Guest post by Niall McCrae
It’s the Democrats, not the ‘neo-con’ bogeymen, who the world should worry about.
The party that has always portrayed itself as standing up for the little guy has a long record of starting wars and provoking internal conflict. The Democrats are at the vanguard of divisive identity politics, strongly supporting the Defund the Police campaign and giving succour to Black Lives Matter rioters. Meanwhile, by facilitating unprecedented immigration they are engineering demographic change for electoral benefit and to reduce resistance to progressive policy.
The apple pie of faith, flag and family is distasteful to the professional-bureaucratic class that votes Democrat. Pursuing corporate globalism, the current administration is blatantly betraying the American people by destroying jobs and ushering in a technocratic ‘new world order’. Democrats are radically changing the USA as we know it, undermining freedom of speech, democracy and the constitutional safeguards of the Founding Fathers, Now they seem determined to prolong and escalate war in Ukraine. But why?
To answer this question, let us step back to a fortnight in July 1945, in a town to the south-east of Berlin. After the German surrender, a peace conference was held at Potsdam, which was relatively undamaged by bombing. The site of the pre-war German movie industry, its large villas accommodated the Big Three of Josef Stalin, Winston Churchill and Harry Truman. The latter had been president since 12th April, after FD Roosevelt died.
The palace used for the conference was out of bounds for journalists, leaving only the formal declaration to report. Details gradually emerged, but it was not until decades later that the transcripts were released. As Charles Mee described in his book Meeting at Potsdam (1975), although the victorious leaders were ostensibly planning peace, they ensured the beginning of the Cold War.
Churchill was in a sweat during the negotiations, facing a general election back home. He had done his best to maintain British stature at the conference, but his eloquent oratory had little more impact than his watercolours. He was ousted as prime minister at the end of the first week, and his successor Clement Attlee was averse to any lingering notions of empire. Stalin was amazed. How could the heroic figure of Churchill, who he respected, be jettisoned by an ungrateful populace, just like that? As Stalin had said elsewhere, ’it’s not who votes that counts, but who counts the votes’.
The Big Three was really the Big Two. On one side Stalin, was paranoid but not without reason; on the other Truman, who was consolidating the American century. In his sickness, Roosevelt had given too much to Stalin at the preceding Yalta conference, agreeing to the Russians using millions of prisoners-of-war for slave labour. Truman was more wary. Looming over the conference was a secret, known to the British but not to the Russian delegation. During the Potsdam parlance, the atomic bomb was successfully tested at Alamogordo in New Mexico, and Truman was ecstatic – not so much because this new weapon would devastate Japanese cities, but because it would threaten the USSR.
US nuclear hegemony was brief, as the Russians soon developed their own arsenal, followed by the Chinese. The arms race was helped rather than hindered by the doctrine of mutually-assured destruction, and the American military-industrial complex was guaranteed to thrive by the hawks in Washington. For all that the West can recount several decades of peace, in fact, war has been endless since Potsdam, enabling the exhibition and testing of advanced weaponry and ‘shock and awe’ tactics.
History shows that interventionism is favoured by the Democrats and foreign policy wonks, while isolationism is a tendency of Republicans and is more in tune with American society. Vietnam and Afghanistan were hills that thousands of young men should not have died on. Putting America first was a persuasive message for Republican presidential candidates such as Richard Nixon and Donald Trump, but ‘wrong-think’ within the Beltway. The militaristic state has needed to hoodwink the public, as divulged by Louis J Halle of the State Department (Mee, 1975): –
‘Deception, Halle believes, is not a lamentable byproduct of foreign relations, but rather an essential pre-condition of having any foreign relations at all; only thus will an ignorant people allow their leaders to pursue ‘realistic’ interventionist foreign policy. One might reasonably assume that State Department officers like to be interventionists because it gives them something to do; and one might assume that Presidents like to be interventionists because it provides them with a grand historical stage on which to move, increases their power, and mutes the more homely demands of citizens by uniting the people against a common external threat. Or one might even believe that interventionism – applied discreetly if not globally – is indeed a realistic approach to the world. In any case, there is a fatality to Halle’s way of thought…it is difficult – perhaps impossible – to avoid becoming the captive of a policy that is untrue and unrealistic.’
Wars have been fought for virtuous goals such as peace and democracy when they are anything but. Was the Iraq invasion really to create a Westernised liberal state, or Ukraine to save the ‘free world’? John Pilger, Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore always wanted the Republicans to be the bad guys, but they were blinded by political leanings. Back in 1951, at the peak of feared communist infiltration, John Beaty wrote The Iron Curtain Over America. This controversial text, smeared as anti-semitic for associating the very real phenomenon of Soviet sympathisers with Zionism, asserted that the Democrat Party wants perpetual war.
Predilection for war is motivated by ideology, as interventionists try to remake the world. Although necessarily destructive, battlegrounds clear the way for reconstruction to progressive design at home and abroad. ‘Build back better’ is a slogan epitomising the frustrated minds of idealists: they dislike people as they are. Divide-and-rule tactics make an enemy of patriotic and Christian traditionalists, who are cast as bigots or worse. Joe Biden recently stated that the ‘Make America Great Again’ movement is the biggest threat to civilisation.
Trump supporters and Covid-19 sceptics, accused of spreading dangerous disinformation about election rigging and vaccine harm, are regarded by leading Democrats as domestic terrorists. Thus Washington has declared war on its own people. Seemingly, the CIA works for the Democrats; the judiciary works for the Democrats, Homeland Security works for the Democrats. And as we have seen with the pandemic putsch, health authorities and pharmaceutical regulators work for the globalist Democrats.
We may never know everything that the Democrat / Deep State axis has been doing in Ukraine. But it is a fact that several biological laboratories have been funded and run by American institutes, performing gain-of-function research on deadly pathogens. Washington was involved in the Maidan coup in 2014, and by threatening to expand NATO to Ukraine, exponents of foreign policy were deliberately poking the Russian bear. Biden is sending billions of dollars in military material to the war zone. The law of unintended consequences inevitably applies – unless the intention is ‘slash and burn’. I suspect so.
The post From Potsdam to Putin, the Democrats have Driven American Interventionism – Democrats Have Always Wanted War appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
From Potsdam to Putin, the Democrats have Driven American Interventionism – Democrats Have Always Wanted War
Guest post by Niall McCrae