It is altogether fitting that the US attack on a Syrian airport, the dropping of a MOAB on defenseless Afghanistan, and the potential outbreak of nuclear war with North Korea have all come in the very month one hundred years earlier that an American president led the nation on its road to empire. President Trump’s aggressive actions and all of America’s previous imperialistic endeavors can ultimately be traced to Woodrow Wilson’s disastrous decision to bring the country into the First World War on April 6, 1917.
This month, therefore, should be one of national mourning for the decision to enter that horrific conflict changed America and, for that matter, the world for the worse.
Had the US remained neutral, the war would most likely have come to a far quicker and more politically palatable conclusion, however, the entry of America on the Entente side prolonged the conflict and extended its economic and political destruction to such a degree that the Old Order could not be put back together again. The great dynasties (Germany, Russia, and especially Austria) were ruthlessly dismantled at the conclusion of WWI by the explicit designs of Wilson which left a power vacuum across Central Europe. The vacuum, of course, was filled by the various collectivist “isms” which produced the landscape for another global conflagration even greater than WWI.
For America, after a brief revival of isolationism and non-interventionist sentiment throughout the land, the country, led by another ruthless and power-mad chief executive, provoked and schemed its way into the second general European war within a generation, this time via “the backdoor” with Japan. A second US intervention, making the war global, could not have come about had there been no WWI, or if that war had ended on better terms.
After the Second World War, the US emerged as the world’s dominant power with bases across the globe and entered into a string of never ending hot and cold wars, regime changes, destabilizations, assassinations, bombings, blockades, and economic sanctions that have continued to this very day and hour. Quickly after the war’s conclusion, the American media, academia, and the security and military industrial complex had to invent the myth that the Soviet Union and the US were of equal military might which turned out to be a blatant lie. After being decimated in WWII and its adherence to unworkable and economic destructive socialistic planning, the Soviet Union could never produce the wealth necessary to maintain a global empire as the US did, and still does. The “Soviet threat” was always a ruse to get gullible Americans to vote for and support greater and greater “defense” spending.
Besides Ron Paul and to a far lesser extent his son, Donald Trump was the only viable candidate who spoke of taking a new, less interventionist foreign policy which is why he was able to garner so much support from millions of empire-weary Americans during the presidential campaign. He rightly called the Iraqi War a “disaster,” spoke of getting along with Russia, and the US’s commitment to NATO should be rethought, among other refreshing comments on foreign affairs.
In one of the most memorable and hopeful passages of his Inaugural Address, the new president championed non-intervention abroad:
We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world, but we do so with the understanding that it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first. We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example. We will shine for everyone to follow.
Unlike Ron Paul, however, Trump had no grounding in a true America First foreign policy. While critical of his predecessors’ foreign policy decisions, Trump was not opposed philosophically to the US Empire or saw it as the greatest threat to world peace which currently exists.
Without an ideological basis against American globalism, Trump was easy pickings against the threats and machinations of the Deep State. Without a refutation of the ideology which drove Wilson and all of his successors to promote military adventurism abroad, Trump will be little different than his imperial predecessors and with a personality that is thin-skinned, impulsive and unpredictable, Trump could, God forbid, become another Woodrow Wilson.
My vote was for the original Trump, the non-interventionista Trump. I knew most of his platform was impossible, but figured as Commander in Chief, he could manage that one. Sigh…..
Mickey and Donald are in the White House….now for Huey, Dewey and Louie. Uncle Scrooge is Paul Ryan.
Pingback: On the Commemoration Of World War I: From Woodrow Wilson To Donald Trump | ValuBit News
Pingback: On the Commemoration Of World War I: From Woodrow Wilson To Donald Trump – Independent News Media
Pingback: On the Commemoration Of World War I: From Woodrow Wilson To Donald Trump | Daily News Inc.
Pingback: On the Commemoration Of World War I: From Woodrow Wilson To Donald Trump | It's Not The Tea Party
Pingback: On the Commemoration Of World War I: From Woodrow Wilson To Donald Trump | Domainers Database
Pingback: On the Commemoration Of World War I: From Woodrow Wilson To Donald Trump - BuzzFAQs
Pingback: On the Commemoration Of World War I: From Woodrow Wilson To Donald Trump | StockTalk Journal
Pingback: On the Commemoration Of World War I: From Woodrow Wilson To Donald Trump | Zero Hedge
Pingback: On the Commemoration Of World War I: From Woodrow Wilson To Donald Trump | US-China News
It’s more than a coincidence that Trump bombed Syria on the 100th anniversary of the US entering WW I, since both actions were and are taking place at the behest of the Zionists.
Remember, the payoff for the Zionists getting Wilson to enter the war was stealing Palestine from the Arabs and the payoff for the Zionists getting Trump to bomb Syria is to advance their goal of creating a Greater Israel.
And let’s not forget that it was Zionist Bolsheviks that deliberately destroyed Russia as payback for the destruction of Khazaria.
Reblogged this on sentinelblog.