"This protest was stifled by the noise of private conversations" from Scenes from the Private and Public Life of Animals by J. J. Grandville. ca. 1837–47
Hegemony is the credo of the neoconservative movement. Its leaders have insisted since the middle of the 20th century that the United States is obliged to exercise global humane hegemony over the world by virtue of the absolute superiority of its cultural and socio-political values.
I would like to begin by sharing my thoughts on American and, more broadly, Western political correctness. I am quite familiar with it. I can responsibly say that we are talking about a kind of censorship and, most importantly, self-censorship, that blows the Soviet censors, and even the most fervent members of the Holy Inquisition, out of the water.
Western political correctness is a scary thing. It is divided into everyday political correctness and public political correctness. Some Western intellectuals may sometimes say something worthwhile at a table within a tight circle, i.e. something outside the bounds of political correctness. Because nothing worthwhile can be said within the bounds of political correctness. But even this kind of Western intellectual, who is capable of such a thing in a narrow circle, will utter insipid and dull gibberish, which has nothing to do neither with reality nor with his own conception of the world, when he finds himself at a public event.
It is truly so. But if only that was all.
As soon as a Western intellectual steps outside the bounds of political correctness, which happens sometimes, something rather unpleasant happens to him. And not just socially. Of course, they first turn him into an outcast. That is the social aspect of what happens. But there is also the psychological component.
More often than not, such an offender of public political correctness develops a strange grimace on his face. He stops ironing his trousers and shining his shoes. It seems as if he is constantly shifting his gaze around. And in this state, instead of vulgar trivialities, he begins to utter something excessively exotic, which again has little to do with reality and always contains a certain degree of scientific sloppiness and unscrupulousness.
Moreover, this new concoction is all geared toward a certain audience – a very low-quality one.
Apparently (this is my bold hypothesis), Western society is so unfree inside that political correctness there fuses itself with the sphere of fundamental human taboos; therefore, violating political correctness is perceived by the violator as the right to lose some part of his irrevocable human orderliness. His organization of thoughts, emotions, behavior, and the like.
So, it is very difficult to orient oneself to statements by people who have lost their political correctness. Sometimes they say something worthwhile, but in combination with something completely worthless.
Nor can one take bearings from statements by politically correct ladies and gentlemen, because their statements are meaningless.
But there are a certain number of people in the American higher intellectual establishment and in the Western higher intellectual establishment in Europe who are allowed, of course, while remaining within the slightly extended boundaries of political correctness, to retain a certain amount of substance.
It is as if these people are allowed to violate political correctness in moderation. And, in a sense, this only strengthens it. Few people are allowed this kind of measured transgression. But it is worth listening to their opinion, because, unlike the completely politically incorrect ladies and gentlemen, they manage to not go insane. That is, they remain completely appropriate, but at the same time they have some kind of substance. And when you become acquainted with this substance, you understand that this it is sanctioned by the Western higher political class. And it is important for the analyst to understand what is not only authentic, but also sanctioned by the entity you are studying.
Among the few American intellectuals capable of communicating something substantive, credible, respectable, and in a sense sanctioned by that higher political class is Mr. Francis Fukuyama.
This is why he attracts my attention. Fukuyama cannot go crazy, nor can he be unreliable when it comes to the objects of his research, which are within the elite.
He is unconventional, and this unconventionality, or this incomplete conventionality, is sanctioned by the Western higher political class.
Having noted these unquestionable qualities that Fukuyama has, I begin acquainting the viewer with one of his works that is important to us for the reasons I have just outlined.
In his book America at the Crossroads Francis Fukuyama quite frankly discusses the history of American neoconservatism. The very same American neoconservatism, the most important representatives of which – such as Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, John Bolton and others – have insisted on the need for some transformative event, without the help of which the United States would not be able to consolidate its dominance in the 21st century; and therefore, it would lose its dominance.
Here is what Mr. Fukuyama, whose qualities I have just mentioned, says about this neoconservatism in his book. Giving an assessment of American neoconservatism that is not without risk, but which for him is permissible, Fukuyama points out that the roots of this neoconservatism (to quote from America at the Crossroads) “lie in a remarkable group of largely Jewish intellectuals who attended City College New York (CCNY) in the mid- to late 1930s and early 1940s.”
This is Fukuyama talking, not some representative of America’s outcast intellectual community, who has lost his mind. He is the one talking about “largely Jewish…” and so on. And this is significant, because it means that the ruling political class is speaking through his mouth.
Fukuyama points to City College of New York. What is that?
City College of New York has long been considered the flagship campus of CUNY, the City University of New York.
According to the City College of New York website, this college was “founded as the Free Academy of the City of New York in 1847 by wealthy businessman and president of the Board of Education, Townsend Harris, who would go on to establish diplomatic relations between the United States and Japan.”
That’s what it says on the City College website. Townsend is a very interesting figure, and someday I may be able to discuss him separately. All I can say is that this figure is largely neglected in the United States, but not in Japan. He is a cult figure.
City College of New York was the first free public institution of higher education in the United States. I stress that it was not one of the expensive private universities I discussed in previous installments; it was a free public institution (at least in the years that we are talking about now). However, it is a very prestigious institution.
Among its graduates are 11 Nobel Prize winners.
So, the institution, where Fukuyama believes the roots of American neoconservatism lie, was both highly prestigious and free. That means it provided a kind of supervision for promising children from poor families in general and from poor Jewish families especially. That is what Mr. Fukuyama says, along with those who are making sure he says exactly what he should.
So, on the one hand, these children were to be allowed into the elite in a controlled fashion, including providing them with free, high-quality education. And on the other hand, they had to be specially monitored. Because if a boy from a wealthy family is aligned with the interests of his class (explicitly, implicitly, even when he is rebelling), a boy from a poor family could wind up anywhere. And this is unacceptable. You give him an education, but then he goes the wrong way, and then what?
After telling us that the roots of neoconservatism go back to this college and the underprivileged but high-potential Jewish youth who studied there, Fukuyama goes on to tell us that all of these youth were “from working-class, immigrant backgrounds and attended CCNY because elite institutions like Columbia and Harvard were largely closed to them.”
Fukuyama states this. And we can trust him here.
“The CCNY group,” writes Fukuyama, “was totally politicized and committed to left-wing politics… Alcove 1 in the CCNY cafeteria… was Trotskyite, and Alcove 2… was Stalinist.”
I am literally quoting the text from Francis Fukuyama’s America at the Crossroads. But in quoting this text, I ask myself a question, which I will try to answer subsequently.
Look, this is the United States of the 1930s and ’40s. This is not the America we have now. In this America, Jews are allowed into positions of economic power, but they were allowed into political power for the first time only under President Roosevelt. And this is an America where some restaurants still have signs that say “No Jews or dogs allowed.”
This is not the America of today, where one is not allowed to hurt the interests of the black community. This is a very different America. An America not only of segregation, but of anti-Semitism – in moderation, not like Hitler, God forbid, with many rights for this ethnic group as part of a single American nation, but also with the infringement of these rights, and quite severe at that.
So, inside this America – which is not like today’s America – children from poor Jewish families are taken. These children are allowed to receive a free high-quality education; and at the same time, they are allowed to create Stalinist and Trotskyist alcoves. That is, they are allowed to move in the direction of a certain communist ideology. Whereas the US itself is fiercely anti-communist.
Hoover is already gaining momentum, there is a witch hunt going on… It is not yet as serious as it was under McCarthy, of course. But it is still very serious.
Everything connected with communist ideology is under scrutiny, they fear it. The higher ruling class is terrified of the Great October Socialist Revolution and the creation of the Soviet state.
So, who allows these poor, intelligent, energetic Jewish youth to receive a free, high-quality education, all while playing in the red field – both Trotskyist and Stalinist – with impunity? Who allowed this to happen? The kind of America we are discussing can only allow this to happen if it is ultra-supervised. If there is oversight. And not just any oversight. Someone is doing this for some reason, so that it would be under absolute supervision and control.
I will not answer this question now. I only emphasize that I have so far introduced information provided not by a representative of some marginalized anti-Semitic circles, but by such an extremely prestigious and sophisticated Western-style researcher as Francis Fukuyama.
But perhaps Fukuyama is, nevertheless, distorting the real genesis of American neoconservatism for some reason?
In order to convince ourselves that this assertion is wrong (that is, to make sure that Fukuyama is not distorting anything), we need to look at what its real founder, Irving Kristol, says about himself and about neoconservatism in general. The same Irving Kristol whose portrait was placed on the cover of the elite Esquire magazine in 1979. And under the portrait was the inscription: “The godfather of the most powerful new political force in America – neoconservatism.”
How do you like that characterization?
If the United States is, in a sense, the dominant superpower; if there are various forces within that dominant superpower, and the most influential is neoconservatism; and if, as we will later see, it is specifically the neoconservatives who speak of a transformative event without which all will be lost, then we are not conducting this “archaeological dig” in vain.
In 1977, this founder of America’s most powerful new political force, Kristol, publishes his recollections in The New York Times. Do you know what they are called? They are called ” Memoirs of a Trotskyist.”
The aged and successful Kristol looks piteously at the students at his home college in the late 1970s. And he compares these students to those members of the first section (Fukuyama calls it the first alcove) of City College of New York, who in the 1930s combined being penniless and reckless with the highest intellectual and political ambitions.
Look how emasculated and listless everything has become, Kristol sighs, remembering his hungry, vibrant, and reckless Trotskyist youth of yore.
Kristol says the following about this, his youth in no uncertain terms: “I was graduated from City College in the spring of 1940, and the honor I most prized was the fact that I was a member in good standing of the Young People’s Socialist League.” In other words, the Fourth International.
Kristol goes on:
“I have no regret about that episode in my life. Joining a radical movement when one is young is very much like falling in love when one is young. The girl may turn out to be rotten, but the experience of love is so valuable it can never be entirely undone by the ultimate disenchantment.”
So, “Of You, like the first love we had, the heart of Russia shall remember.” So, this is the first love, and the heart shall not forget it… In what sense?
Next Kristol says:
“But my feelings toward those radical days are even more positive than this kind of general reflection suggests. For the truth is that being a young radical was not simply part of my college experience; it was practically the whole of it. If I left City College with a better education than did many students at other and supposedly better colleges, it was because my involvement in radical politics put me in touch with people and ideas that prompted me to react and think and argue with a furious energy…
The elite was us—the ‘happy few’ who had been chosen by History to guide our fellow creatures toward a secular redemption.
Alcove No. I was located in the City College lunchroom, a vast ground‐floor space which even we, who came from slums or near‐slums. judged to be an especially slummy and smelly place…
There was a Catholic alcove… a Zionist alcove, an Orthodox Jewish alcove; there was a black alcove… an alcove for members of the athletic teams, etc. But the only alcoves that mattered to me were No. 1 and No. 2, the alcoves of the anti-Stalinist left and pro‐Stalinist left, respectively. It was between these two alcoves that the war of the worlds was fought…
Alcove No. 2, by far the most populous of the ‘political’ alcoves, could rarely mobilize more than 400 or 500 out of a total enrollment of perhaps 20,000 students for a protest rally, or ‘action,’ (this is the Stalinist alcove – SK) we in Alcove No. 1 (The Trotskyists – SK) numbered about 30 ‘regulars’ and were lucky to get an audience of 50 to 100 for one of ours…
What ‘happened’ on campus was determined by them ‐ the denizens of Alcove No. 2 (the Stalinists – SK) — or us…
Lord, how dreary a bunch they seemed to be!”
Kristol is talking about the Stalinists. And he adds:
“They really didn’t and never would amount to much… Only two names from Alcove No. 2 have come to my attention. One is now a scientist at a major university. The other was Julius Rosenberg.” Meaning the American communist, who was accused of transferring American nuclear secrets to the USSR, and who was executed in 1953.
That’s how bad things were with the Stalinists! None of them got anywhere. The Trotskyists, on the other hand, were another matter.
“A speaker like Max Shachtman, the Trotskyist leader, or Gus Tyler of the Socialist Party, could argue at a high pitch of moral and intellectual and rhetorical intensity for two, three, even four hours…
I have never since seen or heard their equal.”
And that’s why, according to Kristol, they amounted to something.
A few words on the real reasons why the two great leftist intellectuals whom Kristol mentioned amounted to something.
Max Shachtman was one of the Trotskyists who declared after 1940 that the imperialist policies of the Stalinist bureaucracy made even critical support for the USSR in its confrontation with Western countries impossible. And on this, Shachtman stood firm. “Here I stand, I can do no other.”
Shachtman, along with others who held this position called the “third camp,” argued that capitalism and Stalinism were equally alien to socialism (that is, he dissuaded those who were dissatisfied with capitalism from Stalinism). And that Stalinism (as Shachtman believed) was a manifestation of bureaucratic collectivism, which has nothing to do with socialism, and is an even more formidable obstacle to socialism than capitalism.
One would agree that such a position may well have appealed to the American capitalist ruling class.
This position of Shachtman’s received supported from Trotsky’s widow, Natalia Sedova.
Later, Shachtman advocated the entry of the “third camp” into the US Democratic Party and (attention!) the continuation of the war in Vietnam.
A huge part of the US Democratic Party yelled, “Stop the war!” but Shachtman, who was supposedly to their left, and as one would think would show solidarity with the Vietnamese Communists, said, “These are the same Stalinists and Sovietists. Bomb them!”
Shachtman opposed any new leftists who were in any way sympathetic to the USSR. It was enough for anyone to say that the USSR was not so bad, for Shachtman to immediately lash out and say, “You are not leftists! You are collectivist bureaucrats! You are an even greater obstacle to socialism than capitalism!”
This is how Shachtman paved the way for a future ideology of American neoconservatism with its Trotskyist roots.
Take three guesses, why did Shachtman, unlike Rosenberg, succeed in the US? Because he was an ardent anti-Soviet. And this is all the American ruling class needed from the so-called left. It was necessary to lure some of those people who, in principle, were ready to gravitate towards the leftist ideology, away from the Soviet Union. But to then support the war in Vietnam! To do this, you had to sharply break with everyone who shed blood for the red idea. And to be very much in solidarity with the most reactionary part of the American establishment.
Now about Gus Tyler. This pseudoleftist vehemently rebelled against the creation of a united anti-fascist front between the USSR and the bourgeois countries, claiming that anti-fascist capitalist countries were no different from fascist countries. He was the author of a resolution condemning collective security.
Do you think Hitler, Himmler, Ribbentrop, and the others didn’t like the fact that there was a Gus Tyler who said that collective security should be destroyed? He is a Jew, you see, and he wants to destroy it because it contains a lot of bourgeois qualities…
The Nazis couldn’t care less why he’s destroying it! The main thing is that if this collective security does not exist, it is possible to dissuade this Western world from providing at least weak support for the USSR.
So Shachtman and Tyler are pseudoleftists who objectively helped the Nazis by disrupting the united anti-fascist front. Does this remind you of anything today?
So, what? Shall we, like Kristol, marvel at the failure of the Stalinists and the success of the Trotskyist section, aka Alcove No. 1? Of course, it is more convenient for Kristol to think that Trotskyists and Stalinists had different levels of intelligence. But in the context of real biographies we have to talk about something else. About that complex and inexplicit connection between Trotskyism and fascism, which went on to determine the fate of anti-Soviet left. I analyzed this connection in detail in the program “Treason Under the Red Mask”. And it, alas, is directly related to American neoconservatism with its Trotskyist genesis. It also has to do with who is organizing the COVID hysteria, directing the global trend in a very certain direction, and overthrowing the statue of Abraham Lincoln, the liberator of the slaves, while advocating for the rights of American blacks.
One black BLM (Black Lives Matter) activist said at a June 23, 2020 protest in Lincoln Park in Washington, DC:
“This statue embodies the fact that our freedom is only on white people’s timetables. And that is not true. We stand here standing on stolen land… This land is not your land, white people! So you can’t tell me if I can take this statue down.”
(The statue that the protesters are demanding to be taken down depicts President Abraham Lincoln, who abolished slavery in the United States, and a freed black slave kneeling in gratitude.)
That’s how we play.
Thus, we have seen that not only Fukuyama, who admits that he himself was a long time neoconservative (and later distanced himself considerably), but also the founder of American neoconservatism Kristol (who never distanced himself) confirm that neoconservatism, if we paraphrase Dostoyevsky’s “we all came out of Gogol’s overcoat”, came, so to speak, from the Trotskyist overcoat.
Of course, later those who came out of the “Trotskyist overcoat” profoundly reoriented themselves. But what is the essence of this reorientation? What if it is based on the postwar dealtings between Trotskyists, who were already going in the direction of supporting the war in Vietnam, with a part of neo-Nazism that had softened in a certain sense and to be convenient for them? What if neoconservatism is the product of such a conception?
Fukuyama, while acknowledging that the neoconservatives later moved far away from Trotskyism, insists that they inherited several methodological principles from Trotskyism.
I could further elaborate on the neo-fascist background of these post-Trotskyist, neo-Trotskyist, neo-conservative principles. I could do so myself. But it would be better for our purposes if I were to disregard my own point of view, which, I repeat, was expressed quite extensively in another series of programs, and set out Fukuyama’s understanding of all this, and therefore the understanding of most of the American elite, which, in a sense, had sanctioned this understanding. And therefore, in a sense, they share it.
According to this understanding, the first of these essentially Trotskyist principles, which neoconservatives have retained after replacing Trotskyism with neoconservatism, is the primacy of ideology over everything else. Not some kind of pragmatism, not realism, but ultra-ideologism. Plus, the need for an ideological struggle, the abandonment of which will inevitably, according to the neoconservatives (already characterized by a reputable publication as the most important part of the American political class), produce the collapse of the American superpower.
The neoconservatives say, “If we abandon not only ideology but also an irreconcilable ideological struggle, the American superpower will collapse. Long live ideology and the irreconcilable ideological struggle!” And even if the ideology is no longer Trotskyist, but different – the principle of primacy of ideology over everything else, the principle of ideological struggle remains the same for the neoconservatives. Which is essentially Trotskyist.
This is what Fukuyama believes. That means that the American ruling class does as well. This is a valuable admission, isn’t it?
The second methodological principle, which Fukuyama considers part of neoconservatives’ Trotskyist legacy, is the need for messianism. Even if not Trotskyist messianism, but a different kind. A superpower cannot survive do without messianism, the neoconservatives argue.
So, it is not only about ideology and the ideological struggle, but also messianism. The Shining City on the Hill must carry some kind of absolute and indispensable message to the entire world.
Incidentally, that’s also what Dimitri Simes, the current publisher of The National Interest, a magazine that Irving Kristol founded, says. Sims insists that the neoconservatives have “a neo-Trotskyite belief in a permanent revolution (even if it is a democratic rather than proletarian one).”
Simes does not like neoconservatives. He wants to identify himself as a realist. Therefore, he declares that the cornerstone of US foreign policy should be “the traditional American value of prudence” and not this very (and I quote Simes) “neo-Trotskyite belief in permanent revolution.”
Look how much they have already said.
Ideology above all, über alles.
The ideological struggle is above all.
The ideological struggle must be elevated to the point of messianism.
Messianism must be pursued mercilessly and relentlessly.
And it should be pursued through permanent revolution (be it a color revolution or any other). And also violence. Of any kind.
Have the Americans themselves not said plenty?
The third principle, which, according to Fukuyama, the neoconservatives have inherited from the Trotskyists, is the need to move through the chaos to achieve a more ferocious order. To an order, which in its ferocity would be far ahead of the Stalinism that Trotskyites curse.
A movement through chaos. Messianism through chaos. It is too early to organize a new world order, first you need a new world disorder, a controlled chaos. Who says this? Fukuyama. Who is he talking about? The neoconservatives. Who are they? The leading edge of the American political class.
A pretty picture, isn’t it?
Is there any basis for the claim that Trotskyism covets such a ferocious order, in relation to which Stalinism is a light version? Yes, there are such grounds.
In 1920, Trotsky insisted in his article “Trade Unions and the Militarization of Labor” that preserving the freedom of movement for workers, as well as other freedoms – to choose one’s workplace and so on – was incompatible with the initial stage of building communism.
So why then preserve the freedom of movement for the irrational masses under quarantine?
Why not organize special isolation zones for those sick with COVID, so that they don’t infect others and are useful, for example, working in the labor armies? The lepers were separated in ancient times by placing them in the Valley of Death. Why not take advantage of this experience, if your first love, your Trotskyist love, is still alive in your heart?
The fourth principle, which, according to Francis Fukuyama, is taken by neoconservatives from their Trotskyist past, is the unacceptability of any agreement or any other kind of equality between the messianic superpower and other countries in all aspects of building their relations. Let the defeated weep. The Russians lost the Cold War – let them weep, let them crawl on their bellies in the mud in front of the victor. It is impossible to reach an agreement with them on anything.
Again, I am not expressing my own opinion, but that of Francis Fukuyama. And thus, those who sanction Fukuyama’s description of certain traits of the leading segment of the American political class.
That’s how Fukuyama describes it all.
But what do today’s neoconservatives claim about the American right to world domination? Fukuyama has moved away from the neoconservatives. Maybe, he is slandering them?
This is what William Kristol, son of Irving Kristol and heir to this undisputed guru of neoconservatism, asserts. Insisting on the need to use American power to crush undemocratic regimes, William Kristol cites the examples of the Philippines, Indonesia, Chile, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Taiwan, and South Korea to justify the effectiveness of ferocious violent action in Iraq. Let’s have a Chilean or Indonesian scenario for Iraq!
Without stopping there, he talks about the need to fight the communist oligarchy in China, as the fight against the much stronger Soviet nomenklatura had proven successful. Let’s have a Soviet perestroika for China! You realize that if Trotskyism is at the heart, and if Stalin’s USSR is not communism, then today’s Chinese communism is not communism either. And it could well be called a greater obstacle to socialism than American capitalism.
William Kristol goes on to say that the American mission is just beginning in Baghdad, but it is in fact a sign of the beginning of a new historical era (A very Trotskyist thing to say), which is defined by the need for an absolute victory of the United States in the 21st century, an absolute hegemony of the United States in the 21st century.
These are all figures seemingly far removed from the COVID theme we want to discuss. But here’s someone very close to this topic, Donald Rumsfeld, to whom I’m going to turn now, who claimed, as defense secretary, that Washington would refuse to recognize an Islamic regime in Iraq, even if it were the will of a majority of Iraqis… We will refuse to recognize it! Why? Because we are a messianic power. We are focused on ideology, an ideological struggle. Ideology takes precedence. And we are planting this messianism everywhere.
Grieving over the neoconservative triumph in American politics (for he does grieve over it), Francis Fukuyama says that this triumph has produced an excessive emphasis of force, primarily military force, as a means to achieve American goals.
Fukuyama ironically writes, “when your only tool is a hammer, all problems look like nails.”
But this is Fukuyama writing! This is the class itself writing with his hand. Of course, the other part of the class. Which says that neoconservatism has grown excessively, and that it had displaced everyone else.
The future of humanity is the only thing that interests the neoconservatives, according to Fukuyama. That and only that. Not some idea about the good of the American people.
That is why Trump as a conservative (this is me talking now, not Fukuyama) who stands for “the good of the American people above all else” is the enemy.
Who cares about the American people? It’s all about the mission!
The main idea of the neoconservatives is absolute world domination by the United States. For the record, I am not against missions. But, I know all too well in this case, what kind of mission this is. It is a mission of dehumanization.
What exactly American domination will produce for the world and for Americans in particular – for those who put the very idea of domination above all else – is not important. Dominance is precious in and of itself. And what is it? It is the will to power. This is precisely the quintessence of Nietzscheanism and a certain modification of Nazism. Moreover, for all these forces, the more ferocious the forms of domination take, the better. And this leads to the content becoming domination itself, rather than what it is pursued for.
Moral costs are irrelevant in this case. And if so, a very grim analogy begs to be made. It is not without reason that Irving Kristol’s son William insists, “The problem in the world is not that the US and the neocons are constantly starting wars to prevent despots from doing their thing. The problem is that, if we do, we lead too few such wars…”
But here he is talking about “despots”. But, Rumsfeld is not talking about despots, he is saying: even if the majority wants an Islamic regime in Iraq, we will kill them just as we would a despot.
But is the influence of neoconservatives so great in the United States today? For now, power seems to be in the hands of Mr. Trump, who is not a neoconservative. Rather, with all the caveats, he belongs to the paleoconservatives. Trump’s positions on many issues are diametrically opposed to those of the neocons. But Trump’s power, or more accurately, his presidency, does not negate the need for him to lean on at least all of the senators and congressmen, without exception, in his own Republican Party. Trump does not have a victorious party of his own. And there are plenty of neocons in this Republican Party, on which he must rely – the whole of it, because the Democrats are against him.
Here’s what the most authoritative Western media have to say about the neocons’ influence on contemporary America.
Commenting on Trump’s consent to the assassination of Iranian General Qassem Suleimani, The New York Times wrote, “Mr. Trump pointed out to one person who spoke to him on the phone last week that he had been pressured to take a harder line on Iran by some Republican senators whose support he needs now more than ever amid an impeachment battle.”
Meaning the neocons. Trump tells his interlocutor (I don’t believe The New York Times is shamelessly lying here. No, it has its sources – it’s a self-respecting newspaper in that sense): “There are some Republicans telling me, ‘Either you kill Suleimani, or we’re going to vote against you on impeachment. And then it will pass in the Senate, which will be bad for you. So, hurry up and kill Suleimani. What you like or don’t like doesn’t matter to us.”
Here is what the equally authoritative American publication The Wall Street Journal reports on the same subject, “Mr. Trump, after the strike, told associates he was under pressure to deal with Gen. Soleimani from GOP senators he views as important supporters in his coming impeachment trial in the Senate…”
And here is what the authoritative Italian newspaper Il Giornale says on the same subject, “General Qassem Suleimani was not an immediate threat to the United States, but was killed because the neoconservative Republicans, who have great influence in the Senate, forced the president to act by blackmailing him with impeachment.”
Suleimani was assassinated on January 3, 2020.
And on February 5, 2020, there was a vote in the Senate on the US president’s abuse of power. Trump won the Senate 52 to 48. And only because he gave the neocons the life of General Qassem Suleimani.
So, we’re not talking about the days of Bush or Reagan here. No, we’re talking about today. And about COVID.
Hegemony is the credo of the neoconservative movement. Its leaders, Irving Kristol and his closest associate Norman Podhoretz, whom we have already discussed, insisted in the mid-20th century that the United States is obliged to exercise humane hegemony over the world by virtue of the absolute superiority of its cultural and socio-political values. And that this hegemony must be based on endlessly strengthening US military superiority and throught direct US military interventions.
You see how important it is: values are absolutely superior to everything else (why they are superior, in whose eyes – it doesn’t matter, depends how you measure it. They’re superior). Do we have military power? Yes, we do. We strengthen it. What do we do next? We impose our values, because they are superior. And what are these values? The socio-political value of democracy? No need for democracy. Then what is the value?
The direction that is now called neoconservative, in the 1970s (not in the ’30s, not in the ’40s, but in the ’70s. It was born in the ’30s and ’40s) first gained certain positions in the US Democratic Party. This was because most Democrats did not support the war in Vietnam, but the part that supported the war was able to separate and form itself into a group within the Democratic Party that was not very authoritative at first.
On this issue it was possible to separate. And who had separated? Those, who it seemed were on the pseudo-left front, these Trotskyists and others. They have already cursed the Soviet Union and its allies. Vietnam is tied to the Soviet Union. The Democratic Party says, “Oh, we don’t want a war in Vietnam.” But the neoconservatives answer them: “What do you mean, don’t?” And before you know it, for a group inside the Democratic Party.
Who benefited the most from having such a group? The most “hawkish” Republican forces. And who are they? What is their connection to the World Anti-Communist League, which stands on 100% neo-Nazi positions? And how again, do Trotskyism and fascism, neo-Trotskyism and neo-fascism intertwine to create this neo-conservatism?
By the 1990s, this intertwining led to the neoconservatives migrating from the Democratic Party, where they left their “implants,” to become the most serious faction within the US Republican Party.
Moreover, neoconservatives find American Democrats like Clinton and Obama just as unacceptable as undesirable as overly pragmatic and nationally-oriented “paleoconservatives” like Trump. Once again, we are faced with the so-called third way.
Do you know what the “third way” is? Not capitalism, not socialism… but what? One form of Nazism or another.
We are faced with the same “third way” that the ideologues of fascism, who were closest to Trotskyism, proposed. And there were such ideologues. There was a wing of the Nazi Party that was sympathetic to Trotskyism, which was then taken out of harm’s way and began to promote neo-Nazism.
Since neoconservatives are a powerful but small group, the year 2020 is nearly fateful for them. If Trump gains a foothold, they could lose their positions and become marginalized. That’s why prominent, typical neoconservatives like Trump’s former national security advisor, John Bolton, are already moving away from him. [This installment was originally published in Russian on July 23, 2020 – translator’s note]. And how they move away!
Trump begs Bolton not to publish his memoirs because of their compromising nature. He tells Bolton that it’s a bit too indecent – we were on the same team, now you’re airing my dirty laundry. But Bolton is adamant about enforcing the decisions of his neoconservative leadership. And Bolton is a hardcore neoconservative, guided by neoconservative discipline.
The world faces some harsh months leading up to the US presidential election. And it is hardly worth ignoring the American neoconservative trend I just discussed.
But does it have anything to do with COVID? Yes, it does, because neoconservatives have been, I repeat, increasingly insistent since the beginning of the 21st century on the need for a profound global transformation, otherwise America’s dominance cannot be sustained. And also, that such a transformation requires a special super-event, which they call a transformational event. This is what allows us to talk about the presence of a neoconservative “vulture”, holding in its claws the “chicken” called the “global trend”, as well as its offspring – COVID.
And since neoconservatism is a mixture of Trotskyism (or neo-Trotskyism) and neo-Nazism, who is this vulture really? Is it neoconservatism or neo-Nazism? And where will this lead the global trend? Into what transformational event? A COVID event – or an even more ferocious one? Wouldn’t COVID be enough?
The demand for such a transformational event – a global one, as anti-Chinese as possible, stretched out over time, and so on – was most clearly expressed by such a prominent neoconservative as former US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
Let’s discuss exactly what he and his team members said. And what the connection is between what they said 15-20 years ago and COVID-19.
On December 5, 2001 US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld speaks on CNN with the famous American TV journalist Larry King. The conversation takes place at the Pentagon, in the office of the Secretary of Defense.
Rumsfeld and King talk at length, discussing various topics. Including the one we are interested in.
King returns to the events of September 11, 2001. He inquires about where Rumsfeld was at the time – specifically, in what geographic location.
King asks Rumsfeld, “You were right here when the Pentagon…”
Rumsfeld, interrupting King, replies, “I was.”
King continues, “And someone told me that you had spoken to a congressional delegation.”
Rumsfeld replies to King, “Right here in this room.” That is, right in the office of the Secretary of Defense.
King says with amazement, “in this room about terrorism that morning?”
Rumsfeld explains to King, “I had said (to the congressmen – SK) at an 8:00 o’clock breakfast that sometime in the next two, four, six, eight, ten, twelve months there would be an event that would occur in the world that would be sufficiently shocking that it would remind people again how important it is to have a strong healthy defense department that contributes to… That underpins peace and stability in our world. And that is what underpins peace and stability…
And someone walked in and handed a note that said that a plane had just hit the World Trade Center. And we adjourned the meeting, and I went in to get my CIA briefing.”
Rumsfeld goes on to describe how the Pentagon building shook, how he helped people with stretchers, and so on.
After listening to all that, King says: “I know we’re out of the allotted time, but Gary Hart (an American politician who was compromised and forced to give up his presidential ambitions – SK) has said that he expects, his commission previously said this would happen; you were pretty prophetic that morning.”
And Rumsfeld says, “Yeah.”
So, in this interview, Rumsfeld recalls that on the morning of September 11, 2001, he spoke to a congressional delegation about a coming event that would be so shocking that people would want a powerful US military to protect them. This in itself is not enough to draw far-reaching conclusions. But it must be considered if everything is not limited to such a statement by Rumsfeld. And it is indeed not limited to such a statement.
In April 2003, the US Department of Defense under Rumsfeld issues a report titled “Transformation planning guidance”.
This report is a series of remarks by officials of various calibers.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld himself gives the opening remarks. Here are the first words from those remarks:
“Some believe that with the United States in the midst of a dangerous war on terrorism, now is not the time to transform our armed forces. I believe that the opposite is true. Now is precisely the time to make changes. The war on terrorism is a transformational event that cries out for us to rethink our activities, and to put that new thinking into action.”
This is where the term “transformational event” is introduced. It was later called an event “…sufficiently shocking to remind people…” and so on. But so far, the transformational event is interpreted only as a challenge that requires a restructuring of the Defense Department. Which, by the way, is also significant. But this is just the warm up.
Summarizing its research over the summer of 2003, the US Department of Defense issued a report in May 2004 entitled “DoD Roles and Missions in Homeland Security.”
The document states that: “The Emergency Preparedness and Response Panel believes that the national security environment has changed sufficiently to warrant the Department of Defense taking a more active role in domestic emergency preparedness and response. The policies that prescribe the role of the Department of Defense in domestic emergency preparedness and response are simply inadequate for the threat the nation faces today. Developing a model appropriate for today’s threats will entail rethinking relationships, policies, and procedures. The Secretary of Defense called the war on terrorism a ‘transformational event’. The Panel agrees, and part of DoD’s transformation must be to embrace this emerging mission. A larger role for the Department in domestic preparedness and response seems to fall comfortably within the mandate of the Federal Government as described in the Constitution of the United States. In Article IV, section 4, the Constitution states that ‘The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them… against domestic violence.’
The Federal Government has already taken major steps in recognition of this new security environment. Within DoD, a new combatant command, Northern Command, was created to: ‘…conduct operations to deter, prevent, and defeat threats and aggression aimed at the United States, its territories and interests within assigned areas of responsibility; as directed by the President or Secretary of Defense, provides military assistance to civil authorities, including consequence management operations.’
Does this not remind you of the controlled chaos in the US today? Does it not ring any bells?
So, the Emergency Preparedness and Rapid Response Panel takes Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld’s thesis of the transformational event, explicitly refers to this thesis, highlights it, emphasizes it, and states that a new combatant command, the Northern Command, has been created to make it a reality. I have discussed this before. But it is nonetheless interesting to understand where it all began, when, and from what. Well, it began with this.
I have already noted that this Northern Command is supposed to take on the role of governing the country under special circumstances, replacing the elected US government. Now everyone can see exactly how this possible transformation of power, in which the constitution is sidelined, is related to the transformational event that US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld previously spoke of.
But even more important is who precisely are the co-chairs of the panel that made such a report, in which both the transformational event and the Northern Command have found a place. Rumsfeld makes this opening statement at the respective meeting. And who are the co-chairs of the panel that made this report? One of the co-chairs is retired General Michael Williams, formerly of the US Marine Corps, who at the time of this report headed the Logistics Management Institute. And the other co-chair of this commission (whose report talks about a transformational event and Rumsfeld and the Northern Command, etc.) is who? Dr. Richard Hatchett, whose role in the coronavirus frenzy I discussed at length in Part Seven of this series.
So, it is hardly reasonable to say that people like Hatchet only want to profit from the coronavirus along with the big pharmaceutical companies, which they are a part of. Of course, they want that, too. But that’s only a small part of what they want. Or, more precisely, what they are tasked with by people like Rumsfeld and Rumsfeld’s masters, that vulture that drags the chicken called the “global trend” into a neo-Nazi Trotskyist hell.
Now let us turn to a report that came out before the events of September 11, 2001, which Rumsfeld prophetically foresaw. This earlier report was released by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Among the politicians who created this organization are soon-to-be Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, whom we are discussing, and future US Vice President Richard Cheney, and the famous Ukrainian Russophobe follower of Bandera Paula Dobriansky (who brings greetings from the World Anti-Communist League), and Francis Fukuyama (to understand the symbiosis here), and a very active man named Paul Wolfowitz – the future Under Secretary of Defense under Rumsfeld, and who is bigger than Rumsfeld.
The report titled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century“ (referring to the report of the same community “Project for the New American Century”, which would, a year later, come to power), published, I emphasize again, in September 2000, that is, a year before the event (the strike on the “twin towers”), which Rumsfeld and Co. dreamed to make transformational, stated the following: “Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”
I emphasize (so as not to merge into one ecstasy with marginal conspiracy theorists) that it does not say directly that a new Pearl Harbor is needed. All it says is that without a new Pearl Harbor, called a catastrophic and catalyzing transformational event, the transformation could take a long time. What if the time is too long? What if the domination of the twenty-first century then becomes impossible? What if too much time has been lost? We (the United States) are losing it, while China is advancing. What then?
Wouldn’t you agree that there are no madmen who could directly say: we need a catastrophic transformational event. And that Pearl Harbor was Roosevelt’s idea in the first place. This is said whisperingly, conspiringly. But this is not a respectable point of view.
It is enough for us so far that the transformational event, which Rumsfeld spoke of in 2003 after becoming Secretary of Defense, had in fact already been discussed in 2000 within the organization where the future senior officials (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz) play a decisive role. And even the future president himself, George W. Bush, is also a member of the neoconservative clique (and it was neoconservatives who created the “Project for the New American Century”). Specifically, they said that a transformation in which the US retains its dominant position can only be rapid if there is a catastrophic and catalyzing event. This is what they said firmly. Does it need to be rapid? Is procrastination a death sentence or not? They don’t say that directly. But they say that only a catastrophic, catalyzing, transformational, shocking event can provide a rapid transformation.
This report goes on to say: “Although it may take several decades for the process of transformation to unfold, in time, the art of warfare on air, land, and sea will be vastly different than it is today, and ‘combat’ likely will take place in new dimensions: in space, ‘cyber-space,’ and perhaps the world of microbes (my bolding – SK). Air warfare may no longer be fought by pilots manning tactical fighter aircraft sweeping the skies of opposing fighters, but a regime dominated by long-range, stealthy unmanned craft. On land, the clash of massive, combined-arms armored forces may be replaced by the dashes of much lighter, stealthier and information-intensive forces, augmented by fleets of robots, some small enough to fit in soldiers’ pockets. Control of the sea could be largely determined not by fleets of surface combatants and aircraft carriers, but from land- and space-based systems, forcing navies to maneuver and fight underwater. Space itself will become a theater of war, as nations gain access to space capabilities and come to rely on them; further, the distinction between military and commercial space systems – combatants and noncombatants – will become blurred. Information systems will become an important focus of attack, particularly for U.S. enemies seeking to short-circuit sophisticated American forces.”
Finally, the report says the most important thing: “And advanced forms of biological warfare that can ‘target’ specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.”
And this is unheard of audacity! Only people without any restraints can say that advanced forms of biological warfare, by selectively targeting genotypes, can bring biological warfare from the realm of terror into a “politically useful tool.”
This means that beginning in 2000, these people, including Rumsfeld, who were then simply members of the elite, not yet the government, said about a transformational event in general and its biological version are a politically useful tool, exactly as I have just quoted.
And then these people, including Rumsfeld, ascended to political power in the United States. And relying on Rumsfeld as their most vociferous and influential representative, they began to predict the imminent coming of a transformational event, a useful tool, and to discuss this transformational event in reports by the US Department of Defense, headed by Rumsfeld. That is, on an official level and under the auspices of this same Rumsfeld.
Now let’s talk about who Rumsfeld is and who he is connected with.
I have to say, for the record, that each successive layer of this story makes my impressions about the future all the more grim.
From 1977 to 1985, for eight whole years, Donald Rumsfeld was CEO, president, and then chairman of the board of directors of the world-renowned pharmaceutical company – and here is a direct COVID-related component – G. D. Searle & Co.
In 1985, this company, which was essentially Rumsfeld’s, G. D. Searle & Co. was bought out by Monsanto, the most odious pharmaceutical and biotechnology company in the world. Rumsfeld is believed to have profited handsomely from this takeover of G. D. Searle & Co. by Monsanto.
So, he was in charge at Searle, then boom! – Monsanto swallowed it up, and he was no longer in charge. This was not the end of the story, though. But first, about Monsanto.
Monsanto, which entered into a special relationship with Rumsfeld to buy Searle, which, as they say in such cases, has no statute of limitations, is a very peculiar company. It is notorious for its de facto monopoly on the production and sale of genetically modified seeds. In the US, Monsanto has controlled about 80% of the markets for genetically modified corn and transgenic soybeans.
Monsanto has sought to control not only genetically modified seeds, but also to become an important player on the market of conventional or so-called traditional seeds. Global data for 2017 show that Monsanto had the largest share of the global seed market, 34%, or more than one-third of the top 20 companies. DuPont (E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company) was in second place with 25%, Syngenta had less than 9%, and Bayer has just over 5%.
But Monsanto is especially notorious for transgenic seeds. Incidentally, in 2013 Monsanto announced that it would increase its presence in Ukraine. And it fulfilled its promise to increase the production of corn seeds on this country’s land. In 2015, Monsanto’s control over the Ukrainian corn seed market increased from 20% to 30%.
Again, Monsanto is, by some assessments, the most evil and hated corporation in the world. Outside of competition in this. Public opinion polls show it to be more hated than the Federal Reserve, Halliburton (Cheney), McDonald’s, and the other most odious companies. They are all hated, but Monsanto is the most hated. There have already been several worldwide actions called “Stop Monsanto”.
Monsanto is known not only for the seeds from which tomorrow’s plant called “the endless disease of mankind” will sprout, against which the pharmaceutical companies, including Monsanto, will endlessly fight. Monsanto is also known through the Vietnam War, during which US troops sprayed a poisonous mixture over Vietnamese civilians, which was so poisonous that it also affected US troops entering the jungle. This mixture was called Agent Orange. Monsanto produced it. The Western media reported that even forty years after the end of the war, this Agent Orange caused genetic mutations in Vietnamese children. I personally saw the results of these mutations when I went to Vietnam.
D. Searle & Co., which Monsanto acquired, is notorious for peddling huge numbers of harmful intrauterine devices.
We also know that Monsanto is a leader in dioxin pollution.
It is also known that Monsanto has been held liable for its substance alachlor, which causes organ damage, headaches, and other serious adverse reactions.
Monsanto has also gained notoriety for dumping waste into American rivers.
I could go on for hours listing those of Monsanto’s crimes that have been documented, as well as exactly how this company has operated in Russia. After all, I doubt anyone thinks that Monsanto does not operate on our territory.
There have been plenty of scandals in connection with Monsanto. And I can’t dwell on all of them. Because all the others pale in comparison to Agent Orange and dioxins.
And now for the main point. In 2010, Bill Gates bought 500,000 shares of Monsanto. And here I ask: if a man wants to promote himself as the benefactor of the world, its savior, etc., for whatever reason, i.e. to be squeaky clean, why would he buy so many shares in one of the world’s most controversial companies? Not even one of the most controversial, but the most controversial. Why is he associating himself with it like this? After all, we are talking about a very obvious connection.
The production of problematic vaccines – which is about to begin – is intertwined with the production of problematic genetically modified products. “Like an ambulance is running through the streets of this poor town, by itself it runs you over, Then it renders care to you.”
This is the corporation to which Mr. Rumsfeld sold G. D. Searle & Co., which he had run from 1977 to 1985. This is the corporation whose stock Gates bought.
This is not just gangsterism, this is ultra-gangsterism. Moreover, a great many people are aware of it.
But maybe Rumsfeld only got his hands dirty with pharmaceuticals once, and that was the end of it? The man went into politics, then somewhere else… No!
From 1997 to 2001, Rumsfeld was chairman of the board of directors of Gilead Sciences, which is known, among other things, for developing the drug oseltamivir, used to treat avian flu.
People tell me sometimes, “Why are you making things up”… What am I making up? Did I make up that Rumsfeld was in pharmaceuticals all those years? It’s in his official biography. Everybody knows that.
So, the company that Rumsfeld ran during this period, before he became Secretary of Defense and started talking about a transformational event, was known for this drug oseltamivir, used to treat avian flu.
After a hysteria was created around the bird flu, similar to the hysteria created around COVID, the Rumsfeld’s and his company’s stocks skyrocketed. But it took a panic for them to take off. And the painc was spun up by Ferguson and associates. That’s the law of the stock market game. Anyone interested in the extreme form of this can read Jack London’s fine work, The Town-Site of Tra-Lee. That’s what you have here, “The Town-Site of Tra-Lee.”
On the evening of January 31, 2020, Gilead Sciences announced that, “Gilead is working with health authorities in China to establish a randomized, controlled trial to determine whether remdesivir can safely and effectively be used to treat 2019-nCoV. We are also expediting appropriate laboratory testing of remdesivir against 2019-nCoV samples.”
Gilead Sciences shares immediately jumped 14% after this announcement.
Everyone keeps asking me, “Where’s China’s place in this? What about China?” Friends, the global trend is not a laughing matter. Those who fit in have to move accordingly.
A brief note. The antiviral drug remdesivir existed before COVID-19. It is not a vaccine in the sense that it does not help build immunity, it works instead of immunity. As the epidemic began, Gilead Sciences was offering everyone to test their drug as a treatment for the coronavirus. Studies have shown that the drug reduces treatment time. However, it had no effect on mortality, unlike the steroid therapy developed by the British. But the US Food and Drug Administration, based on clinical trials of the drug conducted by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), rushed to approve remdesivir on an emergency basis (prohibiting studies of hydroxychloroquine) in order to make it mandatory in the treatment of medium and severe cases.
As we can see, Rumsfeld is really not only a prominent neoconservative, who insists on the necessity of a transformational event, which allows to plunge the world into horror and to achieve a special position for the United States through this in the twenty-first century. He is also a pharmaceutical company boss, among those who stand to make a killing through creating a transformational event.
I will add to this Rumsfeld’s connection with the super-sinister Monsanto, to which he sold his company G. D. Searle & Co. (when one sells out like this, he stays “inside”). And that Monsanto’s connection to Gates.
The indisputability of all these connections requires us to focus our attention on the pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that Mr. Rumsfeld has been involved with.
So, the neoconservative Rumsfeld began his career in pharmaceuticals, which gradually turned into a career in politics, at G. D. Searle & Co. And then he entered into a certain relationship with Monsanto and sold his company, G. D. Searle & Co, to Monsanto.
In dealing with Monsanto, we come across some very interesting circumstances. It’s like the saying “the farther into the forest, the thicker the trees.”
Monsanto’s specialty (while Monsanto is considered one of the evillest corporations in the world) is agrochemicals and agricultural biotechnology.
Monsanto was founded in 1901.
And in 2018 the company Bayer acquired it. Remember it – Bayer.
The founder of Monsanto was a certain John Francis Queeny, who started the business literally from scratch (I love these stories) and died in 1933. The company was named after Queeny’s wife, Olga Monsanto.
Queeny’s son, Edgar Monsanto Queeny, continued his father’s business. Edgar Monsanto Queeny headed Monsanto since 1928, having received a mandate to do so from his father. Under him the company grew into a powerful enterprise with a global presence. And its assets grew from $12 million to $857 million. Edgar Queeny died in 1968 and was buried next to his father, John Queeny.
In 1936 (under the same Queeny Jr.), Monsanto acquired Thomas and Hochwalt Laboratories. The acquisition happened because Monsanto became interested in developments by Charles Allen Thomas and his colleague Caroll Hochwalt.
Here we encounter more than just shouting about Monsanto’s sinister machinations. After all, the competition can shout, too. No, we are confronted with aspects of Monsanto that are very far removed from agrochemicals, biotechnology, and pharmaceuticals. These aspects are very important for understanding both what Monsanto is and what exactly is going on with COVID.
The thing is that Charles Allen Thomas was not just a well-known chemist and businessman, he was also quite an important; nearly a key figure in the Manhattan Project, which he joined in 1943, when he was the director of Monsanto’s Central Research department. Thus, Monsanto is not only connected with GMOs and not only with Gates. It is related to the creation of the US atomic bomb.
After Monsanto acquired Charles Allen Thomas’ firm, Thomas began working for Monsanto. And he made a phenomenal career there. He led Monsanto, first becoming its president in 1950, and then serving as chairman of the board from 1960 to 1965. So, Monsanto is strongly associated with Thomas.
Thomas himself coordinated all the work at the Manhattan Project from 1943 to 1945 that had to do with the purification and production of plutonium.
Thomas was not a rank and file employee of this project. He co-chaired the Manhattan Project along with the famous Robert Oppenheimer.
Thomas later supervised everything connected with polonium purification (first it was plutonium, and now polonium) and the use of polonium together with beryllium in the Dayton Project, which was part of the Manhattan Project that focused on a particular, special type of nuclear weapon, which needed required polonium. So, in Thomas’ case there is no “either/or” here – either biology or the military-industrial complex. And this is true not only for Thomas.
Thomas retired in 1970. By that time Monsanto, which he headed, had grown its yearly sales from $857 million to $1.9 billion.
Managing Monsanto did not prevent Thomas from becoming one of the founders and a key figure of DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), the US military agency in charge of all new technologies, including biological weapons.
I already mentioned that in the 1960s and 1970s, it was Monsanto who ran the Agent Orange project, which was infamous from the Vietnam War, leading to mass poisonings, disfigurements, and civilian casualties from chemical or chemical-biological weapons.
Now it becomes clearer why Monsanto has been able to gain such capabilities when it comes to the creation of US chemical and biological weapons. It’s all about Thomas and DARPA.
Coincidentally, there is a certain “Monsanto law” regarding the problem of exponential growth in the use of biotechnology. According to this law, we will all soon be eating only genetically modified foods created by various kinds of monsantos, and will be treated with drugs produced by these same monsantos for the side-effects of consuming these foods.
Monsanto’s connection with the US military-industrial complex is not limited to Thomas’s participation in the creation of the atomic bomb and the production of Agent Orange. Monsanto is very closely connected with the US military-industrial complex, and thus with everything related to US biological weapons. But Monsanto’s military profile is not limited to biological weapons. For example, Monsanto has gained notoriety as a key producer of white phosphorus used for military purposes.
Monsanto tried in 2015 to buy its Swiss competitor in the field of agro-biotechnology, Syngenta. But that deal did not materialize.
Next came a series of rather ambiguous moves that are carried out in the wake all large-scale mergers. They ended with Bayer announcing in September 2016 that it wanted to buy Monsanto for 65 billion dollars.
Approval for this purchase was granted in 2018, and the acquisition was completed on June 7, 2018.
Bayer is a German company founded by Friedrich Bayer and Johann Friedrich Weskott in 1863. Its initial claim to fame was producing synthetic dyes.
In 1899, having acquired a pharmaceutical division, the company began to produce the famous Bayer aspirin.
Bayer’s foreign assets were confiscated as part of the reparations after World War I. Bayer’s assets in the US went to a certain company called Sterling Drug, the predecessor of Sterling Winthrop.
The relationship between Bayer and this American pharmaceutical giant was by no means limited to Bayer’s being secondary. The time would come when Bayer would want to buy Sterling Winthrop. And it would even manage to buy part of the company. But that is not what makes Bayer so remarkable.
In 1925, six of Germany’s largest chemical corporations, including Bayer, merged with each other. And this merger of the six largest chemical corporations in Germany received an ominous name: I. G. Farbenindustrie.
Incidentally, the mastermind behind the creation of I. G. Farbenindustrie was a certain Carl Duisberg, who ran Bayer at the very beginning of the 20th century. Duisberg was impressed by the corporations he saw while on a business trip to the United States and decided that a similar corporation should be created in Germany.
But he only managed to create I. G. Farbenindustrie in 1925 through the merger of Bayer, BASF and a number of other chemical giants.
The supervisory board of the newly established I. G. Farbenindustrie included a certain Fritz Haber, who not only created chemical weapons (there is the Manhattan Project and the creators of atomic weapons, but one Fritz Haber is the father of chemical weapons), but also supervised their use near Ypres. There, the Germans used chlorine as a poisonous substance, which capable of concentrating low to the ground due to its high density. A chemical attack that Haber directed killed 5,000 French soldiers and severely burned 15,000 French soldiers. Haber organized the production of this chemical agent at BASF facilities, with which he was closely connected.
Haber was later awarded the Nobel Prize “for the synthesis of ammonia from its elements.
And so, Haber became a member of the supervisory board of the new chemical giant I. G. Farbenindustrie, and Duisberg became the chairman of I. G. Farbenindustrie. And he held that position from 1925 to 1935.
Having become part of the I. G. Farbenindustrie, Bayer played a very active part in I. G. Farbenindustrie’s atrocities, both in the production of Cyklon-B gas, which was used to kill prisoners in gas chambers, the use of concentration camp prisoners for slave labor, and human experimentation (here, too, Bayer was the leader within I. G. Farbenindustrie). This included women of Jewish origin, who were injected with certain hormones.
After the war I. G. Farbenindustrie was dismembered. And Bayer, which was split off from it, became an independent company again.
Fritz ter Meer, who was sentenced to 7 years in prison by the Nuremberg Tribunal, but who was released early in 1950, became head of Bayer’s supervisory board in 1956.
Then Bayer began to grow rapidly.
Bayer has been working in Russia for a long time.
Its sales in 2018 were 39.6 billion euros. Its net profit was 1.7 billion euros.
Bayer’s pharmaceutical division was greatly strengthened after Bayer took over Schering AG in 2006. At the time, this was the largest takeover in Bayer’s history.
There is a book by Diarmuid Jeffries called Aspirin: The Extraordinary Story of a Wonder Drug. It deals with how Bayer separately financed experiments by the Nazi Josef Mengele, who was closely associated with the I. G. Farbenindustrie. And with that part of the corporation, which one can rightfully call “Bayer’s”.
Jeffries insists that Fritz ter Meer was Dr. Mengele’s main accomplice. That Fritz ter Meer was involved in all kinds of experiments on prisoners. Including experiments that tested various kinds of biological and psychotropic weapons. These experiments were conducted at Auschwitz. Or, more precisely, in a separate camp affiliated with Auschwitz, Auschwitz III Monowitz, which the Nazis called – you know how? The Bayer Camp. It was in Monowitz that particularly atrocious biological weapons experiments were conducted (those that later moved from Germany to Fort Detrick; in exactly the same way Japanese-Nazi biological weapons experiments went from Japan to Fort Detrick, too. And there it all came together).
Ter Meer was found guilty “under section two, for robbery and embezzlement, and under section three, for the use of slave labor and mass murder.
However, Ter Meer, who was serving his sentence under the Nuremberg Tribunal, was released early, thanks in part to the efforts of the US High Commissioner for Germany, John Jay McCloy. Fritz ter Meer, who was guilty of genocide and crimes against humanity, returned to work at Bayer, where he served as chairman for more than 10 years, until 1961.
McCloy is a figure worthy of special consideration. He had been president of the World Bank, high commissioner for Germany, chairman of Rockefeller’s Chase Manhattan Bank, and chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations. He was one of the most famous advisors to every US president from Franklin Roosevelt to Ronald Reagan. But even discussing Bayer and I. G. Farbenindustrie as a whole is not the purpose of this investigation.
And I certainly can’t afford an in-depth discussion of McCloy’s background, even though McCloy deserves such a discussion.
I can only say that not only ter Meer, but many of the Nazi industry titans convicted of war crimes, including Friedrich Flick, were freed by January 1951 by the American High Commissioner for Germany, John McCloy. The legal document under which they were released was a clemency act that McCloy signed.
And in January 1951, McCloy, responding to an urgent request from German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, announced that Alfred Krupp and eight members of his board of directors, convicted with him, were to be released. Krupp’s property, valued at 45 million, and his numerous companies were returned to him. And it was the same McCloy who did this.
Later, in May 1960, McCloy paroled a particularly vicious and bloody murderer, a prominent SS member named Martin Sandberger, who presided over the mass murder of Jews in the Baltics and was responsible for the arrest of Jews in Italy and their deportation to Auschwitz.
I will introduce the audience to a series of interrogations of Martin Sandberger, chief assistant to Walter Schellenberg, a convinced member of the SS, a Nazi, a sadist, responsible for the mass murder of civilians.
“Q. The sum total of Communists seized runs to about 14,500; do you see that?
A. Yes, 14,500, yes.
Q. That means 1,000 were shot?
A. Yes, I get that from the document.
Q. You know it. Did you know of it? Do you remember it?
A. The report must have been submitted to me.
Q. Then at one time, at least, you knew of it?
Q. Were you in Estonia then?
A. Yes, but they were not shot on my own responsibility. I am only responsible for 350.
Q. You are responsible for 350?
A. That is my estimate.”
I am quoting from the Nuremberg Protocols.
And this is how the same scoundrel answers questions about atrocities committed by his own order in the Russian city of Pskov.
“Q. You collected these men in the camps?
A. Yes. I gave the order.
Q. You knew that at some future time they could expect nothing but death?
A. I was hoping that Hitler would withdraw the order or change it.
Q. You knew that the probability, bordering on certainty, was that they would be shot after being collected?
A. I knew that there was this possibility, yes.
Q. In fact, almost a certainty, isn’t that right?
A. It was probable.”
There are far more heartbreaking interrogations of Nazi criminals. But these interrogations are also impressive, even if one ignores the special circumstances that gave rise to the release of the scumbag who gave such a testimony. But it is these special circumstances that prompted me to quote Sandberger’s interrogations. The fact is that McCloy insisted on pardoning Sandberger and others, primarily because a certain American, William Langer, a senator from North Dakota, insisted on it.
Langer justified his position by arguing that there were many voters of German descent in North Dakota and that trying anyone other than the top Nazis would go against the American legal tradition and would aid communism.
Langer himself was opposed not only to US entry into World War II, but also to US participation in the United Nations.
Langer insisted that German Americans did not support the persecution of people like Sandberger. Many official American sources speak of the special pressure that German Americans put on Langer and that Langer put on McCloy, leading to the release of even such a scumbag as Sandberger, among others.
But these sources say something else as well. That Sandberger’s father was the director of one of the I. G. Farbenindustrie plants. And that Sandberger joined the Nazi party under his father’s influence. So, in both the story of ter Meer’s liberation and the story of Sanderberger’s parole, there is an equal role for the pharmaceutical giant Bayer, which joyfully merged with Monsanto, which gave Gates his entry into his pharmaceutical ventures leading to the COVID.
The Elite of I. G. Farbenindustrie, which is also the Bayer elite, was able to influence both Senator William Langer, the first postwar President of West Germany Theodor Heuss, and other officials. But it was McCloy who made the final decisions. And he made them, let me emphasize again, according to official sources, under pressure from a certain “German party” in the United States.
But this same party, according to official reports, insisted on the release of one of the leaders of the I. G. Farbenindustrie Carl Krauch, the head of the concern’s military department, Plenipotentiary of Special Issues in Chemical Production, whom Adolf Hitler had decorated for victory on the German industrial battlefield, a Knight of the Nazi Knight’s Cross for Military Merit, convicted of war crimes against humanity, for his participation in the intimidation, torture and murder of enslaved people.
Krauch served time in the same prison as Ter Meer, Sandberger, and others. And just like them, he was released at the urgent request of a certain American “German party”. After that, Carl Krauch first joins the board of directors of an I. G. successor company – Nachfolgegesellschaft Chemische Werke Hüls AG, and then he became the director of Bunawerke Hüls GmbH.
The leadership of I. G. Farbenindustrie were released from prison, where they had been serving sentences for particularly grave Nazi crimes. And then they were made top executives of corporations that create biological and other weapons, as well as the drugs that are supposed to save people from the effects of these weapons… How do you like that story? Moreover, the very same elite “German Party” of the United States, which insisted on these clemencies and pressured McCloy, plays a role here.
Now, which families are part of this internal party, which has long been the subject of interest by professional historians and political scientists? This party, of course, includes the Bush family, it’s all known. But it also includes the Rumsfeld family.
Now let’s try to see the whole picture.
Rumsfeld sells the pharmaceutical company he heads, G. D. Searle & co. – to whom? The infamous Monsanto, which specializes in the creation of genetically modified products that are destructive to humanity, in the creation of chemical and biological weapons for the US military, and in, to put it mildly, questionable pharmaceuticals.
Gates, whose role in the coronavirus story we have discussed at length, joins Monsanto.
Monsanto is purchased by the same Bayer that we just discussed. And which, as we have seen, is the second edition of the notorious I. G. Farbenindustrie, which was saved by the special efforts of the American “German Party.”
Mr. Rumsfeld belongs to both this American “German party” and the group of neoconservatives, who seek absolute world domination by the United States.
This Rumsfeld, as one of the neoconservatives, who were spawned by a symbiosis of a special kind of Nazism and Trotskyism, insists on a transformational event that should change the world, making it completely new and subordinate to the Americans. But would it really be to the Americans? And to what kind of Americans? Who will stand on the sidelines, and who will be unleashed in full force in neo-Nazi revenge?
Finally, this same Rumsfeld is not a one-time player in pharmaceuticals. He does the same thing for the second time as the head of the pharmaceutical company Gilead Sciences. He ran that company until his appointment as the US Secretary of Defense.
So, at the very least, Rumsfeld is very much one of the good old boys in the world of big pharma. And he has the whole gang with him – these Hatchetts and so on. It’s his gang. And that means he is one in three persons:
- he is a neoconservative who advocates for a transformational event;
- he sponsors Hatchett’s group at the Department of Defense, which advocates for a transformational event;
- and he is also a veteran pharmaceutical businessman. Moreover, he is a pharmaceutical businessman, who is involved in biological warfare.
Incidentally, I have to say something on one particular point. You see, you can treat Soviet spy films in a variety of ways. They are products for wide consumption, canonical, with good actors, mediocre plots, and so forth. I’m not crazy about them, I don’t consider these films to be works of high art. But these movies were produced during the Soviet era. And then these films could be made only on the basis of a hard document, which was put on the screenwriter’s desk, who would then modify and loosen up this hard document with names, facts, etc., cutting something out, or maybe even adding something. But it would still be based on a hard intelligence document.
And “Dead Season” is a Soviet film that belongs to the works of this classic genre, rather far from artistic extravagance, and at the same time conscientious, meant for the general public – this is one of the films that was literally shot according the documents. The spy Rudolf Abel talks about this very convincingly. He is a pedigreed, resolute, professional man from that fantastic generation of Soviet people, which was later replaced by all sorts of mumblers. These were serious, responsible, and tough people. Listen to what exactly Abel says, prefacing the 1968 film “Dead Season”, which came out a long time ago. It’s not without interest, and the man and his words are not uninteresting:
“I was asked to say a few words before this picture. I am speaking in a role that is unusual for me, because people in my profession are used to doing more listening and less talking. But the subject of this picture worries me and my comrades, so I think it justifies a certain departure from our rules.
You have probably read articles in the newspapers, which have been appearing quite often lately, about experiments being conducted in certain capitalist countries on the use bacteriological and chemical means for the mass extermination of people. The latter are especially terrible because they affect people’s psyche and destroy their nervous systems.
In the English town of Porton, in the Canadian town of Suffield, there are laboratories that contain the pathogens of the worst epidemics that have ever afflicted humanity.
During the war, I met a German doctor, a hardcore Nazi, who cynically proclaimed that all inferior human beings must be mercilessly exterminated in the name of the betterment of the human race. These delusions did not die with Hitler’s Germany. In the United States of America, I met an American officer from Fort Detrick and the military chemical laboratory that exists there, who expressed the same thoughts.
Whenever such people have such terrible means of mass extermination in their hands, it becomes paramount to reveal their intentions. To reveal them in order to avoid disaster.”
And so, what do we discover as we wander the corridors of COVID disaster – these corridors that immediately lead us to something even bigger? Even though this too is no small change.
(To be continued.)
This is the translation of the ninth article (first published in the “Essence of Time” newspaper issue 392 on September 1, 2020, issue 393 on September 5, 2020, issue 394 on September 11, 2020) by Sergey Kurginyan.