1. The Spies Who Hijacked America
As a doctoral candidate at Cambridge working under “FBI Informant” Stefan Halper, I had a front-row seat for Russiagate
by Steven P. Schrage
Global scandals now labeled Russiagate, Spygate, and what President Trump calls “Obamagate” shook the political world, but hit me closer to home. I’m the reason the so-called FBI “spy” at the center of Spygate, Stefan Halper, met Carter Page, the alleged “Russian Asset” in Russiagate’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation.
Key politicians and intelligence figures would like the facts surrounding Russiagate’s origins classified and buried for decades, as with past U.S./MI6 intelligence scandals. I can’t let that happen.
I call them — Halper, Steele, Dearlove, and Andrew — the Cambridge Four because of parallels to another British spy story of yore, perhaps the most notorious intelligence scandal in history.
I have no indication that any of the Cambridge Four were ever on Russia’s payroll or were actual spies for Russia, like their Cambridge Five namesakes. Yet the Cambridge Four, and their media and political enablers, did a miraculous job in pushing fake Trump-Russia conspiracy stories that undermined America’s democratically-elected government and sparked investigations still ripping us apart today. In this regard, the Cambridge Four were probably the most effective tools for Russia’s disinformation campaign to divide America that Putin could have ever dreamed of.
The full article can be read here.
2.Three Decades of Delusion
by Andrew Micta
In The American Interest
America today faces a potentially existential challenge to its national security as two great power adversaries, Russia and China, contest its post-Cold War dominion. The reason? For 30 years it has been led by corporate, media, and policy elites who failed to acknowledge the enduring verities of great power politics. Instead of carefully reassessing our strategy when the Soviet Union imploded, after 1990 our intelligentsia embraced without hesitation the ideological bromides—principally cooked up in our think tanks and universities—about the “end of history,” our “unipolar moment,” and the inevitable triumph of the so-called liberal international order across the globe. Never before has a drive towards empire been based on such a glaring inability to calculate power relationships and to learn from history.
How did we get here? Simply put, our political class failed to appreciate why the United States triumphed over the Soviet Union. We won not because of the power of liberal ideals—though they were important additional enablers of American foreign and security policy against the Soviets—but because in 1947, when the Cold War competition was fully joined, our country possessed a massive industrial base, the global reserve currency, the largest gold reserves, half of global GDP, a navy larger than all the world’s navies combined, an expanding population and rapidly growing middle class, and a monopoly on atomic weapons.
True, over the course of the Cold War competition between the United States and the Soviet Union (the latter for a period aligned with communist China), the balance began to shift somewhat. The economies of war-ravaged Europe and Asia recovered, and the relative power position of the United States would never approximate where the country was in 1947. Nonetheless, there was little question that in terms of the power indices of the era, America had an unmatched edge in every aspect of technology, research and development, manufacturing, and overall wealth when compared to its adversary. Few in the captive nations of Eastern Europe doubted that American free-market capitalism, and what the West represented more generally, was superior when it came to both wealth and freedom. What kept them mouthing communist slogans was the reality of being occupied by the Red Army and dragooned into the Warsaw Pact against the very America (and West) they admired. But we won largely because America’s hard power was undergirded by our unmatched industrial base and R&D institutions.
Yet we failed to grasp that the Soviet Union
did not implode because the liberal democratic
ideal overpowered the tenets of communism.
Yet we failed to grasp that the Soviet Union did not implode because the liberal democratic ideal overpowered the tenets of communism. Yet we failed to grasp that the Soviet Union did not implode because the liberal democratic ideal overpowered the tenets of communism. Few argued at the time that we had won because our adversary could not match our industrial base and innovative research universities and labs—especially as we moved into the digital age—and that henceforth it should be the government’s sacred duty to preserve and protect advantages that took generations to build. The implosion of the Soviet empire was greeted by Washington’s intelligentsia as an ideological triumph par excellence. In a bizarre replay of the Bolshevist fiction about the universality of Marxist dogma, our elites post-1990 seemed certain that a new globalist age had dawned in which America’s sui generis history and political tradition would first claim a universal quality and ultimately dissolve in the new global order. At think tank conferences, political science conventions, and increasingly in government and Congress, our elites succumbed to the temptation to view 1990 not as marking the end of a long twilight struggle in which the nation’s industrial base and military alliances had ultimately carried the day, but rather as the culmination of an inexorable drive toward the fulfillment of a grand universalist promise. Francis Fukuyama’s thesis was transformed into the equivalent of now-discarded communist teleological reasoning, only this time built on liberal clichés, not Marxian canon.
As our utopian intelligentsia on the East Coast was coming into its own in think tanks, government buildings, and corporate offices, it had an ally in the emergent West Coast digital aristocracy. Our corporate CEOs, bankers, and money managers were eager for a globalist expansion, one in which software and money would go hand in hand, while the process of shipping America’s critical supply chains overseas gathered speed each year with few in government and business batting an eye. In this brave new world, digital campuses, transnational banks, and corporations would spawn a new globalist corporate aristocracy—an American but de facto transnational ruling elite whose prosperity (it was believed) would be indefinitely supported by Chinese labor. Borders would not only become permeable but in fact disappear. Our universities would go on to train hundreds of thousands of Chinese graduate students a year, while many of our brahmins ensconced themselves on foreign corporate boards and accumulated wealth at a rate that echoed the one achieved by the robber barons of the 19th century.
The Chinese communist leadership seems to have learned all too well the British imperial dictum that “we do not run Egypt, we run the Egyptians who run Egypt.”
The rest of the article can be accessed here:
3. China Means to Take Over the World
China’s reach is far more widespread than many people have understood, and China’s ultimate goal is total control of the world and its economy.
China means to take over the world. That is not hyperbole or overstatement. That is their intention. Whether the U.S. public hears them or not, the Chinese are broadcasting this intention loudly.
China is a communist country. In order to run a communist country, there must be total control of every aspect of the lives of a populace. There can be no dissent because people must behave to please the structure of communism. Even the most altruistic leader will make mistakes when governing 1.4+ billion people, and China’s leaders are hardly self-sacrificing. They restrict and censor the information people see and hear, only allowing government-sanctioned propaganda to be broadcasted.
Unlike governments in the West, the Chinese government demands that all businesses operate, not according to what is best for the business and the public, but according to what is best to further Chinese government interests. If that means your business must spy for the government, then that is what you must do. If that means insisting doctors don’t tell the world about a plague that China unleashed on the world, the doctors who disobey must disappear and die.
Individual citizens must obey the communist government without question or hesitation as well. Until 2015, China’s One-Child Law would not allow parents to have more than one child. Traditionally, the Chinese community favors having sons, so female babies would be aborted, leaving the population to this day with far more men than women. Forced abortions and sterilizations were commonplace as millions of Chinese parents endured the strict enforcement methods the CCP deployed to advance this policy. Ethnic minorities in China, mostly Uighurs, have been forced into sterilization and slave labor in work camps while U.S. companies profit from their forced labor.
The Chinese communist government plans to economically and militarily dominate the world by 2050 and has said as much. In order to accomplish this goal, they must dominate the only current world superpower, the United States of America. In the past couple of decades, they have been slowly, methodically, buying us up. Some of the largest U.S. companies the Chinese have purchased are Starwood Hotels (the company that owns Waldorf-Astoria), Ingram Micro (specializing in aviation and logistics), General Electric Appliance Business, Terex Corporation (which makes machinery for construction), Legendary Entertainment Group (producers of such hits as “Jurassic Park” and “Pacific Rim”), Motorola Mobility, and AMC Entertainment Holdings.
Continue reading here: