Another person who ascribes to the “Division of Labor” theory is John Helmer, along with the concept of “Trump as Brzeziński/Kissinger.” Don’t look at puppets; they are only shadows

– YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

First, I would like to say a few things. After a recent interview on The Duran with a woman from AfD, I wanted to write about AfD, but even though I recently wrote about the “Division of Labor,” I believe this issue is more important. I also want to say that I think this plan is not going well — either because of Trump’s stupidity and his tariffs debacle, or it’s some five-dimensional chess that I don’t yet understand. Either way, I will write a little about it at the end.

Division of Labor

I already wrote about this topic in a recent post based on the work of Brian Berletic from The New Atlas. Here is the post I am referring to:

The US-EU “Division of Labor” to Continue Confronting Russia and China: My Views on Ukraine and Addressing the Narrative Created from Lies and Blind Optimism

In that post, I also touched on Trump’s stupidity and the Trump tariffs debacle, which are both threatening the entire plan. I would also like to highlight another recent video on this subject by Brian Berletic on The New Atlas channel, this time focusing more on Iran:

Some people may not be fully convinced by my arguments or by Brian Berletic’s, but I am constantly tracking global events and spending all of my free time researching geopolitics. Recently, I found another person who subscribes to the "Division of Labor" theory: John Helmer. The main video for this post is from the channel Dialogue Works, featuring Ray McGovern and John Helmer. While Ray McGovern doesn’t agree with or subscribe to the "Division of Labor" theory, I was positively surprised that John Helmer has started to, like me and Brian Berletic.

In my opinion, this theory is very important. Although I believe it may be breaking down now because of Trump’s stupidity and the tariffs debacle, it is still crucial to understand it, so we can better grasp how real-world politics actually function and are shaped.

1:38

We know a great deal about it, and so let me go to the background and then the current, what Vance has just said, because it's not negotiating in good faith, it's a deception, a grand deception that earlier today failed to materialize in a London meeting and a follow-on meeting that Mr. Whit was going to run into Moscow. Basically, the notion that either you guys agree or we walk away is a US attempt to sequence two wars at the same time and make a lot of money in the meantime. Let me explain how this is being done, because it's been explained by two significant officials, Wes Mitchell, who used to be in the State Department in Trump one, who's in business with a purported think tank in Washington with Elbridge Colby, who's the number three official in the Pentagon. Between the two of them, they've been arguing for more than three years. You can read exactly what they've been saying and what, in particular, Mitchell has been writing in the "Last Dance with Bears" that I published. I don't think I need to quote exactly, but let me summarize. The idea is simple: the United States cannot run two major wars at the same time, not a major war in Europe against Russia, not a major war against China in Asia. It could tolerate a smaller war with Israel running forward against Iran, but basically, the Mitchell argument, the Colby argument, is sequencing one war at a time. That means that from the Trump point of view, the Europeans should take over the front of the Ukraine war while the US will purport to withdraw. They won't withdraw intelligence sharing, they won't withdraw coordination of commands, they won't even withdraw from Poland. I've just explained in "Dance with Bears" that in Poland, what Trump has been doing is exactly what the Biden administration was doing for the last three years. They're building up the capacity of Germany and Poland particularly to fight Russia. Meanwhile, France, which is the next biggest power, and the British, the least of the big powers, will continue the war. And for that to continue, the two parts of the game have had to be staged. On the one hand, the US, Rubio repeated five times in five minutes, now Vance has repeated the line, Trump has repeated the line: either you agree to our positions, we claim it's fair, it's not fair, but they claim it is, or we walk away. The point is that the US will not walk away very far. And what has been created here is a very interesting combination of timing. On the one hand, the US purports to be walking away from the war in Ukraine, that's not going to happen. Second, it creates a correlation of forces, a phrase that Ry used and we agree about, which encouraged the Russian side to continue driving westward, which is what they're doing after the Ukrainians displayed their unwillingness to even accept a holy Easter ceasefire. In this process, one war at a time, but big money for the United States. The US is demanding Germany, Poland, Greece, Italy, England, France will all pay premiums now for rearming, rearming their own armies. And through this rearmament program, these multi-billion dollar rearmament programs, the Europeans will continue to fight the war in Ukraine. But the US side will announce, "We've tried, they haven't agreed, we're walking away." And that's a PR stunt on the part of the Trump administration. Now, today, the press is full of the collapse of the London talks. The collapse of the London talks is based on not just Zalinski announcing he won't give up Crimea. It's perfectly obvious that when Vance says freeze along the line, the Russian side, he knows, will never accept a freeze along the present line, because that means giving up Russian territory in the four regions that are now part of Russia. So, what, in addition, among the press leaks, it's been claimed that the US would take over the Zaparaja nuclear plant, which is in Zaparajia, is part of Russian territory. 1  That's not going to happen either. So, the US side has been making attempts towards the Russian side: "We'll give them Crimea, on the other hand, we won't give them all of Novaria, and we will insist on a European army protecting the rest of Ukraine." That's not a demilitarized zone, that's not a buffer zone, that's not protection for Russia, it's no security in the long term for Russia. Now, right today, as the London talks collapsed, the White House log shows President Trump was doing nothing today. Nothing. He's not even tweeted today, except to announce through Waltz that the United States has killed 74 terrorists somewhere in the world. Well, what is President Trump doing today? Is he still looking for Easter eggs in the White House garden after the Easter egg roll is finished? He is looking for Easter eggs, but he's found them. The multi-billion dollar rearmament program for Germany is a huge windfall for US military contractors, and ditto France and all the others. So, the default position of the Trump administration is a very clever, calculated way of making far more money out of the two wars than the Biden administration had thought of. And at the same time, as West Mitchell and Elbridge Colby push the notion of sequencing, the US will pivot towards the timing of the war they want to fight against China. Now, what's going on there? It's very clear. The United States, through Trump, through tariffs and sanctions, is trying to disconnect China from the entire trading world. When that was done to Japan, it was effectively a declaration of war by the United States, by Franklin Roosevelt, against Japan. Only China is far more powerful than Japan was at the beginning of World War II. And so, what we have in the background and in the foreground now is an orchestrated set of negotiating demands which are not really acceptable to the other side. They're not a good faith attempt to get Russia on the one hand or China on the other to agree. But the dangerous thing, a very dangerous miscalculation that Trump is making, is that the clock belongs to Russia in Europe and the clock belongs to China in the Taiwan Straits. Because right now is the moment when the Russian general staff and the Chinese general staff can calculate that the timing of US weakness is now. We delay, and they will get stronger. The problem of securing ourselves against their two-war strategy, one war at a time, the problem is we shouldn't delay. That has very great meaning for the Russian side. And it warns, and I've heard on your program Ambassador Freeman warn it, but not exactly in these terms, the timing is for China to say, "Let's go and take Taiwan sooner, not later." So, this whole notion of a US strategy of one war at a time while we make money in the meantime is preparing two wars that the US is likely to lose.

58:24

Well, we agree and are looking at things from a different perspective, so our disagreements look more substantive than they are. The question is, what's the evidence of US intention as shown, not by a Trump tweet, and not by a Waltz tweet, and not by a Rubio repetition. Rubio, Hgith, and Walt are useful idiots. Vance is a more intelligent, calculating man, and he's the successor if Trump falls. These people do not intend, in my view, to withdraw the United States military capacity and economic capacity, because they go together. It's an extortion racket: there's a Russian threat, we will sell you the weapons, you increase your GDP and pay us more to protect you from them. That's the formula. It's the formula in West Mitchell's "one war at a time" strategy, which turned into slogans that Trump used during the campaign and will turn into policy that Eldridge Colby will implement at the Pentagon, where the brains are underneath Hex now. If this is the strategy, it's differently structured from the way the Biden administration organized the rearmament of Poland. It's different from the way the Biden administration and the Democrats planned for the rearmament of Germany, but it's different, more financially beneficial to Trump's constituents. But it makes Germany a rising new threat on the, let's call it, the central front. And from a German point of view, from a US point of view, the objective is exactly what Mitchell said in the papers he delivered to the Trump campaign a year ago: block Russia, impose costs on Russia on the Ukrainian battlefield, use Ukraine as a buffer, buffer for Poland, buffer for Germany. But the question then is what size buffer they're able to create or sustain or maintain, and that's their military problem now. As the Russians move westward, NATO is increasing its level of threat, not so much in the Baltics, which make noise all the time. The Estonians announced they're going to put in 200 men in a base at the Russian border called Nava, and it's laughable. But what's not laughable is Vance's trip to Greenland, it's the US attempt to build from Finland up to the Arctic and along the northern route, as the Russians call it, a new NATO war front against Russia to constrain Russia's northern transportation links, its development of oil, gas, and other resources above the Arctic Circle. That's where NATO, as a collaborative with US backing in Greenland—yes, there's friction with Denmark, but no, there's no abandonment of the theory of NATO blocking Russia, NATO increasing the pressure on Russia on all fronts. And that, of course, includes the southern front around Iran, which we haven't had time to talk about today, and it includes Russia, pressure from Japan with US backing, on Russia's Pacific coast. So, I don't see NATO collapsing. I see NATO reorienting itself as the US insists it should reorient itself for the US benefit. If we all agree that Trump has no intention of abandoning US hegemony in Europe, then our task, for the people listening to us and for us and for people who write and analyze the evidence, is to figure out how this reconstruction will work on the US side, the NATO side. What we do know is it has nothing in common, he does not agree with the security structure, the reciprocal non-aggression pact which the Russian foreign ministry tabled December 17, 2021, which Mr. Lavrov has repeated is on the table now. That framework allows a much reduced threat from east of Germany, and it proposes the basis for a better non-aggression relationship with Germany. But in my view, there will never be US acceptance of a German-Russian partnership, never. So, because if there were to be that, US hegemony in Europe is finished, and all the financial benefits, dividends, and what have you that Trump, Musk, Seal, Fineberg at the Pentagon, and all the others who are in the trough are aiming to make money, all of them will lose, and I don't see that happening. I agree with Rey, it would be nice, it would be beneficial for all of us, Americans, Europeans, and Russians, if this wasn't the case, but I'm not at all convinced that what we understand to be good is what the US empire builders in Europe, the Trump version of the US empire builders in Europe, have in mind.

This fragment highlights something I mentioned in the title — the puppet show and the shadows from Plato’s cave. We should not focus on the tweets and the puppets on the screen that are presented to us, but rather on the policy papers and think tanks, where the real policies and strategies are made. Another point mentioned here is something I have emphasized many times in my posts: the fact that America wants to divide Germany and Russia. This idea is best explained by a quote from George Friedman, which I shared again in my recent post.

“So, the primordial interest of the United States, over which for a century we have fought wars - the First, Second, and Cold War - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united, they are the only force that could threaten us, and to make sure that that doesn't happen.

Therefore, it's not an accident that General Hodges, who's been appointed to be blamed for all of this, is talking about pre-positioning troops in Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, and the Baltics. This is the Intermarium, the Black Sea to the Baltic, that Pilsudski dreamed of. This is the solution for the United States.

The issue to which we don't have the answer is: what will Germany do? The real wild card in Europe is that as the United States builds this cordon sanitaire—not in Ukraine, but to the West - and the Russians try to figure out how to leverage Ukrainians out, we don't know the German position.

Germany is in a very peculiar position. Its former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder is on the board of Gazprom. They have a very complex relationship. As I mentioned before, the Germans themselves don't know what to do. They must export; the Russians can't take up the export. On the other hand, if they lose the free trade zone, they need to build something different.

For the United States, the primordial fear is Russian natural resources, Russian manpower, German technology, and German capital. That combination has, for centuries, scared the hell out of the United States.

How Does This Play Out?

Well, the U.S. has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea. And he goes on to say in his next line that Russia's cards on the table are that they need a Ukraine that is not pro-Western, that it's at least neutral.”

Independent Europe

Angela Merkel, like Charles de Gaulle before her, fought for a free and independent Europe. I don’t know many other leaders or the precise history of European politics, so I can't mention more real leaders who fought for European independence, but at least I have pointed out these two. I could also argue for Gerhard Schröder, since what Merkel was doing was in some ways a continuation and development of what Schröder started — but since I don't know enough about him, I can't say for certain.

Interestingly, Charles de Gaulle couldn't achieve an independent Europe because of Germany. Western Germany was rebuilt by Nazis and war criminals who had their lives saved by the CIA and the American deep state. Nazi generals became West German generals, and those same generals helped build NATO — most famously Reinhard Gehlen, a Nazi responsible for intelligence operations, including Gestapo and SS activities on the Western front. After the war, Gehlen became the head of West German intelligence.

All of these Nazi war criminals who rebuilt West Germany owed their survival to the American deep state and CIA, which saved them from prosecution and the punishment they deserved, making them subservient to America. So while de Gaulle understood the meaning and purpose of NATO — as Ray McGovern mentioned in the main video — he was ultimately unable to achieve true European independence.

57:29

Well, why was NATO created at all? Well, because of the Warsaw Pact, those six satellites and Russia—they were a threat. Well, I've got news for you folks, NATO was created four or five years before the Warsaw Pact, okay? So we have to get our history straight.

53:36

The thing is that NATO was set up for a specific reason. It was set up right after the war, I think, uh, 1948, around there, 49, okay? And the first secretary-general of NATO, Lord Ismay from Great Britain, described its purpose. He said it was to keep the US in Europe, it was to keep the Russians out of Europe, and to keep the Germans down. Okay, well, you could understand that—keep the Germans down.

De Gaulle understood this, which is why he opposed it and did everything he could to make West Germany join his efforts. However, because Germany was led by Nazi war criminals who owed their lives to the American deep state and CIA, they were so compromised that they could not join de Gaulle’s efforts.

Thanks to de Gaulle’s efforts, France is the only European country with truly independent nuclear weapons. For example, from what I understand, the British have their own nuclear warheads, but the missiles used in their nuclear deterrent are American, and I’m not sure if the British can use those nuclear weapons without American permission — unlike the French nuclear deterrent, which is fully owned by France and independent from America.

Also, starting in 1966, France remained outside of NATO’s military command structures until 2009, when they rejoined.

Basically, Merkel had the same goal as de Gaulle: making Europe independent from America. That’s why, as I showed in my recent post, she complained to Washington about the poor treatment of Putin and defended him. This is also why Putin, in his famous 2007 Munich Security Conference speech, thanked Germany under Merkel’s leadership. And it’s why the NSA had to spy on Merkel — to compromise her and make Germany obedient again.

Coup Against Germany (the War in Ukraine)

Merkel lost her fight against the Americans for the independence of Europe, and she was replaced by Neocons implanted by the Americans. I wrote about this before, based on what was happening in Poland and the Sikorski wiretaps:

Polish minister calls US ties worthless

Radek Sikorski is said to have made the controversial remarks during a private conversation with Jacek Rostowski, an MP and former finance minister, which was published by influential news magazine Wprost.

Polish foreign minister 'caught on tape dismissing relationship with U.S. as he compares it to giving oral sex and getting nothing in return'

The Polish PiS government, along with Finland, Denmark, and France, all helped the Americans carry out a coup against Germany, as I explained in my previous posts. Back then, Sikorski was on Merkel’s side. He stated:

'the Polish-American alliance is not worth anything. It’s even damaging, because it creates a false sense of security in Poland,'
'Complete bulls***,' the tape purportedly records Sikorski as saying. 'We will get a conflict with both Russians and Germans, and we’re going to think that everything is great, because we gave the Americans a blow***. Suckers. Total suckers.'

Of course, now his stance is different. Back then, Sikorski underestimated the power of America and its deep state, which ultimately destroyed Germany from within. When Merkel lost the fight against America, Sikorski — who had been on Merkel’s side — also switched sides and joined the Americans.

Instead of Poland getting into conflict with both Russia and Germany, as Sikorski feared, Germany itself was destroyed from within, and Neocons were placed in charge. I was against this, but I understood the logic behind the Polish PiS government's actions, which I explained in my previous posts.

Germany had become too greedy. They thought they could bully the rest of Europe instead of creating an equal Europe. They wanted to use the EU as a neocolonial tool to take full control and dominate Europe for Germany’s benefit at the expense of other countries. It was only because of German greed that the Americans were able to gather support for their coup against Germany, using the Ukrainian war as a tool.

I explained the reasoning behind the key countries’ positions:

• Finland and Denmark supported it because Russian gas was competing with their own gas industries, as they are among the leading suppliers of gas in Europe.
• Poland and Eastern Europe supported it because Germany was oppressing them economically, keeping them as cheap labor.
• France opposed Germany because they didn’t like being dominated and wanted to regain a leading role in Europe. 

Each of these countries had grievances against Germany, which made them support the American coup.

Many people also misunderstand Merkel’s Green Agenda. It wasn’t just about ecology; it was part of Germany’s strategy to control Europe. Without the Green Agenda, nuclear power — where France and Britain are strong — would have made countries more energy independent. But by pushing gas as "green" and sidelining nuclear power, Germany could become the main energy distributor by buying cheap gas from Russia and selling it to the rest of Europe. This made the continent dependent on Germany.

In short, Germany’s Green Agenda wasn't about saving the planet; it was about turning Europe into a neo-colony dependent on German-controlled energy.

This is why countries like Poland (under the PiS government) and France opposed Germany and helped the Americans with the coup. It’s not that Poland and France didn’t want Europe to be independent from America — they did. But they didn’t want to replace American domination with German domination.

Their thinking was that the Americans don’t care who dominates Europe, as long as Europe remains dependent on the U.S. So, by helping the U.S. to overthrow Germany's dominance, Poland and France aimed to gain a stronger position within Europe themselves, rather than remaining subservient to Germany.

In the end, Germany under Merkel wanted Europe to become independent from America, but due to their greed and desire to dominate Europe, they sabotaged their own plan, allowing the Americans to find allies for a coup against them.

Trump’s Brzeziński/Kissinger

Anyway, back to the "Division of Labor" — here is another great video with John Helmer where he explains the concept of "Trump as Brzeziński/Kissinger."

11:13

Because this takes us, I think, to an excellent and enlightening article that you published on your website, Dances with Bears, I believe it was yesterday. Now, ever since we came to the conclusion on Reason to Resist that Trump has no genuine interest in a durable peace in Ukraine, we've talked at some length about his true agenda in that part of the world, and I think your article revealed some very important background about what that true agenda might be. Your piece was entitled "The real Trump default is European war with Russia so the US can escalate war with China." Now, before I ask you about your article, I want to remind our audience of something that we've talked about previously, and that is a speech that US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave in Brussels in February of this year. In that speech, Hegseth did the precise opposite of encouraging Washington's European vassals to make peace with Russia. On the contrary, he encouraged them to increase their military spending drastically and to use their massive new military budgets to arm Ukraine while America shifted its focus to China. Hegseth used the term "division of labor" in urging that Europe focus its military resources on Russia while the US focused its military forces on China. That speech, by the way, is part of the reason that we have argued that Trump has no real interest in ending the Ukraine war; he simply wants Europe to shoulder the burden of continuing that war while the US devotes its efforts elsewhere.

 

Now, in your article, John, you talked at length about a person I had frankly never heard of before. I can't believe that I hadn't heard of him, and his name is A. West Mitchell. Could you tell us about Wes Mitchell's background first of all? Well, the A stands for Aaron, and I don't know what Wes is short for. Um, and it's not a misprint for "mess." Mitchell claims in his Wiki profile to be a sixth-generation Texan who was initially educated in a technical university in Texas and then graduated to the Ivy League, getting a degree in Georgetown. He then moved to study at a graduate level German and Austro-Hungarian Empire politics in a German university, so he's a German speaker. His ambition is to become a kind of Brzezinski or Kissinger, the brains, the strategic brains of the Trump administration. And he had a first shot at that when he was an assistant secretary of state in the first Trump administration and had a falling out, as I understand it, with Secretary of State Pompeo at the time. What he is is not only the ambition to be the Brzezinski to Trump, as Brzezinski was to Jimmy Carter or Kissinger was to Nixon, his ambition is to make money. And to make money, his business partner is a man called Elbridge Colby, grandson of William Colby of CIA fame, or infamy if one wants to put it that way. Colby's just been approved by the Senate as the third-ranking Pentagon official under Hegseth; he's the undersecretary of defense for policy. Above him is the deputy secretary, Steven Fineberg, who's a businessman. So, Colby's, let's call it, the strategic brains of the US military right now. Between the two of them, they created something called the Marathon Initiative. There's nothing particularly Greek about that except that Mitchell likes to pepper his papers with references to ancient Greek military matters, and the most recent one that appeared this week on Tuesday is full of Sparta and ancient Athens, and the conclusions that Mitchell wants are to be respected for having drawn from that time. The two of them create what's under the IRS rules a charity, and into that charity went some defense department money and some contributions from well-heeled foundations, about $1.3 million went in, if I'm not mistaken, in 2021, and most of it went into Mitchell's and Colby's pockets. They took about $370,000 in annual salary. So essentially, the Marathon Initiative was set up to feed their pockets with the tax advantages of being a charity. It's now something completely different because Mitchell's writing papers that essentially appeal to a range of foreign states—particularly Germany in Europe, and Taiwan in Asia, Israel in the Middle East, and Japan—to join his theory of grand strategy, which is which is now being implemented during the period 2021 to 2024. You can see that Mitchell's papers and Colby's positions fed the sloganering that appeared in Trump's campaign. Boil the papers down—those of our audience who want, who still read instead of listen to podcasts, who want to see exactly what these guys are saying and understand the implications—can go to Dancers with Bears. At the moment, I just might intervene. I'm going to also put up on the screen because there was a more recent article—I did read those articles, they were quite enlightening—but there's a more recent one which I shared with you, and I'm going to put that up on the screen. So, and I do urge people, as you did, to read all three if they have the time to do that. Go ahead.

 

The new Foreign Affairs piece appeared on Tuesday, and the importance of that one is it restates the strategy but applies a gloss endorsing everything Trump has already done. Okay, so it brings up—it brings up to date—what they're doing, what they intend to do, what what they want to say is the grand strategy behind Trump's tweets. And what is this grand strategy? Well, it's the brilliant common sense that you can't fight two very powerful enemies at the same time and hope to win both wars. Mitchell calls it sequencing, it's the clock. It's an admission, and that's, I suppose, unusual for an American imperialist like he is, that the United States is no longer strong enough, and its enemies are too powerful—China and Russia—for the United States military to prevail in wars against both at the same time. Ergo, he proposes that a policy of blocking Russia in Europe and having the Europeans do the dirty work, with the financial benefits that accrue to the US military suppliers—he's not saying don't fight, don't continue the war, he's not saying don't stop the war, he's in fact presents the view, and this is quite interesting, that he thinks that Russia has now been seriously weakened by the war in Ukraine, its military resources devastated, and it needs to rebuild, it's vulnerable economically and it's vulnerable militarily, so it's susceptible to a combination of massive US bribes, promises of economic investment, and promises of a range of terms of the kind we've just seen tabled. So, on the one hand, the strategy is minimize US involvement and downplay US engagement in Europe, but can keep the war going. On the other hand, reorient US strategy and repoint US guns to China. And there his view is exactly what Trump's tariffs and sanctions are doing, which is to say, try to isolate and disconnect China from the entire trading world as a and begin to rearm all of US allies, from little ones like Australia to bigger ones like South Korea and even bigger ones like Japan, in the long-term plan to either fight a war against China or deter and destroy China's willingness to fight. Now, that's the strategy. It's not a strategy of coming to durable peace in Europe. On the contrary, it's not a strategy of US abandoning its empire or its protectorate of Europe. On the contrary, Europe's to pay more for the protection. It's a grand protection racket, that's what it is. But in uh all all of the funds received, some of which will fall off the truck and end up in the pockets of Mitchell, Colby, and if you look at their advisory board, there's the son of the Indian foreign minister, there's a former German defense minister, there's Dennis Blair, the former Pacific com fleet commander in the United States Navy and a former director of national intelligence. There's a whole bunch of people that are worth looking at to understand that these are the conduits of future influence as this sequencing strategy plays out. We can come to the big problem if uh that this uh strategy of the clock presents, because in a minute, but let me just signal it. If the US wants to play this game, what does it mean to the general staff, the Russian intelligence services, and the Kremlin on the one hand, and the Chinese general staff and intelligence services on the other? They look at it and say, "Hey, this guy is writing Trump's scripts. This guy and Colby have got are the brains behind um useful idiots like Rubio and Hegseth and Waltz, and these guys admit that now is not the time for the US to conduct these wars, but soon they will be." Well, what do you conclude from that reading of that clock? Answer: Russia's bound to say it's in our advantage to go now to maximize our gains on the battlefield while the US and the Europeans are weaker than they will be in five years' time. One, two, the Chinese are bound to say, "If this is what the Americans, the Japanese, the South Koreans, and the little East like Australia intend to do, let's go now against Taiwan because they will be stronger then." So, the strategy of the clock, presented as a brilliant um Brzezinski to uh or Kissinger to to Trump strategy, is a boomerang. The clock's a boomerang. But they think that they are still powerful, Russia weak, and China growing, and they think they've got the clock and the sequencing mechanism. And these phony negotiations which Rubio, Vance, Walsh, and the others are conducting are as camouflage.

This "camouflage" is once again the same thing I mentioned in my title — the shadows from Plato’s cave, a puppet show presented for the proles. Again, it’s exactly what Brian Berletic and I talk about in our posts and videos: don’t focus on tweets and the puppets on the screen, because they are not the ones creating grand strategies and policies. Instead, look at the think tanks — that’s where the real power lies. These think tanks represent the true power behind the throne.

As I explained in my previous posts, Trump is an idiot — someone who thinks there are aliens on Mars or that Spain is part of BRICS. He is not the brains behind the empire; he is just the brand so the face of it, while real decisions are made by those truly in power. I also explained that there are security clearances above the president, meaning even the American president doesn’t know everything. They are just PR figures for the empire.

So, it doesn’t really matter that Trump is an idiot. He didn't achieve real success in business either, as I mentioned in an earlier post. Whitney Webb explained that Trump had to be bailed out by Rothschild in the '90s — otherwise, he would have gone bankrupt. Trump didn’t succeed in business; he succeeded in show business, which is why he was perfect for the role of president — a brand, a face for the empire.

As I mentioned before (and as was pointed out by a Japanese politician I quoted recently, and by Ray McGovern in the main video), Trump spends most of his time playing golf. He is not the brain behind the empire; he is simply the face.

I laugh so much when I hear people saying Trump is smart and playing "five-dimensional chess." He is such a moron. As I described best in my earlier posts, the best description of Trump comes from Christian Parenti, who compared him to “a toddler with a hammer going through the living room, hitting stuff.” Here are two fragments of that again.

Trump targeted the architecture of the American Empire because he didn’t fully understand how it worked. He viewed it primarily as a security business. One of the most telling vignettes in the piece describes a meeting six months into his administration. The Joint Chiefs of Staff had a meeting with him at the Pentagon in a secure room famously known as “the tank.” They presented maps and visual aids to help him understand, attempting to make sense of complex military strategies. However, he remained unimpressed, dismissing them by saying, “So you guys are dopes and babies and losers. You can’t win wars. We’ve spent seven trillion dollars in the Middle East. Where’s the oil?” That was the exact quote. He simply didn’t grasp the intricacies of how everything - from embassies and relationships to grants to universities - relates to military bases and satellites, or how these delicate relationships with allies fit into the larger framework.

When it came to withdrawing troops from South Korea, he insisted on “cost plus 50.” This highlights his perspective. The argument isn’t that Trump was a good guy or a secret leftist; it’s that he posed real threats to the American Empire and inflicted genuine damage. That’s why the establishment hates him so intensely. The U.S. Empire is a system designed not just for projecting and reproducing American power and benefiting American corporations, but also for maintaining the framework of capitalism on a global scale since the end of World War II. Trump was meddling with something fundamentally important to this entire system of global capitalism.

They don’t dislike Trump because of the things he did that helped reproduce the military-industrial complex; they dislike him for the other things he did, which are akin to a toddler with a hammer going through the living room, hitting stuff. It’s totally contradictory and incoherent, much like his personality. His basic logic is driven by a short-term economic interest.

So, no, it was not an across-the-board anti-imperialist administration at all. The fundamental point is that he increased the military budget. I think he believed he was helping to project American power across the globe, but he routinely questioned why we didn’t close all our embassies in Africa. He fundamentally didn’t understand how the system worked, and that’s why they hate Trump. My point is not that he was a good guy.

He called generals “dopes, babies, and losers”; he wanted to close all American embassies in Africa. He is not some kind of genius playing five-dimensional chess; he is just a simple idiot.

26:28

Well, thanks for the question, Dmitri. I need to sort of shape it and reduce the amount of evidence that I can talk from. What I learned over the last week and what's reported in that "Dances with Bears" piece is that at the beginning of March, an opposition Polish MEP made a little video in which he, and then tweeted a text in which he said, "Look here, the entire US multi-acre, multi-hectare storage area around the Rzeszów airport"—the Jasionka, this is an airport, I should say, has got two names. Jasionka is the village, Rzeszów is spelled R Z E S Z O W—is a southern Polish city, 100 kilometers to the west of the Ukrainian border, and it's been the transportation hub for the supply of men, material, command, and staffing of the war in Ukraine. Planes come into this area bringing political leaders, bringing troops, bringing missiles and material, and then unloaded onto trucks and onto rail cars and then run into Ukraine. So, this area has been a major staging area for the US to run its war in Ukraine. And if anybody doubts that, just read the New York Times version of how this was done. But that part of southwest Poland has been crucial. So, when this guy says, "Look at this, what's happened is the Americans have lifted the entire concreting structures of this storage area and moved out," and he interprets that in his tweet to mean that the US is pulling out of the war and pulling out of Poland, and he does that for domestic Polish reasons related to the Confederation Party he represents versus two other major ruling parties in Poland. And we have in Poland right now very close to a new presidential election, so he's pitching this story as an argument for "Poland can't rely on the Americans, Poland must develop its own arms industry, it must develop its own capabilities to defend against Russia." This is nonsense, but this is the politics of Poland right now. Okay.

Within two days, this chap's video is described by the Polish state media as fake news. What they point out becomes very interesting. They say, "Look, what is happening has been in planning for years, and certainly months, and definitely before Donald Trump took over. The Biden administration had agreed with the Germans, the Norwegians, and the Poles that the US troops would be withdrawn but moved to elsewhere in Poland. The Norwegians would come in with a squadron of F-35s, the Germans would come in with Patriot missiles, US-supplied Patriot missiles but German crews, and that the hub would continue but under European management." And that was a Biden administration initiative. What the Polish state media then said was that the default position was a Biden administration initiative to which the Trumpies were complying. They were implementing through the US army, through the relationship with Germany, Norway, and Poland, what had already been decided and planned over some time, including years. So, then something very funny happens. The Polish government implements a regulation requested by the general staff of Poland, making about more than - well, several hundred installations in Poland, sites where Poles and anybody else are forbidden to photograph. In other words, they made illegal what the MP had done, as if that fools anybody using drones and satellite intelligence to see what's happening. It fools nobody. In any event, what I've done is to say this little story tells you a lot. First of all, the Trump default is to Biden policy, Biden policy, and you never - Trump never misses a tweet in which he can accuse Biden of having failed to do this and failed to do that on the ground, and he's repairing the damage. In fact, what he's defaulting to in Poland is a rearmament in which there will be more US forces, and Hegseth said it in Warsaw, he wants to see more US troops in Poland. Second, this story shows how much more threatening to Russia Germany is becoming under the new acting and soon-to-be chancellor, Frederick Merz. Now, this is so serious from a Russian point of view, the rise of German rearmament, that ex-president Dmitri Medvedev has said in his Telegram account, he simply called Merz a Nazi because Merz has already said he's in favor of supplying longer-range Taurus missiles and using them to attack the Crimean bridge. And that's been referred to by not only Dmitri Medvedev but the foreign ministry spokesman Maria Zakharova as a declaration of war by Germany. So, all of a sudden, what we see is the default position of the Trump administration being played out in Poland already, not just in future if and when peace negotiations fail and President Trump announces that he tried for peace and he tried to stop the killing, but neither side would agree, so he's picking up his marbles and going to play in another place. In fact, what's happening is already happening, and I used this little incident to demonstrate, but it is happening not only in Poland and not only with Germany. We can see NATO escalation against Russia from Finland and Sweden up to the Arctic Circle and up to Greenland. Yes, Vice President Vance has a problem of taking over Greenland, uh, with the disregard of either the Danish sensitivities as the colonial power or the Greenlanders as the indigenous population, but the strategy is the same. It's a collective NATO strategy to increase the pressure on all Russian fronts at once. So, what have we got here? We've got evidence that the default position of the Trump administration is back to Biden administration warfighting tactics, with one terrific, brilliant Trump idea: money. Trump has come up with the idea that he and his business friends - Vitkov Lutnik, the commerce secretary, um, I mentioned him, Fineberg at the Pentagon, and Scott Bent, not to mention Elon Musk and Peter Thiel, the oligarchs behind a lot of these people - they are going to make money off European budget increases in a way that the Biden administration hadn't thought of. It's going to cost less to fight the war in Europe but enrich the Americans more.

This fragment mentions Poland — and, funny enough, the Polish Confederation Party, which I call my "Polish AFD," because just like the AFD, it is an American psyop. I wanted to write more about this, but since this post is already too long, I’ll just briefly mention it here, and maybe one day I’ll write a full post about it.

The Polish Confederation Party, like the AFD, is an American psychological operation. They are ideologically right-wing, but at the same time, they see Trump as a genius and the American neoliberal economy as some kind of miracle. Their right-wing ideological views are just a disguise to make people in Europe vote for the Nazification and neoliberalization of Europe — something I described before as bringing Thatcherism to Europe.

Both the Polish Confederation Party and the AFD want to destroy Europe's social welfare systems and replace them with warfare economies. They both criticize Ukraine but also see Putin as bad — showing that they serve the same neoliberal empire.

My friend — with whom I eventually stopped talking because it was pointless — used to argue that the AFD is Germany’s last hope and that he also supports the Polish Confederation Party. But both parties only aim to bring neoliberalism to Europe: to privatize everything, ruin normal people's lives, and enrich the oligarchy.

There is no party in Poland — and probably none in Germany — that openly supports Putin. Maybe some leftist parties in Germany are somewhat pro-Putin, but it doesn’t matter because, while the AFD is being promoted, the Left is being suppressed by the oligarchs.

It’s funny how, just before the election, the Left in Germany split, and one of the new parties got 4.9%, just under the threshold required to enter the government. One left party got about 5%, and the other 4.9% — if they hadn’t split, they would have gotten around 10% combined. But, conveniently for the oligarchs, the split ensured that half the left-wing electorate was wasted because one party missed the threshold by just 0.1%.

In my opinion, this was a deliberate move by the oligarchs to destroy the Left, while the AFD — despite being portrayed as “the enemy” — is actually promoted. The Left is always the true target of oligarchic power.

Trump's Stupidity Destroying Everything, Like with ISIS

Everything I mentioned above in my post, in my opinion, is true — and their plan was ultimately undermined by Trump’s stupidity and, ironically, by American greed, just like German greed destroyed Germany’s plans. I won’t write too much about this yet because it’s connected to recent events that are still unfolding, and I don’t have a full grasp on it.

However, as John Helmer mentioned in both videos, while Trump initially followed Biden’s plan, he tweaked it slightly to make it more beneficial for America at the expense of its allies. This mirrors the same kind of greed that destroyed Germany’s plans for European dominance — Germany wanted to benefit at the expense of the rest of Europe, and that greed eventually made European countries support America's coup against Germany.

Now, Trump, because of his own greed, may have pushed America's allies to consider a coup against the American position and join China instead. Europe was supposed to keep Russia busy, while America focused on the Middle East or China. I assume the original deep state plan was to create a free trade zone with American allies like Europe, which would have benefited America.

But Trump was greedy and wanted even more. Instead of supporting a free trade zone that would benefit America economically, he attacked American allies with tariffs, trying to squeeze even more advantage out of them — and that greed may have ended up breaking the entire deep state plan.

Just like with ISIS — Trump believed the official narrative, thought he knew better, and ordered troops on the ground to destroy ISIS against the wishes of the deep state, since ISIS was a CIA creation. Similarly, I suspect he was offered the deep state's plan for a free trade zone with allies like Europe, but because he bought too much into the false narrative that America's allies (like Europe and Japan) were "ripping off" America, he decided to impose tariffs instead of strengthening alliances.

This greed could have ended up saving Europe.

For anyone who claims that Trump did this intentionally and is playing "five-dimensional chess" — there is no way he would help American allies at the cost of the American empire. Yet that is exactly what could be happening now.

There are already rumors of Japan and South Korea talking directly with China, and Europe restarting talks with China too. Anyone who knows a little history knows that China and South Korea both historically hate Japan, and South Korea and Japan were long forced to oppose China as part of the American alliance system. So the fact that they are now cooperating is truly remarkable.

Trump, ironically, is becoming a unifying force — not unifying the world against China, but uniting America's allies with China against America.

The same is happening in Europe: Europe, after doing everything America asked — remilitarizing, keeping Russia busy — is still being punished economically by America. Trump’s tariffs and economic bullying could push Europe to switch sides, just like Japan and South Korea.

This is all very recent and still unfolding, so we don’t know exactly how it will play out yet. Maybe I will write more about it in the future when things become clearer. But for now, it seems that American greed — and Trump’s stupidity — could have seriously damaged the American Empire.

Of course, there’s also a small chance that this is some kind of deep-state "five-dimensional chess" move aimed at dividing China and Russia, but I doubt it — though I’m not fully certain yet. As more information comes in and the situation becomes clearer, I’ll write more about it.

Anyway thanks to everyone who stuck with me until the end of my post. And, as always…

“Knowledge will make you be free.”

― Socrates

+

“Knowledge isn’t free. You have to pay attention.”

― Richard P. Feynman

=

“Freedom is not free, you need to pay attention.”

― Grzegorz Ochman

"Keep in mind, the news media are not independent; they are a sort of bulletin board and public relations firm for the ruling class-the people who run things. Those who decide what news you will or will not hear are paid by, and tolerated purely at the whim of, those who hold economic power. If the parent corporation doesn't want you to know something, it won't be on the news. Period. Or, at the very least, it will be slanted to suit them, and then rarely followed up."

― George Carlin

“The further a society drifts from the truth the more it will hate those that speak it.”

― George Orwell

"Beware of being too rational. In the country of the insane, the integrated man doesn't become king. He gets lynched."

― Aldous Huxley