“By getting Ukraine into Nato, we would send the crucial message to the Kremlin, the one Russians really need to hear.
The message is: that’s it. It’s over. You don’t have an empire any more.” …
Putin thought that aggression would pay off.
Boris Johnson, “It’s time to let Ukraine join Nato”, The Spectator, 21 September 2024
——
When Joe Biden decided to instruct Volodmyr Zelensky to not sign the peace agreement that had been negotiated between Ukraine and Russia in Istanbul in April 2022 (which agreement was far more favorable to Ukraine than anything that might be negotiated today), Biden sent UK’s Boris Johnson as the messenger to deliver his private command; and, of course, Zelensky — who was merely the latest stooge-leader of Ukraine after the U.S.-UK-Israel empire took it over in February 2014 — obeyed his foreign master.
Here’s the documenation for that (just click onto it, and you will see that this WAS Joe Biden’s private command to Zelensky, via his messenger, Johnson — and that this U.S.-UK command to Zelensky is what prevented the war from stopping, and thus has caused perhaps millions more deaths and casualties there, after that time).
Boris’s message to Zelensky was couched in the argument that if Zelensky were to sign that document (which had been approved by Zelensky’s own team), then the United States would no longer provide assistance to Ukraine, and that any agreement between Ukraine and Russia would then mean that Ukraine would thereby become a part of — as Boris claimed today’s Russia to be — an enemy empire, it would become also The West’s enemy: the enemy of ‘democracy’ — the enemy of the U.S.-UK-Israeli empire itself, as the U.S.-UK-Israel team (falsely) define ‘democracy’.
Ever since Ukraine was grabbed by Obama’s coup in February 2014, the country has been no longer the independent nation that Ukraine had been during 1990-2014, but instead a colony of the U.S. So, Boris Johnson’s threat to Zelensky in April 2022 was very much like George W. Bush’s famous 16 February 2002 command to the world’s nations, “Either you’re with us, or you’re against us.” But this command in April 2022 to Ukraine was coming from Joe Biden — not from Bush.
The reality is that (despite Boris Johnson’s calling today’s Russia an “empire” and calling Russia’s invasion of Ukraine “aggression”) the only actual post-World-War-Two EMPIRE is the U.S.-UK-Israel empire, and this empire started on 25 July 1945 its primary objective of capturing Russia, and of using Ukraine’s pro-Nazis to help in capturing Russia. So, this war in Ukraine has had this 80-year careful preparation, even though it reached the present stage — this hot war in Ukraine — only under President Obama in 2014 (the person who grabbed Ukraine for the U.S. empire). And as for Johnson’s saying that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022 in response to America’s and NATO’s threat that Ukraine would be accepted into NATO was “aggression,” I ask: was JFK the aggressor when he threatened to invade Cuba if the Soviet Union wouldn’t stop its plan to place its missiles in Cuba in 1962? (Khrushchev stopped it; so, there was no U.S. invasion to take over Cuba; but America and its NATO, and Ukraine, did NOT stop; so, Russia invaded Ukraine, to FORCE a stop to this threat (because the U.S. and its NATO refused to stop peacefully their threat to Russia). That invasion by Russia was purely defensive on Russia’s part — defensive against America, NATO, and Ukraine, who were threatening a nuclear-blitz decapitation of Russia’s central command, much as the Soviet Union in 1962 had threatened a nuclear-blitz decapitation of America’s central command.)
Boris Johnson’s accusing today’s Russia of imperialism is like a Zionist accusing a Palestinian of bigotry. In fact, Johnson IS a Zionist (a hater of Palestinians — though he would never admit that himself). (He just calls himself “a passionate Zionist”, instead). And so he has never said even a word to oppose Israel’s genocide against Gazans. He opposes BOTH the two-state solution and the one-state solution — he opposes ANY solution EXCEPT the FINAL solution to “the Palestinian problem.” (He calls this “defeat Hamas.”) And, so, as a passionate imperialist, himself, he naturally opposes the ‘Russian empire’, which doesn’t even exist; Russia is only Russia — no empire. Johnson does this because he’s an agent of the U.S.-UK-Israel empire — which really DOES exist, and aspires to take over the entire world (most especially Russia).
Boris Johnson’s personal hero is, in fact, Winston Churchill, who was a protégé of Cecil Rhodes, who in 1877 had invented the “Special Relationship” idea, that UK must secretly reconquer (absorb) America again into the English empire, so as to regain the capacity to continue expanding the English empire till it encompasses the whole world. And Johnson was himself a Rhodes Scholar; everyone who becomes one must first be approved by the Rhodes Trust’s interviewer, who is looking for individuals who want to — and have the capacity to — help further expand the English empire. However, the Rhodes Trust’s published requirements say nothing of the sort, but instead list such requirements as “Moral force of character and instincts to lead, and to take an interest in one’s fellow human beings,” and “we are seeking in Rhodes Scholars people who aspire to and will take action. Tell us what you imagine might be your way of making a contribution” — so, in this private interview, the questions and focus might be on what the printed requirements DON’T even LIST).
To know better what those attributes are that the interviewer would be seeking: Rhodes did say that (and here is from the authoritative document on this, The Last Will and Testament of Cecil J. Rhodes, 1902; and this is what and who had established the Rhodes Trust):
p. 59 [“His Writings” at around 1877] “I contend that we are the first race in the world, and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race. I contend that every acre added to our territory means the birth of more of the English race who otherwise would not be brought into existence. Added to this, the absorption of the greater portion of the world under our rule simply means the end of all wars. … [He then discusses his main goals:] The furtherance of the British Empire, for the bringing of the whole uncivilised world under British rule, for the recovery of the United States, for the making the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire. What a dream! but yet it is probable. It is possible. … I once heard it argued, so low have we fallen in my own college [Oxford], I am sorry to own it, by Englishmen, that it was a good thing for us that we have lost the United States. There are some subjects on which there can be no argument, and to an Englishman this is one of them. But even from an American’s point of view just picture what they have lost. All this we have lost and that country has lost owing to whom? Owing to two or three ignorant, pigheaded statesmen in the last century [1700s]. At their door is the blame. Do you ever feel mad, do you ever feel murderous? I think I do with these men [supporters of the U.S. Constitution].”
pp. 73-74 [“His Writings” date unclear] “What an awful thought it is that if we had not lost America, or if even now we could arrange with the present members of the United States Assembly and our House of Commons, the peace of the world is secured for all eternity! We could hold your federal parliament five years at Washington and five at London. The only thing feasible to carry this idea out is a secret one (society) gradually absorbing the wealth of the world to be devoted to such an object. There is Hirsch with twenty millions, very soon to cross the unknown border, and struggling in the dark to know what to do with his money; and so one might go on ad infinitum … a scheme to take the government of the whole world!”
pp. 147-149 [“Political and Religious Ideas” dated 1884] “The proposed settlement of Bechuanaland is based on the exclusion of colonists of Dutch descent. I raise my voice in most solemn protest against such a course, and it is the duty of every Englishman in the House to record his solemn protest against it. In conclusion, I wish to say that the breach of solemn pledges and the introduction of race distinctions must result in bringing calamity on this country; and if such a policy is pursued it will endanger the whole of our social relationships with colonists of Dutch descent, and endanger the supremacy of Her Majesty in this country. … I have made up my mind that there must be class legislation, that there must be Pass Laws and Peace Preservation Acts, and that we have got to treat natives, where they are in a state of barbarism, in a different way to ourselves. We are to be lords over them. These are my politics on native affairs, and these are the politics of South Africa. Treat the natives as a subject people as long as they continue in a state of barbarism and communal tenure; be the lords over them, and let them be a subject race and keep the liquor from them.”
That book’s focus on the “Last Will and Testament” ignored the First Will and Testament, other than to say (p. 61): “This first will contains the master thought of Rhodes’s life, the thought to which he clung with invincible tenacity to his dying day.” The complete 1877 Will was not published complete until the great biography Cecil Rhodes by John Flint was published in 1974, and this first Will, published there as that biography’s Appendix, stated:
Why should we not form a secret society with but one object the furtherance of the British Empire and the bringing of the whole uncivilised world under British rule for the recovery of the United States for the making the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire. What a dream, but yet it is probable. … I contend that there are at the present moment numbers of the ablest men in the world who woulld devote their whole lives to it. …
For fear that death might cut me off before the time for attempting its development, I leave all my wordly goods in trust … at the time of my death to try to form such a Society with such an object.
There it’s “from the horse’s mouth.” Those interviewers are violating their founder’s trust if they fail to adhere to his intentions — the founder’s intentions. I have seen no indication that there has ever been any such violation.
The U.S. Government finally got snagged up into Rhodes’s scheme, by the ignoramus U.S. President Harry Truman on 25 July 1945. Truman actually led the Rhodes-engineered “Special Relationship” (as Churchill named it), and he created Israel on 14 May 1948 (the Nakba started the next day); Truman also defanged his anti-imperialist predecessor President FDR’s plan for the U.N., to make it the mere talking-forum that it became. Whereas Rhodes’s plan was for his Anglo-American empire to dictate and enforce its global international-rules based order, FDR’s plan was for his democratic U.N. global federal republic of all nations to global-democratically create and enforce the U.N.’s international-laws based order. Truman’s U.N. is only the surviving vestige of what had been FDR’s far more vigorous plan for the U.N. Truman did it (though he didn’t know why) so that the global goal that Rhodes had institutionalized, an all-inclusive Anglo-American dictatorship, will be achieved. Truman surrounded himself with Rhodesists, though he knew nothing of Rhodes himself. People such as Boris Johnson (and all U.S. Presidents after FDR except JFK) are in the tradition of Rhodes and Churchill, intrinsically hostile to the tradition that FDR had hoped to start. (Truman, in fact, privately despised his immediate predecessor, and replaced FDR’s entire Cabinet within just 2 years — and almost all of it within only his first year. And FDR had privately loathed Churchill’s imperialism, just as Churchill had loathed FDR’s opposition to imperialism.)
If you are at all surprised or in disagreement with any of the statements I’ve made here, please cick onto the link wherever you doubt or reject the veracity here, and you will learn a lot that you don’t yet know, about the relevant history. (That is why these links are provided.)
Comments