Mark Twain said, "If you don't read the papers you're uninformed. If you do read them, you're misinformed."
That's why I want to draw your attention to a recent article called "The Isolationist Temptation," in The Wall Street Journal, written by Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations.
The piece wasn't worth reading—except that it offers some real insight into what the "elite" are thinking. The CFR is one of about a dozen groups, like Bilderberg, Bohemian Grove, and Davos, where the self-identified elite gather.
These groups don't have political power, per se. But their members are members of governments, large corporations, universities, the military, and the media. They all went to the same schools, belong to the same clubs, socialize together and, most important, share the same worldview. What might that be? They believe in the State—not the market—as the best way to organize the world.
Believe it or not (I still don't…) I was recently invited to one of these conclaves. Probably by mistake. I don't expect to be a fox in the henhouse, but more like a skeleton at a feast. I'll tell you all about it next month…
But back to the current topic. Like me, you've probably asked yourself, "Who are these people? Are they knaves, or fools, or both? What are they smoking? Are they actually crazy?"
Haass starts out by dividing the world of foreign policy observers into the "internationalists" and the "isolationists"—a false, misleading, and stupid distinction. They're not "internationalists" (which are people who move between countries); they're "globalists" (people who want to work for one world government, that they control). He uses the term "isolationists" as a pejorative term for the enemy camp, conflating them with non-interventionists—who are a totally different group. Isolationists bring to mind a backward cult, hiding from the rest of the world. Non-interventionists simply don't want to stick their noses into other people's business.
He lauds so-called internationalists (i.e., globalists) as "those who want the U.S. to retain the leading international role it's held since WW2." By that, he means minions of the U.S. government should roam the world to "spread democracy." He assumes that democracy—which is actually just a more polite form of mob rule—is always a good thing. Apart from the fact that democracy is only rarely the result of U.S. intervention. Another division he makes (and here I admire his candor) is between the "elites"—like high government officials and people like those in the CFR—and the "non-elites." He actually uses these words. He terms U.S. invasions and regime change efforts as "an ambitious foreign policy."
He says, even after referencing disastrous U.S. failures like the Korean, Vietnamese, Afghan, and Iraq wars, and ongoing catastrophes in Libya and Syria, that we should continue on the same course.
He loves the idea of alliances, of course. Despite the fact that alliances only serve to draw one country into another one's war. Alliances just take relatively small local disputes and move them up to catastrophic levels. This has always been the case. But the classic example is World War 1, which signaled the start of the long collapse of Western Civilization. Alliances can only serve to draw the U.S. into wars between nothing/nowhere countries that few Americans can find on a map.