Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

Russia

Vladimir Putin’s basic disagreement with the West

Vladimir Putin’s basic view has been expressed so many times, in so many different contexts, and it’s always the same: that the only people who have a sovereign right to any land, are the people who live on that land — nobody who lives outside that land does.

Eric Zuesse

Published

on

5,875 Views
Russian President Vladimir Putin

In other words, Putin’s basic view is a repudiation — a total rejection — of the very concept of empireit’s a rejection of the right of foreigners to control any country, anywhere, anytime. Residence is determinative. According to Putin, the only justification that a country can ever have for invading another country is if and when that invasion is in direct and immediate response to that other country’s having invaded their land — purely defensive. Other than this, no invasion of any land by foreigners is acceptable.

Support The Duran – Browse our Shop >>

The U.S. and its allies endorse empires — endorse conquest. This view was first extensively promoted during 1877-1902 by the founder of the Rhodes Trust, Cecil Rhodes, a self-avowed racist who passionately advocated that all “races” be subordinated to “the first race”: the British. However, he was willing that, if necessary, this empire would fly the U.S. flag instead of the English flag.

In more recent times, George Soros has championed this view, but giving different (non-racialist) words to it. Soros has stated his view of this important matter in mainly two places, and both times he has opposed national sovereignty and asserted instead “the people’s sovereignty” as being something that can justify a foreign invasion into a country by “the international community” in order to protect “the people’s sovereignty” there. He argues for a (what he claims would be) beneficent empire of “the international community,” which fights around the world ‘protecting’ “the people’s sovereignty,” wherever and whenever “the international community” decides that the local government is violating “the people’s sovereignty.”

That’s the basic difference between their views — Putin asserting no foreigner has any right to invade, versus Soros asserting that “the international community” has an obligation to invade (to protect “the people’s sovereignty” there), whenever and wherever it decides to invade and gives some ‘reason’ (truthful or not) ‘justifying’ this ‘protection’ of ‘the people’s sovereignty’, over that land.

At least two separate academic studies have been done (both by Americans) of what Soros’s proposal comes down to in actual practice; and both conclude that what it does in actual practice is to polarize and maybe ultimately destroy (make irrelevant) the U.N., and to enhance international imperialism. (Neither of the two studies connects the issue to the international armaments business, which relies almost exclusively upon imperialism in order to grow its profits — scholars try to avoid motivation and present purely statutory analyses, so as to be inoffensive to extremely wealthy people, who might have non-statutory motives and who heavily endow scholarly institutions in order to have control over the careers of their relevant ‘experts’.)

So, first: here will be statements by Soros, in which he defends his view; and then will be statements by the two scholarly studies finding that Soros’s view is actually just a veiled support for might-makes-right international imperialism — grabbing of one country by other countries. Then, the original systematic statement of the modern imperialist view will be presented, from Rhodes himself, along with sympathetic interpretation of it by Rhodes’s transcriber and close personal friend, W.T. Stead.

And, to close here, will be presented the cardinal issue alleged to be the basis for most of the economic sanctions against Russia and for virtually all of NATO’s war games in preparation for a possible ‘defensive’ invasion of Russia: Russia’s reintegrating the briefly Ukrainian land Crimea back into Russia. The West calls that a ‘seizure’ and an ‘invasion,’ and Russia calls it not anything like that, and not even a topic that’s relevant in international law, but purely a matter that the residents of Crimea have the right to decide, on their own — relevant only to law within nations not between nations.

So, that issue will be included as a practical application of this basic ideological difference regarding the good or evil of imperialism. Closing this cardinal issue will be Mr. Soros’s personal funding and propagandizing for this coup that he had helped to fund in Ukraine.

Then a PS will be added at the very end, to indicate the deep historical roots that Putin’s rejection of the acceptability of empire has, going back at least as far as the Russia of 1948, when Albert Einstein — a champion of world government as being the only means to avoid a third world war — debated (but not really) against that view, in the February 1948 issue of Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. (He debated there not as a conservative, such as Rhodes; nor as a liberal, such as Soros; but as a progressive, whose overriding concern was to prevent a World War III, and whose aim was to disarm all nations and to have all military armaments transferred to a democratic global government.)

——

SOROS

George Soros, 2003 The Bubble of American Supremacy.

p. 100: “Sovereignty is a historic[al] concept born of an era when society consisted of rulers and subjects, not citizens. It became the cornerstone of international relations with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, after thirty years of religious wars.”

p. 101: “Anachronistic or not, sovereignty remains the basis of the current international order.”

p. 102: “The principle of sovereignty needs to be reconsidered. Sovereignty belongs to the people: the people are supposed to delegate it to the government through the electoral process. But not all governments are democratically elected and even democratic governments may abuse the authority thus entrusted to them. If the abuses of power are severe enough and the people are deprived of opportunities to correct them, outside interference is justified. International intervention is often the only lifeline available to the oppressed.”

p. 112: “I have no right to call the promotion of open societies the Soros Doctrine. The idea was endorsed in a little-known document, the Warsaw Declaration. [“The Warsaw Declaration Toward a Community of Democracies”, 27 June 2000, listing 16 human “rights” and the obligations of governments to fill them] This document proclaimed that it is in the interest of all democratic countries taken as a group to foster the development of democracy in all other countries. The declaration was signed by 107 states (a greater number than the number of democracies in the world), including the United States, at a conference held in Warsaw in 2000. The conference was sponsored by Madeleine Albright’s State Department.”

p. 118: “The Community of Democracies established by the Warsaw Declaration in 2000 could offer a source of legitimacy for intervening in the internal affairs of nondemocratic states.”

p. 146: “There is another major area where the principle of the people’s sovereignty has important implications: revenues from the exploitation of natural resources. … The natural resources of a country ought to belong to the people, but the rulers often exploit the resources for their own personal benefit. This violates the sovereignty of the people and calls for external intervention.”

p. 167: “To regain the identity it enjoyed during the Cold War, the United States ought to become the leader of a community of democracies and change its behavior accordingly. It ought to lead by building genuine partnerships and abiding by the rules that it seeks to impose on others. Since peaceful cooperative efforts do not necessarily succeed, the United States would still need to retain its military might, but this strength would serve to protect a just world order and would be seen as such by the rest of the world. This vision goes against the grain of the Bush administration’s ideology, which I have described as a crude form of social Darwinism: the survival of the fittest as determined by competition, not cooperation.”

——

https://foreignpolicy.com/

http://archive.is/xx6bb

http://web.archive.org/web/

The People’s Sovereignty

How a new twist on an old idea can protect the world’s most vulnerable populations.

BY GEORGE SOROS | OCTOBER 28, 2009, 6:33 PM

Sovereignty is an anachronistic concept originating in bygone times when society consisted of rulers and subjects, not citizens. It became the cornerstone of international relations with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. During the French Revolution, the king was overthrown and the people assumed sovereignty. But a nationalist concept of sovereignty soon superseded the dynastic version. Today, though not all nation-states are democratically accountable to their citizens, the principle of sovereignty stands in the way of outside intervention in the internal affairs of nation-states.

But true sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments. If governments abuse the authority entrusted to them and citizens have no opportunity to correct such abuses, outside interference is justified. By specifying that sovereignty is based on the people, the international community can penetrate nation-states’ borders to protect the rights of citizens. In particular, the principle of the people’s sovereignty can help solve two modern challenges: the obstacles to delivering aid effectively to sovereign states, and the obstacles to global collective action dealing with states experiencing internal conflict.

… the rulers of a sovereign state have a responsibility to protect the state’s citizens. When they fail to do so, the responsibility is transferred to the international community. Global attention is often the only lifeline available to the oppressed.

——

http://scholarship.law.unc.

NORTH CAROLINA JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND COMMERCIAL REGULATION

Volume 40, Number 1 (Fall 2014)

“No Responsibility for the Responsibility to Protect: How Powerful States Abuse the Doctrine, and Why Misuse Will Lead to Disuse”

Brighton Haslett

http://scholarship.law.unc.

I. Introduction

… the decision whether or not to intervene and the way in which intervention itself is carried out do not truly turn on humanitarian concerns, but rather are guided by strategic and economic interests. While the doctrine does not preclude weighing of strategic and economic interests,12 it does require that the primary purpose of intervention be to end human suffering.1 …

VI. Conclusion

The inconsistent application of responsibility-to-protect principles in the thirteen years since its inception shows that responsibility-to-protect intervention does not, in fact, turn on humanitarian principles, but on some combination of power dynamics, political strategy, and economic gain.

In the past, the doctrine has been abused and misapplied.354 Unjustified attacks have been launched in violation of the U.N. Charter; interventions justified by the responsibility to protect at the outset have been executed in violation of the principles underlying the doctrine; and situations warranting international action have been ignored due to the economic and strategic interests of states with the power to prevent intervention.355

——

https://sites.temple.edu/

TEMPLE INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW JOURNAL

Volume 26, Number 2 (Fall 2012)

Responsibility to Protect: Moral Triumph or Gateway to Allowing Powerful States to Invade Weaker States in Violation of the U.N. Charter?”

Jamie Herron

https://sites.temple.edu/

[In 2011,] NATO forces helped the rebel Libyan army overthrow Colonel Muammar Gadhafi’s regime.13  This Note will argue that, as shown by the intervention in Libya, the standard that the [U.N.] General Assembly created to determine when humanitarian interventions are authorized is too flexible, allowing states to invade sovereign nations under the pretext that the invasion is a humanitarian intervention.

——

RHODES

https://ia802706.us.archive.

www.archive.org/details/

THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF CECIL JOHN RHODES WITH ELUCIDATORY NOTES TO WHICH ARE ADDED SOME CHAPTERS DESCRIBING THE POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS IDEAS OF THE TESTATOR, Edited by W.T. Stead, 1902

p. 52: Mr. Rhodes’s last Will and Testament reveals him to the world as the first distinguished British statesman whose Imperialism was that of Race and not that of Empire. The one specific object defined in the Will as that to which his wealth is to be applied proclaims with the simple eloquence of a deed that Mr. Rhodes was colour-blind between the British Empire and the American Republic. His fatherland, like that of the poet Arndt, is coterminous with the use of the tongue of his native land. In his Will he aimed at making Oxford University the educational centre of the English-speaking race. He did this of set purpose, and in providing the funds necessary for the achievement of this great idea he specifically prescribed that every American State and Territory shall share with the British Colonies in his patriotic benefaction.

Once every year “Founder’s Day” will be celebrated at Oxford; and not at Oxford only, but wherever on the broad world’s surface half-a-dozen old “Rhodes scholars” come together they will celebrate the great ideal of Cecil Rhodes the first of modern statesmen to grasp the sublime conception of the essential unity of the race. Thirty years hereafter there will be between two and three thousand men in the prime of life scattered all over the world, each one of whom will have had impressed upon his mind in the most susceptible period of his life the dream of the Founder. It is, therefore, well to put on record in accessible form all available evidence as to the nature of his dream. What manner of man was this Cecil Rhodes.

p. 59 [“His Writings” at around 1877] “I contend that we are the first race in the world, and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race. I contend that every acre added to our territory means the birth of more of the English race who otherwise would not be brought into existence. Added to this, the absorption of the greater portion of the world under our rule simply means the end of all wars. … [He then discusses his main goals:] The furtherance of the British Empire, for the bringing of the whole uncivilised world under British rule, for the recovery of the United States, for the making the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire.

What a dream! but yet it is probable. It is possible. … I once heard it argued, so low have we fallen in my own college [Oxford], I am sorry to own it, by Englishmen, that it was a good thing for us that we have lost the United States. There are some subjects on which there can be no argument, and to an Englishman this is one of them. But even from an American’s point of view just picture what they have lost. All this we have lost and that country has lost owing to whom? Owing to two or three ignorant, pigheaded statesmen in the last century [1700s]. At their door is the blame. Do you ever feel mad, do you ever feel murderous? I think I do with these men [supporters of the U.S. Constitution].”

pp. 73-74 [“His Writings” date unclear] “What an awful thought it is that if we had not lost America, or if even now we could arrange with the present members of the United States Assembly and our House of Commons, the peace of the world is secured for all eternity! We could hold your federal parliament five years at Washington and five at London. The only thing feasible to carry this idea out is a secret one (society) gradually absorbing the wealth of the world to be devoted to such an object. There is Hirsch with twenty millions, very soon to cross the unknown border, and struggling in the dark to know what to do with his money; and so one might go on ad infinitum … a scheme to take the government of the whole world!”

pp. 147-149 [“Political and Religious Ideas” dated 1884] “The proposed settlement of Bechuanaland is based on the exclusion of colonists of Dutch descent. I raise my voice in most solemn protest against such a course, and it is the duty of every Englishman in the House to record his solemn protest against it. In conclusion, I wish to say that the breach of solemn pledges and the introduction of race distinctions must result in bringing calamity on this country; and if such a policy is pursued it will endanger the whole of our social relationships with colonists of Dutch descent, and endanger the supremacy of Her Majesty in this country. …

I have made up my mind that there must be class legislation, that there must be Pass Laws and Peace Preservation Acts, and that we have got to treat natives, where they are in a state of barbarism, in a different way to ourselves. We are to be lords over them. These are my politics on native affairs, and these are the politics of South Africa. Treat the natives as a subject people as long as they continue in a state of barbarism and communal tenure; be the lords over them, and let them be a subject race and keep the liquor from them.”

p. 114 — Stead, the friend of Rhodes, sums up Rhodes’s view as: “To be a Rhodesian, then, of the true stamp, you must be a Home Ruler [a proponent of federated republic, like in the U.S.] and something more. You must be an Imperialist, not from mere lust of dominion or pride of race, but because you believe the Empire is the best available instrument for diffusing the principles of Justice, Liberty, and Peace throughout the world. Whenever Imperialism involves the perpetration of Injustice, the suppression of Freedom, and the waging of wars other than those of self-defence, the true Rhodesian must cease to be an Imperialist [must cease fighting for more land, and instead fight only for principles].

But a Home Ruler and Federalist, according to the principles of the American Constitution, he can never cease to be [Stead accepted the republicanism of the U.S. Constitution, though his hero had condemned America’s Founders], for Home Rule is a fundamental principle, whereas the maintenance and extension of the Empire are only means to an end, and may be changed, as Mr. Rhodes was willing to change them. If, for instance, the realisation of the greater ideal of Race Unity could only be brought about by merging the British Empire in the American Republic, Mr. Rhodes was prepared to advocate that radical measure. The question that now arises is whether in the Englishs-speaking world there are to be found men of faith adequate to furnish forth materials for the Society of which Mr. Rhodes dreamed: ‘Still through our paltry stir and strife Glows down the wished Ideal. And Longing moulds in clay what Life Carves in the marble Real.’ We have the clay mould of Mr. Rhodes’s longed-for Society. Have we got the stuff, in the Empire and the Republic, to carve it in marble?”

——

UKRAINE & CRIMEA

——

https://www.academia.edu/

Crimea Crisis before International Law”

Riccardo Murgia, Università degli Studi di Cagliari

http://www.unica.it/pub/

https://unica-it.academia.edu/

https://unica-it.academia.edu/

p. 8:

Conclusion

… The Russia-Ukraine conflict is a conflict between two of the most important principles of International Law: the principle of self-determination statuted by Article 1, paragraph 2 of the UN Charter, which can bring justification to the Russian actions, and the principle of respecting each state’s territorial integrity and political independence, statuted by Article 2, paragraph 4 of the same charter.

A precedent for Russia’s actions in Crimea can be found in relation with NATO intervention in Kosovo in 1998.

[His study doesn’t mention the coup, which preceded the separation of Crimea from Ukraine. Nor its illegality — the fact that Obama had seized Ukraine via a bloody and thoroughly illegal coup, and that this seizure sparkedCrimea’s breaking away from Ukraine and seeking Russia’s protection. Also, Murgia’s study fails to note here that by saying “A precedent for Russia’s actions in Crimea can be found in relation with NATO intervention in Kosovo in 1998” Murgia is validating Putin’s repeated assertions that this “precedent” was introduced by the U.S. itself, and was accepted by the Court, and is now being disowned by the U.S. in order for the U.S. to be able to argue that ‘Putin seized Crimea’ and that therefore the U.S.-imposed sanctions and NATO buildup are somehow justified, instead of being simply aggressive acts against Russia.]

——

https://www.academia.edu/

International Law 341

Research Thesis: Validity of the Russian Annexation of Crimea in terms of International Law”

JJ Arries [student at Stellenbosch University School of Law]

The second ground on which Ukraine’s argument is flawed relating to the validity of the referendum is that in terms of international law, and as far as it is concerned, no prohibitions exists on unilateral declarations of independence by sub-divisions of a state, and this position is supported by the advisory opinion of the ICJ on the matter Kosovo’s declaration of independence in 2008. The Russian President quoted submissions made by the United States to the ICJ, that repeat their position, “declarations of independence may and often do, violate domestic legislation. However, this does not make them violations of international law.”

Conclusion

Given the arguments made by both parties to the matter, it is clear that in some aspects, Russia did violate international law with regards to the annexation of the Crimean territory. Their arguments on the use of force do not fall in line with the international standards, and thus are invalid. They are however correct in quoting precedents, such as the Kosovo independence matter, as grounds for acting in defence of minorities. The validity of the referendum may be invalid in terms of the domestic law in Ukraine; however, in terms of international law, no prohibition currently exists with regards to declaration of independence by sub-divisions of a state.

——

http://www.icj-cij.org/files/

Written Statement of the United States of America”

April 2009

[argues that international law does not pertain to revolutions or to declarations of independence, but that all acts forming new nations, including breaking away from any existing nation, are purely internal matters pertaining to the people who live there, nobody else’s business]

United States Department of State Washington, D.C. 20520 www.state.gov April 17, 2009 Pursuant to the Court’s Order of 17 October 2008, I have the honor to enclose thirty copies of the Written Statement of the United States of America concerning the request of the United Nations General Assembly for an advisory opinion on the question of the Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo. I have also enclosed a diskette containing the text of the Statement. Accept, sir, the assurances of my highest consideration. Joan E. Donoghue [an American jurist, and a Judge on the International Court of Justice. She was elected to that post in 2010 and re-elected in 2014.”], Acting Legal Adviser. Enclosures: As stated Mr. Philippe Couvreur, Registrar, International Court of Justice, Peace Palace, The Hague

“Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo”  …

Statement of the United States of America [17] April 2009 …

pages 50-52:

Section I. International Law Does Not As A General Matter Regulate Declarations Of Independence

lt is widely accepted that declarations of independence, standing alone, present matters of fact, which are neither authorized nor prohibited by international law.202 Neither the United Nations Charter, nor other general international afeements, nor customary international law regulate the act of declaring independence. 20 The fact that international law does not address declarations of independence is not surprising. As a general rule, international law governs the relations between States, not the conduct of entities within States.204 There are certain exceptions, such as those found in international humanitarian law,205 but declarations of independence do not by themselves fall into these exceptions. “Events leading to the creation of a new State generally entail matters within the domestic jurisdiction of a State.”206 [not matters within the jurisdiction of international law]

It is certainly the case that declarations of independence may — and in their nature often do — violate domestic law. However, that does not mean that there has been a violation of international law.207 As Oppenheim has observed in the context of rebellion: “Although a rebellion will involve a breach of the law of the state concerned, no breach of international law occurs through the mere fact of a rebel regime attempting to overthrow the govemment of the state or to secede from the state.”208 Thus, it is widely accepted that, from the standpoint of international law, the process of State formation presents a matter of fact.209 A declaration of independence is an expression of a will or desire by an entity to be accepted as a State by the members of the international community. There may be other events associated with a particular declaration of independence that can be regulated by international law, but as one commentator has remarked:

[T]he State in the contemplation of international law is not a mere legal or ‘juristic’ person (personne morale), whose process of coming into being is prescribed by law. lt is rather a ‘primary fact’, i.e. a fact that precedes the law, and which the law acknowledges only once it has materialised, by attributing certain effects to it, including a certain legal status.210

In this case, the question before the Court is not whether any of these associated events — such as the subsequent recognitions of Kosovo’ s statehood by other States — are permissible under international law, but rather whether the declaration itself was consistent with international law. The fact that international law does not generally seek to regulate the act of declaring independence means that this declaration must be deemed to be in accordance with international law.211

——

George Soros helped to fund this coup in Ukraine, and afterward he propagandized for the U.S. and its allies to spend $50 billion more in order to help to defeat (and to kill as many as possible of) the residents in the portion of Ukraine where the Ukrainian President whom Obama overthrew had won 90% of the vote. This is how much Soros supports “the people’s sovereignty” and “human rights.” He wanted $50B more of Western taxpayers’ money spent on killing these people.

And that’s the difference of opinion, between Vladimir Putin and The West.

——

PS: The following excerpts, from Albert Einstein, present a very different position than either the imperialist one or the nationalist one — he clearly and passionately endorsed the formation of a democratic world government being formed whose legislature would be composed of representatives of equalitarian anti-elitist democratic national governments, and he failed to recognize how corrupt the aristocracies are in every country and how likely they would be to take control over any world government that might ultimately emerge:

https://books.google.com/

Looking Ahead with Albert Einstein”

The Rotarian, June 1948, pp. 8-10

“What urgent message have you for The Rotarian’s world-wide audience of business and professional men?”

That question was put to Dr. Einstein. It resulted, at his suggestion, in these excerpts from his public statements, and a direct answer in a summarizing query. …

Security Demands Sacrifice”

29 May 1945

A world government must be created which is able to solve conflicts between nations by judicial decision. This government must be based on a clear-cut constitution which is approved by the governments and the nations and which gives it the sole disposition of offensive weapons. A person or a nation can be considered peace loving only if it is ready to cede its military force to the international authorities and to renounce every attempt or even means of achieving its interests abroad by the use of force.

U.S.S.R. and U.S.A.”

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists [no date, but actually February 1948], responding to Soviet scientists [the entire exchange being on pp. 34-38 in that month’s issue, and later on pp. 134-146 of Ideas and Opinions:]

You are such passionate opponents of anarchy in the economic sphere, and yet equally passionate advocates of anarchy — e.g., unlimited [national] sovereignty — in the sphere of international politics. The proposition to curtail the sovereignty of individual States appears to you in itself reprehensible, as a kind of violation of a natural right. In addition, you try to prove that behind the idea of curtailing sovereignty the United States is hiding her intention of economic domination and exploitation of the rest of the world without going to war. … [Omitted here, but included in the complete versions, was: ”If we hold fast to the concept and practice of unlimited sovereignty of nations, it only means that each country reserves the right for itself of pursuing its objectives through warlike means.” ]

I advocate world government because I am convinced that there is no other possible way of eliminating the most terrible danger. … The objective of avoiding total destruction must have priority over any other objective.

A Question and an Answer”

[June 1948, here, Einstein’s direct answer to the Rotarians]

The longer we continue to march ahead on this fateful road, the more difficult it will be to leave it. … Each day’s postponement diminishes the probability that the patient will come out alive.

Albert Einstein, Citizen, Princeton, New Jersey”

Recently he was asked what weapons would be used in a third world war. Dr. Einstein’s reply was characteristic: “I don’t know. But I can tell you what they will use in the fourth. They’ll use rocks!”

——

Whereas it seems to me that Einstein sincerely supported democracy and opposed any dictatorship by the aristocracy or by any other entity, I have the impression that Rhodes sincerely supported dictatorship by a racist aristocracy (this being an extremely conservative government), and that Soros deceitfully supports whatever he thinks will most efficiently serve the interests of America’s aristocracy (against other aristocracies, and against all publics) (and his view represents traditional liberalism).

Vladimir Putin has not yet made clear precisely where he stands on this entire matter, other than via his actions and decisions in public office (plus a few side-comments he has made). Perhaps he thinks that he has made himself clear to everyone by his actions and decisions. And his underlying presumption, that actions and decisions can be trusted far more than any mere words can, makes sense. However, I think that the time has now come when he needs to state publicly, how he views things, explaining that the basic difference is between himself and The West (both Rhodes’s conservative The West, and Soros’s liberal The West), and also regarding Einstein’s advocacy for a global and all-encompassing democratic world government, to be comprised of representatives from all national governments. Perhaps Putin thinks that the latter is impossible; if so, he should explain his position on it, and on the possibility that (and means by which) the U.N. might evolve into that. It needs to enter the public discussion.

My personal view of the matter has been set forth in two articles, which complement (not compliment) one-another: “Liberals Don’t Respect a Nation’s Sovereignty” (which argues that the basic difference between liberals and progressives is that only progressives respect a nation’s sovereignty), and “The Two Contending Visions of World Government” (which argues that the vision of world government that FDR intended, became defeated at the first meeting of the Bilderbergs in 1954, because they were all closeted fascists and controlled NATO).

The date when the U.S. Government secretly instructed its allies that the goal going forward would be to conquer Russia, was 24 February 1990, and this plan is now at an advanced stage. All of this would have shocked and demoralized Albert Einstein. He was not a liberal; he was a progressive, but he — like millions of other American progressives — was fooled by closeted fascists, such as the CIA. The issue, in his view, wasn’t isolationism versus internationalism; it was fascism versus progressivism; and fascism (including both the conservative and the liberal sorts) has definitely been winning.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
7 Comments

7
Leave a Reply

avatar
7 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
6 Comment authors
bluewaterIsabella JonesRollo10CumExApostolatusJohn Vu Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Isabella Jones
Guest
Isabella Jones

Few things have only one cause – life is usually a little more complex. Whilst I dont’ disagree with Mr. Zuesse here, there is another major contributor to this issue: that there are, in fact, two major differences that President Putin has with the AngloSaxon Fascist Empire rulers, in addition to the one discussed above. This is that, from comments made over and over down the years, that President Putin has an absolute adherence to the primacy of the Rule of Law. He has said, one thing absolutely pertains; that “The Law is the Law”. If there is a bad… Read more »

bluewater
Guest
bluewater

lets cut thru the Duran and all propaganda sites 7-10-2018 DIET FOOD…LOW CAL,NON FAT on the market is TOTAL CRAP….it is making you gain weight!!! HEALTHY FATS will make you lose weight FAT HEALS..Walnut oil rebuilds your TEETH,your brain,your gut flora and kills viruses ,bacteria,fungus.worms. Almonds,Olive Oil are all good fats as is REAL BUTTER from cows that feed on grass not grains….not your BIG NAME BRANDS that feed dead animals to the dairy. FATS THE HEAL FATS THAT KILL,,is a book buy it…FATS HEAL THE BODY..your body will get tighter,your skin will get tighter and you will lose weight… Read more »

Rollo10
Guest
Rollo10

“Cecil Rhodes, a self-avowed racist who passionately advocated that all “races” be subordinated to “the first race”

One of the Founding Fathers of NWO, no wonder Soros an be ‘linked’ to him!
http://www.globalresearch.ca/new-world-order-the-founding-fathers/5445255

CumExApostolatus
Guest
CumExApostolatus

“…..the founder of the Rhodes Trust, Cecil Rhodes, a self-avowed racist who passionately advocated that all “races” be subordinated to “the first race”: the British. However, he was willing that, if necessary, this empire would fly the U.S. flag instead of the English flag. That is an out and out lie. The “first race” is the J. e. w. aka the “chosen” by ‘god’. That has never changed. Who is zooming who here, Mr. Zeusse? And that is the race that has ruled Great B’rith-ain since the time of Elizabeth I. The J. e. w. has unswervingly aimed at dominion… Read more »

John Vu
Guest
John Vu

Russia is a pawn. It’s China, the elephant in the room, that Deepstate is scared stiff of.

John Vu
Guest
John Vu

Liberal and progressive (conservative, neocon…) are two tongues of the same Beast.

Bill Spence
Guest
Bill Spence

The so-called international community does not exist. It is a propaganda construct that can be made to serve one side or the other. But it has no objective validity. Ultimately laws are always based on military or economic power. So today the United States has great military and economic power and can impose its will on the world. Only a countervailing power can cause United States to modify its behavior. There is no other way and there never will be. From time to time wars are necessary or accidental to prove that the balance of power has shifted and to… Read more »

Latest

Theresa May set to order ministers to vote down no-deal Brexit amendments, risking cabinet split

Delaying Brexit would be “calamitous,” and much worse than no-deal.

RT

Published

on

By

Via RT


UK Prime Minister Theresa May is reportedly set to resist mounting pressure from pro-Remain Tory ministers, and order her cabinet to vote down amendments that would block a no-deal Brexit – risking possible resignations.

Parliament will vote on May’s alternative Brexit proposals on Tuesday, as well as a series of amendments that include delaying the UK’s departure from the EU by negotiating an extension to Article 50. The UK is set to leave the EU on March 29.

The prime minister will risk splitting her cabinet – ignoring pleas over taking no-deal off the table – and instead pursue a strategy of securing changes to the contentious Irish backstop, in a bid to win over hardline Tory Brexiteers and the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), the Daily Mail reports.

May will be hoping that such a move will provide her with enough MPs to get her deal through the House of Commons at a second attempt. The PM’s original Brexit proposals were roundly rejected last week, with the government losing by 230 votes.

UK Work and Pensions Secretary Amber Rudd has warned May that she faces a spate of cabinet resignations if she fails to allow ministers to vote on a plan that could block a no-deal Brexit.

According to the Times, pro-EU Rudd has intimated that unless May allows a free vote on a Brexit amendment, tabled by backbench Labour MP Yvette Cooper, which calls for Article 50 to be extended if no deal is reached by February 26, then mass resignations could follow.

Labour’s Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell has praised Cooper’s “sensible proposal,” claiming that it’s “increasingly likely” that his party will vote for it next week.

Cooper’s is one of eight amendments tabled in recent days. Another, put forward by Tory MP and ‘people’s vote’ advocate, Dominic Grieve, would allow Parliament to set the agenda and vote on a variety of proposals, including a second EU referendum.

It comes as Liam Fox, the international trade secretary, claimed in an interview with BBC Radio 4’s Today program, that delaying Brexit would be “calamitous,” and much worse than no-deal.

Michel Barnier, the EU chief negotiator, has claimed that Brussels will only extend Article 50 if there is a “stable majority” in the UK for a deal – adding that the UK could avoid the problems of the Irish backstop by opting for a softer Brexit.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Louis XVI (aka Emmanuel Macron) runs to Merkels’ arms in Aachen treaty (Video)

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 63.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris take a quick look at French President Emmanuel Macron’s comparison of the Yellow Vests movement to the times of King Louis XVI who, as Macron rationalizes, met his tragic fate by refusing to embrace reforms.

Emmanuel Macron told 150 corporate executives gathered at Versailles (including Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi, JPMorgan Chase CEO James Dimon, and Coca-Cola CEO James Quincey), that “a lot of people thought that it was not a good date to gather here,” referring to the execution of French King Louis XVI, who was guillotined on January 21, exactly 226 years ago on Monday…“but when you look at French history, if at the end they ended up like that, it’s because a lot of leaders decided not to reform.”

The meeting held by Macron was called together in part to alleviate investors’ fears after 10 weeks of Yellow Vest protests throughout France and spreading across Europe.

According to RT,  the nationwide protests have sometimes turned violent, and according to Macron’s office, have caused concern among foreign investors hoping to cash in on Macron’s business-friendly reforms.

Notably, Macron reassured his CEO guests that he would “not roll back what we have done in the past 18 months” – unpopular labor and tax reforms that have been cited as sparking the Yellow Vest protests.

Macron also said that the Yellow Vest movement had been spurred by middle-class anger over globalization, arguing that similar sentiments have given rise to Brexit and populist governments across Europe.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via Zerohedge


French President Emmanuel Macron’s push for what he previously called “a real European army” got a big boost on Tuesday amid France and Germany signing an updated historic treaty reaffirming their close ties and commitment to support each other during a ceremony in the city of Aachen, a border town connected to Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Empire. But the timing for the renewal of the two countries’ 1963 post-war reconciliation accord is what’s most interesting, given both the rise of eurosceptic nationalism, the uncertainty of Brexit, and just as massive ‘Yellow Vests’ protests rage across France for a tenth week.

Macron addressed this trend specifically at the signing ceremony with the words, “At a time when Europe is threatened by nationalism, which is growing from within… Germany and France must assume their responsibility and show the way forward.”

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron attend a signing of a new agreement on bilateral cooperation and integration, known as Treaty of Aachen. Image via Reuters

Germany’s Angela Merkel agreed, adding in her own remarks: “We are doing this because we live in special times and because in these times we need resolute, distinct, clear, forward-looking answers.” The agreement, which is being described as sparse on specifics or detail, focuses on foreign policy and defense ties between Berlin and Paris.

“Populism and nationalism are strengthening in all of our countries,” Merkel EU officials at the ceremony. “Seventy-four years – a single human lifetime – after the end of the second world war, what seems self-evident is being called into question once more.”

Macron said those “who forget the value of Franco-German reconciliation are making themselves accomplices of the crimes of the past. Those who… spread lies are hurting the same people they are pretending to defend, by seeking to repeat history.”

And in remarks that formed another affirmation that the two leaders are seeking to form an “EU army” Merkel said just before signing the treaty: “The fourth article of the treaty says we, Germany and France, are obliged to support and help each other, including through military force, in case of an attack on our sovereignty.”

The text of the updated treaty includes the aim of a “German-French economic area with common rules” and a “common military culture” that Merkel asserted could “contribute to the creation of a European army”.

Later before a press pool, Merkel endorsed the idea of a joint European army further:

We have taken major steps in the field of military cooperation, this is good and largely supported in this house. But I also have to say, seeing the developments of the recent years, that we have to work on a vision to establish a real European army one day.

She clarified that the new military organization wouldn’t exist as a counterpart to or in competition with NATO, similar to prior comments she made before European parliament.

Previously in November she had assured, “This is not an army against NATO, it can be a good complement to NATO.” This was also in support of Macron’s early November statements wherein he said of the proposed EU army, “We have to protect ourselves with respect to China, Russia and even the US” — words that were issued on the heels President Trump’s initial announcement that the US would withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF).

Despite such such assurances analysts say the natural and long term by-product of a “real European army” — as Macron and Merkel suggesting — would be the slow eroding and demise of US power in the region, which would no doubt weaken the NATO alliance.

The closest thing to a current “EU army” that does exist (if it can be called even that) – the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) – is generally perceived as more of a civil and emergency response joint EU member mechanism that would be ineffectual under the threat of an actual military invasion or major event.

Meanwhile perhaps a prototype EU army is already in action on the streets of Paris, revealing what critics fear it may actually be used for in the future..

The expected push back came swiftly and fiercely as Marine Le Pen, the leader of France’s National Rally party, slammed the updated Aachen treaty as “an act that borders on treason”, while others worried this is an attempt to create a “super EU” within the bloc.

Alexander Gauland of Germany’s Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), for example, warned:

As populists, we insist that one first takes care of one’s own country… We don’t want Macron to renovate his country with German money … The EU is deeply divided. A special Franco-German relationship will alienate us even further.

Italy’s far-right interior minister, Matteo Salvini, warned earlier this month that his country could seek an “Italian-Polish axis” to challenge the whole premise of a “Franco-German motor” that drives European centralization.

Also notable of Tuesday’s signing is that the Aachen document prioritizes Germany being eventually accepted as permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, which it mandates as a priority for French-German diplomacy. Such a future scenario on the security council would shift power significantly in favor of a western bloc of allies the US, Britain, and France, which Germany would vote alongside.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

The Integrity Initiative and the British Roots of the Deep State: How the Round Table Infiltrated America

Kissinger’s takeover of the State Department ushered in a new era of British occupation of American foreign policy.

Published

on

With the nearly weekly revelations that the British Foreign Office, MI6, and GCHQ have been behind the long standing agenda to undermine the Presidency of Donald Trump and undo the peaceful alliance between nationalist leaders in America, Russia, China and elsewhere, a new focus on the British hand in undermining the United States has become a serious thought for many citizens. In the first week of the new year, fuel was added to this fire when internal memos were leaked from the British-run Integrity Initiative featuring a startling account of the techniques deployed by the anti-Russian British operation to infiltrate American intelligence institutions, think tanks and media.

For those who may not know, The Integrity Initiative is an anti-Russian propaganda outfit funded to the tune of $140 million by the British Foreign office. The January 2019 leak, featuring documents dated to the early period of Trump’s election, demonstrate that this organization, already active across Europe promoting anti-Russian PR and smearing nationalist leaders such as Jeremy Corbyn, was intent on spreading deeply into the State Department and setting up “clusters” of anti-Trump operatives. The documents reveal high level meetings that Integrity Initiative Director Chris Donnelly had with former Trump Advisor Sebastien Gorka, McCain Foundation director Kurt Volker, Pentagon PR guru John Rendon among many others.

The exposure of the British hand behind the scenes affords us a unique glimpse into the real historical forces undermining America’s true constitutional tradition throughout the 20th century, as Mueller/the Five Eyes/Integrity Initiative are not new phenomena but actually follow a modus operandi set down for already more than a century. One of the biggest obstacles to seeing this modus operandi run by the British Empire is located in the belief in a mythology which has become embedded in the global psyche for over half a century and which we should do our best to free ourselves of.

Debunking the Myth of the “American Empire”

While there has been a long-standing narrative promoted for over 70 years that the British Empire disappeared after World War II having been replaced by the “American Empire”, it is the furthest thing from the truth. America, as constitutionally represented by its greatest presidents (who can unfortunately be identified by their early deaths while serving in office), were never colonialist and were always in favor of reining in British Institutions at home while fighting British colonial thinking abroad.

Franklin Roosevelt’s thirteen year-long battle with the Deep State, which he referred to as the “economic royalists who should have left America in 1776″, was defined in clear terms by his patriotic Vice-President Henry Wallace who warned of the emergence of a new Anglo-American fascism in 1944 when he said:

“Fascism in the postwar inevitably will push steadily for Anglo-Saxon imperialism and eventually for war with Russia. Already American fascists are talking and writing about this conflict and using it as an excuse for their internal hatreds and intolerances toward certain races, creeds and classes.”

The fact is that already in 1944, a policy of Anglo-Saxon imperialism had been promoted subversively by British-run think tanks known as the Round Table Movement and Fabian Society, and the seeds had already been laid for the anti-Russian cold war by those British-run American fascists. It is not a coincidence that this fascist Cold War policy was announced in a March 5, 1946 speech in Fulton, Missouri by none other than Round Table-follower Winston Churchill.

The Empire Strikes

When the Round Table Movement was created with funds from the Rhodes Trust in 1902, a new plan was laid out to create a new technocratic elite to manage the re-emergence of the new British Empire and crush the emergence of American-inspired nationalism globally. This organization would be staffed by generations of Rhodes Scholars who would receive their indoctrination in Oxford before being sent back to advance a “post-nation state” agenda in their respective countries.

As this agenda largely followed the mandate set out by Cecil Rhodes in his Seventh Will who said “Why should we not form a secret society with but one object: the furtherance of the British Empire and the bringing of the whole uncivilized world under British rule, for the recovery of the United States, and for the making of the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire?”

With the help of an anglophile, racist president in America, leading figures organizing these think tanks first advanced a program to create a “League of Nations” as the solution to the “nationalist problem” which humanity was told “caused” World War One. Nationalist forces in America rejected the idea that the constitution should be rendered obsolete and the plan for global governance failed. However that did not stop the Round Table Movement from trying again. Leading Round Table controller Lord Lothian (British Ambassador to the USA) complained of the “American problem” in 1918.

”There is a fundamentally different concept in regard to this question between Great Britain and the United States  as to the necessity of civilized control over politically backward peoples…. The inhabitants of Africa and parts of Asia have proved unable to govern themselves…. Yet America not only has no conception of this aspect of the problem but has been led to believe that the assumption of this kind of responsibility is iniquitous imperialism.

They take an attitude towards the problem of world government exactly analogous to the one they [earlier] took toward the problem of the world war. If they are slow in learning we shall be condemned to a period of strained relations between the various parts of the English-speaking world. [We must] get into the heads of Canadians and Americans that a share in the burden of world government is just as great and glorious a responsibility as participation in the war”.

A Chinese leader of the American-inspired republican revolution of 1911 named Sun Yat-sen warned of the likes of Lord Lothian and the League of Nations in 1924 when he said “The nations which are employing imperialism to conquer others and which are trying to maintain their own favored positions as sovereign lords of the whole world are advocating cosmopolitanism [aka: global governance/globalization -ed] and want the world to join them… Nationalism is that precious possession by which humanity maintains its existence. If nationalism decays, then when cosmopolitanism flourishes we will be unable to survive and will be eliminated”.

New Name. Same Beast

By 1919, the Round Table Movement changed its name to the Royal Institute for International Affairs (aka: Chatham House) with the “Round Table” name relegated to its geopolitical periodical. In Canada and Australia, branches were created in 1928 under the rubrics of “Canadian and Australian Institutes for International Affairs” (CIIA, AIIA). However in America, where knowledge of the British Empire’s subversive role was more widely known, the name “American Institute for International Affairs” was still too delicate. Instead the name “Council on Foreign Relations” was chosen and was chartered in 1921.

Rhodes Scholar William Yandall Elliot surrounded by a few of his leading disciples: Sir Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski Samuel Huntington and Pierre Trudeau

Staffed with Rhodes Scholars and Fabians, the CFR (and its International Chatham House counterparts) dubbed themselves “independent think tanks” which interfaced with Rhodes Scholars and Fabians in academia, government and the private sector alike with the mission of advancing a foreign policy agenda that was in alignment with the British Empire’s dream of an Anglo-American “special relationship”. One such Rhodes Scholar was William Yandall Elliot, who played a major role mentoring Henry Kissinger and a generation of geo-politicians from Harvard, not the least of whom include Zbigniew Brzezinski, Pierre Elliot Trudeau and Samuel (Clash of Civilizations) Huntington.

The Round Table in Canada and the Coup Against FDR

In Canada, five leading Rhodes Scholars were busy creating the League of Social Reconstruction as a self-described “Fabian Society of Canada” in 1931 which was meant to be a fascist/technocratic answer to the chaos of “greedy nationalism” that supposedly caused the economic collapse of Black Friday in 1929. During the same time in America, a different path to fascism was taken by these networks during the early 1930s. This plan involved installing a General named Smedley Butler into power as a puppet dictator steered by the Anglo-American establishment. Luckily for America and the world, General Butler blew the whistle on the coup against Franklin Roosevelt at the last minute.

Kissinger’s British Takeover of America

Though it took a few assassinations throughout the post war years, Kissinger’s takeover of the State Department ushered in a new era of British occupation of American foreign policy, whereby the republic increasingly became the “Dumb Giant” acting as “American Brawn for the British brains” using Churchill’s words. While a nihilistic generation of youth were tuning in on LSD, and an old guard of patriots surrounding Wallace and Kennedy had fallen to the “red scare” witch hunt, geopolitical theory was fed like a sweet poison down the throat of a sleeping nation, replacing a policy of peace and “win-win cooperation” advanced by true nationalist patriots as FDR, Wallace and the Kennedys, with an imperial clone masquerading as a republic.

Sir Kissinger did nothing less than reveal his total allegiance to the British Empire on May 10, 1981 during a Chatham House conference in Britain when he described his relationship with the British Foreign office in the following terms: “The British were so matter-of-factly helpful that they became a participant in internal American deliberations, to a degree probably never practiced between sovereign nations… In my White House incarnation then, I kept the British Foreign Office better informed and more closely engaged than I did the American State Department… It was symptomatic”.

During this period, Kissinger worked closely with CIA director George Bush Senior, who was later rewarded for his role in advancing the British-planned first war on Kuwait with a knighthood. This war set the stage for the second wave of Middle East wars beginning with the Anglo-Saudi orchestrated operation known as 9/11 and the ushering in of the new “post-nation state order” by Kissinger and Blair.

This was the era which was celebrated by both Kissinger and Bush in sundry places as “the New World Order”.

The Dystopic New World Order Threatened by a New Deal of the 21st Century

It is this dystopic geopolitical order which has been challenged by the Russia-China alliance which arose in earnest with Xi Jinping’s 2013 announcement of the Belt and Road Initiative as the Grand design for large scale infrastructure projects internationally and in September 2015 with Vladimir Putin’s intervention into Syria which defeated the Hobbesian regime change paradigm which poisoned the west. In 2016, the election of nationalist American President Donald Trump opened the door for the first time in over 50 years to a true national coalition of sovereign nations to eliminate the cancer of colonial thinking forever from the earth.

It is this same British-run deep state which owns Robert Mueller, who along with the Integrity Initiative, Five Eyes and other Deep State operatives are dedicated to overthrowing President Trump from office and undoing the great potential now facing the world as outlined by the Schiller Institute and American statesman Lyndon LaRouche: 1) an FDR-style re-organization of the bankrupt banking system and 2) the unleashing of a global New Silk Road as the New Deal of the 21st Century.


BIO: Matthew J.L. Ehret is a journalist, lecturer and founder of the Canadian Patriot Review. His works have been published in Executive Intelligence Review, Global Research, Global Times, The Duran, Nexus Magazine, Los Angeles Review of Books, Veterans Today and Sott.net. Matthew has also published the book “The Time has Come for Canada to Join the New Silk Road” and three volumes of the Untold History of Canada (available on untoldhistory.canadianpatriot.org). He can be reached at[email protected]

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending