Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Council on Foreign Relations’

How the British Sold Globalism to America – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on May 6, 2021

In fact, the CFR’s effective control over U.S. foreign policy is no conspiracy theory, but rather a well-known fact among Beltway insiders, who have nicknamed the CFR “the real State Department.”

In 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted taking direction from the CFR, referring to its New York headquarters as “the mother ship.”

By Richard Poe

ON APRIL 13, 1919, a detachment of fifty British soldiers opened fire on protesters in Amritsar, India, killing hundreds.

The soldiers were Indians, in British uniforms.

Their commander was an Englishman.

When Colonel Reginald Dyer gave the order, fifty Indians fired on their own countrymen, without hesitation, and kept on firing for ten minutes.

That’s called soft power.

The British Empire was built on it.

Soft power is the ability to seduce and coopt others into doing your bidding.

Some would call it mind control.

Through the use of soft power, a small country like England can dominate larger, more populous ones.

Even the mighty USA still yields to British influence in ways most Americans don’t understand.

For more than a hundred years, we Americans have been pushed relentlessly down the road toward globalism, contrary to our own interests and against our natural inclination.

The push for globalism comes mainly from British front groups masquerading as American think tanks. Preeminent among them is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

Origin of the CFR

The CFR grew out of the British Round Table Movement.

In my last article, “How the British Invented Globalism,” I explained how British leaders began formulating plans for global government during the 19th century.

With funding from the Rhodes Trust, a secretive group called the Round Table was formed in 1909. It planted chapters in English-speaking countries, including the USA, to propagandize for a worldwide federation of English-speaking peoples united in a single superstate.

The Round Table’s long-term goal — as Cecil Rhodes made clear in his 1877 will — was to achieve world peace through British hegemony.

In the process, Rhodes also sought (and I quote) the “ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire.”

The Dominions

It turned out that Britain’s English-speaking colonies wanted no part of Rhodes’s federation. They wanted independence.

So the Round Tablers proposed a compromise. They offered “Dominion” status or partial independence instead.

Canada was to be the model. It had gained Dominion status in 1867. This meant Canada governed itself internally, while Britain ran its foreign policy. Canadians remained subjects of the Crown.

The British now offered the same deal to other English-speaking colonies.

War with Germany was expected, so the Round Tablers had to work quickly.

Britain needed to mollify the Dominions with self-rule, so they’d agree to provide troops in the coming war.

Australia became a Dominion in 1901; New Zealand in 1907; and South Africa in 1910.

Courting the United States

The United States presented a special challenge. We had been independent since 1776. Moreover, our relations with Britain had been stormy, marred by a bloody Revolution, the War of 1812, border disputes with Canada, and British meddling in our Civil War.

Beginning in the 1890s, the British waged a public relations blitz called “The Great Rapprochement,” promoting Anglo-American unity.

Scottish-born steel magnate Andrew Carnegie called openly for a “British-American Union” in 1893. He advocated America’s return to the British Empire.

British journalist W.T. Stead argued in 1901 for an “English-speaking United States of the World.”

A “Canadian” Solution for America

From the British standpoint, the Great Rapprochement was a flop.

When Britain declared war on Germany in 1914, troops poured in from every corner of the Empire. But not from America. The US sent troops only in April 1917, after 2 1/2 years of hard British lobbying.

To the British, the delay was intolerable. It proved that Americans could not be trusted to make important decisions.

The Round Table sought a “Canadian” solution — manipulating the U.S. into a Dominion-like arrangement, with Britain controlling our foreign policy.

It had to be done quietly, through back channels.

During the 1919 Paris peace talks, Round Table operatives worked with hand-picked U.S. Anglophiles (many of them Round Table members), to devise formal mechanisms for coordinating U.S. and British foreign policy.

The Mechanism of Control

On May 30, 1919, the Anglo-American Institute of International Affairs (AAIIA) was formed, with branches in New York and London.

For the first time, a formal structure now existed for harmonizing U.S. and U.K. policy at the highest level.

However, the timing was bad. Anti-British feeling was rising in America. Many blamed England for dragging us into war. At the same time, English globalists were denouncing Americans as shirkers for failing to support the League of Nations.

With Anglo-American unity in temporary disrepute, the Round Tablers decided to separate the New York and London branches in 1920, for appearances’ sake.

Upon separation, the London branch was renamed the British Institute of International Affairs (BIIA). In 1926, the BIIA received a royal charter, becoming the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA), commonly known as Chatham House.

Meanwhile, the New York branch became the Council on Foreign Relations in 1921.

See the rest here

Richard Poe is a New York Times bestselling author and journalist. He co-wrote The Shadow Party with David Horowitz, and is presently writing a history of globalism.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

My Corner by Boyd Cathey

Posted by M. C. on April 23, 2021

“Slouching towards Armageddon”

American Foreign Policy’s Death Wish

If Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Representative Liz Cheney (R-WY) had their way American troops—boys, men, women, and, yes, transgenders—would not only be in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future, “for as long as it takes” uttered an unchastened Cheney (re-affirmed in her congressional positions of power by gutless fellow Republicans), but everywhere else in the world where “the ‘democratic’ way of life” must be imposed by American might. And the result? A continuation of thousands of body bags…


If Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Representative Liz Cheney (R-WY) had their way American troops—boys, men, women, and, yes, transgenders—would not only be in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future, “for as long as it takes” uttered an unchastened Cheney (re-affirmed in her congressional positions of power by gutless fellow Republicans), but everywhere else in the world where “the ‘democratic’ way of life” must be imposed by American might. And the result? A continuation of thousands of body bags, billions of dollars from an already desperate American middle class, and the destruction of indigenous cultures dating back thousands of years, to be replaced with feminism, same sex marriage and gender fluidity, and the fruits of robber baron capitalism.

The response of those two leaders and others in the Washington establishment bespeak the era of George W. Bush and Bill Clinton when Neoconservative scribblers like Bill Kristol and the late Charles Krauthammer (canonized now by Fox News), and the globalist policy wonks at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), ruled the roost…and America’s international role of spreading democratic, secularist…and ultimately anti-Christian…dogma was riding high. It was the time before the advent of Donald Trump and “Make America Great Again,” before the scales and blinders began ever-so-slightly to come off the eyes of millions of Americans.

Back in April 2014, at Communities Digital News, I noted that:

“Today, Republican Party leaders, like those over in the Democratic Party, endorse what they call ‘equality’ and believe generally in imposing ‘liberal democracy’ around the world. Recall leading Neoconservative writer Allan Bloom’s dictum that he famously penned a few years back, which serves as motto for most in the current Republican leadership: ‘And when we Americans speak seriously about politics, we mean that our principles of freedom and equality and the rights based on them are rational and everywhere applicable. World War II was really an educational experiment undertaken to force those who do not accept these principles to do so’.”

Those Neoconservatives have never given up, and many of their major mouthpieces—a Max Boot, Jonah Goldberg, the writers at National Review—became leaders of the Never Trump movement. Others, less honest and more corruptive and evil about their motives, with dishonest smiles on their faces, buried into the Trump administration (e.g., think here of a John Bolton or General Mattis) where they could subvert and impede even the slightest movement toward realism in American foreign policy. (My constant belief is that a major failing of Trump and his presidency was his inability to surround himself with advisors and officials who would genuinely carry out an America First agenda; many acted consistently and fervently to sabotage and undermine it.).

What I wrote back in 2014 came to mind during these past few weeks. And two events—two items in the news—triggered my thoughts.

First, came a subdued report earlier this month, barely noticed by national media that the much-ballyhooed accusations in June 2020 of the Russians paying financial bounties to Taliban fighters in Afghanistan to kill American servicemen was essentially based on nothing—no solid intelligence –just the “assessment” of some of those same inflamed global policy wonks who continue to dwell in the bowels of the permanent managerial state bureaucracy. Remember how the media and politicians reacted last June and July? For days there was hardly anything else of any import on MSNBC or CNN. “The Russians are paying the Taliban to kill American boys!” cried Nancy Pelosi.  “Trump’s a Russian stooge!” bellowed Eric Swalwell and Adam Schiff, “maybe taking direct orders from the Kremlin! He must be impeached!”

And so it went, with headlines on the national (and local) news for days and days. But now some of the media most culpable for spreading and propagating that falsehood—think here of The Daily Beast—casually admit (usually buried way back on page 13) that what they reported was wrong. Indeed, the US intelligence agencies have, surprise surprise, walked back the accusation. The story, they now maintain, “is, at best, unproven — and possibly untrue.” 

It was all political, but it also demonstrated once more the incredible power and reach of our corrupted Intel agencies whose ideological subinfeudation to and use by Neocon globalism remains unbroken and unbreakable.

The second item that caught my attention was a fascinating essay in The Asia Times (March 19), and the title tells all: “Life after death for the neonconservatives.” The author, David P. Goldman (from whom I would not have expected such realism), asserts that “[t]he obsession of American foreign policy after the fall of communism was [imposing] pro-Western democracy in Russia, and the foreign policy establishment have never forgiven Vladimir Putin  for returning Russia” to its older, pre-Soviet traditions. But now, “the obsession is back with Joe Biden—and with it, the neoconservatives who dominated the failed administration of George W. Bush. For several reasons, President Biden’s March 16 denunciation of Putin as a ‘killer’ without a soul ranks among the dumbest utterances ever by an American leader – and that’s a crowded field. To begin with, heads of state do not insult each other this way, except in wartime.”

Goldman continues that the idiotic and senseless American (and presidential) insults and the accompanying ratcheting up of tensions along the Russian-Ukranian border, largely pushed and encouraged by the US handing a blank check to Ukraine, have forced a wary Russia, the world’s second major power, into a reluctant alliance with China, the world’s third major power which is something that foreign policy realists have always dreaded and worked to avoid.

Not only that but Russia’s collaboration, at least tacitly, is needed for any lasting deal with a nuclear Iran. And there is little inclination now in Moscow to assist the Neocon blockheads at the State Department to facilitate this.

This latest bout with “Russians did it!” hysteria appears to be largely the result of the Intel agencies’ recent  “assessment” (March 16), once again charging those utterly beyond-the-pale demiurges from Moscow, who want to re-create the Soviet empire, “of operations aimed at denigrating President Biden’s candidacy, and the Democratic Party.” As Goldman observes, that report is more of the same unsupported drivel, the fluff, we’ve been hearing for years from Democratic AND Republican political leaders. And a continuation of the fatal fascination that establishment Neocons have with Russia—“It won’t act like a responsible democracy! It wants to do its own thing!” Or, to paraphrase Allan Bloom, if they won’t do what we tell them to do, steps must be “undertaken to force those who do not accept these principles to do so.”

Despite their apparently weakened position after four years of Trump and a gradual realization among millions of Americans that Neoconservative solutions to global problems are not only wrong, but positively dangerous, they’re back and occupy positions of authority in the Biden presidency. Thus, while the administration tacitly encourages the BLM/Antifa mobs in our streets, pushes Critical Race Theory in our schools, and opens the floodgates for illegals at our border, we venture ever so close to world conflagration internationally.

During the Bush and Obama years the Neocon foreign policy establishment got the US to spend over $6 trillion for foreign wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya, and Syria. And more than 801,000 people have died (up to now) as a direct result of the fighting (Watson Institute of International and Public Affairs). And at the same time, again Goldman: “America lost industrial jobs at the fastest rate in its history, and America’s trade deficit ballooned to $600 billion a year. It failed to export democracy, but also failed to export anything else,” except misery, dislocation and upheaval.

Goldman correctly labels the essential ideology of the Neoconservatives as “right-wing Marxism.” He continues:

“Being determines consciousness, taught Marx, and ideology arises from the social structure. For Marx, that meant that communism would create a New Man free of the vices of capitalism; for neoconservatives, it meant that the mere forms of democratic governance would create democrats.”

It took no less an observer than Joschka Fischer of the German [Leftwing] Green Party to notice what had happened and what my friend Dr. Paul Gottfried calls the “strange death of Marxism”:

“When I came to Washington as German foreign minister during the [George W. Bush] administration and met the neoconservatives, I instantly recognized them as the old comrades! I got the book by [neocons] Richard Perl and David Frum, An End to Evil, and took Trotsky’s Permanent Revolution from my bookshelf, and compared them page by page. Except for some changes in terminology, they were the same book.”

I am sure that Lindsey Graham and Liz Cheney would object strenuously to the comparison. And I am certain that Jonah Goldberg and the National Review crowd would cry “fascist” if made the butt of such a comparison.

But the comparison holds and will not go away. The establishment “conservative movement” long ago accepted the progressivist version of history and its idea of inevitability, and the national GOP has done its best to rationalize politically that vision. In the end, the conservative/Republican establishment—what Gottfried calls “ConInc”—and the post-Marxist Left emit from the same fetid and poisonous philosophical swamp. And, despite its protestations to the contrary and its sometimes defensive appearance against the rot, that pseudo-Conservatism is essentially antithetical to Western Christian civilization.

Until it is overthrown our precipitous decay will continue. 

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Presumptuous Pompeo Pushes Preposterous ‘Peking’ Policy – Consortiumnews

Posted by M. C. on July 30, 2020

As a first-hand witness to much of this history, Freeman provided highly interesting and not so well-known detail mostly from the Chinese side. I chipped in with observations from my experience as CIA’s principal analyst for Sino-Soviet and broader Soviet foreign policy issues during the 1960s and early 1970s.

By Ray McGovern
Special to Consortium News

Quick. Somebody tell Mike Pompeo. The secretary of state is not supposed to play the role of court jester — the laughing stock to the world. There was no sign that any of those listening to his “major China policy statement” last Thursday at the Nixon Library turned to their neighbor and said, “He’s kidding, right? Richard Nixon meant well but failed miserably to change China’s behavior? And now Pompeo is going to put them in their place?”

Yes, that was Pompeo’s message. The torch has now fallen to him and the free world. Here’s a sample of his rhetoric:

“Changing the behavior of the CCP [Chinese Communist Party] cannot be the mission of the Chinese people alone. Free nations have to work to defend freedom. …

“Beijing is more dependent on us than we are on them (sic). Look, I reject the notion … that CCP supremacy is the future … the free world is still winning. … It’s time for free nations to act … Every nation must protect its ideals from the tentacles of the Chinese Communist Party. … If we bend the knee now, our children’s children may be at the mercy of the Chinese Communist Party, whose actions are the primary challenge today in the free world. …

“We have the tools. I know we can do it. Now we need the will. To quote scripture, I ask is ‘our spirit willing but our flesh weak?’ … Securing our freedoms from the Chinese Communist Party is the mission of our time, and America is perfectly positioned to lead it because … our nation was founded on the premise that all human beings possess certain rights that are unalienable. And it’s our government’s job to secure those rights. It’s a simple and powerful truth. It’s made us a beacon of freedom for people all around the world, including people inside of China.

“Indeed, Richard Nixon was right when he wrote in 1967 that “the world cannot be safe until China changes.” Now it’s up to us to heed his words. … Today the free world must respond. …”

Trying to Make Sense of It

Over the weekend an informal colloquium-by-email took pace, spurred initially by an op-ed article by Richard Haass critiquing Pompeo’s speech. Haass has the dubious distinction of having been director of policy planning for the State Department from 2001 to 2003, during the lead-up to the attack on Iraq. Four months after the invasion he became president of the Council on Foreign Relations, a position he still holds. Despite that pedigree, the points Haass makes in “What Mike Pompeo doesn’t understand about China, Richard Nixon and U.S. foreign policy” are, for the most part, well taken.

Haass’s views served as a springboard over the weekend to an unusual discussion of Sino-Soviet and Sino-Russian relations I had with Ambassador Chas Freeman, the main interpreter for Nixon during his 1972 visit to China and who then served as U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia from 1989 to 1992.

As a first-hand witness to much of this history, Freeman provided highly interesting and not so well-known detail mostly from the Chinese side. I chipped in with observations from my experience as CIA’s principal analyst for Sino-Soviet and broader Soviet foreign policy issues during the 1960s and early 1970s.

Ambassador Freeman: Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

From Dodgy Dossiers To The Sacking of Whitlam: The British Empire Stands Exposed | Zero Hedge

Posted by M. C. on June 20, 2020

As Gough Whitlam discovered in 1975, the real British Empire is a nasty beast, and probably one which should have gone extinct a couple of centuries ago.
Unfortunately, until this moment, history has been tainted by more than
a few disruptions of progressive leaders who sacrificed their comfort,
careers, and often their lives to resist this stubborn parasite which
would rather suck its host dry than admit that the system of
organization upon which it is based is an abomination to natural law and


In my last article, I reviewed the case of Gough Whitlam’s firing at the hands of the Queen’s Governor General Sir John Kerr during a dark day in November 1975 which mis-shaped the next 45 years of Australian history. Today I would like to tackle another chapter of the story.

I used to believe as many do, in a story called “the American Empire”. Over the last decade of research, that belief has changed a bit. The more I looked at the top down levers of world influence shaping past and present events that altered history, the hand of British Intelligence just kept slapping me squarely in the face at nearly every turn.

Who controlled the dodgy Steele dossier that put Russiagate into motion and nearly overthrew President Trump? British Intelligence.

How about the intelligence used to justify the bombing of Iraq? That was British Intelligence too.

How about the Clash of Civilizations strategy used to blow up the middle east over decades? That just so happened to be British Intelligence’s own Sir Bernard Lewis.

How about the CFR takeover over of American foreign policy during the 20th century? That is the British Roundtable Movement in America (created as Britain’s Chatham House in America in 1921).

Who did Kissinger brag that he briefed more than his own State Department at a May 10, 1981 Chatham House seminar? The British Foreign Office (1).

How about William Yandall Elliot who trained a generation of neocon strategists who took over American foreign policy after the murder of JFK? Well, he was a Rhodes Scholar and we know what they are zombified to do.

How about the financial empire running the world drug trade? Well HSBC is the proven leading agency of that game and the British Caymen islands is the known center of world offshore drug money laundering.

Who ushered in the Cold War? Churchill.

Where did the nouveaux riche oligarchs go after Putin kicked them out of Russia? Back to their handlers in London.

What about the creation of ‘too big to fail’ banks that took over the world over the past decades? That was launched by the City of London’s Big Bang of 1986

Who created Saudi Arabia and the state of Israel in the 20th century (as well as both nations’ intelligence agencies?) The British.

What was the nature of the Deep State that Presidents Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, Harding, FDR, and JFK combatted within their own nations?

What the heck was the American Revolution all about in the first place?

I could go on, but I think you get my point. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

The U.S. Should Stop Collecting Military Allies Like Facebook Friends | The American Conservative

Posted by M. C. on June 5, 2020

Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili believed Washington would rescue him after his forces began bombarding Russian troops stationed in South Ossetia. More recently, after a naval clash between China and the Philippines, President Rodrigo Duterte turned to Washington: “I’m calling now, America. I am invoking the RP-US pact, and I would like America to gather their Seventh Fleet in front of China. I’m asking them now.” He helpfully added: “When they enter the South China Sea, I will enter. I will ride with the American who goes there first. Then I will tell the Americans, ‘Okay, let’s bomb everything’.”

No need to ‘un-friend’ anyone, but some of them should be supplying their own boots and bombs by now.

Some of them?


There absolutely is a need to unfriend certain NATO members. The members in this “one for all, all for one” organization with countries whose size and militaries are closer to that of the Vatican’s. Members whose only reason they were admitted to NATO was their proximity to Russia, in violation of James Bakers promise to Gorbachev that NATO would not expand East once Germany was unified.

That NATO is obsolete and one public arm of the CIA is not mentioned in this CATO linked author.

Neither are there references to avoidance of “foreign entanglements” as described by a certain first US president.

No need to ‘un-friend’ anyone, but some of them should be supplying their own boots and bombs by now.

Donald Trump at NATO Summit in 2018 (Gints Ivuskans /

President Donald Trump has offended professional foreign policy practitioners since taking office. They accuse him of manifold offenses. But none is more serious than “mistreating allies.”

For instance, Mira Rapp-Hooper of the Council on Foreign Relations penned a lengthy article entitled “Saving America’s Alliances.” She complained that the president has targeted “the United States’ 70-year-old alliance system. The 45th president has balked at upholding the country’s NATO commitments, demanded massive increases in defense spending from such long-standing allies as Japan and South Korea, and suggested that underpaying allies should be left to fight their own wars with shared adversaries. Trump’s ire has been so relentless and damaging that U.S. allies in Asia and Europe now question the United States’ ability to restore itself as a credible security guarantor.”

For her, this is a damning, even crushing, indictment. Yet that reflects her membership in the infamous Blob, the foreign policy establishment which tends to differ over minor points while marching in lockstep on essentials, such as the imperative for Washington to defend the world.

Consider the transatlantic alliance. Seventy-five years after the conclusion of World War II, Europe collectively has ten times the wealth and three times the population of Russia. Yet the continent cowers helplessly before Moscow, expecting American protection. Not one supposedly vulnerable member of NATO devotes as large a share of their economy to defense as the U.S., not even the Baltic States and Poland, which routinely demand an American military presence.

Among the continent’s largest and wealthiest nations, Italy and Spain barely bother to create militaries. The readiness of Germany’s forces is a continuing joke, despite persistent calls for reform. Only the United Kingdom and France possess militaries of much capability, and primarily for use in conflicts linked to their colonial heritage. They have, for instance, shown little interest in fighting Russia to rescue “New Europe.”

Prior presidents have badgered, cried, begged, asked, demanded, and whined about the Europeans’ lack of effort, without effect. European states obviously aren’t particularly worried about attack. And they figure Washington would save them if something unexpected occurred. So why bother?

From an American standpoint, doesn’t scorching criticism seem appropriate?

Then there is the president’s pressure on the Republic of Korea and Japan to do more. The president is rude, to be sure, but there is much to be rude about. The Korean War ended 67 years ago. Today the ROK has about 53 times the GDP and twice the population of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Why does Seoul require an American garrison for its defense? Why don’t the South Koreans do what is necessary to protect their own country?

Indeed, the main reason the North is building nuclear weapons is for defense against America, which has shown its proclivity to oust any regime which disrespects the U.S. The only circumstance under which the DPRK would use its nukes is if the U.S. joined in war between the two Koreas and threatened to defeat North Korea. Is anything at stake on the peninsula worth the risk of nuclear war? Foreign policy, defense guarantees, and military deployments should change as circumstances change. The U.S.-ROK alliance no longer makes sense.

Japan has spent years underinvesting in defense, even during the Cold War. Technically its constitution does not even allow a military, so Tokyo fields a “Self-Defense Force,” upon which it spends no more than one percent of GDP. Had Japan spent more on the SDF when it enjoyed the world’s second-ranking economy, the People’s Republic of China still would be working to overcome its defense gap with Japan before that with America.

There are obvious historical issues, of course. Tokyo points to the “peace constitution” foisted on defeated Japan by the U.S., but successive Japanese governments have interpreted away the military ban. And the constitution could be changed. The Japanese won’t do so as long as they can rely on America. Their assumption is that the U.S. is willing to risk Los Angeles to protect Tokyo. But that is a bad bargain for America.

Rapp-Hooper also complained that other countries might not believe in Washington’s security guarantees. That would be all to the good, however. Constantly “reassuring” America’s allies discourages them from doing more to defend themselves. There is something perverse about foreign nations believing that Washington has a duty to convince them that it is worthy of protecting them.

No doubt, allies are useful in a fight, but they should be viewed as a means rather than an end. That is, America should acquire allies when it needs them. Today Washington treats allies as an end, the more the merrier. It acts as if America benefits when it picks up helpless clients that must be defended against nuclear-armed enemies. Indeed, Uncle Sam appears to view allies like Facebook friends: the primary objective is to have more than anyone else, irrespective of their value or merit. What else can explain adding North Macedonia and Montenegro to NATO? Next up, the Duchy of Grand Fenwick!

Today the U.S. has no cause for conflict against Russia. Vladimir Putin is a nasty character, but has shown no inclination for war against Europe, even his neighbors in “New Europe,” let alone America. Washington and Moscow have no essential interests that clash or warrant war. So how does NATO benefit the U.S.?

The Europeans probably need not fear attack either, but they are in greater need of an insurance policy. In 1950 assurance had to come from America. But no longer. The Europeans are collectively able to protect themselves and their region. They should do so. Then how much they spend could be left up to them, without hectoring from Washington.

So too Japan and South Korea. Once they could not defend themselves. Decades later they are capable of doing so. And they have far more at stake in their survival than does America. They should take over responsibility for their own security.

Where a potential hegemon is on the rise—only the People’s Republic of China fits this description—the U.S. could play a role as an offshore balancer, backstopping the independence of important friendly states, such as Japan. However, even then the commitment should be limited. It is not America’s job to insert itself in a Chinese-Japanese fight over peripheral, contested territory, such as the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands. Or, even worse, to go to war to save the Philippines’ control over territorial bits like Scarborough Shoal.

Moreover, it is critically important not to discourage allied states from making serious efforts on their own behalf, which Japan and the Philippines, to name two in East Asia, do not. It also shows the problem with Rapp-Hooper’s praise of America security guarantees for discouraging allies from developing nuclear weapons. What is at stake in the defense of America’s allies worth risking a nuclear assault on America’s homeland? How many cities should the U.S. sacrifice to save the ROK or Germany? In contrast, what would be a better constraint on the PRC than nuclear-armed Japan and Taiwan? There would be risks in that course, of course, but extending a “nuclear umbrella” over-friendly states creates real and potentially catastrophic dangers for Americans.

Analysts such Rapp-Hooper assume alliances are net positives financially. Why? Other countries offer cheap bases! But Washington does not need to scatter hundreds of facilities and hundreds of thousands of troops around the world for its own defense. America is perhaps the geographically most security nation on earth: wide oceans east and west, pacific neighbors south and north. Bases are used to protect other states and become tripwires for other countries’ conflicts.

Moreover, defense commitments require force structure. The military budget is the price of America’s foreign policy. The more Washington promises to do, the most Americans must spend on the military. Every additional commitment adds to the burden.

While alliances theoretically deter, they also discourage partners from taking responsibility for their own futures. And security guarantees ensnare. Countries as different as Georgia and Taiwan have acted irresponsibility when presuming America’s protection. Washington sometimes has worried about South Korean plans for retaliation against North Korean provocations, which could trigger full-scale war.

Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili believed Washington would rescue him after his forces began bombarding Russian troops stationed in South Ossetia. More recently, after a naval clash between China and the Philippines, President Rodrigo Duterte turned to Washington: “I’m calling now, America. I am invoking the RP-US pact, and I would like America to gather their Seventh Fleet in front of China. I’m asking them now.” He helpfully added: “When they enter the South China Sea, I will enter. I will ride with the American who goes there first. Then I will tell the Americans, ‘Okay, let’s bomb everything’.”

Ending obsolete alliances does not preclude cooperation as equals to advance shared interests, such as terrorism, cybersecurity, piracy, and much more. How to deal with China is becoming a shared concern. Less formal partners can develop plans, launch joint exercises, provide base access, and much more. Alliance advocates act as if the only way America can work with other nations is by promising to defend them. Other states might like to create that impression, but they are the supplicants, not the U.S.

There is much to criticize in Donald Trump’s foreign policy. However, his criticism of alliances is not one. The Blob has made them into a sacred cow. However, policymakers should start treating alliances as only one of many means to advance U.S. security.

Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Kissing the Carter Doctrine Goodbye (Shouldn’t Be This Hard) | The American Conservative

Posted by M. C. on May 5, 2020

Should you be curious about why 9/11 happened, tracing U.S. efforts to implement the Carter Doctrine would be a good place to begin your inquiry.

By adhering to the Carter Doctrine, the United States has sown chaos across much of the region while inadvertently promoting radical Islamist terror. Should you be curious about why 9/11 happened, tracing U.S. efforts to implement the Carter Doctrine would be a good place to begin your inquiry.    

More war—that’s the answer. I’m guessing that by now President Carter himself might be having second thoughts.

It has produced bloodshed, grief, and instability, but our esteemed foreign policy elite just cant let go.

(L-R) Pres. Carter and Saudi Arabia’s Prince Fahd at arrival ceremony on South Lawn of White House in 1977. (Photo by Mark Meyer/The LIFE Images Collection via Getty Images/Getty Images)

Writing in Foreign Policy, three distinguished members of the foreign policy establishment—Hal Brands of Johns Hopkins, Steven Cook of the Council on Foreign Relations, and Ken Pollack of the American Enterprise Institute—have issued a warning: Don’t look now, but President Trump appears intent on repudiating the Carter Doctrine. If he does, all the great successes achieved by U.S. policy in the Persian Gulf over the past several decades will be lost. This, they want you to believe, would be a terrible thing.

There is an alternative view and it goes like this: Dating from January 1980, the Carter Doctrine was a catastrophic error. Leading directly to the progressive militarization of U.S. policy in the Gulf, it has produced bloodshed, grief, and instability. Pursuant to the terms of the Carter Doctrine, the United States has spent trillions and sustained tens of thousands of casualties. We killed even more. By adhering to the Carter Doctrine, the United States has sown chaos across much of the region while inadvertently promoting radical Islamist terror. Should you be curious about why 9/11 happened, tracing U.S. efforts to implement the Carter Doctrine would be a good place to begin your inquiry.

You won’t hear any of that from the triumvirate of Brands, Cook, and Pollack. Theirs is a good news story —at least until Trump started screwing things up. Acting in accordance with the Carter Doctrine, they write, “the United States established and upheld the basic rules of conduct in the region.” Making that claim with a straight face requires ignoring a) U.S. support for Saddam Hussein during Iraq’s war of aggression against Iran, which began the very year of the Carter Doctrine’s promulgation; b) the vicious U.S. sanctions imposed on Iraq throughout the 1990s, punishing not Saddam, but the Iraqi people, c) the Axis of Evil cynically devised to create a fictitious rationale for attacking nations without any involvement in 9/11, d) the flagrantly illegal and reckless U.S. invasion of Iraq dating from 2003; e) the rise of ISIS and various Al Qaeda offshoots as a direct consequence of that failed war; and f) the embrace of assassination as an instrument of statecraft.

Brands, Cook, and Pollack do not explain how these actions accord with “basic rules of conduct,” merely conceding that the George W. Bush administration “botched the reconstruction of Iraq” as if the Iraq War were a really nifty idea that inexplicably didn’t turn out well.

A more accurate description of U.S. policy in the Gulf from the 1980s through the first decade of the twenty-first century would be this: Washington devised rules and then disregarded them whenever they proved inconvenient. More often than not, havoc resulted.

Brands, Cook, and Pollack correctly note that various initiatives undertaken under the aegis of the Carter Doctrine have ultimately redounded to the benefit of the Islamic Republic of Iran. But if Iran is a problem, they have a solution. Kick some ass.

They urge Trump to respond to “further acts of Iranian aggression”—it’s always the other side that commits aggression—“with strikes against Revolutionary Guard facilities, warships, ballistic missile sites, command and control nodes, or other valuable regime assets.” Brands, Cook, and Pollack want the United States “to strike hard enough to demonstrate both to Iran and to the world that it will not back down from a fight, and that if Iran chooses to escalate, so too will America.”

More war—that’s the answer. I’m guessing that by now President Carter himself might be having second thoughts.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Understanding the Fabian Window – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on January 22, 2020

Bertrand Russel, H.G. Wells, Beatrice and Sidney Webb, George Bernard Shaw, G.W. Bush sock puppet Tony Blair

Socialism Collectivism, Redistribution, gentle Execution, Eugenics, UK liberal party roots

The Fabian Society-The self described wolf in sheep’s clothing. One of the reasons the UK is in the shape it is in.

The following video was produced by Truthstream Media

In the video below, Truthstream Media discusses one of the most dangerous and ideologically insane root organizations of modern globalism and the “new world order – The Fabian Society.  The Fabians are notorious for their obsession with incremental tyranny and the erasure of individual and national sovereignty.  Though other organizations like the Council On Foreign Relations have now taken over at the forefront of the globalist effort, the Fabians were the foundation, the beginning of the modern push towards an everlasting totalitarian empire ruled by the elites.  Understanding their history and tactics helps us to understand exactly what is taking place today.  The “Brave New Word” is being established now, and it must be stopped…

Be seeing you

Q Anon: 10/05/18 Trust Trump's Plan

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Federal Reserve Is the Most Dangerous Enemy of the U.S. and Its Economy – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on December 19, 2019

“Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes it’s laws” ~ Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild

The common man has no concept whatsoever of the true reality of money. This of course is by design, as the monetary process in the U.S. has been structured and presented in such a way as to make it seem extremely complicated, and outside the understanding of the dumbed-down public-schooled population.


“Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of Bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits.” ~ SIR JOSIAH STAMP, (President of the Bank of England in the 1920’s, the second richest man in Britain):

Those that control the money, control everything. This truth has never been more evident than it is today in this country, all due to the banking system’s control of all money and politics for the past 106 consecutive years. This criminal cartel has laid waste to any free market system of money, and monopolized the entirety of the fraudulent centrally planned monetary system of the United States. All this was done in their own interest, and at the expense of the general population. As mentioned above, the American citizen has allowed his slavery to this system, and that slavery is still in place today.

The common man has no concept whatsoever of the true reality of money. This of course is by design, as the monetary process in the U.S. has been structured and presented in such a way as to make it seem extremely complicated, and outside the understanding of the dumbed-down public-schooled population. Most think that money are those assets in their bank and investment accounts, while in fact, over 90% of the entire money supply is created out of thin air by the private banks that control the supply of money in the U.S. This fake money is created, loaned out, and then payable back to these same banks with interest. These are not dollars that were deposited by others; it is simply nothing that turns into money for the banks for free. A scheme at this level of corruption is pure genius so long as the general population remains in a state of unmitigated ignorance.

In addition, the so-called “representative” government, those charlatans voluntarily elected by the people, use borrowed money in order to spend, and the current public debt due to that borrowing is well over $23 trillion dollars. When the government borrows, the central banks create this money from nothing, loan it to the government in exchange for treasury bonds, and the government then adds this to public debt. It pays back from the pockets of its citizens all that money created plus interest. The banks that made the loans never had any money in the first place; they just steal every dollar from the rest of us via counterfeiting and extortion. They have zero risk, and have all the money they can print.

As James Corbett pointed out in Century of Enslavement: The History of the Federal Reserve, “The fact is that the Federal Reserve System is comprised of a Board of Governors, 12 regional banks, and an Open Market Committee. The privately-owned member banks of each Federal Reserve Bank vote on the majority of the Reserve Bank’s directors, and the directors vote on members to serve on the Federal Open Market Committee, which determines monetary policy. What’s more, Wall Street is given a prime seat at the table, with tradition holding that the president of the powerful New York Federal Reserve Bank be given the vice chairmanship of the FOMC and be made a permanent committee member. In effect, the private banks are the key determinants in the composition of the FOMC, which regulates the entire economy.”

The Federal Reserve Board in Washington, D.C., including the Board of Governors appointed by the president, is the only part of the system that has any federal aspect whatsoever, but does that board control the Federal Reserve banks? It absolutely does not, and in fact, just the opposite is the case. The banking cartel controls the money, and therefore controls the politicians and government. The Fed governors chosen by the president do not answer to the president or to the Congress. In fact, the chairman of the Federal Open Market Committee is only obligated to testify before Congress, but has no legal obligation whatsoever to that body. The government has no say at all concerning the actions of the Fed, so economically speaking; the Fed controls the entirety of the economic system.

It is not often mentioned, but the current Board of Governors members have very storied pasts, and this is telling considering their loyalties, which are to the banking system, not to the government or the people. The current chairman, Jerome Powell, has been associated with the U.S. Department of the Treasury, a partner at the corrupt Carlyle Group, which was the inner circle of The Bush family, the Saudi Royal family, Osama Bin Laden’s family and Donald Rumsfeld. He was also an investment banker in New York. The other current members have held positions as state bank commissioner, bank president, and policy advisor for FEMA and Homeland Security. They have been heavily involved with the Brookings Institute, McKinsey & Company, PIMCO, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Cynosure Group, Carlyle Group, and the International Monetary Fund. This is not nearly a complete list, but is a who’s who of big banking, major investment companies, powerful political connections, and globalist movements, many involved in extremely corrupt and profitable relationships that have close ties to war, banking, and Fed policy. Now they are in charge of the economic decisions of the country. Scandals abound concerning some of these entities, but these connections with the Federal Reserve members are rarely in the daily mainstream news. The Chairman and three others currently sitting on the Board of Governors were appointed by Trump, and this entire group, plus the heads of the Federal Reserve Banks determine the economic policy of this country.

The criminal banking cartel created the Federal Reserve, wrote its own rules, and Congress went along, and it became law. The banking magnates now regulate their own industry, have no oversight whatsoever, and have the “legal” authority to issue and fully control the entire monetary system due to their monopoly on the production of money. The conspiracy of the participants in this powerful money cartel called the Federal Reserve is fully evident with only a modicum of research, and is much deeper than can be presented here in this short article. The entirety of the Federal Reserve, including all those presidential appointees, the banking heads, the politicians, and those controlling elites behind the scenes, all collude for personal profit and power. This is appalling, and can only exist with the consent of the masses at large, those who have now apparently lost all ability to think.

This is a stacked deck, and one that benefits only the controlling class in banking, and works against the American public. The Fed is the facilitator of torture, war, and conquest because it is the supplier of money for all the horrendous activities of this terroristic government. It enriches the few in the elite class with money and power, all at the expense of the rest of society. This is corruption writ large, and it will not end until the Federal Reserve is abolished.

“Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes it’s laws” ~ Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild




Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

John Solomon devastates Democrats on Ukraine

Posted by M. C. on September 25, 2019

Is delivering a knockout punch to brain-dead person devastating?

By Thomas Lifson

Writing in The Hill, John Solomon demonstrates that it is Democrats who first sought to intimidate Ukraine for their own political ends and who continue to do so.

Earlier this month, during a bipartisan meeting in Kiev, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) delivered a pointed message to Ukraine’s new president, Volodymyr Zelensky.

While choosing his words carefully, Murphy made clear — by his own account — that Ukraine currently enjoyed bipartisan support for its U.S. aid but that could be jeopardized if the new president acquiesced to requests by President Trump‘s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, to investigate past corruption allegations involving Americans, including former Vice President Joe Biden‘s family.

Murphy boasted after the meeting that he told the new Ukrainian leader that U.S. aid was his country’s “most important asset” and it would be viewed as election-meddling and “disastrous for long-term U.S.-Ukraine relations” to bend to the wishes of Trump and Giuliani.

“I told Zelensky that he should not insert himself or his government into American politics. I cautioned him that complying with the demands of the President’s campaign representatives to investigate a political rival of the President would gravely damage the U.S.-Ukraine relationship. There are few things that Republicans and Democrats agree on in Washington these days, and support for Ukraine is one of them,” Murphy told me today, confirming what he told Ukraine’s leader.

The implied message did not require an interpreter for Zelensky to understand: Investigate the Ukraine dealings of Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, and you jeopardize Democrats’ support for future U.S. aid to Kiev.

As with Joe Biden’s public boast to the Council on Foreign Relations that he threatened to withhold a billion dollars unless Ukraine fired prosecutor Viktor Shokin, who was investigating the company that employed his son as a board member for $50,000 a month, Democrats believe that they have immunity for the very acts they now accuse President Trump of carrying out (though there is no public evidence of any such Trump acts).

Solomon goes on to show that “since at least 2016, Democrats repeatedly have exerted pressure on Ukraine, a key U.S. ally for buffering Russia, to meddle in U.S. politics and elections.”

For instance:

Nazar Kholodnytsky, Ukraine’s chief anti-corruption prosecutor, told me that, soon after he returned from the Washington meeting, he saw evidence in Ukraine of political meddling in the U.S. election. That’s when two top Ukrainian officials released secret evidence to the American media, smearing Manafort.

The release of the evidence forced Manafort to step down as Trump’s top campaign adviser. A Ukrainian court concluded last December that the release of the evidence amounted to an unlawful intervention in the U.S. election by Kiev’s government, although that ruling has since been overturned on a technicality.

Read the whole thing.

The accusations against Trump are based on hearsay, evidence that no court in the United States would accept.

This is going to blow up in Democrats’ faces even bigger than I believed yesterday.

Be seeing you
Cognition JDN revision



Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

North Korea Is Walking Back War – And Pundits Are Strangely Disappointed – Original

Posted by M. C. on January 11, 2018

Why make agreements when you can bomb them back to the stoneage, make them a puppet and make $Billions for the MIC?

But as the pentagram continues to re-learn, once the shooting starts the plans go all to hell.

In talks this week at the DMZ, South Korea welcomed the participation of North Korea in the upcoming Winter Olympics. The two countries also discussed restarting reunions of divided families and reducing tensions on the Korean peninsula. Earlier, both sides reestablished their hotline.

All of this adult conversation is a welcome change from the war of epithets between the “dotard” president of the United States and the “little rocket man” in Pyongyang.

Strange, then, that a politically diverse set of pundits in the United States has been worried only about how North Korea could use these talks to drive a wedge between South Korea and the United States…. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »