The Presidents of your country change, but the policy does not change–Vladimir Putin
Continuity of Agenda
Recently, I’ve been thinking about the work of Brian Berletic, whom I have followed for at least ten years. A former US Marine, he realized that his role as a Marine furthered US foreign policy goals which, if I understand him correctly, are based on hegemony over the entire world. He uses the term “Continuity of Agenda” to describe this. The Continuity of Agenda specifically describes the ongoing war against Russia, using Ukraine as a proxy.
You can find his work at
https://journal-neo.su/author/brian-berletic/
https://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/
His Youtube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/@TheNewAtlas
Telegram: t.me/brianlovethailand
The question arises, who actually drives this agenda, this policy that doesn’t change. Pepe Escobar, whom I have also followed for years talked about the ‘real decision makers’, in an interview he gave with Danny Haiphong. He makes many interesting points in it. At the end he refers to this group, which I would have to describe as a cabal.
..two of my best sources in uh in Washington, they are now out of Washington. They are these are OGs. These are the original gangsters. These are the ultra hardcore people in the old school um Intel community. And um it’s very interesting because they always commented on my articles on Asia when I was with Asia Times especially and a lot of people uh in the intel community in in DC or in the belt they used to read Asia Times and they were telling me look uh you’re being too naive.It doesn’t matter who’s president. It doesn’t matter anything. It’s the same old people. They are totally invisible who control and run the show all the time. And these guys had met these people and they had worked with these people and of course and they were always telling me look you never see them. The decisions are not made in public. The decisions are made in exclusive meetings in lavish clubs across the east coast or maybe dinners at the Harvard club in New York and that’s it. It’s extremely private. Nobody has access only them and they decide what comes next.
The Roots of the Agenda
The short answer is, the United States is Addicted to War
I maintain that ‘All we are is the result of what we have thought’. Given the fact that the United States started as colonies of the British, and that the whole conquest of the Western Hemisphere came from Europe, I looked at Howard Zinn’s People History of the United States. I ask the question, ‘is there any connection between the genocide ongoing in Gaza and the settler colonial state of Israel, the ongoing hostility to Russia, China, Iran, and other countries currently in US crosshairs?
What follows are excerpts from Zinn’s seminal work. By the way, President Trump wants to suppress this book because it goes against his ideas of the US are.
The Seeds of US ‘Endless War Abroad’.
Behind the English invasion of North America, behind their massacre of Indians, their deception, their brutality, was that special powerful drive born in civilizations based on private property. It was a morally ambiguous drive; the need for space, for land, was a real human need. But in conditions of scarcity, in a barbarous epoch of history ruled by competition, this human need was transformed into the murder of whole peoples. ….. This is one of the gods of New England, which the living and most high Eternal will destroy and famish.
Terrorism Against Defenseless People as War Tactic
The English developed a tactic of warfare used earlier by Cortés and later, in the twentieth century, even more systematically: deliberate attacks on noncombatants for the purpose of terrorizing the enemy. This is ethnohistorian Francis Jennings’s interpretation of Captain John Mason’s attack on a Pequot village on the Mystic River near Long Island Sound: “Mason proposed to avoid attacking Pequot warriors, which would have overtaxed his unseasoned, unreliable troops. Battle, as such, was not his purpose. Battle is only one of the ways to destroy an enemy’s will to fight. Massacre can accomplish the same end with less risk, and Mason had determined that massacre would be his objective.” So the English set fire to the wigwams of the village.
Who Is Civilized and Who Is Not?
One fact disturbed: whites would run off to join Indian tribes, or would be captured in battle and brought up among the Indians, and when this happened the whites, given a chance to leave, chose to stay in the Indian culture. Indians, having the choice, almost never decided to join the whites. Hector St. Jean Crevecoeur, the Frenchman who lived in America for almost twenty years, told, in Letters from an American Farmer, how children captured during the Seven Years’ War and found by their parents, grown up and living with Indians, would refuse to leave their new families. “There must be in their social bond,” he said, “something singularly captivating, and far superior to anything to be boasted among us; for thousands of Europeans are Indians, and we have no examples of even one of those Aborigines having from choice become Europeans.” P 38
Genocide and Ethnic Expulsion as National Policy
And so, Indian Removal, as it has been politely called, cleared the land for white occupancy between the Appalachians and the Mississippi, cleared it for cotton in the South and grain in the North, for expansion, immigration, canals, railroads, new cities, and the building of a huge continental empire clear across to the Pacific Ocean. The cost in human life cannot be accurately measured, in suffering not even roughly measured. Most of the history books given to children pass quickly over it. Statistics tell the story. We find these in Michael Rogin’s Fathers and Children: In 1790, there were 3,900,000 Americans, and most of them lived within 50 miles of the Atlantic Ocean. By 1830, there were 13 million Americans, and by 1840, 4,500,000 had crossed the Appalachian Mountains into the Mississippi Valley—that huge expanse of land crisscrossed by rivers flowing into the Mississippi from east and west. In 1820, 120,000 Indians lived east of the Mississippi. By 1844, fewer than 30,000 were left. Most of them had been forced to migrate westward. But the word “force” cannot convey what happened.
How Native Americans Feel about It
I fought hard. But your guns were well aimed…. My warriors fell around me. . . . Black Hawk. . . . He is now a prisoner to the white men. . . . He has done nothing for which an Indian ought to be ashamed. He has fought for his countrymen, the squaws and papooses, against white men, who came year after year, to cheat them and take away their lands. You know the cause of our making war. It is known to all white men. They ought to be ashamed of it. Indians are not deceitful. The white men speak bad of the Indian and look at him spitefully . But the Indian does not tell lies. Indians do not steal. An Indian who is as bad as the white men could not live in our nation; he would be put to death, and eaten up by the wolves. The white men are bad schoolmasters; they carry false books, and deal in false actions; they smile in the face of the poor Indian to cheat him; they shake them by the hand to gain their confidence, to make them drunk, to deceive them, and ruin our wives. We told them to leave us alone, and keep away from us; they followed on, and beset our paths, and they coiled themselves among us, like the snake. They poisoned us by their touch. We were not safe. We lived in danger. We were becoming like them, hy pocrites and liars, adulterous lazy drones, all talkers and no workers.
History of White Man’s Perfidity
Brothers! I have listened to many talks from our great white father. When he first came over the wide waters, he was but a little man . . . very little. His legs were cramped by sitting long in his big boat, and he begged for a little land to light his fire on. . . . But when the white man had warmed himself before the Indians’fire and filled himself with their hominy, he became very large. With a step he bestrode the mountains, and his feet covered the plains and the valley s. His hand grasped the eastern and the western sea, and his head rested on the moon. Then he became our Great Father. He loved his red children, and he said, “Get a little further, lest I tread on thee.” Brothers! I have listened to a great many talks from our great father. But they alway s began and ended in this—“Get a little further; y ou are too near me.”
The Seeds of US ‘Endless War Abroad’.
Behind the English invasion of North America, behind their massacre of Indians, their deception, their brutality, was that special powerful drive born in civilizations based on private property. It was a morally ambiguous drive; the need for space, for land, was a real human need. But in conditions of scarcity, in a barbarous epoch of history ruled by competition, this human need was transformed into the murder of whole peoples. Roger Williams said it was a depraved appetite after the great vanities, dreams and shadows of this vanishing life, great portions of land, land in this wilderness, as if men were in as great necessity and danger for want of great portions of land, as poor, hungry, thirsty seamen have, after a sickand stormy, a long and starving passage. This is one of the gods of New England, which the living and most high Eternal will destroy and famish.
Terrorism Against Defenseless People as War Tactic
The English developed a tactic of warfare used earlier by Cortés and later, in the twentieth century, even more systematically: deliberate attacks on noncombatants for the purpose of terrorizing the enemy. This is ethnohistorian Francis Jennings’s interpretation of Captain John Mason’s attack on a Pequot village on the Mystic River near Long Island Sound: “Mason proposed to avoid attacking Pequot warriors, which would have overtaxed his unseasoned, unreliable troops. Battle, as such, was not his purpose. Battle is only one of the ways to destroy an enemy’s will to fight. Massacre can accomplish the same end with less risk, and Mason had determined that massacre would be his objective.” So the English set fire to the wigwams of the village.
Who Is Civilized and Who Is Not?
One fact disturbed: whites would run off to join Indian tribes, or would be captured in battle and brought up among the Indians, and when this happened the whites, given a chance to leave, chose to stay in the Indian culture. Indians, having the choice, almost never decided to join the whites. Hector St. Jean Crevecoeur, the Frenchman who lived in America for almost twenty years, told, in Letters from an American Farmer, how children captured during the Seven Years’ War and found by their parents, grown up and living with Indians, would refuse to leave their new families. “There must be in their social bond,” he said, “something singularly captivating, and far superior to anything to be boasted among us; for thousands of Europeans are Indians, and we have no examples of even one of those Aborigines having from choice become Europeans.”
Genocide and Ethnic Expulsion as National Policy
And so, Indian Removal, as it has been politely called, cleared the land for white occupancy between the Appalachians and the Mississippi, cleared it for cotton in the South and grain in the North, for expansion, immigration, canals, railroads, new cities, and the building of a huge continental empire clear across to the Pacific Ocean. The cost in human life cannot be accurately measured, in suffering not even roughly measured. Most of the history books given to children pass quickly over it. Statistics tell the story. We find these in Michael Rogin’s Fathers and Children: In 1790, there were 3,900,000 Americans, and most of them lived within 50 miles of the Atlantic Ocean. By 1830, there were 13 million Americans, and by 1840, 4,500,000 had crossed the Appalachian Mountains into the Mississippi Valley—that huge expanse of land crisscrossed by rivers flowing into the Mississippi from east and west. In 1820, 120,000 Indians lived east of the Mississippi. By 1844, fewer than 30,000 were left. Most of them had been forced to migrate westward. But the word “force” cannot convey what happened.
How Native Americans Feel about It
I fought hard. But your guns were well aimed. The bullets flew like birds in the air, and whizzed by our ears like the wind through the trees in the winter. My warriors fell around me. . . . The sun rose dim on us in the morning, and at night it sunk in a dark cloud, and looked like a ball of fire. That was the last sun that shone on Black Hawk. . . . He is now a prisoner to the white men. . . . He has done nothing for which an Indian ought to be ashamed. He has fought for his countrymen, the squaws and papooses, against white men, who came y ear after y ear, to cheat them and take away their lands. You know the cause of our making war. It is known to all white men. They ought to be ashamed of it. Indians are not deceitful. The white men speak bad of the Indian and look at him spitefully . But the Indian does not tell lies. Indians do not steal. An Indian who is as bad as the white men could not live in our nation; he would be put to death, and eaten up by the wolves. The white men are bad schoolmasters; they carry false books, and deal in false actions; they smile in the face of the poor Indian to cheat him; they shake them by the hand to gain their confidence, to make them drunk, to deceive them, and ruin our wives. We told them to leave us alone, and keep away from us; they followed on, and beset our paths, and they coiled themselves among us, like the snake. They poisoned us by their touch. We were not safe. We lived in danger. We were becoming like them, hy pocrites and liars, adulterous lazy drones, all talkers and no workers.
History of White Man’s Perfidity
Brothers! I have listened to many talks from our great white father. When he first came over the wide waters, he was but a little man . . . very little. His legs were cramped by sitting long in his big boat, and he begged for a little land to light his fire on. . . . But when the white man had warmed himself before the Indians’fire and filled himself with their hominy, he became very large. With a step he bestrode the mountains, and his feet covered the plains and the valley s. His hand grasped the eastern and the western sea, and his head rested on the moon. Then he became our Great Father. He loved his red children, and he said, “Get a little further, lest I tread on thee.” Brothers! I have listened to a great many talks from our great father. But they always began and ended in this—“Get a little further; you are too near me.”
Building the Empire Beyond US Borders
Theodore Roosevelt wrote to a friend in the year 1897: “In strict confidence . . . I should welcome
almost any war, for I think this country needs one.”
The year of the massacre at Wounded Knee, 1890, it was officially declared by the Bureau of the
Census that the internal frontier was closed. The profit system, with its natural tendency for
expansion, had already begun to look overseas. The severe depression that began in 1893
strengthened an idea developing within the political and financial elite of the country: that overseas
markets for American goods might relieve the problem of underconsumption at home and prevent the
economic crises that in the 1890s brought class war.
And would not a foreign adventure deflect some of the rebellious energy that went into strikes and
protest movements toward an external enemy? Would it not unite people with government, with the
armed forces, instead of against them? This was probably not a conscious plan among most of the
elite—but a natural development from the twin drives of capitalism and nationalism.When the United States did not annex Hawaii in 1893 after some Americans (the combined
missionary and pineapple interests of the Dole family) set up their own government, Roosevelt called
this hesitancy “a crime against white civilization.” And he told the Naval War College: “All the great
masterful races have been fighting races. . . . No triumph of peace is quite so great as the supreme
triumph of war.” Roosevelt was contemptuous of races and nations he considered inferior. When a mob in New
Orleans lynched a number of Italian immigrants, Roosevelt thought the United States should offer the
Italian government some remuneration, but privately he wrote his sister that he thought the lynching
was “rather a good thing” and told her he had said as much at a dinner with “various dago diplomats .
. . all wrought up by the lynching.
Race and Imperialism
Back home, while the war against the Filipinos was going on, a group of Massachusetts Negroes addressed a message to President McKinley: We the colored people of Massachusetts in mass meeting assembled . . . have resolved to address ourselves to you in an open letter, notwithstanding your extraordinary , y our incomprehensible silence on the subject of our wrongs. . . . . . . you have seen our sufferings, witnessed from your high place our awful wrongs and miseries, and y et y ou have at no time and on no occasion opened your lips on our behalf. . . . With one accord, with an anxiety that wrenched our hearts with cruel hopes and fears, the Colored people of the United States turned to y ou when Wilmington, North Carolina was held for two dreadful days and nights in the clutch of a bloody revolution; when Negroes, guilty of no crime except the color of their skin and a desire to exercise the rights of their American citizenship, were butchered like dogs in the streets of that ill-fated town . . . for want of federal aid, which y ou would not and did not furnish. . . . It was the same thing with that terrible ebullition of mob spirit at Phoenix, South Carolina, when black men were hunted and murdered, and white men [these were white radicals in Phoenix] shot and driven out of that place by a set of white savages. . . . We looked in vain for some word or some act from you. . . . And when y ou made y our Southern tour a little later, and we saw how cunningly y ou catered to Southern race prejudice. . . . How you preached patience, industry, moderation to your long-suffering black fellow citizens, and patriotism, jingoism and imperialism to y our white ones.
Is Modern Capitalism More Civilized than Savages?
..the fact that modern man lives more wretchedly than the cave-man, and that his producing power is a thousand times greater than that of the cave-man, no other conclusion is possible than that the capitalist class has mismanaged . . . criminally and selfishly mismanaged. And with this attack, the vision: Let us not destroy those wonderful machines that produce efficiently and cheaply. Let us control them. Let us profit by their efficiency and cheapness. Let us run them for ourselves. That, gentlemen, is socialism.
Premonitions of Fascism
The Iron Heel, by Jack London
- The “Iron Heel”:
This term refers to a powerful oligarchy of monopolistic capitalists who seize control of the government to prevent socialist movements from gaining power. They use secret police, mercenaries, and propaganda to terrorize the population and suppress dissent. This was a novel by famous socialist writer, Jack London. He was literally a child of the streets, self educated to become on the most influential writers of the turn of the century, and early 1900’s.
- Class struggle:
The book details the growing divide between the wealthy elite and the impoverished working class, focusing on themes of labor exploitation, social inequality, and violent conflict.
- Avis’s role:
Initially a member of the upper class, Avis becomes a key participant in the socialist resistance, ultimately going undercover within the Iron Heel’s intelligence agency. Her manuscript is hidden just before she is arrested, intended as a record of the struggle for future generations.
- Historical predictions:
Published in 1908, the novel is considered one of the first dystopian novels and was prophetic in its portrayal of early 20th-century fascism, including elements like propaganda, secret police, and the suppression of political opposition.
- The ending:
The manuscript ends abruptly, but the framing story reveals that the socialist revolution ultimately fails, and the Iron Heel’s brutal rule continues for centuries, leading to a long and violent struggle for a more equitable society.
According to Encyclopedia Brittanica:
The Iron Heel is presented as a parable of fascism in the 20th century. But isn’t the same struggle between oligarchy and the rest of the people ongoing now in 2025?
The Iron Heel, a novel by Jack London, published in 1908, portrays a future where the United States succumbs to a cruel fascist dictatorship controlled by monopoly capitalists. These so-called plutocrats, fearing the rise of socialism, undermine democracy and terrorize citizens through their secret police and military.
The idea of a struggle between an oligarchy and the general population remains relevant. Oligarchy is defined as a government in which a small, privileged group exercises despotic power for corrupt or selfish purposes. Some political scientists argue that the contemporary United States is an oligarchy or a plutocracy because its great inequality of wealth and income enables economic elites and corporations to influence public policy to their advantage, often against the preferences of the majority of ordinary citizens. The economic inequality in the United States has been increasing since the late 1970s and is now far greater than in most other developed countries . The economic inequality in the United States has been increasing since the late 1970s and is now far greater than in most other developed countries.
The Case of WWI—A War to End All Wars. Or Just another Wall Street War?
[Historian Richard] Hofstadter wrote of “economic necessities” behind Wilson’s war policy. In 1914 a serious recession had begun in the United States. J. P. Morgan later testified: “The war opened during a period of hard times. . . . Business throughout the country was depressed, farm prices were deflated, unemployment was serious, the heavy industries were working far below capacity and bank clearings were off.” But by 1915, war orders for the Allies (mostly England) had stimulated the economy, and by April 1917 more than $2 billion worth of goods had been sold to the Allies. As Hofstadter says: “America became bound up with the Allies in a fateful union of war and prosperity.” Prosperity depended much on foreign markets, it was believed by the leaders of the country. In 1897, the private foreign investments of the United States amounted to $700 million dollars. By 1914 they were $31⁄2 billion. Wilson’s Secretary of State, William Jennings Bryan, while a believer in neutrality in the war, also believed that the United States needed overseas markets; in May of 1914 he praised the President as one who had “opened the doors of all the weaker countries to an invasion of American capital and American enterprise.”
The United States fitted that idea of Du Bois. American capitalism needed international rivalry— and periodic war—to create an artificial community of interest between rich and poor, supplanting the genuine community of interest among the poor that showed itself in sporadic movements. How conscious of this were individual entrepreneurs and statesmen? That is hard to know. But their actions, even if half-conscious, instinctive drives to survive, matched such a scheme. And in 1917 this demanded a national consensus for war.
The Price of War on Civil Liberties
Schools and universities discouraged opposition to the war. At Columbia University, J. McKeen Cattell, a psychologist, a long-time critic of the Board of Trustees’ control of the university, and an opponent of the war, was fired. A week later, in protest, the famous historian Charles Beard resigned from the Columbia faculty, charging the trustees with being “reactionary and visionless in politics, narrow and medieval in religion. . . .”
Emma Goldman and her fellow anarchist, Alexander Berkman (he had already been locked up
fourteen years in Pennsylvania; she had served a year on Blackwell’s Island), were sentenced to
prison for opposing the draft. She spoke to the jury:
Verily, poor as we are in democracy how can we give of it to the world? . . . a democracy conceived in the military servitude of the masses, in their economic enslavement, and nurtured in their tears and blood, is not democracy at all. It is
despotism—the cumulative result of a chain of abuses which, according to that dangerous document, the Declaration of Independence, the people have the right to overthrow. . . .
A Precursor to the Crushing of the Occupy Movement?
In early September 1917, Department of Justice agents made simultaneous raids on forty-eight
IWW meeting halls across the country, seizing correspondence and literature that would become
courtroom evidence…The jury found them all guilty. The judge sentenced Haywood and fourteen others to twenty years in
prison; thirty-three were given ten years, the rest shorter sentences. They were fined a total of
$2,500,000. The IWW was shattered. Haywood jumped bail and fled to revolutionary Russia, where
he remained until his death ten years later.
The Palmer Raids
In January 1920, four thousand persons were rounded up all over the country, held in seclusion for
long periods of time, brought into secret hearings, and ordered deported. In Boston, Department of
Justice agents, aided by local police, arrested six hundred people by raiding meeting halls or by
invading their homes in the early morning. A troubled federal judge described the process:Pains were taken to give spectacular publicity to the raid, and to make it appear that there was great and imminent public danger. . . . The arrested aliens, in most instances perfectly quiet and harmless working people, many of them not long
ago Russian peasants, were handcuffed in pairs, and then, for the purposes of transfer on trains and through the streets of Boston, chained together.
The Case of Sacco and Vanzetti
Two workers, both anarchists, were arrested and framed for the death of another anarchist, whom the FBI claimed committed suicide after being held by the FBI. More likely, he was pushed out of a window. But Sacco and Vanzetti were charged with the death, tried and electrocuted, despite massive protests.
I wonder how many people know about the history of class war going on in the US post WWI.
The Price of World War I in Blood
The war ended in November 1918. Fifty thousand American soldiers had died, and it did not take
long, even in the case of patriots, for bitterness and disillusionment to spread through the country.
This was reflected in the literature of the postwar decade. John Dos Passos, in his novel 1919, wrote
of the death of John Doe:
In the tarpaper morgue at Chalons-sur-Marne in the reek of chloride of lime and the dead, they picked out the pine box that held all that was left of . . . John Doe. . . .
. . . the scraps of dried viscera and skin bundled in khaki
they took to Chalons-sur-Marne
and laid it out neat in a pine coffin
and took it home to God’s Country on a battleship
and buried it in a sarcophagus in the Memorial Amphitheatre in the Arlington National Cemetery
and draped the Old Glory over it
and the bugler played taps
and Mr. Harding prayed to God and the diplomats and the generals and the admirals and the brass hats and the politicians and the handsomely dressed ladies out of the society column of the Washington Post stood up solemn
and thought how beautiful sad Old Glory God’s Country it was to have the bugler play taps and the three volleys made their ears ring.
Where his chest ought to have been they pinned the Congressional Medal. . .
WWII
Hitler was coached by a US handler, the Dulles brothers, who became Secretary of State and first head of the CIA both did either legal work or actively collaborated with the Nazis. Prescott Bush, grandfather of Dubya Bush, was banker and investor in Nazi enterprises, including companies that used slave labor. They wanted to use Germany as a proxy against the Soviet Union. It was only when Hitler went rogue, that they allied with the Soviet Union–temporarily.
Think about WWII. My own stepfather lost an eye. In retrospect, it was clear he suffered from undiagnosed and untreated Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. Violent outbursts, fascination with guns, mistreatment of his sons (and my mother), chain smoking, alcohol and early death.
Post WWII
Franklin Delano Roosevelt had rather good relations with Joseph Stalin. He wanted to dismantle the whole system of colonialism, along with his Vice President, Henry Wallace, who had sympathies with socialism. However, Wallace was denied renomination at the 1944 Democratic Convention, and suggestible and manipulable Harry Truman was foisted on the Democratic Party, despite overwhelming support for Wallace.
US policy to the Soviet Union under FDR abruptly changed. Truman implicitly threatened Stalin with the atomic bomb. Meanwhile, having been saved from German invasion by the victorious Soviet Union, the British leader, determined to hold onto the British empire, plotted to reinvade the USSR in Operation Unthinkable (which was abandoned as impractical). However Churchill fomented the Cold War.
The End of the Soviet Union and Roots of the Current Crisis
The final chapters in Zinn’s book deal with the Clinton Presidency and the Bush years. Apparently, Zinn dropped the ball in this regard. He doesn’t mention the deliberate destruction of Yugoslavia by the US and NATO, he doesn’t mention Yeltsin’s stolen election in 1996, and he overlooks the fact that the CIA was using Islamic terrorists in Chechnya–the same ones that Bush would fight post September 11th. Apparently, Russia had no right to put down a terrorist insurgency in its own territory, but the United States went all the way to Afghanistan to fight the same people (whom it was secretly funding and supporting!)
But it seemed that the Clinton administration, like so many before it (Truman in Korea, Johnson in
Vietnam, Bush in the Gulf War) chose military solutions when diplomatic ones were possible.
Clinton didn’t want diplomatic solutions, which is why the Russians describe the US foreign policy estabishment as “Nonagreement capable”–incapable of negotiating sincerely. It either negotiates insincerely, or it breaks treaties it negotiated, such as the ABM, INF, Open Skies, JCPOA
Perhaps Zinn did not see what was unfolding, which Escobar brilliantly explains in his book, Empire of Chaos
Empire of Chaos – where a plutocracy progressively projects its own internal disintegration upon the whole world….”Incrementally, I have been arguing that Washington’s number one objective now is to prevent a full economic integration of Eurasia that would leave the U.S. as a non-hegemon, or worse still, an outsider. Thus the three-pronged strategy of “pivoting to Asia” (containment of China); Ukraine (containment of Russia); and beefing up NATO (subjugation of Europe, and NATO as Global Robocop).“Book the ultimate trip to the Empire of Chaos, and see how the U.S. – and the West – are tackling the emergence of a multipolar world
Conclusion
In this article and its accompanying video, I explain the historical roots of US Empire, and its obsessive compulsive need to either dominate or destroy countries that refuse to accept US hegemony.
In my next article, I explain, drawing heavily on Aaron Good’s book American Exception how the US state has been structured to meet the needs of the US political class in the post WWII, post Soviet Union and emerging Multipolar World.
***********************************
. So if possible please help out. I will never charge for access, because ‘Truth is Priceless”. But if you’d like to help out, you can do it in different ways.
You can visit one of my shops where you can get an Awareness Building Item.
Use the items as conversation starter.
Or you can donate through my paypal email address, e_arnow@yahoo.com
Or on Substack