The Dollar’s Bloody Birth: From Bretton Woods Blackmail to Petrodollar Enforcement

Former central banker and global financial architect @Kathleen_Tyson_ details the violent, coercive origins of dollar dominance—from postwar blackmail at Bretton Woods to the military and political threats that created the petrodollar in an interview with @HusseinAskary. This is the system’s foundation. This is why it’s collapsing.

Here is her explanation in her own words:

Kathleen Tyson: Bretton Woods was born in wartime when the United States took the initiative to more or less force by blackmail on the allies a new monetary system with the United States and the US dollar at the core.

The allies were completely dependent on the United States for many supplies, for munitions, for equipment, for food. And 44 states in the Bretton Woods conference center signed off on a treaty that bound them after the war to use the US dollar as the principal currency for settlement in the world.

And then the dollar was fixed in gold terms at $35 per ounce. That created the security for the world to use it because it was redeemable for gold. So that they would have confidence that every dollar was worth $35 an ounce of gold.

And that worked pretty well, except that the United States was addicted to wars. It found them very profitable, frankly. And so, in the 70s, the United States was running hot. It was at war in Vietnam. It was creating a lot more debt. And it was also creating social reforms—welfare, Medicare, social reforms that were very expensive domestically. Building out the US highway system, building all kinds of infrastructure. And that ran the economy very hot.

And because of the amount of debt that was being created that nobody was very certain would be productive, especially the social welfare spending was very uncertain whether that would be productive. Countries became uncomfortable with the accumulation of debt, and France, Italy, Germany and Britain started to want gold in exchange for their surplus dollars.

With some of these countries, the United States was just able to say no. It had the governor of the German Bundesbank sign a commitment that he would never ask for gold again. But with other countries, and particularly France, they were not able to impose that they would never ask for gold again. And the system became slightly unstable.

So in 1971, Richard Nixon unilaterally, without consulting the allies, after a weekend discussing it with his advisers, revoked the exchange of dollars for gold temporarily. It turned out to be permanent. From that point overnight, we had fiat currencies that were not fixed to any secure value. They were not fixed in dollars, and they were not fixed in gold, and we had a chaotic period where things were very volatile. We didn’t even have mechanisms, really, for foreign exchange trading that were highly developed. So the whole thing became rather unsettling for the world.

Henry Kissinger and the Treasury came up with the idea that we need to stabilize things by fixing the dollar to something that has global demand. And they settled on oil because everybody uses and burns oil. So it would create sustained demand if they could fix dollars in oil.

And so they went around the Middle East and essentially made countries offers they couldn’t refuse: that they would only sell their oil for dollars. And if they did not only sell their oil for dollars, then the ruler would be killed, his family would be killed, and if necessary, they would occupy the oil fields with the military.

Most leaders signed, and that held pretty well for a couple of decades until you had leaders like Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi wanting to sell their oil in other currencies. Well, they both ended up dead. Their families ended up dead, and America occupied the oil fields just as they said they would.

But it brought more criticism of the system and of the aggression and violence that were required to maintain the system. And so it destabilized things, and more countries began looking at ways to move away from the dollar, move away from being subject to coercion. From Production to Parasitism: How the West Hollowed Out Its Economy

After Bretton Woods, the US was the last man standing: industrial power, gold reserves, and global dominance. Instead of building the future, it chose speculation, share buybacks, and financialization—creating a hollow, parasitic system sustained by bailouts and printed money. Meanwhile, China used credit to build high-speed rail, space programs, massive industries, and the Belt and Road Initiative. Real investment vs. parasitic speculation. The contrast is stark.

Here is Kathleen Tyson and Hussein Askary in their own words:

Kathleen Tyson: At the end of World War II, Asia was destroyed, Europe was destroyed, and the United States was the last man standing, having profited hugely from the war. They ended up, because of their isolation, the strongest economy in the world with more than half the world’s gold, half the world’s GDP, and standing industries that were still productive after the war. So they could shift from making tanks to making cars, to making trucks, and they did extraordinarily well for a few decades.

And then, as you say, they started to financialize, and it became more profitable to speculate in investments than to actually invest. We’ve seen that particularly in recent years, as companies, if they get money, they do share buybacks. They don’t bother expanding research and development or expanding industrial capacity. They just do a share buyback, and that boosts the share.

So we’re in this stage now where the underlying basis for markets is becoming questionable. What are they for? Are they accurate at price discovery? Are they accurate at predicting productive investment, predicting returns on capital? And we’re in a sort of transition phase where we’re not really sure anymore. But at the same time, we have this huge bubble.

Hussein Askary: These corporations that create these bubbles and the banks that loan them money, they rely on the state because they are too big to fail. We saw the bailout: it’s 17 to 20 trillion dollars since 2008. The US Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank, the Bank of England and the Bank of Japan pumped trillions and trillions of dollars, and they even got help from the Gulf Cooperation Council countries to bail out banks in Britain and the United States and also in Europe. So they can rely on the state pumping in—printing money, basically, to do that.

It’s fascinating because I was looking at China: since the financial crisis, they have also created about 17 to 18 trillion dollars.

Kathleen Tyson: I was going to say, China has actually been leading in the creation of money.

Hussein Askary: But they were investing that money in building 50,000 kilometers of high-speed rail, a space program, massive industries, and also the Belt and Road Initiative. Real investment. So it’s an enormous difference between the two. But how far can states—the United States, Britain, the EU, and Japan—borrow and pump money into the market to keep this bubble going?

Kathleen Tyson: We don’t know. This is the thing about bubbles: it’s very difficult to know when they’re expanding, at what point, and what breaks them. This is why they’re allowed to sustain for so long, because the bursting of the bubble is so painful that no policymaker or politician wants to be responsible.

I think China is very interesting, and it’s the only case in history of a property bubble being deflated while not collapsing the real economy. China deflated its property bubble over a period of five, six years while the economy continued to grow—not at 8%, but at 5%—and continued to expand. And that’s a unique achievement. It’s really something we’re studying because other countries tend to let the property bubbles run until they burst, causing wider harm and deflation.

That’s Japan. Obviously, Japan’s had 30 years of zero growth since it started quantitative easing three decades ago. It’s been a growth killer because they protected the existing companies, the existing banks, the existing properties and never really recovered.

Europe has had zero growth for 15 years, since about 2007, so a bit longer.

The United States manages to sustain growth, but that’s largely by buying it from the rest of the world. So, acquiring profitable companies or getting them to list on NASDAQ and then getting the rents from profitable companies wherever they are, while the US economy has been largely hollowed out.

So it’s an interesting time to watch monetary dynamics because you do get the sense that this doesn’t go on forever.

🇮🇹🇬🇧 How The Venetian Virus Infected and Took Over England by H. Graham Lowry 🧵

The “Glorious Revolution” of 1688 was not a revolution. It was the final, overt political and financial coup in Venice’s 200-year project to capture England. The Dutch Prince William of Orange—a Venetian proxy—invaded and seized the throne. His philosopher, John Locke, provided the ideological cover, while the Bank of England (1694) installed the permanent financial machinery of oligarchy. This moment locked England into its role as the new Venetian Empire.

Transcript 1/5: The “Glorious Revolution” Coup (1688-1701)

In December 1688, the armies of the Dutch Prince William of Orange invaded England, interrupting the Hobbesian nightmare the country had experienced under the deranged King Charles II and his brother James II. A worse nightmare was to follow when William seized the throne of James II, for he embodied a more highly distilled form of poison which Venice had perfected during its sway over the remains of the Dutch Republic. This outright usurpation is blithely referred to in British-Venetian parlance as the “Glorious Revolution”--which should give you some idea of how little regard for truth prevails in these circles.

The notion of “English rights and liberties” was quickly transformed from fiction to fraud under William’s dictatorial regime. When King James II fled to France, the rightful successor to the English throne was his eldest daughter Mary, who had married William of Orange reluctantly (he was a notorious homosexual). William’s demand to be declared king was never submitted to Parliament for a “constitutional” veneer. Instead, he summoned a special “convention,” which granted him full power, rather than simply the rank of the Queen’s Consort.

King William’s Venetian baggage included the evil John Locke, who became the chief propagandist for foisting the Bank of England on that hapless country in 1694. This was not the sort of bank you turned to for financial assistance. It was a gargantuan Venetian swindle, which promptly created England’s first national debt to finance ongoing wars of attrition in Europe, imposed a credit crunch by cutting the amount of circulating English coinage nearly in half, and loaded new taxes on an already-collapsing economy. The bank’s chief architect was Venetian Party leader Charles Montagu, William’s new chancellor of the exchequer, who later attained the loftier position of British ambassador to Venice. Montagu appointed the pathetic Sir Isaac Newton to oversee the “recoinage” swindle, and Newton repaid that debt by prostituting his own niece to serve as Montagu’s mistress.

The bank’s promotional hireling John Locke is better known as the peddler of the obscene notion that the human mind is nothing more than a tabula rasa--a passive register of animal sensations. He clearly had a higher regard for the cash register, however, and openly defended usury as a necessary service for those whose “estates” lie “in money.” Locke’s theories of government approximate those of a casino operator who lays down rules rigged for the house, under which the bestialized players compete for sums of money, which then define their worth as individuals. This is Locke’s “liberty” to pursue property. His notion of the “social contract,” which guarantees the players’ club members the right to enter the casino, was in fact advanced in order to justify William of Orange’s usurpation of the British throne. James II, in effect, was charged with having denied those rights to his more speculative subjects, thus breaking the contract. Locke argued that the Venetian mob was therefore entitled to move in under a new contract.

By 1697, the Venetian Party’s coup inside England was nearly total, and its members filled William’s “ship of state” from stem to stern. They looked forward to reducing a most troubling matter in the English colonies of America: the impulse toward building an independent nation, which had been driving the Venetians berserk since the 1630s founding of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. In 1701, John Locke, as a member of England’s Board of Trade, advocated revoking all the independent charters of the American colonies, placing their economic activity under royal dictatorship, and banning their manufacture of any finished goods. 🇮🇹🇬🇧 How The Venetian Virus Infected and Took Over England by H. Graham Lowry 🧵

As Venice consolidated its 1688 coup, a powerful intellectual counter-movement arose. Led by Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz and his ally Jonathan Swift, it defended the Renaissance concept of Imago Dei against the Venetian empiricism of Locke and Newton. Leibniz’s “science of happiness” and universal benevolence became the philosophical foundation for the American “pursuit of happiness,” directly influencing Franklin and the colonial republicans. This was the philosophical war for the American soul. This was the resistance the Venetian system could not tolerate.

Transcript 2/5: Leibniz builds anti-Venice movement

Yet, even as the Venetians were swaggering over their apparent triumph, a powerful republican opposition was building around a higher conception of the nature and purpose of man, which both inspired and opened the way for the later founding of the United States. Its leader was the great German scientist and statesman Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz, who led what might well be called a movement for the pursuit of happiness--the ultimate goal of the liberty which America embraced in its Declaration of Independence.

In the face of the new Venetian onslaught in England, Leibniz set forth his view of human happiness, from the standpoint of man’s creation in Imago Dei. Writing “On the Notions of Right and Justice” in 1693, Leibniz defines charity as “universal benevolence,” which he calls the habit of loving, i.e., “to regard another’s happiness as one’s own.” That joy is first approximated, he says, in the contemplation of a beautiful painting by Raphael, for example, “by one who understands it, even if it brings no riches, in such a way that it is kept before his eyes and regarded with delight, as a symbol of love.”

When the object of delight “is at the same time also capable of happiness, his affection passes over into true love,” Leibniz says. “But the divine love surpasses other loves, because God can be loved with the greatest result, since nothing is at once happier than God, and nothing more beautiful and more worthy of happiness can be known than He.” And, since God possesses the ultimate wisdom, Leibniz says, “the notions of men are best satisfied if we say that wisdom is nothing else than the very science of happiness.”

As the leading scientist and philosopher of his day, Leibniz was widely known throughout Europe, and among such republican leaders of New England as the Winthrops and Mathers, later extending to include, most significantly, Benjamin Franklin. From the 1690s onward, Leibniz’s leading ally within England, Scotland, and Ireland, was the brilliant anti-Venetian polemicist Jonathan Swift, who directed a cultural onslaught against the bestial notions of Bacon, Hobbes, René Descartes, Newton, and Locke, for more than 40 years.

From the standpoint of reason, the Aristotelian empiricism of the likes of Descartes and Locke reduces the notion of man to the level of a mere beast, which, of course, is the prerequisite for imposing an empire of the sort the Venetians sought, then and now. When Jonathan Swift took up his cudgels on behalf of Leibniz’s refutation of empiricism, he ridiculed their enemies’ ideas for what they were: insane. Swift’s “A Digression on Madness,” in his 1696 work A Tale of a Tub, examines “the great introducers of new schemes in philosophy,” both ancient and modern. They were usually mistaken by all but their own followers, Swift says, “to have been persons crazed, or out of their wits;... agreeing for the most part in their several models, with their present undoubted successors in the academy of modern Bedlam.”

🇮🇹 The Venetian Takeover of England: A 200-Year Project 🧵

Gerald Rose delivered this presentation at a Schiller Institute conference in 1994. It is the origin story they never taught you. Before the “British” Empire, there was an older, subtler cancer: the Venetian Republic. After nearly being destroyed in 1509, it spent 200 years executing a silent coup of the English mind. It weaponized philosophy, corrupted religion, and recruited elites to create its greatest geopolitical shell.

PART 1: VENICE’S NEAR-DEATH & ARISTOTLE’S WEAPON

The year is 1509. The League of Cambrai, representing the total combined power of Western Europe, is called upon by the papacy to crush Venice. At the Battle of Agnadello, the Venetian forces are completely destroyed. France is poised to invade the very islands that comprise Venice to deliver the coup de grâce. The papacy relents. They fear a war that will be fought on Italian soils by foreign troops. Several times before, such troops had seized part of Italy. In a series of diplomatic maneuvers, the alliance falls apart, and miraculously Venice is saved. Venice—which worked with the Turks to create a republic of usury and slavery. Venice—whose banking houses of Bardi and Peruzzi brought the Black Death, which depopulated two-thirds of Europe. Venice—the slave traders of Europe—so close to being destroyed, survived. Its survival would now wreak havoc on Western civilization.

Modern history commences with Nicholas of Cusa and the Italian Renaissance that Cusa and his collaborators inspired. It was Cusa, with the help of Pius II, that created the basis for war on the pagan idea of man as a beast and to defend the concept of man as Imago Dei and Capax Dei. It was the power of these ideas which caused the greatest increase in human population in the history of man. This idea of the power of hypothesis and its relationship to transforming nature proved conclusively that man was fundamentally different from the beast and, as such, could not be used as a slave. Venice reacted wildly against the ascendancy of this idea. With the papacy under the firm grip of Pius II and Cusa, Venice launched a war to destroy Christianity.

The figure of Gasparo Contarini is the key one for Venice in their war. Contarini was trained at Padua University. He was the son of one of the oldest families in Venice. It was said of him that he was so versed in Aristotle that if all of Aristotle were lost, he could reproduce it in its entirety. He learned his Aristotle in Padua under the direction of Pietro Pomponazzi. Every Venetian oligarchical family sent their children to Padua University to become trained as Aristotelians.

To understand Venice, you must understand Aristotle. He is pure evil and has been so since the time he wrote his diatribe against the method of Plato approximately 2,300 years ago. Since Aristotle is almost unreadable, you must ask the question: what is it about Aristotle that has made his writing so influential in Western civilization? Aristotle is a thoroughgoing defense of oligarchical society. In his Politics, Aristotle is most explicit. His theory of the purpose of politics is to maintain inequality. The state must carry on this “natural” idea and maintain it.

The very basis for Aristotle’s politics is the maintenance of the master–slave relationship, because it is, as he asserts, most natural:

“That one should command and another obey is both necessary and expedient. Indeed, some things are so divided right from birth, some to rule, some to be ruled. It is clear then that by nature some are free and others are slaves, and that for these it is both just and expedient that they should serve as slaves.” 🇮🇹 The Venetian Takeover of England: A 200-Year Project (2/5)

PART 2: PLATO VS. ARISTOTLE & THE VENETIAN AGENT

One could accuse me of taking quotes out of context, but this would be false. It is true even Plato makes a case for slavery. But unlike Aristotle, Plato bases his state on the idea of justice. Just compare Aristotle’s Politics with Plato’s Republic, where Plato, from the very beginning, launches a diatribe against arbitrary power. In the Thrasymachus section of the dialogue, he proves that the very basis for the republic is a universal idea—that only universal ideas are fundamentally causal. The idea for Plato’s Republic, as he shows, must be based on a concept of the Good.

Since Aristotle is functioning within a philosophical environment created by Plato, he cannot throw out the concept of universals altogether. What he does instead is assign them to the realm of vita contemplativa. Since they are not known by the senses, we can only have faith in their existence. Contrast that to Plato, in which the idea of the Good and justice are causal, not contemplative and unknowable. These innate ideas—which in another dialogue Plato proves by showing a slave already possessing them—are the very basis for his republic.

It is clear that the reason Aristotle was so widely influential in Venice is that Venice was a slave society based on a principle of oligarchism. Renaissance Christianity is the antithesis of this bestial conception. For Venice and Contarini, this Christian idea of man, and the rejection of slavery and usury, called their very existence into question, and they reacted with cold, hard evil in defense of their way of life.

This is Gasparo Contarini. Contarini’s Aristotelianism was highlighted by his early writings when he asserts:

“And in truth, I understand that even if I did all the penance I could and more, it would not suffice in the least to merit happiness or even render satisfaction for past sins. Truly, I have arrived at the firm conclusion that nobody can become justified through his own works or cleansed from the desires of his own heart.”

He also, in another letter, calls man a worm. Radical Protestantism and Contarini’s Catholicism are the Aristotelian split between vita contemplativa (faith) and vita activa (works). Aristotelianism is both the hatred of God and man. It is unbelievable that there is no difference between him, Contarini, and Luther. Yet Contarini and several other Venetian noblemen later dominate the reform commission, which nominally prosecutes a war on the Reformation. This statement by Contarini was the essence of the spirituality movement that was to dominate a section of the most powerful Venetian oligarchy.

Let us now look briefly at Contarini’s career to understand how critical he is to Venice. Contarini was Venice’s ambassador to the papacy. At another time, he was the ambassador to the court of Charles V. He profiles both Charles V and the papacy. He is next appointed to the Council of Ten, which is the leading body of the Venetian state, and later to the Council of Three, which is the supreme ruling body of Venice. This council is justice in Venice. It ruled on all cases and could order assassinations from which there was no reprieve. This is how Venice kept control of its oligarchical families.

What is striking is that from the Council of Three, Contarini was appointed a cardinal. As a cardinal, he was first asked to create the reform commission for the Council of Trent. He and four other spiritualities dominated the commission. He was next appointed to negotiate with the Lutherans at Regensburg at the behest of the Habsburg Emperor Charles V in 1541. At Regensburg, he gives away the Venetian game. Contarini and what was to be called Article 5 reiterates his Lutheran beliefs. It is a bit of an embarrassment that Calvin praises Article 5 at Regensburg. This is Calvin now:

“You will marvel when you read Article 5 that our adversaries have conceded so much. Nothing is to be found in it that does not stand in our own writings.”

Then, in typical Venetian fashion, Contarini creates an Aristotelian fidious faction inside the church, which insists that the only thing that separates Protestants from Catholics would be now reduced fundamentally to the question of the magisterium. He is later reprimanded by the pope.

It can now be stated what happened to the Renaissance. Venice manipulates both the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation, leading to a series of wars which drowns the Renaissance legacy of Cusa and Pius in a sea of blood that culminates in the Thirty Years’ War. This war depopulates most of Europe. It sets up the basis for an onslaught against Christianity, much as the cultural pessimism that dominated Europe after World War I.

🇬🇧 Perfidious Albion: They Created Zionism & Wahhabism. Their 1904 Rule Explains Ukraine. This is the Hidden Empire.

To understand the war in Ukraine, you must first understand the 500-year project of the British Empire. It is not a story of kings and colonies, but of finance, ideology, and a single, ruthless geopolitical rule.

@HarleySchlanger, president of @LaRoucheOrg, connects the dots in a way you’ve never heard before. According to his research, the empire’s modern form began not with a battle, but with a bank.

“1688 was the so-called ‘Glorious Revolution’ where the Dutch moved in and pretty much taught the British a lot of what the Dutch learned from the Venetians, namely how to set up a central bank, a private bank. The Bank of England was modeled on the Bank of the Netherlands.”

This was the birth of the Empire as a financial machine. The drive for resources and land was forever fused with the power of private central banking.

But this system faced a fatal challenge. “In the midst of this 500-year period, there was an extremely important break, namely the American Revolution. And we should never forget that the American colonies fought the first successful anti-imperial revolution.”

This was the original sin in London’s eyes. Schlanger states plainly: “The British never accepted it and have continued in one way or another to try to figure out how to undermine the United States and the American Republican tradition.” The war for independence never ended.

How do you maintain an empire in the modern age? Through psychological warfare. The British, Schlanger reveals, built the tools for this at Oxford. “The British have an enormous storehouse of history that they rely on at Oxford… the Ashmolean Museum. This is where Zionism was created. This is where Wahhabiism, the perversion of Islam, was created. This is where they use studies of ideology, national ideologies and a kind of identity politics for nations.”

This research was formalized into a strategic doctrine. We misuse the word today, but Schlanger corrects the record: “Geopolitics was a specific doctrine developed by the British at the end of the 19th century and put into a form in 1904 by a man named Halford Mackinder… It was a strategy of how the British could use their power of the deep sea navy to control international trade, currency, terms of trade and so on.”

And here is the single rule at its heart—the rule that explains our world right now: “At the heart of it was the idea that the British could never allow an alliance between central European countries and Eurasian countries. And that is what we’re seeing today fought out over Ukraine over the whole question of China and so on.”

The war in Ukraine is not a random conflict. It is the latest, most violent application of a 120-year-old British imperial rule. It is a war to prevent the rise of an independent, powerful Eurasia—the greatest existential threat to the financial-ideological empire born in the Bank of England.

This is the hidden history of the world order. 🇬🇧 NATO: A British Cage To Keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans Down

The British Empire’s 1904 rule was to prevent a Eurasian alliance at all costs. But after World War II, Britain was bankrupt. To enforce this rule, it needed to control the only remaining superpower: the United States. Its solution was an institution designed to make America its permanent enforcer.

Harley Schlanger, president of the LaRouche Organization, reveals the stunning truth about the foundation of the modern world order.

“The key to the development of the United States as a subordinate power to British imperial interests was the creation of NATO.”

This was by design. The man chosen as NATO’s first Secretary General was Lord Ismay—the same man who, for Churchill, drafted Operation Unthinkable, the plan to invade the Soviet Union immediately after WWII.

When asked the purpose of this new “defensive alliance,” Ismay was brutally honest: “He said to keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down. That’s been the NATO policy from 1948, 1949.”

Permanently tether U.S. military power to Europe, i.e., to British strategic interests. Enforce the core Mackinder rule—isolate and contain Eurasian Russia. Ensure the central European industrial heartland could never rise independently and align with the East.

Schlanger demolishes the official fairy tale: “Now, supposedly NATO was to protect Europe from the Warsaw Pact, but the Warsaw Pact wasn’t consolidated until the mid-1950s.” NATO was created seven years before its stated adversary even existed.

It was never about defense. It was an imperial management system. A cage built in London to lock the United States into the role of guarantor for a British geopolitical project that began 500 years ago.

The war in Ukraine is NATO functioning exactly as its British architects intended—provoking the confrontation with Russia that the 1904 doctrine demanded. This is the “rules-based international order.” These were their rules all along.

🇨🇳 China’s Tianzhou-9 cargo spacecraft will deliver supplies to the Tiangong space station. The “end of history” was never about liberalism winning—it was about the West running out of stories to tell. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is already writing the next chapter. The West’s playbook hasn’t changed—only the branding. “Oriental despotism” becomes “authoritarian capitalism,” the “civilizing mission” becomes “democracy promotion.” Same imperial logic, new liberal jargon—turning Western decline into virtue and China’s rise into treachery.

🇺🇸🇮🇱 Millions of Americans back Israel not for politics—but out of fear God will curse them if they don’t. Christian Zionism, fueled by a 1909 Bible, reshaped U.S. foreign policy through fear, prophecy, and power. Almost no one understands it. That’s by design.

“Are American Christians supporting Israel because of politics, or because they think God will curse them if they don’t? Because that’s what millions of people believe—literally.

Today we’re going to dig into one of the most powerful forces in American politics that barely anybody understands: Christian Zionism.

So, how did a few Bible footnotes change the way that millions of Americans vote, pray, and even push for war?

All right, this is going to be a deep dive. You’re about to learn how a mysterious Bible from 1909 rewired modern Christianity and may have changed U.S. foreign policy forever.

So, let’s get right into it.”

— Brandon Aceto 🇺🇸 Millions bought a preacher’s poisoned footnotes disguised as scripture. Scofield’s 1909 Bible twisted prophecy into a political weapon, turning faith into a mandate to bless Israel—or face divine wrath. This ideology infected millions and reshaped America’s power play.

“It all starts with a man named Cyrus I. Scofield, a failed lawyer, shady preacher, and former drunk who somehow became one of the most influential theologians in American history.

In 1909, he published something called the Scofield Reference Bible. On the surface, it looked like any other King James Bible, but it came with a twist. It came with footnotes—so, interpretations. And there were thousands of them.

Scofield added his own commentary right there on the same page as the scripture. And these weren’t just helpful tips or definitions. These footnotes completely changed how people read the Bible.

Scofield introduced a system called dispensationalism. Basically, he divided history into seven eras or dispensations and argued that God had two separate plans: one plan for the church and one for Israel.

Now, to most readers at this time, this was a new idea. But in Scofield’s world, Israel wasn’t just a thing of the past. It was the centerpiece of the future. Prophecies in the Old Testament weren’t metaphors. They were literal predictions according to Scofield. And they were coming true in real time.

And that’s when things got political.

One verse Scofield highlighted, Genesis 12:3, became the cornerstone of Christian Zionism. It says, quote, “I will bless those who bless you and I will curse those who curse you.”

So that sounds nice, right? And that became interpreted as where the “you” was Israel—as in, if you bless Israel, I’ll bless you. If you curse Israel, I’ll curse you.

And that’s because this verse was being spoken to Abraham in the Bible.

So Scofield interpreted this as a modern-day command: if you want God to bless America, you better bless Israel. And if you don’t, well, good luck.

So this idea took off like wildfire. And not because Scofield forced it, but because it embedded itself inside the faith and infrastructure of millions of people.

His Bible became widely popular, especially in Bible colleges, seminars, and churches across the South and Midwest America.

For many Christians, the Bible wasn’t just a spiritual book anymore. It was a political road map.

Now, here’s where it gets really intense.”

— Brandon Aceto

🇷🇺🇮🇷 The Enemies of Russia and Iran Are One and the Same Forces

By Elena Panina

“Those who say we should have done more—what exactly do they mean by ‘more’? Start some military operations—is that it? We are already engaged in military operations against those we consider to be adversaries of the ideas we stand for, and against those who pose a threat to the Russian Federation. And these, essentially, are the same forces—whether in Iran’s case or in Russia’s—they’re somewhere in the rear, behind the front lines. But they’re not even those on the line of contact,” said Vladimir Putin during the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) on June 20, commenting on the claim that “Russia is an unreliable ally because it didn’t stand up for Iran.” Notably, the Russian president chose his words very carefully and spoke with great precision.
[Source: kremlin.ru/events/preside…]

▪️ In simple terms: everyone has their own front in the global battlefield. For Russia, it’s Ukraine; for Iran, it’s its own territory. But the enemy is the same. You can call it “the West” or, more specifically, the global “Finintern”—a financial international elite dreaming of flipping the chessboard of world politics to preserve its so-called “rules-based order.”

Interestingly, Putin began his response by quoting a book on military strategy by the President of Indonesia, published in Russia: “Each country bears its own responsibility for what happens on its territory.”

▪️ In Iran’s case, the voluntary retreat from its zones of influence in Lebanon and Syria, and the failure to respond strongly to Israel’s strikes on Iranian diplomatic missions and Iranian territory, eventually led to direct Israeli aggression with U.S. support.

The law ratifying the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Iran was signed by Vladimir Putin on April 21. But the Speaker of Iran’s Majlis, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, only sent the ratified treaty to Iran’s new President, Masoud Pezeshkian, on June 16—almost two months later. That delay is a highly significant nuance for understanding the current internal situation in Iran. 🇺🇸🔥🇮🇷
Trump apparently thinks he has chosen an intermediate, somewhat personal course of action in the Middle East: a strike on only three Iranian nuclear sites and a new call for peace, which seems to weaken the arguments of both the pro-Israel hawks and the MAGA isolationists. But in reality, he took another step under pressure from lobbyists and circumstances, and further fueled the appetites of influential groups.

The reaction of Congress is noteworthy. Most lawmakers generally support a strike on Iran but simultaneously question the constitutionality of Trump’s actions.

Here is the statement from Democratic Senator Chris Murphy: “Only Congress can declare a preemptive war, and we must vote as soon as possible for a bill to completely strip President Trump of the authority to drag us into conflict in the Middle East.”

Many in Washington like the conflict in the Middle East. But they like even more the idea of taking away Trump’s powers on key foreign policy issues. And who said this concerns only Israel and Iran?

Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President James David Vance went on Sunday talk shows to defend the half-measures and “moderate” (as Trump apparently sees it) decision of the Oval Office occupant. Well, this very position is the most vulnerable and unstable. At the same time, it strengthens the hawks (and Trump’s enemies) and disorganizes the MAGA movement.

And this is only the domestic American aspect. When, in a few years, they ask what Donald Trump achieved, what he did, the answer will be: he started another war. He did not make America great. Quite the opposite…

“China is the big prize. China will be the final goal of this whole regime change process which started after 9/11.”

With this warning, Hussein Askary (@HusseinAskary) of the Belt & Road Institute in Sweden frames today’s global tensions as part of a long-term Western strategy to preserve a fading unipolar order by suppressing the rise of a multipolar world led by China, Russia, and the Global South.

Askary argues that Iran is now the central battleground in this struggle—not because of its nuclear program, but because of its pivotal role in the emerging economic and strategic architecture. Iran has entrenched itself in China’s Belt and Road Initiative, joined BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and expanded its regional influence despite decades of sanctions. These developments, he contends, cast Iran as a strategic threat to Western hegemony.

He claims that the U.S., Britain, and Israel—backed by powerful intelligence networks and financial elites—have little interest in peace or stability in West Asia. Their strategy, he says, is to generate sustained instability in regions like the Middle East to block the rise of competing powers. While leaders like Netanyahu aim to eliminate regional rivals, Anglo-American strategists see Iran as the last remaining independent actor in what some Western planners label the “black curse.”

The broader goal, according to Askary, is regime change in Iran, its fragmentation along ethnic lines, and a chain of destabilization extending through Pakistan, Central Asia, and Russia—culminating in an effort to contain or dismantle China’s global influence. Unless this agenda is stopped, Askary warns, it could spiral into global confrontation—even thermonuclear war. Hussein Askary, The Belt & Road Institute in Sweden (BRIX):

It is very clear that at least since 2003, Iran had no intention of producing a nuclear weapon. Its nuclear program is completely civilian. This has been proven not only by the International Atomic Energy Organization but by the United States intelligence community itself. Since that time until now—until two weeks ago—the U.S. intelligence community’s opinion and assessment has been that Iran was not building a nuclear bomb. This was expressed two weeks ago by the Director of National Intelligence of the United States in front of Congress, Tulsi Gabbard, and she said that Iran has no intention to build a nuclear bomb. This is the assessment not of herself but of all the American intelligence agencies, and this goes back a very long time.

One way of assuring that Iran never acquires a nuclear weapon was through the JCPOA—the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action—an agreement which was reached by Iran and the five plus one, the five Security Council members and Germany, in 2015. It took seven years to reach that agreement, and it assured that Iran, while it can keep its civilian nuclear program, will never be able to produce a nuclear weapon, because there will be international observers inside every Iranian nuclear facility, assuring that Iran does not produce a nuclear weapon.

That agreement was cancelled by none other than President Donald Trump when he became president in 2016. So, if there’s any problem, he is to blame if Iran ever acquires a nuclear weapon—although his intelligence agencies are telling him Iran is not about to acquire a nuclear weapon. Now President Trump says that the American intelligence agencies don’t know what they’re talking about, which is a bit funny in a way.

So the issue here is: if Iran is not close to building a nuclear bomb, what are the real reasons for that?

The Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has his own goals. The so-called Zionist movement has its own goals. Both the Israeli Zionists and the American Christian Zionists have their own goals, which are biblical prophecies and so on and so forth. Netanyahu wants to make sure that the original plan handed over to him more than 20 years ago—called “A Clean Break” and “Securing the Realm"—is followed, to ensure that there is no other power in the region, the so-called Middle East or West Asia, other than Israel. All other nations—major nations like Egypt, Syria, Iran, and so on—must be weakened and ruined. Iraq, of course, so that Israel remains on top and secure.

Ironically, that has not made Israel a secure country, as we can see today. But this level of thinking is not what the major strategists at a different level think about. These we call the Anglo-American elite, or the people who want to keep the unipolar world.

The unipolar world is that the United States and Britain will control the world, and their financial, economic, and military interests will be supreme above all other goals of other nations. This is a utopian dream, but it’s a very dangerous dream because the United States is still the world’s largest military power, and it can wreak havoc around the world. The intelligence services of the United States, Britain, Israel, and others are powerful enough to create chaos. They cannot win wars, but they can create chaos—as we saw in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, and other places. There is no peace and security there. But the idea is to keep these areas in chaos so other powers don’t dominate. These other powers, of course, are Russia, China, and their allies in the Global South.

This is what is really behind the whole escalation. From the standpoint of the real big strategists in the United States, Britain, and some parts of Europe, the aim is to make sure there is no new world order—no multilateral world order—where nations like China, India, Russia, and others in the Global South have a seat at the table of global governance. The idea is that only the unipolar world will decide for other nations how to live, what level of economic and technological development they can have. This is really where the issue lies.

Iran has become a key element in the new, multilateral economic world order. For many reasons, despite the 800 types of sanctions imposed on it for 40 years, Iran has managed to maintain a certain stable economic situation. It is building infrastructure and integrating its economy with other nations in the Global South. Iran is a key element of the Belt and Road Initiative. Many people now are saying that the real goal of the attack on Iran is to destroy the Belt and Road Initiative.

Iran is now a key member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which is a Eurasian security and economic constellation. Iran also became a member of the BRICS nations, together with the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Ethiopia, and now Indonesia. Many other nations are looking forward to becoming members of BRICS. Iran has a pivotal geographical location on the Belt and Road Initiative, including both the land-based corridor and the Maritime Silk Road.

Iran is also part of what is considered an alternative to the Belt and Road by India, the Russia-Iran-India North-South International Transport Corridor, which goes from Russia through the Caspian Sea to northern ports in Iran like Bandar Anzali. I was there myself as recently as last May and saw the enormous advanced infrastructure being built there. It also includes routes from the eastern Caspian Sea to Bandar Abbas on the Gulf and to Chabahar, near the Pakistani border, and then further to India.

That’s why Iran now plays a pivotal geographical and economic role in this constellation of the Global South. I have followed this development for many years. The first article I wrote was in 1996 for the American magazine Executive Intelligence Review, when President Hashemi Rafsanjani inaugurated a small railway section between Mashhad in eastern Iran and Sarakhs in Turkmenistan, connecting that part of Asia to West Asia. One year later, another railway was built from Tabriz in northwestern Iran to the Turkish border. That was the first big Silk Road article I wrote, which became part of the first-ever New Silk Road comprehensive report published by Executive Intelligence Review and the Schiller Institute in 1997.

Iran shares borders with nine countries and is adjacent to Central Asia, Pakistan, the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, Turkey, Iraq, the Gulf, the Arabian Sea, and the Indian Ocean. It has a pivotal role in all these constellations. Iran also has huge oil and natural gas reserves shared with Qatar—part of which was recently bombed by the Israelis. So Iran, as a key component in the Gulf region and West Asia, is a very important part of this whole picture.

One very interesting event occurred just about one week before the Israeli attack on Iran: the first train from Xi’an in northwest China arrived at the IRP logistics hub in northern Iran. This will be a new transport line on the New Silk Road—the Belt and Road—part of the China–Central Asia–West Asia corridor. Many say this could be a symbolic trigger for the Israeli attack. I don’t know if that’s true, but it is symbolically significant.

Importantly, China has been playing an increasing role in the region after the defeat of the U.S. and NATO in Afghanistan and their humiliating withdrawal in August 2021. What is now called the pivot of Eurasia—Afghanistan and Central Asia—is slipping from British and American control for the first time in more than 200 years, since the Great Game began. That vacuum has been filled by China. China now has good relations with the Taliban, and there are many investments in Afghanistan. Central Asian nations and Russia are also building constructive relationships there. This pivot of Eurasia, which the British wanted to keep unstable, is now out of their game plan.

China also managed to get Iran and Saudi Arabia—who were entangled in a very dangerous and bloody proxy war in the region, the so-called Shia-Sunni divide—to normalize relations in March 2023. This ended nine years of terrible destabilization in the region. The war in Syria led to problems in Lebanon and Yemen. Eventually, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates realized they could not win the war in Yemen. Therefore, the normalization between Saudi Arabia and Iran was very important.

A few weeks before that agreement in March 2023, President Xi Jinping visited Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, holding three major summits: one with the Saudi king and crown prince, one with the GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council), and one with all the Arab countries. This was a major breakthrough both diplomatically and economically. A comprehensive strategic agreement was signed with Saudi Arabia. President Xi Jinping offered cooperation in various sectors: infrastructure, digital infrastructure, cloud computing, space technology, nuclear technology, clean technology, and more.

The Gulf countries want to diversify their economies and reduce reliance on fluctuating oil prices. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, and others want to industrialize using their sovereign wealth funds to invest in industries. But for industrialization, they need to invest in transport, power, telecommunications, and so on. China is willing to offer all these areas of cooperation.

Two months later, in February 2023, Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi visited China and finalized a comprehensive 25-year strategic agreement. This is one of the most comprehensive agreements ever signed between Iran and China. Iran’s natural economic orientation was previously toward the West. Its historical relationship with Russia has been troubled, and it lacked deep ties with Asia. But these new agreements, and the normalization of relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia, ushered in a new era in the region’s political and economic development.

Now, you remember that in 2023, a few months after these developments, President Joe Biden announced from Indonesia during the G20 summit an agreement to build what is called the India–Middle East–EU corridor as a rival to the Belt and Road Initiative. I wrote at that time that this is political fiction. It’s a political project meant to undermine the Belt and Road without building any real alternative. There will be no railways, no ports, because all the railways and ports are already being built by China and its partner countries. If you want to build something serious, you have to involve China. Therefore, I said this was a political fraud, meant to derail the work China has been doing.

In September, Benjamin Netanyahu spoke at the United Nations General Assembly and presented a map of the region. In green, he showed Israel and some Arab countries that, according to him, were willing to normalize relations with Israel. The rest of the region was left out. There was no map of Palestine, nothing about it. Just Israel and the Arab countries. Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon were also left out. A year later, after the genocidal war was launched in Gaza, Netanyahu presented a new map including the India–Middle East–EU plan, calling it “the blessing,” and labeling the rest—the parts including Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq—as “the curse."

All these countries, except for Iran, have been destroyed or are under the control of the Anglo-American elites and Israel. Iraq, for example, is controlled by the United States, as all its oil export revenues are held in the U.S. Federal Reserve under Executive Order 13303. I’ve written and spoken about this extensively.

So the only one left in this so-called “black curse” is Iran. This is why the current confrontation centers on Iran. The goal is to stop the Belt and Road Initiative, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization—which countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and even Turkey want to join—and the developments around the BRICS nations.

A new world economic order is emerging, but because West Asia, Iran, the Gulf countries, Palestine, and Syria are so strategically and geographically crucial, this region has become the battleground. This is the real reason behind the escalation, not just Netanyahu or Trump or Zionism. The true strategists—figures like Tony Blair and the financial oligarchies of London and Wall Street, what people call the military-industrial complex—are focused on defeating Iran.

The plan is to achieve regime change in Iran as a key element in returning to control over the pivot of Eurasia, and also to implement long-standing plans like the Bernard Lewis Plan, which envisions dividing countries like Iran into multiple ethnic entities—Persian, Azeri, Arab, Kurdish, Baloch, and so on. From there, the plan would move on to Pakistan and Central Asia. There are even plans to conquer and divide Russia along ethnic lines, as many in the West have suggested. The ultimate goal is regime change in China. China is the final target of this regime change project that began after 9/11.

Whether Russia and China will now intervene diplomatically or otherwise to stop this remains uncertain. They are attempting to talk to Trump, to the Europeans, to find solutions. But this is where things are headed, and many now predict that the situation in the Middle East and Ukraine will develop into a global war—a global thermonuclear war.

This is the background we believe explains the current reality. Our intention here was to have a discussion about this extraordinary summit, which falls into the framework of the new constellation of economic and political forces in the Global South. That includes the extraordinary summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, in late May, between China, the ASEAN, and the Gulf Cooperation Council.

China–Iran Rail Link Defies Sanctions—Israel Strikes Back

Just days after China and Iran launched a direct overland trade route that bypasses U.S. naval power and sanctions enforcement, Israel struck Iranian targets. The message is unmistakable: Washington and its allies are rattled.

The new rail line—part of a $400 billion pact under China’s Belt and Road Initiative—connects Xi’an to Tehran in 15 days, slashing delivery times and avoiding chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz and the Suez Canal. No U.S. warships. No surveillance. No sanctions enforcement.

This isn’t just infrastructure—it’s a strategic breakthrough. Iran, long targeted for isolation, is now a central node in a rising Eurasian corridor linking China, Central Asia, Russia, and the Mediterranean. The U.S. campaign of “maximum pressure” has failed to contain it.

While Washington scrambles to blacklist Chinese and Iranian firms, and India’s U.S-aligned Chabahar ambitions stagnate, Beijing and Tehran are laying what Iranian officials call the “steel arteries of independence.”

Trade is moving. Sanctions are eroding. Control is slipping.

Coincidence? Not likely. The Belt and Road: A Declaration of Independence from Empire

China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is a resurrection of an old American ideal. Abraham Lincoln’s Transcontinental Railway shattered the monopoly of maritime empire for the first time in modern history, breaking the British Crown’s centuries-long stranglehold on global trade routes. The oligarchy—then and now—has always ruled by controlling chokepoints: narrow shipping lanes, ports, canals, and straits.

The first true cause of World War I wasn’t archdukes or alliances—it was the showdown between the rising Teutonic industrial power and the Anglo-Saxon maritime elite. Britain could not abide a Germany that threatened its supremacy over the seas. The sea was their dominion, their empire—not merely of flags and colonies, but of finance, minerals, and trade. That same imperial logic defines the Anglo-American Empire today.

This empire is not a nation but a network: a multi-headed beast whose oldest head is the British East India Company—an international maritime cartel backed by mercenaries and financiers. Its bloodline continues in the lords and ladies of the Privy Council and the banks of London and Wall Street. For them, the BRI is the single greatest threat to the system of global looting they’ve maintained for centuries.

The British Empire’s power rested on keeping the world divided: Africa and India as raw material colonies; the seas as profit highways; and development on land as a threat. After the U.S. Civil War, railways across North America, Russia, and parts of Asia promised a land-based alternative to maritime imperialism. That’s why the oligarchy moved to sabotage it—then and now.

To this day, their strategy is permanent underdevelopment. War, sanctions, regime change—anything to stop sovereign nations from building independent infrastructure. Land development is the enemy. Why? Because whoever controls the sea controls the world. That was the doctrine of Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan in The Influence of Sea Power upon History (1890), and it still guides American grand strategy: secure the sea lanes, seize the mineral deposits, and strangle inland progress.

The Anglo-American elite are geographically insulated yet globally meddling. They sit atop islands and continents far from the devastation they cause. Like the colonial powers before them, they ruled not by example, but by force—especially naval force. Their nightmare is a connected world—rail, roads, energy, and fiber linking continents outside their control.

That’s what the Belt and Road represents: not merely infrastructure, but insubordination.

And for the maritime oligarchy, insubordination is unforgivable.

The Belt and Road is not just a development strategy—it’s a declaration of independence from empire.

Jeffrey Sachs says Mossad is in charge—Israel’s premier assassination unit has effectively dictated U.S. foreign policy for decades, and Trump is just the latest to fall in line.

The deep state—CIA, Mossad, MI6—calls the shots, not presidents. Ukraine’s strike on Russian bombers and Israel’s attack on Tehran? Same tactics, same authors, same drones. Mossad was behind both. And the CIA? Of course it knew—it’s neck-deep in it.

America doesn’t have an “America First” foreign policy, Sachs says. That’s a convenient illusion. What it has is an “Israel First” policy—reckless, delusional, and decades in the making.

The U.S. sacrifices trillions, countless lives, and global trust to serve an extremist Zionist agenda that treats American interests as expendable.

Jeffrey Sachs: Certainly, Mossad is in the lead. It’s assassination and murder unit number one, but Mossad has effectively determined U.S. policy for decades, and Trump is falling into line. It’s quite amazing to see one president after another fall into line with Murder Incorporated, led by Israel.

We don’t know exactly what happened between then and now. In one sense, I think President Putin, in 2017, expressed something that we all come to learn. He knew it in 2017, in an interview with Le Figaro. He said, “I’ve dealt with many American presidents. They come into office with ideas, but then men in dark suits and briefcases, wearing blue ties, show up and explain to them the world the way that it will be. And so you never hear of those ideas again.”

I can’t peer into the inner thinking of Trump, but everything he’s saying and doing today violates what he said last month. In the end, we know that our foreign policy is governed by a deep state apparatus—the CIA, Mossad, MI6, as you said—and we know that the actions that occur—for example, Ukraine’s attack on Russia’s strategic nuclear bombers—had the same provenance, that is, the same authors, as Israel’s attack in Tehran last week. Same methods, same crates carrying drones inside a country to make a decapitation strike or a strategic strike. Mossad was involved in both the Ukraine operation and the Tehran operation last week.

We’ve discussed in recent weeks: what did Trump know? I have no idea. What did the CIA know? Of course, it knew. It was involved in all of this. Who leads all of this? Mossad. I would say—it’s strange, but it’s actually true—America does not have an America First foreign policy. Despite what Donald Trump says, America has an Israel First foreign policy. It happens that Israel’s foreign policy is completely reckless, dangerous, and delusional. And it has been that way for decades. I was going to say for 30 years—that’s the time span of Netanyahu, who is currently the most despicable person on the planet, in my view, because he’s the greatest war progenitor of them all. But it actually goes back beyond 30 years. This is a long-term plan for Israel to have its way in the Middle East.

The way Netanyahu has explained it, repeatedly, for 30 years—for anyone who cares to read his books and articles or watch his speeches—is painful, but worth doing, because he tells you what his modus operandi is. And the modus operandi is this: we will do what we want in the Middle East, and if any government in the region objects, we will overthrow that government. But when he says “we,” he’s being very nice. It’s his U.S. allies who will do it. The U.S. will spend trillions of dollars, lose lives, and destroy the world’s trust in the United States to carry out this extremist Zionist agenda. And Netanyahu has been right. The U.S. has done his bidding up until now.

We know there was a plan hatched decades ago, but revealed to former NATO commander General Wesley Clark in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, which outlined seven wars in five years. Those seven countries were Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and Iran. The U.S. has now been engaged in six of those seven. It’s a long-term plan—delayed, by the way—because each one turned into a complete debacle compared to what Bibi always promised: how wonderful these wars would be. And now we’re in the seventh war, finally. Donald Trump has completely fallen into line as of today.

It’s amazing to watch. It’s terrifying to watch. It would be nice if we had an America First foreign policy. Jeffrey Sachs says the U.S. government has become nothing more than PR and bombs—a regime that fabricates its own reality, smirks as it lies, and treats truth with contempt. It doesn’t pursue peace or justice—only dominance, enforced at gunpoint.

The record is plain: every war it touches ends in catastrophe. But that doesn’t matter to the men in charge. Their families aren’t being bombed. Their cities aren’t burning. They operate like underworld dons—certain that violence writes history.

This isn’t diplomacy. It’s gangsterism in a suit. And it’s not a system the world can survive.

Jeffrey Sachs: This is how the U.S. government acts—and has acted—for decades. Donald Trump is not alone in this. There was a famous interview around 2003 in which one of George Bush Jr.’s top advisors, when asked about the real situation, explained to the reporter, “We make our own reality and you report on it.”

This is the view of a government that has become nothing more than PR and bombs. That’s what the U.S. government is. They have their own narrative. They smirk when they say it. They’re uninterested in anything truthful. They believe that weapons are the only determinant of reality in the end.

This entire approach is repeatedly put to the test. The idea that weapons create truth—not rhetoric, not analysis, not actual events, but weapons—is continually found wanting. That has long been true in human history, and it proves false month after month, year after year, in our current circumstances.

Netanyahu has left behind a wasteland. It’s the old expression of Tacitus: They create a desert and call it peace. This is Netanyahu. He championed the overthrow of Gaddafi—now there have been 14 years of violence, death, and destruction in Libya. He supported overthrowing governments in Sudan, Somalia, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and now, quite explicitly, in Iran.

The wars that have occurred have been complete disasters. This is the empirical record. But they don’t care about the empirical record. It doesn’t touch them. These are powerful people whose families aren’t being bombed, whose relatives aren’t being killed. They act like underworld dons who believe violence runs the show. So they don’t care about the truth.

There’s no analysis here. There never is, these days. There’s no honesty in any statement anyone makes. The day before the Israeli attack, the U.S. government was saying the next round of negotiations with Iran was scheduled for Sunday. This was in the context of ongoing negotiations. Then suddenly, a massive murder attack by Mossad. No one says, “But we were about to negotiate.” It’s taken for granted. “Well, of course that happened.”

What kind of behavior is this? Maybe it’s the behavior of the underworld—but it’s not a behavior in which the overworld can survive, frankly.

Zionism Is Modern Nazism: The Zionist regime in Tel Aviv mimics the Nazi playbook—demanding absolute loyalty from Jews worldwide, no matter where they live or what nations they belong to. Just as Nazis exalted the “Aryan” race while persecuting Jews, Slavs, and Roma, Zionism elevates one group above all others, weaponizing Jewish identity to justify ethnic supremacy.

🇷🇺 Sergey Glazyev unmasks the terminal madness infecting US foreign policy—a death cult masquerading as strategy, authored by the cold hand of Zbigniew Brzezinski.

“Washington continues to implement Brzezinski’s suicidal strategy, which consists of five stages: the seizure of Ukraine, the separation of Europe from Russia, the subjugation of Russia, the destruction of Iran, and the isolation of China. Having stumbled on the third stage, they have now begun the fourth.”

Five acts in a tragedy of empire:

Seize Ukraine — Accomplished at gunpoint, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives, reducing a sovereign nation to a NATO buffer zone.

Cut Europe off from Russia — Achieved through blackmail and sabotage, transforming Europe into a deindustrialized satellite orbiting Washington.

Crush Russia — Attempted and failed. Instead of collapse, Russia rearmed, recalibrated, and realigned the global balance.

Destroy Iran — Now in motion. Assassinations, sanctions, and the looming threat of open war—all signs of imperial desperation.

Encircle China — The final delusion: to isolate a civilization of 1.4 billion people with aircraft carriers and empty threats.

Having shattered its teeth on Moscow, the empire now turns its fury on Tehran. This is not strategy—it is imperial nihilism armed with nuclear weapons.

Glazyev isn’t speculating—he’s warning. The world must wake up. The American empire is not stabilizing the world. It is setting it on fire. 🇷🇺 Sergey Glazyev writes:

“The beginning of the fourth stage of Washington’s implementation of Brzezinski’s strategy—following the failure of the third—will lead to catastrophic consequences for the West. Israel and the United States will not defeat Iran, which will shut down the Strait of Hormuz, through which a quarter of the world’s oil is transported. Oil prices will skyrocket, plunging the European Union into a deep depression. This will further destabilize the already fragile macroeconomic situation in the United States, with serious negative consequences for the American economy and financial system. Iran, with the support of its allies, including China, will deal a crushing blow to Israel. A mass exodus of millions of Israeli residents will begin toward the Right-Bank Dnieper region, where Zelensky’s Russophobic regime has already eliminated the local male population. The blood-soaked clown will be forced into peace by his masters. All of this was predicted three years ago and published on this channel in the piece titled ‘What Is Happening.’”

🇷🇺🇨🇳 “Russia’s military operation in Ukraine is very controversial. Yet its declared objective to overthrow the unipolar world order is widely understood and even supported by many countries, especially in the Global South. I call Russia a revolutionary.”
—Prof. Zhang Weiwei, Schiller Institute conference: A Beautiful Vision for Humanity in Times of Great Turbulence 🇷🇺🇨🇳 “European security must take into consideration Russia’s legitimate security concerns.” — Prof. Zhang Weiwei, Fudan University (Shanghai), Schiller Institute conference: A Beautiful Vision for Humanity in Times of Great Turbulence

The End of Sykes-Picot: Moving Beyond Colonialism
The Middle East in Context 🧵

In his May 4, 2009, lecture, “The End of Sykes-Picot: Moving Beyond Colonialism,” Lyndon LaRouche delivered a damning indictment: The so-called “Middle East conflict” is not some isolated regional dispute—it is the bloody legacy of British imperialism, a deliberate fragmentation of peoples to serve the geopolitical machinations of London and its enablers. The 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement was not diplomacy; it was a criminal partition, carving up the Ottoman Empire into artificial client states to secure British oil dominance and crush any hope of true sovereignty.

LaRouche laid bare the empire’s blueprint. The British, in their rapacious drive to control oil for naval supremacy, turned the region into a perpetual warzone. He pointed to Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s historic defiance—defeating British and French forces to forge an independent Turkey—as proof that resistance to colonial puppetry was possible. Yet the British strategy endured: divide, balkanize, and rule. The post-WWII narrative of an “Arab-Israeli conflict”? A smokescreen, obscuring the deeper truth—this is a manufactured crisis, a continuation of imperial manipulation to keep the region weak and exploitable.

The Middle East has been a battleground for millennia, but LaRouche identified the root of its modern suffering: the British Empire’s oil-fueled hegemony. His solution was uncompromising—dismantle the colonial borders, reject the Anglo-American oligarchy’s stranglehold, and recognize that the struggle for the Middle East is part of the global fight against financial imperialism. The age of Sykes-Picot must end, he argued—not with more Western intervention, but with true liberation.

Fifteen years later, LaRouche’s analysis remains prophetic. The fires burning across the region today are not accidents of history—they are the deliberate aftermath of empire. Only by breaking its chains can the Middle East finally move beyond colonialism. The Middle East Crucible: Where Humanity Fights for Its Future

The so-called “Middle East conflict” was never about borders or religions—it is the frontline in humanity’s war against its would-be destroyers. What makes us human? Fire. Not mere combustion, but the divine spark of reason that transforms matter, builds civilizations, and lifts our eyes from the dirt. This creative power—the noösphere made manifest—is what the Anglo-American oligarchy fears most. Their Sykes-Picot crime wasn’t just map-making; it was an attempt to extinguish the flame of human potential itself.

When the British Empire carved up the Ottoman carcass in 1916, they weren’t just stealing oil—they were committing an act of civilizational arson. Like Prometheus in reverse, these modern Titans sought to drag humanity back to the cave, replacing sovereign nations with puppet regimes, replacing culture with chaos, replacing progress with perpetual war. Atatürk’s Turkey proved the fire could be reclaimed—which is precisely why the oligarchy has spent a century ensuring no other Middle Eastern nation could follow suit.

Now watch their hands closely: The same financial predators who engineered this crisis now preach that humanity itself is the crisis. Their “climate emergency” dogma is just Sykes-Picot 2.0—a new set of artificial borders meant to cage human development. While they wail about CO2, the real threat looms: a solar minimum that demands nuclear-powered development and orbital sunshades—precisely the technologies their depopulation agenda forbids.

The Middle East’s agony was never inevitable. Those burning cities and refugee camps are not the product of ancient hatreds, but of very modern imperialism. The same London banks that financed the slave trade now design digital chains; the same Wall Street vampires who profited from war now sell “stakeholder capitalism” as humanity’s next cage.

But we are the fire-makers. We are the species that built pyramids during ice ages and raised cities from floodplains. The choice before us burns brighter than any explosion in Gaza or Baghdad: Will we let these technocratic arsonists reduce us to managed animals? Or will we unleash the creative inferno that awaits in every human mind?

The Middle East will be free—not when the last colonial border falls, but when the first fusion reactor lights the darkness, when the first space tower pierces the stratosphere, when we finally answer our birthright as the gods of flame. The cave or the cosmos—the oligarchy has made their choice. Now we must make ours.

The Bering Strait Tunnel: A Polemic for Progress Against the Forces of Obsolete Empire 🧵

The time for excuses is over. The Bering Strait Tunnel—the mega-project of the century, linking Eurasia and the Americas—is not just an engineering marvel but a litmus test for humanity’s future. Will we embrace a new paradigm of win-win cooperation, infrastructure-led development, and multipolar peace, or will we remain shackled to the failing Anglo-American unipolar order that thrives on division, war, and economic decay?

For 150 years, this vision has been stifled—first by British sabotage, then by Cold War paranoia, and now by the neocolonial technocrats who cling to NATO’s decaying hegemony. The same forces that assassinated Lincoln and Alexander II, that orchestrated the destruction of Henry Wallace’s statesmanship, and that today sanction, demonize, and provoke conflict with Russia and China, are the very ones terrified of this project’s success. Why? Because it shatters their control. The Grand Historical Vision vs. the Parasites of Empire

William Gilpin’s Cosmopolitan Railway was never just about steel and tracks—it was about uniting humanity under a shared destiny of progress. Lincoln’s allies, like Henry C. Carey, understood that the American System—a philosophy of high wages, industrialization, and sovereign development—was the antidote to Britain’s free-trade looting. Today, China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and Russia’s Northern Sea Route are the natural successors to this vision.

Yet, what stands in the way? Canada—a British colonial outpost masquerading as a nation, whose raw materials are forbidden from becoming finished goods by London’s financial cartels. The United States—a nation hijacked by Wall Street and the military-industrial complex, whose leaders would rather wage forever wars than build bridges to Eurasia.

🇧🇴 Bolivia’s 2025 Crisis: A Nation at the Crossroads

As Bolivia approaches its August 2025 elections, what began as political friction between President Luis Arce and former President Evo Morales has morphed into a full-blown crisis threatening the nation’s stability, sovereignty, and development prospects. The country now stands at a historic crossroads that will test whether it can complete its ambitious leap from being South America’s poorest nation to achieving an advanced, tech-driven future.

The volatile mix of political infighting, economic collapse, and grassroots mobilization is pushing Bolivia toward a dangerous tipping point. President Arce’s surprise withdrawal from the race on May 13, intended to calm tensions, has instead escalated the crisis as Morales—constitutionally barred from running—defiantly mobilizes his powerful base of indigenous and coca-growing supporters. This growing schism within the ruling MAS party threatens to unravel the stability achieved through years of progressive governance.

The political crisis unfolds against a backdrop of severe economic distress. Chronic fuel shortages have paralyzed La Paz, while dollar scarcity disrupts essential imports and agricultural production. Blockades by Morales’ rural supporters—primarily from coca-growing regions—have already cost over $2 billion in economic losses. Arce’s attempt to unify the party behind young Senate President Andrónico Rodríguez has failed to calm tensions, as Morales’ indigenous base organizes a potentially explosive caravan to La Paz.

This turmoil represents the latest chapter in Bolivia’s struggle that began with the 2019 coup against Morales, whose government achieved remarkable progress by empowering Bolivia’s indigenous majority. Between 2005-2019, poverty rates dropped from 38.2% to 15%, with particular gains in rural indigenous communities. These achievements explain Morales’ enduring support among Bolivia’s indigenous movements and cocalero unions, who now rally to his defense despite constitutional restrictions.

Central to Bolivia’s development vision is the Nuclear Technology Research Center in El Alto, set to open in 2025 with Russian assistance. This cutting-edge facility embodies the government’s slogan: “A people with a thousand years of history, with advanced technology, is invincible.” The project holds special significance for Morales’ base, representing the potential to merge ancestral knowledge with modern science. Similarly transformative is the Chinese-backed Mutún steel complex, promising to break Bolivia’s historic dependence on raw material exports.

As Bolivia approaches its electoral deadline, the stakes extend far beyond domestic politics. The outcome will determine whether the country can preserve its sovereignty and continue its development path, or succumb to forces of fragmentation and neoliberal regression that have undermined progress across Latin America. With Morales vowing to fight and Arce’s government struggling to maintain order, Bolivia’s immediate future hangs in the balance.

The 2025 elections represent a critical test of whether progressive projects in the Global South can withstand both internal divisions and external pressure. The outcome carries implications far beyond Bolivia’s borders, as foreign interests seek to diminish the nation’s sovereignty, control its rich natural resources, and prevent alternative political-economic models from taking root in Latin America.

Now at this decisive crossroads, Bolivia faces a choice between reclaiming its sovereign development path or surrendering to regression. For Morales’ mobilized base of cocaleros and indigenous communities, this is more than a political contest—it’s a fight to preserve their hard-won place in Bolivia’s future and prove that another developmental model is possible. The world watches as Bolivia becomes a test case for whether nations of the Global South can maintain their independent course amid mounting challenges. 🇧🇴 The Shadow of Neo-Nazi Networks in Bolivia’s Crisis

Behind 🇧🇴 Bolivia’s political turmoil lies a disturbing pattern of far-right destabilization that extends across Latin America, with the violent factions currently exacerbating the crisis—particularly the Santa Cruz Youth Union (UJC)—representing nodes in a regional network with deep ideological and operational ties to transnational neo-Nazi movements. The UJC’s 2022 strike, which paralyzed 🇧🇴 Bolivia’s economy for 36 days and caused over $1 billion in damages, demonstrated a modern adaptation of classic fascist tactics through economic strangulation, paramilitary intimidation, and ethno-nationalist rhetoric framing Santa Cruz’s wealthy elites as racially distinct from 🇧🇴 Bolivia’s indigenous majority.

This playbook bears striking resemblance to strategies seen in 🇺🇦 Ukraine’s Maidan uprising, where far-right groups like the Azov Battalion served as shock troops for regime change. The UJC’s historical roots trace back directly to Nazi fugitives like Klaus Barbie, who helped establish 🇧🇴 Bolivia’s far-right networks after WWII through his work with the brutal dictatorships of Hugo Bánzer and Luis García Meza. Today, these networks maintain transnational connections through 🇧🇷 Brazilian oligarchs in Santa Cruz’s agribusiness sector—particularly those linked to Bolsonaro-era politicians in southern 🇧🇷 Brazil’s historic Nazi enclaves—while receiving training from foreign “activist” groups specializing in color revolutions and funding through opaque offshore accounts and conservative foundations.

The regional implications become clear when examining parallel developments: 🇵🇪 Peru saw similar far-right mobilization against President Pedro Castillo, while 🇦🇷 Argentina witnessed Nazi-linked assassination attempts against Vice President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. These networks ultimately serve two interlocking objectives—breaking 🇧🇴 Bolivia’s state-led development model to benefit foreign mining and agribusiness interests, while preventing the “contagion” of indigenous-led governance models in the region.

As 🇧🇴 Bolivia’s 2025 elections approach, these forces are actively exploiting the MAS party split to delegitimize the electoral process, preparing renewed economic sabotage should progressive forces prevail, and cultivating military and police factions for potential intervention. The battle for 🇧🇴 Bolivia has become a litmus test for whether 21st-century fascism can succeed where 20th-century coups failed—not through outright dictatorship, but by weaponizing democratic institutions against themselves. The international community’s muted response to these neo-fascist networks reveals much about whose interests are truly served by 🇧🇴 Bolivia’s ongoing destabilization, particularly as the country’s lithium reserves and strategic BRICS membership make it a key battleground in the new Cold War. What unfolds in 🇧🇴 Bolivia will likely provide a blueprint for how fascist networks operate in this new era of hybrid warfare, where ideological extremism marries economic warfare in service of maintaining neocolonial structures of power.

The Great Economic Schism: Leibniz vs. The Looters

Britain deliberately strangled Leibniz’s “physical economy” - the very science that made Russia an industrial powerhouse under Peter the Great, because honest development threatened the East India Company’s racket. The Petrograd Academy’s blueprints proved state-led progress viable; London responded by institutionalizing global plunder. Three centuries later, Putin’s economists still quote Leibniz’s theorems while Westminster’s technocrats genuflect before Bentham’s crude utilitarianism - the intellectual hand-me-downs of Venetian pirates.

This 300-year divide is no academic curiosity: where Russia’s Leibnizian tradition later launched Sputnik, Britain’s “empiricist” model could only tax it. The East India Company’s extractive DNA still mutates through London’s hedge funds and think-tanks, while Russian planners preserve traces of scientific statecraft. The 1700s fork - build versus steal, plan versus pillage - remains economic destiny. Every IMF austerity diktat and Russian import-substitution program reenacts this old war: Leibniz’s humanism against Bentham’s corpse-economics. The Living War of Economic Civilizations

The historical record delivers a damning indictment of Britain’s deliberate suppression of Leibnizian economics. While Russia’s blast furnaces - built on Leibniz’s “physical economy” principles - were producing 30,000 tons of iron annually by 1725, Britain’s East India Company derived 98% of its revenues from the twin scourges of opium and slavery. This fundamental choice between production and plunder manifested in their intellectual legacies: the Petrograd Academy, Leibniz’s brainchild, birthed transformative innovations from the periodic table to Sputnik, while Benthamite London specialized in financial predation - inventing tax havens, derivatives, and ultimately the 2008 global collapse.

The human cost exposes this schism in blood. Russian industrialization under five-year plans achieved 7% annual growth between 1928-1940, while Britain’s “free trade” empire presided over 29 million famine deaths across its colonies. Today, this divide persists in stark relief: Russian engineers apply Leibnizian thermal models to Arctic development, while the City of London remains the world’s preeminent money laundering hub, processing £90 billion annually in illicit flows.

This is no mere policy disagreement - it represents civilization’s eternal struggle against parasitism. When Russian economists speak of “physical economy,” they invoke a 300-year tradition of building; when British bankers cite Bentham, they perpetuate what Leibniz himself condemned: the reduction of human society to a calculus of theft. The East India Company may have donned a suit, but its extractive DNA still courses through London’s financial veins. As Russia continues developing sovereign technologies, Britain’s hedge funds still traffic in the same colonial commodities - only now they’re called “emerging market derivatives.” The great economic schism lives, and its battle lines remain as clear as they were when Peter the Great first outproduced his would-be exploiters.

British Israelism is a syncretic cult ideology claiming the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic peoples are the biblical “Lost Tribes of Israel,” that the British monarchy descends from King David, and that Britain is destined for global rule. Its modern influence is no accident—it was cultivated. The roots trace to Venetian psychological warfare. Paolo Sarpi, a 17th-century strategist, manipulated religion to divide Europe and suppress Renaissance science. Venice fueled the Protestant Reformation, hardened Catholic counter-reforms, and kept the continent in perpetual conflict.

Adam Smith was a fraud. His “pleasure-pain” economics enslaves you to bankers. The oligarchy hates progress—they want depopulation, decay, and dumbed-down serfs. Humanity’s destiny is anti-entropic—or it is nothing. Humanity’s future depends on one question: Will we embrace anti-entropic progress—great infrastructure, advanced energy, and true scientific discovery? Or will we let the oligarchy’s fake economics drag us into collapse? There is no third option. Break their system—or perish with it.

The Bank for International Fascism
by John Hoefle, EIR (2013)

In the aftermath of World War I, fascist movements sprang up all over Europe, and also in the United States. Considerable effort has been spent to portray these fascist movements as outgrowths of rampant nationalism, but that is a deliberate lie. The truth is that fascism is a political movement created and financed by the rentier/financier oligarchs of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal Empire, for the purpose of replacing the nation-state system with a global technocratic dictatorship.

Adam LeBor’s Tower of Basel sheds a useful light on how this process works, by telling the story of the Bank for International Settlements, known more commonly by its acronym, BIS. His book presents a detailed picture of the relationships between the Nazis and top international financiers, and the intelligence agencies. Along the way, we meet the leaders of the Bank of England, the titans of Wall Street, British and American spooks, and other financiers and industrialists, all of whom collectively made Hitler and Mussolini possible, and unleashed horror upon the world.

Some readers may be puzzled why such seemingly respectable institutions and individuals would work so closely with the Hitler regime, and wonder if they were somehow secret Nazis or Nazi sympathizers. But it is actually the inverse that is true. The Nazis were agents of the Empire! A Bank Above Nations

The BIS was founded in 1930, nominally for the purpose of handling the reparations payments imposed upon Germany after World War I. The founding members of the bank were the central banks of Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and Belgium, with Japan and the United States each represented by a consortium of domestic banks. In the U.S., the consortium consisted of three banks: J.P. Morgan & Co., the First National Bank of New York, and the First National Bank of Chicago.

The driving forces behind the founding were Montagu Norman, the Governor of the Bank of England, and Hjalmar Schacht, the head of the German central bank, the Reichsbank. While Schacht liked to refer to the BIS as “my bank,” the Dutch banker Johan Willem Beyen—himself a president of the BIS—put it more clearly: “Norman’s prestige was overwhelming. As the apostle of central bank cooperation, he made the central banker into a kind of archpriest of monetary religion. The BIS was, in fact, his creation.”

Beyen’s quote goes to the deeper motive behind the founding of the BIS, the creation of the bank as a base from which to create a new form of what was euphemistically called “transnational finance.” The archpriests of the Empire were laying the foundation for what became the globalized financial system of today, a system of financier-run corporate cartels and markets which is essentially a rerun of the methods of the British East India Company, combined with modern technology.

Under the treaty which founded the BIS, the bank was granted virtual sovereignty—although under the circumstances, it might be more accurate to say that it was granted immunity from the sovereignty of others. No nation was to have any say over how the bank conducted its affairs, nor would their laws apply. Although the BIS is located in Switzerland, it is exempt from Swiss laws, and Swiss authorities cannot enter its premises without permission.

According to LeBor, “[T]he BIS enjoys similar protections to those granted to the headquarters of the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and diplomatic embassies. . . . The BIS has the right to communicate in code and send and receive correspondence in bags covered by the same protection as embassies, meaning they cannot be opened.”

“The bank’s extraordinary legal privileges also extend to its staff and directors,” LeBor writes. “Senior managers enjoy a special status, similar to that of diplomats, while carrying out their duties in Switzerland, which means that their bags (unless there is evidence of a criminal act), and their papers are inviolable. The central bank governors traveling to Basel for the bimonthly meetings enjoy the same status while in Switzerland. All bank officials are immune under Swiss law, for life, for all the acts carried out during the discharge of their duties.”

This protected position was carefully crafted. If your goal were to take control of nations and incorporate them into a new corporatist dictatorship, you would take steps to protect against counterattack by the targets.

Sergey Glazyev: The world has changed. Irreversibly. What we wrote about a decade and a half ago has come to pass. This publication is a continuation of the article “What is happening?” previously published on this channel. 1/84 Pax Americana is crumbling before our eyes, three decades after the collapse of the USSR. The transition to a new global economic order has been completed. 2/84