washingtonsblog.com
How America Changed from Being the World’s
Leading Democratic Nation under FDR, to Being the World’s Leading Nazi
Nation under Obama
Eric Zuesse
America has changed fundamentally since — and away from — the values
that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt represented both in his words,
and in his actions (that’s to say, in his actual decisions, his
choices, as the U.S. President). Though President Barack Obama isn’t
radically different from FDR in his words, he’s almost the opposite of
FDR in his real governing values and decisions, his real leadership of
the United States.
Unfortunately, most people see politics only by words, and ignore
realities. But, in some important respects (his actions, his decisions),
Barack Obama is — and I hate to say this — actually closer to FDR’s
enemies, Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, than to FDR. This is true
not only regarding the contrast between FDR’s moving America away from
enormous wealth-inequality, versus Obama’s moving America toward even
higher wealth-inequality than before; it’s yet more starkly exhibited in
the international policies of these two post-economic-crash U.S.
Presidents, as will be demonstrated here.
FDR was viscerally and actively anti-fascist and anti-nazi, whereas
Obama simply is not. FDR was anti-aristocracy; Obama is pro-aristocracy.
FDR was pro equal-rights; Obama is actually anti equal-rights. That’s
the reality, not the rhetoric.
So, first, here’s FDR:
So, let’s first clarify the terms, in order to understand what it
means to say that America has changed, from democracy to fascism, and
now even to nazism:
Fascism is dictatorship by and for capitalists; i.e., for the owners
of corporations, for the controlling stockholders in the biggest firms;
that’s to say, for the aristocracy. Mussolini, the first person to
establish a fascist government, once defined fascism that way, and
approvingly called it also “corporationism.” He believed in privatizing
state assets, which he did in 1922-25; see Germa Bel’s “The First
Privatization: Selling SOEs,” in the 2011 Cambridge Journal of Economics. (Also here.) Then, Hitler took up privatization; see Bel’s “Against the Mainstream: Nazi Privatization in 1930s Germany,” in the 2010 Economic History Review.
Chile’s Pinochet, England’s Thatcher, and America’s Reagan, weren’t the
first privatizers: privatization went all the way back to fascism’s
very founding. It merely became revived after ‘libertarianism’ (which
was actually invented by fascist aristocrats — primarily the DuPonts —
in the 1930s) blossomed after WWII, because (their beloved) fascism had
developed a bad reputation after losing that global war.
Nazism (with a small n, “nazi”; not the German party, which was
“Nazi”) is simply racist fascism (the racist form of fascism). Not all
fascists are racists: for examples, Italy’s Mussolini wasn’t a racist,
and Spain’s Franco also wasn’t. They weren’t opposed to racism; they
simply weren’t concerned about it at all. Just as fascism that’s spelled
with a small f is the ideology instead of being the political party that
started it (in Italy); nazism with a small n is the ideology rather
than the political party that started that ideology (in Germany).
There are fascists throughout the world, just as there are nazis
throughout the world. And, the particular type of supremacism (or
“racism”) that different nazis spout, can differ from country to
country; so that, for example, nazis from one country can even go to war
against nazis from another country, because they want global supremacy
for different groups of people.
Similarly, different nazisms might have different hatreds, different
types of bigotries: Germany’s nazis during the 1930s hated Jews the
most, whereas Ukraine’s nazis hate Russians the most. And, if, in WWII,
Germany’s Hitler and Japan’s Tojo had won control respectively of the
West and the East, then a war between those two nazis, Hitler and Tojo,
might have resulted, in order to subordinate the one of them to the
other of them. Nazi countries can, and sometimes do, go to war against
each other.
So: basically, nazism is racist fascism. It’s also — and more precisely — known as supremacist fascism. A good example of a fascist who was not a supremacist is Spain’s Franco.
Another way to think of nazism is as its being extremist fascism;
and, in this sense, we today know of ISIS and Al Qaeda as Islamic nazi
groups, or as Islamic supremacist-fascist groups. Everyone knows that
they are also extremists.
Mussolini’s teacher, Vilfredo Pareto, was called “the Karl Marx of
fascism,” and his core message was that the democratic belief that each
person has the same rights is false; that there is a natural hierarchy;
and that inferiors naturally exist for the benefit of their superiors.
This attitude is at its most extreme in nazis, all the way from Hitler
to ISIS; it extends to all supremacists.
Whereas peace can exist among democracies, nazisms are always at war; it’s their nature; it is their essence, because they are supremacists. They demand their own supremacy.
(In America, some nazis are called “Dominionists.” It’s just a form of
supremacism.) That’s why nazis tend to be especially attracted to war:
war truly is their natural condition.
Regarding the other two types of dictatorships: Fascisms and
communisms aren’t necessarily always at war: for examples, Spain’s
Franco was peaceful after winning power, and Cuba’s Castro could have
been peaceful if the U.S. hadn’t been constantly trying to overthrow
him. There is nothing intrinsically supremacist about either fascism or
communism, though both tend toward a certain amount of supremacism,
because they both deny equality of rights; but nazism is intrinsically
supremacist; nazism is supremacism; supremacism is nazism. By contrast, a
mere fascist can be satisfied to be supreme only at home, without
extending it abroad to dominate the entire world.
Nazism is the most dangerous ideology that exists. It is the most
extreme denial of equality of rights. It is the most extreme denial of
democracy. It doesn’t just say that aristocrats are superior; it says
that everyone else should be their slaves, or else dead. It is the most
extreme embodiment of Pareto’s view.
Now, we get to today’s America, and to U.S. President Barack Obama, his actions not his mere words:
The current government in Ukraine is nazi.
(Look at the photos there, and, in the very opening frames, you will
see even their swastikas, photos of Hitler, and other nazi symbols.)
Obama installed this Ukrainian regime in February 2014. The people who carried the coup out were nazis. Essential to stabilizing Obama’s new regime was killing or else expelling as many as possible of the people who had voted for the man whom Obama overthrew, Viktor Yanukovych.
(The reason this was done was that, otherwise, any future nationwide
Ukrainian election would produce yet another nationwide leader of the
type that Obama overthrew: someone who didn’t hate Russians. Those
voters thus had to be eliminated.) The areas in Ukraine that had elected
Yanukovych into office are shown in this map. During the recent civil war, which extended from May 2 of this year through August, the dark blue areas on that map are also where Obama’s coup-imposed Ukrainian Government concentrated their bombings;
and, you can see that the people in those strongly pro-“Janukovych”
areas had voted over 90% for this person whom Obama’s State Department
and CIA overthrew, against “Tymoshenko.” The objective was to keep the
land (to station missiles against neighboring Russia, and to frack gas),
but to get rid of its residents (who were waste-people, in Obama’s
view).
Obama’s people freed Julia Tymoshenko from prison at the height of
the coup, on February 22nd, and she immediately entered the new
Presidential race as Obama’s preferred candidate to replace Janukovych.
She lost, though the election (held on May 25th of this year) occurred only in the areas of Ukraine that had voted for Tymoshenko in Ukraine’s final democratic election that was held throughout Ukraine,
which was the Presidential election in 2010, the election that
Yanukovych (the man Obama overthrew in 2014) won against Tymoshenko.
The reason she lost was that even the residents in northwestern Ukraine, the anti-Russian half of Ukraine, found her to be too extreme, because by then the fact became clear that she wanted to slaughter all Russians.
That goal was too extreme even for most of Tymoshenko’s former
supporters, but it wasn’t too extreme for Obama; he wanted it, because
he needed such anti-Russian hatred from the leaders of his new regime,
in order for them to stabilize it as being rabidly anti-Russian, by
means of eliminating enough of the people who had voted against her —
for Yanukovych — in 2010.
Obama’s agent who appointed the new rulers in Ukraine was Victoria Nuland. Inasmuch as the recorded phone-conversation in which she issued the order was uploaded (by some anonymous person) to youtube on February 4th, which was well ahead of
the February 22nd coup; and inasmuch as Nuland there selected “Yats,”
Arseniy Yatsenyuk, to become the country’s new Prime Minister, to run
Ukraine until his sponsor Tymoshenko would presumably be ‘elected’ (by
voters in the anti-Russian northeast) to become the (entire) country’s
President and then take over, and inasmuch as “Yats” did immediately
then become appointed as the Prime Minister once the coup occurred, and
did run the Government thereafter, it’s clear that Obama wrote the
script, or at least he approved it, that was being staged in this new
Ukraine. And he publicly backed the new leadership — these nazis — to
the hilt.
The EU immediately sent Urmas Paet to Kiev to investigate what had
happened there to produce this sudden change of power; and, in yet
another anonymously recorded phone-conversation, Paet reported to the
EU’s Foreign Affairs and Security chief, Catherine Ashton, that Obama’s
side had perpetrated a bloody coup there. I have posted a complete
transcript of that stunning conversation, in which all of its cryptic
references are explained for ordinary readers: both Paet and Ashton were
simply shocked, but they accepted Obama’s leadership, and did their
jobs for their paymasters. (That transcript is the mid-portion, “Perpetrating Ethnic Cleansing Abroad,” here, the section of the article that’s entirely in italics).
And the result of that new Government was the ethnic-cleansing program to get rid of the voters in the southeast. However, that program had to be aborted because Ukraine started running out of funds in late June, and Obama
and the IMF stopped lending the regime more money soon thereafter,
because Kiev’s troops were being slaughtered despite the billions that
had already been spent by U.S. and IMF taxpayers to support this ethnic
cleansing.
The reason Obama lost his war in Ukraine isn’t that his people were
short of money and of troops, but was instead that they had expected —
as the new President, the oligarch Petro Poroshenko, promised in his
victory-statement in Kiev on May 26th — to win the war within only “hours not months”;
and, so, now, months later, after increasing losses and desertions from
his army, as his troops discovered that they were just slaughtering
civilians, not really killing “terrorists” like they had been told,
their morale was bad, and was getting worse, throughout Ukraine’s
military, except amongst the relatively few nazis among them, their few
fighters who just loved to kill anyone in the country’s
ethnically Russian areas. Furthermore, the more that Poroshenko’s forces
bombed the residents in the southeast, the more that these residents
took up arms; and, so, the
best that Obama’s forces could reasonably hope for would be a long,
dragged-out, guerilla war, which almost always produces defeat for the
invaders — here, it would be defeat for Obama’s side – just pouring more money down an endless rat-hole.
The reason Obama had tried his war in Ukraine is complex; and I have written about that on several occasions, such as here, and here, and here.
However, perhaps the best article about this is one from Andrew Korybko, titled “The Source of Obama’s Foreign Policies.” Korybko traces the development of American governmental nazism back as far as 1949, in the CIA.
Even more thorough is the BBC’s still-definitive 1992 two-hour-and-twenty-five-minute documentary “Operation Gladio,” which
operation started in 1945, as the OSS’s (pre-CIA’s) “X-2,” to recruit
‘former’ nazis, both in Western Europe and especially in Eastern Europe,
recruiting people (especially in Eastern Europe) whose special passion
was hatred of Russians. This operation was headed by James Jesus Angleton, who worked under Allen Dulles, who worked under Bill Donovan.
Angleton’s idea was stated as follows in the BBC documentary (10:25),
“Then, Jim Angleton appeared [in Rome] in August [1945]. He began
recruiting fascists, because he figured that the best way to control the
communists was to hire fascists.” Top European aristocrats who had been
overseeing the searching-down and killing of anti-fascists or
of “partisans,” were now being hired by the CIA in order to recruit
anti-communists and to penetrate the USSR’s KGB (their CIA) – and also
(like with Werner von Braun) to help design America’s weapons against
the USSR. Basically, extreme nationalists throughout Eastern Europe were
brought into this operation, which continues to the present day in the
CIA. Ukraine was a big focus. George Soros is part of the Gladio operation, and so is Zbigniew Brzezinski,
both of whom were born in Eastern Europe and were/are rabidly
anti-Russian — not only anti-communist — throughout their lives. Barack
Obama has sought out people such as that, to advise him on foreign
policy and tactics. We just pay the taxes to fund their operations. We
are their tools, just as the people who do the killing and the dying
are, but not nearly as much as they.
Almost all of the Gladio operatives either come from aristocratic
families or else have long served aristocratic families, and they
possess excellent contacts, via the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Bilderberg meetings.
They benefit greatly by enhancing the global dominance of America’s
aristocracy, over the aristocracies in all other countries. After all,
aristocrats have lots of money: they can afford to pay lavishly. And
this service is extremely important to them. The pay is terrific, and
the prestige is top-notch.
However, President Obama isn’t just a drone for America’s
aristocrats: he is an innovator; he has extended this anti-Russian
nazism into a field where no such thing had ever been done before: he is
the first U.S. President to go so far as to arrange a coup to install
outright nazis into the leadership of any country. He’s applying this
tactic (installation of nazis), essentially, because only nazis possess
the hatred that’s needed for an ethnic cleansing, and ethnic cleansing
was his chief immediate goal after his coup’s success. That’s why the
CIA hired Ukraine’s nazis as the shock-troops of their coup in Ukraine.
Basically, it’s as if the Soviet Union had, during the Cuban Missile
Crisis, succeeded in taking over Cuba and then planting nuclear missiles
there. Obama took over a part of Ukraine, like the USSR took over
almost all of Cuba; but he won’t get the other half. He’ll never get as
far as Khrushchev did with Cuba (and which Obama was trying to copy):
placing nuclear missiles at his enemy’s very doorstep.
The losers, of course, are the publics everywhere; but especially, in
the present case, the public in southeastern Ukraine; and, secondarily,
in northeastern Ukraine. Taxpayers throughout Europe and the U.S. will
foot the bills for the enormous financial losses from this escapade, but
the Russian public will also suffer substantial losses. The Russian
aristocracy has also lost considerable wealth, because of the
international sanctions. Obama wanted to punish Russia more, but this is
all that he’s likely to get.
And, of course, the entire Crimea issue has been misrepresented in the West, as if it were Putin instead of Obama who was trying to rape the Crimeans, and Obama instead of Putin who was actually protecting them. High American public officials now lie routinely.
Thus, over a period of decades, the United States has changed from
being the world’s leading progressive nation — the leading democracy —
to being the world’s leading nazi nation: actually exporting nazism —
and lying to do it.
This has been a bipartisan U.S. aristocratic endeavor. Of course,
Republicans have been strongly supportive of the change, because they
loathe FDR and progressivism in general. However, at the very top,
Presidential, level, the Democratic Party has also been increasingly
taken over by fascists, and, now, clearly, by nazis; so, at that level, both Parties are nazi.
In fact, if the U.S. were to lose its Russia-hating foreign policy, then NATO would be simply disbanded, because hating Russia is NATO’s core.
It’s all that’s left, after the international conflict between
capitalism and communism ended. All that’s left of it is nazism that’s
directed against Russians — bigotry against Russians. That’s NATO,
today: an international military alliance of anti-Russian
bigots. America doesn’t only continue that alliance; America leads it.
And America’s aristocracy sells it lots of weapons, from their weapons-plants.
President Obama’s speech at West Point, on 28 May 2014 (less
than a month after he started Ukraine’s ethnic cleansing), made clear
his supremacism — and even his rationalization for it — addressing the
graduating cadets as follows: “Here’s my bottom line: America must
always lead on the world stage. If we don’t, no one else will.” Obama
alleged: “Russia’s aggression toward former Soviet states unnerves
capitals in Europe, while China’s economic rise and military reach
worries its neighbors. From Brazil to India, rising middle classes
compete with us.” Our nazi President said: “In Ukraine, Russia’s recent
actions recall the days when Soviet tanks rolled into Eastern Europe.
But this isn’t the Cold War [he said this after signaling his listeners
that it really is but that he’s a ‘liberal’ and so he doesn’t say such
hate-mongering things, but they naturally can come to the conclusion
themselves]. Our ability to shape world opinion helped isolate Russia
right away. Because of American leadership, the world immediately
condemned Russian actions; Europe and the G7 joined us to impose
sanctions; NATO reinforced our commitment to Eastern European allies;
the IMF is helping to stabilize Ukraine’s economy; OSCE monitors brought
the eyes of the world to unstable parts of Ukraine.” (He said this
after having spent over five billion dollars of U.S. taxpayer funds to destabilize Ukraine and bring about the civil war there.)
One can call that statement by Obama (issued only weeks after his own
hyper-”nationalists” in Ukraine had started their civil with a massacre)
“nationalism.” Or one can call it an example of Hitler’s “the Big Lie.”
Or one can call it hostile toward Russia, China, Brazil, India, and any
other nation where “rising middle classes compete with us.” But,
however one characterizes his attitude, it’s certainly not the type that
FDR shared; it’s the type that he led this nation to war against.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario