'' A life with economical prosperity but void of freedom.....is like slavery, being bound in chains of Gold and Silver. ''
-Darius Radmanesh
Thursday, 8 May 2014
'' WHAT DEFINES A RACIST? ''
'' To be proud of your race, heritage or roots dose not make you a racist.
To discriminate against another for being proud of theirs dose. ''
-Darius Radmanesh
'' THE TRAGEDY OF SOCIALISM ''
'' The tragedy of Socialism, is that at the beginning its deception over the masses is complete....however ....the realization of its deception after the fact is almost always instantaneous...and once Socialism has secured its roots with in the very fabric of any society.....it will require the suffering and sacrifices of many generations after, before it can ever be uprooted. ''
-Darius Radmanesh-
'' THE NATURAL CITIZENSHIP CLAUSE IN THE U.S CONSTITUTION ''
What many of my fellow Americans do not understand with regards to the Natural Citizenship clause in the U.S Constitution is that.....our founding fathers were addressing a matter which was by far much more important then only the physical aspects of a citizens place of Birth...but rather they in fact were also addressing the moral and emotional implications or aspects as well.....basically the question we Americans should be asking is not just rather or not a Candidates parents at the time of his or her birth were in fact natural citizens or even if the Candidate was in fact born on U.S soil or not...of course this is very important as I have pointed out in my last post...only we must also ask...in which country was the Candidate raised??...and why??....because the location or environment of a child's upbringing especially at a very young age....will ultimately be responsible in forming the mind set and the child's view on life and society when he or she reaches adulthood...in other words...who or what a child will be as an adult...will depend immensely on, in which culture or country he or she was raised and educated......so....we can conclude that even though a child may very well be born on U.S soil....depending on how young he or she were when they were taken and raised in a foreign country and exposed to a foreign culture...when that child has grown to adulthood..he or she may very well have very little or no recollection of there country of birth and so consequently would feel very little attachment or a sense of kinship with that country or its citizens......so....not only is the location of birth very important...but also even more vital and even more crucial is the country and culture which the child was raised and exposed to, and was most influenced by.
-Darius Radmanesh
'' THE GREAT AMERICAN CONSPIRACY! ''
When the duplicitous Hamilton was questioned as to why he helped draft the new Constitution, he guardedly replied:
'' My motives must remain in the depository of my own breast.''
-Hamilton-
Madison was but one member of the Philadelphia Convention who secretly resented the independence of America. James Madison is considered the "father" of the US Constitution. He was heavily influenced, as were many American politicians, by the philosophy of French aristocrat Baron de Montesquieu, who believed in rule by monarchs. Madison was also influenced by the writings of the British empiricist philosopher John Locke, who was himself "a major investor in the English slave-trade through the Royal Africa Company." Madison was vehemently opposed to state independence and pushed the Constitution to keep power well and truly out of the hands of ordinary Americans. He openly advocated an anti-republican ideology, and explained how the illiterate masses should be divided and controlled:
'' Where a majority are united by a common sentiment, and have an opportunity, the rights of the minor party become insecure. In a republican government the majority, if united, have always an opportunity. The only remedy is to enlarge the sphere and thereby divide the community into so great a number of interests and parties that, in the first place, a majority will not be likely, at the same moment, to have a common interest separate from that of the whole, or of the minority; and, in the second place, that, in case they should have such an interest, they may not be so apt to unite in the pursuit of it ''
-James Madison -
Wednesday, 7 May 2014
'' THE TRUTH BEHIND CAPITALISM AND ITS FOUNDER ADAM SMITH ''
The implementation of our current Capitalist/Crony Capitalistic system was in fact Solly the handy work of non other then perhaps the most vial and despicable character, whom unfortunately has been given credit as one our great nations founding fathers...Alexander Hamilton....which incidentally one of our countries greatest fathers ( My personal favorite ) whom was second only to Washington...Thomas Jefferson, detested and mistrusted Hamilton fiercely, and so did Thomas Pain the truly genius author of the Common Sense papers.....Hamilton was a man who was both corrupt and immoral, who had a vision of establishing in America, a powerful Central government with maximal power and authority....hence why he very cunningly did away with our countries first true document the Articles Of Confederation, which gave total control and power to the states rather then the feral government.....and replaced it with our countries current document....the United states Constitution...
Yes I know I know...that the reasoning which had been given for the drafting and adapting of the new document and replacing it instead of the Articles, was that under the old document the government had very little authority to raise funds or tax etc....I am fully aware of this...however Thomas Jefferson, during his Kentucky Resolutions speech presented a number of proposals which would have solved this issue with out having to do away with the Articles...however Hamilton, having other motives and attentions would hear nothing of it...therefor he sat about drafting the new document and while Jefferson, was away as Ambassador to France...he very quickly and quietly pushed for the new document to be ratified, which it was....this was despite of fierce apposition coming from individuals such as Pain, Jefferson and Madison...whom very clearly understood what Hamilton was about.....i n any event like I said Im sure you will find these articles very interesting and enlighten....
'' Adam Smith A Socialist ''
A few statements made by Adam Smith, promoting the influance of government over a countries economy:
' Whenever there is great property, there is great inequality. For one very rich man there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many. … The acquisition of valuable and extensive property, therefore necessarily requires the establishment of civil government. ''
-Adam Smith -
"Servants, labourers and workmen of different kinds, make up the far greater part of every great political society. But what improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconvenience to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, cloathed and lodged." - Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 8
-Adam Smith -
'' Market socialism ''
Market socialism is distinguished from models of mixed economies, because unlike the mixed economy, models of market socialism are complete and self-regulating systems.[4] Market socialism is also contrasted with social democratic policies implemented within capitalist market economies: while social democracy aims to achieve greater economic stability and equality through policy measures such as taxes, subsidies and social welfare programs, market socialism aims to achieve similar goals through changing patterns of enterprise ownership and management.[
Early models of market socialism have their roots in the works of Adam Smith and the theories of classical economics, consisting of proposals for cooperative enterprises operating in a free-market economy, with the aim of eliminating exploitation, allowing individuals to receive the full product of their labor, and to remove the market-distorting effects of concentrating ownership and wealth in private owners.[6] Among early advocates of market socialism were Ricardian socialist economists and mutualism.
'' The Real Hamilton ''
Hamilton was the intellectual leader of the group of men at the time of the founding who wanted to import the system of British mercantilism and imperialistic government to America. As long as they were on the paying side of British mercantilism and imperialism, they opposed it and even fought a revolution against it. But being on the collecting side was altogether different. It's good to be the king, as Mel Brooks might say.
It was Hamilton who coined the phrase "The American System" to describe his economic policy of corporate welfare, protectionist tariffs, central banking, and a large public debt, even though his political descendants, the Whig Party of Henry Clay, popularized the slogan. He was not well schooled in the economics of his day, as is argued by such writers as John Steele Gordon. Unlike Jefferson, who had read, understood, and supported the free-market economic ideas of Adam Smith, David Ricardo, John Baptiste Say (whom Jefferson invited to join the faculty of the University of Virginia), Richard Cantillon, and Turgot (a bust of whom still sits in the entrance to Monticello), Hamilton either ignored or was completely unaware of these ideas. Instead, he repeated the mercantilist myths and superstitions that had been concocted by apologists for the British mercantilist state, such as Sir James Steuart.
Hamilton championed the cause of a large public debt — which he called "a public blessing" — not to establish the credit of the US government or to finance any particular public works projects but for the Machiavellian idea of tying the interests of the more affluent to the state: being government bondholders, they would, he believed, then support all of his grandiose plans for heavy taxation and a government much larger than what was called for in the Constitution. He was right. They, along with Wall Street investment bankers who have marketed the government's bonds, have always provided effective political support for bigger government and higher taxes. That is why Wall Street investment bankers were first in line for a bailout, administered by one of their fellow investment bankers, Treasury Secretary Paulson.
Hamilton argued for a large standing army not because he feared an invasion by France or England, but because he understood that the European monarchs had used such armies to intimidate their own citizens when it came to tax collection. Evidence of this is the fact that Hamilton personally led some 15,000 conscripts into Western Pennsylvania (with George Washington) to attempt to quell the famous Whiskey Rebellion. He was eventually put in charge of the entire expedition, and rounded up two dozen tax protesters, every one of whom he wanted to hang. They were all pardoned by George Washington, however, to Hamilton's everlasting regret.
In a publication entitled "A History of Central Banking in America" the Fed proudly labels Hamilton as its founding father, boasting that he even spoke just like a contemporary Fed chairman. The First Bank of the United States, which was opposed by Jefferson and Madison, created 72 percent inflation in its first five years of operation, as Murray Rothbard wrote in A History of Money and Banking in the United States. It was not rechartered in 1811, but was resurrected by Congress in 1817, after which it created America's first boom-and-bust cycle, which led to the Panic of 1819, the title of another of Rothbard's great works on American economic history.
After years of generating political corruption and economic instability, Hamilton's bank finally came to an end by the early 1840s, thanks to President Andrew Jackson. This led to the twenty-year "free banking" era. Hamiltonian central banking was resurrected once again in the 1860s with the National Currency Acts. This is an important reason why some historians have labeled the postwar decades as a period of "Hamiltonian hegemony."
When Anna Schwartz, Michael Bordo, and Peter Rappaport evaluated this precursor to the Fed in an academic publication, they concluded that it was characterized by "monetary and cyclical instability, four banking panics, frequent stock market crashes, and other financial disturbances" (see their paper in Claudia Goldin, ed., Strategic Factors in Nineteenth-Century Economic Growth). Naturally, the government's response to all of this economic panic and instability caused by centralized banking was to create an even more centralized banking system with the Federal Reserve Act.
Hamilton is perhaps best known among economists for his Report on Manufactures. In his 1905 biography of Hamilton, William Graham Sumner wrote that Hamilton's report advocated "the old system of mercantilism of the English school, turned around and adjusted to the situation of the United States." Thomas Jefferson also wrote that Hamilton's "schemes" for protectionism, corporate welfare, and central banking were "the means by which the corrupt British system of government could be introduced into the United States." They were right.
Hamilton's reputation as having had great expertise in economics and finance has been greatly exaggerated, wrote Sumner, who also wrote that Hamilton's economic thinking was marred by "confusion and contradiction" and that Hamilton was "befogged in the mists of mercantilism." Unfortunately for us, all of Hamilton's bad ideas "proved a welcome arsenal to the politicians" who succeeded him, noted Sumner.
At the constitutional convention Hamilton proposed a permanent president who would appoint all the governors of the states and would have veto power over all state legislation. His opponents correctly interpreted this as advocating a monarchy and, worse yet, a monarchy based on mercantilism. The reason for consolidating all political power first in the central government, and then in the hands of one man, the permanent president, was so that an American mercantilist empire could be centrally planned and controlled without any dissenters, such as tax protestors or free traders who resided in the various states. Hamilton (and his political heirs) understood that forced national uniformity is the only way in which such a central-planning scheme could work. The socialists of the 20th century understood this as well.
Hamiltonian mercantilism is essentially the economic and political system that Americans have lived under for several generations now: a king-like president who rules through "executive orders" and disregards any and all constitutional constraints on his powers; state governments that are mere puppets of the central government; corporate welfare run amok, especially in light of the most recent outrage, the Wall Street Plutocrat Bailout Bill; a $10 trillion national debt ($70 trillion if one counts the government's unfunded liabilities); a perpetual boom-and-bust cycle caused by the Wizard of Oz–like central planners at the Fed; constant military aggression around the world that only seems to benefit defense contractors and other beneficiaries of the warfare state; and more than half of the population bribed with subsidies of every kind imaginable to support the never-ending growth of the state. This is Hamilton's curse on America — a curse that must be exorcized if there is to be any hope of resurrecting American freedom and prosperity.
'' Difference Between Capitalism and Free Markets ''
When people discuss the characteristics and possible reforms of capitalism and free markets, they have a tendency to use these two terms interchangeably. In reality the two are quite different things. Let me explain.
Capitalism is defined as a system of ownership of the means of production, specifically the non-labor means of production, which includes factories, tools, equipment, etc. In a capitalistic organization, these means of production are privately owned. Labor is paid a wage for their efforts, and any profits go to the owners of the capital.
A free market system is simply defined as one in which everyone is able to freely sell their goods and services with prices determined by supply and demand.
It is possible to have capitalism without a free market in specific situations. Examples include organizations that have an effective monopoly on a market – they can prevent competition from entering the market and can set prices to maximize their own profits instead of being restricted by supply and demand. Another example is the awarding of government no-bid contracts to capitalistic organizations.
It is also possible to have a free market that does not involve capitalism. Examples include the traditional farmers market or co-ops competing with each other. In both cases, the clear distinction between owners and workers that is characteristic of capitalism is gone, yet there is still a free market competition that sets prices based on supply and demand.
It’s important to keep these distinctions in mind when discussing future economic possibilities. It is possible to reform some of the major problems of capitalism while maintaining the benefits of a healthy free market, and vice versa.
'' Ed Miliband should reclaim Adam Smith for the left ''
by Rob Williams
Last year in his speech to the Labour conference in Manchester, Ed Miliband laid claim to rebuilding Britain as One Nation. The Labour leader cited as his inspiration a former Conservative Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli, who made a famous speech on One Nation Conservatism in Manchester’s Free Trade Hall which, reflecting the spirit of the times, is now a luxury hotel. Miliband has hit the nail on the head on a number of big ideas. He understands that the squeezed middle, as well as the low paid, are feeling increasingly insecure, whatever claims of economic recovery there may be.
So this year, Miliband should go further. It is time for the left to reclaim the economist Adam Smith as one of their own. Adam Smith, of course, is usually considered to be the founding father of right-wing free market economics. In the UK, the Adam Smith Institute is reliably one of the most outrageous think tanks, an outrider of Thatcherism before it was invented.
Adam Smith was born in Scotland in 1723, and is usually seen as the founder of modern economics. The usual modern conservative’s view of Adam Smith is similar to the average 1970s socialist’s approach to Karl Marx. They probably haven’t read any of his work, but simply regurgitate someone else’s description of his writings. There is a persuasive argument that the Right have stolen Adam Smith’s identity in an audacious coup.
An increasing number of thinkers believe that Smith was a radical critic of the establishment of his day. They argue that, for Smith, prosperity was measured by a rise in living standards for the working class which sets Smith apart from other free market advocates who believed a low-wage economy was the key to economic development. Smith believed that economic policy should be secondary to moral and ethical concerns such as equality.
In his book, Chomsky on Miseducation, Noam Chomsky said,: “It’s quite remarkable to trace the evolution of values from a pre-capitalist thinker like Adam Smith, with his stress on sympathy and the goal of perfect equality and the basic human right to creative work, to contrast that and move on to the present to those who laud the new spirit of the age, sometimes rather shamelessly invoking Adam Smith’s name.”
In attacking the damage that growing inequality is doing to the country, Miliband can quote Smith directly,
“For one very rich man there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many.”
Adam Smith was certainly not anti capitalist, but he did have a through mistrust of capitalists. In The Wealth of Nations he states that, “whenever possible they will collude to corner the market, to raise prices, and to deceive the public.”
The left understands that an unequal society is not a happy one, despite George Osborne’s claims of a recovery. Adam Smith understood this in The Wealth of Nations:
“Servants, labourers and workmen of different kinds, make up the far greater part of every great political society. But what improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconvenience to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed and lodged.”
Ed Miliband needs to make the unequivocal case for public investment. New homes, better hospitals, improved transport links, all can, and must be developed to wean the economy away from a reliance on consumer debt to pay for goods manufactured overseas. Miliband can be sure that Smith would have supported this, too:
“The third and last duty of the sovereign or commonwealth is that of erecting and maintaining those public institutions and those public works, which, though they may be in the highest degree advantageous to a great society, are, however, of such a nature that the profit could never repay the expense to any individual or small number of individuals, and which it therefore cannot be expected that any individual or small number of individuals should erect or maintain.”
As the government continues to sell off and privatise public services that even Mrs Thatcher left alone, we really do need a new way of thinking. Challenging times need big ideas and Miliband needs to be bold. Gordon Brown attempted to place Smith’s work in the progressive tradition. Oxford academic, and author of Adam Smith, Radical and Egalitarian: An Interpretation for the 21st Century Iain MacLean, suggests that, if we take Adam Smith’s work as a whole, he can only be classed as an egalitarian and left-wing philosopher.
It is time for Ed Miliband to welcome Adam Smith back as a man on the left.
Robert Williams works in public affairs and as a journalist
'' THE ACTORS ON THE REVOLUTIONARY STAGE '' ( Capitalists & The Bolshevik Revolution )
I am in sympathy with the Soviet form of government as that best suited for the Russian people...
Letter to President Woodrow Wilson (October 17, 1918) from William Lawrence Saunders, chairman, Ingersoll-Rand Corp.; director, American International Corp.; and deputy chairman, Federal Reserve Bank of New York
The frontispiece in this book was drawn by cartoonist Robert Minor in 1911 for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Minor was a talented artist and writer who doubled as a Bolshevik revolutionary, got himself arrested in Russia in 1915 for alleged subversion, and was later bank-rolled by prominent Wall Street financiers. Minor's cartoon portrays a bearded, beaming Karl Marx standing in Wall Street with Socialism tucked under his arm and accepting the congratulations of financial luminaries J.P. Morgan, Morgan partner George W. Perkins, a smug John D. Rockefeller, John D. Ryan of National City Bank, and Teddy Roosevelt — prominently identified by his famous teeth — in the background. Wall Street is decorated by Red flags. The cheering crowd and the airborne hats suggest that Karl Marx must have been a fairly popular sort of fellow in the New York financial district.
Was Robert Minor dreaming? On the contrary, we shall see that Minor was on firm ground in depicting an enthusiastic alliance of Wall Street and Marxist socialism. The characters in Minor's cartoon — Karl Marx (symbolizing the future revolutionaries Lenin and Trotsky), J. P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller — and indeed Robert Minor himself, are also prominent characters in this book.
The contradictions suggested by Minor's cartoon have been brushed under the rug of history because they do not fit the accepted conceptual spectrum of political left and political right. Bolsheviks are at the left end of the political spectrum and Wall Street financiers are at the right end; therefore, we implicitly reason, the two groups have nothing in common and any alliance between the two is absurd. Factors contrary to this neat conceptual arrangement are usually rejected as bizarre observations or unfortunate errors. Modern history possesses such a built-in duality and certainly if too many uncomfortable facts have been rejected and brushed under the rug, it is an inaccurate history.
On the other hand, it may be observed that both the extreme right and the extreme left of the conventional political spectrum are absolutely collectivist. The national socialist (for example, the fascist) and the international socialist (for example, the Communist) both recommend totalitarian politico-economic systems based on naked, unfettered political power and individual coercion. Both systems require monopoly control of society. While monopoly control of industries was once the objective of J. P. Morgan and J. D. Rockefeller, by the late nineteenth century the inner sanctums of Wall Street understood that the most efficient way to gain an unchallenged monopoly was to "go political" and make society go to work for the monopolists — under the name of the public good and the public interest. This strategy was detailed in 1906 by Frederick C. Howe in his Confessions of a Monopolist.1 Howe, by the way, is also a figure in the story of the Bolshevik Revolution.
Therefore, an alternative conceptual packaging of political ideas and politico-economic systems would be that of ranking the degree of individual freedom versus the degree of centralized political control. Under such an ordering the corporate welfare state and socialism are at the same end of the spectrum. Hence we see that attempts at monopoly control of society can have different labels while owning common features.
Consequently, one barrier to mature understanding of recent history is the notion that all capitalists are the bitter and unswerving enemies of all Marxists and socialists. This erroneous idea originated with Karl Marx and was undoubtedly useful to his purposes. In fact, the idea is nonsense. There has been a continuing, albeit concealed, alliance between international political capitalists and international revolutionary socialists — to their mutual benefit. This alliance has gone unobserved largely because historians — with a few notable exceptions — have an unconscious Marxian bias and are thus locked into the impossibility of any such alliance existing. The open-minded reader should bear two clues in mind:
monopoly capitalists are the bitter enemies of laissez-faire entrepreneurs; and, given the weaknesses of socialist central planning, the totalitarian socialist state is a perfect captive market for monopoly capitalists, if an alliance can be made with the socialist powerbrokers. Suppose — and it is only hypothesis at this point — that American monopoly capitalists were able to reduce a planned socialist Russia to the status of a captive technical colony? Would not this be the logical twentieth-century internationalist extension of the Morgan railroad monopolies and the Rockefeller petroleum trust of the late nineteenth century?
Apart from Gabriel Kolko, Murray Rothbard, and the revisionists, historians have not been alert for such a combination of events. Historical reporting, with rare exceptions, has been forced into a dichotomy of capitalists versus socialists. George Kennan's monumental and readable study of the Russian Revolution consistently maintains this fiction of a Wall Street-Bolshevik dichotomy.2 Russia Leaves the War has a single incidental reference to the J.P. Morgan firm and no reference at all to Guaranty Trust Company. Yet both organizations are prominently mentioned in the State Department files, to which frequent reference is made in this book, and both are part of the core of the evidence presented here. Neither self-admitted "Bolshevik banker" Olof Aschberg nor Nya Banken in Stockholm is mentioned in Kennan yet both were central to Bolshevik funding. Moreover, in minor yet crucial circumstances, at least crucial for our argument, Kennan is factually in error.
For example, Kennan cites Federal Reserve Bank director William Boyce Thompson as leaving Russia on November 27, 1917. This departure date would make it physically impossible for Thompson to be in Petrograd on December 2, 1917, to transmit a cable request for $1 million to Morgan in New York. Thompson in fact left Petrograd on December 4, 1918, two days after sending the cable to New York. Then again, Kennan states that on November 30, 1917, Trotsky delivered a speech before the Petrograd Soviet in which he observed, "Today I had here in the Smolny Institute two Americans closely connected with American Capitalist elements "According to Kennan, it "is difficult to imagine" who these two Americans "could have been, if not Robins and Gumberg." But in [act Alexander Gumberg was Russian, not American. Further, as Thompson was still in Russia on November 30, 1917, then the two Americans who visited Trotsky were more than likely Raymond Robins, a mining promoter turned do-gooder, and Thompson, of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
The Bolshevization of Wall Street was known among well informed circles as early as 1919. The financial journalist Barron recorded a conversation with oil magnate E. H. Doheny in 1919 and specifically named three prominent financiers, William Boyce Thompson, Thomas Lamont and Charles R. Crane:
Aboard S.S. Aquitania, Friday Evening, February 1, 1919.
Spent the evening with the Dohenys in their suite. Mr. Doheny said: If you believe in democracy you cannot believe in Socialism. Socialism is the poison that destroys democracy. Democracy means opportunity for all. Socialism holds out the hope that a man can quit work and be better off. Bolshevism is the true fruit of socialism and if you will read the interesting testimony before the Senate Committee about the middle of January that showed up all these pacifists and peace-makers as German sympathizers, Socialists, and Bolsheviks, you will see that a majority of the college professors in the United States are teaching socialism and Bolshevism and that fifty-two college professors were on so-called peace committees in 1914. President Eliot of Harvard is teaching Bolshevism.
The worst Bolshevists in the United States are not only college professors, of whom President Wilson is one, but capitalists and the wives of capitalists and neither seem to know what they are talking about. William Boyce Thompson is teaching Bolshevism and he may yet convert Lamont of J.P. Morgan & Company. Vanderlip is a Bolshevist, so is Charles R. Crane. Many women are joining the movement and neither they, nor their husbands, know what it is, or what it leads to. Henry Ford is another and so are most of those one hundred historians Wilson took abroad with him in the foolish idea that history can teach youth proper demarcations of races, peoples, and nations geographically.3
In brief, this is a story of the Bolshevik Revolution and its aftermath, but a story that departs from the usual conceptual straitjacket approach of capitalists versus Communists. Our story postulates a partnership between international monopoly capitalism and international revolutionary socialism for their mutual benefit. The final human cost of this alliance has fallen upon the shoulders of the individual Russian and the individual American. Entrepreneurship has been brought into disrepute and the world has been propelled toward inefficient socialist planning as a result of these monopoly maneuverings in the world of politics and revolution.
This is also a story reflecting the betrayal of the Russian Revolution. The tsars and their corrupt political system were ejected only to be replaced by the new powerbrokers of another corrupt political system. Where the United States could have exerted its dominant influence to bring about a free Russia it truckled to the ambitions of a few Wall Street financiers who, for their own purposes, could accept a centralized tsarist Russia or a centralized Marxist Russia but not a decentralized free Russia. And the reasons for these assertions will unfold as we develop the underlying and, so far, untold history of the Russian Revolution and its aftermath
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)