The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPepe Escobar Archive
The Making of US Empire at the Dawning of Its End
Academic Stephen Wertheim's new book shines revealing light on the birth of US global supremacy, just as it reaches its denouement
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

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”.

(Republished from Asia Times by permission of author or representative)
• Category: History • Tags: American Military, World War II 
Hide 36 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. No mention of (((Central Banking)))? Hmmmm…..

    • Agree: Fallingwater
    • Replies: @sarz
    , @Rev. Spooner
  2. Wyatt says:

    America’s own destruction began with Washington putting down the Whiskey Rebellion with federal forces. He showed firsthand the effectiveness of martial power against the citizens and set a rotting precedent.

    Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, arrested a sitting federal judge, sent troops to polling places in 1864 and put down draft riots with federal troops. He was also a railroad lawyer who pressed the government to award lucrative contracts to private companies.

    Grant was infamous for sitting down with lobbyists in hotel lobbies so he could discuss political grift and corruption while he smoked his stogies and drank whiskey, setting the stage for US military interventionism in the banana republics in South America.

    Federal Reserve Act of 1913

    Woodrow Wilson, anglophile and whore for the bankers, brought us into a war against Germany so that Wall Street wouldn’t get defaulted by France and England if they lost the war against Germany. This was done under the pretense of “democracy” even though every group involved was an imperial power who denied democracy to their imperial subjects. Germany had the smallest number of colonies, however.

    FDR, another anglophile, was a clusterfuck. First major threat of court packing because the Supreme Court was doing their job of striking down his unconstitutional actions, backstabbed his grassroots support from Father Coughlin and Huey Long by whoring out to financial interests, started numerous federal programs, one of which costs more than the military to this day, goaded the Japanese into war with treaties and negotiations that he knew they would never acquiesce to and kept going as President in 1944 despite having a heart rate of, I think it was 200+BPM

    JFK picked that disgusting pig LBJ as his running mate to secure the South, set the stage for the Cuban Missile Crisis by being a weak-kneed idiot in front of Khrushchev and accelerated the Vietnam War that Eisenhower started.

    The Civil Rights Act of 1964 abrogated the freedom of association by forcing integration which resulted in whites fleeing the rapidly ghettoizing schools and city neighborhoods and set the stage for dumb garbage like Title IX which created inroads for the feminist movement to push for more female participation in higher education which depleted the birthrates, set the stage for debt slavery through student loans and reduced the value of higher education and academics with far lower standards for entry.

    LBJ allowed the Israelis to get away with attacking the USS Liberty while he false flagged the USS Maddox in order to more fully involve the US in attacking Vietnam, signed Medicare into law and creating the other half of the anchor weighing down the federal budget to the tune of 800 billion dollars a year in 2020.

    Nixon took us off the Gold Standard and forced us into cancerous agreements with those cunts in the Middle East (the Saudis, not the Israelis), opened up China for no benefit to the US and failed to adequately respond to Watergate, setting precedent for accusatory journalism that can ruin otherwise mediocre presidencies.

    The US has shown imperial tendencies since inception and the country has been dying a slow death for the last 200 years. This article is piddly in its understanding the American Empire. Interesting that it focuses on America’s reaction to the Nazis, the de facto enemy that justifies any measure so long as it opposes them.

    • Agree: Cthulu Smith
    • Thanks: Fallingwater, St-Germain
  3. antibeast says:

    More like the making of the Hollywood Republic masquerading as the British Empire 2.0, starring the Anglo-American Cowboys whose wet dream is to carry Rudyard Kipling’s White Man’s Burden of promoting Homo Rights, Freedumb and Dumbocracy all over the world but ending up flat broke and suffering from sour grapes over the rise of China and the non-West.

    Hasta la vista, Baby!

    • Agree: GomezAdddams
  4. Kiski says:

    How naive!
    Someone is always going to rule.
    In today’s world things have been simplified. Take your pick for world leader, the USA or China.
    Escobar has chosen China but doesn’t choose to reside in China. He knows his freewheeling wouldn’t work well there.

    • Replies: @showmethereal
  5. @Wyatt

    By and large agreed (except Shays´Rebellion was before the Whiskey).

    But why would the Jews have an interest in letting it begin in 1940?
    McKinder´s Heartland Theory dates from 1904, and the Spanish-American War already showed Global Manifest Destiny ™ in full bloom …

    Ah yes, the Natzees.

  6. @Kiski

    Leading and ruling are two different things. You can lead without ruling. A leader is an example and others can follow. A ruler seeks to impose it’s will on others. Not necessarily the same. From where I sit – yes China wants to lead… But not rule. NATO countries seek to rule over everyone.

  7. @showmethereal

    China has made it clear that they wish to be the global hegemon. In short, they are intending to rule. the attitude goes back to the old middle kingdom and the chinks have no plan to abandon it.

  8. Tony Hall says:

    (((NATO countries)))

  9. @Quartermaster

    China has made it clear that they wish to be the global hegemon.

    Made it clear? So you have proof? Please show us.

    I thought it was different country that was determined on that, to be the global hegemon at any cost including war.

    See the recent article here by Pepe and Michael Hudson. It proves the opposite of what you pretend.

    • Agree: Realist
    • Replies: @Deep Thought
  10. I agree with the argument that FDR encouraged inept Churchill to bankrupt the British empire with a pointless war on Germany so that the American empire could take its place.

  11. @Quartermaster

    Mahathir bin Mohamad said:

    They (the US) are all the time containing China , threatening China , and what would be the response of China? If they ( China) are threatened, then obviously they are going to prepare themselves to face the threat.

    We have been trading with China for over 1000 years and they never tried to conquer us. The Portuguese came to trade and colonized us. When they see China strong, they think it wants to conquer the world. They say China could re-arm. We don’t think China wants to re-arm to conquer us. There are a lot of American intentions in this area.

    • Thanks: Showmethereal
  12. It probably just comes down to resources and all the ideologies are just excuses and window dressing.

    Permitting myself to boil down the big conflicts of the 20th century in similar simple terms, WW1 and WW2 were Europe’s great civil wars with a couple three twists. One being Zion. Zionists tipped the balance of power and outcome of WW1 by bringing in USA in return for the Balfour Declaration. They also dragged it out so as to be sure Palestine would fall under their control.

    The other major twist was Zion East, which beheaded and commandeered Russia, and got into the heads of China as well. Then came 24 March 1933. That was when it was announced Judea Declares War on Germany*. That, or Untermeyer’s speech later that year, was the first shot that started WW2. That is how it appears to me. So, by the time Lindbergh spoke out against American intervention, the war against Germany had already been many years in preparation.

    I suspect the mass murders on September 11, 2001, were timed symbolically to answer Lindbergh’s speech of September 11, 1941. Is any of this sort of stuff in the book?


  13. 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.

    While it’s possibly true that total world domination hadn’t been on Washington’s menu until WW2, it’s pretty obvious that they had been angling for an imperial role in the Eastern Hemisphere at least as far back as the Spanish-American War, when they acquire the Philippines–around the same time that they were helping the British Empire to quash the Boxer Rebellion in China. And then there’s the question as to why Woody Wilson was so keen on dragging us into the First World War. ‘Fascism’ was not the point at issue in that one. (Side note: Frank Roosevelt was Assistant Secretary of the Navy in the Wilson administration.)

    Personally, I locate the origin of Washington’s ‘globalism’ in the year 1890, when Alfred Thayer Mahan published The Influence of Sea Power Upon History, which sparked a rapid naval build-up in the US. Then came the Fed in 1913, and the rest was history …

    • Replies: @anonomojoe
  14. Bert says:

    Excellent summary. Thanks.

    Washington putting down the Whiskey Rebellion with federal forces

    Washington’s policy choice regarding the Whiskey Rebellion was especially egregious because, when the Revolutionary War was going badly in 1776, he had stated if the rebellion were crushed that he would find refuge in the Scots-Irish settlements west of the Appalachians.

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
  15. @Quartermaster

    “China has made it clear that they wish to be the global hegemon. In short, they are intending to rule.”
    Maybe. But, made it “clear” they want to be the hegemonic? I think that’s pushing it a bit.
    China has shown an inclination to go for win-win deals. Why?
    Because, in the long run its more profitable. Maybe they want to rule, but perhaps it maybe an enlightened benign rule.
    Of course, there’s also the fundamental rule — ie power corrupts etc etc

  16. sarz says:
    @Alfred Muscaria

    No mention of (((Central Banking)))? Hmmmm…..

    I noticed that too. I wonder when the CFR, the main actor here, went majority Jewish. Someone who looked it up in the last few decades noticed it was at that time well over seventy percent. Of the five or six players Escobar names only two are Jewish: Walter Lippmann and the main player, descended, along with his wife and another prominent predecessor, from the two notorious Jew slave traders, the Roosevelt brothers. That’s a bit far-fetched, but wasn’t a primary motive of Roosevelt’s to involve America in the war against the express wishes of the American people due to private financial pressure from tribal moneymen? (Like Churchill across the water.) And weren’t these guys the main controllers of the economy?

  17. Rahan says:

    China has made it clear that they wish to be the global hegemon. In short, they are intending to rule. the attitude goes back to the old middle kingdom and the chinks have no plan to abandon it.

    1) “made it clear that they wish to be the global hegemon” only in the way in which “Trump was obviously a fascist dictator”. I.e. just generic gibberish.
    2) “the attitude goes back to the old middle kingdom” — the “attitude of the old middle kingdom” was literally for millennia, “leave us alone, go away.” The Western empires had to wage wars, bribe officials, and get the country hooked on opium, in order to force it to interact with them.

    China today is an Asian economic and military great power, which has border issues with neighbors and internal separatist problems. Actual oceanic planetary empires pretending this is the start of world domination is beyond projection.

    Lastly, just because increasingly more people appreciate a balance of powers on the world stage, a system of checks and balances, doesn’t mean that the test should be “you can only support the existence of countries where you would choose to live”, because that’s also gibberish. How about I get to support Armenia in a proxy conflict with Turkey without having to want to spend my life in Armenia or Turkey?


    Do not allow clouds of bullshit to blot out reality, man, because that’s only fun in the short term. In the long run it always leads to tragedy.

    • Agree: Showmethereal
  18. Altai says:

    Whilst the erosion of social solidarity is going apace in the US, there is still no hope of it coming apart centrifugally, it is an internal empire now but without ancient, demographically defined homelands enough to spur secession or calls for a paring back of the FedGov.

    Thus the imperial machine will still get it’s daily grisk made more important by the decline of economic importance of the US, meaning it will have to rely more on it’s military supremacy. Indeed, the industrial military complex is the only form of industry the US hasn’t outsourced and leads in technologically. It could potentially receive more funds for R&D in an attempt to assist US industry more broadly as well as keep up with China.

    Combined with a highly motivated and defined Jewish neocon elite who have succeeded in keeping US imperialism alive as they seek to keep it as a golem for Israel with unfinished wars in the Middle East. Iran promising ‘revenge’ against Trump is funny, for all his symbolic bellicosity towards them and symbolic gestures towards Israel, he was so maligned by the US media partly because he represented a break from neocon wars for Israel in the Middle East.

    As the Biden admin, now representing the coming home of the neocons into the Democrat party, will demonstrate, reports of the death of the US empire are greatly exaggerated. If and when China is determined to be a threat to tbe US acting as Israel’s golem, expect a decisive response.

  19. @showmethereal

    There are no leaders, only rulers.

    If presidents are leaders and we should follow their example, then we want the free housing, free medical, free meals, armed security, specially augmented aircraft and cars to chauffeur us around at someone else’s cost, etc.

    Get real.

    • Agree: Realist
  20. antibeast says:

    China has made it clear that they wish to be the global hegemon. In short, they are intending to rule.

    China has made it clear that they wish to become part of a multi-polar world. In short, they intend to partner with the world.

    The attitude goes back to the old middle kingdom and the chinks have no plan to abandon it.

    The attitude goes back to the old silk road and Xi plans to revive the new silk road via the BRI.

  21. I think the intent for the exceptional nation to rule the world started a wee bit before 1940.

    Bush’s infamous “New World Order” remark was based on the phrase “Novus Ordo Seclorum” which appears on the Great Seal of the United States. Its literal translation is “the new order of the ages.” It is from a line in Book IV of the Roman poet Virgil’s Eclogues, written in the first century BC. The motto was proposed for the new nation by Charles Thompson, classical scholar and secretary of the Continental Congress. It was accepted by the Congress in 1782.

    In the original work “Novus Ordo Seclorum” was the cryptic prophecy uttered by the Cumaean Sybil that Rome was destined to rule the world. The first Roman emperor, Augustus, had commissioned Virgil to compose epics on the destiny of the Roman people in his new empire, which significance would not have been lost on the men crafting a new nation in America.

    Deep hatred of England persisted in the US for generations after the Revolution. The millions spent on constructing the mighty forts that guarded our Atlantic coastal cities were to deter attack by the world’s sole great power, England, and her mighty Royal Navy. After the German defeat of France, the victor offered England very generous peace terms, including retaining her colonies, evacuating most of occupied Europe, and a military alliance to defend against the growing imperial ambition of the United States. But FDR played Churchill like a fiddle, maneuvering him to reject the proposal and keep fighting, thereby enabling the crumbling empire to complete its suicide as a world power. FDR’s cousin Kermit reported that he witnessed FDR privately inform a surprised and horrified Winston Churchill during the Tehran conference that there would be no place in the postwar world for a British Empire.

  22. @Quartermaster

    The obviously are clueless about history. The middle kingdom always sought to keep the “barbarians” away. It has no desire to rule over them. That “yellow peril” is the white mans fear that China would do to it what the white man did to them. The Mongols arent in control of China anymore. The hordes on horseback have no desire to rule over you.

  23. @Alfred Muscaria

    Forget Central Banking or the Fed Bank, no mention of the Juice that coerced the US to turn the screws on Germany and why Germany acted the way it did.
    Come on Pepe, a side note on why this happened and who was to blame would be appreciated. A noodle for a backbone is not a good substitute.

  24. @Bert

    … and he mobilized more men against the Whiskey Rebellion than at any one time against the British; talk about priorities 😛

  25. @Ann Nonny Mouse

    I KNOW

    it was different country that was determined on that, to be the global hegemon at any cost including war.

  26. anonymous[363] • Disclaimer says:

    Its not 2003 anymore more White people understand how evil ZOG is iam glad China will butcher our tormentors did you see were allready in Syria tonkake sure the Christians there suffer😢 😡

  27. Kiski says:

    Don’t be naive. If you lead you rule. Ask China’s neighbors how it leads. Ask the Vietnamese and the uihgurs. Ask India. ask the Philippines.

  28. anon[448] • Disclaimer says:

    @2 wyatt

    Nixon took us off the Gold Standard and forced us into cancerous agreements with those cunts in the Middle East (the Saudis, not the Israelis)

    This arrangement introduced Americanization of Saudi life,politics,business,finances and militarization . Saudi looked modern with the core unreformed skeleton of religious fanatinism . Saudi also bankrolled American military forays in Latin America . Amerucan company benefitted enormously so did Amerucan empire . Oil now only to be sold in dollar meant America now owned never drying – up source of Gold . Only difference from real gold was that thus gold was more vital and essential and couid only be found in USA ( its printung machine ) . Not only that this gold could only be perked in US when held in excess by other countries . That dollar then could be used to buy other countrys resources and drive price up forcing other countriess off the market . That dollar coukd be loaned to distressed economies of third world only to render that country subject to manipulation, coup,and forced sale of the minerals commodities and of agricultural products . When extractive power dimishes, America would leave with its dollars out of the country .
    What did Saudi citizen get ? Saudi will be ruled by unelected autocrats Wahabi with the full military support of USA ( America would allow Israel , NYTimes to call Saudi autocrats and blood thirsty . That demonization was also part of the solution in case USA needed to occupy Saudi. It is easy to send marines to ‘ bad country ‘)

    Saddam did not fully embrace this econimc arrangemnet . ( see the Confession of an Economic Hitman )

    @18 altai-

    “Combined with a highly motivated and defined Jewish neocon elite who have succeeded in keeping US imperialism alive as they seek to keep it as a golem for Israel with unfinished wars in the Middle East. Iran promising ‘revenge’ against Trump is funny, for all his symbolic bellicosity towards them and symbolic gestures towards Israel, he was so maligned by the US media partly because he represented a break from neocon wars for Israel in the Middle East.”
    Press hated Trump only to enable his psychopathic behaviors ,his anti American pro – Israeli works,his pro -bBannon , pro -Miller ,pro- Kushner ,pro- settler activities and pro – corporate passage of bills. They hated his persona and not his treasonus deeds .
    Giving Golan ,allowing practically all West Bank and Jerusalem to be appropriated,helping in build more settlements,moving embassy and forcing other countries to normalize relations with Israel are not symbolic . Neither was te killing of the general and the scientists .
    He was just like his father and grand father- a degenerate humna being much worse than on ecan think of any other current politicinas .
    He is a traitor . He is one of those charecters who deems could easily moonlight as a Jonathan Polhard or Epstein or evangelical shysters .

    By the way he doesnat hate Jonathan or Epstein, He doesnt even dare to think of hating

    but “Trump Secretly Mocks His Christian Supporters
    Former aides say that in private, the president has spoken with cynicism and contempt about believers.”—

    He hates his base of ‘ deplorables ‘ also.

    His summary treatment of his supporters show that this man doesnt have what it takes to be a man ,let alone be a leader .

  29. Safenow says:

    China constructed gigantic “coast guard cutters” (12,000 tons, the size of a destroyer). This way they create a “presence” without using warships; they let-off steam. The worst-case scenario is a ramming or the exchange of small-arms fire. This is not the conduct of a nation that wishes to “rule.” A nation does not rule with rescue equipment. This signals a non-belligerent policy. One would hope that U.S. policymakers get the message.

  30. The founders went out of the way to assure our future failure if: we ignored the Republic they established and drifted into Democracy; which they denounced to a man. Well, that’s what we did and the punishment is drastic. Our hundred year romance with the very fickle goddess of the demos has caused total disrespect for the soul of our Republic: property.

    Property was the touchstone of our founders and proper maintenance and due regard was demanded. We have failed this task and the goddess is smirking as we run up more debt than any nation ever before; we ignore it’s existence and roam the world spreading the good word of the demos to all.

    While the romance continues our own demos drift into abject failure by the tens of millions and our legacy…property… is so neglected as a primary responsibility it has become as distorted as humanly possible. Watch out for those smiling goddesses!

  31. Stogumber says:

    “This is how the planners interpreted it: if Britain were the next domino to fall, totalitarianism would control Eurasia.”
    But did those planners really think in categories like “totalitarianism” – which at least for our ears is a way to lump fascism and communism together? Wasn’t Stalin the desired partner for an after-war Europe? But Stalin and communism seem to be strangely absent in Wertheim’s book.

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
  32. antibeast says:

    From where I sit – yes China wants to lead…

    The idea that China could or would want to ‘lead’ the world is non-sequitur.

    China does not want to lead the world much less rule Asia, Africa, Europe or the Americas. That was true even during the ancient and medieval periods of history when China was the most powerful Empire in the world. Instead of ‘leading’ the world, the Chinese prefer to partner with foreign States which entails recognition of and consideration for the mutual interests of both parties, resulting in either bilateral or multilateral ‘win-win’ deals.

    • Replies: @showmethereal
  33. @Digital Samizdat

    Douglas Reed’s book Controversy of Zion helps quite a bit on the Woodrow Wilson question.

    Some of the back story about the book’s completion and publication at a much later date is available at the following link, as is a free download.

  34. @Stogumber

    The Heartland Theory says more or less that no ONE power (and it doesn´t matter one whit which) must ever be allowed to control Eurasia, or the US will be reduced to an island in the offside – in essence it is a scaling of British policy vis-á-vis Europe.

    Do you still believe in fascism, communism and democracy?
    The tooth fairy has a bridge you might be interested in.

  35. @Wyatt

    If we’re following the trail towards imperialism? A few others needed?

    -Teddy Roosevelt and his Big Stick deal. Why was world stuff our business, indeed? Oh, well.

    -Manifest Destiny. The Homestead Act. Go west, young man and murder anyone in your way, right?

    There are dozens of others well worth the study, and it’s the looking back angle that shows we were on the road towards becoming Rome V2.1 all along.

  36. @antibeast

    Yeah that was the goal 10 years ago – but because another power on the opposite end of the globe has shown it will be hostile to China’s rise – they have updated their mandates. Now by 2035 the gov has said clearly they NEED to lead because if they don’t they will face constant threats and attempts at sabotage by that “other” power – who has 3 or 4 willing lackeys too

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Pepe Escobar Comments via RSS
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
Becker update V1.3.2
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
How America was neoconned into World War IV