Deep State Politics and the Papal Election

On Thursday, May 8, the papal conclave to choose a successor to Pope Francis came to an abrupt end after only two days. White smoke from the Sistine Chapel signalled that the voting cardinals found a two-thirds majority, and within minutes the 267th pope emerged on the same balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica where 18 days before, his predecessor had stood.

The new pope is the former Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost, the first U.S. citizen elected as pontiff, and the second pope from the “New World.” He chose the name Leo XIV.

Pope Francis named him a cardinal in 2023 and appointed him head of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Bishops, a powerful position in charge of vetting bishops from around the world. He was previously twice elected prior-general of the Augustinian religious order. A native of Chicago, Illinois, he served for years as a missionary in Peru, and in 2014 Francis sent him back there as archbishop of Chiclayo. He has maintained dual U.S./Peruvian citizenship since 2015. He speaks English, Spanish, Italian, and Latin fluently.

It’s no secret that the cognoscenti of the liberal-left media and academia had been rooting for Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Vatican secretary of state for Pope Francis and reputedly his top advisor. Like Francis, he is a leftist and a globalist. He would have been Francis 2.0, and could reliably be expected to continue the revolution of Jorge Bergoglio. But he is not the only Bergoglian. Parolin helped Francis stack the deck in the College of Cardinals with bishops deemed sympathetic to the revolution. But, here’s the rub: Not all of those appointed by Francis are happy with all facets of his revolution. There has been significant pushback to Francis’s statements, declarations, and actions related to blessing of homosexual couples, climate change, capitalism, socialism, communism, salvation, hell, Covid mandates, Holy Communion for pro-abortion politicians, outlawing the Latin Mass, promoting pedophile clergy, sex-scandal coverups, Vatican bank coverups — and his “Synod on Synodality.”

Now that Prevost preempted Parolin, what are we to expect? The former cardinal’s record helps answer that question, as does the fact that Francis so often promoted him — hardly surprising since they were seminary classmates at the Catholic Theological Union in Chicago from 1978 until 1982. They also worked together in Rome in the early 2000s.

Many predict that Leo’s pontificate will effectively be Francis 2.0, and he is known as a progressive on social issues. For example, Prevost has posted messages on social media criticizing U.S. President Donald Trump’s “anti-immigration rhetoric” and standing up for the deported MS-13 terrorist and illegal alien Kilmar Abrego Garcia. He is also prone to re-post leftist messages, such as those calling for an end to “racism” and “nativism.” After Vice President J.D. Vance’s comments in January on the theological concept of ordo amoris(which holds that fraternal love should be properly ordered with family first, and the world in general at the bottom of the totem pole), Prevost shot back, “JD Vance is wrong: Jesus doesn’t ask us to rank our love for others.” 

Clergy sex abuse scandals in both Illinois and Peru also taint Prevost’s record. While in Chicago he allowed Reverend Richard McGrath to remain president of a Catholic high school despite long-standing complaints and a $2 million settlement with a former student. Interestingly, McGrath was dismissed shortly before Prevost’s elevation to the papacy, but officials with the Augustinian Order remained close-lipped to media inquiries. And last year, three Peruvian women accused the Diocese of Chiclayo — with Prevost at its head — of failing to punish a pair of priests whom they accused of sexually abusing them as minors. The Diocese denied accuasations of a coverup, saying its investigation found insufficient evidence against the accused and ruling that the statute of limitations had passed. 

Aside from his record, Prevost’s election could also have broad implications for international politics, particularly because he is the first pope native to the United States. CBS News interviewed Bishop Robert Barron of the Diocese of Winona-Rochester, Minnesota, prior to the conclave. He quoted his late mentor, Cardinal George of Chicago, as saying: “‘Look, until America goes into political decline, there won’t be an American pope.’ And his point was, if America is kind of running the world politically, culturally, economically, they don’t want America running the world religiously.” Is it only coincidence that headlines of late have been reporting that the United States’ influence on global affairs is on a decline as its adversaries’ reputations are improving?

Regardless, the most important question, especially for Catholics, could well be whether Leo XIV will continue Francis’ subversive Synod on Synodality.

Leading orthodox prelates in the Catholic Church have accurately used the term “hostile takeover” in describing the Synod, which would completely overturn the apostolic hierarchy of the Church. It would be replaced by a phony UN-style democracy of “The People of God,” in which lay people and activist clergy representing radical NGOs would determine Church doctrine on faith, morals, and liturgy.

The late Cardinal George Pell, a former top-level Vatican official, warned before his death in 2022 that the Synod on Synodality is a “toxic nightmare,” a “disaster,” and a “catastrophe” for the faith.

The German synodal Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller has similarly described the synod as “a hostile takeover of the Church” that must be resisted. Cardinal Müller, who is the former prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF, now renamed the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, DDF), has become one of the most outspoken critics of the synod and its revolutionized “synodal process.”

Additional cardinals and bishops who have challenged the dangerous path of Pope Francis’ “Synodal Way” include Cardinals Joseph Zen of Hong Kong, Robert Sarah of Guinea, Raymond Burke of the United States, Dominik Duka of Prague, Kurt Koch of Switzerland, and Juan Sandoval Íñiguez of Mexico. (Notice Prevost’s name does not make the list.)

These prelates, pilloried by the Left as “ultra conservatives” and “alt right,” have been righteously outraged over many of the outrageous (and blasphemous and heretical) statements of Pope Francis. Virtually all of the major Catholic influencers acted out of filial charity in the same manner as when St. Paul resisted St. Peter (Galatians 2:11-14) when Peter was wrong. These same faithful Catholics repeatedly called for prayers for Pope Francis, that he would be corrected from his errors. And after his death these “ultra conservatives” have continued to call for prayers for his soul. They now likewise call for prayers for his successor.

Your correspondent was present in Rome for the papal conclave in 2013. I was among the relatively few who hadn’t left the scene when the rain and sighting of black smoke caused most observers to exit St. Peter’s Square. Thus, I had a front row “seat” under the loggia when Pope Francis was introduced.

For coverage of Pope Francis’s pontificate in The New American, see:

Pope Francis’ Revolution: The Synod on Synodality

Pope Francis’ Subversive Synod on Synodality: The Bergoglian Revolution Continues

Defying Francis’ Same-sex Blessings

Defying Francis’ Same-sex ‘Blessings’: A Rising Chorus of Cardinals, Bishops, Clergy, Faithful

Catholics Ask Trump to Probe Soros-Obama-Clinton Conspiracy at Vatican

How Green Was My Vatican?  Statement from the Papal Environmental Conference

Is the Pope a Communist?

Why Hasn’t Pope Francis Denounced Cuban Communism?

— William F. Jasper

China Feeling Tariff Pain

By all accounts, China’s economy has been mortally wounded by Trump’s tariffs. China has abruptly stopped publishing hundreds of economic statistics, including unemployment figures, in a transparent attempt to cover up the damage. Communist China is in effect reverting to form, baring its fangs at the outside world even as the old curtain of secrecy descends anew upon the Middle Kingdom.

To the immense displeasure of the pro-China Western financial, business, and political elites, President Trump is finally standing up to China definitively, in effect waging war by other means in a bid to tame the dragon. These actions are long overdue, and will put Communist China in its place if the Trump administration stays the course. Our sources inside China tell us that things are becoming very grave indeed, with factories shutting down right and left and possibly millions of people out of work virtually overnight. China has been engaged in a campaign of anti-U.S. diplomacy, trying to shore up alliances with the likes of Russia, Iran, and Southeast Asian countries such as Malaysia. But the truth of the matter is that the Chinese have no cards to play, other than their patented bluster and threats. The United States has the world’s largest economy and consumer base by a country mile, and roughly 15 percent of China’s exports go (or rather, went) to the United States. A huge part of American manufacturing has relocated to China; hence the displeasure of America’s captains of industry, who face the prospect of moving operations either back to the United States or to a friendlier country such as India.

As of this writing, China — almost alone among countries targeted by Trump tariffs — has utterly refused to negotiate, insisting with its trademark haughtiness that Trump will have to come to them. Even as other countries are sheepishly admitting having taken advantage of latitudinarian U.S. trade policies and are coming to the table, China remains aloof.

Most of the commentariat in the legacy media, including Fox News, are clearly uncomfortable with the Trump tariffs and the effect they’re having on China. Maria Bartiromo (CFR) appears to be suffering from the vapors every time the subject is broached. And neocon politicians such as former VP Mike Pence are piling on. The official line is, in effect: Yeah, we know China has done some bad things, but they are essential to our economic well-being. We’re joined at the hip; deal with it.

The problem with such so-called logic is that China is already at war with the United States, and has been doing everything in its power to destroy our country. Think: fentanyl, spy balloons, constant harassment of U.S. planes and ships, threats against U.S. allies such as Japan and the Philippines; massive espionage; purchase of land near U.S. military bases; control of the Panama Canal; building up of enemies such as Iran and North Korea; secret police stations on U.S. soil; extrajudicial kidnapping of Chinese dissidents in the United States; deliberate withholding of medical supplies during Covid; unapologetic coverup of Covid origins, coupled with vicious attacks on anyone who questions the CCP’s narrative; appearance of Covid only months after the People’s Daily published an article in 2019 declaring a “people’s war” on the United States; complete repudiation of the terms of the last trade agreement; detention of U.S. and Canadian citizens in China, to be held as hostages; refusal to allow any foreign purchase of Chinese real estate, stocks, bonds, etc. — while insisting on the unrestricted right of their citizens to purchase assets abroad; complete blockage of all Western social media, news, video sites, internet commerce, Google products, etc., in China — while insisting that Chinese social media, news, and other internet business be allowed unfettered access to American markets; and so forth.

As to the economics of this one-sided “trade war,” the Chinese economy is still a socialist command economy, and is based almost entirely on exports (because the paranoid Communist Chinese government is as desirous as ever to stifle foreign influence and imports, lest the people be corrupted by Western decadence). This means that the economy cannot withstand the profound shock of suddenly being denied access to the world’s biggest consumer market. In effect, the parasite has been forcibly detached from the life-sustaining energies of the host, and cannot long survive on its own. China is already being rebuffed by the likes of India, for example, for trying to dump goods there that can no longer be exported to the United States.

It should be understood that not all of the Chinese economic miracle is smoke and mirrors. China has genuinely gone from a socialist backwater to a modern industrial country in little more than three decades, in no small measure because of the impressive work ethic and abilities of the Chinese people. There’s a reason that overseas Chinese do well in business, science, math, and engineering, after all. If China ever rid itself of communism, it probably would become a genuine peer competitor in short order. It is difficult to travel around modern China, as this author has, and not be impressed by the gleaming new cities, high-speed rail system, networks of freeways, tunnels, and bridges, bustling manufactories, and streets choked with new cars full of ambitious Chinese off to work their 14-hour workdays. Even partially unshackled from Mao’s collectivist tyranny, the Chinese have played a superb game of catchup. 

But all of that was before Covid and Trump. While many Chinese still have their middle-class jobs, nearly all recent university graduates are unemployed, and millions of blue-collar workers are working for no paycheck, if they work at all. This does not bode well, either for the Chinese economy or for the society. After all, communist leaders have never been noted for their compassion or for their responsiveness to popular discontent (just ask the average North Korean about that). Xi Jinping has already dismissed the growing concerns of his people, telling them that they will need to “eat bitterness” — the Chinese equivalent of “Tough bananas!”

As the Chinese economy grows more desperate by the day, the temptation to go to war will grow correspondingly. As we noted in last week’s report, that could take the form of an attack on outlying Taiwanese islands such as Kinmen — or it could even come against the Philippines or Japan.

Trump’s trade war is something that had to happen, sooner or later, if the United States is to repel ChiCom influence and reassert her strength. But it is fraught with risks, should the dictator Xi see his grip on power start to slip. — Steve Bonta

U.S. Economy’s Strength, Jobs Boom Surprises Elite “Experts”

To the surprise of nobody with even a rudimentary grasp of economics, April’s employment figures are robust, despite the usual blare of alarums about a “tariff shock” and “looming recession” from the usual mouthpieces of the clueless Establishment. It turns out that when you get rid of tens of thousands of unproductive federal government jobs, slash federal spending to the tune of billions of dollars, loudly proclaim your intention to cut taxes, deregulate the economy, re-embark on development of neglected natural resources, including energy and rare earths, and even signal a desire to phase out income taxes, the markets will react positively. Not only has the tariff stock market apocalypse failed to materialize, it now turns out that April employment rose by 177,000 jobs, beating almost every estimate by tens of thousands (this, even with the loss of tens of thousands of fedgov jobs factored in). The sentiments of a baffled political and business Establishment were summed up by Seema Shah of Principal Asset Management, who commented last Friday, “We can push recession concerns to another month. Job numbers remain very strong, suggesting there was an impressive degree of resilience in the economy in play before the tariff shock.”

Yes, that’s called the resilience of the free market. While many additional corrective measures are still needed (ending the Federal Reserve and our inflationary monetary system, and getting rid of ALL unconstitutional fedgov regulation of the private sector are certainly prominent agenda items going forward), the economy under Trump’s somewhat fickle but market-friendly leadership appears headed in the right direction. — Steve Bonta

Tennessee’s Gold-and-silver Bank Shot: Nashville Tries Sound-money Banking in 2025

Tennessee lawmakers have fired the latest volley in the national revolt against the Federal Reserve by moving to anchor State finances to real money — gold and silver. Senate Bill 985 (and its House companion) would create a state-chartered Tennessee Bullion Depository, empower it to function as a public bank, and declare gold and silver legal tender for paying taxes and settling debts. In effect, the Volunteer State is writing a modern charter for a state bank backed by bullion, not by paper promises. 

From Bullion Custody to Full-Blown Banking — The bill does far more than rent a vault. It authorizes the treasurer to contract with a private operator, accept deposits of precious-metal coins and bars from both the State and private citizens, issue electronic receipts, and clear payments between account holders. Once operational, Tennesseans could pay their property taxes or utility bills with gold grams transferred inside the depository, bypassing the Fed’s brittle dollar entirely. 

Building on 2023 Momentum — This year’s push rests on a foundation poured two years ago. In 2023, Tennessee Governor Bill Lee signed HB 1479, letting the treasurer hold physical bullion as part of the State’s reserve fund, a quiet but historic break with the all-Treasury Bill model of “safe” investment. That same statute authorized contracts with outside vaults — proof that the Volunteer State was already itching to diversify out of fiat.  

Why a “State Bank” Matters — Label it what you will — depository, bank, or monetary lifeboat — the institution would give Tennessee three strategic advantages:

  1. Monetary firewall: If Washington’s debt-ridden dollar stumbles, the State’s core funds will rest on metal, not IOUs.
  2. Payment sovereignty: Electronic transfers inside the depository create an in-state payment rail immune to future Federal Reserve “central bank digital currency” dictates.
  3. Constitutional alignment: Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution prohibits States from making “any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.” SB 985 drags Tennessee back into obedience — and dares sister States to do the same.

Echoes of Texas, Lessons for Liberty — Texas blazed this trail in 2015 with its own bullion depository. Since opening, Texans have stored nearly a billion dollars’ worth of metal and begun exploring gold-backed electronic payments. Tennessee’s bill copies the core architecture but adds two weapons: legal-tender status for coins and explicit authority to accept them for taxes. That transforms the vault from passive warehouse to active state bank, able to cycle precious-metal liquidity through the local economy. 

The Economic Upshot — Opponents howl that tying public money to bullion is “antiquated.” On the contrary, nothing is more modern than risk management — and no risk today looms larger than a dollar inflated 40 percent in four years. Gold rose from $1,500 an ounce to more than $2,300 an ounce in that span; silver from $18 an ounce to past $27 an ounce. Locking a slice of State assets to metals is the fiscal equivalent of diversifying a retirement account out of one volatile stock.

Political Traction — Senate Finance has scheduled initial hearings; House Budget is expected to follow. Sponsors argue the depository can be revenue-neutral; storage fees cover operating costs, while metal appreciation pads the treasury. Grass-roots groups from sound-money advocates to rural banks crushed by Fed rate swings are lobbying hard. If the General Assembly passes SB 985 before adjournment, Tennessee will become the second — and boldest — State to run a precious-metal bank at scale.  

The Strategic Payoff — Imagine a Tennessean logs into a depository app in 2027, swaps 10 Silver Eagles for electronic credits, and clicks “Pay” on his property-tax bill. The county treasurer receives the same metal credits and either parks them or converts a portion to dollars to meet payroll. Every ounce that circulates weakens the Fed’s stranglehold and resurrects the Founders’ vision of honest money.

A Call to the States — The hour is late; Washington’s printing presses run hot; the dollar staggers under $35 trillion in federal IOUs. Tennessee’s plan is no fringe fantasy — it is financial civil defense. If Nashville succeeds, legislators from Richmond to Phoenix will feel the heat. And maybe, just maybe, the American people will once again hold in their hands the uninflatable pay of honest labor — gold and silver, weighed, tested, and beyond the reach of any tyrant’s keyboard.

Tennessee has loaded the musket. Now the General Assembly must pull the trigger — and other States must follow before the next fiat fuse burns down. 
— Joe Wolverton

“May Day! May Day!”: Farage “Earthquake” Shakes U.K. Elections

Horrors! The establishment commentariat has been apoplectic since England’s May 1 local elections delivered a huge, historic victory to Nigel Farage’s  Reform UK Party. The media mavens cannot mention Farage or the populist Reform Party without resorting to derisive descriptives such as “hard right,” “far right,” “extreme right,” “radical right,” “xenophobic,” “Islamophobic,” etc. But U.K. voters, apparently having had enough of the business-as-usual lies and deceit from the establishment Labour and Conservative parties, disregarded the Deep State media smears and cast their ballots for a real alternative. 

A large batch of 1,641seats across 24 county councils and metro-county unitary councils were at stake in the local elections, which are also called “by-elections,” since they take place between general elections. Reform UK won 677 of the council seats. In addition, six mayoral posts were up for grabs. Reform won two, Labour won three, and Conservatives (Tories) won one.

Keir Starmer’s governing Labour Party, which swept to power in the July 4, 2024 general election, lost 186 seats on May 1. However, the big loser was the Conservative Party, which lost 676 seats. The voter defections to Farage from the Conservative Party can be compared to the massive defections of MAGA Republicans to Trump after suffering decades of broken promises and betrayals by RINO Republicans. Fourteen years of Conservative Party rule (under Prime ministers David Cameron, Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, and Rishi Sunak) saw repeated betrayals on Brexit, migration, climate change, Net Zero, Covid mandates, spending, regulation, taxes, energy, DEI, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and much more. 

The Conservatives have tried to stave off Reform UK’s inroads by replacing Rishi Sunak with the fiery Kemi Badenoch as head of the party. A Nigerian and the first black leader of a major U.K. party, the forensically talented Badenoch has become a YouTube sensation of sorts with her spirited and intelligent smackdowns of Labour and Keir Starmer in debates in Parliament. She has particularly drawn the ire of the Left with her statements and positions opposing Black History Month, white privilege, systemic racism, colonialism, transgender indoctrination, climate change, and other obsessions of the wokeness cult. However, the change to Badenoch’s leadership has not been sufficient to restore trust in the Conservatives and stop the hemorrhaging of voters to Reform. — William F. Jasper

Can Reform U.K. Replicate This Success in the General Election?

Nigel Farage says the Reform UK victories in the local elections mark “the beginning of the end of the Conservative party.” Here’s how the leftist Guardian reported on the phenomenon: 

An increasingly jubilant Farage said his hard-right populist party had now supplanted the Conservatives, as he pledged that Reform-run councils and mayoralties would block asylum seeker accommodation and, in a direct echo of Donald Trump, dismantle equalities programmes.

“We’ve dug very deep into the Labour vote and in other parts of England we’ve dug deep into the Conservative vote, and we are now, after tonight there’s no question, in most of the country, we are now the main opposition party to this government,” Farage said.

Speaking at a later rally, Farage said the elections marked “the beginning of the end of the Conservative party.”

The Conservatives lost all 15 of the councils they were defending.

At a victory rally in County Durham, Farage pledged to push back against DEI programs and Covid-era policies allowing bureaucrats to work from home.

“I would advise anyone who’s working for Durham county council on climate change initiatives, or diversity, equity and inclusion, or thinks they can go on working from home, I think you had all better really be seeking alternative careers very, very quickly,” he warned. 
— William F. Jasper

Xi “Honored Guest” of Putin: China-Russia Amp Up Alliance

Chinese dictator Xi Jinping arrived in Moscow on May 7 for a four-day state visit. CNN reported on May 8:

Chinese leader Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a joint statement “further deepening” their partnership following talks in Moscow Thursday — a show of solidarity in the face of global uncertainties unleashed by US President Donald Trump’s “America First” diplomacy.

Seated together in an ornate room in the Kremlin following roughly four hours of talks, the two leaders inked what Chinese state media said was a “joint statement on further deepening China-Russia comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination for a new era.” Putin and Xi typically release lengthy and wide-ranging joint statements following their regular meetings….

Xi arrived Wednesday for a four-day state visit to Russia, where he’ll top a list of foreign leaders attending Putin’s heavily choreographed Victory Day military parade, which is taking place in the shadow of Russia’s ongoing war on Ukraine. This year’s events mark 80 years since the Allied victory over Nazi Germany, which ended World War II.

RIA Novosti, a main organ of the Russian state media dating back to the Soviet Union, reported on May 8 that “Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping signed a package of documents following the talks and made statements to the press, talking about the development of bilateral relations and cooperation in the international arena.”

According to RIA Novosti, “The parties signed a number of agreements:

  • a statement on the further deepening of the relations of comprehensive partnership and strategic interaction that have entered a new era;
  • strategic stability statement;
  • memorandum of cooperation in the fight against infectious diseases;
  • agreement on the promotion and mutual protection of investments;
  • memorandum of cooperation between the First Movement and the All-China Youth Federation;
  • memorandum of cooperation in the field of creating a lunar power plant for an international scientific lunar station between Roscosmos and China;
  • memorandum of cooperation between RT and the media corporation of China.”

This latest evolution in Moscow-Beijing relations follows a long line of Sino-Russian agreements that we have chronicled over the past 15 years in the articles such as those linked below:

Putin & Xi Stress Beijing-Moscow Ties at APEC

Sino-Russian Nuclear Power Pact Caps Banner Year of Moscow-Beijing Deals

Russia & China to Ink More Deals at Moscow Octoberfest

Russia-China $400 Billion Energy Deal Highlights Continued Cold War

Anatoliy Golitsyn, Robert Welch Vindicated: Sino-Soviet Split Was a Ruse

In 1961, Anatoliy Golitsyn defected from the Soviet Union to the United States. In 2009 (in “Decades of Suicidal Policies Vis-à-vis Russia and China”) we noted his unique significance and unparalleled record of accurate analysis of the global communist threat. We wrote:

Over the past 90 years, there have been many defectors (both genuine and false) from communist countries, some of whom have provided us with very valuable information and insights. What makes Golitsyn so unique? Golitsyn was a member of the super-secret “inner” KGB — Department D — which planned long-range, strategic disinformation. Other members of the “outer” KGB did not even know of Department D’s existence. It was a crucial creation engineered during the 1959 reorganization of Soviet intelligence by KGB Chairman Alexander Shelepin. Shelepin and the top Soviet leaders determined to undo much of the damage caused by the recently deceased Soviet dictator Josef Stalin, whose paranoia and bloody purges had devastated not only the USSR but the entire global communist system. The KGB would be redirected away from Stalin’s ham-fisted use of the agency primarily for espionage and brutal police-state oppression, into Lenin’s conception of the “Cheka” (NKVD, predecessor of the KGB) as an instrument of strategic deception that would manipulate and control the Soviet Union’s enemies (the United States and the West) by manipulating and controlling the enemy’s perceptions of geo-strategic realities. Shelepin and the Kremlin strategists set out to recreate and test two of Lenin’s most successful strategic deceptions of the 1920s: the New Economic Policy (NEP) and the “Trust.”

Among Golitsyn’s most important revelations was his exposure of the Soviet “split” doctrine involving KGB-directed strategic deceptions in which communist countries pretend to split off of the Soviet bloc in order to influence U.S. policy and obtain cash, credits, and technology. The most important of these orchestrated deceptions, claimed Golitsyn, was the much ballyhooed “Sino-Soviet Split.”

We noted:

Belief in a strategically exploitable Sino-Soviet split became not only the foundation for U.S. policy toward Communist China, but also provided the rationale for our relations with all communist regimes. If the world communist monolith was fragmenting owing to internal fissiparous forces, the argument ran (and continues to run today), then why not speed the process? Thus we saw policies aimed at courting communist regimes in Yugoslavia, Romania, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and elsewhere, with the announced aim of wooing them from the Soviet orbit….

Unfortunately, the delusional acceptance of these fatal fallacies has achieved the exact opposite of the benefits promised by the “wise men” of foreign affairs. The supposed permanence of the Sino-Soviet split — as noted above, and as could be demonstrated by hundreds more examples — has proven as evanescent as a popsicle in Hades. The new Sino-Soviet axis, thanks to our aid, is far more dangerous now than ever it was during the Cold War.

Unfortunately for Golitsyn, for America, and for the entire world, the Deep Staters at the CIA kept him under wraps for more than two decades, so that he and his warnings to the West remained virtually unknown. And when he was finally allowed to publish his books — New Lies for Old (1984) and The Perestroika Deception (1998) — the Deep State media smeared him and did everything possible to discredit and silence him. We will return to Golitsyn in future issues of The New American and the Insider Report.

Long before Golitsyn’s revelations became available in 1984, Robert Welch, the founder of The John Birch Society, had arrived at the same conclusion. While not enjoying the advantage of Golitsyn’s first-hand knowledge from inside the KGB, Welch was, nevertheless, able to see from obvious facts on the ground and his in-depth understanding of communist strategy and tactics — as well as his awareness of the treachery and outright treason in our own government — that the Sino-Soviet Split was a dangerous deception. He knew that it would prove fatal to our country and to freedom everywhere if our government accepted it as genuine and followed the globalist advice to “play the China card against Russia.” He was one of the few who sounded the alarm and refused to follow the siren call as most of the “conservative” and Republican leadership flocked after Kissinger and Nixon in the Red China embrace. Welch and Golitsyn, not the CFR “Wise Men of Foreign Affairs,” were right. — William F. Jasper

Joseph Nye, Globalist Insider, Dead at 88

Joseph S. Nye, Jr., a fixture at Harvard University since 1964, where he was dean of the John F. Kenedy School of Government for many years and later held the position of professor emeritus, died on May 6. He was 88. A prolific writer, he authored or coauthored 20 books as well as countless articles, op-eds, and essays, usually for Deep State megaphones such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, Project Syndicate, Foreign Affairs, and Foreign Policy. Like Henry Kissinger, Graham Allison, and many other Harvard doyens, Nye rotated in and out of government, serving under President Jimmy Carter as undersecretary of state for security assistance, science, and technology and chairman of the National Security Council Group on Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Under President Bill Clinton, he served as assistant secretary of defense for International Security Affairs and later as chair of the National Intelligence Council. In the Obama administration, he served as a member of the Foreign Affairs Policy Board and the Defense Policy Board.

How connected was Joseph Nye? Answer: very connected. Besides being a member of the boards of directors of the Atlantic Council and the Council on Foreign Relations, he was also North American chairman of the Trilateral Commission and co-chair of the Aspen Strategy Group of the Aspen Institute. Additionally, he was a regular attendee and “agenda contributor” of the World Economic Forum.

Nye was a disciple of Henry Kissinger, who was his professor and mentor at Harvard. And as a colleague of Kissinger at the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg meetings, and other Deep State gatherings, he shared the Kissinger-Rockefeller-Brzezinski New World Order vision. He advanced this globalist vision in his many writings. 

On January 1, 1992, President George H.W. Bush, Russian “President” Boris Yeltsin, Red Chinese Premier Li Peng (the Butcher of Tiananmen Square), French President Francois Mitterrand, and 11 other heads of state gathered for an historic meeting of the UN Security Council. It marked the first time that the body had convened at the level of heads of state or government. Why this unprecedented move? Well, recall that in the months before, President Bush had famously gone on a New World Order jag, praising the United Nations as he prepared to invade Iraq. The UN Security Council’s unprecedented high-level meeting was called to lay the foundation for the UN’s New World Army. Joseph Nye played a significant role in this momentous event. 

As I record in my 1992 book, Global Tyranny … Step by Step: The United Nations and the Emerging New World Order:

On the morning following this precedent-setting Security Council session, the Establishment media were ready to peddle the politically correct one-world view. For example, Joseph S. Nye Jr., whose Insider credentials include being the director of the Center for International Affairs, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a Harvard University professor, and a former Deputy Under Secretary of State, led off with an op-ed column in the New York Times entitled, “Create a U.N. Fire Brigade.” Nye told readers: “If a new world order is ultimately to emerge from yesterday’s summit meeting of the world’s leaders at the U.N., they will have to stretch their imaginations.” 

According to Nye, Messrs. Mitterrand, Martens, and company were thinking too small. “The U.S. should go beyond rhetoric to promote a new order…. To achieve this, the U.S. ought to propose the creation of a U.N. rapid-deployment force…. made up of 60,000 troops in brigades from 12 countries.”

On May 7, Meghan L. O’Sullivan, the current chair of the North American branch of David Rockefeller’s cabal, wrote to her fellow Trilateral Commission cabalists:

Dear Members of the Trilateral Commission, I am writing to share the heartbreaking news of the passing of Joe Nye. For decades, we were graced to have Joe as a friend, colleague, teacher, mentor, and inspiration…. 

Joe had been an integral part of the Trilateral Commission since its earliest days. He was a founding member of the organization and a chair of the North American group for a decade following the departure of Speaker Tom Foley. Joe was a valued member of the Executive Committee, bringing wisdom and perspective to every deliberation. Indeed, I often sought his counsel in the years since he passed the leadership position to me. And, of course, Joe was a frequent speaker and active participant. Many will remember that our most recent plenary meeting — only four weeks ago — featured a memorable conversation between Joe and Judy Woodruff on his signature subject of soft power.

Judy Woodruff, of course, is a member of that elite class whom The Washington Post’s Richard Harwood referred to as “Ruling Class Journalists.” For decades, she has been one of the main public faces of PBS, Bloomberg, and CNN, moderating U.S. presidential debates, interviewing heads of state, and delivering the Deep State’s Fake News narratives. She is a longtime member of the CFR and, no doubt, it is her adherence to the Chatham House Rule of secrecy that has allowed her access to the halls of power, such as the TC meeting mentioned above at which she shared the “memorable conversation” with Joe Nye.

The full Trilateral Commission membership list is available here. — William F. Jasper

[END]