Executive Intelligence Review
This article appears in the April 20, 2007 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

Where the Future Lies

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

April 13, 2007

[PDF version of this article]

Former U.S. Vice-President Al Gore's recent popularity is already on the wane. "Bio-fuels" is strictly for quick-buck swindlers and the credulities of the"Bio-fools" upon whom they prey. In reality, the world's current trends are dominated by a surge of commitment to nuclear-fission fuels as the leading development policy of Eurasia and also other parts of the world. As an April 7th London Economist editorial suggests, the question on the table among all actually thinking circles of leadership around the world, is, who is going to control the economic policies of a world in which, in fact, nuclear fission and related technologies will be taking over.

*   *   *

After, Don Imus, Al Gore should be next.[1] The Al Gore bubble may soon prove to have been the most short-lived big-time swindle in modern political history. During the past week, the signs are out; the Gore fad is already starting to fade, and this will probably continue at an accelerating rate, and will be taking down the political ambitions of a lot of inconvenient U.S. pre-Presidential candidacies with him.

Despite the pack of what are virtually paid political prostitutes rallied around both Gore and the loudest of the voices from the IPCC, the fact is, that Al Gore's "Inconvenient" promotion is not only a pseudo-scientific swindle worse than the notorious "Ponzi Scheme," but is as explicitly genocidal, in its threatened effects, especially against Black Africa, as the related ranting of Julian Huxley's fellow-eugenics freak Adolf Hitler.

The present crop of politically high-ranking and other fanatics may scream as loudly as they wish; but, the fact that Gore is both a faker with ugly right-wing connections, and a racist in fact, is now beginning to catch up with him in various places around the world. Inside the U.S.A., Imus was frankly a low-life variety of racist, and probably incurably so, but on the scale of racism, Imus is also a small-time scapegoat for the more serious offenses of an actually mass-murderous, and racist Gore. If you are really opposed to racist policies, you are working for the permanent retirement of both Gore and Cheney from political life. If not, your choice of U.S. pre-Presidential candidate will probably not be taken seriously in the outcome of the coming U.S. Presidential race.

Among the useful results which the collapse of the Gore political bubble will soon, almost certainly bring, is a rather awesome purging of the ranks of presently listed, potential 2008 Presidential nominees of a lot of diversionary political rubbish.

That does not mean that all of those who are, thus, probably foredoomed as potential Presidential nominees, are worthless as political figures. It means that, as in the case of the otherwise clever "good old boy" caught in the camera's eye during a raid on the local house of prostitution, the bloom will be off the political rose for those caught in the press spotlight; numerous prominent fellow-travellers of Gore are probably foredoomed, if not to early retirement, to a much more subdued role in our nation's political life than they appeared to represent just a few weeks ago.

On this account, I refer your attention to an important editorial statement, under the headlined feature, "Globalization's Offspring," in the April 7, 2007 edition of the London Economist. In effect: the Economist asks: who is going to be leading in a world in which (in fact) nuclear power is already on the rise, and the followers of Gore will have soon taken their fall? I agree with the Economist on the broad view of that trend, but differ sharply on the matter of the probable outcome.

That review begins with the following paragraph:

For as long as multinational companies have existed—and some historians trace them back to banking under the Knights Templar in 1135—they have been derided by their critics as rapacious rich-world beasts. If there was ever any truth to that accusation, it is fast disappearing. While globalization has opened new markets to rich-world companies, it has given birth to a pack of fast-moving, sharp-toothed new multinationals that is emerging from the poor world.

For all the stretch included in that single brief paragraph, there remains what is, strategically, an important hint of a strategically crucial bit of truth, buried within the Economist's prose. So, the editors pose some life-or-death questions to citizens of our U.S. republic, questions which the relatively high-ranking, but foolish U.S. dupes of Al Gore have missed entirely.

The U.S.A. & Britain

The following synopsis of the historical relations between the U.S. and London since 1782, must be interpolated in summary at this time, if we are to make clear that present reality, to which the Economist obliquely refers. The brief, but crucial role of that de facto political boss of the British East India Company, the Eighteenth Century's Lord Shelburne, in his 1782 accession to the post of Prime Minister, was not only a crucial turning-point of inflection in course of world history; it has crucial relevance for any competent understanding of the strategic crisis of this planet today.

Not only did Shelburne maneuver the Americans' allies, the U.S.A., France, and Spain, into separate peace negotiations, but, with the assistance of relevant freemasons under British control, notably the Martinist freemasonry, orchestrated the series of 1782-1789 developments leading into the self-destruction of U.S. ally France, that in a series of events which began with the atrocious farce which the British orchestrated as Philippe Egalité's July 14, 1789 assault, armed and directed by him personally, at the Bastille. This was the assault conducted ostensibly on behalf of Philippe's crony Jacques Necker's candidacy for Prime Minister of Louis XVI's France.[2] These events included such delicacies as the succession of that Reign of Terror, and that Bonaparte tyranny which Count Joseph de Maistre's Martinist freemasonry orchestrated as the economic spoiling of continental Europe for British imperial advantage.

Thus, following the American defeat of London's Cornwallis, there was a period of more than seventy years, from those France events of 1782-1789 through the U.S. victory over London's Confederacy in 1865, during which the British Empire's control over the world's monetary-financial systems was frequently challenged, but without actual success. However, by the time of the U.S. Philadelphia Centennial celebration of 1876, the U.S. 1865 victory led by President Lincoln over the globally orchestrated, anti-U.S. schemes of Britain's Lord Palmerston, had created a new situation in the world at large. A new situation had emerged, in which the anti-monetarist American System of political-economy was widely regarded as the available alternative to submitting to the imperial tyranny of the same neo-Venetian Anglo-Dutch Liberal form of monetary system which has dominated the world afresh, since August 1971.[3]

"Geopolitics" was the name of the British imperial reaction to the post-1865 copying of the key features and intentions of the Hamiltonian American System, among a significant number of nations within the continent of Eurasia, and also spreading into Central and South America. "Geopolitics" meant, in fact, defense of William of Orange's Anglo-Dutch Liberal strategy for blocking and destroying the threat represented by the rival influence of conceptions and policies, such as those of France's Jean-Baptiste Colbert, leading into the design for what became the constitutional form of of the U.S.A. economy. The result of President Lincoln's victory over the British puppet known as the Confederacy, was the outbreak of open warfare under London's direct supervision of the continuing 1895-1945 Japan policy of war against China, Korea, and Russia, and the London-orchestrated Balkan wars leading into what became known as World War I. Lord Kitchener's invasion of Sudan has remained an included, featured pivot of British imperial geopolitics, worldwide, to the present-day in Darfur.

This continuing geopolitical impulse of the post-1865 times, led, thus, into both World War I, and to the initial British sponsorship of Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, leading into what became known as World War II. It was the motive for a Franklin-Roosevelt-hating Prime Minister Winston Churchill's continuing influence, even after his ouster, over the U.S.A. under Roosevelt's successor, Harry S Truman.[4]

U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt had managed to outflank the early-on Hitler backers in London and Wall Street, to the effect that the United Kingdom had dumped Edward VIII, to join, later, with Roosevelt, and with Stalin, in defeating what would have otherwise become a long world empire under the Hitler system. However, the same London and Wall Streets which Roosevelt had temporarily weaned away from Hitler's cause, soon showed, under President Harry Truman, that once Hitler were out of the way, it was the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt which London now wished to uproot, even by methods which amounted to a return to some crucial features of the Hitler system.

Among relevant circles in Boston and Manhattan, most notably, the leading intention at that time, and since, has been to assimilate Boston[5] and Manhattan into London, as early as this might be pulled off. The assassination of President John F. Kennedy, and the ruinous effects of the U.S. plunge into the trap of a Indo-China war led, thus, to the near-triumph of what President Eisenhower denounced as the "military-industrial complex" represented, today, by the intimate alliance of Prime Minister Tony Blair, Al Gore, and the Bush-Cheney Administration.

Under the currently ongoing parody of the "Peloponnesian War" in Southwest Asia, by President George W. Bush, Jr., Cheney, and Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair, that with the foolish complicity of many leading Sophists among the Democratic Party's currently leading figures, the wrecking of the U.S. and its economy is nearly completed today. So, Fabian Society agent Al Gore's "Global Warming" swindle, now added to the already existing mess, has, suddenly, nearly destroyed the U.S. Democratic Party as a viable leading institution—unless we can reverse this awful error now.

For the moment, a London-directed Al Gore is deployed to induce the U.S. to wreck itself with an insane plunge into Gore's proposed "Bio-Foolery"; but, do not be so naive as to assume that the powers behind the curtain in London intend to destroy themselves, economically and otherwise. Blair and his like are intended to be dumped, once their assigned role has been, so to speak, "used up." New policies are on the drafting board for those upcoming times.

Until recently, there is a great fear within certain Anglo-Dutch Liberal circles, including U.S. figures associated, as Henry A. Kissinger and Felix Rohatyn were, with George Shultz in putting Augusto Pinochet's mass-murderous, fascist dictatorship into power in Chile. The fear behind pushing the Bush-Cheney Administration into power in Washington, has been, that a new world financial crisis would bring a resurgent patriotic echo of President Franklin Roosevelt back into power. At the moment, the Anglo-Dutch Liberal followers of Prince Philip and the late Nazi-SS veteran Prince Bernhard, manifestly wish, that the virtual national suicide of the U.S.A. be accomplished by the Bush-Cheney Administration. This arrangement, however temporary the intention, has brought the matter to the point, that, apparently, these treasonous fellows have almost finished off the possibility that the U.S.A., or even its memory, could become again an effective obstacle to an Anglo-Dutch Liberal world empire of the sort called "globalization."

However, this current role of those Liberal circles, should not be construed to mean that the crew around the Economist intends that Anglo-Dutch Liberal world power should go down with the Liberals' successful sinking of the U.S. ship. On this point, the meaning behind the Economist's April 7th editorial comes into view.

1. Enter Russia, China & India

As outgoing U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower warned, the intention of the enemies of our U.S.A. was to ruin us through operations run by an implicitly treasonous gang among us, a gang which he identified as a "military-industrial complex." At the time that President spoke, he had recently experienced the role of the "military-industrial complex" authors of the U-2 stunt, in providing the adventurous, Bertrand Russell-linked Soviet General Secretary Nikita Khrushchev with the pretext for breaking up the Paris "summit." That stunt by Khrushchev, against both Presidents Eisenhower and Charles de Gaulle, cleared the way for Khrushchev's personal, virtually physical threats to President Kennedy "in the other room" during the Vienna "summit," and, thence, the Cuba Missiles Crisis.

The attempted assassinations of President de Gaulle and others, were a typical reflection of the same interests expressed in the break-up of the Paris meeting of Khrushchev with Presidents de Gaulle and Eisenhower. The subsequent, orchestrated Profumo scandal used to oust British Prime Minister Macmillan, and a host of high-level actual and attempted assassinations of the early through middle 1960s, has led the world of that decade through the 1968 eruptions and the installation of Richard M. Nixon as President of the U.S.A. Since then, more than a decade under, chiefly, the Nixon and Carter administrations, featuring George Shultz more than any other visible figure, tore up and smashed every leading institutional feature of the Franklin Roosevelt legacy in their reach, over the course of the 1969-1981 interval, and beyond.[6]

The pro-mercenary military policies of Cheney (as Secretary of Defense and "President of Vice"), George Shultz, and the Middlebury monster Felix Rohatyn, have been notable among the treasonous and kindred means employed to wreck the military institutions of the United States. The intention of those culprits has been to bring this effect about through prolonged wars which might effect the destruction of the U.S. constitutional institutions, especially those institutions associated with the memory of the role of the U.S.A. in defeating the Hitler who had been created by London and its Wall Street cronies during the course of the 1920s and early 1930s.

The period from 1890 to the present, is a phase in world history launched with the dumping of the strongly pro-American German Chancellor Bismarck. Bismarck was not only the author of the post-1877 "economic miracle" of Germany's development, a miracle based chiefly on the American System model of Bismarck advisor Henry C. Carey; Bismarck had been the crucial obstacle to London's geopolitical scheme for pitting the nations of the two nephews of Britain's Edward Albert, Kaiser Wilhelm II and Nicholas II, against one another, all for the grand purpose of destroying the post-1876 surge of American-style scientific-industrial development in key Eurasian nations. The relevant assassination of France's President Sadi Carnot and the Dreyfus case, was followed by the British monarchy's directing Japan into the series of 1895-1945 wars against China, Russia, and also the United States.[7]

Since the days of foolish Louis XIV, it has been a persisting, pro-imperial, Anglo-Dutch Liberal "geopolitical" strategy, sometimes called a Fabian strategy, to lure targeted rivals into wars by which they ruin themselves to Anglo-Dutch Liberal strategic advantage. This was the way in which the British East India Company acquired its private world empire, through the so-called "Seven Years War" culminating in the February 1763 Peace of Paris, and the London determination, from 1763 on, to crush those American colonies which had been crucial in Britain's war to wrest Canada from France.

The U.S. War in Indo-China and the current U.S. military operations and postures in Southwest Asia, are typical of the ways in which London has induced the U.S. government to, repeatedly, play the fool in this way. Indeed, many among our Baby Boomers in the U.S. Congress are still playing the role of official dupes of that strategic game.

World War Three, or its equivalent, is a proposition now on the table, a policy to be openly rejected now, or to be adopted by default. The London-centered, still-as-always-geopolitical intention, is to pit the U.S.A. into a virtual, even an actual, nuclear war against Russia, China, and India. The number of suckers ready to bite that bait, within the U.S. Senate, for example, is more disgusting than it should be considered surprising. A Baby-Boomer fish, running for President or otherwise, that would swallow Gore's "Global Warming" swindle, is clearly prepared to swallow almost any similarly baited hook.

2. The Economist's Predicament

The Economist editorial proceeds:

Indian and Chinese firms are now starting to give their rich-world rivals a run for their money.... The Russians have outdone the Indians this year ... and are now running to buy Alitalia, Italy's state airline.

But the newcomer's advantages are not overwhelming.... Nor is cost as big an advantage to emerging country multinationals as it might seem. They compete against the old guard on value for money, which depends upon price and quality. A firm like Tata Steel, from low-cost India, would never have bought expensive, Anglo-Dutch Corus were it not for its expertise in making fancy steel....

Then comes the Economist's following attempt at "whistling through the graveyard."

This points to an enduring advantage for the wealthy companies under attack. A world that is not governed by cost alone suits them, because they already possess a formidable array of skills, such as managing relations with customers, polishing brands, building up know-how and fostering innovation.

Here, on that bit of its own consoling fantasy, the Economist is confronted by the advantage of the superior American system of political-economy, over the neo-Venetian, monetarist ideologies of contemporary Anglo-Dutch Liberal parasitism. That fantasy, which is characteristic of neo-Venetian Liberalism, is the principle of Classical tragedy which would bring today's Liberal's imperial "globalization" to its inherent, self-inflicted doom.

The tragic principle involved is this:

The British imperial model, so-called Anglo-Dutch Liberal imperialism, is the product of an infectious disease which has long infected European civilization, but whose known origin is what ancient European civilization knew by such names as "The Asian Model." This is what those of Plato's time and later knew as the "Persian" or "oligarchical" model, as the principle of that model is summarized in Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound. That is otherwise known to European experience as typified by the succession of long-ranging failures known as the Roman, Byzantine, the ultramontane system to which the Economist's reference to A.D. 1135 alludes, and Anglo-Dutch Liberal imperialism. All such empires of the past were intrinsically foredoomed by a certain, inherent flaw of the British system which the pathetic Edward Gibbon sought to deny. The Economist's referenced editorial comment has implicitly swallowed that tragic flaw, full force.

Were the Economist's outlook for globalization realized, if only in the relatively short time, at most, the entire planetary civilization would be crushed soon, that in the most monstrous, global catastrophe of all known periods of human existence. In short, in the present instance, "the oligarchical model" were a trick which an old imperial dog had tried to perform, once too often.

The explanation for this fateful irony of current history, is to be found in the little known, but crucial implications of the dynamics of Bernhard Riemann, as in opposition to the foolish, neo-Cartesian practice of mechanistic-statistical forecasting which is followed by the current representatives of that Gulliver's Voyage to The Grand Academy of Lagado, whose likeness is met today in seemingly all "peer-reviewed" economists of the present day.

Here, we meet that true principle of Classical tragedy, of which virtually all the conventionally Romantic pedagogues and reviewers of our times are, themselves, more or less tragically ignorant. Tragedy lies not in the trait of one or more of the individuals in a drama, but in the characteristic, systemic feature of the entire culture, a trait which engulfs the habitual responses, not of some tragic individual, but controls, like a hypnotic fantasy, virtually each and all the players on that stage. The effects of belief in the modern philosophical Liberalism of the followers of Venice's Paolo Sarpi, is such a tragic principle of that aspect of the entire planet today which accepts the inherently diseased, axiomatic presumptions of the world's present, anti-Franklin Roosevelt form of monetary-financial system.

The most appropriate, modern insight into this historical principle of Classical tragedy, is to be found in the implications of the work of Russia's Academician V.I. Vernadsky, most emphatically the profound implications of his defining the notions of Biosphere and Noösphere. From the standpoint common to the ancient Pythagoreans and Plato's circle otherwise, and to the modern scientific outlook established by Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa and Cusa's follower Johannes Kepler, we have the following essential points to be considered afresh in the context of the errors of assumption permeating the Economist's misguided view of the world economy during the years immediately ahead.

The Fundamental Principle of Science

Contrary to the implied, intrinsically tragic view of the Economist's referenced editorial, mankind is not just another organ-grinder's monkey, who can be taught to play tricks for pay. Were the human species a higher ape, our species' total living population on this planet would have never exceeded some millions of living individuals. Vernadsky's very choice of the term Noösphere to identify the principled distinction of human beings from forms of animal life, reflects the ancient Classical Greek understanding of this distinction of man from beast.

Or, to put the point in the modern terms of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa and his followers in physical science, just as Kepler's discovery of the harmonic ordering of universal gravitation bounds the universe, in Albert Einstein's terms, as finite but without external bounds, so Vernadsky has bounded the four principled domains of known universal existence as the three phase-spaces of the non-living, the Biosphere, and the Noösphere, and, fourthly, the Creator's universe within which the three are functionally subsumed.

In other words, as Vernadsky insisted, like Gottfried Leibniz, in refuting the folly of Cartesian empiricism before him, the universe is not Euclidean, and therefore not Cartesian. Rather, the universe is defined by bounding conditions of universal principle, as Riemann's notion of physical hypergeometries represents this state of affairs. In the matter of physical economy (which is the only actual science of economy available to anyone), the absolute, noëtic distinction of man from the beasts, is crucial in seeking to address any issue of the type which the Economist editorial attempted to treat.

Mankind, and its potential history, is bounded by the role of those discoveries of universal physical principle through which qualitative, upward transformations in the characteristic potential relative population-density of the human species, and of a subsumed society of that species, are determined as bounding conditions.

As mankind's practiced technology, and the growth and increase of life-expectancy of individuals proceeds, that growth itself converges on bounding by practical effects of the range of discovered physical principles being employed. In other words, the universe in which human existence, the existence of human society dwells, is characteristically Riemannian. The fatal error of assumption in the Economist's foolish presumption of an "enduring advantage" within the bounds of a globalized world economy, is that it is the cultural development of the creative powers of the individual and his society which enables mankind to breach the limits which enclose the present development of society.

This required development depends upon the level of scientific and related cultural development of the relatively greatest number of living individual persons, and of their accustomed practice, within society as a whole.

That is to say, that the oligarchical model, typified by the evil Olympian Zeus of Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound, by degrading the greater number of members of society to the form of the virtual human cattle which the enemies of the Promethean principle, such as John Locke, Bernard Mandeville, François Quesnay, and Lord Shelburne's lackey and plagiarist Adam Smith prescribe, brings the form of society so ordered to those self-inflicted limits of physical development at which a breakdown of the social system must ensue.

In practice, the Classical cultural development of European civilization, which has occurred with great relative force since the prompting by the European Fifteenth-Century Renaissance, and the development of the notion of the modern commonwealth under France's Louis XI and England's Henry VII, had, until the downturn in the well-being of mankind launched as U.S. developments of 1968-1981, created an explosion of the potential improvement of society and its members without precedent in known earlier history of mankind. It is the suppression of reliance on cheap labor which has been, thus, the principal source of the great upward surge of the power of modern civilization relative to all earlier known phases of human existence.

On this account, we must describe the intentions of former Vice-President Gore and his Flagellant-like following as a frankly pro-Satanic locust-plague, in the effect of what they are attempting to do to society as a whole. That is to say, that, on this account, the post-March 1945 world must contrast the post-war intentions of President Franklin Roosevelt to the exactly opposite, depraved intentions underlying the design for that proposed new global imperialism, that "Tower of Babel" called "globalization" today.

Roosevelt's intention was to uplift what we call the developing sector from the effects of colonialism, by using the scientific-technological advantages of European scientific-economic culture to afford the oppressed nations of the world access to the advantages which the combination of underdevelopment and pro-colonialist exploitation had denied them. The Globalist intention has been to destroy the nations of Europe and the Americas, which have represented science and technology, in order to establish the hegemony of a global system of imperialism under which pockets of relative prosperity in the world will be embattled bastions within a sea of brutish ignorance and oppression of a much-reduced global population as a whole.

Apart from the fact that what the Economist tends to support is downright evil in its inevitable effects, the fact is that there will be no imperial paradise of the type which some in London and elsewhere propose. What they will bring upon themselves, as upon us all throughout the world, would be the rapid, virtually sudden, early plunge of humanity as whole into a condition not significantly elevated among the level of troops of baboons. What they propose is, in its inevitable consequences, the most evil idea which has yet been known in all human existence to date. To say that what Al Gore is pushing is frankly Satanic, is, if anything, an understatement, when the inevitable consequences of toleration of such a policy were taken into account.

Only a generation—or, should we say "degeneration"—of Sophists such as our "68ers" could have been axiomatically irrational enough, to have entertained the ideas which Gore and other leading "globalizers" project for today. As John Smith said, the best remedy for such a mental condition of such "Baby Boomers" is to do actual "work (for a change), if you would eat."


[1] The just-dumped Don Imus has been a boosted figure of electronic media. Actually, what he peddles is, as the relevant public incident underscores, an appeal to a variety of pornography popular among the low-life bar-room set. Liking Imus tells us more embarrassing things about those who had been in his public following, than about him. That is the real motive for the dumping of the 'possum-like Imus, as a scapegoat for the same quality of degradation always near to the public surface with former Vice-President Al Gore and his type.

[2] Both Philippe and Necker were established members of relevant, quarreling international circles of the leading freemasonries of that time. Philippe was already notorious as a British asset during his Paris quarrels with Benjamin Franklin, whereas Necker had married into the same social circles as his wife's former suitor, Edward Gibbon of Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire notoriety. The bloodier features of the French Revolution were steered from the office of Lord Shelburne's Jeremy Bentham in the British Foreign Office's "Secret Committee" operations which ran the most significant events, such as the Danton and Marat, and Robespierre of what was called, euphemistically, "the French Revolution." One today might be tempted to say, "After all, it seems that so little has actually changed!"

[3] The Anglo-Dutch Liberal form of world monetary system established by the followers of Venice's "New Party" leader Paolo Sarpi appeared as a new form of attempted world-rule by monetary usury. The American System of political-economy, as revived by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, is defined by the principles of the U.S. Federal Constitution as a credit system, as leading U.S. economists such as Henry C. Carey followed Alexander Hamilton's principles of national banking on this account.

[4] Over-zealous grammar freaks beware! There is no period after the "S" in Harry S Truman. The name was written and filed in that form, and remained an indicative cultural-political clue for the benefit of future historians, remaining on the official record to the present day.

[5] Boston's Harvard University, where British "courtesy agent" in the Confederacy tradition of "The Agrarians," William Yandell Elliott, had created the Henry A. Kissinger of the Augusto Pinochet affair and Operation Condor, imperfectly, as if from mud, and where Judge Lowell, acting on Lord Shelburne's behalf, had earlier founded the gentleman's practice of treason in America.

[6] Since about 1977, there has been a secular collapse in the real (physical) incomes of the U.S. households within the lower eighty percentile. This includes both direct income, and imputable income represented by generally degenerating basic economic infrastructure provided by government and other relevant institutional facilities. "Deregulation" has been a leading factor in accelerating the rate of ruin of net actual physical income of households.

[7] The December 7, 1941 Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was the outgrowth of a British-Japanese early 1920s agreement to strategic joint attack on the naval forces of the U.S.A. Britain later abandoned the plan under which Japan had been assigned to attack Pearl Harbor, but Japan continued the policy it had established under a partnership with Britain dating from Japan's launching of its first war against China. On this account, the Theodore Roosevelt brought into the Presidency by the successful assassination of President William McKinley, followed in the footsteps of his treasonous maternal uncle as an agent of British imperial interest.

Subscribe to EIW