0 $
2,500 $
5,000 $
770 $

A Return to Containment: Kennan and the Responsible Use of Power – Part 4

Support SouthFront

A Return to Containment: Kennan and the Responsible Use of Power - Part 4

Click to see the full-size image

Written by Stewart J. Melanson PhD exclusively for SouthFront



The focus of this 5-part series is the role of the US MIC in influencing US policy for the period from the end of the Cold War (1991), which marked the start of US global hegemony, up to the present.  Since the MIC declared in 2017 that US global hegemony was no more, there has been rapid escalation in strategic competition between the US and China.  This New Cold War with China (and Russia), requires major investment in the US military to modernize both conventional and nuclear forces and is already in progress; as per the 2018 US Nuclear Posture Review LINK and the 2020 update to the 2018 National Defence Strategy. LINK

A New Cold War means a return to large military budgets after 3 decades of US hegemony where it was a constant struggle for the Pentagon to justify maintaining a massive military in the absence of any rival capable of challenging US supremacy.  This has now changed as China has risen to become a near-peer adversary to diminished US power.  And the US military establishment must rise to China’s challenge:

“Over the past several years, the department had to recover from the crippling effects of sequestration inadequate funding… years of budget uncertainty,” Esper said. “We also placed insufficient attention on the high-end fight, which many believed was behind us with the Cold War. The good news is that we are now on the road to recovery by first restoring the readiness of the current fleet, and second, by divesting from legacy systems and lower priorities in order to modernize the force.” LINK

The “good news is that we are now on the road to” a New Cold War with China that will justify big military budgets for decades to come.  And given Chinese ambitions to supplant the US in naval supremacy, long-term commitment to increased funding of the Navy will be required if the US is to maintain maritime dominance or ‘overmatch’ – this is due to the high costs and long timelines to upgrade and build capital ships along with the costs of on-going maintenance of the fleet. According to Mark Esper: “We are now at a point where we can and, indeed, we must chart a new path to a future fleet, that will maintain our naval superiority“. 

In Part 1, I argued that the MIC had a hand in influencing US policy to undermine its own hegemony while allowing China to rise to become a worthy adversary in a New Cold War. While this may serve the interests of the MIC, it may also be the more desirable outcome.  However, for there to be another ‘long peace’, then US foreign policy must stay true to the principle of preventing war that was at the core of Kennan’s Policy of Containment.  Preventing war is also in the best interests of the MIC.

Review of MIC Basis of Power and Self Interest

The basis of MIC power is primarily economic, and the larger the economic footprint, the greater the power of the MIC to influence policy.  The largest arms contractors can afford to hire well connected lobbyists to influence Washington decision makers, as well as buy the loyalty of politicians through generous campaign donations that ensures a voting record favorable to arms manufacturers.

Further, the economic benefits of military contracts can be strategically spread across multiple key Congressional districts.  Similarly, the Pentagon has many military bases located in congressional districts across the US that represent a significant proportion of these districts’ economic activity.

Downsizing the military can have negative consequences in districts that benefit from military related economic activity while increasing the military budget can benefit these districts.  The economic impact of changes in military expenditures in combination with campaign contributions is a strong motivator for lawmakers to vote according to MIC interests:

  • Vote in favor of increasing military spending
  • Vote against any military budget downsizing

The problem for the MIC is if there is a long period of relative peace and few threats, the public will expect a ‘peace dividend’ that will repurpose a large proportion of the military budget towards non-military programs – this was the issue following the end of the first Cold War where the US achieved global hegemony with no near-peer rival.

Hegemonic Stability Theory

According to Hegemonic Stability Theory, the hegemon will use its dominance to shape the international system according to its will and by definition, the hegemon has the power to do so.  The theory further argues it is in the interests of the hegemon that the international system be beneficial to all nations to ensure their willing compliance – this will have an additional stabilizing effect and preserve hegemonic dominance. LINK

A stable international system enforced by a benevolent US hegemony should minimize conflict – the elusive world peace.  Further, the long sought after ‘peace dividend’ becomes reality.  Over time the stable international environment will bring into question the need for large military expenditures on a global scale.  General global disarmament allows for a smaller US military while still maintaining military supremacy – freed up funds can then be repurposed to address other pressing issues.  This state of affairs is clearly not in the best interests of the MIC.  But there is the question of whether benevolent hegemony can persist over time.  To do so, the wielder of hegemonic power must resist the corrupting influences of power.

The problem is that the allure to break the rules of the international system presents a temptation hard to resist.  With supreme military advantage, the US can exempt itself and allies from the rules that it applies to others with little concern for repercussions, at least initially.  If the hegemon’s behavior is increasingly anarchical and oppressive, then the system loses legitimacy and progressively breaks-down as more and more nations rise to oppose the hegemon’s oppressive rule.  The break-down of the international system is of great concern as it destabilizes the system of global security making global conflict and nuclear war more likely.  Such developments are also not in the best interests of the MIC.

Hegemonic Stability Theory assumes it is in the hegemon’s best interests to preserve its hegemony and the international system will be structured accordingly.  But what if US global hegemony does not serve the best interests of those that hold the reigns of power, as they are far better served by a different international order?  In contrast to a US hegemonic world order, the first Cold War was a relatively stable period, the ‘long peace’, maintained by the balance of power between the two superpowers.

The long peace was possible because the two superpowers were comparable in both strategic and conventional forces and despite close calls, neither dared risk a direct confrontation that could lead to their mutual destruction.  It was a time of ‘peace through strength’ for the duration of the Cold War, meaning decades of large military budgets to contain the Soviet threat without igniting a global war.

If global hegemony leads to tyranny and destabilization LINK and great power rivalry leads to unstable alliances that in turn lead to a world war LINK, a bipolar superpower rivalry looks pretty good in comparison:

With the relative decline of US, China and America can enter into bipolar relationship much like the US and the USSR during the Cold War… [Kenneth Waltz, architect of Defensive Realism] posits bipolarity as the most stable of international configurations… balancing between the US and China brings the international distribution of power into an equilibrium and averts the risk of war. LINK

According to Hegemonic Stability Theory, the US MIC will use its influence in an attempt to direct US policy to reshape the international system to its liking – a return to Cold War superpower rivalry:

  • Use the First Cold War as a template to guide actions and policy – a known quantity that worked
  • Use its influence to formulate US policies that will undermine its own hegemony to purposely attenuate US power enough to accommodate a near peer rival
  • A potential rival must not be thwarted from achieving near-peer status with the US
  • Once a rival achieves near-peer status, initiate a New Cold War with that rival

Does the MIC possess sufficient influence over US foreign policy to reshape the international system according to its will?  Ever since Eisenhower’s speech warning the public of the MIC’s potential to accumulate “unwarranted influence”, It is generally accepted the MIC wields substantive influence over US policy.   In fact, the US military have been an integral part of US foreign policy planning:

the National Security Act of 1947… created the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), National Security Council (NSC), and… the Department of Defense (DoD). While the law subordinated the military to a civilian secretary of defense, it… officially incorporate[ed] military personnel into the foreign policy decision-making process… the new process also cleared the way for the JCS and DoD to influence grand strategy and policy planning. One early example was NSC-68, which described a strategy to contain the Soviet Union and informed Cold War policy for decades. LINK

The 1947 National Security Act (NSA) institutionalized direct involvement of the MIC in the decision-making process of the executive branch – MIC involvement in drafting and adoption of NSC-68 served to entrench the MIC as a major power broker over law-makers that controlled the purse strings.

NSC-68: Entrenchment in the Political Sphere of the Military-Industrial Complex

NSC-68 was a collaborative effort of the State Department, Pentagon and the NSC that was presented to President Truman in April 1950 LINK.  The primary thesis was:

that the Soviet threat would soon be greatly augmented by the addition of more weapons, including nuclear weapons, to the Soviet arsenal. They argued that the best course of action was to respond in kind with a massive build-up of the U.S. military and its weaponry. LINK

NSC-68 outlined several policy scenarios: return to isolationism; war; diplomatic efforts with the Soviets; or “the rapid building up of the political, economic, and military strength of the free world” – to attain sufficient strength to deter Soviet aggression.  NSC-68 also characterized Soviet intentions as sinister “to impose its absolute authority over the rest of the world.” This precluded a return to isolationism as the US would eventually become a target of Soviet designs neutral or not.  The best policy option was to stand up to Soviet expansionism as defender of the free world.  To do so required significant additional investment in the military.  Initially, some policy planners expressed their opposition:

former ambassadors to the Soviet Union George Kennan and Charles Bohlen, argued that the United States already had a substantial military advantage over the Soviet Union… However, the invasion of South Korea by Soviet and Chinese-backed North Korean forces in June 1950, and continuing charges by Congressional critics that the Administration was soft on Communism, quickly settled matters …NSC 68… became policy. LINK

The context of the drafting of NSC-68 was one of growing public alarm over Soviet subjugation of Eastern Europe, successful detonation of a Soviet nuclear device, Soviet blockade of West Berlin and communist victory in China.  The outbreak of the Korean War (June 1950) convinced the American public that communism was a global threat that needed to be thwarted – 78% of Americans supported US involvement. LINK Growing public hostility towards Communism was mirrored by Congressional leaders that accused Truman of being “soft on Communism”.

American concerns over Communist aggression and the hawkish mood in Congress assured NSC-68 became policy which primarily was to maintain clear military advantage to deter the Soviet Union from starting a war that could escalate to nuclear war – peace through strength.  Superpower rivalry was to remain in the ideological and economic spheres (a Cold War).  The consensus among the authors of NSC-68 was that the US military fell far short of the needed strength to act as a deterrent and this could only be remedied by a major increase in military spending.  Acting on this consensus, “Truman almost tripled defense spending as a percentage of the gross domestic product between 1950 and 1953 (from 5 to 14.2 percent).” LINK

The massive increases in military spending enhanced MIC influence over lawmakers as it served to increase military related economic activity in Congressional districts – good economic times improves incumbent re-election chances.  NSC-68 adoption assured massive year-over-year funding which entrenched the MIC as a major power broker in Congress and even the very fabric of American society:

… we have been compelled to create … an immense military establishment… The total influence-economic, political, even spiritual-is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the Federal government… LINK

NSC-68 marked the beginning of the MIC golden age that would span four decades; i.e. the duration of the Cold War, which would come to an abrupt end in 1991.  The collapse of the Soviet Union meant that the US stood alone as the world’s sole superpower.  In the absence of any peer threat, the MIC struggled to justify large military spending.  The US may have ‘won’ the Cold War, but the MIC found itself on the short-end of the stick – if only there could be a return to the good old days of the Cold War.

What the MIC needed was a new near-peer adversary to start a New Cold War – with its promise of a new golden age of budget-busting military spending.  Eventually, MIC prayers were answered, it just required a bit of ‘strategic patience’ and … a plan.

2018 National Defence Strategy: From Trump the Isolationist to New Cold War Warrior

Just as NSC-68 served as the blueprint for the first Cold War, Trump’s 2018 NDS served as a blueprint for a New Cold War, but with roles reversed; China as main threat and Russia as the secondary threat. LINK Trump as Cold War Warrior is quite the evolution from when he campaigned on better relations with Russia and extricating the US from foreign conflicts which resonated with a rising populist movement opposed to foreign interventions:

“Many Americans looked at the policies of the past decades and saw that the U.S. acting as the global sheriff did not benefit them,” Bremmer said. “It was trillions of dollars wasted in Iraq and Afghanistan, with thousands of American lives lost … and they don’t want to see that anymore.” LINK

In an April 2016 foreign policy speech at the Center for the National Interest, Trump spoke of the need to explore cooperation with Russia in areas of mutual interests such as fighting terrorism:

We desire to live peacefully and in friendship with Russia and China. We have serious differences with these two nations, and must regard them with open eyes, but we are not bound to be adversaries. We should seek common ground based on shared interests.

Russia, for instance, has also seen the horror of Islamic terrorism. I believe an easing of tensions, and improved relations with Russia from a position of strength only is possible, absolutely possible. Common sense says this cycle, this horrible cycle of hostility must end and ideally will end soon. Good for both countries.

 Some say the Russians won’t be reasonable. I intend to find out. LINK

While such campaign rhetoric played well to the populist movement that would sweep Trump into office, the Washington political establishment viewed Trump as a threat to the status quo:

…Trump has talked mostly about disrupting the world order, without saying what would replace it. Yet if the U.S. simply recedes from its superpower role, Russia, China and Iran and others would gladly step in to fill that void LINK

Trump’s rise to become frontrunner for GOP nomination ‘frightened the horses’ enough to prompt leading GOP national security leaders into action, publishing an open letter of rebuke in an effort to prevent Trump from becoming the GOP nominee.  The letter presented a list of objections to a Trump nomination and below I provide two objections of interest:

His vision of American influence and power in the world is wildly inconsistent and unmoored in principle. He swings from isolationism to military adventurism within the space of one sentence.

 His admiration for foreign dictators such as Vladimir Putin is unacceptable for the leader of the world’s greatest democracy. LINK

Despite this, Trump shocked pundits when he won the GOP nomination.  How could an outsider have gotten so far as to secure the GOP nomination?  Clearly, the establishment had underestimated the strength of the populist movement backing Trump’s bid.  Having secured the GOP nomination, Trump’s foreign policy messaging changed.  Speaking on national security in Philadelphia, Trump articulated his intentions on foreign policy and the role of the US military, including reversing the Obama mandated military budget reductions (sequester):

Today, I am here to talk about three crucial words that should be at the center of our foreign policy: Peace Through Strength… Instead of an apology tour, I will proudly promote our system of government and our way of life as the best in the world – just like we did in our campaign against communism during the Cold War…

 China has grown more aggressive, and… Russia has defied this Administration at every turn. Putin has no respect for President Obama or Hillary Clinton.  History shows that when America is not prepared is when the danger is greatest. We want to deter, avoid and prevent conflict through our unquestioned military strength…. As soon as I take office, I will ask Congress to fully eliminate the defense sequester and will submit a new budget to rebuild our military. LINK [Excerpt of speech delivered Sept. 7, 2016 before the Union League of Philadelphia]

The language is more Cold War than isolationist, identifying China and Russia as adversaries – a walk back from earlier statements about improving relations with Russia – certainly cooperation with Russia would throw a wrench in the MIC’s New Cold War plans.  The audience Trump was addressing, members of the Union League of Philadelphia, is of interest not only for the Union League’s support of the military, but also the circumstances of their founding – the US Civil War:

Founded in 1862 as a patriotic society to support the Union and the policies of President Abraham Lincoln [and] laid the philosophical foundation of other Union Leagues across a nation torn by civil war. The League has proudly supported the American military in each conflict since the Civil War. LINK

During a time of a deep divide in American society and politics, this choice of Philadelphia, home of the Constitution, and audience of Unionists, is suggestive of the concerns over the future unity of the Republic.  The US military oath is to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic …”  While external enemies have been identified, US society has become polarized with an ‘us’ versus ‘them’ mentality that is being stoked by the main stream media.  Is there an enemy within?  This is a topic I will discuss in Part 5, here I focus on external threats.

Trump sets the tone of his speech at the very beginning with emphasis on “Peace through strength”.  Trump then states his intent to not apologise for but to “proudly promoteour way of life as the best in the world – just like we did in our campaign against communism during the Cold War”.  Diplomats pay close attention to the choice of words used in political speeches as it tells them of intent.

The language of international relations is imbued with historical reference and philosophical and ideological terminology that conveys a deeper meaning readily understood by those familiar with history and the language of diplomacy.  Take for example a Nov. 6, 2019 commentary by Kay C. James, President of The Heritage Foundation, titled “Peace Through Strength”:

The America that we cherish and hope to pass on to the next generation depends on … a military strong enough to protect it and everything it stands for. Without that kind of military might to defend us from our enemies and to deter potential adversaries, everything that America is and was meant to be could be lost — our freedom, our prosperity, and our very way of life

Unfortunately, our adversaries are spending heavily to increase their capabilities while our armed forces are understaffed and using equipment that’s outdated and on the verge of retirement. China and Russia are both working to overtake the United States as the dominant world power. We know that their purpose is not to use their militaries for defense, but to put more of the world under their control.

While some may want to argue that we already spend too much on our military, an honest look at the shortages in our ranks and equipment shows the very real need for increased and sustained funding. LINK

The language mirrors that used in Trump’s address to the Union League, which is not coincidence, they are communicating the same message.  A strong military to protect the American way of life is necessary to “deter, avoid and prevent” aggression.  And who are we to fear, well, the usual suspects – Russia and China.  Is military spending too high?  The counterpoint is that failure to invest in the military risks failure in defending the American way of life.

This is an ideological argument and goes back to the early years of the first Cold War when Eisenhower spoke of the danger of ‘unwarranted influence’ of the MIC, but also acknowledged its necessity: “we have been compelled to create … an immense military establishment and … recognize the imperative need for this development.” And this will remain the case for as long as it takes to win the ideological war (strategic patience):

United States policy toward the Soviet Union must be that of a long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies.” …a compromise between an all-out war of superpowers and a passive peace strategy [appeasement] that would invite opportunistic Soviet aggression. Be patient. Show strength. Wait for the inevitable fall [of the Soviet Union]. LINK

And according to Robert Kaplan’s “A New Cold War Has Begun”, strategic patience is needed once-again – “The United States and China will be locked in a contest for decades. But Washington can win if it stays more patient than Beijing.” https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/01/07/a-new-cold-war-has-begun/  The title reflects the adoption by the Trump administration of the 2018 National Defence Strategy which is at its core, a blueprint for the New Cold War.

Trump and the New Cold War

The world order was disrupted in 2017 when the US military establishment acknowledged the end of US hegemony and the return to great power rivalry.  But according to a Homeland Security brief of the 2018 NDS, it would not be great power rivalry to replace US hegemony, it would be a New Cold War superpower rivalry with China and Russia:

… the United States must bolster its competitive military advantage–which the NDS sees as having eroded in recent decades–relative to the threats posed by China and Russia. It further maintains that ‘inter-state strategic competition, not terrorism, is now the primary concern in U.S. national security.LINK

According to the NDS document, the US military had atrophied during Obama’s second term while Russia and China made rapid gains towards achieving near-peer status with the US.  Importantly, “inter-state strategic competition, not terrorism, is now the primary concern”. The threat of terrorism and oppressive US hegemony having reached the end of their utility, the time was right to reshape the international system.  And it would be the Trump administration to oversee the change with plenty of help from the military establishment; “No modern President has appointed so many generals to Cabinet postsLINK

To set the tone, Trump’s Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, a former Navy SEAL said “…the world is safer when America is strongerLINK.  Trump campaigned on the slogan ‘America first’ and yet a member of Trump’s cabinet states the ‘world is safer’ instead of ‘America is safer’.  Clearly, the US was not going to retreat from the world stage, and that included China’s shores.  In a 2005 article by Robert Kaplan titled “How We Would Fight China” published in the Atlantic:

For some time now no navy or air force has posed a threat to the United States. …This will soon change. The Chinese navy is poised to push out into the Pacific—and when it does, it will very quickly encounter a U.S. Navy and Air Force unwilling to budge from the coastal shelf of the Asian mainland. It’s not hard to imagine the result: a replay of the decades-long Cold War

[A] functional substitute for a NATO of the Pacific already exists, and is indeed up and running. It is the U.S. Pacific Command, known as PACOM… Quietly in recent years, by negotiating bilateral security agreements….

American business and military interests are likely to run in tandem toward a classically conservative policy of deterring China without needlessly provoking it… Our stance toward China and the Pacific, in other words, comes with a built-in stability—and this, in turn, underscores the notion of a new Cold War that is sustainable over the very long haul. LINK

It seems the threat of a rising China has been foreseen for some time, including an ‘Indo-Pacific NATO’ in response and yet it was only recently that policy with China substantively changed.  The 2017 US National Security Strategy declared China’s peaceful rise to great power status had not gone as planned and a more confrontational policy towards China was needed (which was embodied in the 2018 NDS). LINK

A Return to Containment: Kennan and the Responsible Use of Power - Part 4


On the surface, the sudden change implies the US did not anticipate in advance that the US would enter into strategic competition with China. But this is unlikely. An essay in the New York Times by The College of Staten Island’s Modern China Studies Group, makes clear that a future Cold War with China was anticipated well before the release of the 2017 National Security Strategy:

ideological and cultural factors make China a threat. For neo-conservatives in the Bush Administration, the mere factor that China still sticks to communism makes view it adversely. Samuel Huntington has added a cultural factor: in the clash of civilizations, the “unholy alliance between Islamic and Confucian civilizations” is the most fundamental threat to the West. For people using this logic, the sensible response from the U.S. is, in the short run, a containment policy. LINK

At the time of Clinton’s Presidency, a particularly stark warning to the West was published: The Coming Conflict with China by Richard Bernstein and Ross H. Munro, Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 1997.  in a review in Foreign Affairs, this polemic on China was roundly criticized as overly pessimistic on the future of US-China relations. LINK However, the authors have proved to be prescient on long-term CCP ambitions such as taking control of the of the South China Sea by annexing small islands and island groups such as the Spratly Islands and then militarizing them.  This is precisely what has happened.

According to the authors, China’s grand strategy is to dominate the Asia-Pacific region, an assessment that is supported by China’s trajectory to dominate the region economically and leveraging its economic advantage to fund its military at a level greater than all its neighbors combined:

East Asian spending has increased from $92.8 billion in 1990 to $363 billion in 2019. Much of this growth in expenditure has been driven by China. In 1990, China constituted 23.6 percent of total East Asian expenditure. As of 2019, this number stands at 70.5 percent… in the broader regional context, the Chinese military… constitutes 52.2 percent of the total cumulative spending across all of Asia (including those in the Middle East). LINK

Robert Kaplan who in 2005 authored “How We Would Fight China” has extensive ties with the US military/intelligence establishment as a consultant to the Marines, Air Force, FBI, NSA, CIA and the Pentagon’s Joint Chiefs of Staff.  Kaplan is also influential according to Foreign Policy magazine, naming Kaplan as one of the world’s “top 100 global thinkers” for the years 2011 and 2012.  It is implausible that Kaplan would not have discussed his views on China in his capacity as consultant.  Clearly, at the very least, the MIC fully anticipated the possibility of a New Cold War with China.  Yet while China’s power grew, the eyes of the public were kept focused on Putin and the threat of Russian imperial ambitions:

Welcome to the New Cold War… Vladimir Putin states that a unipolar world with one sovereign is unacceptable. So is this a war of empires? Yes it is… This is about the US pushing NATO and missile defense right up to Russia’s border, a supreme threat to its national security.  Will the US renounce Brzezinski’s control over Eurasia…?  Not likely… it is clear that the US establishment still wants full spectrum dominance. LINK

Zbigniew Brzezinski, published in 1997 “The Grand Chessboard”, a doctrine that asserts Eurasia to be the ultimate prize in geo-political competition.  The main themes were encapsulated in a Foreign Affairs article published just prior to release of the book – Brzezinski, Z. (1997), A Geostrategy for Eurasia, Foreign Affairs, 76(5) LINK

Another work also published in 1997 is Bernstein and Munro’s “The Coming Conflict with China” which painted the Chinese Communist Party as deeply anti-American and a major threat to the US.  Basically, an argument for the need for a Cold War style containment of China.  As discussed above, the authors predicted correctly China’s intentions in the South China Sea and yet the US did not take any action to thwart China until after Chinese occupation and militarization of islands in the disputed waters.

2017: Goodbye US Hegemony, Hello China, Glad You Could Join us for a New Cold War

During the Obama administration, two National Security Strategy (NSS) documents were released – one in 2010, the second in 2015.  The Council on Foreign Relations reviewed NSS 2015 and viewed it as mostly a stay the course continuation of the 2010 NSS – Russia a bigger threat then China:

The instincts here are sound: the United States “welcomes the rise of stable, peaceful, and prosperous China,” and will continue to cooperate with that country on multiple fronts. At the same time, ongoing U.S. “rebalancing” will reassure U.S. partners in Asia and offer a hedge against possible Chinese aggression.

 …and pledges to deepen its cooperation with the EU in countering Russian aggression in Ukraine, which has violated longstanding “international rules and norms.” The United States will “continue to impose significant costs” on Russia, but it will avoid a Cold War, keeping the “door open” to greater collaboration “in areas of common interests, should it choose a different path.” LINK

In contrast to hostile US policies towards Russia to impose significant costs”, NSS policy towards China remained one of cooperation which kept China to a large degree out of US gunsights – Obama gave the threat of international terrorism a higher priority than China.  What is odd is that Pentagon Naval planning was not in step with Obama’s NSS 2015.  Bryan McGrath, a former US Navy commander, was team lead and primary author of the US Navy’s 2007 Maritime Strategy “A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Sea Power” or CS21 2007; CS21 was revised in 2015 (CS21 2015) which was a public document and elicited a hostile response from China:

Several Chinese naval and defense experts commented on the strategy in Chinese media. The commentary was notably hostile.  Typical responses were: “Makes groundless accusations against China’s legitimate actions;” “represents a Cold War mentality;” … “the intentions of the United States to maintain its maritime hegemony have not been reduced in the slightest;” “obviously targeted at ChinaLINK p.79

Perhaps the hostility had something to do with statements such as this:

In CAPT John McLain’s view, “CS21 was a product of a GWOT [Global War on Terrorism] mindset at the national/DOD level. By 2011, we recognized that there were other emerging challenges that did not fit cleanly within that worldview (e.g., an emerging China).” LINK p.9

Obama policy with China was cooperative while the Pentagon planned for the eventuality of strategic competition with China – and kept low key until 2017.  When Trump took office in 2017, the White House and the Pentagon were once again on the same page.  A series of planning and policy documents were published in the public domain that shared consistent messaging – US hegemony was no more and interstate rivalry more than terrorism was the new priority.  Further, China was now the primary threat:

  • 2017 National Security Strategy (NSS)
  • A Design for Maintaining Maritime Superiority, 2017 (V.1.0) and 2018 (V2.0)
  • 2018 National Defence Strategy NDS)
  • 2018 National Military Strategy (NMS)

Obama’s National Security Strategy was focused on Russia and asymmetric war to fight terrorism.  With the elevation of China as a primary threat, the prospect of military confrontation with two near-peer rivals simultaneously was a concern.  James Mattis, Trump’s secretary of defense, gave testimony to Congress that the US military was very capable in managing any single threat, but lacked capability to face multiple simultaneous threats; i.e. coordinated hostile actions of Russia and China:

A military that is small in numbers therefore has a limited ability to address numerous threats in many places at once, regardless of how qualitatively good the force is. Numerical shortages could be offset by the contributions of allies, but America’s partners have underinvested in their militaries even more so than has the U.S. since the end of the Cold War. LINK

Mattis found Congress receptive and Trump’s proposed expansion of the military budget had broad bi-partisan support.  In a 2020 assessment of Trump’s 2018 NDS by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS):

The NDS received a lot of support in Congress and the broader national security community. The challenges that it identified built on what the Obama administration had been discussing after 2014 and on many analyses by outside experts. LINK

I must question the statement that the 2018 NDS “built on what the Obama administration had been discussing after 2014”.  Obama’s policy was to seek cooperation with China, in contrast, Trumps 2017 NSS determined China’s peaceful rise to great power status had not gone as planned and a more confrontational policy was needed, and this is reflected in the 2018 NDS.  Prior to 2017, the MIC was well aware of the threat China posed but official policy allowed China to rise largely unimpeded to near-peer status – The MIC would welcome such a development for reasons already discussed.

Of interest is the close association of demonizing China with US military recognition of loss of hegemonic dominance coinciding with elevation of China to enemy #1 that must be contained.  In just one year, US China policy changed from Obama’s policy of cooperation to a New Cold War rivalry with China – remember that foreign policy resides with the executive and so Obama’s NSS 2015 was official policy.

If MIC intent was to end US hegemony to accommodate a near-peer rival, it is then understandable that the Pentagon would take the unusual step to publicly concede the loss of US supremacy.  This is a necessary step in efforts to condition the public for return to Cold War superpower rivalry:

Views of China have grown more negative in recent years across many advanced economies, and unfavorable opinion has soared over the past year, a new 14-country Pew Research Center survey shows… in Australia, the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, the United States, South Korea, Spain and Canada, negative views have reached their highest points since the Center began polling on this topic more than a decade ago. LINK

The average of polled nations for 2019 was 63% negative perception of China.  The figure jumped 15% in 2020 to an average of 78% having a negative perception of China – indicating efforts to condition the public for strategic rivalry with China are a success.  Trump should also be delighted by poll results regarding who should be world leader:

  • 91% of respondents said it is better for the world if the US is the world’s leading power
  • Only 6% of respondents said it is better for the world if China is the world’s leading power

LINK [take note that this is comparing the US to China, US global standing has taken a big hit since the Bush era of ‘pre-emptive defence’ and the ongoing tendency for unilateralism]

MIC Intervention During the Trump Presidential Campaign

I had previously mentioned Bryan McGrath, author of “A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Sea Power”.  McGrath also led the consulting team that projected a need for a 355 ship Navy that was referenced as part of the 2019 National Defense Appropriations Act which outlined the current naval ship build programs adopted by the Trump administration.  In an October 2020 Congressional report:

The goal of achieving a 355-ship Navy is broadly consistent with a goal of achieving a 350-ship fleet that was articulated by the Trump campaign organization during the 2016 presidential election campaign. The Trump Administration continues to identify the achievement of a Navy of 355 or more ships… as a high administration priority. LINK

This implies the Trump campaign adjusted its messaging to be consistent with Pentagon planning to address China’s rapid Naval build program.  But this is not all.  What is noteworthy is that McGrath was one of the co-coordinators of the open letter to oppose Trump’s bid for the GOP nomination.  McGrath followed up the open letter with an article dated March 4, 2016 titled “NEXT STEPS: HOW TO PUSH BACK AGAINST TRUMP” LINK In the article McGrath refers readers to “Dan Drezner’s laudable effort at the Washington Post”:

Look, this isn’t rocket science. I don’t want to see a president elected who would torpedo America’s standing in the world and trigger the worst civil-military conflict since Truman fired MacArthur in the process. LINK

Sometime after this effort to take down Trump, the Trump campaign altered their messaging to align with Pentagon planning.  This was not a coincidence and I invite reader comments.

The 2020 US Election: Trump or Biden?

For the MIC, it is quite possible that it may not matter who gets in because, in keeping with the spirit of the 2020 election, the ‘fix’ is already in:

the new survey suggests that American public attitudes toward China have hardened for good, which indicates that the Trump administration’s aggressive approach could become the new norm, burying nearly 50 years of engagement kicked off with President Richard Nixon’s famous visit to Beijing in 1972 …

That could hem in any effort by a… Joe Biden administration to chart a more moderate course toward China…  Trump is defining the 2020 electoral agenda in other ways. He has ramped up his … Sinophobic rhetoric … and accused his rival of being soft on Beijing … forcing Biden to respond to his lead, rather than merely reacting to his challenger’s attacks. LINK

Trump accusing Biden of being “soft on Beijing” should have a familiar ring given that for the entirety of Trump’s first term, the main stream media waged a relentless media campaign accusing Trump of being Putin’s puppet or an agent of the Kremlin.  Now it was Trump’s turn and in Biden’s case, there may be real collusion between China and the Biden family.

Stewart J. Melanson PhD

Toronto, Ontario, Canada, Email: sjm@melansonwire.com


Support SouthFront


Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ryan Glantz

Kennedy’s Last Stand & the Trump Card: Space Cooperation used against Deep State

Written by Dr Michael Salla on November 13, 2020. Posted in Deep State, Featured, Space Programs, world politics

On November 12, 1963, President Kennedy reached a bold agreement with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev: joint lunar missions to end the Cold War. While Kennedy’s earlier September 20, 1963 speech at the United Nations calling for the Soviets to cooperate on joint space missions and a moon landing is a well-known historical fact, Khrushchev’s acceptance less than two months later is virtually unknown to most.

Kennedy’s request and subsequent agreement with Khrushchev represented far more than an attempt to end Cold War tensions over the escalating number of nuclear weapons being built by the U.S. and Soviets. Kennedy was boldly attempting an end-run around the Deep State’s blockade on releasing classified UFO-related technologies that could spark worldwide advances.

On June 28, 1961, President Kennedy sent a Top Secret National Security Memorandum requesting his CIA Director, Allen Dulles, prepare for him a “review of MJ-12 Intelligence Operations as they relate to Cold War Psychological Warfare Plans.” Kennedy referred to an interagency control group called Majestic 12, which had been secretly set up on September 24, 1947, to manage the UFO-related issues and technologies. This authority placed MJ-12 at the core of the Deep State in the U.S. at that time.

While Kennedy’s June 28 Memorandum has not been officially declassified, expert examination of the leaked document supports its authenticity.

Dulles’ response to Kennedy’s memorandum is revealed in another leaked Top Secret document issued on November 5, 1961. Dulles’ response gives an overview of the MJ-12 activities with regard to psychological activities, which he confirms involves the UFO issue. It describes UFOs as part of “Soviet propaganda” designed “to spread distrust of the government.”

Dulles’ letter acknowledges it is possible that some “UFO cases are of non-terrestrial origin,” but these do not “constitute a physical threat to national defense.” Most significantly, Dulles’ letter states: “For reasons of security, I cannot divulge pertinent data on some of the more sensitive aspects of MJ-12 activities.”

What Kennedy did not know was that in addition to denying his request and blocking his other efforts to assert Presidential authority over MJ-12 operations and UFOs, Dulles organized for MJ-12 to issue eight directives in October 1961. The Directives authorized the removal from office of members of Kennedy’s administration if they threatened MJ-12 operations.

In Kennedy’s Last Stand (2013), I document Kennedy’s multiple efforts to assert Presidential authority over the MJ-12 Group and classified UFO files. In brief, after Kennedy reached his groundbreaking agreement with Khrushchev for joint space and lunar missions, the head of the CIA’s counterintelligence division, James Jesus Angleton, implemented one of the MJ-12 directives authorizing the removal from office of political figures.

The most extreme of the eight MJ-12 directives was a cryptic assassination authorization:

Draft – Directive Regarding Project Environment – When conditions become non-conducive for growth in our environment and Washington cannot be influenced any further, the weather is lacking any precipitation … it should be wet.

Dr. Robert Wood, the foremost expert in analyzing MJ-12 documents using forensic methods, has concluded that the burned document is an assassination directive. He points out that the cryptic phrase, “it should be wet” originates from Russia, where the phrase “wet works” or “wet affairs” denotes someone who had been killed and is drenched with blood.

The implementation of Project Environment led to Kennedy’s very public assassination and served as a clear warning to other political leaders not to challenge the Deep State.

The MJ-12 Group did not want U.S. and Russian cooperation in space since this threatened to expose their covert space operations using reverse engineered technologies acquired from Nazi Germany and crashed alien spacecraft. Even more sensitive were the agreements reached with the German breakaway colony in Antarctica and different extraterrestrial groups.

In the subsequent decades, the MJ-12 Group, working through the CIA, was in control of covert operations and intelligence activities in space. This was made possible by an enormous black budget of over one trillion dollars annually that the CIA funneled into various classified programs and defense agencies such as the National Reconnaissance Office.

The Department of Defense and the President’s executive office were largely left in the dark over exactly what was happening in Earth’s orbit and beyond.

Before becoming Secretary of Defense on January 20, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld headed a Congressionally appointed National Security Commission that delivered a report recommending the creation of a Space Corps to defend the U.S. from a Space Pearl Harbor:

An attack on elements of U.S. space systems during a crisis or conflict should not be considered an improbable act. If the U.S. is to avoid a “Space Pearl Harbor” it needs to take seriously the possibility of an attack on U.S. space systems. The nation’s leaders must assure that the vulnerability of the United States is reduced and that the consequences of a surprise attack on U.S. space assets are limited in their effects….

The use of space in defense of U.S. interests may require the creation of a military department for space at some future date…

A Space Corps within the Department of the Air Force may be an appropriate model in its own right or a useful way station in the evolution toward a Space Department.

Only eight months later, on September 10, 2001, as Congressional legislation for a Space Corps was about to be unveiled, Rumsfeld revealed 2.3 trillion dollars could not be accounted for and declared the Pentagon Bureaucracy to be America’s greatest threat:

The topic today is an adversary that poses a threat, a serious threat, to the security of the United States of America. This adversary is one of the world’s last bastions of central planning, governs by dictating 5 year plans… You might think I’m describing one of the last decrepit dictators in the world, but their day too is almost past and they cannot match the strength and size of this adversary. The adversary is closer to home, it’s the Pentagon bureaucracy… In this building, despite the era of scarce resources, taxed by mounting threats, money disappears into duplicative duties, bloated bureaucracy, not because of greed but gridlock. Innovation is stifled not by ill intent but institutional inertia.

In his speech, Rumsfeld was not only identifying the reasons for the missing money, but also signaling that it could be used to fund necessary, though expensive, Pentagon initiatives such as Space Corps.

One day after his provocative speech, the September 11 (false flag) terrorist attacks embroiled America in unending Middle East wars against a contrived global terrorist threat. Consequently, the proposal for a Space Corps was shelved for nearly 20 years until the second year of Donald Trump’s Presidency.

On March 13, 2018, President Trump first introduced and, in succeeding months, formally proposed the creation of Space Force as a 6th branch of the U.S. military.

Like President Kennedy before him, Trump had a bold vision of cooperating with Russia to implement his Presidential agenda and end the new Cold War. During his first presidential election campaign, Trump made many overtures to President Putin of Russia to cooperate on a range of global issues.

Again, like Kennedy, Trump envisaged the release of new technologies to take humanity into a new era of prosperity and cooperation. This is evidenced in Trump’s 2017 inaugural address where he said:

We stand at the birth of a new millennium, ready to unlock the mysteries of space, to free the earth from the miseries of disease, and to harness the energies, industries and technologies of tomorrow.

Like Kennedy, Trump called for joint moon missions with other space-faring nations, including Russia. On December 11, 2017, President Donald Trump issued Space Policy Directive-1, which called for the return of humans to the Moon, the commercial exploitation of space, and human missions to Mars and beyond.

The Directive called for “an innovative and sustainable program of exploration with commercial and international partners to enable human expansion across the solar system and to bring back to Earth new knowledge and opportunities.”

Just as Kennedy had attempted an end-run around the Deep State’s opposition to him gaining access to classified UFO files, Trump’s Space Force proposal is likewise an end-run around the Deep State’s blockade on releasing classified reverse engineered technologies that could spark a global technological revolution

In addition, Trump’s creation of Space Force threatens the Deep State’s attempt to make America vulnerable to a Space Pearl Harbor by embroiling it in a never-ending war on terror. At the same time, the Deep State has been covertly helping Communist China for decades to develop antigravity spacecraft, and to build a powerful space navy, as I warn in Rise of the Red Dragon (2020).

Trump is facing massive retaliation from the Deep State over his plans for outer space cooperation, joint moon missions, ending the Cold War with Russia, and establishing a Space Force, just like Kennedy had before him.

The eight Majestic-12 directives, or some updated iteration of them, establish drastic methods that can be used to remove or take out any political leader who threaten their operations. Today, a stolen election, rather than physical assassination, is the Deep State’s solution to removing President Donald Trump, yet another troublesome leader, from political office.

The key to understanding what is happening today in America is to identify the mysterious group behind the Kennedy Assassination, and how its modern-day manifestation is covertly attempting to remove Trump from the presidency for his efforts to similarly build international cooperation around a number of space-related initiatives.

November 22 will mark the 57th anniversary of the Kennedy Assassination. The real perpetrators skillfully remained in the shadows and were never prosecuted for their crime. Thus, their successors continue to plot and implement Deep State agendas tracing back to the original eight MJ-12 directives.

[Note: To learn more about President Kennedy’s assassination, the group behind it, and why this information critically links to President Trump’s epic battle today, I will be holding a Webinar Intensive on Sunday, November 22, 2020 – click here or banner below for more info].

[Note: Audio version of this article is available on YouTube and Spotify] © Michael E. Salla, Ph.D. Copyright Notice

Fog of War

– Pentagon fails another audit but comptroller insists they’ll pass soon… like in 2027 – https://www.rt.com/usa/507001-pentagon-fails-financial-audit/

AM Hants

Weren’t they threatened with an audit, just before 9/11?

Fog of War

Not an audit, it was an announcement that trillions of dollars were missing from the Pentagon’ s budget.

AM Hants

Cheers, that was it, then 9/11 and all that gold that was allegedly underground the buildings.

Fog of War

Pure Cohenincidence .

AM Hants

Ha-ha, and nice one. Where did all the gold go?

Fog of War

The Rothschilds for save keeping.

johnny rotten

It seems to me that the author has made all the imperialist propaganda of the last hundred and more years his own, but the historical reality is very different, the US has never thought of having to defend itself from any threat, they have always been the aggressors, it is witness the very long list of wars fought abroad against none fought on its territory, to be able to justify the countless aggression against foreign countries with no intention of bringing the war into the US have always invented unlikely threats, even from countries that not even with the help of the gods could be considered as threats, take the example of Korea, you can’t go wrong there, you can’t confuse roles, so much so that North Korea is a self-governing nation, while South Korea is occupied by Americans, this remains even if almost seventy years have passed since the conflict, the same thing can be said for Germany and Italy. But the most tragic thing is that American citizens die and fight but not for their country, but for the oligarchies, the only ones to benefit from endless wars, for the American people the real threat has always been their corrupt government and chosen by the oligarchies.

S Melanson

In Part 1 I stated I would write from the perspective of the MIC and American public to convey to the reader the effectiveness of indoctrination in the US – I grew up in the US, I know first-hand and it is remarkably effective. But in doing so I also provide the underlying reasoning of the MIC to reach its end-goal and that is to initiate a global tyranny, allow an adversary to rise in power unimpeded to challenge US supremacy and then start a New Cold War. No MIC mouthpiece would state the hidden rationale as it shows a means to an end that the MIC does not want to be public knowledge.

I think the public should know.

I also imply the MIC may have intimidated the Trump campaign to sing to the Pentagon’s tune and I asked for reader comments on that. I also imply the MIC exerts its influence regardless who becomes President – there may be ups and downs for the MIC, but in the end, the MIC gets its way – this is different from “chosen by the oligarchies” as I showed populist Trump soon became the Pentagon’s Cold War Warrior. What are your thoughts?

“none fought on its territory” – The British burned Washington D.C. during the War of 1812 in retaliation for the US burning York (now Toronto), Capital of Upper Canada (now Ontario).

johnny rotten

Really? we are discussing the MIC and you go back to 1812, I am not aware that MIC existed on that date, or am I wrong? what were you referring to in the article then? because if you want to go back to something you didn’t express in your article, well then we could talk about Mexicans, natives and what else?

S Melanson

I mentioned the war of 1812 because I live in Toronto as a bit of historical trivia that for me is close to home. I did not realize you meant the post-WW2 era of the MIC based on what you said:

“the historical reality is very different, the US has never thought of having to defend itself from any threat, they have always been the aggressors, it is witness the very long list of wars fought abroad against none fought on its territory”

If you restricted to the MIC period 1945 to the present, then I largely agree as it comes also after attack on territory of Hawaii – Pearl Harbor. It is a good point to raise because it means the American public do not appreciate what it is like to live in a war zone or in constant fear for their security that is many times a result of US interventions – the BLM/Antifa riots do not come close to what is faced by people living in the Middle East for example.

AM Hants

How many wars were there before 1812 and what industry would have been manufacturing all the weapons and systems used back then?

Even Leonardo da Vinci could be perceived as working for MIC, back during the Italian Renaissance, could he not? How many weapons were designed by Leo?

johnny rotten

The article begins like this: “The focus of this 5-part series is the role of the US MIC in influencing US policy for the period from the end of the Cold War (1991), which marked the start of US global hegemony, up to the present.” and that’s what I referred to, after all I never heard of the MIC before the end of WWII, now if we want to talk about anyone who has built weapons before then, we could very well discuss the gunsmiths in the bronze age, which they also existed, but what does it have to do with the article and with my comment on the article? I’ll tell you: nothing.

AM Hants

I can see where you are coming from, but, it does come across as rather pedantic. Just because you had not heard of MIC prior to WWII, did not mean it did not exist. Or did it suddenly arrive, when Allen Dulles, with a little help from Earl Browder and Gehlen Reinhard created and launched the CIA in 1947. The same year that the foundations of Israel were laid, ironically.

How old is the US? How many battles has it had on home ground? How many times has it been threatened with attack?

Who was Eisenhower talking about, when commenting on the MIC back in the 60s? Was it not Boeing, Lockheed and Grumman? How long have they been around? Who were the defence manufacturers, back in the 19th century?

johnny rotten

The MIC commonly understood is the one denounced by Eisenhower, a structure (also political and financial) that has continued to grow even if the Second World War had ended, generally when the wars end the armies demobilize and are downsized, the MIC instead is managed to invent an excuse, the USSR, to be able to extend its power beyond the military sphere and take on a political role, through the system of lobbies and sliding doors between the Pentagon and Military Industries, which has no historical precedent, that is not as in the past it was a question of fighting wars but of making shovelfuls of money against American citizens, terrorizing them and presenting them with enemies that did not exist, because no one had the intention of attacking America, especially in the post WWII nuclear era, I personally think of the MIC as an anomaly, a typically American singularity, which will cease to exist when America is resized to the extent of other nations, and we’re getting there.

AM Hants

Nobody had the intention of attacking America? Remind me, but, why did Tsar Alexander, I think it was back around 1860, send a fleet to America, to support Lincolne, when France and Great Britain were getting ready to attack the United States of America?

Then you had Pearl Harbour, followed by America announcing war on Japan, followed by Adolf announcing war on the United States of America, owing to coming out in support of Japan.

At the end of the day, I just thought you were being pedantic and my head set still view the military industrial complex as the defence industry, making weapons and systems to defend the nation, whether anybody has or has not declared war on them or is trying to invade the nation.

johnny rotten

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States corporations.

Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence—economic, political, even spiritual—is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

AM Hants

So riddle me this, how was the battle of independence fought?

How were they prepared to defend themselves, back in the 19th century, when France and Great Britain were getting ready to invade?

johnny rotten

Ask Eisenhower, they are his words, not mine.

AM Hants

I will, next time I meet him in the queue down the local Dominion run, voting booth.

johnny rotten

Well, good.


I read the fist few paragraphs and skimmed the rest. From what I saw the author provided a fairly accurate portrayal of the flow of events. My perspective is to question if business as usual for the MIC is going to continue in light of the economic structure that it operates in that provides it with the resources to pursue it’s JWO hegemony drive?

So I question why the author ignores the 800 pound gorilla in the room failing economic structure? I assume that he’s aware of it. But he doesn’t factor it into his analysis.

Doomers have been projecting for decades the unsustainability and immanent pending collapse of the US economy that sustains the MIC activity described in the article.



– US Debt to GDP –



It doesn’t look like the JWO hegemony plan using the US as it’s global stalking horse is sustainable. And is instead in the empire overreach collapse stage. With China being set up as the Jew’s/Zionist’s new JWO hegemony drive parasite host to feed off of. I don’t think that the Chinese are going to cooperate. And are being set up for economic strangulation and a population cull to kill every Chinese man woman and child on the planet. And replace them with genetically engineered slaves. Along with every other nation on the planet.

My view is that Judaism should be outlawed in the US and worldwide. The synagogues and yeshivas closed, and the planet dejudified so that it’s Jew free. This isn’t a cure all. Their evil Zionist partners in crime will still have to be dealt with. But it will correct the biggest part of the problem and make the Zionist problem easier to correct.

Fog of War

” ET contact work ”

Next time you contact them, ask why they allow the BS on this planet to go ? Its obvious that the PTB’s stranglehold on humanity is too great and the common folk cant break its grip even if they wanted too. So at this point, its not even a matter of free will or choice.


All that it takes for evil to conquer is for good people to do nothing.

Fog of War

” So at this point, its not even a matter of free will or choice ”

Do you even read comments before making cliche responses ? Seriously dude ?


Your reply, like parts of the comment that I replied to, don’t make sense.

Fog of War

It made perfect sense, if you make contact with ET’s ask them my simple , obvious question.


Ask them exactly what? Please format the question word for word that you want the ETs to answer.

Is this the question:

“ask why they allow the BS on this planet to go ?”

That’s not even a question. It’s an illustration that you have cognitive and communication issues.

Fog of War

If you cant figure out what I mean by ” all the BS in happening in the world “, then you’re either playing naïve or you’re dumb as a brick. Which one is it Mr. contactee of ET’s ?


I’m debating with a retard. Go debate with Holms. He’s more your speed.

What is it that you don’t understand about:

“Ask them exactly what? Please format the question word for word that you want the ETs to answer.”

I’m not going to try to format your gibberish into grammatically correct sensible English. When you refuse to, or are incapable of doing it yourself.


This video can be watched by clicking on the link below the screenshot. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2e2045065f24d5f4d36e7ef52f793bb290031c9eabbe5e39479d9bfd461d6f2d.png https://www.silverdoctors.com/headlines/world-news/safeguards-in-place-servers-raided-patriots-have-it-all/ –


There are plans for an open off planet ET military intervention if it’s needed. I’ve met and am in communication with people here involved with the ETs planning to invade, or maybe a better description would be intervene. I’m also working on direct planning for this with contacts that I’m attempting to develop.

My view is that things would have to be so bad for that to occur that we don’t want to go there if it can be avoided. And we’re better off solving our own problems if we can.


US elections are a scam and a farce. As the current debacle shows. The records of contested elections where evidence of fraud is present. Should be impounded. And the recounts videotaped and audited by LE fraud investigators.

peter mcloughlin

Another excellent and challenging article! The hegemon wants peace – but on his own terms. Peace was maintained in the Cold War because the US and USSR were “comparable in both strategic and conventional forces”, and so avoided nuclear Armageddon. The MIC may seek to rec-create the Cold War. But they will not be able to recreate the stability that existed during that era: nuclear powers are increasingly unable to prevent the scenarios that will lead to Mutual Assured Destruction, because of where we are in the cycle of history. But leaders delude themselves of this. Without that control it seems only a matter of time. For my own small contribution to this important debate: https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/

Harry Smith

Some leaders are preparing for the Great Reset. They don’t need any balance.

AM Hants

They cannot have reset if the US is not on board, which is one of the reasons I so hope Trump proves the election was fraudulent. It stops the reset. Biden, full speed ahead.

S Melanson

Agreed. Will Biden mean full speed ahead? There is the possibility the MIC will stand in Biden’s way. There is division in the Pentagon but Trump has til late Jan. to do some house cleaning.

Why did they not assassinate Trump like JFK? Watch and listen to the video below and what the IMF Director says 3:45 to 4:00.

Kristalina Georgieva, managing director of the International Monetary Fund – September 15, 2020


AM Hants

‘A Tale of Two Cities’ – but, aren’t the IMF supportive of the reset, when you look at what they demanded of Belarus. Telling them that they could have the IMF Loan, if they shut down the nation, which Lukashenko refused.

With regards the Pentagon, with you with regards where do they stand and the divisions. With regards the MIC, I assumed Biden was their preferred choice, owing to him never voting against a war, but, also his good friends in the Atlantic Council. Who appear to be calling all the shots, on behalf of the MIC?

I have not checked out Open Secrets, with regards who has been funding and sponsoring Biden, over the last 50 years. They are quite a good site if you want to see who funds your local Senator.

S Melanson

The Director of the IMF is warning about crossing the line – there is a tipping point and we are in a situation similar to situation before French Revolution – fracturing elite consensus led to mobilization of the commons or populist movement.

But if you look at what is happening, the agenda is more consistent with a polarization, radicalization agenda. If so, the two sides are being played to create a divide – the great reset and other horrific future scenarios I have trouble seeing how they are viable – they are having trouble enough with Covid restriction compliance. Also to be in your face about such plans is odd but… good for further polarization towards extremism – look at the plans they have for us… the other side – look at what they are doing to us… Driving the ‘right’ to other social media will leave the legacy social media ‘left’ and alt social media ‘right’ and the two sides separated and isolated further – this is intentional in my view.

There is a Star Trek show – the original series about a force that feeds of hate and it influences to cause polarization and division to the extent of violence. Once the two sides figured out they were being manipulated, this entity was rendered powerless.

So I am coming to the conclusion there is a single puppet master (could be a group) pushing polarization and what is the agenda I would like to know.

I will contact you by email, tomorrow morning and send document. What I say I am not 100% as I am confused as well and still struggle to see the ‘light’, you are not alone. Cheers

AM Hants

There is a Star Trek show – the original series about a force that feeds of hate and it influences to cause polarization and division to the extent of violence. Once the two sides figured out they were being manipulated, this entity was rendered powerless.

So I am coming to the conclusion there is a single puppet master (could be a group) pushing polarization and what is the agenda I would like to know.


Psy-ops. Since waking up, back in 2014, always felt it was a Rothschild hissy fit between the clans. Haven’t they done it time and time again, betting against each side? Plus, the creation of the Tavistock Institute, David Rockefeller, Lord Northcliffe and his brother Lord Rothermere. The brothers were media moguls, the Murdoch and Maxwell of the early 20th century, with one providing media for the left and the other providing media for the right. They set up the Tavistock Institute for mass, mind control. For me and just based on personal views and no fact or substance, I do wonder which Rothschild branch is playing for the other side?

Take care and look forward to reading the document.

Harry Smith

Trump can’t stop the reset. Only delay it.


https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6a38d7c3368de3703932844d097b9cd42ca3a0e67447703f28af66334b98a6a4.jpg https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/think-find-least-80-million-votes-sidney-powell-magnitude-president-trumps-2020-win/


https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/75f1b931f6cccf9da40ad6ba3f1aa1569c83c76ac78644b1b42e62fddb95ddad.jpg https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/think-find-least-80-million-votes-sidney-powell-magnitude-president-trumps-2020-win/

AM Hants

Have you seen these? Article plus shortish video of around 8 minutes.

The Real Reason Why Trump Fired Mark Esper: They Can Stop the State Re-counts (This Is Much Bigger)


TRUMP BOMBSHELL: Dominion software deleted over 2.7 million votes nationwide, switched over 500,000 from Trump to Biden

Thursday, November 12, 2020 by: Mike Adams

Tags: dominion, election fraud, Glitch, Joe Biden, left cult, President Trump, rigged, Software, stolen!, Trump, vote fraud, voting machines…. https://www.naturalnews.com/2020-11-12-trump-bombshell-dominion-software-deleted-votes-switched-biden.html

AM Hants

This also ties into the above links. It is interesting what he has to say and seriously hope the story grows.

Cyber Analyst Reporting on Dominion – https://www.oann.com/dominion-scandal-goes-worldwide-with-michael-johns/


“I spent four years working at State Department’s Office of Counter Terrorism (now it is the Bureau of Counter Terrorism). I was one of two officers who dealt directly with the FBI in the investigation of the terrorist bombing of Pan Am 103. I learned through this experience that US law enforcement cannot operate in other countries without the permission of those countries.

I also spent 22 years scripting terrorism exercises for U.S. military special operations. My job was to replicate State Department and Embassy communications that would occur during a terrorist crisis. So, I have a lot of experience in working real world with US law enforcement, US military and our Embassies in sorting out the issues that arise when the United States wants to pursue a law enforcement or military operation in a foreign country.

The U.S. Army did not conduct a raid in Germany on either Scytl or Dominion offices or servers. They are foreign nationals and we must operate in accordance with German law. Moreover, the U.S. Army does not have law enforcement powers with respect to such entities.

So what happened? I am reliably informed that a unit under the command of USEUCOM (i.e., United States European Command) did in fact conduct an operation to take control of computer servers. But these servers belong to the CIA, not Dominion or Scytl. The U.S. military has full authority to do this because any CIA activity in the European theater is being conducted using military cover. In other words, CIA officers would be identified to the German government (and anyone else asking) as military employees or consultants.

Such an operation would have been carried out with U.S. law enforcement present to take custody of the evidence. That means that the evidence will be under the control of the Department of Justice through US Attorneys and can be used in court or other judicial proceedings.”

– Unraveling the Latest Deep State Coup –


AM Hants

But, didn’t it say in both video and article that the US did not take the lead?

Anyway, at the end of the day, if they do have the equipment and can strip it down easily, openly displaying how the server saw the night work out, then it should be interesting when it gets it’s day in court. Heard they left Haskel out of the equation and wonder why, ha-ha.


Sidney Powel said today that she doesn’t know if the good guys or bad guys got the server:

“Attorney Sidney Powell: That is true. It is somehow related to this. But I do not know if good guys got it or bad guys got it.”

– HUGE! Attorney Sidney Powell CONFIRMS Alleged Dominion Servers in Germany Were Confiscated — VIDEO –


AM Hants

Really? Just been listening to her over on Gateway Pundit and she is saying Team Trump has the servers. The US Forces, who were not in the position of lead and with a lot of negotiation and paperwork, were involved in removing them, over in Germany.


Yes, really. At 1:51 to 1:53 in the video.

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b5fe481304b7bdf533e0b977acdb8b7e1cf6cd6937a9f13a8f8194599300438b.png https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/huge-attorney-sidney-powell-coinfirms-alleged-dominion-servers-germany-confiscated-video/


https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2fd70de3d69f45367a61c5dfdcb9fdaaf679a6206da269d8654cda29bd8d4bee.png https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/huge-attorney-sidney-powell-coinfirms-alleged-dominion-servers-germany-confiscated-video/


There are two types of evidence in a fraud case, direct and circumstantial. This example that you cited relies on empirical evidence. That falls into the circumstantial category and usually isn’t sufficient to obtain a fraud conviction. For that you usually need direct evidence.

The anomalies being cited aren’t conclusive on their own. They could be from tabulation and uploading procedures or some other non pre meditated fraud complicit reason, like unintentional human error or a computer malfunction. If they’re supported by direct evidence. Then together they make a strong case for conviction.

AM Hants

I do like the video and article though and leave what they use in the court of law unto the legal team. Who have the expertise that I do not have.

Ryan Glantz

Release the Kraken!


https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3e238735ea180504532b4051003d57f6f5a31fa6ed9a1e55e0b230ba5fcb1258.jpg https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/boom-lin-wood-mark-levin-show-trump-won-a70-plus-landslide-election-probably-400-electoral-votes-audio/


Wood and Powell are both attorneys working on the election fraud cases for the Trump administration. I doubt that they’re making these types of statements without being in possession of judicial quality evidence of massive election fraud.

If they’re right. There really should be criminal investigations and prosecutions for felony election fraud.

Harry Smith

Hi Richard. What’s your approximate forecast for the situation in USA for next 2 months? How do you think what it will be like?


I don’t think that anyone knows.

Right now Trump is losing in the courts and with the recounts.

The recount system is designed to fail with the people accused of felony elections fraud being tasked with conducting the recounts to determine if they committed felony elections fraud and should all be sent to prison for a long time. Obviously if they lied about the election they’ll lie about the recount to stay out of jail.

The US Justice Department Attorney General on November 9th authorized federal investigations of vote fraud:

“given that voting in our current elections has now concluded, I authorize you to pursue substantial allegations of voting and vote tabulation irregularities prior to the certification of elections in your jurisdictions in certain cases, as I have already done in specific instances. Such inquiries and reviews may be conducted if there are clear and apparently- credible allegations of irregularities that, if true, could potentially impact the outcome of a federal election in an individual State.”



The state courts are engaging in institutional bias to cover the misconduct of state officials and departments. And in many cases are dismissing the cases rather than moving to discovery with the power of subpoena to seize evidence and compel testimony under oath. So in a number of cases they’re being appealed to the federal courts. To see if they’ll rule in Trump’s favor where the state and local courts haven’t.

It’s unknown what state and local criminal investigations, if any, are underway. Criminal investigations aren’t normally publicized in the early stages to avoid compromising them.

So my assessment at this stage is that Trump’s lost round one. Which isn’t surprising given the structural impediments.

There are two main components to the vote fraud issue. Physical and digital. The entire initial effort by the Trump campaign dealt with the physical component. Election observers, paper ballots, deadlines, etc. Trump lost most of those in state and federal court with the claims being dismissed without discovery. And those cases are now on appeal.

Both the physical and digital cases require evidence production beyond witness affidavits of wrong doing. This will require court authorized subpoenas, interrogations, arrests and prosecutions. Until a determination is made on how that process is or isn’t progressing. An assessment of the plausible progression of events can’t be reasonably projected.

AM Hants

Been following what is happening over on GP. Plus, whether you like Before It’s News or not, sometimes you do find worthy articles, amongst the comedy section.

Mike Adams, over on Natural News, provided an interesting article, with regards the story behind the servers, found in Germany. There was also another video, short and simple, well around 8 minutes and it was to do with the real reason they got rid of Esper. Again, informative and well worth reading.

Ralph London

Have you seen this, AM?: http://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4425

AM Hants

Cheers Ralph and no I had not seen it.

With regards Boris, I think he is bringing me out in some form of anaphylactic shock, together with Gove, Raab and Hancock, bearing in mind I always used to vote Conservative. I swear I need a shot of adrenaline, every time I see his sanctimonious face and a double shot when they mention the carer.

Reiner Fuellmich is meant to be providing details, anyway now, with regards a German Court Case and cannot wait for the ball to start rolling, where all that is concerned. Hope you are well and take care.

Ralph London

I’m with you about Reiner, but court cases need to be happening all over the Western world. hancock is by far the absolute worst in the Con Party, but boris is fast catching up.

AM Hants

I used to vote for the party and Centre with a tiny swing to the right is in my DNA. However, I physically react whenever I see any of the gruesome group. Boris, Hancock, Raab, Give and even 4* Star, All Inclusive, Dinghy Tours’ Patel. Just want us out the EU and then a mass fumigation of Westminster, all parties.

By the way, have you seen the interesting article on Malloch Brown, over on Zero Hedge? Would David Miliband have been his boss, when her served Brown, in the Foreign Office? Miliband, grandson of Trotsky’s good friend Samuel Miliband, son of Adolf, aka Ralph and who runs a charity that keeps being thrown out of Eastern Ukraine and African Nations?

Ralph London

Yup. https://fort-russ.com/2020/11/lord-malloch-brown-revealed-the-british-hand-behind-the-coup-shows-its-scales-again/ trotsky/bronstein was a seriously sick satanic shit. Looking a bit better for Trump, making inroads to reverse the fake/cheating/lying/criminal votes for biden. Portuguese Appeals Court Deems pcr tests unreliable.

AM Hants

Go over to Gateway Pundit. Nice stuff coming out the Sydney Powell Press Conference. Popcorn and champers, as hopefully it will now come spewing out.

Ralph London

FYI, AM, regarding vaccination, do you think article 6 applies?:

‘Article 6 – Consent

1. Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.’


AM Hants

Should do, but, no doubt depends on your lawyer.

Ralph London

Why do you need a lawyer? I think having a printout (in your handbag(s)), with the url on it, AND having it on your phone (bookmarked too) should do.

AM Hants

Don’t trust the legal system. There was something, a year ago and kept it on computer that died, regarding list of questions, that gave the right to say ‘no way’.

Ralph London

So why didn’t you ask me for help, AM?: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/high-consequence-infectious-diseases-hcid 4 documents to read/download/bookmark: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/face-coverings-when-to-wear-one-and-how-to-make-your-own

AM Hants

Too busy keeping up with US election.

Interesting that the UK Government decided that Covid was no longer a High Consequence Infectious Disease, since March 2020.

Will go to you for future reference Ralph. Thanks for links.

Ralph London

It’s actually been a lot more intense this year. I’m getting in too deep, but I will just refer to 3 more sites, otherwise it just overloads things:


Which links to this site: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/ Isn’t this Kennedy’s site?

& finally this (guess who’s blaming us for being anti-vaxxers??? – are they paranoid, or guilty?):


AM Hants

The last one, with minimal semetic DNA are so paranoid.

Thanks for the links. I am very slow with it all, but, seriously interested.

Ralph London

Sorry AM, I am going to have to backtrack some, about that article 6. Further down, there is article 27, which is a ‘loophole’ for govts to get around it via public safety etc. (

Ralph London

klaus schwab, more than likely a jew, was on the dm board; & was involved with bilderberg.

AM Hants

I am going to bookmark that article and take time to read it slowly, as appears must read. Cheers for the link.


Adams was a strong scamdemic supporter peddling obvious disinfo. How accurate his other material is I’m not sure. But he has a credibility deficit in my opinion.

AM Hants

Opposite in my opinion, as I also support the scamdemic. Science is subjective and for example provided, there is an argument. With regards Corona, there are refusing to listen to the other side of the argument and that automatically provides a credibility deficit in my opinion.

At the end of the day, the guy who invented the PCR tests, that are used to diagnose Corona, has stated that the machines cannot diagnose. So people are having the tests, being declared Corona Positive, and yet it could be any form of infection. I know somebody, who was in the same position as Elon Mask. They had a test, owing to their job requirements and one person applied the test, only two different results came back, from the one test. Both a negative and a positive. Now how does that work?

Have they studied the effects of both lockdown and all the negatives and positives that go with and non-lockdown and all the negatives and positives that go with it? How many deaths have their been, owing to Corona Restrictions? How many deaths have there been, where they can state it was 100% corona, not some other illness and the corpse had contact with corona in the previous 6 months.

Wasn’t there a study, over in the US of those that were claimed to have passed away from Corona? Which showed they included those who died of RTAs, heart problems, terminal illnesses, suicides and much more, whose cause of death was put down to Corona? Why have their been no post-mortems carried out, on most of those patients, especially those who died from sudden death, where a coroner’s report is required?

Must admit, I do find it interesting that you post Gateway Pundit articles, yet, you then expect others to provide links that can be cited in Academic Papers or will hold up in a court of law, when your own links cannot. Not knocking GP, as I enjoy reading their articles, but, also know they have their own agenda. Like all of the media sites and forums.

Anyway, I look forward to the legal cases, with regards all that is happening to prove or disprove the election fraud. At the end of the day, it is not who you vote for that matters, but, for the voter to have trust that their vote actually matters and is treated with respect, by the authorities. If the authorities cannot do that, then what does it say to your average voter, whatever party they follow?

S Melanson

I am sending you an email as a heads up.

You are correct about the PCR tests and the scam/plandemic is not disinfo

I see you got Johnny Rotten in a hissy fit, but the problem is he has not responded to any of my specific requests for constructive feedback, he will instead pick on some detail to attack suggesting he has no intention to engage constructively. Ignoring until he engages constructively might be best

AM Hants

With regards JR, 5 D script of disinfo agent.

Discredit Deny Discourse Disagree Detail

With me, I literally assume the military industrial complex is what it says. Basic defence industry, including makers of bow and arrows, that were designed for defence and not the toy box, ha-ha.

S Melanson

I replied elsewhere but is pending due to moderation so sending here.

Hi, I do not have your email to send you stuff afterall. If you send me an email then I can. My email is at the end of each of my articles but below for convenience:


Cheers, look forward to hearing from you


A lot of the material GP covers is in court. That’s why I post it.


“Opposite in my opinion, as I also support the scamdemic,”

So you agree with lockdowns or don’t agree with the lockdowns, and agree that the virus is a deadly super disease or disagree that the virus is a deadly super disease?

AM Hants

Do not agree with lockdowns and do not believe the virus is any worse than flu.

Who has the patent to the vaccine and what date was the patent awarded?

Were they discussing Corona and the effects back in 2010?

Why is the science that rejects the science of WHO ignored?

Why are there no grown up debate, where all arguments are addressed?

What qualifications does Gates have, to make him an expert with regards viruses?

What are the interests of Gates and how does eugenics work with vaccination programmes?


Yes, that’s my perspective also. But it’s not Adam’s perspective. That doesn’t make all his material disinfo, but some of it on the scamdemic clearly is.

AM Hants

For Disinformation to work, they have to provide the odd bit of truth. Like I said everybody has there own objective and all science has an opposite point of view/argument.

S Melanson

Just a heads up I sent you an email with attachment. Let me know if you did not get it. Thanks

AM Hants

Hi, I got it. I am going to reply to it later. Been baby sitting my hyper active, 3 year old grandson, who has left, full of energy, whilst I need a Russian portable, nuclear power plant to recharge my batteries. Will reply later and mega thanks.

Ryan Glantz


AM Hants

An interesting article, with so much information to digest, but, interesting.


‘…If the hegemon’s behavior is increasingly anarchical and oppressive, then the system loses legitimacy and progressively breaks-down as more and more nations rise to oppose the hegemon’s oppressive rule. The break-down of the international system is of great concern as it destabilizes the system of global security making global conflict and nuclear war more likely. Such developments are also not in the best interests of the MIC.

Hegemonic Stability Theory assumes it is in the hegemon’s best interests to preserve its hegemony and the international system will be structured accordingly. But what if US global hegemony does not serve the best interests of those that hold the reigns of power, as they are far better served by a different international order? In contrast to a US hegemonic world order, the first Cold War was a relatively stable period, the ‘long peace’, maintained by the balance of power between the two superpower…”


The above section reminds me of growing up during the Cold War. Despite everything, the bi-polar relationship between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, provided peace in Europe, until the Warsaw Pact was dismantled. NATO worked well in a bi-polar relationship, with all sides respectful of mutually accepted destruction. Once the Warsaw Pact fell, NATO turned into a uni-polar, totalitarian offensive, run by leaders who either came from non-nuclear nations, or were peace campaigners in their youth and younger years. What happened, to turn them into craving thermo-nuclear battles? What happened to having leaders, not just NATO, that understood and respected the concept of mutually assured destruction.


With regards what is happening in the US Presidential Campaign at the moment, what happen nexts?

At the end of the day, Biden has been in politics for around 50 years, and never served in the military. Was it his asthma that kept him out of it all, including Vietnam? Yet, there is not a single war, since 1973 when he became a politician, that he has not said no to, no matter which party had the keys for the White House. Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, George H W Bush, Bill Clinton, George W Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump – every single war they have signed upto, Biden has fully supported the call. Including when he was Obama’s Vice President and could not wait to invade Syria and what was his role in Benghazi, when Hilary was on shift and could not hang around, when the US Ambassador and team were being taken out, owing to needing a good night’s sleep, as she was expecting it to be followed by a busy day.

Trump, has many faults, but, he never started a war, but, there again he never left one. Also, he avoided being called up for National Service, but, he does appear to have respect for the US Military.


Will Biden want NATO to return to a bi-polar partnership or would he be first in the queue to take out the planet? Will his Chinese connections keep him in check?

Trump, has changed over Defence Secretaries, replacing Esper with one, who wishes to use the military to focus on domestic concerns, rather than police the world. When Trump was campaigning, back in 2016, it was on the peace ticket. Is he serious about cleaning out the swamp and will he manage to do it, before January 2021. No doubt, he has had to play the game, in order to get everybody in place, in order to expose them all, or is that wishful thinking? Will he fumigate and erase the swamp, or has it just been a simple tidy up, but, everything ready to double down, post January 2021?


Another section of the article, that interested me, is what to do with the towns that are heavily dependent on defence contracts, should we enter peaceful times and bi-polar or multi-polar partnerships? You cannot just put the workforce out to seed, but, bring in something else, in order to keep them occupied.

There are interesting times ahead, one way or another and how things turn out will depend on who ends up in the White House, in January 2021. One other thing, how come Biden, who could not make it out of the basement or have any idea where he was, suddenly come back to life on 4 November 2020?

S Melanson

There is a lot going on, a lot of confusion. The election was planned for some time to use electronic voting machines by private companies based outside the US to use statistical methods to doctor election results. This video is about ‘subversion’ and it applies to the US situation playing out – who are behind the subversion is the million dollar question and an open mind is needed to step back and see where the evidence takes you.

link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9TviIuXPSE

Part 5 is about enemies within to take down the Republic but this is also happening on a global level; the “reset” and bild bak Better which are terms used by many world leader as if they were handed a script. The US has been in de facto civil war for years – it has only recently come out into the open. There has been ongoing battles within and across agencies and I know of it first hand.

You are one of the very few to comment at length and thoughtfully on what I have written. WE exchanged emails, so I may follow up by email as I have a document I would like to share with you.

AM Hants

Thanks and thank you for the link to the video. Tomas Schuman, is brilliant. Interesting and I love the way his narrative flows and how he is animated. Compare him to a Western propagandist, say Don Lemon, or similar. You cannot tell one from another, courtesy botox and the monochrome voices they use.

I am tired at the moment, so will want to watch the video in full tomorrow. Especially, with regards what he says about subversion. Sun Tzu, nice that he has bought him into the story.

Must admit, at the moment, by design, my head is all over the place, but, at the end of the day, I do believe light overcomes darkness. Plus, I seriously believe they know how it will all pan out, but, we are all being used as pawns, for pure entertainment value. They have to play the game out, till the last possible moment, full of pay-ops and mind games. Didn’t a certain family bet both sides of the coin, back in the days of Napoleon? With a lot of inside trading in between. Do they really wish to take out the planet, or to see how far they can push humans, who have been schooled to be programmed, rather than critical thought allowed. If you look at Western Education, how by design they abolished traditional methods, whilst Eastern Education, they valued the old traditional methods. Sorry, I am rambling, and the video has just reached the 6 subjects behind subversion.

Taken from the video:

Areas of Application of Subversion

Religion – replace with various cults and faiths. Replace respected with fake.

Education – distract them from learning something constructive, pragmatic, efficient. Teach them something that takes them away and has no bearing on anything.

Social Life – replace traditionally established institutions and organisations, communities and replace with fake, artificial, bureaucratical controlled bodies, social worker institutions. Main concept SW – get the pay check from the Government, who cares what the result is.

Power Structure – natural bodies of administration, elected or appointed by elected leaders of society. Replace, artificial bodies that nobody elected. Media, is one such group – who elected them, but, look at how much power they have. They decide what is good and bad, But, who elected them? (Bunch enabled snobs, mediocre journalists are the ones who survive}. Power structure ends up being eroded by people without the qualifications nor will of people to keep them in power.

Labour Relations –

Law and Order – being eroded. New movies police, or military officers, look dumb and paranoid. Criminals look nice, human beings, all criminals are nice, just oppressed by society. Police, are represented as pigs. How were they represented in the old movies?…”


That video so needs sharing.

With regards E Mailing me, look forward to viewing the document you wish to send.

Have not come across Tomas Schuman before, but, seriously enjoying the video, even though I will be spending more time listening to him tomorrow. if you had somebody similar to him, presenting the BBC, despite hating what they churn out, I would actually make it a habit to watch BBC News, ha-ha and have no desire to tune into BBC News.


Frankly, from Plato’s Guns and good analysis by Taxi

The kindest thing we can say about Joe Biden is that he is a proven scatterbrain whose physical and cognitive daily life depends on his wife’s vigilant handling of his word and foot. She is forever present wherever he is: whispering to him his forgotten word, and showing him where podium and exit door is. Simply, she is his guide-dog and theatrical standby coaching him from the wings. And for all we know, Biden may also already be incontinent and needing adult diapers under his pajamas and Mrs. Biden here plays the role of personal diaper-changer too.

This is the pre-election status of our new president, Joe Biden.

But what of post-election? How will our handicapped and dependent president manage complex state affairs and even more complex foreign policies for the next four years? He is already 77 years of age and clearly his cognitive abilities will continue to naturally diminish with age, with no prospect whatsoever of their return to robust elasticity.

Begs the question here therefore: why on earth did the Democratic party choose him as leader of party and presidential candidate when they know better than you and I of Biden’s dwindling mental stature? Surely an unspoken yet blatant ruse is at hand here? Yes? No? Yes, indeed there is and let’s here code-name it ‘Operation Kamala’. The Democratic party leadership that is desperately needing to win the White House and remain there for eight years have resorted to employing unconventional methodology to insert their real preferred candidate: an unpopular candidate by presidential standards; a selected candidate and not an elected one.

The real candidate that’s preferred by the Jewy Deep State and by Jewish Power is Kamala Harris, Joe Biden’s pick of Vice President, and not Joe Biden himself. The Democratic party will soon enough be performing their ‘great switcheroo’, to be executed soon as it becomes impossible to cover up Biden’s mental failings. What these Democratic Party honchos and desperate strategists have done in essence is cynically exploit our constitution and election rules by playing a Two-card Monte trick against the American voter. Now you see the democratically elected Biden card, and NOW you see the selected VP Kamala Harris’ card. Every guess made at this sly game makes every single American voter a loser.

Kamala Harris: a slime-ball lawyer who reached the high office of District Attorney of uber liberal San Francisco is of mixed-race: of Asian-Indian and African-American extraction. She is a combination of Israel-firster Modi and Israel-firster Sammy Davis Jr – yet the mainstream media consistently refers to her as a “Black-American”, and clearly this is because ‘Asian-Indian’ does not sell well at the voting booth. Here we have the same intentional racial inaccuracy as with how mulatto president Obama was sold to the voter. And like presidents Obama and Trump before her, Kamala is both besotted and beholden to Jewish power. The Jewish Lobby promoted her selection as president-to-be despite her being the first Democrat to drop out of the presidential race, nay the first Democrat to be elbowed out of the race by Tulsi Gabbard. Being childless at 56 years of age and married to a divorced Jewish man, she refers to herself as a “proud and loving stepmother” to his two Jewish children. Kamala thus evidently has a personal and careeristic investment in serving Israel above all else. In this sense, we can say that Kamala actually married Israel and guaranteed thus her rise to political rank in the US, despite her low popularity even among Democrats. How else to explain the biggest loser in the primaries eventually becoming actual president of the United States of America? This here is the “unconventional” ruse devised by the criminal Democratic strategists. This here is the crime scene where American democracy was stabbed in the heart and in the eyeball. This here may very well be the race-war trigger planned for America by Jewish power when America finds itself, overnight, ruled by a selected (not elected) female president of color.

I can see an ocean of Whitey froth and bullets when this happens.

And until the day Kamala takes the White House with the help of Jewish sleight of hand, we have Biden.

Biden the committed Zionist. Biden the old man with a penchant for inappropriate touchy-feelys of little girls. Biden, the supporter of color revolutions and wars for the Jews. Biden who doesn’t know where the exit door is. Biden who is bad at math but good at pocketing monies from corrupt deals. Biden the poster-boy and linchpin of the biggest Jewish subterfuge operation against the American voter and their beloved constitution.

What’s left to say except: good luck, Americans. You’re certainly fucked for the next 4-8 years. You’re fucked perhaps even for eternit


You write yet another thought provoking article :) I my opinion there has never been a ‘benevolent’ hegemon and there never will be :) All military power has its roots in trade, internal and external.

As far as military power is concerned the advances in drone warfare on land and sea and in the air will naturally favour the wealthier and/or more advanced nations and will be necessary advantage for nations whose national stock of prospective soldiers are morally degraded by neo-liberal social engineering agenda’s. Most Western nations currently fall into this category.

The problem that the West as a whole has, is that their trade offerings are often ‘services’ that ride on the backs of lower cost labour from other countries. Without the pool of low cost goods, high inflation in Western Countries would have caused riots at ‘home’. It’s difficult to balance an over bloated military budget that sucks out more than it steals from weaker nations.

S Melanson

The public believes US global leadership is ordained by divine providence which explains US exceptionalism. Since it is God’s the US will to lead and God is good, US leadership is also good – the benevolent hegemon. This has its roots in the enlightenment movement and the benevolent dictator … and other fairy tales…




Is Trump’s rhetoric Sinophobic, or is it simply pointing out the obvious fact that Biden is in the pocket of the Chinese CP. Maybe a bit of both.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x