The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPaul Craig Roberts Archive
The Neoconservative Threat to World Order
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

This week I was invited to address an important conference of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow. Scholars from Russia and from around the world, Russian government officials, and the Russian people seek an answer as to why Washington destroyed during the past year the friendly relations between America and Russia that President Reagan and President Gorbachev succeeded in establishing. All of Russia is distressed that Washington alone has destroyed the trust between the two major nuclear powers that had been created during the Reagan-Gorbachev era, trust that had removed the threat of nuclear armageddon. Russians at every level are astonished at the virulent propaganda and lies constantly issuing from Washington and the Western media. Washington’s gratuitous demonization of the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, has rallied the Russian people behind him. Putin has the highest approval rating ever achieved by any leader in my lifetime.

Washington’s reckless and irresponsible destruction of the trust achieved by Reagan and Gorbachev has resurrected the possibility of nuclear war from the grave in which Reagan and Gorbachev buried it. Again, as during the Cold War the specter of nuclear armageddon stalks the earth.

Why did Washington revive the threat of world annihilation? Why is this threat to all of humanity supported by the majority of the US Congress, by the entirety of the presstitute media, and by academics and think-tank inhabitants in the US, such as Motyl and Weiss, about whom I wrote recently?

It was my task to answer this question for the conference. You can read my February 25 and February 26 addresses below. But first you should understand what nuclear war means. You can gain that understanding here:

The Threat Posed to International Relations By The Neoconservative Ideology of American Hegemony

Address to the 70th Anniversary of the Yalta Conference, Hosted by Institutes of the Russian Academy of Sciences and Moscow State Institute of International Relations, Moscow, February 25, 2015, Hon. Paul Craig Roberts


What I propose to you is that the current difficulties in the international order are unrelated to Yalta and its consequences, but have their origin in the rise of the neoconservative ideology in the post-Soviet era and its influence on Washington’s foreign policy.

The collapse of the Soviet Union removed the only constraint on Washington’s power to act unilaterally abroad. At that time China’s rise was estimated to require a half century. Suddenly the United States found itself to be the Uni-power, the “world’s only superpower.” Neoconservatives proclaimed “the end of history.”

By the “end of history” neoconservatives mean that the competition between socio-economic-political systems is at an end. History has chosen “American Democratic-Capitalism.” It is Washington’s responsibility to exercise the hegemony over the world given to Washington by History and to bring the world in line with History’s choice of American democratic-capitalism.

In other words, Marx has been proven wrong. The future does not belong to the proletariat but to Washington.

The neoconservative ideology raises the United States to the unique status of being “the exceptional country,” and the American people acquire exalted status as “the indispensable people.”

If a country is “the exceptional country,” it means that all other countries are unexceptional. If a people are “indispensable,” it means other peoples are dispensable. We have seen this attitude at work in Washington’s 14 years of wars of aggression in the Middle East. These wars have left countries destroyed and millions of people dead, maimed, and displaced. Yet Washington continues to speak of its commitment to protect smaller countries from the aggression of larger countries. The explanation for this hypocrisy is that Washington does not regard Washington’s aggression as aggression, but as History’s purpose.

We have also seen this attitude at work in Washington’s disdain for Russia’s national interests and in Washington’s propagandistic response to Russian diplomacy.

The neoconservative ideology requires that Washington maintain its Uni-power status, because this status is necessary for Washington’s hegemony and History’s purpose.

The neoconservative doctrine of US world supremacy is most clearly and concisely stated by Paul Wolfowitz, a leading neoconservative who has held many high positions: Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Director of Policy Planning US Department of State, Assistant Secretary of State, Ambassador to Indonesia, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Deputy Secretary of Defense, President of the World Bank.

In 1992 Paul Wolfowitz stated the neoconservative doctrine of American world supremacy:

“Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.”

For clarification, a “hostile power” is a country with an independent policy (Russia, China, Iran, and formerly Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Assad).

This bold statement struck the traditional American foreign policy establishment as a declaration of American Imperialism. The document was rewritten in order to soften and disguise the blatant assertion of supremacy without changing the intent. These documents are available online, and you can examine them at your convenience.

Softening the language allowed the neoconservatives to rise to foreign policy dominance. The neoconservatives are responsible for the Clinton regime’s attacks on Yugoslavia and Serbia. Neoconservatives, especially Paul Wolfowitz, are responsible for the George W. Bush regime’s invasion of Iraq. The neoconservatives are responsible for the overthrow and murder of Gaddafi in Libya, the assault on Syria, the propaganda against Iran, the drone attacks on Pakistan and Yemen, the color revolutions in former Soviet Republics, the attempted “Green Revolution” in Iran, the coup in Ukraine, and the demonization of Vladimir Putin.


A number of thoughtful Americans suspect that the neoconservatives are responsible for 9/11, as that event gave the neoconservatives the “New Pearl Harbor” that their position papers said was necessary in order to launch their wars for hegemony in the Middle East. 9/11 led directly and instantly to the invasion of Afghanistan, where Washington has been fighting since 2001. Neoconservatives controlled all the important government positions necessary for a “false flag” attack.

Neoconservative Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, who is married to another neoconservative, Robert Kagan, implemented and oversaw Washington’s coup in Ukraine and chose the new government.

The neoconservatives are highly organized and networked, well-financed, supported by the print and TV media, and backed by the US military/security complex and the Israel Lobby. There is no countervailing power to their influence on US foreign power.

The neoconservative doctrine goes beyond the Brzezinski doctrine, which dissented from Detente and provocatively supported dissidents inside the Soviet empire. Despite its provocative character, the Brzezinski doctrine remained a doctrine of Great Power politics and containment. It is not a doctrine of US world hegemony.

While the neoconservatives were preoccupied for a decade with their wars in the Middle East, creating a US Africa Command, organizing color revolutions, exiting disarmament treaties, surrounding Russia with military bases, and “pivoting to Asia” to surround China with new air and naval bases, Vladimir Putin led Russia back to economic and military competence and successfully asserted an independent Russian foreign policy.

When Russian diplomacy blocked Washington’s planned invasion of Syria and Washington’s planned bombing of Iran, the neoconservatives realized that they had failed the “first objective” of the Wolfowitz Doctrine and had allowed “the re-emergence of a new rival . . . on the territory of the former Soviet Union” with the power to block unilateral action by Washington.

The attack on Russia began. Washington had spent $5 billion over a decade creating non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in Ukraine and cultivating Ukrainian politicians. The NGOs were called into the streets. The extreme nationalists or nazi elements were used to introduce violence, and the elected democratic government was overthrown. The intercepted conversation between Victoria Nuland and the US ambassador in Kiev, in which the two Washington operatives choose the members of the new Ukrainian government, is well known.

If the information that has recently come to me from Armenia and Kyrgyzstan is correct, Washington has financed NGOs and is cultivating politicians in Armenia and the former Soviet Central Asian Republics. If the information is correct, Russia can expect more “color revolutions” or coups in other former territories of the Soviet Union. Perhaps China faces a similar threat in Uyghurstan.

The conflict in Ukraine is often called a “civil war.” This is incorrect. A civil war is when two sides fight for the control of the government. The break-away republics in eastern and southern Ukraine are fighting a war of secession.

Washington would have been happy to use its coup in Ukraine to evict Russia from its Black Sea naval base as this would have been a strategic military achievement. However, Washington is pleased that the “Ukraine crisis” that Washington orchestrated has resulted in the demonization of Vladimir Putin, thus permitting economic sanctions that have disrupted Russia’s economic and political relations with Europe. The sanctions have kept Europe in Washington’s orbit.

Washington has no interest in resolving the Ukrainian situation. The situation can be resolved diplomatically only if Europe can achieve sufficient sovereignty over its foreign policy to act in Europe’s interest instead of Washington’s interest.

The neoconservative doctrine of US world hegemony is a threat to the sovereignty of every country. The doctrine requires subservience to Washington’s leadership and to Washington’s purposes. Independent governments are targeted for destabilization. The Obama regime overthrew the reformist government in Honduras and currently is at work destabilizing Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Argentina, and most likely also Armenia and the former Central Asian Soviet Republics.

Yalta and its consequences have to do with Great Power rivalries. But in the neoconservative doctrine, there is only one Great Power–the Uni-power. There are no others, and no others are to be permitted

Therefore, unless a modern foreign policy arises in Washington and displaces the neoconservatives, the future is one of conflict.

It would be a strategic error to dismiss the neoconservative ideology as unrealistic. The doctrine is unrealistic, but it is also the guiding force of US foreign policy and is capable of producing a world war.

In their conflict with Washington’s hegemony, Russia and China are disadvantaged. The success of American propaganda during the Cold War, the large differences between living standards in the US and those in communist lands, overt communist political oppression, at times brutal, and the Soviet collapse created in the minds of many people nonexistent virtues for the United States. As English is the world language and the Western media is cooperative, Washington is able to control explanations regardless of the facts. The ability of Washington to be the aggressor and to blame the victim encourages Washington’s march to more aggression.

This concludes my remarks. Tomorrow I will address whether there are domestic political restraints or economic restraints on the neoconservative ideology.

Paul Craig Roberts, Address to the 70th Anniversary of the Yalta Conference, Moscow, February 26, 2015


At the plenary session yesterday I addressed the threat that the neoconservative ideology poses to international relations. In this closing session I address whether there are any internal restraints on this policy from the US population and whether there are economic restraints.

Just as 9/11 served to launch Washington’s wars for hegemony in the Middle East, 9/11 served to create the American police state. The Constitution and the civil liberties it protects quickly fell to the accumulation of power in the executive branch that a state of war permitted.

New laws, some clearly pre-prepared such as the PATRIOT Act, executive orders, presidential directives, and Department of Justice memos created an executive authority unaccountable to the US Constitution and to domestic and international law.

Suddenly Americans could be detained indefinitely without cause presented to a court. Habeas corpus, a constitutional protection which prohibits any such detention, has been set aside.

Suddenly people could be tortured into confessions in violation of the right against self-incrimination and in violation of domestic and international laws against torture.

Suddenly Americans and Washington’s closest allies could be spied on indiscriminately without the need of warrants demonstrating cause.

The Obama regime added to the Bush regime’s transgressions the assertion of the right of the executive branch to assassinate US citizens without due process of law.

The police state was organized under a massive new Department of Homeland Security. Almost immediately whistleblower protections, freedom of the press and speech, and protest rights were attacked and reduced.


It was not long before the director of Homeland Security declared that the department’s focus has shifted from Muslim terrorists to “domestic extremists,” an undefined category. Anyone can be swept into this category. Homes of war protesters were raided and grand juries were convened to investigate the protesters. Americans of Arab descent who donated to charities–even charities on the State Department’s approved list–that aided Palestinian children were arrested and sentenced to prison for “providing material support to terrorism.”

All of this and more, including police brutality, has had a chilling effect on protests against the wars and the loss of civil liberty. The rising protests from the American population and from soldiers themselves that eventually forced Washington to end the Vietnam War have been prevented in the 21st century by the erosion of rights, intimidation, loss of mobility (no-fly list), job dismissal, and other heavy-handed actions inconsistent with a government accountable to law and to the people.

In an important sense, the US has emerged from the “war on terror” as an executive branch dictatorship unconstrained by the media and barely, if at all, constrained by Congress and the federal courts. The lawlessness of the executive branch has spread into governments of Washington’s vassal states and into the Federal Reserve, the International Monetary Fund, and the European Central Bank, all of which violate their charters and operate outside their legal powers.

Jobs offshoring destroyed the American industrial and manufacturing unions. Their demise and the current attack on the public employee unions has left the Democratic Party financially dependent on the same organized private interest groups as the Republicans. Both parties now report to the same interest groups. Wall Street, the military/security complex, the Israel Lobby, agribusiness, and the extractive industries (oil, mining, timber) control the government regardless of the party in power. These powerful interests all have a stake in American hegemony.

The message is that the constellation of forces preclude internal political change.

Hegemony’s Archilles heel is the US economy. The fairy tale of American economic recovery supports America’s image as the safe haven, an image that keeps the dollar’s value up, the stock market up, and interest rates down. However, there is no economic information that supports this fairy tale.

Real median household income has not grown for years and is below the levels of the early 1970s. There has been no growth in real retail sales for six years. The labor force is shrinking. The labor force participation rate has declined since 2007 as has the civilian employment to population ratio. The 5.7 percent reported unemployment rate is achieved by not counting discouraged workers as part of the work force. (A discouraged worker is a person who is unable to find a job and has given up looking.)

A second official unemployment rate, which counts short-term (less than one year) discouraged workers and is seldom reported, stands at 11.2 percent. The US government stopped including long-term discouraged workers (discouraged for more than one year) in 1994. If the long-term discouraged are counted, the current unemployment rate in the US stands at 23.2 percent.

The offshoring of American manufacturing and professional service jobs such as software engineering and Information Technology has decimated the middle class. The middle class has not found jobs with incomes comparable to those moved abroad. The labor cost savings from offshoring the jobs to Asia has boosted corporate profits, the performance bonuses of executives and capital gains of shareholders. Thus all income and wealth gains are concentrated in a few hands at the top of the income distribution. The number of billionaires grows as destitution reaches from the lower economic class into the middle class. American university graduates unable to find jobs return to their childhood rooms in their parents’ homes and work as waitresses and bartenders in part-time jobs that will not support an independent existence.

With a large percentage of the young economically unable to form households, residential construction, home furnishings, and home appliances suffer economic weakness. Cars can still be sold only because the purchaser can obtain 100 percent financing in a six-year loan. The lenders sell the loans, which are securitized and sold to gullible investors, just as were the mortgage-backed financial instruments that precipitated the 2007 US financial crash.

None of the problems that created the 2008 recession, and that were created by the 2008 recession, have been addressed. Instead, policymakers have used an expansion of debt and money to paper over the problems. Money and debt have grown much more than US GDP, which raises questions about the value of the US dollar and the credit worthiness of the US government. On July 8, 2014, my colleagues and I pointed out that when correctly measured, US national debt stands at 185 percent of GDP.

This raises the question: Why was the credit rating of Russia, a country with an extremely low ratio of debt to GDP, downgraded and not that of the US? The answer is that the downgrading of Russian credit worthiness was a political act directed against Russia in behalf of US hegemony.

How long can fairy tales and political acts keep the US house of cards standing? A rigged stock market. A rigged interest rate. A rigged dollar exchange value, a rigged and suppressed gold price. The current Western financial system rests on world support for the US dollar and on nothing more.

The problem with neoliberal economics, which pervades all countries, even Russia and China, is that neoliberal economics is a tool of American economic imperialism, as is Globalism. As long as countries targeted by Washington for destabilization support and cling to the American doctrines that enable the destabilization, the targets are defenseless.

If Russia, China, and the BRICS Bank were willing to finance Greece, Italy, and Spain, perhaps those countries could be separated from the EU and NATO. The unraveling of Washington’s empire would begin.

(Republished from by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Neoconservatives, Russia 
Hide 20 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. KA says:

    “If the information that has recently come to me from Armenia and Kyrgyzstan is correct, Washington has financed NGOs and is cultivating politicians in Armenia and the former Soviet Central Asian Republics. If the information is correct, Russia can expect more “color revolutions” or coups in other former territories of the Soviet Union. Perhaps China faces a similar threat in Uyghurstan.”
    Muslims are moron. They are the donkeys. They carry the guns,mortras,IED,and suicide bombers ,traverse difficult terrain ,and deliver death to unsuspecting muslim friendly countries .
    They dont look sideways or up to see who is riding on their back.

    Then these donkeys are killed by the rider for being muslim in different geographical areas by the drones. Before and after the drone killings, the red alerts are put out on FOX and WSJ .

  2. MarkinLA says:

    Perhaps China faces a similar threat in Uyghurstan.

    The Uyghur Autonomous Region is being overrun by Han Chinese. There will be no revolution there.

    • Replies: @Realist
    , @denk
  3. Kiza says:

    Why is Ukraine a vital US interest?

    A little bit of geography helps understand:

    1) distance Cuba to Washington is 1139 miles, or about 2 hours for the nuclear missiles of the year 1962 – this was unacceptable to Washington,

    2) distance from Hlukhiv in Ukraine to Moscow 370 miles, or about 12 minutes for the modern nuclear missiles; even the US nuclear submarines cannot get so close to Moscow.

    It is not even needed to launch the missiles on Moscow, it is sufficient just to remind the Russian government that they are 12 minutes away when the US wants something, such as for example a change of Government in Russia: Putin resignation of annihilation?

  4. KA says:

    A mature country cant go back to drawing board and learn new tactics or strategies. So it keeps on using the smae hammer for different nails which even doesnt look like nail any more .This is the fate of the empire that has reached its zenith . The elites are run through same ossified inelastic training mills and passed down up same conveyer belts to occupy powerful poistions in administration,media,militray,and academy . But it all it does is to produce advocates for solution that was appropriate 50 or 100 yrs ago ( US handling of Texas,Hawai,Phillipnie,Spanish Empire in Caribbean ,etc ..) . But it cant chnage even if it wanted.
    I doubt crazy MC cain doesnt know this . I am sure Hilary , Romnmey,Huckabee , Obama,Walker and Rubio see the reality staring out of the four walls at them and its not pretty.

  5. Sam says:


    Thanks for the great article. And thanks for explaining to the Russians who are understandably baffled. But once they understand that all 3 branches of our govt. are owned and operated by the Israeli lobbies like AIPAC, it will make sense.

    The Judaists own and operate all 3 branches of our govt. and the media. They own and operate Obama whom they installed as a Manchurian President.

    Judaists see Iran and Syria as a threat to Israel that must be eliminated, and Russia supports both of them, so they are going after Russia and Putin directly. By eliminating Putin and Russia, they believe they can then eliminate Syria and Iran, and make the Middle East totally safe for Israel, where Israel can kill and terrorize the Middle East and then the whole world with impunity.

    USA is a banana republic owned and and operated by the Judaists and Israel can thus rule the world through its proxy USA.

    Putin does have several options. He can cut off gas to Europe. He can warn Washington not to arm Ukraine and if they refuse, bomb the govt. buildings in Kiev and attack it with cruise missiles and invade it and destroy the Jewish puppet Petro Poroshenko, have him tried for his crimes and hung and take over Ukraine. He can sell nukes to Iran and have them put mines in the Striats of Hormuz. He can put missiles in Venezuela, etc. etc.

  6. Priss Factor [AKA "K. Arujo"] says:

    The answer is quite simple. So-called ‘Western media’ aren’t really controlled by most of what one would call Western Europeans and their kin(in the US). They are controlled by globalist-Zionists. So are most US politicians, and of course, EU is just a financial and political satellite of the US.

    Though Russia is no longer a superpower and hardly pose any kind of military threat to anyone, American Jews fear today’s Russia more than the USSR. Why? Because most Jews felt, correctly, that most Americans would never be won over to communism, Marxism, and etc. If anything, American Jewish involvement with radical leftism gave them a bad rap during the first stage of the Cold War. During the Cold War, the USSR stood for international revolution, coercive egalitarianism, anti-religion-ism, and collectivism-against-individualism. None of those ever appealed to any substantial segment of the US populace.

    But what does Russia stand for today? White majority rule. State and Christian Church working together. Natalism for white majority. Conservative values. Nationalism.
    These are themes and issues that can appeal to broad swathes of white Americans on the right, as well to right-leaning Europeans as well, especially as whites are getting restless with increased immigration, EU mandates, and Jewish control of many elite institutions. Russia’s resurgence as white Christian patriotic nation can inspire white gentiles in other nations.

    So, even though Russia today is far from a superpower and economically distressed, Putin-ism is seen as a greater threat to Jewish power than communism ever was, not least because communism could never appeal to most Americans.

    So, Jews have decided to make today’s Russia out to be far worse than the old USSR of Stalin.
    It’s all about, “but is it good for the Jews?”

    Indeed, if white gentiles were to gain inspiration from Russians, they would roll back the tide of the ‘gay agenda’ which has been used as a proxy of Jewish minority-elite power. Jews and homos constitute the New Normal of minority-elites ruling over majority demographics.

    • Replies: @Kevin O'Keeffe
  7. TZ says:

    6. K. Arujo

    So, even though Russia today is far from a superpower and economically distressed, Putin-ism is seen as a greater threat to Jewish power than communism ever was, not least because communism could never appeal to most Americans.

    So, Jews have decided to make today’s Russia out to be far worse than the old USSR of Stalin.
    It’s all about, “but is it good for the Jews?”

    Do you understand that early days of communism was quite Jewish? (Putin, length 1 min)

    Regarding Stalin… I continued today reading Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago. I’m sure that you’re aware that a lot of people were purged to Gulag camps. But did you know that the last ethnic group that Stalin put his eyes on were Jews according to Solzhenitsyn. Whose he was planning to mass purge to Gulags. (Some cosmopolitan Jews had already went.) The Jews never went en masse to the Gulags because by a cosmic miracle Stalin happened to die before that. Lucky coincidence isn’t it?

    • Replies: @annamaria
  8. annamaria says:

    “At a mass meeting in March 1917 to celebrate the [Russian] revolution which had then taken place, Rabbi Stephen Wise, who had succeeded Brandeis as chairman of the American Provisional Zionist Committee after Brandeis’s appointment to the Supreme Court, said: “I believe that of all the achievements of my people, none has been nobler than the part the sons and daughters of Israel have taken in the great movement which has culminated in free Russia.” [119]

  9. Realist says:

    “There will be no revolution there.”

    But not for lack of trying on the U. S. part.

  10. @Priss Factor

    “…what does Russia stand for today? White majority rule. State and Christian Church working together. Natalism for white majority. Conservative values. Nationalism.
    These are themes and issues that can appeal to broad swathes of white Americans on the right, as well to right-leaning Europeans as well…”

    Yes, and perhaps more importantly, it could appeal a great deal to those Whites who have never bothered to form much of a political identity, have never voted, are reflexively cynical, etc. About 40 percent of American Whites, don’t vote. And who can blame them? But give them something to vote FOR…

  11. Kiza says:

    A little bit off topic, but still relevant to this article. commentator actionjacksonbrownie leads the World in discovering evidence that Putin killed Nemtsov, as are constant claims by the Western media:

  12. Tom says:

    I’m not sure what makes “neoconservatives” conservative. The name seems to be a straw-man-ish attempt to have conservatives take the heat for what seems to be neo-liberal militant internationalism . Calling an internationalist cabal “conservative” is a contradiction in terms. Call them what they are: neo-liberals or, in other words, end stage authoritarian “permanent revolution” liberals. They cause revolution via social media instigated subversion and military intervention abroad and via the media and victim theology at home.

    • Replies: @annamaria
  13. denk says:


    good comment.


    *overun by the hans eh *
    as per your oh so reliable cnn, nyt ….?
    talk about being *kept in the dark n fed bullshit all day*

    how many countries have actually been overun by murkka since 1898,
    300, 400 ?
    …dont get me started on the mother of all genocides in overruning america.

    the trouble with murikka is all of its *elected* leaders spend their day trying to rule the world…. via *color revolutions*, outright aggressions or terrorists attacks like those in xinjiang etc.
    then why’r so many sheeples like u so into others people’s revolutions ?
    how about do the world a favor and start one at home ?
    its about time kid.

  14. Truth says:

    I work for the good Ole’ military in Kuwait.

    Let me tell you, they are building a lot of new housing on the base out here…

  15. Lloyd E says:

    “The collapse of the Soviet Union removed the only constraint on Washington’s power to act unilaterally abroad.”

    Let’s go farther. The declining American standard of living and the fast-approaching death of the American middle-class are products of the demise of the Soviet Union. While the Cold War was in progress, it was in the interest of American capitalists to make sure that workers were well compensated and happy in order to discredit Communism. With the end of Communism, there is no need to pretend to be Mr. Nice Guy.

    • Replies: @Kiza
  16. annamaria says:

    Considering the outcomes of the neoliberal policies, the proper name should be neo-feudalism.

  17. vinteuil says: • Website

    The late Lawrence Auster totally pegged Paul Craig Roberts.

    The poor guy has an apparently incurable case of what John Derbyshire has called “the Jew thing.”

  18. annamaria says:

    A really nice paper pinpointing the hubris of the “haves” as the sources of our woes:
    As it was succinctly said about the “deciders” of mass-murders on a grand scale, “because they can.”
    Just read carefully the pronouncements of that pitiful product of the “haves” (the “deciding” class):

  19. Kiza says:
    @Lloyd E

    Although it is quite attractive to apply your explanation and it has some strengths, the strongest argument against the Ideological Competition Theory is the timing. If you look at graphs of when the 0.01% elite started ripping off and parasitizing on the rest of the population, it shows around year 1971. This is aligns the best with taking the US$ off gold, that is the unconstrained printing of money. Communism was still alive and well then.

    Since then, the Western regimes have combined ruthless lies, big lies and inflation statistics with limitless printing of money to be given to the 0.01% elite under various excuses. This worked well, partly because of a huge demand for a stable currency in the unstable rest of the World (and the US marines ensured it remained unstable). Thus, a good proportion of the nutty fiat money ended up overseas (Japan and then China and Russia). But the overseas victims are becoming rarer (both Russia and China have been unloading US$) and, through various machinations, now the friendly Euro is being made unstable to benefit (the rising) US$.

    The future is probably in two reserve currencies, one in each block: US$ only in the Western Block and RMB (Yuan) in the Eastern Block. Time will tell which reserve money will be lucky. Will China use its reserve/trade currency position as badly as the US has been using its against its Western Block “friends”?

  20. Giuseppe says:

    It is depressing that neoconservatives will most likely not be held accountable for their failed ideology that has resulted in the deaths and displacement of millions of innocents. Anti-war voices have been mostly silenced in the US. If you are right, the best chance of stopping neoconservatism and their doctrine of endless war is total economic collapse. But, couldn’t even that be avoided if the Empire begins taxing client states?

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Paul Craig Roberts Comments via RSS