GloboCap Über Alles is a great article by CJ Hopkins on Off-Guardian.org but I don't see how minting a new compound noun, globo-capitalist, helps to pin down the protagonists. Capitalism has long been used, like 'free markets', as a cover for vested interests. The word has become propaganda. Capitalism if it exists is a rare beast, as likely to be found in the wild as the real communism "that's never been tried".
The biggest clue should be the Cold War that pitted capitalists against communists. CJH would be the first to admit that the western security state cannot exist without a convenient polarity, an enemy: ask why and we discover the culprit.
The cave-dwelling terrorists, the mustachioed men with weapons of mass destruction under their cloaks, the Pearl Harbor moments, are all structured to create an enemy where none (or a much less powerful rival) exists. To whose benefit?
The paradigm of capitalism vs communism is mostly false, like so much else that we've been told. Antony C. Sutton of the Hoover Institution showed that behind the stage show, the oligarchs were trading hungrily as if the Iron Curtain had as many holes as Swiss cheese.
If those were capitalists, they had no ideology. Nor did they care for free markets.
A better term would be finance capitalism but even that misses the point that this is oligarchy.
As far back as 1910 the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace had been asked by the Rockefeller Foundation to investigate "if there is any way known to man more effective than war to so alter the life of an entire people". They answered in the negative - Norman Dodd, chief investigator in 1953 for the Special Committee on Tax Exempt Foundations (commonly referred to as the Reece Committee).
Here we must face the reality of how the U.S. was founded - not to pick on the U.S. but because it is the beacon of freedom and capitalism. If the paragon falls short, so do all other countries. Nor do I diminish the U.S. Constitution as the greatest attempt The Enlightenment produced to structure a lasting form of just and representative government.
There were however many would-be aristocrats and autocrats in colonial society whose attitude to wealth was that of the merchant adventurers, primarily the Dutch and British "India companies". Theirs was a brutal, baronial wealth grab at the point of a gun. This brutal mindset was shared by Thomas Edison, front man and assassin for J.P. Morgan who in turn was likely a Rothschild front. Woe to any inventor making the lonely journey to register his patents in New York, such as pioneer of the movie camera and projector Louis Le Prince who vanished after boarding a train, shortly before Edison filed suit claiming he was the first and sole inventor of cinematography. J.D. Rockefeller's cornering of the oil market, the market manipulations of Carnegie, Mellon, Baruch and Vanderbilt were equally brutal.
The seizure of inventions and thuggery-by-patent continues today: see Michael McKibben who claims his software was stolen to make Facebook - and Martin Armstrong the economic forecaster, who spent 11 years in jail while refusing to hand over his predictive software to the courts. Echelon, the predecessor of Prism was revealed by the European Parliament in the 1990s as an NSA tool for corporate espionage. When a rival enters the airplane business such as Sukhoi, you'd better be sure your plane doesn't crash on its first public demonstration as did the Superjet 100, especially if your business partner is Boeing. If you plan to trade oil for gold instead of dollars, you'd better make sure you don't announce it publicly as did chairman of the French oil giant Total, Christophe de Margerie, who discussed exactly that deal with Russia's prime minister, then got in his plane and blew up.
Sure, it was all due to a bottle of vodka here or there, a stuck gas pedal, a fall from a moving vehicle. How something so simple can change the course of corporate history: Fool us once, shame on you; fool us again and again and again, the shame is ours.
Wall Street lawyers and bankers set up the OSS/CIA from the beginning to protect moneyed interests. It does not work for the people directly: it may even be largely self-financing. Likewise the FBI grew out of the Pinkertons who were "private detectives" specializing in provocateur actions, beatings and strike breaking. Is it any wonder that J. Edgar Hoover turned it into a blackmail operation and an organ of political policing?
Have you seen any sign of capitalism yet? The capitalism that you are taught to love and serve, cherish and defend?
The paragon of the West was set up as an oligarchy with an economy that depended as much on brute force as it did on capital.
The oligarchy was always violent. It had no moral doubts about financing the Nazi Reich, or spreading Nazism around the globe after its supposed defeat - see operations Paperclip, Rusty and Gladio, and the Red House Report.
The post-WW2 wartime economy was profitable, jobs were secure, one spouse could support a family of several children while saving for a significant pension. Strangely, that was dismantled after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 - see John Lanchester, Whoops! (2010)
All major "capitalist" initiatives pave the way for oligarchical collectivism: the removal of borders; creation of a stateless, cheap labour force; unfettered access to natural resources, destroying nation states if necessary (lebensraum); destruction of price discovery; commoditization of 'market economy''; and while main street and the middle class is destroyed, the government is abused along with patents and legislation to protect the interests of a small, oligarchical elite.
The milestones on this path include the UN, World Trade Organization, General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, NAFTA, Trans-Pacific Partnership. Not to forget the Nazi/OSS project that became the United States of Europe through the process of the Red House Meeting > European Coal and Steel Community > EEC > EU.
It is essential to identify and name those behind the monetary reset and the pandemic. Accuracy is all. I've criticized the left for throwing around the word 'fascist' until it lost its meaning. Now they're facing real fascism, the corporatist state, and they can't see it because they are ignorant of its meaning.
Capitalism does not mean private ownership, which is where many web sites are wrong. Nor is it an accurate synonym for business, profit or tycoon. Nor did Adam Smith ever use the phrase. Smith was a political philosopher. His concepts were a rationale for explaining the status quo: that property rights and justice should develop from a free market. Liberals claim to be his heirs, defending the accumulation of wealth by insisting that it is the result of a free market and thus always to be justified, even in the hands of an oligarchy.
French politician Louis Blanc coined the word capitalism in 1850, as the "appropriation of capital by some to the exclusion of others". At its simplest, it is the accumulation of capital as a third means of wealth extraction alongside labour and land.
The word came into being as industry began to rival agriculture as the source of greatest wealth. Land being fixed, capital is fungible. Five years either side of 1850 the British made incorporation legal (rather than a one-off charter) and instituted limited liability. In just over a century, the corporation has acquired the rights and agency of the individual, without the moral restraint. Amassing untrammeled power the corporation became more powerful than the people and now stands above and independent of the nation state.
These corporations remain, as power and wealth always has, in the hands of an oligarchy. The corporation has allowed this oligarchy to combine, in a monopolistic and collectivist manner, to approach hegemonic power.
Capital is merely a tool, a lever - or if it is withheld, the point of a gun. There are two candidates for the first capital: the Templars and Medicis if you follow that line of research - and the merchant adventurers, traders like the East India Company. Many of these companies engaged in those traditional means of wealth extraction, labour (slavery) and land (colonies).
To cut it short, the EIC was the first corporation, founded 1600. These 'incorporations' wrangled charters to engage in mercantilism and arbitrage. They created new markets for tea, sugar, chocolate, pepper, nutmeg, slaves and opium - and exploited the price difference between different countries under an exclusivity contract enforced by private armies. "By 1803, at the height of its rule in India, the East India company had a private army of about 260,000—twice the size of the British Army."
Two hundred years later we have turned full circle as private companies occupy oil-rich lands protected by their private mercenary armies. Countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya were invaded, their functioning governments dismantled and not replaced. Not having to deal with a national government gives today's oligarchs the freedom to slice and dice the world's natural resources as they see fit.
The trade has barely changed. The most profitable industries are war, human trafficking and narcotics, legal and illegal. They still extract and ship raw materials, with the modern addition of oil and gas.
There is no space here for the concept of capitalism - nor is it needed to explain what is happening. Imagine the frock coats and ruffs of Elizabethan England as a cartel of powerful oligarchs and their merchant adventurers pore over maps of the world's mineral wealth. There you have it.
***
Antony Sutton’s service was to expose beyond doubt that the Oligarchy establishes and finances all the variants of “capitalism” and “socialism”.
It is very relevant to hear what Antony Sutton says. It is clear that Oligarchical support for Nazism and Bolshevism went beyond “just business”.
It cannot be explained away as “if they don’t buy from us, they’ll buy from someone else”. Sutton demonstrates that the Oligarchy specifically put the Nazis and Bolsheviks in power and kept them there. Below I have noted the main points of his interview.
Antony Sutton worked for the Hoover Institution when he had access to documents showing how American and British banks financed Hitler and the Bolsheviks, built up their industrial base and armed both regimes.
In 1933 Standard Oil financed and built Germany’s aviation fuel facilities, for example.
The initial financing of Lenin’s movement came from the Rockefellers’s Chase Bank, now Chase Manhattan, which transferred funds in Dec 1917. As claimed by William Boyce Thompson himself in the Washington Post (Feb 2nd 1918) – Thompson gave money to help the Bolsheviks consolidate, the cash coming from Wall St to pave the way for control of the Russian market and resources.
Why would American capitalists help aid Bolshevism? Sutton says this puzzled him for years and the only answer he could come to is a desire to have captive markets that are not rivals: Socialist states do not innovate. If they are wealthy a petro state like Russia can be an excellent market for western goods.
Russia is almost two times larger than the U.S. The last thing the U.S. wanted was another America. Better to encourage socialism because this would give the oligarchs control of the world market. Today Russia is largely a market for German, not American, goods.
In 1922 Russia had collapsed. Industrial output was about 10% of pre-Revolution levels. Millions were starving. Herbert Hoover channeled aid from the bankers to the Bolsheviks who controlled a very small part of Russia at the time. Thus the U.S. again helped to consolidate the Bolsheviks.
In 1923 Lenin launched his New Economic Plan. Practically every Russian industry was rebuilt by British, French, German and American specialists. By 1928 Russia had returned to the output of 1917.
In 1928 Stalin wanted to launch his five year plans. Gosplan, the Soviet planning agency, failed and the job was given to the Americans.
Albert Kahn Associates of the United States, the leading industrial architect of the day, created the first two Five Year Plans for Stalin. Albert Kahn brought together the top U.S. corporations to industrialize Bolshevik Russia: General Electric, DuPont, Ford, Curtis Wright etc.
The U.S. corporations provided all the hardware, even the factories. Ford Motor built the Gorky plant which produced the GAZ vehicles. The key player was Averell Harriman who developed the Georgian manganese deposits.
Armand Hammer of Occidental Petrolum received his first concession in 1922. His father was Julius Hammer who a founder of the Communist Party of the USA.
Bill Browder is an investment manager and investor in Russia. His grandfather was Earl Browder, General Secretary of the CPUSA during the 1930s and first half of the 1940s.
THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE OLIGARCHS AND THE COLLECTIVISTS. In some cases the communists and oligarchs are the same people.
After WW2 and Lend Lease, there was a continued transfer of industrial equipment to the Soviet Union. In 1948 Major Racey Jordan revealed that the U.S. had helped build the Soviet nuclear industry.
The U.S. supplied heavy water in 1944-45 and aluminum tubes, graphite and other essential components – Antony Sutton says Major Jordan was largely correct. So the U.S. helped create the Soviet nuclear threat.
The Soviets lacked MIRV, a guidance system and a huge advance in missile technology – so, again, the USA obliged. The Soviets could not make micro-miniature ball bearings and nor had the ability to grind the minute traces for the guidance systems. Bryant Grinder of Vermont was allowed to export grinders to the Soviet Union.
In the Vietnam war U.S. pilots spotted American trucks on the Ho Chi Minh trail: these were made at Ford’s Gorky plant and supplied by the Soviets. The USA was supplying both sides in the Vietnam war.
In the early 1970s while the war was underway the U.S. was still supplying the Soviet auto industry.
Fiat of Italy was a front for the U.S. handled by Gianni Agnelli, principal shareholder of Fiat, who sat on the board of Rockefeller’s Chase Manhattan Bank. Fiat supplied industrial equipment to Kamaz trucks – industrial equipment that Fiat did not make itself – because Fiat factories were supplied with American equipment. Thus Fiat was simply a cover to divert attention from the fact that during the Vietnam War the U.S. was building the Kama River Plant which at 36 square miles, was the largest car plant in the world. Construction lasted from in the late 1960s to the early 1970s.
Of the Soviet merchant marine 60% of hulls were built abroad and 80% of diesel engines were made in the West – mainly from Sulzer of Switzerland, Burmeister & Wain of Denmark. The remaining 20% were built in the USSR with technical advice and equipment from Fiat and Burmeister & Wain. In other words, without Western help, there could be no Soviet diesel engines.
Financial aid to the Soviet union reached $40 billion outstanding by the 1970s in order to buy industrial equipment.
Antony Sutton exposed this in the mid-1970s after which his publishing contracts came under pressure, news agencies were instructed not to interview him, and subsequently the Hoover Institution accused Sutton of plagiarizing his own work that he had done for Stanford University. Later he was told his research went beyond what was welcome and should be confined within more narrow boundaries. In 1975 Sutton left the Hoover Institution.
***
Sutton’s point is that the system will self destruct. I share his view. That’s not the same as doing nothing. He had a deep knowledge of the violent lengths to which these Oligarchs and their Corporations will go. These Oligarchs are mental dwarfs. They are making a big error thinking they are bigger than nation states and that they no longer need to pay taxes or work within the legal bounds of statehood.
I suggest the Oligarchs are collectivist in three ways: They want collective, monopoly, no tender, universal government contracts – as we see with the pharma vaccine contracts right now.
Secondly, they are an Oligarchical Collective in the sense that they have more in common with each other than with the rest of us. Thirdly, they use collectivism as bait and switch: they know humans hanker to be taken care of, then they present collectivists as the enemy just to ensure we don’t get too keen on the idea.
I am no judoka but one strategy would be give them what they want: their Oligarchical Collectivist paradise – we end up in collectivism but with the satisfaction of seeing them turn on each other as the tall poppies get culled.
Einstein’s definition of idiocy: doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different outcome: Bolshevism, Italian Fascism, Nazism, Communist China… here they go again in all their boneheaded Rockefeller Dunning-Kruger stupidity.
The other is to throw ourselves upon the gears. As Solzhenitsyn put it:
The biggest clue should be the Cold War that pitted capitalists against communists. CJH would be the first to admit that the western security state cannot exist without a convenient polarity, an enemy: ask why and we discover the culprit.
The cave-dwelling terrorists, the mustachioed men with weapons of mass destruction under their cloaks, the Pearl Harbor moments, are all structured to create an enemy where none (or a much less powerful rival) exists. To whose benefit?
The paradigm of capitalism vs communism is mostly false, like so much else that we've been told. Antony C. Sutton of the Hoover Institution showed that behind the stage show, the oligarchs were trading hungrily as if the Iron Curtain had as many holes as Swiss cheese.
If those were capitalists, they had no ideology. Nor did they care for free markets.
A better term would be finance capitalism but even that misses the point that this is oligarchy.
After the founders, the Rockefellers, the next largest stockholder in Standard Oil was I.G. Farben, the giant German chemical company. "This investment was part of a pattern of reciprocal investments between the U.S. and Germany during the Nazi years." (You won't find this information on the main Wikipedia pages for Farben or Standard Oil, of course. The quote comes from A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn).After WW2 the U.S. corporate giants decided the economy must remain on a war footing because a) no level of civilian production could match the profits to be gained from militarism, b) war allowed them to reshape society in their image and c) the 'war economy' justified the continued expansion of the security state, namely the CIA and FBI who were founded as muscle for the bankers/lawyers to defend and expand their wealth and interest.
As far back as 1910 the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace had been asked by the Rockefeller Foundation to investigate "if there is any way known to man more effective than war to so alter the life of an entire people". They answered in the negative - Norman Dodd, chief investigator in 1953 for the Special Committee on Tax Exempt Foundations (commonly referred to as the Reece Committee).
Here we must face the reality of how the U.S. was founded - not to pick on the U.S. but because it is the beacon of freedom and capitalism. If the paragon falls short, so do all other countries. Nor do I diminish the U.S. Constitution as the greatest attempt The Enlightenment produced to structure a lasting form of just and representative government.
There were however many would-be aristocrats and autocrats in colonial society whose attitude to wealth was that of the merchant adventurers, primarily the Dutch and British "India companies". Theirs was a brutal, baronial wealth grab at the point of a gun. This brutal mindset was shared by Thomas Edison, front man and assassin for J.P. Morgan who in turn was likely a Rothschild front. Woe to any inventor making the lonely journey to register his patents in New York, such as pioneer of the movie camera and projector Louis Le Prince who vanished after boarding a train, shortly before Edison filed suit claiming he was the first and sole inventor of cinematography. J.D. Rockefeller's cornering of the oil market, the market manipulations of Carnegie, Mellon, Baruch and Vanderbilt were equally brutal.
The seizure of inventions and thuggery-by-patent continues today: see Michael McKibben who claims his software was stolen to make Facebook - and Martin Armstrong the economic forecaster, who spent 11 years in jail while refusing to hand over his predictive software to the courts. Echelon, the predecessor of Prism was revealed by the European Parliament in the 1990s as an NSA tool for corporate espionage. When a rival enters the airplane business such as Sukhoi, you'd better be sure your plane doesn't crash on its first public demonstration as did the Superjet 100, especially if your business partner is Boeing. If you plan to trade oil for gold instead of dollars, you'd better make sure you don't announce it publicly as did chairman of the French oil giant Total, Christophe de Margerie, who discussed exactly that deal with Russia's prime minister, then got in his plane and blew up.
Sure, it was all due to a bottle of vodka here or there, a stuck gas pedal, a fall from a moving vehicle. How something so simple can change the course of corporate history: Fool us once, shame on you; fool us again and again and again, the shame is ours.
Wall Street lawyers and bankers set up the OSS/CIA from the beginning to protect moneyed interests. It does not work for the people directly: it may even be largely self-financing. Likewise the FBI grew out of the Pinkertons who were "private detectives" specializing in provocateur actions, beatings and strike breaking. Is it any wonder that J. Edgar Hoover turned it into a blackmail operation and an organ of political policing?
Have you seen any sign of capitalism yet? The capitalism that you are taught to love and serve, cherish and defend?
The paragon of the West was set up as an oligarchy with an economy that depended as much on brute force as it did on capital.
The oligarchy was always violent. It had no moral doubts about financing the Nazi Reich, or spreading Nazism around the globe after its supposed defeat - see operations Paperclip, Rusty and Gladio, and the Red House Report.
The post-WW2 wartime economy was profitable, jobs were secure, one spouse could support a family of several children while saving for a significant pension. Strangely, that was dismantled after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 - see John Lanchester, Whoops! (2010)
All major "capitalist" initiatives pave the way for oligarchical collectivism: the removal of borders; creation of a stateless, cheap labour force; unfettered access to natural resources, destroying nation states if necessary (lebensraum); destruction of price discovery; commoditization of 'market economy''; and while main street and the middle class is destroyed, the government is abused along with patents and legislation to protect the interests of a small, oligarchical elite.
The milestones on this path include the UN, World Trade Organization, General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, NAFTA, Trans-Pacific Partnership. Not to forget the Nazi/OSS project that became the United States of Europe through the process of the Red House Meeting > European Coal and Steel Community > EEC > EU.
Oligarchs poring over maps of "all that good stuff"
It is essential to identify and name those behind the monetary reset and the pandemic. Accuracy is all. I've criticized the left for throwing around the word 'fascist' until it lost its meaning. Now they're facing real fascism, the corporatist state, and they can't see it because they are ignorant of its meaning.
Capitalism does not mean private ownership, which is where many web sites are wrong. Nor is it an accurate synonym for business, profit or tycoon. Nor did Adam Smith ever use the phrase. Smith was a political philosopher. His concepts were a rationale for explaining the status quo: that property rights and justice should develop from a free market. Liberals claim to be his heirs, defending the accumulation of wealth by insisting that it is the result of a free market and thus always to be justified, even in the hands of an oligarchy.
French politician Louis Blanc coined the word capitalism in 1850, as the "appropriation of capital by some to the exclusion of others". At its simplest, it is the accumulation of capital as a third means of wealth extraction alongside labour and land.
The word came into being as industry began to rival agriculture as the source of greatest wealth. Land being fixed, capital is fungible. Five years either side of 1850 the British made incorporation legal (rather than a one-off charter) and instituted limited liability. In just over a century, the corporation has acquired the rights and agency of the individual, without the moral restraint. Amassing untrammeled power the corporation became more powerful than the people and now stands above and independent of the nation state.
These corporations remain, as power and wealth always has, in the hands of an oligarchy. The corporation has allowed this oligarchy to combine, in a monopolistic and collectivist manner, to approach hegemonic power.
Capital is merely a tool, a lever - or if it is withheld, the point of a gun. There are two candidates for the first capital: the Templars and Medicis if you follow that line of research - and the merchant adventurers, traders like the East India Company. Many of these companies engaged in those traditional means of wealth extraction, labour (slavery) and land (colonies).
To cut it short, the EIC was the first corporation, founded 1600. These 'incorporations' wrangled charters to engage in mercantilism and arbitrage. They created new markets for tea, sugar, chocolate, pepper, nutmeg, slaves and opium - and exploited the price difference between different countries under an exclusivity contract enforced by private armies. "By 1803, at the height of its rule in India, the East India company had a private army of about 260,000—twice the size of the British Army."
Two hundred years later we have turned full circle as private companies occupy oil-rich lands protected by their private mercenary armies. Countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya were invaded, their functioning governments dismantled and not replaced. Not having to deal with a national government gives today's oligarchs the freedom to slice and dice the world's natural resources as they see fit.
The trade has barely changed. The most profitable industries are war, human trafficking and narcotics, legal and illegal. They still extract and ship raw materials, with the modern addition of oil and gas.
There is no space here for the concept of capitalism - nor is it needed to explain what is happening. Imagine the frock coats and ruffs of Elizabethan England as a cartel of powerful oligarchs and their merchant adventurers pore over maps of the world's mineral wealth. There you have it.
***
Antony Sutton’s service was to expose beyond doubt that the Oligarchy establishes and finances all the variants of “capitalism” and “socialism”.
It is very relevant to hear what Antony Sutton says. It is clear that Oligarchical support for Nazism and Bolshevism went beyond “just business”.
It cannot be explained away as “if they don’t buy from us, they’ll buy from someone else”. Sutton demonstrates that the Oligarchy specifically put the Nazis and Bolsheviks in power and kept them there. Below I have noted the main points of his interview.
Antony Sutton worked for the Hoover Institution when he had access to documents showing how American and British banks financed Hitler and the Bolsheviks, built up their industrial base and armed both regimes.
In 1933 Standard Oil financed and built Germany’s aviation fuel facilities, for example.
The initial financing of Lenin’s movement came from the Rockefellers’s Chase Bank, now Chase Manhattan, which transferred funds in Dec 1917. As claimed by William Boyce Thompson himself in the Washington Post (Feb 2nd 1918) – Thompson gave money to help the Bolsheviks consolidate, the cash coming from Wall St to pave the way for control of the Russian market and resources.
Why would American capitalists help aid Bolshevism? Sutton says this puzzled him for years and the only answer he could come to is a desire to have captive markets that are not rivals: Socialist states do not innovate. If they are wealthy a petro state like Russia can be an excellent market for western goods.
Russia is almost two times larger than the U.S. The last thing the U.S. wanted was another America. Better to encourage socialism because this would give the oligarchs control of the world market. Today Russia is largely a market for German, not American, goods.
In 1922 Russia had collapsed. Industrial output was about 10% of pre-Revolution levels. Millions were starving. Herbert Hoover channeled aid from the bankers to the Bolsheviks who controlled a very small part of Russia at the time. Thus the U.S. again helped to consolidate the Bolsheviks.
In 1923 Lenin launched his New Economic Plan. Practically every Russian industry was rebuilt by British, French, German and American specialists. By 1928 Russia had returned to the output of 1917.
In 1928 Stalin wanted to launch his five year plans. Gosplan, the Soviet planning agency, failed and the job was given to the Americans.
Albert Kahn Associates of the United States, the leading industrial architect of the day, created the first two Five Year Plans for Stalin. Albert Kahn brought together the top U.S. corporations to industrialize Bolshevik Russia: General Electric, DuPont, Ford, Curtis Wright etc.
The U.S. corporations provided all the hardware, even the factories. Ford Motor built the Gorky plant which produced the GAZ vehicles. The key player was Averell Harriman who developed the Georgian manganese deposits.
Armand Hammer of Occidental Petrolum received his first concession in 1922. His father was Julius Hammer who a founder of the Communist Party of the USA.
Bill Browder is an investment manager and investor in Russia. His grandfather was Earl Browder, General Secretary of the CPUSA during the 1930s and first half of the 1940s.
THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE OLIGARCHS AND THE COLLECTIVISTS. In some cases the communists and oligarchs are the same people.
After WW2 and Lend Lease, there was a continued transfer of industrial equipment to the Soviet Union. In 1948 Major Racey Jordan revealed that the U.S. had helped build the Soviet nuclear industry.
The U.S. supplied heavy water in 1944-45 and aluminum tubes, graphite and other essential components – Antony Sutton says Major Jordan was largely correct. So the U.S. helped create the Soviet nuclear threat.
The Soviets lacked MIRV, a guidance system and a huge advance in missile technology – so, again, the USA obliged. The Soviets could not make micro-miniature ball bearings and nor had the ability to grind the minute traces for the guidance systems. Bryant Grinder of Vermont was allowed to export grinders to the Soviet Union.
In the Vietnam war U.S. pilots spotted American trucks on the Ho Chi Minh trail: these were made at Ford’s Gorky plant and supplied by the Soviets. The USA was supplying both sides in the Vietnam war.
In the early 1970s while the war was underway the U.S. was still supplying the Soviet auto industry.
Fiat of Italy was a front for the U.S. handled by Gianni Agnelli, principal shareholder of Fiat, who sat on the board of Rockefeller’s Chase Manhattan Bank. Fiat supplied industrial equipment to Kamaz trucks – industrial equipment that Fiat did not make itself – because Fiat factories were supplied with American equipment. Thus Fiat was simply a cover to divert attention from the fact that during the Vietnam War the U.S. was building the Kama River Plant which at 36 square miles, was the largest car plant in the world. Construction lasted from in the late 1960s to the early 1970s.
Of the Soviet merchant marine 60% of hulls were built abroad and 80% of diesel engines were made in the West – mainly from Sulzer of Switzerland, Burmeister & Wain of Denmark. The remaining 20% were built in the USSR with technical advice and equipment from Fiat and Burmeister & Wain. In other words, without Western help, there could be no Soviet diesel engines.
Financial aid to the Soviet union reached $40 billion outstanding by the 1970s in order to buy industrial equipment.
Antony Sutton exposed this in the mid-1970s after which his publishing contracts came under pressure, news agencies were instructed not to interview him, and subsequently the Hoover Institution accused Sutton of plagiarizing his own work that he had done for Stanford University. Later he was told his research went beyond what was welcome and should be confined within more narrow boundaries. In 1975 Sutton left the Hoover Institution.
***
Sutton’s point is that the system will self destruct. I share his view. That’s not the same as doing nothing. He had a deep knowledge of the violent lengths to which these Oligarchs and their Corporations will go. These Oligarchs are mental dwarfs. They are making a big error thinking they are bigger than nation states and that they no longer need to pay taxes or work within the legal bounds of statehood.
I suggest the Oligarchs are collectivist in three ways: They want collective, monopoly, no tender, universal government contracts – as we see with the pharma vaccine contracts right now.
Secondly, they are an Oligarchical Collective in the sense that they have more in common with each other than with the rest of us. Thirdly, they use collectivism as bait and switch: they know humans hanker to be taken care of, then they present collectivists as the enemy just to ensure we don’t get too keen on the idea.
I am no judoka but one strategy would be give them what they want: their Oligarchical Collectivist paradise – we end up in collectivism but with the satisfaction of seeing them turn on each other as the tall poppies get culled.
Einstein’s definition of idiocy: doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different outcome: Bolshevism, Italian Fascism, Nazism, Communist China… here they go again in all their boneheaded Rockefeller Dunning-Kruger stupidity.
The other is to throw ourselves upon the gears. As Solzhenitsyn put it:
“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say goodbye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?…”
Comments