The Enduring Legacy of the Entente Cordiale

From a Historical Bloodbath to our Modern Game of Thermonuclear Chicken

Apr 29, 2024

On April 8, 2024, UK Foreign Minister David Cameron and French Foreign Minister Stephane Sejourne co-wrote an op-ed for the Daily Telegraph celebrating the historic 120^th anniversary of the French-English Entente Cordiale signed as a secret mutual security pact on April 8, 1904.

The clown duo wrote of the 21^st century entente as integral to defeating Russia: “It is not for France and Britain alone to solve these challenges. But, together, we can rally others to join us in overcoming them… We must do even more to ensure we defeat Russia. The world is watching – and will judge us if we fail.”

French President Emmanuel Macron chimed in delivering a speech, saying: “Our Entente Cordiale remains as relevant as ever. Faced with the resurgence of war in Europe, we stand together to defend the values we share and to support Ukraine as it defends itself against its aggressor.”

Not only was the entente celebrated in words, but for the first time in history, French troops participated in the changing of the guards at Buckingham palace, and British troops joined a military parade at the Presidential Elysee Palace, marching alongside French troops to the melodies of ‘God Save the King’ and ‘La Marseilles’.

Since the Entente Cordiale’s anniversary is exerting such an influence on current geopolitical thinking, I wanted to take a moment to leap back into a bit of history to see what this secret military pact was originally, and how ALL world wars of the 20^th century would have been impossible without it.

Setting the Stage for Total War: King Edward VII

Writing of the Entente’ origins, a 1996 EIR report made the following astute observation:

“This diplomatic work was masterminded and carried out by King Edward VII personally, with the various British ministers, cabinets, round tables, and other apparatus merely following in his wake.
Edward had a geopolitical vision in the Venetian tradition, and it was one of brutal simplicity: the encirclement of Germany with a hostile coalition, followed by a war of annihilation in which many of Britain's erstwhile "allies "-notably France and Russia-would also be decimated and crippled.”

The major threat posed to the British Empire at the 20^th century was the spread of Abraham Lincoln’s system of nationalist political economy around the world.

In Germany, the American System-inspired Zollverein (custom’s union) had not only unified a divided nation, but elevated it to a level of productive power and sovereignty which had outpaced the monopoly power of the British East India Company. In Japan, American engineers helped assemble trains funded by a national banking system and protective tariffs during the Meiji Restoration.

In Russia, American System follower Sergei Witte, Transport Minister and close advisor to Czar Alexander II, revolutionized the Russian economy with the American made trains that rolled across the Trans-Siberian Railway.

In France, President Sadi Carnot and the brilliant foreign minister Gabriel Hanotaux applied this system before President Carnot’s 1895 assassination, and both men had worked hard to build bridges of diplomatic relations around large scale rail and industrial projects with Russia, Germany, and China. Russia and France even created a Russo-Chinese Bank to fund rail development from the new Trans-Siberian railway into China. Not only that, but in 1895, Russia signed a mutual defense treaty with China, and Witte led the charge to keep China’s territory intact by forcing the Japanese away from accepting territorial concessions after the Sino-Japan war of 1894.

Not even the Ottoman Empire remained untouched by the inspiration for progress, as the Berlin to Baghdad Railway was begun with the intention of unleashing a bold program of modernization of southwest Asia spearheaded by the German rail builder George von Siemens.

Most importantly, however is that these diplomatic maneuvers hinged upon the success of the Russian-German-French alliance for progress in opposition to the intrigues of the British Empire and Edward VII. Witte called this ‘The Continental League,’ and he explained it’s importance to Kaiser Wilhelm in 1897, saying,

“In order to attain this ... we must first make all haste toward the establishment of solid united relations between Russia, Germany, and France. Once these countries stand together in a firm and steady union, undoubtedly all the other countries on the continent of Europe will join this central union and thus form a union of the whole continent, which will free Europe from the burden which she imposes on herself on account of reciprocal rivalry.”

The British Empire was desperate, and leading members of the elite could see the stranglehold of empire evaporating as sovereign cooperating nation states spread like wildfire.

The Science of Playing Dirty

It is here that the intrigues of King Edward VII and the grand strategists of the empire did what any empire does when confronted with its possible annihilation … Burn the world.

The age of assassinations which saw a greater density of murdered statesmen (typically killed by London-directed anarchists) between 1880-1914 is unparalleled at any other time in history known to this author.

Presidents Garfield and McKinley were murdered in the USA, and Czars Alexander I and II were murdered in Russia, while in France, President Carnot was killed in 1895 as dozens of ministers were killed in Russia.

After Britain successfully annihilated the Russian army through the use of the Imperial Japanese army in 1904, and after Britain successfully weakened Russia through the first Color Revolution attempt in 1905 led by Leon Trotsky and Lenin[1]… and after putting into motion the Balkan Wars in Russia’s soft underbelly using a freemasonic agency tied to Mazzini’s P1 lodge called ‘The Young Turks’, the pieces were finally falling into place for a final war of global annihilation.

This total war required secret military pacts to aid in encircling Germany, which was begun in earnest on April 8, 1904 with the British-French Entente Cordiale.

By 1907, a weakened and mis-managed Russia of Czar Nicholas II agreed to secretly joining the British-French pact creating the Triple Entente.

Had America’s president William McKinley survived the assassin’s bullet in 1901, it is certain that the USA would have played a much more important role in helping to forge bonds of survival against the British Empire, but sadly, by 1907 the anglophile racist Teddy Roosevelt had taken control and was so charmed by King Edward VII that he announced the first Anglo-American special relationship (which would later be revived virulently after WWII).

The British Empire’s intention to use these secret treaties to encircle and destroy Germany was much better known in those days, than it is today, with The Daily Mail of December 14, 1909 even publishing an editorial reading:

“the king [Edward VII] and his councillors have strained every nerve to establish Ententes with Russia and with Italy; and have formed an Entente with France, and as well with Japan. Why? To isolate Germany.”[2]

Woodrow Wilson’s accession to the presidency from 1912-1920, and the establishment of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 only re-enforced the belief that America was sufficiently under the control of a supranational financier elite that had never quite forgiven the belligerent colony for winning independence in 1783.

When Germany found herself the last nation to be prepared for a war that had been set into motion by the architects of the Anglo-French Entente Cordiale, America was expected to jump in immediately.

Military pacts well known to all geopoliticians of 1914 ensured Russian intervention on Serbia’s side if the latter got in a fight. Similarly, Germany had guaranteed its support for Austria in any fight it found itself enmeshed in.

When an anarchist terror cell from Serbia known as ‘the Black Hand’ was deployed to kill Archduke Ferdinand of Austria on June 28, 1914, a chain of events was put into motion that led a sleep-walking world into the slaughterhouse.

Finally realizing what had happened, Kaiser Wilhelm wrote despairingly in August 1914:

“England, Russia, and France have agreed among themselves… to take the Austro-Serbian conflict for an excuse for waging a war of extermination against us… That is the real naked situation slowly and cleverly set going by Edward VII and… finally brought to a conclusion by George V… So the famous encirclement of Germany has finally become a fact, despite every effort of our politicians and diplomats to prevent it.
The net has been suddenly thrown over our head, and England sneeringly reaps the most brilliant success of her persistently prosecuted purely anti-German world policy against which we have proved ourselves helpless, while she twists the noose of our political and economic destruction out of our fidelity to Austria, as we squirm isolated in the net. A great achievement, which arouses the admiration even of him who is to be destroyed as its result! Edward VII is stronger after his death than am I who am still alive!”[3]

The Fight Inside the USA

When nationalist forces in the United States saw the fires start across the ocean, it wasn’t interventionist neoconservative Pax Americana instincts that dictated a leap into the mire (as those would only be cultivated by a cult of neo-Trotskyists many decades later).[4]

The USA of 1914 was still very much influenced by the non-interventionist spirit of George Washington and John Quincy Adams.

It was George Washington who warned Americans never to allow themselves to be entangled into European oligarchical intrigue, while Adams re-affirmed this belief in the form of his Monroe Doctrine, warning that America must never “go about searching for monsters to destroy”.

Although not attaining a victory on the federal level until the 1921 inauguration of President Warren Harding, these nationalists (sometimes dubbed “The American System Caucus”) fought valiantly to keep the USA neutral[5].

In 1915, an inside job arranged by Anglo-American (mostly Anglo) forces drove the sinking of the Lusitania carrying 1700 people (and 173 tons of explosives) from the USA to Europe[6].

Although it took two years of relentless propaganda, this event was decisive in fueling anti-German sentiment and winning over American support to the war. With America’s 1917 entry, the scales were sufficiently tipped in favor of the “allies,” and the Austro-Hungarian empire was soon put down.

Among other things, the Ottoman Empire—then allied to Germany was also dissolved with victor nations gobbling up her territories, while imperialists drooled over the potential carving up of the Russian empire after the destruction of the Romanov Dynasty in 1917. Lastly, Sykes Pekoe’s carving up of the Middle East (also arranged years before the end of WWI) set into motion the divide-to-conquer strategy of Anglo-intrigue in Southwest Asia that has plagued the world until our present day[7].

Again, the ghost of King Edward VII had made itself felt here too, as the late King’s Palestine Expedition Fund established in 1865 and broader Quator Coronati Freemasonic “research lodge” established in 1886 had organized the vast networks of British agents masquerading as Arabists who were deployed to infiltrate Bedouin tribes, map out terrain, profile group dynamics and prepare the groundwork for the Sykes-Picot carving up of the former Ottoman Empire.

A major part of the Quator Corotonati Lodge’s mandate was also finding the location of Solomon’s Temple in order to set the stage for an End Times Zionist Cult that would think that God willed the building of the third temple as part of a strange contract God had with his ‘chosen people’ to bring in the Messiah.

The Birth of the League of Nations

Anyone going into the opening January 10, 1920 conference of the League of Nations that emerged out of the Versailles Treaty of 1919 would not have had most of this intrigue in mind.

The world was told that the cause of the war was German imperial ambition and the nation state system itself that made expansionism possible. Discussing truth was not deemed appropriate amidst this frenzy of looting, as everything that Germany possessed including vital agriculture, mines, rail, industry and colonies went up for grabs. Debts were thrust upon the beaten German state as North Silesia, Ruhr, and Alsace-Loraine were confiscated along with the means of paying their reparations[8].

The acolytes managing the League of Nations demanded that the world finally learn that if nation states were permitted to exist, then such wars would plague humanity forever. The solution was the dissolution of sovereign nation states. No longer would selfish nation states be free to decide for themselves when to war and when to declare peace. Articles 10 and 16 of the League’s Covenant (pre-cursor to the latter Article 5 collective security pact of NATO) would ensure this.

In Defense of Sovereignty

Fortunately, a return to sanity under the short-lived Presidency of Warren Harding (1921-23) brought the USA into a hostile relationship with the League and its Round Table affiliates within the CFR and Wall Street. Harding ensured a healthy belligerence to the League’s anti-national mandate and worked hard to initiate bilateral agreements with Austria, Germany, Hungary, Russia and China outside of the League’s authority.

*A typical anti League of Nations cartoon in the USA*

During the 1920s, many other nations shared this deep mistrust of the new supranational organization, and saw it clearly as the cover for a new British Empire. With this awareness, the League was never permitted to take on the teeth that one-world government fanatics so deeply desired.

From 1921-1932, the increasingly impotent body fell into disarray and saw its last serious battle against nationalism die in June 1933, when American President Franklin Roosevelt torpedoed the League’s London Conference on finance and trade[9].

This little-known conference brought together 62 nations and was co-controlled by the Bank of England, the Bank of International Settlements (aka: the Central Bank of central banks) and aimed at imposing a central bankers dictatorship onto the world. This was a process not that dissimilar from the Great Reset Agenda in motion today.

When the London Conference was begun in December 1932, it was sold as the only way “to stabilize the world economy,” and was organized by the League of Nations under the guidance of the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) and Bank of England.

The BIS was set up as “the Central Bank of Central Banks” in 1930 in order to facilitate WWI debt repayments and was a vital instrument for funding Nazi Germany- long after WWII began. The London Economic Conference brought together 64 nations of the world under a controlled environment chaired by the British Prime Minister and opened by the King himself.

A resolution passed by the Conference’s Monetary Committee stated:

“The conference considers it to be essential, in order to provide an international gold standard with the necessary mechanism for satisfactory working, that independent Central Banks, with requisite powers and freedom to carry out an appropriate currency and credit policy, should be created in such developed countries as have not at present an adequate central banking institution” and that “the conference wish to reaffirm the great utility of close and continuous cooperation between Central Banks. The Bank of International Settlements should play an increasingly important part not only by improving contact, but also as an instrument for common action.”

Echoing the Bank of England’s modern fixation with “mathematical equilibrium”, the resolutions stated that the new global gold standard controlled by central banks was needed “to maintain a fundamental equilibrium in the balance of payments” of countries.

The idea was to deprive nation states of their power to generate and direct credit for their own development.

FDR Torpedoes the London Conference

Chancellor Schleicher’s resistance to a bankers’ dictatorship was resolved by a “soft coup” ousting the patriotic leader in favor of Adolph Hitler (under the control of a Bank of England toy named Hjalmar Schacht) in January 1933, with Schleicher assassinated the following year.

In America, an assassination attempt on Roosevelt was thwarted on February 15, 1933 when a woman knocked the gun out of the hand of an anarchist-freemason in Miami, resulting in the death of Chicago’s Mayor Cermak.

Without FDR’s dead body, the London conference met an insurmountable barrier, as FDR refused to permit any American cooperation.

Roosevelt recognized the necessity for a new international system, but he also knew that it had to be organized by sovereign nation states subservient to the general welfare of the people, and not central banks dedicated to the welfare of the oligarchy. Before any international changes could occur, nation states castrated from the effects of the depression had to first recover economically in order to stay above the power of the financiers.

By May 1933, the London Conference crumbled when FDR complained that the conference’s inability to address the real issues of the crisis was “a catastrophe amounting to a world tragedy”, and that fixation with short term stability were “old fetishes of so-called international bankers”.

FDR continued:

“The United States seeks the kind of dollar which a generation hence will have the same purchasing and debt paying power as the dollar value we hope to attain in the near future. That objective means more to the good of other nations than a fixed ratio for a month or two. Exchange rate fixing is not the true answer.”

The British drafted an official statement, saying, “the American statement on stabilization rendered it entirely useless to continue the conference.”

While the success of the League’s London Conference might have made WWII unnecessary[10], the goal of a Malthusian/eugenics-driven “scientifically managed” priesthood as outlined by the likes of John Maynard Keynes would have been just as deadly.

FDR’s War on Wall Street

The new president laid down the gauntlet in his inaugural speech on March 4th, saying:

“The money-changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit”.

FDR declared a war on Wall Street on several levels, beginning with his support of the Pecora Commission, which sent thousands of bankers to prison, and exposed the criminal activities of the top tier of Wall Street’s power structure that manipulated the depression by buying political offices and pushing fascism.

Ferdinand Pecora, who ran the commission called out the Deep State when he said, “this small group of highly placed financiers, controlling the very springs of economic activity, holds more real power than any similar group in the United States.”

Pecora’s highly publicized success empowered FDR to impose sweeping regulation in the form of

Glass-Steagall bank separation,
Bankruptcy re-organization, and …
The creation of the Security Exchange Commission to oversee Wall Street.

Most importantly, FDR disempowered the London-controlled Federal Reserve by installing his own man as Chair (Industrialist Mariner Eccles,) who forced it to obey national commands for the first time since 1913, while creating an “alternative” lending mechanism outside of Fed control called the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC,) which became the number one lender to infrastructure in America throughout the 1930s.

One of the most controversial policies for which FDR is demonized today was his abolishment of the gold standard.

The gold standard itself constricted the money supply to a strict exchange of gold per paper dollar, thus preventing the construction of internal improvements needed to revive industrial capacity and put the millions of unemployed back to work for which no financial resources existed. Its manipulation by international financiers made it a weapon of destruction rather than creation at this time.

Since commodity prices had fallen lower than the costs of production, it was vital to increase the price of goods under a form of “controlled inflation” so that factories and farms could become solvent, and unfortunately, the gold standard held that back. FDR imposed protective tariffs to favor agro-industrial recovery on all fronts ending years of rapacious free trade.

FDR stated his political-economic philosophy in 1934:

“the old fallacious notion of the bankers on the one side and the government on the other side, as being more or less equal and independent units, has passed away. Government by the necessity of things must be the leader, must be the judge, of the conflicting interests of all groups in the community, including bankers.”

The Real New Deal: How to Fight Wall Street Fascists

Once liberated from the shackles of the central banks, FDR and his allies were able to start a genuine recovery by restoring confidence in banking.

Within 31 days of his bank holiday, 75% of banks were operational, and the FDIC was created to insure deposits. Four million people were given immediate work, and hundreds of libraries, schools and hospitals were built and staffed—All funded through the RFC.

FDR’s first fireside chat was vital in rebuilding confidence in the government and banks, serving even today as a strong lesson in banking that central bankers don’t want you to learn about.

From 1933-1939, 45,000 infrastructure projects were built. The many “local” projects were governed, like China’s Belt and Road Initiative today, under a “grand design” that FDR termed the “Four Quarters” featuring zones of megaprojects such as the Tennessee Valley Authority area in the south east, the Columbia River Treaty zone on the northwest, the St Laurence Seaway zone on the North east, and Hoover Dam/Colorado zone on the Southwest.

These projects were transformative in ways money could never measure, as the Tennessee area’s literacy rose from 20% in 1932 to 80% in 1950, and racist backwater holes of the south became the bedrock for America’s aerospace industry due to the abundant and cheap hydropower.

As I said already in The Keynes Vs Von Hayek Debate: A False Dualism With Malthusian Characteristics, contrary to popular belief, FDR was not a Keynesian (although it cannot be argued that hives of Rhodes Scholars and Fabians penetrating his administration certainly were).

A Return to our Present Age

Despite the sad fact that neither Harding, nor FDR were able to fully see through their ambitious goals, the possibility of reviving the spirit and intent of the United Nations charter under a paradigm of win-win cooperation would not be possible without their intervention into history.

FDR’s early death resulted in his enemies taking control of Washington and converting his dream into a Cold War nightmare.

Bretton Woods institutions like the World Bank and IMF were turned into instruments for usurious re-colonialization instead of long-term productive credit generators under an international New Deal. Throughout the Cold War, the United Nations became increasingly an impotent servant of empire without any means of giving a voice to the majority of her 193 member nations.

The UN Security Council was among the few important institutions within the new organization that gave an equal voice to leading members on both sides of the Iron Curtain. Over the years, especially since 2011, this veto power has been vital in blocking unilateral acts of imperialism, since any official military act of intervention required the unanimity of all five members.

The United Nations is NOT the League of Nations

The oligarchist League of Nations was formally dissolved just as the UN was coming online.

The timing of these two events has been used to induce credulous people to believe that the UN is simply a continuity of the League. That is a provably-false assertion.

Where the League of Nations demanded an abolition of national sovereignty, the United Nations made the defense of national sovereignty and non-interventionism guiding principles of its founding charter, especially the first several points of Article 1, which reads:

“1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.”

And just in case any imperially-minded legalist wished to read the charter loosely, Article two quickly made it clear that “the organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.”

Unlike the technocratic/management-fixated League of Nations Covenant, the UN Charter is guided explicitly by a mandate to enhance large scale economic development, win-win cooperation and the universal needs of all humanity.

And unlike the League, the UN featured no collective security pact. The burning desire for “collective security pacts” was the driving force of NATO’s creation in 1949.

The fact that FDR died two weeks prior to the San Francisco Conference of 1945 that drafted the final UN Charter is tragic, since the enemies to humanity that Roosevelt kept at bay while he was alive swept into power before his body was cold.

The principle agent of destruction in this process was one Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, who exerted vast influence on the conference and gloated over his introduction of Articles 52-54, allowing for the creation of “regional blocks”

These articles created by Coudenhove-Kalergi and the CFR with whom he collaborated made such monstrosities as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and European Union possible.

Today, the UN is largely a corrupt and confused organization whose 52 attempts to criticize Israel since 1973 have been blocked by the USA. But despite this, the UN security council’s existence has unarguably saved the lives of millions by blocking the countless attempts to destroy Syria and continues to serve as a game-changing wedge against the will of unipolar Dr. Strangeloves with delusions of global supremacy.

Modern representatives of the Anglo-American elite that took control of the USA over the dead bodies of Harding, FDR and JFK have clamored for a new post-nation state security doctrine. This doctrine was officially known as Responsibility to Protect (R2P,) and was launched by Soros-affiliated operatives like Lord Mark Malloch Brown, Strobe Talbott and Tony Blair in 1999[11].

Lord Malloch Brown integrated this doctrine into the United Nations while acting as Undersecretary General of the organization, and has spent the last years giving speeches calling for the dissolution of the UN Security Council in order to remove “authoritarian nations” like Russia and China from any role in global war-making decisions.

So, when Putin or Xi call for defending the UN Charter, or warn against a new League of Nations, it would do us well to take their words with full seriousness and avoid staining human history with another world war.

Additionally, when David Cameron or King Charles champion such monstrosities as the 1904 Entente Cordiale as a “bedrock of world peace”, they are actually championing the program that made WWI and WWII a reality and the insane program that will make WWIII inevitable.

Footnotes

[1] For the story of the Round Table planning behind the Bolshevik color revolution, see: Why Putin Criticized the Bolshevik Counter Revolution: Trotsky, Parvus and the War on Civilization by Matthew Ehret, Strategic Culture Foundation, Nov. 1, 2021 and Anthony Sutton’s Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution (1974)

[2] Quote cited in Webster Tarplay’s King Edward VII: Evil Demiurge of The Triple Entente and World War, The American Almanac, May 8, 1995

[3] Quote cited in Jim Dooherty and Jim MacGregor’s Secret Origins of the First World War, 2013

[4] How Neocons Push for War by Cooking the Books by Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould, Truth Dig, April 25, 2017

[5] The story of the American senators and congressmen who formed the ‘American System Caucus’ is laid out in How an Austrian and British Malthusian Brainwashed a Generation of Americans’ Strategic Culture Foundation, Jan. 23, 2021

[6] The Conspiratorial Sinking Of The Lusitania, The Ship That Helped Push America Into World War I

[7] The ‘Clean Break’ Doctrine: A Modern-Day Sykes-Picot Waging War and Havoc in the Middle East by Cynthia Chung, Strategic Culture Foundation, May 18, 2020

[8] After the 1918 Armistice dismantled Germany’s army and navy, the once powerful nation was now forced to pay the impossible sum of 132 billion gold marks to the victors and had to give up territories representing 10% of its population (Alsace-Loraine, Ruhr, and North Silesia) which made up 15% of its arable land, 12% of its livestock, 74% of its iron ore, 63% of its zinc production, and 26% of its coal. Germany also had to give up 8000 locomotives, 225 000 railcars and all of its colonies. It was a field day of modern pillage.

[9] See Clash of the Two Americas vol. 2, chapter 6 (pg. 90): ‘Franklin Roosevelt Crushes a Bankers’ Dictatorship’ for the full story

[10] As a transition to global technocratic feudalism might having arisen through more “peaceful” means

[11] UN at 75: slow death or new direction? By Lord Malloch-Brown, WIDER Annual Lecture 24, United Nations University, October 26, 2020

Badlands Media articles and features represent the opinions of the contributing authors and do not necessarily represent the views of Badlands Media itself.

Matthew Ehret is the editor-in-chief of The Canadian Patriot Review, Senior Fellow of the American University in Moscow and Director of the Rising Tide Foundation. He has written the four volume Untold History of Canada series, four volume Clash of the Two Americas series and Science Unshackled: Restoring Causality to a World in Chaos. He is also co-host of The Multipolar Reality on Rogue News and Breaking History on Badlands Media.

If you enjoyed this contribution to Badlands Media, please consider checking out more of Matthew’s work for free on Substack.

Badlands Media