and #82 Johns Hopkins Health Sys Corp., and drugmankers, like #89 GlaxoSmithKline, few of them seem even possibly to be receiving federal money for the deveopment of biological ‘weapons’. However, if some of them are owned or controlled by the same people who own or control Merck or other drug companies that might be profiting from this, then control of the military contractors could be boosting those drug companies’ stock values. And the ownership and control of virtually all major corporations is hidden by many devices, both legal and illegal. What exists in such a situation is secret government, not even possibly a democratic government.

Regarding specifically China: Are some Chinese profiting from this research; and, if so, which ones? And why isn’t the Chinese Government publicly exposing them, legally trying them in entirely public proceedings, and executing them if clear evidence is presented to the public that they had been doing this illegal research for private profit? Because, if the Chinese Government won’t do that, then it’s not really illegal in China.

All the while, the nation that has by far the largest biological-warfare program, the U.S., continues to expand it, instead of bans it — as international law would require, if the U.S. Government even paid attention to international law, which it doesn’t. (This U.S. flouting of international law is endorsed by both of America’s political Parties; it is bipartisan in the U.S.)

If the public will no longer tolerate its funding biological warfare, then when will the massive public demonstrations be organized throughout the world condemning the U.S., China, and other governments, that either participate in this R&D or else tolerate instead of clearly outlawing it — punish everyone in the given nation who participates in it?

Why haven’t these massive public demonstrations, against this R&D, already occurred?

If this won’t happen, then there is no public demand for accountability, and then this purely destructive R&D will continue, and it will continue to be publicly funded, though it benefits only some stockholders and corporate executives, and causes massive global harm — perhaps including the coronavirus-19 pandemic.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

AMERICA’S MEDDLING IN VENEZUELA HAS NO BOUNDARIES. AFTER A FAILED COUP ATTEMPT, TRYING TO INSTALL A BOGUS PRESIDENT AND IMPOSING CRIPPLING SANCTIONS, WILL IT EVER BE HELD TO ACCOUNT?

May 21, 2020, RT.com

-by Eva K Bartlett

America’s meddling in Venezuela has no boundaries. After a failed coup attempt, trying to install a bogus president, and imposing crippling sanctions, will it ever be held to account?

Venezuela is back in the news again, just weeks after yet another failed coup attempt that was almost certainly backed by the US. This time, it’s the American sanctions against the country that are making the headlines – measures that caused US company AT&T to shut down satellite TV provider, DirecTV, thereby depriving Venezuelans of a number of foreign channels.

The irony, of course, is that while it’s US sanctions that are the cause of this shutdown, had it been President Nicolás Maduro who closed DirecTV, you can bet Western media headlines would be screaming about censorship of the media (although most were rather quiet when Estonia shut down Sputnik.).

The impact of this latest development will be a major inconvenience for most of Venezuela’s poorest – another example of how the sanctions are not merely targeting the administration but the people themselves. US sanctions against Syria, Venezuela, Iran and a long list of other targeted nations have deprived them of access to vital medicines, medical equipment, income and more.

As I noted in a prior article, the Center for Economic and Policy Research estimated that a staggering 40,000 Venezuelans died in 2017 and 2018 due to sanctions. This shameful statistic lends weight to former UN expert Alfred de Zayas naming sanctions as a form of terrorism, “because they invariably impact, directly or indirectly, the poor and vulnerable.”

So well done, America, for adding another layer of misery to the heap you’ve already created.

The plan to abduct Maduro

Just a couple of weeks beforehand, on May 3 and 4, Venezuelan forces had prevented 60 paramilitaries on two speedboats – including Americans – from carrying out their plan to kidnap Venezuela’s president and replace him with Juan Guaido, who the US and Canada have been attempting to install as president since early 2019.

Guaido, the self-appointed ‘interim president’, was aware of the plot, which involved a contract of $213million according to documents that have entered the public domain. The US and Canadian authorities were most likely in the loop, too. 

Guaido first announced himself as ‘interim president’ in January 2019, to the surprise of most Venezuelans and with no election. Most countries rejected this breach of Venezuela’s sovereignty, with only a smattering of Western terrorist supporting countries that advocate regime change – and some nations that they bully – endorsing him. 

A month later, there were failed Western-backed attempts to ram ‘aid trucks’ (loaded with wires and nails) through Colombia’s border with Venezuela, the goal being to vilify the government for failing to accept what was clearly not aid (and was not coming via a proper channel either).

In March, the unpopular Guaido was booed and fled from a pro-government area in Caracas, ironically with Venezuelan security protecting him from an angry crowd. In the same month, I tried to see the supposedly massive pro-opposition rallies I had heard of in the capital, but instead came across huge pro-government demonstrations

In April, Guaido and a violent right-wing opposition leader, with the backing of the US, attempted a coup— an attempt clearly rejected by masses of Venezuelans. Fast forward to January this year and Guaido failed to be re-elected as president of the country’s National Assembly.gwedo

Guaido attempted to scale a fence before the vote took place. His claims that he was barred from entering have been disputed. (Reuters) via Venezuelanalysis.com

In spite of the absurd amount of backing Guaido has received from Western governments, it seems even some opposition within Venezuela don’t want him, and would prefer to return to dialogue with Maduro’s government.

Perhaps this was down to Guaido staffers’ alleged involvement in embezzling ‘humanitarian aid’ funds. Photos taken with  Colombian drug traffickers and paramilitary leaders probably didn’t help his cause, either.

After so many Guaido false starts and flops, and their failure to bring him an iota of legitimacy, surely it’s time for the US and Canadian administrations to accept they are flogging a dead horse?

What’s the UN doing?

On Tuesday, Venezuela’s Ambassador to the United Nations, Samuel Moncada, tweeted: “May 20 at 3:00 pm, the UN Security Council will debate the situation in Venezuela. The meeting was requested by Russia after the terrorist armed attack carried out from Colombia on May 3. We will denounce to the world the aggression against our people.”

While I do of course support Venezuela’s desire to denounce the attempted coup, and the bloodshed that could have prevailed – including of civilians – had the paramilitaries been successful, forgive me for being cynical that justice will prevail.

After all, history has shown that nothing is done when the US and allies commit war crimes in Syria. Likewise, they have never been held accountable by the UN for what they did in Iraq. And what about the war crimes of Israel against Palestinian civilians, and the Saudis against the Yemenis?

Sadly, I don’t have an answer as to what’s a better option than attempts for justice and accountability via the UN.

But I know this much: this won’t be the last failed attempt to overthrow Venezuela’s government, and it won’t be the last time the country and its allies have to condemn immoral and illegal US and Canadian acts.

So vile are these governments that even now, while the world is focused on dealing with Covid-19, they are scheming to bring more misery to the people of Venezuela. They should hang their heads in shame, but they’ve got none.  

RELATED LINKS:

My Venezuela 2019 Youtube playlist

-Venezuelan woman: “We didn’t vote for you, Guaido. Trump, stop f*cking us over. [VIDEO]

-Reminder of Corporate Media Lies on Venezuela [VIDEO]

Venezuela isn’t Syria… but America’s war tactics are the same

US is manufacturing a crisis in Venezuela so that there is chaos and ‘needed’ intervention

Western leaders, screw your ‘Sanctions Target the Regime’ blather: Sanctions KILL PEOPLE

Canada and the Coup Attempt Against Venezuela, by Arnold August

SCIENTIST BEHIND “LOCKDOWN” DOESN’T ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN, OR ABIDE BY, HIS OWN FEAR PORN ADVICE

Source

Eva Bartlett

Scientist who promoted the lockdown doesn’t actually believe in the need for physical distancing. Shocker

Alrighty. If lockdowns are soooo necessary to save the world from Covid, why did the man behind the UK lockdown hypocritically violate it (for sex, okay, urges, we get it)?For people who are unwillingly imprisoned in their homes, doesn’t this piss you right off?

Double-standards. And he isn’t the only one. Canada’s Trudeau violated his own “stay home” warning, saying “enough is enough! Go home and stay home!”

Justin Trudeau’s a ‘giant hypocrite’ for going to the cottage after saying physical-distancing rules are for everyone:

“Trudeau also crossed provincial boundaries. (Harrington Lake is in Quebec.) Another no-no.

And he brought with him his security detail and serving staff — an entire royal entourage — which means he brought with him more than a dozen potentially infected people.

Public health officials in Ottawa — Trudeau’s home base — are threatening to crack down on driveway parties and over-the-fence conversations while Trudeau galivants about having Easter egg hunts and posting charming photos to social media…”

Corbett:

“This is about the person–one of the key architects of this lockdown madness that has spread around much of the world–it shows by his actions, not what he says but by his actions, shows that this is nonsense, that he doesn’t believe these things that he is preaching. That is the important part of this.

It’s about the fact that they lied to you, this person is outright lying to you he shows by his actions that this is not necessary, but he’s telling you to do it now. You guys should do this I’m not gonna do it but you guys should do it because you guys it’s very important that you guys do it…

So he’s showing by his actions that this is a lie.

There are many many examples that are popping up of politicians and health experts and all of these people who are telling you to lock down who are not socially distancing and doing all the rules that they’re telling you to do…”

When is enough enough? What is your line in the sand, as people around the world actually starve, suffer, get depressed, have their immune systems suppressed…and much more under lockdowns? Further, as I’ve written a lot by now, Syria did not choose to lock down. Yes a partial curfew, 7:30 pm to 6 am, but otherwise, no enforced physical distancing, to the contrary, markets are crowded, people kissing cheeks in greeting, friends hugging…normality and healthy interactions.

My thoughts on Syria’s response to Covid19:–Syria is not under lockdown, is not the dystopian society of war propagandistsDamascus walks, April 26-28, Stores Re-Opened, Life in Streets

IMG_1860
IMG_1906(1)
IMG_2061
20200428_170548
IMG_3696

Economic Paralysis, Major Recession: Canada Headed for a Stall in Business Startups

Survey Uncovers Alarming Aversion to Starting Businesses and Commercial Rent Relief

By Entrepreneurs’ Organization

Global Research, May 06, 2020

Entrepreneurs’ Organization

The Entrepreneur’s Organization (EO) Toronto, a group of 111 business leaders, who are owner, founder or controlling shareholder of companies with revenues of at least $1 million + a year, recently commissioned a survey to take a pulse check of Canadians and their attitudes on starting up businesses. Concerned with how businesses will bloom post-COVID-19, they found many Canadians hesitant to become entrepreneurs.

Key findings of the survey

1) Canadians in many major markets aren’t planning to start businesses post COVID

Asked if they be more or less likely to start a business after COVID-19, nationally – a combined 57.9% of Canadians said ‘no/less likely’ (39.9%) and ‘no way it’s too risky’ (18.0%)20.8% said ‘maybe under the right conditions.’ Only 14.3% said ‘yes’ and 7.1% said ‘yes they are planning to.’

a) Atlantic Canada

At a combined 72.7%, Atlantic Canada had the highest number of respondents say that they would not consider starting a business (49.8%) or ‘no way it’s too risky’ (22.9%)

b) Ontario

At a combined 60.7%, Ontario had the second-highest number of respondents say that they would not consider starting a business (42.4%) or ‘no way it’s too risky’ (18.3%)

“As Ontario businesses, our membership finds this particularly concerning,” said Peter Demangos, EO President (Toronto Chapter) and President at PDF Financial Group. “We know that Ontario is an economic engine for the entire country, and we need to maintain the innovations that entrepreneurs and new business startups bring to the Province. While we are dealing with the current small business and Global pandemic crisis, we need also need to be ensuring the future of small business in this country.”

c) The Prairies

At 57.5%, the Prairies had a significant number of respondents who said they would not consider starting a new business.

d) British Columbia

At 56.8%, BC respondents were not far behind in saying they would not start up a new business post COVID.

2) Canadians are surprisingly NOT on board with the Canada Emergency Rent Assistance plan

Asked if the government should give commercial rent subsidies to business owners or landlords, Canadians responded surprisingly, by adding ‘neither’ as an option and seemingly not supporting the Canada Emergency Rent Assistance program.

Nationally, 47.4% of respondents said ‘neither,’ 41.0% said the relief should go directly to business owners, and only 18.9%  said that the money should go to landlords. Ontario had the highest number of respondents answering ‘neither’ at 48.3%.

“This is surprising to us as many Canadian small businesses may have to close their doors permanently without rent relief,” added Demangos. “We would have expected more support from Canadians for small business during the pandemic.”

Interestingly, 34.2% of Canadians were in favour of the government ordering commercial landlords to pause rent (without a subsidy.)

3) Canadians are okay with more loans and tax credits for small businesses

Asked what more the government could do to help small business during COVID-19, Canadians appear to be in favour of loans and tax deferments. 33.6% of respondents were in favour of ‘more low-interest loans to keep them afloat,’ 32.6% said ‘ongoing tax deferments,’ and 25.2% supported ‘more tax credits to companies who keep their doors open during the pandemic.’

4) The majority of Canadians think Trudeau is doing enough to help Canadian small business

Asked if they think Trudeau is doing enough to help small business, a combined 75.3% of Canadians said ‘yes’ (38.3%) or ‘sort of’ (37.0%.) Only 24.7% said ‘no.’

5) Canadians think that business owners are slightly better off than employees during COVID-19.

Asked who they think is better off, Canadians said employees are worse off (57.2%) vs 42.8% who said that employees are better off.

“As we slowly re-open Canada’s businesses and economy, there’s never been a more important time to support small business from the federal, provincial, municipal and customer level,” added Demangos. “We need to show existing small businesses that they can re-open with major support from all levels and signal to the next generation of entrepreneurs that they will be similarly supported if they open new businesses.”

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.“Something Has Gone Wrong”: UK Government, Banks Screw Up Coronavirus Loans, Small Firms Near Collapse. Better Results in Other CountriesThe original source of this article is Entrepreneurs’ OrganizationCopyright © Entrepreneurs’ Organization, Entrepreneurs’ Organization, 2020

America’s enemy is England, not Russia. Historically, Russia has been perhaps America’s main Ally; England remains America’s top enemy, just as during the American Revolution

APRIL 27, 2020

America’s enemy is England, not Russia. Historically, Russia has been perhaps America’s main Ally; England remains America’s top enemy, just as during the American Revolution

by Eric Zuesse for The Saker Blog

America’s sole enemy during the Revolutionary War (1775-1783) was England. Ever since being defeated in that war, England (controlled by the British aristocracy) has tried various ways to regain its control over America. The British aristocracy’s latest attempt to regain control over America started in 1877, and continues today, as the two countries’ “Deep State” — comprising not only the lying CIA and the lying MI6, but the entire joint operation of the united aristocracies of Britain and the U.S. These two aristocracies actually constitute the Deep State, and control the top levels of both intelligence agencies, and of both Governments, and prevent democracy in both countries. The aristocracy rules each of them. The 1877 plan was for a unification of the two aristocracies, and for the then-rising new world power, American industry, and its Government, to become controlled by the wealthiest individuals in both countries. Franklin Delano Roosevelt had tried to break the back of that intended global-imperialist combine, but he tragically died before he achieved this goal.

America’s second war against a foreign power was the War of 1812 (1812-1815), in which the U.S.A., so soon after its own victorious Revolution to free itself from Britain, tried to go even further, and to remove Britain altogether from North America. There still remained, among Americans, some fear that England might try to retake the U.S.A. The historian, Don Hickey, wrote that “In North America, the United States was the only belligerent that could lose the war and still retain its independence. Since Great Britain’s independence was at stake in the Napoleonic Wars, one might argue that the United States was the only belligerent on either side of the Atlantic in the War of 1812 that had nothing to fear for its independence.” Because King George III was still hated by many Americans, the U.S. aimed to free from Britain’s control the British colonies that remained to the north of America’s border, present-day Canada. Most of the residents there, however, continued to think of themselves as subjects of the King, and so the U.S. effort failed. Furthermore, British soldiers, coming down from what now is Canada, actually did manage to to jeopardize America’s independence: they burned down Washington. It wasn’t the King’s subjects north of America’s border who did this; it was British troops. The King’s army did it. Americans did have real reason to fear King George III. America’s continuing independence was, indeed, at stake in that war. That wasn’t merely the perception of the Democratic-Republicans (Jefferson’s Party); there was reality to it.

During a 25 May 2018 phone-call between the Presidents of America and Canada, America’s ignoramus President — Donald Trump — justified tariffs against Canada partially by saying “Didn’t you guys burn down the White House?” However, King George III’s troops had actually done that, on 24 August 1814 (and destroyed the Capitol building on the same day); and not only did Canada not yet exist at that time, but the King’s troops had done this in retaliation for a successful American invasion into the King’s northern territory — which territory was subsequently to win its own partial independence (after the unsuccessful rebellions of 1837-1838, by the King’s subjects there). Though the U.S. won the War of 1812, in the sense of not losing its independence to England, it failed to free Canada. However, two years after America’s own Civil War (1860-1865), Canada finally won a messy partial independence in 1867.

The rebuilding of the British-destroyed U.S. White House was completed in 1817; that of the British-destroyed U.S. Capitol was completed in 1826.

The most celebrated battle in the War of 1812 was at Baltimore’s Fort McHenry, on 13 September 1814, where America’s soldiers hoisted in victory the U.S. flag, which inspired Francis Scott Key to write “The Star-Spangled Banner”. That ode was celebrating what became considered by Americans to have been their country’s second victory against Britain’s imperial tyranny.

England’s next big attempt to conquer the U.S. was during the Civil War, when England was supporting the Southerners’ right to continue enslaving Blacks and to break away from the federal Union for that purpose (to perpetuate slavery). If the South had won, this would not only have considerably weakened the U.S.A., but it would have placed to America’s south a new nation which would be allied with America’s enemy, Britain, the Southern Confederacy.

By contrast against England’s support for slavery, and for the breakup of the United States, Russia was a leading global supporter of the U.S., and of its movement to abolish slavery. Under Tsar Alexander II, the Russian Government opposed not only slavery but also serfdom, and thus became immortalized amongst Russians as “The Great Liberator,” for his ending serfdom, which was, for Russia, what slavery was for America — a repudiated relic of a former monarchic absolutism (that Tsar’s predecessors). When the erudite Cynthia Chung headlined on 16 October 2019, “Russia and the United States: The Forgotten History of a Brotherhood” and wrote there about “Cassius Clay,” she wasn’t mistakenly referring to the famous American boxer Muhammad Ali (1942-2016), but instead, quite correctly, to the individual who is far less well-known today but in whose honor that renowned boxer had originally been named, Cassius Marcellus Clay. The namesake for that boxer was quite reasonably referred-to by Chung as having been “possibly the greatest US Ambassador to Russia (1861-1862 and 1863-1869).” This “Cassius Clay” was, indeed, one of America’s unsung historical heroes, not only because this Kentuckian “Cassius Clay” was an extremely courageous champion of outlawing slavery, but also because he became a great asset to his friend Abraham Lincoln’s war to achieve the goal of emancipating America’s slaves. As Wikipedia’s article “Cassius Marcellus Clay (politician)” says, when describing Clay’s role in the “Civil War and Minister to Russia”:

President Lincoln appointed Clay to the post of Minister to the Russian court at St. Petersburg on March 28, 1861. The Civil War started before he departed and, as there were no Federal troops in Washington at the time, Clay organized a group of 300 volunteers to protect the White House and US Naval Yard from a possible Confederate attack. These men became known as Cassius M. Clay’s Washington Guards. President Lincoln gave Clay a presentation Colt revolver in recognition. When Federal troops arrived, Clay and his family embarked for Russia.[10]

As Minister to Russia, Clay witnessed the Tsar’s emancipation edict. Recalled to the United States in 1862 to accept a commission from Lincoln as a major general with the Union Army, Clay publicly refused to accept it unless Lincoln would agree to emancipate slaves under Confederate control. Lincoln sent Clay to Kentucky to assess the mood for emancipation there and in the other border states. Following Clay’s return to Washington, DC, Lincoln issued the proclamation in late 1862, to take effect in January 1863.[11]

Clay resigned his commission in March 1863 and returned to Russia, where he served until 1869. [3] He was influential in the negotiations for the purchase of Alaska.[12

Thus, this friend of both “The Great Liberator” and “The Great Emancipator” helped them both. As Blake Stillwell well summarized in his 16 October 2015 article “How Russia guaranteed a Union victory in the Civil War”, Ambassador Clay knew and personally shared the deeply shared values between the heads-of-state in both the U.S. and Russia, and he thereby persuaded Tsar Alexander II to commit to join the U.S. in a war to conquer England if England would overtly and actively join the U.S. South’s war against the United States. Tsar Alexander II thus stationed Russian warships in New York City and San Francisco during the Civil War, so as to block England from actively supporting the Southern Confederacy, which England had been planning to do. Probably no single country was as helpful to the Union cause as was Russia, and this was not merely for purposes of power-politics, but very much for democratic and progressive principles, both Lincoln’s and that Tsar’s — their shared Enlightenment goals for the world’s future.

Imperialistic England’s imperialistic foe France was also pro-slavery, but not as big a threat to the U.S. as England was. The way that Michael O’Neill phrased this in his 10 May 2019 “France’s Involvement in the U.S. Civil War” was: “The French government certainly had sympathies for the Confederacy because both regimes were aristocratic, while the North had a more democratic social and economic system that wasn’t as rigidly hierarchical. France’s trade prospects were also hurt because of Northern blockades of Southern ports. France wanted to intervene in order to ensure the trade of cotton, wine, brandy and silk.” This was an instance where the English and French empires were on the same side — against democracy, and for slavery. Every aristocracy is driven by unlimited greed, and this greed drove the French and English aristocracies together, regarding America’s Civil War. Tsar Alexander II was an extremely rare progressive aristocrat — like U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt subsequently also was.

As Chung’s article also noted, the friendly relations between Russia and the United States had started at the time of the American Revolution, and Benjamin Franklin (who then was America’s Ambassador to France) was key to that.

In 1877, the future British diamond-magnate Cecil Rhodes came up with his lifelong plan, to unite the aristocracies of Britain and the U.S. so as to ultimately conquer the entire world. His plan was to be activated upon his death, which occurred in 1902, when the Rhodes Trust began and created the core of a spreading movement at the top levels of finance in both countries, including the Royal Institute of Foreign Affairs, a.k.a., Chatham House, in London, and then the Council on Foreign Relations in NYC (RIFA’s U.S. branch), both of which institutions became united with the European aristocracies in the Bilderberg group, which started in 1954, and which was initiated by the ‘former’ Nazi Prince Bernhard of Netherlands, and David Rockefeller of U.S.; and, then, finally, the Trilateral Commission, bringing Japan’s aristocrats into the Rhodesian fold, in 1973, under the aegis of David Rockefeller’s agent and chief anti-Russian strategist, Zbigniew Brzezinski. (Nelson Rockefeller’s chief anti-Russian strategist was Henry Kissinger.)

There are also other significant offshoots from the Rhodes Trust — it’s the trunk of the tree, and Cecil Rhodes seems to have been its seed.

Then, during World War I, the U.S. and Russia were, yet again, crucial allies, but this time England was with us, not against us, because Britain’s aristocracy were competing against Germany’s. The Marxist Revolution in Russia in 1917 terrified all of the world’s super-rich, much as they had been terrified by America’s enemy is England, not Russia. Historically, Russia has been perhaps America’s main Ally; England remains America’s top enemy, just as during the American Revolution.the failed revolutions in Europe during 1848, but this in Russia was a revolution for a dictatorship by workers against the middle class (“the bourgeoisie”) and not only against the aristocracy; and, so, it was no Enlightenment project, and it certainly wasn’t at all democratic. Furthermore, Germany during World War I was even more dictatorial than was England. Indeed: Kaiser Wilhelm II initiated the World War in order to maintain and continue the ancient tradition of the divine right of kings — hereditary monarchy (the most retrogressive of all forms of governmental rule, hereditary rule). And Germany was threatening America’s ships, whereas England was not.

At the Versaille Peace Conference after WW I, four influential leaders of the U.S. delegation were intensely pro-British: the extremely conservative pro-aristocracy Democrat and U.S. Secretary of State Robert Lansing, and his two nephews, the extremely conservative devoutly Christian pro-aristocracy Republicans John Foster Dulles, and his brother Allen Dulles, and the devoutly Christian partner of J.P. Morgan, Thomas Lamont. All four supported an obligation by Germany’s taxpayers to pay reparations to French taxpayers so large as to destitute the newly established democratic Weimar German Government. This destitution of Germans — approved by the U.S. delegation — helped to cause the extremist conservative right-wing-populist Nazi Party to come into power against the democratic Weimar Government. The Dulles brothers had many friends amongst the aristocracies of both England and Germany, and became two leaders of the war to conquer Russia, under U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower. Whereas U.S. President Harry S. Truman had sought to “contain” the Soviet Union, the Dulles brothers sought instead to “conquer” it. Both of them had a visceral hatred of Russia — not only of communism. It was a hatred which was widely shared amongst the aristocracies of all empires, especially England, U.S., Germany, and Japan.

U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was an exception to the almost universal hatred of Russia amongst U.S.-and-allied aristocracies: he recognized and acknowledged that though Joseph Stalin was a barbaric dictator, Stalin was a deeply committed anti-imperialist like FDR himself was, because Stalin led the Communist Party’s anti-imperialist wing, against Trotsky’s imperialist wing. Stalin advocated passionately for “communism in one country” — the doctrine that the Soviet Union must first clearly establish a thriving economy within the country and thereby serve as a model which would inspire the masses in capitalist nations to rise up against their oppressors; and that only after such a communist model of success becomes established can communism naturally spread to other countries. FDR was absolutely opposed to any sort of imperialism, and he had passionate private arguments against Winston Churchill about it, because Churchill said, “There can be no tampering with the Empire’s economic agreements,” in reply to FDR’s “I can’t believe that we can fight a war against fascist slavery, and at the same time not work to free people all over the world from a backward colonial policy.” And, afterwards, FDR said privately to his son Elliott, contemptuously against Churchill, “A real old Tory, isn’t he? A real old Tory, of the old school.” FDR’s post-war vision was for a United Nations which would possess all nuclear and all other strategic weapons, and which would control all aspects of international law, and nothing of intranational law (except perhaps if the Security Council is unanimous, but only as being exceptions). Each of the major powers would be allowed to intervene intranationally into their bordering nations, but only so as to prevent any inimical major power from gaining a foothold next door — purely defensive, nothing else. This would have been very different from what the U.N. became. It’s something that the gullible Truman (who knew and understood none of that) was able to be deceived about by Churchill, and, even more so, by the then-General, Dwight Eisenhower, because both of them were committed imperialists and aimed to conquer Russia — and not only to end its communism. The crucial date was 26 July 1945, when Eisenhower convinced Truman to start the Cold War. Then, on 24 February 1990, U.S. President George Herbert Walker Bush established the policy of the U.S. since then: that when the Soviet Union would end its communism in 1991, the U.S. and its allies would secretly continue the Cold War against Russia, until Russia becomes conquered so as to be part of the U.S. empire, no longer an independent nation. This is continuation of Cecil Rhodes’s plan: the U.S. doing the British aristocracy’s bidding to lead in conquering the entire world.

On 14 August 1941, at the time when FDR and Churchill formed the Atlantic Charter and were planning for a joint war against Hitler, they agreed to form the “UKUSA Agreement”, a “secret treaty” between those two countries, which became formalized on 17 May 1943 as the “BRUSA Agreement” and then on 5 March 1946 under President Truman became officially signed, and its contents finally became public on 25 June 2010. It was/is the basis of what is more commonly know as “the Five Eyes” of the Cecil-Rhodes-derived (though they don’t mention that) foreign-intelligence operations, uniting UK and U.S. intelligence as the core, but also including the intelligence-operations of the other Anglo-Saxon English-speaking colonies: Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. India and other ‘inferior races’ of English-speaking countries (as Rhodes and Winston Churchill viewed them) weren’t included. For examples: the UK/USA joint effort to produce the death of Julian Assange (and seem likely to succeed soon in doing that) became part of this UK/USA working-together, as have also been the UK/USA sanctions against Russia regarding the trumped-up cases and sanctions against Russia concerning Sergei Magnitsky in 2012 and Sergei Skripal and the “Russiagate” charges against Donald Trump in 2018. This full flowering of the Rhodesian plan is also publicly known as “the Special Relationship” and as “the Anglosphere”.

It’s the U.S. and UK aristocracies, against their own nations — against their own people — but for the essential imperial operations by both U.S. and UK international corporations, which those billionaires control.

This is why all sanctions against Russia are based on lies. Certainly, it doesn’t happen by accident. At each step, in virtually each instance, the U.S. and UK aristocracies are working together on these libels — libels against the actual main foreign ally of the U.S. (UK’s aristocracy has always been the main enemy of the UK’s public, and also against Russia — and against the American people. This is entirely consistent with Rhodes’s plan, which was to use the U.S. in order to expand Britain’s Empire. That is the history of our times.)

This is the ultimate success of King George III’s plan, and it is a profound betrayal of the intentions of America’s Founders, who were passionate anti-imperialists. And so too was FDR. But right after WW II, the imperialists (run by America’s billionaires) took over.
—————
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

%d bloggers like this: