Relevance for the Present
Post Cold War
The rise of Gorbachev, who has since made a name for himself on the world stage as one of the globalist elite, and the brief drunken interregnum of Yeltsin, must have seemed as though Russia was at last about to come into the globalist fold. Whatever the influences that might have been working behind Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev when he dismantled the Soviet state, in 1991 he had created the Gorbachev Foundation for the purpose of planning Russia’s “place and role in the future world order” as well as having a broader policy of promoting “globalization.”[38] Gorbachev also has a grander role, stating that, “the keynote of the Foundation’s activities is Toward a New Civilization.”[39]
The same year that Gorbachev created his Foundation to advocate for a “new world order” in tandem with other globalist think tanks such as the Soros Foundation and Open Society Institute, etc., President George H W Bush was enthusing that with the demise of the Soviet bloc a “new world order” might at last emerge as envisaged by the founders of the UNO:
…Until now the world we’ve known has been a world divided – a world of barbed wire and concrete block, conflict and cold war.
Now we can see a new world coming into view. A world in which there is the very real prospect of a new world order… A world where the United Nations, freed from cold war stalemate, is poised to fulfill the historic mission of its founders…[40]
That the globalist hopes for Russia were yet again dashed with the advent of Putin, and the emergence of influential forces even more antagonistic towards Russia’s incorporation into a “new world order”,[41] including the rise of Stalin nostalgia for Russian Great Power status, is evident from the position of the CFR in the title of a special report produced by the “East Coast foreign policy establishment.” Tellingly entitled, Russia’s Wrong Direction: What the United States Can and Should do, the hegemonic attitude of the US ruling clique is not even disguised. The report is replete with all the old Cold War rhetoric, and castigates Putin for placing Russia on a course in his domestic and foreign policies that “cause problems for the United States.” The current recommendation is for “selective cooperation” rather than “partnership, which is not now feasible.” The conclusion in the opening statement is that “Russia is heading in the wrong direction.”[42]
John Edward and Jack Kemp are acknowledged for their efforts in bringing “international attention” to Putin’s attempts to “intimidate or put out of business foreign and Russian nongovernmental organizations.” That is to say, Putin has attempted to resist the organizations that mainly derive from the Soros network and the National Endowment for Democracy, that create revolutionary and subversive organizations, fund and train agitators, and that have been responsible for “colour revolutions” throughout the former Soviet bloc and further afield.[43]
The Task Force Report laments that cooperation is now the exception rather than the norm. Russia is critiqued for “becoming increasingly more authoritarian,” while America’s foreign policy is one of promoting “democracy” throughout the word,[44] which is to say, overthrowing states that do not succumb to US hegemony with the use of the NGOs that Putin is condemned for “intimidating.” Russia’s policies on its “periphery” are also of concern; [45]by which is meant that Russia does not desire hostile states on its borders, such as Georgia, run by regimes that have been installed by those noble NGO’s of the Soros network etc. The CFR therefore recommends that more should be done to “accelerate the integration of those states into the West.” [46] The CFR recommends that US Congress interfere directly in the Russian political process by funding opposition movements in Russia under the façade of strengthening democracy, by increased funding for the Freedom Support Act, in this instance referring specifically to the 2007-2008 presidential elections.[47] Of note is Mark F Brzezinski as one of the authors, who served on the National Security Council as an adviser on Russian and Eurasian affairs under Clinton, as his father Zbigniew served under Carter. Antonia W Bouis is cited as founding executive director of the Soros Foundations (1987-92). James A Harmon, senior advisor to the Rothschild Group, et al.
What can be expected under Obama in regard to Russia? Despite the electoral rhetoric Obama has pursued policies in the same direction as prior administrations. Mark Brzezinski was Obama’s foreign policy adviser during the presidential campaign.[48] Of particular significance is that among Obama’s primary backers is George Soros, which makes anything other than a subversive and belligerent attitude towards Russia unlikely.[49]
[1] K R Bolton, “Socialism, Revolution and Capitalist Dialectics,” Foreign Policy Journal, May 5, 2010.
[2] Jacob H Schiff, “Jacob H Schiff Rejoices, By Telegraph to the Editor of the New York Times”, New York Times, March 18, 1917. This can be viewed in The New York Times online archives: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9802E4DD163AE532A2575BC1A9659C946696D6CF (accessed 12 January 2010). Schiff, “Loans easier for Russia”, The New York Times, 20 March 1917. http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9B04EFDD143AE433A25753C2A9659C946696D6CF (accessed 12 January 2010).
John B Young (National City Bank) Is A People’s Revolution”, The New York Times, 16 March 1917.
“Bankers here pleased with news of revolution”, ibid.
“Stocks strong – Wall Street interpretation of Russian News”, ibid.
[3] “Bolsheviki Will Not Make Separate Peace: Only Those Who Made Up Privileged Classes Under Czar Would Do So, Says Col. W B Thompson, Just Back From Red Cross Mission”, The New York Times, 27 January 1918.
[4] Also spelt Grose, indicative of some poor proofreading from the CFR.
[5] The original name of the think tank founded by Pres. Wilson’s primary adviser, Edward House, which became the present CFR.
[6] Peter Grosse, Continuing The Inquiry: The Council on Foreign Relations from 1921 to 1996, (New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 2006). The entire book can be read online at: Council on Foreign Relations: http://www.cfr.org/about/history/cfr/index.html
[7] Armand Hammer of Occidental Petroleum, who had been a concessionaire at the earliest stages of the Soviet regime, stated of his meeting with Trotsky that the he was questioned as to how US capitalists regarded Russia as a “desirable field for investment?” Trotsky having returned from the Urals thought that the region had great possibilities for American capital. Armand Hammer, Hammer: Witness to History (London: Coronet Books, 1988), 160.
[8] Lenin had stated to Hammer: “The New Economic Policy demands a fresh development of our economic possibilities. We hope to accelerate the process by a system of industrial and commercial concessions to foreigners. It will give great opportunities to the United State.” Ibid., 143.
[9] Antony Sutton, National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union (New York: Arlington House, 1973).
[10] For Roosevelt’s commitment to friendship with Stalin see the CIA essay: Gary Kern, How “Uncle Joe” Bugged FDR, Central Intelligence Agency, <https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol47no1/article02.html>
[11] Andrei Gromyko, Soviet representative to the UN and to the UN Atomic Energy commission, future Foreign Minister and Soviet president remarks: “Washington tended to view colonial empires as an anachronism and made no secret that it would shed no tears were they to be dismantled… In any case it was time for the old masters to move aside….” Andrei Gromyko, Memories (London: Hutchinson, 1989). What was to fill the void of the European empires were the neo-colonialisms of the USSR and the USA, and often mistaken for “Soviet communist” activities.
[12] Gromyko, ibid.
[13] G Edward Griffin, The Fearful Master: A Second Look at the United Nations (Boston: Western Islands, 1964).
[14] Caroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope (Macmillan, ) 892.
[15] Ibid., 893.
[16] Ibid., 895.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Bernard Baruch, The Baruch Plan, 1946.
< http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/Deterrence/BaruchPlan.shtml>
[20] Gromyko, op.cit.
[21] Dulles suspected the peace initiative came form the emperor himself.
[22] “Ladies of the Press,” panel-interview programme, WOR-TV, New York, January 19, 1963. <http://www.greenwych.ca/dulles.htm>
[23] Bob Fisk, “The Decision to Bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki,” II, 1983. The article can be found at: <http://www.greenwych.ca/hiro2bmb.htm>
[24] Ibid.
[25] Bernard Baruch, NY Tribune, April 17, 1947. cited by Fisk, ibid.,
[26] Frances Stonor Saunders, The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters (New York: the New Press, 2000), 91.
[27] Bertrand Russell, “The Atomic Bomb and the Prevention of War,” Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, October 1, 1946, 5.
[28] Ibid., 2.
[29] Ibid., 3.
[30] Ibid., 3.
[31] Bertrand Russell, Has Man a Future? (Hammondsworth: Penguin Books, 1961), 25.
[32] Peter Grosse in his semi-official history of the CFR, calls the Council “the East Coast foreign policy establishment.” Grosse, op.cit., Chapter: “’X’ Leads the Way,” <http://www.cfr.org/about/history/cfr/x_leads.html>
[33] Peter Grosse, ibid., “The First Transformation”.
[34] Peter Grosse, ibid., “X Leads the Way”. “X” was Kennan, an anonymous policy-maker.
[35] Ibid.
[36] Ibid., “The First Transformation.,” <http://www.cfr.org/about/history/cfr/first_transformation.html>
[37] Ibid.
[38] The Gorbachev Foundation, “About Us, The Foundation Projects and Structural Subdivisions,” <http://www.gorby.ru/en/rubrs.asp?rubr_id=302>
[39] Ibid.
[40] George H W Bush, speech before US Congress, March 6, 1991.
[41] For example, the “Eurasian” concept whose chief proponent is Prof. Alexander Dugin, head of the Center for Conservative Research, Moscow State University, who advocates a “multi-polar” world of power bloc “vectors” as an alternative to globalization.
[42] Jack Kemp, et al, Russia’s Wrong Direction: What the United States Can and Should do, Independent Task Force Report no. 57 (New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 2006) xi. The entire publication can be downloaded at:
< http://www.cfr.org/publication/9997/>
[43] Richard N Haass, CFR President, ibid.
[44] Ibid., 4.
[45] Ibid., 5.
[46] Ibid., 6.
[47] Ibid., 7.
[48] Michael Hirsh, “The Talent Primary,” Newsweek, September 17, 2007.
[49] K R% Bolton, Obama – Catspaw of International Finance, August 28, 2008, <http://www.rense.com/general83/cats.htm>
To assert that Stalin thwarted a global NWO is to show total ignorance of the financing of the Soviet Union. In truth, the very same financiers funded the “revolution of 1917”, the Mao revolution of the 1945-47, and the build-up of Communist China. The Soviet Union was the best enemy money could buy. Just as WALL STREET financed Hitler, so too it financed Stalin and his successors. Why you ask? The answer should be apparent based on the world today: To create a global NWO. The Hegelian dialectic, the controlled opposition, the continual threats of war, the strengthening of totalitarian socialist economies, the oligarchical globalists who control most of the worlds central banks, these are forces of history. Read Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope and the Anglo-American Establishment for more information. Also check out the RED SYMPHONY FOR INSIGHT INTO THE THE TRUE POWER OF BANKERS.
If Mr Hart had read what I’ve written for FPJ he would know that I understand dialectical strategies, having written the article on ‘socialism, revolution and capitalist dialectics’, that I know who backed the Maoist takeover – which Stalin tried to thwart – and who funded the Bolsheviks.
As I state in the article on the Cold War, it will be unpalatable to many that Stalin scotched the US effort to establish a new world order via the UNO and the Baruch Plan, but the writer does not address any of the material in the essay. Creating a bogus enemy out of the USSR by using Stalin in order to pursue a dialectical strategy makes no sense on any level. The best opportunity for a world state via the UNO came immediately after WWII, and Stalin scotched it. If Stalin had played along who else would have been able to resist the type of world authority that was being proposed by the USA? The globalist agenda would have been completed decades ago.
Quigley does not say that the plutocrats backed the USSR; on the contrary he states that they lost control from Stalin onwards, and I cite Quigley in my essay. Of his 1200 page magnum opus ‘Tragedy and hope’, only several dozen pages refer to the international bankers, but certain conspiracy theorists cite him selectively.
Quigley erred gravely in identifying the globalist power structure as “Anglophile.” This has given rise to all types of nonsense about the British Monarchy, sometimes with extraterrestrial reptiles being thrown in for good measure. The CFR and the Rhodes group parted ways at the earliest stages, as Grosse states in his CFR history, “Continuing the Inquiry.”
Grosse’s semi-official CFR history, quoted extensively in my essay, states that the USSR soon became problematic. Quigley states the same, and Armand Hammer alludes to such matters from personal experience in his autobiography. There is no reason to think that Grosse is providing misdirection on this or anything else. He states that the CFR was pro-Bolshevik, but rightly predicted that the USSR would soon take an unpalatable direction.
“Red Symphony” , supposedly the Stalinist interrogation of Trotskyite Christian Rakovsky, is interesting but not authentic. It supposedly quotes Rakovsky in reference to Trotsky’s father in law being the banker Zhivitovsky. The alleged quote is a verbatim cut-and-paste job from the 1919 US Military Intelligence Report entitled “Bolshevism and Judaism” which was in reality written by the Czarist emigre Boris Brasol. Zhivitovsky was Trotsky’s uncle, and was indeed involved in funding the Bolsheviks.
The Trotsky – Stalin split has been of enduring importance in understanding post war policy to the present, as I attempted to show. It also epxlains alot about the ideological impetus for Cold War US policy, and the new Cold War emerging as the result yet again of Russian self-assertion. More power to them.
That was my thought exactly. Thanks for commenting.
This is good if Americans think, read and understand this things. But I saw much more comments for translations of this article on russian site…
Mr Nikolaev
What Russian site? Would of course be interested to know.
Regards
K R Bolton
To: Dr K R Bolton
Oh, some random Russian propaganda site.
Of course, Mr. Puppet John, this is exactly the propaganda site, the Western propaganda, as this the site with translations on non Russian articles, from the whole World. Usually we (Russians) read it just for LOLS, as no one “compos mentis” considers this major mass of this bletcherous, incompetent scribble as thomthing worthy…
But!.. From time to time…
Thank you, thank you so much, Dr. K R Bolton, for brilliant analytic material!!!
Agree with John Puppet – 100% sure that this is Russian propaganda.
Thanks for the truth.
From Russia with love.
To Dr. K R Bolton, apologise’ if this comment is somewhat late. I was curious about the situation of Europe during these times. Do you think Europes long history of internal conflict and multitude of ethnicity will prevent it from ever returning to the world stage as a unified dominant global power to rival the likes of the U.S and Russia?
Rosco
The artifical nation-state constructs are engendering conflict, and should be broken down into organic entities.Paradoxical as it might seem, this might lessen division, as hatreds are caused when people are forced together rather than uniting as the result of a dialectical historical process. One prime example would be the dissolution of Belgium in favour of the Walloon and Flemish nations, as per the recent election victory of Flemish separatists.
Unity is unfortunately achieved usually by outside pressures – an outer enemy . America I think will sink as a power through internal flaws. Other powers will emerge and China and Russia i think will become enemies once more, with emerging conflicts in Asia, the issue of water resources coming to the fore. From such crises both new dangers and new opportunities emerge. I would personally opt for an alignment with Russia, my own country, New Zealand, being obsessed with China which i think will cause us great problems in the near future. My recent articles on geopolitical problems appearing in World Affairs, India Quarterly and the Journal for Social, Political and Economic Studies might be of interest in regard to some of these questions.
As America and the globalist poison continue to spread there is hope of a reaction, a resurgence of faith in Europe as a response to the alienation and superficiality caused by globalisation. Perhaps resurgent forces in Europe will emerge in the midst of spiritual, cultural, social, economic and political crises? I think Spengler can be profitably read for many insights.
thats silly you shouldn’t talk crap about a kool bloke
you should all bow down ryan will be in power soon enough to destroy you all
if you go back to the Khammurabbic Consitution of 2600BC and notice the emergence of the babylonian state; you will notice the ‘Satan’ of the prophets, whom of course were all murdered for the reason of someones empire. His name is there and he would be king; and we would note the war against monarchies and religions today; esp judaism and christianity as they once and no longer are. it is well known that the roman church, the islamic mosque, and the jewish rabbinacy are a singular religious fraud. its in reality the babylonian church of satan. marduke was proclaimed ruler of the world by An and Enlil and Khammurabbi was apointed as the human face in the geopolitic. But his father did not elect him however.
Thats why Ea, soon, by 1600BC went on his own and elected a priestly government via mosis. From 600BC and on the infiltration of the jewish kingship and jewish priesthood were complete. the last kings of israel were babylonian, equally the priesthood. there is no valid jewish priesthood. there are no legal rabbis. that lays the foundation to est that the roman church is a fraud, as paul whom was saul did note of its precedence of origin; via the false jewish church; they whom call themselves jews but are not. in those days power was determined via religion up until modern time. and it continues.
somewhere near 600bc marduke, in the absence of his fathers, An, Enlil, Ea went his own way. he had clear intention to prove men as unworthy self government if under test. unfort his contestation did not consider a resistant minority of many millions. many believe and have faith in the promise of the kingdom the lord of israel predicated upon and that he himself would ensure.
this desire for power, on the part of marduke pushes the panorama of history. the history is but a plot. 6000 nuclear missiles cannot be wrong. 5000 f35 fighters produced under a viel of cold war illusion, a lie covering a truth.
who is coming circa 2012 dec 25 to avenge the murder of his people and the plan of his rebellious son to murder off the entirety of christians and jews with the islamic religion, created for that purpose. under the weight of getting along with islam, they would justify the removal of judaism and christianity and docile us into believing in a fictious need for a religious commonality.
keep careful view upon the lords prayer, i pray each day for the coming of a kingdom, i dont pray for the coming of the un. and neither does that charter ever declare the premise of that kingdom. and it equates that false islam dares stand brother to judah and israel and christ. never. a religion that will not accept the supremacy of the lord of israel, ea, whose name is jesus christ equally in the encryption of the faith, is a satanic instrument in fact. there is no mohammed and there is no allah . its a dogma.
the lord of abraham, whose name is Ea will determined who mohammed will be or who he wont be. this is his earth. and no UN will ever have the audacity to stand a halfbred freak born against natural order as god properly meant it, to ever declare himself equal. he is unworthy even to offer sacrifice. and if you cannot sacrifice you cannot be a priest. and as Daniel attests beauty defines faith and faith beauty.
and No freak against nature, like Obama will ever continue his damned riegn as a puppet of babylon.
Marduke will not keep this earth. The testimony of his Father is before us. and he has never been known to fail.
Amen.
:-` I am very thankful to this topic because it really gives up to date information ;~-
The sheep will always deny the truth simply b/c they were and still are being brainwashed by the mainsleaze media and that they will always be subservient to the whims of the Zionists masters and owners..
Crazt conspiracy theory always based on some reality. Soros controls the world? Well why he is a minnow compared to non jewish greats such as buffet and gates. the richest jew in the world (sheldon) doesnt even get into to the top 20 richest people in the world. What a stupid article. I wish jews did rule the world then we could get rid of those fakestinians and tell that muppet kerry to bog off back to the USA
What a stupid comment. The article doesn’t say Soros “controls the world”, must less that Jews do. The only mention of Jews, in fact, is in the comments. I can only guess that you based your comment on your impression of the article based on on others’ comments instead of actually reading the article for yourself.
Mate just check out your final paragraph conclusion:
” run by regimes that have been installed by those noble NGO’s of the Soros network etc. The CFR therefore recommends that more should be done to “accelerate the integration of those states into the West.” [46] The CFR recommends that US Congress interfere directly in the Russian political process by funding opposition movements in Russia under the façade of strengthening democracy, by increased funding for the Freedom Support Act, in this instance referring specifically to the 2007-2008 presidential elections.[47] Of note is Mark F Brzezinski as one of the authors, who served on the National Security Council as an adviser on Russian and Eurasian affairs under Clinton, as his father Zbigniew served under Carter. Antonia W Bouis is cited as founding executive director of the Soros Foundations (1987-92). James A Harmon, senior advisor to the Rothschild Group, et al.
What can be expected under Obama in regard to Russia? Despite the electoral rhetoric Obama has pursued policies in the same direction as prior administrations. Mark Brzezinski was Obama’s foreign policy adviser during the presidential campaign.[48] Of particular significance is that among Obama’s primary backers is George Soros, which makes anything other than a subversive and belligerent attitude towards Russia unlikely”
If that does not read like the protocols of zion I dont know what does. Absolutely loopy! Enjoy the conspiracy theorys though.
Dude, that Soros funds NGOs that engage in the activities described is hardly a secret. To try to compare this observation to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is just ignorant.
Pierre Omidyar co-funded Ukraine revolution groups with US government, documents show
http://pando.com/2014/02/28/pierre-omidyar-co-funded-ukraine-revolution-groups-with-us-government-documents-show/
and
Assistant Secretary Nuland at U.S.-Ukraine Foundation Conference
We’ve invested over $5 billion to assist Ukraine in these and other goals that will ensure a secure and prosperous and democratic Ukraine.
http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/texttrans/2013/12/20131216289031.html#ixzz2uDCREyNA
You can read about the NGO’s and the direct funding this has nothing to do with Jews. Our government financed Nazi’s and Islamic Militants in the Ukraine.
Pierre Omidyar co-funded Ukraine revolution groups with US government, documents show
http://pando.com/2014/02/28/pierre-omidyar-co-funded-ukraine-revolution-groups-with-us-government-documents-show/
via
Will This Iranian Billionaire Bring The US To Its Knees?
http://www.westernjournalism.com/iranian-billionaire-access-nsa-top-secret-documents/
and
Assistant Secretary Nuland at U.S.-Ukraine Foundation Conference
We’ve invested over $5 billion to assist Ukraine in these and other goals that will ensure a secure and prosperous and democratic Ukraine.
http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/texttrans/2013/12/20131216289031.html#ixzz2uDCREyNA
At rallies last month, the Crimean Tatars were chanting both “Allahu Akbar” in Arabic and “Glory to Ukraine” in Ukrainian. At the time, there was an outside chance of a Crimean regional government supported by the Crimean Tatars, some Ukrainians and local elites who resented the rule of Viktor Yanukovych’s clique., which is why Russia then intervened to put its supporters in power instead.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/05/tartar-ukraine-sunni-muslims-threat-russian-rule-crimea
Russians don’t heed to the nonsense rhetoric coming from the West.
We don’t buy your silly talk about “democracy”, “free speech”, peace on earth etc, because we see right through it.
We know
1) there is not democracy or free speech in the West, unless you agree with the official totalitarian liberalist logic
2) we base our world view on our natural instincts, intuition, which tells us you are the enemy and come to kill us and take over our country, because that is what was attempted by YOU and happened after the collapse of USSR
3) jews are behind all revolutions and “human” rights groups in Russia and around the world – and it can’t be good
4) you are no longer even hiding your duplicitous hypocrisy – by calling the Ukrainian junta “legitimate” and based on international law when in fact the glaring facts say otherwise, and at the same time your leaders tell us that a referendum in Crimea to join Russia is illegitimate and is in violation of all kinds of laws. You are really that dumb to think that we are as dumb as you are?
Pray for the USA please. We need to be on a different path.
With head in shame, I don’t disagree with what you write about my country… except the term liberal as applied to American politics of today. That is a sham label in the news, as USA is conservative right. Liberal meaning: “political
doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the
individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically
believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being
harmed by others, but they also recognize that government itself can
pose a threat to liberty.” So you see, it is not liberalism that is the enemy, nor is democracy. It is imperialism, in all its forms, which requires consolidated power. That is the enemy of us all. All our governments, no matter what label we give it… it shall impose totalitarian rule whether through fascism, socialism, communism… all the same when unveiled to expose imperialism with a few elites running the sham.
besides how many millions of people had to die for democracy?
The United States has been the biggest violator of human rights since World War ll, directly leading to the death of over 20 million people in the past 70 years, says an American political analyst in Virginia.
A study conducted several years ago by American historian James Lucas reveals that US military forces were directly responsible for the deaths of between 20 and 30 million people in wars and conflicts in 37 nations, said Keith Preston, chief editor of AttacktheSystem.com.
This article is a joke. I live in Romania and know for sure that Russia always tried to expand in Europe regardless of the regime.