Anarchy by design: ‘Anti-Trump’ flash mobs, Hollywood, and the Wall Street war chest

Another article written just after the election.

From 21st Century Wire

by Shawn Helton
November 17, 2016

It’s a novel scene, even for America: President Elect Donald Trump is facing an unprecedented wave of organized opposition prior to moving into the White House. While the Democratic Party are hoping to leverage these street action into votes in 2017 and 2018, the real strategy here seems to be about forging deeper narratives and creating a collective feeling of ‘disenfranchisement’ among liberal millennial. It may appear like a grassroots uprising, but upon closer inspection, there big money and big players behind it all.

Within 24 hours of the dramatic conclusion to 2016 presidential election on November 8th, highly organized flash mobs directed in part by the Democratic Party’s leading ‘community organizing’ digital platform, MoveOn.org (funded by Wall Street billionaire and top Clinton donor George Soros) spread rapidly throughout several cities across America including Oakland, Los Angeles, New York and Portland. While vitriolic anti-Trump dissent consumed some urban parts of the country, mainstream media outlets, as well as a column of Hollywood celebrities and entertainers added to the disillusionment as they took to the airwaves and social media to express their shock and emotional fears that a Trump presidency would be “the end of the world,” for some anyway.

Readers would not be amiss in questioning the true nature of the heavily coordinated color revolution-style MoveOn marches across America, as they reveal a much deeper social engineering agenda at play – one that enlists a likely coalition comprised of corporate media outlets, Silicon Valley, along with Hollywood – together peddling a highly reactionary, if not incendiary political message.

Make no mistake: this is a well-financed and concerted attempt to further divide America – along new cultural lines of identity – a division which will eventually benefit the same elite establishment which both the popular left and the popular right believe they are currently railing against.

Let’s review the impetus behind the anti-Trump protests, before discussing the unusual nature of an outright rejection of the democratic process by organized oprotesters – quietly nudged by Hollywood and media operatives…

MOVE ON: A Manufactured March On America 

For nearly a week, street protests have been promoted by the same mainstream news networks that had predicted a Hillary Clinton landslide only eight days ago.

Networks like CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times and the Washington Post are still reluctant to report how within hours of the election result, the Soros-tied NGO MoveOn.org issued a press release calling for nationwide protests. This was followed by petitions to “Abolish the Electoral College.”

In my first report discussing this potentially explosive situation unfolding across America, it was shown how “MoveOn members had created more than 200 gatherings nationwide, with the number continuing to grow…”  What this demonstrates more than anything is how the amalgamation of virtual community-based flash mobs and professional political agitators have been fostered by various Democratic party NGO’s since the early 2000’s – not only through MoveOn.org, but also through Democratic Party affiliated foundations like Answer Coalition.

In addition to Soros’s billions being poured into a near endless web of political front organization and “change agent” NGOs, other Wall Street financial institutions have backed their favorites, like Goldman Sachs and others, sponsoring the Hillary Clinton campaign and maintaining strong stakes the Clinton Foundation as well as ties to Clinton family in general. In 2015, the Washington Post reported that “Hillary Rodham Clinton and former president Bill Clinton earned in excess of $25 million for delivering 104 speeches since the beginning of 2014, a huge infusion to their net worth as she was readying for a presidential bid.”

Here we see an example of the financial nexus formed between powerful players like Soros, Wall Street’s Goldman Sachs – and America’s ‘progressive’ leftwing political establishment. Clearly, there is a high level agenda at work here, and you only need to follow the money to see who are the chief beneficiaries.

SEE ALSO: PARTNERS IN CRIME: Goldman Sachs, The Clintons & Wall Street

Some of the most notable uprisings in America include the designer social justice campaigns – all of whom have George Soros money behind them through a vast network of foundations and social front groups – like ‘The Occupy Movement‘ (aka OWS) in 2011, as well as Soros funded protests in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014, and the Black Lives Matter (BLM) street action group this past year. Each of these have a common thread – they have all  evolved into some form of violent social unrest often steered by paid provocateurs. Media outlets generally do not like to cover this side of the events because it simply doesn’t fit the favored “Left vs Right’ narrative the media loves so much. Hence, most members of the public – especially the protesters themselves – have little or no idea what is driving street violence and the ‘crisis’ narrative.

Continue reading

Advertisements

From Selma to the CIA. Rep. John Lewis will boycott inauguration of Donald Trump

Global Research, January 19, 2017
World Socialist Web Site 16 January 2017

In an interview conducted Friday for NBC’s Sunday morning program “Meet the Press,” Democratic Representative John Lewis announced that he would boycott the inauguration of President Donald Trump because, “I don’t see this president-elect as a legitimate president.”

There are many reasons to reject and oppose the presidency of Donald Trump: he personifies the financial oligarchy that now dominates the US political system and seeks to subordinate all public policy to its mad drive to amass ever-greater wealth; he has filled his cabinet and White House staff with ultra-right ideologues, fellow billionaires and ex-generals; his government is committed to a program of drastic cuts in spending for education, health care and other public services, combined with a massive military buildup.

Lewis, however, mentioned none of these things. He based his rejection of Trump on the report by US intelligence agencies about Russian hacking during the 2016 presidential election campaign. “I think the Russians participated in helping this man get elected, and they helped destroy the candidacy of Hillary Clinton,” he said. “That’s not right. That’s not fair. That’s not the open democratic process.”

No evidence has been presented proving that the Russian government was responsible for hacking the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign. The hue and cry over Russian hacking has two purposes: to conceal the actual content of the leaked emails, which showed the right-wing and antidemocratic character of the Clinton campaign, and to whip up public opinion in the United States in favor of political, economic, diplomatic and ultimately military “retaliation” against Russia.

There is not the slightest genuine democratic content to Lewis’s critique of Trump. He did not cite Trump’s loss of the popular vote by nearly three million votes, or the impact of voter ID laws enacted by many Republican-controlled state governments to suppress minority voting. His attack on Trump consisted solely of embracing the CIA-led anti-Russian campaign in language reminiscent of the 1950s redbaiter Joseph McCarthy.

There is a grim historical irony here. During the years of the most intense struggles for civil rights in the South, in the 1950s and 1960s, the FBI, the police in cities like Birmingham, Alabama, and the southern Democratic politicians all claimed that protests against segregation were the work of “outside agitators,” communists sent in to do the bidding of the Soviet Union. But John Lewis, who played a significant role as a student leader during those years and led the march for voting rights from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama, has remembered only one thing: denouncing your opponents as tools of Russia is a proven propaganda tactic.

A congressman from Atlanta for the past 30 years, Lewis personifies the recruitment and corruption of a section of middle-class African-Americans to reinforce the domination of capitalist politics. Civil rights leaders like Lewis were co-opted as part of a conscious strategy of the US ruling elite to refurbish the Democratic Party and the state machinery as a whole.

Dozens of major cities were turned over to African-American mayors, some of them veterans of the civil rights struggles, others merely cashing in on it. The Congressional Black Caucus expanded its number from a handful to more than thirty. With the assistance of programs like affirmative action, slots were created for black academics, government officials, military officers, corporate executives and ultimately CEOs.

These positions were not very numerous, but they were well paid, politically symbolic and gave a cover of “diversity” for the depredations of American big business and the crimes of the Pentagon. US imperialism incinerated tens of thousands of defenseless Iraqi conscripts while General Colin Powell, the first black chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, briefed the press on the progress of the 1991 Persian Gulf War. In similar fashion, Powell, as the first black secretary of state, and Condoleezza Rice, the first black female national security adviser, were at George W. Bush’s side when he launched the illegal 2003 invasion of Iraq.

This process culminated in the election of Barack Obama, the first African-American president—also the first president to assert the right to assassinate American citizens, using drone-fired missiles, anywhere in the world. Obama, a creature of the military-intelligence apparatus, expanded the war in Afghanistan, launched a new war in Libya and engaged the US military once again in war in Iraq and Syria. He continued and strengthened the police state operations of the CIA, the FBI and the National Security Agency.

It is noteworthy—and characteristic of this corrupt layer of African-American Democratic politicians—that John Lewis has never opposed the military-intelligence operations of the Obama administration. On the contrary, Lewis received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from Obama in 2011, the same year Obama authorized the drone-missile assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen.

Some 50 years ago, Martin Luther King Jr. made a critical step forward when he sought to combine the struggle for democratic rights at home with opposition to imperialist war abroad, courageously coming out against the war in Vietnam. There is not a shred of such principle among those who today seek to wrap themselves in King’s mantle in order to cover their own right-wing politics.

After Dr. King’s assassination in April 1968—an event that was undoubtedly linked to his turn against the Vietnam War—his acolytes made their peace with the establishment. Some of them, like Andrew Young, who had always stood on the right wing in King’s councils, became open apologists for US imperialism, with Young serving as US ambassador to the United Nations in the Carter administration.

Others, like Jesse Jackson, Julian Bond and John Lewis, became political hacks for the Democratic Party, giving this party of big business a “progressive” cover as it moved further and further to the right. Lewis also served in the Carter administration, running several antipoverty programs, before winning a congressional seat in 1986. In recent years, he has cashed in quite literally on his role in the 1960s, with his Faith and Politics Institute selling seats to lobbyists for $25,000 apiece to his annual visit to Selma to reenact the 1965 march.

The enlistment of Lewis in the warmongering anti-Russian campaign only underscores the political challenge facing the American working class. No section of the Democratic Party will conduct a genuine or principled struggle against the monstrous right-wing program of the Trump administration and the Republican Congress. The Democratic Party, like the Republicans, defends the profits and wealth of the financial aristocracy and the global interests of American imperialism.

O poder do “não”, por Dmitri Orlov

26/7/2016, Dmitri Orlov, Club Orlov

[ru. НеT, “nyet“]

“Ainda hoje sou capaz de visualizá-lo – palidamente limpo, tristemente respeitável, incuravelmente pobre! Era Bartleby. (…) Imagine minha surpresa, ou melhor, minha consternação, quando, sem se mover de sua privacidade, Bartleby respondeu num tom de voz singularmente suave e firme: – ‘Prefiro não fazer’. (…) – ‘Prefere não fazer?!’ – repeti, levantando-me alterado e cruzando a sala a passos largos. ‘O que você quer dizer com isso? Você está maluco? Quero que você me ajude a comparar esta folha aqui, tome, empurrei o papel em sua direção. É uma ordem.’ – ‘Prefiro não fazer’ – disse.” (p. 15-18) 
MELVILLE, Hermann
 [1819-1981], Bartleby, o Escrevente – Uma história de Wall Street e Outras Histórias, pp. 7-53, trad. Cassia Zanon, Rio de Janeiro: Nova Fronteira, s/d inhttps://leidsoncvsenac.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/miololivro.pdf *

Traduzido pelo Coletivo Vila Vudu

Putin: “Oh, coitado desse idiota. Não é capaz de compreender que vamos dizer ‘nyet’ outra vez.”
Nesse mundo, supõe-se que as coisas funcionem do seguinte modo: nos EUA, as estruturas do poder (públicas e privadas) decidem o que querem que o resto do mundo faça. Comunicam seus desejos por canais oficiais e não oficiais, contando com cooperação automática. Se a cooperação não acontece imediatamente, aplicam pressões políticas, financeiras e econômicas. Se ainda assim não se produz o efeito desejado, tentam mudança de regime mediante revolução colorida ou golpe militar, ou organizam uma insurgência que leve a ataques terroristas e guerra civil na nação recalcitrante. Se nem isso funciona, bombardeiam o país até mandá-lo de volta à idade da pedra. Foi assim que sempre funcionou nos anos 1990s e 2000s. Recentemente porém, uma nova dinâmica emergiu.
De início era centrada na Rússia, mas o fenômeno em seguida espalhou-se pelo mundo e, agora, acaba de engolir os próprios EUA. Funciona do seguinte modo: os EUA decidem o que querem que a Rússia faça e comunicam seus desejos, contando com automática cooperação. A Rússia responde “Nyet.” Os EUA imediatamente recorrem aos passos acima relacionados, mas sem a campanha de bombardeamento, antes de cujo início são contidos pela ferramenta de contenção nuclear da Rússia. A resposta continua: “Nyet.” Poder-se-ia imaginar talvez que alguém inteligente dentro da estrutura de poder dos EUA refletiria e diria: “Consideradas as evidências que temos à vista, dar ordens à Rússia não funciona; tentemos negociar de boa-fé, em termos de igualdade, quem sabe?” E todos os demais batem na testa e dizem “Uau! Brilhante! Por que não pensamos nisso?!” Mas, não. A pessoa que pensou antes dos demais será demitida no mesmo dia, porque, sacomé, a hegemonia norte-americana global não é negociável. Assim sendo, o que acontece é que os norte-americanos se irritam, reagrupam-se e tentam outra vez, com o que oferecem ao mundo espetáculo engraçadíssimo.
Todo o imbróglio Edward Snowden foi especialmente engraçado de ver. Os EUA exigiram a extradição. Os russos disseram “Nyet, nossa Constituição russa nos impede.” E então, hilárias, algumas vozes no ocidente puseram-se a exigir (sic) que a Rússia alterasse a própria Constituição! A resposta, que dispensa tradução, foi “Quá-quá-rá-quá-quá“.
Menos engraçado é o impasse em torno da Síria: os norte-americanos só fazem exigir, sem parar, que a Rússia vá adiante com o plano dos EUA para derrubar Bashar Assad. A imutável resposta russa é: “Nyet, os sírios decidirão quem os governará, não Rússia e não EUA.” Cada vez que ouvem essa resposta, os norte-americanos fazem cara de quem não consegue entender, coçam a cabeça e… fazem tudo outra vez.
Recentemente, John Kerry esteve em Moscou, numa “sessão de negociação” maratona com Putin e Lavrov. Acima, na abertura, há uma foto de Kerry em conversa com Putin e Lavrov em Moscou, há uma semana mais ou menos, e é impossível não ler o que dizem as respectivas expressões faciais. Lá está Kerry, de costas para a câmera, dizendo aquelas bobagens de sempre. O rosto de Lavrov diz claramente “Não acredito que eu tenha de ficar aqui sentado e ouvir todo esse bobajol outra vez…” O rosto de Putin diz: “Oh, coitado desse idiota. Não é capaz de compreender que vamos dizer ‘nyet’ outra vez.” Kerry voou para casa com mais um “nyet.”
Pior ainda, outros países estão agora começando também a entrar na mesma ação. Os norte-americanos disseram aos britânicos exatamente como queriam que votassem; os britânicos disseram “nyet” e votaram pelo Brexit. Os norte-americanos disseram aos europeus que eram obrigados a aceitar a horrenda dominação pelo poder das grandes empresas chamada hoje de Parceria Trans-Atlântico de Comércio e Investimento [ing. Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)], e os franceses disseram “nyet, não será aprovada.” Os EUA organizaram mais um golpe militar na Turquia para substituir Erdoǧan por alguém que não daria mole à Rússia, e os turcos disseram também “nyet” a mais essa ideia.
E agora, horror dos horrores, lá está Donald Trump dizendo “nyet” ao diabo vezes quatro – à OTAN, à deslocalização dos empregos dos norte-americanos, a deixar entrar uma inundação de migrantes, à globalização, às armas para nazistas ucranianos, ao livre comércio…
O efeito psicológico corrosivo de tantos “nyet” na psique hegemonista norte-americana não pode ser subestimado. Se todos esperam que você pense e aja como hegemon, mas só consegue manter em operação o setor “pense”, o resultado é o que se chama dissonância cognitiva. Se o seu negócio é abusar de nações e pessoas pelo mundo, mas as nações e pessoas não mais se deixam abusar, o seu negócio vira piada. E você, doido varrido, doido de amarrar.
A doideira resultante produziu recentemente um interessante sintoma: vários office-boys servidores do Departamento de Estado (diplomatas e outros) assinaram uma carta – imediatamente vazada – exigindo imediata campanha de bombardeio contra a Síria, para derrubar Bashar Assad. Di-plo-ma-tas. Diplomacia é a arte de falar e, pelas palavras, evitar guerras. Diplomatas que ‘exigem’ guerra não agem lá muito… diplomaticamente. Pode-se argumentar que são diplomatas incompetentes, mas não basta, porque não são só incompetentes (incontáveis diplomatas competentes deixaram o serviço diplomático durante o segundo governo Bush, quase todos desgostosos por ter de mentir incansavelmente sobre os motivos para a invasão dos EUA ao Iraque e aquela guerra). Os que assinaram a tal carta são belicistas doentios, pervertidos nada diplomáticos. É tamanho o poder daquela palavrinha russa, que aqueles supostos diplomatas enlouqueceram completamente.
Mas seria injusto destacar só o Departamento de Estado. É como se todo o corpo político norte-americano estivesse infectado por emanações pútridas. O miasma tudo permeia e torna a vida uma desgraça, uma miséria. Apesar dos crescentes problemas, muitas outras coisas nos EUA permanecem ainda administráveis, de certo modo, mas essa tal coisa – o esgotamento da capacidade para abusar de todos em todo o mundo – arruína o resto.
É verão, meados do verão, e o país está na praia. A toalha de praia está comida de traças e esfarrapada; o guarda-sol tem buracos e varetas quebradas, os refrigerantes no isopor são envenenados com químicas imundas e a leitura de verão é só tédio… e logo ali, além do mais, há uma baleia morta que se decompõe ao sol e cujo nome é “Nyet.” Era o que faltava para arruinar, de vez, o meio ambiente!
Os troncos falantes da ‘mídia’ e políticos do establishment já estão dolorosamente cientes desse problema, e a reação deles, previsível, é culpar o que veem como fonte primeira de todos os males: a Rússia, convenientemente personificada por Putin.
“Quem não votar em Clinton, estará votando em Putin” – diz a mais recente sandice ‘de campanha’. Outra, diz que Trump seria agente de Putin. Qualquer figura pública que não assuma posição militante a favor do establishment é automaticamente declarada “idiota putinista útil”. Tomadas pelo valor manifesto, são bobagens, patetices, valem nada. Mas há uma explicação profunda para todas elas: o que as conecta entre si, todas essas imbecilidades, é o poder daquele “nyet.” Votar em Sanders é uma modalidade de voto- “nyet“: o establishment Democrata produziu uma candidata e mandou os eleitores votarem nela, e a maioria dos jovens norte-americanos responderam “nyet.” O mesmo aconteceu com Trump: o establishment Republicano empoderou os seus Sete Anões e mandou sua gente votar em qualquer deles. Outra vez, a maioria da classe trabalhadora branca norte-americana humilhada e assaltada disse “nyet” e votou na Branca de Neve outsider.
É sinal estimulante, que tanta gente no mundo dominado por Washington esteja descobrindo o poder do “nyet.” Oestablishment pode ainda parecer sólido, mas só pelo lado de fora. Por baixo da fina demão de tinta nova, o casco está podre, com água entrando por todas as frestas. Um “nyet” bem forte, que ecoe e vibre, com certeza fará rachar o casco, com o que se fará espaço para algumas mudanças muito necessárias. Quando acontecer, os norte-americanos lembrem, por favor, de agradecer à Rússia… ou… como tanto insistem, a Putin.*****

“Russia and China together”: the greatest fear of Donald Trump

From New Eastern Outlook

09.09.2015
by Caleb Maupin

In his interview with Bill O’Reilly, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump ranted against Barack Obama’s foreign policy. Within his tirade, he proclaimed:

“You can’t have everybody hating you. The whole world hates us. One of the things that I heard for years and years, never drive Russia and China together, and Obama has done that.”

These are very interesting words that point to a fundamental reality of US foreign policy. The fear of a world where these two massive countries stand arm in arm — with economies independent of western banking institutions — is nothing new. Since the creation of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, the strategy of the ruling financial elite of the United States, often openly stated, has been to divide the leaders of Russia and China, in order to effectively undermine both, and keep their position of dominance within the global market.

The Kremlin Meets the Rifle Faction

In attempting to drive the two countries apart, the intelligence agencies of the United States and western countries have often exploited real tensions and differences.

Even before the victory of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, underlying tensions existed between the Chinese Communist Party and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. In 1927, the overwhelming majority of Communist Party members in China were exterminated. The nationalist leader Chiang Kai-shek, who had been embraced by the leaders of the Soviet Union, reversed his policy and began rounding up communists, putting them in prison camps and slaughtering them. The death or imprisonment of so many of its members, less than a decade after its founding conference, completely reshuffled the leadership and political line of the party. The extreme repression carried out by Chiang Kai-shek impacted the young party and effectively secured the rise of one of the most influential people in the 20th century Mao Zedong.

Mao Zedong was a university librarian who had previously been an anarchist, and led a small faction among Chinese communists. Mao Zedong’s followers had been dubbed the “Rifle Faction” by their opponents because they constantly promoted armed struggle, and had embedded themselves in the wave of peasant uprisings in the Chinese countryside. Mao’s polemical “Report on an investigation of the Peasant in the Hunan Province,” now considered to be one of the most important documents in the history of Chinese Communism, had harshly criticized the tactics recommended by the Communist International, and urged a complete reorientation away from nationalism and organized labor, toward China’s overwhelming peasant majority.

When Mao Zedong secured his dominant position within the party, the Chinese Communists adopted a political strategy far different than what was being globally directed by Moscow. The Chinese Communists rarely spoke in the stereotypical Marxist-Leninist language of the 1930s. Their rhetoric did not refer to “surplus value,” “exploitation,” or “dictatorship of the proletariat.” Figures like Edgar Snow, Anna Louise Strong, and Agnes Smedley visited the People’s Liberation Army in the Chinese countryside and described it as a kind of military expansionist utopian commune. The bulk of the People’s Liberation Army’s leaders were university students recruited on the basis of “building a new China” for “the people.” With guns in their hands, they recruited hundreds of thousands of peasants on the basis of land reform, opposing corruption and bribery, and establishing “people’s courts” that could facilitate revenge against the land-owning aristocracy.

While Soviet money and guns were instrumental in strengthening the Chinese Communist Party, the Chinese Communists were not “Soviet puppets” by any means. They clearly had their own independent ideas and strategy, and were not going to surrender it. The innovative rural policy of the Chinese communists was probably the personal brainchild of Mao Zedong. It was officially called “New Democracy.”

Stalin’s “Shock Brigade” Scares Wall Street

When the 1949 Chinese Revolution was victorious, the US political establishment went into a panic. The revolution resulted in two great Eurasian powers, the Soviet Union and China, standing united in their opposition to the rule of the world by British and Wall Street bankers. Constant warnings of a Soviet-Chinese invasion were broadcast into U.S. households on the screens of the newly invented television. The Republicans blasted Truman for “losing China,” and the Democratic Party faced a wave of defeats amid the anticommunist hysteria dubbed McCarthyism.

When the United States went to war in order to prevent the reunification of Korea, the Soviet Union, China, Korea, and most of Eastern Europe were all united against the US. Mao Zedong’s own son died in this conflict, along with thousands of Chinese and Korean people, who received weapons, funding, training, and instruction from the Soviet Union. The US was humiliated in this conflict as armed peasants from Korea and China forced a superpower with atomic bombs to a stalemate. This conflict that Koreans called the “Fatherland Liberation War” was the only time in history that a US military general has ever been taken prisoner.

In his final public speech given in 1952, Soviet leader Joseph Stalin hailed the Chinese Communist Party as a “shock brigade” in spreading world revolution. The speech declared: “Now, from China and Korea to Czechoslovakia and Hungary, new ‘shock brigades’ have appeared on the map, in the form of people’s democracies; now the struggle has been eased for our Party and also the work proceeds better.”

This final address from the political leader still most admired among Russians called for a global uprising to ensure the national liberation of historically colonized countries: “Now the bourgeoisie sell the rights and independence of their nations for dollars. The banner of national independence and national sovereignty has been thrown overboard. Without doubt, you, the representatives of the communist and democratic parties must raise this banner and carry it forward if you want to be patriots of your countries, if you want to be the leading powers of the nations. There is nobody else to raise it.”

In the early months of 1950, the New York Times blatantly declared that the intent of US policy was to end this highly important relationship, and convince China to view the USSR as “imperialist.” On January 23, 1950, the New York Times declared: “In carrying out its long range policy the United States might do well to remind Eastern nations that if they believe in the slogan of ‘Asia for the Asiatics,’ Russian imperialism is not the answer.” On January 29, 1950, a New York Times editorial declared: “The United States’ aim indeed is to ‘drive a wedge’ between the Chinese and the Russians.”

Ripped Apart by “Peaceful Coexistence”

In 1956, Khruschev delivered his infamous “secret speech” denouncing Joseph Stalin. China at first embraced the speech, and praised “de-Stalinization” efforts in the USSR. However, by 1961, it became very apparent that the foreign policy of the Chinese Communist Party and the foreign policy of the Soviet Union were incompatible. China, like Stalin in his final speech, urged peoples in Africa, Asia, and Latin America to take up arms in order to secure their economic and political independence. Khruschev and the Soviet Communist Party completely reoriented their international strategy, and urged “peaceful transition” to socialism, as well as “peaceful coexistence” with the United States.

In 1961, the Soviet Union officially terminated its relationship with the People’s Republic of China. Soviet foreign aid was pulled out. Buildings remained half-constructed as Soviet architects burned the blueprints. Chinese students in Moscow brawled with the police as they protested Khruschev’s policies. Aging US communist leader William Z. Foster shouted at Khruschev from his Moscow hospital bed, urging him not to end the important geopolitical relationship between the Soviet Union and China.

Following the Cuban Missile Crisis, Khruschev established a friendly relationship with the United States, as China sounded the trumpet of world communist revolution. The Soviet press referred to Mao Zedong as a “dictator.” The Soviet Union urged its followers around the world to participate in elections, align with capitalist parties, and cease any action toward armed revolution.

With the Soviet Union speaking in more conservative terms, China became the beacon that revolutionaries were attracted to, as radicalism swept the globe in the late 1960s and early 70s. The Soviet Union, with its proclamations of “peaceful coexistence,” seemed far less exciting than the government representing one quarter of humanity that proclaimed “Revolution is The Main Trend in the World Today.”

Various “anti-revisionist” parties, who sought political direction from China, were established around the world in opposition to the parties formed as part of Lenin’s Communist International.

China’s critique of Soviet foreign policy took a vulgar turn when Chinese leaders started saying that the USSR was “imperialist.” By the early 1970s, Chinese leaders had declared that Soviet “social imperialism” was the “main danger to the people of the world.” Mao Zedong met with US President Richard Nixon.

In Angola, the Chinese government opposed the Soviet-aligned forces that won independence, instead supporting CIA-trained forces aligned with the United States.

Behind Reagan’s “Victory”

The China-aligned Revolutionary Communist Party of Chile wrote a document condemning China for its friendly relations with the Pinochet regime that was torturing and slaughtering their members with help from the CIA. China happily embraced the brutal anticommunist, US-backed Chilean dictator, seeing him as a strong ally against “Soviet social imperialism.”

The Chinese government also embraced the Shah of Iran during this period, causing mass confusion among the China-inspired “People’s Fedayeen Guerillas,” who were waging an armed insurgency in the Iranian countryside.

By the late 70s, after Mao died, and Deng Xiaoping rose to power in China, the Cold War no longer seemed to make any ideological sense. The idea that it was a battle between free markets and Marxist-Leninists had been forgotten. A Vietnam veteran addressed a large antiwar gathering in 1979, declaring: “They sent us to Vietnam, telling us we were going there to fight the communists. But now, we are signing deals with Chinese communists, who are killing the Vietnamese communists, while our government supports the Kampuchean communists, who are fighting the Vietnamese communists, saying they are just agents of Russian communists.”

After the US removed its forces from southeast Asia, the pro-Chinese government of Pol Pot battled the pro-Soviet government of Vietnam. The Central Intelligence Agency quietly armed the Kampuchean forces while the Soviet Union sent money and weapons to Vietnam. The Chinese government rallied the remnants of the increasingly confused “Maoist” movement to support Pol Pot against “Soviet social imperialism.”

As Jimmy Carter sat in the White House, the dream of his top adviser Brzezinski became reality. As Brzezinski put it in his book “The Grand Chessboard,” the strategy was: “Keep the barbarians killing each other.” In Afghanistan, China supported the Mujahadeen, while the Soviet Union sent troops to defend the People’s Democratic government.

The common neoconservative narrative of the 1980s credits Reagan’s “toughness” for “defeating the Soviet Union” and “winning the cold war.” This is only half the story. When Reagan entered the White House, the world communist movement — which had almost completely been united in 1950 — was in a state of complete disarray and confusion. The Soviet Union and China were at each other’s throats, with their allies killing each other all across the planet. Various European communist parties were officially ending their relationship with both the USSR and China and calling themselves “Eurocommunists.” Cuba and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea attempted to maintain some level of neutrality. In Africa, armed Marxist-Leninist revolutionaries were divided along even more complex lines.

Reagan’s “hardline” policies against the USSR took place in the context of an anti-imperialist movement that was in complete ruin and confusion. The Soviet Union could not muster a strong international alliance of supporters as it had in the 1950s. China often supported the US in international affairs, and Third World insurrections were scattered and confused.

The Iranian revolution shocked the world in 1979. No Marxist faction, whether Soviet or Chinese aligned, could win the support of the Iranian people. Imam Khomeini established the Islamic Republic on a program of “Not Capitalism But Islam” and a “War of Poverty Against Wealth.” The Islamic Republic successfully defended itself in a costly war with Iraq, and maintained power with an international position of “neither East nor West.” Various anti-imperialist uprisings continued to take place, but like the Iranian revolution, many of them were not communist-led, and had no international allegiance.

Neoliberalism as the “New World Order”

When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, George H.W. Bush spoke of a “New World Order.” The defenders of neoliberal capitalism proclaimed that their system of unregulated free markets was the only way forward for the human race.

As the globalist market cult announced its New World Order after the demise of the USSR, the differences among political forces in the west became merely tactical. In the early 1990s, European Social-Democrats publicly abandoned the goal of creating an egalitarian society. British “New Labour,” French Socialism, and German Social-Democracy all declared that “socialism” was merely a synonym for economic prosperity, and embraced privatizations and neoliberal restructuring. In the United States, the Democratic Leadership Council made the left flank of the US political establishment into a party that hailed the sacredness of markets and profits. The Clintons echoed Tony Blair, talking about how “the world has changed.” Collectivism, class struggle, and cooperation were considered outmoded concepts from a previous era.

In the US and Europe, the various voices of conservatism and the “right wing” abandoned their economic nationalism and protectionism, and embraced “free trade.” The goal of maximizing profits and “integrating” every country into Wall Street’s economic empire became the official party line of all major political forces in western societies.

At the dawn of the 21st Century, a program of global transformation was in progress, as global elites began tearing down economic borders, eliminating social services, expanding international military coalitions along with policing agencies and prisons — all to defend the “sacredness of private property.” The goal was to create the “unknown ideal” of “true capitalism” as envisioned in the texts of the Austrian Economics and the Chicago School.

A variety of governments incurred the wrath of the highly ideological and aggressive new world order. Many of them had committed no real crime other than their existence. Saddam Hussein was happy to serve Wall Street with ruthless crimes against Iran, but the exports from his state-owned oil company and the Ba’ath Arab Socialist Party’s tight control of domestic affairs still could not be tolerated. Iraq was blown to bits by Bush’s “shock and awe” and has been a mess of chaos ever since.

Russia’s leaders have attempted to keep the friendship with the United States that began after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Their efforts to maintain healthy diplomacy have been ignored. The Wall Street clique sees Russia’s state-owned oil and natural gas corporations as intolerable. Furthermore, Putin’s stabilization of Russian society has unforgivably involved renewed feelings of national unity and pride, as well as a large public sector of the economy.

Wall Street and the Pentagon don’t want to destroy Putin. They want to destroy Russia. A stable country, united in its rejection of neoliberalism and cooperating to strengthen its economy is something Wall Street will never tolerate. Publicly owned natural resources, stability, and national unity are always a threat to the power of western finance, whether done in the name of communism, nationalism, Christianity, Islam, or anything else.

The United States encouraged its Georgian puppets to attack South Ossetia in 2008, and more recently backed and funded the violent overthrow of the elected Ukrainian government in 2014. The CIA’s “National Endowment for Democracy” works to foment unrest within Russia, while the US facilitates and arms hostile anti-Russian forces on the country’s borders. The presence of US and NATO military forces is rapidly expanding in Eastern Europe. Whatever the intentions of the Russian leaders, Wall Street is looking to provoke a continued state of crisis and weaken the forces of independence in the world’s geographically largest country.

Chinese leaders have also attempted to maintain their friendly ties with the United States. China has worked hard to facilitate investment by US corporations. Since the 1980s, the Chinese government has effectively abandoned any effort to spread communist ideas around the world.

Regardless of China’s attempts to accommodate the global capitalists, the CIA still facilitates efforts to destabilize the country. The Falun Gong, the Tibetan separatists, “Occupy Hong Kong,” and a variety of bizarre dissidents are propped up by the United States in the hopes of overthrowing the Chinese Communist Party and transforming the country into Wall Street’s playground. The US is militarily surrounding China with its Asian pivot. The US is also looking to economically weaken China’s influence throughout Asia with the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

US media and politicians have responded to Xi Jinping’s recent anti-corruption crackdown with an escalating anti-China frenzy. All of the major presidential candidates in the United States, from Bernie Sanders to Donald Trump, preach hatred for the People’s Republic of China, and seek to somehow blame it for the rising economic woes of working families across the United States.

Two Global Economies: Destruction vs. Construction

It is in this context that Russia, no longer led by communists, and China, led by the world’s largest communist party, have been able to rekindle the relationship that abruptly ended in 1961. Chinese President Xi Jinping currently hails a “New Silk Road,” connecting the formerly colonized countries of the world. A new global economy that does not involve Wall Street and London is coming into existence. China and Russia have conducted joint military exercises.

A natural gas pipeline connecting Russia and China is currently being constructed. Chinese forces are working in Nicaragua to construct a new canal to rival the US-controlled Panama Canal. Vladimir Putin has visited Latin America, and befriended the Bolivarian Bloc, where countries seeking the goal of “21st Century Socialism” are bound together in a bank called the “Bolivarian Alternative for Latin America.”

Conversation about a new currency for Brazil, Russia, India, and China (known collectively as BRICs) continue to take place. China continues its investment in many African countries, including Nigeria, the top oil exporter on the continent.

As the United States is on the verge of a nuclear agreement with Iran, it has become clear that Russia and China are happy to cooperate with the Islamic Republic. If the nuclear conclusion is somehow blocked by the US Congress, Russia and China are likely not to comply. Russia recently sold Iran SB-300 missiles with which to defend itself in the context of an Israeli or US attack.

China and Russia are both looking to build. Their economies are based on construction, development, and expansion. Western neoliberal capitalism has oriented itself completely toward destruction.

Oil prices have fallen because too much oil exists. Hydraulic fracking, drilling, and other technological innovations have made it more efficient to produce crude oil than ever before. The only hope for reviving oil profits is to somehow reduce the huge apparatus of oil extraction and production. The only hope for raising the profits of Exxon-Mobil, BP, and Shell is a large amount of destruction.

The billionaires who own Raytheon, General Electric, Boeing, and the many other Pentagon contractors actively fear, not a new world war, but a rise of stability, tolerance, and cooperation between countries. The universal human dream of peace on earth would put the war profiteers and weapons manufacturers out of business. The US economy is tightly centered around Pentagon contracts. Wall Street depends on military aggression.

Banks in the United States have made huge profits, not by lending people to money to buy homes, but with “predatory lending” practices that result in home foreclosure. The government has cooperated with banking institutions to create a situation where profits can be made by transforming prosperous residential neighborhoods into eerie overgrown ghost towns.

Wells Fargo Bank, along with a number of other key financial players, has turned crime and imprisonment into a business opportunity. The Corrections Corporation of America, GEO Group, and other private entities bring in billions of dollars every year from locking people away. In order to ensure Wall Street profits, the US prison population has grown to be astronomical. The highly profitable US policing agencies have been given far more power than ever before, “stopping and frisking” people without a proper cause, tapping millions of phones, reading personal e-mails, and indefinitely detaining and torturing people.

The drive for profits that pushed the United States and Western Europe, as they violently conquered their central place in the world economy, has taken a predictable yet horrific turn. The world wants to continue developing, but the invisible hand behind western neoliberal capitalism mandates nothing but war, imprisonment, and poverty.

The neoliberal mythology of capitalism as a system that encourages innovation and freedom is being exposed on a global level. The rise of the New World Order and its market cult in the early 1990s has meant the destruction of civil liberties, the impoverishment of millions, and an end to the hopes and dreams of an entire generation.

Russia and China, friends once again, are cooperating to provide an alternative. Trump’s words reflect the real concerns about the wealthy elite. Not only does “the whole world hate us;” they have another option to turn toward. The New Silk Road, the rising economic bloc oriented toward construction, points to a way out of war, fascism, and chaos. The unity and cooperation of Russia and China is an essential part of the Eurasian alternative to the destructive, cannibalistic capitalism that has taken power in western countries.

Donald Trump is very concerned about it, because it points the human race toward a world that is no longer ruled by people like him, where human life is valued, and selfishness is no longer considered to be a virtue.

Caleb Maupin is a political analyst and activist based in New York. He studied political science at Baldwin-Wallace College and was inspired and involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.