The Corporate Cosmology Speech: Network (1976)-The Anglo-American Establishment: An Autopsy

The Sutton-Libertarian Thesis vs The Sailer-Bolton Thesis

Introduction

Network (1976), is a film that becomes more relevant and accurate with every day that passes in our instantaneous times. The amazing paradox is that while things seem to change at warp speed, they stay the same. As Twain said “History doesn’t repeat but it rhymes.” Network was directed by a Hollywood legend Sidney Lumet and was written by Paddy Chayefsky, a heavyweight in his own right, looking at his film credits a few films standout. One of which is Altered States (1980), which was obviously based on MK-ULTRA experimentation and its effects. It seems as if Chayefsky was keenly aware of the power behind the throne the general public had not been exposed to.

Network is a brilliant movie and a standout during one of Hollywood’s best decades; but we will focus on one scene in particular due to how revealing and honest it is. The “Corporate Cosmology Speech” touches on every power cord of what the “unhinged far right conspiracy theorist” would define as The New World Order. While it can be discarded as “just a movie” by normies and boomers, its obvious for anyone who wants to use their brain that this speech is art imitating life. But are the conclusions “conspirtologists” make accurate when held up to analysis?

Quigley

Is there any real world substance to what Mr. Jensen (Ned Betty) is scolding Howard Beal (Peter Finch) about in this scene? Carroll Quigley’s two works Tragedy and Hope and Anglo-American Establishment are Rosetta Stones to understand how the world actually functions. Quigley was no fringe nutcase, Quigley was a Harvard educated historian who taught at Princeton, Harvard and finally at The Foreign Service School at Georgetown University where he was the mentor to many future diplomats and dignitaries most infamously William Jefferson Clinton. Furthermore, Quigley appears to have been the official historian of the Council on Foreign Relations for a period of time. Quigley’s examination of the CFR’s internal records and papers are how he was able to produce the profound and previously unheard of information in the two books mentioned above. Quigley’s work touches on every point that Mr. Jensen makes in his theatrical speech. Let’s examine some key passages from Tragedy and Hope:

International Banking Model, The “Jew” Deal & Fredrich List

Under the Bretton Woods international financial system that was initiated after WW2; countries in the agreement were required to peg their currencies to the US dollar. Prior to Bretton Woods, FDR’s executive order 6102 in 1933 removed the gold backing of paper money for domestic transactions. This system was altered again in 1976 officially with the Jamaica Accords; which ended the pegging of gold to the dollar in foreign exchange markets. The US had already made this official policy in 1971 under President Nixon; due to US gold reserve depletion while the paper money supply increased causing inflation of goods and commodities.

In examining FDR’s coming to power in 1932; this marked a sea change in US politics for multiple reasons. One of these was The New Deal, which made drastic changes to the infrastructure and mechanizations of the US economy, it also had massive societal and demographic implications. As Fredrick Talmadge lays out in his article, “Jews and the The First New Deal, 1933-1934, Part 1”.

“Roosevelt’s triumph in 1932 saw the Democratic left come to power with the full force of its epoch-creating liberal managerial ideas — central planning, the public good over private interest (and the blurring of these distinctions), forms of collectivism over individualism, the rights of labor, from an “age of production … to an age of redistribution,” etc. In meeting the exigencies of the Great Depression, in the view of many conservatives, the left dealt brusquely with the once revered monuments of the country enshrined in the Constitution, such as the American mythos of laissez-faire and small government, the sanctity of private property rights and the natural rights of man.

The wartime measures under {Woodrow} Wilson and the New Deal under Roosevelt meant that this private-public fusion of the economy and state took place under the stewardship of the Democratic Party. For generations, the party had had almost as many partisan perspectives as national regions eager to move it in one direction or another during its bid to become nationally competitive again since the end of the Jacksonian era. By 1932, what Joseph Huthmacher called the “urban industrial Newer American” population (i.e., urban immigrants), was the “backbone of the New Deal voting coalition.” Once elected in 1932 with a mandate to end the Depression, FDR had the responsibility of confecting a workable amalgamation of ideas for the New Deal’s agenda during the managerial state’s birth. To rule over a heterogenous democracy required being less dogmatic and more practical. Accordingly, Roosevelt himself has been characterized by scholars across his career as either having no real ideological commitments and as being a “pragmatic opportunist.”

This epoch of blurred lines, redistribution and “pragmatism” was enabled and ushered in by a particular “Brain Trust” that had a distinct racial flavor, that being Jewish. FDR appointed, by far, more Jews to cabinet positions than any President proceeding him. As Talmadge details from the same article, the “JQ” issue in Presidential appointments will be revisited again later in the article.

This Brain Trust circle would change over the years. The Columbia circle of Tugwell-Berle-Moley, originally recommended by Jewish advisor Sam Rosenman, another Brain Truster who first proposed assembling a group of academic advisors, did not remain a team after the election. Economist Raymond Moley would still be an insider. He moved to the State Department, as would fellow economist Rexford Tugwell, who was sent to the Department of Agriculture to help oversee the planning schemes in the Agricultural Adjustment Administration where he would attempt to boost farm prices. Harvard Law School professor Felix Frankfurter was influential from the opening of the administration and would exert influence from behind the scenes using his protégés, a similar strategy to that of Bernard Baruch as we’ll see.

Frankfurter had been important since FDR’s inauguration, acting as a “one-man recruiting agency,” both recommending personnel when asked by New Deal leaders and recommending them on his own initiative, thus exerting his influence towards building the modern state. In the middle of 1935, Frankfurter was at the White House more than at any other time and became part of FDR’s inner circle, despite having a teaching career. During this period, the press claimed Frankfurter was the principal advisor, pushing out Moley. Over the years, Frankfurter and Brandeis also “stood out among [FDR’s] closest advisors on governmental policies.

“Roosevelt had more Jews around him than any previous president, which was consistent with his appointments as governor. Dinnerstein mentions that “Roosevelt worked comfortably with Jews.” Around 15% of his appointments were Jews, who “held middle-level positions in the economic agencies and departments of government.” A source from 1942 wrote that, although “the number of Jews in [the entire] government didn’t exceed their percentage in the population [4 percent], “it is also my observation that men who are Jews occupy very influential positions.” Hertzberg’s opinion is that Roosevelt was not influenced by Jews any more than anyone else. Roosevelt was known for being extremely guarded about what he was thinking underneath an oftentimes agreeable exterior, and that he played advisors off against each other. Many Jews, nonetheless, believed that Roosevelt had a “special love” for them — their protector and “benevolent king” in a world in which Hitler had just come to power, and where Roosevelt was the only world leader who wasn’t hostile to Jewish interests — a role Roosevelt loved to play. He had been the first major presidential candidate in American history to condemn anti-Jewish attitudes. This was indeed a breakthrough for the Jews, as a 1938 poll taken showed a substantial number of Americans felt Hitler’s anti-Semitism was the Jews’ fault. American Jewish leaders even believed it a possibility that given a choice between European Jews and Nazism, the American public might not choose the Jews.”

Below is a valuable podcast on Francis Parker Yockey that provides context to the era and the revolutionary paradigm ushered in during the presidency of FDR and his Zionist “Brain Trust” from Astral of Astral Flight Simulation.

Inquisition Supplement: Yockey

Let’s fast-forward to 1971, while moving off the gold standard was a pragmatic move by Nixon at the time; the fundamental contradictions in the US and now world economies were left unaddressed. Most notably, floating exchange rates and fiat currencies not tied to any hard or tangible asset; this allowed unrestrained money printing and the loaning of the created money at interest, also known as usury. Furthermore, the increase of internal tariffs with the decrease or elimination of external tariffs resulted in the off shoring of the US industrial base oversees. Economist Friedrich List’s philosophy explains why this is such a problem.

“Thus Friedrich List concerned himself with the productive power of the economy, not with transitory monetary wealth. He knew that everything depends on two key issues: first, whether it would be possible to build up a significant manufacturing sector, and second, to protect this emerging industrial power against the corrosive influence of free trade. The British free-trade strategy was to flood foreign markets with British manufactured goods in order to suppress the emergence of production capacity elsewhere. This policy had been nowhere enforced as strictly as in Britain’s American colonies, where even the production of horseshoe nails was not allowed, let alone their export into the British Empire.

Why? Because the production of goods stimulates and increases both the intellectual and the practical skills of the population, including the spirit of invention, the alacrity and organization of work processes—in short, the ability to produce wealth. The American War of Independence was about nothing less than the right to develop this capacity.

But there is another, uglier aspect of free trade, which points to its fraudulent character from the very outset: the freedom to trade in goods that can destroy entire countries, such as the opium trade. The British Empire demanded the right to trade in opium, and enforced its demands by war.

The Vienna School came into prominence only after a period of wrenching transformations, beginning with the assassination of John F. Kennedy and followed by the abolition of the Bretton Woods system in 1971. The political climate changed fundamentally.

First, although many did not perceive it until much later, the Western nations parted company with the essential commitment to investment in science and technology. Second, with the introduction of floating exchange rates, the floodgates were opened for monetarist adventurism. One must not forget that the Club of Rome proclaimed already in the 1970s, that the world was hopelessly overpopulated, and that the industrial nations consumed too many resources and so the service sector should be expanded at the expense of industrial production.

These changes were deliberate, and are well documented. The goal of fostering the general welfare was swept off the table and replaced by “population control.”

The ability to produce wealth, as List understood it, increasingly disappeared as the focus of economic policy and was replaced by greed for quick money. Thus opened the era of free trade with money products of all kinds, with the casino economy of financial speculation, accompanied by the “New Age” of the rock-drug-sex culture.”

Moving to the international banking structure, The IMF and then World Bank were established to ensure predatory short term (IMF) and long term loans (World Bank) are foisted upon underdeveloped or illiberal countries. These countries in turn, use their populations as collateral for the debt their governments incur by financing large scale economic projects utilizing international corporations tied into the IMF/World Bank/BIS system. This ensures perpetual debt servitude for these countries. Any political leader who has stood against this has been dealt with harshly.

From Mosaddegh who was overthrown in a CIA backed coup due to his nationalization of BP oil in Iran, to Gaddafi in Libya, who was assassinated for among other things, attempting to form a Pan-African currency backed by gold, to Yanukovych, the PM of Ukraine not taking loans from the IMF and instead leaning on Russia as an economic partner. This resulted in the CIA/Soros/State Department/NATO backed coup in 2014 leading to the 2022 Ukraine War. The below video describes the blueprint for how these coups and wars are carried out, substitute the country and the model is the same.

Video Below: “Zelenskyy Unmasked Episode 3 Who Really Runs Ukraine?” -Ben Swann

Post WW1 World and Background to Zionism

Toward the end of the 19th century and to the present, the growth of the political class being “bought off” by financial interests and their subsidiaries has increased gradually to the point where we have “empty suits” in Washington today. For instance, you could make an argument Barack Obama was owned by Citigroup.

“According to emails released by WikiLeaks yesterday, which came from a hack of the email account of John Podesta, a co-chair of Obama’s 2008 Transition Team, we learn that despite the obvious fact that Citigroup was both corrupt and derelict in handling its own financial affairs, Barack Obama gave executives of that bank an outsized role in shaping and staffing his first term.

In an email dated Saturday, October 18, 2008, Michael Froman, using his official Citigroup email address of fromanm@citi.com, sent the following email to Obama’s advisors:

“Review Teams

“Attached is the latest version of the Agency Review teams. It is a closely held document, so please treat it with the same sensitivity as ours. If you all could take a quick look at the lists for the agencies in your area, that would be helpful. I think the hope is that, while there are no guarantees, some of the people on these lists might make their way into the agencies ultimately. Our role, therefore, is to check whether there is much overlap between the names here and the names were seeing/generating for sub-cabinet positions in each agency. There doesn’t need to be total overlap, but if there is a total disconnect, it would probably be better to rectify that now vs. later.

“I hate to ask, since I just send you another long spreadsheet to check, but if you could do this tomorrow and get back to Lisa (copied here) and myself, that would be great. Thanks.”

Froman had served in the Clinton administration and moved to Citigroup along with Clinton’s Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin. (Rubin would collect compensation of $126 million during his decade at the bank after helping to deliver the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, legislation that had previously prevented Citigroup from owning an insured bank along with high-risk brokerage and investment banking.) According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Froman was a Managing Director of Citigroup Management Corp. from 1999 to 2009.

Obama appointed Froman to the position of U.S. Trade Representative in 2013. This is how Politico sums up how trade deals are being deliberated under his command:

“If you want to hear the details of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal the Obama administration is hoping to pass, you’ve got to be a member of Congress, and you’ve got to go to classified briefings and leave your staff and cellphone at the door.

“If you’re a member who wants to read the text, you’ve got to go to a room in the basement of the Capitol Visitor Center and be handed it one section at a time, watched over as you read, and forced to hand over any notes you make before leaving.”

According to the WikiLeaks emails released yesterday, Froman began plotting who would serve in the Obama administration long before the election results came in.”

Historical Context of Usury and Oligarchy

In some ways, the seeds of this usurious domination have been around for centuries. If we look to The City of London and The Republic of Venice. Both of these banking dominated entities predate the founding of America by hundreds of years. Oligarchy, can be a threat to any nation as detailed below by Dr. Matthew Raphael Johnson.

“The famed rivalry between Venice (also known as the Republic of St. Mark) and Byzantium was an almost pure example of the battle between the archetypal Sea power (that is, a thalassocracy, or a Maritime power) and the most potent Land power (tellurocracy) of the Middle Ages. This confrontation was one of the major causes of the death of the Orthodox Empire, both in 1204 and to its final demise in 1453. While their relations were mutually beneficial for a long time, the diametrically opposed nature of their social and political systems (and ideologies) ensured that, eventually, the two would become enemies. It was this fundamental difference between history's two archetypes that paved the way for the end of the Byzantine Empire and the rise of the mercantile, maritime oligarchy which came to create the modern world.

The essential document right after the fall of the City was the Treaty of Constantinople, signed on April 18, 1454, one year after the City's fall by the still-young Ottoman Empire and the Republic of Venice. Bending to reality, the treaty temporarily ended the Venetian operations against the Ottomans. The treaty gave the Republic of St. Mark freedom to trade in the eastern Mediterranean, but the Turks were very different from the Byzantines and these new terms did not last long. Despite regular trade over the Adriatic with the Islamic empire, the Ottomans presented a substantial challenge to the Italian Republic. War between the two powers became a normal state of affairs, and eventually, these wars – as well as the rise of new commercial-oriented states to the north – led to the decline of Venice as a major power.

It took another 300 years for the Republic to fall at the hands of Napoleon. Being parasitical, Venice never quite recovered from the events of 1453 and, from then on, instability was the norm for the oligarchy; the Byzantine empire was necessary for the survival of these tiny city-states, especially Venice. The small city survived primarily through its money and diplomacy, but she needed a strong tellurocracy to protect its markets and provide a large pool of consumers. Eventually, the maritime and republican ideology moved from north Italy to London and Antwerp while the landed and royalist ideology found a new home in Moscow and the war continued with different players. It continues to this day.”

Growing Zionist Control Following WW1 & Beyond

Going back to the turn of the 20th century, we can see the instrumental role the Rothschild family and Zionism played in shaping this era. Zionism forever altered US domestic and international relations. Historian Richard Grove details this in his The Truth About the Rothschilds, the following is in regard to the Paris Peace Conference and World War 1.

“74. Zionists and WWI

a. Paris 1919 by Margaret MacMillan

i. Margaret MacMillan holds an Oxford educated Ph.D. and the great-granddaughter of David Lloyd George, the Prime Minister of Great Britain during the period of World War I. Her book is composed from studying the private papers and archives of those involved in the Anglo-American representation at the Paris 1919 Peace Conference.

b. In Chapter 28 of “Paris 1919” by Margaret MacMillan we find the heading of Palestine. In this chapter MacMillan features the story of Theodor Herzl who organized the first Zionist congress, and Weizmann attended every one that followed, leading into the collusion of the Zionist bankers with the Balfour and the Rothschilds, as well as the prime movers promoting the Last Will and Testament of Cecil John Rhodes. MacMillan builds out the links to British Israelism, and British support for Chaim Weizmann, and how Col. House, Louis Brandeis, and President Wilson aided the Zionists in bringing the United States into World War I.

75. A First-Person Account of how the Rothschild web got America Tangled in World War I

a. Benjamin H. Freedman was born in 1890 and became a successful Jewish businessman in New York City. Freedman was present at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, and was personally acquainted with Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Joseph Kennedy, and John F. Kennedy, among many others. Benjamin Freedman was a Zionist for many decades, and then came to a point where he disagreed with the methods, tactics, and the goals of the Zionists; whereupon he published on the topic of Anti-Zionism for his remaining years. Freedman is best known for his 1954 publication “Facts are Facts”, and his condensed version delivered in a speech given at the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C.

b. Here’s what Benjamin Freedman had to say regarding the origins of World War I, during his 1961 speech delivered at the Willard Hotel (page x-xi of the introduction to the reprint of “Facts are Facts”:

a. “…The Zionists in London had sent cables to the United States, to Justice Brandeis, saying “Go to work on President Wilson. We’re getting from England what we want. Now you go to work on President Wilson and get the United States into the war.” That’s how the United States got into the war. We had no more interest in it; we had no more right to be in it than we have to be on the moon tonight instead of in this room. There was absolutely no reason for World War I to be our war. We were railroaded into – if I can be vulgar, we were suckered into – that war merely so that the Zionists of the world could obtain Palestine. That is something that the people of the United States have never been told. They never knew why we went into World War I. After we got into the war, the Zionists went to Great Britain and they said: “Well we performed our part of the agreement. Let’s have something in writing that shows you are going to keep your bargain and give us Palestine after you win the war.”

They didn’t know whether the war would last another year or another ten years. So they started to work out a receipt. The receipt took the form of a letter, which was worded in very cryptic language so that the world-at-large wouldn’t know what it was all about. And that was called the Balfour Declaration.” [Addressed to Lord Rothschild, to deliver to the Zionists] Freedman continues, “The Balfour Declaration was merely Great Britain’s promise to pay the Zionists what they had agreed upon. So this great Balfour Declaration, that you hear so much about, is just as phony as a three-dollar bill. I don’t think I could make it more emphatic than that.

This is where all the trouble started. The United States got into the war. The United States crushed Germany. You know what happened. When the war ended, and the Germans went to Paris for the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 there were 117 Jews there, as a delegation representing the Jews, headed by Bernard Baruch. I was there: I ought to know. Now what happened? The Jews at the peace conference, when they were cutting up Germany and parceling out Europe to all these nations who claimed a right to a certain part of European territory, said, “How about Palestine for us?” And they produced, for the first time to the knowledge of the Germans, the Balfour Declaration. So the Germans, for the first time realized, “Oh, so that was the game! That’s why the United States came into the war.” The Germans for the first time realized that they were defeated, they suffered the terrific reparations that were slapped onto them, because the Zionists wanted Palestine and were determined to get it at any cost.”

1. Freedman continues his speech describing how the Rothschild interests, specifically the Warburgs sold out Germany to get the U.S. into war, as a strategy to acquire Palestine and finish their colonization project ongoing since the 1800’s; which then leads into World War II.

c. On pages 88-91 of “Facts are Facts”, Freedman explains how New York attorney Samuel Untermeyer approached Woodrow Wilson on behalf of the Zionists, who then blackmailed Wilson into supporting first the Federal Reserve Act, and then the entry of the United States into World War I.”

e. On pages 90-91 of “Facts are Facts”, Freedman continues to lay out, in detail, how Samuel Untermeyer and the Zionists representative on the United States Supreme Court, Justice Louis Brandeis, handled the blackmailing of President Woodrow Wilson:

a. “As anyone might reasonably suspect, Mr. Untermeyer must have had something in mind when he agreed to pay President Wilson’s former sweetheart $40,000 out of his own pocket. He paid the money out of his own pocket in the hope that it might bring to pass a dream close to his heart – A Talmudic Jew on the United States Supreme Court on which none had ever served. The day soon arrived when President Wilson was presented with the necessity of appointing a new member of the United States Supreme Court.

Mr. Untermeyer recommended Louis Dembitz Brandeis for the vacancy, who was immediately appointed by Wilson. President Wilson and Justice Brandeis became unusually intimate friends. Justice Brandeis knew the circumstances of his appointment to the Supreme Court by Wilson. In 1914 Justice Brandeis was the most prominent and most politically influential of all Zionists in the United States. As a Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Brandeis was in a better position than ever before to be of service to the [Zionists] at home and abroad.

The first opportunity to perform a great service for his [Zionist] followers soon became available to Brandeis. Justice Brandeis volunteered his opinion to President Wilson that the sinking of the S.S. Sussex by a German submarine in the English Channel with the loss of lives of United States citizens justified the declaration of war against Germany by the United States. Relying to a great extent upon the legal opinion of Justice Brandeis, President Wilson addressed both houses of Congress on April 2, 1917. He appealed to Congress to declare war against Germany and they did on April 7, 1917. After the October 1916 agreement was concluded between the British War Cabinet and the World Zionist Organization, the [Zionists] throughout the world were hopeful that an international incident would soon occur to justify a declaration of war against Germany by the United States. The declaration of war against Germany by the United States guaranteed the [Zionists] throughout the world that Palestine was to be turned over to them upon the defeat of Germany. The defeat of Germany was certain if the United States could be railroaded into the war in Europe as Great Britain’s ally.”

f. On pages 94-95 of “Facts are Facts”, Freedman continues to lay out how Col. Edward Mandell House (Wilson’s advisor) worked to aid Great Britain and the Zionists in asserting controlling influence – economically and politically – over the United States.

g. On pages 112-115 of “Facts are Facts”, Freedman explains how the Rothschilds, using Great Britain as their agents, controlled the Suez Canal as part of their plan to colonize Palestine and create the State of Israel:

a. “The United States finds it convenient to blame everything that goes wrong anywhere in the world on Communism. Communism provides a convenient whipping boy for politicians. The arch villains in the world’s difficulties are the Rothschilds. For the moment, this author will only deal with the Rothschilds’ interest in the subject matter of this article, the Middle East’s desperate predicament of this world. This author can speak with confidence on this subject as his knowledge was obtained first hand from members of the Rothschild dynasty in London, New York, and elsewhere.”

b. “The Rothschild dynasty’s fortune and Great Britain’s authority would diminish in the Far East if Great Britain no longer controlled the Suez Canal. Looking ahead, the Rothschilds planned their fortune without the Suez Canal. The First World War ended in 1918 and the Rothschilds had their plan ready. Their plan was very simple. Under the October 1916 London Agreement, Great Britain planned to turn over Palestine to the Zionists after the war.

The eastern European [Zionists] had no money. Without money Palestine was a headache to the Zionists. The Rothschilds in London promised the Zionists unlimited financial assistance with which to develop Palestine, but on one condition – that as soon as Palestine was turned over to the Zionists, they apply for admission in the British Empire as a member. The Rothschilds planned to construct a canal in Palestine from Ashkelon on the Mediterranean to Aqaba on the Gulf of Aqaba. They planned to construct a modern steel and concrete canal with two lanes for ships. The canal would be on British Territory in perpetuity enjoying the advantages of defense by Great Britain if needed and international recognition as a member of the British Empire. Great Britain occupied Palestine from 1921-1948 as the Mandatory of the League of Nations. During that period, the British Empire fell apart.

By the time the Zionists established a Zionist state in Palestine, the British Empire had fallen apart and no longer existed. Palestine under the Zionists could not apply for admission to the British Empire. When the Rothschilds realized what was happening, they were compelled to alter their plans. The Rothschilds were determined that Great Britain must turn over all of Palestine to the Zionists for a sovereign Zionist state. The idea of the United Nations was by then a reality, and the Rothschilds planned upon getting the sovereign Zionist state admitted to the United Nations. The United Nations would provide Palestine with the same advantages as the British Empire would have provided once upon a time.”

Video Below: “AIPACs Key to the Novus Ordo Seclorum Pax American United States of Man” -Richard Grove

Video Below: “Zionists Takeover Palestine | Timeline of Evidence 1829-Present”-Richard Grove

If we move to the current day, we see the heavy Zionist and usurious influence has grown in the US government and major institutions, such as Hollywood, education, high finance and the media at large. Keep in mind Jews make up only 2 percent of the US population but somehow have an overwhelming influence in many power centers of American society. Nearly 80 percent of Joe Biden’s Cabinet was Jewish. Historian Donald Jeffries expresses the following in regard to “The Jewish Question”.

“The crux of this paranoid biscuit is that the topic of disproportionate Jewish power cannot be broached in the mainstream media. A mainstream media that is disproportionately controlled by this same ethnic/religious group that is a mere two percent of the population. Why can’t we talk about this? Every other group can be discussed- collectively and in generalized terms. Remember how there was undue alarm about having too many Catholics on the Supreme Court? Why isn’t there any alarm about there being too many Jews in high positions in Hollywood and Washington, D.C.? We hear all the time about D-E-I being necessary because corporate America is “too White,” with a special emphasis on those dreaded White males. Why isn’t Hollywood considered “too Jewish?” As for the political world, Jews have for a very long time been disproportionately represented among crucial aides and advisors.

Eight of the top ten employees at FEMA- perhaps the worst out of all our unconstitutional government agencies- were Jewish under Biden. Look at the photograph below. It was published in the mainstream, as a positive thing. All those people were members of the Biden administration. And all of them are Jews. I think we can safely say that this one particular ethnic/religious group was really, really overrepresented in the White House. I don’t know how many Jews worked for the Clintons, Bushes, or Obama, but I’m confident that they made up significantly more than two percent of those staffs. And with the world’s most zealous fan of Israel, Donald Trump, back in office, they might need a longer set of stairs to capture all the Jewish White House employees in one shot. That photo should serve as a slap in the face to all Americans. This is concrete evidence of monstrously undue influence.

If every motion picture studio head, for several decades, and every head of every network, all happened to be Mormons, or Moonies, or Eskimos, wouldn’t the public question that? What if all of them just happened to have red hair and freckles? Ginger power! You don’t think that everyone might find that very suspicious? To my knowledge, nothing about the Jewish religion suggests an innate expertise in running film or television studios. Or record companies. Or professional sports teams. As a real egalitarian, I don’t generalize. I don’t think Blacks are naturally superior athletes, or entertainers. So I’m certainly not going to accept that a particular ethnic group, or religion, was born for the most prestigious positions in our society. Either you accept that being a “Jew,” whatever that even means at this point, makes one better at these positions, or you must provide another explanation.

I’ll probably be criticized for writing this. And some will commend me on my courage. Because there is that unspoken “fear of the Jews,” going back to the Bible, at play here. Why would anyone have to fear a particular ethnic/religious group? Does anyone fear the Catholics? The Methodists? If you don’t want people saying that “the Jews” are behind everything, then the last thing you should do is pass an Antisemitism Awareness Act, whereby criticism of Jews, or even just Israel, becomes criminalized. It’s kind of like admitting the “anti-Semites” are right, isn’t it?”

Managed Dialectics: The Rothschild’s, The City of London, The Focus and The Soviet Stiff Arm

Author and Researcher Kerry Bolton states the following in regard to NM Rothschild & Company’s stated goal of creating a world government system with one global currency via the facade of “The Green Agenda”.

“City of London” – Capital of the World State?

The world government that Linnett proposes he calls the World Environment Authority (WEA). This should be based in what Linnett calls a “world city.” Linnett suggests that this “world city” or what one might term a “world capital” be London. However, I feel that one can be more precise and state that what Linnett has in mind is not “London” as most people understand the name, but what is called The City, a certain part of London which comprises the headquarters of international finance, which is a sovereign entity like Vatican City, in-so-far that should the British Monarch desire to enter she or he must seek to have her authority confirmed at the gates of The City by the “Lord Mayor of The City.” That Linnett is meaning The City can be inferred by his description: “London is a world financial centre (possibly ‘the’ world financial centre).” This description does not fit London per se, but the so-called City of London.

The actual name of this “London” is The City of London Corporation. Its oligarchic citizens call The City “the world’s leading financial centre,” exactly as Linnett describes the “London” he wants as the world capital. This City of London is described as “the financial and commercial heart of Britain, the ‘Square Mile’.” Again exactly in accord with the requirements listed by Linnett as needed for the ‘world capital,” it is stated:

The City of London is at the heart of the world’s financial markets. It is a unique concentration of international expertise and capital, with a supportive legal and regulatory system, an advanced communications and information technology infrastructure and an unrivalled concentration of professional services…

The Lord Mayor of the City of London is “not the Mayor of (Greater) London.” Hence, it should be readily seen that The City or the “Square Mile” is something quite different from the London known to the general public throughout the world. This Lord Mayor is elected for one year, and acts as a global ambassador for the international financial institutions situated there, and is “treated overseas as a Cabinet level Minister.” He lives in the palatial 250-year-old “Mansion House.” On state visits the British Monarch waits at the Gate of The City to seek permission to enter and is presented with the sword of The City by the Lord Mayor.

This at least would appear to be the Rothschild plan: to create an international authority on the pretext of saving the world from global warming, this salvation being somehow achievable by creating a “carbon exchange” as another source of speculative profit for the Rothschilds, et al. The international authority leading towards a “new world order” would have The City of London as its world capital.

One should not mistake this for any type of patriotic or nationalistic sentiment on the part of a CEO employed by Rothschild, who just happens at this stage in his career to be resident in England. The City is not a part of England; it is a sovereign financial state. Its leading functionaries are no more loyal to England than their counterparts are loyal to Germany, France or the USA or whatever other part of the world at which they happen to reside at any given time. Their citizenship is interchangeable according to the requirements of profit maximization. Hence, when someone such as Linnett advocates making The City the capital of a world control system, he does so not as a patriotic Briton (and not, I think, as part of a “British conspiracy” headed up by the House of Windsor) but as an employee of the oldest of the international bankers, the House of Rothschild, whose loyalty, like other such banking dynasties, is not to any nation other than when that nation might serve their interests or provide the weaponry against a recalcitrant state.”

To understand this economic fraud, it is important to explore the role false dialectics have as the underpinning of all the chaos we see in America today. It is the assumption that metaphysical concepts and also matter are inherently opposed to each other. Some examples, The individual is in tension with the group, man is in tension with nature, right is at tension with left, light is in tension with darkness etc. The problem here is these are taken as a given when there is no basis or justification for any of these to be in inherent tension or that one is superior to the other. Why is a person more important than a group of people or vice versa? Any argument given for the superiority of one over the other is totally arbitrary in an ultimate sense. This does not mean tensions do not exist, the point is to recognize that tensions are created by man through his Fall from his original state (The biblical story of Creation) and through his free will, it is not inherent to nature. Adam’s Fall from Paradise brought death, decay and destruction into the world, these negative elements did not exist prior to the Fall. This is NOT a denial of historical dialectics as someone like Hegel presented it. Without the Hegelian epistemic priors and presuppositions; dialectics become a tool of manipulation, as is the case in the paradigms that grew out of the Enlightenment. For an in-depth look into this read Genesis, Creation and Early Man by Fr. Seraphim Rose.

To Quigley’s point above, in regard to the misunderstanding of the “radical right”; The Sutton View of this time period is akin to the following: A dialectical framework was used as a cover to protect the Anglo-American Establishment. One glaring issue I’ve come across is that both Sutton and Quigley never once mentions Winston Churchill’s “The Focus” in any of their writing. The Focus was a conglomeration of Jewish foundations that literally enabled Churchill to obtain the seat of Prime Minister. There could be multiple reasons for Quigley ignoring this but I will refrain from speculation. Needless to say, I do not see how Quigley was not aware of The Focus with the information he had access to.

Videos Below: “The Origins and Rise of Winston Churchill”-Part 1 to 4-Thomas777 & Pete Quinones

Again, looking to the work of Kerry Bolton, we see the role of managed dialectics and realpolitik involving the US and Russia; Both prior to and after the Soviet Union. This reality is difficult to apprehend if a person is married to their particular ideological bent. If a person cannot break away from their liberal assumptions, regardless of conservative, moderate or progressive leanings; they will not be able to conceptualize the below.

“Russia: The Perennial Disappointment

Russia has never fit well into the plans of those seeking to impose a uniform system upon humanity. Russia has remained untamed in terms of the sophisticated Western liberals seeking to establish a unipolar global world, as were Afrikaners, Iraqis, Iranians, Serbs, et al. The difference is that Russians continue to constitute a significant opposition, which therefore requires subverting.

Russia’s economy was regarded as backward by the Western financiers and this is the reason why many not only welcomed the March and even the November 1917 Revolutions, but also provided backing for the revolutionaries to overthrow the Czarist regime as an anomaly in the world of “progress.”

Industrialists and financiers looked optimistically to a post-Czarist Russia whose regime was set to embark on industrialization, which implied the need for foreign capital and expertise, regardless of the revolutionary rhetoric about foreign capitalists. However, the self-described “foreign policy establishment”, the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR), urged foreign investors to act quickly in Russia, as they perceived that the situation might soon change.

Peter Grosse, writing in what amounts to a virtual “official history” of the CFR states of the Council’s first report on Soviet Russia:

Awkward in the records of the Inquiry had been the absence of a single study or background paper on the subject of Bolshevism. Perhaps this was simply beyond the academic imagination of the times. Not until early 1923 could the Council summon the expertise to mobilize a systematic examination of the Bolshevik regime, finally entrenched after civil war in Russia. The impetus for this first study was Lenin’s New Economic Policy, which appeared to open the struggling Bolshevik economy to foreign investment. Half the Council’s study group were members drawn from firms that had done business in pre-revolutionary Russia, and the discussions about the Soviet future were intense. The concluding report dismissed ‘hysterical’ fears that the revolution would spill outside Russia’s borders into central Europe or, worse, that the heady new revolutionaries would ally with nationalistic Muslims in the Middle East to evict European imperialism. The Bolsheviks were on their way to ‘sanity and sound business practices,’ the Council study group concluded, but the welcome to foreign concessionaires would likely be short-lived. Thus, the Council experts recommended in March 1923 that American businessmen get into Russia while Lenin’s invitation held good, make money on their investments, and then get out as quickly as possible. A few heeded the advice; not for seven decades would a similar opportunity arise.

Stalin, even at this embryonic stage of the Soviet regime, was the spoiler. While Trotsky wished to pursue foreign investment, as had been the case under Lenin’s New Economic Policy, Stalin dealt some swift blows to the broadly termed opposition bloc led by Trotsky, and pursued a course not as amicable to foreign capital.

With the outbreak of war between Germany and the USSR, there was renewed hope for Russia being integrated into a post war new world order. Stalin relied on Western technological wherewithal for his war machine in fighting the Germans. However Stalin was too hard-headed and authoritarian to be subordinate or even become a corporate equal partner in any post-war global re-organization envisaged by the USA.”

According to Bolton, it appears Stalin and his close advisors were aware that any relations post WW2 were not going to be the US and USSR “sharing power” in real terms. In reality, despite the facade of an equal partnership from the US/UNO diplomats, the USSR would be a true junior partner to US hegemony. This understanding supports the thesis that Russia has both in the past and to present day; been a thorn in the side of American and British monopoly domination in world affairs.

“A State Department committee under Undersecretary of State Dean Acheson and David Lilienthal, in conjunction with a “second committee of citizens” led by the international banker and perennial presidential adviser Bernard Baruch were convened in 1946 to draft a plan for “some system of international control of nuclear energy.” The plan was presented by Baruch to the UN General Assembly on June 14 1946.

It would own, control, or license all uranium from the mine through processing and use, with operation of its own nuclear facilities throughout the world, inspection of all other such facilities, absolute prohibition of all nuclear bombs or diversion of nuclear materials to non-peaceful purposes, and punishment for evasion or violation of its regulations free from the Great Power veto which normally operated in the Security Council of the UN.

This was therefore a method of trying to bypass the problem of veto that had been insisted upon by the USSR to ensure its sovereignty, which had from the start rendered the UN impotent as a world authority. Quigley laments that this extraordinarily “generous offer” by the USA, “…was brusquely rejected by Andrei Gromyko on behalf of the Soviet Union within five days…” Quigley points out that one of the main points the USSR raised in rejecting the Baruch Plan was that there must be no tampering with the Great Power veto.

Gromyko recalling his time as Soviet representative on the UN Atomic Energy Commission, states of the Baruch Plan:

The actual intention was to be camouflaged by the creation of an international body to monitor the use of nuclear energy. However, Washington did not even try to hide that it intended to take the leading part in this body, to keep in its own hands everything to do with the production and storage of fissionable material and, under the guise of the need for international inspection, to interfere in the internal affairs of the sovereign nations.

Baruch told Gromyko that all industries dealing with fissionable material would be inspected by experts, Gromyko remarking, “Inevitably at that time they would all be Americans.” Quigley’s moral indignation at the USSR’s rejection notwithstanding, we are now in a position of hindsight, considering recent world events, to understand Soviet suspicions. The moral choice is not as clear-cut as Quigley supposes. Japan had been A-bombed whilst seeking peace terms, the basis of which was the sanctity of the Emperor. America’s position was unconditional, and of course it can be assumed that the Administration knew the Japanese could not accede to anything that would compromise Hirohito or the imperial house. Allen Dulles who became head of the CIA, related in an interview with Clifford Evans in 1963 that he had been in contact with Japanese factions that were in a position to sue for peace; that the sole Japanese concern was that the Emperor as the unifying factor of the Japanese would be left alone. “Just weeks later… Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed.”

In an informative article, Bob Fisk comments on the bombing of Japan:

Stalin was finally impressed by the effect of Truman’s new weapon at Hiroshima. He very much wanted the bomb for Russia. When U.S. proposals to limit the bomb to America alone were uncompromising, Stalin’s scientists accelerated their work.

It might be suspected, certainly from Soviet quarters, that the bombing of Japan was intended as a show of US might vis-à-vis the USSR. However, even Britain was concerned at US intentions, Prime Minister Clement Atlee explaining:

We had to hold up our position vis-à-vis the Americans. We couldn’t allow ourselves to be wholly in their hands… We had worked from the start for international control of the bomb… We could not agree that only America should have atomic energy…

Were both the USSR and Britain then being selfish, as implied indignantly by Quigley? Baruch himself stated:

The gains of our scientists, our engineers, our industrialists, produced the supreme weapon of all time — the atomic bomb. That we shall never give away, until and unless security for us, for the world, is established. Until that time comes, the U.S. will remain the guardian of safety. We can be trusted….

The rhetoric by Baruch about the USA being the “trusted guardian” of world peace and freedom is the same mantra the world has heard from Woodrow Wilson to Obama.”

Stalin and the Soviet’s appear to have shunned the US foreign policy establishment and CFR in many areas. These include atomic energy, The Marshall Plan and the original blueprint for The United Nations Organization, to name a few. Thus, the US post war establishment had to shift gears and modify their plan in an attempt to obtain their goals. Kerry Bolton continues in the same article from Foreign Policy Journal.

“CFR Blueprint for Cold War

The repudiation, indeed the scuttling of the UNO foundations for a “new world order” required a re-evaluation of the USSR by the CFR as America’s self-described “foreign policy establishment”.

Grosse states that the internationalist proposals for a post-war “new world order” were met with a firm “nyet” from the USSR: “In characteristic fashion, Council planners conceived a study group to analyze the coming world order.” What they envisaged was a joint CFR-Soviet study group to prepare proposals for the “coming world order” (sic):

Percy Bidwell, director of the Council’s new Studies Program, had courteously approached the Soviet Embassy as early as January 1944 to stimulate interest in the joint project. He was received by Ambassador Andrei Gromyko, whose response would become all too familiar in the years to come. Through Gromyko the Russian word “nyet” entered the English language. Without any pretense of diplomatic tact, the ambassador (soon to be foreign minister) told the men from the Council he would not permit any responsible Soviet spokesman to join in such a discussion.

The policy formulated for the USA vis-à-vis the USSR was “containment”, a word coined by diplomat and CFR member George Kennan. Grosse is candid in describing the clandestine – conspiratorial? – manner by which the CFR influenced Cold War policy:

The Council on Foreign Relations functioned at the core of the public institution-building of the early Cold War, but only behind the scenes. As a forum providing intellectual stimulation and energy, it enabled well-placed members to convey cutting-edge thinking to the public—but without portraying the Council as the font from which the ideas rose.

An initial report by George S Franklin in 1946 recommended attempting to work with the USSR as much as possible, “unless and until it becomes entirely evident that the U.S.S.R. is not interested in achieving cooperation…” However the USA should pursue co-operation from a position of military strength:

The United States must be powerful not only politically and economically, but also militarily. We cannot afford to dissipate our military strength unless Russia is willing concurrently to decrease hers. On this we lay great emphasis.

We must take every opportunity to work with the Soviets now, when their power is still far inferior to ours, and hope that we can establish our cooperation on a firmer basis for the not so distant future when they will have completed their reconstruction and greatly increased their strength…. The policy we advocate is one of firmness coupled with moderation and patience.

However this mildly conciliatory policy was rejected in total. Grosse writes:

The Franklin report of May 1946, outlining cautious hopes for cooperative relations between the United States and the Soviet Union in the coming post-World War II years, was dead. The board’s committee on studies formally decided against publication in July; by November all sympathy for a conciliatory stance toward Moscow had disappeared from the corridors of the Harold Pratt House.”

Video Below: Hilary Clinton CFR Tells America What We Should Be Doing

Cold War-Hot Money & Present Day US Russo Relations

Amazingly, there is more here that needs to be fleshed out if we want to discern an accurate picture of US-Soviet relations during the Cold War. Two lingering questions remain:

1. Russia in many ways, was destroyed via the Bolshevik (Khazar) Revolution and WW1, the people, infrastructure, industry and economic systems were in complete disarray. How was it possible the Soviet’s were able to rebuild and reconstitute within a few years?

2. Where and from whom did the support to do this come from?

To answer these questions, we must tread where court and mainline historians don’t dare go. Why?

1. This blows apart the mainline narratives we have been fed about what occurred during this period and your cushy gig at [insert name] University or CNN would be over if you mentioned it.

2. It is difficult to track the financing and why it occurred and who did it during this period.

Dr. Matthew Raphael Johnson’s thesis is as follows:

Large companies (banks and industry) within the US and NATO member countries regularly traded, invested and aided the Soviet Union throughout its existence.

Again, if you do not leave liberal ideological bents at the door and false dialectics the below cannot be comprehended. There was genuine and hostile conflicts between both militaries in peripheral wars, such as Korea and Vietnam. While there were real tensions in foreign relations between State Department apparatus; large US and NATO finance and industry continued to work with the Soviet Union, nearly unopposed by US or Western European governments for decades. To be clear the theory is as follows: The White House, US State Department, Pentagon and The CIA and rest of the intelligence apparatus had frosty relations. Large banks, corporations and firms kept relations toasty.

In the video below, Dr. Johnson cites three academic papers, these are listed below. I cannot locate free PDF’s of these but they are all on line for purchase:

(1) Always in Need of Credit: The USSR and Franco-German Economic Cooperation, 1926-1929 by Michael Jabara Carley and Richard Kent Debo

(2) The Marshall Plan Revisited: The European Recovery Program in Economic Perspective by Susan Linz

(3) Strategies of Economic Containment: U.S. Trade Relations with the Soviet Union by Michael Mastanduno

Nevertheless, according to declassified CIA whitepapers, the cozy commercial relations between the USSR and “Western Interests” backup Dr. Johnson’s thesis. A study document entitled, “Western Lending to the Soviet Block” states the following.

“Historically, the Soviet Union has maintained a close relationship with certain Western commercial banks, many of which feel comfortable in assessing the creditworthiness of the Soviet Union. Western banks' positive assessment of the Soviet Union stems in part from that country's gold reserves, currently valued at over $30 billion.

Western bank claims (unadjusted) on the USSR, the principal borrower among the Bloc countries, increased $14.6 billion in the 1985-1987 (Q3) period. After adjustment for exchange rate changes, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) estimates gross borrowing by the USSR from BIS-reporting banks was $8.4 billion . Historically, the Soviet Union has maintained a close relationship with certain Western commercial bank lenders, which have lent funds or arranged large syndications on a fairly consistent basis. These banks appear to be comfortable in assessing the USSR's creditworthiness in part, perhaps, because of Soviet gold reserves of over 70 million ounces, currently valued at over $30 billion, and because of the banks' perception of than the can Soviet Union's historic caution against borrowing more be serviced.

While the above is unconscionable in mainline historicism; it makes perfect sense explaining how the USSR was able to industrialize at scale the way it did. It was on the backs of banks tied into the BIS/IMF/World Bank syndicate as discussed above. The CIA document goes into detail as to how this was allowed to occur while the Johnson Act presumably prevented this from happening.

“U.S. law effectively prohibits an issue of securities by the Soviet Union in the United States. The Johnson Debt Default Act of 1934 (the "Act") provides penalties for anyone in the United States who makes an untied loan to or purchases or sells the obligations of a foreign government that is in default on its obligations to the United States Government. The penalties also apply to lending by banks in the United States.

Johnson Act Exceptions

There are important exceptions to the Johnson Act. The Attorney General has ruled in several opinions that banking activities associated with trade financing and export transactions are permissible under the Act. Banks can thus deal with, for example, the Soviet Union, in normal export credits, lines of bank credit (including letters of credit and bankers' acceptances), barter arrangements, and drafts, checks and other ordinary aids to banking and credit. Also pursuant to an opinion of the Attorney General, the Act does not apply to foreign branches or subsidiaries of U.S. banks. In addition, the Act does not apply to members of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. When Poland joined the IMP and World Bank, it was no longer subject to Johnson Act restrictions. The Act currently applies to the Soviet Union, the GDR and Czechoslovakia. The Act is inapplicable to Federal corporations such as the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Eximbank) and the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), and persons or corporations participating in any transactions engaged in by the Eximbank or the CCC.”

So put simply and in reality, there was no “Cold War” between certain financial and industrial interests during these tense and hair-trigger decades. Since the IMF and World Bank were exempted from any government encroachment; the largest private financial firms in the US and NATO countries, along with the companies they lent to could do business with the Soviets unimpeded. There was nothing the US government could do about this. Why? Because the US, post FDR and to today is an Oligarchy. The financial class is far more powerful than any president or government official. President Ronald Reagan spilled the beans during a national radio address in November of 1982 about the financial relations with the Soviets.

“The balance between the United States and the Soviet Union cannot be measured in weapons and bombers alone. To a large degree, the strength of each nation is also based on economic strength. Unfortunately, the West's economic relations with the U.S.S.R. have not always served the national security goals of the alliance.

The Soviet Union faces serious economic problems. But we -- and I mean all of the nations of the free world -- have helped the Soviets avoid some hard economic choices by providing preferential terms of trade, by allowing them to acquire militarily relevant technology, and by providing them a market for their energy resources, even though this creates an excessive dependence on them. By giving such preferential treatment, we've added to our own problems -- creating a situation where we have to spend more money on our defense to keep up with Soviet capabilities which we helped create.”

Video Below: “Western Economic Support for the USSR- Dr. Matthew Raphael Johnson

If we moved to present day, we see the antagonism between the US and Russia has not ceased. In many ways we see a return to a Cold War posture between both countries; this is not a repeat of the past but it rhymes. Put simply, Vladimir Putin is unwilling to allow his country to be a junior partner to US hegemony; hence the relentless corporate media, economic and political hysterics against him. Multipolarity is the last thing these entities want.

Video Below: “Vladimir Putin and His Enemies” -Dr. Matthew Raphael Johnson & Pete Quinones

Conflicting Revisionist Narratives and Views

The Antony Sutton Thesis

Here, I will attempt to flesh out as well as I can, what I’ve deemed The Antony Sutton Thesis. There are other parties, such as many of the Libertarian and John Birch sort and other adjacent groups who hold a very similar view to Sutton. That being, a cabal of Anglo-American International Bankers have dominated US and British governmental policy since Cecil Rhodes formed his secretive Round Table Group . The narrative is as follows.

Moving into the heart of the Cold War, we find the “radical right” Senator Joe McCarthy along with The John Birch Society of the 1950’s. These parties had rightly observed the interworkings of the US government were being manipulated by infiltrators who appeared to be operating in a Communist fashion. The automatic dialectical assumption was made that this had to be a Communist plot to destroy the US government. While there was much proven Communist infiltration in Washington, McCarthy missed the forest for the trees.

What McCarthy and the Birchers were really coming upon was the machinations of the Anglo-American Establishment and their interlocking groups or “steering committees”. These organizations feed policy to the bureaucracy and politicians that implement them. Think tanks often have interlocking directorates, meaning the same people sit on the boards of multiple organizations. These are numerous, such as: Brookings Institute, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Rockefeller Brothers Fund, The Ford Foundation, RAND Corporation and The Atlantic Council just to name a few. The below quote gives an overview of this interconnection.

“This document presents new findings about the American power structure based on the connections among 2,563 corporations, 6 business leadership and policy-discussion groups, 33 prominent think tanks, 82 major foundations, 47 private universities with large endowments, and 19 White House advisory committees for the years 2011-2012. In all, the database used for our study contains 2,750 separate organizations and 9,121 individuals.

It is one of the largest and most extensive data set ever assembled for the United States that includes for-profit, nonprofit, and governmental organizations. 35.2% of the individuals in our database have connections to at least two of the organizations in the database.

In related matters, Norman Dodd was the staff director of the Reece Committee, also known as House Select Committee to Investigate Tax Exempt Foundations. In the below video, Dodd details the breath and scope of the role these foundations played. Most notably, fundamentally altering education in America and the infiltration of the State Department to prevent a reversion by the American population to a pre WW1 mindset.

Video Below: “The Hidden Agenda of World Government” -Normand Dodd & G. Edward Griffin

The above picture is a depiction of the network that surrounds Citigroup Inc. Circa 2011-2012 taken from the article, “Interlocks and Interactions Among the Power Elite: The Corporate Community, Think Tanks, Policy-Discussion Groups, and Government”

The Dodd video is what Quigley also describes and what Jensen is lecturing about in the Cosmology speech below. Its what was missed back in the 50’s. This World Socialist plan is run by supposedly arch free market capitalist. This in turn, leads to a predatory form of Technocracy or “a form of government in which the decision-makers are selected based on their expertise in a given area of responsibility, particularly with regard to scientific or technical knowledge.” In other words, rule by experts over the totality of society.

The Superior Sailer-Bolton Thesis

I personally have been at pains for a long while; to cash out the true role of The infamous “Anglo American Establishment”, and the degree to which it influenced and possibly controlled world affairs. I held a staunch Libertarian or Sutton view for years as that’s where my research and worldview led me. But I often would find myself questioning my conclusions, mainly because of how these same prominent names and families reacted to the revolutionary FDR administration and the massive changes they were ushering in with World War 2 and The “Jew” Deal. This didn’t appear to jive with the “Anglo-American/Milner-Fabian” narrative. Being incredulous, I finally discovered two key articles: Kerry Bolton’s “Alfred Milner and His ‘Group’: Some Myths About the ‘Anglo-American conspiracy’” and Steve Sailer’s, “Carroll Quigley's Conspiracy Theory: The Milner Group”. These articles provide much needed clarity to the machinations of the 20th century and the role these roundtable groups played.

In careful examination of Quigley’s work and his references and sources, Steve Sailer states the following in regard to the Milner Group. The Milner Group was ostensibly, the continuation of Cecil Rhodes dreams, according to his multiple Wills and Testaments. This dream was to bring the US back under the British Empire via a secretive Round Table organized similar to how the Jesuit Order operated.

Did the Milner Group really exist?

Quigley claims that although its existence went unsaid among the upper classes, the reality of the Milner Group as a coherent body can be documented from the sentimental obituaries younger members wrote for deceased members in media institutions they controlled such as the Dictionary of National Biography.

Reading them, I’d say he has a point.

Still, we know a huge amount about the private lives of the British toffs of a century ago, and the lack of follow-up to Quigley’s hypothesis suggests that not much more evidence has surfaced.

But whether you’d call it the Milner Group with a capital G or just a clique or coterie seems to be one of those glass part full or part empty questions. It’s likely that no-drama Milner dispensed with the romantic Mason-inspired silliness that the young Rhodes had come up with in favor of a simple strategy of like-minded friends quietly coordinating for maximum public effectiveness.

As for secrecy, consider the famous Chatham House Rule: if you are invited to a meeting at Chatham House where, say, John Kerry explains the Iran deal, you are allowed to discuss what you learned but not mention the name of whoever you heard it from. That’s a clever way to cut the Gordian Knot of wanting to propagandize without being seen to propagandize.

British institutions such as The Economist continue to utilize anonymity, pseudonyms, and initials to inflate credibility. If, for example, Will Wilkinson signed his names to his columns in The Economist, you’d say, “Oh, that’s just Will Wilkinson’s opinion.” But if he’s identified in The Economist only as W.W. it’s easy to imagine he is some authority.

On the other hand, practically everybody in the British ruling class had social connections to everybody else. The Chamberlain family alone (Joseph, Austen, and Neville) is difficult to disentangle.

Sailer goes on to state that there is no real indication that British policy would have unfolded all that differently if the Milner Group were or were not in an influential position. The publication The Times; which The Group had editorial control over mainly parroted the Establishment view of appeasement of Germany. There also appears to be a disconnect between hirer ranking members on policy. This leads to the argument that The Milner Group was not a monolith on viewpoint, as often characterized by Sutton types.

“And it’s not hugely clear that the Milner Group had tremendous ideological influence, since, via their mouthpiece at The Times, their voice was that of the British Establishment and it’s not that obvious what the British Establishment would have done all that differently if other personnel had been at key chokepoints.

The Establishment’s undeniable massive screw-up was appeasement of Hitler in the 1930s. Lord Astor became the main financier of Milner Group interests, buying The Times in 1922, and he went along with Milner’s view that the time had come to be nice to Germany. Waugh’s Communist cousin Claude Cockburn (father of numerous journalist Cockburns and grandfather of actress Olivia Wilde) deemed Lady Astor’s friends the purportedly treasonous Cliveden Set.

But Quigley emphasizes that the center of gravity of the Milner Group was somewhat less pro-appeasement than Neville Chamberlain’s inner circle. And Quigley underplays how strongly Milner’s most impressive protege Amery (who was half-Jewish) sided with Churchill for rearmament in the 1930s, being the second most important anti-Appeasement voice in the Tories after the death of Austen Chamberlain in 1937. If Churchill hadn’t lived, I can imagine Amery becoming the fierce wartime Prime Minister.

As the Rhodes-Milner faction became less closely associated with South Africa in the 20th Century, it became less Jewish, although Quigley asserts that Isaiah Berlin was a late addition to the outer circle of the Milner Group.”

Kerry Bolton, uses Sailer’s article as a springboard to provide even more clarity and insight. Bolton states that what many “conspiratologists” or holders of the Sutton view contented; are actually dubious connections that Quigley does not come to in his writing.

“That is not to say that the rest of Quigley’s book has much of interest. It does, but a lot of it does not confirm the biases of many conspiratologists; namely that there remained a permanent link between the USSR and the financial cabal and that the ‘cold war’ was a ruse; or that ‘Wall Street backed Hitler’. Quigley claims rather that the use of debt-finance loans by this ‘network’ worked with the early Bolsheviks but failed with subsequent Soviet leaders, and worked with the Weimar politicians but failed with Hitler. Quigley also explains quite a bit about the origins of the ‘cold war’ which should otherwise be of interest to conservatives, except that he shows that it was Stalin who stymied a U.S. –sponsored U.N. world state; the reverse of the wide-spread conservative contention that the U.N.O. was a commie plot in cahoots with the ‘Anglo-American Establishment’.

What is notable about The Anglo-American Establishment is that the ‘American’ part is barely discernible. Of the Milner Group Quigley has much to say. Of an alliance with Wall Street, very little among over three hundred pages. The title of the book is a misnomer. Given the course the USA took towards Britain (along with the other European empires) it is an oxymoron.”

Bolton goes on to point out the contradictions with Quigley’s work and what supporters of the Sutton thesis extrapolate from his writing, in case of the below quote. One being, the overexaggerated connections between the House of Rothschild and Rhodes. Its often presented by the Sutton crowd that the Rothschild family and the Rhodes-Milner Group were always in lockstep with each other, this does not appear to be the case.

“Quigley writes in Tragedy & Hope that the cabal he is discussing is based around international bankers, its purpose being to create an international financial system. As will be seen, this is far removed, and indeed antithetical, to the Rhodes/Milner vision. The most well known representatives of the new ‘financial capitalism’ were the House of Rothschild. But the link between Rothschild and the Rhodes-Milner Group is exaggerated by many commentators, with Milner routinely called a ‘Rothschild agent’. For the purpose of emphasizing an ‘Anglo-American’ bloc the focus is changed to that of J. P. Morgan, a staunch Episcopalian, although J.P. had died in 1913, and there seems little reason to believe that J. P. Morgan Co. remained Anglophile.”

Moving through the article, Bolton goes into detail dissecting important events in history the Sutton supporters reference as proof of Anglo-American Banking power supremacy which does not add up. This includes a clear disconnect between Nathan Rothschild and Cecil Rhodes in regard to their worldviews and goals. Bolton states the following.

“Derek Wilson, a sympathetic Rothschild biographer, writes that while Lord Rothschild was critical of Gladstone’s ‘flabby’ foreign policy, he was ‘not an unbridled expansionist’, and cites his uneasy relationship with Rhodes. When diamonds were discovered in South Africa Rothschild bought into the Anglo-African Diamond Mining Co., which was amalgamated with DeBeers. In 1887 Rhodes asked Lord Rothschild for financial backing. Rothschild saw this as a means of getting into Africa in rivalry with the Barnato Diamond Mining Co., which ended up merging with DeBeers. For Rhodes money was a means for expanding British influence. Not so for Rothschild, although Rhodes persuaded himself that the banker was a kindred spirit. Wilson remarks of Rhodes: ‘He was wrong. Lord Rothschild was not an unreserved imperialist, as Rhodes gradually discovered’. In 1888 Rhodes nominated Rothschild his executor to administer his estate for funding The Round Table Groups, a secret society to be modelled on the Jesuit constitution, but promoting the British empire. It is here that much hokum is written about Rhodes and Milner being ‘agents’ for Rothschild. Wilson writes:

In response to Rhodes’ suggestion that company funds be used to finance territorial expansion, his banker advised: “ if… you require money to finance territorial expansion, you will have to obtain it from other sources than the cash reserves of the De Beers Company.” And Rhodes cannot have been very pleased to learn, in 1892, that Rothschild had floated a loan for the Boer government of Transvaal.”

A recurring theme Bolton exposes is that this supposed Anglo-American cabal are constantly at odds with each other. And if that is the case; how is it possible they had vice grip control over US and British policy as claimed by the Sutton supporters? The below details the fractures between the US: Counsel on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the British: Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA). The Sutton crowd will claim that these policy advising groups are part and parcel of each other, Bolton shows this is not the case.

“Burnett and Games state that the idea of a think tank on foreign policy in the USA was mooted in 1917 by Col. Edward M House, Wilson’s key adviser, with Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, who was inclined towards Bolshevism rather than British imperialism. This think tank became The Inquiry. Another group, comprising ‘New York financiers and international lawyers’ had established the CFR in 1918. Both groups went to the Paris Peace Conference as Pres. Wilson’s advisers. Both British and U.S. groups met after the peace conference at the Hotel Majestic with the aim of establishing a joint Anglo-American Institute of International Affairs. By 1921 the CFR had dwindled to insignificance and merged with The Inquiry in 1921, but by this time the idea of a U.S. Institute of International Affairs, the British section having been established, was no longer in favour. Whitney Shepardson, aide to Col. House, was sent to Britain to inform the RIIA that the U.S. branch would not now eventuate. However, the British group had already decided to also reject a joint project with the U.S. group. Burnett and Games conclude from their study of CFR documents that:

Conspiracy theorists who claim that the Council on Foreign Relations is controlled by the Round Table through the Institute of International Affairs are wrong and haven’t done their research. This lack of agreement, and definite desire not to be linked, forces an enormous rift between these secret groups. Theorists tend to concentrate on the wishful thinking voiced at the Hotel Majestic without following the actual subsequent developments. Any sentence that combines the CFR and the IIA as co-conspirators must be viewed a false.

“Games and Burnett state, and the history by Grose concurs, that the CFR was anxious to try and create a new world order with the USSR rather than with Britain following World War II. However, when the CFR approached the Soviet Embassy in 1944 with an offer of co-operation they were firmly rejected by Gromyko. ‘The new world order, as envisaged by the CFR, did involve co-existence with the USSR. The demise of world power for the British was evident by this action’.”

Later, Bolton details the contradictions with the Sutton narrative on Bolshevism. Along with the dealings and agreements at the Paris 1919 Conference following the hostilities of World War 1.

“It is of note that at the Paris peace conference Henry Wickham Steed, editor of The London Times which, as stated by Quigley, worked in tandem with Oxford academics and Faber & Faber to influence British public opinion, critically observed the activities of the financial coterie that was to form the CFR. Steed described this as representing ‘German-Jewish financial interests’, headed by Jacob Schiff of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. In those days, the talk among British ruling circles was not of ‘Anglo-American interests, but of ‘German-Jewish’. In a first-hand account of the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, Wickham Steed stated that proceedings were interrupted by the return from Moscow of William C. Bullitt and Lincoln Steffens, ‘who had been sent to Russia towards the middle of February by Colonel House and Mr. Lansing, for the purpose of studying conditions, political and economic, therein for the benefit of the American Commissioners plenipotentiary to negotiate peace’.

Reading the memoirs of Maj. Gen. William S. Graves, head of the American Expeditionary Forces in Siberia, it is apparent that whatever the Americans were doing in Russia during the Civil War, it was not for the purposes of fighting Bolshevism. Shortly before his execution by the Bolsheviks Admiral Kolchak asked the same question as to what exactly the Allies had been doing in Russia?”

The above quote dovetails with what was detailed earlier in the article; in regard to the CFR advising American heavy industry to “get in and get out of Russia” under Lenin’s “New Economic Policy”. Its also clear there is no Anglo coterie throwing their business weight around in these dealings.

Next, Bolton details the mischaracterizations and dubious claims that Gary Allen makes in his very popular, None Dare Call It Conspiracy in regard to his claims about what Alfred Milner was doing in Russia and his relations with the Bolsheviks. The notion that Milner was a “secret financer” of Bolshevism does not add up.

“It is into this imbroglio that Alfred Milner is accused by some conspiratologists of being in Russia to provide funds for the Bolsheviks. Gary Allen, in his best-seller None Dare Call It Conspiracy, wrote that Milner was ‘an important financier of the Bolshevik Revolution’. Allen like many other conspiratologists proceeds from the claim that Milner was a Rothschild ‘agent’. He quotes the Czarist General, Arsene de Goulevitch on the subject of funding revolutionaries, and cites him as stating that at the time Petrograd was ‘teeming with English’, including Milner. (There is no such impression of Russia ’teeming’ with British agents in Lockhart’s detailed memoirs). De Goulevitch claims that he learned in ‘private interviews’ that Milner had given eleven million roubles to revolutionaries. No primary sources are cited by either Allen or de Goulevitch. There does not seem to be a distinction made between the February revolutionaries that brought Kerensky to power, and the Bolshevik revolt of October 1917. Milner had been sent to Russia as part of an Allied conference in January 1917.

The visit cast a ‘gloom’ over him as to what he found in Russia. Lockhart quoted a letter from Milner to ‘Benji’ Bruce of the Embassy Chancery in Russia, shortly after Milner had returned to Britain: ‘Alas, alas! I fear all the Missions of British Labour leaders and all the compliments we have showered on the Russian revolution – “triumph of democracy,” “the union of free peoples against tyrants,” etc., etc., are perfectly futile’. Milner foresaw that Russia would soon be out of the war, and that there was a ‘catastrophe’, a ‘typhoon’, approaching. Lockhart was in Russia, mostly alone, to try and salvage whatever he could for British interests, which included cultivating primarily Trotsky, as the most likely of the Bolsheviks to resist a settlement with Germany.

So far from being pro-Bolshevik, Lockhart states that while Milner had arranged for Lockhart’s mission to Russia, as the best qualified, ‘my own conduct must have tried him highly’. Milner had a ‘profound abhorrence for Bolshevism… He was probably disappointed that I seemed to go over body and soul to the Bolsheviks’.”

On to more contradictions in the Sutton View. If Alfred Milner wielded the power he did; why did his economic outlook differ with not only the Free Trade-Capitalist view; which seems to have been dominant for most of the members of the Group, as well as the Marxist view? Bolton describes below.

“Milner’s ideas on political economy reflect those of Ruskin. Milner, in contrast to some others in the Group, stated that finance must be subordinated to economics, and the latter to politics. Subordination of economic and financial questions to statesmanship is an idea that was predominant in the German conservative revolutionary movement of the same period. Oswald Spengler for example wrote a text called Prussianism and Socialism, which contrasted the English notion of ‘socialism’ embodied by Marxism, with that of the ‘Prussian’ idea which meant the duty of all classes to the State.

Free trade and financial capitalism dominated The Group’s thinking from 1919-1931 according to Quigley. For a society committed to Empire unity, the embrace of Free Trade doctrine even for a decade is of long duration, and seems to reflect the influence that bankers such as Lazards were able to exercise in The Group through some key individuals. This however does not equate with the assumption that The Group was or is a ‘conspiracy of international bankers’. Milner’s economic views again had the upper hand in 1931, according to Quigley.

Milner believed in imperial autarchy and was a key campaigner for tariff reform in the Unionist Party, despite his deep misgivings about party politics. In 1907 a series of Milner’s speeches on tariff reform were published as a book. Much of what Milner said remains a better source of real Conservatism than the Whiggery that now predominates. Milner admitted to having previously been a Free Trader. He saw that one does not have a strong nation or a strong empire without a healthy people and it was imperative that no class should be relegated to the economic and social dump.”

These insightful details show the limited understanding the Sutton crowd have of Socialist economics. Marx and Engels did not invent Socialism, different modes and models of Socialism had existed for centuries in various fashions. Its no coincidence that most in the Sutton camp have a libertarian worldview, where Socialism automatically means top down, state run and coercive collectivism. Milner appears to be a far closer supporter of a state directed, not state controlled economic model. Similar to the likes of Otto Von Bismarck’s economic programs of Conservative State Socialism.

Bolton then deals with the Jewish Question directly. He notices that authors such as Cleon Skousen, Gary Allen and Sutton himself; go to long lengths to not implicate Jewish power. The Milner group in reality, appears to have had a balanced or possibly even Pro-Arab outlook. They also seem to have an almost obtuse view of a Jewish State existing side by side with Arabs and how that would actually function. This view changed once Milner passed away. Bolton states the below.

“The Milner Group took little part in the administration of the Palestine Mandate, but did influence British policy. Quigley states that the group did not push a pro-Zionist policy because they foresaw Zionist settlers pushing out the Arabs, and that they were concerned about alienating the Arabs from Western and particularly British culture. Quigley considers that in the long run The Group policy was pro-Arab. Members of The Group seem to have naively believed that a settlement of Jews into a ‘national home’ within a pro-western Arab federation could coexist to the benefit of both Arabs and Jews.
Milner speaking to Parliament in 1923 believed that the Balfour Declaration he had drafted was ‘completely different’ from the policy of the ‘extreme Zionists’. Milner stated that Palestine should remain a permanent mandate for Britain, and that it ‘must never become a Jewish state’. The Group seemed very naïve as to the situation with the Zionists. It seems that they were trying to do the decent thing by both the Arabs and the Jews, and there was discord among The Group as to Partition. This however is not the same as ‘Jewish conspiracy’. However, Milner died in 1925, and The Group later pursued a more pro-Zionist policy via the part-Jewish Leopold Amery.”

Bolton concludes his article with his most devastating critique of the Sutton view. He dispels the all encompassing narrative that a Anglo-American banking cabal dominated world affairs via the machinations of the Milner Group. In reality, the Group were not fans of any form of international governance at all. The Group had unfavorable views of the League of Nations and that it would become some form of a world governing body, while believing if this were formed it would “collapse”.

Again, the monolithic control of the Milner Group does not hold up to a close analysis of Quigley’s writing. With this context, Quigley’s quote about “the radical right” mischaracterizing his work takes on a different flavor. That being the exaggeration and mischaracterization of the role and power the Milner Group actually had. Bolton distils the below.

“The Group was not sufficiently confident in the judgement of non-British to subject Britain to an international body. It had been the British navy that had secured order in the world. A statement in the Group’s journal, The Round Table, asserted that if the League became an instrument for ‘world government’ it would ‘crash’. Another article in the same issue stated that the League should increase ‘national sovereignty’. In 1991 The Round Table was advocating the League as nothing more than a ‘clearing house for non-contentious business’ among bureaucrats. The Group even praised the refusal of the U.S. Senate to ratify the League, and the principles of ‘world-interest’, an ‘international code’ and ‘an international ideal’. The U.S. Senate had rightly shown the flaws in the League. In September 1920 The Round Table criticized President Wilson for wanting the League to become a ‘pseudo-world government’.

Ultimately, Quigley states that The Group, so far from being a pervasive conspiracy over the world, was by late 1945 ‘in eclipse’, and it is ‘not clear what is happening’. Their centres of influence at OxfordUniversity had already finished, and the new generation that took over from the founders lacked purpose, influence and drive. Quigley’s final words were that ‘it would seem that the great idealistic adventure which began with Toynbee and Milner in 1875 had slowly ground its way to a finish of bitterness and ashes’.”

Lastly, Bolton details far better than I could; the main take aways from his careful analysis of Quigley’s work and the numerous flaws of the Sutton view. The broad brush assumptions fall apart when held up to Bolton’s vastly clearer conclusions and summary.

1. There is no ‘Anglo-American Establishment’ for world rule, serving a ‘network of international bankers’. What there is, is a ‘network of international bankers’, situated at both Wall Street and The City, and elsewhere, who are not duty-bound towards any nationality or citizenship, British or otherwise. The exception is that some such as Jacob Schiff, David Sassoon, Warburgs, and Rothschilds have had a loyalty to Judaism.

2. Lord Rothschild was not the controlling influence behind the Rhodes/Milner Group, much less either one being a ‘Rothschild agent’. Rothschild, like other international bankers, worked within the imperialism of the times, and when expedient they scuttled the empires in favor of global Free Trade. There was rivalry between Free Trade and Imperial factions within ‘The Group’, Milner representing the latter.

3. The Group, so far from promoting world government, or even world law, actively opposed any such notions.

4. The alliance between the CFR and The Round Table Group was still-born in 1919.

5. Milner was opposed to both financial capital and to what today is recognized as Zionism. He would have made the most unlikely ‘Rothschild agent’.

6. Milner opposed Bolshevism and all forms of class-war socialism, in favor of an ethical socialism that is intrinsic to conservatism as the basis for national unity and a healthy people.

Watch the “Corporate Cosmology” speech below:

Article Sources:

(1) The Ultimate History Lesson: A Weekend with John Taylor Gatto-Richard Grove

(2) https://archive.schillerinstitute.com/economy/2013/list-vs-von_hayek.html

(3) https://www.unz.com/lromanoff/the-city-of-london/

(4) https://wallstreetonparade.com/2016/10/wikileaks-bombshell-emails-show-citigroup-had-major-role-in-shaping-and-staffing-obamas-first-term/

(5) https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2024/12/16/jews-and-the-the-first-new-deal-1933-1934-part-1/

(6) Republicanism-Matthew Raphael Johnson

(7) https://www.patreon.com/posts/venice-and-end-111613367

(8) The Truth About the Rothschilds by Richard Grove (pg. 92-99)

(9) https://www.morasha.com.br/en/biographies/President-Biden%27s-Jewish-Cabinet.html

(10)

Raising the Jewish Question

(11) https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/The_Focus_Group

(12) https://www.rothschildarchive.org/business/n_m_rothschild_and_sons_london/

(13) https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/03/24/a-rothschild-plan-for-world-government/

(14) https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/05/31/origins-of-the-cold-war-how-stalin-foild-a-new-world-order/view-all/

(15) https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP90G01353R000800020008-8.pdf

(16) https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/archives/speech/radio-address-nation-east-west-trade-relations-and-soviet-pipeline-sanctions

(17) https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/atom-spy-caserosenbergs

(18) https://whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu/power_elite/interlocks_and_interactions.html

(19) https://www.britannica.com/money/Fabianism

(20) https://www.patreon.com/posts/what-did-hegel-27385152

(21) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy#:~:text=Technocracy%20is%20a%20form%20of,to%20scientific%20or%20technical%20knowledge.

(22) https://www.patreon.com/posts/venice-and-end-111613367

(23) The ‘Robber Barons’ Who Tried to Save America-Parts 1 to 3-Pete Quinones & Stormy Waters

(24) Carroll Quigley's Conspiracy Theory: The Milner Group by Steve Sailer https://www.unz.com/isteve/carroll-quigleys-conspiracy-theory-the-milner-group/

(25) Alfred Milner and His ‘Group’: Some Myths About the ‘Anglo-American conspiracy’ by Kerry Bolton https://www.unz.com/article/alfred-milner-and-his-group/#footnote_13

(26) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Socialism_(Germany)

Related Sources:

(1) Aristotle East and West: Metaphysics and the Division of Christendom by David Bradshaw

(2) The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy by Ioan Ratiu

(3) The Wall Street Trilogy: A History by Antony Sutton

(4) The Secret History of Communism: A Stalin Interrogation, Dialectics, & Quigley (Half) - Jay Dyer