Australia’s poor old women

By Jane Caro  Despite women facing the wage gap, eventual poverty and possible…

Assange’s Thirteenth Day at the Old Bailey: Mental…

September 24. Central Criminal Court, London.The lion’s share of today’s Old Bailey…

Industrial relations reform talks breached again as deadline…

With less than a week to go in the scheduled agenda for…

The big lie

By Leonie Saunders  A little over two weeks have passed since I listened…

The death of hope

“No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a…

Assange’s Twelfth Day at the Old Bailey: Autism,…

September 23. Central Criminal Court, London.Following the script sheet of the previous…

The forced sterilisation of women in detention is…

By Mikayla Chadwick  The headlines may have shocked the world, but the forced…

The $3.5 billion investment in the NBN is…

By Laurie Patton  The Coalition has announced that a further $3.5 billion will…

«
»
Facebook

COVID-19: Where was it born: China, the United States or Ukania? (At the school of Doctor Rasputin: part 1)

Continued from: COVID-19: Where was it born: China, the United States or Ukania? (From Her Majesty’s bottomless purse: part 3)

By Outsider

3 At the school of Doctor Rasputin

The death in March 2017 of David Rockefeller, the de facto Patriarch of the American establishment, at age 101, was greeted by establishment media with praise for his alleged philanthropy.

The Rockefeller fortune is based on oil companies such as ExxonMobil, Chevron and others.

Leaving aside the grand-father John D. Rockefeller and his peculiar views on the ‘American way of free enterprise’, in 1939 David and his four brothers – Nelson, John D. III, Laurance and Winthrop – and their Rockefeller Foundation financed the top secret War and Peace Studies at the New York Council on Foreign Relations, the most influential private American foreign policy think-tank, which also was controlled by the Rockefellers.

A collection of American academics gathered even before the outbreak of the second world war to plan a post-war world empire, what Time-Life’s insider Henry Luce – of The Pilgrim Society – later called ‘The American Century.’ They made a blueprint for taking over a global empire from the bankrupt British, but carefully decided not to call it an empire. Rather they called it “spreading democracy, freedom, the American way of free enterprise.” The words may be rarely heard from a modern Rasputin – even a Doctor Rasputin’s mouth, but the present version has always been attracted to what they hide.

Under that mantle the five brothers drew up a geopolitical map of the post-war world and planned how the United States would replace the British Empire as de facto the dominant empire. The creation of the United Nations was a key part of that programme of reconstruction. So, the Rockefeller brothers donated the land in Manhattan for the United Nations Headquarters – and in the process made billions in the increased prices of the adjoining real estate that they also owned. The myth of the Rockefeller ‘philanthropy’ was furthered by such ‘generosity’. They probably saw themselves as modern Medici, and might have felt as spurred by the Medici’s maxim that they had made money to gain power, and from further power they could reach for more money.

If philanthropy should be motivated by love of our fellow human beings, the grants of the Rockefeller Foundation are not. Consider medical research. During the period until 1939 and the second world war, the Rockefeller Foundation financed biological research at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Berlin. Actually, it was Nazi eugenics – how to breed a ‘superior race’ and how to sterilise or, better still, kill off or sterilise those deemed ‘inferior.’ To put it plainly, Rockefeller financed Nazi eugenics.

Eugenics, the set of beliefs and practices which aims at improving the genetic quality of the human population, played a significant role in the history and culture of the United States prior to its involvement in the second world war. Eugenics was practiced in the United States many years before eugenics programmes in Nazi Germany. (E. Black, The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics, History News Network, September 2003).

The American eugenics movement was rooted in the biological determinist ideas of Sir Francis Galton, which originated in the 1880s. Galton studied the upper classes of Britain, and arrived at the conclusion that their social positions were due to a superior genetic makeup. Eugenics was widely accepted in the American academic community. By 1928 there were 376 separate university courses in some of the United States’ leading schools, enrolling more than 20,000 students, which included eugenics in the curriculum.

After the eugenics movement was well established in the United States, it spread to Germany. California eugenicists began producing literature promoting eugenics and sterilisation and sending it overseas to German scientists and medical professionals. By 1933 California had subjected more people to forceful sterilisation than all other United States combined. The forced sterilisation programme engineered by the Nazis was partly inspired by California’s.

The Rockefeller Foundation helped develop and fund various German eugenics programmes, including the one that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz.

For a long time into the second world war Rockefeller’s Standard Oil – today’s ExxonMobil – also violated American law by secretly supplying the Luftwaffe with scarce fuel. After the war the Rockefeller brothers would arrange for leading Nazi scientists involved in ghastly human experiments to be brought to the United States and Canada under ‘new identities’ to continue their eugenics research. Many worked in the Central Intelligence Agency top secret Project MK-Ultra, more broadly referred to by the C.I.A. as mind control programme. The code name was given to a programme of experiments on human subjects which were designed and undertaken by the C.I.A., some of which were illegal.

Experiments on humans were intended to identify and develop drugs and procedures to be used in interrogations and torture, in order to weaken the individual to force confessions through mind control. Organised through the Scientific Intelligence Division of the C.I.A., the project coordinated with the Special Operations Division of the U.S. Army’s Chemical Corps. The Agency recruited former Nazi scientists, some of whom had been identified and prosecuted as war criminals during the Nuremberg Trials.

After the war David Rockefeller dominated American foreign policy and profited from the countless wars in Latin America, Africa and Asia. The Rockefeller quintet arranged for the ‘cold war’ against the Soviet Union, and was very active in the formation of N.A.T.O. in order to keep a reviving ‘western’ Europe under American vassal status. (F. William Engdahl, The gods of money, edition. engdahl, Wiesbaden, Germany 2009).

In 1952 John D. Rockefeller III, with important funding from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, set up the Population Council, a body governed by an international board of trustees, to advance eugenics, disguised as population research into birth control. Ostensibly, the philosophical underpinnings for the theories of the Population Council are the obsolete theses of Thomas Robert Malthus. Presently the Council board includes leaders in biomedicine, business, economic development, government, health, international finance, the media, philanthropy, and social science.

Importantly though, the Council has its roots in the eugenics movement. The Council was intended to advance eugenics, disguised as population research into birth control. The first president of the Council was a eugenicist appointed by Rockefeller: Frederick Osborn, an American philanthropist, military leader, and eugenicist – in that order of presentation, it seems. His ideas were collected in Preface to eugenics (Harper & Brothers, New York, 1940). Leader of the American Eugenics Society, and one of the founding members of the Pioneer Fund, Osborn was vice president or president of the Population Council until 1959. In 1968 he wrote: “Eugenic goals are most likely to be achieved under another name than eugenics.” In 1983 the American Philosophical Society considered him to have been “the respectable face of eugenic research in the post-war period.”

In the 1970s David Rockefeller’s Rockefeller Foundation financed together with the World Health Organization the development of a special tetanus vaccine which limited population by making a woman incapable of maintaining a pregnancy – literally going after the human reproductive process itself, eugenics by any other name!

The Rockefeller Foundation advanced the entire field of genetic manipulation through its control of Monsanto Corporation and financing of university biology research to develop the ‘gene cannon’ and other techniques artificially to alter gene expression of a given plant. Monsanto Corporation is a U.S. based agricultural and pharmaceutical monopoly with a dark history and a controversial recent past as the producer of Agent orange, widely used in South East Asia during the Vietnam war. It has had questionable relations with Dupont and Dow Chemical Company, as well as Syngenta and B.A.S.F., and recently accepted a takeover offer by Bayer another long-time associate. Of recent, Monsanto seems to have encountered several legal problems (Conflict of interest Questions dog former EPA official, taken to court, 2 May 2017), (Monsanto accused of hiring army of trolls to silence online dissent, 2 May 2017), but nothing which cannot be solved with the new Administration in Washington!

The aim of genetically modified organism, since Rockefeller sponsored the disastrous Philippine Golden Rice project, has been to use g.m.o. to control the human and animal food chain. Today more than 90 per cent of all soybeans grown in the United States and more than 80 per cent all corn and cotton are g.m.o. Monsanto has research facilities, manufacturing plants and sales offices in more than 100 countries. It has the largest share of the global g.m.o. crops market.

The Rockefellers – with the Rothchilds, semble – control The Vanguard Group Inc. which owns over U.S. $3 trillion in investments in different companies like Monsanto. They also hold the world’s largest companies such as: JPMorgan Chase & Co., a multinational banking and financial services holding company headquartered in New York City. (Chase used to be fully controlled by the Rockefellers). It is the largest bank in the United States, the world’s third largest bank by total assets, with total assets of roughly U.S.$2.5 trillion, and the world’s most valuable bank by market capitalisation. Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, State Street Corporation, Capital Research Global Investors, and FMR (Fidelity) are all the key owners of – well, essentially the world. One could hazard to say that just four companies control all the big banks and all the major companies on the planet.

Enter Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller’s political adviser since 1954, and since then involved in every major Rockefeller project. Heinz Alfred ‘Henry’ Kissinger obtained a Ph.D. at Harvard University in 1954. His interest was on Castelreagh and Metternich – two empire builders. He devoted his life to sublimate them.

In an incendiary, studiedly defamatory book the late Christopher Hitchens described him as “a mediocre and opportunist academic [intent on] becoming an international potentate. The signature qualities were there from the inaugural moment: the sycophancy and the duplicity; the power worship and the absence of scruple; the empty trading of old non-friends for new non-friends. And the distinctive effects were also present: the uncounted and expendable corpses; the official and unofficial lying about the cost; the heavy and pompous pseudo-indignation when unwelcome questions were asked. Kissinger’s global career started as it meant to go on. It debauched the American republic and American democracy, and it levied a hideous toll of casualties on weaker and more vulnerable societies.” (For a quieter view, nevertheless no less severe, see: Seymour M. Hersch, The Price of Power: Kissinger in the Nixon White House, Simon & Schuster, New York, N.Y., 1983).

The story is all there: from the martyrdom of Indochina to becoming the real backchannel to Moscow on behalf of his new client: Donald J. Trump.

In time Kissinger became intimate adviser to David and the other four Rockefeller brothers. Undoubtedly he knew the history of the Rockefeller family. That relationship tells a million stories about Kissinger’s character and the company he chose.

In death of David Rockefeller Kissinger displayed his servility to, more than admiration for, his all-life benefactor. On 30 March 2017 Kissinger than what could be justly called a love letter for David who had died the day before.

It is dutiful and noble to honour the old saying: De mortuis nihil nisi bonum, but one should always find a limit in good taste. The praise begins with the title of the article requested of The Washington Post: “Henry Kissinger: My friend David Rockefeller, a man who served the world.”

The article opens with the words: “In an egalitarian society such as America, the inheritance of great wealth presents a complex challenge. In an autocratic world, status provides an automatic legitimacy.” But what matters is the title given to the tribute: “ … Rockefeller, a man who served the world.” There follows a cascade of unctuousness.

As already mentioned, the Rockefeller fortune is based on oil around companies such as Exxon-Mobil, Chevron and others.

Kissinger secretly manipulated Middle East diplomacy in 1973 to trigger an Arab O.P.E.C oil embargo. The ‘Arab oil shock’ of 1973-74 was orchestrated by a secretive organisation David Rockefeller set up in the 1950s and known as Bilderberg Group. In May 1973 David Rockefeller and the heads of the major American and English oil majors met in Saltsjoebaden, Sweden at the annual Bilderberg Meeting to plan the oil shock. It would be blamed on “greedy Arab oil sheikhs.” It saved the falling U.S. dollar, and made Wall Street banks, including David Rockefeller’s Chase Manhattan, into the world’s largest and wealthiest banks. (W. F. Engdahl, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order, Progressive Press, San Diego, CA, 2012)

In the 1970s, in one of his dicta, Kissinger thus summed up David Rockefeller’s world strategy: “If you control the oil, you control entire nations; if you control food, you control the people; if you control money, you control the entire world.”

David Rockefeller could very well have afforded such brutal view.

Speaking of an unseen, powerful network some call ‘the Deep State’, one might say David Rockefeller saw himself as Patriarch of that Deep State. His true acts deserve to be honestly seen for what they were – misanthropic and not philanthropic. (F. William Engdahl, D. Rockefeller’s gruesome legacy).

The third paragraph of Kissinger’s tribute to David Rockefeller opens with the words: “Character and integrity were the sources of David’s inspiration.”

In the 1970s Kissinger, by then head of the U.S. National Security Council, prepared  the  National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests (NSSM200). Commissioned in substance by the Rockefeller brothers, it was completed on 10 December 1974; it was  adopted as official U.S. policy by President Gerald Ford in November 1975. It was originally classified, but was later declassified and obtained by researchers in the early 1990s. (National Security Study Memorandum, PDF file, THE KISSINGER REPORT).

The basic thesis of the memorandum was that population growth in the least developed countries – and NSSM200 named 13 of them: India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Turkey, Nigeria, Egypt, Ethiopia, Mexico, Colombia and Brazil – is a concern to United States national security, because it would tend to risk civil unrest and political instability in countries which had a high potential for economic development. The policy gave “paramount importance” to population control measures and the promotion of contraception among those thirteen countries to control rapid population growth that the United States deemed inimical to the socio-political and economic growth of those countries and to the national interests of the United States since the “U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad” and those countries could produce destabilising opposition forces against, and “national security threat” to, the United States.

The memorandum recommended for U.S. leadership “to influence national leaders” and that “improved world-wide support for population-related efforts should be sought through increased emphasis on mass media and other population education and motivation programs by the UN, USIA, and USAID.”

The named countries were projected to create 47 per cent of all world population growth. The memorandum advocated the promotion of education and contraception and other population control: “No country has reduced its population growth without resorting to abortion.” It also raises the question of whether the U.S. should consider preferential allocation of surplus food supplies to states deemed constructive in use of population control measures.

As F. W. Engdahl wrote, the NSSM-200 prepared by Kissinger “argued high population growth in developing nations with strategic raw materials like oil or minerals were a US “national security threat” as more population demands national economic growth, using those resources internally (sic!). NSSM-200 made developing world population reduction programs a precondition of US aid.” (D. Rockefeller’s Gruesome Legacy, by F. William Engdahl, The death of David Rockefeller, the de facto Patriarch of the American …).

Kissinger summed up both the ‘philosophy’ of the memorandum and David Rockefeller’s world strategy with the already seen tight ‘reasoning’: “If you control the oil, you control entire nations; if you control food, you control the people; if you control money, you control the entire world.” Only Kissinger could find that an ‘elegant reasoning’.

David Rockefeller controlled money alright. He was chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank – the family bank. He was responsible for getting Chase Vice President, Paul Volcker, to become President Carter’s Federal Reserve chairman to make the Volcker interest rate shock that again, like the oil shock, saved the falling U.S. dollar and Wall Street bank profits, including Chase Manhattan, at the expense of the world economy.

Volcker’s October 1979 interest rate ‘shock therapy’, supported by Rockefeller, created the 1980s “Third World Debt Crisis.” Rockefeller and Wall Street used that debt crisis to force state privatisations and drastic national currency devaluations in countries such as Argentina, Brazil and Mexico. Rockefeller and friends such as George Soros then gained the crown jewels of those three countries at dirt cheap prices.

The model was much like the British banks used in the Ottoman Empire after 1881 when they de facto took control of the finances of the Sultan by controlling all tax revenues through the Ottoman Public Debt Administration. Rockefeller interests used the 1980s debt crisis to loot much of the indebted Latin America and African countries, using the I.M.F. as their policeman. David Rockefeller was personal friends to some of the more savage military dictators in Latin America including General Jorge Videla in Argentina and General Augusto Pinochet in Chile, both of whom owed their future fortune to C.I.A. coups arranged by the then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger on behalf of Rockefeller family interests in Latin America.

As Kissinger remembered in his love letter to David Rockefeller, after having “encouraged a discussion group, which later [in May 1954] was developed into what is now known as the Bilderberg Group, an annual meeting of European and American leaders to explore their challenges and common purposes, [a] decade later, David called on me.” At the time Kissinger was Secretary of State, and David wanted “to inform me that, in the view of some of the colleagues he had brought with him, the scope of U.S. foreign policy needed broadening. A truly global study to include Asia was required for that challenge. His associates, in fact, included Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale and Zbigniew Brzezinski; in other words, a government in exile waiting to replace the [Nixon] administration in which I served. But David’s combination of dedication and innocence was such that the thought never took hold. Instead, [in 1973] I became a founding member of the Trilateral Commission, which thrives to this day.”

Through organisations such as [Rockefeller’s] Trilateral Commission, ostensibly to foster closer cooperation among North America, Western Europe, and Japan, David Rockefeller was the foremost architect of the destruction of national economies and advancing so-called Globalisation, a policy which mainly benefited and still benefits the largest banks of Wall Street, of the City of London and of select global corporations – the same which became funding  members of the Trilateral Commission. Rockefeller set up the Trilateral Commission in 1973 and assigned his close friend Zbigniew Brzezinski to the duty of choosing its members in those countries.

As F. W. Engdhal concluded: “If we speak of an unseen, powerful network some call the Deep State, we might say David Rockefeller saw himself as Patriarch of that Deep State. His true acts deserve to be honestly seen for what they were – misanthropic and not philanthropic.” (D. Rockefeller’s gruesome legacy, 31 March 2017).

Kissinger would disagree of course. Of the “man who served the world” he would say:

“Service was one facet of David’s life. Devotion to his family was its equal. In 1979, when the Shah of Iran was being exiled, some close friends appealed to David to help find refuge for a ruler who had demonstrated his friendship with America in various international crises. David regretfully refused because of his obligation to Chase Bank.” (Not quite so, actually). Rockefeller helped the Shah, despite any negative commercial consequence to Chase Bank. What Kissinger fails to mention is a little detail: the Shah was exiled from Iran during the 1979 revolution because he was a puppet of the American administration, having been installed through a coup d’état against the government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. Mossadegh was the head of a democratically elected government, holding office as the Prime Minister of Iran from 1951 until 1953, when his government was overthrown in the coup jointly organised by the Central Intelligence Agency and the United Kingdom’s Secret Intelligence Service.  Undeterred by the truth, Kissinger continued and concluded: “… David assumed the task and helped the Shah find refuge, first in Mexico, then in Panama, regardless of the commercial impact of the decision.

David would often mention departed friends with whom he had shared part of his life. They would merge in his recital as if still part of a continuing, never-ending effort. Now, as he joins their number, he will be in our mind as a permanent part of our life, and to our country he will remain a reminder that our ultimate legacy will be service and values, not personal ambitions.” One can hear in the background a noisy crescendo by a Hollywood gigantic orchestra.

The best chance to become a political adviser, and given the reputation that Kissinger built and cultivated during the following twenty years, came to Kissinger at the time of the 1968 presidential campaign. If one pays attention to the careful biography by Walter Isaacson (Kissinger, a biography, Simon & Schuster, New York, 2005) Kissinger had been openly and un-characteristically for him spoken quite scathingly about Nixon. But he changed his mind when it appeared as though Nixon might win. He had been until then allied with Democratic candidate Hubert Humphrey. Suddenly he began to ingratiate himself with the Nixon camp. According to Stanley Karnow’s Vietnam: A History (Penguin Books, New York, 1992) he even began clandestinely to supply the Nixon campaign with information about Humphrey’s plans.

Nixon realised that he had found his consigliere.

Continued Wednesday …

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

5 comments

Login here Register here
  1. Alpo

    In my view it is misleading to look for the roots of Anglo-Saxon eugenics into Nazism. The idea that the White Race is superior is very old in the Anglo-Saxon world (and in other ethnic groups as well, not just the Anglo-Saxons) and it was widespread as part of colonialism and then the emergent capitalism, Nazism just took the concept to stratospheric madness.

    In any event, your article exposes American Imperialism…. what’s new?

  2. Andrew Smith

    Interesting, though sometimes difficult to highlight or mention Rockefeller without the protective reflex of ‘conspiracy theory’ to shut down scrutiny (imagine a communication strategy they encouraged themselves).

    However, along with the salient facts presented, there is more, e.g. Kaiser Wilhelm Institute support, also had the Ford Foundation supporting, post WWII Mengele’s boss Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer was in same orbit including membership of the American Eugenics Society, and also appears that the Population Council morphed into the UN Population Division.

    Not to forget the involvement of US corporates operating in Nazi Germany, IBM, GM and Ford, and even Standard Oil with IG Farben:

    ‘After the Rockefellers, the next largest stockholder in Standard Oil was I.G. Farben, the giant German chemical company. This investment was part of a pattern of reciprocal investments between the U.S. and Germany during the Nazi years.’

    http://web.mit.edu/thistle/www/v13/3/oil.html

    Fast forward to the seventies, scientists e.g. at Exxon Mobil, Peabody Coal etc. became aware of carbon emissions heating up the atmosphere, and socially there were the ‘Rockefeller drug laws’ that targeted minorities; industry and social policies too. More significant, with impact still to this day, ZPG Zero Population Growth was established with founding directors Paul ‘Population Bomb’ Ehrlich, John ‘passive eugenics’ Tanton and Paul ‘Sea Shepherd’ Watson; supported by the Ford, Carnegie and Rockefeller Bros. Foundations.

    The impact of ZPG and linking immigration with population hence environmental degradation kicked off, went dormant then erupted again round the time of Obama’s election…. with Kochs taking the mantle more in background ‘architecture’ and ‘dark money’ (we saw the emergence of Sustainable Population Australia etc. too); result was much nobbling of environmental regulation and avoiding blame by the fossil fuel sector.

    In parallel another important event was the Club of Rome wrapped in PR constructs masquerading as science enabling appeals to the centre and left i.e. ‘limits to growth’, ‘carrying capacity’ etc. to blame environmental and several societal issues on ‘population growth’ and of course ‘immigration’, while ignoring fossil fuels and related…. by coincidence, sponsored by Agnelli Fiat/Olivetti family, VW and hosted on the Rockefeller Estate.

    Of late, although credible research supported that even in the seventies it was clear that fertility rates were falling but population still rise for some generations due to better education and health care for women in developing nations.

    The UNPD had been central and used as an authority to claim overly high or even alarmist ‘exponential’ population growth rates, repeated often by media and accepted as a truism. Further, their unannounced redefining of the NOM net overseas migration formula in 2006 used only by Australia, NZ and UK (?, and reason why growth rates cannot be compared globally, as every nation has different ways of calculating population) was primed or even planned to spike in 2007; while creating headlines no journalists seemed to realise the change which conflated temporary turnover described as ‘immigration’ with permanent immigration, creating a statistical spike.

    Recently The Lancet has questioned UN PD data and like other credible research have come up with lower projections and forecasts, not alarming for high numbers but the fear of a population crash affecting budgets etc. (but difficult to accept in the Anglo world as it seems counter intuitive after decades of population growth agitprop)

    ‘The Lancet: World population likely to shrink after mid-century, forecasting major shifts in global population and economic power
    By 2100, projected fertility rates in 183 of 195 countries will not be high enough to maintain current populations without liberal immigration policies….. The new population forecasts contrast to projections of ‘continuing global growth’ by the United Nations Population Division [1], and highlight the huge challenges to economic growth of a shrinking workforce, the high burden on health and social support systems of an ageing population, and the impact on global power linked to shifts in world population.’

    https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-07/tl-pss_1071320.php

    Yes, agree with Alpo different players, different funding and different strategies but the objective always seems to be a return to unfettered 19th century capitalism of robber barons joined at the hip with eugenics aka Brexit and Trump; obviously they assume themselves to be top of the tree and feel liberated in pissing down on everybody else.

  3. Denis Bright in Brisbane

    A well-argued case from the Outsider. Keep up your door-knocking journalistic activies. Didn’t Coca Cola and IBM maintain their commnercial contacts with the Reich after war was declared across Europe and Paris occupied in 1940?

  4. Jack Cade

    Denis Bright in Brisbane

    And one of the lesser known reasons for the USA coming late into WW2 was its insistence that it’s intervention was contingent upon the UK agreeing to dismantle its Empire, and that they pay for any assistance they were given.
    The British were still paying off their war debts to the US of A in the early 2000s, while the ‘losers’, Germany and Japan, flourished with US aid.
    With friends like these…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Return to home page
Scroll Up
%d bloggers like this: