Tag Archives: Council on Foreign Relations

Alex Newman: A War Between Two Villains? 3.5 (2)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Alex Newman

The people of Ukraine are paying a terrible toll in a war not of their choosing. But just as with the Russian people, there is a huge chasm between them and their rulers.

After lying to America for two years about the Covid pandemic, the establishment segued to a new narrative almost seamlessly: Ukraine’s government leaders are superheroes courageously standing for freedom, Western civilization, and all that is good against beastly Russian savages. But, just as with the Covid narrative, or the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy theory before it, Americans are not getting the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Instead, they are being spoon-fed lies, propaganda, half-truths, and deception. The end objective: advancing globalism.

That the establishment media do not truly care about innocent victims of war or everyday Ukrainians should be very obvious. In fact, Ukrainians — or any other people for that matter — are disposable to the predatory class. Consider the ghastly genocide of Ukrainians by mass-murdering Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin. In what was known as the Holodomor, or the Terror Famine, Soviet communists stole Ukraine’s grain crop and deliberately starved five to 10 million innocent victims in one of the greatest catastrophes in human history. New York Times “journalist” Walter Duranty fed Stalin’s propaganda to Americans by denying the barbarous atrocity, and eventually won a Pulitzer Prize for it.

Despite the nonstop media attention on Ukraine and purported concern for the very real suffering of Ukraine’s embattled population, massive numbers are dying in other conflicts around the world where the establishment press has remained completely silent. In Yemen, for example, an ongoing war involving the Saudi regime has resulted in over 150,000 deaths, with some 85,000 children dying of starvation due to the war, according to Save the Children. And yet, even as Americans glued to their TVs fly Ukrainian flags, the vast majority do not even realize a far more deadly conflict is raging on the Arabian Peninsula.

 

Aside from alleged humanitarian concerns expressed by the dishonest media, another one of the primary arguments in favor of the escalating U.S. and Western involvement in Ukraine by war propagandists and Western politicians is the integrity of Ukraine’s borders and its national sovereignty. And yet, despite the feigned concern, the same politicians and media propagandists making those arguments are also leading the charge to erase America’s national borders and surrender even more sovereignty to regional and global organizations. Indeed, millions of migrants have flowed into the United States and Europe just in the last few years as politicians have continued to give more power to supranational organizations.

In other words, the primary justifications for outside intervention in Ukraine by the warmongers and their shills in the media are clearly not the real issue. Nobody can fault courageous Ukrainian patriots for fighting to defend their homeland. But the clear winner in the conflict will not be Putin, Ukraine, or the United States. Rather, it will be the cause of globalism and the shift toward what the predator class refers to as the “multipolar world order.” By the time the conflict is over — and it may well expand into a truly global conflagration, potentially involving nukes — it will appear that the U.S. government scored the most spectacular “own goal” in geopolitical history. Countless people will die, but Communist China, European “integration,” and “global governance” will all win big.

Ukraine’s Globalist-leftist President

To begin understanding the enormity of the deception taking place, it helps to examine Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in an objective manner. Despite the portrayal of the media-savvy leader by the establishment press and American politicians as some sort of liberty-loving superhero, the reality is far less flattering. Indeed, if Zelensky were in America’s political system, despite claims of being “centrist,” he would be on the far-left fringe of the Democratic Party. He is also deeply corrupt and closely connected to various tentacles of the Deep State waging war on freedom worldwide.

Among other political positions, Zelensky is radically pro-abortion and radically anti-gun. Offering some crucial insight into his political ideology, Zelensky actually wrote publicly on Twitter that would-be Canadian strongman Justin Trudeau — a self-proclaimed admirer of mass-murdering tyrants including Fidel Castro and Xi Jinping — “inspired me to join politics.” In an interview with Axios, Zelensky also openly rejected the notion that the murderous dictatorship ruling communist China represents any sort of geopolitical threat.

The Ukrainian leader’s relatively new political party, known as the “Servant of the People,” is leftist, too, despite trying to portray itself as “libertarian” or in the center. Shortly after being selected to lead the party, chief Oleksandr Kornienko told the world that the party would be moving in a much more leftist direction. “It will be something between liberal and socialist views,” Kornienko declared on Ukrainian television, in a throwback to the nation’s days as a Soviet “socialist” republic.

Under the guise of “libertarianism,” Zelensky has also become quite the LGBT activist, in defiance of his own people’s more traditional values. Indeed, British foreign intelligence chief Richard Moore publicly suggested on Twitter that the war in Ukraine was over “values,” especially homosexuality and gender confusion. “With the tragedy and destruction unfolding so distressingly in Ukraine, we should remember the values and hard won freedoms that distinguish us from Putin, none more than LGBT+ rights,” wrote the MI6 chief.

Zelensky’s personal life and his media career are bizarre, to put it mildly. Video footage of him strutting around in women’s high-heeled shoes and tight leather and a female shirt exposing his midriff has been making the rounds, drawing praise from Western LGBT activists. The Ukrainian leader also infamously appeared on television half naked pretending to play piano with his genitals alongside another man.

Perhaps even more alarming, Zelensky is a hardcore globalist, too, having never met a sovereignty-destroying scheme he did not want to chain his nation to. From the start, he made clear his desire to shackle his nation to the European Union superstate currently devouring the remaining sovereignty of its member governments. The Ukrainian leader is also a major fan of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). And he has been demanding that the UN Security Council behave as a sort of world government.

As is his inspiration Trudeau, Zelensky is also closely connected to the Deep State and its various tentacles — especially the infamous World Economic Forum run by totalitarian-minded Klaus Schwab of “Great Reset” fame. In a January 22, 2020 speech at the WEF, long before the government- and media-backed hysteria around Covid reached a fever pitch, Zelensky celebrated what he described as “the epoch of ‘new normality.’” Zelensky was also placed into power with the backing of powerful Deep State-connected oligarchs. More on them later.

The allegations of corruption have swirled around Zelensky since long before the current war. The so-called Pandora Papers — leaked documents exposing the offshore accounts and business dealings of powerful people around the world — featured Zelensky and several of his top people. Among other concerns, they were found to be using a complex network of offshore companies in Cyprus, Belize, and the British Virgin Islands to purchase luxurious foreign properties from Tuscany to London. Zelensky denies involvement in money laundering, but admitted to using offshore companies, supposedly to avoid political influence in his TV shows.

Deep State Forces Behind Zelensky

Behind the façade of a democratically elected government are numerous “Deep State” forces. This includes shadowy forces within the Ukrainian government pulling strings behind the scenes, including legions of “former” communists and “oligarchs,” as well as deep ties to the international “Deep State” pursuing the “New World Order” agenda. The fingerprints are everywhere.

The current Ukrainian government is intimately tied to the ruling class in the United States. The puppet-style relationship is so blatant that then-Vice President Joe Biden actually bragged at a meeting of the globalist Council on Foreign Relations that he threatened to withhold $1 billion in U.S. foreign aid from Ukrainian authorities in 2015 if their top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, was not fired immediately. Shokin happened to be investigating Burisma Holdings, a shady “energy company” that was paying Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, some $50,000 per month to serve on the board.

“I said, ‘Nah, I’m not going to — or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars,’” Biden recounted about his trip to Kiev. “They said, ‘You have no authority. You’re not the president.’ The president said — I said, ‘Call him.’ I said, ‘I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars.’ I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours.’ I looked at them and said, ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’ Well, son of a b*tch. He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.”

Interestingly, Biden clearly implicated then-President Barack Obama in the conspiracy to remove a prosecutor who was investigating his own corruption. E-mails obtained from Hunter Biden’s laptop clearly implicate Joe Biden in the corruption, too, with the former vice president being referred to as “the Big Guy” who was entitled to a 10-percent cut of the corrupt deals being negotiated by his drug-addicted son. With no experience to speak of, Hunter was hired by Burisma weeks after Joe Biden arrived in Ukraine, and pocketed millions of dollars for his supposed “services.”

Of course, Shokin, the Ukrainian prosecutor, cried foul about the conspiracy against him, even filing a formal complaint asking for a criminal investigation into Biden’s interference in Ukraine’s affairs and abuse of power. Trump raised the concerns publicly, too, and even talked about it with Zelensky sitting next to him in front of the TV cameras. In response to Trump’s concerns about obvious and flagrant Biden corruption in Ukraine, Democrats filed impeachment charges against President Trump.

Biden is hardly alone in the corruption, and Hunter Biden’s Burisma exploits are merely the tip of a massive iceberg of corruption among America’s predatory elites. Former Secretary of State John Kerry’s stepson, Chris Heinz, was even a “business partner” of Hunter Biden until 2015, as the then-vice president’s son was working out myriad “business deals” with Ukrainian oligarchs, Communist Chinese intelligence bigwigs, and more. Right after Trump won the election, Kerry’s State Department announced it was seeking a contractor to “build a network of civic activists throughout Ukraine.”

Ukraine’s Deep State Oligarchs

Perhaps even more damning than the corruption on the surface is a look at the hidden connections behind the scenes. According to Anti-Corruption Action Centre, corrupt Ukrainian oligarch Ihor Kolomoyskyi owned Burisma and other Ukrainian “gas companies” through offshore entities in the British Virgin Islands and Cyprus. Burisma is the same company that hired Hunter Biden, presumably due to his political connections in Washington, D.C., and beyond rather than his drug addiction and sexual escapades.

The powerful Ukrainian oligarch’s net worth is estimated in the billions, making him one of the wealthiest individuals in Ukraine. Much of his wealth was embezzled from a bank he founded in the 1990s, costing taxpayers billions and helping land him on a U.S. sanctions list. As did other Ukrainian oligarchs, Kolomoyskyi benefited greatly from his ties to the “former” communist ruling class from the Soviet era.

The energy and media magnate, who also has held powerful government posts including being appointed governor of Dnipro (formerly Dnepropetrovsk), has been deeply involved in funding various militia groups in Eastern Ukraine. Among the groups receiving his largesse: the infamous “Azov Battalion,” accused by human-rights groups of including “Neo-Nazi” elements and perpetrating widespread atrocities against civilians. While many of the accusations are undoubtedly propaganda from Putin’s regime, where there is smoke there is almost certainly fire.

Text messages found on Hunter Biden’s laptop show him asking Hallie Biden, his mistress (and his brother’s widow), if she believed that he, Hunter, had “children burned alive in DONETSK.” Another asked if she believed he was responsible for “children killed in [D]onetsk, Ukraine.” These cryptic texts were presumably a reference to the children killed by his financial backer’s various militia groups rampaging across Eastern Ukraine fighting Kremlin-backed separatists.

Despite almost total media silence, Kolomoyskyi was a key player — if not the key player — in the creation of Zelensky and the Ukrainian president’s meteoric rise to power. Using his 1+1 Media Group and its propaganda TV channel 1+1, Kolomoyskyi peddled a show starring Zelensky called “Servant of the People.” Dubbed a “comedy series,” the show featured Zelensky as Ukraine’s president after being elected due in part to a rant against — ironically — Ukraine’s Deep State oligarchs.

It was not just the TV propaganda that Kolomoyskyi used to help install Zelensky as president. The wealthy “businessman” also provided campaign cash, fancy cars, armed security, and much more for Zelensky throughout his real campaign for president. And the oligarch helped bankroll Zelensky’s new party, “Servant of the People,” taken from the TV show. He helped finance the election of dozens of members to the Ukrainian Parliament as he jetted back and forth between Switzerland, the United States, and Israel, too.

In short, the same corrupt oligarch that brought Zelensky to power was in bed with the Biden crime family.

Another key oligarch in the ongoing saga in Ukraine is Victor Pinchuk, who is deeply tied to Putin-linked Russian oligarchs as well as Western and American oligarchs, including the Rothschild dynasty, George Soros, and Klaus Schwab’s infamous World Economic Forum. Pinchuk, who is married to the daughter of “former” communist President Leonid Kuchma, has been a critical player in events in Ukraine, both through his control of politicians in  Parliament as well as his massive media holdings that influence public opinion. And yet the Western press barely mentions him.

His operations behind the scenes may be shielded from public scrutiny thanks in part to his generous contributions to American Deep State operatives. For instance, Pinchuk has showered more than $10 million on the corrupt Clinton Foundation. Pinchuk has also showered money on self-styled Republicans such as Council on Foreign Relations member and former National Security Advisor John Bolton, one of America’s most vicious warmongers. Bolton collected his largest speaking fees — a cool $115,000 — from Pinchuk. Pinchuk even dumped $150,000 into Trump’s charitable foundation in 2015.

Another prominent Soviet-born bigwig, arms dealer Igor Pasternak, has worked hard to influence American policymakers on Ukraine and other issues. Indeed, in 2013, he hosted a fundraiser for House Intelligence Committee Chairman Representative Adam Schiff (D-Calif.).

Numerous oligarchs and kleptocrats  from former Soviet territories have similarly showered money on Deep State politicians in the United States. Bill Clinton received for a “speech” $500,000 from a Kremlin-linked bank peddling Uranium One shares. Meanwhile, $145 million was pumped into the Clinton Foundation from Uranium One interests as the Russian government was working to acquire the U.S. uranium supplies — with special permission from then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Western-globalist Role in 2014 Euromaidan Revolution

None of the recent developments in Ukraine can be fully understood without some background on the February 2014 “coup” that forced out pro-Kremlin President Viktor Yanukovich. Indeed, despite the departure of its previous leader, the current government was brought to power in the violent 2014 “Euromaidan” color revolution, helped along by the Central Intelligence Agency, George Soros, and other power players. The head of the “private CIA” firm Stratfor correctly called it “the most blatant coup in history.” Communist forces in Ukraine helped, too.

That the Obama administration played a critical role in the coup is beyond dispute. In fact, a leaked phone call between then-U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt exposed the two conspiring to bring regime change to the embattled nation. Incredibly, the dynamic Obama duo even talk like kingmakers, describing which political figures are acceptable and which must be pushed aside.

In a 2013 speech to the U.S.-Ukraine Foundation, Nuland, a member of the CFR and married to neoconservative warmonger and Washington Post columnist Robert Kagan, boasted that the U.S. government and perhaps some private interests had “invested” over $5 billion in Ukraine to produce “a good form of government.” No details were provided on who received the money, where it came from, or precisely what it was supposed to accomplish.

Nuland, of course, is still a key player in the ongoing saga, banging the war drums on behalf of the Biden administration. She also claimed that Soviet-built, U.S.-funded biowarfare laboratories in Ukraine (Hunter Biden’s company Rosemont Seneca invested in Metabiota, which is involved in the labs) might be used by Russia to stage a false-flag attack.

Another key player was the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a CIA offshoot founded in the early 1980s to advance “democracy promotion” initiatives around the world. Since the Russian invasion, the NED has meticulously scrubbed all records of its funding projects in Ukraine from its searchable “Awarded Grants Search” database. But the archived page captured before being flushed down the memory hole revealed that the NED handed out over $22 million as part of 334 “awards” to interests, organizations, and projects in Ukraine from 2014 to the present.

Aside from the U.S. government, one of the most important players in the saga was billionaire and self-proclaimed Nazi collaborator George Soros, a fervent advocate of a globalist “New World Order” and technocratic governance. Soros, a former director and major financier of the Council on Foreign Relations, poured tens of millions into making the Euromaidan revolution possible.

In fact, the Soros-founded group International Renaissance Foundation (IRF), part of his Open Society Foundations, boasted on its website before the coup of being the single largest donor organization in Ukraine, having handed out over $100 million in the decades leading up to the Euromaidan revolt and the eventual “Revolution of Dignity” that helped install more Soros minions in power. Part of the goal was to promote “integration” with the EU, which only about one third of Ukrainians favored in a 2014 poll commissioned by the U.S. State Department. Many key players in the revolution were funded by Soros money.

Soros, who has been convicted of insider trading and whose early “business” ventures were backed by the powerful Rothschild banking dynasty, was hardly secretive about showering cash on Ukraine. “Well, I set up a foundation in Ukraine before Ukraine became independent of Russia,” Soros told CNN on May 25, 2014, following the uprisings. “And the foundation has been functioning ever since. And it played a — an important part in events now.” Indeed, Soros’ influence was so great in Ukraine that by 2020, the term “Sorosyata,” or Soros’ children, was used to describe the legions of Soros minions operating throughout the Ukrainian government.

Communist Role in the Revolution

The conflict was often framed as a tug of war over Ukraine between “former” Soviet communists seeking to bind the nation into Putin’s Eurasian Union (see the article on page 18) and Western globalists seeking to shackle the nation to what Mikhail Gorbachev referred to as the New European Soviet (the EU). But there is actually much more to the story than simply a Western globalist coup in Ukraine against then-President Viktor Yanukovych, a corrupt longtime member of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union who favored deeper integration with Russia and the Eurasian Economic Union.

While there were some positive developments in the aftermath of the revolt, such as Lenin statues coming down and being replaced with crosses, many leading players in the previous power structure remain in control today, including many dangerous oligarchs and their minions. On February 24, 2014, shortly after the revolution, the far-left New York Times even admitted as much in its report headlined “Ukrainian Protesters See Too Many Familiar Faces in Parliament After Revolution.”

Many of those “familiar faces” were “former” communists and puppets of Ukrainian oligarchs. In a recent edition of his World Affairs Brief newsletter, analyst Joel Skousen explained that when the Ukrainian Parliament ousted Yanukovich, it was “controlled by a large majority of Communists.” “So, it was the Communist majority in Parliament that voted to oust their Communist president — helping prove my point that the Maidan revolution, in fact, was a phony coup like the phony ‘fall’ of the Soviet Union — not a Western driven coup,” he explained.

The purpose, according to Skousen, was to replace Yanukovich with Petro Poroshenko “pretending to be anti-Russian, so he could provoke the uprising of the Russians living in the Donbass.” An openly communist president could not have done that, he added, saying that the only reason the revolution appeared to succeed is that the communist-controlled government ordered security forces to stand down. “Once again, this shows it was a manufactured coup by the Communists to set the stage for more conflict, leading up to the present war,” concluded Skousen. “It worked.”

Indeed, just as KGB defector Anatoly Golitsyn warned was going to happen, the fraudulent “collapse” of the Soviet Union left communists in charge of business, government, media, and more across the region. Unlike the aftermath of World War II, in which Nazis and Imperial Japanese leaders were tried and executed, mass-murdering Soviet bigwigs were allowed to rebrand themselves as “businessmen” and “politicians” while keeping a firm grip on the reins of power.

After the coup succeeded, the IMF and other tax-funded outfits began pumping billions of Western taxpayer dollars into Ukraine. In all, the “aid” packages, paid in the IMF’s proto-global currency known as “Special Drawing Rights,” totaled the equivalent of almost $11 billion in U.S. dollars. While some of that went to prop up Western megabanks or into the pockets of Ukrainian oligarchs, much of the money, supposedly intended to protect Kiev from Putin, was, ironically, promptly transferred to Moscow and the Kremlin under the guise of paying off energy debts, as The New American documented at the time.

Of course, the setup did not begin with the 2014 coup. Incidentally, more than a few analysts have argued that Ukraine’s current quagmire can be directly attributed to U.S. intervention. Consider that in the mid-1990s, shortly after Ukraine gained “independence” from the Soviet Union, the Clinton administration persuaded Ukrainian authorities to surrender their massive arsenal of nuclear weapons to Russia. In exchange, the Clinton administration promised that the United States would protect Ukraine and its borders from foreign attack. Obviously, that was a fraud.

Warmongering and Imploding Propaganda 

Deep State globalist neoconservatives in both parties shrieking for war as a supposed response to the latest Russian invasion have actually been trying to foment war for many years. Before the Obama administration even left the White House, the late Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) went over to Ukraine to bang the war drums. “Your fight is our fight,” Graham told Ukrainian soldiers, adding that 2017 would be “the year of offense” and that it was time for Russia to “pay a heavy price.” McCain was also itching to see other people’s children die in war. “I believe you will win,” he told the Ukrainian troops.

Today, the war drums are louder than ever. And yet, much of the push for war is based on easily discredited war propaganda being endlessly peddled by the lying media and politicians across the Western world. Indeed, in the early weeks of the conflict, phony “story” after “story” being used to ratchet up tensions and promote a global conflict was being debunked almost as soon as it was released. But the establishment press, instead of running a correction and apologizing for parroting lies, simply proceeded on to the next fake story, along with the politicians spreading the propaganda. Consider a few examples:

• At the very start of the war, numerous news outlets reported on an alleged massacre of Ukrainian border guards on Snake Island in the Black Sea. According to the reports, a Russian warship had ordered the Ukrainians to lay down their arms and surrender to “avoid bloodshed and unnecessary deaths.” The Ukrainians reportedly replied with an expletive before being gunned down by the ship. Except, it never happened. In reality, even the Ukrainian Navy admitted that the alleged victims were captured alive.

• Another phony story, which went viral across social media, suggested that the former Miss Ukraine had picked up a gun and was heading to the front line to fight Russians. In reality, it was a picture of the beauty queen holding an airsoft gun — basically a realistic-looking toy. “I AM NOT A MILITARY, JUST A HUMAN,” she posted on social media after multiple fake reports claimed she was joining the war. It was one of several war-propaganda pieces glamorizing female fighters in Ukraine as “sexy” and brave.

• By now, almost everybody has heard of the infamous “Ghost of Kiev,” a Ukrainian fighter pilot who was courageously shooting down Russian MiGs. The propaganda was even parroted on social media by members of Congress, including Representative Dan Crenshaw, who promoted it on Twitter alongside the false claims about Snake Island. In actuality, the footage was created with the “Digital Combat Simulator,” as acknowledged by the creator of the video.

• Numerous fraudulent clips have also been used in news reports. For instance, a video of Ukrainian soldiers supposedly kissing their wives and families as they headed to the front lines that went viral online was later exposed as footage from The War of Chimeras, a 2017 movie. Separately, a major Israeli news network showed footage of a crashing spacecraft from the Star Wars movie and claimed it was “live footage” from the Ukraine war. Numerous other examples of fake footage appeared worldwide.

• Six weeks into the conflict, viral video footage that was picked up by major establishment media outlets purported to show a “mobile crematorium” being used by Russian forces to dispose of dead bodies and allegedly cover up evidence of war crimes in the city of Mariupol. In reality, the footage came from an eight-year-old YouTube video by a Russian construction company with an incinerator.

The lies and propaganda have continued relentlessly to this day.

Global War for Globalism

None of this is meant to suggest that there is not real suffering happening in Ukraine — there is. And many of the young men dying in defense of their homeland are heroes. But, clearly, there is an agenda to pump out as much emotion-manipulating war prop-aganda as possible, without even bothering to check the accuracy of it and without bothering to correct the record when it is exposed as fraudulent. The reason for this should be obvious: Somebody, somewhere, wants more war — a lot more war. And this conflict in Ukraine could easily escalate into a global conflagration.

Indeed, the Deep State has long understood the benefit of war in pursuit of its globalist objectives. In the 1962 report for the U.S. State Department titled “A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations,” Council on Foreign Relations member Lincoln Bloomfield explains the necessary steps to achieving such a world, including mandatory universal membership in supranational institutions.

One of the major outcomes of the war, already, has been the deepening and widening of supranational institutions, including the European Union, NATO, and more. Traditionally neutral nations are now clamoring to join up. And Ukraine, of course, cannot be allowed to be independent, either: It must be forced into either the EU or Putin’s Eurasian Union, which globalists on both sides have long talked about eventually merging together.

As Putin ally and Rockefeller minion Henry “New World Order” Kissinger put it in his 2014 book World Order, “The contemporary quest for world order will require a coherent strategy to establish a concept of order within the various regions and to relate these regional orders to one another.” The EU is a “regional order,” as is Putin’s Eurasian Union. Every nation must be forced to submit.

In his State Department report on achieving world government, Bloomfield goes on to describe the fastest route to achieving the vision: “a grave crisis or war to bring about a sudden transformation in national attitudes sufficient for the purpose.” Indeed, he openly proposes that the conditions most likely to accelerate the process are “a crisis, a war, or a brink-of-war situation so grave or commonly menacing that deeply-rooted attitudes and practices are sufficiently shaken to open the possibility of a revolution in world political arrangements.” World War I, which birthed the League of Nations, and World War II, which resulted in the UN, the IMF, and the EU, both illustrate the point well.

Zelensky and his allies are exploiting the crisis — and the goodwill they have garnered because of it across the Western world — to push for global governance. In fact, in early April, the Ukrainian leader specifically called for a postwar international conference in Kiev to “determine how we can reform the world security system, how do we establish guarantee of recognition of borders and integrity of states and countries, how we will assert the rule of international law.” Among other proposals, he called for granting the UN Security Council even more power, and for the veto held by permanent members to be ignored.

Defenders of the Ukrainian president say he is desperate to protect his country from its far-stronger neighbor — a fair point. But a global government ruled by madmen would be far more dangerous than 100 Putins ever could be, and the evidence suggests creating such a planetary regime is precisely the plan of the shadowy forces behind the scenes.

The Deep State is once again using lies and deception to advance an evil agenda. Americans should resist the temptation to buy into the media narrative and get embroiled in yet another foreign war that will ultimately serve only to supercharge the globalist push to undermine the United States and move toward a draconian New World Order.

NA: https://thenewamerican.com/magazine/tna3809/

Alex Newman is a senior editor of The New American, author of the new book Deep State: The Invisible Government Behind the Scenes, and coauthor (with the late Sam Blumenfeld) of Crimes of the Educators.

Bill Lockwood: The Hard Road to World Order 4 (1)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Bill Lockwood

President Joe Biden mentioned the creation of a “New World Order” in a speech to the Business Roundtable on March 21. The United States, he proclaimed, must provide leadership in establishing that order.

Columnist Larry Greenley observed that “various ‘reporters’ and ‘fact-checkers’ of the woke media have already been falling over themselves to post articles exposing the ‘New World Order’ as a ‘false conspiracy theory.’”

However, for those who have been paying attention—that is, not reliant on the Main Stream Media for information—the New World Order has been planned for decades, and Joe Biden himself wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal in 1992 entitled, “How I Learned to Love the New World Order.” In that article he asked the question, “Why not breathe life into the U.N. Charter?”

The Hard Road

Why is it that our nation seems to be unraveling before our eyes and “we the people” seem powerless to stop it? The wealth of American taxpayers have been systematically siphoned off and funneled to Third World countries via international banks such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

The dollar continues to be crushed beneath the unconstitutional welfare state. Today it is worth less than 5 cents compared to its purchasing value in 1913, the year the Federal Reserve was created. Yet, Joe Biden continues to dole out the cash to welfare recipients and foreign governments. Money that we do not have.

How has it come about that Americans are being forced to shift toward Green Energy and Renewable Energies? What ever happened to the free market? And just when was America exposed to a robust debate on the causes of so-called Climate Change that supposedly drives this political shift?

Why has Biden made the United States reliant upon foreign sources for petroleum products, which betrays the necessity for going green to “Save the Planet?” Is it not more than interesting that every citizen is feeling pain at the gas pump and the grocery store and everywhere else in the market; Biden’s poll numbers continue to plummet; but there is no veering from the course of international dependence with his administration?

Why has the Biden Administration absolutely erased our southern border? With a borderless nation and MILLIONS of illegals pouring into the country—all at the expense of the American taxpayer—just how long will America remain a viable nation?

Inflation is skyrocketing with new predictions that it will reach above 10%. The wealth of individual families is dissipating before our eyes more quickly than I write these lines—but Congressional members and the American public seem powerless to remove Globalist Joe from the White House.

The answer to all of these questions is summed up in a 1974 statement by Richard Gardner in Foreign Affairs, the mouthpiece of the Council on Foreign Relations. The article is entitled “The Hard Road to World Order.”

In short, the ‘house of world order’ will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great ‘booming, buzzing confusion,’ to use William James’ famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.

World Economic Forum founder, Klaus Schwab, announced during the Covid-19 pandemic, that he and the global elites are pushing for a “great reset.” Schwab is simply falling in line with the global elites who have been planning this since the days of Woodrow Wilson. What we are witnessing is the “booming and buzzing” of society’s forced changes as the one-worlders push us into WORLD GOVERNMENT.

William F. Jasper: Socialists Stop Spread of Success 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by William F. Jasper

The United Nations and the Socialist International are waging war against Chile and its conservative president, Sebastián Piñera. Since mid-October, Chile’s capital, Santiago, and other cities across the country have been wracked by violent riots, with dozens of people killed, thousands injured (including hundreds of police and military personnel), thousands arrested, and an enormous amount of destruction of public infrastructure and private property, including train stations, businesses, shops, and supermarkets.

The Piñera government declared a state of emergency and imposed curfews. President Piñera faces a National Congress that is stacked against him, as well as a hostile media, and leftist-controlled universities that serve as hotbeds for revolution.

The United Nations high commissioner for human rights, Michelle Bachelet, has responded to the turmoil by sending a team of UN investigators to Chile to examine allegations of human rights abuse by the Chilean government. This move by the UN should have caused suspicion from the get-go. Why? Well, for one thing, Michelle Bachelet is herself a former president of Chile (two terms, 2006-2010 and 2014-2018) and a virulent opponent of President Piñera. That alone should lead any reasonable observer to suspect, at the very least, that her UN “investigation” is likely to be politically motivated.

However, it goes much deeper than that. Bachelet, a hardcore Marxist, is an ardent admirer of the late communist dictator Fidel Castro, and, as one of her last acts as president of Chile, made a pilgrimage to Cuba to praise Fidel and meet with his designated successor and brother, Raúl Castro, the current communist dictator of Cuba. She is also a supporter of the Marxist regimes in Nicaragua and Venezuela.

In the 1970s, Bachelet left Chile and moved to communist East Germany, then one of the most oppressive dictatorships in the Soviet bloc. Moreover, Bachelet is a longtime member of, and was elected president while the leader of, Chile’s ultra-left Socialist Party, which is a member of the Socialist International, the global cabal of more than 135 national political parties from all continents, including former communist parties that have rebranded themselves as socialist or social democrat.  The secretary-general of the Socialist International is Luis Ayala, a radical Chilean who is a close comrade of Bachelet in the Socialist Party. Bachelet was selected for the UN high commissioner post by UN Secretary-General António Guterres, a former president of the Socialist International. Although barely known in the United States (because it is seldom mentioned by our controlled “mainstream” media — and is even largely ignored by our alternative media), the Socialist International (SI) virtually runs the United Nations and many of its agencies, with Guterres being only the most obvious example of its influence.

Another SI/UN alum is former Chilean President Ricardo Lagos, a former member of Chile’s Socialist Party and one of the Chileans often quoted in recent stories undermining President Piñera. He is also one of the few SI members named to the “Committee of Twelve Distinguished Members of the Socialist International.” In 2007, he was named as a UN special envoy on climate change, along with former SI vice president and UN functionary Gro Harlem Brundtland, the former prime minister of Norway.

Bachelet, Guterres, Lagos, Brundtland, and other SI/UN comrades are welcomed as honored guests at the CFR and other globalist gatherings. Bachelet and Lagos are both members of the elite Club of Madrid, as well as Inter-American Dialogue, where both have served as co-chairs.

The cause of Chile’s current “unrest,” according to the lords of the Fake News Media, was the government’s subway fare hike of 30 pesos, the equivalent of four U.S. cents. Anger over the fare increases, goes the standard line from media commentators, caused spontaneous, “student-led” flash mobs of hundreds of youths to jump the Metro turnstiles in protest, which then escalated to “youth-led” mobs setting buses and Metro stations on fire and looting stores, and then escalated still further and broadened into massive protests, supposedly motivated by “income inequality.”

This is the story we get from the New York Times, Washington Post, Associated Press, CNN, PBS, and the rest of the Deep State media cartel. Most of these “news” reports take their cues on the issue from so-called experts at the Council on Foreign Relations, the Council of the Americas, Inter-American Dialogue, and similar globalist propaganda founts that posture as objective think tanks.

According to Amelia Cheatham, a “Special Assistant” at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), “The turmoil began on October 18 with student-led protests over a metro fare increase.” Her CFR blog post entitled “What’s Behind the Chile Protests?” states that “Political unrest is sweeping Chile, as impatience with inequality grows in what has been one of Latin America’s most prosperous and stable countries.”

President Piñera and other Latin American leaders paint a different picture. “We are at war against a powerful enemy, who is willing to use violence without any limits,” Piñera declared in a late-night televised statement on October 29. “We are very aware that [the perpetrators of riots] have a degree of organization, logistics, typical of a criminal organization,” he said. According to news reports from Chile, Cuban and Venezuelan nationals were arrested as instigators of the rioting. And Chile is not alone in this regard.

On October 22, Argentina’s National Security Council met to consider the wave of violent protest that is sweeping across Latin America. Following the meeting, Argentine Foreign Minister Jorge Faurie pointed to Cuba and the Marxist dictatorship of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela as the source of the orchestrated upheavals. “They intend to intervene in the political, institutional and social lives of our countries, threatening us like a Bolivarian hurricane that brings in its winds hunger, poverty, dictatorship, the loss of liberty and a prison sentence,” Faurie charged. “Bolivarian” refers to the political philosophy of Venezuela’s founding father, Simón Bolívar, which has been expropriated and hybridized by Hugo Chávez, Nicolás Maduro, and others of the communist-Left to advance their socialist agendas.

TNA: https://www.thenewamerican.com/print-magazine/item/34153-socialists-stop-spread-of-success

William F. Jasper is an American journalist and author, and a senior editor of The New American, and long-time member of the John Birch Society.

Alex Newman: CFR: U.S. Needs More Mass Migration, Bigger Welfare State 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Alex Newman

Under the guise of keeping America “competitive” in the looming high-tech future, the globalist Council on Foreign Relations is urging policymakers at all levels to dramatically expand the size and scope of government. The bloated welfare states in Sweden and Denmark are cited as examples of the “advantages” of massive government programs to take care for people. Without the sort of fundamental transformation of America envisioned by the CFR, the nation will supposedly be left behind in the emerging new paradigm, the organization claimed. Critics, though, blasted that idea.

In its new report, dubbed “The Work Ahead: Machines, Skills, and U.S. Leadership in the Twenty-First Century,” the CFR Task Force offered a broad array of policy recommendations for federal, state, and local officials. These range from ever more immigration and a greater role for government in various facets of the economy, to a dramatic expansion of the welfare state modeled on Big Government schemes from Northern Europe. The CFR’s demands regarding education, which are a key component of the report, will be covered in an upcoming article.

Some of the leaders involved in creating the CFR report told The New American that without implementing the sought-after changes, America would be left behind as the world moves toward a globalized future of fast-moving technological progress. But experts and legislators invited to participate in the scheme who spoke to The New American sounded the alarm about the CFR’s vision. Among other concerns, they warned that the controversial CFR report and outreach efforts selling it to policymakers reveal a hidden plan to push a dangerous agenda and bring state and local officials into the establishment’s globalist orbit.

One reason why the CFR’s pronouncements are so important is because of the key role they play setting policy. Indeed, looking at its membership and influence, many analysts consider the CFR to be a key Deep State hub in America. The late U.S. Admiral Chester Ward, a CFR member for almost 20 years before defecting and blowing the whistle, explained that this enormous power is used for neferious purposes. In fact, Ward said, the main objective of the organization is to undermine U.S. sovereignty and facilitate the merger of the United States into what he described as an “all-powerful one-world government.”

The way it advances its objectives was explained by Admiral Ward, too. “Once the ruling members of CFR have decided that the U.S. Government should adopt a particular policy, the very substantial research facilities of CFR are put to work to develop arguments, intellectual and emotional, to support the new policy, and to confound and discredit, intellectually and politically, any opposition,” he said. “The most articulate theoreticians and ideologists prepare related articles, aided by the research, to sell the new policy and to make it appear inevitable and irresistible.”

“By following the evolution of this propaganda in the most prestigious scholarly journal in the world, [CFR mouthpiece] Foreign Affairs, anyone can determine years in advance what the future defense and foreign policies of the United States will be,” the respected admiral warned after ditching his membership at the CFR. “If a certain proposition is repeated often enough in that journal, then the U.S. Administration in power — be it Republican or Democratic — begins to act as if that proposition or assumption were an established fact.”

While that may not be true in the Trump era, when voters and their president have openly rejected globalism, it certainly has been true for decades, if not generations, regardless of the party formally in power. Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton noted publicly that the CFR told her what she should be doing and how she should be thinking about the future. Former Vice President Joe Biden, meanwhile, joked that he worked for CFR boss Richard Haass. Even many top “Republicans” are involved.

Of course, the latest CFR agenda starts with a kernel of truth. As anybody with common sense can see, the economy is changing and will be undergoing further changes in the years ahead. As a result of technological developments, the future of work will look very different in 30 or 40 years than it does today. Many Americans will lose their jobs. All that is true. Of course, it would be difficult to sell enormous policy changes if the entire premise behind them was nothing but fiction, obviously.

But the agenda being pushed is another matter. Under the pretext of responding to the obvious changes coming in the years ahead, the CFR — a leading Deep State institution in America that has dominated foreign policy for generations — is pushing what critics warned was a dangerous scheme to expand the power of government. The plan also advances globalism at every level of society, a key goal of the CFR dating back to its founding. In short, it is a massive and dangerous power grab that should be resisted, critics told The New American.

Policy Proposals

Globalist notions of “free trade” and mass migration are at the heart of the agenda. “Openness to trade and immigration are vital for maintaining U.S. technological leadership,” the CFR report says. Indeed, there are over 60 references to “trade” and more than 60 mentions of immigration, especially the alleged need to expand the already-massive immigration numbers coming to America.

As readers of this magazine know well, though, when the CFR advocates “trade,” it is generally referring not to genuine free trade, but to sovereignty-shredding “free trade” agreements that strip nations and peoples of the right to govern themselves. Mass migration, meanwhile, also helps smash national identities, culture, and eventually, the nation-state itself, as Europe is learning the hard way right now.

On the government’s role in the economy and the welfare state, the CFR report also seeks major changes. “U.S. efforts to help displaced workers are inadequate,” the report says, ignoring the U.S. Constitution’s limits on federal power and insinuating that it is the federal government’s role to train and help workers. “Unemployment insurance is too rigid and covers too few workers, and retraining programs are not based on the best global models,” the report continued, without giving many details on what these “global models” demand of America.

The report also includes seven specific recommendations for policymakers at all levels. These mostly revolve around the supposed need for much larger and more intrusive government across the board. Among other recommendations, the CFR claims:

• Government should be involved in “creating better jobs and career paths for Americans,” as if the real problem facing America was a lack of central planning, government-created “jobs,” and government-directed careers.

• Another recommendation calls for more immigration, including “highly skilled” migrants who would help drive down wages for America’s embattled middle class even as the CFR warns that countless people will lose jobs due to automation.

• Also supposedly needed is more government funding for “research,” as if the state, rather than the private sector, knows better what ought to be researched and what projects would be worthwhile to fund.

• Putting college and university “education” within “reach” of all Americans is important, too, the report said, implicitly advocating even more tax funding for bloated “educational” institutions that are churning out ignorant socialists with worthless “degrees” literally by the millions.

• America should also adopt the “best features” of what the CFR report describes as the European “flexicurity” models. As examples of the supposed “advantages” of these models, the Task Force pointed to the bloated welfare states of Sweden and Denmark, where tax rates (including VAT, income taxes, energy taxes, and more) can consume three-fourths of individuals’ earnings, and where individual freedom is severely limited.

• Finally, the report calls for the U.S. government to “create portable systems of employment benefits tied to individual employees rather than to jobs themselves.” This government-created system should be “universal,” as the report puts it — or in other words, mandatory for everyone.

There are many other recommendations woven throughout the 162-page report. Some make sense, such as scaling back the enormous growth in state licensing schemes that inhibit consumer choice and do nothing to protect the health and safety of consumers. But the overwhelming majority call for larger and more intrusive government: Creating a “National Commission on the U.S. Workforce,” offering more tax-funded subsidies for “affordable” housing, spending more money on government-controlled “public transportation” systems, and more.

As part of the initiative, CFR Vice President for National Programs and Outreach Irina Faskianos organized a conference call for state and local officials to promote the policy recommendations. On that call, CFR term member Chike Aguh, a member of the CFR Task Force behind the report and a former teacher who now works at the McChrystal Group, condensed the subject matter into four “buckets,” as he described it. Phrased as questions, he put it this way: “What is the work of the future? How do we make sure that we have the workers who have the skills to do that work? How do we make sure that those workers can find that work, and vice-versa? And lastly, how do we make sure that there’s a safety net to support them the entire way?”

Among other topics, Aguh argued that new systems were needed to help people who need work to find work that needs to be done. Using an example of a casino that could not find enough workers, he claimed there was “a lack of matching between people who could do the work and the work that needed to be done.” “And the question is,” he continued, “how do we solve that?” In a free-market system, those problems generally work themselves out. If there are not enough workers to fill job openings, then the employers may need to pay higher wages, or offer more benefits, or advertise better. But in the CFR’s view, it seems more bureaucracy and government programs are the answer.

Another topic on the call was establishing a “social safety net” that will “support the worker through this whole process.” According to Aguh, the existing welfare state is not enough. Complaining that the current regime was established in the 1950s and has not changed much since then, Aguh argued that the government should play a much more active role in providing economic “security” for people. For instance, he said some people might stay in their job simply because of the benefits it provides, whereas if the government created programs for health and welfare, that worker could move to another job more easily.

In a phone interview with The New American, Aguh noted that there were major changes when the economy went from primarily an agricultural system to a more industrial system. “As we look at this new economy, the Fourth Industrial Revolution, we argue that we need a change,” he explained, adding that the system would have to change to keep pace with the changes happening in the economy such as automation, job losses, and so on. But in the end, there is “no silver bullet,” he said. “There’s a myriad of things that have to happen.”

Separately, CFR Task Force Project Director Ted Alden acknowledged to The New American in a phone interview that the report seeks to tackle an enormous range of issues. “The danger of this is that it becomes a report about everything,” he said, chuckling. Then he provided an overview of some of the many areas where the CFR group believes policymakers should make changes.

Asked about “global models” for unemployment insurance, Alden said there were two big pieces. One is to make the system more “effective.” “Europeans do better than we do here; Denmark and Sweden do this better than we do,” he said. “That doesn’t mean we necessarily need to follow them — they have different systems — but they do a lot right. For example, their unemployment systems. The U.S. is an enormous laggard in re-training and in spending.”

In America, the unemployment system was designed for cyclical downturns as people were laid off in bad times. “We argue for a move toward more of an affordable benefits program, recognizing the emergence of the gig economy,” he said, citing issues such as California’s recent scheme to force Uber and other similar companies to treat all their drivers as actual employees. “We have to have a social-benefit system that makes this kind of model work.”

While saying that did not necessarily mean a government takeover of health insurance, retirement, and other benefits people often obtain from their jobs, Alden and the Task Force report made clear that the federal government has a significant role to play. “What we’re talking about is allowing people to move more easily between jobs and retain benefits,” said Alden, who described his role as “working to try to fashion a consensus from the smart and visionary people” involved in the Task Force. “We need greater flexibility. The gap in economic security between full-time workers and part-time workers is enormous.” The Task Force did not get down to the “very granular level,” but there are many different models worth looking at, he said.

On immigration, Alden said he did not want to speak for the group on how to design an immigration system. “What I can say with confidence about the position of the group is we were trying to deal with a conundrum,” he said. “How does U.S. remain most competitive and innovative economy in the world? Our prosperity depends on us maintaining a technological lead. We don’t want to see government throwing wrenches that slow down technological progress. But if you look at evidence on high-skilled immigration to U.S., it’s a tremendous benefit to the U.S. economy and innovation.”

When pressed about the views of critics, Alden said the “notion of immigrants as competition for American workers” was actually “short sighted.” But of course, it is an established fact that an increased supply of labor will have the immediate effect of driving down wages, compounding the looming job losses and relocation that purport to justify the entire CFR Task Force’s agenda.

In the end, Alden portrayed the CFR’s efforts as a benevolent plan to help America succeed in a complex and globalized world. “Americans feel very uncertain right now,” he said. “They don’t know their place. If we don’t help Americans succeed, the future of the country is going to be very much in question. The U.S. is pulling back in global leadership, but we believe U.S. leadership has been an important force in the world. So there is a very important duality: How do we remain competitive and innovate, while making sure the benefits spread out to all of America, so they can embrace the future rather than be scared of it?”

Different Agenda

Lawmakers who spoke with The New American, though, had a different take on it all. Senator Regina Bayer, an Idaho Republican who was invited to join the CFR’s conference call for state officials, warned of a nefarious agenda hidden just below the surface. “My take on this conference call and task force is the CFR is attempting to establish a new, direct form of communication; new ways to disseminate information,” she explained. “They need to establish themselves as dedicated and honorable so that their information will be accepted as good and truthful.”

Part of the agenda, Senator Bayer continued, was to establish a sort of “open door” communication between the CFR and state and local officials, as the “federal and international approaches are not as successful as they would like to see.” She cited the implementation of the totalitarian United Nations Agenda 2030 as an example. “It is working better now as it is being implemented at the local and state levels rather than just a power push from the top,” she explained. Part of the strategy seems to be to “wow” state and local politicians into feeling important because a well-known organization like the CFR is interested in connecting with them. Interestingly, before Trump’s election, a CFR member was calling for abolishing U.S. state governments entirely.

But the underlying goals are clear. “Both the conference call and the Independent Task Force report are full of global-government ideologies,” she explained. “Most of it reads like Keynesian mumble-jumble. The true remedy would be a return to Austrian economics.” Keynesian economists typically believe government ought to intervene in the economy to deal with all manner of real and imagined “market failures.” Austrian-school economists, by contrast, generally believe the free market without unnecessary government intervention is the best system in terms of creating and distributing wealth.

“There seems to be the same old pitch that government can solve all problems from higher wages to lower home prices,” continued Senator Bayer, warning that government cannot do better than markets and freedom at solving problems. Plus, the CFR’s internationalist agenda is not difficult to discern. “When looking at information discussing the dangers of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), the global goals of the CFR become obvious,” the senator warned, citing the “free trade” scheme negotiated by CFR member Robert Lighthizer and strongly endorsed by CFR boss Richard Haass.

Especially among Republicans and grassroots conservatives, thanks largely to the efforts of Americanist organizations such as The John Birch Society and Eagle Forum, even establishment types have long recognized that a public association with the CFR can be politically toxic among voters. That is why, for instance, former Vice President Dick Cheney, who served as a director of CFR, boasted in a speech at the CFR of concealing his ties to the globalist organization while campaigning for reelection in Wyoming. But the CFR appears to be working to create ties with lawmakers and policymakers on both sides of the aisle nonetheless.

The CFR is a powerful organization with a well-documented track-record of promoting globalism, undeclared war, unconstitutional Big Government policies, and more. This report will perpetuate that history. So far, the Task Force and “The Work Ahead” report have received very little attention by the establishment press, much of which is openly in bed with the CFR — including many outlets that are corporate members of the group. However, a push to advance the CFR Task Force’s agenda is almost certainly coming, after the groundwork has been properly laid.

As Admiral Ward explained, when the CFR’s leadership decides to pursue a policy, the incredibly powerful propaganda and lobbying apparatus at its disposal represents a force to be reckoned with. That day is likely coming on this agenda, too. For right now, globalism is on defense. But over the long term, only an educated and informed electorate will be able to defend freedom and resist these growing assaults.

TNA: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/33828-cfr-u-s-needs-more-mass-migration-bigger-welfare-state

Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook

 

Alex Newman: Collusion? Deep State CFR Takes HUGE “Donation” From Putin Crony 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Alex Newman

Perhaps there really has been some Russia collusion. The globalist Deep State organization known as the Council on Foreign Relations is under fire after it was exposed taking a massive “donation” from Soviet-born oligarch Len Blavatnik (shown), a close crony of Russian strongman Vladimir Putin and his corrupt minions. The shady billionaire has also been showering money on U.S. politicians on both sides of the aisle.

The $12 million “gift” to the CFR, reported publicly by the New York Post and other publications, was described as “influence buying” by critics. Beyond that, it appears to highlight the broader problem of systemic corruption within the U.S. foreign-policy establishment, which will gladly take “donations” to its foundations in exchange for favors. The Clinton Foundation, for instance, has long been accused of serving as an influence-buying machine for foreign governments. It seems the CFR has a similar problem.

The explosive revelation led to dozens of high-profile figures calling on the controversial “think tank” to return the money. In a letter dated September 18, the coalition of 56 critics noted that Blavatnik “acquired his initial wealth by way of highly questionable transactions in tandem with the regimes of [ex-Kazakhstan president] Nursultan Nazarbayev and Vladimir Putin.”

Then, he used shady tactics to keep and expand his fortune. “Blavatnik protected that wealth in part through strategic alliances with security personnel and practices that would surely be considered criminal in any democracy,” the letter continued, calling on the CFR to return the money to avoid “reputational damage” from associating with somebody like Blavatnik with “close ties to the Kremlin and its kleptocratic network.”

After citing some of the ultra-shady deals Blavatnik has been involved with, the coalition also highlighted his ties to Putin’s circle of cronies. “Blavatnik’s connections to corrupt Putin-supported oligarchs and officials are longstanding and well known,” they wrote. “For example, Blavatnik’s business partners include several individuals who are sanctioned by the United States government, such as Viktor Vekselberg, Oleg Deripaska, and Alexander Makhonov.” Citing Spanish wiretaps, the critics also suggested he had ties to the mafia.

“It is our considered view that Blavatnik uses his ‘philanthropy’— funds obtained by and with the consent of the Kremlin, at the expense of the state budget and the Russian people — at leading western academic and cultural institutions to advance his access to political circles,” the letter blasting the CFR explained. “Such ‘philanthropic’ capital enables the infiltration of the US and UK political and economic establishments at the highest levels.”

But CFR boss Richard Haass, a leading globalist architect, defended the donation and said the response from other CFR members to it had been overwhelmingly “positive.” In fact, the CFR’s website still has a glowing biography of Blavatnik, himself a CFR member, posted online, along with information touting the “Blavatnik internship program,” his giant donation will fund.

The gift by Blavatnik “will further CFR’s efforts to develop the next generation of leaders in government, academia and the private sector,” continued Haass, an anti-Trump globalist who has worked for many years to undermine U.S. national sovereignty. “We are proud to find our selves in such distinguished company,” he added.

On the CFR website, the deep state outfit touted the donation, too. “Blavatnik interns gain new insights into critical foreign policy issues and interact directly with leading experts and practitioners,” it said. “They are offered professional development training to complement their substantive work with a series of skill-based workshops, trainings, and career advice sessions as a foundation for future work in the field of foreign policy and international affairs, and beyond.”

Critics, though, were furious. A leading anti-corruption campaigner in the United States, Sarah Chayes, told the publication Bellingcat that the CFR’s willingness to accept the donation from Blavatnik’s foundation was a case study in the “soft enabling of kleptocracy.” In particular, she said it fit with Blavatnik’s history of working with “image launderers” to help him fix his reputation. Beyond that, “it broadcasts to the Kremlin that if you just disguise your money a little bit, the U.S. system is still fully penetrable.”

Other critics were outraged, too. “It is more than disappointing to see the Council on Foreign Relations take millions of dollars from a shady billionaire like Leonid Blavatnik, and excuse it by claiming the money will help interns,” former chief counsel Elise Bean with the U.S. Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations was quoted as saying. “The CFR is helping to neutralize Mr. Blavatnik’s notoriety and extend his influence by enabling him to hitch a ride on its once sterling reputation [sic]. It is painful to see how money talks and the odor of corruption is ignored by CFR leadership when it comes to the Blavatnik millions.”

Another critic who signed the letter, former assistant secretary of state for democracy and human rights David Kramer, lambasted the CFR as well. “All organizations should feel an extra burden to perform due diligence, especially in light of the Epstein scandal with MIT,” Kramer told The New York Post. “We object to Blavatnik’s ties to the Putin regime and how he made his money. I’m sure there are CFR members who are happy to receive a $12 million donation, but if they did some further research, they might raise some questions.”

To understand just how influential the CFR is, consider then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s comments when it opened an office in Washington. “I have been often to the mother ship in New York City, but it is good to have an outpost of the Council right here down the street from the State Department,” she said. “We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.”

But far from being a club just for left-wing Democrats, countless leading Republicans are involved too. In a now-infamous video at the CFR’s headquarters, Vice President Dick Cheney bragged that he used to be a director at the organization. “But I never mentioned that when I was campaigning for re-election back home in Wyoming.” The reason why he would seek to conceal his affiliation with the radical think tank is no surprise — thanks to its relentless support for tearing down U.S. independence, it has become politically toxic, especially with conservative voters.

Its anti-American agenda has been known for decades, too. The late U.S. Admiral Chester Ward, a CFR member for almost 20 years before defecting and blowing the whistle, exposed their schemes for all to see. “The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence, and submergence into an all-powerful one-world government,” warned the widely respected U.S. admiral. “This lust to surrender the sovereignty and independence of the United States is pervasive throughout most of the membership.”

Ward also hinted at the reason why the CFR’s members would be so violently hostile to Trump’s campaign promises. “In the entire CFR lexicon, there is no term of revulsion carrying a meaning so deep as ‘America First,’” he said.

Blavatnik has also poured huge sums into the political coffers of American politicians, ranging from President Donald Trump’s inauguration committee and globalist Republican senators to the campaigns of fringe left-wing Democrats Kamala Harris and Ron Wyden. Top recipients among GOP lawmakers include Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C), Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), and neoconservative Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.).

 

Blavatnik, a billionaire, maintains U.S. and British citizenship, but was born in Soviet Ukraine. Far from being a self-made businessman, the oligarch made his fortune during the post-Soviet “privatization” of resources — in particular, in his case, aluminum and energy. Following the ostensible collapse of communism, which defectors such as Anatoly Golitsyn warned was a ruse to deceive the West, numerous communist bigwigs connected to the mass-murdering regime re-invented themselves as “businessmen.” And they benefited enormously from the corrupt “privatization” programs that basically handed over vast wealth to “former” communist bosses.

In one especially bizarre “deal” orchestrated by Putin, Blavatnik reportedly earned $7 billion from the sale of an oil company to the state-owned Russian energy giant Rosneft. According to investigations cited in the letter, the Russian government mysteriously overpaid by as much as $3 billion. “Such unexplained sums can then be used by Putin-linked private-sector individuals to further Putin’s interests in foreign countries, including by making donations,” the letter said.

As the scandal surrounding donations made to various institutions by pedophile (and CFR member) Jeffrey Epstein continues to grow, critics of the donation to the CFR warned that the elitist outfit would suffer “reputation damage.” Indeed, Epstein, the elite pedophile who regularly flew prominent CFR-linked people such as President Bill Clinton to his “orgy island,” donated a large sum of money to the CFR, as well. He was a member of the organization, in addition to his membership in the CFR-linked Trilateral Commission and other Deep State fronts.

Another shady figure whose name recently surfaced in connection with establishment circles in Washington, D.C., is Bulgarian-born operative Alexander Vasilev Mirchev. Among other concerns, critics have seized on Mirchev’s well-documented links to the murderous “former” communist regime in Bulgaria, which slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people. The Bulgarian “consultant” also has close ties to the regime in Kazakhstan as well as to Putin cronies. According to Bulgarian media reports, Mirchev has been on the radar of U.S. law enforcement for some time, and even came to the attention of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

While it is encouraging to see the growing backlash against Deep State organizations, the outrage needs to go much deeper. For example, amid all the hysteria about alleged “Russian collusion” involving Trump, almost nobody has discussed CFR luminary Henry Kissinger’s close ties to Putin. Indeed, the Russian strongman has publicly referred to Kissinger — a leading proponent of a globalist “New World Order” — as a “trusted adviser” and a “friend.” The two even go to each other’s houses for meals. And yet, the establishment media has said virtually nothing, and Muller is nowhere to be found.

Americans should use this opportunity to demand a proper congressional investigation of the CFR. Late John Birch Society Chairman Larry McDonald, a liberty-minded congressman from Georgia whose plane was shot down by a Soviet fighter jet in 1983, tried to get Congress to investigate the group decades ago. With Putin’s cronies stuffing the CFR’s coffers with suspect cash, a formal investigation into the group — its agenda, its funding, its ties to Russia, and more — is desperately needed. Perhaps Mueller and House Democrats might find some real Russian collusion, after all.

TNA: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/33676-collusion-deep-state-cfr-takes-huge-donation-from-putin-crony

Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook

Kingmakers 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

Kingmakers

by Bill Lockwood

Ugliness of the debate aside, one worrisome element pertaining to Donald Trump was revealed that has received little, if any, attention. When asked who he would consider putting on his security team if elected president, businessman Trump named three persons: Richard Haass, Gen. Jack Keane and Col. Jack Jacobs. It is troubling that Richard Haass was the billionaire’s first-mentioned name.

As reported by The New York Times Donald Trump held a private briefing last summer with Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Described by the Times as “an independent nonpartisan organization,” the CFR has offered to hold briefings with all candidates from both parties.

To date, Senator Marco Rubio, Jim Webb, Hillary Clinton, Gov. Chris Christie, Gov. John Kasich and Jeb Bush have all made appearances at the Council of Foreign Relations. The back-story of the CFR fills in the details which make this a matter of serious concern.

CFR Beginnings & Goals

The Council on Foreign Relations began in 1921 as the brainchild of Edward Mandell House, a “progressive” who was the real power-broker behind President Woodrow Wilson. House anonymously published a book entitled Philip Dru: Administrator in which he laid out his clandestine plans to create in the United States a government that reflected the “socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx.” This absolutism needed to be masked, therefore he established the CFR as a “neutral think tank” to influence politicians into a “globalist” system.

On page 222 of Philip Dru House wrote: “Our Constitution and our laws served us well for the first 100 years of our existence, but under the conditions of today, they are not only obsolete, but even grotesque.” This was the design of the CFR from the beginning. Those familiar with Woodrow Wilson recognize a commonality in ideas that House shared with Wilson.

The CFR itself does not shy away from these roots, trumpeting on its website that “Since 1921, the Council on Foreign Relations has been the privileged and preeminent nongovernmental impresario of America’s pageant to find its place in the world.” This velvet-covering to its real iron-fisted mission is plainly described by CFR member Richard Gardner in Foreign Affairs in 1974: “An end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.” This is what is intended by The New World Order.

Current Direction

Some Congressmen and Senators who are CFR members have distributed for public consumption that the “beginnings” of the CFR were indeed globalist-minded to destroy United States sovereignty, but now those ideals are not part of the CFR. Today, it is only a “neutral think tank,” we are told.

In a 2006 op-ed piece entitled “State sovereignty must be altered in globalized era,” current CFR president Richard Haass removes any doubt about CFR goals. He openly opined that we must “rethink” national sovereignty and “redefine” it. In Haass’ view “new mechanisms are needed for regional and global governance” and “states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies.” Because of this wonderful globalization Haass said that “sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but … it needs to become weaker.” World Government is his solution—spoken in so many words.

In order to accomplish this goal, which for years was camouflaged by disguising words and using alternate synonyms for “world government,” the CFR now openly declares its plans for “integration” and “convergence” of various governments via the Trans-Pacific-Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). In 1995 it was offered that these “trade agreements” will assist the final mission to “promote and assist the convergence of EU/US Government policies … into a single political framework by early in the next century.” It is hard to miss this meaning.

Sadly, almost every administration since the time of Franklin Roosevelt has been larded with CFR Globalists whose primary aim is driving toward more international power. The Council on Foreign Relations may declare to be a “neutral” think-tank, but Establishment politicians know better. American voters better catch-on, and quick.

That Donald Trump names Richard Haass as his number one man on foreign policy in a potential Trump Administration shows his true colors. Trump’s stumping against unfair trade policies with such nations as China is apparently only words. If and when Trump becomes president it is certain that Kingmaker Richard Haass will show him the way.

Back To Homepage