The Empire on which the Black Sun Never Set

in 1920 had endorsed the anti-Semitic forgery The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion,²⁷³ in an editorial for The Times, for which he blamed the Jews for the First World War and that the Bolshevik regime, a plot of “international Jewish financiers” was the greatest threat to the British Empire.²⁷⁴

It was this man whom Kalergi would thank for opening doors in Britain for his Pan-Europe cause.

Kalergi writes:²⁷⁵

“The first Englishman who was seriously interested in Pan-Europe was Henry Wickham Steed, the former chief editor of the London Times, who had played a decisive rôle during the last war. He knew Europe’s problems well – better, in fact, than almost anyone in Britain. In the years preceding the war he had lived in Vienna, where he had known my mother and other members of my family socially. I had met him while a student at Theresianum Academy. His looks recalled seventeenth century courier rather than a modern Englishman. Twentieth century clothes never seemed in keeping with his inner dignity and style.

…His help was invaluable during my London stay. He brought me into touch with men like Ramsay MacDonald, Lord Robert Cecil, Lord Reading, Lord Balfour…George

Bernard Shaw, H.G. Wells, Philip Kerr (the future Lord Lothian), and Lionel Curtis.²⁷⁶ Many of these men sympathized with the idea of a European union.”

One noteworthy feature of every single one of these individuals is their role as leading members of the Cecil Rhodes-Milner Round Table Movement and Fabian

²⁷³For more on the forgery of the Protocols of Zion conducted by officials in the Paris branch of the Okhrana (Russian secret police) under the direction of Peter Rachkovsky and Matvei Golovinsky, see Mikhail Lepekhine’s research reviewed by Patrick Bishop (November 19, 1999). Protocols of Zion' forger named. The Daily Telegraph. No. 1638. Paris, France.

https://web.archive.org/web/20080528005157/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jht ml?html=%2Farchive%2F1999%2F11%2F19%2Fwzion19.html.

²⁷⁴Liebich, Andre. (May 2012) The Antisemitism of Henry Steed. Patterns of Prejudice, Vol. 46, No. 2, 2002.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263592260_The_antisemitism_of_Henry_Wickha m_Steed. Retrieved October 2022.

²⁷⁵Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1943) Crusade for Pan-Europe: Autobiography of a Man and a Movement. G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, pg. 108.

²⁷⁶Ramsay MacDonald was the head of the Fabian created Labour Party, and Prime Minister of England from 1929-1935. Lord Robert Cecil was the father of The League of Nations. Lord Balfour was one of the authors of the Balfour Declaration to establish a British Mandate of Palestine to which The League of Nations presented to Parliament in December 1922. G.B.

Shaw was a leading Fabian and is discussed in Chapter 1. H.G. Wells was among the first

Fabian members, and member of the Webb’s Coefficients and is discussed in Chapter 1. Philip

Kerr (Lord Lothian) was a member of Alfred Milner’s Kindergarten, for more details see Appendix I. Lionel Curtis was another member of Alfred Milner’s Kindergarten. Recall Lord Milner is one of the authors of the Balfour Declaration.

Society. Under the direction of Milner, Amery and Curtis, the Roundtable Movement was instrumental in a soft coup in Britain during the winter of 1916^{^[238]} which unseated the labor government of Herbert Asquith and installed a Round Table Controlled government of Lloyd George which would now be well placed to shape the terms of the post-war order and League of Nations (see Appendix I). Kalergi continues:^{^[239]}

“Only one Englishman was at that time ready to accept the consequences of European union and to support my plan wholeheartedly and effectively – the secretary of state for the dominions and colonies, L.S. Amery.

Amery is one of those men whose admirable qualities of character and mind make plausible why Britain became the world’s leading nation in the nineteenth century. He represents the tradition of the great empire builders and should be regarded as a legitimate successor of Disraeli and Joseph Chamberlain…after the fall of Norway, it was he who took the initiative in Parliament to oust Neville Chamberlain and put Churchill in his place as prime minister. Since then he has held one of the most difficult and important posts in the British Cabinet – the India Office.

…He agreed with me that the British Empire was a single political continent, as separate from Pan-Europe as it was from Pan-America. Our ideas about world organization, about pacifism, about the League of Nations, and about the defense of Western civilization were almost identical. And he championed the cause of Pan-Europe in a very effective manner. It was primarily due to him that no distrust of Pan-Europe arose in England and that nobody interpreted the movement as an attempt to separate Britain from the Continent. All through the coming years he remained my closest British friend and advisor in all matters of European union.”

Recall, Leo Amery was also one of the authors of the Balfour Declaration.

Kalergi continues:²⁷⁹

“…despite all articles and interviews about Pan-Europe, the American public remained only vaguely informed of our aims. I therefore decided that it might help the cause were I to plead it personally. However, the plan would not have

matured so quickly without the good offices of my friend Max Warburg…Max Warburg had been one of the Pan-Europe’s earliest proselytes. He had two brothers living in the United States, Paul, the economist, and Felix, the philanthropist. At their suggestion the American Foreign Policy Association, directed by James MacDonald, invited me to deliver a series of dinner speeches throughout the United States.”

Max Warburg was the scion of the wealthy Warburg family based in Hamburg, Germany and was the director of M.M. Warburg & Co. from 1910 to 1938, overlapping with Nazi Germany. He served on the board of the German Reichsbank under the governor Hjalmar Schacht for Nazi Germany, later emigrating to the United States in 1938.

Paul Warburg was the 2^nd Vice Chair of the Federal Reserve from 1916-1918, chief architect of the Federal Reserve Board of the United States. Felix Warburg, son-in-law of Jacob Schiff and partner in the Kuhn, Loeb & Co. bank^{^[240]} and was founder and first president of the American Friends of the Hebrew University, which supported the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in British Mandate Palestine in 1925. Paul and Felix would be on the American Cooperative Committee of the Pan-European Union.

According to Kalergi, his introduction to Max Warburg occurred in 1924 through Baron Louis Rothschild. Warburg immediately gave a donation of sixty thousand gold-marks to see the movement through its first three years. Kalergi suggested the donation be divided equally between Germany and Austria. “We agreed on the appointment of two trustees: Geheimrat Fritsch of the Dresdner Bank for the German tranche and Vice-President Brosche of the Kreditanstalt for the Austrian tranche.”^{^[241]}

The Dresdner Bank would later be a major stakeholder in the construction company for Auschwitz.^{^[242]} The bank’s deputy director was Hjalmar Schacht from

1908-1915 and he would continue to work closely with the bank afterwards. The

Dresdner Bank was known as the bank of choice of Heinrich Himmler’s SS.^{^[243]} ²⁸⁴

In 1925, after his visit to Britain, Kalergi sails for the United States. “To assuage American concerns, Max Warburg, in his usual friendly way, offered to make all necessary preparations for our journey.”^{^[244]} Kalergi writes:^{^[245]}

“The United States was at that time divided politically into isolationists, who opposed a policy of support for the League of Nations, and internationalists, who favoured such a policy. To my surprise I found that both groups were favourably inclined towards Pan-Europe: the isolationists looked upon European federation as an effective safeguard against the risk of entanglement in a new European war. The internationalists were aware that the creation of Pan-Europe would facilitate and hasten their entry into a regionally organized League.

…Among the many Americans with whom I discussed Pan-Europe at the time were Herbert Hoover, Secretary of State Frank Kellogg, Owen D. Young, Bernard Baruch, Walter Lippmann, Colonel House, General Tasker Bliss, Hamilton Fish Armstrong, Thomas Lamont, Justice Hughes…”

To give us an idea of what sort of political eco-system Kalergi was operating in, let us go through the resumé of these Americans interested in a Pan-Europe.

Herbert Hoover was President of the United States from March 1929 to March 1933. During his first year in office, the stock market crashed, signaling the onset of the Great Depression. Hoover was staunchly opposed to any intervention from the federal government in the U.S. economy and blamed the Mexicans for the Depression, instituting policies and sponsoring programs of repatriation and deportation to Mexico.^{^[246]} Hoover strongly criticized Roosevelt’s foreign policy

and New Deal promoting instead money printing to bail out speculators and austerity.

Frank Kellogg was Secretary of State from March 1925 to March 1929. He coauthored the Kellogg-Briand Pact. In 1924 he was appointed by President Coolidge as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to Great Britain serving from January 1924 to February 1925. During his time in public office, Kellogg was one of the few republicans who supported eliminating national sovereignty in favour of ratifying the League of Nations covenant.

Owen D. Young was an American industrialist, businessman, lawyer and diplomat. He founded the Radio Corporation of America (RCA) as a subsidiary of General Electric in 1919 and became its first chairman where he remained until 1929. RCA was initially a patent trust owned by General Electric, Westinghouse, AT&T and the United Fruit Company^{^[247]}. In 1928 he was appointed to the board of trustees of the Rockefeller Foundation, serving on the board until 1939. He participated in Woodrow Wilson’s Second Industrial Conference and in 1924 coauthored the Dawes Plan and established the Young Plan in 1929. The Young Plan proposed to settle Germany’s WWI reparations which involved the creation of the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) as the ‘central banks of central banks.’ The BIS would prove invaluable in the funding and growth of the Nazi war machine before and during the war.²⁸⁹

Bernard Baruch was an American financier and statesman. He amassed a fortune by the age of thirty on the New York Stock Exchange and founded the Intercontinental Rubber Company of New York. His partners were Nelson Aldrich, Daniel Guggenheim, John D. Rockefeller Jr., George Foster Peabody et al. By 1903 Baruch had his own brokerage firm and gained the reputation of ‘The Lone Wolf of Wall Street.’ In 1916 he left Wall Street to advise Woodrow Wilson on national defense and terms of peace. He served on the Advisory Commission to the Council of National Defense and in January 1918 became the chairman of the new War Industries Board. Baruch was appointed a staff member at the Paris Peace Conference, he agreed with Wilson’s view that there needed to be new form of cooperation, as well as the creation of the League of Nations.

Walter Lippmann was an American writer and reporter. During the First World War he was commissioned a captain in the Army and was assigned to the intelligence section of the AEF (American Expeditionary Forces) headquarters in France. In this position, he was assigned to the staff of Colonel Edward Mandell House. Through his connection to House, Lippmann became an advisor to Woodrow Wilson and assisted in the drafting of his Fourteen Points speech.

Lippmann would play a notable role in Woodrow Wilson’s post-WWI board of inquiry, as its research director. In 1932, Lippmann infamously dismissed the future President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s qualifications and demeanor, writing “Franklin D. Roosevelt is no crusader. He is no tribune of the people. He is no enemy of entrenched privilege. He is a pleasant man who, without any important qualifications for the office, would very much like to be President.” Despite Roosevelt’s later accomplishments, Lippmann stood by his words, stating “That I will maintain to my dying day was true of the Franklin Roosevelt of 1932.” He believed his judgement was an accurate summation of Roosevelt’s 1932 campaign, saying it was “180 degrees opposite the New Deal. The fact is that the New Deal was wholly improvised after Roosevelt was elected.”

Colonel Edward Mandell House was an American diplomat and adviser to Woodrow Wilson. He was Wilson’s chief adviser on European politics and diplomacy during the First World War. He did not hold an official political office but was an ‘executive agent.’ He became a government official as one of the five American commissioners to the Paris Peace Conference of 1919. House played a major role in shaping wartime diplomacy. Wilson had House assemble ‘The Inquiry’, a team of academic experts to devise efficient postwar solutions to all the world’s problems. In September 1918, Wilson gave House the responsibility for preparing a constitution for a League of Nations. In October 1918, when Germany petitioned for peace based on the Fourteen Points, Wilson charged House with working out details of an armistice with the Allies. Diplomat and historian Philip Zelikow argues that House’s action and advice to Wilson in the 1916-1917 period significantly extended World War I.^{^[248]} House helped Wilson outline his Fourteen Points and worked with the president in the drafting of the Treaty of Versailles and the Covenant of the League of Nations. House served on the League of Nations Commission on Mandates with Lord Milner and Lord Robert Cecil. On May 30^th, 1919, House participated in a meeting in Paris which laid the groundwork for the establishment of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the American branch of the British Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA) aka Chatham House. It should also be noted that Chatham House itself was created by the Round Table Movement as part of the Treaty of Versailles program in 1919.^{^[249]} Historian G. Edward Griffin situates Mandel House as a key figure in the drafting and passage of the Federal Reserve in 1913.^{^[250]}

General Tasker Bliss was a United States Army officer who served as Chief of Staff of the United States Army under Woodrow Wilson. He was also a diplomat

involved in the peace negotiations of WWI and was one of the co-signatories of the Treaty of Versailles.

Hamilton Fish Armstrong was an American diplomat and editor. He became the managing editor of Foreign Affairs in 1922, the journal of the newly formed Council on Foreign Relations. That same year he also introduced the Lodge-Fish resolution that gave U.S. support to the Balfour Declaration and the British Mandate of Palestine.

Thomas Lamont was an American banker who caught the attention of Henry P. Davison, who asked Lamont to join the new Bankers Trust. He started as secretary and treasurer and then moved up to being Vice President and then director. He rose to the vice presidency of the First National Bank.^{^[251]} In 1911 he became a partner of J.P. Morgan & Co., following Davison to the bank.^{^[252]} During the First World War, Lamont also served as an unofficial adviser to a mission of Allies, led by Edward M. House, as requested by President Woodrow Wilson.^{^[253]} Both Lamont and Norman H. Davies were appointed as representatives of the Treasury Department to the Paris Peace Conference and had to determine what Germany had to pay in reparations. Lamont also helped draw up the Dawes Plan and the Young Plan. In the interwar period he was a spokesman for J.P. Morgan and was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. In 1926, Lamont described himself as “something like a missionary” for Italian fascism and secured a $100 million loan for Benito Mussolini.^{^[254]} On Black Thursday in 1929, Lamont was acting head of J.P. Morgan & Co. Five days prior to the Crash, he reassured President Hoover that there was no cause for concern about rampant market manipulation by Wall Street insiders, and thus no need for government intervention.^{^[255]} After the Crash, the Senate Banking Committee found that J.P. Morgan (headed by Lamont) had maintained a ‘preferential stock list’ to allow for liquidation of stocks during the Crash at prices premium to actual market value.^{^[256]} Following the reorganization of J.P. Morgan & Co., in 1943, Lamont was

elected chairman of the board of directors, becoming the first non-Morgan after George Peabody to chair the bank.

In fact, J.P. Morgan would be directly implicated in an attempted military coup against Roosevelt, to which General Smedley Butler blew the lid off of. Thanks to the actions of General Butler, the attempted fascist takeover of the United States was thwarted.^{^[257]} Also recall from Chapter 1 that Diana Mosley was arranging “to make available £50-100 million (£1.7-3.4 billion) through loan bank Morgan” to the Nazis and that “Baron v. Schroeder is to test the ground in London”. Diana Mosley was arranging a meeting between a representative of Morgan’s Bank to travel to Germany and negotiate with v. Schroeder, “We’ll see what comes of it.”

Justice Charles Evan Hughes was Secretary of State from March 1921 to March 1925 and the 11^th Chief of Justice of the United States from 1939-1941. Responding to the Great Depression, Roosevelt passed a bevy of domestic legislation as part of his New Deal. The response to the New Deal became one of the key issues facing the Hughes Court. In May 1935 the Supreme Court unanimously struck down three New Deal laws. Hughes held that Roosevelt’s National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 was unconstitutional. In 1936 case of United States v. Butler, Hughes struck down the Agricultural Adjustment Act. In doing so, the court dismantled the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, the major New Deal agricultural program. In another 1936 case, Carter v. Carter Coal Co., the Supreme Court struck down the Guffey Coal Act, which regulated the bituminous coal industry. Hughes also struck down the 1936 Morehead v. New York ex rel. Tipaldo, on New York’s minimum wage law, which Roosevelt intended to use as a model for other states. It is not a coincidence that on top of waging war on FDR’s New Deal, Hughes was also a supporter of Mussolini.^{^[258]}

Franklin Roosevelt earned the hate directed at his efforts to revive America’s constitutional economic traditions on multiple levels. From his earliest moments in office, he sabotaged a League of Nations conference to institute a financiers’ dictatorship in the form of the London Conference on Banking and Commerce in the Summer of 1933. He additionally waged war on Wall Street financiers through the Pecora Commission, broke up the ‘too big to fail’ banks with GlassSteagall and imposed broad oversight on Wall Street via the Securities and Exchange Commission. His use of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation bypassed the Federal Reserve and private banks becoming the primary lender to

the real economy by the end of World War II and his banking methods were premised on the restoration of Lincoln’s system of productive credit.

It is of incredible importance that the very group that Kalergi adores and collaborates with in the United States are the very same operatives who had consistently worked to destroy the viability of the United States itself from within for decades while supporting imperial policies of world government abroad such as the Treaty of Versailles, and League of Nations.^{^[259]} Even Kalergi admits that Hitler’s very success was made possible largely through the Treaty of Versailles authored by his own key allies in Britain and the United States. On pg. 180 of his 1954 autobiography An Idea Conquers the World, he writes: “there is not doubt that Hitler’s popularity rested mainly on the fanatical struggle which he waged against the Versailles Treaty.”

Kalergi goes on to write:³⁰²

“The use of mass hypnotism for propaganda purposes is most successful at times of crisis. When National Socialism made its bid for power, millions of Germans had been thrown completely off their balance: middle-class families had sunk to the level of the proletariat, whilst working-class families were without work. The Third Reich became the last hope for the stranded, of those who had lost their social status, and of those rootless beings who were seeking a new basis for an existence that had become meaningless. Looked at in this light, National Socialism seemed a repetition on a gigantic scale of Catilina’s conspiracy.^{^[260]} It differed from Socialism, which was a class movement in the tradition of that of the Gracchi, and from Bolshevism, whose classical prototype was the revolution of Spartacus.^{^[261]}

The economic background of the Hitler movement becomes apparent when on recalls that Hitler’s two revolutions coincided with Germany’s two great economic crises: the inflation of 1923 and the recession of the early 1930s, with its wave of unemployment.

During the six intervening years, which were relatively prosperous for Germany, the Hitler movement was virtually non-existent.”

***

Recall that Kalergi would first meet with leading British statesmen in 1925 and maintained a close relationship afterwards, especially with Leo Amery. On February 15^th, 1930, Churchill published in The Saturday Evening an articled titled “The United States of Europe”, where he wrote:^{^[262]}

“…The resuscitation of the Pan-European idea is largely identified with Count Coudenhove-Kalergi…The League of Nations, from which the United States have so imprudently – considering their vast and increasing interests – absented themselves, has perforce become in fact, if not in form, primarily a European institution. Count Coudenhove-Kalergi proposes to concentrate European forces, interests and sentiments in a single branch which, if it grew, would become the trunk itself, and thus acquire obvious predominance. For think how mighty Europe is, but for its divisions! Let Russia slide back, as Count Kalergi proposes, and as it already so largely a fact, into Asia. Let the British Empire, excluded in his plan, realize its own world-spread ideal, even so, the mass of Europe, once united, once federalized or partially federalized, once continentally self-conscious Europe, with its African and Asiatic possessions and plantations, would constitute an organism beyond compare.”

Notice that the concept of a European Union and a British Empire (aka the British Commonwealth of Nations) have no means of existing and supporting its demanded standard of living, without its “African and Asiatic possessions and plantations,” as its economic support base. This is a fact that remains just as true today.^{^[263]} Churchill has also made clear that within this League of Nations vision for the world, the British Empire is a sort of free agent, left to realize its “own world-spread ideal.”

Churchill continues:

“…The attitude of Great Britain towards European unification or ‘federal links’ would, in the first instance, be determined by her dominant conception of a united British Empire. Every step that tends to make Europe more prosperous and more peaceful is conducive to British interests…But even this compulsive conception must be reconciled with other forms of British interest. The policy of Canning has endowed us with holdings and connections in South America, and notably the Argentine, which, although in no way affecting the sovereignty of independent states, are of solid and durable importance to us. The scheme of a

British Empire economically self-conscious, a commercial unit even perhaps a fiscal unit, can never be widely expressed in exclusive terms.

Here, then, is an aspect of the British Empire which the people of the United States would do well to study. The king’s dominions circle the globe. We can never lend ourselves to any antagonism, however unlikely or remote, economic or warlike, between continents or hemispheres. We belong to no single continent, but to all. Not to one hemisphere, but to both; as well to the New World as to the old. It [Britain] is a great American power. It is the Australasian power. It is one of the greatest Asiatic powers. It is the leading African power. Great Britain herself has for centuries been the proved and accepted champion of European freedom. She is the center and head of the British Commonwealth of Nations…”

Thus, according to Churchill, there will be these envisioned six regions under the League of Nations, however, Britain alone is contained within every one of these regions and is a great power in every one of these regions and expects to continue being so. It should be increasingly evident that the vision for a League of Nations made up of the British Commonwealth, Pan-Europe, Pan-America, Soviet Union, Japan and China has nothing to do with sovereignty of states, has nothing to do with even sovereignty of regions, but rather are to be regarded as tributary or vassal regions to the British Empire. The freedoms one will be granted, will depend on how they service the British Empire, and thus, with such a view, Britain does have everything to gain from the ‘prosperity’ of any of these regions.

Churchill ends with: “The conception of a United States of Europe is right…It is, however, imperative that as Europe advances towards higher international unity there shall be a proportionate growth of solidarity throughout the British Empire…”

Kalergi, who was in close discussion with Leo Amery, that spanned three decades, wrote this in reaction to Churchill’s speech:^{^[264]}

“It seems obvious now that, had Churchill been prime minister during the thirties, there would be no Hitler and no war but a better integrated, more peaceful, more prosperous Europe. All of Churchill’s friends were in sympathy with the idea of European union, including, of course, Amery, who was the backbone of Churchill’s efforts in this direction. In the struggle between Churchill’s England and [Neville] Chamberlain’s England, Churchill was at last gaining the upper hand after the appeasers had almost ruined the moral credit of their nation.”

Again, what Kalergi is essentially stating here is that with a Churchill at the helm, a clear imperialist, this vision for the League of Nations could have been accomplished without the need for another world war. Just as fascism would not have needed to use so much force and violence to assert its rule on the European people. According to Kalergi, it would have been a ‘relatively’ peaceful transference to this global imperialism, or international fascism. Churchill wrote the preface to Kalergi’s Ideas Conquer the World (1954). It is not clear if Kalergi actually believed this, especially with Churchill’s abysmal military record and his monstrous handling of British India. It was hard to imagine the quick quelling of mass revolts under an Emperor Churchill, who was once sarcastically hailed as Mussolini in the British Parliament.

It is a common fantasy these romantic promoters of fascism and imperialism proclaim; that the execution was never as beautiful as it could have been, or they diminish or outright deny the suffering and destruction they leave in their wake, like in the case of Pinochet’s Chile. To such visionaries the ends will always justify the means, and if it means the violent handling and removal of the majority of a population, so be it. So much for the so-called world of ‘gentlemen aristocrats.’

In 1938, Kalergi publishes his book Europe Must Unite. The preface was written by Leo Amery which goes as such:^{^[265]}

“The theme of Count Coudenhove-Kalergi’s book is the fate of that European Continent with which our own destiny must always be so closely concerned and of that European culture of which ours is an indissoluble part…Once Europeans can think of themselves [as Europeans]…[they] will follow and, in turn serve to strengthen the sense of common unity. What is needed, he [Kalergi] insists, is the moral foundation. Not, indeed, a new moral foundation, but rather the revival, for the needs of our own day, of that moral unity once embodied in the Roman Empire and in the Western Christendom of the Middle Ages…The basis of that unity is, in his view, an outlook formed by the fusion of three elements: the classical conception of citizenship, the Christian conception of the equal underlying value of every individual soul, the medieval conception of chivalry, all three summed up, in his view, in our own English conception of a gentleman.

…Only imminent or actual catastrophe will bring the new European into being…”

Kalergi first meets Churchill in February 1938 at his country home at Chartwell in Kent. Kalergi writes:^{^[266]}

“I found him very much as I had imagined him: a genial aristocrat of tremendous intellectual grasp. I was remined of the famous words of Nietzsche: ‘This is how I like man to be…’ Churchill is neither a typical Englishman nor a typical product of our age…In talking to him one is struck by the fact that he would have been just as dominant a personality as he is now had he been born two thousand years earlier as a patrician of ancient Rome.”

Kalergi again visits the United States in the autumn of 1940 to deliver a series of lectures, his first was to be delivered to the Council on Foreign Relations^{^[267]} and his following lecture to the International House. Kalergi remarks, “There were, however, only very few Americans who, at that time, had real faith in the creation of a United States of Europe on democratic lines. One of the men who had this faith was John Foster Dulles whose acquaintance I made shortly after my arrival in New York. As chairman of the Council of Protestant Churches of America, Dulles took his stand firmly on the side of a Pan-European peace programme.”^{^[268]}

As we will see in Chapter 4, John Foster Dulles a partner in the Sullivan & Cromwell law firm, the most powerful corporate law firm in the nation, had business dealings with the Nazis through his representation of German cartels such as the notorious IG Farben. It reached a point where their attorneys at the Berlin office of Sullivan & Cromwell were signing their correspondences with “Heil Hitler.”^{^[269]} When Roosevelt attempted to block BIS funds in the United States, it was none other than John Foster Dulles who was hired as legal counsel, and who successfully intervened on the bank’s behalf. John Foster Dulles would serve as the Secretary of State during the Eisenhower Administration and was one of his closest advisors.^{^[270]}

Kalergi returns once again to New York in 1948:^{^[271]}

“In Washington I handed a memorandum which I had composed to leading officials at the State Department and to several members of Congress. Its title was ‘How Europe can be saved by the Marshall Plan’. I argued that Europe required not only material but also moral assistance, not only dollars but also unity; that without some form of European Union, American dollars would be squandered, since money alone can prevent neither a third world war nor the total destruction of Europe which would follow such a war. America, the memorandum went on, had a vital interest in European integration; the Marshall Plan can be made the instrument of a policy of integration. For, once European Governments realize that America’s readiness to continue with Marshall Aid depends on their own readiness to unify, the pace of unification will be considerably accelerated.

My suggestions fell on fertile ground. The preamble of the European Co-operation Act, as drafted by John Foster Dulles, brought out very clearly the relationship between European integration and American aid. Speeches by leading Senators helped further to convince the Governments of Europe that, whilst America was ready to assist a unified Europe, she would never help a divided one.”

Kalergi had previously visited New York in March 1943 for his Congress on PanEurope. Kalergi writes in his Ideas Conquer the World that he requested Churchill send his fifth Pan-European Congress a message of good-will in a coming broadcast. For the first time since he had taken over the leadership of His Majesty’s Government, Churchill appeals publicly for a United Europe as one of the principal aims of British post-war policy. In his speech he said:^{^[272]}

“…I hope we shall not cast aside all the immense work which was accomplished by the creation of the League of Nations. Certainly we must take as our foundation the lofty conception of freedom, law and morality which was the spirit of the League…we must try to make the Council of Europe…with all the strongest forces concerned woven into its texture; with a high court to adjust disputes and with forces, armed forces, national or international or both, held ready to enforce these decisions and prevent renewed aggression and the preparation of future wars.”

In other words, Churchill was calling for a global court, a global police and a global army so as to prevent future wars and secure world peace…Kalergi writes,

“Churchill’s words provided the statesmanlike setting in which our fifth PanEuropean Congress opened a few days later.”^{^[273]}

Interestingly, despite this historical pronouncement by Churchill, to which Kalergi describes as having successfully generated a great deal of talk and support for the Pan-Europe idea in the United States, Roosevelt refused to meet with Kalergi to discuss his Pan-Europe vision. Kalergi writes:³¹⁷

“When I first arrived in New York I fancied that it would be rather easy to gain support in the United States for the idea of a European Union. My plan was to have a talk with President Roosevelt at the earliest opportunity and to convince him of the soundness of my ideas…Almost immediately after our arrival, Nicholas Murray Butler wrote to the President introducing me in very cordial terms. Much to my disappointment, the President replied that heavy pressure of work prevented him from granting me an audience of the time being.

…A second attempt to bring me together with Roosevelt was made by my friend William Bullitt. Bullitt had had an interesting and colourful career. As a young man, his outstanding intelligence and strong personality had brought him to the notice of President Wilson. He drafter the famous Fourteen Points and took part in the Peace Conference in Paris…Unfortunately his approach to Roosevelt on my behalf also met with no success. Some months later Bullitt happened to hand Roosevelt a memorandum, some twenty pages longs, on Allied war aims. As far as Europe was concerned, Bullitt’s proposals tended in the direction of a federal system. When I saw him shortly after, Bullitt told me that Roosevelt had studied his memorandum carefully but had flatly turned down the proposals it contained. It appeared that the President was opposed to the idea of European Union, and that this was a fact which I would simply have to accept.

This intimation was the heaviest political blow which my ideas had received. All the plans and hopes I had based on Roosevelt collapsed abruptly. Luckily for us, few people were aware of the President’s attitude.”

Kalergi blamed Roosevelt as “the reason why Churchill’s ‘United Europe’ speech had such a bad reception in Washington official circles. One year later, in May 1944, when Churchill spoke again in Parliament about the necessity of creating a United Europe, the White House and the State Department once more remained silent.”^{^[274]}

***

The Atlantic Charter had originally been intended by FDR to be the death knell for colonial empires. Western Europe and America thought of it in terms of safety within borders, but the Third World heard the true spirit; national sovereignty. It would take years to make its way around the globe but the fiery spirit had been lit among colonial peoples. Churchill only went along with it because he had to. The continued existence of the British Empire was at stake and only America could save it.

As recounted in Elliot Roosevelt’s As He Saw It, FDR made his thoughts clear on the matter: “I think I speak as America’s president when I say that America won’t help England in the war simply so that she will be able to continue to ride roughshod over colonial peoples.”

Churchill never understood FDR’s idea that economic independence, not slavish dependence, was the best economic solution to the world’s problems, nor did he understand that FDR believed the pursuit and maintenance of colonial empires was a root cause of the Second World War (as did Stalin), and that before independence of these countries could be accomplished it would need in the meantime a strong and balanced leadership of the four powers; U.S., Russia, China and Great Britain to defend nations’ right to sovereignty.

On February 23^rd, 1944, FDR stated at a press conference his thoughts on the United Nations:

Q: Do you conscientiously believe that the Conference can be the foundation of world peace for more than the generation of the men who are building that peace?

FDR: I can answer that question if you can tell me who your descendants will be in the year 2057.

Q: Can we look forward?

FDR: We can look as far ahead as humanity believes in this sort of thing. The United Nations will evolve into the best method ever devised for stopping war, and it will also be the beginning of something else to go with it.

On March 1^st, 1944, FDR spoke to a packed joint session of Congress stating:

“The Crimea [Yalta] Conference was a successful effort by the three [U.S., USSR and Britain] leading Nations to find a common ground for peace. It ought to spell the end of the system of unilateral action, the exclusive alliances, the spheres of influence, the balance of power, and all the other expedients that have been tried for centuries – and have always failed. We propose to substitute for all these, a universal organization in which all peace-loving Nations will finally have a chance to join.”

Kalergi Gains American Support

Kalergi’s frustration over Roosevelt would be short-lasted. Kalergi writes in his chapter gleefully titled “I Gain American Support”:^{^[275]}

“On the 13^th April 1945 Roosevelt died and Truman became President. The change in the White House produced no change in the foreign policy of the United States. The whole of the American public opinion had been hypnotized into believing that out of the war there would emerge one single world – led by a consortium of the Big Four: America, Russia, Britain and China.

…Admittedly, the fact that a great deal of official publicity was then being given to the United Nations diverted attention to some extent form the idea of United Europe. But this publicity in no way militated against our idea. It was quite possible to find a place for Pan-Europe in the proposed world organization as one of several regional groups [now that Roosevelt was dead.]…If the Conference decided that the establishment of regional groups had to be subject to the greatpower veto, then all hope of Pan-Europe must be shelved for the time being…

This question was on the agenda of the San Francisco Conference [the first conference of the United Nations], which had been convened to decide on the organization of the United Nations…On our arrival there I established contact at once…The most interesting personality I met in San Francisco was the Prime Minister of the Union of South Africa, Field-Marshal Jan Christian Smuts^{^[276]} [who

was a close friend of Churchill]…We talked about the reconciliation between Boers and British after the South African War, which culminated in the establishment of the South African Union and in which Smuts himself had played a decisive role. We shared the hope that Europe would follow this example and work for unification after the present war. Smuts supported me unreservedly in my demand for a regional organization.

The San Francisco debates on regionalism gave rise to the now famous Article 52 of the United Nations Charter, which permitted the establishment of regional groups within the U.N.O. framework.”

Article 52 saved the vision for a Pan-Europe and effectively hijacked Roosevelt’s vision for a United Nations Big Four post-war strategy into a rebooted League of Nations. Of course, none of this would have been possible if President Roosevelt had still been alive to oversee the first conference of the United Nations which would determine which worldview would preside. With this advent, the flood gates were opened for a League of Nations orientation within the United States. Kalergi writes:^{^[277]}

“…at the beginning of December 1945, Collier’s, the much-read monthly magazine, published an article by George Creel…about President Truman and the United States of Europe…In the First World War Creel had been chief information officer on President Wilson’s staff. Since Truman’s arrival at the White House, Creel was a regular guest there. One day Creel asked Truman what he really thought about the United States of Europe. ‘It’s an excellent idea,’ was Truman’s spontaneous reply. Creel asked for permission to publish this opinion. Having obtained this in principle, he proceeded to write a comprehensive article about the Pan-European movement, its background and its aims. He added that [President] Truman shared the views of its sponsors and that a decisive initiative in this respect was to be expected from him. Truman read the manuscript and signified his approval. Truman thus became the first leading American statesmen to identify himself publicly with the project for a United States of Europe.

…By the middle of 1946 the United States – from the White House to the Sate Department, from Congress to public opinion – was ready to promote the United States of Europe…”

diary “Smuts is the only man who has any influence with the PM; indeed, he is the only ally I have in pressing counsels of common sense on the PM. Smuts sees so clearly that Winston is irreplaceable, that he may make an effort to persuade him to be sensible.” Source: Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Smuts.

With the announcement of the Iron Curtain by Churchill on March 5^th, 1946, dividing the East from the West and effectively launching the Cold War. Kalergi found even greater support for the idea of a United Europe against the Communist threat. Kalergi writes:^{^[278]}

“In New York we were struck by the tremendous growth of anti-Communist feeling which had taken place during the five months since we left. Those who sympathized fanatically with Soviet Russia only yesterday had now suddenly become equally fanatical opponents of the Soviet regime. There was much apprehension lest the European countries would be destroyed in turn by the Soviets within and without and that they would thus fall an easy prey to the antiAmerican camp. It was not difficult to convince Americans that only a European federation could prevent such a catastrophe. The bugbear of all American thinking was a Soviet Empire stretching from the Behring Straits to Lisbon and Dakar and threatening the United States from east and west. Given this frame of mind, it was easy to find strong support among Americans for the idea of a United Europe.

Of decisive importance in this development was a speech delivered by John Foster Dulles, on 19th January 1947, in the big ballroom of the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York, about America’s interest in the unification of Europe. The effect of this speech on American thinking was comparable to that which Churchill’s Zurich speech had within Europe. John Foster Dulles spoke with the voice of authority— not only for the Republican party, in which he had for some years been known as an expert on foreign policy, but also for the Administration itself and for Congress…Dulles thus became the spokesman for that bipartisan foreign policy which he had helped to initiate.”

In Churchill’s Zurich speech, delivered on September 19^th, 1946, he proclaimed:³²³

“I wish to speak to you today about the tragedy of Europe…If Europe were once united in the sharing of its common inheritance there would be no limit to the happiness, the prosperity and the glory which its three hundred million or four hundred million people would enjoy [author’s note: a curiously low estimate of Europe’s population at the time…]

There is a remedy which, if it were generally and spontaneously adopted by the great majority of people in the many lands, would, as by a miracle, transform the whole scene and would in a few years make all Europe, or the greater part of it, as free and as happy as Switzerland is today…What is this sovereign remedy? It

is to recreate the European family, or as much of it as we can, and to provide it with a structure under which it can dwell in peace, safety and freedom. We must build a kind of United States of Europe…

Much work has been done upon this task by the exertions of the Pan-European Union which owes so much to Count Coundenhove-Kalergi, and which demanded the services of the famous French patriot and statesman Aristide Briand…

Let Europe arise!”

Europe: Faith and Plan

In 1958, Mosley would publish Europe: Faith and Plan calling for the Union of Europe. Mosley writes:^{^[279]}

“The object of this book is to suggest that the complete Union of Europe with an European Government is now a necessity…the book does suggest a comprehensive policy for the new Europe…In particular, an economic method is proposed whereby an entirely free system, in a large and viable area such as Europe-Africa, could solve the recurrent crisis of the present European countries…

It is normal for great peoples to fear an immediate loss of national identity when they merge with other peoples in a greater nationhood and life. But in fact it does not occur…In our English case it is not so long ago in terms of history since village fought village until their struggle was merged into the conflict of the Saxon kingdoms, and finally was resolved in the greater wars between England and Wales, and England and Scotland, which preceded the union of Great Britain… We believe it is now necessary to make a European nation with a European Government, a complete merging of present national sovereignties in a unified European state…In fact the sentiment against a complete union is unlikely to be any stronger than the resistance which now retards a partial union, particularly when it can be clearly explained that popular and valuable institutions like the British Crown need be in no way affected… Communism can never come to Europe without the powerful assistance it derives from the natural conservatism of the European peoples.”^{^[280]}

Thus, Mosley claims that the need for a European Union is imperative, as a new economic order which will link Europe with Africa and in particular, be used as a

defense against communism. He goes on to complain that after the First World War, Europeans were quick to forget those dark days of war, but that after the Second World War Europeans have never stopped talking about the terrible acts that were committed. According to Mosely, this remembrance of these terrible acts is standing in the way of a united Europe. In other words, fascism was too hasty but should not be abandoned. Thus, the past should be forgotten so that we can begin anew, this time with fascism as an ally to unite the European people.

“Why then alone of all the tragic incidents of history are certain events in the dark privacy of German concentration camps during the final frenzy of an agonising defeat in a decisive war, used to foster hatred and artificially to maintain the divisions of peoples whom every natural instinct and mutual interest should unite? The answer is, surely, that communism and its conscious and unconscious allies—more sinister in many respects than communism itself, because they are well concealed—have a paramount interest in perpetuating the divisions of Europe, and these interests are at present for various obscure reasons being assiduously served by the incessant propaganda which the dominant money power of the West commands.”^{^[281]}

Thus, according to Mosley the still raw memory of these German concentration camps, rather than the forgetting of these dark days, is a form of “propaganda” by the “conscious and unconscious allies” of communism and the dominant money power in the West. When Mosley refers to the dominant money power, has he forgotten so soon the acts of the International Bank of Settlements, or the Bank of England, or the Dresdner Bank, Deutsche Bank, J.P. Morgan, J. Henry Schroder bank and many more, who helped fund the Nazi machine and Mussolini? For it seems the dominant money power was rather supportive to Mosley’s cause…

Mosley goes so far as to state the “unconscious allies” of communism. Thus, anyone who stands in the way of this Pan-Europe vision is viewed as an ally of communism.. As we will see in Chapter 6, this is what was used to justify the assassination of political leaders and terror acts on European citizens under the Gladio framework, in order to encourage and justify support for extreme-rightwing governments as a form of defense against the claimed threat of communism. Recall from the previous chapter that Mosley is directly linked to this Gladio framework.

Mosley concludes his eerie introduction to his book for a Pan-Europe writing:^{^[282]}

“In the light of all Europe's recent history it is disingenuous nonsense to pretend that Germany is the only guilty party. It is more, it is a deliberate lie circulated for the vile purpose of perpetuating the division of Europe and for promoting the ultimate victory of communism. In the meantime it serves also the squalid purpose of those who snatch financial gain from the decay and collapse of a dying system, rather than make the effort to benefit both themselves and all Europe by honestly carrying the far greater rewards of constructive tasks in building the new system.

… In all nature the pangs of birth are severe, particularly in political nature. No fully grown man should be blamed for the pain or even the blood that accompanied his birth. For the long memory to linger on these things is to create a complex which can be disastrous to the whole psyche of Europe. That is precisely why we are continually invited to think about them.

Things were done in haste and passion which should now be forgotten. All who were drawn to the new movement of European dynamism and renaissance were people in too much of a hurry. It was a fault on the right side, for the results of the succeeding inertia are now plain to see. We felt that something must be done, and done quickly, to release the new and beneficent forces of science and to wipe away unnecessary suffering from the face of humanity. We were impatient with the forces of inertia, reaction and anarchy which opposed the new European order of mind and will that we believed alone could do these things with the speed that was necessary.

…The catastrophe of this generation has destroyed the old landmarks of politics, and the modern mind should equally eliminate their memory. We have passed beyond Fascism and beyond many tenets of the old Democracy, because science has rendered them irrelevant in a world which confronts us with new facts. Not only are the facts of the post-war period new, but science is continually adding still newer facts.^{^[283]} Old policies have no relevance to the present, and old memories of bitterness should have no place in it either.

One great lesson alone we can all derive from the past. We owe to Europe selfrestraint in moments of passion, and kindness at all times to our kindred. These evil things which have occurred are not only wrong, they do not pay. In the end they destroy those who commit them. The time-honoured standards of the European alone can endure. In the events of a great age, honour, truth and manly

restraint are not only as necessary as in the past but more than ever essential. The great qualities in man should grow in proportion to the age, not diminish. Let us remember the past only long enough to learn this. Then let us forget [the past]. Europe needs a great act of oblivion, before a new birth.”

Chapter 3 pg. 123

‘The Special Relationship’: How the British
Reconquered the United States and Established an Anglo-American Empire

“Neither the sure prevention of war, nor the continuous rise of world organisation will be gained without … a special relationship between the British

Commonwealth and Empire and the United States…not only the growing friendship and mutual understanding between our two vast but kindred systems of society, but the continuance of the intimate relationship between our military advisers”.

– Winston Churchill, ‘Iron Curtain Speech’, 1946

Two Opposing Systems

During the American Civil War, British support for the Confederate army had reached a point where Britain would have certainly militarily intervened on their behalf if it had not been for Tsar Alexander II deploying the Russian navy^{^[284]} on both Eastern and Western coasts of America for seven months in support of Lincoln’s Union. Russia was prepared to go to war with Britain in order to keep the United States whole.

Tsar Alexander II explained in an interview with pro-industry American banker Wharton Barker on August 17^th, 1879 why he thought it important that Russia should take such a strong stance in America’s Civil War. The relevant excerpt from this interview, published in The Independent March 24^th, 1904, reads:

“In the Autumn of 1862, the governments of France and Great Britain proposed to Russia, in a formal but not in an official way, the joint recognition by European powers of the independence of the Confederate States of America. My immediate answer was: `I will not cooperate in such action; and I will not acquiesce. On the contrary, I shall accept the recognition of the independence of the Confederate States by France and Great Britain as a casus belli for Russia. And in order that the governments of France and Great Britain may understand that this is no idle

threat; I will send a Pacific fleet to San Francisco and an Atlantic fleet to New York.

…All this I did because of love for my own dear Russia, rather than for love of the American Republic. I acted thus because I understood that Russia would have a more serious task to perform if the American Republic, with advanced industrial development were broken up and Great Britain should be left in control of most branches of modern industrial development.”

In other words, Tsar Alexander II understood that the United States had created the only economic system (known as ‘The American System’) that was capable of competing and defeating Britain’s slave-based economic policy of free trade.^{^[285]} In stark contrast to this sentiment, Lord Salisbury (1830-1903) (also known as Lord Robert Cecil), who served three times as Prime Minister of Britain between 1885 and 1902, had this to say in the British Parliament during the American Civil War:

“The Northern States of America never can be sure friends because we are rivals, rivals politically, rivals commercially…With the Southern States, the case is entirely reversed. The population are an agricultural people. They furnish the raw material of our industry, and they consume the products which we manufacture from it. With them, every interest must lead us to cultivate friendly relations, and when the war began they at once recurred to England as their natural ally.”³³¹

In other words, the cotton plantations that ran on slave labour in the American South, were in service of the British Empire’s global cotton trade which also ran on slave labour from India and conducted terrible exploitation of its British cotton workers.

Lord Salisbury was the father of Lord Robert Cecil, the architect of the League of Nations.

The Cotton-Opium Trade of the British Empire

The American Civil War was about two different economic systems in opposition to each other, and it was the South that was the ‘natural ally’ to the British Empire. However, the Union won the Civil War and the United States managed to keep itself whole. The South had to end its slave labour and the United States managed to push back on Britain’s slave-based economic policy.^{^[286]} In fact, many leaders throughout the world, during this period were pushing back on Britain’s slave-based economic policy of free trade enforced by the British East-India Company^{^[287]}, with leading opposition coming out of Germany, Russia, Japan and China^{^[288]}, in addition to the United States.

In 1879, Otto von Bismarck broke Germany’s free trade system implementing an American style tariff policy for his nation. The kinship between Germany and the United States became so strong at this time that Otto von Bismarck’s speech in the parliament (1879) was quoted by the future U.S. President McKinley (18431901) on the floor in US Congress:

“A success of the United States in material development is the most illustrious of modern time. The American nation has not only successfully born and suppressed the most gigantic and expensive war of all history, but immediately afterward disbanded its army, found employment for all its soldiers and marines, paid off most of its debt, given labour and homes to all the unemployed in Europe as fast as they could arrive within its territory and still by a system of taxation so indirect as not to be perceived, much less felt… Because it is my deliberate judgement that the prosperity of America is mainly due to its protective laws, I urge that Germany

has now reached that point, where it is necessary to imitate the tariff system of the United States.”

Otto von Bismarck (1815-1898) was heavily organising for the building of the Berlin to Baghdad railway, which after much resistance and delay would only be completed in 1940. If this had been accomplished during Otto von Bismarck’s life, the Middle East could have avoided the Sykes Picot carving up that was to launch a century of chaos within the geographical pivot area of the world.^{^[289]}

Map of Berlin to Baghdad Rail, as proposed by the German Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck.

The reader should understand the difference between this initiative of sovereign nation states modelled off of the ‘American System’ vs. the League of Nations proposal of a ‘United States of Europe.’ In the American System economic model, it is a nation’s economic sovereignty which is at the core of its policy. This does not mean that it is at the cost of another country’s sovereignty, quite the contrary. Under a system of sovereign nation states, countries benefit most by participating and facilitating trade between each other, but as sovereigns they are not at the economic mercy of any country and have the economic freedom to determine their own future for the welfare of their citizenry. It also recognises that in order to have economic independence, a country needs to become industrialised through the development of a machine-tool industry. This was not

a system reliant on slave labour, which had been a British introduced corruption.^{^[290]} Thus, the American System was open for any country to adopt as its own sovereign policy. The system is simply named ‘American’ since it originated in the United States, however, it is a universal economic system that can be applied by any country.

Thus, the implementation of the Zollverein^{^[291]} in Germany, inspired by the American System, was to maximise free trade within Germany. This makes sense, since a sovereign nation would want a common currency, free-flowing trade and a banking system that could facilitate this trade from within. This is what the United States did to create an economic union between its thirteen colonies (recall they were originally ‘British colonies’). Thus, the American System is what allowed the United States to propel past the bankrupt British Empire as a superior economic force. Germany was also divided into regions (Germany had never really been a nation up until this point^{^[292]}) and the Zollverein allowed for Germany to begin establishing itself as a sovereign nation state.

However, the League of Nations’ proposition of a ‘United States of Europe’ was to effectively look at every nation in Europe as a colony within an empire. It was thus, the very reverse of sovereignty as an economic (and military) policy. The League of Nations, as already explained in Chapter 1, is for regionalisation of the world. Thus, countries within their designated regions are beholden to the economic policy and destiny that is chosen by the region. This is promoted as a way to protect smaller countries that are considered too weak to withstand economic or military aggression by larger, more powerful countries. This outlook is governed by the theory of zero-sum,^{^[293]} which presumes that in order for one to benefit the other must lose. This is an erroneous economic theory that is used to justify imperialistic policies.

These smaller countries are invited into these regionalisations and essentially lose all sovereignty. Their destinies are now dictated by whoever governs the regional policies, and thus a country is not free to act in its own welfare even if

the consequence is devastating for its citizenry. This is why we see those so clearly in support of empire, imperialism and segregation also for this idea of a League of Nations, a ‘United States of Europe.’ Under the League of Nations the world would be divided between a few empires, namely the British Empire, the American Empire, the renewed Hapsburg Empire and the Japanese Empire, with the British Empire as top dog. It is an agreement between a pack of vultures divvying up a world loot.

In 1869, Japanese modernizers worked directly with the Lincoln-Carey strategists for the Meiji Restoration which industrialized Japan. In the 1880s and 90s, Lincoln-Carey Philadelphia industrialists were contracted for huge infrastructure and nation-building projects in China. Hawaiian Christian missionary Frank Damon, having participated in the Henry C. Carey³⁴⁰ group’s strategies at a very high level, helped instigate, shape, and build the Sun Yat-sen organization that gave birth to modern China.³⁴¹

Sun Yat-sen was the first president of the Republic of China and is considered one of the founding fathers of the People’s Republic of China. Sun Yat-sen led China’s revolution to free itself from the corruption of the Qing Dynasty. He was a follower of Confucius but had also converted to Christianity after his stay in Hawaii where he organised with American patriots of the school of Abraham

³⁴⁰ Henry Charles Carey (December 15, 1793 – October 13, 1879) was the leading 19th-century economist of the American School, and chief economic adviser to U.S. President Abraham Lincoln. Carey is best known for the book The Harmony of Interests: Agricultural,

Manufacturing, and Commercial (1851), which denigrates the "British System" of laissez faire free trade capitalism in comparison to the American System of developmental capitalism, which uses tariff protection and government intervention to encourage production and national self-sufficiency. Carey bases his science of economics on the ‘Colbert system’. Carey rejected the Malthusian doctrine of population, maintaining that the only situation in which the means of subsistence will determine population growth is one in which a given society is not introducing new technologies or not adopting forward-thinking governmental policy. Population regulated itself in every well-governed society, but its pressure on subsistence characterized the lower stages of civilization. Carey denied as the universal truth, for all stages of cultivation, of the law of diminishing returns from land. Carey regarded the so-called Ricardian theory of rent as a speculative fancy, contradicted by all experience. He was instrumental in the formation of Lincoln’s Greenbacks, the building of the Trans-Continental Rail and organised the Centennial Exhibition. The importance of the Centennial Exhibition was an opportunity for the young country to display its very impressive inventions that had revolutionized its machine tool industry giving its economy a tremendous boost such that the 100-year-old country had now become a leader in the world for its production capabilities, industry and wealth. However, the goal was not simply to showcase these achievements but to share them with the world, as a means for those countries to do the same with their industry. Over 10 million people came to see this exhibit from 37 participating countries! ³⁴¹ Visit the Smithsonian National Postal Museum website “Sun Yat-sen on U.S. Postage Stamps” showcasing Sun Yat-sen’s admiration for President Lincoln and his economic achievements. https://postalmuseum.si.edu/sun -yat -sen -on -us -postage -stamps. Retrieved September 9, 2022.

Lincoln and Henry C. Carey. Sun Yat-sen is considered one of the greatest leaders in modern day Asia.^{^[294]}

Sun Yat-sen referred to his admiration of Lincoln’s United States as the basis for a new multipolar system in his 1919 treatise saying:

“The world has been greatly benefited by the development of America as an industrial and a commercial Nation. So a developed China with her four hundred millions of population, will be another New World in the economic sense. The nations which will take part in this development will reap immense advantages. Furthermore, international cooperation of this kind cannot but help to strengthen the Brotherhood of Man.”

The Three Principles of the People by Sun Yat-sen and The National System of Political Economy by Friedrich List (a leading economist of Germany) were both modelled off of American System economics.

With Germany, Japan and China on board with the ‘American System’ approach to economics, it was crystal clear that the leadership of the world had embarked upon a common path and was desirous to enter a new age where slavery might truly become a thing of the past. In this envisioned new age of cooperation, the individual would henceforth be seen as sacrosanct. It was hoped that after centuries of brutal war the world was finally ready for peace and was willing to uphold liberty and freedom for all.

Was it just a dream?

No, it was not just a dream, although it was just as fleeting. The reason for this is found in the list of names below.

It is also worthwhile to note that during this period of heavy assassinations of leading statesmen worldwide, Britain, would experience virtually zero assassinations of its leaders. Spencer Perceval (1762-1812) was the only British Prime Minister to have been assassinated in British history, while the United States would experience three presidential assassinations between the period of 1865 to 1901 alone (Lincoln, Garfield and McKinley), with an attempted assassination attempt in addition to an attempted military coup d’état on Roosevelt in 1933,^{^[295]} the year he was inaugurated president.

This list is by no means complete, there are many more names that were assassinated or ousted from their positions in this purge of ‘American System’ supporters. Yet, not even this ongoing purge was seen as enough to guarantee that nothing again would rise in opposition to the system of empire. It was for this reason that the world was dragged into two world wars…

Liberty for All?

“Two systems are before the world; the one looks to increasing the proportion of persons and of capital engaged in trade and transportation, and therefore to diminishing the proportion engaged in producing commodities with which to

trade, with necessarily diminished return to the labor of all; while the other

looks to increasing the proportion engaged in the work of production, and

diminishing that engaged in trade and transportation, with increased return to

all, giving to the laborer good wages, and to the owner of capital good profits…

One looks to pauperism, ignorance, depopulation, and barbarism; the other in increasing wealth, comfort, intelligence, combination of action, and civilization. One looks towards universal war; the other towards universal peace. One is the

English system; the other we may be proud to call the American system, for it is the only one ever devised the tendency of which was that of elevating while equalizing the condition of man throughout the world.”

– Henry C. Carey, Harmony of Interests, 1851

These words written by Henry C. Carey at one time were understood by many to express the inherent difference between the English^{^[296]} vs. American economic system. However, today, we have forgotten much about what constitutes the American system.

Romans too, were once faced with a similar existential circumstance. Junius Brutus, known as the man who saved Rome,^{^[297]} ended the tyranny of King Superbus’ rule during Rome’s Age of Kingdoms. It was Junius Brutus’ actions that brought about the formation of the Roman Republic, and it was he who had the Roman people vow that never again would they accept the arbitrary rule of a king.

However, over the course of nearly five hundred years, the Roman people increasingly forgot this important lesson and what it meant to be a Roman citizen. In 49 BCE, Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon leading to civil war and the Roman people offered him a crown for it. The Roman people had forgotten what it meant to be a Roman citizen. They had forgotten that a free people who upheld dignity and liberty above all else would never accept to serve under the arbitrary rule of a king, an emperor. And upon forgetting such a thing, they had stripped themselves of any valour they once held. They had become mere subjects, at the mercy of whoever found themselves for that brief moment sitting on the throne.^{^[298]}

If we are not careful, such a moment will also visit us…

***

The world wars were fought to divide the partnerships that were forming against the system of empire. Germany and the United States were to be pitted against one another in both world wars. Japan was also to be pitted against the United States in the Second World War. As a result, the economies of Germany and

Japan were greatly set back, and their sovereignty was null and void. From postWWII on, Germany and Japan had no choice but to enforce the will of the newly established Anglo-American Empire. Russia and China were all that was left. Hence, 76 years of Cold War going strong…

But how did the United States get drawn in by Britain as a consequence of the world wars?

Churchill had announced the Iron Curtain on March 5^th, 1946, declaring the Soviet Union and China as the new enemies of the ‘free world’. If the United States were to commit to this long-term Cold War stand-off, it was understood that it was only a matter of time before they increasingly saw the necessity of empire in the form of a global dictatorship and abandon their constitutional ideals.

In August 1946, after nuclear bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Bertrand Russell (member of the Fabian Society and British grand strategist^{^[299]}) wrote The Bomb and Civilization, calling for a one world government:

“Either war or civilization must end and if it is to be war that ends, there must be an international authority, with the sole power to make the new bombs…But I fear that all of this is utopian…If America were more imperialistic, there would be another possibility, less utopian and less desirable, but still preferable to obliteration of civilized life. It would be possible for Americans to use their position of superiority to insist upon disarmament not only in Germany and Japan, but everywhere except the United States, or at any rate, in every country not prepared to enter into a close military alliance with the United States…During the next few years, this policy should be enforced. If one or two wars were necessary, they would be brief and would soon end in decisive American victory. In this way, a new League of Nations could be formed under American leadership, and the peace of the world could be securely established. But I fear that respect for international justice would stop Washington from adopting this ‘policy’.”

Just a few months later, in October 1946, Russell writes On the End of NationStates published in The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists:

“There is only one way in which great wars can be permanently prevented, and that is the establishment of an international government…There is one other method by which in theory the peace of the world could be secured, and that is the supremacy of one nation or one closely allied group of nations. By this method, Rome secured the peace of the Mediterranean area for several centuries. America at this moment, if it were bellicose and imperialistic could compel the rest of the world to disarm, and establish a worldwide monopoly of American armed forces. But the country has no wish for such enterprises. And in a few years, the opportunity will be gone. In the near future a world war, however terrible, would probably end in American victory without the destruction of civilization in the Western Hemisphere. An American victory would no doubt lead to a world government under the hegemony of the United States, a result which for my part I should welcome with enthusiasm.”

Incredibly, in the year 1946, a little over a year after the end of WWII, Russell was calling for yet another world war, a war that would finish off the last two countries who threatened Anglo-American global hegemony, Russia and China. The reason why Russell stated that “in a few years the opportunity will be gone” was because he understood that the likelihood of the Soviet Union and China getting the bomb would wreck the great strategic advantage of the United States. Russell feared this window of “opportunity” for unilateral colossal destruction would be lost. It was for this reason that in November 1948, Russell while addressing a gathering at Westminster School, shocked his listeners when he advocated a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union. He argued that a war between the United States and the Soviet Union was inevitable, and that it would therefore be a humanitarian gesture to get a nuclear war over with quickly and unilaterally.

There is a great deal of effort nowadays to white-wash Bertrand Russell’s advocacy for unilateral warfare on other nations, not just Russia but any nation that disagreed with the agenda of Russell’s envisioned new world order. Such apologists of Russell attempt to downplay or deny that Russell ever promoted such a thing. This is not an honest account of what Russell was very openly and clearly advocating for during the period of 1945-1949 (until the Soviets acquired the bomb), to which there are many quotes of his proving otherwise, such as his essay The Atomic Bomb and the Prevention of War published in The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists on September 1^st, 1946, where he wrote:^{^[300]}

“It is entirely clear that there is only one way in which great wars can be permanently prevented, and that is the establishment of an international government with a monopoly of serious armed force…An international government, if it is to be able to preserve the peace, must have the only atomic bombs, the only plant for producing them, the only air force, the only battleships, and generally whatever is necessary to make it irresistible…The international authority must have a monopoly of uranium, and of whatever other raw material may hereafter be found suitable for the manufacture of atomic bombs. It must have a large army of inspectors who must have the right to enter any factory without notice; any attempt to interfere with them or to obstruct their work must be treated as a casus belli…[T]he international government…will have to decide all disputes between different nations, and will have to possess the right to revise treaties. It will have to be bound by its constitution to intervene by force of arms against any nation that refuses to submit to the arbitration.”

This willingness to use force against other countries who refuse to “submit to the arbitration” was sold to the Western people as a necessary defense against Soviet communism. However, what should be clear 76 years later, is that such a policy was the very enemy of democracy. What it meant was that no nation was considered sovereign, and thus no people of a nation had the right to decide the future course of their country. All would be decided by a super-state, the United States puppeteered by the British Empire, or a closely allied grouping of nations called “the international government”, aka the League of Nations. This ‘closely allied grouping’ would decide the fate of other countries, how they should govern themselves politically and economically, not for the benefit of their citizens, but for the benefit of their ‘elite’ governing class. Russell was calling for a totalitarian system, through the transformation of the United Nations Organization into the kind of one-world dictatorship for which his world federalist utopians have continued to work for throughout this century. It is in fact a continuation of the League of Nations - New World Order vision.

On the 29^th of August 1949, the Soviet Union conducted its first successful weapon test. The so-called window of ‘opportunity’ was lost for the formation of a quick American led global domination. The Soviets had discovered how to create an atomic bomb several years before the 1953 date forecast by the CIA. This advent was a discouraging one for those who had had similar hopes to that of Russell, however, they understood it not as all hope was lost, but that a much longer game would now have to be played.

The Soviets acquisition of the atomic bomb was used as a justification to form a military industrial complex within the United States. The Joint Intelligence Committee submitted an estimate of the nature of the nuclear threat from the

Soviets. JIC-502, titled Implications of Soviet Possession of Atomic Weapons and drafted January 20^th, 1950, claimed that once the Soviets had 200 atomic bombs, they could launch a surprise attack and defeat the United States. It was JIC-502 which would be the first to officially put forward, militarily, a justification for the preventive first strike concept, supported by a massive military buildup under the pretence of pre-emptive war.^{^[301]}

NSC-68^{^[302]} would be drafted the same year, declaring that the U.S. was in the moral equivalent of war with the Soviet Union and called for a massive military buildup to be completed by 1954 dubbed the ‘year of maximum danger’, the year JIC-502 claimed the Soviets would achieve military superiority and be able to launch war against the U.S. This proposed military buildup would increase the defense budget from $10 billion to $40 billion from 1950-53. (As we now know this decision was not based on any actual observations of Soviet capability or intention.^{^[303]})

During this same period another security doctrine was drafted, titled NSC-75: A Report to the NSC by the Executive Secretary on British Military Commitments. The report concluded that if the British Empire collapsed, and Britain could no longer carry out these deployments, in defending the ‘free world’ against the Soviets, the U.S. would not be able to carry out its current foreign policy, including NSC-68. It was thus concluded in the report that it would be more costeffective to aid Britain in saving its Empire!

If you were ever wondering why the CIA was constantly found paired with British Intelligence, starting from its very inception, in a series of coups in countries they had no reason to be in, now you know why. The U.S. had gone from an explicit mission to end imperialism worldwide under Roosevelt, to actively supporting and upholding British colonies and vassal states under Truman.

Caesar had been handed his crown and the American people had no idea.

A Century of War

As a consequence of this very foolish decision, the United States found itself doing the bidding of the British Empire, and there was a great deal to do after the Second World War in re-securing British interests. You see, much of the world had understood WWII to be about the sovereignty of nation-states against the tyranny of fascism and empire. After all, the imperialists and the fascists were often found linked hand in hand, as seen with Edward VIII (though he was not alone in the British Royal family in his views), the Vichy government in France, King of Italy Victor Emmanuel III who appointed Benito Mussolini as Prime Minister in 1922 and Imperial Japan under Emperor Hirohito.

It is for this reason that we saw, before the Second World War was even over, the imperialists and the fascists in discussion with each other as to what would form the post-war world. It is for this reason that the countries chosen to oversee this post-WWII Grand Strategy would be the U.S., Britain, France, Germany and Japan. However, abused countries from all throughout the world started to rise up against their colonial oppressors once WWII was ‘won.’ For they understood that if freedom and sovereignty for all had indeed been won, there was no further place for the brutal rule of colonialism. Finally, all countries would have the right for self-determination.

Ho Chi Minh, a Roosevelt ally who had fought against the Japanese fascist imperialists during the Second World War, signed the Proclamation of Independence of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam^{^[304]} on September 2^nd, 1945, which states:

“‘We hold truths that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.’

This immortal statement is extracted from the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America in 1776. Understood in the broader sense, this means: ‘All peoples on the earth are born equal; every person has the right to live to be happy and free.’

The Declaration of Human and Civic Rights proclaimed by the French Revolution in 1791 likewise propounds: ‘Every man is born equal and enjoys free and equal rights.’

These are undeniable truths.

Yet, during and throughout the last eighty years, the French imperialists, abusing the principles of ‘Freedom, equality and fraternity,’ have violated the integrity of our ancestral land and oppressed our countrymen. Their deeds run counter to the ideals of humanity and justice.

…A people who have courageously opposed French domination for more than eighty years, a people who have fought side by side with the Allies against the Fascists during these last years—such a people must be free and independent.”

After a long and horrific battle against the ruthless Japanese fascists, with support during the war from the United States and China, it was the hope of Ho Chi Minh that Vietnam could return to its former days of peace with its newfound independence from colonial rule. Instead, the French would re-enter into Vietnam to re-secure their colonial asset. When sparks of revolution also started to form in Algeria, the United States agreed to enter Vietnam in support of France’s colonial interests.^{^[305]}

There was also another reason. In the November 3^rd, 1965 Draft Memorandum from Secretary of Defense McNamara to President Johnson, it is written under “Courses of Action in Vietnam”:^{^[306]}

“The February decision to bomb North Vietnam and the July approval of Phase I deployments make sense only if they are in support of a long-run United States policy to contain Communist China. China – like Germany in 1917, like Germany in the West and Japan in the East in the late 30’s, and like the USSR in 1947 – looms as a major power threatening to undercut our importance and effectiveness in the world and, more remotely but more menacingly, to organize all of Asia against us…This understanding of a straightforward security threat is interwoven with another perception – namely, that we have our view of the way the US should be moving and of the need for the majority of the rest of the world to be moving in the same direction if we are to achieve our national objective…the role we have inherited and have chosen for ourselves for the future is to extend our influence and power to thwart ideologies that are hostile to these aims and to move the world, as best we can, in the direction we prefer. Our ends cannot be achieved and our leadership role cannot be played if some powerful and

virulent nation -whether Germany, Japan, Russia or China – is allowed to organize their part of the world according to a philosophy contrary to ours.”

That is, a philosophy that counters Anglo-American supremacy within a League of Nations framework. As should be rather evident, such a policy was adopted from the British Grand Strategy outlook, and that at the end of the day it had nothing to do with the so-called ‘fight against communism’ for any country that “is allowed to organize their part of the world according to a philosophy contrary to ours” is fair-game in this century of warfare. As Russell put it, “It [the United States/International government] will have to be bound by its constitution to intervene by force of arms against any nation that refuses to submit to the arbitration.” This is not a defense of democracy but rather the formation of an empire.

British Southeast Asia Command (SEAC) – aka Save England’s Asian Colonies!

Before WWII was even over, Churchill in 1943 at the Quebec conference established a British Southeast Asia Command (SEAC) headquartered in Kandy British Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) with Adm. Louis Mountbatten in command. Churchill’s policy divided Southeast Asia between General MacArthur’s Pacific Command and Mountbatten’s SEAC. The British got control of their previous colonies, Burma (now Myanmar) and Malaya (now Malaysia), as well as Thailand, Singapore and Sumatra. But they were not satisfied and continued to pressure the United States to allow British priority in ‘liberating’ the entire region. The U.S.’s logic in agreeing to the establishment of SEAC was that the British would take a larger role in defeating the Japanese fascists in Burma, thus opening up a southern route for the resupply to China to aid in their fight against the Japanese fascists.

By 1944, however, Mountbatten had successfully sabotaged this effort, such that General Stilwell, Commander of the US forces in China-Burma-India concluded:

“Limey” is an American derogatory nick name for a British person. Some of the American military personnel joked that SEAC in truth stood for Save England’s Asian Colonies.

This was not a far stretch of the imagination considering the head of British intelligence operations in China was John Keswick the chairman of Jardine

Matheson, a major player in the opium trade that was enforced on China against its will, culminating in China’s loss of the two Opium Wars against Britain.^{^[307]} Keswick and his special operations were ordered out of China in 1942.

General Wedemeyer, who was a United States Army commander who served in Asia during the Second World War, recognised that one of the major reasons why the Chinese communists and the Kuomintang were unable to form an alliance against the Japanese was due to British sabotage. The British were playing the same old imperial game of flaring up the bad blood that had already developed between the two groups through the age-old strategy of ‘divide and conquer’. The Chinese communists did recognise that this would ultimately lead to the balkanisation of China, if the union of China against the Japanese imperialists was not put forward as the number one priority before all else.

General Wedemeyer stated:

The actual target of this British policy was revealed in an article in the London Daily Mail, October 1945:

“anti-British psychology has not been discouraged by our American ally. U.S. propagandists have been working from Lanchow, gateway to Tibet, to the Gobi Desert of Mongolia…A Great plan to dam the Yangtze, known as the ‘Yangtze

Valley Authority’^{^[308]} will be one of the greatest engineering contracts of modern

times…Their geologists have plodded the old caravan trails to the fringes of Tibet and the wild western tribal countries.”

In other words, the British had already identified the ‘threat’ over seventy years ago of an independent China who had already had her sights on great industrial projects such as the Yangtze dam (now completed as the Three Gorges Dam) and the reconstruction of the old Silk Road (now the center of China’s development policy under the name the Belt and Road Initiative).

Today, Anglo-American foreign policy regards the Belt and Road Initiative as a threat to Western hegemony^{^[309]} ^{^[310]}and high-ranking individuals and institutions, like the Council on Foreign Relations, have even gone so far as to call the BRI a threat to American national security. Projects like the Mekong River Basin Survey modeled after the Tennessee Valley Authority were set back for decades or were never built to this day, such as the Kra Canal or Thai Canal, which would connect the Gulf of Thailand with the Andaman Sea across the Kra Isthmus in Southern Thailand. It is envisaged that such a canal would improve transportation in the region, similar to the Panama Canal and Suez Canal and thus greatly increase the standard of living and development in the surrounding areas.

This exposes the true intention of the Cold War doctrine which continues to this day, that the threat was never really considered communism, but rather the cause of nationalism (to which the communists more often than not supported), since under nationalism, industrialisation is considered fundamental to the liberation of the people. It is the liberation of a people and the creation of sovereign nation states which is considered the real enemy to a system of imperialism, which is the reality of the Western framework today.

The remarks by General Stilwell and General Wedemeyer cited above, further showcase how American foreign policy was hijacked by Britain’s foreign policy upon the death of President Roosevelt. Roosevelt died April 12^th, 1945. Two week later the first United Nations conference was held (April 25^th to June 26^th, 1945). At the first United Nations Conference, Lord Cranborne spoke:

With Roosevelt’s death the British were able to convince the rather naïve President Truman to transfer post-war responsibility for all of Southeast Asia to the British SEAC, under Mountbatten. The British (and to a lesser extent the French and the Dutch) at reconquest of their former colonies, made promises of good intentions to eventually decolonize, however, once they had established their power militarily, they reneged on their promises. The justification being that these colonies were too weak to defend themselves against the spread of Soviet dictated communism.

People such as Sukarno, then President of Indonesia, overnight went from being criticized as an abider to Japanese fascism to instead being a communist sympathiser. And thus, much of Asia and Africa found themselves in a similarly debased fashion, they were not allowed to be individuals, to be free to create their own fate from something new. They were not free to have their own ideas, their own schools of thought, instead they were treated as children, with no choice but to choose the ideology of one parent or the other. However, this was largely Western hypocrisy, as was so clearly seen by the very domineering presence of Western imperialism and increasingly clandestine warfare.

The reason why so many nationalist leaders were open to working with the communists was because the communists were also for nationalism and against imperialism. Nothing came remotely close to the level of destruction that was occurring on a military and economic level from Western imperialism, which curbed industrial progress in favour of backwardness. To side with Western imperialism was equivalent to agreeing to perpetual tyranny through poverty and enslavement. This is the only way to resolve the paradox that so many countries maintained a strong pro-American sentiment into the early years of the Cold War, despite the disaster of the Korean War. These nations recognized that a choice between Western imperialism and Soviet communism was an artificial construct, and that there existed a very clear third option. This third option was the authentic American System of economics which had been opposed to systems of imperialism. However, as we have seen, this proAmerican System sentiment that hoped for a restoration of Franklin Roosevelt’s vision was almost entirely ignored.

Are we committed in handing Caesar the crown? I am not so sure for there remains a great deal of love for liberty and the pursuit of happiness, however, we must remind ourselves that this was never in the cause of Liberty for a few but rather Liberty for all. If we delude ourselves into believing in such a thing as liberty for a few, and you may think you are included in such a privileged few, take heed, for tomorrow who is to say what your station shall be? Liberty for a few, is in reality, Liberty for none. It is the acceptance to be ruled by a Caesar and be satisfied with the crumbs of freedom. It is thus to have no freedom at all.

If we side with the world’s oppressor, we too will be consumed in the process.

Chapter 4
The Fascist Roots of the CIA and the True Origin of the Cold War pg. 144

In 1998, the Nazi War Crimes and Japanese Imperial Government Records Interagency Working Group (IWG), at the behest of Congress, launched what became the largest congressionally mandated, single-subject declassification effort in history. As a result, more than 8.5 million pages of records have been opened to the public under the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act (P.L. 105-246) and the Japanese Imperial Government Disclosure Act (P.L. 106-567).^{^[311]} These records include operational files of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the CIA, the FBI and Army intelligence. IWG issued three reports to Congress between 1999 and 2007. This information sheds important light and confirms one of the biggest-kept secrets of the Cold War – the CIA’s use of an extensive Nazi spy network to wage a secret campaign against the Soviet Union.

This campaign against the Soviet Union, which began while the Second World War was still raging, has been at the crux of Washington’s tolerance towards civil rights abuses and other criminal acts in the name of anti-communism, as seen with McCarthyism and COINTELPRO activities. With that fateful decision, the CIA was not only given free reign for the execution of anti-democratic interventions around the world, but anti-democratic interventions at home, which continues to this day. With the darker roots of the Cold War coming to the fore, it begs the questions; ‘Who is running Anglo-American foreign policy and intelligence today? Can the Cold War be justified? And in whose interest did the creation of the Cold War serve and continues to serve?’

Allen Dulles, the Double Agent who Created America’s Intelligence Empire

Allen Dulles was born on April 7^th, 1893 in Watertown, New York. He graduated from Princeton with a master’s degree in politics in 1916 and entered into diplomatic service the same year. Dulles was transferred to Bern, Switzerland along with the rest of the embassy personnel shortly before the U.S. entered the First World War. From 1922 to 1926, he served five years as chief of the Near East division of the State Department. In 1926, he earned a law degree from George Washington University Law School and took a job at Sullivan & Cromwell, the most powerful corporate law firm in the nation, where his older brother (five years his senior) John Foster Dulles was a partner.

In 1927 he became Director of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), whose membership of prominent businessmen and policy makers played a key role in shaping the emerging Cold War consensus. Allen Dulles was the first new director since the Council’s founding in 1921. He served as secretary of the CFR from 1933-1944, and as its president from 1946-1950. It should be noted that the Council on Foreign Relations is the American branch of the Royal Institute for International Affairs³⁶⁰ (aka Chatham House) based in London, England. It should also be noted that Chatham House itself was created by the Round Table Movement as part of the Treaty of Versailles program in 1919.³⁶¹

During the 1920s and 1930s both Dulles brothers acted as significant players in the ‘Rearming of Germany by Night,’³⁶² largely organised through their law firm

³⁶⁰For more on the Royal Institute of Affairs see Chapter 12 and Appendix I.

³⁶¹See Appendix I.

³⁶²German rearmament was a policy and practice carried out in Germany during the interwar period (1918–1939), in violation of the Treaty of Versailles which required German disarmament after WWI to prevent Germany from starting another war. It began on a small, secret, and informal basis shortly after the treaty was signed, but it was openly and massively expanded after the Nazi Party came to power in 1933. Some 150 American corporations took part in German rearmament, supplying German companies with everything from raw materials to technology and patent knowledge. This took place through a complex network of business interests, joint ventures, cooperation agreements, and cross-ownership between American and German corporations and their subsidiaries. Resources supplied to German companies (some of which were MEFO front companies established by the German state) by American corporations included: synthetic rubber production technology (DuPont and Standard Oil of New Jersey), communication equipment (ITT), computing and tabulation machines (IBM), aviation technology (which was used to develop the Junkers Ju 87 bomber), fuel (Standard Oil of New Jersey and Standard Oil of California), military vehicles (Ford and General Motors), funding (through investment, brokering services, and loans by banks like the Union Banking Corporation), collaboration agreements, production facilities and raw materials. DuPont owned stocks in IG Farben and Degussa AG, who controlled Degesch, the producer of Zyklon B. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_rearmament#American_corporate_involvement.

Sullivan & Cromwell, which operated as the center of an intricate international network of banks, investment firms, and industrial conglomerates to rearm Germany after WWI.

By 1935, Allen Dulles was made partner at Sullivan & Cromwell. After Hitler took control in the 1930s, John Foster Dulles, through Sullivan & Cromwell, continued to represent German cartels like IG Farben, despite their integration into the German Nazis’ growing war machine, and aided them in securing access to key war materials.^{^[312]} Although the Berlin office of Sullivan & Cromwell, whose attorneys were forced to sign their correspondence with “Heil Hitler” was shut down by 1935, the brothers continued to do business with the Nazi financial and industrial network. This was clearly seen with Allen Dulles joining the board of the J. Henry Schroder Bank,^{^[313]} the U.S. subsidiary of the London bank that Time magazine in 1939 would call “an economic booster of the Rome-Berlin Axis.”^{^[314]}

SS General Baron Kurt von Schroder, served as the German chairman of the J. Henry Schroder bank during this period and was a SS-Brigadeführer. Schroder, was one of the main assistants to Schacht in organizing the fund that financed Hitler’s 1933 rise to power, which earned him the moniker “the midwife of Nazism”^{^[315]}. Allen Dulles remained on the board of the Schroder Bank until 1944, well after he had taken his post as chief of the OSS in Switzerland.

The German representative of the Dulles brothers’ law firm Sullivan & Cromwell was Dr. Gerhardt Alois Westrick,^{^[316]} who acted simultaneously as a financial agent for Hitler and was an Abwehr spymaster in the United States. In January 1940 Westrick was given the title of Wehrwirtschaftsführer for his contributions to the war effort. He was then assigned by von Ribbentrop to undertake a mission to the United States to meet American business leaders and gain their support for Germany.^{^[317]}

The Dulles brothers worked very closely with Thomas McKittrick, an old Wall

Street friend who was president of the Bank for International Settlements

(BIS).^{^[318]} Five of its directors would later be charged with war crimes, including Hermann Schmitz, one of the many Dulles’ law clients involved with BIS. Schmitz was the CEO of IG Farben the chemical conglomerate that became notorious for its production of Zyklon B, the gas used in Hitler’s death camps, and for its extensive use of slave labour during the war.^{^[319]} The Bank for International Settlements is based in Switzerland, the very region that Allen Dulles would work throughout both First and Second World War.

David Talbot writes in his The Devil’s Chessboard:^{^[320]}

“The secretive BIS became a crucial financial partner for the Nazis. Emil Puhl – vice president of Hitler’s Reichsbank and a close associate of McKittrick – once called BIS the Reichsbank’s only ‘foreign branch.’ BIS laundered hundreds of millions of dollars in Nazi gold looted from the treasuries of occupied countries.”

The Office of Strategic Services (OSS) was formed on June 13^th, 1942 as a wartime intelligence agency during the Second World War. This was a decision made by President Franklin Roosevelt. William J. Donovan was chosen by Roosevelt to build the agency ground up and was created specifically for addressing the secret communication, decoding and espionage needs that were required for wartime strategy; to intercept enemy intelligence and identify those coordinating with Nazi Germany and Fascist Imperialist Japan.

Allen Dulles was among the first recruits into the OSS (Office of Strategic Services). During most of his work with the OSS he was stationed in Bern, Switzerland, where he was later found to be implicated in a number of incredibly suspect activities that would raise concern that his allegiance and loyalty were really with Nazi Germany. Such activities included sabotaging the success of operations by American intelligence and engaging in secret negotiations on behalf of individuals directly or indirectly affiliated with the Nazi Party.^{^[321]}

One of the most well-known incidents of this is Dulles’ curious conduct during Operation Sunrise, aka the ‘Bern incident’, in favour of SS General Kurt Wolff. Dulles had made secret negotiations to protect SS General Wolff from prosecution at the Nuremberg Trials as they worked out details of surrender.^{^[322]}

Dulles worked to ensure safe passage of SS General Wolff and his men before

the ‘communists’ reached Trieste.^{^[323]} This was in direct violation of the terms laid out in the Casablanca agreement,^{^[324]} that called for all dealings with Axis members to be on terms of unconditional surrender.

It is not clear if Roosevelt was indeed aware of Allen Dulles’ double role. According to John Loftus, a former Nazi war crimes investigator for the U.S. Justice Department, “He was a dangle…[they] wanted Dulles in clear contact with his Nazi clients so they could be easily identified.”³⁷⁶ Thus, according to Loftus, the true mission, unbeknownst to Dulles, was to gain intel on the American, British and French networks, among others, who were secretly colluding with the Nazi cause in Europe. Dulles would be handing over a good deal of this information to Roosevelt without ever realising it.

Elliott, Roosevelt’s son, wrote As He Saw It, demonstrating that Roosevelt was very aware that British foreign policy was not on the same page with his views on a post-war world, quoting FDR:^{^[325]}

“You know…any number of times the men in the State Department have tried to conceal messages to me, delay them, hold them up somehow, just because some of those career diplomats over there aren’t in accord with what they know I think. They should be working for Winston [Churchill]. As a matter of fact, a lot of the time, they are. Stop to think of ’em: any number of ’em are convinced that the way for America to conduct its foreign policy is to find out what the British are doing and then copy that!...I was told…six years ago, to clean out that State Department. It’s like the British Foreign Office.”

As the true allegiance of BIS and Wall Street finance became clear during the war, Roosevelt attempted to block the Nazi funding BIS funds in the United States. It was none other than John Foster Dulles who was hired as McKittrick’s legal counsel, and who successfully intervened on the bank’s behalf.^{^[326]} It should also be noted that Bank of England Governor Montague Norman allowed for the direct transfer of money to Hitler, however, not with England’s own money but

rather 5.6 million pounds worth of gold owned by the National Bank of Czechoslovakia.^{^[327]}

With the end of the war approaching, Project Safehaven, an American intelligence operation thought up by Roosevelt, was created to track down and confiscate Nazi assets that were stashed in neutral countries.^{^[328]} It was rightfully a concern that if members of the Nazi German elite were successful in hiding large troves of their wealth, they could bide their time and attempt to regain power in the not-so-distant future. It was Allen Dulles who successfully stalled and sabotaged the Roosevelt operation, explaining in a December 1944 memo to his OSS superiors that his Bern office lacked “adequate personnel to do [an] effective job in this field and meet other demands.”^{^[329]} And while John Foster worked hard to hide the U.S. assets of major German cartels like IG Farben and Merck KGaA and protect these subsidiaries from being confiscated by the federal government as alien property, Allen had his brother’s back and was well placed, in Bern Switzerland, to destroy incriminating evidence and to block any investigations that threatened them and their law firm.

“Shredding of captured Nazi records was the favourite tactic of Dulles and his [associates] who stayed behind to help run the occupation of postwar Germany,” stated John Loftus.³⁸² According to Loftus, it is without a doubt that Roosevelt was intending to prosecute the Dulles brothers along with many others who were complicit in supporting the Nazi cause after the war was won. Roosevelt was aware that the Dulles brothers and Wall Street had worked hard against his election, he was aware that much of Wall Street was supporting the Germans over the Russians in the war, he was aware that they were upset over his handling of the Great Depression by going after the big bankers, such as J.P. Morgan via the Pecora Commission,^{^[330]} and they hated him for it. J.P. Morgan would denounce Roosevelt as a “class traitor.”^{^[331]}

But most of all they disagreed with Roosevelt’s views of a post-war world.^{^[332]} In fact, they were violently opposed to it, as seen by his attempted assassination³⁸⁶ a few days after he won the election. Their opposition to FDR was also made evident with General Smedley Butler’s exposure of the attempted Wall Street coup plot, which the General broadcasted on television with the help of patriots then in positions of influence at Universal Studios in 1935.^{^[333]} In his recorded speech to the American people, General Butler described how a group of American Legion officials paid by J.P. Morgan’s men approached Butler the summer of 1933 to lead a coup d’état against President Roosevelt. An attempted fascist takeover of the United States government in broad daylight, bought and paid for by J.P. Morgan.^{^[334]}

Roosevelt had only been President for a few months, inaugurated on March 4^th, 1933. It was clear that Wall Street did not have to wait and see what the President was going to do, since they already had a pretty good idea that

Roosevelt intended to upset the balance of imperial control, against its Wall Street and City of London financial centers. It was evident that Wall Street’s days would be marked under Roosevelt. However, Roosevelt did not live past the war, and his death allowed for a soft coup, contained within the halls of government and its agencies. Anyone who had been closely associated with FDR’s vision was pushed to the sidelines.

David Talbot writes in his The Devil’s Chessboard:^{^[335]}

“Dulles was more instep with many Nazi leaders than he was with President Roosevelt. Dulles not only enjoyed a professional and social familiarity with many members of the Third Reich’s elite that predated the war; he shared many of these men’s postwar goals.”

The True Origin Story of the Cold War

In Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty’s book The CIA, Vietnam and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy, he describes how in September 1944, while serving as a captain in the United States Army Air Forces and stationed in Cairo, he was asked to fly what he was told to be 750 U.S. Air crewmen POWs who had been shot down in the Balkans during air raids on the Ploesti oil fields. This intel was based off of his meeting with British Intelligence officers who had been informed by their Secret Intelligence Service and by the OSS. Prouty had worked with Allen Dulles, serving as a liaison officer between the Pentagon and the CIA between 1955 and 1963. Prouty also served as Chief of Special Operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Kennedy.

Prouty writes:^{^[336]}

“We flew to Syria, met the freight train from Bucharest, loaded the POWs onto our aircraft, and began the flight back to Cairo. Among the 750 American POWs there were perhaps a hundred Nazi intelligence agents, along with scores of Nazi sympathetic Balkan agents. They had hidden in this shipment by the OSS to get them out of the way of the Soviet army that had marched into Romania on September 1.

This September 1944 operation was the first major pro-German, anti-Soviet activity of its kind of the Cold War. With OSS assistance, many followed in quick succession, including the escape and carefully planned flight of General Reinhard Gehlen, the German army’s chief intelligence officer, to Washington on September 20, 1945.”

In Prouty’s book, he discusses how even before the surrender of Germany and Japan, the first mumblings of the Cold War could be heard, and that these mumblings came particularly from Frank Wisner in Bucharest and Allen Dulles in Zurich, who were both strong proponents of the idea that the time had come to rejoin selected Nazi power centers in order to split the Western alliance from the Soviet Union.

Prouty writes:^{^[337]}

“It was this covert faction within the OSS, coordinated with a similar British intelligence faction, and its policies that encouraged chosen Nazis to conceive of the divisive ‘Iron Curtain’ concept to drive a wedge in the alliance with the Soviet

Union as early as 1944—to save their own necks, to salvage certain power centers and their wealth, and to stir up resentment against the Russians, even at the time of their greatest military triumph.”

The ‘official history’ version has marked down the British as having taken the lead to counter the ‘communist threat’ in Eastern Europe, and that it was Winston Churchill who coined the phrase ‘the Iron Curtain’ in referring to actions of the communist-bloc countries of Eastern Europe. However, Churchill was neither the originator of the phrase nor the idea of the Iron Curtain. Just before the close of the Second World War in Europe, the German Foreign Minister Count Lutz Schwerin von Krosigk made a speech in Berlin, reported in the London Times on May 3^rd, 1945,^{^[338]} in which he used the Nazi-coined propaganda phrase ‘Iron Curtain,’ which was to be used in precisely the same context by Churchill less than one year later.

Following this German speech, only three days after the German surrender, Churchill wrote a letter to Truman, to express his concern about the future of

Europe and to say that an ‘Iron Curtain’ had come down.³⁹³ On March 4^th and 5^th, 1946, Truman and Churchill traveled from Washington to Missouri, where, at Westminster College in Fulton, Churchill delivered those historic lines: “From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an Iron Curtain has descended across the continent.”

The implications of this are enormous.

It not only showcases the true source that trumpeted the supposed Soviet threat, the very Nazi enemy of the Allies while WWII was still being waged, but also brings light to the fact that not even one month after Roosevelt’s death, his Grand Strategy had been overturned. There would no longer be a balance of the four powers (U.S., Russia, Britain and China) planned in a post-war world of reconstruction and decolonistation, but rather there would be an Iron Curtain, with more than half of the world covered in its shadow. The partners in this new global power structure were to be the United States, Great Britain, France, Germany, and Japan, three of the WWII victors and two of the supposedly vanquished. It did not matter that Russia and China fought and died on the side of the Allies against fascism just moments prior.

With Ho Chi Minh’s Declaration of Independence on Sept. 2^nd, 1945, the French would enter Vietnam within weeks of the Second World War ending, with the United States joining them a few months after Churchill’s Iron Curtain speech.

And thus, in little over a year after one of the bloodiest wars in history, the

French and the Americans set off what would be a several decades long Indochinese war, all in the name of ‘freedom’ against a supposed communist threat.

Prouty writes:^{^[339]}

“As soon as the island of Okinawa became available as the launching site for [the planned American invasion of Japan], supplies and equipment for an invasion force of at least half a million men began to be stacked up, fifteen to twenty feet high, all over the island. Then, with the early surrender of Japan, this massive invasion did not occur, and the use of this enormous stockpile of military equipment was not necessary. Almost immediately, U.S. Navy transport vessels began to show up in Naha Harbor, Okinawa. This vast load of war materiel was reloaded onto those ships. I was in Okinawa at that time, and during some business in the harbor area I asked the harbormaster if all that new materiel was being returned to the States.

His response was direct and surprising: ‘Hell, no! They ain’t never goin’ to see it again. One-half of this stuff, enough to equip and support at least a hundred and fifty thousand men, is going to Korea, and the other half is going to Indochina. ‘ “

The Godfather of the CIA

“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free”.

– The inscription chosen by Allen Dulles for the Lobby of CIA Headquarters from John 8:31-32

On September 20^th, 1945, President Truman disbanded the OSS a few weeks after the official end of the Second World War. This was the right thing to do, considering the OSS was never intended to exist outside of a wartime context. However, Truman was highly naïve in thinking that a piece of paper was all that was required. Truman thought of the OSS as a homogenous blob. He had no comprehension of the intense in-fighting that was occurring within the United States government and intelligence community for the future of the country. He had no idea that there was the OSS of Roosevelt, and that there was the underground OSS of Allen Dulles.

Soon thereafter, on September 18^th, 1947, the CIA was founded, and was to be lamented by Truman as the biggest regret of his presidency. Truman had no idea of the type of back channels that were running behind the scenes. Little did he

know at the time but would come to partially discover, the disbanding of the OSS and the purge of FDR patriots within the intelligence community had allowed for the silent take-over of America’s intelligence agencies by a foreign entity.

In April 1947, Allen Dulles was asked by the Senate Armed Services Committee to present his ideas for a strong, centralized intelligence agency. His memo would help frame the legislation that gave birth to the CIA later that year. Dulles, unsatisfied with the ‘timidity’ of the new CIA, organised the Dulles-Jackson Correa Committee report,^{^[340]} over which Dulles of course quickly assumed control, which concluded its sharply critical assessment of the CIA by demanding that the agency be willing to essentially start a war with the Soviet Union. The CIA, it declared “has the duty to act.” The agency “has been given, by law, wide authority.” It was time to take full advantage of this generous power the committee insisted.

[Allen] Dulles, impatient with the slow pace of the CIA in unleashing chaos on the world, created a new intelligence outpost called the Office of Policy Coordination (OPC) in 1949. Frank Wisner (who had worked as a Wall Street lawyer for the law firm Carter, Ledyard & Milburn and was former OSS - from the Dulles branch) was brought in as OPC chief, and quickly brought the unit into the black arts of espionage, including sabotage, subversion, and assassination. By 1952, the OPC was running forty-seven overseas stations, and its staff had nearly three thousand employees, with another three thousand independent contractors in the field.^{^[341]} Dulles and Wisner were essentially operating their own private paramilitary agency.

The OPC was run with little government oversight and few moral restrictions. Many of the agency’s recruits were ‘former’ Nazis.³⁹⁷ Dulles and Wisner were engaged in a no-holds-barred war with the Soviet bloc with essentially no government supervision.

As Prouty mentioned, the evacuation of Nazis stashed amongst POWs included the notorious figure of General Reinhard Gehlen, the German army’s chief intelligence officer, who was brought to Washington on September 20^th, 1945. Gehlen understood that the U.S.-Soviet alliance would inevitably break apart (with sufficient sabotage), providing an opportunity for at least some elements of the Nazi hierarchy to survive by joining forces with the West against Moscow.

He managed to convince the Americans that his intelligence on the Soviet Union was indispensable and that if the Americans wanted to win a war against the Russians that they would need to work with him. Therefore, instead of being handed over to the Soviets as war criminals, as Moscow demanded, Gehlen and his top deputies were put on a troop ship back to Germany to oversee West German intelligence!^{^[342]}

Gehlen’ spy team was installed by U.S. military authorities in a compound in the village of Pullach, near Munich, with no supervision and where he was allowed to live out his dream of reconstituting Hitler’s military intelligence structure within the U.S. national security system in West Germany. With the generous support of the American government, the Gehlen Organization –as it came to be known – thrived in Pullach, becoming West Germany’s principal intelligence agency.³⁹⁹ And it should have been no surprise to anyone that ‘former’ SS and Gestapo officials were brought in, including the likes of Dr. Franz Six.^{^[343]} Later, Six would be arrested by the U.S. Army counterintelligence agents. Convicted of war crimes, Six served a mere four years in prison and within weeks of his release went back to work in Gehlen’s Pullach headquarters!^{^[344]}

David Talbot writes in his The Devil’s Chessboard⁴⁰²:

“[Allen] Dulles went to generous lengths to maintain a congenial relationship with Gehlen sending him gifts and warm greetings on Christmas and his birthday, and even on the anniversaries of their professional alliance. One of Gehlen’s favourite gifts from Dulles was a small wooden statuette of a cloak-and-dagger figure that the German spymaster described as ‘sinister’ looking, but nonetheless kept on his desk for the rest of his life. Gehlen in turn, cabled his own chummy messages to the U.S. intelligence chief, and once sent him a gold medallion of St. George slaying the dragon – the Gehlen Organization’s emblem – ‘as a symbol of our work against bolshevism.’

…In 1955, as the CIA prepared to transfer the Gehlen Organization to the West German government, the agency generously continued to back Gehlen giving him enough money to buy a lakeside estate near Pullach, where he enjoyed sailing his boat on the weekends.

…Gehlen was deeply grateful to Dulles, whom he code-named ‘The Gentleman,’ for his unflagging support. ‘In all the years of my collaboration with the CIA, I had no personal disputes with Dulles, ‘He pleased me by his air of wisdom, born of years of experience; he was both fatherly and boisterous, and he became a close friend of mine’.”

For those who were able to believe during the Second World War that the Russians were their true enemies (while they died for the same cause as the Americans by the millions in battle) this was not a hard pill to swallow, however, there was pushback. Many in the CIA vehemently opposed any association with ‘former’ Nazis, including Admiral Roscoe Hillenkoetter, the CIA’s first director, who in 1947 strongly urged President Truman to ‘liquidate’ Gehlen’s operation. It is not clear what stood in the way of this happening, but it is suffice to say that Gehlen had some very powerful support in Washington, including within the national security establishment with primary backing from the Dulles faction.^{^[345]}

Walter Bedell-Smith, who succeeded Hillenkoetter as CIA Director, despite bringing Allen Dulles in and making him deputy, had a strong dislike for the man. As Smith was getting ready to step down in 1953, he advised the incoming President Dwight Eisenhower that it would be unwise to give Allen the directorship of the agency.⁴⁰⁴ Eisenhower would come to deeply regret that he did not heed this sound advice. With the Eisenhower-Nixon victory, the culmination of years of political strategizing by Wall Street Republican power brokers, the new heads of the State Department and the CIA were selected as none other than John Foster and Allen Dulles respectively; and they would go on to direct the global operations of the most powerful nation in the world.

Chapter 5
How the Ukrainian Nationalist
Movement Post-WWII was Bought and Paid for by the CIA pg. 157

The birth of Ukrainian Nationalism as it is celebrated today has its origins in the 20^th century. This chapter will focus on the role the CIA played in shaping the cultural and political identity of the Ukrainian National movement post-WWII, however, before we embark on this important historical lesson it will be necessary to plunge back one thousand years earlier to understand the historical forces that are at play in this story.

Kievan Rus’ was a federation in Eastern-Northern Europe from the late 9^th to the mid-13^th century and was made up of a variety of peoples including East Slavic, Baltic and Finnic, and was ruled by the Rurik dynasty. Today’s Belarus, Russia and Ukraine all recognize the people of Kievan Rus’ as their cultural ancestors. Kievan Rus’ would fall during the Mongol invasion of the 1240s, however, different branches of the Rurik dynasty would continue to rule parts of Rus’ under the Kingdom of Galicia-Volhynia (modern-day Ukraine and Belarus), the Novgorod Republic (overlapping with modern-day Finland and Russia) and Vladimir-Suzdal (regarded as the cradle of the Great Russian language and nationality which evolved into the Grand Duchy of Moscow).

The Kingdom of Galicia-Volhynia was under the vassalage of the Golden Horde during the 14^th century, which was originally a Mongol and later Turkic khanate originating as the Northwestern section of the Mongol Empire. After the poisoning of Yuri II Boleslav, King of Galicia-Volhynia in 1340, civil war ensued along with a power struggle for control over the region between Lithuania, Poland and its ally Hungary. Several wars would be fought from 1340-1392 known as the Galicia-Volhynia wars. In 1349, the Kingdom of Galicia-Volhynia was conquered and incorporated into Poland. In 1569 the Union of Lublin took place, joining the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania forming the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth which ruled as a large and major power for over 200 years.

The principalities of the later Kievan Rus’ (after the death of Yaroslav I in 1054)

From 1648-1657 the Khmelnytsky Uprising, also known as the Cossack-Polish War, took place in the Eastern territories of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which led to the creation of a Cossack Hetmanate in Ukraine. Under the command of Khmelnytsky, the Zaporozhian Cossacks allied with the Crimean Tatars and local Ukrainian peasantry, fought against Polish domination and against the Commonwealth forces; which was followed by the massacre of Polish-Lithuanian townsfolk, the Roman Catholic clergy and the Jews. Khmelnytsky to this day is a major heroic figure in the Ukrainian nationalist history.

By 1772, the once powerful Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had too far declined to further govern itself and went through three partitions, conducted by the Habsburg Monarchy, the Kingdom of Prussia and the Russian Empire. From the first partition of Poland in 1772, the name Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria was granted to the Habsburg Monarchy (Austrian Empire, which later became the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1867). Most of Volhynia would go to the Russian Empire in 1795.

By 1914, Europe would be dragged into the First World War. In March 1918, after two months of negotiations with the Central Powers (the German, AustroHungary, Bulgarian, and Ottoman Empire), the new Bolshevik government of Russia signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk ceding claims on Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania as the condition for peace. WWI would officially end on November 11^th, 1918. [Note: the Bolshevik Revolution began in March 1917]. As a result of the treaty, eleven nations became ‘independent’ in Eastern Europe and Western Asia, Ukraine was among these nations. In reality, what this meant was that they were to become vassal states to Germany with political and economic dependencies. However, when Germany lost the war, the treaty was annulled. With Germany out of the picture and the dissolution of both the Austro-Hungary and Russian Empire; Poland and Ukraine found themselves in a position to establish their independence.

During the Habsburg’s rule, due to their leniency toward national minorities, both Polish and Ukrainian nationalist movements developed, and both were interested in claiming the territory of Galicia for their own. Western Galicia at that point, with the ancient capital of Kraków had a majority Polish population, whereas Eastern Galicia made up the heartland of the ancient Galicia-Volhynia and had a majority Ukrainian population. The Polish-Ukrainian war was fought from November 1918 to July 1919 between the Second Polish Republic and the Ukrainian forces (consisting of the West Ukrainian People’s Republic and

Ukrainian People’s Republic). Poland won and reoccupied Galicia. The PolishSoviet war would be fought between February 1919 and March 1921. This coincided with a series of conflicts known as the Ukrainian War of Independence (1917-1921) which fought to form a Ukrainian republic.

By 1922, Ukraine was divided between the Bolshevik Ukrainian SSR, Poland, Romania and Czechoslovakia. The Second Polish Republic reclaimed Lviv, along with Galicia and most of Volhynia, the rest of Volhynia became part of the Ukrainian SSR.

The Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) was founded in 1929 in East Galicia (located in Poland at the time) and called for an independent and ethnically homogenous Ukraine. From the beginning, the OUN had tensions between the young radical Galician students and the older military veteran leadership, who grew up in the more lenient Austro-Hungarian Empire. The younger generation had only known oppression under the new Polish rule and underground warfare. As a result, the younger faction tended to be more impulsive, violent and ruthless.

During this period, Polish persecution of Ukrainians increased and many Ukrainians, especially the youth who felt they had no future, lost faith in traditional legal approaches, in their elders and in Western democracies who were seen as turning their backs on Ukraine. The OUN assassinated Polish Interior Minister Bronislaw Pieracki in 1934. Among those tried and convicted in 1936 for Pieracki’s murder, were OUN’s Stepan Bandera and Mykola Lebed. Both escaped when the Germans invaded Poland in 1939.

Support for the OUN increased as Polish persecution of Ukrainians continued. By the beginning of the Second World War, the OUN was estimated to have 20,000 active members and many times that number in sympathizers in Galicia. In 1940 the OUN would split into the OUN-M led by Andriy Melnyk, and OUN-B headed by Stepan Bandera which made up most of the membership in Galicia and consisted mainly of youth.

In August 1939, the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany signed the non-aggression pact known as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, dividing Poland. Eastern Galicia and Volhynia were reunified with Ukraine, under the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. In June 1941, when Nazi Germany invaded Western Ukraine, there were many Western Ukrainians who welcomed the invading Nazis as their ‘liberators.’ It should be noted here that this was not a sentiment predominantly shared by the rest of Ukraine, who fought in or alongside the Russian Red Army against the invading Nazis. Both the OUN-M and OUN-B would spend much of the war collaborating closely with the Germans. They had no issues with the Nazi ideology for they too believed that a solution was found in returning to a ‘pure race.’

In the case of Ukraine, this pure race consisted of a somewhat romanticised concept of ‘ethnic Ukrainian,’ based on the golden age of Kievan Rus’. The OUN believed that the ‘pure ethnic Ukrainian race’ were the only true descendants of the royal bloodline of the Rurik dynasty that ruled Kievan Rus’. And rather than looking at Belarusians and the Russians as their brothers and sisters who shared the same ancestry, the OUN viewed them more so as ‘ethnic impostors’ so to speak of this pure bloodline. This can be seen today with Ukrainian neo-Nazi groups attacking Ukrainian ethnic Russians for the past eight years in Ukraine.^{^[346]} An issue that is almost entirely ignored in the West.

It was believed that if the purity of the bloodline were returned, greatness would once again be bestowed on Ukraine, which had never really existed as a fully independent region. It was for this reason that the OUN and the SS Galician division believed that exterminating tens of thousands of Poles, Jews and any other non-ethnic Ukrainian was justified. The SS Galician division, which had an overlapping membership with the OUN, were notorious for their extreme cruelty, including acts of torture and mutilation on par with Japan’s Unit 731.

To give an idea of the level of support in Western Ukraine at the time for a ‘pure Ukrainian race,’ the SS Galician division recruited 80,000 Galician volunteers in one and a half months. The trident symbol, known also as the tryzub, is an important symbol for Ukrainians, since it comes from the days of Kievan Rus’ and its earliest use was during the rule of Vladimir/Volodymyr the Great, about 1,000 years ago. However, it is also most unfortunately why the OUN chose the tryzub for both their emblems and flag, to signify their desire to return to those glory days, which was thought could only be achieved through ethnic cleansing.

The above OUN-B flag (also used by their paramilitary unit UPA: Ukrainian Insurgent Army) is known as the ‘Blood and Soil’ flag. The ‘Blood and Soil’ nationalist slogan originated in Nazi Germany to express its ideal of a racially defined national body (blood) united with a settlement area (soil). It is also why Ukrainian neo-Nazi groups that formed from 1991 onward (after Ukraine’s independence from the USSR), more often than not, also use the tryzub.

Above image shows flags of neo-Nazi groups in Ukraine today. The Azov flag shows a combination of the Wolfsangel and Black Sun, two symbols associated with the Wehrmacht and SS.

As already mentioned, in 1998, the Nazi War Crimes and Japanese Imperial Government Records Interagency Working Group (IWG), at the behest of Congress, launched what became the largest congressionally mandated, singlesubject declassification effort in history. As a result, more than 8.5 million pages of records have been opened to the public under the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act (P.L. 105-246) and the Japanese Imperial Government Disclosure Act (P.L. 106-567). These records include operational files of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the CIA, the FBI and Army intelligence. IWG issued three reports to Congress between 1999 and 2007.

A research group was put together to compile and organise key elements of this massive newly declassified database, the result was the publication of U.S. Intelligence and The Nazis in 2005, and Hitler’s Shadow Nazi War Criminals, U. S. Intelligence, and the Cold War in 2011, both published by the National Archives, and which will be used as key references for the rest of this chapter.

Richard Breitman writes in U.S. Intelligence and The Nazis^{^[347]}:

“What must be the earliest history (or mini-history) of the extermination of the Jews in Lvov [Lviv] was prepared on June 5, 1945. The ten-page document pointed out that, as soon as German troops took Lvov, Ukrainians in the city denounced Jews who had cooperated with Soviet authorities during the period of Soviet occupation, 1939-1941. Those Jews were arrested, gathered near the municipal building, and beaten by the Germans and local inhabitants. Later, local inhabitants, especially from the villages nearby, ravaged the Jewish quarter and beat Jews who stood in the way of their robbery. Starting on July 1, a pogrom was organized; German police, soldiers, and local Ukrainians all took part. Many of those arrested were tortured and killed… More than twelve thousand Jews were killed in the first weeks of the German occupation of Lvov.”^{^[348]}

Norman J.W. Goda writes in U.S. Intelligence and The Nazis^{^[349]}:

“In its work to destabilize the Polish state, the OUN’s ties with Germany extended back to 1921. These ties intensified under the Nazi regime as war with Poland drew near. Galicia was allotted to the Soviets under the August 1939 Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact, and the Germans welcomed anti-Polish Ukrainian activists

Ganser continues^{^[422]}:

“The secret war against the Communists did not end when Plan Bleu was exposed and closed down in 1947. Much to the contrary, French Socialist Prime Minister Paul Ramadier saw to it that his trusted chiefs within the military secret service were not removed by the scandal. When the storm had passed he ordered Henri Ribiere, Chief of SDECE, and Pierre Fourcand, deputy Director of the SDECE, in late 1947 to erect a new anti-Communist secret army under the code name ‘Rose des Vents’ (Rose of the Winds, i.e. Compass Rose), the star-shaped official symbol of the NATO. The code name was well chosen, for when NATO was created in 1949 with headquarters in Paris, the SDECE coordinated its anti-Communist secret war closely with the miliary alliance. The secret soldiers understood that within its maritime original context the compass rose is the card pattern below the compass needle according to which the course is set, and according to which corrections are undertaken if the ship is in danger of steering off course.”

(left) NATO’s symbol, (right) ‘Rose des Vents (Rose of the Winds i.e. Compass Rose) name of a French anti-communist secret army established in 1947. NATO’s first headquarters was established in France in 1949.

However, there was one very large mistake that was made in establishing NATO’s base in France. De Gaulle was not going to play ball after all…

After the Second World War there was increasing pressure for European nations to commit to the NATO diktat. President of France Charles de Gaulle (1959-1969) disagreed with this orientation. One of the major points of this disagreement was over the force de frappe (nuclear striking force), which de Gaulle believed should be kept firmly outside of NATO’s control. He refused the prospect of France getting automatically dragged into a shooting war between NATO and the

Warsaw Pact. De Gaulle’s relentless pursuit of French nationalism and

independence in foreign and military policies was clearly incompatible with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s charter. When de Gaulle began talk of delivering Algeria her independence, it was decided by former allies, and members of his own military and police that de Gaulle had to go.

On April 21^st, 1961, a plot to overthrow President de Gaulle, organised by the OAS (Organisation Armée Secrète, the French terrorist group run by Yves GuerinSerac) swung into action. On that day, four disaffected generals known as the ‘ultra group’ staged a coup in Algiers. The civil caucus in Washington, Pentagon and NATO headquarters in France were all implicated in the plot to eliminate the French president and secure Algeria for the West. The coup leader, air force general Maurice Challe, was formerly commander of NATO’s forces in Central Europe.

The first outlines of the coup were agreed in the summer of 1960, when the former governor of Algeria, Jacques Soustelle, had a secret tête-à-tête with Richard M. Bissell. Bissell, the CIA Deputy Director of Plans (formerly called the OPC), the covert operations wing of the CIA, and close associate of Allen Dulles and Frank Wisner. In the same year, Challe stage-managed his resignation from NATO. In January 1961 the main plotters assembled, the chief item on the agenda was to form the OAS as an alternative government that would replace de Gaulle’s government once he had been toppled. Key figures in Plan Bleu were all present.^{^[423]} Challe’s forces in Algeria were secretly funded using channels closely connected to the French Gladio.^{^[424]} On the eve of the coup, Bissell, had an undisclosed meeting with Challe in Algiers. Challe was told that if he could get the country under control inside 48 hours, then the U.S. government would formally recognise his regime.^{^[425]} The putsch ultimately failed.

Ganser writes:^{^[426]}

“When NATO was founded in 1949, its headquarters, including the SHAPE [Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe], were built in France. France was thereafter particularly vulnerable to NATO and CIA secret warfare as de Gaulle lamented – for together with NATO also the secret Gladio command centre CPC [Clandestine Planning Committee] was located in Paris as the Italian document ‘The special forces of SIFAR [Italian intelligence] and Operation Gladio’ of June

1959 revealed. ‘On the level of NATO the following activities must be mentioned: 1. The activity of the CPC of Paris…attached to SHAPE.’”

What this meant was that the Gladio command centre, the Clandestine Planning Committee (CPC) was located in Paris to directly coordinate with NATO’s headquarters. In other words, Gladio was working directly for the NATO command centre.

Ganser continues:

“Furthermore also the secret Gladio command centre ACC [ Allied Clandestine Committee] repeatedly met in Paris. It came as a massive shock to the White House in Washington when de Gaulle in February 1966 – due to a number of strategic and personnel motives that historians still struggle to explain – decided to challenge the United States head-on, and ordered NATO and the United States either to place their military bases in France under French control, or to dismantle them. The United States and NATO did not react to the ultimatum whereupon in a spectacular decision de Gaulle took France out of NATO’s military command on March 7, 1966 and expelled the entire NATO organisation together with its covert action agents from French territory. To the anger of Washington and the Pentagon the European headquarters of NATO had to move to Belgium. In Brussels, Mons and Casteau, new European NATO headquarters were being erected where they have remained until today. The Belgium parliamentary investigation into Gladio and secret warfare later confirmed that ‘in 1968 the Chair of CPC moved to Brussels.’ [in order to be with NATO] Research in Belgium furthermore revealed that the ACC secret warfare centre held a meeting with international participation in Brussels as late as October 23 and 24, 1990.

Belgium Gladio author Jan Willems drew attention to the sensitive fact that when de Gaulle withdrew the French army from the military-integrated command of NATO, some of the secret agreements between France and the United States were cancelled. ‘On this occasion it was revealed that secret protocols existed concerning the fight against Communist subversion, signed bilaterally by the United States and its NATO allies. De Gaulle denounced the protocols as an infringement of national sovereignty. Similar secret clauses were also revealed in other NATO states. In Italy Giuseppe de Lutiis revealed that when becoming a NATO member Italy in 1949 had signed not only the Atlantic Pact, but also secret protocols that provided for the creation of an unofficial organisation ‘charged with guaranteeing Italy’s internal alignment with the Western Block by any means, even if the electorate were to show a different inclination.’ And also in the initial NATO agreement in 1949 required that before a nation could join, it must have already established a national security authority to fight Communism through clandestine citizen cadres’.”

Not only was de Gaulle not going to go along with the secret armies of NATO, but he was going to actively intervene to ensure the sovereignty of Europe’s nations against the fascist imperialist end-goal of NATO and its secret Gladio arms. It was a full all-out-war in the underground world of intelligence and clandestine warfare, and de Gaulle was one of the very few that was fully equipped to play the game.

There would subsequently be over 30 assassination attempts on de Gaulle’s life during his presidency. After 43 years, in 2009, France would finally rejoin NATO, a decision made by President Nicolas Sarkozy, who has had “an interesting record of winning elections with dramatic perfectly timed post-terror interventions…”^{^[427]} It should be noted that there has been a great deal of effort to either flatly deny or downplay France’s role in Gladio, and the involvement of NATO, however, these are demonstrably false. When Italy’s Operation Gladio was finally revealed to the world in the early 1990s (more on this shortly), there was a media frenzy inquiring into whether other governments within Europe were also implicated.

The French along with the British denied that their governments had any involvement in the Gladio networks. Italian Prime Minister Andreotti, not wanting to be the only boat sunk, mercilessly shattered the French cover-up when on November 10^th, 1990 he declared that France also had taken part in the very recent meeting of the Gladio directing body ACC (Allied Clandestine Committee) in Belgium on October 23^rd, 1990. It was only with Andreotti’s accusation that France changed its tune and acknowledged its role in Gladio, with French Defence Minister Jean Pierre Chevènement claiming that the French secret army was “completely passive…”^{^[428]}

In the Quiet of a Small Town pg. 199

“Sex trafficking, industrial paedophilia, the reports of snuff movies made for political and financial blackmail, or just for profit, were all entangled in a black cobweb of spies, officially connived drug running, the secret paramilitary network, and the constant meddling of NATO’s high command in the internal affairs of the country.”

- Richard Cottrell, Gladio: NATO’s Dagger at the Heart of Europe

Belgium is made up of a Flemish and French ethnic population. During WWII, many Flemings either openly or symbolically sided with the Germans, in hopes of Flemish nationhood – even within a Nazi commonwealth – doing away with Belgium altogether.

Richard Cottrell writes in Gladio: NATO’s Dagger at the Heart of Europe:^{^[429]}

“A residue from wartime fraternisation with the Germans led to Nazi-style paganistic symbolism and mystical blood bonding ceremonies within the Belgian stay-behind network and elements of the national armed forces, which in any event inclined to the Right. This mystical streak was set for a chilling significance in shaping many of the perversion yet to be wrought on Belgium.”

Ganser writes in NATO’s Secret Armies:^{^[430]}

“According to Belgian Gladio author Jan Willems, the creation of WUCC [Western Union Clandestine Committee] in spring 1948 had been a direct consequence of a public speech by British Foreign Minister Ernest Bevin held in London on January 22, 1948. In front of the British parliament Bevin had elaborated on his plan for a ‘Union Occidental’, an international organisation designed to counter what he perceived to be the Soviet threat in Europe…”

Ernest Bevin (Britain’s Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs July 1945-March 1951) aided in the creation of NATO and was instrumental in the founding of the Information Research Department (IRD), a secret Cold War propaganda department of the British Foreign Office, specialised in pro-colonial, anticommunist, disinformation propaganda, including black propaganda.^{^[431]} His commitment to the West European security system, made him eager to sign the Treaty of Brussels in 1948. It drew Britain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg into an arrangement for collective security, opening the way for the formation of NATO in 1949.^{^[432]} Bevin also played a role in Parliament misinforming MPs and failing to extradite the Mufti of Jerusalem, while in French

custody, who had been installed and funded by the British government in Palestine and had worked closely with the Nazis during the Second World War.^{^[433]}

Little Belgium soon after NATO’s move to Brussels, had the second most powerful and intrusive crime cartels in Western Europe. In a very short time, Europe’s cockpit was also its chief narcotics and illegal arms hub, with a sideline of sex trafficking. According to investigative journalist Richard Cottrell,^{^[434]} the CIA had recruited Belgian Nazis – mostly, but not exclusively, Flemish – as soon as the war ended, and selected them for high offices at state and provincial levels. Such ‘former’ Belgian Nazi figures were protected from justice and released from prison under the protection of the CIA. NATO’s machinations along with General Lemnitzer’s imported experts in counterinsurgency^{^[435]} were responsible for the formation of the Belgian Gladio operations; divided into SDRA-8 (French) and STC/Mob (Flemish) divisions.^{^[436]}

Cottrell writes:⁵⁰⁵

“According to journalist Manuel Abramowitz – a leading investigator of the far Right in Belgium – neo-Nazis were egged on to infiltrate all the mechanisms of the state, with special attention reserved for the police and the army. By the 1980s, this level of penetration had become so deep – thanks to fascist fronts such as the neo-Nazi militia Westland New Post and its French speaking counterpart, Front de la Jeunesse – that Belgium’s military forces could be said to have fallen almost entirely under extremist control. Not once in the wake of the many false-flag operations over the coming decades, did convincing proof ever appear of a credible coordinated Left-wing subversive force operating on Belgian soil, while seditious organisations of the Far Right flourished openly.”

Senator Hugo Coveliers chairman of the special investigating committee probing gangsterism and terrorism in Belgium (1988-1990) tracked the presence of incriminating materials to a special unit called the ‘judicial police’. Here is what Coveliers said on what became known as the ‘scandal of the X-Dossiers’:

“Imagine, everywhere you hear that story about a blackmail dossier in which organisations of the extreme right are in the possession of pictures and videos on which a number of prominent people in and around Brussels have sex with young girls; minors it is said. The existence of this dossier has always been vehemently

denied. Until it was proven that testimonies and videos of this affair indeed were in the possession of the police services.

The at first non-existing dossier turns out to exist. The videos without substance then turn out to be interesting enough after all to be handed over to the examining magistrate tasked with the investigation into the Gang of Nivelles [held responsible for some of the shop massacres]. But this person is subsequently afraid to testify about that! What do you think is going on here!”^{^[437]}

Cottrell, who is a former European Parliament MP and has conducted formal investigations ordered by the European Parliament, explores these avenues in greater detail in his book. He concludes that these sex-trafficking rings within Belgium, involving the abuse and murder of children, are encouraged among public officials for two reasons. The first is to produce incriminating blackmail making political retreat impossible. The second reason is that some of these activities that were recorded and retained in top secret files, were part of cultist initiation ceremonies.

Cottrell writes:⁵⁰⁷

“It was alleged these involved paganistic neo-Nazi traits such as blood rituals, practised by elements within the state’s secret forces, as well as the orthodox military structure.”

In the context of this, NATO’s twitter scandal posting the Black Sun Nazi occult symbol^{^[438]} for international women’s day in 2022, might not have been a slip-up after all…

Italy’s Secret Parallel State pg. 204

In order to set up a bulwark against Communism in Italy, the United States founded the Christian Democratic Party (DCI) “riddled through with collaborators, monarchists and plain unreconstructed fascists.”⁵⁰⁹ Alice de Gasperi of the DCI was made Prime Minister and from 1945 to 1953 ruled in eight different cabinets. “A serious purge never occurred, thereby allowing much of the old Fascist bureaucracy to survive.”^{^[439]} Prime Minister De Gasperi together with Interior Minister Mario Scelba personally oversaw “the reinstatement of personnel seriously compromised with the fascist regime.”⁵¹¹ The CIA covert action branch OPC, which under Frank Wisner had set up and directed the secret Gladio armies in Western Europe, pumped ten million CIA dollars into the DCI.^{^[440]}

Ganser writes:^{^[441]}

“Prince Valerio Borghese, nicknamed ‘The Black Prince’, was among the most notorious fascists recruited by the United States. As the commander of a murderous anti-partisan campaign under Mussolini during the Salo Republic, Borghese with his Decima MAS (XMAS), a Special Forces corps of 4,000 men founded in 1941 and officially recognised by the Nazi High Command, had specialised in tracking down and killing hundreds of Italian Communists. At the end of the war the partisans captured Borghese and were about to hang him when on April 25, 1945 Admiral Ellery Stone, U.S. Proconsul in occupied Italy and close friend to the Borghese family, instructed OSS employee and later celebrated CIA agent James Angleton^{^[442]} to rescue Borghese. Angleton…escorted him to Rome where he had to stand trial for his war crimes. Due to protection of the United States, Borghese was declared ‘not guilty’ at last resort. CIA agent

⁵⁰⁹ Blum, William. (October 2008) Killing Hope: U.S. Military and C.I.A. Interventions Since World War II. Common Courage Press, Maine, pg. 28.

Angleton [close associate to Allen Dulles] received the Legion of Merit from the U.S. Army for his ‘exceptionally meritorious’ achievements and in subsequent years made a career as chief of CIA counter-intelligence, becoming ‘the key American figure controlling all right-wing and neo-fascist political and paramilitary groups in Italy in the post-war period’.”

Junio Valerio Borghese was an Italian Navy commander during the regime of Mussolini. Borghese would become a leading member of Italy’s Gladio secret stay-behind armies. Italy under the U.S.-supported DCI party was allowed to join the newly created NATO on April 4^th, 1949 as a founding member. Only a few days earlier, on March 30^th, 1949, the first post-war military secret service had been created in Italy in close collaboration with the CIA. Placed within the Defence Ministry, the clandestine Italian military intelligence unit was labelled SIFAR (Servizio di Informazioni delle Forze Armate).

Ganser writes:^{^[443]}

“The Secret Service SIFAR was from the very beginning ‘regulated by a top-secret protocol imposed by the United States which constitutes a real and complete renunciation of the Italian sovereignty’. According to this protocol, which was coordinated with NATO planning, the obligations of SIFAR towards the CIA headquarters in the United States allegedly included the making available of all intelligence collected and the granting of supervision rights to the United States, above all concerning the choice of the SIFAR personnel which at all times had to be CIA approved. SIFAR, in effect, was not a sovereign Italian service but was heavily influenced by the CIA.”

Ganser continues:⁵¹⁶

“Sharing in this assessment the Pentagon ordered in a top-secret directive that in ‘Operation Demagnetize’ the CIA together with the military secret services in Italy and in France start ‘political, paramilitary and psychological operations’ in order to weaken the Communists in the two countries. The directive of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff dated May 14, 1952 insisted sensitively enough that ‘The limitation of the strength of the Communists in Italy and France is a top priority objective. This objective has to be reached by the employment of all means’ including by implication a secret war and terrorist operations. ‘The Italian and French government may know nothing of the plan “Demagnetize”, for it is clear that the plan can interfere with their respective national sovereignty’.”

When John F. Kennedy became president in January 1961, the policy of the United States towards Italy changed because Kennedy, unlike his predecessors Truman and Eisenhower, sympathised with the PSI (the Socialist Party of Italy). Kennedy saw no problem allowing the PSI to win the elections and viewed such a development as a move towards “a more democratic form of socialism.”^{^[444]}

The absurd situation developed in which President Kennedy found himself up against the Secretary of State Dean Rusk and the Director of the CIA Allen Dulles. On election day in April 1963, the CIA nightmare materialised. The communists gained strength while all other parties lost seats. The supporters of the Italian left celebrated in the streets the novelty that the socialists were also given cabinet posts in the Italian government under Prime Minister Aldo Moro of the left-wing of the DCI. President Kennedy was immensely pleased and in July 1963 decided to visit Rome to the great delight of many Italians.

In November 1963, Kennedy was assassinated and “five months later the CIA with the SIFAR, the Gladio secret army and the paramilitary police carried out a right-wing coup d’état which forced the Italian Socialists to leave their cabinet posts they had held”^{^[445]} for only a few months. “The Gladiators equipped with proscription lists, naming several hundred persons had the explicit order to track down designated Socialists and Communists, arrest and deport them to the island of Sardinia where the secret Gladio centre was to serve as a prison.”^{^[446]}

On December 7^th, 1970, Junio Valerio Borghese, in close collaboration with the CIA in Rome, started a second right-wing Gladio coup d’état code named Operation Tora Tora. According to the plan, Italy and the world would have woken up on December 8^th, 1970 to find a new right-wing government installed. After that, Borghese and his conspirators had intended to implement their governmental program which envisaged

1. the “maintenance of the present military and financial commitment to NATO and the preparation of a plan to increase Italy’s contribution to the Atlantic Alliance,” as well as

2. appoint a special envoy to the United States to organise an Italian military contribution to the Vietnam War.^{^[447]}

The coup plot failed and Borghese was forced to cross the border to avoid arrest and interrogation. In 1984, ten years after Borghese’s death, the Supreme Court of Cassation ruled that no coup d’état attempt had ever happened. Nevertheless, the attempt is well known in Italy with even a

popular satiric movie Vogliamo i colonnelli filmed in 1972 by Mario Monicelli on the subject.

Italy still hoped for a new start and therefore acting Italian Foreign Minister Aldo Moro of the DCI together with Italian President Giovanni Leone in September 1974 flew to Washington to discuss the inclusion of the Italian left in the government. The United States flatly rejected this scenario for Italy. Upon his return to Italy, Moro was sick for days and contemplated his complete withdrawal from politics. After Moro’s assassination, Eleonora (his wife) later testified “It’s one of the few occasions when my husband told me exactly what had been said to him, without telling me the name of the person concerned…I will try to repeat it now: ‘You must abandon your policy of brining all the political forces in your country into direct collaboration. Either you give this up or you will pay dearly for it’.”^{^[448]}

In front of the Italian parliamentary investigation of Gladio, General De Lorenzo was forced to admit that the United States and NATO had ordered him to set up the files that were secretly monitoring the entire Italian elite. The parliamentary investigation reported, “The gravest aspect of this whole affair consists in the fact that a significant part of the secret service activity of SIFAR consisted of collecting information for the NATO countries and for the Vatican…This situation is incompatible with the constitution. It is an open violation of the national sovereignty, a violation of the principles of liberty and the equality of the citizens, and a constant menace for the democratic balance of our country.”^{^[449]}

In the national elections of June 1976, the PCI (Communist Party of Italy) secured its best ever result at the polls (34%), and clearly defeated the DCI. Consequently, acting Prime Minister of the DCI Aldo Moro (Dec. 1963-June 1968 & Nov. 1974July 1976) found the courage to defeat the USA’s veto. Aldo Moro wished to widen the democratic base of the government, including the PCI in the parliamentary majority. Between 1976 and 1977, Enrico Berlinguer, leader of the PCI, broke with the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, implementing along with Spanish and French communist parties, a new political ideology known as Eurocommunism. Such a move made eventual cooperation more acceptable for Christian democratic voters. The early 1978 proposal by Aldo Moro of starting a cabinet composed by Christian democrats and socialists, externally supported by the communists, was strongly opposed by the United States and NATO. Moro’s proposal became known as the ‘historical compromise.’

On March 16^th, 1978 Moro packed the documents of the ‘historical compromise’ (compromesso storico) into his suitcase and ordered his driver as well as his bodyguards to bring him to the palace of the Italian parliament in Rome where he was determined to present the plan to include the Italian communists in the executive. On his way to the parliament, two men opened fire on Moro’s five bodyguards. After his return from Washington, Moro had become uneasy and had asked for a bulletproof car, yet the request had been turned down.^{^[450]} Thus, the shots went through the car and his bodyguards were killed instantly. Moro was captured and held hostage in central Rome for fifty-five days. Thereafter, Moro’s bullet ridden body was found in the boot of an abandoned car in central Rome symbolically parked halfway between the headquarters of the DCI and the headquarters of the PCI.

The military secret service and acting Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti immediately blamed the left-wing terrorist organisation Red Brigades for the crime and cracked down on the left. While held in captivity, it is certain that Moro himself understood that he was the victim of a political crime in which the political right and the United States were instrumentalizing the Red Brigades. In his last letter, he requested that no member of the corrupt DCI was to be present at his funeral.^{^[451]} “Kiss and caress everyone for me, face by face, eye by eye, hair by hair” he wrote to his wife and his children. “To each I send an immense tenderness through your hands. Be strong, my sweet, in this absurd and incomprehensible trial. These are the ways of the Lord. Remember me to all our relatives and friends with immense affection, and to you and all of them I send the warmest embrace as the pledge of my eternal love. I would like to know, with my small, mortal eyes, how we will appear to one another afterwards”.^{^[452]}

The Senate Commission investigating Gladio in the early 1990s suspected the CIA and the Italian military secret service including its Gladio hit squads to have organised the Moro crime. It therefore reopened the case but found with much surprise that almost all files on the Moro kidnapping and murder had mysteriously disappeared from the archives of the Ministry of the Interior. The Senate also observed with criticism that in 1978 “the administration of the United States refused to help at all in the investigations on the hostage taking.”^{^[453]}

Ganser writes:^{^[454]}

“As the name of the discredited military secret service after the scandal was changed from SIFAR to SID and General Giovanni Allavena was appointed its new Director the parliamentarians ordered De Lorenzo to destroy all secret files [containing information on the Italian elite from years of secret surveillance]. This he did, after he had given a copy…to SID Director General Giovanni Allavena. It was a remarkable gift, which allowed its possessor to clandestinely control Italy from within. In 1966, General Allavena was replaced as Director of SID by General Eugenio Henke but remained active in the clandestine battle against the Italian left. In 1967, Allavena joined the secret anti-Communist Masonic Lodge organisation of the Freemasons in Italy called ‘Propaganda Due’, or in short P2, and to its Director Licio Gelli as a very special gift gave a copy of the 157,000 files.

Years later it was revealed how much P2 Director Licio Gelli and the CIA had manipulated Italian politics in order to keep the Communists out of power…Frank Gigliotti of the U.S. Masonic Lodge personally recruited Gelli and instructed him to set up an anti-Communist parallel government in Italy in close cooperation with the CIA station in Rome.

‘It was Ted Schackley, director of all covert actions of the CIA in Italy in the 1970s’ an internal report of the Italian anti-terrorism unit confirmed ‘who presented the chief of the Masonic Lodge to Alexander Haig.’ According to the document Nixon’s Military Adviser General Haig, who had commanded U.S. troops in Vietnam and thereafter from 1974 to 1979 served as NATO’s SACEUR, and Nixon’s National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger ‘authorized Gelli in the fall of 1969 to recruit 400 high ranking Italian and NATO officers into this Lodge’.”^{^[455]}

In June 1981, an astonishing discovery was made that made the headlines worldwide, including with TIME magazine.^{^[456]} A list had been found naming nearly 1,000 individuals from the respected Italian Establishment as part of the Propaganda Due (P2) Lodge. The list was found on the premises of prominent Italian financier Licio Gelli during a police raid. Gelli being the grandmaster of the P2 lodge and prominent acolyte of Benito Mussolini. His sole aim was the restoration of Italian fascism. Among the list of nearly 1000, were members who were planning to seize power and install a fascist state. Descriptions of the

Propaganda Due lodge in Italy were heavily overlaid with reports of mystical ceremonies, and the swearing of oaths of fealty and bonding vows.

Another item Gelli left at his mansion when he fled was il piano di rinascita democratica (the Democratic Revival Plan),^{^[457]} describing in detail every step of the intended NATO-backed Gladio putsch and the rise of the Italian deep state as an American and subsequently NATO protectorate.^{^[458]}

Federico D’Amato was an Italian secret agent, who led the Office for Reserved Affairs of the Ministry of Interior from the 1950s till the 1970s, when the activity of the intelligence service was undercover and not publicly known. D’Amato became the head of the North Atlantic Treaty Special Office, a link between NATO and the United States.^{^[459]} D’Amato’s chief responsibility was a secret Carabinieri (the national gendarmerie of Italy who primarily carried out domestic policing duties) nucleus located inside the Interior Ministry under his personal control. This was under the Office of Reserved Affairs, also known as the Protective Service.^{^[460]} D’Amato was the handpicked delegate who negotiated the Atlantic Pact, a forerunner of NATO, on behalf of Italy. The Protective Service, under the control of D’Amato, was the early genesis of Gladio.^{^[461]}

In 1969, Italy was soon gripped in a full-blown political crisis that was at its roots largely fabricated. The huge blast in the Banca Nazionale dell’Agricoltura at Milan’s Piazza Fontana on Dec. 12^th, 1969 marked the commencement of hostilities that came to be known as ‘the years of lead’. The blame was instantly pinned on the same leftist radicals accused of provoking unrest in the Italian industrial heartlands.

Investigating magistrate Guido Salvina, began looking into the affair in 1988, and concluded that the bombing of the agricultural bank was an operation planned between Yves Guerin-Serac’s Aginter Press and two prominent Italian neo-fascist outfits Ordine Nuova (New Order) and Avanguardia Nazionale (Advance National Guard). August 1990, Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti (leader of the Christian Democratic Party, six times prime minister, a seventh would follow) found himself summoned to a special commission of inquiry hurriedly convened by the Senate to investigate the reports that a secret parallel state existed on

Official transcript of the P2 lodge's "Democratic Revival Plan", published by the relevant parliamentary commission of inquiry.

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piano_di_rinascita_democratica.

Italian soil. It was additionally claimed that this secret parallel state was equipped with its own clandestine commando army operating outside established military structures.

Andreotti conceded that for many years Italy indeed hosted a clandestine army. It was however formally an element of the standing NATO structure. He calmy [calmly] assured his listeners it was nothing more threatening than a prudent precaution to defend Italy in the event of invasion by the Soviets. When the threat appeared to abate, Andreotti claimed that the secret soldiers were disbanded in 1972. Andreotti insisted, it was only a secret because the Russians were not supposed to know about the so-called ‘stay behind’ army. He added, in any case Italy was not alone since all NATO countries had such forces. During his testimony, Andreotti admitted that this secret army was known as Gladio. However, what Andreotti did not disclose during his testimony was that he was part of Gladio himself, a powerful shareholder in subterranean Italy for many years.

As a consequence of his testimonial, Andreotti was originally sentenced to 24 years in prison, which caused an uproar in Italy. Ganser writes in NATO’s Secret Armies:^{^[462]}

“Yet despite all the alarm Andreotti did not end up behind prison bars as the verdicts were overruled in October 2003 and ‘the uncle’ [Andreotti] walked free.

During the first Gladio revelations in front of the Italian Senators on August 3, 1990 ‘the uncle’ had with reference to the secret stay-behind army cunningly claimed that ‘such activities have continued until 1972’ in order to limit personal damage of which loomed. For in 1974 as acting Defence Minister Andreotti had gone on the record stating to a judicial inquiry investigating right-wing massacres: ‘I can say that the head of the secret services has repeatedly and unequivocally excluded the existence of a hidden organisation of any type or size.’ In 1978 he made a similar testimony in front of judges investigating a right-wing bombing in Milan.

When the Italian press revealed that the secret Gladio army, far from having been closed down in 1972 was still active Andreotti’s lie collapsed…As international support was not forthcoming, the Prime Minister, fearing for his power…employed an effective but somewhat awkward strategy. On October 18, 1990…his messenger delivered Andreotti’s report entitled ‘The so called “Parallel SID”-The Gladio Case’ to the…Palazzo Chigi [SID is the intelligence agency of Italy]. A member of parliamentary commission, Senator Roberto Ciciomessere…upon looking through the text…was mightily surprised, for in it Andreotti provided not only a brief description of Operation

Gladio, but contrary to his August 3 [1990] statement admitted also that the occult Gladio organisation was still active.

Senator Ciciomessere asked for a photocopy, yet this was denied, as according to standing procedures, first the President of the commission, Senator Gualtieri, was to read the report. Yet Gualtieri never got to read this first version of Andreotti’s report on operation Gladio. For… [he had received a phone call] from the Prime Minister [Andreotti] himself who told the Senator that he immediately needed his report back ‘because a few passages need reworking.’ Gualtieri was annoyed but assented reluctantly and sent the document back to Andreotti’s Palazzo Chigi after photocopies had been made. The unusual manoeuvres of Giulio Andreotti sent a roar through Italy and heightened attention. The newspapers headlined ‘Operation Giulio’ in a word play on ‘Operation Gladio’ and between 50,000 and 400,000 annoyed, scared and angry people organised by the PCI (Communist Party of Italy) marched through central Rome in one of the biggest demonstrations in the capital for years chanting and carrying banners: ‘We want truth.’…

On October 24 Senator Gualtieri had Andreotti’s report on the ‘Parallel SID’ back in his hands. Shortened by two pages this final version was now only ten pages long. Senator Gualtieri compared it with the photocopies made of the first version and immediately noted that sensitive parts especially on the international connection and similar secret organisations in other countries had been cut out. Furthermore the secret parallel organisation, which before had been spoken of in the present tense implying continuous existence, was now spoken of in the past tense. The awkward strategy of Andreotti to send in a document, withdraw and amend it, only to provide it anew, could thus hide nothing. Observers agreed that the manoeuvre necessarily drew attention exactly to the amended parts, hence the international dimension of the affair, in order to take away some weight from Andreotti’s shoulders…”

In his final report, Andreotti explained that after the war the Italian military secret service SIFAR predecessor of the SID (Servizio Informazioni Difesa), and the CIA had signed “an accord relative to the ‘organisation and activity of the post-occupation clandestine network.’ An accord commonly referred to as ‘staybehind,’ in which all preceding commitments relevant to matters concerning Italy and the United States were reconfirmed.”^{^[463]} The cooperation between the CIA and the Italian military secret service, as Andreotti explained in the document, was supervised and coordinated by secret non-orthodox warfare centres of NATO: “Once the clandestine resistance organisation was constituted,

Italy was called upon to participate…in the works of the CCP (Clandestine Planning Committee) of 1959, operating within the ambit of SHAPE [NATO’s Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe]…; in 1964 the Italian secret service also entered the ACC (Allied Clandestine Committee).”^{^[464]}

Vinciguerra, who was a member of the neo-fascist organizations Ordine Nuovo and Avanguardia Nazionale which carried out terrorist acts and assassinations, is currently serving a life-sentence for the murder of three Carabinieri by a car bomb in Peteano in 1972. His testimonials aided in piecing together the Gladio networks around Western Europe, that were being investigated by prosecutor Felice Casson.

In 1984, questioned by Judges examining the 1980 Bologna station bomb in which 82 people were killed and for which two secret service agents were convicted, Vincenzo Vinciguerra stated^{^[465]}:

“With the massacre of Peteano, and with all those that have followed the knowledge should by now be clear that there existed a real live structure, occult and hidden, with the capacity of giving a strategic direction to the outrages…[This structure] lies within the state itself. There exists in Italy a secret force parallel to the armed forces, composed of civilians and military men, in an anti-Soviet capacity that is, to organise a resistance on Italian soil against a Russian Army…[It is] a secret organization, a super organization with a network of communications, arms and explosives, and men trained to use them…[This] super organisation which, lacking a Soviet military invasion…took up the task, on NATO’s behalf, of preventing a slip to the left in the political balance of the country [Italy]. This they did, with the assistance of the official secret services and the political and military forces.”

In an interview with The Guardian published December 5^th, 1990,^{^[466]} Vinciguerra made the following statement:

“The terrorist line was followed by camouflaged people, people belonging to the security apparatus, or those linked to the state apparatus through rapport or collaboration. I say that every single outrage that followed from 1969 fitted into a single, organised matrix... Avanguardia Nazionale, like Ordine Nuovo (the main right-wing terrorist group active during the 1970s), were being mobilised into the

battle as part of an anti-communist strategy originating not with organisations deviant from the institutions of power, but from within the state itself, and specifically from within the ambit of the state's relations within the Atlantic Alliance.”

Over three decades have passed since right-wing terrorist Vinciguerra had offered this testimony, which for the first time in Italy’s history linked both the Gladio stay-behind and NATO directly to the terrorist massacres that the country had suffered from for decades. Upon Vinciguerra’s testimony he immediately lost all higher protection he had enjoyed during the previous years. In marked contrast to other right-wing terrorists that had collaborated with the Italian military secret service and walked free, Vinciguerra after his revelations was sentenced to life imprisonment.^{^[467]}

NATO Pleads the Fifth on Operation Gladio pg. 215

After almost a month of silence on Monday, November 5^th, 1990, NATO categorically denied Andreotti’s allegation concerning NATO’s involvement in Operation Gladio and the secret armies. Senior NATO spokesman Jean Marcotta said at SHAPE headquarters in Mons, Belgium that “NATO has never contemplated guerilla war or clandestine operations; it had always concerned itself with military affairs and the defence of Allied frontiers.”^{^[468]} Then, on Tuesday November 6^th, 1990, a NATO spokesman explained that NATO’s denial from the pervious day had been false. The spokesman did not offer much further, but that NATO’s policy was to never comment on matters of military secrecy and that Marcotta should not have said anything at all.^{^[469]} A NATO diplomat who insisted on remaining anonymous said to the press, “Since this is a secret organisation, I wouldn’t expect too many questions answered, even though the Cold War is over. If there were any links to terrorist organizations, that sort of information would be buried very deep indeed. If not, then what is wrong with taking precautions to organise resistance if you think the Soviets might attack?”^{^[470]}

According to Spanish daily El Pais,^{^[471]} NATO Secretary-General Manfred Wörner immediately after the public relations debacle of November 5^th and 6^th held a Gladio information meeting behind closed doors on the level of NATO ambassadors on November 7^th, 1990. The highest-ranking military officer of NATO in Europe, U.S. General John Galvin, had confirmed that what the press was reporting was to a large degree correct but had to remain secret. El Pais writes: “During this meeting behind closed doors, the NATO Secretary-General related that the questioned military gentlemen – precisely General John Galvin, supreme commander of the Allied forces in Europe – had indicated that SHAPE coordinated the Gladio operations. From then on, the official position of NATO was that they would not comment on official secrets.”

The Portuguese daily Expresso wrote⁵⁴⁵

“The fact that the secret Gladio structures were coordinated by an international committee only made up of members of the different secret services leads to another problem concerning the national sovereignty of each state…obviously various European governments have not controlled their secret services…The implication is that obviously NATO follows a doctrine of limited trust. Such a doctrine claims that certain governments would not act sufficiently against Communists, and were thus not worth being informed on the activities of NATO’s secret army.”

Ganser writes:^{^[472]}

“Under the headline ‘Manfred Wörner explains Gladio’, the Portuguese press related further details of the NATO meeting of November 7. ‘German NATO Secretary General Manfred Wörner explained the function of the secret network – which had been created in the 1950s to organise the resistance in case of a Soviet invasion – to ambassadors of the 16 Allied NATO countries.’ Behind closed doors ‘Wörner confirmed that the military command of the allied forces – Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) – coordinated the activities of the “Gladio Network”, which had been erected by the secret services in various countries of NATO, through a committee created in 1952, which presently is being chaired by General Raymond Van Calster, Chief of the Belgium military secret service’, later revealed to be the ACC [Allied Clandestine Committee]. ‘The structure was erected first in Italy before 1947, and thereafter spread to France, Belgium, United Kingdom, Holland, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway, Greece’, the newspaper reported. ‘The Secretary General also said that SHAPE had issued

pg. 216

“false information” when it had denied the existence of such a secret network, but he refused to explain the numerous contradictions into which the various governments had fallen, by confirming or denying the existence of Gladio networks within their respective country’.”

In March 1995 the Italian Senate commission headed by Senator Giovanni Pellegrino after having investigated Gladio and the massacres in Italy placed a FOIA request with the CIA. The Italian Senators asked the CIA for all records relating to the Red Brigades and the Moro affair in order to find out whether the CIA according to the Gladio domestic control tasks had indeed infiltrated the Red Brigades before they killed the former Italian Prime Minister and leader of the DCI Aldo Moro in 1978. Refusing to cooperate, the CIA raised FOIA exemptions B1 and B3 and in May 1995 declined all data and responded that it “can neither confirm nor deny the existence of CIA documentation concerning your inquiry.” The Italian press stressed how “embarrassing” this was and headlined: “The CIA has rejected the request to collaborate with the Parliamentary Commission on the mysteries of the kidnapping. Moro, a state secret for the USA.”^{^[473]}

MI6 did not take a stand on the Gladio affair in 1990 because, with a legendary obsession for secrecy, its very own Secret Intelligence Service’s existence, SIS, was only officially confirmed in 1994, with the passing of the Intelligence Services Act that specified that MI6 collected foreign intelligence and engaged in covert action operations abroad.^{^[474]} “Britain’s role in setting up stay-behinds throughout Europe was absolutely fundamental”, the British BBC reported in its Newsnight edition on April 4^th, 1991.^{^[475]}

Oddly, the first official account from Britain on its direct involvement with Operation Gladio would come from a museum, the London-based Imperial War Museum in July 1995, when they opened a new permanent exhibit called “Secret Wars.” As a commentary to one of the museum’s display windows was written “Among MI6’s preparation for a Third World War were the creation of ‘staybehind’ parties ready to operate behind enemy lines in the event of a Soviet advance into Western Europe.”^{^[476]}

Ganser writes^{^[477]}:

“Former MI6 officers rightly took the exhibition as a sign that they could now speak out about the top-secret Gladio operation. A few months after the exhibition had opened, former Royal Marine officers Giles and Preston, the only MI6 agents to be named in the Gladio exhibition next to a photo ‘in Austrian Alps 1953-1954’, confirmed to author Michael Smith that throughout the late 1940s and early 1950s the British and Americans had set up stay-behind units in Western Europe in preparation for an expected Soviet invasion.

…Giles remembered that they also took part in sabotage operations on British trains that were in public service, as for instance during the exercise at the Eastleigh Marshalling Yards…’We were playing for real’, Giles explained.”

Chapter 7
A Damned Murder Inc: Kennedy’s Battle Against the Leviathan pg. 219

Eisenhower’s “A Legacy of Ashes”

The militarization of the United States under a military industrial complex in the early 1950s, as outlined in Chapter 3, began to return power to the corporate elite, as captains of industry and finance moved into key government posts. The Eisenhower presidency would see Washington taken over by business executives, Wall Street lawyers, and investment bankers. To these were aligned a new warrior caste that had emerged into public prominence during the Second World War.

Eisenhower wished to establish U.S. supremacy while avoiding another largescale shooting war as well as the imperial burdens that had bankrupted Great Britain (to which the U.S. now did its bidding under NSC-75^{^[478]}). By leveraging the U.S. military’s near monopoly on nuclear firepower, the president hoped to make war an unthinkable proposition for all American adversaries. The problem with Eisenhower’s strategy was that by keeping Washington in a constant state of high alert, he empowered the most militant voices in his administration. Eisenhower had made the grave error of choosing John Foster Dulles as one of his closest advisers, and by default, Allen Dulles. It was doubtful whether Eisenhower ever had a free moment from the poisoned honey that was constantly being dripped into his ear.

The line between CIA and military became increasingly blurred, as military officers were assigned to intelligence agency missions, and then sent back to their military posts as “ardent disciples of Allen Dulles,” in the words of Col. J. Fletcher Prouty^{^[479]}, who served as a liaison officer between the Pentagon and the CIA between 1955 and 1963.

Approaching the end of his presidency, in May 1960, President Eisenhower had planned to culminate, the poorly named, ‘Crusade for Peace’ with the ultimate

summit conference with USSR Premier Nikita Khrushchev in Paris. It was Eisenhower’s clear attempt to finally push forward an initiative that was his own and which did not receive its ‘blessing’ by John Foster. If Eisenhower were to succeed in this, it would move to dissolve the Cold War Grand Strategy and remove the justification for a military industrial complex.

In preparation for the summit, the White House had directed all overflight activity over communist territory to cease until further notice. Yet on May 1^st, 1960, a high-flying U-2 spy plane flown by Francis Gary Powers left Pakistan on a straight-line overflight of the Soviet Union en route to Bodo, Norway, contrary to the Eisenhower orders. The U-2 crash landed in Sverdlovsk, Russia. Amongst the possessions found in the plane, were of all things, identification of Powers being a CIA agent, something highly suspect for an intelligence officer to be carrying during a supposed covert mission. The incident was enough to cancel the peace summit, and the ‘Crusade for Peace’ was bludgeoned in its cradle.

Rumours abounded quickly thereafter that it was the Soviets who shot down the plane, however, it was Allen Dulles himself, who gave testimony before a closeddoor session of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the U-2 spy plane had not been shot down but had descended because of “engine trouble.”^{^[480]} This important statement by Dulles was largely ignored by the press. Later, Eisenhower confirmed in his memoirs that the spy plane had not been shot down by the Soviets and had indeed lost engine power and crash-landed in Russia. Prouty suspected that the “engine failure” may have been induced by a pre-planned shortage of auxiliary hydrogen fuel and that Powers’ identification items were likely planted in his parachute pack. With only a certain amount of fuel and a straight-line trajectory, it would have been easy to calculate exactly where Powers would be forced to make a landing. Prouty suspected that the CIA had intentionally provoked the incident in order to ruin the peace conference and ensure the continued reign of the Dulles brothers’ Cold War fanaticism.

Interestingly, the man who was in charge of the Cuban exile program & met with Maurice Challe in support of the French Algiers putsch against President de Gaulle, Richard Bissell (Deputy Director of Plans for the CIA), was the same man who ran the U-2 program and who, according to Prouty ostensibly sent the Powers flight over the Soviet Union on May 1^st, 1960.

On January 5^th, 1961, during a meeting of the National Security Council, a frustrated and worn-down President Eisenhower, put on public record just weeks before Kennedy was to assume office, that the CIA under Dulles, had robbed him of his place in history as a peacemaker and left nothing but “a legacy

of ashes for his successor.” All Eisenhower had left of his own was his farewell address, which he made on January 17^th, 1961, where he famously warned the American people of what had been festering during his eight-year presidential term: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex… The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist.”

A Phoenix Rising

Eisenhower may have left a legacy of ashes for his predecessor, but out of those ashes would emerge a force that would come to directly challenge the rule of the ‘power elite.’

In April 1954, Kennedy stood up on the Senate floor to challenge the Eisenhower administration’s support for the doomed French imperial war in Vietnam, foreseeing that this would not be a short-lived war.^{^[481]} In July 1957, Kennedy once more took a strong stance against French colonialism, this time France’s bloody war against Algeria’s independence movement, which again found the Eisenhower administration on the wrong side of history. Rising on the Senate floor, two days before America’s own Independence Day, Kennedy declared:

“The most powerful single force in the world today is neither communism nor capitalism, neither the H-bomb nor the guided missile – it is man’s eternal desire to be free and independent. The great enemy of that tremendous force of freedom is called, for want of a more precise term, imperialism – and today that means Soviet imperialism and, whether we like it or not, and though they are not to be equated, Western imperialism. Thus, the single most important test of American foreign policy today is how we meet the challenge of imperialism, what we do to further man’s desire to be free. On this test more than any other, this nation shall be critically judged by the uncommitted millions in Asia and Africa, and anxiously watched by the still hopeful lovers of freedom behind the Iron Curtain. If we fail to meet the challenge of either Soviet or Western imperialism, then no amount of foreign aid, no aggrandizement of armaments, no new pacts or doctrines or high-level conferences can prevent further setbacks to our course and to our security.”⁵⁵⁶

In September 1960, the annual United Nations General Assembly was being held in New York. Castro and a fifty-member delegation were among the attendees and had made a splash in the headlines when he decided to stay at the Hotel Theresa in Harlem after the midtown Shelburne Hotel demanded a $20,000 security deposit. He made an even bigger splash in the headlines when he made a speech at this hotel, discussing the issue of equality in the United States while in Harlem, one of the poorest boroughs in the country.

Kennedy would visit this very same hotel a short while after and also made a speech:

“Behind the fact of Castro coming to this hotel, [and] Khrushchev…there is another great traveler in the world, and that is the travel of a world revolution, a world in turmoil…We should be glad [that Castro and Khrushchev] came to the United States. We should not fear the twentieth century, for the worldwide revolution which we see all around us is part of the original American Revolution.”^{^[482]}

What did Kennedy mean by this? The American Revolution was fought for freedom, freedom from the rule of monarchy and imperialism in favour of national sovereignty. What Kennedy was stating, was that this was the very oppression that the rest of the world wished to shake off, and that the United States had an opportunity to be a leader in the cause for the independence of all nations.

On June 30^th, 1960, marking the independence of the Republic of Congo from the colonial rule of Belgium, Patrice Lumumba, the first Congolese Prime Minister gave a speech that has become famous for its passionate criticism of colonialism.^{^[483]} ^{^[484]} Lumumba spoke of his people’s struggle against “the humiliating bondage that was forced upon us… [years that were] filled with tears, fire and blood,” and concluded vowing “We shall show the world what the black man can do when working in liberty, and we shall make the Congo the pride of Africa.” Shortly after, Lumumba also made clear, “We want no part of the Cold

War… We want Africa to remain African with a policy of neutralism.”^{^[485]}

As a result, Lumumba was labeled a communist for his refusal to be a Cold War satellite for the Western sphere. Rather, Lumumba was part of the Pan-African⁵⁶¹ movement that was led by Ghanaian President Kwame Nkrumah, who later Kennedy would also work with, which sought national sovereignty and an end to colonialism in Africa.

Lumumba “would remain a grave danger,” Dulles said at an NSC meeting on September 21^st, 1960, “as long as he was not yet disposed of.”^{^[486]} Three days later, Dulles made it clear that he wanted Lumumba permanently removed, cabling the CIA’s Leopoldville station, “We wish give [sic] every possible support in eliminating Lumumba from any possibility resuming governmental position.”^{^[487]} Lumumba was assassinated on January 17^th, 1961,^{^[488]} just three days before Kennedy’s inauguration during the fog of the transition period between presidents, when the CIA is most free to tie its loose ends, confident that they will not be reprimanded by a new administration that wants to avoid scandal during its first days in office.

Kennedy, who clearly meant to put a stop to the Murder Inc. that Dulles had created and was running, would declare to the world in his inaugural address on January 20^th, 1961, “The torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans.”

And so, Kennedy’s battle with the Leviathan had begun.

⁵⁶¹ Nkrumah’s Pan-Africanism and Nasser’s Pan-Arabism were fundamentally opposed to Kalergi’s Pan-Europeanism. Nkrumah and Nasser were working to end colonialism and unite these regions in a common cause, and achieve sovereignty as nations. By being united in the African and Arabic cause, they would be better able to defend themselves against the imperialist strategy of “divide and conquer” while economically and militarily sovereign. Recall, according to the League of Nations’ vision, there was to be no Pan-Africanism nor PanArabism.

Dulles’ Bay of Pigs Act of Treason

On the very same day of the formation of the CIA, President Truman would also found the United States National Security Council (NSC). The NSC was a council whose intended function was to serve as the President’s principal arm for coordinating national security, foreign policies and policies among various government agencies.

Col. Fletcher Prouty writes in his JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy:^{^[489]}

“In 1955, I was designated to establish an office of special operations in compliance with National Security Council (NSC) Directive #5412 of March 15, 1954. This NSC Directive for the first time in the history of the United States defined covert operations and assigned that role to the Central Intelligence Agency to perform such missions, provided they had been directed to do so by the NSC, and further ordered active-duty Armed Forces personnel to avoid such operations. At the same time, the Armed Forces were directed to ‘provide the military support of the clandestine operations of the CIA’ as an official function.”

What this meant, was that there was to be an intermarriage of the foreign intelligence bureau with the military, and that the foreign intelligence bureau would act as top dog in the relationship, only taking orders from the NSC. Though the NSC includes the President, as we will see, the President is very far from being in the position of determining the NSC’s policies.

Along with inheriting the responsibility of the welfare of the country and its people, Kennedy had also inherited a secret war with communist Cuba run by the CIA. JFK was disliked from the onset by the CIA and certain corridors of the Pentagon as they knew where he stood on foreign matters and that it would be in direct conflict with what they had been working towards for nearly 15 years.

The secret operation against Cuba, which Prouty confirms in his book JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy, was quietly upgraded by the CIA from the Eisenhower administration’s March 1960 approval of a modest Cuban-exile support program, which included small air drop and overthe-beach operations, to a 3,000-man invasion brigade just before Kennedy entered office.

This was a massive change in plans that was determined by neither President Eisenhower, who warned at the end of his term of the military industrial complex as a loose cannon, nor President Kennedy, but rather the foreign intelligence

bureau who has never been subject to election by the American people. This showcases the level of hostility that Kennedy encountered as soon as he entered office, and the limitations of a President’s power when he does not hold support from these intelligence and military quarters.

Within three months into JFK’s term, Operation Bay of Pigs (April 17-20, 1961) was scheduled. As the popular revisionist history goes; JFK refused to provide air cover for the exiled Cuban brigade resulting in a calamitous failure for the land invasion and a decisive victory for Castro’s Cuba. It was indeed an embarrassment for President Kennedy who had to take public responsibility for the failure, however, it was not an embarrassment because of his questionable competence as a leader. It was an embarrassment because, had he not taken public responsibility, he would have had to explain the real reason why it failed; that the CIA and military were against him and that he did not have control over them. If Kennedy were to admit such a thing, he would have lost all credibility as a President in his own country, as well as internationally, and would have put the people of the United States in immediate danger amidst a Cold War.

What really occurred was that there was a cancellation of the essential pre-dawn airstrike, by the Cuban Exile Brigade bombers from Nicaragua, to destroy Castro’s last three combat jets. This airstrike was ordered by Kennedy himself. Kennedy was always against an American invasion of Cuba, and striking Castro’s last jets by the Cuban Exile Brigade would have limited Castro’s threat, without the U.S. directly supporting a regime change operation within Cuba. This went fully against the CIA’s plan for Cuba.

Kennedy’s order for the airstrike on Castro’s jets would be cancelled by Special Assistant for National Security Affairs McGeorge Bundy, four hours before the Exile Brigade’s B-26s were to take off from Nicaragua. Kennedy was not brought into this decision. In addition, the Director of Central Intelligence Allen Dulles, the man in charge of the Bay of Pigs operation was incredibly out of the country on the scheduled day of the landings.

Col. Prouty, who was Chief of Special Operations during this time, elaborated on this situation^{^[490]}:

“Everyone connected with the planning of the Bay of Pigs invasion knew that the policy dictated by NSC 5412, positively prohibited the utilization of active-duty military personnel in covert operations. At no time was an ‘air cover’ position

written into the official invasion plan…The ‘air cover’ story that has been created is incorrect.”

As a result, JFK who well understood the source of this fiasco, set up a Cuban Study Group the day after and charged it with the responsibility of determining the cause for the failure of the operation. The study group, consisting of Allen Dulles, Gen. Maxwell Taylor, Adm. Arleigh Burke and Attorney General Robert Kennedy (the only member JFK could trust), concluded that the failure was due to Bundy’s telephone call to General Cabell, who was CIA Deputy Director, that cancelled the President’s air strike order.

Kennedy had them.

Humiliatingly, CIA Director Allen Dulles was part of formulating the conclusion for the Cuban Study Group, that the Bay of Pigs operation was a failure because of the CIA’s intervention into the President’s orders. This allowed for Kennedy to issue the National Security Action Memorandum #55 on June 28^th, 1961, which began the process of changing the responsibility from the CIA to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

As Prouty states in his book JFK, “When fully implemented, as Kennedy had planned, after his re-election in 1964, it would have taken the CIA out of the covert operation business. This proved to be one of the first nails in John F. Kennedy’s coffin.” If this was not enough of a slap in the face to the CIA, Kennedy forced the resignation of CIA Director Allen Dulles, CIA Deputy Director for Plans Richard M. Bissell Jr. and CIA Deputy Director Charles Cabell.

Prouty compares the Bay of Pigs incident to the sabotage of the ‘Crusade for Peace’. Both events were orchestrated by the CIA to ruin the U.S. president’s ability to form a peaceful dialogue with Khrushchev and decrease Cold War tensions. Both presidents took onus for the events respectively, despite the responsibility resting with the CIA. However, Eisenhower and Kennedy understood, if they did not take onus, it would be a public declaration that they did not have any control over their government agencies. Further, the Bay of Pigs operation was in fact meant to fail. It was meant to stir up a public outcry for a subsequent direct military invasion of Cuba.

On public record is a meeting (or more aptly described as an intervention) with CIA Deputy Director for Plans Richard Bissell, Joint Chiefs Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer, and Navy Chief Admiral Burke basically trying to strong arm President Kennedy into approving a direct military attack on Cuba. Admiral Burke had already taken the liberty of positioning two battalions of Marines on Navy destroyers off the coast of Cuba “anticipating that U.S. forces might be ordered into Cuba to salvage a botched invasion.”^{^[491]} [This incident is what inspired the Frankenheimer movie “Seven Days in May.”]

Kennedy stood his ground. “They were sure I’d give in to them,” Kennedy later told Special Assistant to the President Dave Powers. “They couldn’t believe that a new president like me wouldn’t panic and try to save his own face. Well they had me figured all wrong.”^{^[492]} Unfortunately, it would not be that easy to dethrone Dulles, who continued to act as head of the CIA, and key members of the intelligence community such as Helms and Angleton regularly bypassed McCone (the subsequent CIA Director) and briefed Dulles directly.⁵⁶⁹

But Kennedy was also serious about seeing it all the way through and vowed to

“splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.”

La Resistance

There is another rather significant incident that had occurred just days after the Bay of Pigs, and which has largely been overshadowed by the Cuban fiasco. From April 21-26, 1961, the Algiers putsch or Generals’ putsch, was a failed coup d’état intended to overthrow President de Gaulle (1959-1969). The organisers of the putsch were opposed to the secret negotiations that French Prime Minister Michel Debré had started with the anti-colonial National Liberation Front (FLN), the nationalist political party in Algeria.

On January 26^th, 1961, just three months before the attempted coup d’état, Dulles sent a report to Kennedy on the French situation that seemed to be hinting that de Gaulle would no longer be around, “A pre-revolutionary atmosphere reigns in France… The Army and the Air Force are staunchly opposed to de Gaulle…At least 80 percent of the officers are violently against him. They haven’t forgotten that in 1958, he had given his word of honor that he would never abandon Algeria. He is now reneging on his promise, and they hate him for that. De Gaulle surely won’t last if he tries to let go of Algeria. Everything will probably be over for him by the end of the year—he will be either deposed or assassinated.”^{^[493]}

As already mentioned in the previous chapter, the attempted coup was led by Maurice Challe (coordinated with the OAS Gladio network), whom de Gaulle had reason to conclude was working with the support of U.S. intelligence and NATO. Élysée officials began spreading this word to the press, which reported the CIA as a “reactionary state-within-a-state” that operated outside of Kennedy’s control.^{^[494]} Challe’s had recently served as NATO commander in chief and had developed close relations with a number of high-ranking U.S. officers stationed in the military alliance’s Fontainebleau headquarters.^{^[495]}

In August 1962 the OAS made an assassination attempt against de Gaulle, believing he had betrayed France by giving up Algeria to Algerian nationalists. This would be the most notorious assassination attempt on de Gaulle when a dozen OAS snipers opened fire on the president’s car, which managed to escape the ambush despite all four tires being shot out. After the failed coup d’état, de Gaulle launched a purge of his security forces and ousted General Paul Grossin, the chief of SDECE (the French secret service). Grossin was closely aligned with the CIA and had told Frank Wisner over lunch that the return of de Gaulle to power was equivalent to the communists taking over in Paris.^{^[496]}

As already discussed in the previous chapter, de Gaulle subsequently withdrew France from the NATO military command in 1966. France would not return to NATO until April 2009 at the Strasbourg-Kehl Summit. In addition to all of this, on January 14^th, 1963, de Gaulle declared at a press conference that he had vetoed British entry into the Common Market. This would be the first move towards France and West Germany’s formation of the European Monetary System,^{^[497]} which excluded Great Britain. Former Secretary of State Dean Acheson telegrammed West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer directly, appealing to him to try to persuade de Gaulle to back track on the veto, stating “if anyone can affect Gen. de Gaulle’s decision, you are surely that person.”^{^[498]}

Little did Acheson know that Adenauer was just days away from signing the Franco-German Treaty of January 22^nd, 1963 (also known as the Élysée Treaty), which had enormous implications. Franco-German relations, which had long been dominated by centuries of rivalry, had now agreed that their fates were

aligned. The Élysée Treaty was a clear denunciation of the AngloAmerican forceful overseeing that had overtaken Western Europe since the end of the Second World War.^{^[499]} This close relationship was continued to a climactic point with the formation of the European Monetary System (EMS). This also coincided with France and West Germany’s willingness to work with OPEC countries trading oil for nuclear technology, which was soon after sabotaged by the U.S.-Britain alliance.^{^[500]}

On June 28^th, 1961, Kennedy wrote NSAM #55. This document changed the responsibility of defense during the Cold War from the CIA to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and would have (if seen through) drastically changed the course of the war in Vietnam. It would also have effectively removed the CIA from Cold War operations and limited the CIA to its sole lawful responsibility, the coordination of intelligence. By October 11^th, 1963, NSAM #263, closely overseen by Kennedy,^{^[501]} was released and outlined a policy decision “to withdraw 1,000 military personnel [from Vietnam] by the end of 1963” and further stated that “It should be possible to withdraw the bulk of U.S. personnel [including the CIA and military] by 1965.” The Armed Forces newspaper Stars and Stripes had the headline “U.S. TROOPS SEEN OUT OF VIET BY ’65.”^{^[502]}

With the assassination of Vietnam’s President Ngo Dinh Diem, likely ordained by the CIA,^{^[503]} on November 2^nd, 1963, followed by Kennedy’s murder just a few weeks later on November 22^nd, 1963, de facto President Lyndon Johnson signed NSAM #273 on November 26^th, 1963 to begin the reversal of Kennedy’s policy under #263. And on March 17^th, 1964, Johnson signed NSAM #288 that marked the full escalation of the Vietnam War and involved 2,709,918 Americans directly serving in Vietnam, with 9,087,000 serving with the U.S. Armed Forces during this period.

The Vietnam War would continue for another 12 years after Kennedy’s death, lasting a total of 20 years for Americans, and 30 years if you count American covert action in Vietnam.

The Law of Silence

By Germany supporting de Gaulle’s counter moves against the Anglo-American economic stranglehold on Europe, his adamant opposition to Western imperialism and the role of NATO, and with a young Kennedy building his own resistance against the imperialist war of Vietnam and imperialism in general, it was clear that the power elite were in big trouble.

There is a lot of spurious effort to try to ridicule anyone who challenges the Warren Commission’s official report as nothing but fringe conspiracy theory. And that we should not find it highly suspect that Allen Dulles, of all people, was essentially the head of this commission. The reader should keep in mind that much of this frothing opposition stems from the very agency that perpetrated crime after crime on the American people, as well as individuals and governments abroad. When has the CIA ever admitted guilt, unless caught redhanded? Even after the Frank Church Committee Hearings^{^[504]}, when the CIA was found guilty of planning out foreign assassinations, the CIA‘s agency representatives claimed that they had failed in every single plot or that someone had beaten them to the punch.

The American people need to realise that the CIA is not a respectable agency; we are not dealing with honorable men. It is a rogue force that believes that the ends justify the means, that they are the hands of the king so to speak, above government and above law. Those at the top such as Allen Dulles were just as adamant as Churchill about protecting the interests of the power elite, or as Churchill termed it, the “High Cabal.”

Interestingly, on December 22^nd, 1963, just one month after Kennedy’s assassination, Harry Truman published a scathing critique of the CIA in The Washington Post:

“I have never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak and dagger operations…[but] for some time, I have been disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of Government… [the CIA has grown] so removed from its intended role that it is being interpreted as a symbol of sinister and mysterious foreign intrigue…There is something about the way the CIA has been functioning that is casting a shadow over our historic position [as a] free and open society, and I feel that we need to correct it.”^{^[505]}

Truman’s comments, made just one month after the Kennedy assassination, sent shockwaves amongst Americans. Was Truman referring to a “sinister and mysterious foreign intrigue” in reference to Kennedy’s murder? It was none other than Allen Dulles who would begin a campaign to get the retired president to disavow his opinion piece, and enlisted Washington power attorney Clark Clifford, the former Truman counselor who chaired President Johnson’s intelligence advisory board.^{^[506]}

Dulles also wrote Truman a letter writing that he was “deeply disturbed” by Truman’s Washington Post article.⁵⁸⁴ Truman, who was responsible for the formation of the CIA, nonetheless most definitely had a case to his charge that under the Eisenhower Administration, under the directorship of Allen Dulles, the CIA had been led into much deeper skullduggery than Truman could have ever envisioned. Truman stood by his charge of the CIA to the utter panic of Allen Dulles.

David Talbot writes in The Devil’s Chessboard:^{^[507]}

“Still, Dulles would not accept defeat. Unable to alter reality, he simply altered the record, like any good spy. On April 21, 1964, upon returning to Washington, Dulles wrote a letter about his half hour meeting with Truman to CIA general counsel Lawrence Houston. During their conversation at the Truman Library, Dulles claimed in his letter, the elderly ex-president seemed ‘quite astounded’ by his own attack on the CIA when the spymaster showed him a copy of the Post article. As he looked it over, Truman reacted as if he were reading it for the first time, according to Dulles. ‘He said that [the article] was all wrong. He then said that he felt it had made a very unfortunate impression.’

The Truman portrayed in Dulles’s letter seemed to be suffering from senility and either could not remember what he had written or had been taken advantage of by an aide, who perhaps wrote the piece under the former president’s name. In fact, CIA officials later did try to blame a Truman assistant for writing the provocative opinion piece. Truman ‘obviously was highly disturbed at the Washington Post article,’ concluded Dulles in his letter, ‘…and several times said he would see what he could do about it.’

The Dulles letter to Houston—which was clearly intended for the CIA files, to be retrieved whenever expedient—was an outrageous piece of disinformation. Truman, who would live for eight more years, was still of sound mind in April

1964. And he could not have been shocked by the contents of his own article,

since he had been expressing the same views about the CIA—even more strongly—to friends and journalists for some time.

After the Bay of Pigs, Truman had confided in writer Merle Miller that he regretted ever establishing the CIA. ‘I think it was a mistake,’ he said. ‘And if I’d known what was going to happen, I never would have done it… [Eisenhower] never paid any attention to it, and it got out of hand…It's become a government all of its own and all secret…That’s a very dangerous thing in a democratic society.’ Likewise, after the Washington Post essay ran, Truman’s original CIA director, Admiral Sidney Souers—who shared his former boss’s limited concept of the agency—congratulated him for writing the piece. ‘I am happy as I can be that my article on the Central Intelligence Agency rang a bell with you because you know why the organization was set up,’ Truman wrote back to Souers.”

As Prouty has stated, anyone with a little bit of free time during an afternoon could discover for themselves that the Warren Commission was an embarrassingly incompetent hodgepodge, that conducted itself as if it were a done deal that Oswald killed Kennedy and was disinterested in hearing anything contrary to that narrative.

Jim Garrison was the District Attorney of New Orleans from 1962 to 1973 and was the only one to bring forth a trial concerning the assassination of President Kennedy. In Jim Garrison’s book On the Trail of the Assassins, J. Edgar Hoover comes up several times impeding or shutting down investigations into JFK’s murder, in particular concerning the evidence collected by the Dallas Police Department, such as the nitrate test Oswald was given and which exonerated him, proving that he never shot a rifle the day of November 22^nd, 1963. However, for reasons only known to the government and its investigators this fact was kept secret for 10 months.^{^[508]} It was finally revealed in the Warren Commission report, which inexplicably didn’t change their opinion that Oswald had shot Kennedy. [Oswald’s interrogation file also went missing from the Dallas Police Department.⁵⁸⁷]

Another particularly damning incident was concerning the Zapruder film that was in the possession of the FBI and which they had sent a ‘copy’ to the Warren Commission for their investigation. This film was one of the leading pieces of evidence used to support the ‘magic bullet theory’ and showcase the direction of the headshot coming from behind, thus verifying that Oswald’s location was adequate for such a shot.

During Garrison’s trial on the Kennedy assassination (1967-1969) he subpoenaed the Zapruder film that for some peculiar reason had been locked up in a vault owned by CIA-affiliated Henry Luce’s Life magazine. This was the first time in more than five years that the Zapruder film was made public. It turned out the FBI’s copy that was sent to the Warren Commission had two critical frames reversed to create a false impression that the rifle shot was from behind.

When Garrison got a hold of the original film it was discovered that the head shot had actually come from the front. In fact, what the whole film showed was that the President had been shot from multiple angles meaning there was more than one gunman. When the FBI was questioned about how these two critical frames could have been reversed, they answered self-satisfactorily that it must have been a technical glitch…

Besides Oswald’s nitrate test and the Zapruder film, another key piece of evidence that had been clearly tampered with were Kennedy’s autopsy reports. Kennedy’s original autopsy papers were destroyed by the chief autopsy physician, James Humes, to which he even testified to during the Warren Commission, apparently nobody bothered to ask why…

The Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) was created in 1994 by the Congress enacted President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992, which mandated that all assassination-related material be housed in a single collection within the National Archives and Records Administration. In July 1998, a staff report^{^[509]} released by the ARRB emphasized shortcomings in the original autopsy.

The ARRB report wrote, “One of the many tragedies of the assassination of President Kennedy has been the incompleteness of the autopsy record and the suspicion caused by the shroud of secrecy that has surrounded the records that do exist.”

The ARRB report for the Assassinations Records Review Board contended that brain photographs in the Kennedy records are not of Kennedy’s brain and show much less damage than Kennedy sustained. The Washington Post reported:^{^[510]}

“Asked about the lunchroom episode [where he was overheard stating his notes of the autopsy went missing] in a May 1996 deposition, Finck said he did not remember it. He was also vague about how many notes he took during the autopsy but confirmed that ‘after the autopsy I also wrote notes’ and that he turned over whatever notes he had to the chief autopsy physician, James J. Humes.

It has long been known that Humes destroyed some original autopsy papers in a fireplace at his home on Nov. 24, 1963. He told the Warren Commission that what he burned was an original draft of his autopsy report. Under persistent questioning at a February 1996 deposition by the Review Board, Humes said he destroyed the draft and his ‘original notes.’

…Shown official autopsy photographs of Kennedy from the National Archives, [Saundra K.] Spencer [who worked in ‘the White House lab’] said they were not the ones she helped process and were printed on different paper. She said ‘there was no blood or opening cavities’ and the wounds were much smaller in the pictures…[than what she had] worked on…

John T. Stringer, who said he was the only one to take photos during the autopsy itself, said some of those were missing as well. He said that pictures he took of Kennedy’s brain at a ‘supplementary autopsy’ were different from the official set that was shown to him.”

This not only shows that evidence tampering did indeed occur, as even the Warren Commission had to acknowledge, but this puts into question the reliability of the entire assassination record of John F. Kennedy and to what degree evidence tampering and forgery have occurred in these very records.

In addition, among the strange and murderous characters who converged in Dallas in November 1963 was a notorious French OAS commando named Jean Souetre, who was connected to the plots against President de Gaulle. Souetre was arrested in Dallas after the Kennedy assassination and immediately expelled to Mexico without any questioning.^{^[511]}

After returning from Kennedy’s funeral on November 24^th, 1963, in Washington, de Gaulle and his information minister Alain Peyrefitte had a candid discussion that was recorded in Peyrefitte’s memoire C’était de Gaulle, the great General was quoted saying:

olitics/1998/08/02/gaps -in -kennedy -autopsy -files -detailed/f374ef5c -7be3 -48ad -a661394a170a6e67/.

“What happened to Kennedy is what nearly happened to me…His story is the same as mine…It looks like a cowboy story, but it’s only an OAS [Secret Army Organization] story. The security forces were in cahoots with the extremists.

…Security forces are all the same when they do this kind of dirty work. As soon as they succeed in wiping out the false assassin, they declare the justice system no longer need be concerned, that no further public action was needed now that the guilty perpetrator was dead. Better to assassinate an innocent man than to let a civil war break out. Better an injustice than disorder.

America is in danger of upheavals. But you’ll see. All of them together will observe the law of silence. They will close ranks. They’ll do everything to stifle any scandal. They will throw Noah’s cloak over these shameful deeds. In order to not lose face in front of the whole world. In order to not risk unleashing riots in the United States. In order to preserve the union and to avoid a new civil war. In order to not ask themselves questions. They don’t want to know. They don’t want to find out. They won’t allow themselves to find out.”

***

Below is John F. Kennedy’s Address before the American Newspaper Publishers Association, April 27, 1961:

“The very word ‘secrecy’ is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in ensuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence – on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.”

Chapter 8
CIA, NATO and the Great Heroin Coup:
How Miami found itself at the Center of International Fascism and Kennedy’s Murder pg. 237

“The merger of European and American fascism was toasted in Miami.”

-Henrik Kruger’s The Great Heroin Coup

Operation Underworld & the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI)

Charles ‘Lucky’ Luciano (1897-1962) was the most powerful and successful gangster in American history. He is regarded as the father of modern organized crime in the United States for having established ‘The Commission’^{^[512]} in 1931. In 1936 Luciano was convicted for compulsory prostitution and running a prostitution racket. He was sentenced to 30 to 50 years in prison, but during the Second World War, the U.S. Navy Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) made him an offer. Luciano was promised eventual liberty in return for delivering the Southern Italian Mafia as the fifth column backing the Allied cause against Mussolini. This would be the seed that would generate the powerful Mafia families of Southern Italy, assigned by the United States to act as praetorian guards within the stay-behind armies. Meyer Lansky, head of the Jewish mob, became the liaison between Luciano and ONI and Operation Underworld was born.

Luciano ordered his men to obey Lansky who became essentially the head of a large portion of the Italian-American Mafia. Thomas Dewey (then Governor of New York), although responsible for putting Luciano in prison, pardoned him in

1946 due to his service towards the Allied cause and Luciano was deported to

Italy along with some of his lieutenants, however, not before he met with agents of the OSS (Office of Strategic Services).

In June 1973, Le Monde spelled out the American side of the intelligence-Mafia connection:

“Instructed by his [Luciano’s] own experience of collaboration with the American intelligence services, Lucky Luciano used to recommend to his honorable correspondents scattered from Beirut to Tangiers, via Ankara and Marseilles, to operate as he had done. It was in this way that drug dealers and couriers served as informants to MI5, to CIA, to [the French] SDECE, to the [West German] Gehlen organization, even to the Italian SIFAR.”^{^[513]}

This special relationship between the Mafia and these intelligence agencies would go strong for several decades.

Meyer Lansky’s Cuban Empire

Meyer Lansky (1902-1983) together with Lucky Luciano created the National Crime Syndicate, known simply as ‘the Syndicate’. Lansky was the Syndicate’s financial wizard and its chairman from around 1947. In the early fifties, he began building his Cuban Empire, headquartered in Havana. Lansky literally governed Cuba over the head of his close friend, then President of Cuba, Fulgencio Batista. When free elections chased Batista from office in 1944, Lansky also left Cuba, entrusting his empire to the Trafficante family headed by Santo Sr.

Lansky and Batista settled in Hollywood, Florida, just North of Miami. Before long, Lansky was running an illegal casino empire on the East coast and expanded the narcotics trade founded by Lucky Luciano. The older Mafia dons deemed the narcotics trade taboo, so Lansky’s wing of the Syndicate cornered the market with Trafficante’s eldest son Santo Jr., overseeing heroin traffic. When Santo Sr. died in 1954, Santo Jr. Trafficante became Lansky’s right-hand man and manager of his Cuban interests.

When Lansky’s illegal casinos in Florida were shutdown in 1950, Lansky promoted Batista’s return to power in Cuba. And thus, likely not coincidentally, Fulgencio Batista who served as the ‘elected’ president of Cuba from 1940-1944, returned to Cuba as a U.S. backed military dictator from 1952-1959, until he was overthrown by the Cuban Revolution led by Fidel Castro.

With Castro at the helm of Cuba, Lansky and Trafficante were in trouble, they had been given a clear message by Castro that they were no longer welcome in the Cuban kingdom. Along with Lansky and Trafficante, half a million Cubans left the island in the years following, and a quarter of a million made their new home in Florida, the site of Trafficante’s new headquarters.

After having been driven out of Cuba and his casinos shutdown in Florida, Lansky created a similar gambling paradise in Nassau, Bahamas. Besides the gambling take, the greater part of the incredible bonanza from U.S. narcotics deals (the Corsicans share included) was laundered via Lansky’s Miami National Bank to Nassau and to numbered accounts in Switzerland and Lebanon.^{^[514]} Lansky would eventually become the world’s crowned narcotics king. His decisions affected everyone, including the heavyweights in France and Italy. Lansky’s connections ran through Las Vegas, Rome, Marseilles, Beirut and Geneva.

Miami as the New Center for ‘Internacional Fascista’

Early in 1980, Alan Pringle, head of the DEA’s Miami office, told an Associated Press reporter that Miami banks constitute “the Wall Street” of the drug dealers.⁵⁹⁴ It was Henrik Kruger who first exposed this in 1980 with his superbly researched book The Great Heroin Coup: Drugs, Intelligence & International Fascism, where Miami was revealed to be the new center for this international fascism as a consequence of the ‘great heroin coup.’

It is beyond the scope of this book to go through this in detail, however, the important points demonstrated by Kruger are that the Corsican mafia, with Turkey and Lebanon as raw producers, were replaced as the main producers and dealers of high-grade heroin by the Sicilian mafia – along with lower-grade production from Southeast Asia and South America. This transition was supported and enforced by the CIA who controlled the DEA. Nixon’s ‘War on Drugs’ did shutdown certain producers and channels of heroin, but it was ultimately designed to open up new producers and channels that would be under tighter American control. Just like in Vietnam, the French would be pushed out of any authority by the Americans and they were to be from now on subservient to this new king of the jungle.

Lansky’s Syndicate was instrumental in guiding this transition safely into the hands of the CIA and its allied intelligence agencies, largely affiliated with NATO’s

Operation Gladio. Miami became a center of operation for not just Meyer Lansky but for the CIA as well in all-things heroin.

Henrik Kruger writes in The Great Heroin Coup: Drugs, Intelligence & International Fascism:^{^[515]}

“Internacional Fascista is the outgrowth of many years of planning in Madrid by the late Nazi, Otto Skorzeny^{^[516]}, who in the fifties had worked for the CIA. On its rolls are former SS agents, OAS terrorists, hatchet men for Portugal’s dreaded secret police (PIDE), terrorists from Spain’s Fuerza Nueva, Argentine and Italian Fascists, Cuban exiles, French gangsters from SAC, and former CIA agents hardened by terror campaigns in [the CIA’s] Operation 40, Guatemala, Brazil and Argentina.

Besides CORU^{^[517]}, Internacional Fascista’s militants have at various times numbered the Army for the Liberation of Portugal (ELP) and its Aginter Press contingent under Yves Guerin-Serac, the Italian Ordine Nuovo led by Salvatore Francia, and Pierluigi Concutelli; Spain’s Guerillas of Christ the King, Associacion Anticommunista Iberica and Alianza Anticommunista Apostolica (AAA) which is not to be confused with the Argentine AAA that is also represented in Internacional Fascista and the Paladin group.”

The significance of Miami in the netherworld of international fascism remains one of America’s better kept secrets. Its tendrils stretched across the Atlantic to the Aginter operation, originally in Lisbon, and Skorzeny quietly sitting in Madrid at the centre of this arms smuggling web. To Kruger, the Miami-Lisbon-MadridRome axis was the logical continuation of the CIA’s record in forging alliances with high Nazi officials.

The neo-fascist Paladin Group as well as the Spanish intelligene agency, La Dirección General de Seguridad (DGS) were both run by the Nazi war criminal Colonel Otto Skorzeny. Miami was an international junction and all-purpose clearing house for the CIA’s hugely lucrative narcotics rackets and much else besides, including international terrorism or as Kruger put it “the merger of European and American fascism was toasted in Miami.”

Miami’s CIA station JM/WAVE was a major U.S. covert operations and intelligence gathering station which operated from 1961 to 1968. It sponsored a series of hit-and-run attacks on strategic Cuban targets and involved greater

manpower and expenditures than the Bay of Pigs itself. Some 300 agents and 4600 Cuban exile operatives took part in the actions of JM/Wave.

Kruger writes in The Great Heroin Coup:^{^[518]}

“As later revealed, one of its last operations was closed down because one of its aircraft was caught smuggling narcotics into the United States…In the JM/Wave period a great expansion in China [Kuomintang] Lobby-Trafficante-Cuban exileCIA connections occurred…With the start of its secret war, the new station became the agency’s largest and the command post for its anti-Castro operations worldwide. Its annual budget of $50-100 million financed the activities of 300 permanent employees, most of them case officers who controlled an additional several thousand Cuban exile operatives. Each major CIA station had at least one case officer assigned to Cuban operations who ultimately reported to Miami. In Europe all Cuban matters were routed through the Frankfurt station [in Germany], which in turn reported to JM/Wave.

…In 1963 the agency masterminded a revolution in Honduras, another in the Dominican Republic, and a third in Guatemala. In 1964 it assisted in General Branco’s military coup in Brazil. In 1965 the Special Forces joined U.S. Marines in suppressing civil war in the Dominican Republic, and in 1966 the CIA aided and abetted Colonel Ongania’s military coup in Argentina.

… In that same period, Cuban exile activist organizations sprouted all over Miami’s Little Havana. They spawned, in turn, terrorist subgroups like Alfa 66 and Omega 7, whose more notorious leaders…had been trained by the CIA…

…When JM/Wave was dismantled, Shackley and his staff left Miami for Laos, leaving behind a highly trained army of 6000 fanatically anti-Communist Cubans allied to organized crime and powerful elements of the U.S. far Right…”

JM/Wave covered anything and everything Cuban, wherever in the world it might be. CIA maintained its largest station, JM/WAVE, and operated a bustling network of paramilitary training bases as well as safe houses. Howard Hunt and Bill Harvey both worked for JM/Wave who we will come to know shortly.

Miami Cubans joined Aginter Press terrorists in Guatemala. One hundred Florida-based Cubans joined the Aginter Press-ELP fascist army in Spain, where they became involved in acts of terrorism.

At this point, we should be seeing a picture that has painted NATO/CIA/Italian-

American Mafia/Cuban exiles/and fascists including Nazis all working for the

same apparatus and essentially the same goal: to overthrow democratically elected leaders and replace them with dictators and fascist right-wing governments. The profits of the narcotics trade are used in turn to fund rightwing terrorist activity globally, using the network of Gladio. The ‘great heroin coup’ that Henrik Kruger exposed was about having complete control over the profits of heroin for this very purpose.

Nixon’s White House Plumbers and The War on Drugs’

The history of Nixon’s involvement in Watergate is intertwined with that of his personal involvement with drug enforcement. Nixon’s public declaration in June 1971 of his war on heroin promptly led to his assemblage of the White House Plumbers, Cuban exiles and even ‘hit squads’ with the avowed purpose of combating the international narcotics traffic.

Kruger writes in The Great Heroin Coup:^{^[519]}

“On 17 July 1972 James McCord, Frank Sturgis, Bernard Barker, Eugenio Rolando Martinez, and Virgilio Gonzalez, led by [E. Howard] Hunt and [G. Gordon] Liddy, broke into the Democrats’ Watergate offices in Washington. Of these seven men, four were from Miami, four were active or former agents of the CIA, four had been involved in the Bay of Pigs invasion, and three were closely linked to the Cuban narcotics Mafia.”

Frank Sturgis (original name Frank Fiorini) was one of Trafficante’s CIA contacts.

In the late 1960s, Sturgis ran the Miami-based International Anti-Communist Brigade (IACB), said to be financed by Meyer Lansky’s Syndicate.^{^[520]}

E. Howard Hunt’s credentials go as far back as the Second World War, stationed in Kunming South China in the province of Yunnan while working for the OSS. This branch of the OSS was backing Chiang Kai-shek and his Kuomintang (KMT) army, who were supposedly fighting the fascist Japanese while also fighting a civil war with the Chinese communists under Mao Zedong. Yunnan under Chiang Kai-shek (along with a faction of the OSS’s overseeing), became the center of Chinese opium cultivation and Kunming the hotbed of military operations, including Claire Chennault’s 14^th Air Force and Detachment 202 of the OSS. This

is where Hunt met Lucien Conein, Captain of the French Foreign Legionnaireturned OSS agent.

Kruger writes:^{^[521]}

“E. Howard Hunt was clearly the China/Cuba/Latin America lobby’s man. That he is also tied to WACL is suggested by the fact that William F. Buckley, Hunt’s close friend for twenty years and the godfather to his children, was one of the WACL’s top U.S. supporters. Also connected to the same lobby groups are Lucien Conein and the State Department’s former intelligence chief, Ray S. Cline, who continues to be a frequent guest at the Taiwan WACL stronghold.

Hunt and Conein were the vital forces behind the White House’s great heroin coup. Hunt secured the Cuban exiles their necessary footing…”

To be clear here, what Kruger is referencing as the China/Cuba/Latin America Lobby is not in reference to their communist leaders but rather their fascist leaders; Chiang Kai-shek, Batista, and the Latin American fascist dictators. Indochina remained Conein’s base of operation after WWII, when like Hunt he slid over from the OSS to its successor the CIA. He then operated throughout South and North Vietnam, Cambodia, and Burma and became the top U.S. expert on the area as well as on the opium smuggling Corsican Mafia.

Peter Dale Scott wrote in his foreword to Kruger’s The Great Heroin Coup:^{^[522]}

“But some of the old China hands with network connections began moving to the new DEA. As we have seen, Hunt secured a post for his old OSS-Kunming friend Lucien Conein in what eventually became DEA, and Conein in turn recruited his own band of CIA Cubans in Deacon I, at least one of whom, according to CIA reports, has already taken part in a death squad operation.

…a number of recent revelations…link those in the Aginter-CORU^{^[523]} connection to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. At least three Cubans prominent in the Letelier case have also been revealed, by the recent publications of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, to have been allied in a 1963 Cuban exile junta which, the Committee reported, warranted a ‘thorough investigation’ in the Kennedy assassination case. Lee Harvey Oswald’s activities in New Orleans brought him into contact with an anti-Castro group financially backed by this junta, and to Americans with links to the future Aginter community

and possibly the OAS. And on 23 November 1963, Jean Rene Souetre, an OAS terrorist and future Aginter operative, was, according to recently declassified CIA reports, allegedly ‘expelled from the United States at Fort Worth or Dallas 18 hours after the [Kennedy] assassination.’”

Kruger writes:^{^[524]}

“When Lucien Conein became the head of the DEA’s Special Operations Branch he allegedly carried out an assassination program after setting up the DEA’s Special Operations Group (DEASOG), under cover of the BR Fox Company and house on Connecticut Avenue in Washington. DEASOG’s twelve members – the Dirty Dozen – were hard nosed and experienced Latino CIA agents transferred over to the drug agency for the occasion. Prior to DEASOG, Conein had set up another DEA ‘intelligence’ operation, Deacon I, employing Cuban exile veterans of CIA training camps, who were supervised by thirty other Cubans, all formerly of the CIA’s Clandestine Services… The emergence of the DEA was the next to last phase of the heroin coup. Hunt and Conein’s CIA agents moved into DEA intelligence and operations…”

In 1952, President Arbenz of Guatemala pushed through a sweeping land reform bill which aimed at redistributing 70% of the country’s farm acreage back to the people and out of the hands of the 2% landowners. Amongst that 2% was the United Fruit Company, which had multiple ties to Washington DC and the CIA, including Walter Bedell Smith (former Director of the CIA) who was on its board after the coup, Henry Cabot-Lodge’s family fortunes on the Cabot side and Allen and John Foster Dulles’s law firm Sullivan & Cromwell.^{^[525]} On behalf of United Fruit, the CIA orchestrated a coup and E. Howard Hunt was the agency’s chief political action officer to overthrow Guatemala’s President Arbenz in 1954.^{^[526]}

Kruger writes:⁶⁰⁷

“Some people effectively overlapped the entire spectrum of the alliance. Among them are Howard Hunt and Tommy Corcoran, the man behind United Fruit’s dirty work. United Fruit was a client of the Miami-based Double-Chek Corp., a CIA front that supplied planes for the Bay of Pigs invasion. Corcoran was the Washington

escort of General Chennault’s widow Anna Chen Chennault, erstwhile head of the China [Kuomintang] Lobby, the key to Southeast Asian opium.”

Along with the CIA’s new official drug policy came the unofficial one. The latter dirty work was performed by a large faction within the DEA who tolerated, if not outright encouraged, a large and apparently independent army of Cuban exile terrorists, trained by the CIA, and available for action in Latin America at the request of its presiding dictators.

However, this was all supposed to have happened nearly a decade sooner.

According to a June 2, 1964 New York Times article:^{^[527]}

“Former Vice President Richard M. Nixon wanted the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba to take place before the national election Nov. 8 1960…Nixon was hoping for the invasion before November 8 because ‘it would have been a cinch to win’ the election if the Eisenhower Administration destroyed Fidel Castro in the closing days of the Presidential campaign.”

Nixon was Vice President to Eisenhower for 8 years, from January 1953 to 1961. Nixon was supposed to have the upcoming Presidency, everyone knew it, but Kennedy, who was aware of this secret invasion plan, was able to take the election from underneath Nixon’s nose because of his calculated hard stance against Castro and support of a rebellion in Cuba during the public debate, whereas, Nixon thought it best to pretend to oppose such a thing because he thought it would compromise the actual plan to do that very thing.

And just like that, decades of planning went out the window, Nixon was out and Kennedy was in.

The Northwood Plot, the Bay of Pigs and Operation ‘Elimination by Illumination’

Kennedy was not the only one to crash the party. The overthrow of Batista and the expulsion of Lansky’s Cuban Empire including its heroin trade by Fidel Castro in 1959 was problematic to say the least for such long-term plans. Fidel Castro, like de Gaulle, was a master at thwarting assassination attempts and coups, and would govern Cuba from 1959 to 2011. Castro’s Cuba was considered

unacceptable for the very plain reason that he was upsetting the status quo of how ‘business’ was supposed to be done. There was a lot of money that was lost for big business with Castro’s takeover, not just for Lansky’s Syndicate but for such Fortune 500 names as the United Fruit Company, U.S. Steel, DuPont and Standard Oil, among many others, which tells you something about the real sort of business these companies are involved in.^{^[528]} Thus, Castro had to go. And in came the CIA and Pentagon to the rescue, or at least that was how the script was supposed to go…

Kennedy was inaugurated January 20^th, 1961. As already discussed in the previous chapter, along with inheriting the responsibility of the welfare of the country and its people, he was to also inherit a secret war with communist Cuba run by the CIA with the Bay of Pigs treason occurring only three months into his term.

Kruger writes:^{^[529]}

“Never before had there existed a more remarkable, fanatical group of conspirators than that assembled to create, finance, and train the Bay of Pigs invasion force. The top CIA figures were Lansdale protégé Napoleon Valeriano, the mysterious Frank Bender, and E. Howard Hunt, who was himself involved in at least one of the attempts on Fidel Castro’s life. They were supported by a small army of CIA operatives from four of its Miami cover firms.”

Peter Dale Scott writes in his foreword to Kruger’s The Great Heroin Coup:⁶¹¹

“…the CIA reassembled for the Bay of Pigs the old Guatemala team (including Hunt…who oversaw Cuban recruitment). With the failure of the Bay of Pigs, Cuba became to America what Algeria had been to France. The explosive political controversy meant that thousands of Cuban exiles, many of them with backgrounds in the Havana milieu, were trained by the U.S. as guerillas and/or terrorists, then left in political limbo… At least one CIA project growing out of Operation 40 (the control element in the Bay of Pigs invasion force), had to be terminated, when the drug activities of its members became too embarrassing. In 1973 Newsday reported that ‘at least eight percent of the 1500-man [Bay of Pigs] invasion force has subsequently been investigated or arrested for drug-dealing.’”

There would be many more attempts to assassinate and overthrow Castro. One of the kookier plans would come from, not surprisingly, covert operations expert

Edward Lansdale who was chief of the Saigon Military Mission and a protégé of General Lemnitzer; who wanted to send a submarine to the shore outside Havana where it would create an “inferno of light.” At the same time, according to Lansdale’s plan, Cuba-based agents would warn the religious natives of the second coming of Christ and the Savior’s distaste for Fidel Castro. The plan was called ‘Elimination by Illumination,’ but was ultimately shelved.^{^[530]} It would be funny if such plans stayed on paper, but these men were responsible for the torture and deaths of countless individuals for the plans that made it into reality.

As soon as General Lemnitzer became Army Chief of Staff in 1959, he installed Lansdale at a desk in Deputy Defense Secretary Gilpatric’s office in the Pentagon. Lansdale was put in charge of Operation Mongoose under direct patronage of Lemnitzer with the main object to eliminate Castro in direct defiance of federal law prohibiting political assassinations. Operation Mongoose was an extensive campaign of terrorist attacks against civilians and covert operations carried out by the CIA and was run out of JM/Wave in Miami. Lansdale would participate in many covert operations including raids and bombings in Cuba and other targets all over Latin America.

In March 1962, General Lemnitzer, not taking a hint as to what happened to Dulles, Bissell and Cabell, decided it would be a good idea to propose Operation Northwoods to President Kennedy for approval. Operation Northwoods was a proposed false-flag operation against American citizens, which called for CIA operatives to both stage and actually commit acts of terrorism against American military and civilian targets and subsequently blame the Cuban government in order to justify a war against Cuba. The plan was drafted by General Lemnitzer specifically and had a striking similarity with NATO’s Operation Gladio. The logic of Northwoods was the stripe of Gladio. The general staff inclined towards prefabricated violence because they believed benefits gained by the state count more than injustice against individuals. The only important criterion was reaching the objective and the objective was ultra right-wing government.

There was not a single item in the Northwoods manual that did not amount to a blatant act of treason, yet the U.S. military establishment dispatched Top Secret – Justification for U.S. military Intervention in Cuba straight to the desk of Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, for onward transmission to President Kennedy. Needless to say, President Kennedy rejected the proposal and a few months later General Lemnitzer’s term was not renewed as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, having served from October 1^st 1960 to September 30^th 1962.

Operation Northwoods memorandum March 13, 1962. Source: https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/news/20010430/doc1.pdf.

However, NATO lost no time, and in November 1962 Lemnitzer was appointed commander of U.S. European Command and as Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) of NATO, the latter to which he served from January 1^st, 1963 to July 1^st, 1969.

Lemnitzer was a perfect fit to oversee the cross-continental Gladio operations in Europe. He had been a prime motivating force in setting up the Special Forces Group in 1952 at Fort Bragg, where commandos were trained in the arts of guerilla insurgency in the events of a Soviet invasion of Europe. Before long the men who proudly wore distinctive green berets were cooperating discreetly with the armed forces of a string of European countries and participating in direct military operations some of them extremely sensitive and highly illegal if not downright treasonous.

One of these operations was the NATO/CIA coalition which had sponsored at least two attempts to assassinate President de Gaulle.^{^[531]} In response to this, de Gaulle had kicked NATO’s headquarters out of France, removed France from NATO and had given Lemnitzer a summary order to quit NATO. If President de Gaulle’s orders had been denied, he would have been prepared to go to war, and thus there was a bit of reshuffling, but essentially the game continued intact.

To the CIA and Pentagon, Kennedy was a bull in a China shop.

· Kennedy’s insistence to supervise unorthodox warfare inhouse,

· his backing off in the U.S.Soviet missile crisis,

· the removal of frontline missiles from Turkey,

· undermining and scheming to end the Vietnam war,

· upsetting Cuban exile operations and reversing [reverting?] America to peacetime footing when it was perfectly obvious the Pentagon thought the threat of the Soviets and Chinese was never greater. And the ultimate insult,

· the firing of CIA godfather Allen Dulles and the First Chief of Staff General Lemnitzer packed off to exile.

The CIA, Pentagon and NATO were in agreement. Kennedy had to go.

NATO’s Gladio and the OAS as instruments of MURDER INC.

Jim Garrison was the District Attorney of New Orleans from 1962 to 1973 and was the only prosecutor to bring forth a trial concerning the assassination of President Kennedy. During his investigation, Garrison came across numerous connections, though at the time he did not know enough to fully connect all of

the dots. One important dot was Guy Banister, former chief of the Chicago FBI office and deputy superintendent of police in New Orleans who began his career in the Second World War with the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI). Banister in his ‘retirement years’ had set up his own small detective agency which was conveniently located directly across the street from the offices of ONI and the Secret Service. Furthermore, across Lafayette Park and a short walk down St. Charles Avenue was the headquarters of the CIA.

Garrison writes in On the Trail of the Assassins:^{^[532]}

“Banister’s operation also included the processing and handling of anti-Castro trainees passing through the city. Many of the exiles were recruits from the West arriving for guerilla training at the camp north of Lake Pontchartrain. Others were sent on to Florida for similar training being conducted by the CIA there. Occasionally a handful of graduates of the Florida training program would stop at Banister’s, a road stop as well as a headquarters for lodging and eating arrangement to be made on their way back to their homes in the vicinity of Dallas…”

Garrison uncovered the Banister apparatus, which was part of a supply line that ran along the Dallas-New Orleans-Miami corridor. These supplies consisted of arms and explosives for use against Castro’s Cuba. David Ferrie, who was former OSS, worked for Guy Banister and Clay Shaw (also former OSS). David Ferrie was one of the leaders of the local Cuban Revolutionary Front. Garrison discovers during his investigation that Banister was engaged in the training and equipping of commando units for paramilitary action inside Cuba, thus clearly tying the FBI and CIA into the activities of Banister and Ferrie.

In addition, Jack Ruby had a special relationship with the Dallas office of the FBI. In 1959 Ruby met at least nine times with one of the Dallas Bureau’s agents.^{^[533]} At that time he also purchased a microphone equipped wristwatch, a bugged tie clip, a telephone bug, and a bugged attaché case. These facts suggest that Jack Ruby was probably a regular informant with the local Bureau office.⁶¹⁶ Jack Ruby’s name became infamous throughout the world as the man who shot Lee Harvey Oswald in the basement of the Dallas Police headquarters. The Dallas Police Department would also mysteriously lose the record of Lee Harvey Oswald’s interrogation.

Garrison continues:^{^[534]}

“…reviewing the testimony of Lieutenant Colonel Allison G. Folsom, Jr., who was reading aloud from Oswald’s training record. He described a grade that Oswald had received in a Russian examination at El Toro Marine Base in California shortly before his highly publicized defection to the Soviet Union…in 1966…I was still in military service – by now a major – and I could not recall a single soldier ever having been required to demonstrate how much Russian he had learned… Lee Oswald – in 1959, at least – had received intelligence training. I knew, as did anyone with a military background, that Marine intelligence activity was guided by the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI).

…in the summer of 1963. Oswald had been spotted participating in several pamphleting incidents…The Warren Commission had concluded from this and other evidence that Oswald was a dedicated…communist who had joined the Fair Play for Cuba Committee to support Fidel Castro.

Because of several inconsistencies, this facile explanation had never sat quite right with me…Oswald had stamped the 544 Camp address…on his public handouts…I wanted to look at the place firsthand.”

Garrison discovers that both the entrance to 544 Camp and 531 Lafayette (the address to Banister’s detective agency) led to the same place. Thus, tying Oswald, whom the Warren Commission had readily labeled a pro-Castro communist, directly with Banister and his Cuban exile operations!

Garrison also discovers that George de Mohrenschildt was the ‘baby-sitter’^{^[535]} of Oswald. During the Second World War, de Mohrenschildt had worked for French

Intelligence and among his close friends was Jean de Menil the president of Schlumberger Corporation which had close ties with the CIA.⁶¹⁹

Garrison writes:⁶²⁰

“The Schlumberger Corporation was a huge French owned company, which serviced oil producers worldwide by using explosives and geological measuring devices…It had been a supporter of the French counter-revolutionary Secret Army Organization (OAS), which attempted to assassinate President Charles de Gaulle several times in the late 1950s and early 1960s for his role in freeing Algeria in

North Africa. The CIA, which was also supportive of the French OAS generals, had supplied Schlumberger with anti-personnel ammunition…”

Garrison continues:^{^[536]}

“This observation, had we known about it in 1967, would have brought us fullcircle all the way back to the blimp base at Houma, Louisiana, where David Ferrie and others from Guy Banister’s operation repossessed the munitions from the Schlumberger bunker which the CIA earlier had given to the assassination- minded OAS. It would certainly have helped our case against Shaw to have been able to link him definitively with the CIA. Unfortunately, however, with our limited staff and finances, and many leads to follow, our investigation was not able to uncover any of this crucial background information when we needed it most.”

George de Mohrenschildt according to Garrison was probably given no indication of what laid down the road, but there is now little doubt that he had been operating under deep cover as an agent of the CIA. It was de Mohrenschildt who had convinced Oswald to move to Dallas, after he was first dispatched to New Orleans for sheep-dipping (made to look like a pro-Castro communist) courtesy of Guy Banister. Oswald is then introduced to Ruth Paine via de Mohrenschildt. Paine is the person who arranged Oswald to work at the Texas School Book

Depository, where Oswald was reported to have fired the shots at Kennedy.⁶²²

George de Mohrenschildt had supposedly ‘committed suicide’ on March 29^th,

1977, only hours after arranging to meet an investigator from the House Select Committee on Assassinations, where he reportedly was about to change the original testimony he delivered to the Warren Commission.

* * *

E. Howard Hunt, made infamous as one of Nixon’s White House Plumbers caught in the Watergate scandal and subsequently serving 33 months in prison, was not quite the bumbling fool that he was portrayed to be, although he did most certainly ruin his own life and the life of his family; his daughters’ blaming him (with due cause) for the death of their mother and his two sons becoming meth addicts and drug dealers.

Hunt in fact confessed to his estranged first son, whom he named Saint John, that he knew the secrets to Kennedy’s murder when he thought he was on his deathbed. In fact, he would live four years more and would once again turn his back on his son, criticizing him for a life that amounted to nothing and

demanding all the JFK memos he had given Saint returned to him. Saint who was concerned that these secrets would be buried along with his father, attempted to get as much out of him before he died, some of this information was published in an interview with Rolling Stone magazine.^{^[537]} Among the names mentioned by E. Howard Hunt implicated in the murder of Kennedy was Bill Harvey.

Harvey joined the CIA in 1947 (at its very inception) and ran the CIA’s Berlin station during the 1950s. While in Germany, Harvey worked closely with highranking ‘former’ Nazi Reinhard Gehlen’s notorious organization and Gehlen came to consider him a “very esteemed [and] really reliable friend.”^{^[538]} In November 1961, Harvey was put in charge of the top-secret CIA operation to kill Castro code named ZR/RIFLE.^{^[539]} He began to work directly with Mafia ambassador at large, Johnny Rosselli (whom E. Howard Hunt also worked with).

David Talbot writes in The Devil’s Chessboard:^{^[540]}

“In 1962, Helms – who along with Angleton, had replaced the ‘retired’ Dulles as Harvey’s main patrons at the agency [CIA] – promoted the agency tough guy [Bill Harvey], naming him head of the CIA’s entire Cuba operation, Task Force W. Helms and Harvey kept much of the operation, including assassination efforts against Castro, a secret from President Kennedy…”

Bill Harvey was positioned as Rome station chief, after Cuba, to oversee Gladio operations in Italy. Harvey was reportedly with Mark Wyatt (another CIA agent stationed in Italy) attending a meeting at the Gladio base in Sardinia when they heard the news that President Kennedy had been shot.^{^[541]} However, Bill Harvey was in Dallas in November 1963, according to Wyatt who told French investigative journalist Fabrizio Calvi in an interview about Operation Gladio.^{^[542]}

House Assassinations Committee investigator Dan Hardway, who was assigned by the panel to probe possible CIA connections to JFK’s murder, observed years later:⁶²⁹

“We considered Harvey to be one of our prime suspects from the very start. He had all the key connections – to organized crime, to the CIA station in Miami where the plots against Castro were run…We tried to get Harvey’s travel vouchers and security file from the CIA, but they always blocked us. But we did come across a lot of memos that suggested he was traveling a lot in the months leading up to the assassination.”

Talbot writes:^{^[543]}

“As Hunt related his story to his son, he remained fuzzy about his own involvement in the plot. In the end, he [Hunt] said, he played only a peripheral ‘benchwarmer’ role in the killing of Kennedy. It was Bill Harvey who was the quarterback, according to Hunt…While assembling his Castro assassination team, Harvey had reached out to a variety of underworld professionals, including (with Helms’s permission) the infamous European assassin code-named QJ-WIN, whom the CIA had recruited to kill Patrice Lumumba. And Harvey was well positioned as Rome station chief to once again plumb the European underworld for a Dallas killing team.”

Thus, it should be no surprise with Harvey being directly connected with Gladio operations via the United States and Europe, that among the strange and murderous characters who converged on Dallas in November 1963 was a notorious French OAS commando named Jean Souetre, who was connected to the assassination plots against President de Gaulle. Souetre was arrested in Dallas after the Kennedy assassination and expelled to Mexico without questioning.⁶³¹

Kruger concludes:^{^[544]}

“…In addition to, or rather behind, the CIA’s new official policy there is also an unofficial one. It manifests in such matters as the manipulation of the DEA to perform what previously had been CIA dirty work, and in the toleration, if not encouragement of a large apparently independent army of Cuban exile terrorists, available for action in Latin America at the request of the presiding dictators.

…We cannot, of course discount the possibility that the unofficial policy is in fact executed by former agents who had either been purged from the agency, or left in protest against its more moderate line. However that implies that a renegade

CIA faction now runs an independent secret service…”

Chapter 9
The U.S. Pivot to Asia:
Cold War Lessons from Vietnam for Today pg. 255

Col. Fletcher Prouty, who served as Chief of Special Operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Kennedy and was a former Col. in the U.S. Air Force, goes over in his book JFK: The CIA, Vietnam and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy how the CIA was used to instigate psy-ops and paramilitary activities in Vietnam to create the pretext required for an open declaration of war and for the entry of the U.S. military into a twenty-year-long meat grinder.

This was a strategy reserved not just for Vietnam but had become the general U.S. foreign policy in all regions that were considered threats to American foreign interests within the Cold War Grand Strategy, as seen under the directorship of the Dulles brothers. Any country that held views that were not aligned with U.S. foreign policy could not simply be invaded in most scenarios, but rather, the ground would need to be prepared to create the justification for a direct military invasion. In other words, ‘fake it till you make it.,’ and quite literally so.

Don’t have an actual ‘enemy’ to fight and justify your meddling into another country’s affairs? Not a problem. Just split your paramilitary team into ‘good guys’ and ‘bad guys’ and have them pretend fight. Go village to village repeating this action-drama and you will see how quickly the word will spread that there are ‘dangerous extremists’ in the area that exist in ‘great numbers.’

Prouty described this paramilitary activity, which is called ‘Fun and Games,’ and how this tactic was also used in the Philippines, resulting in the election of Ramon Magsaysay who was declared a hero against a non-existing enemy. In fact, the Filipino elite units that were trained by the CIA during this period were then brought into Vietnam to enact the very same tactic.

Prouty writes in JFK:^{^[545]}

“I have been to such training programs at U.S. military bases where identical tactics are taught to Americans as well as foreigners. It is all the same…these are the same tactics that were exploited by CIA super-agent Edward G. Lansdale [the

man in charge of the CIA Saigon Military Mission] and his men in the Philippines and Indochina.

This is an example of the intelligence service’s ‘Fun and Games.’ Actually, it is as old as history; but lately it has been refined, out of necessity, into a major tool of clandestine warfare.

Lest anyone think that this is an isolated case, be assured that it was not. Such ‘mock battles’ and ‘mock attacks on native villages’ were staged countless times in Indochina for the benefit of, or the operation of, visiting dignitaries, such as John McCone when he first visited Vietnam as the Kennedy appointed director of central intelligence [after Kennedy fired Allen Dulles].”

What Prouty is stating here, is that the mock battles that occurred for these dignitaries were CIA trained agents ‘play-acting’ as the Vietcong…to make it appear that the Vietcong were not only numerous but extremely hostile. If even dignitaries can be fooled by such things unfolding before their own eyes, is it really a wonder that a Western audience watching or reading about these affairs going on in the world through their mainstream media interpreter could possibly differentiate between ‘reality’ vs. a ‘staged reality’? Not only were the lines between military and paramilitary operations becoming blurred, but as Prouty states in his book JFK, the highest-ranking officers who were operating and overseeing the Vietnam situation were all CIA operatives, not only within the U.S. military but including the U.S. Ambassador to South Vietnam, Henry Cabot Lodge.^{^[546]}

Prouty writes in JFK:^{^[547]}

“U.S. Ambassador Lodge – had since 1945 been one of the most important agents of the OSS and later the CIA in the Far East. His orders came from that agency.”

Prouty goes further to state that Lodge was brought into the role as Ambassador on August 26^th, 1963 specifically to remove Ngo Dinh Diem President of the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam), who was seeking a peaceful resolution to the conflict at that point. Ngo Dinh Diem was killed two months after Lodge’s arrival in Vietnam, on November 2^st, 1963. His brother and chief advisor Ngo Dinh Nhu was killed the same day.

Kruger writes:^{^[548]}

“Indochina remained Conein’s base of operations after World War II…and became the top U.S. expert on the area – as well as on the opium-smuggling Corsican Mafia. He was Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge’s middle man in the 1963 plot to overthrow South Vietnam’s President Ngo Dinh Diem (who was assassinated along with his brother Ngo Ding Nhu, the Corsican’s partner in the drug traffic). A decade later, Conein and Hunt, working for the Nixon White House

Plumbers, would attempt to make it appear that the plot had been ordered by JFK.”

The CIA and the Pentagon: A Tale of Two Star Crossed Lovers

As already discussed, with the Eisenhower-Nixon victory in 1952, the culmination of years of political strategizing by Wall Street Republican power brokers, the new heads of the State Department and the CIA were selected as none other than John Foster and Allen Dulles respectively; and they would go on to direct the global operations of the most powerful nation in the world.

The entire period, from April 12^th, 1945 (Roosevelt’s death) to that fateful Election Day, can be best understood as the first stage of America’s coup.^{^[549]} This is especially clear between the period of 1945 and 1949, when a number of new pieces of legislation were passed which successfully reorganised the departments within the United States such that much of the government and military decisions would be beholden to the authority of a few men, men who were much more powerful than the president himself.

As previously discussed, the National Security Act of 1947, a Trojan horse, was one of the first of this new breed of legislation and led to the creation of the Central Intelligence Agency, placing it under the direction of the National Security Council. Although it did not explicitly authorize the CIA to conduct covert operations, Section 102 was sufficiently vague to permit abuse. By December 1947, (less than four months after the creation of the CIA), the perceived necessity to “stem the flow of communism” in Western Europe—particularly

Italy—by overt and covert “psychological warfare” forced the issue and NSC 4-A was born.

NSC 4-A was a new directive to cover “clandestine paramilitary operations, as well as political and economic warfare,” this provided the authorization for the intervention of the CIA in the Italian elections of April 1948. It was understood that the U.S. military could have no ‘direct’ role in covert operations, since that would defeat the purpose of deniability.

In just a few months from its creation, the CIA went from what was supposed to be a civilian intelligence gathering arm of the government to being responsible for covert operations including ‘psychological warfare.’ This was a far cry from what had organised the United States prior to the Second World War, which relied on a civilian army. Such a government mandate for cloak and dagger operations during a time of peace would have been considered unthinkable.

But that is why the Cold War narrative was so imperative, since under this paranoid schizophrenic nightmare, it was thought the world would never be at peace until a significant portion of it was wiped out. The Cold War defined a pixelated enemy that was under-defined and invisible to the eye. The enemy was what your superiors told you were the enemy, and like a shape-shifter could take the form of anybody, including your neighbour, your colleague, your partner…even the president. There would always be an enemy, because there would always be people who would resist the envisioned New World Order.

Recall, NSC 4-A was replaced by NSC 10/2, approved by President Truman on June 18^th, 1948, creating the Office of Policy Coordination (OPC). NSC 10/2 was the first presidential document which specified a mechanism to approve and manage covert operations, and also the first in which the term ‘covert operations’ was defined. From 1948-1950 the OPC was not under CIA control, but rather was a renegade operation run by Allen Dulles and Frank Wisner. The OPC was later renamed the Directorate of Plans and Frank Wisner would continue at its helm.

Although the CIA was strictly in charge of covert operations, it often needed the military for additional personnel, transport, overseas bases, weapons, aircraft, ships, and all the other things the Department of Defense had in abundance. In reality, the military, whether it liked it or not, found itself forever in the embrace of its toxic lover, the CIA.

A map of North and South Vietnam after the Geneva Accords of 1954.

Source: BUREAU OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS US GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE - http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/vietnam_strug.htm

The people of the world, most of whom had no knowledge of the Tonkinese, were led to believe that this offer was a most compassionate gesture. And, what is worse, the planners of this sinister plot were certain that the people of the world would never learn the truth, that this movement of one million North Vietnamese was really intended to be the kindling that would set the country ablaze. It was a set-up and would lay the essential groundwork for America’s direct entry into the war.

The mass exodus of North Vietnamese to South Vietnam would be orchestrated by the Saigon Military Mission (SMM). This was a terrible upheaval for these people but it was sold to the West as if they were refugees fleeing Ho Chi Minh. In reality, they were fleeing the ‘psychological warfare’ and ‘paramilitary tactics’ that the SMM were unleashing in these small Northern villages. In their own words, as found in documents released within the Pentagon Papers, leaders of the SMM wrote that the mission had been sent into North Vietnam to carry out “unconventional warfare,” “paramilitary operations,” “political-psychological warfare,” and rumor campaigns and to set up a Combat Psy War course for the Vietnamese. The members of the SMM were classic ‘agents provocateurs.’

Prouty writes in JFK:^{^[559]}

“This movement of Catholics—or natives whom the SMM called ‘Catholics’— from the northern provinces of Vietnam to the south, under the provisions of the Geneva Agreement, became the most important activity of the Saigon Military Mission and one of the root causes of the Vietnam War. The terrible burden these 1,100,000 destitute strangers imposed upon the equally poor native residents of the south created a pressure on the country and the Diem administration that proved to be overwhelming.

These penniless natives…were herded into Haiphong by the Saigon Military Mission and put aboard U.S. Navy transport vessels. About 300,000 traveled on the CIA’s Civil Air Transport aircraft, and others walked out. They were transported, like cattle, to the southernmost part of Vietnam, where, despite promises of money and other basic support, they were turned loose upon the local population. These northerners are Tonkinese, more Chinese than the Cochinese of the south. They have never mixed under normal conditions. Wherever these poor people were dumped on the south were given the name ‘Communist insurgencies,’ and much of the worst and most pernicious part of the twenty years of warfare that followed was the direct result of this terrible activity that had been incited and carried out by CIA’s terroristic Saigon Military Mission.

…Nothing that occurred during these thirty years of warfare, 1945-75, was more pernicious than this movement of these 1,100,000 ‘Catholics’ from the north to the south at a time when the government of the south scarcely existed.”

It didn’t take long before the disturbance caused by the Diem-favored Northern intruders onto the Southern natives broke out into violence. Before long, the ‘friends,’ according to the Diem government and its CIA backers were the one million Northern ‘Catholics’, and the ‘enemy’—or at least the ‘problem’—was the native Cochinese of the South.

The time was right to fan the flames of war and bring in the Americans.

Vietnam’s Heroin Tales

1970 was the year that Nixon would implement his ‘Vietnamization’ program. Vietnamization was a policy of the Richard Nixon administration to reportedly end U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War through a program to “expand, equip, and train South Vietnamese forces and assign to them an ever-increasing combat role, at the same time steadily reducing the number of U.S. combat troops”, as per the United States Department of Defense. According to Henrik Kruger, in reality this meant simply that the controls in Vietnam were returned to the CIA to manage the heroin trade.

Henrik Kruger writes in his The Great Heroin Coup: Drugs, Intelligence and International Fascism:^{^[560]}

“[Nixon’s Vietnamization]…program pumped a fortune into South Vietnam, much of it pocketed by officials. Investigations of endemic corruption among non-coms and senior U.S. Army personnel led to a Hong Kong office run by a lieutenant of drug czar Trafficante.

Pure no. 4 heroin appeared in Saigon in 1970, creating an epidemic of addiction among GIs. All previously available heroin had been the coarse form that could only be smoked. The new heroin wave was hushed up.

…On 27 May 1971 Congressmen Morgan Murphy and Robert Steele issued their report, ‘The World Heroin Problem’. Among their sensational figures was that some 15 percent of the GIs in Vietnam were addicted to heroin. The causes were easy to identify. Most obvious was the sudden appearance of enormous quantities of no. 4 heroin. Fourteen-year old girls sold 90 percent pure heroin for peanuts. Pushers stuffed it into soldiers’ pockets free of charge. Add to that the crackdown that effectively eliminated marijuana and hash from the barracks.

…The heroin coup was complete by 1973. The French were out, and new labs, routes, and buyer networks were in place, with Southeast Asia the main supplier.”

Here is a mini-history of how Vietnam was commandeered from the Corsican

Mafia to form new heroin channels that would be in service to the CIA-NATOGladio construct and its Asian terrorist networks. Kruger writes:^{^[561]}

“In 1955 CIA agent General Edward Lansdale began a war to liquidate the Corsican supply network…The Lansdale/Corsican vendetta lasted several years…Oddly enough, his principal informant on Corsican drug routes and connections was the former French Foreign Legionnaire, Lucien Conein, then of the CIA. Conein knew just about every opium field, smuggler, trail, airstrip, and Corsican in Southeast Asia.

…Lansdale returned to Vietnam as an advisor to Ambassador Lodge. There was also an upheaval in the narcotics traffic, and perhaps the two were connected. CIA-backed South Vietnam and Laotian generals began taking over the opium traffic and as they did so, increasing amounts of morphine and low-quality heroin began showing up on the Saigon market.

The first heroin refineries sprang up in Laos under the control of General Ouane Rattikone. President Ky in Saigon was initially in charge of smuggling from the Laotian refineries to the South Vietnamese; and Lansdale’s office, it is to be remembered, was working closely with Ky. Lansdale himself was one of Ky’s heartiest supporters, and Conein went along with whatever Lansdale said.

…General Lansdale returned to the U.S. in 1967, leaving Conein in Vietnam. The next year Conein greeted his new boss, William Colby. Since 1962 Colby had run the agency’s special division for covert operations in Southeast Asia, where his responsibilities included the ‘secret’ CIA war in Laos with its 30,000-man Meo army…Many of the agents who ran the CIA’s war in Laos had earlier trained Cuban exiles for Bay of Pigs invasion, and afterward had taken part in the agency’s continued secret organisations against Cuba…

It was during Colby’s tour in Vietnam that the heroin turned out by General Ouane Rattikone’s labs appeared in quantity, and with unusually high quality. The great heroin wave brought on a GI addiction epidemic in 1970; Congressional reports indicated that some 22 percent of all U.S. soldiers sampled the drugs and 15 percent became hooked.

…In the face of skyrocketing GI heroin abuse, the Army Criminal Investigation Division (CID) looked into General Ngo Dzu’s complicity in the heroin traffic and filed a lengthy report at the U.S. embassy. The embassy ignored the report and chose not to forward it to Washington. The BNDD also investigated the roots of the heroin epidemic, but was impeded in its work by the CIA and U.S. embassy. In 1971, however, a string of heroin labs were uncovered in Thailand, and a number were closed down.

In 1971, furthermore, Colby and Conein were recalled to the United States, Colby became the Deputy Director of Operations, the man in charge of the CIA’s covert operations…

At the war’s cataclysmic end, the CIA admitted that ‘certain elements in the organization’ had been involved in opium smuggling and that the illegal activities of U.S. allies had been overlooked to retain their loyalties. In reality, the agency had been forced to confess because of its inability to refute the tale of returning GIs, among them that of Green Beret Paul Withers, a recipient of nine Purple Hearts, the Distinguished Service Cross and Silver and Bronze Stars:

‘..The mission in Laos was to make friends with the Meo people and organize and train them to fight the Pathet Lao. One of the main tasks was to buy up the entire local crop of opium. About twice a week an Air America plane would arrive with supplies and kilo bags of opium which were loaded on the plane. Each bag was marked with the symbol of the tribe.’

The CIA, reportedly, did not support any form of smuggling after 1968. Del Rosario, a former CIA operative, had something to say about that:

‘In 1971 I was an operations assistant for Continental Air Service, which flew for the CIA in Laos. The company’s transport planes shipped large quantities of rice. However, when the freight invoice was marked ‘Diverse’ I knew it was opium. As a rule an office telephone with a special number would ring and a voice would say ‘The customer is here’ – that was the code designation for the CIA agents who had hired us. ‘Keep an eye on the planes from Bam Houai Sai. We’re sending some goods and someone‘s going to take care of it. Nobody’s allowed to touch anything, and nothing can be loaded,’ was a typical message. These shipments were always top priority. Sometimes the opium was unloaded in Vientiane and stored in Air America depots. At other times it went to Bangkok or Saigon.’

Even while the CIA trafficked in opium, President Nixon ranted on TV against drug abuse and lauded the crackdown against French smuggling networks.”

Chapter 10
Who Really Runs the Middle East Terror Apparatus? pg. 270

Another important component to the newly established opium channels thanks to Nixon’s ‘War on Drugs’ - is Afghanistan. Soldiers deployed to Afghanistan in service to the lauded ‘War on Terror’ would have similar tales to those GIs coming back from Vietnam. These soldiers would describe how most of their time in Afghanistan had been spent guarding large crops of opium…

During the summer of 2021, Afghanistan was on the minds of many. After twenty years of war, millions of lives lost and trillions of dollars spent, the U.S. scrambled messily to extract itself from an unwinnable quagmire having built nothing, secured nothing and established nothing that could resemble a world less chaotic than that which existed before the events of 9/11.

Most of the Western concern around Afghanistan arises out of 9/11 and the Taliban’s supposed connection to this through Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, however, as Scott Ritter, who was the lead analyst for the 7^th Marine Amphibious Brigade on the Soviet war in Afghanistan, has stated:^{^[562]}

“The entire Afghan conflict must be examined considering this reality – everything is a lie. Every battle, every campaign, every contract written and implemented – everything was founded in a lie…

Admiral McRaven, when speaking of the operation to kill Bin Laden, noted that there wasn’t anything fundamentally special about that mission in terms of the tactics. ‘I think that night we ran 11 or 12 [other] missions in Afghanistan,’ McRaven noted. Clearly there was a military focus beyond simply killing Bin Laden. It was secretive work, reportedly involving the assassination of Taliban members, that often resulted in innocent civilians beings killed.

It should be noted that, as of 2019, McRaven believed that this kind of special operations activity should be continued in Afghanistan for years to come. So much for the US mission in Afghanistan being defined by the death of Bin

Laden. The mission had become death, and the careers that were defined by those deaths.

The fact is the war in Afghanistan did not need to be fought. We could have ended the threat posed by Bin Laden simply by negotiating with the Taliban in the aftermath of 9/11, providing the evidence we claimed to have linking Bin Laden to the terrorist attacks on the United States. Any student of Afghanistan worth their salt knows the fundamental importance of honor that is enshrined in the concepts of Pashtunwali, the unwritten ethical code that defines the traditional lifestyle of the Pashtun people. If, as we claimed, Bin Laden carried out an attack on women and children while he was living under the protection of Pashtunwali, then his dishonor is that of the Pashtun tribes. To clear their honor, they would seek justice – in this case, evicting Bin Laden and his followers from Afghanistan. In fact, the Taliban made precisely this offer.

For America, however, this would have been an unsatisfying result. We needed blood, not justice, and we sent our troops to Afghanistan to stack bodies, which they did, in prodigious numbers…We excused this by claiming the Taliban were providing safe haven to Bin Laden, and as such were complicit in the 9/11 attacks. Which was a lie.”

Scott Ritter, who was a former UN weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991-1998, had also played a leading role in bringing to the public’s attention the lies told to justify the illegal war in Iraq, which was based off of cooked British intelligence on Iraq’s purchasing of uranium from Niger.^{^[563]}

The twenty-year occupancy of Afghanistan, is estimated to have costed the United States $1-2 trillion.^{^[564]} This is only for the case of Afghanistan; it does not account for the total cost thus far of the global ‘War on Terror.’ Such extravagant spending with really nothing to show for it, but the destruction of cities, the slaughter of innocents, instability and chaos; you would think the United States must be a very rich country to afford such a budget with no clear goal or objective but general mayhem. Instead, what we find is that the American economy, along with its living standard, is plummeting, while drug use and overdose rates are skyrocketing and suicide is among the top causes of death in the United States, especially among the youth.

The reason why we find ourselves in this terrible situation is due to the fact that there has been something operating within the Middle East for much longer than the United States. It is the reason why we call the Middle East and the Far East by such a name. It is the reason for why many countries in this region have the boundaries they do and was the originator of the Palestine-Israel conflict. It is also the central force behind the creation and funding of Islamic terrorism.

Whose ‘Arab Awakening’?

“The renunciation will not be easy. Jewish hopes have been raised to such a pitch that the non-fulfilment of the Zionist dream of a Jewish state in Palestine will cause intense disillusionment and bitterness. The manifold proofs of public

spirit and of capacity to endure hardships and face danger in the building up of

the national home are there to testify to the devotion with which a large section

of the Jewish people cherish the Zionist ideal. And it would be an act of further cruelty to the Jews to disappoint those hopes if there existed some way of

satisfying them, that did not involve cruelty to another people. But the logic of

facts is inexorable. It shows that no room can be made in Palestine for a second nation except by dislodging or exterminating the nation in possession.”

– the concluding paragraph of George Antonius’ The Arab Awakening (1938), graduate from Cambridge University, civil servant in the British Mandate of Palestine

Much of what is responsible for the war and havoc in the Middle East today has the British orchestrated so-called ‘Arab Awakening’ to thank, led by characters such as E.G. Browne, St. John Philby, T.E. Lawrence of Arabia, and Gertrude Bell. Although its origins go as far back as the 19^th century, it was only until the early 20^th century, that the British were able to reap significant results from its long harvest.

The First World War was to officially start July 28^th, 1914, almost immediately following the Balkan wars (1912-1913) which had greatly weakened the Ottoman Empire. Never one to miss an opportunity when smelling fresh blood, the British were very keen on acquiring what they saw as strategic territories for the taking under the justification of being in ‘war-time,’ which in the language of geopolitics translates to ‘the right to plunder anything one can get their hands on’.

The brilliance of Britain’s plan to garner these new territories was not to fight the Ottoman Empire directly but rather, to invoke an internal rebellion from within. These Arab territories would be encouraged by Britain to rebel for their independence from the Ottoman Empire and the Arabs were told that Britain would support them in this cause. These Arab territories were thus led to believe that they were fighting for their own freedom when, in fact, they were fighting for British and secondarily French colonial interests.

In order for all Arab leaders to sign on to the idea of rebelling against the Ottoman Sultan, there needed to be a viable leader that was Arab, for they certainly would not agree to rebel at the behest of Britain. Lord Kitchener, the butcher of Sudan, was to be at the helm of this operation as Britain’s Minister of War. Kitchener’s choice for Arab leadership was the scion of the Hashemite dynasty, Hussein ibn Ali, known as the Sherif of Mecca who ruled the region of Hejaz under the Ottoman Sultan. Charles Hardinge of the British India Office disagreed with this choice and wanted Wahhabite Abdul-Aziz ibn Saud instead. However, Lord Kitchener overruled this stating that their intelligence revealed that more Arabs would follow Hussein.

Since the Young Turk Revolution which seized the Ottoman government in 1908, Hussein was very aware that his dynasty was in no way guaranteed and thus he was open to Britain’s invitation to crown him King of the Arab kingdom. Kitchener wrote to one of Hussein’s sons, Abdallah, as reassurance of Britain’s support: “If the Arab nation assist England in this war that has been forced upon us by Turkey, England will guarantee that no internal intervention take place in Arabia, and will give Arabs every assistance against foreign aggression.”^{^[565]}

Sir Henry McMahon who was the British High Commissioner to Egypt, would have several correspondences^{^[566]} with Sherif Hussein between July 1915 to March 1916 to convince Hussein to lead the rebellion for the ‘independence’ of the Arab states. However, in a private letter to India’s Viceroy Charles Hardinge, sent on December 4^th, 1915, McMahon expressed a rather different view of what the future of Arabia would be, contrary to what he had led Sherif Hussein to believe: “[I do not take] the idea of a future strong united independent Arab State…too seriously…the conditions of Arabia do not and will not for a very long time to come, lend themselves to such a thing.”

Such a view meant that Arabia would be subject to Britain’s heavy handed

‘advising’ in all its affairs, whether it sought it or not. In the meantime, Sherif Hussein was receiving dispatches issued by the British Cairo office to the effect that the Arabs of Palestine, Syria, and Mesopotamia (Iraq) would be given independence guaranteed by Britain, if they rose up against the Ottoman Empire.

The French were understandably suspicious of Britain’s plans for these Arab territories. The French viewed Palestine, Lebanon and Syria as intrinsically belonging to France, based on French conquests during the Crusades and their ‘protection’ of the Catholic populations in the region. Hussein was adamant that Beirut and Aleppo were to be given independence and completely rejected French presence in Arabia. Britain was also not content to give the French all the concessions they demanded as their ‘intrinsic’ colonial rights.

Enter Sykes and Picot.

Sykes-Picot: The Gentlemen’s Etiquette on Backstabbing

Francois Georges Picot was sent to negotiate with the British on November 23^rd, 1915. He was chosen for this role due to his policy outlook of the ‘Syrian party’ in France, which asserted that Syria and Palestine (which they considered a single country) were French property, for historical, economic, and cultural reasons. Approximately six months later, the top-secret terms of the agreement were signed on May 16^th, 1916. The map below showcases the agreed upon ‘carving up’ of these Arab territories, to be the new jewels of Britain and France.

Blue is the French zone, Red is the British zone, Brown is Neutral.

Notice in the above map that Palestine is marked as an international zone in brown. Palestine was recognised as something neither country was willing to forfeit to the other. And thus, according to the gentlemen’s etiquette, meant that one would simply have to take it while the other wasn’t looking, which is exactly what happened.

In 1916, Sir Mark Sykes created the Arab Bureau whose headquarters would be in Cairo, Egypt (which was under British rule), as a branch of British Intelligence and under the direction of Lord Kitchener. Among the notable members of the Arab Bureau were T.E. Lawrence, better known as ‘Lawrence of Arabia’. The raison d’être of the Arab Bureau was to exact British control over Arabia via British Egypt.

The Arab revolt, led under the façade of King Hussein, was launched in Hejaz in early June 1916, however, the hundreds of thousands of Arabs the British were expecting to defect from the Ottoman army and join the revolt…did not show up. Instead, British aircraft and ships were deployed, along with Muslim troops from British Egypt and elsewhere in the Empire. As the revolt continued to show its weaknesses and lack of support from the Arabs themselves, to such a point that Britain was starting to despair of its success, T.E. Lawrence (who was known as ‘the man with the gold’), organised a confederation of Bedouin tribal chiefs to fight alongside the British forces in the Palestine and Syria campaigns.

The Arab Revolt of 1916-1918, had been, to the detriment of the Arab people, a British led rebellion. The British claimed that their sole interest in the affair was the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire and had given their word that these Arab territories would be freed and allowed independence if they agreed to rebel, in large part led and directed by the British. It is a rather predictable feature of the British to lie and double cross and thus it should be of no surprise to anyone that their intentions were quite the opposite of what they had promised and thanks to the Sykes-Picot Russian leak,^{^[567]} were revealed in their entire shameful glory.

Once the Arab Revolt was ‘won’ against the Ottoman Empire, instead of the promised Arab independence, the Middle East was carved up into zones of influence under British and French colonial rule. Puppet monarchies were

created in regions that were considered not under direct colonial subjugation in order to continue the illusion that Arabs remained in charge of sacred regions such as Mecca and Medina.

In 1917, Prime Minister Lloyd George ([in office] 1916-1922) [the very Lloyd George who played a starring role in his support for British Fascism in Chapter 1] ordered troops from British Egypt to invade Palestine, expressing his wish to General Allenby that Jerusalem be taken by Christmas. Obligingly, on December 11^th, 1917, Allenby walked into Jerusalem through the Jaffa Gate and declared martial law over the city. Allenby explained to Picot, that Jerusalem would remain under British military administration, for some time...

The British India Office invaded Mesopotamia and took Baghdad on March 11^th, 1917. The Southern province of Basra, largely Shi’ite, was to be British, while the ancient capital of Baghdad was to fall under some form of British protectorate. After the British conquests of Palestine and Mesopotamia, Syria would be taken by September 1918 by British led forces and Damascus would ultimately, after a bit of squabbling, be left under French control or ‘advisory’. The final settlement for allocation of territories was established in 1920 with the Treaty of Sevres which stipulated that Syria and Lebanon were to go to France, and that Mesopotamia (Iraq) and Palestine would be under British control with Arabia (Hejaz) being officially ‘independent’ but ruled by British puppet monarchs. Britain was also granted continued influence over Egypt, Cyprus and the Persian Gulf coast.

Faisal, the son of Hussein ibn Ali and who had been under the tutelage of T.E. Lawrence this whole time, was proclaimed King of Iraq, after his failed attempt as King over Greater Syria before the French chased him out with their military, recognising that he represented British interests. Faisal, under the heavy guidance of T.E. Lawrence, courtesy of the Cairo Office, was crowned King of Iraq and Hussein’s other son, Abdullah I was established as the Emir of Transjordan until a negotiated legal separation of Transjordan from Britain’s Palestine Mandate occurred in 1946, whereupon he was crowned King of Jordan. Yet another monarch placed on the throne by the British.

In central Arabia, Hussein ibn Ali, Sharif of Mecca, the puppet leader of the Arab Revolt laid claim to the title Caliph in 1924, which his rival Wahhabite Abdul-Aziz ibn Saud rejected and declared war, defeating the Hashemites. Hussein, the British Cairo Office favourite, abdicated and Ibn Saud, the British India Office favourite, was proclaimed King of Hejaz and Najd in 1926, which led to the founding of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The Al Saud (House of Saud) warriors of Wahhabism were a formidable strike force that the British believed would help London gain control of the Western shores of the Persian Gulf.

The Fate of Palestine: The Balfour Declaration and British Fascism?

While the British were promising Arab rule and independence to the Hashemite Hussein and his sons, the British were simultaneously promising a homeland in Palestine to the Jews. In the Balfour Declaration of November 2^nd, 1917 the following was declared:

“His majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object…”

There is a great deal of mystery and speculation as to what Britain intended in creating this British Mandate of Palestine with the signing of the Balfour Declaration one month before General Allenby’s march into Palestine. The Balfour Declaration was a public statement issued by the British government, under Prime Minister Lloyd George, announcing its support for the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine. Lord Walter Rothschild, Lord Arthur Balfour, Leo Amery and Lord Alfred Milner were the authors of the Balfour Declaration.^{^[568]} Recalling the contents of Chapter 1 this should rightfully be regarded as a rather puzzling admixture of people involved in such an endeavour. As was extensively shown in Chapter 1, Lloyd George was an open fascist, supporter of Hitler, ally of the Duke of Windsor and first choice for prime minister of a fascist Britain. Lord Alfred Milner,^{^[569]} was one of the original five members of Lloyd George’s War Cabinet,^{^[570]} and very much set the stage for the world view of Lloyd George, Winston Churchill and Oswald Mosley, who were all open supporters of fascism. ⁶⁵⁹

Leo Amery, born to a Jewish Hungarian mother and portrayed as vehemently anti-fascist, was on record supporting Oswald Mosley’s controversial speeches that contained the first whisperings of fascism in Parliament.⁶⁶⁰ Strangely, Leo’s first son John Amery, despite being of Jewish descent, became an adamant

British fascist and Nazi collaborator during the Second World War. John Amery

The original letter from Balfour to Rothschild, November 2, 1917. Authors of the Balfour

Declaration were Lord Walter Rothschild, Lord Arthur Balfour, Leo Amery and Lord Alfred Milner

was the originator of the British Free Corps, a volunteer Waffen-SS unit composed of former British and Dominion prisoners-of-war. John Amery conducted recruitment efforts and made propaganda broadcasts for Germany and gave direct support to Benito Mussolini.^{^[571]} He was prosecuted by the British authorities and pleaded guilty to eight counts of high treason, for which he was sentenced to death, seven months after the war in Europe ended. He was hanged December 19^th, 1945 at the age of thirty-three. Leo Amery’s second son, Julian Amery would be a very high-level player within the Gladio networks.^{^[572]}

As previously discussed in Chapter 1, Oswald Mosley had kept good relations with the Rothschilds and even acted as the intermediary in the case of Baron

Louis Rothschild when he was held under house arrest in Austria by the Nazis, who ultimately allowed him safe passage to Paris.

It is all rather bizarre, that all of the authors of the Balfour Declaration had positive relations to the fascist movement in Britain and thus, should most certainly call into question the true motive in organising such an arrangement.

Britain would receive the mandate over Palestine^{^[573]} from the League of Nations in July 1922.

Jewish Settlement was permitted in the British Mandate of Palestine and was excluded in Transjordan.

Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, violent confrontations between Jews and Arabs took place in Palestine costing thousands of lives. In 1936 a major Arab revolt occurred over the course of seven months, until diplomatic efforts involving other Arab countries led to a ceasefire. In 1937, a British Royal Commission of Inquiry headed by William Peel concluded that Palestine had two distinct societies with irreconcilable political demands, thus making it necessary to partition the land. The Arab Higher Committee refused Peel’s ‘prescription’ and the revolt broke out again. This time, Britain responded with a devastatingly heavy hand. Roughly 5,000 Arabs were killed by the British armed forces and police. Following the riots, the British mandate government dissolved the Arab Higher Committee and declared it an illegal body.

In response to the revolt, the British government issued the White Paper of 1939, which stated that Palestine should be a bi-national state, inhabited by both Arabs and Jews. Due to the international unpopularity of the mandate including within Britain itself, it was organised such that the United Nations would take responsibility for the British initiative and adopted the resolution to partition Palestine on November 29^th, 1947. Britain would announce its termination of its Mandate for Palestine on May 15^th, 1948, after the State of Israel declared its independence on May 14^th, 1948.

The Rise of the Muslim Brotherhood

“We do not cut the head of religion except by sword of religion.”

– Jamal al-Din al-Afghani

In 1869, a man named Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, the intellectual founder of the Salafiyya movement, went to India where British led colonial authorities welcomed him with honors and graciously escorted him aboard a government owned vessel on an all-expenses paid voyage to the Suez.^{^[574]} In Cairo he was given safe haven by the Egyptian Prime Minister Riad Pasha, a notorious enemy of the emerging nationalist movement in Egypt. Pasha persuaded Afghani to stay in Egypt and allowed him to take up residence in Cairo’s 900-year-old Al Azhar mosque considered the center of Islamic learning worldwide, where he received lodging and a monthly government stipend paid for by the British.^{^[575]}

While Egypt was fighting its nationalist fight against the British from 1879-1882, Afghani and his chief disciple Muhammad Abduh travelled together first to Paris and then to Britain. It was in Britain that they would make a proposal for a panIslamic alliance among Egypt, Turkey, Persia and Afghanistan against Czarist Russia.^{^[576]} What Afghani was proposing to the British was that they provide aid and resources to support his formation of a militant Islamic sect that would favour Britain’s interest in the Middle East. In other words, Afghani was offering to fight Islam with Islam to service British interests, having stated in one of his works “We do not cut the head of religion except by sword of religion.”^{^[577]}

Although it is said that the British refused this offer, this is not likely the truth considering the support Afghani would receive in creating the intellectual foundation for a Pan-Islamic movement with British patronage. Afghani would therein enjoy the full support of England’s leading orientalist E.G. Browne, the godfather of twentieth century Orientalism and teacher of St. John Philby and T.E. Lawrence. E.G. Browne would make sure the work of Afghani would continue long beyond his death by lionising him in his 1910 The Persian Revolution, considered an authoritative history of the period. From the 1870s to the 1890s, Afghani was supported by the British. According to a secret file of the

Indian government’s intelligence service, Afghani was officially offered to go to Egypt as an agent of British intelligence in 1882.^{^[578]}

In 1888, Abduh, the chief disciple of Afghani, would return to Egypt in triumph with the full support of the representatives of her Majesty’s imperial force and took the first of several positions in Cairo, openly casting his lot with Lord Cromer, who was the symbol of British imperialism in Egypt.^{^[579]} Abduh would found, along with the help of London’s Egyptian proconsul Evelyn Baring (aka Lord Cromer), the Salafiyya movement.^{^[580]} [Lord Cromer was the scion of the enormously powerful banking clan, Barings Bank, under the city of London.]

Abduh had attached himself to the British rulers of Egypt and created the cornerstone of the Muslim Brotherhood which dominated the militant Islamic right throughout the twentieth century. In 1899, Abduh reached the pinnacle of his power and influence, and was named Mufti of Egypt. As we will see in the chapter that follows, the British would also directly select the Mufti of Jerusalem.

***

In 1902, Riyadh fell to Ibn Saud and it was during this period that Ibn Saud established the fearsome Ikhwan, translated as ‘brotherhood’. From the 1920s onward, the new Saudi state merged its Wahhabi orthodoxy with the Salafiyya movement, which would be organised into the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928.

William Shakespear, a famed British agent, forged the first formal treaty between England and Saudi Arabia which was signed in 1915, which bound London and Arabia for years before Saudi Arabia became a country. “It formally recognized Ibn Saud as the independent ruler of the Nejd and its Dependencies under British protection. In return, Ibn Saud undertook to follow British advice.”^{^[581]}

Harry St. John Bridger Philby, a British operative schooled by E.G. Browne and father to the legendary Kim Philby, would succeed Shakespear as Great Britain’s liaison to Ibn Saud under the British India Office, the friendly rival of the Cairo Arab Bureau office which was sponsoring T.E. Lawrence of Arabia.

In Egypt 1928, Hassan al-Banna, a follower of Afghani and Abduh, founded the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan al-Muslimeen). Banna’s Muslim Brotherhood was established with a grant from England’s Suez Canal Company^{^[582]} and from that point on, British diplomats and intelligence service, along with the British puppet King Farouq would use the Muslim Brotherhood against Egypt’s nationalists and later against Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser.

To get the Muslim Brotherhood off the ground, the Suez Canal Company helped Banna build the mosque in Ismailia that would serve as its headquarters and base of operation.^{^[583]} The fact that Banna created the organization in Ismailia is itself worthy of note. For England, the Suez Canal was the indispensable route to its prize possession, India, and in 1928 the town Ismailia happened to house not only the company’s offices, but a major British military base built during the First World War. It was also, in the 1920s a center of pro-British sentiment in Egypt.

In the post-WWI world, England reigned supreme, the flag of the British Empire was everywhere from the Mediterranean to India. A new generation of kings and potentates ruled over British dominated colonies, mandates, vassal states, and semi-independent fiefdoms in Egypt, Arabia, Iraq, Transjordan and Persia. To varying degrees those monarchies were beholden to London. In the half century between 1875 and 1925, the building blocks of the militant Islamic right were cemented in place by the British Empire.

Nasser Leads the Fight for Arab Independence

In 1942, the Muslim Brotherhood would earn their well-deserved reputation for extremism and violence by establishing the ‘Secret Apparatus,’ an intelligence service and secret terrorist unit. This clandestine unit functioned for over twelve years almost entirely unchecked, assassinating judges, police officers, government officials and engaging in squad attacks on labor unions and communists.

Throughout this period the Muslim Brotherhood worked for the most part in an alliance with King Farouq (and thus the British), using their clandestine forces on behalf of British interests. Throughout its entire existence it would receive political support and money from the Saudi royal family and the Wahhabi establishment. The Secret Apparatus would be smashed into pieces by Nasser in 1954.

pg. 283

The Palestine War (1947-1949), instigated by the United Nations vote to divide the territory of Palestine into Jewish and Arab sovereign states, a decision that was refused by the Palestinian Arab leaders, resulted in the establishment of the State of Israel at the cost of 700,000 displaced Palestinian Arabs and the destruction of most of their urban areas. The territory that was under British administration before the war was divided between the State of Israel (officially formed May 14^th, 1948), which captured about 78 percent of it. In opposition to Israel, the Kingdom of Jordan captured and later annexed the West Bank, and

Egypt captured the Gaza Strip, with the Arab League establishing the AllPalestine Government, which came to an end in June 1967 when the Gaza Strip, along with the West Bank, were captured by Israel in the Six-Day War. For Arab nationalists, Israel was a symbol of Arab weakness and semi-colonial subjugation, overseen by proxy kings in Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia.

The Egyptian people were furious over these developments, and the reign of the British puppet King Farouq who had done nothing to prevent the dismantling of Palestine was on extremely shaky ground. In response to this, Farouq’s accord with the Muslim Brotherhood broke down, and in December 1948, the Egyptian government outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood. Weeks later a Brotherhood assassin murdered Prime Minister Mahmoud El Nokrashy. Two months later, in February 1949, Banna was assassinated in Cairo by the Egyptian secret police. His son-in-law, Said Ramadan would emerge as a major leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1950s.

On the night of July 23^rd, 1952, the Free Officers, led by Muhammad Naguib and Gamal Abdel Nasser, staged a military coup that launched the Egyptian Revolution of 1952, overthrowing the British puppet monarch King Farouq. The Free Officers, knowing that warrants had been issued for their arrest, launched the coup that night, storming the staff headquarters in Cairo. Cairo was now, for the first time, under the control of the Arab people after over 80 years of British occupation.^{^[584]}

The seizure of power by the Free Officers in Egypt came during an era when the entire Arab world from Morocco to Iraq was locked in the grip of imperialism.

pg. 284

Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia were French colonies; Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, the UAE, Oman and Yemen were British colonies. Iraq, Jordan and Saudi Arabia were kingdoms ruled by monarchies installed by London. And Egypt under King Farouq was the political and economic center of the Arab world. A growing surge of Arab nationalism arose in response to the Free Officers’ actions in Egypt. The powerful Voice of the Arabs radio in Cairo was reporting to the entire Arab world that they had found their independence movement, and that Nasser was at its helm.

From 1956 to 1958 Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon underwent rebellions, Iraq’s king was toppled, and Syria united with Egypt in Nasser’s United Arab Republic, part of Nasser’s strategy to unify the Arab world. In Algeria, moral and material support was given from Cairo towards the Algerian revolution that finally won independence from French colonial rule in 1962. That same year, Yemen underwent a Nasser-inspired revolt, triggering a proxy war pitting Saudi Arabia against Egypt, with Nasser stating in a 1962 speech,^{^[585]} “Yemen’s fight is my fight. Yemen’s Revolution is our Revolution.”

Nasser’s leadership and the inspiration he stirred were so strong that even as late as 1969, the year before Nasser’s death, Libya’s king was overthrown and Sudan’s right-wing regime was eliminated by military leaders loyal to Nasser. Nasser had managed to threaten the very heart of Anglo-America’s post-WWII strategy in the Middle East. He understood that if the vast oil fields in Saudi Arabia were under Arab control, the potential for an economic boom would be enormous for all Arab states, such that the old game of imperialism by Britain and France could no longer retain its chokehold on Arab independence.

Not only was Egypt a military rival to Saudi Arabia, not only did Cairo clash with Riyadh in a shooting war in Yemen, not only did Nasser inspire Arabs in Saudi Arabia with republican ideals but the Egyptian leader even won over some of Saudi Arabia’s royal family. This group was led by Prince Talal to form the ‘Free Princes’, which defected to Egypt demanding the establishment of a republic in Saudi Arabia!⁶⁷⁶

What was really going on during the period of 1954 to 1970, under Nasser’s leadership, was a war between two competing visions for the future of the Middle East; an Arab world of independent but cooperative Arab republics utilising their natural resources to facilitate an economic boom in

pg. 285

industrialisation vs. a semi-feudal scattering of monarchies with their natural resources largely at the West’s disposal.

The real reason why the British and Anglo Americans wanted Nasser removed, was not because he was a communist or because he was susceptible to communist influence. It was because he refused to obey his would-be foreign controllers and was rather successful in this endeavour, bringing their shadowy actions uncomfortably close to the light and inspiring loyalty amongst Arabs outside of Egypt including those sitting on top of the oil.

What especially worried London and Washington was the idea that Nasser might succeed in his plan to unify Egypt and Saudi Arabia thus creating a major Arab power. Nasser believed that these oil wells were not only for the government of those territories to do with as they wished but belonged to all Arab people and thus should be used for the advancement of the Arab world. Afterall, most Arabs are aware that both the monarchies themselves and the artificial borders that demarcate their states, were designed by imperialists seeking to build fences around oil wells in the 1920s. Nasser understood that if Cairo and Riyadh were to unite in a common cause for the uplifting of the Arab people, it would create a vastly important new Arab center of gravity with worldwide influence.

In 1954 Egypt and the United Kingdom had signed an agreement over the Suez Canal and British military basing rights. It was short lived. By 1956 Great Britain, France and Israel concocted a plot against Egypt aimed at toppling Nasser and seizing control of the Suez Canal, a conspiracy that enlisted the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, the British went so far as to hold secret meetings with the Muslim Brotherhood in Geneva. According to author Stephen Dorril, two British intelligence agents Col. Neil McLean and Julian Amery (Leo Amery’s son), helped MI6 organize a clandestine anti-Nasser opposition. In fact, Julian Amery would be directly linked to the Gladio networks.^{^[586]}

In Stephen Dorril’s book MI6: Fifty Years of Special Operations he writes, “They [McLean and Amery] also went so far as to make contact in Geneva…with members of the Muslim Brotherhood, informing only MI6 of this demarche which they kept secret from the rest of the Suez Group [which was planning the military operation via its British bases by the Suez Canal]. Julian Amery forwarded various names to [Selwyn[ Lloyd [Britain’s Foreign Secretary].”^{^[587]}

pg. 286

According to Stephen Dorril, the Muslim Brotherhood was a Section D^{^[588]} creation, he writes: “…the Muslim Brotherhood…had been founded before the war by…member of MI6’s pre-war Section D Freya Stark.”^{^[589]}

British Prime Minister Anthony Eden, Churchill’s handpicked successor, was violently anti-Nasser all along and considered a British coup d’état in Cairo as early as 1953. Other than such brash actions, the only political force that could mount a challenge to Nasser was the Muslim Brotherhood which had hundreds of thousands of followers. Nasser’s long postponed showdown with the Muslim Brotherhood occurred in 1954, this was timed to add pressure during the rising frustration concerning the British-Egyptian negotiations over the transfer of the Suez Canal and its military bases to Egypt. The British, after over 80 years of direct occupation in Egypt, were not going to give up on one of their most prized jewels so easily.

From 1954 on, Prime Minister Anthony Eden was demanding Nasser’s head. According to Stephen Dorril’s MI6, Eden had raved “What’s all this nonsense about isolating Nasser or ‘neutralising’ him, as you call it? I want him destroyed, can’t you understand? I want him murdered…And I don’t give a damn if there’s anarchy and chaos in Egypt.”^{^[590]}

Nasser would not back down and in the first few months of 1954 the Muslim Brotherhood and Nasser went to war, culminating in Nasser outlawing them as a terrorist group and a pawn of the British. In October 1954, a Muslim Brotherhood member Mahmoud Abdel-Latif attempted to assassinate Nasser while he was delivering a speech in Alexandria, which was broadcasting live to the Arab world by radio, to celebrate the British military withdrawal. Upon returning to Cairo, he ordered one of the largest political crackdowns in the modern history of Egypt, with the arrests of thousands of Muslim Brotherhood members. The decree banning the Muslim Brotherhood organization said “The revolution will never allow reactionary corruption to recur in the name of religion.”^{^[591]}

In 1967, there was a Six-Day War between Israel and the Arab states Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq, which was started by Israel in a coordinated aerial attack on

Egypt, eliminating roughly 90 percent of Egyptian air forces that were still on the

pg. 287

ground, followed by an aerial attack on Jordan, Syria and Iraq. Israel then went on to conduct a ground attack with tanks and infantry, devastating whole Arab regions.

Despite Egypt’s disastrous loss to Israel, the people of Egypt refused to accept Nasser’s resignation and took to the streets in a mass demonstration calling for Nasser’s return. Nasser accepted the call of the people and returned to his position as president where he remained until his death in September 1970. Five million people turned out on the streets of Egypt for Nasser’s funeral, and hundreds of millions more mourned his death throughout the world.

Although Nasser had devastatingly lost a battle, the Egyptian people along with their Arab compatriots understood that the fight for Arab independence was not lost. The dream of dignity and freedom, forever opposed to the shackles of tyranny could not be buried now that it had been stirred to its very core. Nasser would be the catalyst for an Arab Revolution for independence, a revolution that remains yet to be finished.

pg. 288

Chapter 11
Nazis, the British, and the Middle East pg. 289

Mohammed Amin el Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem whom some referred to as the ‘Grand Mufti,’ is well known for his partnership with the Nazis during the Second World War. However, what is not so well known, is the significance of his relationship with the British prior to, throughout and after this period. This chapter will shed some light on the implications of his life’s work that have remained largely in the shadows and is central to understanding the geopolitical situation we find ourselves in today.

Recall in the previous chapter, that throughout the 1920s and 1930s violent confrontations between Jews and Arabs took place in Palestine costing thousands of lives. In 1936, a major Arab revolt occurred over the course of seven months, until diplomatic efforts involving other Arab countries led to a ceasefire. In 1937, a British Royal Commission of Inquiry headed by William Peel concluded that Palestine had two distinct societies with irreconcilable political demands, thus making it necessary to partition the land. The Arab Higher Committee refused Peel’s ‘prescription’ and the revolt broke out again. This time, Britain responded with a devastatingly heavy hand. Roughly 5,000 Arabs were killed by the British armed forces and police. Following the riots, the British mandate government dissolved the Arab Higher Committee and declared it an illegal body.

In response to the revolt, the British government issued the White Paper of 1939, which stated that Palestine should be a bi-national state, inhabited by both Arabs and Jews. Due to the international unpopularity of the mandate including within Britain itself, it was organised such that the United Nations would take responsibility for the British initiative and adopted the resolution to partition Palestine on November 29^th, 1947. Britain would announce its termination of its Mandate for Palestine on May 15^th, 1948 after the State of Israel declared its independence on May 14^th, 1948.

It was none other than Haj Amin el Husseini who was at the center of organising these key Arab revolts.

Amin el Husseini was born c1895-1897 and was the scion of the al-Husayni (el

Husseini) family of Jerusalemite Arab notables. After receiving an education in Islamic, Ottoman, and Catholic schools, he went on to serve in the Ottoman army in the First World War. With the British occupation of Palestine, he became clerk in the office of Gabriel Pasha Haddad, Arab adviser to the British Military Governor of Jerusalem. From there he was transferred first to the Department of Public Security, later to the Customs office at Qalqilyeh, and then to Damascus in a similar minor civil service capacity. But he was soon discharged and returned to Jerusalem.

In 1919, Amin el Husseini founded the pro-British Jerusalem branch of the Syrian based ‘Arab Club’ (Al-Nadi al-arabi), which then vied with the Nashashibisponsored ‘Literary Club’ (al-Muntada al-Adabi) for influence over public opinion, and he soon became its president^{^[592]} ⁶⁸⁴. In Jerusalem he achieved considerable success rousing his audience through his newspaper articles and speeches in hatred for the Jews.

By April 4^th, 1920, Amin el Husseini (who will from now on be called Haj Amin, ‘haj’ is his honorary title) became a figure to be reckoned with as one of the leading orchestrators of a four-day riot, known as the Nebi Musa riots, with Arab mobs massacring, burning and pillaging Jewish quarters in and around the Old City of Jerusalem. The riots were later established by the British Military Court of Enquiry to have been carefully pre-planned. It was the first serious open violation of authority after the British occupation.

At the military trials that followed, the two principals alleged to have been responsible for the outbreak were Aref al Aref and Haj Amin el Husseini. Aref was alleged to have been the person in command of the attackers. Haj Amin was charged with incitement to violence. The spark was said to have been touched off by his inflammatory articles in the newspaper Suriyah al Janubtyah. It was asserted soon after, by Chaim Weizmann and British army Lieutenant Colonel Richard Meinertzhagen, who worked in close concert, that Haj Amin had been put up to inciting the riot by British Field-marshal Allenby's Chief of Staff, Colonel Bertie Harry Waters-Taylor, to demonstrate to the world that Arabs would not tolerate a Jewish homeland in Palestine.^{^[593]} ^{^[594]} ^{^[595]} The assertion was never proven and Meinertzhagen was dismissed.

Both Aref and Haj Amin had meanwhile fled to Transjordan where they sought shelter with the Bedouin tribes. Both were tried in their absence and received the same sentence—ten years’ imprisonment. Shortly afterwards, on July 1^st, 1920, Sir Herbert (now Viscount) Samuel was appointed first British High Commissioner for Palestine. One of his first acts was to amnesty prisoners sentenced by the military court. The only two persons excluded from this amnesty order of July 7^th, 1920, were Aref and Haj Amin. But it would only be a period of two months before they received a special pardon. It is noteworthy that the announcement coincided with the High Commissioner Sir Herbert Samuel’s first visit to Transjordan. Haj Amin came back to Jerusalem some months later. He was now somewhat famous, for he was a man who had received special treatment and been the subject of a special amnesty decree by the British Administration.

In February/March 1921, the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin’s brother, Kamel el Husseini died at the age of fifty-four. Kamel el Husseini had been selected by the British Mandate in 1920 to be Mufti of Jerusalem, a role created by the British Mandate. Kamel would only act as Mufti of Jerusalem for one year, until his death in 1921. His approach was very different from that subsequently of his brother Haj Amin. Unlike his brother, Kamel sought compromise with the Jews and British authorities.

In Yehoshua Porath’s book Al Hajj Amin al Huseyni, Mufti of Jerusalem^{^[596]} he writes:

“When the British entered the city, the Mufti of Jerusalem happened to be Kamil al-Husayni. From the outset, Kamil al-Husayni went out of his way to be of aid to the British, particularly when it came to working out a suitable arrangement between the authorities of the occupation and the local population, and he made it very much easier for the latter to get used to the idea of a Christian power ruling in Jerusalem. He saw to it that the question of naming the Muslim ruler during Friday prayers did not develop into a political issue, and even his attitude to the Jews and his relations with them were friendly and correct. During the period of tension that followed the April 1920 disturbances, he appealed to the public in the course of a sermon at the al-Aqsa mosque to maintain law and order and to rest assured that the British Government, as was their policy everywhere, would do nothing to hinder the Muslims in the practice of their religion. The British authorities, first military and then civil, were indebted to Kamil al-Husayni for his exemplary conduct [in maintaining the peace].”

The writer was unable to find details as to how Kamel died. His death became the subject of bitter controversy among the leading Muslim families in Palestine as to who would be the following Mufti of Jerusalem. Elections were held in March 1921, with only four candidates for the position running. The results of the election were in first place, Sheikh Husam al Din Jarallah; in second place, Sheikh Khalil al Khalidi; in third place, Musa al Budairi. Haj Amin found himself in last place, thus also failing to reach the short list of those eligible for selection, which are the top three.

Shortly after the results were announced, Sheikh Husam al Din, the first-place runner, under very mysterious circumstance, decided to retire himself from the list and wished no longer to be considered for the position. This allowed for Haj Amin to qualify as eligible for selection, and it was he whom the British Mandate appointed, under Sir Herbert Samuel acting as British High Commissioner (who notably was Jewish), over the heads of the other two.

Haj Amin thus became Mufti of Jerusalem without any popular Arab support (some might even say no Arab support) but was nevertheless hand picked by the British Mandated Palestinian government to be Mufti of Jerusalem. All of this was made possible by the first choice, Sheikh Husam al Din Jarallah dropping out, which was almost certainly due to threats upon his life and the lives of his family members. This was how the great Haj Amin was selected as Mufti of Jerusalem.

What makes this British decision even more curious is that Haj Amin, only eleven months prior had been sentenced to a ten-year term of imprisonment for sharing responsibility in rousing the April 1920 Nebi Musa riots. Why did the British not only choose to give Haj Amin a special pardon for the first serious open violation of authority after the British occupation but also handpicked him as Mufti of Jerusalem?

The British had clearly intervened. The question was why? It was evident that Haj Amin would not keep the peace between the Arabs and Jews. Did the British want to maintain the peace from the former Mufti of Jerusalem, Kalem, who died after just one year as Mufti? Why would a Jewish High Commissioner of Britain show such favouritism towards Haj Amin, a man that did not hold popular support from the Arabs at the time and who wanted nothing more than to be rid of every Jew in Palestine, even if it meant through acts of violence.

With the British Mandate over Palestine, the position of Mufti of Jerusalem, a role which was created by the British, would hold great power. Thus, Haj Amin, was installed by the British Mandate as a virtual religious leader of the Muslim Arabs of Palestine. Why did they go out of their way to orchestrate this?

In addition, the British Mandate decided to set up a Supreme Muslim Council, consisting of a President and four members, to take complete charge of the Waqf—Muslim religious funds, the Shariah (religious) courts, the Mosques, and Muslim social services. The British Mandate also selected Haj Amin as its President, officially announced on May 1^st, 1922, and until the time of the Mufti’s flight from Palestine fifteen years later, no elections were held. Thus, the composition of the Council remained unchanged during that fifteen-year period.

As President of this Council, Haj Amin controlled the Waqf funds which, according to a Royal Commission Report brought in £67,000 in 1936. Much of this revenue was derived from large holdings of land, leased to tenant farmers, mostly on a share-cropping basis. The Royal Commission added that Haj Amin also supervised the administration of orphan funds amounting to £50,000 per year. In addition, the Council received a government subsidy of £17,000 per year. This income was intended for religious and educational purposes, and for social services to ameliorate the condition of depressed Arabs. To this day, no accounting has been made by the Council of the distribution of this considerable revenue under the responsibility of Haj Amin.^{^[597]} Recall, the Supreme Muslim Council was founded by the British Mandate and its revenue, as we will come to see, was largely subsidized by the British.

The Buraq Uprising: 1929 Palestine Riots

The next large riot to break out was in August 1929 with a simultaneous series of attacks by Arabs on Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron, Safed, Jaffa, Haifa, Hulda and Beer Tuvia. Men, women and children were murdered. In the weeks preceding the outbreak, faked pictures had been disseminated among the Arabs showing the Al-Aqsa Mosque^{^[598]} in ruins. The caption beneath declared that it had been destroyed by Jewish infidels who were now seeking to rebuild the Jewish Temple Mount. This practice of fear mongering has been repeated innumerable times to incite violence throughout several decades to this day.

The simultaneity of the outbreaks suggested careful planning was required for the Buraq uprising. Strangely, the British had reduced their forces prior to the riots.^{^[599]} The High Commissioner was out of the country. The Palestinian Jewish

leaders were in Europe at a Zionist convention. It was several days before the first contingent of military reinforcements arrived from Malta.

The British Government despatched a Commission of Enquiry (The Shaw Commission) to investigate the cause of the trouble and the source of responsibility. There was unanimity in the findings of the Commission that the attacks were planned. In the pinning of responsibility there was a majority and minority report. Haj Amin el Husseini, Mufti of Jerusalem, was one of the persons questioned by the Commission and considered in terms of responsibility for the attacks.

Within the majority report it was remarked that Haj Amin was suspected as an instigator to the massacre.^{^[600]} The minority report, signed by Mr. (later Lord) Harry Snell, put it more bluntly:

“…I therefore take a more serious view than do my colleagues of the responsibilities of these leaders for the character and conduct of the campaign of incitement which preceded the disturbances of August last. I believe that desire to secure the support of a united Moslem people provided the Mufti [Haj Amin] with all the motive that he required and…I have not the least doubt that he was aware of the nature of that campaign and that he realised the danger of disturbances which is never absent when religious propaganda of an exciting character is spread among a Moslem people. I therefore attribute to the Mufti a greater share in the responsibility for the disturbance than is attributed to him in the report. I am of the opinion that the Mufti must bear the blame for his failure to make any effort to control the character of an agitation conducted in the name of a religion of which in Palestine he was the head.”^{^[601]}

However, despite these accusations, the Mufti was permitted to continue in his office by the British Mandate.

The Great Revolt: 1936-1939 Arab Revolt in Palestine

By 1936 the economic living conditions for Palestinians under the British mandate, which continued to encourage mass Jewish migration, were becoming unbearable. There was also the very legitimate and understandable fear of growing Jewish economic power in the region and fear of English identification

with Zionism at the cost of the welfare of the Palestinians, as Prime Minister of Israel Ben Gurion (1955-1963) also attested to.^{^[602]}

In the afternoon of April 19^th, 1936, Arabs rushed through the streets of Jaffa shouting that their comrades were being murdered by Jews in neighbouring Tel Aviv. Before long, there was an attack on the Jewish quarter. Riots continued until the 21^st of April and spread. On April 25^th a body, subsequently called the Arab Higher Committee, came into being in Palestine. Head of this Committee was Haj Amin el Husseini, Mufti of Jerusalem, President of the Supreme Muslim Council. Its official stated purpose was to “control and manage the strike of Arabs in Palestine.”

There is a great deal of evidence showcasing that the Arab Higher Committee not only did everything in its power to continue the revolt and thus the killing of Jews, but that it had in fact organised a raiding army that not only attacked the Jews and the British, but also Arabs who disagreed with Haj Amin’s approach. This story has in many ways, a great deal of overlap with the Ukrainians under Bandera’s leadership during the Second World War.⁶⁹⁵

These raiding armies under the direction of the Higher Arab Committee went on for three years and led to the bankruptcy of the Arab economy, the further impoverishment of the Arab masses and the murder of numerous Arabs at the hands of their so-called brothers. After this three-year period of the ‘Great Revolt’, the total number of Arab victims of Arab attacks far exceeded the combined totals of British and Jewish deaths. As we will see, this would be a common theme with Haj Amin. Despite all his blustering about the British and Jewish oppression, the dark reality, was that no one dealt a more destructive and crippling blow to the cause for Palestinian independence than Haj Amin himself.

Some of the recruits to this rebel army of Haj Amin came from several bands of mercenaries from Syria and Iraq. However, a considerable number were innocent Palestinian villagers who had been forced to join at the point of a gun. The immense finances via the British Mandated Supreme Muslim Council (recall it was the British who founded this council for Arab funding), which essentially gave a massive treasury to Haj Amin to do what he wished with, was used to finance raids on villages and used to silence opposition from critical Arab leaders and newspaper editors. It also allowed for Haj Amin and his selected groupies to live in the lap of luxury.

Lt.-Col. H. J. Simson was Chief of Staff to Lt.-Gen. J. G. (later Field Marshal Lord) Dill, General Officer Commanding in Palestine in 1936. Lt.-Col. Simson, writing on these methods in his book British Rule and Rebellion said:^{^[603]}

“The collection of funds for ‘Distressed Palestine’ was carried out by methods similar to those employed by the racketeer. Large sums were collected under pressure from firms as well as from individuals. There was always the threat of the gun.”

During this ‘Arab Strike’ under the direction of the Arab Higher Committee – presided over by Haj Amin, many notable Arab leaders in political opposition to him, among them prominent members of the Nashashibi National Defence Party, were murdered or forced to flee the country.

This list is formidable. Here are some of the more influential names:⁶⁹⁷

· Mayor of Hebron, Nasr el Din Nasr, murdered August 4^th, 1936. He had long been the right-hand man of Ragheb Bey Nashashibi, leader of the Arab National Defence Party.

· Mukhtar (Headman) of Arab Birket Caesarea, murdered February 1937.

· Ibrahim Yousef, member of Tiberias Municipal Council, murdered April 1937.

· Mayor of Haifa, Hassan Bey Shukri, escaped assassination attempts May 1936, and January 1937. His son-in-law, Secretary of Haifa Municipal Council, escaped attempt on his life February 1937.

· Mukhtar of Balad Esh Sheikh, murdered September 1937.

· Mukhtar of Shahmata, murdered December 1937.

· Mayor of Nablus, Suleiman Bey Toukan, fled the country December 1937, after issuing a public appeal to the Government to suppress terrorism.

· Mukhtar of Migdal and his wife, murdered April 1938.

· Mukhtar of Mataleen, murdered April 1938.

· Mukhtar of Ein Razal, murdered August 1938.

· Mukhtar of Beth Mahsir, murdered August 1938.

pg. 296

· Wife and three sons of Mukhtar of Deir Es Sheikh, murdered September 1938. The Mukhtar was absent when his house was attacked by a band of Arabs.

· Mukhtar of Ard-el-Yehud (near Haifa), murdered October 1938.

· Mukhtar of Beth Hema, murdered October 1938.

· Mukhtar of Akaba Quarter, Nablus, murdered November 1938.

· Hassan Sidki Dajani, member of Jerusalem Municipal Council, murdered November 1938. Pearlman writes in Mufti of Jerusalem: The Story of Haj Amin el Husseini, “He was perhaps the most conspicuous victim till then of the ‘inner Arab terror,’ as a leading opponent of the Mufti of Jerusalem and a member of one of the four leading families in Palestine. Following his murder, the remaining Arab members of the Jerusalem Municipal Council fled the country.”^{^[604]}

In October 1936, the British Government sent a Royal Commission to Palestine headed by Lord Peel. This is what the report said about the character of the Arab attacks:^{^[605]}

“Intimidation at the point of the revolver has become a not infrequent feature of Arab politics. Attacks by Arabs on Jews, unhappily, are no new thing. The novelty in the present situation is attacks by Arabs on Arabs. For an Arab to be suspected of a lukewarm adherence to the nationalist cause [led by Haj Amin] is to invite a visit from a body of gunmen. Such a visit was paid to the editor of one of the Arabic newspapers last August shortly after he had published articles in favour of calling off the strike. Similar visits were paid during our stay in Palestine to wealthy Arab landowners or business men who were believed to have made inadequate contributions to the fund which the Arab Higher Committee were raising to compensate Arabs for damage suffered during the disturbances. Nor do the gunmen stop at intimidation. It is not known who murdered the Arab Acting Mayor of Hebron last August, but no one doubts that he lost his life because he had dared to differ from the extremist policy of the Higher Committee. The attempt to murder the Arab Mayor of Haifa, which took place a few days after we left Palestine, is also, we are told, regarded as political. It is not surprising that a number of Arabs have asked for Government protection.”

Thus, the British were also acknowledging Haj Amin’s role in organising a rebel army via the Arab Higher Committee and using it to attack Arabs, including notable members of opposition. On October 1^st, 1937, the British Mandate finally took action and rounded up members of the Arab Higher Committee and

pg. 297

deported them to the Seychelles Islands, a sort of island paradise, which doesn’t come across as much of a punishment…

Haj Amin remained in the Al-Aqsa Mosque, confident that the British authorities would not dare to enter. A few days later, he slipped out and was smuggled aboard a boat moored near Jaffa and escaped to Lebanon. As we will come to see, Haj Amin has made such mysterious escapes countless times during his career. In reviewing this track record, it is clear that he was receiving foreign aid in not only orchestrating these escapes but securing safe travel to selected destination points. In this case, many suspected that the British assisted Haj Amin’s safe passage from British Mandated Palestine to Lebanon.

However, the Arab attacks did not dissipate with Haj Amin’s exit from Palestine. Haj Amin was able to direct operations within Palestine just as effectively from Beirut or Damascus as he did from the heart of Jerusalem. How did such an intelligence structure capable of such rapid communication and effective organisation form so quickly out of the seeming blue?

One thing did change with the exit of Haj Amin from Palestine. Those who opposed his methods grew more confident and began to speak out. The first to come out in the open was Fakhri Bey Nashashibi, leader with his cousin Ragheb Bey, of the Arab National Defense Party. Here is his statement in the Yorkshire Post, October 24^th, 1938:

“I accuse Haj Amin el Husseini, the former Mufti of Jerusalem, of diverting the noble Arab revolt to his own selfish ends. I also accuse him of using funds collected for the relief of Arab sufferers in Palestine to buy arms and ammunition to further his own ambition. Haj Amin’s fifteen years’ tenure of office in Jerusalem proved his destructive tendencies…”

One month later, Fakhri Bey published a pamphlet in Arabic. The following translated extracts appeared in the Palestine Post, January 6^th, 1939:

“When Haj Amin was deprived of his office of President of the Supreme Moslem Council, and escaped and sought refuge in Beirut, he was joined by a group of his followers who had built up their careers with the money of the poor, the needy and the orphaned. There and then they began their campaign of terror and murder, there and then they launched their work of destruction, making shameful use of the well-meaning, and sweeping the country into an ocean of blood and evil.

…Suffice it to say that Haj Amin would not publish an account of the funds he received in 1936, because he dare not speak the truth about them.…When he realised that he could not establish himself securely enough without money, he did not hesitate to spend the funds of the Waqf on a group of adherents and supporters who would build up a large following for him.

…Soon a document was discovered to the effect that he was working on behalf of foreign countries. When the fact was made known he thundered and filled the earth with threats, with the object of dissociating himself from the document, but the noise was short-lived, and in the end he contented himself with the discharge of employees of the Supreme Moslem Council whom he accused of the theft of his personal papers...

Nothing has moved me to make this declaration but the state of misery into which the country has drifted and the dastardly crimes that have been committed. Loyal Arabs and their families are being victimised every day, and their property wantonly burned and destroyed for no other crime of their committing than that they are opponents of the Mufti. Why need he murder, torture and destroy if he is truly such a beloved leader as he claims to be?”

With all of the tremendous funds that Haj Amin had received for the welfare of the poor and orphaned in Palestine as president of the Supreme Muslim Council, there is no official report for how it was spent. There is no account of how many schools, hospitals, orphanages were built with this money, if in fact, any were built at all. There was no report on how villages were compensated for damaged property (one of the primary reasons for their fundraising). There was no report, as the above testimonial confirms, because none of this money went to the Arab people but rather to fund Haj Amin’s orchestrations and his luxurious standard of living, all funded by foreign, that is, namely British money.

Recall that in 1937, a British Royal Commission of Inquiry headed by William Peel concluded that Palestine had two distinct societies (Arab and Jewish) with irreconcilable political demands, thus making it necessary to partition the land.

Thus, Haj Amin’s actions, quite predictably so, resulted in the partitioning of Palestine. Was this what Britain wanted all along but could not dare implement on their own due to the international unpopularity of the British intervention into Palestine to begin with? How convenient then, that such a violent and barbarous three-year war was waged against the Jews, the British and the Arab people, as well as leading Arab figures who stood in opposition to the bloodbath, all paid for by British money, in order to justify the very thing Britain was hoping to achieve all along.

According to Rashid Khalidi in his section, “The Palestinians and 1948: the

Underlying Causes of Failure” contained in the book The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948:^{^[606]}

"There is an element of amnesiac historiography in the vilification of the mufti, influenced by his subsequent career after 1936. In fact, Husayni [Haj Amin] served the British exceedingly well for the decade and a half after his appointment, at least until 1936…One indication of how valuable the British perceived the mufti to be is the willingness of the notoriously tight-fisted Mandatory administration to subsidize him. When the revenues of the public awqaf [waqf] properties declined after the Great Depression of 1929, and with it the revenues of the Supreme Muslim Council, the latter were supplemented by British subventions starting in 1931, which were naturally kept secret."

As we will see in the final section of this chapter, this British funding of Haj Amin would continue for at least another decade. What the partitioning of Palestine accomplished was the assurance that there would be permanent war between the Palestinian Arabs and the Jews who settled in Israel. It would also attempt to pit all Muslims and Arabs throughout the world against all Jews throughout the world.

The supreme irony of the whole situation is that it was the actions of Haj Amin the Mufti of Jerusalem, funded by the British, who spearheaded acts of systemic violence, which directly facilitated the formation of Israel. The Great Revolt had economically ruined and further impoverished the Palestinian Arabs who suffered by far the greatest totality of deaths, which was executed by the hand of other Arabs. This was no great cause for Palestinian independence. It was an Arab bloodbath that was wielded by Haj Amin.

Was Haj Amin, in fact, executing the very sentiment George Antonius, civil servant to the British Mandate of Palestine, expressed in the very last line of his book The Arab Awakening, when he wrote “It shows that no room can be made in Palestine for a second nation except by dislodging or exterminating the nation in possession.”

Haj Amin continued to live essentially as a millionaire in the lap of luxury for the rest of the majority of his life. He would also continue to be paid a very generous sum to continue what he did best, to foment a Muslim and Arab war against all Jews and the British Empire, except this time…it would be alongside the Nazis.

[Author’s Note: I hope it is clear to the reader that the intention of writing this chapter is not to in any way undermine the cause for Palestinian independence or Arab independence more broadly. It is rather to showcase that the very significant career of Haj Amin el Husseini was never for this cause and was in fact an abider to foreign interests all along, as seen clearly by his opposition to the real movement for Arab independence that was being organized by Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, which we will see is the case further on in this chapter. Not just was Haj Amin an abider to foreign interests, but more specifically an abider to imperialist fascism of the same brand thus far discussed in this book. His loyalties never swayed throughout his entire career.]

The Mufti of Jerusalem converts to Nazism

In a sensational broadcast from Rome Radio on the night of October 24^th, 1941, it was announced that “the Mufti of Jerusalem, last heard of as taking refuge in the Japanese Legation in Teheran, has arrived in Southern Italy. Italy, who knows the Mufti’s sentiments of friendship and admiration for Fascism and the Duce, is glad to know he is safe.” During the two-year interim between Haj Amin’s role stoking fires in Palestine to his role in fascist Italy and Germany, Haj Amin had been for the most part stationed in Iraq.

Haj Amin had entered Iraq in October 1939 from Syria and began to foment antiBritish sentiment and encourage pro-fascist German and Italian sentiment. During this period, he received funding from both fascist Germany and Italy as well as the continued funding from the Palestine Defence Society which went straight to the Mufti’s exchequer.^{^[607]}

By April 3^rd, 1940, the time was ripe for a coup d’état which deposed Nuri Said and installed Rashid Ali as Premier. Reference to the part played by the Mufti in this coup is made in the following dispatch by the Diplomatic Correspondent in The Times of April 8^th, 1940:

“It is now clear that the greater part of the Iraqi Army made common cause with the promoters of the coup d’état of April 3. The military leaders involved in the coup d’état are understood to be Colonel Salah ed-din Sabbagh, the Commander of the 3rd Division now in process of formation, Colonel Kamil Shabib and Colonel Fahmi Said, who commanded the 1st Division and the Mechanised Brigade respectively, and Colonel Mahmoud Salman, who commands the Royal Iraqi Air Force...Their chief civilian allies are Sayid Rashid El Gailani, the new Prime

Minister of Iraq, and the Mufti of Jerusalem, who has been playing an increasingly important part in Iraq since the outbreak of War and whose agents have been active in Syria.”

Amin al-Husseini and Rashid Ali al-Gaylani speaking at the anniversary of the pro-Nazi 1941 Iraqi coup d'état in Berlin.

The coup’s successes were short lived when they received unexpected opposition from the Regent. Ultimately, there would be no change to Iraq’s foreign policy. As the war continued, it increasingly looked like Britain’s prospects in the Middle East were coming to an end and that the Germans would soon come to ‘liberate’ the region. In April 1941, there was a second attempt by Rashid Ali and he successfully took over the premiership this time and the Regent fled. On May 2^nd, 1941, the new Iraqi government formally declared war on Britain. However, the Germans were pinned in Crete by the Allied forces and no reinforcements were able to leave Crete and Greece for Iraq. The revolt lasted until the second of June 1941, whereupon British troops were able to resecure their hold in Iraq.

The Mufti fled, this time to Iran whose Shah was also flirting with German fascism at the time, however, with the entry of Britain and the Soviet Union into Iran, the Mufti once again was forced to leave, this time to Fascist Italy. By November 9^th, 1941, Haj Amin had arrived in Berlin. He was given full honours.

Haj Amin was a very important man in the fascist cause, for he not only held the distinguished title ‘Mufti of Jerusalem’ and thus was considered the virtual religious leader of the entire Muslim world but had already by then a wellestablished reputation as a very charismatic voice for Arab independence against colonialism.

Thus, in Germany, Haj Amin’s role would be primarily to speak to the Arab and Muslim people of the world through leaflets and radio waves across India, North Africa, the Balkans, the Middle East and beyond. Haj Amin’s call was a simple message: If Arabs and Muslims sought independence and the securement of their faith, they would have to fight the Allied forces who were made up of colonialists and would also need to rid their countries of the Jewish people. Haj Amin argued that the Germans and Japanese were never colonialists to the Arabs specifically, despite both countries being imperialistic in their actions in the past, and thus, he claimed, Germany and Japan had no imperialist ambitions, at least when it came to Arabs. Haj Amin maintained that the fascists were rather coming to ‘liberate’ the Middle East region.

Haj Amin called upon the Muslims of the world to help the Axis in the Jihad, the Holy War, against the Allies and the Jewish people who threatened Islam. They were told that to work with the Axis was to do God’s work.

On March 1^st, 1944, Haj Amin made the following broadcast over Berlin Radio: “Arabs, rise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history and religion. This saves your honour. God is with you.”^{^[608]} The majority of people, if they wished to, could tune into Haj Amin’s broadcasts all throughout the world.

At the same time, hundreds of tons of newsprint were smuggled into the Middle East through a special contraband organisation operating on the Turko-Syrian frontiers. Leaflets were widely distributed among the Arabs of Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco, calling on them to attack the Jewish ghettoes.^{^[609]}

Haj Amin worked hard to foment anger and rage against British colonialism, but his intention was to push them into the arms of another master, Nazi Germany. Germany claimed its cause was for nationalism but it was in fact an imperialist fascist agenda, just as it was with Italy and Japan. Haj Amin was no different with his ambitions for the Middle East. In fact, his ambitions looked much further beyond the Middle East towards the entire Muslim and Arab world.

The reader should be reminded that Nazi promises of independence were also made to the Ukrainians during the Second World War.^{^[610]} The only reason why the Arab countries never discovered these lies for what they were was because

the Nazis never got far enough in their military conquest of the world to have descended upon the Middle East with their vision of ‘liberation.’

In a Berlin broadcast on September 20^th, 1944, Haj Amin said:

“In our last holiday broadcast I told you of Germany’s pledge of independence to Albania. On this occasion, I wish to announce to you Japan’s pledge of independence to sixty million Muslims in Java and Sumatra. We desire victory for Germany and Japan because the interest of the Arab and the Muslim can never be fulfilled except through close cooperation with them under all circumstances. We can expect nothing from the Allies who are controlled by world Jewry.”^{^[611]}

There is no question that British and American authorities were aware of every major utterance made by Haj Amin and his henchmen over the Axis radio stations. In fact, the recent declassified CIA records attest to this, as we will see further in this chapter. Allied intelligence officers in the Middle East and North Africa had in their possession many of the propaganda leaflets put out by the Mufti and his organisation. It is no secret that just as Berlin monitored most Allied broadcasts, so Britain and America monitored most Axis Radio programmes.

Edgar Mowrer in the New York Post of January 6^th, 1946, writes:

“On Jan. 8 Berlin reported that the Grand Mufti...had openly announced in a telegram to the German Fuehrer before the whole world his adherence to the Tripartite Pact against Britain, Jews and Communists…What was behind this gigantic puff?...It is safe to say that the B.B.C. analyst did not go far wrong when he stated that the large scale Axis build up of Haj Amin was ‘designed to prepare the way for a military offensive in the Arab countries.’”

It should be added that on public radio waves, Haj Amin was very critical of British colonialism, however, there is a great deal of evidence to showcase that when it came time to executing action, such as paramilitary operations, his instructions were to avoid strategic British targets.^{^[612]}

***

This idea of using the Arabs as a military offensive was nothing new. As the previous chapter demonstrated, it was the British who first executed such a vision, encouraging fanaticism and terrorism as a bulwark against the Russian

Empire, as the two powers entered into the Great Game for control over Central Asia.^{^[613]} That is, before Russia went communist, the British Empire had already entered into a long-term geopolitical strategy to block Russian influence in the Middle East. They would also attempt to cripple Dynastic China in the 19^th century, well before they ever went communist, with the devastating Opium Wars. It should be noted that China was neither imperialistic nor had it shown any interest in becoming imperialistic. The British still considered them as a threat in the future for economic supremacy and thus launched an offensive war on the country, with the purpose of turning it into a vassal state to the British Empire.^{^[614]}

Thus, what has shaped world geopolitics throughout the 20^th century to the present, has never really had anything to do with communism. As long as Russia and China were strong, they would be a threat, period, no matter what ideology they held, for Britain would not tolerate a country more supreme to itself.

This strategy of using Muslim Arabs has been continued post-WWII by AngloAmerican policy as seen by the funding and support of the ‘Mujahideen’ in Afghanistan against the Soviets in the 1980s and on, and its support for ISIS/ISIL and company, during the West’s 20+ year-long ‘War on Terror.’ It is also why we see jihadist extremists fighting in neo-Nazi Ukraine today.^{^[615]}

Looking at the longer arc of ‘the Great Game,’ Zbigniew Brzezinski’s ‘Arc of Crisis,’ is thus nothing new. The ‘Arc of Crisis’ is a geopolitical theory focused on AngloAmerican politics in regards to the Muslim world. It was first concocted, under its more modern format, by British historian Bernard Lewis, who was regarded as the leading scholar in the world on oriental studies, especially of Islam, and its implications for today’s Western politics. Bernard Lewis was acting as an advisor to the U.S. State Department from 1977-1981. Zbigniew Brzezinski, the National Security Advisor, would announce the U.S. adoption of the ‘Arc of Crisis’ theory by the American military and NATO in 1978. Interestingly, this occurred not long before the provoked invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union in 1979.^{^[616]} Funny how Anglo-American foreign policy can be prophetic like that, no?

It is widely acknowledged today, that the ‘Arc of Crisis’ was primarily aimed at destabilising the USSR and Iran. Egypt and Israel were expected to act as the

initiating countries for the expansion of NATO into the Middle East. Iran was to be the next link in the ‘Clean Break’ blueprint.⁷¹¹

Balkan Muslims and the Waffen-SS

Before the war was over, Haj Amin had succeeded in forming an Arab Muslim Legion and later an Arab Brigade from among the Arabs who found themselves in Germany, and special SS and Wehrmacht Legions from the Muslim elements in Balkan countries.

Pearlman writes in Mufti of Jerusalem: The Story of Haj Amin el Husseini:^{^[617]}

“Members of the Legion, all volunteers, wore the regular German Army uniform. A flash on their arm read ‘Free Arabia,’ in both German and Arabic. Considerable propaganda use was made of them, and few opportunities were lost of filming them for newsreels, which were widely distributed in occupied and neutral countries to glorify the Arab-Axis war effort.”

The Arab Legion served on the Russian front and suffered heavy casualties. A report carried by a London paper Daily Sketch on February 12^th, 1944, wrote:

“Some time ago, through the activities of the Mufti in Jerusalem, recruited in all Axis and satellite countries an Arab Legion that was composed of Arab students

⁷¹¹ Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (commonly known as the Clean Break report) is a policy document that was prepared in 1996 by a study group led by Richard Perle for Benjamin Netanyahu, the then Prime Minister of Israel. In 1996 a task force, led by Richard Perle, produced a policy document titled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” for Benjamin Netanyahu, who was then in his first term as Prime Minister of Israel, as a how-to manual on approaching regime change in the Middle East and for the destruction of the Oslo Accords. The “Clean Break” policy document outlined these goals: 1) Ending Yasser Arafat’s and the Palestinian Authority’s political influence, by blaming them for acts of

Palestinian terrorism 2) Inducing the United States to overthrow Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq. 3) Launching war against Syria after Saddam’s regime is disposed of 4) Followed by military action against Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. “Clean Break” was also in direct opposition to the Oslo Accords, to which Netanyahu was very much itching to obliterate. The Oslo II Accord was signed just the year before, on September 28th 1995, in Taba, Egypt. On November 6th, 2000 in the Israeli daily Ha’aretz, Israeli Justice Minister Yossi Beilin, who was the chief negotiator of the Oslo peace accords, warned those Israelis who argued that it were impossible to make peace with the Palestinians: “Zionism was founded in order to save Jews from persecution and anti-Semitism, and not in order to offer them a Jewish Sparta or – God forbid – a new Massada.” A copy of the “Clean Break” document can be viewed here https://web.archive.org/web/2/http://www.ism -italia.org/wp -content/uploads/Institute -forAdvanced -Strategic -and -Political -Studies -1996 -A -Clean -Break -A -New -Strategy -for -Securingthe -Realm.pdf.

in Europe and former members of the French Foreign Legion. When trained, this legion, which had been promised service in the Nazi invasion of the Middle East, was sent instead to the Russian front, and has been completely wiped out in the recent Caucasus fighting.”

From the military point of view, by far the most serious of the Mufti’s recruiting efforts—those which did most damage to the Allied war effort—centred round the creation of Axis Muslim units in the Balkans. The Muslim population in the Balkans, particularly in Yugoslavia, was considerable. The Balkans were now a more urgent concern of the Germans than were the Middle East or Africa. Within two months of the Anglo-American landings in North Africa and Montgomery’s strike at Alamein, the Mufti was contacting Muslim groups in the Balkans. Haj Amin poured a great deal of money into Muslim institutions within the Balkans to encourage Muslim recruitment into the Waffen-SS.

In a broadcast aired January 21^st, 1944, it was declared:^{^[618]}

“The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin el Husseini, who is spending three days with the newly established Muslim SS Divisions, inspected troops in training and prayed with them.

… At the close of his visit, the Grand Mufti said: ‘This division of Bosnian Muslims established with the help of Greater Germany is an example to Muslims in all countries…Many common interests exist between the Islamic world and Greater Germany, and these make cooperation a matter of course. The Reich is fighting against the same enemies who robbed the Muslims of their countries and suppressed their faith in Asia, Africa and Europe. Germany is the only great power which has never attacked an Islamic country. Further, National Socialist Germany is fighting against world Jewry. The Koran says, ‘You will find that the Jews are the worst enemies of the Moslems.’ There are also considerable similarities between Islamic principles and those of National Socialism, namely, in the affirmation of struggle and fellowship, in the stress of the leadership idea, in the ideal of order. All this brings our ideologies close together and facilitates cooperation. I am happy to see in this Division a visible and practical expression of both ideologies’.”

A few weeks later, Haj Amin was appealing to Yugoslavian Muslims to help in the fighting against Josip Broz Tito, who would become President of Yugoslavia from 1953-1980, and a later ally of Gamal Abdel Nasser in the Non-Aligned Movement.^{^[619]}

The Nazi report on May 26^th, 1944, reported:^{^[620]}

“Haj Amin el Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, has addressed an appeal to Moslems in Yugoslavia to assist the Nazis in fighting Tito. Tito, he said in a radio speech to his followers in Yugoslavia, ‘is a friend of the Jews and a foe of The Prophet’.”

Haj Amin opposed all immigration of Jews to Palestine and during the war he actively campaigned against the transfer of Jewish refugees to Palestine. In June 1943 the Mufti recommended to the Hungarian minister that it would be better to send Jews in Hungary to concentration camps in Poland rather than let them find asylum in Palestine. The Mufti had made similar suggestions to Bulgaria and Romania.

A year later, on July 25^th, 1944 he wrote to the Hungarian foreign minister, as well as to Romania,⁷¹⁶ to register his objection to the release of certificates for 900 Jewish children and 100 adults for transfer from Hungary, fearing they might end up in Palestine. He suggested that if such transfers of population were deemed necessary, then:

“I ask your Excellency to permit me to draw your attention to the necessity of preventing the Jews from leaving your country for Palestine, and if there are reasons which make their removal necessary, it would be indispensable and infinitely preferable to send them to other countries where they would find

grouping of states worldwide. In 1961, drawing on the principles agreed at the Bandung Conference of 1955, the Non-Aligned Movement was formally established in Belgrade,

Yugoslavia, through an initiative of Yugoslav President Josip Broz Tito, Indian Prime Minister

Jawaharlal Nehru, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, Ghanaian President Kwame Nkrumah, and Indonesian President Sukarno. This led to the first Conference of Heads of State or Governments of Non-Aligned Countries. The term non-aligned movement first appears in the fifth conference in 1976, where participating countries are denoted as "members of the movement". The purpose of the organization was summarized by Fidel Castro in his Havana Declaration of 1979 as to ensure "the national independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and security of non-aligned countries" in their "struggle against imperialism, colonialism, neocolonialism, racism, and all forms of foreign aggression, occupation, domination, interference or hegemony as well as against great power and bloc politics." The countries of the NonAligned Movement represent nearly two-thirds of the United Nations' members and contain 55% of the world population. Membership is particularly concentrated in countries considered to be developing or part of the Third World, although the Non-Aligned Movement also has a number of developed nations. Source: Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NonAligned_Movement.

themselves under active control, for example, in Poland, thus avoiding danger and preventing damage.”^{^[621]} ^{^[622]}

When these letters were written, Poland had already been set aside as the extermination area for European Jews.

Haj Amin wrote in his memoirs:

“We combatted this enterprise by writing to Ribbentrop, Himmler, and Hitler, and, thereafter, the governments of Italy, Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria, Turkey, and other countries. We succeeded in foiling this initiative [to deport European Jews, including children, to Palestine], a circumstance that led the Jews to make terrible accusations against me, in which they held me accountable for the liquidation of four hundred thousand Jews who were unable to emigrate to Palestine in this period. They added that I should be tried as a war criminal in Nuremberg.”^{^[623]}

In September 1943, intense negotiations to rescue 500 Jewish children from the Arbe concentration camp collapsed due to the objection of Haj Amin who blocked the children's departure to Turkey because they would end up in Palestine.^{^[624]}

The Mufti, the Gehlen Organization and Operation Gladio

Due to the 1998 declassification of U.S. intelligence Nazi records and the more recent exposure of the Gladio networks, as was first presented as a whole by the pioneering work of Daniele Ganser in his book NATO’s Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe in 2005, much documentation of Nazi linked networks, including espionage in the Middle East are being revisited with this new awareness.

There is still much work required to uncover the details of how these Gladio networks operated within the Middle East. However, there are a great deal of observations which are incredibly helpful in this endeavour. It is for this reason that I have decided to include several large excerpts which add more depth and insight as to how Gehlen’s Organization post-WWII, under Anglo-American support and funding, was used to continue the networks and missions of fascist Germany and Italy in the Middle East under Gladio. These excerpts also aid in demonstrating how Haj Amin was involved in coordinating these very networks during the war and afterwards.

Pearlman writes in Mufti of Jerusalem: The Story of Haj Amin el Husseini:

“ [Haj Amin]…did much in the organisation of espionage in the Middle East. His principal espionage task was to keep the Germans informed of dispositions and movements of British troops and equipment in the Middle Eastern countries in which they were stationed. From his Berlin headquarters he fashioned an extensive system whose axis of operations was the Turko- Syrian frontier, with key points at Mersine, Alexandrette, Antioch and Diarbekr. A contraband group, referred to in the previous chapter as the agency for introducing propaganda leaflets into the Middle East, handled the return traffic too. In this way, secret British documents and important military information were funnelled out of the Middle East to Haj Amin in Berlin.

In every country of the Middle East, in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Palestine, Transjordan and Egypt, agents of the ex- Mufti, operating secret radio transmitters, issued daily reports to Berlin. The military information found its way to the German intelligence bureaus. The political non-military propaganda items were transmitted over the Axis radio network.

Reports^{^[625]} recently published in a New York newspaper reveal that through the early part of 1944 the ex-Mufti recruited his men and had them trained in W/T,

sabotage and jumping. As the nearest Axis controlled capital to the Middle East, Athens was chosen as the training centre. A powerful Arab broadcasting station was also set up which served not only as a propaganda instrument but as the centre from which sabotage instructions were issued. Haj Amin made frequent visits of inspection to Athens. He usually also broadcast when he was there.

…The first Mufti-directed groups of parachutists made their drops towards the end of 1944. The area of their operations covered Syria, Iraq, Palestine and Egypt. In some cases, they were accompanied by a German Templer^{^[626]}. The Templers were Christian colonists who settled in Palestine at the end of the 19th century. They spoke fluent Arabic. Ever since Hitler’s rise to power they had been the leading Nazi agents in the Middle East. Some managed to reach Germany after the outbreak of war, and some had gone there before. These men worked, together with Haj Amin, with the Oriental intelligence service of the Nazis.”

Pearlman points out that “as the nearest Axis controlled capital to the Middle East, Athens was chosen as the training centre.” This should put even more weight on the consequences of Churchill’s decision to intervene in Greece in placing a pro-fascist king and waging war against the communists who were fighting the fascists.⁷²³ These actions had ensured that Greece would be a fascist stronghold post-WWII, which was an essential Gladio base for training and coordination with Gladio bases within the Middle East.

Edgar Mowrer wrote for the New York Post on June 6^th, 1946: “…the men were sent not only to serve as intelligence agents but also to foment discontent and disorders wherever possible, and…on behalf of the Mufti…to exploit anti-Zionist feeling, and to prepare the way for the return of the Mufti from Germany.”

These observations are also corroborated by the already mentioned archival work mandated by the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration in U.S. Intelligence and the Nazis.

Timothy Naftali writes in U.S. Intelligence and the Nazis:^{^[627]}

“The ever-widening investigation of the security of the Gehlen Organization did nothing to disrupt the CIA’s interests in strengthening the relationship. In September 1954, CIA director Allen Dulles visited the future chief of West German intelligence at his headquarters. Behind the symbolism of the meeting there was substance. Dulles raised the possibility of cooperation outside Eastern Europe. In late 1952…[discussions with the CIA occurred over] expanding cooperation beyond the Soviet zone (which in 1949 became the German Democratic Republic, or East Germany). Apparently, however, little had come of this overture, and Dulles stressed to Gehlen once more the need for this cooperation. Although the particular region of which Dulles spoke has been redacted in pages released by the CIA, from the historical context it is reasonable to speculate that Dulles discussed activities in the Near East, where in 1952-53 former Nazi military officers had been invited by the Syrian and Egyptian governments to train their military and intelligence establishments.

Later, Gehlen hinted in his memoirs that his operations in the Middle East were both successful and of great importance to Bonn [where Dulles was stationed throughout WWII.] ‘This is a region of vast importance to Europe,’ he wrote. ‘Both bridge and pivot,’ he continued, ‘it confronts the southern flank of NATO and borders on the Mediterranean, the domination of which has always been one of the great Soviet ambitions.’ As of the mid-1950s, Gehlen’s officers had ‘decided to establish a network of contacts there for the service in order to provide a continuous flow of intelligence reports.’

Something else in Gehlen’s memoirs suggests that the CIA not only participated in these operations but also knew that they involved some notorious Nazi figures. Gehlen wrote in the early 1970s that he had employed some of ‘the new former SS members’ in [operation] Zipper in the Middle East with ‘the full approval’ of the United States. ‘We found the Arab countries particularly willing to embrace Germans with an ostensibly “Nazi past”,’ he wrote. By implication, so, too, was the United States. A former CIA officer in the region, Miles Copeland, then identified former SS-Sturmbannfuhrer Otto Skorzeny as the principal player in this operation. In World War II, Skorzeny had achieved near legendary status…According to Copeland, Gehlen approached Skorzeny with the plan that he would go to Egypt in 1953 to train the Egyptian army. Skorzeny understood that the money for this operation would come from the CIA, and that he and other SS men he recruited as instructors would be responsible for spying on the Egyptians.”

As we see from these excerpts, Egypt was a central base for Nazi-turned Gladio operations in the Middle East (under the purview of Anglo-America-NATO), with one of its highest-ranking (‘former’ Nazi) Gladio organizers, Otto Skorzeny, stationed in Egypt to coordinate these very affairs post-WWII. The reader should recall from the preceding chapter that this overlaps with the period where the Muslim Brotherhood is also becoming a powerful force in Egypt, which is still a British stronghold during this period, with British troops, as well as British puppet monarch King Farouq. The Mufti of Egypt Muhammad Abduh was also selected by the British. As already discussed, Abduh was the chief disciple of Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, the intellectual founder of the Salafiyya movement, which later inspired the founding of the Muslim Brotherhood, a Section D British intelligence creation. Egypt was also where Haj Amin found safe haven after the war.

Richard Breitman and Norman J.W. Goda write in Hitler's Shadow: Nazi War Criminals, U. S. Intelligence, and the Cold War:^{^[628]}

“The 1946 testimony of Franz Hoth casts interesting light on both Nazi territorial objectives and Jewish policy in 1940-42. British troops in Norway captured Hoth, an SS and Sicherheitsdienst (Security Service or SD) officer who had served in a number of different mobile killing units called Einsatzkommandos…Hoth gave useful background about the early 1941 training of police officers slated for deployment in Africa when Germany expected to establish raw materials empire there.^{^[629]} At the Security Police School in Berlin-Charlottenburg, medical experts, Foreign Office officials, and other experts [attended lectures]…’The purpose of these courses was to make the students familiar with the history and problems of the former German colonies in preparation for the day when these colonies would be retrieved by Germany,’ Hoth explained. Afterwards, all the German police officers went to Rome (April 1941), attending an Italian police school where they learned how the Italian police handled resistance in the Italian African colonies.

Hoth was friendly with a senior official of the Reich Security Main Office (RSHA) named Walter Rauff, one of the inventors and distributors of the gas van used to asphyxiate victims in Belarus and later at the Chelmno extermination camp. Because of his connection with Rauff, who was slated for command of an Einsatzkommando in North Africa, and his colonial training, Hoth was assembled and dispatched to Athens in July 1942. There the unit waited for General Rommel’s troops to conquer Egypt and move into the British-controlled Mandate

of Palestine [author’s note: it was hoped Haj Amin would be able to return to Palestine as its leader post-WWII], where roughly half a million Jews lived.

Rauff’s Einsatzkommando, technically subordinated to Rommel’s army, reported directly to the RSHA in Berlin. After Reinhard Heydrich was assassinated in Czechoslovakia, SS chief Heinrich Himmler took direct command of this umbrella security-police organization. Two German historians have indicated that Himmler conferred with Hitler about the deployment of Einsatzkommando Egypt, which was to take ‘executive measures’ against civilians on its own authority…”

Is this what Skorzeny was sent to continue in Egypt via the Gehlen Organization and with the blessing of Anglo-America-NATO?

Breitman and Goda continue in Hitler’s Shadow:^{^[630]}

“Husseini [Haj Amin] also organized a 1944 mission for Palestinian Arabs and Germans to carry out sabotage and propaganda after German planes dropped them into Palestine by parachute. In discussions with the Foreign Intelligence branch of the RSHA, Husseini insisted that the Arabs take command after they landed and direct their fight against the Jews of Palestine, not the British authorities.”

Thus, we have evidence from the declassified archives from U.S. intelligence Nazi records that Haj Amin had explicitly directed his paramilitary groups to fight the Jews in Palestine and avoid fighting with the British authorities. What happened to ‘down with the British Empire and its oppressive colonisation on the Arab people’?

The declassified CIA archives also revealed that wartime Allied intelligence organizations gathered a healthy portion of incriminating evidence of Haj Amin’s Nazi affiliated actions throughout the war. This evidence is significant in light of Haj Amin’s lenient postwar treatment.

Breitman and Goda write in Hitler’s Shadow:

“…the [German] Foreign Office and Husseini [Haj Amin] signed a contract for subsidies of up to 12,000 marks per month to continue after April 1, 1945…In April 1945 neither side could have had much doubt about the outcome of the war. The continuing contractual relationships meant that Nazi officials…hoped to continue their joint or complementary political-ideological campaign in the postwar period.”

And this is exactly what happened with ‘former’ Nazis being stationed throughout the Middle East post-WWII including in Egypt with individuals such as Skorzeny in charge of their NATO-Gladio networks.

The Mufti, the Muslim Brotherhood, and British Rule in Egypt

After the war was over, there was a considerable amount of discussion coming from the British as to what Haj Amin’s fate would be.

The subject of Haj Amin was a matter of much debate and controversy in the British House of Commons, the record of the transcripts can be found in

Pearlman’s book Mufti of Jerusalem: The Story of Haj Amin el Husseini.⁷²⁸ From December 8^th, 1938 to June 19^th, 1946, the British government was guilty of a serious degree of foot dragging on the simple question as to whether Haj Amin should or should not be regarded officially by the British government as a war criminal. Leading figures within the British governement would frequently deflect the question, posed by the opposition, by responding that Haj Amin would need to be captured before Britain was ready to make an official stance on the man, an odd response that was repeated until the end of the war.

When Haj Amin had been captured by the French in his attempt to escape to Switzerland from Germany, in May 1945, the question of his extradition was brought up in the British House of Commons. In regard to this, it is best to refer to the transcripts of the discussion, which clearly showcase how the British government purposefully misrepresented the situation in the House of Commons as if Britain were indeed in discussion with France for Haj Amin’s extradition. The response given by Mr. Bevin⁷²⁹, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, on April 3^rd, 1945, is especially misleading. In response to the question of whether the French authorities had handed over Haj Amin el Husseini as

⁷²⁸You can find the book online at archive.org https://archive.org/details/muftiofjerusalem00pear, and the House of Commons transcript which begins on pg. 74.

⁷²⁹Recall from Chapter 6 that according to Belgian Gladio author Jan Willems, the creation of WUCC [Western Union Clandestine Committee] in spring 1948 had been a direct consequence of a public speech by British Foreign Minister Ernest Bevin held in London on January 22, 1948. In front of the British parliament Bevin had elaborated on his plan for a ‘Union

Occidental’, an international organisation designed to counter what he perceived to be the

Soviet threat in Europe. Ernest Bevin (Britain’s Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs July 1945-

March 1951) aided in the creation of NATO and was instrumental in the founding of the Information Research Department (IRD), a secret Cold War propaganda department of the British Foreign Office.

requested by His Majesty’s government, Bevin replied “The French Government have not so far agreed to this request. They have not officially given any reason for this, but I understand that certain difficulties have stood in the way of their compliance.”

On April 15^th, it was discovered for the first time, that there was no intention by the British government to extradite Haj Amin to Britain from France, evidenced by the reply by Mr. McNeil, Foreign Under Secretary who said, “The offences with which the Mufti might be charged are not extraditable offences under the AngloFrench Extradition Treaty. No useful purpose would therefore be served by applying for his extradition.” Thus, no extradition request was ever made.

Upon further questioning as to why no request for Haj Amin’s extradition was made, Mr. McNeil responded “The Mufti is not a war criminal in the technical sense of the term, since he is not an enemy national, nor a person who served in the enemy forces.” Thus, not only did the British government refuse to demand the extradition of Haj Amin but went so far as to tell the French that they did not consider him a war criminal. Most questionable behaviour by Britain indeed!

In June 1946, Mr. Janner of the Opposition raised a very apt point in questioning whether Britain should take personal responsibility for the actions of Haj Amin during the war, as he stated “particularly in view of the fact that he was in the pay of this country or of the Palestinian Administration [which was under British Mandate] at the time when he committed the treacherous acts of joining the forces against this country,” it was at this point that he was cut off by the House Speaker who remarked that “the hon. Member appears to be making a long speech.”

Not only was Haj Amin receiving funding from Britain throughout his “treacherous acts of joining the forces against this country,” but Britain, who had it in their power to do so, removed all of Haj Amin’s former rankings and responsibilities in Palestine, including his presidency of the Supreme Muslim Council; they had removed all titles except for the most important of all, his title as Mufti of Jerusalem, a position that had been created by the British Mandate of Palestine.

Keeping this title allowed Haj Amin to retain his station as the virtual religious leader of the Muslim world, and subsequently great influence over the Arab cause as well. Why would Britain maintain Haj Amin’s station as religious leader of the Muslim people while Haj Amin was using that very role to recruit Muslims and Arabs into the Axis power?

The British government had only offered one firm response to the House of

Commons in reference to Haj Amin’s future, when they said that he would not be allowed entry back into Palestine. However, this proved to also be a flexible line as we will see shortly.

On June 8^th, 1946, Haj Amin fled from his villa where he was under surveillance in the fashionable Paris suburb Rambouillet, just over a year from his capture by French forces. How he managed his escape has remained shrouded in mystery. On June 19^th, Haj Amin’s whereabouts were made public. He had arrived in Egypt. The Egyptian Government communique from Cairo announced:

“At eight o’clock tonight, Haj Amin el Husseini, Mufti of Jerusalem, called at the Abdin Palace and asked for an audience from King Farouk. The audience was granted and the Mufti told the King: ‘I have taken refuge in your palace.’ His Eminence then decided to stay as the King’s guest.”^{^[631]}

At the close of a Cabinet meeting in Cairo the following day, the Egyptian Foreign Minister said:

“Britain has made no request to Egypt to hand over the Mufti, and even if one had been received, it would be rejected.”^{^[632]}

Three days later, press correspondents who had interviewed both the British Ambassador and the Egyptian Premier wrote that:

“A broad agreement regarding the position of the Mufti seems to have been reached between Britain and Egypt.”^{^[633]}

Sir Ronald Campbell, the Ambassador, referred press questions to Premier Sidky Pasha, who explained that “the British viewpoint was not too far from the Egyptian view.” Asked what this was, Sidky Pasha said that the Mufti was a political refugee and not a war criminal.^{^[634]} On July 16^th, 1945 Sidky Pasha announced that no restrictions would be imposed on the movements of the

Mufti.⁷³⁴

However, this is not the end of odd behaviour by the British in relation to Haj Amin. Breitman and Goda write in Hitler’s Shadow:^{^[635]}

“Right after the war…according to one source considered reliable by the…American intelligence organization known as the Strategic Services Unit

(SSU), British officials objected to French plans to prosecute Husseini [Haj Amin]…The British ‘threatened’ the French with Arab uprising in French Morocco [if they attempted to prosecute Haj Amin].”^{^[636]}

In October 1945 Arthur Giles, British head of Palestine’s Criminal Investigation Division, told the assistant American military attaché in Cairo that the Mufti might be the only person who could unite the Palestine Arabs and “cool off the Zionists…Of course, we can’t do it, but it might not be such a damn bad idea at that.”^{^[637]}

Why would the British think that Haj Amin would be able to “cool off” the Zionists considering his entire career as to the very opposite? What were Britain’s continued intentions for Haj Amin in Palestine in a post-WWII world?

Breitman and Goda write in Hitler’s Shadow:^{^[638]}

“By 1947 Husseini [Haj Amin] denied that he had worked for the Axis power during the war. He told one acquaintance that he hoped soon to have documentary evidence rebutting this slander, which the Jews were spreading. Similarly, after Adolf Eichmann was brought to Israel for trial in March 1961, Husseini, by now in Beirut, denied having ever met Eichmann during the war. He said that he had been forced to take refuge in Germany simply because the British wanted to capture him.”

This holds a great deal of overlap with Mykola Lebed’s story who would also later deny that he had ever worked with the Nazis while working for the Gehlen Organization under the purview of Anglo-American intelligence after 1945.

Historian Richard Dreyfuss offers some insights as to what sort of role Britain envisioned for Haj Amin in Palestine post-WWII. Dreyfuss writes in The Devil’s Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam:^{^[639]}

“…the activities of the pro-Nazi (and pro-British) mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin alHusseini, Palestinian activism has all along had a minority Islamist component.

The mufti met Hassan al-Banna’s emissaries [including his brother Abdel-Rahman

al-Banna] in 1935.^{^[640]} A forerunner of the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine, the Makarem Society of Jerusalem, was set up in 1943. Many Palestinian nationalists who would go on to become leaders of the secular, non-Islamist movement for a Palestinian state were attracted to the Brotherhood at the time, as branches began to proliferate in Amman, in the Syrian cities of Aleppo, Hama, and Damascus, and in Gaza, Jerusalem, Ramallah, Haifa, and elsewhere. The Muslim Brotherhood’s first office in Jerusalem was opened in 1945 by Said Ramadan, and by 1947 there were twenty-five Muslim Brotherhood branches in Palestine with as many as 25,000 members. In October 1946, and again in 1947, the Muslim Brotherhood held a regional convention in Haifa, with delegates from Lebanon and Transjordan, calling for the ‘spread of Muslim Brotherhood chapters throughout Palestine’.

In the early days, the movement was bifurcated. In Gaza, the Muslim

Brotherhood was affiliated with the organization’s headquarters branch in Cairo. On the West Bank, the area of Palestine that came under Jordanian administration after 1948, the Brotherhood was attached to the Jordanian branch.…The Brotherhood, like the Islamic right everywhere, was strongly anticommunist, arguing ‘that in the twentieth century Egypt and the rest of the Islamic world were threatened by the onslaught of communist and nationalist ideologies which denied the supremacy of sharia’^{^[641]}…The Muslim Brotherhood was bitterly opposed to pan-Arabism^{^[642]}.”

Funny how much this vision overlaps with that of Bernard Lewis’ ‘Arc of Crisis’ for NATO. In fact, the Muslim Brotherhood and Haj Amin were working for NATO through the Gladio networks, organized by the Gehlen Organization throughout much of the Cold War.

It should also not be lost on the reader at this point, that not only was Britain instrumental in the formation of Israel, but they were also instrumental in the formation of the Muslim Brotherhood and funded the Arab Revolts through their funding and protection of Haj Amin. Britain was playing both sides.

Dreyfuss continues in The Devil’s Game:^{^[643]}

“The Brotherhood would gain strength from an unexpected direction in 1948: the war in Palestine. The Arab-Jewish war strengthened the Muslim Brotherhood immensely…The war also bolstered ties between the Brotherhood and another key British sponsored Muslim operative, the…Nazi-leaning mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini.

…The Brotherhood grew by leaps and bounds in the late 1940s. Banna’s son-inlaw, Said Ramadan, helped to organize chapters in Palestine and Transjordan…the Banna-Haj Amin alliance, forged in the crucible of the Palestine war, helped the Brothers extend their reach into Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Palestine.”

Considering the relationship of the Muslim Brotherhood’s role in Gladio networks, who were directly trained by Nazi networks in Egypt under the coordination of Skorzeny, it is no surprise that we see Said Ramadan employing Mussolini inspired fascist squadristis. Dreyfuss writes in The Devil’s Game:^{^[644]}

“During his several years in Karachi, [Said] Ramadan helped Mawdudi organize a muscular phalanx of fanatical Islamic students that battled Pakistan’s left, especially on university campuses. The so-called Islamic Student Society known by its Urdu initials as the IJT, modeled on Mussolini’s fascist squadristis, was a Ramadan project. ‘[author’s note: Said Ramadan was at that point the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood.] Although organized under the supervision of the Islamic Group, IJT was greatly influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt. Between 1952 and 1955, Ramadan helped IJT leaders formalize an administrative structure and devise an organizational strategy.’ According to Vali Reza Nasr’s the vanguard of the Islamic revolution.”

Upon Haj Amin’s arrival in Egypt, the British were quick to accept him back into their fold. Did he ever leave to begin with? Dreyfuss writes in The Devil’s Game:^{^[645]}

“Apparently the British didn’t hold a grudge against the mufti, because they soon hired him as a propagandist. In Cairo, British intelligence had established the Arab News Agency and the Near East Broadcasting Station (NEABS)…Perhaps impressed by his experience as a Nazi broadcaster, the MI6 outlet hired Haj Amin. The man who oversaw NEABS, through MI6’s Near East Association, was Sir

Kinahan Cornwallis, an aristocratic British banker who’d headed the Arab Bureau,

the Cairo headquarters of British intelligence during World War I and T.E. Lawrence’s base of operations.

…In Egypt…Banna and the mufti established a working relationship. One of the Muslim Brotherhood’s military units, stationed in Gaza, was put under the command of a Sudanese aid to the mufti. And in Cairo, Hassan al-Banna backed Haj Amin as the head of a new Palestine government. Perhaps the high point of the mufti’s career came with his triumphant return to Gaza in September 1947, where he proclaimed the state of Palestine and himself as ‘President of the Republic.’ With the Arab defeat by Jewish forces, however, Haj Amin’s fledgling state was no more. But Haj Amin would survive, prosper, and return to battle in the 1950s.”

Haj Amin’s plans to return to Palestine as not only the Mufti of Jerusalem, but to proclaim the state of Palestine and himself as President of the Republic was most certainly something we can view as very much in line with what the British also desired for him. This was a vision of continued terror and permanent war. British Intelligence wanted nothing less than a ‘holy war’ that would last until the last Arab Muslim. The support and close collaboration Haj Amin received from the head of the Muslim Brotherhood, should also make Haj Amin’s stance towards Nasser quite transparent. Haj Amin’s anti-Nasser and anti-pan Arab commitments struck to his very raison d'être, thus he was never truly for Arab independence.

It is not a coincidence that both Nazism and British-sponsored Islamic terrorism were being pushed onto the Arab world. It is no coincidence that today, we see jihadi extremists fighting in Ukraine alongside its neo-Nazis.^{^[646]} It is no coincidence that the Muslim Brotherhood supported the British puppet King Farouq, along with the other colonially placed sham monarchies in the Arab world. It is no coincidence, that much of the acts of terror we see continuing to occur in Southwest Asia and in Northeast Africa, within the Arab world, are almost always acts directed to destabilize sovereign nation-states and especially cripple their ability to build economic projects that would improve the lives of their people.

The ugly truth is that international terrorism is not a ‘natural sociological phenomenon’, but is rather an artificial construct, designed to suit and ultimately serve an Anglo-American imperialist agenda of international fascism.

Chapter 12
The Empire’s Ancient Sin City of London pg. 323

Islamic Banking Made in Geneva/London

Islamic banking [that is the banking system dominated by Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States] had spread to the far corners of the Muslim world. Eventually the Islamic banking movement became a vehicle not only for exporting political Islam but was also an instrument in sponsoring terrorism. However, Islamic banking did not get off the ground on its own, as Ibrahim Warde, a renowned scholar of international finance, explains in his book Islamic Finance in the Global Economy.^{^[647]} In his book, Warde explains that Islamic banking:

“…operates more out of London, Geneva, or the Bahamas than it does out of Jeddah, Karachi or Cairo…Ideologically, both liberalism and economic Islam were driven by their common opposition to socialism and economic dirigisme…Even Islamic Republics have on occasion openly embraced neo-liberalism…In Sudan, between 1992 and the end of 1993, Economics Minister Abdul Rahim Hamdi – a disciple of Milton Friedman and incidentally a former Islamic banker in London – did not hesitate to implement the harshest free-market remedies dictated by the International Monetary Fund. He said he was committed to transforming the heretofore statist economy ‘according to free-market rules, because this is how an Islamic economy should function.’ ”

Perhaps the best case study to this phenomenon is the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI). BCCI was an international bank founded in 1972 by Agha Hasan Abedi, a Pakistani financier. The bank was registered in Luxembourg with head offices in Karachi and London. A decade after opening, BCCI had over 400 branches in 78 countries in excess of $20 billion USD, making it the seventh largest private bank in the world.

In the 1980s, investigations into BCCI led to the discovery that the bank had been involved in massive money laundering and other financial crimes, and that the

BCCI had illegally and secretly gained the control of a major American bank, First American.^{^[648]}

BCCI was also to be found guilty for illegally buying another American bank, the Independence Bank of Los Angeles, using a Saudi businessman Ghaith Paraon as the puppet owner. The American depositors lost most of their money when BCCI was forced to foreclose since it was essentially operating a Ponzi scheme to fund illegal activity of all sorts.

According to journalists Elizabeth Gould and Paul Fitzgerald’s book The Valediction:^{^[649]}

“Afghanistan offered the opportunity for BCCI to migrate the lucrative heroin business from Southeast Asia [Laos/Cambodia/Vietnam] to the Pakistani/Afghan border under the cover of destabilization. President Carter supported Brzezinski’s provocations into Soviet territory from the minute they got into the White House. He then sanctioned Brzezinski’s plan to use Afghanistan to lure the Soviet Union into its own Vietnam and lied to the public about it when they fell into the trap on December 27, 1979.

…The destabilization kills [two] birds with one stone. It weakens the Soviets…[and] It acts as a cover for moving the heroin business out of Vietnam/Laos and Cambodia to a safe haven on the Pakistan frontier with Afghanistan – a trade that propped up the British Empire financially for over a hundred years.”

U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan, Adolph Dubs, was assassinated just seven months after taking his post, under extremely suspicious circumstances, on February 14^th, 1979. Journalists Gould and Fitzgerald^{^[650]} do a superb investigation of this murder as well as what really happened in Afghanistan in 1979, in their book The Valediction.

Investigators in the United States and the UK determined that BCCI had been “set up deliberately to avoid centralized regulatory review, and operated extensively in bank secrecy jurisdictions. Its affairs were extraordinarily complex. Its officers were sophisticated international bankers whose apparent objective

was to keep their affairs secret, to commit fraud on a massive scale, and to avoid detection.”^{^[651]}

This is an incredibly sophisticated operation, and interestingly, uses the very same methods that the City of London has been using for centuries and presently operates to a diabolical perfection today. There is no way that a solo Pakistani financier, even if he was financed by the Sheik of Abu Dhabi, could rise to this level of global influence in less than a decade, operating on the turf of ancient banking channels that go back several centuries, and becoming the seventh largest bank in the netherworld of finance without a little help from the big boys.

On July 29^th, 1991, a Manhattan grand jury indicted BCCI on twelve accounts of fraud, money laundering and larceny. Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, who was in charge of the investigation, has described BCCI as, at the time, “the largest bank fraud in world financial history.” Today, the actions of the United States can best be understood in the context of the AngloAmerican Empire, with Wall Street operating as an extension of the ancient banking channels of the City of London and Geneva (more on this shortly).

The disastrous foreign policy of namely Britain and the United States in the ‘War on Terror’ Crusade has been exposed multiple times. That is to say, that those very governments who have been shouting the loudest against Islamic extremism and for stability in the Middle East, are the very ones who have been weaponizing, training and funding such terrorist groupings.^{^[652]} The Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, ISIS (and all its viral variants) would not exist today if it were not for namely Britain’s age-old strategy.

The ‘War on Terror’ is thus exposed for what it truly is. It is meant to impoverish and destroy the national sovereignty of the people, not only of Southwest Asia, but as we are seeing clearly today, it has also acted as a slow blood-letting of the Western people as well, whose economies are much weaker today than they were twenty years ago.

While Western countries are increasingly unable to provide a proper standard of living, with mass unemployment, lack of healthcare, increased crime, increased suicide rates, increased overdoses, increased homelessness, and pretty much everything you would expect to rise during a Dark Age straight out of a Goya painting, these ‘first-world’ governments are applying further austerity measures onto their own citizens. Even after prolonged lockdowns, Western

government have chosen to pump trillions of dollars into wars that not only fund the destruction of entire nations, but also provide vast resources for the global drug, arms and sex-trafficking trade. All of this dirty money then circles back into the London-Geneva fondi, benefitting a select class that has existed and thrived for centuries on this sort of backdrop.

Nobody has benefitted from this ‘War on Terror’ except for the global elite.

HSBC Never Left the Dope Trade Nor the Crown

BCCI would not keep its title of “the largest bank fraud in world financial history” for very long.

2012 was a record-breaking year for bank fraud. Not only did HSBC pay the largest fine ever paid under the Bank Secrecy Act of $1.9 billion (USD) but the LIBOR scandal would occur a little over a week after. The Swiss bank UBS had to acknowledge its key role in perhaps the biggest antitrust/price-fixing case in history, the LIBOR scandal, a massive interest-rate-rigging conspiracy involving hundreds of trillion of dollars in financial products. As journalist Matt Taibi described it, the “LIBOR scandal, which is at the heart of the UBS settlement, makes Enron look like a parking violation.” Both HSBC’s and UBS’s settlements tied for the gold medal in “the biggest financial scam of all time.”

HSBC is a 19^th century British opium bank that was created with its headquarters in Hongkong-Shanghai, as part of the British conquest of China after it lost both Opium Wars, created to facilitate Britain’s trade in opium, something that it continues to be implicated in to this day. HSBC began to make unfavourable headlines when, in 2003, it was ordered by U.S. regulators to strengthen its antimoney-laundering practices and agreed to fix these problems. Instead, HSBC took part in one of the most notorious episodes in money laundering history.^{^[653]} As the Mexican drug war metastasized in the mid-2000s, HSBC provided essential U.S. dollar-denominated accounts to narco-gangs who needed to clean hundreds of millions of dollars in drug earnings.

Again in 2010, HSBC was given a cease-and-desist court order by its primary regulator, the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). HSBC again promised to make good on its anti-money laundering systems.^{^[654]}

In the summer of 2012, the U.S. Senate investigative panel released its 339-page report^{^[655]} on HSBC’s work with Mexican narco-gangs and its role in terrorist financing. The Justice Department and HSBC reached their deferred-prosecution agreement at the end of that year. In December 2012, HSBC was penalised $1.9 billion (USD), the largest fine under the Bank Secrecy Act, for violating four U.S. laws designed to protect the U.S. financial system.^{^[656]} HSBC had allegedly laundered at least $881 million in drugs proceeds through the U.S. financial system for international cartels, as well as processing an additional $660 million for banks in U.S. sanctioned countries. According to the report, “The U.S. bank subsidiary [also] failed to monitor more than $670 billion in wire transfers and more than $9.4 billion in purchases of physical dollars from its Mexico unit.”^{^[657]}

In a controversial decision, prosecutors declined to seek an indictment of HSBC but instead allowed it to pay a $1.9 billion settlement. Lanny Breuer, assistant attorney general at the time, stated: “HSBC is being held accountable for stunning failures of oversight – and worse…that led the bank to permit narcotics traffickers and others to launder hundreds of millions of dollars through HSBC subsidiaries and to facilitate hundreds of millions more in transactions with sanctioned countries.”^{^[658]}

HSBC agreed with the DoJ (Department of Justice) that it would serve five years of probation during which its efforts to prevent money laundering would be monitored by a court-appointed watchdog. The court named a former top New

York state financial crimes prosecutor, Michael Cherkasky.^{^[659]}

Both HSBC and U.S. authorities have vigorously fought to keep Cherkasky’s monitoring reports secret.^{^[660]} In 2019, BuzzFeed News sued for the release of Cherkasky’s final report, arguing that the public’s interest in understanding the government’s handling of the HSBC case demands that it be unsealed. Spencer Woodman wrote for the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists in 2019 that “The Justice Department continues to fight to keep the Cherkasky report sealed and has sought repeatedly to delay preliminary hearings, citing the coronavirus pandemic. The suit is pending.”⁷⁶¹

It was later revealed that George Osborne, the former chancellor of the Exchequer^{^[661]}, had intervened to persuade the U.S. government not to pursue criminal charges against HSBC for allowing terrorists and Mexican drug dealers to launder millions of dollars. A congressional report published letters and emails from Osborne and Financial Services Authority (FSA) officials to their U.S. counterparts warning that launching criminal action against HSBC in 2012 could have sparked a “financial calamity”.⁷⁶³ The House financial services committee report said the UK interventions “played a significant role in ultimately persuading the DoJ not to prosecute HSBC”. Instead of pursuing a prosecution, the bank agreed to pay a record $1.92bn (£1.4bn) fine.^{^[662]}

During the prosecution trial, HSBC acknowledged that for years it had ignored warning signs that drug cartels in Mexico were using its branches to launder millions of dollars. A December 2012 CNNMoney article compared the 1.9 billion dollars fine to HSBC's profit “last year” (in 2011) of 16.8 billion.^{^[663]}

Leopoldo Barroso, a former HSBC anti-money-laundering director, told company officials in an exit interview that he was concerned about civil and criminal sanctions and that there were “allegations of 60 percent to 70 percent of

Ponzi scheme while on probation over ties to drug kingpins. International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.

https://web.archive.org/web/20221030225919/https://www.icij.org/investigations/fincenfiles/hsbc -moved -vast -sums -of -dirty -money -after -paying -record -laundering -fine/.

laundered proceeds in Mexico” going through HSBC’s affiliate, according to the U.S. Senate report.^{^[664]}

It was also discovered that HSBC had “ignored links to terrorist financing among its customer banks, including Riyadh, Saudi Arabia-based Al Rajhi Bank, which had ties to terror groups through its owners, according to the [Senate] report. Internal documents show HSBC decided to cut ties with the bank before reversing itself under pressure from Al Rajhi, which received shipments of $1 billion in cash from HSBC’s U.S. operation from 2006 to 2010, according to the [Senate] report.”^{^[665]} HSBC’s U.S. unit “offers a gateway for terrorists to gain access to U.S. dollars and the U.S. financial system,” according to the Senate report. “HSBC has a legal obligation to take reasonable steps to ensure it is not dealing with banks that may have links to or facilitate terrorist financing.”^{^[666]}

Despite HSBS’s links as a facilitator of terrorist financing connected with Saudi banks, in February 2006 the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) under President George Bush Jr. suddenly decided to release HSBC from its cease-and-desist order. In other words, HSBC had basically violated its parole 30 times and got off anyway. The bank was, to use the street term, “off paper” – and free to let the Al Rajhis of the world come rushing back.^{^[667]}

Journalist Matt Taibi writes for Rolling Stone Magazine:^{^[668]}

“After HSBC fully restored its relationship with the apparently terrorist-friendly Al Rajhi Bank in Saudi Arabia, it supplied the bank with nearly 1 billion U.S. dollars. When asked by HSBC what it needed all its American cash for, Al Rajhi explained that people in Saudi Arabia need dollars for all sorts of reasons. ‘During summer time,’ the bank wrote, ‘we have a high demand from tourists traveling for their vacations’.”

As already mentioned, the HSBC’s ‘too big to jail’ prosecution agreement with the U.S. Justice Department wasn’t the only big news to happen in 2012.

Matt Taibi writes:^{^[669]}

“But the Justice Department wasn’t finished handing out Christmas goodies. A little over a week later, [Lanny] Breuer [who was the assistant attorney general for the HSBC 2012 case as well] was back in front of the press, giving a cushy deal to another huge international firm, the Swiss bank UBS, which had just admitted to a key role in perhaps the biggest antitrust/price-fixing case in history, the socalled LIBOR scandal, a massive interest-rate-rigging conspiracy involving hundreds of trillions…of dollars in financial products. While two minor players did face charges, Breuer and the Justice Department worried aloud about global stability as they explained why no criminal charges were being filed against the parent company.”^{^[670]}

On December 19^th, 2012, the Justice Department essentially let the Swiss banking giant UBS off the hook for its part in what is likely the biggest financial scam of all time.

Matt Taibi writes:^{^[671]}

“The so-called LIBOR scandal, which is at the heart of the UBS settlement, makes Enron look like a parking violation. Many of the world’s biggest banks, including Switzerland’s UBS, Britain’s Barclays and the Royal Bank of Scotland, got together and secretly conspired to manipulate the London Interbank Offered Rate, or LIBOR, which measures the rate at which banks lend to each other. Many, if not most, interest rates are pegged to LIBOR. The prices of hundreds of trillions of dollars of financial products are tied to LIBOR, everything from commercial loans to credit cards to mortgages to municipal bonds to swaps and currencies…These are the world’s biggest banks getting together every morning to essentially fix the price of money. Low LIBOR rates are an indicator that banks are strong and healthy. These banks were faking the results of their daily physicals. In banking terms, they were juicing.”

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) issued five Orders filing and settling charges against Citibank N.A. (Citibank), HSBC Bank plc (HSBC), JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. (JPMorgan), The Royal Bank of Scotland plc (RBS) and UBS AG (UBS) (collectively known as ‘the Banks’ or ‘the Cartel’) for attempted manipulation of, and for aiding and abetting other banks’ attempts to manipulate, global foreign exchange (FX) benchmark rates to benefit the

positions of certain traders. The Orders collectively imposed over $1.4 billion in civil monetary penalties, specifically: $310 million each for Citibank and JPMorgan, $290 million each for RBS and UBS, and $275 million for HSBC, which is peanuts compared to the annual profits of these banks.⁷⁷⁴

In July 2016, the United States Department of Justice charged two executives (both British citizens) from HSBC Bank over an alleged $3.5 billion currency scheme which defrauded HSBC clients and “manipulated the foreign exchange market to benefit themselves and their bank”.⁷⁷⁵ Mark Johnson, a senior British banker of HSBC, was arrested at a New York City airport for currency benchmark rigging.^{^[672]} He was later convicted of nine counts of wire fraud and conspiracy to defraud related to front running the currency trades of HSBC clients and sentenced to a mere two years in federal prison.^{^[673]} ^{^[674]}He was released after serving just three months in prison and was rather inexplicably allowed to return home to the U.K. while he pursued an appeal. November 2020 the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of his 2017 conviction, which was previously upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. It meant he would have to return to the U.S. to serve his sentence.^{^[675]} In February 2021 a judge ruled that Johnson would not need to report to prison until he is vaccinated against COVID-19.⁷⁸⁰ It appears thus far that Mark Johnson has not had to return to prison since his initial release after just three months of incarceration.

⁷⁷⁴ Release Number 7056-14 (November 12, 2014) CFTC Orders Five Banks to Pay over $1.4 billion in Penalties for Attempted Manipulation of Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates.

Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/7056 -14. Retrieved October 2022. ⁷⁷⁵ Neate, Rupert. (July 11, 2016) HSBC escaped US money-laundering charges after Osborn’s intervention. The Guardian.

https://web.archive.org/web/20221030231226/https://www.theguardian.com/business/201 6/jul/11/hsbc -us -money -laundering -george -osborne -report.

Stuart Scott, who was HSBC's European head of foreign exchange trading in London until December 2014, was accused of the same crimes as Mark Johnson. A warrant was issued for Scott's arrest, but he successfully fled to Britain. In July 2018 the High Court of Justice ruled against extraditing him to the United States since most of the alleged crimes took place in Britain and because Scott has no significant connection to the United States. It appears Stuart Scott has avoided incarceration all together and that Britain has no desire to proceed with an investigation of their own.

In 2015, the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) had fined five banks £1.1bn – the biggest penalty in the history of the City of London at the time – for failing to stop their traders manipulating the market.^{^[676]}

In November 2012, it was reported that HSBC had set up offshore accounts in Jersey for suspected drug-dealers and other criminals, and that HM Revenue and Customs had launched an investigation following a whistle blower leaking details of £700 million allegedly held in HSBC accounts in the Crown dependency.^{^[677]}

In 2013 HSBC Holdings Plc appointed former U.S. Deputy Attorney General James Comey and ex-U.K. tax chief Dave Hartnett to a panel to combat financial crime after the bank paid $1.9 billion to settle the 2012 money-laundering probe. The Senate committee said that lax oversight by top HSBC executives gave terrorist and drug cartels access to the U.S. financial system.^{^[678]} Comey was a nonexecutive director at HSBC from March to September 2013.^{^[679]} A day before the settlement, HSBC appointed Robert Werner, previously head of the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control and Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, as head of group financial crime compliance and group money laundering reporting officer.^{^[680]} (James Comey would resign from this position six months later to become the Director of the FBI from September 2013 to May 2017.)

Leaked records show HSBC processed at least $31 million between 2014 and 2015 for companies later revealed to have moved stolen government funds from Brazil; and more than $292 million between 2010 and 2016 for a Panama-based organization branded by U.S. authorities as a major money launderer for drug cartels.^{^[681]}

In 2015, HSBC has been ordered to pay a record 40m Swiss francs (£28m) and been given a final warning by the Geneva authorities for “organisational deficiencies” which allowed money laundering to take place in the bank’s Swiss subsidiary. The settlement meant the Swiss would not prosecute HSBC or publish the findings of their investigation into alleged aggravated money laundering. Announcing the biggest financial penalty ever imposed by the Geneva authorities, Jornot launched a stinging attack on his own country’s financial laws, adding his voice to a growing a number of Swiss politicians and campaigners calling for reform of the country’s secretive banking system. The Geneva authorities said the payment, which was described as “compensation” rather than a fine, reflected the harm done to the city and the profits obtained by HSBC from processing illicit funds. Bank accounts back in Switzerland were manipulated to reimburse the drug dealers.

Explaining the decision not to bring HSBC to court, Jornot said Swiss law demanded a high standard of proof. Those laundering money had to be shown to be doing so deliberately, not accidentally, and the money had to be demonstrably obtained from criminal acts, not simply deposited by a known criminal! To fine the bank, prosecutors would also have needed to show organisational failure caused the money to be laundered.⁷⁸⁷ Although we have seen thus far, even if the bank were to be prosecuted, it would simply be asked to pay a relatively small fine (in comparison to its profit), since these banks were essentially ‘too big to jail’. At the end of the day you could have an airtight case proven culpability all the way to the top of the bank’s organizational structure, and it wouldn’t make any difference to how that bank would continue to operate the very next day.

In January 2018, HSBC Holdings Plc agreed to pay $101.5 million to settle a U.S. criminal probe into the rigging of currency transactions, which had already led to the conviction of one of its former bankers.^{^[682]}

In 2018 South Africa's central bank fined HSBC's HSBA.L local business 15 million rand (844,927 pounds) for weaknesses in its processes meant to detect money laundering and terrorism financing, and ordered the bank to fix the problems.^{^[683]}

In 2020, HSBC told AUSTRAC that it may have broken Australia's anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism laws after allegedly failing to report thousands of transactions to AUSTRAC.^{^[684]}

In December 2021, HSBC (HSBA.L) had been fined 64 million pounds ($85 million) by British regulators for failings in its anti-money laundering processes spanning eight years. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) said it had found that three key parts of HSBC's transaction monitoring systems in Britain showed serious weaknesses over a period from March 31, 2010 to March 31, 2018.^{^[685]} The FCA said HSBC had made a string of failings, including inadequate monitoring of money laundering and terrorist financing scenarios until 2014, and poor risk assessment of “new scenarios” after 2016.

And the list goes on and on and on…

But ‘alleged’ money laundering for terrorists and drug cartels, and benchmark rigging was not all HSBC was up to.

HSBC had announced in 1999 that it would purchase the Republic National Bank of New York for $10.3 billion cash, the biggest foreign takeover deal for an American banking company.^{^[686]}

The New York Times writes:^{^[687]}

“The purchase of the Republic New York Corporation…by HSBC…would double the size of HSBC's private-banking business. It would also give HSBC the third-biggest retail branch network in the New York region…

Banking industry analysts said the deal largely reflected HSBC's efforts to expand its highly profitable private-banking operations, which serve very wealthy clients. ‘Strategically it fits,’ said James Johnson, an analyst with Credit Lyonnais Securities. ‘It complements them in an area they have been pushing: wealth management’.

…Under the $72-a-share agreement, HSBC is buying the Republic New York Corporation and an affiliated company, Safra Republic Holdings S.A., the parent of banks that serve clients in havens like Switzerland, Luxembourg and Monaco.

HSBC has grown aggressively out of its roots in the colonial Hongkong and Shanghai Bank. It is now a major competitor in the business of managing money for the wealthy, a profitable business that helps offset the risks in such other operations as loans to emerging-market countries of Asia.

The deal would surpass the previous record for a foreign takeover of an American bank, the $10.1 billion purchase of Bankers Trust by Deutsche Bank announced late last year. It would also be HSBC's biggest purchase since it acquired Marine Midland Bank…for $6.1 billion...

…John Bond, HSBC's chairman, said: ‘The acquisitions we have announced today will bring together two complementary private banking franchises. At the stroke of a pen, it doubles the size of our consumer-banking operations in the United States, and it doubles the size of our private-banking business around the world’.”

As mentioned in The New York Times article, the purchase of the Republic New York Corporation which is the holding company for the Republic National Bank of New York, Safra Republic Holdings and Safra Republic Bank by HSBC was the largest since their acquirement of the New York Marine Midland Bank.

In fact, HSBC was attempting to acquire the Marine Midland bank as early as 1979, but the New York regulatory body refused to permit the transaction since it would be the largest foreign takeover in American banking history. “The [New York State’s banking] superintendent, Muriel Siebert, demanded detailed accounting of the HongShang’s [HSBC] hidden profits, silent subsidiaries, and other paraphernalia of money laundering, and refused the application when the Hong Kong institution predictably refused. HongShang was compelled to employ

a subterfuge – ultimately sanctioned by Paul Volcker’s Federal Reserve Board – in order to consummate the takeover: it arranged for Marine Midland Bank, one of America’s largest, to change its status from a state-chartered to a nationallychartered bank, in order to circumvent the regulatory powers of New York State. The Federal Reserve threw out the rule books and accepted the takeover of Marine Midland in early 1980, preferring to ignore the law and the banking regulator of American’s financial center, New York State, rather than jeopardize the plans of Dope, Inc.”^{^[688]} HSBC acquired 51% share of the holding company, Marine Midland Banks, Inc. in 1980 and full ownership by 1987. Marine Midland Bank was renamed HSBC Bank USA in 1999.

HSBC’s purchase of the Republic New York Corporation was also not free of controversy. The company was controlled by the billionaire Edmond Safra who was killed in a fire in his Monte Carlo home, some say by his nurse Ted Maher.^{^[689]}

The story gets much more eerie when looking into the background of Ted Maher. As a young man Maher needed the Army to pay for college, he did well in the military from Fort Bragg to Special Forces to the Green Berets.^{^[690]} Ted was a medic in the Special Forces and after the Army decided to return to school to become a nurse. Safra had employed a full staff of bodyguards who were highly trained officers from the Mossad, as per NBC News. As Maher’s version of the story goes, he was attacked by two masked men, sliced and stabbed with a knife, went unconscious but somehow was able to still warn Safra and his other nurse Vivan when he came to, that there were intruders, how did he reach them before the intruders is a bit of a mystery. Safra and Vivan locked themselves in a panic room, while Maher left and went straight to the hospital to be treated for his wounds, no mention of calling the police. The mansion was set on fire and Safra and Vivian along with it.^{^[691]}

HSBC acquired the Republic New York Corporation bank immediately after the death of Safra, sold for 40% below what the bank was worth.

HSBC would go on to make record-breaking massive bank acquisitions throughout the late 1990s early 2000s, in France,⁷⁹⁸ Turkey,⁷⁹⁹ Mexico,⁸⁰⁰ China,^{^[692]} Poland,^{^[693]} Iraq,^{^[694]} Taiwan,^{^[695]} and Brazil.^{^[696]} This list is by no means complete.

In 2006 HSBC “signed an agreement with Banca Nazionale del Lavoro SpA to acquire the latter's banking operations in Argentina, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro S.A. (BNL), for a consideration of US$155 million, to be met from internal resources within Argentina. HSBC Bank Argentina SA has 58 branches throughout the country providing a full range of banking and financial products and services, including commercial, consumer and corporate banking, to over 512,000 customers.”^{^[697]}

Despite HSBC being based in the City of London, to this day, HSBC reserves the right to print Hong Kong money. Only two other agencies are also given this right, the Bank of China and Standard Chartered Bank (which is also a British multinational banking and financial services company headquartered in London).

⁷⁹⁸Garfield, Andrew. (April 3, 2000) HSBC leads the way into euro zone with £6.6bn French bank takeover. The Independent. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/hsbcleads -the -way -into -euro -zone -with -ps6 -6bn -french -bank -takeover -280026.html. Retrieved October 2022.

⁷⁹⁹BBC Business News Staff. (July 20, 2001) HSBC buys insolvent Turkish bank. BBC News. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1449170.stm. Retrieved October 2022.

⁸⁰⁰Malkin, Elisabeth. (August 22, 2002) HSBC Buying Fifth-Largest Bank in Mexico for $1.1 Billion. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/22/business/hsbc -buyingfifth -largest -bank -in -mexico -for -1.1billion.html#:~:text=HSBC%20Holdings%20said%20today%20that,in%20Latin%20America's%2 0healthiest%20economy. Retrieved October 2022.

The Bank of China is the only one of the three agencies that is a Chinese-owned bank.^{^[698]} It is noteworthy that in September 2020, HSBC stocks plummeted when the Chinese government announced that the dope bank HSBC and Standard Charter would likely find themselves on the ‘Unreliable Foreign Entity List.’^{^[699]}

The London based Standard Chartered Bank has also been implicated in money laundering, where officers from HSBC and Standard Chartered Bank were caught in a 2013 sting operation going so far as “offering to launder money.”^{^[700]}

Hong Kong was only returned back to China in 1997, and HSBC up until that point had always been run under British economic policy. In fact, it largely continues to be run by Britain to this day. Thus, Hong Kong as one of the center points in the international trade of opium has been created and managed by British foreign policy and banking institutions. You can appreciate how over 150 years of British colonial dope pushing in Hong Kong institutions including its financial center will not be easy for China to shake Hong Kong out of.

The Dope Trade and the Crown: A Very-British Wealth of Nations

“We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”

- Henry John Temple, aka Lord Palmerston (Britain’s Prime Minister from 1855-1858,

1859-1865), oversaw Britain’s First Opium War (1839-1842) as Head of Britain’s Foreign Office and the Second Opium War (1856-1860) as Britain’s Prime Minister against China.

The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC) was established by London, as an outcome of Britain’s colonial acquirement of Hong Kong and Shanghai after the Second Opium War (1856-1860). Its headquarters had remained in Hong Kong until they were officially moved to London in 1993, just four years before Hong Kong was returned to China in 1997 at the end of its 99-

year lease to Britain. That is, Hong Kong was the equivalent of a British colony for over 150 years.

In fact, Hong Kong and Shanghai had been in the possession of the British since 1842 after China lost the First Opium War (1839-1842). HSBC was created in 1865 to service the opium trade as a consequence of Britain winning the two Opium Wars against China which were fought over Britain’s desire to enforce the free trade of opium on the Chinese people, after Britain had destroyed India’s textile industry and forced it into a raw opium producer. India in turn would have no means of purchasing its required textiles from Britain, who now had a world monopoly on the textile and cotton trade, except from selling opium to China. India paid for its imported cloth and railway cars to carry the cloth and other British goods with the proceeds of Bengali opium exports to China. Without the final demand of Chinese opium sales, the entire world structure of British trade would have collapsed.

The British Empire had made a move towards a free trade system in the 1840s, modelled off on Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations. In this new system of trade it was believed that if there is a demand for a product, a country had no right to intervene in its transaction. Protectionism, which had been practiced by Britain up until that point, had now been deemed unfit by…Britain, and all other countries were naturally to follow along according to the ‘new rules’ chosen for them, excluding Britain of course, who continued to practice protectionism.

Created in 1600 with a Royal Charter from Queen Elizabeth I, the East India Company was from its inception indistinguishable from the British Empire itself, rising to account for half of the world’s trade. As is aptly said by Lord Macaulay in his speech to the House of Commons in July 1833, since the beginning, the East India Company had always been involved in both trade and politics, just as its French and Dutch counterparts had been.

In other words, the East India Company was to facilitate the geopolitical chess game that the British Empire wished to see played out. Not only the trade contracts it received but whole colonised territories won by the British Empire were handed over to this company to manage, along with a large sized private military, all under the decree of the Crown. This would be most evidently seen in the freedom it was given to control opium production in British India and to then facilitate its trade within Hong Kong and other colonised parts of Southeast Asia.

In the case of China, the trade of opium was ultimately banned by the Chinese, and severe punishments were to be delivered to those involved in smuggling the product into the country, which included British merchants. The British Empire considered this a direct threat to its ‘security’ and its new enforcement of free trade, thus when China did not back down, the First Opium war was waged. The result was the forced signing of the Nanking Treaty in 1842. This treaty, known as the first of the unequal treatises, ceded the territory of Hong Kong to Britain and allowed British merchants to not only trade at Guangzhou but were now also permitted to trade with five additional “treaty ports” and with whomever they pleased. In addition, Shanghai would also be largely taken over with the formation of the Shanghai International Settlement, which allowed for British settlements as well as the establishment of a British banking center.

Adam Smith wrote in his The Wealth of Nations:

“The servants of the company have upon several occasions attempted to establish in their own favour the monopoly of some of the most important branches, not only of the foreign, but of the inland trade of the country…In the course of a century or two, the policy of the English company would in this manner have probably proved as destructive as that of the Dutch…Nothing, however, can be more directly contrary to the real interest of those companies considered as the sovereigns of the countries which they have conquered…It is in [the sovereign’s] interest, therefore, to increase as much as possible that annual produce. But if this is the interest of every sovereign, it is peculiarly so of one whose revenue, like that of the sovereign of Bengal, arises chiefly from a land rent. That rent must necessarily be in proportion to the quantity and value of the produce, and both one and the other must depend upon the extent of the market.”

In the minds of British grand strategists of the 19^th century, the “produce” was opium.

To Lord Palmerston the arguments of Adam Smith about the virtues of free trade not only corresponded with Britain’s real interest but were intellectually unanswerable, that is, they were formed on ‘firm logic’ that simply could not be argued with. Showcasing this ‘grip on economic reality,’ Lord Palmerston wrote to Lord Auckland in January 1841 to explain why he was pushing China into war:

“The rivalship of European manufactures is fast excluding our productions from the markets of Europe, and we must unremittingly endeavour to find in other parts of the world new vents for our industry…if we succeed in our China expedition, Abyssinia, Arabia, the countries of the Indus and the new markets of China will at no distant period give us a most important extension to the range of our foreign commerce.”^{^[701]}

As Palmerston saw it, this was what was to shape British policy to save their slowly sinking empire from financial bankruptcy. It is what empires do best, to suck the life out of others.

Under direct sponsorship now of the Crown, Jardine Matheson and others fostered an epidemic of opium-trafficking into China. By the year of 1830, the number of chests of opium brought into China increased fourfold, to 18,956 chests. In 1836, the figure exceeded 30,000 chests. In financial terms, trade figures made available by the British and Chines governments showed that between 1829 and 1840, a total of 7 million silver dollars entered China, while 56 million silver dollars were sucked out by soaring rise in opium trade.^{^[702]} By 1830, opium was the largest commodity in world trade.⁸¹²

In 1840, the Chinese Emperor, confronted with a drug addiction crisis that was destroying the Mandarin class and the nation, tried to restrict the British trading companies. Britain’s answer was war.

Out of the Second Opium War, HSBC was founded in 1865. A British-friendly bank needed to be created to facilitate trade in the region, connecting the Empire’s newly acquired treasures Shanghai and Hong Kong with British India (the major world producer of opium) along with the rest of the British Empire and Europe. This bank was not only meant to facilitate foreign trade within China however it deemed fit, but in addition was created namely to trade in the product of opium. It is important to note that although the founder of HSBC is credited as Thomas Sutherland of the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, a Scottish merchant who wanted the bank to operate under “sound Scottish banking principles”, the bank had been created from the start to facilitate trade on behalf of the British Empire.

DOPE Inc. writes: “The Southern cotton and slave trade were run to a significant degree by the same Scottish based families that also ran the opium trade in the Orient. The Sutherland family which was one of the largest cotton and opium traders in the South was first cousin to the Matheson family of Jardine Matheson. The Barings, who founded the Peninsular and Orient Steam Navigation Company that carried dope had been the largest investors in U.S. clipper shipping from the time of the American Revolution. The Rothschild family as well as their later ‘Our Crowd’ New York banking cousins the Lehmans and Lehman Brothers all made

their initial entry into the United States through the pre-Civil War cotton and slave trade.”^{^[703]}

As Prime Minister Lord Palmerston fanned the flames for a second Opium War, The Times trumpeted their war cry:

“England, with France, or England without France if necessary…shall teach a lesson to these perfidious hordes that the name of Europe will hereafter be a passport of fear, if it cannot be of love throughout their land.”^{^[704]}

Barings^{^[705]} brothers was the premier merchant bank of the opium traffic from 1783 to recent years. Boston families were created out of the British opium trade such as the Cabots,^{^[706]} Lodes, Forbes, Cunninghams, Appletons, Bacons, Russells, Coolidges, Parkmans, Shaws, Codmans, Boylstons and Runnewells.^{^[707]}

DOPE Inc. writes: “[This] group’s leading banker became, at the close of the nineteenth century, the House of Morgan - which also took its cut in the Eastern opium traffic. Thomas Nelson Perkins, a descendant of the opium-and-slaves shipping magnate who founded Russell and Company, became the Morgan Bank’s chief Boston agent, through Perkins’s First National Bank of Boston…Morgan’s Far Eastern operations were the officially conducted British opium traffic. Exemplary is the case of Morgan partner Willard Straight, who spent the years 1901-12 in China as assistant to the notorious Sir Robert Hart, chief of the Imperial Chinese Customs Service, and hence the leading British official in charge of conducting opium traffic. Afterwards he became head of Morgan bank’s Far Eastern operations…Morgan’s case deserves special scrutiny from American police and regulatory agencies, for the intimate associations of Morgan Guaranty Trust with the identified leadership of the British dope banks. Jardine Matheson’s current chairman [in 1992] David Newbigging, the most powerful man today in Hong Kong, is a member of Morgan’s international advisory board. The chairman of Morgan et Cie., the bank’s international division, sits on the Council of the Royal Institute of International Affairs [aka Chatham House]. The chairman of Morgan Grenfell, in which Morgan Guaranty

Trust has a 40 percent stake, - Lord Catto of Cairncatto, sits on the ‘London Committee’ of the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank.”^{^[708]}

Just as America’s wars on drugs and terror which ultimately was about dope pushing, Britain’s opium war on China would prove no different. Opium addiction entered the United States during the 19^th century as a direct consequence of Britain’s foreign policy. Adding to the opium addiction, British pharmaceutical houses had begun commercial production of morphine in the years leading up to the American Civil War and made large quantities available to both armies. The British firms misrepresented the morphine as a ‘nonaddictive’ painkiller and even had the audacity to push it as a cure for opium addition.^{^[709]}

In 1911, an international conference on the narcotics problem was held at The Hague. The conference participants agreed to regulate the narcotics trade, with the goal in mind of eventual total suppression. The conference was a major step forward; in the early days of the dope trade, neither opium nor morphine were considered illegal drugs, and heroin would not be outlawed as a prescription drug until 1924. But this conference and subsequent efforts to stem the opium plague ran up against Britain’s open diplomatic posture on behalf of its unrestricted profiteering from a commodity known to destroy its consumers.^{^[710]}

Britain was able to avoid the Hague’s decision by evading dealing with China directly, and instead sending their opium to their extraterritorial bases, Hong Kong and Shanghai (which Britain considered not part of China but rather their colonial possessions). “Opium dens in the [British] Shanghai International Settlement jumped from 87 licensed dens in 1911 at the time of the Hague convention to 663 dens in 1914! In addition to the trafficking internal to Shanghai, the Triads and related British sponsored organized crime networks within China redoubled smuggling operations – conveniently based out of the warehouses of Shanghai. If anything, British profiteering from the opium trade jumped as the result of the reversion to a totally black-market productiondistribution cycle.”⁸²¹

DOPE Inc. continues: “It is obvious by now that an operation of this scope could not exist without the political approval of the British government nor without the gigantic supporting facilities of the world’s offshore credit markets, the world’s gold and diamonds trade, and ‘hands-on’ management of the retail distribution, or organized crime aspects of the operation. The Hongkong and

Shanghai Bank’s governing body, the London Committee is the British oligarchy’s delegated group assigned to the Far East drug traffic…More specifically it is an economic warfare operation. Two of its directors J.H. Keswick - of the family that founded Jardine Matheson in 1828 to trade opium - and J.K. Swire - of the Swire family of hereditary opium traders - were senior officials in Britain’s Ministry of Economic Warfare during WWII. Another senior official of that ministry is Sir Mark Turner, the chairman of Rio Tinto Zinc the Hong Shang’s partner in numerous fields, including gold operations. Turner is now a key figure [in 1992] in the Royal Institute of International Affairs, founded by Lord Alfred Milner, an earlier chairman of Rio Tinto Zinc.”^{^[711]}

The Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) and its leading personnel control not only the Far Eastern drug traffic but every important dirty money operation on the surface of the globe. DOPE Inc. writes “…a concise summary of the RIIA’s purposes appears in its de facto founding document, Cecil Rhodes’s’ 1877 bequest. Rhodes, who founded both the gold and diamond mining empire that still dominates world markets under the aegis of Anglo-American and De Beers, and also founded the dope-trading Standard Bank (the African partner of the Asian-based Chartered Bank, since merged), is the starting point for the present form of the disease. Rhodes left his wealth to the Rhodes Trust, administered by Lod Milner. Milner’s collection of Oxford trainees, called the ‘Milner Kindergarten,’ made up most of the 1916 Lloyd George government, and formed the RIIA at a meeting in Versailles on May 30^th, 1919.”^{^[712]}

Rhodes’s 1877 will was:

“To establish a trust, to and for the establishment and promotion and development of a secret society, the true aim and object whereof shall be the extension of British rule throughout the world, the perfecting of a system of emigration from the Untied Kingdom and the colonization by British subjects of all islands wherein the means of livelihood are attainable by energy, labor, and enterprise, and especially the occupation by British settlers of the entire continent of Africa, the Holy Land, the valley of the Euphrates, the islands of Cyprus and Candia, the whole of South America, the islands of the Pacific not heretofore possessed by Great Britain, the whole of the Malay Archipelago, the seaboard of China and Japan, the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire, the consolidation of the whole Empire, the inauguration of a system of colonial representation in the Imperial Parliament which may tend to weld together the disjointed members of the Empire, and

finally, the foundation of so great a power as to hereafter render wars impossible and promote the best interests of humanity.”^{^[713]}

The secret society concept was passed on by Milner, Rhodes’s successor as high commissioner in South Arica, through Milner’s trainees Lionel Curtis (of the Roundtable group) and Lord Robert Cecil [originator of the League of Nations]. Curtis and Cecil both participated in the May 1919 meeting at Versailles that founded the RIIA.

The Royal Institute of International Affairs is the secret society Cecil Rhodes had called for.

‘Hell is a city much like London’

“Hell is a city much like London”

– Percy Bysshe Shelley

Although Wall Street has contributed greatly to this sad situation, this banking hub of America is best understood as the spawn of the City of London.

The City of London is over 800 years old, it is arguably older than England herself, and for over 400 years it has been the financial center of the world.

During the medieval period the City of London, otherwise known as the Square Mile or simply the City, was divided into 25 ancient wards headed each by an alderman. This continues today. In addition, there existed the ominously titled City of London Corporation, or simply the Corporation, which is the municipal governing body of the City. This also still continues today.

Though the Corporation’s origins cannot be specifically dated, since there was never a ‘surviving’ charter found establishing its ‘legal’ basis, it has kept its functions to this day based on the Magna Carta. The Magna Carta is a charter of rights agreed to by King John in 1215, which states that “the City of London shall have/enjoy its ancient liberties”. In other words, the legal function of the Corporation has never been questioned, reviewed, re-evaluated EVER but rather it has been left to legally function as in accordance with their “ancient liberties”, which is a very grey description of function. In other words, they are free to do as they deem fit.

And it gets worse. The Corporation is not actually under the jurisdiction of the British government. That is, the British government presently does not have the authority to undermine how the Corporation of the City chooses to govern the largest financial center in the world. The City has a separate voting system that allows for, well, corporations to vote on how their separate ‘government’ should run. It also has its own private police force and system of private courts.

The Corporation is not just limited to functioning within the City. The City Remembrancer, which sounds more like a warped version of the ghost of Christmas past, has the role of acting as a channel of communication between the Corporation and the Sovereign (the Queen/King of Britain), the Royal Household and Parliament. The Remembrancer thus acts as a ‘reminder’, some would even say ‘enforcer’, of the will of the Corporation. This position has been held by Paul Double since 2003, it is not clear who bestows this non-elected position.

Mr. Double has the right to act as an official lobbyist in the House of Commons, and sits to the right of the Speaker’s chair, with the purpose of scrutinising and influencing any legislation he deems affects the interests of the Corporation. He also appears to have the right to review any piece of legislation as it is being drafted and can even comment on it affecting its final outcome. He is the only non-elected person allowed into the House of Commons.

According to the Memorandum from the City of London Corporation,^{^[714]} the reason why the City has a separate voting system is because:

“The City is the only area in the country in which the number of workers significantly outnumbers the residents and therefore, to be truly representative of its population, offers a vote to City organisations so they can have their say on the way the City is run.”

However, the workers have absolutely no say. The City’s organisations they work for have a certain size vote based on the number of workers they employ, but they do not consult these workers, and many of them are not even aware that such elections take place.

If you feel like you have just walked through Alice’s Looking Glass, you’re not alone, but what appears to be an absurd level of madness is what has been running the largest financial center in the world since the 1600s, under the machinations of the British Empire.

Therefore, the question is, if the City of London has kept its “ancient liberties” and has upheld its global financial power, is the British Empire truly gone?

Offshore Banking: Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand?

Contrary to popular naïve belief, the empire on which the sun never sets (some say “because God wouldn’t trust them in the dark”) never went away.

After WWII, colonisation was meant to be done away with, and many thought, so too with the British Empire. Countries were reclaiming their sovereignty, governments were being set up by the people, the system of looting and pillaging had come to an end.

It is a nice story but could not be further from the truth.

In the 1950s, to ‘adapt’ to the changing global financial climate, the City of London set up what are called ‘secrecy jurisdictions’. These were to operate within the last remnants of Britain’s small territories/colonies. Of Britain’s 14 oversea territories, 7 are bona fide tax havens or ‘secrecy jurisdictions’. A separate international financial market was also created to facilitate the flow of this offshore money, the Eurodollar market. Since this market has its banks outside of the UK and U.S., they are not under the jurisdiction of either country. By 1997, nearly 90% of all international loans were made through this market.

What is often misunderstood is that the City of London’s offshore finances are not contained in a system of banking secrecy but rather of trusts. The difference being that a trust ultimately plays with the concept of ownership. The idea is that you hand over your assets to a trustee and at that point, legally those assets are no longer yours anymore and you are not responsible for accounting for them. Your connection to said assets is completely hidden.

In addition, within Britain’s offshore jurisdictions, there is no qualification required for who can become a trustee: anyone can set up a trust and anyone can become a trustee. There is also no registry of trusts in these territories. Thus, the only ones who know about this arrangement are the trustee and the settler.

John Christensen, an investigative economist, estimates that this capital that legally belongs to nobody could amount to as high as $50 trillion within these British territories. Not only is this not being taxed, but a significant portion of it has been stolen from sectors of the real economy.

So how does this affect ‘formerly’ colonised countries?

There lies the rub for most developing nations. According to John Christensen, the combined external debts of Sub-Saharan African countries was $177 billion in 2008. However, the wealth that these countries’ elites moved offshore, between 1970-2008, is estimated at $944 billion, 5X their foreign debt! This is not only dirty money, this is also STOLEN money from the resources and productivity of these economies. Thus, as Christensen states, “Far from being a net debtor to the world, Sub-Saharan Africa is a net creditor” to offshore finance.

Put in this context, the so-called ‘backwardness’ of Africa is not due to its incapability to produce, but rather that it has been experiencing uninterrupted looting since these regions were first colonised.

These African countries then need to borrow money, which is happily given to them at high interest-rates and accrues a level of debt that could never be repaid. These countries are thus looted twice over, leaving no money left to invest in their future, let alone to put food on the table.

Offshore havens are what make this sort of activity ‘legal’ and rampant.

And it doesn’t stop there. Worldwide, it is estimated that developing countries lose $1 trillion every year in capital flight and tax evasion. Most of this wealth goes back into the UK and U.S. through these offshore havens and allows their currencies to stay strong whilst developing nations’ currencies are kept weak. However, developing nations are not the only ones to have suffered from this system of looting. The very economies of the UK and U.S. have also been gutted. In the 1960s and onward, the UK and U.S., to compensate for the increase in money flow out of their countries decided that it was a good idea to open their domestic markets to the trillions of dollars passing through its offshore havens.

However, such banks are not interested in putting their money into industry and manufacturing, they put their money into real estate speculation, financial speculation and foreign currency trade. And thus, the financialization of British and American economies resulted, and the real jobs coming from the real economy decreased or disappeared.

Although many economists try to claim differently, the desperation has boiled over and movements like the yellow vests are reflections of the true consequences of these economic policies.

We have reached a point now where every Western first world country is struggling with a much higher unemployment rate and a lower standard of living than 40 years ago. Along with increased poverty has followed increased drug use, increased suicide and increased crime.

A ‘Stable’ Economy based on Freedom or Slavery?

According to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) report in 2017,^{^[715]} the UK has by far the highest rate of drug overdose in all of Europe at 31% followed by Germany at 15%. That is, the UK consists of 1/3 drug overdoses that occur in all of Europe.

The average family income in the UK is presently around £28, 400. The poverty rate within the UK is ~20%. The average family income of what was once the epicentre of world industrialisation, Detroit, has an average family income of $26, 249. The poverty rate of Detroit is ~34.5%. What is the solution?

Reverse Margaret Thatcher’s 1986 Big Bang deregulation of the banking system that destroyed the separation of commercial banking, investment banking, trusts and insurance for starters. A similar restoration of Glass-Steagall^{^[716]} in the USA should follow suit, not only to break up the ‘Too Big to Fail’ banking system but to restore the authority of nation states over private finance once more. If these emergency measures were done before the markets collapse, and they will collapse, then the industrial-infrastructure revival throughout trans-Atlantic nations can still occur.

Let us hearken to the words of Clement Attlee, UK Prime Minister from 19451951:

“Over and over again we have seen that there is another power than that which has its seat at Westminster. The City of London, a convenient term for a collection of financial interests, is able to assert itself against the government of the country. Those who control money can pursue a policy at home and abroad contrary to that which is being decided by the people.”

Chapter 13
The Life of James Burnham:
from Trotskyism to Italian Fascism to the Father of Neo-Conservatism pg. 350

It is understandably the source of some confusion as to how a former high-level Trotskyist became the founder of the neo-conservative movement; with the Trotskyists calling him a traitor to his kind, and the neo-conservatives describing it as an almost road to Damascus conversion in ideology. However, the truth of the matter is that it is neither.

That is, James Burnham never changed his beliefs and convictions at any point during his journey through Trotskyism, OSS/CIA intelligence to neoconservatism, although he may have backstabbed many along the way. He was also a key member of the Office for Policy Coordination (OPC) Psychological Warfare branch and participated in Operation Gladio through this function, including his work with the CIA’s Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF). This chapter will discuss the relevance of these anomalies and how all these seemingly contradictory brandings were in fact consistent with the particular assignment Burnham had devoted his life to.

A detailed study of James Burnham’s ideology and career are of importance due to what they so transparently reflect as a conscious policy that came from the corridors of British and American intelligence, which is essential to understanding the times we find ourselves presently living in.

pg. 350

The Strange Case and Many Faces of James Burnham

“[James Burnham is] the real intellectual founder of the neoconservative movement and the original proselytizer, in America, of the theory of ‘totalitarianism’.”

– Christopher Hitchens, For the Sake of Argument: Essay and Minority Reports^{^[717]}

James Burnham was born in 1905 in Chicago, Illinois and raised Roman Catholic. He would graduate from Princeton in 1927, followed by the Balliol College, Oxford University in 1929. At Balliol, considered to be the most prestigious college at Oxford, Martin D’Arcy, a Jesuit, would become Burnham’s mentor.^{^[718]} Oddly it was during this period with Martin D’Arcy at the Jesuit House of Oxford Campion Hall that Burnham would become an atheist and leave the Catholic Church.^{^[719]} ^{^[720]} Throughout his entire life, Burnham would remain close and wellconnected to a large number of his Princeton peers, many of whom went on to study at Oxford alongside him. This network was the most consistent thing in his life and throughout his many transitions of ‘faces.’

Another rare consistency in Burnham’s life was the heavy influence of T.S. Eliot’s writings and philosophy, which had, in turn been heavily influenced by the French writer Charles Maurras, leader of L’Action Francaise, a monarchist movement that was also pro-Vichy government, and who collaborated with the Nazis during the war. Maurras stood for royalism against republicanism in politics, classicism against romanticism in the arts, and though an atheist, stood for Catholicism seeing the Church as having “instilled the Roman principles of authority, hierarchy, and discipline in a once romantic early Christianity, a bulwark of order in the decaying modern world.”^{^[721]} “Classique, Catholique, Monarchique” was how the Nouvelle Francaise summed up Maurras’s outlook.⁸³³ T.S. Eliot had incorporated this philosophy of Maurras into his core, and in his 1928 essay collection For Lancelot Andrews, he described himself as a

“classicist in literature, royalist in politics, and Anglo-Catholic in religion.”^{^[722]} Through Eliot’s version of the formula, the Maurrassian creed had made its way to Burnham.

While still studying at Oxford, Burnham had made plans to launch a literaryphilosophical journal called Symposium with his former Princeton teacher Philip Wheelwright. In 1929, after graduating from Oxford, Burnham joined Wheelwright as a professor of philosophy at New York University (NYU). Wheelwright was largely responsible for acquiring and maintaining Burnham’s position at NYU.⁸³⁵ It was during this period that Burnham met Sidney Hook, who was also a professor in philosophy at NYU, and who also became a mentor of sorts, managing somehow Burnham’s conversion to Marxism. Sidney Hook in turn had been mentored by Morris Raphael Cohen^{^[723]} at City College and John Dewey while a student at Columbia University. Cohen was an outright Marxist, while Dewey you could say was a ‘dabbler’ and ‘sympathetic’ to the cause and acted as chairman of the liberal-socialist League for Independent Political Action (LIPA), otherwise known as the ‘Dewey League’.

Both Cohen and Dewey would find themselves the mentors, or at least major influencers, of almost every eminent American Trotskyist that moved on to have a distinguished career after their ‘phase’ of Trotskyism had come to an end. These post-Trotsky careers were often shaped by rabid right-wing anticommunism. It would thus be a stretch to call such a phenomenon a mere coincidence. Hook was asked to help find writers for the Symposium, and thus Cohen and Dewey were the first writing contributors to the newly launched journal in 1930.

The union of these minds was odd to say the least. Burnham, not yet a Marxist, in April 1931 published in the Symposium a denouncement of Marxism as a “dogmatic materialism perhaps the most degrading ideology that has ever been imposed on a large section of mankind.”^{^[724]} This was not a surprising remark from Burnham having an Eliot-Maurrassian creed.

However, by July 1932, Burnham did a complete about-face and published in the Symposium a glowing review of Leon Trotsky’s History of the Russian Revolution, his first review of a political book. Very out of character, Burnham writes with glowing enthusiasm praising Trotsky’s talent as a writer and historian and attributes the book’s brilliance to Trotsky’s use of ‘dialectical materialism’ as his

mode of analysis. This was the very thing that Burnham just over a year ago called “the most degrading ideology.”

In the article, Burnham specifically praised Trotsky’s explanation of the Russian Revolution as the result of an interplay between human intention and impersonal historical forces, which prompted the question “why an American social upheaval would also not lead to communism?”^{^[725]} There was no clear explanation from Burnham as to what in his understanding of dialectical materialism prompted such an abrupt change within such a short period of time.

Things progressed incredibly rapidly upon Burnham’s writing of this article for the Symposium. The two-year old journal hardly considered a nationally read journal let alone internationally read, somehow got into the very hands of Leon Trotsky, then in exile on the island Prinkipo, just off of Istanbul. Trotsky read the article with evident glee.

It was through Max Eastman that a copy of the Symposium reached Trotsky. Eastman, like Sidney Hook, had earned a PhD in philosophy at Columbia University under the mentorship of John Dewey, graduating in 1911. Eastman and Hook would remain close to Dewey their entire lives. In 1922, Max Eastman travelled to the Soviet Union and remained there for 21 months, beginning a friendship with Leon Trotsky that would last until the latter’s exile in Mexico.

Eastman would also do a complete about-face later in life, becoming a supporter of McCarthyism and a regular contributor to William F. Buckley’s ultraconservative journal National Review, as would Burnham. Eastman also became a participating member of the American Committee for Cultural Freedom (ACCF) which was instituted by the CIA, as would Burnham, and would join the Mount Pelerin Society in the 1950s. Sidney Hook would also become an anticommunist and directly work for the CIA through his co-founding of the ACCF, the American branch of the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF) formed in the early 1950s.

Interestingly, in Burnham’s review of Trotsky, though for the most part favourable, he points out Trotsky’s deliberate omissions of important information and misdating several significant quotations in order to strengthen the case he was building against Stalin.⁸³⁹ It was likely the only honest thing in the article. Trotsky began a correspondence with Burnham, through Eastman, and though annoyed by the accusation which Burnham does not detract, praises the piece nonetheless, later writing “I remember very well how great an impression your article in the Symposium produced upon me at Prinkipo, and with what insistence I asked Max Eastman about you in order to clarify for myself the

possibility of further collaboration with you.”^{^[726]} Thus, Trotsky was already thinking of collaborating with Burnham at this very early stage. Apparently, a favourable book review in a start-up journal was all that it took to hook Trotsky to Burnham, perhaps with a little cooing in the ear by Eastman.

In 1933, Burnham came close to joining the Communist Party but was put off by the ‘Negro question’ and refused to accept the idea of “self-determination for the Black Belt” in the South, something he would uphold up to his ultraconservative years at the National Review.^{^[727]} Burnham claimed that by Americans adopting this Soviet initiative for self-determination for blacks in Russia, that this was proof of the American Communist Party’s subordination to the USSR, since the ‘Negro question’ in America was incomparable to that of the USSR and that self-determination for blacks in America was simply unacceptable.^{^[728]}

Hook had also decided that the Communist Party was “insufficiently Marxist”⁸⁴³ and broke with communism, urging Burnham to do the same, though Burnham was never really a communist to begin with. Hook and Burnham wanted to create their specific brand of ‘Marxism’ and helped organise the socialist organization, the American Workers Party (AWP) in 1933. This ‘rebranding’ of Marxism^{^[729]} would become a mission for both Burnham and Hook, such as the 1938 Toward the Revision of Karl Marx, co-authored by the two.^{^[730]} During this same period, Burnham started writing for Partisan Review, and began to make the case that dialectical philosophy had outlived its usefulness. It now existed solely as a “vestigial remnant” that, like the appendix, was not only useless, but also “liable to dangerous infections.”^{^[731]} Thus, what was needed was an intellectual appendectomy and a correct understanding of Marxism, an understanding Burnham and Hook wished to shape.

At the head of the fledgling AWP was A.J. Muste, a Dutch born clergyman who at this point had lost his religion. In November/December 1928, Muste became a member of the newly formed League of Independent Political Action (LIPA), a group of liberals and socialists that was headed by John Dewey which sought the establishment of a new labor-based third party modeled off of Britain’s Labour Party (which was a model created by the Fabian Society^{^[732]}). Overlapping this period, in May 1929, Muste launched a new venture called the Conference for Progressive Labor Action (CPLA) whose aim was to unionize mass production workers and establish a political party akin to Britain’s Labour Party,^{^[733]} thus the very same goal as LIPA. They came to be known as the Musteites.

In December 1930, Muste publicly dropped out of the ‘Dewey League’,^{^[734]} but as we will soon come to see these sorts of dramatic displays of swapping teams were more-often-than-not for show, since said players always seemed to end up back on the same team in one form or another down the road. Muste took courses in philosophy at Columbia University where he met John Dewey and became a life-long personal friend.^{^[735]}

In 1933, the CPLA established itself as the core of the newly formed AWP and is where Hook (another Dewey acolyte) and Burnham enter the scene. It was upon the new formation of the AWP, that the CPLA took a much more radical mission. Daniel Kelly writes in James Burnham and the Struggle for the World:⁸⁵¹

“With the onset of the Depression, Muste moved sharply to the left. Dropping the model of a moderate, British-style workers party, he now called for an American radical party that, unlike the merely reformist U.S. Socialist Party, would fight for full-scale social revolution, and unlike the U.S. Communist Party, which was genuinely revolutionary but obedient to Moscow, be ‘rooted in American soil’ and concerned with ‘American conditions and problems.’ To this end he founded the AWP.

…The party platform’s foreign affairs plank was written by Burnham…Should the capitalists start a war, this provision declared, the AWP would act to turn the conflict into a workers’ revolt against the war makers. Similarly, if the USSR came under capitalist attack, the AWP would come to its defense joining with the

pg. 355

workers to overthrow the U.S. government. But Burnham also criticized the Soviet policy [under Stalin] of ‘socialism in one country,’ charging it with abandoning the principle of ‘proletarian internationalism’ and the goal of world revolution [launched by Lenin and supported by Trotsky].”

In 1934, the AWP merged with the Trotskyist Communist League of America (CLA) to establish the Workers Party of the United States (WPUS). Through the success of the merger, Burnham was promoted to Trotsky’s top lieutenant.^{^[736]}

The idea of toppling the U.S. government was not a troubling thing to Burnham, but rather a thought he relished during Roosevelt’s presidency, being an ardent critic of the New Deal.^{^[737]} He claimed that Roosevelt was working for big business, the banks, the rich, and the munitions makers. Burnham accused Roosevelt of arming for war “to protect and increase” capitalist profits and to win new opportunities for capitalism; to maintain a capitalist dictatorship. Burnham argued that a true democratic government could only form when the workers had seized everything owed to them.^{^[738]} For the next several years, Burnham would continue to make the New Deal his primary target, and Stalin’s USSR came at a close second.^{^[739]}

It should have been comical to Burnham’s supposed comrades hearing him speak such words as ‘bourgeoisie,’ since Burnham himself was the very spitting image of what a bourgeoisie looked, talked, and lived like. Throughout Burnham’s seven years as Trotsky’s lieutenant, before he renounced Marxism all together, Burnham never participated in the social aspect of his Trotskyist peers. Aside from a few exceptional instances, his social life remained entirely outside the movement.^{^[740]} His old ‘bourgeoisie’ Ivy-League Princeton friends were his social life.

This became such a concern that two peer commanders of Burnham (James Cannon and Max Shachtman) had a discussion with Burnham in January 1938 over the matter. Burnham agreed that Cannon might be right in tracing the growing tension between them to the “contradiction between [Burnham’s] personal life” and his “responsibilities” as a “revolutionary leader.”^{^[741]} Burnham

was never a full-time member and kept his job at NYU, despite being one of the top commanders of the WPUS.

Shachtman would later comment “All of us – and this went for Cannon and myself in particular – felt that although he [Burnham] was with us…he was not, so to say, of us.”^{^[742]} Cannon would write to Trotsky, “Burnham does not feel himself one of us…Party work, for him, is not a vocation but an avocation.”^{^[743]} Cannon had observed to Shachtman that Burnham’s very presence seemed

“accidental.”⁸⁶⁰ Burnham dressed more like a partner in a Wall Street law firm than a Bolshevik revolutionary, “He wore hundred dollar suits” noted Harry Roskolenko.^{^[744]} In late 1934, the year of the merger between AWP and the Trotskyist (CLA), Burnham had moved from Greenwich Village to the firmly haute-bourgeoisie Sutton Place. One evening, Shachtman arrived at Burnham’s house for him to review a few papers, only to find Burnham hosting a very posh formal dress dinner party.^{^[745]}

Later Burnham would work for the OPC under the directorship of Frank Wisner who had worked as a Wall Street lawyer for the law firm Carter, Ledyard & Milburn and Allen Dulles who worked for the law firm Sullivan Cromwell who served Wall Street’s crème of the crème clientele. Burnham would back Nelson A. Rockefeller’s nomination for president in 1968 and Ronald Reagan as vicepresident, and was very pleased when Rockefeller was selected as vice-president (1974-1977) to the Ford Administration.^{^[746]} He was also pleased that Henry Kissinger was to serve as Secretary of State (1973-1977) overlapping with Rockefeller’s presence in the Ford Administration.⁸⁶⁴

Burnham was adamantly opposed to Roosevelt’s New Deal throughout his entire life. This was a rabid opposition that remained consistent throughout his communist/socialist to neo-conservative/libertarian days. Were Burnham’s reasons for opposing the New Deal genuine or was there a criticism he held that he dared not utter outloud? Roosevelt, unlike Burnham, had actually gone after the big bankers. The Pecora Commission, which began on March 4^th, 1932 to investigate the cause of the 1929 Wall Street crash, was given sweeping powers when FDR took office.

Recall that it was J.P. Morgan that backed an attempted military coup against FDR in 1933 which was thwarted thanks to General Smedley Butler blowing the lid on the treasonous operation.^{^[747]}

Looking at Burnham’s career as an ardent anticommunist during the Cold War years, where the former communist went to work for Operation Gladio, it is striking how equally ardent Burnham was that America not enter a war against the fascists during WWII. Burnham was a staunch pacifist up until the bombing of Pearl Harbour, where he did a complete about face and called for full military escalation. However, during his pacifist years he would criticize Roosevelt for abetting an imperialist cause with Britain and France, and his communist ally Stalin.⁸⁶⁶ Burnham claimed that Roosevelt was lying to the workers that the main enemy was Hitler, when in fact it was “the boss at home, and the bosses’ government.”^{^[748]} Throughout the war, Burnham would downplay or deny the threat of fascism that was coming into full swing in Europe and Japan.

It was in fact, the very same strategy used by British Grand Strategist Bertrand Russell, who was also an adamant pacifist during the war, and even went so far as to instruct the British people not to resist with arms if Hitler were to march into their country.

In Which Way to Peace? Bertrand Russell had written: “Having remained a pacifist while the Germans were invading France and Belgium in 1914, I do not see why I should cease to be one if they do it again…’You feel they ought to be stopped.’ I feel that, if we set to work to stop them, we shall, in the process, become exactly like them, and the world will have gained nothing.” However, during the Cold War years, Russell would take a very different tone, calling for the unilateral atomic bombing of the USSR to rid the world of their ‘threat’ forever.^{^[749]}

Burnham would stress in his lectures at NYU, that Bertrand Russell’s Principia Mathematica was among the most important books, if not the most important book, one shall ever read if one is intelligent enough to comprehend its lessons.^{^[750]} Bertrand Russell would eventually become, if he had not already, a sort of philosophical godhead for Burnham as we will see shortly.

And curiously, just like Russell, Burnham would only talk about the danger of fascism when it had become clear in the war that Germany was indeed going to

lose. This seeming ambivalence to fascism was made further transparent in Burnham’s The Managerial Revolution, which had a very similar tone in many ways to Bertrand Russell’s The Scientific Outlook, likely not a coincidence...

Burnham would have a similar criticism of Stalin as he did of Roosevelt. The Trotskyists called Stalin’s war strategy the ‘popular front,’ which was meant as a jab for collaborating with non-communists in a joint defense against fascism. This was regarded as a betrayal to the universal workers’ cause, since Stalin was willing to ally himself with Britain and France, who were imperialist powers.^{^[751]} Burnham would rarely make note of the imperialism of Italy, Germany and Japan. He would argue that the only way to stop the war (a war against Hitler), was not to fight in it, but rather, was to overthrow the U.S. government. The reasoning being that a government that aids and abets the imperialist cause should be overthrown by the Marxists. Thus, if one were to follow the prescription of Burnham, there was no option for the Marxists in resisting fascism, for if one did so, they would be guilty of colluding with the Western imperialists, and thus deserved to be overthrown!^{^[752]}

In 1938, Burnham confessed, commenting on a draft article by Hook to be “much troubled in my reflections on the nature of democracy, and its relations to Russia, to socialism and to what is worthwhile in general.”^{^[753]} Burnham would increasingly move away from his support of a democratic structure. In his The Managerial Revolution, he clearly states his belief that a ‘brand’ of totalitarianism was needed.

Interestingly, it was in reference to Roosevelt that Burnham was most ready to use the term ‘fascist’, describing the New Deal as just “fascism without shirts.”⁸⁷³ ^{^[754]}Writing for the Socialist Appeal, for which Burnham resumed his Labor Action column “Their Government” he portrayed the New Deal as a proto-fascist plot to save moribund capitalism from extinction with the domestic goal of a “totalitarian military dictatorship.” From Burnham’s point of view, one must ask

themselves, if the German fascists would like to destroy Roosevelt’s government, would Burnham not welcome such a thing?

After the formation of the WPUS in 1934 (with the merger between AWP and the Trotskyist CLA), they quickly set their sights on the Socialist Party, which was deeply divided as to how to respond to the New Deal and thus made them inviting prey. In 1935, the WPUS attempted to do a French Turn on the much larger Socialist Party, however, by 1937, the Trotskyists were expelled, which led to the formation of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) at the end of the year. The success was modest in the number of militant converts they brought with them from the Socialist Party.

That same year the American Committee for the Defense of Leon Trotsky was organised by Burnham and Hook, consisting of a group of about 120 intellectuals, for the purpose of vindicating Trotsky against the Soviet Union’s charges of treason. In March 1937, both the Defense Committee and the Commission of Inquiry were chaired by none other than our reoccurring friend, John Dewey. The commission proclaimed that it had cleared Trotsky of all charges made during the Moscow Trials and that Stalin had framed Trotsky.

The Moscow Trials, which occurred between 1936-1938, had concluded that Trotskyist cells were at the heart of a fifth column operation within Russia which were committed to overthrowing Stalin and bringing Russia into a pro-Fascist program.^{^[755]} The Dewey Commission was a pseudo-judicial process, which had been clearly set up by American Trotskyists and their sympathizers. It had no power of subpoena, nor official imprimatur from any government. It was more for newspaper headlines than anything else.

One of the initial members of the Dewey Commission, Carleton Beals, dropped off the Commission when he became convinced that it was pro-Trotsky and not objective. Beals called the Commission hearings “a joke,” with his full statement was published in The New York Times on April 18^th, 1937 and a second statement was published by the Saturday Evening Post on June 12^th, 1937.^{^[756]} The New York Times wrote that Beals, a well known author, did not “consider the proceedings of the commission to be a truly serious investigation of the charges.”⁸⁷⁷

Interestingly, in February 1942, James Burnham, John Dewey and a reactivated A.J. Muste, all anticommunists at this point, were among the over two hundred anticommunist intellectuals who signed a letter to the president of Mexico protesting the “reign of terror” Mexican communists were allegedly conducting against Trotskyists and other anti-Stalin refugees in the country.^{^[757]}

In 1937, the ‘Russian question’ had also arisen. The ‘Russian question’ was on whether the USSR was indeed a true workers’ state or had become a fully bureaucratic state under Stalin. Trotsky maintained that the USSR was indeed a true workers’ state, however, Burnham argued the contrary. In From Formula to Reality, Burnham argued that the claim that workers had a duty to defend the USSR had to be qualified. The workers would be justified in defending the USSR if it were attacked by imperialistic powers but not if the USSR was the aggressor.^{^[758]} The question was not specified aggressor against whom, a fascist state or non-fascist state, did it matter? Trotsky disagreed but his tone was mild and after his second response, proceeded to allow the newly formed Socialist Worker’s Party (SWP) to put it to a vote.

On December 31^st, 1937, the SWP was officially launched. It was again Burnham who drafted the Declaration of Principles laying out the conditions for defending the USSR. The membership rejected Burnham’s resolution on the ‘Russian question’ and supported Trotsky’s ‘unconditional defense.’ Burnham would emerge nonetheless, as one of the supreme commanders of the SWP.^{^[759]}

Burnham would resurrect the ‘Russian question’ on September 3^rd, 1939, two days after the German Nazis invaded Poland and the day after France and Britain declared war, in words but not action, on Germany, and asked for an emergency meeting. At the meeting he again denied that the USSR was a workers’ state and that the USSR would soon enter Poland not to defend the collectivized Soviet economy but for purely “imperialist” reasons. According to Burnham, the SWP’s commitment to ‘unconditional defense’ of the USSR had to be scrapped. As for Poland, “the endless crimes of the Polish landlords, industrialists, politicians, and generals against democracy” made that country also unworthy of SWP

support.^{^[760]} Interestingly, once again no mention from Burnham of what stance the SWP should take towards Germany, the actual imperialist aggressor. In fact, he was rather stating that no party should act except the Germans to carry forward their agenda. On September 18, Burnham moved that the Polcom (Polish Communist movement) condemn the USSR for waging “a war of imperialist conquest.” The motion was defeated.^{^[761]}

Burnham would resign from the SWP in April 1940 and took as many followers as he could with him to form the Workers Party (WP), to supposedly preserve a pure Bolshevism purged of Trotsky’s errors. The split was over the ‘Russian question’. However, less than two months after forming the WP, Burnham would resign, likely disappointed with the number and quality of followers he took with him. So much for the cause of “pure Bolshevism.”

Although Burnham worked six years for the Trotskyists, he renounced both Trotsky and the philosophy of Marxism altogether. It is unlikely that this was an honest change of heart by Burnham, first of all since he was likely never a Marxist to begin with, and secondly there was no reason for his renouncing Marxism from an objective standpoint. It was about power and influence, and Burnham had reached his limit in his power and influence over the Trotskyists. His mission of infiltration had reached an end. The question was, who was Burnham really working for and was Trotsky of any further use to these people?

Perhaps Burnham was aware that the walls were closing in on Trotsky, and that it would only be a matter of six months from Burnham’s renunciation that Trotsky would be assassinated in August 1940, at his compound outside Mexico City. Trotsky would very tellingly write during his last months, “[Burnham] can write and has some formal skill in thinking, not deep, but adroit. He can accept your idea, develop it, write a fine article about it – and then forget it…However, so long as we can use such people, well and good. Mussolini at one time was also ‘good stuff’!”^{^[762]} It appears working with the fascists was not entirely verboten for Mr. Trotsky…

In February 1940 Burnham wrote in Science and Style: A Reply to Comrade

Trotsky,^{^[763]} in which he broke with dialectical materialism, stressing the

importance of the work of Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead’s superior approach:

“Do you wish me to prepare a reading list, Comrade Trotsky? It would be long, ranging from the work of the brilliant mathematicians and logicians of the middle of the last century to one climax in the monumental Principia Mathematica of Russell and Whitehead (the historic turning point in modern logic), and then spreading out in many directions – one of the most fruitful represented by the scientists, mathematicians and logicians now cooperating in the new Encyclopedia of Unified Science.” [The Unified Sciences was a Dewey project.^{^[764]}]

He summed up his feelings in a letter of resignation from the Workers Party^{^[765]} on May 21^st, 1940:

“I reject, as you know, the ‘philosophy of Marxism,’ dialectical materialism. …

The general Marxian theory of ‘universal history,’ to the extent that it has any empirical content, seems to me disproved by modern historical and anthropological investigation.

Marxian economics seems to me for the most part either false or obsolete or meaningless in application to contemporary economic phenomena. Those aspects of Marxian economics which retain validity do not seem to me to justify the theoretical structure of the economics.

Not only do I believe it meaningless to say that ‘socialism is inevitable’ and false that socialism is ‘the only alternative to capitalism’; I consider that on the basis of the evidence now available to us a new form of exploitive society (which I call ‘managerial society’) is not only possible but is a more probable outcome of the present than socialism. …

On no ideological, theoretical or political ground, then, can I recognize, or do I feel, any bond or allegiance to the Workers Party (or to any other Marxist party). That is simply the case, and I can no longer pretend about it, either to myself or to others.”

In 1941, Burnham would publish The Managerial Revolution: What is Happening in the World, bringing him fame and fortune.

The Managerial Revolution

“We cannot understand the revolution by restricting our analysis to the war [WWII]; we must understand the war as a phase in the development of the revolution.”

– James Burnham, The Managerial Revolution

In Burnham’s The Managerial Revolution (1941), he makes the case that if socialism were possible, it would have occurred as an outcome of the Bolshevik Revolution, but what happened instead was neither a reversion back to a capitalist system nor a transition to a socialist system, but rather a formation of a new organizational structure made up of an elite managerial class, the type of society he believed was in the process of replacing capitalism on a world scale.

The Managerial Revolution was about how a new elite of “managers” (the planners and administrators, organizers and technicians who controlled industry) obeying the “historical law” that “all social or economic groups of any size strive to improve their relative position with respect to power and privilege in society” was replacing the hitherto dominant capitalists as the ruling class. This supplanting of capitalism by managerialism would bring a radical transformation of the economy. Collectivism and central planning would replace private ownership and the free market.

But the managers would go beyond the economic realm to transform political, social, and cultural life as well. An “unlimited” state, “a fused political apparatus” of corporate managers, government bureaucrats, and the military, would come into being, supported by ideologies placing authority and discipline above freedom and private initiative. Probably, this totalitarian system would prove temporary, a phase of the transition to mature managerial rule. But it would be a long, long time before real democracy appeared again, and “drastic convulsions” would occur before it did.

If this sounds very similar in tone to Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World and Bertrand Russell’s The Scientific Outlook, it is because it is, and likely no coincidence either. That is, both The Managerial Revolution and The Brave New World^{^[766]} were inspired by the work of Bertrand Russell.

Burnham reasons that just as we observed the transition from a feudal to a capitalist state being inevitable, so too will the transition from a capitalist to

managerial state occur. Within this framework, Burnham predicts that ownership rights of production capabilities will no longer be owned by individuals but rather the state or institutions. He writes:^{^[767]}

“Effective class domination and privilege does, it is true, require control over the instruments of production; but this need not be exercised through individual private property rights. It can be done through what might be called corporate rights, possessed not by individuals as such but by institutions: as was the case conspicuously with many societies in which a priestly class^{^[768]} was dominant…”

Burnham proceeds to write:^{^[769]}

“If, in a managerial society, no individuals are to hold comparable property rights, how can any group of individuals constitute a ruling class?

The answer is comparatively simple and, as already noted, not without historical analogues. The managers will exercise their control over the instruments of production and gain preference in the distribution of the products, not directly, through property rights vested in them as individuals, but indirectly, through their control of the state which in turn will own and control the instruments of production. The state – that is, the institutions which comprise the state – will, if we wish to put it that way, be the ‘property’ of the managers. And that will be quite enough to place them in the position of the ruling class.”

That is, whoever has control over the industry, the instruments of production, will be effectively, the ruling class. This should shed some light on why the profascists were anti Roosevelt’s New Deal, since this would have made such a takeover of the instruments of production impossible, since such instruments of production would not be for sale in the first place for private ownership to buy up, but would be owned by the government, and thus the people of that nation.

Burnham goes on to explain that the support of the masses is necessary for the success of any revolution. This is why the masses must be led to believe that they will benefit from such a revolution, when in fact it is only to replace one ruling class with another, and nothing changes for the underdog. He explains that this is the case with the dream of a socialist state, that the universal equality promised by socialism is just a fairy tale told to the people so that they fight for

the establishment of a new ruling class, then they are told that achieving a socialist state will take many decades, and that essentially, a managerial system must be put in place in the meantime.

Burnham makes the case that this is what happened in both Nazi Germany and Bolshevik Russia:^{^[770]}

“Nevertheless, it may still turn out that the new form of economy will be called ‘socialist.’ In those nations – Russia and Germany – which have advanced furthest toward the new [managerial] economy, ‘socialism’ or ‘national socialism’ is the term ordinarily used. The motivation for this terminology is not, naturally, the wish for scientific clarity but just the opposite. The word ‘socialism’ is used for ideological purposes in order to manipulate the favourable mass emotions attached to the historic socialist ideal of a free, classless, and international society and to hide the fact that the managerial economy is in actuality the basis for a new kind of exploiting, class society.”

In Burnham’s mind, the promises of socialism would be useful, but only as a guise for a totalitarian system. This explains why so many fascist movements labelled themselves as national socialists.

Burnham continues:⁸⁹²

“Those Nations – [Bolshevik] Russia, [Nazi] Germany and [Fascist] Italy – which have advanced furthest toward the managerial social structure are all of them, at present, totalitarian dictatorships…what distinguishes totalitarian dictatorship is the number of facets of life subject to the impact of the dictatorial rule. It is not merely political actions, in the narrower sense, that are involved; nearly every side of life, business and art and science and education and religion and recreation and morality are not merely influenced by but directly subjected to the totalitarian regime.”

Burnham would go on to state in his The Managerial Revolution that the Russian Revolution, WWI and its aftermath, the Versailles Treaty gave final proof that capitalist world politics could no longer work and had come to an end. He described WWI as the last war of the capitalists and WWII as the first, but not last war, of the managerial society. Burnham made it clear that many more wars would have to be fought after WWII before a managerial society could finally fully take hold. This ongoing war would lead to the destruction of sovereign nation states, such that only a small number of great nations would survive, culminating into the nuclei of three “super-states.”

As we have noticed with the above quotes, Burnham puts Bolshevik Russia, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy all in the same category, as all forms of totalitarianism in the form of a managerial system, a system that is inevitable for the future. However, he goes on to say, quite inexplicably, that Russia will be destroyed in this process, thus, it seemed clear to Burnham in 1941 that Germany, the herald of the dawning managerial future would build the European superstate.

Thus, these three “super-states” Burnham predicts will be centered around, an admittedly transformed form of the New Deal for the United States (that is, a Keynesian New Deal^{^[771]}), Nazi Germany and Fascist Japan. He goes on to predict that these super-states will never be able to conquer the other and will be engaged in permanent war until some unforeseeable time. He predicts (or relishes) that Russia would be broken in two, with the West being incorporated into the German sphere and the East into the Japanese sphere. Take note that this book was published in 1941, such that Burnham was clearly of the view that Nazi Germany and Fascist Japan would be the victors of WWII.

Burnham states that “sovereignty will be restricted to the few super-states.” This future of ‘forever wars’ amongst a few super-states has obvious remnant influences from Trotsky’s ‘Permanent Revolution’ militant ideology. In fact, Burnham goes so far as to state early on in his book that the managerial revolution is not a prediction of something that will occur in the future, but rather that it is something that has already begun and is in fact, in its final stages of becoming; that it has already successfully implemented itself worldwide and that the battle is essentially over.

Interestingly, Burnham notes that the Western hemisphere will be governed by the United States, who will act as a “receiver” for the bankrupt British Empire. Again, very much in line with what Russell suggested the future of the United States would become as an imperialist force and in relation to Britain.^{^[772]}

Burnham creepily writes that many people would view the coming age as tragic, but they would be wrong. For while the future would differ greatly from the past, “if we choose to accept it- and most will accept it, whether or not they choose – there will be some satisfaction in doing so in terms of realities, not illusions.” What was more “tragic” had no meaning in this context, as “tragedy and comedy occur only within the human situation. There is no background against which to judge the human situation as a whole. It is merely what happens to be.”^{^[773]}

What a different tone when discussing surrendering to German fascism! Interestingly, just a few years earlier, one of Burnham’s core accusations against Roosevelt was that the president was lying to the American people about the threat of Hitler. Now, Burnham agreed that the influence of Hitler did have a worldwide consequence, but that it was too late to resist. Thus, we might as well accept this to be the new future! Sounds like the lullaby of a spider to the fly caught in its web…

The Machiavellians: Burnham’s Fascist Italian Defenders of Freedom

In an interview with Washington Post columnist Mary McGrory in 1950,^{^[774]} Burnham described the new narrative he was to give to the masses to explain the new face he had chosen for himself. The Virgil to his Dante, had become

Machiavelli, which he credited for his new ‘revelations’ in his The Managerial Revolution. This made for a very convenient segway to the ‘modern Machiavellians’ of his day. Robert Michels, Vilfredo Pareto and Gaetano Mosca, who referred to themselves as the “Machiavellians.” Georges Sorel, who had influence over this group would also have great influence on Burnham who revealingly gushed over Sorel in his follow-up book The Machiavellians, Defenders of Freedom (1943).

What linked the Machiavellians first and foremost, was their belief in the possibility of a ‘science’ of society.^{^[775]} Second, they believed in the nonrational in politics and that ruling classes were governed by a ‘political formula’ which presumed a nonrational belief, such as the concept of the ‘divine right of kings’ or the ‘sovereignty of the people’, that was intended to justify their power.

Burnham first read the Machiavellians in the 1930s at the urging of Sidney Hook, who supposedly wanted to introduce Burnham to intelligent criticism of Karl Marx. In 1972 he told Charles Lam Markmann that before he had discovered the Machiavellians he had not been significantly influenced by any other political theorists.⁸⁹⁸ Because of the influence of the Machiavellians, Burnham claimed he had come to understand “more thoroughly” something he had long known only intuitively that “only by renouncing all ideology can we begin to see the world of

man.”^{^[776]} One could also say that Burnham’s full thought would have gone something like this: “And thus by renouncing all ideology, we are free to use it as we choose. Those who can see through ideology, but can use it successfully to manipulate the masses, will in turn become their God.”

Thus, in our attempts at understanding such people who view themselves as the natural ‘ruling elite’, it is important that we never take a literal approach in our attempts to understand their desires and thus their motives. For if you do, then you will always become lost in the tangle of meaningless values, morals and reasons they have given for what they do. It is simply a veil one changes in and out of, to fit the audience one is speaking to.

Since Burnham so openly confessed that these men are among the titans that influenced his thinking, taking a closer look at these men’s allegiances and actions in life is worth our time.

Georges Sorel (1847-1922) was a collaborator of Charles Maurras’s Action Francaise, which was pro-Vichy government who had collaborated with the Nazis during the war. Recall that Maurras had been a great influence on the younger Burnham through the writings of T.S. Eliot. Sorel, who started out Marxist, became a supporter of Maurrassian integral nationalism beginning in 1909, and created the ideology Sorelianism, a revisionist interpretation of Marx according to Sorel.⁹⁰⁰ Recall that Burnham and Hook had also attempted to revise Karl Marx. This is likely the real reason why Hook recommended Sorel as reading for Burnham in the first place.

In many ways, Sorelianism is considered to be the precursor of fascism.⁹⁰¹ Upon Sorel’s death, an article in the Italian Fascist doctrinal review Gerarchia edited by Benito Mussolini and Agostino Lanzillo, a known Sorelian, declared “Perhaps fascism may have the good fortune to fulfill a mission that is the implicit aspiration of the whole oeuvre of the master of syndicalism: to tear away the proletariat from the domination of the Socialist party, to reconstitute it on the basis of spiritual liberty, and to animate it with the breath of creative violence. This would be the true revolution that would mold the forms of the Italy of tomorrow.”⁹⁰² Many Italian fascists were Sorelians. Sorel would become famous for his concept of “the power myth,” which presumed that only through power,

not formal law or high ideals, can one restrain another’s power over you. Sorel’s ‘power myth’ heavily influenced the Machiavellians.

This again explains why the fascists were calling themselves national socialists, it was a ploy to radicalise socialists into their camp. Very much along the lines of what Burnham was doing in the United States, a Trotskyist French-Turn. It was just that many leading Trotskyists were in fact working for the fascists…

Robert Michels (1876-1936), was a friend and disciple of the sociologist Max Weber. Born in Germany but later moving to Italy, he politically moved from the Social Democratic Party of Germany to the Italian Socialist Party, adhering to the Italian revolutionary syndicalist wing and later to Italian Fascism, which he saw as a more democratic form of socialism. He became a member of the National Fascist Party of Italy in 1924 and remained a member until his death. Michels was convinced that the direct link between Benito Mussolini's charisma and the working class was in some way the best means to realize a real lower social class government without political bureaucratic mediation.

Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923) welcomed the advent of fascism in Italy and was honored by the new regime. Pareto had argued that democracy was an illusion and that a ruling class always emerged and enriched itself. For him, the key question was how actively the rulers ruled. For this reason, he called for a drastic reduction of the state and welcomed Benito Mussolini’s rule as a transition to this minimal state so as to liberate the ‘pure’ economic forces.^{^[777]} Mussolini had in fact attended Pareto’s lectures as a student at the University of Lausanne. It has been argued that Mussolini’s move away from socialism towards a form of ‘elitism,’ a hallmark of the Machiavellians, may be attributed to Pareto’s ideas.^{^[778]}

Although Gaetano Mosca’s political career looks tame in comparison to his peers, he also maintained Sorel’s ‘power myth,’ which presumed that only through power can one restrain another’s power over you. This is very much the doctrine of Gorgias, a well-known ancient Greek sophist, whom Socrates battled in Plato’s dialogue Gorgias. In the doctrine of Gorgias, sin is equated with powerlessness and the good is equated with abject power. Thus, the tyrant is the most good and the slave the most sinful in such a view.^{^[779]} Burnham was an open critic of Plato for obvious reasons.

Burnham wrote The Machiavellians in high praise of these men. The book made the argument that a choice had to be made between Machiavellian realism (facts, empiricism) and idealism (illusions, ideology).

Burnham’s ‘Struggle for the World’ à la British Intelligence

Burnham’s remark in 1972 that no one had influenced him significantly since the Machiavellians was not wholly true. In the mid-1940s, as his anxiety about the Soviet communist threat mounted, he turned for broader perspective on the problem to two thinkers, British historian (and fellow Balliol man) Arnold Toynbee and geopolitical analyst Halford Mackinder, who during the years of the war had seized the attention of places such as the Institute for Advanced Studies at Princeton and Yale’s Institute for International Studies.

In Toynbee’s A Study of History whose first six volumes had come out by the mid 1940s, he outlined the progression of 21 civilisations which at various points along their trajectories, had all suffered periods of breakdown, what Mackinder referred to as “Time of Trouble”. In each case study, the civilization in question regained stability through the intervention of a geographically peripheral and culturally primitive power that had restored order by imposing a “Universal State.” So, it was with rough hewn Rome which had brought peace to the culturally superior but chronically strife-torn Hellenistic world. Toynbee’s theory of civilizational breakdown and recovery made a strong impression on Burnham.

Mackinder first expounded his ideas at length in a 1919 work titled Democratic Ideals and Reality: A Study of Politics of Reconstruction. According to Mackinder, if the Heartland were “under a single sway” that also possessed “invincible seapower” that state would have world empire and have “the ultimate threat to the world’s liberty” within reach. The key to control of the Heartland was control of Eastern Europe “Who rules Eastern Europe commands the Heartland…Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island: Who rules the World-Island commands the World.”

Mackinder’s 1919 answer to the threat of a Heartland-based adversary had been a counterweight in the guise of a British Empire remodeled into a world league of democracies (aka The League of Nations). However, by the 1940s he had come to envisage the North Atlantic countries as the basis of his democratic league since the United Nations had been formed around the principles of the League of Nations, upon Roosevelt’s death and contrary to his intention.^{^[780]}

Burnham first revealed his debt to Toynbee and Mackinder in a paper he wrote in 1944 that he could not then publish. This was a study of Soviet aims he produced at the request of the OSS wartime forerunner of the CIA. In 1947 he published the paper in full as the first section of a book he had written on Soviet ambitions.^{^[781]} He called the book The Struggle for the World.

The Truman Doctrine had been announced in March 1947, in response to the request for aid for Greece, which Britain had claimed had fallen into a communist triggered civil war. “It must be the policy of the United States” Truman told Congress, “to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.” The Truman doctrine marked a major turning point in U.S. foreign policy; the abandonment of non-intervention abroad in time of peace for the role of world sentinel against claimed Soviet expansion.

Burnham’s The Struggle for the World was published less than one week after the announcement of the Truman Doctrine.^{^[782]} His book opened with the study he had done for the OSS, which of course was not publicized as the case, which happened to be an analysis of Greece’s so-called ‘civil war.’ What fortuitous timing! He writes that Greek soldiers have mutinied from the British Mediterranean Command saying, “We do not know the details of what happened in the mutiny; but the details, important as they might be for future scholars, are unnecessary…The munity was led by members of an organization called ELAS…ELAS was the military arm of a Greek political grouping called EAM…EAM was directed by the Greek Communist Party…from its supreme headquarters within the Soviet Union. Politically understood, therefore, the Greek munity…and the subsequent Greek Civil War, were armed skirmishes between the Soviet Union, representing international communism, and the British Empire.”

It is interesting that Burnham says that the details are not necessary except for future scholars. Well, the details today are known, and the true story behind this so-called Greek Civil War could not be further than what the British Empire, American intelligence and Burnham were claiming. As already discussed in detail in Chapter 6, it was British soldiers who in fact turned on ELAS in 1943, while

they were fighting the Nazis, on the orders of Churchill. ELAS had successfully defeated the Italian forces, and Germany had entered to conquer Greece which offered an important geopolitical foothold, and as we have seen from Chapters 6 and 11, became a center for Operation Gladio. Churchill was fearful that ELAS was also going to beat the Nazis. The greater majority of the Greek people supported the political group EAM, and they had earned the love of the people through their valiant defense of their country.

Churchill did not want a pro-communist government in Greece but rather a promonarchy government, to which he directly intervened and reinstalled the Greek fascist king George II. Britain, who was having a hard time containing the Greeks called for American back-up. The Americans did not fight man-to-man but waged chemical warfare on the Greek people who so bravely defended their country against fascism. After years of valiantly fighting, the Greeks finally succumbed, and Greece became a Gladio center of terror. It was not a Greek Civil War but a cowardly attack on the independence and freedom of the Greek people by the pro-fascist Anglo-American forces.

You can understand why Burnham thought the details of this tragic story unimportant…

The American people had been lied to as they are lied to today, to justify the unjustifiable, the unleashing of offensive warfare in the name of security and peace. The Truman Doctrine opened the door to a 75-year ‘War on Terror’ that has continued to this very day. It gave the American government the so-called ‘right’ to militarily intervene and wage clandestine warfare on any country it selected. As we have come to see time and again, we are told the details are never important in the moment that such interventions occur, and by the time scholars get around to it, the damage has long been done. However, the pattern has remained the same over the course of the past 76 years, and thus we, the collective West, are responsible for these crimes if we remain silent. For we should know by now that such unilateral acts of carnage on innocent people have never been justifiable. We are not the bringers of freedom, but rather are the aiders and abiders of doom and the very destroyers of freedom.

We have become the servants to the monster we claim to be saving the world from.

Burnham used his OSS fluff piece, The Struggle for the World, to call for, just as Bertrand Russell was doing at the time, a pre-emptive strike against the USSR^{^[783]} while America still enjoyed the sole monopoly over the nuclear bomb.

America had only a short window where they would be the sole possessors of such a titanic force, and the neo-breed of war hawks and neocons believed that the United States owed it to the ‘free people’ of the world to bomb the USSR into the stone age. Burnham would argue that the winner in this arms race would also achieve world empire in the sense of “world dominating” political influence. Both countries might be destroyed in the course of the contest – “but one of them must be.” Burnham thus posed the question to the America people, would America have “the will to power?”

However, if the USSR were to be bombed, that would not be the end. Burnham put forward the thesis that the U.S. would have to make victory not peace its supreme aim. It must disregard such principles as “the equality of nations” and non-interference into the internal affairs of other countries. Burnham stated that the U.S. must let the world know that it would bestow its favors exclusively on its friends; and make clear that it was willing to use force to uphold its interests. Above all, the new America would have to assume the task of defending the World Island’s Coastlands and Japan (a potential U.S. offshore ‘outpost’) to prevent the Soviets from mastering the whole of Eurasia. Once it had taken these steps, the new global empire could then bend its efforts toward overthrowing communist rule in countries outside the USSR’s 1940 borders.

Burnham thus concluded that a defensive policy would not suffice. The enemy had to be toppled rather than simply held at bay. For that to occur, an ‘offensive policy’ was necessary. First an “American empire” exercising “decisive world control” and irresistible influence would have to be established so that politically the non-communist world would act as one. The chief step to this end, a step that would “instantaneously transform the whole of world politics” would be the formation by the United States, Britain and the British Dominions of a fullfledged political union, complete common citizenship. Burnham noted that this union would not be easy and that “forceps” might have to be used to achieve its birth.

Next, the Continental European nations not under communist rule would have to join in a ‘European Federation.’ (aka a League of Nations). If these countries

balked once again, pressure would have to be applied, though a promise of economic aid might bring them around.

After this consolidation of Europe, Bunrham predicted that the next phase would be an alliance of the Anglo-American combine and the European Federation. In this new form, the West, now deep in its “Time of Trouble” would become a Toynbean “Universal State” with the United States in the role of the peripheral, semi-barbarian, unifying power. But the offensive policy would not stop at the West’s frontiers, for political and economic concessions might induce nonWestern nations to act with the West against communism. This is almost verbatim to what Bertrand Russell was calling for; America to become an imperialistic force at the helm of a world empire. This vision was the continuation of the League of Nations.^{^[784]}

So much for Burnham’s so-called staunch anti-imperialism…

The CIA’s Psychological Warfare Division: Gladio meets the Congress for Cultural Freedom pg 375

“Burnham was a consultant to OPC on virtually every subject of interest to our organization…He had extensive contacts in Europe and, by virtue of his

Trotskyite background, was something of an authority on domestic and foreign

Communist parties and front organizations.”

– E. Howard Hunt’s Memoirs

In 1948, Joseph Bryan III, a former classmate of Burnham, joined the CIA where he headed the Political and Psychological Warfare Division of the Office of Policy Coordination (OPC).^{^[785]} The Office of Policy Coordination (OPC) was created as a department of the CIA in 1948, but operated as a rogue operation until October 1950. Many of the agency’s recruits were so-called “ex” Nazis.

George F. Kennan, the director of the State Department’s Policy Planning Staff, was the key figure behind the OPC’s creation. Frank Wisner, who worked as a Wall Street lawyer for the law firm Carter, Ledyard & Milburn, was former OSS and worked closely with Allen Dulles. He would be called in from the State Department as OPC’s first director. During the period of 1948-1950, Dulles and

Wisner were essentially operating their own private spy agency, with the special

blessing of George F. Kennan, as the OPC was actually more beholden to the State Department then the CIA during this period.

During WWII, Burnham would leave his teaching post at NYU to work for the OSS in 1944 and carried on to work for the CIA when the OSS was disbanded. Joseph Bryan III offered Burnham a consultantship with the OPC in February or March 1949^{^[786]}. Burnham worked with Bryan’s OPC unit, which included the notorious E. Howard Hunt^{^[787]}, using the code names “Hamburn” and “Kenneth E. Hambley”.^{^[788]} This included campaigns to harass communist governments, such as the Carpathians based Ukrainian band that until the early 1950s waged guerilla war on the Soviet rule and ‘liberation’ offensives by militant émigré groups aimed at destabilising Soviet ‘puppet’ regimes.^{^[789]}

The focus of Burnham’s work was on propaganda. It included creating an image of the USSR threat for the Western public. It was thus decided that Soviet influenced countries, at Burnham’s instruction, should not be called ‘satellites’ but ‘colonies’, and that “In general…[the USSR should be linked] with all key retrogressive words: ‘reactionary,’ ‘imperialistic,’ etc.”^{^[790]} Propaganda, bribery, and disinformation should be employed to encourage factionalism, defections and transfers of allegiance to the United States. The ruin of the Soviet morale should also be sought by causing bewilderment in Moscow through apparently irrational U.S. actions, inciting revolt among Soviet labor camp inmates and projecting total confidence in Western victory.

Burnham met with his former NYU colleague Lev Dobriansky who served as a liaison between the Ukrainian Congress committee of America and the Republican Committee. This was done to help formulate a ‘rollback’ policy toward Eastern Europe as the GOP’s answer to the Democrat’s policy of containment.⁹¹⁷ One of Lev Dobriansky’s students was Kateryna Yushchenko^{^[791]}. Dobriansky was the chairman of National Captive Nations Committee, whose

local committees often allied with the Banderite wing of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists.^{^[792]} ^{^[793]}

Burnham did a lot of work with the Ukrainian refugees in particular. This was Burnham’s polwar (political-subversive warfare). Burnhams’ enthusiasm for polwar brought him close ties with foreign anticommunists. When visiting Washington such people often stayed with the Burnhams as houseguests causing Washington Post columnist Mary McGrory to describe the Burnham home as “a mecca for iron curtain refugees.”

Burnham’s single most important OPC effort was the creation of the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF). A body intended to counter Soviet propaganda among intellectual and cultural influencers by highlighting the contrast between communist repression and Western freedom within the domain of arts and literature.

On June 25^th, 1950 in West Berlin’s Titania Palace under the patronage of the philosophers Bertrand Russell and John Dewey, among others, the Congress for Cultural Freedom held its opening session.^{^[794]} Burnham joined in preparation for the conference as an agent of the OPC which now became the major force behind the CCF and the American Committee for Cultural Freedom (ACCF).

Journalists Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould write in The Final Stage of the Machiavellian Elite’s Takeover of America:^{^[795]}

“The Congress for Cultural Freedom’s 14-point ‘Freedom Manifesto’ was to identify the West with freedom. And since everything about the West was said to be free, free, free, then it went without saying that everything about the Soviet Union wasn’t. Organized by Burnham and Hook, the American delegation represented a who’s who of America’s postwar intellectuals. Tickets to Berlin were paid for by Wisner’s Office of Policy Coordination through front organizations and the Department of State, which helped arrange travel, expenses and publicity. According to CIA historian

Michael Warner, the conference sponsors considered it money well spent, with one Defense Department representative calling it ‘unconventional warfare at its best’.”

According to Frances Stonor Saunders, author of The Cultural Cold War, members of the British delegation found the rhetoric coming out of the congress to be a deeply troubling sign of things to come:^{^[796]}

“There was a speech by Franz Borkenau which was very violent and indeed almost hysterical. He spoke in German and I regret to say that as I listened and I heard the baying voices of approval from the huge audiences, I felt, well, these are the same people who seven years ago were probably baying in the same way to similar German denunciations of Communism coming from Dr. Goebbels in the Sports Palast. And I felt, well, what sort of people are we identifying with? That was the greatest shock to me. There was a moment during the Congress when I felt that we were being invited to summon up Beelzebub in order to defeat Stalin.”

Burnham would become head of the ‘Psychological Strategy Board’ (PSB) division of the Office of Policy Coordination (OPC). The PSB D-33/2,^{^[797]} created on May 5^th, 1953, laid out the strategy for how “free intellectuals” could be manipulated against their own interests to facilitate a CIA-dictated transformation of Western culture. In fact, as Frances Stonor Saunder’s makes the point in The Cultural Cold War, it was likely Burnham himself who was the one to draft PSB D-33/2.

Fitzgerald and Gould write:^{^[798]}

“PSB D-33/2 foretells of a ‘long-term intellectual movement, to: break down world-wide doctrinaire thought patterns’ while ‘creating confusion, doubt and loss of confidence’ in order to ‘weaken objectively the intellectual appeal of neutralism and to predispose its adherents towards the spirit of the West.’ The goal was to ‘predispose local elites to the philosophy held by the planners,’ while employing local elites ‘would help to disguise the American origin of the effort so that it appears to be a native development.’

While declaring itself as an antidote to Communist totalitarianism, one internal critic of the program, PSB officer Charles Burton Marshall, viewed PSB D-33/2 itself as frighteningly totalitarian, interposing ‘a wide doctrinal system’ that

‘accepts uniformity as a substitute for diversity,’ embracing ‘all fields of human thought — all fields of intellectual interests, from anthropology and artistic creations to sociology and scientific methodology.’ He concluded: ‘That is just about as totalitarian as one can get’.”

Burnham writes in his The Managerial Revolution:^{^[799]}

“Most of these intellectuals are not in the least aware that the net social effect of the ideologies which they elaborate contributes to the power and privilege of the managers and to the building of a new structure of class rule in society. As in the past, the intellectuals believe that they are speaking in the name of truth and for the interests of all humanity…Indeed, the intellectual, without usually being aware of it, elaborate the new ideologies from the point of view of the position of the managers.”

What this means is that, according to Burnham, the intellectuals themselves do not understand who in fact will benefit in the end by the philosophies and theories they support and defend, they are mere instruments for the propagation of a new ruling class and hold no true power.

Though Burnham would resign from the CCF after just a few years, having failed in his intellectually grandiose endeavours to affect high brow culture and arts, he would effect something of more permanence in the domain of diehard war mongering and would come to be known in many circles as the father of neoconservatism.^{^[800]}

The Original Proselytizer of Totalitarianism and the Father of Neo-Conservatism pg 379

“The modern state … is an engine of propaganda, alternately manufacturing crises and claiming to be the only instrument that can effectively deal with

them. This propaganda, in order to be successful, demands the cooperation of writers, teachers, and artists not as paid propagandists or state-censored time-

servers but as ‘free’ intellectuals capable of policing their own jurisdictions and

of enforcing acceptable standards of responsibility within the various intellectual professions.”

– Christopher Lasch,^{^[801]} author of Britain’s Secret Propaganda War

William F. Buckley’s graduation from Yale in 1950 coincided with the advent of the Korean War that commenced that very summer. Buckley, who had served in WWII, was not eager to return to the field of war, however, was still interested in being of some service to his country during a time of war. Willmoore Kendall who had taught Buckley at Yale had also become his friend during this time. As an alternative to the military Kendall (who had CIA connections) suggested Buckley might join the OPC.⁹²⁹ Kendall knew Burnham since the 1930s. Burnham met with Buckley and approved of his entry into the OPC.

Buckley’s polwar career was short. He was stationed in Mexico City under, none other than, E. Howard Hunt,^{^[802]} with whom Burnham had clearly a close relationship with in relation to OPC work. However, Buckley did not find his work in Mexico to his liking and wanted to stick to writing, however, they would maintain a close relationship with Buckley becoming godfather to Hunt’s first three children.

In 1955, Buckley launched the ultra-conservative National Review. One thing that was particularly striking about the National Review was the number of former leftists and communists it employed including Burnham, Schlamm, Kendall, and soon Meyer.⁹³¹ Priscilla Buckley, William’s sister, was a managing editor of the National Review, and had also worked for the CIA in the 1950s.^{^[803]} The National Review would become the voice of what would become the neo-conservative movement, a movement that Burnham had a leading hand in shaping.

Burnham’s National Review commentary reiterated his Struggle for the World thesis, that no matter how well conceived a policy might be, it would fail if it did not rest on a resolute will to power. In a crisis, the United States must be

prepared to use force, even in violation of the sovereignty of other nations.^{^[804]} At the time Burnham was furious over Iceland’s newly elected government refusing to continue hosting a NATO base. Thus, Burnham argued, if the UN could not be made to accommodate U.S. needs, the U.S. would have no reason to stay in the UN “except perhaps to sabotage it.”^{^[805]}

When it came to black civil rights, Burnham and most of his National Review colleagues sided with the segregationists. As they put it in a 1957 editorial on black voting rights, Southern whites were entitled to take the steps they deemed “necessary to prevail politically and culturally” in places where they lacked a majority since “for the time being” they were “the advanced race”.^{^[806]} I wonder if they thought lynchings should be included as part of the necessary steps the Southern whites were entitled to in their ‘prevailing’. Burnham complained the State had bent over backwards to be ‘sensitive’ to world opinion and paid less attention to the interests of its citizens than to “the sensibilities of Kwame Nkrumah, Fidel Castro and Patrice Lumumba.”^{^[807]} Sounds very similar to the thoughts of Allen Dulles does it not?

In Burnham’s Suicide of the West (1964), he began seeing the American people as part of ‘the problem.’ “Whether most Americans were liberals was hard to gauge. What did seem clear was that liberalism, broadly defined, had now solidly entrenched itself as the standard ‘American public doctrine’ and this did not bode well for the future. For one thing, liberalism replaced reality with dreams, portraying human nature in a reassuringly rosy light and looking ahead to a future of infinite progress. Yet, a wealth of historical evidence contradicted this outlook, while geneticists agreed that in modern society those segments of the population with ‘inferior genetic assets – inferior, that is, from an intellectual, moral, and civilizing standpoint - [were] increasing, rather rapidly, relative to those with superior assets’.”^{^[808]}

Burnham in his writings for the National Review pushed that the U.S. had to pay much more attention to alternative weapon systems, such as those involving “Blanquist cadres, crowd manipulation, guerillas, psychological warfare, paramililtary operations, subversion, bribery, infiltration, with specialized, mobile, ranger-type units in supporting reserve – short, political warfare.” Burnham was not counting “foreign aid”, “truth campaigns” and “student

exchange” which he thought of as “Boy Scout ideas”. True polwar employed “agitation, propaganda, subversion, economic manipulation, incitement of riots, terror, diversionary diplomacy, sabotage, guerilla and paramilitary actions, etc.”

938

At this point in the book, I would imagine you have a fairly good idea of what that entails and that such campaigns are not aimed at the ‘bad guys’ for our protection. How can there be such a thing as ‘good guys’ and ‘bad guys’ when there is no such thing as morality, truth or ideology in such a worldview? It is just about the usurpation of power and whoever gets in the way of this conquest by the ‘elite’ is fair game, including Western citizens. Even the American President is fair game if they dare to step in the way of that line of fire.

Burnham writes his The Managerial Revolution:⁹³⁹

“The [artificial] ideology [for the masses] must ostensibly speak in the name of ‘humanity,’ ‘the people,’ ‘the race,’ ‘the future,’ ‘God,’ ‘destiny,’ and so on. Furthermore, in spite of the opinion of many present-day cynics, not just any ideology is capable of appealing to the sentiments of the masses. It is more than a problem of skilful propaganda technique. A successful ideology has got to seem to the masses, in however confused a way, actually to express some of their own interests.

…At the present time, the ideologies that can have a powerful impact, that can make a real headway, are, naturally, the managerial ideologies, since it is these that alone correspond with the actual direction of events…In place of the ‘individual,’ the stress turns to the ‘state,’ the people, the folk, the race…In place of private enterprise, ‘socialism’ [only by name] or ‘collectivism.’ In place of ‘freedom’ and ‘free initiative,’ planning. Less talk about ‘rights’ and ‘natural rights’; more about ‘duties’ and ‘order’ and ‘discipline.’ Less about ‘opportunity’ and more about ‘jobs’.”

Burnham goes on to discuss in The Managerial Revolution, the need to change the meaning of words such as ’destiny,’ ‘the future,’ ‘sacrifice,’ ‘power,’ from the old ideologies of capitalism to suit the new ideologies of managerialism.

⁹³⁸Kelly, Daniel. (2002) James Burnham and the Struggle for the World: A Life. ISI Books Wilmington, Delaware, pg. 248.

⁹³⁹Burnham, James. (1941) The Managerial Revolution or What is Happening in the World Now. Putname and Company, Limited, London, pg.180.

Burnham concludes:^{^[809]}

“The new world political system based on a small number of super-states will still leave problems-more, perhaps, than a unified single world-state; but it will be enough of a ‘solution’ for society to keep going. Nor is there any sufficient reason to believe that these problems of the managerial world system, including the managerial wars, will ‘destroy civilization.’ It is almost inconceivable even what it could mean for civilization – to be literally destroyed. Once again: what is being destroyed is our civilization, not civilization.”

Chapter 14 Sleepwalking Into Fascism pg. 384

“Hell is empty and all the devils are here”

– William Shakespeare (The Tempest Act 1 Scene 2)

The CIA’s Family Jewels and
Operation Mockingbird

Quickly after the Cold War was announced by Churchill, it was necessary to create a fervor of fear and paranoia amongst the American people in order to have them quickly forget the fact that the Russians were their greatest allies during both the First and Second World Wars, and to replace it with the image of a ghoulish race of boogeymen.

If Americans were to remember that the Russians had fought valiantly during the Second World War against fascism and had paid by far the largest sacrifice, then the Cold War division could never have occurred. This was something that could not be tolerated by Churchill and the British Empire. Thus, terror was unleashed on the American people and McCarthyism was given precedence over the people’s right to question and form conclusions for themselves. That sort of thing could not be tolerated when the ‘enemy’ could be anywhere; they could be your neighbour, your child’s teacher, your co-worker…your partner.

In order to combat the ‘threat’ of Soviet ‘propaganda’ entering the U.S. and seducing Americans, Operation Mockingbird was created as a form of control over information dissemination during the period of McCarthyism. Operation Mockingbird was a CIA program that was started in the early 1950s in order to control the narrative of the news. The CIA Family Jewels report compiled in the mid-1970s, confirmed that Project Mockingbird did exist as a CIA operation and that it was guilty of wire-tapping journalists in Washington.

At the helm of this project was none other than CIA Director Allen Dulles, an enemy of JFK, who by the early 1950s oversaw the media network and had major influence over 25 newspapers and wire agencies. Its function was to have the CIA write reports that would be used by a network of cooperating ‘credible’ reporters. By these ‘credible’ reporters spreading the CIA dictated narrative, it would be parroted by unwitting reporters (mockingbirds) and a successful echo chamber would be created across the world.

[ How Global News Agencies and Western Media Report on Geopolitics, ]

According to Deborah Davis’ biography of Katherine Graham (the owner of Washington Post), the OPC created Operation Mockingbird in response to addressing Soviet propaganda and included as part of its CIA contingency respected members from Washington Post, The New York Times, Newsweek, CBS and others.

The Family Jewels report was an investigation made by the CIA to investigate…the CIA, spurred in response to the Watergate Scandal and the CIA’s unconstitutional role in the whole affair. The investigation of the CIA would include any other actions that were deemed illegal or inappropriate spanning from the 1950s-mid 1970s.

We are told most of the report was declassified on June 25^th, 2007 (30 years later) hoping that people would have lost interest in the whole brouhaha. Along with the release of the redacted report was included a six-page summary with the following introduction:

“The Central Intelligence Agency violated its charter for 25 years until revelations of illegal wiretapping, domestic surveillance, assassination plots, and human experimentation^{^[810]} led to official investigations and reforms in the 1970s.”

Despite this acknowledged violation of its charter for 25 years, which is pretty much since its inception, the details of this information were kept classified for 30 years from not just the public but major governmental bodies and it was left to the agency itself to judge how best to “reform” its ways.

On Dec. 22, 1974, The New York Times published an article by Seymour Hersh^{^[811]} exposing illegal operations conducted by the CIA, dubbed the “family jewels”. This included,

· covert action programs involving assassination attempts on foreign leaders and

· covert attempts to subvert foreign governments, which were reported for the first time. In addition,

· the article discussed efforts by intelligence agencies to collect information on the political activities of U.S. citizens.

Largely as a reaction to Hersh’s findings, the creation of the Church Committee was approved on January 27^th, 1975. The Church Committee’s final report^{^[812]} was

published in April 1976, including seven volumes^{^[813]} of Church Committee hearings in the Senate.

The Church Committee also published an interim report^{^[814]} titled “Alleged Assassination Plots Involving Foreign Leaders”, which investigated alleged attempts to assassinate foreign leaders, including

· Patrice Lumumba of Congo,

· Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic,

· Ngo Dinh Diem of Vietnam,

· Gen. René Schneider of Chile and

· Fidel Castro of Cuba.

President Ford attempted to withhold the report from the public, but failed and reluctantly issued Executive Order 11905⁹⁴⁶ after pressure from the public and the Church Committee.

Executive Order 11905 is a United States Presidential Executive Order signed on February 18^th, 1976, by a very reluctant President Ford in an attempt to reform the United States Intelligence Community, improve oversight on foreign intelligence activities, and ban political assassination.

The attempt is now regarded as a failure and was largely undone by President Reagan who issued Executive Order 12333,⁹⁴⁷ which extended the powers and responsibilities of U.S. intelligence agencies and directed leaders of the U.S. federal agencies to co-operate fully with the CIA, which was the original arrangement that CIA have full authority over clandestine operations.

In addition, the Church Committee produced seven case studies on covert operations, but only the one on Chile was released, titled “Covert Action in Chile: 1963–1973“.^{^[815]} The rest were kept secret at the CIA’s request.

Among the most shocking revelation of the Church Committee was the discovery of Operation SHAMROCK,^{^[816]} in which the major telecommunications companies shared their traffic with the NSA from 1945 to the early 1970s. The information

gathered in this operation fed directly into the NSA Watch List. It was found out during the committee investigations that Senator Frank Church, who was overseeing the committee, was among the prominent names^{^[817]} under surveillance on this NSA Watch List.

In 1975, the Church Committee decided to unilaterally declassify the particulars of this operation, against the objections of President Ford’s administration.

The Church Committee’s reports constitute the most extensive review of intelligence activities ever made available to the public. Much of the contents were classified, but over 50,000 pages were declassified under the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992.

It is very useful that there exists an official recognition that false news was not only being encouraged by the CIA under the overseeing of the NSC during the Cold War period, but that the CIA was complicit in actually detailing the specific narrative that they wanted disseminated, and often going so far as to write the narrative and have a ‘credible’ reporter’s name stamped on it.

But the question begs, ‘Did the Cold War ever end?’ and if not, why should we believe that the CIA’s involvement in such activities is buried in its past and that it has ‘reformed’ its old ways?

How the CIA Buys News

Before we go through the situation of the Ukraine war today, I wanted to share with you a very relevant story of how the CIA buys News.

Udo Ulfkotte^{^[818]} was a well-known German journalist and author of numerous books. He worked for 25 years as a journalist, seventeen of which were for Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), including his role as editor. In his 2014 book Journalists for Hire: How the CIA Buys News, Ulfkotte goes over how the CIA along with German Intelligence (BND) were guilty of bribing journalists to write articles that either spun the truth or were completely fictitious in order to promote a pro-Western, pro-NATO bent, and that he was one of those bought journalists.

In an interview, Ulfkotte describes how he finally built up the nerve to publish the book, after years of it collecting dust, in response to the erupting 2014 crisis in Ukraine stating:

“I felt that the right time had come to finish it and publish it, because I am deeply worried about the Ukrainian crisis and the possible devastating consequences for all of Europe and all of us…I am not at all pro-Russia, but it is clear that many journalists blindly follow and publish whatever the NATO press office provides. And this type of information and reports are completely one-sided”.

In another interview Ulfkotte stated:

“It is clear as daylight that the agents of various Services were in the central offices of the FAZ, the place where I worked for 17 years. The articles appeared under my name several times, but they were not my intellectual product. I was once approached by someone from German Intelligence and the CIA, who told me that I should write about Gaddafi and report how he was trying to secretly build a chemical weapons factory in Libya. I had no information on any of this, but they showed me various documents, I just had to put my name on the article. Do you think this can be called journalism? I don’t think so.”

Ulfkotte has publicly stated:

“I am ashamed of it. The people I worked for knew from the get-go everything I did. And the truth must come out. It’s not just about FAZ, this is the whole system that’s corrupt all the way.”

Udo Ulfkotte has since passed away. He died January 2017 at the age of fifty-six, found dead in his home, it is said by a heart attack. His body was quickly after cremated, thus preventing any possibility of an autopsy from occurring. His book is available in English under the title Presstitutes Embedded in the Pay of the CIA: A Confession from the Profession.

Today’s situation concerning media reporting on Ukraine does not seem to be any different from the manipulative spin controlled by intelligence agencies exposed by Udo. If anything, it is much much worse. To bolster support for the Ukrainian military, Kiev has churned out a steady stream of sophisticated propaganda aimed at stirring public emotion for political and financial support from Western countries.

Ukraine’s propaganda strategy earned it praise from a NATO commander who told the Washington Post,^{^[819]} “They [Ukraine] are really excellent in stratcom

[strategic communications] — media, info ops, and also psy-ops.” Washington Post ultimately conceded that “Western officials say that while they cannot independently verify much of the information that Kyiv puts out about the evolving battlefield situation, including casualty figures for both sides, it nonetheless represents highly effective stratcom.”

Dan Cohen for Mint Press News writes:^{^[820]}

“Key to the propaganda effort is an international legion of public relations firms working directly with Ukraine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs to wage information warfare. According to the industry news site PRWeek, the initiative was launched by an anonymous figure who allegedly founded a Ukraine-based public relations firm…

According to the anonymous figure, more than 150 public relations firms have joined the propaganda blitz.

The international effort is spearheaded by public relations firm PR Network cofounder Nicky Regazzoni and Francis Ingham, a top public relations consultant with close ties to the UK’s government. Ingham previously worked for Britain’s Conservative Party, sits on the UK Government Communication Service Strategy and Evaluation Council, is Chief Executive of the International Communications Consultancy Organisation, and leads the membership body for UK local government communicators, LG Comms.”

Thus, Ingham who has been a member of the UK government and continues to have very high-level connections within the British government, has played a leading role in shaping how the Ukraine war is being represented to the public.

Dan Cohen provides a thorough explanation of how these ‘PR firms’ have been responsible for reporting and spreading fabricated news and that even when such reports are found conclusively to be untrue, they continue to use them nonetheless. These PR tools include propaganda graphics, which are created in order to encourage radicalization and promotion of ultra-nationalist identity; using xenophobic and racist language (not just to Russians), outright praise of Ukrainian neo-Nazis as heroes, the idolization of Nazi affiliated OUN-B leader

Post. https://web.archive.org/web/2/https://www.washingtonpost.com/nationalsecurity/2022/03/16/ukraine -zelensky -information -war/.

Stepan Bandera, and the encouragement of violent acts against other individuals.⁹⁵⁴

If you have ever wondered who is behind the omnipotent ‘fact-checkers,’ in the case of StopFake who have self-described themselves as such, they are funded^{^[821]} by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) - aka the fullyrogue department of the CIA, the Atlantic Council^{^[822]}, the International Renaissance Foundation (funded by Open Society Foundation’s billionaire George Soros), the British Embassy in Ukraine, the British Foreign & Commonwealth Office, and the German Marshall Fund. StopFake was hired by Facebook⁹⁵⁷ in March 2020 to “curb the flow of Russian propaganda” but was found to be employing^{^[823]} multiple figures closely tied to violent neo-Nazis. This uncomfortable fact, however, did not deter Facebook from continuing to work with StopFake.

At the end of the day, it does not seem to matter how many times these arbiters of truth are found to be wrong, for U.S. officials have already admitted that they are literally just lying^{^[824]} ⁹⁶⁰ to the public about what is going on in Ukraine.

Fact Checking the ‘Fact-Checkers’ on Ukraine pg. 390

Interestingly, the Atlantic Council itself acknowledges that the neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine is quite serious, in an article published in 2018 titled “Ukraine’s Got a

⁹⁵⁴ See Cohen’s article for examples. UKRAINE’S PROPAGANDA WAR: INTERNATIONAL PR FIRMS, DC LOBBYISTS AND CIA CUTOUTS. Mint Press News. https://web.archive.org/web/20220910023834/https://www.mintpressnews.com/ukrainepropaganda -war -international -pr -firms -dc -lobbyists -cia -cutouts/280012/.
[References ^{955 through 960} and, as usual, the page number (390) are missing in this .docx version. -FNC]

Real Problem with Far-Right Violence (And No, RT Didn’t Write This Headline)” Josh Cohen writes:^{^[825]}

“It sounds like the stuff of Kremlin propaganda, but it’s not. Last week Hromadske

Radio revealed that Ukraine’s Ministry of Youth and Sports is funding the neoNazi group C14 to promote ‘national patriotic education projects’ in the country…”

Yes, you read right, C14 along with the Azov Battalion have been training children,^{^[826]} with encouragement and funding by the Ukrainian government via Ukraine’s Ministry of Youth and Sports under the title “national patriotic education projects”, including exercises in terror tactics.^{^[827]}

Josh Cohen continues:

“Since the beginning of 2018, C14 and other far-right groups such as the Azovaffiliated National Militia, Right Sector, Karpatska Sich, and others have attacked Roma groups several times, as well as anti-fascist demonstrations, city council meetings, an event hosted by Amnesty International, art exhibitions, LGBT events, and environmental activists. On March 8, violent groups launched attacks against International Women’s Day marchers in cities across Ukraine. In only a few of these cases did police do anything to prevent the attacks, and in some they even arrested peaceful demonstrators rather than the actual perpetrators.”

After the March 8^th, 2018 attacks against International Women’s Day marchers, according to Cohen, Amnesty International wrote “Ukraine is sinking into a chaos of uncontrolled violence posed by radical groups and their total impunity. Practically no one in the country can feel safe under these conditions.”

Josh Cohen writes:

“To be clear, far-right parties like Svoboda perform poorly in Ukraine’s polls and elections, and Ukrainians evince no desire to be ruled by them. But this argument is a bit of ‘red herring.’ It’s not extremists’ electoral prospects that should concern
[References ^{961 through 963} and, as usual, the page number (391) are missing in this .docx version. -FNC]

Ukraine’s friends, but rather the state’s unwillingness or inability to confront violent groups and end their impunity.”

However, we heard it straight from Yevhen Karas’s mouth, the leader of

Ukraine’s neo-Nazi group C14, that the true determinants of power politics in Ukraine have never really been about polls and elections.⁹⁶⁴

As the famous 2014 ‘f*ck the EU’ recording between Victoria Nuland and then U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Jeffrey Pyatt revealed to a dumbfounded world, the Ukrainian people don’t actually have a say in who runs their government. After the so-called ‘Revolution of Dignity’ where Ukrainians literally died for ‘democracy,’ the U.S. went on to ‘influence’ the roster of the newly formed

Ukrainian government, specifically around members of neo-Nazi groups

964

https://twitter.com/RealAlexRubi/status/1497747535783411714?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctw camp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1497747535783411714%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_ &ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fthegrayzone.com%2F2022%2F03%2F04%2Fnazis -ukrainian -warrussia%2F.

Svoboda and Pravyi Sector (Right Sector) who held five senior roles^{^[828]} in the new government, including the post of deputy prime minister.

But neo-Nazis have not just been receiving Western support in the political sphere.

In October 2021, as a reaction to her failed diplomatic visit to Russia, Victoria Nuland, according to French journalist Thierry Meyssan,^{^[829]} went ahead and ‘imposed’ Dmytro Yarosh onto President Zelensky. On November 2^nd, 2021, President Zelensky appointed Dmytro Yarosh (leader of the neo-Nazi affiliated ultra-nationalist paramilitary group Right Sector 2013-2015) as Adviser to the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Valerii Zaluzhnyi. Nuland is of Ukrainian Jewish descent, thus her ongoing support for neo-Nazis in the Ukrainian government and military since 2014 is disturbing on multiple levels.

Right Sector has close connections with Trident (Tryzub) and Patriot of Ukraine. All three groups are ultra right-wing nationalist, neo-Nazi, paramilitary movements as well as political parties. Yarosh was the leader of Tryzub starting in 2005. Tryzub led to the formation of the Right Sector, to which Yarosh was also leader of between 2013-2015 and continues to have a great deal of influence on these groups. Dmytro Yarosh has been on Interpol’s ‘wanted list’ since 2014, though he was inexplicably taken off the international wanted list of Interpol in 2016, he remained on their ‘wanted person’s’ section on Interpol’s website.^{^[830]} Interpol refused to comment to Kyiv Post as to the reason why.^{^[831]}

Westerners are told that the Right Sector is merely a Ukrainian nationalist party concerned with defending the liberty and freedom of the Ukrainian people. Svoboda is also sold to the West as a romantic movement of benign Ukrainian nationalists, who happen to support Stepan Bandera.
[References References 965 through 968 and, as usual, the page number (393) are missing in this .docx version. -FNC]

Right Sector ‘Blood and Soil’ flag, symbolic of the UPA flag, a Ukrainian paramilitary unit that collaborated with the Nazis during WWII (see Chapter 5).

Neo-Nazis have also received ongoing training by the CIA, British SAS (Special Air Service) as well as other NATO countries such as Canada since at least 2014, and has been ongoing up until present day, as confirmed by The Times⁹⁶⁹, Ottawa Citizen⁹⁷⁰, CTV News⁹⁷¹, and Radio Canada⁹⁷². The Canadian government has attempted to deny any knowledge of training neo-Nazi militants in Ukraine and have made the claim that they are not responsible for verifying who they are in fact training, since this is the responsibility of the Ukrainian government. However, such claims of ignorance fell through when the very neo-Nazis they were training went ahead and posted pictures on their social media accounts, showcasing their neo-Nazis badges identifying them as such during these training sessions with Canadian forces, plain for everyone to see.⁹⁷³

⁹⁶⁹Philp, Catherine. (April 15, 2022) British special forces ‘are training local troops in Ukraine’.

The Times. https://archive.ph/U4qUP#selection -835.0 -835.61.

⁹⁷⁰Pugliese, David. (April 13, 2022) Canada failed when it trained Ukrainian troops linked to the far right, says Nazi hunter. Ottawa Citizen.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence -watch/canada -failed -when -it -trainedukrainian -troops -linked -to -the -far -right -says -nazi -hunter.

⁹⁷¹Somos, Christy. (April 28, 2022) Mounting evidence Canada trained Ukrainian extremists, gov't needs to be held to account: experts. CTV News.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220910034808/https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/mountingevidence -canada -trained -ukrainian -extremists -gov -t -needs -to -be -held -to -account -experts1.5879303.

⁹⁷²Coutu, Simon. (April 11, 2022) Le Canada a formé des éléments d’un régiment ukrainien lié à l’extrême droite. Radio Canada. https://ici.radio -canada.ca/nouvelle/1873461/canadaregiment -ukrainien -lie -extreme -droiteazov?fromApp=appInfoIos&partageApp=appInfoiOS&accesVia=partage.

973

https://twitter.com/MaxBlumenthal/status/1505620385143967746?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7

Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1505620385143967746%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5E s1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fthegrayzone.com%2F2022%2F03%2F20%2Fus -neo -naziukraine -afghan -insurgency%2F. Retrieved October 19, 2022.

On the same day as the untoward NATO tweet on International Women’s Day of a Ukrainian soldier with the Nazi Black Sun occult symbol, photographs also appeared on NEXTA’s twitter feed showing the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion receiving training by instructors from “NATO countries” on how to use NLAW grenade launchers.^{^[832]}

The ultra-nationalist Right Sector have also appeared in the field with UK-made NLAW launchers.

UK Defense Secretary Ben Wallace told^{^[833]} the House of Commons on March 9 that “as of today, we have delivered 3,615 NLAWs [to Ukrainian forces] and continue to deliver more. We will shortly be starting the delivery of a small consignment of anti-tank Javelin missiles as well.” For a full list of all the weapons sent to Ukraine since 2014 by all involved countries, refer here.^{^[834]}

For those especially adamant that neo-Nazis are not ‘officially’ part of the Ukrainian army, you should be informed that the Azov Battalion is part of Ukraine’s National Guard,^{^[835]} and thus, it is officially part of Ukraine’s military.

Andriy Biletsky, the Azov Battalion’s first commander and later a National Corps parliamentarian previously led the neo-Nazi paramilitary organisation ‘Patriot of Ukraine,’ and once stated in 2010^{^[836]} that it was the Ukrainian nation’s mission to “lead the white races of the world in a final crusade… against Semite-led Untermenschen [subhumans].”

In 2019, the Soufan Center⁹⁷⁹, which tracks terrorist and extremist groups around the world, warned:

“The Azov Battalion is emerging as a critical node in the transnational right-wing violent extremist network… [Its] aggressive approach to networking serves one of the Azov Battalion’s overarching objectives, to transform areas under its control in Ukraine into the primary hub for transnational white supremacy.”

The Soufan Center described how the Azov Battalion’s “aggressive networking” reaches around the world to recruit fighters and spread its white supremacist ideology. Foreign fighters who train and fight with the Azov Battalion then return to their own countries to apply what they have learned and recruit others.

In 2014, Newsweek published an article titled “Ukrainian Nationalist Volunteers Committing ‘ISIS-Style’ War Crimes.”^{^[837]} Is this an indication of how both the Azov and ISIS have received their funding and training from the very same sources?^{^[838]} One of President Zelensky’s advisors, Oleksiy Arestovych, has stated in numerous interviews^{^[839]} his open admiration for ISIS/ISIL tactics and approach to business and governance.

NATO has recently gone so far as to make a short film honoring the Baltic Nazi collaborators⁹⁸³ the ‘Forest Brothers.’ The NATO film lionizes the ‘Forest Brothers,’ former Waffen SS fighters who voluntarily collaborated with the Nazis, as anti-communist heroes.⁹⁸⁴

⁹⁷⁹ The Soufan Center. (March 22, 2019) IntelBrief: The Transnational Network That Nobody is Talking About. https://web.archive.org/web/2/https://thesoufancenter.org/intelbrief -thetransnational -network -that -nobody -is -talking -about/.

Dovid Katz, a leading historian and anti-Nazi investigator condemned^{^[840]} the NATO film for rewriting history:

“By going beyond turning a blind eye to the worship of pro-Hitler forces in Eastern

Europe…[NATO] is crossing the line right into offering its moral legitimization of Nazi forces such as the Latvian Waffen SS.”

David Ignatius, the Washington Post columnist and reliable representative voice of the U.S. intelligence apparatus noted^{^[841]} that even prior to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, “the United States and NATO allies [were] ready to provide weapons and training for a long battle of resistance.”

In September 1991, Ignatius wrote for the Washington Post:^{^[842]}

“The great democratic revolution that has swept the globe over the past few years has been a triumph of overt action. The CIA old boys spent a generation fantasizing about this sort of global anti-communist putsch. But when it finally happened, it was in the open…Working in broad daylight, the United States and its allies were able to do things that would have been unthinkably dangerous had they been done in the shadows…Preparing the ground for last month’s triumph of overt action was a network of overt operatives who during the last 10 years have quietly been changing the rules of international politics. They have been doing in public what the CIA used to do in private…The old concept of covert action, which has gotten the agency into such trouble during the past 40 years, may be obsolete. Nowadays, sensible activities to support America’s friends abroad (or undermine its enemies) are probably best done openly. That includes paramilitary operations such as supporting freedom fighters, which can be managed overtly by the Pentagon. And it includes political-support operations for pro-democracy activists, which may be best left to the new network of overt operators.

…The covert-action boys were known back then as the Office of Policy Coordination. It may be time, at last, to bid them adieu. They’re obsolete. They’ve been privatized. That’s especially true in the realm of what used to be called ‘propaganda’ and can now simply be called information. Frank Wisner, the head of CIA covert operations during the mid-1950s, once remarked that he could play the media assets like a ‘mighty Wurlitzer.’ Today the mighty Wurlitzer actually exists. It’s called CNN.

…Allen Weinstein…is probably the dean of the new overt operatives. Like many of the people running the new nations of Eastern Europe, he’s an ex-professor…and even worked for several months writing editorials for The Washington Post…Now, with the KGB in retreat from Prague to Vladivostok [recall the Soviet Union was dissolved on December 26^th, 1991] Weinstein has scheduled a conference in Sofia, Bulgaria on the topic: ‘The Proper Role of Intelligence Agencies in a Democracy.’ That may be rubbing it in.

…’A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA,’ agrees Weinstein. The biggest difference is that when such activities are done overtly, the flap potential is close to zero. Openness is its own protection…Allen Weinstein is just one of many overt operatives who helped prepare the way for the political

miracles of the past two years…It’s worth naming a few more of them, to show the breadth of this movement for democracy: William Miller of the American Committee on U.S.-Soviet Relations; financier George Soros of the Soros Foundation; John Mroz of the Center for East-West Security Studies; John Baker of the Atlantic Council; and Harriett Crosby of the Institute for Soviet-American Relations. This has truly been a revolution by committee. The AFL-CIO also deserves a healthy pat on the back. Working mostly in the open, it helped keep the Polish trade union Solidarity alive in the dark days of martial law during the early 1980s. As the AFL-CIO’s Adrian Karatnycky wrote in these pages two years ago, American trade unions and the U.S. Congress provided millions of dollars to the Solidarity underground…

The sugar daddy of overt operations has been The National Endowment for

Democracy, a quasi-private group headed by Carl Gershman [author’s note: and Weinstein] that is funded by the U.S. Congress. Through the late 1980s, it did openly what had once been unspeakably covert…

The endowment has also been active inside the Soviet Union. It has given money to Soviet trade unions; to the liberal ‘Interregional Group’ in the Congress of Peoples Deputies; to a foundation headed by Russian activist Ilya Zaslavsky; to an Oral History Project headed by Soviet historian Yuri Afanasyev; to the Ukrainian independence movement known as Rukh, and to many other projects.

Covert funding for these groups would have been the kiss of death, if discovered. Overt funding, it would seem, has been a kiss of life.”

This puts a new spin on Washington Post’s slogan “Democracy Dies in Darkness.” Overt darkness that is.

Allen Weinstein, former Trotskyist,^{^[843]} is the founder of the National Endowment for Democracy along with Carl Gershman. Notice how Ignatius mentioned their infiltration into the trade unions (AFL-CIO).^{^[844]}

I guess the NED has recently had a change of heart on “openness is its own protection.” Jeremy Kuzmarov for Covert Action Magazine writes in an article titled “National Endowment for Democracy Deletes Records of Funding Projects in Ukraine”:^{^[845]}

“The National Endowment for Democracy (NED)—a CIA offshoot founded in the early 1980s to advance ‘democracy promotion’ initiatives around the world—has deleted all records of funding projects in Ukraine from their searchable ‘Awarded Grants Search’ database.

The archived webpage captured February 25, 2022 from 14:53 shows that NED granted $22,394,281 in the form of 334 awards to Ukraine between 2014 to the present. The capture at 23:10 the same day shows ‘No results found’ for Ukraine. As of right now, there are still ‘No results found’ for Ukraine…

The erasure of the NED’s records is necessary to validate the Biden administration’s big lie—echoed in the media—that the Russian invasion of Ukraine was ‘unprovoked.’”

Who will suffer the most in this plan for a long battle of resistance? The Ukrainian people. As Senator Lindsay Graham recently stated, upon his celebratory role in passing legislation to send billions of dollars of lethal aid to Ukraine, “I like the structural path we are on here. As long as we help Ukraine with the weapons it needs and economic support, they will fight to the last person.”^{^[846]} The last Ukrainian person that is.

If Putin’s top reason for going into Ukraine is to ‘denazify’ the country, and the CIA, NATO and company are persistently ‘nazifying’ the political and military components of Ukraine, you can see how any hope for a peaceful outcome in Ukraine becomes impossible.

You can also understand how Ukraine’s entry into NATO was unacceptable for Russia’s leadership merely due to its geographic location (the distance between Ukraine’s border and Moscow is 450 km). However, when one considers that NATO is also involved in the promotion of neo-Nazi militants in Ukraine and that now, at the time of writing this, both Sweden and Finland^{^[847]} have also expressed a desire to join NATO (with no referendum since democracy is officially dead in Cold War 2.0), we can see a perfect storm about to take shape.

NATO member states as of April 2022.

However, this is not just a threat to Russia. The reality of the situation is that Ukraine has been in a civil war these past eight years, though most of the Western media refuses to acknowledge this very important fact.

Ivan Katchanovski, Professor of Political Studies at the University of Ottawa, told MintPress News:^{^[848]}

“People who take at face value the Western media coverage would have a very distorted perception of the Ukraine conflict and its origin… They omit or deny that there is a civil war in Donbas even though the majority of scholars who [have] published or presented concerning this conflict in Western academic venues classify it as a civil war with Russian military intervention. The Western media also omitted that recent ‘unity marches’ in Kharkiv and Kyiv and a staged training of civilians…were organized and led by the far right, in particular, the Neo-Nazi Azov [Battalion].”

The late Robert Parry for Consortium News wrote:^{^[849]}

“On Sunday, a Times article by Andrew E. Kramer mentioned the emerging neoNazi paramilitary role in the final three paragraphs… In other words, the neo-Nazi militias that surged to the front of anti-Yanukovych protests…have now been organized as shock troops dispatched to kill ethnic Russians in the east [of Ukraine] – and they are operating so openly that they hoist a Swastika-like neoNazi flag over one conquered village with a population of about 10,000.

Burying this information at the end of a long article is also typical of how the Times and other U.S. mainstream news outlets have dealt with the neo-Nazi problem in the past. When the reality gets mentioned, it usually requires a reader knowing much about Ukraine’s history and reading between the lines of a U.S. news account.”

In the above image which outlines the population distribution of ethnic Ukrainians and Russians within Ukraine, you can understand how an ultranationalist view that identifies as solely ethnic Ukrainian would be a catalyst for a civil war.

The people of Donbass have understandably asked for independence from

Ukraine with 2014 election results in Donetsk and Lugansk resulting in

overwhelming support for separation. Yet the Ukrainian government has refused to allow this nor intervene for a peaceful resolution. What does this mean? The war can only end when one side is fully dead. Thus, it should be no mystery why the predominantly ethnic Russian Eastern regions of Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson and Zaporozhye voted in tandem to rejoin Russia in September 2022 and it should be no mystery why neither Kiev, NATO, and the U.S. refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of this referendum.^{^[850]}

The U.S.-NATO support for neo-Nazis in Ukraine got so bad that in 2018, Congress had to ban the United States from sending further arms to Ukraine militia linked to neo-Nazis,⁹⁹⁶ specifically mentioning the Azov Battalion. For some reason this ban was to only last for three years.

But you may say, what about Russia’s crimes against the Ukrainian people. Aren’t they far worse than even vicious neo-Nazis? Namely the bombing of the Mariupol theater (March 16, 2022) and the Bucha massacre (March 31, 2022). Thorough journalistic investigations have already been done on the former case^{^[851]} which conclusively demonstrated that the bombing of the Mariupol theater was a false-flag.

As for the Bucha massacre, there has been no evidence presented that conclusively proves who committed this atrocity. There have only been assertions repeated and recycled which fall far short of anything one could consider evidence. Recall that the chemical attacks in Syria were also supported by repeated assertions that the Assad government was to blame. In 2013, investigative journalist Seymour Hersch wrote a report titled “Whose Sarin,”^{^[852]} which conclusively proved that the popular assertions being pushed by the Obama government in their attempt to incriminate the Syrian government, were in fact false. Rather, Hersch’s investigation pointed to the fact that the actual terrorists who used sarin on the Syrian civilians, were those same rebels receiving Anglo-American funding and arms.

Unfortunately, time is of the essence in investigating crimes such as these, and despite the outcries of the inhumanity of such events, there is always heavy footdragging if not outright dismissal over any attempt to establish official and neutral investigations of such crime scenes. Why is this?

Russia had asked the UN Security Council for an investigation into the Bucha massacre.^{^[853]} China had also called for an official investigation^{^[854]} into this and had received backlash for withholding blame until all facts were known. Why has an official investigation been repeatedly refused? This should be the official protocol for such matters. Instead, the response to this was for the United Nations to suspend Russia from its human rights body.¹⁰⁰¹ Doing this not only rejected an official investigation into the Bucha massacre but denied Russia a voice in responding to the matter.

The disturbing elephant in the room in all of this, is that the Azov Battalion has already been found guilty of similar atrocities against its own Ukrainian people, which has been thoroughly investigated by Max Blumenthal and Esha Krishnaswamy in their paper “‘One less traitor’: Zelensky oversees campaign of assassination, kidnapping and torture of political opposition”.^{^[855]}

The Azov Battalion has also been found guilty of purposefully putting Ukrainian citizens in jeopardy by positioning their artillery and military in residential areas and buildings, including daycares and hospitals, to which even The Washington Post had to acknowledge in their misleadingly titled article “Russia has killed civilians in Ukraine. Kyiv’s defense tactics add to the danger.”^{^[856]} However, these are not simply “defense tactics,” they are blatant war crimes that are recognized as such by international law. These war crimes are publicly acknowledged to be going on, causing the deaths of a significant number of Ukrainians. Just to be clear here, during times of war, to which The Washington Post also

acknowledges, Ukrainian soldiers and weaponry are legitimate targets for the Russian military. It is not Russia that is committing the war crime here, it is the Ukrainian government. They have literally been caught using their own people as human shields. Does this still sound like a patriotic nationalist movement for the welfare and sovereignty of the Ukrainian people?

In November 2015, a UN resolution was brought forward by Russia condemning the glorification of Nazism. Of the total 126 member states, 53 countries including member nations of the European Union abstained from voting, four countries voted against the resolution: Canada, Palau, the United States, and Ukraine.¹⁰⁰⁴

In fact, since 2014 up to the current year, the US and Ukraine have voted with a resounding “No” to the UN resolution which is brought up every year.¹⁰⁰⁵

On January 1^st, 2022, hundreds of Ukrainian nationalists held a torchlight march in the capital of Kyiv, to mark the birthday of Stepan Bandera one of the leaders of the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and its paramilitary unit the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) who fought alongside the Nazis during WWII and massacred tens of thousands of Jews and Poles.^{^[857]} The Ukrainian nationalists were observed holding the Svoboda and UPA ‘Blood and Soil’ flag at the torchlight march.^{^[858]}

1004

https://tass.com/world/837935?utm_source=google.com&utm_medium=organic&utm_camp aign=google.com&utm_referrer=google.com.

1005

https://digitallibrary.un.org/search?ln=en&as=1&m1=e&p1=&f1=9911_0&op1=a&m2=a&p2= Combating%20glorification%20of%20Nazism%2C%20neo -

Nazism%20and%20other%20practices%20that%20contribute%20to%20fuelling%20contempo rary%20forms%20of%20racism&f2=title&op2=a&m3=a&p3=&f3=&dt=&d1d=&d1m=&d1y=&d 2d=&d2m=&d2y=&rm=&ln=en&sf=year&so=d&rg=50&c=United%20Nations%20Digital%20Lib rary%20System&of=hb&fti=0&fti=0&fct__1=Voting%20Data .

A City Upon the Hill pg. 409[JFK 1961]

I speak neither from false provincial pride nor artful political flattery. For no man about to enter high office in this country can ever be unmindful of the contribution this state has made to our national greatness.

Its leaders have shaped our destiny long before the great republic was born. Its principles have guided our footsteps in times of crisis as well as in times of calm. Its democratic institutions--including this historic body--have served as beacon lights for other nations as well as our sister states.

For what Pericles said to the Athenians has long been true of this commonwealth: “We do not imitate--for we are a model to others.”

And so it is that I carry with me from this state to that high and lonely office to which I now succeed more than fond memories of firm friendships. The enduring qualities of Massachusetts--the common threads woven by the Pilgrim and the Puritan, the fisherman and the farmer, the Yankee and the immigrant--will not be and could not be forgotten in this nation's executive mansion.

They are an indelible part of my life, my convictions, my view of the past, and my hopes for the future.

Allow me to illustrate: During the last sixty days, I have been at the task of constructing an administration. It has been a long and deliberate process. Some have counseled greater speed. Others have counseled more expedient tests.

But I have been guided by the standard John Winthrop set before his shipmates on the flagship Arbella three hundred and thirty-one years ago, as they, too, faced the task of building a new government on a perilous frontier.

“We must always consider,” he said, “that we shall be as a city upon a hill - the eyes of all people are upon us.”

Today the eyes of all people are truly upon us--and our governments, in every branch, at every level, national, state and local, must be as a city upon a hill - constructed and inhabited by men aware of their great trust and their great responsibilities.

For we are setting out upon a voyage in 1961 no less hazardous than that undertaken by the Arabella in 1630. We are committing ourselves to tasks of statecraft no less awesome than that of governing the Massachusetts Bay Colony, beset as it was then by terror without and disorder within.

History will not judge our endeavors - and a government cannot be selected - merely on the basis of color or creed or even party affiliation. Neither will competence and loyalty and stature, while essential to the utmost, suffice in times such as these.

For of those to whom much is given, much is required. And when at some future date the high court of history sits in judgment on each one of us - recording whether in our brief span of service we fulfilled our responsibilities to the state - our success or failure, in whatever office we may hold, will be measured by the answers to four questions:

First, were we truly men of courage - with the courage to stand up to one's enemies - and the courage to stand up, when necessary, to one's associates - the courage to resist public pressure, as well as private greed?

Secondly, were we truly men of judgment - with perceptive judgment of the future as well as the past - of our own mistakes as well as the mistakes of others - with enough wisdom to know that we did not know, and enough candor to admit it?

Third, were we truly men of integrity - men who never ran out on either the principles in which they believed or the people who believed in them - men who believed in us - men whom neither financial gain nor political ambition could ever divert from the fulfillment of our sacred trust?

Finally, were we truly men of dedication - with an honor mortgaged to no single individual or group, and compromised by no private obligation or aim, but devoted solely to serving the public good and the national interest.

Courage – judgment – integrity - dedication--these are the historic qualities of the Bay Colony and the Bay State - the qualities which this state has consistently sent to this chamber on Beacon Hill here in Boston and to Capitol Hill back in Washington.

And these are the qualities which, with God's help, this son of Massachusetts hopes will characterize our government's conduct in the four stormy years that lie ahead.

Humbly I ask His help in that undertaking--but aware that on earth His will is worked by men. I ask for your help and your prayers, as I embark on this new and solemn journey.

- President Kennedy’s speech “The City Upon a Hill” January 9, 1961.

Appendix I The Origins of the Milner-Rhodes Round Table Movement pg. 411

By Matthew Ehret

The Round Table movement served as the intellectual center of the international operations to regain control of the British Empire and took on several incarnations over the 20th century. The historian Carroll Quigley, of Georgetown University wrote of this cabal in his posthumously published[iv] [edition of] Anglo-American Establishment. Quigley writes:^{^[859]}

“This organization has been able to conceal its existence quite successfully, and many of its most influential members, satisfied to possess the reality rather than the appearance of power, are unknown even to close students of British history. This is the more surprising when we learn that one of the chief methods by which this Group works has been through propaganda.

It plotted the Jameson Raid of 1895; it caused the Boer War of 1899-1902; it set up and controls the Rhodes Trust; it created the Union of South Africa in 19061910; it established the South African periodical The State in 1908; it founded the British Empire periodical The Round Table in 1910, and this remains the mouthpiece of the Group; it has been the most powerful single influence in All Souls, Balliol, and New Colleges at Oxford for more than a generation; it has controlled The Times for more than fifty years, with the exception of the three years 1919-1922, it publicized the idea of and the name ‘British Commonwealth of Nations’ in the period 1908-1918, it was the chief influence in Lloyd George’s war administration in 1917-1919 and dominated the British delegation to the Peace Conference of 1919; it had a great deal to do with the formation and management of the League of Nations and of the system of mandates; it founded the Royal Institute of International Affairs in 1919 and still controls it; it was one of the chief influences on British policy toward Ireland, Palestine, and India in the period 1917-1945; it was a very important influence on the policy of appeasement of Germany during the years 1920-1940; and it controlled and still

controls, to a very considerable extent, the sources and the writing of the history of British Imperial and foreign policy since the Boer War.”

To understand the pedigree of the Round Table movement as it was officially unveiled in 1910 as the ideological shaper of the policies and paradigm of the new ‘managerial class’ of international imperialists dedicated to the salvation of the British Empire under an ‘Imperial Federation’, it would be [is now -FNC] necessary to go back a few decades prior to 1873-74. It was in this year that a young Canadian named George Parkin lectured at Oxford on the subject imperial union as the sacred duty of all Anglo Saxons to advance. Parkin is popularly heralded by Oxford historians as “the man who shifted the mind of England”.

1873-1902 Empire on the Verge of Collapse:

Re-organize or Perish

During this same period, a grouping of imperial intellectuals known as the ‘X Club’ (f. 1865) centering on Thomas Huxley, Matthew Arnold, Herbert Spencer and Joseph Hooker were assigned the responsibility to overhaul the British Empire’s controlling ideological structures that had proven themselves worn out. Each would specialize on various branches of the sciences and would all promote gradualist interpretations of change to counteract explanations which required creative leaps. This program was applied with the intention of:

1) saving the collapsing empire and

2) establishing the foundation of a new scientific religion based upon Charles Darwin’s highly materialistic model of Natural Selection as the explanation for the evolution and differentiation of new species.

As X Club co-founder Herbert Spencer went on to elaborate the system of ‘Social Darwinism’ as the logical outgrowth of Darwin’s system into human affairs, the intention behind the propagation of the Darwinian program was never “the enlightenment liberalism in battle against the ignorant dogmas of religion”, as it is so often recounted by popular historians of science. Rather, the “revolution in science” initiated by the X Club was merely the re-packaging of an idea as old as Babylon: The control of the masses by a system of oligarchical rule, simply under a new type of ‘scientific dictatorship’. But how, when the demonstration of creative reason’s power to elevate humanity’s conditions of life by encouraging new discoveries and applied technologies, as promoted by the American System of Political Economy, would the world now accept the conditions of mental and political enslavement demanded by the imperialist in a fixed system struggle for diminishing returns?

This was the challenge upon which young Oxford men would set their creative energies using the ‘scientific’ reasoning established by Thomas Huxley’s X Club and for the service of the ruling oligarchical families of Europe. George Parkin like all young Oxford men at this time, was highly influenced by this network’s ideas, and used them to justify the “natural scientific inevitability” of the hegemony of the strong over the weak. In this case, the Anglo-Saxon master race dominating the inferior peoples of the earth. This message could be seen in his 1892 work Imperial Federation: “Nations take long to grow, but there are periods when, as in the long delayed flowering of certain plants, or in the crystallization of chemical solutions, new forms are taken with extreme rapidity. There are the strongest reasons for believing that the British nation has such a period immediately before it. The necessity for the creation of a body of sound public opinion upon the relations to each other of the various parts of the Empire is therefore urgent.”^{^[860]}

In elaborating upon the danger of the British System’s collapse in light of nationalist movements following the American System model, Parkin went on to ask: “Has our capacity for political organization reached its utmost limit? For the British people this is the question of questions. In the whole range of possible political variations in the future there is no issue of such far reaching significance, not merely for our own people but for the world at large, as the question whether the British Empire shall remain a political unit… or yielding to disintegrating forces, shall allow the stream of the national life to be parted into many separate channels.”¹⁰¹⁰

One of Parkin’s Oxford contemporaries was Alfred Milner, a character who plays a vicious role in our drama as the catalyzer behind the formation of the Round Table Movement. Milner credited Parkin with giving his life direction from that point on.^{^[861]} It was during 1876 that another contemporary of Milner and Parkin, named Cecil Rhodes left Oxford in order to make a fortune on a cotton plantation in South Africa. All three characters were also highly influenced by John Ruskin, the leader of the ‘artistic’ branch of British Intelligence led by the ‘Pre-Raphaelite Society’.

The proceeds of Rhodes’ cotton fortune were multiplied many times by ventures into the diamond industry of South Africa, allowing him to rise to gargantuan heights of political power and wealth, peaking with his appointment as Prime Minister of Cape Town and Founder of Rhodesia. The current London-centered mineral cartels Rio Tinto, De Beers, and Lonrho now pillaging Africa, as well as the legacy of Apartheid which has stained so much of South Africa’s history are among two aspects of the scarring legacy Rhodes has passed down to present times.

Between 1876 and his becoming High Commissioner to South Africa in 1897, Milner’s path slightly diverged from Rhodes. Milner was recruited by the editor of the Pall Mall Gazette William T. Stead and became associate editor soon thereafter. The Gazette’s function was set out in the Pall Mall Gospel, a short mission statement which Stead demanded all of his employees abide to: “The Federation of the British Empire is the condition of its survival… as an Empire we

must federate or perish.” The gospel also propagandized for the “inevitable destiny” that the USA and Britain “coalesce”.^{^[862]}

The role which the Pall Mall played in coordinating a cohesive vision of empire was the model followed by Milner and his minions later as they ran the Round Table periodicals. Stead was officially recruited to the grand design in 1889 which was instigated by Rhodes and his sponsor Lord Rothschild. It was when Stead had been recently released for prison due to his Gazette’s promotion of “organized vice” only to find his paper in serious financial trouble, when he was first called upon by Cecil Rhodes, a long-time follower of his journal in South Africa. After their first meeting, Stead ecstatically wrote to his wife:

“Mr. Rhodes is my man! I have just had three hours talk with him. He is full of a far more gorgeous idea in connection with the paper than even I have had. I cannot tell you his scheme because it is too secret. But it involves millions. He had no idea that it would cost £250,000 to start a paper. But he offered me down as a free gift £20,000 to buy a share in the P.M. Gazette as a beginning… His ideas are federation, expansion, and consolidation of the Empire…. He took to me. Told me some things he has told no other man—save Lord Rothschild— and pressed me to take the £20,000, not to have any return, to give no receipt, to simply take it and use it to give me a freer hand on the P.M.G. It seems all like a fairy dream….”^{^[863]}

Quigley demonstrates that both Milner and Stead had become active members of the agenda laid out by Cecil Rhodes. But what was this agenda? In a series of seven wills written between 1877 and 1901, Rhodes, the unapologetic racist, laid out his designs for the re-conquering of the world and indoctrinating young elites into his design:

“Let us form the same kind of society, a Church for the extension of the British

Empire. A society which should have its members in every part of the British

Empire working with one object and one idea we should have its members placed at our universities and our schools and should watch the English youth passing through their hands just one perhaps in every thousand would have the mind and feelings for such an object, he should be tried in every way, he should be tested whether he is endurant, possessed of eloquence, disregardful of the petty details of life, and if found to be such, then elected and bound by oath to serve for the rest of his life in his Country. He should then be supported if without means by the Society and sent to that part of the Empire where it was felt he was needed.”^{^[864]}

In another will, Rhodes described in more detail his intention:

“To and for the establishment, promotion and development of a Secret Society, the true aim and object whereof shall be for the extension of British rule throughout the world. The colonization by British subjects of all lands where the means of livelihood are attainable by energy, labour, and enterprise and especially the occupation by British settlers of the entire Continent of Africa, the Holy Land, the Valley of the Euphrates, the islands of Cyprus and Candia, the whole of South America, the islands of the Pacific not heretofore possessed by Great Britain, the whole of the Malay Archipelago, these aboard of China and Japan, [and] the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire.”^{^[865]}

It was under this specific design to create an indoctrination system of talented young disciples that Rhodes’ dream of stealing the world and reconquering America that the Rhodes Trust was established upon his death in 1902. Some historians have maintained that since Rhodes doesn’t literally bring up his call for a secret society in his last two wills, he must have ‘matured’ and left those notions behind him. Yet Professor Quigley points out, that the belief pushed by such ‘authoritative’ historians is a farce, evidenced by George Parkin’s revealing observation taken from his book The Rhodes Scholarship, published in 1912: “It is essential to remember that this final will is consistent with those which had preceded it, that it was no late atonement for errors, as some have supposed, but was the realization of life-long dreams persistently pursued.”^{^[866]}

Upon Rhodes’ death, George Parkin became the first head of the Rhodes Scholarship Trust in 1902 leaving his post as Principal of Upper Canada College (1895-1902) to fulfill his duty. It was under this post that Parkin recruited fellow

Upper Canada College professor Edward Peacock, who joined him as a Rhodes trustee and promoter of what became the Canadian branches of the Round Table movement. While organizing for the ouster of Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier and the defeat of the 1911 Reciprocity Treaty, this group recruited young talented disciples from their college connections along the way. The model of the Round Table involved a central coordinating body in London, with branches strategically placed throughout the Commonwealth in order to provide one vision and voice to the young and talented ‘upper managerial class’ of the reformed [i.e., re – formed. –FNC] British Empire. Parkin and Peacock were joined by Lord Alfred Milner, Sir Arthur Glazebrook, W.T. Stead, Arthur Balfour and Lord Nathan Rothschild as co-trustees.

Working in tandem with the eugenicists of the Fabian Society of Sidney and Beatrice Webb, Balfour had founded the first International Eugenics Conference in 1912 alongside enthusiastic recruits such as young Roundtable member Winston Churchill. Charles Darwin’s cousin and founder of eugenics, Sir Francis Galton died mere weeks before being able to keynote the conference. The Fabian Society and its sister organization ‘The Co-efficients Club’ featured such other prominent eugenicists as Bertrand Russell, Halford Mackinder, H.G. Wells and George Bernard Shaw, and later Harold Laski and John Maynard Keynes. Membership rosters of either organization frequently overlapped.^{^[867]}

Much of the dirty work conducted by the original Roundtable movement was run primarily by the group of young Oxford men who got their start managing imperial affairs under Milner during the Boer War suppression of the Transvaal (South African) uprising of 1899 to 1902. Of this Kindergarten, Philip Kerr and Lionel Curtis were tasked with coordinating the Canadian branches from London

(with Parkin and Peacock leading from Canada). While Oxford had long been the

indoctrination center of young elites for centuries prior, now with the Rhodes Scholarship program in place, a new level of standardization had been initiated. The new program provided scholarships to young talent primarily throughout the Anglo-Saxon family of nations which Rhodes yearned to see reabsorbed under one Aryan umbrella[v]. The Fabian Society had founded the London School of Economics (LSE) for similar purposes. Both the LSE and Oxford have worked hand in hand at crafting agents of imperial change throughout the entire 20^th century.^{^[868]}

Each student, upon selection, would be provided a scholarship to Oxford University, a generous stipend, and red-carpet treatment into the upper echelons of the ruling oligarchical social networks, if the student so willed. Each student was returned to their home country enflamed with a burning desire to fulfill the objectives of the British Empire and advance ‘the scientific management of society’. Their talents were expressed either in elected office, working in the civil service, media, law, the private sector or in academia. In most cases, these scholars acted upon the Fabian method of ‘permeation theory’… slowly permeating all levels of society’s controlling structures in order to shape perception and shift the invisible structures controlling mass behaviour

1. away from a current of progress and love of truth and

2. towards a materialistic struggle for survival.

Each year, one scholarship was granted to each of the Canadian provinces (with the exception of P.E.I) and 32 were granted to the United States. To the present date, approximately 7000 scholarships have been awarded with increasing openness to the non-Aryan countries to service the imperial agenda.

Appendix II
A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing:
the Fabian Society pg. 420

The Fabian Society was founded on January 4^th, 1884 in London as an offshoot of The Fellowship of the New Life, which in turn was founded just one year earlier by Scottish philosopher Thomas Davidson. The Fellowship advocated pacifism, vegetarianism and simple living, under the influence of Leo Tolstoy’s ideas.^{^[869]} Some of its members also wanted to become politically involved in transforming society which led to the formation of the Fabian Society.

One of the nine founding members of the Fabian Society was Frank Podmore, who was also an influential member of the Society for Psychical Research.

Alfred Russell Wallace, William Crookes, F.W.H. Myers and renown psychologist William James’ work on mediums, telepathy and materializations led to the founding of the Society of Psychical Research, the Theosophical Society and their American branches. Alfred Russell Wallace was a close associate of T.H. Huxley (Darwin’s bulldog) and co-founded the theory of natural selection alongside Charles Darwin.

The Fabian Society was greatly influenced by the ideas of Darwinism. Much of what they supported in terms of ideologies and philosophies was for the purpose of advancing Darwinism and saw Karl Marx’s newly published system as the perfect vehicle to carry Darwin’s logic into a controlling ideology to organize the masses.

Karl Marx himself was very much drawn to the ideas of Darwin, including two explicit references to Darwin and evolution in the second edition of Das Kapital.^{^[870]} In a book review of the first volume of Das Kapital, Engels wrote that Marx was “simply striving to establish the same gradual process of transformation demonstrated by Darwin in natural history as a law in the social field.”¹⁰²¹

The Fabian Society would define itself as a socialist movement, influenced by Karl Marx and the Marxist Social Democratic Federation soon founding England’s Labour Party in 1900. The party’s constitution was written by Fabian Society leader Sidney Webb and borrowed heavily from the founding documents of the Fabian Society. Immediately upon its inception, the society featured such prominent eugenicists such as

· George Bernard Shaw,

· Thomas Huxley’s protégé H.G. Wells,

· Arthur Balfour, founder of Geopolitics

· Halford Mackinder and

· Bertrand Russell.

Prominent Theosophist Annie Besant would also become a member of the Fabian Society upon its inception and was the leading speaker for both the Fabian Society and the Marxist Social Democratic Federation.

At the core of the Fabian Society were Sidney and Beatrice Webb, who would also help co-found the London School of Economics (LSE), with Rothschild funding, to propagate the Fabian Society outlook in 1895. Harold Laski, one of Britain’s most influential intellectual spokesmen for Marxism, would become a Fabian Society member, a professor at the LSE (1926-1950), and a chairman of the British Labour Party (1945-1946). Bertrand Russell would teach social democracy at LSE from 1895-1896 and from 1937-1938 lectured on the science of power. On the official site of LSE^{^[871]}, Russell is credited as “one of the spiritual and financial founders of LSE…[whose] involvement in the early life of the School helped to define its ethos.”

The Coefficients club was also set up by Sidney and Beatrice Webb and included among its membership H.G. Wells and Bertrand Russell, as well as Leo Amery, Harold Laski, Halford Mackinder (who was Director of the LSE from 1903-1908), Alfred Milner and Clinton Edward Dawkins (the three times great uncle to the British evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins).

The name ‘Fabian’ is derived from the Roman General Quintus Fabius, known as the Cunctator from his strategy of delaying his attacks against the invading Carthaginians until the right moment, and who’s [whose] fame is founded on having beaten Hannibal by never engaging in direct combat.

In the founding Fabian document, it is written:^{^[872]}

“For the right moment you must wait, as Fabius did most patiently, when warring against Hannibal, though many censured his delays; but when the time comes you must strike hard, as Fabius did, or your waiting will be in vain, and fruitless.”

Fabians would advocate the strategy of permeation, whereby you affect the change you want to see by slowly permeating all levels of society’s controlling structures. Once you have permeated sufficiently you can strike collectively and essentially take over from within. It would be a technique that the Trotskyists would become notorious for, such as with the French Turn[vi].

As Matthew Ehret wrote in his “Origins of the Deep State”:^{^[873]}

“The Fabian society program focused on broad social welfare programs such as universal health care, mass education, and better working conditions which were designed to attract the disenfranchised masses. Under the Fabian program, such programs held no substance in reality, as the true means to justify their creation was banned…[that is]…true scientific and technological progress…

This ruse was thus designed to merely bring the will of the lower classes under the deeper influence of a ruling oligarchy via the promise of ‘democratic socialism’ and a naïvely utopian ‘end of history’ ideal…The controllers of Fabian Socialism are not, nor have they ever been ‘democratic socialists’…” At its heart, Fabianism was merely fascism with a ‘scientific’ socialist face.

Matthew Ehret continues:

“The Round Table movement served as the intellectual center of the international operations to regain control of the British Empire and took on several incarnations over the 20th century. It worked in tandem with the Coefficients

Club, the Fabian Society, and the Rhodes Trust, all of whom witnessed members moving in and out of each others ranks.”

H.G. Wells was chairman of the League of Free Nations Association and published his call for ‘world peace’ in his book The Idea of a League of Nations published in 1919. The purpose was again to lure people in with glorious promises of a ‘social democracy’ while in fact weakening nation states such that they would be unable to resist the coming of a new world empire.

H.G. Wells would publish The New World Order in 1940 and was no doubt the guiding influence on Julian Huxley’s outlook when he wrote the manifesto for UNESCO.^{^[874]}

Bertrand Russell’s ‘Proposed Roads to Freedom’

In 1918, Russell published Proposed Roads to Freedom: Socialism, Anarchism and Syndicalism. Here are some relevant quotes:

“My own opinion – which I may as well indicate at the outset – is that pure Anarchism, though it should be the ultimate ideal, to which society should continually approximate, is for the present impossible…On the other hand, both Marxian Socialism and Syndicalism, in spite of many drawbacks, seem to me calculated to give rise to a happier and better world than that in which we live. I do not, however, regard either of them as the best practicable system…The best practicable system, to my mind, is that of Guild Socialism, which concedes what is valid both in the claims of the State Socialists and in the Syndicalist fear of the State by adopting a system of federalism among trades for reasons similar to those which have recommended federalism among nations.”

“The terrorist campaign in which such men as Ravachol were active practically came to an end in 1894. After that time, under the influence of Pelloutier, the better sort of Anarchists found a less harmful outlet by advocating Revolutionary Syndicalism in the Trade Unions and Bourse de Travail.”

“In England Marx has never had many followers. Socialism here has been inspired in the main by the Fabians…What remained was State Socialism and a doctrine of ‘permeation.’ Civil servants were to be permeated with the realization that Socialism would enormously increase their power. Trade Unions were to be permeated with the belief that the day for purely industrial action was pasts, and

that they must look to Government (inspired secretly by sympathetic civil servants) to bring about, bit by bit, such parts of the Socialist programme as were not likely to rouse much hostility in the rich. The Independent Labour Party…was largely inspired at first by the ideas of the Fabians…It aimed always at cooperation with the industrial organizations of wage-earners, and chiefly through its efforts, the Labour Party was formed in 1900 out of a combination of the Trade Unions and the political Socialists. To this party, since 1909, all the important Unions have belonged, but in spite of the fact that its strength is derived from Trade Unions, it has stood always for political rather than industrial action.”

“Anarchism, which avoids the dangers of State Socialism, has dangers and difficulties of its own…Nevertheless it remains an ideal to which we should wish to approach as nearly as possible, and which, in some distant age, we hope may be reached completely…The system we have advocated is a form of Guild Socialism, leaning more, perhaps, towards Anarchism than the official Guildsman would wholly approve. It is in the matters that politicians usually ignore – science and art, human relations, and the joy of life – that Anarchism is strongest… ”

In his Proposed Roads to Freedom Russell makes it clear that he is most sympathetic to the philosophy of Mikhail Bakunin and Prince Kropotkin, who were both involved with the Mounte Verità society, a sister branch to the Theosophists.^{^[875]}

Interestingly, Russell’s “proposed roads to freedom”, that is, socialism, anarchism and syndicalism all lead to the same destination point…the League of Nations.

Russell writes:

“If the peace of the world is ever to become secure, I believe there will have to be, along with other changes, a development of the idea which inspires the project of a League of Nations.”

Thus, Russell is all for minimizing the power of the State until we can reach the ‘ideal,’ in the form of a world empire.

The Unity of Science: Radical Positivists, Eugenicists, and Anarchists Unite

The Vienna Circle of Logical Empiricism was a group of philosophers and scientists who met regularly from 1924 to 1936 at the University of Vienna. The Vienna Circle’s influence on 20th-century philosophy, especially philosophy of science and analytic philosophy, is immense up to the present day.

The philosophical position of the Vienna Circle was called logical empiricism (aka: logical positivism). It was greatly influenced by such members as Ernst Mach, David Hilbert, and Bertrand Russell. The Vienna Circle was committed to the ideals of the Enlightenment and its aim was to make philosophy ‘scientific’ with the help of modern logic. This was very much along the line of what David Hilbert (member of the Vienna Circle) had called for at the International Congress of Mathematicians in 1900, whereby Hilbert put forth the thesis that all scientific knowledge should be reduced to the form of mathematical ‘logic.’ Thus, all ‘scientific’ knowledge would henceforth be solely deducible from mathematical models.

In 1900, Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead (who taught Russell) set forth to achieve Hilbert’s challenge which resulted in the three volume Principia Mathematica published thirteen years later. The Principia would be the new Bible in many ways for generations of analytical philosophers and logical positivists.

Continuing along these lines, the Unity of Science Movement was organized in the late 1930s by former members of the Vienna Circle of Logical Empiricists, such as Rudolf Carnap, Otto Neurath, and new members such as Ernest Nagel. The greatest aim being to create an encyclopedia that would establish how the unity of sciences should proceed, bringing together intellectuals to establish a fortress against the chaotic terrain of politics, which was extremely adverse to the ‘ideals’ of a ‘scientific’ way of life. All contributors to this process agreed that the progress of science should eventually create a ‘scientific world-conception,’ helping to build (or control) a big picture of what science means.

The Encyclopedia of Unified Science would be published by the movement with this aim. The first edition came out in 1938 and was co-written by Otto Neurath, Rudolf Carnap, Charles Morris, John Dewey, Niels Bohr and Bertrand Russell.

Interestingly, science fiction was considered just as important as the logic of science to this world-conception.^{^[876]} Though H.G. Wells was not an official member of this movement, we should keep in mind that he was always committed to the same goals as Russell. Wells was not only a world-famous writer of science fiction, but was also working on his own new secular Bible series in three books designed to unite all forms of knowledge. The three books to H.G. Wells’ self-declared “new Bible” were: The Outline of History (1919), The Science of Life (1929), and The Work, Wealth, and Happiness of Mankind (1932)

The Science of Life was co-written with Julian Huxley and meant to give a popular account of all major aspects of biology as known in the 1920s. It is credited with introducing modern ecological concepts and emphasised the importance of behaviourism and Jungian psychology (Jung was a member of the Mounte Verità society¹⁰²⁸). It also promoted Eugenics.

Julian Huxley, Vice President (1937-1944) and President of the British Eugenics Society (1959-1962) was the one to coin the term “transhumanism.”^{^[877]} Julian was also the first director-general of UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) in 1946, to which he wrote its mandate “UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy.”¹⁰³⁰

Norbert Wiener was taught by Bertrand Russell at Cambridge and by David Hilbert at the University of Göttingen. He would go on to found “cybernetics.”^{^[878]}

John Dewey, a member of the Unity of Sciences movement, would greatly dictate and shape a global educational reform, which was promoted by UNESCO^{^[879]}, and has immense influence to this day.

It was clear that along with a world government, you would need a worldconception of what is regarded or approved of as ‘scientific,’ all else would be thrown into the dust bin and would be considered unfit to shape policy. This was enforced by the construct of a global education system to implement the ‘right’ sort of ideas and forbid the ‘wrong’ sort.

Russell would put it forth most succinctly in his The Scientific Outlook (1931):

“The scientific rulers will provide one kind of education for ordinary men and women and another for those who are to become holders of scientific power. Ordinary men and women will be expected to be docile, industrious, punctual, thoughtless and contented. Of these qualities, probably contentment will be considered the most important. In order to produce it, all the researchers of psycho-analysis, behaviorism and biochemistry will be brought into play… all the boys and girls will learn from an early age to be what is called “cooperative” i.e.: to do exactly what every body else is doing. Initiative will be discouraged in these children, and insubordination, without being punished will be scientifically trained out of them.”

In 1951, Russell would update this creepy piece of work publishing The Impact of Science on Society and make it even creepier, writing:

“It may be hoped that in time anybody will be able to persuade anybody of anything if he can catch the patient young and is provided by the State with money and equipment… This subject will make great strides when it is taken up by scientists under a scientific dictatorship. Anaxagoras maintained that snow is black, but no one believed him. The social psychologists of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. Various results will soon be arrived at. First, that the influence of home is obstructive. Second, that not much can be done unless indoctrination begins before the age of ten. Third, that verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective. Fourth, that the opinion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity. It is for future scientists to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black, and how much less it would cost to make them believe it is dark gray.”

If you think that sounds awfully similar to Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, it is because it is, in fact Russell was contemplating charging Aldous with plagiarism.^{^[880]}

Appendix III Roosevelt vs. Keynes’ New Deal pg. 428

By Matthew Ehret

Seventy-five years of revisionist historians largely funded by the British Roundtable/Chatham House and its American branch (The Council on Foreign Relations) have obstructed the true anti-imperial nature of the founding intention of Bretton Woods and the post war order centered on the United Nations.

Then, much as today, two opposing factions were vying to shape the essence of the world order as the Nazi machine (funded by Wall Street and London’s Bank of International Settlements) was drawing to a close.

In case anyone was confused about these factions, I am not speaking of capitalism vs. communism.

This faction fight in question was between New Deal nationalists led by Franklin Roosevelt vs those racist imperialists represented by Sir Winston Churchill who wished to use the crisis of the war to establish a revived British Empire strengthened by American muscle. FDR’s New Dealers were characterized by their total adherence to the belief that the plague of colonialism had to be undone and a new age of long-term development of great infrastructure projects had to characterize the community of sovereign nations for the coming century. These patriots believed in the internationalization of the New Deal, were committed to working with Russia and China as natural allies of America and profoundly distrusted the British.

In the case of Bretton Woods, where representatives from 44 nations convened for two weeks to create a new post war system in July 1944, this fight amounted to a battle between FDR’s trusted economic advisor Harry Dexter White (first director of the IMF and ally of FDR’s vice-president Henry Wallace) and Lord John Maynard Keynes (eugenicist, pedophile^{^[881]} and defender of the British Empire).

Churchill and Keynes: Hard Racist and Soft Racist of the Empire

Where Churchill represented the unapologetic conservative proponent of the “White Man’s Burden” to exercise dominion over the ‘inferior’ colored peoples of the earth, Keynes represented the soft cop of the Empire as a ‘Fabian Society Socialist’ (aka: Social Engineer) from the London School of Economics. Where Churchill’s ilk preferred mowing down their enemies with Canons, body counts and torture as seen in the Boer War or Opium wars or WWI, Keynes’ Fabian methods preferred attrition and slow subversion. Whichever way, the result of either pathway was the same.

While many know of the racist and pro-fascist views of Sir Churchill, who spoke admiringly of Mussolini and even Hitler,^{^[882]} in the early days when it was still believed that these fascists and corporatists would act as marcher lords for the financial oligarchy, but most people are unaware that Keynes also supported Hitler and despised FDR.

Contradicting the mythos that FDR was a Keynesian, FDR’s assistant Francis Perkins recorded the 1934 interaction between the two men when Roosevelt told her:^{^[883]}

‘I saw your friend Keynes. He left a whole rigmarole of figures. He must be a mathematician rather than a political economist.’ In response Keynes, who was then trying to coopt the intellectual narrative of the New Deal stated he had ‘supposed the President was more literate, economically speaking’.

Keynes the Fabian Eugenicist

Although Keynes is heralded as the guiding light of the New Deal (and, as such defended by modern Green New Dealers and Great Reset technocrats wishing to impose a top-down system of governance onto the world), the fact is that Keynes not only detested Franklin Roosevelt, but also humanity more in general.

This will be seen clearly in 1) his devotion to the theories of Thomas Malthus, 2) his promotion of eugenics as a science of racial purification and population control, and 3) his general devotion to World Government as a leading member of the Fabian Society.

From his earliest days at Cambridge where he rose quickly to become one of the select Cambridge Apostles^{^[884]}, Keynes devoted himself to the service of empire, becoming Knight of the Order of Bath and Order of Leopold by 1919.

His early 1911 book on Indian Currency and Finance^{^[885]} (conducted during his five-year foray in the Empire’s Indian Office) ignored all actual political reasons for the famines plaguing India and argued coldly for a greater integration of the Indian banking system into the City of London controls which would somehow solve India’s problems. The provable reality was that Indian famines were coordinated tools of population control^{^[886]} by the Malthusian elite of the British establishment who considered “war, famine and disease” as the gifts nature gave the strong to manage the weak.

While his later 1919 Consequences of the Peace appeared to be a reasonably sympathetic warning that the draconian Versailles reparations would do incredible damage and lead to a new world war, in reality, Keynes was displaying a cold sleight of hand. Serving as British Treasury representative to the Versailles Conference, Keynes never opposed fascism: he merely argued that a more liberal pathway to global fascism could be established under the direction of the Bank of England. His opposition, though, to the more violent approach preferred by conservative imperialists among the British Intelligentsia, was one of form more than substance.

Keynes and his fellow Fabians H.G. Wells, Bertrand Russell and G.B Shaw preferred the ‘slow and steady’ ‘long game’, reminiscent of the Roman general Quintus Fabius Maximus who famously fought his enemies by slow attrition rather than in full-scale confrontation.¹⁰⁴⁰ Due to the public’s general ignorance of this strategy, we celebrate these Fabian Society luminaries for their pacifism, though in reality they were just as racist, fascist and eugenics-loving as their more short-sighted, hard-stomached counterparts Sir Oswald Mosley, Lord Alfred Milner and even Winston Churchill.

Where the real solution to the hyperinflationary money printing and economic industrial shutdown of Germany during the post WWI years was to be found in the German-Russian Rapallo Agreement (destroyed with the assassination of American System Foreign Minister Walter), Keynes and his ilk merely called for economic integration of the German banking and military system under Bank of England/League of Nations control.

The 1933 London Monetary and Economic Conference

When the League of Nations failed to be accepted as the post-nation state salvation shaping a New World Order during the 1920s, Keynes was employed once more to shape the terms of the London Monetary and Economic Conference of June to July 1933 which sought to solve the global chaos induced by Great Depression.

Following the outline published by Keynes in his 1933 The Means to Prosperity, the London Economic Conference “to stabilize the world economy” was organized by the League of Nations under the guidance of the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) and Bank of England. The BIS was set up as “the Central Bank of Central Banks” in 1930 in order to facilitate WWI debt repayments and was a vital instrument for funding Nazi Germany- long after WWII began.^{^[887]} The London Economic Conference brought together 64 nations of the world under a controlled environment chaired by the British Prime Minister and opened by the King himself.

A resolution passed by the Conference’s Monetary Committee stated:^{^[888]}“The conference considers it to be essential, in order to provide an international gold standard with the necessary mechanism for satisfactory working, that independent Central Banks, with requisite powers and freedom to carry out an appropriate currency and credit policy, should be created in such developed countries as have not at present an adequate central banking institution” and that “the conference wish to reaffirm the great utility of close and continuous cooperation between Central Banks. The Bank of International Settlements should play an increasingly important part not only by improving contact, but also as an instrument for common action.”

Echoing the Bank of England’s modern fixation with ‘mathematical equilibrium’, the resolutions stated that the new global gold standard controlled by central banks was needed “to maintain a fundamental equilibrium in the balance of payments” of countries. The idea was to deprive nation states of their power to generate and direct credit for their own development.

The biggest obstacle to the success of this conference was the newly elected anti-Fascist American President Franklin Roosevelt who had already begun laying out an agenda to increase the use of national sovereign power to break up the Wall Street banks, employ protectionism and unleash constitutional practices of national credit for internal improvements. Such a grand strategy had not been seen since the days of Abraham Lincoln and many figures within the pro-fascist Wall Street networks and their London counterparts had not believed this system’s revival could possibly happen again. While the London conference was underway, FDR survived a major assassination attempt that saw the murder of the Mayor of Chicago in February 1933.

Without FDR’s dead body, the London conference met an insurmountable barrier, as FDR refused to permit any American cooperation. Roosevelt recognized the necessity for a new international system, but he also knew that it had to be organized by sovereign nation states subservient to the general welfare of the people and not central banks dedicated to the welfare of the oligarchy. Before any international changes could occur, nation states castrated from the effects of the depression had to first recover economically in order to stay above the power of the financiers.

By May 1933, the London Conference crumbled when FDR complained that the conference’s inability to address the real issues of the crisis is “a catastrophe amounting to a world tragedy” and that fixation with short term stability were “old fetishes of so-called international bankers”. FDR continued “The

United States seeks the kind of dollar which a generation hence will have the same purchasing and debt paying power as the dollar value we hope to attain in the near future. That objective means more to the good of other nations than a fixed ratio for a month or two. Exchange rate fixing is not the true answer.”

The British drafted an official statement saying “the American statement on stabilization rendered it entirely useless to continue the conference.”

As a believer in mathematical equilibrium, it is no surprise that Keynes was horrified by the concept of economic growth being revived by Franklin Roosevelt which saw the purpose of economics to be highly integrated into the function of the nation state and the mandate to constantly improve the state of scientific and technological progress without any supposed end point.

To understand the important rift between these two opposing paradigms (open vs closed systems), it is worth considering Keynes’ devotion to the philosophy of Thomas Malthus.

Keynes: Disciple of Thomas Malthus

Defining his misanthropic belief in overpopulation, British East India Company economist Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) asserted a new ‘fundamental law’ in his famous 1799 Essay on Population:

“The power of population is so superior to the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race.”

How could this crisis be avoided? Malthus answers it like only a devout imperialist could:

“We should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality; and if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague.”

Although some apologists considered Keynes an anti-Malthusian, due to his theory that overpopulation might be overcome by encouraging spending rather than savings (which would, in turn, somehow create markets and thence new factories and more growth), the reality was the opposite. Keynes not only spoke gushingly of Malthus throughout his life as one of the greatest minds of all time, but even plagiarized many of Malthus’ own theories,^{^[889]} for instance that of “demand deficiency causing unemployment and recession” outlined in his 1930 Treatise on Money. In his 1933 Essay on Malthus,^{^[890]} Keynes wrote:

“Let us think of Malthus today as the first of the Cambridge economists—as, above all, a great pioneer of the application of a frame of formal thinking to the complex confusion of the world of daily events. Malthus approached the central problems of economic theory by the best of all routes.”

In his May 2, 1914 lecture Population,^{^[891]} Keynes argued that government should “mould law and custom deliberately to bring about that density of population which there ought to be” and that “there would be more happiness in the world if the population of it were to be diminished.”

Saying that “India, Egypt and China are gravely overpopulated”, Keynes advocated using violence to defend the “superior white races” in this struggle of survival with the pacifist saying: “Almost any measures seem to me to be justified in order to protect our standard of life from injury at the hands of more prolific races. Some definite parceling out of the world may well become necessary; and I suppose that this may not improbably provoke racial wars. At any rate such wars will be about a substantial issue.”

As Acting chair of the Neo-Malthusian League, Keynes stated in 1927: “We of this society are neo-Malthusians… I believe that for the future the problem of population

will emerge in the much greater problem of Hereditary and Eugenics. Quality must become the preoccupation.”

By 1946, Keynes, still a member of the British Eugenics Society (after serving as the agency’s Vice-President from 1936-1944) wrote in The Eugenics Review: “Galton’s eccentric, sceptical, observing, flashing, cavalry-leader type of mind led him eventually to become the founder of the most important, significant and, I would add, genuine branch of sociology which exists, namely eugenics.”

This was not Ivory Tower theorizing, but concepts with very real-world significance.

By 1937, Keynes’ General Theory of Employment was published in Nazi Germany. If anyone wishes to defend the idea that the economist was somehow an antifascist defender of ‘liberal values’, let them read his own words in the preface and then either redefine ‘liberal values’ or their naïve idea of Keynes:

“I may perhaps expect to find less resistance among German readers than among English ones, when I put before them a theory of employment and production as a whole… The theory of production as a whole which is the object of this book, can be much better adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state, than the theory of production and distribution of wealth under circumstances of free competition.”^{^[892]}

Hitler himself was not only a devout eugenicist (whose racial purification policies emerged through the funding of the Rockefeller, Carnegie Foundations as well as British establishment), but was also a devout Malthusian saying:^{^[893]}

“The day will certainly come when the whole of mankind will be forced to check the augmentation of the human species, because there will be no further possibility of adjusting the productivity of the soil to the perpetual increase in the population.”

Keynes Contaminates Bretton Woods

During the Bretton Woods conference held in New Hampshire between July 120, 1944, the two opposing paradigms clashed again, much as they had done in 1776 or in 1867 over the terms of the post-war world order. On the one hand

the American System of anti-colonialism competed for a system of win-win collaboration and multipolarism, while on the other hand, the British System of zero-sum Malthusianism pushed for a unilateral Anglo-Saxon dominance over the world.

This clash took the form of the battles waged by FDR’s trusted collaborator Henry Dexter White against John Maynard Keynes at Bretton Woods, where 730 delegates representing 44 nations gathered to settle the terms of the post-war order.

Although this conference is famously associated with

1. the creation of the World Bank,

2. International Monetary Fund, and

3. General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT),

it is falsely assumed to be a Keynesian creation. Keynes’ role as representative of the British Empire, much like his earlier role at Versailles in 1919, was defined by the intention at all costs to shape the conditions of a postnation state world order on behalf of the City of London. Like Bertrand Russell and other Cambridge Apostles before and since, Keynes was trained in the sophistical deployment of statistics and mathematical logic to cover for the imperial rape of target nations.

Lord Keynes was deployed to lead the British delegation to Bretton Woods and advance a Delphic plan that called for creating an International Clearing Union controlled by the City of London denominating all payments in a common accounting unit: the Bancor.

The Bancor would be used to measure all nations’ trade or surplus deficits- expropriating surpluses by the end of the year and taxing countries with deficits. The imposition of a ‘mathematical architecture’ upon the physical (nonmathematical) systems of nations was the surest way to keep an invisible cage upon the earth under an ideal of ‘mathematical equilibrium.’ The sadistic fiscal austerity demanded by mathematical economists and other technocrats in Brussels reflect the still active force of Keynes’ spirit haunting the world today.

The Bretton Woods as a Global New Deal

In opposition to Keynes, the anti-colonial program of FDR was represented by his close ally Harry Dexter White and Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau. White (today slandered as a Soviet agent by CFR- affiliated historians) fought tooth and nail to ensure that Britain would not be in the driver’s seat of the new emerging economic system or the important mechanisms of the IMF that he would go on to lead.

White ensured the colonial economic ‘preference’ system Britain used to maintain free trade looting across its empire was destroyed, and the pound sterling did not play a primary role in global trade. Instead, a fixed exchange rate system was set up to guarantee that speculation could not run rampant over national growth strategies and the dollar (then backed by a powerful PHYSICAL economic platform) was a backbone for world trade.

At Bretton Woods, Dexter White and Henry Morgenthau reached agreements to provide vast technology transfers to help South America industrialize.^{^[894]} At the same time, large-scale programs modelled on the New Deal were presented by delegations from India, Eastern Europe, and China.^{^[895]} It is noteworthy that the Chinese delegation introduced infrastructure plans first laid out by Sun Yat-sen in his 1920 International Developmentof China^{^[896]} which both Mao, and Zhou Enlai endorsed alongside the Kuomintang’s Chiang Kai-Shek! Had these plans not been sabotaged, it is amazing to consider what sort of progress might have opened up for the Chinese 70 years before anyone heard of the term ‘Belt and Road Initiative’.

At this early stage, Russia was still happy to be a founding member of the IMF and World Bank which were designed to act as cheap lending mechanisms for long-term, low-interest, high-tech global development. Commenting on support for FDR’s post-war system of mutual interest, Stalin stated: “Can we count on the activities of this international organization being sufficiently effective? They will be effective if the Great Powers who have borne the brunt of the burden of the war against Hitler’s Germany continue to act in a spirit of unanimity and harmony. They will not be effective if this essential condition is violated”.

Just as the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) was used like a national bank to fund thousands of great infrastructure, transport, energy, and water projects during the New Deal and just as Glass-Steagall broke the monopoly of private speculative finance over the productive economy, these New Dealers wished to use the World Bank and IMF to issue long term, low interest productive credit for long-term mega infrastructure projects around the world. Not just in Europe’s reconstruction.

Leading figures among this group of patriots included Undersecretary of State Sumner Welles, FDR’s confidant Harry Hopkins, and leader of the republican party Wendell Willkie who worked closely with his democratic rival by becoming an international ‘New Deal Ambassador’. In 1942, after being deployed by FDR

on a world tour to organize an international New Deal projects in a race to end colonialism, Willkie wrote:

"In Africa, in the Middle East, throughout the Arab world, as well as in China, and the whole Far East, freedom means the orderly but scheduled abolition of the colonial system…When I say that in order to have peace this world must be free, I am only reporting that a great process has started which no man--certainly not Hitler--can stop…After centuries of ignorant and dull compliance, hundreds of million of peoples in Eastern Europe and Asia have opened the books. Old fears no longer frighten them…They are resolved, as they must be, that there is no more place for imperialism within their own society than in the society of nations.”

FDR’s battle with Churchill on this matter was well documented in his son/assistant Elliot Roosevelt’s book As He Saw It (1946):

“I’ve tried to make it clear … that while we’re [Britain’s] allies and in it to victory by their side, they must never get the idea that we’re in it just to help them hang on to their archaic, medieval empire ideas … I hope they realize they’re not senior partner; that we are not going to sit by and watch their system stultify the growth of every country in Asia and half the countries in Europe to boot.”

This vision was expressed continually by FDR in his hundreds of speeches, as well as by his Vice-President Henry Wallace, in the creation of the Atlantic Charter, and Four Freedoms. It was embedded in the defense of national sovereignty in the UN Constitution (conspicuously non-existent in the British-directed League of Nations earlier). It was meant to be the governing spirit animating the world as mankind entered a matured age of creative reason.

The Great Dream of the 21^st Century

As long as FDR was in office, this British-run hive was kept at bay, but as soon as he died, the infestation took over America and immediately began undermining everything good FDR and his allies had created.

Upon the president’s death, Harry Dexter White[vii] was ousted from his position as director of the IMF and labelled a communist agent. Henry Wallace was ousted for similar reasons and worked with White on a 1948 presidential bid as thirdparty presidential candidate. William Willkie (who had discussed creating a new party with FDR) died in October 1944, and FDR’s right hand man Harry Hopkins who did the most to initiate a close bond of friendship with Stalin, died in 1946. By 1946, Churchill ushered in the Cold War setting former allies at each other’s’ throats for the remaining 70 years while dropping nuclear bombs on a defeated Japan. Stalin bemoaned Roosevelt’s death saying, “the great dream has died”.

In the wake of FDR’s death, Keynes’ model of governance which permeated the operating system of the post-war age, ensured that the sorts of intention-driven large-scale projects that could finally end colonialism would not see the light of day.

It took the oligarchy another 25 years to dismantle the fixed exchange rate system of the Bretton Woods leading to Nixon’s 1971 floating of the U.S. dollar onto the speculative markets, converting the world ever more into a militarized casino system. Rather than used as instruments for long-term growth as they were intended, the IMF and World Bank were used as tools of debt slavery and re-colonialization as outlined in John Perkins’ Confessions of an Economic Hitman.^{^[897]}

Today the world has captured a second chance to revive the “great dream”. In the 21st century, this great dream has taken the form of the New Silk Road, led by Russia and China and joined by a growing chorus of nations yearning to exit the cage of colonialism. [Cynthia Chung has given us this volume's enormous dose of FACT based History in support anyone's understanding how Fascism and Imperialism have been reliably able to thwart the great Win-Win dream which could prevail - later in the 21^st century!]

Acronyms

ACC – Allied Clandestine Committee

ACCF – American Committee for Cultural Freedom

BCCI - Bank of Credit and Commerce International

BIS – Bank of International Settlements

CCF – Congress for Cultural Freedom

CFR – Council on Foreign Relations (American branch of RIIA)

CIC – Counterintelligence Corps (CIC)

CPC – Clandestine Planning Committee

DCI – Democrazia Christiana Italiana (Christian Democratic Party of Italy)

OAS - Organisation de l’Armee Secrete

OPC – Office of Policy Coordination

ONI – Office of Naval Intelligence

OSS – Office of Strategic Services

OUN -Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists

RIIA – Royal Institute for International Affairs (aka Chatham House)

SAS – Special Air Service (British)

SHAPE – Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (NATO)

UPA – Ukrainian Paramilitary Army

Stalin [34 results]

Ukraine [139 results]

American System [17 results]

Gladio [185 results]

Operation Gladio [62 results]

De Gaulle [55 results]

Quigley [8 results]

CIA [251 results]

Heroin [57 results]

Round Table [18 results]

Rhodes Scholarship [4 results]

Index

Abduh, Mohammed pg. 282, 283, 314,

Afghani, Jamal al Din pg. 270, 271, 281-283, 305, 314, 324,

Aginter Press pg. 63, 183, 184, 210, 240, 241, 243,

Algiers Putsch pg. 64, 197, 220, 223, 227,

Allied Clandestine Committee (ACC) pg. 178, 192, 198, 199, 214, 216

American Committee for the Defense of Trotsky pg. 361

American Committee for Cultural Freedom (ACCF) pg. 354, 378

The American System pg. 124, 126, 127, 129 - 131, 143, 413, 414, 431, 436

Amery, Julian pg. 278, 287

Amery, Leo pg. 27, 28, 30, 34, 39, 40, 75, 88, 101, 109, 110, 111, 277, 278, 287, 421

Angleton, James pg. 204, 205, 227, 253

Arab Bureau (British Cairo Office) pg. 275, 283, 321

Arc of Crisis pg. 305, 320

Asquith, Herbert Henry pg. 27, 28, 101

Atlantic Charter pg. 61, 115, 438

Baldwin, Stanley pg. 31, 36, 39, 50, 51, 55

Balfour Declaration pg. 28 – 30, 73, 93, 100, 101, 106, 277 – 279, [20 results]

Bandera, Stepan pg. 21, 161, 165 – 169, 173, 295, 390, 393, 408

Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) pg. 323 - 326

Bank of International Settlements (BIS) pg. 104, 112, 147, 148, 431,

Banna, Hassan pg. 283, 285, 319 - 322

Bay of Pigs pg. 225 – 227, 232, 240, 242, 244, 245, 246, 268

Beaverbrook (Max Aitken) pg. 27, 30, 35, 36, 39, 40, 55, 57, 60

Bissel, Richard M. pg. 197, 220, 226, 247

Bismarck, Otto pg. 125, 126

Black Sun cf. Black Sun.htm. See Chapters 5, 6, & 14.

Boothby, Robert pg. 31, 35, 36, 40, 42, 52, 53

Brzezinski, Zbigniew pg. 173, 305, 324,

British India Office pg. 101, 273, 276, 283

British Mandate of Palestine pg. 28, 29, 95, 102, 105, 106, 272, 276, 277, 279 – 281, 284,

289, 291 – 295, 297, 298, 300, 314, 317, 411,

Buckley, William F. pg. 243, 354, 380, 381,

Burnham, James see Chapter 13 father of neoconservatism

Castro, Fidel pg. 194, 222, 225, 238, 241, 243, 245 – 247, 250 – 254, 382, 386

Cecil, Robert (Lord) pg. 28, 29, 31, 32, 38, 100, 105, 124, 344, 345, 414, 415,

Chamberlain, Joseph pg. 29, 30, 42, 46, 95, 101

Chamberalin, Neville pg. 40, 55, 56, 58, 101, 110, 175, 176

Christian Democratic Party (DCI) pg. 179, 204, 207, 210

Churchill, Randolph pg. 39, 50, 52, 57

Churchill, Winston see Chapters 1, 2, 3, 6

Clandestine Planning Committee (CPC) pg. 178, 180, 197, 198,

Clean Break pg. 306,

Conein, Lucien pg. 242 – 244, 257, 268, 269

Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF) pg. 351, 354, 378

Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) pg. 105, 112, 141, 145, 436

Counterintelligence Corps (CIC) pg. 17 – 19, 62, 167, 168

Crowley, Aleister pg. 49, 56

Deacon I pg. 243, 244

DEASOG pg. 244

De Gaulle, Charles pg. 22, 64, 181, 195, 196 – 199, 220, 223, 227, 228, 230, 234, 245, 249, 251, 254, 260

Dewey, John pg. 237, 352, 354 – 356, 361, 363, 369, 378, 425, 426

Diem, Ngo Dinh pg. 229, 256, 257, 263, 266, 267, 386

Dulles, Allen pg. 145 – 149, 151, 153, 154, 156, 169, 171, 194, 197, 205, 206, 219, 220, 225, 226, 230, 231, 249, 256, 257, 258, 261, 262, 313, 358, 376, 384,

Dulles, John Foster pg. 112, 113, 118, 145, 146, 148, 149, 156, 219, 220, 244, 257, 261, 262

Eden, Anthony pg. 287

Edward VIII, King of England (later Duke of Windsor) pg. 25, 33, 51, 55 – 58, 136, 277

Eisenhower, Dwight D. pg. 112, 156, 186, 206, 219 – 221, 224, 226, 231, 232, 245, 257, 261, 264

Fabian Society pg. 29, 30, 33 – 35, 37, 45, 50, 100, 132, 356, 418 – 424, 429, 430

Farouq, King of Egypt pg. 283 – 285, 314, 322

Fascism

Fort Bragg pg. 184, 194, 249, 336

Fuller, J.F.C. pg. 48, 49, 56 - 58

Ganser, Daniele see Chapters 6, 9, & 11

Gehlen Organization pg. 20, 155, 156, 169, 238, 253, 311, 313, 315, 319, 320

Gehlen, Reinhard pg. 20, 21, 22, 151, 154 – 156, 168, 169, 253, 313

George, David Lloyd pg. 25 – 29, 31, 32, 25, 35 – 37, 39, 41, 42, 44, 50, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 101, 276, 277, 344, 411

Gladio see Chapters 1, 2, 6, 8, 11, 13, 14 [121 results]

Green Berets pg. 178, 184, 188, 249, 262, 336

Guerin-Serac, Yves pg. 181 – 184, 197, 210, 240

Haj Amin (Mufti of Jerusalem) See Chapter 11

Harvey, Bill pg. 241, 253, 254

Haushofer, Karl pg. 54, 98, 99

Hellenic Raiding Force pg. 190 - 192

Helms, Richard pg. 204, 227, 253, 254

Henry Schroder Bank pg. 112, 120, 146

Hess, Rudolf pg. 98, 99

Hitler, Adolf see Chapters 1 and 2

Hook, Sidney pg. 353 – 356, 360, 361, 369, 370, 378

HSBC see Chapter 12

Hunt, E. Howard pg. 241 – 244, 246, 252 – 254, 257, 376, 381,

Jesuit pg. 66, 67, 80, 89, 352, 366

Kalergi, Heinrich see Chapter 2

Kalergi, Richard see Chapter 2

Kennedy, John F. see Chapters 7, 8, 9

Keynes, John Maynard pg. 26, 27, 35 – 42, 368, 418, 428 - 436

Kissinger, Henry pg. 209, 358

Kuomintang pg. 140, 241, 242, 244, 437

Lamont, Thomas pg. 51, 106,

Lansdale, Edward pg. 246, 247, 255, 262, 263, 268

Lawrence, T.E. pg. 272, 275, 276, 282, 283, 322

League of Nations pg. 28, 29, 31, 32, 54, 72 – 78, 87, 93, 94, 95, 101, 103 – 105, 107 – 111,

113, 117, 124, 126 - 128, 133, 134, 138, 279, 345, 372, 375, 376, 411, 423, 424, 431, 438,

Lebed, Mykoa pg. 21, 161, 165 – 172, 319 [52 results]

Lemnitzer, Lyman pg. 201, 226, 246, 247 - 249

Lewis, Bernard pg. 305, 320

Lincoln, Abraham pg. 108, 123, 128, 129, 130, 432

Lodge, Henry Cabot pg. 244, 256, 257, 268, 342

Lumumba, Patrice pg. 64, 194, 222, 223, 254, 382, 386

Mackinder, Halford pg. 30, 34, 372, 418, 421

Matheson, Jardine pg. 140, 341, 342, 344

Maurras, Charles pg. 34, 80, 352, 353, 355, 370

Mazzini, Giuseppe pg. 69, 71, 76

MI5 pg. 43, 48, 50, 52, 56 – 59, 238

MI6 pg. 43, 52, 53, 65, 179, 180, 187, 188, 217, 218, 260, 287, 321,

Milner, Alfred pg. 27 – 30, 34, 36, 100, 101, 105, 277, 278, 344, 345, 414, 415, 417, 418, 421, 430

Minh, Ho Chi see Chapter 9

Mitford, Diana see Chapter 2

Mitford, Unity see Chapter 2

Morgan, J.P. pg. 51, 106, 107, 120, 149, 150, 267, 330, 331, 342, 358

Moro, Aldo pg. 18, 181, 206 – 208, 217

Moscow Trials pg. 361

Mosley, Oswald see Chapters 1 and 2

Muslim Brotherhood see Chapter 10 and 11

Mussolini see Chapter 1, 2 and 6

Muste, A.J. see Chapter 13

Nasser, Gamal Abdel see Chapter 10

NATO see Chapter 6, 7, 14

New Deal pg. 27, 35, 104, 105, 107, 140, 357, 358, 360, 366, 368, 428, 429, 437, 438

Nietzsche pg. 33, 34, 44, 69, 78, 112

Nixon, Richard see Chapter 8

Nkrumah, Kwame pg. 223, 308, 382

Northcliffe, (Alfred Hamrsworth) see Chapter 2

Northwood Plot see Chapter 8

OAS (Organisation de l’Armee Secrete) pg. 64, 183, 197, 228, 234, 235, 240, 243, 249, 251, 252, 254,

Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) see Chapter 8

Office of Policy Coordination (OPC) pg. 154, 171, 188, 193, 194, 197, 204, 258, 259, 351, 358, 376, 378, 379, 381, 385

Operation Mockingbird pg. 384 - 385

Operation OVERLORD pg. 186

Operation Sheepskin pg. 192

Operation Tora, Tora

Operation Unthinkable pg. 177

Opium Wars see Chapter 12

Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) see Chapter 5 [15 results]

Oswald, Lee Harvey see Chapter 7

Ottoman Empire see Chapter 10

Pius XI, Pope pg. 78 – 80, 89 [21 results]

Pius XII, Pope pg. 78 – 80 [7 results]

Ramadan, Said pg. 285, 320, 321

Reagan, Ronald pg. 262, 263, 358, 377, 386

Rothermere, Harold Harmsworth see Chapter 2

Rothschild, Louis pg. 47, 102, 138, 279

Rothschild, Walter pg. 28, 277, 278

Roosevelt, Franklin see Chapters 2, 3, 4 and Appendix III

Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) pg. 105, 145, 342, 344, 345, 411

Russell, Bertrand pg. 15, 33, 35, 52, 132 – 135, 138, 359, 363, 365, 368, 374, 375, 378, 418, 421, 423 – 427, 430, 436

Samuel, Herbert pg. 28, 45, 291, 292,

Section D pg. 43, 187, 287, 314

Schacht, Hjalmar pg. 96 – 99, 102, 112, 146,

Shaw, George Bernard pg. 29, 30, 33 – 35, 37, 44, 45, 100, 418, 421, 430

Six, Franz pg. 59, 61, 155

Skorzeny, Otto pg. 63, 64, 240, 313 – 316, 321, [19 results]

Sorel, Georges pg. 34, 44, 355, 369, 370, 371

Sykes, Mark pg. 28, 275 [14 results]

Sykes-Picot pg. 27, 28, 126, 275

Templers of Palestine pg. 312

Theosophy pg. 33, 421

Trotsky, Leon pg. 351, 353 – 363, 368,

Truman, Harry S. pg. 116, 117, 136, 142, 152, 153, 156, 191, 193, 206, 224, 230, 231, 232, 258, 373, 374

Tsar Alexander II pg. 123

Ukrainian Paramilitary Army (UPA) See Chapter 5 and 14

United Fruit Company pg. 104, 244, 246,

United Nations pg. 115 – 117, 134, 141, 222, 281, 284, 289, 372, 407, 426, 428

Versailles Treaty pg. 31, 76, 105, 106, 108, 112, 145, 344, 345, 367, 430, 436

Warren Commission pg. 230, 232 – 234, 251, 252

Webb, Sidney and Beatrice pg. 29, 30, 32, 33, 35, 100, 418, 421,

Wells, H.G. pg. 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 44, 45, 60, 73, 100, 286, 342, 418, 421, 423, 426, 430,

Wisner, Frank pg. 151, 154, 188, 193, 194, 1

97, 204, 228, 258, 358, 376, 378, 401

Zelensky [7 results]

Keywords for search, This Document

american system 22 results

burnham 254 results

fascism 192 results

gladio 185 results

operation unthinkable 5 results

drugs 28 results

heroin 58 results

opium 75 results

stay-behind 18 results

END

pg. 447

[1] Freedom of Information Act Electronic Reading Room (FOIA). (1998) Nazi War Crimes (P.L.

105-246) and

Japanese Imperial Government (P.L. 106-567) Disclosure Acts. https://web.archive.org/web/20220909072007/https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/collection /nazi -war -crimes -disclosure -act.

[2] Naftali, Timothy et al. (2005) U.S. Intelligence and The Nazis. National Archives & Cambridge University Press, pg. 338.

[3] Throughout this book anything marked in bold or underlined within a quote is to be considered as ‘emphasis added’

[4] Naftali, Timothy et al. (2005) U.S. Intelligence and The Nazis. National Archives & Cambridge University Press, pg. 338.

[5] Ibid, pg. 337.

[6] Ibid, pg. 338.

[7] Ibid, pg. 338.

[8] For more on the Nazi Final Solution, see Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Solution. Retrieved October, 2022.

[9] Naftali, Timothy et al. (2005) U.S. Intelligence and The Nazis. National Archives & Cambridge University Press, pg. 337. ¹⁰ Ibid, pg. 337.

[10] Lardner, George. (Mar. 18, 2001) CIA Declassifies Its Records On Dealings With Ex-Nazis. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/03/18/ciadeclassifies -its -records -on -dealings -with -ex -nazis/2fa93bad -62ee -42f2 -833a -b1d04bc63079/. Retrieved October 2022.

[11] Naftali, Timothy et al. (2005) U.S. Intelligence and The Nazis. National Archives & Cambridge University Press, pg. 376. ¹³ See Chapter 5.

[12] Breitman, Richard; Goda, Norman J.W. (2011) Hitler’s Shadow Nazi War Criminals, U. S. Intelligence, and the Cold War. National Archives, pg. 89.

[13] See Chapter 6.

[14] Large, David Clay. (1996) Germans to the Front: West German Rearmament in the Adenauer

Era.

[15] Wiegrefe, Klaus. (May 14, 2014) Files Uncovered: Nazi veterans Created Illegal Army. Spiegel Online. https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/wehrmacht -veterans -created -asecret -army -in -west -germany -a -969015.html. Retrieved October 2022.

[16] Rudman, Stella. (2011) Lloyd George and the Appeasement of Germany, 1919–1945.

Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

[17] Jones, Thomas. (1951). VII: In Opposition 1923–45 Lloyd George. Oxford University Press, London.

[18] Ibid.

[19] [Author’s Note: Dear reader, due to the remarkable research of historian Stephen Dorril who gathered a tremendous collection of quotes from letters, memoirs, newspapers and intelligence reports that pertain to this period, the majority of the content in this chapter comes mainly from his book Blackshirt: Sir Oswald Mosley and British fascism. In addition, I would like to reassure any reader that may be somewhat new to this subject not to be discouraged when reading this chapter since it does contain a great amount of detail that may be overwhelming at first. I chose this chapter to be first in the book because it is essential for understanding all that follows after it, however, I assure the reader not all chapters will have this amount of detail and are a much easier read. Thus, if one finds themselves feeling overwhelmed, I suggest either reading through this chapter anyway and retaining what one can and revisiting it upon completion of the entire book, which is ideal, or simply move on to the second chapter and revisit this chapter once completing the entire book. In any case, one does not need any expertise on these subjects in order to follow the general storyline. Chapters 2, 3 and 6 along with Appendix I, II & III are tightly interwoven with this chapter.] ²² Dorril, Stephen. (2006) Blackshirt: Sir Oswald Mosley and British fascism. Viking, London, New York, pg. 27. ²³ Ibid, pg. 30.

[20] For more on the difference between Roosevelt’s and Keynes’ ‘New Deal’ see Appendix III.

[21] For more on Lord Milner and his Round Table see Appendix I.

[22] Dorril, Stephen. (2006) Blackshirt: Sir Oswald Mosley and British fascism. Viking, London, New York, pg. 30.

[23] Throughout this book anything marked in bold or underlined within a quote is to be considered as ‘emphasis added’.

[24] This would also overlap with the period of Sykes-Picot, signed January 3rd, 1916, Lloyd George would enter office December 6th, 1916. The openly pro-fascist Lloyd George would oversee the British entry into Jerusalem and the establishment of the British Mandate of Palestine created mid-1919-July 1922. The Mandate of Palestine was a League of Nations mandate for the British administration following the end of the First World War in 1918. For more on this story see Chapters 2, & 10.

[25] Egerton, George W. (1978) Great Britain and the Creation of the League of Nations. The University of North Carolina Press, pg. 37-38.

[26] Egerton, George W. (1978) Great Britain and the Creation of the League of Nations. The University of North Carolina Press, pg. 65.

[27] Refer to Chapter 10 for more on Sykes-Picot and its consequence for the Middle East. ³² Stein, Leonard. (1983) The Balfour Declaration. The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, The Jewish Chronicle Publications, Jerusalem – London.

[28] Refer to Chapter 11 on Herbert Samuel’s role in the British Mandate of Palestine.

[29] Refer to Chapters 2 & 10 for more on this story.

[30] Dorril, Stephen. (2006) Blackshirt: Sir Oswald Mosley and British fascism. Viking, London, New York, pg. 42.

[31] Ibid, pg. 37.

[32] Ibid, pg. 37.

[33] For more on the Fabian Society see Appendix II.

[34] For more on this concept of imperial federalism refer to Chapter 2.

[35] Dorril, Stephen. (2006) Blackshirt: Sir Oswald Mosley and British fascism. Viking, London, New York, pg. 38-40.

[36] For more on the Sonnenkinder refer to my paper The Origins of the Counterculture Movement: A Gathering of Anarchists, Occultists and Psychoanalysts for a New Age https://cynthiachung.substack.com/p/the -origins -of -the -counterculture.

[37] Dorril, Stephen. (2006) Blackshirt: Sir Oswald Mosley and British fascism. Viking, London, New York, pg. 45.

[38] “Lords of the Underworld", Secret History, Channel 4 (23 June 1997).

[39] For a list of the political parties that existed in Britain during the 1920s-1930s see https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/reference/british -political -parties -in -churchills -time/. ⁴⁵ Dorril, Stephen. (2006) Blackshirt: Sir Oswald Mosley and British fascism. Viking, London, New York, pg. 46.

[40] For more on James Burnham’s Managerial Revolution see Chapter 13.

[41] Chung, Cynthia. (2022) Why H.G. Wells’ ‘The Shape of Things to Come’ Has Arrived Today. Through A Glass Darkly Substack https://cynthiachung.substack.com/p/why -hg -wells -theshape -of -things.

[42] Dorril, Stephen. (2006) Blackshirt: Sir Oswald Mosley and British fascism. Viking, London, New York, pg. 64.

[43] Ibid, pg. 67.

[44] See Appendix II for more on Bertrand Russell, the Fabian Society and guild socialism.

[45] Steele, Tom. (1990). Alfred Orage and the Leeds Arts Club 1893-1923. The Orage Press. p.

35.

[46] Steele, Tom. (1990). Alfred Orage and the Leeds Art Club 1893-1923. The Orage Press. pp.

33–34.

[47] Dorril, Stephen. (2006) Blackshirt: Sir Oswald Mosley and British fascism. Viking, London, New York, pg. 74.

[48] Ibid, pg. 74.

[49] Ibid, pg. 74.

[50] See Chapter 13 for more on Sorel and Maurras.

[51] Dorril, Stephen. (2006) Blackshirt: Sir Oswald Mosley and British fascism. Viking, London, New York, pg. 76. ⁵⁸ Ibid, pg. 205.

[52] Ibid, pg. 89.

[53] Ibid, pg. 88-89.

[54] Ibid, pg. 150.

[55] Ibid, pg. 88.

[56] For more on Keynes’ version of New Deal see Appendix III.

[57] Dorril, Stephen. (2006) Blackshirt: Sir Oswald Mosley and British fascism. Viking, London, New York, pg. 107.

[58] Ibid, pg. 115-116. ⁶⁶ Ibid, pg. 116.

[59] Ibid, pg. 128-129.

[60] Dorril, Stephen. (2006) Blackshirt: Sir Oswald Mosley and British fascism. Viking, London, New York.

[61] Lord Lothian was a member of Lord Alfred Milner’s Kindergarten, see Appendix I.

[62] Dorril, Stephen. (2006) Blackshirt: Sir Oswald Mosley and British fascism. Viking, London, New York, pg. 153-155.

[63] Dorril, Stephen. (2006) Blackshirt: Sir Oswald Mosley and British fascism New York, pg. 156.

[64] Ibid, pg. 157.

[65] Ibid, pg. 161.

[66] Ibid, pg. 162.

[67] Ibid, pg. 163. ⁷⁶ Ibid, pg. 171.

[68] Dorril, Stephen. (2006) Blackshirt: Sir Oswald Mosley and British fascism. Viking, London, New York, pg. 172.

[69] Ibid, pg. 173.

[70] Ibid, pg. 176.

[71] Dorril, Stephen. (2006) Blackshirt: Sir Oswald Mosley and British fascism New York, pg. 177.

[72] Ibid, pg. 181.

[73] Ibid, pg. 181-182

[74] Dorril, Stephen. (2006) Blackshirt: Sir Oswald Mosley and British fascism. Viking, London, New York, pg. 182.

[75] Ibid, pg. 184.

[76] Ibid, pg. 184.

[77] This is interesting in reference to Chapter 5.

[78] Dorril, Stephen. (2006) Blackshirt: Sir Oswald Mosley and British fascism New York, pg. 188.

[79] Ibid, pg. 189.

[80] Ibid, pg. 190.

[81] The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money By John Maynard Keynes, Feburary 1936, republished by International Relations and Security Network, Zurich Switzerland. https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/125515/1366_keynestheoryofemployment.pdf. Retrieved October 2022.

[82] See Appendix III.

[83] Dorril, Stephen. (2006) Blackshirt: Sir Oswald Mosley and British fascism. Viking, London, New York, pg. 191-193.

[84] Ibid, pg. 192-194. ⁹⁴ Ibid, pg. 194.

[85] Ibid, pg. 195-196.

[86] Section D is the British section of Gladio created by MI6. For more on Gladio see Chapter 6.

[87] Dorril, Stephen. (2006) Blackshirt: Sir Oswald Mosley and British fascism. Viking, London, New York, pg. 197.

[88] Ibid, pg. 207. ⁹⁹ Ibid, pg. 211.

[89] For more on Well’s concept of “scientific fascism” see my papers The 20^th Century Descent of Man and Why H.G. Wells’ ‘The Shape of Things to Come’ Has Arrived Today which can be found on my Substack Through A Glass Darkly.

[90] Dorril, Stephen. (2006) Blackshirt: Sir Oswald Mosley and British fascism. Viking, London, New York, pg. 217.

[91] Ibid, pg. 217-219.

[92] Ibid, pg. 218-219.

[93] Ibid, pg. 218-221.

[94] Ibid, pg. 228.

[95] Refer to Chapter 2 for more on Pan-Europeanism.

[96] Dorril, Stephen. (2006) Blackshirt: Sir Oswald Mosley and British fascism. Viking, London, New York, pg. 234.

[97] Ibid, pg. 254-255.

[98] For more on this antisemitic, pro-fascist outlook of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ Jews refer to Chapter 2.

[99] Dorril, Stephen. (2006) Blackshirt: Sir Oswald Mosley and British fascism. Viking, London, New York, pg. 25.

[100] Ibid, pg. 291

[101] Ibid, pg. 254, 291. ¹¹³ Ibid, pg. 455.

[102] For more on this refer to Chapter 2.

[103] Dorril, Stephen. (2006) Blackshirt: Sir Oswald Mosley and British fascism. Viking, London, New York, pg. 264.

[104] Ibid, pg. 264.

[105] The British Empire Union (BEU) was created in the United Kingdom during the First World War, in 1916, after changing its name from the Anti-German Union, which had been founded in April 1915.

[106] Dorril, Stephen. (2006) Blackshirt: Sir Oswald Mosley and British fascism. Viking, London, New York, pg. 197.

[107] For more on Operation Gladio see Chapter 6.

[108] Dorril, Stephen. (2006) Blackshirt: Sir Oswald Mosley and British fascism. Viking, London, New York, pg. 275.

[109] Ibid, pg. 354. ¹²² Ibid, pg. 280.

[110] Refer to Chapter 2 for more on this “antisemitism derived from an apartheid perspective”. ¹²⁴ Dorril, Stephen. (2006) Blackshirt: Sir Oswald Mosley and British fascism. Viking, London, New York, pg. 334.

[111] For more on the Fabian technique of permeation see Appendix II.

[112] Dorril, Stephen. (2006) Blackshirt: Sir Oswald Mosley and British fascism. Viking, London, New York, pg. 335.

[113] Ibid, pg. 370-371. ¹²⁸ Ibid, pg. 372.

[114] Refer to Chapter 2 for more on the role J.P. Morgan and Thomas Lamont played in their attempt to overthrow Roosevelt’s government and replace it with a pro-fascist government. ¹³⁰ Bank of England Governor Montagu Norman was also implicated in the direct transfer of money to Hitler, however, not with England’s own money but rather 5.6 million pounds worth of gold owned by the National Bank of Czechoslovakia..

[115] Dorril, Stephen. (2006) Blackshirt: Sir Oswald Mosley and British fascism. Viking, London, New York, pg. 377.

[116] Dalley, Jan. (1999). Diana Mosley: A Life. Faber & Faber, London.

[117] de Courcy, Anne. (2003). Diana Mosley: Mitford Beauty, British Fascist, Hitler's Angel.

Harper Collins, New York.

[118] Dorril, Stephen. (2006) Blackshirt: Sir Oswald Mosley and British fascism. Viking, London, New York, pg. 206.

[119] Ibid, pg. 241. ¹³⁶ Ibid, pg. 398.

[120] Dorril, Stephen. (2006) Blackshirt: Sir Oswald Mosley and British fascism. Viking, London, New York, pg. 333.

[121] Ibid, pg. 420.

[122] Ibid, pg. 461.

[123] Ibid, pg. 430.

[124] Ibid, pg. 377-378.

[125] Dorril, Stephen. (2006) Blackshirt: Sir Oswald Mosley and British fascism New York, pg. 343.

[126] Ibid, pg. 382.

[127] Ibid, pg. 393.

[128] Ibid, pg. 393.

[129] Dorril, Stephen. (2006) New York, pg. 384.

[130] Ibid, pg. 403.

[131] Ibid, pg. 405.

[132] Ibid, pg. 405.

[133] Refer to Chapter 6 for more on this. ¹⁵¹ Dorril, Stephen. (2006) New York, pg. 469-470.

[134] Ibid, pg. 483.

[135] Ibid, pg. 478.

[136] Ibid, pg. 471.

[137] Dorril, Stephen. (2006) New York, pg. 473.

[138] Ibid, pg. 491.

[139] Ibid, pg. 495.

[140] Ibid, pg. 506.

[141] Churchill’s support for British fascism will become very apparent in Chapters 2 & 6. Churchill was pro-fascist in his thinking and policies pre-war, during the war, and as we will see post-war.

[142] Dorril, Stephen. (2006) Blackshirt: Sir Oswald Mosley and British fascism. Viking, London, New York, pg. 506.

[143] Ibid, pg. 537.

[144] Ibid, pg. 509.

[145] Ibid, pg. 509.

[146] Ibid, pg. 475.

[147] Dorril, Stephen. (2006) Blackshirt: Sir Oswald Mosley and British fascism. Viking, London, New York, pg. 507.

[148] Ibid, pg. 509.

[149] Ibid, pg. 519.

[150] Ibid, pg. 520.

[151] Ibid, pg. 508.

[152] Refer to Chapter 4 for more on this story.

[153] Dorril, Stephen. (2006) Blackshirt: Sir Oswald Mosley and British fascism. Viking, London, New York, pg. 544.

[154] Among the plethora of books H.G. Wells wrote, was “The New World Order,” (1940). It appears that Wells was among the very first to pioneer the now infamous term.

[155] Dorril, Stephen. (2006) Blackshirt: Sir Oswald Mosley and British fascism. Viking, London, New York, pg. 560-561. ¹⁷⁴ Ibid, pg. 561.

[156] For more on the Fabian strategy of permeation see Appendix II.

[157] Refer to Chapter 2 for more on this.

[158] Dorril, Stephen. (2006) Blackshirt: Sir Oswald Mosley and British fascism. Viking, London, New York, pg. 577. ¹⁷⁸ Ibid, pg. 585.

[159] Refer to Chapter 6 for more on this.

[160] For more on Otto Skorzeny see Chapters 6, 8 & 11.

[161] Dorril, Stephen. (2006) Blackshirt: Sir Oswald Mosley and British fascism. Viking, London, New York, pg. 595-596.

[162] For more on this refer to Chapter 2.

[163] Dorril, Stephen. (2006) Blackshirt: Sir Oswald Mosley and British fascism. Viking, London, New York, pg. 621.

[164] For more on Aginter Press, see Chapter 6.

[165] Dorril, Stephen. (2006) Blackshirt: Sir Oswald Mosley and British fascism. Viking, London, New York, pg. 624.

[166] The origins of MAC lay in the 1960 independence of the Belgian colonised Congo resulting in the Congo Crisis, which saw the vast majority of white colonials return to Belgium. Congo’s independence was led by Patrice Lumumba who was assassinated in 1960 (see Chapter 7). Both MAC and the OAS operated within the Gladio framework. The OAS enforced French colonial rule in the Algiers. When President De Gaulle resisted this, the OAS made multiple attempts to assassinate De Gaulle. The OAS is also linked to Kennedy’s assassination (see Chapters 6 and 8).

[167] Dorril, Stephen. (2006) Blackshirt: Sir Oswald Mosley and British fascism. Viking, London, New York, pg. 629.

[168] Dorril, Stephen. (2006) Blackshirt: Sir Oswald Mosley and British fascism. Viking, London, New York, pg. 565.

[169] Ibid, pg. 572.

[170] Ibid, pg. 629.

[171] Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1943) Crusade for Pan-Europe: Autobiography of a Man and a Movement. G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York.

[172] Ibid, pg. 35.

[173] Ibid, pg. 35.

[174] Ibid, pg. 41.

[175] The Piarists, also known as the Order of Poor Clerics Regular of the Mother of God of the

Pious Schools or simply Scolopi or Escolapios, is a religious order of clerics regular of the Catholic Church founded in 1617 by Spanish priest Joseph Calasanz. It is the oldest religious order dedicated to education.

[176] Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1943) Crusade for Pan-Europe: Autobiography of a Man and a Movement. G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, pg. 11.

[177] Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1954) An Idea Conquers the World. Purcell & Sons Ltd., Great Britain, pg. 90.

[178] Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1943) Crusade for Pan-Europe: Autobiography of a Man and a Movement. G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, pg. 78.

[179] Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1954) An Idea Conquers the World. Purcell & Sons Ltd., Great Britain, pg. 126.

[180] Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1954) An Idea Conquers the World. Purcell & Sons Ltd., Great Britain, pg. 98.

[181] For more on Apollo’s Cult of Delphi see my paper Plato’s Fight Against Apollo’s Temple of Delphi and the Cult of Democracy. https://cynthiachung.substack.com/.

[182] The 1946 Calcutta Killings was a day of nationwide communal riots. It led to large-scale violence between Muslims and Hindus in the city of Calcutta (now known as Kolkata) in the Bengal province of British India. The day also marked the start of what is known as ‘The Week of the Long Knives’.

[183] The Bengal famine of 1943 was the only one in modern Indian history not to occur as a result of serious drought, according to a study that provides scientific backing for arguments that Churchill-era British policies were a significant factor contributing to the catastrophe. For more see The Guardian’s article titled “Churchill's policies contributed to 1943 Bengal famine – study”.

[184] Ibid.

[185] Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1943) Crusade for Pan-Europe: Autobiography of a Man and a Movement. G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, pg. 23.

[186] Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1954) An Idea Conquers the World. Purcell & Sons Ltd., Great Britain, pg. 89.

[187] Theodor Herzl (2 May 1860 – 3 July 1904) was an Austro-Hungarian Jewish lawyer, journalist, playwright, political activist, and writer who was the father of modern political Zionism. Herzl formed the Zionist Organization and promoted Jewish immigration to Palestine in an effort to form a Jewish state. Although he died before Israel's establishment, he is known in Hebrew as Chozeh HaMedinah (חוֵֹזֵה הַמְדִיָנָה), 'Visionary of the State'. Herzl is specifically mentioned in the Israeli Declaration of Independence and is officially referred to as "the spiritual father of the Jewish State", i.e. the 'visionary' who gave a concrete, practicable

platform and framework to political Zionism. Source: Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Herzl. Retrieved October 2022.

[188] Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1943) Crusade for Pan-Europe: Autobiography of a Man and a Movement. G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, pg. 4-5.

[189] Ibid, pg. 5.

[190] Lehr, Dick. (November 27, 2015) The Racist Legacy of Woodrow Wilson. The Atlantic.

https://web.archive.org/web/20221025013602/https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive /2015/11/wilson -legacy -racism/41 7549/.

[191] Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1943) Crusade for Pan-Europe: Autobiography of a Man and a Movement. G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, pg. 59, 88. ²¹⁶ Ibid, pg. 105-106.

[192] Ibid, pg. 106.

[193] Ibid, pg. 107.

[194] Ibid, pg. 107.

[195] Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1943) Crusade for Pan-Europe: Autobiography of a Man and a Movement. G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, pg. 78.

[196] In 1870, the Pope's holdings were left in an uncertain situation when Rome itself was annexed by Italian forces, thus bringing to completion the Italian unification, after a nominal resistance by the papal forces. Between 1861 and 1929 the status of the Pope was referred to as the "Roman Question". Italy made no attempt to interfere with the Holy See within the Vatican walls. However, it confiscated church property in many places. In 1871, the Quirinal Palace was confiscated by the King of Italy and became the royal palace. Thereafter, the popes resided undisturbed within the Vatican walls, and certain papal prerogatives were recognized by the Law of Guarantees, including the right to send and receive ambassadors. But the Popes did not recognize the Italian king's right to rule in Rome, and they refused to leave the Vatican compound until the dispute was resolved in 1929; Pope Pius IX (1846–1878), the last ruler of the Papal States, was referred to as a "prisoner in the Vatican". Forced to give up secular power, the popes focused on spiritual issues. This situation was resolved on 11 February 1929, when the Lateran Treaty between the Holy See and the Kingdom of Italy was signed by Prime Minister and Head of Government Benito Mussolini on behalf of King Victor Emmanuel III and by Cardinal Secretary of State Pietro Gasparri for Pope Pius XI. The treaty, which became effective on 7 June 1929, established the independent state of Vatican City and

reaffirmed the special status of Catholic Christianity in Italy. Source: Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_City#Italian_unification. Retrieved October 2022.

[197] Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1954) An Idea Conquers the World. Purcell & Sons Ltd., Great Britain, pg. 193.

[198] Kalergi writes on pg. 190 in his An Idea Conquers the World: “Our first topic was Nietzsche, who had stood to Mussolini in much the same didactic relationship as Wagner to Hitler. Mussolini’s Fascism was based on Nietzsche’s anti-democratic philosophy, just as Hitler’s dreams were based on the romanticism of Wagner’s operas. I remembered that Nietzsche had been one of the early pioneers of a Pan-Europe and handed Mussolini a copy of our journal Pan-Europe, containing a complete collection of all Nietzsche’s sayings about European unity.” ²²⁶ Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1943) Crusade for Pan-Europe: Autobiography of a Man and a Movement. G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, pg. 173. ²²⁷ Encyclopædia Britannica Online: Pius XI; web Apr. 2013.

[199] Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1943) Crusade for Pan-Europe: Autobiography of a Man and a Movement. G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, pg. 173.

[200] Encyclopædia Britannica Online: Pius XI; web Apr. 2013.

[201] Ibid.

[202] TIME Magazine. Billot v. Pope October 3, 1927

[203] New York Times staff. (October 16, 1927) French Cardinal Resigns Purple to Enter Monastery. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/1927/10/16/archives/frenchcardinal -resigns -purple -to -enter -monastery -ludovic -billot.html.

[204] Friedländer, Saul. (1997) Nazi Germany and the Jews: The Years of Persecution. HarperCollins, New York, pg. 223.

[205] Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1943) Crusade for Pan-Europe: Autobiography of a Man and a Movement. G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, pg. 174. ²³⁵ Ibid, pg. 32.

[206] Ibid, pg. 84-85.

[207] Kalergi enjoys throughout both his autobiographies describing the shape of heads and facial structures of the men he meets, clearly drawing from the pseudoscience of phrenology. Phrenology is a process that involves observing and/or feeling the skull to determine an individual's intelligence, personality, temperament and psychological attributes. It was quite influential and prominent during the 19^th century and was used in court cases up until the 20^th century by both the Nazis and American eugenicists alike. See my paper The Edgar Poe You Never Knew: a Mere Writer of Horror or a Humanist Master of the Mind https://risingtidefoundation.net/2022/06/25/the -edgar -poe -you -never -knew -a -mere -writerof -horror -or -a -humanist -master -of -the -mind/.

[208] Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1943) Crusade for Pan-Europe: Autobiography of a Man and a Movement. G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, pg. 85.

[209] Ibid, pg. 88.

[210] Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1954) An Idea Conquers the World. Purcell & Sons Ltd., Great Britain, pg. 102.

[211] Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1943) Crusade for Pan-Europe: Autobiography of a Man and a Movement. G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, pg. 168.

[212] Britain and France likely thought, correctly, that Hitler would first invade Russia with its full force, and destroy Russia, which was an outcome they desired. Either way, the last country standing in such a colossal face off, Britain and France believed, would be thoroughly weakened and easy to destroy at that point if needed. Hitler was thus a useful mad dog for the imperial interests of Britain and France, who believed they would be largely untouched by the war if things had gone according to plan. Also, recall from Chapter 1 that if Britain were

[213] Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1943) Crusade for Pan-Europe: Autobiography of a Man and a Movement. G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, pg. 190. ²⁴⁴ Ibid, pg. 175.

[214] Ibid, pg. 180.

[215] Bernstein, Serg. (2002, 4^th ed.) France in the 1930s. Paris, Armand Colin, pg. 103.

[216] Capogreco, Carlo Spartaco. (2004) I campi del duce. L'internamento civile nell'Italia fascista, 1940-1943.

[217] Megargee, Geoffrey P. (2012 ed.). Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933–1945. Volume III: Camps and Ghettos under European Regimes Aligned with Nazi Germany. in association with United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pg.

392.

[218] The book can be found on archive.org https://archive.org/details/antisemitismthro0000hein/page/n3/mode/2up?q=enoch. ²⁵⁰ Coudenhove-Kalergi, Count Heinrich; Coundenhove-Kalergi, Count Richard. (1935) AntiSemitism Throughout the Ages. Hutchinson & co., London, pg. 18.

[219] Ibid, pg. 197-208.

[220] Ibid, pg. 208-210.

[221] Ibid, pg. 275-278.

[222] Dorril, Stephen. (2006) Blackshirt: Sir Oswald Mosley and British fascism. Viking, London, New York, pg. 49.

[223] See Chapter 11 for more on this story.

[224] Coudenhove-Kalergi, Count Heinrich; Coundenhove-Kalergi, Count Richard. (1935) AntiSemitism Throughout the Ages. Hutchinson & co., London, pg. 275-278.

[225] Marsh, Joseph Chamberlain. (1994) Entrepreneur in Politics. Pg. 543-545.

[226] See Chapter 10 for more on this story.

[227] Coudenhove-Kalergi, Count Heinrich; Coundenhove-Kalergi, Count Richard. (1935) AntiSemitism Throughout the Ages. Hutchinson & co., London, pg. 279.

[228] Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1943) Crusade for Pan-Europe: Autobiography of a Man and a Movement. G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, pg. 24. ²⁶¹ Ibid, pg. 95.

[229] “Biografie Hans Luther (German)”. Bayerische Nationalbibliothek. https://www.deutschebiographie.de/sfz55235.html. Retrieved October 2022.

[230] New York Times Staff. (November 20, 1933) DR. BUTLER REFUSES TO BAR NAZI ENVOY; Columbia Head Rejects Plea by Students to Cancel Dr. Luther's Address. CALLS REQUEST ILLIBERAL Stresses Need for Academic Freedom – Club Is Reported Planning Demonstration. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/1933/11/20/archives/dr -butler -refuses -tobar -nazi -envoy -columbia -head -rejects -plea -by.html?scp=1. Retrieved October 2022. ²⁶⁴ Elon, Amos (February 23, 2006). A Shrine to Mussolini. The New York Review of Books. https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2006/02/23/a -shrine -to -mussolini/. October 2022. ²⁶⁵ TIMES Staff. (September 20, 1943) FOREIGN NEWS, ITALY: Axis (1936-1943). Time Magazine. September 20, 1943. http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,774563 -4,00.html. Retrieved October 2022.

[231] Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1954) An Idea Conquers the World. Purcell & Sons Ltd., Great Britain, pg. 121.

[232] Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1943) Crusade for Pan-Europe: Autobiography of a Man and a Movement. G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, pg. 154.

[233] Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1943) Crusade for Pan-Europe: Autobiography of a Man and a Movement. G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, pg. 155-156.

[234] Ibid, pg. 157-158.

[235] Ibid, pg. 158.

[236] Ibid, pg. 158.

[237] Recall from Chapter 1 that Northcliffe is the brother of Rothermere.

[238] Mulhall, Ed. A very British Coup – Carson, the Press and the fall of Asquith. RTÉ Boston College.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220929172144/https://www.rte.ie/centuryireland/index.php /articles/a -very -british -coup -carson -the -press -and -the -fall -of -asquith.

[239] Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1943) Crusade for Pan-Europe: Autobiography of a Man and a Movement. G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, pg. 108-109. ²⁷⁹ Ibid, pg. 110.

[240] Ibid, pg. 110.

[241] Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1954) An Idea Conquers the World. Purcell & Sons Ltd., Great Britain, pg. 99.

[242] DW Staff. (January 23, 2006) Report: German Bank Helped Build Auschwitz. Deutsche Welle. https://web.archive.org/web/2/https://www.dw.com/en/report -german -bank -helpedbuild -auschwitz/a -1865973.

[243] Young, Von Marc. (February 18, 2006) Hitler's Willing Bankers. Spiegel Online International.

https://www.spiegel.de/international/dresdner -bank -and -the -third -reich -hitler -s -willingbankers -a -401575.html. Retrieved October 2022. ²⁸⁴ Refer here for companies involved in the Holocaust.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_involved_in_the_Holocaust. Retrieved October 26, 2022.

[244] Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1954) An Idea Conquers the World. Purcell & Sons Ltd., Great Britain, pg. 115-117.

[245] Ibid pg. 119-122.

[246] Some scholars contend that the unprecedented number of repatriations between 1929 and 1933 were part of an “explicit Hoover administration policy". Herbert Hoover scapegoated Mexicans for the Great Depression, and instituted stricter immigration policies designed to free up jobs for Americans suffering financially. After Franklin D. Roosevelt became president, the rate of formal deportation and voluntary repatriation fell for all immigrants, but especially for Mexicans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Repatriation.

[247] For more on the criminal actions of the United Fruit Company refer to Chapter 8. ²⁸⁹ For more on BIS’s funding of the Nazi war machine refer to Chapter 4.

[248] Zelikow, Philip (2021). The Road Less Traveled: The Secret Battle to End the Great War, 1916-1917. Public Affairs.

[249] See Appendix I for more on this.

[250] Griffin, G. Edward. (1994) The Creature from Jekyll Island : A Second Look at the Federal Reserve. American Media, California.

[251] Goldfarb, Stephen. Lamont, Thomas William. American National Biography Online.

https://www.anb.org/view/10.1093/anb/9780198606697.001.0001/anb -9780198606697 -e1000952?a=1&d=10&n=thomas+lamont&q=1&ss=0. Retrieved 6 November 2013.

[252] Lamont, Edward M. (1994). The Ambassador from Wall Street: The Story of Thomas W.

Lamont, J.P. Morgan's Chief Executive. Madison Books.

[253] Goldfarb, Stephan. "Lamont, Thomas William". American National Biography Online.

Retrieved 6 November 2013.

[254] Sanders, Richard. Morgan - Facing the Corporate Roots of American Fascism. Coat.ncf.ca. https://web.archive.org/web/20220922124715/http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/53/mo rgan.html

[255] Stark, Irwin (December 14, 1985). Opinion | the Prosperity of '29. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/1985/12/14/opinion/the -prosperity -of -29.html. Retrieved October 2022.

[256] "The Crash of 1929 | American Experience | PBS". PBS. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/crash/. Retrieved October 2022.

[257] For more on the attempted fascist takeover of the United States by J.P. Morgan refer to Chapter 4.

[258] Kontorovich, Eugene. (Spring 2014) When Fasces Aren’t Fascists: The strange history of

America’s federal building. CJ – City Journal Magazine. https://www.cityjournal.org/html/when -fasces -aren%E2%80%99t -fascist -13651.html. Retrieved October 2022.

[259] As we will soon see Roosevelt refused to meet with Kalergi on the subject of a Pan-Europe. ³⁰² Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1954) An Idea Conquers the World. Purcell & Sons Ltd., Great Britain, pg. 183.

[260] For more on the Catilina conspiracy, the first attempt to overthrow the Roman Republic and which was thwarted by Cicero see my paper How To Conquer Tyranny and Avoid Tragedy:

A Lesson on Defeating Systems of Empire on my Substack Through A Glass Darkly. https://cynthiachung.substack.com/.

[261] Spartacus is the true story of a Roman gladiator slave who led an uprising in ancient Rome to free all the slaves.

[262] Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1943) Crusade for Pan-Europe: Autobiography of a Man and a Movement. G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, pg. 198-200.

[263] Refer to Chapter 12 section ‘Offshore Banking: Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand?’

[264] Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1943) Crusade for Pan-Europe: Autobiography of a Man and a Movement. G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, pg. 200.

[265] Ibid, pg. 204-205

[266] Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1954) An Idea Conquers the World. Purcell & Sons Ltd., Great Britain, pg. 214.

[267] The Council on Foreign Relations is the American branch of the Royal Institute for International Affairs (aka Chatham House) based in London, England. It should also be noted that Chatham House itself was created by the Round Table Movement as part of the Treaty of Versailles program in 1919. See Appendix I.

[268] Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1954) An Idea Conquers the World. Purcell & Sons Ltd., Great Britain, pg. 238.

[269] For more on John Foster Dulles see Chapter 4.

[270] It is also noteworthy to mention that John Foster’s brother Allen Dulles, who also worked for Sullivan & Cromwell, would join the board of the J. Henry Schroder Bank, whose German chairman, SS General Baron Kurt von Schroder, was one of the main assistants to Schacht in organizing the fund that financed Hitler’s 1933 rise to power. Allen Dulles remained on the board of the Schroder Bank until 1944, well after he had taken his post as chief of the OSS in Switzerland. Allen would eventually become the head of the CIA for over a decade during the

Eisenhower Administration. Allen also was the first new director of the Council on Foreign Relations since its founding in 1921 and served as secretary of the CFR from 1933-1944, and as its president from 1946-1950. For more on Allen Dulles see Chapters 4 & 7.

[271] Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1954) An Idea Conquers the World. Purcell & Sons Ltd.,

Great Britain, pg. 285

[272] Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1954) An Idea Conquers the World. Purcell & Sons Ltd., Great Britain, pg. 245-246.

[273] Ibid, pg. 246. ³¹⁷ Ibid, pg. 249.

[274] Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1954) An Idea Conquers the World. Purcell & Sons Ltd., Great Britain, pg. 251.

[275] Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1954) An Idea Conquers the World. Purcell & Sons Ltd., Great Britain, pg. 257.

[276] Jans Christian Smuts and his political parties supported existing policies of racial discrimination in South Africa. Smuts was, for most of his political life, a vocal supporter of segregation of the races, and in 1929 he justified the erection of separate institutions for blacks and whites in tones prescient of the later practice of apartheid. During his service as Premier, Smuts personally fundraised for multiple Zionist organisations. One of his greatest international accomplishments was the establishment of the League of Nations, the exact design and implementation of which relied upon Smuts. Smuts wrote the first draft of the preamble to the United Nations Charter, and was the only person to sign the charters of both the League of Nations and the United Nations. Smuts sought to redefine the relationship between the United Kingdom and her colonies, helping to establish the British Commonwealth, as it was known at the time. Smuts and Churchill first met during the Boer War. Their association continued in the First World War, when Lloyd George appointed Smuts, in 1917, to the War Cabinet in which Churchill served as Munitions Minister. By then they had formed a lasting and close friendship, with Churchill’s physician, Lord Moran, writing in his

[277] Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1954) An Idea Conquers the World. Purcell & Sons Ltd., Great Britain, pg. 260-261.

[278] Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1954) An Idea Conquers the World. Purcell & Sons Ltd., Great Britain, pg. 276. ³²³ Ibid, pg. 268.

[279] Mosley, Oswald. (1958) Europe: Faith and Plan. Washburn and Sons Limited, Essex, England. pg. 1-7.

[280] Throughout this book anything marked in bold or underlined within a quote is to be considered as ‘emphasis added’.

[281] Mosley, Oswald. (1958) Europe: Faith and Plan. Washburn and Sons Limited, Essex, England. Pg. 13-14.

[282] Ibid, pg. 15-16

[283] Recall from Chapter 1 that Mosley’s concept of a “scientific dictatorship” was almost entirely influenced by H.G. Wells.

[284] For more on this story see my paper WHY Russia Saved the United States. Through A Glass Darkly Substack. https://cynthiachung.substack.com/.

[285] For an overview of what is ‘The American System’ refer to two papers I wrote on this subject. WHY Russia Saved the United States & What it Means to be an American Citizen this Fourth of July. Through A Glass Darkly Substack. https://cynthiachung.substack.com/. ³³¹ Blaine, James G. (1886) Twenty Years of Congress from Lincoln to Garfield with a review of the events which led to the political revolution of 1860 vol. II. The Henry Bill Publishing Company, Norwich Connecticut, pg. 479.

[286] For more on this refer to What it Means to be an American Citizen this Fourth of July.

Through A Glass Darkly Substack. https://cynthiachung.substack.com/.

[287] For more on the British East India Company refer to Chapter 12.

[288] Chung, Cynthia. (Jan. 28, 2022) WHY Russia Saved the United States. Through A Glass Darkly Substack. https://cynthiachung.substack.com/p/why -russia -saved -the -united -states -

60f.

[289] For more on Sykes-Picot refer to Chapter 10.

[290] For more on how Britain enforced the use of slavery within the United States see What it Means to be an American Citizen this Fourth of July. Through A Glass Darkly Substack. https://cynthiachung.substack.com/.

[291] The Zollverein, or German Customs Union, was a coalition of German states formed to manage tariffs and economic policies within their territories. Thus, this approach was to strengthen the national sovereignty of Germany and is counter to what the League of Nations would attempt to appropriate as an imperialist Zollverein for all of Europe.

[292] For more on how Germany was never really a nation during the 19^th century, see my paper Germany’s Stockholm Syndrome. Through A Glass Darkly Substack. https://cynthiachung.substack.com/.

[293] For more on zero-sum theory see my paper The Curse of Game Theory: Why It’s in Your Self-Interest to Exit the Rules of the Game. Through A Glass Darkly Substack. https://cynthiachung.substack.com/.

[294] For more on this story refer to Matthew Ehret’s paper The Silk Road Roots of America and the American Roots of the New Silk Road. Rising Tide Foundation. https://risingtidefoundation.net/.

[295] For more on this refer to Chapter 4.

[296] For more on the ‘British’ economic system see Chapter 12.

[297] For more on this story see How To Conquer Tyranny and Avoid Tragedy: A Lesson on Defeating Systems of Empire. Through A Glass Darkly Substack. https://cynthiachung.substack.com/.

[298] For more on this story refer to How To Conquer Tyranny and Avoid Tragedy: A Lesson on Defeating Systems of Empire. Through A Glass Darkly Substack. https://cynthiachung.substack.com/.

[299] Refer to Appendix II.

[300] Russell, Bertrand. (September 1, 1946) The Atomic Bomb and the Prevention of War. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Issue 7-8, pg. 19.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00963402.1946.11458033. Retrieved October 13, 2022.

[301] For more on the development of the nuclear first-strike concept see In Search of Monsters to Destroy: The Manufacturing of a Cold War. Through A Glass Darkly Substack. https://cynthiachung.substack.com/.

[302] History and Public Policy Program Digital Archive, US National Archives. (April 14, 1950) National Security Council Report, NSC 68, 'United States Objectives and Programs for National Security'.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220521054319/https:/digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/docum ent/116191.pdf?v=2699956db534c1821edefa61b8c13ffe.

[303] Chung, Cynthia. (Feb 13, 2022) In Search of Monsters to Destroy: The Manufacturing of a Cold War. Through A Glass Darkly Substack. https://cynthiachung.substack.com/.

[304] Proclamation of Independence of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. (Sept. 2, 1945) https://web.archive.org/web/20220322012707/http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/ps/vietnam/in dependence.pdf.

[305] For more on this story refer to Chapter 9.

[306] Office of the Historian of the US Department of State. (Nov. 3, 1965) 189. Draft Memorandum From Secretary of Defense McNamara to President Johnson. https://web.archive.org/web/20220727023006/https:/history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/ frus1964 -68v03/d189.

[307] For more on this story see Chapter 12.

[308] This was a clear reference to the “Tennessee Valley Authority” of FDR’s New Deal which transformed the backward, poverty stricken regions of the southern USA into an industrial scientific powerhouse with abundant hydroelectric electricity by the 1950s.

[309] Hillman, Jennifer; Sacks, David. (March 2021) China’s Belt and Road: Implications for the United States. Council on Foreign Relations.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220905045254/https://www.cfr.org/report/chinas -belt -androad -implications -for -the -united -states/.

[310] For more on the BRI and CFR’s opposition refer to my paper The Real Global Agenda Pushing for War with China. Through A Glass Darkly Substack. https://cynthiachung.substack.com/.

[311] Freedom of Information Act Electronic Reading Room (FOIA). (1998) Nazi War Crimes (P.L.

105-246) and

Japanese Imperial Government (P.L. 106-567) Disclosure Acts. https://web.archive.org/web/20220909072007/https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/collection /nazi -war -crimes -disclosure -act.

[312] Talbot, David. (2016) The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government. Harper Perennial, pg. 21.

[313] Recall from Chapter 1 Diana Mosley writing about a meeting that was to occur between a representative from J.P. Morgan’s bank and the J. Henry Schroder bank on the subject of funding for the Nazi cause.

[314] Talbot, David. (2016) The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government. Harper Perennial, pg. 22.

[315] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Baron_von_Schr%C3%B6der. Retrieved October 2022.

[316] Doerries, Reinhard R.; Weinberg, Gerhard L. (October 2013). Hitler's Intelligence Chief:

Walter Schellenberg: Walter Schellenberg. Enigma Books.

[317] Bloomenkranz, Sol. (July 2012). Charles Bedaux – Deciphering an Enigma. iUniverse.

[318] Recall from Chapter 2 that the Bank of International Settlements was a result of the ‘Young Plan.’

[319] Talbot, David. (2016) The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government. Harper Perennial, pg. 27.

[320] Ibid, pg. 26.

[321] Ibid.

[322] von Lingen, Kerstin. (spring 2008) Conspiracy of Silence: How the "Old Boys" of American Intelligence Shielded SS General Karl Wolff from Prosecution. Holocaust and Genocide Studies. 22 (1)

[323] Ibid

[324] For more on the Casablanca Conference see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casablanca_Conference. Retrieved October 2022. ³⁷⁶ Talbot, David. (2016) The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government. Harper Perennial, pg. 26.

[325] Roosevelt, Elliot. (1946) As He Saw It. Sloan and Pearce, New York, pg. 204-205.

[326] Talbot, David. (2016) The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government. Harper Perennial, pg. 28.

[327] LeBor, Adam. (Aug. 1, 2013) How bankers helped the Nazis. The Sydney Morning Herald. https://web.archive.org/web/20220909072944/https://www.smh.com.au/business/howbankers -helped -the -nazis -20130801 -2r1fd.html.

[328] Talbot, David. (2016) The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government. Harper Perennial, pg. 27.

[329] Ibid, pg. 28. ³⁸² Ibid, pg. 29.

[330] For more on the Pecora Commission refer to an article by Matthew Ehret’s Ferdinand Pecora Revisited. https://canadianpatriot.org/2020/10/06/how -to -break -the -kneecaps -ofwall -street -sociopaths -before -its -too -late -ferdinand -pecora -revisited/. Retrieved October 2022.

[331] Talbot, David. (2016) The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government. Harper Perennial, pg. 25.

[332] Chung, Cynthia. (June 26, 2021) On Roosevelt and Stalin: What Revisionist Historians Want Us to Forget. Rising Tide Foundation Substack.

https://risingtidefoundation.substack.com/p/on -roosevelt -and -stalin -what -revisionist. ³⁸⁶ For more on the assassination and coup plot against Roosevelt see The Origins of America’s Secret Police. Through A Glass Darkly Substack. https://cynthiachung.substack.com/p/theorigins -of -americas -secret -police.

[333] Video of General Smedley Butler’s broadcast warning of the coup plot against FDR’s government by Wall Street.

https://web.archive.org/web/20221011192830/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pSOek HA8OQ. Retrieved September, 2022.

[334] Talbot, David. (2016) The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government. Harper Perennial, pg. 25.

[335] Ibid, pg. 15.

[336] Prouty, L. Fletcher. (1996) JFK: the CIA, Vietnam, and the plot to assassinate John F. Kennedy. Carol Pub. Group, New York.

[337] Ibid.

[338] Ibid, pg. 12. ³⁹³ Ibid, pg. 51.

[339] Prouty, L. Fletcher. (1996) JFK: the CIA, Vietnam, and the plot to assassinate John F. Kennedy. Carol Pub. Group, New York.

[340] Dulles, Allen; Jackson, William; Correa, Mathias. (Jan. 1, 1949) A Report to the National Security Council. CIA.gov.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220909075218/https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIARDP86B00269R001100090002 -8.pdf.

[341] Talbot, David. (2016) The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government. Harper Perennial, pg. 128. ³⁹⁷ Ibid, pg. 128.

[342] Ibid, pg. 228. ³⁹⁹ Ibid, pg. 228.

[343] Recall from Chapter 1 that Franz Six had been selected to oversee a fascist Britain in the event of a Nazi invasion. In 1944 the Nazis organised a New European conference in Prague, chaired by the SS’s Franz Six. It presented an alternative to the Atlantic Charter, the Grande Concrete Europeenne. Six had helped plan the invasion of Britain. Head of the German

Foreign Policy Institute, he promoted the United Europe concept in his book Europe’s Civil Wars and the Present War of Unification. His poster propaganda in the occupied territories depicted an idealized post-war federal Europe, which included Britain. The British Free Corps was part of SS plans to bring together Europe on racial lines.

[344] Talbot, David. (2016) The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government. Harper Perennial, pg. 229. ⁴⁰² Ibid, pg. 275-277.

[345] Ibid, pg. 229. ⁴⁰⁴ Ibid, pg. 174.

[346] For more on this refer to Chapter 14.

[347] Breitman, Richard; Goda, Norman J.W. et al. (2005) U.S. Intelligence and The Nazis.

National Archives & Cambridge University Press, pg. 65.

[348] Throughout this book anything marked in bold or underlined is to be considered ‘emphasis added.’

[349] Breitman, Richard; Goda, Norman J.W. et al. (2005) U.S. Intelligence and The Nazis. National Archives & Cambridge University Press, pg. 249.

[350] Generalplan Ost was the Nazi German government's plan for the genocide and ethnic cleansing on a vast scale, and colonization of Central and Eastern Europe by Germans. It was to be undertaken in territories occupied by Germany during World War II. The plan was attempted during the war, resulting indirectly and directly in the deaths of millions by shootings, starvation, disease, extermination through labor, and genocide. However, its full implementation was not considered practicable during major military operations, and never materialized due to Germany's defeat. “As a matter of fact, Hitler wanted to commit Genocide against the Slavic peoples, in order to colonize the East" [Empire, Colony, Genocide: Conquest,

Occupation, and Subaltern Resistance in World History by A. Dirk Moses, Berghahn Books,

2008, pg. 20.]

[351] Breitman, Richard; Goda, Norman J.W. (2011) Hitler’s Shadow Nazi War Criminals, U. S. . National Archives pg. 74

[352] Breitman, Richard; Goda, Norman J.W. (2011) Hitler’s Shadow Nazi War Criminals, U. S.

Intelligence, and the Cold War. National Archives, pg. 75-76.

[353] Snyder, Timothy. (2004) The Reconstruction of Nations. New Haven: Yale University Press, pg. 164.

[354] Breitman, Richard; Goda, Norman J.W. et al. (2005) U.S. Intelligence and The Nazis. National Archives & Cambridge University Press, pg. 250.

[355] Ibid, pg. 250. ⁴¹⁵ Ibid, pg. 251.

[356] Breitman, Richard; Goda, Norman J.W. (2011) Hitler’s Shadow Nazi War Criminals, U. S. . National Archives pg. 78

[357] Breitman, Richard; Goda, Norman J.W. et al. (2005) U.S. Intelligence and The Nazis. National Archives & Cambridge University Press, pg. 251. ⁴¹⁸ Ibid, pg. 252.

[358] Ibid, pg. 252. ⁴²⁰ Ibid, pg. 253.

[359] Breitman, Richard; Goda, Norman J.W. (2011) Hitler’s Shadow Nazi War Criminals, U. S. . National Archives pg. 81

[360] Breitman, Richard; Goda, Norman J.W. et al. (2005) U.S. Intelligence and The Nazis.

National Archives & Cambridge University Press, pg. 254.

[361] Breitman, Richard; Goda, Norman J.W. (2011) Hitler’s Shadow Nazi War Criminals, U. S. Intelligence, and the Cold War. National Archives, pg. 76. ⁴²⁴ Ibid, pg. 87.

[362] Ibid, pg. 89.

[363] British daily The Observer, June 7, 1992.

[364] Butler, Susan. (2015) Roosevelt and Stalin: Portrait of a Partnership. Alfred A. Knopf New York Publisher, pg. 165.

[365] Recall from Chapter 1 that The Times was owned by Lord Northcliffe.

[366] Krainer, Alex. (Dec. 18, 2021) Appeasement: the betrayal in Munich (part 2 of 3). The Naked Hedgie. https://thenakedhedgie.com/2021/12/18/appeasement -the -betrayal -in -munich -part2 -of -3/. Retrieved September 20, 2022.

[367] Butler, Susan. (2015) Roosevelt and Stalin: Portrait of a Partnership. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

[368] Ibid, pg. 162.

[369] Chung, Cynthia. (June 26, 2021) On Roosevelt and Stalin: What Revisionist Historians Want Us to Forget. Rising Tide Foundation Substack.

https://risingtidefoundation.substack.com/p/on -roosevelt -and -stalin -what -revisionist. ⁴³³ LeBor, Adam. (Aug. 1, 2013) How bankers helped the Nazis. The Sydney Morning Herald. https://web.archive.org/web/20220909072944/https://www.smh.com.au/business/howbankers -helped -the -nazis -20130801 -2r1fd.html.

[370] Ganser, Daniele. (2005) NATO’s Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe. Frank Cass, London, New York, pg. 1.

[371] Willan, Philip. (March 26, 2001) Terrorists ‘helped by CIA’ to stop rise of left in Italy. The Guardian. https://web.archive.org/web/20220721212738/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/ mar/26/terrorism.

[372] Ganser, Daniele. (2005) NATO’s Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western

Europe. Frank Cass, London, New York, pg. 28

[373] Cottrell, Richard. (2015) Gladio, NATO's Dagger at the Heart of Europe: The Pentagon-NaziMafia Terror Axis. Progressive Press. Richard Cottrell is a former European Parliament MP and investigative journalist. Cottrell has also conducted formal investigations commissioned by the European Parliament.

[374] For more details around the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II see Richard Cottrell’s book Gladio, NATO’s Dagger at the Heart of Europe.

[375] Ganser, Daniele. (2005). NATO’s Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe. Frank Cass, pg. 115-121.

[376] Ibid

[377] William L. Shirer. (1959) The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany. Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, pg. 192.

[378] Cottrell, Richard. (2015) Gladio, Nato's Dagger at the Heart of Europe: The Pentagon-NaziMafia Terror Axis. Progressive Press.

[379] Black Empire is in reference to a Fascist Empire.

[380] Recall from Chapter 2 Kalergi’s Catholic Crusade for a Pan-Europe.

[381] Cottrell, Richard. (2015) Gladio, NATO's Dagger at the Heart of Europe: The Pentagon-NaziMafia Terror Axis. Progressive Press.

[382] Recall in Chapter 1, that Mosley and his son were working for a Spanish travel agency that was organising Otto Skorzeny’s travel itinerary, which was likely connected to Aginter Press. ⁴⁴⁷ Cottrell, Richard. (2015) Gladio, NATO's Dagger at the Heart of Europe: The Pentagon-NaziMafia Terror Axis. Progressive Press.

[383] Fleming, Denna Frank. (1961) The Cold War and its Origins 1917-1960. New York, pg. 4.

[384] Ganser, Daniele. (2005). NATO’s Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe. Frank Cass.

[385] Butler, Susan. (2015) Roosevelt and Stalin: Portrait of a Partnership. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

[386] For more on this story refer to On Roosevelt and Stalin: What Revisionist Historians Want Us to Forget. https://risingtidefoundation.net/2021/03/02/on -roosevelt -and -stalin -whatrevisionist -historians -want -us -to -forget/.

[387] Butler, Susan. (2015) Roosevelt and Stalin: Portrait of a Partnership. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

[388] Ibid, pg. 165.

[389] Ibid.

[390] Ibid.

[391] Ibid, pg. 247.

[392] Ibid.

[393] Ganser, Daniele. (2005). NATO’s Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe. Frank Cass, pg. 39.

[394] Recall from Chapter 1 Section D’s operations within the Mosley networks.

[395] Ganser, Daniele. (2005). NATO’s Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe. Frank Cass, pg. 42.

[396] Ibid, pg. 43.

[397] Ibid, pg. 43.

[398] Ibid, pg. 44

[399] British periodical Lobster, December 1995.

[400] Ganser, Daniele. (2005). NATO’s Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe. Frank Cass, pg. 212. ⁴⁶⁶ Ibid, pg. 212.

[401] Cliadakis, Harry. (January 1979). The Political and Diplomatic Background to the Metaxas Dictatorship, 1935-36. Journal of Contemporary History. 14 (1): pg. 117–138.

[402] Ibid

[403] Mackenzie, W.J.M. (May 2002) The Secret History of SOE Special Operations Executive 1940-1945. Little, Brown Group Limited, pg. 703.

[404] Mackenzie, W.J.M. (May 2002) The Secret History of SOE Special Operations Executive 1940-1945. Little, Brown Group Limited, pg. 722-723.

[405] Murtagh, Peter. (January 1994) The Rape of Greece: The King, the Colonels and the Resistance. Simon & Schuster Canada, pg. 29.

[406] Ibid

[407] Ganser, Daniele. (2005).

. Frank Cass, pg. 213.

[408] Ibid, pg. 213-215.

[409] Ibid, pg. 213-215.

[410] Ibid, pg. 213-215. ⁴⁷⁷ Ibid, pg. 215.

[411] Ibid, pg. 215.

[412] Blum, William. (October 2008) Killing Hope: U.S. Military and C.I.A. Interventions Since World War II. Common Courage Press, Maine, pg. 36.

[413] Murtagh, Peter. (January 1994) The Rape of Greece: The King, the Colonels and the Resistance. Simon & Schuster Canada, pg. 41.

[414] Ganser, Daniele. (2005).

. Frank Cass, pg. 219.

[415] National Security Council. (Dec. 9, 1947) Memorandum from the Executive Secretary NSC 4. https://web.archive.org/web/20220816000135/https://irp.fas.org/offdocs/nsc -hst/nsc -4.htm. ⁴⁸³ National Security Council. (June 18, 1948) Directive on Office of Special Projects NSC 10/2. https://web.archive.org/web/20220815203120/https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments /frus1945 -50Intel/d292.

[416] For more on the Frank Church Senate Committee Hearings see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee. Retrieved October, 2022.

[417] The United States Senate. Final Report of the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with respect to Intelligence activities. Book IV: Supplementary detailed staff reports on foreign and military intelligence, pg. 36.

[418] Powers, Thomas. (January 1979) The man who kept the secrets: Richard helms and the CIA. Alfred A. Knopf, pg. 37.

[419] Ganser, Daniele. (2005). . Frank Cass, pg. 57.

[420] Ibid, pg. 87.

[421] Faligot, Roger; Pascal, Krop. (May 1985) La piscine: Les services secrets francais 1944-1984. Seuil, pg. 85.

[422] Ganser, Daniele. (2005). NATO’s Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western . Frank Cass, pg. 90.

[423] Blum, William. (October 2008) Killing Hope: U.S. Military and C.I.A. Interventions Since World War II. Common Courage Press, Maine, pg. 149.

[424] Cottrell, Richard. (2015) Gladio, NATO's Dagger at the Heart of Europe: The Pentagon-NaziMafia Terror Axis. Progressive Press.

[425] Blum, William. (October 2008) Killing Hope: U.S. Military and C.I.A. Interventions Since World War II. Common Courage Press, Maine, pg. 149.

[426] Ganser, Daniele. (2005). NATO’s Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe. Frank Cass, pg. 98-99.

[427] Cottrell, Richard. (2015) Gladio, NATO's Dagger at the Heart of Europe: The Pentagon-NaziMafia Terror Axis. Progressive Press.

[428] Ganser, Daniele. (2005). NATO’s Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe. Frank Cass, pg. 17.

[429] Cottrell, Richard. (2015) Gladio, NATO's Dagger at the Heart of Europe: The Pentagon-NaziMafia Terror Axis. Progressive Press.

[430] Ganser, Daniele. (2005). NATO’s Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe. Frank Cass, pg. 128.

[431] Burke, Jason (14 May 2022). Secret British 'black propaganda' campaign targeted cold war enemies. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/14/secret -britishblack -propaganda -campaign -targeted -cold -war -enemies -information -research -department.

Retrieved October 14, 2022.

[432] Baylis, John (1982). Britain and the Dunkirk Treaty: The Origins of NATO. Journal of Strategic Studies. 5 (2): pg. 236–47.

[433] See Chapter 11.

[434] Richard Cottrell is a former European Parliament MP and investigative journalist. Cottrell has also conducted formal investigations commissioned by the European Parliament.

[435] See Chapter 8.

[436] Richard Cottrell. (2015) Gladio: NATO’s Dagger at the Heart of Europe. Progressive Press. ⁵⁰⁵ Ibid.

[437] Ibid. ⁵⁰⁷ Ibid.

[438] https://mobile.twitter.com/RT_com/status/1501611271631695873. Retrieved September 12, 2022.

[439] Lee, Martin A. (1997) The Beast Reawakens: Fascism’s Resurgence from Hitler’s Spymasters to Today’s Neo-Nazi Groups and Right-Wing Extremists. Little, Brown and Company, pg. 100. ⁵¹¹ Dunnage, Jonathan. (1996) Inhibiting Democracy in Post-War Italy: the Police Forces, 19431948. Italian Studies, pg. 180.

[440] Ganser, Daniele. (2005). NATO’s Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe. Frank Cass, pg. 65.

[441] Ibid, pg. 64.

[442] At the very end of Talbot’s book The Devil’s Chessboard, he shares what James Angleton was reported to have said on his deathbed “Fundamentally, the founding fathers of U.S. intelligence were liars. The better you lied and the more you betrayed, the more likely you would be promoted…Outside of their duplicity, the only thing they had in common was a desire for absolute power. I did things that, in looking back on my life, I regret. But I was part of it and loved being in it.” Talbot writes, “He invoked the names of the high eminences who had run the CIA in his day – Dulles, Helms, Wisner. These men were ‘the grand masters,’ he said. ‘If you were in a room with them, you were in a room full of people that you had to believe would deservedly end up in hell.’ Angleton took another slow sip from his steaming cup. ‘I guess I will see them there soon’.”

[443] Ganser, Daniele. (2005). NATO’s Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe. Frank Cass, pg. 66. ⁵¹⁶ Ibid, pg. 69-70.

[444] Colby, William; Forbath, Peter. (May 1978) Honorable Men: My Life in the CIA. Simon &Schuster, pg. 128.

[445] Ganser, Daniele. (2005). NATO’s Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe. Frank Cass, pg. 71.

[446] Ibid, pg. 71.

[447] Garner, William. (1970) The Puppet-Masters. Collins, pg. 97.

[448] Garner, William. (1970) The Puppet-Masters. Collins, pg. 220.

[449] Igel, Regine. (1997) Andreotti. Politik zwischen Geheimdienst und Mafia. Herbig Verlag, München, pg. 52.

[450] Ganser, Daniele. (2005). NATO’s Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe. Frank Cass, pg. 79-80.

[451] Ganser, Daniele. (2005). NATO’s Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe. Frank Cass, pg. 80.

[452] Ibid, pg. 73.

[453] Ibid, pg. 73.

[454] Ibid, pg. 73.

[455] Igel, Regine. (1997) Andreotti. Politik zwischen Geheimdienst und Mafia. Herbig Verlag, München, pg. 232.

[456] Russell, George. (June 8, 1981) Italy: A Grand Master's Conspiracy. TIME Magazine. http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,922552,00.html. Retrieved September 20, 2022.

[457] Also defined as a "national revival program", along the lines of that announced by Napoleon Bonaparte in the Proclamation to the French people of 19 Brumaire 1799: for excerpts of its content, cf. Alberto Mario Banti, Napoleon and Bonapartism. History lessons, Laterza, the faces of power, 7 December 2008.

[458] Cottrell, Richard. (2015) Gladio, NATO's Dagger at the Heart of Europe: The Pentagon-NaziMafia Terror Axis. Progressive Press.

[459] Ibid.

[460] Ibid.

[461] Ibid.

[462] Ganser, Daniele. (2005) NATO’s Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe. Frank Cass, London, New York, pg. 10-11.

[463] Ganser, Daniele. (2005) NATO’s Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe. Frank Cass, London, New York, pg. 10-14.

[464] British daily The Observer, November 18, 1990

[465] Vulliamy, Ed. (Dec. 5, 1990) Secret agents, freemasons, fascists…and top-level campaign of political ‘destabilisation’: ‘Strategy of tension’ that brought carnage and cover-up. The Guardian.

https://www.cambridgeclarion.org/press_cuttings/vinciguerra.p2.etc_graun_5dec1990.html. Retrieved September 18, 2022.

[466] Ibid.

[467] Ganser, Daniele. (2005) NATO’s Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe. Frank Cass, London, New York, pg. 8.

[468] British daily The European, November 9, 1990.

[469] Ibid.

[470] Reuters, November 15, 1990.

[471] No author specified. (Nov. 26, 1990) Gladio. Un misterio de la Guerra fria. La trama secreta coordinada por mandos de la Alianza Atlantica comienza a salir a la luz tras cuatro decadas de actividad. The Spanish daily El Pais. ⁵⁴⁵ Portuguese daily Expresso, Nov. 24, 1990.

[472] Ganser, Daniele. (2005) NATO’s Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe. Frank Cass, London, New York, pg. 27.

[473] Italian daily Corriere della Sera, May 29, 1995.

[474] Ganser, Daniele. (2005) NATO’s Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe. Frank Cass, London, New York, pg. 35-37.

[475] Ibid, pg. 35-37.

[476] Ibid, pg. 35-37.

[477] Ibid, pg. 35-37.

[478] Recall Chapter 3.

[479] Prouty, L. Fletcher (1973) The Secret Team: The CIA and Its Allies in Control of the United States and the World. Prentice Hall, Inc, pg. 368.

[480] Prouty, L. Fletcher (1992) JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy. Birch Lane Press Book, pg. 147.

[481] Talbot, David. (2016) The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government. Harper Perennial, pg. 304. ⁵⁵⁶ Ibid, pg. 305.

[482] Ibid, pg. 295.

[483] Lumumba, Patrice. (June 30, 1960) SPEECH AT THE CEREMONY OF THE PROCLAMATION OF THE CONGO'S

INDEPENDENCE. https://web.archive.org/web/20220321183827/http://www.salo.org.za/wpcontent/uploads/2013/05/Patrice -Lumumba -Speech.pdf.

[484] Audio recording of Patrice Lumumba’s speech. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzPO4KQCZP8.

[485] Talbot, David. (2016) The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government. Harper Perennial, pg. 319.

[486] Talbot, David. (2016) The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government. Harper Perennial, pg. 319.

[487] Ibid, pg. 319.

[488] Recall from Chapter 1 that MAC (Mouvement d’Action Civique) was closely linked to

Mosley’s Union Movement, as well as similar outfits in Spain and Portugal. Jean-François Thiriart, the founder of MAC, forged connections with Skorzeny and Rudel, leading organizers of Gladio, as well as Jean-Marie Le Pen’s pro-Algerie Française movement in France, which made MAC into a principal agent of the OAS in Belgium. The origins of MAC, the far-right movement in Belgium in the 1960s, lay in the 1960 independence of the Belgian colonised Congo resulting in the Congo Crisis, which saw the vast majority of white colonials return to Belgium. Congo’s independence was led by Patrice Lumumba. The ties between MAC and OAS are significant for several reasons, one being the role of OAS in enforcing the French colonial rule in the Algiers. When President de Gaulle resisted this, the OAS made multiple attempts to assassinate de Gaulle. The OAS is also linked to Kennedy’s assassination as we will see in Chapter 8.

[489] Prouty, L. Fletcher. (1996) JFK: the CIA, Vietnam, and the plot to assassinate John F. Kennedy. Carol Pub. Group, New York.

[490] Prouty, L. Fletcher. (1996) JFK: the CIA, Vietnam, and the plot to assassinate John F. Kennedy. Carol Pub. Group, New York.

[491] Talbot, David. (2016) The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government. Harper Perennial, pg. 337.

[492] Ibid, pg. 337. ⁵⁶⁹ Ibid, pg. 359.

[493] Talbot, David. (2016) The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government. Harper Perennial, pg. 350.

[494] Ibid, pg. 353.

[495] Ibid, pg. 347.

[496] Ibid, pg. 354.

[497] For more on de Gaulle’s organising for the European Monetary Market see The Sword of Damocles Over Western Europe. Through A Glass Darkly.

https://cynthiachung.substack.com/p/the -sword -of -damocles -over -western.

[498] Acheson, Dean. (Jan. 18, 1963) Telegram to Konrad Adenauer. State Department and White House Advisor folder, Box 83, Dean Acheson Papers, Harry S. Truman Library. https://historyinpieces.com/documents/documents/dean -acheson -appeals -konrad -adenauerpersuade -charles -de -gaulle/. Retrieved Sept. 20, 2022.

[499] See The Sword of Damocles Over Western Europe. Through A Glass Darkly. https://cynthiachung.substack.com/p/the -sword -of -damocles -over -western.

[500] Ibid.

[501] Prouty, L. Fletcher (1992) JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F.

Kennedy. Birch Lane Press Book, pg. xxxiv.

https://archive.org/details/jfk_20201011/page/12/mode/2up?q=lutz.

[502] Ibid.

[503] Refer to Chapter 9.

[504] Refer to Chapter 14.

[505] Talbot, David. (2016) The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government. Harper Perennial, pg. 565-566.

[506] Ibid, pg. 569-570. ⁵⁸⁴ Ibid, pg. 570.

[507] Ibid, pg. 570-571.

[508] Garrison, Jim. (1991) On the Trail of the Assassins. Warner Books, pg. 116. ⁵⁸⁷ Ibid.

[509] Final Report of the Assassination Records Review Board. (1998) https://web.archive.org/web/20220914010647/https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/report /pdf/ARRB_Rpt_0_Title.pdf.

[510] Lardner Jr., George. (1998) GAPS IN KENNEDY AUTOPSY FILES DETAILED. The Washington Post.

https://web.archive.org/web/20221029074807/https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/p

[511] Talbot, David. (2016) The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government. Harper Perennial, pg. 502.

[512] The Commission is the governing body of the Italian-American Mafia, formed in 1931 by Charles "Lucky" Luciano following the Castellammarese War. The Commission replaced the title of capo di tutti i capi ("boss of all bosses"), held by Salvatore Maranzano before his murder, with a ruling committee that consists of the bosses of the Five Families of New York City, as well as the bosses of the Chicago Outfit and, at various times, the leaders of smaller families, such as Buffalo, Philadelphia, Detroit, and others. The purpose of the Commission was to oversee all Mafia activities in the United States and serve to mediate conflicts among families.

[513] French daily Le Monde, June 17-18, 1973, pg. 11.

[514] Kruger, Henrik. (1980) The Great Heroin Coup: Drugs, Intelligence & International Fascism. South End Press, pg. 89. ⁵⁹⁴ Ibid, pg. 203.

[515] Ibid, pg. 209.

[516] Recall Otto Skorzeny from Chapter 1, who worked with Mosley within the Operation Gladio framework.

[517] CORU was a Cuban exile umbrella organization; Coordinacion de Organisaciones Revolucionarias Unidas. CORU’s headquarters were in Miami.

[518] Kruger, Henrik. (1980) The Great Heroin Coup: Drugs, Intelligence & International Fascism. South End Press, pg. 206.

[519] Ibid, pg. 126.

[520] Kruger, Henrik. (1980) The Great Heroin Coup: Drugs, Intelligence & International Fascism. South End Press, pg. 145.

[521] Ibid, pg. 193.

[522] Ibid, pg. 21.

[523] CORU was a Cuban exile umbrella organization; Coordinacion de Organisaciones Revolucionarias Unidas. CORU’s headquarters were in Miami. Aginter Press’s relation to NATO’s Gladio was discussed in Chapter 6.

[524] Kruger, Henrik. (1980) The Great Heroin Coup: Drugs, Intelligence & International Fascism.

South End Press, pg. 163.

[525] Talbot, David. (2015) The Devil’s Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America’s Secret Government. Harper New York, pg. 279.

[526] Kruger, Henrik. (1980) The Great Heroin Coup: Drugs, Intelligence & International Fascism. South End Press, pg. 130. ⁶⁰⁷ Ibid, pg. 131.

[527] Raymond, Jack. (June 2, 1964) 2 Say Nixon Wanted '60 Cuba Foray. The New York Times. https://web.archive.org/web/20220501163103/https:/www.nytimes.com/1964/06/02/archiv es/2 -say -nixon -wanted -60 -cuba -foray.html.

[528] Talbot, David. (2015) The Devil’s Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America’s Secret Government. Harper New York, pg. 459.

[529] Kruger, Henrik. (1980) The Great Heroin Coup: Drugs, Intelligence & International Fascism. South End Press, pg. 144. ⁶¹¹ Ibid, pg. 16.

[530] Kruger, Henrik. (1980) The Great Heroin Coup: Drugs, Intelligence & International Fascism. South End Press, pg. 143.

[531] Cottrell, Richard. (2015) Gladio, NATO's Dagger at the Heart of Europe: The Pentagon-NaziMafia Terror Axis. Progressive Press.

[532] Garrison, Jim. (1991) On the Trail of the Assassins. Warner Books, pg. 43-44.

[533] Ibid, pg. 254. ⁶¹⁶ Ibid, pg. 254.

[534] Ibid, pg. 24-25.

[535] A ‘baby sitter’ is a term used by American intelligence agencies to describe an agent assigned to protect or otherwise see to the general welfare of a particular individual. ⁶¹⁹ Garrison, Jim. (1991) On the Trail of the Assassins. Warner Books, pg. 61. ⁶²⁰ Ibid, pg. 45.

[536] Ibid, pg. 103. ⁶²² Ibid, pg. 72.

[537] Hedegaard, Erik. (April 5, 2007) The Last Confession of E. Howard Hunt. Rolling Stone Magazine. https://www.rollingstone.com/feature/the -last -confession -of -e -howard -hunt76611/. Retrieved October 2022.

[538] Talbot, David. (2015) The Devil’s Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America’s Secret Government. Harper New York, pg. 470.

[539] Ibid, pg. 471.

[540] Ibid, pg.472.

[541] Ibid, pg. 476.

[542] Talbot, David. (2015) The Devil’s Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America’s Secret Government. Harper New York, pg. 477. ⁶²⁹ Ibid, pg. 477.

[543] Ibid, pg. 502. ⁶³¹ Ibid, pg. 502.

[544] Kruger, Henrik. (1980) The Great Heroin Coup: Drugs, Intelligence & International Fascism. South End Press, pg. 192.

[545] Prouty, L. Fletcher. (1996) JFK: the CIA, Vietnam, and the plot to assassinate John F. Kennedy. Carol Pub. Group, New York, pg. 32-34.

[546] Henry Cabot-Lodge’s family history goes back to the Opium Wars on the Cabot side. See Chapter 12 for more on this story.

[547] Prouty, L. Fletcher. (1996) JFK: the CIA, Vietnam, and the plot to assassinate John F. Kennedy. Carol Pub. Group, New York, pg. 260.

[548] Kruger, Henrik. (1980) The Great Heroin Coup: Drugs, Intelligence & International Fascism. South End Press, pg. 129.

[549] The priming stage for this coup was under the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt who was responsible for establishing America’s secret police. For more on this story refer to my paper The Origins of America’s Secret Police. https://cynthiachung.substack.com/p/the -origins -ofamericas -secret -police.

[550] Prouty, L. Fletcher. (1996) JFK: the CIA, Vietnam, and the plot to assassinate John F. . Carol Pub. Group, New York.

[551] De Gaulle who was Chairman of the Provisional Government of the French Republic served from June 3, 1944 to January 26, 1946. He had resigned his post on January 26, 1946, likely due to his disagreement with French escalation in Vietnam. De Gaulle would later serve as Prime Minister of France from June 1, 1958 to January 8, 1959; and as President of France from January 8, 1959 to April 28, 1969.

[552] For more on this refer to my paper Iran’s Century and a Half Fight for Sovereignty. https://risingtidefoundation.substack.com/p/irans -century -and -a -half -fight -for.

[553] Recall Chapter 3.

[554] Prouty, L. Fletcher (1992) JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. . Birch Lane Press Book, pg. 57.

[555] Ibid, pg. 38, 58.

[556] Ibid, pg. 58.

[557] Ganser, Daniele. (2005) NATO’s Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe. Frank Cass, London, New York, pg. 44.

[558] Prouty, L. Fletcher (1992) JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. . Birch Lane Press Book, pg. 61.

[559] Prouty, L. Fletcher (1992) JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy. Birch Lane Press Book.

[560] Kruger, Henrik. (1980) The Great Heroin Coup: Drugs, Intelligence & International Fascism. South End Press, pg. 123-124.

[561] Kruger, Henrik. (1980) The Great Heroin Coup: Drugs, Intelligence & International Fascism. South End Press, pg. 133-136.

[562] Ritter, Scott. (Aug. 17, 2021) The only truth about US disastrous Afghanistan war is that it was all based on lies. RT News. https://www.rt.com/op -ed/532305 -taliban -victory -us -lie/. Retrieved September 9, 2022.

[563] Cirincione, Joseph. (Aug. 28, 2004) Niger Uranium: Still a False Claim. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220909222558/https://carnegieendowment.org/2004/08/28 /niger -uranium -still -false -claim -pub -1595.

[564] BBC News. (Sept. 3, 2021) Afghanistan: What has the conflict cost the US and its allies? https://web.archive.org/web/2/https://www.bbc.com/news/world -47391821.

[565] Fromkin, David. (1989) A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East. Henry Holt and Company, New York, pg. 103.

[566] Wikipedia. McMahon–Hussein Correspondence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMahon%E2%80%93Hussein_Correspondence. Retrieved September 12, 2022.

[567] Sykes-Picot. (December 5, 1917) The Ambassador in Russia ( Francis ) to the Secretary of

State. Office of the Historian https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1917Supp02v01/d416. One of the consequences of the Bolshevik Revolution which started in March 1917, was their acquiring of the Sykes-Picot papers which the Russian government under Tsar Nicholas II had copies of, and to which the Bolsheviks promptly leaked such that the secretive imperialist plan for the Middle East was revealed to the entire world.

[568] Stein, Leonard. (1983) The Balfour Declaration. The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, The Jewish Chronicle Publications, Jerusalem – London.

[569] For the historical backdrop of Lord Alfred Milner see Appendix I.

[570] Milner's appointment to the Cabinet was due to his role as High Commissioner for

Southern Africa during the Second Boer War – Britain's last large-scale war prior to WWI. ⁶⁵⁹ See Appendix I for more on Lord Alfred Milner’s Kindergarten and the Round Table. ⁶⁶⁰ Recall Chapter 1.

[571] Anonymous. (July 8, 1945) PRO-NAZI BRITON HELD: John Amery, Son of Official in India, Accused of Aiding Foe. The New York Times. https://web.archive.org/web/20221015232524/https://www.nytimes.com/1945/07/08/archi ves/pronazi -briton -held -john -amery -son -of -official -in -india -accused -of.html.

[572] Dorril, Stephen. (2000) MI6: Fifty Years of Special Operations. The Free Press, New York, pg. 356.

[573] Wikipedia. Mandate for Palestine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_for_Palestine. Retrieved September 12, 2022.

[574] Dreyfuss, Robert. (2005) Devil’s Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam. Henry Holt and Company, LLC, pg. 25.

[575] Ibid, pg. 18.

[576] The proposal to London from Jamal al-Din al-Afghani was reported by a British Orientalist and author W.S. Blunt, a friend of Afghani’s. It is cited in C.C. Adams, Islam and Modernism in Egypt.

[577] Kedourie, Elie. (1966) Afghani and Abduh: An Essay on Religious Unbelief and Political Activism in Modern Islam. The Humanities Press, New York.

[578] Kedourie, Elie. (1966) Afghani and Abduh: An Essay on Religious Unbelief and Political

Activism in Modern Islam. The Humanities Press, New York, pg. 30

[579] Dreyfuss, Robert. (2005) Devil’s Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam. Henry Holt and Company, LLC, pg. 30.

[580] Ibid, pg. 21.

[581] Ibid, pg. 39.

[582] Ibid, pg. 47.

[583] Ibid, pg. 51.

[584] Egypt became an autonomous state within the Ottoman Empire under the rule of Muhammad Ali Pasha (1805-1848) and his male successors. From 1852, Britain kept an increased presence in northern Egypt to maintain the overland trade route to India. Isma’il Pasha sold Egypt’s shares of the Suez Canal Company to Britain in 1875 in the wake of a financial crisis. Dissatisfaction with European and Ottoman rule led to a nationalist revolt in 1879. The British military occupied Egypt in 1882 to protect financial interests in the country, culminating in a violent war. Britain won, restored the Khedival authority in Cairo, and established a ‘veiled protectorate’ over Ottoman-Egypt until the First World War. Egypt declared independence in 1922, but Britain did not withdraw all its troops until after the 1956 Suez Crisis.

[585] Video of Nasser’s 1962 speech. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voUNkFuhg1E. ⁶⁷⁶ Dreyfuss, Robert. (2005) Devil’s Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam. Henry Holt and Company, LLC, pg. 97.

[586] Dorril, Stephen. (2000) MI6: Fifty Years of Special Operations. The Free Press, New York, pg. 356.

[587] Ibid, pg. 629.

[588] Recall from Chapter 1 Section D and its ties to the Mosley circles.

[589] Dorril, Stephen. (2000) MI6: Fifty Years of Special Operations. The Free Press, New York, pg.

622.

[590] Dorril, Stephen. (2000) MI6: Fifty Years of Special Operations. The Free Press, New York, pg.

613.

[591] Gordon, Joel (1992) Nasser’s Blessed Movement. Oxford University Press, New York, pg. 105.

[592] Friedman, Isaiah (2000) Palestine: A Twice-Promised Land? The British, the Arabs & Zionism. 1915–1920. Vol. 1. New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers, pg. 239-240. ⁶⁸⁴ Tauber, Eliezer (1994) The Formation of Modern Iraq and Syria. Routledge, pg. 79 & 96.

[593] Laurens, Henry (1999) L'invention de la Terre sainte. La Question de Palestine. Vol. 1. Paris:

Fayard.

[594] Segev, Tom (2000). One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate.

Metropolitan Books, New York.

[595] Sicker, Martin (2000) Pangs of the Messiah: The Troubled Birth of the Jewish State. Greenwood Publishing Group.

[596] Porath, Yehoshua. (1971) Al Hajj Amin al Huseyni, Mufti of Jerusalem. Asian and African Studies, Jerusalem Academic Press, pg. 128.

[597] Pearlman, Maurice. (1947) Mufti of Jerusalem: The Story of Haj Amin el Husseini. Victor Gollancz Ltd, London, pg. 14.

[598] The Al-Aqsa Mosque, the principal Mosque in Palestine, is believed to be the site from which the Prophet Mohammed ascended to heaven. It is also the historic site of the ancient Jewish Temple Mount, the site of Solomon’s Temple and its successors.

[599] Pearlman, Maurice. (1947) Mufti of Jerusalem: The Story of Haj Amin el Husseini. Victor Gollancz Ltd, London, pg. 16.

[600] Ibid, pg. 17.

[601] Ibid, pg. 17-18.

[602] Morris, Benny. (1999) Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881–1999. John Murray Publishers. ⁶⁹⁵ Recall Chapter 5.

[603] Simson, H.J. (1937) British Rule and Rebellion. W. Blackwood and Sons, pg. 315. ⁶⁹⁷ Pearlman, Maurice. (1947) Mufti of Jerusalem: The Story of Haj Amin el Husseini. Victor Gollancz Ltd, London, pg. 21.

[604] Ibid, pg. 22.

[605] Ibid, pg. 22-23.

[606] Khalidi, Rashid (2001). "The Palestinians and 1948: the underlying causes of failure". In Eugene L., Rogan; Shlaim, Avi (eds.). The war for Palestine: rewriting the history of 1948. Cambridge University Press. pp. 12–36.

[607] Pearlman, Maurice. (1947) Mufti of Jerusalem: The Story of Haj Amin el Husseini. Victor Gollancz Ltd, London, pg. 35.

[608] Ibid, pg. 51

[609] Ibid, pg. 43.

[610] Recall Chapter 5.

[611] Pearlman, Maurice. (1947) Mufti of Jerusalem: The Story of Haj Amin el Husseini. Victor Gollancz Ltd, London, pg. 52.

[612] More on this in the section “The Mufti, the Gehlen Organization and Operation Gladio” of this chapter.

[613] Hopkirk, Peter. (1994) The Great Game: The Struggle for Empire in Central Asia. Kodansha Globe.

[614] Refer to Chapter 12.

[615] Refer to Chapter 14.

[616] For more on how the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan was provoked by AngloAmerican actions, refer to Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould’s book The Valediction.

[617] Pearlman, Maurice. (1947) Mufti of Jerusalem: The Story of Haj Amin el Husseini. Victor Gollancz Ltd, London, pg. 57.

[618] Ibid, pg. 64.

[619] The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) is a forum of 120 countries that are not formally aligned with or against any major power bloc. After the United Nations, it is the largest

[620] Pearlman, Maurice. (1947) Mufti of Jerusalem: The Story of Haj Amin el Husseini. Victor Gollancz Ltd, London, pg. 65. ⁷¹⁶ Ibid, pg. 74.

[621] Achcar, Gilbert (2010b). The Arabs and the Holocaust: The Arab-Israeli War of Narratives.

Henry Holt and Company, pg 148

[622] Pearlman, Maurice. (1947) Mufti of Jerusalem: The Story of Haj Amin el Husseini. Victor

Gollancz Ltd, London, pg. 74

[623] Achcar, Gilbert (2010. The Arabs and the Holocaust: The Arab-Israeli War of Narratives.

Henry Holt and Company, pg. 145-146.

[624] Carpi, Daniel (1977). The Rescue of Jews in the Italian Zone of Occupied Croatia. Gutman,

Yisrael; Zuroff, Ephraim (eds.). Rescue Attempts During the Holocaust: Proceedings of the Second Yad Vashem International Historical Conference, April 1974. Jerusalem: Yad Vashem, pg. 39.

[625] New York Post, April 20, 1946, and June 6, 1946.

[626] The German Templer Society emerged in Germany during the mid-nineteenth century, with its roots in the Pietist movement of the Lutheran Church, and in its history a legacy of preceding centuries during which various Christian groups undertook to establish what they saw as the perfect Christian religion in preparation for Christ's promised return. The movement was founded by Christoph Hoffmann [1815-1885], who believed that humanity’s salvation lay in the gathering of God's people in a Christian community. He also believed that the second coming of Christ was imminent, and that according to Biblical prophecy it would take place in Jerusalem, where God's people were to gather as a symbol of the rebuilding of the temple. He established a number of German Templer colonies in Palestine. Source: Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Templers_(Pietist_sect). Many of the German Templers collaborated with the Nazis during the Second World War. ⁷²³ Recall Chapter 6.

[627] Naftali, Timothy et al. (2005) U.S. Intelligence and the Nazis. Cambridge University Press, pg. 404.

[628] Breitman, Richard; Goda, Norman. (2011) Hitler's Shadow: Nazi War Criminals, U. S.

Intelligence, and the Cold War. National Archives, pg. 18.

[629] Recall Mosley’s fascist aspirations for Africa in Chapter 1.

[630] Breitman, Richard; Goda, Norman. (2011) Hitler's Shadow: Nazi War Criminals, U. S. Intelligence, and the Cold War. National Archives, pg. 20.

[631] Pearlman, Maurice. (1947) Mufti of Jerusalem: The Story of Haj Amin el Husseini. Victor Gollancz Ltd, London, pg. 7-8.

[632] Ibid, pg. 8.

[633] Ibid, pg. 8.

[634] Ibid, pg. 8. ⁷³⁴ Ibid, pg. 8.

[635] Breitman, Richard; Goda, Norman. (2011) Hitler's Shadow: Nazi War Criminals, U. S. Intelligence, and the Cold War. National Archives, pg. 21.

[636] Gensicke, Der Mufti von Jerusalem und die Nationalsozialisten, 148. Burrell to Blum, March 7, 1946, NARA, RG 263, E ZZ-18, B 58, Haj Amin al-Husseini Name File, v. 1, f. 1.

[637] Floyd A. Spencer, Asst. Military Attaché, Cairo Report, Background of Plan to Return . . .

Husseini to Middle East, June 21, 1946, NARA, RG 165, Army G-2 3161.0503, MIS 279421.

[638] Breitman, Richard; Goda, Norman. (2011) Hitler's Shadow Nazi War Criminals, U. S.

Intelligence, and the Cold War. National Archives, pg. 22.

[639] Dreyfuss, Richard. (2005). The Devil’s Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam. Henry Holt and Company, LLC, pg. 192.

[640] Mitchell, Richard. (1969) The Society of the Muslim Brothers. Oxford University Press, London, pg. 55.

[641] Boulby, Marion. (1999) The Muslim Brotherhood and the Kings of Jordan. Scholars Press, Atlanta, Ga, pg. 37-43.

[642] Nkrumah’s Pan-Africanism and Nasser’s Pan-Arabism were fundamentally opposed to Kalergi’s Pan-Europeanism. Nkrumah and Nasser were working to end colonialism and unite these regions in a common cause, and achieve sovereignty as nations. By being united in the African and Arabic cause, they would be better able to defend themselves against the imperialist strategy of “divide and conquer” while economically and militarily sovereign. Recall, according to the League of Nations’ vision, there was to be no Pan-Africanism nor PanArabism.

[643] Dreyfuss, Richard. (2005). The Devil’s Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam. Henry Holt and Company, LLC, pg. 58.

[644] Ibid, pg. 75.

[645] Ibid, pg. 62.

[646] See Chapter 14.

[647] Warde, Ibrahim. (2000) Islamic Finance in the Global Economy. Edinburgh University Press, pg. 107. http://www.iefpedia.com/english/wp -content/uploads/2011/03/2000 -IbrahimWarde -Islamic -finance -in -the -global -economy -Edinburh -University -Press.pdf.

[648] According to Robert Morgenthau (Manhattan DA) who had been investigating the bank for over two years.

[649] Fitzgerald, Paul; Gould, Elizabeth. (2021) The Valediction: Three Nights of Desmond. Trine Day LLC.

[650] Paul Fitzgerald was the first and only Western journalist (besides his wife) that was allowed entry into Afghanistan by its government in the early 1980s and made several trips to Afghanistan during this period. His wife and fellow journalist Elizabeth Gould would join him on later trips. They wrote about this experience and their insights into what had triggered the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 in their excellently researched book The Valediction.

[651] Kerry, John; Brown, Hank. (1992) The BCCI Affair: A Report to the Committee on Foreign Relations. US Government Printing Office for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations. https://info.publicintelligence.net/The -BCCI -Affair.pdf.

[652] Chung, Cynthia. (Aug. 15, 2021) Why the West Funds Terrorism. Through A Glass Darkly Substack. https://cynthiachung.substack.com/p/why -the -west -funds -terrorism.

[653] Woodman, Spencer. (September 21, 2020) HSBC moved vast sums of dirty money after paying record laundering fine: FinCEN Files probe reveals Europe’s biggest bank aided massive Ponzi scheme while on probation over ties to drug kingpins. International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.

https://web.archive.org/web/20221030225919/https://www.icij.org/investigations/fincenfiles/hsbc -moved -vast -sums -of -dirty -money -after -paying -record -laundering -fine/.

[654] Ibid

[655] Hearing before the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs United States Senate. (July 17, 2012) U.S.

Vulnerabilities to Money Laundering, Drugs, and Terrorist Financing: HSBC Case Study.

https://web.archive.org/web/2/https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG112shrg76061/html/CHRG -112shrg76061.htm.

[656] Mollenkamp, Carrick; Wolf, Brett (December 11, 2012). HSBC to pay record $1.9-billion fine in U.S. money-laundering case. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk -hsbc -probeidUKBRE8BA05K20121211. Retrieved October 2022.

[657] Ibid.

[658] Treanor, Jill; Rushe, Dominic. (Dec. 11, 2012) HSBC pays record $1.9bn fine to settle US money-laundering accusations. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/dec/11/hsbc -bank -us -moneylaundering?fbclid=IwAR0UB561oD -iRE3N8WyZ9P9hVrdfp1HBV7tN_j1oKsM6JJ4NMXNS8SGEQc. Retrieved October 2022.

[659] Woodman, Spencer. (September 21, 2020) HSBC moved vast sums of dirty money after paying record laundering fine: FinCEN Files probe reveals Europe’s biggest bank aided massive

[660] Ibid. ⁷⁶¹ Ibid.

[661] The chancellor of the Exchequer, often abbreviated to chancellor, is a senior minister of the Crown within the Government of the United Kingdom, and head of His Majesty's Treasury. ⁷⁶³ Neate, Rupert. (July 11, 2016) HSBC escaped US money-laundering charges after Osborn’s intervention. The Guardian.

https://web.archive.org/web/20221030231226/https://www.theguardian.com/business/201 6/jul/11/hsbc -us -money -laundering -george -osborne -report.

[662] Ibid

[663] O’Toole, James. (December 12, 2012) HSBC: Too big to jail? CNNMoney. https://money.cnn.com/2012/12/12/news/companies/hsbc -money -laundering/. Retrieved October 2022.

[664] Hearing before the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs United States Senate. (July 17, 2012) U.S.

Vulnerabilities to Money Laundering, Drugs, and Terrorist Financing: HSBC Case Study.

https://web.archive.org/web/2/https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG112shrg76061/html/CHRG -112shrg76061.htm.

[665] Hamilton, Jesse; Voreacos, David. (July 23, 2012) HSBC Executive Resigns at Senate MoneyLaundering Hearing. Bloomberg. https://web.archive.org/web/20221030232407/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ 2012 -07 -16/hsbc -aided -money -laundering -by -iran -drug -cartels -probe -shows.

[666] Ibid.

[667] Taibi, Matt. (February 14, 2013) Gangster Bankers: Too Big to Jail: How HSBC hooked up with drug traffickers and terrorists. And got away with it. Rolling Stone Magazine. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics -news/gangster -bankers -too -big -to -jail102004/. Retrieved October 2022.

[668] Ibid.

[669] Ibid.

[670] Ibid.

[671] Ibid.

[672] Lewis, Simon. (Jul 21, 2016) U.S. Arrests Senior HSBC Banker Over Multimillion-Dollar Fraud Scheme. TIME Magazine. https://web.archive.org/web/2/https://time.com/4416349/hsbcrate -rigging -front -running/.

[673] O’Brien, Rebecca Davis. (June 14, 2018) Former HSBC Executive Convicted of Fraud for Front-Running. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/former -hsbc -executiveconvicted -of -fraud -for -front -running -1508779714. Retrieved October 2022.

[674] Hurtado, Patricia; Nguyen, Lananh (April 26, 2018). Ex-HSBC FX Trader Sentenced to 2 Years, Sent Directly to Prison. Bloomberg News. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018 -04 -26 /ex -hsbc -currency -trader -issentenced -to -two -years -in -prison. Retrieved October 2022.

[675] Hurtado, Patricia; Stohr, Greg. (November 2, 2020) Ex-HSBC Trader Denied Supreme Court Appeal of Fraud Conviction. Bloomberg. https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/ex -hsbc -traderdenied -supreme -court -appeal -of -fraud -conviction -1.1516434. Retrieved October 2022. ⁷⁸⁰ Sinay, Reenat. (February 9, 2021) Ex-HSBC Banker Can't Skip Prison, But Wins Vaccine Delay. Law360. https://www.law360.com/articles/1353712/ex -hsbc -banker -can -t -skip -prisonbut -wins -vaccine -delay. Retrieved October 2022.

[676] Neate, Rupert. (July 20, 2016) FBI arrests senior HSBC banker accused of rigging multibillion-dollar deal. The Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jul/20/hsbc -mark -johnson -stuart -scottarrested -currency -exchange. Retrieved October 2022.

[677] Bowers, Simon (November 9, 2012). HSBC Jersey accounts investigated by UK tax authorities. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/nov/09/hsbc -jerseyaccounts -uk -tax -hmrc. Retrieved October 2022.

[678] Mustoe, Howard. (January 30, 2013) HSBC Hires Tax, Anti-Terror Chiefs for Control Panel. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013 -01 -30/hsbc -names -tax -policeand -anti -terror -chiefs -to -controls -team. Retrieved October 2022.

[679] Rubenfeld, Samuel. (January 30, 2013) HSBC Names James Comey to the Board. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL -CCB -7794. Retrieved October 2013.

[680] Mustoe, Howard. (January 30, 2013) HSBC Hires Tax, Anti-Terror Chiefs for Control Panel. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013 -01 -30/hsbc -names -tax -policeand -anti -terror -chiefs -to -controls -team. Retrieved October 2022.

[681] Woodman, Spencer. (September 21, 2020) HSBC moved vast sums of dirty money after paying record laundering fine: FinCEN Files probe reveals Europe’s biggest bank aided massive Ponzi scheme while on probation over ties to drug kingpins. International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.

https://web.archive.org/web/20221030225919/https://www.icij.org/investigations/fincenfiles/hsbc -moved -vast -sums -of -dirty -money -after -paying -record -laundering -fine/. ⁷⁸⁷ Garside, Juliette. (June 4, 2015) HSBC pays out £28m over money-laundering claims. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/04/hsbc -fined -278m -overmoney -laundering -claims. Retrieved October 2022.

[682] Stempel, Jonatha; Sangameswaran, S. (January 18, 2018). HSBC to pay $100 million to settle U.S. probe into currency rigging. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/us -hsbcsettlement -idUSKBN1F739N. Retrieved October 2022.

[683] Reuters Staff. (November 9, 2018) South African central bank fines HSBC for lax money laundering controls. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk -hsbc -fine -safrica -idUKKCN1NE1YT.

Retrieved October 2022.

[684] Ryan, Peter. (April 7, 2020). Global bank HSBC owns up to potential anti-money laundering breaches. ABC News. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020 -04 -08/banking -giant -hsbc -flagspotential -money -laundering -breaches/12132454. Retrieved October 2022.

[685] Withers, Iain. (December 17, 2021.) HSBC fined $85 mln for UK anti-money laundering failings. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/business/hsbc -fined -85 -mln -uk -anti -moneylaundering -failings -2021 -12 -17/. Retrieved October 2022.

[686] Cowell, Alan. (May 11, 1999) HSBC to Pay $10.3 Billion For Republic. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/1999/05/11/business/hsbc -to -pay -10.3 -billion -forrepublic.html#:~:text=HSBC%20Holdings%20P.L.C.%20announced%20today,for%20an%20Am erican%20banking%20company. Retrieved October 2022.

[687] Ibid.

[688] U.S. Labor Party Investigating Team. (1992) Dope, Inc.: Britain’s Opium War against the U.S.

Executive Intelligence Review, pg. 64-65.

[689] James, Sara. (March 23, 2008) Billionaire’s mysterious death in Monte Carlo. NCB News. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna23767683. Retrieved October 2022.

[690] Ibid.

[691] Ibid.

[692] BBC News Staff. (June 24, 2004) HSBC ‘buys stake in Chinese bank’. BBC News. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3835585.stm. Retrieved October 2022.

[693] Timmons, Heather. (September 12, 2003) HSBC Gets Approval to Acquire Polish Bank. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/12/business/hsbc -gets -approval -toacquire -polish -bank.html. Retrieved October 2022.

[694] BBC News Staff. (October 2, 2005) HSBC closes in on Iraqi bank deal. BBC News.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4302742.stm. Retrieved October 2022.

[695] Treanor, Jill. (December 15, 2007) Taiwan gives HSBC £750m to take on Chinese bank. The Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2007/dec/15/hsbcholdingsbusiness.banking.

Retrieved October 2022.

[696] Bloomberg News. (March 28, 1997) HSBC Buys Bamerindus, Brazil Bank, For $1 Billion. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/28/business/hsbc -buys -bamerindusbrazil -bank -for -1 -billion.html. Retrieved October 2022.

[697] RNS Staff. (January 24, 2006) HSBC BANK ARGENTINA TO ACQUIRE BANCA NAZIONALE DEL LAVORO ARGENTINA. RNS, the company news service from the London Stock Exchange.

https://web.archive.org/web/20221031014703/https://www.investegate.co.uk/ArticlePrint.a spx?id=200601241606493862X.

[698] Chung, Cynthia. (Aug. 2, 2022) The Real Global Agenda Pushing for War with China. Through A Glass Darkly Substack. https://cynthiachung.substack.com/p/the -real -globalagenda -pushing -for.

[699] HSBC Shares Hit 25 Year Low on Report of China ‘Unreliable List’, Livemint News,

September 21, 2020 https://www.livemint.com/market/stock -market -news/hsbc -shares -hit25 -year -low -on -report -of -china -unreliable -list -11600668033239.html. Retrieved October 2022.

[700] Hasan, Syed Masroor; Khanna, Rohit. (June 18, 2013) Standard Chartered, HSBC officials caught on camera offering to launder money. CNN-IBN & Cobrapost.

https://web.archive.org/web/20130620201245/http://ibnlive.in.com/news/stanchart -hsbcofficials -caught -on -camera -offering -to -launder -money/399864 -3.html.

[701] Beeching, Jack. (1975) The Chinese Opium Wars. A Harvest Book, New York, London, pg. 95.

[702] Ibid, pg. 43. ⁸¹²Ibid.

[703] U.S. Labor Party Investigating Team. (1992) Dope, Inc.: Britain’s Opium War against the U.S. Executive Intelligence Review, pg. 19. https://archive.org/details/dope -inc -britains -opiumwar -against -the -u.-s.-major -expose -of -global -drug -trade/page/19/mode/2up?q=663.

[704] Beeching, Jack. (1975) The Chinese Opium Wars. A Harvest Book, New York, London, pg.

272.

[705] Recall from Chapter 10, Evelyn Baring (aka Lord Cromer), was the symbol of British imperialism in Egypt . Abduh would found along with the help of London’s Egyptian proconsul Evelyn Baring, the Salafiyya movement. Evelyn Baring was the scion of the enormously powerful banking clan, Barings Bank, under the city of London.

[706] This is the same Cabot family from which Henry Cabot-Lodge comes from, who was US Ambassador to Vietnam as part of the ‘great heroin coup’.

[707] Howard Brett. (1976) Boston, a social history. Hawthorn Books.

[708] U.S. Labor Party Investigating Team. (1992) Dope, Inc.: Britain’s Opium War against the U.S. Executive Intelligence Review, pg. 41.

[709] Ibid, pg. 38.

[710] U.S. Labor Party Investigating Team. (1992) Dope, Inc.: Britain’s Opium War against the U.S. Executive Intelligence Review. ⁸²¹Ibid, pg. 20.

[711] Ibid, pg. 140.

[712] Ibid, pg. 142.

[713] Flint, John. (1974) Cecil Rhodes. Boston: Little Brown and Co.

[714] Memorandum from the City of London Corporation. www.parliament.uk, pg. 9. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmtreasy/183/183we.doc. Retrieved October 2022.

[715] European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. (2017). EMCDDA highlights growing threats posed by new and established substances.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220910005848/https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/news/2017/ 6/european -drug -report -2017 -highlights.

[716] Glass-Steagall was enacted in the first year of Roosevelt’s presidency and destroyed by Clinton in 1999 who deemed it “no longer appropriate” in a post-Volcker-Greenspan financial world of derivatives and bubbles. The Glass–Steagall legislation describes four provisions of the United States Banking Act of 1933 separating commercial and investment banking. The article 1933 Banking Act describes the entire law, including the legislative history of the provisions covered herein. The separation of commercial and investment banking prevented securities firms and investment banks from taking deposits, and commercial Federal Reserve member banks from: dealing in non-governmental securities for customers, investing in noninvestment grade securities for themselves, underwriting or distributing non-governmental securities, affiliating (or sharing employees) with companies involved in such activities. For more on Glass-Steagall see Appendix III.

[717] Hitchens, Christopher. (1993) For the Sake of Argument: Essay and Minority Reports, pg.

143.

[718] Kelly, Daniel. (2002) James Burnham and the Struggle for the World: A Life. ISI Books Wilmington, Delaware, pg. 79.

[719] Kelly, Daniel. (2002) James Burnham and the Struggle for the World: A Life. ISI Books Wilmington, Delaware, pg. 16.

[720] Interestingly Bertrand Russell, who became Burnham’s philosophical godhead, was also a converted atheist, however that did not stop him from admiring the techniques of the Jesuit Order, as he so favourably discusses in his The Scientific Outlook as methods for desirable educational reforms.

[721] Kelly, Daniel. (2002) James Burnham and the Struggle for the World: A Life. ISI Books Wilmington, Delaware, pg. 33. ⁸³³ Ibid, pg. 33.

[722] Ibid, pg. 33 ⁸³⁵ Ibid.

[723] See From Trotskyism to Radical Positivism: How Albert Wohlstetter Became the Leading Authority on Nuclear Strategy for America. Through A Glass Darkly Substack.

[724] Kelly, Daniel. (2002) James Burnham and the Struggle for the World: A Life. ISI Books Wilmington, Delaware, pg. 33.

[725] Ibid, pg. 34-35. ⁸³⁹ Ibid, pg. 35.

[726] Leon Trotsky to Burnham. (Dec. 9, 1937) Trotsky Archive, Houghton Library, Harvard University.

[727] Kelly, Daniel. (2002) James Burnham and the Struggle for the World: A Life. ISI Books Wilmington, Delaware, pg. 39.

[728] Ibid, pg. 39. ⁸⁴³ Ibid, pg. 39.

[729] Recall from Chapter 1 that Georges Sorel (1847-1922) was a collaborator of Charles

Maurras’s Action Francaise, which was pro-Vichy government who had collaborated with the Nazis during the war. Sorel, who started out Marxist, became a supporter of Maurrassian integral nationalism beginning in 1909, and created the ideology Sorelianism, a revisionist interpretation of Marx according to Sorel.

[730] Kelly, Daniel. (2002) James Burnham and the Struggle for the World: A Life. ISI Books Wilmington, Delaware.

[731] Burnham to Hook, n.d. 1938, SH, Box 8; James Burnham, “A Belated Dialectician,” a review of The Marxist Philosophy and the Sciences, by J.B.S. Haldane, Partisan Review 6 (Spring 1939): pg. 121-123.

[732] See Appendix II for more on the Fabian Society and John Dewey.

[733] Kelly, Daniel. (2002) James Burnham and the Struggle for the World: A Life. ISI Books Wilmington, Delaware, pg. 41.

[734] "Muste Drops Out of Dewey League: Resigns from Executive of Third Party Group," Revolutionary Age [New York], vol. 2, no. 5 (January 3, 1931), pg. 2.

[735] Hentoff, Nat. (1963) Peace Agitator: The Story of A.J. Muste. Macmillan, New York, pg. 38. ⁸⁵¹ Kelly, Daniel. (2002) James Burnham and the Struggle for the World: A Life. ISI Books Wilmington, Delaware, pg. 41-42.

[736] Kelly, Daniel. (2002) James Burnham and the Struggle for the World: A Life. ISI Books Wilmington, Delaware, pg. 47.

[737] See Appendix III for an overview of Roosevelt’s New Deal.

[738] Kelly, Daniel. (2002) James Burnham and the Struggle for the World: A Life. ISI Books Wilmington, Delaware, pg. 43.

[739] Ibid, pg. 52.

[740] Ibid, pg. 68.

[741] Ibid, pg. 70.

[742] Cannon, James. (1943) The Struggle for a Proletarian Party, pg. 28-29.

[743] Ibid. ⁸⁶⁰ Ibid.

[744] Kelly, Daniel. (2002) James Burnham and the Struggle for the World: A Life. ISI Books Wilmington, Delaware, pg. 70.

[745] Ibid, pg. 71.

[746] Ibid, pg. 250, 317, 342. ⁸⁶⁴ Ibid, pg. 342.

[747] Recall Chapter 4. ⁸⁶⁶ Ibid, pg. 73

[748] Ibid, pg. 73.

[749] Recall Chapter 3.

[750] Kelly, Daniel. (2002) James Burnham and the Struggle for the World: A Life. ISI Books Wilmington, Delaware.

[751] Ibid, pg. 57.

[752] This formula has a great deal of similarity to the Mufti of Jerusalem who also claimed that if the Arabs were for independence they would logically have to side with the Nazis and fight the Western imperialists. These were the more naïve types who were unable to recognise that fascism was inherently imperialistic as was showcased in great detail in Chapter 2.

[753] Burnham to Hook, June 12, 1938, SH, Box 132; ibid, August 2, 1938, SH, Box 8. ⁸⁷³ Kelly, Daniel. (2002) James Burnham and the Struggle for the World: A Life. ISI Books Wilmington, Delaware.

[754] Recall from Chapter 2 that it was in fact the fascists who were anti-Roosevelt and anti-New Deal and were pro-League of Nations, to which Roosevelt opposed. It is funny how the Nazis criticized Roosevelt as being a ‘Jewish puppet’ and the Trotskyists were calling him a fascist! This is doubly ironic since Trotsky and Burnham would actually be affiliated with working with fascists, more on this shortly.

[755] See Grover Furr’s Leon Trotsky’s Collaboration with Germany and Japan who researched archival resources that showcase that Trotsky did indeed collaborate with the German and Japanese fascists during the Second World War.

[756] Furr, Grover. (July 2018) The Fraud of the Dewey Commission. Red Star Publishers, pg. 5. ⁸⁷⁷ Kluckhohn, Frank L. (April 18, 1937) BEALS QUITS GROUP HEARING TROTSKY; Writer Asserts Proceedings Do Not Constitute a Truly Serious Investigation. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/1937/04/18/archives/beals -quits -group -hearing -trotsky -writerasserts -proceedings -do -not.html. Retrieved October 2022.

[757] Kelly, Daniel. (2002) James Burnham and the Struggle for the World: A Life. ISI Books Wilmington, Delaware, pg. 115.

[758] Kelly, Daniel. (2002) James Burnham and the Struggle for the World: A Life. ISI Books Wilmington, Delaware, pg. 64.

[759] It was obvious why Trotsky was supportive of the “unconditional defense” of the USSR, since he wished to return to the USSR one day as its leader, and thus could not look like he would abandon it to destruction by outside forces. However, he was not shy to do back-doordealings with the fascists before and during the war. It was simply not something meant to be ever shared in the public arena (see Grover Furr’s “Leon Trotsky’s Collaboration with Germany and Japan”). Trotsky did not want to add fuel to the already prevalent image of himself as a fifth columnist, he wanted to be seen as a hero, a saviour to his people.

[760] Kelly, Daniel. (2002) James Burnham and the Struggle for the World: A Life. ISI Books Wilmington, Delaware, pg. 80.

[761] Ibid, pg. 80.

[762] Ibid.

[763] Burnham, James. (Feb. 1940) A Reply to Comrade Trotsky. Science and Style. https://web.archive.org/web/20220926090710/https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writer s/burnham/1940/02/style.htm.

[764] For more on the relevance of Bertrand Russell and John Dewey see Appendix II.

[765] Burnham, James. (May 21, 1940) Letter of Resignation from the Workers Party. https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/burnham/1940/05/resignation.htm. Retrieved September 26, 2022.

[766] For more on how Aldous Huxley was influenced by Bertrand Russell refer to my paper Who Will Brave in Huxley's New World: The War on Science and the 20th Century Descent of Man. Through A Glass Darkly Substack. https://cynthiachung.substack.com/.

[767] Burnham, James. (1941) The Managerial Revolution or What is Happening in the World Now. Putname and Company, Limited, London, pg. 44.

[768] This is most definitely in reference to Bertrand Russell’s The Scientific Outlook who refers to a priestly class, modelled off the Jesuits, for educational reform. It should also be noted that H.G. Wells shared the same views. What Burnham is referring to is the very same “scientific dictatorship” Oswald Mosley was referring to, recall Chapter 1.

[769] Burnham, James. (1941) The Managerial Revolution or What is Happening in the World Now. Putname and Company, Limited, London, pg. 73.

[770] Ibid, pg. 120. ⁸⁹² Ibid.

[771] See Appendix III for a comparison of the pro-fascist Keynes’ New Deal vs. the anti-fascist Roosevelt’s New Deal.

[772] Recall Chapter 3.

[773] Burnham, James. (1941) The Managerial Revolution or What is Happening in the World Now. Putname and Company, Limited, London, pg. 96.

[774] McGrory, Mary. (Feb. 19, 1950) Reading And Writing. The Washington Post.

[775] The Machiavellians were very Dewey-esque in their scientific outlook, see Appendix II. ⁸⁹⁸ Kelly, Daniel. (2002) James Burnham and the Struggle for the World: A Life. ISI Books Wilmington, Delaware, pg. 107.

[776] Burnham to Markmann, March 30, 1972, Box 5; Burnham, The Machiavellians, preface to the Regnery-Gateway ed., viii. See also Burnham to Norkela, November 19, 1971, , Box 2. ⁹⁰⁰ Zeev Sternhell, Mario Sznajder, Maia Ashéri. The Birth of Fascist Ideology: From Cultural Rebellion to Political Revolution. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1994. ⁹⁰¹ Ibid, pg. 90. ⁹⁰² Ibid pg. 93.

[777] Eatwell, Roger; Anthony Wright (1999). Contemporary Political Ideologies. London:

Continuum. pp. 38–39.

[778] Di Scala, Spencer M.; Gentile, Emilio, eds. (2016). Mussolini 1883–1915: Triumph and

Transformation of a Revolutionary Socialist. USA: Palgrave Macmillan

[779] For more on this story refer to my paper How To Conquer Tyranny and Avoid Tragedy: A Lesson on Defeating Systems of Empire. https://cynthiachung.substack.com/p/how -toconquer -tyranny -and -avoid -a9e.

[780] Roosevelt would pass away just two weeks before the first United Nations conference that would establish its function, which allowed for its hijacking by the pro-League of Nations planners. Recall Chapter 2.

[781] Kelly, Daniel. (2002) James Burnham and the Struggle for the World: A Life. ISI Books Wilmington, Delaware, pg. 121.

[782] Kelly, Daniel. (2002) James Burnham and the Struggle for the World: A Life. ISI Books Wilmington, Delaware, pg. 130.

[783] RAND was also working hard for this exact argument, for more on this story you can refer to my series on RAND In Search of Monsters to Destroy: The Manufacturing of a Cold War. https://cynthiachung.substack.com/p/in -search -of -monsters -to -destroy.

[784] Recall Chapters 2 & 3.

[785] Kelly, Daniel. (2002) James Burnham and the Struggle for the World: A Life. ISI Books Wilmington, Delaware, pg. 149.

[786] Kelly, Daniel. (2002) James Burnham and the Struggle for the World: A Life. ISI Books Wilmington, Delaware, pg. 152.

[787] Recall Chapter 8.

[788] Kelly, Daniel. (2002) James Burnham and the Struggle for the World: A Life. ISI Books Wilmington, Delaware, pg. 152.

[789] Ibid, pg. 151.

[790] Ibid, pg. 152. ⁹¹⁷ Ibid, pg. 155.

[791] Kateryna Yushchenko is the wife of former Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko. She is a former U.S. State Department official. She worked as a special assistant to the Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs. She later worked in the White House in the Office of Public Liaison during the administration of Ronald Reagan. Subsequently, she worked at the U.S. Treasury in the executive secretary's office during the administration of George H. W. Bush.

[792] Register of the Lev E. Dobriansky papers. Online Archive of California.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220927075810/https://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt9

w10382r/entire_text/

[793] Rosenberg, Paul. (March 18, 2014) SEVEN DECADES OF NAZI COLLABORATION: AMERICA’S DIRTY LITTLE UKRAINE SECRET. Foreign Policy in Focus.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220927080029/https://fpif.org/seven -decades -nazicollaboration -americas -dirty -little -ukraine -secret/.

[794] Kelly, Daniel. (2002) James Burnham and the Struggle for the World: A Life. ISI Books Wilmington, Delaware, pg. 160.

[795] Fitzgerald, Paul; Gould, Elizabeth. (April 28, 2017) The Final Stage of the Machiavellian Elite’s Takeover of America. Truth Dig.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220927081148/https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the -finalstage -of -the -machiavellian -elites -takeover -of -america.

[796] Saunders, Frances Stonor. (1999) The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters. The New Press, New York, London.

[797] PSB D-33/2 cia.gov https://web.archive.org/web/20220927081346/https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIARDP80R01731R003200050006 -0.pdf.

[798] Fitzgerald, Paul; Gould, Elizabeth. (April 28, 2017) The Final Stage of the Machiavellian Elite’s Takeover of America. Truth Dig.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220927081148/https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the -finalstage -of -the -machiavellian -elites -takeover -of -america.

[799] Burnham, James. (1941) The Managerial Revolution or What is Happening in the World Now. Putname and Company, Limited, London, pg. 74.

[800] Though Burnham proved to be a failure in influencing high-brow culture and arts, the CCF was by no means a failure but rather a gigantic success. For more on this refer to Matthew Ehret’s paper Why Must Aesthetics Govern A Society Worthy Of Political Freedom? Ask the CIA. https://risingtidefoundation.net/2022/05/17/why -must -aesthetics -govern -a -societyworthy -of -political -freedom -ask -the -cia/.

[801] Lasch, Christopher. (January 19, 2003) The Agony of the American Left. Long Pauses. http://www.longpauses.com/the -agony -of -the -american -left/. Retrieved October 2022. ⁹²⁹ Kelly, Daniel. (2002) James Burnham and the Struggle for the World: A Life. ISI Books Wilmington, Delaware, pg. 212.

[802] Ibid, pg. 212. ⁹³¹ Ibid, pg. 218.

[803] Other Buckley members would end up working for the CIA or were closely linked. William

F. Buckley’s father also named William F. Buckley, was a United States Army officer in the Green Berets and a CIA station chief in Beirut from 1984 to 1985.He was reportedly kidnapped by Hezbollah and murdered. James Buckley, William’s brother, married Ann Cooley who worked for the CIA. And as already mentioned his sister Priscilla worked for the CIA during the 1950s.

[804] Kelly, Daniel. (2002) James Burnham and the Struggle for the World: A Life. ISI Books Wilmington, Delaware, pg. 220.

[805] Kelly, Daniel. (2002) James Burnham and the Struggle for the World: A Life. ISI Books Wilmington, Delaware, pg. 220.

[806] Ibid, pg. 239.

[807] Ibid, pg. 246.

[808] Ibid, pg. 285-286.

[809] Burnham, James. (1941) The Managerial Revolution or What is Happening in the World Now. Putname and Company, Limited, London, pg. 273.

[810] MK ULTRA is clearly linked to this. For more on MK ULTRA refer to my paper Huxley’s Ultimate Revolution: The Battle for Your Mind and the Relativity of Madness. Through A Glass Darkly Substack. https://cynthiachung.substack.com/.

[811] Hersch, Seymour M. (December 22, 1974) HUGE C.I.A. OPERATION REPORTED IN U.S.

AGAINST ANTIWAR FORCES, OTHER DISSIDENTS IN NIXON YEARS. The New York Times.

https://www.nytimes.com/1974/12/22/archives/huge -cia -operation -reported -in -u -s -againstantiwar -forces -other.html. Retrieved October 2022.

[812] Senate Select Committee. (April 29, 1976) Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities. United States Senate.

https://www.senate.gov/about/powers -procedures/investigations/church -committee.htm. Retrieved October 2022.

[813] Church Committee Hearings on FBI Intelligence Activities. C-SPAN. https://www.cspan.org/video/?409117 -1/church -committee -hearings -fbi -intelligence -activities. Retrieved October 2022.

[814] Senate Select Committee. (November 20, 1975) Alleged Assassination Plots Involving Foreign Leaders. U.S. Senate.

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/94465.pdf. Retrieved October 2022. ⁹⁴⁶ President Gerald Ford’s Executive Order 11905. (February 18, 1976) United States Foreign Intelligence Activities. https://irp.fas.org/offdocs/eo11905.htm. Retrieved October 2022. ⁹⁴⁷ President Ronald Regan’s Executive Order 12333. (December 4, 1981) United States Intelligence Activities. https://www.archives.gov/federal -register/codification/executiveorder/12333.html. Retrieved October 2022.

[815] Senate Select Committee. Covert Action in Chile (1963-1973) U.S. Senate. Declassified in 2010. https://www.archives.gov/files/declassification/iscap/pdf/2010 -009 -doc17.pdf.

Retrieved October 2022.

[816] Video: Domestic Surveillance 101 Operation SHAMROCK. Universal. https://archive.org/details/DomesticSurveillence101OperationSHAMROCK. Retrieved October 2022.

[817] Ibid.

[818] For a video interview of Udo Ulfkotte go to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtX_pbDyxw. Retrieved October 19, 2022.

[819] Ryan, Missy; Nakashima, Ellen; Birnbaum, Michael; Stern, David. (March 16, 2022)

Outmatched in military might, Ukraine has excelled in the information war. The Washington

[820] Cohen, Dan. (March 22, 2022) UKRAINE’S PROPAGANDA WAR: INTERNATIONAL PR FIRMS, DC LOBBYISTS AND CIA CUTOUTS. Mint Press News. https://web.archive.org/web/20220910023834/https://www.mintpressnews.com/ukrainepropaganda -war -international -pr -firms -dc -lobbyists -cia -cutouts/280012/.

[821] Stop Fake.org. About Us section.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220910024244/https://www.stopfake.org/ru/o -nas/.

[822] Stop Fake Budget Income. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mzsZWyFFqCLp5LK8Sm5eJu_8yHnWmqJf/view. ⁹⁵⁷ Cohen, Dan. (March 22, 2022) UKRAINE’S PROPAGANDA WAR: INTERNATIONAL PR FIRMS, DC LOBBYISTS AND CIA CUTOUTS. Mint Press News.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220910023834/https://www.mintpressnews.com/ukrainepropaganda -war -international -pr -firms -dc -lobbyists -cia -cutouts/280012/.

[823] Proskuryakov, Samuil; Sergatskova, Ekaterina. (July 3, 2020) Facebook blocked Zaborona for criticizing neo-Nazis. It turned out that the Ukrainian fact-checkers of the social network are closely friends with them. Zaborona.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220910024855/https://zaborona.com/ru/stopfake -ifaktcheking -v -facebook/.

[824] Chung, Cynthia. (April 8, 2022) Caitlin Johnstone: US Officials Admit They’re Literally Just Lying To The Public About Russia. Through A Glass Darkly Substack.

https://cynthiachung.substack.com/p/caitlin -johnstone -us -officials -admit?s=r. ⁹⁶⁰ See NBC News “The New Strategy The U.S. Is Using in the Info War Against Russia” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXLKUCLhZos. Retrieved October 19, 2022.

[825] Cohen, Josh. (June 20, 2018) Ukraine’s Got a Real Problem with Far-Right Violence (And No, RT Didn’t Write This Headline). Atlantic Council.

https://web.archive.org/web/20221019200142/https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrain ealert/ukraine -s -got -a -real -problem -with -far -right -violence -and -no -rt -didn -t -write -thisheadline/.

[826] Cockroft, Stephen. (Aug. 12, 2015) Shocking pictures from inside neo-Nazi military camp reveal recruits as young as SIX are being taught how to fire weapons (even though there's a ceasefire). Daily Mail. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article -3195711/Now -CHILDRENtaking -arms -Shocking -pictures -inside -Ukraine -s -neo -Nazi -military -camp -recruits -young -sixlearn -fire -weapons -s -ceasefire.html.

[827] https://nitter.net/i/status/1501269848462082051.

[828] Zawadzki, Sabina; Hosenball, Mark; Grey, Stephen. (March 18, 2014) In Ukraine, nationalists gain influence - and scrutiny. Reuters.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220910034054/https://www.reuters.com/article/us -ukrainecrisis -farright -insight -idUSBREA2H0K620140318.

[829] Meyssan, Thierry. (Mar. 5, 2022) Russia declares war on the Straussians. Voltairenet.org. https://www.voltairenet.org/article215855.html. Retrieved Sept. 9, 2022.

[830] Melkozerova, Veronika. (Jan. 2, 1016) Right Sector’s Yarosh gone from the Interpol wanted list. Kyiv Post.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220911004518/https://www.kyivpost.com/article/content/w ar -against -ukraine/right -sectors -yarosh -gone -from -the -interpol -wanted -list -405361.html.

[831] Ibid.

[832] https://twitter.com/nexta_tv/status/1501171543371665408. Retrieved October 19, 2022.

[833] Alison, George. (March 9, 2022) Britain sending anti-aircraft and Javelin missiles to Ukraine. Ukdj. https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain -sending -anti -aircraft -and -javelin -missiles -toukraine/. Retrieved September 2022.

[834] Rubinstein, Alexander. (March 20, 2022) US and NATO allies arm neo-Nazi units in Ukraine as foreign policy elites yearn for Afghan-style insurgency. The Grayzone. https://thegrayzone.com/2022/03/20/us -neo -nazi -ukraine -afghan -insurgency/. Retrieved October 19, 2022.

[835] Hume, Tim. (Jan. 16, 2022) How a Far-Right Battalion Became a Part of Ukraine’s National Guard. VICE News. https://web.archive.org/web/20220910040426/https://www.vice.com/en/article/3ab7dw/az ov -battalion -ukraine -far -right.

[836] Bennetts, Marc. (March 13, 2018) Ukraine's National Militia: 'We're not neo-Nazis, we just want to make our country better'. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/13/ukraine -far -right -national -militia -takeslaw -into -own -hands -neo -nazi -links. Retrieved September 12, 2022.

[837] Sharkov, Damien. (Sept. 10, 2014) Ukrainian Nationalist Volunteers Committing 'ISIS-Style' War Crimes. Newsweek.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220910041915/https://www.newsweek.com/evidence -warcrimes -committed -ukrainian -nationalist -volunteers -grows -269604.

[838] Beeley, Vanessa. (May 10, 2022) NATO’s proxy war in Ukraine and Nazi-linked White Helmets. Vanessa Beeley Substack. https://beeley.substack.com/p/natos -proxy -war -inukraine -and -nazi?utm_source=%2Fprofile%2F11622297 -vanessabeeley&utm_medium=reader2&s=r.

[839] For a short video clip of Oleksiy Arestovych praising ISIS refer here https://www.bitchute.com/video/Kvh7TyK04FJp/. Retrieved September 12, 2022. ⁹⁸³ Norton, Ben. (July 20, 2017) Flashy NATO film honors Baltic Nazi collaborators who murdered Jews in Holocaust. The Grayzone. https://thegrayzone.com/2017/07/20/nato -filmbaltic -nazi -collaborators -forest -brothers/.

984

https://twitter.com/NATO/status/884769177906675712?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5 Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E884769177906675712%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url= http%3A%2F%2Fthegrayzone.com%2F2017%2F07%2F20%2Fnato -film -baltic -nazicollaborators -forest -brothers%2F. Retrieved October 19, 2022.

[840] Ibid

[841] Ignatius, David. (Jan. 6, 2022) Opinion: Biden wants to turn Ukraine into a porcupine. The Washington Post. https://web.archive.org/web/20220106231502/https:/www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2 022/01/06/if -putin -invades -west -wants -it -hurt/.

[842] Ignatius, David. (Sept. 22, 1991) INNOCENCE ABROAD : THE NEW WORLD OF SPYLESS COUPS. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1991/09/22/innocence -abroad -the -newworld -of -spyless -coups/92bb989a -de6e -4bb8 -99b9 -462c76b59a16/. Retrieved October 2022.

[843] https://twitter.com/maxblumenthal/status/1032436236055662597?lang=en.

[844] Recall Chapter 13, that James Burnham was a Trotskyist who would later work for the CIA and also infiltrated the trade unions in the 1930s.

[845] Kuzmarov, Jeremy. (March 7, 2022) National Endowment for Democracy Delets Records of Funding Projects in Ukraine. Covert Action Magazine.

https://covertactionmagazine.com/2022/03/07/national -endowment -for -democracy -deletesrecords -of -funding -projects -in -ukraine/.

[846] Video of Lindsay Graham’s “fight to the last person” comment on C-SPAN https://web.archive.org/web/20221019222958/https://www.bitchute.com/video/d1K5Q0PSf

2JP/.

[847] For Finland’s history of Nazism refer to Matthew Ehret’s paper Why Is It So Hard to Finnish Nazism? NATO’s Growing Suicide Pact Threatens to Light the World on Fire. https://matthewehret.substack.com/p/why -is -it -so -hard -to -finnish -nazism.

[848] Macleod, Alan. (Feb. 18, 2022) Documents Reveal US GOV’T Spent $22M Promoting AntiRussia Narrative in Ukraine and Abroad. Mint Press News.

https://www.mintpressnews.com/documents -reveal -us -ned -spent -22m -promoting -antirussia -narrative -ukraine/279734/. Retrieved Sept. 12, 2022.

[849] Parry, Robert. (Aug. 11, 2014) NYT Discovers Ukraine’s Neo-Nazis at War. Consortium News. https://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/08/11/nyt -discovers -ukraines -neonazis -war. Retrieved Sept. 12, 2022.

[850] TASS Staff. (September 28, 2022) How DPR, LPR, Kherson, Zaporozhye voted for joining Russia. TASS Russia News Agency. https://tass.com/politics/1514667. Retrieved October 2022. ⁹⁹⁶ Kheel, Rebecca. (March 27, 2018) Congress bans arms to Ukraine militia linked to neoNazis. The Hill.

https://web.archive.org/web/20221019222556/https://thehill.com/policy/defense/380483congress -bans -arms -to -controversial -ukrainian -militia -linked -to -neo -nazis/.

[851] Blumenthal, Max. (March, 18, 2022) Was bombing of Mariupol theater staged by Ukrainian Azov extremists to trigger NATO intervention?. The Grayzone. https://thegrayzone.com/2022/03/18/bombing -mariupol -theater -ukrainian -azov -natointervention/. Retrieved September 12, 2022.

[852] Hersch, Seymour. (Dec. 19, 2013) Whose sarin? London Review of Books. https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v35/n24/seymour-m.-hersh/whose-sarin

[853] Reuters. (April 4, 2022) Russia to ask U.N. Security Council again to discuss Bucha 'provocations'. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia -ask -un -security -council -againdiscuss -bucha -provocations -2022 -04 -04/. Retrieved Sept. 12, 2022.

[854] Times of India. (April 7, 2022) China calls for probe into Bucha killings, but assigns no blame. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/china/china -calls -for -probe -into -buchakillings -but -assigns -no -blame/articleshow/90697215.cms. Retrieved Sept. 12, 2022. ¹⁰⁰¹ Nichols, Michelle. (April 7, 2022) U.N. suspends Russia from human rights body, Moscow then quits. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/un -vote -suspending -russia -humanrights -council -over -ukraine -2022 -04 -07/. Retrieved Sept. 12, 2022.

[855] Blumenthal, Max; Krishnaswamy, Esha. (April 17, 2022) “One less traitor”: Zelensky oversees campaign of assassination, kidnapping and torture of political opposition. The Grayzone. https://thegrayzone.com/2022/04/17/traitor -zelensky -assassination -kidnappingarrest -political -opposition/. Retrieved Sept 12, 2022.

[856] Raghavan, Sudarsan. (March 28, 2022) Russia has killed civilians in Ukraine. Kyiv’s defense tactics add to the danger. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/03/28/ukraine -kyiv -russia -civilians/. Retrieved Sept. 12, 2022.

[857] Recall Chapter 5.

[858] Agencies. (January 1, 2022) Hundreds of Ukrainian nationalists march in honor of Nazi collaborator. The Times of Israel.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220911005637/https://www.timesofisrael.com/hundreds -ofukrainian -nationalists -march -in -in -honor -of -nazi -collaborator/.

[859] Carroll Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment, New York, Books in Focus, 1981, pg. 5.

[860] George Parkin, Imperial Federation: The Problem of National Unity, Macmillan and Co.,

London, 1892, preface VIII ¹⁰¹⁰ Ibid, pg.7.

[861] After taking up his governorship of South Africa, Milner wrote to Parkin: “My life has been greatly influenced by your ideas and in my new post I shall feel more than ever the need of your enthusiasm and broad hopeful view of the Imperial future”, Milner to Parkin, 28 April, Headlam, The Milner Papers, I, 42,

[862] W.T.Stead by E.T Cook, The Contemporary Review, June 1912, reprinted in Frederick

Whyte, The Life of W.T. Stead, London, 1925, vol. 2, p.353-356

[863] Quigley, Anglo American Establishment, p. 32

[864] See Confessions of Faith by Cecil Rhodes, 1877, University of Oregon, https://web.archive.org/web/20221028021904/https://pages.uoregon.edu/kimball/RhodesConfession.htm.

[865] Rotberg, The Founder, pp. 101, 102. & Niall Ferguson, The House of Rothschild: The

World’s Banker, 1848–1998, Penguin Books, 2000

[866] Quigley, ibid, p.31

[867] Many Coefficients overlapped with Fabians.

[868] While Oxford and LSE have tended to produce the ‘doers’, the higher level ‘ideas’ men of the Empire have tended to be conditioned at Cambridge.

[869] Colin Spencer (1996), The Heretic’s Feast: A History of Vegetarianism, Fourth Estate, pg.

283.

[870] I. Bernard Cohen (1985), Revolution in Science, Harvard University Press, p. 345. ¹⁰²¹ Ibid.

[871] https://www.lse.ac.uk/about -lse/lse -people/Bertrand -Russell?from_serp=1

[872] https://fabians.org.uk/about -us/our -history/

[873] https://canadianpatriot.org/2022/01/27/what-is-the-fabian-society-and-to-what-endwas-it-created/

[874] For more on this refer to my paper The 20^th Century Descent of Man. Through A Glass Darkly.

[875] https://cynthiachung.substack.com/p/the-origins-of-the-counterculture

[876] John Dewey and the Logical Empiricist Unity of Science, Ivan Ferreira da Cunha, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina – UFSC, https://revistas.pucsp.br/cognitiofilosofia/article/download/14579/10606/0. ¹⁰²⁸ See my Origins of the Counterculture movement. Through A Glass Darkly Substack.

[877] https://www.huxley.net/transhumanism/index.html ¹⁰³⁰ https://archive.org/details/huxley-unesco-its-purpose-andphilosophy/page/n19/mode/2up

[878] https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2021/05/31/from-russell-and-hilbert-to-wienerand-harari-the-disturbing-origins-of-cybernetics-and-transhumanism/

[879] http://www.ibe.unesco.org/sites/default/files/deweye.PDF

[880] See my paper Who Will Be Brave in Huxley’s New World? Through A Glass Darkly Substack.

[881] From Keynes: A Critical Life by David Felix: “[Keynes] advised Lytton, who was going on a holiday to Tunis and Sicily, on modalities "if you want to go where the naked boys dance." Responding to his friend's scatological taste, he closed with the lines from a poem: "We paid our suit to Janus/ Mistook the one mouth for the other anus." He himself was going to join an old classmate, now a colonial officer there: "I'm leaving for Egypt... I just learned that 'bed and boy' is prepared." xxx

[882] In 1927, Churchill said to Mussolini: “If I had been an Italian, I am sure I should have been wholeheartedly with you from the start to finish in your triumphant struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism” and in 1935 said of Hitler: “the courage, the perseverance, and the vital force which enabled him to… overcome all the... resistances which barred his path.” A full picture of Churchill’s pro-fascist views is laid bare in The Real Winston

Churchill by Richard Seymour, Jacobin Magazine

[883] The Roosevelt I Knew by Frances Perkins, Viking Press, 1946

[884] Keynes, the Man by Murray Rothbard, Von Mises Institute, 2010, p.13

[885] Indian Currency and Finance, John Maynard Keynes, MACMILLAN AND CO, 1913

[886] Inglorious Empire: what the British did to India, by Shashi Tharoor, London, Hurst, 2017 ¹⁰⁴⁰ For a fuller exposition of the origins, aims and accomplishments of the Fabian Society, see: What is the Fabian Society and to What End was it Created? By this author, Canadian Patriot Review, 2013

[887] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGP1aAtWA5A

[888] https://biblio-archive.unog.ch/Dateien/CouncilMSD/C-435-M-220-1933-II_EN.pdf

[889] Keynes’s plagiarism of Malthus and McCracken by Steve Kates, History of Economic Ideas,

2010

[890] Thomas Robert Malthus by John M. Keynes, Essays in Biography, 1933

[891] Keynes on Eugenics, Race, and Population Control by Jay Taylor, Von Mises Institute, Nov. 2019 https://jaytaylormedia.com/keynes -on -eugenics -race -and -population -control/

[892] The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money By John Maynard Keynes, Feburary 1936, republished by International Relations and Security Network, Zurich Switzerland. https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/125515/1366_keynestheoryofemployment.pdf.

Retrieved October 2022.

[893] The Enduring Influence of Thomas Malthus by Renee Nal, RAIR Foundation, November 14, 2019

[894] New Understanding of the Bretton Woods Agreements Opens the Door to the Four

Powers Dialogue by Gerry Rose, EIR, August 21, 2020

[895] From Great Depression to Great Recession: The Elusive Quest for International Policy

Cooperation Editor: Mr. Atish R. Ghosh and Miss Mahvash S Qureshi, IMF, March 30, 2017

[896] The International Development of China by Sun Yat-sen, Shanghai Commercial Press, 1920

[897] Confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins, Berrett =-Koehler Publishers Inc., 2004

The Empire on which the Black Sun Never Set pg. 1

Publisher Info pg. 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS pg. 3

The Mask of Anarchy[i] pg. 10

User Notes

Introduction pg. 15

Snow is Now Black

Better the Devil You Know? pg. 16

NATO’s Dubious Allegiance pg. 21

Chapter 1 For King and Empire: The Birth of International Fascism pg. 25

Britain’s New Age

Britain’s New Party

A Fascist International

From International Fascism to Pan-Europeanism

Chapter 2 A Crusade for Pan-Europe pg. 66

A New Holy Alliance: The League of Nations

Pan-Europe’s Dalliance with Mussolini

A ‘Reformed’ Anti-Semitism

Pan-Europeanism Meets International Fascism

Kalergi Gains American Support

Europe: Faith and Plan

Chapter 3 pg. 123

Two Opposing Systems

Liberty for All?

A Century of War

British Southeast Asia Command (SEAC) – aka Save England’s Asian Colonies!

Chapter 4 The Fascist Roots of the CIA and the True Origin of the Cold War pg. 144

Allen Dulles, the Double Agent who Created America’s Intelligence Empire

The True Origin Story of the Cold War

The Godfather of the CIA

Chapter 5 How the Ukrainian Nationalist Movement Post-WWII was Bought and Paid for by the CIA pg. 157

The Ukrainian Nationalist Movement: Bought and Paid for by the CIA and served à la Lebed

Chapter 6 Operation Gladio: How NATO Conducted a Secret War Against European Citizens and Their Democratically Elected Governments pg. 174

Nazi Germany: The Bulwark of the West against Communism

Operation Gladio[ii]: NATO’s Dagger pg. 177

Yves Guerin-Serac: the Black Ops Grandmaster behind Operation Gladio pg. 181

Britain’s Gladio

Britain’s Betrayal of its Greek Brothers-in-Arms in Support of Fascism

The American Gladio Arm pg. 193

De Gaulle vs. NATO

In the Quiet of a Small Town pg. 199

Italy’s Secret Parallel State pg. 204

NATO Pleads the Fifth on Operation Gladio pg. 215

Chapter 7 A Damned Murder Inc: Kennedy’s Battle Against the Leviathan pg. 219

Eisenhower’s “A Legacy of Ashes”

A Phoenix Rising

Dulles’ Bay of Pigs Act of Treason

La Resistance

The Law of Silence

Chapter 8 CIA, NATO and the Great Heroin Coup: How Miami found itself at the Center of International Fascism and Kennedy’s Murder pg. 237

Operation Underworld & the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI)

Meyer Lansky’s Cuban Empire

Miami as the New Center for ‘Internacional Fascista’

Nixon’s White House Plumbers and The War on Drugs’

The Northwood Plot, the Bay of Pigs and Operation ‘Elimination by Illumination’

NATO’s Gladio and the OAS as instruments of MURDER INC.

Chapter 9 The U.S. Pivot to Asia: Cold War Lessons from Vietnam for Today pg. 255

The CIA and the Pentagon: A Tale of Two Star Crossed Lovers

A Daring Declaration

The Saigon Military Mission

A Genocidal Exodus in the Guise of Humanitarianism

Vietnam’s Heroin Tales

Chapter 10 Who Really Runs the Middle East Terror Apparatus? pg. 270

Whose ‘Arab Awakening’?

Sykes-Picot: The Gentlemen’s Etiquette on Backstabbing

The Fate of Palestine: The Balfour Declaration and British Fascism?

The Rise of the Muslim Brotherhood

Nasser Leads the Fight for Arab Independence

Chapter 11 Nazis, the British, and the Middle East pg. 289

The Buraq Uprising: 1929 Palestine Riots

The Great Revolt: 1936-1939 Arab Revolt in Palestine

The Mufti of Jerusalem converts to Nazism

Balkan Muslims and the Waffen-SS

The Mufti, the Gehlen Organization and Operation Gladio

The Mufti, the Muslim Brotherhood, and British Rule in Egypt

Chapter 12 The Empire’s Ancient Sin City of London pg. 323

Islamic Banking Made in Geneva/London

HSBC Never Left the Dope Trade Nor the Crown

The Dope Trade and the Crown: A Very-British Wealth of Nations

‘Hell is a city much like London’

The Empire on which the
Black Sun Never Set pg. 1

Chapter 1 For King and Empire:
The Birth of International Fascism pg. 25

Chapter 2
A Crusade for Pan-Europe pg. 66

Chapter 4
The Fascist Roots of the CIA and the True Origin of the Cold War pg. 144

Chapter 5
How the Ukrainian Nationalist
Movement Post-WWII was Bought and Paid for by the CIA pg. 157

Chapter 6
Operation Gladio: How NATO Conducted a
Secret War Against European Citizens and Their Democratically Elected Governments pg. 174

Chapter 7
A Damned Murder Inc: Kennedy’s Battle Against the Leviathan pg. 219

Chapter 8
CIA, NATO and the Great Heroin Coup:
How Miami found itself at the Center of International Fascism and Kennedy’s Murder pg. 237

Chapter 9
The U.S. Pivot to Asia:
Cold War Lessons from Vietnam for Today pg. 255

Chapter 10
Who Really Runs the Middle East Terror Apparatus? pg. 270

Chapter 11
Nazis, the British, and the Middle East pg. 289

Chapter 12
The Empire’s Ancient Sin City of London pg. 323

Chapter 13
The Life of James Burnham:
from Trotskyism to Italian Fascism to the Father of Neo-Conservatism pg. 350

The CIA’s Family Jewels and
Operation Mockingbird

Appendix II
A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing:
the Fabian Society pg. 420

The Great Dream of the 21^st Century