and so as for the U.S. Government to establish itself as instead being that (and thereby ultimately replacing those international laws, by what it calls ambiguously “the international rules-based order,” those “rules” being whatever the U.S. Government will say that they are).

U.S. President George W. Bush said to the world’s nations — and instructed America’s military that their task is to enforce — “You’re either with us or against us.” Every nation is either an ‘ally’, or an enemy. His immediate successor, Barack Obama, said to the world’s nations — and instructed America’s military to enforce — “The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation”: meaning that every other nation — including even each one of America’s ‘allies’ — is “dispensable.” Let’s think about that remarkable statement, for a moment. Even ‘allied’ nations are “dispensable,” according to that Nobel Peace-Prize-winning U.S. President. And that phrase was no fluke from him: he repeated the same statement on several occasions. In fact, he was happy to have originally gotten this idea from Robert Kagan, a leading Republican neoconservative and champion of the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, who was flattered that Obama did.  Furthermore, during Obama’s Presidency, an important member of his Administration was Kagan’s equally intensely neoconservative wife, who had been V.P. Dick Cheney’s chief foreign-affairs advisor during G.W. Bush’s Presidency, Victoria Nuland, and she led Obama’s policy toward Ukraine and selected who would lead that country after its democratically elected President was overthrown by the United States in order ultimately to place American missiles there, around 300 miles away from The Kremlin. Practically all of America’s leaders (both Democratic and Republican) view America’s success as consisting of nothing less than every other nation’s failure — and that’s especially the failure (the conquest) of Russia, and of China. It’s the zero-sum world-view, that every game is win-lose, none is win-win: all is dog-eat-dog — ultimately, everyone is an enemy, and so must be conquered, in order for any person (or country) to succeed. That’s the perspective of America’s leaders, both Republican and Democrat: pure zero-sum — there is always only one winner; everyone else are “losers.” (And they view “losers” with contempt, because “Might makes right,” so “losers” must be inferior to whomever the winner happens to be or become.)

This attitude, of U.S. global supremacism, has controlled America’s Government ever since 25 July 1945, and led to the decision to use nuclear weapons on Japan (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) in the following month, and it will produce a world-ending nuclear war soon if that dictatorial U.S.-imperialistic global supremacism doesn’t soon become replaced by the American democratic and anti-imperialistic attitude that U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt had formed even before World War II had started in 1941: his conviction that the post-War world must be controlled by a democratic global federal Government of nations, which he labelled the “United Nations” (which was to be very unlike the one that his successor Harry Truman designed and which we have) and not by the United States Government, nor by any other merely national Government — no global dictatorship whatsoever — FDR was convinced that the termination and prevention of empires had to be the primary objective after WW II would be over. On 25 July 1945, Truman reversed FDR’s intention; and, at least up till now, the U.S. Government has remained Truman’s, not FDR’s.

That future era will be one in which there will be either what the U.S. Government is intending, which is an all-inclusive global U.S. international dictatorship over all other nations, or else it will be the global democracy of nations that FDR had envisioned and planned to become installed after WW II. Roosevelt tragically died on 12 April 1945, and was replaced by his V.P., Truman. The vision for a U.S. global dictatorship, which Truman (under the influence of his hero, General Eisenhower) supported and installed, is what has been developing ever since World War Two (WW II) ended.

Truman started the present era by deciding, on 25 July 1945, to go for — and to establish entities and policies to attain — U.S. control over the entire planet. This explains the 45 U.S. coups, and 130+ U.S. invasions, since 1945, and the currently 900 foreign U.S. military bases around the world (in addition to the 749 that are within the U.S. and that can be examined here), and the expenditure by the U.S. of around 50% of the entire planet’s military costs. It’s heading now for ultimate show-downs against both Russia and China; and this brings us now to the transformative, the decisive, present moment in world history.

Although the U.S. Government routinely advocates for regime-change both in Russia and in China, the reality is (and long has been) that even Western polling within Russia and within China has almost consistently displayed vastly higher public-approval ratings of the country’s leaders there than America’s public have of our leaders here. Regime-change in America is likelier than regime-change in either Russia or China is. (Of course, U.S.-and-allied ‘news’-media suppress, instead of publicize, this key reality; however, they cannot deny this reality, because the facts cannot be denied but can merely be hidden — as is done. And, then, publics in U.S.-and-allied countries vote on that basis, and this becomes ‘democracy’ in “The West.”) The only way that the U.S. Government’s craving for regime-change in Russia and in China would be carried-out is therefore by means of a U.S. invasion and conquest of Russia and China, neither of which conquest would be accepted in either Russia or China, and which attempt by the U.S. Government would thus produce, instead, a nuclear destruction of the entire world. Truman’s dream (of an-all-encompassing U.S. global empire) is unattainable. (It is also illegal — violative of the U.S. Constitution and of international laws, but this is making no difference to the individuals who control the U.S. Government: they don’t care about that.)

The transformative present moment in history will thus either be a global-annihilationist nuclear war concluding Truman’s vision (since neither Russia nor China will accept becoming a colony — or ‘ally’ — of the U.S. empire), or else it will be the end of that since-1945-growing U.S. global dictatorship, and a consequently necessary transformation of the U.N., itself, into what had been FDR’s intention for the U.N., when he invented and named and planned for the U.N., which was to be (and which would then have been and would now be) as follows:

1. That it will define “international aggression” and will do so in a way that not only outlaws it but clearly prohibits what must be prohibited in order to prevent there being any WW III — any future World War. (To prevent any future World War was the reason why FDR came up with the idea of the U.N., back in August 1941 — even before America’s entrance into WW II.)

2. That it will have a monopoly control over all geostrategically significant weapons so that only the U.N. will be able to use them, and no nation will be able militarily to contest against the U.N.

3. That it will, as ANY government must, include all three essential branches that any government must include in order to BE a government: legislative, juridical, and executive powers; and that each one of those powers will be applicable ONLY to (and governing over) relations BETWEEN nations, and NOT to relations WITHIN any nation. This also means that ONLY “human rights” that the U.N.’s Security Council and General Assembly have ruled to exist and have embodied in international law may be enforced by agencies of the U.N., within a country, and that any such ‘rights’ that any nation(s) assert to exist but which have NOT become embodied into international law are to be treated as fraudulent to label as being international laws, and are aggressions against the U.N. itself, which must be dealt with accordingly, as constituting threats and crimes against international peace to be labelled as “human rights.” (Otherwise, without making that distinction, the U.N.’s sole and exclusive authority over international law will then disintegrate, because the concept of “Responsibility to Protect” — or “R2P” — within an individual nation is applicable to the U.N. only when and where the U.N. has specifically so legislated; and, otherwise than that, is entirely under the authority of only that given nation itself to legislate, and not, at all, of the U.N.: not within the U.N.’s purview. This is how a federal republic functions: by clearly distinguishing between federal and local responsibilities. No federation can even exist other than by this means.)

4. That every country in the world will belong to, be a member of, be represented in, have obligations to, and have rights in, this planet’s democratic federal republic of nations, and will contribute financially to its costs based not on a willingness to pay but on a formula which will be agreed-upon and set forth in the Charter of the U.N. (that democratic federal world Government’s Constitution), so that no nation will be buying special favors from paying more, nor suffer penalties from paying less, than what is there set forth. In other words: like virtually any Government, it must be tax-financed, and these taxes will fund all of its agencies.

That summarizes FDR’s view and goals for the U.N.

The U.N. that FDR’s immediate successor, Harry Truman, designed, included none of those four essential features of FDR’s intentions; and, so, is very little like what its inventor had intended it to be — and cannot even POSSIBLY serve the ultimate function that FDR had intended for the U.N., of prohibiting (outlawing) imperialism (which FDR knew had been the ultimate source of both World Wars). Here is how that is so:

1. The Truman-created U.N. did not define “international aggression” (the ultimate international-war crime) and didn’t even define “aggression” at all, until 11 June 2010, and did it then in a circular way, which used the term “aggression” in its ‘definition’ of aggression, and so it has been utterly useless except for propaganda-purposes (i.e., by aggressor-nations: imperialists — international-war criminals themselves — using “R2P” as an excuse for their aggressions). The Truman-created U.N., thus, lacking any clear definition of “aggression,” and consequently lacking likewise any clear definition of “defense” (and so, too, being unable to define clearly the most fundamental right, to “self-defense”) is trapped in an unavoidable web of hypocrisies, from which, aggressor-nations gain (by those confusions), while the U.N. gets the pain, and shares in any resultant blame. The most essential need of a functioning U.N., and of functioning international criminal law, is to define “aggression.” That need hasn’t yet been met, at all.

2. Truman refused even to consider that anything but the U.S. Government should possess nuclear or any other geostrategically important weapons — much less that the U.N. ought to control armaments of any type. (For a while, the mutual acceptance, by both the Soviet Union and the United States, of the “M.A.D.” or “Mutually Assured Destruction” meta-strategy for nuclear weapons — that they exist not in order to win a WW III, but to prevent one, prevailed on both sides, but, then, on 24 February 1990 the U.S. side tacitly and secretly abandoned that, and, after 2006, the U.S. side adopted the “Nuclear Primacy” meta-strategy, in which the U.S. is aiming to win a nuclear war against Russia. That movement toward a WW III would not even have been possible if the U.N. had had an FDR-ite Constitution; it is possible only because Truman designed the U.N., FDR didn’t.)

3. Truman did not allow any enforcement to be included in the U.N.; so, the U.N. Charter included none, and didn’t even include any court-system for violations of international criminal laws. The International Criminal Court (ICC) wasn’t even set up until 1 July 2002, and it held its first hearing in 2006. Furthermore, unlike the U.N.’s own International Court of Justice, which was established by Article 93 in the U.N. Charter and which stated that “All Members of the United Nations are ipso facto parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice,” the International Criminal Court was set up outside the U.N. and applies only to the Governments that have ratified it; so, international crimes don’t come under the U.N.’s compulsory jurisdiction. And international crimes by non-ratifiers of the ICC don’t come under any jurisdiction: it’s pure “Might makes right,” applying to them.

4. Truman’s U.N. included no compulsory financing, no taxation; and, so, the U.N. is especially beholden to its largest donors. It isn’t a Government. The U.N.’s Charter says nothing about how it’s to be funded. That has been ad-hoc, and entails both voluntary donations and a U.N.-applied complex formula for “assessed contributions”. The U.S., in order to dominate the U.N., is by far its biggest funder; and, at least as-of 2022, America’s contributions were around 30% assessed and 70% voluntary. Like virtually any charity, it’s controlled by its biggest donors. However, 20 U.S.-allied countries have chosen to pay even more per-capita than the U.S. itself does. Taxpayers in those U.S. ‘allies’ subsidize America’s dominance over the U.N. So, Truman’s U.N. is nothing like FDR’s U.N. would have been — nothing like it would have had to be in order for the U.N. to be able to do what he knew would need to be done after WW II, to end imperialism and thus prevent any WW III. 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.

How this history behind the U.N. became hidden

The fascist imperialist (specifically Rhodesist or UK/U.S. variety of that) John Foster Dulles was one of many who lied to deceive the public to believe that there was continuity between (the anti-Rhodesist) FDR’s vision for the global future and (the Rhodes-controlled) Truman’s vision of it that started on 25 July 1945. Their objective in this is to hide from the American public how radically unAmerican these policies that Truman established (such as the permanent-warfare U.S. standing army, the U.S. ‘Defense’ Department) actually are. The opening of Chapter 5, titled “United Nations,” of Dulles’s 1950 book War or Peace, says, under the sub-head “Atlantic Charter” (intending there to confuse the reader to think that the Atlantic Charter had somehow been part of the U.N.’s creation — which is a lie by Dulles):

When President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill met off Newfoundland in August, 1941, and drew up their Atlantic Charter statement of peace aims, no mention was made of an international organization. Mr. Churchill, as we have since learned, had proposed to include this; but President Roosevelt was unwilling. He told Mr. Sumner Welles that he thought “nothing could be more futile than the reconstitution of a body such as the Assembly of the League of Nations. According to Mr. Welles, the President felt a transition period would be necessary, “during which period Great Britain and the United States would undertake the policing of the world.”

That’s footnoted to the 1946 book by “Sumner Welles, Where Are We Heading?, p. 5.” However, what’s there states that in this conversation, which occurred on 11 August 1941, right after the brief period of the Molotov-Ribbentrop mutual non-aggression Pact which ended when Germany’s Operation Barbarossa against the USSR had started on 22 June 1941, and, as Welles said, “our knowledge of the views of the Kremlin about the future establishment of world order … was very slight,” FDR clarified to Welles that the League of Nations would be an inadequate model, and that a global governmental organization, much stronger than that, would instead be needed. Welles did not say that Churchill “had proposed to include this” (what became the U.N.). Explicitly, and only, FDR did. Dulles was simply an inveterate liar.

In fact, Welles’s book said on page 6, exactly to the contrary:

President Roosevelt, before he left Washington for the Atlantic meeting, had told me in some detail how he thought the approaching meeting with the British Prime Minister should be utilized to hold out hope to the enslaved peoples of the world [Roosevelt used that phrase to refer to the residents in colonies, in relation to their imperial master, the foreign nation that owned the given colony]. The English-speaking democracies both stood for principles of freedom and of justice. They should jointly bind themselves now to establish at the conclusion of the war a new world order based upon these principles.

When FDR met Churchill on 9 August 1941, the two men hadn’t met in decades and didn’t know each other well. Right at the start, they were at loggerheads on imperialism (FDR — such as here — being passionately against it, in any form, and Churchill demanding that it continue after WW II), and whereas FDR was already planning for what became the U.N., Churchill was already planning for what became NATO (so as to achieve Cecil Rhodes’s dream since 1877, of an all-inclusive UK/U.S. empire over the entire world).

Dulles blatantly lied there, to suggest otherwise (that Churchill invented the U.N.). Dulles had actually been one of the people who had been working on Truman to deceive him as to what FDR’s post-WW-II intentions had been. (Truman didn’t know. He hadn’t been FDR’s choice for the V.P. nomination, was V.P. for less than three months before becoming President, and said in his diary on the day of FDR’s death, “I knew the President had a great many meetings with Churchill and Stalin. I was not familiar with any of these things.” On 3 March 1948, he wrote to his daughter, “I was at Cabinet meetings and saw Roosevelt once or twice in those months. But he never did talk to me confidentially about the war, or about foreign affairs or what he had in mind for the peace after the war.” Perhaps anger at FDR was one of his motivations to agree with FDR’s pro-imperialist opponents. It certainly would be the way for Truman to make his own mark on the world, which he did — far bigger than ‘historians’ know, even today.)

Furthermore, the basic message of that book by Sumner Welles was actually to the exact contrary of what the lying Dulles was saying and implying: Welles was saying that FDR’s vision for the Post-WW-II world had been hijacked — even that early (1946). This hijacking had started, it seems, on 11 August 1941, when the Atlantic Charter (not the U.N. Charter) was being drafted. The Welles book’s first chapter describes the negotiations between Churchill and FDR, which created the Atlantic Charter — the document that subsequently is sometimes virtually called “the North Atlantic Treaty” or “the NATO Treaty” or otherwise NATO’s precursor. (It was nothing of the sort. FDR opposed Churchill regarding post-WW-II aims and policies — especially regarding the Soviet Union. FDR had nothing to do with planning for NATO.) On page 1, Welles stated (already deeply disappointed by the quick replacement of FDR’s plan):

At the moment of writing, the prospect [for world peace] is obscured. There is no freedom from that fear which afflicted all peoples during the uneasy truce between the great wars. Greed and lust for power are still omnipresent. The insane delusion that democracy and Communism cannot simultaneously exist in the world is rampant. Stupidity, reaction and timidity dominate the councils of the nations.

Opportunity after opportunity for understanding between all peoples has been lost.

This is exactly the opposite of the message in Dulles’s book (that U.S. global empire is the way to preserve world peace).

Page 10 from Welles, discussing the drafting of the Atlantic Charter, said that FDR “wrote upon the draft a further, and sixth, article, in these words:”

Sixth, because the future of peace is impossible if armament by land, sea and air continues in the hands of any nation which threatens or may threaten to use force outside its frontiers, we believe that disarmament of such nations is essential. We say this in the hope that the whole world may be guided in spirit to the goal of abandonment of force.

That clause failed to be included in the Atlantic Charter. Apparently, Churchill wouldn’t accept it, and FDR decided not to insist that it be included, but perhaps expected to push for it after the War would already be won and the U.N. would be organizing. Whereas FDR had been expecting that the Atlantic Charter would pertain to something that would evolve into the United Nations, he died and quickly it became transformed into something that would instead be confused with the founding of NATO — the anti-Soviet military alliance. This warping, by Dulles, is part of how the ‘history’ of the Cold War became the myth that it did. On Welles’s page 17, he wrote (this being, of course, in 1946 — prior even to the existence of NATO itself):

The final text of the Atlantic Charter did not, of course, contain all that either the President or Mr. Churchill would have liked to see incorporated in it. But however material the omissions and the defects in the Atlantic Charter may now seem to be [as-of 1946], it must be read in the light of the moment when it was written.

Dulles’s book didn’t only misrepresent that, but he raped Welles’s (and FDR’s) core intent.

In fact, by the time of 25 August 1943, when FDR again met with Churchill, this time in Ottawa, he was more publicly forthcoming about what his plans were for the post-War world and what the Atlantic Charter should evolve into, which clearly was the United Nations, and NOT anything such as NATO. FDR’s “Address at Ottawa, Canada” stated that “There is a longing in the air. It is not a longing to go back to what they call ‘the good old days.’ I have distinct reservations as to how good ‘the good old days’ were. I would rather believe that we can achieve new and better days. … I am everlastingly angry only at those who assert vociferously that the four freedoms and the Atlantic Charter are nonsense because they [FDR’s aims for a future U.N.] are unattainable. If those people had lived a century and a half ago they would have sneered and said that the Declaration of Independence was utter piffle.” But Churchill and other Rhodesists were able to play upon Truman’s pettinesses (including, perhaps, his personal resentment against FDR) in order to get Rhodes’s vision, and not FDR’s, to shape the post-WW-II world. Whereas King George III had lost America’s Revolutionary War, Cecil Rhodes’s ghost ended up winning World War II, because of Truman.

This warping of ‘history’ has been broad-scale and comprehensive. For example: the CIA-edited and written Wikipedia articles on the history of the U.N., such as “Declaration by United Nations”, continue Dulles’s rewrite, in order to convey the false impression that smears together the origins of both NATO and the U.N. The actual “Declaration” included only the WW II goals, of defeating the Axis, none of FDR’s post-WW-II goals, of an armed global federal Government that would outlaw empires and aggressions.

America’s aristocracy has mastered the PR of ‘humanitarian’ aggressions, and ‘standing for democracy’ — advocating for all of the hoax-version of (that is, outside of U.N. authorized) ‘R2P’ — and thus achieved the highest contemporary embodiment of George Orwell’s “Big Brother”s scam against the public everywhere. They thus have subliminally slipped-in U.S. (instead of U.N.) authorizations of ‘R2P’. These corrupt billionaires add, to that, the appeal of ‘anti-corruption’ — that they are supposedly fighting against corruption. (Billionaires actually would be nowhere but for corruption.) And they always say also that these invasions, and coups, and sanctions, are necessary for America’s ‘national defense’. Their lies never stop. They give us lies. They  don’t fund history, but, instead, a vicious, aggression-‘justifying’, myth. And the neoconservative operatives spread it.

Nicolas J.S. Davies’s 2010 BLOOD ON OUR HANDS: The American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq said (page 7): “The American view that the United States can use these [the U.N. and other international] institutions or ignore them as it sees fit to advance its own interests is an outgrowth of the dominant position that the U.S. has occupied in the world since 1945.” That is true, but it begs the deeper questions, of why this psychopathic attitude came to control in the U.S. Government and media, and of how and why and when the U.S. Government actually became irrevocably committed to be such a psychopathic international operation, as that. Might-makes-right was supposed to have been the attitude of the three fascist powers that America was opposing in World War Two (while FDR was President); so, how did that fascist attitude come to be the American attitude after WW II, and how soon after WW II did it happen, that America itself  became a fascist nation? It happened on 25 July 1945, and this fit perfectly into the plan of Cecil Rhodes, which had started in 1877. Rhodes created the plan and started the organization. (The movie The Constant Gardener dramatizes how it works, as seen by its mid-level operatives.)

This plan became undeniable after U.S. President George Herbert Walker Bush, on 24 February 1990, started informing America’s vassal-nation heads-of-state, that though the Soviet Union would soon end its side of the Cold War, the U.S.-and-allied side would secretly continue the War until Russia itself becomes conquered. And all of America’s subsequent Presidents did continue it. Not only did Bill Clinton expand NATO right up to Russia’s borders. He infiltrated America’s corruption into Russia, so that U.S.-and-allied billionaires could operate in conjunction with ‘entrepreneurs’ they backed in Russia to suck its blood and cripple its economy. G.W. Bush brought seven more of Russia’s neighboring countries into NATO. Obama was perhaps the worst of all, by directly challenging Russia to war, in both Ukraine and Syria. Trump vaguely talked about withdrawing America from NATO, but continued Obama’s neoconservative (i.e., Rhodesist) policies. Biden likewise pretended to be different from his predecessor, but has continued his predecessors’ neoconservative (i.e., Rhodesist) policies.

Unless Truman’s goal is abandoned and FDR’s goal — of a transformed U.N as being a full-fledged all-encompassing global democratic federal republic of nations — replaces it, there will be a world-destroying WW III.

Regarding the San Francisco Conference at which the U.N.’s Charter was written, during 25 April 1945 till 26 June 1945, President Truman wrote to his right-hand man, James Byrnes, on 5 January 1946, “At San Francisco no agreements or compromises were ever agreed to without my approval.” Today’s U.N. was his creation, more than anyone else’s: Truman’s was the guiding hand that wrote all of it. It’s not 100% his; he compromised where he had to, but he was the document’s ultimate editor. Everything that’s in it was acceptable to him. The Conference’s attendees had far less power over the final document than he did. Everything that’s in it had received his “approval.”

That’s how Hitler’s ghost (in the British version of it, from Cecil Rhodes) actually but posthumously won WW II. We need FDR’s ghost now, in order to win it back, and finally end imperialism, once and for all, by establishing the U.N. that FDR  had been aiming for when he conceived of and started the planning for the U.N. We need it in order to finish he job that he tragically died before finishing, and which was promptly hijacked by Truman.

Here is how important, and how vitally relevant, this matter is TODAY: On 8 March 2023, the New York Times headlined “Pentagon Blocks Sharing Evidence of Possible Russian War Crimes With Hague Court: President Biden has not acted to resolve a dispute that pits the Defense Department against other agencies.” It opened:

The Pentagon is blocking the Biden administration from sharing evidence with the International Criminal Court in The Hague gathered by American intelligence agencies about Russian atrocities in Ukraine, according to current and former officials briefed on the matter.

American military leaders oppose helping the court investigate Russians because they fear setting a precedent that might help pave the way for it to prosecute Americans. The rest of the administration, including intelligence agencies and the State and Justice Departments, favors giving the evidence to the court, the officials said.

President Biden has yet to resolve the impasse, officials said.

The evidence is said to include details relevant to an investigation the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Karim Khan, began after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine a year ago. The information reportedly includes material about decisions by Russian officials to deliberately target civilian infrastructure and to abduct thousands of Ukrainian children from occupied territory.

In December, Congress modified longstanding legal restrictions on American help to the court, allowing the United States to assist with its investigations and eventual prosecutions related to the war in Ukraine. But inside the Biden administration, a policy dispute over whether to do so continues to play out behind closed doors.

The National Security Council convened a cabinet-level “principals committee” meeting on Feb. 3 in an attempt to resolve the dispute, the officials said, but Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III continued to object. Mr. Biden has not yet made a decision, the officials said.

Most of the people who described the internal dispute did so on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive deliberations.

But Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, who helped push Congress to ease the restrictions last year on aiding the International Criminal Court, confirmed the parameters of the dispute and blamed the Defense Department for its reluctance.

“D.O.D. opposed the legislative change — it passed overwhelmingly — and they are now trying to undermine the letter and spirit of the law,” Mr. Graham said. “It seems to me that D.O.D. is the problem child here, and the sooner we can get the information into the hands of the I.C.C., the better off the world will be.”

Representatives at the Pentagon, State Department, Justice Department, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment or did not respond to requests for comment. …

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is the sole U.N.-authorized entity to try alleged cases of international-war crimes. (It’s not part of the U.N. like the International Court of Justice — which also is in the Hague — is, but it’s instead U.N.-authorized.) My article on March 3rd, “Why Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022 Was Legal” documents that, for two reasons, Russia will not even possibly be able to be convicted of having committed any international-war crimes by means of, or in the practice of, its invasion of Ukraine. One of these two reasons is that neither Russia, nor Ukraine, nor the U.S., has ratified the Rome Statute of 1998, which established the ICC, so none of the three Governments is a “State Party to” it; so none can be tried in that Court. The other reason is more complex, but it means that if any of those three Governments had committed the crime of “aggression” to the extent that it has been defined and exists under that Court’s jurisdiction, it would be Ukraine (not Russia, and not U.S.). That’s the way existing international law is.

As things now stand, the entire issue that’s discussed in this NYT ‘news’-report is merely propaganda, and will remain so unless and until the U.N. itself (its Charter) becomes amended so as to comport with FDR’s intentions, instead of with Truman’s. Consequently, President Biden’s decision, if and when he makes it, will actually be purely a propaganda-decision, not one pertaining to the alleged topic in that NYT article. Right now, it’s merely a propaganda-problem, not a truth-problem. The reason why that is naturally a commonplace situation in the existing historical circumstances is that every dictatorship is built upon, and ‘justified’ by, lies, and every empire is a dictatorship, and in order for lies to stand, what is essential is to censor-out truths that contradict those lies. And that’s what is being done throughout the U.S.-and-‘allied’ sphere. It’s what Michael Shellenberger aptly described and documented, in detail, to the U.S. Congress, on 9 March 2023, as being America’s actual “Censorship-Industrial Complex” — it’s necessary that those truths will not be reported. And so, they aren’t. As Shellenberger said, referring to the United States, in his testimony’s penultimate paragraph (p. 53), “No corporation in the world should have such extraordinary powers to both deny American citizens their free speech rights and their ability to sue to redress the harm they [those corporations] cause [by denying that right].” It’s not just “free speech” but the right to know, that America’s dictators are choking off. He documented that the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment effectively no longer exists, whenever U.S. officials prefer it not to — it is mere ink on paper, it’s a statement of U.S. propaganda, not of the U.S. Government’s actual policy. Censorship has come to be imposed by a public-private partnership in which the dictators don’t do it directly but hire the personnel and approve the algorithms that then automatically do it, so as to shape public opinions — regardless of the reality. America’s Founders are now dead — not just literally, but figuratively: this is not the anti-imperialist country, nor the limited democracy, that they had founded. It has become, instead, a dictatorship, and an empire.

One thing that the world-at-large is generally ignorant of is that every empire is based upon coercion, and that democracy cannot exist in an empire. Of course, the imperial nation will necessarily be controlled by its “military-industrial complex” (which very much includes its Censorship-Industrial Complex — which has been applied with considerable effect against millions of people, including me and against my publishers, not only inside the United States, but also, because of this Government’s extraordinary clout, virtually throughout the world). Since it’s necessarily a dictatorship, it’s not controlled by the will of its people (who are its subjects — because an imperial nation can have only subjects, not really citizens, because an imperial nation is unavoidably a dictatorship). However, the rulers of a vassal-nation or colony (what the imperial Government euphemistically calls its “allies”) are themselves under the thumb of the imperial dictators — are their stooges, who have been s‘elected’ by the colony’s voters, who are choosing from amongst only candidates whom the imperial country’s aristocracy had allowed to become appointed to be candidates in that colony. Therefore, even the colony’s stooges are slaves, middlemen between the colony’s subjects, down below, and the imperial country’s rulers, up above. Truman and other Rhodesists or “neoconservatives” built this mega-empire, for its billionaires, but it must now become replaced by democracy on an international level, irrespective of the democracy or dictatorship within any of the world’s individual nations, because, otherwise (if the U.S. Government carries this all the way), the outcome will be a nuclear Armageddon, which will destroy us all. So, this replacement must be done now, however much America’s current rulers oppose it (and their agents have made clear that they intensely do oppose it).

Conclusion

Robert Frost famously said, “Two roads diverged in a yellow wood, … And that has made all the difference.” And our time has now come. Two roads stand before us.

Thus, the transformative present moment in history will either wrench the world away from the universal-imperialist — or “hegemonic” — path that Truman had placed it on, and will restore the anti-imperialist, FDR, as finally being the world-shaper that he had been planning it to be, or else will remain on Truman’s path, all the way to its global-annihilationist end. Realistically, those are our only two options. It will be either the one, or else the other. It must be for us, now, to choose which one: hegemony (the path toward WW III), or international democracy — at last (the peaceful end, of the world’s final empire). The entire world will participate in this momentous decision.

I have elsewhere provided what I believe would be the legal definition of international “aggression” that FDR was aiming for, in order to outlaw international aggression, which definition would be the foundationstone for his U.N. to include as being an Amendment to the existing U.N., which Amendment would then do more than anything else can to transform the existing Trumanite international order into what FDR had in mind, and which would end the U.S. empire, and all empires. However, the other three Trumanite features of the existing U.N. would also need to be rectified.

Will it finally be FDR’s path? Or, instead, continuing on Truman’s path? That’s for us to decide — and to act accordingly. Because what’s at stake is our world. And our future.

NOTE: Portions of the present article are adapted from portions of the first Chapter of my 2022 book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL.

ADDENDUM CONCERNING COPYRIGHTS: This article had been submitted to all paying media as an exclusive and was rejected by each of them without comment. It thus may be freely posted in its entirety anywhere, and quoted anywhere, with credit to Eric Zuesse as being its author. Otherwise than that, it may not be posted or quoted anywhere.

Author