Neoconservatism and Neoliberalism Torpedoed?

Trump Torpedoes Neoconservatism and Neoliberalism in Single Stroke?

Ben Bartee

The relatively tiny elite class ensconced in Washington, D.C. — they who manufacture and service the publicly-subsidized, permanent war economy — were surely none too pleased with Trump’s truly radical, for reasons explore here, recent speech delivered to the Saudi dignitaries assembled to receive his foreign policy prescriptions during a state visit.

In 1991, sitting U.S. president — at the time, a “retired” CIA boss — George Bush declared a New World Order, a peculiar rhetorical machination by which he meant a multinational neoliberal technocracy that would ultimately subvert all national sovereignty and roll the nation-states of the world into a single dystopian administrative state.

“What is at stake is more than one small country. It is a big idea — a New World Order, where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause, to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind.”
-George Bush, 1991

Elsewhere, he promised in vague terms that the enforcement arm of this new globalist project would be United Nations “peacekeeping” forces — national sovereignty or national interest be damned.

“When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this New World Order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the UN’s founders.”

Contrarily, three decades later, delivering a speech that would have been hard to imagine any president in modern history delivering on account of its unorthodox omission of references to “human rights” or whatever other liberal rhetoric seemingly accompanies every presidential speech in recent memory, Trump went out of his way to denounce the “interventionists” (a polite term for warmongers/neocons), the “nation-builders,” and the “nonprofits” that have done so much to wreck and destabilize the world while draining the U.S. treasury to the tune of trillions of dollars.

Via WhiteHouse.gov (emphasis added)

“Before our eyes a new generation of leaders is transcending the ancient conflicts of tired divisions of the past and forging a future where the Middle East is defined by commerce, not chaos; where it exports technology, not terrorism; and where people of different nations, religions, and creeds are building cities together, not bombing each other out of existence…

This great transformation has not come from Western interventionists … giving you lectures on how to live or how to govern your own affairs. No, the gleaming marvels of Riyadh and Abu Dhabi were not created by the so-called ‘nation-builders,’ ‘neo-cons,’ or ‘liberal non-profits,’ like those who spent trillions failing to develop Kabul and Baghdad, so many other cities. Instead, the birth of a modern Middle East has been brought about by the people of the region themselves … developing your own sovereign countries, pursuing your own unique visions, and charting your own destinies…

In the end, the so-called ‘nation-builders’ wrecked far more nations than they built — and the interventionists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand themselves.”

Case in point: Hillary Clinton’s neoliberal jihad in Libya that deposed a relatively secular dictator and turned the country into a failed state with open-air slave markets.

The Trump Saudi speech might summarized succinctly in one sentence: You can’t deliver democracy with artillery shells — and, even if it were possible, doing so is not in America’s interests, or anyone else’s save for a handful of psychopaths in Washington D.C.

Somewhere in a Wyoming mansion, Dick Cheney’s artificial heart skipped a beat when he saw his lifelong ideology tossed in the historical trash can by the man who singlehandedly ended his nepo-daughter’s political career.

But he should probably just be happy he’s not rotting in the Hague for the remainder of his miserable existence before he departs the vail and passes on to hell, back to his Father.

Speaking of rotting, somewhere in the 9th Circle, Madeleine Albright is equally apoplectic that the official policy of the U.S. government she so dutifully served is no longer to starve children with pointless and obscene sanctions regime for obscure geopolitical purposes, only to turn the very country targeted for regime change over to ISIS two decades later.

More...

WHO’s Pandemic Agreement is adopted despite concerns about unelected institutions imposing global policies

WHO’s Pandemic Agreement is adopted despite concerns about unelected institutions imposing global policies

Rhoda Wilson

Members of the World Health Organisation (“WHO”) adopted a global pandemic accord on Tuesday, 20 May 2025; 124 countries voted in favour, no countries voted against, while 11 countries abstained and 46 countries were not present.  The total votes cast don’t add up, but those are the numbers WHO has declared.

For the countries that abstained – of which, shamefully, the UK was not one – their concerns included loss of national sovereignty, lack of legal clarity and the risk of unelected institutions imposing policy.

To ensure the Pandemic Agreement was adopted by the easiest possible route, WHO had determined that a vote need not take place, and instead it would be adopted by “consensus.”

Surprised that a “democratic institution” did not want to have a vote, Slovakia requested that a vote on the draft Pandemic Agreement take place, which Tedros the Terrorist attempted to stop hours before the vote was scheduled.

The vote was conducted by “a show of hands,” by “representatives” holding up their name plates, and then people counting the number of name plates raised. Which way countries voted was not recorded. It all sounds a bit dubious and fraught with error, with no way of checking whether an error, inadvertently or deliberately, has been made. A “show of hands” might be a good way to gauge how many bags of sweets to buy for a school outing, it certainly isn’t the way to vote on a global agreement.

To watch a video of the vote, go to WHO’s 78th World Health Assembly webpage, HERE, and select the ‘Committee A’ tab shown under the current video.  Then from the list of ‘Committee A’ videos, select ‘WHA78 – Committee A, Second Committee A Meeting, 19/05/2025 – 18:50-21:40’.   The “show of hands” voting begins at timestamp 02:47:20. The results were (see timestamp 03:08:08):

Yes, the Chair read out that the number of members present and voting was the same as the number of votes in favour; 124.  In other words, the Chair claimed that all countries that had representatives present at the meeting voted in favour of the Pandemic Agreement.  When no name plates were raised during the time allotted for votes against the Agreement, the so-called country representatives gave themselves a standing ovation. 

However, the total number of countries present and voting according to the Chair does not add up. Countries that abstained were present, such as Slovakia, which means that the Chair made a “mistake” in claiming that 124 members were present and voting or made a “mistake” in saying that 124 voted in favour of the Pandemic Agreement.  Either there were 135 members present and voting (in which case two-thirds majority was 90, not 83 as claimed) or not all the 124 countries present voted in favour of the Agreement (11 abstained).  As the votes were not recorded and the only evidence that exists is a video showing a partial picture of the room, what the Chair said and what the vote counters claimed can’t be checked.  How convenient for anyone who wishes to manipulate the results of a vote.

Putting aside the dubious voting methods, the absence of the United States, which has begun the process of withdrawing from the WHO, casts doubt on the Pandemic Agreement’s effectiveness, according to Reuters.  Nonetheless, its advocates were hailing it as “a good starting point” and a “foundation to build on.”

Dr. Meryl Nass was asked what the adoption of the Agreement means; she responded by referring to four previous articles she had published, read HERE.

In a Twitter (now X) thread posted yesterday, independent journalist Lewis Brackpool summarised what has happened and where it is heading.  We have reproduced Brackpool’s thread below.

The treaty is designed to address failings exposed by how countries “handled covid-19.”

It outlines legal commitments to:

• Share pathogen samples and genetic data.
• Distribute vaccines and therapeutics “equitably.”
• Strengthen international surveillance.
• Comply with WHO-led emergency declarations.
• Develop global digital health certification systems.

This agreement is not limited to pandemic response.  It’s based on the WHO’s “One Health” framework, which views human, animal and environmental health as interconnected.

Critics (rightly) argue this broadens the WHO’s scope, allowing it to influence food systems, climate policy, agriculture and land use under the guise of “pandemic prevention.”

While the WHO cannot override national law, the treaty creates binding international obligations.  Governments may use it to justify emergency laws or sweeping public health powers, while shielding decisions behind the language of “international compliance” or “global coordination.”

The WHO is not a democratic institution. Its Director-General, Tedros Ghebreyesus, is not elected by citizens, but appointed via a process dominated by diplomatic negotiations between member states.

His past controversies, including handling of the early covid outbreak and ties to China, have fuelled concerns about impartiality.

The WHO’s top funders are not primarily governments. As of 2023, its largest contributors included:

• Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
• GAVI Alliance
• UNICEF
• The European Commission
• Germany and the US

Private foundations now shape global public health priorities – without any electoral mandate.

Among the more contentious provisions of the treaty are proposals to implement a Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (“PABS”) system.  This would allow WHO to access pathogen samples from any country and redistribute pharmaceutical products under “equitable” frameworks – potentially overriding domestic vaccine supply chains.

The treaty also encourages states to adopt digital health documentation systems, which could evolve into permanent digital IDs tied to vaccination or health status.  While presented as public health tools, such systems have been heavily criticised by civil liberties groups as intrusive, coercive and open to mission creep.

Several countries abstained or objected during the drafting phase. These include:

• Poland
• Russia
• Italy
• Iran
• Slovakia

Their stated concerns include loss of national sovereignty, lack of legal clarity and the risk of unelected institutions imposing policy.

How the Deep State Went Viral

How the Deep State Went Viral

Debbie Lerman

What if the pandemic response was run by national security agencies according to a biodefence and counterterrorism playbook, rather than by public health agencies according to public health guidelines? That is the question at the core of my new book The Deep State Goes Viral: Pandemic Planning and the Covid Coup (published by the Brownstone Institute).

The ramifications of the research and analysis in the book extend far beyond the CV pandemic response, exposing global trends that increasingly affect our everyday lives. This book is not about an event that happened in the past. It is about the shape of what’s to come – unless we wake up and stop it.

Here are excerpts from the introduction to the book:

I’m lucky to be a pretty panic-proof type of person, so back at the beginning of 2020 I was not afraid. I did not think the virus posed a mortal threat to myself or my family. I knew it affected mostly elderly people with serious ailments. I also knew that there was never a pathogen in recorded history that was so transmissible and so deadly that it required locking down the entire world. And I found no evidence that the Wuhan virus, as it was called at the time, was such a pathogen.

Yet everyone else around me seemed to have completely lost their minds, first and foremost the media and public health experts. Instead of calming the public down and advocating common sense measures, they started screaming about ‘flattening the curve’, masking, social distancing and the necessity of depriving children of education and socialisation to ‘protect grandma’. Then they started bulldozing all of society into supporting not just untested and unregulated gene-based vaccines, but also coercive mandates of those vaccines.

It was utter madness.

Yet almost nobody else I knew saw things the way I did. Even when it became eminently clear that the virus posed little to no threat to children, they insisted that kids had to stay inside (the absolute worst thing I could imagine for a child) and wear masks. Then, when vaccine mandates were rolled out, even when it became indisputable that the vaccines did not stop infection or transmission, people turned vicious. ‘The unvaccinated’ became a category of undesirable outcasts not allowed to participate in society. I found the irrational cruelty of people who considered themselves moral and compassionate to be downright terrifying.

The main cause of that irrational reaction was equally spine-chilling: a massive, global censorship and propaganda campaign undertaken by the entire online and traditional media apparatus. It was so gigantic that most people could not – and still do not – believe it could happen.

I discovered that the US CV pandemic response was not a public health response run by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), CDC or any other public health body. Instead, it was a biodefence or counter-terrorism response, run by the Pentagon, National Security Council and Department of Homeland Security. 

When I continued to dig, I found that the same pattern was followed in many countries around the world. The pandemic response, according to all available evidence, was implemented according to globally planned and directed protocols.

Why does it matter? you might ask. So what if the pandemic response was run by national security agencies according to a biodefense and counterterrorism playbook, rather than by public health agencies according to public health guidelines? And why is it surprising that most countries responded in similar ways?

More...

Iran Warns U.S. Will Be Held Responsible for Any Israeli Strike on Nuclear Facilities

Iran Warns U.S. Will Be Held Responsible for Any Israeli Strike on Nuclear Facilities

Emmitt Barry

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has warned the United States that it will bear full legal responsibility for any Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, escalating tensions amid reports that Israel is preparing for a potential strike if negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program collapse.

In a letter to the United Nations published Thursday and shared with media outlets, Araghchi stated: “We believe that in the event of any attack on the nuclear facilities of the Islamic Republic of Iran by the Zionist regime, the U.S. government will also be involved and bear legal responsibility.”

The remarks follow recent U.S. intelligence leaks suggesting that Israel is actively preparing a military option to target Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. Tehran has dismissed the reports–carried by CNN and Axios–as “psychological warfare,” while also accusing the West of a coordinated propaganda effort designed to pressure Iran’s negotiation team.

Araghchi posted on X that if the international community failed to take “preventive measures” against Israel, Iran would implement “special measures in defense of our nuclear facilities and materials.” He also formally lodged complaints with UN Secretary-General António Guterres and IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi, urging immediate global condemnation of Israeli threats.

The foreign minister further blasted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, calling him a “Wanted War Criminal” and accusing him of attempting to sabotage diplomacy while deflecting from an alleged International Criminal Court arrest warrant.

Meanwhile, three senior Iranian officials told Reuters that Iran lacks a viable “Plan B” should the current nuclear talks fail. While Tehran is considering deeper ties with Russia and China, the sources admitted this path is limited: China is mired in trade tensions with the U.S., and Russia remains entrenched in the war in Ukraine.

Since President Donald Trump returned to office, the White House has revived its “maximum pressure” strategy, tightening sanctions and reigniting threats of military action. Negotiations, restarted on April 12 and mediated by Oman, have included four rounds of indirect talks, with one rare direct meeting between Araghchi and U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff.

Despite Trump’s recent optimism that Iran had “more or less agreed” to the terms of a new deal, Tehran has issued increasingly combative statements. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has rejected any demand to halt uranium enrichment entirely, calling the U.S. position “outrageous and insulting.”

A key sticking point remains the scope of uranium enrichment allowed under a potential deal. While Iran has offered to cap enrichment at non-weapons-grade levels, it refuses to halt enrichment altogether—a demand the U.S. has inconsistently presented.

As diplomatic efforts teeter, Araghchi concluded his latest statement with a blunt warning: “The Islamic Republic of Iran will not hesitate to forcefully respond to any transgression and will stop at nothing to protect its interests and people.”

Hungary's Orbán passes 'Stop Soros' law against progressive NGOs.

Hungary stands up to globalism: Orbán passes 'Stop Soros' law against progressive NGOs

 RAFA GÓMEZ-SANTOS MARTÍN

Viktor Orbán, the Hungarian leader who doesn't flinch before the globalist elites, has slammed his fist on the table by passing the 'Stop Soros' law—a measure that outlaws NGOs and media funded by foreign entities promoting progressive agendas. While the European left mourns in despair, Hungary rises as a stronghold of national sovereignty.

The law, passed this Saturday by Orbán's government, aims to curb the influence of organizations financed by tycoons like George Soros, whom the Prime Minister accuses of destabilizing countries with his globalist agenda. According to the Hungarian executive, these NGOs have facilitated mass immigration and undermined the nation's Christian values.

The announcement was made public through a tweet by @herqles_es, who enthusiastically celebrated the decision: “NGOs and media outlets funded by globalist entities will be outlawed.

This measure is not new to Orbán's agenda. Since his re-election in 2018, the Fidesz leader had already proposed similar laws to limit the activity of NGOs that “support illegal immigration.” Back then, discussions included a 25% tax on foreign donations and restrictions on activists near the borders.

The 'Stop Soros' law comes at a key moment. The European Union, dominated by progressive bureaucrats, has ramped up pressure on Hungary, accusing it of violating “European values.” 

In 2019, Soros's Open Society took the country to the European Court of Human Rights, claiming that the legislation infringed on freedom of expression. Orbán, however, refuses to back down.

The law's intention is clear: Hungary wants to protect its cultural and religious identity. Orbán, a defender of Christianity and pro-natal policies, has made it clear that he will not allow foreign agendas to dictate his country's path. “We will not be a multicultural experiment,” he has said on several occasions.

More...