Connect with us

Latest

Breaking

Analysis

The Defeat of Judge Roy Moore

The success of the disinformation campaign and how to stop it

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

3,178 Views

The Alabama Special Election cycle has been the source of much drama in the American media over the last month.  The vacancy left in the U.S. Senate by the appointment of Senator Jeff Sessions to Attorney General needed to be filled, and the people of Alabama had three people to pick from: Democrat Doug Jones, and Republicans Luther Strange and Judge Roy Moore.

When Judge Moore won the primary election, this was seen as a victory for strong conservatives, who feared that Strange would act much as the Establishment Republicans do – which is apparently in their own interests, rather than the interests of the people as manifested in the policy decisions proposed and promised by President Trump.

There has long been controversy surrounding Judge Moore, for his very strong Christian stance about directing the probate judges to continue the Alabama state ban on same-sex marriages (after the US Supreme Court ruled such bans as unconstituional) in 2016, and for refusing to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments from the lobby of his courthouse in 2003.

Moore was seen as what he is – a true conservative and a firebrand at that, someone who, like Trump, would light the establishment on fire and destroy its power, and someone who would not be afraid to be controversial in the cause of what is truly right, especially in that he follows the traditional Christian worldview very strongly.  For him, religious practice is not just something to be talked about, it is something to be lived.

This, again, is much like the brazen honesty that we see in President Trump himself.

The aforementioned “establishment” should be explained here. In this author’s estimation, the “establishment” politicians are those who seem to forget that they are in Congress to serve the American people they were elected to represent.  Now, while it has been a long time since the United States truly functioned as the representative republic its Constitution defines it to be, in relatively recent decades, the disconnect between DC and the rest of the nation seems to have increased beyond belief. Many times, citizens of the USA, in either party, could be heard to complain that Congress does not serve anyone but itself, and, depending on who the party in power was, we could be sure that the party not in power would be rife with complaints about how “elitism” of the party in power hurt the average American.

In 2014, though, it appeared that more Americans than usual got a rude awakening to just how widely true this assertion was.  In that year there was a midterm election, and it was extremely significant, because the result of it was that the Senate went from being a Democrat majority to a Republican majority.

Even more significant was how this happened.  In an unusual development, the GOP had no overall party platform that each GOP candidate used as their core message in his or her campaign.  Each GOP winner, whether in the Senate or House, won because their message was “I am going to stop Obama.”

I am going to stop Obama.  If you elect me, we will stop his “fundamental transformation” of America and make things right, (get them back as they used to be).

That was the message, and every candidate that ran on this message was victorious.

But then came the betrayal.

In case by case, bill by bill, the new GOP majority capitulated to Democrat minority pressure in almost every single bill or measure proposed.  The GOP had majorities in both houses.  They could effectively stop Obama and his policies in their tracks.  But they didn’t.  And they didn’t again.  And again.  Sometimes we heard the GOP congressmen claim that they were trying to “position themselves” to do something really significant, but they almost never did it.

Understanding this series of events, what this author calls “the Great GOP Betrayal of 2014”, is perhaps the main cause of the phenomenon that is Donald Trump, and his unexpected and dramatic election victory.

There were a whole lot of American citizens, this one included, that held no trust for Congress, GOP or Democrat.  Trump won the nomination because even Ted Cruz still played politics.  The American conservatives had been betrayed one too many times, and they sensed this and all it took was Senator Cruz playing the game of expediency in politics once or twice, and that was all.

Donald Trump said all the wrong things, to all the people they needed to be said to, and this both frightened and thrilled many of us.  We were frightened because for almost fifty years the vaunted American right to freedom of speech had been increasingly snuffed out by political correctness Thought Police, and Mr. Trump said these things anyway, and we feared for the end of his political career, even though we strongly agreed with him.  We were thrilled because we saw that it wasn’t only ourselves that felt what he said, but that many of our friends still did, too, only we had been silenced by the Left.

Judge Moore is one of these kind of people.  Flamboyant, but honest.  Although the man was long involved in politics, many conservatives saw the same necessary spirit in him, the same fire to overturn the conventional way things are done, and to flout political correctness and other liberal maxims and to make America great again. It was precisely along these lines that Steve Bannon promoted Judge Moore and backed his candidacy.

But something happened along the way.  A number of women surfaced with strange stories, claiming that when Judge Moore was in his early thirties, he tried to have relationships with them while they were teenagers.

The scandal surrounding this was immediate and widespread.  The story was broken in such a way as to paint a picture of the Judge as some sort of child molester, because the age difference was so huge as to be inappropriate or perverted.

The press managed to be slightly subtle in that the strength of the allegations was in their indirect sense of innuendo.

This had an extremely effective impact on the nation, and it began to unravel the Judge’s chances.  Even President Trump was cautious in his response to this matter, saying, correctly but cautiously, “If Judge Moore did these things, he should do the right thing and exit the campaign.”

To President Trump’s credit, this was precisely correct.  However, it didn’t help.

Further, Judge Moore actually damaged himself much more in an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, when he was vague, answering “not generally, no” to the question about if he was “dating girls that young at that time.” He further appeared to step in it when he said that he did not recall ever dating any girl without the permission of her mother.

Hannity charged ahead because these answers were far too ambiguous for him, and one thing this author knows personally about Sean is that he is a man of his word.  Sean Hannity is a man that is definitely responsive to his own conscience, and he is not one to brush things under the rug like this.  And true to form, he didn’t, and gave the Judge 24 hours to clean this mess up, saying “You must immediately and fully come up with a satisfactory explanation for your inconsistencies… If [Moore] can’t do this, [he] needs to get out of this race.”

Judge Moore did so, in an open letter through Twitter addressed to Sean, but available for all to read.

He also continued from that point until the election to firmly and completely deny the allegations against him.  However, in a strange turn, the weekend before the election, he disappeared for a couple days.  Also, in an appearance very close to the election, his wife committed a blunder by saying “we are not anti-Semitic, one of our lawyers is a Jew!”

This writer remembers, as an Alabama kid myself, watching a TV commercial in the 1970’s about Jimmy’s Jewish friend.  I learned that a good way of showing you’re prejudiced is to try to say you are not.  It would seem that Mrs. Moore missed the commercial.

The damage was done.  The media was out to get Judge Moore, and their disinformation campaign worked wonders.  This author did not even know about the reply the Judge gave until researching for this piece.  This, though this writer intensely follows the news aggregators and websites that support conservative candidates.

Eventually, as we know, President Trump endorsed Moore and did it in a very pragmatic way:  Look at what he stands for, and look at what the other guy has stood for.  But it wasn’t quite enough, and on the night of December 12, Doug Jones, a Democrat, became the first Democrat Senator-Elect in Alabama in 25 years.

Now, the Democrat party is crowing with great confidence about the “victory” in this election and the certainty that 2018 is going to be the year that swings their way again.  This author wants to make a few predictions about the next set of events we will likely see, but then there is something more important to be said.

(1) The “allegations” against Judge Roy Moore will seem to vanish, because there is no need to bring them up anymore since he has been defeated in the election. This is a problem. If these allegations really had merit, they should be pursued. But they won’t be.

(2) NEW allegations with much greater ferocity will be brought against President Trump and selected GOP individuals, all of whom show greatly conservative leanings. Since that is not many, most of the attention will be on Trump. I think we can note that this has already started, but it will amplify radically because the people who used this tactic against Moore will believe it can work against the President.

(3) The Democrats will get very bold about 2018 (again we already see this in statements by Sen. Charles “Chuck” Schumer and no doubt Rep. Nancy Pelosi will chime in if she hasn’t already) – and the Dems will act like they are completely in control.

(4) This will lead to some very interesting public drama, but it will also cloud the picture. If our President is smart (and he is), he will probably use this situation very positively. He has already started by congratulating Senator-Elect Jones, and this is certainly appropriate. I suspect that Jones is more extreme on the liberal side than even HE knows, but at the same time, I think he will also (at least on his own) be rather amenable to Trump. The key here is how much pressure can Jones take from the others in his party.

This author believes that President Trump can snatch victory out of the jaws of defeat.  He is already doing so.  However, the president’s great talents notwithstanding, there is a problem that has to be faced.

We do not know if Judge Moore misbehaved thirty years ago.  But his campaign was destroyed by these allegations, and one major one was proved to be at least a partial fabrication, the altered yearbook signature, which was “tweaked” for the purpose of this slander.

In the campaign, “character” was raised as an issue, but in reality it was slander and gossip that brought this candidate down, and nothing more.  The awesome power of the mass media on a population that has been largely taught to avoid critical thinking, but instead to “go with the flow”, has worked a sad wonder here.

You see, these stories magically appeared forty years after they supposedly took place, timed perfectly to coincide with the intended defeat of a political candidate twenty-eight days before his possible election. This was a November surprise that worked where the October Surprise attempt against Donald Trump last year (the Access Hollywood – Billy Bush video clip) didn’t.

This author is almost sure the allegations are false and only fabricated because of the necessity to defeat this renegade candidate at all costs.  As predicted above, time will bear this idea out.  We shall see.

But a problem exists as to why (1) the American people do not seem to be able to smell the rat in this situation, and (2) the politicians attempt not to be blunt in the face of a need by the American people to be so.

In this, the power of political correctness, secular humanist “compassion” and militant feminism all worked very effectively to damage President Trump’s ability to move the country to a better place.

It seems that the first issue, the populace’s perceived inability to smell a rat, is actually the reflection of a real need. The need for honesty.

Americans are people that crave honesty.  Many of us admire Donald Trump simply because he says what he thinks.  If we disagree, we disagree, but at least we know, and we know without the shadow of a doubt.  Judge Moore gave us a big shadow of doubt, and that was fodder for the dishonesty brigade that is the mainstream media in the United States.

The second part of this problem is that a great number of our people have been taken in by the influence of what can only truly be called “cultural Marxism” but which bears the face of “progress” and “compassion” and even “repentance for our nation’s crimes.”

This impulse, to be compassionate and fair at all costs actually does come with a cost, because our standards for what constitute compassion and care have been altered.  Instead of honesty and responsibility, for example, we espouse entitlement and victimhood.  Instead of changing our own lives to become better people, we insist that the world around us is unfair, and we try to change the externals, including other people’s behavior, or our own recording and retelling of history, to make ourselves feel better.

We stop trusting the gut instinct of conscience in ourselves and instead we espouse the “groupthink” that is handed to us by the forces of “common sense”, unmindful that we already possess enough common sense to know that garbage really IS garbage.  Finally, we all do it together.  As denizens of the fishbowl, it becomes hard to see that we are really being played, and if we try to look, sometimes the sheer discomfort of what we begin to see is enough to make us want to “take the blue pill” and shrink back into blissful, willful ignorance.

The gift of being able to see that reality is NOT groupthink, and that people can express it fearlessly and powerfully, is the gift of such people as President Trump, Rand Paul, Rudy Giuliani, Sarah Sanders, and Steve Bannon, politically speaking.  It is also fomented by the publications of what are called the “alternative media”, who are alternative simply because the writers and journalists and analysts have laid claim to their desire to think things through, critically for themselves, and then share their thoughts with their audiences, not to obtain just another slavish group of drones that think their way, but who think critically for themselves.

This ability to think honestly and critically, to analyze things with open-mindedness that is not enslaved to the socially “acceptable” themes of the day, this is our work as citizens – each one of us is called to do this.

The United States’ great success as a young nation was at its best when its people engaged in critical thought.  We squabbled a lot, argued a lot and it was intense at times, but honest people make things happen.  The fuzzy warm feel-good of groupthink has been largely responsible for taking our freedom away.  If we want to make the most of the chance that has been given us, hopefully this piece has illustrated some of how we, personally and as a people, can accomplish this.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

Theresa May set to order ministers to vote down no-deal Brexit amendments, risking cabinet split

Delaying Brexit would be “calamitous,” and much worse than no-deal.

RT

Published

on

By

Via RT


UK Prime Minister Theresa May is reportedly set to resist mounting pressure from pro-Remain Tory ministers, and order her cabinet to vote down amendments that would block a no-deal Brexit – risking possible resignations.

Parliament will vote on May’s alternative Brexit proposals on Tuesday, as well as a series of amendments that include delaying the UK’s departure from the EU by negotiating an extension to Article 50. The UK is set to leave the EU on March 29.

The prime minister will risk splitting her cabinet – ignoring pleas over taking no-deal off the table – and instead pursue a strategy of securing changes to the contentious Irish backstop, in a bid to win over hardline Tory Brexiteers and the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), the Daily Mail reports.

May will be hoping that such a move will provide her with enough MPs to get her deal through the House of Commons at a second attempt. The PM’s original Brexit proposals were roundly rejected last week, with the government losing by 230 votes.

UK Work and Pensions Secretary Amber Rudd has warned May that she faces a spate of cabinet resignations if she fails to allow ministers to vote on a plan that could block a no-deal Brexit.

According to the Times, pro-EU Rudd has intimated that unless May allows a free vote on a Brexit amendment, tabled by backbench Labour MP Yvette Cooper, which calls for Article 50 to be extended if no deal is reached by February 26, then mass resignations could follow.

Labour’s Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell has praised Cooper’s “sensible proposal,” claiming that it’s “increasingly likely” that his party will vote for it next week.

Cooper’s is one of eight amendments tabled in recent days. Another, put forward by Tory MP and ‘people’s vote’ advocate, Dominic Grieve, would allow Parliament to set the agenda and vote on a variety of proposals, including a second EU referendum.

It comes as Liam Fox, the international trade secretary, claimed in an interview with BBC Radio 4’s Today program, that delaying Brexit would be “calamitous,” and much worse than no-deal.

Michel Barnier, the EU chief negotiator, has claimed that Brussels will only extend Article 50 if there is a “stable majority” in the UK for a deal – adding that the UK could avoid the problems of the Irish backstop by opting for a softer Brexit.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Louis XVI (aka Emmanuel Macron) runs to Merkels’ arms in Aachen treaty (Video)

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 63.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris take a quick look at French President Emmanuel Macron’s comparison of the Yellow Vests movement to the times of King Louis XVI who, as Macron rationalizes, met his tragic fate by refusing to embrace reforms.

Emmanuel Macron told 150 corporate executives gathered at Versailles (including Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi, JPMorgan Chase CEO James Dimon, and Coca-Cola CEO James Quincey), that “a lot of people thought that it was not a good date to gather here,” referring to the execution of French King Louis XVI, who was guillotined on January 21, exactly 226 years ago on Monday…“but when you look at French history, if at the end they ended up like that, it’s because a lot of leaders decided not to reform.”

The meeting held by Macron was called together in part to alleviate investors’ fears after 10 weeks of Yellow Vest protests throughout France and spreading across Europe.

According to RT,  the nationwide protests have sometimes turned violent, and according to Macron’s office, have caused concern among foreign investors hoping to cash in on Macron’s business-friendly reforms.

Notably, Macron reassured his CEO guests that he would “not roll back what we have done in the past 18 months” – unpopular labor and tax reforms that have been cited as sparking the Yellow Vest protests.

Macron also said that the Yellow Vest movement had been spurred by middle-class anger over globalization, arguing that similar sentiments have given rise to Brexit and populist governments across Europe.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via Zerohedge


French President Emmanuel Macron’s push for what he previously called “a real European army” got a big boost on Tuesday amid France and Germany signing an updated historic treaty reaffirming their close ties and commitment to support each other during a ceremony in the city of Aachen, a border town connected to Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Empire. But the timing for the renewal of the two countries’ 1963 post-war reconciliation accord is what’s most interesting, given both the rise of eurosceptic nationalism, the uncertainty of Brexit, and just as massive ‘Yellow Vests’ protests rage across France for a tenth week.

Macron addressed this trend specifically at the signing ceremony with the words, “At a time when Europe is threatened by nationalism, which is growing from within… Germany and France must assume their responsibility and show the way forward.”

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron attend a signing of a new agreement on bilateral cooperation and integration, known as Treaty of Aachen. Image via Reuters

Germany’s Angela Merkel agreed, adding in her own remarks: “We are doing this because we live in special times and because in these times we need resolute, distinct, clear, forward-looking answers.” The agreement, which is being described as sparse on specifics or detail, focuses on foreign policy and defense ties between Berlin and Paris.

“Populism and nationalism are strengthening in all of our countries,” Merkel EU officials at the ceremony. “Seventy-four years – a single human lifetime – after the end of the second world war, what seems self-evident is being called into question once more.”

Macron said those “who forget the value of Franco-German reconciliation are making themselves accomplices of the crimes of the past. Those who… spread lies are hurting the same people they are pretending to defend, by seeking to repeat history.”

And in remarks that formed another affirmation that the two leaders are seeking to form an “EU army” Merkel said just before signing the treaty: “The fourth article of the treaty says we, Germany and France, are obliged to support and help each other, including through military force, in case of an attack on our sovereignty.”

The text of the updated treaty includes the aim of a “German-French economic area with common rules” and a “common military culture” that Merkel asserted could “contribute to the creation of a European army”.

Later before a press pool, Merkel endorsed the idea of a joint European army further:

We have taken major steps in the field of military cooperation, this is good and largely supported in this house. But I also have to say, seeing the developments of the recent years, that we have to work on a vision to establish a real European army one day.

She clarified that the new military organization wouldn’t exist as a counterpart to or in competition with NATO, similar to prior comments she made before European parliament.

Previously in November she had assured, “This is not an army against NATO, it can be a good complement to NATO.” This was also in support of Macron’s early November statements wherein he said of the proposed EU army, “We have to protect ourselves with respect to China, Russia and even the US” — words that were issued on the heels President Trump’s initial announcement that the US would withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF).

Despite such such assurances analysts say the natural and long term by-product of a “real European army” — as Macron and Merkel suggesting — would be the slow eroding and demise of US power in the region, which would no doubt weaken the NATO alliance.

The closest thing to a current “EU army” that does exist (if it can be called even that) – the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) – is generally perceived as more of a civil and emergency response joint EU member mechanism that would be ineffectual under the threat of an actual military invasion or major event.

Meanwhile perhaps a prototype EU army is already in action on the streets of Paris, revealing what critics fear it may actually be used for in the future..

The expected push back came swiftly and fiercely as Marine Le Pen, the leader of France’s National Rally party, slammed the updated Aachen treaty as “an act that borders on treason”, while others worried this is an attempt to create a “super EU” within the bloc.

Alexander Gauland of Germany’s Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), for example, warned:

As populists, we insist that one first takes care of one’s own country… We don’t want Macron to renovate his country with German money … The EU is deeply divided. A special Franco-German relationship will alienate us even further.

Italy’s far-right interior minister, Matteo Salvini, warned earlier this month that his country could seek an “Italian-Polish axis” to challenge the whole premise of a “Franco-German motor” that drives European centralization.

Also notable of Tuesday’s signing is that the Aachen document prioritizes Germany being eventually accepted as permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, which it mandates as a priority for French-German diplomacy. Such a future scenario on the security council would shift power significantly in favor of a western bloc of allies the US, Britain, and France, which Germany would vote alongside.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

The Integrity Initiative and the British Roots of the Deep State: How the Round Table Infiltrated America

Kissinger’s takeover of the State Department ushered in a new era of British occupation of American foreign policy.

Published

on

With the nearly weekly revelations that the British Foreign Office, MI6, and GCHQ have been behind the long standing agenda to undermine the Presidency of Donald Trump and undo the peaceful alliance between nationalist leaders in America, Russia, China and elsewhere, a new focus on the British hand in undermining the United States has become a serious thought for many citizens. In the first week of the new year, fuel was added to this fire when internal memos were leaked from the British-run Integrity Initiative featuring a startling account of the techniques deployed by the anti-Russian British operation to infiltrate American intelligence institutions, think tanks and media.

For those who may not know, The Integrity Initiative is an anti-Russian propaganda outfit funded to the tune of $140 million by the British Foreign office. The January 2019 leak, featuring documents dated to the early period of Trump’s election, demonstrate that this organization, already active across Europe promoting anti-Russian PR and smearing nationalist leaders such as Jeremy Corbyn, was intent on spreading deeply into the State Department and setting up “clusters” of anti-Trump operatives. The documents reveal high level meetings that Integrity Initiative Director Chris Donnelly had with former Trump Advisor Sebastien Gorka, McCain Foundation director Kurt Volker, Pentagon PR guru John Rendon among many others.

The exposure of the British hand behind the scenes affords us a unique glimpse into the real historical forces undermining America’s true constitutional tradition throughout the 20th century, as Mueller/the Five Eyes/Integrity Initiative are not new phenomena but actually follow a modus operandi set down for already more than a century. One of the biggest obstacles to seeing this modus operandi run by the British Empire is located in the belief in a mythology which has become embedded in the global psyche for over half a century and which we should do our best to free ourselves of.

Debunking the Myth of the “American Empire”

While there has been a long-standing narrative promoted for over 70 years that the British Empire disappeared after World War II having been replaced by the “American Empire”, it is the furthest thing from the truth. America, as constitutionally represented by its greatest presidents (who can unfortunately be identified by their early deaths while serving in office), were never colonialist and were always in favor of reining in British Institutions at home while fighting British colonial thinking abroad.

Franklin Roosevelt’s thirteen year-long battle with the Deep State, which he referred to as the “economic royalists who should have left America in 1776″, was defined in clear terms by his patriotic Vice-President Henry Wallace who warned of the emergence of a new Anglo-American fascism in 1944 when he said:

“Fascism in the postwar inevitably will push steadily for Anglo-Saxon imperialism and eventually for war with Russia. Already American fascists are talking and writing about this conflict and using it as an excuse for their internal hatreds and intolerances toward certain races, creeds and classes.”

The fact is that already in 1944, a policy of Anglo-Saxon imperialism had been promoted subversively by British-run think tanks known as the Round Table Movement and Fabian Society, and the seeds had already been laid for the anti-Russian cold war by those British-run American fascists. It is not a coincidence that this fascist Cold War policy was announced in a March 5, 1946 speech in Fulton, Missouri by none other than Round Table-follower Winston Churchill.

The Empire Strikes

When the Round Table Movement was created with funds from the Rhodes Trust in 1902, a new plan was laid out to create a new technocratic elite to manage the re-emergence of the new British Empire and crush the emergence of American-inspired nationalism globally. This organization would be staffed by generations of Rhodes Scholars who would receive their indoctrination in Oxford before being sent back to advance a “post-nation state” agenda in their respective countries.

As this agenda largely followed the mandate set out by Cecil Rhodes in his Seventh Will who said “Why should we not form a secret society with but one object: the furtherance of the British Empire and the bringing of the whole uncivilized world under British rule, for the recovery of the United States, and for the making of the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire?”

With the help of an anglophile, racist president in America, leading figures organizing these think tanks first advanced a program to create a “League of Nations” as the solution to the “nationalist problem” which humanity was told “caused” World War One. Nationalist forces in America rejected the idea that the constitution should be rendered obsolete and the plan for global governance failed. However that did not stop the Round Table Movement from trying again. Leading Round Table controller Lord Lothian (British Ambassador to the USA) complained of the “American problem” in 1918.

”There is a fundamentally different concept in regard to this question between Great Britain and the United States  as to the necessity of civilized control over politically backward peoples…. The inhabitants of Africa and parts of Asia have proved unable to govern themselves…. Yet America not only has no conception of this aspect of the problem but has been led to believe that the assumption of this kind of responsibility is iniquitous imperialism.

They take an attitude towards the problem of world government exactly analogous to the one they [earlier] took toward the problem of the world war. If they are slow in learning we shall be condemned to a period of strained relations between the various parts of the English-speaking world. [We must] get into the heads of Canadians and Americans that a share in the burden of world government is just as great and glorious a responsibility as participation in the war”.

A Chinese leader of the American-inspired republican revolution of 1911 named Sun Yat-sen warned of the likes of Lord Lothian and the League of Nations in 1924 when he said “The nations which are employing imperialism to conquer others and which are trying to maintain their own favored positions as sovereign lords of the whole world are advocating cosmopolitanism [aka: global governance/globalization -ed] and want the world to join them… Nationalism is that precious possession by which humanity maintains its existence. If nationalism decays, then when cosmopolitanism flourishes we will be unable to survive and will be eliminated”.

New Name. Same Beast

By 1919, the Round Table Movement changed its name to the Royal Institute for International Affairs (aka: Chatham House) with the “Round Table” name relegated to its geopolitical periodical. In Canada and Australia, branches were created in 1928 under the rubrics of “Canadian and Australian Institutes for International Affairs” (CIIA, AIIA). However in America, where knowledge of the British Empire’s subversive role was more widely known, the name “American Institute for International Affairs” was still too delicate. Instead the name “Council on Foreign Relations” was chosen and was chartered in 1921.

Rhodes Scholar William Yandall Elliot surrounded by a few of his leading disciples: Sir Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski Samuel Huntington and Pierre Trudeau

Staffed with Rhodes Scholars and Fabians, the CFR (and its International Chatham House counterparts) dubbed themselves “independent think tanks” which interfaced with Rhodes Scholars and Fabians in academia, government and the private sector alike with the mission of advancing a foreign policy agenda that was in alignment with the British Empire’s dream of an Anglo-American “special relationship”. One such Rhodes Scholar was William Yandall Elliot, who played a major role mentoring Henry Kissinger and a generation of geo-politicians from Harvard, not the least of whom include Zbigniew Brzezinski, Pierre Elliot Trudeau and Samuel (Clash of Civilizations) Huntington.

The Round Table in Canada and the Coup Against FDR

In Canada, five leading Rhodes Scholars were busy creating the League of Social Reconstruction as a self-described “Fabian Society of Canada” in 1931 which was meant to be a fascist/technocratic answer to the chaos of “greedy nationalism” that supposedly caused the economic collapse of Black Friday in 1929. During the same time in America, a different path to fascism was taken by these networks during the early 1930s. This plan involved installing a General named Smedley Butler into power as a puppet dictator steered by the Anglo-American establishment. Luckily for America and the world, General Butler blew the whistle on the coup against Franklin Roosevelt at the last minute.

Kissinger’s British Takeover of America

Though it took a few assassinations throughout the post war years, Kissinger’s takeover of the State Department ushered in a new era of British occupation of American foreign policy, whereby the republic increasingly became the “Dumb Giant” acting as “American Brawn for the British brains” using Churchill’s words. While a nihilistic generation of youth were tuning in on LSD, and an old guard of patriots surrounding Wallace and Kennedy had fallen to the “red scare” witch hunt, geopolitical theory was fed like a sweet poison down the throat of a sleeping nation, replacing a policy of peace and “win-win cooperation” advanced by true nationalist patriots as FDR, Wallace and the Kennedys, with an imperial clone masquerading as a republic.

Sir Kissinger did nothing less than reveal his total allegiance to the British Empire on May 10, 1981 during a Chatham House conference in Britain when he described his relationship with the British Foreign office in the following terms: “The British were so matter-of-factly helpful that they became a participant in internal American deliberations, to a degree probably never practiced between sovereign nations… In my White House incarnation then, I kept the British Foreign Office better informed and more closely engaged than I did the American State Department… It was symptomatic”.

During this period, Kissinger worked closely with CIA director George Bush Senior, who was later rewarded for his role in advancing the British-planned first war on Kuwait with a knighthood. This war set the stage for the second wave of Middle East wars beginning with the Anglo-Saudi orchestrated operation known as 9/11 and the ushering in of the new “post-nation state order” by Kissinger and Blair.

This was the era which was celebrated by both Kissinger and Bush in sundry places as “the New World Order”.

The Dystopic New World Order Threatened by a New Deal of the 21st Century

It is this dystopic geopolitical order which has been challenged by the Russia-China alliance which arose in earnest with Xi Jinping’s 2013 announcement of the Belt and Road Initiative as the Grand design for large scale infrastructure projects internationally and in September 2015 with Vladimir Putin’s intervention into Syria which defeated the Hobbesian regime change paradigm which poisoned the west. In 2016, the election of nationalist American President Donald Trump opened the door for the first time in over 50 years to a true national coalition of sovereign nations to eliminate the cancer of colonial thinking forever from the earth.

It is this same British-run deep state which owns Robert Mueller, who along with the Integrity Initiative, Five Eyes and other Deep State operatives are dedicated to overthrowing President Trump from office and undoing the great potential now facing the world as outlined by the Schiller Institute and American statesman Lyndon LaRouche: 1) an FDR-style re-organization of the bankrupt banking system and 2) the unleashing of a global New Silk Road as the New Deal of the 21st Century.


BIO: Matthew J.L. Ehret is a journalist, lecturer and founder of the Canadian Patriot Review. His works have been published in Executive Intelligence Review, Global Research, Global Times, The Duran, Nexus Magazine, Los Angeles Review of Books, Veterans Today and Sott.net. Matthew has also published the book “The Time has Come for Canada to Join the New Silk Road” and three volumes of the Untold History of Canada (available on untoldhistory.canadianpatriot.org). He can be reached at[email protected]

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending