A new administration is here. Its agenda is simple: Roll back what Donald Trump did – and return to the well-worn path followed since 1989, when George H.W. Bush took office. Biden is itching to revive Globalism and return to the dubious strategy of establishing the New World Order. President Biden declares “America is back!” His first few actions disclose what he means. He recommitted to the Paris climate accords and to the Iranian Nuclear Deal. Next, he stopped the building the “border wall” and the Keystone Pipeline. Then he sent US troops into Syria.
This was a jolting return to the progressive policies of the past – the politics that led to the populist revolt beginning with the Tea Party and culminating in the election of Donald Trump. Given his 29 Executive Orders in his first 29 days, we wonder, “Exactly who is Joe Biden listening to? How many Americans did President Joe make happy with this opening salvo of Executive Orders? Is America really back? Which America? And for whom?
Globalists thought Trump was Hitler because of his slogan, “Make America Great Again.” Never mind that he borrowed it from Ronald Reagan. While disliked by liberals, Reagan was never compared to Hitler. To make America great again (so progressives presumed), Trump was urging Americans to embrace the Nationalism of Hitler and Mussolini. Indeed, Progressives proclaimed Trump’s Nationalism was a mirror-image of Nazism. And while Nazi was the shortened form for National Socialism (Hitler’s politically correct way to rename Mussolini’s Italian Fascism), was Trump really campaigning for the kind of nationalism espoused by Hitler and Mussolini? To be more specific, did “Making America Great Again” convey America wanted to create a nationalist empire that would step outside its borders and dominate the weak nations in its neighborhood and persecute the Jews? Hardly.
Giving the newly retired President a fair hearing, Trump sought to make America’s government look inward – to fix the problems we have first, before expending too much time and money abroad. His administration targeted America’s resources toward our infrastructure and to improve the security of our homeland – rather than focusing on international issues.
Nevertheless, groups like Black Lives Matter (BLM) and ANTIFA (anti-fascism) saw in Donald Trump a racist with intentions as sinister as the man from Munich. Eventually, these movements crafted threatening slogans for protesting. They amplified their threatening placards and signs with violent and destructive actions. The twisted logic of these radical’s claims was that America’s 45th President meant to destroy individual freedom in the United States. And they justified their angry response due to what they saw as his racial rhetoric (as they interpreted his often-undiplomatic statements whether verbal or in tweets).
However, “BLANTIFA” (the contraction of BLM and ANTIFA) mustered raucous crowds doing Nazi-like destruction in a number of cities. Trump did nothing of the sort. Indeed, looking at a comparison of Trump to Hitler, we should make note that what Hitler’s SA Paramilitary did on Kristallnacht (9 November 1938). This ultra-radical wing of the Nazi Party, aka the “Brownshirts” (Braunhemden), made the rounds of Jewish-owned businesses to break the glass on their storefronts, and in some cases burn their businesses to the ground. In our day, the Brownshirts are BLANTIFA and not members of the Tea Party. For six months or more, such agent provocateurs disrupted inner cities as well as destroyed an abundance of federal and private property. Portland Oregon is forever changed by the non-stop activities of these “protestors” who demonstrated what real seditious acts look like. What’s worse, impassioned progressive politicians at both local and national levels, encouraged these protestors to intensify their activity – and in the words of our new Vice-President, “keep up the violence on the streets.” BLANTIFA was only too happy to oblige then Senator Kamala Harris.
Of course, Trump was recently impeached (and acquitted) a second time on grounds he instigated sedition with the storming of the US Capitol on 6 January 2021, by directing his audience to “peacefully and patriotically make their voices heard when they march to the Capitol.” Never mind that Capitol Police were warned by the FBI a day before the “spontaneous” eruption of anger got out of hand, nor that the crowd was filled with FBI undercover agents, whose purpose remains especially suspicious given the FBIs negative stance on Trump for his four years in office. And disregard the fact that the Speaker of the House and the Sergeant-in-arms declined to increase security on January 6, despite knowing that over a million Trump supporters would gather around the Capitol on that day. Were they just naïve or were they encouraging an incident to blame on Trump if things got out of hand?
To those that had faith President Trump would make good on his campaign promises, the words “Make America Great Again” or “Put America First” had nothing to do with instigating fascism, authoritarianism, racism, or conquering surrounding countries too weak to fight back. Instead, it meant (1) bringing outsourced jobs back to American soil; (2) creating entitlements and assistance dollars for impoverished Americans before funding foreign aid; (3) protecting our country from illegal immigrants pouring through our southern border; and (4) demanding NATO members pay their fair share for protecting Europe.
Allow me to pause to mention a few of Trump’s noteworthy accomplishments.
Before the Pandemic, Trump had made good on most of these commitments. Not only did unemployment reach records lows for women, blacks, Chinese, and Latinos, manufacturing was returning to American shores. Illegal immigration was dramatically reduced. And taxes were significantly lowered for the middle class. On the foreign policy front, Trump achieved a great many things for which the Mainstream Media for never gave him any credit. Trump did not start any foreign wars. He brought home most American troops from Syria and Afghanistan. He made make good on his promise to increase peace in the Middle East with the Abrahamic Accords. And he moved the American Embassy to Jerusalem, a promise made to Israel for decades that was never kept by any of several presidents before him – and he did this without inflaming the region. Furthermore, he defused the escalating Nuclear threats from North Korea. And he persuaded most NATO nations to pay more for their own defense. ISIS was all-but destroyed. Headlines no longer included terrorism engineered by Al-Qaeda. With Trump in office, America once again “carried a big stick” as Theodore Roosevelt famously said. Most would say things go better with Trump.
What can we conclude about Trump’s essential motive? Trump was tuned into what “Middle Americans” saw as common sense in regard to foreign policy. Indeed, most Americans doubt that we should play the role of global policeman. The blood of young Americans shouldn’t be shed for endless foreign wars where America stands to gain little. Along these lines, Trump pushed for energy independence as dependence on foreign energy sources has put the US in a vice several times during the previous 50 years. And, during his term, the US became a net exporter rather than importer of energy. Fighting for oil and protecting its flow to the Western World underlies America’s foreign policy for both Democrat and Republican presidents since the days of Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter. “Oil Wars” (the hidden agenda of most Middle-Eastern military confrontations) were becoming unnecessary because Trump successfully calmed the tempers in the Middle East. This calm was not accidental.
Well then – allowing me a bit of sarcasm here – obviously Trump had no strategy for foreign policy. That should be plain enough. So you would think since progressives find nothing to praise about Trump’s foreign policy, arguing from the outset that Trump had no plan in mind whatsoever. But, at least the “no strategy era” is now over.
So now we have a new President with a different foreign policy. What will that policy look like?
As mentioned, one month into his term, Biden’s major foreign policy actions include rejoining the Paris Climate Accords which could do great harm to American industry, and reinstating America’s compliance with the Iranian Nuclear Deal that will increase the probability Iran will have nuclear weapons sooner rather than later. Furthermore, returning to the topic of the Iranian “treaty” (which has never been ratified by the Senate and stands as a giant unconstitutional act), US support of Iran’s right to use nuclear power will likely create instability in this region. It is probable Israel will attack Iran since Israel can no longer trust the US to look out for Israel’s existential interests. The reader may recall that President Obama listened to consultants that argued Iran, not Turkey nor Israel, was the natural leader of the Middle East. Obama’s visible foreign policy implied the US should shift its primary support to Iran at the expense of Israel. Consequently, it is logical to expect Biden will follow Obama’s foreign policy point by point. What will result?
Returning to the Iranian “treaty” will increase pressure on a precarious peace currently holding in the Middle East. I have argued elsewhere that the standard US policy for the Middle East is to keep it in chaos, so that Russia always feels the heat on its underbelly (given that millions of Muslims live in that region and are on “slow boil” to revolt against Moscow). It is childish to suppose America always does those things that are best for peace in the world. Truly, those that claim the US is the world’s primary instigator of unrest and war have a whole lot of history in their favor.
Ironic then, that Robert Kagan (whose wife is Elena Kagan, a member of SCOTUS) argues in an article just published in the March/April Foreign Affairs journal, that America is the key to keeping peace in the world.[1] Do tell.
Kagan believes that “America is back” too, at least as far as foreign policy goes (and isn’t that an oxymoron?). Kagan’s article, “A Superpower, Like It or Not” sets forth the case for why the United States must reengage in the same foreign policy it has followed for the past 100 years prior to Trump. The subtitle, “Why Americans Must Accept Their Global Role” begins the polemic for international engagement (which many would call interference). In general, for Kagan, our responsibility is to keep the peace because others like China (and to a lesser extent Russia), make the world “messy” the same way that communists in prior decades did (i.e. Khrushchev, Chairman Mao, and Pol Pot in Cambodia, etc.). So let’s study Kagan’s argument.
For starters, Kagan is certainly a globalist, and he writes for the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations. Readers might rightly ask even before we begin, “So what do expect?” Biases in favor of the globalist position would be anticipated with Kagan. But the issue is, as the headline of this article states, “How is America great in the eyes the globalist?” The short answer is, “We are so great we should put our resources behind the efforts to keep lesser powers aligned with the globalist agenda.” America is the globalist catalyst. Our influence, our military, and our economic power should be brought to bear to force it to flower. Kagan says it’s necessarily our role, and therefore, we should accept it. Furthermore, he insists that this has been the ulterior motive for American policy for the past 100 years. The globalist precedent is clear.
Kagan stresses that all empires have a yearning for the past when their empire was undaunted. America, however, has the opposite problem. We are strongly inclined to insist we are safe from threats because we are separated by vast oceans and friendly neighbors to the north and south. “Even in the era of the Internet, long-range missiles, and an interdependent global economy, many Americans retain the psychology of a people living apart on a vast continent, untouched by the world’s turmoil,” opines Kagan. And yet, “we have never been isolationists.” That is, we jump in when the emergency arises. Furthermore, we “do not see (ourselves) as the primary defender of a certain kind of world order; (we) have never embraced that ‘indispensable’ role,” Kagan insists. Consequently, so far, Americans often “played it poorly.” We scornfully think of Iraq and Afghanistan as “forever wars” unknowingly missing the point of what we must do in Kagan’s eyes. “Americans had one foot out the door the moment they entered, which hampered their ability to gain control of difficult situations.” This has led us, according to Kagan, to mislead and confuse our allies, instead of providing “clear and steady application of American power and influence in the service of a peaceful, stable, and liberal world order.” This assumes of course, that our allies always wanted our leadership and assistance. That would be a nice subplot to pursue, but we haven’t space for it here.
Where does this put us in today’s world?
If the twenty-first century is not to follow the same pattern – most dangerously, in the competition with China – then Americans will need to stop looking for the exits and accept the role that fate, and their own power have thrust upon them. Perhaps after four years of President Donald Trump, Americans are ready for some straight talk.
Straight talk. Okay, let’s consider this tongue-in-cheek insult.
To unpack Kagan’s lesson, he teaches we must be made aware that we’re in a competition (indeed rivalry) with China. This challenge constitutes the tune of the twenty-first century song we should continually sing. He presumes we have the power to maintain this competition. And, for Kagan, Donald Trump failed to communicate this responsibility as all Presidents have before him.[2] So, it’s time we talk plainly about what we must do, Kagan states. (But, as I will demonstrate plain talk never works when it comes to fulfilling the globalist agenda, since Americans are naturally pre-disposed against it).
First off, Kagan misreads history given his statements regarding why Americans are “of two minds.” Presidents have never spoken plainly about our role in international affairs since the time of John F. Kennedy. With Truman, Ike, and Kennedy, we knew the enemy was communism and we feared that its presence was an existential threat to the Western World (which includes Japan, Australia, Europe, and all the Americas). Beginning with Lyndon B. Johnson, the obfuscation of the truth with foreign policy driven by the “Domino Theory” and the doctrine of “mutually assured destruction (MAD)” were strategies that ultimately proved to be doubletalk. Beginning with the Tonkin Gulf false flag that started the Viet Name War, propaganda incited our wars.[3]
We broadened that war with clandestine incursions in Cambodia and with the CIA’s “Air America” residence in Laos, continuing out of sight for two decades. Denials and lies. Likewise, the Soviet threat, except for the Cuba Missile Crisis in 1962, was mostly overstated by the CIA’s former Nazi intelligence chief, Reinhard Gehlen, then working for Allen Dulles, falsely increased the numbers of Soviet bombers and missiles in order to spur growth in his departmental budget. (Gehlen worked for Allen Dulles after WWII, later becoming director of West Germany’s BND in 1956.)[4]
Americans have come to believe what the federal governments gives us is anything but “straight talk.” We know a politician lies when his (or her) lips move.
Kagan quotes British historian James Bryce regarding the situation of the United States as the nineteenth century was coming to a close (two decades before World War I – WWI), “Safe from attack, safe even from menace, she hears from afar the warring cries of European races and faiths, as the gods of Epicurus listened to the murmurs of the unhappy earth spread out beneath their golden dwellings… she sails upon a summer sea.” Of course, it’s true the placid times were barely interrupted for the United States after its Civil War, with only the Spanish-American War of 1898, primary consisting of just two major battles, one in the Philippines (Manilla Bay) and the one that made Teddy Roosevelt and the Rough Riders famous, San Juan Hill in Cuba. Otherwise, Bryce rightly defined America’s adolescent period.
However, America owes Europe no apologies for keeping out of the way. Wasn’t it George Washington who warned the fledging republic to avoid entangling alliances with European powers? For one hundred years, the United States took Washington’s advice. But when the US entered WWI in 1918, the next one hundred years would be characterized as America’s pursuit to lead globalism during “The American Century.” 100 years of avoiding alliances, then 100 years of entanglement.
This pursuit saw Woodrow Wilson’s failed hope to spawn the League of Nations after a corrupt treaty of Versailles to end the “great war” (aka, the “war to end all wars”). While European nations stood by the Treaty to form the League, the US Senate never ratified it (remembering Washington’s warning). This rejection was the first colossal failure for globalist foreign policy in America. The second failure is ongoing: The United Nations. The Rockefellers were its underwriters. Soon headquartered in New York City, this put the push toward globalism squarely on America’s doorstep.
But am I right to label the UN a failure? By most standards, it is. By leveling the playing field, the US put itself in the awkward position of having one vote in the general assembly among almost 200 countries who also have one vote. In the security council, the US is one of its five permanent members. And faced with the face that China and Russia have permanent residence there too, either of our principal rivals can block votes favoring the US. America’s attempts to make good on the globalist agenda often means we ignore the UN on some occasions working secretly behind the scenes or act almost unilaterally to realize our aims. Consequently, the UN comprises entertainment for diplomats. It’s Kabuki Theater. “Straight talk” is hardly the best way to characterize discussions between the US and other UN member nations.
Therefore, how we “lead” the world isn’t with straight talk at all. As author John Perkins tells us in Confessions of An Economic Hitman, we use incredible economic pressure, often blackmailing foreign nations with USAID to bend to our will. Recall Joe Biden speaking at the CFR bragging how he threatened to withhold $1B in aid for Ukraine if it did not fire an ethical judge looking into Ukrainian energy company, Burisma Holdings, which happened to be paying Hunter Biden’s a million a year to serve on its Board (Is this Joe Biden’s approach to straight talk?).
Likewise, as we have learned over the past twenty years or so, our intelligence services use fear, intimidation, and assassination to get what we want done. The notion of Color Revolutions, which have been at the center of “hot zones” in political turmoil (think Egypt, Ukraine, Libya, and almost a dozen other situations in the twenty-first century), tell us what the real power is that America wields and why our leadership is generally not trusted in the world. Add to that the theory of Neo-conservatives (aka Neocons), that America is the exceptional nation (i.e., American Exceptionalism) which the world depends upon for democratic inspiration. However, in truth America is exceptional because our leadership assumes it can be excepted if it uses military force to win an argument. Many other examples can be brought forward, but the reader (listener) gets the idea. The way things get done in the world, as far as America is concerned, is to control things by bullying. All too often, our justification is we seek only to create free markets and democracy. You might say, it’s the foreign policy equivalent of declaring, “It’s for your own good.” But this straight talk isn’t believed much less appreciated. We’ve learned in life that what is “for our own good” is typically only good for the person (or nation) forcing it upon us.
A writer on the “Gen Z Conservative blog” assesses George Washington’s counsel that the new nation best avoids entangling alliances for two reasons:[5] First, the US defeated Britain in a guerilla war in our vast territory, a war that it would have been nearly impossible for the King to win. Engaging in conventional wars across the ocean in Europe, would be expensive. Our country couldn’t afford any such engagements. But secondly, the blogger argues that Washington knew alliances would divide the country. He foresaw that the union was shaky at the very beginning. It would be less than 60 years until it did split apart. Lincoln likewise understood that the real fight was not for slavery (although that was an excellent ethical motive) but was to keep the union together. England still didn’t accept the loss of the American colonies. To achieve its goal, England hoped to split up the newly formed United States – a “divide and conquer” stratagem. And like the King of England who was struggling to maintain a semblance of monarchical power, the Roman Catholic Church was not pleased with an America that disdained priestly authority over its parishes. The Pope wasn’t popular in America until sometime after its first Catholic President, John F. Kennedy.
As Americans, we forget that our fight for freedom was a fight to thrown off oppressive powers of King and Church. We were a liberal republic, heavily influenced by the Reformation, the Scots, and the Calvinist Church aka Presbyterians. Freemasonry had an important role as well, but it has been overstated. For black robe preachers used their pulpits to arouse hatred in its parishioners for the injustice of tyranny. That is to say, liberal thinking wasn’t solely sourced from the deistic (if not Luciferian) Masons. The Protestant Reformation was a stronger force arguing for personal responsibility before God and individual salvation by His grace through personal faith.
Kipling had argued that it was the “White Man’s Burden” to bring civilization to the “dark” areas of the world. In a similar vein, Theodore Roosevelt had proposed the League of Nations conceptually to maintain world peace and create an Anglo-American
form of civilization across the globe. It was, for Teddy Roosevelt a “world league for the Peace of Righteousness.” In his summation, we can hear a Churchman’s sentiment ringing clear, hoping for the best. Without American power exerted in Europe, Roosevelt and later Wilson argued Europe would divide into hostile camps and the world would “descend into utter blackness.” Far from keeping clear of European entanglements, American leaders insisted the United States plunge itself into European affairs. Furthermore, America must keep the seas free and protect the transfer of goods in trade. (Arguably, the latter is a more legitimate purpose for American power after the decline of Britain’s navy and the rising of America’s.) America had an interest in some sort of world order. But, to what extent?
Shouldn’t we be much more selective in how we get involved? And shouldn’t the citizens be made aware of why their tax dollars, and possibly the lives of their children, be put at risk to settle quarrels overseas? Is it possible that this was the central premise in Trump’s foreign policy? Wasn’t it an honest attempt to hear what Americans wanted? And might it be a righteous way to keep all foreign affairs above board?
Getting back to Kagan’s article, he clearly overreaches when he states (in bold), “Americans’ capacity for global power exceeds their perception of their proper place and role in the world.” This is close to saying, “Might makes right” which underlies the globalist and Neocon doctrine. Until 2020, and the trillions of dollars spent in stimulating an economy semi-reviving from a near death experience, the US might have been able to take on policing “messy situations” and threats to democracy in far-flung places. And given the extreme division in our country – thanks to questionable activities associated the most recent presidential election – we find ourselves right back to George Washington’s counsel. He had strong reasons to fear American involvement abroad. Those situations prevail again today. We can’t afford unlimited excursions to settle disputes militarily. We must offload more of the work to those countries aligned with democratic ideals who also have the military capability to “project power” closer to their own homes. Furthermore, with our nation so divided and our government on the cusp of adopting increased levels of socialism within our domestic programs (an agenda that threatens further division), we should question whether our capacity for global power is as robust as Kagan makes it out to be.
Finally, history proves that Americans aren’t willing to pursue a globalist agenda without a strong rationale for why it makes sense for US national interests. A doctrine like globalism is idealism blown out of proportion with reality. It has always been too expensive, costing us trillions.[6] With very few exceptions, World War II being perhaps the sole example, the justification given the American citizenry was, at beast, shading the truth. At worst, it was dishonest and deceptive. Likewise, wars are always divisive for our citizenry. The Korean War in the 1950s was the last war that our country could justify based on the threat of communism in foreign lands. The Vietnam War was falsely justified for the same reason. Still, it was a disaster from every angle. It remains the alarm bell whenever a US President dares to embrace unbridled globalist theory.
Ironically, Kagan himself chronicles example after example, where the only way that an American President could muster support for a war was to lie about the reasons we should be engaged. Take George W. Bush and the specter of “weapons of mass destruction” (WMD). He lied about it and used it to justify a vendetta against Saddam on behalf of his father, George H.W. Bush, who misjudged when to stop the first Gulf War (1991) at the city limits of Baghdad. Despite the fact that there was never any truth to the ties between 911 and the nation-state of Iraq, Republicans drummed up support for the war claiming Saddam sponsored 911. When that argument proved too weak, the threat of a nuclear Iraq finally proved sufficient to get Americans ready for war. WMD which didn’t exist justified our second incursion in Iraq. Nowadays, the truth about 911 remains an open question for most Americans who have been burned by false flags and politicians speaking with forked tongues. Kagan presumes that now is the time to change all that. Trump spoke lies, but Biden will speak the truth. The classic American foreign policy of the period from 1919 to 2017, is primed and ready to begin again. Perhaps Kagan assumes Americans are ready “to handle the truth.” But it is far more likely that what the US government feeds us will still be lies. Compared to other Presidents, Trump spoke more truth than them.
It is against this backdrop that Kagan, speaking on behalf of globalism and The Council on Foreign Relations, now sees that “America is Great (Enough) Again” and ready to take on foreign entanglements with Joe Biden in office. The Military Industrial Complex cheers because it has a President more willing to go to war, buying the necessary armaments to ensure victory. And we can bet with the same old advisors in place in his Cabinet, Biden will follow in Obama’s footsteps to pursue a course that is anathema to the American citizenry. Despite the national debt which has skyrocketed to $30 trillion dollars during the pandemic, and America’s families who believe the sacrifice of their children and their taxes shouldn’t have been the basis for our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (for oh some 20 years now), a Biden Administration will most likely be swayed by CFR folk like Kagan. No doubt his “straight talk” will cost us dearly.
So, get ready America. The winds of war are blowing.
PLEASE CONSIDER SUPPORTING MY WRITING MINISTRY WITH A MONTHLY DONATION… $10, $25, $100. IT TAKES A LOT TO CREATE THESE ARTICLES AND VIDEOS BASED ON THEM.
NOTES
[1] Kagan, Robert. “A Superpower, Like It or Not” Foreign Affairs, March/April 2021. Retrieved February 20, 2021 from https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2021-02-16/superpower-it-or-not
[2] The sanctions and tariffs imposed on Chinese goods by Trump’s administration apparently don’t count in the competition with the world’s most populous nation.
[3] “The most notorious false flag in American history.” Nimmo, Kurt. 8 January 2018. False Flags The gulf of Tonkin,” from NewsBud.com. Retrieved February 20, 2021, from https://www.newsbud.com/2018/01/08/false-flag-wars-the-gulf-of-tonkin/
[4] Citing the Encyclopedia Britannica:
“Federal Intelligence Service”, foreign intelligence agency of the West German government. Created in April 1956, it absorbed the “Gehlen Organization,” a covert intelligence force which was created by Major General Reinhard Gehlen after World War II and which cooperated with U.S. intelligence agencies. Gehlen had headed the Foreign Armies East section of the Abwehr, the intelligence service of the German general staff.
Retrieved February 21, 2021 from https://www.britannica.com/event/World-War-II.
[5] “The Great George Washington Avoid Foreign Entanglements Quote.” Retrieved February 20, 2021 from https://genzconservative.com/avoid-foreign-entanglements/
[6] Our government spent $1.27 trillion, according to the IBN Times. See https://www.ibtimes.com/afghanistan-war-cost-war-365202#:~:text=The%20Iraq%20and%20Afghanistan%20wars%20have%20also%20exacted,by%20the%20federal%20government%20for%20both%20military%20efforts.
No Comments on IS AMERICA “GREAT AGAIN” FOR GLOBALISTS?