9 Comments
Sep 5, 2023·edited Sep 5, 2023

“Today, the UN is largely a toothless body…” Not quite, perhaps. It appears that the UN's use as a mechanism to preserve certain unethical objectives has also been cited. It has been pointed out that at least on two separate occasions, UN Security Council votes were used to condemn the use of certain chemical weapons. That sounds virtuous on the surface, but in both instances, Dupont was the patent holder of the chemicals — which had been used by certain jihadist groups in Middle Eastern countries as part of campaigns to bring down governments — and the vote to ban the use of such chemicals came just after the patents expired.

The fact alone that the UN headquarters in New York was erected on land owned by the Rockefellers doesn’t bode well. Then there’s a quip by late Robert David Steele who once pointed out that “a third of the UN are spies, a third corrupt or nepotistic, and the other third are genuinely good but naive people holding up the other two-thirds.” Lastly, a few years ago Putin publicly suggested that the UN still had some potential benefit in a continued existence, but only if it could succeed in cleaning up its house. Conditional olive branch much?

Expand full comment

Matthew, I, too, harbor great distrust, in fact, contempt for the Council on Foreign Relations. And often cite it's "Foreign Affairs" publication to expose them in their own words. They reveal a lot, boastfully, to those who bother to read. Much as Mein Kampf wasn't a secret journal Hitler kept for close allies. I've even read and shared their panels disclosing how they use "Nudge" to manipulate populations, while stating on the record that there's much more to what they do that they can't state on the record, reminding participants to keep those discussions behind closed doors:

https://www.cfr.org/event/behavioral-insights-policymaking

They even told us before 2020 that they were devising bioweapon research in ways to evade public opposition from short-sighted policymakers and ignorant civilians who didn't know it was for their own good:

https://www.cfr.org/event/biotechnology-potential-and-perils-innovation

And they were so bold as to tell us we needed to follow China's model for pandemic public policy in March, 2020:

https://web.archive.org/web/20200328050913/https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2020-03-27/past-pandemics-exposed-chinas-weaknesses

But what I'm a bit confused about given my understanding of CFR that you share similar sentiments of is this piece in Foreign Affaris published in January, 1941:

Science in the Totalitarian State

https://web.archive.org/web/20181125112623/https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1941-01-01/science-totalitarian-state

Stating, “If our society wants science it must choose between totalitarianism and democracy. There can be no compromise.” In a long piece about Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini and the hazards of "following the science" to free people.

I encourage you, readers to read the 1941 piece in its entirety, very informative. I always encourage readers to meet a piece on their own terms as I do and form their own understanding of what stands out to them. And I provide selected excerpts on my Stack that I considered most illuminating, prescient to compare notes or for those with limited bandwidth:

https://freedomfox.substack.com/p/old-journal-inside-a-fox-den-thats

Given what I believe to be our shared understanding of what and who CFR is, I'd truly appreciate your insights in helping me evaluate and reconcile the 1941 FA piece with the understanding of their agenda today, and historically. Thank you.

Expand full comment

ainting FDR's polemic verbal platitudes re: 'world peace & economic co-operation/development...etc.) as a 'defacto' validation of his 'genuine sincerity" decrys the ACTUAL historic FACTS/actions he took early on in his administration right up to DEC 7. 1941.

1) 'allowing' the USA led Rockefeller/DS bankster alliance (with the Rothchilds City of London) to continue financing BOTH Hitler AND Stalin in their ongoing "divide & conquer" thru war strategy for world imperial domination of the British empire.

FACT: FDR REPEATEDLY DECLINED to in ANY WAY 'criticize' Hitler's aggressions/attracities ALL throughout the 1930-40's.

NOTE: It should be noted that FDR's "New Deal 1 & New Deal 2 " (1932 -1937 [$ 5 BILLION plus) HAD LARGELY FAILED to bring the USA out of the depression. (still 20% plus unemployed & GP 30% BELOW pre1929 levels). FDR embarked on a massive 'deficit spending" program to reverse the "recession" of 1938.

NOTE 2- Question-WHAT do NeoCon Kleptocratic 'globalists' ALWAYS DO as their last ditch play card ?

ANSWER: Take the country to war !

FDR replaced the clarion calls for his "New Deal" (1 & 2) with "“Dr. New Deal” had been replaced by “Dr. Win the War.” - <<< FDR quote 1943.

2) co-operating w/ GB thru economic/munitions/supplies support ,early on in the war (1939 "cash & carry" munitions bill ) (1940 “all aid short of war.” bills) (1941 Gutted the USA "Neutrality Acts" to allow "Lend-Lease Act" [credit 4 munitions to GB & FR] & deployment of 50 USN battle destroyers to defend Britain)( fall of1941 - authorized the US Navy to "shoot on sight" any German warships)(August 1941- "Atlantic Charter" GB/USA treaty for the expressed purpose of " the goal of achieving “the final destruction of the Nazi tyranny.”) & enriching said USA banksters.

3) 1941 oil embargo on JP ( an act of war & WAS ADVISED as such by the JP Foreign Minister of that BEFORE FDR did it & HE did it anyway).

4) ignoring CONFIRMED captured JP Diplomatic communications regarding their pacific fleet mobilization AND IMMANENT ATTACK on Pearl Harbor.

It should be noted that FDR's cabinet was STRONGLY GUIDED by his "Brain Trust" advisory committee from the very outset of his first term in 1932 and throughout all of his terms.. ALL three Principles (Raymond Moley, Rexford G. Tugwell, and Adolph A. Berle, Jr. ....plus others) later went on to become card carrying "NeoCons" supporters of the imperial empire war strategy.

SUMMARY: Conclusions:

FDR was...

1) an 'ignorant 'buffoon' idealist/socialist

2) a captured 'puppet' of the British/DS globalist war machine (thru the 'Brain Trust' & others?)

3) a KNOWING collaborator of the British/DS globalist war machine (thru the 'Brain Trust' & others?)

Matt E. Should DIG DEEPER into the Democratic Election Machine out of the Bronx, NY ( Flynn etal) to Really see WHO was 'backing' FDR.... BEFORE holding him out as the "great infrastructure rebuilder" icon as he has painted him.

FOLLOW THE MONEY

Expand full comment

Matt, R2P gained popularity as a result of the Rwanda "genocide," during which UN troops stood by and watched the killings unfold. Edward S. Herman and David Peterson have presented compelling evidence in (https://bookshop.org/p/books/enduring-lies-the-rwandan-genocide-in-the-propaganda-system-20-years-later-david-peterson/12180700?ean=9781500751111) that the killings were not racially based, were perpetrated by supporters of Paul Kagame's rebels, and that many Hutu were killed along with pro-government Tutsis. While it's true that Western "peacekeepers" stood by and did nothing to stop the slaughter, blaming the Hutus for the democide has justified the real perpetrator of the massacres, Paul Kagame, in his pursuit of fleeing Hutus into the Central African Republic and ensuing violence there.

The truth is that the West were passive accessories to the crime in Rwanda.

Expand full comment

I learn a lot from you - appreciate that.

Up until now I have seen FDR in another light - so I'll dig deeper.

But about the 'Freedom Speech':

According to the Presidential speechwriter, Samuel Rosenman, the famous Four Freedoms paragraphs did not appear in the speech until the fourth draft. One night as Rosenman and other staff members met with the President in his White House study, FDR announced that he had an idea for a peroration (the closing section of a speech).

As recounted by Rosenman, quote

We waited as he leaned far back in his swivel chair with his gaze on the ceiling. It was a long pause—so long that it began to become uncomfortable. Then he leaned forward again in his chair and dictated the Four Freedoms. He dictated the words so slowly that on the yellow pad I had in my lap I was able to take them down myself in longhand as he spoke.

FDR was apparently a good actor, convincing his staff that this was his idea. I smell Tavistock propaganda. These “Four Freedoms” became the foundational principles that evolved into the Atlantic Charter declared by Winston Churchill and Roosevelt in August 1941; the United Nations Declaration of January 1, 1942; President Roosevelt’s vision for an international organization that became the United Nations after his death; and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations in 1948 through the work of Eleanor Roosevelt.

“Freedom of speech” and “Freedom of worship”?

Well, that’s a given. You Americans have this as your birthright!

“Freedom from want” and “Freedom from fear”?

That is propaganda! The depression was hardly over, and he wanted America to go to war. Of course, there was “want,” and of course, there would be “fear” – but he promised “freedom” from that?

They even built a monument with these words.

Disgusting!

Pardon my French.

From my Article 23 https://jytteh.substack.com/p/the-big-picture-part-23

Expand full comment

This is very informative and I look forward to reading your next article. One cannot understand today if one doesn’t understand the past. Thank you so much for sharing your knowledge and opinions.

Expand full comment

The problem is that the 'West' disregards any and every 'law' or 'guarantee' when expedient to serve the interests of the parasite class. The UN is a Rockefeller creation, established for the very purpose of bringing about a One World Government, but dressed up in nice-sounding language that we see politicians disregard routinely. It is not to be relied upon any more than any other Western 'agreement' can be relied upon, which is to say any such document is utterly meaningless in practical terms and a guarantee of exactly nothing.

Expand full comment

That was great, Matt. Please have that conversation again. Such incredibly important history, and you are correct: Universities—political science professors—do NOT teach real history. No wonder pre-law students make such shit law students and even worse Lawyers, before and after taking the Bar.

What few understand is that most of humanity’s “good policies” were created “mostly” by non-lawyers, and All the very bad rules, laws, economic policy & wars of history were created by Eugenicists who created both the lawyer profession and war, who’ve been around prior to the creation and then the so-called fall of Rome, which never really fell, but just transformed.

I’d like to do genetic tests on both the Eugenicist, Satanic, inbred Rothschild and Rockefeller families to confirm what I already understand: that their evil ancestors created the Old Testament to enslave peoples who were NOT even called Jews at that time, nor did they practice what is now called Judaism…and then these same Slavers who enslaved so-called Jews and adopted what’s now called the Jewish faith to use as cover—just like they use their slave-Jews for—also created the New Testament to enslave Christians and others; to trap people to Religious-National-Racisms and all the wars attached.

I hope I live to see Palestine totally restored—without war—and those calling themselves Chosen-Jews and Judaic-Christians freed from that insane belief—or mentally institutionalized—but Jesus Christ slaves are such stubborn bitches.

Expand full comment

Excellent Matt! I learn so much from you and Cynthia as well.

Expand full comment