[For the audio version of this article refer here.] “Neither the sure prevention of war, nor the continuous rise of world organisation will be gained without … a special relationship between the British Commonwealth and Empire and the United States…not only the growing friendship and mutual understanding between our two vast but kindred systems of society, but the continuance of the intimate relationship between our military advisers
Jul 29, 2022·edited Jul 29, 2022Liked by Cynthia Chung
It's very obvious to me now that we've been deliberately deceived by our education system. I was paying attention in high school history and went on to acquire a piece of decorative paper deemed to denote a degree in modern history and international relations. I covered American history, modern Germany, the two world wars, the Cold War, Eastern European communism, the Meji revolution, Chinese civil war, history of western political thought. No-where did anyone bring up the perspective of the two clashing models, nor to examine the approach to economic and national development policies of national leaders through this perspective. Yet the quotes from the personalities in the article, all of whom I encountered during my studies, make it clear that Bismarck, Sun Yat-sen, Ho Chi Mingh, Lincoln, McKingley, Willy Brandt, Laurier, senior American military officers were thinking in these terms. Churchill's history of the Second World War and Mahan were on my supplementary reading list. Quigley was not. (I read Guderian's Panzer Leader and Col Harry G. Summer's On Strategy instead.) All those dead presidents? American gun violence, nothing more to be seen here. We didn't look closer at the Gouzenko affair, the FLQ crisis, British and French support of the Confederacy and Alexander II's support on the side of the Union and his internal policies. Assassinated European statesmen in the late 19th and early 20th centuries? Anarchists. No need to look for any commonalities amongst the victims nor into who was backing the anarchists. My American and Cold War history professors depicted FDR as a naïve, ill weakling in dealing with Stalin, while Churchill was depicted as the clever chess master who knew he was dealing with two ruthless, murderous dictators and how to deal with them. We skipped right over Bertrand Russel.
Truly indeed, the main target was missed when the German and Japanese war machines were destroyed.
Brilliant work Cynthia. I'm looking forward to the next installment.
Jul 28, 2022·edited Jul 28, 2022Liked by Cynthia Chung
I enjoyed this article. It gave me an interesting spin on recent political history and in so doing pulled a thread from a complex tapestry in a vast conspiracy. Especially significant to me was the Bertrand Russell quotes and how it remains the mainstay of neocon thinking. I am looking forward to part 2.
What a excellent article revealing that the theme of liberty for all is now taken up by the Russians/ China in recognizing the respect due to one’s sovereign state.
It’s an anti imperialist move and how ironic America is now fighting against the adored American System of the 19th century.
Bertram Russell completely fooled by his social background of his imperial class to appreciate the illogic of his stance for a American hegemony to rule the world .
To institute the same thing.
It’s a natural instinct deeper than logic influencing us to have the hegemony of one rule as the alpha male in a pack of wolves does over its group.
We are animals after all .
One sees this in science ad well with its social biases.
Conrad Lorenz began to observe and study us as an animal for the reasons behind our outrageous violence creating the two WW wars.
The Natural world is full of surprises !
What a beautiful excellent article to provoke a discussion on how we arrived at where we are today and is to be appreciated Immensely.
History is indeed is a living thing as is the genetics inherent in our memory.
The Last Time Britain said No to the American Empire, was when our Socialist Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, refused to Send British Troops to Fight in Vietnam. Earlier we offered our Gurkha Troops to help American Troops with Jungle Combat. America Refused; saying it`s Us Rangers could defeat the Viet Cong . That went Well.
"..much of Asia and Africa found themselves in a similarly debased fashion, they were not allowed to be individuals, to be free to create their own fate from something new. They were not free to have their own ideas, their own schools of thought, instead they were treated as children, with no choice but to choose the ideology of one parent or the other. However, this was largely western hypocrisy, as was so clearly seen by the very domineering presence of western imperialism and increasingly clandestine warfare.”
While on the other hand:
“the world is still awaiting, will the United States finally wake from its century of madness and return to its founding principles”
If the “world” (whoever that may be) is waiting for the United States, then how can they “create their own fate from something new” or worse still expect not to be “treated as children, with no choice but to choose the ideology of one parent or the other”?
Cynthia while does considerably well in stitching historical snippets together, she fails in deducing out of that patchwork a coherent narrative. This is partly nature partly nurtured. Her nature is curious but she has been nurtured to believe curiosity produces clarity, and without clarity how can you produe harmony?
That said, I enjoyed her focus on the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain, however I'd advise you to direct your curiosity towards the difference between the 3 Ozs that make up the "English Magic Circle” which are erroneously lumped together—to their benefit & your readers' detriment—as Britain or British as opposed to Temporals, Spirituals & Commoners.
And now, they've sent Harry here to be the King of America? The Windsors, spoof of the Crown on Netflix, nailed this, just a bit too soon and with the wrong prince.
It's very obvious to me now that we've been deliberately deceived by our education system. I was paying attention in high school history and went on to acquire a piece of decorative paper deemed to denote a degree in modern history and international relations. I covered American history, modern Germany, the two world wars, the Cold War, Eastern European communism, the Meji revolution, Chinese civil war, history of western political thought. No-where did anyone bring up the perspective of the two clashing models, nor to examine the approach to economic and national development policies of national leaders through this perspective. Yet the quotes from the personalities in the article, all of whom I encountered during my studies, make it clear that Bismarck, Sun Yat-sen, Ho Chi Mingh, Lincoln, McKingley, Willy Brandt, Laurier, senior American military officers were thinking in these terms. Churchill's history of the Second World War and Mahan were on my supplementary reading list. Quigley was not. (I read Guderian's Panzer Leader and Col Harry G. Summer's On Strategy instead.) All those dead presidents? American gun violence, nothing more to be seen here. We didn't look closer at the Gouzenko affair, the FLQ crisis, British and French support of the Confederacy and Alexander II's support on the side of the Union and his internal policies. Assassinated European statesmen in the late 19th and early 20th centuries? Anarchists. No need to look for any commonalities amongst the victims nor into who was backing the anarchists. My American and Cold War history professors depicted FDR as a naïve, ill weakling in dealing with Stalin, while Churchill was depicted as the clever chess master who knew he was dealing with two ruthless, murderous dictators and how to deal with them. We skipped right over Bertrand Russel.
Truly indeed, the main target was missed when the German and Japanese war machines were destroyed.
Brilliant work Cynthia. I'm looking forward to the next installment.
I enjoyed this article. It gave me an interesting spin on recent political history and in so doing pulled a thread from a complex tapestry in a vast conspiracy. Especially significant to me was the Bertrand Russell quotes and how it remains the mainstay of neocon thinking. I am looking forward to part 2.
What a excellent article revealing that the theme of liberty for all is now taken up by the Russians/ China in recognizing the respect due to one’s sovereign state.
It’s an anti imperialist move and how ironic America is now fighting against the adored American System of the 19th century.
Bertram Russell completely fooled by his social background of his imperial class to appreciate the illogic of his stance for a American hegemony to rule the world .
To institute the same thing.
It’s a natural instinct deeper than logic influencing us to have the hegemony of one rule as the alpha male in a pack of wolves does over its group.
We are animals after all .
One sees this in science ad well with its social biases.
Conrad Lorenz began to observe and study us as an animal for the reasons behind our outrageous violence creating the two WW wars.
The Natural world is full of surprises !
What a beautiful excellent article to provoke a discussion on how we arrived at where we are today and is to be appreciated Immensely.
History is indeed is a living thing as is the genetics inherent in our memory.
The Last Time Britain said No to the American Empire, was when our Socialist Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, refused to Send British Troops to Fight in Vietnam. Earlier we offered our Gurkha Troops to help American Troops with Jungle Combat. America Refused; saying it`s Us Rangers could defeat the Viet Cong . That went Well.
Great Britain Abolished Slavery in 1840 and the Royal Navy Stopped All Slave Ships on the High Seas;
even Slave Ships heading for the Confederate States.
"Despite the Americans launching the Korean War from 1950 to 1953..."
err...
Are you sure about that, Ms. Chung?
It is paradoxical that on the one hand:
"..much of Asia and Africa found themselves in a similarly debased fashion, they were not allowed to be individuals, to be free to create their own fate from something new. They were not free to have their own ideas, their own schools of thought, instead they were treated as children, with no choice but to choose the ideology of one parent or the other. However, this was largely western hypocrisy, as was so clearly seen by the very domineering presence of western imperialism and increasingly clandestine warfare.”
While on the other hand:
“the world is still awaiting, will the United States finally wake from its century of madness and return to its founding principles”
If the “world” (whoever that may be) is waiting for the United States, then how can they “create their own fate from something new” or worse still expect not to be “treated as children, with no choice but to choose the ideology of one parent or the other”?
Cynthia while does considerably well in stitching historical snippets together, she fails in deducing out of that patchwork a coherent narrative. This is partly nature partly nurtured. Her nature is curious but she has been nurtured to believe curiosity produces clarity, and without clarity how can you produe harmony?
That said, I enjoyed her focus on the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain, however I'd advise you to direct your curiosity towards the difference between the 3 Ozs that make up the "English Magic Circle” which are erroneously lumped together—to their benefit & your readers' detriment—as Britain or British as opposed to Temporals, Spirituals & Commoners.
And now, they've sent Harry here to be the King of America? The Windsors, spoof of the Crown on Netflix, nailed this, just a bit too soon and with the wrong prince.