-Caveat Lector-
http://cyberjournal.org/cj/fresia/
Toward an American Revolution
Exposing the Constitution and other Illusions
Jerry Fresia
Chapter 5
The Constitution and Secret Government
(a) The Constitution and Secret Government
(b) The Power of the President and the Role of Congress
(c) The Secret Government and the Rise of Nazi Germany
I have suggested that the military defeat in
1787 of Daniel Shays and others who resisted the
advancement of market relations expressed
counter-revolutionary tendencies because it
marked a return to the imperial values of Great
Britain. As market relations became fully
capitalist and spread from Europe and the United
States into other parts of the world, resistance
was organized by those who, similar to the
participants of Shays Rebellion, sought either
to defend or create space for an alternative way
of life. And like the Framers of 1787, U.S.
government leaders together with private elites
have often felt compelled to organize
counter-revolutionary armies to protect property
and market relations or what they prefer to call
"freedom." The first counter-revolutionaries or
"freedom fighters" were the Framers themselves
when they put down Shays Rebellion. The next
organized effort to enlist Freedom Fighters to
put down a revolution was in response to the
overthrow of the Russian czar by the Bolsheviks
after World War I.
International bankers and lawyers in the
Northeast, alarmed by the Bolsheviks but
determined to press on with the expansion of
foreign investments and operations, established
the American branch of the Round Table Groups, a
set of "semicovert policy and action groups"
formed at the turn of the century by English
aristocrats and bankers who sought to create a
federation among the English speaking peoples of
the world. The American group, centered in New
York and led by the Rockefeller-Morgan financial
establishment, has since come to be known as the
Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) which was
then committed to bringing the government and
"all existing international agencies...into
constructive accord." A second response was to
assist the displaced armies and supporters of
the czar, or White Russians, who were poised to
restore the czar, his court, and his
industrialists to power. Fourteen nations,
including the United States, placed troops
inside the borders of the Soviet Union. And
still other responses were combinations of the
two. But significant for us is the mixture of
private interest and public policy particularly
with regard to the use of the government for
counter-revolutionary measures. With this in
mind, let us outline the linkage of private and
public power, in the immediate post-war era, of
Herbert Hoover.
Hoover, a former mining engineer employed by
British concerns, had become a successful
entrepreneur in Russian oil wells and mines. He
had major investments in eleven Russian oil
companies. By 1912, together with British
investor Leslie Urquhart, Hoover had formed the
Russo-Asiatic Corporation which was worth (in
1912 dollars) $1 billion. After the Russian
revolution, Hoover's property was seized and a
claim was filed with the British government by
Russo-Asiatic Consolidated, a new cartel which
Hoover and his partners had formed to protect
their Russian interests, for $282 billion for
damage to properties and loss of probable annual
profits. Hoover, however, was also director of
the American Relief Administration for the
United States government. And it was in this
capacity that he was able to use food relief to
covertly support the White Russian army.13
The interest of the government of the United
States was, by 1917, part of the interests of a
