Wednesday 26th of March 2025
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

a new empire in progress.....

 

In just a few short days, Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and their most obsequious supporters attempted to shift from America First to Empire First in a shocking rebranding of globalism that would make transnational institutions like the World Economic Forum, Council on Foreign Relations, and Bilderberg Group proud.

 

Stars & Stripes Globalism: Donald Trump’s Plan for a New World Order

By    January 20, 2025

 

President-elect Trump’s recent statements on conquering Canada, taking over Greenland, acquiring the Panama Canal, and renaming the Gulf of Mexico represent a major betrayal of his supporters who were expecting an America First foreign policy program that curtailed the military industrial complex and ended foreign adventurism. This is nothing less than a globalist agenda wrapped in the stars and stripes that might dupe Trump supporters into supporting imperialism.

In response to Trump’s globalist messaging, one viral post on X pondered “how about we bring together the five great Anglosphere democracies in a diplomatic, military and economic union, including unhindered free trade, free movement of labour and an institutionalised military alliance,” to which Elon Musk replied “good idea” – both the initial message and the reply were collectively viewed over 20 million times. Canadian billionaire Kevin O’Leary revealed he met with the president-elect at Mar-a-Lago and urged him to “form a North American Union for greater strength. Period. Most Canadians would love to look at that opportunity without giving up their sovereignty.” Meanwhile, so-called conservative podcasters claimed that on a trip to Greenland they “were met by hundreds of people in MAGA hats…that love America and want to be part of America.”

 

None of these people seem to grasp the fact that this sort of global dominion is the furthest thing from a nationalist agenda, and President Biden was openly supporting the exact same ideas. Before he had even won the election, Biden wrote that he planned to “bring together the world’s democracies to strengthen our democratic institutions, honestly confront nations that are backsliding, and forge a common agenda…[by] forging a technological future that enables democratic societies to thrive and prosperity to be shared broadly.” This concept of an alliance of democracies sits firmly within the agenda of globalist institutions like the Atlantic Council that are seeking to move the idea “from concept to reality.” The stars and stripes globalists would do well to remember that entering transnational institutional arrangements will always confer power away from the nation state and into the hands of unelected elites beyond the realm of democratic control; precisely as it has done with entities like NATO and the EU. Any global alliance of democracies remains a globalist agenda – no matter who is articulating it.

And this globalist dream is significantly older than Biden or Trump. Cecil Rhodes, a British imperialist born in 1853, pushed for the establishment of a federal world government with Anglo-American leadership. Rhodes articulated the idea that Anglo-American civilization “was an instrument which unfolded all the best and highest capabilities of mankind” and sought to “create a worldwide secret group devoted to English ideals and to the Empire as the embodiment of these ideals.” The openly fascist regimes of the 1930s and 1940s each, in their own way, promoted similar ideas about world order, while author H.G. Wells in his works The Open Conspiracy and The New World Order also detailed plans for establishing a world government and overcoming resistance to its creation. Global domination is always framed as in everyone’s best interest, with or without the democratic overtones.

The League of Nations and United Nations served as modern institutionalized efforts at globalism but still lacked the geopolitical teeth of a proper world government. In the 1970s, the Club of Rome argued that more powerful international institutions were required to better manage the planet and developing nations “must act cooperatively” – kneeling to the whims of the developed, industrial world – if the planet was to survive.

Most notably, George H.W. Bush argued, both in a joint session of Congress and subsequently in a televised address to the nation, in favor of the creation of a New World Order under U.N. control:

“We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order—a world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. 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 U.N.’s founders.”

Indeed, globalism is the abdication of American power and empowerment of transnational institutions and elites. Stars and stripes globalism will irreparably harm U.S. national power.

This remains true of slightly smaller scale globalist efforts to forge a North American Union between the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The Council on Foreign Relations has served as a key proponent of this idea, arguing that because “North America is vulnerable on several fronts,” to terrorism, crime, foreign economic competition, and uneven economic development, that a “more ambitious vision of a new community” is required. Literal concrete plans to establish a North American Union included the Trans-Texas Corridor, a now-canceled roadway project that sought to connect the three North American nations via a 50-year construction effort, costing upwards of $184 billion, which was innocently framed as a “project to improve the existing Texas transportation network and provide congestion relief for the State’s busy metropolitan areas.”

American elites have consistently pursued a globalist foreign policy agenda, with bipartisan support, since the end of World War II. This Power Elite, identified by political sociologist C. Wright Mills in 1956, sought to maintain its position of power and influence in world affairs by conspiring to produce and exploit endless emergencies in the Cold War. While in this permanent condition of crisis, the use of American military force abroad was consistently justifiable and led to interventions in Korea, Vietnam, and various other global theaters that collectively produced tens of thousands of American bodies and massive national debts for the American people. But tremendous profits, of both the financial and political varieties, were the fruit of the Cold War for the military industrial complex.

The Soviet Union eventually imploded, not due to the application of American military force but its own internal contradictions, ending the Cold War. But the American people were still denied a peace dividend as the War Machine reframed its global crusadetowards “democracy promotion” under Clinton, the “War on Terror” under Bush, and “humanitarian intervention” under Obama. Trump may not have started any new wars, but he certainly did not end any either and maintained the globalized posture of American military force. Since then, Biden’s global debacles in Eastern Europe and the Middle East have brought the planet closer to World War III.

As such, it is hardly surprising that in polling from late 2024 only 13% of Republicans believed the U.S. had a responsibility to take a leading role in global affairs, while 57% of Republicans argued the U.S. needed to reduce its involvement abroad to focus on its problems at home. Indeed, when it comes to foreign policy 50% of all voters placed the U.S.-Mexico border as the nation’s primary problem. There is no need to look further afield than the border for a foreign policy issue worth solving.

Pursuing stars and stripes globalism will result in massive punishment of the Republican Party at the ballot box in the 2026 midterm elections, because these are precisely the kind of foreign distractions that will derail Trump’s domestic agenda. The military industrial complex, on the other hand, is certainly excited with this rebranding of globalism and ready to continue milking the American people for decades to come. An American First Foreign Policy is certainly possible, but is there any real political will to fulfill such an agenda?

https://geopoliticsandempire.com/2025/01/20/trumps-plan-nwo/

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

censorship industry.....

 

Mollie Hemingway Delivers Masterclass Explainer On The ‘Government-Funded’ War On Free Speech

BY: SHAWN FLEETWOOD

 

Americans’ constitutionally protected right to free speech “has been under worse attack in the last decade than at any other point in our nation’s history,” Federalist Editor-in-Chief Mollie Hemingway told lawmakers during a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing on Tuesday.

“The tentacles of the censorship-industrial complex are choking out freedom of expression, debate, and the right to criticize powerful institutions such as corporate media and the government,” Hemingway said.

 

Throughout her opening statement, The Federalist’s editor-in-chief highlighted how the federal and state governments have “fund[ed] and promote[d] censorship and blacklisting technology,” and have even gone as far as to “direct Big Tech companies to censor American speech and debate.” She specifically cited how academic institutions “such as Stanford University and the University of Texas are given large grants, not to defend free speech, but to conduct research on so-called ‘disinformation’ for use by the censorship regime.”

“Non-profit think tanks such as the Aspen Institute post so-called ‘disinformation’ seminars to groom journalists to publish pro-censorship propaganda and to suppress important stories, such as the Hunter Biden laptop bombshell,” Hemingway said. “Non-profit censorship groups such as the Global Disinformation Index and for-profit censorship businesses such as NewsGuard produce widely used censorship tools and blacklists to favor left-wing media while working to silence media that fight false narratives.”

As described by Hemingway, censorship tools employed by groups such as GDI and NewsGuard “routinely rate leftwing news outlets, that are no threat to the permanent bureaucracy, higher than those that challenge prevailing orthodoxies.” These deceptively crafted lists are subsequently used by companies to “boycott some publications and reward others with advertising,” she explained.

“The Washington Post and New York Times routinely receive the highest marks. Those publications won Pulitzers for their role in the Russia collusion hoax, and we have some participants in that hoax here on this subcommittee,” Hemingway said. “My publication, The Federalist, exposed that hoax through dogged reporting and investigation, as we did with the media’s vicious lies against Justice Brett Kavanaugh. We exposed much of the censorship industrial complex, too, even suing the State Department after discovering its role in promoting and marketing censorship tools that are being used against us even as we sit here today.”

 

As noted by Hemingway, The Federalist is no stranger to being a target of the expansive censorship-industrial complex. 

During the summer of 2020, for example, the left-wing Center for Countering Digital Hate colluded with NBC News to try and strip The Federalist of its Google ad revenue. As The Federalist’s Jordan Boyd reported, “NBC News reported that Google banned The Federalist due to a shoddy report from the network’s ‘verification unit,’ and the Center for Countering Digital Hate took issue with The Federalist’s reporting about the race-motivated rioting and violence that plagued the nation during the summer of rage.”

Hemingway also cited a 2023 report by the House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government “documenting how Stanford University colluded with two governmental entities to pressure social media companies into censoring true information, jokes, satire, political reporting, and analysis, all of which they claimed was ‘disinformation.'” The Federalist editor-in-chief noted how she and Federalist CEO Sean Davis were targeted by this censorship operation.

“One of the censored items was a story about a TV appearance in which I said of the media, ‘They lie, they lie, they lie, and then they lie.’ Gallup reported in February that my view is held by 70 percent of Americans, who say they don’t trust corporate media to report news accurately, fairly, or fully,” Hemingway said.

 

Hemingway concluded her opening statement by noting the difficulties in “facing” the vast censorship-industrial complex, and that while it “would have been easy to fold,” doing so is “exactly what censors want: to make it impossible to report the truth about their lies.”

“They know our voice is so powerful and influential that they can’t accomplish their goals unless they shut us down. They will not succeed,” Hemingway said. “We will never stop. The more they try to shut us down, the harder we’re going to work to stay open, because it’s not about us — it’s about whether we will have a civilization where people are allowed to say and think things tyrants don’t want us to.”

https://thefederalist.com/2025/03/25/mollie-hemingway-delivers-masterclass-explainer-on-the-government-funded-war-on-free-speech/

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

long live the king....

 

Donald Trump is the furthest thing from the ‘fascist’ his enemies brand him
It’s much easier to invoke inept comparisons than to analyze and combat the systemic decadence and decline of America

 

BY Graham Hryce

 

The ubiquitous and ongoing critique of Donald Trump from the so-called social democratic ‘left’ in America – namely that he is a ‘fascist’ – is not only inaccurate, but completely fails to comprehend Trump as a unique modern political phenomenon.

Trump is not a fascist.

Fascism emerged in the 1920s as an historically specific internationalist revolutionary political movement that sought to overthrow both liberal democracy and communism, while maintaining and preserving the capitalist economic order.

As Hungarian historian and philosopher Gyorgy Lukacs pointed out in the epilogue to his book ‘The Destruction of Reason’, published in 1953, it is simply impossible for fascist ideology to serve as a dominant ideology in Europe or America in the post-World War II era.

This is not to say that ruling liberal democratic ideologies in the West cannot manifest deeply illiberal components. Nor is it to maintain that such ideologies cannot generate authoritarian counter-ideologies that can become influential and dominant.

Even in the 1930s, fascism remained a subterranean political movement in those Western countries (America, Britain, and France) in which liberal democracy had become the prevailing political ideology in the 19th century and after World War I.

Germany and Italy were exceptions – nation states that were formed in authoritarian fashion in the latter half of the 19th century – in which liberal democracy had failed to prevail as it had elsewhere in the West.

Trump is not a fascist because, unlike fascism, ‘Trumpism’ does not constitute a coherent ideology. In fact, there is a sense in which Trump is not really an ideological politician at all.

The contrast with fascism is stark.

National Socialism was a political movement that was based upon a coherent ideology – an amalgam of Volkish racial anti-Semitism and the 19th century liberal ideology of eugenics. Hitler sought to bring about revolutionary social and political change in Europe – and beyond – by biological means and military aggression.

Trump is quite incapable of formulating such a program – and, even if he did, it would hold little appeal for the American electorate. Nor is Trumpism an aggressive expansionist ideology in terms of foreign policy, let alone a genuinely revolutionary one.

It is, therefore, patently absurd for liberal democratic politicians and their sycophantic allies in the Western media to continue to brand Trump as a fascist.

Such a false categorization of Trump reveals the fundamentally ahistorical mentality of Trump’s critics, and – more importantly – their intrinsic inability to engage in any kind of meaningful critique of the expansion of American global hegemony since 1945 and its corrupting consequences internally in America.

In this regard, Trump’s critics lack the integrity and insight of principled 1960s American critics of the expanding American Empire – such as Barrington Moore Jr, William Appleman Williams, and Gore Vidal – as well as like-minded contemporary American critics like John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs.

This brings us back to Trump and his foreign policy.

Unlike his neocon predecessors (both Democrat and Republican alike, and it should not be forgotten that the neocon movement started within Jimmy Carter’s Democratic Party, not with George W. Bush) Trump is an isolationist – isolationism being an extremely strong trend in American politics for over 250 years.

The American founding fathers wisely warned against America becoming involved in “foreign entanglements” – because they had firsthand experience of how the British Empire had oppressed its colonial subjects.

They also understood how empire had corrupted and debauched internal British politics. Washington, Adams, and Jefferson all feared the consequences for the new American republic if, mutatis mutandis – in Edmund Burke’s telling phrase – “the breakers of the law in India became the makers of the law in England.”

Woodrow Wilson won a presidential election in 1916 as the politician “who had kept America out of the war.” He entered the war only after the German submarine campaign continued to sink American ships, and in order to save the West from the spectre of communism after the Russian Revolution in 1917.

The isolationist American Senate, however, subsequently refused to endorse Wilson’s internationalism, and vetoed America joining the League of Nations.

Likewise, Franklin D. Roosevelt only entered World War II after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941 – more than two years after the war had commenced.

Unfortunately, all post-war American presidents – until Trump – cast aside isolationism and firmly committed America to the global expansion of its empire. And, from the Carter regime onward, neocons have framed America’s expansionist and aggressive foreign policy.

Thus the Cold War, misguided wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and the America-driven and disastrously provocative expansion of NATO over the past 30 years.

Trump’s foreign policy stance constitutes a decisive break with the past.

Trump’s isolationism is evident in his firm determination to end the Ukraine conflict. He has also taken initial steps to end the reactionary Netanyahu regime’s brutal colonial oppression of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. Whether this will succeed is, however, not yet clear.

And whether Trump’s isolationism extends to cutting deals with Iran and China is, at this stage, very much an open question.

What then of Trump’s domestic policies? Here Trump’s authoritarian and anti-liberal democratic tendencies are already apparent.

Trump is determined to reshape the Judiciary, the Department of Justice, the FBI, and any other domestic institution that does not cravenly support his domestic agenda. This should come as no surprise – Trump has always been openly contemptuous of liberal democracy, the Constitution, and the rule of law.

Trump has also moved very swiftly to dismantle authoritarian woke ideologies and their insidious consequences. He has also taken steps to put an end to the disastrous open borders immigration policy promoted and facilitated by Obama and Biden.

Whether Trump will succeed in successfully implementing his domestic agenda is not yet clear. Constitutional challenges to some of his executive orders are already before the courts, and more can be expected.

This week Trump called for the impeachment of those “crooked judges” who have ruled against some of his executive orders – provoking an unprecedented public rebuke from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.

It is thus already clear that Trump’s attempts to disregard the Constitution will lead to a serious constitutional crisis and an accompanying intensification of political conflict over the next four years.

How resilient liberal democratic institutions will prove to be under the Trump onslaught is difficult to predict – bearing in mind that many of these bodies have become weakened and corrupted under previous Democratic administrations.

One thing is clear however – the shattered Democrats are at present unable to mount any effective political resistance to Trump’s domestic or foreign policy programs. Not for nothing did Trump contemptuously taunt ‘Pocahontas’ Elizabeth Warren during his recent speech to Congress.

Kamala Harris has disappeared from sight, and the ultra woke Gavin Newsom recently recanted on his previous championing of transgender athletes in women’s sport. This, however, hardly constitutes a viable alternative political program to Trumpism.

The Democrats’ dilemma was highlighted recently when they criticized Trump for diminishing free speech in America by shutting down America’s propaganda agency, USAGM. These, however, are the same Democrats that have for decades championed an authoritarian ‘cancel culture’ that has diminished free speech and destroyed the careers of anyone courageous enough to oppose the Democrats’ woke ideologies.

Even more troubling for the Democrats is the fact that the American elites that once supported them are now changing political tack, and falling in behind the Trump regime – just as the liberal 19th century French elites made their peace with Louis Napoleon’s authoritarian regime. It should not be forgotten that Elon Musk and Robert Kennedy Jr. were once fervent Democrats who denounced Trump as a fascist.

How then are we to properly categorize Trump as a politician?

He is, of course, sui generis. Trump is first of all a modern celebrity politician – among whose ranks the inept Vladimir Zelensky must also be numbered. He is also a populist who captured the Republican Party after realizing (as previous third-party candidates had not) that capturing a major party was the only way that a third-party politician could ever become president.

Trump is thus a new kind of politician – a modern celebrity populist.

His predecessors include William Jennings Bryan and George Wallace, and he shares with them their ‘common man’ rhetoric, anti-intellectualism, contempt for liberal democracy and traditional conservatism, as well as their program of demonizing the East Coast and Washington elites. And, like his populist predecessors, Trump promises to miraculously revive a weakened and corrupt America.

Trump also has a great deal in common with Louis Napoleon. Elected president of the new French Republic in 1848, Louis Napoleon – being constitutionally barred from a second term as president – mounted a coup in 1851, dismissed parliament, and declared himself emperor. He ruled France in authoritarian and repressive fashion for the next 20 years – until military defeat in the Franco Prussian War led to the collapse of his regime.

Trump is also constitutionally barred from running for the presidency in 2028, and he may well attempt to overturn this legal impediment to a third term. In February 2025, he posted an image of himself wearing a crown with the caption “Long Live the King.”

But Trump’s modernity and the fundamentally changed nature of politics in America over recent decades render such historical comparisons otiose and misleading.

Trump became president in a decadent American society dominated by a mindless celebrity culture – in which there was no longer an educated elite or an educated public; in which liberal values and basic notions of decency had collapsed completely; and in which politics had descended into complete irrationality and become an unedifying and brutal spectacle akin to a celebrity-based television show.

These fundamental changes long predated Trump’s entry into politics, and without them he could not possibly have become president. Only in an America that had degenerated to this extent could populism in its new Trumpian form become a dominant political force.

Lukacs in the work cited above predicted that the expansion of the American Empire would result in internal cultural decadence and the corruption of American politics.

Lukacs highlighted various aspects of this, including a rise in juvenile delinquency – not for a moment imaging the school shootings that are now a regular occurrence in America. Nor could he possibly have imagined the degenerate nature of a popular culture that feted a ‘celebrity’ like Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs and continues to exploit his celebrity status as it belatedly seeks to destroy him.

Donald Trump is not a fascist.

He is a modern celebrity populist whose election as president is a symptom of the irreversible decadence and decline of contemporary American politics and American society more generally.

Social democratic critics of Trump, however, cannot accept this categorization of Trump because it entails admitting that American society has degenerated culturally and politically in recent decades – a state of affairs for which they themselves are primarily responsible.

Far easier to simply brand Trump a fascist, and ignore America’s ongoing decadence and decline.

https://www.rt.com/news/614751-donald-trump-not-fascist/

 

WE SHALL SEE.... ALREADY TRUMP'S ISRAEL POLICY IS VERY WONKY AND WE NEED TO KNOW WHY HE BOMBED YEMEN AND MAY BE PREPARING TO ATTACK IRAN AND CHINA....

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.