Tuesday 9th of August 2022

WHY?……..

The question we have to ask is why do the US want to weaken Russia as clearly stated in the Rand Organisation reports.…

Is Russia going to take over the world? Rob the Western world? Nope……

Is Russia going to bomb the USA? Nope……..

Is Russia too aloof to be a vassal of the Empire? No, but it values its independence…….

Do the US need to define enemies like Russia and China to fuel its now existence? Unfortunately yep… 

 

Do we hate someone who has equal power to our own? And hate that someone who we think waste far less time and money on this ability by being directly “authoritarian” rather than being deluded “exceptional” — while becoming degenerately free by fostering the lowest flimsy average common democratic denominator via COSTLY deceit, internal propaganda and media manipulations — to support the rich?

Does becoming RICH come with a status of selfishness that is generous in its sponsorship of charity while being ruthless on the system in order to be the “greatest” and indulge in public chest beating or secret indulgences….

Do we develop the strongest forces to arm the dream to defend this Empire of the rich, and spread the dream of US style freedom to the rest of the world by conquest — culturally, by trade and by force when needed? 

 

These answers lie in the wind… in the wind of historical evolution of the USA. Often mentioned here is the very different nature of the “AMERICAN REVOLUTION” which was waged by rich people “who did not want to pay taxes” (and helped by the French) versus the “FRENCH REVOLUTION” waged by poor people against the rich classes who were oppressing them…

As also stated at the beginning of this website, the USA HAS BECOME THE MOST DECEITFUL COUNTRY ON THIS PLANET. Whether republicans, Democrats, Neocons or drivers of guzzling-petrol SUVs, the aim of the game — as seen from the US Empire perspective — is to believe in the dreams manufactured in Hollywood and in the White House — which often seem to be the same place — dreams of owning everything and destroying those who are in the way by various devious means, from war, cultural trickery, ruthless commerce and propaganda...

 

Someone like Pelosi is thus a caricature of what she tries to represent — the US evolution into the bastard child of its own self-incestuous infatuation. 

 

So what are the winds of history telling us?

The Anglo/Saxon superiority complex is exposed in shows like Star Trek, Star Wars, The Game of Throne, and many more “games” of war (including the Lion King) in which only one champion can control the loot. The psychology and the philosophy of the Empire has become simpletonian and narrow-minded, but so effective that no-one dares ask any more questions.

 

After the American Revolution, The Monroe Doctrine continued the ball rolling in the early 1800s…. Plus the various battles with the locals — the Indians…

Buried in a routine annual message delivered to Congress by President James Monroe in December 1823, the doctrine warns European nations that the United States would not tolerate further colonisation or puppet monarchs in their backyard — namely Central and South America. 

The United States fought four wars in the 1800s: the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Civil War, and the Spanish-American War. The United States fought Mexico in the Mexican-American War from 1846 to 1848. The United States wanted to expand west. In 1846, the government of the United States decided it wanted land that belonged to Mexico. Many citizens of the United States and Mexico lived on that land. The United States won the war. The land that was once part of Mexico became part of the United States. That land now forms the states of California, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, and parts of Colorado and Wyoming.

 

Britain and the US Civil War (12 Apr 1861 – 9 Apr 1865 )

Another class of white men, the textile capitalists of Britain, wanted their government to intervene on the side of the Confederacy. Confederate leaders, hoping to pressure the big European powers to recognise their rebellion, stopped shipment of cotton overseas when the war broke out. Later on, a Union blockade of the South would also hinder cotton moving across the Atlantic. In the geopolitics of the day, Britain and France were the dominant powers in the mid-nineteenth century. Both governments wanted to weaken the United States, even to see it broken in two

Taking advantage of the civil war in the United States, France invaded and occupied Mexico in 1862 in an attempt expand its influence in the Americas.

Southern military and political strategy was tied to winning recognition from the European powers, especially from Britain and France. British arms manufacturers profited from the war by selling arms not only to Lincoln’s government, but also to the Confederates. British shipbuilding companies supplied the Confederate navy with military vessels that lacked cannon, which could be purchased later.

Thus the Lincoln administration not only had to deal with a hostile South, but it also had to contend with a possible intervention by the European powers of France and Britain. 

These two powers “broke bones and left corpses” in their wake with their pillage of Africa, Asia, and everywhere  lands and seas could be exploited for the benefit of their ruling classes. The Northern states were an upcoming potential rival to these two powers. Thus, a weakened United States would fit nicely into the carving up of the world. 

The Jefferson/Davis administration, recognising the common cause of their rebellion with the leaders of France and Britain, attempted to send representatives to those countries to win recognition of the Confederate States of America as the sole legitimate government of the South.

In the fall of 1861, the Union warship San Jacinto searched an English mail ship, the HMS Trent. Confederate representatives Mason and Slidell were on board the British vessel. The San Jacinto’s Captain Wilkes arrested the two Confederate agents. When word reached the shores of Britain, capitalist reactionaries were livid. That a US ship would challenge the supremacy of the British on the high seas was a cause for war.

In a November 28, 1861, article entitled “The Trent Case,” Karl Marx writes of the wild mood sweeping Britain.

The wildest rumours circulated in London. The American Ambassador Adams had lost its passport and was said to note an embargo had been imposed on all American ships in the Thames....

At the same time a protest of the merchants was held at the Stock Exchange in Liverpool, to demand measures from the British Government for the satisfaction of the violated honour of the British flag. 

Sections of the British ruling class saw the Civil War as an opportunity. Marx notes the Economist’s pro-war position. “A war with America,” says the Economist, a paper deeply in Palmerston’s confidence, “must always be one of the most lamentable incidents in the history of England; but if it is to happen, the present is certainly the period at which it will do us the minimum of harm, and the only moment in our joint annals at which it would confer on us an incidental and partial compensation.”

 

Engels and Marx saw the war as an extension of the American Revolution of 1776. They argued that Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation and the North's arming of Black soldiers transformed the Civil War from a purely constitutional war to preserve the country with slavery intact, into a revolutionary war.

 

This would spur the spirit of “exceptionalism”….

 

Marx ended his August 9, 1862, Die Presse article with this prediction: “Thus no matter how the dice may fall in the fortunes of war, even now it can safely be said that Negro slavery will not long outlive the Civil War.”

Marx was confident that the revolutionary wave was leading to the destruction of slavery, even before Lincoln penned the Emancipation Proclamation.

Thus, soon after, Marx wrote:

Lincoln’s proclamation is even more important than the Maryland campaign. Lincoln is a sui generis figure in the annals of history. He has no initiative, no idealistic impetus, no cothurnus, no historical trappings. He gives his most important actions always the most commonplace form…. His latest proclamation, which is drafted in the same style, the manifesto abolishing slavery, is the most important document in American history since the establishment of the Union, tantamount to the tearing up of the old American Constitution.

Nothing is simpler than to show that Lincoln’s principal political actions contain much that is aesthetically repulsive, logically inadequate, farcical in form and politically, contradictory, as is done by, the English Pindars of slavery, theTimes, the Saturday Review and tutti quanti. But Lincoln’s place in the history of the United States and of mankind will, nevertheless, be next to that of Washington! Nowadays, when the insignificant struts about melodramatically on this side of the Atlantic, is it of no significance at all that the significant is clothed in everyday dress in the new world?

Lincoln is not the product of a popular revolution. This plebeian, who worked his way up from stone-breaker to Senator in Illinois, without intellectual brilliance, without a particularly outstanding character, without exceptional importance — an average person of good will, was placed at the top by the interplay of the forces of universal suffrage unaware of the great issues at stake. The new world has never achieved a greater triumph than by this demonstration that, given its political and social organisation  ordinary people of good will can accomplish feats which only heroes could accomplish in the old world!

 

By the 1870s, The US celebrated the nation's 100th birthday barely ten years after the Civil War, but most remarkable was not the anniversary, but the intellectual and industrial progress that the USA would make. By 1876, the (ruthless) genius of its inventors was being noticed around the world. Previously thought as a former rube colony well beneath the nations of Europe, the United States was beginning to show not only their equality, but that soon they would surpass them.

The content of trade indicates the United States tended to export goods that were raw materials intensive. Using factor per unit of output ratios derived from the United States Census of Manufactures, for the period 1870 to 1910. In addition to the female and child labor content of trade during this period, the Census data also allow us to examine a measure of the human capital content of trade during the period 1870 to 1910. Net exports tended to be capital intensive relative to labor and materials. However, a complementary relationship existed between capital and materials relative to labor which resulted in a positive relationship between labor value per unit of output and net exports.

By then the keystones of the US idealistic democracy had been laid in a set of conflicting beliefs of individual freedom, racism, sexism and of the control by the superior class — the rich and powerful — of the working class in a pseudo-format of deceitful slavery, which allowed the poor dream about becoming rich while having to work to the bone or become soldiers for the new wars. 

 

THE FEAR OF COMMUNISM….

Communism is a social, economic, and political ideology. Under a true communist system, all people are to be equal politically, economically, and socially. The people are supposed to own everything communally, from businesses, to food, and beyond. No social classes are to exist under a true communist system, as all people receive the same quality and quantity of possessions as everyone else.

The rich Americans could not let this ideal permeate the game of being top dog with "equality". Thus much media manipulation and propaganda was used to make sure communism was dangerous.

The fear of communism skyrocketed during World War I. As this war was ending, another fear-driven movement known as the first Red Scare began to spread across the United States. In 1917, Russia had undergone the Bolshevik Revolution. As a result, Russia established a communist government and withdrew its troops from the war effort. 

Americans believed that Russia had let down its allies, including the United States, by pulling out of the war. In addition, communism was, in theory, an expansionist ideology, spread through revolution. Many Americans feared that the communists in Russia, known as the Soviet Union following the Bolshevik Revolution, hoped to spread their ideology all over the world.

As mentioned before, the US fear communism far more than terrorism. “Communism having been licked”, then the US could concentrate on the “war on terror” while having itself used terrorism to destroy communism and undesirable such as the Shia Muslims — and other "despots".

After WW1, many Americans became afraid that communism might spread to the United States and threaten the nation’s democratic values. Both the federal government and state governments reacted to that fear by attacking potential communist threats. They used acts passed during the war, such as the Espionage Act and the Sedition Act, to prosecute suspected communists. The Ohio legislature passed a law known as the Criminal Syndicalism Act, which allowed the state to prosecute people who used or advocated criminal activity or violence in order to obtain political change or to affect industrial conditions.

The overt patriotism coming out of World War I, as evidenced by anti-German sentiment in Ohio, helped to fuel the Red Scare. The federal government’s fervour in rooting out communists led to major violations of civil liberties. Ultimately, these violations led to a decrease in support for government actions.

This overwhelming fear of communism returned at the end of World War II. As World War II was ending, the Cold War started — the undeclared war between the Soviet Union and the United States. Neither the Soviet Union nor the United States officially declared war on each other, although both sides clearly struggled to prevent the other side from spreading its economic and political systems around the globe. In reality, the Cold War resulted from a failure to communicate between the two sides and preconceived illusions that each side had of the other one.

Americans feared that the Soviet Union hoped to spread communism all over the world, overthrowing both democratic and capitalist institutions as it went. With the Soviet Union occupying much of Eastern and Central Europe following World War II, many Americans believed that this nation would continue militarily to spread communism. In fact this “occupation” of Eastern and Central Europe was an officially approved part of the PACT made at Yalta by Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin.

 

 

MEANWHILE THE HEARTLAND…..

The fear of communism and the desire of the Anglo/Saxon dream to “conquer the world” blended somewhat perfectly. 

But things never happen linearly, as other nations hold to their own power. One needs deceit to circumvent obstacles.....

We know the history leading to the world wars and to the “Cold War”….

By 1990, the Russians wanted out of this situation. To some extend, they self immolated and offered an amazing moment of genuine peace. The USSR was no more. The US scoffed. 

The US Empire became cocky and had an early attempt at controlling Russia. Yeltsin, the “first” Russian president was under the control of CIA agents who were advising him, though he was not popular. Communism and a blend of strange realism prevented the full collapse of Russia — though by then, the penetrating spirit of capitalism led to the rise of the oligarchs. These men carved commercial empires by robbing the Russian state of its assets, including the natural richness of the Heartland: oil, gas, coal, metals, gold, gems, rare earths, you name it. By 1999, the rot had set in and Russia was fast becoming a third world country. 

 

Enters a KGB agent, Vladimir Putin.

 

Most Russian leaders were not unintelligent. They had to guess what was happening to their country — but few would have strong and effective solutions at hand. The USA had Russia by the balls and squeezing…. By sheer luck for Russia, Putin is versed in history, in cultural traditions, in the intricacies of deception, propaganda and secret knowledge from his KGB stint. He speaks several languages and understand the philosophies that are attached to the various cultures, including Marx’s theories. He knows the Jewish “question”; he understands the power of capital and trade; he also values the Russian people, unlike the Oligarchs who saw Russia as a means to become rich… 

 

The last question of this rant is could anyone else but Putin have been so comprehensive in taking Russia out of the quagmire without indulging in a civil war? We will never know, but many Russians know that RUSSIA HAD BEEN BLESSED WITH LUCK by Putin being smarter than the average bear

 

The US Empire hates him — and the US baited him with Ukraine. But like a clever fish that he is, he’s taken the bait and ran with it. The US in their desperation have now loaded Ukraine with more weapons, under various labels, like “protecting democracy”, while we perfectly know that Ukraine was not a democracy from the day that the USA started to interfere with it, possibly since the early 1990s, to the early 2000s — till the culmination of the deception, by financing the Ukrainian nazis in 2014…. 

This was the last straw from the ethnic Russians in Ukraine. Putin came in to sort this out. As mentioned By Mr Leonisky before, the only solution is to divide Ukraine into two countries to the great chagrin of a little idiot called Zelensky.

 

But the US don’t want to let their dream of conquering the Heartland go, as demanded by President Putin. He wants security for Russia.

Peace can only come from the USA giving up their dream of conquest, using NATO and Ukrainian lives like fodder… It’s up to us, the people, to expose the US as the grand deceivers until the US Empire stops its lunacy…. We can only hope....

End of story.

 

GusNote: Some of the text in this rant have been pinched and adapted from various sources. There could be inconsistencies of style but not of purpose.

 

 FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW.................

the US civil war and karl marx….

 

By Donny Schraffenberger

 

...

Although Marx was right about the outcome of the war, Engels actually had an excellent understanding of the military conflict. While living across the Atlantic Ocean in Manchester, Engels grasped the essential aspects of the conflict. He described the problem with the initial three-month enlistments in the Union army and the need to adequately train raw soldiers. He described the tactical aspects of the fighting, the long range of firefights, new types of cannon, the brand new ironclad ships. Engels studied the geography of the United States, the rail lines, the rivers, and the strategic ground.16 In March 1862 he grasped the essential strategy for Union victory—the winning strategy that Union General Ulysses S. Grant enacted two years later.

Cast a glance at the geographical shape of the secessionists’ territory, with its long stretch of coast on the Atlantic Ocean and its long stretch of coast on the Gulf of Mexico. So long as the Confederates hold Kentucky and Tennessee, the whole formed a great compact mass. The loss of both these states drives an enormous wedge into their territory, separating the states on the North Atlantic Ocean from the States on the Gulf of Mexico. The direct route from Virginia and the two Carolinas to Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and even, in part, to Alabama leads through Tennessee, which is now occupied by the Unionists. The sole route that, after the complete conquest of Tennessee by the Union, connects the two sections of the slave states goes through Georgia. This proves that Georgia is the key to the secessionists’ territory. With the loss of Georgia the Confederacy would be cut in two sections, which would have lost all connections with one another…17

From the foregoing considerations it follows:

The Potomac is not the most important position in the war theatre. The seizure of Richmond and the advance of the Potomac army further South—difficult on account of the many rivers that cut across the line of march—could produce a tremendous moral effect. From a purely military standpoint, they would decide nothing.18

The successful implementation of the military strategy that Engels outlined in 1862 helped to turn the tide of the war. The fall of Atlanta in August 1864 (“Georgia is the key to the secessionists’ territory”) assured Abraham Lincoln’s second term victory in November 1864 and began the endgame for the Confederacy.

On learning of Lincoln’s reelection, the new International Workingmen’s Association, the First International, wrote a congratulatory letter to Lincoln penned by Karl Marx. The concluding paragraphs summed up Marx’s and Engels’ position on the Civil War and its importance:

While the workingmen, the true political power of the North, allowed slavery to defile their own republic, while before the Negro, mastered and sold without his concurrence, they boasted it the highest prerogative of the white-skinned laborer to sell himself and choose his own master, they were unable to attain the true freedom of labor, or to support their European brethren in their struggle for emancipation; but this barrier to progress has been swept off by the red sea of civil war.

The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American anti-slavery war will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead the country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.19

Charles Francis Adams, son and grandson of two American presidents, and ambassador to Britain, responded to the International Workingmen's Association for the Lincoln administration, thanking it for their congratulatory address.

After Lincoln’s assassination in April 1865, the loyal Tennessean Vice President Andrew Johnson, became President. The First International sent Johnson a condolence letter on the death of Abraham Lincoln, believing that Johnson would remain stern in carrying out Reconstruction. Marx thought Johnson would be a good successor for Lincoln. But Marx and Engels quickly realized that instead of enforcing justice for Blacks, including the right to vote, Johnson had a soft policy of reconciliation with former Confederate leaders and a hatred for African Americans.

 

READ MORE:

https://isreview.org/issue/80/karl-marx-and-american-civil-war/index.html

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

GusNote: After twenty-two years, the International Socialist Review, a project of the Center for Economic Research and Social Change (CERSC), suspended publication in 2019. CERSC is committed to maintaining the archive of ISR articles at ISReview.org.

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....................