Colonel House and the Rockefellers. What is the "House Plan"

To narrow the search results, you can refine the query by specifying the fields to search on. The list of fields is presented above. For example:

You can search across multiple fields at the same time:

logical operators

The default operator is AND.
Operator AND means that the document must match all the elements in the group:

research development

Operator OR means that the document must match one of the values ​​in the group:

study OR development

Operator NOT excludes documents containing this element:

study NOT development

Search type

When writing a query, you can specify the way in which the phrase will be searched. Four methods are supported: search based on morphology, without morphology, search for a prefix, search for a phrase.
By default, the search is based on morphology.
To search without morphology, it is enough to put the "dollar" sign before the words in the phrase:

$ study $ development

To search for a prefix, you need to put an asterisk after the query:

study *

To search for a phrase, you need to enclose the query in double quotes:

" research and development "

Search by synonyms

To include synonyms of a word in the search results, put a hash mark " # " before a word or before an expression in brackets.
When applied to one word, up to three synonyms will be found for it.
When applied to a parenthesized expression, a synonym will be added to each word if one was found.
Not compatible with no-morphology, prefix, or phrase searches.

# study

grouping

Parentheses are used to group search phrases. This allows you to control the boolean logic of the request.
For example, you need to make a request: find documents whose author is Ivanov or Petrov, and the title contains the words research or development:

Approximate word search

For an approximate search, you need to put a tilde " ~ " at the end of a word in a phrase. For example:

bromine ~

The search will find words such as "bromine", "rum", "prom", etc.
You can optionally specify the maximum number of possible edits: 0, 1, or 2. For example:

bromine ~1

The default is 2 edits.

Proximity criterion

To search by proximity, you need to put a tilde " ~ " at the end of a phrase. For example, to find documents with the words research and development within 2 words, use the following query:

" research development "~2

Expression relevance

To change the relevance of individual expressions in the search, use the sign " ^ " at the end of an expression, and then indicate the level of relevance of this expression in relation to the others.
The higher the level, the more relevant the given expression.
For example, in this expression, the word "research" is four times more relevant than the word "development":

study ^4 development

By default, the level is 1. Valid values ​​are a positive real number.

Search within an interval

To specify the interval in which the value of some field should be, you should specify the boundary values ​​in brackets, separated by the operator TO.
A lexicographic sort will be performed.

Such a query will return results with the author starting from Ivanov and ending with Petrov, but Ivanov and Petrov will not be included in the result.
To include a value in an interval, use square brackets. Use curly braces to escape a value.

Two days ago, the president's chief strategist Steve Bannon spoke at a conference of conservatives, where he outlined his concept of "economic nationalism", which brought to mind President Theodore Roosevelt and his attempt to "save capitalism from itself", called "Square deal" (Equal deal), part of which was the development of antitrust laws and the division of the empire of John D. Rockefeller into four equal parts. Then there was the "New Deal" (new deal) of his nephew Franklin Delano Roosevelt and "Fair deal" (fair deal) Harry Truman, which nullified the achievements of the two Roosevelts, laying the foundations of Clintonism.

And Bannon's speech showed that he doesn't call himself a Leninist for nothing and understands perfectly well that the Roosevelts fought the "general crisis of capitalism", and Wilson and the Clintons erased their achievements in the hope that another accounting trick like the one invented by John Maynard Keynese , will make it possible to cancel the objective laws of nature, discovered by many scientists, but compiled into a single system by Karl Marx. In theory, it was the top of the Western scientific method, which showed that capitalism is not an economic, but a religious system, a direct result of the "Protestant revolution" launched in the first half of the 16th century by Calvin and Luther. Moreover, the first state to declare Protestantism the state religion was the so-called region of the Catholic Teutonic Order, located on the lands of the Orthodox Slavs exterminated by it - the Prussians.

Actually, it is precisely this paradox of the Catholic order that exterminated God knows how many millions of people in the name of the world power of the Pope, but after the failure of the anti-Christian crusades became the main anti-Catholic force in Europe, is the key to understanding the role of Colonel House, about which Aleksanrov-G writes and about which I have written many times. The fact is that the source of power of Colonel House is a dark matter, but he acted on the basis of the ideas of 150 American intellectuals, gathered by this mysterious force into a group called "The Inquiry".

But 150 intellectuals gathered in one group is something little controlled, a source of furious envy and chaos of intrigues, and inside this nesting doll there was another nesting doll, which, after the failure of the mission of Leon Trotsky, sent by them to Russia, but yielded first to Vladimir Lenin, and then to Joseph Stalin, turned into the so-called Council on Foreign Relations, which, under the leadership of David Rockefeller, led the United States to victory in the Cold War and Hillary Clinton to the White House, completing the aforementioned mission of Leon Trotsky and to some extent "correcting" the same catastrophic failure in October 1917 of the plan for the collapse of the Empires of the Old World, which this matryoshka developed even before it became part of "The Inquiry". By the way, the Anglican Church is not Protestant, if only because of its apostolic succession, and it is not surprising that another nesting doll inside "The Inquiry" helped Trump win the elections in 2016, and in 2014 "helped" the heir to the Grand Masters of the Teutonic Order, the German Emperor Wilhelm II unleash the First World War and destroy the creation of Bismarck, thus avenging the betrayal of the Order of the Hospitallers by the first Grand Master of the Teutonic Order, Heinrich Walpot von Bassenheim, an article about which is still not available on English language.

The most interesting thing is that the Council on Foreign Relations is located in the mansion of Harold Pratt, whose grandfather Charles Pratt lent in 1859 to John Rockefeller the $4,000 that started the Standard Oil Company. In addition, he founded the Pratt Institute, where I studied in the 90s and where the Council on Foreign Relations met in the late 19th century. In any case, the minutes of the meetings of this nesting doll are probably still on the shelves in the library of this institute, and, judging by the form, before I took them in my hands out of curiosity in 1994, the last time they were taken to read in 1935 year.

Originally posted by alexandrov_g at Blind in the Kingdom of Crooked Mirrors - 9

What is "true history"?

How does it differ from the generally accepted version set out in school textbooks? What secrets does it contain and are there any? "Was there a boy?"

Well, actually, there was a boy and secrets, yes, there are, where would humanity be without secrets. And what's more, the mystery is boring when alone, and for this reason alone the mystery is not alone. There is a secret and there is a secret that a secret acquires.

There are secrets that are only considered secrets and there are real secrets, but the history textbook, which is unable to distinguish one secret from another, prefers not to see them at all. It's clear, it's easier. It is easier not only to teach, but also to live much easier as well.

It is no secret that the state of the United States is very consistently pursuing an "English" policy in relation to the surrounding world that it did not invent. The difference is only in scale, in "coverage", and so everything is about the same. And the United States does this not at all because of some "kinship" between the American and English "elites", a common language, history or ridiculous "special relations", but because of things, because of what is collectively called "geopolitics". The US sees itself as an Island, that's all. And the rest of the world they see from the point of view of the islanders. America is like Robinson Crusoe, but the big world with its threats and problems is somewhere out there - beyond the seas and oceans.

And this sense of self (and it has very weighty grounds) dictates to them to do the same thing that the British Empire did at the height of its power - to prevent domination by all means not in Europe, as the British did, but already in Eurasia by any one of the "powers". It is believed that if this happens and a large "piece" of Eurasia (not to mention Eurasia as a whole) is controlled by one nation, no matter what, then this will be a threat to the existence of not only the United States, but the New World in general, "Americas".

Such a prospect is perceived no more and no less than a catastrophe ("... if such a catastrophe took place ..."), as something that is even scary to think about. This explains the efforts made to ensure that such a "catastrophe" is prevented. Hence, it is also understandable from time to time the repeated desire in any conflict taking place in Eurasia to support the one who is weaker. Moreover, this happens completely mechanically, America, "without thinking", but following almost instinct, begins to "take the side" of the USSR in its conflict with Germany during the Second World War, and during the Cold War, it already takes the side of Germany and China against THE USSR. In the post-cold time, the United States does not allow Europe to "finish" the Russian Federation and supports India, Vietnam and Japan in every possible way in defiance of China.

I note that the issues of ideology are simply not taken into account, and in those cases when certain steps have to be justified in one way or another, ideology is replaced by propaganda, calculated sometimes for an internal, and sometimes for an external consumer.

If we call things by their real names, and not as they are called in textbooks, then it is impossible not to notice that throughout the 20th century it was not "democracy" that fought "Nazism" and then "communism", but the state of the United States fought against the state of Germany, and then with the state of Russia.

I repeat that there is no secret in this, no one hides this and it does not even occur to anyone to hide it, but, nevertheless, the "mass consciousness" is firmly convinced that the Second World and Cold Wars are ideological wars, they were fought from ideological considerations and goals were also exclusively ideological.

The mass consciousness is an interesting thing in general in every sense, well, it knows that there was once the Austro-Hungarian Empire in the world, and then Austria remained from it, but at the same time, exactly the same thing happened to the British Empire, which , having disappeared, left Great Britain behind, is a secret for him with seven seals.

Well, what can we take from him, from the mass consciousness, because it, the poor, is confident not only in the existence, but also in the omnipotence of "Masons" and "transnational corporations", dictating their will to insignificant governments, and nothing can be done about this confidence.

But you can still use it.

Well, they use it, of course, why not use it, but the situation with the mass consciousness is in such a way that you can use only what mass consciousness in one form or another, or in one approximation or another, "is known," that is, by those very "secrets," but not so with real mysteries.

Here is a photo of the American delegation at the Versailles Conference:

There are 78 people in the photo. 77 of them are civil servants. They hold certain government posts, they are bound by an oath, they have detailed job descriptions, and, importantly, they are people on a salary. They all receive a salary from the state. And one more circumstance, one more touch, it is customary to say about civil servants that they are "servants of the people" and for all the conventionality of this comparison, a statesman is similar to a servant in one property - he, just like a servant, can be fired. He is, if not a servant, then an employee. And an employee can be fired from the service. Anyone. Starting with some translator at the State Department and ending with the President. But this is 77 out of 78. And there is another person in the photo who is not covered by any of the above points. This man is a free bird, he works self-employed, he was not even elected anywhere by anyone, he is not accountable to anyone, he is not bound by any obligations and any stupid "instructions". There he is, first on the left in the front row, bald like that, sitting with his legs crossed. His name is Colonel House.

I return to Versailles again and again and this is why I do it - Versailles created a new reality, the reality in which we continue to live to this day. By the decisions taken at the Versailles Conference, a new world was born. Today, few people realize this, but think about this - before Versailles in Europe (and the then world was actually reduced to Europe) there were only two states that were not monarchies, this is France and this is Switzerland. With these two exceptions, the words Europe and monarchy were synonymous.

After Versailles it was not so. The words "Europe" and "republic" became synonymous. In addition, two more words were legalized - "socialism" and "nationalism". And nationalism somehow imperceptibly dragged "nationalization" along with it. In Versailles was crumpled and discarded old painting world, and in return something like a brand new card table was created, the rules of the new Game were invented, the Players were appointed and the cards were dealt.

The First World War is called the Great War for a reason. She irrevocably changed the life of mankind.

Unlike the First World War, in its "socio-political" significance, it was an event of a smaller scale, in Yalta and Potsdam a couple of losers who lost in fluff got up from the table, and others took their place, and the new composition of the Players decided that they would play not in bridge, but in poker, and they dealt the cards again, but the card table remained a table knocked together in Versailles, and the deck of cards greasy by that time also remained the same.

Here is Sir William Orpen's famous painting with the boring title "The Signing of the Peace in the Hall of Mirrors, Versailles, June 28, 1919":

And here is more:

Back to us - two, this is Hermann Müller, bending (it seems that he is ready to kneel) over Dr. Johannes Böll, who signs the act of surrender of the German Empire. The moment of signing is the moment of the birth of a new world.

And the midwives who took birth are sitting facing us.

The winners sit. In the center is the wedding general Georges Clemenceau, and on the sides of him are two delegations. Left is American, right is British. I can list those seated. From left to right: General Tasker, Colonel House, Henry White, Robert Lansing, Woodrow Wilson, Georges Clemenceau, Lloyd George, Bonar Law, Arthur Balfour, Milner, Barnes and the Japanese Marquis Saionji as "a person close to the delegation".

Looking at the picture, you can get some idea of ​​what is Power, what is etiquette, what is "decency", what is "suzerain", what is "vassalage" and much more.

The people in the picture show us that everything has remained as it was, like "old times", for this it is enough to look at how the heads of delegations are grouped behind those sitting at the "table", on which side they are, under whose "hand" they ran.

Behind the American delegation are Greece, Portugal, Canada, Serbia. Italy, Belgium, South Africa and Australia are crowding behind the British.

(If this seems interesting to someone, then the bald military man with a mustache, crouching, as if hiding behind Clemenceau and Lloyd George, is Maurice Hankey, here in Verasal, the career of this inconspicuous person began, a few years later turned into one of the most powerful shadow politicians The British Empire, everyone knows the fanfare of Churchill, but almost no one has heard of the old Hankey, what a disaster.)

To make the content of the scene clearer, how clearer and what is hidden under the word "secret" (without quotation marks, of course, without quotation marks), we will run back three years ago, in 1916, when the then prize-winning trio, who were fighting for the championship, decided who to omit, and who to raise. The British Empire, the French Republic and the German Empire were playing a complicated game with the USA, intending to use them to their advantage. In addition, the entry of the USA into the war on the side of the Entente automatically meant the actual betrayal by London and Paris of their then ally - the Russian Empire, since the need for it disappeared.

So, "issues were resolved" (highly sensitive issues) as follows - the ambassadors of all three "powers", that is, England, France and Germany, received appropriate instructions and powers to negotiate and after that they were not sent to the White House and not to the State Department, but to the home (!) of Colonel House. The president was Woodrow Wilson, and the secretary of state was Robert Lansing, which did not bother not only the plenipotentiary ambassadors, but also the Washington wits, who immediately launched a joke:

"Do you know the new spelling of Lansing?"
"No. What is it?"
"H-o-u-s-e."

I have always been struck by the train of thought of people who, without hesitation, believe that the answers to all questions can be found in the state archive. Just launch them there and they will immediately reveal all the secrets in the world.

My dears, what are these "archives"? What kind of "truth" are you going to dig out there?

Here is an epochal moment, a "turning point" in history, not only the outcome of the First World War is being decided, but the fate and future of such a state as the United States is at stake, and this fate is decided behind closed doors, without witnesses, without secretaries, without translators, without written treaties, without signatures in ink or blood. Everything is spoken in words. And these words never look like sparrows.

Already during Versailles, France tried to replay everything in a new way, Clemenceau thought that France was the mistress French word, he wants - he gives, he wants - he takes it back, as an attempt was made on him right there and he miraculously survived, he carried a bullet in himself until the end of his days, which the doctors were afraid to extract from him, he is sitting there in the picture so sad, haggard, hung the mustache of the poor fellow, hang it here when your true place is shown to you. Yes, and how do you order to do with those? After all, our world is not built by agreements that are not worth even a piece of paper on which they are written.

The world is talking to people. The world is built with words. Word against word.

And the world goes out to the one whose word is stronger.

By the beginning of the XX century. subversive technologies were already sufficiently developed, and foreign political and financial circles took Russian revolutionaries under the patronage. An important role in these operations was played by the prominent Austrian-Jewish socialist Viktor Adler, who was associated with the Austrian-Hungarian secret services. He performed the functions of a "personnel department", looking for "promising" candidates among the revolutionaries. Another key figure was also a Jew - Alexander Parvus (Gelfand), associated with the special services of Germany and England. He attracted Ulyanov-Lenin, Martov under the "wing", set up the release of Iskra, creating the core of a new party - the RSDLP.

In the photo: Victor Adler, agent of the Austrian Rothschilds, friend of Sigmund Freud.

At the same time, Leon Trotsky, an unremarkable half-educated student, was exiled to Siberia. But his literary talents were noticed, they organized an escape. The chain was instantly delivered from Irkutsk to Vienna, where he showed up ... to Adler's apartment. He was treated kindly, provided with money and documents, and sent to London to Ulyanov. Then Parvus warmed Trotsky, made him his student.

William Bullitt was the United States Ambassador to the Soviet Union and France. And also a true cosmopolitan, the author of two novels, an expert on American politics, Russian history and French high society. Freud's friend Bullitt co-authored a sensational biography of President Wilson. As a diplomat, Bullitt negotiated with Lenin and Stalin, Churchill and Goering. His plan for the dismemberment of Russia was accepted by Lenin, but not approved by Wilson. His plan to build an American embassy on Sparrow Hills was first supported and then closed by Stalin. Nevertheless, Bullitt managed to master Spaso House and arrange a reception there, described by Bulgakov as a ball at Satan's; Woland in The Master and Margarita is written as a grateful portrait of Bullitt. The first American ambassador to Soviet Moscow was having affairs with ballerinas at the Bolshoi Theater and teaching polo to the Red Cavalrymen, while a merry Russian life ruined his engagement to Roosevelt's personal secretary. He ended the war as a major in the French army, and his students led American diplomacy during the Cold War. The book is based on archival documents from Bullitt's personal collection at Yale University, many of which are used in literature for the first time.

A series: Dialogue (Time)

* * *

by the LitRes company.

Colonel House

In February 1917, Bullitt took the interview that would define his career. In several pages of the Philadelphia Ledger, Bullitt detailed the evolution of the international projects of Edward House, President Wilson's closest adviser and strategist of the American administration in the prewar years. He was usually called "Colonel House", although he had no military experience, but was a Cornell graduate, owner of cotton plantations in Texas and also a writer who published in 1912 fantasy novel"Philip Drew, Administrator".

The specter that haunts liberal Europe, Bullitt wrote in his article in the words of House, is the fear that the war will end with an alliance between Germany, Japan and Russia. This ghost of the new triple alliance is not just a nightmarish fantasy; according to House, which he now allowed to be made public, it was the subject of continuous discussion in all European Foreign Offices. The Allies kept revolutionary Russia in the war by promising her Constantinople; But what if, Bullitt asked, they fail to take and then give up Constantinople? Then the post-war union of Russia and Germany would be inevitable, House reasoned, predicting the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. This "league of malcontents" would be joined by Japan, he said, predicting Pearl Harbor. The new alliance will be directed against Great Britain, France and the United States, and this confrontation will determine the course of the century, which, as Bullitt believed, will be the bloodiest in the history of mankind.

House recalled how he, on behalf of the Wilson administration, tried to stop the European war by negotiating with the warring parties about a pact that would ensure freedom of maritime trade. But the sinking of the steamer Lusitania, torpedoed by a German submarine in May 1915, stopped American mediation. Published on the eve of the Russian Revolution and shortly before the US entered the war, this interview article exposed House's unfulfilled plans and his ongoing fears. The ghostly "League of the Discontented," described in House's words, contained an important underlying motive that pushed America into war. She entered the war in order to prevent an alliance between Germany, Russia and Japan.

Appreciating the young journalist with his rare knowledge of European languages ​​and politics for an American, House introduced Bullitt to the American delegation that was going to negotiations in Paris. On House's recommendation, Bullitt was hired by the State Department in January 1918 under Secretary of State Lansing with a salary of $1,800 a year. With a rare knowledge of Germany and a special interest in Russia, Bullitt sincerely tried to contribute to the cause of peace. For an aspiring journalist of 27, this was a promising assignment. With his multilingual charm and sincere interest in international affairs, the new position promised a quick career. He fully shared the internationalist, left-liberal ideas of the senior members of the American delegation, and above all of his real boss, "Colonel" House.

House remained a mastermind and sponsor of the Progressive Movement and was a longtime supporter of Bullitt; fifteen years later, House would introduce him to Roosevelt. A very influential and reserved person, more of a diplomat than a politician, House left no ideological texts by which to judge his views. His huge diary, published with the respect due to this man, is full of information about his tactical undertakings; strategic goals are better judged by Philip Drew, Administrator.

The 1912 utopian novel tells of the future, predicting a new American Civil War. The action takes place in 1920. The hero of the novel, Philip Drew, is endowed with superhuman abilities, which he uses in the most significant area for the author - political action. A military academy graduate, Drew leads a rebellion against a corrupt president who created a pyramid scheme and deprives the middle class. The still free American press gets the results of wiretapping, which the president himself organized using new technology, and this becomes the last straw that ignited the uprising. In the first battle, Philip Drew wins a decisive victory over the President's troops, occupies Washington, suspends the Constitution, and declares himself Administrator.

The methods of government of the hero of the novel correspond to the socialist ideas of the author: he introduces a progressive tax, reaching up to 70% for the rich, and redistributes funds in favor of the poor, hoping to eliminate unemployment; legally limits the working day and the working week; demands workers' share of the profits and their participation in corporate boards, but deprives them of the right to strike; replaces the system of separation of powers with several emergency committees, to which he himself appoints people according to the criterion of "efficiency"; destroys the self-government of the states, finding it inadequate to the era of the telegraph and steam locomotive. At the same time, he introduces universal suffrage, with particular concern for women's voting rights; provides pensions for the elderly, subsidies to farmers, and finally compulsory health insurance for all workers; fights trade protectionism and customs tariffs, with particular concern for the freedom of maritime trade.

In foreign policy, Drew starts a new war in Mexico, intending to extend his rule to the whole Central America and draw European powers, including Germany, into a system of trade alliances that would give them access to colonial resources and relieve tensions leading to war. As a novel, House's writing was not successful; indeed, in plot and style, it is similar to the philosophical novels of the straightforward 18th century, as if the author had not even read Rousseau (although he certainly read Nietzsche and Marx, albeit in retellings).

House reached the pinnacle of his career towards the end of the First World War, and then lived a long life and died on the eve of the Second World War. He probably thought more than once about what he made a mistake in the old romance and what he turned out to be right about. The political program of his hero is sensational; combining the incompatible, it strikes the reader of the 21st century. Undertakings so progressive that some of them still remain the pinnacle of American dreams, combined with a dark cynical authoritarianism.

It is amazing that House, who only a couple of years later will follow the course of the World War and then influence its outcome, did not foresee the nature of this war, but judged it, as usual, on the basis of the past. He spoke shrewdly, however, about another aspect of warfare that would prove to be very important: moral justice and the strategic necessity of treating a defeated enemy generously. After their victory, the American North left the South the most impoverished and uneducated part of the country, and this was unfair: “Well-informed Southerners know that they were made to pay a fine for defeat, such as no one ever paid in modern times.” House went on to talk about the contrast with the Boer War; there "at the end of a long and bloody war, England gave the defeated Boers a huge grant, which helped them to restore order and prosperity in their shaken country." In this context, House wrote that the general of the losing side, Louis Botha, became the prime minister of the new state with the consent of the British, and in the United States, after civil war there was no southerner in the presidency. Wilson, who became the first Southern president in half a century and, at the time of Drew's publication, was governor of New Jersey and pondering his presidential chances, must have read this reasoning carefully.

Among the later figures of the 20th century, Drew is a lot like Lenin, but since he does not set out to eliminate capitalism, but rather subordinates it to his imperial ideas, one has to recall Mussolini. But the author did not condemn his hero in any way, and the text is completely devoid of irony; his novel expresses a sincere dissatisfaction with democracy, an equally sincere admiration for progress, and a still naive belief in a superman who, in politics, can do what simple people will never succeed. Reflecting the American, non-mystical, and purely political version of Nietzsche's connection with socialism, this novel cannot be imagined written even a few years later, after the revolution in Russia or even after the start of the war in Europe. In analyzing the relationship between Wilson and House in their psychobiography of Wilson, Bullitt and Freud emphasized the influence of House. Having become Wilson's foreign policy adviser, and then the de facto head of his second campaign in 1916, for a long time, until the Paris negotiations, he had no rivals in terms of access to the president. Wilson listened to House's advice and after a while sincerely considered them his own judgments, returning them in this form to House, who accepted and cultivated such attitudes. Some of Wilson's economic innovations—the most successful part of his presidency—repeated, albeit in diluted form, House's ideas that he had once attributed to Drew. In their book, Freud and Bullitt asserted the significance of House's novel for Wilson's politics: "Wilson's legislative program, carried out from 1912 to 1914, was in large part the program of House's book Philip Drew, Administrator ... This domestic political program brought remarkable results, and by spring 1914, the internal program of "Philip Drew" was basically carried out. The international program of "Philip Drew" remained unrealized ... Wilson was not interested in European affairs at that time ”(14) . House's novel is known to have been read by Wilson; it is obvious that Bullitt read it and continued to remember it many years later; it seems to me unlikely that Freud ever read it. However, the influence of a literary text on political decisions did not seem strange to the founder of psychoanalysis, or, all the more, incredible.

In House's novel, when the administrator hero carries out his plans, he decides to retire from the stage in order to avoid becoming a lifelong dictator. Drew thought up everything perfectly here: he and his faithful girlfriend on the Californian coast are waiting for an ocean yacht that will take them ... where? In this last year as Administrator, Drew is learning "one Slavic language" and even teaching it to his girlfriend, who for the time being does not understand the meaning of this lesson. Together with the voyage across the Pacific, this detail hints that Drew has now gone to repeat his exploits in Russia. Five years later, as he supervised the compilation of the theses of the Fourteen Points, which became the key document of the American peace program, Colonel House would insert into it the famous comparison of Russia with the "touchstone of goodwill."

House's political utopia partly follows Edward Bellamy's earlier and far more successful novel Looking Backward (1887); but House was a practical politician, and his recipes are much more specific. His novel is interesting to read, knowing the leading role that its author later played in Democratic administrations from Wilson to Roosevelt. This is a pamphlet novel, the content of which boils down to a sincere rejection of democratic politics, even passionate disappointment in it. Administrator Drew is written like an American Zarathustra, only his area of ​​expertise has been shifted from aesthetics to politics. Behind this is the dream of overcoming democratic politics in much the same way that Nietzsche overcame human nature: by constructing an unreal but desirable entity - a superman, a superpolitics - without a recipe for realizing this dream. The dream itself, however, was characteristic of an elite circle of experts, professors and gentlemen from which Democratic administrations drew foreign policy cadres.

In the mid-1930s, George Kennan, Bullitt's protégé and student who was House's protégé and student, wrote a similar utopian text about changing the American constitution to give the cultural elite special political rights and, on that basis, move to authoritarian rule. The project was left unfinished; the author, at that time a career American diplomat, did not publish it. However, his ideas were not a secret from colleagues. In 1936, he wrote to Bullitt about the need for a "strong central government in the United States, much stronger than the current constitution allows" (15) .

Wilson and his entourage rethought the German concept of idealism, adapting it to political life America. They believed in the superiority of Western civilization, in the universal strength of their own moral ideals, and in the 20th century, the progress of all mankind would replicate the democratic development of America after the Civil War. These ideas unfolded into international politics that asserted a new "progressive" and "idealistic" agenda: the self-determination of peoples in Europe, the decolonization of Asia and Africa, the building of democratic states and their inclusion in global organizations subject to international law. Wilsonian idealists disliked European imperialism and did not see America competing with Germany, Britain, or Russia to build their own empire. But their recognition of nationalism as a political force and their promotion of national self-determination was combined with their perception of American democracy as a universal model that fits the conditions of any nation-state, although it allows for decorative variations, combined, for example, with the monarchy in the British Isles. From the idealism of Wilson there was a direct path to the liberal universalism of American politics during the Cold War and then to the neoconservatism of the early twenty-first century; in Nixon's White House office, for example, there was a portrait of Wilson. Political idealism was opposed by another system of reasoning - political realism. He recognized the irreconcilability of national interests that opposed and oppose each other from positions of strength, and these contradictions cannot be resolved on the basis of reasonable consent. The failures of the Treaty of Versailles, the inability of the League of Nations to prevent the Second World War, decades of superpower confrontation determined the post-war victories of political realism. But American politicians and diplomats did not forget their idealistic legacy either during the Cold War era or after it ended.

The true creator of political idealism, House was preoccupied with quite earthly affairs. Like many others, he was inclined to promote relatives and friends into the administration, which is common in politics, but - in contrast to the crystal clear Wilson - was conspicuous. The board of 150 American professors who formulated and agreed upon the Fourteen Points was headed by a relative of House. A conflict was outlined in the American delegation that went to France to conduct peace negotiations: Wilson forbade the members of the delegation to take their wives with them, but already on board the George Washington steamer he had to meet not only House's wife, but also the wife of his son, whom House besides, he forced Wilson to be his secretary. Then Secretary of State Lansing, a constant opponent of House, accused him of creating a "secret organization" within the Wilson administration, which turned the American delegation at the Paris Peace Conference into a private club full of secrets and conspiracies (16) .

In fact, however, President Wilson was accompanied by a huge delegation, the largest of the national delegations at the pompous Paris Conference. It included, in particular, expert professors from the unique institute created by House, the prototype of modern think-tanks ("think tanks"), which was called "The Inquiry". The ideas of this institution determined the central of Wilson's famous "Fourteen Points" with which America entered the war. The principle of self-determination of nations belonged to Wilson himself, but its implementation required a detailed knowledge of Europe, which in America only professors had. The professor himself, Wilson, understood this and told his former colleagues: "Tell me what is fair, and I will fight for it."

The executive director of The Inquiry was another young and ambitious intellectual journalist, future critic and rival of Bullitt, Walter Lippman. Having graduated from Harvard in the same issue as John Reed and the later famous poet T. S. Eliot, Lippman was the founder of the Harvard Socialist Club, and then the famous magazine The New Republic. After House, no one contributed more to the formulation of the intellectual program of the Progressive Movement in America than Lippmann. Studied at Harvard under the great American philosophers William James and George Santayana, Lippmann rejected the key idea of ​​democratic theory that the common sense of the common man leads to the public good, and that the task of political institutions is to accommodate the diversity of voices. ordinary people.

Entering the twentieth century, Lippmann asserted the power of the press and other institutions that shaped the "common sense of the common people" - schools, universities, churches, trade unions. In Introduction to Politics (1913), The Stakes of Diplomacy (1915) and, finally, his most important book, Public Opinion (1922), Lippmann shifted the focus of political criticism from the "common man" to the intellectual elite, and those increasingly sophisticated mechanisms by which the elite forms public opinion, on which it itself depends in a democracy.

After much hesitation, Lippmann supported Wilson in his 1916 election campaign, putting into practice the opinion-forming actions he criticized in his theoretical books. However, Wilson did not accept his candidacy for the post of chief wartime censor and propagandist, giving the new Committee of Public Information to his friend and also journalist George Creel. He created a gigantic organization with 37 departments, hundreds of employees and many thousands of volunteers (at the beginning of 1917, Bullitt also worked in this structure). Lippmann took an active part in military preparations: together with the young Franklin Roosevelt, he organized training camps for military sailors. Later, however, he took over the direction of The Inquiry, which became perhaps the most important ideological work of the war.

John Reid publicly accused Lippmann of betraying the radical ideals of youth; Reed himself was in Mexico at that time, from where he wrote enthusiastic reports about the revolutionary troops of Pancho Villa, who fought against the American imperialists. Lippman answered him that Reed could not be a judge of what he called radicalism: “I,” Lippman wrote, “began this fight much earlier than you, and I will finish it much later” (17). He turned out to be right. Having lived a long life, he criticized the Roosevelt military administration and then the Cold War from the left, although far from radical positions.

It seems that it was in the era of the idealistic Wilson that disillusionment with democracy developed latently, and it was precisely those who sincerely supported the undertakings of the history professor who became the president of the warring America who shared this feeling. Frustration took many forms, but they were all related to the impossibility of introducing internal reforms in an open democratic way; criticism of those manipulations of the electorate, the press and the markets, which in the 20th century became a necessary part of the executive branch; disbelief that democracy - not only in sinful Europe, but also in fresh, powerful America - will be able to resist the new despotic states, the ideological basis of which was socialism. Associated with this feeling, a kind of melancholy, was a rejection of belief in the moral significance of political action, a critique of human nature and disbelief in its capacity for solidarity and self-organization. And yet it was a new, specifically American feeling: not Russian nihilism, rooted in inescapable alienation from power; not German resentment, the meaning of which was the recognition of irresistible weakness in the face of the enemy; and not French existentialism, a matter of the near future. American thought was looking for pragmatic ways and methods of political life suitable for real implementation in conditions when democracy does not work.

Walter Lippmann understood this situation as the task of a new social science. In democratic politics, Lippman reasoned, people react not to facts but to news; accordingly, the decisive role is played by those many who bring news to the people - journalists, editors, experts. But unlike the political machine with its parties, laws, separation of powers, the work of the information machine is not organized in any way.

After conducting a serious study in 1920 of how the New York Times reported on the events of 1917-1920 in Russia (co-authors analyzed about four thousand articles on this topic), Lippman traced waves of unreasonable optimism, which were replaced by waves of acute disappointment and calls for intervention. Neither, Lipman wrote, corresponded to the few well-known events, such as the victory of the Bolsheviks; such news did not allow predicting events and, accordingly, did not help to make political decisions. On the whole, Lippman characterized the coverage of the Russian Revolution in the best American newspaper as "catastrophically bad" (18) . Bad news is worse than no news, he thought. In an attempt to find a bureaucratic solution to this philosophical problem, he proposed the creation of expert councils in each American ministry that would share knowledge with the administration and organize the flow of information in their field. He considered the common source of such information problems to be “the inability of people endowed with self-government to go beyond their random experience and prejudices”, which, from his point of view, is possible only on the basis of the organized construction of a “knowledge machine”. Precisely because governments, universities, newspapers, churches are forced to act on the basis of an incorrect picture of the world, they are not able to counteract the obvious vices of democracy (19). This was the beginning of public opinion surveys, reader polls, voter pools; in fact, modern sociology began with the recognition of the insufficiency of electoral procedures for public self-government. But Lippmann's career as an expert administrator did not work out. A short time as Wilson's speechwriter and Roosevelt's military training comrade, he forever remained a liberal journalist with a particular interest in Russian affairs. It is believed that he owns the expression " cold war", which he used in a critical spirit. In the 1950s, he would become a leading advocate in the American press. Soviet Union, an opponent of the idea of ​​containment. Here his paths once again converge with Bullitt, and a fierce controversy breaks out between them. One of Lippmann's late journalistic successes was an interview with Khrushchev taken in 1961.

Since public opinion is so important for democratic politics, and experts understand this opinion better than voters and journalists, it means that experts can play a special role in influencing public opinion, in its formation. This next step, after James and Lippmann, was taken by an Austrian immigrant in America and Freud's nephew Edward Bernays. A Cornell graduate, he became a member of the Public Information Committee, set up by Wilson in April 1917 to shape public opinion: "Not propaganda in the German sense," Wilson said, "but propaganda in the true sense of the word: spreading the faith." Then Bernays participated in the American delegation to the Paris negotiations, and in 1919 opened the first in America and in the world Consultation on relations with the public, or PR. Bernays coined the term, Public Relations, PR. He advertised soap and fashion, cigarettes for women and, conversely, the fight against smoking. He advertised Freud all his life, and the Manhattan fashion historian sees Bernays's key role as "Freud became Madison Avenue's mentor" (20) . He maintained a constant correspondence with Freud, referring to him (but also to Ivan Pavlov) all the time in his works, visiting his uncle during his visits to Europe. He may have introduced Freud to Bullitt, and it is more than likely that he was the source for much that Freud knew about Wilson.

One of the employees of the Committee of Public Information, Edgar Sisson, traveled to Russia in the winter of 1918 and brought back documents that showed that the Bolshevik leaders Lenin and Trotsky were German mercenaries. The American agents in Russia, Colonel Robbins and Major Thatcher, were sympathetic to the Bolsheviks and disputed the authenticity of these documents. Bullitt also did not believe in their authenticity. In his archives, however, a memorandum from the East European Section of the State Department, dated November 18, 1918, and possibly drawn up by Bullitt himself, has been preserved. This document proposed asking the leader of the German Social Democrats, Friedrich Ebert (the soon-to-be President of Germany) "to publish the names of those who were hired by the Political Department of the German General Staff to spread Bolshevik propaganda." Much later, in 1936, as U.S. ambassador to the USSR, Bullitt wrote to the State Department about former Public Information officer Kenneth Durant, who was a "witness" (and possibly participant) in Sisson's fabrication of the documents. According to Bullitt, this slander of the Bolsheviks made such an impression on the young Durant that he became a socialist and worked for the Soviets; in the mid-thirties he was the representative of the Telegraph Agency of the USSR in the USA.

New technologies for managing public opinion were returning power to the hands of the elite, depriving America's political institutions of their democratic foundations. Based on controlled flows of information, power acquired superhuman traits that were projected onto its leader. This third path between idealism and realism I would call political demonism. In Europe it led to upheavals and new wars, while in America it remained an alternative frame of mind, a nihilistic dotted line that permeates the fabric of democratic politics.

Colonel House's "Administrator Drew", Bullitt's scattered words, and finally Kennan's forgotten drafts reveal the latent popularity of these ideas, even among those who helped set the progressive agenda. Then, before Bullitt's eyes, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who also began government service in the Wilson administration, became an incomparable master of public opinion. Bullitt understood his successes and failures this way: “In the invention of political mechanisms and tricks, Roosevelt had no equal. His skill in manipulating American public opinion was second to none. Sometimes he was just a political genius, and it was a great asset to our country when his policies coincided with national interest. But when he was wrong, the same abilities allowed him to lead the country into trouble ”(21) .

* * *

The following excerpt from the book The world could be different. William Bullitt in an attempt to change the 20th century (Alexander Etkind, 2015) provided by our book partner -

Colonel House

In 1912, US financial circles put President W. Wilson in place (the main sponsor of the presidential campaign was B. Baruch). Another assistant who played a big role in Wilson's victory was the Texas financier Mandel House. House not only helped win the presidential election, but also became the president's closest friend, becoming a real "gray eminence" of the United States, subjugating the State Department, the White House apparatus. He himself said: "I am the power behind the throne." House is called the true ruler of America 1912-1920, and President Woodrow Wilson himself recommended him this way: “House is my second self, my independent self. Our thoughts are exactly the same."

House once told biographer Charles Seymour that under Wilson he was an unusually important figure: “For the past fifteen years I have been in the thick of things, although few suspected it. Not a single important foreign guest came to America without talking to me. I was closely associated with the movement that nominated Roosevelt for President."

Thus, House not only created Woodrow Wilson, but was also involved in making Franklin Roosevelt President of the United States.

When the First World War broke out, House was preoccupied with the split of the European powers into two camps. He believed that the victory of the Russian Empire as part of the Entente would give it dominance over Europe - receiving the Bosphorus and Dardanelles, Galicia, Polish lands from the German Empire, this was unacceptable for the United States. The victory of the German bloc was also undesirable for the United States, so he believed that the Entente should win, but without Russia.

The First World War was extremely beneficial for the United States, their main competitors in the race for world domination weakened each other, the States from the world debtor (3 billion debt before the war) became the world creditor (they were owed 2 billion dollars). US industry grew stronger on military orders, the population increased, people fled from Europe, from the horrors of war, trying to start a new life.

"House's plan" is a very conditional name, he was not the only author of the plan for the reorganization of the world, and there is no document with that name, but there are diaries, House's letters, which set out his vision. The Americanist A. Utkin calls this plan "House's strategy." Its goal was to establish the world domination of the United States, but not by military methods, but by political, financial, economic, informational ones.

Plan Basics

- Taking advantage of the fruits of neutrality, it was necessary to enter the war ourselves in order to enjoy the fruits of victory. The signal for the US entry into the war was the revolution in the Russian Empire and the overthrow of the tsar.

- After the collapse of the monarchy, Russia had to be defeated in the war, to get out of it. After that, Germany got the opportunity to focus on the Western Front, the British, French, Italian troops could only hope for the help of the United States. Washington was getting a lot of leverage over them.

- The victory over Germany and its allies was going to be ensured not so much by military methods, but more by informational ones. To do this, it was necessary to separate the peoples of the warring countries from the ruling regimes, find support in the internal opposition, encourage them, promise them power, initiate revolutionary processes within the countries.

– After the war to revise the system international relations, cancel the treaty of the times of "secret diplomacy".

- The main strategic partner of the United States was to be the British, together with England, the United States could dictate the terms of peace to all other countries. Together with England, they were going to dismember Russia, weaken the positions of France, Italy, and Japan. Moreover, as a result, England became a junior, subordinate partner.

- The result of all the reshuffles was the "New World Order", the formation of a "world government", where the United States will dominate. With the help of propaganda of "democratic values" they were going to make them a priority for all world politics. The First World War created favorable conditions for such a transition, it was explained by the aggressiveness of "absolutism", the lack of "democracy" in Europe. The establishment of "genuine democracy" supposedly will save the world from future wars. The United States, on the other hand, received the role of a justice of the peace, which could get into any conflict, the role of a world teacher of democracy.

- Russia fell into the camp of the defeated in the war, it was planned to be divided into four territories. They fell under the political, financial and economic influence of the United States, becoming in fact its raw material appendage and market for goods, losing all influence in the world. House also did not like Orthodox Christianity, he believed that it should be destroyed and replaced by a religion like Protestantism.

In October 1918, the Wilson government developed a secret "commentary on 14 points", which proposed to finally resolve the "Russian question" by dividing Russia into separate "independent regions" subject to the United States.

House wrote these days:

“She (Russia) is too big and too homogeneous for our security. I would like to see Siberia as a separate state, and European Russia divided into three parts.”

"... the rest of the world will live more peacefully if instead of a huge Russia there are four Russias in the world. One is Siberia, and the rest are a divided European part of the country."

A good example of the US plans to destroy Russia is the official map compiled by the US State Department for the Paris Peace Conference, entitled "Proposed Borders in Russia."

Nothing was left of Russia on this map, except for the Central Russian Upland. The appendix to this map stated: “The whole of Russia should be divided into large natural areas, each with its own economic life. At the same time, no region should be so independent as to form a strong state.”

On November 19, 1917, the American ambassador to Russia issued a brazen appeal to the Russian people to remain "reasonable" and hand over the Trans-Siberian Railway to the United States.

Senator Poindexter from an article he published in The New York Times on June 8, 1918: "Russia is just a geographical concept and will never be anything else. Its power of unity, organization and restoration is gone forever. The nation does not exist."

Meanwhile, President Wilson, in his address to the US Congress, stated:

“Does not every American feel that the wonderful, heart-pleasing events taking place in Russia over the past few weeks have raised our hopes for future world worldwide? For those who knew her better than others, Russia has always been fundamentally democratic in everything that concerns the vital traditions of her ideology, in all the family relationships of her people, which reflected their natural instincts, their habitual attitude to life. The autocracy at the top of its political structure, for all that it had existed there for a long time, wielded terrifying power, but neither in character nor in purpose was the autocracy Russian in origin. And today it has been overthrown, and the great, generous Russian people, in all its greatness and might, has become an integral part of the forces that are fighting for freedom in the world, for justice and peace. This is a worthy partner in the league of honor."

Colonel House, left us an interesting book. It is called "Philip Drew - Administrator" and contains the personal opinions of the author, dressed in the form of a novel. And although the book was written in 1912, it contained predictions of future events that the author hoped would come true.

According to her story, in 1925, a meeting took place between John Thor (depicted as the high priest of finance) and Senator Selvin (a very influential politician).

Selvin discovered “that the government was run by a handful of people, that outside this narrow circle no one mattered almost anything. Selvin's goal was to break into it, if possible, and his claims extended so far as not only to want to be in it, but, later, to become IT.

Senator Selvin was not content with merely electing the President of the United States, he also "plotted to control both the Senate and the Supreme Court." “For Selvin, it was a spellbinding game. He wanted to rule the Country with an autocratic hand, and at the same time not be known as a governing force.

The country learned about this criminal conspiracy between these two important persons by a lucky chance when Mr. Thor's secretary was rewinding a record on a dictograph, which was accidentally turned on during the meeting. The secretary gave the tape to the Associated Press, which spread the story of the conspiracy throughout the country. America read the press release and learned that "revolution was inevitable."

The hero of the novel, Philip Drew, who is not directly involved in the conspiracy, gathers an army of 500,000 people and leads it on a campaign against Washington. On the way to the capital, he encounters government troops and wins a convincing victory over them. The President, named in the Rockland novel, flees the country, and in his absence, Selvin is appointed acting President. Having become President, he immediately puts himself in the hands of Philip Drew.

Drew enters Washington, leaves Selvin as President, but assigns "the power of a dictator", allowing Selvin to serve as President, although Drew will decide everything personally. Now he is able to give the United States new form board. Drew begins to legislate for the country, because "... the legislature did not work and the legislative function was reduced to one person - the administrator Philip Drew himself."

Drew also interfered in the internal affairs of other countries and worried about the people of Russia, as he: "... wanted to know when will she be released. He understood that in this despotic country someone was waiting for a huge job.

As it became known after the publication of the book, Colonel House admitted that the book expresses "his moral and political convictions." House saw himself “in his hero. Philip Drew was the kind of person he wanted to be himself. Every act of his career, every letter, every word of advice addressed to President Woodrow Wilson was in line with the ideas formulated by Philip Drew.