From a newsletter I receive...
Heads I Win, Tails You Lose
by Jeff Thomas
-
A little-recognised fact about the Russian revolution is that it was financed by US financial and industry leaders, through operatives in the US State Department.
On the face of it, this seems absurd, as business interests are presumed to support capitalist, not communist regimes.
So let’s have a closer look.
The Federal Reserve was incorporated in New York in May of 1914.
At that time, the Morgan and Rockefeller interests dominated not only Wall Street, but almost the entire economic structure of the US.
The American International Corporation (AIC) was organized in 1915 by Morgan and Rockefeller interests. Their offices were in the new Equitable Life Building in Manhattan.
Amongst the AIC’s directors were the heads of General Electric, New York Life Insurance, the Carnegie Foundation and the National City Bank (which was used at that time to connect Morgan and Rockefeller interests). The bank had no less than ten directors on the AIC board. In addition, four directors were from the then-new Federal Reserve, including W.L. Saunders, one of the US president’s closest advisors.
As luck would have it, the Federal Reserve in New York was also located in the Equitable Life Building.
In 1917, Leon Trotsky arrived in New York. Following his negotiations with the AIC, he headed back to Russia with not only funds to accomplish a second revolution there, but also a US passport, courtesy of President Woodrow Wilson, acting on the advice of the AIC.
Along with Mr. Trotsky was a sizable "American Red Cross mission," although their Red Cross activities in Russia were non-existent. The delegation of twenty-four Red Cross "officers" actually consisted of finance and industry operatives from New York.
Together, they oversaw the financing of the second revolution by Messrs. Lenin and Trotsky. They then remained long enough to cement financing and trade deals with the new government.
It’s important to note that the Soviet Union was to be communist in its rule over their citizenry, but corporatist in its approach to dividing the spoils amongst the American businessmen and Soviet leaders.
Needless to say, all the cloak and dagger was necessary in order to conceal from the American people that the communist revolution in Russia was actually backed by New York bigwigs. And of course, the Russian people who had just overthrown their aristocracy would not have welcomed an unholy alliance with the New York financiers.
But what does this have to do with the image above, as it clearly refers to the American 2020 presidential election?
Well, the US is presently in a state of political and economic upheaval.
Although the US has, in its history, been through many episodes of protest and even riots, this is the first time that mayors, governors, congressmen and the media have openly supported the rioters, claiming that their cause is just and, more importantly, that the end justifies the means – that of burning, looting and even killing.
Returning to the matter of the 2020 election, the sitting president is a lifelong corporatist who avows that he will do what’s good for business come Hell or high water.
His opponent is an aged political hack whose opinion has always been whatever it needed to be to satisfy voters – an empty suit whose moral compass is for sale to whoever represents the swing vote at present.
And, clearly, this time around, he is pandering to the wave of younger voters who are jumping increasingly on the communist bandwagon.
Capitalism has been in decline for over one hundred years in the US, as the result of an ever more powerful central government, supported by big business.
At this point it’s essentially collectivist – that is, it’s a combination of corporatist structure, with socialist entitlements, along with some remnants of capitalism – just enough to maintain the illusion of "freedom."
But true freedom has long-since departed the US.
For many Americans, this is a very turbulent time – an unprecedented one – as, the 1861 secession aside, the US has never been in open conflict with itself – not in any meaningful way.
Everywhere, Americans are living in fear. Their one great hope is that the presidential election may save them. To Americans it’s an all-out battle – either the candidate they favour will save them, or the opposing candidate will destroy the country.
And this is true of voter perception regardless of which candidate they support.
But for many, the focus is so intent on the election itself that they fail to look beyond the election and imagine what the new America will look like.
In the last four years, the opposition party has been rabid in its condemnation of the president. If he wins a second time, the opposition will unquestionably go into overdrive. There will be rebellion beyond anything heretofore extant.
And if the contender wins the election, there will be a wholesale charge into communist policies that will eclipse the mild form of socialism that now exists in the US.
The concept of a Free Market is a simple one: It says that individuals and businesses should be free and unencumbered by governmental regulation and controls. This allows commerce to function on the basis of price discovery – a bottom-up system in which the consumer decides what he’s willing to pay for a product or service.
But collectivism is a bit more complicated. It includes a number of "isms". Socialism, fascism, communism, corporatism and crony capitalism are all terms that describe various means by which collectivism functions.
In actual fact, it matters little which isms are in play – they lead to the same end: The great majority of people in a jurisdiction are subjugated to a small number of elite leaders who dictate not only economy, but social mores and, ideally, even thought.
Aldous Huxley and George Orwell did a bang-up job of describing collectivism in its many forms, and increasingly, we’re seeing the US (and in fact quite a few other Western countries) devolve into exactly what they warned against.
If the incumbent president wins the election, collectivist corporatism will be the thrust, with dramatically increased unrest, demanding increased communist legislation.
However, if his opponent wins, the decline into collectivism will be just as certain, but the path will be more direct.
Like Russia in 1917, it matters little whether the corporatists or the communists will prevail. They belong to the same collectivist club.
This is a classic "Heads I win, tails you lose" scenario. Come what may, Americans, whether they comprehend it or not, are already in the post-Constitutional period of their existence, and the post-2020 period will be the final transition into a collectivist state.
