Connect with us

Americas

The Origin of Neoconservatism

Published

on

Neoconservatism (advocacy of control over the entire planet by America’s Government — i.e., of a universal American empire or “hegemony”) was first stated in 1877, by the British empire’s colonialist Cecil Rhodes (founder of Rhodesia and of South Africa as British colonies) when he wrote the first draft of his will that ultimately produced the Rhodes Trust organization that selects and indoctrinates primarily U.S. and UK (British) future leaders so as to train them in the ways to enter into (and to help others of them to enter into) their respective Governments and into its press or propaganda-agencies in order to help to bring about a control over the entire world by a united UK and U.S. aristocracy — the billionaires who control those two countries, and (secondarily) the billionaires who control other English-language countries, such as Canada and Australia. That was the plan, and it remains the plan.

Here is from that will:

“To and for the establishment, promotion and development of a Secret Society, the true aim and object whereof shall be for the extension of British rule throughout the world, the perfecting of a system of emigration from the United Kingdom, and of colonisation by British subjects of all lands where the means of livelihood are attainable by energy, labour and enterprise, and especially the occupation by British settlers of the entire Continent of Africa, the Holy Land, the Valley of the Euphrates, the Islands of Cyprus and Candia, the whole of South America, the Islands of the Pacific not heretofore possessed by Great Britain, the whole of the Malay Archipelago, the seaboard of China and Japan, the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire, the inauguration of a system of Colonial representation in the Imperial Parliament which may tend to weld together the disjointed members of the Empire and, finally, the foundation of so great a Power as to render wars impossible and promote the best interests of humanity.”

He went on there to mention how important their control over the nation’s press would be, because “the press rules the mind of the people.” (The idea was and is to fool the public to vote for their candidates to do their bidding — not actually the public’s bidding.) He created (in accord with that will) a network of men who were selected for their leadership-abilities and for their shared commitment to working with one-another in order to bring about world-conquest by those billionaires and their giant international corporations and ‘non-profits’ or “Non-Government Organizations” (NGOs), including many think tanks throughout the world. 

This is a privatized global government that is controlled by its billionaires (via their selecting and hiring, and paying, agents who then select and hire sub-agents — who, in turn, hire millions of sub-sub-agents — in this very hierarchical, many-layered, organization) instead of being controlled by its public (via any non-deceived voters in any non-corrupt general electorate of the nation’s citizens, as a truly representative democracy would be). This is an aristocratic, instead of a democratic, government, and its aim is for these billionaires (and not anyone in countries that resist it) to control all nations — the entire world.

My soon-to-be-published book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, provides detailed documentation that this is the way in which America (that is, its most-extremely wealthy few persons who control America’s and UK’s international corporations) did actually take over the world after World War II, in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels now extract its wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public (as had been Rhodes’s plan). 

However, most academics who write about neoconservatism don’t so much as even just mention Rhodes as being its inventor, but instead they refer to the British Halford J. Mackinder, or to his Dutch follower Nicholas J. Spykman, as having supposedly invented it. For example, the Rhodesists Jakob J. Grygiel and A. Wess Mitchell cited both Mackinder and Spykman as the sources for their thinking, but ignored Rhodes as if he hadn’t even existed. Their book advocates American conquest of the world, but hides the origin of this idea. That’s very common for neoconservative scholars to do — perhaps because doing otherwise would expose the British seed from which their own, supposedly American, views had actually derived. The plan was “the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire,” and it has been achieved; but the empire’s control over the whole world (which is its ultimate objective) has not yet been achieved.

These people present themselves as being ‘realists’ who recognize that in any zero-sum game, there is not only a winner but also a loser, and they say that ‘our’ side (which they hide is actually the side of their own paymasters, not of the public), ‘ought’ to win. Instead of their moralizing for the defender and against the aggressor that’s attacking it, they are moralizing for ‘us’ against ’them’, and they simply ASSUME all sorts of evil things against that ‘them’. (They also ignore ANY positive-sum games — as-if ALL competition needs to be destructive, none cooperative — which is an obvious lie on their part.) This is the way that propaganda works, and it is routinely done by scholars, especially by ones who know whom their real ultimate paymasters (the billionaires who fund their careers) actually are. For example, this video shows Grygiel’s zero-sum “great power competition” to be referring to constant war, and he thereby ‘justifies’ America’s ceaseless international aggressions as being a ‘realist’ position, against anyone who would be protesting or advocating against America’s aggressions (or even merely in favor of cooperative games). And Mitchell said in U.S. Senate testimony to the all-neoconservative Foreign Relations Committee: “Contrary to the hopeful assumptions of previous administrations, Russia and China are serious competitors that are building up the material and ideological wherewithal to contest US primacy and leadership in the 21st Century. It continues to be among the foremost national security interests of the United States to prevent the domination of the Eurasian landmass by hostile powers.” The cravings of U.S.(&UK) billionaires for global control are ‘realistic’ and must be satisfied in order to protect “the foremost national security interests of the United States” against “hostile” (meaning, actually, only “competing”) nations (ones that refuse to be taken over by them), which are being merely ASSUMED to be national-security threats, enemies of the American public (supposedly). This automatic presumption that ‘we’ are in the right and that anyone who disagrees is an enemy, is BASIC to all neoconservative propaganda. It’s always us-versus-them in international relations.

When Mitchell said that to the Senators, he was the replacement for the neoconservative Victoria Nuland as the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, and he was continuing her rabidly neocon policies, in service to America’s rabidly neoconservative Presidents, who are in service to America’s billionaires — all of whom (both Republicans and Democrats) are likewise neoconservatives.

Though scholars such as Mitchell and Grygiel say that their views had originated with Mackinder and with his follower Spykman, they ignore that Mackinder was, in fact, a follower of Rhodes and spoke in the British House of Lords on 19 October 1916 saying that the Government’s position regarding the Rhodes Trust must be to carry out as Rhodes had specified in his will, the terms of his will, and that it concerned mainly a UK&U.S.-controlled empire:

There is no evidence that he had any general idea with regard to the whole world. His aim was simply to add to the scheme which he had created for the Anglo-Saxon world—for the British Empire and for our great cousin realm across the water.”

Tactful though that speech was (and thus making no reference whatsoever to Rhodes’s plan for any such thing as a “Secret Society” to achieve it), he was telling his fellow Lords that the UK’s Government are obliged to advance the Rhodes Trust fully in accord with Rhodes’s intentions.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s next book (soon to be published) will be AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change. It’s about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.

Continue Reading
Comments

Americas

The Despair of American Youths under an Overly ‘Critical Society’

Published

on

A recent tragic incident in the United States has stunned the world. This incident, is not merely “domestic terrorism”, but its root cause, that of a “critical society”, is far more serious than people think.

Payton Gendron, from Conklin, New York, drove a few hours to Buffalo, which is about 200 miles away, to a predominantly African-American, low-income neighborhood, about 3 miles north of the central Buffalo. It is surrounded by residential areas, a university, a nearby Family Dollar store, and a fire station. –

In an act that shocked everyone, Payton Gendron pulled up his rifle and walked into the supermarket, and started killing people, women, the elderly, and cashiers. Not only did he shoot at the unarmed people, but he also broadcast the gory scene of the massacre live on Twitch. This vicious mass shooting incident left at least 10 people dead and 3 others injured. Of the 13 victims, 11 were black.

In the aftermath, it was horrifying to discover that the white young man who did the mass shooting was only 18 years old. “This is the worst nightmare that any community can face, and we are hurting and we are seething right now”, said Mayor Byron Brown.

After the incident, President Joe Biden urged unity to stem racial hate as a remedy to get rid of the “hate that remains a stain on the soul of America.” Biden said that, “violence inflicted in the service of hate and a vicious thirst for power that defines one group of people being inherently inferior to any other group. A hate that through the media and politics, the Internet, has radicalized angry, alienated, lost, and isolated individuals into falsely believing that they will be replaced”.

The so-called “Great Replacement Theory” alluded to in the speech of President Biden in his condemnation of the massacre refers to the belief that immigrants or other people of color are “replacing” white Americans. Propagated by the media and the Internet, and deliberately exaggerated by political shows and politicians, there are those who become firm believers that the “Great Replacement” is the reality and the future of the United States. The Buffalo massacre is but one of the countless hate crimes. In today’s American society, no one is completely happy, and everyone seems to have different reasons for dissatisfaction, disappointment, and hatred.

The reason for this is that the U.S. is typically a “critical society”, which does not often offer much justice and truth. Instead, discrimination, grievances, conspiracies, and hatred more often than not emerge in such a society seemingly plagued by despair and pain. The real United States might not be exactly like this, of course. Yet, countless people from all over the world are eager to come to America by all means to seek hope there, not knowing that Americans, especially young people who are overwhelmed by disappointment, are not hopeful about the future.

There are many reasons why the U.S. has become a critical society.

Education in the U.S., with its strong emphasis on critical thinking, trains young people from an early age to not only possess critical spirit, but also to have critical point of view. This started with English composition among young children, and continues to dissertation among college students. Such critical spirit is like a contagious disease, which is easily transmissible. In books, in movies, in TV shows and newspapers, in culture as well as in fashion, Americans are always criticizing all the time, trampling. Yet, their critical mind does not come with constructive strength. There is a serious lack of respect for the classics. It is as if only through crushing the past and the traditions that allows them to show their superiority.

The cultural model that balances the critical and classical, empirical and traditional do not seem to be the dominant model in American society, nor an integral part of its popular culture. American institutions of higher learning, which are supposed to be places where the classics are taught, are now the venues that instill radical critical thinking. Therefore, the non-technological departments in colleges there are nothing short of houses of madness. This has led to a pernicious consequence of increasingly polarized critical thinking, turning the U.S. into a very harmful critical society.

In such as overly critical society, it is difficult for people to see the presence of the classics that represent all things positive. Since everything can be criticized, then everything is problematic, where there are flaws everywhere, where everything is imperfect. In an overly critical society, no one is normal, and everyone has a vicious side. If one cannot find shortfalls in a person, then standards will be raised up or lowered down, or new standards are invented, so that everyone becomes the target of criticism. All doubts are noble, and the classics themselves are the best objects of doubt.

The biggest problem with a society like this is that there is no hope, only hate. All that is left is despair. A young man like Payton Gendron is actually just a victim who goes astray in such a society. In an overly critical society, every young adult is in despair.

The U.S. today is already very worrying enough, its future is even more so. With the Internet, disappointment and hatred are ubiquitously amplified. From the country’s power center to its legislature departments, in terms of constructing, developing, and protecting the nation, the professional politicians there contribute less than regular nine-to-five office workers. These politicians expose, create, amplify, and criticize any possible flaws of political opponents without hesitation, in accordance with the modus operandi of professional politicians there. Such amplification and role model effects have made the United States a desperate country.

The world of information is complex, and not everyone possesses the ability to process information objectively, and not everyone should be expected to do so.

In the face of all kinds of information sweeping in, using the “believe it or not” mentality to deal with the survival challenges of the modern information society is a major blunder. The right approach is to recognize and analyze information, but this is too difficult for the average person and requires good training in information analysis. In China, it seems that there is only one think tank that has that kind of training in both critical and empirical information analysis. In this sense, Chinese academia does not always lag behind its counterpart in the United States. As for the U.S., the path of seeking science and technology to solve overly critical problems through specialized information processing is most certainly not going to work. Technology will always be objective, and as it can be used to clarify doubts, it can also certainly be used to create problems.

To bring things to a close, the sole way for the United States to get more people to see the light is for its society to make changes and move out of an overly critical society.

Continue Reading

Americas

Are Biden’s Troubles of his Own Making?

Published

on

Official White House Photo by Adam Schultz

What a fractious world we live in.  The somnambulist Biden has woken up in his nocturnal wanderings to hear complaints about China for its sea incursions close to the littoral areas of allies like Taiwan and Japan.  Thus at the “Quad” (Australia, Japan, US and India) meeting in Tokyo, he reaffirmed US support for Taiwan, militarily if need be, to defend Taiwanese independence in what appeared to be a reversal of policy as earlier the US had recognized it as a province of China.

The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) an economic union of the Quad and other Asia-Pacific countries has been revived — Trump had buried it earlier, aiming presumably higher but missing.  Mr. Biden announced its reincarnation as the new Inter Pacific Economic Federation (IPEF).

All of which is the least of Mr. Biden’s headaches.  There’s a full blown war in Ukraine to consider.  And he promptly announced a $40.1 bill military aid package for Ukraine.  Defense contractors couldn’t be more pleased.  Lockheed Martin stock is up 6 percent in two days as it ramps up production of the Javelin anti-tank missile, doubling it according to the CEO to supply Ukraine.

Congress has now passed a $40 billion aid package.  The amount is not trivial.  For comparison, India, a country of more than a billion people with the third largest defence budget in the world, spends less than half that sum on weapons procurement.

The real question is going to be Mr. Putin’s response.  He might well call it a move aimed at slaughtering young Russian boys, when he himself is asking for peace talks.  Even President Zelensky, the quintessential blowhard politician, has been forced to admit that 50-100 Ukrainian soldiers are dying daily.

American interference in Ukraine has a long history.  The planning and participation in a coup eight years ago (when Biden was vice president) and the selection of future leaders thereafter are all documented.  On lack of European support for it at the time, Victoria Nuland, the then Deputy Secretary of State for Eurasian Affairs responded famously, “F–k the EU.”  She has the dubious distinction of being the chief promoter of the so-called “soft coup” which led eventually to the fall of the elected Viktor Yanukovych government and thence to the divisions in Ukraine.  The results have been the deaths of an estimated 13,000 people and the displacement of millions.

Since 2014 about one million refugees have left the country as a result of wars in the Donbas.  Another 1.6 million were internally displaced.  Following the latest fighting in 2022, the number of Ukrainians who have left the country has risen by another 6.6 million and another 7.7 million are displaced from their homes to other parts of the country.  That in total is over a quarter of the country’s population of 44 million. 

It is painful, pitiful, atrocious and appalling that in the 21st century, political leaders instead of resolving disputes have behaved in a manner ending in a human tragedy of these proportions.  Let’s just say, none of the participants need queue up for a Nobel Peace Prize, although one had already received it before this and other misadventures. 

Continue Reading

Americas

The WW III that Biden and All Other Neocons Are Leading U.S. Toward

Published

on

Official White House Photo by Erin Scott

The intensely neoconservative U.S. President Joe Biden is leading the world into a World War III against both Russia and China, but despite the U.S. spending annually around half of the entire planet’s military expenditures (not only in its ‘Defense’ Department but in its Treasury Department and other Government agencies), America is actually inferior to both Russia and China regarding leading-edge geostrategically crucial technologies of both nuclear and laser weapons, and is getting farther behind each year, because for both Russia and China their own national sovereignty is what their enemy, the U.S. Government, aims to conquer, whereas no one poses a threat to the U.S. Government’s continuing rule over its own people (it becomes increasingly a police-state). The U.S. Government is the only and supreme champion of sanctions and coups and invasions for regime-change producing the creation of new vassal-nations throughout the globe, whereas both Russia and China must protect themselves from that or else become themselves new U.S. vassal-nations. So: they are laser-focused on NOT allowing America to grab their nation. Truly, for them, this is an existential issue, NOT a matter (such as is the case regarding the U.S. Government) of growing to become the world’s first and only all-encompassing global empire (a luxury that only America’s billionaires, who control the U.S. Government, require). This basic distinction is the reason why whereas the U.S. has over 800 military bases spread throughout the planet, Russia and China are concerned ONLY about not allowing U.S. forces to be based so near to their borders as to enable a U.S. missile to annihilate their capital’s command-and-control within less than ten minutes and so to enable the U.S. Government to grab control of them so fast that the targeted nation’s (Russia’s and China’s) retaliatory weapons won’t be launched in self-defense.

Consequently, for example, the geostrategically-focused CRUX youtube site headlined on May 23rd “Why The World Fears Putin’s ‘Flying Chernobyl’ Nuclear-Powered Cruise Missile”, and reported on Russia’s emerging “Buravestnik” nuclear-powered nuclear-warheaded missile that will be able to avoid all known types of anti-missile detection and tracking technologies and that will be able to fly for any distance because of its nuclear fuel. Though that pro-U.S.-Government, anti-Putin, CRUX-produced video says “Experts have underlined the threat that … this weapon may pose to the environment and human health” due to radioactive waste that’s released into the air during its flight, because there is no space inside the missile to store waste, even America’s National Defense magazine has admitted that “the amount of nuclear waste that this will produce is very tiny, … basically negligible,” which is hardly what CRUX headlines it as being — a “Flying Chernobyl.” CRUX went on to say, “Experts say that Putin’s Cold War mindset has normalised the development of such doomsday weapons.” It’s all regime-change-in-Russia propaganda.

In other words: the neocons’ aim to destroy Russia so fast that Russia won’t be able to destroy America in retaliation, is hogwash that’s probably funded, ultimately, by corporations such as Lockheed Martin, whose sales are exclusively or mainly to the U.S. Government and its allied governments (vassal-nations), which U.S.-and-allied weapons-making firms’ stock-values have soared ever since the end of the Cold War in 1991. It ended only on Russia’s side in 1991, but this supercharged it on America’s side.  This unleashed a solely military-industrial-complex-controlled U.S. Government, which demands an ever-increasing percentage of the U.S. Government’s expenses to go toward its military, which, nonetheless, is privately owned and controlled; and its profits have soared.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Trending