Today, I am among the mere handful of those few still living veterans of a certain past military service, who were part of what some people today would call, mistakenly, “a conspiracy.” Today, we few represent that handful of those veterans who, today, had lived through that awful morning when the news had come, that our greatly beloved President Franklin Delano Roosevelt had died. Ours is simply the patriotism of those, among us at that time, who had reacted with a certain, special devotion to that sense of patriotic mission to which we had been called during what was, still then, the ongoing great, long war.
That was, at first, no more than the silent oath to which I committed myself when the news of President Roosevelt’s death reached the few of us who would be gathered that evening in a military encampment at Kanchrapara in Bengal, India. When we met quietly in the dusk of that evening, there, I replied to that group of fellow-soldiers who came to me to ask their question. My words from that past are carved in memory still today: “We have been led, until now, by a great President, who has now died. The new President is a little man, and, I am afraid for our country, now.” One remembers things like that.
The words I spoke in the quiet of that evening, were to return to become my modest, continuing, silent, personal commitment for the ensuing three decades of my life. Then, later, one day, another veteran touched my memories. After that, there was no need to ask “Why;” the silenced trumpet had called again. I was to experience, now, a renewed old, and prolonged warfare, like ghosts from the same, old, opposing sides.
Today, I, for one, am still standing. Let my thought tonight seem to touch your shoulder, “patriot,” as someone, long ago, had seemed to touch my own. There was no “conspiracy” beyond doing one’s duty, even still today, when a silent trumpet calls those few, old, soldiers who never really die.
Sometimes, they had been referred to by one another, as “Donovan’s boys.” At the close of the war, what had been the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) was divided into two categories working from opposite sides of the post-war fence, the patriots of our republic, on the one side, and the Wall Street types on the other. Those types were the “White Shoe” group and their allies, and, opposite, those who stood beside Major-General “Wild Bill” Donovan. I was not part of that, then; but, the silent oath I swore when the news of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s death had reached me at the Kanchrapara military camp in Bengal, and, later, the memory of my experience with the British in Calcutta during the Spring of 1946, had guided my outlook, still later, back home, still today.
It was this commitment which shaped my sense of my identity as a citizen during the decades before the virtual tap had come on my shoulder. There was no formality about it; it was an awakening that had happened. It was sufficient that I had felt that tap, for me to know my mission. Things just seemed to happen, accordingly, but only, apparently, as it should be with any of our patriots who had heard a message such as that.
In the discussions of the decades which had followed that, there were only momentary formalities; it was simply a matter of knowing where one’s mission-orientation stood. I sometimes think of the man who spied for General George Washington, as the James Fenimore Cooper who, as a leader of the deployments of the Cincinnatus Society, described such a situation in his book, The Spy.
Naturally, with leading Generals such as Douglas MacArthur and Dwight Eisenhower, things moved differently, but I know now that the issue was the same. Naturally, as a practical matter, when measures had to be taken, that might have appeared to some onlookers as being a kind of conspiracy. That would be a mistaken assessment. If one meant “a conspiracy” in the dictionary’s sense of a common devotion, the word applies; but, if what is intended by that term, were to convey a sense of commitment to some secret association’s plot, the imputation were worse than false.
Study the case of the post-war role of such high-ranking veteran officers as MacArthur, Eisenhower, and Donovan of OSS, in their dealing with the subject of post-war U.S. relations with the Soviet Union. In that case, the intention popularly associated with “conspiracy” would be wildly misleading. What was operative, was not the idea of some special relationship with the leaders of the Soviet Union as such. What was operative, was a clear sense of the threat to the U.S.A. embodied in the British empire’s efforts to pit the United States against both the Soviet Union and China, and also, both against us, in return.
Take the recent case, in which a high-ranking—or, should I not say, “highly-rankling”—representative of the British diplomatic establishment, demanded that an attempted legislation of President Franklin Roosevelt’s Glass-Steagall law would be treated as a U.S. assault on the vital interests of the British empire’s Inter-Alpha group of imperial banking swindles. How does a true U.S. patriot react to such an existential strategic threat delivered against the U.S.A. from a high-rankling British imperial diplomat? The smell of something tantamount to treason rises from the perceived presence of any high-ranking U.S. official who does not act to shove Glass-Steagall down the adversary’s throat.
There was no U.S. conspiracy in this situation; there was a conflict of life-or-death implications between two different, opposing species.
We acknowledge the fact that Josef Stalin is long since deceased. There are relevant, undeniable, but unanswered questions about that death, particularly when you know what I know about figures such as not only Khrushchov, Yuri Andropov, and Mikhail Gorbachov. There is also the matter of the British foreign office intelligence service’s Laxenberg, Austria-based International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), combined with IIASA’s ties to the Club of Rome, and to Nikita Khrushchov’s connection to Bertrand Russell’s 1950s organization of World Parliamentarians for World Government, as to the Club of Rome, and to the World Wildlife Fund organizations organized as a plot between Britains’s Duke of Edinburgh and the late Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands. There is also the related matter of the kindred connections of former Soviet figures Yuri Andropov and to the Mikhail Gorbachov who still views himself as my personal adversary of himself and his friends in the British empire, since 1986, to the present day.
Then, think back to the joint efforts by U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower and France’s President Charles de Gaulle, to deal with the Soviet Union under Khrushchov. Think of General Douglas MacArthur’s role in President John F. Kennedy’s definitive opposition to a “prolonged land-war in Asia.” Recall how President Kennedy’s opposition to that war was overcome, fatally. Think about the coalition of converging forces from a number of nations who joined with me in crafting and presenting the SDI proposal which President Ronald Reagan then delivered to the Soviet Union in 1983, and also to Gorbachov, later.
The subject of our concerns in each of these instances, was not U.S. relations to the Soviet Union then, or Russia today. Rather, it was an existential, still continuing interest of the U.S.A. in the needed breaking up of the British Empire, before the British Empire carries out its former and present intention to destroy our United States, a destruction aided by a complicit President Barack Obama’s help for the British imperial cause today.
Which conspiracy!? Sometimes, as for me, what some call “conspiracy,” is merely knowing that one is human, that in a sense which is consistent with the scientific discoveries of V.I. Vernadsky.
To account for certain roles adopted by such as Generals MacArthur and Eisenhower in their time, needs no more detail than that one has relied upon nothing less than the witting instinct needed of an American patriot. In the case of our fully witting patriots, it is the recognition that the British empire—and the Britain of the Inter-Alpha (financial) group, is an empire currently representing an estimated 70% of the world’s financial power, in the strict meaning of the term. This fact has been the reflection of the fact of what has been our republic’s continuing mortal enemy since the February 1763 “Peace of Paris,” when the British maritime system of global monetary-financial power first became the empire of Lord Shelburne’s British East India Company.
To grasp the reality of the issue presently confronting us today, the following series of sets of historical facts are required.
The vast era of religious warfare in Europe, from the Habsburg expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1492, until the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, had taken its dark turn with the affair of a failed personality, England’s King Henry VIII. That Henry, much like the classical such cases of the Emperor Nero and Adolf Hitler, was plied by the secret monetarist power of a Venice represented by such as the Venetian spy turned marriage-counsellor, Francesco Zorzi, Cardinal Pole, and Thomas Cromwell, among others, in employing the divorces of Henry VIII from his parade of successive, frequently butchered wives (and of Sir Thomas More), in bestirring a state of religious warfare among three powers, England, Spain, France, and, also, among the German people.
The Venetian party’s most hated target, was the policies of that Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa whose influence had been crucial in fostering both the concept of the modern sovereign form of nation-state (Concordancia Catholica) and a systematic design of modern science (De Docta Ignorantia). It had been the same Cusa who had introduced a new conception of religious peace (De Pace Fidei), and had also introduced the policy of crossing the great oceans to establish the base for defeating the moral degeneration spreading in Europe by the Venice-centered forces behind the orchestration of the fall of Constantinople. It was Cusa’s policy which directly and explicitly brought about the trans-Atlantic crossing by Christopher Columbus. These voyages by Columbus, set into motion effects which continue to dominate the world’s political and related affairs to the present day.
Two so-called “world wars,” the long “Cold War,” and the creation of the so-called “Euro” policy launched by Margaret Thatcher, François Mitterrand, and George H.W. Bush, are all developments rooted in the horrors which dominated Europe and the trans-Atlantic region during the interval 1492-1648. Without a comprehension of that 1492-1648 process, no competent understanding of the principal developments in subsequent world-history were possible.
The case of Columbus’ adoption of the policies of trans-oceanic connections by Nicholas of Cusa has been proven to be crucial. The outstanding malefactor in the history of Europe from about A.D. 1000-1066, until the present time, has been the developments centered in the role of Venetian maritime monetarism and its role in the orchestration of religious warfare, to the present day.
Under Venetian manipulations, the financing of the chronic warfare of medieval Europe, had used the Italian Florentine banking system of the Fourteenth Century, such as the houses of Bardi and Peruzzi, for the financial orchestration of that warfare, but had used Venice’s own switch in monetary policy to bring about the triggering of the Fourteenth-century “New Dark Age” of mass-depopulation of Europe internally. Then, the impact of the realization of Cusa’s policy for trans-oceanic exploration, prompted a shift of Venetian policy, from a Mediterranean, to a trans-Atlantic orientation.
The second phase of the waves of religious warfare of 1492-1648 had prompted Venice to shift its strategic outlook to one of operating behind the mask of the Anglo-Dutch maritime interests, a shift of Venetian operations, from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic. Thus, Venetian monetarist power has shifted from its earlier, apparent emphasis on the Mediterranean, to that of a global, oceanic base centered in the rising power of the Atlantic-oriented maritime powers of the Netherlands and Britain, the same, continuing shift in power echoed by the concept of “geopolitical” warfare launched under that Prince of Wales Albert Edward who created that presently continuing period of geopolitical warfare launched, initially in alliance with Japan, against Russia and China, since 1894, and against U.S.A.-inspired, trans-continental railway development in Eurasia, since the 1890 ouster of Germany’s Chancellor Otto von Bismarck.
The ouster of Germany’s Bismarck, was the most crucial single event in the uncorking of a geopolitical form of strategies against continental Europe for the British empire’s intention of the entire span of generalized warfare throughout the planet since that turn in 1890. That British imperial policy, was set into motion by, first, the preparations for splitting Germany and Russia through Britain’s orchestration of the Austrian Empire’s new round of Balkan warfare, in preparation for what has become all of the pattern of warfare from around the planet as a whole since the British alliance with Japan against China and Russia, up to the present day this report is being written; contrary opinions are more or less childish substitutes for actually thinking.
Our own United States had, earlier, defeated the British Empire by means of the defeat of the British puppet known as the Confederacy. The British struck back with the replacement of the assassinated President William McKinley, under U.S. Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, the Ku Klux Klan’s Woodrow Wilson, Calvin Coolidge, and Herbert Hoover. We won our republic back under President Franklin Roosevelt, but lost our intended post-war continuation of the Franklin Roosevelt mission with the accession of Wall Street asset Harry S Truman. We lost our independence during the ten years of war in Indo-China which an assassinated President John F. Kennedy had prevented for as long as he remained alive.
From even long before the founding of the Massachusetts Bay colony as a chartered independent society, Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, the founder of a truly comprehensive basis for European modern science, had already launched the principles of the modern European nation-state and also those of the founding of a truly modern science. It had been Cusa who had called for the trans-oceanic outreach needed to rescue Europe from the threatened degradation which the Venetian monetarist role in the fall of Constantinople had successfully unleashed.
In brief, failures of the effort to develop a viable form of society in the Habsburg colonies of Spain and Portugal, turned out to have transferred the implementation of Nicholas of Cusa’s intended mission, from South and Central America, to what was to become our United States of America, as accomplished through the succession of the Mayflower arrival and the founding of the chartered as independent Massachusetts Bay society and that society’s system of credit associated with the Pine Tree shilling.
It had become the mission of our United States to bring together not only the sovereign nation-states of the Americas, but also the regions of continental Eurasia and Africa, as a united force to rid the planet of that monstrous evil of British imperial power which has been the leading threat to civilization world-wide since the Habsburg alliance with the British Empire during the 1812-1815 proceedings in Vienna.
Our mission on this account, has not been conquest, but the realization of the policy of the alliance of the U.S.A., France, Spain, and that Russia-backed League of Armed Neutrality, an alliance in fact whose intention had been to defeat the sordid ambitions of the then recently crafted shift of the traditional Roman empires and their Venetian outgrowth, by action of those nations which had brought about the temporary defeat of Lord Shelburne’s British empire in 1782.
Those among us who are actually qualified to be considered our leading U.S. citizens, operate on the model of our military victory over imperial British oppression in the events leading into the 1782 defeat of Cornwallis. The watch-word of our republic, and of others, too, has been, that “we must not allow the tyranny of the British (e.g., Atlantic-based) form of a new Venetian empire” to serve as the new guise for the continued efforts of the old Venetian empire of the Mediterranean to develop the Netherlands and London as the maritime bases of imperial, global monetarist forms of imperial power based in the Atlantic.
So, when President Franklin Roosevelt and such as Generals MacArthur, Eisenhower, and the O.S.S.’s Donovan opposed the British empire in the course of, and following the so-called “World War II,” they were not buying into Soviet Communism, as some misguided souls have proposed, but were defending forces in continental Europe which we must understand, still today, must never come again under the heel of British monetarist imperialism. We must always break up any effort to re-establish the kind of intellectually empyreal overreach which is typified by post-1763 Anglo-Dutch forms of Venetian-style monetarist imperialism.
Thus, when President Franklin Roosevelt’s death had put the Presidency of the U.S.A. in the hands of Winston Churchill’s puppet, Harry S Truman, the Truman administration, which was controlled by the same British Wall Street branch of the empire, that Truman legacy has been used in cases such as the puppet-President Barack Obama for the deploying of its American variety of Britain’s American political puppets. These puppets include such cases, as the exemplary Representative Barney Frank, Mistress Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and the failed personality of this puppet-President, Barack Obama, in what has been, in effect, an attempted final destruction of our United States on behalf of the British empire currently typified by the role the Inter-Alpha Group.
My statement of policy should be understood as being clear. That policy is, simply stated: no empire shall exist on this planet. That means: no more shall an imperial form of monetary-oligarchical power be tolerated on this planet. Only sovereign forms of nation-state republics, republics based on a credit system, not a monetary system, are to be encouraged. Any monetary system among nations is, axiomatically, an imperialist system.
The point of principle which I have just stated, must be explained in the clearest terms. That is: All monetarist systems should be discouraged; monetarist systems by nations with overreaching power, must be uprooted, to be replaced by a system of fixed-exchange-rate, sovereign credit mechanism, as had been intended by President Franklin Roosevelt at Bretton Woods.
That just-stated objective has a clearly definable, scientific basis in fact, a fact which needs to be understood in this part of the report.
It is perhaps well-known that my previously employed, Riemannian method of economic processes, had come, over recent decades, to depend crucially on additional conclusions which had been reached on the basis of relevant features of the work of Russian-Ukrainian scientist Vladimir I. Vernadsky. This has been crucial for my having defined the crucial role of “platforms,” rather than the habituated use of a poorly defined term, “infrastructure.”
Since the later work of Vernadsky had shifted to emphasis upon the foundations of science specific to the work and influence of Bernhard Riemann, this shift has been a crucially significant advance, but an advance which has been fully consistent with the approach to a science of physical economy which I developed over the course of the middle to late 1950s.
Among the most notable effects among what the work of Vernadsky has contributed to economic science, has been the crucial and systematic refutation of the hoax associated with the term “second law of thermodynamics.” Once we had weighed the effect of Vernadsky’s treatment of the interactive, principled categories of lithosphere, biosphere, and noösphere, we are able to represent far more clearly the evidence, that all known phase-spaces of the universe, exhibit a primary functional quality of anti-entropy. That is to say, that the universe is dominated, as is the history of the role of the action of life as such upon our Earth, by a process of qualitative advances, in all three domains, in the anti-entropy of the system of the known universe as a whole.
That is to say, that each of the three general phase-spaces, the lithosphere, biosphere, and noösphere, are each inherently anti-entropic domains, which proceed from relatively lower, to higher orders of the equivalent of “energy-flux density,” and to higher orders of organization of each domain. There are particular exceptions, of course, but the long-ranging effects are expressions of anti-entropic development in the direction of higher orders of what we term “energy-flux density.” Any effort to curb the promotion of anti-entropy which applied advances into such expressions as nuclear and thermonuclear development represent, tends to those actually fascist policies which are traced, formally, as so-called “creative destruction,” from Friedrich Nietzsche’s Thus Spake Zarathustra, to Werner Sombart, to Joseph Schumpeter, and to such characters as Barack Obama’s policy-shaper Larry Summers.
The promotion of windmills and solar panels as replacements for nuclear fission and thermonuclear fusion, is an implicitly fascist expression of the Nietzschean legacy of “creative destruction” of Nietzsche, Sombart, Schumpeter, Larry Summers, and British Prime Ministers such as Harold Wilson and Tony Blair.
Yes, there are expressions of what is referred to as “entropy” in these processes, as typified, for example, by the increase of the expressed human life-span under conditions of embodied scientific-technological progress in general human practice. The case of the wonderful role of chlorophyll should be examined for its role in demonstrating such a principle of anti-entropy, in our urgent need for combating such mass-murderous evils as solar panels and windmills as allegedly alternative sources of power.
Thus, it is necessary today, to think of the entire complex of the culture of some specific quality of development of the expressed anti-entropy of a society’s typical progress, as being equivalent to a characteristic level of functionally defined energy-flux density of the behavior of a society-culture considered in the large.
The result of such an approach to the relevant evidence, is the comparative classification of stages of overall physical-economic development of a national economy as being “relative planks” in level of characteristic potential as economies and in respect to their characteristic life-expectancies as, also, their relative productivities per-capita and per-square kilometer of area. I have used the comparison of the succession of developments from maritime culture, to riparian systems of the interior areas of continents and cultures, to the addition of generalized railway systems superseding much of the role which had been performed by navigable river-ways and canals, to magnetic-levitation systems, to nuclear-powered systems of rising energy-flux density.
At the same time, we must recognize the depletion of the quality of ores and other “raw materials,” a depletion which requires increases in applied energy-flux-density, if society is merely to do a bit better than break even, in terms of relative productivity for use of a relevant “ore” of comparable “natural resources.”
The implications of the design for NAWAPA, as superseding the specific accomplishments of a similar endeavor, the TVA, are a stunning demonstration of the principled character of upward leaps in quality of the planks which a national economy, or a relevant entire region of the planet represents, as the “plank” upon which a higher order of quality of human existence depends.
It is notable, that the integration of the effects of projects such as NAWAPA, in sundry entire regions of our planet, with the functional place of each type in the Earth’s habitable systems, defines these systems such as NAWAPA within the control of the upward evolving Earth’s biosphere. That is to emphasize, that once we consider the Earth’s own environment in terms of the protective systems which are integral to the preconditions for human life on Earth, we are already engaged in the challenge and practice of managing life on Earth as from the standpoint of the Solar system, rather than simply looking upward to the protective screens which make life on Earth feasible.
Continuing now with another aspect of our First Question, we come to the role of art, especially the modalities of Classical culture of language and its role in visual arts, music, poetry, and the shaping of the use of prose according to the precepts of Classical music and poetry. This touches upon the relationship of the functional role of architecture in construction and design of products, as coherent with graphic art, as the case of Filippo Brunelleschi’s use of the discovered principle of the funicular as being a physical principle (the catenary) employed by him as a solution for the otherwise practically impossible construction of the cupola of Florence’s Santa Maria del Fiore. The example of the relevance of William Empson’s Seven Types of Ambiguity, especially in the function of the form of irony classed as metaphor for adducing the principles of physical-scientific discoveries, illustrates the bridging of the gap between Classical artistic creativity as such and principles of practiced physical science as such.
That compels us to examine an additional feature of that ironical relationship of Classical art to physical science, to which we shall return later in this report, after we have focussed on the strategic implications of the effects of the British empire’s orchestration of a confrontation with the post-war Soviet Union which the truly patriotic leaders of our United States, such as President Franklin Roosevelt, Douglas MacArthur, and Dwight Eisenhower had fought to avoid, as in Presidents Eisenhower and France’s Charles de Gaulle in the attempted meeting with British asset and most troublesome Soviet official Khrushchov, and Douglas MacArthur’s role in President John F. Kennedy’s opposition to the launching of a U.S. protracted land war in Asia’s Indo-China. Khrushchov’s conduct in menacing President Kennedy in Vienna, in the so-called “missiles crisis” which followed that, and in Khrushchov’s partnership with British intelligence’s Bertrand Russell then, as earlier, were also highly relevant.1It had been Khrushchov, acting in concert with Winston Churchill who had dispatched four representatives to a London meeting of Russell’s World Parliamentarians for World Government, an organization of the same persuasion as IIASA. It was remarkable that the same Russell who had launched a campaign for a nuclear attack on the Soviet Union in September 1946, should have found a lover in Khrushchov. Actually, there was nothing which should have been surprising to anyone who was operating with a relevant “who is really who” chart on either of the two occasions, or Khrushchov’s obscene behavior against de Gaulle and Eisenhower, later. Note de Gaulle’s “Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals” on background, and also de Gaulle’s relationship to Germany’s Chancellor Konrad Adenauer. View these matters from the vantage-point of my own part, or from that of an older generation involved directly in these subject-matters of policy-making over the period preceding President Ronald Reagan’s proffer to the Soviet Union.
When it comes to matters of the class which I have presented thus far in this report, most of the world’s leading political or comparable figures today, but for a dwindling number of figures from the World War II or immediately following time, have been “virtually children” in respect to the crucial strategic issues of the period since President Franklin Roosevelt died. Their agendas tend to be as ignorant as virtual amateurs when it comes to the kind of matters I have posed since the outset of this present report.
To understand the essential notion of the self-interest of the United States presently, that interest is no different, essentially, than that of the time of the U.S. war of independence under the leadership of such as Benjamin Franklin and President George Washington. I mean that sense of the principled issue expressed by a certain continuity of development of a certain species of thinking since the Mayflower Compact and the original charter of Massachusetts under the leadership of the Winthrops and Mathers. That self-interest is fairly summarized as expressed in the common concern of both our own cause and that of the powers, such as France and Spain, or the League of Armed Neutrality, a combination which expressed the view of a reality which persists still, today, that the policy of the prudent nation-state must be that no single large imperial power shall ever be permitted to dominate the world in the form of an empire such as the present British empire.
That view is of crucial importance in understanding the continuing policy of the United States, under President Franklin Roosevelt, and under such heirs of his policy outlook as Generals Douglas MacArthur, Dwight Eisenhower, and Major-General “Wild Bill” Donovan. Under that view, there is no way in which the United States would ever tolerate a view of “a special relationship” with the British Empire in the form that empire exists according to the policies of a Winston Churchill, or the existence of an Inter-Alpha Group presently. The issue was not the policies of the Soviet Union, or China under the leadership of Mao Tse Tung; it was the issue of sustaining a powerful bloc of nations as opponents of the British Empire as that empire is expressed, since 1971, by what has become the Inter-Alpha Group still today.
The mere fact that the British empire exists in that form, is sufficient reason for curbing its expression of imperialist influence over such regions of the world as the de facto status of virtually the entire continent of Africa as a British colony-in-fact.
The question was never, really, whether or not we were going to have a cooperative relationship with Stalin’s Soviet Union or a Communist China. As long as the Soviet Union intended to be a cooperating partner of our U.S.A. against Churchill’s British empire, the United States would find it to be in our existential interest that the British empire be kept as a relatively weak power within the planet as a whole. As long as the United Kingdom remained merely a sovereign nation-state, we could wish them the best; as an imperial monetarist system, their influence was noxious, and must be effectively contained as President Eisenhower had done in the case of Anthony Eden’s Britain.
The same must be applied to any nation which pursues an effective imperialist policy of practice, such as that of the British monarchy still today: its influence must be contained. The brutal abuse of the nations and peoples of the continent of Africa, requires a vigorous U.S.A. policy of efficiently countering such aspects of British policy operating beyond the limits of the United Kingdom.
President Franklin Roosevelt’s strategic policy for the post-World War II planet, as for such cases as the Soviet Union and China, was just that. The policies of President Eisenhower and General Douglas MacArthur, were not “conspiracies,” but any fully fitting U.S. patriot’s understanding of the characteristics of a tolerable order among the respectively sovereign nations of the world.
The “test” which is to be applied on behalf of such a Franklin Roosevelt policy of restraining British imperialism, as distinct from the consideration of the proper rights of the United Kingdom, is the extent of the power which the empire-in-fact implicitly claims.
We must take into account the ugly truth that Harry S Truman was a political skunk of the pro-British imperialist quality in our national chicken-coop. He had been elevated to Vice-President because Wall Street had reacted to the successful Normandy landing by returning to the policies of the time when Wall Street had been the accomplice of the Adolf Hitler who had come to power as a protégé of both Wall Street and the Bank of England.
Until the Wehrmacht launch against France, Belgium, and the Netherlands, the British backed the support of Hitler’s ambition for the east of the French, Belgian, and Dutch borders, and Hitler had continued to be, essentially, a British puppet. But, when a fascist French government conspired with the Nazi regime to arrange the victory of relatively weaker German capabilities over what had been, “on the books,” the relatively superior quantities of Anglo-French forces, Churchill’s British empire screamed for President Franklin Roosevelt’s succor from the very same Hitler whom Britain and Wall Street had brought to power. That British alliance with the U.S.A. had persisted until shortly after the success of the Allied breakthrough into Normandy. Then Churchill’s government stabbed its U.S. ally in the back, with the assassinations of the German generals ready to surrender, the launching of the wretched Montgomery, and the Republicans who went over to Churchill against Roosevelt in the way which brought in Wall Street’s choice, Harry S Truman, as Roosevelt’s lurking Vice-President.
Thus, with the Allied breakthrough into France, the alliance of Wall Street with Britain and against the United States had kicked in. Truman suddenly become President with Franklin Roosevelt’s death, the Truman who had been forced on Franklin Roosevelt by the former fascists among Wall Street financiers, kicked in. With the death of F.D.R., U.S. policy switched from anti-imperialist, to a most energetically pro-imperialist renaissance of the British empire and Wall Street.
In reaction to this treacherous turn in policy, U.S. Generals such as MacArthur, Eisenhower, and Donovan, did nothing as much as respond to a well-informed, actually patriotic strategic response to the threat to the United States, among others, represented by the Wall Street-led impulse for virtually treasonous, pro-imperialist anglophilia. It was not a concoction, but a response embedded in the very bones of our constitutional republic. Men and women such as MacArthur, Eisenhower, and Donovan, as also President John F. Kennedy in his time, acted as patriots; those like Harry S Truman, did not.
To imagine that figures such as MacArthur and Eisenhower had “conspired” by way of supposedly “secret” arrangements, must be brushed aside as presumptions worse than irrelevant. The Generals were only being well-bred patriots who were reacting against actions contrary to the existential interests of our republic. No one who understands my U.S.A., should suspect any sort of actually secret influence. Do hungry (and sane) people eat their meals only when a secret conspiracy permits?