“Reset”: Chapter 2 – Rementar

During a business trip to New York in June 1940, Elliott stopped over in Washington to stay with his parents in the White House. Over breakfast Elliott pressed his Dad about business taxes, but for both men their minds were really on other business.

The American press had speculated all through Spring on whether FDR would run again for the Presidency. Already knowing his father’s intentions to continue to lead America through the turbulent war period, Elliott had been taken by how rapidly events had unfolded in Europe.

September 1939 Germany invaded Poland, prompting Great Britain and France to declare war on Germany. Two weeks later, countering the advance of Germany, the Soviet Union invaded eastern Poland, and Poland was divided when it surrendered. December 1939 the Soviet Union invaded Finland and in March 1940 Finland ceded territory for armistice. Spring 1940 Germany invaded and annexed Denmark and Norway followed by Western Europe and by June controlled Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the northern half of France including the Atlantic coastline.

Elliott discussed with FDR what other young men in America had increasingly wondered that Spring of 1940 – whether he should enlist in the armed forces. He wanted to know whether his father had any thoughts on it in relation to he and his brothers. Giving little away, and in his usual liberal-minded style of parenting and mentorship, his Dad left it entirely a matter for Elliott’s own conscience. Through a Texas summer the gravity of the situation in Europe broke through Elliott’s dissonance, along with that of many other observant Americans, and by August Elliott was at the War Department in Washington discussing with Army Airforce contacts how he could serve. He kept his commission as a Captain in the procurement division, having failed the medical for a pilot, quiet from his family – and especially father – until September when it became official.

Between appointments with Cabinet members Elliott slipped into the office and placed the notification before his Dad. With eyes welling with tears, and a heart swelling with pride, FDR looked upon the first of his sons to volunteer, cleared his choaked throat enough for the five words to audibly clear his lips – “I’m very proud of you.” No mention was made of how previous Roosevelts had served in the Navy.

That night when Elliott came to his Dad’s bedroom to say goodnight he lingered while they discussed how Elliott felt about his commission, and they talked plainly – as plainly as a President could to only those he most trusted from his lonely position, his flesh and blood – of his hopes for the future. They talked broadly about geopolitics, and specifically why the US was still supplying Japan with scrap iron knowing that it equated to Chinese casualties in Manchuria – FDR was concerned that Japan might consider withdrawal of supply a provocation and he accepted that it was essentially an act of appeasement (a vulgar word and concept in those fraught times).

Father and son parted that evening closer than ever before; a deep family bond that FDR would count on, along with his other children, at critical times over the remaining years of his life which were more impactful than almost any other human to walk the Earth in modern times.

Concerned about Germany’s rapid advance westward, and even though he had told his closest political confidant James Farley that he will not contest thereby leaving the field open for Farley’s own political ambitions, aided by political party bosses fearful that no other Democrat could beat the charismatic Republican candidate Wendell Willkie, FDR easily carries the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. Eleanor Roosevelt vouching for his new VP, Wallace from Iowa, after his previous VP Garner ran against him on the basis of FDR’s liberal economic and social policies, was a pivotal moment in the convention.

The Republican nominee Willkie supported intervention in the European crisis, and the rapidly evolving events there in late Spring ahead of the Republican National Convention was a clear catalyst for him defeating highly favoured isolationist candidates by coming from obscurity and claiming the nomination with rapidly growing, widespread public support. So unexpected was the result to Willkie, himself, that he had not decided on a running mate, and allowed that decision to be made by the convention chairman.

The 1940 election was a highly charged affair. Though extremely popular in some circles, in other circles Willkie was seen as a symbol of ‘big business’ which had caused the Great Depression and was often the target of hurled rotten fruit and vegetables when campaigning in working class regions. Willkie at first argued that FDR had left the nation unprepared for war, but then swung 180 degrees suggesting that FDR was secretly planning to take the nation to war after some details of war preparations were publicly released.

In the days ahead of the 1940 US Presidential election, FDR declared on a national radio broadcast that he would “not send any American boys to a foreign war” even though Britain had been engaged in influencing the election for an FDR win as they knew he was sympathetic.

FDR won the 1940 election resoundingly and remains the only US president to serve more than 2 terms.

Elliott was based in Newfoundland in March of 1941 conducting aerial reconnaissance against Nazi submarine operations which aimed to disrupt American supplies to Britain via the North Atlantic as a part of ‘lend-lease agreements”, and he participated in an operation to locate suitable staging points for the delivery of American war materiel to Britain. He had his first experience of war when he spent a few weeks in London towards the end of the Nazi aerial blitz.

In August 1941 Elliott was ordered to fly the general commanding American forces to Argentia. When the bay came into view, they observed it to be full to the brim with warships. FDR and his military chiefs were there to meet the British PM Churchill and military counterparts to negotiate the Atlantic Charter which made explicit America’s support for Britain in the war and laid out the principles by which America and Britain would seek to influence world affairs, critically promoting free global trade and economic co-operation for the advancement of all peoples along with disarmament of all nations once peace had been secured. FDR held all the cards, even though statesman Churchill played his hand to the fullest, conceding that although America was insistent that Britain move beyond its much-advantaged colonialist position in the postwar period, he knew that “without America, the Empire won’t stand”.

Elliott’s brother, James, was also present, and both were on hand for much of the sparring between Churchill and FDR over Britain’s colonial prestige, as well as for private chats with their father, which the official proceedings and outcomes showed clearly favoured FDR’s position which aimed to improve the living conditions for broad humanity.

Talks concluded, Elliott stood by FDR’s side on the ‘Augusta’, his Dad’s arm on his, as the ‘Prince of Wales’ set out to sea for an uncertain, war-wearied Britain. Father and son quickly said their goodbyes and parted, not knowing when or under what circumstances they may next meet.

Back State-side in the Fall of ’41, Elliott found the prevailing mood disconnected as friends cajoled him to lay down his uniform and avail himself of some of the many sweet business opportunities present in a rebounding US economy. That dissonance was disrupted December 7th as Japan attacked the U.S. Naval Base at Pearl Harbour. Summoned back to base, before word of the attack had spread, and following two hours of anxious attempts, Elliott was put through to his Dad by the White House switchboard operator. FDR was buzzing with the focused energy of a high voltage transmission line. He asked his son first how he was and then what had he heard. After Elliott had listed the many rumours he had heard in those few hours, FDR asked that he keep him informed of any developments as he placed down the phone, leaving Elliott puzzled by the hectic and unidirectional flow of information in their chat.

The next day FDR addressed Congress which voted to declare war on Japan and Germany, thereby America entering World War II. Only one person in Congress voted against, Jeanette Rankin who said “As a woman I can’t go to war and I refuse to send anyone else”. Rankin was the first woman to hold office in the US and was a pacifist. After the vote she needed a police escort.

January ’42 and Elliott was summoned by highly secretive orders to First Mapping Group at Bolling Field in Washington. He was to join operation ‘Rusty Project’, conducting aerial intelligence and mapping over northern Africa. Even the code name bellied its inconsequential nature to Elliott. A departing conversation with his Dad, one of their regular (when circumstances permitted) ‘post breakfast, pre work chats’, set Elliott straight on the critical importance of the operation being to secure the Mediterranean supply route. Even then, however, his location in northern Africa was likely more than opportune.

Around this time, unknown to most, FDR authorised the go ahead for the Manhattan project to develop an atomic bomb, responding in handwriting directly on a report from American scientists and asking they keep the only copy on site. America had been conducting background research since the famous physicist Albert Einstein wrote to Roosevelt in 1939 warning that the Nazis were working on developing an atomic bomb.

A year later, and two months into Allied operations in Africa, Elliott was again required to undertake highly secretive orders – this time he had an inkling of the nature of these orders, however, as his mother had mentioned as much when they spent a night together in London a few months earlier. Elliott arrived at the Casablanca Conference in January 1943, a few days ahead of his father’s arrival, and was again to act as an aide in his father’s meeting with Churchill, and, it was hoped, with Stalin.

FDR arrived by Douglas C-54 Skymaster. As they waited together for “the sacred cow” to land, the nickname later given to the Presidential flying monstrosity, Elliott mentioned to Mike Reilly, head of the Secret Service agents in charge of securing the President’s safety, that it was actually the first time his Dad had flown in a plane in over 10 years. Reilly’s body language as he responded revealed the true depths of his anxious deliberations.

“It’s a lot more firsts than that. It’s the first time any President has ever used a plane to travel outside the States. In fact, it’s the first time a President has ever used a plane, inside or outside the country, on official or unofficial business.”

His spirits still aloft by what he had just experienced and seen, for the entire ride in an old French limousine that had been requisitioned to carry them to their compound FDR spoke enthusiastically about the importance of experiencing prevailing flying conditions for himself for the first time since his Naval days. As they continued to reconnect later that evening when Elliott bid his Dad good night in his bedroom, after a small evening gathering with Churchill and his most trusted aides, merging his thoughts from his travel, and especially his observations and learnings on the ground and from the air over Africa, with the saliency of the conference, FDR was concerned for the conditions of colonialised people. It was clear that this element of great contention would continue to feature in the personal and professional exchanges between these great Allied leaders.

In a charged atmosphere where the British had continually argued to relocate to perceived safer ground in Marakesh, and as the two leaders communicated with Stalin via telegram as being a serving military commander he felt unable to be further than a day’s flight from Moscow, Britain and America hashed out a winning strategy for the Allied forces, always with a clear view to the following peace. As he saw it, Elliott gathered that FDR was especially alert to Churchill seeking to influence strategy in a way to maximise British prestige and power in the postwar period, and it was through this lens the FDR considered Churchill’s argument to focus Allied forces through the Balkans to ameliorate Russia’s postwar influence over eastern Europe, over the American preference for northern France.

That disagreement of strategy would play out between the Americans and British for several years, all the while American war production cranked on to provide the Allies an overwhelming advantage. Similarly, the British objected to the proportion of American war goods being allocated to Russia as opposed to Britain in the Allied lend-lease agreements; of course Britain argued for a greater share, but with only one eye on protecting Britain from attacks by the enemy Axis.

Agreeing to a prior movement of Allied forces northward through Sicily prior to the cross-channel invasion, and to increasing actions in the Pacific theatre, the conference concluded but with underlying tension remaining on strategy with a view to postwar power struggles. 

With the conference proceedings finalised, once more father and son bid their goodbyes, but there was just enough time for FDR to underline what was truly on his mind that day in northern Africa:

“I’ve tried to make it clear to Winston – and the others – that while we’re their allies, and in it to victory by their side, they must never get the idea that we’re in it just to help them hang on to the archaic, medieval Empire ideas. I hope they realise they’re not senior partner; that we’re not going to sit by, after we’ve won, and watch their system stultify the growth of every country in Asia and half the countries in Europe to boot… Great Britain signed the Atlantic Charter. I hope they realise the United States government means to make them live up to it.”

A knock at the door notified the President of his appointment with the Commander-in-Chief of the French North African fleet, and again they parted not knowing when they would again meet, but not before Elliott asked his Dad to give a kiss to his Mum and to look after himself, likely in part a recognition that Elliott had become increasingly perceptive of the strain of leadership through a harrowing decade on his father.

After leading the photographic reconnaissance for operation Huskey, the Allied invasion of Sicily, and with Allied troops in firm control now in Sicily, Elliott was summoned back for a role in the Pentagon in July 1943. Back home in America was too distant from the action for Elliott, but it meant that he was able to spend valuable time with his parents, especially his Dad who had aged even more obviously over the intervening 6 months.

In between, however, FDR had met with Churchill in Quebec, Canada, where the Allies finally agreed on the cross-channel invasion, even though Churchill insisted it be an agreement ‘in principle’ for continued ‘wiggle-room’.

FDR was calm and confident about military operations, and Elliott frequently dropped in to talk with his Dad, usually after his breakfast at around 9 am, or just before turning in at around 11pm.  In one of those evening chats FDR dared to draw an optimistic timeline for the conclusion of hostilities; with the Russian Red army “plowing through the centre” he felt the European theatre could be won by the end of 1944, and the Japanese defeated in the Pacific by late 1945 or early 1946 at the latest. FDR also mentioned that he was hopeful of soon meeting up with Churchill and Stalin both.

Then, around a week later when father and son met again in FDR’s study on the second floor of the White House nearing midnight, his Dad furnished Elliott another insight into the depths of his deliberations which were increasingly concerned with maintaining the postwar peace:

“War is too political a thing. Depending on how desperate are a country’s straits, she is likely to wage war only in such a way as will benefit her politically in the long run, rather than fighting to end the war as swiftly as possible… The United States will have to lead… and use good offices always to conciliate, help to solve differences which will arise between the others – between Russia and England, in Europe; between the British Empire and China and between China and Russia, in the Far East. We will be able to do that because we’re big, and we’re strong, and we’re self-sufficient. Britain is on the decline, China – still in the eighteenth century. Russia – still suspicious of us, and making us suspicious of her. America is the only great power that can make peace in the world stick.”

Having already been given the tipoff by his Dad that he would likely be seeing him again soon, saying goodbye to family was all the easier this time when in September Elliott was ordered to return to his outfit as they moved headquarters from La Marsa in Tunisia up to San Severo just south of the Molise-Puglia border in southern Italy.

Sure enough, mid-September ’43 and Elliott flew to Oran in Algeria, but this was again a slightly larger family reunion with his brother Franklin Jr also given leave to attend his father. FDR arrived on the new battleship “Iowa” appearing in slightly better health than Elliott had feared he might perceive. After a day or two in Tunisia, including FDR’s inspection of Elliott’s units in La Marsa, Franklin Jr bid his farewell to his father and brother and returned to his destroyer, to his father’s displeasure, while FDR flew on to Cairo, a day earlier than Elliott who flew in General Eisenhower’s  C-54 along with other staff officers including Elliott’s brother-in-law John Boettiger.

The agenda for discussions to be spread between Cairo and Teheran, involving the four most important strategic Allied nations in America, Britain, Russia and China, was almost entirely centred upon planning for the end of the war and organising for enduring postwar peace.

Arriving at Ambassador Kirk’s villa in Cairo, Elliott immediately went to check on his father who still, at 10.30am, was in bed enjoying a breakfast. FDR shared with his son his first impressions of Generalissimo and his wife Madam Chiang whom he had dined with that previous evening, unearthing more relevant information than in four hours of meetings of the Combined Chiefs. Chiang’s troops were not fighting against the Japanese; instead “thousands and thousands of his best men [were] up in the northwest – up on the borders of Red China.”

Then his Dad said something even more surprising. “Believe it or not, Elliott, the British are raising questions and doubts again about the western front… Winston keeps making his doubts clear to everybody… It’s still the idea of an attack through the Balkans, a common front with the Russians”.

Later that morning Elliott was enjoying the sun on the roof of the villa, looking over the pyramids, when Admiral McIntire – his Dad’s physician – interrupted his reflections on time and eternity to voice his concerns over the potential health consequences of FDR flying at high altitude to get to Teheran for the second leg of meetings, this time with Uncle Joe (Stalin). He wanted Elliott’s support in encouraging the President to undertake that part of the journey by train.

That afternoon, while greeting the many attending brief protocol visits with the President, Elliott managed a few quick words with his father’s political right hand man, Harry Hopkins, foreign policy advisor and liaison to Allied leaders, which was always good for a different perspective. He assured Elliott that his father was still the dominant voice, but highlighted the subtleties around the meeting taking place on British Empire soil in Egypt and in immediate proximity to the oil rich Middle East on which American foreign policy greatly lagged the British.

Assuredly Harry said, “He’s taking his time, a little bit. He’s still keeping his ears and his pores open. He’s learning. But he’s still boss.”

The next day was Thanksgiving and a banquet was held in the villa with the Chiangs in attendance along with Churchill and his daughter Sarah, and a swag of military brass. The mood was warm as FDR had been discussing development of China and furthering internal unity, while Allied negotiations progressed towards agreement on the western attack while the Soviet States “swept all before them”.

Over a late night cigarette with his Dad in his bedroom, Elliott learned that the British were also against the American plan to island hope to defeat Japan in the Pacific. The British favoured landings on the Malaysian Peninsula and a drive northward to push Japan out of China. The Americans were well aware that Chinese communist guerillas were actively engaging the Japanese along the coast of China but were withholding air-maps from the British at the request of the Chinese who were concerned that Britain would use the information gathered for commercial purposes postwar.

“Matter of fact, I was talking to Chiang about that at dinner, a few days ago. You see, he wants very badly to get our support against British moving into Hong Kong and Shanghai and Canton with the same old extra-territorial rights they enjoyed before the war… I’d told him that [China] was hardly the modern democracy it should be.”

FDR continued, “I was especially happy to hear the Generalissimo agree to invite the Communists in as part of the national Government prior to elections. Actually, as far as he’s concerned, the only earnest of our good faith that he expects is that when Japan is on her knees we make sure that no British warships come into Chinese ports. Only American warships. And I’ve given him my personal promise that that’s what will happen.”

When Elliott suggested that Churchill might have other ideas, his Dad responded forthrightly:

“There can’t be much argument, inasmuch as it’s ninety-nine percent American materiel and American men bringing about the defeat of Japan. American foreign policy after the war must be along the lines of bringing about a realisation on the part of the British and the French and the Dutch that the way we have run the Philippines is the only way they can run their colonies”.

The next day involved the sum up and finalization of the official communique, and FDR retired early for his flight on to Teheran as Mike Reilly and Major Otis Bryan had flown reconnaissance and found that the pass could be made in a smaller plane without going above 7,000 feet thereby assuring Admiral McIntire.

Elliott arrived with two other US military officials in the capital of Iran a few days later, a little later than had been expected due to an itinerary change decided by General Eisenhower, prompting fatherly concern when they greeted each other.

“Haven’t you got enough on your mind, Pop, what with meeting Stalin and all, without worrying about whether my plane is late or not?”.

FDR was on the point of sending out search planes, and had been having dreadful thoughts of Elliott’s plane being forced down amongst the “rough and tough” nomads of Saudi Arabia.

“I’m sorry, Pop. If [only] we’d been able to radio you…” said Elliott as they reconnected in the sitting room of his suite, in the main building of the Russian Embassy which Stalin had vacated to accommodate the American President, chosen as the site of discussion due to security concerns of travelling between the distant American Embassy. On the other hand, the British Embassy was on the other side of the street from the Russian.

His Dad was brimming with confidence having met ‘Uncle Joe’ for the first time in person and eager to fill his son in on his impressions.

“When I came over here yesterday he came up to say hello. Yesterday afternoon, it was… Right on this couch, Elliott. The Marshal [another nickname for Stalin] sat right where you’re sitting… Just me and Uncle Joe, and his interpreter, of course, Pavlov.”

FDR and Stalin just had a pleasant and polite introductory chat – no business – just to establish a personal report, and to put the discussions, at least between America and Russia, on a “non protocol basis of friendship and warm alliance”.

Elliott could see that his Dad had been impressed by Stalin, and was tickled by Churchill’s switching of civilian clothes (as he had warn in all previous conferences and discussions, pin-stripe suites or summer whites) for his high-ranking RAF officer uniforms to ‘face-off’ with the Marshal’s uniform for a dinner FDR had hosted the previous evening. Stalin was the only currently serving military officer of the three leaders and the location of Tehran was chosen on the basis that it was within a day flight of Moscow given his active service.

After lunch Elliott joined his father in a meeting with Stalin and his interpreter for a meeting where Stalin greeted the US President’s son warmly, and both leaders were at ease in each other’s company. Even though he knew Stalin was short, Elliott was surprised by his stature in person, and was impressed by his dynamic yet soft spoken, intellectually determined manner. Most of the 45mins was devoted to personal relationship development, but they briefly discussed Chinese concerns that the Chiangs had broached in Cairo, and he seemed to agree with the direction of those talks as well as agreeing to respect China’s sovereignty especially at the Manchurian frontier.

From this meeting the four men went directly into the boardroom where Prime Minister Churchill and his party had arranged a small ceremony to award Stalin on behalf of the people of Stalingrad with a British-made sword commissioned by King George VI.

It was a ceremony of deep conviction as all of the men present were deeply aware of its significance. Stalin expressed his deep appreciation to the King and walked around the table to show the sword of honour to FDR who murmured, “Truly they had hearts of steel”. It was a moment of peak unity as the leaders then went to the portico to pose for official photographs to be taken. 

Elliott was asleep in his father’s suite when discussions finally broke and FDR came in tired and of want of a rest, himself. That was not possible, however, since that evening Stalin hosted a dinner for Allied leaders and their highest officials present.

Lying on his bed for a brief rest, chatting about the days negotiations while Elliott fixed him an ‘old-fashioned’ cocktail – weak since they had been advised that Russian dinners involved much drinking – FDR revealed that still Churchill was pushing for an operation up through the Balkans in addition to the western invasion. General George Marshall had led the arguments for the past several years pushing back against the British plan which everyone knew, including Stalin, risked prolonging the war in favour of diminishing Russian influence in eastern Europe and promoting British influence there. FDR expressed that Americans owed Marshall a great gratitude for doggedly countering arguing for a single western invasion which would bring WWII to the most rapid conclusion possible and thus save countless American and Allied lives, not to mention provide greatest immediate security to Britain.

“Whenever the P.M. [Churchill] argued for invasion through the Balkans, it was quite obvious to everyone in the room what he really meant. That he was above all else anxious to knife up into central Europe, in order to keep the Red Army out of Austria and Rumania, even Hungary, if possible. Stalin knew it, I knew it, everybody knew it…” FDR explained.

When Elliott questioned whether Churchill might actually have a point, his Dad responded:

“Elliott, our chiefs of staff are convinced of one thing. The way to kill the most Germans, with the least loss of American soldiers, is to mount one great big invasion and then slam ‘em with everything we’ve got… It’s the quickest way to win the war. That’s all. Trouble is, the P.M. is thinking too much of the postwar, and where England will be. He’s scared of letting the Russians get too strong. Maybe the Russians will get strong in Europe. Whether that’s bad depends on a whole lot of factors. The one thing I’m sure of is this: if the way to save American lives, the way to win as short a war as possible, is from the west and from the west alone, without wasting landing-craft and men and materiel in the Balkans mountains, and our chiefs are convinced it is, then that’s that!”

The stirring unity from the afternoon’s ceremony was threatened that very evening, however, fueled by much too much alcohol as was the custom of Russian-hosted dinners. Elliott was not originally invited but Stalin personally brought him to the table when he realised the oversight. The tradition followed was that even to make idle conversation the speaker would stand and propose a toast to which everyone would drink, each man supplied with unlimited of his favoured drink – Churchill had his brandy, FDR was taken with the ‘Champagne’ from Stalin’s home region of Georgia, and Stalin himself drank his own special Vodka which he offered to Elliott who attested it to being 100 proof or near to it!

As the dinner progressed it became a test of who could hold their liquor as the toasts became increasingly prickly, especially between the Soviets and British. Unsurprisingly, the consumption of copious amounts of alcohol amongst a group of men bonded by circumstance but with broad cultural and experiential histories was bound to be fraught – it would be at any social gathering of much less significance, let alone the leaders that humanity was dependent on to erase Nazism.

With all a little light-headed, one Russian cried “I wish to propose a toast to your future deliveries of Lend-Lease material which I am sure will arrive on time in the future, and will not be arriving late, as have shipments to date!”. Everyone rose and emptied their glasses, the American contingent taking it as a friendly poke in the spirit of the evening.

After many more toasts a diplomatic incidence was only narrowly averted between the British and Russians, however, when Stalin proposed a salute to the swiftest possible justice for all Germany’s war criminals – justice before a firing squad, and to drink to the unity of the Allies in dispatching all of them as fast as they are caught, all 50,000 of them!

Churchill rose to his feet immediately, face and neck red, earlier from the liquor, then from coursing blood pressure, affirming that such an attitude was contrary to the British sense of justice and that the British people would never stand for mass murder.

This did highlight a definite difference of attitude between the dictator and the British, which was to become increasingly apparent later, but on this evening ‘Uncle Joe’ Stalin was delighting in a certain level of teasing, even if it was ordinarily uncouth in sobre company. Always the arbiter, but much too far to Stalin’s favour for Churchill’s comfort, FDR suggested the number be limited to 49,500 which encouraged ‘Uncle Joe’ to go around the table asking for each attendee’s own number; the British circumspect, the Americans more obliging of their guests, until it was Elliott’s turn.

Rising to his feet, to an extent following his father’s earlier lead, Elliott was positive about the prospects of rapid advancement by Allied troops from the west, and by the Soviets from the east, and suggested that perhaps many more hundreds of thousands of Nazis would be taken as well and together the Russian, American and British soldiers would (ambiguously) “take care of them”.

Stalin beamed with his response, but before Elliott’s trousers had touched his seat Churchill was back on his feet waving his finger in his direction insinuating an intention to damage Allied relations, and then arguing with Stalin over the top of Elliott’s head while he sat in stunned fear of what he may have set off.

With the final course finished, smarter heads realised the counterproductivity inherent in staying together in such a state of insobriety and the party soon dispersed, Elliott sheepishly following his father into his bedroom. His Dad found the whole thing hilarious and told him not to worry, that “Winston will have forgotten the whole thing when he wakes ups.”

The next morning FDR met with the Shah of Persia, Mohammed Reza Pahlevi and his Prime Minister and two other ministers. FDR always interested in learning of plans leaders had to allow their nations, and thus peoples, to develop and listened intently to concerns about the grip Britain had on Iran’s natural resources endowment, especially its oil. That he was impressed by what he had heard is evidenced by the fact that immediately on their departure FDR said:

“I want you to do something for me, Elliott. Go find Pat Hurley and tell him to get to work drawing up a draft memorandum guaranteeing Iran’s independence and self-determination of her economic interests”. This memorandum was agreed and signed by the three Allied leaders the following day.

Discussions the following day progressed well, and that evening FDR was pleased to confide in his son the major achievement of the conference.

“For the fourth time”, as his Dad described it to Elliott in his bedroom during a brief respite before a large function to celebrate Churchill’s birthday the next evening, the western invasion was agreed. Even the invasion date was agreed. All that was left to agree was the command, but Churchill and FDR were to hash that out when they returned to Cairo.

“We agreed, too, that there should be a thrust up from the Mediterranean.” FDR informed Elliott.

“Through the Balkans after all?”, Elliott noticing the incredulity in his response.

“No. Through southern France. Everything will be timed simultaneously – from the west, from the south, and the Russians from the east. I still say the end of the 1944 will see the end of the war in Europe. Nobody can see how – with a really concerted drive from all sides – the Nazis can hold out much over nine months after we hit ‘em”.

That evening around 30 political and military leaders of the Allies gathered to celebrate the great British war Prime Minister’s birthday. The importance of family was underlined by the fact that Churchill was joined by two of his five children, his son Randolph and daughter Sarah. FDR of course had Elliott with him and his son-in-law Peter Boettiger.

The social format for the evening followed the Russian precedent and again Elliott lost count of the number of toasts, thus the number of drinks he consumed, through the evening. The evening passed without major incident, though a British General suggesting, rather insensitively and imprudently, that their people had suffered more than any other during the war, Stalin was drawn to follow shortly with a comment undoubtedly intended to be pesky to the British:

“I want to tell you, from the Soviet point of view, what the President and the United States have done to win the war. The most important things in this war are machines. The United States has proven that it can turn out from eight to ten thousand airplanes a month. England turns out three thousand a month, principally heavy bombers. The United States, therefore, is a country of machines. Without the use of those machines, through Lend-Lease, we would lose this war.”

FDR well understood the extreme sacrifices the Soviets were making to win the war.

Elliott left that next day – to close down their rear headquarters in La Marsa in their shift northward to Italy – ahead of the allied leaders holding 10 exhaustive hours of discussion from noon so that FDR’s departure could be brought forward due to forecasts for inclement weather in Cairo a few days ahead.

As Elliott again said his goodbyes he was concerned about his Dad’s health through the intense schedule – already FDR had been overseas for 21 days.

“I don’t know exactly when I’ll be able to see you in Cairo, Pop, or even if I will”

“Try to get there, if only for a day or so”, his Dad implored of Elliott.

Entering the Kirk villa again in Cairo a few days later, Elliott was pleased to find his Dad in bed engaging in a little of one of his favourite distractions – reading detective ‘whodunit’ books. He was resting ahead of another evening engagement. The previous night FDR had hosted the Turkish President Ionu who had travelled there in an American plane with John Boettiger, after FDR’s son-in-law managed to beat the British emissary to the job. Nobody other than FDR and Churchill seemed to understand the import of that diplomatic contest.

The British and Americans had been disagreeing over the wisdom of accepting Turkey’s offer to enter the war – dependent on receiving significant sums of war materiel – but, again, it was related to the argument for a thrust upward through the Balkans and Churchill’s eye on postwar European politics. Over these days it was definitively decided that Turkey would not enter the war and a communique was carefully crafted to allow them to save face.

FDR had Elliott read the official communique from the Teheran conference and was especially keen to point out to his son that most of the wording was his. Elliott enquired why they chose to say that war would be banished for “many generations” rather than “forever”.

It was important to not be seen to overpromise to a global population that has heard it all before, his Dad asserted.

“We agreed at Teheran that our three countries, the three strongest countries in the world, could be intelligent enough about future disagreements, could so unify our foreign policies as to ensure that there would be no war ‘for many generations.’ That’s what we talked about, from noon until ten o’clock – how to unify our policies, how to mesh our individual nations’ interests in the interests of a general security for the whole world.”

Stalin’s agreement for the Soviets to declare war on Japan and fight in the Far East had also been secured, in part to settle the western invasion strategy for a final time, which was set down for 1st of May, within 6 months of Hitler’s final defeat which would allow sufficient time for logistics to be completed.

‘Uncle Joe’ and the US President also took the opportunity to chat alone, just the two of them, especially about China after the war without Churchill nearby. Stalin agreed, again, to leave Manchuria to the Chinese and to support Chiang, as well as support the American agreement with the Chinese in relation to British non-involvement in China. The always dependable Pat Hurley went to Moscow to continue those talks.

His glowing views on Hurley led FDR to rehash his contrasting view of the many ‘striped-pants boys’ in the State Department which disturbed him fully from his rest:

“You know, any number of times the men in the State Department have tried to conceal messages to me, delay them, hold them up somehow, just because some of these career diplomats aren’t in accord with what they know I think. They should be working for Winston. As a matter of fact, a lot of the time, they are. Stop to think of ‘em: any number of ‘em are convinced that the way for America to conduct foreign policy is to find out what the British are doing, and then copy that.”

Blaming his son for disturbing his rest, with jovial sarcasm, FDR began to dress for the evening which Elliott informed his Dad he would not attend as he had not slept the previous evening.

Hopefully, “But you’ll be around tomorrow?”, and Elliott was able to assure his Dad that he did not need to leave until the late afternoon.

In the morning father and son picked up where they last left off. Elliott mentioned how well his Dad had gotten on with Stalin.

The prescience of FDR’s response was patent:

“The biggest thing was in making clear to Stalin that the United States and Great Britain were not allied in one common bloc against the Soviet Union. I think we’ve got rid of that idea, once and for all. I hope so. The Thing that could upset the apple-cart, after the war, is if the world is divided again, Russia against England and us. That’s our big job now, and it’ll be our big job tomorrow, too: making sure that we continue to act as a referee, as intermediary between Russia and England.”

In that moment it was clear to Elliott, as it must have been for some time to his Dad, that America had assumed leadership of the world – of and for humanity – and Elliott was sure that his “father was convinced it would work out smoothly for all parties concerned, not the least of which were the small nations of the world”.

The next day, as he said a quick goodbye before flying on to Tunis ahead of his Dad, when Elliott mentioned that he would be seeing Ike Eisenhower later that day, FDR mentioned that Churchill had gotten his way and Ike would lead operation Overlord, the western invasion. Churchill’s way was not so much a positive in support of Eisenhower but a negative against General George Marshall who had done his job so well in refuting the British demands for an upward thrust through the Balkans that Churchill’s pettiness precluded him from agreeing to the brilliant Marshall leading Overlord. Elliott acknowledged to his Dad that he must not share this news with Ike as it was not yet 100% definite, but by the time they met later in the day in Tunis it had been properly agreed if not yet announced to either man.

Elliott was concerned for his Dad’s health which was showing, to him at least, the impact of being away for a month undertaking challenging negotiations to hold together a coalition of allies with starkly varying viewpoints especially on the postwar period. The next day FDR flew to Malta and then Sicily and back to Tunis where Elliott again greeted him along with senior military.

Though tired, his Dad was in a reflective mood showing his immense satisfaction with all that had been achieved when they debriefed before FDR slept:

“The United Nations… People at home, congressmen, editorial writers, talk about the United Nations as something which exists only on account of war. The tendency is to snipe at it by saying that only because we are forced into unity by war are we unified. But war isn’t the real force to unity. Peace is the real force. After the war – then is when I’m going to be able to make sure the United Nations are really the United Nations!”

The next morning FDR flew to Dakar to board the Iowa to return home while Elliott flow north to San Severo for a “cold and muddy” Christmas.

Early January 1944 Elliott was in England reorganising American reconnaissance air forces in preparation for the western invasion. Churchill attempted one final time to subvert that plan of two years in the making by personally insisting on launching a beachhead in Anzio on the 22nd of January, with the stated intention of liberating Rome, but its prime significance to Churchill was to force the invasion of Europe via the south rather than the west. Fighting against German forces bogged down with little Allied advancement, and the D-Day invasion forces landed in Normandy on the 6th of May 1944.

As Winter gave way to Spring Elliott’s outfit worked alongside the British RAF developing reconnaissance data from the air that he felt was extremely productive and was in part responsible for the low level of losses ultimately experienced in the D Day landings. He also had the opportunity to spend time in Moscow organizing ‘shuttle-bombing’ with Russian counterparts. Through Summer and Autumn Elliott had become exhausted with continual aerial reconnaissance work over France and Germany in support of the advancing Allied troops and was relieved to be called back to America for an assignment in the Pentagon, close to family.

Between everything else, FDR campaigned for his re-election through the Summer and Fall of 1944, doing so vigorously to dispel rumours of ill-health. In the circumstances, the fact that it would be his fourth term was an insignificant consideration and he easily won the election to claim an unprecedented fourth term as US President.

Even though he had been forewarned by his sister Anna, and it had been the subject of much press speculation, Elliott was shocked to see just how fatigued and thin his Dad appeared when they met for the first time in a year. They discussed the possibility to get away to Warm Springs for some rejuvenation and were looking forward to Christmas at Hyde Park.

FDR set aside his schedule for that evening to catch up with his returning son, suggesting that Elliott catch up beforehand by reading the newspapers. That evening Elliott did not remind his Dad of his prediction of a 1944 conclusion to the European war.

“I see what you mean, Pop. They’re all talking about Europe, after the war. Talking about how there’s not enough Big Three (America, Britain and Soviet) unity.”

“I guess it’s a question of their wanting something to be critical about. And unfortunately (sarcasm) the war is being won,” was how his Dad responded.

FDR said that there was another meeting of the Big Three in the planning, with Stalin insisting it be in Russia, and given the advances the Red Army was making, the other two allies felt they needed to oblige.

But mostly it was Elliott required to do the talking that evening, father keeping son in his bedroom until the late hours firing one question after another. Likely the caring son was happy to do the cognitive work of formulating detailed responses rather than expecting reciprocity from a weary Dad who had been living a remarkable life.

“Before and after” photographs of American Presidents – the ones who truly commit themselves to working towards the greater good – are always dramatic in the degree to which they age prematurely from the rigors of the role. FDR was President through some of the most challenging times in US and modern global history, serving for over 3 terms (when no other had or has ever been President for more than 2), and on top of all that he lived much of his adult life in pain and discomfort after his battle with infantile paralysis (polio virus) left him unable to walk, making his achievements all the more astonishing and emphasising his truly remarkable humanity.

A few days later Elliott headed to the White House early to catch up with his Dad before he started his official schedule and managed to catch him still in bed but reading the morning papers. He was contemptuous at what he had been reading:

“Greece. British troops. Fighting against guerillas who fought the Nazis for the last 4 years… How the British can dare such a thing! The lengths to which they will go to hang on to the past!”

Recognising the futility in his anger, he moved onto a subject somewhat related but more positive in prospect telling Elliott of Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands’ visit to the White House some months earlier, and how she had promised that after the war their Government would grant the people of the Dutch East Indies first dominion status meaning the right of self-rule and equality.

“Just as we are granting it in the Philippines,” his Dad said. “The point is we are going to be able to bring pressure on the British to fall in line with our thinking, in relation to the whole colonial question. It’s all tied up in the one package: the Dutch East Indies, French Indo-China, India, British extraterritorial rights in China… We’re going to be able to make this the twentieth century after all, you watch and see!”

A few days later Elliott left Washing bound for Arizona, and on the 3rd of December 1944 Elliott married for the third time, to actress Faye Emerson.

Although he expected to be called back to duty in Europe, Elliott was instead granted furlough and was able to spend Christmas with family which was to be his last with his Dad, and described it as a “time of great peace and contentment, [where] the world was for a brief moment shut out, and we were once more one family together, the more closely knit – as Father had pointed out, a year ago in Cairo, at Thanksgiving – because we are a big family.”

Elliott gave an insight into that family scene and the warm reverence with which his Dad was held central by them all:

“On Christmas Eve Father took his accustomed rocker, to one side of the fireplace, and opened the familiar book, while we all found places around him. My place was prone on the floor, by the gate. The fire crackled pleasingly; Father’s voice, going over the well-remembered ‘Christmas Carol’, rose and fell rhythmically; my thoughts wandered, aimless, and presently ceased altogether. Then, Jab!, in my ribs came Faye’s elbow, and her fierce whisper in my ear [telling me that I had been snoring]”

After further disruptions from grandchildren FDR closed the book laughing and saying “there’s too much competition in this family for reading aloud”.

Faye then said that by next year it will be a peacetime Christmas, to which Elliott’s Mum, Eleanor, responded:

“Next year we’ll all be home again”.

As they cleaned up the wrapping paper, FDR went to his stamp album to carefully store a much-treasured gift, and Elliott admiringly joked about one day his Dad being able place in there a United Nations stamp.

“Don’t think I won’t, Elliott. And sooner than you think, too.”

And FDR suggested, half-jokingly, that he should have it placed on the agenda for the next meeting of the Big Three scheduled for next month, to which Elliott asked if he might be able to join his Dad again as his aide.

“Depends on your Commanders, Elliott. I hope it will work out.”

“So do I”.

“But even if it shouldn’t, I’ll be seeing you soon again, anyway. I’m seriously thinking of a trip to England, in the late spring or early summer. I think that might well be the best way to sell the British people and the British Parliament on the need for Britain to put its hopes for the future in the United Nations – all the United Nations – and not just in the British Empire and the British ability to get other countries to combine in some sort of bloc against the Soviet Union.”

When Elliott asked whether he seriously thought that was a danger, FDR continued:

“It’s what we’ve got to expect. It’s what we’ve got to plan now to contend against”, and with that Eleanor broke up the much too serious for Christmas discussion between father and son with:

“We agreed, no talk of business today”.

Elliott never did see his Dad again.

FDR’s 4th Inauguration was intentionally a subdued affair reflecting the tenor of the times. Even FDR’s speech was short, likely a deliberate ploy to emphasise the powerful richness and sincerity that lifted from each sentence, as exemplified by this passage:

“We have learned that we cannot live alone, at peace; that our own well-being is dependent on the well-being of other nations far away. We have learned that we must live as men, not as ostriches, nor as dogs in the manger. We have learned to be citizens of the world, members of the human community.”

Elliott was promoted to Brigadier General in early 1945, at the recommendation of his senior officers and approved by Generals Spaatz and Eisenhower, but FDR had the power of veto and the political situation – especially the suggestions of nepotism from political combatants and right-wing press that naturally come with a family that had occupied the seat of power for such a prolonged period – meant that his Dad deliberated longer than usual, ultimately signing because he was convinced that his son was deserving.

The consequence, however, was that FDR felt that he would be pushing it too far by having Elliott join him again as his aide for the final wartime meeting of the Big Three held at Yalta on the Crimean peninsula in Soviet territory in February 1945. However, Elliott’s sister Anna attended in that capacity, and through discussions with her and with senior US military officials prior and after the conference, he was able to form an opinion that FDR continued to carry sway as the dominant figure in the alliance, made all the more critical given his increasing need to act as mediator and arbiter between the British and Soviets.

The Yalta conference focused almost entirely on the structure of the peace, the organisation of the United Nations, and the need to ameliorate in Europe and Asia the potential for a political vacuum in the immediate postwar period.

The previous Fall the Dumbarton Oaks Conference was held in Washington to develop the framework for a general international organisation led by the “Four Policemen”, a council proposed by FDR as guarantor of world piece and including America, Britain, USSR and China, which would soon become the United Nations. The month before that the Bretton Woods conference was held with 730 delegates from all 44 Allied nations to decide the order of international economic affairs which was critical since so much of the social upheaval and tension that allowed for the rise of Nazism in Europe, as well as disadvantage throughout the world during the Great Depression, was caused by ‘beggar thy neighbour’ international financial decisions.

Prior to leaving to meet FDR, Harry Hopkins met with Elliott over dinner and Elliott learned that, of course, Churchill could not help but devise another plan to justify sending British-controlled troops into the Balkans to join with the Soviets, the weakness to the plan being that it would require diversion of landing-craft that were desperately required in the Pacific, so it never had a chance of getting past the American Joint Chiefs. Harry also stressed that his Dad was insistent that self-interested parties not be allowed to control postwar Germany with an aim to building up Germany’s cartels again.

Given the breadth and finality of decisions being made, more advisers were present in Yalta than in any other of the previous conferences. At the preliminary military staff conferences held in Malta in the days immediately prior, the only real point of contention was to what degree allied resourcing should swing from the European theatre to the Pacific, and that was more between the arms of military (Navy and Army). Over that week in Yalta, as British and American military leaders speculated that Germany might collapse at any moment in the face, especially, of the rapidly advancing Red Army on the east, the leaders of the Big Three agreed on the postwar arrangements including: occupation and control of Germany (FDR argued for integrated not zonal control to create more active collaboration at all levels between the Allies, but Britain and the Soviets disagreed and their position was adopted), reparations by Germany, and they reaffirmed the principles of the Atlantic Charter and agreed on the holding of a United Nations Conference to be held in two months at San Francisco completing the groundwork done at Dumbarton Oaks (after agreeing on the structure of voting and veto powers).

More than ever the American President was at the centre of leadership but with strong personal connections with both Churchill and Stalin. No doubt FDR was looking forward to working closely with Allied leaders and believed that more meetings of the Big Three would be required. However, of the two other leaders he knew it was only Stalin that he was certain to be meeting with through the remainder of his 4th term since he had long before mentioned to Elliott his, ultimately correct, view that Churchill was unlikely to retain his station in the peace (and a British general election was to occur within two months of the conclusion of the war).

There were enduring tensions, to be sure, between and even within delegations – FDR not entirely trusting of all of his advisers, for example – but the unity of the Big Three had been fortified through a war that was aimed at yielding an enduring peace.

All three leaders were acutely aware of the importance of dialogue and co-operation in the postwar period to maintaining that peace, and before the Yalta conference ended Stalin repeated his assurance to FDR that the Soviets would declare war against Japan following V-E day, only revising his timeframe down to 3 months from 6 months in a show of strengthening support.

As the American contingent left Yalta they were gifted generously by the Soviets with Russian Vodka and wines, including the Georgian ‘Champagne’ which FDR had been especially impressed by, as well as caviar and fruit in spontaneous act of connection and warmth prior to the long trip back for most to the States.

After travelling to Egypt to board the US heavy cruiser ‘Quincy’, FDR met several important African and Middle East leaders. Most significantly he met with the King Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia to discuss the possibility of a settlement in Palestine of homeless European Jews, and by all accounts found the King to be uncompromising. Then after the ‘Quincy’ passed through the Suez Canal, during a short stop at Algiers, FDR was informed that de Gaulle considered the timing and location for meeting inconvenient, he shrugged his shoulders and they departed for America.

Although optimistic and proud of the outcomes achieved, FDR was exhausted and gaunt as he left the Mediterranean behind, and the strain of the period was both underscored and exacerbated by the death of Pa Watson on that return trip, one of FDR’s oldest and closest friends.

On the evening of the 12th of April 1945, the mood in England lifting as victory drew nearer and nearer, Elliott attended a dinner party hosted by Lady Sylvia Ashley, future wife of Clark Gable, at a London restaurant. Soon after he arrived at 8.30pm Lady Ashley leant down to whisper to Elliott that a military officer and car were waiting in the carpark to rush him back to his base at Mount Farm.

The military officer said that his father had experienced a health episode, and that there was an urgent cablegram from his Mum waiting for him back at the base. Elliott knew that his Dad had been having heart issues for around a year and was consulting a cardiologist, Dr. Howard Bruenn, so he felt numb and disconnected as the London lights whizzed by and his gaze became hypnotically disengaged as he stared at the headrest of the front seat ….

Sooner than expected Elliott arrives at his base. The cablegram from his Mum, Eleanor, informs him that his father was at Warm Springs when he experienced discomfort in his chest and was rushed to hospital. She undertakes to call him by midnight London time with an update.

Elliott’s ruminating 3 hour wait, while ordering the memories of the many close times he had shared with his Dad through the war period, comes to a relieving end when he hears his Mum’s calm voice telling him that his father is doing well, that it had been just a minor health scare, with the election campaign and many war conferences having taken a toll on him. With genuine bedrest of not less than a week, Dr. Bruenn believes he will be able to resume his full and unrelenting work schedule.

The relief felt by Elliott was one of a son who knew that he had more work to do, more things to be cleared up and things said, to have a clear conscience. Before the war he had fought often with his Dad about political beliefs, often supporting Republicans’ viewpoints, and though his Dad had risked political capital for Elliott’s most recent promotion to Brigadier General, his Dad knew there were rumours of Elliott’s indiscretions in an airplane procurement contract and was displeased by his son’s womanising.

It is an odd but oft repeated feature of human psychology how the traits that parents pass on to their children are the greatest points of friction, as if the reflection of those flaws from their offspring are too blindingly stark to bare even though – indeed perhaps, because – they were innately acquired, genetically and/or learned, from themselves.

FDR is back on the job only a matter of weeks ahead of V-E day when Germany unconditionally surrenders on 8 May. On the 29th of April Mussolini and his mistress, Clara Petacci, are killed by Italian partisans and strung up by their heels for a while before being left in the gutter. The next day, as Russian troops close in on his compound, Hitler commits suicide after marrying his longtime partner, Eva Braun, who commits suicide beside him.

FDR then has the agonising decision no decent person, of faith in God, spirituality, or their fellow mankind, would wish to have to make – the decision to kill and maim millions of fellow human beings in an instant with the detonation of a weapon of mass destruction in the hope that it will save even more people from loss. What was developed as a tool for deterrence – knowing the tyrannical enemy was already working at its development – had the opportunity to bring the world to peace most rapidly, but only after a huge number of innocents were killed and families lost or torn apart forever.

True to Stalin’s commitments, he declares war against Japan on the 7th of August and over a million Soviet soldiers engage the Japanese occupiers in Manchuria.

Atomic bombs are dropped on Hiroshima and then Kokura on the 6th and 9th of August, 1945, respectively, and Emperor Hirohito announces Japan’s surrender on the 15th of August and signs an unconditional surrender on the 2nd of September 1945. In officially bringing WWII to an end, FDR knows that the most important – the most fraught – piece of the puzzle that he had been assiduously shaping lies ahead, succeeding in the peace, but without Churchill who loses the postwar election in July.

The American public is jubilant and united behind FDR in a postwar glow and rewards him in the 1946 mid-term elections by electing a democratic legislature to enact his full postwar plans after he assures the electorate that he will not contest the next Presidential election, a commitment he honours. Americans understand the privileged position they hold as the most powerful nation in the world, as enunciated in FDR’s 1945 inauguration, and collectively understand that with great privilege comes great responsibility.

Frictions between Britain and the Soviets simmer in the immediate postwar period, but FDR maintains the moral authority as mediator and arbiter. He especially understands and respects the contribution that Russia made to winning the war, a price paid especially in lives lost – more Soviet soldiers were killed than all of the other nations who fought in WWII combined, almost double the number of German soldiers killed! Including civilian deaths, the Soviets lost around 24 million lives in WWII whereas Britain and America each lost less than half a million lives.

After the use of the atomic bomb on Japanese people, knowing that it was only a matter of time before all other major nations would soon have the capability of producing weapons of mass destruction thus assuring mutual destruction, and fully appreciating the need to maintain trust especially amongst the Big Three, FDR shares atomic technology with Stalin and the Soviets as well as the British. This draws the hawks amongst Republicans – many former vehement isolationists – and within the State Department out into open and intense debate, but that serves to underline the strength of American democracy and FDR’s moral and intellectual standing in American and global society.

From the ashes of WWII a new global order for humanity is created. The United Nations, which meets for the first time in late Spring 1945 in San Francisco, is at the forefront along with the other institutions arising from the long negotiations between the Allies at Argentia, Casablanca, Quebec, Cairo, Teheran, Yalta and, immediately prior to V-J day, at Potsdam.

Suffering relevance deprivation, Churchill gives a provocative speech suggesting that Europe is at risk of an iron curtain descending on the eastern boundary of the buffer region that Soviets are working on, from “Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic”.

The following week, at another meeting of the Big Three plus Generalissimo from China and de Gaulle from France, in Moscow, FDR provides additional assurances that satisfy Stalin, and Prime Minister Attlee walks back the comments of the ex-Prime Minister, so that Stalin resists the impulse of responding publicly to Churchill’s provocations.

FDR understands that the only way to prove the virtue of capitalism to humanity is to do so in the way capitalists live in peace rather than fight from fear, and for the remainder of his fourth term he chooses his arguments with Stalin and Attlee carefully, never losing sight of what was sacrificed and fought for, and what is the danger inherent in ceasing to listen and communicate.

In the 1946 State of Union Address, FDR speaks to the American people in plain and direct language with a level of honesty and sincerity that no other American President would, or perhaps even could, do again.

“To do right by all Americans, as your President I must always hold in my heart as much love and optimism for all of humanity, irrespective of what region they happen to be born or reside in, which deity – if any – they chose to believe in, and whether they be rich or poor. Making the best decision for all of humanity – in light of the best information available – must take precedence over what is best for subgroupings of people or the special interests of some. This is the only way to enduringly lead in the peace.

Leading in the global peace is the awesome responsibility and privilege now held by the American people. We must be in no doubt that the durability and quality of that peace will be recorded in history as achieved under our American stewardship and we should all be determined that in the account of that record we as peoples within broader humanity are proud of our deliberations and actions.

If I or a future President of the United States of America were ever to abuse the privilege of this global leadership to advance national interests at the expense of other nations, more specifically, to the detriment of the human beings living in other geographies of the world, then that would be an act of great hypocrisy, it would undermine our privileged authority, and worst of all, it would lessen the honor of the immense sacrifices made by the families and peoples of the Allied nations in freeing the world from tyranny.”

The repercussions of FDR’s speech are widespread and immediate. Democrats are successful in the midterm elections and no less than two amendments are made to the US Constitution: the 22nd to formerly limit to two the number of terms a person may be elected President; and the 23rd being formal recognition that in the execution of leadership and administration of the nation by the President and all elected and Government officials that not only are human beings ‘created’ equal, everywhere and at all times they remain equal, so that in their decision-making and administration the concerns of all human beings throughout humanity must be considered equal.

Eleanor is instrumental in lobbying to secure the success of both amendments, understanding the practicality of and strong desirability amongst Republicans for the two-term limit, ensuring that the acceptance of one amendment be conditional upon the acceptance of the other.

The non-gender specific language and the obvious implications for civil rights of the 23rd amendment have a profound impact in America and around the world, and it leads to an enduring culture of minimising the influence of special interests in political decision-making including strict regulation and policing of political donations.

Essentially it says that, not only are all human beings (‘created’) equal, they’re to be treated equal no matter where they choose to live their lives or how they live their lives.

The British and commonwealth of nations, along with central European nations, follow the American lead and incorporate similar clauses within their constitutions and/or their formal systems of governing. It is commonly referred to as the ‘Roosevelt clause’.

The most influential economist of the time, John Maynard Keynes, whose plans for the organisation of the postwar global economy were largely usurped by the Americans at the Bretton Woods conference, increases his lobbying for alterations of the agreement before Britain will ratify. His concerns centre around the privileged position that America will have within the system, especially with the dollar being the reserve currency. Keynes also has concerns about equity in the ability of poorer nations to develop, and the instability that will cause. With an exceedingly rare level of brilliance, but with failing health from an obsessive work ethic, Keynes meets directly with FDR in early 1946 after the first meeting of the United Nations General Assembly in London and convinces the US President to intervene so that modifications are made to the agreement in line with some of his original recommendations including the creation of a new reserve currency named the ‘Bancor’ and additional safeguards and measures to ensure equitable opportunity for global development. Those changes are implemented just ahead of Keynes’ passing later that year.

Tensions remain in pockets within the world, especially in Asia where Chinese people suffer a protracted civil war between the Generalissimo’s Nationalists and Mao Tse-tung’s communists which sporadically and periodically spills over in Asia. Similarly South America remains unstable as some nations, especially Argentina which was not permitted initial entry to the United Nations due to its postwar flirtation with fascism, experience civil unrest which tends to be worse in nations with important energy resources as corrupt self-interest proves difficult to contain. The nation state of Israel is created to provide a permanent home to Jews and tensions, often along religious lines, in the Middle East especially, flare occasionally.

In the history of humanity, there has always been at least one megalomaniac able to manipulate those around him, especially when education and information has been found wanting, and so it likely will always be.

Former colonialist nations of central and western Europe, however, remain united in their determination to be constructive and aid the establishment of peace in their former colonies through negotiation, and are disciplined in not becoming involved in wars or of showing partisan support for factions within other geographies, even if sometimes they and the Soviets are suspicious of the others’ actions.

With the good intentions of the global many, backed by modern international legal processes, recalcitrants rarely manage to hold out for long against the will and desires of their populations and broader humanity. Particularly sensitive to any nuclear weapon proliferation, the United Nations acts swiftly and decisively with sanctions and other peaceful forms of economic coercion to ameliorate the actions of potential bad actors.

During FDR’s fourth term rebuilding of war-torn Europe and Asia, including of the Axis nations, is carried out with vigor and optimism. However, the global disparity is immediately apparent and the machinery of government in the developed nations less directly impacted by war, including in North America, together with international bureaucracy that emanated out of WWII especially from the Atlantic Charter – including the United Nations, International Monetary Fund and World Bank – place as much vigor into developing nations previously undeveloped and improving the living standards of the greatest majority of human beings on Earth, including throughout Africa, eastern and southern Asia, Central and South America.

In effect, America’s ‘New Deal’ goes global!

The harnessing of human drive and ingenuity in a co-operative fashion, incorporating the freedom of movement of capital within democratic capitalism, combined with safeguards to prevent monopolies and unfair use of privilege of wealth or position, has a profound effect on the global economy which is mirrored in the freedoms enjoyed by the majority of humans who are engaged in the first truly global society in human history. The freedom of movement of goods and resources, of ideas, and most importantly, of people, creates a globalisation that is deeply embedded in broader society not just within the corporate or intellectual elite of humanity.

Stalin and FDR remain in contact until the latter’s death, coincidentally the 12th of April 1950, 5 years after the health scare that sent Elliott racing back through the streets of London to his British military base to read his Mum’s cablegram. Each Christmas Stalin sends FDR several cases of the Georgian ‘Champagne’ he was so charmed by at the Yalta conference, FDR still jokingly encouraging him to engage in some ‘good old-fashioned capitalism’ selling it to the American people to outcompete Champagne and “stick it to the Frenchies”. Stalin attends FDR’s funeral and is visibly moved, hugging Eleanor in a long and warm embrace, and shaking hands graciously with Elliott and most of the extended Roosevelt family.

Stalin passes two years later and is remembered with mixed emotions inside and outside of Russia. On the one hand the world is unlikely to have been freed from the tyranny of Nazism if it were not for the extreme sacrifices of the Soviets under Stalin. He was, however, undoubtedly a harsh and cruel leader largely due to his inflexible political beliefs and leadership, though it is commonly believed that his connection with FDR moderated this somewhat in his latter years.

Stalin remains Chairman until his passing and does not nominate a successor. However, the Soviets institute a collective leadership which initiates reforms and is more open in views and outlook which leads to the ultimate dissolution of the Soviet bloc.

By the early 90’s the cohesive human community values above all else individual freedoms within the solid framework of open information and expression, logic and science. Pressing domestic and global issues are addressed as they are detected by scientists and other observant members of societies. More even economic development from equitable opportunity irrespective of geography, nationality, race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. has allowed the average standard of living to increase significantly.

The post-WWII baby boom causes a spike in births but the global population peaks at around 4 billion in the 1980s, due to declining birthrates as more of humanity feel secure having smaller families. The average high standard of living, however, means that observations of increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are detected around that same time the global population peaks and thorough research convinces all members of the United Nations that the consequent warming of the planet – without rapid action – will lead to general sea level rise and more frequent and worse severe weather events, affecting the precious natural world on which we all depend, and impacting and worsening the quality of life for human beings.

Emergency meetings of the United Nations are held, and subcommittees undertake and fund extensive research into the climate changes. It is determined that alternative sources of energy, other than from fossil fuels, will need to be rapidly developed to reduce the emissions of carbon dioxide into the environment. Embracing the challenge as was done during WWII, developing new technologies for harnessing energy from renewable sources such as the sun and wind, within a decade the latest data and modelling within the scientific community has assured humanity that catastrophic outcomes that were projected within a century have been averted.

Integral to humanity’s response to the observed climate change, and in fact, to social cohesion within global society, is a great respect for First Nations peoples’ knowledge of environment and culture.

Elliott Roosevelt promptly leaves the Army and grows somewhat distant from his Dad after WWII. Republicans and the right-wing press seek to discredit the Roosevelt legacy, attempting to ensure an end of their political family dynasty, and they see Elliott as a convenient target. Minor indiscretions in Elliot’s personal and business lives, most often revealed by those who were on the losing side of business deals, are a constant distraction for his Dad in his final years. This creates tensions so that father and son never manage to clear the air and Elliott lives with great deal of regret, sadness, and repressed shame.

After multiple failed marriages and businesses, and estranged from his children and extended family, in the 70’s Elliot trades on the family name as a political lobbyist but finds that his ability to extract gain from it is waning. He becomes increasingly compromised working with shadier and shadier operators, ultimately trading in favours and blackmail of political and business targets on behalf of organised crime.

Living a destructive life of substance abuse and boozing, prostitutes and gambling, Elliott has gotten sloppy and his tangled web of compromise and lies is unravelling and threatens to bring down high profile political and crime figures with him. Elliott is considering turning informant and meets with FBI investigators that have been surveilling him. A corrupt politician becomes aware of this and together with the Mafia they attempt to frame Elliott for approaching and paying a Mafia hitman for a contract on a foreign diplomat.

Elliott denies the allegations and uses the final remnants of family connection to bury the story and allegations.

Considering Elliott a lose end that needs to be dealt with, neither the politician or Mafia can risk him squealing. A wasted Elliott, walking in an alley with a prostitute under each arm, celebrating yet another close escape, is confronted by Mafia muscle as the girls scatter. With a henchman holding each arm, the top goon cocks his pistol upright in his right hand as he walks behind Elliott and whispers in his ear, “The Boss wants to see you”. Elliott instantly cringes and tilts his head forward expecting the crunch on the back of his head…

Elliott’s head was jolted forward as his eyes refocused on the headrest of the front seat of Humber military staff car as the military officer rushed him to Mount Farm to read that cablegram from his Mum.

“Sorry for that Brigadier General – fox on the road!”

They had left the lights of London behind, and Elliott recognized the sharp bend in the road which signified they were 5 minutes from his base. He walked briskly and was greeted at the threshold by his Commanding Officer who handed Elliott the cable gram from his mother.

Eleanor’s final words on the telegram informing her beloved son of the death of his Father were, ”HE DID HIS JOB TO THE END AS HE WOULD WANT YOU TO DO”.


Chapter 3 – Reset (next)

Chapter 1 – Rücksetzen (previous)


Gained value from these words and ideas? Consider supporting my work at GoFundMe


© Copyright Brett Edgerton 2023

“Reset”: Chapter 1 – Rücksetzen

The timeline commences in the late 1930s, as America and the rest of the world struggle to emerge from the depths of the Great Depression, and is told through the eyes of Elliott Roosevelt, the son of perhaps the greatest American President in Franklin Delano Roosevelt immortalised simply as ‘FDR’.

“The country needs and, unless I mistake its temper, the country demands bold, persistent experimentation. It is common sense to take a method and try it: If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.” FDR told graduating students of Ogilthorpe University a month ahead of receiving the Democratic nomination for the 1932 US Presidential election which he won in a landslide.

FDR lived up to that pledge and Elliott Roosevelt had observed his father bring the US back from the brink of despair through ambitious and vigorously developed and implemented programs referred to collectively as the ‘New Deal’ which led to him being rewarded with a second term in 1936.

Elliott had embarked on his own deal – running a small network of radio stations in Texas – in September 1938 as the Munich Conference was held and France, Britain and Italy agreed to Germany’s annexation of Sudetenland in western Czechoslovakia hoping it would appease their expansionary impulse.

FDR, acutely aware of swirling geopolitics as the 1940 election was approaching, had been weighing up whether to run for a third term – on the one hand he believed it was his duty to continue steady leadership through the countervailing currents, especially with Europe on the brink of war which he feared might drawer in other nations including America, and ongoing hostilities between Japan and China in Manchuria, but on the other hand he would be going against convention which, whilst his uncle Teddy ignored it when he failed to be elected for a third term, his closest political confidant – the “Kingmaker” James Farley – had strongly advised him against.

Even Eleanor, his wife, had serious reservations and was looking forward to stepping back from her own very busy schedule as first lady.

Sitting in his Dad’s well-worn leather lounge chair at his family’s Hyde Park estate, enveloped by paternal safety, in plush comfort, newspaper lowered across his knee (exposing an article debating whether Germany is set to move eastward into France), Elliott drifted off remembering back to the conversation he had with his father in the oval office only days earlier where they shared their deepest thoughts and concerns for the world, and he, rather imprudently, about his business interests…

His Dad, normally clear in his convictions, was torn. Farley had been with FDR from the very beginnings of his political career, with political intuition surpassed by none of his contemporaries. The father and son talked long and earnestly, uncharacteristically so for a relationship where the father was so accomplished and admired, even for a politician.

FDR confides that more likely than not he will seek the Democratic nomination to contest the 1940 US Presidential election, even if he must compete against his right-hand man in Farley.

Nazi strategists, aware of the significance of the Presidential election to whether America would join (again) with forces against Germany, concentrate efforts on building up armaments and fortifying their eastern positions in Poland, etc through the spring of 1940. Herr Schacht, former Finance Minister and longtime head of the Reichsbank, had long warned the Nazi regime that Germany was not economically capable of waging a long war against the British with their ‘Anglo Saxon mentality’, and even though he had lost the ear of Hitler because of his ‘defeatist comments’, his views still had influence over some of those who retained Hitler’s confidence.

The British Empire, through its colonies, protectorates and independent dominions of Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa, controlled 25% of the global population and 30% of the landmass, and the engagement of the broad Commonwealth in the conflict was predictable. FDR had been talking with the British, including with King George VI on a visit to his family estate Hyde Park in June 1939, and his inner circle knew him to privately support involvement in a European conflict. Americans, too, had suffered severe losses in WWI and their wives and mothers had not forgotten their pain of loss; in fact, those anguished feelings had only grown through the toughest years of the Great Depression.

The delayed advance of Germany eastward leads to the Republican party nominating Robert A. Taft as their candidate on an isolationist platform and the support of American hero Charles Lindbergh means Taft will mount a formidable challenge. At the Democratic National Convention Farley resists FDR’s wife Eleanor’s late appeal and throws his support behind Bennet Clark, an avid isolationist, to counter the strong isolationist platform on the right. A young Harry Truman, also from Clark’s home state of Missouri, has also impressed the politically pragmatic Farley. Truman holds a strong view that America cannot afford the cost of war and is sceptical of the waste inherent in producing supplies sent already to support the British. At the Democratic National Convention FDR promises that no American boys would go to a foreign war under his watch, but it is to no avail as Farley’s influence carries sway and Clark wins the Democratic nomination.

Clark ultimately wins the 1940 Presidential election with Farley his Vice President in November 1940. Hitler, however, does not need to wait for the election to be held to expand Nazi held territory eastward. With two avowed isolationists as Presidential candidates, and Americans in huge numbers joining up to the newly formed America First Committee, growing out of a movement started at Yale University (and with support of future Presidents Gerald Ford and John F Kennedy), it is increasingly clear American involvement in the war will be at most ambiguous with minimal supply of war resources. Nazi blitzkrieg by its powerful Wehrmacht allows it to annex Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, and has France in retreat, by the time the ballots are being counted, and soon after Italy and Japan sign the tripartite agreement with Germany while it battles the United Soviet States of Russia (USSR) on the east and Italians commenced operations in Africa.

The British repel the first air war, The Battle for England, against the Nazis largely with covert aid from America (in place under FDR). Knowing this, Hitler warns the US against further involvement. President Clark assures the Nazis that they had already wound down their war production, of which Henry Ford and others were somewhat ambiguous on in any case, and that the US wouldn’t enter the war so long as Japan did not move against American interests in the Pacific. German strategists talk down Japanese military strategists from actions on the Aleutian islands off Alaska and leave the Philippines untouched, while at the same time Axis members commit to acquiring American territories, indeed North America, once they have won the European war.

War rages on in northern Africa, remorselessly over England with them attempting to return fire over German cities with limited success, and in the east on the Russian front. With limited opposition, Japan marches downward through the Asia Pacific and only encounters tough opposition in New Guinea, but eventually claims Australia and New Zealand in late 1944 with resources and support of other Axis partners as the ground war in Europe winds down and a second front is opened against Russia to capture the Sakhalin Island north of Japan and the adjacent mainland territory of Primorsky Krai, including the important port city of Vladivostok, and territories against the Sea of Okhotsk. When Britain formerly surrenders in May 1945, followed shortly later in August 1945 by the Soviet States, the great Eurasian war is over.

The Soviet States are convinced to surrender following the Japanese explosion of an atomic bomb in Novosibirsk which on the one hand demonstrates the power of the technology the Japanese has first mastered, and on the other hand destroys the major site of military production for the Red Army after it was shifted from the west.

Neither Hitler nor Mussolini survive to the end of the war, however, as both are assassinated by more moderate groups within their ranks in an elaborate plot which unfolds on 20 July 1944. First Hitler is killed by a bomb explosion. Then Mussolini is killed when he arrives for a planned meeting with Hitler later that day and his entourage each is presented with a stark choice of overthrowing their fascist dictator and each putting a bullet in Mussolini or dying with him. Though the full plot has never been disclosed, nor the full list of conspirators, a large number (believed to be over 300) senior and influential members in their ranks accepted that their dictatorial and destructive style of leadership would fail to lead in the peace which many had been insisting leadership focus on from mid-1942 when an Axis win grew increasingly likely.

Emperor Hirohito, a man of science and logic, whose support for the war was always ambiguous, after the nuclear bomb detonation manages to gain sufficient support from the Japanese public and key political moderates to rest power from the ruthless conquering military leaders. A national radio address, the first time that Japanese people ever hears his voice, entitled the “Jewel Voice” where he discusses the harsh treatment of vanquished Chinese and other people in invaded territories, as well as prisoners of war, swings public opinion strongly away from military leaders.

In the postwar European power struggle neofascists triumph and throughout all of Europe the character of society becomes decidedly Teutonic (Germanic) with Berlin the centre of power and wealth, and all nation states responsible for selecting a certain number of party members (based on economic parameters) to the Pan-European People’s Conference (PEPC) in a pan-European autocracy. The leaders of the PEPC are selected via internal party politics and are typically rotated every 5 years. The form of neofascism practiced could best be described as fascism light, Hitlerism without dictatorship, Nazism without the systematic eugenics, oppression and murder, but state sanctioned racism is only thinly veiled and normalised such that very, very few Caucasian Europeans consider it a problem or even an issue.

Harry Truman, Secretary of State from 1940, becomes US President when both Clark and Farley die before the end of their term (October 8 and February 25, respectively) in 1944 and he wins the 1944 Presidential election (he was VP briefly after Farley’s death).

From the vantage point of the early 1990s, North America is the last bastion of  democratic capitalism, though its sphere of influence is largely limited to North Mexico, which fought a fierce and protracted civil war – a proxy war between capitalist and neofascist interests – through the early 60’s, repeated in Brazil a decade later resulting in a similar North-South split between capitalists and neofascists, and a handful of other small and essentially inconsequential South American countries.

America and Canada survive in a hostile world due to its development of nuclear weapon technology through a collaboration known as the Manhattan project. It was initiated in complete secrecy under FDR, mothballed for a year after he lost the 1940 election, but re-instigated with increased vigor as Canadians and Americans became fully aware of the brutality of Nazism and Japanese imperialism. Canada may not be superior to America in economic strength, but it has maintained a moral authority due to its involvement in the European war. Since the late 40s when it became apparent that Japan, Europe and North America all had developed nuclear weapon technology, assured mutual destruction from further war has largely prevented full scale warfare. The world is taken to the brink in the ‘60s, however, when an increasingly insecure America attempts to deploy missiles on Attu Island, the westernmost island of the Aleutians off Alaska. The Japanese maritime blockade of US ships carrying the missiles brings a showdown between President John F Kennedy and the Japanese Prime Minister whereby all of humanity fears that the first nuclear war had arrived. America stands down, narrowly averting catastrophe, but it acts as warning to global leaders and reductions of nuclear weapon stockpiles are negotiated.

The economist Hjalmar Schacht rose to global prominence as the architect of the post-war world economic order, though many insiders know that this success was not just in not repeating the mistakes of the Weimar Republic, e.g. limiting war reparations by Britain and the broader commonwealth of nations so as not to be overly onerous, but in Schacht’s willingness to listen to a largely forgotten British economist, Maynard Keynes (who, though 6 years junior to Schacht, has health issues through the war period and dies within a year of the war’s end). Schacht is widely considered a likely co-conspirator in the assassination of Hitler.

Europe is the centre of global corporate and social culture which emphasizes Teutonic doggedness, pragmatism and discipline, and eschews Jewish ‘fussiness’ – as Dr. Schacht describes it – and the ‘flamboyance’ of the latinised Mediterraneans. Schachtian economics emphasises the need for individuals and nations to live within their means, through austerity when necessary, with speculative activity and excessive borrowing strictly regulated to prevent speculative manias that precipitated the global depression of the late 1920s.

With single party autocracies predominating throughout the world besides North America and a few nation states within its sphere of influence, constitutional monarchies have enjoyed a renaissance to give the perception of a level of political balance but in reality most have very limited discretionary powers.

This said, in recent years technological development in communications and rapid information transfer has tested the neofascists’ hold on power in Europe, with increasing understanding there of democratic capitalism as practiced in North America forcing a certain level of liberalism. However, the dominance of the central European languages, especially German, hinders information spread especially in central and eastern Europe.

Japanese-dominant Asia and Europe maintain a competitive and mostly functional relationship as the main geopolitical powers, though Japan has never really accepted the supremacy of the Deutschmark as the reserve currency of the world which has conferred a significant advantage to European interests. The industrial machinery of Europe dwarfs that of Japan’s, advantaged by proximity and greater geopolitical influence over the energy states of the Middle East and Russia. Japan has remained more dependent on North American and South American energy suppliers. Japan is further disadvantaged by the geographical spread and the more disparate cultures within its sphere of influence. It is constantly plagued by discontent in the anglophone antipodeans and in the East Indies, for example.

Neither Japan nor Europe has much concern for central and southern Africa, except in relation to resource-rich regions, never more so than when the North Americans are actively courting their governments for resources access for their companies.

Global inequality has improved little since the Eurasian war, and has only improved, albeit marginally, in those nations of geographic importance in the contest between capitalism and neofascism, and/or with advantageous natural resources. Of course, neither sphere really cares who shares those benefits and whether they reach the citizens of those nations – they simply seek to serve their own interests, and if a thin layer of corrupt officials sequesters the benefits, which ultimately results in lower costs to the powerful nations, then so be it.

Population growth has been explosive as most of humanity has remained poor and did what all living beings are biologically programmed to do – have larger families to increase the chances of survival for themselves (as they age) and of their family lines. European, Asian and American scientists have recently noted the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at a rate suggestive that humanity’s activities are having a serious affect which is resulting in a warming global climate which some extreme scientists suggest will result in increasingly unstable weather patterns and melting polar icecaps making parts of the world uninhabitable, first low-lying Pacific islands.

The largest global oil and gas company, Deutschpetroleum, has produced research that suggests this is not at all the case, convincing the political class that actions which would be a drag initially on economic growth were unnecessary. This is also politically convenient since many politicians and party associates have close financial links with the industry. Nonetheless the industry is working on developing hydrogen technology to power motor vehicles, especially the many millions of VWs, BMWs and Mercedes Benz that move the great majority of families daily around the globe. Few can afford the premium Japanese and Italian cars. Every nation has tried to build a car industry, with mixed success, but everyone knows the stories of the ‘lemons’ produced by inferior American car manufacturers Ford and General Motors along with Russia’s Lada Niva.

Life is tough for the majority of the world’s human inhabitants. There has always been an elite few that have soaked up the riches of the world, and then there is the rest, but the brutal and prejudicial character of the winning Axis is undeniable. Although never substantiated and strongly denied by Teutonic Europe, there are rumours that Jews especially were persecuted and executed during the Eurasian war. Very few people in Europe self-identify as being Jewish, and while they have limited access to sites of historical significance, Jewish people are welcomed postwar in Japanese held territories and in North America.

Political debate is curtailed and strictly regulated in Eurasia and most of Africa and South America. The only truly progressive region is North America with a remarkably open society built on free speech and a strong social safety network including free medical benefits and education, and support for the unemployed. Their leaders, especially JFK in America and Trudeau in Canada in the 60s, realised that social cohesion was vital to keeping those living within their island of prosperity safe. In fact, the social safety network was so favourable that a trial of a universal basic income found little benefit to most since they feel secure and regular surveys show Americans to be the happiest people in the world, though many also put that down to realistic expectations for their lives and their ambivalence to materialism.

Gun laws are the strictest in the world in America, as everyone knows that guns kill humans, and they are unnecessary in a society which can afford to protect itself from aggressors at the State level so the outdated and irrelevant 2nd amendment to the US constitution, originating from 300-year-old British law, was prudently deleted in the ‘70s.

Official and illegal migration into North America via Mexico, from South America, especially, however, is beginning to fray the social compact. And nobody suggests that America and Canada have truly dealt with racist pasts. Papering over the cracks is closer to the truth, though some headway has been made in corporate circles with a smattering of black CEOs, and while around 30% of corporate executives are females, there are very few black female CEOs, a few more Hispanic female CEOs, and no Asian female CEOs.

Europe made use of migrant labour from north Africa in the postwar rebuilding effort, and in Britain from Asia, especially India. Most returned home, however, as harsh regulations meant that they were required to live outside the limits of towns and cities, and curfews meant that at night they were not able to be in the cities that they were rebuilding during the day. Most believed that they would be better off closer to family connections and support networks once the rebuilding work dried up, while those who remained live in poor ghettoes and are subjected to ongoing discrimination and prejudice.

Throughout Teutonic Europe few in executive positions have a non-Germanic family name, certainly none are of Jewish descent, neither are there any of Middle Eastern, Asian or African descent. Inferior German language skills are often blamed as the reason. Only modest progress has been made on gender equality.

 On a train heading west from Innsbruck towards the Oetztal Valley in Austria in the late 80s Elliott observes a young Australian couple, the man Caucasian and his wife of Asian descent, subjected to overt racism. Four middle-aged women sitting in the opposite seats stare at the couple barely in their 30s to make their abhorrence with their mixed relationship apparent, looking upon them as if they are less than human, as the couple sink into their seats feeling powerless given their obvious lack of agency. Elliott speaks to the young couple to help ease their discomfort, learning that the husband is a scientist with a fellowship to research in Germany, and that they were on a planned weekend away to celebrate their 7th wedding anniversary. The young woman of colour tells Elliott how frequently on train platforms in the Bavarian capital of Munich middle-aged people, especially, stare at her with a deep scowl. The previous year living in southern France, also on an international research fellowship, they quickly became aware of the underlying dislike of the ‘Arabs’ who had remained in lower socioeconomic regions of the cities they had rebuilt after the war, unable to improve their circumstance substantially due to systemic racism. Elliott recounts to them a brief friendship with a British family where the man was of German heritage, and how shocked he was when the man – who was raised near the Black Forest, and after returning from a family trip there – spoke about how the Arab people swimming in natural springs were fowling the water for ‘others’, because they wore pants with pockets rather than swimming briefs, and suggested that they should be excluded. He also used the vile ‘N-word’ in discussion alike the deeply racist groups that remained in America on the fringes.

The situation throughout Asia is not much better with Japanese domination of corporates and broader society. Interestingly, however, in British dominions the former colonisers, now oppressed and dominated themselves, have developed close relationships with the former indigenous peoples and those they had previously minoritised, as evidenced for example in Australia through the White Australia Policy, in their common struggle for existence. Those earlier migrants of central European descent who had previously developed close relationships with indigenous peoples on the basis of their common status outside of general society are now significantly more favoured and are referred to as ‘model migrants’ in comparison to anglophones and others.

The European middle class has become precarious and proportionally has shrunk, and in recent years those in central Europe who have not shared in the benefits of strong economic growth over the past half century since the Eurasian war have become discontent and have become a manipulable force for populist sections within the one-party structure. Some politicians appeal to the disaffected with a slogan of Making Europe Great Again (in the lesser spoken vulgar English, MEGA), yet none define which period in Europe was truly great and what made it so, though it clearly involves more extreme fascism including greater systemic prejudice and overt racism.

Elliott Roosevelt has lived a life of distinguished public service. Having listened to his father extoll the virtues of American involvement in the Eurasian war, and of how a true enduring peace was only possible through reduced colonialism/imperialism and equality of opportunity on a global basis, and his mother about civil rights and gender equality, Elliott has taken it upon himself to fulfill the destiny his parents felt so strongly. FDR lived through into his 70s, dying 12 April 1955, a fair age given his significant medical issues; the women in his life agreed that he might have lived longer without the stress of leading the nation for two terms through such a troubled period.

Elliott was a Democrat powerbroker through the 50s becoming a chief advisor to JFK and was second only to his brother Bobby Kennedy in the influence he had over JFK, though many considered Elliott more influential. Elliott later became the American representative to the international League of Nations which was reinstituted after the Eurasian war, but quit in the late 80s when European nations conspired to invade Ecuador under the guise that their dictator had instigated a program to develop weapons of mass destruction and it was close to achieving nuclear status. It quickly became apparent in the war that the nation was essentially a failed state and could not manufacture a lightbulb let alone a nuclear bomb, but hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians were killed as collateral, along with the broken bodies and, more so, minds of many of those who fought. The puppet government then put in place has secured energy resources for Europe, and more importantly, has restricted access to it by Japan and North America.

Married twice, with one child to his first wife, and three with his second, Elliott Roosevelt lives a long life in close contact with his entire family, especially his mother Eleanor after his Dad’s death. He was highly regarded as a great American and many felt that he would have made an even better president than his father, FDR. In October 1991, 10 months after the death of his brother James, Elliott has a heart attack – surrounded by family and loved ones, in a hospital bed he drifts off with only the noise of a mechanical ventilator piercing the stark quiet of the room…

Elliott stirs in his Dad’s well-worn leather lounge chair at Hyde Park, disturbed by the housemaid reviving the dwindling fire by squeezing a set of bellows to direct air onto the glowing coals, and notices the paper that has fallen off his knee onto the ground. Staring blankly at the headline, as we all do when awoken from a deep Sunday afternoon slumber – even those not yet 30 years of age – reflecting on the vividness of his dream.


Chapter 2 – Rementar – Next

Reset: Introduction – Previous


Gained value from these words and ideas? Consider supporting my work at GoFundMe


© Copyright Brett Edgerton 2023

“Reset”: Introduction

“Reset” uses a retelling of post-WWII history contrasted with two alternate histories to highlight the choices that humanity has made to arrive at a moment where regionally and globally humanity lacks the cohesion to address the serious issues that we together confront. By highlighting these divergences, told predominantly through the perspective of Elliott Roosevelt, the son of the great American President of that turbulent era, illuminated is the necessary path towards a more optimistic and kinder humanity which is necessary to overcome our challenges of which the climate crisis is foremost.

In Chapter 1: Rücksetzen, the first timeline, isolationists prevail in the 1940 US Presidential election so that America never enters WWII, thus creating a tripolar world at the end of WWII of post-Nazi Europe, Japan-dominant Asia, and a US-Canada alliance in North America, maintained by a cold war with assured nuclear destruction. Rücksetzen is the closest German translation of Reset highlighting the Teutonic nature of society in that timeline.

The second timeline, presented in Chapter 2: Rementar, resumes immediately before the 1940 Presidential election which FDR won followed then by the 1944 election as WWII is drawing to an end. On 12 April 1945 FDR has a health scare but recovers. FDR leads America through to the end of his fourth term thereby steering the implementation of his full vision for the postwar period.

This second timeline portrays a positive period with greater enlightenment and inclusion leading to vast improvements in societal equality within societies and globally. It is far from a utopia, but it involves kinder and less aggressive societies which are less based on domination and winning, and more on co-operation, inclusion, and open dialogue and thought. As such, pressing domestic and global issues are addressed by political and corporate leaders as they are detected by scientists, public servants, and other observant members of societies. Consequently, societies are more cohesive and it is almost universally agreed that, while clearly we are the most influential species ever on Earth, humanity has attained the knowledge and cultural wherewithal to live sustainably and deal with almost any unknown unknown that might be encountered as responsible custodians of the natural world.

Rementar is the closest translation of Reset in Interlingua, an international auxiliary language developed between 1937 and 1951 by the American International Auxiliary Language Association, highlighting the internationally inclusive nature of societies in that timeline.

For the third timeline the reader is brought back to 12 April 1945, the day that FDR died, and an honest, non-nationalistic portrayal of global and domestic events is presented. Titling Chapter 3: “Reset” highlights our contemporary challenges and the need to develop a vastly different character to society to place humanity on a path towards a better and brighter future.

Chapter 4: A Future Of Our Own Making; A father and son fireside podcast is reminiscent of the fireside chats that FDR was famous for during the Great Depression. It provides contemporary context to the current social and environmental crises we confront, while providing a parallel to that earlier difficult period.

The father and son discuss how the features in societies that were present in the early 90s – where the timelines finished – have become entrenched. Factors that have caused this, and ways that humanity could be led back towards the brighter path, are discussed in forthright yet warm and compassionate terms paralleling the relationship between FDR and his son Elliott. Topics discussed include; “Global Inequality”; “Capitalism at an extreme”; “Racism and prejudice – personal experiences”; “Corruption of political processes”; “What separates modern capitalist societies from fascism?”; “How have we humans managed to progress through so much division?”; “The best vaccine against crises is social cohesion”; “Quality globalisation”; “bell hooks showed us how to set ourselves free”; “A changing relationship with work and ourselves”; “Revisiting forgotten ideas”; “The United Nations”; “Projects of vainglorious men”; and “Towards a new universal greeting”.

The penultimate Chapter 5: “There is no point in going through all this crap if you’re not going to enjoy the ride”, a favourite quote from a favourite Hollywood movie, draws all of these factors to a conclusion with a challenge to all to lead the political ‘leaders’ to the necessary Reset.

Chapter 6: “Roosevelt Weather” concludes the story of Elliott Roosevelt and discusses the waning influence of the Roosevelt family in American and broader human society.

On MacroEdgo the complete “Reset” story is available for download in a Word document.

Available to download in toto also is “Reset”: The Movie Treatment which tells the same story in the same fashion but is condensed especially in the “Remantar” timeline and in the “A Future of Our Own Making: A father and son fireside podcast” to be presented to members of the movie industry with the aim of the story being made into a trilogy.

Text Legend

Historical record

Alternate history

Future


Reset: Chapter 1 – Rücksetzen – Next

Reset: Preface and Acknowledgements – Previous


Gained value from these words and ideas? Consider supporting my work at GoFundMe


© Copyright Brett Edgerton 2023

“Reset”: Preface and Acknowledgements

For me this story took root when I bought from Amazon “Speeches That Changed The World” (compiled by Owen Collins, Westminster John Knox Press, 1999) while I was living in Europe in 2001-02. I remember being awestruck especially by the First Inaugural speech by President Washington and his humility, integrity, and authenticity stuck with me. Although it was not published in that book, inexplicably, during this period I also read FDR’s Fourth Inaugural speech and his words of strength, optimism, and love for humanity impacted me deeply at a time when I was undergoing a period of intense personal development.

These were lessons in the power of the written word as spoken at an auspicious moment in history by a great leader.

I visited the site of the Dachau Concentration Camp first in 1998 when I spent a few days touring with Finnish colleagues and friends after we had attended a conference at Augsburg in Bavaria. They did not join me at Dachau as they explained they felt a great sense of shame because Finland was a Nazi ally. Then living in Munich in 2002 I visited Dachau numerous times as I insisted any Australian (especially family) who stayed with us must go there. It is heart-wrenching, for certain, but for some reason there I have always felt more of the light from the love of humanity shining through and over the darkness. Even though the Nazis meticulously and systematically categorised and divided their prisoners as indicated by ‘badges’ sewn on their prison uniforms, ultimately, they were all human beings, sometimes forced into desperate decisions, but more often showing miraculous altruism in their common goal of survival.

Then as many in the Western world objected to the extension of American-led operations in the Middle East into Iraq in early 2003, and even though I was a vulnerable early-career research scientist returned to my home nation without a job, thus unemployed and working tirelessly to develop a job for myself through research grant writing, to my professional email signature I appended the passage from FDR’s speech that appears twice in this text (in the second instance I intentionally degenderised the quote).

It was not a time to be silent or ambivalent.

I have used that same quote on my email signature almost continuously for 20 years and even though at that earlier time I would frequently have someone respond by email along the lines of “how far away from that are we now!”, to me the words remain every bit as relevant as they have ever been over those 20 years, or indeed the almost 80 years since FDR spoke them.

One of my first posts on MacroEdgo in December 2019 was a reproduction of FDR’s Fourth Inauguration speech in full, and soon after that I purchased a copy of “As He Saw It” by Elliott Roosevelt, the son of FDR, published in 1946, and I typed and posted the entire introduction on MacroEdgo in February 2020.

Introducing that extended quote I said:

“Elliott Roosevelt explains why he was the only person who could give an accurate depiction of events, negotiations and deals brokered, and his own father’s viewpoints on these. I think most would agree that a loving son would faithfully seek to have his father’s vision for the world remembered accurately when events transpired which made it clear that promises were broken and that vision was not being enacted.”

Perhaps in some way wrapped up in my own complicated relationship with my father, I always felt there was a duty upon me to remind humanity of these words and events for their enormous contemporary context. However, that would have to wait as I felt an even greater duty to share what I understood about the challenges that a newly discovered coronavirus highly pathogenic to human beings would present to our societies, and Elliott’s book remained half-read on my bedside dresser covered in a deepening layer of dust as I rapidly passed 100 posts on MacroEdgo, many concerned with COVID-19, but many also dealing with the issues discussed in detail herein in “Reset”.

As 2022 drew to a close I shared on social media my cautious optimism that “perhaps 2023 will be when we truly begin to feel ‘normal’ again”, in relation to the pandemic, and the dark tunnel that I and my family had been forced to walk and endure by the unscrupulous acting upon my love which we solved for ourselves, so I was in a place to look forward and seek to produce a more enduring impact for society than I had previously with any of my earlier writing.

After not working in paid employment for nearly 20 years, as I am a stay at home Dad, I applied for a job to work in an organisation committed to pressuring corporations to act responsibly especially in responding to climate change. That act crystallised my preference to not be ‘restricted’ to one organisation or to a subset of the problems humanity faces. Unsurprised when I received notification of being unsuccessful, I was also relieved as I had already commenced my writing of “Reset” in earnest.

“Reset” transports the reader back to World War II to feel the elation and relief that the world had escaped tyranny and disaster, and to open a window to how it felt for humanity to be on the cusp of brighter future than anyone had dared to dream for a decade and half since the 1929 collapse on Wall Street which ushered in the Great Depression.

The deeper questions “Reset” poses is whether we human beings have made the most of the opportunity that we made for ourselves from the sacrifices of many, and if not then why not, ultimately to propose a way back towards a brighter future for all human beings – a Reset.

The story is told through the eyes of Elliott Roosevelt, the son of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, ‘FDR’, and the author of a number of books where he explained his perception of developments from his unique viewpoint, drawing on his father-son relationship with one of the most important leaders of the modern world.

This emotional teleportation is achieved by presenting three timelines from the mid-1930s to early 1990s. Societal characteristics are naturally different in each timeline dependent upon decisions taken by leaders and within broader humanity, and economic features are critical.

The first timeline is dark but not nearly as dark as many other alternate histories around the outcome of World War II because in this story the extremists were eliminated by more moderate forces, and the American experience – though isolated – is even ‘rosy’; the second timeline is the brightest highlighting the most optimistic timeline under the extended steerage of FDR; and the third much closer to the first than the second, in fact it is our modern history, and it is followed by a no-holds-barred discussion of what is required to get humanity back on the track towards a more optimistic future.

Elliott’s own path, also, leading to different ‘versions’ will also be dependent on the decision he and others reach, and influential economists of the time, especially Hjalmar Schacht of Germany and John Maynard Keynes of Britain, are also key characters sometimes with vastly different outcomes in their lives dependent on broader circumstances within humanity.

Key dates, especially deaths of important characters, repeat through the timelines imbuing a sense of destiny.

The concluding part focuses on a potential future still within grasp, but only just, in the form of a father and son podcast somewhat reminiscent of the fireside chats that FDR was famous for during the Great Depression. It provides contemporary context to the current social and environmental crises we confront, while providing a parallel to that earlier difficult period.

The father and son discuss how the features in societies that were present in the early 90s – where the timelines finished – have become entrenched. Factors that have caused this, and ways that humanity could be led back towards the brighter path, are discussed in warm and compassionate terms paralleling the relationship between FDR and his son Elliott.

This story is the most important to be told at this moment in time.

It is the story that humanity needs to hear right now, and it can’t wait.

There have been other engaging pieces spanning non-fiction, documentary, science-fiction, and outright fiction which have had impact, certainly. But none has put the whole story together – instead we talk about actions of people within societies without truly highlighting the ‘why’.

If we can understand the ‘why’ as well as the ‘how’ we came to be in this position, the keys to doing the best we can from here become clear and harder to ignore.

Then there is a chance that we will leave all in the future generations a semblance of the quality of life that previous generations, especially in rich Western nations, have been fortunate to experience.

Besides the influences already mentioned, in the early stages of writing I bought and read “Confessions Of ‘The Old Wizzard” (1956) By Hjalmar Horace Greeley Schacht. Midway through writing I bought and read “Economists At War: How a handful of economists helped win and lose the world wars” (2020) by Alan Bollard, and as I completed writing I bought and read “Hitler’s Shadow Empire: The Nazis and the Spanish civil war” (2015) by Pierpaolo Barbieri. All of these helped me considerably in honing my historical understanding of events and providing finer details, but most importantly they confirmed for me that my ideas were sound and that my alternate histories were plausible.

Then as I finished writing I bought and began reading “Utopia: The influential classic” (2021) by Thomas More with an introduction by Niall Kishtainy. It was the first time I had read More’s classic written 500 years ago, and here I must make a serious confession which is a pointer to my (almost non-existent) literary education and my broader outlook. Truthfully, I am not what would be commonly considered ‘well read’ at all. Moreover, I have intentionally avoided reading the classics because I wanted to be certain that my thoughts were my own, well as much as we can in a media-saturated world where ideas of earlier thinkers pervade common social norms and thought along with their continual contemporaneous adaption. Undoubtedly this speaks to a certain level of arrogance on my part and a strong desire to be ‘original’ indicative of my natural contrarian impulse.

I found it fascinating to compare More’s thinking, he heavily influenced by classic Greek and Roman philosophers, with mine in “Reset” and specifically the tug of war through human history between wealth and power on one hand and on labour on the other. Moreover, reading More’s Utopia made me all the more confident in saying that herein I have not proposed a utopia in the second timeline nor in the fireside podcast, but a realistically attainable world.

Having said that, I realise that the features for a better humanity that I propose, many of which others no doubt have before me, if more disparately or outside contemporary context, will not be instantaneously, and are even unlikely to be rapidly, implemented. I do believe that these features encapsulate the general direction of human progress and I expect that from the vantage point of 500 years in the future most if not all of what I have described will have come to pass. In actual fact, I would expect that much of it will be in place in under 80 years as the next (Gregorian) century dawns, in large part because it needs to be for humanity to continue to progress socially and technologically.

As a thinker – in modern parlance, a thought leader – I admit to continuous frustration for how long it takes for the masses to catch up, and I lay a large part of that blame at the feet of the human beings elected and entrusted to lead, especially when so much damage is being done to human beings and to the natural world in that delay.

I also made extensive use of publicly available resources via the internet including Wikipedia.

All text was written and researched by Brett Edgerton.

Quotes in the ‘Historical record’ sections are mostly taken from “As He Saw It” by Elliott Roosevelt published in 1946.

All pencil sketches were produced by generative AI (Dall-E) from text prompts by Brett Edgerton.

On MacroEdgo the complete “Reset” story is available for download in a Word document.

Available to download also is “Reset”: The Movie Treatment which tells the same story in the same fashion, but is condensed especially in the “Remantar” timeline and in the “A Future of Our Own Making: A father and son fireside podcast”, to be presented to members of the movie industry with the aim of the story being told in a trilogy. 


Introduction – Next


Gained value from these words and ideas? Consider supporting my work at GoFundMe


© Copyright Brett Edgerton 2023

It Is Possible to Work in Oil and Gas and Not Carry Deep Guilt that You Are a Part of Stuffing Up the World

But you need to be honest with yourself above all else

I think it is only natural that people want to believe that they are good contributors to humanity. But what to do when humanity appears to ‘turn on you’, once working for an employer and/or doing a role which you perceived many around you in society valued, now feeling almost like a pariah?

In such cases people often argue the case for their employer, increasingly erratically as the writing is on the wall – after all, as a lay person, how can you even begin to argue against human induced climate change when 99.9% of the human beings on Earth who chose to specialise and spend their life understanding and researching the relevant science are united against those views?

We human beings are wonderful at seeing what we want to see, and not seeing what we don’t, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

That is exactly why scientific practice incorporates processes to eliminate biases, overriding impulses we typically submit to in our normal lives.

I can understand that there is a desire amongst those who work in oil and gas companies to believe that they are so safety conscious that they would not continue to engage in activities that put the whole of the world at risk. From many I have heard examples of the extreme lengths that such companies go to to report and manage safety issues. 

But those who are prepared to be honest to themselves will realise very significant contradictions. 

In one such office that on occasions went to extremes on safety and wellbeing, like instructing adults on how to travel to work safely, there was a woman who was made extremely unwell by the misogynist, racist and prejudiced character of the workplace culture, and senior executives – even the CEO of this multinational company – knew of her challenges, which were reported through official grievance channels, but NOTHING was done to address the issue, prevent her condition from worsening, or assist the woman to regain her health.

Others suggest that perhaps climate change observations are really only now being detected because of this western, cautious mindset, and that these changes (like increased incidences of climatic events such as severe cyclones and droughts) might not have been otherwise detected.

Yet these are hardly subtle or minor events, and the science is damning.

The point is that even in apparently sophisticated businesses, people will only see what they want to see, and the culture within the business will have a large impact on what its people actually want to see.

Oil and gas absolutely remain necessary for human society, but for ours and future generations to be healthy and happy or content we know we must significantly decrease its usage and quickly.

If you work in the oil and gas industry, and your workplace culture is one of compassion and inclusiveness, and you have confidence that your business is working towards an energy transition, then you can hold your head high knowing you are serving humanity well.

If after honest reflection you know it to not be the case, then you need to consider your actions e.g. you can influence from within or depart for greener pastures.

A high income cannot extinguish a guilty conscience…


Gained value from these words and ideas? Consider supporting my work at GoFundMe


© Copyright Brett Edgerton 2023

Carrying Over False Narratives From The COVID-19 Pandemic Will Hurt Vulnerable People In The Next Pandemic

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-14/covid-killed-black-children-three-times-more-often-than-white-children

To those who argue schools should not have closed – with full hindsight of what happened through the COVID pandemic rather than in the heat of moment not yet having a clear indication of the infection fatality rate (IFR), nor lifestage susceptibility variances, let alone long term implications from single or multiple infection, which we are still learning –  I suggest reading this article quietly and reflecting.

Then realise that the next pandemic pathogen will have different characteristics.

The one thing I believe we can all be grateful for about COVID is that impacts on young were not so severe.

But that was not the case in 1918.

It is very common in epidemic disease that vulnerable lifestages – the very young and old – are impacted more severely.

Running retrospective reviews are only worthwhile when not run with pre-determined outcomes and/or subconscious bias – that may be the case in some commentary I have read.

Implying anything about how we manage in the next pandemic all-of-life risks to young people – including mental health, education, and so on – from the COVID pandemic must be done very cautiously. 

When we inevitably face another pandemic, all issues, again, will require deep consideration in real-time, and it would be best done without carrying over false narratives. 

Still think that in the next pandemic schools should not be closed unless and until we are certain that it is necessary to protect the life and long-term health of children?

What is always the case in a pandemic is less healthy individuals living in environments which increase  the likelihood of exposure are more severely impacted.

For disadvantaged children to make use of the education all progressives desire strongly for them to lead better lives than their parents, they must first survive, and better survive in good health without long-term health issues.

In the heat of the pandemic it was suggested by some that people like me self-identifying as progressive belied our conservatism as evidenced by the biosecurity measures for which we argued.

Simplistically suggesting that somebody who would argue for closing borders, for example, notably damaging the university sector, is conservative without any consideration of the context is intellectually rigid, and together with the inherent self-interest, is in actuality indicative of conservatism.


Australians have a great deal to be proud of in the way we responded to the COVID pandemic, and those who followed me at MacroEdgo, or have since acquainted themselves with my writing of February 2020, know that the strategy for which I argued strongly was what delivered this result – using our geographical advantage and biosecurity know how to protect as many lives as possible while we waited for our brilliant scientists to provide protective vaccination.

Who else remembers Morrison saying, with exasperation, something like “There are some who argue that we should just close our borders and wait for a vaccine!”.

That was me he was talking about.  I don’t say that I was the only one, but you will be hard-pressed to find others saying so publicly in a verifiable manner.

The Albanese Labor government can acknowledge this because we all know that PM Morrison was dragged kicking and screaming against it all the way – and if they need support, just look at more of my writing including my open letters to Morrison, as I held him to account even when left of centre media fell in behind him (just when he was beginning to gather his ‘extra ministries’).

The one aspect of my strategy that was not adopted was to renounce vaccine nationalism because, as a progressive, I spurn nationalism in all its forms.

Sadly many who consider themselves progressive really lost their way on that one!

If the hard and fast lockdowns perfected in the Labor states was followed in NSW, we could have continued to maintain biosecurity protection of our citizens for a few more months – while planning for very rapid vaccine rollout prior to Winter 2022 – allowing our nation to be global humanitarians vaccinating more of the global poor.

It was at this point in time that Mr Morrison tried out one of my phrases – “it’s not a race” – and we know how that worked out for him, because he had not developed any of the reasoning for why we should not race to vaccinate as I had done.

I was disappointed that Labor chose to take full political advantage of this, but that’s politics for you… and I am in no doubt that in this case some will argue that the ends – of getting rid of a societally damaging PM – justified the means.

However, it is a shame that so many self-labelled progressives flipped to such a strongly conservative stance… touché 😉


Gained value from these words and ideas? Consider supporting my work at GoFundMe


© Copyright Brett Edgerton 2023

The Unity Bell

Those truly seeking productive workforces need to fit a bell curve to work tasks – not workers – to eradicate value-destroying, demoralising work

There has been much talk recently of how organisations still adhere to the Jack Welch strategy of fitting a bell curve to performance of a workforce to pressure employees to increase productivity.

A  manager at Activision Blizzard quit when he refused to mark an employee’s work performance down to fit a bell curve based on a stacked or forced ranking system.

Many executives say they apply this employee ranking system even while understanding the negative impact on employee morale and health, having a deleterious impact on longer term productivity, and thus being counterproductive to the bottom-line objectives of the organisation. This is all proven by research.

When this forced ranking system intersects with unconscious bias and outright prejudice and racism, well the outcome is obvious and the consequences are only now being openly discussed. No doubt it is an important factor in why 6 in 10 woman of colour in Australia experience discrimination in workplaces.

With unionism long threatened with extinction, and through a prolonged period of Extreme capitalism where white collar employees have been convinced to trade increasing proportions of their best time and energy of their lives for envy-producing goods (status symbols and experiences), executives and managers seem bereft of other ideas to wring more production out from their employees.

Well there is a really, really obvious strategy to improve productivity, but very few Executives or Managers have the mental framework to recognise it let alone implement it. 

Below I explain what is this ‘miracle’ strategy to improve productivity and why it is that most executives and managers simply don’t ‘get it’ even though most in the lower levels of hierarchy understand it implicitly.

Q. So what is this miracle strategy to increase productivity? 

A. Apply that bell curve (of distribution) to all of the work tasks that managers’ subordinates perform, not just to regular tasks in a prospective or planning manner, but also in a retrospective manner to capture all of that ad hoc work – which I call ‘just in case’ work – to identify wasted effort on tasks that add little or no value to the bottom line outcomes of the organisation, or even detract from it.

The importance of collecting data on the ad hoc work cannot be overstated because it is in this once fertile field that the toxic sludge from a half century of increasingly extreme capitalism built on unrelenting self-interest is buried; it captures the work performed ‘just in case’ a manager might have a chance to impress those who might have an influence on their career advancement chances, or alternatively to quell the tirade of an overbearing, bullying superior to survive another day.

I say once fertile because that was where the nuggets of value used to lie in a workforce that was not overworked and overwrought from organisational restructure after restructure in the name of increased productivity which in reality destroys it because workers are burnt out and do not have the bandwidth to carry out necessary tasks to the best of their ability let alone have the energy and clear-headedness to notice those rare but oh so precious golden opportunities to add value for the organisation.

The most surprising of all of this is that it is not subtle or ambiguous.

It’s not like it hasn’t been discussed, either. 

That is why there have been books written like “Bullshit Jobs” by David Graeber and “The No Asshole Rule: Building a civilized workplace and surviving one that isn’t” by Robert I. Sutton.

How much work – either ‘bullshit’ or ‘just in case’ – is performed just for each level of the management hierarchy to claim some level of ownership – and credit – over it, but adds no or minimal value to the output?

How much work is performed in haste at the behest of managers that ultimately is edited out of a text, or skipped over quickly in a presentation due to time constraints?

If it is not going to make the cut down the track, or is deemed insufficiently significant enough to mention, then why was that call not made earlier to cut it, preferably filtered out by the manager immediately who thought of it recognising that the level their group is currently working at means that a high bar for potential value-add should be applied to what ad hoc work they forward on to their subordinate group.

The reality is that nobody knows how much pointless ‘bullshit’ and ‘just in’ case work is done for ‘asshole’ managers, managers scared of ‘asshole’ managers, and just plain lost managers trying to survive in a system that they feel controls them rather than vice versa. 

Interestingly those data never seem to warrant collection.

I would point, however, to the success at improving productivity by organisations participating in trials of and/or switching to 4 day work weeks and/or reduced employee work hours without pay reduction.

Note also that organisations open to such changes in employee conditions are likely to be some of the better employers, raising the likelihood that workplaces with cultures less open minded to employee work-life balance would likely enjoy even greater productivity fillips.

I know I hardly need to give examples of these behaviours because everybody who has read to this point will have been flooded with recollections of (probably) both their own actions and those of their managers past and present.

But people like me (having been out of the workforce for 20 years) and Brian Birmingham (the manager who quit his job at Blizzard Entertainment) are relatively rare nowadays in being prepared to speak out openly as most fear implications to their careers. So I will give a personal example.

One of my few genuinely paid ‘gigs’ as a scientist (i.e. with a professional salary rather than subsistence level stipends and fellowships) was as a Government biosecurity policy risk analyst and I was recruited by the head of animal biosecurity after she had completed a one year sabbatical in the group where I completed my PhD. She was a strong, intelligent woman, and at a personal level I enjoyed her company. But professionally she was incredibly controlling even though she was very senior, so much so that she would literally re-write everything that came out of the unit. At the time I had published a widely acclaimed PhD thesis, and at least 10 peer-reviewed journal articles as well as consultancies and magazine articles, and was frequently praised by reviewers for my writing (which was intentionally more concise than my writing on MacroEdgo). None of my immediate managers did this, nor the person who replaced her. It was a complete and utter waste of her time and mine, it was demoralising to be treated in such a way to mechanically sit there and carry out her editing exactly (because it was all done with red pen on typed pages), and it added no value whatsoever to the output of the unit.

The documents were no better or worse, just different. All it did was utterly stamp her mark on the output of the team and put everybody in their place.

In truth having taken the time to write that I now feel it is petty and of limited value. But that is a reflection of the nature of what occurs, and again – this happens to everyone, in one form or another, and it is petty and pointless!

These behaviours destroy productivity over the short, medium and long term.


To the bell….

It is my strong contention that if a distribution were fitted to the quality (in terms of potential value-add to the bottom-line outcomes of the organisation) of tasks asked of employees in most contemporary organisations it would have a strong positive skew as shown below.

Figure 1: Positively skewed distribution of the potential value of work tasks asked of a theoretical ‘typical’ employee – the distribution has a long, fat tail to the right comprising tasks of increasingly marginal and questionable value.

This graphic is taken from The Wall Street Oasis website with the accompanying description:

In investing or finance, a positively skewed distribution tells us that an investment or portfolio is expected to experience frequent small losses and few large gains.

In this case we are talking about investments in human capital in the form of employees’ time, and even more critical, their energy.

Does that positively skewed distribution not explain the work experience for very many?

This sort of statistical comprehension is taught in all business schools. It’s taught in first year undergraduate degrees, for Pete’s sake. It’s Finance 101!

So here’s the thing – if all of this is so obvious, why don’t all of these MBA brightsparks just change and start implementing a bell curve to the tasks they have their subordinates carry out rather than to the rankings from their perception of their subordinates’ performance to improve productivity?

First observation, of course, is that fitting a bell curve to performance is a top down process, whereas fitting a bell curve to tasks, including retrospectively, has a large element of bottom up to it, and that runs counter to the power structure in modern organisations. 

Related to this point, Executives and Managers are products of this current system and most of us humans have a natural aversion to doing away with a system that we have succeeded within. Moreover, maintaining the system produces more of the same types of managers ascending the escalator behind them, and that gives them comfort and embeds affinity bias.

Most importantly, though, bell hooks was entirely correct when she highlighted the significance of and corrosion caused by domination within our contemporary societies and at work, including by women over other women, emanating from our historical system of white-supremacist patriarchy (see relevant quotes in this article and preferably read “The Will To Change: Men, masculinity and love”)

The type of significant culture change that this represents is always resisted because the ranks of executives and managers are full of the products of the existing system, and that is a very significant problem to overcome.

Those who truly want to achieve productivity gains, however, need to weed out the Managers who select for mini-me aggressive types, who for example, recognise themselves in actions which place a manager’s self-interest ahead of their subordinates and then smirk (almost in admiration) when informed by that subordinate. 

Leaders who weed out the assholes, no matter how highly placed in the hierarchy, will be rewarded with significant leaps in productivity which endures because it is the product of a cohesive and engaged community of employees.

What will be observed is that when a compassion imperative supersedes the profit imperative, productivity, and thus profits, are actually improved as a consequence.


Pre-empting the disagreement… (Note, this is getting right into the reeds, so readers without a strong intellectual interest in this area might prefer to skip to the final passage for some masterful lyrical imagery…)

In conducting my desktop research and due diligence for this post I came across an interesting riposte of David Graeber’s “Bullshit Jobs” thesis by researchers from the universities of Cambridge and Birmingham which they claim counter many of Graeber’s main points. 

Their research suggested that indeed there was significant psychological harm to someone from working in a role that they perceived as being pointless.

However, the researchers largely discounted all of the other points of Graeber’s thesis finding that surveys show only around 5% of workers in European countries feel that they were not doing useful work.

I would hope, having read to this point, that the flaw in their argument is apparent.

What the researchers actually did was bury down into workers who answered ‘rarely’ or ‘never’ to the statement: “I have the feeling of doing useful work”.

I am not surprised that only 5% of workers feel that they do work that is of no use. Not at all, because, as the researchers agreed, that is really destructive to mental health so people who feel that way are going to try to move on before long to another role. In nations with social safety nets they will likely quit or find another way to exit the job.

More importantly, however, note that I talk about pointless tasks not a job as in a position or role occupied by an employee. Even ‘jobs’, as in ‘bullsit jobs’, can be a synonym for ‘tasks’, as can the term ‘roles’. 

But these researchers approached the questions based on the employee’s whole job or role as the empirical unit for examination, even though in their journal publication they frequently quoted Graeber’s comments in relation to ‘tasks’.

The reason why Graeber’s thesis captured so much attention is because many, many people – most likely very nearly everybody – does, and has often done, tasks (or ‘jobs’ or ‘roles’) as employees which they considered pointless.

Note, then, that the research did not examine the proportions of employees who felt that some of the tasks that they performed were pointless, so of course there was no opportunity to analyse proportions of their tasks that they performed that they perceived as pointless.

The problem with this analysis is highlighted in the below passage from the “Methodology”.

Figure 2: First paragraph of the “Methodology” section from Soffia, Wood and Burchell (2019) “Alienation Is Not ‘Bullshit’: An Empirical Critique of Graeber’s Theory of BS Jobs”. Work, Employment and Society36(5), 816–840

The researchers apply a very absolute measure for a ‘useless’ job – essentially the feeling of being totally and utterly devoid of use, or extremely close to it – which in turns sets a very, very low bar for what is a ‘useful’ job, that being the employee sometimes has the feeling of doing useful work. They then go on to argue that they are not (further) lowering the bar by discounting “don’t know” responses, asserting that they achieved some sort of equivalency with Graeber.

I simply do not agree with the authors. These words are meant to create conversation, and Graeber’s certainly did, a point which the authors ultimately seem to appreciate. Okay, whenever anybody writes like this it is impossible to scrutinise every single sentence, phrase and word for law-like precision. Graeber’s words should not be approached as a legal document to be proved beyond a shadow of doubt. Neither, do I suggest, they should just be accepted at face value. It is the thesis that matters and this research, in my opinion, does little to address the true underlying concept or spirit of the thesis. And, importantly, there are some data there that could be drilled down into by the authors, unfortunately that was not done.

Moving on, noting closely that this research was based on pre-pandemic data, it was also interesting to observe that one major issue of apparent contradiction with Gaeber’s thesis was that he listed garbage collectors, and cleaners and helpers as having critical non-BS jobs whereas the survey found that these workers ranked highly for feeling that they did useless jobs (almost 10% in some cases which I find truly saddening).

I would suggest that this shows a level of self-perception, as a reflection of broader societies’ perceptions, on the value of these roles, and this whole issue was put under the spotlight early in the COVID-19 pandemic. It would be interesting to see whether these workers’ self-attitudes have changed through and after the pandemic. 

Moreover, we cannot ignore that much of this attitude is associated with a dismay that society does not value these roles significantly enough to ensure that remuneration reflects the value they add to society in comparison to other roles occupied especially by white collar workers. As Prof. Michael Sandel told us in his meritocracy discourse (discussed on MacroEdgo here in Part 1 and Part 2), it is not just the elites through this long period of Extreme capitalism (my words) that have come to believe that their efforts truly merit their fortunate position within society, but less fortunate people have been forced to accept widening wealth outcomes which have gradually infiltrated their own perceptions of their value to society so that they (sometimes painfully, other times angrily) accede to the view that the situation is a result of them not ‘achieving’ or being ‘meritorious’.

Interestingly the authors arrive at a similar viewpoint to mine, however, when they attribute the social suffering from the feelings associated with useless work to social interactions at work, especially with managers, finding relevance for Marx’s writings on alienation.

It is disappointing that in their study they set the limit for that suffering too low by discounting people so disengaged they did not know whether they ever had the feeling of doing useful work and those who only sometimes have that feeling.

I do not consider that this discourse by the UK researchers dispels what I have written on the subject, nor the underlying premise within Graeber’s thesis, and certainly not Sutton’s discussion of assholes with which they may largely agree.

Finally, I consider it telling that the authors use their perceived debunking of Graeber’s thesis to outright dismiss the need for a universal basic income while at the same time coming out in support of unions. This is a feature of left-wing writing over the past decade that I have noted previously.

Ultimately, I cannot escape the sad reality that working people at all strata of society are poorly served by the political structures with which we entered the 21st century, for the right is motivated to exploit them, and the left to recruit them into unions to staunch their losses from the past half century.

Thus, both sides of the political divide are conflicted, and neither side is truly reflecting the reality of where we are heading in this new era which highlights why this area requires the greatest Reset.


I leave you with the full lyrics to “High Hopes” by David Gilmour and Polly Samson from “The Division Bell” Album by Pink Floyd because they seem somehow incredibly appropriate…

Beyond the horizon of the place we lived when we were young
In a world of magnets and miracles
Our thoughts strayed constantly and without boundary
The ringing of the division bell had begun

Along the Long Road and on down the Causeway
Do they still meet there by the Cut

There was a ragged band that followed in our footsteps
Running before times took our dreams away
Leaving the myriad small creatures trying to tie us to the ground
To a life consumed by slow decay

The grass was greener
The light was brighter
When friends surrounded
The nights of wonder

Looking beyond the embers of bridges glowing behind us
To a glimpse of how green it was on the other side
Steps taken forwards but sleepwalking back again
Dragged by the force of some inner tide
At a higher altitude with flag unfurled
We reached the dizzy heights of that dreamed of world

Encumbered forever by desire and ambition
There’s a hunger still unsatisfied
Our weary eyes still stray to the horizon
Though down this road we’ve been so many times

The grass was greener
The light was brighter
The taste was sweeter
The nights of wonder
With friends surrounded
The dawn mist glowing
The water flowing
The endless river

Forever and ever


Gained value from these words and ideas? Consider supporting my work at GoFundMe


© Copyright Brett Edgerton 2023

Open To Offers

Although written tongue-in-cheek, this is not at all a joke and I am being entirely sincere.

I am pleased to inform all fellow leaders that for the first time in two decades I am interviewing potential candidates for the opportunity to employ me.

I can assure you that I will not be a Quiet Quitter.

I will be a Loud Starter!

My family comes 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th, as does my own health, so please do not apply if you may expect of me a level of commitment that would diminish these roles so important to me that I retired from my first career in my early 30s when I was emerging as a global leader in my field of scientific research (pathobiology in aquatic animals).

I must confess, I am not especially driven by remuneration as for most of my life I have sought to contribute to humanity’s progress, but in total have only been paid for that contribution for a handful of those years.

Still, I know my value, and what I might aim to receive in remuneration would be so complex and subjective I will not narrow it down more than to say my range is from $0 to $1.78 Million per annum depending on who you are and what we aim to do together within your team.

Amongst my many faults is a high level of loyalty, integrity, honesty, courage and authenticity so much so that I have been known to flagellate myself mercilessly – inwardly – for not living up to my own standards.

It also means that I cannot suffer insincerity; I could not pretend otherwise because few contemporary human beings have revealed as much of themselves and about their opinions as I have in my writing and blogging over 15 years including:

  • speaking before the Senate Select Committee on Housing Affordability in Brisbane in 2007 (recorded in Hansard),
  • holding PM Rudd and Treasurer Swann to account on housing affordability in an open forum in early 2008 (leading to a very early glimpse at the former’s now famous temper),
  • Leading contributor to Bubblepedia which became an important blog for housing contrarians during the most intense phase of the Australian house price bubble,
  • Invited participant in Personal Investor Online debate on housing affordability with Steve Keen and against Michael Yardney and others,
  • Peter Martin used my analysis and data in an article about housing affordability and the emotional premium of buying over renting,
  • An occasional invited guest contributor to MacroBusiness in early period,
  • I had a letter read on 60 Minutes in 2010 on lack of leadership in Australian public life, and
  • after recommencing blogging activities in late 2019 founding MacroEdgo, I was probably the earliest public voice in Australia to begin explaining the depth of the impending COVID-19 crisis and I accurately forecasted many of the issues that were to present and discussed socioeconomic consequences, influencing public policy through various online fora especially at “The Conversation”. With humility I suggest that my record of public commentary through this period is unsurpassed by any Australian.

My performance at identifying – and often publicly highlighting – major turns in asset markets is enviable.

These highlights include:

  • going to cash 12 months prior to the GFC,
  • resisting the psychological pull of the Australian house price bubble and buying our only family home in a lull in the market (being pragmatic to buy at an optimal moment of emotional and financial outcome alignment),
  • investing in beaten down Gold Coast property (2 properties) and taking profits early at maximum leverage at a peak unsurpassed since,
  • positioning for a major market dislocation event in February 2020 foreseeing the depth of the looming pandemic crisis (which I discussed in depth at MacroEdgo) using put options yielding a return of 3,000% pre-tax in several months (from an initial position of $5,000), and
  • positioning for the current bear market (using negative ETFs due to the structure of the portfolio, but being too early and reaching my maximum loss level and finalising the strategy just a week before the bear market commenced a year ago and thus not profiting from it).

I cannot take all credit as I have learned much from and have been heavily influenced by the brilliant Jeremy Grantham over many years. I recognised early that our minds worked similarly, with common professional backgrounds. Intelligence is not just about having the intellectual capacity and skill for accurate analysis. Perhaps more important is the capacity and humility to recognise it in others.

In my public commentary and activist activities I have always remembered what my old boss in Biosecurity Australia, Dr David Banks, would say to me about our role developing importation policy (for me, for prawns and other aquatic animals and products) – that when both sides of a debate are annoyed with what you are saying you know you are getting close to the right position. Over the years that I have blogged I have taken much solace in his wisdom.

Nonetheless, working away alone at home for a decade and a half with virtually zero contact, electronically or otherwise, with other like-minded human beings is a situation I would be pleased to end.

In complete truth (I cannot help myself – it may be pathological!), I am entirely unsure of how I might help any particular organisation, but I am certain that I could add significant value for the right place which aligns with my values.

If there is one thing that I regret from my first career as a scientist, it is that the one team I was briefly a part of which was full of wonderful individuals was outside of research, which was where my real passion then lay.

Being older, wiser, more experienced and content with life, I know I am ready to be a good contributor in a great team.

If asked what would be my ideal job I would say working within the capitalist system to help humanity overcome our twin, inter-related chief challenges of achieving social cohesion to combat the climate crisis.

I am not (quite) narcissistic enough to be blind to the reality that many will find this approach to obtaining a quality job ‘different’, even strange.

As a heteronormative male in my early 50’s who has not been employed for 20 years, I am not by any measure an average job hunter. I’m not average in many ways. And to far too many, being a male full time home parent for the entirety of my sons’ lives until they finish school is already strange.

I don’t mind standing out from the crowd, especially when I know how successful our approach has been.

I have one further stipulation. As my youngest – who is now taller than me – still attends school and I remain his primary caregiver, in the early stages of our association I am not looking for a full time position.

If I have succeeded in piquing your interest in what I might offer to your organisation, do not hesitate to check out my details on Linked in and here on MacroEdgo where you will find out way too much about me, including (for what it is worth now) my very old resume up until the period that I retired as a research scientist. I can be contacted through LinkedIn.

I’m excited to see what is on offer. Yes, I am discerning, but I am also open-minded, so why not contact me and let’s take it from there 😉


I will now go out on a limb and mention 3 role types that I consider myself ideally suited for (and demonstrably so): 1) thought-leader in a think tank, 2) non-executive director of an Australian-domiciled and/or multinational publicly-listed company involved in the energy transition within an ESG-cognisant framework; and 3) financial markets macro analyst. Below I will discuss the why – please contact me if you want to discuss the how…

  1. Thought-leader in a think tank

If one is to read much of what McKinsey produced in the first year of the pandemic, and compare it to much of what I wrote and published at MacroEdgo, a strong echo is noticeable with my views typically proceeding theirs by a few weeks. Note, for example, that McKinsey produced a regular series called “The Great Reset” but began doing so after I published my essay of that title on 30 March 2020.

I am being brash pointing this out, but I am not brash enough to suggest the co-option of my intellectual property – I’ve been open with my intellectual contribution to aid humanity, afterall. That was my highest priority and I have always been clear on that.

What I simply aim to point out is that a think tank well-known to employ teams of the ‘best and brightest’ produced a body of work with a lot of similarity to what I produced working away on my own while a fulltime stay at home Dad, with limited contact with other higher order thinkers outside of my own immediate family.

Based on this body of work alone it is clear that I would be a valuable addition to elite think-tank groups.

2. Non-executive director

Publicly-listed companies intimately and intrinsically involved in the energy transition, especially those historically involved with fossil fuel extraction, face major challenges in the public perception context.

The energy transition is incredibly complex and geopolitically fraught.

I am a pragmatic climate crisis activist. Even if companies, and even industries, have been slow to be constructive on major issues, even counter-productive, culture change is always possible. Actually it is vital because I would argue it is humanity’s best chance at successfully addressing the climate change crisis. Moreover, it is critical that such companies with problematic public perception challenges are exemplary at all aspects of ESG.

Culture change requires the involvement of broad-minded, courageous thought-leaders, and even better when they come from outside the narrow pool of insiders from which these positions are typically filled.

Experience can be gained, but uncommon intellect and insight from outside such talent pools is rare and is of value to all stakeholders when combined with rare authenticity and courage.

3. Macro analyst

I would suggest that there is a strong electronic footprint of my thoughts on macroeconomics and investing since founding MacroEdgo and earlier.

Perhaps most important and of interest is to give a concise overlay of my current thinking.

So what do I think about markets presently? I think equity markets – led by the major US indices – have further to fall. I am not equipped with insider research and knowledge or skill to analyse earnings and where they are likely to go over the next 12 months, and thus discuss PE ratio expansion/contraction, though I can easily believe that earnings are likely to fall when rates have been increased so rapidly.

My view is more basic, however.

For a decade incredibly low global interest rates was said to justify a market rally because the denominator of the NPV formula approached zero, or was negative, giving an infinite value. The always optimistic salespeople on Wall Street made maximum use of that narrative. Of course salespeople are not limited to Wall St, and the ‘free’ money spread to most global assets, making it a challenge to buy assets at a price likely to provide a reasonable medium to long-term return if and when interest rates returned to levels that prevailed for the last half of the 20th century. That shifted markets towards speculation not investing.

Interest rates are now adjusting back towards that earlier normality and so markets are adjusting back towards their role as weighing machines rather than popularity contests (along Ben Graham’s famous analogy oft quoted by Warren Buffett). Moreover, this changed market condition now assists central banks in their campaign against inflation.

Nothing here is exceptionally insightful, I agree. Perhaps the following might add some value as I have not heard this said publicly by others (though I did say a little of this in a comment on a post by Diana Mousina from AMP on LinkedIn.)

I anticipate this process to take most of the remainder of this decade because inflation will be more persistent than many are publicly stating, and not just for the reasons that those who do anticipate ‘sticky’ inflation are discussing (i.e. that price pressures will persist because of necessary adjustments in the economy especially to address the climate crisis).

It is my personal view that Fed Chairman Volcker represented the high point in Central bank independence and freedom from political influence, and that was because the public’s lived experience with inflation through the 70’s gave him the political leeway to stay the course and defeat inflation.

Irrespective of the commonly accepted narrative, central bankers are not independent of the political masters who decide their fate. (They are far from independent of the financial and business elites either, by the way, for the same reasons.)

Thus unless strong deflationary factors emerge which outweigh those forementioned strong inflationary factors, I expect central banks to fold.

(Emergent deflationary pressures seem unlikely due to geopolitics.)

It is easy right now for central banks to talk tough on fighting inflation when the economic consequences of the tightening cycle are barely being felt and while especially employment remains high.

Let’s see how central bankers stand up to political pressure from public pressure resulting from surging unemployment in a recession when that public has no to little living memory of the counter-factual pain from persistent high inflation.

Thus I expect the 2020s to be very similar to the 1970s, with several false dawns of victory over inflation before the political will truly exists to conquer it.

Consequently, I expect measured by market indice movements that it will be a lost decade for most asset markets in real terms, especially in those where speculation from free money had been greatest.

The way that I personally am positioning on this basis is as follows:

  • I still like gold (and also still as a hedge against socioeconomic disruption),
  • I like certain hard commodities, i.e. those important in the energy transition and with a level of constrained supply especially from like-minded nations (putting it politely),
  • I do like developing economies, though I carefully separate my exposure to China (the reasons for which I discussed on MacroEdgo pre-COVID),
  • I intend allocating to Europe on weakness for the value proposition,
  • broad exposure to US equity markets will have to wait for better value to emerge (though it is closer for individual businesses that have been well run and have invested responsibly rather than engineering for short term share price movements), and
  • allocations to bonds will continue to require dexterity in the knowledge that the bear market is far from over and there is likely to be several rate rising cycles potentially each with higher peaks until inflation is brought under enduring control.

To conclude – and I say the following with the intention that this will be the last I say publicly in this campaign of mine to find a quality role – I sincerely believe that I can add significant value to the right team.

I’ve never said this publicly, but mentioned it to a friend at the time, one of the major reasons I founded MacroEdgo was because it really sunk home that I had valuable insights to share after watching fellow Australian, and Morgan Stanley CEO, James Gorman say almost verbatim comments that I had been making to that friend in many long discussions we had on economics and investing.

(Though I must admit that my language was much less jargonistic – a pet peeve of mine, and most authentic contrarians who have no desire to be ‘in’ or ‘cool’ and would cringe at the thought of it – it’s not in our ‘wheelhouse’ 😉

But I should be clear about what motivates me and what does not.

I have not sat in my home for almost 2 decades thinking “if only” or “I could have done that”.

Not at all. 

Committing my full and best time and energy of my life to supporting my sons from their births through to the completion of their schooling, and supporting my wife through her career, and in our broader lives together, has been more fulfilling and rewarding than I could ever fully explain.

That is why I argue that all parents should strongly consider my views around balancing these roles with income-producing and ambition-/ego-/self-confidence-sating roles.

Most of the time through this period I have had some level of capacity to contribute further to society and blogging was the perfect outlet for me to do that.

However, my capacity to contribute is now increasing as my sons complete and near completion of their schooling and become increasingly independent.

And I have a deep desire to contribute to humanity’s progress mostly because I have an intense love and optimism for us and our world.

I know that I will find a way to contribute to the best of my ability to the challenges we human beings face together.

My first preference on doing that is within the capitalist system because, unlike many with my thoughts on climate crisis activism, I have deep conviction that our system – with appropriate reform – presents by far the best chance of succeeding.

Of course if I manage to follow that path then I would aim to be paid commensurately, and the extra security that would give my family, and the pressure it would relieve from my wife whose sole income has sustained us for 20 years, would be an important consideration.

I realise that there is a lot of ego and elitism in the areas that I mention above, and very many will scoff and suggest the limb that I have gone out on is ridiculously flimsy.

Equally I know that pragmatism quickly asserts for those who have the capital and/or fully comprehend the tenuous situation in which we humans have placed ourselves.

Nonetheless, if I do not manage to convince anyone presently of the value I have the capacity to add, then I will continue contributing through blogging and volunteering with movements I support closely, possibly Women of Colour Australia amongst others.

Thank you for your time.


Gained value from these words and ideas? Consider supporting my work at GoFundMe


© Copyright Brett Edgerton 2023

Guardians Of The Gulf Between Virtuous And Wicked

To err is human; but contrition felt for the crime distinguishes the virtuous from the wicked.

— Vittorio Alfieri

This past week it appeared that the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) aimed to distinguish their actions through the pandemic from those of the wicked.

Dr. Lowe’s contrition did not exercise my thoughts, however, in part because he clearly needed to ‘fess up’, and also because it was clear to me very early that extraordinary measures were required of central banks as I said on 11 February 2020 (note carefully how early in the pandemic that was):

I expect that central banks will try absolutely extraordinary actions (as opposed to the already “extraordinary” actions that we have become desensitised to over the last decade). The problem will be how to safeguard the economy by creating activity when most activity runs counter to the best way to reduce the spread of the virus. We hardly want more people out and about shopping, or even working together. As I said above, I believe most workplaces will need to either put people on paid leave or working from home.

I was more focused on the release of the report of the Hon Virginia Bell’s Inquiry on Prime Minister Morrison’s secret ministries and reflecting back on my own writing and actions from that time.

And the former Prime Minister’s lack of contrition was not even the major issue I was pondering, after all, such behaviour is true to type in my long-held view of him.

It is clear, in social media feeds especially, that my two main sources for articles I choose to share are the Guardian Australia and Bloomberg.

But even these sources I do not hold back on criticising when it is warranted.

In the days after Morrison realised he should not go to the 2020 NRL opening round, and as we now know, about the time he took on his first extra ministry, on 20 March 2020 I published the article “The First Victim Of War Is The Truth“.

(Note, from 3 February through March 2020 here at MacroEdgo I published 12 posts dealing specifically with COVID-19 along with a detailed daily “Coronavirus Outbreak” report from February 9 and to refresh on the context of the events and my writing I recommend reading these, especially “COVID-19 Elephants In The Room“, the post immediately before the one mentioned above which I published 10 days earlier.)

In “The First Victim Of War Is The Truth” I allowed my sheer frustration with the media, and over the voices that were given space, and were not, to come out in response to an article in Guardian Australia. I had been arguing solidly for weeks to close the border before the pandemic got away from us like it was in the process of doing in Italy.

Then for the Guardian Australia’s political commentator Katharine Murphy to come out and say words to the effect that she was falling into line behind Morrison and giving him a pass to do what he felt was needed, while forgiving his failings from early in the pandemic, well it was all too much.

I really felt like I was a lone voice of reason in the nation!

I had been sending the editor of Guardian Australia everything I had written, a practice I have continued through to now, but will cease from here on, and I was disappointed with the editorial decision not to publish me.

This falling in behind Morrison, when his comments showed he was still inclined to follow his US and UK ideologues in Trump and Johnson, got the better of me.

Both the US and UK were clearly following a ‘let it rip’ path and the UK in particular found a convenient ‘strategy’- herd immunity from natural infection – to justify their inaction out of concern for economic impacts from measures necessary to minimise human loss.

I suggest that anybody who looks back dispassionately now with what we know occurred and what Mr. Morrison was doing in secrecy, well I think most will agree that the Guardian Australia editors made the wrong call and could have done a better job of serving their readership.

After all that has happened over this period, that dispassionate analyst knows that the prescience of my commentary has earned me the rare right to point out these failings. Not wishing to join any ‘team’ or be encumbered by a ‘label’, though, I realise that I will find little support.

Publishing several opinion pieces from someone who then in the Washington Times said, “One of the greatest scams ever inflicted on the workplace is COVID-19 hysteria“, that just proved to me how the Guardian’s editorial decisions can be found wanting. I must confess, however, it does sometimes make me wonder whether there really is such a great difference between media establishments.

I certainly will not be donating to the Guardian again, especially given how much I have promoted their writing over the past 3 years.

Still, I will say this: Now that we have seen a little contrition from the RBA, it would not be out of place to see a little from Guardian Australia, but I am gaining the impression that all within the ‘Fourth Estate’ are above such humility.


Finally, like for television media, I will be taking an extended break from blogging over the holiday season.

For those who celebrate and/or recognise annual milestones around this period, please receive my very best wishes.

The one affect that the COVID-19 pandemic has had for all of us, I believe, is to add punctuation to our perception of time.

Before 2020 the years seemed to fly by, but now it seems like time has slowed in many ways. For me, compared with 2019 it felt like 2020 was slowed around 10x, 2021 about 5x, and 2022 still about 3x (i.e. it felt like 3 of ‘pre-2020’ years had passed when I thought back to events from early 2022). 

It is difficult to believe that around this time last year ABC breakfast were celebrating the recommencement of interstate travel (shortly followed by their apparent shock at surging COVID-19 cases) – it seems like years ago.

As a father of two young men becoming increasingly independent, I must confess that I do not regard the perception of slowed time as a negative.

Nonetheless, I do want to say that I believe that in 2023 we will all take more significant steps into our post-COVID realities and I see no foreseeable reasons why it will not be better than 2022.

I just suggest we all try to keep hold in our hearts of the Reset opportunity we were all presented with, and many of us have acknowledged and lived, and use that to continue working towards a better, more cohesive humanity living sustainably through smart, efficient and hasty progress.


Gained value from these words and ideas? Consider supporting my work at GoFundMe


© Copyright Brett Edgerton 2022

Australian Gas Asset Ownership Through The Energy Transition

In recent decades Australian politicians have been delinquent in their leadership* and this means that the Australian public has been slow to understand the myriad issues surrounding the energy transition even if recent election results show that concern over the climate crisis is growing rapidly. 

Perhaps the most critical aspect of the energy transition is that those in charge of resources and equipment which are vital in bridging humanity with still necessary fossil fuels to a sustainable future through the energy transition are constructive. 

It is not necessary that they, themselves, transition the businesses they lead to producing renewable energy – that is a business strategy decision for them to make – but they must not act to undermine or impede the transition.

In short, they must accept the stranding of their fossil fuel assets at an optimal rate commensurate with the development and deployment of energy from renewable sources to minimise further harm to the climate and all life on the planet.

It is here where the major fossil fuel extractors with integrated energy businesses have lost trust with many in the broad global community.

There is a perception that the leaders of these businesses over several decades have used the power and influence that goes hand in hand with such a geopolitically significant industry to impede the transition first by obfuscating the scientific evidence which proved its necessity.

For many close observers it is impossible that they would ever trust these businesses again, no matter who leads the organisation. Consequently, there are activists arguing for the majors to be bought by Governments to nationalise their assets to control their phasing out.

Governments adopting such a nationalisation strategy would run counter to the manner in which our increasingly Extreme capitalism has worked over recent decades. It would, indeed, be a major Reset.

With the profit (above all else) imperative so deeply enmeshed in our Extreme capitalism, often sidelining weakened bureaucratic regulation, and with political influence itself lightly regulated in our contemporary democracies, the more common approach in similar situations has been the adoption of a ‘good bank/bad bank’ strategy where the ‘bad’ parts are separated off and sold to businesses that seek to maximise those profits irrespective of the broader negative impacts.

Often these businesses are less well known and, because their brand is not critical to the making of their profits, societal perspectives on their actions are insignificant in their operations.

This is a critical difference from large, well-known, often publicly-listed companies. For instance, Shell plc (formerly Royal Dutch Shell) puts a dollar value on its company emblem the ‘pecten’ and values its brand and reputation highly.

Of course, all businesses are just groups of human beings, and business strategies, actions and behaviours are the result of decisions made by human beings.

In Extreme capitalism there are many human beings prepared and permitted to choose self-interest above the greater good for all of humanity. And the significant profits made from these ‘bad’ businesses provides them with the opportunity to exert much political influence which may be used to protect profits.

In recent years private equity businesses have been buying up fossil fuel extraction resources often in concentrated portfolios. One such private equity establishment is EIG Global Energy Partners which over several decades has come to control a portfolio of over 60 energy businesses with a very high weighting towards oil and gas extraction. 

Last month, through a new Australian business created by it named MidOcean Energy, EIG paid Tokyo Gas US$2.15 Billion to acquire its Australian assets which include stakes in the highest profile gas extraction projects in the country (including Gorgon LNG, Ichthys LNG, Pluto LNG and Queensland coal seam gas). EIG is now aiming to buy a further stake in Queensland coal seam gas in Origin Energy’s stake in APLNG by joining with another private equity establishment in Brookfield Energy which will take over Origin’s electricity generation business.

EIG states the investment thesis behind its gas assets is that it is “a critical enabler of the energy transition and [because of the] growing importance of LNG as a geopolitically strategic energy resource”.

Reporting often describes this strategy as a “bet” which not only reflects the risk involved in (all) investing and capital allocation but alludes to the concentration in the portfolio on gas. (eg  https://www.afr.com/chanticleer/origin-suitor-says-local-gas-can-keep-energy-transition-on-track-20221113-p5bxuw )

In 2012 this is what the (still) CEO of EIG, and Director of MidOcean Energy, Mr. Blair Thomas told the Financial Times:

Gas is a destination, not a bridge to anything else. Over time, its share of the global energy mix will increase. It will eventually undermine all the subsidies for renewables.

If Mr. Thomas still has the same view, and it has driven the investment decisions EIG has made under his leadership up to the present day, there is clear potential for this increasingly important player in Australian and global energy supply to be less constructive towards the critical energy transition than many well-informed observers would prefer.

Given those observers are already sceptical over the willingness of the publicly-listed energy giants to assist in the stranding of their assets through an energy transition, and the demonstrated willingness of the industry to lobby elected officials aggressively, we really need to carefully consider whether the situation is being made worse, and the energy transition at risk of being (further?) undermined, by these assets moving into opaque and concentrated private equity ownership structures led by people who we know very little about.

Postscript, I intentionally made this ‘personal’ because it is easy to treat businesses as amorphous entities which is to deny the reality. The impacts of climate change are personally felt by all of us, and so we need to ensure that we talk about the causes and responses in personal terms. This is epitomised by the passion of John Kerry, the US Special Envoy On Climate Change, in this interview with Bloomberg during COP27 where he called for the declaration of war against climate change (echoing my own call from January 2020).


* As additional indication of delinquent leadership by Australian politicians I also offer this transcript dated February 2020 from an interview by Leigh Sales on 7.30 with former Liberal Treasurer Joe Hockey:

LEIGH SALES:  Do you think that ministerial standards are at the same height that they were 20 years ago?

JOE HOCKEY:  I mean, it’s all changed, Leigh. Social media has changed everything. Social media has made the voice of the critic much, much louder than the voice of the advocate.

And the second thing that’s changed is disruption.

Everyone keeps calling for government to initiate reform, but really, what’s happening is the private sector is initiating reform, on a scale that we’ve never seen before.

LEIGH SALES:  Is there something fundamentally wrong with that though, if Government is not leading?

JOE HOCKEY:  No. Because it empowers individuals and we all believe that individuals should be their best.


Gained value from these words and ideas? Consider supporting my work at GoFundMe


© Copyright Brett Edgerton 2022