by Pepe Escobar posted with permission and first posted at Asia Times
As the Exceptional Empire gets ready to brave a destructive – and self-destructive – new cycle, with dire, unforeseen consequences bound to reverberate across the world, now more than ever it is absolutely essential to go back to the imperial roots.
The task is fully accomplished by
Tomorrow, the World: The Birth of U.S. Global Supremacy , by Stephen Wertheim, Deputy Director of Research and Policy at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and a research scholar at the Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies at Columbia University.
Here, in painstaking detail, we can find when, why and especially who shaped the contours of US “internationalism” in a roomful of mirrors always disguising the real, ultimate aim: Empire.
Wertheim’s book was superbly reviewed by Prof. Paul Kennedy. Here we will concentrate on the crucial plot twists taking place throughout 1940. Wertheim’s main thesis is that the fall of France in 1940 – and not Pearl Harbor – was the catalyzing event that led to the full Imperial Hegemony design.
This is not a book about the U.S. industrial-military complex or the inner workings of American capitalism and finance capitalism. It is extremely helpful as it sets up the preamble to the Cold War era. But most of all, it is gripping intellectual history, revealing how American foreign policy was manufactured by the real flesh and blood actors that count: the economic and political planners congregated by the arch-influential Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the conceptual core of the imperial matrix.
Behold Exceptionalist nationalism
If just one phrase should capture the American missionary drive, this is it: “The United States was born of exceptionalist nationalism, imagining itself providentially chosen to occupy the vanguard of world history”. Wertheim nailed it by drawing from a wealth of sources on exceptionalism, especially Anders Stephanson’s Manifest Destiny: American Expansion and the Empire of the Right.
The action starts in early 1940, when the State Dept. formed a small advisory committee in collaboration with the CFR, constituted as a de facto proto-national security state.
The CFR’s postwar planning project was known as the War and Peace Studies, financed by the Rockefeller Foundation and boasting a sterling cross-section of the American elite, divided into four groups.
The most important were the Economic and Financial Group, headed by the “American Keynes”, Harvard economist Alvin Hansen, and the Political Group, headed by businessman Whitney Shepardson. CFR planners were inevitably transposed to the core of the official postwar planning committee set up after Pearl Harbor.
A crucial point: the Armaments Group was headed by none other than Allen Dulles, then just a corporate lawyer, years before he became the nefarious, omniscient CIA mastermind fully deconstructed by David Talbot’s The Devil’s Chessboard.
Wertheim details the fascinating, evolving intellectual skirmishes along the first eight months of WWII, when the prevailing consensus among the planners was to concentrate on the Western Hemisphere only, and not indulge in “balance of power” overseas adventures. As in let the Europeans fight it out; meanwhile, we profit.
The fall of France in May-June 1940 – the world’s top army melting down in five weeks – was the game-changer, much more than Pearl Harbor 18 months later. This is how the planners interpreted it: if Britain were the next domino to fall, totalitarianism would control Eurasia.
Wertheim zeroes in on the defining “threat” for the planners: Axis dominance would prevent the United States “from driving world history. Such a threat proved unacceptable to U.S. elites”. That’s what led to an expanded definition of national security: the U.S. could not afford to be simply “isolated” within the Western Hemisphere. The path ahead was inevitable: to shape world order as the supreme military power.
So it was the prospect of a Nazi-shaped world order – and not U.S. security – that shook foreign policy elites in the summer of 1940 to build the intellectual foundations of global U.S. hegemony.
Of course there was a “lofty ideal” component: the U.S. would not be able to fulfill its God-given mission to lead the world towards a better future. But there was also a much more pressing practical matter: this world order might be closed to liberal U.S. trade.
Even as the tides of war changed afterwards, the interventionist argument ultimately prevailed: after all, the whole of Eurasia could (italics in the book) eventually, fall under totalitarianism.
It’s always about “world order”
Initially, the fall of France forced Roosevelt’s planners to concentrate on a minimum hegemonic area. So by midsummer 1940, the CFR groups, plus the military, came up with the so-called “quarter sphere”: Canada down to northern South America.
They were still assuming that the Axis would dominate Europe and parts of the Middle East and North Africa. As Wertheim notes, “American interventionists often portrayed Germany’s dictator as a master of statecraft, prescient, clever and bold.”
Then, at the request of the State Dept., the crucial CFR’s Economic and Financial Group worked feverishly from August to October to design the next step: integrating the Western Hemisphere with the Pacific Basin.
That was a totally myopic Eurocentric focus (by the way, Asia barely registers on Wertheim’s narrative). The planners assumed that Japan – even rivaling the US, and three years into the invasion of mainland China – could somehow be incorporated, or bribed into a non-Nazi area.
Then they finally hit the jackpot: join the Western Hemisphere, the British empire and the Pacific basin into a so-called “great residual area”: that is, the entire non-Nazi dominated world except the USSR.
They found out that if Nazi Germany would dominate Europe, the U.S. would have to dominate everywhere else (italics mine). That was the logical conclusion based on the planners’ initial assumptions.
That’s when U.S. foreign policy for the next 80 years was born: the U.S. had to wield “unquestionable power”, as stated in the CFR planners “recommendation” to the State Dept., delivered on October 19 in a memorandum titled “Needs of Future United States Foreign Policy”.
This “Grand Area” was the brainchild of the CFR’s Economic and Financial Group. The Political Group was not impressed. The Grand Area implied a post-war peace arrangement that was in fact a Cold War between Germany and Anglo-America. Not good enough.
But how to sell total domination to American public opinion without that sounding “imperialistic”, similar to what the Axis was doing in Europe and Asia? Talk about a huge P.R. problem.
In the end, U.S. elites always came back to the same foundation stone of American exceptionalism: should there be any Axis supremacy in Europe and Asia, the U.S. manifest destiny of defining the path ahead for world history would be denied.
As Walter Lippmann succinctly – and memorably – put it: “Ours is the new order. It was to found this order and to develop it that our forefathers came here. In this order we exist. Only in this order can we live”.
That would set up the pattern for the subsequent 80 years. Roosevelt, only a few days after he was elected for a third term, stated it was the United States that “truly and fundamentally…was a new order”.
It’s chilling to be reminded that 30 years ago, even before unleashing the first Shock and Awe over Iraq, Papa Bush defined it as the crucible of a “new world order” (incidentally, the speech was delivered exactly 11 years before 9/11).
Henry Kissinger has been marketing “world order” for six decades. The number one U.S foreign policy mantra is “rules-based international order”: rules, of course, set unilaterally by the Hegemon at the end of WWII.
American Century redux
What came out of the 1940 policy planning orgy was encapsulated by a succinct mantra featured in the legendary February 17, 1941 essay in Life magazine by publishing mogul Henry Luce: “American Century”.
Only six months earlier planners were at best satisfied with a hemispheric role in an Axis-led world future. Now they went winner takes all: “complete opportunity of leadership”, in Luce’s words. In early 1941, months before Pearl Harbor, the American Century went mainstream – and never left.
That sealed the primacy of Power Politics. If American interests were global, so should be American political and military power.
Luce even used Third Reich terminology: “Tyrannies may require a large amount of living space. But Freedom requires and will require far greater living space than Tyranny.” Unlike Hitler’s, the unbounded ambition of American elites prevailed.
Until now. It looks and feels like the empire is entering a James Cagney Made it, Ma. Top of the World! moment – rotting from within, 9/11 merging into 1/6 in a war against “domestic terrorism” – while still nurturing toxic dreams of imposing uncontested global “leadership”.
Excellent piece. The overriding problem now is that the U.S. has staked itself to a position from which there is simply no graceful way out of, even were we to suddenly grow a conscience and wish to do so. Vast fortunes have been made, untold numbers of war crimes and atrocities have been committed, and the exceptionalist brainwashing has been so thoroughly indoctrinated in the populace all the way down to the level of the proles that no one can even possibly imagine changing course at this late date. All of which means that political solutions, of course, are no longer possible in the least, and that collapse, almost certainly with the assistance of external power(s) will be a necessity. Trump at least took tentative – admittedly flawed – steps to recognize this, sins for which he was roundly vilified and dramatically expelled from the DC beltway firmament. The decidedly questionable election of Biden and the reestablishment of the neoliberal consensus is as clear and unmistakable signal as we’ve seen yet that the status quo will be preserved all the way down, conflicting external realities be damned.
Come now, there is no need for Trump apologia. His entire campaign was revisionist American exceptionalism. MAGA. Putting the exceptionalist extremist Pompeo in power. Repeatedly bullying “allies” like Germany. “Maximum pressure” against Iran and Venezuela. Abandoning virtually every multilateral agreement (JCPOA, PCA, ICC, WHO, WTO…) in favor of unilateral action. Doing his best to extend the Zionist sphere of influence…
Trump was Empire’s last chance. Not the other way around.
Agreed. What I meant to imply (poorly, evidently) was, as was the case with Sanders and “socialism” as well, that even a thoroughly watered down and compromised “solution” such as Trump was offering was summarily rejected by the Powers that Be as totally and unconditionally unacceptable. It speaks to the magnitude of the denial in US political circles for any solution whatsoever other than more of the same old exceptionalist bullshit.
Disaffected
“The overriding problem now is that the U.S. has staked itself to a position from which there is simply no graceful way out of, even were we to suddenly grow a conscience and wish to do so”. Well, not quite. The US was placed into a position intended by Anglo-American bankers, namely being the chief imperial power, one of it’s chief tasks being the breakup of Russia.
Back in 1940 people were astonished that France fell so fast. However, the bankers intended that France fall quickly. The Germans launched a “surprise” attack from the Ardennes, which the French and British armies did “not notice”. The German onslaught was met by just four French infantry divisions. The Germans, of course, win. They take northern France (and later on the whole of France). The British Expeditionary Force is surrounded at Dunkerque. Hitler orders German panzer divisions to stop their offensive. The British are permitted to escape. Why ? The answer is quite simple: To allow Hitler, the banker puppet, a free hand, so that he could move his military to the East and attack the Soviet Union (Russia). He does so on June 22, 1941. The British are watching the show, as do the Americans, who are not at war.
At first things go according to German plans. However, the Anglo-American bankers get a nasty shock when Stalin moves more than a million men from Manchuria to Moscow, including Russia’s latest T-34 battle tanks. It becomes apparent that Hitler was going to be defeated, as he was. The US enters the war in order to save their puppet Adolf Hitler and ensure that Russians do not enter Paris, as they did in 1814. In 1945 the Russians take Berlin and Hitler ostensibly commits “suicide”, His staff at the bunker escape using the four escape tunnels, which Hitler for some strange reason did “not” use (?). After Hitler we get NATO and the current situation.
The US is a banker creation, as is the EU and NATO. The US has fought wars for some 93 % of it’s existence. And who benefited ? The bankers, who else. They will sacrifice the US for their imperial interests. The rigged November elections and the appointment of neocon puppet Joe Biden is just a continuation of imperial banker policies. We shall see how all this will end.
B.F.
Excellent summation!
A tad OT but I am currently watching “Soviet Storm” on amazon of all places (several episodes); it seems a relatively well done account produced in 2011 for Russian TV.
It seems relatively candid about Soviet/Stavka errors (and successes), has what appears to be actual combat footage but with also staged scenarios. I was particularly interested in the episodes on Crimea, tragic initially, but successful in the end.
No way can anyone watch these episodes and not come away with a huge admiration for the Russian military, warts and all. The producers evidently attempted to stay away from the hype, the political intrigues, and just focus on the Stavka pluses and minuses and the mind boggling bravery and performance of the Russian soldier, marine, airman, and sailor without going into artificial glorification.
It should be required viewing for the nato/us “planners” in their billion dollar hqtrs in brussels and dc.
Thanks for the tip.
Katherine
Outstanding comment…bravo!!
Cheers
Col
As deconstruction of the flags indicate, the USA is a corporation and extension of the British East India company.
Beyond the thin elite line, humans are either crew or cargo.
Dear B.F
Could you help me with literature about those bankers ?
Why look to “bankers” or some kind of elite to pin the excesses of the US? The US population stood by and clapped while their “elites” invaded and messed around with much of the globe. Now they wish to shrug their shoulders and say “I was just following order?” or “I didn’t know what was going on in those concentration camps”?
The sooner (the so called “decent”) Americans face up to their shirked moral responsibilities and grow enough scrota to take back the reigns of their country, the sooner the rest of the world will breathe easy. That includes the families of the million dead in Iraq alone.
Ain’t going to happen as long as the Americans can put a slice of bread on their plates they are happy, as Bob Dole said once when he referred to the working class “give them a six-pack and a game to watch” and they are happy, and he referred to them after that as “Joe Six-pack”. Let’s face reality there is no backbone to the American male, he wouldn’t stand up to even his wife for if he would have he would have done it long ago, the country is toast in all ways (morally, financially, family unity is gone) so get use to it for hell on earth is coming>!!
B.F. I buy your interpretation of “our finest hour”. As you say, Dunkirk allowed Britain, France and the U$A to sit back and watch the show (except for protecting their oil interests in the MENA) while Hitler moved the bulk of his forces Eastward to attack Communist Russia. This had been the bankers plan all along during those prewar years when those same powers were being very respectful to “Herr” Hitler, financing the Nazi party, rearming and re-industrializing Nazi Germany, and resisting Stalin’s call for an Anti-Fascist Alliance. Unfortunately for the pro-Fascists (UK, France and U$A) the bulk of Hitler’s Wehrmacht was chewed up by the Russian bear. Formerly pro-Fascist pro-Capitalist UK, France and U$A had to endure the indignity of an Alliance with Communist Russia and witness the flourishing of a post-war Europe gone briefly social-democratic (1945-1980). Then the Empire struck back with neo-Liberal economics and The Gospel of Greed.
If America’s global domination was enabled by its core belief in its exceptionalism, then it is also what disabled it. The generations that came of age and during and before the rise of global American Empire were quite capable and could understand, at least partially, the ramifications of trying to create a “world order” (Brzezinski et al). This certainly led to their resounding success in the Great Power competition with the USSR.
But then comes the boomers, the generations of Bush Jr and Mike Pompeo, the latter who graduated West Point during Reagan’s regime, nursed on the teat of *global* American exceptionalism. What was realpolitik to the elder statesmen Brzezinski became orthodox ideology to the piglet Pompeo. Totally divorced from reality.
In 2012, Brzezinski foretold that America would have precisely 1 more chance to prove to the world it was a capable leader following the juvenile mismanagement that led to 2008’s GFC. 2020 was that chance. America blew it.
And so Yeltsin’s–err, Biden’s America turns inward. Wertheim colleague Trita Parsi noted yesterday that Biden’s inaugural address only had 1 mention of foreign policy.
Hi , Juergen, can you amplify on “In 2012, Brzezinski foretold that America would have precisely 1 more chance to prove to the world it was a capable leader following the juvenile mismanagement that led to 2008’s GFC. 2020 was that chance. America blew it.”?
What kind of event or crisis do you think Brzesinski had in mind when he made that comment?
ZB died in 2017—he can’t have had any idea what what was to occur in 2020. Also, do you think an election would have been the type of event or opportunity that ZB meant?
Or, when you say “2020” do you mean the SARS-CoV-2 situation?
Thanks.
Katherine
To be clear, Brzezinski did not live to see 2020, but I am certain that his judgment would be the same–a complete failure of global leadership by the USA.
2020 = pandemic but also social unrest, disputed election, economic recession, etc. All handled terribly.
here some quotes of this evil mind, there are many more to look up – he was very intelligent and his predictions are scarily correct – but he was not a good human being
“We have a large public that is very ignorant about public affairs and very susceptible to simplistic slogans by candidates who appear out of nowhere, have no track record, but mouth appealing slogans”
{he predicted Trump…}
……………..
“In the technotronic society the trend would seem to be towards the aggregation of the individual support of millions of uncoordinated citizens, easily within the reach of magnetic and attractive personalities exploiting the latest communications techniques to manipulate emotions and control reason.”
……………
“The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities. ”
………………….
“Another threat, less overt but no less basic, confronts liberal democracy. More directly linked to the impact of technology, it involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled and directed society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite whose claim to political power would rest on allegedly superior scientific knowhow. Unhindered by the restraints of traditional liberal values, this elite would not hesitate to achieve its political ends by using the latest modern techniques for influencing public behavior and keeping society under close surveillance and control. Under such circumstances, the scientific and technological momentum of the country would not be reversed but would actually feed on the situation it exploits.
… Persisting social crisis, the emergence of a charismatic personality, and the exploitation of mass media to obtain public confidence would be the steppingstones in the piecemeal transformation of the United States into a highly controlled society.”
“This regionalization is in keeping with the Tri-Lateral Plan which calls for a gradual convergence of East and West, ultimately leading toward the goal of one world government. National sovereignty is no longer a viable concept.”
“The world became more aware that America-despite being the hope of many who have the personal drive and ambition to become part of the “American dream”-is beset by serious operational challenges: a massive and growing national debt, widening social inequality, a cornucopian culture that worships materialism, a financial system given to greedy speculation, and a polarized political system”
All extremely prescient observations. We need to get beyond the traditional good vs. evil dialectic to understand what’s going on and to even have a hope of countering it.
Mike, great quotes. I read some of those for the first time only weeks ago and was amazed at his correct analysis of half a century ago.
That said, I agree with Disaffected on the need to move beyond the Manichaean reduction of “powerful people = bad people”. Such a mindset gives bad connotations to power (which is amoral, not immoral) and keeps us powerless. With great power comes great responsibility.
Regards
“Wertheim’s main thesis is that the fall of France in 1940 – and not Pearl Harbor – was the catalyzing event that led to the full Imperial Hegemony design.”
Perhaps, depending on one’s definition of ‘full Imperial Hegemony design’. But there has never been any real question about expansionist and takeover ambitions since the time of the country’s inception in rebellion against constraints on the westward land speculation of George Washington, among others. It was only ever a question of how far those “manifest destiny” ambitions should extend and that was largely a matter of opportunism (potential opponents engaged in and weakened by other struggles) and of marketing the prospects both at home and abroad (selling US imperialism as something else entirely or at least as being somehow superior to other brands). The latter, in particular, has been amazingly successful until recently, but that mask (like the”2-party democracy” deception) is wearing very thin, especially among whether-you-want-it-or-not recipients of exportation.
@Arvy,
I fully agree. A reading of the Monroe Doctrine illustrates the US claim to global hegemony, the march of which was detailed in this old article: https://www.veteranstodayarchives.com/2011/09/12/manifest-destiny-to-pnac/
Very few USAns know that one of the generators of the US rebellion was the ban on westward expansion implemented by the British Crown, or that the ideas published in the Monroe Doctrine were circulating long before the publishing.
Well, it didn’t help either that Washington was also pretty ticked off about not getting his much sought-after king’s commission in the regular British army after his valiant efforts with their militia in the French-Indian wars. I suppose mad old George III wasn’t too impressed by the subsequent surrender to the French of the forts that Washington erected.
It’s by no means accidental that an awful lot of their own history is completely unknown to most USAns.
Can you document that assertion?
Katherine
Depending on which assertions your questioning, various “documentation” is not hard to find on line for yourself. If it’s about Washington, perhaps Stephen Knott’s summary of his “life before the presidency” may suffice — https://millercenter.org/president/washington/life-before-the-presidency
I have read a few books about Washington and I don’t recall seeing this.
Since you make the assertion regarding Washington’s being ticked off about not getting a commission in the regular British army
Generally the person making an assertion has the responsibility to document it.
Imagine if an article appeared in a journal with a “Not to the reader: You are expected to document the author’s statements and conclusions yourself if you are curious as to his basis for making them.”
As for the site you link, it, too, has no documentation . . .
Your comment “it didn’t help ..” implies a connection—i.e., a motivation—between the possible failure to get a commission and Washington’s joining the side of the rebellion and taking over command of the troops of the rebellion. This, too, should be documented.
According to David Hackett Fischer, Washington’s Crossing, Washington was promoted to colonel by the British. “When the Revolution began, some of Washington’s closest connections were Loyalists. He had large investments in the empire, with assets in the Bank of England securities. But when he heard the news of the bloodshed on Lexington Green, he joined the Revolution.” Pp. 15–17. No mention of his being pissed off at not getting a commission in the British army. The sense one gets from this and other sources is that Washington was not interested at that point in his life in a military career at all but was far more interested in managing his estates and business projects. In fact, he was not that eager to take over the command of the American army, either: “Everyone was happy except George Washington” (p. 17, citing Ferling, The First of Men).
A very interesting, readable, and well-documented work on exactly this theme is Patrick Spero,
“Frontier Rebels: The Fight for American Independence in the American West,”
https://www.amazon.com/Frontier-Rebels-Independence-American-1765-1776/dp/0393634701
In the prerevolutionary period “the West” was western Pennsylvania.
There was always a (large) faction of colonials/settlers whose main motive was to push west and claim more and more Indian lands. The British wanted to retain an area for the Native Americans—cut off to Colonial expansion.
I can’t recall whether the book contains a discussion of British motives—they must have been imperial, but perhaps they, the Brits, were (still) clueless as to how to run an overseas colony or empire. William Dalrlymple’s The Anarchy allows one to infer that the British learned a lesson in the American colonies that they applied in India. After his defeat by Washington Cornwallis went right off to India to continue his military career by suppressing the local maharajahs and Indian merchants, industrialists (most advanced textile industry on the planet), farmers, bankers, etc.
Anyhow, I thoroughly enjoyed Spero’s book. It is very thought-provoking. He has also written a book on pirates that also places them and vaoirus terms used (freebooters, buccaneers, etc) as actors in the context of “official” worldwide military conflicts, mercantile competition, wars for control of trade routes, etc from the 16th to the mid-nineteenth century. It is kind of a companion piece to “Frontier Rebels” in circumventing a whole lot of cliches and assumptions about what was at stake in these two arenas of confrontation that involved both conventional military units of state entities and paramilitary, militia, or guerrilla actors.
Katherine
Re Spero: Please share the title of the book you mentioned in: “He has also written a book on pirates that also places them and vaoirus terms used (freebooters, buccaneers, etc) as actors in the context of “official” worldwide military conflicts, mercantile competition, wars for control of trade routes, etc from the 16th to the mid-nineteenth century.”
I couldn’t locate such a book by Spero.
Thanks
You are right. It must be another author. Sorry!
Similarity of approach (and time frame when I read both books) made me conflate the two books.
OK, I found it.
Black Flags, Blue Waters: The Epic History of America’s Most Notorious Pirates.
By Eric Jay Dolin.
I think the Spero book is a bit more scholarly (heavily documented) but the Dolin book is also very interesting and adequately sourced. Lots of contemporary quotes, etc., and quite revealing in putting piracy into its historical context. It gets pretty good reviews on Amazon.
https://www.amazon.com/Black-Flags-Blue-Waters-Notorious/dp/1631492101#customerReviews
Re: Spero: Maybe this book: Smugglers, Pirates, and Patriots: Free Trade in the Age of Revolution (Early American Studies)
by Tyson Reeder (Author) ?
It looks as though this work takes a similar approach. Less derring-do and more mercantile history.
Katherine
I’m not sure how helpful it is now, to be decided when, by whom or how, the American arm of the then fading and destroyed British Empire got it’s state.
It’s “The Now” with which the world has to deal.
I doubt the original planners used the phrase “if Britain were the next domino to fall, totalitarianism would control Eurasia.” If that is present in original 1940 papers I would like to see a copy / link, as I have been researching this move to rename Russia.
According to my information so far, the word, first coined by the British Raj for the offspring of a mixed British / Indian pairing, “Eurasia” was brought back to life by George Orwells “1984”, and then by the Harvard University Department of Humanities in 1990, when Gorbachev betrayed the USSR and Russia was invaded Culturally and Economically first by Harvard School of Economics.
It is then the name “Eurasia” was resurrected and applied to the Northern Continental Land Mass. However, no-one from Europe [those nations on the Land Mass Atlantic Peninsula”] has EVER referred to themselves as “Eurasians” {nor will they, regarding it as the insult it is}, and indeed neither do the nations of the Pacific Orient of the Northern Continent. More and more, it is used to refer to Russia since even the Near Abroad ‘Stans are increasingly referred to “Central Asia”.
So — although the writers may have written since 1990, which would explain their use of it, I beg leave to doubt that the plotter of 1940 did.
It’s just more attempts to spread the mind manipulation of trying to blot out Russia as Russia. In a recent report from Russia, we read of a locally made US Disney Film Company distortion of a fairy tale old as centuries for Russians. However, in it the villain of the piece is presented as a hero – as the writer said, i”t’s like saying Hitler was a humanitarian and defender of the defenceless”.
This manipulation of minds has been the greatest, and strongest, tool the plotters of 1940 could have dreamed up – and it’s still ongoing, even if the economy is tanking and the Presidential apparatus clearly seen for the embarrassing farce it is.
And that is going to keep the Empire in the fight unless the people of the world fight back.
But…….. when it’s your mind you need to fight back with, and it’s your mind that’s been twisted and blinded – how are you going to do that??.
In UK a University has just announced that it is ditching Medieval History and English Language, but retained
“gender fluidity, racist etc” as “studies”. More of the same!!!
Forget what the CFA got up to in 1940. Try to see what they are doing now, and work out how to fight it, or they will win.
https://themungbeanpatch2019.blogspot.com/2019/12/why-russia-should-reject-using-name.html
Is the coining of the word “Eurasia” really relevant?
There have already been long drawn out discussion on this blog of this very issue. Do we have to go through again??
The term has been in use in many contexts for centuries and was not coined in any context that has anything to do with Gorbachev or the collapse of the USSR. For instance the term is used on a title in the Time-Life series on world geographies.
A look through the Saker archives should bring up these ancient threads initiated by Pamela.
Please take this discussion to the MFC – going off-topic. Any further will go to trash. Mod.
“Forget what the CFA got up to in 1940. Try to see what they are doing now, and work out how to fight it, or they will win.”
No, Pam, this sentiment is seriously off. To fight “it” – and to do it successfully – is precisely why we all have to understand where “it” came from. Otherwise, how do you know what to fight? To the extent that the goals, developed in 1940s (or even earlier), have been by now so shrouded in ever larger waves of propaganda, how would a normal person understand the true nature of the problems? The advice you give is impractical.
Knowing history is extremely important. It would be the first step.
I am grateful to PE for highlighting this book. For me, it clarified (and gave solid historical context) to two persistent thoughts I’ve had – one, that the system of US domination over the world is so complex, so expansive, and sophisticated that it must have been deliberately designed and worked out (and by some very smart people); and, two, that it must have incorporated at least some principles of nazism (e.g., when contemplating the sheer brutality of this domination) (to that, check out the first review on amazon).
Biden Inauguration:
Capital Hill surrounded by chain link fence topped with razor wire, 25,000 troops.
Mr. Biden, tear down this wall!
”So it was the prospect of a Nazi-shaped world order – and not U.S. security – that shook foreign policy elites in the summer of 1940 to build the intellectual foundations of global U.S. hegemony.”
Touching, yes — convincing, nah. Nazi Germany was very much modelled on the US, and American Big Business (Ford, J.P. Morgan, General Motors, General Electric, and others) was certainly not shaken by Nazi Germany’s racism, imperialism, chauvinism, genocidalism, and anti-communism. Conjuring a ”principal contradiction” between these two AbomiNations makes no sense whatsoever.
Now with the US fortunately crumbling, the facts I mentioned above will become less and less controversial. A has-been’s self-promotion and self-esteem will inevitably look increasingly ridiculous, if not outright insane. Really, if Humanity survives, then future (mainstream) History books will correctly regard the 12 years 1933-1945 as a precursor to the real thing of US Global Empire, the latter being condemned in no uncertain terms by the authors of these books.
World Jewry declared war on Germany in 1933, and its bankers controlled world money, including US money. Back then, as now, politics was controlled by money. To say that the decision to get into the war was made on some silly notion of manifest destiny is bogus. Maybe that idea was there, but played more of a propaganda role than an instrumental one.
It was Britain who declared war on Germany in 1939, because Hitler had stopped making the draconian payments to the western banks as dictated by the Versailles Treaty of 1919 at the end of WW1, and instead created a new German money supply ex nihilo, that put the German labor force to productive use creating full employment, building the autobahns, Messerschmidts, Heinkels, Volkswagens and Panzers. The bankers were not amused. Chamberlain’s story of coming to Poland’s aid was absolute nonsense, since Britain was in no position to use its military against Germany.
all started in 1916 when Germany was unshaken & so confident that she was proposing to France & Britain a peace treaty without reparations. the move was about to have some attraction in France when Judeo-Zionist bankers from the City of London & Wall Street convinced the Allies to carry on the fighting because Wilson, the compromised & corrupt US president, will be soon “forced” into the war. the ultimate goal of the Judeo-Zionist bankers was the destruction of Germany, the economic powerhouse of that time, like nowadays China, & its sovereign financial autonomy. 1916, the sea change moment of the world´s tragedy.
All started in 1914, after a long preparation which started with the collapse of the ”Dreikaiserbund- Three Emperors’ League” in 1887 and the collapse of the Russo-German ‘Reinsurance Treaty’ in 1890 along with the ‘Dropping of the Pilot’ Bismarck.
The secret plan of the City&Wall Street+Zionism was to push Germany against Russia, as the only power capable enough to dismantle it, fanning its ambitions for ‘Weltmacht’, but not letting Germany becoming too powerful. For that it was imperative to bring America into the war. First application of the future NATO principle: “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down”. The Allies shunned the peace proposals in 1916, because Russia was not yet down and isolationism was still strong in America.
It all started in 1910 when Mark Twain died.
And here I thought it ‘all’ started with Jesus nailed to a cross………..
Yeah I dont believe everything i’m told either, those kids and their bibles have thought of everything.
Great comment. But, as you must know, money is an inert instrument. Its transformation into capital unfolds into what is the determinant factor that shapes social and societal realities in the era of Modernity. All the rest are accessories. And this determinant factor is “the reason that is at work within capital”.
The “reason that is at work within capital” is completely detached from the principle of life. Those of us who convert, and devote their minds to “the reason that is at work within capital”, control all the wealth. And their wealth procures them the power to guide the evolution of the cultural continuum of their civilization in the direction of their choosing. But as we discover today their devotion to “the reason” has plunged humanity into the predicament of Late-Modernity which is “the great convergence of Late-Modernity” of the side-effects of Modernity with the crisis of the governance-world that is unleashed by the shift of the center of gravity of the economy-world from the Christian West to the animism+ of East-Asia.
As long as the center of gravity of the economy-world remained within the territorial sphere of the Western civilization all went well for Western big capital holders. Their plan was all along to expand their power to the whole world. But things turned sour when China suddenly erupted on the scene attracting the center of gravity of the economy-world outside of the orbit of the Western territorial sphere.
That’s what we are confronted with today. And the fight between Trump and Western big capital, as an homogeneous group, is just a side-show that distracts our attention from what is really going on today :
— a shift of the center of gravity of the economy-world outside of the orbit of the territorial sphere of the Christian West that does not accept the demise of its short 5 minutes of world hegemony with all the risks that this implies…
— the great convergence, of the side-effects of Modernity with the crisis of the governance-world, that threatens the survival of the principle of life on this earth.
And the existential question that confronts us all is the following : what kind of future are our children going to inherit from us ?
The same as the one we inherited from our ancestors, the ability to reach self determination, all by yourself. Unless one is a tribe member that is, and then you take your future from others.
Should that not read, ‘and then you steal thier future from them’ tribely speaking of course.
Cheres, M
Kids steal, adults take, from what i’ve been able to determine.
”So it was the prospect of a Nazi-shaped world order – and not U.S. security – that shook foreign policy elites in the summer of 1940 to build the intellectual foundations of global U.S. hegemony.”
Touching, yes — convincing, nah. Nazi Germany was very much modelled on the US, and American Big Business (Ford, J.P. Morgan, General Motors, General Electric, and others) was certainly not shaken by Nazi Germany’s racism, imperialism, chauvinism, genocidalism, and anti-communism. Conjuring a ”principal contradiction” between these two AbomiNations makes no sense whatsoever.
Now with the US fortunately crumbling, the above facts will become less and less controversial. A has-been’s self-promotion and self-esteem will inevitably look increasingly ridiculous, if not outright insane.
I apologize for submitting this news, perhaps off-topic, but only two days after Sleep Joe is put on the US Throne, we read this revelation from:
https://www.zerohedge.com/economics/right-cue-biden-who-admits-high-cycle-pcr-tests-produce-massive-covid-false-positives
Stunning !!!
24.3 million cases down to 2.43 in the US and number of deaths not necessarily Covid.
So why do we call this messianic totalitarian ideology “Anglo-zionism”?
More like “Amero-zionism”.
Because North America is an Anglo zone, set up by England and run by Anglo-Zionazi capitalists. As are Australia, New Zealand, Israel and — to a large extent — South Africa
Hello Dr N. G.
I do I understand why at the Saker site we use “Anglo-Zionist” term.
It’s just that there were plenty of homegrown US financiers (e.g the Morgans).. Britain never colonised Europe nor Latam..
Syrian Girl; the term Anglo-Zionist is correct as the USA drifts in and out of the London Imperial ambit for 2 centuries but has never shaken off the Zionist parasite even before statehood with a similar criminal record of genocide and occupation. Americans are fast realizing that most of them are Palestinians now (or soon).
Thanks to Pepe and The Saker for this great essay.
It is to be very warmly welcomed if Wertheim’s book can bring the role of the CFR into the cler light of day..
And if those who have tried to shine a bright light on the covert role of the CFR in shaping our foreign policy are finally vindicated and no longer labeled “conspiracy theorists.”
The CFR takes us directly to Rockefeller, of course.
To locate the DNA of the USA as a hegemon in an ever-expanding universe of hegemony here on Earth,
cherchez la famille Rockefeller.
Rockefeller (and by this I mean the patriarch and all descendants and associates) fingerprints are all over the place wherever one seeks to locate the source of the drive to control everything and everyone—and the development of the administrative, coercive, financial, PR, and other technologies needed to accomplish this goal. Even at the great costs of the larger society. One of the greatest Rockefeller coups has been its success , via its foundation, in convincing the American elite and also the proles that it is a benevolent and charitable force. Even though quite the opposite is the case.
Rockefeller went step by step to every greater spheres of hegemony, from oil to rail to finance to religious to cultural (with huge PR successes) to scientific/ medical to state politics to national politics to international politics to international social control via vacciens and PR. The hierarchic level of total control going ever higher. The creation of foundations to control and frame medical research, with an emphasis on eugenics. With his missionary organizations Rockefeller was active in both Latin America and China , trying to influence internal policies via the creation of schools and other needed social infrastructure. Then we move to control of American foreign policy via the CFR. Wertheim’s book as described seems to show the tentacles reaching out yet further to control the U.S. global military and trade footprint. Rockefeller’s interest and promotion of eugenics studies greatly influenced not only Hitler but also Bill Gates’s parents—they were “Rockefeller men.” Can anyone doubt that Bill Gates’s vaccine mania is a strain of the Rockefeller virus in American life, politics, and science? I expect that Gates sees himself as a philosophical heir of Rockefeller.
Rockefeller (a collective term) is a pervasive negative influence on American and international social, political, and commercial life. If Wertheim’s book causes the Rockefeller hegemonic virus ” in American culture and history to come under the electron microscope, that alone will be a major accomplishment. “Rockefeller” ends in a drive to control the whole planet in all respects.
Great suggestions Katherine!
Some interesting dates:
Creation of Rockefeller foundation: May 1913
Creation of Federal Reserve: Dec 1913
This pre-dates WWI and British empire still existed at that time.
Hi, I learned so much about Rockefeller from reading Josephson, “The Robber Barons.” Very readable. He provides a number of quotes of JDR himself stating his aims to control everything and everyone. Statements akin to “I must be in control!” or “Any businessman who does not join with us [our combine] must be eliminated.” He was ruthless in destroying other companies’ means of doing business if they resisted being taken over by or joining his combine (The Trust). JDR saw himself as anointed by God to make money and then to do with it what he thought the world needed. Such as take control of world populations via eugenics. Control control control. A dreadful, terifying man. And it is his spirit that informs a great deal of the American “mission.” JDR was a Baptist, BTW. A very believing Baptist.
@ Katherine
Rockefeller had a very poor public image and paid the price for it until he hired a professional to change him and one of the goals was to make him a religious man so as to make him more palatable to fellow Americans. It wasn’t done out of sincerity. He was there only for show. I highly doubt he would have understood the words of our Lord “Depart from me you workers of iniquity, I never knew you.” Those with too much money think they can buy their way out of or into anything. And if he was Russian in Russia it would have been Orthodox that the professional would have chosen for him or if Italian the Catholic etc etc.
‘JDR saw himself as anointed by God to make money and then to do with it what he thought the world needed’
Very interesting and thanks for the particulars. I don’t know much about Rockefeller or the American robber barons. I did study Max Weber’s Protestant Ethic and am sorry this magisterial thesis is not better known, though it once was. At issue here is the heart of this ‘exceptionalism’. Weber pinpointed the real historical exception in a series of books that argued that secularised Calvinist ethics justified the making of money as proof of Godly virtue. No other civilisation or religion had ever justified avarice, on the contrary. Weber saw in this the real origins of modern capitalism, the accumulation of money without end. All previous ruling orders had regarded money as a means to an end, to some sort of good. But for the first time money making becomes an end in itself. The early puritans had made a virtue of becoming filthy rich while continuing to wear modest clothes, positively disdaining the show and luxury of the ruling classes. They were Godly men who were on a mission to Reform the World and create order out of chaos, surely the substance of ‘doing the Lord’s Work in the world’.
We should note that this unique development of ‘means without end’ was not just economic ‘ethics’, that is, capitalism. It comes to be the rule right across the board. In modern life we have art for art’s sake. But as well, science for the sake of who knows what? Presently we are debating the prospects of AI, the ‘singularity’ and such all on the assumption that science goes it’s own way and is nothing to do with human betterment, or not necessarily. But this is modernity and it proceeds along the same lines of Calvinistic capitalism. John D Rockefeller is exactly one of these radical Baptists, a real penny pinching puritan who no doubt believed that his ‘philanthropy’ was backed by the Very Highest Authority. In America, this almost goes without saying because the whole country is drenched in this myth of an exceptional world reforming people who lead the way for all of humanity. This exceptionalism should be recognised as a spiritual pathology of unprecedented consequences. This is not just another civilisation that eventually goes down due to greed and aggression as usual. There’s more going on and the nature of this more is spiritual. It really is exceptional. Evil.
“John D Rockefeller is exactly one of these radical Baptists, a real penny pinching puritan who no doubt believed that his ‘philanthropy’ was backed by the Very Highest Authority. ”
I think Rockefeller was a believer, not someone who took on the Baptist faith as a PR move.
If his religious convictions had been conjured up by a PR guy I don’t think Rock would have chosen to be a Baptist. Definitely a non-U religion!!
Max Weber is the theory; Josephson describes the post-Civil War practice. I keep recommending his book because it is very readable and also well documented—but not all that long. Even among the robber barons Rockefeller is sui generis in his single-minded drive not just to make money but to figure out ways to control every widening spheres, extending ultimately to the whole planet and its people. This was not a religious drive, IMO. It is some kind of Superman psychopathology. He is the epitome of appearing to be driven by an abstract idea. I can’t imagine what it was like to be married to this man!! Ugh!. But via Josephson’s account one can see very clearly how the Civil War acted like some kind of physical force to blast the country into a whirlwind of capitalistic excess and how Rock fit into the picture. He seems to have been the only one of the barons to effectuate a permanent stamp on American so-called public affairs, to inject his personal patholoigical “control” gene into the country’s DNA.
IMportant, too, not to see all of the American mind as a product of Puritanism.
This is not the historical reality.
For more on this (and a great read) check out David Hackett Fischer’s Albion’s Seed.
There were and are many ways to justify greed and exploitation. They are not all interchangeable and they did lead to different cultural developments in different parts of the North American continent.
For instance, the Quakers were very good businessmen but their virtue quotient was considerably higher than, say, Rockefeller’s. In both the USA and Britain, Quakers were the driving force behind the abolitionist movement.
I have never heard of a Quaker who participated in the slave trade (although I’m sure there were one or two . . . ).
Katherine
@ Katherine
His name was Ivy Lee who along with Rockefeller invented the entire PR game really. Some very interesting historical footage here:
https://youtu.be/igkGYpHvqGE start at the 41:55 minute mark
As for faith he was a deist in Baptist garb. Good grief Rockefeller Center surely proves that out given the enormous idolatry. No Baptist worth his salt would ever be caught promoting such.
https://vigilantcitizen.com/sinistersites/sinister-sites-rockefeller-center/
He was for all intents and purposes full of good intentions but like Christ said:
Depart from me you who work iniquity, I never knew you and this guy was surely the epitome of that.
Wealthy people like them are usually total and complete control freaks. Being or looking like a Baptist only helped him, just another way to endear him to the public. This is at least what I think anyway.
So here we go with Rockefeller…. money and visual communication.
This brings me into the area of how he used his money and influence to make the previous masters of the craft of painting such as Da Vinci, Raphael, Titian, Turner, Rubens, Vermeer etc to the dustbin of history and promote all those names we know so well today, Matisse, Much, Chagall, De Kooning, Schiele and all those other painters that put gimmickry on the top shelf. To destroy the past we need to make a new future and these were the painters he choose in the plethra of galleries and centers he set up and promoted. Barely an old master shown. And American and Jewish artists were to the fore:
Rockefeller Art
Rockefeller Art Center
Rockefeller Collection
Rockefeller Gallery
My video on ‘communication’ expands on this which to some may seem off topic yet we are talking about something that was as precious as civilization being destroyed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4GQfO1d11M&t=21s&ab_channel=JohnHagan
https://thegrayzone.com/2021/01/17/biden-inaugural-guest-venezuelan-coup-leader-inciting-violent-assault/
Invetigation by excellent Max Blumenthal….an important guest at Biden inauguration…..Guaido’s special envoy Vecchio….who took part in the attack against the Embassy of Venezuela.
Sign of more to come against Venezuela? And like associates with like?
The “lofty ideal” component: ‘America’ has been given by God the mission to lead the world towards a better future’, was seeded with the utopian dreams of the Pilgrims and Massachusetts Bay colonists when they saw America “as a city upon a hill, the eyes of all people are upon us” (as a New Israel, actually). It had a long gestation (first it had to create a power base by conquering the whole of America, as indeed Walter Lippmann revealed: “Ours is the new order. It was to found this order and to develop it that our forefathers came here”), it finally burst with the American-Spanish War, consolidated in WW1 (Wilson’s Fourteen Points), matured in WW2.
The final objective was always: ”Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; who rules the World-Island commands the world”. The major hurdle was, is and would be that the Heartland is firmly occupied by Russia who thwarted all attempts at conquering it and it will thwart any. But that wouldn’t deter ‘Zone A’ to try harder illustrating the saying of Einstein (or whoever): “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
I have only one word oil, or black gold or as the Venezuelans call it Satan’s excrement.
If the exceptional nation had limitless oil reserves then sure be the worldwide Empire but I figure they never thought of the consequences of possibly running out or having to depend on other nations for their reserves?
Ouch?
Beyond that though there is one name missing Pierre Paul Schweitzer a French businessman who apparently was involved with paper gold.
Here’s how Dr. Cantelon puts it…
“In spite of the fact that the U.S. government had in creased its money supply 47% in a five-year period, and other nations were doing the same thing, still there were those who cried it was not enough. Between 1954 and 1965, world trade had doubled. I sat with a thousand delegates in the International Board of Trade in the Waldorf Astoria Hotel of New York listening to the speakers struggle with their unsolved problems. World trade had reached the staggering figure of $159.2 billion. The currencies and credits with which they had to carry on this volume of trade was little more than 67.3 billion. By 1973, the volume of trade in the free world was $367 billion. I talked with Mitchell Sharpe, then Minister of Finance for Canada, and some of the American leaders. These men realized that the currencies being used were outmoded and insufficient for the modern day. They pointed out that the system was medieval, serving acceptably in the olden days when communities were small and self-contained, but thoroughly inadequate for the present. The leaders of the nations involved
in trade spoke of the nightmarish task of trying daily to adjust the varying exchange rates between the currencies from country to country on a day-to-day basis. They clamored for a single system of standardized value large enough in volume to allow world trade to move forward in an orderly fashion.
ln 1967, two years following that International Board of Trade meeting in New York, the world leaders met in
Rio. In discussing the inadequacy of the present world money systems to carry on world trade, Guido Carli from Rome suggested ersatz money which would resemble paper gold which was to be presented to the world the following year. I was back in America when the announcement came.It was March 31, 1968. Most of the world reacted with amazement at the announcement that came from Europe stating that the nations of the world were ready to transact business with a new medium of exchange known as “paper gold.” But to all who follow the trend of monetary matters, the announcement was no surprise. For days there was a
feeling in the air that something momentous was coming. An editor wrote in the Financial Times,
Something sinister is going on.
With great interest, I followed the comments and reactions of world leaders. Carl Schiller, Germany’s financier, stated,
There’s a worm in the apple somewhere.
Pierre Paul Schweitzer seemed pleased. Schweitzer, the nephew of Albert Schweitzer, was an elite Protestant,
born in Alsace-Lorraine, who had served as number-three man in the Bank of France, and had been elected managing director of the International Monetary Fund. Some declared that when paper gold was presented to the world on that March morning, Schweitzer declared,
Gentlemen, we are right on schedule.
72% of the nations in the IMF were considered underdeveloped. Schweitzer seemed especially dedicated to the task or policy of taking from the rich to give to the poor.
This naturally made him popular with the majority in the IMF, who were elated at the prospect of acquiring some of America’s wealth regardless of the measures.
Cantelon pgs 50-51
There is a good side to all this.
The Empire will be over within 4 years.
Only remaining question is whether it will end with a bang or with a whimper.
@Jiri: “The Empire will be over within 4 years.”
I think it will take longer. Empires come and go in hundreds of years. Sometimes they transform into another Empire; eg, the Persian Empire of Cyrus (200 years) transformed into the Olympian Greek Empire of Alexander (300 years), which transformed into the Roman Empire with similar Olympian religion (400 years), which split into the Christian Graeco-Roman Empire of Byzantium (1,000 years) and a Christian Latin Roman rump (100 years?) which transformed itself into a multipolar Christian Europe. The Anglo-Zio Capitalist Empire has lasted from say, 1700 ( Dutch Protestant William takes over English throne and transforms Dutch East India company into British East India co which transforms into the London-Washington global AZC of the present day — a run of 400 years. This beast global beast with financial tentacles reaching deep into “autonomous” countries around the world is more pervasive than London-Washington politics, and harder to eradicate.
The “end with a bang” nowadays depends more on size of nuclear stockpile than on size of country; for instance, tiny Israel has enough nuclear missiles to make every capital in Europe “end with a bang”.
“Dutch Protestant William takes over English throne and transforms Dutch East India company into British East India co which transforms into the London-Washington global AZC of the present day ”
I think the BEIC predates William’s accession to the British throne.
Did he combine the two companies?
Katherine
Every empire rises based on a missionary zeal. Every empire falls based on the corruption of its officials and the inevitable contradictions that make its missionary message ultimately untenable.
The first pathetic assumption of the ‘exceptionalist USA’ is that ‘no-one but us is capable of governing in a just and free manner’. You only have to look at measures which do not focus primarily and solely on GDP, rather on outcomes linked to- but not absolutely dependent upon GDP, to see how badly the USA performed. You know: things like human health; quality of housing; quality of public infrastructure; societal emotional, mental and spiritual health; strength of bilateral friendship with other nations etc etc.
So it is absolutely obvious in 2021 that the USA does not represent either a beacon to look up to nor a symbol of actual freedom (since it defines freedom solely for Americans and considers the serfdom of all others to be ‘acceptable collateral damage’). The single most condemnatory metric is how the USA treats its ex-servicemen/women suffering hardship and afflictions after return from horrendous combat….
The second pathetic assumption is that ‘everyone considers utopia to involve the kind of ‘freedoms’ that the USA was founded to prioritise’. That assumption is that there is only one way to organise a society and even the most dim-witted of Harvard rejects should be aware that that simply isn’t the case. The way the hegemonists always dealt with it was to say ‘there are only two choices: our way or Communism’. They then said ‘if you aren’t with us, you are a Communist’ or the like.
It is absolutely obvious to everyone in 2021 that not only is Communism NOT the sole alternative to US-style hegemony, but that Communism, China Style, creates just as many billionaires as the USA does. The CCP isn’t a communist party, it is a crony capitalist party: in China, contacts are everything – the very definition of cronyism. Now you can hate China, love China, tolerate China or try and avoid all contact with China, just as you wish. What you can’t say is that China represents Communism. It represents a one-party-political system whereby those with best contacts to the politicians assure themselves of the most wealth.
It is also abundantly clear to smaller nations that it may well be in their interests to retain strategic control of key industries to stop foreign exploitation or even having them shut down. The best way for them do that may indeed be through national ownership. It is not the only solution, as the Chaebol system in Korea so clearly attests to. But what small nations need to do in worlds demanding ‘free trade’ (which more often means ruthless global use of capital to bring all smaller nations under US control) is to protect their own economic interests from foreign predators, assuming all foreigners to be predators until rigorous checks and numerous safeguards are put in place to ensure that any foreign control of strategic assets retains sufficient upside for the home nation as to be in their national interests to pursue.
IT is abundantly clear to the whole world that neither the IMF nor the World Bank have ever had the interests of either the World or the International Community at heart. Both are located in the USA and both have always been State-sponsored Financial Terrorist organisations operating on behalf of the USA. Their scorched earth ‘economic policies’ (policies is too polite a word for the terror they inflict on foreign nations) is always at absolute odds to the interests of foreign nations trying to build stable, independent, sustainable futures. It is all about serfdom, imperial conquest and foreign control. Always has been and, until the world forms alternative development funding channels, always will be.
Then there is the US military: a moral-free executive arm of psychotic warmongering. The vast majority of the US military servants have no say in whether a war is right and/or just, they are just professional killers sent to kill in whatever theatre the psychopaths tell them to go. The sole point of resistance is at the top of the Services and far too often, those politicians are as gung-ho about US Exceptionalism as the most ardent of Neoconservative Genocidalists. It is not unreasonable to compare the average US military servant to terrorists, as they have zero moral standing in the US decision-making process and an explosively deathly effect on world security, health and community spirit. It is not surprising that they are not seen as the ‘saviours from heaven’ by large swathes of world population….
None of this says that non-US ‘leaders’ are all philosopher kings. It is only too obvious that they are not. But the last nail in the USA’s hegemonic coffin is the company of non-philosopher-king leaders they have so eagerly got into bed with. There is no problem funding those using chemical weapons, only to then turn on them for wanting to sell oil in Euros not dollars. There is no problem supporting torturers, no problem supporting those who see women as chattels, no problem supporting apartheid South Africa and no problem supporting murdering fascists in South America.
The USA has absolute problems supporting democratically elected leaders who do not see the USA’s interests as more important than their own. That serves the death knell for the concept of ‘spreading democracy’, something the USA has never done in my lifetime.
The USA as a concept may have had cogency in 1776, but in 2020, the effect of running a ‘society’ on that basis is fourfold:
1. Total rejection of democracy both at home and abroad.
2. Absolute inequality levels skyrocketing.
3. The most wealthy secreting their wealth offshore then torching the domestic economy, the better to pick up the rotting carcasses at rock bottom prices as they effect their new status as feudal chieftains.
4. An out-of-control warmongering machine causing more external, unnecessary genocides than any other nation on earth.
Whatever America may or may not choose to be in future, one thing is certain. They need to spend 100 times more time looking at the reality of their society, and spending very little time eulogising a few historical pieces of parchment that expressed lofty ideals.
Marriage is a lofty ideal, but you measure the health of marriage by how much infidelity occurs, how much sexual assault occurs within marriage, how much domestic violence ensues, how much effective serfdom exists within the ‘holy estate of matrimony’ etc.
You don’t just look at the number of marriages each year, you look at the number of divorces too. You might like to document quite how many Mrs Bobbitt’s there are too…..
And the USA may be looking at a few states wishing to ‘Dis-Unite’ from the Not-Very-United States of America. Texas will be top of the list, but there could be several others. New Hampshire? The Dakotas? Most of the states between the Appalachians and the Rockies??
The world must assume until proven otherwise that the next great Imperial Hegemon will be China. Authoritarianism is a usual partner of imperialism, after all.
That is probably why India is not next on the list. Corrupt they may be, but they have no history of conquest and probably no desire to do so either. India merely bickers with Pakistan in the way that England bickers with Scotland….
The world should prepare for the worst, hope for the best and try and build sufficient multi-polar power axes to limit the ability of any single hegemon to demand tributes or else…..
It’s hard for me to believe that a group of criminal grifters could believe that God is in any way on their side and would be supporting their efforts to murder whole populations and then steal their resources. Therefore, their exceptionalist nationalism is simply the cover story to their ongoing crimes. They present it for consumption, and I say woe to those who accept it as truth. The only thing exceptional about this doctrine is the fact that so many here in the US seem to accept it.
Patrick
Yeah, I don’t know where this idea comes from that God follows man but that seems to be the way people or ‘criminal grifters’ think. They treat God like some kind of Santa Claus go here, do this, get this etc etc? They seem to forget who is at whose feet.
Wisdom is to find out which way God is moving and move with Him.
Thanks pdb
“But there was also a much more pressing practical matter: this world order might be closed to liberal U.S. trade.”
Although there is some emphasis in the sentence it is tossed in the analysis as an aside and never mentioned again yet it is the absolute crux of the issue of foreign policy.
America has only ever been interested in making sure that they can manipulate and exploit the regions of the globe for resources and financial gain.
America has not been fighting communism, totalitarianism, or any other ‘ism so much as fighting to make certain they will not be shut out of, shut off from exploiting every corner of the planet.
Jef, nail on the head! Absolute power to control, manipulate, exploit, & expropriate…in all aspects of life, & in any countries that bend to its power & will!
I don’t buy the story given by Wertheimer. Looks more like a fairy tale for children who otherwise would have worrying dreams, but I cannot exclude that Wertheimer’s stance is a self-delusional echo from a contemporary discourse among people framed by Leo Strauss as noblemen, manipulated by the tyranny of “philosophers” ruling the city founded in crime.
Might be that US and UK were a bit afraid that Gröfaz might not live up to his task of going East – at Munich, they gave him the huge armaments and war industry of Czechoslovakia for just that purpose. For an alternative point of view, I recommend Guido Preparata, Conjuring Hitler: How Britain and America Made the Third Reich.
There can be little doubt where the priorities of the puppeteers had been. Think Churchill’s Operation Unthinkable.
Of course there was a “lofty ideal” component: the U.S. would not be able to fulfill its God-given mission to lead the world towards a better future. But there was also a much more pressing practical matter: this world order might be closed to liberal U.S. trade.