Tag Archives: US empire

Will Whites Support A Globalist American Empire That Picks Fights Abroad and Wars Against Them At Home? by James Kirkpatrick

Much of the military that Biden administration interventionists are counting on to maintain the American empire come from the group the Biden administration is doing its best to demonize and cancel. Wonder how that will work out. From James Kirkpatrick at unz.com:

The American Ruling Class is deliberately attacking the country’s core demographic group at just the same time that it is picking fights with major powers like Russia, China, and even Turkey. The Biden Administration is demonizing whites as the main domestic threat and is developing a complicated racial caste system that punishes whites for their mere existence. Currently, an indebted, belligerent, imperialist U.S. is being propped up by naïve, well-meaning whites. But unless whites are treated better within this bizarre postmodern imperium, they will cease to identify with it and will focus on building alternatives here at home.

Of course, we must give credit where credit is due—Joe Biden is supposedly going to end America’s longest war, something President Trump tried but failed to achieve [Biden tells Americans ‘we cannot continue the cycle’ in Afghanistan as he announces troop withdrawal, by Anne Gearan, Karen DeYoung, and Tyler Pager, Washington Post, April 14, 2021]. Yet even this claim requires skepticism. Biden’s action leaves open a door for renewed commitment if there is violence this spring [Joe Biden Isn’t Ending the War in Afghanistan, by Branko Marcetic, Jacobin, April 16, 2021].

However, even bringing the troops home is certain to be coupled with a movement to bring Afghani “refugees”—and their resentments and grievances—to America [The US Must Help Afghans Who Helped It, by James Schwemlein and Earl Anthony Wayne, The Diplomat, April 8, 2021]. To make a comparison to black Americans’ “Double V” campaign in World War II, symbolizing Victory in war and increased Civil Rights, white Americans today get to suffer a “Double L”—losing wars overseas and Constitutional rights at home.

The unwinnable war abroad ends in a debacle that will probably bring the Taliban back to power and saddle America with refugees. Those who think such refugees will be filled with gratitude need only reference our experiences with the Hmong, the endless waves of Central Americans, or, for that matter, Rep. Ilhan Omar. Bottom line: we have been defeated abroad and occupied at home.

Continue reading→

China Rises in Latin America as Sun Sets on the Monroe Doctrine, by Martin Sieff

China has quietly made substantial inroads into Latin America. From Martin Sieff at strategic-culture.org:

China’s rise in trade, business and influence in Latin America has been comparatively ignored. But it is happening. It is real.

China is rapidly surpassing the United States as the most influential nation across Latin America, in the U.S.’s own backyard. This is not a boast by the Chinese government. It is the considered assessment of the five star admiral who heads U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) in his testimony on March 16 to the SenatUe Armed Services Committee.

For almost 200 years since President James Monroe first adumbrated it in a regular message to Congress in December 1823, successive generations of U.S. policymakers and the American people have taken it for granted that the entire vast continent of South America, as well as giant Mexico, the small and much-put-upon nations of Central American and the Caribbean have been and should always remain the United States’ backyard, with all the supposedly evil and repressive powers of the Old World kept out of them — in the sacred names, of course, of Democracy, Freedom and Free Trade.

In fact, with the exception of a handful all too brief eras of genuine shining idealism and goodwill under Presidents Ulysses S. Grant (1869-77), Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-45) and John F. Kennedy (1961-63), U.S. domination of the Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking Western Hemisphere has been characterized, not by benign neglect but rather by a monstrously malign attention.

Continue reading→

Consent That’s Manufactured By Propaganda Is Not Informed Consent, by Caitlin Johnstone

Informed consent and fraud are mutually exclusive. From Caitlin Johnstone at caitlinjohnstone.com:

A new Twitter post by Secretary of State Tony Blinken reads as follows:

“We will never hesitate to use force when American lives and vital interests are at stake, but we will do so only when the objectives are clear and achievable, consistent with our values and laws, and with the American people’s informed consent – together with diplomacy.”

Like pretty much everything ever said by Blinken, and indeed by every US secretary of state, this is an absolute lie.

Firstly, US military force is never used to protect “American lives” in modern times, unless you count the lives of US troops and mercenaries in foreign lands they have no business occupying in the first place. The US military is never used to defend American lives against an invading enemy force; that simply does not happen in our current world order. It is only ever used to protect the agenda of unipolar planetary domination, which would be the “vital interests” which Blinken obliquely refers to above.

Secondly, Blinken’s claim that the Biden administration will never use military force without “the American people’s informed consent” has already been blatantly invalidated by Biden’s airstrikes on Syria last month. The American people never gave their consent to those airstrikes, informed or uninformed. A nation the US invaded (Syria) was bombed because troops are being attacked in a second nation the US invaded (Iraq) on the completely unproven claim that a third country against whom the US is currently waging economic warfare (Iran) supported those attacks. At no time were the people asked for their consent to this, and at no time was any attempt made to ensure that they were informed of the situation before it happened.

Continue reading→

China’s Real Threat Is to America’s Ruling Ideology, by Richard Hanania

If China can achieve the kind of development it has while keeping its people subdued, it offers the world another model than US “exceptionalism,” which often isn’t all that exceptional. From Richard Hanania at palladiummag.com:

U.S. Department of State/Chinese President Xi Delivers Remarks at a State Luncheon in His Honor at the State Department

Across the political spectrum, there is widespread agreement that America must get serious about the threat posed by China. As the Trump administration comes to a close, the State Department has just released a document called ‘The Elements of the China Challenge’. A distillation of conventional wisdom among national security experts and government officials, it argues that the U.S. needs a concerted effort to push back against Beijing. On its first page, the document tells us that “the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has triggered a new era of great-power competition.” If there was a major intellectual thread running through Trump’s foreign policy, or at least that of the people he appointed, it was that confronting China was the national security issue of our time. America during the Trump era was single-minded in its focus on turning up the pressure on Beijing, including unprecedented support for Taiwan, sending ships more often through the South China Sea, and attempting to stop the spread of the telecom giant Huawei.

The idea of the China threat will not end with the Trump administration. Michèle Flournoy, once thought to be the frontrunner to become Biden’s Secretary of Defense, argued in Foreign Affairs that the U.S. has not been steadfast enough in its military commitments in East Asia. Sometimes, great power competition is presented as an imperative of history; in the formulation of Graham Allison, a former Pentagon official and the current professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, the two powers are involved in a “Thucydides Trap.” Looking at the last 500 years of world history, Allison believes that when the ambitions of a rising power conflict with those of an established power, war becomes likely.

Continue reading→

The World Has Gone Absolutely Insane! by the Saker

There may be some residual sanity out there, but you have to look pretty hard for it. From the Saker at unz.com:

We all know that we are living in crazy, and dangerous, times, yet I can’t help being awed at what the imperial propaganda machine (aka the legacy ziomedia) is trying to make us all swallow. The list of truly batshit crazy stuff we are being told to believe is now very long, and today I just want to pick on a few of my “favorites” (so to speak).

First, of course, comes the “Novichok Reloaded” scandal around the alleged poisoning of the so-called “dissident” Alexei Navalnyi. I already mentioned this absolutely ridiculous story once, so I won’t repeat it all here. I just want to mention a few very basic facts:

  • Navalnyi is pretty much a discredited non-entity in Russia. “Putin” (because this is how the imperial propaganda machine always personalizes the evils of Russia: “Putin” did this or that, as if Putin was personally in every alleged Russian evil deed) had absolutely and exactly zero reasons to harm Navalnyi in any way. I would even add that IF Navalnyi was poisoned in Russia (which I do not believe) then the FSB screwed up by not offering him 24/7 protection, especially in the current political climate (i.e. struggle for the completion of North Stream 2).
  • The Empire always likes to produce a “sacrificial lamb” to symbolize the putative evil of the nation which dares to resist. In Iran it was Neda, in Kuwait the infamous “incubator babies”, in Syria anonymous kids killed by Russian gas, and in Russia it was Nemtsov (did not really work) and now Navalnyi (I wonder who the sacrificial lamb will be in Belarus (Tikhanovskaia?). The FSB should have seen this coming, especially after Nemtsov.

Continue reading→

When Should the US Go to War? by Doug Bandow

Remember the good old days when the watchwords of US foreign policy were: avoid foreign entanglements. Those days are long gone, but they should be reinstated. From Doug Bandow at antiwar.com:

The U.S. is the most militarized and warlike nation on earth. Most Americans don’t think of their nation that way. Indeed, stating this fact often generates anger and outrage. However, what other state has gone to war so often since the Cold War ended? Certainly not the countries most likely to be on the Right’s “to bomb” list – China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Syria, or Venezuela, individually or collectively.

The tally of nations droned, bombed, invaded, and/or occupied, threatened with war by the US, or attacked by other nations aided by America, over the last three decades is long: Afghanistan, Haiti, Iran, Iraq (twice!), Kenya, Libya, North Korea, Pakistan, Panama, Philippines, Serbia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Uganda, and Yemen. Others have been hit with financial war in the form of immiserating sanctions, which sometimes do as much economic damage as military action.

Many of these conflicts were small scale. However, their consequences were usually large. For instance, Iraq resulted in hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties and destabilized the entire region. Yemen is a humanitarian disaster. Afghanistan’s and Libya’s civil wars drag on. Having failed to force the Assad regime from power, US troops remain, illegally occupying Syrian oil fields in order to hinder that desperate country’s economic recovery. Threats against Iran and North Korea easily could have turned out as wars worse than Iraq.

Continue reading

The Big Skedaddle, by Jeff Thomas

Now, more than ever, productive people will go where they’re treated well. It’s a lesson the US government will learn to its sorrow. From Jeff Thomas at internationalman.com:

In the early twentieth century, there was an exodus out of Europe.

George, my paternal grandfather, looked around England, where the family had been since the eleventh century, and decided that a national fdecline had begun.

Although England was still very much an empire, it had fallen into the decline that ancient Rome had experienced before it. Where it had once expanded its possessions and profited from them, it was now spending millions of pounds maintaining them. The less profitable colonies were becoming a liability and the more profitable ones were breaking away.

In addition, the British class structure was beginning to break down. The ruling class were becoming lazy and unproductive and, increasingly, were bleeding the lower classes in order to continually expand their own idle privilege.

Worse, Britain had fallen into a seemingly never-ending series of wars. Wars have always impoverished countries, creating the necessity of increased taxation. And in the early twentieth century, all of Europe was spoiling for a war that was to become the “Great War.”

Historically, these conditions always have led to decline in a nation or empire, leaving the new generation of adults with a worse future than their antecedents had had. Continue reading

All Civilian Lives Are Equal, But Some Are More Equal Than Others, by Danny Sjursen

Foreign lives certainly don’t matter much to the US government. From Danny Sjursen at antiwar.com:

Planet Earth circa 2020: this is Orwell’s world; we’re just living in it.

Who better to resurrect in this pandemic-protest moment than a leftist so lefty he ditched a life of relative English privilege to fight Franco’s fascists in the Spanish Civil War – only to turn communist dogma’s fiercest critic and earn the ire of his former friends on the intellectual Left? After all, today’s – like Orwell’s – time of disease, rebellion, and endless war reminds one of perilous power of platitude. Old Georgie’s literary “newspeak” forebodings – “War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength” – remain relevant, naturally, but now we’ve added the reform-snuffing “All Lives Matter” to the mix.

For the sake of personal sanity, I’ll table the domestic racial justice applications of this absurd non-concept. Instead, let’s test it in another field of perennial morbidity: America’s endless imperial wars. Do all foreign lives matter? Surely at least the civilian ones should. I mean, Ellen and Michelle’s born-again-buddy George W. Bush kicked off this latest round not of expeditionary war not in the name of mere (post-9/11) counter-terror, but a veritable and fantastically grandiose “Freedom Agenda.” Only, in practice – cue Orwell’s head-shaking about universalist theories in general – Washington’s agenda has proven rather uneven to say the least. In fact, when it comes to foreign civilian lives – even the wee babes among them – Orwell’s cheeky Animal Farm wisdom consistently applies: some lives matter more than others.

Continue reading

In An Insane World, Madness Looks Moderate And Sanity Looks Radical, by Caitlin Johnstone

One sad aspect of today’s world is that it’s so insane it leads many sane people to question their own sanity. From Caitlin Johnstone at medium.com:

Image for post

There are no moderate, mainstream centrists in the US-centralized empire. They do not exist.

It’s not that moderate, mainstream centrism is an inherently impossible position. In a healthy world, that’s exactly what the predominant worldview would be. But we do not live in a healthy world.

There are no moderate, mainstream centrists anywhere in the tight alliance of nations which function as a single empire on foreign policy, because that functional empire is built upon murder, terrorism, exploitation, oppression, ecocide and the stockpiling of armageddon weapons.

People who support the status quo of this empire are called “moderates”, but, just like the so-called “moderate rebels” of Syria, they are in fact violent extremists.

Continue reading→

Doug Casey on What Happens Next for China—Collapse or War with the US?

The two alternatives presented in the title are not mutually exclusive. War has ushered in many a collapse. From Doug Casey at internationalman.com:

China Collapse

International Man: While many have been distracted by the unrest in the US, tensions with China are soaring.

Recently, Beijing passed a national security law that would undermine Hong Kong’s autonomy. What comes next for US-China relations?

Doug Casey: I lived in Hong Kong, on and off, from 1985 to 2005. When I first moved there, it was a Chinese city, but there were a lot of Western expats.

When I returned most recently, it had transformed into a Chinese city with very few expats. They’d all gone to Singapore.

What’s happening in Hong Kong is unfortunate, but frankly, it’s none of our business. Unfortunate things are happening in a hundred places around the world. You just can’t solve other people’s problems for them, nor should you try. Nobody likes a busybody.

As I’ve said so many times in the past, the US government has got to stop sticking its nose in other people’s business. The US has been acting as the world’s self-appointed cop since at least WWII, as often as not stepping in on the side of the bad guys—whether it knew it or not— and bankrupting itself while making enemies in the process.

In the case of Hong Kong, my view is that the Beijing regime is totally wrong, but it would be a disastrous error for us to get involved.

The same goes for the South and East China Seas, which were in the news a few years back. The US is sending a bunch of aircraft carriers there to show the flag, which is dangerous and provocative and none of our business. Just as it would be none of China’s business if the US decided to make the Gulf of Mexico its own private backyard sea. Should China try to contest that? Should China step in if Mexico decided the Gulf is really its territorial water?

The fact is that Chinese and US businessmen get along just fine. If the Chinese prove to be unethical or dishonest, a US business should just stop working with the firm that cheats them. Why should the US government be involved?

Continue reading