Africa is exhibiting a new wave of “Decolonization”: How this Ukraine/Russia war is blatantly forcing the USA to re-colonize the EU?
Posted on: September 13, 2023
Why does an institution supposedly based on national self-determination deny it so effectively to majorities everywhere whose only fault appears to be living on land others covet?
What could be the motors and motives for seemingly senseless aggression against ordinary people?
By the time the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples was finally adopted in 1960, there was no question of reversing the de facto colonisation practiced by the mandatory powers under the League.
The Declaration was only an act of the UN General Assembly any way, a body wholly dominated by the three permanent imperial members of the Security Council, each with their veto powers.
To better illuminate the principal subject—Ukraine—it is helpful to recall that of the five permanent members of the Security Council, the two most powerful are Not nation-states at all. The United Kingdom is a colonial confederation as is the United States.
Russia, France, and China are all states derived from historical ethnic-linguistic determination. They were formed into such unitary states through wars and revolutions.
As de Gaulle famously said “France was made with the sword”.
However there is no question that these three countries are based explicitly on ethnic-linguistic and cultural congruity within continental boundaries, in the sense articulated by the explicit text of the Covenant and the Charter.
On the contrary, Great Britain and the United States are commercial enterprises organised on the basis of piracy and colonial conquest.
There is not a square centimetre of the United States that was not seized by the most brutal force of arms from its indigenous inhabitants. “Ethnic-linguistic” among the English-speaking peoples is a commodity characteristic. It is a way to define a market segment.
Great Britain gave the world “free trade” and liberalism and the US added to that the “open door”.
Nothing could be more inimical to the self-determination of peoples than either policy.[iv] How can a people be independent and self-determined when they are denied the right to say “no”?
The Great War and its sequel the war against the Soviet Union and Communism, aka World War 2, were first and foremost wars to establish markets dominated by the Anglo-American free trade – open door doctrine.
One will not find this explicitly stated in any of the history books or the celebratory speeches on Remembrance Day (Memorial Day in the US) or the anniversary of D-Day to which properly the Soviet Union and Russia ought not to be invited. (Donald Trump was explicit on this policy)
After all D-Day was the beginning of the official war by Anglo-America against the Soviet Union after Hitler failed.
More of Italian, French and German industrial and domestic infrastructure was destroyed by aerial bombardment from the West than by anything the Wehrmacht did—since its job was to destroy Soviet industry.
This will not be reported in schoolbooks and very few official papers will verify this open secret. That is because like the Donation much of what counts as history was simply “written to the file”.
The facts however speak for themselves.
When the German High Command signed the terms of unconditional surrender in Berlin-Karlshorst, the domestic industry of the West, except the US, had been virtually destroyed leaving it a practical monopoly not only in finance but manufacturing that would last well into the late 1960s.
Only the excess demand of the war against Korea accelerated German industrial recovery.
No one can say for sure how much of German, French, Italian, Belgian, or Netherlands capital was absorbed by Anglo-American holding companies.
Hence those that wonder today about the self-destruction of the German economy have to ask who owns Germany in fact.
To do that one will have to hunt through the minefield of secrecy jurisdictions behind which beneficial ownership of much of the West is concealed.
It is necessary to return to the conditions at the beginning of the Great War to understand what is happening now in Ukraine.
One has to scratch the paint off the house called “interests” and recall some geography.
F. William Engdahl performed this task well in his A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order (2011). It would do well to summarise this book.
Continental nation-states need secure land routes. Pirate states need secure sea-lanes. Britain succeeded in seizing control ruling the waves after defeating the Spanish and Portuguese fleets.
It reached a commercial entente with the Netherlands, which helped until the Royal Navy was paramount. The control of the seas meant that Britain could dominate shipping as well as maritime insurance needed to cover the risk of sea transport.
So it was no accident that Lloyds of London came to control the financing of maritime traffic.
Geography dictated that the alternative for continental nation-states was the railroad.
Germany was building a railroad from Berlin to Baghdad which would not only have delivered oil to its industry but allowed it to bypass the Anglo-French Suez Canal and the British controlled Cape route.
Centuries before the predecessors to the City of London financed crusades to control the trade routes through the Middle East, propagandistically labelled the Holy Land, whereby this was wholly for commercial reasons.
The Anglo-American led NATO captured Kosovo not out of any special loyalty to Albanians but because of geography.
Camp Bondsteel lies at the end of the easiest route to build pipelines between Central Asia and the Mediterranean.
In short there is not a single war for “self-determination” waged by the Anglo-American special relationship that was not driven by piratical motives, for which ethnic-linguistic commodities are expendable.
In 1917, the “interests”, for whom Lord Rothschild spoke and no doubt provided financial support, coincided with the pre-emptive control over real estate that had been desired by the banking-commercial cult at least since the establishment of the Latin Church.
It is no accident that serious investigations have established that the state created from the British Mandate in Palestine was a commercial venture like all other British undertakings.
Immunity from prosecution is the norm for those criminal enterprises, both private and state, like: money laundering, drug and arms trafficking, training of repressive forces for other countries on contract, etc. all documented and protected by atomic weapons.
Adonis Diaries 
Leave a comment