EDITORIAL
How America Became the World’s Policeman
By Wendy McElroy - March 19, 2015

A pivotal debate in post-WWII America destroyed the nation’s deep streak of isolationism; this is the foreign policy of nonintervention by one nation into the affairs of another.

On one side was the Old Right. They were a group of politicians and writers who coalesced in opposition to President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and entry into World War II (WWII). They advocated global free trade, nonintervention, personal freedom and limited government; they did so with rare passion and eloquence.

In his essay, “The Revolution Was,” the libertarian Garet Garrett commented on how the revolutionary New Deal had destroyed the American structure of government which had protected freedom. “There are those who still think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of Depression, singing songs to freedom … Those were the innocent disarmers. Their trust was in words.”

After WWII, the Old Right became the strongest force resisting a foreign policy of anti-communism that became the heart of the Cold War. One reason: They thought a Cold War would lead to imperialism abroad and totalitarianism at home, because power would need to be centralized in the executive branch.

The other side of the debate consisted largely of anti-communist politicians and corporate liberals who clamored to establish a permanent network of military bases, economic interventions and alliances around the world. Corporate liberals are businessmen who are notorious for pushing through anti-free market measures in order to profit from them. They enter into an unofficial partnership with sympathetic politicians and together become a ruling elite.

The elite side won, and it did so definitively. Today’s runaway foreign policy is rooted directly in their victory back in 1947. Much has been written about the Cold War but a novel way to glimpse its impact is to consider a concept that sounds odd to modern ears.

Neutral Rights

Neutrality used to be a right of war. A considered examination of the concept may date back to the great legal theorist Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) and his work The Rights of War and Peace. He wrote, “Nothing to be taken belonging to the neutrals, but under circumstances of extreme necessity, and with an intention to pay the full price of it.” In turn, neutral nations were duty bound to not provide either side with direct war aid, such as munitions. Nevertheless, they retained the right to engage in non-military commerce with either or both sides.

European leaders were not initially receptive to the idea but it gained some foothold in a newly emerging America. In May 1793, President George Washington responded to America’s first foreign policy crisis by issuing the Proclamation of Neutrality. Revolutionary France had declared war on Great Britain and on half of Europe in a conflict that became known the Napoleonic Wars. An American response had been demanded.

The Proclamation was controversial. Powerful voices, like that of the haughty Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton, demanded immediate neutrality. Other powerful voices, including Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, wished to delay and, perhaps, negotiate with the belligerents. As a compromise, neutrality was declared but American ships were prohibited from providing war material to either side; American citizens who materially supported either side could be legally prosecuted. The American character in foreign policy was being defined.

In his Farewell Address of 1796, Washington stated that it was America’s “true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world.” In his inaugural pledge of 1801 Jefferson vowed, “[p]eace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none…the supremacy of the civil over the military authority.” This was a statement of neutral right and nonintervention.

Tension continued on foreign policy, however. For example, the Mexican-American War (1846–1848) can be seen as one for empire in which America annexed huge stretches of Mexican territory. Yet, less than ten years later, at the Declaration of Paris (1856), the U.S. fought to prohibit the seizing of non-contraband goods of neutral nations during war. Did America respect the right of neutrality, especially for itself, or did it believe in an aggressive military?

Depending on the circumstances and character of those in power, it seemed to believe in both. The principle of neutrality continued to operate in ever narrowing manner through to the end of WWII. For example, Spain, Switzerland and various other proximate states were able to escape the war in Europe.

Then neutrality or nonintervention was erased from American foreign policy by the Truman Doctrine and the concurrent rise of mega-agencies, such as the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund, which pressed for unified global action.

The Truman Doctrine

If we go along with this poking into the business of Europe, what will happen to the liberty we have left in America? Already there is a Red witch hunt afoot, and experience tells us that when the exigencies of the situation require it the definition of “Red” will include every person who raises his voice against the going order. – Frank Chodorov

After WWII, the world divided ideologically into three categories. First World nations were Western ones, primarily America, which expressed democratic principles. Second World nations were communist ones, primarily the Soviet Union. The Third World consisted of unaligned nations; they were often undeveloped ones in Africa or Asia. The First and Second World sectors were in competition for the allegiance and economic advantages offered by the Third, which made their neutrality no longer acceptably neutral. Moreover, nations that went communist were viewed as a threat to domestic security in America.

Announced on March 12, 1947 by President Harry Truman, the Truman Doctrine was a major play to entrench American interest into Third World nations and to prop up governments considered to be favorable to America. The doctrine pledged American assistance to any nation that resisted communism. The implication and the discussion that surrounded the doctrine pledged hostility toward any nation that embraced communism.

Even as the Truman Doctrine was announced, America was preparing to intervene in a foreign government to determine its political structure. Greece was being ripped apart by a civil war between communist rebels and a repressive right-wing government. The British had been supporting the government but asked America to assume the role. With funding from the Truman Doctrine and related measures, such as the Marshall Plan, the Greek government prevailed. As one of the first Cold War interventions into the internal politics of another nation, Greece set a pattern. In the name of containing communism, America propped up vicious governments and poured money into their coffers even though it had no compelling interest there.

When Greece joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), it became part of a collective defense system that would soon fight the communists in Korea. Senator Robert Taft, leader of the Old Right, had warned against the negative impact of NATO which would commit all signatories “to go to war if necessary with any nation which attacks any of the signers.” The commitment could be called in even if the attack was by a non-communist nation or by one of the signers themselves. In short, NATO destroyed the right of neutrality. Others in the Old Right warned that every corrupt government would now want American money merely to maintain power. And they would all declare their enemies to be communist.

Conclusion

The Truman Doctrine was the official beginning of an aggressive ‘peacetime’ intervention during which America became the world’s policeman. ‘Friendly’ nations were often bought off by supporting cooperative but repressive leaders. Unfriendly ones often experienced economic sanctions and the arming of their domestic opponents.

The historian Charles Beard once commented that the best description of the foreign policy of Presidents Roosevelt and Truman is “perpetual war for perpetual peace,” which the historian Harry Elmer Barnes later used to title a book. And, yet, the Cold War was not perpetual. Arguably, it ended when the Soviet Union did. What next?

Dan Sanchez observed at the antiwar.com site (Oct. 23, 2014), “In 1990, Murray Rothbard clearly identified the earliest signs of the ultimately successful decade-long push by the neocons [the now hawkish right] to replace their dearly missed Cold War with a global, imperialist, and permanent War on Islamic fundamentalism and for ‘Democracy’.” Rothbard explained,

[I]f the Cold War died in the Communist collapse of 1989, what can…justify the policy of massive intervention by the U.S. everywhere on the globe? In short, what cloak can the Establishment now find to mask and vindicate the continuance of U.S. imperialism? With their perks and their power at stake, the Court apologists for imperialism have been quick to offer excuses and alternatives …

The new face of America’s perpetual war has some cosmetic changes. The enemy is terrorism, not communism. The goal is liberation and democracy, not containment. The battleground is arid soil, not Asian jungle. The soldiers are not drafted but volunteers or mercenaries.

But it all seems oddly the same because the fundamentals are identical. Through unending war, America has utterly deserted any commitment to neutrality abroad. And the Old Right was correct; the domestic government has become a behemoth and power is centralized in the hands of the executive.

The elimination of the neutrality rights of nations is now so complete that neutrality can be challenged even when no declaration or act of war has occurred. Merely viewing a nation as a potential ally or enemy now warrants intervention, up to and including a military presence.

In 1821, John Quincy Adams declared that America “goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.” America is now abroad. And she is the monster.

       

Posted in EDITORIAL
  • H. Rearden

    That is a good article about the history of US interventionism. Jefferson sent the Navy and Marines to confront the Barbary States when he was the POTUS. Jefferson also imposed an embargo on foreign goods. It is a violation of one’s liberty for a state to criminalize those who offer aide to nations involved in warfare or at peace as well. One could say that in that sense the state is not being neutral when the state forbids people to offer aide to a foreign state. I do however believe that a state is right to make it a crime for one living in that state’s country to aide a state that it is at war with.

    • Good morning, HR. I am a fan of Jefferson’s first term as President but, as you point out, the man violated most of his own stated principles in his second term, especially in terms of foreign policy. As I remember, he imposed the death penalty on smuggling.

      A state that forbids its own people from aiding a foreign nation is not neutral unless it forbids the aiding of every belligerent. This would make it neutral but the prohibition would be violation of the rights of individuals who should be free to use their own person and property to support whatever cause he or she believes in. That’s just one of the things wrong with states declaring war. They assume the right to commit every person within their jurisdictions to the same cause or, at least, to prevent them from disagreeing with politicians by acting contra the war declaration. War destroys individual rights by creating a Hobbesian condition of all against all.

      • Col. Edward H. R. Green

        No situation, including war, negates legitimate individual rights; therefore, I agree that if, for example, a US citizen wishes to provide whatever assistance he wishes–entirely at his own expense–to extend to his and his fellow American’s enemies, he has the right to do so in accordance with his right to self-ownership, private property and personal liberty, and he bears all of the risks and consequences for doing so at his own expense.

        The state, as such, has no valid “right” to stop him because a state is not a person. Qua state, it does not possess reason and volition; therefore, it has no rights. A state is not correct to stop him because no person is the property of any state. People in the US may stop him permanently if he initiates violence against them, but they have no right to prevent him from leaving the US to carry out his mission of assistance to the enemy. He may discover that the enemy is suspicious and unappreciative of his assistance, resulting in his being killed at their hands. As we know, this happened to several people who left their home countries to assist ISIS.

        Is it morally wrong to assist those who are intent on murdering and enslaving oneself and others ? Certainly, for it is not objectively conducive to one’s legitimate individual rights and the creation and maintenance of a free and civilized society. However, doing so is a matter of individual choice, not some national or collective “duty”, and sooner or later, one bears the existential consequences of one’s choices, for good or ill. Where choosing to aid and abet killers is concerned, one is likely to experience fatal consequences, sooner rather than later.

    • Bill Ross

      “I do however believe that a state is right to make it a crime for one
      living in that state’s country to aide a state that it is at war with”

      ah, a false pretext / excuse to rationalize away “freedom of association”. One of many “thin wedges” that has resulted in “here and now”, the cumulative effect of primary freedoms hyphenated and rationalized away, one by one until freedom is no longer respected.

      Re-think this.

      • H. Rearden

        My thought was that after WWII the French people such as Pierre Laval who collaborated with the National Socialists were criminals because the National Socialist regime in Germany was one of the worst in history. However, I realize that the reverse situation can happen. There were Germans who aided the Allies. This really is not a dilemma however when it involves those who aide a tyrannical regime that will resort to placing people in death camps and violate individual freedom on a large scale. A person who aides a state that is at war with the country they live in and if that state defeats their country would deny liberty to the people in their country and enslave them and place some in death camps is a criminal. What about the liberty of those who don’t support the enemy of their country? It really depends on if one is supporting the right side or the good side. I realize that WWII is not the norm regarding warfare because often it is not clear which side holds the moral high ground. It is certain that the Axis powers during WWII did not hold the moral high ground and needed to have their ass kicked. WWI btw was different because it is not clear which side in that war held the moral high ground.

        • Bill Ross

          Maybe this “disagreement” is similar to looking for water that is not wet?

          The mere existence of states (organized predators, domestic and international) implies that, from the perspective of states, all who “do not assist” (draft dodgers, those who seek to be unaligned) and “opposition” (traders with the enemy, contrary political forces) are “enemy combatants”. Note that Homeland Insecurity has oath-keepers, preppers, … right up there as “terrorists”.

          Recall also that the Bush dynasty made its fortune “trading with the enemy”, the Nazis

          go back to my initial point “freedom of association”. IMHO, armed with this, the “state” could not exist, or, if it did, it would be by voluntary association, competing with other voluntary social / economic organizations. Take forceful monopoly away from states and the result is “no states” (and, no WAR, writ large attempting to expand monopoly).

          My point is, all arguments regarding “the state should do this or that” “does not compute” when evaluated according to libertarian (peaceful) values. If the state adhered to libertarian values (an oxymoron), there would be no state.

          to quote you: “that a state is right to make…”

          Nope. The state has no such right, unless we allow it (power “argument”). Only individuals do.

          • H. Rearden

            I did not state that the state has a right. I stated that the state is right to make it a crime. Sure the state should not exist but in reality it does or at least it does in the form of people who think that they can control others. I believe it was a crime for people in any country to aide the National Socialist regime in Germany because they were waging war and murdering people. Do you not think that it was a crime to aide the National Socialist regime in Germany? Whether or not a state declares those who do not support the state during wartime depends on the state. First of all not everyone is subject to a military draft. Many are exempt based on age, sex, or medical condition. In some states people can legally protest a war that the state is involved it.

          • Bill Ross

            “I stated that the state is right to make it a crime.”

            right = correct?

            as I said: a matter of perspective. Of course states consider it a “crime” for people to, or assist those who oppose them. Look no further than the Fatherland’s (HomeLand) Security “terrorist” list, including oathkeepers, constitutionalists, returning veterans…. This is looking like “security” for them, but, not us, in fact “from us”.

            Look at how chasing “terrorist funding” (a pretext) has placed crippling controls on planetary financial systems, eviscerated tax havens and personal privacy. States are MAD. If you don’t want to be in conflict, with “enemies”, well, “don’t initiate aggression”. And, you state the state is “right” to do so. This is my last post on this topic. IMHO, the only “right” thing states can do is: “stand down”.

            When it comes to the state, right and wrong do not appear to “compute”. There is just unequal application of force of law, favoring “friends”, smiting “foes”, independent of whether they are peaceful, or not. Right and Wrong are just illusions, defined by how the “argument” is politically rationalized on any issue. The AXIS powers were “no saints” in WW2. They were in Nuremberg violation as well as the Nazis (Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki…). IMHO, both sides were criminals and, the only morally proper course was neutrality, non-involvement.

            “Freedom of Peaceful Expression”, in the purist sense includes “to act”. Supporting “enemies” of, or opposing OUR western political tyrannies is not an “implausible” (without reason) act, by some POV’s.

            States (arbitrary power) just mess things up. There is no “right”, “wrong” or sense involved.

          • H. Rearden

            Well then I will get the last word with this post. I’m glad you agree that the Axis powers were no saints. I disagree that right and wrong are just illusions. You sound like a moral or ethical Nihilist by stating that right and wrong are just illusions. Sure states do consider it a crime to oppose them but it is a matter of degree with some states. Some states don’t care if people protest as long as they pay taxes while others make the act of protest in any form a crime. I consider it a crime for one to actively aide a state that is at war against the state one lives in if that state wants to murder and enslave people in one’s country. The reason is because I value liberty and oppose tyranny and that includes tyranny by a foreign state. OTOH I do not consider it a crime if one aides a state that is waging war against the country one lives in if that state is at war because one’s own state initiated aggression against one’s country. An example is Germans who aided the Allies during WWII. They were morally right to do so. It is too bad there were not more Germans who aided the Allied nations. States can do right. It was right for Allied states during WWII to fight the National Socialist regime in Germany and liberate not only those who the National Socialists placed in death camps but liberate all the German people from the National Socialist regime. To say that was not right is a morally wrong. I believe that generally states do wrong but I don’t believe that the Allied states were wrong to defeat the Axis states. Well I suppose this is the last word on the subject unless someone else who shares your view want’s to take up where you left off on this topic. Again to view the Allied states during WWII as being just as wrong as the Axis states is ridiculous. The German states declared war on the USA and needed to be defeated. It is absurd to suggest there is a moral or immoral equivalence between the USA during WWII and National Socialist Germany. Perhaps you should check your premise on this matter.

  • We tell ourselves that we are “the policeman to the world”. Who exactly was it that appointed us to this role? The “War on Terror” has made the USA the biggest terrorist on the planet. We ARE the monster to so many in the world, as Wendy says.

    • Good morning, Gregg. Brad and I were talking about the “policeman to the world” idea and the strangest words came out of my mouth. I said, “Thank God the Soviet Union is coming back.” I am not thankful for the Soviet Union, of course. It is a thug…but it provided some balance of power to the world. Rather like the alternate banking system being set up by the Chinese. Thanks for the post.

      • Fritz Knese

        Wendy, I think the “balance” you speak of is horribly overwhelmed by the reality that Russia has so many functioning nukes. As much as I fear the nukes the USA has, I would prefer a world where only the USA had nukes to the situation of today where the idiots running Russia could nuke us tomorrow, Communist China may be nuking us a few years from now, and lowly N. Korea has the power to do an emp attack and put the USA and Canada back in pre-technology days.

        • I think the world would be more safe still if the united states of America and Israel did not have any ‘nukes’ no matter who else did. May teach their ‘administrations’ some manners and sensitivity instead of acting as the bully thugs of the world under the coercion of their corporate banking paymasters.

          No matter how badly Russia and China have acted towards their own people they have not been the catalysts of this global nuclear mania or started wars – that has its roots well and truly in the US of America. Disgusting.

          • Fritz Knese

            I think Israel and the USA are very evil, but I do not feel particularly threatened by their nukes. We can’t put the genie back into the bottle.

          • The gigantic industry that feeds from the US military $ have caused enough nuclear explosions to have taken place around the world to say a major nuclear world war has effectively already taken place – the radiation from which in now detectable in every living person. See: A Time-Lapse Map of Every Nuclear Explosion Since 1945 https://t.co/xIrIKgK9dM So your ‘not feeling particularly threatened’ is a misnomer.

            The entire demeanour of US/Israeli foreign military activity is centred on the threat of its nuclear arsenal. The whole nuclear power generation industry is built on the need for having a weaponised production facility – nuclear power is not cost effective and utilises an unnecessarily dangerous system.

            Nuclear disarmament is a possibility if the political will was there for it in the US/Israel but that will not happen whilst Israel continues its ethnic cleansing of the nation formally known as Palestine and whilst its ambitions remain for the establishment for a ‘Greater Israel’ to yet be formed across the middle east. And that will not happen whilst the US is the attack dog stooge for Israel and for the economic hegemonic empire it manipulates about the world on behalf of its corporate banking money/power masters.

          • Brad R

            Just as an aside, Canada has quite a large nuclear power generation industry, and no weapons production at all. So weapons are not needed to justify nuclear power. I can’t comment as to the cost effectiveness, but the safety record is quite good.

          • FACT: Canada has quite a large nuclear power generation industry, and no weapons production at all
            OPINION: So weapons are not needed to justify nuclear power.

            ALTERNATIVE OPINION: Canada has the means in place to produce weapons at short notice.
            https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=the+link+between+nuclear+power+and+weapons&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=H4wQVYTaKonvarXegdgB

            I suppose the Japanese had a good safety record in February 2011 too?

          • Brad R

            Actually no, the Japanese safety record has been indifferent at best. Consider the 1999 Tokaimura criticality accident, for example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokaimura_nuclear_accident

            I doubt very much that Canada can produce weapons at “short notice.” CANDU reactors use natural, unenriched uranium, and Canada has no enrichment facilities. Canada also has no facilities for reprocessing spent fuel and extracting plutonium. Such facilities could be built, but that’s a project of some years.

          • 7.5.2 Canada
            Canada has a well developed nuclear technology base, centered around its domestically developed civilian CANDU (Canadian Deuterium Uranium) power reactor technology and large uranium reserves. CANDU reactors are heavy water designs that are fueled by natural uranium dioxide. The fuel is typically subjected to 7500 MWD/tonne burnup, which makes the plutonium produced reactor grade although they could be operated to produce weapon grade Pu. These reactors also produce 250-500 g of tritium a year as a byproduct. In 1995 Canada operated 21 power reactors. 19 of these are at three locations in Ontario with a combined capacity of 13300 MW electrical, and a further reactor each in Quebec and New Brunswick. Canada produces 19% of its electricity from nuclear power.

            Canada was the first nation in the world to build to build an industrial-scale heavy water plant (the Trail Plant during WWII, which was also only the second heavy water plant ever built, and the first in the western hemisphere). Canada has produced all of the heavy water used in its reactors, including export units. Since demand and production has declined in recent years, currently only one D2O production facility remains in operation. Canada exports heavy water under IAEA safeguards.

            A total of 13 CANDU reactors have been sold to Pakistan, India, Argentina, South Korea and Romania, along with the engineering expertise to build and operate them.

            Canada has one conversion facility that produces UF6 for export, with a capacity of 10,500 tonnes U per year. Two fuel fabrication plants produce 1700 tonnes U per year for the country’s own reactors.

            The Canadian nuclear industry is responsible for providing 30,000 direct jobs (2000 of these in mining) and a further 10,000 indirect jobs.

            Canada is currently the world’s largest producer of uranium, accounting for 32% of world production (1995). In 1995 it produced 12,351 tonnes of U3O8 (10,473 tonnes U). About 20 per cent of Canada’s uranium production is domestically consumed. Based on new explorations, reserves are now estimated (January 1996) at 484,000 tonnes of uranium at a production cost of under U.S.$72.70/kg (14% of world reserves, third largest after Australia and Kazakhstan).

            http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq7-5.html

          • CHALK RIVER, Ontario – 1952 – the world’s first major nuclear accident – http://www2.canada.com/life/chalk+river+toxic+legacy/5874735/story.html?id=5874735
            How many accidents does it take to not be ‘quite good’?

          • Brad R

            In the first place, NRX was not a power reactor; it was a research reactor, and only the second nuclear reactor Canada had ever built. (In 1947.) Early designs had problems; that’s why you build prototypes.

            In the second place, the NRX incident resulted in no fatalities. Nor did the NRU incident of 1958, or any incident since. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country#Canada No CANDU power reactor has ever suffered a meltdown; that’s partly due to the inherent nature of a heavy-water-moderated reactor. I’d call no fatalities for sixty years, and no major injuries, a pretty good safety record.

          • Fritz Knese

            We are basically in agreement. But given the present situation, I would prefer nukes in “our” hands to those in communist or Muslim hands. Red China’s population pressure could fuck us all eventually. Would it be better to fight now or later? Not fighting at all sounds good, but is it a realistic choice if we do not wish Red China as world master? India is also a problem, but they frankly don’t have the brains the Chinese do. I fear the USA has contributed to a world situation that fucks us all no matter what direction we take.

          • War between China and Russia has yet to be played-out with the squabble to happen over Siberia. I suggest this may be the next big geopolitical manipulation to come. The result will be a substantial reduction in Chinese population and yet no substantial territorial change except for a ‘disputed terrorist’ no-man’s-land neutral zone between a unified Eurasia comprising of the EU and Russia and a Greater China/Oriental Far-East Union. See: http://eubrainwashing.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/oceania-eurasia-and-eastasia-pnac-world.html

          • Fritz Knese

            I too see this as a possibility, but I think that it is more likely that Russia will largely aback off for nuclear conflict with Red China is far more dangerous to them than to the USA considering the physical realities of distance and relative populations. Russia simply can’t afford population loss while Red China could lose 500 million and not feel it much.

          • Who says Russia will be the protagonist? China has a 30 million excess of males why did that come about, population reduction or population control. China needs resources and living space. Russia wants nothing but to be left alone. China is subject of the global money power forces, that is how its growth has been fomented. Russia is resistant to those powers.

          • Fritz Knese

            I see either as likely protagonists. Putin is using the patriotic appeal very strongly and Russians seem to largely go for the idea of Russian expansionism. The oligarch rulers of the planet are all super aggressive assholes!

  • Bill Ross

    …morning Wendy, welcome back, hope your batteries are recharged.

    WM: “it all seems oddly the same because the fundamentals are identical”

    OF COURSE, the entire body of “approved” (by forceful “gatekeepers of truth) political / legal “knowledge” is a senseless hodgepodge of “wins / losses” between predatory sophists (opinion) and realists (proven facts). There is and can be no middle ground between fact and fiction.

    sophist (Houghton Mifflin), n.noun

    1. One skilled in elaborate and devious argumentation.
    2. A scholar or thinker. (IMHO, incorrect without “manipulative” or “unsubstantiated opinion” adjective)
    3. Any of a group of professional fifth-century bc Greek philosophers and teachers who speculated on theology, metaphysics, and the sciences, and who were later characterized by Plato as superficial manipulators of rhetoric and dialectic.

    At this point in history, the sophists are following the rapidly becoming obsolete / impossible (internet reformation, total information) “script” of their “intellectual god” (for arbitrary rule of man power) of Machiavelli, using perceptual manipulation (information control) and falsely / partially framed “arguments of necessity”, invariably in pursuit of the same end (servitude of the productive, by predators):

    http://www.nazisociopaths.org/modules/article/view.article.php/c7/45

    VERSUS

    The entire planetary population of objective thinkers, scientific realists, movers and shakers intolerant of lies who KNOW that no viable (peaceful, voluntary participation) social / economic organization (civilization and supporting infrastructure) is POSSIBLE without understanding and accommodating the nature / survival requirements of the individuals (components) of civilization.

    The realists were WINNING before Darwin and Evolution (a scientific FACT) was (perceived as a MAJOR threat to arbitrary power) misrepresented (by sophists) to be an attack on the dominant moral force of the day, the religious and “the golden rule”. This created a (divide and conquer) false rift between the religious and secular, creating a power vacuum for arbitrary power to step into:

    http://www.nazisociopaths.org/modules/article/view.article.php/36

    Given the resources (time and energy, life) wasted and attention diverted (vigilance lost) in this false conflict between the religious and the secular (also, the productive versus “entitled”), the sophists (in support of rule of man arbitrary power) wasted no time in destroying their primary impediments.

    The “rule of law”: http://www.nazisociopaths.org/modules/article/view.article.php/c1/34

    Critical thinking: http://www.nazisociopaths.org/modules/article/view.article.php/c1/33

    and securing central control of education and media to “insure” that no new Renaissance, Age of reason is ALLOWED to rise in competition to the forcefully imposed “truth” by our “arbitrary rule of some men, over us”. Until the internet reformation (and, the school of hard knocks, especially social / economic collapse) manages to overcome this imposed lobotomy, ignorance in sufficient numbers, this is “fait accompli”. They will continue to compete by “destroying the competition”, seeking and destroying those who oppose and compete by excellence”.

    It does not take a rocket scientist to connect the dots that, once this power of imposed ignorance secured domestic control in the west, it is the nature of arbitrary power, to seek to have it all. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely. Thus, the “Plan”, “Project for a New American Century” (PNAC), a planetary union of predators:

    Compete by “destroying the competition”, allow NO competing power to oppose.

    by suppressing “competition by excellence”, preventing a free market of trade and ideas.

    There you have it (the TRUTH). I and the rest of free humanity cannot and will not “take this, anymore”. We KNOW them by what they do.

    • Good morning, Bill. I am a bit refreshed…thanks for asking…but the deadlines on my new book are killers so I have dropped just about everything else *except* the Daily Bell. And, even here, I may not be reliable until the end of May when the entire behemoth will have been delivered.

      I agree with everything you say…*except* (yes, there is always one *except* between us!) do you really think Darwin and evolution was a turning point at which the realists stopped winning? My perspective is the opposite.

      • Bill Ross

        The “epiphany” of Darwin and Evolution is that survival and fitness is totally dependent on how well life “fits” (is adapted to environment), allowing the most efficient use of environmental “niche” resources to meet the needs of life. Add intelligence and ability to create artificial environments to the mix and “fitness” MEANS “making correct choices”, adapting to the reality of your environmental “niche” in society.

        I can understand how you may “believe” that Darwin enabled the trend in the “opposite direction”. That is BECAUSE sophists successfully misrepresented evolution to MEAN “might is right” as opposed to “correct choice” which requires the freedom to do so.

        If you and your planetary sized brain, having read “Darwin Reconsidered” do not “get” this primary point, clearly, I have failed to correctly express myself. Can you please “explain” how I failed and, can improve?

        • Ah…I reread your initial post in the light of your last one and I realize my initial “understanding” was a misinterpretation. I *do* agree with the epiphany insight and I don’t accept the “might makes right” interpretation. That was one of the main (faux) criticisms used to discredit Herbert Spencer who has received a raw deal from intellectual history, IMO. Survival of the fittest was never “might makes right” because might is not the measure of fitness. As you say “adaptation” is. That is the real strength of human beings; we are so damned adaptable. Good grief, Bill, does this mean we are in total accord on one of your posts!

          • Bill Ross

            Wait ’til next week. Will probably rain on your parade (Next week, I’m writing on a less depressing subject):)

          • Fritz Knese

            Hi Wendy! Survival of the fittest includes the concept of adaptability which includes situations of kill or be killed, running away, hiding, or just being lucky. “Might makes right” is more a statement of opposition to the concept that “morality” is the driving force of human nature. In human society historically those with the power defined what was “right and wrong”. In Nature the concept of “right” or “wrong” does not occur. There is instinct, desire, and the ability (power) to take and hold what one desires. In human society one sees this reflected in young children’s actions.

            By the way, have you noticed that most pets are carnivores and mammals? In particular most humans love the antics of kittens and/or puppies as they instinctually practice hunting and killing techniques. We love them because we are mammals and partly carnivores with violence as an integral aspect of our nature. This is much closer to a “natural moral law” than the libertarian concept of the non-aggression principle!

          • Bill Ross

            Time for article “Spencer Reconsidered”?

      • Lyn Morris

        oh boy, oh boy….a new book….I can hardly wait to get it. In your article today, you brought up one of my favorite authors, Garet Garrett…Jeffrey Tucker introducing the first four books of Garrett’s to me. The Revolution Was is just a little 58 page essay…but so chocked full of exactly what you’ve expounded on today. I don’t think either you or Garrett’s presentations …then or today are depressing, just truthful, and helpful in understanding.

        BTW…so glad you’re back. Bill Ross and I had to get into some hairy ‘inside scooping’ just to get thru without cha! LOL

        • Oh, no! I abandoned you to Bill? And you are still speaking to me? [Ducking for cover now in case Bill is reading.] Yeah…I started the new book on January 1 and I agreed to a 5 month deadline for final delivery. So far I’ve met the schedule but there are some days during which Brad just tiptoes around me…half because he doesn’t want to interrupt and half in self-preservation. Actually, it is not that bad. But, Lord, this is the last time I accept such a tight schedule. The Daily Bell is about the only outside and other commitment I’m not putting on hold because I like so much chatting with my friends here.

          And Spring is coming! The snow is starting to leave the farm and there is clear, easily negotiated path to the barn for the first time in months. I don’t where you live but Spring in Ontario is spectacular.

          • Bill Ross

            She “grinned and bore it”:)

          • Lyn Morris

            …I did, and I did!! LOL But I ain’t gonna cross that man again, ever, never…for sure!!!! LOL

          • Bill Ross

            Most of what you, I and anyone knows is learned from mistakes. The lucky ones are able to learn from the mistakes of others, which is why history is “revised”. Cross away:)

          • Lyn Morris

            …I’m not sure anyone would claim Indianapolis “spring” spectacular, but just finally getting sun and warmth is sooo Welcomed.

          • davidnrobyn

            “this is the last time”–ha! Sorry, Wendy, just had to laugh. I say that a lot, and it never seems to pan out. Hope it does for you!
            Spring here in the Pacific Northwest is like Dorothy stepping out of her house into Munchkinland. Amazing. Not that we had a winter this year–ours was as balmy as the one in the east was cold.

    • autonomous

      Well said, Bill.

  • Our ruling elitists established control over the worlds monetary system, then war industries and media, then government and education. They have constructed a false paradigm reality bounded by faux science, fake history, filtered news, financed by a fiat currency and directed by a feudal group of evil elites. These Demonic Warlords have stage set, directed and ‘profited’ from every war in the last three centuries. See “All Wars Are Bankers Wars” on youtube. The sinking of the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor and Gulf of Tonkin are provable staged attacks. The pivotal moment so far in the 21st century has been the 9/11 attacks, where the domino stacking hands are now visible. Read “Rainbow in the Dark, Powerful Proof of 911 Nukes” at Veterans Today. Then watch the interview with Veterans Today editor, James Fetzer, “The Real Deal Ep#31, Unequivocal 9/11 Nukes” where the stage setting evidence from multiple sources are explained. These sources include the 2300 member Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth, Dr Judy Wood and her Directed Energy Weapons at 911, the Pilots for 911 Truth, Scholars for 911 Truth, Field McConnell of Abel Danger and the work of thousands to finally solve this crime of the century.

    We have been systematically LIED to by our rulers for far too long. Demand Universal Freedom.

    • All wars are bankers’ wars, crony-capitalist wars and the health of the state. I don’t know if I’ve mentioned it before but one of my favorite movies is “Reds,” which centers on the life of noted communist John Reed. Near the opening, in the time frame of WWI, Reed is being feted at a banquet of fat cats because he is journalist fresh back from the frontlines of fighting. They clearly do not know his political persuasion because one of the asks, “What do think this war is about, Mr. Reed?” He (Warren Beatty) stands up, says the word “profits” and sits back down. Thanks for the post FauxScienceSlayer

    • Fritz Knese

      Nice to see someone recognizing the historical reality of elitist control for at least hundreds of years (I would argue thousands of years since the advent of agriculture at least). If you can find it, there was a book by A. A. Milne (the creator of Winnie the Pooh) written between WWI and WWII predicting WWII simply by observing the arms manufacturer’s sales. Wendy is of course correct below in her “Reds” quote that war is about profits for the ruling elite. But we should keep in mind that the underlying purpose of profits is control. Financial control is usually enough, but when it is not then the elite send in the men with guns. Ultimately they are the real power.

      • DB had a great article on Feb 27, “10 Reasons Washington Has War Fever” by Ron Holland. The ruling Demonic Warlords always use the same playbook, for a simple case, look at the absurd Boer/Rhodes war….”The Rothschild Template for War” at Veterans Today. End this feudal insanity.

      • Milne wrote a book on the manufacture of arms? I *need* to find that book. Wow. I just spent some time researching my very favorite author when I was a child…and I am amazed that I never knew of his participation in war propaganda and his ultimate rebellion against. Thanks Fritz.

        Agony of AA Milne, the reluctant wartime propagandist, and the ‘lies’ about German atrocities. A collection of AA Milne poems saved from a skip show he served in an MI7 propaganda unit during the First World War and had grown frustrated at having to “lie about German atrocities”.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/britain-at-war/10015206/Agony-of-AA-Milne-the-reluctant-wartime-propagandist-and-the-lies-about-German-atrocities.html

        • Fritz Knese

          Thanks for the MI7 article reference. The name of the book was Peace With Honour. I hope you can find it. I found it in a library stack probably 40 years ago.

  • ‘World Policeman’ – rhetorical cliché tosh. More like: Corporate Banker’s imperialistic wars launched by duplicity, funded by coercive taxation, debt and fiat currency, sponsored by the bigotry of nationalism and the anti-intellectual ignorance deriving from state schooling’s indoctrination.

    • That about captures it. I might add “driven by the blood of young conscripts.” Next week, I’m writing on a less depressing subject.

      • And who knows how many innocent others; happily defined as ‘collateral damage’ to wield yet more statist rhetorical cliché tosh.

  • dave jr

    Very interesting. Thank you Wendy. G Bush about summed it up when he said, “Either you are with us or you are against us”. Obviously there is no room for neutrality there.

    • Bill Ross

      against

      • dave jr

        Don’t fall for it. I for one will not accept the charge of being a self-stylized terr’st.

        • Bill Ross

          right back at you. There is NO objective definition for “terrorist”. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.

          I see no difference between the shrub’s “opinion”, a false, restricted choice and “obey or else”.

          The court of public opinion has moved on to pondering the near infinite definitions of “or else”, the converse of “obey”

          and, our collective predators are terrified by unruly prey. Their “terror” is totally obvious. For them, its like your steak (which you consider as your property) rising up from the plate and successfully defending itself. Totally flabbergasted, contrary to “reality”.

          • dave jr

            “..a false, restricted choice and “obey or else”.”
            .
            Exactly, it is a false restricted choice. So why do you choose ‘against’ leading to ‘or else’? I’ll not obey on principle. But neither will I be firing a BB gun over the bow of their destroyer. Perhaps their biggest ‘terror’ would be if everyone shrugged and walked away. When one chooses to fight, one chooses to play the game and even the opponents become useful for their cause. Aggression needs targets.

          • Bill Ross

            You should know by now I have and advocate my own game plan, and, it is “against”, on my turf, using REAL rules and NOT theirs. Play by THEIR “rules”, on their defined turf, guns and intellectual, live in their imposed “reality”, YOU LOSE, by THEIR definition.

            “Winning” is so much more fun / satisfying:

            http://www.nazisociopaths.org/modules/article/view.article.php/c8/42

          • dave jr

            Yes Bill, and I have the utmost respect for you. But for me, “winning” is not as satisfying. It still seems like a wasted day, even if I could retrieve what is rightfully mine. After all, there are better, more productive, things to do.

          • Bill Ross

            Which is more “productive”

            1. Actually being productive, ultimately having them steal the “fruits of you labor”, losing it to the “law” in futile defense, being foraged by hungry “entitled”, come the inevitable collapse? Net gain: Whatever portion of your life you wasted, feeding the beast. Not to mention: Accessory to their crimes, which, according to Nuremberg principles of law, you can be collectively punished for by not opposing predators / tyrants. In the race for accountability, reality is “winning”. In reaction the “law” will be forced to do an “about face”, if they want to have any hope of surviving.

            2. Participating in rekindling the global epiphany: slavery (no matter what THEY falsely call it, social obligation or whatever) DOES NOT WORK.

            These choices “just are” until our self-alleged “legitimate” predators are dethroned.

            You thought the collapse of the USSR was rapid? Just wait until the western bubble of false reality is pricked by the collective shrug (give up being prey) of the productive.

            And YES, this IS a pointless war we are in. Our slavers lost before the first shot was fired. Intelligent / productive mankind WILL be free of servitude / bullies, or, dead.

    • Thanks, Dave. I’ve wondered what neutrality would look like if there were to be a WWIII. Many nations were able to remain neutral in WWII, even if they were close to the combat zones or to belligerents. Switzerland and Spain are examples. Ireland is another. But there has been such a drive toward globalization since WWII, with mega-agencies like the IMF, the UN, etc. making almost every nation interconnected and obliged to each other in some manner. I expect Switzerland would be left in peace because all sides would value the banking services but I wonder how many of the other nations would be permitted to sit out a full-scale war. Then, again, it could be argued that their involvement would take a different form than it did in WWII. Perhaps many nations — even ones who were officially neutral — could fight under a UN, even if everyone knew it was primarily a US war.

      • Bill Ross

        “wondered what neutrality would look like if there were to be a WWIII”

        Look no further than Canada with immense (hidden from public) logistical support for middle east aggression, including the predatory assault by false pretexts on Iraq. Libya and, “all in” for the “war of terror”

        Honest broker, force of peace and sanity on the international stage “no more”. A NWO puppet state, as are many others.

        • Brad R

          I have often mused whether Canada, next door to the U.S., will be “Italy, Denmark, or Switzerland” (by parallel to WW2). With each passing year the answer looks more like “Italy.”

          • Bill Ross

            Fascist

      • dave jr

        “I’ve wondered what neutrality would look like if there were to be a WWIII.”
        .
        I don’t think you have to wonder too long. I suggest we are in the midst of WWIII, only the hot spots now, are minimized. So how many nations under this paradigm are actually neutral? It is the goal of the imperialists to make neutrality impossible or at least undesirable. This has been accomplished by capturing the key marginal resources of the world and the productive capacity through incorporation…State sponsorship. In short, commerce in general has come under the auspices of the State…military. None of which is possible without mass support from the domesticated cattle, willing to fight for their domestication, thinking it be freedom.

      • Col. Edward H. R. Green

        Swiss banking was truly private before, during and after WWII until the early 2000s, if I recall correctly. FATCA and other regulations have effectively ended banking privacy, in Switzerland, and in just about every other country, especially for US citizens. The only nations that would be able to maintain real neutrality would be those perceived by the US and other major powers as being of nugatory usefulness. Bhutan, perhaps ?

  • windsor1

    Rather naively written article suggesting that America became the world’s cop by happenstance. Why not look at the outlandish possibility that there is an international elite, wtih so much money and influence that they can manipulate geo-politics to achieve any desired outcome; perhaps global governance. Suppose this elite had a psychopathic bent and controlled most of the world’s central banking system and politicians through campaign donations and lobby groups, and the military industrial complex through cross ownership. If such a group exists (ie globalists) and they were motivated by money and power exclusively, how would they exercise their influence to maximize power?. How about this:
    – Gain control over the central banking system of every country. You control the money, you control the economy, the military and the politics
    – Gain control over all media print, movies, and television. Control the educational system. You can create for the people, the illusion of freedom. In the 1600’s blacks knew they were slaves., Today we are all econoimic slaves, but think we are free. The best means of civil control is to have slavery while creating the illusion of freedom. Your freedoms are very limited. Refuse to pay your taxes and see how free you really are. Just keep your slaves on a consumer driven treadmill so they have little time to ponder the constraints on their freedom.
    – As an elite, you know that wars are the most profitible enterprise known; much more profitable than illegal drug trafficing. You finance and arm both sides of a conflict. Because of your influence, you participate in the peace process to ensure that you are paid back. Lincoln refused to honor the debts of the confederacy and he paid the ultimate price for his lack of respect for the bankers. Bankers (globalists) hate peace, because the profit stream dries up. For them, perpetual, war is the desireable state of affairs.
    – Religious differences and different political ideologies create friction points that they can manipulate to their advantage. Bankers financed the Russian Revolution. Look no further than the travels of Trotsky from NY to Moscow or Lenin’s train across Germany. American industrialists and bankers financed Nazi Germany. Do you think the 1915 sinking of the Lisutania, that drew pacifist America into world war I was an accident? Did you think that the economic harassment of Japan was not intended to get the US into world War II. Roosevelt had pre-knowledge of Pearl Harbour and let it happen. This is fact. It is fact that the Gulf of Tonkin incident that drew America into the Viet Nam war was fabricated. What about the “New Pearl harbor” 9/11 that got America into two new wars?
    – Globalists are now setting the stage for a new and final world war in Ukraine, Syria and Iran. To call the US an international policeman is a misnomer. Quite simply, the US has the world’s biggest military and it is simply a widget in the globalist toolbox to extend power and influence and drive their profit machine. The final objective is world government and they are one world war away from achieving it.
    – The democracy you think you have is a mirage, to make you think you have freedom. If Obamacare is so unpopular why do you have it? If Americans love peace why do you have perpetual war? If Americans want GMO labelling, why is it not manditory? If private central banking is so ownerous to the prosperity of a nation, then, why aren’t the elected representatives dismantling it as the public wants? Does the american public prefer enormous military expenditures over aiding industrial development and redevelopment of decaying cities. Ask yourself who is making the decisions for your elected representatives. It is certainly not the public. Where are our critical thinking skills?
    – Political ideologies are simply constructs to manipulate the public. In any system, life at the top is the same for the elite and life at the bottom is the same for the rest of us under either communism or fascism. These are constructs that are designed to divide and conquer a brainwashed public. Look at today. People accuse the president of being a communist. We have seen financial fraud and looting as never before, yet he has not arrested or investigated a single banker. Is the president a communist or a fascist? Clearly he is pro banker, pro big pharma, pro GMO, pro military spending, prowar, yet he is the representitive of the party of Main Street. His party negotiates trade agreements (TPP) that will decimate Mainstreet for the benefit of Wall Street. Explain the difference between the 2 parties?
    – Globalism is not a new phenomena. It has been moving slowly and inexorably towards its ultimate objective for centuries. As the game moves towards it’s conclusion it is harder and harder to keep the program invisible..
    – To suggest that becoming the international policeman of the world was an accident is beyond naive. The US is the international policeman by design. The US, Canada, Israel, the UK are simply chess pieces that are moved about on a global chessboard to achieve the ultimate objective. Each has a different role, and all are ultimately disposable. Similarly, the various religions are used as chess pieces as are different political ideologies. Each of these pieces has a purpose in achieving the desired outcome. The more pieces at play the better the more flexible and complicated the choreography. This makes it more easy to confuse and dupe a not critical thinking population who believes everything happens by accidents and is not an interlocked, interconnected series of black swan events.

    • Sorry…but how is the Truman Doctrine happenstance? It was a pretty darned deliberate global power grab.

  • TG Molitor

    You mention Frank Chodorov and I would highly recommend the book “Fugitive Essays” – a collection of his essays.
    http://tinyurl.com/qd6fn3x
    While Tom Paine enthroned Liberty, Chodorov enthroned Individualism as its guarantor.

    • Thanks for the link TG. I know Chodorov is not the most prominent voice of the Old Right — Sen. Taft holds that place — but I agree with Murray that the man was “a libertarian’s libertarian.” Except, of course, for the Georgist stuff to which Nock subscribed as well. I don’t get it but I guess you had to be there at the time. Good link. Thanks.

      • Bill Ross

        I still have not been able to place Henry George in proper context. Some aspects “smell” socialist. Any good libertarian rebuttals of George?

        • I don’t know how good it is but I wrote 2 articles up for the Daily Anarchist a while back entitled”
          What is Georgism? Followed by a Refutation” http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/06/12/what-is-georgism-followed-by-a-refutation-part-i/ and “The Single Tax a Refutation. http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/06/21/the-single-tax-a-refutation/

          • Bill Ross

            As I had already concluded: socialist. Who controls the “single tax” and who controls “collective land”.?Just another set of unaccountables. Political “pull” versus “control of your own productivity, domain, including land”

            Read George decades ago, sounded partially “plausible”, introduced some confusion, no more.

            I was unaware that Nock was seduced. Not easily done.

          • alaska3636

            Nock was not an economist. I maintain that he would have been Miseian but I can find no record that he was aware of Mises. I have searched in vain for a Nockian analysis of Mises; but, he was a fan of George in a befuddling sort of way. No one is perfect.

          • Good morning, Alaska. I believe Mises’ non-influence on Nock was largely a matter of timing. Nock died in 1945 and Mises did not arrive in America until 1940 or ’41 (as I remember). I believe most of the English translations of his work were done after his arrival. Did Nock read German? Like you, I think Nock would have been very impressed by the Austrian outlook as embodied in Mises and Hayek.

          • alaska3636

            I believe in Superfluous Man, Nock makes mention of getting around Germany with a broken sort of German. Not his forte, though. Nock was a truth-seeker, and had the clearest prose of anyone save for maybe Rothbard.

        • H. Rearden

          A giant tax on land is just as bad as a bunch of smaller taxes combined.All taxation including a land tax is theft. If you are taxed on land do you really own the land?

  • autonomous

    Once again you have hit the nail squarely on the head. I mourn more with every realization how close the founders of America came to realizing the truth of human nature and that little good can come from government among human beings. More specifically, I mourn how far and how quickly have their offspring fallen away from the heights they only approximated, but their offspring so early and rapidly left behind. Had they only realized the harm that all forms of slavery do to people, both as individuals, and as cultures! Even now, among the few who see the possibility, nay the necessity, for freedom and liberty to the survival of the world, we can only catch glimpses of our nature, our potential for good as well as for evil.
    May we continue striving for truth, and never tire in the struggle.

  • disqus_QZX8ENhLyb

    Dear Wendy:
    “Crony capitalism” implies to me a defect in capitalism. [What is capitalism, anyway?]

    I suggest replacing “Crony Capitalism” with “Crony Collectivism” because a “Crony Capitalist” ain’t a real true capitalist, but a flawed, half-vast capitalist; in other words, a collectivist. Thus, “Crony Collectivism.”

    • Hi there, disqus. Well, if “laissez-faire capitalism” has a valid place in discussion, then applying at least some adjectives to the noun is valid. Capitalism, in its barest sense, means nothing more than a relationship to the means of production. Laissez-faire means free and open access. Crony means access determined by government privilege. Perhaps by “capitalism” you mean what I mean by “free market.” A free market is the absolute recognition of the economic rights embodied in ownership of person and property, and it can be expressed through many systems including agrarianism and capitalism. Or, at least, that’s my opinion. Thanks for the post.

      • Friend of John Galt

        Crony capitalism is just a euphemism for fascism. The fascist system involved private ownership of the “means of production” with heavy handed, close supervision imposed by the central government. Since this relationship often develops a certain level of cooperation it is seen as “friendly” in that the crocodile smiles at you until it eats you. I direct you to Jonah Goldberg’s book, Liberal Fascism and his prediction that the U.S. has or while have fascism “with a happy face.” Obviously crony capitalism is not a true free market.

        Even worse, most people don’t understand/realize that laissez-faire capitalism provides the most benefit to the consumers (not to the businesses). The major “anti-trust” cases have all involved situations where the “unfair” competition came from someone who was offering lower prices e.g. chain stores (supermarkets), integrated oil company (Standard Oil before it was broken up into seven different companies — each of which eventually grew to be larger than the original…). The anti-trust cases mostly attacked successful traders to “protect” players who were non-competitive in the particular field. (e.g the dislike of Walmart because it drives out the “small businesses” that can’t compete — or don’t want to compete.)

        Those who are often described as “capitalists” are actually the investors. An investor always looks for any advantage that will help ensure the success of the investment. The quick acceptance of Obamacare by health insurers is a typical crony-capitalist response … the investors will benefit from (1) more customers (delivered under force of financial penalties) and (2) guarantees by the government that losses would be subsidized. This is why crony capitalism is popular with investors, at least until such time that the government decides to absorb the function of the subsidized companies. (e.g. the student loan business was profitable to the limited number of first offering subsidized (by government) student loans — until the Federal government took over all student loans.)

        Some years ago, I invested in a retail print shop. While the market I selected had a large number of competitors, I offered some unique (at the time) services (desk top publishing in a print shop) and skills (with a degree in marketing, plus a talent for graphic design, I became an “ad agency” for many small companies that would never have felt they could afford a “real” ad agency). Starting from zero, in 3 years I built the business to sales in excess of a half-million dollars per year, double the national average for similar print shops and number one in northern California in my franchise. At the time, that market was relatively free and competition was fierce. My more efficient methods probably drove more expensive producers from the market (as a shop, a block away, just closed up after 20 years in business — the owner had taken his profits and lived well, but failed to reinvest in lower cost processes and new more efficient equipment.)

        • “Crony capitalism is just a euphemism for fascism.” Exactly. I know it is a flaw and folly but I keep getting into arguments with people because they use the word “fascist” incorrectly to mean totalitarianism…or whatever. It is a very specific form of totalitarianism and the nuances of the word are valuable because no other one word quite describes the situation: “The fascist system involved private ownership of the “means of
          production” with heavy handed, close supervision imposed by the central
          government.” I usually express it as private ownership of businesses that are government controlled. The management makes most “business” decisions but abides by government rules and often produces according to government needs/preferences. The auto industry during WWII is a good example of fascism in practice. The ownership remained private but the entire industry produced according to government’s need for military vehicles.

          • Col. Edward H. R. Green

            I have always defined fascism as a form of statism based upon a partnership between a privately-owned (private sector) company and any level of government (i.e local, state, or federal public sector) in which the government controls the company and thereby has de facto ownership of it, while allowing the public maintenance of the facade of de jure private “ownership”, whereas under the socialist and communist forms of statism, there is no pretense of private ownership, putative or otherwise.

      • disqus_QZX8ENhLyb

        To me, capitalism means a free market, not just any market that may include limited or controlled markets. That’s why I say that “crony capitalism” is a misnomer. “Crony capitalism” is a contradiction in terms. “Crony Collectivism” is not. Let’s not confuse people with “Crony capitalism” becasue capitalism can’t have cronies., only collectivism has cronies.

        Fascism is collectivism in which private parties “hold title” to the means of production, but government (the collective) makes the actual decision on how those means are used. Thus “Crony Collectivism.” NOT CAPITALISM.

  • 2prickit

    Hugo Grotius (1583-1645).
    911 ended the 1648 Westphalia Peace and initiated preemptive strikes— disabling the enemy—which of course means that if the target country was not really an enemy before well…?

    “The 1648 Westphalia Peace only succeeded because of an economic policy of protection and directed public credit—dirigism—aimed to create sovereign nation-states, and designed by France’s Cardinal Jules Mazarin and his great protégé Jean-Baptiste Colbert. Colbert’s dirigist policy of fair trade was the most effective weapon against the liberal free trade policy of central banking maritime powers of the British and Dutch oligarchies.” http://www.schillerinstitute.org/strategic/treaty_of_westphalia.html

  • Fritz Knese

    The USA perpetual war machine is nothing new of course. The British Empire was built on it, the Roman Empire, many Chinese Empires, etc. ad nauseum. I am mostly an advocate of some form of isolationism, but the question arises, can the USA survive now that it has alienated so much of the world without the war machine? Like it or not, the Muslims basically hate the western sectarianism. The collectivists hate what is left of USA individualism. Most United Nations countries hate us for being relatively rich. Is the USA trapped in foreign interventionism now as a result of its past foreign policies? For example, can the USA continue to exist without the potential for military intervention in Iran to stop them getting enough nukes to be truly dangerous? (I think it is naive to believe that Iran does not already have some nukes). Without the nuclear deterrent would Red China hesitate to take over most of Asia and even Australia as a prelude to attempting takeovers everywhere? I would love to see a reversal of the globalist philosophy, but is that even possible now without a major die back of humans?

    • dave jr

      Isolationism is a loaded term. I would like to know who coined it in the political sense. Truly it must be a Hegelian construct. If one is not killing to protect one’s interest, then one is advocating for one’s own isolation? What happened to diplomacy, arbitration and reason? Why is the aggressor not the one isolated? What is going on in the human psyche? Methinks fear is the substance of power play. Mainly the fear of exclusion. If that is true, then we know why democracy is such a powerful tool.

    • Bill Ross

      The perpetual war machine has already failed to conquer. Now, it is re-purposed to prevent the blowback from their victims, domestically and international. Slowly but surely, they are running out of the material resources to pay their mercenaries. They lost public support, long ago. Now, the banksters are paying the tab until their counterfeit “money” converges to its REAL “value”.

      • Fritz Knese

        Bill, if what we see today is a “failure” of the perpetual war machine to conquer, I would hate to see a success! Face it, the jerks are winning and have been winning since time immemorial. I have no idea anymore how freedom could possibly become the norm.

        • Bill Ross

          You need a new “propaganda” source. They and MSM are “declaring victory” while being outflanked and outmaneuvered on all fronts. Try mine:

          http://www.nazisociopaths.org/modules/article/view.article.php/c1/33

          Pretty clear: they can shock and awe, destroy competing states (until running out of “other peoples money”), only to get bogged down in domestic insurgency. Ponder what would happen should the “Red Dawn” scenario occur in your ‘hood. Same for alleged ignorant “wogs in caves”. Theirs is only “power to destroy”. Takes “consent of the productive” to build.

          • Fritz Knese

            Bill, I have never bought into the power of positive thinking that you seem to exemplify. Realism says “They have got the weaponry, money, legal authority, control of the media, control of kid’s “education”, and the support of virtually everyone I know. For now the bad guys have won.

    • 2prickit

      Tart, in every sense of the word is the Mexican-American War in which those glorious generals of both Union and Confederate Army cut their teeth; very tart, when one realizes what talent was expended in the war of northern aggression. Crossing of the Rubicon; The end of the Republic!

      • davidnrobyn

        Yes, the death toll was 630,000 men out of a population of 40 million. Let’s extrapolate: Our population is now about 8 times greater, so 8 * 630,000 = about 5 million. Whoa.

      • Yes, 2prickit. I pretty much date the death knell of domestic liberty back to the Civil War and Abraham Lincoln. I don’t date the end of American sanity on foreign policy back to that same time, however. Of course, the two are intimately connected but still separable. The Mexican-America war was one of empire but I’ve always made a distinction between wars to expand immediate borders and ones fought on far away foreign soil that is never intended to be physically amalgamated with the homeland. They are both acts of empire but the dynamics are so very different.

    • James Clander

      ” Without the nuclear deterrent would Red China hesitate to take over most of Asia and even Australia as a prelude to attempting takeovers everywhere? ”

      That’s just BS & if you read history you’d know that. The Chinese have basically never conquered or invaded countries that were not within their boundaries at some time or another. Chinese junks of huge dimension sailed the Worlds oceans way before America was even discovered — yet they appear to have had NO thought of conquest.

      http://www.australiaforeveryone.com.au/discovery/chinese.htm

      Snip:
      “History is littered with what-ifs and wild theories. Most are ignored, but one posed by a retired British submarine commander may rewrite the accepted history of Australia, America and half the world. Gavin Menzies, a self-confessed “outsider”, has sparked heated academic debate by claiming the Chinese beat Europeans to the New World by decades, if not centuries. If true, his theories would recast the holy trinity of European naval explorers – Captain Cook, Christopher Columbus and Ferdinand Magellan – as followers in the great wake of 15th century China’s Admiral Zheng He and his fleet of colossal, nine-masted teak junks”

      And this one – – –
      http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/ancient-chinese-explorers.html

      • Fritz Knese

        James, history is written by the victor. Population pressure alone will take China into Asia and Australia. The Chinese and Japanese have very similar genetics. Japan was hugely into conquest before WWII. The eastern Asiatic looks at the white race as intellectually inferior and culturally barbaric. Red China pushes this concept and has the potential for a 100 million man army. I think you are naive to think that because Chinese junks once roamed the seas that the modern Chinese oligarch does not wish to rule the world. Remember Genghis Khan. Well, the mongols are not far from the Chinese. Indeed it is said that some 30 million Asians are direct descendants from Genghis Khan.

    • Good morning, Fritz. I have no doubt that many people dislike or even hate the U.S. because it is Western and so directly clashes with their beliefs. The question is, “what does the U.S. do about it?” The “solution” it has favored has been to put Americans on the same soil as the haters, to kill them…thus creating more hatred, and to colonize those foreign lands to reap economic and military advantages. If you had neighbors who hated you and had shotguns, would you avoid them and mind your own business or would you raid their property to steal their goods and molest their children? BTW, I know we are in agreement on this. I think your question is “what do we do now after so many decades of intervention has created nations that are the equivalent of snarling dogs?”

      I wrote an article recently that may be of interest to you. “Free Trade: The Engine of Revolution” http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/free-trade-engine-revolution/ It reverses many of the assumptions of how revolution is created and how foreign policy can be practical without being military.

      • Jessinoregon

        Now that is the most succinct analysis I have read yet… Thank you Wendy

      • Fritz Knese

        Thanks Wendy. You stated my question far better than I did. I read your article and learned something once again. But still the question ” What do we do now?” is not answered. I honestly do not know what to think. I am really scared of the nuclear weapons in the hands of the Pakistanis, Koreans, probably Iranians, Russians, Chinese, French, and even the British. Nuclear backpack bombs could be planted all over the USA and Russia thus making the ICBM obsolete. EMP weapons are relatively cheap and easily transported. Nano weaponry is being researched by every country capable of it since whoever gets it first rules the world. I would like to see the standing army disbanded and arm every USA citizen who wished to be as an adequate defense. But in today’s high tech militarism, can common men stand against such weaponry as mentioned above? I hate what the USA represents today, but hatred and killing is not a monopoly of the West. Do we dare shut down the military machine with the huge hatred of us out there? It seems a damned if you do and damned if you don’t scenario.

  • davidnrobyn

    Yet another great essay, Wendy!
    I was struck by the debate between the Old Right (people of principle) and the Elite (people of principal): “The elite side won, and it did so definitively.” In human affairs, when principle meets principal, principle doesn’t stand a chance.

    • davidnrobyn. History would seem to bear out your observation. BTW, I got interested in the Old Right (at long, long last) because I finally decided to give Murray Rothbard the benefit of the doubt. He always raved about the Old Right…and I never got it. I mean, good lord man, a lot of them were Republican politicians. Then I started reading original source material and framing their arguments in terms of the Cold War. I finally got it. Damn it! Murray was right again. Thanks for the post.

      • davidnrobyn

        Yes, what it meant to be a member of the GOP changed dramatically (and not for the better) in the 1950s. Perhaps we can revive the tradition. But it looks like it’ll have to be under another umbrella; the old one looks to be beyond repair.

  • Eldon Warman

    This article, as most on this topic of America being the the War Mongering Nation fail to, or avoid the root of the dandelion weed, and just pick off the flower and leaves. First off, research who the owner of the District of Columbia and the corporate body politic running it is owned by. Dunn & Bradstreet’s website – manta.com lists thousands of corporations and their details. All of the political body politics of America are listed, as well as all agencies of government. About 5 years ago, one could access the UNITED STATES on manta.com where it showed the owner to be the Archbishop Deric R. McLeod, of the Basilica Shrine of Immaculate Conception of Washington, DC and Chicago – That shrine being the largest RC church in America. Now, RC Archbishops own nothing, they are just facades for the Pontiff of Rome, and his secular Holy Roman Empire that fulfills the decree made upon a newly crowned Pope – “You are Father of Kings and Princes (which obviously included Presidents and Prime-Ministers), Ruler of the World, and Vicar (vicarious or substitute presence) for Jesus Christ the Savior.” The next clue is the very large statue of Persephone (Roman Goddess of War) on top of the US Capitol Bldg, and the large statue of Mars, Roman god of war located
    in the vestibule of that capitol building. Any questions as to who is the creator of America as the Agency of military domination of the World?

    Russia has always been a thorn in the world domination scheme by the Vatican because religion as a superstition tool of domination and enslavement of humanity has been thwarted by Russia’s acceptance of Orthodox Christianity around 1,000 AD. Thus, all the Vatican attempts at conquering Russia, including the Jesuit rooted Communist takeover of Russia in 1917. Zionism is a Jesuit construct, as is Communism.

    Communism has its roots in the maintenance of a crew of an olden time sailing vessel – a system adopted with the incorporation idea
    from ancient Persia where the ship was primary and human crewmembers were ‘body parts’ -slaves. The Captain (by whatever name) was the obedient mind – the supreme commander. The Romans picked up on this and created their system of ‘human enslavement’. The Roman style incorporated body – a make believe vessel at sea, and the control over incorporated bodies, embodied in the faces symbol,
    has been the technique of the Vatican (Hill of Sacrifice) ever since – with superstition and force being liberally employed by it to this very present day. Every corporate body politic and body corporate (business) is in that bundle of constrained (tied in a bundle) sticks owned
    and ruled over by the axe – the Vatican and Pontiff of Rome.

  • An excellent article and I agree the principle of non-intervention or endorsing the right of neutrality for any given nation. Until the end of WW2 this doctrine held fairly well but unfortunately the rise of the Soviet Union and the establishment of the Iron Curtain in the 1940s/50s together with the Berlin Wall made it impossible for USA to ignore the aspirations of the Soviets.

    I remember well the Cuban Crisis and our fear of imminent total nuclear war and as a teenager I was ready to ‘fight the Reds under the bed’ and believed that it was ‘better dead than Red’. In fact I nearly became embroiled in the Vietnam war by default! I would support anyone ready to despatch communism to the grave and would be ready to do so again should it be necessary.

    Sometimes one is forced to fight for one’s freedom as happened on many occasions; for without our Winston Churchill and left with Neville Chamberlain we would now be under the yoke of the Nazis! I am all for negotiated peace but thank goodness America was there when needed and no doubt will be needed again if the rise of the East continues unabated.

    • Lyn Morris

      A unique and wholesome perspective.

      • Thanks Lyn; I have the advantage of having lived through it and in fact believe that the excesses of the 1960s with our ‘drugs, sex and rock & roll were a direct result of a ‘group think’ that ‘for we who are about to die; eat, drink and be merry and that includes ‘flower power’, ‘ban-the-bomb’ and the beatniks. “Peace man” was our cry but sadly had to be lost in the general mayhem of the new nuclear threat. Unfortunately, that which has been invented cannot be otherwise undone.

    • Bill Ross

      So, the game is “good state, bad state”?

      IMHO, the only “good state” is a “dead state”

      Its “rule of law”, or DOOM:

      http://www.nazisociopaths.org/modules/article/view.article.php/c1/34

      as opposed to “choose the best slaver”

      • Hi Bill, I see yoiu post regularly and very effectively. Perhaps there is another state? The ‘Steady State’ which we all hope is the ultimate prize of the Universe. Irony aside: we here in UK are keen to see a devolved state with local power to the people:
        http://harrogateagenda.org.uk/

        And ‘asadstateofaffairs’ has some very valid points, perhaps indeed the Nazis won in the end – it appears to be the case so far with 95% of the wealth held in less than 1% – perhaps the old Hitlers are the new Oligarchs?

        • Bill Ross

          The state of NAP, peaceful, non-initiate aggression anarchy. Live and Let live except predators, judge and deal with them within THEIR OWN moral paradigm.

          it is that, or, the peace of extinction

    • asadstateofaffairs

      A think that a strong argument can be made that the Nazis (and terrorists) have won. Has your liberty been increasing or decreasing for the last 70 years? Is the US fedgov guilty of everything they accused the Nazis and soviets of (answer is yes)? Perhaps at an even higher level the “cold war” was a manipulation of the opposing governments. Remember the money and food that the USA provided to USSR in the 1970s and 1980s, why would you do that for a mortal enemy? Maybe start here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident the Vietnam war was started on an admitted lie recently released NSA intercepts prove it.

      • Bill Ross

        hence my oh so un PC website name, analysis of “how” the they do it and, more importantly what, about us, allows them to:

        http://www.nazisociopaths.org/modules/article/

        the pertinent FACT regarding Nazis is: unequal treatment in terms of measurable rights and responsibilities, by law.

        Virtually everyone THEY don’t like are categorized, stripped of their humanity, decreed the “new subhuman Jews and other social undesirables”

    • Centurian

      Well, Churchill and Wilson did everything possible to get the US out of neutrality for WWI. Shipping large quantities of arms aboard the Lusitania was part of it. When the only torpedo struck and the secondary explosion sank the ship within 18 minutes, the die was cast. this was done despite the Germans taking out ads in the NY papers declaring that the ship was to carry arms and would be sunk.

      The captain of the U-boat was doing his job. Churchill and Wilson were scheming to widen the war to get the US involved. The UK would get a rich partner and Wilson would get the war that he needed to become a great “wartime” president and advance his globalist agenda through the League of Nations and the Bretton Woods Conference, the terms of which set up WWII. Later FDR followed the Wilson’s lead to get the US into WWII.

      Its been going on ever since. The US has been in a near constant state of war since shortly after the formation of the Federal Reserve in 1914. All the better to help some crony “capitalists” in the banking and military/intelligence/industrial complex.

      • Excellent review Centurian, thank you. No doubt the US/UK special relationship has prevailed for many decades and I would not argue the WW1 Sitrep. However my issue is about facing the centralist, communist idealogy which is yet prevalent in N.Korea, especially extreme, and China et al. I do recognise that the two cultures are so very different. Our Western World was orignally based on wheat production where one man and an ox could cultivate an acre of land in one day. Not so with rice production where many people are required to work in unison to achieve a reasonable crop. Hence therefore the communist co-operative versus the individualist, agricultural system of the west.

        Given these implacable differences it is best that we co-exist rather than attempt to impose a one culture as a superior system of either. Unfortunately the battle for resources overrides these gentle arts and leaves us in geopolitical conflict which is unlikely to subside any time soon.

        • Col. Edward H. R. Green

          Mao forcibly imposed communism upon China in 1949. I presume that rice production had been taking place for some considerable time before then and was labor-intensive because of the lack of modern, efficient rice-planting machinery. There is nothing inherent about rice-planting that necessitates a coercive communistic operation and management of it, even in a situation where, due to poverty, or other reasons, it is labor intensive. Farming of any type of food, be it wheat or rice, or other, can be undertaken far more efficiently, cost effectively, and productively when the land is privately owned, its owner(s) free to exercise their own discretion in its management, and workers labor thereon voluntarily and are paid according to market demand for their labor. Mao denied all of this, and his forced collectivization of farms resulted in poor output and widespread starvation. The forcible imposition of any “system” is an affront to the liberty and intelligence of those upon whom it is imposed. People everywhere have the right to be free to exercise their own choice of doing things and learn from their hard-won experience what arrangements, culture (i.e. philosophy), or “systems” are most conducive to their individual liberty and well-being.

          • I fully agree with your sound argument and its conclusion. My point was more an emphasis on the cutural background of the two opposing sysems of capitalism and communism. Capitalism is excellent in providing efficient production and increasing wealth for all participants albeit in disproportionate measures because of its inherent reliance on individual action, liberty and choice. Communism, however, has proven to be hopeless at production per se and thus distribution of wealth is not an issue, there being little wealth to distribute.

            Unfortunately the capitalist system requires some form of ‘automatic stabiliser’ to counter its tendency to aggregate large swathes of wealth to a minimum number of individuals which, history teaches, is a recipe for social unrest and revolution. The most important product is food and means of sustenance and when these become in short supply society in general becomes disrupted.

            IMHO we are facing risks of this kind today as wealth continues to gravitate rapidly to the first world (the West) and leaves 80% of our global population impoverished, at least, relatively so. Thus I propose a solution based on cooperation between these two competing ideologies using terms of trade as a starting point towards more even resource allocation and exploitation; not withstanding John Perkin’s excellent description of the ‘capitalist’ method of ‘Economic Hit Men’ as used by the military/industrial complex of the West.for many decades which is merely an extension of ‘colonialism’ of the 18th-20th centuries.

            Perhaps we will never achieve this objective, human nature being what it is and inherent greed being the ultimate driving force of the seven sins of man.

            .

  • Danny B
    • Hey, Danny. Interesting read but I don’t think I agree. BTW, for others, the article is “Stratfor Chairman Straight-Talking: US Policy Is Driven by Imperative to Stop Coalition between Germany and Russia. George Friedman, Founder and Chairman of Stratfor (“shadow CIA”), in a must watch video, openly declares that the primordial interest of the US over the centuries has been to to stop an alliance between Russia and Germany.” There is text as well. The part I know I disagree with the “the primordial interest of the US over the centuries.” It may be the interest now but I don’t think the “over the centuries” part can be maintained.

      • Danny B

        Yes Wendy, the timeline is curious. “Outing” the plan is curious. Recently, the head of Gallup claimed that his poll results were BS. Very curious.

  • James Clander

    ” America is now abroad. And she is the monster.”
    How true.

    • The most damnable thing is that I do not think the situation can be reversed at this point. Or, rather, the US has elicited such a backlash of hatred around the world that its enemies probably *would* attack everything American within their range. You know you’re in trouble when people are willing to blow themselves up just to blow up a few of your people. I remember, after 9/11, seeing people around the globe holding up signs that said in many languages, “today, we are all Americans.” The elite rulers not only pissed that away, they managed to make the signs read the reverse. Like I said elsewhere, I’m going to write a happy column next week.

      • H. Rearden

        I’m glad to read that you are going to write a happy column. I look forward to reading it. Invading Iraq was not justified given that Iraq was not responsible for Nine Eleven. I have always believed that.

      • DaveHolden

        Great comments and great article!

  • rahrog

    “When I despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it — ALWAYS.” – Ghandi

  • John Bull

    I fail to understand this metaphor
    of the US being the “worlds’ policeman” even though I have heard it my entire
    life. Traditionally the role of the police in a
    country like America is to serve and protect which would not necessarily be a bad role for
    a large prosperous nation. America has never “policed” the world America has only
    exploited the world. I would understand this metaphor if it were invented in
    the last few years because the police in today’s America are militarized and aggressive–just
    like our foreign policy. I find it ironic that in 1947 we also went from having a War Department to a Defense Department when defending this country is the only thing it does not do.

    • The metaphor is perfect it just took some time before US police started treating white people that way too.

    • Or was it that we needed the internet to then see what really occurred all the time.

loading