“Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered, yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.” —The American Crisis, by Thomas Paine 1776
“If war aims are stated which seem to be solely concerned with Anglo-American Imperialism, they will offer little to people in the rest of the world. The interests of other people must be stressed. This would have a better propaganda effect.” —Private memo from the Council on Foreign Relations to the US State Department, 1941, in CFR War & Peace Studies archives.
During the course of the Versailles Peace Conference talk in 1919, a new institution of Anglo-American hegemonic coordination in strategic affairs was maniacally formed. Lionel Curtis, long a member of the secretive Round Table or ‘new empire’ of British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour, Alfred Lord Milner, of the South African project, and other imperialists proposed organizing a Royal Institute of International Affairs.
The proposal was made on May 30, 1919, in the middle of the Versailles deliberations, at a private gathering at the Hotel Majestic. Philip Kerr (Lord Lothian), Lord Robert Cecil and other arrogant, racist imperialists of the Round Table clique attended that formative secret meeting. The first mission of the new Royal Institute was to write the ‘official’ history of the Versailles peace conference. The Royal Institute received an initial endowment of 2000 pounds from Thomas Lamont of JP Morgan. Historian Arnold J. Toynbee was the institute’s first paid staff member.
The same clique at Versailles also decided to establish an American branch of the London Institute, to be called the New York Council on Foreign Relations, in order to obscure its close British ties. The New York council was initially staffed almost entirely of JP Morgan executives, financed with Morgan money. It was hoped that this tie would serve to weld American interests into harmony with England after World War I and Versailles.
It took all the 1920s, in bitter, nearly military conflicts over war debt repayment terms, rubber agreements, naval accords, the parity of a new gold standard and most importantly, control of untapped oil regions in the Arab states, before the Anglo-American establishment emerged in its present form, and before the policy agreement between the cadres of Morgan’s Council on Foreign Relations and London’s Royal Institute could take hold.
In 1922, Wall Street lawyer, John Foster Dulles, a major participant at the Versailles talks, who had authored the Treaty’s Article 231, the infamous German ‘war guilt’ clause, wrote in the Council on Foreign Affairs magazine Foreign Affairs about the thinking of Morgan and fellow Wall Street bankers. It stated that
‘there cannot be war without losses. The resulting losses are measured by debts. The debt assumes various forms; internal, reparations, Inter-allied, that are represented by bonds and notes.’
*
“What happens with the distribution of power on the European landmass will be of decisive importance to America’s global primacy.” —Zbigniew Brzeziński, National Security Advisor, Carter administration
Most leading American policy elites in the US and Britain in and around the influential Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) were taught the Malthusian geopolitical axioms of ‘divide and conquer’ by British Royal Geographer, Sir Halford Mackinder, as he stated in 1904. For Mackinder, the overriding objective of both British and later of the US, foreign policy and military policy was to prevent a unity between the two great powers of the Eurasian landmass, Russia, Ukraine and China.
Mackinder’s malicious divide and conquer strategy was aimed at the Heartland of Eurasia; Russia and Ukraine. The World-Island was all of Eurasia, including Europe and the Middle East and Asia. Great Britain, in Mackinder’s worldview, was never part of Continental Europe. It was a separate naval and maritime power, and should remain so at whatever cost.
Part of the British Great Game of divide and conquer was the creation of a Jewish-dominated Palestine, beholden to England for its tenuous survival, surrounded by a balkanized group of squabbling Arab states, in the middle of great oil fields, formed part of this imperialists group’s concept of a new British Empire.
The creation of NATO in 1949, had been directly premised on Mackinder’s hegemonic analysis. It was indeed dedicated to preventing, at all costs, the emergence of a cohesive Eurasian pivot of power centered on Russia and the capability of challenging Anglo-American global hegemony.
Just as the Baghdad railway represented the efforts of Continental Germany, before World War I, to open a trade route to the Arabian Gulf, which would be independent of British naval control a new series of Russian pipelines through the Balkans could potentially offer European Union (EU) diversity of oil supply and a degree of independence from the US via Russia controlled energy sources. In the wake of the Clinton bombing of the Balkans and the Kosovo War, the US had preempted such possible energy independence, imposing NATO and US control over possible pipeline routes and sources.
NATO had been founded during the Cold War era as a provocateur, a regional organization, a coalition of the coerced to ‘ensure the security’ of US allies in Europe.
The Cuban crisis of 1962, was triggered by US reconnaissance photos showing construction of a Soviet missile base in Cuba, 90 miles from Florida. Such a missile base would give Russia the ability to launch a nuclear strike on the United States within minutes, not allowing American bombers sufficient time to respond.
The Soviet missile installation in Cuba was not a provocation by Russia out of the blue. Rather, it was Russia’s response to the earlier Pentagon decision to place its Thor and Jupiter missiles in Turkey, a NATO member dangerously close to Soviet strategic nuclear missiles.
As with Cuba in 1962, so with the color revolutions that began in Eurasia with Georgia, and the failed Rose Revolution and the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, were the consequences of aggressive provocations by America, initiated by the NGOs and the gun running operations of NATO.
As stated by Russian strategist and military expert, former Prime Minister under Yeltsin and close advisor to Vladimir Putin in Munich, February 2007:
“NATO today is acting on the basis of an entirely different philosophy and doctrine, moving outside the European continent and conducting military operations far beyond its bounds. NATO is rapidly expanding in contravention to earlier accords. The admission of new members to NATO is leading to the expansion of bases that host the US military, air defense systems as well as ABM components.”
*
“We gave categorical assurances to Gorbachev back when the Soviet Union existed that if a United Germany was able to stay in NATO, NATO would not be moved eastward.” —US Ambassador in Moscow, 1987-1991, Jack Matlock
For Washington and the US military-congressional industrial complex, the Cold War did not end in 1991 with the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact military alliance, along with the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Quite the contrary, the US increased their efforts to push NATO expansion to the borders of Moscow, taking full advantage of the catastrophic economic chaos they had created through the bribery of Russian oligarchs with assets from the stolen gold of the World War II, the Black Eagle Trust and $258 billion in 10yr. US Treasury Bonds that came due in September of 2001.
In February 1990, during high-level talks between Moscow and the US Secretary of State James Baker, the US made Mikhail Gorbachev, the President of the Soviet Union an offer that in exchange for cooperation on unification of Germany, East and West into NATO, Washington would make “iron-clad guarantees” to Moscow that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.” As with many of its past promises, Washington broke it.
The transformation of Ukraine from an independent former Russian republic to a pro- NATO US satellite was accomplished by the so-called ‘Orange Revolution’ overseen by John Herbst, appointed US ambassador to Ukraine in May 2003.
“American meddling and the Color Revolutions are far more subtle… and effective. The $65 million plus went to pro-Yushchenko think tanks, civic organizations, political training, and work with strategically placed professionals, such as journalists and judges. It paid for some questionable exit polls and election monitors, many of them Nazi Ukrainian who were far from impartial.” —Steve Weissman, Pentagon December 2004
The location of the various Color Revolutions are aimed directly at encircling Russia and cutting off, at any time, her export pipelines. With more than sixty percent of Russia’s dollar export earnings coming from its oil and gas exports, such an encirclement would amount to an economic choke hold on Russia led by US-driven NATO.
The NATO encirclement of Russia, the Color Revolutions of fake democracy that have failed across Eurasia and the Iraq war, were all aspects of the same American political strategy. The grand strategy is to de-construct Russia once and for all as a potential rival to a sole US superpower hegemony.
Following the IMF-directed looting of Russia by a combination of Western banks and corrupt Russian oligarchs, a shrewder and more sober Putin cautiously came forward as a dynamic nationalist force, committed to rebuilding Russia.
The defining event in Russian energy geopolitics took place in 2003. Just as Washington proclaimed its intent to militarize Iraq and the Middle East regardless of the world protest or the violation of international law, Putin ordered the arrest of Russia’s billionaire oligarch Mikhail Khodorovsky, on charges of tax evasion. Putin then surprised Western oligarchs by freezing shares of Khodorovsky’s giant Yukos Oil group, in effect putting it under state control.
Khodorovsky’s arrest came shortly after reports of an unpublicized Washington meeting in July of 2003 between Khodorovsky and Vice President Dick Cheney. After the Cheney meeting, Khodorovsky began talks with ExxonMobile and ChevronTexaco, the old firm of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, about acquiring a major stake of up to 40% in Yukos Oil.
The 40% stake in Russia’s Yukos Oil would have given Washington, via US oil giants, a de facto veto power over future oil and gas pipelines and oil deals. Just days before his arrest in October 2003, Khodorovsky had entertained George HW Bush, who had come to Moscow on behalf of his powerful Carlyle Group, to discuss the US buy-in of Yukos. Bush then discreetly resigned his position with Carlyle just after the arrest of Khodorovsky and his partner, Platon Lebedev, chairman of the Menatep Russian Banking Group.
Khodorovsky’s arrest signaled a decisive turn by the Putin government towards rebuilding Russia and erecting strategic defenses. It occurred in the context of the brazen US conquest for Iraq in 2003. Putin’s bold move was less than two years after the Bush Administration announced that the United States was unilaterally abrogating its treaty obligation with Russia under the earlier Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in order to move forward with development of new US missiles. This was interpreted by Moscow as a clear provocation, a hostile act aimed at Russia’s security.
By 2003, it was obvious that the Pentagon hawks, and their allies in the armaments industry and Big Oil, had a vision of a United States unchallenged by international agreements and acting unilaterally in its own hegemonic interests, as defined by the new-conservative Project for a New American Century (PNAC).
The events in Russia were soon followed by the illicit Washington-financed covert destabizations in Eurasia; the Color Revolutions against governments on Russia’s periphery.
By the end of 2004, it was obvious to Moscow that a new Cold War, this one over strategic energy control and unilateral nuclear primacy was looming.
After 2003, Russian foreign policy, especially its energy policy had reverted to the axioms of ‘Heartland’ politics as defined by Sir Halford Mackinder, politics which had been the basis of earlier Soviet Cold War strategy since 1946.
To achieve its total dominance, Washington needed not only the resources of its Color Revolutions across Central Europe to encircle Russia. The Pentagon also needed to draw up a tight noose around the emerging colossus of Asia, namely China. A different approach was taken with China however, given the extreme United States financial dependence, and its economic ties and investments in the country. For control of China, a form of ‘human rights’ was used as a weapon of US foreign would play a maniacal central role.
*
“We’re going to attack and destroy the governments in seven countries in five years-we’re going to start with Iraq, and then we’re going to move to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Iran and then on to Ukraine.” —US General Wesley Clark in a 2007 speech
In October of 2007, Wesley Clark, a retired general and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander in Europe made a speech at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, just four years after George W Bush and the cabal of war hawks around Paul Wolfowists and Dick Cheney had made the decision to invade Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, primarily because part of Hussein’s progressive policies was to price Iraqi oil in Euros, undermining the dollar’s reserve status, and ending the fees paid to Wall Street banks.
Clark revealed to his surprised audience that the US occupation of Iraq was no spontaneous reaction to the attacks of September 11, 2001. He told his listeners that there had been a “policy coup” by the hawks, led by Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld.
General Clark revealed that he had been told the contents of a classified Pentagon memo from the Office of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld in October 2001, a decade before the Arab Spring revolts, about who the US planned to attack and why.
He concluded his San Francisco Commonwealth Club remarks by declaring that the Pentagon had a clear plan:
“They wanted us to destabilize the Middle East and Eurasia, surround Russia, turn it upside down, control the oil and gas pipelines, and other strategic resources, and make it totally under our control.”
Behind those neoconservative think tanks and Pentagon planners stood the power of Wall Street banks, Big Oil, and the US military-congressional-industrial complex.
The new role of the US military, Clark concluded, was to start conflicts, not prevent them. It went contrary to every precept of international law, of the UN Charter, and what most Americans believe that their Constitution, and the American rule of law, and the heritage of their government were all about.
*
“A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.” —Allen Weinstein, creator of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).”
In 1948 under great pressure from Wall Street the infant CIA was pushed into its first covert operations. President Truman later declared his unhappiness at this deflection of the CIA from its intelligence function. ”I never had any thought when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peace time clock and dagger operations.” His intentions, however, counted little against the intentions of Allen Dulles. Dulles, a New York corporate lawyer at the time and president of the Council on Foreign Relations and different ideas. The ruling elites of the CFR were very concerned that the communists might shortly win the Italian elections. James Forrestal, US Secretary of Defense felt that secret counteraction was vital, but his initial assessment was that the Italian operation would have to be private.
The wealthy industrialists in Milan, Italy were hesitant to provide the money, fearing reprisals if the Communists won, and so the job was given to the Brook Club in New York. Allen Dulles, however, felt the problem could not be handled effectively in private hands. Dulles strongly urged that the government establish a covert organization. The corporate elites of the CFR wanted to finance the organization with unvouchered funds. The decision was then made to create the secret organization under the National Security Council.
By this arrangement under the government agency of the NSC, the elite oligarchs of Brook Club and the CFR would be guaranteed to get their money used for illegal covert black operations returned to them as public money. This was a fateful essay in the unaccountability and moral corruption of the criminal, gangster-operated tactics of the evil hegemonic empire.
These arrogant evil hegemons then used their corporate experience and connections to set up dummy private enterprises as “proprietaries” or wholly owned fronts for the CIA, particularly for Far Eastern operations. Using the model of William Pawley’s CAMCO, which had fronted for General Chennault and the Flying Tiger drug operations in 1941. The capital came from government sources, taxpayer money, but the profits were always retained by the CIA properties in question.
One of the first created NGOs was Freedom House, an organization with a noble sounding name and a long duplicitous history. It had been created in the late 1940s as a US lobby to organize public opinion in favor of establishing NATO.
The NED, along with Freedom House and the other 40 plus NGOs have been operating fake democracy major ‘color revolutions’ in the Middle East and Eurasia for 30 years. It had all been created during the Reagan “useful idiot” Administration to function as a de facto CIA, privatized in order to allow more freedom of action. Reagan had signed National Security Decision Directive 133 (NSDD 133), classified as “secret sensitive.” Titled “US Policy Toward Yugoslavia,” it advocated “expanded efforts to promote a ‘quiet revolution’ to overthrow Communist governments and parties” Yugoslavia, as well as other Eastern European communist countries, while reintegrating the countries of Eastern Europe into a “market-oriented” economy, a euphemism for US led globalization and free-market plunder of oil and oil and gas pipelines by Western oligarchs and their Western multinational companies.
The so-called Color Revolutions, “pro-freedom” fake democracy 40 plus Non-Government Operations (NGOs), have become one of the most strategic and duplicitous NATO weapons for destabilizing progressive opponent regimes over the past two decades.
*
“Potentially the most dangerous scenario would be a grand coalition of China, Russia and perhaps Iran, an ‘anti-hegemonic’ coalition united not by ideology but by complimentary grievances…averting this contingency will require a display of US geostrategic skill on the western, eastern and southern perimeters of Eurasia and Ukraine simultaneously.” —Zbigniew Brzeziński, adviser to Obama
Ukraine and Russia are very intertwined economically, socially and culturally, especially in the eastern part of the country, that they are almost indistinguishable from one another. Most of Russia’s natural gas pipelines from West Siberia flow through Ukraine on its way to Germany, France and other West European states. In military strategic terms, a non-neutral Ukraine in NATO would represent a fatal security blow to Russia. In the age of advanced US nuclear weapons and anti-missile defenses, that was just what the war mongering Pentagon and the administrations from Reagan to Biden wanted.
The distinct pattern of the Washington sponsored color revolutions since 2000 were clearly aimed at isolating Russia and ultimately cutting its economic lifeline, the pipeline networks that carried Russia’s huge reserves of oil and natural gas from the Urals and Siberia to Western Europe and Eurasia, directly through Ukraine.
The Russian Eurasian landmass pipelines were not the only objective of the dissolving American empire to thwart, but also the Nordstream Pipeline, that runs directly to Germany.
*
“Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force, military force in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts. As a result we do not have sufficient strength to find a comprehensive solution to any one of these conflicts. Finding a political solution becomes impossible.
We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law and independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state’s legal system. One state of course, first and foremost the United States has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who would like this? Who is happy about this?” —Vladimir Putin at the Munich Conference on Security, February 10, 2007.
The United States had the option of gradually dismantling NATO just as Russia had dissolved the Warsaw Pact, and furthering a climate of mutual economic cooperation that could turn Eurasia into one of the world’s most prosperous and thriving economic zones.
But, Washington chose another way to deal with the end of the Cold War. The path they chose could be understood only by the craven abdication of moral duty, by the insane inner logic of its hegemonic global and geopolitical agenda. The sole remaining superpower and the evil leviathan of the Pentagon chose stealth, deception, lies and wars to attempt to control the Eurasian Heartland, it’s only potential rival as an economic region, by military force.
“If the American people ever find out what we have done,they’ll chase us down the street and lynch us.” —George HW Bush, June 1992, in an interview with Sarah McClendon of the White House Press Corps.
“The result is an absence of checks and balances in Russia, and the decision of one man to launch a wholly unjustified and brutal invasion of Iraq.” —George Bush, who launched the invasion of Iraq in 2003 on false pretenses, killing millions, ‘Freudian slip’ decries ‘invasion of Iraq’ -not Ukraine, during a speech in Dallas, Wednesday, May, 17, 2022.
These are the men of the Bush crime family and their evil cohorts in tyranny, that have pushed through the Patriotic Act, and its renewal, the suspension of habeas corpus, the practice of “extraordinary rendition,” the practice of warrantless wiretapping on American citizens, and the refusal to ensure free and fair elections with verifiable ballot-counting. It’s all part of their totalitarian, fascist package.
The motive behind these measures, like the vertical ownership integration scheme of the Covid pandemic, is not to fight terrorism, or cure viral diseases, or to bolster national security. It is to seize and maintain internal control.
The tyranny of our political and economic decline took place because of a corporate drive for massive deregulation, the repeal of antitrust laws, the country’s radical transformation from a manufacturing economy to an economy of consumption, and the passage of Citizens United in 2010, that criminally made corporate bribery legal.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt saw this danger coming. He sent a message to Congress on April 29, 1938 titled “Recommendations to the Congress to Curb Monopolies and Concentration of Economic Power.”
He wrote:
“The first truth is that the liberty of democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That, in its essence is Fascism-ownership of Government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private party. The second truth, is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if it’s business system does not provide employment and produce and distribute goods in such a way to sustain an acceptable standard of living.”
The Russian novelist Vasily Grossman wrote of the power to fight the tyranny of evil in his masterpiece Life and Fate.
“I have seen that it is not man who is impotent in the struggle against evil, but the power of evil that is impotent in the struggle against man. The powerlessness of kindness, of senseless kindness, is the secret of its immortality. It can never be conquered. The more stupid, the more senseless, the more helpless it may seem, the vaster it is.Evil is impotent before it. The prophets, religious teachers, reformers, social and political leaders are impotent before it. This dumb, blind love is man’s meaning.
Human history is not the battle of good struggling to overcome evil. It is a battle fought by a great ‘tyranny’ of evil struggling to crush a small kernel of human kindness. But if what is human in human beings has not been destroyed even now, then evil will never conquer.”
Love will constantly rise up to remind a wayward society of what is real, and what is evil tyranny. Love will endure beyond the darkness of our American crisis.
Source: Global Research / Author: T. D. Duff
