CFR Elites Seek Renewed Military Spending Around the World

New World Order is New World Disorder … Richard Haass, president at Council on Foreign Relations, discusses this weekend’s attacks in Turkey and the Ivory Coast and the importance of international leadership by the United States. He speaks on “Bloomberg Surveillance.” – Bloomberg

The Council on Foreign Relations is worried about US domestic disillusionment with foreign involvement including military actions.

Richard Haass, president of the CFR just appeared on Bloomberg in a much-touted video to discuss the “importance of international leadership.”

His appearance seems part of a disciplined effort to head off US “isolationism” and his campaign seems to go back at least to 2014.

In late 2014, in a voluminous article in Foreign Affairs entitled “The Unraveling How to Respond to a Disordered World,” Haass made the case that though the US would have less influence globally in the 21^st century that leaders shouldn’t step away from international involvement.

In fact, he says, the US should step up its military spending around the world.

Others have also written about the “unraveling”, such as one posted at the New Yorker in October 2015 entitled “The New World Disorder.”

The United States needs to put its domestic house in order, Haass believes, both to increase Americans’ living standards and to generate the resources needed to sustain an active global role.

He’s concerned with what he calls “a perennial tension in the world between forces of order and forces of disorder, with the details of the balance between them defining each era’s particular character.”

He even frames the tension in terms of the perpetuation of civilization itself.

Here:

Sources of order include actors committed to existing international rules and arrangements and to a process for modifying them; sources of disorder include actors who reject those rules and arrangements in principle and feel free to ignore or undermine them … These days, the balance between order and disorder is shifting toward the latter.

This is a clever rhetorical device as informed critics of the US’s role in the world assert that the US’s own intelligence agencies helped create and still support various terrorist groups.

In other words, much of the “disorder” that Haass laments has been initiated via Anglosphere funding to create a crisis atmosphere that justifies the perpetuation of a variety of military-industrial complexes, especially in Britain and the US.

As John Maynard Keynes did with economics, so Haass does with issues of governance. He starts his analysis with the ADVENT of the problem, not its cause.

In other words, Haass’s global remedies do not deal with the source of the “terrorist problem” but only with its aftermath.

This allows him to present the argument as one of “order versus disorder.” He disapproves of “actors who reject … rules and arrangements and feel free to undermine them.”

It is easy to see that this can be used to justify almost any kind of US military activism abroad.

For instance, Haass brings up President Vladimir Putin of Russia and goes so far as to accuse him of supporting a “manifestation of what could well be a project of Russian or, rather, Soviet restoration.”

Interestingly, Haass also cites Europe’s Thirty Years’ War some 400 years ago, explaining that it was the result of “weak states … unable to police large swaths of their territories.” This he says, gave rise to “militias and terrorist groups acting with increasing sway.”

When researching the impact of the Gutenberg Press on European society, we came to the conclusion that this odd, endless war was prosecuted by elite powers to fend off the impact of the written word to Europe’s hitherto illiterate masses. There are parallels between it and the war in Afghanistan for instance.

In fact, we were not at all surprised by the escalating wars in Africa and the Middle East, beginning over a decade ago. It seemed these began just as the Internet reached its first flowering.

Establishment forces as personified by Haass are extremely determined and well funded (as they control the money supply).

Rhetorical arguments in support of Leviathan will always be produced to justify the regnant state.

Which brings us to yesterday’s article on Donald Trump.

Contrary to some feedbacks and letters, we have not sided with anti-Trump forces in this upcoming election. In fact, our article states toward its conclusion that we hope Trump is everything his supporters believe he is.

But we also believe that even were Trump a determined advocate for communal and personal freedom, there is little he can do to reverse the tide of history.

We do not believe in the current era that any US President can do much to affect the current downward spiral of US affairs or its increasing authoritarianism.

Politics ultimately are an extraneous solution.  Freedom begins with individual responsibility, not with casting a vote for someone who will make a decisions for hundreds of millions.

No matter who is in charge, regulatory democracy is likely to continue to be a failure. In fact, by participating in the system, people unfortunately often perpetuate it.

People need to go their own way as much as possible. They may wish to “drop out” or simply to organize among local communities in ways that are not readily apparent to the larger officialdom.

Conclusion: As we can see with Haass, Leviathan will perpetuate government funding government and activism and this will never change. Work to take control on a personal, family and community level. At least that way you have a chance to implement your own wealth-making and lifestyle solutions rather than government’s.