How America Changed from Being the World’s Leading Democratic Nation under FDR, to Being the World’s Leading Nazi Nation under Obama

Eric Zuesse

America has changed fundamentally since — and away from — the values that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt represented both in his words, and in his actions (that’s to say, in his actual decisions, his choices, as the U.S. President). Though President Barack Obama isn’t radically different from FDR in his words, he’s almost the opposite of FDR in his real governing values and decisions, his real leadership of the United States.

Unfortunately, most people see politics only by words, and ignore realities. But, in some important respects (his actions, his decisions), Barack Obama is — and I hate to say this — actually closer to FDR’s enemies, Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, than to FDR. This is true not only regarding the contrast between FDR’s moving America away from enormous wealth-inequality, versus Obama’s moving America toward even higher wealth-inequality than before; it’s yet more starkly exhibited in the international policies of these two post-economic-crash U.S. Presidents, as will be demonstrated here.

FDR was viscerally and actively anti-fascist and anti-nazi, whereas Obama simply is not. FDR was anti-aristocracy; Obama is pro-aristocracy. FDR was pro equal-rights; Obama is actually anti equal-rights. That’s the reality, not the rhetoric.

So, first, here’s FDR:

Roosevelt believed strongly in equality of rights for all people, even more so than did Winston Churchill, who was a supremacist as regards the alleged special ‘right’ of the British people to rule over the people in India and throughout the remaining colonies of the British Empire. (FDR opposed all empires.) The third member of World War II’s Allied troika of anti-fascists and of anti-nazis, Joseph Stalin, wasn’t merely an imperialist like Churchill was — he didn’t even believe in democracy at all, not even for his own people. In fact, before Hitler invaded Stalin’s USSR in “Operation Barbarossa” on 22 June 1941, Stalin was allied with Hitler. However, Stalin wasn’t a nazi, nor even a fascist at all: he was a communist. He rejected capitalism, he didn’t reject only democracy.

So, let’s first clarify the terms, in order to understand what it means to say that America has changed, from democracy to fascism, and now even to nazism:

Fascism is dictatorship by and for capitalists; i.e., for the owners of corporations, for the controlling stockholders in the biggest firms; that’s to say, for the aristocracy. Mussolini, the first person to establish a fascist government, once defined fascism that way, and approvingly called it also “corporationism.” He believed in privatizing state assets, which he did in 1922-25; see Germa Bel’s “The First Privatization: Selling SOEs,” in the 2011 Cambridge Journal of Economics. (Also here.) Then, Hitler took up privatization; see Bel’s “Against the Mainstream: Nazi Privatization in 1930s Germany,” in the 2010 Economic History Review. Chile’s Pinochet, England’s Thatcher, and America’s Reagan, weren’t the first privatizers: privatization went all the way back to fascism’s very founding. It merely became revived after ‘libertarianism’ (which was actually invented by fascist aristocrats — primarily the DuPonts — in the 1930s) blossomed after WWII, because (their beloved) fascism had developed a bad reputation after losing that global war.

Nazism (with a small n, “nazi”; not the German party, which was “Nazi”) is simply racist fascism (the racist form of fascism). Not all fascists are racists: for examples, Italy’s Mussolini wasn’t a racist, and Spain’s Franco also wasn’t. They weren’t opposed to racism; they simply weren’t concerned about it at all. Just as fascism that’s spelled with a small f is the ideology  instead of being the political party  that started it (in Italy); nazism with a small n is the ideology rather than the political party that started that ideology (in Germany).

There are fascists throughout the world, just as there are nazis throughout the world. And, the particular type of supremacism (or “racism”) that different nazis spout, can differ from country to country; so that, for example, nazis from one country can even go to war against nazis from another country, because they want global supremacy for different groups of people.

Similarly, different nazisms might have different hatreds, different types of bigotries: Germany’s nazis during the 1930s hated Jews the most, whereas Ukraine’s nazis hate Russians the most. And, if, in WWII, Germany’s Hitler and Japan’s Tojo had won control respectively of the West and the East, then a war between those two nazis, Hitler and Tojo, might have resulted, in order to subordinate the one of them to the other of them. Nazi countries can, and sometimes do, go to war against each other.

So: basically, nazism is racist fascism. It’s also — and more precisely — known as supremacist fascism. A good example of a fascist who was not a supremacist is Spain’s Franco.

Another way to think of nazism is as its being extremist fascism; and, in this sense, we today know of ISIS and Al Qaeda as Islamic nazi groups, or as Islamic supremacist-fascist groups. Everyone knows that they are also extremists.

Mussolini’s teacher, Vilfredo Pareto, was called “the Karl Marx of fascism,” and his core message was that the democratic belief that each person has the same rights is false; that there is a natural hierarchy; and that inferiors naturally exist for the benefit of their superiors. This attitude is at its most extreme in nazis, all the way from Hitler to ISIS; it extends to all supremacists.

Whereas peace can exist among democracies, nazisms are always at war; it’s their nature; it is their essence, because they are supremacists. They demand their own supremacy. (In America, some nazis are called “Dominionists.” It’s just a form of supremacism.) That’s why nazis tend to be especially attracted to war: war truly is their natural condition.

Regarding the other two types of dictatorships: Fascisms and communisms aren’t necessarily always at war: for examples, Spain’s Franco was peaceful after winning power, and Cuba’s Castro could have been peaceful if the U.S. hadn’t been constantly trying to overthrow him. There is nothing intrinsically supremacist about either fascism or communism, though both tend toward a certain amount of supremacism, because they both deny equality of rights; but nazism is intrinsically supremacist; nazism is supremacism; supremacism is nazism. By contrast, a mere fascist can be satisfied to be supreme only at home, without extending it abroad to dominate the entire world.

Nazism is the most dangerous ideology that exists. It is the most extreme denial of equality of rights. It is the most extreme denial of democracy. It doesn’t just say that aristocrats are superior; it says that everyone else should be their slaves, or else dead. It is the most extreme embodiment of Pareto’s view.

Screen shot 2014-10-13 at 12.30.35 PM

Now, we get to today’s America, and to U.S. President Barack Obama, his actions not his mere words:

The current government in Ukraine is nazi. (Look at the photos there, and, in the very opening frames, you will see even their swastikas, photos of Hitler, and other nazi symbols.)

Obama installed this Ukrainian regime in February 2014. The people who carried the coup out were nazis. Essential to stabilizing Obama’s new regime was killing or else expelling as many as possible of the people who had voted for the man whom Obama overthrew, Viktor Yanukovych. (The reason this was done was that, otherwise, any future nationwide Ukrainian election would produce yet another nationwide leader of the type that Obama overthrew: someone who didn’t hate Russians. Those voters thus had to be eliminated.) The areas in Ukraine that had elected Yanukovych into office are shown in this map. During the recent civil war, which extended from May 2 of this year through August, the dark blue areas on that map are also where Obama’s coup-imposed Ukrainian Government concentrated their bombings; and, you can see that the people in those strongly pro-“Janukovych” areas had voted over 90% for this person whom Obama’s State Department and CIA overthrew, against “Tymoshenko.” The objective was to keep the land (to station missiles against neighboring Russia, and to frack gas), but to get rid of its residents (who were waste-people, in Obama’s view).

Obama’s people freed Julia Tymoshenko from prison at the height of the coup, on February 22nd, and she immediately entered the new Presidential race as Obama’s preferred candidate to replace Janukovych. She lost, though the election (held on May 25th of this year) occurred only in the areas of Ukraine that had voted for Tymoshenko in Ukraine’s final democratic election that was held throughout Ukraine, which was the Presidential election in 2010, the election that Yanukovych (the man Obama overthrew in 2014) won against Tymoshenko.

The reason she lost was that even the residents in northwestern Ukraine, the anti-Russian half of Ukraine, found her to be too extreme, because by then the fact became clear that she wanted to slaughter all Russians. That goal was too extreme even for most of Tymoshenko’s former supporters, but it wasn’t too extreme for Obama; he wanted it, because he needed such anti-Russian hatred from the leaders of his new regime, in order for them to stabilize it as being rabidly anti-Russian, by means of eliminating enough of the people who had voted against her — for Yanukovych — in 2010.

Obama’s agent who appointed the new rulers in Ukraine was Victoria Nuland. Inasmuch as the recorded phone-conversation in which she issued the order was uploaded (by some anonymous person) to youtube on February 4th, which was well ahead of the February 22nd coup; and inasmuch as Nuland there selected “Yats,” Arseniy Yatsenyuk, to become the country’s new Prime Minister, to run Ukraine until his sponsor Tymoshenko would presumably be ‘elected’ (by voters in the anti-Russian northeast) to become the (entire) country’s President and then take over, and inasmuch as “Yats” did immediately then become appointed as the Prime Minister once the coup occurred, and did run the Government thereafter, it’s clear that Obama wrote the script, or at least he approved it, that was being staged in this new Ukraine. And he publicly backed the new leadership — these nazis — to the hilt.

The EU immediately sent Urmas Paet to Kiev to investigate what had happened there to produce this sudden change of power; and, in yet another anonymously recorded phone-conversation, Paet reported to the EU’s Foreign Affairs and Security chief, Catherine Ashton, that Obama’s side had perpetrated a bloody coup there. I have posted a complete transcript of that stunning conversation, in which all of its cryptic references are explained for ordinary readers: both Paet and Ashton were simply shocked, but they accepted Obama’s leadership, and did their jobs for their paymasters. (That transcript is the mid-portion, “Perpetrating Ethnic Cleansing Abroad,” here, the section of the article that’s entirely in italics).

And the result of that new Government was the ethnic-cleansing program to get rid of the voters in the southeast. However, that program had to be aborted because Ukraine started running out of funds in late June, and Obama and the IMF stopped lending the regime more money soon thereafter, because Kiev’s troops were being slaughtered despite the billions that had already been spent by U.S. and IMF taxpayers to support this ethnic cleansing.

The reason Obama lost his war in Ukraine isn’t that his people were short of money and of troops, but was instead that they had expected — as the new President, the oligarch Petro Poroshenko, promised in his victory-statement in Kiev on May 26th — to win the war within only “hours not months”; and, so, now, months later, after increasing losses and desertions from his army, as his troops discovered that they were just slaughtering civilians, not really killing “terrorists” like they had been told, their morale was bad, and was getting worse, throughout Ukraine’s military, except amongst the relatively few nazis among them, their few fighters who just loved to kill anyone in the country’s ethnically Russian areas. Furthermore, the more that Poroshenko’s forces bombed the residents in the southeast, the more that these residents took up arms; and, so, the best that Obama’s forces could reasonably hope for would be a long, dragged-out, guerilla war, which almost always produces defeat for the invaders — here, it would be defeat for Obama’s side — just pouring more money down an endless rat-hole.

The reason Obama had tried his war in Ukraine is complex; and I have written about that on several occasions, such as here, and here, and here.

However, perhaps the best article about this is one from Andrew Korybko, titled “The Source of Obama’s Foreign Policies.” Korybko traces the development of American governmental nazism back as far as 1949, in the CIA.

Even more thorough is the BBC’s still-definitive 1992 two-hour-and-twenty-five-minute documentary “Operation Gladio,” which operation started in 1945, as the OSS’s (pre-CIA’s) “X-2,” to recruit ‘former’ nazis, both in Western Europe and especially in Eastern Europe, recruiting people (especially in Eastern Europe) whose special passion was hatred of Russians. This operation was headed by James Jesus Angleton, who worked under Allen Dulles, who worked under Bill Donovan. Angleton’s idea was stated as follows in the BBC documentary (10:25), “Then, Jim Angleton appeared [in Rome] in August [1945]. He began recruiting fascists, because he figured that the best way to control the communists was to hire fascists.” Top European aristocrats who had been overseeing the searching-down and killing of anti-fascists or of “partisans,” were now being hired by the CIA in order to recruit anti-communists and to penetrate the USSR’s KGB (their CIA) – and also (like with Werner von Braun) to help design America’s weapons against the USSR. Basically, extreme nationalists throughout Eastern Europe were brought into this operation, which continues to the present day in the CIA. Ukraine was a big focus. George Soros is part of the Gladio operation, and so is Zbigniew Brzezinski, both of whom were born in Eastern Europe and were/are rabidly anti-Russian — not only anti-communist — throughout their lives. Barack Obama has sought out people such as that, to advise him on foreign policy and tactics. We just pay the taxes to fund their operations. We are their tools, just as the people who do the killing and the dying are, but not nearly as much as they.

Almost all of the Gladio operatives either come from aristocratic families or else have long served aristocratic families, and they possess excellent contacts, via the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Bilderberg meetings. They benefit greatly by enhancing the global dominance of America’s aristocracy, over the aristocracies in all other countries. After all, aristocrats have lots of money: they can afford to pay lavishly. And this service is extremely important to them. The pay is terrific, and the prestige is top-notch.

However, President Obama isn’t just a drone for America’s aristocrats: he is an innovator; he has extended this anti-Russian nazism into a field where no such thing had ever been done before: he is the first U.S. President to go so far as to arrange a coup to install outright nazis into the leadership of any country. He’s applying this tactic (installation of nazis), essentially, because only nazis possess the hatred that’s needed for an ethnic cleansing, and ethnic cleansing was his chief immediate goal after his coup’s success. That’s why the CIA hired Ukraine’s nazis as the shock-troops of their coup in Ukraine.

Basically, it’s as if the Soviet Union had, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, succeeded in taking over Cuba and then planting nuclear missiles there. Obama took over a part of Ukraine, like the USSR took over almost all of Cuba; but he won’t get the other half. He’ll never get as far as Khrushchev did with Cuba (and which Obama was trying to copy): placing nuclear missiles at his enemy’s very doorstep.

The losers, of course, are the publics everywhere; but especially, in the present case, the public in southeastern Ukraine; and, secondarily, in northeastern Ukraine. Taxpayers throughout Europe and the U.S. will foot the bills for the enormous financial losses from this escapade, but the Russian public will also suffer substantial losses. The Russian aristocracy has also lost considerable wealth, because of the international sanctions. Obama wanted to punish Russia more, but this is all that he’s likely to get.

And, of course, the entire Crimea issue has been misrepresented in the West, as if it were Putin instead of Obama who was trying to rape the Crimeans, and Obama instead of Putin who was actually protecting them. High American public officials now lie routinely.

Thus, over a period of decades, the United States has changed from being the world’s leading progressive nation — the leading democracy — to being the world’s leading nazi nation: actually exporting nazism — and lying to do it.

This has been a bipartisan U.S. aristocratic endeavor. Of course, Republicans have been strongly supportive of the change, because they loathe FDR and progressivism in general. However, at the very top, Presidential, level, the Democratic Party has also been increasingly taken over by fascists, and, now, clearly, by nazis; so, at that level, both Parties are nazi.

In fact, if the U.S. were to lose its Russia-hating foreign policy, then NATO would be simply disbanded, because hating Russia is NATO’s core. It’s all that’s left, after the international conflict between capitalism and communism ended. All that’s left of it is nazism that’s directed against Russians — bigotry against Russians. That’s NATO, today: an international military alliance of anti-Russian bigots. America doesn’t only continue that alliance; America leads it.

And America’s aristocracy sells it lots of weapons, from their weapons-plants.

President Obama’s speech at West Point, on 28 May 2014 (less than a month after he started Ukraine’s ethnic cleansing), made clear his supremacism — and even his rationalization for it — addressing the graduating cadets as follows: “Here’s my bottom line:  America must always lead on the world stage. If we don’t, no one else will.” Obama alleged: “Russia’s aggression toward former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe, while China’s economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors. From Brazil to India, rising middle classes compete with us.” Our nazi President said: “In Ukraine, Russia’s recent actions recall the days when Soviet tanks rolled into Eastern Europe. But this isn’t the Cold War [he said this after signaling his listeners that it really is but that he’s a ‘liberal’ and so he doesn’t say such hate-mongering things, but they naturally can come to the conclusion themselves]. Our ability to shape world opinion helped isolate Russia right away. Because of American leadership, the world immediately condemned Russian actions; Europe and the G7 joined us to impose sanctions; NATO reinforced our commitment to Eastern European allies; the IMF is helping to stabilize Ukraine’s economy; OSCE monitors brought the eyes of the world to unstable parts of Ukraine.” (He said this after having spent over five billion dollars of U.S. taxpayer funds to destabilize Ukraine and bring about the civil war there.)

One can call that statement by Obama (issued only weeks after his own hyper-“nationalists” in Ukraine had started their civil war with a massacre) “nationalism.” Or one can call it an example of Hitler’s “the Big Lie.” Or one can call it hostile toward Russia, China, Brazil, India, and any other nation where “rising middle classes compete with us.” But, however one characterizes his attitude, it’s certainly not the type that FDR shared; it’s the type that he led this nation to war against.

———-

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010,  and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
This entry was posted in Business / Economics, Energy / Environment, General, Politics / World News and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • wildthang

    From inception when the Russian Revolution got diverted from white to red it has been the main agenda to take them down now it is back to religion all over again. Obama is just a pawn.

  • kimyo

    President Franklin Delano Roosevelt represented both in his words, and in his actions (that’s to say, in his actual decisions, his choices, as the U.S. President).

    The American and British Governments Knew – Down
    to the Day – of the Coming Japanese Attack on Pearl Harbor … And Let
    It Happen to Justify American Entry Into WWII

    It has also recently been discovered that the FDR administration took numerous affirmative steps to ensure that the Japanese attack would be successful. These steps included taking extraordinary measures to hide information from the commanders in Hawaii about the location of Japanese war ships (information of which they would normally be informed), denying their requests to allow them to scout for Japanese ships, and other actions to blind the commanders in Hawaii so that the attacks would succeed

    • cettel

      I ask you, as I asked an earlier person who had made a similar comment:

      If there had been no Pearl Harbor, then Hitler would have won the war.

      You are blaming FDR for doing what was essential for him to do.

      Are you pro-Nazi? Or are you merely stupid? That’s a serious question, and I hope that you will try to explain the comment that you made here.

      • kimyo

        when viewing a photo of jfk or jimmy carter, upon looking into their eyes, i see nobility.

        i simply cannot find it in me to think of fdr as you do, as a noble man.

        a man who could have picked up the phone and saved virtually all of the thousands who perished at pearl harbor, yet chose not to do so is not a man of honor.

        he paved the way for future use of terror to motivate americans. he destroyed democracy as much or more than even bush/cheney/obama.

        i see cheney’s eyes when i view a photo of fdr.

        fdr’s obligation was to go to the american people and convince them with his voice and words.

  • Heng Yong

    What puzzles me is that even many alternative media are still caught in the web of official lies. How can
    one call FDR democratic and contrast him to Hitler and Moussolini? FDR lied the US population into war, against their will. He deceived and betrayed his people by permitting Pearl Harbor to happen. His insisting on unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan killed hundreds of thousands on both sides. He collaborated with Stalin, one of the worst war criminals ever. Were FDR and Churchill really better than Hitler and Moussolini? Or were they just victorious and could therefore write history?

    • cettel

      If there had been no Pearl Harbor, then Hitler would have won the war.

      You are blaming FDR for doing what was essential for him to do.

      Are you pro-Nazi? Or are you merely stupid? That’s a serious question, and I hope that you will try to explain the comment that you made here.

  • Rehmat

    United States had never been democratic. It has always been a Nazi-style imperialism. It’s built on the bones and blood of tens of millions of Aboriginal and foreigners.

    In the US, no political leader can dream of working for the interests of his own country. They all compete with each other to prove to the Israel lobby groups (AIPAC, ADL, AJC, etc.) that he/she can look after the interests of a foreign country (Israel) better than his/her opponents. Former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney has pulled the mask from the US democratic charade: “There are many Members of Congress who wants to be free. I am one of them. I wanted to be free to vote according to my conscience, but I had been told that if I did not sign a pledge supporting the military superiority of Israel, no support would come my way. And sure enough, I did not sign the pledge and no support came my way. I suffered silently year in and year out, because I refused to sign the pledge. An then like a slave that found a way to buy his freedom – I went to work – I wanted to be free – Free to cast the vote in US Congress as I saw fit and not as I was dictated to…..” – Cynthia McKinney.

    http://rehmat1.com/2010/01/16/it-is-not-a-democracy-stupid/

  • JB

    hahahaha, this “investigative historian” is a joke. At least he didn’t try to claim to be a journalist. I lived in Donetsk for a long time, up until a few months ago, and this guy clearly prefers the fabricated stories of Russian “new stories” then anywhere else. Again, what a complete joke. No wonder he only writes for the well known “washingtonsblog.” Oh wait, is it well known?