The Liberty Beacon

The Liberty Beacon





Jay Janson

Though Argentina Bolivia Cuba Ecuador Venezuela and Nicaragua condemned US wars and murderous exploitation during this year’s UN Gen. Debate, they as other delegates, lamented the current deplorable condition of today’s world of death and destruction, of poverty and starvation calling for everyone to work to rectify the situation. No delegate even once called for justice through prosecution. Gaddafi UN speech quoted.

All the delegates to the 2015 General Assembly began their statements hailing the 70th Anniversary of the founding of the United Nations in the same year 1945 that saw the end of WW II, but every single delegate ignored the third major event of 1945, which was the first ever trial of a nation for crimes against humanity, crimes against peace and genocide. The Nuremberg Principles were created by the International Law Commission of the United Nations codifying the legal principles underlying the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi party members, and were signed on to by all members of the UN.

How strange, mysterious, unexplainable, illogical, baffling, painful for millions facing death or worse today that no delegate called for justice under the law, neither for them or for the tens of millions of survivors of past mega profitable crimes against peace, crimes against humanity and forms of genocide since the founding of the UN.

Not so, during the UN General Debate in 2009, when Muammar Gaddafi, Leader of the Revolution of the Socialist Peoples Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, spoke in the name of the African Union:

“We are about to put the United Nations on trial; the old organization will be finished and a new one will emerge.” 

Gaddafi called for investigations into ten past wars of permanent members of the Security Council, the US, UK and France, to be followed by trials of those guilty of causing these wars, suffering and millions of deaths and suffering “that has surpassed that brought by the Nazis.”

By contrast, during this year’s General Debate, in which delegates lamented the current deplorable condition of today’s world of death and destruction, of poverty, extreme poverty and starvation, and in a serious tone of voice gave lip service to the usually heard plea that everyone try harder to rectify the murderous exploitation of most of humanity, no delegate even once called for bringing anyone or any nation before the law.

To this puzzled elderly archival research peoples historian working for former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark, it seemed as if magically, the delegates had had the Nuremberg Principles of international law extirpated from their minds and from the UN Charter they often referred to. As if German government officials and officials of other fascist nations, who had ordered bombings, invasions and mass murderous occupations of many nations, had never been hanged or imprisoned and reparations adjudicated. 

Why did delegates only decry, denounce and complain of annually planned starvation of millions of children and the genocidal foreign policies of the colonial powers that bring about the same kind of invasions, bombings and murderous occupations, which Nazis had been tried and convicted of as the United Nations was being founded?  Why are these universally signed on Nuremberg Principles of International Law never mentioned? It is also weird that delegates seem careful to avoid using the word ‘crime,’ let alone identify prosecutable crimes against humanity or prosecutable crimes against peace in their statements.

Were any of the delegates heralding the UN Charter aware that almost immediately  upon the founding of a colonial powers created incipient United Nations, a UN General Assembly with only one quarter of the members in today’s UN, that this body was pressured into self-authorizing itself pass a phony and insane UN partition plan to cut British occupied Palestine into six disjointed pieces, a plan never meant to be implemented but rather intended and fully expected to torch the Holy Land into permanent civil war and allow for the right Zionists faction heavily funded by Wall Street to force a brave international socialist Zionist majority to fight for their lives and at the same time be used to conquer out a military state that would be a Western outpost in the oil rich Arab lands. Your author has thoroughly documented [1] it as a typical British Empire joint Anglo-American colonial crime against humanity that used the United Nations and the unwanted survivors of a Holocaust and WW II made possible by enormous American investment in, and joint venturing with, a prostate Nazi Germany that built Hitler’s Wehrmacht up to world number one military in five years, all the while Hitler was making clear his intentions to clean Europe of Jews and move against the Soviet Union.

Delegates repeated automatically the time worn call for a Palestinian state that the Israelis will not allow. In 2009, Gaddafi told the General Assembly, “The two-State solution is impossible; it is not practical. Currently, these two States completely overlap. Partition is doomed to failure. These two States are not neighbors; they are coextensive, in terms of both population and geography. There are half a million Israeli settlers in the West Bank and a million Arab Palestinians in the territory known as Israel. The solution is therefore a democratic State without religious fanaticism or ethnicity.  Look at Palestinian and Israeli youth; they both want peace and democracy, and they want to live under one State. This conflict poisons the world. Arabs have no hostility or animosity towards Israel. We are cousins and of the same race.”

For sixty-seven years, the same colonial powers, who forced through passage of the frightening UN Partition Plan have kept up  a murderously deceitful pretense of trying to bring peace to Palestine and the oil rich Middle East, and UN delegates seem to willing to play along with it.  Gadaffi did not.

Did any of the delegates expressing pride in the accomplishments of the UN remember the two to three million Koreans slain during the invasion of Korea by American Armed Forces flying the UN flag, the UN flag painted as well on every US Air Force bomber during years of air attack that flattened every city and town of the entire Korean peninsula, North and South save Pusan a US naval base?

When delegates praised the work of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, did any remember that Ban Ki-Moon often praises that US ‘Police Intervention’ dutifully called for by the UN’s first Secretary General, Trygve Lie,  as the Koreans of the North were sweeping away the unpopular dictatorship the US had set up in the South, recently documented by the present Southern government as having massacred more that 100,000 of its own citizens in the South prior to the North reunifying Korea in five short weeks.[2]

Six years ago Gaddafi told his fellow delegates, “Those responsible for causing the Korean War should be tried and should pay compensation and damages.” Does this not sound reasonable?
When many delegates spoke of the wonderful work of UN Peace Keeping Missions, were they aware how most  missions were created in the big powers controlled Security Council to enforce brutal imperialist foreign policies of the Anglo-American led European colonial-neocolonial powers? Poor Somalia is the most horrific example. Years of US support of cooperative war lords causing chaos led to the birth of a government made up of the country’s Islamic Courts that was supported by Somalia’s business community and was clean and efficient and extremely popular. When US air strikes could not save its war lords, US client armies of Ethiopia and Kenya were called upon to invade and it was the youth wing of the conservative Islamic Courts government, the Movement of Striving Youth, which drove out the Ethiopian army, forcing the US to have the UN call upon subservient African nations to send the troops that are still there fighting the now radicalized Shabab, or Movement of Striving Youth – of late, conveniently demonized for being intermeshed with an originally US created al Qaida.[3] Oxfam estimates more than a million Somalians have  starved to death during these years of disruption. It is commonly known that the ill trained and badly behaved African troops are hated just as the UN foreign occupation force in Haiti, where their job is to keep a US friendly government in power against the wishes of the Haitian people, whose popular priest socialist President was kidnapped by the US following an invasion of Haiti by thugs.[4][5][6]

Was the ghost of the UN Secretariat slandered revolutionary leader Gaddafi present at the 2015 General Assembly Debate? How many delegates remembered the UN ‘No Fly Zone’ under which the 53rd highest Quality of Life UN indexed nation, the wealthiest in Africa, once the poorest for being exploited by Britain and France, was destroyed mercilessly with unopposed air strikes by its former colonial occupying exploiters after initial devastation by air and naval missile strikes by the US superpower professedly “to protect Libyans from certain slaughter” by their beloved [7] revolutionary leader who was also Chairman of the African Union he had himself revived after its long sleep since the colonial powers backed overthrow of its first founder President Nkruma of Ghana. 

Prophetically in regard to his own assassination few years later, Gaddafi had warned,  “At present, the Security Council is security feudalism, political feudalism for those with permanent seats, protected by them and used against us. It should be called, not the Security Council, but the Terror Council.”

Six socialist presidents of Latin America, those of Argentina, Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Venezuela did call delegates attention to the Libyans now suffering incessant slaughter in a formerly prosperous Libya in describing the overall disastrous situation the world finds itself in due to continued colonial neocolonial economic, political and military control and exploitation. “They called Gadaffi a tyrant,” shouted Evo Morales, and some must have recalled Fidel Castro was also called a tyrant, and survived innumerable assassination attempts as did Gadaffi. With number one enemy Gadaffi gone, North Africa has been wide open for USAFRICON military penetration. At our UN of false appearances, there is mostly diplomatic silence about the uncomfortably obvious.

With the exception of Latin America’s revolutionary delegates, the striking embarrassment that various Muslim nations lie in ruins, in good part because of  criminal acts of the UN Secretary General, the destruction of these UN member nations went uncommented upon in the delegates’ speeches. The UN’s chief officer’s support for infantile stories thrown out for public deception that should not have been believed; CNN stories of public uprising and Libyan government violence without one single video or photo to prove such lies; the world treated to nine weeks of videos of tough guys in heavy weapons armed pickup trucks posing as liberators with little or no reports allowed from rebel held Benghazi and elsewhere,[8] all this must be diplomatically unremembered by the cooperative majority of delegates. [see a day by day chronicle history: There Was No Libyan Peaceful Protest Just Murderous Gangs and CNN’s Nic Robertson]

The same is true of Syria, suffering deadly US funded invasions of terrorists openly abetted by a Ban Ki-Moon concurring with every US thought up vilification of President Assad. However fiery President Fernandez of Argentina did threw up her hands in desperation as she railed against the US, “Now is the ISIS , this new monster that has appeared on television – terrorist beheading people in real stagings that one wonders how, from where, because let me , I have become quite suspicious of all after seeing all the things that have happened . And things that go on television in the series that both entertain and amuse us , fictions are small next to the reality we have to live today as world.” “Where do they get weapons , where do they get the resources.”

Raul Castro, in his turn, limited himself to lecturing, ” We renew our confidence that the people of Syria are capable of resolving their differences themselves and we demand the ceasing of outside interference.” (A bit too diplomatic as those “differences” were false flagged up to ‘civil war’ appearances four years ago) [9]

Afghanistan? That Muslim country, where a coalition of every single blessed Caucasian populated nation of Earth, even tiny Andorra, Lichtenstein, etc. has been part of a coalition of invaders and murderous occupiers of an innocent Afghan nation over fifteen bloody years of drug lord installed government and kids freezing to death outside the warmly comfortable military accommodations of ‘Coalition Forces.’  Now that is an impressive example of white people solidarity. The non pale skin world that includes the majority of UN delegates shows a backhanded solidarity in ignoring it.

At the 2015 UN debate, the biggest exception to diplomatic propriety was  Nícolas Madero of Venezuela, who spoke at length of the invasions of Afghanistan, and then at length of Iraq, Libya and Syria, shouting a one point, “Who is going to pay for the crimes in Libya, in Afghanistan, in Iraq in Syria and recognize the horror movie made in Hollywood, politics of horror, politics of terror.” Madero over and over called out the perpetrator by name “los Estados Unidos de America – the United States,” as no other delegate to the 2015 General Debate did.

Why didn’t a delegate answer Madero’s question with, ‘We must make the United States pay for the crimes not only in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Libya, in Syria, but in Vietnam, in Laos, in Cambodia, in Congo, in Greece, in Guatemala, in Dominican Republic, in Angola, in Yemen, in Somalia, in Panama, in Grenada, in Cuba, in Haiti, in Iran, in Chile and almost every single country in Latin America?

Rafael Correa of Ecuador, speaking in determined, even on occasion angry, demeanor, did use words that reminded one of law and order, ”can’t have liberty without justice, only seeking justice will we get real liberty,”  but in quoting an economist, “When plunder becomes a way of life, men create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it,” Correa seemed to put justice out of our reach. This may be true enough at the moment in regard to prosecuting economic crimes causing poverty, but not when it come to military madness. We have laws against murder which sadly no delegate demands be called into force. Making use of these laws would make investment in profitable illegal and death dealing use of armed forces unprofitable.  Prosecuting military crimes against humanity would reduce the investment in weapons and war which is the major cause of the unjust impoverishment of humanity. Raul Castro pointed out dramatically in the very opening of his address, “795 million people go hungry , 781 million adults are illiterate and 17 000 children die every day from preventable diseases , while annual military spending worldwide totals more than 1.7 trillion dollars.”
Evo Morales of Bolivia cried out to the General Assembly,

“Every year we hear here the speeches of Obama on war”
“wars that leave destruction and death, but also wealth for the arms industry”

and “If we want to end poverty we have no other way but to end the imperialist system”

The Vice-President of Nicaragua speaking for President Daniel Ortega cited the “greed of capitalism, the empire of global capitalism, the destruction of even developed nations” and that “the UN must respond to barbaric interventions.”

Dear readers and Their Excellencies representing member UN nations:

Persecuted humanity has the laws to prosecute and end the wars by which the imperialist system perpetuates itself. These international laws unlike many parts of the Charter are not observed voluntarily. No person anywhere, no nation’s law, is above the Nuremberg Principles of international law.[10]

What is needed is some awakening of that desire for justice in the court of public opinion that is usually a prerequisite to justice happening in a formal court.
M.I.T. professor Noam Chomsky’s often quoted hypothetical “All the US presidents after FDR would have been hanged if tried under the same laws as the as the Nazis were tried under,” is never responded to with a ‘Well, let’s try a few!’ Latin American delegates may have elaborated on Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s widely heard outcry, “God damn America for her crimes against humanity,” but today’s revolutionary delegates seemed to have backtracked from the investigations and prosecutions Gadaffi called for six years ago. Many such crimes crimes against humanity need no investigation, being long admitted to (as mistakes of course).

In June of this year, former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark entered a friend of the court brief supporting the case of Iraqi mom, Sundus Shaker Saleh, who is suing top of officials in the Bush administration for violating crimes against peace under laws set down at the Nuremberg Trials used to prosecute Nazi war criminals, which since than have become an integral part of the US Constitution. Former President Bush, former Vice President Richard Cheney, former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, former National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and former Secretary of State Colin Powell are all named as defendants.

In 2013, the Obama Administration had had Department of Justice attorneys file a successful ‘motion to dismiss’ and grant immunity to the government officials by citing the Westfall Act,  which shields government employees from criminal repercussions for any actions that take place “within the scope of their employment.”

The amicus brief submitted on Saleh’s behalf by the group of attorneys that include U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, the president of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, the former president of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, the former president of the National Lawyers Guild, a founding board member of the International Commission for Labor Rights, and the co-chair of the International Committee of the National Lawyers Guild, among others—states that the previous court was “forbidden” to use Westfall protections to dismiss the charges because the Nuremberg Tribunal established “norms” that prohibit “the use of domestic laws as shields to allegations of aggression […] National leaders, even American leaders, do not have the authority to commit aggression and cannot be immune from allegations they have done so.” [emphasis added]  Nuremberg Principle Principle III reads as follows: The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.

Not only was this lawsuit unmentioned by the dozen or so delegates who spoke a few words about death and destruction still continuing in Iraq, but neither is it talked or written about  anywhere else. There is a kind of gentlemen’s agreement throughout the entire first world that it be not proper to bring up the subject of lawsuits against the powers that be, or even a hint of such an eventuality. Left progressive ostensibly anti-war journalism is even bereft of any allusion whatever to GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul having gotten to repeat on prime time news over a two week period years ago that “all US invasions and bombings beginning with Korea were illegal and unconstitutional.”

In vain has Former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark given his name to encouraging journalists not to write interesting exposes, erudite explanations, entertaining insights into the horror of the nearly continuous US genocide as Realpolitik, as if it were something other than prosecutable crimes against humanity and crimes against peace.  Mass homicidal events are being avidly discussed as news and politics, almost never as crimes against humanity and crimes against peace, rather as if they were as unchallengeable as the weather.  Professors and other intellectuals are, by such omission, leaving their reading public with the gut feeling that the lethal bombings, invasions, wars of occupation and covert violence are somehow lawful and that those engaging in, supporting and abetting this mayhem will not, and cannot, be brought before the law.

At the UN, this is somewhat exemplified by a subservient attitude of the delegates of the six-sevenths of humanity of the undeveloped, underdeveloped and now developing Third World still recovering from having been criminally plundered into such a condition over centuries by rapacious marauders from an under civilized Europe. Right now, there is no movement to hold the imperialist nations accountable, beyond a few marginalized writers. Which all goes to show why Gaddafi was so dangerous, for in that year the presidency of the General Assembly was held by a fellow Libyan, he went on at length about the justice that must be demanded:

“Another matter that should be voted on in the General Assembly is that of compensation for countries that were colonized, so as to prevent the colonization of a continent, the usurpation of its rights and the pillaging of its wealth from happening again.

Why are Africans going to Europe? Why are Asians going to Europe? Why are Latin Americans going to Europe? It is because Europe colonized those peoples and stole the material and human resources of Africa, Asia and Latin America — the oil, minerals, uranium, gold and diamonds, the fruit, vegetables and livestock and the people — and used them. Now, new generations of Asians, Latin Americans and Africans are seeking to reclaim that stolen wealth, as they have the right to do.

At the Libyan border, I recently stopped 1,000 African migrants headed for Europe. I asked them why they were going there. They told me it was to take back their stolen wealth — that they would not be leaving otherwise. If you decide to restore all of this wealth, there will be no more immigration from the Philippines, Latin America, Mauritius and India. Let us have the wealth that was stolen from us.

Why is the Third World demanding compensation? So that there will be no more colonization — so that large and powerful countries will not colonize, knowing that they will have to pay compensation. Colonization should be punished. The countries that harmed other peoples during the colonial era should pay compensation for the damage and suffering inflicted under their colonial rule.”

At this 64th General Assembly in 2009, Gaddafi had proudly asked, Why is there no Libyan immigration to Italy? Italy agreed to provide Libya with $250 million a year in compensation over the next 20 years and to build a hospital for Libyans maimed during Italy’s occupation.”

In November, 2013 this writer was flown to Caracas for a week, wonderful beyond words, as guest of the Ministry of Foreign Relations for study, meetings and discussions with committees in communes, in barrios, in housing developments, hospitals, factories, a new police university, the electoral commission, an election rally, and an afternoon with members of the Ministry and of the Asamblea Nacional regarding goals, achievements, and functioning, and aspects of the Chavista revolution.

On the final day, in front an gathering of parents and school teachers at an exciting and festive new elementary school dedication, I promised the honorable Elias Jawa, the young and charming Foreign Minister, that I would dedicate the rest of my life in protection of the beautiful Chavista revolution, and good people everywhere, by working, with the support of former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark, to seed confidence in the public consciousness world wide, that sooner of later, citizens and entities of the United States of North America will be sued for genocidal crimes against humanity and crimes against peace, for compensation for wrongful death in the millions, and injuries in the tens of millions, and for reparations for massive destruction and theft of natural resources, at a cost that will make future wars and covert violence to maintain predatory investments unprofitable.

And that although we know not how or where it will happen, when it becomes a topic of conversation throughout the world in the street, home, marketplace, workplace and school, a way will be found.

Upon my return to the less happy atmosphere in New York, it came to me that in the most widely read Anglo-American independent journalism and news commentary there exist without exception a doomsday scenario of impending world war and worse. The just concluded 70th UN General Debate gave me the same impression of hopelessness, blistering condemnations of the US by Presidents Fernandez, Morales, Castro, Correa, Madero and Vice-president Halleslevens of Nicaragua notwithstanding.

Apart for revolutionaries, one senses an incomprehensible attitude of helplessness, as if the world must perforce continue to be run lawlessly by investors in wars and thievery for as long as anyone can imagine.

For someone who has lived in for many years in China, other Asian cultures, Latin America and a bit in Africa  among peoples whose ways of life will inevitably be propelled into influencing thinking world wide as the West declines in economic power, this paralyzing poverty of thought that surrounds us at the moment is seen as temporary.

When the US loses its power to sanction its former victim nations into silence, a reconstituted United Nations, no longer under Anglo-American-EU control, can be expected to be adjudicating in its courts a plethora of mega monstrous in size lawsuits for compensation for millions of unlawful deaths and tens of millions of injuries, indemnity for enormous destruction of property and reparations for awesome theft of natural resources that parallel the descriptions of genocidal crimes described by the presidents of Venezuela and Nicaragua, economic terrorist crimes described by the presidents of Argentina and Cuba and the massive crimes against Mother Nature and our planetary home as described by the presidents of Bolivia and Ecuador.

Should a reader wish to calculate how great could be the cost of such expected future lawsuits for investors in the illegal use of US Armed Forces, five years ago former US Attorney General gave his blessing to a educational and stimulus website campaign: Prosecute US Crimes Against Humanity Now that contains the pertinent laws and a color coded country by country history of US crimes in nineteen countries.


1. US Economic Facilitation of Holocaust and Middle East Destabilizing Partition By jay janson…/us-economic-facilitation-of-holocaust… 
Dec 6, 2012
Synopsis: Israel is in bed with a US business elite that once heavily invested in Hitler, was itself anti-Semitic in outlook, coldly indifferent and even complicit during the Holocaust its investments made possible. A popular quip in Yiddish goes, “with such friends, who needs enemies?” Arabs saved Jews from Christian persecutions in 637, 1187, 1492. Now Christians are persecuting Arabs. Needed! Jewish-Arab Semitic solidarity.

An earlier and less through version of this article was published by OpEdNews in two parts:  June 9, 2011, titled: 
US Invested Heavily in Hitler Compensated Europe’s Jews with Arab Land – Therefore: [Parts 2 & 3] 2. Distortion  3. Imagining 
2 Prosecutable US Crimes Against Humanity In Korea. By Jay Janson. 31 March, 2013. While staring at the New York Times front page photo …

3. Which country created Al Qaeda?
In this video Hilary Clinton admits that the US government created and funded Al-Qaeda in order to fight the soviet union, and she even considers that as a good thing.
Hillary Clinton : We created Al-Qaeda – Al-Qaeda YouTube

4. Merciless US NATO UN Genocide In Somalia Brought Nairobi Shopping Mall Blowback!
Oct 16, 2013 The UN General Secretary Ban Ki-moon arrived in Somalia fresh from the ….. Internet explorer ‘s still the industry primary along with a good portion of folks will …

5. OpEdNews Op Eds 12/12/2011 at 08:59:50
Korean Traitor US Stooge UN ‘Terror Council’ Sec. Gen. in Somalia
By Jay Janson

6. The Kidnapping of President Jean Bertrand Aristide
Mar 31, 2004 – Background. Beginning in early February 2004, the democratically elected President of Haiti, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, faced an armed rebellion …

7. Berlusconi says Libyans love Qaddafi: as Italians protest against NATO, Italian news agency ANSA.

8. There Was No Libyan Peaceful Protest, Just Murderous Gangs and Nic Robertson By Jay Janson June 20 2011 “Information Clearing House” — Nic Robertson …

9. Syria: CIA, M16, French, Mossad, Saudi Involvement Unreported In Imperialist Media. By Jay Janson. 27 June, 2011. What is unfolding in …


Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.  (Article 1. of Purposes of the United Nations reads: To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace.)
Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal, subsequently part of the Charter of the United Nations, and by the way by Article II of the US Constitution, a integral part of that constitution (”In the United States…, our constitution declares a treaty to be the law of the land. It is, consequently, to be regarded in courts of justice as equivalent to an act of the legislature, whenever it operates of itself, without the aid of any legislative provision. – Chief Justice Marshall in 1829:)
Principle I
Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment.
Principle II
The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.
Principle III
The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.
Principle IV
The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.
Principle V
Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.
Principle VI
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts
mentioned under (i).
War crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, illtreatment or deportation to slave labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill – treatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.
Principle VII
Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.
Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1950, vol. II, para 97

Jay Janson is an archival research peoples historian activist, musician and writer; has lived and worked on all continents in 67 countries; articles on media published in China, Italy, UK, India, Sweden and the US; now resides in NYC.   Is coordinator of the Howard Zinn co-founded King Condemned US Wars International Awareness Campaign: (King Condemned US Wars). and website historian of the Ramsey Clark co-founded Prosecute US Crimes Against Humanity Now Campaign. featuring a country by country history of US crimes and laws pertaining.




See featured article here:

TLB recommends that you read other pertinent articles at:


United Nations Exposes Chemtrails 100% PROOF We Are Being Poisoned

By: Eddie L.

By now everyone has witnessed streaks of white trailing across the sky, stretching from horizon to horizon, ultimately turning the skies into a murky haze. We can no longer ignore the fact that our skies are being heavily polluted with aluminium, barium, lead, arsenic, chromium, cadmium, selenium, and silver.  All of which attribute to a host of health problems including: neurological effects, heart damage, eyesight issues, reproduction failures, immune system damage, gastrointestinal disorders, damaged kidney, damaged liver, hormonal problems, and more.

The truth is the government is spraying deadly chemtrails in hopes of population reduction. Furthermore they have been known to use chemtrails as biological testing agents on the populace; all while claiming they are nothing more than mere vapor.

We’ll now we have 100% undeniable evidence that chemtrails exist. The video below is of Rosalind Peterson, the president of Agriculture Defense Coalition. In it she address the United Nations on chemtrails, geoengineering, and weather modification (HAARP).

If you were a skeptic before, I can assure you, that you will not be after hearing what she has to say to the people in power.

Here are more articles you can read about Chemtrails and the Elite evil agenda:


If you haven’t read all my previous article exposing ‘Agenda 21′  and Chemtrails here is even more proof  from United Nation.



Founder of WorldTruth.Tv and Eddie (5084 Posts)Eddie L. is the founder and owner of WorldTruth.TV. This website is dedicated to educating and informing people with articles on powerful and concealed information from around the world. I have spent the last 30+ years researching Bible, History, Secret Societies, Symbolism


TLB recommends you visit WorldTruth.Tv for more pertinent articles and information.

See featured article here.




How is ISIS infiltrating the U.S.?

With Syrian passports. ISIS militants are gaining access to citizenship rights around the world. Also in America, refugees can join the military and so we will be seeing many more cases like those below in the videos… now that our average of 100 refugees a year will be 100,000.

By the power of MAVNI (Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest) refugees or anyone with asylum status can join the U.S. military and gain American citizenship. Not only that, but under new policies invoked by President Obama, “Syrian” refugees will be funneled into the United States by the 100,000’s.

What is MAVNI?

Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest (MAVNI) is a recruiting program that allows legal non-citizens with in-demand skills to join the Army in exchange for expedited U.S. citizenship.

Individuals who join the Army through this program are able to move from non-immigrant visa or asylee/refugee/Temporary Protected Status (TPS) directly to citizenship. In most cases participants in the program will become naturalized U.S. citizens by the time they graduate from ten weeks of Basic Combat Training or accept a commission as Army Officers.

Migrant Crisis has Exploded

Over the past couple years the amount of refugees surging from the Middle East has risen to the millions. Many countries are turning away these refugees and many others, namely developed nations like the U.S. and Britain are taking in refugees by the hundreds of thousands a year.

In the years 2012, 2013 and 2014 the United States only took in 335 Syrian refugees. This number has drastically changed to over 1,000 just this year. President Obama and Secretary Kerry through agreements with the U.N. and the EU have altered the refugee resettlement terms to require the U.S. to take in 70,000 – 100,000 refugees by the end of this year.

ISIS Caught with Boxes of Passports

In an article published on Sept. 21, 2015 the first connection was made to the refugees and ISIS. The excerpt below details how the fake refugee status is being used as a front for these radical recruiters. The particular case here resulted in a seizure of hundreds of passports. There are obviously persons who remain to be caught, letting the public know the situation is not small nor a few people here and there. These passports are needed by the ISIS militants to get out of Syria. Therefore, hundreds and most likely thousands of ISIS militants are using this weakness in the system every single day. Border patrol agents should constantly be on the look out for fake passports. The problem is many of the ISIS militants may have real passports from Syria too. So the fake refugee status is almost impossible to identify.

ISIS Refugee

Refugee Redistribution?

The European Union and the United States have come to an agreement that refugees will now be redistributed “fairly” throughout the world. Here is a depiction of the latest proposal for EU countries this year. Keep in mind America is taking 70,000 – 100,000.

Refugee Redistribution
There has been rhetoric and talk of ISIS militants using this wave of migration to infiltrate American and European communities. So called sleeper cells, that were and are used to carry out terrorist attacks. In many countries, car bombings and suicide bombings are a serious threat and everyday tragedy due to these sleeper cells.

ISIS is Sending Militants Around the World to Create Sleeper Cells

Exclusive evidence has now surfaced proving this fact. On September 21st, 2015, an ISIS militant was caught in Stuttgart, Germany with “boxes of passports”. These passports were to be used as tools for ISIS militants posing as “asylum seekers” in refugee centers, where they would eventually embark on a trip to a town near you. Even worse, they very well could be joining the military and sabotaging missions, infiltrating bases and degrading military process/ procedure quality and integrity. Some individuals are planning on carrying out full force attacks on military bases in this very way. See the video below.

These Sleeper Cell (Undercover) Refugees are Infiltrating the Military

Here is one example of a soldier being caught supporting ISIS.

Here is another example of a soldier planning an attack on fellow soldiers for ISIS.




See featured article here:

TLB recommends that you read other pertinent articles at:



Joachim Hagopian

After five years of negotiations, this week in Atlanta the trade ministers from all twelve nations finally arrived at an agreement to the biggest economic treaty in human history, co-opting their masters’ Trans-Pacific Partnership after hashing out their final bones of contention and bringing their New World Order one giant step closer to mankind.

Sending their final 30 chapter product for each of the dozen national governments to now sign off and ratify, once that hurdle is navigated, enter the Brave New World Order of a one world government. Back in May US Congress already voted to give up its oversight role by handing its reigns of authority over to presidential dictator Obama to personally fast track it. To accomplish the passage of the May fast track bill, Big Business bribed US Senators to vote in favor by a 65-33 margin with a carrot stick sum of $1,148,971 between January and March 2015 when the bill was debated on the floor. This sadly is how business as usual gets done in Washington.

Meanwhile, citizen movements that bring pressures to bear on national governments to protect the people and the environment are rendered defenseless amidst the onslaught of corporatized dominance over nations and their populations. The Philip Morris tobacco company is suing Uruguay for imposing health warnings on cigarette packaging. A Canadian mining company is taking El Salvador to court due to citizens’ grassroots efforts to halt mining operations from pouring poisonous chemicals into the ground to extract gold. If TPP is passed, governments will no longer be able to protect its citizens and any democratic rights of the people will be completely destroyed.

If the fate of humans is to somehow avoid this totalitarian horror and nightmarish tyranny of a fascist one world government, then the time to stand up and be counted is now. Citizens of the 12-nation Pacific Rim that include the US, Canada and Mexico as well as Chile and Peru along with Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam and Brunei must demand that their government representatives refuse to pass TPP. Obviously our work is cut out for us and it will not be easy.

Last year a Princeton-Northwestern study officially declared the United States an oligarchy after determining that Congress operates on behalf of the ruling elite that pours billions into politicians’ pockets effectively bribing and buying them off to vote for its self-interest rather than the American people who voted them into office. But despite the rigged political system stacked against American citizens and this same blatant, in-our-face corruption pervasively entrenched now in virtually every nation on earth, it is up to us citizens of the world to ultimately band together in solidarity in order to make sure that this Trojan horse of a Trans-Pacific Partnership does not become NWO law.

Regardless of what happens, the 21st century has to go down in history as the age of global deception when Orwellian doublespeak is the universally uttered language spoken by all the most prominent political leaders on the planet. But really the globalists who’ve long been perched at the highest echelons of US power have been speaking in fork tongue for centuries. Fresh off their Jekyll Island conspiracy in 1910, the globalist bankers achieved their first coup de tat in Washington when they snuck through Congress another bill no one read just prior to Christmas recess in 1913.

Just as 2002’s Patriot Act subsequently undermined and destroyed the US Constitution from being upheld and practiced as America’s rule of law, the two most subversive pieces of legislation in US history effectively destroyed the United States as a democratic republic – the deceitfully privatized Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and the unconstitutional Federal Income Tax Act of 1913. In their third attempt at establishing for good a central banking system within America, the globalists adopted the same economic system that had been operating with Rothschild money in Europe since the Bank of England began in 1694.

No sooner did the Wall Street bankers wield power over the US government seizing control over America’s money supply, usurping the function of the US Treasury, they were able to lock in an unconstitutional financial system whereby they were handed authority to create money out of thin air in order to charge interests on loans to the US government so wars that bankers actually caused could be conveniently financed at a handsome profit. Additionally, the globalist banksters were able to bludgeon both commercial businesses and private citizens with usury debt through interests accruing on bank loans also cut out of thin air. And then with the annual collection of Americans’ federal income tax used to pay off mostly the government’s interests on war loans, the bankers had manipulated both Congress and Americans into their elaborate Ponzi scheme of a feudal debtor system.

Just months later the only thing left in 1914 was to immediately plunge allied nations into the first world war against a globalist funded militarized Germany, always ensuring major dividends from war profiteering by financing both sides of both World Wars as had been the European-Rothschild custom for centuries. Thus, bent on killing fair free market competition and indeed the free enterprise system itself for the sake of establishing a cartel of overriding monopolies, a handful of elitist families – the Rockefellers, the JP Morgans, the Fords, the Carnegies and the Bushes to name but a few – proceeded to make their killings off the blood, sweat, and tears of the American population, sacrificing our fallen soldiers for obscene profiteering while turning the rest of us still alive into the robotic walking dead sentenced to a lifetime of indentured servitude.

And to seize even more control over Washington and its foreign policy in particular, guaranteeing virtual nonstop war by globalist design, in 1921 the elite’s most public face credited as the NWO architects was born in the Council on Foreign Relations. Over this last century nearly every Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense and over half the US presidents have all been card carrying members of the CFR. After all, war’s always been most profitable to globalist bankers. Hence, it’s no accident that 93% of its time as a nation, the US has been killing other humans somewhere on the planet 222 of its 239 years in existence. No other nation on earth can dare boast such dubiously shameful bragging rights.

So through nearly two and a half centuries of nonstop war, and now after the 21st century “Pearl Harbor event” of 9/11 that was planned years earlier by the neocon Project for the New American Century, their demonic agenda has become reality. They’ve taken down America and its constitutional freedoms as the world’s strongest nation by overextending its fighting war machine, decimating its middle class, and in effect destabilizing every nation and region on earth by manufacturing a permanent war of global terror, an unsustainable global economy driven by a gluttonous military industrial complex, and establishing their New World Order tumultuously operating under public radar behind US Empire’s full spectrum dominance on their geopolitics chessboard.

After all, when the richest 1% of the global population is able to steal so much wealth that they actually own more than the rest of the 99% of the entire 7 plus billion population combined, at the global masses’ expense their New World Order’s already been fulfilled. The only thing left is to codify the NWO into formal existence by writing laws that multiple national governments will co-sign into effect relinquishing and destroying all national sovereignty. If TPP passes, transnational corporations will supersede all national and state laws and courts.

We are at this final stage right now, and their puppet-in-chief wearing blackface backed by his GOP pro-globalist Congress is rushing to finalize these trade agreements as foremost on Obama’s lame duck schedule just under the wire before the US dollar gets blown up by the collapsing bubble burst of the bankrupted global economy and a cast of neocon madmen drag us all into yet another world war. The death and destruction that awaits if we allow it is the globalist ticket for thinning the global pop. down to a “sustainable” UN Agenda sized 21 of a half billion humans while gaining absolute totalitarian microchip control over every earthling left alive on the planet.

And now a century after the fork tongued globalists hijacked Washington, they’re still at it, but today the stakes are graver than ever. Their treasonous thievery couched in obscure doublespeak language touts “free trade” as their main selling point when it’s anything but free trade. Only five of the thirty chapters even have anything to do with trade. The unholy trio of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) economically merging North America with the European Union, are now being fast tracked under the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) that Congress yielded to Obama in May.

Just like they did 100 years earlier, now they’re far more skilled and experienced at fooling the public than ever before. At this point the globalists are counting on the average American Joe to be so dumbed down and confused as to not even try and stop them. They’re counting on us not understanding what’s at stake here, allowing their doublespeak lingo buried in technocratic legalese deceit and propaganda to con us into passively believing TPP may actually be good for us.

After all, if you believe the lies from the minion spin, TPP will knock down all the red tape barriers that have made “free trade” so impossible for the dozen nations responsible for 40% of the total world economy. Ostensibly TPP will streamline and standardize “free trade” products for global consumption. These are the lies they propagate in selling TPP to the public. However, history already foretells a grim TPP outcome if it passes. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was hyped early in globalist Clinton’s first term in office as a guaranteed boom for the American economy promising more jobs but all it did was provide a cover for outsourcing American manufacturing jobs to Mexico.

The TPP intends on just more of the same, for all intents and purposes simply expanding NAFTA eastward to Asia in an effort to hedge China as the emerging global economic giant due to eclipse the US as the economic kingpin. Similarly to Clinton, the known pathological liar Obama who as presidential candidate vowed to be the most open and transparent president in US history but proved the most secretive and deceptive claims TPP will “level the playing field” for American workers and businesses, adding that the US public will have months to openly review the deal prior to his signing it into law. Obama is a psychopathic master of doublespeak deceit.

In actuality TPP will allow oil companies and other multinational corporations to sue governments for obstructing their further rape of the planet. It will only increase fracking and drilling worldwide. The fast tracking component effectively bypasses any chance of public debate and mobilizing citizen opposition. It will permit foreign transnationals to legally challenge any existing domestic environmental regulation. TPP has been written by the globalists to serve only their own special interests. Globalists have both history and ultra-secrecy on their side. By calculated design they’ve carefully withheld virtually the entire 30 chapters of detailed critical information even from Congress members needed to sign off on the agreement. Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) had this to say about how TPP has been handled:

The majority of Congress is being kept in the dark as to the substance of the TPP negotiations, while representatives of U.S. corporations – like Halliburton, Chevron, PHRMA, Comcast, and the Motion Picture Association of America – are being consulted and made privy to details of the  agreement.

Fortunately WikiLeaks managed to intercept limited portions of TPP to gain a glimpse at its ambitious aim to codify New World Order into supreme law. Some of the concealed fine print spells a foreboding blueprint for setting back both human rights and workers’ rights centuries, plunging us into another dark aged feudalism. In recent years labor unions in America have already taken a major hit in protecting workers’ rights. But TPP also threatens to throwback worker safety standards to the cold winds of hell as well. Worker conditions today are becoming so dire that owner-management has taken full advantage. Knowing that for every job opening, dozens of desperate job seeking applicants are available, owners exploit these stacked numbers working against American employees to grossly underpay and view their workers as mere expendable commodities. Job loyalty and dedication are largely overlooked.

American workers in the current permanently stagnated economy ready to go bust are working far longer hours for less wages that carry far less buying power than in multiple decades. In this increasingly austere culture and climate, the actual numbers are astoundingly scary. An estimated over a quarter of the total US working population isn’t even looking for work anymore, one fifth of all US households don’t have anyone employed and over 101 million working age Americans are without work. Those still holding down fulltime jobs have been made to feel fortunate just having a job to attend each day. Job security is another dead and gone relic from our past. For decades large corporations have been outsourcing US jobs to overseas markets like China for cheaper slave labor and higher corporate profits. TPP will only bring more lost American jobs and even more dire conditions.

Media censorship will eliminate internet access to billions of us globally. The powers-that-be are well aware that fewer and fewer people are paying attention to mainstream media as it’s finally been recognized for what it is – nothing more than gov.corps’ propaganda department. Truth is their enemy and the globalists are fuming over the ugly truth about them getting out to the public by way of independent alternative media found primarily on the internet. Hence, TPP has the internet targeted in its crosshairs for elimination, completely controlling all outflow of news and information to the public masses worldwide. Net neutrality is due to be scrapped as yet another NWO graveyard fatality if TPP gets passed. Additionally Hollywood’s been gunning to restrict copyrighted material from internet access in countries like New Zealand in effect attempting to usurp New Zealand laws.

TPP will allow Monsanto’s genetically modified organisms full toxic reign by restricting all government labeling of food. Despite increasing numbers of countries around the world passing laws prohibiting GMO products from entering their borders, TPP for the dozen nations it affects will trample over consumers’ rights to accessing healthy foods. Under TPP, health conscious states like Vermont that already passed a law last year requiring food labeling due to go into effect in 2016 will again become null and void.

The US pro-Pharma lobbying delegation pushing its 12-year monopoly on Big Pharma drugs being price inflated immune from any generic competition for a dozen years was one of the contentious issues holding up the trade ministers’ agreement. Despite US Congress already granting Big Pharma its power to charge absorbent, overpriced costs unaffordable to consumers to remain unchallenged for a full 12-year period, in the end the trade ministers agreed that the years of monopolized thievery for TPP were reduced to a range from 5 to 8 years of exclusive rights for the pharmaceutical manufacturers. This compromised feature is still being called a win for Big Pharma as it will continue seriously limiting access to affordable, potentially lifesaving medication for millions if not billions of people on this planet.

Yet another not so hidden negative consequence of TPP will be to specifically ban any movements, campaigns or policies promoting at either the national down to the community level the purchasing oflocally owned goods and services. Again, this ensures enforceable removal of all fair open market competition placing the smaller locally owned businesses at a severely rigged, too often lethal disadvantage.

Despite Obama and his rabid Republican backers in Congress, the globalist puppet president does not have strong support from congressional members from his own party. Though he finagled Congress to cave in to his fast tracking TPA earlier this year, it was not without formidable opposition generated from an anti-TPP activist movement that had successfully pressured politicians to not support it. Also with next year’s presidential election up for grabs, the shifting sands of fickle election year politics may cast changing loyalties to either side whichever way the wind blows. Though generally the money holders hold court, there are no guarantees. The vote will not even come up for another four months from now, plenty of time to demand action from our elected representatives to kill TPP once and for all.

Meanwhile, the EU-US’ TTIP appears to be unraveling in the face of defectors mainly from France and Germany abandoning US Empire’s house of cards hegemony. At the same time a stiffening groundswell of increasing vocal opposition to TTIP rising from Europeans long fed up with the EU technocrats out of Brussels calling the shots that counter their own localized self-interests have been galvanizing in resolute commitment to defeat the globalists on the Euro-front. They also justifiably fear that their own health standards for food products will be lowered by the fast and loose US market that permits far higher toxin levels. As informed and empowered citizen activists, we collectively have no other choice but in good conscience to exert our full unified efforts across continents toward derailment of the globalists’ sinister agenda that’s been specifically designed to fatally harm us as both sovereign nations and sovereign people. Together as a world citizenry we must break the yoke of oppression gripping our planet. Defeating TPP is one urgent place to start.

Joachim Hagopian is a West Point graduate and former US Army officer. He has written a manuscript based on his unique military experience entitled “Don’t Let The Bastards Getcha Down.” It examines and focuses on US international relations, leadership and national security issues. After the military, Joachim earned a master’s degree in Clinical Psychology and worked as a licensed therapist in the mental health field for more than a quarter century. He now concentrates on his writing and has a blog site at




See featured article here:

TLB recommends that you read other pertinent articles at:





 By Paul Craig Roberts


In his comment on the mass shootings at the Oregon community college, President Obama said: “This has become routine.”

So have police shootings of unarmed and unresisting Americans.

So have numerous other undesirable and deplorable happenings, such as the foreclosure on the homes of millions of Americans, while the “banks too big to fail” are bailed out with trillions of dollars, and such as foreign policy lies that have destroyed seven countries, bringing the US and Europe millions of refugees.

In addition there are the foreign policy lies that have brought the US and Europe into conflict with Russia, and the economic lies that shield the extraordinary concentration of income and wealth of the One Percent.

Also routine is Washington’s obliteration of weddings, funerals, and medical centers with bombs and drones. Two days after Obama expressed his despair, frustration and anger over the Oregon mass shootings, a US air strike hit a hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan. According to numerous news reports, at least 19 people were killed, including 12 members of Doctors Without Borders, and another 37 wounded. The US air strike killed one person on the operating table, and intensive care patients burned to death in their beds.

For Washington, these mass murders are only “collateral damage,” nothing warranting a presidential statement displaying despair, anger, and frustration.

Obama says he can do nothing about mass shootings, but he could certainly call off his illegal wars and deep-six his reckless and coercive approach toward Russia before we are incinerated. As Vladimir Putin said at the UN, “We [meaning Russia] can no longer tolerate the state of affairs in the world.”

Putin does not lie. When he says something, he means it.

Somebody in Washington had better listen to this man, because Washington is no longer The
Unipower. There are now three superpowers—Russia, China, and the US—and probably in that order.

In America all forms of evil and corruption have become routine. Bob Dylan told us that vice and corruption have become routine: “People’s lives today are filled on so many levels with vice and the trappings of it. Ambition, greed and selfishness all have to do with vice. . . . We don’t see the people that vice destroys. We just see the glamour of vice on a daily basis—everywhere we look, from billboard signs to movies, to newspapers, to magazines. We see the destruction of human life and the mockery of it, everywhere we look.”

Vice is Washington’s signature. A fish rots from the head, and Washington has led our country into vice, greed, selfishness and the mockery and destruction of human life.

The Golden Rule is to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Allegedly, America is a Christian country. This means that Christian America is following Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount in a masochistic way. Do we really want other countries to bomb and invade us, to reduce our towns and cities to rubble, to destroy our social and economic infrastructure, to kill millions of us and make most of the rest of us into refugees?

This is what America has done to the world. This is why Vladimir Putin said Russia can no longer tolerate the state of affairs in the world and why he asked America, “Do you realize what you have done?”


Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts’ latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West and How America Was Lost.




See featured article here:


TLB recommends that you visit Paul Craig Roberts for more pertinent articles at his website.



british-empire (1).jpg460 22

By Gerry Docherty

Rich and powerful elites have long dreamed of world control. The ambitious Romans, Attila the Hun, great Muslim leaders of Medieval Spain, the Mughals of India all exercised immense influence over different parts of the globe in set periods of recognised ascendancy.

Sometimes tribal, sometimes national, sometimes religious, often dynastic, their success defined epochs, but was never effectively global until the twentieth century. At that point, with the future of the British Empire under threat from other aspiring nations, in particular Germany , a momentous decision was taken by a group of powerful and determined men, that direct action had to be taken to assert their control, and that of the British race, over the entire civilised world. It has grown from that tiny select cabal into a monster that may already be beyond control.

“One wintry afternoon in February 1891, three men were engaged in earnest conversation in London. From that conversation were to flow consequences of the greatest importance for the British Empire and to the world as a whole.”

So begins Professor Carroll Quigley’s book The Anglo American Establishment.  It may read like a John Le Carre thriller, but this was no spy fiction. The three staunch British Imperialists who met in London that day, Cecil Rhodes, William Stead and Lord Esher, were soon joined by Lords Rothschild, Salisbury, Rosebery and Milner, men whose financial, political, and administrative powers set them apart. Some of these names may not be familiar to you, but that is a mark of the absolute success of this group. From the outset they insisted on secrecy, operated in secret and ensured that their influence was airbrushed from history. They believed that white men of Anglo-Saxon descent rightly sat at the top of the racial hierarchy and they fully understood the impending threat from a burgeoning Germany whose modern, expanding economy had begun to challenge British hegemony on the world stage.

The above named elites drew up a plan for a secret society that aimed to renew the bond between Great Britain and the United States [1] and bring all habitable portions of the world under their influence and control. The U.S. had grown rapidly in self-esteem, wealth and opportunity since the declaration of independence in 1776, but Anglo-American connections remained strong and would embroil her in the long-term plan for one world government. The meeting in 1891 was, in effect, the birth of the New World Order cabal.

Great financiers frequently used their fortunes to influence questions of peace and war and control politics for profit. Cecil Rhodes was different. He was determined to use his vast fortune not simply to generate ever-increasing profit, but to realise his dream, a dream he shared with his co-conspirators. Rhodes turned the profit objective on its head and sought to amass great wealth into his secret society in order to achieve political ends, to buy governments and politicians, buy public opinion and the means to influence it. [2] He intended that his wealth should be used to grasp control of the world, secretly. Secrecy was the cornerstone. No one outside the favoured few knew of the group’s existence. They have since been referred to obliquely in speeches and books as “The Money Power”, “The Hidden Power” or “the men behind the curtain”. All of these labels are pertinent, but we have called them, collectively, the Secret Elite.

Carroll Quigley revealed that Secret Elite influence on education was chiefly visible at the exclusive English private schools, Eton and Harrow, and at Oxford University , especially All Souls and Balliol Colleges . [3] This immensely rich and powerful group was given intellectual approval and inspiration by the philosophy of John Ruskin, professor of fine arts at Oxford.  He spoke to the Oxford undergraduates as members of the privileged ruling class, telling them that they possessed a magnificent tradition of education, rule of law and freedom. He championed all that was finest in the public service ethic, duty and self-discipline, and believed that English ruling class tradition should be spread to the masses across the empire. [4]

But behind such well-serving words lay a philosophy strongly opposed to the emancipation of woman, had no time for democracy and supported the “just” war.[5] Ruskin advocated that control of the state should be placed in the hands of a small ruling class. Social order was to be built upon the authority of superiors, imposing upon their inferiors an absolute, unquestioning obedience. He was repelled by the notion of levelling between the classes and by the disintegration of the “rightful” authority of the ruling class. [6]Ruskin’s philosophy was music to the ears of the elitists. It gave their lust for global power the blessing of academic approval. What they did, they would claim, was not for them, but for mankind. They would rise to power on the spurious justification that the world would consequently be a better place for humanity.

Inspired by Ruskin, Cecil Rhodes and his accomplices created the secret society with an inner core of trusted associates called “The Society of the Elect”, who unquestionably knew that they were members of an exclusive cabal devoted to taking and holding power on a world-wide basis. [7] A second outer ring, larger and quite fluid in its membership, was named “The Association of Helpers”. At this level members might not have known that they were an integral part of, or inadvertently being used by, a secret society. Many on the outer edges of the group, idealists and honest individuals, may never have been aware that the real decisions were made by a ruthless clique about whom they had no knowledge. [8]

The man who exposed the secret society, Carroll Quigley (1910 – 1977), was the highly esteemed professor of history at the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University , and a lecturer at Princeton and Harvard.  He revealed that the organisation was able to “conceal its existence quite successfully, and many of its most influential members… are unknown even to close students of British History”. [9] Quigley’s greatest contribution to our understanding of modern history came with his books, The Anglo-American Establishment and Tragedy and Hope, A History of the World in Our Time. The former was written in 1949 but only released after his death. His disclosures placed him in such potential danger from an Establishment backlash that it was never published in his lifetime. In a 1974 radio broadcast, Quigley warned the interviewer, Rudy Maxa of the Washington Post, “You better be discreet. You have to protect my future as well as your own.” [10]

How to purchase Hidden History: The secret origins of the First World War by Gerry Docherty and Jim Macgregor Quigley had received assistance of a “personal nature” from individuals close to what he called the “Group”, but “for obvious reasons” he could not reveal their names. [11] He made it clear that evidence about them was not hard to find “if you know where to look,”[12] and it has to be asked why generations of historians have failed to pursue his trail. Though sworn to secrecy, Professor Quigley revealed in the radio interview that Sir Alfred Zimmern, the British historian and political scientist, had confirmed the names of the main protagonists within the secret society. Without a shadow of doubt, Zimmern himself was a close associate of those at the centre of real power in Britain. He knew most of the key figures personally and was himself a member of the inner core of the secret society for twelve years between 1910 and 1922. [13]

The enigma of Professor Quigley’s work lies in his statement that while the secret cabal had brought many of the things he held dear close to disaster, he generally agreed with its goals and aims. [14] Were these merely words of self-preservation? Be mindful of his warning to Rudy Maxa as late as 1974. Quigley clearly felt that these revelations placed him in danger. Unknown persons removed his major work, Tragedy and Hope, from the bookstore shelves in America , and it was withdrawn from sale without any justification soon after its release. The book’s original plates were unaccountably destroyed by Quigley’s publisher, the Macmillan Company, who, for the next six years “lied, lied, lied” to him and deliberately misled him into believing that it would be reprinted. [15] Why? What pressures obliged a major publishing house to take such extreme action? Quigley stated categorically that powerful people had suppressed the book because it exposed matters that they did not want known. The reader has to understand that we are discussing individuals whose power, influence and control were unrivalled.

From the very start, each of the initial conspirators brought valuable qualities and connections to the society. Cecil Rhodes was Prime Minister of the Cape Colony and master and commander of a vast area of Southern Africa which some were already beginning to call Rhodesia . His wealth had been underwritten by brutal native suppression [16] and the global mining interests of the House of Rothschild, [17] to whom he was answerable. William Stead was the most prominent journalist of his day and a voice to which ordinary people listened. Lord Esher represented the interests of the monarchy from Queen Victoria ’s final years, through the exuberant excesses of King Edward VII, to the more sedate but pliable King George V. His influence was immense because he operated between monarchs, the aristocracy and leading political figures. He chaired important secret committees, was responsible for appointments to the Cabinet, the senior ranks of the diplomatic corps and voiced strong personal opinion on top army posts. [18] Esher exerted a power behind the throne far in excess of his constitutional position. His role of powerbroker on behalf of the Secret Elite was without equal. Indeed Professor Quigley dubbed him, “the greatest wire puller of the period.” [19]

Another name that pervaded all that was powerful and influential during this period was that of the Rothschild dynasty, and Quigley placed Lord Nathaniel (Natty) Rothschild within the very core of the secret organization. [20] Rothschild was all-powerful in British and world banking and virtually untouchable.

“The House of Rothschild was immensely more powerful than any financial empire that had ever preceded it.  It commanded vast wealth. It was international. It was independent.  Royal governments were nervous of it because they could not control it.  Popular movements hated it because it was not answerable to the people.  Constitutionalists resented it because its influence was exercised behind the scenes – secretly.” [21]

Taken together, the principal players, Rhodes, Stead, Esher, Rothschild and Milner represented a new force that was emerging inside British politics, but powerful old traditional aristocratic families that had long dominated Westminster , often in cahoots with the reigning monarch, were also deeply involved, and none more so than the Cecil family. Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne-Cecil, the patriarchal 3rd Marquis of Salisbury, ruled the Conservative Party at the latter end of the nineteenth century. He served as prime minister three times for a total of fourteen years, between 1885 and 1902 (longer than anyone else in recent history). When he retired as prime minister in July 1902, he handed over the reins of government to his sister’s son, Arthur Balfour. Lord Salisbury had four siblings, five sons and three daughters who were all linked and interlinked by marriage to individuals in the upper echelons of the English ruling class. Important government positions were given to relations, friends and wealthy supporters who proved their gratitude by ensuring that his views became policy in government, civil service and diplomatic circles. This extended ‘Cecil-Bloc’ was intricately linked to “The Society of the Elect” and Secret Elite ambitions throughout the first half of the twentieth century. [22]

Another member of the inner core, Lord Alfred Milner, offers cause for greater scrutiny because he has been virtually airbrushed from the history of the period. Alfred Milner was a self-made man and remarkably successful civil servant who became a key figure within the Secret Elite and absolutely powerful within the ranks of these privileged individuals. He and Rhodes had been contemporaries at Oxford University , and were inextricably connected through events in South Africa . Rhodes recognised in him the kind of steel that was required to pursue the dream of world domination, “I support Milner absolutely without reserve. If he says peace, I say peace; if he says war, I say war. Whatever happens, I say ditto to Milner.” [23] Milner grew in time to be the most able of them all, to enjoy the privilege of patronage and power, a man to whom others turned for leadership and direction.

When governor general and high commissioner of South Africa , Milner deliberately caused the Boer War in order to grab the Transvaal’s gold and use the economic resources of South Africa to extend and perpetuate Secret Elite control. He had the grace to confess in a letter to Lord Roberts, Commander in Chief in South Africa, that

“I precipitated the crisis, which was inevitable, before it was too late.  It is not very agreeable, and in many eyes, not very creditable piece of business to have been largely instrumental in bringing about a big war.” [24]

This was no immodest boast. Alfred Milner’s matter-of-fact explanation displayed the cold objectivity that drove the Secret Elite cause. War was unfortunate, but necessary. It had to be. They were not afraid of war.

The Secret Elite’s war against the Dutch settlers began in October 1899 and ended with the signing of the Treaty of Vereeniging on 31 May 1902. The Boer Republics were annexed to the British Empire . The Transvaal ’s gold was finally in the hands of the Secret Elite at a cost of some 70,000 dead on the battlefields, plus 32,000 dead in British concentration camps, including more than 20,000 children of Dutch descent. Some thirty thousand Boer farms were burned to the ground, livestock slaughtered, and the women and children put in British concentration camps. In the camps, the families of men fighting for the Boer army were punished by being put on half the already meagre rations with no meat whatsoever. [25] W. T. Stead, former member of the inner core of the Secret Elite who had resigned in disgust over the Boer War, was overcome by the evidence presented to him. He wrote,

“Every one of these children who died as a result of the halving of their rations, thereby exerting pressure onto their family still on the battle-field, was purposefully murdered. The system of half rations stands exposed, stark and unashamedly as a cold-blooded deed of state policy employed with the purpose of ensuring the surrender of men whom we were not able to defeat on the field.” [26]

20,000 children dying in British concentration camps were of little consequence to Milner. He was so driven that he ignored the weight of opposition ranged against him. He warned his friend, Richard Haldane: “If we are to build up anything in South Africa , we must disregard, and absolutely disregard, the screamers.” [27] It takes a very strong man to disregard the screamers, to ignore moral indignation, to put the cause before humanitarian concerns. Some frontline politicians find it all but impossible to stand against a torrent of public outrage, but those behind the curtain in the secret corridors of power can easily ignore ‘sentimentality’.

Milner’s period of stewardship in South Africa had a very important consequence. He administered the defeated Transvaal and Orange Free State as occupied territories, and recruited into the upper layers of his civil service a band of young men from well-to-do, upper-class, frequently titled families who became known as “Milner’s Kindergarten.” [28] They replaced the government and administration of the Boer republics, and worked prodigiously to rebuild the broken country. [29] The Kindergarten comprised new blood; young educated men – mostly Oxford graduates, with a deep sense of duty, loyalty to the Empire and capable of populating the next generation of the secret society. [30] In the period 1909-1913 the Kindergarten set up semi-secret groups, known as Round Table Groups, in the United States and the chief British dependencies.

Take Canada as an example. Numerous Canadian Round Table groups were established from 1909.  Lionel Curtis and Philip Kerr of the Secret Elite’s inner core [31] went on a four-month trip to Canada in the company of William Marris from the “Association of Helpers.” The object of the trip was to lay the foundations for Round Table groups, to reinforce the values of the British Empire and prepare them for a war against Germany. They carried a letter from Alfred Milner to his old friend Arthur J. Glazebrook asking him to help establish the groups. Glazebrook became one of the most devoted and loyal friends of the Secret Elite’s mission, and so successfully completed the task that for twenty years he was head of the groups throughout Canada . Vincent Massey, a Balliol College , Oxford graduate and lecturer in modern history at Toronto University, was another important operative for the Secret Elite in Canada . He would go on to hold senior cabinet and diplomatic posts and became governor of the prestigious private school, Upper Canada College , and the University of Toronto . [32] Sir Edward Peacock, housemaster at Upper Canada College , and Edward Rogers Wood, a prominent financier and businessman, were likewise very close to the Canadian branch of the Milner group. [33] Other members of the Secret Elite connected to Canada were, Sir George Parkin, Percy Corbett, Sir Joseph Flavelle and George P. de T. Glazebrook. [34] The latter was the son of Milner’s old friend Arthur Glazebrook.  He too had studied at Balliol College , Oxford and went on to teach history at the University of Toronto.

The Round Table Groups in Canada , as elsewhere, were merely different names for “The Association of Helpers” and only part of the secret society, since the real power still lay with “The Society of the Elect”. This all-powerful inner-core would bring in new members from the outer ring as was deemed necessary. [35] The alliance of powerful investment bankers, politicians, diplomats and press barons shared the same unwritten purpose, the destruction of German imperial power and the confirmation of Anglo-Saxon domination of the world.

Money was never a problem for the Secret Elite. As we have seen, Natty Rothschild, the richest man in the world, was directly involved from the beginning, but the ‘Money-Power’ extended well beyond that single source. The Rand multi-millionaires, Sir Abe Bailey and Alfred Beit were members of the inner core [36] and always willing to finance Secret Elite proposals, fund their propaganda groups, and back Milner.  Sir Ernest Cassel, an investment banker and one of the wealthiest men in pre-war Europe , was likewise involved.  Cassel , a close friend of King Edward VII, acted as go-between for the British government and provided personal funds for Lord Esher. [37]

Other great financiers and bankers, centred in the City, the financial and banking district of London, shared the vision of a single world power based on English ruling class values. The world had entered an era of financial capitalism where these wealthy international investment bankers were able to dominate both industry and government if they had the concerted will to do so. [38] This “Money Power” seeped into the British Establishment and joined the aristocratic landowning families who had ruled Britain for centuries.  Together, they lay at the heart of the Secret Elite.

In his “Confession of Faith”, Cecil Rhodes had written of bringing the whole uncivilized world under British rule, and the “recovery” of the United States to make the “Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire,” [39] by which he meant a white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant America working in tandem with like minds in England. Clearly the United States could not be “recovered” by force of arms, so Rhodes dream was expanded to include the wealthy elites in the U.S. who shared a similar mind-set.

Rhodes suffered from heart and lung problems and was aware that his projected life span was limited. He wrote several wills to ensure that his fortune would be used to pursue his dream. Part of his strategy was to gift scholarship places at his alma mater, Oxford University , in the belief that exposure to British culture, philosophy and education would strengthen the best young minds from the colonies and, most importantly, the United States . Rhodes scholarships favoured American students, with two allocated for each of the fifty States and Territories, but only sixty places for the entire British Empire .  The “best talents” from the “best families” in the US were to be nurtured at Oxford , spiritual home of the Secret Elite, and imbued with an appreciation of “Englishness” and “retention of the unity of the Empire.” [40] Professor Quigley revealed that “the scholarships were merely a façade to conceal the secret society, or, more accurately, they were to be one of the instruments by which the members of the secret society could carry out his [ Rhodes ] purpose.”  [41]

The Secret Elite appreciated America ’s vast potential, and adjusted the concept of British Race supremacy to Anglo-Saxon supremacy. Rhodes ’s dream had only to be slightly modified. The world was to be united through the English-speaking nations in a federal structure based around Britain . [42] Alfred Milner became the undisputed leader of the secret society when Cecil Rhodes died in 1902. Like Rhodes , he believed that the goal should be pursued by a secret political and economic elite influencing “journalistic, educational and propaganda agencies” behind the scenes. [43]

The flow of money into the United States during the nineteenth century advanced industrial development to the immense benefit of the millionaires it created, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Morgan, Vanderbilt and their associates. The Rothschilds represented British interests, either directly through front companies or indirectly, through agencies they controlled. Railroads, steel, shipbuilding, construction, oil and finance blossomed in an oft-cut throat environment, though that was more apparent than real. These small groups of massively rich individuals on both sides of the Atlantic knew each other well, and the Secret Elite in London initiated a very select and secretive dining club, The Pilgrims, that brought them together on a regular basis.

On 11 July 1902, an inaugural meeting was held at the Carlton Hotel [44] of what became known as the London Chapter of The Pilgrims Society, with a select membership limited by individual scrutiny to 500. Ostensibly, the society was created to “promote goodwill, good friendship and everlasting peace” [45] between Britain and the United States , but its highly secretive and exclusive membership leaves little doubt as to its real purpose. This was the pool of wealth and talent that the Secret Elite drew together to promote its agenda in the years preceding the First World War. Behind an image of the Pilgrim Fathers, the persecuted pioneers of Christian values, this elite cabal advocated the idea that “Englishmen and Americans would promote international friendship through their pilgrimages to and fro across the Atlantic ”. [46] It presented itself as a spontaneous movement to promote democracy across the world [47] and doubtless many of the members believed that, but The Pilgrims included a select collective of the wealthiest figures in both Britain and the United States who were deeply involved with the Secret Elite.  They shared Rhodes ’ dream and wanted to be party to it.

The New York branch of The Pilgrims was launched at the Waldorf-Astoria on 13 January 1903, [48] and comprised the most important bankers, politicians and lawyers on the Eastern Seaboard. They established a tradition of close interaction with British and American ambassadors. [49] The ambassadorial connections with The Pilgrims would prove absolutely crucial in linking the Foreign Secretary in London and the Secretary of State in Washington to the Secret Elite and its agenda for war. A number of the American Pilgrims also had close links with the New York branch of the Secret Elite’s Round Table.

In Britain , at least eighteen members of the Secret Elite, including Lords Rothschild, Curzon, Northcliffe, Esher and Balfour attended Pilgrims dinners, though the regularity of their attendance is difficult to establish. Such is the perennial problem with secretive groups. We know something about the guests invited to dinner, but not what was discussed between courses. [50] In New York , members included both the Rockefeller and Morgan dynasties and many men in senior government posts. Initially, membership was likewise limited to 500. [51] The power-elite in America was New York centred, carried great influence in domestic and international politics, and was heavily indulgent of Yale, Harvard and Princeton Universities . They conducted an American version of what Carroll Quigley termed the Secret Elite’s triple-front-penetration of politics, the press and education. [52] The Pilgrims Society brought together American money and British aristocracy, royalty, government ministers and top diplomats. It was indeed a special relationship.

Of all the American banking establishments, none was more Anglo-centric than the J. P. Morgan bank, itself deeply involved with The Pilgrims. An American, George Peabody, established the bank in London in 1835. In 1854 he took on a partner, Junius Morgan, (father of J. P. Morgan) and the bank was renamed Peabody , Morgan & Co. When Peabody ’s retired in 1864 it became the J. S. Morgan bank.

The Rothschilds had developed a close relationship with Peabody and Morgan, and following a crash in 1857 saved the bank by organizing a huge bailout by the Bank of England. Although American by birth, the Morgan family wore their affinity to England like a badge of honour. Despite stinging criticism from Thomas Jefferson that Junius’s father-in-law, the Rev John Pierpont, was “under the influence of the whore of England ,” [53] Junius sent his son to the English High School in Boston . J. P. Morgan spent much of his younger years absorbing English traditions, and was an ardent anglophile and admirer of the British Empire.

In 1899 J. P. Morgan travelled to England to attend an international Bankers Convention and returned to America as the representative of Rothschild interests in the United States . [54] It was the perfect front. Morgan, who posed as an upright Protestant guardian of capitalism, who could trace his family roots to pre-Revolutionary times, acted for the Rothschilds and shielded their American profits from the poison of anti-Semitism. In 1895 the Rothschilds had secretly replenished the US gold reserves through J.P. Morgan, and raised him to the premier league of international banking. [55] In turn, his gratitude was extended to another Rothschild favourite and leading figure in the Secret Elite, Alfred Milner. In 1901, Morgan offered Milner a then massive income of $100,000 per annum to become a partner in the London branch [56] but Milner was not to be distracted from the vital business of the Boer War. J. P. Morgan was an Empire loyalist at the heart of the American Establishment.

A second powerful bank on Wall Street, Kuhn, Loeb & Co., also served as a Rothschild front. Jacob Schiff, a German who ran the bank, came from a family close to the Rothschilds.[57] He had been born in the house his parents shared with the Rothschilds in the Jewish quarter of Frankfurt . [58] Schiff was an experienced European banker whose career straddled both continents, with contacts in New York , London , Hamburg and Frankfurt . His long-standing friend, Edward Cassel of the Secret Elite, was appointed Kuhn, Loeb’s agent in London . Schiff even dined with King Edward on the strength of Cassel ’s close friendship with the King. [59] Jacob Schiff had married Solomon Loeb’s daughter and, backed by Rothschild gold, quickly gained overall control of the Kuhn, Loeb Bank. [60] Schiff in turn brought a young German banker, Paul Warburg, over to New York to help him run the bank. Paul and his brother Max had served part of their banking apprenticeships with Natty Rothschild in London .  Like the Peabody-Morgan bank in London , the Warburg family bank in Hamburg had been saved by a very large injection of Rothschild money, and undoubtedly acted as a Rothschild front thereafter.

On the surface there were periods of blistering competition between the investment banking houses and international oil goliaths J. D. Rockefeller and the Rothschilds, but by the turn of the century they adopted a more subtle relationship that avoided real competition. A decade earlier, Baron Alphonse de Rothschild had accepted Rockefeller’s invitation to meet in New York behind the closed doors of Standard Oil’s headquarters on Broadway. Standard’s chief spokesman, John D Archbold [61] reported that they had quickly reached a tentative agreement, and thought it desirable on both sides that the matter was kept confidential. Clearly both understood the advantage of monopolistic collusion. It was a trend they eventually developed to their own advantage. By the early years of the twentieth century much of the assumed rivalry between major stakeholders in banking, industry and commerce was a convenient façade, though they would have the world believe otherwise.

Consider please this convenient façade. Official Rothschild biographers maintain that the dynasty’s interests in America were limited, and that the American Civil War led to “a permanent decline in the Rothschild’s transatlantic influence”. [62] All our evidence points in the opposite direction. Their associates, agents and front companies permeated American finance and industry. Their influence was literally everywhere. J. P. Morgan, the acknowledged chieftain of the Anglo-American financial establishment was the main conduit for British capital [63]and a personal friend of the Rothschilds. Jacob Schiff of Kuhn, Loeb, another close friend of the Rothschild family, worked hand-in-glove with Rockefeller in oil, railroad and banking enterprises. Jacob Schiff the Pilgrim was both a Rothschild agent and a trusted associate of J. D. Rockefeller the Pilgrim. Morgan, Schiff and Rockefeller, the three leading players on Wall Street, had settled into a cosy cartel behind which the House of Rothschild remained hidden, but retained immense influence and power.  Control of capital and credit was increasingly concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer men until the rival banking groups ceased to operate in genuine competition. [64]

This trans-Atlantic financial collusion underpinned the Anglo-American bond on which the Secret Elite built their dream of world domination. Political control moved hand in glove with the Money-Power. One of the problems the Secret Elite had to contend with was democracy, even the very limited choice that British and American democracy had to offer. Professor Quigley observed that Alfred Milner, and apparently most members of the Secret Elite, believed that “democracy was not an unmixed good, or even a good, and far inferior to the rule of the best…” [65] They, of course, believed themselves  “the best” and their morality did not exclude the use of warfare to carry out what they deemed to be their civilising mission; a new world order based on ruling class values in which they would be first amongst men.

In Britain , faced with an electorate that frequently changed allegiance from the Conservative party to the Liberal party and back again, the Secret Elite selected reliable and trusted men to hold high office in both parties. Conservative Prime Minister Arthur Balfour, a member of the inner circle of the Secret Elite, [66] and Foreign Secretary Lord Lansdowne began the transformation of British Foreign policy towards war with Germany in the sure knowledge that senior Liberals would continue that policy if and when the people voted for change. Herbert Henry Asquith, Richard Haldane and Sir Edward Grey were Milner’s chosen senior men in the Liberal Party and “objects of his special attention”. [67] Their remit was to ensure that an incoming Liberal government maintained a seamless foreign policy that served the grand plan. Their Secret Elite connections were impeccable. Together, with their good friend Arthur Balfour, they were intimately involved with the inner circles of the cabal. Their duty was to the King, the Empire, to Milner’s dream, to Rhode’s legacy. They confronted the same problems, analysed the same alternatives and agreed the same solution. Germany had to go.

The senior Liberals, Asquith, Grey and Haldane, conspired to undermine the anti-war Liberal Party leader Campbell-Bannerman from within and were supported by both the Conservative party leaders and King Edward VII, himself a key figure inside the Secret Elite. Every major step taken by the British Foreign Office from 1902 onwards was dictated by the overall objective to destroy Germany . Treaties with Japan , the Entente Cordiale with France and all of its secret clauses, the secret conventions agreed between King Edward and the Russian Czar had that single purpose. Simply put, the large field armies of France and Russia were needed to crush Germany .

In the United States , and indeed in France , political power was guaranteed by financial incentives and the appointment of suitable candidates, in other words through bribery and corruption. Senator Nelson Aldrich of Rhode Island was chosen by the Secret Elite to be the voice of “sound economics” in the Senate. A wealthy businessman and father-in-law of J.D.Rockefeller Jr., Aldrich was known as “Morgan’s floor broker in the Senate.” [68] Shameless in his excesses, he used public office to feather his own very large nest. Public service was to him little more than a cash cow through which he built a ninety-nine roomed chateau and sailed a two hundred foot yacht. [69] Over a two-year period the Money-Power worked steadily on their chosen Senator to turn him into an “expert” on banking systems.  Congress appointed a National Monetary Commission in 1908 with Aldrich as Chairman to review U.S. banking. Its members toured Europe , supposedly collecting data on various banking systems. Aldrich’s final report, however, was not the product of any European study tour, but of a collective conspiracy.

In November 1910, five bankers representing Morgan, Rockefeller and Kuhn Loeb interests, met in total secrecy with Senator Aldrich and the Assistant Secretary to the U.S. Treasury on Jekyll Island , an exclusive playground of the mega-rich off the coast of Georgia . Of the seven conspirators, five, Senator Aldrich, Henry Davison, Benjamin Strong, Frank Vanderlip and Paul Warburg, were members of The Pilgrims. [70] Their objective was to formulate a Central Banking Bill that would be presented to Congress as if it was the brainchild of Aldrich’s Monetary Commission.

The proposed “Federal Reserve System” was to be owned entirely by private banks, though its name implied that it was a government institution. Individuals from the American banking dynasties, including Morgan, Warburg, Schiff and Rockefeller, would hold the shares. It was to be a central bank of issue that would have a monopoly of all the money and credit of the people of the United States . It would control the interest rate and the volume of money in circulation. The Federal Reserve System constructed on Jekyll Island had powers that King Midas could never have contemplated. The objective was to establish a franchise to create money out of nothing for the purpose of lending, get the taxpayer to pick up any losses, and convince Congress that the aim was to protect the public. [71]

The Aldrich proposals never went to a vote. President Taft refused to support the Bill on the grounds that it would not impose sufficient government control over the banks. The Money Power decided that Taft had to go. Their support in the 1912 Presidential election swung behind the little known Woodrow Wilson. The speed with which Wilson was bounced from his post at Princeton University in 1910, to Governor of New Jersey in 1911, then Democratic Party nominee for the Presidency in 1912 made him the Solomon Grundy of U S politics.

Not only did the Secret Elite put their man in the White House, they also gave him a minder, Edward Mandell House. Woodrow Wilson was President of the United States but this shadowy figure stood by his side, controlling his every move. House, an Anglophile who had been part educated in England , was credited with swinging the 1912 Democratic Convention in Baltimore behind Wilson . [72] He became Woodrow Wilson’s constant companion from that point onwards, with his own suite of rooms in the White House. He was also in direct, sometimes daily contact with J. P. Morgan Jr, Jacob Schiff, Paul Warburg, and Democrat Senators who sponsored the Federal Reserve Bill. [73] Mandell House guided the President in every aspect of foreign and domestic policy, chose his Cabinet and formulated the first policies of his new Administration. [74] He was the prime intermediary between the President and his Wall Street backers. [75] The Anglo-centric Money Power had complete control of the White House and finally established its central bank in time for the Secret Elite’s war.

Ponder the significance of this coincidence. Provided with huge sums of Secret Elite money rerouted via St Petersburg , French politicians, newspapers and journalists were effectively corrupted to elect the Revanchistwarmonger candidate Raymond Poincare to the Presidency of France. By February 1913, two major powers, The United States and France, had new Presidents who were elected to office through the machinations of the Secret Elite. They had positioned key players in the governments of Britain , France , and the United States and exerted immense influence over the foreign ministry in Russia .  Politics, money and power were the pillars on which the Anglo-Saxon elite would destroy Germany and take control of the world.

All that was left to concoct was a reason for war. The Kaiser’s refusal to be drawn into direct confrontation with France and Britain over crises in Morocco in 1905 and 1911 demanded a rethink. Public hysteria in Britain about spies was developed into a cottage industry, with barely literate novels and wild articles in Northcliffe’s papers portraying Germany as a dangerous warmongering nation of Huns preparing to pounce on an unsuspecting and ill-prepared Britain . Similarly in France , through blatant bribery and corruption, both the press and the Revanchistesin French politics fomented anti-German sentiment. But Germany remained stubbornly unwilling to become involved a European war.

From 1912 onwards the Secret Elite looked to the Balkans to provide the excuse for war. Alexander Isvolsky, their top Russian agent, had been strategically moved to Paris , from which vantage point he directed the Balkan agitation. The mix of ethnic diversity, religious animosities, political intrigue and raw nationalism was deliberately provoked into two brutal Balkan wars which in themselves could have brought about a pan-European war, but the Kaiser refused to take the bait.

Something more dramatic, more sensational, was needed. The notion propagated by many historians that world war was ‘inevitable’ or that the world ‘slid’ into war is crass. Chance was not involved. It required a complex set of manipulated events engineered by determined men to set the fuse. What remained was a spark to ignite that fuse.  It came with the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir-apparent to the Austrian Empire, in Sarajevo on 28 June 1914. Millions of words have been written to describe the events in Sarajevo that day, but none have ever revealed the trail of complicity that led from the gunmen back to the Secret Elite in London . Be certain of one thing. It was not the man who fired the bullet that caused a world war.

Thus war engulfed the known world to a degree that had no precedent. Histories have been written to explain away the reasons why, histories that favoured the victors and twisted the truth to blame Germany . How history has been manipulated, how evidence has been removed, burned, shredded or otherwise denied to genuine researchers remains a crime against truth, against humanity.  The received history of the First World War is a deliberately concocted lie.  Not the sacrifice, the heroism, the horrendous waste of life or the misery that followed.  No, these were very real, but the truth of how it all began and how it was unnecessarily and deliberately prolonged beyond 1915 has been successfully covered up for a century.

Professor Quigley stated,

“No country that values its safety should allow what the Milner group accomplished – that is, that a small number of men would be able to wield such power in administration and politics, should be given almost complete control over the publication of documents relating to their actions, should be able to exercise such influence over the avenues of information that create public opinion, and should be able to monopolize so completely the writing and the teaching of the history of their own period.” [76]

Never were truer words uttered in dire warning. These Founding Fathers, the Secret Elite, began with Rhodes’ secret society and expanded across the Atlantic , always away from the public eye. They were deniers of democracy, men who always pursued their own malevolent agenda, who used this very process to advance their power. What they achieved in causing the First World War was but the first step in their long term drive to a new world order.

Gerry Docherty is a former head teacher.  Jim Macgregor was a family doctor. They took early retirement and worked full time together for the past five years researching and writing Hidden History, The Secret Origins of the First World War – described at the Edinburgh International Book Festival as a “fascinating and incendiary book”. It reveals how historical accounts of the war’s origins have been falsified to conceal the guilt of the secret cabal of rich and powerful men (described in this article) and explains their manipulations and deceptions. Perhaps it will suffer the same fate as Carroll Quigley’s work, for there are many with cause to wish it suppressed. If you have an open mind and seek answers that have not been forthcoming, if you are prepared to dig further into a hugely important aspect of history, we invite you to read it.

For details visit the authors’ blogsite at

Hidden History, The Secret Origins of the First World War by Gerry Docherty and Jim Macgregor is available at leading bookshops and can also be purchased on the internet at AmazonAlibris, etc.


[1] W.T. Stead, The Last Will and Testament of Cecil John Rhodes, p. 62.

[2] Stead, The Last Will and Testament, p. 55.

[3] Carroll Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment, p. 6.

[4] Carroll Quigley, Tragedy &Hope, pp.130-31.

[5] Joan Veon, The United Nations Global Straightjacket, p. 68.

[6] J. A. Hobson, John Ruskin, Social Reformer, p. 187.

[7] Quigley, Anglo-American Establishment, p. 3.

[8] Edward Griffin, The Creature from Jekyll Island , p. 272.

[9] Quigley, Anglo-American Establishment, pp. 4-5.

[10] Interview can be heard at

[11] Quigley, Anglo-American Establishment, p. x

[12] Ibid.


[14] Quigley, Anglo-American Establishment, p. xi


[16] Neil Parsons, A New History of Southern Africa , pp. 179–181.

[17] Niall Ferguson, The House of Rothschild, The World’s Banker, p. 363.

[18] James Lees-Milne, The Enigmatic Edwardian, pp. 162-8.

[19] Quigley, Tragedy & Hope, p. 216.

[20] Quigley, Anglo-American Establishment, p. 311.

[21] Derek Wilson, Rothschild: The Wealth and Power of a Dynasty, pp. 98-99.

[22] Quigley, Anglo-American Establishment, pp. 16-17.

[23] Stead, Last Will and Testament, p.108.

[24] Thomas Pakenham, The Boer War, p.115.

[25] Emily Hobhouse, The Brunt of War and Where it Fell, p. 174.

[26] W.T. Stead, cited in Hennie Barnard, The Concentration Camps 1899–

1902 at

[27] Pakenham, The Boer War, p. 483

[28] Quigley, Anglo-American Establishment, p. 7.

[29] Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, p. 138.

[30] William Nimocks, Milner’s Young Men p. 21

[31] Quigley, Anglo-American Establishment, p.312.

[32] Ibid., p. 7

[33] Ibid., pp. 86-7.

[34] Ibid., p.314.

[35] Ibid., p. 4.

[36] Ibid., p. 312.

[37] Quigley, Tragedy & Hope, p. 216.

[38] Ibid., pp. 60-61.

[39] Stead, Last Will and Testament, p. 59.

[40] Ibid. p. 34.

[41] Quigley, Anglo-American Establishment, p. 33.

[42] Ibid., p.49

[43] Ibid.

[44] Anne Pimlot Baker, The Pilgrims of Great Britain , p. 12.

[45] New York Times, 3 March 1903.

[46] Baker, Pilgrims of Great Britain, p.13.

[47] E.C. Knuth, The Empire of The City, p.64

[48] Baker, The Pilgrims of the United States , p.3.

[49] Baker, Pilgrims of Great Britain, p.16.

[50] While it is possible to list all of those in whose honour these dinners were      organised, the individual members who attended remains a secret.

[51] Baker, Pilgrims of the United States , p .9.

[52] Quigley, Anglo-American Establishment, p. 15.

[53] Webster G Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin, George Bush; the Unauthorized    Biography, p.136.

[54] W.G.Carr, Pawns in the Game, p. 60.

[55] G. Edward Griffin, interview


[56] Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, p. 951.

[57] Ron Chernow, The Warburgs, pp. 46-8.

[58] Stephen Birmingham, Our Crowd, p. 175.

[59] Chernow, The Warburgs, p. 51.

[60] Carr, Pawns in the Game, p. 61.

[61] Initially an outspoken critic of Standard Oil, Archbold was recruited by Rockefeller to a directorship of the company, where he later served as vice president and then president until its ‘demise ’ in 1911.

[62] Ferguson , House of Rothschild, p. 117.

[63] Chernow, Titan, The Life of John D Rockefeller Sr., p. 390.

[64] Edward Griffin, The Creature from Jekyll Island , p. 436.

[65] Quigley, Anglo American Establishment, p. 134.

[66] Ibid., p. 312.

[67] Terence H. O’Brien, Milner, p. 187.

[68] Gary Allen, None Dare Call it Conspiracy, Chapter 3, p8.

[69] Chernow, Titan, p. 352.

[70] Organisation for the Study of Globalisation and Covert Politics,

[71] Griffin , Creature from Jekyll Island , p. 23.

[72] Ibid., p. 240.

[73] Ibid., p. 458.

[74] George Sylvester Viereck, The Strangest Friendship in History: Woodrow Wilson and Colonel House, p. 4.

[75] Ibid., pp. 35-7.

[76] Quigley, Anglo-American Establishment, p. 197.






By Graham Vanbergen


Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron is accusing those who oppose the expansive trade deal with the United States of making up horror stories about the agreement in order to poison the pact.

That agreement is the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), and critics all along the political spectrum are exposing the enormous dangers of the deal — all without having to invent a single scary story.

Back in January the EU Commission published their response to the consultation on TTIP and it was found that 97% of the 150,000 responses opposed the trade deal. These respondents represented the general public. The biggest petition in the EU’s history was then presented that contained the signatures of 2 million citizens (now nearly 3 million) opposed to TTIP. Both were rejected as were proposals even for a simple hearing of the European Citizens Initiative.

Then in April this year, thousands of protestors took to the streets of cities all over Europe as unelected officials of the EU Commission continue to ignore the concerns of its citizens.

In June, fellow MEPs from many political parties who are also opposed to TTIP joined Ukip in standing, shouting, booing and clapping to show their dissatisfaction with proceedings. MEPs were due to set out their first formal position on TTIP since negotiations started two years ago and the meeting descended into chaos (video). The meeting was then stopped by the commissioners.

Meanwhile David Cameron has persistently attempted to call out those working to derail the deal. Cameron has accused critics of inventing false scare stories whilst urging business chiefs to help make the case to overcome sustained attacks from left-wing opponents and warned Britain would “rue the day if we miss this opportunity” to open up transatlantic markets.

Cameron, who (increasingly) seldom listens to the general public or elected members of parliament representing the electorate will no doubt use all his powers to get this deal though to redeem himself after being called incompetent by his own military generals and by the Obama administration over Syria.

In sharp comparison, both Paris and Berlin want the Investor State Dispute Settlement mechanism (ISDS) of TTIP removed from the transatlantic trade treaty currently being negotiated with Washington. This is a game changer.

Matthias Fekl, the French Secretary of State for Foreign Trade, told EurActiv France that he would “never allow private tribunals in the pay of multinational companies to dictate the policies of sovereign states, particularly in certain domains like health and the environment”.

That was back in January. Nine months later and France has now reinforced that message and gone one big step forward.

In an interview with Sud-Ouest, Matthias Fekl threatened to “call a complete halt” to the TTIP negotiations if things do not change. EurActiv France reports. America has shown no desire to change any of the major issues that have been challenged.

Fekl told the French newspaper that he believes the “total lack of transparency” in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations poses a “democratic problem”.

Fekl, the Minister of State for Foreign Trade called on the United States to show “reciprocity” in the negotiations. “American members of parliament have access to a much higher number of documents than we do in Europe,” he said.

The German people are now taking a stand and now it is being reported in the USA that sentiment is going against the deal – “It is entirely possible that the U.S. could seek to conclude the deal in the next few years only to find that European governments are unwilling to risk the ire of their voters”.

Matthias Fekl, explained that, ever since the negotiations began in 2013, “These negotiations have been and are being conducted in a total lack of transparency,” and that France has, as of yet, received “no serious offer from the Americans.”

The reasons for this stunning public rejection had probably already been accurately listed more than a year ago. Jean Arthuis, a member of the European Parliament, and formerly France’s Minister of Economy and Finance, headlined in Le Figaro, on 10 April 2014, “7 good reasons to oppose the transatlantic treaty”. There is no indication that the situation has changed since then, as regards the basic demands that President Obama is making. Arthuis said at that time, that he was opposed to;

  1. Private arbitration of disputes between States and businesses. Such a procedure is strictly contrary to the idea that I have of the      sovereignty of States. …
  2. Any questioning of the European system of appellations of origin. According to the US proposal, there would be a non-binding register, and only for wines and spirits. Such a reform would kill many European local products, whose value is based on their certified origin.
  3. Signing of an agreement with a power that legalizes widespread and systematic spying on my fellow European citizens and European businesses. As long as the agreement does not protect the personal data of European and US citizens, it cannot be signed.
  4. Allowing the United States proposal of a transatlantic common financial space, who adamantly refuse a common regulation of finance, and they refuse to abolish systematic discrimination by the US financial markets against European financial services.
  5. The questioning of European health protections. We do not want our animals treated with growth hormones nor products derived from GMOs, or chemical decontamination of meat, or of genetically modified seeds or non-therapeutic antibiotics in animal feed.
  6. The signing of an agreement if it does not include the end of the US monetary dumping. Since the abolition of the gold convertibility of the dollar and the transition to the system of floating exchange rates, the dollar is both American national currency and the main unit for exchange reserves in the world. The Federal Reserve then continually practices monetary dumping, by influencing the amount of dollars available to facilitate exports from the United States. As things now stand, America’s monetary weapon has the same effect as customs duties against every other nation. [And he will not sign unless it’s removed.]
  7. Allow the emerging digital services in Europe to be swept up by US giants such as Google, Amazon or Netflix. They’re giant absolute masters in tax optimization, which make Europe a “digital colony.”

France is now considering “all options including an outright termination of negotiations” says France’s Trade Minister.

Concern over the impact of TTIP has united disparate groups from French farmers to German constitutional lawyers and politicians on the left and right.

50,000 demonstrators are expected to gather in front of Berlin’s central train station on October 10th to protest both the TTIP and a similar deal between the EU and Canada, known as the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). That event is part of the week-long International Days of Action against corporate-friendly trade deals. Two thirds of Germans are now opposed to the deal, hence the expected strong turn-out.

The European public, already heavily opposed to TTIP also oppose America’s bombings of Middle Eastern countries, which have forced hundreds of thousands of refugees into Europe. European leaders are being compelled to question their relationship and alliance with the United States.

David Cameron, already in breach of basic democratic principles back in Britain by sending special forces ground troops and RAF bombing missions in Syria is of course used to supporting the dismantling of democracy, no matter whether at home or abroad.

Universally ignored by almost all media outlets in every western country, including Britain, whose governments has called for Assad to go was a respectable YouGov report that concluded some 55% of Syrians wanted Assad to stay.  Cameron had one third less of the electorate supporting him at the last election than Assad had of his people.

The result of America’s constant pressure and bullying of its european ‘allies’ to get involved in the bombing of countries where millions of refugees are expected in the year ahead, is that the european people are, in greater numbers, questioning the rationality of their elected leaders. This has only added to EU citizens suspicions over secret trade deals such as TTIP with America and is not only empowering them but forcing their own leaders to rethink the order of importance.

America seems to have forgotten Europe’s own pressures. Between the economic crisis that has rumbled on since 2008, the threat of a “Grexit” earlier in the summer, security concerns and the rise of terrorism and now the humanitarian crisis unfolding on Europe’s borders with the arrival of so many refugees, the political unity of Europe is at stake. There is a clear inability by politicians to unite on major challenges that may well pull the EU apart, say politicians – TTIP is no longer an imperative on the agenda.




See featured article here:

TLB recommends that you read other pertinent articles at:



Introduction by Mary Carmel (TLB)

The following interview with author Michael Hudson is a tad lengthier than other daily articles, but well worth the read! I found that the language was easily understood for readers that are NOT economists. It really pulls the global, financial & political environment that we live in, under a spotlight that allows us to comprehend how the world population has fallen prey to both of them for centuries. There is much history attached to the marriage of economics and imperialistic governments… MC



The following is a transcript of CounterPunch Radio – Episode 19(originally aired September 21, 2015). Eric Draitser interviews Michael Hudson.

Eric Draitser: Today I have the privilege of introducing Michael Hudson to the program. Doctor Hudson is the author of the new book: Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy, available in print on Amazon and an e-version on CounterPunch. Michael Hudson, welcome to CounterPunch Radio.

Michael Hudson: It’s good to be here.

ED: Thanks so much for coming on. As I mentioned already, the title of your book – Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy – is an apt metaphor. So parasitic finance capital is really what you’re writing about. You explain that it essentially survives by feeding off what we might call the real economy. Could you draw out that analogy a little bit? What does that mean? How does finance behave like a parasite toward the rest of the economy?

MH: Economists for the last 50 years have used the term “host economy” for a country that lets in foreign investment. This term appears in most mainstream textbooks. A host implies a parasite. The term parasitism has been applied to finance by Martin Luther and others, but usually in the sense that you just talked about: simply taking something from the host.

But that’s not how biological parasites work in nature. Biological parasitism is more complex, and precisely for that reason it’s a better and more sophisticated metaphor for economics. The key is how a parasite takes over a host. It has enzymes that numb the host’s nervous system and brain. So if it stings or gets its claws into it, there’s a soporific anesthetic to block the host from realizing that it’s being taken over. Then the parasite sends enzymes into the brain. A parasite cannot take anything from the host unless it takes over the brain.

The brain in modern economies is the government, the educational system, and the way that governments and societies make their economic policy models of how to behave. In nature, the parasite makes the host think that the free rider, the parasite, is its baby, part of its body, to convince the host actually to protect the parasite over itself.

That’s how the financial sector has taken over the economy. Its lobbyists and academic advocates have persuaded governments and voters that they need to protect banks, and even need to bail them out when they become overly predatory and face collapse. Governments and politicians are persuaded to save banks instead of saving the economy, as if the economy can’t function without banks being left in private hands to do whatever they want, free of serious regulation and even from prosecution when they commit fraud. This means saving creditors – the One Percent – not the indebted 99 Percent.

It was not always this way. A century ago, two centuries ago, three centuries ago and all the way back to the Bronze Age, almost every society has realized that the great destabilizing force is finance – that is, debt. Debt grows exponentially, enabling creditors ultimately to foreclose on the assets of debtors. Creditors end up reducing societies to debt bondage, as when the Roman Empire ended in serfdom.

About a hundred years ago in America, John Bates Clark and other pro-financial ideologues argued that finance is not external to the economy. It’s not extraneous, it’s part of the economy, just like landlords are part of the economy. This means that if the financial sector takes more revenue out of the economy as interest, fees or monopoly charges, it’s because finance is an inherent and vital part of the economy, adding to GDP, not merely siphoning it off from producers to pay Wall Street and the One Percent. So our economic policy protects finance as if it helps us grow, not siphons off our growth.

A year or two ago, Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs said that the reason Goldman Sachs’ managers are paid more than anybody else is because they’re so productive. The question is, productive of what? The National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA) say that everybody is productive in proportion to the amount of money they make/take. It doesn’t matter whether it’s extractive income or productive income. It doesn’t matter whether it’s by manufacturing products or simply taking money from people, or simply by the fraud that Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Bank of America and others paid tens of millions of dollars in fines for committing. Any way of earning income is considered to be as productive as any other way. This is a parasite-friendly mentality, because it denies that there’s any such thing as unearned income. It denies that there’s a free lunch. Milton Friedman got famous for promoting the idea that there’s no such thing as a free lunch, when Wall Street knows quite well that this is what the economy is all about. It’s all about how to get a free lunch, with risks picked up by the government. No wonder they back economists who deny that there’s any such thing!

ED: To get to the root of the issue, what’s interesting to me about this analogy that we’re talking about is that we hear the term neoliberalism all the time. It is an ideology I that’s used to promote the environment within which this parasitic sort of finance capital can operate. So could you talk a bit about the relationship between finance capital and neoliberalism as its ideology.

MH: Today’s vocabulary is what Orwell would call DoubleThink. If you’re going to call something anti-liberal and against what Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill and other classical economists described as free markets, you pretend to be neoliberal. The focus of Smith, Mill, Quesnay and the whole of 19th-century classical economics was to draw a distinction between productive and unproductive labor – that is, between people who earn wages and profits, and rentiers who, as Mill said, “get rich in their sleep.” That is how he described landowners receiving groundrent. It also describes the financial sector receiving interest and “capital” gains.

The first thing the neoliberal Chicago School did when they took over Chile was to close down every economics department in the country except the one they controlled at the Catholic University. They started an assassination program of left wing professors, labor leaders and politicians, and imposed neoliberalism by gunpoint. Their idea is you cannot have anti-labor, deregulated “free markets” stripping away social protections and benefits unless you have totalitarian control. You have to censor any idea that there’s ever been an alternative, by rewriting economic history to deny the progressive tax and regulatory reforms that Smith, Mill, and other classical economists urged to free industrial capitalism from the surviving feudal privileges of landlords and predatory finance.

This rewriting of the history of economic thought involves inverting the common vocabulary that people use. So, the idea of the parasitism is to replace the meaning of everyday words and vocabulary with their opposite. It’s Double Think.

Democratic vs. oligarchic government and their respective economic doctrines

ED: I don’t want to go too far off on a tangent, but you mentioned the example of Chile’s 1973 coup and the assassination of Allende to impose the Pinochet dictatorship. That was a Kissinger/Nixon operation as we know, but what’s interesting about that is Chile was transformed into a sort of experimental laboratory to impose the Chicago school economic model of what we now would call neoliberalism. Later in our conversation I want to talk a bit about some recent laboratories we have seen in Eastern Europe, and now in Southern Europe as well. The important point about neoliberalism is the relationship between totalitarian government and this form of economics.

MH: That’s right. Neoliberals say they’re against government, but what they’re really against is democratic government. The kind of governments they support are pre-referendum Greece or post-coup Ukraine. As Germany’s Wolfgang Schäuble said, “democracy doesn’t count.” Neoliberals want the kind of government that will create gains for the banks, not necessarily for se the economy at large. Such governments basically are oligarchic. Once high finance takes over governments as a means of exploiting the 99 Percent, it’s all for active government policy – for itself.

Aristotle talked about this more than 2,000 years ago. He said that democracy is the stage immediately proceeding oligarchy. All economies go through three stages repeating a cycle: from democracy into oligarchy, and then the oligarchs make
2KillingTheHost_Cover_rulethemselves hereditary. Today, Jeb Bush wants to abolish the estate tax to help the emerging power elite make itself into a hereditary aristocracy. Then, some of the aristocratic families will fight among themselves, and take the public into their camp and promote democracy, so you have the cycle going all over again. That’s the kind of cycle we’re having now, just as in ancient Athens. It’s a transition from democracy to oligarchy on its way to becoming an aristocracy of the power elite.

ED: I want to return to the book in a second but I have to interject that one particular economist hasn’t been mentioned yet: Karl Marx. It’s an inversion of Marx as well, because Marx’s labor theory of value was that that value ultimately is derived from labor. Parasitic finance capital is the opposite of that. It may increase prices without value.

MH: Correct, but I should point out that there’s often a misinterpretation of the context in which the labor theory of value was formulated and refined. The reason why Marx and the other classical economists – William Petty, Smith, Mill and the others – talked about the labor theory of value was to isolate that part of price that wasn’tvalue. Their purpose was to define economic rent as something that was not value. It was extraneous to production, and was a free lunch – the element of price that is charged to consumers and others that hasno basis in labor, no basis in real cost, but is purely a monopoly price or return to privilege. This was mainly a survival of the feudal epoch, above all of the landed aristocracy who were the heirs of the military conquers, and also the financial sector of banking families and theirheirs.

The aim of the labor theory of value was to divide the economy between excessive price gouging and labor. The objective of the classical economists was to bring prices in line with value to prevent a free ride, to prevent monopolies, to prevent an absentee landlord class so as to free society from the legacy of feudalism and the military conquests that carved up Europe’s land a thousand years ago and that still underlies our property relations.

The concept and theory of economic rent

ED: That’s a great point, and it leads me into the next issue that I want to touch on. You’ve mentioned the term already a number of times: the concept of economic rent. We all know rent in terms of what we have to pay every month to the landlord, but we might not think about what it means conceptually. It’s one of the fabrics with which you’ve woven this book together. One of the running themes, rent extraction, and its role in the development of what we’ve now termed this parasitic relationship. So, explain for laymen what this means – rent extraction – and how this concept evolved.

MH: To put the concept of economic rent in perspective, I should point out when I went to get my PhD over a half a century ago, every university offering a graduate economics degree taught the history of economic thought. That has now been erased from the curriculum. People get mathematics instead, so they’re unexposed to the concept of economic rent as unearned income. It’s a concept that has been turned on its head by “free market” ideologues who use “rent seeking” mainly to characterize government bureaucrats taxing the private sector to enhance their authority – not free lunchers seeking to untax their unearned income. Or, neoclassical economists define rent as “imperfect competition” (as if their myth of “perfect competition” really existed) stemming from “insufficient knowledge of the market,” patents and so forth.

Most rent theory was developed in England, and also in France. English practice is more complex than America. The military conquers imposed a pure groundrent fee on the land, as distinct from the building and improvements. So if you buy a house from a seller in England, somebody else may own the land underneath it. You have to pay a separate rent for the land. The landlord doesn’t do anything at all to collect land rent, that’s why they call them rentiers or coupon clippers. In New York City, for example, Columbia University long owned the land underneath Rockefeller Center. Finally they sold it to the Japanese, who lost their shirt. This practice is a carry-over from the Norman Conquest and its absentee landlord class.

The word “rent” originally was French, for a government bond (rente). Owners received a regular income every quarter or every year. A lot of bonds used to have coupons, and you would clip off the coupon and collect your interest. It’s passively earned income, that is, income not actually earned by your own labor or enterprise. It’s just a claim that society has to pay, whether you’re a government bond holder or whether you own land,

This concept of income without labor – but simply from privileges that had been made hereditary – was extended to the ideas of monopolies like the East India Company and other trade monopolies. They could produce or buy goods for, let’s say, a dollar a unit, and sell them for whatever the market will bear – say, $4.00. The markup is “empty pricing.” It’s pure price gouging by a natural monopoly, like today’s drug companies.

To prevent such price gouging and to keep economies competitive with low costs of living and doing business, European kept the most important natural monopolies in the public domain: the post office, the BBC and other state broadcasting companies, roads and basic transportation, as well as early national airlines. European governments prevented monopoly rent by providing basic infrastructure services at cost, or even at subsidized prices or freely in the case of roads. The guiding idea is for public infrastructure – which you should think of as a factor of production along with labor and capital – was to lower the cost of living and doing business.

But since Margaret Thatcher led Britain down the road to debt peonage and rent serfdom by privatizing this infrastructure, she and her emulators other countries turned them into tollbooth economies. The resulting economic rent takes the form of a rise in prices to cover interest, stock options, soaring executive salaries and underwriting fees. The economy ends up being turned into a collection of tollbooths instead of factories. So, you can think of rent as the “right” or special legal privilege to erect a tollbooth and say, “You can’t get television over your cable channel unless you pay us, and what we charge you is anything we can get from you.”

This price doesn’t have any relation to what it costs to produce what they sell. Such extortionate pricing is now sponsored by U.S. diplomacy, the World Bank, and what’s called the Washington Consensus forcing governments to privatize the public domain and create such rent-extracting opportunities.

In Mexico, when they told it to be more “efficient” and privatize its telephone monopoly, the government sold it to Carlos Slim, who became one of the richest people in the world by making Mexico’s phones among the highest priced in the world. The government provided an opportunity for price gouging. Similar high-priced privatized phone systems plague the neoliberalized post-Soviet economies. Classical economists viewed this as a kind of theft. The French novelist Balzac wrote about this more clearly than most economists when he said that every family fortune originates in a great theft. He added that this not only was undiscovered, but has come taken for granted so naturally that it just doesn’t matter.

If you look at the Forbes 100 or 500 lists of each nation’s richest people, most made their fortunes through insider dealing to obtain land, mineral rights or monopolies. If you look at American history, early real estate fortunes were made by insiders bribing the British Colonial governors. The railroad barrens bribed Congressmen and other public officials to let them privatize the railroads and rip off the country. Frank Norris’s The Octopus is a great novel about this, and many Hollywood movies describe the kind of real estate and banking rip-offs that made America what it is. The nation’s power elite basically begun as robber barons, as they did in England, France and other countries.

The difference, of course, is that in past centuries this was viewed as corrupt and a crime. Today, neoliberal economists recommend it as the way to raise “productivity” and make countries wealthier, as if it were not the road to neofeudal serfdom.

The Austrian School vs. government regulation and pro-labor policies

ED: I don’t want to go too far off on a tangent because we have a lot to cover specific to your book. But I heard an interesting story when I was doing a bit of my own research throughout the years about the evolution of economic thought, and specifically the origins of the so-called Austrian School of Economics – people like von Mises and von Hayek. In the early 20th century they were essentially, as far as I could tell, creating an ideological framework in which they could make theoretical arguments to justify exorbitant rent and make it seem almost like a product of natural law – something akin to a phenomenon of nature.

MH: The key to the Austrian School is their hatred of labor and socialism. It saw the danger of democratic government spreading to the Habsburg Empire, and it said, “The one thing we have to stop is democracy. Their idea of a free market was one free of democracy and of democratic government regulating and taxing wealthy rentiers. It was a short step to fighting in the streets, using murder as a “persuader” for the particular kind of “free markets” they wanted – a privatized Thatcherite deregulated kind. To the rentiers they said: “It’s either our freedom or that of labor.”

Kari Polanyi-Levitt has recently written about how her father, Karl Polanyi, was confronted with these right-wing Viennese. His doctrine was designed to rescue economics from this school, which makes up a fake history of how economics and civilization originated.

One of the first Austrian’s was Carl Menger in the 1870s. His “individualistic” theory about the origins of money – without any role played by temples, palaces or other public institutions – still governs Austrian economics. Just as Margaret Thatcher said, “There’s no such thing as society,” the Austrians developed a picture of the economy without any positive role for government. It was as if money were created by producers and merchants bartering their output. This is a travesty of history. All ancient money was issued by temples or public mints so as to guarantee standards of purity and weight. You can read Biblical and Babylonian denunciation of merchants using false weights and measures so see why money had to be public. The major trading areas were agora spaces in front of temples, which kept the official weights and measures. And much exchange was between the community’s families and the public institutions.

Most important, money was brought into being not for trade (which was conducted mainly on credit), but for paying debts. And most debts were owed to the temples and palaces for pubic services or tribute. But to the Austrians, the idea was that anything the government does to protect labor, consumers and society from rentiers and grabbers is deadweight overhead.

Above all, they opposed governments creating their own money, e.g. as the United States did with its greenbacks in the Civil War. They wanted to privatize money creation in the hands of commercial banks, so that they could receive interest on their privilege of credit creation and also to determine the allocation of resources.

Today’s neoliberals follow this Austrian tradition of viewing government as a burden, instead of producing infrastructure free of rent extraction. As we just said in the previous discussion, the greatest fortunes of our time have come from privatizing the public domain. Obviously the government isn’t just deadweight. But it is becoming prey to the financial interests and the smashers and grabbers they have chosen to back.

ED: You’re right, I agree 100%. You encounter this ideology even in the political sociological realm like Joseph Schumpeter, or through the quasi-economic realm like von Hayek in “The Road to Serfdom.”

MH: Its policy conclusion actually advocates neo-serfdom. Real serfdom was when families had to pay all their income to the landlords as rent. Centuries of classical economists backed democratic political reform of parliaments to roll back the landlords’ power (and that of bankers). But Hayek claimed that this rollback was the road toserfdom, not away from it. He said democratic regulation and taxation of rentiers is serfdom. In reality, of course, it’s the antidote.

ED: It’s the inversion you were talking about earlier. We’re going to go into a break here in a minute but before we do I want to touch on one other point that is important in the book, again the book, Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroyed the Global Economy, available from CounterPunch – very important that people pick up this book.

MH: And from Amazon! You can get a hard copy for those who don’t want to read on computers.

Finance as the new mode of warfare

ED: Yes, and on Amazon as well, thank you. This issue that I want to touch on before we go to the break is debt. On this program a couple of months ago I had the journalist John Pilger. He and I touched on debt specifically as a weapon, and how it is used as a weapon. You can see this in the form of debt enslavement, if you want to call it that, in postcolonial Africa. You see the same thing in Latin America where, Michael, I know you have a lot of experience in Latin America in the last couple of decades. So let’s talk a little bit, if we could, before we go to the break, about debt as a weapon, because I think this is an important concept for understanding what’s happening now in Greece, and is really the framework through which we have to understand what we would call 21st-century austerity.

MH: If you treat debt as a weapon, the basic idea is that finance is the new mode of warfare. That’s one of my chapters in the book. In the past, in order to take over a country’s land and its public domain, its basic infrastructure and its mineral resources, you had to have a military invasion. But that’s very expensive. And politically, almost no modern democracy can afford a military invasion anymore.

So the objectives of the financial sector – of Wall Street, the City of London or Frankfurt in Germany – is to obtain the land. You can look at what’s happening in Greece. What its creditors, the IMF and European Central Bank (ECB) want are the Greek islands, and they want the gas rights in the Aegean Sea. They want whatever buildings and property there is, including the museums.

Matters are not so much different in the private sector. If you can get a company or individual into debt, you can strip away the assets they have when they can’t pay. A Hayek-style government would block society from protecting itself against such asset stripping. Defending “property rights” of creditors, such “free market” ideology deprives the rest of the economy – businesses, individuals and public agencies. It treats debt writedowns as the road to serfdom, not the road awayfrom debt dependency.

In antiquity, private individuals obtained labor services by making loans to families in need, and obliging their servant girls, children or even wives to work off the loan in the form of labor service. My Harvard-based archaeological group has published a series of five books that I co-edited, most recently Labor in the Ancient World. (It is available on Amazon.) Creditors (often palace infrastructure managers or collectors) would get people into bondage. When new Bronze Age rulers started their first full year on the throne, it was customary to declare an amnesty to free bond servants and return them to their families, and annul personal debts as well as to return whatever lands were forfeited. So in the Bronze Age, debt serfdom and debt bondage was only temporary. The biblical Jubilee law was a literal translation of Babylonian practice that went back two thousand years.

In America, in colonial times, sharpies (especially from Britain) would lend farmers money that they knew the farmer couldn’t pay, then they would foreclose just before the crops came in. Right now you have corporate raiders, who are raiding whole companies by forcing them into debt, and then smashing and grabbing. You now have the IMF, European Central Bank and Washington Consensus taking over whole countries like Ukraine. The tactic is to purposely lend them the money that clearly cannot be repaid, and say, “Oh you cannot pay? Well, we’re not going to take a loss. We have a solution.” The solution is to sell off public enterprises, land and natural resources. In Greece’s case, 50 billion euros of its property, everything that it has in the public sector. The country is to be sold off to foreigners (including domestic oligarchs working out of their offshore accounts). Debt leverage is thus the way to achieve what it took armies to win in times past.

ED: Exactly. One last point on that as well. I want to get your comment on and we see this in post-colonial Africa, especially when the French and the British had to nominally give up control of their colonies. You saw debt become an important tool to maintain hegemony within their spheres of influence. Of course, asset stripping and seizing control, smashing and grabbing was part of that. But also it is the debt servicing payments, it is the cycle of debt repayment and taking new loans on top of original loans to service the original loans – this process this cycle is also really an example of this debt servitude or debt bondage.

MH: That’s correct, and mainstream economics denies any of this. It began with Ricardo, who’s brothers were major bankers at the time, and he himself was the major bank lobbyist in England. Right after Greece won its independence from Turkey, the Ricardo brothers made a rack-renting loan to Greece at far below par (that is, below the face value that Greece committed itself to pay). Greece tried to pay over the next century, but the terms of the loan ended up stripping and keeping it on the edge of bankruptcy well into the 20th century.

But Ricardo testified before Parliament that there could be no debt-servicing problem. Any country, he said, could repay the debts automatically, because there is an automatic stabilization mechanism that enables every country to be able to pay. This is the theory that underlines Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of monetarism: the misleading idea that debt cannot be a problem.

That’s what’s taught now in international trade and financial textbooks. It’s false pleading. It draws a fictitious “What If” picture of the world. When criticized, the authors of these textbooks, like Paul Samuelson, say that it doesn’t matter whether economic theory is realistic or not. The judgment of whether an economic theory is scientific is simply whether it is internally consistent. So you have these fictitious economists given Nobel Prizes for promoting an inside out, upside down version of how the global economy actually works.

ED: One other thing that they no longer teach is what used to be called political economy. The influence of the Chicago School, neoliberalism and monetarism has removed classical political economy from academia, from the Canon if you will. Instead, as you said, it’s all about mathematics and formulas that treat economics like a natural science, when in fact it really should be more of a historically grounded social science.

MH: The formulas that they teach don’t have government in them,. If you have a theory that everything is just an exchange, a trade, and that there in’t any government, then you have a theory that has nothing to do with the real world. And if you assume that the environment remains constant instead of using economics to guide public and national policy, you’re using economics for the opposite of what the classical economists did. Adam Smith, Mill, Marx, Veblen – they all developed their economic theory to reform the world. The classical economists were reformers. They wanted to free society from the legacy of feudalism – to get rid of land rent, to take money creation and credit creation into the public domain. Whatever their views, whether they were right wingers or left wingers, whether they were Christian socialists, Ricardian socialists or Marxian socialists, all the capitalist theorists of the 19th century called themselves socialists, because they saw capitalism as evolving into socialism.

But what you now have, since World War I, is a reaction against this, stripping away of the idea that governments have a productive role to play. If government is not the director and planner of the economy, then who is? It’s the financial sector. It’s Wall Street. So the essence of neoliberalism that you were mentioning before, is indeed a doctrine of central planning. It states that the central planning should be done by Wall Street, by the financial sector.

The problem is, what is the objective of central planning by Wall Street? It’s not to raise living standards, and it’s not to increase employment. It is to smash and grab. That is the society we’re in now.

A number of chapters of my book (I think five), describe how the Obama administration has implemented this smash and grab, doing the exact opposite of what he promised voters. Obama has implemented the Rubin-omics [Robert Rubin] doctrine of Wall Street to force America into what looks like a chronic debt depression.

ED: Exactly right. I couldn’t agree more. Let’s take a short break and we’ll continue the discussion. Again, I’m chatting with Michael Hudson about his new book, Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy.

The case of Latvia: Is it a success story, or a neoliberal disaster?

ED: I want to go back to some of the important issues that we introduced or alluded to in the first part of our discussion. As I was mentioning to you off-air, a couple years ago I twice interviewed your colleague Jeffrey Sommers, with whom you’ve worked and co-published a number of papers. We talked a lot about many of the same issues that you and I are touching on. Specifically Sommers – and I know you as well – did a lot of work in Latvia, a country in the former Soviet space in Eastern Europe on the Baltic Sea. Your book has a whole chapter on it, as well as references throughout the book.

So let’s talk about how Latvia serves as a template for understanding the austerity model. It is touted by technocrats of the financial elite as a major success story – how austerity can work. I find it absurd on so many different levels. So tell us what happened in Latvia, what the real costs were, and why neoliberals claim it as a success story.

MH: Latvia is the disaster story of the last two decades. That’s why I took it as an object lesson. You’re right, it was Jeff Sommers who first brought me over to Latvia. I then became Director of Economic Research and Professor of Economics at the Riga Graduate School of Law.

When Latvia was given its independence when the Soviet Union broke up in 1991, a number of former Latvians had studied at George Washington University, and they brought neoliberalism over there – the most extreme grabitization and de-industrialization of any country I know. Latvians, Russians and other post-Soviet countries were under the impression that U.S. advisors would help them become modernized like the U.S. economy – with high living and consumption standards. But what they got was advice to emulate American experience. It got something just the opposite – how to enable foreign investors and bankers to carve it up, dismantle its industry and become a bizarre neoliberal experiment.

You may remember the Republican presidential candidate Steve Forbes, who in 2008 proposed a flat tax to replace progressive taxation. The idea never could have won in the United States, but Latvia was another story. The Americans set the flat tax at an amazingly low 12 percent of income – and no significant property tax on real estate or capital gains. It was a financial and real estate dream, and created a classic housing and financial bubble.

Jeff and I visited the head of the tax authority, who told us that she was appointed because she had done her PhD dissertation on Latvia’s last land value assessment – which was in 1917. They hadn’t increased the assessments since then, because the Soviet economy didn’t have private land ownership and didn’t even have a concept of rent-of-location for planning purposes. (Neither did Russia.)

Latvia emerged from the Soviet Union without any debt, and also with a lot of real estate and a highly educated population. But its political insiders turned over most of the government enterprises to themselves. Latvia had been a computer center and also the money-laundering center of the Soviet leadership already in the late 1980s (largely as a byproduct of Russian oil exports through Ventspils), and Riga remains the money-laundering city for today’s Russia.

Privatizing housing and other property led to soaring real estate prices. But this bubble wasn’t financed by domestic banks. The Soviet Union didn’t have private banks, because the government had simply created the credit to fund the economy as needed. The main banks in a position to lend to Latvia were Swedish and other Scandinavian banks. They pounce on the lending opportunities to opened up by an entire nation whose real estate had almost no tax on it. The result was the biggest real estate bubble in the world, along with Russia’s. Latvians found that in order to buy housing of their own, they had to go deeply into debt. Assets were only given to insiders, not to the people.

A few years ago there was a reform movement in Latvia to stop the economic bleeding. Jeff and I brought over American property appraisers and economists. We visited the leading bank, regulatory agencies. Latvia was going broke because its population had to pay so much for real estate. And it was under foreign-exchange pressure because debt service on its mortgage loans was being paid to the Swedish and foreign banks. The bank regulator told us that her problem was that her agency’s clients are the banks, not the population. So the regulators thought of themselves as working for the banks, even though they were foreign-owned. She acknowledged that the banks were lending much more money than property actually was worth. But her regulatory agency had a solution: It was to have not only the buyer be obligated to pay the mortgage, but also the parents, uncles or aunts. Get the whole family involved, so that if the first signer couldn’t pay the cosigners would be obligated.

That is how Latvia stabilized its banking system. But it did so by destabilizing the economy. The result is that Latvia has lost 20 percent of its population over the past decade or so. For much the same reasons that Greece has lost 20 percent of its population, with Ireland in a similar condition. The Latvians have a joke “Will the last person who leaves in 2020 please turn off the lights at the airport.”

The population is shrinking because the economy is being run by looters, domestic and foreign. I was shown an island in the middle of the Daugava river that runs to the middle of Latvia, and was sold for half a million dollars. Our appraisers said that it’s worth half a billion dollars, potentially. There are no plans to raise the property tax to recapture these gains for the country – so that it can lower its heaviest labor taxes in the world, nearly half each paycheck for income tax and “social security” spending so that finance and real estate won’t be taxed.

A few years ago, I was at the only meeting of INET (George Soros’s group) that I was invited to, and in the morning one of the lead talks was on how Latvia was a model that all countries could follow to balance the budget. Latvia has balanced the budget by cutting back public spending, reducing employment and lowering wage levels while indebting its population and forcing to immigrate. The neoliberal strategy is to balance by selling off whatever remains in the public domain. Soros funded a foundation there (like similar ones he started in other post-Soviet countries) to get a part of the loot.

These giveaways at insider prices have created a kleptocracy obviously loyal to neoliberal economics. I go into the details in my chapter. It’s hard to talk about it without losing my temper, so I’m trying to be reasonable but it’s a country that was destroyed and smashed. That was the U.S. neoliberal model alternative to post-Stalinism. It wasn’t a new American economy. It was a travesty.

Why then does the population continue to vote for these neoliberals? The answer is, the neoliberals say, the alternative is Stalinism. To Latvians, this means exile, deportations and memories of the old pro-Russian policy. The Russian-speaking parties are the main people backers of a social democracy party. But neoliberals have merged with Latvian nationalists. They are not only making the election over resentment against the Russian-speaking population, but the fact that many are Jewish.

I find it amazing to see someone who is Jewish, like George Soros, allying with anti-Semitic and even neo-Nazi movements in Latvia, Estonia, and most recently, of course, Ukraine. It’s an irony that you could not have anticipated deductively. If you had written this plot in a futuristic novel twenty years ago, no one would have believed that politics could turn more on national and linguistic identity politics than economic self-interest. The issue is whether you are Latvian or are Russian-Jewish, not whether you want to untax yourself and make? Voting is along ethnic lines, not whether Latvians really want to be forced to emigrate to find work instead of making Latvia what it could have been: an successful economy free of debt. Everybody could have gotten their homes free instead of giving real estate only to the kleptocrats. The government could have taxed the land’s rental value rather than letting real estate valuation be pledged to pay banks – and foreign banks at that. It could have been a low-cost economy with high living standards, but neoliberals turned in into a smash and grab exercise. They now call it an idea for other nations to follow. Hence, the U.S.-Soros strategy re Ukraine.

ED: That’s an excellent point. It’s a more extreme case for a number of reasons in Ukraine – the same tendency. They talk about, “Putin and his gaggle of Jews.” That’s the idea, that Putin and the Jews will come in and steal everything – while neoliberals plan to appropriate Ukraine’s land and other resources themselves. In this intersection between economics and politics, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia – the Baltic States of the former Soviet Union – are really the front lines of NATO expansion. They were some of the first and most pivotal countries brought into the NATO orbit. It is the threat of “Russian aggression” via the enclave at Kaliningrad, or just Russia in general. That is the threat they use to justify the NATO umbrella, and simultaneously to justify continuing these economic policies. So in many ways Russia serves as this convenient villain on a political, military and economic level.

MH: It’s amazing how the popular press doesn’t report what’s going on. Primakov, who died a few months ago, said during the last crisis a few years ago that Russia has no need to invade Latvia, because it owns the oil export terminals and other key points. Russia has learned to play the Western game of taking countries over financially and acquiring ownership. Russia doesn’t need to invade to control Latvia any more than America needs to invade to control Saudi Arabia or the Near East. If it controls exports or access to markets, what motive would it have to invade? As things stand, Russia uses Latvia it as a money laundering center.

The same logic applies to Ukraine today. The idea is that Russia is expansionary in a world where no one can afford to be militarily expansionary. After Russia’s disaster in Afghanistan, no country in the world that’s subject to democratic checks, whether it’s America after the Vietnam War or Russia or Europe, no democratic country can invade another country. All they can do is drop bombs. This can’t capture a country. For that you need major troop commitments.

In the trips that I’ve taken to Russia and China, they’re in a purely defensive mode. They’re wondering why America is forcing all this. Why is it destroying the Near East, creating a refugee problem and then telling Europe to clean up the mess it’s created? The question is why Europe is willing to keep doing this. Why is Europe part of NATO fighting in the Near East? When America tells Europe, “Let’s you and Russia fight over Ukraine,” that puts Europe in the first line of fire. Why would it have an interest in taking this risk, instead of trying to build a mutual economic relationship with Russia as seemed to be developing in the 19th century?

ED: That’s the ultimate strategy that the United States has used – driving a wedge between Russia and Europe. This is the argument that Putin and the Russians have made for a long time. You can see tangible examples of that sort of a relationship even right now if you look at the Nord Stream pipeline connecting Russian energy to German industrial output – that is a tangible example of the economic relationship, that is only just beginning between Russia and Europe. That’s really what I think the United States wanted to put the brakes on, in order to be able to maintain hegemony. The number one way it does that is through NATO.

MH: It’s not only put the brakes on, it has created a new iron curtain. Two years ago, Greece was supposed to privatize 5 billion euros of its public domain. Half of this, 2.5 billion, was to be the sale of its gas pipeline. But the largest bidder was Gazprom, and America said, “No, you can’t accept the highest bidder if its Russian.” Same thing in Ukraine. It has just been smashed economically, and the U.S. says, “No Ukrainian or Russian can buy into the Ukrainian assets to be sold off. Only George Soros and his fellow Americans can buy into this.” This shows that the neoliberalism of free markets, of “let’s everybody pay the highest price,” is only patter talk. If the winner in the rigged market is not the United States, it sends in ISIS or Al Qaeda and the assassination teams, or backs the neo-Nazis as in Ukraine.

So, we’re in a New Cold War. Its first victims, apart from Southern Europe, will be the rest of Europe. You can imagine how this is just beginning to tear European politics apart, with Germany’s Die Linke and similar parties making a resurgence.

The Troika and IMF doctrine of austerity and privatization

ED: I want to return us back to the book and some other key issues that you bring up that I think are most important. One that we hear in the news all the time, and you write extensively about it in the book, is the Troika. That’s the IMF, the European Central Bank (ECB) and the European Commission. It could be characterized as the political arm of finance capital in Europe, one that imposes and manages austerity in the interest of the ruling class of finance capital, as I guess we could call them. These are technocrats, not academically trained economists primarily (maybe with a few exceptions), but I want you to talk a bit about how the Troika functions and why it’s so important in what we could call this crisis stage of neoliberal finance capitalism.

MH: Basically, the Troika is run by Frankfurt bankers as foreclosure and collection agents. If you read recently what former Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis has written, and his advisor James Galbraith, they said that when Syriza was elected in January, they tried to reason with the IMF. But it said that it could only do what the European Central Bank said, and that it would approve whatever they decided to do. The European Central Bank said that its role wasn’t to negotiate democracy. Its negotiators were not economists. They were lawyers. “All we can say is, here’s what you have to pay, here’s how to do it. We’re not here to talk about whether this is going to bankrupt Greece. We’re just interested in in how you’re going to pay the banks what they’re owe. Your electric companies and other industry will have to go to German companies, the other infrastructure to other investors – but not from Russia.”

It’s much like England and France divided up the Near East after World War I. There’s a kind of a gentlemen’s agreement as to how the creditor economies will divide up Greece, carving it up much like neighboring Yugoslavia to the north.

In 2001 the IMF made a big loan to Argentina (I have a chapter on Argentina too), and it went bad after a year. So the IMF passed a rule, called the No More Argentinas rule, stating that the Fund was not going to participate in a loan where the government obviously can not pay.

A decade later came the Greek crisis of 2011. The staff found that Greece could not possibly pay a loan large enough to bail out the French, German and other creditors. So there has to be a debt write-down of the principal. The staff said that, and the IMF’s board members agreed. But its Managing Director, Strauss-Kahn wanted to run for the presidency of France, and most of the Greek bonds were held by French banks. French President Sarkozy said “Well you can’t win political office in France if you stiff the French banks.” And German Chancellor Merkel said that Greece had to pay the German banks. Then, to top matters, President Obama came over to the G-20 meetings and they said that the American banks had made such big default insurance contracts and casino gambles betting that Greece would pay, that if it didn’t, if the Europeans and IMF did not bail out Greece, then the American banks might go under. The implicit threat was that the U.S. would make sure that Europe’s financial system would be torn to pieces.

ED: And Michael, I just want to clarify, I guess it’s sort of a question: about what you’re talking about here in terms of Geithner and Obama coming in: These would be credit default swaps and collateralized debt obligations?

MH: Yes. U.S. officials said that Wall Street had made so many gambles that if the French and German banks were not paid, they would turn to their Wall Street insurers. The Wall Street casino would go under, bringing Europe’s banking system down with it. This prompted the European Central Bank to say that it didn’t want the IMF to be a part of the Troika unless it agreed to take a subordinate role and to support the ECB bailout. It didn’t matter whether Greece later could pay or not. In that case, creditors would smash and grab. This lead the some of the IMF European staff to resign, most notably Susan Schadler, and later to act as whistle blowers to write up what happened.

The same thing happened again earlier this year in Greece. Lagarde said that the IMF doesn’t do debt reduction, but would give them a little longer to pay. Not a penny, not a euro will be written down, but the debt will be stretched out and perhaps the interest rate will be lowered – as long as Greece permits foreigners to grab its infrastructure, land and natural resources.

The staff once again leaked a report to the Financial Times (and maybe also the Wall Street Journal) that said that Greece couldn’t pay, there’s no way it can later sell off the IMF loan to private bondholders, so any bailout would be against the IMF’s own rules. Lagarde was embarrassed, and tried to save face by saying that Germany has to agree to stretch out the payments on the debt – as if that somehow would enable it to pay, while its assets pass into foreign hands, which will remit their profits back home and subject Greece to even steeper deflation.

Then, a few weeks ago, you have the Ukraine crisis and the IMF is not allowed to make loans to countries that cannot pay. But now the whole purpose is to make loans to countries who can’t pay, so that creditors can turn around and demand that they pay by selling off their public domain – and implicitly, force their population to emigrate.

ED: Also, technically they’re not supposed to be making loans to countries that are at war, and they’re ignoring that rule as well.

MH: That’s the second violation of IMF rules. At least in the earlier Greek bailout, Strauss Kahn got around the “No More Argentinas” rule by having a new IMF policy that if a country is systemically important, the IMF can lend it the money even if it can’t pay, even though it’s not credit-worthy, if its default would cause a problem in the global financial system (meaning a loss by Wall Street or other bankers). But Ukraine is not systemically important. It’s part of the Russian system, not the western system. Most of its trade is with Russia.

As you just pointed out, when Lagarde made the IMF’s last Ukrainian loan, she said that she hoped its economy would stabilize instead of fighting more war in its eastern export region. The next day, President Poroshenko said that now that it had got the loan, it could go to war against the Donbass, the Russian speaking region. Some $1.5 billion of the IMF loan was given to banks run by Kolomoisky, one of the kleptocrats who fields his own army. His banks send the IMF’s gift abroad to his own foreign banks, using his domestic Ukrainian money to pay his own army, allied with Ukrainian nationalists flying the old Nazi SS insignia fighting against the Russian speakers. So in effect, the IMF is serving as an am of the U.S. military and State Department, just as the World Bank has long been.

ED: I want to interject two points here for listeners who haven’t followed it as closely. Number one is the private army that you’re talking about – the Right Sector which is essentially a mercenary force of Nazis in the employ of Kolomoisky. They’re also part of what’s now called the Ukrainian National Guard. This paramilitary organization that is being paid directly by Kolomoisky. Number two – and this relates back to something that you were saying earlier, Michael – that IMF loan went to pay for a lot of the military equipment that Kiev has now used to obliterate the economic and industrial infrastructure of Donbass, which was Ukraine’s industrial heartland. So from the western perspective it’s killing two birds with one stone. If they can’t strip the assets and capitalize on them, at least they can destroy them, because the number one customer was Russia.

MH: Russia had made much of its military hardware in Ukraine, including its liftoff engines for satellites. The West doesn’t want that to continue. What it wants for its own investors is Ukraine’s land, the gas rights in the Black Sea, electric and other public utilities, because these are the major tollbooths to extract economic rent from the economy. Basically, US/NATO strategists want to make sure, by destroying Ukraine’s eastern export industry, that Ukraine will be chronically bankrupt and will have to settle its balance-of-payments deficit by selling off its private domain to American, German and other foreign buyers.

ED: Yes, that’s Monsanto, and that’s Hunter Biden on the Burisma board (the gas company). It’s like you said earlier, you wouldn’t even believe it if someone would have made it up. It’s so transparent, what they’re doing in Ukraine.

Financialization of pension plans and retirement savings

I want to switch gears a bit in the short time we have remaining, because I have two more things I want to talk about. Referring back to this parasitical relationship on the real economy, one aspect that’s rarely mentioned is the way in which many regular working people get swindled. One example that comes to my mind is the mutual funds and other money managers that control what pension funds and lots of retirees invest in. Much of their savings are tied up in heavily leveraged junk bonds and in places like Greece, but also recently in Puerto Rico which is going through a very similar scenario right now. So in many ways, US taxpayers and pensioners are funding the looting and exploitation of these countries and they’re then financially invested in continuing the destruction of these countries. It’s almost like these pensioners are human shields for Wall Street.

MH: This actually is the main theme of my book – financialization. Mutual funds are not pension funds. They’re different. But half a century ago a new term was coined: pension fund capitalism, sometimes called pension fund socialism. Then we got back to Orwellian doublethink when Pinochet came to power behind the natural alliance of the Chicago School with Kissinger at the State Department. They immediately organized what they called labor capitalism. n labor capitalism labor is the victim, not the beneficiary. The first thing they did was compulsory setting aside of wages in the form of ostensible pension funds controlled by the employers. The employers could do whatever they wanted with it. Ultimately they invested their corporate pension funds in their own stocks or turned them over to the banks, around which their grupo conglomerates were organized. They then simply drove the businesses with employee pension funds under, wiping out the pension fund liabilities – after moving the assets into their captive banks. Businesses were left as empty corporate shells.

Something similar happened in America a few years ago with theChicago Tribune. Real estate developer Sam Zell borrowed money, bought the Tribune, using the Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) essentially to pay off the bondholders. He then drove/looted the Tribune into bankruptcy and wiped out the stockholders. Employees brought a fraudulent conveyance suit.

Already fifty years ago, critics noted that about half of the ESOPs are wiped out, because they’re invested by the employers, often in their own stock. Managers give themselves stock options, which are given value by employee purchases. Something similar occurs with pension funds in general. Employee wages are paid into pension funds, which bid up the stock prices in general. On an economy-wide basis, employees are buying the stock that managers give themselves. That’s pension fund capitalism.

The underlying problem with this kind of financialization of pensions and retirement savings is that modern American industry is being run basically for financial purposes, not for industrial purposes. The major industrial firms have been financialized. For many years General Motors made most of its profits from its financial arm, General Motors Acceptance Corporation. Likewise General Electric. When I was going to school 50 years ago, Macy’s made most of its money not by selling products, but by getting customers to use its credit cards. In effect, it used its store to get people to use its credit cards.

Last year, 92% of the earnings of the Fortune 100 companies were used for stock buy-backs — corporations buying back their stock to support its price – or for dividend payouts, also to increase the stock’s price (and thus management bonuses and stock options). The purpose of running a company in today’s financialized world is to increase the price of the stock, not to expand the business. And who do they sell the stock to? Essentially, pension funds.

There’s a lot of money coming in. I don’t know if you remember, but George W. Bush wanted to privatize Social Security. The idea was to spend all of its contributions – the 15+% that FICA withholds from workers paychecks every month – into the stock market. This would fuel a giant stock market boom. Money management companies, the big banks, would get an enormous flow of commissions, and speculators would get rich off the inflow. It would make billionaires into hundred-billionaires. All this would soar like the South Sea Bubble, until the American population began to age – or, more likely, begin to be unemployed. At that point the funds would begin to sell the stocks to pay retirees. This would withdraw money from the stock market. Prices would crash as speculators and insiders sold out, wiping out the savings that workers had put into the scheme.

The basic idea is that when Wall Street plays finance, the casino wins. When employees and pension funds play the financial game, they lose and the casino wins.

ED: Right, and just as an example for listeners – to make what Michael was just talking about it even more real – if we think back to 2009 and the collapse of General Motors, it was not General Motors automotive manufacturing that was collapsing. It was GMAC, their finance arm, which was leveraged on credit default swaps, collateralized debt obligations and similar financial derivatives – what they call exotic instruments. So when Obama comes in and claimed that he “saved General Motors,” it wasn’t really that. He came in for the Wall Street arm of General Motors.

Obama’s demagogic role as Wall Street shill for the Rubinomics gang

MH: That’s correct. He was the Wall Street candidate, promoted by Robert Rubin, who was Clinton’s Treasury Secretary. Basically, American economic policies can run by a combination of Goldman Sachs and Citigroup, often interchangeably.

ED: This was demonstrated very clearly in the first days of Obama taking office. Who does he meet with to talk about the financial crisis? He invites the CEOs of Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan, Bank of America, Citi and all of the rest of them. They’re the ones who come to the White House. It’s been written about in books, in the New Yorker and elsewhere. Obama basically says, “Don’t worry guys, I got this.”

MH: Ron Suskind wrote this. He said that Obama said, “I’m the only guy standing between you and the pitchforks. Listen to me: I can basically fool them.” (I give the actual quote in my book.) The interesting thing is that the signs of this meeting were all erased from the White House website, but Suskind has it in his book. Obama emerges as one of the great demagogues of the century. He may be even worse than Andrew Jackson.

ED: So much of it is based on obvious policies and his actions. The moment he came to power was a critical moment when action was needed. Not only did he not take the right action, he did exactly what Wall Street wanted. In many ways we can look back to 2008 when he was championing the TARP, the bailout, and all the rest of that. None of that would have been possible without Obama. That’s something that Democrats like to avoid in their conversations.

MH: That’s exactly the point. It was Orwellian rhetoric. He ran as the candidate of Hope and Change, but his real role was to smash hope and prevent change. By keeping the debts in place instead of writing them down as he had promised, he oversaw the wrecking of the American economy.

He had done something similar in Chicago, when he worked as a community organizer for the big real estate interests to tear up the poorer neighborhoods where the lower income Blacks lived. His role was to gentrify them and jack up property prices to move in higher-income Blacks. This made billions for the Pritzker family. So Penny Pritzker introduced him to Robert Rubin. Obama evidently promised to let Rubin appoint his cabinet, so they appointed the vicious anti-labor Rahm Emanuel, now Chicago’s mayor, as his Chief of Staff to drive any Democrat to the left of Herbert Hoover out of the party. Obama essentially pushed the Democrats to the right, as the Republicans gave him plenty of room to move rightward and still be the “lesser evil.”

So now you have people like Donald Trump saying that he’s for what Dennis Kucinich was for: a single payer healthcare program. Obama fought against this, and backed the lobbyists of the pharmaceutical and health insurance sectors. His genius is being able to make most voters believe that he’s on their side when he’s actually defending the Wall Street special interests that were his major campaign contributors.

ED: That’s true. You can see that in literally every arena in which Obama has taken action. From championing so-called Obamacare, which is really a boon for the insurance industry, to the charter schools to privatize public education and also become a major boon for Wall Street, for Pearson and all these major education corporations. In terms of real estate, in the gentrification, all the rest. Literally every perspective, every angle from which you look at Obama, he is a servant of finance capital of investors, not of the people. And that’s what the Democratic Party has become, delivering its constituency to Wall Street.

A left-wing economic alternative

MH: So here’s the problem: How do we get the left to realize this? How do we get it to talk about economics instead of ethnic identity and sexual identity and culture alone? How do we get the left to do what they were talking about a century ago – economic reform and how to take the side of labor, consumers and debtors? How do we tell the Blacks that it’s more important to get a well paying job? That’s the way to gain power. I think Deng said: “Black cat, white cat, it doesn’t matter as long as it catches mice.” How do we say “Black president, white president, it doesn’t matter, as long as they give jobs for us and help our community economically?”

ED: I think that’s important and I want to close with this issue: solutions. One of the things I appreciate in reading your book is that it is broken up into sections. The final section, I think, is really important. You titled it: “There Is An Alternative.” That is of course a reference to Margaret Thatcher’s TINA (There Is No Alternative). That ideology and mindset took over the left, or at least the nominally left-wing parties. So you’re saying that there is an alternative. In that section you propose a number of important reforms. You argue that they would restore industrial prosperity. Now, I’m not asking you to name all of them, to run down the list, but maybe touch on a little bit of what you included, and why that’s important for beginning to build this alternative.

MH: There are two main aims that classical economists had 200 years ago. One was to free society from debt. You didn’t want people to have to spend their lives working off the debt, whether for a home, for living or to get an education. Second, you wanted to fund industry, not by debt but by equity. That is what the Saint-Simonians and France did. It’s what German banking was famous for before World War I. There was a debate in the English speaking countries, especially in England saying that maybe England and the Allies might lose World War I because the banks are running everything, and finance should be subordinated to fund industry. It can be used to help the economy grow, not be parasitic.

But instead, our tax laws make debt service tax deductible. If a company pays $2 billion a year in dividends, a corporate raider can buy it on credit and, if there’s a 50% stock rate, he can pay $4 billion to bondholders instead of $2 billion to stockholders. Over the past twenty years the American stock market has become a vehicle for corporate raiding, replacing equity with debt. That makes break-even costs much higher.

The other point I’m making concerns economic rent. The guiding idea of an economic and tax system should be to lower the cost of living and doing business. I show what the average American wage earner has to pay. Under the most recent federal housing authority laws, the government guarantees mortgage loans that absorb up to 43% of family income. Suppose you pay this 43% of income for your home mortgage, after the 15% of your wages set aside for Social Security under FICA.

Instead of funding Social Security out of the general budget and hence out of what is still progressive taxation, Congress has said that the rich shouldn’t pay for Social Security; only blue-collar workers should pay. So if you make over $115,000, you don’t have to pay anything. In addition to that 15% wage tax, about 20% ends up being paid for other taxes – sales taxes, income taxes, and various other taxes that fall on consumers. And perhaps another 10% goes for bank loans besides mortgages – credit card loans, student loans and other debts.

That leaves only about 25% of what American families earn to be spent on goods and services – unless they borrow to maintain their living standards. This means that if you would give wage earners all of their food, all their transportation, all their clothing for nothing, they still could not compete with foreign economies, because so much of the budget has to go for finance, insurance and real estate (FIRE). That’s why our employment is not going to recover. That’s why our living standards are not going to recover.

Even if wages do go up for some workers, they’re going to have to pay it to the bank for education loans, mortgage loans (or rent), bank debt and credit card debt, and now also for our amazingly expensive and rent-extracting medical insurance and health care and medications. The result is that if they try to join the middle class by getting higher education and buying a home, they will spend the rest of their lives paying the banks. They don’t end up keeping their higher wages. They pay them to the banks.

ED: You don’t have to tell me. I’m living that reality. Interestingly, in that final section of your book you talk about alternatives, like a public banking option that many people have discussed. You talk about the Social Security cap that you were just mentioning, and focus on taxing economic rent. Some critics would suggest that these sorts of reforms are not going to be able to salvage the capitalist model that is so ensconced in the United States. So I want to give you a chance to sort of present that argument or maybe rebut it.

MH: I won’t rebut that criticism, because it’s right. Marx thought that it was the task of industrial capitalism to free economies from the economic legacies of feudalism. He saw that the bourgeois parties wanted to get rid of the “excrescences” of the industrial capitalist marketplace. They wanted to get rid of the parasites, the landowners and usurious creditors. Marx said that even if you get rid of the parasites, even if you socialize finance and land that he dealt with in volume II and III of Capital, you’re still going to have the Volume I problem. You’re still going to have the exploitation problem between employers and employees – the labor/capital problem.

My point is that most academic Marxists and the left in general have focused so much on the fight of workers and labor unions against employers that they tend to overlook that there’s this huge FIRE sector – Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate – tsunami is swamping the economy. Finance is wrecking industry and government, along with labor. The reforms that Marx expected the bourgeois parties to enact against rentiers haven’t occurred. Marx was overly optimistic about the role of industrial capitalism and industrialized banking to prepare the ground for socialism.

This means that until you complete the task of freeing of society from feudalism – corrosive banking and economic rent as unearned income – you can’t solve the industrial problems that Marx dealt with in Volume I. And of course even when you do solve them, these problems of labor exploitation and markets will still exist.

ED: Yes, absolutely. Well we’re out of time. I want to thank you for coming onto the program. Listeners, you heard it. There’s so much information to digest here. The book is really brilliant, I think essential reading, required reading – Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy, available through CounterPunch, as well as on Amazon. Michael Hudson professor of economics at University of Missouri Kansas City, his work is all over the place. Find it regularly on CounterPunch, as well as on his website Michael Hudson thanks so much for coming on CounterPunch Radio.

MH: It’s great to be here. It’s been a wonderful discussion.

ED: Thank you.


Michael Hudson’s new book, Killing the Host is published in e-format by CounterPunch Books and in print by Islet. He can be reached via his website,




See featured article here:

TLB recommends that you read other pertinent articles at:




By John W. Whitehead

“You gotta remember, establishment, it’s just a name for evil. The monster doesn’t care whether it kills all the students or whether there’s a revolution. It’s not thinking logically, it’s out of control.”—John Lennon (1969)

John Lennon, born 75 years ago on October 9, 1940, was a musical genius and pop cultural icon.

He was also a vocal peace protester and anti-war activist and a high-profile example of the lengths to which the U.S. government will go to persecute those who dare to challenge its authority.

Long before Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden were being castigated for blowing the whistle on the government’s war crimes and the National Security Agency’s abuse of its surveillance powers, it was Lennon who was being singled out for daring to speak truth to power about the government’s warmongering, his phone calls monitored and data files collected on his activities and associations.

For a little while, at least, Lennon became enemy number one in the eyes of the U.S. government.

Years after Lennon’s assassination it would be revealed that the FBI had collected 281 pages of files on him, including song lyrics, a letter from J. Edgar Hoover directing the agency to spy on the musician, and various written orders calling on government agents to set the stage to set Lennon up for a drug bust. As reporter Jonathan Curiel observes, “The FBI’s files on Lennon … read like the writings of a paranoid goody-two-shoes.”

As the New York Times notes, “Critics of today’s domestic surveillance object largely on privacy grounds. They have focused far less on how easily government surveillance can become an instrument for the people in power to try to hold on to power. ‘The U.S. vs. John Lennon’ … is the story not only of one man being harassed, but of a democracy being undermined.”

Indeed, as I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, all of the many complaints we have about government today—surveillance, militarism, corruption, harassment, SWAT team raids, political persecution, spying, overcriminalization, etc.—were present in Lennon’s day and formed the basis of his call for social justice, peace and a populist revolution.

For all of these reasons, the U.S. government was obsessed with Lennon, who had learned early on that rock music could serve a political end by proclaiming a radical message. More importantly, Lennon saw that his music could mobilize the public and help to bring about change. Lennon believed in the power of the people. Unfortunately, as Lennon recognized: “The trouble with government as it is, is that it doesn’t represent the people. It controls them.”

However, as Martin Lewis writing for Time notes: “John Lennon was not God. But he earned the love and admiration of his generation by creating a huge body of work that inspired and led. The appreciation for him deepened because he then instinctively decided to use his celebrity as a bully pulpit for causes greater than his own enrichment or self-aggrandizement.”

For instance, in December 1971 at a concert in Ann Arbor, Mich., Lennon took to the stage and in his usual confrontational style belted out “John Sinclair,” a song he had written about a man sentenced to 10 years in prison for possessing two marijuana cigarettes. Within days of Lennon’s call for action, the Michigan Supreme Court ordered Sinclair released.

What Lennon did not know at the time was that government officials had been keeping strict tabs on the ex-Beatle they referred to as “Mr. Lennon.” FBI agents were in the audience at the Ann Arbor concert, “taking notes on everything from the attendance (15,000) to the artistic merits of his new song.”

The U.S. government was spying on Lennon.

By March 1971, when his “Power to the People” single was released, it was clear where Lennon stood. Having moved to New York City that same year, Lennon was ready to participate in political activism against the U. S. government, the “monster” that was financing the war in Vietnam.

The release of Lennon’s Sometime in New York City album, which contained a radical anti-government message in virtually every song and depicted President Richard Nixon and Chinese Chairman Mao Tse-tung dancing together nude on the cover, only fanned the flames of the conflict to come.

The official U.S. war against Lennon began in earnest in 1972 after rumors surfaced that Lennon planned to embark on a U.S. concert tour that would combine rock music with antiwar organizing and voter registration. Nixon, fearing Lennon’s influence on about 11 million new voters (1972 was the first year that 18-year-olds could vote), had the ex-Beatle served with deportation orders “in an effort to silence him as a voice of the peace movement.”

Then again, the FBI has had a long history of persecuting, prosecuting and generally harassing activists, politicians, and cultural figures, most notably among the latter such celebrated names as folk singer Pete Seeger, painter Pablo Picasso, comic actor and filmmaker Charlie Chaplin, comedian Lenny Bruce and poet Allen Ginsberg.

Among those most closely watched by the FBI was Martin Luther King Jr., a man labeled by the FBI as “the most dangerous and effective Negro leader in the country.” With wiretaps and electronic bugs planted in his home and office, King was kept under constant surveillance by the FBI with the aim of “neutralizing” him. He even received letters written by FBI agents suggesting that he either commit suicide or the details of his private life would be revealed to the public. The FBI kept up its pursuit of King until he was felled by a hollow-point bullet to the head in 1968.

While Lennon was not—as far as we know—being blackmailed into suicide, he was the subject of a four-year campaign of surveillance and harassment by the U.S. government (spearheaded by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover), an attempt by President Richard Nixon to have him “neutralized” and deported. As Adam Cohen of the New York Times points out, “The F.B.I.’s surveillance of Lennon is a reminder of how easily domestic spying can become unmoored from any legitimate law enforcement purpose. What is more surprising, and ultimately more unsettling, is the degree to which the surveillance turns out to have been intertwined with electoral politics.”

As Lennon’s FBI file shows, memos and reports about the FBI’s surveillance of the anti-war activist had been flying back and forth between Hoover, the Nixon White House, various senators, the FBI and the U.S. Immigration Office.

Nixon’s pursuit of Lennon was relentless and in large part based on the misperception that Lennon and his comrades were planning to disrupt the 1972 Republican National Convention. The government’s paranoia, however, was misplaced.

Left-wing activists who were on government watch lists and who shared an interest in bringing down the Nixon Administration had been congregating at Lennon’s New York apartment. But when they revealed that they were planning to cause a riot, Lennon balked. As he recounted in a 1980 interview, “We said, We ain’t buying this. We’re not going to draw children into a situation to create violence so you can overthrow what? And replace it with what? . . . It was all based on this illusion, that you can create violence and overthrow what is, and get communism or get some right-wing lunatic or a left-wing lunatic. They’re all lunatics.”

Despite the fact that Lennon was not part of the “lunatic” plot, the government persisted in its efforts to have him deported. Equally determined to resist, Lennon dug in and fought back. Every time he was ordered out of the country, his lawyers delayed the process by filing an appeal. Finally, in 1976, Lennon won the battle to stay in the country when he was granted a green card. As he said afterwards, “I have a love for this country…. This is where the action is. I think we’ll just go home, open a tea bag, and look at each other.”

Lennon’s time of repose didn’t last long, however. By 1980, he had re-emerged with a new album and plans to become politically active again.

The old radical was back and ready to cause trouble. In his final interview on Dec. 8, 1980, Lennon mused, “The whole map’s changed and we’re going into an unknown future, but we’re still all here, and while there’s life there’s hope.”

That very night, when Lennon returned to his New York apartment building, Mark David Chapman was waiting in the shadows. As Lennon stepped outside the car to greet the fans congregating outside, Chapman, in an eerie echo of the FBI’s moniker for Lennon, called out, “Mr. Lennon!”

Lennon turned and was met with a barrage of gunfire as Chapman—dropping into a two-handed combat stance—emptied his .38-caliber pistol and pumped four hollow-point bullets into his back and left arm. Lennon stumbled, staggered forward and, with blood pouring from his mouth and chest, collapsed to the ground.

John Lennon was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital. He had finally been “neutralized.”

Yet where those who neutralized the likes of John Lennon, Martin Luther King Jr., John F. Kennedy, Malcolm X, Robert Kennedy and others go wrong is in believing that you can murder a movement with a bullet and a madman.

Thankfully, Lennon’s legacy lives on in his words, his music and his efforts to speak truth to power. As Yoko Ono shared in a 2014 letter to the parole board tasked with determining whether Chapman should be released: “A man of humble origin, [John Lennon] brought light and hope to the whole world with his words and music. He tried to be a good power for the world, and he was. He gave encouragement, inspiration and dreams to people regardless of their race, creed and gender.”

Sadly, not much has changed for the better in the world since Lennon walked among us. Peace remains out of reach. Activism and whistleblowers continue to be prosecuted for challenging the government’s authority. Militarism is on the rise, with police acquiring armed drones, all the while the governmental war machine continues to wreak havoc on innocent lives. Just recently, for example, U.S. military forces carried out airstrikes in Afghanistan that left a Doctors without Borders hospital in ruins, killing several of its medical personnel and patients, including children.

For those of us who joined with John Lennon to imagine a world of peace, it’s getting harder to reconcile that dream with the reality of the American police state. For those who do dare to speak up, they are labeled dissidents, troublemakers, terrorists, lunatics, or mentally ill and tagged for surveillance, censorship or, worse, involuntary detention.

As Lennon shared in a 1968 interview:

I think all our society is run by insane people for insane objectives… I think we’re being run by maniacs for maniacal means. If anybody can put on paper what our government and the American government and the Russian… Chinese… what they are actually trying to do, and what they think they’re doing, I’d be very pleased to know what they think they’re doing. I think they’re all insane. But I’m liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That’s what’s insane about it.”

So what’s the answer?

Lennon had a multitude of suggestions.

“If everyone demanded peace instead of another television set, then there’d be peace.”

“Produce your own dream. If you want to save Peru, go save Peru. It’s quite possible to do anything, but not to put it on the leaders….You have to do it yourself. That’s what the great masters and mistresses have been saying ever since time began. They can point the way, leave signposts and little instructions in various books that are now called holy and worshipped for the cover of the book and not for what it says, but the instructions are all there for all to see, have always been and always will be. There’s nothing new under the sun. All the roads lead to Rome. And people cannot provide it for you. I can’t wake you up. You can wake you up. I can’t cure you. You can cure you.”

“Life is very short, and there’s no time for fussing and fighting my friends.”

“Peace is not something you wish for; It’s something you make, Something you do, Something you are, And something you give away.”

“If you want peace, you won’t get it with violence.”

“Say you want a revolution / We better get on right away / Well you get on your feet / And out on the street / Singing power to the people.”

And my favorite advice of all: “All you need is love. Love is all you need.”

WC: 2117

Read featured article here

TLB recommends you visit The Rutherford Institute for more great/pertinent articles.

If guerilla warfare were our only viable option to survive a while longer as a nation, these gentelmen underscore the importance of why a nation should never surrender its guns.

 By TLB Contributor: Dave Hodges

Many in the know, believe America has two options when it comes to winning a world war against China and Russia. Also, what most agree on is the fact that America cannot win a conventional war against either power, or both.

Coincidence or Conspiracy On the Part of Obama?

Is it just a coincidence that Obama has been  outmaneuvered by Putin, again? Because of Obama’s ineptitude or spirit of treason, you choose the correct answer, Russia has commenced military operations in the Middle East with its attacks upon ISIS. I, for one, have a very difficult time believing that Obama did not know what the Russians were about to do in Syria, given our sophisticated surveillance capabilities. As a result, Russia has begun killing CIA assets on the ground in Syria and Obama, just like Nero before him, continues to fiddle and does nothing. Many of us have concluded that America cannot win a war against the Russians or the Chinese as long as Obama is President. What are America’s options if it intended to win World War III?

Why the United States Cannot Win a Conventional War Against Russia and China

Every military source I speak with says the same thing when it comes to the United States having any chance to win World War III. First, the war cannot be conventional for reasons that will become clear later in this article. Second, in order for the United States to win such a war, the conflict would have to be a well-coordinated nuclear attack which would combine the United States nuclear fire power derived from the three sources: (1) Deep space platforms; (2) Both hardened silos and mobile missile launcher that are land based; and, (3) A devastating attack from the entire submarine fleet. There is a fourth factor to consider and that is the hope that America’s nuclear first strike destroyed enough of the enemies ICBM’s and nuclear armed submarines, that our HAARP like defenses can knock down enough incoming ICBM’s to make any real difference. I have learned from my military sources, that they believe that this is possible, but not likely with Obama serving as the Commander-In-Chief.

The coming war, in whatever form it will take, will largely feature what pundits call the BRIC nations and the USA and her allies. Each side of this coming conflict possesses widely divergent military strengths, weaknesses and strategies and this article will explore the relative strengths and weaknesses.

The US Is Dependent On a Devastating First Strike Attack

In addition to a nuclear first strike, the United States and her allies have a decided advantage of quick strike, long range battlefield capabilities because of superior aircraft and carrier strike capabilities. The Chinese have developed and are close to making operation, carrier-busting weapons platforms. A major advantage enjoyed by the US is about to be totally negated by an advancement in Chinese technology.

On the other hand, the BRIC nations have an advantage with manpower, rocket propelled weapons and tanks. The USA and her allies cannot win a sustained battlefield campaign because of the attrition factor. Yes, America enjoys the advantage in the air, yet bombing has always proven to be a means to an end, never to be an offensive strategy. In conventional war, it always comes down to the boots on the ground. At the end of the day, America will be dependent on a successful nuclear first strike if it has any hope of prevailing in a World War III scenario.

The Chinese have demonstrated the ability to negate the United States Navy’s technological advantage through the use of killer satellites. Therefore, the entire US strategy is predicated on a first strike before the Chinese can destroy the majority of the eyes and ears of the US military, namely, its superior satellite capabilities in which the US forces can quickly locate and destroy the enemy with its smart weapons before the enemy knows what hit them.

Nuclear Submarines Are the “X Factor”


America’s “X Factor”.

The BRICS cannot run or hide from this devastating weapon.

The BRICS cannot run or hide from this devastating weapon.

Nuclear submarines are often looked at as the great equalizer. No matter who is winning on the ground, in the air and on the surface of the oceans, the submarine force has the capability to reign down unimaginable destruction upon their enemy. In the case of submarines, the US and her allies are matched by their BRIC counterparts. Most older subs carry eight nuclear missiles, each capable of destroying a major city. The newer submarines can carry a payload of 16 or more missiles. The US, at the moment, has superior evasive techniques and therefore, would presumably survive sub-killer strategies with greater frequency that their BRIC adversaries. Therefore, the BRIC nations might win every land battle, however, the victorious BRIC nations would not have many of its cities left to return to in the case that the war become a nuclear war. The US submarines are, in effect, a formidable doomsday weapon. My military sources state that although Russia has improved its nuclear submarine force, it still has not sufficiently closed the gap to offset this American advantage. However, that is quickly changing with advances in Russian and Chinese technology. For a short time, in particular, the Chinese have not yet been able to fully integrate their advancements into a coordinated and operational manner. That will soon change and time is not on America’s side.

The Trigger Event

I have been writing for three years that the trigger event would occur in Syria and recent events, with Russia engaging in military attacks upon the US backed ISIS and other Syria rebel forces, are moving the world in the ultimate direction of World War III. The absolutely insane John McCain has called for the shooting down of Russian planes in Syria. How long can it be until, we are engaged in full combat with the Russians? Or, how long will it be until Russia and Israel face off in the same geographic area? Thank God for our submarine fleet and our Deep Space Platform weapons. I have come to believe that this is all that separates us from being totally subjugated. And thank God to the submarine fleet that refuses to surrender their nuclear launch codes to Obama no matter how many of its officers are fired.

Devastating first strike capability.

Devastating first strike capability.

Command and Control of first strike capability.

The Tale of the Tape: The BRICS vs. the USA and Her Allies


BRIC Nations Conventional Military Strength

When one compares the relative strengths of both sides, the BRICS hold a decided advantage in any conventional conflict. And the difference is growing more significant by the day as Obama is reducing the size of the US military to pre-World War II levels while our enemies are increasing both their equipment and troop strength.

Most Likely to Fight

Country        Men        Planes       Tanks     Carriers       Subs     Rockets

Russia      766,000      3,082        1,550         1                 62          3,781

China    2,825,000     2,788          9,150         1                69          1,770

India     1,325,000     1,785          3,569          2                17            292

Total      4,916, 000   7,655          14,269        4               148        5,843

Please note that this does not contain the Latin American contingent of nations that Putin is presently arming to fight the US.

(NOTE: The forces of North Korea would be absorbed by China. Ukraine and Belarus have a combined military strength of 200,000 men. However, because of recent events, the Ukraine forces may be compromised) 

Allied Nations Conventional Military Strength

Country      Men         Planes        Tanks      Carriers       Subs      Missiles  

US/Allies  3.35M      20,475         8,325          13             141         2,700

This chart assumes NATO will hold together.

Source: Global Fire Power

With the BRICS conventional forces continuing to grow and the allies forces continuing to shrink, it is very clear that the US cannot win a conventional war of attrition.


The downside of a nuclear first strike by the United States would be that the US would also take a significant beating as Russian and probable Chinese and Indian nuclear forces would have time to retaliate. However, the US submarines could do much of the damage, because of geographical proximity, before our enemies could get many of their missiles off the launching pads. If the deep space platform missiles were successful along with the “Rods from God” in targeting Russian and Chinese nuclear submarines, the United States could win a decisive victory. With regard to the “Rods from God”, does anyone think that the recent destruction of the four chemical plants in China was truly an accident?

There is one very disturbing variable to consider, even in an American nuclear first strike, without hardening our power grid infrastructure against an EMP attack, the US could lose its grid and along with it, 90% of the people within two years, according to the Naval War College. Obama, and Bush before him, have left America very vulnerable in this area.

Does Obama show any signs of protecting the power grid? Does he show any signs of standing up to Russian incursions into Syria? It is not likely that a well-coordinated and simultaneous attack could be launched without the leadership of the DOD which is under the control of the President, who shows no sign of mounting a resistance. With this type of leadership, America will be thrust into a World War of attrition which we will lose and lose badly.

Meanwhile, the psychopathic bankers who have perpetuated this scenario will be safely tucked away in the deep underground bunkers.

Likely refuge for the elite psychopathic banksters.

The likely refuge for the elite psychopathic banksters.


un martial law forcesAs long as Obama, Ben Carson, Jeb Bush, et al., are in the Oval Office, America will NEVER launch a nuclear first strike. We cannot win in a conventional world war. Therefore, as I pointed out in part one, Americans can continue their resistance, Viet Cong style, because of the 300 million hand guns at their disposal. This is a logistical nightmare for any occupation force. Flash back to this weekend, why do you supposed Obama is no longer speaking about gun control, in response to the Oregon shooting, he is speaking about the type of gun confiscation done in Australia.

Obama’s point, I have this to say. The University of Hawaii researchers tell us that there were 17 genocides in the 20th century and in everyone of these cases, gun confiscation came first. As distasteful is living in a country that could de-evolve into a decades long guerrilla warfare scenario, the thought of being totally unarmed in the face of our future occupiers is unthinkable because of what they could have in store for us, is unthinkable. Any move upon our guns should be considered as an act of war against the American people and the people should react accordingly. I am convinced that this issue has be our collective line in the sand.

Sometimes a picture is worth a 1000 words.

gun control works

obama gun control

Never give up your guns America, because the coming conflict will eventually become a guerilla war.


TLB recommends you visit Dave at The Common Sense Show for more pertinent articles and information.

See featured article and read comments HERE

  • Subscribe to Blog via Email

    Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 917 other subscribers